Jean:
>Clearly, no one in the Neolithic had up-to-date astronomical
>knowledge. Planets might, however, have attracted particular
>attention because of their resemblance to stars that, unlike the fixed
>stars, followed the plane of the ecliptic.
Yes, planets would be observably different from stars not only
because they "wandered", but because they also tend to be
brighter. You don't need to know anything about the "ecliptic"
to see this.
>I think that the statements that you make about �common sense�
>observation perhaps don�t take the fullest account of some other
>evidence and theories about perceptions in the Neolithic and
>perhaps even earlier eras.
Perhaps, but without support with the existing data, idle
conjecture doesn't help us much.
>This view is based on straightforward observation, certainly.
>However, what am I trying to say is that there might have been other, more
>complex, perceptions of the way in which the
>cosmos worked.
Of course there could have been and likely were, but what
would those "other perceptions" be? You have this pattern of
introducing idle conjecture to blur the focus. The basis for
the world-view I mentioned is very much present in later
mythologies from the area in question and appears to be the
most significant world-view by far. If you can find others in
these mythologies, be my guest.
Although, I do sense an underlying dual opposition between
earth and sky in Indo-European mythology that seems to merge
with the tripartite world-view. I think, for example, of the
brother rivalry between *Manus and *Yemos, the latter of
which was killed by *Manus and which I identify as the god of
the earth and ultimately of the dead who are buried in the
earth afterall.
So, if *Yemos is the earth, who is *Manus supposed to be?
Although I think he is meant to be the "first man", our
not-so-perfect ancestor who commits a tragic sin, I have a
feeling that he has a special link with the sky. Hence the
dual opposition idea.
>Perhaps I have misunderstood the argument, [...] But the point
>about the myths of *Manu and *Yemo, and Osiris and Seth, was that they were
>twins, one of whom killed the other, who then became the first ruler of the
>kingdom of the dead. I�m not quite sure what either duo would have to do
>with Ygddrasil�s eagle and serpent.
There isn't a direct link but it's still there. As I just said,
*Manus and *Yemos may in fact represent a dual contrast --
either between sky and earth or between sky and underworld.
With the Norse mythology, the eagle atop Yggdrasil represents
the sky and the serpent represents the waters below -- the
overworld and the underworld. This parallels the brother
rivalry story, even down to the squirrel that messages the
quarrels of the two animals back and forth up and down the tree
between the two enemies. The eagle and the serpent are also
rivals, like *Manus and *Yemos.
>I don�t accept your interpretation � but I think we�re just
>going to have to agree to differ on this one!
But what is _your_ interpretation? And again, why exactly do
you not accept it when you admit that it makes sense??? What
on earth are you looking for?
>This is a point that I admit I hadn�t fully appreciated before.
>I would have thought that they were all thin.
It all would depend on how abundant their food sources are. If
they were on the edge of starvation, then no, I guess there
would be no fat people because they'd be too busy dying off.
But I've never heard of a healthy society void of adipose
tissue. Fat has so many biological uses from heat insulation
to providing energy during tough times.
>I can see the reasoning behind your arguments - some of them,
>at any rate - but I don't think that they necessarily fit every case. Some
>traditions, for example, had it that the world was born of a cosmic egg.
Oh, Jean, sometimes I wish I could beat you over the head with
a big rubber chicken. The cosmic egg motif is _related_ to
the world-view that I just illustrated. You remember that I
said that the very original concept was a goddess giving
birth to the universe. The very reason why she is female is
for the fact that women give birth, not men. (Thank god! I
have enough trouble with constipation let alone labour!)
This is where the identification of the Goddess as a female
bird comes in. Rather than a human woman giving birth to a
baby cosmos, we have a bird giving birth to an egg, and the
egg becomes the representation of the cosmos. Of course,
you'll be asking why she is identified with the bird -- but
the answer is simple. The bird represents the sky, as I've
said a million times before.
Here is the original creation story that went along with
the "egg" motif:
In the beginning, there was only Darkness (symbolized
as a large female black bird) flying forever over the
primordial waters. She had nowhere to perch because
there was as yet no land. So she gave birth to an egg
and when the egg hatched, a great tree grew from it.
As it grew, it seperated the sky from the waters.
Now the great Goddess could rest upon its branches.
Now it makes sense why God "rests" on the seventh day after
creating so much stuff. God is a bird and he just wanted that
Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad to himself to perch
on! Gee, God is a bird and that serpent is Satan... hmm, I
sense more dual opposition :)
Now technically, the Goddess, the bird and the tree are all
derived from the same source in the above creation tale I
outlined. However, the egg motif is just a modified version
of the original Creatrix idea. If I recall, representations
of eggs came at a later time anyways, or are there eggs that
predate the neolithic?
- gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus