24.15.123.48 (talk) No edit summary |
rv nonsense |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Refimprove|date=October 2007}} |
|||
{{Indo-European topics}} |
{{Indo-European topics}} |
||
The '''Paleolithic Continuity Theory''' ('''PCT''') suggests that the [[Indo-European languages]] originated in [[Europe]] and have existed there since the [[Paleolithic]]. It argues that the appearance of [[Proto-Indo-Europeans|Indo-Europeans]] coincides with the first regional settlement of ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic age. |
The '''Paleolithic Continuity Theory''' ('''PCT''') suggests that the [[Indo-European languages]] originated in [[Europe]] and have existed there since the [[Paleolithic]]. It argues that the appearance of [[Proto-Indo-Europeans|Indo-Europeans]] coincides with the first regional settlement of ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic age. |
||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
PCT critique for systematic bias German historiography and related 'wissenschaften'. This state sponsored systematic bias lay shadow, to this day, on understanding of European prehistory. |
PCT critique for systematic bias German historiography and related 'wissenschaften'. This state sponsored systematic bias lay shadow, to this day, on understanding of European prehistory. |
||
==PCT is interdisciplinary conception== |
|||
Comparing, [[Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn|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 [[Cicerone Poghirc|Poghirc]] [1992]<ref>Poghirc, Cicerone [1992], Pour une concordance fonctionnelle et chronologique entre |
|||
linguistique, archéologie et anthropologie dans le domaine indo–européen, in R. Beekes - A. |
|||
Lubotsky - J. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie. Akten der VII. |
|||
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, pp. 321–33.</ref>, climatologists such as [[Jonathan Adams|Adams]] |
|||
[1999 with Otte]<ref>Adams, Jonathan – Otte, Marcel [1999], Did Indo–European Languages Spread Before |
|||
Farming?, [[Current Anthropology]] 40, pp. 73–7.</ref>, '''historians''' such as [[Alexander Häusler|Häusler]] [1996<ref>Häusler, Alexander [1996], Invasionen aus den nordpontischen Steppen nach Mitteleuropa im |
|||
Neolithikum und in der Bronzezeit: Realität oder Phantasieprodukt?, «Archäeologische |
|||
Informationen» 19, pp. 75–88.</ref>, 1998<ref>Häusler, Alexander [1998], «Zum Ursprung der Indogermanen. Archäologische, anthropologische und |
|||
sprachwissenschaftliche Gesichtpunkte, «Ethnographisch–Archäologische Zeitschrift» 39, pp. |
|||
1–46.</ref>], or '''prehistorians''' such as [[Marcel Otte|Otte]] |
|||
[1997<ref>Otte, Marcel [1997], The diffusion of modern languages in prehistoric Eurasia, in R. Blench - |
|||
M. Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language I. Theoretical and Methodological Orientations, |
|||
London–N. York, pp. 74–81.</ref>, 1998<ref>Otte, Marcel [1998], Prehistory of the Europeans: a Comment on Cavalli–Sforza, [[Journal of |
|||
Anthropological Research]] 54, pp. 401–5.</ref>, 1999 with Adams, 2000]. Given the convergence of their data, we should |
|||
also add some '''genetists''' such as [[Martin Richards|Richards]] [2000]<ref>Richards, Martin – Macauley, Vincent – Hickey, Eileen (et alii) [2000], Tracing European |
|||
Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool, [[American Journal of Human Genetics]] |
|||
67, pp. 1251–76.</ref>, [[Ornella Semino|Semino]] [2000]<ref>Semino, Ornella – Passarino, Giuseppe – Oefner, Peter J. (et alii) [2000], The Genetic Legacy of |
|||
Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: a Y Chromosome Perspective, |
|||
[[Science (journal)|Science]] 290.10, pp. 1155–9.</ref> and their research |
|||
teams, as well as [[Bryan Sykes|Sykes]] [2001]<ref>Sykes, Bryan [2001], Les sept filles d’Eve. Génétique et histoire de nos origines, trad. P.E. |
|||
Dauzat, Paris.</ref><ref>[[Tacitus|Gaius Cornelius Tacitus]] 98 (Agr. 11) quote: (proximi |
|||
Gallis et similes sunt...sermo haud multum diversus</ref><ref>[[The Celts]]</ref>, '''whose studies support the Palaeolithic origin''' of the |
|||
genes of most Europeans. <ref>THE FIRST GERMANIC ORIGIN OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Xaverio+Ballester%22&btnG=Search Xaverio Ballester] URL:[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22THE+FIRST+GERMANIC+ORIGIN+OF+THE+ENGLISH+LANGUAGE%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws]</ref> |
|||
The pre-PCT, Colin Renfrew, conception is called ''[[Neolithic Discontinuity Theory]]'' or ''[[IE Neolithic Dispersal]]'' <ref>[[chapter 1.2 THE PALEOLITHIC CONTINUITY THEORY ON INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS: AN INTRODUCTION; Mario Alinei; URL: [http://www.continuitas.com/intro.html].</ref> |
|||
==Criticism== |
==Criticism== |
||
| ⚫ | The mainstream{{Fact|date=October 2007}} position of [[historical linguistics]] is that genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity{{Fact|date=October 2007}}. 2003 Nature have quite contrary quote '''''Languages, like genes,''' provide vital clues about human history''<ref>Nature 426, 435-439 (27 November 2003) | doi:10.1038/nature02029; Received 18 July 2003; Accepted 22 August 2003</ref> |
||
===contra=== |
|||
So far this section do not present sourced criticism |
|||
{{sources|this section}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
That theories of a literal "military conquest" have fallen into disfavour with most supporters of the theory of a [[Chalcolithic]] origin of Indo-European. What it mean [[Chalcolithic]] origin conception is a brige toward PCT from Kurgan h. |
|||
The time frame proposed by PCT is far beyond mainstream estimates, <s>by a factor of at least 500%</s>,{{Fact|competly not true 15-12 k versus 9k|date=October 2007}} and the hypothesis is not taken seriously in [[Indo-European studies]]{{Fact|date=October 2007}}. |
The time frame proposed by PCT is far beyond mainstream estimates, <s>by a factor of at least 500%</s>,{{Fact|competly not true 15-12 k versus 9k|date=October 2007}} and the hypothesis is not taken seriously in [[Indo-European studies]]{{Fact|date=October 2007}}. |
||
===pro=== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
:"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."[http://www.continuitas.com/morrisrev2.pdf] |
:"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."[http://www.continuitas.com/morrisrev2.pdf] |
||
Now as on 2007 the number of citation<ref>Google scholar count [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paleolithic+Continuity&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 3400] showe the highest dynamics comparatively to other linguistics theories.</ref> is larger in English language papers. Perhaps some English-only speaking linguist learned Italian language. |
Now as on 2007 the number of citation<ref>Google scholar count [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Paleolithic+Continuity&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 3400] showe the highest dynamics comparatively to other linguistics theories.</ref> is larger in English language papers. Perhaps some English-only speaking linguist learned Italian language. |
||
==other early suporters of continuity== |
|||
[[Autochtonic]] conception of Slovene origin was postulated by [[Wincenty Kadłubek]] in [[Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum]]. Other notable proponents of the theory are [[Józef Kostrzewski]], Trubaczow, Martynow, [[Witold Hensel]], [[Konrad Jażdżewski]], [[Witold Mańczak]], [[Janusz Andrzej Piontek]]<ref>Janusz Piontek, [http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f6.html ''Archeologiczne rekonstrukcje procesu etnogenezy Słowian a ustalenia antropologii fizycznej'']</ref> [[Robert Dąbrowski]], [[Tadeusz Makiewicz]] <ref>Tadeusz Makiewicz [http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f2.html ''Problem kontynuacji kulturowej pomiędzy starożytnością a wczesnym średniowieczem w świetle nowych materiałów ceramicznych z Wielkopolski'']</ref>, [[Tadeusz Malinowski]] <ref>Tadeusz Malinowski [http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f3.html ''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..."</ref>, [[Henryk Mamzer]],<ref>Henryk Mamzer, [http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/slavia/f4.html Archeologia etniczna versus kulturowo-interpretacyjna]</ref> [[Zofia Kurnatowska]], [[Stanisław Kurnatowski]], [[Stanisław Tabaczyński]] and [[Lech Leciejewicz]], [[Aleksander Brückner]]. |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
Revision as of 07:51, 19 October 2007
| Part of a series on |
| Indo-European topics |
|---|
 |
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) suggests that the Indo-European languages originated in Europe and have existed there since the Paleolithic. It argues that the appearance of Indo-Europeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo sapiens in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic age.
Its main proponents are the Italian linguists Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa and Cicero Poghirc as well as the German and Belgian prehistorians Alexander Häusler and Marcel Otte.
Continuity Theory
The Continuity Theory proposes that Indo-European speakers arrived in Europe tens of millennia ago, and that by the end of the Ice Age, had already differentiated into Celtic/Italic/Slavic/Germanic/etc. speakers occupying territories within or close to their traditional homelands. It also suggests that the glaciers and pre-glacial basins that compartmentalised Europe during the Ice Age may actually have been the mechanisms for this process of differentiation of Indo-European into its component families.
It is based on a synthesis of linguistic studies, the archaeogenetical studies of Brian Sykes indicating that some 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to the Paleolithic, as well as on archaeological data indicating European cultural continuity.
Proponents point to a lack of archaeological evidence for an Indo-European invasion in the Bronze Age; to the lack of substantial genetic change since the Paleolithic; and to analogy with a theory of a Paleolithic origin of Uralic peoples and languages in Eurasia. Moreover, the continuity theory is much more parsimonious in comparison with classical approaches to the IE developments.
PCT critique for systematic bias German historiography and related 'wissenschaften'. This state sponsored systematic bias lay shadow, to this day, on understanding of European prehistory.
Criticism
The mainstream[citation needed] position of historical linguistics is that genetic continuity does not imply linguistic continuity[citation needed]. 2003 Nature have quite contrary quote Languages, like genes, provide vital clues about human history[1]
That theories of a literal "military conquest" have fallen into disfavour with most supporters of the theory of a Chalcolithic origin of Indo-European. What it mean Chalcolithic origin conception is a brige toward PCT from Kurgan h.
The time frame proposed by PCT is far beyond mainstream estimates, by a factor of at least 500%,[citation needed] and the hypothesis is not taken seriously in Indo-European studies[citation needed].
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."[1]
Now as on 2007 the number of citation[2] is larger in English language papers. Perhaps some English-only speaking linguist learned Italian language.
References
See also
- Pre-Indo-European
- Proto-Indo-European language
- Proto-Indo-Europeans
- Neolithic Europe
- Urheimat
- Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory
- Devaneya Pavanar (postulates origin of the Tamil language in Kumari Kandam before 100,000 BC)