Renfrew vs Mallory (Was "New Member)

"Gerry <waluk@...>" <waluk@...> WROTE:
<<I also have both Renfrew's and Mallory's books on my shelf. Mallory's is
more user friendly although I expect that Renfrew's isn't something to scoff
at. Renfrew is trying to incorporate archaeology into linguistics study yet
Mallory very nicely handles
the ancient artifacts.>>

Some points and an opinion.

First, Renfrew's stated purpose was to free archaeology from the dating
imposed by linguistics.

Renfrew's book was revolutionary, though it was already off on some of the
archaeology of the day and imprecise or non-chalant about the linguistics.
Renfrew basically connected the spread of IE languages with the spread of
agriculture (which included animal and plant domestication.)

Mallory's book represented a calculated answer in defense of an updated
version of the long established viewpoint that the IE languages represent an
"IE culture", that it spread through the aggressive use of the "IE" monopoly
of the horse and that both the time and the history of the spread can be
reconstructed through linguistics. It should be said that Renfrews
breakthroughs as an archaeologist had a lot to do with "demolishing" the
earlier dating of PIE to 2500BC and such -- dates Mallory himself was quick
to abandon.

Both Renfrew's and Mallory's books are now more than a decade old. A lot of
new archaeology has come since then. The genetic studies that were brand new
when Renfrew wrote are now severely dated. The understanding of the spread
of the neolithic in Eurasia has significantly advanced. The willingness to
identify a culture as "IE" archaeologically has severely shrunk.

If anything archaeological dates have steadily moved the key elements of
Mallory's liguistic links back towards the coming of the neolithic. For
example, I recently posted a news story about dairy production being
discovered in Britain dating back to 4500BC. The apparent late arrival of
dairying (c 3000BC) was one of Mallory's anchor points for dating the last
unity of PIE. It appears dairy farming now arrived in the midst of the
neolithic revolution -- consistent with Renfrew's theory. The same has
essentially happened with metallurgy, while the connection between the horse
and the spread of IE has had no real archaeological confirmation.

Mallory's dating and definition of IE claims to be linguistic but is actually
mostly dependent on the dating and interpretation of archaeology. Mallory's
book is often cited as being against the proposition that languages can be
dated archaeologically, which is far from its actual position.

And often the position of the book is supported by unsupportable claims about
both fields. Mallory's book often states key assertions about archaeology as
if they were fact (e.g., that the wheel came to the Pontic area by way of the
Caucasus). Conversely he states certain propositions in ridiculously
absolute terms based he says on linguistics. (e.g., that it is
linguistically certain that Hittite could not have come into Asia Minor by
way of the Caucasus.) It is a big disappointment to me that such puffery has
not been soundly countered by linguists themselves.

A proper linguitically based refutation of Mallory's book needs to be
written, but for various reasons that time has not come. In the meantime, it
continues to misinform many about the real archaeology of this vast time
period and what the actual, unbiased implications are for language history.

In the meantime, the supposed ethnically-inspiring heritage of head-bashing
golden-haired horsemen imposing their will and language on a groveling
underclass will overshadow the more likely scenario of modest but persistent
dirt farmers, sheep herders and cowpokes spreading out across a continent and
a half. If there is anything consistent in the IE (and human tradition) it
is the imaginary glorious ancestors Mallory offers us.

Steve Long