WERE THE ASURAS ASSYRIANS ?

265

invites namo of the capital city, S?rvabhauma, or Da?apura even a further reflection. Why should not Ujjain or Kanauj have been named ? Is it possible that a real capital of the tho subjects identified havo too definitely would whose names and titles, in fact, show little scandalous gossip, invented ? In that case wo should sign of being merely with at least the caricatured be able to boast an acquaintance The fictitious to an belonging personages it a northern poet thought interesting period, upon whom If so, the names may to exerciso his spiteful wit. worth while have been disguised only slightly, or not at all. In any event lineaments of a number of the characters are such as had a satiric probability
F. W.

in his time.
Thomas.

WERE The

THE

ASURAS

ASSYRIANS?

of the Asuras of Indo-Iranian mythology identification the Assyrians was first suggested by Mr, H. M. Chadwick p. 32), who derived (in J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, then modified and his idea was A&ur from Asura, by Dr. F. W. Thomas [JRAS. 1916, p. 355), who, on the contrary, with derived some Asura approval, from AMur. Mr. This derivation in his has met with Belvalkar book on Sanskrit as generally accepted Keith in the

alluding grammarians and standing beyond On the other hand, Commemorative

to this etymology all doubt. Professor

A. Berriedale

p. 88, denies Essays presented to Bhandarkar, " He says : There is no of either derivation. the possibility and the similarity identity of character in the two conceptions, is far from close. derivation
aware

of name obvious
1 I am YAska, asura,

The

Indo-Iranian

Asura

has an of A?sur
asu than

from asu,1 and, while

that Professor Keith alludes

the name
to another

of the word in speaking of the etymology iii, 8, hut, to us. Y?ska not forget this oldest known etymology is well formed the suras "it known that he (the Creator) (gods) says: ' the in which from su, and that lie formed their essence consists, good,' ' asuras from asu, not good,' and that in this consists their essence." [I do > or <ASSur the question is yet ripe for dis think that of A*iua not cussion.? F. W, T. |

quite Nirukta, we should

266

WERE THE ASURAS ASSYRIANS ?

western

it is important to note that its is less certainly interpreted, we form seems to have been Asir, and in Palestine the the Amorites, have the place-name Aser, and among sacred post, the Asera, and the divinity which took up its abode therein.''

Though I agree with Professor Keith

I am not satisfied

in rejecting the

that his reasons etymology ASkvr $ Asura, for rejecting it are conclusive. character which But there are reasons of a phonological of the enticing us from accepting possibility prevent with those mythological the Assyrians beings. identifying to Avestan For, first of all, Old Indian asura corresponding ahura, in the time of of the word must, of the tribes speaking these languages, linguistic community s. As a repre have been what is styled an Indo-European ? we would have expected not this sound sentative of Assyrian the Old Indian renders by s, but rather that one, which as known to us, by s. In an the Avestan and Old Persian, the second sound epoch

older

has it ??this still, the Iranians also pronounced : the in his Arien und Ugrofinnen been proved by Jacobsohn in the Finno-Ugrian loan-words Iranian oldest languages the existence of Iranian ?. Now, if the reading of presuppose is to be relied in a record of Assurbanipal Assam Maz?S upon, But it proves that Assur has nothing to do with Assara or
asura-ahura whatever.

there is another

point which

I think settles

the question

I we meet with of Darius inscriptions text appears as who in the Persian the deity Ahuramazda, in the as ilu?-ri-mi-iz-da, in the Babylonian auramazda, the meet with we also as anu-ra-mas-da. But Elamite text, in the Persian atura are called who Assyrians, and Tax-su-ra in the Elamite. matu?s-sur in the Babylonian, As will be seen, in none of the three languages there exists of as might such a phonological speak in favour similarity or Thomas' Messrs. Chadwick's suggestion.

beyond all doubt. In the cuneiform

WERE THE ASURAS ASSYRIANS ? What

267

is of special interest is the fact that the Persians represent the ? of ASsur by a sound that is believed to be to New Greek 6. identical with or approaching of Assurbanipal, if reliable, can help us a point of sound chronology. We know that the s has As Assara to h in Iranian. Indo-European passed can be anything but the Old Persian deity, we Mazas* hardly The Assara Maz?Z in settling must this of Assurbanipal (668-626 B.c.) in the had not yet taken place.l Now, process cuneiform the h already appears of Darius I, inscriptions for s. And thus the said phonological process must have sound infer that in the times

of the seventh and the end taken place between the middle of the sixth century b.c. As the Avesta also shows h instead of Indo-European s, tho Holy Books of the Parsees, as known to us, could hardly have in the time of Assurbanipal originated
or earlier.

was

if it should happen still pronounced in this implies also banipal, to s. For those sounds But thus the latest

Old Persian that would

s to be true that the Indo-European at the time of Assur Iranian when the else have ? had not yet passed been confounded. oldest Iranian loan

And

epoch

words of the Finno-Ugrian languages could have been borrowed would seem to be the time fixed above, viz. from about the middle b.c. century to the end of the sixth century At any rate, this must have been earlier than Darius I, if they were borrowed from Old Persian or an Iranian language that developed with Old Persian. But this, of parallelly
remains to be proved.

of the seventh

course, Lund.

Hannes
February, 1 1924.

Sk?ld.

[This argument follows. A similar pronounced Babylonians in first

is evidently

argument We France. heard of Asura

and the fallacy vitiates all fallacious, to be would the s of Paris prove not know do when the Assyrians Mazd?.?F. W. T.]

that still and