Mittani Aryans - No, Sanskrit did not come from Syria

You will come across many news articles and videos on social media platforms that claim that Sanskrit has its origin in present-day Syria. These articles and videos will also give references to the oldest inscriptions of Sanskrit words found in Syrian tablets which predates any archaeological findings in the Indian subcontinent. When you consume such content, you will be convinced that Sanskrit indeed must have come from Syria, hence concluding the Aryan Migration Theory. But it’s a false narrative created by misunderstandings of the pieces of evidence and projecting selective truths.

Even many credible content creators refer to these articles while making their point and I don’t blame them because they are referring to well-known sources. Even if you agree with the widely accepted Aryan Migration Theory, the claim that Sanskrit & Aryans came from Syria doesn’t stand ground. Here is my linguistic and anthropological argument on the subject. I am referring to the source and its interpretation by proponents of Aryan Migration Theory like Asko Parpola.

 

The gist of the claim is:

 

Many clay tablets found in Syria belonging to the Mitanni Empire (1600 BCE), have inscriptions in cuneiform script that mention kings of the Mitanni dynasty with Sanskrit names, words of Indo-Aryan origin, and gods mentioned from the Vedic literature. Therefore, Sanskrit speakers in Syria predate Sanskrit speakers in India, as we do not have any older Indian inscriptional evidence to prove otherwise.

Inscriptions of the Mitanni Aryans

 

What Names and Words are Found in Clay Tablets?

 

Names recorded in Cuneiform tablets:

 

Written in Cuneiform: bi-ir-ya-ma-aš-da (Priyamazdha)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: Priyamedha

 

Written in Cuneiform: ar-ta-aš-šu-ma-ra (Artasmara)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: Ṛtasmara

 

Written in Cuneiform: in-da-ra (Indara)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: Indra

 

Written in Cuneiform: na-ša-ti-ya-an-na (Nasatya -nna)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: Nāsatya

 

Words recorded in Cuneiform tablets:

Written in Cuneiform: ti-e-ra (tera)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: tri [meaning three]

 

Written in Cuneiform: pa-an-za (pańća)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: pañcha [meaning five]

 

Written in Cuneiform: ša-at-ta (satta)

Vedic Sanskrit Equivalent: sapta [meaning seven]

 

Sounds Lost in the Cuneiform Script

 

While it is made to believe that the inscriptions are in Sanskrit, they are not. They were written in the Hurrian language with many Indo-Aryan loanwords. Just like Urdu is a form of Hindustani with heavy loanwords from Persian, but that does not make it Persian. As per Hurrian grammar, these Indo-Aryan words are modified – i.e. Nasatya + nna = Nasatyanna.

The cuneiform script like later Arabic script, does not have a separate letter for P, and hence it substitutes with B.

 

The cuneiform script like Arabic script, does not have a sign to denote half syllable. Therefore, the Aryan concept of Ṛta was written as Arta by both Persian Zoroastrians and Mitanni Aryans. As the script influences pronunciations, later Zoroastrians referred to the Ṛta as Arta. Another word in the inscriptions was Indara instead of Indra. If Aryans had migrated to India from Syria as it is sometimes inferred, they would have brought the pronunciations like Indara and Arta, and not Indra and Ṛta.

 

In the medieval period, when Persian was introduced as the administrative language in Northern India, Persian scripts replaced various Indian scripts for writing local languages. Hence, that changed the pronunciations of many Punjabi and Hindi words – Samudra (ocean) became Samandar, and Indra (name of a god) became Indar. This was the result of writing in a script that didn’t have signs for half a syllable.

Spread of Aryan languages (Indo-Iranian)

 

General Consensus among Historians on Aryan Migration Theory

 

Historians agreeing with the Aryan Migration, theorise the migration pattern started in Central Asia, with one branch coming to India, one going to Iran, and a third going to Syria. Those who came to India preserved it verbally and later wrote it down in a script best suited to their sounds. Meanwhile, those who went to the Middle East adopted the pre-existing cuneiform script and lost some of their pronunciations in the process.

 

Mitanni Aryans are believed to be a minority ruling elite while the main population was Hurrian speakers. A parallel can be drawn to the minority of Turko-Persian elites ruling the Delhi Sultanate while most of the population were Indo-Aryan speakers.

 

Loss of the P sound in the word for ‘Seven’

 

Another argument comes referring to the cuneiform word for seven, ‘satta’. The Proto-Indo-European root word for seven is considered ‘septm’. When it went to India, it became ‘sapta’, it became ‘hapta’ in Avestan, later becoming ‘hafta’ in Persian. When it went to Rome it became ‘septem’, while in ancient Greece, it became ‘hepta’. The ‘p’ sound had survived everywhere.

 

But in India, ‘sapta’ became ‘satta’ in Pali and Prakrit and became ‘saat’ in modern languages like Hindi and Marathi. This shows how the word lost its ‘p’ sound when it was simplified. The Mitanni word for seven ‘satta’ may point to the fact that these migrations happened from India after the letter evolved in Prakrit. If this is considered, it makes an argument that Aryans in India predated Mitanni hence taking back the date of Aryan migration even further.

 

The concept of Aryans, who they were, and where they originated, is a very complex theory. Many differing narratives come from the lens of ideological biases either from the Left, or the Right. Each side uses selective truths to make their point. While many don’t discuss and debate outside of their echo chambers, I am trying to find what are the real facts. If you like my blog on this topic, stay tuned as I will create more content on this polarising topic.

Follow the YouTube channel for more.