Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Literary and Cultural Evidence of Indo-European Pastoralism

  1. #1
    Spirit of the Reich
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Ahnenerbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Volksdeutscher
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Y-DNA
    I-M170
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    Gau Westmark
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Gemini
    Family
    Polyamory
    Occupation
    Herbalist
    Politics
    Ecological Geniocracy
    Religion
    Vedic
    Posts
    1,220
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    206
    Thanked in
    109 Posts

    Arrow Literary and Cultural Evidence of Indo-European Pastoralism

    By A. J. West


    One of the things that annoys me about the non-steppe origin hypotheses for Indo-European is that they fail to explain some of the most basic data of all. The Anatolian hypothesis fails to explain the eastern Indo-European languages - Indo-Iranian and Tocharian - and it focuses unduly on Europe, as if the only expansion of IE occurred in Europe.

    The out-of-India hypothesis fails to explain any of the data, except the presence of IE languages in India (a steppe origin explains this equally well, of course).

    But perhaps the most obvious failing is that Indo-European cultural traditions are fairly constant, and the non-steppe hypotheses make no sense of them.

    I'm just going to go over a few bits of M. L. West's Indo-European Poetry and Myth to show how cultural traits have to be made explicable by language origin hypotheses. It is true that this evidence is comparatively weak, but that's not the point. The point is that the nature of Indo-European culture and society points to a steppe origin, however weakly.

    It seems to me that the cultural evidence means that the null hypothesis should be that Proto-Indo-European was spoken on the steppe by horse-riding pastoralists, given that there is a slight controversy over Indo-European origins.

    Indo-European-speaking groups in historic times loved horses. Whether they lived in France or Persia, they waxed lyrical about equids. Horses were the subjects of ritual: in several documented cases, stallions were sexually assaulted by kings and then slaughtered in great ritual events.

    Events of this nature were documented in Ireland and India, both at extremes of the Indo-European distribution - Ireland and India are clearly not related through any means other than IE ancestry. In India, the ritual was referred to as aśvamedhá, 'horse sacrifice'.

    West describes the ritual (p.417-418):

    Its preparation took a year. The central act was the sacrifice of a prize white or grey stallion which had had no contact with mares during that time and which had drawn the king's chariot. After it was killed and before it was dismembered, the principal queen lay down and passed the night with it under covers, and verses were chanted encouraging it to impregnate her. So here too the king's consort was required to enact a kind of supernatural hieros gamos [as in similar Greek traditions].


    He continues:

    Scholars have noted an analogy between the aśvamedhá and a disgusting ritual recorded from twelfth-century Donegal. When a new king was consecrated, the people assembled and he, declaring himself to be a horse, copulated with a white mare in front of them. The animal was at once sacrificed and dismembered and the meat was boiled. A large barrel was filled with the broth. The naked king climed into it and sat there, dipping his mouth in to sup, while the gobbets of boiled meat were distributed among the spectators.


    Furthermore:

    ...it is related that the assumption of the Swedish kingship by the pagan Svein was ratified by the sacrifice, dismemberment, and consumption of a horse.


    So here we have evidence of a similar ritual activity in three parts of the Indo-European world: India, Ireland, and Sweden. Or, Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), Irish (Celtic), and Norse (Germanic). Similar rituals were also present in Rome and, according to Roman sources, Gaul. Humans copulating with horses also appear on Swedish rock art of the Nordic Bronze Age.

    These groups are separated by vast distances and were not related by any means except their shared Indo-European ancestry. They all sacrificed and ate horses, sometimes copulating with them - and horses were assuredly not part of the Neolithic expansion into Europe that some people would associate with the spread of Indo-European languages. The distribution of this tradition doesn't make sense given a Neolithic agricultural expansion. It does make sense given a steppe origin in the Eurasian Bronze Age.

    Again, this evidence is comparatively weak. But it should still be taken into account.

    Horses also appear in several standard phrases. The phrase 'horses and men' appears in the poetic language of many Indo-European traditions, in that order - almost always 'horses' first and 'men' after, often in poetry describing combat. This is found in Persian, Greek, Latin, and several Celtic traditions, not the mention the Aryan tradition of the Vedas. And, of course, the word for 'horse' can be reconstructed to Proto-Indo-European.

    Perhaps the strongest cultural and literary evidence for Indo-European steppe pastoralism is the presence of cattle raiding in almost every IE tradition. In fact, West, who is professor emeritus at All Soul's College (and, I think, not someone to take lightly), examines the literary evidence wholly through the lens of a steppe origin (p.451):

    A form of aggression often celebrated in the Indo-European literatures is the cattle raid. The domestication of the horse allowed the early pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe to herd much larger numbers of animals than before, roaming over a vaster area. It also provided a means of driving off other people's flocks and herds. This was the easiest way to acquire wealth, which was commonly measured in cattle. But it was liable to provoke fighting.



    West then goes through evidence from everywhere. The mythological Theban War was fought, according to Hesiod, 'on account of Oedipus' flocks'. In the Rigveda (RV 10.38), there is a prayer for success in a cattle raid:

    In this glorious battle, Indra,
    this energetic tumult, urge us on to win,
    in the cattle raid where among the bold beringed ones [warriors]
    the arrows fly in all directions for men's defeat.



    There is also evidence from the Mahabharata (4. 29-61); from the yasnas of Zarathushtra (Y. 12. 2) ('I abjure thievery and cattle-raiding, despoiling and devastating the great Mazdakayasnian clans'); from Ireland (táin, meaning 'cattle raid'; see especially the Táin Bó Cúailnge, the famous 'cattle raid of Cooley'); and from pre-Germanic Britain ('Eithinyn the son of Boddwadaf "attacked in force for the herd(s) of the East" [Y Gododdin 434]').

    Speakers of Indo-European languages appear in all of these traditions as pastoralists for whom cattle were wealth. They were belligerent, tribal, and pastoral, and they used horses or chariots to conduct raids on one another's flocks. This appears clearly in literary traditions from every corner of the Indo-European world.

    Yet again, I appreciate that this evidence is relatively weak. Cultural traditions can change readily, and something as visceral as a horse sacrifice associated with kingship could, I suppose, have spread through a different method than by association with the Indo-European language family.

    But far from being primarily agriculturalists for whom the horse was a later innovation (as the Anatolian hypothesis claims), Indo-European speakers appear in their traditions as pastoralists for whom horses and the machines they pulled were important. Equine traditions with consistent themes and obviously shared ancestry appear throughout the Indo-European world, including the easterly and westerly extremes, and they also appear in the archaeological evidence from the southern Russian steppe.

    The evidence for Indo-European origins should come from as many corners as possible. I'm concerned when I see studies that rely on lists of a hundred cognates or that only look at one segment of evidence. Even 'weak' evidence, like that from literary sources and cultural traditions, should be taken into account.

    Where phylogeographic models and statistical assessments are strongest - as with, say, Arawak - the models also accord with the cultural and literary data from the societies in question. The recent phylogeographic models of the Indo-European languages published in Science do not do this, and they neglect almost every sort of data beyond that represented by the narrow statistical methodology employed. They also neglect languages of known ancestry but for which we lack a list of cognate terms, including the Iranic languages of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

    Just because a method appears to be more scientific than another doesn't mean that it actually is. Science should use all of the available evidence, not merely the quantifiable kind.

    I want to make something very clear. I have seen this repeated in several places, so I'll tackle it here. The Indo-European expansion did not happen because of chariots. Wheeled vehicles probably were involved - but they were wagons, not chariots. Chariots require the rider to stand up. They can carry little in the way of luggage or necessary items. They are fast-moving platforms for riders to use when racing or fighting, not the primary method of Indo-European transportation. They would have made Indo-European migration very uncomfortable indeed. It is a strawman to suggest that migrations occurred because of chariots according to the steppe hypothesis.

    Furthermore, I have seen some people suggest that the Anatolian hypothesis is innately superior because wheeled migration into prehistoric Europe is a ridiculous proposition. It was a heavily-forested area, unsuitable for chariots and wagons, according to these people.

    Well, Europe was heavily-forested - but this was true in historic times as well as prehistoric. Britain, for instance, was covered in thick forest at the time of the Roman empire. And yet it is very clear that the Britons fought on chariots and moved in wagons, as did the Romans, Germanic tribespeople, the Greeks, the Balts and Slavs, and the continental Celts. The forest was no impediment in historic times, so why infer that it was in prehistoric times?


    Source: West's Ancient World

  2. #2
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Just a note: the wheeled chariot provides a date for expansion from the IE urheimat. The urheimat theory does not depend upon it.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Modern Europeans are the most evolved people on the planet. This can be said because we are the people who have changed to exploit a new energy source, milk. Milk products provide carbohydrate, fat and protein making other sources of protein unnecessary. But only people who have changed to digest milk sugar can exploit this new energy source. Along with the ability to do this came depigmentation to make up for the shortfall of vitamin D when using milk as a protein source.

    All this cultural and physical change is only possible if Europeans are keeping milking animals. To do this on a large extent is only possible in a plains environment where the animals can graze and move on.

    If we just follow these two leads it brings us to a northern plains environment and to exactly the place where other evidence says the origins of the Indo-European people are.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Modern Europeans are the most evolved people on the planet. This can be said because we are the people who have changed to exploit a new energy source, milk. Milk products provide carbohydrate, fat and protein making other sources of protein unnecessary. But only people who have changed to digest milk sugar can exploit this new energy source. Along with the ability to do this came depigmentation to make up for the shortfall of vitamin D when using milk as a protein source.
    Bantus also consume dairy products.

    By the way, I'd like to see a source suggesting Middle Easterners interpet blue eyes as evil. Part of me suspects confusion with the sporadic trait of silver eyes that glow in the dark (tapeta lucida) but the Egyptians saw something serpent-like in the Mitanni. When darkies in ISIS were trading Yezidi girls they were paying more for girls with blue eyes, this does not sound like aversion to me...

    Depigmentation is likeliest the result of sexual selection, with an important caveat some non-tropical peoples like Tasmanians didn't become white. I'm unsure this applies to eyes as it does to skin. Light eyes are not paedomorphic he way babies are born light so would it trigger feelings of nurture?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    972
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Catterick View Post
    Bantus also consume dairy products.

    By the way, I'd like to see a source suggesting Middle Easterners interpet blue eyes as evil. Part of me suspects confusion with the sporadic trait of silver eyes that glow in the dark (tapeta lucida) but the Egyptians saw something serpent-like in the Mitanni. When darkies in ISIS were trading Yezidi girls they were paying more for girls with blue eyes, this does not sound like aversion to me...

    Depigmentation is likeliest the result of sexual selection, with an important caveat some non-tropical peoples like Tasmanians didn't become white. I'm unsure this applies to eyes as it does to skin. Light eyes are not paedomorphic he way babies are born light so would it trigger feelings of nurture?
    Yes, there exists the ability to digest milk as adult in East Africa, the Arabian peninsula and Mongolia as well as Europe. But ours is better than theirs. The reason is this simple gene is just duplicated many times in Europeans and less many times in other groups.

    Light skin is necessary for milk drinkers at latitudes north of 55 degrees. Otherwise the milk-grain diet does not provide enough vitamin D, especially important for the young. It may be lighter skin came about in Neanderthal times since children born in the winter or spring may not have been able to get enough vitamin D in Northwestern Europe even eating meat. I am sure Neanderthals living in what is now the UK, at the northern extent of their range, had very light, probably pinkish, skin.

    I think blue eyes vs. mixed light eyes are different. Mixed light (which can actually be lighter than blue) seems to be old and Neanderthal. Really blue eyes seems to be only 7000 years old and may have nothing to do with light skin or milk drinking--vitamin D problems. It may be sexual selection, I have no idea.

    Tell us about this, please:

    Part of me suspects confusion with the sporadic trait of silver eyes that glow in the dark (tapeta lucida

  6. #6
    Senior Member Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    20
    Thanked in
    20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I think blue eyes vs. mixed light eyes are different. Mixed light (which can actually be lighter than blue) seems to be old and Neanderthal. Really blue eyes seems to be only 7000 years old and may have nothing to do with light skin or milk drinking--vitamin D problems. It may be sexual selection, I have no idea.
    Other light coloured eyes are the result of blue pigment scattered among brown pigment.

    Tell us about this, please:

    Part of me suspects confusion with the sporadic trait of silver eyes that glow in the dark (tapeta lucida).
    Tapetum lucidum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapetum_lucidum

    Its very rare in humans but it occurs infrequently.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, May 27th, 2017, 03:58 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Friday, June 3rd, 2011, 06:15 PM
  3. Indo-European Cultural Revival
    By infoterror in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, February 20th, 2005, 11:07 PM
  4. Reconstructing An Indo-European Cultural Identity
    By infoterror in forum Germanic Europe & Outlying Islands
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, February 20th, 2005, 10:14 PM
  5. Major Work: 'Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence' - J. V. Day (2001)
    By BodewinTheSilent in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, October 4th, 2003, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •