Comment on Mitanni Evidence

[Guest guest]

Hi Kishore, in a message you posted a few weeks ago you included the following views about Mitanni and asked if anyone had any comments about them:>In an article, Subhash Kak tries to establish that Mitanni is an>aryan. post vedic civilization.>Witzel does not say whether Mitannis are aryans but he finds their>language is pre archaic sanskrit and hence, places rig veda in post>1500 period.Due to the limited amount of data we have about the 'Aryan' element in Mitanni and the form we have that data in it is difficult to reach any firm conclusions based on it . This is particularly the case when it comes to making linguistic pronouncements about the apparent 'aryan' words present in that data. The ancient scripts that the 'aryan' words have come down to us in do not appear to have the capacity to transliterate accurately the range of sounds that would be found in most of those words. Thus in many cases we cannot be sure

about the correct form of the word being discussed.In addition to having the above problem of not having an accurate transliteration of the 'aryan' words as far as I can determine the conclusion that Mitannian OIA (Old-Indo-Aryan) is earlier than Rigvedic OIA is completely based on theoretical evidence. I say this because the Vedic Sanskrit of the Rigveda is the earliest actual example of the OIA language that we have. This means any earlier example of OIA has to be a theoretical reconstruction that we cannot be certain is correct. Thus the above conclusion is based on theoretical evidence which by its self is not conclusive proof that Mitannian OIA (Old-Indo-Aryan) is older than Rigvedic OIA.For the same above eason of not knowing for sure we have an accurate transliteration of the 'aryan' Mitannian words we cannot be certain that satta (seven) in the Kikkuli horse training manual is evidence that MIA words were

being used in 14th century BC Mitanni. However, the sounds in MIA satta are not difficult and the scripts of most languages should be able to accurately transliterate that word. Because the other numerals (aika, tera, panza, na[va]) that qualify the Indo-Aryan word vartana in the Kikkuli's manual are also generally thought by scholars to be Indo-Aryan or Iranian I find it hard to take seriously the argument that satta is the odd one out of those qualifying numerals and not a true 'aryan' word, but instead a word heavily influence by the non IE Hurrite word s'inti (seven). Instead I believe because we appear to have an actual example of a MIA word being used in 14th century Mitannian that

could well have been transliterated correctly and apparently has exactly the same form and meaning as the MIA word satta that we cannot discount this as evidence that MIA words were being used then and the date of the Rigveda may have been centuries even millennia earlier than has generally been suggested. Something we can be safe in assuming from the Mitannian data is that the names of important gods that were worshipped in the hymns of the Rigveda are listed on the treaty between the Hittites and the Mitannians. From this we can also safely assume that hymns to those gods would have been composed sometime before the time of the treaty. As the Rigvedic gods named in the treaty must have belonged to a well established religion to qualify them being listed on the treaty there is a strong possibility that some, if not all, the hymns of the Rigveda may have been composed for some considerable length of time before the date of

the treaty.Bruce

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

[Reproduced from

http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1036 & st=90

 

Note that Sindura in Tamil means thinking people - kishore patnaik]

 

I am trying to look for links of Meluhha, Meluhhan colonists in Iraq

with their own rulers/leaders having first close ties with the

kingdom of Lagash (pre-2100 BCE) and then with Ur of theThird dynasty

period (2112-2004 BCE) on.

 

The rise of Indic equestrian technique and nomenlature must have been

dispersed from the Khabur Valley centre, an ancient area with a horse

culture already from the days of their kings Shatarmat and his son

Atalshen, to Anatolia (19th century BCE) and Egypt (17th/16th century

BCE) even before the rise of the Mitannian empire.

The Mita-nni or Maita-nni Hindus were especiallly at home within the

Hurri speaking areas.

 

My theory is that the ancient SA.GAZ (Sumerian logogram from Ur II

period on) and its synonymous word Hapir-u/Habir-u or 'Apir-u

(Akkadian, from 19th century on) were especially applied to the Hurri

and its elite, who were Indic with Hurri, mixed Hurri-indic or Indic

names. Much later, the Habiru absorbed many Semitic speaking people

in Canaan, and when the Israelites appear, much after the decline of

Mitanni, the word Habiru gradually becomes synonymous to Israelite

(Hebrew. Abraham was called a Hebrew, because he did live for a while

in Habir-u lands when he left Ur). There may be a connection between

the words Habir-u and the later word Khabur (Valley).

 

Even today, right in the heartland Khabur area of former Mitanni

lands and present Kurdistan, the most prestigious clan has the

name " Sindi " !