Jean-Paul Demoule Quotes

In 1973, Pearson, through the intermediary of the Institute for the Study of Man, founded the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which would rapidly become a leading reference in the field. The editorial committee was comprised of four members: Roger Pearson himself, archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, Finnish linguist Raimo Anttila, and Belgian Indo-Europeanist Edgar Polomé. Incidentally, Polomé, Pearson and Gimbutas were also part of the patronage committee of Nouvelle École. Assuredly, the scientific standing of these three scholars is indisputable, as is that of most of the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which initially numbered thirty-six members. However, in their midst we once again encounter Franz Altheim, Himmler’s collaborator, who was also on the patronage committee of Nouvelle École; indeed several other members, such as Mircea Eliade, Scott Littleton, and Rüdiger Schmitt, belonged to both committees, and it is not always possible to ascertain if these scientists were fully aware of the nature of the journal.

Without exaggeration and in a definitive reply to Momigliano (who paradoxically was a member of the Italian Fascist Party before having to flee Mussolini’s anti-Semitic laws) and Ginzburg, we can state that Dumézil was not a Nazi supporter in the 1930s. He was, however, a fascist in the precise meaning of the term.

In his “Que sais-je?” on the Indo-Europeans, which is a follow-on to a first volume almost entirely devoted to Indo-European linguistics, Jean Haudry describes an ideal proto Indo-European society, which for the most part belongs to the realm of fantasy as becomes more and more obvious as the book progresses.

There is a degree of coherence when, in the context of the Indo-European question, such robust biological racism is associated with a thesis that is both Euro-centrist and migrationist; this is in contrast to Broca’s “entrenched” anti-linguistic autochtonism. In the opinion of Clémence Royer, “a race that is powerful enough to overrun all of Europe and all of western Asia cannot have had its origins in a Pamirian valley; mountain peoples are peoples who have retreated and defend themselves; they are never conquering peoples.” Yet “the blond European race, as a whole, appears to have always been a race of travelers, a race that is essentially war-like and conquering.” “In the end, these high plateaus of Asia can be discounted; once we wanted to believe that these plateaus were the birthplace of everything but all they have ever given rise to are avalanches.”

This controversial scholar, the first translator of Darwin and by extension the first promoter of “social Darwinism” in France, stated in her preface to the Origine des espèces that the most courageous “races” had overcome the others since “man, having become the stronger, could impose himself on the mate that pleased him most; and hence woman, who had nothing to do but please and submit, became more and more beautiful, in accordance with man’s ideal, man who himself became even stronger, having only to fight, command, and protect.” Thus we see the “reckless and blind” error of Christianity and democracy which scorned natural selection: “while all care, all devotions of love and pity are considered to be owed to the deposed and degenerate representatives of the species, there is nothing to encourage the development of the emerging force or to propagate merit, talent and virtue.”

It is presumptuous to say the least to claim that the migratory routes traveled by the Indo-Europeans from their original Homeland have now been clearly traced.

We will now turn our attention to the two other principal hypotheses, both migrationist and both with a long history (although regularly updated): on the one hand, a Near Eastern origin linked to the arrival of Neolithic colonists, and, on the other, an origin in the steppes to the north of the Black Sea. We will see that the difficulties which they pose ought to prompt us to question the overly simplistic model on which they are both founded.

The idea of a single, localized, original Homeland (Urheimat) which was the cradle of the original People is just one of the possible hypotheses that might account for the similarities between the Indo-European languages.

The model of diffusion of “archaeological cultures,” each corresponding to a given “people,” is both naturalist and directly inspired by the nation states of the nineteenth century; it does not correspond to numerous situations provided, for example, by the ethnology of other continents or by the history and archaeology of protohistoric peoples of Early Medieval Europe.

The past and present exploitation by nationalist and extremist movements of the canonical Indo-European model of an original People who emerged from an original Homeland is a magnified reflection of the ideological representations that are underpinned by this model.

While no one would dream of questioning the resemblances between the various so-called Indo-European languages, the centrifugal arborescent model in its current forms cannot be considered as validated due to the numerous contradictions that it contains. Furthermore, abuses, both past and present, of this model should incite us to the utmost rigor. We must therefore turn toward much more complex and multidisciplinary models concerning historical phenomena that span millennia if we are to meaningfully explore the multiplicity of problems that make up the “Indo-European question.”

We do not find any evidence for the diffusion of the entire material culture of the steppes to those regions where historically attested Indo-European languages were spoken

The 'problem' is primarily in the head of Indo-Europeanists: It is a problem of interpretative logic and ideology. We have seen that one primarily places the lE's in the north if one is German, . . . in the east if one is Russian, and in the middle if, being Italian or Spanish, one has no chance of competing for the privilege.