|
|
In sci.archaeology message news:1166070862.425433.39100@
80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com by benlizro@xxxxxxxxxx . . . :
>
> prd wrote:
>> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1809514.htm
>
> 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
> thinks.
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.
|
|