The Indo-European caste system

IronSide

IronSide

Elite member
Messages
883
Reaction score
279
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
I2c2
mtDNA haplogroup
T2e1
All Indo-European cultures had three castes :

1-Priests
2-Warriors/Nobles
3-Farmers/Tradesmen/Commoners

Examples of the Indo-European castes:

  • Indo-Iranian – Brahmin/Athravan, Kshatriyas/Rathaestar, Vaishyas
  • Roman – Flamines, Milites, Quirites
  • Celtic – Druids, Equites, Plebes
  • Anglo-Saxon – Gebedmen (prayer-men), Fyrdmen (army-men), Weorcmen (workmen)
  • Slavic – Volkhvs, Voin, Krestyanin/Smerd
  • Nordic – Earl, Churl, Thrall
  • Greece (Attica) – Eupatridae, Geomori, Demiurgi
  • Greece (Sparta) – Homoioi, Perioeci, Helots

The situation in Gaul was so severe and is documented by Caesar in his "Gallic Wars" http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Gallic_War/6B*.html

"Throughout Gaul there are two classes of persons of definite account and dignity. As for the common folk, they are treated almost as slaves, venturing naught of themselves, never taken into counsel. The more part of them, oppressed as they are either by debt, or by the heavy weight of tribute, or by the wrongdoing of the more powerful men, commit themselves in slavery to the nobles, who have, in fact, the same rights over them as masters over slaves. Of the two classes above mentioned one consists of Druids, the other of knights."

I would definitely not want to be a peasant.
 
I think you overthinking it, every bigger group of people have similar structure. You always have rulers and priests as an elite, and many commoners to follow. In much bigger group you will see a warrior class, peasants and even slaves.
It is not unique to IEs. You will have a hard time to find ancient or historical society who didn't have similar structure. Check China, Japan, Aztec, Inca, Zulu, Babylon, etc.

I think india is a special situation with its very defined caste system.
 
LeBrok said:
I think you overthinking it, every bigger group of people have similar structure. You always have rulers and priests as an elite, and many commoners to follow. In much bigger group you will see a warrior class, peasants and even slaves.
It is not unique to IEs. You will have a hard time to find ancient or historical society who didn't have similar structure. Check China, Japan, Aztec, Inca, Zulu, Babylon, etc.

I think india is a special situation with its very defined caste system.
Click to expand...

Sure, certainly not unique to the IE's, I dont have to look too far, if you live here you can have a complete package of nobles, priests, and commoners even in the 21st century.

What made the IE's stand out in their caste system is that they were conquerors, in the case of Japan, China, Inca etc there was racial homogeneity in their upper and lower castes, to some degree, while the IE's conquests caused many conquered peoples to become the lower caste of a new society where the conquerors were at the top. Very dramatic.

Imagine if the IE migrations never took place, it would make a good alternative history novel.
 
IronSide said:
Sure, certainly not unique to the IE's, I dont have to look too far, if you live here you can have a complete package of nobles, priests, and commoners even in the 21st century.

What made the IE's stand out in their caste system is that they were conquerors, in the case of Japan, China, Inca etc there was racial homogeneity in their upper and lower castes, to some degree, while the IE's conquests caused many conquered peoples to become the lower caste of a new society where the conquerors were at the top. Very dramatic.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, it is because nobody conquered India since, or when did like English, they didn't change internal structure of this country. In Europe on other hand there were so many changes in populations, languages, religions and ruling classes since that the castes had never put long roots. Granted, they were the idea of IEs. In India we have a possibility of castes existing in same blood lines for 3 thousand years. Perhaps, it is a function of dense population that brings more stability to the region and strong continuation of traditions?

Imagine if the IE migrations never took place, it would make a good alternative history novel.
Click to expand...
Europe would speak Turkish, Tatar or Mongolian languages and most likely be Muslim..., and be proud of it. ;)
 
Not only,

Hettits did not have genders, in their grammar, but had a strange form of superior and inferior in their grammar.

but for Sparta I keep precautions,
cause neither perioikoi, neither Eilotes were Spartnans,
but Eforoi were, Εφοροι.
 
LeBrok said:
Perhaps, it is because nobody conquered India since, or when did like English, they didn't change internal structure of this country. In Europe on other hand there were so many changes in populations, languages, religions and ruling classes since that the castes had never put long roots. Granted, they were the idea of IEs. In India we have a possibility of castes existing in same blood lines for 3 thousand years. Perhaps, it is a function of dense population that brings more stability to the region and strong continuation of traditions?

Europe would speak Turkish, Tatar or Mongolian languages and most likely be Muslim..., and be proud of it. ;)
Click to expand...

the Mogols conquered India before the English
 
LeBrok said:
Europe would speak Turkish, Tatar or Mongolian languages and most likely be Muslim..., and be proud of it. ;)
Click to expand...

heh ;) I doubt that, Islam borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism, which is Indo-European, if the IE migrations never happened, Islam never happened, we would probably be Shamans or still worship Baal or Marduk. If the IE migrations never happened, western Europe would speak Vasconic, Italy would be called Etruscea, Anatolia would speak Hattic and Hurrian, Iran will be Elam, and the Minoans would still rule Greece, and more importantly, the world would have been less blonde, and less beautiful ;(
 
There we go again. Standards of beauty are subjective, as is the choice of with which ancient civilizations we choose to identify. I personally identify a heck of a lot more with ancient Crete and Etruria than than with the "Indo-Europeans" of the steppe. I also happen to think that going by the art the people of Crete and Etruria were far more attractive than the people of the steppe, at least if one goes by the reconstructions. In fact, the latter are quite ugly going by my subjective standards: very brutal faced with crude and massive facial bones.

e6a63e48713a7993570a4f3da2b86071.jpg


She was nicknamed "Le Parisienne" by the archaeologists.

But hey, I'm not telling you what to like. Whatever floats your boat, as they say.

It is interesting how you reveal what is actually behind some of this fascination for some people with the Indo-Europeans. It's a pity that so much of the discussion is actually motivated by these kinds of opinions, because the Indo-European languages and their spread is actually an interesting puzzle in its own right, and deserves more objective treatment.
 
Last edited:
Another example of Indo-European class struggle in Sparta:

The Helots were the lowest caste in Spartan society, they were originally natives to the Peloponnese, inhabiting the regions of Laconia and Messenia, after being defeated by the Spartans in battle, they were enslaved and forced to work the land to support the Spartan citizens, according to Myron of Priene, an anti-Spartan historian of the 3rd century BC :

"They assign to the Helots every shameful task leading to disgrace. For they ordained that each one of them must wear a dogskin cap (κυνῆ / kunễ) and wrap himself in skins (διφθέρα / diphthéra) and receive a stipulated number of beatings every year regardless of any wrongdoing, so that they would never forget they were slaves. Moreover, if any exceeded the vigour proper to a slave's condition, they made death the penalty; and they allotted a punishment to those controlling them if they failed."

Also according to Myron of Priene, 2,000 helots were massacred in 425 BC in a carefully staged event:

"The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished." This reminds me of the 2005 movie "the island"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#System
 
Angela said:
It is interesting how you reveal what is actually behind some of this fascination for some people with the Indo-Europeans. It's a pity that so much of the discussion is actually motivated by these kinds of opinions, because the Indo-European languages and their spread is actually an interesting puzzle in its own right, and deserves more objective treatment.
Click to expand...

Dear Angela, relax, I was just being sarcastic.
 
IronSide said:
Dear Angela, relax, I was just being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Well, in my defense, you're new here and we've recently been invaded by a lot of, shall we say, questionable refugees from various anthrofora, and I'm without the means or the power to do "extreme vetting". :)

Plus, I thought my post was rather good humored. I guess I'll have to work on that.

I do think you're overstating your main point here. The Indo-Europeans didn't invent the stratification of society. I'm sure there was stratification in hunter-gatherer societies (war chief, whoever was in control of ritual etc.), farming societies once the population was large enough and some had more surplus to trade, and especially when there was trade in prestige items, starting with obsidian, perhaps, and certainly increasing with metallurgy, and especially the trade in prestige metal products.

There was already stratification in Copper Age societies in the Near East, and beginning in "Old Europe". If I must I'll spend time at some point hunting out all the papers that we've already posted here.

Nor is violence something practiced only by the Indo-Europeans. Contrary to what Gimbutas thought there was a lot of violence in MN Europe as scarcity took hold, probably from climate change or environmental damage.

As for oppressing invaded peoples, especially the men of local populations, that seems to be endemic to human history, no matter the group, unfortunately. Look at the Bantu expansion in Africa.

I don't understand why you think the Indo-European "caste" system is different in essence from things that went on before or after.
 
Angela said:
Well, in my defense, you're new here and we've recently been invaded by a lot of, shall we say, questionable refugees from various anthrofora, and I'm without the means or the power to do "extreme vetting". :)

Plus, I thought my post was rather good humored. I guess I'll have to work on that.

I do think you're overstating your main point here. The Indo-Europeans didn't invent the stratification of society. I'm sure there was stratification in hunter-gatherer societies (war chief, whoever was in control of ritual etc.), farming societies once the population was large enough and some had more surplus to trade, and especially when there was trade in prestige items, starting with obsidian, perhaps, and certainly increasing with metallurgy, and especially the trade in prestige metal products.

There was already stratification in Copper Age societies in the Near East, and beginning in "Old Europe". If I must I'll spend time at some point hunting out all the papers that we've already posted here.

Nor is violence something practiced only by the Indo-Europeans. Contrary to what Gimbutas thought there was a lot of violence in MN Europe as scarcity took hold, probably from climate change or environmental damage.

As for oppressing invaded peoples, especially the men of local populations, that seems to be endemic to human history, no matter the group, unfortunately. Look at the Bantu expansion in Africa.

I don't understand why you think the Indo-European "caste" system is different in essence from things that went on before or after.
Click to expand...

My lady, sorry if my presence annoyed you in any way. The Indo-European caste division was different I think because of it's scale and racial difference between its upper and lower castes.

The trifunctional hypothesis by French mythographer Georges Dumézil proposes that proto Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:

Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts:

  • one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly;
  • the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world.
Military, connected with force, the military and war.
Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two.

This division seems to be reflected in their deities, in Norse mythology, Odin, Thor, and Freyr form a triad that seems to correspond to the three functions of sovereignty, military, productivity.
220px-Three_kings_or_three_gods.jpg
from left to right, the one-eyed Odin, the hammer-wielding Thor and Freyr holding up wheat.

In Roman mythology, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus also formed a triad, even though in this case both Mars and Quirinus are associated with war and fertility, however Quirinus becomes associated more with being "civilian" while Mars keeps his military role.

Although such a distinction is implied in a few Roman passages, such as when Julius Caesar scornfully calls his soldiers quirites (“citizens”) rather than milites (“soldiers”), the word quirites had by this time been dissociated with the god Quirinus, and it is likely that Quirinus initially had an even more militaristic aspect than Mars, but that over time Mars, partially through synthesis with the Greek god Ares, became more warlike, while Quirinus became more domestic in connotation.

In Vedic religion the sovereign function was incarnated by Dyaus Pitar and later appeared split into its two aspects of uncanny and awe inspiring almighty power incarnated by Varuna and of source and guardian of justice and compacts incarnated by Mitra. Indra incarnated the military function and the twins Ashvins (or Nasatya) the function of production, wealth, fertility and pleasure. In human society the rajah and the class of the brahmin priests represented the first function (and enjoyed the highest dignity), the warrior class of the kshatriya represented the second function and the artisan and merchant class of the vaishya the third.

https://aratta.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/the-trifunctional-hypothesis-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifunctional_hypothesis
 
Las castas solo exiten en la india

La fusi?n entre la estepa y occidente europeo a dado lugar a un sistema europeo de estratos sociales que se aleja de las castas y que siempre han permitido mas o menos (seg?n el pa?s) cierta movilidad, el mundo cl?sico mediterr?neo, producto final de este mestizaje, ha permitido esto y es la base fundamental de no se si indo pero del inicio de lo europeo.
 
Last edited:
there is also very obvious racial difference between Bantoe and their Pygmee slaves

I don't know whether they have some gods to justify this too, but I wouldn't be surprised
 
IronSide said:
My lady, sorry if my presence annoyed you in any way. The Indo-European caste division was different I think because of it's scale and racial difference between its upper and lower castes.

The trifunctional hypothesis by French mythographer Georges Dumézil proposes that proto Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:

Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts:

  • one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly;
  • the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world.
Military, connected with force, the military and war.
Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two.

This division seems to be reflected in their deities, in Norse mythology, Odin, Thor, and Freyr form a triad that seems to correspond to the three functions of sovereignty, military, productivity.
View attachment 8480
from left to right, the one-eyed Odin, the hammer-wielding Thor and Freyr holding up wheat.

In Roman mythology, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus also formed a triad, even though in this case both Mars and Quirinus are associated with war and fertility, however Quirinus becomes associated more with being "civilian" while Mars keeps his military role.

Although such a distinction is implied in a few Roman passages, such as when Julius Caesar scornfully calls his soldiers quirites (“citizens”) rather than milites (“soldiers”), the word quirites had by this time been dissociated with the god Quirinus, and it is likely that Quirinus initially had an even more militaristic aspect than Mars, but that over time Mars, partially through synthesis with the Greek god Ares, became more warlike, while Quirinus became more domestic in connotation.

In Vedic religion the sovereign function was incarnated by Dyaus Pitar and later appeared split into its two aspects of uncanny and awe inspiring almighty power incarnated by Varuna and of source and guardian of justice and compacts incarnated by Mitra. Indra incarnated the military function and the twins Ashvins (or Nasatya) the function of production, wealth, fertility and pleasure. In human society the rajah and the class of the brahmin priests represented the first function (and enjoyed the highest dignity), the warrior class of the kshatriya represented the second function and the artisan and merchant class of the vaishya the third.

https://aratta.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/the-trifunctional-hypothesis-2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifunctional_hypothesis
Click to expand...

I'm not annoyed at all. You don't seem to be "one of the usual suspects". :)

As to the substance of your point, I'm still not convinced. As Bicicleur pointed out, there were substantial differences between the Bantu and the Pygmies, as there were between the Han like group and the Ainu like people in Japan. In all cases religion nicely justifies and sanctifies the taking of other people's lands and women.

Indeed, I think one could describe population genetics since the Holocene as one series after another of migrations leading to admixture between previously distant and isolated populations, leading to the rather small fst differences we see between many populations today.

Let's assume, however, for the sake of argument, that you're correct. What is the conclusion that we're supposed to draw? Is it that somehow this group of people is genetically, intrinsically, the most "racist" group in human history, and the most brutal? Do you really want to go there?
 
IronSide said:
Another example of Indo-European class struggle in Sparta:

The Helots were the lowest caste in Spartan society, they were originally natives to the Peloponnese, inhabiting the regions of Laconia and Messenia, after being defeated by the Spartans in battle, they were enslaved and forced to work the land to support the Spartan citizens, according to Myron of Priene, an anti-Spartan historian of the 3rd century BC :

"They assign to the Helots every shameful task leading to disgrace. For they ordained that each one of them must wear a dogskin cap (κυνῆ / kunễ) and wrap himself in skins (διφθέρα / diphthéra) and receive a stipulated number of beatings every year regardless of any wrongdoing, so that they would never forget they were slaves. Moreover, if any exceeded the vigour proper to a slave's condition, they made death the penalty; and they allotted a punishment to those controlling them if they failed."

Also according to Myron of Priene, 2,000 helots were massacred in 425 BC in a carefully staged event:

"The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished." This reminds me of the 2005 movie "the island"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots#System
Click to expand...


I already about Sparta, that Helots Ειλωτες were not Spartans, neither belong genetically linguistically to the same,
The Helots were Messenians, who wee forbiden to have military train or equipment,
they work the land, and give a % to Omoioi, but were protected by Spartans,

A Spartan would loose his life to protect a Helot and his crop/plantation, as easy as to kill one for fun at Krypteia.
but an EPHOR could easily kill an Helot even for no reason
in fact Krypteia were anounced by Ephoroi after the grain and grape production gathering
but an Helot was obliged to give % of his gathering/farming,
Simmilar style existed also with Arcadians, mainly the breeders, the Skiritae
Arcadians were allowed to have weapons, and fight, but not Beside Omoioi.
Both Helots and Arcadians were ruled or semi ruled by Sparta and were not a true Spartan cast,

Sparta was mainly rulled by Apella which was gathering of Omoioi,
But also had priest and rest offices like Ephor (Εφοροι) and other names.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor

Helots had a strange bondage with Sparta,
they were not Spartans, but property of Sparta,
They were protected most year by Spartans, but killed even for fun the days of Krypteia,
they were free men, but also tax(production, not money) slaves.

Helots could also become neodamodes
 
.......................................
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 10867 times.

Back
Top