06-15-2007, 10:40 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jun 15 2007, 12:05 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jun 15 2007, 12:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-saik+Jun 15 2007, 03:33 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(saik @ Jun 15 2007, 03:33 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->All the migratory history points to North. I know there is a bunch of people who would bash spence wells left right and center, from a prejudiced view.. but instead of bashing, why not try to use his data for reasonings. He also mentions different time points of originations.
[right][snapback]70118[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saik,
If we go even by New World standards, the overarching gradients engendered by the Ice age are South-to-North:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather than migrations from north to south, <b>Nichols maintains that the interior of North America was colonized not directly from Siberia but almost entirely from the south. </b><i>Even the <b>Athabaskan </b>language family, now centered in northern Canada and Alaska, is more likely to have moved up from the south </i>than to have entered directly from Siberia. lInk<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Latest dates for the New World (40K see article) are stating that it was colonized at nearly the same time as europe itself (!!!), which (if we take a geographical view) is almost directly to the north of the India/Iran heartland. The case is basically set that we are dealing with same type of dynamics of language transfer as in post ice age New world, that is with an overarching South-to-North migration gradient.
[right][snapback]70128[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Within tropics, or a particular living zone is what I was thinking.. migration again could happen in reverse directions or perhaps it has recursed many times that it is hard to prove it.
Sope, agreeing to a theory there exists two or more races (please keep only time line and origins being the factors for argument) one migrating north the other south, and some never is all a plausible propositions.
What i am getting at is its hard to debunk AIT within tropics as boundary (that means North is not that North enough for the propagandists and European agenda folks to take credit).
[right][snapback]70118[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saik,
If we go even by New World standards, the overarching gradients engendered by the Ice age are South-to-North:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rather than migrations from north to south, <b>Nichols maintains that the interior of North America was colonized not directly from Siberia but almost entirely from the south. </b><i>Even the <b>Athabaskan </b>language family, now centered in northern Canada and Alaska, is more likely to have moved up from the south </i>than to have entered directly from Siberia. lInk<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Latest dates for the New World (40K see article) are stating that it was colonized at nearly the same time as europe itself (!!!), which (if we take a geographical view) is almost directly to the north of the India/Iran heartland. The case is basically set that we are dealing with same type of dynamics of language transfer as in post ice age New world, that is with an overarching South-to-North migration gradient.
[right][snapback]70128[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Within tropics, or a particular living zone is what I was thinking.. migration again could happen in reverse directions or perhaps it has recursed many times that it is hard to prove it.
Sope, agreeing to a theory there exists two or more races (please keep only time line and origins being the factors for argument) one migrating north the other south, and some never is all a plausible propositions.
What i am getting at is its hard to debunk AIT within tropics as boundary (that means North is not that North enough for the propagandists and European agenda folks to take credit).