Indo-European Studies 1
Laura Fuller (Snow)
 |
1) Describe several of the factors that define a culture as Indo-European
and how those defining factors are useful in understanding that culture.
(minimum 300 words)
I
believe that in order to define a culture as Indo-European, we must first
define what we mean by culture. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines culture as: the customs, arts, social
institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social
group. As a sociologist, the term social
institutions refer to Education, Government or Political Structures, Religion,
Family Structures, and Economic Structures (Scott and Marshall). Looking at ancient cultures, it is difficult
at times to pick out the threads of each of these institutions. The relics we have to determine things like
family structure may not give us a complete picture. Physical evidence, such as pottery and
funeral practices can’t tell us everything we’d like to know about the customs
of a dead people. Thus, to define a
culture as Indo-European we would expect to see some cross over between some or
all of the above mentioned structures.
Perhaps
the most important part of the definition of culture in regards to being
classified as an Indo-European culture is having a language that is derived
from proto-Indo-European and thus shares etymological roots with other
Indo-European languages, more than loan words can account for. Indeed, this seems to be the most common way
to determine the relationship between cultures.
The idea is that if a cognate word exists in at least one European
derivative language and one Asian derivative language, then there was likely
some concept of what the word defines within the Indo-European culture before
it moved from its birthplace and split into the languages and cultures we’re
familiar with today (Mallory 112).
While
we don’t have significant data to consider most of the other social
institutions in regards to the Indo-Europeans, there are some conclusions that
scholars have drawn such as the importance of horses (Mallory 135) or the
formation of war-bands ( Mallory 124-125).
That said, there is nothing to show that these aspects of a culture are
unique to Indo-Europeans. Quite the
opposite. There is significant evidence
that horses and war-bands were common in and outside of Indo-European language
groups. Because of this sort of problem,
the clearest lines are drawn through language, rather than other aspects of
culture, which is why when we discuss label a group as Indo-European, it is do
to the common thread of language roots.
2) George Dumezil's theory of tripartition has been central to many modern
approaches to Indo-European studies. Outline Dumezil's three social functions
in general, and as they appear in one particular Indo-European society. Offer
your opinion as to whether you believe Dumezil's claim that tripartition is
central to IE cultures. (minimum 300 words)
In his theory of
Tripartition, Dumezil defined the three social functions as the priestly class,
the warrior class, and the producer/grower/farmer class. These classes described what role individuals
played in their society, and according to Dumezil, each Indo-European culture
had each of the three functions present in some form. While social change has made these functions
less clear cut in most modern societies, we can still see this tripartition
clearly in many up until modern times (Especially in the Indian Caste system)
(Mallory 131).
The first of the
functions is the priest class. In Indian
culture, this class was called Brahmins.
This class was believed to be sprung from the head of Brahma. They were responsible for all priestly duties
including rituals, teaching, and learning.
As people settled, the Brahmin class was not only responsible for religious
aspects, but also for government aspects in India as advisors and for the
formation of laws. They controlled
education and the temples, and thus controlled a large percentage of the
wealth. Even in modern times (circa 2000
CE), half of the judges come from this caste in India (D’Souza). This is not so different from the view that
we in ADF have of the Celtic Druids: learned religious leaders who consulted
and often formed policy in non-religious areas as well. While, for the most part, Kings did not
belong to this class, Brahmins often controlled government in the form of
advisors and ruled in more democratic settings.
The second
function is the warrior class. In India,
this caste was called the ksatriyas (Mallory 131). Kings are also considered part of this class
because they lead the war-bands as conquerors of neighboring tribes and/or
regions (D’Souza). Their main duty in
India was to protect their home. We see
this still in many cultures, including in the US where the President is the
commander in chief of the military.
The third
function is the producer class, called vaisyas in India. They are the herdsman and farmers. Formed from Brahma’s belly, they were
responsible for keeping the people fed.
In India, this also included trade and skilled labor, not just the
actual growing of foodstuffs and raw materials and this caste currently
controls a significant amount of wealth in India (D’Souza).
I think that it
is fair to say that there was some class-breakdown around these lines in
Indo-European cultures. However, I
believe that Dumezil stretches too far in trying to make his theory fit every
society. The biggest critique of his
theory is that it essentializes cultures too much and does not recognize the
important nuances within individual groups.
If all Indo-European cultures were identical, then there would not have
been the need to differentiate themselves into the various groups we have
now. The Norse in particular are
problematic to the Tripartite theory since the historical record shows that
most men who held land were both cultivators and warriors. They farmed during the farming season and
raided during the off season. Additionally,
they had no Priestly class, instead most religious obligations were performed
by the head of the household/family or by the ruler for greater festivals
(Short).
3) Choose one Indo-European culture and describe briefly the influences
that have shaped it and distinguish it from other Indo-European derived
cultures. Examples include migration, contact with other cultures, changes in
religion, language, and political factors. Is there any sense in which this
culture can be said to have stopped being an Indo-European culture? (minimum
300 words)
There
are many unique influences to Iceland, all of which make it an interesting case
study for comparison to other Indo-European cultures. Iceland was arguably the last truly
Indo-European migration/settlement in and from the European branches of the
language family since all later migrations occurred post-Christian
Conversion. In fact, the settlement of
Iceland by Norwegian’s began in roughly 874 CE, a time when most of Europe had
already fallen to Christianity. Iceland
did not officially convert to Christianity until 1000 CE, making it the last
official political hold-out of Western Europe (GrØnlie). While the Icelanders did bring Celtic thralls
(slaves) with them to Iceland, when they arrived there was no current
population on the island. Norwegian
chieftain Ingólfr Arnarson arrived as the first permanent settler in 874
(Tomasson) although there is archeological evidence that others had stayed in
Iceland before this time. Carbon dating
puts at least one site a century earlier and archeologists have labeled it a
potential outpost (A New View).
The
fact that there was no aboriginal population in Iceland means that there is
none of the substrate that would change the language that we see in other
migrations (Mallory 156). This, in
addition to its placement as a colony and its location at the periphery of both
the Indo-European world and the then modern European world, encourages archaism
in language (Mallory 155) but also in culture.
This archaism is part of what allowed the Icelanders to hold onto their
pagan roots longer than any of the other Western European branches of the
language/cultural family. Coupled with
the non-military nature of the conversion (GrØnlie) and the national pride in
its roots, we have a more complete record of the practices that continued to
hold on in the region when compared to continental Europe. Indeed, even though the Story of the
Conversion is written in the form of a missionary history, in his introduction
to the translation Faulkes notes that the Ari writes from a very secular
perspective that is outright critical of both the Church and Christ (xxiii).
As
Indo-European is mostly defined based on language, and Iceland still speaks a
Germanic language it would qualify as an Indo-European culture still. Given that its small population mostly
located in the southeast part of the island and its geographical remoteness,
Icelandic as a language has experienced much less change than most other
languages such that it’s Old Norse form found in Snorri’s Eddas or the Story of
the Icelanders (ÍSLENDINGABÓK) are intelligible to a modern reader with much
greater ease than a modern English speaker would be able to decipher even
Middle English. Further, Iceland’s
naming of Asatru as a national religion along with Lutheranism, shows that it
never really lost its polytheistic culture.
4) Choose one other Indo-European culture and compare and contrast it to
the culture discussed in question 3 above with respect to each culture's
Indo-European nature. (minimum 300 words)
The
culture I am second most familiar with would be the Greeks. Comparing the Greeks with the Icelanders
gives some interesting contrasts that, for me, help define beyond linguistics
what makes a culture fit as Indo-European.
Before I do, though, I wish to acknowledge that I recognize the fallacy
inherent in speaking of the ‘culture’ of the Greeks. Due to the length of time, differences in
family structure, ascendant religious practice, and economics, it’s impossible
to speak of a Greek Culture that adequately addresses the breadth of the
various sub-groups and city-states we modernly group together as ‘the Greeks’.
One
of the similarities between these two cultures is that both existed as societies
with at least some literate members, leaving us with written records that allow
us to see more than burial mounds and pottery as insights into the
cultures. The richness of the
archeological record and the diversity of what we lump together as Greek
culture means that there is a high likelihood that scholars can find some
correlation between Greek practice and other cultures. The danger of this is that it makes sloppy
scholarship easy. Any social scientist
will tell you that correlation does not equal causation.
For
example, one area that we see dramatic similarity is the writing of epic
literary works. Homer’s Odyssey was
clearly known to Snorri Sturluson when he composed his Edda, known today as
either the Prose or Younger Edda. However
Snorri also clearly had familiarity with Germanic works such as Beowulf, and
his writing of the Edda had a twofold purpose: to preserve the traditions of
the Icelanders but also to preserve the mechanics of their writing style. In fact, the second is often seen as his
primary reason, even though modern Heathens owe him a debt for preserving the
former as well. Purposes aside, both
cultures have epic poems that provide us with the stories of their deities,
their nature spirits, their relationship to death and their ancestors. Though written more than a thousand years
apart, Ovid’s Metamorphosis and Snorri’s Edda tell the story of the formation
of the world as seen by the polytheistic cultures that existed in their homes.
In
respect to these two culture’s Indo-European nature, the similarities in their
myth are striking and important. In
their epic works, both cultures show the same cosmological roots. Both cultures have a universe that began as
Chaos or Nothing. While the mythological
story differs in how order was made from chaos, the result for both cultures is
a universe with an upper realm of the gods, a lower realm of the dead, and the
world of man surrounded by waters.
While the
pantheons have diverged significantly between the two cultures, picking up
other deities along the way, both cultures also had deities that linguistically
trace back to Proto-Indo-European. One
example of this can be found in the Greek Zeus and the Norse Tyr. Both clearly are derivative of both the
reconstructed name and function of Dyeus Pter (Serith) . There are many other deities in both
pantheons that can also be traced to a PIE root, however they do not always map
in name, form, and function between the two cultures. One example of this is the Moon. The PIE name for the moon deity was Menot,
which for the Norse became Mani, giving rise to the Man in the Moon of myth and
legend. However the Greeks took a female
lunar deity from other Mediterranean cultures.
Another way in
which the two cultures had clear roots in Indo-European culture was in who both
the Greeks and the Norse had aspects of Dumezil’s tripartite system. Though the Norse generally lacked a first
function professional clergy, the idea of such remained in the roles they
assigned Odin as skald and inspirer of creativity and the honor they held for
those learned in traditional bardry. The
Greeks did have professional clergy, with many temples and specific rituals for
their deities. Because of the shortened
growing season, the Third function for the Norse tended to consist of both
farming and crafting as well as raiding, however the argument could be made
based on the culture that raiding was in fact a productive pursuit for the
Norse. The Greek Third function varied
by city-state, but the number of surviving words for agricultural pursuits that
have a PIE root show that there was a certain continuation of the structure
there. One of the more interesting
developments was in the relationship of the Second Function in both
cultures. Much like their IE ancestors,
both the Greeks and the Norse had strong militaries led by rulers. For the Norse, the King was only as strong as
his warband, and similar stories remain of the military prowess of many Greek
states. In fact, this second function
and the relationship that warriors had to protecting the populations likely is
what gave rise to the similar political systems found in Iceland and Athens.
Another
similarity between the two cultures can be seen in the idea of representative
politics, though the form it took was quite different. Most people consider Athens the birthplace of
democracy. Athenian democracy was in
fact the most developed, though not the only example of democracy among the
Greek city-states. It was a form of
direct democracy where all male citizens had freedom of speech and political
rights including the vote (Cartwright).
This is contrasted with the Althing in Iceland. The Althing is the Icelandic Parliament and
is the oldest extent parliamentary structure in the world and was established
in 930 CE (Moore). The group had two
purposes: to dispense justice and decide on legislation and all free men were
allowed to attend.
5) From its beginnings, ADF has defined itself in relation to Indo-European
pagan traditions. What relevance do you think historical and reconstructed IE
traditions from the past have in constructing or reconstructing a Pagan
spirituality for the present and future? (minimum 600 words)
I
find it interesting that both inside and outside of ADF, polytheists have embraced
the term Reconstruction to define the way we research ancestral religions and
cultural practices to bring pertinent parts into the modern age. Perhaps it is because I have recently
finished reading Mallory that the cultural impact of the word Reconstruction is
so evident. Indeed, an internet search
of the term ‘Reconstruction’ does not turn up the usual definition pages, but
instead directs you to the period of American History labeled the
Reconstruction. The Encyclopedia
Britannica defines it as not just a time, but as a time “during which attempts
were made to redress the inequities of slavery and its political, social, and
economic legacy and to solve the problems arising from the readmission to the
Union of the 11 states that had seceded at or before the outbreak of war”
(Foner). While this definition is
clearly about a specific time period, looking at the purpose of the time period
shows the same political intent that ADF has in our approach to religion: an
attempt being made to redress the inequities between paganism (of whatever
strip) and monotheism and to grant non-mainstream religions the same legitimacy
that Christianity enjoys.
Reconstruction
has a second meaning when it comes to paganism, though. If we look at the definition of ‘reconstruct’
we get “to re-create in the mind from given or available information”
(dictionary.com). This is, I think, the
definition that is primary to how neo-pagans view the concept of
reconstruction. Reconstructionist pagans
look to the primary sources and carefully selected secondary or tertiary
sources of material available about Indo-European cultures are attempt to
recreate in the mind and spirit the religion and practices of those
cultures.
In
my personal practice, this is an important step. Too often I feel pagans take a little of this
and a little of that and mix it all together with a dash of something else and
call it good without any deeper understanding of what they are doing or who
they are calling on. While I would not
make the argument that the ancients were perfect, I do think it is important to
respect the knowledge that they did manage to leave us. We have to learn what was lost and what is
missing before we begin to fill in the blanks.
This view allows for some level of Unverified Personal Gnosis (UPG) but
at the same time does not allow its primacy.
I think it is important to balance our UPG with a firm foundation in the
Lore, whatever form of the Lore is available to us. To that end, I prefer the idea of Reasonable
Personal Extrapolation, and the bigger the idea, the more I want to see it
grounded in something historical. I
recognize the implied and possible fallacies of taking this view: in particular
that we will never have complete information available and thus risk falling into
the Nirvana Fallacy which says that if conditions aren’t perfect than it must
be incorrect or that a perfect solution to every problem exists (Browne and
Keeley).
ADF’s
model then functions as a bridge or a frame.
It has taken the bones of what Indo-European scholars have found and
built with them a model that functions in all of the various hearth cultures
that are part of ADF. It’s not a perfect
fit for any, and yet through compromise it can work for all. Then, we members are empowered to flesh this
frame out in ways that make it meaningful to us in our various practices. An example of this is how there’s no evidence
in the surviving lore that suggests that the Norse had a concept of an Earth
Mother of the sort such as Rhea or Gaia.
Yes, there are goddesses whose names are cognates for earth, such as
Hertha or Jord. However, none of the
surviving lore shows them in a role similar to the way Rhea is portrayed in the
story of Zeus and his siblings. Thus
when I perform Norse rituals using the Core Order, I don’t try and plug Jord or
Hertha into this role. Instead, I prefer
option two, and make the offering to the planet itself that sustains and
supports us. This sort of flexibility is
what allows ADF to thrive and grow within our defined limits as we work to
recreate the religion(s) of our ancestral Indo-Europeans.
Works Cited:
“A
New View on the Origin of First Settlers in Iceland.” Icelandic
Review Online. Published June 04,
2011 11:28, Updated: January 30, 2014 20:24, Accessed December 24, 2014. Web.
Browne, M Neil; Keeley, Stuart M. Asking the right questions: a guide
to critical thinking (7th.
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Cartwright,
Mark. “Athenian Democracy.” Ancient
History Encyclopedia. Published 13
October 2014. Accessed 24 December
2014. Web.
D’Souza, Oliver.
The Truth About Dalits. Accessed 23 December 2014. Web. http://www.truthaboutdalits.com/
Foner, Eric.
“Reconstruction.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed 24 December 2014. Web.
GRØNLIE, SIÂN (Trans). The Book
of the Icelanders. Anthony Faulkes
and Alison Finlay, ed. Viking Society
For Northern Research, University College, London: 2006. Accessed Dec 24, 2014. Web.
Mallory, J. P. In
Search of the Indo-Europeans Language, Archaeology, and Myth. London:
Thames & Hudson, 1991.
Moore, Christopher.
In Other Words. New York: Walker Publishing Company, 2004. Print.
Oxford Dictionaries. Culture. Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 19 December 2014.
"reconstruct." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random
House, Inc. 24 Dec. 2014. Web.
Serith, Ceisiwr. Deep Ancestors: Practicing the
Religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. ADF Publishing, 2009. Kindle.
Scott, John, and Gordon Marshall. A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford
Reference. 2009. Date Accessed 19 Dec. 2014. Web.
Short, William. Social Classes in Viking Society. Accessed 23 December 2014. Web. http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/society/text/social_classes.htm
Sturluson, Snorri. Trans. Anthony Faulks. Edda. Everyman Publishers, 1987. Kindle.
Tomasson, Richard F. Iceland,
the first new society. U of Minnesota Press, 1980.
No comments:
Post a Comment