From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 25045
Date: 2003-08-13
> I've been thinking, physical anthropological migrations don't exactly goAgain, this is OT on this list!
> with linguistic migrations. For example, Austric speakers are closer
> linguistically (though only hypothetically) to Indo-Pacific and
> Australian and the proto-languages would have travelled together before
> branching off into their respective branches. But, today, most Austric
> speakers (Kam-Thai, Mon-Khmer, Hmong-Mien, Austronesian), are
> represented by more "mongoloid" peoples (or their mixtures with
> "australoid") probably coming from the north through Sino-Tibetan. A
> mass of Sino-Tibetan speakers, mainly of "mongoloid" stock probably ran
> through Austric in SE Asia and absorbed themselves into the culture and
> swamping the "australoid" stock farther south. Don't you think?