Proto-Indo-European mythology
Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and deities associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, speakers of the hypothesized Proto-Indo-European language. 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, since they are both cognates—linguistic siblings from a common origin—and associated with similar attributes and body of myths: such as Dyeus, the daylight-sky god; his consort Dhéǵhōm, the earth mother; his daughter Hausos, the dawn goddess; his sons the Divine Twins; and Seh₂ul and Meh₁not, a solar deity and moon deity, respectively. Some deities, like the weather god Perkwunos or the herding-god Péh₂usōn, are only attested in a limited number of traditions—Western and Graeco-Aryan, respectively—and could therefore represent late additions that did not spread throughout the various Indo-European dialects.
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 water that had previously been pent up; 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, a warrior class, and a class of farmers or husbandmen, 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.
Cosmology
There was a fundamental opposition between the never-aging gods dwelling above in the skies and the mortal humans living beneath on the earth. Earth was perceived as a vast, flat and circular continent surrounded by waters. Although they may sometimes be identified with mythical figures or stories, the stars were not bound to any particular cosmic significance and were perceived as ornamental more than anything else. According to Martin L. West, the idea of the world-tree is probably a later import from North Asiatic cosmologies: "The Greek myth might be derived from the Near East, and the Indic and Germanic ideas of a pillar from the shamanistic cosmologies of the Finno-Ugric and other peoples of central and northern Asia."Cosmogony
Reconstruction
There is no scholarly consensus as to which of the variants is the most accurate reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European cosmogonic myth. Bruce Lincoln's reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European motif known as "Twin and Man" is supported by a number of scholars such as Jaan Puhvel, J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, David W. Anthony, and, in part, Martin L. West. Although some thematic parallels can be made with traditions of the Ancient Near East, and even Polynesian or South American legends, Lincoln argues that the linguistic correspondences found in descendant cognates of Manu and Yemo make it very likely that the myth has a Proto-Indo-European origin. According to Edgar C. Polomé, "some elements of the are distinctively Indo-European", but the reconstruction proposed by Lincoln "makes too unprovable assumptions to account for the fundamental changes implied by the Scandinavian version". David A. Leeming also notes that the concept of the Cosmic egg, symbolizing the primordial state from which the universe arises, is found in many Indo-European creation myths.Creation myth
Lincoln reconstructs a creation myth involving twin brothers, Manu and Yemo, as the progenitors of the world and humankind, and a hero named Trito who ensured the continuity of the original sacrifice. Regarding the primordial state that may have preceded the creation process, West notes that the Vedic, Norse and, at least partially, the Greek traditions give evidence of an era when the cosmological elements were absent, with similar formulae insisting on their non-existence: "neither non-being was nor being was at that time; there was not the air, nor the heaven beyond it", "there was not sand nor sea nor the cool waves; earth was nowhere nor heaven above; Ginnungagap there was, but grass nowhere", "there was Chasm and Night and dark Erebos at first, and broad Tartarus, but earth nor air nor heaven there was".In the creation myth, the first man Manu and his twin Yemo are crossing the cosmos, accompanied by the giant primordial cow. To create the world, Manu sacrifices his brother and, with the help of heavenly deities, forges both the natural elements and human beings from his remains. Manu thus becomes the first priest after initiating sacrifice as the primordial condition for the world order, and his deceased brother Yemo the first king as social classes emerge from his anatomy. Although the European and Indo-Iranian versions differ on this matter, Lincoln argues that the primeval cow was most likely sacrificed in the original myth, giving birth to the other animals and vegetables, since the pastoral way of life of Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers was closer to that of Proto-Indo-European speakers.File:Yamantaka, Fear-Striking Vajra, Lord of Death on a water buffalo, Vajrayana Buddhism.jpg|thumb|Yama, an Indic reflex of Yemo, sitting on a water buffalo. To the third man Trito, the celestial gods then offer cattle as a divine gift, which is stolen by a three-headed serpent named Ngʷhi. Trito first suffers at his hands, but the hero eventually manages to overcome the monster, fortified by an intoxicating drink and aided by the Sky-Father. He eventually gives the recovered cattle back to a priest for it to be properly sacrificed. Trito is now the first warrior, maintaining through his heroic actions the cycle of mutual giving between gods and mortals.
Interpretations
According to Lincoln, Manu and Yemo seem to be the protagonists of "a myth of the sovereign function, establishing the model for later priests and kings", while the legend of Trito should be interpreted as "a myth of the warrior function, establishing the model for all later men of arms". The myth indeed recalls the Dumézilian tripartition of the cosmos between the priest, the warrior, and the herder.The story of Trito served as a model for later cattle raiding epic myths and most likely as a moral justification for the practice of raiding among Indo-European peoples. In the original legend, Trito is only taking back what rightfully belongs to his people, those who sacrifice properly to the gods. The myth has been interpreted either as a cosmic conflict between the heavenly hero and the earthly serpent, or as an Indo-European victory over non-Indo-European people, the monster symbolizing the aboriginal thief or usurper.
Some scholars have proposed that the primeval being Yemo was depicted as a two-fold hermaphrodite rather than a twin brother of Manu, both forming indeed a pair of complementary beings entwined together. The Germanic names Ymir and Tuisto were understood as twin, bisexual or hermaphrodite, and some myths give a sister to the Vedic Yama, also called Twin and with whom incest is discussed. In this interpretation, the primordial being may have self-sacrificed, or have been divided in two, a male half and a female half, embodying a prototypal separation of the sexes.