Etymology: The most apparent impact of the ichnography theory, to the extent that this is validated, is historical linguistics. The notion of cognates should not change but be enlarged to accommodate semantic stems represented in common letter combinations. For example, the Greek 'goddess' Hera and the English pronoun her may be considered semantic cognates under the ichnography hypothesis, although they are not so today. Another example is that of flood and flail. In contrast, the importance of phonetic similarity may diminish. Except for cases where variation is obviously and only phonetic while the spelling is strictly equivalent, words written differently are probably not precisely cognates. At one extreme, the European words for a scientific term, say cholesterol, are semantically fixed and present only phonetic variation while their spelling is precisely equivalent. The words for cholesterol vary solely because not every language has the sound [kh] and different languages have different letters. There is no apparent reason for phonemes to mutate at the other extreme. In the case of the Latin plovere or the French il pleut (verb pleuvoir), to rain, it rains, compared with the English flood – all supposedly related to PIE *pleu-[1] – the P/F variation may not be purely phonetic. Romans and French speakers can pronounce F as easily as English speakers pronounce P. There is no convincing phonetic reason, in this case, why F would have mutated to P while expressing the same sememe.
Moreover, both letters exist in both alphabets. It is more likely that the mutation is ichnographic, iconic. If P stands for the mouth, it likely expresses the idea of rain being drinkable water rather than the in-and-out movement of a flood rendered by FL. Those words are probably not cognates as it is currently suggested. This type of error is widespread among current etymological theories. Ultimately, the PIE theory, based solely on phonetics, may have to be thoroughly revised if not abandoned.
Poetry
and mythology: An ichnographic reading is expected to turn Greek poetic and
mythological texts from beautiful surreal nonsense, in the best case – or
religious texts, in the worst – to perfectly sensible accounts of prehistory,
para-history[2], and meta-history[3]. A general theory of words as
iconic signs may expand this prediction to the poetical and mythological
corpora within, and perhaps also outside, the IE world. Cross-validation of
these accounts from different authors, perhaps also in different languages,
should give an accurate historical timeline of technological evolution, at
least in relative time, and a picture of the various versions of the
evolving objects. Mythology is not a religion but literature. It should be
perceived in the sense of the Greek term logotechnia
(literature): technē (art) of logos (thought, reason, speech; hence
writing); the art of writing including word-making, i.e., poetry.
We
may conclude, for the moment, that the three poets leading this analysis,
Homer, Hesiod, and Solon through Plato, roughly dealt with the same themes. These were humanity's social, economic, and technological history,
presumably to their times. Plato explicitly compares Solon to the other two, implying
that they are comparable. He also tells us in his way that, like Solon, Homer
and Hesiod wrote about the history of their ancestors. Homer concentrated the Iliad on the forces driving the market. Perhaps it would not be too misplaced to predict that the Iliad treated some notions of economics as we know them today. The Odyssey described the development of
water distribution networks. Solon treated the same theme of water distribution
technology but concentrated on a specific application occurring in the Bronze
Age in an archipelago with the prominent bull culture of which one island flooded
out of the map. The two related dialogs by Plato give us an idea of what poetry
was about and how it was done. Hesiod wrote a kind of comprehensive natural and
social history of his world, describing physical and biological phenomena and the structure of human society.
This
analysis is, however, by no means conclusive. Here, we only get a faint idea of
the meaning of the very top heroes. We can only guess the main themes of the
poems. But there are perhaps thousands of proper names, toponyms, and common
nouns or verbs yet to be understood. Only then will we be able to transcribe
the poems and list the things and ideas that existed at the poets' time.
A
note of linguistic interest is that the three poets use the same names for the
same things but, for other objects, they also make their own words. The word
Atlantis, for example, must have existed and have been known to all of them. Because they all use this word in one form or another. In contrast,
there are objects, like the plow or the bellows, for which different words
and mythemes are used. Indeed, the poetic license may explain a lot. But it is
also possible that some objects had still no generally accepted names by that
time. Many later mythographers treated the subject of Heracles, for instance,
telling different stories about the hero but always using his established name. That was not always the case with the first three, Homer, Hesiod, and Solon,
who lived simultaneously. By comparative analysis of myths and names
about the same objects, we may identify de novo terms created by the
poets themselves or by their close linguistic environment. Such comparative
analysis would be invaluable for understanding the mechanism of creation and
evolution of words in general.
One
crucial question may arise: do we really want and have the right to
deconstruct our mythological heritage? Mythology stands on its own
feet and has nothing to fear. A poem would not lose its artistic value – it
would gain more – if an analyst discovered what the poet had in mind. Deconstruction would result in a parallel narrative of scientific value. Comparison of the scientific, philosophical, and artistic versions of poetical
stories will reveal the full beauty of mythology and the unbelievable
skills of those early writers. But we may also ask: what is wrong with our
brain and education? How could we be fooled for so long? Who diverts the meanings and why?
Concerning
Atlantis, we still have no direct proof that such a place existed (do we have proof for anything else in science?). However, we can tell that the three
poets told coherent stories referring to a unique water distribution
system of their antiquity using the same or similar terms. We know that
Atlantis was not a myth, but it was a true story at the heart of various myths. I consider that we now have much more linguistic evidence for a 'water-network
country' located at the South Aegean than we have historical and archeological
evidence, put together, for the toponyms of Troy, Mycenae, or Knossos. The
Platonic word Gadeirus indicates that the barbarian language Solon
translated into Greek was Phoenician and that Atlantis, if an island at all,
should be a Phoenician territory.
History
and archeology: As far as ancient historians are concerned, the questions to
answer are if they believed in their myths
<Figure 158.1>
Linear
B inscriptions (Fig.
158.1) is another case of a language, like in Greek poetry and mythology, where
untranslated words such as proper names and toponyms appear at excessive rates,
far beyond the expected in a regular, even fictional, narrative. Today, it is
widely accepted that those inscriptions are lists of people, from places,
offering to gods or other places; it may well be so. However, it may also be the
case that in Linear B, like in Greek poetry and mythology, we simply
classify into the bin of 'proper names' and of 'toponyms' everything we do not
quite understand. Proper names and toponyms need not be translated. We create the illusion that the texts where such words appear are understood
and that they are mere 'lists'; we so discourage further effort for
understanding. Linear B should be re-read letter by letter, syllable by
syllable, and re-interpreted in the light of the ichnography theory.
Advances
in the understanding of written records will undoubtedly redirect archeologists
towards objective evidence instead of searching for the ghosts of Troy (the market),
Knossos (the pottery industry), or Tartessos (the foundations of a house), for
the tomb of Helen (the timing of consumption) in Sparta (the distribution of
goods), for the Pillars of Hercules (the door) in Iberia (the house) or for
other such geographic nonsense. We do not need to change the names of
prehistoric sites or islands, such as Ithaca (the toilet) or Erytheia
(type of oil lamp). Such names are charming and represent millennia of
unfortunate research. We can keep them as we keep the names of city streets. But we should no longer fool ourselves into believing the slightest relation to
mythological characters and places. Tourist guides should be enriched with true prehistorical stories and the associated legends. There is a tremendous
amount of work yet to be done.
Evolutionary linguistics: a question to which ichnography may substantially contribute is what came first, oral or written language. Current linguistic theory is based on phonetics and suggests that language was only oral for many centuries. PIE populations, for example, had a mature oral PIE language which was only written down after the invention of writing. No explanation is provided for why any proto-linguistic group of people would choose a particular sound combination rather than another to call a particular need, object, or concept. The characterization of such choices as arbitrary and conventional bypasses the need for a genuinely scientific, falsifiable explanation.
In contrast, the theory
of ichnography suggests that words are primarily created in written and pronounced
afterward. Once a word is created and written down, it may evolve orally. Still, its original conception comes as an iconic/ichnographic representation of forms and concepts put together on a solid support.
Ultimately,
single letters represent a handful of primordial objects or phenomena (circle,
stone, movement, etc.). Letters have been purposely designed by ancient
populations and perfected by the Phoenicians to create words. Before drawing images or letters, people communicated with their
universal body language. That natural language, still in use today, included
movements of the tongue and mouth, which incidentally produced sounds. However, complex combinations of sounds would only be systematically
pronounced after writing and learning. Written words survived much longer
because they could be transmitted unchanged at much longer distances in space
and time. Culture and speech owe their development to written language,
not vice versa. The first abjads and alphabets gave them both a strong push
forward. If we didn't have written language, we would still be able to
communicate with basic sounds and body gestures, but we wouldn't have speech or
culture as we perceive them today.
Religion has been not the writing of poets and mythographers but our reading. Perhaps,
it is now time for analysts to launch their own linguistic war to translate the
thousands of proper names and toponyms of Greek poetry and mythology left
untranslated for so long. The promise is that we will discover a lot of
historical information about prehistory, prehistoric tools, procedures, and their evolution. The ichnography theory and the methods
exemplified here may be an excellent tool to start this combat.
References
Müller, Friedrich Max. 1885. Lectures on the Science of
Language. 6th ed. Vol. 1. London: Longmans Green and Co.
Veyne, Paul. 1983. Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? Essai sur l’imagination constituante. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.