Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You seem to follow the other AIT/AMT scholars in picking out insignificant things like 'spellings' of names (which incidentally are not in English). Wouldn't it be better if you just kept to the main arguments rather than 'spellings'?

Now, onto your argument that Mittani is older than Vedic, I would ask the AMT/AIT school to not spout random words as evidence. You seem to follow Witzel blindly in this case. The presence of ‘aika’ in Mittani IA is not a definite evidence of pre-RV period. 'Satta' used by the Mittani is more Prakrit than Vedic. So shall we say that Mittani is closer to Prakrit (and not just post-Vedic). A few words cannot make evidence (esp. when they can be interpreted anyway the 'scholars' want). Your claim that linguistic data 'undoubtedly' puts Vedic as younger to Mittani is far-fetched and misleading. Moreover, Mittani has only few IA words. As such, any ‘argument’ based on evidence of absence is baseless (hence, please stop stating that late RV-words are not present in Mittani). Finally, Mittani IA uses the word ‘mani’ which is from late-RV period. The presence of ‘aika’ does not prove Mittani as pre-RV. After all, Rg Veda was redacted many times before it was frozen and it has undergone pronunciation changes as well. Therefore, it is very much possible that ‘aika’ was used in RV and that it was changed to ‘eka’ during the redactions (similarly the other sounds such as ‘zdh’). Also, the Mittani would have crossed the Iranians on their way to Aratta. As such, it is possible that they took up some Iranian sounds. So, the argument that Mittani is pre-RV is not an ‘invincible’ one as Witzel and you would like us to believe. The truth is that Mittani uses a late RV word (mani). It has at least one Prakrit word form (satta). As such, we can definitely state that Mittani belongs to late RV or post-RV era. The fact that Mittani names are very similar to late RV books (Talageri 2008: 175 - 180) has been well established by Talageri. Also remember that Mittani IAs would have left the subcontinent a few centuries earlier before they conquered West Asia and that Mittani IA words are found in texts which were written much later. As such, any argument about ‘earlier sound forms’ is nullified as RV was redacted after this migration period. Words are better evidences than sounds in this matter. Mittani words support the OIT rather than AMT as they use late RV words.

The key argument of Lal and others is: Indra and Varuna were worshipped by these names only in the subcontinent. The Vedic people do not say that they came from any foreign land. Instead the Rg Veda speaks about an east to west 'expansion' (and not migration). The western lands are seen only in the later books. Then, we come across a later Vedic text which states that a set of people migrated to the west while the others migrated to the east. It also states that those who migrated to the west did not perform the Vedic rituals. As such, it fits the description of the Avestans who were not performing Vedic sacrifices. Then, you come across a land whose name is very similar to Aratta and where the IE entered as conquerors and still remembered their God Indra who was not worshipped by this name by any other IE group outside the subcontinent.

Common sense demands that we identify these conquerors as the Indo-Aryans who migrated to Aratta.

And why does it make you wonder that OIT scholars who do not accept any 'Aryan invasion' of India readily accept the 'Aryan invasion' of Aratta? There is no hypocrisy in this. There is simply no archaeological/literary evidence for any Aryan invasion of India while we have both for the Mittani Indo-Aryans.

As for your example about 'ostrich', I feel that it applies more to the AIT/AMT school than anyone else. After all, they keep on harping the same tune despite the fact that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence to support their viewpoint.

Ravilochanan<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->