it is now possible to solve the central puzzle surrounding Proto-Indo-European, namely, who spoke it, where was it [sic] spoken, and when (2007:5).In fact, Anthony is mostly taking over the old Kurgan hypothesis — that the early Indo-Europeans were associated with the 'kurgan' burial mounds (pic from wikipedia) and came from the area north of the Black Sea — as developed by J.P. Mallory and others. Recent works on IE and historical linguistics have come to treat this as the most likely homeland, but that's far more conjecture than secure conclusion.
The alternative is more promising than Anthony makes it out to be, surely, namely that these people started out in Anatolia more like 9,000 year before the present and spread out with farming. This view is associated with Colin Renfrew, who has recently summed his view up this way: “Everybody agrees that farming came to Europe from Anatolia. So Anatolia must be the point of departure [for languages too]” (Balter 2004:1324, in Science).
Both views actually share key features, like a reliance on more nuanced ‘vectors’ of cultural spread rather than large-scale invasions or migrations. On both views powerful new technology promoted the spread of Indo-European languages, involving food production and/or transportation.
As Mallory & Adams (2006: 461-463) conclude, “The dispute here is one of degree, both temporal and spatial.” The two views are close enough now that some are asking whether they might be fundamentally compatible. Balter’s report ends with this, in the context of work by Gray & Atkinson's proposal for an early date for IE:
Because this date matches the first evidence for Kurgan occupation of the Black Sea steppes, Gray and Atkinson say, both camps could be partly right: The farmers spread PIE initially, but the Kurgans spurred the later burst of languages. “There is no need to set up the Kurgan and farming hypotheses at variance with one another,” says April McMahon, a linguist at the University of Sheffield, U.K. “But sadly, this is something that [people] have a tendency to do.”I can post more details if readers want, but this book is not a solution to the homeland issue. Language really plays no big role in it, certainly not in any original contributions to the topic.