Napolskikh V. V. (Izhevsk, Russia) Earth-Diver Myth (А812) in northern Eurasia and North America: twenty years later. Yuri Borisovich Simchenko in memoriam Almost twenty years ago my dissertation (Napol’skix 1991) was published, where was suggested an ethnohistorical interpretation of the spread in Northern Eurasia and North America of the myth on creation of the earth from a small piece of soil brought up from the bottom of primordial ocean by a therio-, anthropo- or theomorphic diver (further on – Earth-Diver myth, or, in case of a bird diving, Diving Bird myth, DBM). There was demonstrated, that this motif had a very ancient (at least upper palaeolothical) origin in Northern Asia, and in its most archaic reconstructable proto-type (marked as DBM0) not the kind of the divers had been important (bird, mammal, turtle etc.) but the idea of success among several divers of the last one possessing not a physical, but a special supernatural power. The motifs close to this type are widely spread in North America, where in the most developed versions this ancient peculiarity has been kept, and the concretization of the images of divers developed there in different directions: mammals, birds, turtle or even insects could appear in different local traditions (s. below). According to the suggested hypothesis, in the Northern Eurasia a more specialized kind of the Earth-Diver myth spread already in relatively ancient times. The divers were birds here, and the main idea of the success of the last and the weakest diver was expressed in the rivality between loon, who dived first but unsuccessfully, and a kind of duck (different kinds of ducks, grebe, rarely also swan or goose) who brought the earth. This version was marked DBM2. Such an opposition between a duck and a loon may be explained by the roles these birds played in the cosmology formed apparently more than 6 thousands years ago among the inhabitants of the southern part of Western and Middle Siberia, first of all – among the ancestors of Uralic-speaking peoples and their closest linguistic relatives, the Yukagirs, and to some extend among their neighbors, the ancestors of the Tungus-Manchurians (the probability of belonging of some part of the ancestors of Turks and some American Indian groups to this unity, called North-Asiatic Mythological Union, NAMU (Napol’skix 1991: 119-122) was also discussed as possible). Living on the banks of the big Siberian rivers flowing from the South to the North, these people associated the South, the upper streams of the rivers with the Upper World, the world of celestial gods, and the North, the lower streams of the rivers – with the Lower World, the world of death and evil spirits. In this system the migratory water bird (ducks, swans, geese) were considered to migrate to the Upper World and therefore to be able to mediate between the mankind and the gods, whereas the loons living at the lower streams and mouths of the big rivers, on the Icy Sea shores and migrating to the South invisibly, in pairs or alone, were considered to be the birds of the Lower World, having no celestial supernatural power. DBM2 and this, connected with it world-view system was suggested to have been present in the culture of the Proto-Uralic speakers living till the 6th-4th mil. BC in the taiga forests of Western Siberia and the Urals. Later it was supposed to spread together with the Uralic population as well as partly with Tungus-Manchurian and Turkic groups in Eastern Europe and in Siberia. On every stage of its development there should be supposed to exist a simplified version of the myth with only one diver (DBM1). This version finally spread most widely since it did not imply the existence of the developed cosmogonical concepts and could be easily borrowed into different traditions (given also the fact, that creation of earth on the surface of primordial ocean is almost universal motif). In general the scheme of the Earth-Diver myth’s evolution is represented on pic. 1. For the Eastern Europe the stadial replacement of the bird(s) by an anthropo- or theomorphic diver was demonstrated: a bird dives after the god’s order – the devil or god himself dives turning into a bird – the devil dives without turning to a bird but brings the soil in his mouth (this is often followed by the motif of concealment of some soil by the devil in his mouth) – devil or god dives and brings the soil with hands. Important is, that in some myths with diving god or devil turning into a bird the duck-loon opposition was preserved. This evolution took place from the North-East to the South-West direction: the archaic myths most similar to the Siberian DBM2 are known among European Finno-Ugrians and northern Russians, and the latest variants without any trace of a bird are known on Balkans. Taking this into account, I suggested the hypothesis on the appearance of the Earth-Diver myth in the Europe together with the Finno-Ugrians, from whom it was borrowed by the Eastern Slavs and other their neighbors and penetrated into the Slavic (first of all – Eastern Slavic, and thereafter – into Southern Slavic) folk-Christianity and was reshaped according to dualistic ideas of the Bogomil sect. Since most of the version written down from the European Finno-Ugrians as well as many Siberian version of DBM do not differ at all from those known from Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian and other Christian traditions, it was argued, that the Earth-Diver came later back to the Finno-Ugrians from the Russian folk religion together with other apocryphical legends. A possibility of penetration of the Earth-Diver to the Balkans together with the Hungarians and maybe other groups of Central Asiatic or Siberian origin (first of all – with the Bulgars and other Turkic groups) was also taken into consideration, though the character of the Hungarian myth and the absence (at that time) of Tatar and Chuvash Earth-Diver versions in my disposal did not support this possibility. This hypothesis of the Earth-Diver spread in Eurasia was used also as an additional argument for the hypothesis of Uralic original home in Western Siberia and the Urals with following moving of the Finno-Ugric languages westwards, to the Eastern Europe, where the aboriginal Palaeoeuropean and probably some Indo-European groups were assimilated by the Uralians. This hypothesis accords with all the linguistic, archaeological palaeobiogeographical and anthropological facts (Napol’skix 1991: 92-121; Napol’skix 1997: 125-198). However, the nebular character of the mythological data and reconstructions, a great role of the “human factor” in its development, the absence of methods of verification the conclusions made on the base of mythological reconstruction etc. made me to forbear from further investigations in this field. In general my attitude to the comparative mythology is similar to the one to glottochronology: there is no way to verify the conclusions, there always stay to be possible alternative explanations (in mythology one should take into account the possibility of casual parallel development), but in case our conclusions become a historical (prehistorical) filling and in frames of a historical hypothesis are confirmed by the data and conclusions of other independent disciplines, they may be used as additional positive arguments. Nevertheless, turning back now, after almost a twenty-year break, to the Earth-Diver problem (the reasons making me to do this will be explained below), I have to state, that in its main points this old hypothesis became to be of great vitality, and the new data received within the last decades do not merely contradict it, but, vice versa, confirm its main theses. First of all, now I have got a number myths, which precisely fill in the former lacunas. Regretfully enough, the quality of most publications does not always allow to put a new version into the given Earth-Diver classification, but some examples are really significant. Maybe the best one is the Northern Selkup myth published in (Pelix 1998: 68): “Num ordered a loon Moche-bo to dive to the bottom of the sea and bring up the drowned earth. In reward Num proposed to turn Moche-bo back into a human being. Moche-bo dove down to the bottom of the sea and found the earth but could not bring it to the surface of the waters. Then Num sent a duck for the earth. The duck could not bring the earth up either, but managed to break off a small piece of it and brought it up. The earth grew up from this piece of soil. And Moche-bo stayed to be a bird. All the loons originated from him. However, the loons still remember they had been human beings before and even try to speak with people in a human language”. The absence of a Selkup Earth-Diver looked rather strangely in the general context of my hypothesis and that had been just such an archaic DBM2 version to be expected for the Selkup tradition (Napol’skix 1991: 95, 133). In the same way predictable seemed to be the Even DBM, since the presence of the ancestors of Tungus in NAMU was almost undoubtful. Now I have got the DBM of Evens of Kamchatka and northern part of the Magadan region (Robben, Dutkin 1978: 156-158): “The loon brought from the bottom of the sea a hardly visible mote of clay and put it on the boy’s hand. «Oh, how can one make the earth from such a small mote?» – he thought. The god took the mote with his finger’s point and put it onto his left hand. The boy saw: the mote on the god’s hand became as big as a squirrel’s stomach. He put this lump on a border of a raft. The boy looked: the lump became as big as a reindeer roof. At the evening it became as big as an elk stomach. Then he saw: in the morning his raft stood moored to an island’s shore”. Thus, the simple DBM1 is known to the Evens. A more complicate is the situation with other their story: the publication does not allow to understand the essence of the version clearly (Robben, Dutkin 1978: 156-158): “There was no earth. The Evens floated by the sea on a raft. They angled fish and caught ducks with noose. Once they caught a goose and let it go. The goose began to drive the ducks in their nooses. Then they caught a loon. The loon promised to bring a piece of soil from the bottom of the sea. Then they caught a raven and let it go since it asked them to. Three times brought the loon a lump of soil from the bottom of the sea and every time the raven made it to drop the lump back into the water. Finally a celestial shaman helped the people”. Then it follows in the publication: “The earth was created for the people by a celestial shaman, who turned into it a small piece of clay brought by a loon. And the goose was not able to do it”. If we assume an unsuccessful diving of the goose (this is not, however, directly mentioned in the publication), we’d deal with a very special type of DBM2 here: with a successful loon and failing bird of the «duck» class. Such a version may be expected in the far East of Siberia, where the image of loon in the local mythologies gradually obtains positive connotation in contrast to the ambivalent and negative one, corresponding to the «classical» Uralic versions of DBM2 in the West (Napol’skix 1991: 86-88). Significant in the sense of the «eastern» tinge of the Even myth is also the participation of raven in the creation: raven is a leading image in the mythologies of NorthEastern Siberia and North-Western North America and takes part in very archaic DBMs of the California Indians. In general, the representation of DBM (most often in a simplest version DBM1) among the Tungus-Manchurian peoples of the Russian Far East, predicted by my old hypothesis on including of the Tungus-Manchurians into the NAMU at least as a marginal group (Napol’skix 1991: 107), has happened to be good enough to allow the author of a special study to consider DBM as one of most ancient Tungus-Manchurian cosmogonical versions (Shan’shina 2000: 29). Now I have got new also materials from the Turkic peoples of Volga-Urals region (the Chuvash, the Tatar and the Bashkir). Before I supposed them to have some variants of DBM, first of all – those borrowed from the Russian folk Christian tradition and from the Finno-Ugric groups taken part in their origin, but no one real text had been known to me. Of peculiar interest is the Bashkir story, which, as I have been recently informed by Bashkir colleague Zakiryan Aminev, can still be written down from the south-easternmost Bashkirs nowadays: “In very ancient times all the surface of the earth was covered by water. And once upon a time two ducks appeared above this endless water without shores and limits. They swam for a long time by the water looking for a place to lay an egg, but could not find even a handful of soil. They did not know what to do and began to dive – so it may be supposed, these were the pochard ducks 1 . Either from the bottom or in any other way they began to bring pieces of mud onto the surface. One of them held the mud under its wing, the other one brought new pieces to the first. And from the collected mud something solid appeared. The mother-duck shook off some of her down and feathers and made a nest. Thereafter she laid the eggs and sat down upon them to hatch the ducklings. A day came when the ducklings came out from the eggs, and they multiplied and began making nests and hatching ducklings, too. And there appeared a great amount of nests, they stuck together and formed a sort of island. The ducks followed bringing pieces of mud and the island grew and finally its 1 Russ. ‘pochard’ – ыр к, lit. ‘diver’. underwater part got firmly on the bottom and thus a real island appeared on the endless water. The ducks felt crowded there and began to fly away and to build new islands in other places. So, thus the ducks created the earth bringing small pieces of mud, sticking them together into islands and into the great land. Why, do you thing, silt and small stones may be found on the ducks’ crops? Just because the ducks used to bring them up out of the water from the very ancient times. Sometimes the ducks swallowed it and silt and stones stayed in their stomachs. Thus, from the duck’s silt our earth had been created” (Bashkirskoe narodnoe tvorchestvo: 30-31). The absence of anything miraculous is a striking points of this story, which seems to be an attempt of rational explanation of the origin of the earth. Similar stories about the origin of the earth from pieces of different solid substances floating on the surface of the water were widely known in the Nivkh (Gilyak) mythology. One of them tells about tomtits, who gathered different objects floating on the waters and the earth grew up on this island, and animals and birds fell down from the sky onto it (Kreinovich 1929: 81-83). The Bashkirian myth looks very close to other Nivkh version, which, however, does not contain the theme of diving: “Pochard or northern shoveler duck wanted to lay an egg on the surface of primordial waters, but there was no place. Then it plucked some feather from its breast, made a nest on the water, laid the eggs and hatched the ducklings. Its offsprings followed to make nests on the water this way. The nests came together into an island, where soil and plants appeared, and thus the earth was created” (Legendy i mify: 288). It is hardly possible, that the Bashkirian and Nivkh stories are immediately connected with each other. More probably is to concern them as two peripheral DBM versions, the results of «rational» reconsideration of the original myth; important is, that the Bashkirian story preserved the idea of diving. On the other side, the presence of two ducks, who take different parts in the creation remembers DBM2 version, which was predictable among the Bashkirs taking into account the participance of Ugrian (Ancient Hungarian) groups in their origin. As it was shown in (Napol’skix 1992: 142), the Hungarians did not have DBM2 as it is, by them we have only versions with theomorphic diver, typical for the Balkans. A possibility of existence of early Hungarian DBM2 version was suggested after the images on Hungarian phaloera of the 9th c. (Alföldi 1969) – s. pic. 2. This picture – when the image of eagle may be supposed to have disappeared as a result of later ideas of God the Creator – might serve as an illustration to the Bashkirian story, too. Remarkable are three Chuvash DBM1 versions, where “a small bird”, a duck and two pigeons dive for the soil (Stan’yal 2004: 29-30): since God the Creator is absent there, they differ rather from normal East European apocryphical creation legends and may be compared with very peculiar Komi myths. On the other hand, the Chuvash had a «normal» apocryphical story with the Devil diving after the God’s order, concealment of soil etc. (Stan’yal 2004: 25). Since this version was written down in the 19th c., and the previous three – in the end of the 20th, they may be explained as a result of later development during the Soviet times with the degradation of the image of divine creator in course of general decline of folk-Christian tradition. However, the presence of the birds (including a duck) in the stories hardly may be coincidental and must come down to former Chuvash DBM. The same reconstruction of archaic myth without a divine creator and with a diving bird in the Volga-Turkic tradition may be made on the base of a very lapidare DBM version in the Kazan Tatar folklore (Gyilazhetdinov 1987: 232). Sibir Tatar DBMs differ from the Chuvash and Kazan Tatar stories: (Omsk oblast, Tevriz district) “On the great primordial water space swam two ducks. One of them decided to create the earth from silt (or from clay, in other variant). The other one dived and brought the silt in its beak. The first duck threw it around the water and the earth appeared. The other duck went out onto the earth and began throwing around stones, and thus the mountains appeared” (Omsk oblast, Tara district) “Tengri, the supreme god sent his bird, the swan to bring the earth from the sea bottom. The swan did it. As the earth was created, Tengri settled first the evil spirits there. They did not obey him and he banished them to the dark forests. Thereafter he made the first people from clay. And the swan has become a sacral bird” (Urazaleev 2004a, b). In the first case the story is very similar to the Bashkirian coming probably from DBM2, in the second one we deal with a rare case of diving swan. The both versions can not simply come to East European apocrypha and may reflect archaic Turkic tradition or – this seems to be more probable to me – reflect the traditions of Ugrian and / or Samoyed peoples included into Siberian Tatars. The general map of spread of DBM in Eurasia one can see on the map (pic. 3). The new data obtained during last twenty years confirm the main points of the hypothesis on the origin of DBM and ethnohistorical background of its dissemination in Eurasia formed at the beginning of 1990ths. My American materials have also been seriously enlarged – party thank to the zealous work of Yuri Beriozkin, whose catalogue (Beriozkin s. d.) in the part of Earth-Diver exceeds A.-B. Rooth’s thesaurus, which I used in manuscript in 1990ths (a shortened published version see in Rooth 1957, particularly important is the map on page 500) – the result is represented on the map (pic. 4). In general, here the old conclusions are also confirmed by the new data. First of all, the Earth-Diver is not in any relevant form known to the south from the US territory: only a couple of myths was written down among Seri nation living in Sonora, Mexico on the north-eastern coast of California Gulf and belonging to the cultural world of Penuti and Hoka Indians of Southern and Central California, though the relation of Seri language to the Hoka family has not been proved (Campbell 1997: 160). The last five versions from Central and South America present in Beriozkin’s Earth-Diver collection as a rule do not contain the very theme of diving (often it goes on destroying a dam, which caused the deluge) and – what is of most significance – are scattered on a vast territory from Mexico to Amazonia, do not form a solid area and not expressive enough. So, the conclusion of the absence of the Earth-Diver to the south of US territory is sustained. The broadening of American materials allows to define the next areas, which are clearly connected with peculiar ethnolinguistic groups, and this in principle coincides with my earlier observations/ In the Sub-Arctic and northern forests (mainly among the Algonquian and Athabascan peoples) is spread a standard plot with consecutively diving mammals: beaver, otter and finally muskrat, who succeeds to bring the earth (the weakest diver’s success – the main idea of DBM0). It is important, that the Algonquians living far away from the late Algonquian original home (after Siebert 1967), who, probably, left it earlier (Arapaho and Gros-Ventres, Cheyenne, Blackfoot) have stories, where the birds appear as divers (so, pure DBM0). Often there comes also turtle, who serves as support of the newly created earth or dives together with the birds, and this draws these myths together with some Algonquian and, in peculiar, Iroquois versions from the Great Lakes region and – on the other hand – with Central and Southern Californian traditions. Significant is, that in these versions these are the birds who bring the earth – in difference to some variants with diving mammals (Ojibwa, Koyukon, Kutchin etc.), where a bird (very often – a loon) is mechanically added to the number of unsuccessful differs (beaver and otter as a rule) and does not play any important role. The birds bring the earth not only among the Prairie Algonquians but also in other peripheral myths of the Athabaskan-Algonquian diving mammals area: in Delaware, Kaska, Beaver, Chipewyan and Yellowknife versions. This picture may be interpreted as a result of a comparatively late (hardly earlier than two thousand years ago) formation of the «classical» diving mammals plot (beaver, otter and muskrat) in the central-western part of Great Lakes basin and / or to the north from it on the base of more archaic variants, where different divers, including the birds took part. The same area was the centre of development of the cycle about trickster-rabbit (Nenabozho by Odjibwa), with which (deluge theme) Algonquian-Athabaskan diving mammals plot is associated. On the other hand, a group of developed and representative diving mammals myths, which are utterly similar to the Algonquian-Athabaskan, spread within a relatively close area in Washington, mainly among the Salish peoples does not allow to consider this plot to be exclusively of late and eastern origin. If we accept the hypothesis on the early Algonquian-Ritwan original home in the Columbia River basin with later supplanting the Algonquians by the Salish, the diving mammals plot may be considered as very ancient Proto-Algonquian innovation brought by them to the east and penetrated from them to the Salish and Athabaskan groups. Regretfully enough, we do not have Yurok or Wiyot Earth-Diver versions to support this suggestion. On the north of Central California (some California Penuti groups) and sporadically in other places the turtle appears as successful diver. In the Great Lakes basin (mainly by the Iroquois) it is the frog, who brings the earth and puts it on the turtle’s back. These two versions are probably a result of mixture of two ancient North American and North Eurasiatic mythologema: the EarthDiver and the turtle as support of the earth. I do not see any reason to look for special connections between Penuti and Iroquois areas. In two other regions: on the Northern Plains (mainly among Sioux and western Algonquians) and in Central California (among California Penuti and some their neighbors) the divers were birds, like in the Eurasiatic DBMs. Also some nebular reminiscences of diving birds are fixed to the north from California, but a real DBM has been written down there probably only once, among the Newettee-Kwakiutl. The American DBMs should not obligatorily be considered as more archaic myths, than those with diving mammals, turtle etc.: the choice of birds as divers might have taken place independently in America. However, two observations deserve to be taken into account. First, as it was marked above, the birds appear as divers in the myths on periphery of AlgonquianAthabaskan area, which means either they had not been embraced by the later innovation (diving mammals plot), or they had been influenced by local substrata – and the both explanations make to consider these bird versions as more archaic. Second, it seems to be important, that almost everywhere: in California, on the Plains, in the east of the Great Lakes basin and even in the southernmost of the North American Earth-Diver version, the one of the Seri in Mexico, the birds appear together with turtle, and this systematic connection between birds and turtle in America may hardly be explained by a pure coincidence. On the other hand, they are not to be considered as ancient parallels to the myths with diving turtle in Eurasia: these versions are known in Southern Siberia, where they should be explained as Indian influence, and in Romania (Beza 1928: 122-123), which could be brought also finally from India by Gypsies. In the South-East of USA had been written down a few versions with diving crawfish, shrimp or beetle, which can not be associated with any ethnolinguistic group (Southern Iroquois, Muskogean, Yuchi – ?). Notwithstanding their small number and evidently marginal position, they are interesting, since here we again deal with the intriguing parallelism of areal distribution of Earth-Diver myths in Eurasia and America. In the Old World we also know some variants with arthropoda and even worms bringing the earth, and they are spread in the south, separately from the North-Eurasiatic DBM massif. This deserves a special consideration, which I avoided in previous study. All the stories from Southern and South-Eastern Asia, comparable with northern DBMs from Beriozkin’s catalogue may be divided into three groups (another problem is, how representative Beriozkin’s materials are in this case: I do not have any better collection of Southern and South-Eastern Asiatic creation myths, but as far as most of them had been present already in O. Dähnhardt’s collection (Dähnhardt 1907) makes further explorations reasonable): 1. A giant arthropod (crawfish, crab, shrimp) or rarely turtle (it appears here probably as a result of influence of Indian tradition on turtle supporting the earth and because of widely spread folklore affiliation of turtle together with frog, toad, crawfish, crab to one and the same class of creatures), which can touch bottom of the ocean and the sky with its claws, brings the earth from the bottom of the sea. – Munda groups of Orissa and Madhya-Pradesh (Bhumiya / Bhumij, Baiga, Saora / Sora, Agariya); Central Dravida (Gondi) – for the last a Munda substratum is to be supposed; among Gondi and Agariya this plot is combined with the second. There is no act of diving, and this is not necessary here. The main figure (giant arthropod) is alien to the North Eurasiatic myths. Bringing the earth has nothing magic in this plot (not the small piece of soil is meant, but a solid land, which can be simply lifted out from the sea). This plot may be associated with motif of a giant spider spinning web between earth and sky, which is also widely known in this region. The American heroes of Earth-Diver – in no case giants, but, in opposite, according to the main idea of DBM0 small creatures – and their functions are utterly other and may hardly be connected with these. 2. A sea worm or a leech brought from silt / from the sea / (rarely) from the bottom of the sea contains some soil (very often it is a part of earth existed before the deluge or of the earth, which had been swallowed by the worm); this soil is squeezed out from the worm or it belches it, and thus the earth is (re)created. – Munda (Birhor of Jarkhand, Mundari, Santali, Bonda / Remo, Baiga, Agariya; here very often the worm dives to the bottom for the mud or someone dives for the worm), Central Dravida (Gondi; here as well as among the Agariya this plot is combined with the first), Tibeto-Burman groups of Assam (Mikir / Karbi), Mon-Khmer groups of Malaysia (Semang; Mikir and Semang do not tell about diving, the worm’s excrements simply fall down from the sky), Malaya-Polynesians (Kayan on Borneo; here it was not the earth, that was created from the worm’s excrements, but only the fertile soil). The main figure is not known in the Earth-Diver myth of Northern Eurasia. In most cases these stories tell not about the creation, but about re-creation of the earth after a catastrophe (the worm swallows the earth) or about creation of the fertile soil (in the South-Eastern Asia). The general way of creation differs from the «normal» Earth-Diver. The myths of Mikir, Semang and Kayan differ rather from the myths of Munda and one should ask, if these plots could be brought together at all. Diving for the earth is actually mentioned only in the myths of Birhor, Mundari and Santali (turtle, crab and fish dive unsuccessfully and the leech brings the earth) – only these variants among all the South-Asiatic may be compared with the Northern Eurasian and American EarthDiver myths, and in peculiar – with the ones from the South-East of USA. Significant is also, that these myths belong mainly to Munda-speaking peoples (by the Gondi a Munda substratum is to be supposed). On the other hand, we do not find in the southern plots the main theme of the American and Northern Eurasian Earth-Diver myths, the success of the weakest diver, and they look just as naturalistic stories. 3. Wild-boar (Prajapati as a wild-boar Emuša in Śatapadha-Brahmana), who lived in the primordial waters brings the earth with his fangs from the bottom or brings it on his bristle having been covered with silt and mud on the bottom of the waters or in the lower world. The plot appears in the earliest Brahmanas (Śatapadha-Brahmana, XIV), folklore versions are known from Munda (Didayi / Gatak, Bonda / Remo), Central Dravida (Koya, Gondi), and the texts and names used in them clearly show, that the plot penetrated into folklore tradition from the brahmanistic literature. It is not the sea what is meant in the beginning of this story, but some swamp- or slush-like primordial chaos. The way the earth is got is not the same as in the northern Earth-Diver myths, the diving is not necessary here and wild-boar is in no way a diver and not a water animal at all, and it is unknown in the North. On the other hand, it is a symbol of divine male strength in the Aryan culture and therefore its appearance in the creation myth may be explained as a result of Vedic reconsideration of Earth-Diver motif, which could be borrowed by the Aryans from Munda (?) substratum. Besides myths of these three types Beriozkin’s catalogue contains three more stories, which formally may be compared with Earth-Diver: by Garo in Assam (Tibeto-Burman language stock) the crabs dive to the bottom of primordial ocean unsuccessfully and a beetle brings the earth; by Shan (Tai family) ants dive for the earth; by Dayaks (Austronesian family) two mythical birds brought two pieces of hard substance from the waters (it is not clear, if by diving or not), and the earth and the sky were created from them. Garo story is the most interesting and comparable with Semang (s. above) and American Earth-Divers. Diving ants in Shan myth look strange and this makes to suppose a mistake in translation. The idea of creating the sky is utterly alien to the North Eurasiatic and American Earth-Divers, and there is a problem, if in Dayak story the very diving took place. All these three stories are scattered in a great distance and do not form any area. Thus, if some of the Munda versions (the second plot above) can be compared with Northern Eurasiatic and North American Earth-Diver myths, one may suppose, that very ancient myths with diving animals (more probably – arthropoda, worms and (?) turtle) were known in Southern Asia to some Austroasiatic (Munda – ?) groups. This, however, does not mean, that these myth should have been appeared in the South, they might have been brought from the North. In this case the links between Southern Asia and Siberia (irrelevant to the direction of diffusion of the myths) must be looked for in Central and Eastern China, where in the frames of Yangshao culture (5th/ beginning of 4th – beginning of 3rd mil. BC) took place the melting of Austroasiatic (from the middle Yangzi probably up to the middle Huanghe basin), Ausronesian (Eastern China from Shandong to Fujian, lower reaches of Huanghe and Yangzi) and Sino-Tibetan (coming from the west down the Huanghe) groups, where also other ethnoliguistic groups of unknown linguistic affiliation might take part. It is to be mentioned, that on the ceramics of middle Huanghe cultures (Miaodigou, Majiayao, Banpo) are present images of frogs, fish etc. forming interesting compositions, which could be taken into consideration in our further studies. It makes also sense to look for any reminiscences of Earth-Diver myth in Chinese traditions (among different Han groups as well as among Ausroasiatic peoples of China, in old sources, on Taiwan and maybe also on the Ryukyu islands). If the idea of presence of archaic Earth-Diver myths in the Southern Asia having ancient genetic connections with the Northern Eurasiatic and American ones is to be accepted, the myths with diving arthropoda in the USA South-West might be considered as similar archaisms preserved on the margin of the American area of Earth-Diver. In this case, however, one should suppose, that the Earth-Diver came to America at least twice: first as these early version with diving arthropoda (and maybe worms and turtle) from Eastern Asia, and later in the shape of more developed DBM0 with its idea of success of the weakest diver thank to its supernatural powers and, probably, with the birds as main divers – from Siberia. I do not see principal objections to this supposition. Another aspect of our study that demands a certain reconsideration and probable correction is the origin and evolution of the European Earth-Diver myths. Its distribution in Europe is restricted by the peoples belonging to the Slavic Orthodox cultural world (Russians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Serbians, Romanians, Karelians, Komi, Mordvinians etc.) or their neighbors who also were seriously influences by this cultures (Hungarians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Finns etc.). Most of the East-European Earth-Diver versions are represented by folk-Christian dualistic creation legends, where act the Christian God and his assistant / rival becoming sometimes ornithomorphic shape. The most ancient fixations of these legends (only with theo/anthropomorphic divers) come from Bulgaria and belong to the set of (post-)Bogomil apocrypha (“Legend on Tyberian sea”). Already in the 10th – 14th cc. they should have become very popular in Russia. The ornithomorphic divers appear only in the northern and north-eastern periphery of this of this area (among Northern Russians and their Baltic and Finno-Ugric neighbors and some Siberian peoples who had been influenced by the Russian folk-Christianity – see map on pic. 3), and therefore I supposed, that the appearance of the Earth-Diver in Eastern Europe had been connected with Finno-Ugrians, where from the motif was borrowed by the Slavs, spread among the last and, after replacing the ornithomorphic diver with the theo- / anthropomorphic one, was included into the Orthodox folk-Christian tradition – first of all on the Balkans – and then came back to the North, where was secondarily borrowed by Finno-Ugrians from the Russians. The versions with ornithomorphic diver or diver turning into a bird known among the Northern Russians and Finno-Ugrians were considered according to this hypothesis as relicts of ancient pre-Christian and pre-Slavic North-Eurasiatic tradition (for the Eastern Europe originally the Finno-Ugrian one). Later this hypothesis was in principle accepted by the author of a brilliant study on the Orthodox folk-Christian dualistic legends (Kuznetsova 1998). However, today I do not consider this hypothesis to be the only solution according to all the facts we have got. Its weak point is the idea of the spread of the Earth-Diver from the Eastern to the Southern Slavs with subsequent inclusion of it into the apocryphical tradition: as a rule, the medieval cultural influences, and in peculiar – those in religious sphere, moved just in the opposite direction. Therefore the alternative interpretation, which seems to be for me at least as well-based as the previous one, should be taken into consideration. In the light of the facts demonstrating the very ancient and wide distribution of Earth-Diver in Northern Eurasia, its original affiliation with exclusively Uralic-speaking groups in Eastern Europe does not look acceptable. The dissemination of this motif from the Balkans to the North, which is demonstrated by the written sources may reflect its penetration to the Southern Slavs along the southern, steppe way being brought by the groups of Central Asian origin in the Hunnic and post-Hunnic time. The first natural candidates for the role of the Earth-Diver bringers to Europe must in this case be the Bulgar-Turks – given also the presence of interesting DBM versions among the Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir. Whatsoever, since the Chuvash, Tatar and Bashkir DBM may be explained as heritage of Finno-Ugric substrata, the problem of the presence of Earth-Diver in the early medieval Bulgar tradition stays to be unsolved. Other probable bringers of Earth-Diver to Europe along the steppe way can be the Avars. First of all, because of the role they played in the early history of the Southern Slavs, who had conquered the Balkan together with the Avars and under their power. These intimate relations between the Avars and the Slavs in the field of war and politics had to left some traces in the Slavic religion and mythology. Though this problem has not yet been researched, this should be inevitable: the Avar influence on the Southern Slavs in the 6th – 7th cc. is evident. The problem of the linguistic affiliation of Avars also is far from solution. The traditional attestation of the Avars as Turks in general is nothing more than a pure ad hoc supposition. Undoubtedly, after the death of kagan Bayan in the 7th c. and ever the more in the 8th – 9th cc. the percentage of the Bulgar Turks among them increased, but this does not imply the Turkic origin of the original kernel of Avars. In this sense very interesting is Eugene Helimski’s attempt to read the well-known «Avar» inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklos treasure (9th c.) as written in a Tungus-Manchu language (Xelimskij 2000). This reading of Nagy-Szentmiklos inscription differs from several «Turkic» versions being the only starting from the material but not from an a priori assumption on the language of the inscription to be Turkic with subsequent selection of more or less similar words and forms from different Turkic languages. The Tungus-Manchu affiliation of the Avars (at least of the kernel of the Avar union) may be supported by other data, too. To the facts adduced by Helimski I could add the next suggestion. The Origin of the European Avars is traditionally connected with the Central Asian Ruanruans. The Ruanruan state (the first kaganat actually, since the very term kagan had for the first time appeared among the Ruanruans) in the 5th – 6th cc. spread its power from Manchuria to the Balkhash lake. Two most popular variants of the Chinese transcription of the name of this people: 柔蠕 róu-rǎn (? / -rán) < Middle Chinese *Nuw-Nw@anЭ and 蠕 蠕 ruǎn-ruǎn (? /rán-rán) < Middle Chinese *Nw@anЭ-Nw@anЭ strikingly resemble the self-nominations widely known among the TungusManchu people even nowadays, meaning ‘local, of the (local) land’ – cf. the name of Nanai, nяnaj ~ nяNi / nяNu ~ nяnNu or Ulcha, nяN1. Taken into account the supposition on Tungus-Manchu groups as a part of the ancient bearers of DBM in Eurasia, the appearance of the Earth-Diver among the (Southern) Slavs may be connected with the period of Avar-Slavic symbiosis in the 6th c., when the Tungus-Manchu myth could have been borrowed by the Slavs from Avars (it is interesting to mark, that the faloera on pic. 2 illustrating an archaic version of DBM might originate not from Hungarians but from Avars). Thereafter in the Southern Slavic tradition this motif could be included into the (pre-)Bogomil apocryphal corpus. As the dualistic legends spread to the north, the most archaic versions (with ornithomorphic diver(s) ) were preserved on the periphery (mainly – in the Russian tradition and among the Finno-Ugrians of Eastern Europe who borrowed the Russian legends), whereas in the centre of its irradiation, on the Balkans, among the Southern Slavs, Ukrainians etc., where the proper Bogomil dualistic influence were stronger, the later versions reflecting the Christian ideas appeared: the birds were replaced by the God and / or Devil who first turned into a bird for diving and later appeared in anthropomorphic shape; finally the motif of diving for earth, which had no background in Christian mythology, was eliminated from the legends. A good example for this development one can in the western Ukrainian tradition, where the motif of a bird bringing earth was preserved on the periphery, too, only this was not the geographical periphery but the genre: DBM existed in kolyadki-songs, while in more «serious» texts the diver was already pure theomorphic. Thus the more archaic Earth-Diver versions brought from the Balkans could in the Russian North meet the local old Finno-Ugrian DBMs and the so the observed map came to being (Napol’skix 2008). I am in no way inclined to insist on this scenario (the main source of the East European Earth-Diver in the Balkans, and the archaic forms in the North as a reflection of their older, preBogomil origin) and to neglect the former one (spread of DBM from Finno-Ugrians to the Slavs with gradual degradation of the motif and then coming back from the Balkans to the North). The both possibilities must be taken into account. The last complex of problems is connected with the development of molecular genetic studies within the last decades and their application in the ethnic history. As a matter of fact, that was the contact with the scholars in this field, that made me to turn back to DBM in last years. The point is, that, strangely enough, some results of molecular genetics correlate with my hypothesis on the origin and spread of DBM. Since the comparative mythology in any case deals with materials far more changeable and hardly subjected to any sort of strict analysis, I did not see any way for the verification of my conclusions before: there always stayed opened the possibility of alternative explanations both general (just casual or typological coincidence of cosmogonical myths) and particular. However, the correlation between the distribution of myths and genetic markers – this means, between the utterly independent sources – together with the possibility to construct a historical model as an explanation of this correlation allows to consider the hypothesis made on the mythological materials substantiated enough. It goes here about the haplogroups of Y-chromosome which are inherited by males, from father to son. Distributions of three of these haplogroups reveal a correlation with the one of EarthDiver myths. First, this is N1c (N3) haplogroup, which, after the geneticists’ suppositions appeared about 14 thousands years ago in Siberia or in the north-western China, and is represented among Yakuts, Balts, Finno-Ugrians and Russians (pic. 5). Even more interesting is haplogroup related to the first one, N1b (N2), which is dated 8-6 thousands years ago and located in Siberia and Eastern Europe among Samoyeds, Finno-Ugrians, Siberian Eskimo, Turks, Mongols and Tungus (a short reference on these haplogroups may be found in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_(Y-DNA), see also pic. 6). The distribution of these haplogroups, their age and probable place of origin in principle coincide with what was suggested for the most ancient DBM in Eurasia (N1c) and in peculiar for the Proto-Uralic (and Tungus) DBM2 (N1b). Some exceptions (as, e. g. the Eskimo, who do not know DBM) are inevitable, but no not seriously corrupt the picture. As for the American (and probably South Asian) Earth-Diver, there is another striking parallel from genetic side – the haplogroup C3, which is dated 11,9 ± 4,8 thousands years ago and is represented among Tungus-Manchu, Mongolian, Turkic peoples, Nivkhs and Yukagirs, and in America – among Na-Dene, Cheyenne, and Siouan groups – actually, this is the only Eurasian haplogroup in the Americas, where the typical Amerindian haplogroup Q dominates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C3_(Y-DNA); pic. 7). This haplogroup is interesting also because its origin is connected with other variants of the ancient haplogroup C having most probably Southern and South-Eastern Asia. Thus, it is possible to suppose, that the Earth-Diver existed in final palaeolithicum among the population, whose male descendants belong to N1b, N1c and C3 Y-chromosome haplogroups. The first two could originate from Northern Asia, and with them the development of DBM2 in Proto-Yukagir-Uralic and Proto-Tungus-Manchu traditions may be connected. The bearers of C3 should have known more archaic Earth-Divers versions, and its dissemination in America and, probably, in Southern Asia may be ascribed to them. Legitimate questions appear in this connection: what was the reason of this correlation between myths and genes? How could the mythological motif spread in the same directions as peculiar Y-chromosome haplogroups? Why there does not exist the same correlation between myths and languages? To my mind, some preliminary answers may be suggested here. They base on the fact, that we deal with Y-chromosomes inherited by male line. It is well known, that the creation myths of the Native Americans belonged to the most sacral part of their folklore, were connected with closed rituals, where only the men took part and thus were transmitted from father to son. Just the same situation existed in Aboriginal Siberia. The greatest collector and researcher of Mansi folklore and religion Bernat Munkácsi described the ways of Mansi sacral story telling (this comments concern namely the developed versions of Mansi DBM2 written down by him) in the end of the 19th c. as next: “The sacral (jelpi\ mфjt) are considered the legends, where the most important subjects of Mansi song and story-telling tradition are related: about the creation of the earth and consequent arrangement of the world, about the young heroic deeds of the most revered god, the World-Surveying Man <…> Therefore these legends concerning the ancient events underlying all the life order accompanied as a rule the religious festivals. At that time noticeable were the special attitudes and pious attention of the people present there, and also the outer ceremonial manifestations as placing silver objects (coins, for example) onto the table, entertaining the storyteller with good meals and drinks. Besides, when the story came to peculiar parts, the women (less pure creatures according to Mansi and Khanty views) had to leave the room, where the story was told, and according to more strict rules – after Gondatti – the women were utterly banned from the place during the story-telling” (Munkácsi 1892-1902: 175). So one cam see, that there existed a mechanism ensuring the transmission of the cosmogonical myths by male ancestral line, which certainly to some degree coincided with the inheritance of Y-chromosome. On the other hand, a myth could be borrowed and re-told on other language. The similar reasons could lead to the paradox parallels in distribution of one of the most widely known cosmogonical myths of Northern hemisphere and some Y-chromosome haplogroups. Pictures. Pic. 1. General scheme of evolution of Earth-Diver / Diving Bird myth in Northern Eurasia and North America (Napol’skix 1991). Pic. 2. Ancient Hungarian (9th c.) silver faloera with image probably illustrating a version of Hungarian DBM2 (Alföldi 1969). Pic. 3. Map: distribution of the DBM in Northern Eurasia. The size of signs marks the number of version known from a peculiar group (1-2 = small sign, 3 and more = big sign). A – DBM2, full version with two diving birds («duck» succeeds, loon does not); B – DBM1, only one bird (duck or loon) dives and brings the earth; C – frog or turtle dives; D – theo- or anthropomorphic diver (or two divers) turns into a bird or appears as a bird from the very beginning; diving of two such birds as in DBM2; E – theo- or anthropomorphic diver turns into a bird or appears as a bird from the very beginning; diving of only one such birds as in DBM1; F – theo- or anthropomorphic diver does not turn into a bird, but brings the earth in his mouth; G – theo- or anthropomorphic diver does not turn into a bird and brings the earth in his hands; H (pale signs) – versions similar to A – G but declining in some from the «classical» DBMs (diving not for the earth, the act of diving is not mentioned etc.). The numbers mark the peoples and ethnic groups: Uralo-Yukagir family: 1 – Nganasan, 2 – Enets, 3 – Tundra Nenets, 4 – Forest Nenets, 5 – Northern Selkups, 6 – Eastern Khanty, 7 – Nortehrn Mansi, 8 – Eastern Mansi, 9 – Hungarians, 10 – Komi (Zyrians), 11 – Komi-Permiaks, 12 – Udmurts, 13 – Mari, 14 – Mordva (Moksha and Erzia), 15 – Karelians, 16 – Eastern Finns, 17 – Southern Estonians, 18 – Kolyma Yukagirs. Altaic family: 19 – Western Evenki, 20 – Eastern Evenki (Orochon, Chumikan etc.), 21 – Evens, 22 – Negidals, 23 – Nanai, 24 – Udege, 25 – Northern Yakuts, 26 – Dolgans, 27 – Altai Turks (Altai-Kizhi, Kuu-Kizhi), 28 – Khakas, 29 – Shors, 30 – Bashkirs, 31 – Kazan Tatars, 32 – Sibir Tatars, 33 – Gagauz, 34 – Chuvash, 35 – Buryats. Yenissean family: 36 – Kets. Indo-European family: 37 – Northern Russians (Arkhangelsk), 38 – Northern Russians (Olonets, Zaonezhye), 39 – Northern Russians (Kostroma, Vologda, Vyatka), 40 – Western Russians (Smolensk), 41 – Central and Southern Russians (Tver’, Nizhniy Novgorod, Ryazan’, Tula, Oryol), 42 – Russians in Western Siberia, 43 – Russians of Russkoe Ustye (Indigirka), 44 – Russians and Chuvans of Markovo (Chukotka), 45 – Belorussians, 46 – Ukranians, 47 – Western (Trans-Carpatian) Ukranians, 48 – Bolgarians, 49 – Serbs and Montenegros, 50 – Slovenians, 51 – Latvians, 52 – Lithuanians, 53 – Romanians. Pic. 4. Map: distribution of the DBM in North America. The size of signs marks the number of version known from a peculiar group (1-2 = small sign, 3 and more = big sign). A – diving birds (rarely: one bird); B – diving mammals (beaver, otter, muskrat); C – diving turtle (rarely: frog); D – diving arthropodes (crawfich, lobster, beetle); E – diving mammals and birds; F – diving birds (or, rarely, mammals) and turtle; G (pale signs) – versions similar to A – G but declining in some from the «classical» DBMs (diving not for the earth, the act of diving is not mentioned etc.). The numbers mark the peoples and ethnic groups (question mark stays by peoples, whose affiliation with a peculiar linguistic stock is not clear): Na-Dene family: 1 – Koyukon and Kuskoquim, 2 – Kutchin, 3 – Hare and Slavy, 4 – Upper Tanaina, 5 – Yellowknife, 6 – Dogrib, 7 – Kaska, 8 – Biever, 9 – Chipewyan, 10 – Carrier, 11 – Sarsi, 12 – Navaho, (?) 13 – Tlingit. Haida: 14 – Haida. Wakashan family: 15 – Kwakiutl (Newettee). Salishan family: 16 – Bella-Coola, 17 – Shuswap and Thompson, 18 – Coast Salish (Upper Chehalis, Tillamook). Algonquian-Ritwan family: 19 – Delavare, 20 – Algonquin, 21 – Ottawa, 22 – Sauk and Fox, 23 – Shawnee, 24 – Kickapoo, 25 – Potawatomi, 26 – Menominee, 27 – Odjibwa (incl. Salteaux and Chippewa), 28 – Montagnais, 29 – Naskapi, 30 – Cree (Swampy, Plain etc.), 31 – Blackfoot, 32 – Atsina (Gros-Ventres), 33 – Southern Arapaho, 34 – Cheyenne. Iroquoian family: 35 – Huron, 36 – Wyandot (or Huron, or Petun), 37 – Seneca, 38 – Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, 39 – Tuscarora, 40 – Cherokee. Caddoan family: 41 – Arikara. Siouan family: 42 – Santee (Mdewakanton-Dakota), 43 – Dakota (Minitaree and Wahpeton), 44 – Nakota (Assiniboin), 45 – Lakota (Teton), 46 – Crow, 47 – Hidatsa, 48 – Mandan, 49 – Iowa, 50 – Quapaw, (?) 51 – Yuchi. Muscogean: (??) 52 – Chitimacha, 53 – Alabama-Koasati. Chinookan family: 54 – Chinook, 55 – Cathlamet. Sahaptin family: 56 – Molala, 57 – Modoc. California Penuti: 58 – Yokuts (different groups), 59 – Miwok, 60 – Patwin, 61 – Wintu, 62 – Maidu. Hoka family: 63 – Pomo, (?) 64 – Salinan, (??) 65 – Seri. Uto-Aztecan family: 66 – Western Mono, 67 – Tübatulabal and Kawaiisu, 68 – Northern Shoshoni. Pic. 5. Map: distribution of (https://www.23andme.com/you/haplogroup/paternal/). Y-chromosome N1 haplogroup Pic. 6. Map: distribution of (https://www.23andme.com/you/haplogroup/paternal/). Pic. 7. Map: distribution of (https://www.23andme.com/you/haplogroup/paternal/). Y-chromosome Y-chromosome N1b haplogroup C3 haplogroup Literature. Alföldi A. An Ugrian creation myth on early Hungarian phalerae // American Journal of Archaeology, 73. 1969. Bashkirskoe narodnoe tvorchestvo 1987 – . 2. . , 1987. Beriozkin s. d. – ё . . . // http://www.ruthenia.ru/folklore/berezkin Beza 1928 – Beza, Marcu. Paganism in Roumanian Folklore. London, Toronto, New York, 1928. Campbell 1997 – Campbell, Lyle. American Indian Languages. The historical linguistics of Native America. Oxford, 1997. Dähnhardt 1907 – Dähnhardt O. Natursagen. Eine Sammlung naturdeutender Sagen, Märchen, Fabeln und Legenden. Band I. Sagen zum alten Testament. Leipzig – Berlin, 1907. Gyilazhetdinov 1987 – əҗ . . ( ө .). җ . ə hə . , 1987. Kreinovych 1929 – . . // , №1. – , 1929. Kuznetsova 1998 – . . . , 1998. Legendy i mify – . , 1985. Munkácsi 1892-1902 – Munkácsi B. Vogul népköltési gyűjtemény. 1. kötet. Regék és énekek a világ teremtéséről. Budapest, 1892-1902. Napol’skix 1991 – . . : ( )/ “ ”. 5. . , 1991. Napol’skix 2008 – . . ё // . 2. , 2008. Pelix 1998 – . И. ( .). . , 1998. Robben, Dutkin 1978 – . ., . И. // . . , 1978 // http://www.indigenous.ru/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=156). Rooth 1957 – Rooth A.-B. The creation myths of the North Americam Indians // Anthropos, 52:3-4. 1957. Stan’yal 2004 – . . ( .). ă ă ă ĕ. , ă , . , 2004. Urazaleev 2004a – . // : XIII . , 2004. Urazaleev 2004b – . // , № 8. , 2004. Xelimskiy 2000 – . . 2000. On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós // . . , . . . Shan’shina 2000 – . . . . , 2000. Siebert 1967 – Siebert F. T. The original home of the Proto-Algonquian people // National Museum of Canada. Bulletin, 214. Ottawa, 1967.