7,020 to 6,020-year-old Proto-Indo-European Homeland of Urheimat or proposed home of their Language and Religion

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Picture ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

7,020 to 6,020-year-old Proto-Indo-European Homeland of Urheimat, a region of the proposed common ancestor of all the Indo-European languages as well as a common connected ritual thread in their latter religions and cultures. 

The Steppe Hypothesis is around “6,020 years ago” and the Anatolian hypothesis is around “10,020 years ago.”

Proto-Indo-Europeans

“The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a hypothetical prehistoric ethnolinguistic group of Eurasia who spoke Proto-Indo-European (PIE), the ancestor of the Indo-European languages according to linguistic reconstruction. Knowledge of them comes chiefly from that linguistic reconstruction, along with material evidence from archaeology and archaeogenetics. The Proto-Indo-Europeans likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC. Mainstream scholarship places them in the Pontic–Caspian steppe zone in Eastern Europe (present-day Ukraine and southern Russia). Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BC) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses. By the early second millennium BC, descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had reached far and wide across Eurasia, including Anatolia (Hittites), the Aegean (the ancestors of Mycenaean Greece), the north of Europe (Corded Ware culture), the edges of Central Asia (Yamnaya culture), and southern Siberia (Afanasievo culture).” ref

“By using linguistic reconstruction from old Indo-European languages such as Latin and Sanskrit, hypothetical features of the Proto-Indo-European language are deduced. Assuming that these linguistic features reflect the culture and environment of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the following cultural and environmental traits are widely proposed:

• pastoralism, including domesticated cattle, horses, and dogs
• agriculture and cereal cultivation, including technology commonly ascribed to late-Neolithic farming communities, e.g., the plow
• transportation by or across water
• the solid wheel, used for wagons, but not yet chariots with spoked wheels
• worship of a sky god, *Dyḗus Ph2tḗr (lit. “sky father”; > Vedic Sanskrit Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́, Ancient Greek Ζεύς (πατήρ) / Zeus (patēr)), vocative *dyeu ph2ter (> Latin Iūpiter, Illyrian Deipaturos)
• oral heroic poetry or song lyrics that used stock phrases such as imperishable fame (*ḱléwos ń̥dʰgʷʰitom) and the wheel of the sun (*sh₂uens kʷekʷlos).
• a patrilineal kinship-system based on relationships between men.” ref  

 “Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and deities associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the hypothetical speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. Although the mythological motifs are not directly attested – since Proto-Indo-European speakers lived in prehistoric societies – scholars of comparative mythology have reconstructed details from inherited similarities found among Indo-European languages, leading to the assumption that parts of the Proto-Indo-Europeans’ original belief systems survived in the daughter traditions. The Proto-Indo-European pantheon includes a number of securely reconstructed deities such as *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, the daylight-sky god; his consort *Dʰéǵʰōm, the earth mother; his daughter *H₂éwsōs, the dawn goddess; his sons the Divine Twins; and *Seh₂ul, a solar goddess. Some deities, like the weather god *Perkʷunos or the herding-god *Péh₂usōn, are only attested in a limited number of traditions–Western (European) and Graeco-Aryan, respectively–and could, therefore, represent late additions that did not spread throughout the various Indo-European dialects. Some myths are also securely dated to Proto-Indo-European times since they feature both linguistic and thematic evidence of an inherited motif: a story portraying a mythical figure associated with thunder and slaying a multi-headed serpent to release torrents of water that had previously been pent up; a creation myth involving two brothers, one of whom sacrifices the other in order to create the world; and probably the belief that the Otherworld was guarded by a watchdog and could only be reached by crossing a river.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Source mythologies

“One of the earliest attested and thus most important of all Indo-European mythologies is Vedic mythology, especially the mythology of the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas. Early scholars of comparative mythology such as Friedrich Max Müller stressed the importance of Vedic mythology to such an extent that they practically equated it with Proto-Indo-European myth. Modern researchers have been much more cautious, recognizing that, although Vedic mythology is still central, other mythologies must also be taken into account. Another of the most important source mythologies for comparative research is Roman mythology. Contrary to the frequent erroneous statement made by some authors that “Rome has no myth”, the Romans possessed a very complex mythological system, parts of which have been preserved through the characteristic Roman tendency to rationalize their myths into historical accounts. Despite its relatively late attestation, Norse mythology is still considered one of the three most important of the Indo-European mythologies for comparative research, simply due to the vast bulk of surviving Icelandic material.” ref 

Baltic mythology has also received a great deal of scholarly attention, as it is linguistically the most conservative and archaic of all surviving branches, but has so far remained frustrating to researchers because the sources are so comparatively late. Nonetheless, Latvian folk songs are seen as a major source of information in the process of reconstructing Proto-Indo-European myth. Despite the popularity of Greek mythology in western culture, Greek mythology is generally seen as having little importance in comparative mythology due to the heavy influence of Pre-Greek and Near Eastern cultures, which overwhelms what little Indo-European material can be extracted from it. Consequently, Greek mythology received minimal scholarly attention until the first decade of the 21st century.” ref 

“Although Scythians are considered relatively conservative in regards to Proto-Indo-European cultures, retaining a similar lifestyle and culture, their mythology has very rarely been examined in an Indo-European context and infrequently discussed in regards to the nature of the ancestral Indo-European mythology. At least three deities, Tabiti, Papaios, and Api, are generally interpreted as having Indo-European origins, while the remaining have seen more disparate interpretations. Influence from Siberian, Turkic, and even Near Eastern beliefs, on the other hand, are more widely discussed in the literature.” ref 

 Proto-Indo-European Cosmology

There was a fundamental opposition between the never-aging gods dwelling above in the skies, and the mortal humans living beneath on earth. The earth *dʰéǵʰōm was perceived as a vast, flat, and circular continent surrounded by waters (“the Ocean”). Although they may sometimes be identified with mythical figures or stories, the stars (*h₂stḗr) were not bound to any particular cosmic significance and were perceived as ornamental more than anything else. Linguistic evidence has led scholars to reconstruct the concept of an impersonal cosmic order,*h₂értus, denoting “what is fitting, rightly ordered” and ultimately deriving from the root *h₂er-, “to fit” : Hittite āra (“right, proper”); Sanskrit ṛta (“divine/cosmic law, force of truth, or order”); Avestan arəta- (“order”); Greek artús (“arrangement”), possibly arete (“excellence”) via the root *h₂erh₁ (“please, satisfy”); Latin artus (“joint”); Tocharian A ārtt- (“to praise, be pleased with”); Armernian ard (“ornament, shape”); Middle High German art (“innate feature, nature, fashion”). The cosmic order embodies a superordinate passive principle, similar to a symmetry or balancing principle. Interwoven with the root *h₂er- is the root *dʰeh₁-, which means “to put, lay down, sit down, produce, make, speak, say, bring back”. The Greek thémis and Sanskrit dhāman, both meaning “law”, derive from *dʰeh₁-men-/i- (‘that which is established’). This notion of “law” includes an active principle, which denotes an activity in obedience to the cosmic order and in a social context is interpreted as a lawful conduct. In the Greek daughter culture the titaness Themis personifies the cosmic order and the rules of lawful conduct which derived from it. In the Vedic daughter culture, the etymology of the Buddhist code of lawful conduct, the Dharma, can also be traced back to the PIE root *dʰeh₁-.” ref

“In Proto-Indo-European mythology the universe was represented by a World Tree. Reflexes of this most fundamental symbolism for the universe can be seen in all Indo-European daughter cultures, compare the article World Tree.” ref

Cosmogony: Indo-European cosmogony

“There is no scientific consensus which of the many variants is the ‘true’ reconstruction of the proto-Indo-European cosmogonic myth. John Grigsby lists three variants of reconstructions : 

• Twin and Man
• The World Parents
• Near Eastern Cosmogonies” ref

The following paragraph is a detailed summary of Bruce Lincoln‘s reconstruction of the proto-Indo-European cosmogonic myth (Manu – Twin – Trito), which is supported by other scholars like J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams :

“The comparative analysis of different Indo-European tales has led some scholars to reconstruct an original Proto-Indo-European creation myth involving twin brothers, *Manu- (“Man”) and *Yemo- (“Twin”), as the progenitors of the world and mankind, and a hero named *Trito (“Third”) who ensured the continuity of the original sacrifice. Although some thematic parallels can be made with Ancient Near East (the twin Abel and Cain and their brother Seth), and even Polynesian or South American legends, the linguistic correspondences found in descendant cognates of *Manu and *Yemo make it very likely that the myth discussed here has a Proto-Indo-European origin. Since its modern reconstruction in the 1970s, the cosmogonical motifs of Manu and Yemo and, to a lesser extent, that of Trito, have been generally accepted among scholars.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Creation myth

“The Vedic, Germanic and, partially, the Greek traditions give evidence of a primordial state where the cosmological elements were not present: “neither non-being was nor being was at that time; there was not the air, nor the heaven beyond it…” (Rigveda), “…there was not sand nor sea nor the cool waves; earth was nowhere nor heaven above; Ginnunga Gap there was, but grass nowhere…” (Völuspá), “…there was Chasm and Night and dark Erebos at first, and broad Tartarus, but earth nor air nor heaven there was…” (The Birds). The concept of the Cosmic Egg, symbolizing the primordial state from which the universe arises, is also found in many Indo-European creation myths.” ref 

“The first man Manu and his giant twin Yemo are crossing the cosmos, accompanied by the primordial cow. To create the world, Manu sacrifices his brother and, with the help of heavenly deities (the Sky-Father, the Storm-God, and the Divine Twins), forges both the natural elements and human beings from his remains. Manu thus becomes the first priest after initiating sacrifice as the primordial condition for the world order, and his deceased brother Yemo the first king as social classes emerge from his anatomy (priesthood from his head, the warrior class from his breast and arms, and the commoners from his sexual organs and legs). Although the European and Indo-Iranian versions differ on this matter, the primeval cow was most likely sacrificed in the original myth, giving birth to the other animals and vegetables.” ref 

“To the third man Trito, the celestial gods then offer cattle as a divine gift, which is stolen by a three-headed serpent named *Ngʷhi (“serpent”; and the Indo-European root for negation). Trito first suffers at his hands, but the hero eventually manages to overcome the monster, fortified by an intoxicating drink and aided by the Sky-Father. He eventually gives the recovered cattle back to a priest for it to be properly sacrificed. Trito is now the first warrior, maintaining through his heroic actions the cycle of mutual giving between gods and mortals.” ref 

Interpretations

“According to Lincoln, Manu and Yemo seem to be the protagonists of “a myth of the sovereign function, establishing the model for later priests and kings”, while the legend of Trito should be interpreted as “a myth of the warrior function, establishing the model for all later men of arms”. The myth indeed recalls the Dumézilian tripartition of the cosmos between the priest (in both his magical and legal aspects), the warrior (the Third Man), and the herder (the cow).” ref 

“According to Martin L. West, the root *dʰeh₁- also denotes a divine or cosmic creation, as attested by the Hittite expression nēbis dēgan dāir (“…established heaven (and) earth”), the Young Avestan formula kə huvāpå raocåscā dāt təmåscā? (“What skilful artificer made the regions of light and dark?”), the name of the Vedic creator god Dhātr, and possibly by the Greek nymph Thetis, presented as a demiurgical goddess in Alcman‘s poetry. The story of Trito served as a model for later cattle raiding epic myths and most likely as a moral justification for the practice of raiding among Indo-European peoples. In the original legend, Trito is only taking back what rightfully belongs to his people, those who sacrifice properly to the gods. The myth has been interpreted either as a cosmic conflict between the heavenly hero and the earthly serpent, or as an Indo-European victory over non-Indo-European people, the monster symbolizing the aboriginal thief or usurper.” ref 

“Some scholars have proposed that the primeval being Yemo was depicted as a two-folded hermaphrodite rather than a twin brother of Manu, both forming indeed a pair of complementary beings entwined together. The Germanic names Ymir and Tuisto were understood as twin, bisexual or hermaphrodite, and some myths give a sister to the Vedic Yama, also called Twin and with whom incest is discussed. In this interpretation, the primordial being may have self-sacrificed, or have been divided in two, a male half and a female half, embodying a prototypal separation of the sexes.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European mythology Legacy

“Cognates deriving from the Proto-Indo-European First Priest *Manu (“Man“, “ancestor of mankind”) include the Indic Manu, the legendary first man in Hinduism, and Manāvī, his sacrificed wife; the Germanic Mannus (from Germ. *Manwaz), the mythical ancestor of the West Germanic tribes; and the Persian Manūščihr (from Av. Manūš.čiθra), a Zoroastrian high priest of the 9th century AD. From the name of the sacrificed First King *Yemo (“Twin”) derive the Indic Yama, the god of death and the underworld; the Avestan Yima, king of the golden age and guardian of hell; the Norse Ymir (from Germ. *Jumijaz), ancestor of the giants (jötnar); and most likely Remus (from Proto-Latin *Yemos or *Yemonos), killed in the Roman foundation myth by his twin brother Romulus. Cognates stemming from the First Warrior *Trito (“Third”) include the Vedic Trita, the Avestan Thrita, and the Norse þriði.” ref 

“Many Indo-European beliefs explain aspects of human anatomy from the results of the original dismemberment of Yemo: his flesh usually becomes the earth, his hair grass, his bone yields stone, his blood water, his eyes the sun, his mind the moon, his brain the clouds, his breath the wind, and his head the heavens. The traditions of sacrificing an animal to disperse its parts according to socially established patterns, a custom found in Ancient Rome and India, has been interpreted as an attempt to restore the balance of the cosmos ruled by the original sacrifice. The motif of Manu and Yemo has been influential throughout Eurasia following the Indo-European migrations. The Greek, Old Russian (Poem on the Dove King), and Jewish versions depend on the Iranian, and a Chinese version of the myth has been introduced from Ancient India. The Armenian version of the myth of the First Warrior Trito depends on the Iranian, and the Roman reflexes were influenced by earlier Greek versions.” ref 

Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Proto-Indo-European Otherworld

“The realm of death was generally depicted as the Lower Darkness and the land of no return. Many Indo-European myths relate a journey across a river, guided by an old man (*ǵerh₂ont-), in order to reach the Otherworld. The Greek tradition of the dead being ferried across the river Styx by Charon is probably a reflex of this belief, and the idea of crossing a river to reach the Underworld is also present throughout Celtic mythologies. Several Vedic texts contain references to crossing a river in order to reach the land of the dead, and the Latin word tarentum (“tomb”) originally meant “crossing point”. In Norse mythology, Hermóðr must cross a bridge over the river Giöll in order to reach Hel and, in Latvian folk songs, the dead must cross a marsh rather than a river. Traditions of placing coins on the bodies of the deceased in order to pay the ferryman are attested in both ancient Greek and early modern Slavic funerary practices.” ref 

“In a recurrent motif, the Otherworld contains a gate, generally guarded by a multi-headed (sometimes multi-eyed) dog who could also serve as a guide and ensured that the ones who entered could not get out. The Greek Cerberus and the Hindu Śárvara most likely derive from the common root *Ḱérberos (“spotted”). Bruce Lincoln has proposed a third cognate in the Norse Garmr, although this has been debated as linguistically untenable. The mytheme possibly stems from an older Ancient North Eurasian belief, as evidenced by similar motifs in Native American and Siberian mythology, in which case it might be one of the oldest mythemes recoverable through comparative mythology. The King of the Otherworld may have been Yemo, the sacrificed twin of the creation myth, as suggested by the Indo-Iranian and, to a lesser extent, by the Germanic, Greek, and Celtic traditions. The belief in reincarnation was common in many ancient Indo-European cultures. In the Rigveda in particular, the eye of the deceased goes back to the sun and his breath to the wind. Beside rebirth in plants, animals, and humans it was also considered possible to be reborn in non-physical places like heavens and hells.” ref 

“Several traditions reveal traces of a Proto-Indo-European eschatological myth that describes the end of the world following a cataclysmic battle. The story begins when an archdemon, usually coming from a different and inimical paternal line, assumes the position of authority among the community of the gods or heroes (Norse Surtr, Roman Tarquin, Irish Bres). The subjects are treated unjustly by the new ruler, forced to erect fortifications while the archdemon favors instead outsiders, on whom his support relies. After a particularly heinous act, the archdemon is exiled by his subjects and takes refuge among his foreign relatives. A new leader (Norse Víðarr, Roman Lucius Brutus, Irish Lug), known as the “silent” one and usually the nephew or grandson (*népōt) of the exiled archdemon, then springs up and the two forces come together to annihilate each other in a cataclysmic battle. The myth ends with the interruption of the cosmic order and the conclusion of a temporal cyclic era. In the Norse and Iranian traditions, a cataclysmic “cosmic winter” precedes the final battle.” ref 

“In the cosmological model proposed by Jean Haudry, the Proto-Indo-European sky is composed of three “heavens” (diurnal, nocturnal, and liminal) rotating around an axis mundi, each having its own deities, social associations, and colors (white, dark and red, respectively). Deities of the diurnal sky could not transgress the domain of the nocturnal sky, inhabited by its own sets of gods and by the spirits of the dead. For instance, Zeus cannot extend his power to the nightly sky in the Iliad. In this vision, the liminal or transitional sky embodies the gate or frontier (dawn and twilight) binding the two other heavens.” ref 

“Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed that the peripheral part of the earth was inhabited by a people exempt from the hardships and pains that affect us. The common motif is suggested by the legends of the Indic Śvetadvīpam (“White Island”), whose inhabitants shine white like the moon and need no food; the Greek Hyperborea (“Beyond the North Wind”), where the sun shines all the time and the men know “neither disease nor bitter old age”; the Irish Tír na nÓg (“Land of the Young”), a mythical region located in the western sea where “happiness lasts forever and there is no satiety”; or the Germanic Ódáinsakr (“Glittering Plains”), a land situated beyond the Ocean where “no one is permitted to die”.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Gods and goddesses

“The archaic Proto-Indo-European language (4500–4000) had a two-gender system that originally distinguished words between animate and inanimate, a system used to separate a common term from its deified synonym. For instance, fire as an active principle was *h₁n̥gʷnis (Latin ignis; Sanskrit Agní), while the inanimate, physical entity was *péh₂ur (Greek pyr ; English fire). During this period, Indo-European beliefs were still animistic and their language did not make yet formal distinctions between masculine and feminine, although it is likely that each deity was already conceived as either male or female. Most of the goddesses attested in later Indo-European mythologies come from pre-Indo-European deities eventually assimilated into the various pantheons following the migrations, like the Greek Athena, the Roman Juno, the Irish Medb, or the Iranian Anahita. Diversely personified, they were frequently seen as fulfilling multiple functions, while Proto-Indo-European goddesses shared a lack of personification and narrow functionalities as a general characteristic. The most well-attested female Indo-European deities include *H₂éwsōs, the Dawn, *Dʰéǵʰōm, the Earth, and *Seh₂ul, the Sun.” ref 

“It is not probable that the Indo-Europeans had a fixed canon of deities or assigned a specific number to them. The term for “a god” was *deywós (“celestial”), derived from the root *dyew, which denoted the bright sky or the light of day. It has numerous reflexes in Latin deus, Old Norse Týr (< Germ. *tīwaz), Sanskrit devá, Avestan daeva, Irish día, or Lithuanian Dievas. In contrast, human beings were synonymous of “mortals” and associated with the “earthly” (*dʰéǵʰōm), likewise the source of words for “man, human being” in various languages. Proto-Indo-Europeans believed the gods to be exempt from death and disease because they were nourished by special aliments, usually not available to mortals: in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, “the gods, of course, neither eat nor drink. They become sated by just looking at this nectar”, while the Edda tells us that “on wine alone the weapon-lord Odin ever lives … he needs no food; wine is to him both drink and meat”. Sometimes concepts could also be deified, such as the Avestan mazdā (“wisdom”), worshipped as Ahura Mazdā (“Lord Wisdom”); the Greek god of war Ares (connected with ἀρή, “ruin, destruction”); or the Vedic protector of treaties Mitráh (from mitrám, “contract”).” ref 

Epithets and names

“Gods had several titles, typically “the celebrated”, “the highest”, “king”, or “shepherd”, with the notion that deities had their own idiom and true names which might be kept secret from mortals in some circumstances. In Indo-European traditions, gods were seen as the “dispensers” or the “givers of good things” (*déh₃tōr h₁uesuom). Although certain individual deities were charged with the supervision of justice or contracts, in general, the Indo-European gods did not have an ethical character. Their immense power, which they could exercise at their pleasure, necessitated rituals, sacrifices, and praise songs from worshipers to ensure they would in return bestow favorable fate to the community. The idea that gods were in control of the nature was translated in the suffix *-nos (feminine -nā), which signified “lord of”. According to West, it is attested in Greek Ouranos (“lord of rain”) and Helena (“mistress of sunlight”), Germanic *Wōðanaz (“lord of frenzy”), Gaulish Epona (“goddess of horses”), Lithuanian Perkūnas (“lord of oaks”), and in Roman Neptunus (“lord of waters”), Volcanus (“lord of fire-glare”) and Silvanus (“lord of woods”).” ref 

Picture ref 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Proto-Indo-European Pantheon

“Linguists have been able to reconstruct the names of some deities in the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) from many types of sources. Some of the proposed deity names are more readily accepted among scholars than others. According to philologist Martin L. West, “the clearest cases are the cosmic and elemental deities: the Sky-god, his partner Earth, and his twin sons; the Sun, the Sun Maiden, and the Dawn; gods of storm, wind, water, fire; and terrestrial presences such as the Rivers, spring and forest nymphs, and a god of the wild who guards roads and herds.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Heavenly deities

Sky Father: Dyēus 

“The head deity of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon was the god *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, whose name literally means “Sky Father”. Dyēws was the deified daylight sky. He is, by far, the most well-attested of all the Proto-Indo-European deities. His dwelling, the skies, became associated with the “heaven”, the seat of the gods, in classic proto-Indo-European. As the gateway to the gods and the father of both the Divine Twins and the goddess of the dawn, Hausos, Dyēws was a prominent deity in the pantheon. According to West, he was however likely not their ruler, or the holder of the supreme power like Zeus and Jupiter. Due to his celestial nature, Dyēws is often described as “all-seeing”, or “with wide vision” in Indo-European myths. It is unlikely however that he was in charge of the supervision of justice and righteousness, as it was the case for the Zeus or the Indo-Iranian Mithra–Varuna duo; but he was suited to serve at least as a witness to oaths and treaties. The Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, and the Illyrian god Dei-Pátrous all appear as the head gods of their respective pantheons. *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr is also attested in the Rigveda as Dyáus Pitā, a minor ancestor figure mentioned in only a few hymns. The ritual expressions Debess tēvs in Latvian and attas Isanus in Hittite are not exact descendants of the formula *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, but they do preserve its original structure.” ref

Dawn Goddess: Hausos 

“*H₂éusōs has been reconstructed as the Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn. In three traditions (Indic, Greek, Baltic), the Dawn is the “daughter of heaven”, *Dyḗws. In these three branches plus a fourth (Italic), the reluctant dawn-goddess is chased or beaten from the scene for tarrying. An ancient epithet to designate the Dawn appears to have been *Dʰuǵh₂tḗr Diwós, “Sky Daughter”. Depicted as opening the gates of Heaven when she appears at the beginning of the day, Hausōs is generally seen as never-ageing or born again each morning. Associated with red or golden cloths, she is often portrayed as dancing.” ref 

“Twenty-one hymns in the Rigveda are dedicated to the dawn goddess Uṣás and a single passage from the Avesta honors the dawn goddess Ušå. The dawn goddess Eos appears prominently in early Greek poetry and mythology. The Roman dawn goddess Aurora is a reflection of the Greek Eos, but the original Roman dawn goddess may have continued to be worshipped under the cultic title Mater Matuta. The Anglo-Saxons worshipped the goddess Ēostre, who was associated with a festival in spring which later gave its name to a month, which gave its name to the Christian holiday of Easter in English. The name Ôstarmânôth in Old High German has been taken as an indication that a similar goddess was also worshipped in southern Germany. The Lithuanian dawn goddess Aušra was still acknowledged in the sixteenth century.” ref 

Sun and Moon

“*Seh₂ul and *Meh₁not are reconstructed as the Proto-Indo-European goddess of the Sun and god of the Moon respectively. *Seh₂ul is reconstructed based on the Greek god Helios, the Greek mythological figure Helen of Troy, the Roman god Sol, the Celtic goddess Sul/Suil, the North Germanic goddess Sól, the Continental Germanic goddess *Sowilō, the Hittite goddess “UTU-liya”, the Zoroastrian Hvare-khshaeta and the Vedic god Surya. *Meh₁not- is reconstructed based on the Norse god Máni, the Slavic god Myesyats, and the Lithuanian god *Meno, or Mėnuo (Mėnulis). Remnants of the lunar deity may exist in Anatolian (Phrygian) deity Men (deity) and Selene’s daughters, the Menae (Μηναι).” ref 

“The daily course of *Seh₂ul across the sky on a horse-driven chariot is a common motif among Indo-European myths. While it is probably inherited, the motif certainly appeared after the introduction of the wheel in the Pontic-Caspian steppe about 3500 BC, and is therefore a late addition to Proto-Indo-European culture. Although the sun was personified as an independent, female deity, the Proto-Indo-Europeans also visualized the sun as the “lamp of Dyēws” or the “eye of Dyēws”, as seen in various reflexes: “the god’s lamp” in Medes by Euripides, “heaven’s candle” in Beowulf, or “the land of Hatti’s torch”, as the Sun-goddess of Arinna is called in a Hittite prayer; and Helios as the eye of Zeus, Hvare-khshaeta as the eye of Ahura Mazda, and the sun as “God’s eye” in Romanian folklore.[138] The names of Celtic sun goddesses like Sulis and Grian may also allude to this association: the words for “eye” and “sun” are switched in these languages, hence the name of the goddesses.” ref 

Divine Twins

“The Horse Twins are a set of twin brothers found throughout nearly every Indo-European pantheon who usually have a name that means ‘horse’, *h₁éḱwos, although the names are not always cognate, and no Proto-Indo-European name for them can be reconstructed. In most traditions, the Horse Twins are brothers of the Sun Maiden or Dawn goddess, and the sons of the sky god, *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr. The Greek Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) are the “sons of Zeus“; the Vedic Divó nápātā (Aśvins) are the “sons of Dyaús“, the sky-god; the Lithuanian Dievo sūneliai (Ašvieniai) are the “sons of the God” (Dievas), and the Latvian Dieva dēli are likewise the “sons of the God” (Dievs).” ref 

“Represented as young men and the steeds who pull the sun across the sky, the Divine Twins rode horses (sometimes they were depicted as horses themselves) and rescued men from mortal peril in battle or at sea. The Divine Twins are often differentiated: one is represented as a young warrior while the other is seen as a healer or concerned with domestic duties. In most tales where they appear, the Divine Twins rescue the Dawn from a watery peril, a theme that emerged from their role as the solar steeds. At night, the horses of the sun returned to the east in a golden boat, where they traversed the sea to bring back the Sun each morning. During the day, they crossed the sky in pursuit of their consort, the morning star.” ref 

“Other reflexes may be found in the Anglo-Saxon Hengist and Horsa (whose names mean “stallion” and “horse”), the Celtic “Dioskouroi” said by Timaeus to be venerated by Atlantic Celts as a set of horse twins, the Germanic Alcis, a pair of young male brothers worshipped by the Naharvali, or the Welsh Brân and Manawydan. The horse twins could have been based on the morning and evening star (the planet Venus) and they often have stories about them in which they “accompany” the Sun goddess, because of the close orbit of the planet Venus to the sun.” ref 

“Some scholars have proposed a consort goddess named *Diwōnā or *Diwōneh₂, a spouse of Dyēws with a possible descendant in the Greek goddess Dione. A thematic echo may also occur in Vedic India, as both Indra‘s wife Indrānī and Zeus‘s consort Dione display a jealous and quarrelsome disposition under provocation. A second descendant may be found in Dia, a mortal said to unite with Zeus in a Greek myth. The story leads ultimately to the birth of the Centaurs after the mating of Dia’s husband Ixion with the phantom of Hera, the spouse of Zeus. The reconstruction is however only attested in those two traditions and therefore not secured. The Greek Hera, the Roman Juno, the Germanic Frigg, and the Indic Shakti are often depicted as the protectress of marriage and fertility, or as the bestowal of the gift of prophecy. James P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams note however that “these functions are much too generic to support the supposition of a distinct PIE ‘consort goddess’ and many of the ‘consorts’ probably represent assimilations of earlier goddesses who may have had nothing to do with marriage.” ref 

“Although the etymological association is often deemed untenable, some scholars have proposed *Worunos as the nocturnal sky and benevolent counterpart of Dyēws, with possible cognates in Greek Ouranos and Vedic Varuna, from the PIE root *woru- (“to encompass, cover”). Worunos may have personified the firmament, or dwelled in the night sky. In both Greek and Vedic poetry, Uranos and Varuna are portrayed as “wide-looking”, bounding or seizing their victims, and having or being a heavenly “seat”. In the three-sky cosmological model, the celestial phenomena linking the nightly and daily skies is embodied by a “Binder-god”: the Greek Kronos, a transitional deity between Ouranos and Zeus in Hesiod‘s Theogony, the Indic Savitṛ, associated with the rising and setting of the sun in the Vedas, and the Roman Saturnus, whose feast marked the period immediately preceding the winter solstice.” ref 

Nature deities

“The substratum of Proto-Indo-European mythology is animistic. This native animism is still reflected in the Indo-European daughter cultures, In Norse mythology, the Vættir are for instance reflexes of the native animistic nature spirits and deities.[160][page needed] Trees have a central position in Indo-European daughter cultures and are thought to be the abode of tree spirits. In Indo-European tradition, the storm is deified as a highly active, assertive, and sometimes aggressive element; the fire and water are deified as cosmic elements that are also necessary for the functioning of the household; the deified earth is associated with fertility and growth on the one hand and with death and the underworld on the other.” ref 

Earth Mother: Dhéǵhōm

“The earth goddess, *Dʰéǵʰōm, is portrayed as the vast and dark house of mortals, in contrast with Dyēws, the bright sky and seat of the immortal gods. She is associated with fertility and growth, but also with death as the final dwelling of the deceased. She was likely the consort of the sky father, *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr. The duality is associated with fertility, as the crop grows from her moist soil, nourished by the rain of Dyēws. The Earth is thus portrayed as the giver of good things: she is exhorted to become pregnant in an Old English prayer; and Slavic peasants described Zemlja, Mother Earth, as a prophetess that shall offer favorable harvest to the community. The unions of Zeus with Semele and Demeter is likewise associated with fertility and growth in Greek mythology. This pairing is further attested in the Vedic pairing of Dyáus Pitā and Prithvi Mater, the Greek pairing of Ouranos and Gaia, the Roman pairing of Jupiter and Tellus Mater from Macrobius‘s Saturnalia, and the Norse pairing of Odin and Jörð. Although Odin is not a reflex of *Dyḗws Ph₂tḗr, his cult may have subsumed aspects of an earlier chief deity who was. The Earth and Heaven couple is however not at the origin of the other gods, as the Divine Twins and Hausos were probably conceived by Dyēws alone.” ref 

“Cognates include Žemyna, a Lithuanian goddess celebrated as the bringer of flowers; Zemes Māte (“Mother Earth”), one of the goddesses of death in Latvian mythology; the Slavic Mati Syra Zemlya (“Mother Moist Earth”); and the chthonic deities of the underworld in Greek mythology. The possibilities of a Thracian goddess Zemelā (*gʰem-elā) and a Messapic goddess Damatura (*dʰǵʰem-māter), at the origin of the Greek Semele and Demeter respectively, are less secured. The commonest epithets attached to the Earth goddess are *Pleth₂-wih₁ (the “Broad One”), attested in the Vedic Pṛthvī, the Greek Plataia, and Gaulish Litavis, and *Pleth₂-wih₁ Méh₂tēr (“Mother Broad One”), attested in the Vedic and Old English formulas Pṛthvī Mātā and Fīra Mōdor. Other frequent epithets include the “All-Bearing One”, the one who bears all things or creatures, and the “mush-nourishing” or the “rich-pastured.” ref 

Weather deity: Perkwunos

“*Perkʷunos has been reconstructed as the Proto-Indo-European god of lightning and storms. It either meant “the Striker” or “the Lord of Oaks”, and he was probably represented as holding a hammer or a similar weapon. Thunder and lightning had both a destructive and regenerative connotation: a lightning bolt can cleave a stone or a tree, but is often accompanied with fructifying rain. This likely explains the strong association between the thunder-god and oaks in some traditions. He is often portrayed in connection with stone and (wooded) mountains, probably because the mountainous forests were his realm. The striking of devils, demons or evildoers by Perkʷunos is a motif encountered in the myths surrounding the Lithuanian Perkūnas and the Vedic Parjanya, a possible cognate, but also in the Germanic Thor, a thematic echo of Perkʷunos.” ref 

“The deities generally agreed to be cognates stemming from *Perkʷunos are confined to the European continent, and he could have been a motif developed later in Western Indo-European traditions. The evidence include the Norse goddess Fjǫrgyn (the mother of Thor), the Lithuanian god Perkūnas, the Slavic god Perúnú, and the Celtic Hercynian (Herkynío) mountains or forests. Perëndi, an Albanian thunder-god (from the root per-en-, “to strike”, attached to –di, “sky”, from *dyews-) is also a probable cognate. The evidence could extend to the Vedic tradition if one adds the god of rain, thunder, and lightning Parjánya, although Sanskrit sound laws rather predict a **parkūn(y)a form. From another root *(s)tenh₂ (“thunder”) stems a group of cognates found in the Germanic, Celtic, and Roman thunder-gods Thor, Taranis, and (Jupiter) Tonans. According to Jackson, “they may have arisen as the result of fossilization of an original epithet or epiclesis“, as the Vedic Parjanya is also called stanayitnú- (“Thunderer”). The Roman god Mars may be a thematic echo of Perkʷunos, since he originally had thunderer characteristics.” ref 

Fire deities 

“Although the linguistic evidence is restricted to the Vedic and Balto-Slavic traditions, scholars have proposed that Proto-Indo-Europeans conceived the fire as a divine entity called *h₁n̥gʷnis. “Seen from afar” and “untiring”, the Indic deity Agni is pictured in the Rigveda as the god of both terrestrial and celestial fires. He embodied the flames of the sun and the lightning, as well as the forest fire, the domestic hearth fire, and the sacrificial altar, linking heaven and earth in a ritual dimension. Another group of cognates deriving from the Balto-Slavic *ungnis (“fire”) is also attested. Early modern sources report that Lithuanian priests worshipped a “holy Fire” named Ugnis (szwenta), which they tried to maintain in perpetual life, while Uguns (māte) was revered as the “Mother of Fire” by the Latvians. Tenth-century Persian sources give evidence of the veneration of fire among the Slavs, and later sources in Old Church Slavonic attest the worship of fire (ogonĭ), occurring under the divine name Svarožič, who has been interpreted as the son of Svarog.” ref 

“The name of an Albanian fire deity, *Enj- has also been reconstructed from the Albanian name of Thursday, enj-të, also attested in older texts as egni or a similar variant. This fire deity is thought to have been worshiped by the Illyrians in antiquity, among whom he was the most prominent god of the pantheon during Roman times. In other traditions, as the sacral name of the dangerous fire may have become a word taboo, the root served instead as an ordinary term for fire (Latin: ignis). Scholars generally agree that the cult of the hearth dates back to Proto-Indo-European times. The domestic fire had to be tended with care and given offerings, and if one moved house, one carried fire from the old to the new home. The Avestan Ātar was the sacral and hearth fire, often personified and honored as a god. In Albanian beliefs, Nëna e Vatrës (“the Hearth Mother”) is the goddess protector of the domestic hearth (vatër). Herodotus reported a Scythian goddess of hearth named Tabiti, a term likely given under a slightly distorted guise, as she might represent a feminine participial form corresponding to an Indo-Iranian god named *Tapatī, “the Burning one”. The sacral or domestic hearth can likewise be found in the Greek and Roman hearth goddesses Hestia and Vesta, two names that may derive from the PIE root *h₁w-es- (“burning”). Both the ritual fires set in the temples of Vesta and the domestic fires of ancient India were circular, rather than the square form reserved for public worship in India and for the other gods in Roman antiquity. Additionally, the custom that the bride circles the hearth three times is common to Indian, Ossetian, Slavic, Baltic, and German traditions.” ref 

Water deities

“Based on the similarity of the attested motifs and their large geographical extent, it is very likely that Proto-Indo-European beliefs featured some sorts of beautiful and sometimes dangerous water goddesses who seduced mortal men, akin to the Greek naiads, the nymphs of fresh waters. The Vedic Apsarás are said to frequent forest lakes, rivers, trees, and mountains. They are of outstanding beauty, and Indra sends them to lure men. In Ossetic mythology, the waters are ruled by Donbettyr (“Water-Peter”), who has daughters of extraordinary beauty and with golden hair. In the Armenian folklore, the Parik take the form of beautiful women who dance amid nature. The Slavonic water nymphs víly are also depicted as alluring maidens with long golden or green hair who like young men and can do harm if they feel offended. The Albanian mountain nymphs, Perit and Zana, are portrayed as beautiful but also dangerous creatures. Similar to the Baltic nymph-like Laumes, they have the habit of abducting children. The beautiful and long-haired Laumes also have sexual relations and short-lived marriages with men. The Breton Korrigans are irresistible creatures with golden hair wooing mortal men and causing them to perish for love. The Norse Huldra, Iranian Ahuraīnīs, and Lycian Eliyãna can likewise be regarded as reflexes of the water nymphs.” ref  

“A wide range of linguistic and cultural evidence attest to the holy status of the terrestrial (potable) waters *āp-, venerated collectively as “the Waters” or divided into “Rivers and Springs”. The cults of fountains and rivers, which may have preceded Proto-Indo-European beliefs by tens of thousands of years, was also prevalent in their tradition. Some authors have proposed *Neptonos or *H₂epom Nepōts as the Proto-Indo-European god of the waters. The name literally means “Grandson [or Nephew] of the Waters”. Philologists reconstruct his name from that of the Vedic god Apám Nápát, the Roman god Neptūnus, and the Old Irish god Nechtain. Although such a god has been solidly reconstructed in Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, Mallory and Adams nonetheless still reject him as a Proto-Indo-European deity on linguistic grounds.” ref 

Wind deities

“We find evidence for the deification of the wind in most Indo-European traditions. The root *h₂weh₁ (“to blow”) is at the origin of the two words for the wind: *H₂weh₁-yú- and *H₂w(e)h₁-nt-. The deity is indeed often depicted as a couple. Vayu-Vāta is a dual divinity in the Avesta, Vāta being associated with the stormy winds and described as coming from everywhere (“from below, from above, from in front, from behind”). Similarly, the Vedic Vāyu, the lord of the winds, is connected in the Vedas with Indra—the king of the highest heaven—while the other deity Vāta represents a more violent sort of wind and is instead associated with Parjanya—the god of rain and thunder. Other cognates include Hitt. huwant-, Lith. vėjas, Toch. B yente, Lat. uentus, Ger. *windaz, or Welsh gwynt.” ref 

Guardian deity

“The association between the Greek god Pan and the Vedic god Pūshān was first identified in 1924 by German linguist Hermann Collitz. Both were worshipped as pastoral deities, which led scholars to reconstruct *Péh₂usōn (“Protector”) as a pastoral god guarding roads and herds. He may have had an unfortunate appearance, a bushy beard and a keen sight. He was also closely affiliated with goats or bucks: Pan has goat’s legs while goats are said to pull the car of Pūshān (the animal was also sacrificed to him on occasion). The minor discrepancies between the two deities could be explained by the possibility that many of Pan’s original attributes were transferred over to his father Hermes.” ref 

“According to West, the reflex may be at least of Graeco-Aryan origin: “Pūshān and Pan agree well enough in name and nature—especially when Hermes is seen as a hypostasis of Pan—to make it a reasonable conclusion that they are parallel reflexes of a prototypical god of ways and byways, a guide on the journey, a protector of flocks, a watcher of who and what goes where one who can scamper up any slope with the ease of a goat.” ref 

Other propositions

“In 1855, Adalbert Kuhn suggested that the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed in a set of helper deities, whom he reconstructed based on the Germanic elves and the Hindu ribhus. Although this proposal is often mentioned in academic writings, very few scholars actually accept it since the cognate relationship is linguistically difficult to justify. While stories of elves, satyrs, goblins, and giants show recurrent traits in Indo-European traditions, West notes that “it is difficult to see so coherent an overall pattern as with the nymphs. It is unlikely that the Indo-Europeans had no concept of such creatures, but we cannot define with any sharpness of outline what their conceptions were.” A wild god named *Rudlos has also been proposed, based on the Vedic Rudrá and the Old Russian Rŭglŭ. Problematic is whether the name derives from *rewd- (“rend, tear apart”; akin to Lat. rullus, “rustic”), or rather from *rew- (“howl”).” ref 

“Although the name of the divinities are not cognates, a horse goddess portrayed as bearing twins and in connection with fertility and marriage has been proposed based on the Gaulish Epona, Irish Macha, and Welsh Rhiannon, with other thematic echos in the Greek and Indic traditions. Demeter transformed herself into a mare when she was raped by Poseidon appearing as a stallion, and she gave birth to a daughter and a horse, Areion. Similarly, the Indic tradition tells of Saranyu fleeing from her husband Vivásvat when she assumed the form of a mare. Vivásvat metamorphosed into a stallion and of their intercourse were born the twin horses, the Aśvins. The Irish goddess Macha gave birth to twins, a mare and a boy, and the Welsh figure Rhiannon bore a child who was reared along with a horse.” ref 

“A river goddess *Deh₂nu- has been proposed based on the Vedic goddess Dānu, the Irish goddess Danu, the Welsh goddess Don and the names of the rivers Danube, Don, Dnieper, and Dniester. Mallory and Adams however note that while the lexical correspondence is probable, “there is really no evidence for a specific river goddess” in Proto-Indo-European mythology “other than the deification of the concept of ‘river’ in Indic tradition”. Some have also proposed the reconstruction of a sea god named *Trih₂tōn based on the Greek god Triton and the Old Irish word trïath, meaning “sea”. Mallory and Adams also reject this reconstruction as having no basis, asserting that the “lexical correspondence is only just possible and with no evidence of a cognate sea god in Irish.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Societal deities

Fate goddesses

“It is highly probable that the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed in three fate goddesses who spun the destinies of mankind. Although such fate goddesses are not directly attested in the Indo-Aryan tradition, the Atharvaveda does contain an allusion comparing fate to a warp. Furthermore, the three Fates appear in nearly every other Indo-European mythology. The earliest attested set of fate goddesses are the Gulses in Hittite mythology, who were said to preside over the individual destinies of human beings. They often appear in mythical narratives alongside the goddesses Papaya and Istustaya, who, in a ritual text for the foundation of a new temple, are described sitting holding mirrors and spindles, spinning the king’s thread of life. In the Greek tradition, the Moirai (“Apportioners”) are mentioned dispensing destiny in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, in which they are given the epithet Κλῶθες (Klothes, meaning “Spinners”).” ref  

“In Hesiod’s Theogony, the Moirai are said to “give mortal men both good and ill” and their names are listed as Klotho (“Spinner”), Lachesis (“Apportioner”), and Atropos (“Inflexible”). In his Republic, Plato records that Klotho sings of the past, Lachesis of the present, and Atropos of the future. In Roman legend, the Parcae were three goddesses who presided over the births of children and whose names were Nona (“Ninth”), Decuma (“Tenth”), and Morta (“Death”). They too were said to spin destinies, although this may have been due to influence from Greek literature.” ref 

“In the Old Norse Völuspá and Gylfaginning, the Norns are three cosmic goddesses of fate who are described sitting by the well of Urðr at the foot of the world tree Yggdrasil. In Old Norse texts, the Norns are frequently conflated with Valkyries, who are sometimes also described as spinning. Old English texts, such as Rhyme Poem 70, and Guthlac 1350 f., reference Wyrd as a singular power that “weaves” destinies. Later texts mention the Wyrds as a group, with Geoffrey Chaucer referring to them as “the Werdys that we clepyn Destiné” in The Legend of Good Wome. A goddess spinning appears in a bracteate from southwest Germany and a relief from Trier shows three mother goddesses, with two of them holding distaffs. Tenth-century German ecclesiastical writings denounce the popular belief in three sisters who determined the course of a man’s life at his birth. An Old Irish hymn attests to seven goddesses who were believed to weave the thread of destiny, which demonstrates that these spinster fate-goddesses were present in Celtic mythology as well.” ref 

“A Lithuanian folktale recorded in 1839 recounts that a man’s fate is spun at his birth by seven goddesses known as the deivės valdytojos and used to hang a star in the sky; when he dies, his thread snaps and his star falls as a meteor. In Latvian folk songs, a goddess called the Láima is described as weaving a child’s fate at its birth. Although she is usually only one goddess, the Láima sometimes appears as three. The three spinning fate goddesses appear in Slavic traditions in the forms of the Russian Rožanicy, the Czech Sudičky, the Bulgarian Narenčnice or Urisnice, the Polish Rodzanice, the Croatian Rodjenice, the Serbian Sudjenice, and the Slovene Rojenice. Albanian folk tales speak of the Fatit, three old women who appear three days after a child is born and determine its fate, using language reminiscent of spinning.” ref 

Welfare god

“*Aryo-men has been reconstructed as a deity in charge of welfare and the community, connected to the building and maintenance of roads or pathways, but also with healing and the institution of marriage. It derives from the root *h₂eryos (a “member of one’s own group”, “one who belongs to the community”, in contrast to an outsider), a word also at the origin of the Indo-Iranian *árya, “noble, hospitable”, and the Celtic *aryo, “free man” (Old Irish: aire, “noble, chief”; Gaulish: arios, “free man, lord”). The Vedic god Aryaman is frequently mentioned in the Vedas, and associated with social and marital ties. In the Gāthās, the Iranian god Airyaman seems to denote the wider tribal network or alliance, and is invoked in a prayer against illness, magic, and evil. In the mythical stories of the founding of the Irish nation, the hero Éremón became the first king of the Milesians (the mythical name of the Irish) after he helped conquer the island from the Tuatha Dé Danann. He also provided wives to the Cruithnig (the mythical Celtic Britons or Picts), a reflex of the marital functions of *Aryo-men. The Gaulish given name Ariomanus, possibly translated as “lord-spirited” and generally borne by Germanic chiefs, is also to be mentioned.” ref 

Smith god

“Although the name of a particular smith god cannot be linguistically reconstructed, it is highly probable that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had a smith deity of some kind, since smith gods occur in nearly every Indo-European culture, with examples including the Hittite Hasammili, the Vedic Tvastr, the Greek Hephaestus, the Germanic Wayland the Smith, the Irish Goibniu, the Lithuanian Telyavelik, and the Ossetian Kurdalagon and the Slavic Svarog. Mallory notes that “deities specifically concerned with particular craft specializations may be expected in any ideological system whose people have achieved an appropriate level of social complexity”. Nonetheless, two motifs recurs frequently in Indo-European traditions: the making of the chief god’s distinctive weapon (Indra’s and Zeus’ bolt; Lugh’s spear) by a special artificer, and the craftsman god’s association with the immortals’ drinking. Smith mythical figures share other characteristics in common. Hephaestus, the Greek god of blacksmiths, and Wayland the Smith, a nefarious blacksmith from Germanic mythology, are both described as lame. Additionally, Wayland the Smith and the Greek mythical inventor Daedalus both escape imprisonment on an island by fashioning sets of mechanical wings from feathers and wax and using them to fly away.” ref 

“The Proto-Indo-Europeans may also have had a goddess who presided over the trifunctional organization of society. Various epithets of the Iranian goddess Anahita and the Roman goddess Juno provide sufficient evidence to solidly attest that she was probably worshipped, but no specific name for her can be lexically reconstructed. Vague remnants of this goddess may also be preserved in the Greek goddess Athena. A decay goddess has also been proposed on the basis of the Vedic Nirṛti and the Roman Lūa Mater. Her names derive from the verbal roots “decay, rot”, and they are both associated with the decomposition of human bodies.” ref 

“Michael Estell has reconstructed a mythical craftsman named *H₃r̥bʰew based on the Greek Orpheus and the Vedic Ribhus. Both are the son of a cudgel-bearer or an archer, and both are known as “fashioners” (*tetḱ-). A mythical hero named *Promāth₂ew has also been proposed, from the Greek hero Prometheus (“the one who steals”), who took the heavenly fire away from the gods to bring it to mankind, and the Vedic Mātariśvan, the mythical bird who “robbed” (found in the myth as pra math-, “to steal”) the hidden fire and gave it to the Bhrigus. A medical god has been reconstructed based on a thematic comparison between the Indic god Rudra and the Greek Apollo. Both inflict disease from afar thanks to their bow, both are known as healers, and both are specifically associated with rodents: Rudra’s animal is the “rat mole” and Apollo was known as a “rat god. Some scholars have proposed a war god named *Māwort- based on the Roman god Mars and the Vedic Marutás, the companions of the war-god Indra. Mallory and Adams reject this reconstruction on linguistic grounds. Likewise, some researchers have found it more plausible that Mars was originally a storm deity, while the same cannot be said of Ares.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Myths

Serpent-slaying myth: Chaoskampf

“One common myth found in nearly all Indo-European mythologies is a battle ending with a hero or god slaying a serpent or dragon of some sort. Although the details of the story often vary widely, several features remain remarkably the same in all iterations. The protagonist of the story is usually a thunder-god, or a hero somehow associated with thunder. His enemy the serpent is generally associated with water and depicted as multi-headed, or else “multiple” in some other way. Indo-European myths often describe the creature as a “blocker of waters”, and his many heads get eventually smashed up by the thunder-god in an epic battle, releasing torrents of water that had previously been pent up. The original legend may have symbolized the Chaoskampf, a clash between forces of order and chaos. The dragon or serpent loses in every version of the story, although in some mythologies, such as the Norse Ragnarök myth, the hero or the god dies with his enemy during the confrontation. Historian Bruce Lincoln has proposed that the tale of the dragon-slaying and the creation myth of *Trito killing the serpent *Ngʷhi may actually belong to the same story.” ref 

“Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European dragon-slaying myth appear in most Indo-European poetic traditions, where the myth has left traces of the formulaic sentence *(h₁e) gʷʰent h₁ógʷʰim, meaning “[he] slew the serpent”. In Hittite mythology, the storm god Tarhunt slays the giant serpent Illuyanka, as does the Vedic god Indra to the multi-headed serpent Vritra, which had been causing a drought by trapping the waters in his mountain lair. Several variations of the story are also found in Greek mythology. The original motif appears inherited in the legend of Zeus slaying the hundred-headed Typhon, as related by Hesiod in the Theogony, and possibly in the myth of Heracles slaying the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra and in the legend of Apollo slaying the earth-dragon Python. The story of Heracles‘s theft of the cattle of Geryon is probably also related. Although he is not usually thought of as a storm deity in the conventional sense, Heracles bears many attributes held by other Indo-European storm deities, including physical strength and a knack for violence and gluttony.” ref  

“The original motif is also reflected in Germanic mythology. The Norse god of thunder Thor slays the giant serpent Jörmungandr, which lived in the waters surrounding the realm of Midgard. In the Völsunga saga, Sigurd slays the dragon Fafnir and, in Beowulf, the eponymous hero slays a different dragon. The depiction of dragons hoarding a treasure (symbolizing the wealth of the community) in Germanic legends may also be a reflex of the original myth of the serpent holding waters.” ref 

“In Zoroastrianism and in Persian mythology, Fereydun (and later Garshasp) slays the serpent Zahhak. In Albanian mythology, the drangue, semi-human divine figures associated with thunders, slay the kulshedra, huge multi-headed fire-spitting serpents associated with water and storms. The Slavic god of storms Perun slays his enemy the dragon-god Veles, as does the bogatyr hero Dobrynya Nikitich to the three-headed dragon Zmey. A similar execution is performed by the Armenian god of thunders Vahagn to the dragon Vishap, by the Romanian knight hero Făt-Frumos to the fire-spitting monster Zmeu, and by the Celtic god of healing Dian Cecht to the serpent Meichi. In Shinto, where Indo-European influences through Vedic religion can be seen in mythology, the storm god Susanoo slays the eight-headed serpent Yamata no Orochi. The Genesis narrative of Judaism and Christianity can be interpreted as a more allegorical retelling of the serpent-slaying myth. The Deep or Abyss from or on top of which God is said to make the world is translated from the Biblical Hebrew Tehom (Hebrew: תְּהוֹם). Tehom is a cognate of the Akkadian word tamtu and Ugaritic t-h-m which have a similar meaning. As such it was equated with the earlier Sumerian serpent Tiamat. Folklorist Andrew Lang suggests that the serpent-slaying myth morphed into a folktale motif of a frog or toad blocking the flow of waters.” ref 

Fire in water

“Another reconstructed myth is the story of the fire in the waters. It depicts a fiery divine being named *H₂epom Nepōts who dwells in waters, and whose powers must be ritually controlled or gained by a hero who is the only one able to approach it. In the Rigveda, the god Apám Nápát is envisioned as a form of fire residing in the waters. In Celtic mythology, a well belonging to the god Nechtain is said to blind all those who gaze into it. In an old Armenian poem, a small reed in the middle of the sea spontaneously catches fire and the hero Vahagn springs forth from it with fiery hair and a fiery beard and eyes that blaze as suns. In a ninth-century Norwegian poem by the poet Thiodolf, the name sǣvar niþr, meaning “grandson of the sea”, is used as a kenning for fire. Even the Greek tradition contains possible allusions to the myth of a fire-god dwelling deep beneath the sea. The phrase “νέποδες καλῆς Ἁλοσύδνης”, meaning “descendants of the beautiful seas”, is used in The Odyssey 4.404 as an epithet for the seals of Proteus.” ref 

King and virgin

“The legend of the King and Virgin involves a ruler saved by the offspring of his virgin daughter after seeing his future threatened by rebellious sons or male relatives. The virginity likely symbolizes in the myth the woman that has no loyalty to any man but her father, and the child is likewise faithful only to his royal grandfather. The legends of the Indic king Yayāti, saved by his virgin daughter Mādhāvi; the Roman king Numitor, rescued by his chaste daughter Rhea Silvia; the Irish king Eochaid, father of the legendary queen Medb, and threatened by his sons the findemna; as well as the myth of the Norse virgin goddess Gefjun offering lands to Odin, are generally cited as possible reflexes of an inherited Proto-Indo-European motif. The Irish queen Medb could be cognate with the Indic Mādhāvi (whose name designates either a spring flower, rich in honey, or an intoxicating drink), both deriving from the root *medʰ- (“mead, intoxicating drink”).” ref 

War of the foundation

“A myth of the War of the Foundation has also been proposed, involving a conflict between the first two functions (the priests and warriors) and the third function (fertility), which eventually make peace in order to form a fully integrated society. The Norse Ynglingasaga tells of a war between the Æsir (led by Oðinn and Thor) and the Vanir (led by Freyr, Freyja, and Njörðr) that finally ends with the Vanir coming to live among the Æsir. Shortly after the mythical founding of Rome, Romulus fights his wealthy neighbors the Sabines, the Romans abducting their women to eventually incorporate the Sabines into the founding tribes of Rome. In Vedic mythology, the Aśvins (representing the third function as the Divine Twins) are blocked from accessing the heavenly circle of power by Indra (the second function), who is eventually coerced into letting them in. The Trojan War has also been interpreted as a reflex of the myth, with the wealthy Troy as the third function and the conquering Greeks as the first two functions.” ref 

Binding of evil

“Jaan Puhvel notes similarities between the Norse myth in which the god Týr inserts his hand into the wolf Fenrir‘s mouth while the other gods bind him with Gleipnir, only for Fenrir to bite off Týr’s hand when he discovers he cannot break his bindings and the Iranian myth in which Jamshid rescues his brother’s corpse from Ahriman‘s bowels by reaching his hand up Ahriman’s anus and pulling out his brother’s corpse, only for his hand to become infected with leprosy. In both accounts, an authority figure forces the evil entity into submission by inserting his hand into the being’s orifice (in Fenrir’s case the mouth, in Ahriman’s the anus) and losing it. Fenrir and Ahriman fulfill different roles in their own mythological traditions and are unlikely to be remnants of a Proto-Indo-European “evil god”; nonetheless, it is clear that the “binding myth” is of Proto-Indo-European origin.” ref 

“The motif of the “death of a son”, killed by his father who is unaware of the relationship, is so common among the attested traditions that some scholars have ascribed it to Proto-Indo-European times. In the Ulster Cycle, Connla, son of the Irish hero Cú Chulainn, who was raised abroad in Scotland, unknowingly confronts his father and is killed in the combat; Ilya Muromets must kill his own son, also raised apart, in Russian epic poems; the Germanic hero Hildebrant inadvertently kills his son Hadubrant in the Hildebrandslied; and the Iranian Rostam unknowingly confronts his son Sohrab in the eponymous epic of the Shāhnāmeh. King Arthur is forced to kill his son Mordred in battle who was raised far away on the Orkney Islands; and in greek mythology an intrigue leads the hero Theseus to kill his son Hippolytus. When the lie is finally exposed, Hippolytus is already dead; According to Mallory and Adams, the legend “places limitations on the achievement of warrior prowess, isolates the hero from time by cutting off his generational extension, and also re-establishes the hero’s typical adolescence by depriving him of a role (as father) in an adult world.” ref 

“Although the concept of elevation through intoxicating drink is a nearly universal motif, a Proto-Indo-European myth of the “cycle of the mead“, originally proposed by Georges Dumézil, has been reconstructed by Jarich G. Oosten (1985) based on the comparison of Indic and Norse mythologies. In both traditions, gods and demons must cooperate to find a sacred drink providing immortal life. The magical beverage is prepared from the sea, and a serpent (Vāsuki or Jörmungandr) is involved in the quest. The gods and demons eventually fight over the magical potion and the former, ultimately victorious, deprive their enemy of the elixir of life.” ref 

Proto-Indo-European Rituals

“Proto-Indo-European religion was centered on sacrificial rites of cattle and horses, probably administered by a class of priests or shamans. Animals were slaughtered (*gʷʰn̥tós) and dedicated to the gods (*deywṓs) in the hope of winning their favor. The Khvalynsk culture, associated with the archaic Proto-Indo-European language, had already shown archeological evidence for the sacrifice of domesticated animals.” ref 

Priesthood

“The king as the high priest would have been the central figure in establishing favorable relations with the other world. Georges Dumézil suggested that the religious function was represented by a duality, one reflecting the magico-religious nature of the priesthood, while the other is involved in religious sanction to human society (especially contracts), a theory supported by common features in Iranian, Roman, Scandinavian and Celtic traditions.” ref 

Sacrifices

“The reconstructed cosmology of the proto-Indo-Europeans shows that the ritual sacrifice of cattle, the cow, in particular, was at the root of their beliefs, as the primordial condition of the world order. The myth of *Trito, the first warrior, involves the liberation of cattle stolen by a three-headed entity named *Ngʷʰi. After recovering the wealth of the people, Trito eventually offers the cattle to the priest in order to ensure the continuity of the cycle of giving between gods and humans. The word for “oath”, *h₁óitos, derives from the verb *h₁ey- (“to go”), after the practice of walking between slaughtered animals as part of taking an oath. Proto-Indo-Europeans likely had a sacred tradition of horse sacrifice for the renewal of kinship involving the ritual mating of a queen or king with a horse, which was then sacrificed and cut up for distribution to the other participants in the ritual. In both the Roman Equus October and the Indic Aśvamedhá, the horse sacrifice is performed on behalf of the warrior class or to a warrior deity, and the dismembered pieces of the animal eventually goes to different locations or deities. Another reflex may be found in a medieval Irish tradition involving a king-designate from County Donegal copulating with a mare before bathing with the parts of the sacrificed animal. The Indic ritual likewise involves the ritual copulation by the queen with the dead stallion, and if Hittite laws prohibited copulation with animals, they made an exception of horses or mules. In both the Celtic and Indic traditions, an intoxicating brewage played a part in the ritual, and the suffix in aśva-medhá could be related to the Old Indic word mad- (“boil, rejoice, get drunk”). Jaan Puhvel has also compared the Vedic name of the tradition with the Gaulish god Epomeduos, the “master of horses.” ref 

Cults

“Scholars have reconstructed a Proto-Indo-European cult of the weapons, especially the dagger, which holds a central position in various customs and myths. In the Ossetic Nart saga, the sword of Batradz is dragged into the sea after his death, and the British King Arthur throws his legendary sword Excalibur back into the lake from which it initially came. The Indic Arjuna is also instructed to throw his bow into the sea at the end of his career, and weapons were frequently thrown into lakes, rivers or bogs as a form of prestige offering in Bronze and Iron Age Europe. Reflexes of an ancestral cult of the magical sword have been proposed in the legends of Excalibur and Durandal (the weapon of Roland, said to have been forged by the mythical Wayland the Smith). Among North Iranians, Herodotus described the Scythian practice of worshiping swords as manifestations of “Ares” in the 5th century BC, and Ammianus Marcellinus depicted the Alanic custom of thrusting swords into the earth and worshiping them as “Mars” in the 4th century AD.” ref 

“Various schools of thought exist regarding possible interpretations of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology. The main mythologies used in comparative reconstruction are Vedic, Roman, and Norse, often supported with evidence from the Baltic, Celtic, Greek, Slavic, Hittite, Armenian, Lithuanian mythology, and Albanian traditions as well.” ref 

• Old European culture
• Proto-Indo-European language
• Proto-Indo-European religion
• Proto-Indo-European society

“Lithuanian (Lithuanian: lietuvių kalba) is an Eastern Baltic language spoken in the Baltic region.  As a Baltic language, Lithuanian is closely related to neighboring Latvian and more distantly to Slavic, Germanic, and other Indo-European languages. It is written in a Latin alphabet. Lithuanian is often said to be the most conservative living Indo-European language, retaining features of Proto-Indo-European now lost in other languages. Among Indo-European languages, Lithuanian is conservative in some aspects of its grammar and phonology, retaining archaic features otherwise found only in ancient languages such as Sanskrit (particularly its early form, Vedic Sanskrit) or Ancient Greek. For this reason, it is an important source for the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language despite its late attestation (with the earliest texts dating only to c. 1500). Lithuanian was studied by linguists such as Franz Bopp, August Schleicher, Adalbert Bezzenberger, Louis Hjelmslev, Ferdinand de Saussure, Winfred P. Lehmann, and Vladimir Toporov and others.” ref 

“The Proto-Balto-Slavic languages branched off directly from Proto-Indo-European, then sub-branches into Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic. Proto-Baltic branched off into Proto-West Baltic and Proto-East Baltic. Baltic languages passed through a Proto-Balto-Slavic stage, from which Baltic languages retain numerous exclusive and non-exclusive lexical, morphological, phonological, and accentual isoglosses in common with the Slavic languages, which represent their closest living Indo-European relatives. Moreover, with Lithuanian being so archaic in phonology, Slavic words can often be deduced from Lithuanian by regular sound laws; for example, Lith. vilkas and Polish wilk ← PBSl. *wilkas (cf. PSl. *vьlkъ) ← PIE *wĺ̥kʷos, all meaning “wolf“.” ref 

Distribution of the Baltic tribes, circa 1200 (boundaries are approximate). 

According to some glottochronological speculations, the Eastern Baltic languages split from the Western Baltic ones between AD 400 and 600. The Greek geographer Ptolemy had already written of two Baltic tribe/nations by name, the Galindai and Sudinoi (Γαλίνδαι, Σουδινοί) in the 2nd century AD. The differentiation between Lithuanian and Latvian started after 800; for a long period, they could be considered dialects of a single language. At a minimum, transitional dialects existed until the 14th or 15th century and perhaps as late as the 17th century. Also, the 13th- and 14th-century occupation of the western part of the Daugava basin (closely coinciding with the territory of modern Latvia) by the German Sword Brethren had a significant influence on the languages’ independent development.” ref 

Indo-European vocabulary in Lithuanian  

“Lithuanian retains cognates to many words found in classical languages, such as Sanskrit and Latin. These words are descended from Proto-Indo-European. A few examples are the following:

• Lith. and Skt. sūnus (son)
• Lith. and Skt. avis and Lat. ovis (sheep)
• Lith. dūmas and Skt. dhūmas and Lat. fumus (fumes, smoke)
• Lith. antras and Skt. antaras (second, the other)
• Lith. vilkas and Skt. vṛkas (wolf)
• Lith. ratas and Lat. rota (wheel) and Skt. rathas (carriage).
• Lith. senis and Lat. senex (an old man) and Skt. sanas (old).
• Lith. vyras and Lat. vir (a man) and Skt. vīras (man).
• Lith. angis and Lat. anguis (a snake in Latin, a species of snakes in Lithuanian)
• Lith. linas and Lat. linum (flax, compare with English ‘linen’)
• Lith. ariu and Lat. aro (I plow)
• Lith. jungiu and Lat. iungo, and Skt. yuñje (mid.), (I join)
• Lith. gentys and Lat. gentes and Skt. jántis (tribes)
• Lith. mėnesis and Lat. mensis and Skt masas (month)
• Lith. dantis and Lat. dentes and Skt dantas (teeth)
• Lith. naktis and Lat. noctes (plural of nox) and Skt. naktis (night)
• Lith. ugnis and Lat. ignis and Skt. agnis (fire)
• Lith. sėdime and Lat. sedemus and Skt. sīdamas’’ (we sit).” ref 

“This even extends to grammar, where for example Latin noun declensions ending in -um often correspond to Lithuanian -ų, with the Latin and Lithuanian fourth declensions being particularly close. Many of the words from this list share similarity with other Indo-European languages, including English and Russian. The contribution of Lithuanian was influential in the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo-European language. Lexical and grammatical similarities between Baltic and Slavic languages suggest an affinity between these two language groups. On the other hand, there exist a number of Baltic (particularly Lithuanian) words without counterparts in Slavic languages, but which are similar to words in Sanskrit or Latin.” ref 

“Lithuanian mythology is the mythology of Lithuanian polytheism, the religion of pre-Christian Lithuanians. Like other Indo-Europeans, ancient Lithuanians maintained a polytheistic mythology and religious structure. In pre-Christian Lithuania, mythology was a part of polytheistic religion; after Christianisation mythology survived mostly in folklore, customs, and festive rituals. Lithuanian mythology is very close to the mythology of other Baltic nations – Prussians, Latvians, and is considered a part of Baltic mythology.” ref 

Pantheon of Lithuanian gods?

“The pantheon of Lithuanian was formed during thousands of years by merging pre-Indo-European and Indo-European traditions. Feminine gods such as Žemyna – the god of Earth attributed to pre-Indo-European tradition. Very expressive thunder-god Perkūnas came with Indo-European religion. The hierarchy of the gods depended also on social strata of ancient Lithuanian society.” ref 

“Dievas also called Dievas senelis (old man God), Dangaus Dievas (the God of heaven) – the supreme god. It is descended from Proto-Indo-European *deiwos, “celestial” or “shining”, from the same root as *Dyēus, the reconstructed chief god of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon. It relates to ancient Greek Zeus (Ζευς or Δίας), latin Dius Fidius], luvian Tiwat, German Tivaz. The name Dievas is being used in Christianity as the name of God.” ref 

“Andajus (Andajas, Andojas) was mentioned in chronicles as the most powerful and highest god of Lithuanians. Lithuanians cried its name in a battle. It might just an epithet of the supreme god – Dievas.” ref 

“Perkūnas, god of thunder, also synonimically called Dundulis, Bruzgulis, Dievaitis, Grumutis etc. It closely relates to many Indo-European mythologies – the Vedic Parjanya, Celtic Taranis, Germanic Thor. There is a Finnic Mordvin/Erza thunder god named Pur’ginepaz which in folklore has themes resembling Lithuanian Perkunas. Perkūnas is the assistant and executor of Dievas‘s will. It also associates with the oak tree.” ref 

“Dievo sūneliai (the “sons of Dievas“) – Ašvieniai, pulling the carriage of Saulė (the Sun) through the sky Like the Greek Dioscuri Castor and Pollux, it is a mytheme of the Divine twins common to the Indo-European mythology. Two well-accepted descendants of the Divine Twins, the Vedic Aśvins and the Lithuanian Ašvieniai, are linguistic cognates ultimately deriving from the Proto-Indo-European word for the horse, *h₁éḱwos. They are related to Sanskrit áśva and Avestan aspā (from Indo-Iranian *aćua), and to Old Lithuanian ašva, all sharing the meaning of “mare.” ref 

“Velnias (Velas, Velinas) – chthonic god of the underworld, related to the cult of dead. The root of the word is the same as of Lithuanian: vėlė – soul of the deceased. After the introduction of Christianity it was equated with evil and Velnias became a Lithuanian name for devil. In some tales, Velnias (the devil) was the first owner of fire. God sent a swallow, which managed to steal the fire.” ref 

“Žemyna (Žemė, Žemelė) (from Lithuanian: žemė – earth) is the goddess of the earth. It relates to Thracian Zemele (mother earth), Greek Semelē (Σεμέλη). She is usually regarded as mother goddess and one of the chief Lithuanian gods. Žemyna personifies the fertile earth and nourishes all life on earth, human, plant, and animal. The goddess is said to be married to either Perkūnas (thunder god) or Praamžius (manifestation of chief heavenly god Dievas). Thus the couple formed the typical Indo-European pair of mother-earth and father-sky. It was believed that in each spring the earth needs to be impregnated by Perkūnas – the heavens rain and thunder. Perkūnas unlocks (atrakina) the Earth. It was prohibited to plow or sow before the first thunder as the earth would be barren.” ref 

“Žvėrinė (Žvorūna, Žvorūnė) – is the goddess of hunting and forest animals. Medeina is the name in other sources.” ref 

“”Žemėpatis (from Lithuanian: žemė – earth and Lithuanian: pàts – denoting autonomous decision maker, ruler) – god of the land, harvest, property and homestead. Martynas Mažvydas in 1547 in his Catechism urged to abandon cult of Žemėpatis.” ref 

“Žvaigždikis (Žvaigždystis, Žvaigždukas, Švaistikas) – the god of the stars, powerful god of light, who provided light for the crops, grass and the animals. He was known as Svaikstikas (Suaxtix, Swayxtix, Schwayxtix, Schwaytestix) by Yotvingians.” ref 

“Gabija (also known as Gabieta, Gabeta) is the spirit or goddess of the fire. She is the protector of family fireplace (šeimos židinys) and family. Her name is derived from (from Lithuanian: gaubti – to cover, to protect). It was no allowed to step on firewood, since it was considered a food for fire goddess. Even today there is a tradition of weddings in Lithuania to light a new symbolic family fireplace from the parents of the newlyweds.” ref 

“Laima (from Lithuanian: lemti – to destine) – is the destiny-giver goddess.” ref 

“Bangpūtys (from Lithuanian: banga – wave and Lithuanian: pūsti – to blow ) – god of the sea, wind, waves and storm. Was worshipped by fishermen and seamen.” ref 

“Teliavelis/Kalevelis – a smith-god. First mentioned in a 1262 copy of Chronographia (Χρονογραφία) of John Malalas as Teliavel. Lithuanian linguist Kazimieras Būga reconstructed a previous form – Kalvelis (from Lithuanian: kalvis – a smith in a diminutive form). Teliavelis/Kalevelis freed Saulė (Sun) from the dark using his iron hammer. In Lithuanian fairy-tales recorded much later, there is very frequent opposition of kalvis (smith) and velnias (devil).” ref 

Proto-Indo-European “Homeland Urheimat”

“The Proto-Indo-European homeland (or Indo-European homeland) was the prehistoric Urheimat of the Indo-European languages – the region where the proposed common ancestor of those languages, the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE), was originally spoken. From this region, its speakers migrated east and west, then went on to form the proto-communities of the different branches of the language family. The most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis, which puts the archaic, early, and late PIE homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe around 4000 BCE/6,020 years ago. The leading competitor is the Anatolian hypothesis, which puts it in Anatolia around 8000 BCE/10,020 years ago. A notable third possibility, which has gained renewed attraction due to recent aDNA research, is the Armenian hypothesis which situates the homeland for archaic PIE south of the Caucasus.  The steppe model, the Anatolian model, and the Near Eastern (or Armenian) model, are the three leading solutions for the Indo-European homeland. The steppe-model, placing the PIE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around  4000 BCE/6,020 years ago is the theory supported by most scholars. Several other explanations have been proposed, including the outdated but historically prominent North European hypothesis, the Neolithic creolization hypothesis, the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, the Arctic theory, and the “Indigenous Aryans” (or “Out of India”) hypothesis. These are not widely accepted or are considered to be fringe theories. The search for the homeland of the Indo-Europeans began in the late 18th century with the rediscovery of the Indo-European language family. The methods used to establish the homeland have been drawn from the disciplines of historical linguistics, archaeology, physical anthropology, and, more recently, human population genetics.” ref 

Theoretical considerations?

“Traditionally homelands of linguistic families are proposed based on evidence from comparative linguistics coupled with evidence of historical populations and migrations from archaeology. Today, genetics via DNA samples is increasingly used in the study of ancient population movements.” ref 

Reconstructed vocabulary?

“Through comparative linguistics it is possible to reconstruct the vocabulary found in the proto-language, and in this way achieve knowledge of the cultural, technological and ecological context that the speakers inhabited. Such a context can then be compared with archaeological evidence. This vocabulary includes, in the case of (late) PIE, which is based on the post-Anatolian and post-Tocharian IE-languages:

• pastoralism, including domesticated cattle, horses, and dogs
• agriculture and cereal cultivation, including technology commonly ascribed to late-Neolithic farming communities, e.g., the plow
• a climate with winter snow
• transportation by or across water
• the solid wheel used for wagons, but not yet chariots with spoked wheels.” ref 

Uralic, Caucasian, and Semitic borrowings?

“Proto-Finno-Ugric and PIE have a lexicon in common, generally related to trade, such as words for “price” and “draw, lead”. Similarly, “sell” and “wash” were borrowed in Proto-Ugric. Although some have proposed a common ancestor (the hypothetical Nostratic macrofamily), this is generally regarded as the result of intensive borrowing, which suggests that their homelands were located near each other. Proto-Indo-European also exhibits lexical loans to or from Caucasian languages, particularly Proto-Northwest Caucasian and Proto-Kartvelian, which suggests a location close to the Caucasus. Gramkelidze and Ivanov, using the now largely unsupported glottalic theory of Indo-European phonology, also proposed Semitic borrowings into Proto-Indo-European, suggesting a more southern homeland to explain these borrowings. According to Mallory and Adams, some of these borrowings may be too speculative or from a later date, but they consider the proposed Semitic loans *táwros ‘bull’ and *wéyh₁on- ‘wine; vine’ to be more likely. Anthony notes that those Semitic borrowings may also have occurred through the advancement of Anatolian farmer cultures via the Danube valley into the steppe zone.” ref 

The genesis of Indo-European languages

According to Anthony, the following terminology may be used:

• Archaic PIE for “the last common ancestor of the Anatolian and non-Anatolian IE branches”;
• Early, or Post-Anatolian, PIE for “the last common ancestor of the non-Anatolian PIE languages, including Tocharian”;
• Late PIE for “the common ancestor of all other IE branches”. ref 

“The Anatolian languages are the first Indo-European language family to have split off from the main group. Due to the archaic elements preserved in the Anatolian languages, they may be a “cousin” of Proto-Indo-European, instead of a “daughter”, but Anatolian is generally regarded as an early offshoot of the Indo-European language group. The Indo-Hittite hypothesis postulates a common predecessor for both the Anatolian languages and the other Indo-European languages, called Indo-Hittite or Indo-Anatolian. Although PIE had predecessors, the Indo-Hittite hypothesis is not widely accepted, and there is little to suggest that it is possible to reconstruct a proto-Indo-Hittite stage that differs substantially from what is already reconstructed for PIE. Anthony (2019) suggests a derivation of the proto-Indo-European language mainly from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers living at the Volga steppes, with influences from languages spoken by northern Caucasus hunter-gatherers who migrated from the Caucasus to the lower Volga basin, in addition to a possible later influence from the language of the Maikop culture to the south (which is hypothesized to have belonged to the North Caucasian family) in the later Neolithic or Bronze Age involving little genetic impact.” ref  

Dating the split-offs of the main branches

Using a mathematical analysis borrowed from evolutionary biology, Don Ringe and Tandy Warnow propose the following tree of Indo-European branches:

• Pre-Anatolian (before 3500 BC)
• Pre-Tocharian
• Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (before 2500 BC)
• Pre-Armenian and Pre-Greek (after 2500 BC)
• Pre-Germanic and Pre-Balto-Slavic; proto-Germanic c. 500 BC
• Proto-Indo-Iranian (2000 BC) ref 

David Anthony, following the methodology of Ringe and Warnow, proposes the following sequence:

• Pre-Anatolian (4200 BC)
• Pre-Tocharian (3700 BC)
• Pre-Germanic (3300 BC)
• Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic (3000 BC)
• Pre-Armenian (2800 BC)
• Pre-Balto-Slavic (2800 BC)
• Pre-Greek (2500 BC)
• Proto-Indo-Iranian (2200 BC); split between Iranian and Old Indic 1800 BCE. ref 

Steppe (Kurgan) hypothesis Indo-European migrations and Kurgan hypothesis

“In the early 1980s, a mainstream consensus had emerged among Indo-Europeanists in favor of the “Kurgan hypothesis” (named after the kurgans, burial mounds, of the Eurasian steppes) placing the Indo-European homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe of the Chalcolithic. This was not least due to the influence of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, edited by J. P. Mallory, that focused on the ideas of Marija Gimbutas and offered some improvements. Gimbutas had created a modern variation on the traditional invasion theory in which the Indo-Europeans were a nomadic tribe in Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia and expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC. Their expansion coincided with the taming of the horse. Leaving archaeological signs of their presence (see Corded Ware culture), they subjugated the peaceful European Neolithic farmers of Gimbutas’ Old Europe. As Gimbutas’ beliefs evolved, she put increasing emphasis on the patriarchal, patrilineal nature of the invading culture, sharply contrasting it with the supposedly egalitarian, if not matrilineal culture of the invaded, to the point of formulating essentially a feminist archaeology. Her interpretation of Indo-European culture found genetic support in remains from the Neolithic culture of Scandinavia, where DNA from bone remains in Neolithic graves indicated that the megalith culture was either matrilocal or matrilineal, as the people buried in the same grave were related through the women. Likewise, there is a tradition of remaining matrilineal traditions among the Basque, a people whose language and culture is widely supposed to be descended from a pre-indo-European relict.” ref 

Steppe (Kurgan) hypothesis  Archaeology

“The Gimbutas-Mallory Kurgan hypothesis seeks to identify the source of the Indo-European language expansion as a succession of migrations from the Pontic–Caspian steppe, originating in the area encompassed by the Sredny Stog culture (c. 4500 BC). J. P. Mallory, dating the migrations later, to c. 4000 BC, and putting less insistence on their violent or quasi-military nature, essentially modified Gimbutas’ theory making it compatible with a less gender-political narrative. David Anthony, focusing mostly on the evidence for the domestication of horses and the presence of wheeled vehicles, came to regard specifically the Yamna culture, which replaced the Sredny Stog culture around 3500 BC, as the most likely candidate for the Proto-Indo-European speech community. Anthony describes the spread of cattle-raising from early farmers in the Danube Valley into the Ukrainian steppes in the 6th–5th millennium BC, forming a cultural border with the hunter-gatherers whose languages may have included archaic PIE. Anthony notes that domesticated cattle and sheep probably didn’t enter the steppes from the Transcaucasia, since the early farming communities there were not widespread, and separated from the steppes by the glaciated Caucasus. Subsequent cultures developed in this area adopted cattle, most notably the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture. Parpola regards the Tripolye culture as the birthplace of wheeled vehicles, and therefore as the homeland for Late PIE, assuming that Early PIE was spoken by Skelya pastoralists (early Sredny Stog culture) who took over the Tripolye culture at c. 4300–4000 BC. On its eastern border lay the Sredny Stog culture (4400–3400 BC), whose origins are related to “people from the east, perhaps from the Volga steppes”. It plays a central role in Gimbutas’ Kurgan hypothesis and coincides with the spread of early PIE across the steppes and into the Danube valley (c. 4000 BC), leading to the collapse of Old Europe. Hereafter the Maykop culture suddenly arose, Tripolye towns grew strongly, and eastern steppe people migrated to the Altai mountains, founding the Afanasevo culture (3300 to 2500 BC).” ref 

Steppe (Kurgan) hypothesis: Vocabulary

The core element of the steppe hypothesis is the identification of the proto-Indo-European culture as a nomadic pastoralist society that did not practice intensive agriculture. This identification rests on the fact that vocabulary related to cows, to horses and horsemanship, and to wheeled vehicles can be reconstructed for all branches of the family, whereas only a few agricultural vocabulary items are reconstructable, suggesting a gradual adoption of agriculture through contact with non-Indo-Europeans. If this evidence and reasoning is accepted, the search for the Indo-European proto-culture has to involve searching for the earliest introduction of domesticated horses and wagons into Europe. Responding to these arguments, proponents of the Anatolian hypothesis Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson have argued that the different branches could have independently developed similar vocabulary based on the same roots, creating the false appearance of shared inheritance – or alternatively, that the words related to wheeled vehicles might have been borrowed across Europe at a later date. Proponents of the Steppe hypothesis have argued this to be highly unlikely and to break with the established principles for reasonable assumptions when explaining linguistic comparative data. Another source of evidence for the steppe hypothesis is the presence of what appears to be many shared loanwords between Uralic languages and proto-Indo-European, suggesting that these languages were spoken in adjacent areas. This would have had to take place a good deal further north than the Anatolian or Near Eastern scenarios would allow. According to Kortlandt, Indo-Uralic is the pre-PIE, postulating that Indo-European and Uralic share a common ancestor. According to Kortlandt, “Indo-European is a branch of Indo-Uralic which was radically transformed under the influence of a North Caucasian substratum when its speakers moved from the area north of the Caspian Sea to the area north of the Black Sea.” Anthony notes that the validity of such deep relationships cannot be reliably demonstrated due to the time-depth involved, and also notes that the similarities may be explained by borrowings from PIE into proto-Uralic. Yet, Anthony also notes that the North Caucasian communities “were southern participants in the steppe world.” ref 

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

  Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Art by Damien Marie AtHope  

Art by Damien Marie AtHope  

Art by Damien Marie AtHope  

Art by Damien Marie AtHope  

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

(Kurgan) hypothesis: Genetics

Origins of the Yamnaya culture and Yamnaya component in European genes

“Three genetic studies in 2015 gave support to the Kurgan theory of Gimbutas regarding the Indo-European Urheimat. According to those studies, Y chromosome haplogroups R1b and R1a, now the most common in Europe (R1a is also common in South Asia) would have expanded from the Russian steppes, along with the Indo-European languages; they also detected an autosomal component present in modern Europeans which was not present in Neolithic Europeans, which would have been introduced with paternal lineages R1b and R1a, as well as Indo-European languages. Many geneticists consider Haplogroup R1a to be associated with the origins and spread of the Indo-Europeans. R1a1 shows a strong correlation with the distribution of the Indo-European languages in Europe and South Asia, being most prevalent in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, and in central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Two specific subclades dominate, namely R1-Z282 in Eastern-Europe and R1-Z93 in South Asia and South-Siberia. According to Underhill et al. (2014), the initial diversification of R1a took place in the vicinity of Iran, while Pamjav et al. (2012) think that R1a diversified within the Eurasian steppes or the Middle East and Caucasus region. Paternal lineages R1a and R1b (and paternal haplogroup I) have been found in Yamnaya remains, as well as in remains from the preceding Mesolithic (hunter-gatherer) and Neolithic peoples of the Eastern European steppe. The subclade R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) is the R1a subclade most commonly associated with Indo-European speakers. Ornella Semino et al. propose a postglacial (Holocene) spread of the R1a R1a1 haplogroup from north of the Black Sea during the time of the Late Glacial Maximum, which was subsequently magnified by the expansion of the Kurgan culture into Europe and eastward. Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Central Europeans surveyed in ancient DNA studies conclusively showed a mix of Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), Anatolian Farmers, and Pontic Steppe Hunter-Gatherers ancestry. Individuals from the Yamnaya culture had themselves a mix from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) ancestry (a mating network going from the Caucasus Mountains, parts of eastern Anatolia, and the western Iranian plateau). In 2015, a large-scale ancient DNA study published in Nature found evidence of a “massive migration” from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to Central Europe that took place about 4,500 years ago. It found that individuals from the Central European Corded Ware culture (3rd millennium BC) were genetically closely related to individuals from the Yamnaya culture. The authors concluded that their “results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe”, in this case, pre-Italo-Celtic and pre-Germanic.” ref

“However, the folk migration model cannot be the only diffusion theory for all linguistic families, as the Yamnaya ancestry component is particularly concentrated in Europe in the northwestern parts of the continent. Other models for languages like Proto-Greek are still debated. The steppe genetic component is more diffuse in studied Mycenaean populations: if they came from elsewhere, Proto-Greek speakers were certainly a minority in a sea of populations that had been familiar with agriculture for 4000 years.[19] Some propose that they gained progressive prominence through a cultural expansion by elite influence. But if high correlations can be proven in ethnolinguistic or remote communities, genetics does not always equate with language, and archaeologists have argued that although such a migration might have taken place, it does not necessarily explain either the distribution of archaeological cultures or the spread of the Indo-European languages. An analysis by David Anthony (2019) suggests a genetic origin of Proto-Indo-Europeans (associated with the Yamnaya culture) in the Eastern European steppe north of the Caucasus, deriving from a mixture of Eastern European hunter-gatherers and hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus. Anthony also suggests that the Proto-Indo-European language formed mainly from a base of languages spoken by Eastern European hunter-gathers with influences from languages of northern Caucasus hunter-gatherers, in addition to a possible later influence from the language of the Maykop culture to the south (which is hypothesized to have belonged to the North Caucasian languages) in the later Neolithic or Bronze Age, involving little genetic impact.” ref

“This third “island-hopping” route is the correct one, says Peristera Paschou of the Democritus University of Thrace in Greece.” ref

Anatolian (“Out of Turkey” with the spread of farming) hypothesis

“The main competitor to the Kurgan hypothesis is the Anatolian hypothesis advanced by Colin Renfrew in 1987. It couples the spread of the Indo-European languages to the hard fact of the Neolithic spread of farming from the Near East, stating that the Indo-European languages began to spread peacefully into Europe from Asia Minor from around 7000 BC with the Neolithic advance of farming (wave of advance). The expansion of agriculture from the Middle East would have diffused three language families: Indo-European toward Europe, Dravidian toward Pakistan and India, and Afro-Asiatic toward Arabia and North Africa.” ref

According to Renfrew (2004), the spread of Indo-European proceeded in the following steps:

• Around 6500 BC: Pre-Proto-Indo-European, located in Anatolia, splits into Anatolian and Archaic Proto-Indo-European, the language of those Pre-Proto-Indo-European farmers who migrate to Europe in the initial farming dispersal. Archaic Proto-Indo-European languages occur in the Balkans (Starčevo-Körös-Cris culture), in the Danube valley (Linear Pottery culture), and possibly in the Bug-Dniestr area (Eastern Linear pottery culture).
• Around 5000 BC: Archaic Proto-Indo-European splits into Northwestern Indo-European (the ancestor of Italic, Celtic, and Germanic), located in the Danube valley, Balkan Proto-Indo-European (corresponding to Gimbutas‘ Old European culture), and Early Steppe Proto-Indo-European (the ancestor of Tocharian). ref

“Reacting to criticism, Renfrew revised his proposal to the effect of taking a pronounced Indo-Hittite position. Renfrew’s revised views place only Pre-Proto-Indo-European in 7th millennium BC Anatolia, proposing as the homeland of Proto-Indo-European proper the Balkans around 5000 BC, explicitly identified as the “Old European culture” proposed by Marija Gimbutas. He thus still situates the original source of the Indo-European language family in Anatolia c. 7000 BC. Reconstructions of a Bronze Age PIE society based on vocabulary items like “wheel” do not necessarily hold for the Anatolian branch, which appears to have separated from PIE at an early stage, prior to the invention of wheeled vehicles. Following the publication of several studies on ancient DNA in 2015, Colin Renfrew has accepted the reality of migrations of populations speaking one or several Indo-European languages from the Pontic steppe towards Northwestern Europe.” ref

Anatolian (“Out of Turkey”) hypothesis Objections?

“The main objection to this theory is that it requires an unrealistically early date. According to linguistic analysis, the Proto-Indo-European lexicon seems to include words for a range of inventions and practices related to the Secondary Products Revolution, which post-dates the early spread of farming. On lexico-cultural dating, Proto-Indo-European cannot be earlier than 4000 BC.” ref

Anatolian (“Out of Turkey”) hypothesis: Early Farming

The idea that farming was spread from Anatolia in a single wave has been revised. Instead, it appears to have spread in several waves by several routes, primarily from the Levant. The trail of plant domesticates indicates an initial foray from the Levant by sea. The overland route via Anatolia seems to have been most significant in spreading farming into south-east Europe. Farming developed independently in the eastern fertile crescent. Non-Indo-European languages appear to be associated with the spread of farming from the Near East into North Africa and the Caucasus. According to Lazaridis et al. (2016), farming developed independently both in the Levant and in the eastern Fertile Crescent. After this initial development, the two regions and the Caucasus interacted, and the chalcolithic north-west Iranian population appears to be a mixture of Iranian Neolithic, Levant, and Caucasus hunter-gatherers. According to Lazaridis et al. (2016), “farmers related to those from Iran spread northward into the Eurasian steppe; and people related to both the early farmers of Iran and to the pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe spread eastward into South Asia”. They further note that ANI “can be modeled as a mix of ancestry related to both early farmers of western Iran and to people of the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe”, which makes it unlikely that the Indo-European languages in India are derived from Anatolia. Mascarenhas et al. (2015) note that the expansion of Z93 from Transcaucasia into South Asia is compatible with “the archeological records of the eastward expansion of West Asian populations in the 4th millennium BC culminating in the so-called Kura-Araxes migrations in the post-Uruk IV period.” ref

Anatolian (“Out of Turkey”) hypothesis Alignment with the “Steppe Theory”

“According to Alberto Piazza “[i]t is clear that, genetically speaking, peoples of the Kurgan steppe descended at least in part from people of the Middle Eastern Neolithic who immigrated there from Turkey.” According to Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza, the Yamna culture may have been derived from Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers who migrated to the Pontic steppe and developed pastoral nomadism:

…if the expansions began at 9,500 years ago from Anatolia and at 6,000 years ago from the Yamnaya culture region, then a 3,500-year period elapsed during their migration to the Volga–Don region from Anatolia, probably through the Balkans. There a completely new, mostly pastoral culture developed under the stimulus of an environment unfavorable to standard agriculture, but offering new attractive possibilities. Our hypothesis is, therefore, that Indo-European languages derived from a secondary expansion from the Yamnaya culture region after the Neolithic farmers, possibly coming from Anatolia and settled there, developing pastoral nomadism.” ref

“Wells agrees with Cavalli-Sforza that there is “some genetic evidence for a migration from the Middle East”:

… while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle East to Europe. One possibility is that, as a much earlier migration (8,000 years old, as opposed to 4,000), the genetic signals carried by Indo-European-speaking farmers may simply have dispersed over the years. There is clearly some genetic evidence for migration from the Middle East, as Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues showed, but the signal is not strong enough for us to trace the distribution of Neolithic languages throughout the entirety of Indo-European-speaking Europe.” ref

“Proto-Indo-European, or PIE, is believed to have been spoken by a people who lived from roughly 4500 to 2500 BCE, and left no written texts”

“By the 19th century, linguists knew that all modern Indo-European languages descended from a single tongue. Called Proto-Indo-European, or PIE, it was spoken by a people who lived from roughly 4500 to 2500 BCE/6,520 to 4,520 years ago, and left no written texts. The question became, what did PIE sound like? In 1868, German linguist August Schleicher used reconstructed Proto-Indo-European vocabulary to create a fable in order to hear some approximation of PIE. Called “The Sheep and the Horses,” and also known today as Schleicher’s Fable, the short parable tells the story of a shorn sheep who encounters a group of unpleasant horses. As linguists have continued to discover more about PIE (and archaeologists have learned more about the Bronze Age cultures that would have spoken it), this sonic experiment continues and the fable is periodically updated to reflect the most current understanding of how this extinct language would have sounded when it was spoken some 6,000 years ago. Since there is considerable disagreement among scholars about PIE, no single version can be considered definitive. Here, University of Kentucky linguist Andrew Byrd recites his version of the fable, as well as a second story, called “The King and the God,” using pronunciation informed by the latest insights into reconstructed PIE.” ref

Schleicher originally rendered the fable like this:

Avis akvāsas ka

“Avis, jasmin varnā na ā ast, dadarka akvams, tam, vāgham garum vaghantam, tam, bhāram magham, tam, manum āku bharantam. Avis akvabhjams ā vavakat: kard aghnutai mai vidanti manum akvams agantam. Akvāsas ā vavakant: krudhi avai, kard aghnutai vividvant-svas: manus patis varnām avisāms karnauti svabhjam gharmam vastram avibhjams ka varnā na asti. Tat kukruvants avis agram ā bhugat.” ref

Here is the English translation: “The Sheep and the Horses” 

“A sheep that had no wool saw horses, one of them pulling a heavy wagon, one carrying a big load, and one carrying a man quickly. The sheep said to the horses: “My heart pains me, seeing a man driving horses.” The horses said: “Listen, sheep, our hearts pain us when we see this: a man, the master, makes the wool of the sheep into a warm garment for himself. And the sheep has no wool.” Having heard this, the sheep fled into the plain. And here is the modern reconstruction recited by Andrew Byrd and rendered here in linguistic notations. It is based on recent work done by linguist H. Craig Melchert, and incorporates a number of sounds unknown at the time Schleicher first created the fable.” ref

H2óu̯is h1éḱu̯ōs-kwe

h2áu̯ei̯ h1i̯osméi̯ h2u̯l̥h1náh2 né h1ést, só h1éḱu̯oms derḱt. só gwr̥hxúm u̯óǵhom u̯eǵhed; só méǵh2m̥ bhórom; só dhǵhémonm̥ h2ṓḱu bhered. h2óu̯is h1ékwoi̯bhi̯os u̯eu̯ked: “dhǵhémonm̥ spéḱi̯oh2 h1éḱu̯oms-kwe h2áǵeti, ḱḗr moi̯ aghnutor”. h1éḱu̯ōs tu u̯eu̯kond: “ḱludhí, h2ou̯ei̯! tód spéḱi̯omes, n̥sméi̯ aghnutór ḱḗr: dhǵhémō, pótis, sē h2áu̯i̯es h2u̯l̥h1náh2 gwhérmom u̯éstrom u̯ept, h2áu̯ibhi̯os tu h2u̯l̥h1náh2 né h1esti. tód ḱeḱluu̯ṓs h2óu̯is h2aǵróm bhuged.” ref

“In the 1990s, historical linguists created another short parable in reconstructed PIE. It is loosely based on a passage from the Rigveda, an ancient collection of Sanskrit hymns, in which a king beseeches the god Varuna to grant him a son. Here, Andrew Byrd recites his version of the “The King and the God” in PIE, based on the work of linguists Eric Hamp and the late Subhadra Kumar Sen.” ref

Here is an English translation of the story:

The King and the God

“Once there was a king. He was childless. The king wanted a son. He asked his priest: “May a son be born to me!” The priest said to the king: “Pray to the god Werunos.” The king approached the god Werunos to pray now to the god. “Hear me, father Werunos!” The god Werunos came down from heaven. “What do you want?” “I want a son.” “Let this be so,” said the bright god Werunos. The king’s lady bore a son.” ref

And here is the story rendered in reconstructed Proto-Indo-European:

H3rḗḱs dei̯u̯ós-kwe

“H3rḗḱs h1est; só n̥putlós. H3rḗḱs súhxnum u̯l̥nh1to. Tósi̯o ǵʰéu̯torm̥ prēḱst: “Súhxnus moi̯ ǵn̥h1i̯etōd!” Ǵʰéu̯tōr tom h3rḗǵm̥ u̯eu̯ked: “h1i̯áǵesu̯o dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom”. Úpo h3rḗḱs dei̯u̯óm U̯érunom sesole nú dei̯u̯óm h1i̯aǵeto. “ḱludʰí moi, pter U̯erune!” Dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos diu̯és km̥tá gʷah2t. “Kʷíd u̯ēlh1si?” “Súhxnum u̯ēlh1mi.” “Tód h1estu”, u̯éu̯ked leu̯kós dei̯u̯ós U̯érunos. Nu h3réḱs pótnih2 súhxnum ǵeǵonh1e.” ref

“It is firmly established since (at least) the 1980s that Balto-Slavic, Baltic and Slavic show a strong Uralic substrate, even though many details are still the subject of ongoing controversies. Here is how the Baltic linguistic area was described in Thomason’s Language Contact (2001):

Overall, the Baltic area has the same characteristics as the Balkan area: areal linguistic features are distributed differently among the languages, and the features themselves vary in details of their structure. As for the sources of the Baltic features, some can be traced to Uralic and some to Indo-European, especially Germanic. The Indo-European languages most likely acquired Baltic features of Uralic origin through imperfect learning of the Indo-European languages by Uralic speakers, with shift (as in the case of Baltic and Slavic) or without shift (as in the case of Germanic); features of Germanic origin probably entered the other languages by way of borrowing, though imperfect learning is a possibility too (…).” ref

Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family: link 

How Yamnaya and their ancestors swept through Europe

“The group and their descendants arrived in Europe between 4000 and 5000 years ago, New Scientist reports. At the time Europe had been ravaged by disease, eroding the population’s ability to resist the powerfully built and aggressive Yamnaya horseback warriors. They overwhelmed smaller Europeans and the Yamnaya culture as well as their DNA soon spread throughout the continent. According to archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen, after they brought with their brutal practices there appears to have been a sharp upsurge in lethal violence. Such was the extent of their brutality that he began to consider whether they were the most murderous people in history. “I’ve become increasingly convinced there must have been a kind of genocide,” said Professor Kristiansen. He said the Yamnaya lived mostly on meat and milk products which made them “healthier and probably physically quite strong.” ref

Mitogenomic data indicate admixture components of Central-Inner Asian and Srubnaya origin in the conquering Hungarians: link

How A Handful of Yamnaya Culture Nomads Became the Fathers of Europe

“The origins of modern Europeans are shrouded in mystery and wracked by controversy. Archaeologists and linguists have long debated the origins of the Indo-European language family as well as the origins of civilization and settled life in Europe. Recent discoveries in past years suggest that the origin of European culture, as well as some central Asian cultures, is within an archaeological culture called the Yamnaya.” ref

“Asians, Europeans were fair-skinned around 5000 years ago. Reconstruction of a typical Yamnaya individual from the Caspian steppe in Russia ca. 5,070-4,870 years ago.” ref

“The Maykop culture, around 3700 BC–3000 BC, was a major Bronze Age archaeological culture in the western Caucasus region. Maykop inhumation practices were characteristically Indo-European, typically in a pit, sometimes stone-lined, topped with a kurgan (or tumulus). Stone cairns replace kurgans in later interments.” ref 

The Maykop kurgan was extremely rich in gold and silver artifacts; unusual for the time.

“It extends along the area from the Taman Peninsula at the Kerch Strait to near the modern border of Dagestan and southwards to the Kura River. The culture takes its name from a royal burial found in Maykop kurgan in the Kuban River valley. According to genetic studies on ancient DNA published in 2018, the Maikop population came from the south, probably from western Georgia and Abkhazia, and was descended from the Eneolithic farmers who first colonized the north side of the Caucasus. Maykop is therefore the “ideal archaeological candidate for the founders of the Northwest Caucasian language family.” ref 

“In the south, the Maykop culture bordered the approximately contemporaneous Kura-Araxes culture (3500—2200 BC), which extends into the Armenian Plateau and apparently influenced it. To the north is the Yamna culture, including the Novotitorovka culture (3300—2700), which it overlaps in territorial extent. It is contemporaneous with the late Uruk period in Mesopotamia. researchers established the existence of a local Maykop animal style in the artifacts found. This style was seen as the prototype for animal styles of later archaeological cultures: the Maykop animal style is more than a thousand years older than the Scythian, Sarmatian, and Celtic animal styles. Attributed to the Maykop culture are petroglyphs that have yet to be deciphered. The Maykop people lived sedentary lives, and horses formed a very low percentage of their livestock, which mostly consisted of pigs and cattle. Archaeologists have discovered a unique form of bronze cheek-piece, which consists of a bronze rod with a twisted loop in the middle that threads through the nodes and connects to the bridle, halter strap, and headband. Notches and bumps on the edges of the cheek-pieces were, apparently, to attach nose and under-lip straps. Some of the earliest wagon wheels in the world are found in Maykop culture area. The two solid wooden wheels from the kurgan of Novokorsunskaya in the Kuban region have been dated to the second half of the fourth millennium. The culture has been described as, at the very least, a “kurganized” local culture with strong ethnic and linguistic links to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It has been linked to the Lower Mikhaylovka group and Kemi Oba culture, and more distantly, to the Globular Amphora and Corded Ware cultures, if only in an economic sense. Yet, such a theory, it must be emphasized, is highly speculative and controversial although there is a recognition that this culture may be a product of at least two traditions: the local steppe tradition embraced in the Novosvobodna culture and foreign elements from south of the Caucasus which can be charted through imports in both regions. Iranian Origins.” ref 

According to Mariya Ivanova the Maikop origins were on the Iranian Plateau:

“Graves and settlements of the 5th millennium BC in North Caucasus attest to a material culture that was related to contemporaneous archaeological complexes in the northern and western Black Sea region. Yet it was replaced, suddenly as it seems, around the middle of the 4th millennium BC by a “high culture” whose origin is still quite unclear. This archaeological culture named after the great Maikop kurgan showed innovations in all areas which have no local archetypes and which cannot be assigned to the tradition of the Balkan-Anatolian Copper Age. The favored theory of Russian researchers is a migration from the south originating in the Syro-Anatolian area, which is often mentioned in connection with the so-called “Uruk expansion”. However, serious doubts have arisen about a connection between Maikop and the Syro-Anatolian region. The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia. Recent excavations in the Southwest Caspian Sea region are enabling a new perspective about the interactions between the “Orient” and Continental Europe. On the one hand, it is becoming gradually apparent that a gigantic area of interaction evolved already in the early 4th millennium BC which extended far beyond Mesopotamia; on the other hand, these findings relativize the traditional importance given to Mesopotamia, because innovations originating in Iran and Central Asia obviously spread throughout the Syro-Anatolian region independently thereof.” ref 

Azerbaijan

“More recently, some very ancient kurgans have been discovered at Soyuqbulaq in Azerbaijan. These kurgans date to the beginning of the 4th millennium BC, and belong to Leylatepe Culture. According to the excavators of these kurgans, there are some significant parallels between Soyugbulaq kurgans and the Maikop kurgans:

“Discovery of Soyugbulaq in 2004 and subsequent excavations provided substantial proof that the practice of kurgan burial was well established in the South Caucasus during the late Eneolithic […] The Leylatepe Culture tribes migrated to the north in the mid-fourth millennium, B.C. and played an important part in the rise of the Maikop Culture of the North Caucasus.” ref 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

 Art by Damien Marie AtHope 

Art by Damien Marie AtHope

Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Blog, My Memes & Short-writing or Quotes

Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page,  Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheists Against Trump, Facebook The History Voyagers Page, Facebook Group: The History Voyagers, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy, Facebook Atheist for Non-monogamy Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com