RENFREW vs. MALLORY Redux

Geraldine Reinhardt wrote (back in Tue Feb 11, 2003)
<<Thus it's no different for Mallory and Renfrew.  Both are searching for the
Indo-Europeans, both recognize the importance of incorporating archaeology
into linguistics study, yet the former has a far ranging background (from Los
Angeles to Ireland) while the later has remained sedentary taking all his
degrees at Cambridge and recently being knighted as Lord.>>

I'm sorry I couldn't respond to these comments by Geraldine sooner, but they
still bear some correcting. If anything Mallory would seem to be the
sedentary one when it comes to going into the field and Renfrew has been
quite the opposite.

Both men are archaeologists, not linguists -- but it is pretty clear which
one has contributed more to their own field.

Renfrew's contribution to archaeology has been darn near momumental. He was
among the first to effectively use Carbon-14 and trace analysis. He was
instrumental in overturning the traditional dating of the eastern
Mediterranean with his in-person work in the Cyclades and southern Europe,
partly in collaboration with Gimbutas. His early work in tracing the
mesolithic and neolithic Mediterranean obsidian trade remains the prototype
for material analysis of long-distance contact and seafaring.

In works culminating in "Before Civilization" (1973), Renfrew helped rewrite
the fundamental chronology of northwestern Europe. "Renfrew showed that
prehistoric cultures, such as Wessex in southern England and the megalithic
monuments of Brittany and Iberia, predated the cultures of Egypt, the Near
East, and the Aegean. Until Renfrew, these classic civilizations had been
described as the precursors of culture in Europe."

Mallory's contribution to archaeology has been pretty much limited to
defending the traditional linguistic-based theory of the IE homeland along
with some work on Ulster. The first publication listed on his biographical
web site is "In Search of the Indo-Europeans" and there is not much in the
way of the reports from the field. I don't know of any ground-breaking work
in archaeology that has been attributed to him.

Also, contrary to what Geraldine writes, Renfrew's argument in "Archaeology
and Linguistics" was NOT about "incorporating archaeology into linguistics
study". In fact, Renfrew was EXPLICITLY begins the book objecting to
linguistics setting dates for archaeological sites. He explicitly also
objects to the textbook 2500BC date current at the time for dating the
dispersion of IE -- based on linguistics. The very fact that such a date is
not repeated much these days and that archaeologists have stopped identifying
sites as "Indo-European" shows how effective Renfrew has been.

Also contrary to what Geraldine says, it should be noted that historical
linguistics has been incorporating archaeology long before Renfrew and
Mallory. The difference since Renfrew has been that archaeological dates in
this area are no longer being set by linguistics.

Finally, whatever the flaws in Renfrew's linguistic knowledge, Mallory takes
the prize for overstating what he can deduce from linguistics. He chastizes
Renfrew by stating it is some kind of absolute linguistic fact that the
Hittites could not have entered Anatolia by way of the Caucasus. This is
nonsense of course. Linguistics can make no such claim.

But Mallory's use of such unsupportable statements has no doubt misled many
who don't have the knowledge to look through such biased and baseless claims.

Geraldine also writes:
<<In addition, Renfrew's drawings and maps are less clear. Thank goodness
Mallory grabbed the nomads.>>

Actually, Renfrew grabbed the nomads and the non-nomads -- if by nomads
Geraldine means pasturalists. Both are neolithic and Renfrews premise is
that the neolithic revolution caused or accompanied the spread of IE
languages. Mallory's theory has been -- at least up until recently -- that
one part of that neolithic revolution represented IE speakers and these
languages spread to other areas in ways he has not made altogether clear.

As far as Mallory's maps, I'm afraid to the same extent they are clear they
may also be inaccurate.

Regards,
Steve Long