Ancient Vedic Mitanni of the Midlle East

[Guest guest]

Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@g...> wrote:

 

*The **Mitanni***

 

* *

 

*HOCK'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE OIT*

 

 

 

H. H. Hock presents various arguments against the OIT in two papers

included

in the volume "Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia" (Ann Arbor, 1997,

edited

by Madhav M. Deshpande and Johannes Bronkhorst): "Out of India? The

Linguistic Evidence" (p.1-17), and "Through a glass darkly:

Modern 'racial'

interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on arya

and

dasa/dasyu in Vedic society" (p. 145-?).

 

 

 

The papers are interesting, and afford scope for some fundamental

studies on

certain points, which produce strong evidence on matters pertaining

to the

indo-Aryan problem, though, as we shall see, *not* in the direction

indicated by Hock.

 

 

 

In the first paper, Hock touches on the "Vedic-Sanskrit=Proto-Indo-

European"

theory and the alternate "Proto-Indo-European-in-India" theory, and

argues

strongly against both. The first of these theories is, of course,

untenable.

But, in the course of his arguments, Hock deals with the issue of the

Mitanni language in a debatable manner. In discussing the second

theory, he

takes up two issues, both of which invite debate: the "equine

evidence", and

the evidence of ancient IE dialectology.

 

 

 

In the second paper, he discusses the AIT arguments about the racial

differences between the so-called invading (or immigrating or

"acculturating"?) Indo-Aryans, *as derived from textual analyses*,

and,

fortunately, dismisses them as baseless. However, in the course of his

paper, he presents other arguments from the AIT side on two issues,

which,

again, invite debate: the identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the

RV, and

the evidence of river names with particular reference to the identity

of the

Sarasvati in the RV.

 

 

 

We will, therefore discuss the following issues here:

 

 

 

The Mitanni evidence.

 

The Equine evidence.

 

The evidence of ancient IE dialectology.

 

The identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the RV.

 

The Rivers, especially the Sarasvati, in the RV.

 

 

 

 

 

*A*. *The **Mitanni** Evidence.*

 

 

 

Hock argues against the arguments of S.S.Misra, "that the Mitanni

form of

Indo-Aryan must be later than Vedic Sanskrit and must have been

imported to

the Near East from India", and concludes, to the contrary, that the

Mitanni

language is in fact not a "form of Indo-Aryan" at all, but a form of *

Indo-Iranian*, and that this

 

 

 

"near Eastern variety of Indo-Iranian appears to predate the earliest

attested stages of both Indo-Aryan (which has changed (*d*)*zh* to

*h*) and

Iranian (with *s*>*h*)" [HOCK 1997:3].

 

 

 

His *sole* argument, on the basis of which he reaches this

conclusion, is

that the Mitanni word

 

 

 

"*wasanasaya* 'of the chariot', appears to reflect a stage prior to

the

change of pre-Indo-Aryan voiced aspirate *(d)zh>h, assuming that the

word

corresponds to Skt, *vahanasya* (see MAYRHOFER 1986, s.v. *vah-*)"

[HOCK

1997:2].

 

 

 

Witzel, in the present volume under review here, modifies this to

suggest

that the language *is* indeed Indo-Aryan, but

 

 

 

"an early pre-Rgvedic stage of IA, seen in the preservation of IIr ?

zdh*->

Ved. ?edh*-, Iir *ai*> Ved. *e*, as well as in the absence of

retroflexion

..... there is no retroflexion in *mani-nnu*, or the Southwest

Iranian, Elam.

O.P. **bara-mani* and in the East Iranian dialect, Avest.: *ma**ini*

(in

spite of the very specific phonetic alphabet used by the

Zoroastrians!)

..... Mit. IA also does not have typical South Asian loan words such as

*ani*'lynch pin'."

(p.361-2).

 

 

 

He amplifies this in his footnote:

 

 

 

"Note ?zd*- in *Priyamazdha* (*Bi-ir-ia-ma-as-da*, Mayrhofer 1979:47

in

Palestine, cf. *Priya-asva*: *bi-ir-ia-as-su-va*): Ved. *Priyamedha*:

Avest.

*–mazda*. Or, note retention of Iir *ai*> Ved. *e* (*aika*: *eka* in *

aikavartana*), and retention of *j'h*> Ved. *h* in *vasana(s)saya*

of 'the

race track' = [*vazhanasya*] cf. Ved. *vahana-* (EWA II 536,

Diakonoff 1971:

80; Hock 1999: 2). Mit. IA also shares the Rgvedic and Avest.

Preference for

*r* (*pinkara* for *pingala*, *parita* for *palita*)" (p.389).

 

 

 

The evidence for the language being Indo-Aryan rather than Indo-

Iranian is

overwhelming ?every single Mitannian "Aryan" word is Indo-Aryan, and

an

overwhelming majority of the words are absent or unknown in Iranian.

Hock

has to indulge in special pleading [HOCK 1997:2-3 footnotes] to

explain away

the absence of Vedic/Mitanni deities like *Varuna/uruwana*, or the

Vedic/Mitanni numeral word *eka/aika*, in Iranian; but the evidence

is much

more wide-based: as Witzel puts it, the words cover

 

 

 

"the semantic fields of horses, their colors, horse racing and

chariots,

some important 'Vedic' gods, and a large array of personal names

adopted by

the ruling class" (p.361)

 

 

 

And all these words point *towards* Indo-Aryan, and *away from*

Iranian.

 

 

 

Witzel, therefore, only concentrates on showing that the "Mit. IA"

words

"belong to an early, pre-Rgvedic stage of IA" (p.361). And his

evidence to

this effect consists only of the absence of retroflexion (eg. in

*mani-nnu*),

the absence of what he calls "typical South Asian loan words" (the

word *ani

*, "lynch pin"), and the *ai* in *aika*, *zd* in *Priyamazdha*, and

*zh* in

*vazhanasya*.

 

 

 

The evidence is clearly flimsy and argumentative: the absence of

retroflexion in Iranian is a separate matter. The absence of

retroflexion in

the Mitanni words is perfectly natural: Indo-Aryan languages

migrating from

India often tend to lose their retroflexes. It is possible that the

Mitanni,

like the Iranians before them (if they had retroflex sounds) and the

Romanies or Gypsies after them (who definitely did), lost the

retroflexes

after emigration. In any case, the languages which borrowed and used

the

Mitanni words, in the records, did not use alphabets which had

letters for

retroflexes (and when, even today, millions of Indians write Indian

words in

the Roman alphabet without seeing any need to indicate the retroflex

sounds,

it would be too much to expect the non-IE languages which borrowed

some

Mitanni words to invent special alphabets to represent retroflex

sounds if

found in those words. Modern Arabic words used in Hindi, also, do not

indicate the exact Arab sounds in the words). "Typical South Asian

loan

words" is an insolent phrase: How does Witzel decide that the word

*ani*,

"lynch pin", is a "typical South Asian loan word", and how does he

decide

that the word is absent in the Mitanni language? The sound *ai*

instead of *

e* in *aika* is too flimsy to be of any value as an indicator of its

pre-Rigvedic vintage.

 

 

 

It is definitely not *my* claim that the Rigveda was composed in 5000

BCE or

completed in 3100 BCE, or that the Mitanni language is a form of

Prakrit. *But

it is my claim that the **Mitanni** were emigrants from **India** in

the

Late Period of the Rigveda, which I have always roughly placed

between 2300

BCE or so and 1500 BCE. And the evidence of the **Mitanni** words in

**West

Asia** proves this beyond the shadow of any doubt.** It is the same

story,

of ara ("spokes") or of the "Bactria-Margiana words", all over again*:

 

 

 

A large number of Mitannni names end with the suffix *–atti. *Parpola

lists

the following from the Mitanni records: *Biratti, Mittaratti,

Asuratti,

Mariatti, Suriatti, Intaratti, Paratti* and *Suatti* [= Vedic Sanskrit

*Priyatithi,

Mitratithi, Asuratithi, Maryatithi, Suryatithi, Indratithi, Pratithi*

and *

Suatithi*]. Other names end with the suffix ?medha* such as *

Biiriamasdha/Priyamazdha* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyamedha*], the suffix

?asva*such as

*Biiriaassuva* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyasva*], the suffix ?sena* such

as *

Biiriasena* [=Vedic *Priyasena*], the suffix ?ratha* such as *

Tusratta/Tuiseratta* [=Vedic *Tvesaratha*], or *start* with the

*prefix* *

rta*- such as *Artaassumara* and *Artataama* [Vedic *Rtasmara* and *

Rtadhaman*].

 

 

 

 

*Excluding the names Vadhryasva and Vrsanasva, which have a different

grammatical form, and with the sole exception of one name (which is

in fact

an exception that actually proves the rule, as we shall see) names

with the

above suffixes and prefix are absent in the Mandalas of the Early

Period and

the Middle Period of the Rigveda, and are found only in the Mandalas

of the

Late Period (the non-family Mandalas I, VIII, IX and X, and in the

only

Family Mandala which falls in the Late Period, Mandala V*):

 

* *

 

*Atithi*: *Medhatithi * VIII.8.20

 

*Medhyatithi* I.36.10,11,17; VIII.1.30; 2.40; 33.4; 49.9; 50.9;

51.1;

IX.43.3 * *

 

*Nipatithi* VIII.49.9; 51.1

 

*Mitratithi* X.33.7 **

 

 

 

*Medha*: *Asvamedha* V.27.4,5,6; VIII.68.15,16

 

*Priyamedha* I.39.9; 45.3,4; VIII.2.37; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45;

8.18;

32.30; 69.8,18; 87.3; X.73.11

 

*Nrmedha* X.80.3; 132.7

 

*Sumedha* X.132.7

 

 

 

*Asva*: *Aghasva* I.116.6

 

*Istasva* I.122.13

 

*Rjrasva* I.100.16-18; 116.16; 117.17

 

*Ninditasva* VIII.1.30

 

*Marutasva* V.33.9

 

*Vyasva* I.112.15; VIII.9.10; 23.16,23,24; 24.22,23,28,29;

26.9,11;

IX.65.7

 

*Vidadasva* V.61.10

 

*Syavasva* V.52.21; 61.5; 81.5; VIII.35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8

 

 

 

*Sena*: *Rstisena* X.98.5,6,8

 

[Tvesaratha is found as a phrase, though not a name, in V.61.13]

 

 

 

*Ratha*: *Priyaratha* I.122.7

 

*Brhadratha* I.49.6; X.49.6

 

*Srutaratha* V.36.6

 

*Svanadratha* VIII.1.32

 

[possibly also *Dasaratha* I.126.4 and *Aristaratha* X.6.3]

 

 

 

*Rta: **Rtastup* I.112.20 **

 

[*Rtadhaman* itself, as a name or phrase, is found in post-Rigvedic

Samhitas]

 

 

 

The word *mani*, referred to by Witzel, is another example. The word

is *

very* common in the post-Rigvedic texts, and in all later periods,

but, in

the Rigveda, it is found only in the Mandalas of the Late Period,

namely, in

I.33.8 and 122.14.

 

 

 

In addition, it may be noted, about the Mitanni and late Rigvedic

names

beginning with *Priya*- above, that it is not just *names*, but

*all*compound

*words* with *priya*- as the first element are restricted *only* to

the

Mandalas of the Late Period, and are *very* common later on, but

completely

missing in the Mandalas of the Early and Middle Periods of the

Rigveda.

 

 

 

The only exception referred to by us above, ie the only name found in

Mandalas earlier than those of the Late Period, is the name

*Citraratha*,

found in a Mandala of the Middle Period, in IV.30.18 (and again,

later, in

X.1.5). This, far from disproving the rest of the evidence, *actually

confirms it.* The only two other names which, although occurring in

Mandala

I, are found in the upa-mandalas of the *Middle Period*, are the names

Istasva and Rjrasva. *All these three names, the three earliest

occurrences

in the Rigveda of the categories of names listed above, together

provide us

with the period and area of the provenance of these names: they all

refer to

the great battle "beyond the Sarayu" between the forces of Rjrasva

(Arjaspa)

and Istasva (Vistaspa) in Afghanistan in the early part of the Middle

Period

of the Rigveda, in which Citraratha (a Puru or Vedic Aryan, who

fought on

the side of the Iranians) was killed [see TALAGERI 2000:214-224].This

battle

took place after the events of the Early Period which took place in

Haryana,

and then in the Punjab, and the subsequent westward expansion [see

TALAGERI

2000:210-14].*

 

 

 

In my earlier writings, both in my books as well as in my debates with

Witzel-etc., I have always expressed my unwillingness to

postulate "hard

dates" for the events in the Rigveda without "hard evidence" like

dateable

inscriptions and documents, etc. Nevertheless, Witzel-etc. compelled

me to

express my precise views on the subject, which I did (roughly): Early

Period

?3400-2600 BCE; Middle Period ?2600-2200 BCE; Late Period ?2200-1400

BCE.

Witzel-etc. introduced the subject of spokes (*ara*) and "Bactria-

Margiana

words", both of which confirmed my dates, at least for the Late

Period. Now,

the subject of the Mitanni words, again reintroduced by Witzel, has

led to

an examination of the Mitanni evidence, which clearly provides

irrefutable

evidence for my dating for the Late Period once more, this time on

the basis

of actual dateable inscriptions and documents ?if not in India, then

in

West Asia. *The Mitanni are clearly emigrants from India in the Late

Period

of the Rigveda*.

 

 

 

All this overwhelming evidence cannot be ignored or refuted, and it

is my

hope that at least scholars like Hock, if not evangelical crusaders

like

Witzel, will care to weigh the evidence and reconsider their

positions.

* *

*Source: Note from Shrikant Talageri, Dec. ** 16, 2005*