Re: Integrating linguistics, archaeology, genetics and paleoclimato

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Jens Elmegård Rasmussen

<elme@...>

> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jdcroft@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Certainly M17 appears to be the Indo-European marker,
> > > whilst M343 R1b appears to be the marker of the pre-Indo-

European

> > > substrate in Western Europe.
> >
> > This seems to be incompatible with the widespread view that the

IE

> > languages did not spread by massive migrations, but merely by

the take-

> > over of a new elite that imposed its language on the local

population.

>
> What would make these pathetic Indo-European speaking

nomads "elite"

> if they did not possess overwhelming numbers or military muscle?
>
> M. Kelkar
>
>
> > Can that be true? Did the locals not propagate their genes? Did

the

> > IEs just wipe them out? Interesting questions - any answers?
> >
> > Jens
> >
>

Linguistics, of course.
No, seriously, some culture would have to be first with a worked-out
theory of the grammar of its language, although orally transmitted.
Such a language would be superior for mnemotechnic feats, such as
would be needed to preserve various knowledge, and would enjoy
enormous prestige.


Torsten