Norse and Vedic Mythologies I
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Chris Travers
Sep 7, 2009, 1:23:14 AM9/7/09
to mahabharata...@googlegroups.com
Rajeev said he would be interested in learning more about Norse/Vedic correspondences. So I decided I would do a short series of posts on this topic including Dumezil's approach to tie Norse myth into the Mahabhrata (and criticism of this).
The basic plan of posts (could include some deviation) is:
1) Indo-European Hypothesis of Linguistic and Mythological Structures
2) Germanic/Indo-Iranian connections
3) Basic Correspondences for Gods in Norse and Vedic Mythology
4) The Slaying of Balder and Possible Indian Equivalents (the Mahabharata is one possible equivalent).
So onto the basic Indo-European hypothesis.
In the early 18th Century, European scholars were introduced to Sanscrit and this introduction would forever change the view of the relationship between European languages and the larger world. Sir William Jones wrote in 1748, "The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family." This began the "Indo-European hypothesis" which holds that Indian and most European languages come from the same root.
Early philologists assumed Sanscrit was closer to the original Proto-Indo-European language than any of the original branches, and some suggested that European languages were derived specifically from Sanscrit. We now know that such conclusions are at least partially mistaken because linguistic rules show that some European roots are older. For example, one could see linguistic shifts turn the Latin Centum into the Sanscrit Satam but not vice versa (in fact the original root is neither, but closer to Centum than Satem). At the same time, Sanscrit preserves many grammatical structures which were not preserved in European branches.
In the twentieth century, two new entire branches of Indo-European languages were discovered: Anatolian (in modern-day Turkey) consisting of Hittite and its decendants, and Tocharian found in what is now Uighurstan, north of Tibet. Both of these are long-extinct branches, but have confirmed both the outlines and details of the Indo-European hypothesis.
On the other side have been the folks who have proposed that the Vedic Aryans were invading Europeans. Most likely this hypothesis is false too although we must keep a somewhat open mind because academia cannot yet show a concensus as to where the original homeland of the Indo-European peoples was. Homelands have been proposed in a number of places with varying degrees of support including, but not limited to the north pole, Scandinavia, Bulgaria, Anatolia (Turkey), the Pontic-Caspian Steps (Tajikistan), and India. At this point the best supported theory is the Pontic-Caspian Steppes theory, which suggests that the Indo-Europeans were decended from a few specific cultures in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and these then moved outward both prior to the Yamnaya. This suggests that both Sanscrit and the European branches are imported languages, and that the homeland is in an area where no Indo-European languages are spoken today.
The Pontic Caspian theory has support from a number of unique reasons to support it. The archeology of the region suggests that several of the Indo-European branches (incuding Tocharian and Anatolian) can be accounted for in exotic cultural migrations found in the late stone and early bronze ages. The most thorough study to date on this subject is "The Horse The Wheel and Language" by David A. Anthony and is worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. In particular, Prof. Anthony thinks proto-Indo-Iranian peoples invented the two-wheeled standing-platform war chariot.
Similarly work on Indo-European comparative linguistics developed rapidly after Sir William Jones' statement and by 1900 the basic outlines of the modern theory were in place, as was a reconstructed ancestor to all of these languages. These reconstructions have been further developed in the last hundred years or so, refining them and taking advantage of newer theories and discoveries. Today, our understanding of Proto-Indo-European is continuing to evolve as there are new debates relating to dating various language splits. (Some theories including the one that Prof. Anthony holds, suggests that Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of Sanscrit and Avestan, was one of the last languages to diverge but that the whole proto-language went through a series of changes between when Hittite broke off and when it finally split.)
Language, however, is closely tied to culture and to poetry, both secular and religious. In addition to linguistic structures, common inherited structures have been found in poetics, laws, myths, rituals, epics, and the like. The discoveries here have opened up whole new fields of study relating to the distant prehistory of the early bronze age and late stone age.
The above discussion lays a beginning foundation for comparative studies between most European groups and India. However, Germanic peoples, including the Norse, were decended from an Indo-European branch which had late contact with a number of Iranian tribes and this makes Germanic/Indian comparisons problematic from an Indo-European studies point of view but at the same time makes these studies more interesting in terms of how they shed light on these specific branches.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
The basic plan of posts (could include some deviation) is:
1) Indo-European Hypothesis of Linguistic and Mythological Structures
2) Germanic/Indo-Iranian connections
3) Basic Correspondences for Gods in Norse and Vedic Mythology
4) The Slaying of Balder and Possible Indian Equivalents (the Mahabharata is one possible equivalent).
So onto the basic Indo-European hypothesis.
In the early 18th Century, European scholars were introduced to Sanscrit and this introduction would forever change the view of the relationship between European languages and the larger world. Sir William Jones wrote in 1748, "The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family." This began the "Indo-European hypothesis" which holds that Indian and most European languages come from the same root.
Early philologists assumed Sanscrit was closer to the original Proto-Indo-European language than any of the original branches, and some suggested that European languages were derived specifically from Sanscrit. We now know that such conclusions are at least partially mistaken because linguistic rules show that some European roots are older. For example, one could see linguistic shifts turn the Latin Centum into the Sanscrit Satam but not vice versa (in fact the original root is neither, but closer to Centum than Satem). At the same time, Sanscrit preserves many grammatical structures which were not preserved in European branches.
In the twentieth century, two new entire branches of Indo-European languages were discovered: Anatolian (in modern-day Turkey) consisting of Hittite and its decendants, and Tocharian found in what is now Uighurstan, north of Tibet. Both of these are long-extinct branches, but have confirmed both the outlines and details of the Indo-European hypothesis.
On the other side have been the folks who have proposed that the Vedic Aryans were invading Europeans. Most likely this hypothesis is false too although we must keep a somewhat open mind because academia cannot yet show a concensus as to where the original homeland of the Indo-European peoples was. Homelands have been proposed in a number of places with varying degrees of support including, but not limited to the north pole, Scandinavia, Bulgaria, Anatolia (Turkey), the Pontic-Caspian Steps (Tajikistan), and India. At this point the best supported theory is the Pontic-Caspian Steppes theory, which suggests that the Indo-Europeans were decended from a few specific cultures in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and these then moved outward both prior to the Yamnaya. This suggests that both Sanscrit and the European branches are imported languages, and that the homeland is in an area where no Indo-European languages are spoken today.
The Pontic Caspian theory has support from a number of unique reasons to support it. The archeology of the region suggests that several of the Indo-European branches (incuding Tocharian and Anatolian) can be accounted for in exotic cultural migrations found in the late stone and early bronze ages. The most thorough study to date on this subject is "The Horse The Wheel and Language" by David A. Anthony and is worth reading for anyone interested in this topic. In particular, Prof. Anthony thinks proto-Indo-Iranian peoples invented the two-wheeled standing-platform war chariot.
Similarly work on Indo-European comparative linguistics developed rapidly after Sir William Jones' statement and by 1900 the basic outlines of the modern theory were in place, as was a reconstructed ancestor to all of these languages. These reconstructions have been further developed in the last hundred years or so, refining them and taking advantage of newer theories and discoveries. Today, our understanding of Proto-Indo-European is continuing to evolve as there are new debates relating to dating various language splits. (Some theories including the one that Prof. Anthony holds, suggests that Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of Sanscrit and Avestan, was one of the last languages to diverge but that the whole proto-language went through a series of changes between when Hittite broke off and when it finally split.)
Language, however, is closely tied to culture and to poetry, both secular and religious. In addition to linguistic structures, common inherited structures have been found in poetics, laws, myths, rituals, epics, and the like. The discoveries here have opened up whole new fields of study relating to the distant prehistory of the early bronze age and late stone age.
The above discussion lays a beginning foundation for comparative studies between most European groups and India. However, Germanic peoples, including the Norse, were decended from an Indo-European branch which had late contact with a number of Iranian tribes and this makes Germanic/Indian comparisons problematic from an Indo-European studies point of view but at the same time makes these studies more interesting in terms of how they shed light on these specific branches.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
rajeev
Sep 7, 2009, 10:37:20 AM9/7/09
to Mahabharata Discussion
Great post, Chris. Will take some time to digest. I find the
linguistic analysis of languages very interesting, but don't know much
about the methods and how widely the conclusions are accepted. Do you
(or anyone else here) know of a review article to get me started?
Thanks,
Rajeev.
On Sep 7, 1:23 am, Chris Travers <chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rajeev said he would be interested in learning more about Norse/Vedic
> correspondences. So I decided I would do a short series of posts on this
> topic including Dumezil's approach to tie Norse myth into the Mahabhrata
> (and criticism of this).
>
> The basic plan of posts (could include some deviation) is:
> 1) Indo-European Hypothesis of Linguistic and Mythological Structures
> 2) Germanic/Indo-Iranian connections
> 3) Basic Correspondences for Gods in Norse and Vedic Mythology
> 4) The Slaying of Balder and Possible Indian Equivalents (the Mahabharata
> is one possible equivalent).
>
> So onto the basic Indo-European hypothesis.
>
> In the early 18th Century, European scholars were introduced to Sanscrit and
> this introduction would forever change the view of the relationship between
> European languages and the larger world. Sir William Jones wrote in 1748,
> "The *Sanscrit* language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful
> structure; more perfect than the *Greek*, more copious than the *Latin*, and
> Gothic* and the *Celtic*, though blended with a very different idiom, had
> the same origin with the *Sanscrit*; and the old *Persian* might be added to
linguistic analysis of languages very interesting, but don't know much
about the methods and how widely the conclusions are accepted. Do you
(or anyone else here) know of a review article to get me started?
Thanks,
Rajeev.
On Sep 7, 1:23 am, Chris Travers <chris.trav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rajeev said he would be interested in learning more about Norse/Vedic
> correspondences. So I decided I would do a short series of posts on this
> topic including Dumezil's approach to tie Norse myth into the Mahabhrata
> (and criticism of this).
>
> The basic plan of posts (could include some deviation) is:
> 1) Indo-European Hypothesis of Linguistic and Mythological Structures
> 2) Germanic/Indo-Iranian connections
> 3) Basic Correspondences for Gods in Norse and Vedic Mythology
> 4) The Slaying of Balder and Possible Indian Equivalents (the Mahabharata
> is one possible equivalent).
>
> So onto the basic Indo-European hypothesis.
>
> In the early 18th Century, European scholars were introduced to Sanscrit and
> this introduction would forever change the view of the relationship between
> European languages and the larger world. Sir William Jones wrote in 1748,
> structure; more perfect than the *Greek*, more copious than the *Latin*, and
> more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger
> affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could
> possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no
> philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have
> sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a
> similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the *
> affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could
> possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no
> philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have
> sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a
> Gothic* and the *Celtic*, though blended with a very different idiom, had
> the same origin with the *Sanscrit*; and the old *Persian* might be added to
Chris Travers
Sep 7, 2009, 1:38:23 PM9/7/09
to mahabharata...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:37 AM, rajeev <rajeev....@gmail.com> wrote:
Great post, Chris. Will take some time to digest. I find the
linguistic analysis of languages very interesting, but don't know much
about the methods and how widely the conclusions are accepted. Do you
(or anyone else here) know of a review article to get me started?
Most of of the works that would get you started are books, rather than articles.
The best intro I have seen is "Indo-European Language and Culture" by Benjamin Fortson.
However this is a fairly technical field and I am just an amateur. In general though it involves looking at root/stem structures and comparing those, and then comparing lexical inflections separately (lexical inflections are specific forms of changes to words denoting grammatical constructs such as case, number, gender, verb tense, mood, etc).
As for how widely the conclusions are accepted, they are now accepted by the vast majority of linguists. The theories are not very controversial and alternatives are not well supported. I will go over a few specific issues however that tend to generate controversy:
1) Most comparative linguists accept genetic relationships between the languages (i.e. that they are descended from a common ancestor). There are a few who argue it is possible that the similarities are the results of borrowing or creolization. However, these theories have problems which prevent them from being widely adopted. In particular the patterns found in common between Indo-European branches are not those which we observe today or even historically in either borrowing or creolization. Interestingly, however, the shift from Old to Middle English shows creolization patterns.
2) There is also some debate as to the amount of creolization that occurred in specific language branches as they spread out into areas speaking different languages. Most likely however, some sound shifts and some borrowed structures can be traced here but once again the creolization of the language branches seems unlikely given the specific patterns found (in creolizations we would expect far fewer noun case endings, fewer verb inflections, etc).
So the theories are widely held but not without both some refinement ongoing and some individuals who hold other theories.
When one gets into comparative mythology, things start becomming more controversial for a couple reasons, however. The first is that the linguistic comparisons are governed by something called the "Neogrammarian Hypothesis" which holds that sound shifts are regular and exceptionless. The Neogrammarian Hypothesis provides ways of verifying our understanding and providing areas where more work needs to be done in linguistics, and it suggests that irregularities are the result of our lack of understanding rather than a lack of determinative processes at work.
Comparative mythology on the other hand does not demonstrate such regular rules. At best we can identify structures in common and in some cases this shows important commonalities (Indra/Thorr/Zeus/Taranis/Dagda comparisons are interesting here) but nothing here is as uncontroversial as basic elements of the linguistic hypothesis.
Hope this helps,
Chris Travers
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages