Continuing from
the post on Hermann Jacobi's writings.
From the July 1909 paper
Among the documents found by Hugo Winckler there are treaties between Subbiluliuma, king of the Hittites, and Mattiuaza, king of Mitani (Northern Mesopotamia), of the time about 1400 B.C. In these treaties deities of both these nations are invoked.
Hugo Winckler found the following :—x
ilani mi-it-ra-aš-ši-il ilāni uru-w-na-aš-ši-el
.....................(variant), a-ru-na-aš-ši-il
ilu......... in-dar ilāni na-ša-a[t-ti-ia-a]n-na
(variant) in-da-ra na-š[a]-at-ti-ia-an-na,
The affixes
aššil and
anna are not yet clear; they probably belong to the Hittite idiom. The word
ilu is the Babylonian for " god ", and
ilāni is the plural. Here, then, we have Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and the Nasatyas or Aś vins. The plural ilani before Mitra and Varuna indicates, according to Professor Eduard Meyer's plausible explanation, that both formed an aggregate, a pair; for in the usual
dvandva - compound Mitra - Varunau both words are in the dual, which is represented by the plural
ilāni, since the Babylonian language has no dual.
These five gods not only occur in the Rgveda, but they are grouped together here precisely as we find them grouped in the Veda. In my opinion this fact establishes the Vedic character and origin of these Mitani gods beyond reasonable doubt. It appears, therefore, quite clearly that in the fourteenth century B.C. and earlier the rulers of Northern Mesopotamia worshipped Vedic gods. The tribes who brought the worship of these gods, probably from Eastern Iran, must have adopted this worship in their original home about the sixteenth century. At that time, then, the Vedic civilization was already in its full perfection. This fact makes the late date of the Veda usually adopted impossible, and is distinctly in favour of my theory.
But there is one difficulty which must be discussed. There is doubt as to the nationality of the kings of Mitani who worshipped the Vedic gods. According to Winckler (p. 37) the dynasty of those kings was as follows:—
..............Sa-us-sa-tar
...............Artatama
...............Sutarna I
Tushratta.................Artatama II
Mattivaza.................Sutarna II (Suttatarra)
These names are certainly not Sanskrit, but look like Iranian names ; and similarly the names of two later kings of Kommagene, who probably descended from the same stock, Kundaspi (854 B.C.) and Kustaspi (743 B.C.).
In two articles Professor Eduard Meyer fully recognizes the Iranic character of these names, and at the same time he is of opinion that the Vedic gods were native gods of the tribe from which the rulers of Mitani descended. He supposes, therefore, that that tribe was a member of the still undivided Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family, and that their gods were Aryan gods. For Mitra is not only an Indian, but also an Iranian god. Indra, the Vedic god, is also mentioned in the Avesta, but only as a demon; and so is a Naonhaithya (= Nasatya). And Varuna is thought by Professor Meyer to be identical with Ahuramazda. Furthermore, the form Nasatya of the inscription, instead of the Zend form Naonhaithya, would, in his opinion, prove that the inscription belongs to a time when, in the undivided Aryan language,
s had not yet been changed into
h, as in the Iranian languages. According to Eduard Meyer the Aryan period, which is theoretically constructed by comparative philology, is now, for the first time, verified by documentary evidence.
With reference to the antiquity of Vedic culture, let us now consider this theory that in the fifteenth century B.C. the Aryan branch of the Indo-Germanic family was as yet undivided. It is obvious that if this theory be true the Indians cannot have been settled in the Punjab in the fifteenth century B.C. as an independent people, as Eduard Meyer contended a year before Winckler's discoveries had been made known.1 But it would be unfair to take him now at his word; however, the question which requires an answer is this : what length of time would be needed for the development implied in Meyer's hypothesis with regard to the Aryan character of the Mitani gods. This development would pass through four stages — (1) the differentiation of the undivided Aryan branch into two different peoples, Indian and Iranian, and of the one Aryan language into two distinct languages, the Sanskrit and the Iranian; (2) the conquest and settlement of at least a part of Western India by the Indians ; (3) the development of Vedic culture; and (4) the rise and perfection of Vedic poetry, of which the Rgveda would be the later and riper portion then extant. Now all these are slowly progressing racial changes and historical and social movements of great moment. And the time required for them cannot be estimated with anything like exactness even within the limits of one or two centuries. But this much may be said, that the process of development must have been a rapid one if completed within 500 years. With this in mind, if we assume that the fifteenth century B.C. be the starting-point for the differentiation of the Aryan branch into the Indians and the Iranians, we should be obliged to place the Rgveda as it now stands a considerable time after 1000 B.C. I venture to think that
few scholars who, without prejudice, consider the great religious, social, and historical changes which happened between the Rgveda and the rise of Buddhism, will be prepared to accept so late a date for the Rgveda. Therefore, since Eduard Meyer's theory leads to consequences inconsistent with the facts of Indian history, must we not reject his theory of the Aryan origin of the Mitani gods ? And must we not insist that it is highly improbable that the undivided Aryans should have worshipped six1 gods just as they appear in the Rgveda, while the Iranians retained only Mithra as a god and entirely changed the character of the remaining ones ?
How, then, can it be explained that an Iranian tribe worshipped Vedic gods ? I assume that the tribes in question (Kharri ?) came from the east of Iran. There, as we know from the Rgveda, Vedic culture once prevailed. And these tribes, being neighbours and perhaps subjects of Vedic tribes who had reached a higher level of civilization, adopted the Vedic gods, and thus brought the Vedic worship with them to their new homes in Mesopotamia. Probably the entrance into India was barred to them because at that time the Vedic people in Western India was at the height of its power, and accordingly they migrated towards the West. They were perhaps attracted by the riches of the ancient monarchies in the plains between the Euphrates and Tigris. I know this is but a guess, but it accounts for the facts better than any other I can imagine.
In view of the facts I have adduced in this paper, I may perhaps think that my chronological argument will yet survive.
_____________________________________
So basically Hermann Jacobi was asking the right question!
We have to get the the Life of Buddha dated correctly - 1887 BCE - 1807 BCE! Around this time the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization also started fading out!
which can only mean 'Indra and the [one] Nasatya". Konow's statement...:"The existing state of things makes it necessary to infer that the dual designation Nasatyau is of Indian growth", seems to me to stand unimpaired.
Unfortunately available for viewing in US only.