El Neolítico y la discusión del problema indoeuropeo

Abstract

After the publication of the author's book "El problema indoeuropeo" (México, 1960) and of the French translation ("Les Indoeuropéens, Problémes archéologiques", Paris, Payot, 1961) a discussion of their origin and formation of their different groups has been again raised. The conclusions of the author who does not believe in a single origin and a single home of the Indoeuropean people seems to find agreement. Dr. M. Gimbutas ("American Anthropologist" 1963 and 1964, and other articles), believed that the neolitic cultures of Europe do not belong to the Indoeuropeans and that the latter originated in the cultures of nomadic people of the steppes of the eastern URSS and of Asia, the Indoeuropeanisation of Europe following only after their western movements in the late III millenium B.C. The neolithic and Bronze age cultures of Siberia (Afanasievo, Andronovo) are considered as the root of those of the original Indoeuropeans. The author also believes that the Indoeuropean steppe populations are Indoeuropeans but does not consider it possible to admit the Indoeuropean character of the Afanasievo and Andronovo populations, although their culture is related with that of the European steppes. Jettmar in his 1956 article "Die Wanderung of the Iranians" believes it too. They seem to belong to the Uralo-Altaic family, whose western group are the Ugrians whose ethnical identity with the Indoeuropeans does not seem acceptable. The few centuries of the movements of the steppe and battle axe people (end of the III millenium) do not give sufficient time for the formation and differentiation of the Indoeuropeans. It was already accomplished when the Luwi of the western group invaded western Anatolia, and the Cassites and Mitani -of the eastern- appeared in the border of the Mesopotamian cultures, not much later tha 2,000. The long time of development of the Central Europeans as well as of the Balcanic neolithic cultures from the V millenium B.C. offers the appropiate frame for such a formation and differentiation. The high level of the agricultural cultures of Neolithic Europe and their complexity is more in agreement with the Indoeuropean development than the primitive character of the steppe people. New radiocarbon dates and new studies issued after the author's book make obligatory a revision of the chronology which is attempted in the present article,although their general views seem to remain valid. As Heine-Geldern objected to Gimbutas, the Pontic migration from Europe to China about 1,000 B.C. can with difficulty be attributed to the scythians. Probably a conglomerate of people participated in it such as Cimmerians and Tocharians. As for the original home of the Tocharians the author insists in its localization from northern Ucrania to the Carpathians where the conditions were given for the composition of their language. In agreement with Heine-Geldern and Jettmar (1956), the author cannot believe in a original home of the Iranians in Central Asia. Their history when they appear on the border of Urartu and Assyria as well as the direction of their movements, from Western Irán, point to an original home in northern Azerbaidjan, where they differentiated from the Indian group.