Indo-European Peoples

James R. Womack III

10.03.2007

Indo-European Peoples - Origins

While studying Zoroastrianism, I discovered several topics that I felt worthy of further exploration. One such study would center on the origins of the people group and culture from which the Zoroastrians descend. It is specifically this topic that I chose to research and write about. In this paper I will give an account of the Indo-European and Indo-Aryan cultures and how they developed throughout history.

“To understand the origins of Zoroastrianism, We need to go back to the earliest of prehistory. This requires a bit of detective work and a lot of detailed data. But it will be worth it. We will find evidence that there was a religion with roots that go back as far as five thousand years. Tribes holding this religion eventually settled in various locations of Europe and Asia. Zoroastrianism is a descendant of that ancient religion (Corduan 114).”

Scholarly research of the Indo-European culture has been going on for about the past 200 years (Bryant 38). In this time we have seen stringent efforts to discover the origins of this people and knowledge of their homeland. What we know of this culture is that they were clan like nomadic travelers who are broadly referred to as the Aryans. One may ask the question, “Why has so much time been spent on studying one group of wandering nomads?” The answer to this comes in a very profound statement: The Proto-Indo-Europeans (or Aryan Predecessors) are believed to be the people group from which much of our language across the world today is derived (Fortson 14). There is much speculation of how this is possible, but the majority of archeological, historical, and philological evidence points to this conclusion. According to Oxford University Press, philology is “an older term for linguistics, and especially for the branch of linguistic study devoted to comparative and historical research into the development of languages. In a wider sense, the term sometimes also covers the study of literary texts. A researcher in this scholarly field is a philologist.”

Historical Background

While the Indo-European people are known to be nomadic travelers, up until this place in history they had not made “mass migrations” into distant lands. “Around 1500 B.C., for reasons kept to themselves, they undertook one of the mass migrations that occur form time to time in ancient history. Some of then went as far as India; others wound up settling in the Iranian Plateau,” (Corduan 114).

The best-known source of documented historical evidence comes to us through the earliest texts of the Vedas (Hindu Scriptures) and, more specifically, the Rig-Veda (written in Sanskrit). In one section of the text, we find Hymns mentioning the invading “Arya” moving into India from the northwest to the southeast. We also find several other Hymns referring to the request of the Indian people asking their gods to assist the warlike “Arya” in the defeat of Dasya. Apparently the latter occurring after the “Arya” had been in the land for some time (Fortson 12).

Other parallel evidence comes to us through Zoroaster’s teaching in the Avesta against Aryan religion. This and other information in the Avesta leads us to the conclusion that the Aryan migration was responsible for the people living Iran. This seems to be a logical place to make an important to connection between the Zoroastrian culture and the Aryan people. Dr. Win Corduan points out that as the Aryan people settled in the Iranian Plateau (Home of Zoroaster) this is where we derive the name “Iran” meaning – “Land of the Aryans” I had never personally made this connection, but after reading through Corduan’s book this seems to make sense, particularly phonetically.

Societal Structure

In trying to extrapolate a societal structure from the understood knowledge of an ancient people, anthropologists and archeologists are often faced with a daunting task. Benjamin Fortson, in his book Indo-European Language and Culture, uses a technique borrowed from philology that pulls a shared meaning of words, phrase, and ideas through comparative study of them. He suggests that just as a great comprehension of a proto-language can be drawn from a comparative word study of the descendant dialects of that language, so by comparing not only the words but also their contexts can one discover knowledge of the proto-culture. (Fortson 16)

“A language does not exist apart from a people, and it always mirrors their culture to some extent. Furthermore, we can broaden the scope of comparison to include not only individual words but also their use in context, which reveals the semantic and cultural associations that attend different concepts. Thus comparative linguistic study allows us to reconstruct a proto-culture alongside the proto-language (Fortson 16).”

Mr. Fortson further mentions that there are other comparative strategies used in understanding a proto-culture. By comparing the myths, laws, and various social institutions and coupling this information with a linguistic comparison, anthropologists can better realize the characteristics of that people’s social interaction. An example of this is that of two “daughter societies”, who both hold to or believe in similar myths, such as a “Thunder god.” Fortson states that when these similarities are coupled with an accurate language analysis, it will more greatly secure a particular theory the proto-culture. While these research techniques aid and support each other, Fortson does conclude that the linguistic analysis is not always necessary to derive a particular meaning or custom of the culture being explored (Fortson 16).

The final statement on Fortson’s method for studying the Indo-European People rests in the idea that language is not static or unbending, but that over time it changes and is influenced by outside factors and cultural developments that can not always be accounted for. While he appears to be fairly confident in his own assertions and the method itself, he provides for us a way of understanding that absolute certainty that can be drawn from the conclusion of this method (Fortson 17).

As we begin reviewing the structure of the Indo-European society it is important to note that cultural and societal structures, habits, and norms can be based on incorrect notions of personhood and therefore the treatment of people may also be incorrect. However, when making judgments of a particular people group we must be cautious. In the midst of these judgments, we must be aware of our own cultural historical heritage and bias that come with it. We must not to conclude that a particular structure is “wrong” just because it does not align with our particular experience, within our context.

The first suggestion given to us by Benjamin Fortson for the structure if the Proto-Society is that it was based on a higharchial arrangement. The primary distinction is that of the freeman to the slave. Although, we do not know all of the circumstances that would give rise to slavery in the Aryan people, it is universally agreed upon that this type if system was adopted and permeated the entire culture. Scholars also believe that slaves were most likely captives of war or debtors who were unable to repay they lender. Beyond this first institution we find a sub categorization that establishes a type of cast system. In this institution, researchers have discovered the clustering of people into groups, which is often by family. These groups would then receive assignments of a specified role and required contribution to the whole clan. First of all we see that there is a religious and sovereign responsibility that is assigned to lineage of the Priest and King. Second, we find that there is a function of “martial force” which is rendered to the Warrior class. Third, there is a class of the common worker who would manufacture goods, raise livestock, and work with the soil to produce vegetation. Fortson speculates that there is a likely connection between this cast system and the cast system of India. Part of this thinking comes from the knowledge that the cast system of Hindu religion is discussed extensively in the earliest weightings of the Rig-Veda which are written in the oldest Sanskrit (Fortson 17).

Within this society, we also find a highly patriarchal presence. There is evidence that women do not possess the same rights as men. But we do not find language concerning the mistreatment of the female or evidence that they are seen as property and something to be disposed of when broken or weary of. What we do find is that these people are drawn together in a “group” oriented manner to which loyalty to ones own family and clan (in group) is of utmost significance. While there is emphasis on the roles of those who have a governmental or religious importance, this society would value the significance and need for all of these people, even of those in places that to us would be seen to us as insignificant or “non-equal”

Economically we see trade as a very vital contributor to the health and function of the Proto-European group. However, amidst this economic trade we also learn that the clans are given to war like economics in which the Adolescent males of the clans would, from time to time, raid, plunder, and pillage other clans. We do not know much about these violent acts but understand enough to know that the whole society was primarily structured around warfare. (Fortson 18-20)

I wish that I could provide an Indo-European book of law or codes that would help us to decipher this question of intentionality with in slavery and familial hierarchy a little further. According to Fortson, there is very little that can be derived from the laws of the Aryan people. He mentions that scholars can extrapolate enough to know that there was no formal court system, as the one we now know. Clans dealt specifically with in their own group to make judgments and decisions in relationship to laws and expectations. Apparently, business deals and pledges were done in front of others and seen as a binding agreement with a witness present. When dept went unpaid often this left individuals with the necessity to take matters into their own hands. (Fortson 21) War far then is a possible necessity in defense of those who would invade, kill, and harm.

To recap what we have just learned from Fortson above: First of all we can understand that there is a value and heavy emphasis on loyalty to family and group ties. Second, we see what appears to be inequality through the cast system and in gender relations. Third, we see that these people live in a world that is bent on warfare and the taking from other clans. Finally, there is no organized law that pulls these groups together, they are warring brothers. I believe this helps to provide insight into a possible reason for the establishment of “inequality” and slavery.

Using slavery through war as a starting place for this argument, I can see very few options, life as a slave, life imprisonment, or death. Life without slavery would continue to allow freedom and anonymity to the individual and the possibility of threat, harm and continued animosity toward the other party. This decision may actually make an ethical and philosophical statement about the value of life. At the same time it also represents wisdom in that imprisonment would use valuable resources for sustaining prisoners.

In turn, slavery as a debtor provides the opportunity for one to continue to provide for himself, his family, and pay off his debt with out imprisonment (or worse). If one where imprisoned for debt, there is no one to provide for the family, which could become more of a burden for the clan, represent the possibility of more debt accrual, and poor health or even death to family members.

In reference to the subjection and inequality of females, an institution such as this is easily dismissed and scrutinized. However, in the process of these critiques people may stop short of acknowledging the value of such a structure in a proto-culture. In a world that was hostile and dangerous for all people, not just those who are physically weaker, this normative practice would allow for protection and provision of females. It is easy for us to think of the strong, independent and self sufficient women of our day and then to extrapolate it or project that model onto all women at all times. There is often a large inconsideration and disapproval of primitive or prehistoric people due to this type of ideology. In doing this, there is a great failure to recognize the fact that the females of our day were only permitted to arrive at this independent state they now possess, largely due to the protective and secure environment in which they now live.

These thoughts are in need of further development but their lack of development does not disqualify the position as a possible perspective and logical response in each given situation. It also provides for a basis of good intentionality on the part of a patriarchal society. In our day there is a great hatred of the masculine, particularly in the American “anti-male dominance” attitude that is written into of our hearts and minds as being the downfall of all societies. On the other hand, just because this is a possible background and logical reason for these norms, this does not mean that these practices were not abused, they probably were. My argument is not to establish a case for slavery and the subjugation of females. I simply wish to propose that these people (and all people who had similar customs) are not wrong in their thinking or actions in virtue of our “misunderstanding” of them. If they are wrong, it is because of the abuse of such things, not for their value of human life and their goal to protect and secure those they love.

The Indo-European Religion – Possibility of Monotheism

This religion was notably polytheistic, not only in relationship to its offshoots in surrounding Aryan nations but this is also evidenced within the Indo-European group itself. While researching, I found several interesting similarities in my various sources but there is one that I am particularly interested in pointing out. Win Corduan, like the other scholars I have observed, begins his discussion on the polytheistic nature of the Aryan religion. First, he presents a case for the asuras and the deavas and discussing the various names of these gods. However, after doing this he enters into a discourse concerning the origins of he Zoroastrian monotheism, this is where I became intrigued. To make sure that I portray this assertion accurately I quote Win Corduan below.

“Behind this pantheon, however, we find the remnants of an original monotheism, although it had undergone several changes. The same root word, div, which became the source of the word daevas, originally served as the word for a single God, known in Indian as Dyaus Pitar, which means literally “father god” (note how the stem of pitar survives the words such as paternal). In various permutations, this name survived into Greek mythology as Zeus Pater or its Latin form, Jupiter. This god was believed to live in the sky; by the time of the Aryan invasions, his identity had merged into the sky itself, and so we have the sky god Varuna in India or his counterpart Ouranos in Greek mythology. We meet him in Iran under the name of Uruwana; here he is also called Ahura Mazda, literally the ‘wise lord’ (Corduan 115).”

This concept is significant and gripping and is a topic that deserves further study. As a Christian it gives me a true since of awe and curiosity. Christian’s believe that all people do indeed come from a common source (the first being Adam and the second Noah) and that all language must as well. It is easy to speculate on this and to trust the scriptures to shed light or give hints of an ancient society but it encourages the faith of individuals to hear arguments such as the one Dr. Corduan provides. Later in the text Corduan makes the statement that it is likely Zoroastrianism was just a return to its monotheistic roots rather than some strange aberration and new concept.

“Thus we find in Iran, as elsewhere, the remnant of an original belief in one God. Though displaced by layers of religious development, this deity remains part of the religious heritage. The eventual move back to monotheism thus did not have to be either a brand-new invention or the result of some external influence. It was a return to what was already part of the culture” (Corduan 115).”

Opposing View Points

Since the beginning of study in this area, there has been great debate as to the specific origin of the people who influenced the world so much. The origin of language has the possibility of not only meaning the spread of a particular dialect but the possibility of being the “original” culture. There are many who would like to see India as the originating land and people group, but there is insufficient archeological and philological data to support this claim. Not to mention that the Hindu’s own Vedas recording the Arya invaders from the north, which seems to work against this claim. There is interesting work being done in relationship to the Indus Valley people. This phrase is typically used when referring to the culture or civilization that existed before the migration of the Aryan people into the Indus Valley. Archeologists have discovered the remains of ancient cities that trace back to an earlier time than the understood date of Aryan migration. One of the fundamental contrasting points to explain the difference between the Indus Valley People and the Aryan people is that the Aryans travelers were “Agrarian” clan like people and the Indus People were city dwelling and “civilized” for their time period. While some scholars are seeking to provide evidence that these early Cities provide the religious originality and influence of Vedic and Avestaian traditions, the majority of scholarly and archeological research points to the traditional view that the nomadic Aryans provided this heritage and background. In fact, the majority of the evidence points to the Aryans coming from the steppes of southern Russia (Kenoyer 15).

Through this study I feel that I have been swimming in waters that only get deeper and deeper the more I search them. I have concluded that there is a great supply of resources available for a lifetime of study in this particular area. Therefore, the problem with type of exploration is not lack of information; the problem is lack of time. In this paper I have attempted to gain an understanding of the Indo-European people and provide a basic explanation for who they were and how they lived.

Works Cited

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization

New York: Oxford University Press, 1998

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths: A Christian Introduction to World Religions

Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1998

Fortson, Benjamin W. IV: Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction

Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2004

Bryant, Edwin. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration

Debate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004

Day, John V. Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence

Washington D.C. : Institute for the Study of Man, 2001

Moulton, James Hope. Early Zoroastrianism

London: Williams and Norgate, 1913