Review Essays

The Paleolithic Turn: Michael Witzel’s Theory of

Laurasian Mythology

THE ORIGINS OF THE WORLD’S MYTHOLOGIES appears ludicrously recent, he seeks to do the same with
By E. J. Michael Witzel world mythology, which, he argues, is of startling antiquity.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012 The numbers recited above will be shocking, even off-
Pp. xxi + 665. Paper, $45.00. putting, to most scholars, a few of whose initial reaction will
be to write Witzel’s book off as a work of crank scholarship,
REVIEWER: Frederick M. Smith with inadequate attention given to anthropological and reli-
University of Iowa gious studies theorists whose ideas framed and dominated
Iowa City, IA 52242-1323 twentieth-century thought, such as Emile Durkheim, J. Z.
Smith, Walter Burkert, and many others. That would be a
mistake. To begin, Witzel’s opus is not simply an exercise in
MYTH AND ITS ANTIQUITY applying the method of historical comparative linguistics to
Until the appearance of this book, Professor Witzel has been the vast but largely disconnected research on myth and
best known for his engagement with specifically Indian folktale that accumulated in the last century and a half. As
antiquity. All Vedic scholars have profited from his careful strongly articulated is a solid knowledge of history, archae-
identification and reconstruction of Vedic dialects in second ology, and (what is new) physical anthropology, the history
millennium BCE India and his dexterity in deploying Indo- of food production and pastoralism, geological theories of
European linguistics. With this book, however, he redefines continental drift and glaciation, and, crucially, population
what it means to be engaging antiquity. He stretches his own genetics and its links with language families. This is part of
stratigraphic timetable, which most of us had recognized a larger movement in the humanities and social sciences to
as vast, of about four thousand years, to proportions that take natural and applied sciences seriously. Most explana-
are gigantic by the scale of all but a few archaeologists and tions of myth, he shows, are monolithic and unilateral,
scholars of Paleolithic cave art, as well as geologists and attempts to read individual myths and comparative mythol-
cosmologists accustomed to dealing with millions and bil- ogy through a single methodological lens. Witzel’s consider-
lions of years. He employs his time-tested method of histori- able armamentarium is designed to include all evidence and,
cal reconstruction of languages and dialects in order to as noted, time spans so vast that they have never been incor-
retrieve the prehistory and stratigraphy of mythology, porated in the history of scholarly discussion of mythology,
taking “the origins of the world’s mythologies” back to tran- except by a few stray ethologists who have posited myth
sitional dates of approximately 65,000 years ago (the begin- and quasi-religious ritual to prehominid apes. However,
ning of the exodus of Homo sapiens sapiens from Africa), Witzel argues, both data collection and positive science have
40,000 years ago (the explosion of cave art and the begin- advanced to the point that all of these perspectives, particu-
nings of Laurasian mythology), and 20,000 years ago (the larly geological history and genetics, must be included in the
migration of humans to the Americas). This mythology, he discussion.
argues, contains most of the key ideas and themes that have That said, he is not the first to make this attempt. His
penetrated into most of the world’s mythologies and, there- massive bibliography is filled with smaller, more targeted,
fore, most of the world’s basic ways of thinking. In construct- and less ambitious studies in which historical linguistics,
ing his arguments, Witzel replicates the largely successful genetics, and the other named disciplines are applied to the
method that he has employed in his writing on comparative study of mythology. What Witzel does here is expand the
linguistics, language borrowing, and Vedic dialectology. His scope of all of this in order to create a mind-altering and truly
reading is epic, the scale of the project is epic, and this book groundbreaking theory. Even if not all scholars will agree
will receive epic discussion, pro and con, for at least the with what he writes here, or may disagree strongly with
next generation. Just as Witzel has brought order and clarity parts of it, there can be little doubt that by the end of the
to our sense of the composition of the R·gveda, which now book they will view recent developments in religion and

Religious Studies Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, September 2013

© 2013 Rice University. 133
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

myth—recent being the last two millennia—in a far different parts of it; the notable nineteenth- and early twentieth-
light than they did before they picked up this book. century scholars F. Max Müller and James Frazer, both of
Near the beginning, Witzel offers a comprehensive and whose work Witzel sees as monolithic, written to establish
lengthy definition of myth, which is important to reproduce unilateral theories; structuralists such as George Dumézil,
here. He defines it as “a narrative whose application is quite limited; and diffusionists such as
Leo Frobenius, Stith Thompson, and others (even if he cites
• that is told or recited at certain special occasions;
Thompson’s work constantly), not least because of critical
• that is standardized (to some extent);
flaws he sees in their notions of diffusion. He dismisses
• that is collectively owned and managed (often by
Freud as a modern mythmaker (86), whose work is of no
specialists);
help in ferreting out the deep roots of the world’s mytholo-
• that is considered by its owners to be of great and
gies, not least because his interpretations apply to only a
enduring significance;
small and relatively recent segment of the broad panorama
• that (whether or not these owners are consciously
of mythology. For Witzel, Jung’s insights are intriguing,
aware of this point) contains and brings out such
including his notions of archetypes and a collective uncon-
images of the world (a cosmology), of past and
scious. But he argues that they are better explained as the
present society (a history and sociology), and of the
result of story and myth transmitted in very old historical
human condition (an anthropology) as are eminently
migrations rather than because they are inherent in the
constitutive of the life society in which that narrative
human psyche. Bellah’s division of myth into “primitive”
circulates, or at least where it circulated originally;
and “archaic,” beginning with the Paleolithic, was subse-
• that, if this constitutive aspect is consciously real-
quently taken up by Wunn, who Witzel feels has limited the
ized by its owners, may be invoked (etiologically) to
possibilities of ancient religion to what can be read from the
explain and justify present-day conditions;
bare facts of archaeology and cave art. “[T]he Bellah/Wunn
• and that is therefore a powerful device to create
scheme is contradicted by comparative, geographical, and
collectively underpinned meaning and collectively
historical evidence. There is more to religion than meets
recognized truth (regardless of whether such truth
the eye” (33).
would be recognized outside the community whose
Witzel thoroughly eschews the Chicago school of com-
myth it is.” (7)
parative religion, including most of Eliade. He regards J. Z.
It can, and does, have almost infinite variants and Smith’s approach as much too limited and strongly disagrees
structures. with Smith’s skepticism about historical comparison (41–
42). His comments on Bruce Lincoln (27–28, 95–99) will
ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS THEORIES AND THE NEED FOR be discussed below. He has nothing to say about Wendy
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH Doniger (46) and does not substantively mention some of
He sets out in the first two chapters to review the fields of the Chicago’s more notable students, such as Laurie Patton
study of myth and comparative method, and to lay out his or Jeffrey Kripal, although he does draw from Lawrence
own method, with conscious attention to its scientific valid- Sullivan’s work on South American mythology. In short,
ity and application. Invoking the scientific spirit, he states Witzel does not locate his project within the field of religious
repeatedly that he is willing to discard his theory if it can be studies. His historical comparative mythology, as he calls it
proven wrong and resorts to counterchecks that place limits (48, passim), draws from historical linguistics, anthropology
on it. He first shows that the theories of mythology from the and folklore, population genetics, and other sciences, but
last century and a half have been deficient, mistakenly evo- rarely from the field of religious studies. He states: “The
lutionary, motivated by fashionable political or sociological procedure proposed in this book thus closely echoes that of
theory, or based on psychological assumptions and theory comparative linguistics: isolated and unmotivated similari-
that are better explained through sophisticated historical ties found in widely separated areas usually are indicators of
method. an older, lost common system, higher on the structural and
He addresses, and subsequently sets aside, many of the cladistic tree” (44). Thus, his method, illustrated in countless
prevailing theories of myth, including the psychological helpful and sometimes lengthy charts and tables, is to build
theories of Sigmund Freud, Karl Jung, and the latter’s a family tree of myth, comparable with constructing a manu-
popular disciple Joseph Campbell; Bruce Lincoln’s approach script stemma. Even if Witzel does not place himself within
to Indo-European myth; the evolutionary theorizing of religious studies, it is certain that a significant segment of
Robert Bellah and Ina Wunn (although he engages the latter, his readership is located and will continue to be located
a German scholar of Paleolithic cave art, quite thoroughly); within that field. What this says is that religious studies is
Mircea Eliade’s important early work, even if he accepts no longer (if it has ever been) unilateral and monochromatic;

134
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

it does embrace different methods (which was unnecessary tion of nearly all religious studies, anthropological, and psy-
for Witzel to discuss) and has never legitimized itself chological theory, he retrieves what he regards as spiritual
through adherence to a single dominant mode of analysis, in his reconstructions of mythology from the integrated
such as the so-called Chicago school. Witzel’s method will perspective of his multidisciplinary and scientific research
undoubtedly be taken up within the precincts of religious framework. What he retrieves is a deep history of shaman-
studies, and Witzel himself will be one of the scholars to ism, which will be discussed below; it is only important to
push the boundaries of that field. mention here because we need to know how, if at all, he
Consequently, he avoids religious studies theorizing conceives of the spiritual.
or indulging in Freudian, Jungian, sociological, Marxist, or
postmodern theorizing. He always refers back to his own GEOGRAPHY, PERIODIZATION, AND METHOD
approach, which he stoutly defends. The goals of resorting to It is important that Witzel asserts that human intelligence
a Jungian style collective unconscious, he says often (and as and mythmaking capabilities were no less 40,000 years ago,
was stated above), are better achieved by informed compara- his terminus post quem of Laurasian mythology, than they
tive and historical understanding. As for the argument that are today; the differences are cultural. What I suspect is that
“certain mythemes or complex motifs, the archetypes, are most modern scholars tacitly accept that humans today are
universally human” (12), Witzel states that scholars have more intelligent and capable of complex symbolic thought
used this “as a comfortable escape route” (13). More incrimi- than they were 40,000 years ago, that human evolution and
nating, in the end, is that these approaches are “atemporal the development of literacy are proof of this. But Witzel
and nonspatial” (72), and thus fail the historical standards disagrees and devotes much of the core of this book to pro-
that he feels give a much more accurate picture of the history viding details that illustrate this. Countless finely wrought
of mythology. He places Jungian theory in the same category minutiae in the complex tapestry of early mythology are
as diffusion theory, which in the hands of many mythologists marshaled in an attempt to answer an “initial question: why
who have exerted a major influence in the field, such as and how similarities in myth exist in distant parts of the
Joseph Campbell, is part of a toolbox approach that ends up globe” (31).
evaporating into randomness rather than systematic in The most critical terms Witzel uses are “Laurasia” and
approach. Witzel explains that “it is not the aim of this book “Gondwana.” World mythology, he argues, can be divided
to explain the psychic background or ultimate neurological between the dominant Luarasian model and the remnant
basis of individual myths but, rather, to establish how Gondwana model. “Close comparison,” he writes, “allows
ancient and contemporary myths are ordered and inter- us to reconstruct a coherent early mythology that will be
preted in Eurasia and beyond” (14). For example, in his called ‘Laurasian,’ after the well-established geological term
discussion of Pygmy mythology, Witzel critiques Campbell’s derived from Laurentia in Canada, and of Greater Asia and
view that “the Pygmies somehow live in close connection the northern parts of the original Pan-Gaean supercontinent”
with their collective unconscious, as if they were somehow (4–5). The primary countercheck to this dominant mythol-
more ‘primitive’ than other populations” as “simplification ogy is Gondwana mythology, utilizing another “geological
and overinterpretation” (315), and with good reason. term that indicates the southern parts of the original super-
The structure of Pygmy myth, falling within the orbit of continent that existed long before the emergence of humans”
Gondwana mythology with its concept of a distant high god (5). The latter, for the purpose of myth, includes sub-Saharan
(a few scholars might critique his frequent use of the term Africa, the Andaman Islands, Melanesia, New Guinea,
deus otiosus) and a primordial human misdeed, is similar to Australia, and a few remnants in South America. Several
those of indigenous Australians and other seemingly unre- major sections of the book discuss the relationship between
lated African groups because of deep historical affiliations, these two, and their substantial prehistory, which he calls
not because of an ineffable highly specified undercurrent in “Pan-Gaean.” He sums up his introductory argument with
a fundamental human unconscious. the following:
Lincoln’s promising early work, Witzel asserts, was ini-
tially compromised by his failure to follow through on the Worldwide similarities between individual myths are
habitually explained by diffusion or by common human
methods of Indo-European linguistics, in which he was psychic traits (Jungian archetypes). However the current
trained (96), and was eventually contaminated by sociologi- Laurasian proposal supersedes these approaches as it
involves a whole system of myths, notably one character-
cal and Marxist approaches that limited myth to its social ized by a narrative structure (story line) from the creation
function, leaving out all “spiritual aspects” (28). Witzel’s of the world to its end. This mythology has been spread
ontological assumptions throughout the book are unerringly not by diffusion but above all by the constant advance of
humans: after their exodus out of Africa into northern
materialist and positivist. Thus, it is of interest to consider Eurasia and beyond after the past two ice ages, respec-
what he means by “spiritual aspects.” Because of his rejec- tively (c. 52.000–45,000 BCE and 10,000 BCE). (35)

135
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

Well before the publication of this book, Witzel dubbed together. In his version of multivariate analysis, Witzel uti-
his theory “Out of Africa.” Indeed, he acknowledges “that lizes geographical distribution (he carefully maps selected
certain aspects of all Out of Africa mythologies must have stories and mythemes), genetically based inheritance pat-
been present, at the latest, c. 40,000 years ago, . . . while terns, and what he awkwardly labels “path dependencies,” a
those of Laurasian mythology must have been present by c. term he helped coin in an article a decade earlier (Farmer
20,000 years ago” (418). et al. 2002). Path dependencies help explain local mythologi-
An example of his deployment of his Out of Africa theory cal modifications that “are based on earlier cultural stages
is found in a subsection called “the creation of humans,” that strongly inform contemporary social and religious
part of the long chapter describing the narrative details of conditions” (34). A path dependency indicates “a set of
Laurasian mythology. Witzel accumulates data, some of foundational topics in each civilization that have exercised
it reconstructed, from many disparate cultures, in which a extraordinary influence on all its subsequent stages” (39).
semidivine character, usually of solar origins, was respon- Attitudes and ideas stimulated or inherited through path
sible for the “beginning of humankind on earth and dependencies have helped spawn new myths that, neverthe-
their subsequent lineages” (167). Examples include Indian less, do not (and cannot) make a clean break with the past.
(Manu), Greek (Herakles), Japanese (Jimmu), Mayan This notion helps Witzel immensely in tracing myth back
(Hunahpu and Xbalanque), and Incan (Huiracocha). Earlier tens of thousands of years. But it could not be possible by
advocates of diffusionist theories (e.g., Frobenius) did not itself; it must be part of a multivariate or multicomponent
marshal all the evidence that Witzel does (much of it was of analysis.
course not available in the early twentieth century), but more Witzel clearly states that his method replicates that of
importantly the earlier idea that this was an example of comparative linguistics, particularly the historically devel-
historical diffusion out of the Middle East “is only an artifact oped method of arriving at Proto-Indo-European, “which is
of literary attestation” (ibid.). However, the evidence Witzel used here at length as a model for comparative historical
brings to bear is too broadly distributed for this to have linguistics and, by extension, mythology” (189). He postu-
been possible within the temporal limits previously ascribed. lates that the overlap between language and mythology
Thus, a much greater time frame must be considered for this “must necessarily have been much closer in the past” (188).
(part of the) story, namely the period before the migration of This, he argues, is defensible, particularly in view of Edward
humans across the Aleutian land bridge between Siberia and Sapir’s observations nearly a century ago that “(l)anguage,
Alaska, which must have occurred before it was inundated by race, and culture are not necessarily correlated” (1921: 111).
the melting of the polar ice cap after c. 11,500 BCE. Resorting Witzel, to be sure, agrees with Sapir, updating it to say,
to archaeological evidence, Witzel dates this migration to “Obviously, there are no inherent and automatic links
c. 20,000 BCE, which indicates that this notion of semidivine among genetic features, languages, and mythology” (210).
lineage must have been older, much older. The “most obvious He argues that just as word comparison, rules of regular
solution,” Witzel states, “is to assume an older Laurasian sound change, and locating common grammatical features
version that sees human origins in some solar deity” (167). are used effectively in establishing language families such
He acknowledges that historians may object to much of his as Indo-European, it is equally possible to compare language
early rendering of the divine origin of nobles, chieftains, and families, resulting, eventually, in superfamilies and, even
kings in the late Paleolithic, assigning the date only to more distantly, hyperfamilies of languages. This has been
a much later period (174–177). Historians will aver only little studied, however, because of several factors, including
that, during the period in question, small bands of hunter- 1) the fact that very few linguists know the requisite
gatherers migrated away from Africa, concluding that there languages, 2) the “strong resistance of mainstream lin-
is no historical evidence for any Laurasian (or Gondwana or guists” (200), and 3) because of 2) funding opportunities
Pan-Gaean) mythology at all, not to speak of a mythology so for such research are virtually nonexistent. Witzel, does,
well ordered that Witzel refers to it as the world’s first novel. however, cite recent Russian attempts to establish a
But Witzel stands by the probability of his reconstruction, Nostratic language superfamily (192–195) scattered across
that in this case, for example, “shamans may already have the Eurasian land mass that included among its affiliations
claimed a link with the celestial spirits and deities” (176). We Indo-European, Dravidian, Uralic, Altaic, Kartvelian, and
shall return to his views on early shamanism below. Afro-Asiatic. Exploratory research of this kind is called
He devotes a long second chapter to method, focusing “Long-Range linguistics” (cf. the Association for the Study
on the history of comparative mythology. He explains his of Language in Prehistory and its journal Mother Tongue).
method as a type of “multivariate analysis,” a term adopted The analogy is clear. If language reconstruction is possible
from population genetics, in which a number of disparate through well-attested methods, even if it is no longer
data sets must be considered independently, then taken fashionable in the field of linguistics, in which historical

136
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

linguistics is no longer deemed a sufficiently viable topic for spirits. But as Witzel says several times, fully italicized,
to be taught at most universities (including my own, the “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence” (e.g.,
University of Iowa), then reconstruction of mythology, along 33, 241).
the same methodological lines, is also possible, even if at this He is aware of the danger of creating a house of
point it is highly speculative. Witzel’s attempt here, then, cards and resorts to counterchecks within the field of
should, we hope, attract as many serious and committed mythology, particularly local mythologies, but most impor-
researchers as it will preemptive and reflexive detractors. tantly Gondwana mythology, which, as noted, he posits as
Complementary to this, Witzel’s attempt to recapture prior to Laurasian. Thus, it is essential that he backs up his
a Laurasian mythology, a contemporaneous but also much radical thesis with evidence amassed from archaeology, lin-
earlier Gondwana mythology from which the Laurasian is guistics, and population genetics. Witzel issues strong warn-
derived, and an even earlier Pan-Gaean mythology requires ings about his work (96–100). He recognizes that much of
a series of comparisons involving not just mythemes or spe- his speculation rests on suggestion rather than confirma-
cific narrative cycles, as in previous accounts of mythologi- tion. The reasons are always that the corroborating sciences
cal history, but of complete mythological systems. Although are thus far insufficiently developed. But he remains
at every step he emphasizes the tentative and speculative hopeful that the science will eventually fall into place. For
nature of the project, he also gains confidence in its plausi- example, he says “population genetics depends partly on
bility, even its likelihood, because of the increasing sophis- so-far-untestable assumptions about rates of genetic drift
tication of his selected allied scientific systems, including that have not yet been established” (97). Another of his
historical linguistics, physical anthropology (of negligible linchpins is the positing of superfamilies of language, such
value here, Witzel admits [207]), population genetics (of as Nostratic (or, an alternative suggestion, Eurasiatic), that
great value), and archaeology (of high value, but fraught would have accompanied early population drift. So far tradi-
with limitations). Witzel supports the consistency of his tional linguists have rejected these proposals, although,
method within these sciences, noting that they “use the as Witzel says, “too easily, if not superficially” (97). He
same stemmatic and cladistic approach as historical com- warns that some of his archaeological, genetic, linguistic,
parative mythology” (184). What this means, as noted above, and mythological data surely suffers from contamination of
is that these complementary disciplines in the humanities various kinds, including by partially destroyed and compro-
and social and natural sciences establish their hypotheses mised archaeological sites, uncertain word reconstructions,
through the reconstructive act of building family trees. corruption of oral source material by missionary activity,
Through a logical reverse progression of mythic events, the tendency of literary traditions to obscure transmitted
Witzel is forced to take his dating not just to recognizable mythology, and poor compilation of materials in modern
prehistoric periods, but to much earlier eras, when early scholarship. He constantly questions his own data, which in
humans could have carried an inherited story out of Africa, the end is more reassuring than it is damaging. The reader
across continents and land bridges that achieved their feels more comfortable with an author who questions his
present shape as the result of postglaciation climatic condi- material at every step, particularly if the thesis is both grand
tions. The dominant Laurasian mythology, which, Witzel and adventurous.
argues, emerged around 40,000 BCE, was to a great extent Nevertheless, taking all the evidence together, the like-
transmitted through the Nostratic languages. Study of this is lihood is that early H. sapiens sapiens and their presumptive
in its infancy, and perhaps it can never be confidently recov- mythologies could only have migrated such great distances
ered or proven through the mechanisms of linguistic recon- if the movements of peoples that can positively be traced to
struction. But within Witzel’s panorama of corroborating a period between the last two ice ages had not yet occurred.
disciplines, this proposition appears reasonable. Witzel sums up the uniqueness of his approach as follows:
The primary challenge in proving this is the difficulty of
linguistic reconstruction in prehistoric and early historic [T]he comparative method in mythology starts out from
times. For example, studies carried out in the last four similarities found in various sets of evidence (myths).
decades that attempted to link Proto-Dravidian with Proto- Such comparisons are normally carried out in random
fashion, across space and time. They are not performed
Elamite have not met with a kind reception, even if the idea systematically or in historical fashion; in other words, the
is tempting and fits within the conceptual field of long-range application of the historical comparative approach, as
employed in the present book, is an entirely new method.
linguistics. The Nostratic and Proto-Nostratic theses consti- So far, comparativists have stopped at the rather
tute part of a web of assumptions based on scanty evidence general level of comparison (whether Jungian or diffu-
that Witzel proceeds to build on with further assumptions, sionist), and in many cases, they have resorted to the
facile omnicomparativist approach: anything in myth,
even if he is able to present evidence that it is now possible anywhere and anytime, was compared with anything
to reconstruct a list of Nostratic religious terms, for example else. (74)

137
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

Round up the usual suspects. Guilty as charged. however, has once again arisen as a result of recent evidence
The logical result, the Laurasian mythology, is attractive (cited in an addendum to Witzel’s introduction, as well as
and appears to validate Witzel’s careful use of assumptions. in his notes) that Europeans have up to five percent Nean-
This mythology, he asserts, “represents our oldest complex derthal genes. Regardless of how this plays out in future
story. It is a novel of the creation, growth, and destruction of research, this too is not essential to Witzel’s argument. He
the world, of divine and human evolution and decay, from rejects the “New Archaeology” that valorizes the scientific
birth to death, from creation to destruction. . . . [T]he uni- self-sufficiency of the discipline while viewing all culture
verse is ultimately regarded as a living body, not surpris- change strictly in terms of local developments. In the final
ingly in analogy to the human one: it is born, grows, and analysis, he sees archaeology as supporting the dating of his
finally dies” (54–55). own efforts at mythological reconstruction, which is to say
Witzel begins his long story with events that could be as an exodus out of Africa at c. 65,000 BCE, developments dated
distant as 125,000 years ago, the development of modern to the late Paleolithic, c. 40,000 BCE, and the migrations to
hominids in Africa, their migration from there in about the Americas, c. 20,000 BCE. Among the unilateral theories
65,000 BCE, and their subsequent settlement of the entire he rejects are the claims by archaeologists and specialists in
planet. Using genetic markers as his guide, notably the Paleolithic art that the physical remains must stand alone as
spread of certain families within the nonrecombitant Y interpretative tools. Witzel understands that “there are no
(NRY) chromosome through (probably) ten male lineages Stone Age texts” (261), but that the evidence from archaeol-
that then expanded to eighteen, biologists are now able to ogy and Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic art can be
trace the march of hominids out of Africa, eastward along the supplemented with findings from the other disciplines he
Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean coastline into Southeast Asia, deploys in order to arrive at a late Paleolithic text, which is
Melanesia, and Australia. The picture is also now emerging none other than Laurasian mythology. With the help of these
of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages, which travel along disciplines, “[t]he study of Stone Age art can overcome, in
maternal lines. This science is still under development, and this fashion, the structuralist, religious, evolutionist trends
future research will yield much more exact results. What that have dominated it so far” (261).
Witzel is searching for here is evidence for the spread of
Laurasian mythology among genetically marked peoples. At A NOVEL ATTEMPT
this point, the evidence suggests that a branch appears to What is this first novel? It is impossible to repeat or even
have migrated from the Southeast Asian subcontinent north- summarize in a review all the plot lines in this “first novel”;
wards into China, Japan, Siberia, and the Americas, and from but a brief digest of Laurasian mythology will not be out of
Southwest Asia in northerly and northwesterly directions place. It is a story or narrative (“novel” might be pressing
into Central Asia and Europe. a deliberately fictive quality that is unjustified in late
At length, drawing on long-range linguistic studies, Paleolithic culture) of emergence (as Witzel rightly points
Witzel suggests links between language families and both out, this is more correct than creation); father heaven,
NRY and mtDNA spread and distribution. Although this is mother earth, and their offspring; the defeat and displace-
important in obtaining a clearer picture of the early spread ment of current gods over their predecessors; the hidden sun
of, first, Gondwana culture and mythology and, second, of revealed, after which the sun deity spawns humans; the
Laurasian, this is not critical to his results. He states, “the defeat of the dragon; the birth of human, followed by their
reconstruction of Laurasian mythology importantly does not primal misdeed and subsequent death; the Promethean act
depend on, though it can be aided by linguistic and genetic of bringing culture, by a hero or shaman; the emergence of
comparisons. Nor does it depend on the unlikely assumption local nobility and history; final destruction, usually with
that myths, languages, and genes always spread together” variants on the theme of the four (or five) ages; and an
(241). eventual rebirth or heaven, or a new earth (63ff., and the
Witzel summarizes the results of archaeological inves- long Ch. 3, 105–185). “The Laurasian story line,” he states,
tigations into the early movements of both Neanderthals and “thus is a metaphor of the human condition, of human life
H. sapiens sapiens. He addresses the possibility that Nean- from its mysterious beginnings to its impending ominous
derthals were able to speak. The current results appear to end” (422). Yet, after completing the book, the exact details
oppose this, but are not conclusive. The reason he addresses of Laurasian mythology, fascinating and compelling
this is because Neanderthals have a deep antiquity that although they surely are even if most of it has a distinct ring
precedes H. sapiens sapiens. They also had burial practices of familiarity, become less important than Witzel’s interdis-
that appear to have reflected symbolic thought. Even if they ciplinary breakthrough, the continuities of the story line in
did not intermarry with H. sapiens sapiens, it is possible that recent history (recent by the glacial time scales dealt with in
they influenced them. The possibility of their intermarriage, this book), and its implications for the modern world.

138
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

Witzel’s thesis of a Laurasian mythology that largely classes on the history of yoga why there is no mention of
derives from and builds upon an earlier stratum of kun·d·alinı̄ either in Indic yoga traditions prior to the mid- to
Gondwana mythology, which in turn is preceded by a Pan- late first millennium CE or in other religious traditions else-
Gaean mythology, hinges on the consistency of seemingly where in the world. The answer is that it has been there for
subtle distinctions between mythic narratives, which might a very long time, and now we have evidence for it.
in fact be arbitrary, accidents of history rather than decisive One of the most fascinating topics in this book is
narrativization. But we must discount the latter, casting it Witzel’s account of the antiquity of the flood myth. At
for the time being into the shadows and deal with the evi- one time, he believed that it was strictly Laurasian, but
dence as he presents it. The narrative difference, which he informs us often he has retracted his views on this
he casts in negative terms in his discussion of Gondwana (e.g., 178–179). He now sees it as not only Laurasian, but
mythology, is that the Gondwana narrative is not concerned Gondwana and even Pan-Gaean. All versions of this myth,
at all with the creation of the universe, or even of the earth. whether Biblical or Mesopotamian, whether in deep prehis-
Nor does it possess “an explicit eschatology of eternal tory or in Australia, whether the flood was rain stuck on a
return” (366). It is these big questions that are the driving mountain, the result of a rain spell gone amok, or an ema-
force of Laurasian mythology and of nearly all dominant nation from a calabash, see it as punishment or retribution
sociopolitical ideologies of redemption for the last several for human misdeeds, involve very few survivors, and are
thousand years, all of which Witzel sees as developments closely related to the mythic origination of death. It appears
from Laurasian ways of thinking. However, “[t]he only ques- to be a precursor to (later) ideas of justice and even karma.
tion that is of interest for Gondwana myth is how the earth What could this flood have been? Rain is a potent image that
can be shaped properly so as to make human life possible” was surely understood in deep antiquity very differently
(361). This is clearly demarcated from the Laurasian narra- from ours. Could it be read symbolically as a shamanic or
tive, Witzel’s first novel. visionary image of the experience of death? Witzel does not
If this is a novel, then who wrote it? Indeed, Witzel doubt the capabilities of Paleolithic humans for high-level
addresses this question. Because of the thematic density “of symbolic thought. It is doubtful that we will ever know more
the Paleolithic hunt, the rebirth of animals, and shamanism, than what Witzel presents here.
it must have been a shaman” (422) with a clear sense of As noted, Witzel has not been slack in his reading;
the universe, the human condition, the possibility of divine indeed, nearly every page of this long book, and nearly every
powers, and a sophisticated sense of metaphor and symbol. one of its 2500 + notes, is loaded with details of myths and
All of this, Witzel contends, was well within the grasp of late stories from every corner of the globe, even if some areas
Paleolithic culture. Shamans, he notes following many have received greater attention than others (Witzel’s keenest
others, may be clearly inferred from the evidence of early interests are in Japanese myth, which he hopes to address
cave art from Australia to Europe, and from Africa as well. In exclusively in a future book, and South Asian, his fallback
his rendition of early shamanism (382–393), Witzel first field). The main area of uncertainty in the book is that he
grapples with various definitions of the much-contested creates a flotilla of assumptions based on prior assumptions.
term (this is necessary), then moves from Pan-Gaean and Occasionally, their flow leaves the reader breathless, with
Gondwana versions that lack shamanic dress and (probably) the impression that the farther one moves from the center,
drumming, but does feature dancing, to later more clearly the likelier we are to enter domains of suggestion and specu-
defined versions in which shamans undergo symbolic lation. Educated speculation, to be sure, but through the
death, initiation, and descent to the underworld or ascent to rear-view mirror it often appears to be a large-scale narrative
heaven. Based on “shared global characteristics, we can con- construction in which the end result must perforce be very
clude that Paleolithic shamanism was an archaic part of different than the prototype, than what we saw as we drove
Pan-Gaean and Gondwana religions, but in a less complex through it. But Witzel recognizes this as he recounts the
version of what later developed into ‘classical’ Siberian sha- path dependencies of modern Abrahamic religions, Indic
manism and its offshoots in Eurasia and the Americas” religion, and other designated religious complexes, in which
(392). One feature is worth mentioning here, the phenom- the ancient roots are nearly, but importantly not completely,
enon of shamanic “heat.” Extrapolating from mythic sources buried under layers of more recent ideologies. “In the end,”
across the globe, from Africa to Australia to the Andaman he states, “some 75 percent of humanity still fervently
Islands to Siberia to South Asia, it is possible to trace adhere to one form of Laurasian belief or the other—even
the later Indian yogic phenomenon of serpent power or though they do not know it” (410).
kun·d·alinı̄, an internal heat that rises up through the body One example of the applicability and altered perspective
from the base of the spine, into deep prehistory (387). This is gained from Witzel’s multidimensional study occurred to
helpful to me because I have been asked more than once in me as I recalled the comparative work on Greek and Indian

139
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

philosophy by Thomas McEvilley (2002), followed by a Witzel states, “A certain stress on fertility can also be
number of McEvilley’s (often constructive) critics (esp. Allen observed in the clay sculptures of bison, found in the caves
2005, Bussanich 2005, and Thompson 2005, all published of Montespan and Tuc d’Audoubert, one of them a copulating
in a much larger issue of the International Journal of Hindu bison couple. As the bison figures prominently in the one
Studies dedicated to critiques of McEvilley). McEvilley, an possible example of a ritual killing at Lascaux, it is likely
art critic and classicist with the barest fundamentals of that this kind of plastic art was intended for the procreation
Sanskrit to serve him, posited a close connection between of bison herds and for successfully hunting them with the
Greek and Indian philosophical ideas, based on diffusion aid of shamanic rituals” (380). In fact, one can list a number
from and later to India. The similarities are striking. But is of possible reasons for the production of these clay sculp-
direct horizontal diffusion the best solution, especially when tures, including artistic development and representation.
the mechanisms for such transfer are very difficult to locate? Yes, shamanism does appear to participate in whatever is
Based on Dumézil, Allen suggests an “a priori possibility represented here. But it would be safer to conclude that we
that an Indo-European protophilosophy lies behind both really do not know the likely intention of this example of
Greek and Indian philosophizing” (2005: 62). Bussanich plastic art. In this case (and several others), Witzel’s enthu-
notes McEvilley’s argument that influence from India on siasm for his generally meritorious theory has led him to
Heraclitus must have occurred “through literary borrowing conclusions that might be questioned. A few pages further,
from an earlier text, be it, Greek, Indian, or Mesopota- Witzel discusses choices for totems in various cultures,
mian” (2005: 7). This, Bussanich asserts, is questionable. including Africa, Japan, and North America. Here again he
Bussanich generally praises McEvilley’s understanding of asks why his theory does not match the evidence. He is
Neoplatonic and Vedāntic mystical metaphysics while nev- baffled about “the choice of the Amerindians of the raven,
ertheless noting that “McEvilley bends and twists Plotinus’ hare, coyote, and so on as trickster deities instead of the
ideas to fit Vedāntic orthodoxy” (2005: 17). Thompson, like rather more impressive elk, bear, or buffalo” (395). The
Allen and Bussanich, generally admires McEvilley’s work, reason, irrespective of the mass of data Witzel has collected
but finds his paucity of Sanskrit, Indo-Iranian, and Indo- on trickster deities, and his definition of the phenomenon, is
European to be insufficient for the necessary task of tracing that the raven, hare, and coyote are tricksters, not the elk,
the roots of Greek thought to its more likely point of origin, bear, or buffalo, as is plainly evident to anyone who has
Central Asia, and probably to early shamanism. Witzel lived around all these animals in Amerindian country. The
would obviously have a lot to say about this. But a more problem, I think, is that trickster deities in the Amerindian
serious critique Thompson offers is that “McEvilley’s basic religious complex need not be represented by the same
method in this book has been to draw more or less vague animals that are found in this role in East Asia or elsewhere,
parallels between similar looking elements from a large as Witzel himself appears to understand (146). Another
number of disparate cultures. . . . How do we distinguish a interesting divergence that sheds light on the flexibility of
striking parallel from a weak one?” (2005: 54). Parallels, the Laurasian narrative in Eurasia and the Americas occurs
Thompson notes, may be suggestive, but they are not in and in the different constructions of the four (or five) ages
of themselves proofs. McEvilley’s project, had it been con- and generations of deities. Among the Indo-Europeans and
ducted twenty years later, might have considered Witzel’s the Near East (and China) the trajectory is decidedly down-
work and come to more credible conclusions regarding dif- wards, with a decrease in goodness/righteousness/dharma,
fusion, just as Allen and Thompson might have modified whereas in Central and South America, the mythic narrative
their critiques of McEvilley in the light of Witzel’s work. That is one of increasing positivity.
Thompson’s latter criticism of McEvilley might be applied Among the problems is Witzel’s apparent assumption,
equally to Witzel’s massive citation of parallel mythologies for historical periods, that text equals practice. For example,
might have been met with the refutation that the parallels in Witzel’s primary field of expertise, South Asia, he states
themselves, to be sure, do not constitute proof of a common that the actual human sacrifice was authenticated in ancient
Laurasian source, but the sheer density of the parallels, sup- India because we find the purus·amedha (human sacrifice)
ported by genetics, archaeology, and linguistics, is sufficient discussed in the Vedas. However, it is clear to any reader
to confer on them a critical mass that brings a common much of the Vedic texts on the purus·amedha that it is a scholarly
earlier source into a realm beyond inference. exercise, an attempt to build a classificatory system of
human occupations in the idiom of sacrifice. There is no
Problems and Reflections evidence that this particular sacrifice was ever performed, or
A few points must be raised in this groundbreaking book that it was even intended for performance, even if certain
(even if Witzel constantly acknowledges his own path depen- texts (the Vādhūla/Āśvalāyana Śrautasūtra) mentions recent
dencies). Occasionally, the logic is not clear. For example, human sacrifice, even providing names. The literary idiom is

140
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

sacrificial, to be sure, but so was much more theorizing in Laurasian but resonating only distantly from what I see here
Vedic India that did not play out practically. in the Himalayas. The religions to which Witzel refers in this
One nettlesome problem is Witzel’s bibliographic style. case are enveloped in what he calls “missionary myths” (92).
As per usual citational style, Witzel refers in his copious These include the modern totalitarianisms (communism
notes to works in the bibliography by year. But the bibliog- and fascism) and the globalizing ideology of Americanism,
raphy lists all published work in alphabetical order under which, he shows, are all developments from Laurasian
each surname, with the year at the end of each entry, not, mythology and culture. Perhaps he would advise fundamen-
as per usual modern style, by year. This makes it very dif- talists of all stripes—Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Communist,
ficult to locate bibliographic items in which the author has Fascist, and any others: if you want to get fundamentalism
more than a couple of articles or books listed. The pub- right, then get the fundamentals right. By becoming
lisher, Oxford University Press, should have enforced coor- Laurasian fundamentalists you could end wars, and peace
dination in this. It is unnecessarily eccentric to suffer would reign on earth. Who would be the enemy? The
through discordance between citational style and biblio- remnant Gondwanists?
graphic style. It forces the reader to look through long lists Witzel’s thesis changes the outlook on all other
of works to find (e.g.) Witzel 2005b, when it should be a diffusionist models. By placing the diffusion of what we have
very simple matter (indeed, under Witzel’s name one finds commonly seen in the West as typical of Greek or Indian
perhaps fifty items listed in alphabetical order). A related culture, for example, at a much earlier date than any of us
problem is Witzel’s frequent use of Web sites for transla- would have hitherto ventured to speculate, we will look with
tions from exotic languages, and much other material. This fresh eyes on our own culture, not to mention diffusionist
is by no means bad scholarly practice today, but the fact and substrate theories that have been presented for more
that Web sites are not listed in the bibliography demon- than a century. Among Witzel’s accomplishments here is a
strates that high-level scholarship has not yet figured out return to what Max Müller attempted well over a century
how to list them, how descriptive or annotated they should ago, to formulate a “Science of Mythology.” But Witzel does
be, and how to attribute them when so many are this by drawing on associated sciences that would not have
unattributed. Not only Witzel, but also the publisher failed been imagined at that time and which are now only slowly
to confront this issue. Who rendered that long passage on gaining acceptance in an academic culture in which disci-
the great hero Maui on p. 157? How authoritative is it? plinary isolation remains the rule rather than the exception.
What were its sources? We need to see this in the bibliog- What he confronts here is the prevailing view, stated just
raphy even if it places greater burden on the author to a few brief years ago by M. L. West: “Comparative Indo-
provide a more informative, even an annotated, biblio- European mythology remains and is bound to remain a poor
graphic entry. Humanities scholarship must address this relation of comparative Indo-European philology. It is easy to
issue soon. see why. People change their gods and their mythologies
I write this review from the haven of a remote location in more readily and quickly than they change their declensions
the Himalayas, an area that I feel fortunate cannot be found and conjugations, and more capriciously. Rules can be for-
on Google Maps. This includes a nearby village in which just mulated to predict how a given Indo-European phoneme will
this morning I observed an oracle or local shaman in a state turn out in Old High German or Pale Dry Tocharian, but the
of possession, representing a deity that mediates disputes mutations of divinities or of mythical motifs are subject to no
and fixes timings for auspicious events and who speaks a rules” (West 2007: 24). Witzel emphatically turns this cava-
local language that has not been fully studied. Immersed in lier statement on its head. His interdisciplinary approach not
Professor Witzel’s book, I could not help but ponder the only demonstrates that it has a promising future, but that
possibility that I was here witnessing a distinctly Laurasian it has arrived and that finally one can actually speak of a
event, one of thousands that feeds into the themes that science of mythology.
Witzel has explored in this book. The participants fall within
one of the great world’s religions, Hinduism, even if almost
REFERENCES
none of them have ever ventured out of the Himalayas or met
anyone who is not within their own community or a few Allen, Nicholas J.
in immediately surrounding areas. Most of them would 2005 “Thomas McEvilley: The Missing Dimension.” Inter-
never use the word “Hindu” as an identifying marker. But national Journal of Hindu Studies 9.1–3, 59–75a.
their systems of belief and practice are distinctly Hindu, Bussanich, John
by current designations, and distinctly Laurasian. While 2005 “The Roots of Platonism and Vedānta: Comments
observing this, I recalled that Witzel has a “message” on McEvilley.” International Journal of Hindu Studies
for adherents of modern “world religions,” most of them 9.1–3, 1–20.

141
 Religious Studies Review • VOLUME 39 • NUMBER 3 • SEPTEMBER 2013

Farmer, S., J.B. Henderson, and M. Witzel Sapir, Edward

2002 “Neurobiology, Layered-Texts, and Correlative 1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech.
Cosmologies: A Cross-Cultural Framework for New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Premodern History.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far
Thompson, George
Eastern Antiquities 72, 48–90.
2005 “On Thomas McEvilley: A Postmodern Pyrrhonist.”
McEvilley, Thomas International Journal of Hindu Studies 9.1–3, 45–58.
2002 The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative Studies in West, Martin L.
Greek and Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth 2007 Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford: Oxford
Press. University Press.

142