Fw: No Hurrian gods

[David Salmon]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" <bjartekal at ah.telia.no>
To: "David Salmon" <dsalmon at salmon.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: No Hurrian gods


> You may post my reply to the list if you like.
> Bjarte
>
> ----------
> > From: David Salmon <dsalmon at salmon.org>
> > To: bjartekal at ah.telia.no
> > Subject: Re: No Hurrian gods
> > Date: 15. november 2000 20:10
> >
> > Dear Dr. Kaldhol,
> >
> > >
> > Would you mind if I posted your reply to the list?
> >
> > David
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bjarte Kaldhol" <bjartekal at ah.telia.no>
> > To: <dsalmon at salmon.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 3:42 PM
> > Subject: No Hurrian gods
> >
> >
> > > Dear David,
> > > I did translate the most important sentence: The Aryan gods were not
> > > mentioned in the Hurrian part of the treaty. They were mentioned in
the
> > > Hittite part only. Which means that they were regarded as gods (or
demons
> > > who knows?) by the Hittites, not by the Hurrians. This is how I
interpret
> > > Kammenhuber's statments, anyhow, and it is very serious if so many
scholars
> > > have been led to believe that they were Hurrian gods. I had hoped to
be
> > > corrected by somebody on the list, but nobody has turned up.
> > >
> > > The next important sentence, the reason for my German question, was:
> > > "So, by that time, the Aryan pantheon no longer played any big role
among
> > > the Mittani Hurrians". I asked: "Why no longer?" Because I believe
there
> > > was never any Aryan pantheon among the Hurrians - no religious
influence
> > > at all.  This is fiction, based on ignorance.
> > >
> > > I still cannot believe what Kammenhuber says. I shall have to study
the
> > > texts myself, to see what I can find out. Please be patient.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Bjarte
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > From: David Salmon <dsalmon at SALMON.ORG>
> > > To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> > > Subject: Re: No Aryan gods in Hurrian treaty?
> > > Date: 14. november 2000 01:51
> > >
> > > For the benefit of the uneducated lurking amongst you, myself included
> > > :-(, could you please give us some idea in English what this says?
> :-)
> > >
> > > David
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Bjarte Kaldhol
> > >   To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK
> > >   Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 2:21 PM
> > >   Subject: No Aryan gods in Hurrian treaty?
> > >
> > >
> > >   Dear listmembers,
> > >
> > >   I had barely started reading Annelies Kammenhuber's HIPPOLOGIA
> HETHITICA
> > >   (1961) when I noticed the following on p. 20:
> > >
> > >   "In diesem Vertrag zwischen $uppiluliuma I. und Mattiwaza [now read
> > >   Kurdiwaza, B.K.] von Mitanni aus dem 2. Viertel des 14. Jh.s nehmen
> > >   saemtliche arischen Goetter bereits ziemlich den letzten Platz ein
> under
> > >   den zur Bestaetigung des Eides angerufenen Goetter... im
Gegenvertrag
> > >   Mattiwazas... werden sie ueberhaupt nicht mehr erwaehnt! Das arische
> > >   Pantheon spielte also damals keine grosse Rolle mehr bei den
> > >   Mitanni-Hurritern."
> > >
> > >   I have read this carefully about a dozen times, and can only
conclude
> > > that
> > >   in the treaty which the Hurrian king brought back to his archives,
no
> > >   Indo-Aryan gods were mentioned. This is exactly what I would expect,
> but
> > > it
> > >   is not what I have been told.
> > >
> > >   Keine grosse Rolle mehr? Warum "mehr"?
> > >
> > >   Best wishes,
> > >   Bjarte Kaldhol
> > > ----------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>