From: shivkhokra
Message: 66702
Date: 2010-10-08
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
shivkhokra wrote:
>>>I am saying that if dyaus is mentioned for the first time on the planet earth
>>>in 2000 BC in Rg Veda and then 800 years later in 1200 B.C he is mentioned
>>>again as Zeus with similar functions on Linear B tablets in Crete,
>>>many thousand miles away, why is it necessary to assume that Greeks
>>>and Rg Vedic people had a common ancestor? Does'nt Occam's razor apply?
Richard wrote:
>>We already need a common (linguistic) ancestor for Greek and Sanskrit. Occam's
>>razor says we shouldn't multiply entities *without reason*.
Shivraj wrote:
>> Can you please explain what you mean?
>
Richard wrote:
> We already have the linguistic connection between the Greeks and the Indo-Aryans. We should not propose another connection without good reason.
But the question is what is the need to invent a ficticious ancestor than accepting the connection that cretan greeks writing linear B in 1200 B.C. got Zeus from Saraswati dwelling Vedic people who were worshipping Dyaus much earlier?
Richard wrote:
>> We do have an alternative connection - Mitanni Aryans.
Shivraj wrote:
> But were'nt Mitanni aryans from India?
Richard wrote:
> How far west do you consider India to extend? (Would a Bactrian origin count as a draw between AIT and OIT?) There seems to be reasonable evidence that the split between Iranians and Indo-Aryans did not occur along anything most of use would recognise as an Indian border. In particular, there is evidence that Indo-Aryans were in Iran before the Iranians.
> I'm not persuaded that the Mitanni Aryans were actually Indo-Aryan. The evidence seems weak to me, but the case is plausible.
>
If we consider three geographical regions: India, Iran and mitanni/hurrian region we see that in India and Mitanni region Indra, Varuna, Mitra and Nasatya were considered Gods. So was the case in pre-zarathusthra Iran becuase these gods were turned into demons by the avestan prophet so "pagan" Iran thought of these 4 as Gods.
What do you think might be the reason that Vedic, "pagan" or pre Zarathusthra Iranians and Mitanni people all thought of Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Nasatya as Gods?
>> The reason that these Gods are mentioned in the treaty is not
>> a random choice on the part of the scribe. Instead it
>> is because one of the functions assigned to these gods
>> by RgVeda deals with treaties as in RV 1.136.3 where
>> "Mitra and Varuna cause people to make mutual agreements".
>
> I'll not dispute that the patterns tie up, or that the Rg Veda helps. However, the evidence that Varuna is mentioned in the treaty is not as clear as one would like - see http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58220 . There is quite a discussion at the time of that post about the precise affiliations of the Mitanni Aryans.
>
Well if we read RV 10.125.1 and compare it to Mitanni treaty of 1380 BCE the names of Gods appear in the exact same order. This cannot be a co-incidence.
Mitanni phonology is still not caste in stone. IMHO lack of "V" in cuneiform may contribute some to the weird spelling or perhaps we are misreading the "V" and "W" i.e instead of Uruwana it should be waruuna.
-Shivraj