Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie , vols 23-24 (2009-2010), nos 1-2D 1-398 Chapter . E:ploring the long1range pre1 and protohistory of element cosmologies3 Steps in the unfolding of human thought faculties 6.1. E5plo ations into the 2iddle Palaeolithic p ehisto y of element cosmologies Can we say something about the oldest forms of the transformation cycle of elements, and estimate their anti4uityX Recent reconstructions in the field of comparative mythology allow us a glimpse into the remote past of human thought. 1e have seen that the various element cosmologies studied above have often been used for divination. 1e shall now probe into the (oint history of element cosmologies and divination, see2ing to delve even deeper than the 5pper Palaeolithic, if possible. 5nexpected indications concerning the anti4uity of element systems come to light when we manage to plausibly reconstruct some of the mythological contents of Pandora=s Box. 151 Start- ing with a sample of ,frican cosmogonic myths recorded in historical times, I have presented a distributional argument tentatively identifying the mythemic nuclei (ENarrative Complexes=) in these ,frican myths, and attempted to trace their prehistoric tra(ectory through space and time after the Iut-of-,frica 0xodus8 the reconstruction method is a form of argued distributional triangulation, and has so far been executed and written up entirely without any explicit or conscious reference to divination. If a Narrative Complex occurs in sub-Saharan ,frica, New Guinea, ,ustralia, 151 van Binsbergen 2006a, 2006b8 Table 6.1 below, cf. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 above. 179 1im van Binsbergen, Before the Presocratics it is li2ely to have found itself in Pandora=s Box, because for reasons of ecological adaptation ,natomically 3odern Cumans, in their first sallies Iut of ,frica, c. 60-80 2a BP, initially seem to have 2ept close to the Indian Icean shores until reaching New Guinea and ,ustralia (which before the 0arly Colocene global rise of the sea level by 200 m could have been completed with dry feet except for a 70 2m patch of open sea South of Timor 9 proof of humans= early nautical abilities8 cf. Bednari2 1997, 1999), but without populating the other continents yet. 3eanwhile Table 6.1 suggests that divinatory patterns as recorded in historical times, and their implications in terms of element systems, so unmista2ably echo the specific reconstructed contents of Pandora=s Box, at the onset of the 3iddle Palaeolithic, that we may persuade ourselves to see continuity between the two periods, and thus ac4uire an in2ling of what may have been a surprisingly rich divinatory life in the 3iddle to 5pper Palaeo- lithic, in ,frica as well as in other continents where ,natomically 3od- ern Cumans gradually too2 the, element-relevant, contents of Pandora=s Box. This step is admittedly not without ris2sD even if the complex recon- struction underlying Table 6.1 was executed without any conscious thought of divination and element systems, still the same author who processed these data and compiled the Table has been so preoccupied with divination and element systems over the past 4uarter of a century, that it cannot be ruled out that that domain of empirical analysis inadver- tently seeped into the comparative mythology domain, rendering the results somewhat dependent upon one another. Cowever, that is a ris2 I am prepared to admit, and yet to ta2e. Na ative Comple5 (NC) Na ative p oposed .se of this p oposed ele- (n.clea mytheme) econ- Comple5 mytheme in 2iddle and ment in t ans- st .cted to have been in no. Fppe Palaeolithic fo mation cycle Pando a6s Bo5 p oto-divination as s.ggested by divinato y patte ns in histo ical times 152 The .ightning Bird (and the 4 lightning as omen ,ir, ,ether8 6ire 1orld 0gg) fowl as divinatory ani- 152 The literature on the numerous forms of divination through space and time is enormous, and cannot be ade4uately represented here. I limit myself to a minimum selection per item. Rich source on the comparative study of divination areD Castings 1908-1921D I7, 775-8308 .e Scoué:ec et al. 1965. 153 Castings 1908-1921, II, 55, iv. 820-826 (Roman divination)8 III, 697 (coc2 omen). 180 Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie , vols 23-24 (2009-2010), nos 1-2D 1-398 mal 153 The Stones (as 0arth8 in the 8 psephomancy (divination 0arth8 ,ether, .ate Palaeolithic / proto- by pebbles)8 154 divination ,ir8 3etal ( e.g. Neolithic probably revised to from stones and roc2s 155 sidereal iron) become 8a. The Stones / 3eteorites as Connection between Ceaven and 0arth) The 3oon 9 3oon as omen, 156 proto- X astrology The 0arth as primary (appar- 10 earth omens, proto- 0arth ently, NC 10 was subse- geomancy 4uently revised towards EThe 0arth as the Source of Cattle, in the Neolithic) 6rom under the Tree (proba- 12 divination by trees, 1ood bly subse4uently diversified branches, twigs8 157 into 12a EThe world and cleromancy with wooden humanity from the tree=, and tablets etc. 158 12c EThe .eg-Child=) The Cosmic / Rainbow Sna2e 13 sna2e as divinatory ,ether, ,ir8 0arth animal, sna2e omens 159 The Spider (probably subse- 15 spider as omen and X (,ether, ,ir) 4uently transformed into 15a divinatory animal 160 EThe 6eminine ,rts= in proto- Neolithic times ) Table A.1. The divinatory and element-cosmological significance of the reconstructed mythological contents of Pandora's Bo7, Africa, 80-A0 ka BP and earlier. ,pparently, the element-cosmological classification systems which ex- erted a ma(or influence upon literate divination systems of the post- Neolithic period already had some detectable roots in Pandora=s Box, at 154 Corowit: & Curowit: 1992. 155 Castings 1908-1921D I, 866-867. 156 Castings 1908-1921D II, 64-65. 157 Castings 1908-1921D II, 832, II, 455b-457. 158 See above, Chapter 2 and passim . 159 Castings 1908-1921D I, 526b-527, and I, 406. Confusion with 0arth possible because of homonomyD Starostin & Starostin 1998-2008, EIndo-0uropean etymology= note that proto-Indo-0uropeanD GJಬKHP Eearth= (Po2orny 1959-69D I 662 f. 8 Buc2 n.d.D 16) is Eihjard to distinguish from the reflexes of JಬKHP #3258. ,ll Italic forms (.atiinj KXPXV , etc.) may in fact belong there=8 the reference is to proto-Indo- 0uropean Jಬ K HP , Jಬ K PÕ\ Esna2e, worm= (Po2orny 1959-69D I, 790). 160 Castings 1908-1921D I, 528. 181 1im van Binsbergen, Before the Presocratics least 60 2a earlier. The only ma(or Eelement= missing out in Table 6.1 is Water 8 and the only NarCom left without a suggested element association is the 3oon. Real- ising that in many cosmologies, as well as in most astrologies of the Ild 1orld, the 3oon tends to be associated with water, we may readily fill this gap. Needless to remind the reader of the prominent role water, and its mirroring surface, plays in divination through space and time ( cf. Castings 1908-1921D II, 707). In distributional grounds (notably, con- sistent association of 6lood myths with groups characterised by mtDN, Type B, which emerged in Central ,sia c. 30 2a BP), I have tended (van Binsbergen 2006b, 2010a) to situate the emergence of a water-centred Narrative Complex (6lood mythsW) much later than Pandora=s Box, but perhaps the systematics of Table 6.1 should bring us to reconsider such an argument now. 1it:el (2010, 2012) suggests that 6lood myths should be placed in Pandora=s Box. ,bove I referred to my hypothesis of a succession of two distinct types of cosmogony in the 5pper PalaeolithicD (a) revolving on the Separation of 1ater and .and8 (b) revolving on the Separation of Ceaven and 0arth. Cere, too, we may detect indications of an incipient element cosmology. If conceived in that light, (a) would be about the emergence of the pro- posed primary (proto-)elements 1ater and 0arth, whereas (b) could be revolving on the separation of the (proto-)elements 0arth and 6ire (½ Sun) 9 after a transformation that resulted in a down-playing of the watery connotations of the S2y (as E1aters i,bovej=), and, with the emergence of na2ed-eye astronomy, the luminaries= growth into more important aspects of the S2y than the latter=s 1ater associations. Given the stri2ing paucity of UBorean reconstructed lexical items for ES2y= and E3oon= (onlyD +9.09 and 79/.9 , respectively) against as many as seven for ESun= ( &9:9 , +9.9 , .909 , 19-9 , 1959 , 39&9 , 7919 ), dating this transformation to post-UBorean times would put us on even more slippery ground than usual in the course of my admittedly con(ectural argument. ,nother advantage of operationalising the presence of element cosmolo- gies through their use in divination is that element cosmologies in them- 182 Quest: An African Journal of Philosophy / Revue Africaine de Philosophie , vols 23-24 (2009-2010), nos 1-2D 1-398 selves patently do not leave any archaeological traces, whereas divination systems may, albeit infre4uently. The archaeological case for 9pper Palaeolithic divination is theoretically 4uite plausible, yet it has remained empirically thin 9 the only truly convincing case being two engraved bones from the Remouchamps caves in Belgium (Dewe: 1974), to which we shall return below (6ig. 8.6). 1e have to proceed to the Neolithic period, less than 14 2a BP, in order to find archaeological evidence whose interpretation in terms of divination is li2ely to stand up to further scru- tinyD the 0arly Neolithic of South 0astern ,natolia (from c. 14 2a BP) including the once prototypical ¾atal Cgyg2 161 (now supplanted by much older finds in the region 9 Badisches .andesmuseum 2007)8 and China towards the end of the Neolithic (Nai 19638 .i et al.