Talk:Paleolithic continuity paradigm/Archive 1

message: cut from the article:
Comparing, Colin Renfrew [specially 1990, 1999] and Mario Alinei [1996, 2000], Xaverio Ballester prefer the second due to agreement with interdisciplinary data:
 ... the emergent interdisciplinary consensus is playing a very
 important role in the consolidation of these new postulates. This consensus is
 represented by archaeologists such as Poghirc [1992], climatologists such as Adams
 [1999 with Otte], historians such as Häusler [1996, 1998], or prehistorians such as Otte
 [1997, 1998, 1999 with Adams, 2000]. Given the convergence of their data, we should
 also add some genetists such as Richards [2000], Semino [2000] and their research
 teams, as well as Sykes [2001], whose studies support the Palaeolithic origin of the
 genes of most Europeans. [THE FIRST GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Xaverio Ballester URL: ]
...
Now as on 2007 the number of citation grow rapidly [Google scholar count 3400 and showe the highest dynamics comparatively to other concurent therories.] is larger in English language papers. Perhaps some English-only speaking linguist learned Italian language.
apart from the appalling language and formatting, this is problematic because it is apparently a vanity citation of some paper (incredibly including a self-googling link), harping on an "emergent interdisciplinary consensus" about the "genes of most Europeans". this is completely irrelevant. PCT isn't about "genes". it is completely undisputed that the "genes of most Europeans" have been in situ since the paleolithic, we don't need Alinei for that. The relevant article for this is Genetic history of Europe. The alleged google scholar hitcount is counting completely random occurrences of "continuity" in conjunction with "paleolithic". The actual count is 14. --dab (𒁳) 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage quoted is not about genes, either. It is about an interdisciplinary consensus among archaeologists, historians, climatologists,and genetists, although it doesn't explain what exactly they agree on. I suppose it is the cultural and fisical continuity of european populations from the mesolithic, which is indeed a strong argument in support of Alineis theory, but that would need to be stated in a clear way, possibly by including additional passages from the quoted paper. Pcassitti 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the passage mentions the "Palaeolithic origin of the genes of most Europeans", so you can hardly claim it isn't about genes. I think that Alieni's theory is fringy nonsense, and this paragraph is calculated to conjure up the appearance of a consenseus that does not in fact exist in the best tradition of pseudoscholarship. This is best done by wild and erratic mixing of genetics, archaeology, linguistics and anything else that might fit the bill (also known as WP:SYN). The Ballester paper is hosted on continuitas.com, and apparently not peer-reviewed. It quotes Alieni as arguing that the Germanic word for "island" is derived from a PIE word for "height", and hence supports a context of "deglacialisation" for the environment of Proto-Germanic. This is a funny joke, but if presented in seriousness, it's just sad. This is just another confirmation that continuitas.com and consequently PCT itself should be considered as pseudoscholarship not worthy of serious attention.  dab (𒁳) 13:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Genetics is indeed cited amongst other discplines, but the passage is not about "the genes of most europeans" as you stated. I don't wish to enter a debate about the merits and demerits of PCT, but the consensus about the general continuity in european populations is more than just an appearance. And the contrast between the more recent historical models and classic linguistic theories is also real. It is the method, not the conclusions which define science. I Branding something as "pseudoscience" because it doesn't conform to traditional models is not very scientific itself. Pcassitti 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside the 'pesudoscience' issue, could you say what the 'consensus' is that is shared by "Poghirc [1992], climatologists such as Adams [1999 with Otte], historians such as Häusler [1996, 1998], or prehistorians such as Otte  [1997, 1998, 1999 with Adams, 2000]. Given the convergence of their data, we should  also add some genetists such as Richards [2000], Semino [2000] and their research teams, as well as Sykes [2001].." These various individuals form various disciplines are portrayed as agreeing on something, but it's not at all clear what they are a agreeing on. I think we need clarification of that before we can judge the relevance of the claim. Paul B 15:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus is about a general continuity in european populations, which for the proponents of the PCT is an argument for a general continuity of their respective languages as well. The quoted section of the paper was poorly chosen, but if additional paragraphs where included I think the meaning would become clear. Pcassitti 19:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially the consensus is that most Europeans descend from Paleolithic populations. As far as I know this is not disputed by proponents of the standard model. Paul B 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not about descendance, but cultural and ethnic continuity, and since language is not a separate entity in PCT this is seen as a strong argument for a linguistic continuity as well. The interdisciplinary aproach now common in historical disciplines means that for the important events and developments in our past a number of concurring evidence is observed, which together adds to a more complete picture. The problem with the traditional linguistic theories, as far as I understand them, is that no other discipline is able to contribute any evidence to substantiate them. It is actually more the contrary. And PCT is trying to bridge this gap. It may have its faults and inconsistencies, like any other theory about such controversial thematics, but I believe it should be taken as a valuable cotribution, instead of bashing it because it doesn't conform to traditional models. Pcassitti 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your trying to reduce the PCT to genetics, which it really isn't about, makes it look like you just wish to discredit a theory you don't like, instead of discussing its merits and demerits. You keep quoting single phrases out of context and pretending they define PCT. In the specific case "argument for linguistic continuity" does not mean it is the only or predominant one. It is all right not to know the theoretical and methodological assumptions of a theory, but any critic of that theory will then be difficult to motivate. Pcassitti 06:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: my likings don't enter into it. If it isn't about genetics, stop discussing genetics. If it has merits, discuss its merits. To the best of my understanding, this is all about linguistic continuity. If I am mistaken, by all means correct me, and remove the reference to Indo-European languages. All I am saying is the arguments regarding linguistics as presented at present is bogus. If that's not really what PCT is, so much the better for PCT. dab (𒁳) 07:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCT - Interdisciplinary Conception 

message: see support of "Dbachmann theory" in W.pedia   in support of the "dbachman" revision
====Autochthonic theory====
The autochthonic theory holds that the proto-Slavs are native to the area of modern Poland, where they are supposed to have lived before the 5th century. The theory was postulated by Wincenty Kadłubek in Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Other notable proponents of the theory are Józef Kostrzewski, Witold Hensel, Konrad Jażdżewski, Witold Mańczak, Janusz Andrzej PiontekJanusz Piontek, Archeologiczne rekonstrukcje procesu etnogenezy Słowian a ustalenia antropologii fizycznej Robert Dąbrowski, Tadeusz Makiewicz Tadeusz Makiewicz Problem kontynuacji kulturowej pomiędzy starożytnością a wczesnym średniowieczem w świetle nowych materiałów ceramicznych z Wielkopolski, Tadeusz Malinowski Tadeusz Malinowski W sprawie dyskusji o praojczyźnie Słowian Zakład Archeologii WSP. Quote: "...Kierując się rozmaitymi danymi przede wszystkim archeologii, językoznawstwa, antropologii oraz paleodemografii, stwierdzam, iż najbardziej prawdopodobna wydaje mi się hipoteza, że praojczyzna Słowian znajdowała się w dorzeczu Odry i Wisły...", Henryk Mamzer,Henryk Mamzer, Archeologia etniczna versus kulturowo-interpretacyjna Zofia Kurnatowska, Stanisław Kurnatowski, Stanisław Tabaczyński and Lech Leciejewicz, Aleksander Brückner.
Several arguments are used in support of the theory:
*No remains or traces of Germanic tribes were reported on West Slavic territory, neither enclaves nor medieval historical records. Instead Slavic tribes slowly disappeared from the area. Polabian Slavs, for instance, had become extinct in the 18th century, after having lived in the area for over a thousand years. Upper and Lower Sorbs still live in the area, and have a distinct language and distinct customs and traditions from their non-Slavic neighbours. 
*"Autochtonic historiography" written in the 12th century.Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum by Wincenty Kadlubek 
Which scholar uses this as an argument for the autochthonic theory? 
*Medieval authors, who refer to the Vandals from Vandalia as Slowianie. Annales Alamannici (795) Annales Augustani (1056) Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum (1075) by Adam Bremensis There are no listed references to when medieval authors identify Vandals from Vandalia as Teutons, before Teutons conquered their lands.
I'm sure that the three works refer to the Vandals as Slowianie. But which scholar uses this as an argument in support of the autochthonic theory? If this is merely a point that might illustrate why the autochthonic theory might not be all that bad, it violates WP:OR. Aecis
: Some allochtonic(scholars) make complicated combinations to overword the simple fact. If all people call you mr Smith are you mr Smith ? probably even not but to prove that you are not mr Smith lays on the disaproving side. Bear in mind that 'in the case' you call yourself also mr Smith 
::Please answer my question. Which scholars or politicians use these medieval authors as evidence for the autochthonic theory? Aecis
* The early medieval border between the Frankish/Teutonic empire and Slavic territory matches the border of the Roman conquest. The West Slavic tribes remained on territory that wasn't conquered by the Romans. The Teutonic tradition draws from the Holy Roman Empire. 
:* Venedi, Wendish, Vandals.  Lugi, Ludzie, Lyngels, Lenkes. 'If' Teutonic medieval 'authors were wrong' "moving names" Venedi to Vends ; then alltochtonic want us to believe that numerous nations for centuries were also wrong especially: Magiars, Lotwian, Litwian, Ukrainian, Russian, Turkish, Armenian who ancient roots of Lugi use till today in names Lahy Lyngel or Lynkes.
*Genetic marker R1a1 related to Western Europe R1b, most numerous in Sorbs ) also at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Behar-AJHG-03.pdf  
*The suspitius disaperence of 'manuscript sources' edited by Theodor Mommsen, De origine actibusque Getarum in the highht of German imperializm. Almost forgoten book of another Jordan who wrote 100 years earlier De Originibus Slavicis. title: De Originibus Slavicis, author Johann Christoph Jordan  There is also unnknow reason what for Mommsen edited Goth History since the works was supposedly edited, printed and published by Konrad Peutinger 300 years before. 
see the entries in Konrad Peutinger and disscusion i [Getica] 
* Rex 'Sclavorum Gothorum sive Polonorum' title of Polish king. -->
* Creolization of germanic languages versus gramatical reachnes of slowianic languages close to indoeuropean originators. 
* Microsatellite variance, the distribution of genetic marker R1a1 and Slavic kurgan traditions. 
*Germanic languages are more similar to Slavic languages than to Baltic languages. This would imply that in prehistoric times, Slavic languages developed between Germanic languages and Baltic languages."Zachodnia praojczyzna Słowian" Witold Mańczak http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f5.html 
Comment * The hydrotomponyms in Poland do not have Germanic languages properties; what has to be observed if ancestors of Poles, (as 'allochtonic' postullte), had to learn from conquered tribes speaking Germanic languages. (ref 15) 
:Hidden comment 1: the same as above
:Hidden comment 2: You mean Witold Mańczak? I've hidden this point, because grammatical and spelling errors make this barely comprehensible. Please also remember to avoid Original Research: Wikipedia is not the proper place to post arguments that might support a certain theory; Wikipedia is only the proper place to post arguments used in Reliable Sources to support a certain theory. They should be referred to as such. For example: "Witold Mańczak states that ... " - Aecis
The allochtonic theory thesis are now included with newly formed Paleolithic Continuity Theory caled also indigenism. Which not only debuke allochtonic flase ideas but extend Słowian autochtonism in Central Europe to paleolithic.
===Allochthonic theory===
In scholarly community nobody today hold the allochtonic theory views, new data rejecting it completely. It may be however describe it from historical point to show how data may be manipulated to fulfill political goals of panagermanizm.
The allochthonic theory holded that the Slavic peoples immigrated to the area of modern Poland during or after the 5th century. The theory was first expounded by Theodor Mommsen, with his republishing of Getica. 
(other sources are rare or not available) 
please provide the a qoute from other, not Moomsen related, edition of 'Getica'. (not secondary reference but biblioggraphical record of the publication containing text of 'Getica')  
Other notable proponents of the theory were Gustaf Kossinna, Bolko von Richthofen, Hans Schleiff,  Kazimierz Godłowski, Michał Parczewski.
*Tadeusz Makiewicz writes: Great migrations of the 5th century did not bypass the Polish lands. (...) In effect an almost complete depopulation of the Polish lands took place. This void was quickly to be filled with new arrivals.U źródeł Polski p. 113, Wydawnictwo Dolnośląskie 2002, ISBN 83-7023-954-4  The depopulation theory 
thread_title:  earlier debate 

message: This article is seriusly harased by cynic data pervert. Most of the empty {factd} sencteces are inserted as you can see here. The cynism is that he laudly demading cleaning "the mess" he . 
So dbachenn do you rely pretend that the other yours entries in edits history are invisible or tu tedious to brouse ;| ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.123.48 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust you are not conscious of the hilarity of this. I do not pretend to even understand your "English", but "seriusly harased by cynic data pervert" might just make it to my hall of fame. --dab (𒁳) 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some memory problem in continuity 

message: thanks for your reply, Jonathan (I've only just seen it).
:This, for me, is a cardinal virtue of PCT, it just says that the first people into a territory tend to dictate its language
for me, that's its cardinal flaw. It's an axiom pulled out of thin air, fuelled by the desire to "reconstruct" paleolithic language no doubt, and once you accept it, of course, everything becomes very simple. Simple, but completely out of touch with reality.
:why don’t you argue that PIE broke up in the 20th century, since all the daughter languages probably have the same word for ‘computer’, etc.
I am glad you ask -- since the English word is computer and not hamfuther as it would need to be if the term had been inherited. This illustrates that PCT pretends to be a linguistic theory, while being informed by archaeology and genetics but completely devoid of any linguistic argument. Language is just conveniently frozen for 50,000 years. I am sorry, but to my mind this is not so much a theory buyt a simplistic cop-out, discarding 200 years of linguistic scholarship with a shrug. I seriously doubt that PCT will receive the support of a single conscientious Indo-Europeanist. 
It will be interesting to further scrutinize genetic evidence for population movements and 'miscegenation' in the European Bronze Age to be sure, and we may be able to learn a lot about the nature of language contact and transmission, but only if we do not throw up our hands and turn to simplistic solutions like PCT. Regarding substrates and miscegenation, I admit the comparison to the New World is flawed. Your 'miscegenated' populations are the result of some 15 generations, corresponding, in the Kurgan model, to Europe in, say, 2500 BC. At that stage, indeed, you would expect to see "Kurgan Y-chromosome lines" and pockets of pre-IE languages. That was full 4 millennia past in AD 1500 when for the first time the linguistic map of Europe becomes reasonably complete. Try to find your "European Y-chromosome lines" in Brazil in AD 6000. We do have amazing pockets of pre-IE with the Basques and perhaps  Rhaetic and Etruscan. If only the Romans had taken an interest in field linguistic in the 1st century BC, they could have collected treasures for us that are now lost forever (although that would still have been "Brazil in AD 4500", 1,500 years do make a huge difference (never mind the 50,000 years, which you have to assume were linguistically eventless)). 
PCT in my view is intellectually dangerous because of its appeal to the "paleolithic language" enthusiasts. There appears to be a certain willingness to discard method and criticism as the only way to be able to claim "reconstructions" of paleolithic (or even neolithic) speech. That's postmodernism at its worst. Roll your own "Nostratic", never mind if it is "true" or methodologically sound, what is this obsession with so-called "truth" anyway, all scholarship is speculation, so let's go all the way and speculate, never mind plausibility or falsifiability. I think this is the way back to Renaissance obscurantism before the "age of reason" tempered the desire to know into science. Postmodernism has done great damage to that achievement, and Alinei seems much indebted to this unfortunate regress of the later 20th century. 
:dab (𒁳) 12:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grace Note, Dab refers here to the principles of genetic drift. Your comment on the credibility of a minor elite being so few that they could not be attested, genetically nor by any clear archeological marker, and still could change a complete language, is perfectly valid. Dab refers here to "Kurganization". The only one who thinks kurganization permit us to assume an invisible "elite" is Dab. Any reputable linguist would confirm this is crap, and archeolists still fail to trace a Kurgan elite to western europe. Rokus01 16:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  arbitrary break 

message: I don't think it is funny to associate a serious archeologist like Alexander Hausler to the extreme nonsense of this article. Rokus01 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexander Häusler ist listed among the members of the PCT workgroup  Pcassitti 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the article gives a distorted view of PCT. I have been intending to make some changes for a while now, just couldn't get round to it. 138.232.148.41 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad joke 

message: M. Otte and J. Adams wrote an article together with the above title (date unknown). A link to the article: If some of the other editors think it's worth while, could this be included in the collection of external links? Varoon Arya 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "In press; Current Anthropology" -- if it does appear in Current Anthropology we should certainly cite it. Although it is beyond me why so many perfectly competent paleoenvironmentalists insist to make fools of themselves by dabbling in historical linguistics. --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it did appear: the reference is  Current Anthropology, Vol. 40, No. 1. (Feb., 1999), pp. 73-77. Their "defeatist note" on  "the fact that one can so readily add and interchange alternative hypotheses" really says it all — it is always easy to "interchange hypotheses" if one is willing to ignore the good sense and criticism that has gone into the preceding ones. dab (𒁳) 10:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the common factor of all these theories is that they are motivated by non-linguistic factors (archaeology, genetics, paleoenvironment), and they only ever take note of linguistics in order to dismiss mainstream tenets as not, after all, set in stone, and propose a completely agnostic attitude to any linguistic component that would affect their scenario. In other words, linguistics is simply not taken seriously as having anything to contribute to the question of Proto-Indo-European. Linguists, otoh, scrupuously take into account non-linguistic findings to establish boundary conditions of their PIE scenarios. In this way, it is actually possible to come to unexpected conclusions (other than with these a priori assumptions that you then set out to prove to the world). dab (𒁳) 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Indo-European Languages spread before farming? 

message: I have edited this page of all crap wich have bias in decision makings.It is about theory and it is equal with the oponent theories.If someone want to point critics on the theory that must be made in seperate column-like rest of the articles on Wikipedia.I wish to notice that space used for and against theory must be equal.
Edited by Admin. from "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia".
sectionized by Rocksanddirt 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old random comment 

message: I have an observation, that I don't have time or background knowledge to deal with right now, and that is that this thing reads like an essay argueing a point.  From that standpoint, it really needs some editorial intervention.  It is also one of those articles that gets the national mysitics involved with some original research and/or fringe studies of why thier ethinic/national group is the cradle of civilization.  Please, regular editors of this article, keep those thoughts in mind when working on this article.  --Rocksanddirt 17:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  an observation 

message: Over at the Fringe Noticeboard I recently offered to help out with this article. I consider myself entirely neutral on its subject matter, and have no vested interest in anything other than seeing it improve in an atmosphere of cooperation. I hope the other editors will work with me in improving it. With that said, here is my first suggestion:
As it says on the Article Development page, the first thing any editor should do when composing (or in this case: performing a major edit on) an article is consider the scope, format, references and how to present the information from a NPOV. I invite other editors (particularly Rokus01) to detail their thoughts regarding these four points in relation to the article at hand. Of course, other editors will and should comment on these, and make suggestions along the way. The goal is to find an acceptable framework from which future edits can be made. 
Also, as there doesn't seem to be any active discussion on this talkpage (at least nothing which would seem to require its remaining active), I suggest that it be archived and that Rokus01 or someone else begin the new talkpage with their response to the points I raised above. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe one of the archive bots would be a better choice, as most of the discussion on this page is either from Oct 07 or very new.  I think that would be better as there is a lot of discussion in the history also that appears to be deleted?  unless there is an archive somewhere I'm not seeing.  --Rocksanddirt 22:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal, considering that half of it goes back 1-2 years... =) Aryaman (☼) 22:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and a fair bit of arguementation around the topic as well.  --Rocksanddirt 22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope, Format, References and NPOV 

message: Indeed we have to observe a difference between paleolinguistics and the continuist archeologists that plead for a "broader homeland" and seek linguistic support among alternative linguist concepts. I would like to recompile this article in a way that confines PCT as a particular interpretation of a wider tendency that seek to stress continuity. However, those general modern continuity views would not be justified by the PCT label, just for being coined basically by one scholar that seeks to promote some contested views of himself. Still, we can't dismiss the movement that ties together linguistics, archeology, anthropology and genetics. Outstanding scholars gave their support to their "continuist" collegues of other disciplies, and this points to the existence of a real movement rather than the support to specific interpretations of each member. We don't have to accept Alineis specific claims, but still we have to accept the existence of a movement that draws on continuists interpretations of linguistics, archeology, anthropology and genetics. As such, I think an article like "Internal and external forces in language change" of Charles D. Yang  would define the continuist creed better, as much as well quoted and referred to archeologists like Marcel Otte would give more substantial "mainstream" credibility to describe this movement. 
If we could agree on a change of focus of this article, from PCT to the "continuist movement", and promise ourselves not to exceed basic concepts and established facts and avoid the claims that are not supported by academic publications, the next thing to do would be to attribute this movement with a proper name. For this, we could confine the area of specific linguistic, archeologiscal, anthropological and genetic interest, that would be the "broader homeland" of the Indo Europeans, I quote from Mallory: "Alternatively [to the Pontic-Caspian homeland] we might wish to opt for a broader homeland between the Rhine and Volga during the Paleolithic or Mesolithic which resolves the archeological issues by fiat but appears to be linguistically implausible" (1989, p.257). Here, Mallory refers to the European homeland according to Lothar Kilian. Marcel Otte underpins an even "broader homeland" by stating :"An initial early Holocene 'sparse wave' spread of the Indo-European languages may have been followed by a period of relatively long-distance cultural and linguistic exchange (with possible spreading of innovations in the language, continually 'updating' aspects of the general substratum of Indo-European languages; sensu Sherratt 1996) by relatively mobile hunter-gatherer groups, and later farming and warrior groups."
Would anybody object to merge this general continuist concepts within one article, and consequently change the name of this article by dropping the very comprising "Paleolithic" word?  In other words, to change name and focus of this article to "Continuity Theory"? Rokus01 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rokus01, do you think an article such as the one you propose would stand up in light of WP:NOR? Is there such a thing as "Continuity Theory" being discussed in academic literature? Or is it that you see a common thread running through some strains of research which could perhaps best be described as indicative of a "Continuity Theory"? Give some explicit sourcing which could justify such an article in light of WP:NOR and others can entertain your proposal (though much would still remain open as to what kind of content should be included in such an article and what should be merged or split, etc.). Aryaman (☼) 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Rokus01, in spite of your last few posts, it remains unclear what your intentions are in regards to this article. Seeing as there are several unresolved issues, would you object to someone undertaking an edit which boils the article down to the undisputed information? Aryaman (☼) 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split discussion 

message: In my opinion, this article is in need of a major prune, i.e. 'cutting back' to the edition which seemed to enjoy a good deal of consensus during the first year of its existence. I would suggest something like this:
_
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) is a controversial hypothesis regarding cultural and linguistic developments in prehistoric Europe. In opposition to mainstream views on European prehistory, proponents of PCT claim that the appearance of Indo-Europeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic.
Adherents of the theory argue that an apparent lack of archaeological evidence for an Indo-European invasion in the Bronze Age combined with the absence of significant genetic change since Paleolithic times lends credence to the notion of continuity. Furthermore, those advocating such continuity believe it to be a more conservative approach to developments in Indo-European prehistory. 
Proponents include the Italian linguists Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa and Cicero Poghirc as well as the prehistorians Alexander Hausler and Marcel Otte.
_
Since last year, this article has become bloated with NPOV and SYN violations of alarming proportions. I know this would be a drastic reduction, but it seems necessary.
As for future additions (which may or may not include content in the present article not included above), I think policy needs to be stricktly enforced and adhered to. Comments are welcome. Aryaman (☼) 19:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll work on it, some has to be rewritten. Most of the basic stuff can be derived from the introduction paper of Alinei, and more ideas can be extracted from the Etruscian articles, including about Gimbutas
# Outline: here I propose to explain the purpose of the PCT Workgroup regarding the general lines and framework of PCT.
# The historical reconstruction: Here I propose to give an overview of the proposals of Alinei.
# Archeology: Here I propose to include some third party archeological context.
# Linguistics: Here I propose to include some third party linguistic context.
# Criticism: the meaning should be clear.
Rokus01 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: dab, what's your take on my suggestion above regarding pruning back the article? Aryaman (☼) 13:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: now that Rokus' lengthy additions have found a home at Broad Homeland hypothesis, this article looks better than it used to. There is still some cleanup to be done, such as referencing the creepy "four main assumptions", the real question is, what are we going to do with the "Broad Homeland hypothesis"? It's essentially a content fork of this one, focussing on a pre-Alieni incarnation of the idea. Ostensibly so, since  "BHH" proponent Häusler  has since joined continuitas.com. If we're going to prune this stuff, merge first and prune the result. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Prune + Strict Adherence to Policy 

message: The (unreferenced) "main assumptions" of "PCT" are Integralism (Integral Traditionalism) by any other name. Thus, it is clearly disingenious to qualify a link to these articles as "vandalism". I do not allege Alinei is a neo-fascist or occultist at all. The fact remains that his theories are both informed by and exerting influence on "Integralist" discourse: the connection is evident. Again, Alinei may be completely innocent or naive ideologically, but this doesn't change the fact that his ideas strike a chord with occultist or esotericist neo-fascists: Just like Schlegel's ideas strike a chord with contemporary Hindu nationalists. Evidence? The Nouvelle Droite and associated schools of ethnocentrism or national mysticism since the 1990s have begun to sanitize their vocabulary by replacing "Nordic" with "Indo-European". The ideology remains the same. "PCT" is of direct relevance to Stephen McNallen's interest in the Kennewick man, because "Paleolithic Continuity" would mean that paleolithic Europeans would qualify as members of the Celtic/Germanic "Peoples of the North". This emphasis on "perennial" (paleolithic) "Indo-European tradition" appears to be particularly popular in Belgian/Flemish national mysticism (TeKoS, Koenraad Logghe, GRECE). We'll need to research this and present a summary of the ideological neighbourhood of this "theory". An example?
from some white supremacist website,
:For 20,000 years during this closing ice age - called the Upper Paleolithic period - a term referring only to the type of culture that existed amongst these early Homo Sapiens - our ancestors, the White race's ancestors, lived as hunter gatherers in Europe. Their physical remains and artifacts from this time are plentiful - and what is really amazing is how far spread out they were. This first race of people with whom we can claim a genetic affinity, were what is called the proto Nordic racial type - tall, light hair and eyes. In certain isolated areas in Europe you can still find perfect living examples of this racial type, and they differ only slightly in height from modern day Nordics. This great proto Nordic race lived in a broad band spanning from Spain right across Europe all the way to central Asia and even to the Pacific rim, where skeletal remains have been found as well.
Pure "PCT" / "Broad Homeland" as pushed by Rokus. I am not alleging Rokus adheres to any sort of extremist ideology, but if he doesn't, he needs to recognize that he is pushing the ideologists' agenda for them, and should be doubly careful to avoid spin and original synthesis. In the light of his emphasis on the Nordic Race and the Cradle of Civilization, I am afraid I must conclude that the contributions of a fully brainwashed Werkgroep Traditie member wouldn't look all that different. My conclusion is that this isn't just a scholarly hypothesis gone terribly wrong. Hypotheses that are simply flawed don't get pushed, they are just forgotten. This one is being pushed online in spite of its shortcomings because of its ideological appeal, which makes it a classical WP:FRINGE problem article for Wikipedia.  dab (𒁳) 13:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could as easily make a contribution stating the incredible spread and importance of the Sub-Saharan people, in Prehistoric Europe, the Neolithic and the Middle East; or what about the incredible advance of the yellow race, that according to some recent insights has its tiny cradle in the Himalaya. I don't even have the time to be as quick in sourcing arguments as critics are in inventing objections, sometimes soem good faith is just indispensable. What would be the merit of racism anyway? Humans evolved in waves, and the people that spread by the most recent waves excel in climatically distorted physical proportions: so what about the skinny long limbs of most Nordics, that so clearly demonstrate they did not originate in a cold climate? I'm not here to teach people an ideological lesson: if, and only if, people are informed fully of the merits and discrepancies of any approach, the facts should speak by itself. Extremism can only thrive in splendid isolation from facts and fresh ideas. People that truly seek truth are bound to get sick by the kind of voluntary intelectual captivity this kind of extremists indulge themselves in. I am happy Darwin survived Nazi Germany, with effort Nietzsche survived also. Other subjects of abuse suffer more difficulties in already being discussed in a more balanced way. Sure, I recognize one big problem in PCT, that it has all the ingredients for inviting diehard proponents to entrench themselves in blunt negationism towards any external influence. If anybody could convince me Alinei or Hausler belong themselves to this group of people, giving preponderance to any kind of (crypto-)ideology above an open mind that by definition rejects any limits or constraints, I would stop to waist time on this topic inmediately. I don't believe this, I would rather classify PCT as an overreaction against the entrenched and distorted views of diehard proponents of the Kurgan theory. And what if it would still convey some interesting fresh ideas? You can take it or leave it, not any real scientist will ever ask people to actually "believe" any theory. Just stick to the facts, verify and if necessary, reject, but don't involve free minds in the craziness and vices of millions of other people, they'll always be there, whatever people choose to put forward. Rokus01 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure -- the Kurgan hypothesis may hold ideological appeal to Ukrainian blood-and-soil ideologists just like the PCT may hold ideological appeal to Italian, French or Belgian blood-and-soil ideologists. The notable difference being that we don't see the Kurgan hypothesis touted by Ukrainian crackpots: that's not necessary, because it is advocated by perfectly solid, non-Ukrainian scholars. PCT otoh rests  on the ideas of an Italian archaeologist writing essays titled "Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian". Enough said. Can we just tag the entire mess as pseudoscholarship and be done? I am really bored to death by the topic by now. "Etruscan: An Archaic Form of Hungarian" is just the icing on the cake. dab (𒁳) 11:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: good. then stop parroting a fringe website and start reporting on mainstream scholarly consensus. If you do that, "PCT" immediately shrinks to a minor topic of pseudoarchaeology. Nothing to see here. If you are interested in arguing against scholarly mainstream, Wikipedia isn't for you. Write an article and submit it to some journal. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: how now, I am sure that if I had made a disparaging remark on Ukrainians involving vodka, the Hindutvavadi-cum-Afrocentrist-cum-Armenian nationalist front would clamour for my head at AN/I :o) I take it you have not come accross Ukrainian nationalists? They exist, you know, and their case for "Indo-European continuity" is rather stronger than that of the Werkgroep Traditie. Not that you even bothered to take the point I was in fact making. I said that endorsement by crackpots doesn't necessarily invalidate a scenario: it just means that it becomes more difficult to identify bona fide literature among the cranky white noise. The PCT, though, appears to be mostly noise with very little signal. "paleolithic continuity" is a truism in genetics, and a real non-starter for any linguistic hypotheses. "PC" in a nutshell: archaeogenetics- absolutely; archaeology- yes, with qualifications; linguistics- complete non sequitur (c.f.  Mallory's Kulturkugel). dab (𒁳) 11:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I take this to mean that your entire "pro-PCT" campaign was in fact just you humorously pulling our leg. I am relieved. So let's call it a day and turn this back into a serious article (we can keep your version at WP:BJAODN). dab (𒁳) 14:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integralism 

message: genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity. 
there is no implication - but there is high corelation. Who put requirment of implication in the sentese. What is the logic behind that wording ? 
FALSE - logic falacy.
:On the contrary, there is not a high correlation, otherwise the population of Ireland would not speak English (or even Gaelic). Paul B (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The correlation exists, but it doesn't work that way. The fact that the irish as a popoulation speak english does not mean that everyone speaking english is irish. Pcassitti (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, yes, obviously. So what is your point? Paul B (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that, although genetically related people often speak the same or related languages, as is the case with the irish, who all speak english, people who speak related languages are not necessarily genetically related. Thus the example with the irish and the english is not a valid argument against a hypothetical correlation between genes and language. Pcassitti (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I can't make head nor tail of this comment, though I've read it three times. How does the second sentence follow from the first? Paul B (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: In this case though the fallacy was made by the critics of the theory, since continuity theory does not imply that which has been criticized. Pcassitti (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you may be talking about something else entirely, but in the present context, your comments simply make no sense. --dab (𒁳) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity. true / FALSE 

message: it is now : ..though so far the PCV does not accept the slight evidence this Balkan languages spread so far to the north."
an error? 71.201.241.2 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PCV]] in PCT 

message: This page is noticeably missing a PCT explanation for the placement of the Indo-Iranian and Tocharian languages. Does the "continuity" logic apply to them too, or are they explained away as a result of more recent migrations away from Europe? --86.135.181.234 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian IE languages 

message: Based on source of 2000 y
*2000 Lamentable lack of citation 
*2008 on the first sight it looks like Alineli has now even more citation than Moris
Is this 'lamentation' still walid ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.241.2 (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: feel free to cite a more recent review. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Morris in Mother Tongue 

message: He asked to use talk but his talk is dumbed to only "view source" Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge! User page Discussion View source History 
:19:12, 1 September 2008 Dbachmann (...) (19,445 bytes) (rv - use the talkpage. Your book is mentioned in the References section.) (undo)
There are two books but I have one question . Is your Dbachmann false sttatement19:12, 1 September 2008 Dbachmann book is mentioned in the References section regrettable omission or intentional lie?
:I suggest you use your browser's "find" function and look for "Lingue". I was incidentially talking about this talkpage, not mine. Mr. Anon, your contributions are so erratic and in such bad grammar that I feel compelled to ask you whether you couldn't consider contributing to another project. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  76.16.176.177 

message: I think in section historical reconstruction it would be practical to add link to surname of Gimbutas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbutas and also to her book old europe it this article egzists in wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceckauskas Dominykas (talk • contribs) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gimbutas 

message: Slavic expansion isn't securely attested, in history, until the 6th century. There are isolated words, including suggested Slavic loanwords in other languages (one in Gothic) in the 4th and 5th centuries. So the timeline there could be even later. Marja Erwin (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical non-Attestations of Slavic 

message: This article is very problematic, in Academia the theory is not taken seriously by anyone outside the small clique of proponents and their pupils. Their work is so lacking in merit that the real experts in this field don't even pay attention to it. And therein lies the problem, we don't have much material to criticise it with that is not original research, as nobody with qualifications even bothers about the theory. I have to say that a merge with Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses, and a reduction to about a fifth of the current length is in order.
Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses 

message: Seems to pretty much contradict all of her results in Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time etc.; should be discussed... AnonMoos (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Johanna Nichols]] etc. 

message: From the article:
I was just browsing through, and when I read the 4 main/basic assumptions, I couldn't help but wonder on what bases those assumptions were made. Do archaeological frontiers really coincide with....anything? Why may the lexicon of "natural" languages (what are those? what's an unnatural language? esperanto?) be periodized along human evolution? I highly doubt there's any evidence for such periodization (how much biological evolution has science actually witnessed compared to linguistic evolution?), but since I didn't read the reference, I shouldn't say too much.
On my way down to add this comment, I noticed another section questioning the bias of this article. I think I'd probably agree with that commenter if I had the time to read more, but I'm going to continue browsing. Thanks for reading. 99.162.156.99 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent historically attested European example would be Hungarian, a non-IE language imposed by a small non-native elite on a local population whose genetics are indistibguishable from that of their IE speaking neighbours.1812ahill (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Natural language means not like Esperanto, COBOL, Fortran, etc. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The problem, as pointed out above, is that the PCT flies in the face of all historical experience. Yes, a degree of stability is of course present, but some languages (such as contemporary Danish) change appreciably even from one generation to the next (not as much as to become unintelligible, of course, but still notably). It beggars belief to assume stability as required by the PCT, stability over many millennia. Everything we know about ancient Eurasia and North Africa 2000 years ago tells us that the languages spoken there and their regional distribution have changed strongly, even radically, since then, everywhere, and there is no reason to assume things were that much different, and languages so much more stable structurally and geographically, millennia earlier. See Neolithic Europe#Language and the referenced essay by Don Ringe in which he explains the Uniformitarian Principle as applied to language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 assumptions, article bias 

message: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We are all shocked and astounded by this news. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: -see:Drama Queen-. What is that supposed to mean Dougweller? that investigation has nothing to do with this artcile, why do you mentioned in here? what is your purpose?Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the relevance see the section above. And why are you responding to this? Do you perhaps have some conection to Ragdeenorc? Paul B (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's extremely relevant and sock puppet editing is not allowed and such edits should be reverted - and were reverted according to policy. Please don't restore it again. Dougweller (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply trying to driving out another editor. We must be talking about on addition, not an editor. If his addition is problematic, then we must first discuss it and after that remove it. This is not the "policy" cruft. You just fitting reason.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which editor is being driven out? And policy is policy. We don't have to discuss first and then remove it, we can remove on site. With 352 edits I hardly think you can try to tell Paul or myself about what is policy. You also need to read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes sir! who am I right? you and "Paul" are ruler of these lands and I'am just a god damn peasant! I'am wasting my time with you. Yes good faith, you right.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ragdeenorc is a sockpuppet