Proto-Indo-European religion

Proto-Indo-European religion is not directly attested, but reconstruction has been attempted based on the existence of similarities among the deities, religious practices and mythologies of the Indo-European peoples. The hypothesized reconstructions below are based on linguistic evidence using the comparative method. Archaeological evidence is difficult to match to any specific culture in the period of early Indo-European culture in the Chalcolithic.[1] Other approaches to Indo-European mythology are possible, most notably the trifunctional hypothesis of Georges Dumézil.[2]

Pantheon

Linguists are able to reconstruct the names of some deities in the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) from many types of sources. Some of the proposed deity names are more readily accepted among scholars than others.[3]

The term for "a god" was *deiwos,[4] reflected in Hittite, sius; Latin, deus, divus; Sanskrit, deva; Avestan, daeva (later, Persian, divs); Welsh, duw; Irish, dia; Lithuanian, Dievas; Latvian, Dievs.[5]

A fuller treatment of the subject of the Indo-European Pantheon would not merely list the cognate names but describe additional correspondences in the "family relationships", festival dates, associated myths (but see Mythology section) and special powers.

Pandemonium

"Pandemonium" is Jaan Puhvel's word for the mutual demonization that occurred when the Younger-Avesta demonized the daevas, and the post-Rigvedic texts demonized the asuras. Neither demonization occurs in the oldest texts: in the Rigveda, there is not yet any hard-and-fast distinction between asuras and dēvas, and even in the later Vedas, the two groups (though thematically in opposition) cooperate at certain times.[19] In the Old Avestan texts the daevas are to be rejected for being misguided by the "lie", but they are still gods, and not demons.[20]

However, in the 19th century this distinction between the older and younger texts had not yet been made, and in 1884 Martin Haug "postulated his thesis that the transition of both the words [asuras and devas] into the designations of the demons ... is based on a prehistoric schism in religion ..."[21] The observation was reiterated by Jacob Grimm (DM3, p. 985), who, like Haug, considered it to be the theological basis of Zoroastrianism's dualism.

Before this (in the 1850s), Westergaard had attributed the Younger-Avesta's demonization of the daevas to a "moral reaction against Vedic polytheism", but that (unlike the general notion of a mutual demonization) was very quickly rejected, and by 1895 James Darmesteter noted that it has "no longer [had] any supporter."[22] Nonetheless, some modern authors like Mallory and Adams still refer to Zoroastrianism as a "religious reformation" of Vedic religion (Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 408–09). Most scholars however stress that there were two independent developments in ancient Iran and post-Rigvedic India, but nonetheless to be considered against the common background of prehistoric Indo-Iranian religion where both groups coexisted, with the asuras, perhaps even as a subset (having a particular common characteristic, like the Adityas) of the daevas, the national gods.

Mythology

Dragon or Serpent

One common myth among almost all Indo-European mythologies is a battle ending with a hero or god slaying a serpent or dragon of some sort (Watkins 1995).

There are also analogous stories in other neighbouring mythologies: Anu or Marduk vs. Tiamat in Mesopotamian mythology; Ra vs. Apep in Egyptian mythology; Baal or El vs. Lotan or Yam-Nahar in Levantine mythology; Yahweh or Gabriel vs. Leviathan or Rahab or Tannin in Jewish mythology; Michael the Archangel and, Christ vs. Satan (in the form of a seven-headed dragon), Virgin Mary crushing a serpent in Roman Catholic iconography (see Book of Revelation 12), Saint George and the Dragon in Christian mythology. The myth symbolized a clash between forces of order and chaos (represented by the serpent), and the god or hero would always win (except in some mythologies, such as the Norse Ragnarök myth in which both die). Serpentine aspects can be found in many Greek aquatic deities, most notably Poseidon, Oceanus, Triton, Typhon (who carries many chthonic attributes while not specifically linked with the sea), Ophion, and also the Slavic Veles. Possibly called *kʷr̥mis, or some name cognate with *Varuna/Werunos or the root *Wel/Vel- (VS Varuna, who is associated with the serpentine naga, Vala and Vṛtra, Slavic Veles, Baltic velnias), or "serpent" (Hittite Illuyanka, VS Ahis, Iranian azhi, Greek ophis and Ophion, and Latin anguis), or the root *dheubh- (Greek Typhon and Python).

Sun

Brothers

Analysis of different Indo-European tales indicates the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed there were two progenitors of mankind: *Manu- ("Man") and *Yemo- ("Twin"), his twin brother. A reconstructed creation myth involving the two is given by D.W. Anthony, attributed in part to Bruce Lincoln:[24] Manu and Yemo traverse the cosmos, accompanied by the primordial cow, and finally deciding to create the world. To do so, Manu sacrifices either Yemo or the cow, and with help from the sky father, the storm god and the divine twins, forges the earth from the remains. Manu thus becomes the first priest and establishes the practice of sacrifice. The sky gods then present cattle to the third man, *Trito, who loses it to the three-headed serpent *Ngwhi, but eventually overcomes this monster either alone or aided by the sky father. Trito is now the first warrior and ensures that the cycle of mutual giving between gods and humans may continue.

Reflexes of *Manu include Indic Manu, Germanic Mannus; of Yemo, Indic Yama, Avestan Yima, Norse Ymir, possibly Roman Remus (< earlier Italic *iemus).[24]

There are almost no mythological tales of Rome, but the early "history" of Rome is recognized as being an historicized version of various old myths. Romulus and Remus were twin brothers. They both have stories in which they are killed.

The Germanic languages have information about both Ymir and Mannus (cognates of *Yemo- and *Manu- respectively), but they never appear in the same myth, rather they appear only in myths widely separated in both time and circumstances.

Bulls

Other myths

Other myths may have included:

Creation myths

Cyclic myths

Culture myths

Flood myth

Ritual and sacredness

Émile Benveniste states that "there is no common [IE] term to designate religion itself, or cult, or the priest, not even one of the personal gods".[28] There are, however, terms denoting ritual practice reconstructed in Indo-Iranian religion which have root cognates in other branches, hinting at common PIE concepts. Thus, the stem *hrta-, usually translated as "(cosmic) order" (Vedic ŗta and Iranian arta,[29] English right, possibly cognate with rite). Benveniste states, "We have here one of the cardinal notions of the legal world of the Indo-Europeans to say nothing of their religious and moral ideas" (pp. 379–381). He also adds that an abstract suffix -tu formed the Vedic stem ŗtu-, Avestan ratu- which designated order, particularly in the seasons and periods of time and which appears in Latin ritus "rite" and Sanskrit ritu.

The following list of reconstructed PIE religious terms is based on EIEC[30] and Lyle Campbell[31]

Benveniste also posits the existence of a dual conception of sacredness, divided into a positive side, the intrinsic, otherworldly power of deities; and a negative side, sacredness of objects in the world that make them taboo for humans. This opposition is found in word pairs such as the Latin sacrus/sanctus and Greek ἅγιος/ἱερός.[33]

Development

The various Indo-European daughter-cultures continued elements of PIE religion, syncretizing it with innovations and foreign elements, notably Ancient Near Eastern and Dravidian elements, the reforms of Zoroaster and Buddha, and the spread of Christianity and Islam.

See also

References

  1. Mallory & Adams 1989
  2. Mythe et Épopée I, II, III, by G. Dumézil, Gallimard, 1995.
  3. In order to present a consistent notation, the reconstructed forms used here are cited from Mallory & Adams 2006. For further explanation of the laryngeals – <h1>, <h2>, and <h3> – see the Laryngeal theory article.
  4. Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 408
  5. Indo-European *Deiwos and Related Words by Grace Sturtevant Hopkins (Language Dissertations published by the Linguistic Society of America, Number XII, December 1932)
  6. Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 409–31
  7. Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 267
  8. Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995, p. 760
  9. Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 410–33
  10. Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 409, 410, 432
  11. Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 294, 301
  12. Mallory & Adams 2006, pp. 702, 780; Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995
  13. The Journal of Indo-European Studies, publ. by JIES, Washington, DC., 1973 and continuing
  14. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. 1987. p. 140.
  15. Lincoln, Bruce. Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology & Practice. 1991
  16. Jaan Puhvel, Analecta Indoeuropaea, (a collection of articles), publ. by Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck, 1981
  17. Encyclopedia of IE Culture, p. 556.
  18. 1 2 Dexter, Miriam Robbins. Proto-Indo-European Sun Maidens and Gods of the Moon. Mankind Quarterly 25:1 & 2 (Fall/Winter, 1984), pp. 137–144.
  19. Kuiper, F.B.J. (1983). Irwin, J., ed. Ancient Indian Cosmology. Delhi: Vikas..
  20. Herrenschmidt, Clarisse; Kellens, Jean (1993). "*Daiva". Encyclopaedia Iranica 6. Cosa Mesa: Mazda. p. 601..
  21. Hillebrandt, Alfred (1891). Sarma, Sreeramula Rajeswara, trans. 1981, ed. Vedic Mythology 2. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. p. 264..
  22. Darmesteter, James (1895). Müller, Max, ed. Sacred Books of the East 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. lii..
  23. Charles Hartley. "Rahu & Ketu". Hartwick college, New York, USA. Retrieved 21 May 2013.
  24. 1 2 Anthony, David W. (2010). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. pp. 134–135.
  25. One of the original sources for the stories of Romulus and Remus is Livy's History of Rome Vol. 1, parts iv–vii and xvi. This has been published in an Everyman edition, translated by W.M. Roberts, E.P. Dutton & Co. NY, 1912.
  26. The original source is the last chapter of the Táin Bó Cúalnge, usually called in English, The Cattle Raid of Cooley. These quotations are from The Ancient Irish Epic Tale, Táin Bó Cúalnge, translated by Joseph Dunn, publ. David Nutt, London, 1914.
  27. The original source for this is a folktale called Saulė and Vejų Motina (The Sun and the Mother of the Winds), pp. 309–13, of M. Davainis-Silvestraitis' Collection, Pasakos, Sakmės, Oracijos (Tales, Legends and Orations) published in Vilnius, 1973. The English version is from p. 67 Of Gods and Men by Algirdas J. Greimas, translated by Milda Newman, Indiana Univ. Press, Indianapolis, 1992.
  28. Indo-European Language and Society by Émile Benveniste (transl. by Elizabeth Palmer, pp. 445–6; orig. title Le vocabulaire des institutions Indo-Européennes, 1969), University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida, 1973.
  29. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995 p. 810; c.f. Hittite ara, UL ara, DAra (a Hittite goddess).
  30. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, J.P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams, ed., Fitzroy Dearborn, London, 1997.
  31. Historical Linguistics, An Introduction, by Lyle Campbell, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2004, pp. 391-392; see also Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995, pp. 832-7, ritual language.
  32. Deutsche Mythologie by Jacob Grimm, (English title Teutonic Mythology, transl. by Stallybrass), George Bell and Sons, London, 1883.
  33. Polomé, Edgar C.; Mallory, J. P. (1997). "Sacred". In Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. pp. 493–494.

Further reading

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 01, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.