Talk:Paleolithic Continuity Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
* /Archive1


Contents

[edit] Split discussion

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 [1] 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)

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)

The key issue is: what exactly binds the scholars to PCT. On the Continuitas website it says: "The scholars of this workgroup, independently working within its framework, or supporting its general lines, welcome contributions to the ongoing debate." So first of all, what comprise this framework exactly and what are those general lines? And second, how relate the framework to "the main lines of the PCT historical reconstruction"? About the second, I have the very strong impression this so called "PCT historical reconstruction" is the "independent work" of Alinei within the framework of PCT.

I conclude we should dismiss this PCT historical reconstruction as not essential to the general lines of PCT. If some Wikipedia administrators chose to consider PCT a fringe theory that lacks scholarly support, they still should reconsider the tremendous scholarly support to the general lines and framework of PCT and aim their arrows exclusively to what probably could be considered a particular historical reconstruction by one member of the workgroup. I don't see any reason to assume why the support of for instance Marcel Otte would necessarily exceed the general lines, at least this is not what I taste from the publication mentioned in this article.

Extra note: the assessment of mainstream views on archeological continuity would be far away of the Alinei reconstruction: the "broad homeland" alternative that were first presented by Hausler and Lothar Kilian is the only relevant theory entitled to such a mainstream assessment. Mallory considered this "broad homeland" theory to be the only possible alternative to the Kurgan hypothesis. Actually, I really don't understand how this theory never made it to Wikipedia, although I can imagine the well known same Kurganizing POV-pushers as always could have something to do with this. As far as I can verify the ideas concerning such a "broader homeland" are still alive and - with increasing linguistic support - even more viable than ever. I already gave a start by compiling the information you can read in section "Archeological continuity" of this article.

To this article all this would mean:

  1. The name PCT does not have to be changed, indeed
  2. No reference to Alineis "historical reconstruction" in the lead or in the section to be dedicated to the general lines and framework
  3. No wikipedia "fringe status" of PCT as a framework, since it does not depend on the academic status of the historical reconstruction predominantly linked to the name of Alinei
  4. Special attention to a rewrite of the Lead for explaining just the framework and an introduction to explain just the general lines
  5. An assessment of mainstream continuity views and developments of each discipline involved: I would say, separate sections dedicated to Linguistic continuity, Archeological continuity, genetics and paleoanthropology. Rokus01 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, whatever of this stuff does have mainstream placet can just be discussed at paleolithic, without reference to "PCT" or continuitas.com. Of course the PCT people repeat a lot of generally accepted positions, but that cannot, by definition, be part of the "theory" they actually propose, just its background. There are many interesting points to be made about the paleolithic and genetic or archaeological continuity, but this should be done without reference to Indo-Europeans or continuitas.com. Instead, refer to mainstream literature. If you are trying to spin this into "PCT" just being about mainstream notions on continuity in paleolithic times, we might as well redirect this to paleolithic and strike all mention of Alinei or continuitas.com. dab (𒁳) 14:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I am glad at least you recognize some generally accepted principles on continuity here. Still, I have difficulties accepting the scholars of the workgroup seek anything more than this. Note, there is a twofold interpretation of this continuitas workgroup:

  1. if the scholars DO subscribe to a PCT that includes the Alinei historical reconstruction, it becomes untenable to deem this reconstruction a fringetheory. Just because a hardline group of Wikipedian Kurgan-POV pushers think so? I don't think this is acceptable or the right way.
  1. if the scholars DON'T necessarily subscribe to anything more than a general PCT framework of generally accepted principles (this is my evaluation), the paleolithic and linguistic wikipedian articles should be rewritten as far they still did not accommodate such general continuity concepts (since they can count on ample support, disputed or not) AND the article should focus on those general concept.

You can't have it both ways: it is contradictio in terminis to link reputed scholars to a fringe theory. The scholars involved imply to say the least competing importance to continuity principles in paleolitic and linguistic articles. So, if you want to cut short the discussion on PCT and demand to have this separated from reputable scholars like Hausler, I wouldn't mind to focus on the "broad homeland" theory elsewhere without reference to the lines set by PCT, and give it a place together with the Kurgan theory, just like Mallory did. Still, even after harbouring most "continuity items" elsewhere, a linguistic assessment of PCT on continuity will remain necessary. Rokus01 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

I understand your impatience. Most of my observations on archeology and genetics indeed follow a different course and relate more closely to the Broad Homeland hypothesis of Lothar Kilian and Häusler. To this I dedicated a separate article, since I have to recognize PCT is an independent development. As you can see, I removed this latest edits and restructured what is left a little in order to have a framework that reflects PCT better. Especially the historical reconstruction should be improved considerably. Don't hesitate to perform your edits. Rokus01 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Prune + Strict Adherence to Policy

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)

Aryaman, I think your version is much to basic, since it does not even give an outline of what PCT is. The current version could be an excellent base (except for the Historical reconstruction, that could reflect the theory a lot better) Rokus01 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

_________

OK, Rokus01. I see that you have undertaken a major edit, which I welcome. Now we need to work through the article to find out what belongs where, which claims can be sourced and which cannot, etc. First: The outline needs to be addressed.

From the looks of it, we have something like the following (ignoring the lead for the time being):

  1. An Outline of the PCT Theory/General Assumptions
  2. Arguments from / Implications regarding Archeology
  3. Arguments from / Implications regarding Linguistics
  4. Implications regarding Historical Reconstruction
  5. Criticism

Re 1: It is unclear from the current title what is intended here. Are these the assumptions from which proponents of PCT start? Or are they seen as the results of their work? The content also needs some commentary. We will need some citation on these four points, preferably with commentary provided by actual proponents.

Re 2, 3: It is unclear whether these paragraphs refer to arguments or implications. Please clarify. Citation will be needed for the information presented in both. Also, tell us who actually says these things and where instead of stating them either as arguments or as facts.

Re 4: Here, citations are also needed. BTW, citing Gimbutas is useless in the present context. What we need is a proponent of PCT discussing his take on Gimbutas.

Re 5: This section needs to be dealt with after sections 1-4 have been properly organized and fleshed out to establish compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. But citations are also required on several points here as well.

Re 1-5: It would be most helpful if you could give your ideas concerning the outline of the article. What is the purpose behind each section? How do the sections go together to make up a whole? If we have a solid outline with good cohesion between the parts, it makes fleshing out the article with facts and citations much easier. Thanks. Aryaman (☼) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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
  1. Outline: here I propose to explain the purpose of the PCT Workgroup regarding the general lines and framework of PCT.
  2. The historical reconstruction: Here I propose to give an overview of the proposals of Alinei.
  3. Archeology: Here I propose to include some third party archeological context.
  4. Linguistics: Here I propose to include some third party linguistic context.
  5. Criticism: the meaning should be clear.

Rokus01 (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

not good. See {{Criticism-section}}. Criticism isn't to be ushered to section 5. The article needs to state that this is a fringy out-of-mainstream idea from the beginning. Rokus, you are really going out of your way to write this article from a "sympathetic point of view". This is in line with Wikinfo policy, but in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV. You may want to consider offering your article on the topic to Wikinfo. If you want to continue editing the Wikipedia article, you'll finally need to live up to non-negotiable Wikipedia core policy, no matter how much you are personally infatuated with this idea of paleolithic Indo-Europeans. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

dab, what's your take on my suggestion above regarding pruning back the article? Aryaman (☼) 13:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

Dab, could you please discuss your point of view concerning BHH here:Talk:Broad Homeland hypothesis#Controversal_issue ? I have to remind you that Mallory took the ideas of Lothar Kilian quite seriously. The original criticism of Mallory that there is not any archeological phenomenon available to support it has been contradicted by recent investigation. The recent view that common ideas and archeological phenomena indeed tied Europe together in a shared development solves Mallory's "anachronism" of common words for new developments. I'm not sure how Häusler relates to the BHH of Kilian, Mallory names the two in one breath. If it is true Häusler joined PCT, I think it is justified to have the article changed for this and make the separation between the two views complete, since to me Häusler is the only (historical) connection. Rokus01 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a strange preposition to deem a "sympathetic point of view" as violating WP:NPOV more. Sometimes I have to suppress a smile, since I know humor is not one of your qualities and for sure you are not joking. You consistently confuse a point of view with a personal point of view. How come, you can't be serious. Worse, a good neutral Wikipedia article should balance multiple points of views! How you think to be able to criticize without any point of view? Still I would prefer you criticize without any personal point of view, and adhere to sourced references to scholarly points of views for criticizing and complying to WP:SYN.Rokus01 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integralism

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"[2]. 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)

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)
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)

I give more credit to the opinion of scholars than to your distorted explanations. I don't consider the issue displayed or addressed in a neutral way by your interaction. Rokus01 (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

How come, a "fringe website", if this website is written and supported by respected scholars? I rather call the hypothesis "tentative". And why should I suit your personal point of view by not giving an overview of sourced issues concerning PCT? I don't have any clue how you think to reconcile the removal of sourced information [3] with tolerance against unsourced nonsense that still seek to severely discredit this particular view. In case you missed the sourcing, I could source sentence by sentence if you think the reader is interested in repeating the same references. By the way, what make you think I am arguing here against "mainstream" scholarly views? You make a lot of assumptions that do not suit me, nor does this suit WP:NPOV. Rokus01 (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"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" Those Ukrainian crackpots are not even able to sustain continuity with the Scythians, so why should they bother in the first place to let their bottle of Wodka and interfere with the spree of drunks that even go much further and attribute the PIE homeland exclusively to their soil? As always, something is amiss in your reasoning. Rokus01 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

I prefer a critical article that does not compromise the true representation of any subject, no matter how silly. I am very serious in this principle.Rokus01 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Dab, what a shabby disinformation merchant you are trying to tar Alinei with a Nazi brush (presumably because all of your other attempts to pass off your irrational dislike of his ideas as rational discussion have failed). By your argument, we should presumably remove Darwin from any discussion of evolutionary theory because nasty people use natural selection to justify their own nefarious ends. Suffice it to say that like most of your other comments, this is complete garbage, since anyone who is even remotely familiar with Alinei's work (as you evidently are not) would know that it is purely a linguistic theory. In fact, I am not aware of any references to race in it. Furthermore, it is not just a theory of continuity of Germanic/Celtic speakers, but of 'non-Aryan' IE groups - Italic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Hellenic, Baltic, etc. as well as of Uralic speakers (and having seen how contributors to Stormfront wind themselves up over the issue of whether the Saami are Aryans or not, I can only conclude that white supremacists will find Alinei a terrible disappointment). On this latter point, Alinei correctly points out that there is a consensus among archaeologists that the Uralic peoples have been around in NE Europe/N Russia at least since the Ice Age, and it is in this context that he links Etruscan to Hungarian given the archaeological record which shows the spread of Bronze Age innovations from the Carpathian Basin to Italy. While there are still gaps in his theory (like numerals), it's a perfectly coherent theory, even if it is possible to disagree with some of the details.

More generally, I think that the editor should take on board the following:

I think that Alinei's dates for the emergence of PIE are way too high but there is a minimum consensus PCT position which is that by the Mesolithic, IE was already present in Europe and had already begun to differentiate into its subfamilies. Hence there are no grounds for assuming that the entire population of Palaeolithic Europe was non-IE (even if non-IE groups such as the ancestors of the Basques were evidently present) and hence that IE speakers only entered Europe either during or after the Neolithic, since there is no archaeological or genetic evidence for a radical population shift during or after the Neolithic and there is little or no evidence for a non-IE substrate at least in the IE languages of Northern Europe (I know that a few linguists like Vennemann would argue otherwise, but quite frankly his work doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny, as has been shown by several scholars such as Lakarra and Kitson).Jonathan Morris2 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann, by the way, "The (unreferenced) "main assumptions" of "PCT" are Integralism (Integral Traditionalism) by any other name" : This is WP:OR by any other name, as usual with you. The link between PCT and something called "Integral Traditionalism" is not referenced and obviously of your own and personal device. Rokus01 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity. true / FALSE

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)
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)
Err, yes, obviously. So what is your point? Paul B (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

I think this section is rather representative of the general level and logical soundness of the PCT idea. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

This entire section of the discussion is worthless: Wikipedia is not the place to argue personal opinions. The fact that genetic continuity implies or not correlation or causation is irrelevant for the section "Criticism" of the article. Under criticism, only referenced third party criticism should find place, not the personal idea of the contributors, whether right or wrong, interesting or not, reasonable or not. See my section on POV CONCERNS below.--XPTN (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Asian IE languages

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)

[edit] POV concerns in Criticism

The section on criticism is very poorly made and raises obvious objections of POV. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. As such, one should not report individual judgments, no matter how reasonable, not original contributions, but only third party opinions. Here is an example:

"The mainstream position of historical linguistics is that genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity[citation needed] and that theories of a literal "military conquest"

In the above, the contributor is taking his own understanding of the accepted IE vulgata and using it to disqualify the PCT. He might be right or wrong, that's not the point: it is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines. He should instead say "the prominent IE scholar Dr. X, in his paper Y, criticizes the correlation between genetic continuity and linguistic continuity in these terms "...".

Similarly in the following:

"The time frame proposed by PCT is far beyond mainstream estimates, by a factor of at least 500%, and the hypothesis is not taken seriously in Indo-European studies."

Again, the contributor is expressing his personal understanding of the IE theory and using it against PCT. The contributor might be absolutely right in his speculations, but Wikipedia is not the place for original contribution: only assessed and referenced third party opinions should be reported.

Finally the statement "It's not taken seriously by the IE scholars" is very strong, unreferenced, in conflict with other passages of the article. I am taking it out.

The following is an example of how positive (or negative) criticism should be correctly reported.

"On the other hand, Alinei's book was reviewed favourably by Jonathan Morris in Mother Tongue, a journal dedicated to the reconstruction of Paleolithic language, judging Alinei's theory as being

"both simpler than its rivals and more powerful in terms of the insights it provides into language in the Meso- and Palaeolithic. While his book contains some flaws I believe that it deserves to be regarded as one of the seminal texts on linguistic archaeology, although given its lamentable lack of citation in English-language circles, it appears that recognition will have to wait until a translation of the original Italian appears."

--XPTN (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

it transpires more and more that this is a topic of pseudo-scholarship. It is almost impossible to discuss it "properly", as a bona fide school of thought. I was prepared to assume that this is a scholarly minority view, particularly in light of the "Mother Tongue" review, but I do not now think the topic has any notability, and the article shows signs of the fringe theory mis-represented as scholarly found so often on Wikipedia. I have serious doubts that "PCT" has any scholarly merit, and I should consider a merge into Mario Alinei. --dab (𒁳) 08:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dab, appalling how you dodge straight observations concerning your unsourced individual judgements on "fringe" and "mainstream" that are utterly ridiculous, unsustainable personal lies and violate WP policy of neutral representation. Your (kurgan) fanatism and cheap retorics only achieve to discredit WP and turn Wikipedia into a source of tainted amateur views rather than verifiable information. Incredible people like you are still allowed to edit here.Rokus01 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So you have no real arguments other than calling another editor a liar? What do you think any newcomer seeing your post as one of their first pages on Wikipedia would think is acceptable behavior on a talk page? Hopefully they'd take XPTN's comments as more representative. Doug Weller (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
indeed. I duly qualified my personal judgement ("it transpires more and more", "I do not now think", "I have serious doubts"). None of this is "lying" unless you want to claim that I do not have serious doubts even though I assure you I do. The above is necessarily my own judgement, but it is an informed judgement, based on the content and history of this article, and the exploits of the likes of Rokus01 elsewhere. As always, the burden of establishing notability is with those who want to assert notability. At present, the case for this article inherits the notability of Mario Alinei, and the notability of the continuitas.com website. There doesn't appear to be anything else. For good reason, because the linguistic parts are absolutely crazy and will only ever appeal to the superfamily "Paleolithic Linguists". Anyone else will shake their heads and move on. Any claim to the contrary will have to present excellent evidence (major headlines of "omg! major breakthrough in historical linguistics, would-be experts grovel in humiliation, deep prehistory proponents radiantly vindicated!", since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." dab (𒁳) 11:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Having seen some discussion of this elsewhere, I'm inclined to agree that the 'theory' is identified with Alinei and that is virtually the only source of its notability. A funny comment on Alinei I found: "Alinei is the first one who seems to have "rebutted" his own "continuity theory" by talking about "Turcic Etruria" and an alleged "close relation" between Hungarian and Etruscan languages. I was unpleasantly surprised seing that Alinei compared a few words of Etruscan to Hungarian in a way more appropriate to some cranky "etymologist" than a serious scientist."
Peter Daniels suggested that the author(s) of this article "could do with a reading of Johanna Nichols's *Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time*." Doug Weller (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Etrusco: una forma arcaica di ungherese . This is actually sad. If nothing else, Alinei is a healthy reminder of the sad state of academic linguistics. I really do hope that "after postmodernism", linguistics will rise once again to the brilliant heights of its golden past. I blame Chomsky for any critic who with sad justification thinks the field of linguistics is so much muddle-headed blather. dab (𒁳) 10:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To be taken seriously and before giving an opinion, first an editor should do its utmost to give a true representation on the subject. I don't think any reader searching for information would be interested at all to the personal views of - by definition -utterly anonimous and irrelevant editors that pretend to be taller than the simple favour they (are supposed to) do in gathering and publishing sourced information. Yes, some editors are prone to lying in order to make their point and falsify/misrepresent information by purpose. The history of this article gives an horrific example. Editors that feel obliged to impose their personal opinion (both to sneer or praise views using rhetorics) had better quit abusing the talk page (in accordance with WP policy) and leave WP at all. 217.68.49.65 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

...said the "utterly anonimous and irrelevant" 217.68.49.65 of The Hague. Wikipedia is built to ensure neutral presentation regardless of editors' opinions. If it was possible to establish the notability of this thing, it wouldn't matter what anyone on Wikipedia thinks. But you will understand, I hope, that the burden of establishing the merit of any topic lies on those wishing to tout it; there is no burden on the skeptics to establish that the topic has no merit. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

btw, funny how this is always about the "Ethnolinguistic Origins of Europe". It would seem that this "theory" collapses as soon as somebody dares to point out that there are Indo-European languages found east of Europe (in exotic locations such as Iran, Pamir and India). But perhaps there was a Paleolithic Pan-Eurasian civilization, who knows, eminent archaeologists might discover their fiberglass data cables any day. dab (𒁳) 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not so much 'theories' but 'paradigmas' we are talking about. Neutral representation is the one thing that 'utterly anonimous and irrelevant' like us are supposed to be able to. Notability is another thing, and should not be challenged by personal opinions that indeed remain 'utterly anonimous and irrelevant'. To me, the notability of the paleolinguistic approach is the balance it brings to entrenched invasionist paradigmas. Sneering this is equal to imposing your own paradigma: if you want to believe in yours, fine, I suppose nothing can stop you. Others would prefer the tale of Noah. Just remember timedepth issues are always confined to upper boundaries only: there is not any linguistic law that prevent a community to remain within the same Sprachbund or continuous communicating area for thousands of years. A linguistic unity by free travel and trade would yield a complete different timedepth-picture than simplistic family trees that only obey the laws of linguistic formation by separate invasions. Just try to follow the scholarly discussion and arguments, its worthwile to represent this in a proper way. 217.68.49.65 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

well, ok, but I have to point out that "neutral coverage" on Wikipedia (WP:NPOV) isn't the same as "sympathetic coverage" of the sort endorsed by Wikinfo. That simplistic invasionism isn't an accurate picture of reality is really, really old news (about 160 years old now), and pretty much granted from the outset, without the need for any paleolithic arguments. Representing rejection of PCT as "simplistic invasionism" is disingenious to say the least. You are free to embrace PCT, or Noaic, or Mahayuga timelines as your personal belief, and peace to you. What we are discussing here is the academic credibility of these theories. That of PCT appears to be rather close to zero. But of course you are free to present evidence to the contrary. dab (𒁳) 09:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)