--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fournet.arnaud" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:
>
>
> and, with metathesis
> http://www.ieed.nl/lubotsky/pdf/Indo-Iranian%20substratum.pdf
> "
> *maks- f. `fly, bee':
> Skt. máks.(a:)- `fly, bee';
> LAv. maxsi:- f. `fly'.
> [-> FU *mekse `bee', Rédei 45.]
> "
> Torsten
>
> ============
>
> What about
> *mekshe being a derivative
> of *med "honey ?
>
> *med-k > indo-iranian *meksh
>
> Arnaud
>
Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola:
EMERGENCE, CONTACTS AND DISPERSAL OF PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN, PROTO-URALIC
AND PROTO-ARYAN IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE. pp. 114-122
"
THE EARLY ARYAN LOANWORDS FOR 'HONEY' AND 'BEE'
It is generally accepted that Proto-Finno-Ugric *mete 'honey'
(distributed in Finnic, Saami, Mordvin, Udmurt, Komi, and Hungarian)
is borrowed from Proto-Indo-European = Pre-Proto-Aryan *medhu- (which
became *madhu- in Proto-Aryan) (cf. Joki 1973: 283-285; Rédei 1988-91,
I: 655-656; Mayrhofer 1992-2001, II: 302-303). The same
Pre-Proto-Aryan vowel *e is found in Proto-Finno-Ugric *meke 'bee'
(distributed in Finnic, Mordvin, Mari, Udmurt, Komi, and Hungarian)
which on the Indo-European side has a reasonable counterpart only in
Proto-Aryan (cf. Joki 1973: 281-282; Rédei 1988-91,1: 655; Mayrhofer
1992-2001, II: 287).
Aulis J. Joki (1973: 284) observed that since the word for 'bee' in
Aryan languages means both 'bee' and 'fly', and since it begins with
*me- like Pre-Proto-Aryan *medhu- 'honey', it might originally be a
compound meaning 'honey-fly'. The Dravidian languages of India support
Joki's hypothesis, for in Tamil and in Malto the word for 'bee' is
just such a compound, te:n-i:, which literally means 'honey-fly'; in
Sanskrit, too, there are the compounds madhu-maks.a- (Kaus´ikasu:tra
93) and madhu-maks.ika:- (Kaus´ikasu:tra 118); cf. further Sanskrit
madhu-lih- 'bee', literally 'honey-licker'. In oldest Indo-Aryan,
there are some rare cases where the first member of a compound loses
the final vowel, e. g. sas-piñjara- 'yellow like grass {sasá-)\
besides haplological s´as.-pínjara-'yellow like young grass
(s´as.pa-)'. If such an elision has taken place, the resulting *medh-
'honey' could further have lost its aspiration and voicing of the
final consonant in front of a voiceless stop beginning the second
member of the compound, as in Old Indo-Aryan yut-ka:rá- 'making fight
(yudh-)'. If the Proto-Aryan word for 'bee' is reconstructed *maksi-
(cf. Sanskrit máks.i-ka:- 'bee', Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit maks.i:-,
and Avestan maXi:-, Sogdian mo:Gk- < *maXi-ka- 'fly') instead of
*mak-, which is the usual reconstruction on the basis of R.gvedic
Sanskrit máks.- besides máks.a:- and máks.i-ka:- (thus e.g. Joki,
Rédei and Mayrhofer), the latter component of the assumed compound
could be the Proto-Indo-European root *kw(e)i- (LTV, pp. 338-339),
which in the Aryan branch alone (cf. Sanskrit ci-, Middle and Modern
Persian c^i:dan) has a meaning very suitable to this context, namely
'to collect, hoard, pile'. The Early Proto-Indo-European consonant
sequence */TK/ (dental + velar or labiovelar) has been preserved in
Anatolian and Tocharian, but in Late Indo-European it has changed into
*/KT/, realized as [kT] yielding in Proto-Aryan *k and this in turn
ks. in Old Indo-Aryan and X in Avestan. (Cf. Parpola 1999: 199-200.)
Irrespective of whether this new attempt to explain the origin of the
Aryan word for 'bee' from a compound denoting 'honey-collector' is
accepted or not, there is fairly wide agreement on its having been
borrowed into Proto-Finno-Ugric before the Proto-Aryan sound change
*e> a took place. Fëdor Keppen (1886: 84-86, 107-113) alias Theodor
Köppen (1890), Y. H. Toivonen (1953: 17-18) and Peter Hajdú (1975: 33)
have rightly stressed that the Indo-European loanwords for 'honey' and
'bee' are key terms for locating the old homeland of the Finno-Ugric
speakers. The honey-bee was unknown in Asia, until relatively recent
times, with the exception of Asia Minor, Syria, Persia, Afghanistan,
Tibet and China, none of which can be taken into account for our
purposes. The bee was not found in Siberia, Turkestan, Central Asia
and Mongolia; indeed, it was introduced to Siberia only at the end of
the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the bee is found west of
the Urals in eastern Europe, mainly from the northern limit of the oak
..., or from Latitude 57°-58° southwards. Moreover, the middle Volga
region was known of old as a beekeeping area. (Hajdú 1975: 33.)
Hajdú's statements conform to the latest state of research summarized
in Eva Crane's extensive book, The World History of Beekeeping and
Honey Hunting (1999). Apis mellifera is native to the region
comprising Africa, Arabia and the Near East up to Iran, and Europe up
to the Urals in the east and to southern Sweden and Estonia in the
north (fig. 28); its spread further north was limited by arctic cold,
while its spread to the east was limited by mountains, deserts and
other barriers. Another important limiting factor was that the cool
temperate deciduous forests of Europe extend only as far east as the
Urals and do not grow in Siberia (cf. below). The distribution of Apis
mellifera was confined to this area until c. AD 1600, when it started
being transported to other regions. (Crane 1999: 11-14.) Thus hive
bee-keeping was extended to Siberia from the 1770s, when upright log
hives were taken from the Ukraine and European Russia to
Ust'-Kamenogorsk and Tomsk, from where it started spreading (Keppen
1886: 109-111; Crane 1999: 232, 366-367).
Another species of cavity-nesting honey bee, Apis cerana, is native to
Asia east and south of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Korea and Japan
(cf. Crane 1999: 13-14) (fig. 28). This species seems to have been
present as far northwest as the Altai, where Wilhelm Radloff saw many
wild bees and heard native Turkic words used for 'bee' and 'honey'
(cf. Radloff 1865: 255-256; 1884, I: 367-368; G. J. Ramstedt in
Hämäläinen 1935: 34; Linnus 1939: 244-245). According to Juha Janhunen
(pers. comm.), the Proto-Turkic form of the word recorded for 'bee' is
to be reconstructed as *(x)aryg/(x)a:ryg (possibly < *paryg/pa:ryg);
its etymology is debated, but according to Sevortyan (1974: 186-187)
-and Janhunen - it is not excluded that it is related to Sanskrit alí-
'bee'. The Turkic word for 'honey', bal/ba:l (attested since the 11th
century), and Mongolian bal 'honey, wax' (borrowed from Turkic), are
likewise usually considered to be Indo-European loanwords, Sanskrit
madhu and Avestan maðu being usually mentioned in this connection, for
Turkic did not distinguish between b- and m- (cf. Räsänen 1969: 59a;
Mayrhofer 1956-80, IT. 571; 1992-2001, II: 302-303; Clauson 1973: 330;
Joki 1973: 284; Sevortyan 1974: 47). These words are, however, also
compared to Korean bel (beol in current transcription and pel in the
Yale system) < *pelV 'bee' and the related Japanese hachi < *pati
'bee', written with the character for Chinese feng 'bee', all these
undoubtedly referring to Apis cerana. According to the Japanese
chronicle Nihon-shoki, four crates of honeybees were sent in AD 647
from Kudana (Paekcho) in Korea to be kept at Miwa-yama in Japan (cf.
Martin 1987: 401). Chinese mi < myit < *myit/*mit 'honey' is generally
connected with Tocharian B mit 'honey' < Proto-Tocharian *m´e^t <
Proto-Indo-European *medhu (cf. Lubotsky 1998: 379).
Tree bee-keeping is one of the oldest methods of exploiting Apis
mellifera. Tree bee-keeping is supposed to have developed early in the
area of the Oka, mid-Volga and lower Kama - areas long inhabited by
Finno-Ugric speaking peoples. This zone has had rich deciduous forests
with broad-leaved trees which shed their leaves before winter; the
leaves foster the growth of herbs and shrubs, which together with the
flowers of the trees provide forage for honey bees. This region has
been particularly rich in limes, the flowers of which were the
principal source of honey here; it remained the most important area of
tree beekeeping until the early 1900s, when the bee forests largely
disappeared. Besides the limes and other flowering trees, the cool
temperate deciduous forests of Europe had big oaks that develop large
and long-lasting cavities for the bees to nest in (the bees prefer
cavities having a volume around 50 litres). Large pines and spruces
enabled tree bee-keeping also in such coniferous forests of northern
Europe that were not too cold in the winter and had enough forage for
the bees, especially in northern Russia, in the Baltic region and in
Poland and east Germany. (Crane 1999: 62; 127.)
The natural habitat of the oak (Quercus robur) (fig. 29) and the lime
(Tilia cordata) (fig. 30), which have been the most important trees
for tree bee-keeping in central Russia, grow in Europe as far east as
the southern Urals (60° E). Today, Quercus robur is not found in
Siberia at all (cf. Hultén & Fries 1986, I: 315, map 630 & HI: 1031;
Meusel, Jäger & Weinert 1965: 463; Sokolov, Svyazeva & Kubli 1977:
122-125; Menitskij 1984: 43-45), but there are scattered occurrences
of Tilia cordata in western Siberia (fig. 30) (where it grows in the
spruce taiga, but also in forests mixed with the pine; cf. Hultén &
Fries 1986, II: 651, map 1301; Meusel et al. 1978: 284). According to
palynological investigations (cf. Huntley & Birks 1983: 391-410; Lang
1994: 109, 116 and fig. 4.3.2-1/22, 43, 4.3.2-8/22, 4.3.2-16/43;
Velichko, Andreev & Klimanov 1997: 87) the lime spread to Central
Russia from the (south)west in the early Boreal period (c. 8150-6900
calBC). In the favourable Atlantic conditions (c. 6900-3800 calBC),
the spread of Tilia cordata continued to western Siberia, but in the
unfavourable conditions of the Subboreal period (c. 3800-600 calBC)
a considerable reduction of elements of broad-leaved forests is seen
east of the Urals leaving isolated occurrences at some favourable
spots. The disjunct distribution of another species, Tilia sibirica,
is found between the upper Syr Darya and the upper Yenisei (fig. 30).
(Cf. Hultén & Fries 1986, II: 651, map 1301 [= our fig. 31] & III:
1091; Meusel et al. 1978: 284.) In any case, the scattered isolated
occurrences of the lime in western Siberia cannot be compared with the
dense lime forests that have long existed in central Russia, and the
Siberian limes can hardly have provided a basis for prehistoric
bee-keeping.
'Bee' or 'honey' are not among the meanings of those c. 700 words that
are found in at least one language of both the northern and the
southern group of the Samoyedic languages and can thus be
reconstructed for Proto-Samoyedic (cf. Janhunen 1977). It is possible
that Pre-Proto-Samoyedic did inherit these words from
Proto-Finno-Ugric (from which they seem to have departed), but lost
them in Siberia, because bee and honey did not exist there. There are
indeed no old words for 'bee' in Samoyedic languages: Kamassian
pineküB 'bee' literally means 'searching wasp'. In Nenets there are
four words for 'honey', but one is a native neologism literally
meaning 'good-tasting water' and three are relatively recent loans: ma
< Komi ma, m´a:B< Khanty mav, m´oð/m´ot < Russian mëd (cf. Joki 1973:
284-285).
Tree bee-keeping is to be distinguished from honey hunting, in which
honey is simply stolen and bees may be killed, and from the later hive
beekeeping, which started in forest areas in the 12th century when
trees were cut down on land taken for agriculture. Climbing the tree
unaided or with the help of rope, footholds or ladder, the beekeeper
on his frequent rounds tended the bee nests located either in natural
tree cavities or in holes that he himself had made with axe and
chisel. In either case, an upright rectangular opening to the cavity
was made and furnished with a removable two-part door having small
flight entrances for the bees. The entrances and the inner surfaces
were kept clean, and the nest was protected against bears, woodpeckers
and thieves. (Fig. 31.) During winter, all openings but one were
closed and straw was tied around the trunk to insulate it. The
honeycombs were harvested in spring (which is the main flowering
season) and at the end of summer; with the help of smoke put into the
nest, the bees were kept in the upper part, while the honeycombs were
taken with a wooden ladle from the lower part; something was left for
the bees. The Mari traditionally did this at full moon, with prayers
said at each stage of the operation and addressed to the Great God,
God of Heaven, God of Bees, Mother of Plenty, and so on. (Hämäläinen
1909; 1934; 1935; 1937; Linnus 1939; 1940; Jewsewjew 1974; Crane 1999:
127-135; Pekkarinen 2000.)
Old Russian historical records tell that by AD 1000 or earlier, the
aristocracy and monasteries owned many and often large bee woods (with
100-500 tree cavities, but only some 10-20 occupied at a time). These
were looked after by a special class of peasants called bortnik, who
could also own bee trees (usually between 100 and 200), but had to pay
the landlord a rent. Cut ownership marks were put on the trees,
sometimes on the back wall of the cavity. Large amounts of honey and
beeswax were produced in Russia, and the honey was both eaten and used
for making mead. The aristocracy needed mead for its parties in large
quantities. At a seven-day feast held in AD 996 to celebrate the
Russian victory over the Turks, 300 large wooden tubs or about 5000
litres of mead was drunk. Bee-keeping declined in the late 17th
century as Tsar Peter the Great imposed a tax on bee-keeping income
and founded a sugar industry. This reduced the demand for honey, and
vodka and wine were produced instead of mead, which until then had
been the usual alcoholic drink in Russia. Conditions improved again
when Catherine the Great abolished all taxes on bee-keeping: in 1800,
there were 50 million beehives in the Russian Empire. (Crane 1999: 63,
129-135, 232-233, 515; Pekkarinen 2000.)
For the Proto-Indo-Europeans, too, honey (*medhu) was important as the
source of mead, which was also called *medhu: this original meaning is
preserved in the Celtic, Germanic and Baltic cognates, while the Greek
cognate méthu has come to denote another alcoholic drink, wine, and
Sanskrit mádhu in Vedic texts usually denotes the honey-sweetened
variety of the sacred Soma drink, and in later Indian texts often wine
(grown in, and imported from, Afghanistan). The ancient Aryans,
however, also drank some kind of mead, for according to the Vedic
manuals, an honoured guest had to be received by offering him a drink
mixed with honey (madhu-parka or madhu-mantha, cf. e.g. Kaus´ikasu:tra
90). Moreover, the Greek lexicographer Hesychios mentions melítion
(from Greek méli gen. mélitos 'honey') as 'a Scythian drink'. The
Ossetes of the Caucasus, descended from the Scythians, are said to
have worshipped a bee goddess (Crane 1999: 602); Ossetic mid/mud has
preserved the meaning 'honey', while Avestan maðu, Sogdian mðw and
Modern Persian mai mean 'wine'.
In the Vedic religion, madhu as a cultic drink was connected with the
As´vins, the divine twins 'possessing horses', who function as
charioteers and saviours from mortal danger (cf. e.g. Atharva-Veda
9,1). The S´atapatha-Bra:hman.a (14,1,1) relates a myth in which the
As´vins leam the secret "knowledge of the madhu" which enables its
possessor the revive a dead person. They learn it from the demon
Dadhyañc, whom the god Indra had forbidden to reveal the secret to
anyone, threatening to cut off the head of the offender. The As´vins,
however, promised to revive Dadhyañc after he had taught them the
secret, and replaced the head of their teacher with the head of a
horse. After Indra in punishment had cut off Dadhyanc's horse head,
the As´vins replaced it with the original one and revived him. This
myth seems to be connected with an earlier form of the Vedic horse
sacrifice, in which a young warrior and a horse were beheaded, and
their heads swapped in a ritual of "revival" (cf. Parpola 1983: 62-63).
The Vedic tradition seems to have a predecessor in the mid-Volga
region in the beginning of the second millennium BC: a grave belonging
to the Potapovka culture which succeeded the Abashevo culture and
possessed the horse-drawn chariot, was found to contain a skeleton
which was otherwise human except for the skull which belonged to a
horse (cf. Vasil'ev, Kuznetsov & Semënova 1994: 115, fig. 11; cf.
Anthony & Vinogradov 1995). Sulimirski (1970: 295) quotes some
evidence for human sacrifice accompanied by beheaded calves and burnt
cows from an Abashevo culture site in the southern Urals. There may be
a reminiscence of this ancient Aryan tradition in the Finnish folk
poetry incorporated in the Kalevala, where the mother of the slain
hero Lemminkäinen with the help of the bee and honey revives the body
of her son, who has been cut into pieces. (Cf. Parpola 1999: 201.)
Proto-Finno-Ugric *mete 'honey' is formed like Uralic *wete 'water',
which (along with the similar Uralic word *nime 'name' and
Proto-Finno-Ugric *sixne 'sinew') has always been considered to be
among the oldest Indo-European loanwords (cf. e.g. Hajdú 1987: 300;
Koivulehto 1999a: 209-210). Perhaps they were borrowed together with
the earliest Uralic word for 'pot', *pata, when the ancestors of the
later Proto-Uralic speakers learnt the technique of pottery making and
the process of making mead or honey-beer from their southern
neighbours, ancestors of the later Proto-Indo-Europeans. This would
have taken place with the appearance of the earliest ceramics in the
forest region of eastern Europe, c. 6000 BC (fig. 5). Unless the
reward was something very desirable, like storing honey that
constituted a very valuable food resource or social celebrations with
an alcoholic drink made of honey, it is difficult to understand what
could have induced hunter-gatherers - not practising agriculture - to
make enormous pots that were difficult to move. It could also explain
why such a basic word as 'water' would have been borrowed. However,
with the arrival of the Aryan speakers of the Abashevo culture,
honey-keeping apparently became more effectively organised. The bronze
axes and adzes of the Abashevo culture were undoubtedly used in tree
bee-keeping, to prepare new nests for captured bee-swarms and to
maintain and protect them.
"
and they go with just as interesting stuff on beeswax, etc, which I'll
leave out, so that this post won't be too long.
Does this help answer your question?
Torsten