5.0 Cover Ups?

The diversity of the numerous mutually incompatible explanations given by Witzel to account for his (mis-)translation (and ‘interpretation’) of the passage from the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra leaves one wondering- which is the correct explanation? Is the mistranslation due to editorial slips on part of Erdosy, the misplacement of a bracket, the ‘nirukta like use’ of words on the passage or is it simply a case of mistranslation?



The issue becomes serious when one considers the reference “(Witzel 1989a: 235)” in the original paper in Erdosy. The earlier publication referred [Ref. 14] to by Witzel is actually difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, I was able to get hold of a copy and found the following on pg. 325 of Witzel’s article of the text:



In the case of ancient N. India, we do not know anything about the immigration of various tribes and clans, except for a few elusive remarks in the RV (= Rigveda), SB (= Shatapatha Brahmana) or BSS ( = Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra). This text retains at 18.44 :397.9 sqq. The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups: pran Ayuh pravavraja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity. Etad Ayavam pravrajam. Pratyan amavasus. Tasyaite Gandharvarayas Parsavo ‘ratta ity. Etad Amavasavam. “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala and the Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava migration. (His other people) stayed at home in the West. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)”. [see Note 10]



Witzel further comments:



…the text makes a differentiation between the peoples of the Panjab and the territories West of it on one hand, and the “properly Vedic” tribes of Madhyadesa and the adjacent country East of it.



Witzel then brings in a discussion on Eastern Vratyas and I leave it to the reader to refer the original article by Witzel for further details. The edition of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra referenced by Witzel is the one by W. Caland [Ref. 30]



However, the following observations can indeed be made safely when the above citation from Witzel’s 1989 article is compared with that in Erdosy’s book:



· The translation in the 1995 Erdosy volume is identical to Witzel’s translation in his earlier publication of 1989. Therefore, the translation in Erdosy’s 1995 volume is entirely Witzel’s since Erdosy was nowhere in the picture in the 1989 volume published from Paris. Hence, Witzel’s attempt to confuse the issue by attributing the error to Erdosy’s editorial slips is of no consequence to this specific case. Erdosy’s carelessness might have resulted in other errors in Witzel’s article, but not this one. It was therefore, extremely unethical on the part of Witzel to blame a professional colleague in a public forum for a fault which was purely his own.

· The ‘revised’ translation and interpretation of the passage by Witzel is not significantly different from the one in Erdosy’s book in so far as its implications for the Aryan Migration Theory are concerned.

· Witzel has highlighted the centrality of the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra passage both in his 1989 publication (‘The most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two groups.’) and also in his 1995 article (see section 2.0 above). Understandably then, the non-tenability of Witzel’s translation of the passage actually deprives the AMT of its primary textual evidence.

· Internet lists such as the Indology List and the Indian Civilization list, are much more affordable and accessible to scholars and to non-professional Indologists than the expensive volume by Erdosy (even its Indian reprint) and (especially) the volume published in 1989 from Paris. Unfortunately, although Witzel referred to his 1989 article in Erdosy’s volume, he has completely refrained from doing so in his numerous replies on the issue on the Internet. While I do not want to impute a deliberate effort at concealment on the part of Witzel (in his hope that readers will not check the original sources) here, the omission did potentially mislead 100’s of readers, who read merely the false accusations against Erdosy and also numerous other misleading statements made by Witzel. Without checking the book published in 1989 personally, one can only blame Erdosy for distorting Witzel’s actual translation.

· No where in his two translations/interpretations of the passage does Witzel indicate the ‘nirukta like interpretations as verbs’- which seems only a later ploy to defend his stance. Nor does Witzel indicate the difficulty in translating this passage in his articles- an argument that he has brought up only later.

· Nor does one understand Witzel’s self-defense that he had merely misplaced a bracket. I suggest that readers try relocating a parenthesis in his statement at other places in his translation and see if that makes any significant difference. If Witzel had erred in the placement of the parenthesis in Erdosy’s article (so not an editorial slip of Erdosy!), he committed the same mistake in his earlier article as well. In any case, how does the misplacement of a parenthesis explain his clear conclusion on the implications of this passage for the AMT?

· Interestingly, while the article in Erdosy’s volume says that the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is admittedly a late text, the revised version of Witzel contains a different (albeit correct) emphasis by specifying that it is a passage from the Brahmana period. The Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra is considered very close to the Brahmana texts in time by scholarly consensus and the relevant sections are of the form of an Anvakhyana Brahmana. Nevertheless, Witzel should have still prefixed the word ‘late’ to the word ‘Brahmana’ in his revised translation). Was this the result of Elst’s critique that Witzel has been able to produce only one passage from a late Vedic text to substantiate his AMT paradigms? Second, while Indologists often reject even the Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda as texts that are too late to study the immigration/invasion of Aryans into India, is it appropriate to use an even much later Kalpasutra text for this purpose?