Linguistic Palaeontology - Science or Fiction?
Dr. Angela Marcantonio
1. Introduction
I am a linguist, specialising in Uralic studies. My recent book (Marcantonio 2002a) carefully examines
the evidence in favour of the theory that the Uralic languages are genetically related. In the extensive literature on this subject, I find that there
is no scientific evidence at all in favour of the Uralic theory. Instead there is an extensive interlocking network of self-consistent assumptions and
circular reconstructions. I conclude that the Uralic languages do not form a language family.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the
methods of analysis that have been employed to build up the standard Uralic theory - and how the use of these methods has, I believe, so misled
researchers. I believe this examination will be relevant to scientists in all disciplines that base their work on these reconstructions, as well as
linguists who are responsible for establishing them. I hope to begin the process of a quantitative re-examination of other language families,
including perhaps Indo-European.
Examining how researchers have come to believe in the unity of the Uralic language family, scholars have
mainly used the so-called ‘Method of Historical Linguistics'. By comparing attested languages which are assumed to be related, and assuming a high
degree of regularity in the way the languages have evolved in the past, it is believed one can reconstruct much of the language, location, culture and
antiquity of a supposed ancient community. This process of reconstruction is referred to as ‘Palaeolinguistics'.
In the past,
palaeolinguistics has attracted such a high scientific credibility amongst authors and peer-reviewers that many authors who report counter-evidence to
the model tend to minimise or ‘re-interpret' their data, rather than present a paper that clearly contradicts the model. Thus, one can observe
papers in linguistics, archaeology, history and genetics that present evidence contradicting the theory, but whose conclusions either minimise the
importance of their results, or re-interpret their data so that it now fits the model better. This minimisation or re-interpretation reinforces the
interlocking network of assumptions and interpretations, so that even counter-evidence, ultimately, appears to contribute towards reinforcing the
model.
One of the grossest distortions of this nature is found in the historical text that supposedly goes a long way towards
establishing the Uralic origin of the Hungarians. We shall see that the original text of Constantine Porphyrogenitus refers to a population of Turks,
and it clearly contradicts the supposed Uralic model. Historians describe this contradiction as ‘ridiculous' because it contradicts the accepted
linguistic model, and they simply assume that the original record was in error. The record is ‘corrected' or ‘re-interpreted' in most
translations, so that it now appears to support the theory. Most textbooks do not mention that any re-interpretation is involved, and indeed many
specialist papers fall into the same trap. One now finds this very text quoted in linguistic textbooks in support of the theory. A true
circularity.
My central theme will be that I seek to invite authors - with the support of peer-reviewers - to have the courage to report
their evidence as it stands. When authors discover evidence that is at variance with the linguistic models, this evidence must not be
‘re-interpreted' in order to be consistent with the accepted model, but rather it should be stated clearly that the evidence contradicts the
accepted model.