Eurasian Transfer of Knowledge vs. Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge ―The Times Before Writing―

/Summary In light of the widely discussed issues on the modernization and industrialization of East Asia, it is sometimes overlooked that there has been a constant exchange of knowledge between East Asia and Europe. This “transfer of knowledge” during all known times was associated with the traffic of humans, animals and goods and had an input on skills and techniques, too. And it were not only goods, skills and knowledge, but religions, world views and cultures that were exchanged. Thus is it productive to speak of an “transfer of knowledge”? Is it not rather productive to speak of a constant exchange and thus of an “interchange of knowledge” - and so of a steadily ongoing process of giving and taking? So is the real question what separates East Asia and Europe or what they have in common? It is precisely this general problem that is to be pursued in a special question in time, for which there are no written sources. So it is about the earliest history, possibly even the origin of exchange processes between East and West, which can be achieved with most modern methods. Are the latest methods and results of archeology providing us with information on whether, as of when and in what areas, an exchange of knowledge between East and West existed before the time of writing? This question is being examined in a central region of the exchange, namely the “Oasis Silk Road” with the “bottle neck” of the Taklamakan. The present study / presentation is only a small, highly incomplete “florilegium” - a selection of flowers. Pilot studies with precise questions would be needed. Such preliminary investigations and pilot studies could also be made for other regions of knowledge exchange and cultural interaction in East Asia in general. On the methodical side, all methods of historiography and archeology have their specific advantages, but also their specific disadvantages. In the issue “Eurasian Interchange of Knowledge in Times before Writing”, the combined results of historiography, modern archeology, and recent natural scientific and (molecular) biological archaeology are the basis for our current state of knowledge. On the long run the different methods and results from a variety of different scientific areas have to be evaluated in their meaningfulness, reach and validity for the historiography of human action. On the basis of the results from historiography and archeology in the widest sense, can be assumed that there has been an exchange of materials, products, skills and creatures - animals and humans - since the beginning of the early agrarian culture in the Neolithic Age. Exchange processes in the widest sense in the later times of writing therefore seldom meet an almost untouched field. Rather, exchange processes usually build on existing cultural peculiarities, which are already an amalgam and thus an inseparable mixture of previous exchange processes.