I read that a while ago; it's pretty good on explaining the archaeological data, though the linguistic side is sometimes a bit dubious and there are other plausible interpretations which get ignored (Mallory is an archaeologist, not a historical linguist, after all). For instance, the point you mention about how we conclude that the Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in an area with horses - all the horse cognates in IE languages tell us is that PIE speakers were familiar with something which they called *ekwos, not that it was a horse as we know it: the meaning could have drifted over time. (In the case of horses, this is unlikely since I think pretty much all the descendents have the meaning "horse", but with other words, attested in fewer daughter branches, the problem can be serious; many forms reconstructable for PIE have very uncertain meanings.)
Mallory, IIRC, basically presents the status quo view on PIE origins (Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan model). I think it's reasonable for him to mention other proposals - it is after all a subject which has been controversial amongst linguists pretty much since the dawn of modern linguistics! (Which I am counting as the start of the 19th century, when IE began to be seriously researched, and principles such as regular sound change were observed.) However, another model which has been much discussed since the late 80s places PIE in Anatolia, around 8000 years ago. This is explored as part of a wider theory in Colin Renfrew's Language and Archaeology: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, which I would definitely recommend as a counterbalance to Mallory. (Renfrew is also an archaeologist rather than a linguist, but he recognises his limitations.)
My own research, incidentally, supported an earlier date for PIE than is traditional (more like 6000BC than 4000BC), with the first split being between Hittite and everything else, which would make an Anatolian origin much more plausible (c.f. Africa as the source of modern humans, and the site of the first three or four basic splits in the tree of human genetic diversity). So these days I tend more in Renfrew's direction than Mallory's (also, Renfrew is a great chap to talk to in person - enormously charismatic!).
It's not the mentioning of other theories that I objected to at all - it's the treatment they get, which is very dismissive. Renfrew's book is already on my wishlist, and it's very likely I'll read it at some point.
Oh, OK, I must have misunderstood what you meant by I think the book would have lost little of real value had it not had the argument or even any mention of the alternative theories. I think I would be disappointed by a book which purported to be about Indo-European origins, but which didn't mention alternative models (even to dismiss them).
The impression I got when I was immersed in this a few years ago was that most historical linguists (traditionalists, anyway) loved Mallory's account, while archaeologists seemed to be moving in Renfrew's direction.
The intended interpretation was that I thought that treatment of alternative models was so bad that the book would have been better than it is now if it hadn't mentioned them at all. It would be better still if it mentioned them in a less negative way. (I thought the rest of the book was fine.)
Mallory, IIRC, basically presents the status quo view on PIE origins (Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan model). I think it's reasonable for him to mention other proposals - it is after all a subject which has been controversial amongst linguists pretty much since the dawn of modern linguistics! (Which I am counting as the start of the 19th century, when IE began to be seriously researched, and principles such as regular sound change were observed.) However, another model which has been much discussed since the late 80s places PIE in Anatolia, around 8000 years ago. This is explored as part of a wider theory in Colin Renfrew's Language and Archaeology: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, which I would definitely recommend as a counterbalance to Mallory. (Renfrew is also an archaeologist rather than a linguist, but he recognises his limitations.)
My own research, incidentally, supported an earlier date for PIE than is traditional (more like 6000BC than 4000BC), with the first split being between Hittite and everything else, which would make an Anatolian origin much more plausible (c.f. Africa as the source of modern humans, and the site of the first three or four basic splits in the tree of human genetic diversity). So these days I tend more in Renfrew's direction than Mallory's (also, Renfrew is a great chap to talk to in person - enormously charismatic!).
Reply
Reply
The impression I got when I was immersed in this a few years ago was that most historical linguists (traditionalists, anyway) loved Mallory's account, while archaeologists seemed to be moving in Renfrew's direction.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment