IE "Urheimat" and evidence from Uralic linguistics

[Rick Mc Callister]

	I don't want to create an "I'm right, you're wrong" thread here.
	When I say major upheaval, I'm referring to catastrophic events
along the lines of European invasions
	I should have added the fall of major empires: e.g. the fall of
Rome, etc. with the subsequent scramble to pick up the pieces.
	The Anglo-Saxon conquest ties into this because when the legions
left, the Britons were disunited and relatively indefended. In and of
itself, I wouldn't qualify it at the same level as the turmoil created by
the Europeans in America and Africa. However it was part of the major
upheaval created by the fall of the Romans.
	The Bantu expansion was possible because of superior technology
--the Basntu were iron-age agriculturalists who expanded at the expense of
hunter-gatherers
	I don't know the particulars about the Athabaskan expansion but my
understanding from popular literature/magazines is that they moved in
during or at the end of a catastrophic drought
	The Aztec expansion was a product of instability produced by the
fall of Tula and ultimately by the fall of Teotihuacan --evidently the
first major imperial state in Meso-America [the Olmecs seem to have been a
group of city-states and the Zapotec state under the aegis of Monte Alban
was limited to the Oaxaca area]
	My overall point is that extraordinary events such as these are few
and far between.

>Rick is right and wrong in responding to Joat.  He is right in saying that
>massive migrations and conquest are often related to technological
>developments and are not everyday occurrences.

[ moderator snip ]

>Rick is incorrect when he tries to tie this only to "overwhelming technical
>advantages" and linking it to the modern era.

[ moderator snip ]