Re: raj / rex

Arnaud,

Your obsession with Damezil is harmful to your own(academic) health, if you are left out with some.

Kings need not be warriors always except in some warrior tribes.

For e.g, in some African tribes (and perhaps, in some European tribes too, which will make it relevant for our discussions), it is the priest who performed the royal functions too.

He never led the wars (mostly cattle raids).

Kishore patnaik

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Arnaud Fournet <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] raj / rex

>

> On 2008-11-14 12:05, kishore patnaik wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that kingship was known to PIE speakers or not?
>
> It depends on what you understand by "kingship". It a tribal chief with
> a few hundred "subjects" a king? Was the tyrant of an ancient Greek
> city-state a king? We often call them "kings" for convenience, simply
> because there is no universally recognised definition of monarchy.
>
> Piotr
>
=============

It can be added that in the tri-partite system of Dumezil in Priests,
Warriors and Producers,
"kings" appear to be a sub-class of Warriors.
This suggest that leaders (who must have existed in a way or another) were
not identified as a specific social class or activity in the PIE society
that created (or inherited) that system of thought.

A.