Indo-Aryan words in Hurrian

[Bjarte Kaldhol]

I wish I knew more about this subject. Since I must concentrate on my
Hurrian, Akkadian and Sumerian studies I feel I have to accept the
mainstream views of chronology. (I follow the so-called low chronology,
that is, my "1500" corresponds to "1560" in the middle chronology.) To move
Egyptian chronology forward "several centuries" sounds too dramatic; I
would not take such speculations seriously. The destruction of the Mittani
palace at Tell Brak was dated by dendrochronology to some time in the
beginning of the thirteenth century, I believe. See the Historical
Commentary in EXCAVATIONS AT TELL BRAK. VOL. 1: THE MITANNI AND OLD
BABYLONIAN PERIODS, by D. Oates, J. Oates and H. McDonald, British School
of Archaeology in Irac, 1997.

 You might find more on the subject of dendrochronology at:

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/

See also "Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern
Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC" in NATURE vol. 381 (27 June 1996) 780-783 (with
Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning, Maryanne Newton, Christine Latini, & Mary
Jaye Bruce).

Best wishes,
Bjarte Kaldhol

----------
> From: Stephen Hodge <s.hodge at PADMACHOLING.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
> To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Indo-Aryan words in Hurrian
> Date: 5. november 2000 20:16
>
> Bjarte Kaldhol wrote
>
> > There is now reason to believe that the Hurrians had tamed the horse
> by 2200 BC,
> > more than seven hundred years before the assumed IA influence.
> I don't have access right now to the reference you provide but I would
> like to ask what will probably seem a naive question:  how is the
> dating for the Hurrians/Mittani/Kassites fixed ?  I have no problem
> with a relative chronology but how is an absolute chronology
> determined -- Carbon 14 dating, AMS or even dendrochronology ?   Or is
> it fixed from supposed links into Egyptian king-lists ?   If the
> latter, what are your views on the hypothesis of several scholars
> recently that Egyptian dates for the Middle and New Kingdoms are
> erroneous and need to be moved downwards to more recent dates by
> several hundred years ?  I know this sounds like the attempts to
> redate the RV the other way, but at least in the case of Egypt the
> evidence seems fairly compelling.  Ultimately the two questions must
> have a bearing on each other vis-a-vis linguistic considerations such
> as you have raised.
>
> Best wishes,
> Stephen Hodge