Proto-Indo-European mythology

Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and deities associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Although the mythological motifs are not directly attested – since Proto-Indo-European speakers lived in preliterate societies – scholars of comparative mythology have reconstructed details from inherited similarities in mythological concepts found in Indo-European languages, based on the assumption that parts of the Proto-Indo-Europeans' original belief systems survived in the daughter traditions. The Proto-Indo-European pantheon includes a number of securely reconstructed deities, which in various Indo-European traditions have cognate names (linguistic siblings from a common origin) and are associated with similar attributes and myths. These include *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, the daylight-sky god; his consort *Dʰéǵʰōm, the earth mother; his daughter *H₂éwsōs, the dawn goddess; his sons the Divine Twins; a solar deity *Seh₂ul; and a moon deity *Meh₁not. Some deities, like the weather god *Perkʷunos or the herding-god *Péh₂usōn, are only attested in limited geographic regions—Western (i.e. European) and Graeco-Aryan, respectively—and could therefore represent late additions that were unknown in other Indo-European cultures. Some myths are also securely dated to Proto-Indo-European times, since they feature both linguistic and thematic evidence of an inherited motif: a story portraying a mythical figure associated with thunder and slaying a multi-headed serpent to release torrents of pent-up water; a creation myth involving two brothers, one of whom sacrifices the other in order to create the world; and probably the belief that the Otherworld was guarded by a watchdog and could only be reached by crossing a river. Various schools of thought exist regarding possible interpretations of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology. The main mythologies used in comparative reconstruction are Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Greek, Slavic, Hittite, Armenian, and Albanian.

Methods of reconstruction

Schools of thought The mythology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is not directly attested and it is difficult to match their language to archaeological findings related to any specific culture from the Chalcolithic. Nonetheless, scholars of comparative mythology have attempted to reconstruct aspects of Proto-Indo-European mythology based on the existence of linguistic and thematic similarities among the deities, religious practices, and myths of various Indo-European peoples. This method is known as the comparative method. Different schools of thought have approached the subject of Proto-Indo-European mythology from different angles. The Meteorological or Naturist School holds that Proto-Indo-European myths initially emerged as explanations for natural phenomena, such as the Sky, the Sun, the Moon, and the Dawn. Rituals were therefore centered around the worship of those elemental deities. This interpretation was popular among early scholars, such as Friedrich Max Müller, who saw all myths as fundamentally solar allegories. Although recently revived by some scholars like Jean Haudry and Martin L. West, this school lost most of its scholarly support in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Ritual School, which first became prominent in the late nineteenth century, holds that Proto-Indo-European myths are best understood as stories invented to explain various rituals and religious practices. Scholars of the Ritual School argue that those rituals should be interpreted as attempts to manipulate the universe in order to obtain its favours. This interpretation reached the height of its popularity during the early twentieth century, and many of its most prominent early proponents, such as James George Frazer and Jane Ellen Harrison, were classical scholars. Bruce Lincoln, a contemporary member of the Ritual School, argues for instance that the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that every sacrifice was a reenactment of the original sacrifice performed by the founder of the human race on his twin brother. The Functionalist School, by contrast, holds that myths served as stories reinforcing social behaviours through the meta-narrative justification of a traditional order. Scholars of the Functionalist School were greatly influenced by the trifunctional system proposed by Georges Dumézil, which postulates a tripartite ideology reflected in a threefold division between a clerical class (encompassing both the religious and social functions of the priests and rulers), a warrior class (connected with the concepts of violence and bravery), and a class of farmers or husbandmen (associated with fertility and craftsmanship), on the basis that many historically known groups speaking Indo-European languages show such a division. Dumézil's theory had a major influence on Indo-European studies from the mid-20th century onwards, and some scholars continue to operate under its framework, although it has also been criticized as aprioristic and too inclusive, and thus impossible to be proved or disproved. The Structuralist School argues that Proto-Indo-European mythology was largely centered around the concept of dualistic opposition. They generally hold that the mental structure of all human beings is designed to set up opposing patterns in order to resolve conflicting elements. This approach tends to focus on cultural universals within the realm of mythology rather than the genetic origins of those myths, such as the fundamental and binary opposition rooted in the nature of marriage proposed by Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov. It also offers refinements of the trifunctional system by highlighting the oppositional elements present within each function, such as the creative and destructive elements both found within the role of the warrior.

Source mythologies

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.