Jump to content

Talk:Proto-Indo-European mythology/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Flood Legends:

Would like to make a couple of suggestions for the subheading "Flood Myths" here on this talk page 1) possibly including additional Indo-European legends possibly relevant to this subheading. Additionally some of these included references could either be put under the "see also" section and or the "references" situation. The article list one example of an ancient Grecian flood story (however there's at least one more). Although the example of Deucalion cited, there's a lot of room for expansion even on that.

The current page does list examples: Old Roman/Italian, Iranian/Persian, Scandinavian (both Finnish & the Norse legends), the Welsh, etc. So there's is a possibly room for expansion. 2) Additionally the subheading "Flood myths" section could and in my humble should include references to cited material. The following material below was not put together randomly but systematically listed for the benefit of all to look over as an aid for expanding and revising the article. Thank you --Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


  • - List of some examples and references for consideration:



  • - While on the topic of ancient Grecian flood legends the following might also be useful.
  • - See:
  • - The "ages of man," by the Greek poet Hesiod's Works and Days (circa 700 B.C.E.).
  • - Golden: (Antediluvian Eden-like conditions) "these humans were said to live among the gods, and freely mingled with them. Peace and harmony prevailed during this age. Humans did not have to work to feed themselves, for the earth provided food in abundance." - Wikipedia.
  • - Silver (Antediluvian conditions - post Eden) "During this Age men refused to worship the gods " - Wikipedia.
  • - Bronze: (Antediluvian conditions - post Eden) "their arms and tools forged of bronze," "The men of this Age were undone by their own violent ways and left no named spirits; instead, they dwell in the "dank house of Hades". This Age came to an end with the flood of Deucalion."
  • - Heroic: "These humans were created from the bones of the earth (stones) through the actions of Deucalion and Pyrrha."
  • - Iron: "Hesiod finds himself in the Iron Age."
  • - See:
  • - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ages_of_Man






  • - Finland:
  • - "Väinämöinen attempts a heroic feat that results in a gushing wound, the blood from which covers the entire earth." – Wikipedia.
  • - “The Finnish Kalevalametric runes (oral folk poems) about Väinämöinen and his wound may be connected with flood myths. I’ll include here a variant of the poem, a translation into English and a short commentary, all from the book Finnish Folk Poetry: Epic: an Anthology in Finnish and English / edited and translated by Matti Kuusi, Keith Bosley, Michael Branch (Finnish Literature Society, 1977).


  • - Folklorist Martti Haavio has written an article on the subject, but unfortunately only in Finnish: Haavio, Martti: Naainas. In: Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja 43 (1963), pp. 53-96.





I hope this will make it a lot easier to edit the article and more helpful to future page visitors. Thank you. --Anaccuratesource (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This was a major part of ancient Middle Eastern mythology, and likely spread from there to Iran and the Mediterranian. Hard to show that late attested traditions like Scandinavian and Welsh weren't influenced by Biblical or Classical stories. Good etymological equivalences would help your case, but I don't see any here.Johundhar (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that the Finnic peoples and languages (mentioned by @Anaccuratesource) are not Indo-European in origin. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Pantheon - Sun and Moon section

There is a whole paragraph that makes apparently baseless claims citing an unrelated source: Snow, Justine T. (June 2002). "The Spider's Web. Goddess of Light and Loom: Evidence for the Indo-European Origin of Two Ancient Chinese Deities"

When I tried to search for certain claims made in that paragraph (particularly Menelaus being a remnant of a moon god) I couldn't find anything, and the source being referenced doesn't contain the words "Menelaus" or "Helen" even once in the whole document, and "Troy" appears three times in a totally irrelevant context. Admittedly I cannot dig deeper into this question right now but I suspect those two characters being called remnants of a sun goddess and moon god based on an apparently completely unrelated source isn't the only case of original research in this article. --Attilapw (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You can add the Template:Failed verification after a citation if that citation does not support the material preceding it. If you feel that the cited source is not germane to the article or section, you can remove the citation and add the Template:Citation needed. If you do so, please explain clearly and succinctly what you have done in the edit summary, referring to this section here on the talk page. - Donald Albury 00:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm new here so I wasn't entirely sure how to proceed. I've already added the "Failed verification" template to both of the claims I've reviewed so far (Menelaus and Helen of Troy), and added a "See discussion" link to this secion of the talk page inside the template itself. Forgot to do so in the edit summary but I can't edit that one after I've published it as far as I know. I might check the other claims in the "Sun and Moon" section citing the same source in the following days and post again in the talk page. Attilapw (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. I don't have access to the sources that are not on-line, and this is not a field I've studied, so I won't be much help on vetting the material. It may be a few days before other editors chime in. Every article in Wikipedia can be improved, some more than others. I appreciate whatever you can do for this article. - Donald Albury 15:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Attilapw: The claims in the "Sun and Moon" subsection of this article that you found to be unsupported by the source cited were originally cited to an article titled "Proto-Indo-European Sun Maidens and Gods of the Moon" that was published in the white supremacist pseudo-journal Mankind Quarterly in 1984. In case you were unaware, Mankind Quarterly is primarily known for promoting white supremacy, scientific racism, eugenics, and other fascistic ideas. No respectable academic would dare publish in it and it holds no academic credibility. I removed the entire passage that was cited to that source in an edit on 26 October 2018, stating in my edit summary, "removing citation to an article in *Mankind Quarterly*, a white supremacist pseudo-journal with no academic credibility, along with all the information that was cited to that article."

The entire passage was almost immediately restored later that day in a revert by Falconfly, who kept the text almost exactly the same, but replaced the citation to the article from Mankind Quarterly with a citation to the article "The Spider's Web. Goddess of Light and Loom: Evidence for the Indo-European Origin of Two Ancient Chinese Deities" by Justine T. Snow, published in 2002. Falconfly's edit summary for that revert states: "Undid revision 865855536 by Katolophyromai (talk) Replaced with citacions [sic] to Snow 2002, which more or less presents the same conclusion but is hosted on a paper that appears to be less racist."

Because I did not have access to this publication, I assumed that Falconfly's edit summary was correct and that the source did indeed support the information given. In the meantime, Falconfly is now indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. The reason why Falconfly is blocked is stated in their block log as "Making legal threats: after warnings, plus persistent personal attacks." —Katolophyromai (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: I didn't know any of that, so thank you. Since it seems the text was essentially derived from an unreliable source (Mankind Quarterly) and assigned to a new one with no substantial revision having taken place, I agree it was best to delete it at least for the time being.
I've noticed both you and Donald Albury mentioned not having access to "The Spider's Web. Goddess of Light and Loom: Evidence for the Indo-European Origin of Two Ancient Chinese Deities", so I thought other editors may have the same problem in the future. The document is hosted here and available for free under a Creative Commons license. However, I'm not completely sure the Sino-Platonic Papers qualify as a realiable source. Should it be accepted as one I think a complete rewrite of the deleted content, ideally by someone with far more knowledge of the field than me, would still be necessary since there were claims made there which were not supported by the newer source. Attilapw (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a side note about Mankind Quarterly—I'm not entirely sure if the journal has always had the reputation it has today, but it has published material from otherwise reputable scholars like, for example, Edgar Charles Polomé. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
According to our own article about the journal (Mankind Quarterly), "[t]he journal was established in 1961 with funding from segregationists, who designed it to serve as a mouthpiece for their views," and was criticized from its start for supporting verious racist themes such as Nordicism and anti-Semitism. - Donald Albury 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
The article does not exactly make clear who said what and why here. Today the Mankind Quarterly is broadly understood to be a problem journal, but that may not have always been the case. I'll take a closer look. Consider also that the Journal of Indo-European Studies has dubious origins, but is broadly considered a respectable journal today. Polomé was also closely involved in the Journal of Indo-European Studies. Today the journal's chief editor is J. P. Mallory. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The new chief editor of JIES is Emily West, and I can attest for her character and scholarly acumen. Johundhar (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Set of propositions

Hi. I have spent some time improving this article and others related to PIE society. Given the nature of the scholarship involved to reconstruct the PIE set of beliefs, I would propose the following rules if other contributors agree:

  • The PIE set of belief is founded on a resistant animistic substrate. We shall prefer the terms "sky-god" and "thunder-god" to "god of the sky" and "god of thunder"
  • We should distinguish what is linguistically secured (a series of cognates found in many traditions, from West to East), from what is more speculative (cognates restricted to a region, disputed etymologies, etc.)
  • A thematic echo (similar attributes) is not considered a safe evidence. A series of cognates and/or "formulaic phrases" is what makes a reconstruction solid.
  • We should prefer Mallory's and Beekes's spellings for the PIE language, as they include the most recent researches. A lexicon may be found here, with sources.
  • We should only introduce pictures of linguistic etymological descendants (i.e., no Thor for Perkwunos, etc.), the closer historically from PIE society (4000-2500) possible; or (maybe better) any picture that accurately depicts the attributes reconstructed around the deity (i.e., no thunder in hands for Perkwunos, no Dyeus pictured as holder of the supreme power, etc.)

Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't follow your last point. Johundhar (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Cosmology

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_mythology#Cosmology

Hello Azerty82,

the linking of the superordinate principle in the PIE mythology to a creator deity is your wishful thinking, however it is erroneous and trying to establish a link by fishy linguistics is your very own Original Research (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). The source Mallory & Adams on page 276 says not a single word about a creator deity and so i revert the current version in the near future, i requested 3rd opinion now. And to me personally your intentions are very clear : You have a monotheistic, very likely christian background, and now you want to project this on the pre-christian worldview. i really hope that you will not come up with primeval monotheism (https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Primeval+Monotheism%2C+Theory+of) Anytime when one inserts a neutral statement about the native cosmic order you copy back in a statement that includes words like 'divine', 'battle of gods against demons', 'dualistic' worldview. You did not understand the Structuralist School although you also use quotations from it that you twist around until they fit your needs. The key point of the Structuralist School is that the existing duality is unified in the end into an equilibrium, read the beginning of the article. This is why the symbol of a balance is used so frequently in Indo-European art. The Structuralist School interprets the PIE triases like this : life-giving element - balancing element - death-bringing element cf this image of the Slavic Fates : https://slowianowierstwo.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/rodzanice/

The key point that you miss here is the balancing element because this balancing element is often not personified.

With your biased christian black-and-white worldview you get no access to the deeper meaning of the PIE mythology and so you should stay very close to the sources, i personally think you should not write in this article at all, because what the wikipedia really does not need are man-on-a-mission and you are writing really much in this article if one sees the revision history

And to be very honest, i think you are older than 26 years.

But beside this, if you show me where in the source Mallory, James P.; Adams, Douglas Q. (2006). The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929668-2 on page 276 is mentioned the word 'divine' or 'divine creation' like in the text you want to insert, we can talk about keeping the current version, else we will revert back. And for sure i will include the full citation again. Beside this you should give a clear hint to who you think which deity establishes or impersonates the allegedly divine cosmic order.

Link on google books : https://books.google.de/books?id=iNUSDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Oxford+Introduction+to+Proto-Indo-European+and+the+Proto-Indo-European+World&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih-f_AisfoAhWT7aYKHeWgBcEQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Oxford%20Introduction%20to%20Proto-Indo-European%20and%20the%20Proto-Indo-European%20World&f=false

With your opinion about the PIE mythology you are very alone because the PIE people were animistic and their conception about the natural order was very technical (like in modern physics) and not personal like in the monotheistic worldviews

As i said i requested 3rd opinion and now i wait for this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 7:31 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor. The association of is not my "wishful thinking", but rather Martin L. West's "wishful thinking" (I have provided the source in my edit. This is not a WordPress blog or the 'The Great Soviet Encyclopedia' like the sources you've just provided here).
Once again, the dualistic opposition between divine and asurian (demonic) force is not my "wishful thinking", but rather Michael York's "wishful thinking" (1993, p. 238).
Please assume good faith. I'm just following what the reliable sources are stating.
"you should not write in this article at all" > I wrote most of this article.
"(...) is mentioned the word 'divine' or 'divine creation' like in the text you want to insert" > It is in West (2007, p. 354): A more basic Indo-European verb for divine creation is *dheh1, which means to set in place, lay down, or establish (...) The Vedic creator god Dhātr has his name from the same verb. Once again, the source was clearly located in the article.
"With your opinion about the PIE mythology you are very alone because the PIE people were animistic" > yes, sure. Once again, I wrote most of this article. Read the message I had written in this very discussion page: The PIE set of belief is founded on a resistant animistic substrate. We shall prefer the terms "sky-god" and "thunder-god" to "god of the sky" and "god of thunder".
I'm confidently waiting for the 3rd opinion. I'm only following what the reliable sources are stating.
PS: I've seen your comment in the history of edits. I don't have to "prove the Kurgan hypothesis" to state that Hittite is the oldest (directly) attested I-E language. I just have to use radiocarbon dating of Hittite tablets. Vedic Sanskrit is estimated to date back to the same period based upon linguistic evidence. But the fact that Hittite is the most archaic I-E language is what is important here. Azerty82 (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


First of all, in comments like 'The Great Soviet Encyclopedia' again your political opinion shows up and your political opinions simply do not matter here.
And about York's opinion about divine and demonic forces : Yes this is York's opinion but you are quoting this completely out of context and link this to the PIE conception of cosmic order although York simply writes about binary homophones. Maybe binary homophones are related to the PIE concept of cosmic order but the key point is M. York does not write anything about this and the rest is your Original Research
Now to the point about the word stem *dʰeh₁- : Here applies the same as in case of the York quote. West says that *dʰeh₁- is linked to divine creation and Mallory & Adams mention themis and dhāman (as exceptions by the way) but here comes the key point again Mallory & Adams never mention that this implicates a 'divine creation' or 'divine order'. This is your OR again (linking West's quote and Mallory& Adams quote (erroneously)).
The reason why your linking of Wests and Mallory & Adams quote is erroneous follows now. In mythology you have to have fine antennas for nuances : What West possibly says, i have no access to the book and you are only quoting a sentence that is possibly out of context is in the following paraphrase.
In PIE mythology the relation of the deities to the superordinate cosmic order is as follows :
Deities that are closely linked to the cosmic order like i.e. Mitra and Varuna to Rta and e.g. (Ar)Themis to themis in Greek mythology are considered as guardians and preservers of the cosmic order and in addition they have to obey to it. This is why the superordinate cosmic order is thought to be exactly this: superordinate.
For the relation of Mitra and Varuna to Rta, the cosmic order, i even have a source :

Pande defines Rta as "the ideal principle in ordering, the paradigmatic principle of ultimate reality". Rta is the great criterion of the Rgveda, the standard of truth both for individual instances of human morality and for cosmic order and truth. The god Varuna is the guardian and preserver of the Rta, although Varuna also must abide its rules. Rta is more passive than the active god of christianity, but nevertheless it encompasses the order of the sacrifice, the physical order of the universe and the moral law.

source : Michael Myers: Brahman: A Comparative Theology, Routledge, 2013, page 60
The important part for understanding the relation of the deities to the superordinate cosmic order is marked bold here.
This is what i mean with nuances that are important and that you do not catch with your original research. In PIE mythology deities can create and destroy but they have to abide the superordinate cosmic order that in the Vedic substreaming is named Rta.
i know that you edited most of this article and to be honest i think this is a problem because nobody knows how much of your excellent OR is hidden in here ...

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And about this comment :

PS: I've seen your comment in the history of edits. I don't have to "prove the Kurgan hypothesis" to state that Hittite is the oldest (directly) attested I-E language. I just have to use radiocarbon dating of Hittite tablets. Vedic Sanskrit is estimated to date back to the same period based upon linguistic evidence. But the fact that Hittite is the most archaic I-E language is what is important here.

For a chronological ordering you should prove that Greek is older than Latin and also older than Tocharian A. This is exactly the point with your original research and your smart assumptions, that are sadly often erroneous, and for this wikipedia this is a problem. i think you never learned how to work scientifically, 'but this does not matter if you simply cite the sources word by word without trying to interpret them and engage into OR.

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

In the PIE worldview the relation of the deities to the superordinate cosmic order becomes also obvious in the fact that deities are never almighty what shows up in tales like that of Zeus and the Moirai (read the beginning of the article) or Zeus and Sarpedon. Zeus is not able to safe his son's life because he has to be obedient to the cosmic order or fate (in this case represented by the Moirai, Hera and the Horae)

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

'The Great Soviet Encyclopedia' is not a reliable source. This has nothing to do with politics. It defines itself as the "the first Marxist-Leninist general-purpose encyclopedia", which makes it as unreliable as another encyclopedia that would define itself as the "first liberal" or the "first conservative encyclopedia".
York clearly wrote: Another kind of binary opposition we ought to keep in mind is one which often appears among IE radical homophones. These are of two kinds: (1) complementaries, and (2) direct oppositions. (...) These homophonic antinomies are not a universal feature of the proto-language, but one which occurs often enough to be indicative of the possible IE tendency toward polarized perception and among which, beside a basic positive-negative duality, we may locate divine-asurian oppositions as well. The complementaries are also homophonic but as balancing counterparts rather than conflicting antitheses.
I'm linking West with Mallory & Adams because they're talking about the exact same root. I can provide the full quote (West, 2007, p. 354) if you want:
A more basic Indo-European verb for divine creation is *dheh1, which means to set in place, lay down, or establish. We find it in Hittite of the gods who nēbis dēgan dāir, ‘established heaven (and) earth’; in the Gāthās, Y. 44. 3 kasnā xəng strəmcā dāt advānəm? ‘Who made the path of the sun and stars?’ 5 kə huvāpå raocåscā dāt təmåscā? kə huvāpå xvafnəmcā dāt zaēmācā? ‘What skilful artificer made the regions of light and dark? What skilful artifi- cer made sleep and waking?’ 7 vīspanam dātārəm ‘maker of all things’; and similarly in the Old Persian inscriptions, of Ahuramazda hya imām būmim adā, hya avam asmānam adā, ‘who created this earth, who created that sky’. (DNa 1, DSe 1, etc.). The Vedic creator god Dhātr has his name from the same verb.
Once again, read the source and what I write. When did I say that there was a creator god among Proto-Indo-Europeans? Never. I wrote that the Vedic creator god comes from the root *dheh1 as per West, that's all.
The part about York was already in the article when I started edited it. I've never been a fan of it to be honest. It's removed now anyway.
I'm not talking about the oldest language. I'm not talking about the oldest attested language. The oldest Tocharian texts date back to the Common Era.
Point to any other part where I did OR in this article. It seems more likely that you either misinterpret the sources or what I wrote. I'm just following the reliable sources and you don't like what the sources are saying, that's all.
All you have done for now is: (1) personal attacks (I'm a crypto-Christian, I'm not 26 yo); (2) denying what the sources are saying even when I provide full quotes. Azerty82 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
PS: Can you explain what the problem is with this part? The references are correctly located. Nowhere it is implied that Mallory & Adams say dhéh1 is the divine creation. I could have said "according to West..." and "according to Mallory & Adams" at best; but this is not a case of original research. The authors are referring to the exact same root.
Another root, *dʰeh₁-, "to set in place, lay down, or establish", denotes the divine creation.[1] It is attested in Greek thémis and Sanskrit dhāman, both meaning "law" (from dʰeh₁-men-/i-, "that which is established"),[2] and in the Vedic creator god Dhātr.[1] Azerty82 (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b West 2007, p. 354.
  2. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 276: "‘Law’ itself, *dhéh1-men-/i-, is ‘that which is established’ and derives from *dhéh1- ‘put, establish’ but occurs in that meaning only in Grk thémis ‘law’ and Skt dhāman- ‘law’ (we also have *dhéh1tis [e.g. Lat conditiō ‘basis’, NE deed, Grk thesis ‘order’, and Skt -dhiti- ‘position’]) though the same kind of semantic development is seen in Germanic (e.g. NE law) and Italic (e.g. Lat lex ‘law’), both from *legh- ‘lie’, i.e. ‘that which is laid out’, and thus the concept is pan-Indo-European."

About your Third Opinion Request: I just removed it because it was placed in the wrong place on the 3O request page. Whoever is posting it is replacing a permanent example rather than posting it in the listing section. I was going to move it into the proper place, but the request is also defective because it focuses more on editor conduct than on article content, and 3O does not handle disputes about editor conduct, unsurprisingly it also names names of the editors involved, which also violates the 3O listing rules. If you choose to relist this, please be sure to put it in the correct place, not replacing anything, don't mention user names (your own or the other editor's), don't mention user conduct (such as POV or bias), and focus only on the content issues in question. If you do want to take up user conduct instead of getting an opinion about content, use WP:ANI after carefully reading and following the rules there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The request has been properly relisted. Both editors involved in the dispute are asking for a settlement by a third party. Azerty82 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


Putting the Hittites first place does not order the entire sequence of languages. Which is the language that is attested at 4th place ? Latin, Greek. So you basically want to put a focus on the Hittite language for whatever reasons. i think it is more senseful to put Sanskrit first because only for rta exists a wiki article and rta is a prototypic example for the PIE cosmic order.
My problem with this section is again based on nuances that are important in mythology.
1) You did not comment on the point i mentioned above : In PIE mythology the deities are guardians and preservers of the cosmic order and have to abide to it, they do not create the cosmic order. Your edit is a bit misleading because it implicates that a creator deity, creates the cosmic law. This is erroneous and so this should be clarified in the text.
2) Another nuance is that the cosmic law has its reflections in society, and the word stem *dhéh₁ is not focussed so much on the passive cosmic law but instead on the active righteous tasks and code of social conduct that the cosmic order implies, so both are strongly linked.
This becomes obvious in Claus Peter Zoller: Aspects of the Early History of Romani, University of Oslo, Acta Orientalia 2010: 71, 243–312 on page 18 , because *dheh1- has not a meaning of creation, it is a verb for many active tasks :

This element derives < OIA dádhāti ‘places, lays on, gives, seizes’ (6145), but regarding the exact meaning one needs to consider the meanings given for the precursor PIE *dheh1- , namely ‘to put, lay down, sit down, produce, make, speak, say, bring back’.

The Buddhist Dharma (note the similarity to Skt dhāman- ‘law’) is also has linked the root *dheh1 and it is not linked to a creator deity (cf Dharma)it is linked to lawful conduct or lawful action obedient to the cosmic law
3) So basically when mentioning *dheh1 in the context of the PIE cosmic order it should definitely be clarified that the cosmic order is superior and that the deities, even if they are creators have to obey to it.
And exactly this is your OR that you imply that the creator deities created the cosmic order, instead deities, humans animals , plans should obey to the cosmic order, e.g. Rta to have a peaceful life, this is the core of the IE worldview.
So Mallory & Adams and West mention the same PIE word stem, what West does not mention is that there are two layers an passive layer and an active layer and that the passive layer is superior to the active layer, e.g. the deities (active layer) in PIE mythology are guardians on preservers or the cosmic order (passive layer) and they have to obey to it. This background is important and not mentioning it in the article (like you do with your OR) is completely misleading. Your version reads like that the creator deity created the cosmic order and for the PIE mythology this is simply not true, maybe it is true for monotheistic religions but as i said this is the wrong article for this content and also for this bias.
So either this is clarified in the article or you simply any linking between West and Mallory & Adams are deleted because they are OR. This is why i mentioned that nuances are important and you should simply copy the citations and not try to interpret them.
What source exactly do you mean with 'The Great Soviet Encyclopedia' ? i never mentioned this ?

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that you are misinterpreting what I wrote and this is probably partly my fault. I have never said that PIE deities were at the origin of the cosmic order. I even wanted to correct the sentence from "denotes the divine creation" to "denotes divine creation", but I didn't make the change because of the ongoing dispute. "Divine" is not necessary linked to a god in particular, it just means "supreme" or "heavenly" creation. Again, this is just a misunderstanding.
I'm perfectly aware that PIE mythology has a resistant animistic substrate. This is why I've always precized that Dyēus must be called "daylight-sky-god" and not "god of the sky", and that he was not the supreme ruler like Zeus or Jupiter.
To be clear: PIE beliefs were tainted with animism. There was no creator god. *dheh1 denotes "divine creation". It is attested in the Hittite nēbis dēgan dāir ("established heaven (and) earth") and in the Vedic creator Dhātr. This doesn't mean *dheh1 connoted the creation of the world by a supreme god like in the Jewish tradition, it only means that *dheh1 denotes "divine creation".
Forget the 'The Great Soviet Encyclopedia'. This issue initially comes from a joke about the name 'Tocharian B', which I compared with the name of residential buildings in Communist Yugoslavia under Tito. I honestly don't care about politics as long as this article is concerned. So let's forget this issue to focus on the content.
The order of the terms is just a side issue. I just ordered them based on their first attestation. This doesn't imply that the word is not older than the written attestation we have. This is just based upon hard evidence for the first appearance of a word.
I think York's interpretation of divine vs asurian forces is wrong. But it was already in the article, York has a PhD and this section was properly sourced, so I couldn't remove it. I've never insisted on reintroducing this part in the article.
PS: you cannot reproach me for doing "Original Research" and of "simply copying the citations and not trying to interpret them" at the same time. Once again, I wrote most the article, including the whole section /gods and goddesses/ and, at least partly, the section /School of Thoughts/. I'm perfectly aware of structuralist thinking, even though it is just one school among the others and not the holy interpretation of PIE mythology. Azerty82 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
PS2: I have one issue with your way of thinking though: you seem to imply that Vedic beliefs were the 'closest' to the original PIE beliefs like 19th century scholars, which is wrong as Vedic beliefs changed like any other Indo-European traditions. And you also seem to principally found your reasoning on the Greek tradition, which is known to be strongly influenced by Near Eastern and Egyptian beliefs. Azerty82 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
The root of Dharma is *dhr-, not *dheh1Johundhar (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


As i said it would be good to elucidate in the article the relation between the passive PIE cosmic order and the activities of the living beings (what includes the deities) that have to abide by the rules of the cosmic order.

So the *hₐér stem is passive superior cosmic order / equilibrium while the *dhéh₁- stem is the active part (lawful conduct or more souvereign actions of deities however still in obedience of the cosmic order )

In general the relation between the *hₐér- stem and the *dhéh₁- stem should be elucidated.

The deity Dhātr is always equated to Brahma and Brahma is a very young deity. So it is questionable when Dhātr entered the Vedas, according to several sources i read also very late (with only a few mentionings compared to the nearly almighty powers this deity has in mythology). This is why i think this deity is a late insertion however West mentions it for some reasons... Themis is of the native PIE stratum and with Arthamis even rta is linked to it....


i do not think that the Vedic tradition is completely pure PIE mythology, however i think thst is the purest form we have. It is completely naive to believe that any of the European traditions about PIE traditions is left untouched by the later 1000 years of monotheism, and to a less extent this also applies to the Vedas and Hinduism. And the main IE mythologies i am firm with are the Nordic and Eastern ones (Norse, Celtic (Welsh), Baltic Germanic, Vedic ) That Greek mythology is heavily tainted is very obvious however if you dig into the older strata (titans,...) and compare this to other daughter mythologies the general pattern shines through.

i have to go to work now ...

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

That a deity may have "only a few mentionings" in the Rg Veda has absolutely nothing to do with how far back they go toward IE. Indra is one of the most frequently mentioned deities but has no clear divine cognates elsewhere in Indo-European, while Dyaus is mentioned relatively rarely yet has clear cognates throughout the rest of Indo-European. Johundhar (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


Here is my text for insertion into the article :


Linguistic evidence has led scholars to reconstruct the concept of a superordinate impersonal cosmic order,*hₐértus, denoting "what is fitting, rightly ordered" and ultimately deriving from the root *haer-, "to fit" : Hittite āra ("right, proper");[1] Sanskrit ṛta ("right time, order, rule");[2][3] Avestan arəta- ("order"); Greek artús ("arrangement"), possibly arete ("excellence") via the root *h₂erh₁ ("please, satisfy");[4] Latin artus ("joint"); Tocharian A ārtt- ("to praise, be pleased with"); Armernian ard ("ornament, shape"); Middle High German art ("innate feature, nature, fashion").[5]

This cosmic order is a passive principle, nevertheless it is superior, [6] similar to a symmetry principle. Interlocked with the root *hₐer- is the root *dʰeh₁- that means "to put, lay down, sit down, produce, make, speak, say, bring back" [7] [8] The Greek thémis and Sanskrit dhāman, both meaning "law" derive from *dʰeh₁-men-/i-. This notion of "law" includes an active principle, it has themeaning of actions in obedience to the cosmic order. In a social context it is interpreted as lawful conduct. The law or rule refered to in this context is the superordinate cosmic order (that is derived from the PIE root *hₐer-).

So the semantic linking between the root *hₐer- and the root *dʰeh₁- is that of an order, rule or law and action in obedience to this order or law .This becomes obvious exemplarily in the Greek and Vedic daughter cultures in the Greek goddess Themis and the Buddhist code of lawful conduct, the Dharma. The etymology of Dharma can also be traced back to the PIE root *dʰeh₁-,[9] Themis personifies and unifies the cosmic order or natural law and the derived social rules of lawful conduct. [10] [11]

The interplay between the cosmic order and animate beings in the cosmos is attested in many mythological narratives from descendent Indo-European daughter cultures. Because these narratives have a similar or equal semantic content in all daughter cultures it can possibly be concluded that this semantic content was present in proto-Indo-European times yet. For example, in the mythologies of none of the Indo-European daughter cultures are existent almighty deities. The highest deities in the panthea are often considered to be guardians or preservers of the cosmic order, however they have to abide by its rules. This is e.g. the case for Mitra and Varuna that are the Guardians of the Rta.[12] The influence of the cosmic order is often named Fate in the narratives and many tales exist in that the deities have to bow to the Fate e.g. in Greek mythology Zeus can not save the life of his son Sarpedon and the power is divided between Zeus and the Moirai. In Norse mythology the power over the runes, which are a mythological manifestation of the cosmic order, is divided between Odin and the Nornir.

According to Martin Litchfield West the root *dʰeh₁- denotes the divine creation and consequentially the name of the Vedic creator god Dhātr also derives from the root *dʰeh₁-. [13] [14]


i think this complete but too extent now. 158.181.78.15 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Brill. p. 198. ISBN 9789004160927.
  2. ^ Myers, Michael (2013). Brahman: A Comparative Theology. Routledge. p. 60. ISBN 978-1-136-83565-0. Ṛta, for example, is impersonal.
  3. ^ Johnson, W. J. (2009). "ṛta". A Dictionary of Hinduism. ISBN 978-0191726705.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ Beekes 2009, p. 128.
  5. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 276: "17.4 Law and Order The vocabulary of law [...] is not extensive in Proto-Indo-European and much of the concept 'law' derives from that of 'order' or 'what is fitting'. For example, we have *hₐértus from the root *hₐer- 'fit' which had already shifted to an association with cosmic order by the time of Indo-Iranians (e.g. Lat artus 'joint', MHG art 'innate feature, nature, fashion', dialectal Grk artús 'arranging, arrangement', Arm ard 'ornament, shape', Av arəta- 'order', Skt ṛtu- 'right time, order, rule', Toch B ārtt- 'love, praise'). More closely associated with ritual propriety is the Italic-Indo-Iranian isogloss that yields *yew(e)s- (Lat iūs 'law, right, justice, duty' "}, Av yaož -dā- 'make ritually pure', Skt śáṃca yóśca 'health and happiness') with a derived adjective *yusi(iy)os seen certainly in OIr uissse 'just right, fitting' and possibly OCS istǔ 'actual, true'. 'Law' itself, *dhéh₁-men-/i-, is 'that which is established' and derives from *dhéh₁- 'put, establish' but occurs in that meaning only in Grk thémis 'law' and Skt dhāman- 'law' (we also have *dhéh₁tis [e.g. Lat conditiō 'basis', NE 'deed', Grk 'order', Skt -dhiti- 'position']) though the same kind of semantic development is seen in Germanic (e.g. NE law) and Italic (e.g. Lat lex 'law'), both from *legh- 'lie', i.e. 'that which is laid out'. and thus the concept is pan-Indo-European.
  6. ^ Michael Myers, Brahman: A Comparative Theology & Routledge 2013, p. 60: Pande defines Rta as "the ideal principle in ordering, the paradigmatic principle of ultimate reality". Rta is the great criterion of the Rgveda, the standard of truth both for individual instances of human morality and for cosmic order and truth. The god Varuna is the guardian and preserver of the Rta, although Varuna also must abide its rules. Rta is more passive than the active god of christianity, but nevertheless it encompasses the order of the sacrifice, the physical order of the universe and the moral law.
  7. ^ Claus Peter Zoller 2010, p. 18 (260): "This element derives < OIA dádhāti ‘places, lays on, gives, seizes’ (6145), but regarding the exact meaning one needs to consider the meanings given for the precursor PIE *dheh1- , namely ‘to put, lay down, sit down, produce, make, speak, say, bring back’"
  8. ^ Claus Peter Zoller: Aspects of the Early History of Romani, University of Oslo, Acta Orientalia 2010: 71, page 18 (260)
  9. ^ M.G. Boutet: Celtic Astrology from the Druids to the Middle Ages, McFarland, 2017, p. 239
  10. ^ Saskia Peels : Hosios - A Semantic Study of Greek Piety, BRILL, 2015, p. 57
  11. ^ Saskia Peels : Hosios - A Semantic Study of Greek Piety & BRILL 2015, p. 57: Themis' children clearly show her to be a divine principle of natural and political order, a principle humans and gods alike need to obey.
  12. ^ Michael Myers, Brahman: A Comparative Theology & Routledge 2013, p. 60: Pande defines Rta as "the ideal principle in ordering, the paradigmatic principle of ultimate reality". Rta is the great criterion of the Rgveda, the standard of truth both for individual instances of human morality and for cosmic order and truth. The god Varuna is the guardian and preserver of the Rta, although Varuna also must abide its rules. Rta is more passive than the active god of christianity, but nevertheless it encompasses the order of the sacrifice, the physical order of the universe and the moral law.
  13. ^ M.L. West 2007, p. 354: "A more basic Indo-European verb for divine creation is *dheh1, which means to set in place, lay down, or establish. We find it in Hittite of the gods who nēbis dēgan dāir, ‘established heaven (and) earth’; in the Gāthās, Y. 44. 3 kasnā xəng strəmcā dāt advānəm? ‘Who made the path of the sun and stars?’ 5 kə huvāpå raocåscā dāt təmåscā? kə huvāpå xvafnəmcā dāt zaēmācā? ‘What skilful artificer made the regions of light and dark? What skilful artifi- cer made sleep and waking?’ 7 vīspanam dātārəm ‘maker of all things’; and similarly in the Old Persian inscriptions, of Ahuramazda hya imām būmim adā, hya avam asmānam adā, ‘who created this earth, who created that sky’. (DNa 1, DSe 1, etc.). The Vedic creator god Dhātr has his name from the same verb."
  14. ^ West 2007, p. 354.
Hi, I have created a draft so that we can work together outside the discussion page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Azerty82/Cosmology
It is only missing two things: some parts are not sourced and, as you said, it needs to be summarized for the article,
On my side, I'm going to extend the paragraph from West.
Once we both agree on the final version for the article, we can forget the dispute and cancel the third opinion request. Do you agree on this proposition?
PS: think about creating a Wikipedia account? You have a moving IP, it's sometimes difficult to follow. Azerty82 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi, yes i agree with this. But i think we edit this here because then others can contribute and check also ...
i think the critical point is to source that there is a semantic linking between the roots *hₐer- and *dʰeh₁- anyway, Mallory and Adams only mention them in the same context, leaving completely open the details of the semantic linking and i do not know how to insert this into the article, e.g.
In the context of the cosmic order there is a semantic link between the PIE roots *hₐer- and *dʰeh₁- , source: M & A ?
Then comes up the question of what nature this semantic linking is.
In the end the insertion of Dhatr as creator deity refers only to one daughter culture and the conclusion that this is global PIE content only because it appears in one daughter culture has often been kicked out of this article.
i think this should be clarified before proceeding here at all

158.181.78.15 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC) (Ralf)

No, in the Hittite tradition the gods nēbis dēgan dāir ("established heaven (and) earth"). dāir comes from *dʰeh₁- too. It is attested in the Iranian tradition as well (see the quote above). Go to my profile, and use the option to send me an email. I will send you a copy of West's book as a pdf. Azerty82 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, there is also an article for the Avestan Asha. So you add these sources to the draft, i copied West's quote under the Dhatr part. For sending an e-mail i have to create an account, will do this tomorrow ...

2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC) (Ralf)

i just realized that i have an account, however i can still not write an e-mail Ralf478 (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

summary?

I'm having some difficulty following the discussion above; could someone briefly summarize the main point at issue? (Thanks.) By the way, I found the articles in the English-language translation of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia on Semitic languages and the history of the alphabet to be quite interesting (because they were written by scholars such as Igor Diakonoff); I can't attest to the quality of articles in other areas, though... AnonMoos (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
basically the core point of this dispute is the question if it is OR (original research) when adding content because in a source two PIE root are linked to the same context (cosmic order, natural law), however the nature of this linking is not specified.
The critical text passage is in Mallory, Adams : The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World, 2006 on page 276 in that the PIE roots *hₐer- and *dhéh₁- are linked in context of the cosmic order :

"17.4 Law and Order The vocabulary of law [...] is not extensive in Proto-Indo-European and much of the concept 'law' derives from that of 'order' or 'what is fitting'. For example, we have *hₐértus from the root *hₐer- 'fit' which had already shifted to an association with cosmic order by the time of Indo-Iranians (e.g. Lat artus 'joint', MHG art 'innate feature, nature, fashion', dialectal Grk artús 'arranging, arrangement', Arm ard 'ornament, shape', Av arəta- 'order', Skt ṛtu- 'right time, order, rule', Toch B ārtt- 'love, praise'). More closely associated with ritual propriety is the Italic-Indo-Iranian isogloss that yields *yew(e)s- (Lat iūs 'law, right, justice, duty' "}, Av yaož -dā- 'make ritually pure', Skt śáṃca yóśca 'health and happiness') with a derived adjective *yusi(iy)os seen certainly in OIr uissse 'just right, fitting' and possibly OCS istǔ 'actual, true'. 'Law' itself, *dhéh₁-men-/i-, is 'that which is established' and derives from *dhéh₁- 'put, establish' but occurs in that meaning only in Grk thémis 'law' and Skt dhāman- 'law' (we also have *dhéh₁tis [e.g. Lat conditiō 'basis', NE 'deed', Grk 'order', Skt -dhiti- 'position']) though the same kind of semantic development is seen in Germanic (e.g. NE law) and Italic (e.g. Lat lex 'law'), both from *legh- 'lie', i.e. 'that which is laid out'. and thus the concept is pan-Indo-European.

The problem is that the semantic content that developed from one of the PIE roots (*dhéh₁) over the millenia split in two branches. We now have come to the point that we include both branches in the article and clearify the nature of the linking of the two PIE roots in mythology

Ralf478 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to set up your email to be able to send ones, but I've taken screenshots on the two pages involved in Martin L. West's book: https://imgur.com/a/V6Ligky At least we can agree on separating the two authors: first the part from Mallory & Adams, followed by: "According to Martin L. West, the root also denotes "heavenly or divine creation", as attested for instance in the Hittite expression nēbis dēgan dāir ("established heaven (and) earth"), the Young Avestan expression kə huvāpå raocåscā dāt təmåscā? ("What skilful artificer made the regions of light and dark?"), or in the Vedic creator god Dhātr." Azerty82 (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
On which passages of the draft do you disagree or what passages should be sourced better 2A02:2450:102C:99E:68A2:32E6:F97B:BE6C (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I don’t disagree with your draft. I just think it needs to be better summarized for the article, some parts are missing references (I don't say it's wrong or right, we just need all parts to be referenced so that future editors can verify what has been written). I further think that West’s part (which I've just redacted above) should be added after your part, because he has rightly pointed out examples in several Indo-European traditions (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Greek), where the root denotes a divine/heavenly/godly creation (which again has nothing to do with the Jewish/monotheist myth of creation), it just means that the natural elements have not always been present:
A similar depiction of the appearance of the universe before the act of creation is given in the Vedic, Germanic and, at least partly, in the Greek tradition. The Rigveda tells us that "neither non-being was nor being was at that time; there was not the air, nor the heaven beyond it... Neither death was nor the immortal then, nor was there the mark of night and day..." while "...earth was not, nor heaven above, nor tree... nor mountain there was, not a single star, nor the sun shone, nor the moon gave light, nor the bright sea..." in the Wessobrun prayer, and the author of the Völuspá writes that "...there was not sand nor sea nor the cool waves; earth was nowhere nor heaven above; Ginnunga Gap there was, but grass nowhere..." Although the idea of a created world is untypical of early Greek thinking, similar descriptions have been highlighted in Aristophanes's The Birds: "...there was Chasm and Night and dark Erebos at first, and broad Tartarus, but earth nor air nor heaven there was..." The analogy between the Greek Χἁος ("Chaos, Chasm") and the Norse Ginnungagap ("Gaping abyss") has also been noted by scholars. The importance of heat in Germanic creation myths has also been compared with similar Indian beliefs emphasized in the Vedic hymn on "cosmic heat". Azerty82 (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
For my part i think there is enough sources in my text and i think also in yours. Insert West's part, West is of course a reliable source ...
However normally mythology about the formation of the cosmos is covered by cosmogony and not be cosmology, so maybe this is a good transition in the article because the paragraph on cosmogony follows rightaway
The variety of interpretations of (P)IE cosmogonic myths has its own article now : Indo-European_cosmogony

Ralf478 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've separated West's part and moved it to /cosmogony/ as agreed. Tell me if it's clear enough that it is not referring to a divine creation originating from a monotheistic and primordial god. Azerty82 (talk)
i do not know if you should place it first in chapter Primordial state because state is something passive or inactive and Dhatri is the principle of activity and the state is primordial not the action, see i.e. the Norse Ginnungagap. But i am not the only editor here and you can not ask me on this exclusively. i think that Dhatri is a young deity that first appears in the Puranas (like also Brahma, cf Ādityas and Puranas, 3-10th century CE) and a few times in the 10th book of the Vedas ([1] in [1] on page 126 (115)). So i would not link it to PIE era (millenia BCE) but West did it, or at least he states that the name of the deity stems from a PIE root (what is a more or less trivial statement, by the way, in an IE language ...).
Because of this article here, do you think the draft has to be changed or is it okay ?
( i have to at work at 6 am ... )

Ralf478 (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Arthur Anthony Macdonell: Vedic Mythology, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1995, p. 115

Why are the Germanic Gods overshadowed in PIE mythology?

It appears that other than Sol and Mani, I can’t seem to find any other dirty linked to Proto-Indo-European. Have linguists come up with an explanation for the absence of Germanic deities in the PIE language?

Are the Germanic Gods native to Neolithic Europe or Scandinavia. Or has Germanic linguistics simply not been as closely payed attention too; compared to Eastern Europe, India and Celtic gods? :) Simonater2 (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong sources. Germanic gods (e. g. Tyr/Tiwaz) are definitely linked by scholars to PIE gods and words (Dyaus). The thing is, medieval Old Norse religion (the best-attested of the Germanic religions in terms of writings) were heavily modified from ancient beliefs, just as modern Hindus do not worship the god Dyaus who was apparently very important in Vedic times. After all, thousands of years passed between the PIE times and Viking times. We know more about ancient Persian, Indian, Greek, etc. religion than, say, Gothic because they were literate much earlier. IAmNitpicking (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
To complete your answer: Mannus (*Mannaz), Ymir (*Yumyaz), or Sól (*Sowelō > *Sōel) are indeed cognates with other IE gods. *Tīwaz is not a direct cognate of Dyaus/Zeus/Jove though, it comes from *deywós (deity), not *dyḗus (sky-god). You also have some cognates with neighbouring mythologies, especially Celtic and Baltic (e.g. *Þunaraz/*Tonaros or *Austrōn/Aušrinė). See Proto-Germanic folklore for further information. While the late attestation of Old Norse is one factor of "degradation" from the original PIE beliefs, the influence of substrates/superstrates and/or religious reformations (e.g. Zoroastrianism) is even more important: Baltic mythology is more recently attested than Old Norse, but it is very conservative, both religiously and linguistically speaking. Regards, Alcaios (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
And, as you mention in the article, the Norse goddess Fjǫrgyn. Johundhar (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Major revision to "Pantheon" section coming

Right now the "Pantheon" section is a complete mess. Several of the deities listed here are either not mentioned at all in Mallory and Adams or, in some cases, merely reconstructed as ordinary words, not names of deities. Also, people seem to keep adding original research linking unrelated deities from various pantheons to the deities reconstructed here. Furthermore, the table format is entirely unfitting for the presentation of this information. The information ought to be presented in paragraph form, where it can be explained in depth. I will be making major revisions to this section to get it up to snuff. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the status of your planned update, but please include the stunning similarities between the Vedic and the Greek pantheons. See for example https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2006457.pdf. Sooku (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest reviewing the similarity between herding god *Péh₂usōn and the vedic god Pushan. Pushan is an Aditya, and one of his attributes was looking after cattle herding. So he may not be a late addition but a very early one before the Indo-Iranians left the PIE. To add more the name of 12 Adityas are Vivasvan, Aryaman, Tvashta, Savitr, Bhaga, Dhata, Mitra, Varuna, Amsa, Pushan, Indra and Vishnu. Was Varuna and weather god *Perkʷunos were same God? Aryaman could have eventually evolved into Ahriman, when Zarathustra tried to reform the Ind-Iranian belief system? Suryabrata (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is all plausible to me (not an expert), but Wikipedia only reports on what sources believe. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal or forum. IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Anybody want to start a Neolithic Mythology page from non-PIE elements?

It looks like we have a professional reconstruction of the PIE religion and an extensive amount of myths left over; that didn’t make the cut. Is there anyway we can start a new page regarding Neolithic European Mythology; by region? :) Simonater2 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but quite difficult. We reconstruct PIE myth when three (ideally) or more (even more ideally) branches share a corresponding form and function, the more detailed the correspondence the better. But we have to assume that there were lots of cases where some mythological figure or motif was lost in all but one of the branches, but since there is no trace of it in other branches, we still can't reconstruct it as PIE.

So it becomes pretty much impossible to suss out what features of any particular branch are truly non-IE/native neolithic material, and which are actually PIE in origin, but not well enough attested in enough branches to be solidly reconstructible.

But the same issue applies in the vocabulary in general. Some have tried recently for example to reconstruct the pre-Greek language from the large portion of ancient Greek vocabulary (about half!) that can't be traced back to PIE with certainty. These attempts remain controversial, but they have become more subtle and systematic than some of the earlier hamfisted attempts at this sort of thing.

I hope this is somewhat understandable. Best wishes. Johundhar (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See for example the intro to Beekes's Greek Etymological DictionaryJohundhar (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Johundhar@Simonater2 I might not be understanding it, but isn't what you're proposing original research? Original research is great but on Wikipedia it is not allowed directly. You should do the research and then post it and use it as a source in a wikipedia article. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
But, they cannot just post it somewhere themselves. That falls under self-published sources. Such research would have to be published in an independent, reliable source, and, for this subject, that would mean in a peer-reviewed academic journal or a book published by an academic or major publisher. Donald Albury 01:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Other propositions

We have 5 sections in this article titled "Other_propositions". Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you suggest these sections be called? I think "Other Propositions" is fine, because they are other propositions concerning the subject that the section is under. JungleEntity (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proto-Indo-European_mythology/Archive_3&oldid=1253339872"