Dear cantankerous Glen wrote
> Yes, in a GENERAL sense, this can (but necessarily) be true.
Certainly, the
> finer details such as your placement of Japanese, Korean and Ainu in
this
> genetic tree, for instance, cannot be correct at all. This, quite
rightly,
> makes me hesitate to rely solely on genetics as you do.
>
> However, I find no substantial LINGUISTIC reasons to deny you the
> satisfaction of being correct in this case. Unless others have
objections
> (and I would like to hear them) I have considered it a distinct
possibility
> that Nostratic originated from Africa based first on linguistic
grounds
> (which might seem to imply that they agree in part possibly in his
favour,
> perhaps, maybe) and then on the additional archaeological grounds
that John
> presents. I will continue to ponder the pros and cons of this theory.
I don't know enough about Korean, Japanese and Ainu to be of much help
(here I am weakest).
Culturally it appears that there were two great areas of litorrial
cultures circa 15,000 - 8,500 BCE - the Sundaland (now below sea level)
in South East Asia, and the north east Asian area (Japanese archipelago
joined to the mainland). Jomon - considered to be ancestral to the
Ainu is the archetypal culure of the latter, Hao Binh of the former.
Whether there was a genetic or linguistic connection between the two
areas is difficult to say.
There are alternative explanations.... One that litorial cultures
evolved twice - once from people out of Africa with the first wave (the
people who moved eventually into Sahuland and Australasia), the second
from people who moved across from Eurasia.
The second alternative explanation is that litorial cultures evolved
once, in the South East Asian Sundaland, and Jomon culural people moved
north.
Clearly Japanese and Korean is more closely related genetically to the
movement across the Eurasian landmass, than they were to people coming
from the South (although there is occasional claims that the
pre-Yayoi(?) Janeses tumulus culture came up the Okinawa chain from
Taiwan (and thus would have been Austronesian - but a lot later than
the 15,000 - 8,500 pre sea level rise change period that I am talking
about.
So gLeN are we at long last coming close to agreement or not.
Regards
John