Re: [tied] RENFREW vs. MALLORY Redux

At 1:45:43 AM on Sunday, March 16, 2003, x99lynx@...
wrote:

> 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.

No, it doesn't. This is post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

> 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.

Where does he do this?

Brian