John:
>Heracles originally was the spouse and consort of Hera (as his name
>suggests).
His name doesn't suggest much at all. Hera-kle:s means "glory of Hera" (the
etymology ends with Greek) and if we stick to the Greek Heracles story, this
seems to refer to the later peace-making of Hera with her tortured half-son
in the afterlife. I doubt that Hera as the mother of all gods, consort of
Zeus could have two husbands and we don't find mention of the "glory of
Hera" or any equivalent elsewhere. I also doubt that Hera was ultimately the
adultering type since Zeus, the (pro)creative aspect of the couple, played
that role well. In the end, Hera as consort is a counterintuitive idea,
although interesting.
>He is the immortal of a twin brother, Iphicles was mortal, Heracles
> >immortal.
Mental note: Must look up Iphicles...
John in response to Joao about Gilgamesh -> Heracles, Ulysses:
>All of the Greek myths contain blendings. No such thing as *pure* IE
>myth in the Greco-Roman world. They were overlain with many aspects
>(and underlain with Old European myths too).
Don't I know it. However, if the Heracles saga is repeated in other IE myths
like the great Indra and IE mythologists have this overwhelming urge to
reconstruct personnages like the mortal hero *Trito whose story serves the
same exact function as that of Heracles and Aptya Trita, I doubt we're
simply dealing with a late Greek-only borrowing from the MiddleEast.
However, in the end, what makes this problem so diabolically evil is the
likelihood that there is no such thing as *pure* IE myth itself, as it all
must surely derive from the MiddleEast whether during Greek times or in
prehistory.
I stated to Joao to illustrate the twin myth:
>>Then all of a sudden when *Yemos isn't looking, *Manus takes his bow and
>>arrow, shoots his brother in the heart and then slices him >>up into three
>>or more pieces. This is the standard IE myth about >>our rivaling
>>brothers.
John becomes inquisitive:
>Why three pieces Glen. Usually it is two, one becoming the arch of
>the sky, the other becoming the ground beneath. This is what
>happened to Norse Ymir.
Actually, _three_ pieces show up in the rituals of the Horse-Mead festival.
The Horse-Mead ritual survived in Celtic, Roman and IndoIranian ritual. Each
piece is for a caste. Check out my reconstructed myth at:
http://glen-gordon.tripod.com/LANGUAGE/NOSTRATIC/STEPPE/indoeur_creationmyth.html
It shows how the connection between castes and *Yemos the earth
(symbolically represented as a horse) might have worked. I know you were
having trouble seeing my site before (no doubt because of the damn Tripod
pop-up ad that sometimes wreaks havoc with Netscape) but I can give you a
copy by email, if necessary.
>This is not just an Indo European myth. It is part of the Ur-Kultur
>that spread with Neolithic cultures, as the story of Cain and Abel
>also shows.
I agree with you. Pretty much anything more than *Dye:us is not original to
the Early IE peoples.
In response to Joao's disbelief, John adds:
>Heracles was originally not human. He was a divine figure (consort
>of the Goddess), down graded to Human status when Zeus displaced him
>in Hera's bed. The Labours originally were linked originally to a
>descent and return to the underword a la Tammuz.
The "descent and return to the underworld a la Tammuz" idea is very
interesting but I don't think that this is the ultimate reason for the
labours if it's connectable to *Manus and his crime.
Joao:
>Let's see what are the *Manus reflexes in IE people...
>Greece: Minos(?), Minyas(?), Deukalion(?)
>Roma: Romulus-Quirinus
>Germania: Mannuz
>India: Manu, Yama
>Phrygia: Manes
>Celts: Donn ?, Sucellos?, Gaulish "Dis Pater"
You see! I didn't just make *Manus up. Mallory mentions it. Tell Mallory
he's wrong then. There ARE reflexes as you can see. Other names have been
replaced with others as is often the case in mythology.
John:
>The extant IndoEuropean mythos was a mixing together of many such
>elements. To disagreegate them is extremely difficult.
But not hopeless and impossible. That would be self-defeatist.
Joao:
>Maybe you re confusing IE and Sumerian myths.
They are related myths.
John:
>IE myths from very early on, and certainly from the time that they
>have come down to us all have Sumerian elements. The confusion is
>early (but possibly after the split with Anatolian, as they do not
>seem to have the pattern that the others have.
First, what pattern do you speak of, John?
Second, the prehistoric Sumerians are not the originators of anything. Let's
try to accept this once and for all. The Sumerian civilisation, both
mythologically and agriculturally, is the result of the innovations
affecting the _entire_ Middle-East. Likewise, we do not find Sumerian
loanwords in IE because the prehistoric Sumerians didn't have any clout nor
did they make large-scale, long-distance treks across to the Mediterranean!
They were peasants digging in the dirt, that's it.
Our imaginative little minds would like to pretend that the Sumerians were
advanced cultures gaining their knowledge from fish-headed extraterrestrials
on a vacation from Sirius all in order to satisfy our pathetic need to give
our humanity a glorious and exotic past at the expense of common sense, but
there is no rational basis for the assumption that the prehistoric Sumerians
were at the heart of anything and never will be. Let's all just please agree
on this, 'kay?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com