OF
OUR FIRST MYTHOLOGIES
by Michael Witzel
(OUP,
NY, Dec. 2012)
<
A DETAILED SUMMARY >
1. Introduction
The aim of this book
is to show the origins, deep in prehistory, of most of the mythologies of
Eurasia and the Americas (Laurasia). Beyond that, a brief look is taken at
the remaining kinds of mythology, found in the southern areas: Sub-Saharan
Africa, Melanesia and Australia (Gondwana Land). A comparison of both major
types holds out the promise for gaining access to some of the earliest myths
told by anatomically modern humans (African Eve).
The
complex course of investigations begins with the contents of the various
Laurasian mythologies and, more importantly, their unique narrative structure.
They share a common story line that tells of the creation, in mythic time, of
the world, of several generations of deities during four or five ages, of the
creation and fall of humans, and finally of an end of the universe, sometimes
coupled with the hope for a new world.
The
investigation is comparative and
historical, taking its clues primarily from the oldest available texts. It aims
at reconstructing the original proto-Laurasian mythology, its narrative
structure and its contents, as well as the regional and local versions that
have emerged from it.
The
reconstruction and analysis of Laurasian mythology is counterchecked by a
survey of the southern mythologies (of Gondwana Land). They differ in some
crucial aspects, such as in missing an account of the original creation of the
earth. More importantly, they do not have a comprehensive story line such as
the Laurasian one.
The
results of these investigations are closely mirrored by those of archaeology
including early Upper Paleolithic art, of comparative linguistics and human
population genetics. They all point to the origin of anatomically modern humans
in Africa and their subsequent spread along the shores of the Indian Ocean, up
to Australia and southern China, around 65,000 BCE.
Indeed,
some of their early mythology is preserved in sub-Saharan Africa and along the
path of migration: in the Andaman Islands, Melanesia, and Australia. Laurasian
mythology developed somewhere along the emigration path, probably in southwest
Asia around 40,000 BCE.
Further,
a comparison of both the Laurasian and Gondwana mythologies allows
distinguishing some common features shared by all mythologies (of the globe,
Pan-Gaia). They are likely to have been included amongst the myths told by
the communities of the African Eve. Therefore, they represent the earliest
testimony available of the spiritual world of our ultimate ancestors, something
that cannot be accessed in any detail by the other sciences mentioned.
Finally,
a brief look is taken at the historical developments from early, Pan-Gaean
myths to the classical ones of Eurasian and Amerindian antiquity, and further
down to more recent and present ones. As a result, key features of Laurasian
myth are observed as underlying the current myths of all major religions and
many of their ideological offshoots.
This realization
informs us about many of our current beliefs and their underlying and enduring
mythological foundations. Current social and political developments around the
globe necessitate a better, in depth understanding of the archaic basis for
many of our dearly-held beliefs.
***
The
first two chapters of the book deal with the description and definition of myth
and, briefly, with the history of the study of myths. Myth is defined as a
highly regarded, standardized and true narrative that tells of cosmology,
past and present society, and of the human condition; frequently, it is used to
explain and justify past and current social circumstances.
Comparison of myths have been made for many centuries and
similarities found between them are now habitually explained by diffusion or by
common human psychic traits (archetypes). Diffusion entails the spread of a
myth or cluster of myths from a known or unknown point of origin. The spread
may eventually reach the ends of the world, such as Tierra del Fuego and
Lapland. This approach has been propagated scholars such as by L. Frobenius and
H. Baumann. However, the Laurasian theory supersedes such incidental (repeated)
transmissions as it requires that a whole system of myths, along with its narrative structure, would have been spread
by incidental diffusions. Instead, Laurasian mythology has
been spread by the constant migratory advance of humans after the past
few Ice Ages (c. 40,000 and 10,000 BCE)
More
fashionable today is the theory of common and shared humans
psychic traits, the archetypes, first conceived by A. Bastian (Vlkergedanken) and formulated by C.G.
Jung. Archetypes are those psychic contents that have not yet been submitted to
conscious elaboration. Myth is the secondary
elaboration of archetypes. Their images are embedded in a comprehensive
system of thought that ascribes an order to the world. Common archetypes
include the (great) Mother, the Father, the Hero, the Miraculous Child, the
Wise woman, the Shadow. Since they are generally human, they can turn up
everywhere and anytime in dreams, visions and myths. Laurasian mythology would
then be one of several such elaborations using a powerful structuring device,
the story line. However, if the explanation of myth by Jungian archetypes were
correct, we would expect (most) individual archetypes turning up in all parts of the globe. This, however,
is not the case, as will be seen below ( 3). In addition, the actual
formulation of myths and complete myth systems, such as the Laurasian one, are
located on a higher plane than that
of the archetypes, superseding them by several levels.
Against
this background, the proposal of Laurasian Mythology is launched and other
explanations of myth are compared, starting with those of the ancient Greeks,
Chinese and
Indians, leading up to Vico and Lvi-Strauss.
2 Comparison and
Theory
In this chapter, the
general and theoretical background of comparisons, as practiced in the sciences
and in the humanities, is explored, drawing on recent work by scholars such as
C. Ragin and others. Subsequently, the various theories underlying and the
methods used in the comparison of myths are spelled out.
An
initial general survey deals with the question of the comparability of any two
items and the process of their comparison. Ultimately, the procedure is derived
from, and heavily dependent on the structure of the human mind that frequently favors
binary combinations (Lvi-Strauss) and analogies based on experience and the
anthropomorphization of nature.
Then,
the characteristics of the proposed scheme of Laurasian mythology, and of
various mythologies in general, are discussed at length. It is shown how the
Laurasian scheme can be built up, step by step, by observing a large number of
similarities between mythologies worldwide, while focusing on their regular
correspondences across time and space. The comparison is crucially enhanced by
the discovery of a fixed structure underlying most mythologies in Eurasia and
the Americas: the narrative scheme of Laurasian mythology,
that is the story line from the original creation to the end of the world
(see below).
The
ensuing discussion argues in detail how to proceed with the reconstruction. The
necessity is stressed to use the oldest available texts, as to avoid
contamination by later developments. The reconstruction proceeds further back
in time, from the earliest available accounts (such as the Egyptian or Sumerian
ones) to various levels of reconstructed levels of mythology (such as the Near
Eastern, Eurasian or Amerindian ones), and ultimately to the Laurasian stage.
The various mythologies studied will gradually appear to be branches of a
complicated family tree of mythologies.
In
addition to the earliest texts, geographically widely dispersed items (even of
the modern period) must be compared: their scattered occurrence and frequently,
their isolated survival, is a positive sign of preceding older and archaic
levels.
Another
comparative method employed is that of internal reconstruction. This makes use
of the information available for just one historical stage and region, say, old
Japanese myth. Based on the various strands and archaisms found in this
material, the preceding East Asian archipelagic stage is reconstructed. This,
in turn, can then be compared with other (reconstructed) mythologies belonging
to the northeast Asian mainland. Needless to say, reconstruction may miss some
elements that were present in the earlier (continental) stage but were lost in
the later (Japanese) one.
Once
such levels have been established, the actual reconstruction of the Laurasian
story line can proceed. The reconstructed form of the original Laurasian
mythology can (and must) then be compared downstream with the various locally
attested mythologies, from ancient Egypt to the Mayas. Such comparisons may
serve as a convenient check on the validity of the Laurasian reconstruction,
but they also highlight how many levels of changes have intervened between the
Laurasian stage and the local stage.
Some
such changes are the natural developments derived by local thinkers from the
materials available to a given population; frequently, the changes derive from
the inherent contradictions present in inherited materials. Other changes and
additions stand out as they depart from the standard narrative; they clearly
indicate what kind of material has been inserted into the Laurasian scheme and
when this has happened. A purely synchronic comparison of myths cannot achieve
this kind of historical dimension. Historical
comparison adds several layers of evidence and strength to the Laurasian
proposal.
Systematic
investigations of the type described above reveal that certain insertions and
changes have occurred in several regionally important centers that, in turn,
have secondarily influenced neighboring local mythologies. Examples include the
Egyptian one (influencing northeast Africa and beyond), the Ancient Near
Eastern one (Anatolia and Greece), the western Central Asian one
(Indo-European, Altaic speakers, and oldest Japanese mythology), the
Meso-American one (Mexico, the southwestern USA, and beyond). These
intermediate stages have to be taken into account when dealing with individual
local mythologies.
The
original Laurasian mythological system is derived from all the various forms of
reconstructions and is carried out up and down the branches of the family
tree of relationships, or more technically, the cladistic arrangement. Common
to all branches of Laurasian mythologies and to their original parent is the
Laurasian story line from creation to dissolution of the world. It is dominated
by creation myths that tell how the world and human beings originated. This
begins with primordial emergence, and leads, via four generations of deities to
early semi-divine heroes, and to the origin of humans. The establishment of a
sustained biosphere (oikumene) and
human culture follows, as well as the later stages of human history, the origin
of local noble (subsequently, royal) lineages. Frequently, a violent end to
our present world is envisaged, sometimes with the hope for a new world rising
from its remains. The most prominent individual topics include these 15 items.
1
primordial waters / darkness/ chaos / nonbeing
2
primordial egg / giant
3
primordial hill or island
(floating earth)
4
Father Heaven/Mother Earth and their children (four
generations
/ ages)
5 heaven is pushed up
6 incest of heaven and his daughter;
the hidden sun light
revealed
7
the current gods defeat or kill their predecessors,
8
the killing of the dragon (and use of heavenly drink)
9
the Sun deity as the father of humans (later on, of chieftains); their
rituals
9
first
humans and their first evil deeds / origin of death / the flood
11
heroes and nymphs
12
bringing of fire / food / culture by a culture
hero (including shamans, rituals)
13
spread of humans / emergence of local nobility:
local history begins
14
final destruction of humans, the world, the
gods
(as a
variant of the Four Ages theme)
15 new heaven and
a new earth / eternal bliss
3 Creation Myths : The Laurasian story line, our first novel
Chapter 3 constitutes
the core of the book: a large number of creation myths are compared across
Laurasia in the order of the story line. In each case, say the creation of the
world from water, all relevant data are adduced, discussed and compared.
Relevant materials, if any, from non-Laurasian mythologies are mentioned and
referred to a later discussion ( 5, the countercheck)
The
diverse details cannot be gone into here, however, it may be pointed out that
Laurasian mythology knows of a number of actual creations or myths of
emergence of the world, from chaos, water, or with the help of an earth diver,
of a primordial floating earth; further, creation by the cutting up of a
primordial giant, bull or egg. There also are some versions that combine
several such mythemes. Some of them follow a logical order, while others
stand apart as alternative myths of origins. The solution to the enigma of the
co-existence of these divergent myths will only be discovered when
non-Laurasian myths are compared ( 5).
Initial
creation is followed by the first bi-sexual beings, usually Father Heaven and
Mother Earth who give birth to the subsequent generations of deities. These are
frequently arranged in a set of four or five generations (or ages, in the
Americas: suns). The inserted heroic stage takes care of the ambiguous
position of the generation of semi-divine heroes (e.g., both in Greek or Maya
myth). After giving birth to the next generation, Heaven and Earth must be
separated, usually by stemming up Heaven. In this, providing a perfect example
of widely separated mythemes, Maori Polynesian and Indo-European myths still
overlap to a large degree, which is surprising, given the great distance in
time and space that separates both myth complexes. The prop used to stem up
Heaven also appears as (an offering) pole, world tree, a
world mountain or as the giant Atlas.
Once heaven
and earth are separated, the earth can be prepared for the human oikumene, usually by a primordial demiurge
or trickster. This includes stabilizing the earth, the creation of light (or
its release from an underground cave) and the slaying of the dragon who encompasses the (sweet) water. This heroic deed found in
many versions all over Laurasia. In many traditions, the theft of fire and of
the heavenly drink follows. Only after this, the earth is ready for the
emergence of humans.
In many ancient
Laurasian traditions (such as India, China, Japan, Maya, etc.) humans are the
descendants of the Sun deity, while in others the gradually emerging Neolithic
nobilities have reserved this lineage for themselves (Egypt, Polynesia, etc.),
and regular humans are then sometimes created from clay or have no afterlife.
In later, post-Neolithic versions of Laurasian mythology, more is found about
the emergence of local nobilities (and kings) and about their lineages. At
this stage, more details of human culture, including rituals and the
shaman-like performers are introduced as well. The change from myth to
(legendary) local history usually occurs at this stage.
However, with
the first humans, evil and death enter into the world. The evil and the hubris
of humans is taken care of in different ways. Often, a
great, all-devastating flood (Greece, Mesopotamia, Bible, Vedic India,
Meso-America) is connected with the origin and spread of evil among early
humans and with their hubris. Though the world and humans are restored after
the primordial flood, we find the final destruction of the world and even of
the gods (as a variant of the Four Ages theme) at the end of human history. A
new heaven and a new earth or eternal bliss are
promised in some mythologies.
All preceding myths
and motifs are discussed at some length in this chapter, drawing on examples
from all areas and periods of Laurasian mythology. They sustain the initial
reconstruction and the Laurasian story line. Doubtful cases and apparent
exceptions are indicated and are discussed in detail in 5. Some of them
indicate remnants of earlier, pre-Laurasian stages (such as the motif of the
primordial giant), others are due to the development
of human society and religion since the Neolithic (such as the descent of nobles
and kings from the Sun deity).
Though the
reconstruction of Laurasian mythology stands on its own feet, it can be
sustained by evidence from other fields of the humanities and the natural
sciences.
4.1. Linguistics
The first set of
evidence comes, unsurprisingly, from the field of linguistics. Since mythology
is based on texts, the languages in which it has been transmitted must be of
interest.
Certain
ancient and modern languages can be grouped into families as they share ancient
common features in grammar and sounds. Through innovations in certain branches
of a given family these have evolved over time, and such changes lead to a
cladistic family tree, as seen in human families, manuscripts (stemma), plant
and animal lineages reconstructed by paleontology or, more prominently
nowadays, by genetics.
The
most well-known families are the Indo-European one,
covering most languages between Iceland and Bengal, and the Semitic one, a part
of the Afro-Asiatic family that covers most of Northern and Eastern Africa as
well as the (ancient) Near East. Others include the Austronesian family
(Madagascar to Hawaii), or the Bantu one (most of sub-Saharan Africa). The
origin of such families can be dated back several thousand years.
Some
linguists have proceeded to link up the reconstructed families and have
established super-families, such as the Nostratic one that covers almost all of
Europe, northern Africa, southwestern, south, central, north and northeastern
Asia. A tentative date is set around 12,000 BCE. Some more daring linguists
want to establish even earlier superfamilies, such as the Amerind one,
controversially reconstructed by Joseph Greenberg for most of the Americas.
Some even maintain to have reconstructed some words spoken by the African Eve
(see below).
Be
that as it may, the comparison of superfamilies provides a useful background
scenario that overlaps with several branches of Laurasian mythology. The
Laurasian scenario includes the early speakers of the Nostratic, Amerind,
Macro-Caucasian, Austroasiatic, etc. linguistic
families.
Some
of the superfamilies overlap with the regional centers, established for
post-Laurasian mythologies (such as the Nostratic linguistic family with the
early Neolithic hunter cultures of Eurasia or the Amerind one with the hunter
cultures of the Americas). Linguistics can also help in distinguishing between
Laurasian features typical for a particular local mythology, a regional one, or
that of a wider area. Just as certain isolated remnants seen in comparative
linguistics derive from more ancient systems, so do Laurasian motifs that have
been transmitted only in some individual languages or language families. When
they do not make sense in isolation, we have to reckon with archaisms. Some
items match, some transgress language families, which is a good indicator for
cultural transfer, such as the one between the western Central Asian steppe
cultures and early Japan.
4.2. Physical
anthropology
The nature and shape
of the human body (shape of the skull, hair, eyes, skin color) has been used in
the past to classify humans into several races. This idea has long been discarded as it is impossible to arrive at secure parameters
for a classification of any one race. Humans usual share most traits that
have been used for such attempted classifications, and any one of them can
change fairly quickly due to environmental factors. Still, certain items, such
as tooth shape, are useful to distinguish certain human types seen in the history
of a population (Sinodont versus
Sundadont teeth). Further, some broadly based multivariate analyses can provide
some general indications. While they may be too general when used as
stand-alone data, they can be useful in comparison with other data (such as
genetics or archaeology). Some of these macro-factors can be used and compared
with those of the populations that have transmitted certain (sub-)sections of Laurasian mythology.
4.3. Genetics
More promising are the
recent advances in genetics, especially in male Y chromosome and female mtDNA
studies. Their results closely agree with the Laurasian Scheme ( 3). In other
words, human population genetics can even serve as a (historical) template for
Laurasian mythology.
It
has been well known for the past 15 years or so that anatomically modern humans
can be traced back to a single woman in Africa who lived more than 100,000
years ago. We all share her mtDNA, while that of her sisters and other female
relatives has not survived. The African derivative versions of her mtDNA are
still preserved in two major versions (haplogroups L1 and L2)
in Africa, while all other humans descend from an East African subgroup, L3.
Their ancestors have left Africa around 65,000 BCE, moving eastwards along the
shore of the Indian Ocean, until they reached Australia and Southern China,
within a few thousand years. The number of the original emigrants has been
estimated at 10,000, and more recently even as low as 2,000 people.
It
is obvious that they must have brought with them some version(s) of an original
African language and mythology. However, Laurasian mythology is not identical with that exported from
Africa. Instead, it is restricted to groups that do not include those speaking Australian, Melanesian (Papua, etc.),
and Andamanese languages. In fact, the DNA of the Sahul
Land people (New Guinea and Australia) differs markedly from the rest of
Eurasia that was settled by people of other haplogroups.
Clearly,
in these early periods --the immigration to Australia is set a
40-60,000 years ago-- genes, languages and mythologies still could
travel together, given the small number of people then living. This scenario
has been much more unlikely, if not nearly impossible in more recent times, due
to frequent remixing of genes (as well as myths and certain traits of
languages).
Indeed,
as shown in 3, Laurasian mythology is restricted to Eurasian and American
populations that speak Nostratic, Austronesian, Amerindian, etc. languages,
while their DNA is restricted to populations that predominantly have the
subclasses (haplogroups) of mtDNA M, N, etc. and NRY C, F etc.
To
further differentiate within these subcategories we need more intensive genetic
as well as mythological work that must rely on the broad patterns plotted above
( 2, 3). It can only be established by investigation the mythologies of
individual populations (say, the Dayaks of Borneo) and by a comparison of their
DNA (with that of the other Indonesian peoples).
At
this stage, it is sufficient to note that the populations that have transmitted
Laurasian mythologies belong to the ex-Africa language families and genetic
subclades mentioned above.
4.4. Archaeology
Another type of human
data and remains, those uncovered by archaeology, tells a similar story. Early
human remains and tools can be traced even before Homo erectus, but it is anatomically
modern humans (Homo Sapiens sapiens) whose spread inside and outside Africa can be
followed by a trail of tools and some skeletal remains.
As
the genetic evidence and the Laurasian theory predict, the earliest remains of
Homo Sapiens sap.
are found inside Africa (Homo Sapiens Idaltu, etc.), while only a few early
artifacts and skeletons have been retrieved along the exodus path. They are
found inland (Narmada corridor in India, etc.) from the ancient coast lines of the Indian ocean, as the sea level was some
200 m lower around c. 60,000 BCE. Most important sites that could indicate the
spread to Australia and S. China are now covered by water. Nevertheless, early
Australian sites (40,000-60,000 BCE) prove the quick spread of humans out of
Africa. Similarly, increasingly modern Stone Age implements have been found in
the same areas, indicating the spread of these early humans.
A
very important indicator of anatomically modern humans is the appearance of
symbolical thinking, which is required for the creation of myths. While even
the Neanderthals had some grave goods indicating a belief in afterlife, it is
the sudden emergence of Stone Age art, especially cave paintings,
that point to symbolic thinking.
Differently from former assumptions, this art did not emerge from southwestern
Europe (Lascaux, etc.). Instead, it is found almost simultaneously in Africa,
India and Australia.
It
is important to understand some of the symbolic meanings the artists had in
mind, especially the use of such paintings in hunting magic, for example in the
case of the sorcerer of Trois Frres in southern France at c. 14-16,000 BCE,
who seems to be an early version of a shaman (see below, 7).
This
sudden explosion of complex art seems to coincide, but does not entirely
overlap geographically, with the emergence of Laurasian mythology, that
probably evolved somewhere in southwest Asia. (There has been some discussion
of isolated pieces of earlier Paleolithic art, such as beads found in Algeria,
around 90,000 BCE). Judging from actual early rock art,
Paleolithic hunting techniques and the accompanying belief systems seem
widespread.
However,
it is the role of the shamans that is important for the Laurasian system. They
must have been, as some paintings at Lascaux and Trois Frres (France) seem to
indicate, the facilitators of a spiritual connection with the animals and
probably with the Lord/Lady of the animals. As such, the shamans must have
played an important role in the formulation and preservation of Laurasian
mythology ( 5; more details on Shamans below, 7).
Unfortunately,
we do not have access to much of the spiritual world
of the Paleolithic and early Mesolithic people, except for what can be seen in
their art and in the reconstruction of Laurasian mythology. Nevertheless, whatever
can be gathered from these restricted pictorial materials does not contradict
but support the worldview envisaged by Laurasian Mythology. Even then, these
data encompass just a certain fraction of the reconstructable mythological
materials, mostly those related to hunting, the life and rebirth of hunted
animals, the role of the shaman, etc.
The
early, Palaeolithic form of Laurasian mythology has undergone several stages of
developments ( 7), while the people adhering to it spread inland from the shores
of the Indian Ocean and dispersed all across Eurasia, resulting in the regional
mythological and language groups and further DNA branches.
At
the same time, techniques, tools, and hunting also developed and are attested
in archaeology, for example the invention the spear thrower, bow and arrow,
etc. The spiritual world developed as well, as can be noticed in the
development of shamanism ( 7). From its original African (represented by
Bushmen) and Australian form it changed to the typical and prominent North
Asian shape, which includes the offering of animals, attested in archaeology (
7).
Offering
of animals plays a great role in all later forms of religions. It seems to have
developed from an early connection with hunting magic, and can be observed to
develop both in Laurasian and Gondwana cultures (New Guinea, Africa). There
were further changes with the onset of Neolithic food production around 10,000
BCE. The sacrifice of hunted animals (for example, the bear
with the Ainu) was substituted by that of domesticated ones. However,
the ancient pattern was perpetuated: it continued with early food producing and
pastoralist tribes, early state societies, and it still does so in modern
religions, albeit in a hidden form (the sacrifice of the lamb, i.e. Christ).
In sum, the
results of archeological study overlap, just as those of linguistics and
genetics, with the reconstruction of large sections of Laurasian mythology.
4.5 Some other items
of comparison
In the margin, some
other features of human cultural productions are discussed that can point to
early regional features as subsets of Laurasian and Gondwana mythology.
Examples include the conservative, simple music and the traditional games of
children, some forms of ancient and modern regional styles of music (such as
the pentatonic one with Amerindians, E. Asians, etc.), patterns of color use,
or regional types of gestures.
5 The countercheck: sub-Saharan Africa, Papua,
Australia
All
scientific theories must be tested. The present reconstruction of Laurasian
mythology, too, can and must be subjected to the test. There are several
requirements for a possible countercheck.
1. It must be shown that the present reconstruction is typical just for Laurasian mythology and that it does not have close correspondences in other (types of) mythologies. The investigations carried out in previous chapters shows that there are several other types of mythologies, notably those of sub-Saharan Africa, New Guinea and Melanesia, as well as Australia. They indeed differ substantially from Laurasian mythology and also from each other.
First, they lack the Laurasian types of
creation myths. Instead, the earth and the universe are supposed to pre-exist.
Their main interest is in the creation of humans and their culture, which is
often carried out by a deus otiosus who subsequently withdraws back
into the sky.
Second, and
more importantly, the typical Laurasian story line is also absent. This is a
critical point: it would constitute crucial counterevidence if a test could
indicate that the non-Laurasian mythologies do in fact possess the same, or a
very similar, type of story line. So far, this could not be
shown, neither by the present author nor by others. In sum, the Laurasian
theory stands.
If,
conversely, some individual motifs or developments of Laurasian mythology
should however be observed in various non-Laurasian mythologies, this does not serve for a refutation of the theory,
as individual motifs and (small) myth cycles can drift and travel.
2. Apart
from the feature of drift, certain motifs that widely appear in Laurasian and
non-Laurasian mythologies may belong to an older
stratum of pre-Laurasian (and pre-Gondwana) mythology. In other words, they are
isolated relicts that have accidentally been retained in both Laurasian and
non-Laurasian mythologies. (This is especially the case with some of the
creation myths: humans emerging from trees, from clay, etc.). Conversely,
certain motifs have spread widely after the creation of Laurasian Mythology.
They include the classical Siberian form of Shamanism, descent of nobles and
kings from the Sun deity, many motifs in the missionary religions of Buddhism,
Christianity, and Islam.
3.
In sum, as long as it can be shown that the reconstructed story line is typical
for Laurasian myth (and that its major creation myths are lacking in
non-Laurasian myths) the theory will stand.
Beyond
Laurasia: Gondwana mythology
In the second half of
this chapter, the non-Laurasian (Gondwana) mythologies are explored in some
detail. Starting with the most isolated ones, those of Australia and Tasmania,
the investigation proceeds with those of Melanesia, including Papua, the
Solomon Islands, etc.; further, those of the isolated Andaman Islands in the
eastern Indian Ocean; finally, those of sub-Saharan Africa.
All
these regions have some of their own problems. A few of them are rather
limited, such as a certain amount of Papua influence on northwest and northeast
Australian mythology, while the Southeast (and Tasmania) are more isolated and
archaic.
Similarly,
the Melanesian mythologies have been isolated for many thousands of years
(especially those on the New Guinea highlands, in the Salomons and beyond).
However, on their fringes, the Polynesian version of Laurasian mythology has
exerted some influence. The juxtaposition of such Laurasian-influenced
mythologies with typical Melanesian ones clearly indicates the differences
between the two types.
The
Andaman Islands, too, have been isolated for long spells of time. Though there
may have been a passing period around 3000 BCE of continental influences
(Laurasian myth transmitted by Austro-Asiatic speaking groups). Andaman
mythology has reverted to typical non-Laurasian themes and survives in some
islands until today; some tribes have never been contacted even now.
Africa,
however, poses special problems. The sub-Saharan part of the continent has not
been as isolated as some of the Gondwana areas discussed above. Anthropologists
have pointed out for a long time that the various cultures of West Africa, from
Guinea to Cameroon, have undergone varying degrees of influences from the Sahel
steppe belt in the north. One can therefore expect, and will indeed find,
numerous cases of impact by the Laurasian mythologies of the Sahel cultures.
However, just as in the Melanesian case, the juxtaposition of typical
(original?) African mythologies with those influenced from
the north is very instructive.
The
situation is quite similar for the extended East African belt, stretching from
Kenya southwards to Zimbabwe, the eastern parts of South Africa and to Namibia.
This corridor was facilitated by a savannah-like landscape. Along
this eastern N-S. highway, too, northern
mythologies have heavily influenced the sub-Saharan ones.
In
all the cases mentioned so far, the Laurasian traits have to be carefully
subtracted from what we find in Gondwana myths. This can best be done by
starting out from the mythology of isolated areas, such as the backwoods of
Central Africa. Subsequent evaluation indicates that the four types of
non-Laurasian mythologies mentioned share a certain amount of myths, notably,
the lack of true creation myths and the lack of a continuous story line, but
also individual motifs such as that of human origin from trees.
In
conclusion some special cases are taken up: a discussion of some Gondwana
elements in Laurasian myths, and, reciprocally and conversely, Laurasian
elements in Gondwana myths. Finally, elements necessary for any dismissal of
the Laurasian mythology are addressed that could be brought forward, based on
Gondwana mythology.
Once
the Laurasian scheme has been reconstructed ( 2-3) and its counterparts in
Gondwanaland have been described and analyzed ( 5), one can proceed and look
for common themes, if any, of both Laurasian and Gondwana mythologies.
In the
discussion of Laurasian mythology it has appeared, from time to time, that
certain motifs simply do not fit into its common story line. Typical examples
are the (Neolithic) planters myth of a food deity (old Japan, later Vedic
India) or the origin of humans from trees
and clay. Once these motifs have been isolated and ordered, a certain number of
common tales emerge that include the actions of a deus otiosus who sends a trickster figure (his son, etc.) [down to earth] to create humans and culture. Frequently, the
humans then misbehave in one way or another, and their hubris brings them down,
or it creates various types of problems for them. Often, the flood is inserted
at this moment, and a second creation/emergence allows humans to spread again.
The rest of such common motifs concerns individual
tales dealing with the establishment of culture. They include common Pan-human (Pan-Gaean) motifs such as the flood myth, or a
trickster figure that brings human culture.
This series
of common tales is not ordered by the consistent Laurasian story line, and
importantly, they miss the Laurasian beginning of the world (creation of the
Universe and the earth) and its eventual destruction. Nevertheless, viewed
against the background of the Laurasian and Gondwana mythologies, this loose
group of common tales emerges as the oldest ones that can be isolated among all
of the worlds mythologies. They are likely to have been those of the African
Eve.
The
preceding investigation into global mythologies indicates that Laurasian
mythology constitutes our first well-constructed novel and the Pan-Gaean
myths are our very first tales. As such, they allow us a glimpse of the mind of
early humans, before 60,000 BCE, perhaps as far back as 130,000 BCE.
Having
traced back our mythological traditions all the way back to the African Eve,
that is, to the earliest stages of anatomically modern humans (Homo Sapiens sap.), we can now proceed to do the
reverse, and take a closer look at the subsequent developments of mythological
tales, and at the various systems of mythology that were developed in
Palaeolithic times. The very first stages of the development of mythology
necessarily remain very vague, as we can judge them only according to reconstructions of the daughter
mythologies, that are, themselves, reconstruction based on much later texts.
Nevertheless,
it may be suggested that the period down from c. 130,000 to c. 65,000 BCE saw
the emergence and development of Pan-Gaean myths that were perhaps already
divided into several local forms within Africa. Future research may shed some
light on this stage. The developments become clearer once a sub-set of Africans
had left the continent: in other words, the innovations brought about by that
emigrant group, in myths as well as in languages, and genes, stand out against
the features remaining with populations in Africa (that did not remain static
either, obviously). The universal principle of shared innovations, seen in
language, archaeology, genetics, paleontology and biology in general, is at
work here. Such innovations can be contrasted with those of the (frequently)
more conservative groups remaining behind.
In the
present case, the mythologies of the original Out of Africa groups were to a
large extent retained in the Andamans, Melanesia and Australia, but they are
also seen in small refuge areas elsewhere (Vedda, Nilgiri, Semang, Aeta). They
clearly represent several slightly aberrant, in other words, innovative
versions of the original African (Pan-Gaean) myths (as dealt with in 5-6).
Taking
a closer look at the common features of Pan-Gaean myths, the one item that
stands out is the importance of Palaeolithic Shamanism in the early male
dominated segment of hunter cultures that supported the widely spread
Palaeolithic bands of humans. However, little if nothing of the tales of their
women remains, though they must have used teghe same language
for communication on vital topics such as sources of food, as a social bond,
and for the equally important social commentary (gossiping). One indication
that some of their stories may have been retained even in they male-dominated
hunters and Shamans tales of Laurasian mythology are aberrant myths such as
human origins from trees. We thus have to distinguish (grand)fathers
tales from (grand)mothers tales.
Palaeolithic
shamanism
Shamanism
has been under continuous and controversial discussion, especially since
Eliade. However, his discussion of African and Australian shamanism is
inadequate, while his version of the typical North Asian (Siberian) version
has been reconfirmed by many scholars, including the fact that it has to be
distinguished from mere possession. Campbells characterization of the
Shamanism of the South African Khoi San (Bushmen, and of their relatives, the
Hadza/Sandawe in N. Tanzania) as well as that of the aboriginal Australians as
deteriorated is misleading. Instead, the Khoi-San, the Andamanese and the
Australians have preserved a prototype of
what later became Siberian and Amerindian shamanism. This development
constitutes a close parallel of the development of Laurasian mythology from
Gondwana mythology. For example, the earlier, Pan-Gaean and Gondwana versions
do not yet possess the characteristic feature of shamanistic drumming, but they
do share the unique perception of some difficultly controlled heat that rises
upwards from the lower end of the spine -- a feature still retained in some
forms of Indian Yoga.
Against
this early background, the vestiges of Palaeolithic and Neolithic Shamanism and
sacrifice may be explored. Some shamanic mythemes appear
universally in Pan-Gaean, Gondwana and Laurasian myths, such as the ascent of
the shaman to heaven, his rebirth during initiation, and that of the (parallel)
rebirth of animals killed in hunting, etc. However, there also is the important
physical evidence found in early rock art in Africa, India, and Australia that
underlines the significance of these features for Palaeolithic hunting
cultures.
In
addition, some of the late Palaeolithic/early Neolithic paintings seem to
indicate the actual presence of (proto-)Shamans, such
as in the Trois Frres and Lascaux caves in S. France. The dancing figure is
still without the typical flat Siberian drum, but he may be using his bow
instead. However, he exhibits certain features that later on became typical for
the classical Siberian shaman, such as the dress made up out of several animal
skins and horns, and his connection with a wounded buffalo (pierced through the
life line, at Lascaux) as well as the bird symbolism (spiritual
guide/messenger) also fall into this category.
These
Palaeolithic paintings are indicative of the
existence of early hunting-oriented shamanism. New paintings are constantly
found in Africa, India and the Americas, while Southeast Asia and most of New
Guinea are largely unexplored.
The
ramifications of this practice are of immediate and significant importance for
Eurasian mythology. The teachings, after the secretive
initiation, by one or more experienced shamans, involves the
transmission of oral tales, beliefs and practices that are typical for the
local form of Shamanism. In Laurasian myths, these teachings and their content
are highly formalized and are based on the effectiveness of sacred speech (that
is archaic, like many hunters languages). They have served as the main conduit
of the preservation of ancient myths and have ensured a large degree of
stability for them. In that sense, too, Laurasian mythology constitutes our (grand)fathers tales.
Such
formalized transmission also favored the emergence of the very structure of Laurasian mythology. It is, like all oral texts,
organized according to a certain pattern (in which it is more easily learned by
heart). Such patterns include the Polynesian one configured according to the
bones of a fish or medieval memory palaces. In the Laurasian case, it is the
simple structure from creation to destruction of the world, from birth to
death. In other words, not only does the life story of the universe parallel
that of humans, but also that of killed animals, along with their
expected rebirth (if their bones were preserved intact).
To
put in unambiguous terms: Laurasian mythology is the outcome of shamans hunter
ideology and of their teachings, transmitted to their disciples. It is based on
the life cycle of their prey and is structured accordingly: animals are killed
and reborn from their bones (an idea a still retained for humans in
Christianity). By analogy, this process parallels the fate of humans and of the
world at large.
Sacrifice
Another outcome of
this Palaeolithic setting is the institution of sacrifice. While actual
sacrifice is not visible in Palaeolithic rock art, hunting certainly is. The
shamanistic painting at Trois Frres in S. France combines hunting with
Shamanism. In later (Siberian) Shamanism, sacrifice (of dogs, etc,) is well
attested. Other relict forms of Siberian sacrifice include that of bears
(with the Saami in N. Finland, Ainu in N. Japan, etc.). In each culture, the
sacrifice of a locally prominent animal is expected. Thus, in the Andamans we
cannot expect that of buffaloes but the early Andamanese certainly did once
have that of boars (probably under Austroasiatic influence), which is
archeologically attested. However, the practice of actual shamanistic sacrifice is
still absent in Khoi-san Africa and in Australia.
Clearly,
sacrifice stands in for the original hunt, the pursuit and killing of a major
prey (cf. W. Burkert). In other words, sacrifice is a ritualized relict of the
magical practices of Stone Age hunters, looking for the endless supply of
hunted, killed (and reborn) animals.
In
Neolithic and in State societies the connection with hunting has been
transformed into the general practice of sacrifice that still looks for very
much the same results: food supply, stable society, etc. However, this was set
in terms more appropriate to the period: those of leadership/kingship,
priesthood, food production, domesticated animals, stable (class based)
society, etc. The same pattern is still observed with us, though obviously in
transubstantiated form, at Sunday Mass, with the hunted animal substituted by
the lamb, Christ. Similarly, many other cultures have moved away from actual
killing to substitutions by plants and execution of ritual just in ones mind
such as in certain aspects of Hinduism, while even the non-violent Hindus
still apply red color to their forehead at the end of each of their rituals.
Such processes have lead from
Palaeolithic hunters societies to Neolithic food producing ones and then to city state and to nation state societies, --- changes that
were always accompanied with appropriate changes in mythology (cf. 8).
Dating Gondwana and
Laurasian mythology
Based on the preceding
deliberations, certain anchor points for dating Laurasian mythology can be
determined. The exodus from Africa, seen in archaeology and genetics, as well
as the recognition of basic differences between Laurasian and Non-Laurasian
(Gondwana) mythologies allows to set a date post
quem for Laurasian mythology at c. 65,000 BCE. The lowest date ante quem is that of the immigration of
Amerindians into the Americas shortly after c. 20,000 BCE. Further
substantiation of these dates comes from the fact that Australian mythology must
have entered the continent around 40,000 BCE at the latest. The populations
that brought this type of Gondwana mythology with them had not yet been
affected by Laurasian myth. However, they could just have been an isolated
group in Sunda Land (western Indonesia) that had retained, along with the
Andamanese and Melanesians, older versions of mythology that may have been in
ascendance elsewhere in Asia. A terminus ad
quem of c. 40,000 BCE for Laurasian mythology is therefore not excluded by
the Australian dates (which, anyhow, may be substantially earlier, 60,000 BCE,
according to some archeologists).
Greater clarity could be achieved if some of the early rock art could be linked with Laurasian myths. However, as discussed above ( 7), this is possible only in a few cases, such as certain with some paintings in France that clearly are later than 40,000 BCE. In sum, at this moment, we have to be content with stating that Laurasian mythology developed—somewhere in southwestern Asia—sometime between 60,000 and 20,000 BCE. The most likely date is centered around 40,000 BCE, as Homo Sapiens sap. spread, along with Laurasian mythology, from there into Europe by c. 40-35,000 BCE. At the same time, after the end of a previous glacial period, it also spread northwards into western Central Asia. However, the way it has reached Eastern Central Asia and Northern China is still unclear. Language, myth and genes must not always travel together. Laurasian myth may have been transmitted into northern China by central/north Asian hunters (who also carried the Nostratic language or rather its Borean/Dene-Caucasian predecessor, that includes according to some linguists, the ancestor of Chinese), while Southern China had been occupied since c. 60,000 BCE by populations belonging to the first wave of people having arrived with the exodus along the shores of the Indian Ocean and Sunda Land. To reach a decision,
first
of all, the genetic history of the populations of Southeast Asia must be
further clarified. More importantly, the early mythologies
are retained to some extent by small remnant populations (Semang, Aeta,
etc.); otherwise, they have been overlaid by Buddhist, Christian and Islamic
beliefs, but still exist under that veneer. Such investigations will result in
a clearer picture of post-60,000 BCE developments in
southeastern and southern East Asia. In sum, it can be concluded than Laurasian
mythology should be dated as follows (lowest dates):
post
quem 60,000
BCE (Gondwana
Exodus Out of Africa)
post
/ad quem 60-40,000
BCE (Gondwana immigration into Sahul Land)
ad
quem 40,000 BCE (Laurasian immigration into Europe)
ante
quem: 20,000
BCE (Laurasian
immigration into the Americas)
A date around 40,000
BCE is probable for an area that covers Greater Southwest Asia. It coincides
with, but is not caused by nor is entirely overlapping with the world-wide spread of Palaeolithic rock art ( 7). If the
emergence of rock art was indeed a major step in the development of the
symbolic functions in the human brain – albeit that there seem to be some
indications in northwest (and South) Africa of incipient primitive art around
90,000 BCE, and even earlier -- it nevertheless is clear that a new wave of
symbolic and artistic expression spread, along with Palaeolithic hunters
practices, from an unknown center in equal fashion across all of Africa and
Asia, irrespective of the mythologies professed. Further studies in archaeology
and genetics will shed some light both on the exact source and the spread; at
this moment, the data are too sparse to allow further conclusions.
Even then,
Laurasian mythology, as our first well-constructed novel-like series of tales
emerges around 40,000 BCE. Subsequently it has spread all across Eurasia
northern Africa, and finally the Americas. By now, the populations believing in
or otherwise following one of its later versions, have pushed back Gondwana
mythologies into some retreat areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the Andamans, New
Guinea and Australia. It is difficult to establish concrete numbers, but a
rough estimate of the remnants of Gondwana mythologies confines them to less
than 5% of present day humans, mainly those in sub-Saharan Africa. Their number
is still shrinking due to the advance of Laurasian-derived religions. Therefore
it is an urgent task study and preserve whatever is left of the various
Gondwana mythologies, as they are an important part of our common heritage.
8 OUTLOOK
The Meaning of Laurasian Mythology
In the light of the previous discussions, it appears that the very structure applied to the various Laurasian myths, that is its story line, provides a potential angle for its interpretation. As has been stressed, the story line extends from the birth of the world, via several stages, to the full development with humans and their culture, and to its final decay and death, with the hope for an eventual rebirth. Obviously, this view is taken from the Stone Age experience of humans, observing the life cycles of their fellow humans, the hunted animals, and the cycles of nature itself. In other words, the world, its beings and deities are interpreted, in typical human fashion, by analogy in the light of human experience; this is anthropologization, a feature that is still applied today not only by small children but also by adults.
Laurasian mythology was successful as it put essential questions and answered then in a satisfactory way. It asked the eternal questions Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go? and answered them by stating that we are descendents of the gods, who on their part have evolved from earlier generations and ultimately from the universe itself, whose ultimate origin is prominently debated in Laurasian myths.
And, the end is a
hopeful one. Just as the hunted animals are reborn, if their bones are kept
intact after slaughtering, so do humans find rebirth in the fold of the gods or
in a new life on earth, and so does the Universe.
In
sum, the questions of Stone Age humans about the constantly revolving life
cycles of animals and humans as well as of nature are answered in a
satisfactory fashion by identifying these realms, by correlating human
experience to the one of the anthropomorphicized world and its animals. Humans
thus are part and parcel of a grand scheme that establishes links with the
spirits of the deities and animals and provides access to primordial creation
by inspired myth telling and connected rituals. In that way, the burning
questions that have troubled humans ever since they started to reflect on
themselves have been tackled and answered in a way that was satisfying to their
original Laurasian Palaeolithic composers and contemporaries.
The
model was so successful that, irrespective of earlier mythologies, it has since
spread across all continents. Strangely, the Laurasian answer still is
satisfying for the vast majority of modern humans, which clearly is in need of
some discussion.
Beyond Laurasia
The very fact that
Laurasian mythology, in its various derivative forms such as Shinto, Daoism,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc., still satisfies the
great majority of humans in their spiritual quest is an indication of the power
of the original basic concept. The Laurasian image of birth and rebirth of the
universe, of nature and of humans provides a compelling explanation and
motivation for people who ask the eternal questions.
On
a higher level of abstraction, the persistence of myth also tells us that
humans apparently cannot live without it; they are hard-wired for it. Thus,
even where religion and myths have officially been abandoned, such as in
socialist or communist countries, myths have reared their head in other forms.
Examples include the former Stalinist and current N. Korean myths about their
leaders and public rituals. Similarly, as Cassirer (1946) has explained, the
extensive use made by the Nazis of (old Germanic) mythology and revived or
invented rituals that were in part intended as a counterweight against
prevailing Christian religion. Mythology (and accompanying rituals) have prevailed in the socialist countries in spite of a
theoretical abolishment of religion and replacement with scientific
historical materialism. The current revival of religion and new cults in these
countries clearly demonstrates the power of the underlying attraction of
spiritual interest and desires. The same can be observed for semi-secular myths
of various nations, such as the all-American myths of gods own country, the
manifest destiny, or the monomyth of the hero as Lone Rider setting things
straight (J. Campbell).
Similarly,
the various reformulations that Laurasian mythology has undergone in the
various prominent world religions over the past c. 2500 years still hold a
potent, now increasing sway over the great majority of the current world
population, regardless of the individual forms that these reformulations have
taken.
In
Shinto as well as in many forms of Hinduism and in many small Eurasian and
Amerindian tribal religions, the old polytheistic framework has been retained.
In Hinduism it has been overlaid, to some extent, by ever more syncretistic,
higher levels of interpretation; yet, under the quasi-monotheistic (or
henotheistic) varnish lurk all the old spirits of nature and forces of the
Universe, often personified as particular deities. Shinto, however, keeps them
very well apart and it listed, already about a thousand years ago, some 8000
major deities. The same applies to most tribal religions. Most have maintained
the Laurasian story line from creation to destruction of the world.
The
matter is not very much different with the other major world religions. The
earliest monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism, still practiced by some 100,000
people in S.E. Iran and in the Bombay area, is an outcome of Indo-Iranian
religion, common to the old Eastern Iranians and to the early Vedic inhabitants
of Northwestern India. Zoroaster and his priests (c. 1000 BCE) have moved away
from two competing groups of deities and principles to the supremacy of one God
who is opposed by devil-like creatures. The Laurasian story line is very
prominent in Zoroastrian myths: God (Ahura Mazda) creates the world that will
be destroyed at the end of time while the ones who have made the right decision
for Ahura Mazda and against the evil spirit will proceed to a world of bliss.
Similarly,
Judaism has seen a gradual change from polytheistic beginnings (no other gods
next to me) to actual monotheism, undoubtedly under Iranian influence during
the so-called Babylonian captivity. As a result, all so-called Abrahamic
religions (Judaic, Christian, Islamic) have replaced the ancient multiple
deities with a monotheistic framework (although one can discusses the Christian
trinity). However, they have retained the Laurasian story line nevertheless:
Abrahamic accounts start with the creation of the world by God (rather, Elohim the gods), and they end with
the destruction of the world, holding out the hope for a new world of
paradise-like nature. (Paradise itself is an Old Iranian word, meaning the
walled in [garden].
Both
the Christian and the Islamic versions are now expanding in the last few
remaining hold-outs of polytheistic Laurasian and Gondwana mythologies,
especially in Africa, New Guinea and in the various remaining pockets of tribal
religions worldwide. However, they find much more resistance in the areas
dominated by Hindu, Daoist and Shinto religions as well as in some areas with
new religions such as the Melanesian cargo cult. Needless to say, it will be
great loss to human culture if the last non-Abrahamic pockets of religion,
mythology and rituals will disappear. However, at present, the Laurasian story
line is attractive for more than 90% of all living humans.
Another
reason for the survival of Laurasian mythology is that humans are
pre-conditioned by their current culture and its predecessors. Cross-cultural
comparison indicates that, once a certain motif has been established in a given
civilization, it continues to have an enormous persistence over time. S. Farmer
et al. (2000) have called this the
path dependency of cultural traits. The Laurasian story line would then be a
primary example. Others examples include the motifs of karma and rebirth in
India, purity versus impurity (tsumi)
in Japan, ancestor worship in China and elsewhere, being chosen (Judaism,
America), or monotheism.
EPILOGUE
In view of the human predilection for myth, it is essential that we reach an understanding of the roots and the subsequent path dependencies of our (modern) myths, especially so in an age of the clash of civilizations.
This realization must
inform us about many of our current beliefs and their underlying, enduring
mythological foundations. Current social and political developments around the
globe necessitate a better, in depth understanding of the archaic basis for
many of our dearly-held beliefs.
M.Witzel (Oct. 2006/Dec.
2012)
CONTENTS
1.1
What is myth and how do we compare and study it?
1.2
Definition; Study of myth in the past (Vico to Levy-Strauss)
1.3
Comparative mythology
1.4
A new proposal: Laurasian mythology
1.5
Other explanations of myth
2.1.
Theory: comparisons
2.2.
Reconstructing Laurasian mythology
2.2.1
Similarities
2.2.2.
Regular correspondences and establishment of a unified narrative scheme
2.2.3
Oldest texts to be used
2.2.4
Geographically dispersed items
2.2.5
Reconstruction of the Laurasian Common Story line and individual myths
2.3
Enhancing the reconstruction: local, macro-regional, and subcontinental
variations
2.4
The Laurasian mythological system
2.5
Structure and content in some Macro-areas of Laurasian Mythology
2.5.1
Macro-areas
2.5.2
Four ages
2.5.3
Later centers of innovations
3.1
Creation from:
1.
Chaos 2. Water 3. Earth diver/Floating earth
4.
Giant 5. Bull 6. Egg 7. Combined versions
3.2
Father Heaven, Mother Earth
3.3
Separation of heaven and earth, the prop
3.4.
Creation of land
3.5
Primordial demiurge/ trickster
3.5.1
Creation of Light
3.5.2.
The slaying of the dragon
3.5.3
The theft of fire /Heavenly drink
3.6.
Generations, four ages and five suns
3.7.
The creation of humans
3.8.
Descent of noble lineages
3.9.
The flood
3.10.
Heroes
3.11
The final destruction
4.1.
Linguistics
4.2
Physical anthropology
4.3.
Genetics
4.3.1
Recent advances in human genetics
4.3.2
Out of Africa
4.3.3 Genetics,
language and mythology
4.4.
Archaeology
4.4.1
Rock art
4.4.2
Sacrifice
4.4.3
Food production
4.4.4
Pastoralism
4.5
Some other items of comparison
Childrens
songs and games
Ancient
music, and regional styles
Use
of colors
5.1.
Theory; countercheck: theoretical models
5.1.1
Method
5.1.2
Criteria for counterchecks
5.1.3
The question of diffusion vs. genetic
relationship
5.1.4.
Later additions
5.2
Beyond Laurasia: Gondwana mythology
5.3.
Sub-Saharan Africa, the Andamans, Papua-New Guinea, and Australia -- an
overview
5.3.1
Gondwana mythology
5.3.2
Australia
5.3.3.
Melanesia
5.3.4
Andaman
5.3.5
Africa
5.3.5.1
Remnant populations
5.3.5.2
Sub-Saharan Africa
5.3.5.4
Northern influences: the Western N.-S. Highway
5.3.5
The eastern North-South Highway
5.3.6
Summary
5.4.
Individual Gondwana myth types and their common characteristics
5.5
Secondary influences
5.6.
Conflicting myths in Gondwanaland
5.6.1.
Gondwana element in Laurasian myth
5.6.2
Laurasian elements in Gondwana myth
5.7
Countercheck of Laurasian mythology based on Gondwana mythology
6.1.
Beyond Laurasia and Gondwana: myths
common to
Laurasia and Gondwana
6.2 Our first tales
7.1.
Palaeolithic shamanism
7.1.2
Sacrifice
7.2.
Changes from Palaeolithic to state societies
7.3.
Dating Gondwana and Laurasian mythology
8.1 The Meaning of
Laurasian Mythology
Beyond Laurasia
What does this
tell us?
EPILOGUE