Indigenous languages of the Americas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yucatec Maya writing in the Dresden Codex, ca. 11–12th century, Chichen Itza

 

Indigenous languages of the Americas are spoken by indigenous peoples from Alaska, Nunavut, and Greenland to the southern tip of South America, encompassing the land masses that constitute the Americas. These indigenous languages consist of dozens of distinct language families, as well as many language isolates and unclassified languages. 

Many proposals to group these into higher-level families have been made, such as Joseph Greenberg's Amerind hypothesis. This scheme is rejected by nearly all specialists, due to the fact that some of the languages differ too significantly to draw any connections between them.

According to UNESCO, most of the indigenous American languages are critically endangered, and many are already extinct. The most widely spoken indigenous language is Southern Quechua, with about 6 to 7 million speakers, primarily in South America.

Background

Thousands of languages were spoken by various peoples in North and South America prior to their first contact with Europeans. These encounters occurred between the beginning of the 11th century (with the Nordic settlement of Greenland and failed efforts in Newfoundland and Labrador) and the end of the 15th century (the voyages of Christopher Columbus). Several indigenous cultures of the Americas had also developed their own writing systems, the best known being the Maya script. The indigenous languages of the Americas had widely varying demographics, from the Quechuan languages, Aymara, Guarani, and Nahuatl, which had millions of active speakers, to many languages with only several hundred speakers. After pre-Columbian times, several indigenous creole languages developed in the Americas, based on European, indigenous and African languages. 

The European colonizers and their successor states had widely varying attitudes towards Native American languages. In Brazil, friars learned and promoted the Tupi language. In many Latin American colonies, Spanish missionaries often learned local languages and culture in order to preach to the natives in their own tongue and relate the Christian message to their indigenous religions. In the British American colonies, John Eliot of the Massachusetts Bay Colony translated the Bible into the Massachusett language, also called Wampanoag, or Natick (1661–1663; he published the first Bible printed in North America, the Eliot Indian Bible. 

The Europeans also suppressed use of indigenous American languages, establishing their own languages for official communications, destroying texts in other languages, and insisting that indigenous people learn European languages in schools. As a result, indigenous American languages suffered from cultural suppression and loss of speakers. By the 18th and 19th centuries, Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, and Dutch, brought to the Americas by European settlers and administrators, had become the official or national languages of modern nation-states of the Americas. 

Many indigenous languages have become critically endangered, but others are vigorous and part of daily life for millions of people. Several indigenous languages have been given official status in the countries where they occur, such as Guaraní in Paraguay. In other cases official status is limited to certain regions where the languages are most spoken. Although sometimes enshrined in constitutions as official, the languages may be used infrequently in de facto official use. Examples are Quechua in Peru and Aymara in Bolivia, where in practice, Spanish is dominant in all formal contexts. 

In North America and the Arctic region, Greenland in 2009 adopted Kalaallisut as its sole official language. In the United States, the Navajo language is the most spoken Native American language, with more than 200,000 speakers in the Southwestern United States. The US Marine Corps recruited Navajo men, who were established as code talkers during World War II, to transmit secret US military messages. Neither the Germans nor Japanese ever deciphered the Navajo code, which was a code using the Navajo language. Today, governments, universities, and indigenous peoples are continuing to work for the preservation and revitalization of indigenous American languages.

Origins

In American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America (1997), Lyle Campbell lists several hypotheses for the historical origins of Amerindian languages.

1. A single, one-language migration (not widely accepted)
2. A few linguistically distinct migrations (favored by Edward Sapir)
3. Multiple migrations
4. Multilingual migrations (single migration with multiple languages)
5. The influx of already diversified but related languages from the Old World
6. Extinction of Old World linguistic relatives (while the New World ones survived)
7. Migration along the Pacific coast instead of by the Bering Strait

Roger Blench (2008) has advocated the theory of multiple migrations along the Pacific coast of peoples from northeastern Asia, who already spoke diverse languages. These proliferated in the New World.

Language families and unclassified languages

Notes:

• Extinct languages or families are indicated by: †.
• The number of family members is indicated in parentheses (for example, Arauan (9) means the Arauan family consists of nine languages).
• For convenience, the following list of language families is divided into three sections based on political boundaries of countries. These sections correspond roughly with the geographic regions (North, Central, and South America) but are not equivalent. This division cannot fully delineate indigenous culture areas.

North America

Pre-contact: distribution of North American language families, including northern Mexico

 

Bilingual stop sign in English and the Cherokee syllabary, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

 

There are approximately 296 spoken (or formerly spoken) indigenous languages north of Mexico, 269 of which are grouped into 29 families (the remaining 27 languages are either isolates or unclassified). The Na-Dené, Algic, and Uto-Aztecan families are the largest in terms of number of languages. Uto-Aztecan has the most speakers (1.95 million) if the languages in Mexico are considered (mostly due to 1.5 million speakers of Nahuatl); Na-Dené comes in second with approximately 200,000 speakers (nearly 180,000 of these are speakers of Navajo), and Algic in third with about 180,000 speakers (mainly Cree and Ojibwe). Na-Dené and Algic have the widest geographic distributions: Algic currently spans from northeastern Canada across much of the continent down to northeastern Mexico (due to later migrations of the Kickapoo) with two outliers in California (Yurok and Wiyot); Na-Dené spans from Alaska and western Canada through Washington, Oregon, and California to the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico (with one outlier in the Plains). Several families consist of only 2 or 3 languages. Demonstrating genetic relationships has proved difficult due to the great linguistic diversity present in North America. Two large (super-) family proposals, Penutian and Hokan, look particularly promising. However, even after decades of research, a large number of families remain.

North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. This area has 18 language families comprising 74 languages (compared to four families in Europe: Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, and Afroasiatic and one isolate: Basque).

Another area of considerable diversity appears to have been the Southeastern United States; however, many of these languages became extinct from European contact and as a result they are, for the most part, absent from the historical record. This diversity has influenced the development of linguistic theories and practice in the US. 

Due to the diversity of languages in North America, it is difficult to make generalizations for the region. Most North American languages have a relatively small number of vowels (i.e. three to five vowels). Languages of the western half of North America often have relatively large consonant inventories. The languages of the Pacific Northwest are notable for their complex phonotactics (for example, some languages have words that lack vowels entirely). The languages of the Plateau area have relatively rare pharyngeals and epiglottals (they are otherwise restricted to Afroasiatic languages and the languages of the Caucasus). Ejective consonants are also common in western North America, although they are rare elsewhere (except, again, for the Caucasus region, parts of Africa, and the Mayan family). 

Head-marking is found in many languages of North America (as well as in Central and South America), but outside of the Americas it is rare. Many languages throughout North America are polysynthetic (Eskimo–Aleut languages are extreme examples), although this is not characteristic of all North American languages (contrary to what was believed by 19th-century linguists). Several families have unique traits, such as the inverse number marking of the Tanoan languages, the lexical affixes of the Wakashan, Salishan and Chimakuan languages, and the unusual verb structure of Na-Dené. 

The classification below is a composite of Goddard (1996), Campbell (1997), and Mithun (1999).

1. Adai †
2. Algic (30)
3. Alsea (2) †
4. Atakapa †
5. Beothuk †
6. Caddoan (5)
7. Cayuse †
8. Chimakuan (2) †
9. Chimariko †
10. Chinookan (3) †
11. Chitimacha †
12. Chumashan (6) †
13. Coahuilteco †
14. Comecrudan (United States & Mexico) (3) †
15. Coosan (2) †
16. Cotoname †
17. Eskimo–Aleut (7)
18. Esselen †
19. Haida
20. Iroquoian (11)
21. Kalapuyan (3) †
22. Karankawa †
23. Karuk
24. Keresan (2)
25. Kutenai
26. Maiduan (4)
27. Muskogean (9)
28. Na-Dené (United States, Canada & Mexico) (39)
29. Natchez †
30. Palaihnihan (2)
31. Plateau Penutian (4) (also known as Shahapwailutan)
32. Pomoan (7)
33. Salinan †
34. Salishan (23)
35. Shastan (4) †
36. Siouan (19)
37. Siuslaw †
38. Solano †
39. Takelma †
40. Tanoan (7)
41. Timucua †
42. Tonkawa †
43. Tsimshianic (2)
44. Tunica †
45. Utian (15) (also known as Miwok–Costanoan)
46. Uto-Aztecan (33)
47. Wakashan (7)
48. Wappo †
49. Washo
50. Wintuan (4)
51. Yana †
52. Yokutsan (3)
53. Yuchi
54. Yuki †
55. Yuman–Cochimí (11)
56. Zuni

Central America and Mexico

The indigenous languages of Mexico that have more than 100,000 speakers

 

The Mayan languages

 

The Chibchan languages

 

In Central America the Mayan languages are among those used today. Mayan languages are spoken by at least 6 million indigenous Maya, primarily in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize and Honduras. In 1996, Guatemala formally recognized 21 Mayan languages by name, and Mexico recognizes eight more. The Mayan language family is one of the best documented and most studied in the Americas. Modern Mayan languages descend from Proto-Mayan, a language thought to have been spoken at least 4,000 years ago; it has been partially reconstructed using the comparative method.

1. Alagüilac (Guatemala) †
2. Chibchan (Central America & South America)
3. Coahuilteco †
4. Comecrudan (Texas & Mexico) †
5. Cotoname †
6. Cuitlatec (Mexico: Guerrero) †
7. Epi-Olmec (Mexico: language of undeciphered inscriptions) †
8. Guaicurian
9. Huave
10. Jicaquean
11. Lencan †
12. Maratino (northeastern Mexico) †
13. Mayan
14. Misumalpan
15. Mixe–Zoquean
16. Naolan (Mexico: Tamaulipas) †
17. Oto-Manguean
18. Pericú †
19. Purépecha
20. Quinigua (northeast Mexico) †
21. Seri
22. Solano †
23. Tequistlatecan
24. Totonacan (2)
25. Uto-Aztecan (United States & Mexico)
26. Xincan (5) †
27. Yuman (United States & Mexico)

South America and the Caribbean

Some of the greater families of South America: dark spots are language isolates or quasi-isolate, grey spots unclassified languages or languages with doubtful classification. (Note that Quechua, the family with most speakers, is not displayed.)

 

A Urarina shaman, 1988

 

Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and an estimated 1,500 languages at first European contact. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:

Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.

It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area – much smaller than SA, to be sure – is in general much better documented than any part of indigenous SA of comparable size.

As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.

The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below.

1. Aguano †
2. Aikaná (Brazil: Rondônia) (also known as Aikanã, Tubarão)
3. Andaquí (also known as Andaqui, Andakí) †
4. Andoque (Colombia, Peru) (also known as Andoke)
5. Andoquero †
6. Arauan (9)
7. Arawakan (South America & Caribbean) (64) (also known as Maipurean)
8. Arutani
9. Aymaran (3)
10. Baenan (Brazil: Bahia) (also known as Baenán, Baenã) †
11. Barbacoan (8)
12. Betoi (Colombia) (also known as Betoy, Jirara) †
13. Bororoan
14. Botocudoan (3) (also known as Aimoré)
15. Cahuapanan (2) (also known as Jebero, Kawapánan)
16. Camsá (Colombia) (also known as Sibundoy, Coche)
17. Candoshi (also known as Maina, Kandoshi)
18. Canichana (Bolivia) (also known as Canesi, Kanichana)
19. Carabayo
20. Cariban (29) (also known as Caribe, Carib)
21. Catacaoan (also known as Katakáoan) †
22. Cayubaba (Bolivia)
23. Chapacuran (9) (also known as Chapacura-Wanham, Txapakúran)
24. Charruan (also known as Charrúan) †
25. Chibchan (Central America & South America) (22)
26. Chimuan (3) †
27. Chipaya–Uru (also known as Uru–Chipaya)
28. Chiquitano
29. Choco (10) (also known as Chocoan)
30. Chon (2) (also known as Patagonian)
31. Chono †
32. Coeruna (Brazil) †
33. Cofán (Colombia, Ecuador)
34. Cueva †
35. Culle (Peru) (also known as Culli, Linga, Kulyi) †
36. Cunza (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina) (also known as Atacama, Atakama, Atacameño, Lipe, Kunsa) †
37. Esmeraldeño (also known as Esmeralda, Takame) †
38. Fulnió
39. Gamela (Brazil: Maranhão) †
40. Gorgotoqui (Bolivia) †
41. Guaicuruan (7) (also known as Guaykuruan, Waikurúan)
42. Guajiboan (4) (also known as Wahívoan)
43. Guamo (Venezuela) (also known as Wamo) †
44. Guató
45. Harakmbut (2) (also known as Tuyoneri)
46. Hibito–Cholon †
47. Himarimã
48. Hodï (Venezuela) (also known as Jotí, Hoti, Waruwaru)
49. Huamoé (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
50. Huaorani (Ecuador, Peru) (also known as Auca, Huaorani, Wao, Auka, Sabela, Waorani, Waodani)
51. Huarpe (also known as Warpe) †
52. Irantxe (Brazil: Mato Grosso)
53. Itonama (Bolivia) (also known as Saramo, Machoto)
54. Jabutian
55. Je (13) (also known as Gê, Jêan, Gêan, Ye)
56. Jeikó †
57. Jirajaran (3) (also known as Hiraháran, Jirajarano, Jirajarana) †
58. Jivaroan (2) (also known as Hívaro)
59. Kaimbe
60. Kaliana (also known as Caliana, Cariana, Sapé, Chirichano)
61. Kamakanan †
62. Kapixaná (Brazil: Rondônia) (also known as Kanoé, Kapishaná)
63. Karajá
64. Karirí (Brazil: Paraíba, Pernambuco, Ceará) †
65. Katembrí †
66. Katukinan (3) (also known as Catuquinan)
67. Kawésqar (Chile) (Kaweskar, Alacaluf, Qawasqar, Halawalip, Aksaná, Hekaine)
68. Kwaza (Koayá) (Brazil: Rondônia)
69. Leco (Lapalapa, Leko)
70. Lule (Argentina) (also known as Tonocoté)
71. Maku (cf. other Maku)
72. Malibú (also known as Malibu)
73. Mapudungu (Chile, Argentina) (also known as Araucanian, Mapuche, Huilliche)
74. Mascoyan (5) (also known as Maskóian, Mascoian)
75. Matacoan (4) (also known as Mataguayan)
76. Matanawí †
77. Maxakalían (3) (also known as Mashakalían)
78. Mocana (Colombia: Tubará) †
79. Mosetenan (also known as Mosetén)
80. Movima (Bolivia)
81. Munichi (Peru) (also known as Muniche)
82. Muran (4)
83. Mutú (also known as Loco)
84. Nadahup (5)
85. Nambiquaran (5)
86. Natú (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
87. Nonuya (Peru, Colombia)
88. Ofayé
89. Old Catío–Nutabe (Colombia) †
90. Omurano (Peru) (also known as Mayna, Mumurana, Numurana, Maina, Rimachu, Roamaina, Umurano) †
91. Otí (Brazil: São Paulo) †
92. Otomakoan (2) †
93. Paez (also known as Nasa Yuwe)
94. Palta †
95. Pankararú (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
96. Pano–Tacanan (33)
97. Panzaleo (Ecuador) (also known as Latacunga, Quito, Pansaleo) †
98. Patagon † (Peru)
99. Peba–Yaguan (2) (also known as Yaguan, Yáwan, Peban)
100. Pijao†
101. Pre-Arawakan languages of the Greater Antilles (Guanahatabey, Macorix, Ciguayo) † (Cuba, Hispaniola)
102. Puelche (Chile) (also known as Guenaken, Gennaken, Pampa, Pehuenche, Ranquelche) †
103. Puinave (also known as Makú)
104. Puquina (Bolivia) †
105. Purian (2) †
106. Quechuan (46)
107. Rikbaktsá
108. Saliban (2) (also known as Sálivan)
109. Sechura (Atalan, Sec) †
110. Tabancale † (Peru)
111. Tairona (Colombia) †
112. Tarairiú (Brazil: Rio Grande do Norte) †
113. Taruma †
114. Taushiro (Peru) (also known as Pinchi, Pinche)
115. Tequiraca (Peru) (also known as Tekiraka, Avishiri) †
116. Teushen † (Patagonia, Argentina)
117. Ticuna (Colombia, Peru, Brazil) (also known as Magta, Tikuna, Tucuna, Tukna, Tukuna)
118. Timotean (2) †
119. Tiniguan (2) (also known as Tiníwan, Pamiguan) †
120. Trumai (Brazil: Xingu, Mato Grosso)
121. Tucanoan (15)
122. Tupian (70, including Guaraní)
123. Tuxá (Brazil: Bahia, Pernambuco) †
124. Urarina (also known as Shimacu, Itukale, Shimaku)
125. Vilela
126. Wakona †
127. Warao (Guyana, Surinam, Venezuela) (also known as Guarao)
128. Witotoan (6) (also known as Huitotoan, Bora–Witótoan)
129. Xokó (Brazil: Alagoas, Pernambuco) (also known as Shokó) †
130. Xukurú (Brazil: Pernambuco, Paraíba) †
131. Yaghan (Chile) (also known as Yámana)
132. Yanomaman (4)
133. Yaruro (also known as Jaruro)
134. Yuracare (Bolivia)
135. Yuri (Colombia, Brazil) (also known as Carabayo, Jurí) †
136. Yurumanguí (Colombia) (also known as Yurimangui, Yurimangi) †
137. Zamucoan (2)
138. Zaparoan (5) (also known as Záparo)

Language stock proposals

Hypothetical language-family proposals of American languages are often cited as uncontroversial in popular writing. However, many of these proposals have not been fully demonstrated, or even demonstrated at all. Some proposals are viewed by specialists in a favorable light, believing that genetic relationships are very likely to be established in the future (for example, the Penutian stock). Other proposals are more controversial with many linguists believing that some genetic relationships of a proposal may be demonstrated but much of it undemonstrated (for example, Hokan–Siouan, which, incidentally, Edward Sapir called his "wastepaper basket stock"). Still other proposals are almost unanimously rejected by specialists (for example, Amerind). Below is a (partial) list of some such proposals:

1. Algonquian–Wakashan   (also known as Almosan)
2. Almosan–Keresiouan   (Almosan + Keresiouan)
3. Amerind   (all languages excepting Eskimo–Aleut & Na-Dené)
4. Angonkian–Gulf   (Algic + Beothuk + Gulf)
5. (macro-)Arawakan
6. Arutani–Sape (Ahuaque–Kalianan)
7. Aztec–Tanoan   (Uto-Aztecan + Tanoan)
8. Chibchan–Paezan
9. Chikitano–Boróroan
10. Chimu–Chipaya
11. Coahuiltecan   (Coahuilteco + Cotoname + Comecrudan + Karankawa + Tonkawa)
12. Cunza–Kapixanan
13. Dené–Caucasian
14. Dené–Yeniseian
15. Esmerelda–Yaruroan
16. Ge–Pano–Carib
17. Guamo–Chapacuran
18. Gulf   (Muskogean + Natchez + Tunica)
19. Macro-Kulyi–Cholónan
20. Hokan   (Karok + Chimariko + Shastan + Palaihnihan + Yana + Pomoan + Washo + Esselen + Yuman + Salinan + Chumashan + Seri + Tequistlatecan)
21. Hokan–Siouan   (Hokan + Keresiouan + Subtiaba–Tlappanec + Coahuiltecan + Yukian + Tunican + Natchez + Muskogean + Timucua)
22. Je–Tupi–Carib
23. Jivaroan–Cahuapanan
24. Kalianan
25. Kandoshi–Omurano–Taushiro
26. (Macro-)Katembri–Taruma
27. Kaweskar language area
28. Keresiouan   (Macro-Siouan + Keresan + Yuchi)
29. Lule–Vilelan
30. Macro-Andean
31. Macro-Carib
32. Macro-Chibchan
33. Macro-Gê   (also known as Macro-Jê)
34. Macro-Jibaro
35. Macro-Lekoan
36. Macro-Mayan
37. Macro-Otomákoan
38. Macro-Paesan
39. Macro-Panoan
40. Macro-Puinavean
41. Macro-Siouan   (Siouan + Iroquoian + Caddoan)
42. Macro-Tucanoan
43. Macro-Tupí–Karibe
44. Macro-Waikurúan
45. Macro-Warpean   (Muran + Matanawi + Huarpe)
46. Mataco–Guaicuru
47. Mosan   (Salishan + Wakashan + Chimakuan)
48. Mosetén–Chonan
49. Mura–Matanawian
50. Sapir's Na-Dené including Haida   (Haida + Tlingit + Eyak + Athabaskan)
51. Nostratic–Amerind
52. Paezan (Andaqui + Paez + Panzaleo)
53. Paezan–Barbacoan
54. Penutian   (many languages of California and sometimes languages in Mexico)
    1. California Penutian   (Wintuan + Maiduan + Yokutsan + Utian)
    2. Oregon Penutian   (Takelma + Coosan + Siuslaw + Alsean)
    3. Mexican Penutian   (Mixe–Zoque + Huave)
55. Puinave–Maku
56. Quechumaran
57. Saparo–Yawan   (also known as Zaparo–Yaguan)
58. Sechura–Catacao (also known as Sechura–Tallan)
59. Takelman   (Takelma + Kalapuyan)
60. Tequiraca–Canichana
61. Ticuna–Yuri (Yuri–Ticunan)
62. Totozoque   (Totonacan + Mixe–Zoque)
63. Tunican   (Tunica + Atakapa + Chitimacha)
64. Yok–Utian
65. Yuki–Wappo

Good discussions of past proposals can be found in Campbell (1997) and Campbell & Mithun (1979).

Amerindian linguist Lyle Campbell also assigned different percentage values of probability and confidence for various proposals of macro-families and language relationships, depending on his views of the proposals' strengths. For example, the Germanic language family would receive probability and confidence percentage values of +100% and 100%, respectively. However, if Turkish and Quechua were compared, the probability value might be −95%, while the confidence value might be 95%. 0% probability or confidence would mean complete uncertainty.

Language Family	Probability	Confidence
Algonkian–Gulf	−50%	50%
Almosan (and beyond)	−75%	50%
Atakapa–Chitimacha	−50%	60%
Aztec–Tanoan	0%	50%
Coahuiltecan	−85%	80%
Eskimo–Aleut, Chukotan	−25%	20%
Guaicurian–Hokan	0%	10%
Gulf	−25%	40%
Hokan–Subtiaba	−90%	75%
Jicaque–Hokan	−30%	25%
Jicaque–Subtiaba	−60%	80%
Jicaque–Tequistlatecan	+65%	50%
Keresan and Uto-Aztecan	0%	60%
Keresan and Zuni	−40%	40%
Macro-Mayan	+30%	25%
Macro-Siouan	−20%	75%
Maya–Chipaya	−80%	95%
Maya–Chipaya–Yunga	−90%	95%
Mexican Penutian	−40%	60%
Misumalpan–Chibchan	+20%	50%
Mosan	−60%	65%
Na-Dene	0%	25%
Natchez–Muskogean	+40%	20%
Nostratic–Amerind	−90%	75%
Otomanguean–Huave	+25%	25%
Purépecha–Quechua	−90%	80%
Quechua as Hokan	−85%	80%
Quechumaran	+50%	50%
Sahaptian–Klamath–(Molala)	+75%	50%
Sahaptian–Klamath–Tsimshian	+10%	10%
Takelman	+80%	60%
Tlapanec–Subtiaba as Otomanguean	+95%	90%
Tlingit–Eyak–Athabaskan	+75%	40%
Tunican	0%	20%
Wakashan and Chimakuan	0%	25%
Yukian–Gulf	−85%	70%
Yukian–Siouan	−60%	75%
Zuni–Penutian	−80%	50%

Unattested languages

Several languages are only known by mention in historical documents or from only a few names or words. It cannot be determined that these languages actually existed or that the few recorded words are actually of known or unknown languages. Some may simply be from a historian's errors. Others are of known people with no linguistic record (sometimes due to lost records). A short list is below.

• Ais
• Akokisa
• Aranama
• Ausaima
• Avoyel
• Bayagoula
• Bidai
• Cacán (Diaguita–Calchaquí)
• Calusa - Mayaimi - Tequesta
• Cusabo
• Eyeish
• Grigra
• Guale
• Houma
• Koroa
• Manek'enk (Haush) [perhaps Chon]
• Mayaca (possibly related to Ais)
• Mobila
• Okelousa
• Opelousa
• Pascagoula
• Pensacola - Chatot (Muscogean languages, possibly related to Choctaw)
• Quinipissa
• Taensa
• Tiou
• Yamacraw
• Yamasee
• Yazoo

Loukotka (1968) reports the names of hundreds of South American languages which do not have any linguistic documentation.

Proto-Indo-European mythology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kernosovskiy idol, discovered in 1973 in Kernosovka (Kernosivka) and dated to the middle of the third millennium BC and associated with the late Pit Grave (Yamna) culture

Proto-Indo-European mythology is the body of myths and stories associated with the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the hypothetical speakers of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. Although these stories are not directly attested, they have been reconstructed by scholars of comparative mythology based on the similarities in the belief systems of various Indo-European peoples. 

Various schools of thought exist regarding the precise nature of Proto-Indo-European mythology, which do not always agree with each other. The main mythologies used in comparative reconstruction are Vedic, Roman, and Norse, often supported with evidence from the Baltic, Celtic, Greek, Slavic, and Hittite traditions as well. 

The Proto-Indo-European pantheon includes well-attested deities such as *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr, the god of the daylit skies, his daughter *H_aéusōs, the goddess of the dawn, the divine twins, and the storm god *Perk^wunos. Other probable deities include *Péh₂usōn, a pastoral god, and *Seh₂ul, a female solar deity. 

Well-attested myths of the Proto-Indo-Europeans include a myth involving a storm god who slays a multi-headed serpent that dwells in water and a creation story involving two brothers, one of whom sacrifices the other to create the world. The Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed that the Otherworld was guarded by a watchdog and could only be reached by crossing a river. They also may have believed in a world tree, bearing fruit of immortality, either guarded by or gnawed on by a serpent or dragon, and tended by three goddesses who spun the thread of life.

Methods of reconstruction

Schools of thought

Portrait of Friedrich Max Müller, a prominent early scholar on the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European religion and a proponent of the Meteorological School

 

The mythology of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is not directly attested and it is difficult to match their language to archaeological findings related to any specific culture from the Chalcolithic. Nonetheless, scholars of comparative mythology have attempted to reconstruct aspects of Proto-Indo-European mythology based on the existence of similarities among the deities, religious practices, and myths of various Indo-European peoples. This method is known as the comparative method. Different schools of thought have approached the subject of Proto-Indo-European mythology from different angles. The Meteorological School holds that Proto-Indo-European mythology was largely centered around deified natural phenomena such as the sky, the Sun, the Moon, and the dawn. This meteorological interpretation was popular among early scholars, such as Friedrich Max Müller, who saw all myths as fundamentally solar allegories. This school lost most of its scholarly support in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The Ritual School, which first became prominent in the late nineteenth century, holds that Proto-Indo-European myths are best understood as stories invented to explain various rituals and religious practices. The Ritual School reached the height of its popularity during the early twentieth century. Many of its most prominent early proponents, such as James George Frazer and Jane Ellen Harrison, were classical scholars. Bruce Lincoln, a contemporary member of the Ritual School, argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed that every sacrifice was a reenactment of the original sacrifice performed by the founder of the human race on his twin brother.

The Functionalist School holds that Proto-Indo-European society and, consequently, their mythology, was largely centered around the trifunctional system proposed by Georges Dumézil, which holds that Proto-Indo-European society was divided into three distinct social classes: farmers, warriors, and priests. The Structuralist School, by contrast, argues that Proto-Indo-European mythology was largely centered around the concept of dualistic opposition. This approach generally tends to focus on cultural universals within the realm of mythology, rather than the genetic origins of those myths, but it also offers refinements of the Dumézilian trifunctional system by highlighting the oppositional elements present within each function, such as the creative and destructive elements both found within the role of the warrior.

Source mythologies

Scheme of Indo-European migrations from c. 4000 to 1000 BC according to the Kurgan hypothesis

 

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.

Baltic mythology has also received a great deal of scholarly attention, 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 mid 2000s.

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 literature.

Pantheon

Linguists are 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.

The term for "a god" was *deiwos, reflected in Hittite: sius; Latin: deus, divus; Sanskrit: Dyaus, deva; Avestan: daeva (later, Persian, div); Welsh: duw; Irish: dia; Lithuanian: Dievas; Latvian: Dievs.

Heavenly deities

Sky Father

Laurel-wreathed head of Zeus on a gold stater from the Greek city of Lampsacus, c 360–340 BC

 

The head deity of the Proto-Indo-European pantheon was the god *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr, whose name literally means "Sky Father". He is believed to have been regarded as the god of the daylit skies. He is, by far, the most well-attested of all the Proto-Indo-European deities. The Greek god Zeus, the Roman god Jupiter, and the Illyrian god Dei-Pátrous all appear as the head gods of their respective pantheons. The Norse god Týr, however, seems to have been demoted to the role of a minor war-deity prior to the composition of the earliest Germanic texts. *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr is also attested in the Rigveda as Dyáus Pitā, a minor ancestor figure mentioned in only a few hymns. The names of the Latvian god Dievs and the Hittite god Attas Isanus do not preserve the exact literal translation of the name *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr, but do preserve the general meaning of it.

*Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr may have had a consort who was an earth goddess. This possibility is attested in the Vedic pairing of Dyáus Pitā and Prithvi Mater, the Roman pairing of Jupiter and Tellus Mater from Macrobius's Saturnalia, and the Norse pairing of Odin and Jörð. Odin is not a reflex of *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr, but his cult may have subsumed aspects of an earlier chief deity who was. This pairing may also be further attested in an Old English ploughing prayer and in the Greek pairings of Ouranos and Gaia and Zeus and Demeter.

Dawn Goddess

Eos in her chariot flying over the sea, red-figure krater from South Italy, 430–420 BC, Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich

 

*H_aéusōs has been reconstructed as the Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn. 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. Uṣás in the Sanskrit tradition and Eos in the Greek have very similar attributes, indicating that these attributes were established by at least the Greco-Aryan period. Both goddesses are also portrayed as taking mortal lovers.

Sun and Moon

Possible depiction of the Hittite Sun goddess holding a child in her arms from between 1400 and 1200 BC

 

*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 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). They are often seen as the twin children of various deities, but in fact the sun and moon were deified several times and are often found in competing forms within the same language.

The usual scheme is that one of these celestial deities is male and the other female, though the exact gender of the Sun or Moon tends to vary among subsequent Indo-European mythologies. The original Indo-European solar deity appears to have been female, a characteristic not only supported by the higher number of sun goddesses in subsequent derivations (feminine Sól, Saule, Sulis, Étaín, Grían, Aimend, Áine, and Catha versus masculine Helios, Surya, Savitr, Usil, and Sol) (Hvare-khshaeta is of neutral gender), but also by vestiges in mythologies with male solar deities (Usil in Etruscan art is depicted occasionally as a goddess, while solar characteristics in Athena and Helen of Troy still remain in Greek mythology). The original Indo-European lunar deity appears to have been masculine, with feminine lunar deities like Selene, Minerva, and Luna being a development exclusive to the eastern Mediterranean. Even in these traditions, remnants of male lunar deities, like Menelaus, remain.

Although the sun was personified as an independent, female deity, the Proto-Indo-Europeans also visualized the sun as the eye of *Dyḗus Pḥ_atḗr, as seen in various reflexes: Helios as the eye of Zeus, Hvare-khshaeta as the eye of Ahura Mazda, and the sun as "God's eye" in Romanian folklore. 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.

Divine Twins

Horse Twins

Pair of Roman statuettes from the third century AD depicting the Dioscuri as horsemen, with their characteristic skullcaps (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York)

 

The Horse Twins are a set of twin brothers found throughout nearly every Indo-European pantheon who usually have a name that means 'horse' *ekwa-, but the names are not always cognate and no Proto-Indo-European name for them can be reconstructed. In most Indo-European pantheons, the Horse Twins are brothers of the Sun Maiden or Dawn goddess, and sons of the sky god.

They are reconstructed based on the Vedic Ashvins, the Lithuanian Ašvieniai, the Latvian Dieva deli, the Greek Dioskouroi (Kastor and Polydeukes), the Roman Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux), and the Old English Hengist and Horsa (whose names mean "stallion" and "horse"). References from the Greek writer Timaeus indicate that the Celts may have had a set of horse twins as well. The Welsh Brân and Manawydan may also be related. The horse twins may 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.

Twin Founders

The Proto-Indo-European Creation myth seems to have involved two key figures: *Manu- ("Man"; Indic Manu; Germanic Mannus) and his twin brother *Yemo- ("Twin"; Indic Yama; Germanic Ymir). Reflexes of these two figures usually fulfill the respective roles of founder of the human race and first human to die.

Storm deities

Ancient Gallo-Roman statue of the storm-god Taranis, clutching a wheel and thunderbolt, from Le Chatelet, Gourzon, Haute-Marne, France

 

*Perk^wunos has been reconstructed as the Proto-Indo-European god of lightning and storms. His name literally means "The Striker." He is reconstructed based on the Norse goddess Fjǫrgyn (the mother of Thor), the Lithuanian god Perkūnas, and the Slavic god Perúnú. The Vedic god Parjánya may also be related, but his possible connection to *Perk^wunos is still under dispute. The name of *Perk^wunos may also be attested in Greek as κεραυνός (Keraunós), an epithet of the god Zeus meaning "thunder-shaker." A possible alternative name, through the root *(s)tenh₂, is responsible for Thor as well as Hittite Tarhunt and Celtic Taran/Taranis. The Roman god Mars is also a speculated descendent, since he originally had thunderer characteristics.

Water deities

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.

A river goddess *Deh_anu- 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, dismiss this reconstruction, commenting that it does not have any evidence to support it.

Some have also proposed the reconstruction of a sea god named *Trih_atōn based on the Greek god Triton and the Old Irish word trïath, meaning "sea." Mallory and Adams 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."

Nature deities

Two similar depictions of horned deities from the Celtic and Indic traditions

 

Detail from the Gundestrup cauldron from Gundestrup, Denmark, thought to date between 150 BC and 1 AD, showing the Celtic god Cernunnos with horns, sitting in a meditative position, surrounded by animals

 

The Pashupati seal from Mohenjo-daro in northern India, dated to between 2350 and 2000 BC, showing a horned, tricephelic deity in a meditative position, surrounded by animals

 

*Péh₂usōn, a pastoral deity, is reconstructed based on the Greek god Pan and the Vedic god Pūshān. Both deities are closely affiliated with goats and were worshipped as pastoral deities. The minor discrepancies between the two deities can be easily explained by the possibility that many attributes originally associated with Pan may have been transferred over to his father Hermes. The association between Pan and Pūshān was first identified in 1924 by the German scholar Hermann Collitz.

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. Though this proposal is often mentioned in academic writings, very few scholars actually accept it. There may also have been a female cognate akin to the Greco-Roman nymphs, Slavic vilas, the Huldra of Germanic folklore, and the Hindu Apsaras.

Societal deities

Late second-century AD Greek mosaic from the House of Theseus at Paphos Archaeological Park on Cyprus showing the three Moirai: Klotho, Lachesis, and Atropos, standing behind Peleus and Thetis, the parents of Achilles

 

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"). 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.

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 Women. 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. 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.

Depiction of Wayland the Smith from the Franks Casket, dating to the eighth century AD

 

Although the name of a particular Proto-Indo-European 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 god Hasammili, the Vedic god Tvastr, the Greek god Hephaestus, the Germanic villain Wayland the Smith, and the Ossetian culture figure Kurdalagon. Many of these smith figures share certain 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.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans may 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.

Some scholars have proposed a war god *Māwort- based on the Roman god Mars and the Vedic Marutás, companions of the war-god Indra. Mallory and Adams, however, reject this reconstruction on linguistic grounds. Likewise, some researchers have found it more plausible that Mars was originally a storm deity, while this cannot be said for Ares.

Mythology

Dragon or serpent

The Hittite god Tarhunt, followed by his son Sarruma, kills the dragon Illuyanka (Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey)

 

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 story often vary widely, in all iterations, several features remain remarkably the same. In iterations of the story, the serpent is usually associated with water in some way. The hero of the story is usually a thunder-god or a hero who is somehow associated with thunder. The serpent is usually multi-headed, or else "multiple" in some other way.

In Hittite mythology, the storm god Tarhunt slays the giant serpent Illuyanka. In the Rigveda, the god Indra slays the multi-headed serpent Vritra, which had been causing a drought. In the Bhagavata Purana, Krishna slays the serpent Kāliyā. 

Greek red-figure vase painting depicting Heracles slaying the Lernaean Hydra, c. 375–340 BC

Several variations of the story are also found in Greek mythology as well. The story is attested in the legend of Zeus slaying the hundred-headed Typhon from Hesiod's Theogony, but it is also in the myths of the slaying of the nine-headed Lernaean Hydra by Heracles and the slaying of Python by Apollo. The story of Heracles's theft of the cattle of Geryon is probably also related. Although Heracles is not usually thought of as a storm deity in the conventional sense, he bears many attributes held by other Indo-European storm deities, including physical strength and a knack for violence and gluttony.

The original Proto-Indo-European myth is also reflected in Germanic mythology. In Norse mythology, Thor, the god of thunder, slays the giant serpent Jörmungandr, which lived in the waters surrounding the realm of Midgard. Other dragon-slaying myths are also found in the Germanic tradition. In the Völsunga saga, Sigurd slays the dragon Fafnir and, in Beowulf, the eponymous hero slays a different dragon. 

Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European dragon-slaying myth are found throughout other branches of the language family as well. In Zoroastrianism and Persian mythology, Fereydun, and later Garshasp, slays Zahhak. In Slavic mythology, Perun, the god of storms, slays Veles and Dobrynya Nikitich slays the three-headed dragon Zmey. In Armenian mythology, the god Vahagn slays the dragon Vishap. In Romanian folklore, Făt-Frumos slays the fire-spitting monster Zmeu. In Celtic mythology, Dian Cecht slays Meichi. The myth is believed to have symbolized a clash between forces of order and chaos. In every version of the story, the dragon or serpent always loses, although in some mythologies, such as the Norse Ragnarök myth, the hero or god dies as well.

Twin founders

The analysis of different Indo-European tales indicates that the Proto-Indo-Europeans believed there were two progenitors of mankind: *Manu- ("Man") and *Yemo- ("Twin"), his twin brother. A reconstructed creation myth involving the two is given by David W. Anthony, attributed in part to Bruce Lincoln: Manu and Yemo traverse the cosmos, accompanied by the primordial cow, and finally decide to create the world. To do so, Manu sacrifices either Yemo or the cow, and with help from the sky father, the storm god and the divine twins, forges the earth from the remains. Manu thus becomes the first priest and establishes the practice of sacrifice. The sky gods then present cattle to the third man, *Trito, who loses it to the three-headed serpent *Ng^whi, but eventually overcomes this monster either alone or aided by the sky father. Trito is now the first warrior and ensures that the cycle of mutual giving between gods and humans may continue. Reflexes of *Manu include Indic Manu, Germanic Mannus; of Yemo, Indic Yama, Avestan Yima, Norse Ymir, possibly Roman Remus (earlier Old Latin *Yemos).

Ancient Roman relief from the Cathedral of Maria Saal showing the infant twins Romulus and Remus being suckled by a she-wolf

 

The early "history" of Rome is widely recognized as a historicized retelling of various old myths. Romulus and Remus are twin brothers from Roman mythology who both have stories in which they are killed. The Roman writer Livy reports that Remus was believed to have been killed by his brother Romulus at the founding of Rome when they entered into a disagreement about which hill to build the city on. Later, Romulus himself is said to have been torn limb-from-limb by a group of senators. Both of these myths are widely recognized as historicized remnants of the Proto-Indo-European creation story.

The Germanic languages have information about both Ymir and Mannus (reflexes of *Yemo- and *Manu- respectively), but they never appear together in the same myth. Instead, they only occur in myths widely separated by both time and circumstances. In chapter two of his book Germania, which was written in Latin in around 98 A.D., the Roman writer Tacitus claims that Mannus, the son of Tuisto, was the ancestor of the Germanic peoples. This name never recurs anywhere in later Germanic literature, but one proposed meaning of the continental Germanic tribal name Alamanni is "Mannus' own people" ("all-men" being another scholarly etymology).

Fire in water

Another important possible myth is the myth of the fire in the waters, a myth which centers around the possible deity *H₂epom Nepōts, a fiery deity who dwells in water. 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.

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.

Cosmogony

In the cosmogonic myths of many Indo-European cultures a Cosmic Egg symbolizes the primordial state from which the universe arises.

Cosmology

Underworld

Attic red-figure lekythos attributed to the Tymbos painter showing Charon welcoming a soul into his boat, c. 500-450 BC

Most Indo-European traditions contain some kind of Underworld or Afterlife. It is possible that the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed that, in order to reach the Underworld, one needed to cross a river, guided by an old man (*ĝerh_aont-). The Greek tradition of the dead being ferried across the river Styx by Charon is probably a reflex of this belief. 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 meaning "tomb" originally meant "crossing point." In Norse mythology, Hermóðr must cross a bridge over the river Giöll in order to reach Hel. 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. It is also possible that the Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed that the Underworld was guarded by some kind of watchdog, similar to the Greek Cerberus, the Hindu Śárvara, or the Norse Garmr.

World tree and serpent

The Proto-Indo-Europeans may have believed in some kind of world tree. It is also possible that they may have believed that this tree was either guarded by or under constant attack from some kind of dragon or serpent. In Norse mythology, the cosmic tree Yggdrasil is tended by the three Norns while the dragon Nidhogg gnaws at its roots. In Greek mythology, the tree of the golden apples in the Garden of the Hesperides is tended by the three Hesperides and guarded by the hundred-headed dragon Ladon. In Indo-Iranian texts, there is a mythical tree dripping with Soma, the immortal drink of the gods and, in later Pahlavi sources, a malicious lizard is said to lurk at the bottom of it.