What do you think?
Rate this book
Death, War, and Sacrifice: Studies in Ideology & Practice
One of the world's leading specialists in Indo-European
religion and society, Bruce Lincoln expresses in these essays
his severe doubts about the existence of a much-hypothesized
prototypical Indo-European religion.
Written over fifteen years, the essays—six of them
previously unpublished—fall into three parts. Part I deals
with matters "Indo-European" in a relatively unproblematized
way, exploring a set of haunting images that recur in
descriptions of the Otherworld from many cultures. While
Lincoln later rejects this methodology, these chapters remain
the best available source of data for the topics they
address.
In Part II, Lincoln takes the data for each essay from a
single culture area and shifts from the topic of dying to
that of killing. Of particular interest are the chapters
connecting sacrifice to physiology, a master discourse of
antiquity that brought the cosmos, the human body, and human
society into an ideologically charged correlation.
Part III presents Lincoln's most controversial case
against a hypothetical Indo-European protoculture.
Reconsidering the work of the prominent Indo-Europeanist
Georges Dumézil, Lincoln argues that Dumézil's writings
were informed and inflected by covert political concerns
characteristic of French fascism. This collection is an
invaluable resource for students of myth, ritual, ancient
societies, anthropology, and the history of religions.
Bruce Lincoln is professor of humanities and religious
studies at the University of Minnesota.
religion and society, Bruce Lincoln expresses in these essays
his severe doubts about the existence of a much-hypothesized
prototypical Indo-European religion.
Written over fifteen years, the essays—six of them
previously unpublished—fall into three parts. Part I deals
with matters "Indo-European" in a relatively unproblematized
way, exploring a set of haunting images that recur in
descriptions of the Otherworld from many cultures. While
Lincoln later rejects this methodology, these chapters remain
the best available source of data for the topics they
address.
In Part II, Lincoln takes the data for each essay from a
single culture area and shifts from the topic of dying to
that of killing. Of particular interest are the chapters
connecting sacrifice to physiology, a master discourse of
antiquity that brought the cosmos, the human body, and human
society into an ideologically charged correlation.
Part III presents Lincoln's most controversial case
against a hypothetical Indo-European protoculture.
Reconsidering the work of the prominent Indo-Europeanist
Georges Dumézil, Lincoln argues that Dumézil's writings
were informed and inflected by covert political concerns
characteristic of French fascism. This collection is an
invaluable resource for students of myth, ritual, ancient
societies, anthropology, and the history of religions.
Bruce Lincoln is professor of humanities and religious
studies at the University of Minnesota.
312 pages, Paperback
First published August 27, 1991
2 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
June 24, 2011
3.75 Please read my full review at Celtic Scholar
January 29, 2024
An intellectual autobiography of sorts. The first essays in this collection, most of them surprisingly short, date from early in Lincoln's career, when he was apparently content to explore the history of Indo-European peoples' mythology, ritual and philosophy, concentrating on common themes involving death, like the watery journey to the afterlife and the canine guardian of the other world.
Sometimes the evidence he uses is buried deep in ancient scripture; sometimes it has to be teased out via painstaking (and, to people like me, mystifying) linguistic analysis. He sees the notion of postmortem reward and punishment spreading from Iran to Europe with the cult of Mithra; interprets sacrifice to the gods as a reenactment of the creation of the universe through the dismemberment of a primeval man, a widespread motif in IE myth; and rejects the apparently controversial theory that the Greeks' Cerberus and his fellow hellhounds in other cultures trace their names back to a proto-Indo-European root meaning "Spot." Awww!
Lincoln protests - possibly too much - that these pieces date from a phase of his career he's left behind, and were disinterred for the book only at the urging of an admiring colleague. At some point in the '80s, contemplating the reasons some people were believed to be bound for paradise and others for punishment, it struck him that the distinctions had less to do with philosophy and "pure" religion than with reinforcing social norms and class systems in ancient societies. Similarly with creation and other myths, which reflect the typical Indo-European division of society into three tiers: priests, warriors and the laboring class of farmers and artisans.
This gives a political tinge to the chapters that follow, which include a survey of berserker rage and related animal imagery in various IE and non-IE cultures; an op-ed-ready discussion of war that offers unexceptional thoughts about how ethnic and national groups define themselves against outsiders and use dehumanizing rhetoric against their foes (mercifully, this was before the rise of the word "othering")*; and a fascinating study of the Celtic Druids, as described by Caesar and others, explaining a much-debated point, how they could combine great learning with such brutal customs as human sacrifice: As the 20th century shows, Lincon says, "it is precisely when people are supported by a powerful ideological system that they are most disposed to perpetrate atrocities."
In several chapters, he takes pains both to declare his admiration for French scholar Georges Dumézil, a titan in IE studies who died in 1986, and to point out Dumézil's links to mid-20th-century fascism, which may have influenced some of his work - pretty interesting to an outsider, and probably riveting if you're in the field.
*Lincoln quotes a hard-to-argue-with proverb of the Jalé people of New Guinea: "People whose face is known should not be eaten." Surely a wiser take on us versus them than the long-ago observation by the Economist (which never met a glib pro-market slogan it couldn't beat into the ground) that no two countries with McDonald's had ever gone to war against each other. It turned out they can and do.
Sometimes the evidence he uses is buried deep in ancient scripture; sometimes it has to be teased out via painstaking (and, to people like me, mystifying) linguistic analysis. He sees the notion of postmortem reward and punishment spreading from Iran to Europe with the cult of Mithra; interprets sacrifice to the gods as a reenactment of the creation of the universe through the dismemberment of a primeval man, a widespread motif in IE myth; and rejects the apparently controversial theory that the Greeks' Cerberus and his fellow hellhounds in other cultures trace their names back to a proto-Indo-European root meaning "Spot." Awww!
Lincoln protests - possibly too much - that these pieces date from a phase of his career he's left behind, and were disinterred for the book only at the urging of an admiring colleague. At some point in the '80s, contemplating the reasons some people were believed to be bound for paradise and others for punishment, it struck him that the distinctions had less to do with philosophy and "pure" religion than with reinforcing social norms and class systems in ancient societies. Similarly with creation and other myths, which reflect the typical Indo-European division of society into three tiers: priests, warriors and the laboring class of farmers and artisans.
This gives a political tinge to the chapters that follow, which include a survey of berserker rage and related animal imagery in various IE and non-IE cultures; an op-ed-ready discussion of war that offers unexceptional thoughts about how ethnic and national groups define themselves against outsiders and use dehumanizing rhetoric against their foes (mercifully, this was before the rise of the word "othering")*; and a fascinating study of the Celtic Druids, as described by Caesar and others, explaining a much-debated point, how they could combine great learning with such brutal customs as human sacrifice: As the 20th century shows, Lincon says, "it is precisely when people are supported by a powerful ideological system that they are most disposed to perpetrate atrocities."
In several chapters, he takes pains both to declare his admiration for French scholar Georges Dumézil, a titan in IE studies who died in 1986, and to point out Dumézil's links to mid-20th-century fascism, which may have influenced some of his work - pretty interesting to an outsider, and probably riveting if you're in the field.
*Lincoln quotes a hard-to-argue-with proverb of the Jalé people of New Guinea: "People whose face is known should not be eaten." Surely a wiser take on us versus them than the long-ago observation by the Economist (which never met a glib pro-market slogan it couldn't beat into the ground) that no two countries with McDonald's had ever gone to war against each other. It turned out they can and do.
June 24, 2023
Dit boek bestaat uit drie delen die samen 21 verschillende essays bevatten.
Het eerste deel bevat voornamelijk vergelijkende mythologie over de dood, onderwereld en het hiernamaals. Wat is het paradijs? Wie is de heer van de Dood? Wie is de veerman? De hellehond, de twee wegen (naar de onderwereld of naar de hemel), enz. ... En dit is voor mij ook het interessantste deel van het boek, dat op zich zeker vier sterren waard zou zijn.
In het tweede deel gaat het over de meer cultureel en sociologische impact van de Indo-Europese visie op de kosmologische indeling, en dit m.b.t. tot oorlog en offers. Wat is krijgswoede? Hoe verhouden krijgers zich tot herders/boeren? Het offer als deel van kosmos, en het in stand houden ervan. Mensenoffers bij de druïden, enz. ... Hij verklaart verder ook een evenredigheid die er is tussen microkosmos en macrokosmos. Hoe de kosmos uit het lichaam van een oerwezen ontstond, en hoe het lichaam (om in stand te blijven) delen van de kosmos tot zich neemt (als voedsel en bij genezing).
In het derde deel geeft hij echter kritiek op de Indo-Europese driedeling van G. Dumézil en meent dat deze ingegeven is door ideologische invloeden van de rechterzijde. Dit laatste deel is een vreemde eend in dit boek en doet afbreuk aan het thema dat als rode draad doorheen dit boek leidt, zijnde, dood, oorlog en offer, al zijn de essays afzonderlijke stukken. Deze kritiek op Dumézil stemt zeker tot nadenken over de mogelijke ideologische invloed van geleerden in hun werken, maar het had beter in een afzonderlijk boek aan bod gekomen.
Omdat deel drie voor minder samenhang zorgt en het boek hierdoor eerder een bundel van essays is, i.p.v. een werk over een thema, krijgt het uiteindelijk drie sterren van mij. Had het boek enkel uit de twee eerste delen bestaan, had het vier sterren gekregen.
Het eerste deel bevat voornamelijk vergelijkende mythologie over de dood, onderwereld en het hiernamaals. Wat is het paradijs? Wie is de heer van de Dood? Wie is de veerman? De hellehond, de twee wegen (naar de onderwereld of naar de hemel), enz. ... En dit is voor mij ook het interessantste deel van het boek, dat op zich zeker vier sterren waard zou zijn.
In het tweede deel gaat het over de meer cultureel en sociologische impact van de Indo-Europese visie op de kosmologische indeling, en dit m.b.t. tot oorlog en offers. Wat is krijgswoede? Hoe verhouden krijgers zich tot herders/boeren? Het offer als deel van kosmos, en het in stand houden ervan. Mensenoffers bij de druïden, enz. ... Hij verklaart verder ook een evenredigheid die er is tussen microkosmos en macrokosmos. Hoe de kosmos uit het lichaam van een oerwezen ontstond, en hoe het lichaam (om in stand te blijven) delen van de kosmos tot zich neemt (als voedsel en bij genezing).
In het derde deel geeft hij echter kritiek op de Indo-Europese driedeling van G. Dumézil en meent dat deze ingegeven is door ideologische invloeden van de rechterzijde. Dit laatste deel is een vreemde eend in dit boek en doet afbreuk aan het thema dat als rode draad doorheen dit boek leidt, zijnde, dood, oorlog en offer, al zijn de essays afzonderlijke stukken. Deze kritiek op Dumézil stemt zeker tot nadenken over de mogelijke ideologische invloed van geleerden in hun werken, maar het had beter in een afzonderlijk boek aan bod gekomen.
Omdat deel drie voor minder samenhang zorgt en het boek hierdoor eerder een bundel van essays is, i.p.v. een werk over een thema, krijgt het uiteindelijk drie sterren van mij. Had het boek enkel uit de twee eerste delen bestaan, had het vier sterren gekregen.
February 20, 2014
Highly recommended. This is an amazing collection of short, pithy, very learned essays about Indo-Euric war traditions dating back two millenia.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews