From: shivkhokra
Message: 66728
Date: 2010-10-09
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "shivkhokra" <shivkhokra@> wrote:Do you accept that Vedic nasatya is na-asatya and that is the reason it was used on Mitanni tablets or you have another Iranian substrate theory?
>
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Several modern linguists have proposed that the name Nâsatya may
> > > go back to the Indo-Iranian verbal root *nas- 'to come together
> > > (at home)' < PIE *nes- 'to return home safely'... In Sanskrit,
> > > the name Nâsatya attributed to the As'vins would, thus, have
> > > originally meant something like 'the Saviors'...
> >
> > Indo-Iranian root does not make much sense because in Avesta
> > Nasatya are destrucive demons and don't play much of a role in
> > their mythology.
>
> Zoroaster's reform accepted certain divinities of Old Iranian pagan religion (which was Indo-Iranian-inherited) and repudiated certain others by labeling them as amoral and/or violent demonic beings (daevas). This negative re-evaluation affected Indra, Nanghaithya, *Saurva, Vayu (partially), and the word daeva. However, Zoroaster nowhere mentions any of the daevas by name; it is only from Pahlavi texts that we know their names (Indar, Nanghaithya, Savol, and Vayush).
>
> The concept of Nasatya seems to have undergone considerable development in Vedic India, and there is no ancient Iranian material to establish the character of the corresponding common Indo-Iranian god. I'm aware that the derivation of Nasatya/Nanghaithya from a Proto-Indo-Iranian root *nas- (PIE *nes- 'to return safely') is not granted, yet that is the one favoured by Indo-Iranian specialists, although there is some controversy about the morphological details of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian abstract noun *nasati- from which Nasatya/Nanghaithya would derive.
>Well we have provided internal evidence from Rig Veda and Panchvimsa Brahmana where Saraswati is remembered both as a mighty river and the one that dries up, a fact which is corroborated by modern scientists and dated to 1900 B.C. Since you seem to possess some evidence which blows away the scientific data, we would like to hear what you have got?
>
> > If we put a time line:
> >
> > Nasatya Rgveda ~2000 B.C
> > Nasatya Mitanni ~1400 B.C
> > Nanhaitya Avesta ~1000 B.C (?)
> > Nestor Illiad ~700 B.C
>
> Some Vedic scholars, also in recent years, have maintained that the date of composition of the Rigveda is closer to 1000 BCE than to 1500 BCE (not to speak of your certainly non-"mainstrean" 2000 BCE!). Therefore, your timeline can be emended as follows:
>
> Nasatya Mitanni ~1400 BCE
> Nasatya Rgveda ~1300-1200 BCE
> Nanghaithya Avesta much later than 1000 BCE
>
> Regards,
> Francesco
>