The Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT)

[Engelbrecht]

Since the beginning of Comparative Philology, the origin of Indo-Europeans and their arrival in Euro-Asiatic, historical locations have been a controversial issue.

Two major current theories suggest a late invasion from East Europe in the Bronze Age or a demic dispersion from Anatolia as consequence of early Neolithic civilization. There is, however, no archaeological evidence of invasions, European Neolithic is essentially a local development, and the latest outcome of genetic research demonstrates that 80% of European genetic stock goes back to Paleolithic. In addition, both archaeologists and linguists of the Uralic area now concur on a Paleolithic origin of Uralic people and languages in Eurasia.

By using different approaches and through independent research, we have obtained converging evidence that indicates an uninterrupted, local continuity of Indo-European languages and populations from prehistoric to the present times. We argue that the appearance of Indo-Europeans coincides with the first regional settlement of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in the Middle/Upper Paleolithic, and we propose a comprehensive, interdisciplinary framework for the Indo-European origins, the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT).

And particularly the linguists of the workgroup find that the extraordinarily rich record of Indo-European languages and cultures can be read in a scientifically satisfactory way only in the light of the evolutionary depth and periodization scope provided by the PCT.

Introduction to PCT(PDF): http://www.continuitas.com/intro.pdf

Source: The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins

[Savorgnan]

It's supposed to be the most economical theory in Indo-European studies, intellectually very satistying. PCT is not as elegant as Renfrew's Neolithic theory though. And I see a risk of protochronism. They still lack linguistic evidences, but they advance some stunning proposals, like the Proto-Hungarian hypothesis and the "Proto-Hungaricity" ( please excuse this neologism ) of the Etruscan language. Continuitas work on Uralic continuity matters seems more convincing to me.

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

PCT is not as elegant as Renfrew's Neolithic theory though.

Interesting. I am not familiar with Renfrew and the Neolithic theory. Do you have a reference? Preferably in the form of a short introduction or summary.

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

And I see a risk of protochronism.

Do you think that this was their intention? If not this is up to the interpretors of this theory to handle. Then maybe I see a risk.

[Savorgnan]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

Interesting. I am not familiar with Renfrew and the Neolithic theory. Do you have a reference? Preferably in the form of a short introduction or summary.

Colin Renfrew's 1987 theory is, basically, the proposal that the Indo-European languages dispersion in Europe follows exactly the dispersion of agriculture. In that case, the first Indo-Europeans speakers would have been the first Greek farmers coming from Anatolia, some 8500 to 9000 years ago. These first farmers would have outnumbered the hunters-gatherers by 50 to 1, largely replacing Europe's population. But recent genetical research shows that only 20% of Europe's genepool is from Near-Eastern stock, telling us that it's more likely that the hunters-gatherers managed to assimilate the farmers by adopting their new technique. That's Renfrew's theory Achilles heel.

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

Do you think that this was their intention? If not this is up to the interpretors of this theory to handle. Then maybe I see a risk.

I will not put all of them in the same bag but that's maybe the case for some. And even if it's the case, I'm not saying they are dishonest. After all, weren't we taught that "ex oriente lux"? It's natural if some want to go against that. Their work is usefull, they showed that there is an archaelogical continuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic European settlements. The latter cultures evolving from the formers. But yes, you are right, the protochronist risk is maybe in the eye of the beholder.

[Racowie]

When I came to this forum for the first time, I wanted to initiate thread dedicated to some conclusions of Paleolithic Continuity Theory (PCT), in connection particularly with Slavs. Then, I didn’t have enough time and I abandoned that idea.

But, now I’m here again and it’s glad to me to see that people here initiated discussion exactly about PCT.

Are you familiar with fact that PCT proposed by Italian historian Mario Alinei, suggest Slavic continuity from Paleolithic?

What you people think about that?

The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins
The Paleolithic Continuity Theory: An Introduction

``e) The totally absurd thesis of the so called ‘late arrival’ of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic, and the demographic growth and geographic expansion of the Slavs can be explained, much more realistically, by the extraordinary success, continuity and stability of the Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe (the only ones in Europe that caused the formation of tells) (Alinei 2000, fcb)``

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

They still lack linguistic evidences, but they advance some stunning proposals, like the Proto-Hungarian hypothesis and the "Proto-Hungaricity" ( please excuse this neologism ) of the Etruscan language.

Hardly that Hungarian ancestors could have something with Etruscans. I mean, they could but only if we take in consideration fact that ancestors of modern day Hungarians are on the first place old Slavs of Panonia.

Panonian Slavs (as all other Slavs) maybe were connected with Etruscans for different reasons (trade, for example). There are interesting data and scientific findings which support this thesis.

[Racowie]

Originally Posted by Savorgnan

Colin Renfrew's 1987 theory is, basically, the proposal that the Indo-European languages dispersion in Europe follows exactly the dispersion of agriculture.

Absolutely... answer is in- agriculture

But, I would insist that we are precise, no matter that there is still many opened questions. Population which was barer of agriculture thru out Europe was particularly Slavic or if you want Proto-Slavic population. That process (dispersion of population) we can recognize and follow even when we look on differences from one Slavic language to another.

Early knowledge of agriculture was key reason for Slavic expansion from Paleolithic. That’s why Slavs were/are spread on such a vast geographical territory and that’s why they were and are so numerous.