While your individual arguments are taken together, they appear contradictory.
Take the case of sapta and Indra. Both the terms have acquired a post-RV shape in Mitanni. You seem to believe that ‘satta’ is a result of the lack of ‘-pt-‘ in Hurrian. As I pointed out (and you confirmed), ‘-dr-‘ is not found in Hurrian. Still, we find ‘Midra’ (but not ‘Indra’).
Also, you seem to believe that Mitanni IA was a living language. If so, then the IAs would have been able to pronounce sapta and hence would have used the word as such in writing. After all, cuneiform does have an alphabet for ‘p’. When they did not hesitate to use ‘-dr-‘ in Midra, why did they not use the same in Indra or use ‘-pt-‘ in sapta? Indar is a post Vedic form (PrAkRt). I have already pointed out that under OIT Mitanni would be a western dialect very close to Vedic (not Vedic per se). So, what is the trouble in believing that the language maintained a few archaisms lost by Sanskrit (like ‘z’ for example)? In fact, my conclusion is that Mitanni retained certain archaisms while losing some.
As for the Mitanni names, I had already pointed out Talageri’s work. He gives a list of Mitanni names (kindly ignore useless issues like ‘spellings’ and look at the larger picture) and points out that similar names are found in RV only in the non-Family books. It shows that they are later inventions. There is not a single case opposed to this situation. The evidence is unilateral. Do you mean to say that somehow the Vedics did not think of using these popular names but after a few centuries began using such names once again? That too, many of these forms have never gone much out of favour and used till now (for example ‘priya-‘ compounds).
We do know that there were several dialects in IE and that some of the languages maintained certain archaisms while the others lost the same. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that Mitanni could have maintained certain archaisms lost by Vedics. It does not necessarily make Mitanni older than RV. We do find that Ir maintained ‘z’ but lost certain other archaisms (e.g. s>h).
You have claimed that Mitanni Gods are not ‘Vedic’ as they are written as “Midra, Uruwana (or Aruna), Indar(a), Nazatya”. Being so, why do you claim that they are cousins of Vedics’ forefathers? They could as well be contemporaries of Late RV who simply maintained some archaisms. Surely, you do not think that ‘Indra’ was derived from the ‘Indar’? Your argument is based on a belief that Mitanni is a dialect which was the father of RV language. But the evidence of names found in Mitanni records suggests otherwise. Interestingly, Avestan is also full of Late RV names. It independently proves that Avestan is later than the early Family Books (Avestan belongs to an age when the deva-asura divide had occurred). Considering that Mitanni case is very similar, I would rather put it as an IE dialect very close to IA (or even a non-Vedic IA dialect) contemporaneous to late RV.
Finally, I just read Kazanas’ new book. He has not exactly written about ‘aika’ being a later form compared to ‘eka’. But he has pointed out how roots change in Sanskrit. For example, it is always ‘i>e>ai’ (e.g. ‘cit’>’cet’>’cait’). So, it is very probable that ‘aika’ was derived from ‘eka’ (whose root is ‘i’). I wonder why no one has given much consideration to this element (including me).
PS: When you say that the signs were ‘freshly painted’, you are claiming that the archaeologists indulged in malpractice (as well as wilful tampering of evidence – a fraud) and it is as good as calling them as cheating everyone. The reason for this belief could be either: 1) a belief in racial superiority (or inferiority of Indians) or 2) academic arrogance and a belief that anyone opposing your views has to be a cheat. Therefore, you decide yourself what you are. In either case, it will be become a case of your faith versus others' reasoning. If there is a third possible reason, kindly do explain.
Btw, you seem to have confused something. Nationalists do not have an inferiority complex. They may be accused of having a superiority complex. I do consider myself to be a Hindu nationalist. The reason why I considered your statement to be racist is this: many of the European tourists who visit India exhibit some belief in racial superiority and it can be seen in their behaviour. They seem to have internalized Mill’s statement that Hindus are full of deceit and perfidy. I do not find such tendencies in most American tourists. Therefore, quite naturally, when you made a statement accusing the archaeologists as committing fraud, I thought that you are exhibiting the same European tendency to believe in racial superiority.
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
- --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
>No. It is reality. Read below.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@...>
> To: <IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 7:59 AM
> Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Prof. BB Lal's response to a critique on westward
> migration of Vedic people
> I guess this speaks volumes about the competency of peer review!
> I agree. It does speak volumes.
> Peer review is not the best way to prevent good stuff from being published.
> They accept paper from a person who does not even know the chronology of
> prakrit/sanskrit numerals and has no clue about culture associated with
> vedic gods and the reason why mitanni would use these vedic gods on their
> seals! ***
> This is your personal fancy.
>How is Aika older then Skrt Eka? Your personal opinion? Or you have some evidence? (Though I don't think you know. Since I have asked you for evidence earlier. But I am willing to be surprised).
> Last I checked you did not know how to respond to this post:
> Why not answer that mail now.
> You wrote:
> > Rejected because Mitanni used Prakrit numerals such as aika
> > > (one), paanza (five), saata (seven), nawa (nine) from India. No other
> > > conuntry on the planet pronounces these numerals such.
> > ***
> > I never claim Mitanni Aryans were Iranians.
> > Aika proves they were not.
> > Moreover the numerals are not Prakrit: this is a complete lie.
> > Moreover aika is not attested in India as aika but as the evolved eka.
> > A.
> > ***
> Lie? Do you have any proof that they are not prakrit numerals? Unless you do
> this is just another absurd claim from you.
> Aika is older that the evolved Skrt Eka.
> In addition, it remains to be proved that this isolated word has no
> connection with Ugric ak, ek
> As explained before the oddity of satta can be explained with Hurrian
>No. What is fascinating is that a person who does not understand the context of these Gods is blinded by the cuneiform translation. We will be a bit slow in explaining you perhaps it will stick:
> > I already knew this verse before.
> > I'm not translating anything but reading it.
> > A.
> > ***
> It was not verse but verses. And no you did not know all of the rks of rig
> veda that I mentioned in the earlier message. Find similar assignements of
> to Gods as given in Rg-Veda from non-Indic corpus and then we can start
> believing your reading of these God names. If you cannot then you are
> to an absurd reading.
> It's fascinating to see that the one who misreads cuneiform is the most
a) Find a region on this planet where duties as mentioned in Rg Veda are assigned to the Gods mentioned on Mitanni seals.
If you did try, the answer would be India. In India these Gods are pronounced as Indra , Varuna etc.
Now if cuneiform or any indologist tries to say that the correct pronunciation for Varuna is Aruna or Uruwana then obviously they have lost their rockers. Why? Because the person who actually inscribed the seal meant Varuna but the person who is interpreting it in our age is reading it as Uruwana.
Hope this helps!
> Next:This is not the first time your peers and the reviewers are peddling rubbish POV. So I am not surprised. But obviously you have convinced no one here.
> > Anyway what we have in Mitanni Aryan shows that the RgVeda is younger than
> > Mitanni.
> Yet again a claim without any evidence. Prove it. I am challenging you, you
> cannot. It is just your POV and nothing more.
> My Pov is no longer my POV as it is peer-reviewed and accepted.