Dhegiha prehistory, cont.

[Koontz John E]

Hey, that was pretty incomprehensible.  I seem to have left it as a
combination of two different ways to word things.  Let me try again.
Take two:

I'll leave the archaeology aside, except to say that that Bob's arguments
on the subject are always so well put that it stretches me to the limits
to dispute those aspects of the hypothesis that cause me difficulties with
respect to my requirement for a period of compact physical unity for
Proto-Mississippi Valley.  As I've said already, sometimes I wonder if
maybe the Dakota and Chiwere aren't misassigned, instead.  In addition,
the Ohio Valley Dhegiha hypothesis is very much more in accord with the
standard archaeological and ethnohistorical proposals.  It amounts to the
canonical version, whereas I have to admit that I am proposing a somewhat
wild-eyed reanalysis of things.  Rory's interesting observations on
Niu(s)konska certainly don't help my case any, either, as they actually
bolster the upstream/downstream aspect nicely.

I hope that's clearer.