Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@...> wrote:

>
> It's easy to find insignificant errors in book sized texts. I've found an error or two in Witzel --e.g. he refers to a reference about a "spotted animal'" that was a major carnivore. He thought it referred to a dog, when it was obvious that it referred to a cheetah, leopard or snow leopard. But Witzel, despite minor errors, has overwhelming evidence on his side
>
>
>

These are not insignificant errors! Dr Witzel's translation made him say that Sanskrit corpus of India "remembers" an "arrival" into India from the west! This in his POV "confirmed" AIT.

Yet the opposite is true. Sanskrit works have no memory of an arrival into India.

Furthermore I do not know what you mean by "overwhelming evidence on his side". Could you please elaborate with an example?

Regards,
Shivraj

________________________________

> From: shivkhokra <shivkhokra@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:59 PM
> Subject: [tied] Re: Witzel and Sautsutras (was: Mapping the Origins and Expansion of...)
>
>
>  
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Rick McCallister <gabaroo6958@> wrote:
> >
> > Because the ancestors of the Mitanni, the putative pre-Iranian Indians and putative Crimean "Bosphorus Aryans" were never in India. They moved in from Central Asia. Indo-Aryan is part of Indo-Iranian, which was originally located in the Eurasia steppe.
> > Read Witzel and overcome your lack of knowledge
> >
>
> You know I have read Witzel and he is plain wrong. Let me give an example:
>
> In ‘Rgvedic histor̄y: poets, chieftains and polities’, published in 1995, edited by George Erdosy, Professor Witzel, wrote about Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra(18.44). The Sutra is:
>
> Pra-n.a-yauh. pravavra-ja tasyaite Kuru--Pan~cha-la-h. Ka-śi- -Videha- ity etad A-yavam pravrājam. Pratyan. Ama-vasus tasyaite Ga-ndha-rayas Parśvo Ara-t.t.a- itya etad A-ma-vasavam
>
> Witzel writes in the Erdosy book:
> "Taking a look at the data relating to the immigration of Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is struck by the number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the R.gveda, in spite of repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature. Then, there is the following direct statement contained in (the admittedly much later) BŚS [Baudha-yana Śrauta-su-tra], 18.44: 397.9 sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having been translated yet: “Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pan~ca-la and Ka-śi- -Videha. This is the A-yava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Ga-ndha-ri-, Parśu and A-rat.t.a. This is the Ama-vasava (group)"
>
> The impression that Witzel is creating is that 18.44 somehow indicates an immigration from west to east only. Infact what the verse says is the opposite. There was a migration out to the west of the Vedic people!
>
> Professor Witzel got confused with the lack of verb in the second sentence.
>
> I can give you more examples if you are interested on his misreadings of Sanskrit works.
>
> Regards,
> Shivraj
>
> [Excess quoted matter deleted. -BMS]
>