Indo-Aryan words in Hurrian

[Bjarte Kaldhol]

Dear listmembers,

I very much appreciated George Thompson's contribution to this discussion
and have little to add, except that we should avoid the unwarranted use of
expressions like "Indo-Aryan presence", if a physical presence of
Indo-Aryans in Mittani is meant.

But here is some more "food for thought":

King George VI was not a Greek, and even if he might have used some
(Latinized) Greek words, this would not make him a Greek. Nor would I say
that Hittite texts are immediately relevant to Hurrian studies, unless they
are bilingual, or in other ways might help to clarify the meanings of
Hurrian words.

We do not know much about Kikkuli's background, though his name (elsewhere
unattested) appears to be Hurrian and related to eastern names like Kikki,
Kikkabu (Nuzi), Kikkija (an early Hurrian (?) king of Assur), Kikkiu
(Nuzi), and Kikkijenne (a woman, Nippur). None of these names are easily
interpreted. The -uli/-ule of Kikkuli is often used in profession names,
so, possibly, it may describe his profession. Where these people of the
Turukki tribe, whose language is unknown? We have no reason to believe that
Kikkuli spoke an Indo-Aryan language. He might have learned the IA
hippological expressions anywhere, even outside Syro-Mesopotamia. India?
Afghanistan? The Hurrians received their lapis lazuli from Afghanistan
(already in the third millennium), and the word maninnu, used in the
Akkadian El Amarna letter 25 to describe different necklaces inlaid with
lapis lazuli, might indicate that maninnu was a trade word. (Compare
"sugar" from an Indian word!)

As we see, there was some contact with Afghanistan from early times. The
Uruk people (Sumerians?) also got lapis lazuli, carnelian and agate from
India, Afghanistan or central Iran. See G. Algaze, THE URUK WORLD SYSTEM,
p. 77: "Lapis lazuli is only obtainable from mines in faraway Badakhshan...
and it most likely reached the Mesopotamian lowlands through either the
Khorasan Road or through trans-Iranian routes across Kerman and Fars into
Susiana... However, more northernly routes across Anatolia are also
possible, since unworked chunks of lapis were recovered at Jebel Aruda on
the Euphrates."

When Hock in his excellent article (kindly sent to me by Rohan Oberoi and
made readable by my son, Thomas), states that $atta- (that is, satta-) may
owe its -tt- to $inta/$itta, the word for "seven" in the non-IE language of
the subjects of the Mittani, this is misleading in many ways, as I have
already explained. (Hock refers to Friedrich 1940, as if nothing had
happened in Hurrology since Adolf's time.) He seems to imply that the
Hurrian rulers of the Mittani empire spoke, or knew, an Indo-Aryan
language, different from the language of their "subjects", something that
seems to be highly unlikely and at any rate should be substantiated by
compelling archaeological and linguistic facts. There are no such facts, as
far as I can see. Tu$ratta might not even have known what his name meant,
or how it should be spelled. Other names of Hurrian kings, like Sau$tattar,
may be Hurrian rather than IA. Many assumed IA names should now be
reexamined on the basis of our present understanding of the Hurrian
language.

When Mayrhofer in one of his articles characterizes Hurrian faduranni as an
IA "Rechtsterminus", this is a striking example of his bias. He implies, or
appears to imply, that an IA language was used as a legal term in Hurrian
courts! And, I would like to ask you Indologists, is vadhura- attested
anywhere in IA legal literature?

Best wishes,
Bjarte Kaldhol,
Oslo

----------
> From: George Thompson <GthomGt at CS.COM>
> To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: Indo-Aryan words in Hurrian
> Date: 9. november 2000 03:11
>
> Like others on this List I have benefited from and welcome this series of
> posts from Bjarte Kaldhol.  Of course, we Indologists must make ourselves
> better informed about the Hurrian data.  No question.
>
> But as a student of Indology rather rather than a student of Hurrian, I
would
> like to remind Bjarte Kaldhol that what matters in this context for
> Indologists is the fact that there is in any case *some* trace of IA in
these
> Hurrian and Hittite texts.  Now, it may turn out that this trace is very
much
> less than what has been claimed in the popular handbooks.  I certainly
> appreciate BK's efforts to call our attention to the exaggerations found
in
> these handbooks.  But the point, it seems to me, is that the value of
this
> trace remains undisputed -- as long as it does not reach the zero point.
The
> little evidence that we have points to an important fact: this trace in
> Hurrian or Hittite texts [what difference does it make that the Kikkuli
text
> is in Hittite?] confirms a specifically IA presence there rather than an
> Iranian presence: *aika* is attested only in Indic after all, and *satta*
> even if a so-called Prakritism in any case CAN NOT BE an Iranian word for
> 'seven.'   Likewise the sibillant in the form *na-Sa-at-ti-ia-an-na [for
Skt.
> nAsatya] confirms an IA presence rather than an Iranain one. Etc.  This
is
> solid evidence re the divergence of the IA and Iranian branches of the
> Indo-Iranian branch of IE.  Important for us of course if not for you.
>
> The dating, even if late, is firm, isn't it?  Indologists are grateful
for
> such chronological firmness, so rare in the Old Indic texts that we work
with.
>
> The model that we draw from these vestigial IA forms in Hurrian, Hittite,
> etc., may well need to be modified in light of your critique.  But as
long as
> the number of such forms does not reach the limit of zero, we can
confidently
> assert an IA presence in these texts at a known date.  This provides us
with
> a much needed anchor for our speculations about Indo-Iranian origins,
etc.
>
> So please be patient with our naive interest in your field.  The little
> crumbs that may survive your critique will contiinue to be of use to us.
>
> Or so it seems to me.
>
> Best wishes, and please do continue.
>
> George Thompson