In sci.archaeology message news:1166070862.425433.39100@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com by benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx . . . :
> prd wrote:
> The article makes it sound as if these were two simple, homogeneous
> groups. But the unity of Pama-Nyungan is not universally accepted. And
> "Non-Pama-Nyungan" has even more diversity. I don't think you could
> speak of a "unified vocabulary" for either group. Still, if Nick Evans
> doesn't dismiss it out of hand, maybe there's something there. I'll
> look for the original article, and wait to see what John Atkinson
You know my opinion, the resolution between 10 and 15ky is generally
so poor, most theories will end up falling out.
But still it is a provocative claim, particularly in lieu of the
fact they lack any real archaeology, and 13 kya there could have and probably
were a great many languages in that region.