Az őstörténet és etnogenezis problémáiról

Absztrakt

The article distinguishes and briefly analyses four approaches to the clarification of the basic questions of Central Eurasian ethnogenesis and prehistory. 1. The written sources of the historical period contain many references to times predating their composition and, of course, constitute the quarry from which comparative, historical linguistics extracts its data. 2. Linguistics allows the deciphering, reading, understanding of the written texts and does give indication on the interrelatedness of peoples. What it cannot accomplish is the establishment of links between artefacts and the linguistic appurtenance of those who made them. The concept of the Ursprache is a figment of the imagination. While it is clear that many related languages (say the Romance languages) do go back to a common origin, the parent language was not the product of spontaneous generation and the question on how the imaginary Ursprache originated remains unresolved. 3. Archaeology and anthropology, while shedding light, on the material and, on occasion, on the spiritual world of which they were part, the finds, without external evidence brought in to bear, cannot be validly attributed to any linguistic or historic group. 4. Mythology, the study of spiritual, imaginary concepts can and on occasion does show shared beliefs between people separated by great temporal and spatial distances. The article, one of mild debunking of commonly accepted ideas, concludes that in times preceding the diversification which characterized the Neolithic revolution, the Central Eurasian territory was one in which peoples, techniques, languages, mythical concepts were freely floating and interacting.