Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore, issue: 56 / 2014 — The Dog, the Horse and the Creation of Man

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service

 

 

 

The Dog, the Horse and the Creation of Man

«The Dog, the Horse and the Creation of Man»

by Yuri Berezkin

Source:

Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore (Folklore: Electronic Journal of Folklore), issue: 56 / 2014,

pages: 25­46, on 

www.ceeol.com

.

---

 

 

       

    http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol56/berezkin.pdf

THE DOG, THE HORSE AND THE CREATION 

OF MAN 

Yuri Berezkin 

Abstract: A story that described the creation of man became known to at least 

some inhabitants of the Eurasian Steppe zone not later than the early II millennia 

B.C. Not a fragment of it survived across most of this area, and our reconstruc-

tion is based on the evidence from the areas to the north and to the south of the 

Steppe Belt. The texts in question share many specific details and the probability 

of their independent emergence looks negligible. At the same time the people to 

whom the story was familiar in the 19th and 20th century could definitely not 

have borrowed it from each other in recent times.

The only way to reconstruct the mythology of the people who lived in the past 

is a search of its survivals in the later folklore. The analysis of ancient iconography 

or scraps of evidence preserved in the early written sources is not enough for the 

reconstruction of the plots of complex tales.

Keywords: creation myth, creation of man

A story that described the creation of man became known to at least some in-

habitants of the Eurasian Steppe zone not later than the early II millennia B.C. 

Not a fragment of it survived across most of this area, and our reconstruction is 

based on the evidence from the areas to the north and to the south of the Steppe 

Belt. The texts in question share many specific details and the probability of 

their independent emergence looks negligible. At the same time the people to 

whom the story was familiar in the 19th and 20th century could definitely not 

have borrowed it from each other in recent times and had hardly been able to 

do it before. To most of them, however, this tale could become known thanks to 

the contacts with those inhabitants of the Eurasian steppe zone who probably 

spoke the Indo-European languages and were displaced or assimilated by the 

Turkic and Mongolian peoples during the I millennium A.D. The only groups 

who possibly inherited it directly from their language ancestors, now live in 

the Pamir – Hindu Kush area.

The corresponding tales can be clustered, both geographically and themati-

cally, according to two main traditions, the Southern and the Northern ones. 

doi: 10.7592/FEJF2014.56.berezkin

---

26

  

 

 

 

 

 

              www.folklore.ee/folklore

Yuri Berezkin

Some texts related to the Southern tradition are recorded far to the north or 

to the west of the main area of its spread but have the same basic structure. 

TEXTS OF THE SOUTHERN TRADITION

The example texts of the Southern tradition are recorded from the Northeastern 

and Middle India to the Caucasus (Figure 1). 

The South Asian cases are numerous and detailed. They are mostly found 

among the people of the Munda language family in the Indian states of Bihar 

and Jharkhand, in particular among the Mundari, Korku, Santali, Birjia, Birhor 

and Kharia. No traces of this myth were recorded among most of the Dravid-

ian people, the only exceptions being the Gondi and the Oraons. The Northern 

Dravidian Oraon (the Kurukh) language and the Mundari language are spoken 

in the nearby villages. The Oraons could easily have borrowed this tale from 

the Mundari, and it was recorded among them several times, all versions being 

more or less identical with the Mundari ones. The Gondi who speak Central 

Dravidian language and who were not in an intensive cultural interaction with 

any Munda group have only one version. Some versions have been recorded 

among the Tibeto-Burman groups of Nepal, the Northeast India and adjacent 

areas of Mianmar, in particular among the Limbu, Kachari and Mizo (other 

name Lushei), and among the Khasi of Meghalaya state. The latter speak the 

Austroasiatic language but of a totally different branch than the Munda. No 

Tibeto-Burman or Khasi version demonstrates the full set of motifs typical for 

the most extensive Munda and Oraon versions. 

The basic plot of the story was known to the Bhili, more precisely to the 

Balela-Bhilala of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Now the Bhili speak an Indo-

Aryan language but their cosmological tale shares basic episodes with the 

Mundaic, Central Dravidian and Southeast Asian myths (Kapp 1986: 266–269; 

Koppers & Jungblut 1976: 199–201). It is not excluded (though not certain, of 

course) that the original language of the Bhili belonged to the Munda family.

Almost all variants recorded in India and Nepal were studied by Dieter 

Kapp (1977). Additional materials were found by Toshiki Osada (2010). The 

only text that remained unnoticed by them is of the Kachari (Soppitt 1885: 32). 

The number of the recorded versions is the highest among the Oraons (10), 

Mundari (6), Santali (3) and Korku (3).

As mentioned above, the plot in question was not known to the Indo-Aryan 

people of South Asia and is absent both in the early written sources and in the 

present day folklore. At the same time it was recorded among the Dardic people 

of Eastern Hindu Kush, in particular among the Kho and the Kalash (Jettmar 

Access via CEEOL NL Germany

---