Post by Admin on Dec 12, 2021 21:54:39 GMT
2.2.2.2. Family
The patriarcal nature of the Proto-Indo-European family is seen in the asymmetry of *pħtḗr (not necessarily biological, yuxtaposed to physical father *atta) vs. *méħtēr; bhréħtēr (not necessarily related by birth) vs. *su̯esōr (the ‘feminine’, *-sor, of the ‘own’ group, *su̯e-). Only the father can own, cf. *pħtri̯os ‘paternal, hereditary, ancestral’ (cf. Lat. patrius, Skr. pitr(v)ya-, Gk. pátrios), while no equivalent appears for the mother. Fraternal groups, *bhratri̯os, do not necessarily share the same parents. Inheritance is also dominated by paternity rules (not necessarily by birth), reflected in the use of *su̯e for terms of family and property.
The patrilineal system is evidenced by the widespread custom of marriage between cross-cousins, revealed e.g. by the term for uncle (Latin, avunculus lit. ‘little grandfather’) and in the correlative term for nephew (Lat. nepos, Gk. a-nepsíos ‘co-nephew’, i.e. ‘cousin’) subject to the strict patria potestas, and which takes on the meaning ‘grandson’ (or vice versa). The custom consists in marrying the daughter of the father’s sister, hence the close patrilineal relationship established between the son of this pair, his grandfather, and his maternal uncle (Figure 2). The maternal uncle occupies then a particular position of authority and family ties similar to the father in Indo-European traditions.
Marriage is well defined in Lat. uxorem ducere et nuptum dare: it consists in driving home a woman, *u̯edh- (cf. Cel. *u̯ed-o- ‘lead, bring together, marry’, Gmc. *u̯edan ‘conjoin’, Lith. vedù ‘lead, marry’, OCS vedú, Av. vāðaiieiti; and derivatives OInd. vadhū́- ‘bride’, Gk. éedna[iii] ‘brideprice, wedding-gifts’) that another man—usually her father, or on his behalf her brother—solemnly gives to the groom, *deʕw- (cf. Lat. dō, Goth. fragiban, Lith. išduoti, Sla. otŭdati, Gk. doûnai, Skr. pradā-). This implies that the woman enters the condition of spouse, i.e. she does not do anything (such as a contract) to enter the union, she merely changes condition; cf. Lat. īre in mātrimōnium, Av. nāiri-ϑwanāi vādaya-; compare also Russ. vyĭti zamuž, or OInd. vivāha- ‘wedding’, lit. “deportation”.
The patrilocality of the Indo-European family also appears in vocabulary, with terms referring originally to the husband’s relatives, i.e. terms applied strictly by the wife to her in-laws after entering the husband’s family: father-in-law (*su̯ékuros), mother-in-law (*su̯ekrū́s), brother-in-law (*daiu̯ḗr), sister-in-law (*glīs, *glōus), wife of husband’s brother (i̯énatēr), etc.
Fosterage, with terms derived from *atta- ‘(physical) father’, could have been an institution common for noble families, given the Greek, Celtic, and Germanic traditions.
2.2.2.3. Society and laws
The general social division is based on kinship, with basic organisational units (led by a master or lord, *-pótis, and his wife *-pótni̯a) as follows:
· The family or household, *dem-; cf. PIIr. *dam, NWIE *domos, Gk. dómos, ruled by the *dems pótis, cf. Gk. despótēs, PIIr. *dámspatiš.
· The clan, *u̯eik-, including different families in one settlement; cf. PIIr. *u̯aiĉas, Gk. *u̯oîkos, NWIE *u̯eikos (Lat. u̯īcus, Goth. weihs, BSl. *u̯iś-), PT *u̯i̯äike. This organisational level was possibly succeeded in historic times by Gk. phratría, Lat. co-uiria. Ruled by the *u̯ikpótis, cf. PIIr. *u̯iĉpátiš, TochA wikpots, BSl. *u̯iśpatis, Alb. *dzwāpt.
· The tribe, *gen-, based on kinship: cf. PIIr. *ȷ́antuṣ, NWIE *gentis, Gk. genos. The equivalent organisation in historic times is Gk. phulé, Lat. tribus (i.e. aggrupation of three territorial groups, based on root *bhu-). For a ruler of the tribe one coud reconstruct **gn̥h-pótis based on Skr. Prajāpati < *pro-gn̥h-potis.
· The ‘country’ or ‘people’, aggrupating different tribes; cf. PIIr. *dasi̯u, roughly equivalent to European *teutā ‘people, tribe’, Gk. lā(u̯)ós ‘people’. This global unit was probably ruled by the king.
A tripartite internal division of society can be reconstructed for the Late PIE community, in functions and colours associated with them:
· Priests in white: **bhleħg-men-, cf. Skr. brahman, Lat. flāmen ‘priest; sacrifice’, Gmc. *blōtan- ‘sacrifice’.
· Nobles/warriors in red: no common reconstructible name, cf. Skr. kṣattrii̯a, Av. raϑaēštā; possibly from *ner- ‘man’ in NWIE, based on Umb. ner in the Iguvine tablets and the specialised meanings in Italic, Celtic (‘hero’, ‘strength’, ‘manliness, courage’, etc.), or in Balto-Slavic (‘anger’, ‘custom’, etc.).
· Farmers (commoners) in blue: PIIr. from *u̯eik- (cf. Skr. vaiśi̯a, Av. vāstri̯ō fšui̯ant); Gk. geōmoroi, agroikoi, geōrgoi; ‘those who care for the livestock’; possibly *u̯īros in NWIE, based on Umb. ueiro in the Iguvine tablets.
· Artisans are a fourth class, appearing at least in Indo-Iranian and Greek: Skr. śūdrá, Av. hūiti, Gk. dēmiourgoí.
The sceptre-wielder ruler, the king, ‘leader of leaders’, is a religious and political leader who sets rules and governs over a group of kinship-related peoples. The term was reinterpreted in each dialectal group, probably to adapt to different political and territorial organisations, although the root *reg- can be traced back to the common stage (cf. Skr. raj-, later remade as an *-n- stem): WIE *rēgs ‘ruler’, who wields the *ghazdh-o- (‘spear’, a WIE substrate word, see below §4.5.1.1. Substrate words); Gk. *u̯anaks (the basileùs basiléōn), who wields the skḗptron; PIIr. *kšatra, cf. Skr. ksatra, Av. xšaϑra (xšāi̯aϑii̯a xšāi̯aϑii̯ānām).
The king sanctions (with a sign of the head) and executes under divine authority; he is imbued with privilege, *gerħ- (cf. Gk. géras, Gmc. *kar-ilaz, Toch. B. śrāi̯, etc. originally ‘old, adult’), and honoured with respect, *kwei- (cf. Gk. timḗ, Skr. cai̯a-); he has the power *kretus (cf. Gk. kratús, PIIr. *krátuš, Gmc. *harduz).
The established legal system, *i̯eu̯ōs ‘justice, law’ (cf. Lat. iūs, Cel. *i̯ou-dos, Skr. yós, Av. yaoš) is ‘formulated’, *deik-, and is distinct from the natural order, *r̥tús (cf. PIIr. *r̥túš, Gk. artúō, artḗ, Lat. artis, artus). It is composed of intra-family law, *dʰehmn̥- (cf. PIIr. dʰā́mā, Gk. tʰḗma, tʰḗmōn, Ita. *fāmen), and inter-family law, *diks (cf. Gk. díkē, Skr. diś, Lat. *dix). The magistrate is the one who ‘formulates’, *-dik-, or ‘moderates’, *-med-. Damages may be compensated, *sark- (cf. Lat. sarcīre, Hitt. sar-ni-k-). The divine law is the word, *bheħ- (cf. Lat. fās, Skr. bhā́ṣā; also Gk. phḗmē, Lat. fāma).
2.2.2.4. Ritual and religion
Religion is concerned with the sacred, in turn defined by a pair of positive, that which is imbued by divine presence, *ku̯entos ‘holy, sacred’ (cf. PIr. ĉu̯anta, Gmc. *hunslą, PBSl. śu̯entas); and negative, that which is forbidden to contact humans, ‘worship, sacrifice’, *i̯ag- (cf. PIIr. *i̯aĵnás, Gk. hágios, hagnós, Lat. iēiūnus < *i̯ag-i̯ūnos). The act of pouring (libate), *gheu-, a libation, *ghutós (cf. Skr. hutá, Gk. khutós, Gmc. *gudą, Lat. i-stem fūtis; originally possibly in -m-, *ghu-m-). The oath consists in pronunciating solemnly, *hu̯ogh- (cf. Skr. óhate, Gk. eukhomai, Lat. voveō, Arm. gog). The prayer consists in asking, *gʷʰédʰ-i̯e- (cf. PIIr. *ǰʰádʰi̯ati, Cel. *gʷedi̯eti, Gmc. *bidi̯aną, among other derivatives), especially bent on the knees (cf. Lat. sup-plicō, Skr. jñu-bādh-, OE knio-beda). The ritual or sacred place, dhehs (cf. Gk. theós, Phryg. deōs, Arm. *dʰēses Lat. fēriae, fānum), is related to the verb ‘do’, dheh-.
The creation myth involves a primaeval twin, i̯emos, being sacrificed by a primaeval man, and carved up into parts that make the physical or social world, from a world that had no ‘earth below’ or ‘heaven above’, no ‘day (light)’ or ‘night (moon)’. A ‘world pillar’ holds the ‘stone sky’, and at its base the cosmic serpent guards the elixir.
The main immortal gods, *deiu̯ós (from the same root for ‘shine’ as the word for the sovereign god), their accoutrements and aspects of their person are described as being of gold, they meet and debate in assembly on high ground, ride horses, can transform into animals (like birds), and they eat nectar, *n̥mŕ̥tom. The main gods—opposed to the antagonist former gods—include Father Sky, di̯ḗus pħtḗr, the head of the pantheon; the Sun, *sóħu̯l̥, envisioned as a horse-drawn chariot ride, ‘the wheel of the sun’ (cf. Skr. sū́ri̯asi̯a cakrás, Av. zaranii.caxra-, Gk. hēlíou kúklos, OIce. sunnu hvél, OE. sunnan hweogul); the Dawn, *ħeusōs; the divine twins (Graeco-Roman Castor and Pollux, the Dioskouroi, or Skr. Aśvins, Ltv. Dieva deli, Lith. Dievo sūneliai), and also known in Late PIE were the Mother Earth, *pl̥tħéu̯iħ méħtēr (originally from ‘flat, broad; hence country’). Related to the divine nature are also the good companion, *ari̯omen (cf. Skr. ari̯aman, Av. airiiaman, Gaul. Ariomanus), associated with the IE cosmogony, and the divine smith, *l̥bhús (cf. Skr. ṛbhu, possibly related to Gmc. *albiz ‘elf’).
Interesting is the reconstruction of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ each with a pair of terms, one of animate gender, hn̥gʷnís – ħeps, and one of inanimate gender, *péħu̯r̥ – *u̯ódr̥, which suggests the worship of both as animate beings, apart from their use as substances. These opposing elements are further associated with a divine figure ‘grandson (or nephew) of the waters’ (cf. OInd. Apām Napāt, Av. Apąm Napāt, also Lat. *Neptonos; dubious is OIr. Nechtan). The myth of the theft of fire from the gods to give them to the humans also appears to be a common IE myth (Gk. Promētheús ‘the one who steals’, cf. OInd. pra math- ‘destroy’).
The most thoroughly reconstructed Indo-European legend, thanks to the research of Calvert Watkins, is the dragon-slaying myth. It tells the story of a monstruous serpent that hoards the water (the treasure whereby wealth and nourishment are allowed to circulate), so the god must battle to restore the natural order. This myth is usually associated with the Stormgod, the god of thunder and lightning, in Anatolian *tr̥ḫu-ent-, (from *terħ, ‘cross over, pass through, overcome’), who uses his magical weapon to try and slay the dragon. Although he is defeated first, he succeeds the second time, after drinking an intoxicant which gives him strength—a drink derived from root *seu- ‘press out, extract’ (cf. PIIr. sáumas, Gk. húō, Lat. sucus). This myth is encapsulated in the alliterative formulaic phrase *gwhen-t ogwhim ‘(he) killed the serpent’.
The trifunctional ideology of Georges Dumézil, evident in the social division, may be represented also among the gods, as a division into the sovereign god (of religion), the god of war, and the god of the common people, possibly identified with Father Sky, the Stormgod, and the Sun, respectively. Regional variations would develop continuously, depending on the environment, specific substistence economy, sociopolitical upheavals, etc. Each of the three main gods would have received a different kind of offering in the rituals of triple animal sacrifice.
Death is a sleep, but mainly a journey of the soul across land which culminates on a body of water across which the soul has to be ferried. At the end of it there is a gate to the underworld guarded by a dog; beyond it there are cattle pastures with herds, where the soul joins the fathers. The journey could be arduous, and requires prayers and oferings of food on the part of the soul’s living kin for a period of time, including the deposit of various goods that could be needed on the jorney.
Spells and incantations represent the best of the three categories of medical treatment (which is witnesses to the power of the word for Indo-Europeans), the others being the use of a knife or surgical instrument, and the use of herbs or drugs.
Beyond myths, an important part of the oral culture were folk tales, some of which have survived to this day. The most common one reconstructible for Late PIE is “The Smith and the Devil” (MFTD 330), the tale of the blacksmith who strikes a deal with a malevolent supernatural being (da Silva and Tehrani 2016). The smith exchanges his soul for the power to weld any materials together, which he then uses to stick the villain to an immovable object (e.g. a tree) to renege on his side of the bargain.
2.2.2.5. Poets and fame
The poet is specially trained in the art of the word, and has therefore a prevalent role in IE society. There are many terms associated with his mystified work with the word, such as ‘tell’, ‘remember’, ‘weave’, ‘construct’, etc. He sings the praises of heroes, kings, and gods, composing hymns to ensure fame, especially dear to warriors.
Fame was valued above life, because it guaranteed immortality in the memory of later generations, and it could be obtained in combat and in poetry. Hence the reconstructible terms *kléu̯os n̥dhgwhitom ‘immortal fame’ (cf. Skt. śrávas ákṣitam, Gk. kléos áphthiton), *mégħ kléu̯os ‘big fame’, *kléu̯esħ ħnrṓm ‘famous deeds of men, heroes’ (cf. Gk. kléa andrōn, Ved. śrávas nr̥ṇā́m); *u̯ésu kléu̯os, good fame (cf. Av. vohu sravah, OIr. fo chlú).
Bestowing a name was the subject of a ritual, *néʕwmn̥ dheh-, literally ‘make a name’, which happened around nine days after birth, when the mother had recovered, was bathed, and the child was named. Important was the fame attributed to the name (cf. Gk. onomáklutos ‘famous in name’, Toch. A ñom-kli̯u ‘name-fame’, OInd. śruti̯am nā́ma ‘famous in name’, or the OIr. correspondence between everlasting name – everlasting fame).
A very common type of name for Indo-Europeans was a bipartite compound X-Y where one or both compound members are concepts, virtues, or animals important in Indo-European society, such as ‘fame’, ‘guest’, ‘god’, ‘strength’, ‘protection’, ‘battle’, ‘people’, ‘man’, ‘hero’, ‘wolf’, ‘dog’. Names of sons were usually picked to ressemble the names of their fathers, by recycling one of the compound members. Nicknames were also common and were typically formed by truncation and other modifications.
Oral-formulaic poetry uses formulaic language, fixed words or groups of words that have the function of filling out a verse-line (cf. Homeric epithets ‘swift footed’ Achilles, ‘rosy-fingered’ Dawn). Poets manipulated these formulae, mixing old and new ones, and using an obscure and difficult language, linking words with relevant concepts.
The patriarcal nature of the Proto-Indo-European family is seen in the asymmetry of *pħtḗr (not necessarily biological, yuxtaposed to physical father *atta) vs. *méħtēr; bhréħtēr (not necessarily related by birth) vs. *su̯esōr (the ‘feminine’, *-sor, of the ‘own’ group, *su̯e-). Only the father can own, cf. *pħtri̯os ‘paternal, hereditary, ancestral’ (cf. Lat. patrius, Skr. pitr(v)ya-, Gk. pátrios), while no equivalent appears for the mother. Fraternal groups, *bhratri̯os, do not necessarily share the same parents. Inheritance is also dominated by paternity rules (not necessarily by birth), reflected in the use of *su̯e for terms of family and property.
The patrilineal system is evidenced by the widespread custom of marriage between cross-cousins, revealed e.g. by the term for uncle (Latin, avunculus lit. ‘little grandfather’) and in the correlative term for nephew (Lat. nepos, Gk. a-nepsíos ‘co-nephew’, i.e. ‘cousin’) subject to the strict patria potestas, and which takes on the meaning ‘grandson’ (or vice versa). The custom consists in marrying the daughter of the father’s sister, hence the close patrilineal relationship established between the son of this pair, his grandfather, and his maternal uncle (Figure 2). The maternal uncle occupies then a particular position of authority and family ties similar to the father in Indo-European traditions.
Marriage is well defined in Lat. uxorem ducere et nuptum dare: it consists in driving home a woman, *u̯edh- (cf. Cel. *u̯ed-o- ‘lead, bring together, marry’, Gmc. *u̯edan ‘conjoin’, Lith. vedù ‘lead, marry’, OCS vedú, Av. vāðaiieiti; and derivatives OInd. vadhū́- ‘bride’, Gk. éedna[iii] ‘brideprice, wedding-gifts’) that another man—usually her father, or on his behalf her brother—solemnly gives to the groom, *deʕw- (cf. Lat. dō, Goth. fragiban, Lith. išduoti, Sla. otŭdati, Gk. doûnai, Skr. pradā-). This implies that the woman enters the condition of spouse, i.e. she does not do anything (such as a contract) to enter the union, she merely changes condition; cf. Lat. īre in mātrimōnium, Av. nāiri-ϑwanāi vādaya-; compare also Russ. vyĭti zamuž, or OInd. vivāha- ‘wedding’, lit. “deportation”.
The patrilocality of the Indo-European family also appears in vocabulary, with terms referring originally to the husband’s relatives, i.e. terms applied strictly by the wife to her in-laws after entering the husband’s family: father-in-law (*su̯ékuros), mother-in-law (*su̯ekrū́s), brother-in-law (*daiu̯ḗr), sister-in-law (*glīs, *glōus), wife of husband’s brother (i̯énatēr), etc.
Fosterage, with terms derived from *atta- ‘(physical) father’, could have been an institution common for noble families, given the Greek, Celtic, and Germanic traditions.
2.2.2.3. Society and laws
The general social division is based on kinship, with basic organisational units (led by a master or lord, *-pótis, and his wife *-pótni̯a) as follows:
· The family or household, *dem-; cf. PIIr. *dam, NWIE *domos, Gk. dómos, ruled by the *dems pótis, cf. Gk. despótēs, PIIr. *dámspatiš.
· The clan, *u̯eik-, including different families in one settlement; cf. PIIr. *u̯aiĉas, Gk. *u̯oîkos, NWIE *u̯eikos (Lat. u̯īcus, Goth. weihs, BSl. *u̯iś-), PT *u̯i̯äike. This organisational level was possibly succeeded in historic times by Gk. phratría, Lat. co-uiria. Ruled by the *u̯ikpótis, cf. PIIr. *u̯iĉpátiš, TochA wikpots, BSl. *u̯iśpatis, Alb. *dzwāpt.
· The tribe, *gen-, based on kinship: cf. PIIr. *ȷ́antuṣ, NWIE *gentis, Gk. genos. The equivalent organisation in historic times is Gk. phulé, Lat. tribus (i.e. aggrupation of three territorial groups, based on root *bhu-). For a ruler of the tribe one coud reconstruct **gn̥h-pótis based on Skr. Prajāpati < *pro-gn̥h-potis.
· The ‘country’ or ‘people’, aggrupating different tribes; cf. PIIr. *dasi̯u, roughly equivalent to European *teutā ‘people, tribe’, Gk. lā(u̯)ós ‘people’. This global unit was probably ruled by the king.
A tripartite internal division of society can be reconstructed for the Late PIE community, in functions and colours associated with them:
· Priests in white: **bhleħg-men-, cf. Skr. brahman, Lat. flāmen ‘priest; sacrifice’, Gmc. *blōtan- ‘sacrifice’.
· Nobles/warriors in red: no common reconstructible name, cf. Skr. kṣattrii̯a, Av. raϑaēštā; possibly from *ner- ‘man’ in NWIE, based on Umb. ner in the Iguvine tablets and the specialised meanings in Italic, Celtic (‘hero’, ‘strength’, ‘manliness, courage’, etc.), or in Balto-Slavic (‘anger’, ‘custom’, etc.).
· Farmers (commoners) in blue: PIIr. from *u̯eik- (cf. Skr. vaiśi̯a, Av. vāstri̯ō fšui̯ant); Gk. geōmoroi, agroikoi, geōrgoi; ‘those who care for the livestock’; possibly *u̯īros in NWIE, based on Umb. ueiro in the Iguvine tablets.
· Artisans are a fourth class, appearing at least in Indo-Iranian and Greek: Skr. śūdrá, Av. hūiti, Gk. dēmiourgoí.
The sceptre-wielder ruler, the king, ‘leader of leaders’, is a religious and political leader who sets rules and governs over a group of kinship-related peoples. The term was reinterpreted in each dialectal group, probably to adapt to different political and territorial organisations, although the root *reg- can be traced back to the common stage (cf. Skr. raj-, later remade as an *-n- stem): WIE *rēgs ‘ruler’, who wields the *ghazdh-o- (‘spear’, a WIE substrate word, see below §4.5.1.1. Substrate words); Gk. *u̯anaks (the basileùs basiléōn), who wields the skḗptron; PIIr. *kšatra, cf. Skr. ksatra, Av. xšaϑra (xšāi̯aϑii̯a xšāi̯aϑii̯ānām).
The king sanctions (with a sign of the head) and executes under divine authority; he is imbued with privilege, *gerħ- (cf. Gk. géras, Gmc. *kar-ilaz, Toch. B. śrāi̯, etc. originally ‘old, adult’), and honoured with respect, *kwei- (cf. Gk. timḗ, Skr. cai̯a-); he has the power *kretus (cf. Gk. kratús, PIIr. *krátuš, Gmc. *harduz).
The established legal system, *i̯eu̯ōs ‘justice, law’ (cf. Lat. iūs, Cel. *i̯ou-dos, Skr. yós, Av. yaoš) is ‘formulated’, *deik-, and is distinct from the natural order, *r̥tús (cf. PIIr. *r̥túš, Gk. artúō, artḗ, Lat. artis, artus). It is composed of intra-family law, *dʰehmn̥- (cf. PIIr. dʰā́mā, Gk. tʰḗma, tʰḗmōn, Ita. *fāmen), and inter-family law, *diks (cf. Gk. díkē, Skr. diś, Lat. *dix). The magistrate is the one who ‘formulates’, *-dik-, or ‘moderates’, *-med-. Damages may be compensated, *sark- (cf. Lat. sarcīre, Hitt. sar-ni-k-). The divine law is the word, *bheħ- (cf. Lat. fās, Skr. bhā́ṣā; also Gk. phḗmē, Lat. fāma).
2.2.2.4. Ritual and religion
Religion is concerned with the sacred, in turn defined by a pair of positive, that which is imbued by divine presence, *ku̯entos ‘holy, sacred’ (cf. PIr. ĉu̯anta, Gmc. *hunslą, PBSl. śu̯entas); and negative, that which is forbidden to contact humans, ‘worship, sacrifice’, *i̯ag- (cf. PIIr. *i̯aĵnás, Gk. hágios, hagnós, Lat. iēiūnus < *i̯ag-i̯ūnos). The act of pouring (libate), *gheu-, a libation, *ghutós (cf. Skr. hutá, Gk. khutós, Gmc. *gudą, Lat. i-stem fūtis; originally possibly in -m-, *ghu-m-). The oath consists in pronunciating solemnly, *hu̯ogh- (cf. Skr. óhate, Gk. eukhomai, Lat. voveō, Arm. gog). The prayer consists in asking, *gʷʰédʰ-i̯e- (cf. PIIr. *ǰʰádʰi̯ati, Cel. *gʷedi̯eti, Gmc. *bidi̯aną, among other derivatives), especially bent on the knees (cf. Lat. sup-plicō, Skr. jñu-bādh-, OE knio-beda). The ritual or sacred place, dhehs (cf. Gk. theós, Phryg. deōs, Arm. *dʰēses Lat. fēriae, fānum), is related to the verb ‘do’, dheh-.
The creation myth involves a primaeval twin, i̯emos, being sacrificed by a primaeval man, and carved up into parts that make the physical or social world, from a world that had no ‘earth below’ or ‘heaven above’, no ‘day (light)’ or ‘night (moon)’. A ‘world pillar’ holds the ‘stone sky’, and at its base the cosmic serpent guards the elixir.
The main immortal gods, *deiu̯ós (from the same root for ‘shine’ as the word for the sovereign god), their accoutrements and aspects of their person are described as being of gold, they meet and debate in assembly on high ground, ride horses, can transform into animals (like birds), and they eat nectar, *n̥mŕ̥tom. The main gods—opposed to the antagonist former gods—include Father Sky, di̯ḗus pħtḗr, the head of the pantheon; the Sun, *sóħu̯l̥, envisioned as a horse-drawn chariot ride, ‘the wheel of the sun’ (cf. Skr. sū́ri̯asi̯a cakrás, Av. zaranii.caxra-, Gk. hēlíou kúklos, OIce. sunnu hvél, OE. sunnan hweogul); the Dawn, *ħeusōs; the divine twins (Graeco-Roman Castor and Pollux, the Dioskouroi, or Skr. Aśvins, Ltv. Dieva deli, Lith. Dievo sūneliai), and also known in Late PIE were the Mother Earth, *pl̥tħéu̯iħ méħtēr (originally from ‘flat, broad; hence country’). Related to the divine nature are also the good companion, *ari̯omen (cf. Skr. ari̯aman, Av. airiiaman, Gaul. Ariomanus), associated with the IE cosmogony, and the divine smith, *l̥bhús (cf. Skr. ṛbhu, possibly related to Gmc. *albiz ‘elf’).
Interesting is the reconstruction of ‘fire’ and ‘water’ each with a pair of terms, one of animate gender, hn̥gʷnís – ħeps, and one of inanimate gender, *péħu̯r̥ – *u̯ódr̥, which suggests the worship of both as animate beings, apart from their use as substances. These opposing elements are further associated with a divine figure ‘grandson (or nephew) of the waters’ (cf. OInd. Apām Napāt, Av. Apąm Napāt, also Lat. *Neptonos; dubious is OIr. Nechtan). The myth of the theft of fire from the gods to give them to the humans also appears to be a common IE myth (Gk. Promētheús ‘the one who steals’, cf. OInd. pra math- ‘destroy’).
The most thoroughly reconstructed Indo-European legend, thanks to the research of Calvert Watkins, is the dragon-slaying myth. It tells the story of a monstruous serpent that hoards the water (the treasure whereby wealth and nourishment are allowed to circulate), so the god must battle to restore the natural order. This myth is usually associated with the Stormgod, the god of thunder and lightning, in Anatolian *tr̥ḫu-ent-, (from *terħ, ‘cross over, pass through, overcome’), who uses his magical weapon to try and slay the dragon. Although he is defeated first, he succeeds the second time, after drinking an intoxicant which gives him strength—a drink derived from root *seu- ‘press out, extract’ (cf. PIIr. sáumas, Gk. húō, Lat. sucus). This myth is encapsulated in the alliterative formulaic phrase *gwhen-t ogwhim ‘(he) killed the serpent’.
The trifunctional ideology of Georges Dumézil, evident in the social division, may be represented also among the gods, as a division into the sovereign god (of religion), the god of war, and the god of the common people, possibly identified with Father Sky, the Stormgod, and the Sun, respectively. Regional variations would develop continuously, depending on the environment, specific substistence economy, sociopolitical upheavals, etc. Each of the three main gods would have received a different kind of offering in the rituals of triple animal sacrifice.
Death is a sleep, but mainly a journey of the soul across land which culminates on a body of water across which the soul has to be ferried. At the end of it there is a gate to the underworld guarded by a dog; beyond it there are cattle pastures with herds, where the soul joins the fathers. The journey could be arduous, and requires prayers and oferings of food on the part of the soul’s living kin for a period of time, including the deposit of various goods that could be needed on the jorney.
Spells and incantations represent the best of the three categories of medical treatment (which is witnesses to the power of the word for Indo-Europeans), the others being the use of a knife or surgical instrument, and the use of herbs or drugs.
Beyond myths, an important part of the oral culture were folk tales, some of which have survived to this day. The most common one reconstructible for Late PIE is “The Smith and the Devil” (MFTD 330), the tale of the blacksmith who strikes a deal with a malevolent supernatural being (da Silva and Tehrani 2016). The smith exchanges his soul for the power to weld any materials together, which he then uses to stick the villain to an immovable object (e.g. a tree) to renege on his side of the bargain.
2.2.2.5. Poets and fame
The poet is specially trained in the art of the word, and has therefore a prevalent role in IE society. There are many terms associated with his mystified work with the word, such as ‘tell’, ‘remember’, ‘weave’, ‘construct’, etc. He sings the praises of heroes, kings, and gods, composing hymns to ensure fame, especially dear to warriors.
Fame was valued above life, because it guaranteed immortality in the memory of later generations, and it could be obtained in combat and in poetry. Hence the reconstructible terms *kléu̯os n̥dhgwhitom ‘immortal fame’ (cf. Skt. śrávas ákṣitam, Gk. kléos áphthiton), *mégħ kléu̯os ‘big fame’, *kléu̯esħ ħnrṓm ‘famous deeds of men, heroes’ (cf. Gk. kléa andrōn, Ved. śrávas nr̥ṇā́m); *u̯ésu kléu̯os, good fame (cf. Av. vohu sravah, OIr. fo chlú).
Bestowing a name was the subject of a ritual, *néʕwmn̥ dheh-, literally ‘make a name’, which happened around nine days after birth, when the mother had recovered, was bathed, and the child was named. Important was the fame attributed to the name (cf. Gk. onomáklutos ‘famous in name’, Toch. A ñom-kli̯u ‘name-fame’, OInd. śruti̯am nā́ma ‘famous in name’, or the OIr. correspondence between everlasting name – everlasting fame).
A very common type of name for Indo-Europeans was a bipartite compound X-Y where one or both compound members are concepts, virtues, or animals important in Indo-European society, such as ‘fame’, ‘guest’, ‘god’, ‘strength’, ‘protection’, ‘battle’, ‘people’, ‘man’, ‘hero’, ‘wolf’, ‘dog’. Names of sons were usually picked to ressemble the names of their fathers, by recycling one of the compound members. Nicknames were also common and were typically formed by truncation and other modifications.
Oral-formulaic poetry uses formulaic language, fixed words or groups of words that have the function of filling out a verse-line (cf. Homeric epithets ‘swift footed’ Achilles, ‘rosy-fingered’ Dawn). Poets manipulated these formulae, mixing old and new ones, and using an obscure and difficult language, linking words with relevant concepts.