JITARU CRISTINA Englez German Grupa L 212 Review to Ideology and IndoEuropean Studies

Adrian Poruciuc

In this article published nine years ago, Adrian Poruciuc intended a parallel aproach. He debate on the evolution of Indo-Europeans studies over a period of about two centuries, but he consider some ideological deviations and myths about language, culture and history of Indo-European population that researchers have found. In the introduction the author turns to "Explanatory Dictionary of Romanian language (DEX), the edition of 1975 and 1996, both starring the main coordinator on I. Coteanu, demonstrating the existence of significant differences in definitions of the same notion, set forth in the same historical period, but in different ideological contexts. Through an east-west comparison with The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHDL), 1973, there is a slight difference, seemingly insignificant, the appearance of the word "person" which could be used in Huntington's vision of cultural and geopolitical division between east and west, exposed in his vision in 1977. The author makes observations on the evolution of Indo-Europeans. He writes the adjective Indo-European" together, as they used the school masters of the IndoEuropeans studies from Iai, Simenschy and Ivnescu, in "Comparative grammar of European languages" (1981).

Indo-Europeans studies experienced group and current ideology, and some based on the opinions of some prominent personalities. Since the early 19th century until today, the notion Indo-European has undergone many changes. It is generally accepted that early Indo-Europeans studies, as distinct academic field, were linguistics and that they were marked by an exceptional destiny, that of William Jones. Jones gave prise to Sanskrit and his ideas were well received by European scientists. In 1808 there is a landmark book "Uber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier" by Friedrich von Schlege, about <<indian language and wisdom>>. Franz Bopp was the first prominent linguist which used the compound term "Indo-European", Indias priority reflecting the idea of superiority in language and wisdom. In the middle of 19th century Indo-European studies was not only a field of purely academic debate, but an area that appear more numerous digressions that can only be called pseudo-academic. In parallel evolved a scientific current statements producer itself and one that invent and maintain ideological myths. The adjective created by Jones embraced representatives of a exremisteuropocentrist current who came to image all Indo-Europeans, ancestry superior Aryan race (blonde and blue eyes). German school gave up at the term "indoeuropaisch" in favor of the "indogermanisch", but admirable are those who have continued to study Indo-European phenomenon without regard to ideological myths in vogue. We cannot overlook the true first Romanian linguist and indo-european, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. It should be noted that, unlike those who wrong understood Sanskrit language the status of the mother, Hasdeu see properly position this language from Indo-European languages. Hasdeu remains monumental for Romanian languistic, due to the knowledge and ability to interpret. In 20th Century real archeology gave more consistent data, some of them paving the way for some Indo-European idioms unknown till then. For example, in 1908 were published by E. Sieg and W. Siegling first deciphering of toharic texts; in 1915 Czech scientist, B. Hrozny, decipher tablets written in Hittite first discovered in Turkey in 1906, by the archaeologist H. Winckler and for the ancient Greek were disclosed Mycenaean beginnings. We can say that in the first half of the 20th century, historical linguistics and Indo-European studies saw some decline in because more and more linguists oriented to synchronous approaches. Some blows suffered traditional IndoEuropeans studies and new orientations in diachronic linguistics and represented the nostratica school.

In the end, the author returns to Marija Gimbutas who has exceptional worth in imposing of steppe thesis in Indo-European studies and some opinions that have become ideological coloration. She tried to impose definitive the idea that Indo-Europeanization was made by pastoral steppe. Even if she has been accused of exaggeration, Gimbutas has supported with plenty of arguments according to which infiltration warriors European peoples, with a lifestyle dominant social pastorals and eminently patriarchal system, caused a disintegration of civilization superior type of intrusion steppe. Gimbutas is now considered the founder of a field which she called "arheomitologie". I think that in this article the author has presented important moments in the evolution of the area known today as Indo-European studies drawing information from various books. Questions: 1. How much Romanian people are dealing with Indo-Europeans studies? 2. What does it means pastoralisti stepici?