> 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).
"
You haven't been exactly honest with us, mr Kelkar. And don't tell us
you haven't read it, the expression 'rapid divergence' that you use,
occurs there and nowhere else in the paper.
Torsten