Re: [tied] Re: Venus and Mars

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 3956
Date: 2000-09-21

>Wasn't VULCANO a Roman God equated with HEPHAESTOS by hellenic
>influence? Anyway. [...]
>We were talking about MARS, not about VULCANO: you were saying that
>the War Deity was Underworldly and than I asked for SOLID proofs,
>which you could never provide, not for a single moment.

Well, you certainly have convenient criteria, don't you? I couldn't imagine
what "SOLID proofs" means to you when we're talking about something so
interpretative and theoretical as mythology. Perhaps you can define this?

Regardless, whether Greek or Latin myth, we're talking about _IE_ myths (not
non-IE myths like you're charging me of doing at this instant) in case you
haven't noticed. I've already mentioned that both Mars and Vulcan are linked
amorously to Venus as if they are the same god - you reject it because it
doesn't work in your favour, so be it.

There is another connection with the underworld. Ever heard of Salii
priests? The association of Jupiter-Quirinus-Mars, by chance? Quirinus is
equivalent to Romulus, the founder of Rome and a derivative of IE's first
human *Manus of twin fame, the killer of *Yemos. Therefore, since Quirinus
is associated with the people, he can only be considered "earthly" in
nature. I'm not aware of humans living in clouds, aside from some people I
talk to on this list.

Certainly, this tripartite connection is primarily about functions,
priest-commoner-warrior. It makes even better sense however when it is
viewed also as a realm association, heavens-earth-underworld. Otherwise, we
have two sky gods and an earth god?? Huh? Rather, what we truely have is one
sky god, one earth god and one underworld god.

>Unfortunately for you, MARS haves no special connection with the
> >Underworld, and the same happens with all the other typical War
> >Divinities of the IE world: ARES, THOR, INDRA, PERKUNAS, according
> >Dumezil. I have read once that VULCANO could have warlike functions, >but
>He was not THE God of War. MARS is.

Resorting to emotional assertions in order to booster a losing arguement,
are we? Thanx for admitting the potential underlying nature of Vulcan which
is another positive point on my side. As Vulcan is connectable to Mars, so
too is Hephaestos to Ares by the same amorous connection to a certain "young
maiden", in this case Aphrodite. It's irrelevant whether this is originally
Hellenic myth or not since Hellenic is still IE. On a side note, the
Aphrodite myths are all throughout the MiddleEastern region (Ashtarte,
Ishtar, Athirat, etc) and it's hardly possible to speak of this Greek-Roman
myth without mentioning the clear connections it has with the MiddleEast.

Now, as I've said, Thor is mainly connected with *Dye:us, the sky god. I can
see *PexwrGnnos and *Dye:us getting confused if *PexwrGnnos, being first
connected with underworld chaos, was later connected with chaotic or stormy
skies, being able to storm up the sky at will from his underworld domain.
When such an association occurs, stormy skies and clear skies become a minor
distinction, easily confusable. Thus, Thor could have elements of both
*PexwrGnnos _and_ *Dye:us. This original order/chaos principle is seen in
El/Baal and is shared in IE's equivalent *Dye:us/PexwrGnnos pair.

> >You've lost this arguement.
>This last statement clearly shows your inability to argue in a proper
>scientific way. An advice: do not be so hasty, if you want to avoid
>more unpleasant situations like this one.

I don't believe "unpleasant" is a particularly scientific word, Ark. I
didn't find your points unpleasant at all, illogical and highly unlikely
perhaps, but never unpleasant.

>NO, it is a Greek myth adopted by the Romans. If you can't tell the

It doesn't matter, this is all IE myth, if you can't tell the difference...

I said:
>However, there are still a million and one connections between the
>so-called proto-IE myths, which must by definition go back to around >4000
>BCE or so, and the myths of the MiddleEast even though names of >these
>deities will differ.

Ark in denial states:
>Why MUST all the IE myths �go back� to the myths of the MiddleEast
>Semitic folks? Gratuitous statement of yours.

Re-read. It's obvious logic that any protoIE belief must stem back to the
same dates as the language, yes? Follow me? Otherwise we can't call it a
"protoIE" belief. Yes? Agree? That means 4000 BCE there and abouts. Yes? Do
you understand so far?

The date 4000 BCE is BEFORE the written Sumerian or SumeroAkkadian legends,
yes? So far good? Yet, the two mythologies seem to still have similarities
even back this long ago. The models created for IE, like Dumezil's for
instance, STILL have connections all throughout the Middle East even at this
date. The World Tree Creation myth, for one, is not unique to IE at all and
so it is logically clear that IE belief was influenced by or had influenced
in some way the Middle Eastern belief system. I choose the former option as
most likely - that they were influenced _by_ MiddleEastern views. When would
such an early influence be most likely? During the coming of agriculture
into Europe which is dated at around 6000 BCE. At that, we have a scenario
of incoming MiddleEastern neolithic cultures, influencing mesolithic
Europeans and those of the North Pontic.

What don't you understand here? What is illogical or gratuitious here? Would
you like to debate with any of the points mentioned in the preceding
paragraph? Is there a flaw here?

I said:
>The so-called IE *Tritos myth is clearly related to the story of
>Marduk and Tiamat (aka Baal and Yam) across the ancient MiddleEast.
>The association of a bull to the sky god as we find in IE myth is
>another MiddleEastern concept and is not originally IE.
>Explain why.

I've already explained why the world tree for one is not originally IE in
the preceding paragraph. It is deeply seated in Sumerian myth.

As for *Tritos and Marduk, Marduk represents the chaotic element, or rather
in this case, a deity whose sole purpose is to be in control of chaos (like
Baal). If you don't know SumeroAkkadian myth, Marduk eventually slays
Tiamat, a dragon in the waters, because Tiamat is getting out of hand.

Maybe you don't know IE myth either - Mallory mentions that *Tritos is
supposed to have slayed a three-headed serpent because the serpent was
getting out of hand (or rather, stealing cattle, something important to the
IE). In the IE myth, we still have the influence of the underworld who
represents the warrior caste (help from *Nepo:t/*PexwrGnnos to slay the
dragon) but rather it is a human mortal who does the deed to control chaos.

*XeryoManus (aka *Tritos or rather "Trita Aptya" of Indic myth), brother of
*Yemos, is our mortal Heracles, the one fighting to attain immortality after
having lost it by killing his very own brother from whose body was created
the earth. The dragon slaying in IE myth serves to further supply a dramatic
struggle to *XeryoManus' attempts to reattain immortality by performing
heroic acts. The serpent has become "three-headed" due to IE tripartition.
The three heads represent the three functions, priest-commoner-warrior, as
well as the three realms, overworld-middleworld-underworld. By slaying the
serpent, he becomes a hero, freeing the cattle that was stolen. *XeryoManus
is therefore seen to be master of all three realms and functions, showing
his immortal strength and worthiness to be a god again.

Further, in case you're wondering, the stories of our IE twins *Manus and
*Yemos did not exist in SemitoEuropoid belief and so we should expect this
shuffling of the story. This is a special IE creation. It would seem rather
that the sun and the moon in SemitoEuropoid belief, if anything, were the
male twins (certainly both _male_ at least). However, the IEs, believing
from early on in a female sun goddess, transfered the rivaling "male twins"
to the next generation, being birthed by the Sun herself and an excellent,
new way in which to explain the origin of earth and man.

>Do it. But I remind you that you must be able to proove that those
>connections mean a Semitic MiddleEastern origin of all the IE
>religious traditions.

Common sense, Ark! What is more likely? Is it more likely that a mesolithic
people influenced a neolithic one? Or how about vice versa? Are you that
blind? IEs could not have influenced the MiddleEast very much at all during
these prehistoric times. Archaeology all shows this. Get out a book.

- gLeN

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at