4.0 Arguments and Counter-Arguments
Cardona’s clarification should have lain to rest the controversy and Witzel
ought to have withdrawn his translation of the passage. However, the whole
matter took a new turn. I raised the issue of the translation of the passage
on the Indology List [see Note 8] with Witzel on February 11, 2000 but
received no response.
Kalyanaraman stated the following, in the Indian Civilization list, on July
15, 2000 [Ref. 19]:
Dr. Elst, you may recall the note you had penned on Dr. Witzel's
interpretation of the Baudha_yana Su_tra (refs. to Ama_vasu and Anu) which
appeared in the same monograph. (I recall Dr. Witzel mentioning that he will
be correcting the errors in that article in another paper).
In response [Ref. 20], Witzel confused the issue by stating that his
article, as published in Erdosy’s volume, had numerous errors due to the
negligence of the editor and that he had already acknowledged the same in a
footnote in his subsequent publication. (For the relevant footnote in
question, refer Note 9 below). We will show later (in section 5.0), that
Witzel’s explanation is misleading because the footnote does not apply to
Witzel’s translation of the passage.
Witzel also stated that the translation of the relevant passage of the
Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra was not a simple matter, and clarified that:
I have read Elst's criticism of my 1995 BSS translation. This is one of the
*very* few cases where he is right indeed in his stringent anti
immigration/trickling in stance (who speaks of "invasion" these days?)
My translation, as it reads, is wrong in the *translation* of "amaavasus".
(Interpretation is quite another thing, see below. The whole passage plays
with names and their Nirukta-like interpretation as verbs). My paper in
Erdosy, Ancient Indo-Aryans, where this was published, is full of printing
and some other mistakes; I did not see the proof and could not correct it
before it was published. The BSS translation as printed is a mixture of
translation and interpretation. I have already corrected it in a paper
(still in press) which has been given to some friends long ago.
The passage in question is:
prAG AyuH pravavrAja.
tasyaite Kuru-PaJcAlAH KAzi-VidehA ity. etad Ayavam.
pratyaG amAvasus.
tasyaite GAndhArayas Parzavo 'raTTA ity. etad AmAvasyavam.
Note the condescending tone. Witzel further stated that in a forthcoming
publication, the translation/explanation would be slightly modified as:
...Finally, a neglected (and untranslated) passage from a Brahmana time
text, BSS 18.44:397.9 sqq., actually speaks of a migration from the Afghani
borderlan of Gandhaara and Parshu (=mod. Pashto) to Haryana/Uttar Pradesh
and to Bihar
"Aayu went (ay/i : pra-vraj) eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala
and the Kashi-Videha. This is the Aayava (group).
Amaavasu (stayed at home, amaa vas) in the West. His (people) are the
Gandhari, Parshu and Aratta. This is the Aamaavasyava (group)."
It is clear that this modified translation cum explanation still draws the
same conclusion viz. migrations from Afghan border into northern India, as
is clear from the above citations.
There are several objections to the above interpretations of the passage.
First, the ‘play with names and Nirukta like interpretation as verbs’
explanation is rendered void by the Hindu textual tradition. As I pointed
out on that very list [Ref. 21], the following verses (loose paraphrase
given) from the Puranas would require that if Ayu and Amavasu were to be
interpreted in a Nirukta like manner, the names of all their siblings would
have to be interpreted likewise.
Brahma Purana 8.11-13:
The seven sons of Aila Pururavas were on a par with the sons of Devas.
These noble princes born in celestial regions were Ayu, Amavasu, Visvayu,
Srutayu, Dridhayu, Vanayu and Bhuvayu. These too were sons of Urvashi.
Amavasu’s successor was Bhima, an imperial king.
Brahma Purana 9.1:
Ayu had 5 sons who were mighty heroes,
Born of the daughter of Svarabhanu named Prabha.
They became kings…
These verses actually occur in several other texts like the Harivamsa Purana,
the Vayu Purana and so on and therefore might go to an ancient common
source. It must be pointed out however that some scholars, including Witzel,
reject the use of Puranas for constructing the socio-political history of
the Vedic period. This view is not, however, accepted by all. For instance,
Talageri differs [Ref. 5], even while offering primacy to Vedic testimony.
Kalyanaraman also found more faults with Witzel’s explanation on the list on
grounds of Sanskrit grammar and syntax [Ref. 22]. He questioned the
translation of ‘aayavam’ as ‘migration’ and quoted the Puranas and works on
them to substantiate my statement [Ref. 23]. Further, he cited Rigveda
IV.7.4 [Ref. 24] to this effect.
The controversy took a further turn at the July 28-30, 2000 conference of
the World Association of Vedic Studies (WAVES), which was attended by Drs.
Hock, Cardona, Kalyanaraman, Elst and several other prominent Indologists
(but not by Witzel). There, the aforementioned passage once again came up
for discussion. Dr. Kalyanaraman reported [Ref. 25]:
Prof. Hock specifically referred to Prof. Witzel's reliance on RV 2.11.18 cd
to read that the Dasyu were left in the North as the A_rya moved from west
to east. He said the word used should have been 'uttara' which can indicate
'north or left'. He also noted that the reference to crossing of rivers does
not say anything about geography. The reference to narrow and difficult
passages twice a year could be simply local movements. Thus, Prof. Witzel
has not made his case.
My jottings on the R.ca 2.11.18 and comments on Prof. Witzel's observations
are at http://sarasvati.simplenet.com/dasyu.htm In my view, Prof. Witzel's
reading of the r.ca is totally wrong. In fact, the r.ca uses the word 'savya'
(i.e. left) and the word has also a lexical meaning, 'south'. Where, pray,
is the reference to the 'north' in the r.ca? IF a movement of people has to
be read, the r.ca emphatically states that the Dasyu were left behind on the
'left' i.e. to the south (savya). Note: the r.ca uses the word 'savya' and
not 'uttara'. This misinterpretation together with the misinterpretation of
BS'S 18.44; 397.9 sqq has led Prof. Witzel to wrongly surmise 'migration' (a_yava)
and also to wrongly surmise 'movement from west to east'. There are
mountains in the present-day India in the region where the r.cas had their
epicenter.
Cardona elaborated on his earlier critique of Witzel’s translation on the
Indian Civilization list [Ref. 26] and informed the following about his
forthcoming publication relevant to the issue:
….summary of the arguments concerning this passage, with additional evidence
from Vedic texts concerning the syntax in question, appears in the General
Introduction to the volume 'The Indo-Aryan Languages', now in press (Curzon
Publishers)..
There was no response by Witzel to all these exchanges on the Indian
Civilization list for reasons best known to him.
On the Indology list however, the discussion erupted, albeit briefly. There,
Witzel gave a different explanation [Ref. 27]:
Yes, I readily admit to: misplacing a parenthesis by *one word* in a
translation of BSS 18.44. That's about the extent of it.
As we shall see later, this is again a misleading explanation.
Meanwhile, Dr. Elst, in a private email to several interested parties
including myself, also recalled his discussion with Professor Hock at the
WAVES 2000 conference wherein the latter reiterated his position that the
Indo-European (IE) homeland might never be found conclusively at all with
the meager evidence that we have in hand. Elst also stated that [Ref. 28]:
Trained textual scholars have confirmed that Witzel was mistaken in seeing
an Aryan invasion reference in Baudhayana, and that in fact all the Sanskrit
text passages so far mustered as proof for the Aryan invasion don't contain
such proof at all (I think this does not misrepresent Hans Hock's paper read
at the WAVES conference in Hoboken NJ last month).
However, Witzel, retorted laconically that Hock was wrong if he really said
so.
