From: kishore patnaik
Message: 58158
Date: 2008-04-28
I see now. You merely believe that to be what the main-
stream view claims. It's not, however.
No, there is no such agreement. The Aryans in Mitanni
likely were, at least at some point in time, in some
sort of superstratal position, to have left traces of
the sort they did.
I have clearly mentioned what is the dffierence- undeniable indic aryan influence , quite strong, is present on mittani. However, it is not to be surmised that it points to an Aryan Aristocracy ( say, as postulated by subhash kak). Whether this is accepted or not by mainstreamers, please refer to any standard books on the issue or better still, please refer to the messages by Bjarte K on IER.
It's been explained quite correctly: some Indo-Aryans
moved a relatively short distance from their homeland
in Central Asia onto the Iranian plateau, for which
presence of theirs there some evidence besides that in
Mitanni has been found as well, and subsequently some
of their descendants moved a little further west into
Mitanni.
There's no big or elaborate mystery, and no need for a
big or elaborate explanation.
Agreed , if that is what you think but where is the proof? You can not design the itinerary of the indic aryans as you please.- edit -
>
No, that's not the case.
At least for the purpose of the thread that I have started , that is the case.
There clearly were Aryans in Mitanni at some point in
time, and, as far as I know, nobody on cybalist has ever
claimed otherwise, including yourself.
this is exactly the popint. There must have been Aryans in Mitannis "at some point of time" except that nooone including the most authority on mitannis is not able to hazard a universally agreeable guess when this "some point of time" is and more importantly , in what form or where Aryans were stationed when they came into the contact with Mitanni.
> So far linguistics is concered, cf above, presence of Indic
> Aryans seemed to have thrown them into a confusion. - hitting
> at postulation of a proto Ilr .
c Old Persian. Proto-Indo-
Iranian would stands just as solidly even if we excluded
consideration of Mitanni altogether.
David, you are saying what exactly I am saying PIIr will stand solidly ONLY if we exclude the mitanni evidence. It will crumble once you start considering it ...
Ultimately, this is a historian's issue and linguists are too confused to explain the whole thing.
Kishore patnaik