Negative Positive
Title: Rudgley relies heavily on linguistics but misuses it
Review: Rudgley's book cannot be taken seriously as an attempt to re-write pre-history. His argument is confused at the outset by his failure to define 'civilisation' and his apparent tacit adoption of an unreasonably wide definition, which makes it very easy for him to claim cheap success. The mainstream ideas he attacks are mostly 'straw men'. Much of his specific 'evidence' is linguistic (or at least involves what are claimed to be early manifestations of written language), but this is discussed within the framework of the highly controversial ideas of Gimbutas. The evidence for anything resembling written language at the relevant dates is, to say the least, tenuous. Rudgley also relies heavily on fringe philological theories. He has in no way demonstrated his case and his scholarship is highly suspect.
Is the review positive or negative? 