>I am reading it as it is written "intriguingly close to the time
> At 11:24:29 PM on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, mkelkar2003
> > --- In email@example.com, "tgpedersen"
> > <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >>> Fig 3 is just a comparison of timelines; not geography.
> >>> The rapid divergence can came from Anatolia or for that
> >>> matter South Asia. The 2003 Nature article by the same
> >>> authors I have posted earlier, supports the Anatolian
> >>> hypothesis.
> >> It does?
> >> "
> >> The pattern and timing of expansion suggested by the four
> >> analyses in Fig. 1 is consistent with the Anatolian
> >> farming theory of Indo-European origin. Radiocarbon
> >> analysis of the earliest Neolithic sites across Europe
> >> suggests that agriculture arrived in Greece at some time
> >> during the ninth millennium BP and had reached as far as
> >> Scotland by 5,500 years BP25. Figure 1 shows the Hittite
> >> lineage diverging from Proto-Indo-European around 8,700
> >> years BP, perhaps reflecting the initial migration out of
> >> Anatolia. Tocharian, and the Greco-Armenian lineages are
> >> shown as distinct by 7,000 years BP, with all other major
> >> groups formed by 5,000 years BP. This scenario is
> >> consistent with recent genetic studies supporting a
> >> Neolithic, Near Eastern contribution to the European gene
> >> pool4,6. The consensus tree also shows evidence of a
> >> period of rapid divergence giving rise to the Italic,
> >> Celtic, Balto-Slavic and perhaps Indo-Iranian families
> >> that is intriguingly close to the time suggested for a
> >> possible Kurgan expansion. Thus, as observed by Cavalli-
> >> Sforza et al.26, these hypotheses need not be mutually
> >> exclusive.
> >> "
> >> Cf the conclusion with that of the 2005 article:
> >> "
> >> ...the two theories of Indo-European origin may not, in
> >> fact, be mutually exclusive ? a possibility identified by
> >> Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994).
> >> "
> > There is *no doubt* that they do not support the kurgan
> > horsemen theory.
> On the contrary, as Torsten pointed out at length, they
> explicitly acknowledge that their results are consistent
> with the possibility that it is part of the full story.
> > Here is the portion of the para you quoted earlier:
> >> "The consensus tree also shows evidence of a period of
> >> rapid divergence giving rise to the Italic, Celtic,
> >> Balto-Slavic and perhaps Indo-Iranian families that is
> >> intriguingly close to the time suggested for a possible
> >> Kurgan expansion. "
> > I think you are reading what you want to read in this
> > sentence.
> No, you are. Or rather, you are ignoring the parts that you
> don't like.