This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Theories about the culture are based primarily on linguistics and not ethnic, social, or cultural study. There is no direct evidence of the nature of a "Proto-Indo-European society", as such. Any conclusions in this article or otherwise are only inferences, and not established facts.
Much of our modern ideas in this field involve the unsettled Indo-European homeland debate about the precise origins of the language itself. There are three main approaches researchers have employed in their attempts to study this culture, but all are subject to resolution of the debate and all are the subject of criticism:
- Archeology: Interpretations that are based on archaeological evidence.
- Comparative linguistics: Interpretations that are based on the comparative analysis of the languages of historically known societies (see Trifunctional hypothesis).
- Linguistic reconstruction: Interpretations that are based on the reconstruction and identification of words (those cited *thus on this page, with a preceding asterisk) which formed part of the vocabulary of the Proto-Indo-European language. These are reconstructed on the basis of sounds, not meaning. Exactly what these terms may have referred to at the stage of Proto-Indo-European is therefore less certain. The technique of inferring culture from such reconstructions is known as linguistic palaeontology.
What follows in this page are interpretations based only on the assumption of the Kurgan hypothesis of Indo-European origins, and are by no means universally accepted.
Whether these people regarded themselves as a linguistic or ethnic community cannot be known, nor by which name they may have referred to themselves.
Linguistics has allowed the reliable reconstruction of a large number of words relating to kinship relations. These all agree in exhibiting a patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social fabric. Patrilocality is confirmed by lexical evidence, including the word *h2u̯edh, "to lead (away)", being the word that denotes a male wedding a female (but not vice versa). It is also the dominant pattern in historical IE societies, and matrilocality would be unlikely in a patrilineal society.
Inferences have been made for sacral kingship, suggesting the tribal chief at the same time assumed the role of high priest. Georges Dumézil suggested for Proto-Indo-European society a threefold division of a clerical class, a warrior class and a class of farmers or husbandmen, on his interpretations that many historically known groups speaking Indo-European languages show such a division, but Dumézil's approach has been widely criticised.
If there was a separate class of warriors, it probably consisted of single young men. They would have followed a separate warrior code unacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces of initiation rites in several Indo-European societies (e.g. early Slav, Volcae, Neuri and their lupine ritualism) suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs (see Berserker, Werewolf, Wild Hunt).
The people were organized in settlements (*weiḱs; Sanskrit viś, Polish wieś "village"; Ancient Greek woikos "home"; Latin vicus), probably each with its chief (*h₃rēǵs—Sanskrit rājan, Latin rex, reg-, Gaulish -riks). These settlements or villages were further divided in households (*domos; Latin domus, Polish dom), each headed by a patriarch (*dems-potis; Ancient Greek despotes, Sanskrit dampati, Polish pan domu).
Technologically, linguistic reconstruction suggests a culture of the Bronze Age: words for bronze can be reconstructed (*h₂éyos) from Germanic, Italic and Indo-Iranian, while no word for iron can be dated to the proto-language. Gold and silver were known.
An *n̥sis (Vedic Sanskrit así, Latin ensis) was a bladed weapon, originally a dagger of bronze or (in earliest times) of bone. An *iḱmos was a spear or similar pointed weapon. Words for axe include *h₂égʷsih₂ (Germanic, Greek, Italic) and *péleḱu- (Vedic Sanskrit paraśú, Greek pélekus); these could have been either of stone or of bronze.
The wheel (*kʷékʷlos – Vedic Sanskrit cakrá, Greek kúklos, Old English hweol, Serbo-Croatian kolo; or *róth₂eh₂ – Vedic Sanskrit rathá, German Rad, Latin rota, Romanian roata) was known, certainly for ox-drawn carts. The wheel was probably not invented by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the word *kʷékʷlos is a native derivation of the root *kʷel- "to turn" rather than a borrowing, suggesting that the PIE speakers' contact with the people who introduced the wheel to them was short. Horse-drawn chariots developed after the breakup of the proto-language, originating with the Proto-Indo-Iranians around 2000 BC.
Proto-Indo-European society depended on animal husbandry. People valued cattle (*péḱu – Vedic Sanskrit páśu, Latin pecu- *gʷōus – Sanskrit go, Latin bo-) as their most important animals, measuring a man's wealth by the number of cows he owned (Latin pecunia 'money' from pecus). Sheep (*h₃ówis) and goats (*gʰáidos) were also kept, presumably by the less wealthy. Agriculture and catching fish (*písḱos) also featured.[original research?]
The domestication of the horse (*h₁eḱuos – Vedic Sanskrit áśvas, Latin equus, Greek hippos) (see Tarpan) may have originated with these peoples: scholars sometimes invoke this as a factor contributing to their rapid expansion.
Ritual and sacrificeEdit
Animals were slaughtered (*gʷʰn̥tós) and dedicated to the gods (*déiwos) in the hope of winning their favour. The king as the high priest would have been the central figure in establishing favourable relations with the other world.
The Kurgan hypothesis suggests burials in barrows or tomb chambers. Important leaders would have been buried with their belongings, and possibly also with members of their household or wives (sati). The practice of human sacrifice is inferred from the Luhansk sacrificial site.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (January 2017)
The use of two-word compound words for personal names, typically but not always ascribing some noble or heroic feat to their bearer, is so common in Indo-European languages that it seems certainly inherited. These names are often of the class of compound words that in Sanskrit are called bahuvrihi compounds.
They are found in the Celtic region (Dumnorix: "king of the world"), in Indo-Aryan (Asvaghosa: "tamer of horses"); in Iranian (Vishtaspa: "possessing horses untied (for racing)"); in Hellenic (Socrates: "good ruler"); in Slavic (Vladimir: "ruler of the world"); in Germanic (Godgifu: "gift of God"), and in Anatolian (Piyama-Radu: "gift of the devotee?").
Patronymics such as Gustafsson ("son of Gustaf"), Rostamzadeh ("son of Rostam"), Yusufzai ("son of Yusuf"), Hakopian ("son of Hakop"), and MacDòmhnaill ("son of Donald") are also frequently encountered in Indo-European languages.
Some words connected with PIE world-view:
- *gʰosti- concerned mutual obligations between people and between worshippers and gods, and from which guest and host are derived.
- *h₁r̥-tu-, *h₁r̥-to-, a cosmic and social theme and idea expressive of the "right order of (ontic) being": that which is both cosmically, ethically and socially "fitting, right, ordered"; also, "right time, ritually correct", revealing the deeper harmony and order of worldly existence (Avestan asha, Vedic Sanskrit ṛta-, ṛtu-, Latin rītus, etc. )
- Mallory, J. P.; Adams, Douglas Q., eds. (1997). "Residence". Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Taylor & Francis. p. 483.
- Anthony, David W. (2010). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. pp. 30–31.
- Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 16–44. ISBN 1-4051-0316-7.
- Stüber, Karin (2007). "Die Stellung der Frau: Spuren indogermanischer Gesellschaftsordnung in der Sprache". In Schärer, K. Spuren lesen. Chronos. pp. 97–115. ISBN 978-3-0340-0879-2. (in German)