in the 2,500-year old

> population are, in particular, how closely related they are. If

one

> Central Asian Turkic, not European.
>

i've read a few articles or books about these chinese"european"
populations and i have often wondered if they could just as easily be
turkic or other ural altaic people.

as i noted a few post ago, many of these prehistorians seem to use a
back dating system. they find for instance tocharian writing that
seems indoeuroean and see an older culture with similar physical
culture and attribute it the same linguistic identification. in the
case of andronovo and antifaiesiev cultures they go back five or six
thousand years with this analysis. i suspect that when the language
of britain changed from celtic to saxon in about two hundred years
there was little alteration in physical culture that could be
identified without acconpanying written records. or more
dramatically the change from byzantine languages to turkic in a
hundred yeasr or so.

i don't dismiss these ideas but they don't seem to prove anything
except that there was a continuity of physical culture. i have hoped
that dna would clarify things but --there ya go