MICHAEL WITZEL – AN EXAMINATION OF HIS REVIEW OF TALAGERI 2000.

[This reply, to Witzel's review of my book "The Rigveda - A historical Analysis" 2000, was written by me in 2001 and posted on the internet in 2001 (not by me, since I was not internet-savvy nor was on the internet myself at that time). It is  mysteriously missing on the internet since many years, but I did not think of re-posting it even after I became comparatively internet-savvy much later. However, I am posting it now, long and verbose and dated as it is (in the context of my later books and blogs), in response to a recent comment to my last article which requested me for a URL or link to my reply.

I found the word version of my reply to Witzel in my computer, and I am not making any corrections to it (in fact I did not even go through it before uploading it for the record)].

MICHAEL WITZEL – AN EXAMINATION OF HIS REVIEW OF TALAGERI 2000.

 — Shrikant G. Talageri

An Examination of Michael Witzel’s Review Article titled “WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri” of my book “The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis”, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000. 

Note 1: Quotations and references from Witzel’s article will be marked by sections as follows: Edit, Summary, §1, §2, .... §10. (The PDF version available online at http://northshore.shore.net/%7Eindia/ejvs/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf)

Quotations and references from my book will be marked as follows: TALAGERI 2000: (etc). (My book is also available on-line at http://www.voi.org/books/rig/)

Note 2: I will generally be using ordinary (non-phonetic) spelling in writing Sanskrit etc. words; EXCEPT when a phonetic point is being made, in which case the word “phon”., in brackets, will be placed after the phonetically spelled word. In quotations, the spelling used by the person quoted will generally be used (minus any phonetic diacritic marks).

 

==================

 

INTRODUCTION

Michael Witzel has written the above review article of my book in his Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies [EJVS, Vol. 7 (2001), Issue 2 (march 31)].

According to Witzel, it is not just a review. He claims it is an attempt to clear the air of the fog created by what he calls “resurgent mythological trends in studies of ancient India” (Edit) and to save the academic world from the intellectual vandalism of “Indian Superpatriots” like myself who are “doing so much damage to legitimate research involving ancient India”(Edit).

A noble aim indeed, especially when one considers the invaluable work being done by Witzel, and the sacrifices involved in interrupting that work for the purpose of “writing criticisms such as the present and similar ones [which] represents a tedious, if necessary detraction from the main goal” (§10)!

The “review”, clothed in the full paraphernalia of an academic document, complete with a bibliography of over sixty publications, looks awesome and impressive indeed. Until an actual reading shows that the overwhelmingly major part of the article consists of irrelevant remarks, verifiable lies, personal attacks, abusive language, condescending and patronising remarks on India and Indians, calumny by association, attribution of motives, and unscholarly comments. This non-academic matter — the abuses, allegations and comments — constitute a significant part of his article and so, unfortunately, cannot be ignored by me. The actual points of criticism raised by him are few and far between, and they not only fail to address the issues, but they contradict the facts as much and as blatantly as they contradict what Witzel himself has written on those very points in earlier publications, as we shall see in detail.

To begin with, even Witzel’s title “WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri” is singularly incongruous not only with the contents of my book but with the very Indo-European theory itself, and “exposes” the level and relevance of Witzel’s discourse:

1) Firstly, I have not claimed anywhere that I have exposed the wanderlust of any “Rgvedic tribes”. As I have made very, very clear in my book – in a whole chapter, the fifth, as well as throughout the rest of my book – the Purus are the only Rigvedic tribe(s). The other tribes are NON-Rigvedic Indo-European tribes. They are not “Rigvedic” simply because they are named in the Rigveda, anymore than Egyptians, Persians and Babylonians are Biblical tribes or peoples because they are named in the Bible. What I claim to have done is “exposed” the “wanderlust” of two NON-Rigvedic Indo-European tribes, the Anus and the Druhyus. And this should be clear even to a biased reader. Apparently Witzel’s reading of my book failed to enlighten him on this point.

2) Then, even if the title were to be reframed substituting “Indo-European” for “Rgvedic”, the word “incredible” still stands out in its incongruity. My account postulates a “wanderlust” only in one — WESTWARD — direction for sections of two out of many Indo-European tribes: every other theory postulates a “wanderlust” for every single Indo-European tribe in every conceivable direction: westwards, eastwards, southwards ...  If anything, my theory is the least incredible of all.  

3) And, finally, why the heavily sarcastic word “wanderlust”? Is it actually Witzel’s claim that he finds the idea — that the Indo-European languages spread by migrations and expansions — incredible? How are they supposed to have spread, according to Witzel: through the air like germs and pollen seeds?  Erdosy in his preface to the volume containing Witzel’s 1995 papers (WITZEL 1995a, 1995b) criticises scholars who postulate the spread of languages without initial migrations of people, and insists that all the factors “support migrations as the principal (albeit not sole) means of language dispersal”(p.x.).

Even the short title of Witzel’s article shows clearly that the writer is blinded by bias and animosity. It is my misfortune that I have to “wade through”, in Witzel’s words, these pages of vitriol, venom and bile; but followers of “pre-enlightenment agendas” (§10) like myself can be as good martyrs to “tedious, if necessary” travails as our more enlightened brethren.

This article will be divided into six sections. Readers who are not interested in my responses to Witzel’s personal allegations and non-academic arguments can skip Sections I, II and VI although I would urge them to read this entire piece for a better comprehension.

 

I. A SORDID TALE:

A tale of Politics and dirty tricks.

 

II. ABUSE AS “REVIEW”:

1) Chapter 9 (etc) of my book.

2) The “increasing number of hymns per book” in the Rigveda.

3) An Anukramani of Witzel’s abuses.

4) Ludicrous criticisms.

5) The “Original” Rigveda vs. “Griffith’s” Rigveda.

 

III. LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE:

1) Geographical information in the Rigveda: Rivers (Jahnavi and the dolphin; Sarasvati and Hariyupiya-Yavyavati; Ashmanvati; Prayiyu-Vayiyu).

2) Climate.

3) Kikata and Magadha.

4) Archaeological Data (The Harappan Civilisation; UP-Bihar; Kings and Dynasties; Semi-nomadic Tribes; Horses; Chariots).

5) Central Asia (BMAC; Soma).

6) Invasion scenarios in the Bible and the Rigveda.

7) Etymologising (Purusha; Mayura; Elephant names; Gandhari and Gandharva, Kashyapa and Kashmir; Iranian(etc.) Tribes in the RV; Alina and Angra; Vara and Vala; Panis and Vanir; Arya and Eire; Rhinoceros names; Vishanins).

8) Puranic mindset.

9) Indo-Aryan names in the Mitanni documents.

10) Miscellaneous chaff.

 

IV. THE “ORIGINAL” RIGVEDA:

1) Khila suktas.

2) Shakalya’s RV.

3) Interpolations in the “Third Stage”.

4) Oldenberg’s “numerical principles” and hymn 6.45.

5) Petty criticisms (Mandala 10, Family Mandalas and the Valakhilya hymns; Shakalya’s Padapatha and “tossing out” interpolated hymns).

6) “Invincible” case with the presentday RV and Anukramanis.

7) Conspiracy theories.

8) “Original” vis-à-vis “Interpolated” parts of the RV.

9) Differences in numerical position and language.

 

V. THE ANUKRAMANIS:

1) Anukramanis of the Rigveda.

2) Anukramanis of the other Vedas.

3) “Lateness” of the Anukramanis.

4) Period of compilation of the Anukramanis.

5) Rishi Ascriptions.

6) Kashi.

 

VI. INANE ACCUSATIONS AND OUTRIGHT SLANDER:

1) Germocentric Racist.

2) “Fascist” Savarkar and HINDUTVA.

3) 19^TH century Colonialism.

4) Hindutva (Mother of All Civilisations; Hoary Bharat; Non-Hindu Foreigners; Bharata ueber alles; Purely Indigenous Development).

5) Allegation of plagiarism.

 

 

================

 

 I. A SORDID TALE

Before going into specifics, the personal angle, which clearly plays a predominant role in Witzel’s hysterical diatribe, must be noted, in order to appreciate the sharp dichotomy between his words and his actions.

Even a general reading of Witzel’s article shows that Witzel purports to hold my book in utter contempt, and leaves no doubt whatsoever about the extremely and unambiguously low opinion that Witzel has about my nature, ideological proclivities, intelligence, powers of understanding, knowledge (on almost every subject under the sun), academic qualifications, professional ethics, and every other aspect which could possibly be reflected in my book.

It would truly be “tedious” to go through every single line and to note down every word of abuse here: in Witzel’s own words, the readers can “see for themselves” (Edit.) the great difficulty that Witzel clearly has in writing even one paragraph without pushing in a biting comment on my book or self.

My book was published in early 2000, and I sent a copy of it to Witzel (not indeed in a nasty spirit, and certainly not in anticipation of bouquets, but only to facilitate a healthy dialogue, or, at the very least, as a matter of courtesy). Earlier, I had also sent a copy to another scholar at Harvard (with whom I had earlier established indirect and temporary contact a few years earlier).

Within a month I received an e-mail letter from that scholar (addressed to a mutual acquaintance) dated 17 June 2000, relating that there had been a discussion between Witzel and himself “about the possibility of Talageri coming to study with him (Witzel) in Harvard to do advanced study or a Ph.D.” Witzel, the scholar wrote, “is the Vedic scholar par excellence, and Shrikant could get proper training and academic credentials if he were to be accepted”. I was asked to “contact Michael Witzel directly”.

The proviso — as discreetly phrased as the rest of the letter — was: “provided he is open-minded and flexible in his views, and does not show himself to be intransigent or predisposed to certain ideas”.

I wrote back politely putting off the offer, for purely personal reasons as much as in view of the blatantly fishy proviso.

Shortly afterwards, I was drawn into an ongoing e-mail debate (on the subject of spoked wheels) between Steve Farmer and certain others. Soon, Farmer introduced Witzel into the debate, and he entered it with the unmistakable air — complacent, confident, patronizing — of a player who thinks he has reason to believe that the match has been fixed in his favour.

The scholar who communicated the offer was away from Harvard, but Witzel assumed (correctly) that the offer had been made, and it was clear that he confidently expected to be facing a humble, penitent and ingratiating respondent — after all which petty bank employee (as I was characterised by Witzel and Farmer in the Marxist biweekly news-magazine ‘Frontline’) in Mumbai, with no superior academic qualifications of any kind, would be able to resist the lure of a Ph.D. and scholarship at Harvard at the low cost of being “flexible in his views”? Especially an “Indian Superpatriot”, for, as Witzel knowingly puts it, these creatures have a penchant for “choosing to live abroad!” (Edit)?

Witzel was clearly puzzled, initially, by the pointedly objective nature of my correspondence in the debate. But soon his letters became more and more biting and vicious. And finally (certain in his mind now that the offer had probably not been communicated to me at all) he decided to cover me in confusion and bitter regret by revealing the opportunity I had missed out on by my brashness: in his e-mail letter dated 26 Sept. 2000, he informed me that his motive in entering the debate had been to test my eligibility for an offer of “an invitation as a (fully paid) Ph.D. student/candidate” at Harvard, but I had failed the test. He was now certain that it would be “counter productive” and “a giant waste of time, energy and money.”

When I replied, on 5 Oct. 2000, that the offer had been made and had been politely put off, and that it had not influenced my arguments in the debate either way, he was clearly disconcerted, and his off-the-cuff reaction was to make the snide comment that I probably felt that “kala pani was polluting” (apparently a different kind of “Indian Superpatriot” from the kind “choosing to live abroad”!)!

The tale is clearly a sordid one; but that is self-evident, and it is not my point — rather my point is: the reader should read for himself, again and again, and in ruthless detail, Witzel’s review article of my book, and the views expressed in it, strongly and unambiguously, about every aspect of my book and self, and then answer the following question:

Does it seem likely that a Harvard professor “par excellence” would dream of making such an offer to the undeserving writer of a book about whom, and about whose book, he holds the opinions expressed in this review article?

Clearly, either there was a strong element of dishonesty in his offer, or there is a strong element of dishonesty in his review article, or both.

Apart from blatant dishonesty, the other characteristic of Witzel’s article is its unbridled viciousness. It is tragic that academic debate should descend to such low levels of viciousness. Furthermore, others, besides myself, have become the targets of his venom. By merely mentioning Koenraad Elst’s name, I seem to have made him a target for an incessant barrage of hate-mail and hate-references.

I myself have been guilty of criticising others in my book — particularly in chapters 8 and 9. But I venture to believe that I have been objective as well as universal in my criticism. I may have been guilty of some ego in my criticism of a number of persons (in chapter 8) who are on the whole so great that I stand far below them, and this may have alienated many scholars and laymen who would otherwise have responded positively to my book; but I have tried to be scrupulously objective, and this kind of viciousness was certainly absent. Readers can “see for themselves”.

As for Dr. Rajaram, that gentleman was unfailingly polite and courteous in his correspondence with Farmer and Witzel, even under the gravest provocation — something I would not have been capable of. In fact, he actually reprimanded me for chapters 8 and 9, which he felt were superfluous and unnecessary and detracted from the value of my work. He makes this point in his reviews of my book as well. But Dr. Rajaram was made the specific target of a long, sharp and bitter character-assassination campaign in the Indian media — a campaign actually announced gleefully and gloatingly by Farmer on the internet, asking readers to “watch out” for their “media-blitz” which would “expose” Dr. Rajaram (referred to with colourful epithets) once and for all on his home-turf!

An ugly and sordid tale of politics and dirty tricks — all, of course, in the service of a noble cause: preventing “damage to legitimate research involving ancient India”!

Let us now turn to Witzel’s review article, and examine it step-by-step.

 

II. ABUSE AS “REVIEW”

To begin with, Witzel’s article is only half a review of my book. In this section, before gaping at Witzel’s abuses, we will examine the half avoided by him.

His review should logically have consisted of two parts:

1. He should have presented a rebuttal of chapter 9 of my book (my critique of WITZEL 1995a, 1995b), as also of pp. 240-250 of my book. This chapter of my book shows Professor Witzel inventing evidence, suppressing inconvenient data, following an inconsistent methodology, retrofitting data into pre-conceived notions, contradicting himself again and again, and using misleading language. The chapter is available on the Internet at

http://www.voi.org/books/rig/ch9.html

2. He should have presented a critical review of my own theory and conclusions.

But while he purports to present the latter, he studiously avoids dealing with the former with truly admirable consistency — a consistency he maintained with steadfast doggedness throughout our e-mail debate and which (I am told) he has been maintaining with equally steadfast doggedness throughout the course of internet debates with other “Indian Superpatriots.”

 

II.1 Chapter 9 (etc) of my book

In his review, Witzel gets away with dismissing chapter 9 of my book as “a long and confused ‘analysis’ in Talageri’s book of my same 1995 paper” (Edit.), and unblinkingly announces that this “angry assault on my 1995 paper ... can thankfully be passed over here” (Edit.).

His self-congratulatory thankfulness with regard to his own perspicacity in managing to avoid the onerous task of trying to defend the indefensible can be understood, of course, but not the reason he gives for this convenient “passover”: he claims that this is because chapter 9 of my book merely consists of “the views found in the(se) opening chapters”, ie. in “the core of Talageri’s book, found in chapters 1-5 (pp. 1-160)” (Edit.).

Witzel claims that my criticism of his papers is based on my own first 5 chapters, and so it does not merit any reply! Even a glance at chapter 9 of my book would make it clear that my criticism is not based on my own views and criteria at all, but on glaring mistakes, contradictions and falsehoods in his own writings.

Witzel clearly finds it impossible to defend his 1995 papers which stand totally discredited. Thus, his review already loses half the battle — and “battle” it is, as per the tone and tenor of his review, and his stated view that a “cultural war is in full swing” (§9). Indeed, Michael Witzel has now literally taken it upon himself to prove the advent of Aryan languages into India via the Aryan Invasion Theory or its softer versions. He has published numerous articles, the recent ones being replete with hysterical attacks, non-academic remarks and abuses against those who disagree with his views.

 

II.2 The “Increasing number of Hymns per book” in the Rigveda

However, there is one single point in chapter 9 of my book, the first and least relevant point in my criticism, which Witzel (and Farmer) made the fatal mistake of taking up during our e-mail debate (but  which he wisely avoids in this review!!):  this pertains to my criticism of his claim that “books 2 to 7 ... have been ordered according to the increasing number of hymns per book” (see TALAGERI 2000:442). But, even on this single point, he totally failed to vindicate himself:

I pointed out (TALAGERI 2000:442) that books 2-7 (with 43, 62, 58, 87, 75 and 104 hymns) are obviously not arranged according to increasing number of hymns, but according to increasing number of verses (see TALAGERI 2000:73-74).

Witzel and Farmer spent pages and pages ridiculing my “ignorance”: according to them, Witzel was not talking about the present-day Rigveda but about the “original” Rigveda (shorn of interpolations and late hymns) which was originally arranged as per “increasing number of hymns”; and my failure to understand this was because I had not read Oldenberg’s Prolegomena (1888)!

As this was the only point in Chapter 9 of my book which was taken up by Witzel, it required elucidation. But, inspite of repeated challenges, Witzel has avoided elucidating this point with as steadfast a doggedness as that with which he has avoided responding to the rest of the chapter:

After all, it must be recognised that the question of “increasing number of hymns” is not a matter for philosophical debate or polemical arguments: it is a matter of simple arithmetic.

And I am not asking him to “make me admit” that his case is right. All he has to do is show that according to his own criteria he does have a case, as according to my criteria I certainly have one (TALAGERI 2000:73-74). In the process, he could also show how, according to his criteria, my case is wrong. Not by polemics, but by arithmetic.

As Witzel repeatedly asserts, Oldenberg has dealt in detail with “each hymn and verse in the book” (§3). And, unlike “pre-enlightenment scholars” like myself, he has studied Oldenberg in minute detail.

So, quoting Oldenberg, all Witzel has to do is to point out which of the hymns in the present Rigveda were part of the “original” Rigveda, in respect of each of the family books (2-7): we will then automatically get an arithmetical picture of an “increasing number of hymns per book” (and, likewise, fail to get a picture of an increasing number of verses per book).

But Witzel’s weapons are abuses and polemical arguments, not facts and figures. And he remains implacably adamant in avoiding all discussion on this point, come what may.

FOOTNOTE: In this review, he does try, indirectly at least, to spike my point about the increasing number of verses:  apart from polemical arguments, allegations about the unreliability of my “late” sources, and word-play on “seeing” as opposed to “creating” hymns, Witzel also makes the point (§1) that the Aitareya Brahmana, which I quote, refers to 81 verses (hymns 3.30, 31, 34, 36, 38 and 48) and not 68 verses (hymns 3.21, 30, 34, 36, 38, 39) as taken by me (TALAGERI 2000:73-74:).

This is perhaps the only valid criticism in the whole of his article — but while it does indeed serve as a valid censure of personal carelessness in scholarship on my part (and I must confess to a feeling of embarrassment at my carelessness, and even a feeling of thankfulness to Witzel for pointing it out. This is, whether intended or otherwise, a genuine piece of constructive criticism on the part of Witzel. Criticism which helps to notice and correct errors, or points out genuine flaws which can be examined and reconsidered, is always welcome), it does not affect my position about the increasing number of verses (in books 2-7) which would still stand as follows: 429,536,589,737,765,841. Nor does it affect the only other place where the late or interpolated nature of the hymns concerned is of significance: the occurrence of the word gandharva in hymn 3.38 (TALAGERI 2000:113).

As per my criteria I am still right. Is Witzel right as per his criteria?   In this review, he cleverly uses the ambiguous words “generally ascending pattern” (§1), without conceding that he was wrong in claiming that the books of the Rigveda were actually arranged in an “ascending pattern”.

Incidentally (and I am not pointing this out in excuse of my own carelessness, which is inexcusable), Witzel himself indulges in some carelessness in the course of pointing out my carelessness:

 Witzel writes:

 " ... his claims concerning which verses were stuck in here do not come from any internal study of the text but from his reading (or misreading) of a much later text, AB 6.18. According to Talageri, AB 6.18 tells us that RV 3.21, 30, 34, 36, 38-39, together numbering 68 verses, were ‘misappropriated by Vamadeva,’ the traditional composer of RV 4.

 

In fact, it is far from clear that AB 6.18 makes any such claim. The text only tells us that Visvamitra ‘saw’ the sampAta hymns in question first and that Vamadeva actually ‘created’ them (in RV 4). Visvamitra (of RV 3) therefore ‘created’ counter-sampAta hymns. The whole section has other poets contributing to this endeavor as well: Bharadvaja (of RV 6), Vasistha (of RV 7), Nodhas (of part of RV 1). AB 6.18 continues by listing the beginnings of RV hymns 3.48, 3.34, 3.36, 3.30, 3.31, 3.38 (=81 verses) ... ” (§1)

Witzel here makes the incredible claim that I suggest that “RV 3.21, 30, 34, 36, 38-39, together numbering 68 verses, were ‘misappropriated by Vamadeva,’ the traditional composer of RV 4”!  Nowhere do I claim (as Witzel alleges) that RV 3. 21, 30, 34, 36, 38-39 were “misappropriated by Vamadeva” [how could they be? They are still found in the Visvamitra Mandala!] — in fact these hymns (or rather, as Witzel correctly points out, hymns 3.30, 31, 34, 36, 38 and 48) were composed in place of certain other hymns (hymns 4.19,22,23, though not specified by me in my book). It is those other hymns which were “misappropriated by Vamadeva”, and hence they are part of the Vamadeva Mandala!

Further, while AB 6.18 does describe the various sampAta hymns, with various poets from different families “contributing” to the creation of these hymns, it is only in the case of these particular sampAta hymns (4.19,22,23) that the AB talks about one poet claiming credit for the compositions of another. While these hymns (RV 4.19, 22, 23), allegedly originally composed by Vishvamitras, are found in the Vamadeva Mandala (RV Book 4), the hymns seen by Bharadvaja (6.22), Vasishtha (7.19,23) and Nodhas (1.61) are found in their proper places and not in the Vamadeva Mandala, and are irrelevant to this discussion. [The reader should refer to TALAGERI 2000:79, to understand what is being discussed here].

Witzel continues:

“Nothing in the AB passage in question speaks about the actual verse numbers of RV 3 or 4, as T. suggests.” (§1)

Witzel knows very well that the Aitareya Brahmana 6.18 clearly indicates the Suktas in question by their first words (as is the standard norm) — it is on the basis of this knowledge (see the quotation above) that Witzel himself discovers that I have been careless in my exact identification of the six hymns. Likewise, every other scholar immediately identifies the six hymns identified by Witzel: HAUG (1863:407), KEITH (1920:272), etc. etc. So, what exactly does Witzel mean by his foolish comment above?

 

II.3 An Anukramani of Witzel’s abuses

We can now turn to the other half: ie. his criticism of the rest of my book [Note that here also he avoids dealing with entire aspects of my book such as chapter 10 on “Sarama and the Panis” which he dismisses, typically without examination, as “seriously misinformed” (§5)! Perhaps because it contrasts sharply with the nonsense written by him on the subject earlier in a confused and disorganised article (WITZEL 1997a)?].

We must first separate the chaff from the grain in this other half of Witzel’s “review article” of my book.

Of chaff there is plenty: the article literally overflows with it. It largely consists of pointless, repeated, and verbose assertions about my alleged “ignorance” (on every subject under the sun) and incompetence (in every relevant respect), and the utter incorrectness or “deficiencies” of my approach and methods throughout my analysis. In addition there are numerous red herrings, and the blatant lies that are so characteristic and inevitable a part of Witzel’s writings.

The overflowing chaff appears to be intended to serve three distinct purposes:

a) To make the “review article” look voluminous and detailed.

b) To give vent to Witzel’s spite.

c) To deeply prejudice the readers, or simply numb their senses, by a continuous barrage of assertions and comments about my ignorance and incompetence on the one hand, and my motives, ideological predilections and professional ethics on the other.

Nearly every paragraph of Witzel’s article contains references to things that I do not “know” (although they are “well known” “since the 19^th century” to everybody, “but not to Talageri”), do not “mention”, do not “discuss”, do not “acknowledge”, do not “refer” to, do not “reveal”, am “unaware” of or “oblivious” to, “miss” out on, do not “bother” about, do not “point out”, etc. etc.

The things I am “ignorant” (etc.) of, or lacking in, include:

“Sanskrit — let alone ... the obscure Old Vedic forms of the RV”, “any modern scholarly language besides English”, “Old Vedic, Old Iranian, and other ancient Indo-European languages”, “archaic forms of Sanskrit (Old Vedic) and closely related languages”, “Old Vedic”, “Linguistics”, “pre-pANinean grammar and ... disputed Rgvedic words”, “linguistic evidence”, “philological knowledge”, “scholarly linguistic and philological skills”, “linguistic and dialectical variants, meters, substrate words, grammatical innovations, linguistic archaisms and so on,” “myriad well-known linguistic, zoological and archaeological data”, “historical, technological, zoological and archaeological details”, “requisite language skills, scholarly acumen, or historical and political objectivity”, “linguistic rigor, independence from purANic-like worldviews ... political integrity”, “climate”, “geography”, “geographical facts such as the nature of Panjab rivers”, “zoological details”, “critical zoological and archaeological evidence, horse and two-wheeled chariot ... river dolphins in the Indus”, “the habitat of the Gangetic dolphins”, “South Asian zoological facts”, “archaeology”, “the evidence of archaeology”, “comparative Indo-European mythology”, “realia of the RV period ... workings of tribal societies, early states”, “social questions ... vast comparative literature on semi-nomadic peoples”, “semi-nomadic transhumance life or the workings of early pre-state tribal societies”, “standard scholarly research”, “all the detailed work that has been conducted over the past 200 years”, (and) “discussed for more than a hundred years, although T. is not apparently aware of the discussions”, “any of the vast scholarly literature from the past 150 years”, “over a century and a half of research”, “known details regarding the redaction history of the family books”, “known complications in the codification of the RV ascribed to zAkalya” “the redaction of the RV”, “RV stratigraphy”, “well-known structural details in the nucleus of the RV”, “the redaction history of the RV” which is “well-known”, a long list of books and authors about whom I “do not leave a clue” that “I am aware that these works exist”, including “Oldenberg (1888) ... Macdonell (1886) and Scheftelowitz (1922) ... Tokunaga (1997)”, “KF Geldner (1951 ...) L. Renou (1955-1969..) and ... T. Elizarenkova (1989-99)” “K.R. Potdar (1945) ... van den Bosch (1985)”, etc. etc. etc. 

Consequently, my book is, among countless other things:

“imaginary”, “a patriotic or chauvinistic, ultimately pre-enlightenment enterprise”, “garbage in, garbage out”, “like his old one ... a purANa-like fantasy”, etc. — containing “frustrating contradictions”, “amateurish errors”, things “haphazardly draw(n) from a handful of ... works” (without “anything approaching a serious grasp of the subject”) “scholarly pretensions”, “myriad of factual errors”, “undisciplined etymologising”, “most ridiculous claims”, “impossible chronological ideas”, “obvious anachronisms”, “historical fantasies”, “purANa-inspired fictions”, “Hindutva fantasies”, “fantastic claims”, “hodge-podge of linguistic facts and fictions”, “familiar Hindutva myths”, “absurdities”, “morass of unverified charts and lists”, “intellectual detours”, “countless examples of methodological laxness”, etc. etc. etc.

All this constitutes literally a few drops in the flood of words, as the readers can “see for themselves” by going through the review in detail.

 

II.4 Ludicrous criticisms

In an overwhelming number of cases, there is not even the pretence of trying to clarify how I have demonstrated my “ignorance” in the subject concerned, or (more important) just how exactly my “ignorance” has led to wrong understanding which, when corrected, can affect my theory and conclusions adversely. As in the case of Oldenberg’s alleged testimony about the (unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable) claim about the “increasing number of hymns per book”, no clarification is necessary: Witzel’s indictment is supposed to be enough to damn me and my book!

Interspersed in this sea of words are a few alleged examples of my ignorance and incompetence. The points he makes are so ludicrous and incongruous that it is difficult to understand how any self-respecting scholar, especially a Harvard professor referred to as a “scholar par excellence” by his friends and admirers, could stoop to such levels of pedestrian criticism. Perhaps, “in an almost Freudian way”, the following comments he makes about my book explain the rationale behind his review article (substituting W and Witzel for T and Talageri):

“A little countercheck of T.’s actual data is always useful” (§1), and “we have to countercheck T.s data at every step” (§8). But, the “absurdities in Talageri’s book  ... will not at all be obvious to less specialised readers” (Summary), since “what casual reader of Talageri’s book could be expected to pick up on these points without spending weeks or months tracking down Talageri’s spurious ‘evidence’”(§7).

It is obviously impossible for the casual reader to countercheck Witzel’s “spurious ‘evidence’” which consists only of wholesale, and unsubstantiated, references to merely the names of books, authors and entire disciplines of study. However, we can examine and “countercheck” the few specific points made by Witzel.

Nothing better exposes the level of Witzel’s criticism than his repeated citing of misprints, alleged spelling mistakes and alleged wrong forms in my book, and characterization of them as “glaring mistakes” and “misreportings”. 

For example, Witzel comments (§8) on my spelling the word GandhAri as GandhArI, and on my giving the verse number as 1.126.6 instead of 1.126.7 (in TALAGERI 2000:113). But this was obviously a misprint: Witzel himself notes (§7) that the word is “with correct spelling” elsewhere (ie. on the map opposite p.120 in my book); and the verse number had been corrected in the online version of my book, which appeared before the publication of Witzel’s review!

But Witzel refers to misprints as “glaring mistakes” even in cases where there is no misprint in the first place: this is how he refers (§3) to my “misreporting of aprI-sUkta for AprI-sUkta (p.21 ff)”, when no such “misreporting” can be located on p.21 of my book. The readers can check this one out for themselves!

He also refers repeatedly (eg. §7) to “wrong forms” given by me for Avestan words [eg. “read HaraEuua for harOiva” ( §7) or “kavi kavAta (correctly, kauui kauuAta)” (§9)!] when anyone with the faintest acquaintance with the subject should be aware that different authors often give different spellings to the same Avestan words, especially when citing from different sources or using different spelling systems! In chapter 6 of my book, I have been compelled to use at least four different spellings for “Chorasmia”. Witzel’s “correct forms” for writing Avestan words were developed by, I am told, his own teacher Karl Hoffman. However, not all scholars follow his suggestions. A major recent work which does not follow Hoffman’s notation is the Enclycopaedia on Indo-Europeans (MALLORY 1997). In fact, some linguists, like BEEKES (1999), explicitly find fault with Hoffman’s “correct forms”’. By Witzel’s logic however, countless examples of “wrong forms” can be detected in the writings of most Avestan scholars (including Darmetester, Duchesne-Guillemin, Gnoli, Humbach, Skjaervo, Mallory, etc)!

Likewise, Witzel lists (§3) different “mistakes” made by me in giving the “sandhi” forms of words instead of the “non-sandhi” forms (ie. “vara A pRthivyA” instead of “vara A pRthivyAH”, etc!!), omitting the ‘s’ in the word “chandas”, etc. All these, according to him, make “immediately evident” my “linguistic deficiencies”!  

Nowhere is there even the pretence of trying to show how these so-called “mistakes” affect my analysis or conclusions (let alone how they are “mistakes” worthy of pointed notice in the first place!).

 

Compare all this with my own critique of Witzel’s 1995 papers:

Witzel has consistently been protesting that his 1995 papers contained many misprints (see also in §10), but nowhere in my criticism of those papers have I treated a misprint or spelling mistake as a point for criticism. In fact, when a quotation of a long section from Witzel’s papers referred to verse 7.33.3 as 7.33.9, I noted it in my footnote (TALAGERI 2000:458) as a misprint. [Even in this “review” article, he writes the word Ganga in phonetic spelling as GaGgA (§4) instead of gaGgA, which obviously represents a natural typing error.]

And Witzel’s mistakes noted by me (see TALAGERI 2000:448-449) actually do make “immediately evident” the “linguistic deficiencies” of this “Vedic scholar par excellence”, and do affect his understanding, analysis and conclusions: for example, he misreads the name of the eponymous Grtsamada as GArtsamada (=son/descendant of Grtsamada), and of kaNva Ghaura (=KaNva, son/descendant of Ghora) as kANva Ghora (=Ghora, son/descendant of KaNva); misunderstands “Saunahotra Angiras became a Saunaka Bhargava” to mean “Saunaka is made a Bhargava”, etc. The result is complete confusion regarding the identities of the composers of the Rigveda.

It is clear that Witzel, “in an almost Freudian way” is really talking about his own “bent of mind” and his own “paNDita style”(!) of debate when he repeatedly refers to the “bellicose tone” of my book where “every minor flaw in the wording of an ‘opponent’ is leapt on .... to ‘win’ the case” (§10).

 

II.5 The “Original” Rigveda vs. “Griffith’s” Rigveda:

A recurring theme in Witzel’s criticism is the point that I am fundamentally unqualified to write on the Rigveda, much less “to claim to reinterpret it radically – and to reinterpret much of world history along with it” (Summary), since I am “incapable of reading the original text” (Edit.): I do not even have “a genuine working knowledge of Sanskrit” (Summary), let alone of more specialised aspects such as “the obscure Old Vedic forms of the RV”, “archaic forms of Sanskrit (Old Vedic) and closely related languages”, “pre- pANinean grammar”, and so on.

Therefore, according to him, I rely “throughout on Griffith’s outdated Victorian translation (1889), which even in its own day was aimed at a popular (and not scholarly) audience” (Summary), and, naturally, “depending totally on” (Edit), and “blindly using, any translation – let alone one as inadequate as Griffith’s – can easily lead one astray” (§3). .

Chronologically speaking, Oldenberg’s Prolegomena (1888) was written a year before Griffith’s translation (1889). Hence, the Prolegomena is certainly as “outdated” as Griffith’s translation.  And Griffith is “Victorian” only in the sense that he avoids translating a few “obscene” hymns of the RV (e.g. X.86), but this does not affect my analysis in any way.

Typically, Witzel first notes that I “cannot read any modern scholarly language besides English” (Summary), and then insists that I should have consulted “the far more accurate scholarly translations made by K.F. Geldner (1951, German), L. Renou (1955-1969, French) and now T. Elizarenkova (1989-99, Russian)” (§3)! Significantly, Witzel does not mention a single translation of the Rigveda in any Indian language.

Witzel seems unaware that numerous scholars have found fault with literally hundreds of interpretations of the Rigveda by these scholars. Ram GOPAL (1983:141-188), for example, presents a critical estimate of the work of Geldner, Oldenberg, Renou, etc. The reader can also refer to works of Hock, Gonda, Velankar, Dange, etc. for similar criticisms.

Griffith does not require to be defended by me from motivated critics: the point here is Witzel’s allegation about my “total” dependence and reliance “throughout” on his translation, which leads me “astray”. My book is certainly based on the Anukramanis and the Rigveda as a whole, but exactly how is it based on Griffith’s translation, assuming that Griffith’s translation presents a Rigveda significantly, and misleadingly, different from the original?

Witzel must give a full list of the points in my book where my analysis is dependant on Griffith’s translation, explain how “total” this dependence was in arriving at my conclusions, and show how and to what extent my analysis and conclusions on each of these points would have been different if I had used, instead, Geldner, Renou or Elizarenkova. But Witzel’s technique is that of the intellectual coward who is more at home with spit-and-run tactics, personal innuendo and sweeping generalizations, rather than with objective analysis and serious discussions.

I do have the highest regard for Griffith, but my use of his translation is incidental, and any reader looking up Griffith’s name from the index (TALAGERI 2000:504) will get the impression that I have only criticised his translations.  

There is one context in which I have used Griffith’s translation with telling effect, but the effect is inherent in the verses themselves rather than in his translations (see TALAGERI 2000:457-460). And it is in reference to this that Witzel writes: “Talageri testily defends the accuracy of the translation, taking potshots at me in the process” (Summary).

The context was my critical examination of Witzel’s contention that RV 2.15.6 (which refers to the Vipas) and RV 7.33.3 (which refers to the Yamuna) actually refer to the Indus, and constitute memories of the Aryan invasion/immigration (see TALAGERI 2000:457-460)!

Did Witzel himself “consult one or more of the modern scholarly translations" when he made the above contention? Do Geldner, Renou and Elizarenkova (or even any one of them) support his contention that these verses refer to the Indus, let alone his fairy tale about these verses being “reminiscences” of the Aryan exodus from Iran into India, west to east across the Indus, led by Vasishtha and Sudas?  

Incidentally, is Witzel honest in his claim that he considers knowledge of Vedic and of different “modern scholarly languages” — and the ability to read the Rigveda “in the original” (§3) — a compulsory qualification for any study or analysis of the Vedas? Recently, he invited Steve Farmer, his new collaborator, to speak at the Harvard Round Table on the stratification of Vedic Texts, despite the fact that Farmer does not know the different “scholarly languages” or even one Indian language, leave alone Vedic [see http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sanskrit/RoundTableSchedule.html]!

 

III. LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE

Witzel’s criticism of my book contains only two “substantial” objections: his claims about an allegedly “original” RV vitally different from the allegedly “late” and “interpolated” (present day) RV used by me, and his claims about the Anukramanis being “late” and “unreliable”. My analysis very definitely is based, in the most rational sense of the term, on the present day RV and the Anukramanis, and my position on the matter is “invincible”. I will deal with these two issues in sections IV and V later. Let us consider his mindless, minor criticisms first: 

 

III.1 Geographical information in the Rigveda: Rivers

The identification of geographical landmarks (particularly rivers) is crucial to any historical analysis of the RV, and hence my identification of certain rivers becomes the special target of Witzel’s polemics:

III.1.a) Jahnavi and the dolphin:

Witzel sharply rejects my identification of RV Jahnavi as the Ganga, and in the process, of the Shimshumara as the Gangetic dolphin, and devotes a whole section (§4) as well as numerous other references (particularly in §5) to the subject. These two words (Jahnavi and Shimshumara) provide the context for repeated references to my “purANic preconceptions” “lack of grammatical and linguistic expertise”, and all the numerous references to my ignorance on “zoological” matters.

To begin with, he rejects (§4) on “linguistic” grounds my “claim that RV jahnAvI > post RV jAhnavI.” According to him, “the meaning of that word can .... be explained along simple linguistic and grammatical lines as follows: female derivatives of masculine names often have vRddhi in the second last syllable ... That is all there is to it.”

But who has disputed the fact that RV jahnAvI is a “female derivative” of a masculine name, and how does this negate, on linguistic grounds, its connection with post-RV jAhnavI which is also a “female derivative” of the same name? The only difference is that jahnAvI is RV and jAhnavI is its post-RV form. Just like manAvI is the older form of mAnavI.

Then Witzel insists that JahnAvI in the RV refers to “the wife or a female relation of jahnu or otherwise connected to him or his clan” (§4): a broad category-reference (anything but the river!) to a woman totally unknown to the whole of Sanskrit literature and to all traditional and almost all modern commentators on the RV, but so important that she is mentioned twice in the RV (and in obscure contexts where her womanhood is difficult to envisage) while “jahnu” and his clan (both of whose very existence Witzel assumes on the basis of post-RV literature) do not merit a single mention!

About the shimshumara, Witzel insists that it is not the dolphin of the Ganga but of the Indus. Concluding that “river dolphins in the Indus are unknown to T.” (§4), he informs me that the dolphin “is not just found in the Ganges, but also in the Indus river as a simple check of any encyclopedia would show” (§5).

If Witzel had taken the trouble to read the “blurb” on the jacket of my book, he would have noticed that wildlife is one of my passions: I am fully aware that dolphins are found not only “also in the Indus” but also in many other parts of the world. But is the reference in RV 1.116.18 a reference to any of these? The Gangetic dolphin (not the Indus dolphin) is a common figure throughout Sanskrit literature; and as for 1.116.18, not a single commentator known to me has specified that this refers to the Indus dolphin as opposed to the Gangetic dolphin: have Geldner, Renou or Elizarenkova, about whom I am ignorant, made this specification?

In fact the word shimshumara is regularly translated as “Gangetic dolphin” rather than merely “dolphin” (let alone “Indus dolphin”). Monier-Williams does it in his dictionary; and Witzel did so himself in his EJVS article “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan”, EJVS 5-1 (1999), p. 30, where, in fact, he actually distinguishes shimshumara, “Gangetic dolphin”, from shishula, “dolphin”! Elsewhere also (see TALAGERI 2000:465 for the reference), Witzel immediately identified a reference to a dolphin (in the Jaiminiya Brahmana) as a reference to the dolphin of the Ganges!

Witzel even objects to my reference to verses 1.116.18 (which refers to Bharadvaja and Divodasa, and to the Gangetic dolphin) and 1.116.19 (which refers to the JahnAvi (phon)) as “adjacent” verses, places an exclamation mark after the word (§5) and insists that “RV 1.116.18-19 are not as closely connected as T. wants us to believe; this is part of a long 25-verse list of the miracles of the Azvins” (§4). Does this context negate the fact that the two verses are adjacent to each other?

And does this disprove my claims? Yes, but only if one resorts wholesale to the theory of coincidences: it is one coincidence that these two verses are placed next to each other in a text containing 10552 verses; another coincidence that the only reference to the shimshumara in the whole text occurs here (this animal being an Indus animal, but only another coincidence that it is almost exclusively identified by everyone, including Witzel elsewhere and earlier, with the Ganga); yet another coincidence that one of the only two references in the text to a lady who is a “wife or female relation of Jahnu or otherwise connected to him or his clan” occurs here (her name, by another coincidence, being exclusively identified throughout the length and breadth of Sanskrit literature, which is otherwise ignorant of this lady’s existence, with the river Ganga); yet another coincidence that the only reference outside Mandala 6 (which, by yet another coincidence, does not refer to the Indus at all, but contains the only reference to the Ganga by that name outside the nadistuti) to both Divodasa and his priest Bharadvaja in one verse occurs here.

To crown it all, the only other reference to both Divodasa and Bharadvaja in one hymn, outside Mandala 6, occurs coincidentally in yet another “long 25-verse list of the miracles of the Azvins”, in coincidentally “‘adjacent’ (!)” verses: 1.112.13-14!

III.1.b) Sarasvati and Hariyupiya-Yavyavati:

Witzel, likewise, rejects my identification of some “other river names ... found in what T. claims, on flimsy grounds, is the RV’s ‘oldest book’, RV6”(§7).

According to him:

“The River Sarasvati found in book 6 (T. p.102) may be discarded just like T.’s Gangetic Jahnavi ... in 6.49.7 the Sarasvati is a woman and in 50.12 a deity, not necessarily the river (Witzel 1984) (At 52.6, however, it is a river, and in 61.1-7 both a river and a deity – which can be located anywhere from the Arachosian Sarasvati to the Night time sky, with no clear localisation)” (§7).

It is difficult to believe that Witzel is serious in his incredible assertions: if we are to believe him, in 6.49.7, the Sarasvati is a woman (named in a list of deities!) and in 6.50.12 a deity (having nothing to do with the river of the same name!), and both the verses fail to give evidence of acquaintance with “the physical river Sarasvati”! So are we to assume that both this “woman” and this deity belong to a period when the Vedic Aryans were still unacquainted with any river of that name (and, therefore, presumably, when they finally did discover this river, they named it after this woman or this deity)? And that when other verses do refer to a river of that name, this river may be “anywhere” from Arachosia to the “night time sky”? Anything but the Haryana river – the “sky” is the limit!

In his 1995 papers, he locates the Sarasvati in hymn 6.61 squarely in Kurukshetra in his “Geographical Data” (WITZEL 1995b: 343,349) as well as in his descriptions of Mandala 6: “W/NW, Panjab, Sarasvati, Ganga” (WITZEL 1995b: 318, 320). And nowhere in those papers does he suggest anything contrary!

About the Yavyavati and Hariyupiya in hymn 6.27, Witzel now insists that they are “western” rivers which “point to Eastern Afghanistan, to the river Zhob, and (perhaps) the Hali(-Ab)” (§7).

As a linguist, Witzel should answer this question: is Vedic “hari” phonetically equivalent to an Iranian “hali” (Vedic r=Iranian l); and is there any point of comparison in the meanings of the two words? The later name Raupya (Drshadvati) is clearly a phonetic corruption of Hariyupiya, and the meaning, as Witzel himself notes (“hari ‘tawny, etc’ = raupya ‘golden’”) is more or less similar.

And as for the Yavyavati, see what Witzel himself had to say on this point (in an unguarded moment before he took up the crusade against my geographical interpretations) about the only other reference anywhere to this river (in the Pancavimsha Brahmana 25.7.2):

“nothing points to such a W. localisation. The persons connected with it are known to have stayed in the Vibhinduka country, a part of the Kuru-Pancala land” (WITZEL 1987: 193).

Even in his 1995 papers, he mentions the alleged western location with a doubtful “may be” and a question mark: “may be the Zhob river in N. Baluchistan?” (WITZEL 1995b: 317).

III.1.c) Ashmanvati:

In another case, Witzel insists that the Ashmanvati in 10.53.8 (the Assan, a tributary of the Yamuna) is “probably not a river on earth at all, but a river of the night time sky” (§7).

This reference is not important to our analysis, since it occurs in Mandala 10, but it appears Witzel cannot resist the temptation of transporting eastern rivers into the “night time sky”, even when, as in this particular case, the reference here (unlike in the case of Witzel’s spurious “Indus” in 2.15.6) actually is to the crossing of a river!

 

Clearly, there is a very strong element of dishonesty in Witzel’s assertions about the identities of the rivers in the RV.

III.1.d) Prayiyu-Vayiyu:  

Incidentally, Witzel also writes: “prayiyu and vayiyu in 8.19.37 actually are (non-Indo-Aryan) men of the country of Suvastu (mod. Swat, just east of Afghanistan) – not rivers at all, as Talageri assures us (p. 102)!” (§7). Here, Witzel’s assertion, about their not being rivers, may be right: I myself have doubts on this score, and cannot “assure” anyone that these are rivers. I included them in the list of river names simply because M. L. Bhargava has interpreted them as river-names, and I did not want motivated critics to allege that I was excluding names (howsoever irrelevant to any analysis, since the mention of Suvastu in the verse already fixes the western geography of the verse or hymn) of would-be western rivers from my geographical data. So I concede that Witzel’s objection on this point may be valid, but not his ridiculous claim that they are names of “men”.

 

III.2 Climate

Witzel refers to the climatic conditions indicated in the RV, and writes (about my book):

“There is no discussion of climate in the book. All of the RV indicates the presence of cold climates, a prominence of long dawns, and river flooding due to snow melt. All these conditions are typical of conditions in the Panjab, not of the more southern and warmer Gangetic plain under the heavy influence of the monsoon” (§5).

If Witzel himself had “discussed” the subject with a really “serious” scholar — or even (see below) read his own articles written before he set out on his crusades — he would have found out that the above conditions are as characteristic, or otherwise, of the Delhi-Haryana area (which, as I have repeatedly pointed out in my book, is the centre of activity of RV composition) as of the Punjab; and that, in any case, the above are not the primary conditions of the climate indicated in the RV, but the stormy monsoons, so untypical of the Punjab, definitely are.

Witzel should read carefully the article “The Punjab and the Rig-veda” by Prof. E.W. HOPKINS (1898) who points out in great detail that the Punjab cannot be the home of composition of the RV, and that the Ambala region of Haryana is the westernmost possible area which fulfils the topographical and meteorological conditions described in the RV, precisely on the basis of the fact that the text throughout depicts a stormy monsoon climate.

(Prof. Hopkins is definitely one of the greatest Indologists produced by the West, but the objective and unbiased nature of his scholarship and analysis will undoubtedly make him a special target of Witzel’s venom: “badly out dated ... by more than a century”; perhaps even, because of his work on the Epics, a scholar with a “purANic mindset”!)

Witzel assures us that the flooding of rivers, described in the RV, is caused by the melting of snow (in spring, one assumes) and that this is typical of the Punjab. However, Wilhelm Rau, for example attributes these floods to the monsoon rains: 

“I therefore take shaaradih purah as ‘purah constructed in autumn’ against possible attacks, in other words as provisional defences to be repaired or rebuilt every autumn after the floods of the rainy season.” (RAU 1976:37)

To quote Witzel himself: “In general, the books of RV level I (RV 4-6) are thoroughly South Asian and have reference to local climate, trees and animals. We therefore have to take them at their word .” (WITZEL 2000a: §13) 

 

III.3 Kikata and Magadha

Witzel objects to my identification of Kikata with Magadha, and rejects any possible connection (“is not related in any way”) between the names Magadha and Pramaganda (chief of the Kikatas) (§8).

But I am not the originator of this identification: Kikata is Magadha in every other occurrence of the name in ancient texts; and very few scholars, if any, have suspected any other identity for the word in the RV.

The connection between Magadha and Pramaganda is not my suggestion either. My exact words were: “Pramaganda (whose name is connected by many scholars with the word Magadha = Pra-maganda)” (TALAGERI 2000:119).

One of these many scholars is Witzel himself: after denying any possible connection, he immediately connects the two names himself: “not in Sanskrit as T. tries to insinuate; for Austro-Asiatic possibilities, however, see Witzel (1999a)” (§8).

Now the name Magadha, at least, from its very first mention in the AV, is identified by everyone with S. Bihar, as Witzel himself does: “the country of Magadha in S. Bihar” (§8). So it is he who has to explain why he locates a chieftain, whose name is connected with Magadha (in whichever language), in “Kurukshetra and surroundings, some 750 miles to the West” (§8)!

Further, if the etymology of the words is Austro-Asiatic, as alleged by Witzel — nowhere have I “insinuated” anything about the etymology of the words being either Sanskrit or otherwise — it is again he who has to explain why he locates a chieftain with an Austro-Asiatic name “some 750 miles to the West” of the area (ie. South Bihar) where Austro-Asiatic is known to have been spoken from the earliest historical times down to the present day (see Burrow quoted in TALAGERI 2000:306).

Both the historical name Magadha in itself, and the location of the language family (Austro-Asiatic) to which Witzel attributes the name, point towards S. Bihar.

According to Witzel, of course, Austro-Asiatic was spoken as far west as the Indus Valley Civilisation (see his EJVS article “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan” EJVS 5-1, 1999) where, to the deafening silence of traditional and recorded history, the Austro-Asiatics were either linguistically converted en masse, or from where they were driven eastwards (the latter, if Witzel’s placement of Austro-Asiatic Pramaganda in Kurukshetra is to make any sense), by invading Aryans! — a classic case of a revolutionary thesis “where unchecked etymological speculation abounds and stands proxy for legitimate historical information” (§8)!

Witzel says:

“However, the hymn in question, RV 3.53.14, clearly speaks of Kurukshetra and surroundings, some 750 miles to the west. It refers to the performance of the Asvamedha (3.53.11) after Sudas’ victory in the Ten Kings’ Battle (7.18; cf. Witzel 1995), to which this late Visvamitra hymn of family reminiscences seems to look back.” (§8).

It appears the “Vedic scholar par excellence” is a bit confused here, on two distinct grounds: firstly, the Ten Kings’ Battle (where Vasishtha had replaced Vishvamitra as Sudas’ priest) is later to the performance of the Ashvamedha (when Vishvamitra was still his priest). This would make it extremely unlikely that the Ten Kings’ Battle would be an event the Vishvamitras would “look back” fondly upon, and glorify, in their family reminiscences. Secondly, it would be even more unlikely, even bizarre, for them to be doing so in the light of the (weird) interpretation that Witzel himself has placed on Vishvamitra’s role in this battle:

According to Witzel, Vishvamitra is “an opponent of Sudas at the time of the Ten Kings’ Battle” (WITZEL 1997b: 264, fn.28), and: 

“There is even the possibility that it was Visvamitra who — in an act of revenge — forged the alliance against his former chief. Whatever the reason, however, the alliance failed and the Puru were completely ousted (7.8.4, etc.) alongwith Visvamitra.. ” (Witzel 1995b: 334) — a happy memory indeed for the Vishvamitras!

Further, it does not follow that the references to different battles in the same hymn, in the case of Sudas’ victories, pertain to the same area. On the contrary, as in the case of hymn 7.18 (where verses 1-16 refer to the western battles, under Vasishtha, and verses 18-19 to totally different eastern ones), hymn 3.53 refers even more categorically to Sudas’ victories in different areas “east, west and north” (verse 11).

The various opinions regarding the location of Kikata are summarised by RAHURKAR (1964:26-27). It is clear that the opponents of the equation “Magadha = Kikata” have only one argument (a circular one) — they state that the age of the RV is too early to warrant an acquaintance of the invading Aryans with an Eastern region like S. Bihar.

In contrast, Indian tradition is unanimous in identifying Kikata with Magadha (e.g. Bhagavata Purana I.3.24 and Vayu Purana 108.73-74. Nirukta merely says “anarya janapada” — which, incidentally, does not mean “linguistically non-Indo-European janapada” — and the word does not occur in the other Samhitas). Thus, we have here a case of a speculation (based on circular arguments) vs. direct textual evidence.

Witzel himself (WITZEL 1980:103, f.13) suggests that the reader should read p. 116 sqq. of vol. 2 of the Vedic Index. And the Vedic Index here actually identifies Kikata as Magadha after giving divergent opinions!

 

III.4 Archaeological Data

According to Witzel:

“Archaeology is largely ignored by Talageri as well. If he had consulted any standard studies he would have found that all through the timeframe that he assigns to the RV (3500-1500 BCE) his supposed Aryan homeland around the Ganges was exclusively inhabited by hunters and gatherers and by some scattered chalcolithic agriculturists – with no sign of great Puru and Bharata ‘kingdoms’, The same applies to the absence of horse and chariot in the Gangetic basin during this period – a topic that Talageri wisely never brings up. Nor is the Indus civilisation (2600-1900 BCE) discussed at length. It covered at least the Western extremities of his imaginary ‘Westward march’ of the Vedic tribes during T,’s late RV period, 2100- 1500 BCE. Since this does not fit, we are informed that the Indus people were Anu — Iranians, in T.’s opinion (p. 41)!!” (§5).

 

.... the RV would be contemporaneous with the early village-like predecessors of the Indus civilisation at Harappa itself. As far as T’s U.P. / Bihar ‘homeland of the RV’ is concerned, the text would have evolved right among the hunter-gatherer bands of that area” (§6).

 

"Harappan civilisation is almost completely absent in his book, only noted in passing in discussing some other scholars’ views. According to his time table of the RV, however, the Rgvedic period overlaps exactly with the later parts of the Harappan civilisation – which he fantastically describes ... as a ‘joint civilisation of the Anus .. and the Purus  ... even perhaps more Anu than Puru, at least in the case of the more well-known western sites’ (p. 419). This neatly shifts the evidence away from the RV – according to T. a Puru text of the Gangetic Plains. Unfortunately for Talageri, the mature Indus civilisation covered all of RV territory, as it extended from E. Afghanistan to Haryana and Western U.P., and from the Himalayas down to the Indus delta and Kathiawar in Gujarat. His knowledge of the Indus valley civilisation is hence as misinformed as his knowledge of RV culture” (§7).

  

 “There is complete absence of discussion of social questions in the RV: ‘kings’ in the semi-nomadic (only very partially village-based) society portrayed in early strata of the RV? Vedic ‘dynasties’ reigning for millennia? What kind of ‘state’ is represented by the RV hymns? Any search of the vast comparative literature on semi-nomadic peoples would have ruled out much of Talageri’s fantasies” (§5).

Let us examine the main points in the above:

III.4.a) The Harappan Civilisation:

Witzel derisively quotes me calling the civilisation “a joint civilisation of the Anus ... and the Purus”, and then almost immediately he himself names all the areas covered by the civilisation, which are in fact the very areas which, according to ancient texts, were the areas of the Anus and the Purus: so why is my claim “fantastic” or “misinformed”? And how, since I call it a joint civilisation, does Witzel conclude that I “neatly shift the evidence away from the RV” by informing my readers “that the Indus people were Anu – Iranians”?

The eastern (Sarasvati) sites of the civilisation represented the Puru areas where the hymns were composed, but there is no way the “archaeology” of the region could have featured in my analysis of the historical data in the hymns: the hymns were composed in that area, that is all! Was I supposed to try to impart an aura of authenticity to my analysis by locating various Vedic personalities and events in various specific Harappan archaeological sites?

The main historical events in the Punjab, in any case, took place in the Early Period which, according to my tentative chronology so kindly publicised by Steve Farmer on his website, took place before 2700 BC (ie. before the 2600-1900 BC dates specified by Witzel as the date of the Indus Civilization). Witzel must, therefore, explain how he decides that I have placed this “Westward march” in the “late RV period, 2100-1500 BCE”.

III.4.b) UP-Bihar:  

Next: “T.s’ U.P. / Bihar ‘homeland of the RV’”: If Witzel would only try reading books before criticising them, he would find out that Bihar never features as the homeland of the RV in my book.

So far as U.P. is concerned, I have pointed out that eastern U.P. was the original homeland of the Purus (ie. they originally came from the east); their homeland in the period of composition of the RV covered both U.P. and Haryana; and the central area where the hymns were composed was Haryana, which was their centre of activity, and which they regarded as the best and holiest place on earth.

III.4.c) Kings and Dynasties:

Witzel finds my use of words like “king”, “kingdom” and “dynasty” totally unacceptable — “‘kings’ in the semi-nomadic (only very partially village-based) society portrayed in early strata of the RV?’” he asks scornfully, and calls them “Talageri’s fantasies” (§5). The very idea of kings and dynasties look, to him, “as if they were taken from the popular comic books Amar Chitra Katha, rather than from the Rgveda” (§8). Witzel scrupulously uses the word “chieftain(s)” (without inverted commas) whenever he himself refers to anything concerning the Vedic kings; and whenever he refers to them in the context of something written by me, he uses the word “king(s)” with inverted commas.    

But it is difficult to understand why exactly Witzel makes a show of objecting to my use of words like “king” or “dynasty”. Every single Vedic scholar, from Oldenberg, through Geldner, down to Parpola today, talks about “kings” in the Rigveda. How else is one supposed to translate words like rajan in the RV?

In any case, why does Witzel himself regularly translate dasarajna as “battle of the ten kings”? If the word “dynasty” is so incongruous with the stage of society depicted in the RV, why does Witzel (in his above papers) talk about “lines of royal descent” and “grids of royal succession” and accept that “a few” dynasties do appear in the text? Even more significantly, note the following quotations from Witzel’s own writings in his 1995 papers:

“their relationship to the poets, kings and tribes” (312), “a descent claimed occasionally by kings such as Trasadasyu” (316), “Book 3 .. represents the time of king Sudas” (317), “this establishes the connection of tribes and kings with certain areas” (318), “both the Puru king Trasadasyu and the Bharata king Divodasa” (329), “In book 6 of the Bharadvaja, the Bharatas and their king Divodasa play a central role” (332-3), “an account of the battle of 20 kings and 60,099 warriors” (335), etc. (WITZEL 1995b)!

Witzel carps about “‘dynasties’ reigning for millennia”. But does it require more than normal intelligence to understand that if tribes could exist (naturally not in any ethnically “pure” state, but at least with the same names) for millennia, the kings who ruled over them, or belonged to those tribes, would naturally be considered descendants of eponymous or legendary kings of the tribe – and that this is so in the case of the Bharata dynasty which dominated the Early and Middle periods of the RV? Naïve objections of this kind can be expected from political hecklers, not from “serious” scholars.

III.4.d) Semi-nomadic Peoples:

About semi-nomadic peoples: even if the Vedic people were semi-nomadic, I fail to understand how a study of “the vast comparative literature on semi-nomadic peoples” (whatever that is) would have been of any particular use in the study of historical events in the text. But the fact is that the Vedic people were not “semi-nomadic”. As that very great Western Indologist, and soon-to-be Witzel’s pet hate, Prof. HOPKINS (1898:20), pointed out, the RV “reflects not so much a wandering life ... as a life stable and fixed, a life of halls and cities, and shows sacrificial cases in such detail as to lead one to suppose that the hymnists were not on the tramp, but were comfortable well-fed priests”

I have nowhere assigned any particular stage of socio-economic or cultural-technological development to the Vedic Aryans or to their pre-RV ancestors in the east.

As to whether the people in a particular area were “hunters and gatherers”, “pastoralists”, “agriculturists” or “urbanites” in a particular period, it is for the archaeologists to discover: different scholars have given detailed “evidence” from the text to show that the Vedic Aryans were, exclusively, each of the above; and sifting the evidence and correlating the textual references with the archaeological scenario (it is, for example, significant that detailed evidence of agricultural development appears only in a late hymn of the Middle Period of the RV — ie. post-2700 BC as per my publicised time-table — in hymn 4.58) is, to use Witzel’s favourite phrase, a “complex” process, and the matter “is still being studied” (Summary). Surely OIT proponents, latecomers on the scene, have at least as much right to “still be studying” these complex processes as the AIT proponents with “200 years of scholarship” behind them?

The AIT/AMT case is certainly a total zero when it comes to archaeology: see for example, Vishal Agarwal’s recent useful summary of the case in his recent paper “What is the Aryan Migration Theory” on the internet at http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/What_is_AMT.html (see also TALAGERI 2000:220-245 etc). Let Witzel present a foolproof archaeological case himself before presuming the right to demand one of his “opponents”.

III.4.d) Horses: 

This is even more so in the case of “horses and chariots”, which Witzel describes as “a topic that Talageri wisely never brings up”: Witzel, it appears, has still not read my earlier book where I “bring up” at least the subject of horses (TALAGERI 1993: 117-121).

In any case, what is the evidence of the horse? According to Witzel:

“The modern horse ... first appeared, imported from Central Asia (Bokonyi 1997; Meadow and Patel 1997) around 1700 BCE (Pirak, Kachi Plain in easternmost Baluchistan)” (§6).

“Imported” may be, but how did the exporters transport this animal from Central Asia to Pirak: did they airdrop it or transport it through some subterranean tunnel so that the entire intervening area still continued to be totally ignorant of, and devoid of, the horse? Or do we assume that there must have been horses in the intervening area inspite of absence of “archaeological evidence” to this effect?

To be more precise: Witzel places the composition of the RV in the Punjab, and he also dates the dasharajna hymn (in his 1995 papers) “prior to 1500 BC or so due to the now well- documented desiccation of the Sarasvati (Yash Pal et al, 1984)” (see TALAGERI 2000:186) [Witzel is, of course, a King of Somersaults, and can execute sharp about-turns as soon as he finds something inconvenient to his position; but this is what he said in 1995].

Did the dasharajna battle, in Witzel’s opinion, take place in the very first year, or decade, or century, of the Aryan entry into the region? No: in 1995, he called Mandala 7 “the latest of the family books”, and hymn 95 (which is his anchorsheet for dating the battle before 1500 BC) is considered a late hymn in the Mandala. So, even by Witzel’s reckoning, at least two centuries must have elapsed in the Punjab: the Aryans must already have been very much present there in 1700 BC. So why are there no horses in the Punjab in 1700 BC in the archaeological record: was the RV actually composed in Pirak, or were the Vedic Aryans then in the Punjab still unacquainted with the horse?

No scholar has yet been able to show an archaeological trail of horses through Central Asia into the Punjab in any period which he can allot to the Aryans. Further, MEADOW et al (1994) admit that no remains of the true horse have been found even at the Bronze Age sites of Central Asia! And it is through these areas that the horse rich Indo-Iranians are said to have passed before reaching Iran and India. A correlation of the presence in the archaeological records of horses with the dates and areas suggested for the RV hymns is not part of any AIT formulation, and no-one can demand that it be a compulsory part of any OIT formulation.

[As I pointed out in my 1993 book, both linguistics and archaeology disprove the idea that Indo-Europeans introduced the horse into India: the Dravidian and Austric words are totally independent of IE *ekwo; and in fact the common, and almost universal, Indoaryan word today (from Classical Sanskrit ghotaka, with a retroflex t) is one of the words which Witzel would immediately brand a “substrate word” (on account of “the retroflex sound alone”, as per his logic in §8).

As for the archaeological record, I have quoted the Encyclopaedia Britannica in my earlier book (TALAGERI 1993:161) as follows:

“Curiously, however, it is precisely in those regions that used iron, and were associated with the horse, that the Indo-Aryan languages did not spread. Even today, these are the regions of the Dravidian language group.”

III.4.e) Chariots:

In the case of chariots, it is Witzel who shows wisdom in avoiding bringing up the topic of “spoked-wheel chariots”.

This was the original point of discussion in the e-mail debate between Farmer-Witzel and some others, including myself (July-Sept, 2000): their claim was that the RV referred “throughout” to spoked-wheels, which first made their appearance, anywhere in the world, in Central Asia in 2000 BC, and that hence the RV was definitely post-2000 BC.

However, as I pointed out, the references to spokes, “ara”, appear only in the Late Mandalas (ie. 5, 8, 9, 10, late 1) and not in the Early and Middle Mandalas (ie. 6,3,7,4,2, early and middle 1). As per my tentative chronology, publicised by Farmer, the Late Mandalas were composed between 2400 BC-1500 BC. Hence, the Early and Middle Mandalas preceded the invention of spoked-wheels.

I further suggested that Central Asia was the exit-point from India, and that there is an archaeological record of the spread of spoked-wheels from Central Asia to other parts of the Old World; so spoked-wheels may have been invented in India some time after 2400 BC. Now, I am told, Prof. B. B. Lal, in a forthcoming publication, is publishing some evidence for the existence of spoked-wheels in India prior to 2000 BC.

So now Witzel talks only of “ chariots” or “two-wheeled chariots”. But the answer to this is the same: Witzel should first produce an indisputable archaeological trail correlating the archaeological evidence for chariots in India with his suggested dates and areas for the chariot-referring hymns in the RV; and only then can he claim the right to challenge us to produce a similar correlation between the archaeological evidence for chariots and our suggested dates and areas for these hymns.

The archaeological evidence for horses and chariots in India — as deficient for the Vedic period as it is for many other later historical periods for areas where their abundant presence is not doubted by any scholar — is clearly a non-issue in the debate.

 

III.5 Central Asia 

Witzel brings up two interesting points connecting Central Asia with the Aryan invasion / migration:

III.5.a) BMAC:

He identifies the area of the BMAC or “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex” in Central Asia as the (temporary) Indo-Iranian homeland from where the two groups separated into India and Iran respectively, and finds “evidence” for this in the vocabulary of Indoaryan and Iranian:

“recent discussion of the substrate words common to both Indo-Aryan and Iranian (Witzel 1999a, Lubotsky forthc.) ... such common non-Indo-Iranian words differ from the typical Rgvedic and post-Rgvedic substrate and indicate that both the proto-Indo-Aryans and proto-Iranians, perhaps even the speakers of proto-Indo-Iranian, entered a Central Asian/ Afghan territory that was also occupied by a previous population speaking non-Indo-European language(s) (pace J.Nichols!) — most probably the language(s) of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC)” (§7).

He concludes:

“The evidence suggests the various Indo-Iranian tribes entered a non-Indo-European speaking area, Bactria-Margiana, and brought new local loan-words taken over there with them into Iran and the Greater Punjab” (§9).

Witzel, of course, is pastmaster at the mystic art of divining the entire language-system of the pre-historical inhabitants of any given archaeological site devoid of actual written records. To paraphrase himself: “give Witzel one archaeological site, and he will produce a comprehensive dictionary, complete with etymological analysis, of its language” (see also his EJVS article “Substrate Languages in Old Indo- Aryan”, EJVS 5-1, 1999, where he confidently produces, and even discusses in detail, not one but two distinct Harappan languages)!

Let us assume he is right in this case, in identifying a BMAC language which gave loan-words to Iranian and Indoaryan. What exactly are those loan-words? His above EJVS article (pp. 54-55) furnishes a list of 18 words.

The distribution of these words in the RV is significant: 6 of these words (ishti, godhuma, shana, sasharpa, khadga, vina) are post-RV and are not found in the RV at all, and 9 (ushtra, khara, yavya, parsha, bhanga, kashyapa, prdaku, kapota, kadru) are found only in the non-family Mandalas, and 2 more (sthuna, bija) only in the non-family Mandalas and Mandala 5 (which is the only Family Mandala which is Late). Only one word (bhishaj) is found all over the RV, but it is clearly a late word: of the 50 or so occurrences of this word, only 3 are in the Early Mandalas, in hymns which Witzel’s Oldenberg principle would classify as late (more on this subject later), and 7 are in a single hymn in a Middle Mandala which would also be late as per Witzel’s criterion of “late book-10-style and AV-like grammatical forms and contents”; all the rest, ie. 40 references are in the Late Mandalas (2 of them in Mandala 5). The word is found more than 350 times in the later Samhitas!

What does the evidence show? It clearly disproves Witzel’s theory and proves mine: chronologically, the Early and Middle Mandalas predate the time-frame of the BMAC; and, geographically, the Vedic Aryans never passed through Central Asia, and these loan-words were transmitted to the Vedic people by the Iranians (Anus) who did expand into Central Asia (in the case of ushtra, the Iranian agency is “invincibly” proved, see TALAGERI 2000:206-207).

[In the above scenario, there is one word (if one is to take Witzel’s word that this is a BMAC word!) which would seem to provide an exception to the rule: yavya is found only in the non-family Mandalas, but the name Yavyavati in 6.27.6 clearly contains this word. The explanation perhaps lies in the fact that this is a unique hymn in the RV (see TALAGERI 2000:213) where the Anus and Purus were aligned together. The river (Drshadvati, TALAGERI 2000:98-99) in the hymn is called by two different epithets (see also Venkata Madhava, the ancient commentator of the RV): one, Hariyupiya, could be a Puru name for it, and the other, Yavyavati, the Anu one].

III.5.b) Soma:

In the same vein, Witzel writes (§8) about Soma that it is “a plant of the High Iranian, Pamir and Himalayan mountains” which “originally had a Central Asian name as well”. Witzel finds that “the discussion of Soma by T. also contains a lot of misunderstanding of Indo-Iranian mythology ... T. as a linguist, does not notice that the name of Soma and its formation precede the Vedic period: they were already Indo-Iranian”, and is unable to understand how I conclude “that the evidence of the Rigveda thus clearly shows that the Vedic Aryans did not come from the Soma-growing areas bringing the Soma plant and rituals with them (p. 135)”.

The trouble with Witzel is his old, old problem of criticising without reading, and reading without understanding: I can only ask him to read pp. 128-136 of my book again, and again, and yet again, until he understands exactly what I am saying; and then supplement this with pp. 208-231 of my book.

Soma is indeed “a plant of the High Iranian, Pamir and Himalayan mountains” – and so is the (Bactrian) camel an animal of Central Asia. But the Vedic Aryans did not become acquainted with camels because of a sojourn through that region in a pre-RV period: the Iranians introduced camels to them (see TALAGERI 2000:206-207) in the Late Period of the RV. Likewise, the Iranians introduced Soma to them (see TALAGERI 2000:128-136 once more) in the formative pre-RV period.

What is generally called “Indo-Iranian” (including “the copious data of a common Indo-Iranian language, mythology, ritual, etc.” referred to by Witzel in §7) is not a joint and common pre-RV stage of Indoaryan and Iranian. The term actually covers a vast range of things which were transmitted in either direction in cultural exchanges between the Purus and the Anus over the ages — and much of the “Indo-Iranian” element is late Rigvedic.

I would also suggest that Witzel read (actually read) the study of HOPKINS (1896) dealing with the words common to the Rigveda and the Avesta and note particularly his conclusion

“that the Avesta and RV viii. are younger than RV ii-vii.; or else that the poets of viii. were geographically nearer to the Avestan people, and so took from them certain words, which may or may not have been old with their Iranian users, but were not received into the body of Vedic literature until a time posterior to the composition of ii-vii” (pp.80-81).

Hopkins certainly did not believe in any Indian Homeland theory, but he was too honest a scholar to twist out contrary conclusions from inconvenient data — a lesson which many present-day scholars could learn from him.

III.6 Invasion Scenarios in the The Bible and the Rigveda

Witzel also objects, among countless other things, to my points (expressed here in his words) that “the Hebrew Bible is an example of a violent invasion scenario” and “that Western scholars continue to apply ... biblical models to the case of India”. He informs me:

“Palestine archaeology does not suggest that ‘invasions’ and large-scale destructions took place in the way that they are described in the Torah: Biblical scholars, like Indologists, long ago replaced 19^th-century invasion theories with acculturation models” (§9).

The key phrase in the above is: “described in the Torah”. Even Witzel cannot deny that the Bible does describe an invasion; and the fact is that this description is too detailed and copious to be dismissed so easily. Suggesting that the descriptions are exaggerated would be more reasonable, but only within certain limits.

In any case, my point — so clearly made in the preface of my book that no-one should have had any scope for failing to understand it — is that the Bible does describe, in copious detail, an invasion (whether or not it took place) of Palestine and the Rigveda does not describe an invasion (whether or not it took place) of India; and that there has been a deliberate obfuscation of this difference in the similar treatment of the two texts.  

In fact, Witzel confirms my claim that “Western scholars continue to apply ... modern biblical models to the case of India” when he continues the lumping together of the two texts (“Biblical scholars, like Indologists ...”).

Curiously, Witzel, unlike the Indologists he is talking about, does not appear to have “long ago replaced 19^th_century invasion theories” — he continues to describe a “violent invasion scenario” in the Rigveda in his various articles on the subject (even as he protests that what he is describing is “an acculturation scenario”). Read, for example, his 1995 article “Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities”, particularly the section entitled “Rgvedic history: the Indo-Aryans in the Panjab” (WITZEL 1995b:324-326):

Here, after describing, in other sections, the Indo-Aryans “fighting their way” through the mountains of Afghanistan (and “storming the mountain fortresses” of Sambara), Witzel begins with: “Once they arrived on the plains of the Panjab, the Indo-Aryans had further battles to fight”. He then proceeds to cite references from the Rigveda, which he claims refer to these battles: references to the destruction of “Dasic forts”, “99 forts”, “autumnal forts”, “100 stone forts”, etc., and the slaughter of “the 100,000 men of Varcin”, “the 50,000 blacks”, the “30,000 Dasa”, etc. There are also “some explicit descriptions of campaigns”. Further — exactly as described in my book (TALAGERI 2000:358-362) — he proceeds to interpret nature myths as mythicization of Aryan-vs-non-Aryan conflicts: “In general, the victory of the Indo-Aryans over their earthly enemies is likened to the winning of light from darkness, or to the extraction of water by the agency of Indra’s mighty bolt”. These earthly enemies, he emphasizes, are “the aboriginal tribes encountered” by them in the Panjab. Witzel, of course, points out “the fact that the Indo-Aryans fought each other as often as they fought non-Indo-Aryans” — but then so did the European colonialists fight each other in the course of their mediaeval conquest of India.

So, was Witzel ignorant of “acculturation models” when he wrote the above? Clearly not: he mentions acculturation, but only as it would naturally take place in a post-“violent invasion scenario” situation: he tells us that this “process of acculturation....gathered momentum after the immigration and initial conquest” (WITZEL 1995b:326), because the Indo-Aryans “enjoyed a dominant social position due to their superior (military) technology” (WITZEL 1995b:323).          

 

III.7 Etymologising

A prominent constant in Witzel’s article is his repeated criticism of my “etymologising” which has its roots in my “lack of linguistic knowledge”. According to him, my “undisciplined etymologising”, “folk-etymologising”, “free-form etymologising worthy of the Indian nationalist P. N. Oak”, “Nirukta-or-Kratylos-like fantasies”, etc are the basis for my “countless false deductions concerning pre-RV history” (§8).

Actually, except for one or two words, I have not suggested etymologies on my own, but have accepted the logical suggestions of other scholars. Witzel is hardly qualified to carp: remember his “identification of Rgvedic rip- with the Rhipaean mountains, the modern Urals (Bongard-Levin 1980)” which was his sole basis for concluding that the Vedic Aryans retained “vague memories” of “foreign localities” so far to the west (MY BOOK, pp. 465-468)?

Witzel’s objections are either to the particular etymology itself and the resultant interpretation of the word, or to the word being identified as Indoaryan/Indo-European. So far as the latter is concerned, I have dealt with this aspect in detail in my book (pp. 293-308), and Witzel’s objections in this regard are already answered there.

However, let us examine the specific instances, given by Witzel, of my “etymologising”, and the reader can judge for himself the credibility and quality of Witzel’s criticism:

III.7.a) Purusha:

Witzel rejects my etymology (perhaps the only etymology actually proposed by me, and one which I consider unchallengeable) of the word purusha (man) from Puru on the direct analogy of manusha (man) from Manu (TALAGERI 2000:147) and pontificates:  “A glance into Mayrhofer’s dictionaries would have supplied T. with a legitimate range of explanations for the multiple Rgvedic and later Middle Indo-Aryan forms of puruSa/pUraSa etc” (§8).

This represents the keynote of Witzel’s logic: anything but my interpretation, even if it is clearly the most logical one and is also supported by the context (see TALAGERI 2000:141-148). He does not even necessarily accept any particular other interpretation, but is willing, and expects the reader to be willing, to accept any one of a wide “range of explanations”, each of which is to be taken as equally “legitimate”, rather than even consider whether I could be right!

III.7.b) Mayura:

By the same logic, Witzel rejects mayura as an Indoaryan word, and gives an elaborate and iron-cast rule for its rejection: “neither its root (skt mA ‘to bellow’?) nor its suffix (yU- ra??) nor its word structure (mA>ma? +yU-ra??) is Indo- Aryan, as T, has it”. Instead, he points out that mayura “has been given various etymologies from Dravidian to Munda”. (§8)

Have all, or even any one, of the proposed Dravidian or Munda etymologies been derived as per equally strict and iron-cast phonetic rules of a similar kind, which Witzel feigns to believe brook no exception? Or are such rules only for those who propose Aryan etymologies?

The word mayura has certainly “been given various etymologies”: Dravidian, Munda and Indoaryan! Only one of these “various etymologies” can be right: so then are all the other scholars (most of them eminent linguists), in Witzel’s opinion, “folk etymologists” whom we have to “countercheck [against whom?] at every step”?

III.7.c) Elephant names:

About the etymology of ibha (elephant), Witzel tells us it “is equally uncertain” and argues that the “connection recently proposed by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, with Greek ele-phas etc, suffers from irregular sound correspondences”. He concludes: “ what is i-bha in Indo- Aryan, ‘this + animal’?” (§8)

The etymology of the words shvan and ashva is certainly uncertain (ie. “much disputed and dubious” and “wholly obscure” respectively, according to linguists; see TALAGERI 2000:297), and the connection between these two words and the Latin canis and Greek ikkos respectively suffers from the fact that “the phonetic development is peculiar” in the first case and there are “ unexplained phonetic features” in the second (see TALAGERI 2000:300). So what is a-shva in Indo-Aryan, “not + dog”? (For a discussion of the uncertainty of the reconstructed PIE word for the horse, refer detailed discussions by RAULWING 2000)

Witzel cannot deny that varana and hastin are Indoaryan, but questions the word srni: “sRNi refers to a sickle, not an elephant. Does Agni have an elephant as his tongue (RV 1. 58. 4)?” (§8).

Witzel slyly gives the impression that I have included 1.58.4 in my list of references to the elephant (TALAGERI 2000:121). I know that sRNi refers to a sickle (see TALAGERI 1993:251) — in fact to the particular sickle used by an elephant-driver (as per Cappeller’s Sanskrit-English dictionary). But in 10.106.6 it appears to refer to an elephant itself.

Since he cannot deny that “varana” and “hastin” are Indoaryan, he goes ahead to suggest that these are new terms coined when the Aryans migrated to India:

“Both varana and hastin are obvious new formations: varana (mrga), if it refers to the elephant indeed, means “impestuous (wild animal)”; and hast-in clearly is the (animal) characterised (-in) by a hand (hasta)” (§8).

Let us see the results of this kind of logic. In the Atharvaveda, admittedly later than the RV, snakes are often referred to by terms like “rope with teeth” (e.g. Atharvaveda Shaunakiya 4.3.2). Does this imply that the Aryans saw the snake for the first time when they entered deep into India?

III.7.d) Gandhari and Gandharva, Kashyapa and Kashmir:

Witzel rejects my connection of Gandhari with gandharva and Kashyapa with Kashmir as “folk- etymology” (§8).

The fact that in this case, as in almost all the cases rejected by him, the obvious similarities between the respective words (not, in either case, first discovered by me) are corroborated by close correspondences in sense and context, is ignored by Witzel. All the four are closely connected with Soma: Gandhari and Kashmir geographically (Soma being “a plant of the High Iranian, Pamir and Himalayan mountains”), and the gandharvas and Kashyapa mythically and ritually, throughout the RV.

Witzel’s aside that the connection between Kashyapa and Kashmir is “not mentioned before Patanjali, 150 BCE!” is puerile: can Witzel produce a reference older than “150 BCE” to disprove this connection, or demonstrate that Patanjali had an axe to grind in making this connection, or give undisputed etymologies for all these words to show that they have no connections at all with each other?

III.7.e) Iranian(etc.) Tribes in the RV:

Witzel rejects my identification of certain tribes who fought against Sudas as follows:

“T. identifies the pRthu with the Parthians (attested much later in Iranian history!), the parzu with the Persians (although the word is the predecessor of Pashtu, and the Parshu are the neighbours of the gandhAri and arATTa, see Witzel 1980, 1997), the paktha with the Pakthoons (although this is just a modern dialect form of Pashtu, and paktha is, per K. Hoffman, the ordinal number ‘fifth’) the bhalAnas with the Baluchis (although these western Iranian tribes appear in present Baluchistan only about a thousand years ago!) ... the RV bhRgus are the Phrygians (in modern NW Turkey), the zimyu are the ‘Sarmatians (Avestan sairimas)’ and the alinas are the Alans (in the Central Caucasus)!”(§9)

For the answer to this, Witzel should read p. 469 of my book: he rejects my identifications on the ground that the people in the RV are described as being in the Punjab (in a pre-1500 BCE era, as per Witzel himself), while the later peoples with whom they are identified are found in later texts and later historical times in areas to the west — surely the very reason why it should be accepted as evidence of their migration from east to west!

The connection between the names in their RV forms, and the names in their earliest known Iranian-etc. forms, is indisputable, and Witzel’s claim that RV Parshu / Parshava is “the predecessor of Pashtu” (but not of the Iranian Parsua!), and his citing of Hoffman’s interpretation of Paktha as “fifth”, are a measure of his desperation: anything but ...!

As usual, in this context also, we can quote Witzel himself from his pre-crusader days:

“Indeed, Book 8 has long been connected with Eastern Iran .. .. Parsu ~Old. Pers. Parsa ‘Persian’”, Paktha 8.22.10 ~ mod. Pashto, Pakhto .. ” (WITZEL 2000a: §11)!

III.7.f) Alina and Angra: 

Another tactic is to reject my identifications on the basis of sound-correspondences: Witzel asks his readers to “note the impossible alina= Hellenes (but Gr. h-<*s!) on the map opposite p.264” (§8), and points out that in my book “Vedic aGgiras ... becomes Avestan angra (correctly... Old Avest. aGra ‘hostile’ ... which would correspond to Ved. *asra!)” (§9).

Apparently, Witzel wants us to believe that the ancient Vedic and Iranian people were modern linguists with a penchant for linguistic reconstruction: according to him, if the Vedic Aryans had been referring to the proto-Hellenics, they would not have employed an equivalent or approximate form (alina) of the name by which the proto-Hellenics called themselves; they would have sat down and reconstructed — and employed — the form which this name should have had in the Vedic language if it were a Vedic word (ie. Salina)!

The Iranians, according to Witzel, would have been even more convoluted in their logic: if they had wanted to refer to the Vedic Angiras, they would not have employed an approximate form of the name (Angra), since they would have reasoned that an Avestan Angra could only be equivalent to a Vedic asra. The story is left incomplete: Witzel does not tell us what the Iranians would have done in such circumstances; presumably they would simply have refused to refer to the Angiras at all. In any case, Witzel informs us that Avestan angra is a word meaning “hostile”, equivalent to a hypothetical Vedic asra, “hostile” — even though there is no such word in the RV or in later texts!

When modern Indians can call their own country India rather than Sindia, this kind of reconstructive logic is surely too much to expect from the ancients!

(Another element of Witzel’s logic in the above case is that the Avestan angra means “hostile”, so it cannot be equivalent to the name of a Vedic family of Rishis, and must be equated with an equivalent Vedic word with the same meaning. By the same logic, Avestan daeva means “demon”, so it cannot be equivalent to the Vedic deva which means “god”! Witzel feigns a complete lack of understanding of the historical process of changes in the meanings of words).

III.7.g) Vara and Vala:

Another example of sound-correspondences cited by Witzel is in rejection of my suggestion of a connection between Vedic vara and Iranian vara: according to Witzel, “the Old Iranian Vara myth has close links with the corresponding Nuristani tales and the Rgvedic Vala myth” (§9).

But Vedic vara is phonetically equivalent to Avestan vara, and Vedic Vala is a later development (in the RV itself) of this word: the vara of “vara a prthivya” means “best” (the area is also known as “nabha prthivya” = navel or centre of the world), but it developed into vara (circle, extent, space) and vala (cave), all of which meanings (but the last least of all!) are inherent in the Avestan vara.

III.7.h) Panis and Vanir:

Witzel even rejects my identification of the names of the Vedic Panis and the Germanic Vanir as being “of the same amateurish etymological ‘quality’” and goes on to add, in the same context, that this is “outmatched in absurdity only by his treatment of comparative Indo-European mythology” (§8).

I can have nothing to say to this: everything has already been said in chapter 10 of my book (on Sarama and the Panis). The reader is invited to go through the chapter and honestly claim that he is not convinced. The strong element of dishonesty, which is apparent in every paragraph of Witzel’s review, cannot be better illustrated than by the degree of vehemence with which he rejects this evidence.

III.7.i) Arya and Eire:

Witzel, likewise, rejects my connection of Irish Eire with Vedic Arya (§8).

There is plenty of doubt and dispute about the etymology of these words, and various scholarly opinions have been advanced in both cases. Witzel is free to disagree with my contention. In Witzel’s opinion, the word Eire “goes back to the equivalent of Ved. PIvarI ‘the fat (country)’” (§8)!

The reader can judge this one for himself.

III.7.j) Rhinoceros Names:

Similarly, he rejects my treatment of khadgi and ganda (for rhinocerous) as Aryan words, and tells me: “The retroflex sounds alone should have created enough suspicion of substrate origins to check an etymological dictionary before making statements as the one above”! (§8). This is the kind of logic I have already dealt with in my book.

To sum up, Witzel is not able to counter my identifications with any degree of conviction, and has to resort to what Max Muller called “special pleading” in order to make out that I am wrong.

III.7.k) Vishanins:

The only case, in fact, where I can accept that Witzel’s scepticism may not be feigned is when he refers to “the Vishanins, identified for no good reason at all, with the ‘Pishachas (Dards),’” (§8). I do have reasons, but it is possible they may not be good enough.

In general the only criterion Witzel has in accepting any analysis is that “the results should be close to those found in Witzel 1995, 1999” (§7) — except, of course, where Witzel has reason to believe that something “found in Witzel 1995, 1999” (or any other year) is now inconvenient to his position and fits in with his “opponent’s” position, in which case “results should be close to those convenient to Witzel today”!

 

III.8 Puranic Mindset 

One persistent element in Witzel’s criticism is his repeated claim that my analysis of the RV is carried out “through purANic filters” (Edit), and my book itself is a “purANa-like fantasy” full of “purANa-inspired Eastern Rgvedic ‘dynasties’ and ‘kingdoms’” and “purANic-like worldviews” and “purANic preconceptions” (Summary) inspired by a “purANic mindset”.

Witzel’s criticism on this point itself appears to be inspired by a statement made by me on the very first page of the preface to my book: “The literary evidence for our conclusions in our earlier book was based primarily on Puranic sources. According to many critics, the Puranas ... are not valid sources for evidence pertaining to the Vedic period: the Rigveda is the only valid source.” (TALAGERI 2000:xvii).

Witzel notes this statement:

“Talageri’s 1993 book was rightly criticised for its heavy dependence on traditional sources like the purANas. T. acknowledges that problem at the beginning of his new book”.

On this basis he keeps repeatedly referring to my earlier book as “a much criticised 1993 book” or “his heavily criticised 1993 effort”, and goes all out to show that my second “effort” is as susceptible to similar criticism since my sources “reflect the same purANic ideas found in his 1993 book! (He also slips in a lot of purANic materials in the backdoor in this work as we shall see below)”.

Let us examine this petty attempt to dismiss my whole analysis as being inspired by a “purANic mindset”:

III.8.a) Witzel’s glee at what he believes is an admission on my part about my earlier book is rather premature: he claims that my earlier book was “doomed” (Summary) by my reliance on the Puranas.

Unfortunately for Witzel (who has probably still not read that earlier book) my reference to “criticism” was only to friendly objections raised by fellow “Indian Superpatriots” – not to reviews by critics. I myself know only around eight reviews of my earlier book – every single one of which was a favourable one. If Witzel knows of any hostile reviews of my earlier book, written before Witzel launched his crusade against my present book, which have “heavily criticised” my “dependence on  ... the purANas,” I am eager to see them!

III.8.b) Witzel also says I suggest “that the same problem will not be found here”. If he had read further, he would have seen that I definitely do not dismiss the Puranas in toto: “information in other texts (like the Puranas, or even the other Vedic texts) can be rejected if it distinctly contradicts information in the Rigveda” (TALAGERI 2000:xvii); and on the very next page, I state clearly that the RV “as part of a living tradition, cannot be analysed without reference to what that tradition has to say about it” (TALAGERI 2000:xviii).

III.8.c) Witzel has only the following specific points to show as evidence of my “purANic mindset”

i)“purANa assigned ‘anu kings’ of 6.45-46” (§6, referring to TALAGERI 2000:141);

ii)“T.’s purANic mindset, cf. p. 138 sqq” (§6);

iii)T. arranges his list of ‘kings’ by following the list found in the purANas (Morton Smith 1973: 504)” (§6, referring to TALAGERI 2000:60);

iv)“turn(s) the jahnAvI into a name for the Ganges ... by retrofitting the RV evidence to Epic-purANic concepts”(§4).

Let us examine each of these:

i) The first point shows Witzel’s inability to understand the written word: on p. 141 of my book (in my discussion on Anus), I refer to hymns 6.45 and 8.46 (not to hymns 6.45-46). Moreover, I do not claim that the kings in these hymns are Anus, but only name the two hymns to illustrate that kings praised in danastutis can include Panis and Dasas. And, finally, the kings named in the two hymns are not named in any Purana as far as I know! [Incredibly, Witzel had made the same point in his e-mail letter of 20 August 2000, and I pointed out his mistake in my e-mail response dated 26 August 2000. And yet, Witzel repeats it here!]

ii)About my Puranic “mindset” on p. 138 of my book, all that I have done on that page is merely recorded Pargiter’s perception that the RV did not represent an ancestral stage of the Puru-Bharatas but a late contemporary one!

iii)My list of kings on p.60 of my book has nothing to do with any list by Morton-Smith (the reader can compare p. 504 of Morton-Smith’s book cited by Witzel) or anyone else. In fact, I have not even seen this book to this date. When Witzel learns to read English (which he seems as unable to comprehend as I am unable to comprehend German, French and Russian) he can read p. 61 of my book where I give the references from the RV itself, which (with a single exception that I will refer to presently) give us the relative positions of these kings!

iv)About the Jahnavi, I have already discussed the point in detail. It is difficult to know where the Puranas enter into the picture: the Jahnavi is a river of U.P. (also, and more commonly, known as the Ganga) as simply as the Yamuna is a river of U.P. — But the Puranas do figure in Witzel’s claim that the word refers to the “wife or female relation of Jahnu” (a “chieftain” or person known only from the Puranas as an eponymous ancestor of the Jahnavas referred to in post-Samhita Vedic literature).

III.8.d) The following is an exhaustive list (so far as I can make out) of the only places in my book where Puranic information or data has been considered or mentioned by me (but only because it does not, in any of the cases, contradict, but in fact fully harmonises with, the rest of the analysis):

i) Sahadeva and Somaka are placed after Sudas (TALAGERI 2000:60) and Purukutsa and Trasadasya after Mandhata (TALAGERI 2000:66).

ii) Nabhaka (TALAGERI 2000:71) and Kutsa (TALAGERI 2000:92) are mentioned as being supposed to be descended from the Ikshvaku line “according to tradition outside the RV”.

iii) The pre-Rigvedic emigration of the Druhyus, recorded in the Puranas, is described (TALAGERI 2000:260-261, etc).

iv) The post-Rigvedic position of the Bhrgus and their role depicted in the Puranic and Epic myths is discussed (TALAGERI 2000:176-178).

This is practically the sum total of my use of Puranic data in my book!

But Witzel, desperate to send my present book hurtling to its “doom” (to the fate he fondly and wishfully assumes overtook my “heavily criticised earlier effort”) finds a persistent “purANic mindset” in my book, which reminds him of “the popular comic books, Amar Chitra Katha” (§8)!

It is, in fact, Witzel who seems deeply influenced by the Amar Chitra Katha comic books to the extent that he cannot see the words “king”, “kingdom”, etc., without compulsively seeing before his mind’s eye the kind of kings and kingdoms pictorially depicted in those comic books. In fact, we find a Biblical mindset in his depiction of Vasistha (Moses) leading an exodus of the Bharatas (Jews) from Iran (Egypt), across the mountains of Afghanistan (Sinai), and finally entering, occupying and transforming the face of the Punjab (Palestine).

The readers can judge whose analysis shows “mindsets” which refuse to be objective.

[Incidentally, Witzel picks on a word used by me on p.122 of my book: “T. ... imagines even ‘perhaps a temple elephant’ in the RV – another first, ‘Vedic temples’!” (§8)

Yes, anticipating that I would be facing debates where “every minor flaw in the wording of an ‘opponent’” (§10) would be “leapt” on, I should have been more careful in my wording in this case: I should have said “ceremonial” rather than “temple”.

About Vedic temples: I have always generally accepted the proposition that the Vedic cult may have been devoid of idols and temples (see TALAGERI 1993:36. Nowhere else in my writings have I suggested otherwise).

I have no doubt that there were temples and idols in the interior of India during the period of composition of the RV and even earlier – but not among the Purus and Anus (and, significantly, not among the Harappans, either, although almost all other ancient civilisations had temples!). Modern Hinduism, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is neither a “descendant” nor a “development” of the Vedic religion: it is an amalgam of all the religious traditions in different parts of India: “the Vedic cult spread all over India, incorporating all the religious systems of the land in the course of time, and became itself the elite layer of an all-inclusive, pan-Indian religious system”. (TALAGERI 2000:328-329)]

 

III.9 Indo-Aryan words in Mitanni Documents

Witzel states that I have not referred to the Indo-Aryan words in the Mitanni documents of c. 1400 BCE at all. He argues that these words are in forms that are older than the forms in the Rigveda, and this disproves my “hoary” date for the Rigveda (§5).

Witzel’s suggestion that I have not referred to it clearly shows that he has still not read my previous book (TALAGERI 1993) where I have dealt with the Mitanni documents several times. As I pointed out there, it is impossible to coordinate the presence of “pre-IA” speakers in West Asia in 1400 BCE with the IA presence in India in any scenario of an alleged IA movement into India.

The existence of IA words in the Mitanni documents was noted by WITZEL (1995a:97-98) in his earlier article as well, and yet it did not prevent him from dating some hymns of the RV in Kurukshetra even before 1400 BC. He says (ibid, p. 98):

“..since the Sarasvati, which dries up progressively after the mid-2^nd millennium B.C. (Erdosy 1989), is still described as a mighty stream in the Rgveda, the earliest hymns in the latter must have been composed by c. 1500 B.C.”

Witzel’s contention that the Mitanni words are definitely identified as pre-RV IA words is misleading: some words are clearly post-RV in form, some others are equally clearly borrowed forms, and all of these are written in a phonologically inaccurate foreign script which makes categorical statements about their form difficult.

And, whatever the position of these words vis-à-vis the RV language, they do not help us in establishing the date of the RV: as MALLORY (1989:42) points out, these words are already remnants in Hurrian that are several centuries older than the texts or documents in which they are found:

“Our dating of the Indo-Aryan element in the Mitanni texts is based purely and simply on written documents offering datable contexts. While we cannot with certainty push these dates prior to the fifteenth century BC., it should not be forgotten that the Indic elements seem to be little more than the residue of a dead language in Hurrian, and that the symbiosis that produced the Mitanni may have taken place centuries earlier.”

 

III.10 Miscellaneous chaff

We have examined the major pieces of what I call the chaff in Witzel’s article. But there are other minor pieces of chaff littered throughout the article: nasty jibes, pointless comments, irrelevant asides – all of them indicating Witzel’s hostility as well as his desire to prejudice the readers, but, more than anything else, his utter inability to understand what his “opponents” have written, and, in fact, in many cases, even what he himself had written earlier or, even, is writing at the moment. A few examples with comments:

III.11.a) Witzel treats my statement that Griffith’s translation is “the best, most complete, and most reasonably honest English translation to this day” (TALAGERI 2000:339) as evidence that “Talageri ... (is) defensive about his dependence on the text” (§3).

But in the paragraph just preceding this, Witzel himself tells us: “Next to the even more antiquarian one by Wilson, Griffith is the only complete version of the work readily available to English speaking readers” (§3).

If Griffith’s is the better of the only two complete translations of the RV readily available in English, how is my above statement wrong, and, further, how does it indicate any “defensiveness” on my part?

III.11.b) Witzel writes: “When he ... mentions the work of earlier scholars he tends to jumble their research together with very recent works as if the state of the art and the opinions of the 19^th century were identical to those of the year 2000. This is a favourite tactic of the present rewriters of old Indian history – meant to demonstrate ‘contradictions’ in Indology” (§5).

I challenge Witzel to produce a single instance in my book where I have mentioned 19^th century and 20^th century writers together to “demonstrate ‘contradictions’ in Indology”.

III.11.c) Witzel objects to what he calls my “silly but infuriating use of irregular abbreviations of book titles which have to be learnt and re-learnt on any use of the book. This leads to obvious problems for anyone who wants to track down Talageri’s amateurish use of sources” (§5).

Witzel can have his opinions, but it is criticism of the above type that I consider genuinely petty and “amateurish”. I think my system of references is perfectly adequate: it need not be the one used by Witzel or the one fashionable in the West today. In fact, I am quite proud of my, I presume original, idea of a bibliographical index which can, in fact, help the reader to immediately “track down” every single quotation from any particular book used by me.

Incidentally, unlike Witzel, I do not give long lists of books in my bibliography – books totally unseen and unread and culled from other bibliographies or second-hand references (as, for example, my earlier 1993 book, included in the bibliography of his 1995 paper: see TALAGERI 2000:430-432). I give only those books from which I am actually quoting. And I actually quote from books when I intend to make a point. So my “sources” are very easy to “track down”.

Even in the bibliography of this article, I have included only those books which I have expressly quoted or referred to in an important context, and not every single book ever read by me on the subjects concerned, let alone books culled from other bibliographies and second hand references.

Witzel, on the other hand, merely indulges in wholesale name dropping of authors, books and even entire disciplines of study when he wants to make a point: obviously it is impossible to track down all his sources; and most of his points are aimed at what he calls “the casual reader” (as for example, readers of Indian magazines like Frontline) who will be overwhelmed by the barrage of names, and definitely cannot “be expected to pick up on these points without spending weeks and months tracking down ... spurious ‘evidence’” (§7).

III.11.d) Referring to my time frame for the different books of the RV, Witzel sweepingly writes:

“T.’s schemes calculate the RV books each in terms of many hundreds and even thousands of years (p. 75 sqq)” (§6).

“Each” book in terms of “thousands of years”? Witzel clearly hopes that the casual reader will drink this in and then skip the quotation from my book which follows immediately – where I take the total period of the ten books as 2000 years (average 200 years per book) and the maximum period for any book as 600 years (and this only for the earliest and the last book with their foremath and aftermath) and where I call it “extreme” to calculate in terms of thousands of years per book!

III.11.e) In this context, Witzel adds:

“If the composition of the RV stretched out over more than two millennia, the text would be in the same language (except for some innovations in the late book 10). This is a virtual impossibility as far as any living language is concerned” (§6).

Assuming, from Witzel’s amusing style of English, that by “would be”, Witzel means “is”, one gathers that Witzel finds the relative uniformity of the RV language incompatible with any suggestion of a long 2000-years period of composition.

Witzel has clearly not read, or understood, the quotation from B. K. Ghosh given by me (TALAGERI 2000:36), nor my account of the formation of the RV in four stages, only after which “the text was frozen into a form which it has maintained to this day” (TALAGERI 2000:74-75). The language of the RV obviously underwent minor modifications at every stage of formation of the text.

Moreover, as DESHPANDE (1995:69-70) points out:

“Whatever linguistic differences do survive in the Rgveda are a mere fraction of the real differences which must have existed in the original compositions ... However, only one recension of the Rgveda has survived. Thus, the linguistic conclusions based on the language of the received Sakalya recension need to be examined by keeping the above facts in mind.”

III.11.f) Referring to “the short list of additions that I gave in my 1995 paper”, Witzel claims:

“T. again falls prey to his lack of knowledge of Indological research ... when he accused me of inconsistencies in the nature of that list” (§7).

Where on earth, in my book, have I referred to this list from Witzel’s 1995 paper? It figured in our e-mail debate; but again, far from “accusing” him of “inconsistencies” in that list, I assumed the list was consistent, and merely pointed out that it did not corroborate his claim that the family books were “arranged in order of the increasing number of hymns per book” — and it was Witzel who protested that the list was “partial” (= inconsistent?). And how does this whole exchange show my “lack of knowledge of Indological research”: as I have already explained in section II of this present article, Witzel still has to explain himself on this point about the increasing number of hymns, which he has avoided doing with truly admirable “consistency”.

III.11.g) Reacting to my discussion (TALAGERI 2000:246-249) about Witzel’s failure to find evidence of a non-IE substratum in the place-names and river-names in the northwest and North, Witzel again falls back on his plea about “partial lists”. He finds that “T.’s lack of a linguistic background becomes painfully obvious” from this discussion, and protests:

“... my short 1995 paper provided only a terse summary of this topic ... like most of my 1995 paper, the views presented here were just a short summary of a broader base of evidence” (§7).

But the “broader base of evidence” can differ from any “short summary” only in the quantity of evidence presented, not in the effect of the evidence. Here, Witzel wants us to believe that his “broader base of evidence” would have been to the opposite effect of his “short summary”!

If I concluded that Witzel’s 1995 paper failed to find evidence of a non-IE substratum in the place-names and river-names in the northwest and North, it is not a conclusion drawn by me on the basis of the partial nature of Witzel’s list, but on the basis of a clear admission to this effect by Witzel in respect of river-names: (see TALAGERI 2000:248-249).

III.11.h) About my conclusion that the Iranians migrated westwards from the Punjab, Witzel claims that “T. opts for the Panjab as hapta h@ndu is mentioned in the vIdEvdAd (actually, as the second least desirable of sixteen countries, since it is ‘too hot’ for comfort!)” (§9)

What “actually” is Witzel trying to say here? By referring to the heat in Hapta Handu, Witzel cannot be denying the identity of this land with the Punjab (where, in fact, we do find the hottest spot on earth, Jakobabad), so he is presumably only denying that a land described as having undesirable qualities could have been an original homeland of the Iranians. But then, all the sixteen lands named in the Videvdad list are described as having different undesirable qualities, and all of them were the habitats of the Iranians in that remote period.

In any case, I do not “opt” for the Punjab just because it is mentioned in the Videvdad: this circumstance is one point in a mass of evidence described in chapter 6 of my book, all of which leads to this inescapable conclusion.

Witzel tries to counter this with “linguistic” evidence:

“Iranian has none of the local Panjab and U.P. loanwords that are found in Vedic, which means that the Old Iranian languages just cannot come from the Panjab (Witzel 1999, forthc. EJVS 7-3)” (§9).

Here, again, a case of what Max Muller called “special pleading”: now Witzel claims not only to be able to identify “non-Indoaryan” loanwords in Vedic, he can also identify the exact regions from which these “loanwords” were borrowed: we have Punjab loan words, U.P. loan words, Bactria-Margiana loan words ... ! Witzel knows, with scientific exactitude that “loanwords”, from imaginary  (or at least yet undiscovered and unrecorded) “substrate languages”, which are found in both Vedic and Iranian, are definitely from Central Asia, and not from the Punjab or U.P., and, equally, that “loanwords” found only in Vedic are from the Punjab or U.P. — not, of course, because his theory suggests these locations, but because, one supposes, he has found actual inscriptions (unknown to anyone else in the world but himself) from pre-RV eras, in one or more non-Indo-Iranian languages, from the respective areas, where these words are actually recorded!

III.11.i) Moving on to my description of the pre-RV Druhyu emigrations (recorded in the Puranas), Witzel informs me that “udIcI diz ‘the Northern direction, the north’ usually refers just to the Northwest of the subcontinent (cf AB, Panini, etc) not to Iran or Europe” (§9).

No other reader would have understood me to have claimed that “udIcI diz” means “Iran or Europe”! I do not need to look up “AB, Panini, etc” to be convinced that Witzel is right, but Witzel does need to read my book (I won’t say “again”, since it will be the first time) to understand what I have written.

In my book (pp. 260-261), I quote the Puranic verse, and then quote three scholars who understand the phrase to mean “through the northwest into the countries beyond” (Pargiter), “to the north beyond India” (Bhargava) and “territories in the north” (Pusalker): are these different from Witzel’s “Northwest of the subcontinent”?

Later (p. 263), I write: “From Central Asia, many Druhyu tribes, in the course of time, migrated westwards, reaching as far as western Europe”. [“Iran” does not even enter the picture here].

III.11.j) Further, Witzel writes about the word Druhyu:

“This word means, literally, ‘the ones who seek to cheat’. Non-linguist as he is, T. missed a great chance for a ‘socio-ethnic’ study based on an etymology!” (§9)

Witzel, “linguist” as he is, is mistaken in the idea that this is the primary meaning of the word: the word had a positive meaning which became negative particularly in the Vedic and Iranian languages (see TALAGERI 2000:254-260).

In any case, why should Witzel imagine that I would want to conduct a “socio-ethnic study”? And to what purpose: to show that the enemies of the Vedic Aryans were “cheaters”? Witzel has clearly not understood my book: neither the general tone of my historical study, nor the specific points made by me in this regard:

“ ...there is nothing to indicate that the Aryas were more civilised and cultured than the Dasas or that the Arya kings were more noble and idealistic than the Dasa kings or that the priests of the Aryas were more spiritual and righteous than the priests of the Dasas. Nor that the struggles between the Aryas and Dasas involved any noble social, moral or ethical issues.” (TALAGERI 2000:404-405)

III.11.k) Witzel, whose idea of a “review article” is to provide a long list of things which “Talageri does not mention”, etc. (even when only because the things are not relevant to the points under discussion), is unable to tolerate it when I point out something not mentioned by a western scholar.

In discussing the examination of Avestan place names by Skjaervo, I point out that in listing the names common to the RV and the Avesta, Skjaervo names only two names and avoids mentioning the crucial Hapta Handu (see TALAGERI 2000:183-184).

Instead of accepting that the specific omission of a crucial name in a tiny list of names belonging to a category crucial to the subject of analysis is worthy of comment, Witzel decides that “T.’s polemics border on the farcical” (§9) because I point out this omission!

In defence of Skjaervo (who could probably do without a defender like Witzel), Witzel profers (what else?) the following excuse:

“Skjaervo apparently did not mention this simply because the work used by T. was a brief summary” (§9)!

Not content with this, he adds: “perhaps also as to not commit gurunindA?” and comments:

“T.forgets the fact, mentioned later (p. 230) that Skjaervo’s teacher Humbach holds a different opinion about the location of the Seven Rivers (Upper Oxus)” (§9).

So now not only should I consult a who’s-who of western academicians to find out who is who’s guru (the “fact” mentioned by me on p. 230 of my book is not that Humbach is Skjaervo’s teacher, only that Humbach identifies Hapta Handu with the Upper Oxus) before pointing out serious omissions in the writings of western scholars, but I should also accept reasons of the above kind as perfectly valid excuses for such omissions, and even feel thoroughly ashamed of myself for not giving due respect to the guru-shishya parampara and for indulging in “farcical polemics” as defined above! The reader should note that Skjaervo is Witzel’s colleague at Harvard.

A little later, Witzel exposes me for my own lack of the devout “shishya” spirit: I do not even “spare” other Indian scholars, “even K. D. Sethna, otherwise called ‘the Bhishma Pitamaha of Indian Historians’, ie. of the present wave of revisionist scholars” (§9)!

This explains the whole psychology behind Witzel’s do-or-die crusade against my book: I have committed blasphemy by presenting a thesis which goes contrary to the conclusions derived (according to Witzel) by his gurus Oldenberg-etc. If merely mentioning Hapta Handu could render Skjaervo so guilty of the unatonable sin of “gurunindA”, how much more would Witzel not be damned forever if he allowed “books like T.’s to slide by” (§10) without staking his all in a “cultural war” to the finish!

 

IV. THE “ORIGINAL” RIGVEDA

Now we will examine the seemingly more substantial points in Witzel’s ‘critique’ of my book: the question of an “original” RV as opposed to an “interpolated” (the present-day) RV; and the question of the (un)reliability of the Anukramanis as a basis for the analysis of the RV. The present section covers the former and the latter is treated in section V.

My book basically examines the RV that is generally known: the RV with 10 Mandalas, 1028 Suktas and 10552 Verses.

This, according to Witzel, is a fundamental mistake on my part: “T.’s book is based on what is essentially the wrong Rgveda text – the late Vedic compilation by zAkalya, which had already been subjected to several earlier redactions, and which mixed up materials from several eras in each of the books”(§1). Many parts of this RV are, therefore, according to Witzel, dateable as late as “the late Brahmana period – in other words, shortly before the time of the Buddha (c. 500/400 BCE)” (§1)!!

Interspersing his arguments with the mandatory references to my “ignorance” (as also, in this case, that of my “proclaimed Western helper, Dr. K. Elst”), Witzel describes the “redaction history” of the RV, in which he distinguishes “five major steps”:

“1) Stage one involved the original collection of the so-called family books, in the Kuru or Mantra period, which were organised using the numerical principles described by Oldenberg.

“2) Stage two involved the addition of materials that now comprise books 8, 1, 9 and 10, which were added at several distinguishable moments (for details, see Oldenberg 1888 and Witzel 1995,1997).

“3) Stage three involved individual additions of whole hymns and of many tRcas and pragAthas to various RV books, As again shown by Oldenberg 1888, these are often identifiable by the violation of the numerical principles found in the first redaction of the family books and/or on linguistic grounds.

“4) Stage four involved the redaction and final ordering of the text by zAkalya in his padapATha. (For simplicity we can ignore some minor phonological changes that were later made to zAkalya’s text.) The work ascribed to zAkalya occurred in the late Brahmana period, as is evident from his Eastern style, his grammatical misunderstanding of some RV forms (Witzel 1989, 1997), and from further evidence found in the ZB tradition (ZB 11,5,1,10)

“5) The final stage included the addition of RV Khilas that do not appear in the padapATha” (§1).”

My mistake lies in basing my book “on what is essentially the wrong Rgveda text”, which is based on my ignorance of “the vast scholarly literature from the past 150 years that discusses the redaction of the RV; Ignorance may be bliss, but not when it comes to revolutionising current views of India’s oldest text” (Summary).

Let us examine the various aspects of this “redaction history” of the RV, so “well-known” to everyone except to me (inspite of the fact that Witzel “briefly explained these principles ... to Talageri via e-mail, in the summer of 2000, to no avail” (§1)), as summarised in his five stages:

IV.1) Khila Suktas

To begin with, the fifth stage has no relevance either to my book, or to any serious analysis of the RV: everyone is aware that the Khila suktas are not part of the vulgate RV, and they have no role whatsoever to play in my analysis of the RV.

IV.2) Shakalya’s RV

The fourth stage represents the official RV taken by me in my analysis (the RV of 10 Mandalas, 1028 Suktas, and more or less 10552 verses): this, according to Witzel, dates to “shortly before the time of the Buddha (c.500/400 BCE)”, since Shakalya, “sometime near the middle of the first millennium BCE (These issues are discussed in extenso in Oldenberg 1888, whose general position has been accepted by every scholar ever since)” (Summary), codified the RV in a late period which was characterised by “wrangling between the various types of Veda proponents” and where “the politics of later priests and competing Vedic schools (zAkhAs) and redactors active at the Sanskritising court of Videha often skewed the historical evidence found in the original RV” (§1).

Witzel is not only a liar, he is a reckless liar (as we have already seen many times in the course of this article). What he writes above stands in sharp contrast to everything that he has ever written on the subject when not engaged in his crusades. Some of his clear, unambiguous and categorical statements with regard to this “fourth stage” of the RV are worth a look:

1. In his post on the Indology list on 30^th November 1999, Witzel wrote:

“The 3 levels of texts inside the RV, and the much later final redaction of the RV by Sakalya are altogether different questions. The redaction has done nothing but changing a few, well-known sounds and even less syllables in the established text”. See http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R2

2. Again, in his post on the Indology list on 7^th September 1999, Witzel wrote:

 “Sakalya redacted the RV during the Brahmana (sic!) period, but as all specialists know, the changes codified by him then are minimal, when compared with the Rsis’ creations (suvar —> svar, etc). See the retroactive changes made in van Nooten-Holland’s metrical RV (HOS 1994). In short, there is so little real ‘change’ that I still like the shortcut description of the RV as a tape recording of (at least) 1000 BCE and I will continue to use it”. See http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9909&L=indology&P=R6130

3. We find the same statement, in equally, if not more, emphatic and unambiguous terms, in his 1995 papers as a footnote to his oft-quoted “Rgveda-is-a-tape-recording” statement:

“We have to distinguish, it is true, between the composition of a Vedic text, for example of the RV which was composed until c.1200 B.C. and its redaction sometime in the Brahmana period (ca. 700 B.C.?). But the redaction only selected from already existing collections and was mainly responsible only for the present phonetical shape of the texts. The RV of late Brahmana times only differed from the one recited in Rgvedic times in minor details such as the pronunciation of svar instead of suvar, etc. The text remained the same” (WITZEL 1995a:91)]

4. In his papers published in 2000, written or published at around the same time as the publication of my book, he leaves nothing to the imagination:     

“It must be underlined that just like an ancient inscription, these words have not changed since the composition of these hymns c.1500 BCE, as the RV has been transmitted almost without any change, ie. we know exactly in which limited cases certain sounds — but not words, tonal accents, sentences — have changed. The modern oral recitation of the RV is a tape recording of c.1700-1200 BCE.” (WITZEL 2000a: §8)

Witzel clearly states above that there is practically no difference at all between the RV of the “third stage” and the RV of this “fourth stage”. What happened between the time Witzel wrote the above statements, and the present moment, that the official RV analysed by me — the “modern oral recitation of the Rigveda” with “its 1028 hymns” — has ceased to be “a tape recording of 1700-1200 BCE”, and has become a “Late Brahmana” text of around 500 BCE incorporating the political prejudices and intrigues of the Videha court? Was Witzel “ignorant” of Oldenberg and “the vast scholarly literature from the past 150 years” when he made the above statements, or has he forgotten them now?

In the present review, Witzel, as we saw earlier (in his reference to this “fourth stage”) writes: “for simplicity we can ignore some minor phonological changes that were later made to zAkalya’s text” — actually, as Witzel’s two earlier statements make clear, “zAkalya’s text” itself represents only “some minor phonological changes” from the so-called earlier “3 levels of texts inside the RV”, and hence any differences can be ignored as utterly irrelevant in any evaluation of my historical analysis of the RV.

 

IV.3) Interpolations in the “Third Stage”

So we are now left only with the so-called “3 levels of texts inside the RV”, ie. Witzel’s first three stages.

What Witzel says about the first two stages cannot be faulted, and we need not discuss it in detail:

“Stage one involved the original collection of the so-called family books ... stage two involved the addition of materials that comprise books 8,1,9 and 10, which were added at several distinguishable moments”.

It is Witzel’s third stage that is central to his rejection of my book: according to him, this stage involved additions to the original RV (of the first two stages), and these additions are “identifiable by the violation of the numerical principles found in the first redaction of the family books and/or on linguistic grounds”. It is this RV of the third stage that we will be discussing in this section, always keeping in mind that this represents “a tape recording of c.1700-1200 BCE” in Witzel’s categorical words.

But before we examine Witzel’s more specific arguments in this respect, let us first see whether, even according to Witzel, the “additions” even in this third stage really represent so significant a factor as to make my analysis of the RV tantamount to an analysis of “the wrong Rgveda text”:

IV.3.a) In the first of his two earlier statements repeated above (ie. in his posting on the Indology list on 30^th November 1999), after asserting that Shakalya’s “ redaction has done nothing but changing a few well-known sounds ... ”, Witzel adds (this time clearly in reference to the “additions” of “the third stage”): “And the relatively few hymns that were added after the first collection of the RV materials in the RV Samhita (c.1200 BCE, under the Kuru) also have been well known for over a 100 years (since Oldenberg 1888!) and do not change the scenario sketched above”.

IV.3.b) In his 1995 paper “Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual parameters”, he does not distinguish between the “original” RV and the “wrong Rgveda text”, and instead he points out in detail that

“to establish these historical levels ... an even more secure guide is the development of the Vedic language itself”, a study of which “allows the establishment of five levels”. The first level comprises the RV; the second level “includes the mantras in verse and prose of the Atharvaveda (PS, SS), the Rgveda-Khila (RVKh), the Samaveda Samhita ... and the Yajurveda Samhitas”; the third level consists of the Samhita prose; the fourth level consists of the Brahmana texts, the older Upanishads and the oldest Shrauta sutras; the fifth level comprises the bulk of the Shrauta and Grhyasutras. “In conclusion”, Witzel divides “the various texts into 3 broad layers: Old Vedic (Rgveda), Middle Vedic (Mantra texts, Yajurveda Samhita, Brahmans, Old Upanisads) and Late Vedic (Sutras).” (WITZEL 1995a:96-97)

Here, Witzel distinctly places the entire RV, ie. the RV of the “third stage”, and consequently of the “fourth stage” as well (with its “minor changes” in phonology, but “not words, tonal accents, sentences”) in the “first level” or “Old Vedic”, except the additions in his “fifth stage” (the Khilasuktas, which he places in the “second level” among the Mantra texts of Middle Vedic).

Now he suddenly changes his tune, and insists that the “additions” of the “third stage” represent a much later level: they belong to the “fourth level” (of the Brahmanas) or “Middle Vedic” — later than the khila suktas of the “fifth stage”, which belong to the “second level”?

And he cannot even claim that I have failed to understand what he was saying in 1995 on account of his above paper being a “short summary” of the subject. In this present “review article” he inadvertently admits that he has indeed changed his opinion:

“I have also since changed my opinion, based on new evidence, about the relative date of the bulk of RV2 which I would now include in the mid-level texts” (§10).

What “new evidence” suddenly cropped up in the last 5 years – evidence “unknown” to Oldenberg, and to 100 years of “serious” scholars who followed him, and even to Witzel in 1995? Is it “new evidence”, or is it the urgent need to counter new evidence (as represented by my book)?

 

IV. 4) Oldenberg’s “numerical principles” and hymn 6.45.

Witzel’s main, if not only, argument towards claiming that many hymns in the Family Mandalas belong not to the “first stage”, but to the “third stage”, of the redaction of the RV, rests on “the numerical principles described by Oldenberg”.

As he puts it:

“the RV is structured according to several clear principles best visible in the family books (RV 2-8): 1) The number of hymns per book increases. 2) The family books begin with a small saMhitA addressed to Agni, Indra and other gods, all arranged according to decreasing total number of hymns in each deity collection. 3) Inside a deity series the hymns progress from longer to shorter ones. The meter decides further: jagatI, triSTubh hymns precede those in anuSTubh, gAyatrI (Witzel 1997)” (§1).

Interpolated hymns are “identifiable by the violation of the numerical principles found in the first redaction of the family books and/or on linguistic grounds”. Since “any deviation from this strict numerical arrangement has to be explained”, the only explanation, according to Witzel, is that the hymns which do not conform to this numerical arrangement are “interpolations” (§1).

Witzel’s claim that these “numerical principles described by Oldenberg” in 1888 have “been accepted by every serious scholar ever since” is not correct: many scholars have pointed out that such blind faith in numerical principles (practically amounting to numerology, not very different from the “Scientific astrology” that Witzel finds so irksome in §9) is not logical. For example, E.V. Arnold, in his book “Historical Vedic Grammar” writes the following with regard to Oldenberg’s numer(olog)ical principles:

“Position in the collections is not a safe guide. Several hymns for which there is good evidence of late date ... appear in their right place in the collections of books i-ix; others which are out of place ... not only shew no other signs of lateness, but have many of the marks of early date ... ” (ARNOLD 1897: 211-213).

Let us examine whether Oldenberg’s principles are even reasonably correct, let alone as unchallengeably perfect and final as Witzel fondly proclaims them to be. For this purpose, we will take up the Mandala which Witzel always takes up himself, and to which he sarcastically refers as the Mandala “T. claims, on flimsy grounds, is the RV’s ‘oldest book’ RV 6” (§7), and the hymn most important for our analysis, hymn 6.45.

In his e-mail letter dated 20^th August 2000, Witzel specified that “S. T’s ‘oldest mandala’ RV 6” contains the following “suspicious hymns” (ie. interpolations) as per Oldenberg’s principles: hymns 15, 16, 44-48, 49-52, 59-61, 74, 75. (By implication, the other hymns 1-14, 17-43, 53-58, 62-73 are not suspicious, and belong to the “original RV”, since they fall in their appointed place as per Oldenberg’s principles).

In his present article (as in his above e-mail letter), Witzel particularly points towards hymn 45:

“Applying the principles pioneered by Oldenberg, RV 6.45 can be shown to be a composite hymn built of tRcas at an uncertain period. The ordering principle of the old family books clearly points to the addition of all these hymns ... Such late additions must not be used as an argument for the age of the bulk of book 6 ... ” (§7).

[Incidentally, this hymn is not used to argue for the age of book 6; the age is determined on the basis of other factors, and this hymn is used to argue for the geography of book 6].

Let us examine the case of hymn 6.45, firstly on the basis of the facts, and secondly on the basis of Witzel’s own detailed statements on this point :

IV.5.a) Arnold (in his above book) divides the hymns in each Mandala, on the basis of detailed linguistic arguments, into five categories, A, B1, B2, C1 and C2. He places hymn 45 in category A (the oldest hymns)!

An actual examination of the facts proves that hymn 45 is a very old hymn indeed: it contains many archaic words, for example “the particle sim, which is unknown in the Atharvaveda, occurs fifty times in the first nine Mandalas, but only once in the tenth” (TALAGERI 2000:36): the word occurs in 6.45.23.

The presence of archaic words is not in itself a sure sign of the oldness of a hymn: almost all the scholars agree that later hymns (or texts) can use archaic words in imitation of older hymns or texts, or for effect.

But, alongwith the presence of archaic words, hymn 45 is characterised by the absence of late words: the hymn does not contain a single basic root or word which can be classified as late (on the ground that it is found, rarely, in only one, or two, or even three, of the Family Mandalas, but occurs more and more frequently in the non-family Mandalas, and increasingly so in later texts).

In sharp contrast, many of the hymns which Witzel, on the basis of Oldenberg’s numerology, would classify as belonging to the “original RV”, do contain distinctly late words:

Hymn 3, for example, contains the word jehamAna (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 4 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 6 times in the later Samhitas) and the word dAru (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 4 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 51 times in the later Samhitas).

Hymn 24 contains the word araNya (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 5 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 202 times in the later Samhitas), and the root kRz (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, in hymn 28 below, once in hymn 2.12, 6 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 22 times in the later Samhitas).

Hymn 25 contains the word zarIra (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 5 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 109 times in the later Samhitas), and the root vith (found, outside this hymn, once in hymn 46, 5 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 9 times in the later Samhitas).

Hymn 28 contains the word khila (found, outside this hymn, 4 times in the later Samhitas), the root riz (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 2 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 5 times in the later Samhitas), the root bhakS (phon.) (found, outside this hymn, 10 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 124 times in the later Samhitas), the root kRz (phon.) (see hymn 24 above), and the word taskara (found, outside this hymn, once in hymn 7.55, 3 times in the non-family Mandalas, and 42 times in the later Samhitas).

It may be noted that hymns 3, 24, 25 and 28 contain, respectively, 8, 10, 9 and 8 verses, while hymn 45 contains 33 verses — and yet hymn 45 does not contain a single late word, while the other hymns abound in them!

[The above was a very, very brief sample — obviously Oldenberg’s numer(olog)ical principles (or, let us be fair to him, Witzel’s interpretation of those principles in his crusade against my book) are like a house of cards which collapses at the slightest touch!

This is not to deny the value of Oldenberg’s work – unlike Witzel, we cannot allow prejudices to warp our judgment when it comes to appreciating original studies on the RV — but the value of that work does not lie in its demarcation of “original hymns” from “interpolated” hymns, and, in that sense, it is totally irrelevant to my historical analysis of the RV. If Witzel thinks “Oldenberg” is a magic mantra to be invoked against my analysis, he is living in a fool’s paradise.

Incidentally, how fervently does Witzel himself really believe in Oldenberg’s principles as a clinching factor? In his 1995 papers (WITZEL 1995b: 311), he points out that Oldenberg’s principles are based on “formal characteristics”, and, on the very next page, he writes:

“To begin with, it is surprising how scholars have persisted with formal characteristics which cannot be independently evaluated — unless we already know the distribution and mutual influence of Rgvedic dialects and poetic diction per book, clan and poet. This, however, remains to be done.” (WITZEL 1995b:312)

In short, Witzel himself devalues Oldenberg’s principles in the study of Rigvedic history in his earlier writings, but now uses them as an argument against my analysis!]

IV.5.b) Even more significant is an examination of what Witzel himself has written on the subject of hymn 6.45, and, indeed, the way in which his views were becoming more and more emphatic in a certain direction until he was suddenly forced to do a complete about turn after reading, and feeling the urgent need to oppose, my book:

i)In his 1995 papers, Witzel goes out of his way to point out that hymn 45 is “an unsuspicious hymn”: that is, “a hymn not suspected as an addition” (WITZEL 1995b: 317).

ii)In his 1997 paper, he becomes even more emphatic. He classifies the hymns of the Rigveda into 6 levels. In the first two (which he calls the “Indo-Iranian level” and “pre-Rigvedic level”), the hymns are not specified, and these seem to be intended to refer to the development of trends in Vedic composition rather than to specific hymns. In level 3, which he calls the “Early Rgvedic level”, the one and only (composer and) hymn particularly mentioned by him as an early hymn is (Samyu Barhaspatya and) hymn 6.45 (composed by him), alongwith a vague “some early Kanvas”. In level 4, he specifies Mandalas 3 and 7, and in the subsequent levels, Mandalas 1,8,9 and 10. While he says nothing particular here about Mandalas 2, 4 and 5 (but, for 2, see the next reference), neither placing them before nor after this particular hymn, he does place six Mandalas (and, see the next point, a seventh one, Mandala 2) specifically after this Ganga hymn, including the Mandalas which deal with the establishment of the sacred fire between the Sarasvati and the Drsadvati in Haryana by Sudas’ ancestor, and Sudas’ own crossing of the Vipas and Sutudri from the east to the west and his later battle on the Parusni with the people of the Asikni further west (WITZEL 1997b:292-293) [This  last event, incidentally, is dated by Witzel, in his 1995 paper, as follows: “prior to 1500 BC or so due to the now well- documented desiccation of the Sarasvati (Yash Pal et al, 1984)” (WITZEL 1995b:110)]!

iii)In his 2000 paper, Witzel becomes even more emphatic and specific: he cuts off a possible escape-route for himself whereby he could have claimed that he was referring to hymn 6.45 minus the reference to the Ganga (which would then be an “interpolated” reference in the hymn). In his paper titled “The Languages of Harappa” he postulates three RV periods: early, middle/main, and late. In the early period, he places Mandalas 4,5 and 6 (not necessarily in that order, since he is naming them in their numerical order). In the middle/main period, he places Mandalas 2,3,7, and parts of 1 and 8. In the late period, he places Mandalas 9 and 10, as well as the remaining parts of Mandalas 1 and 8. Even more important, he refers specifically not just to hymn 6.45, but to the Ganga reference in this hymn, and tells us (fn.14) that in the early Rigvedic period we had “Indo-Aryan settlement .... extending upto Yamuna-Ganga”, and cites as his basis for this conclusion the fact that “the relatively old poem 6.45 .. has gangya .. ” (WITZEL 2000a: §6)!  Later in the paper, Witzel repeats the point: “These oldest hymns .. contain references to the major rivers of the Panjab, even the Ganges” (WITZEL 2000a: §13).   

There is no indication in any of these references, and direct contradiction in the third one, to Witzel’s present claim that the reference to the Ganga is an interpolation in hymn 6.45, which, further, is itself a late hymn! In the course of this article, we have occasion to see many instances of sudden magical transformations in Witzel’s long-held and emphatic views on many points, the only motivation and catalyst behind these transformations being a realisation of the fact that these views are conducive to my theory!

 

IV.6) Petty Criticisms

As we have seen, Oldenberg’s principles do not tell us anything about “old” and “new” parts of the RV relevant to any historical analysis of the text. And, as we will see presently, my principles do.

But first, let us examine, in brief, some other side-aspects of Witzel’s criticism of my book (in §1 of his “review article”), which show how Witzel loses all sense of logic in his zeal to criticise whatever I have written:

IV.6.a) Mandala 10:

 Witzel writes:

“It has long been noticed that book 10 is linguistically younger and that it in part overlaps with sections of the atharvaveda (AV) ... it was already noted some 130 years ago, by Abel Bergaigne and Hermann Oldenberg, that the so-called family books (2-7) form the old core of the RV. This finding has been taken over by T. without comment, quoting as his only witness the summaries of earlier research compiled by ... Bh. K. Ghosh” (§1).

Now if Oldenberg and the whole line of “serious” scholars who followed him down the century, right down to Witzel himself, hold certain views on some point, and I happen to be in agreement with them in those views, why on earth does Witzel feel the need to comment on the fact that I do not comment (adversely?) on those views? What would Witzel have wanted me to do: reject the fact that Mandala 10 is later than the other Mandalas, or that the Family Mandalas are earlier than the rest, simply because my “opponents” hold these views? Or, in the alternative, produce long lists of bibliographies and arguments to “prove” what is already known to, and accepted by, everyone else?

IV.6.b) Valakhilya Hymns:

At another point, Witzel writes:

“Talageri also views as interpolations the vAlakhilya hymns of 8.49-59 (although these are, in fact, included and analyzed in zAkalya’s padapATha)” (§1).

Is it, to begin with, Witzel’s contention that if a hymn or verse is “included and analyzed in Shakalya’s padapatha”, it automatically means that the hymn or verse in question is not an interpolation?

All scholars are in agreement that the Valakhilya hymns are later than the other hymns in Madala 8, and were inserted later into the middle of the Mandala. As always, we can quote Witzel himself:

“ .. the whole Valakhilya  group in book 8 also is of khila character .. fn. 117. They have been inserted in the middle of book 8, out of sequence in the arrangement of the RV; they are divided in Sakalya’s Padapatha, but, eg. excluded by Sayana ..” (WITZEL 1997b: 283).

Yet, here he writes “Talageri .. views as interpolations”, as if I am wrong!

Witzel himself, now, does not directly claim that these hymns are not interpolations or late additions into the Mandala; he merely criticises my treatment of these hymns as interpolations, as if to suggest that it is I who have postulated a criterion that hymns “included and analyzed in zAkalya’s padapATha” are not interpolations, and am, consequently, violating my own criterion here!

Of course, nowhere in my book have I postulated such a criterion. In fact, my idea of “interpolations”, as expressed in my book, has nothing whatsoever to do with Sakalya, who lived after the entire RV (except for a handful of verses) was already composed and codified into one text:

According to me, the RV was composed in four stages (see TALAGERI 2000:74-75): first Mandalas 2-7, second Mandalas 1 and 8, third Mandala 9, and fourth Mandala 10. By “interpolations”, I mean hymns and verses which were inserted into a particular Mandala in a subsequent stage: in the case of the Valakhilya hymns, in fact, I specifically point out (p. 74) that they were inserted into Mandala 8 in the third (ie. 9-Mandala) stage, before the addition of Mandala 10. Where does Shakalya enter into the picture here?

IV.6.c) Interpolated verses :

 Witzel writes:

“Amusingly, T. does not exclude from his RV evidence stanzas that were added long after zAkalya’s padapATha. This includes 7.59.12 – a tryambaka verse, a late interpolation to the already older interpolated stanzas 7.59.7-11 – and similar late additions found at 10.20.1; 10.121.10 and 10.190.1-3” (§1).

Now where on earth, in my book, have I treated RV 7.59.12 as “evidence” of anything? And what is more “amusing” (or pathetic): Witzel now claiming that he considers hymn 6.45 to be an interpolation, when he had emphatically stated in his various earlier papers that it was not one; or Witzel now claiming that I consider verse 7.59.12 not to be an interpolation, when I have made no such statement anywhere in my 2000 book or elsewhere?

If Witzel merely means that I did not specifically refer to this verse as an interpolation, he must specify the exact point in my book where such a specification was called for. As for a general statement on the subject, Witzel himself notes:

“Talageri writes (p. 68): ‘There are other actual or alleged cases of interpolations in the Rigveda (all interpolations made during different stages of compilation of the Rigveda before the ten-Mandala Rigveda was finalized), but all of them are incidental ones pertaining to ritual hymns or verses’ (p. 68)” (§1)

Witzel does note my above statement, but chooses to wilfully misunderstand it. He charges:

“Talageri does not specify which verses he has in mind ... Even if Talageri were right in dismissing certain RV interpolations as ‘incidental’, standard scholarly practice would demand that he identify those interpolations and explain how he identified them. Otherwise, he would have a free hand in tossing out any verses in the text that conflicted with his ‘revolutionary’ conclusions concerning the place and time of the composition of different RV books. This he has not done (cf. pp. 68, 73-4)” (§1).

Apart from the fact that demands for meticulous adherence to “standard scholarly practice” in identifying interpolations does not behove a scholar who has, to this day, doggedly persisted in avoiding identifying the interpolations in the Family Mandalas which would prove his claim about the “increasing number of hymns per book”, inspite of being repeatedly challenged to do so, Witzel’s statement above demonstrates once more his inability to comprehend written English.

Both Witzel and Farmer had made the above charge repeatedly during our e-mail debate (2000), and I had equally repeatedly told them that the question of my “tossing out” any hymns or verses as interpolations (apart from those specified in TALAGERI 2000:74, subject to the correction now pointed out by Witzel in my enumeration of the six interpolated hymns in Mandala 3) simply did not arise at all: I have clearly declared (as quoted by Witzel himself above) that all “other actual or alleged cases of interpolations” are “incidental ones pertaining to ritual hymns or verses” with no historical significance vis-à-vis my historical analysis! In fact, I further reiterated (during our e-mail debate) that it would be Witzel himself (or Farmer) who would keep bringing up questions of “interpolations” – as indeed he does all the time!

When I clearly stated that other interpolations would be irrelevant to my analysis, why does Witzel insist that I should have spent my time hunting out, and listing (with explanations) in my book, all such irrelevant interpolations? Is my book, repeatedly described by Witzel as “Talageri’s 544-page book” (Edit), so small that I required to make it look impressively bulky by pushing in all kinds of discussions irrelevant to my subject?

 

IV.7) “Invincible” case with the present day RV and Anukramanis

Oldenberg’s principles, as we have seen, fail to demarcate “original” from “interpolated” parts of the RV in any way relevant to any historical analysis of the text. On the other hand, the principles or criteria used by me do demarcate Early and Late parts.

In chapter 3 (“The Chronology of the Rigveda”) of my book, I have clearly shown that the ten Mandalas of the RV fall into the following chronological order: 6,3,7,4,2,5,8,9,10 (Mandala 1 covering a longer period coterminous with the Middle and Late Mandalas).

Witzel calls this -

“ ... a transparently false stratification of the 1028 hymns of the RV, contradicting well-known evidence by claiming that composition of each of the 10 Mandalas (including the so-called family books) originated in its own unique time period ­­­-­­­ one succeeding the other in tidy historical steps” (Edit).

He insists that “the composition of the RV occurred in complex layers – not in the tidy sequential patterns imagined by Talageri” (§1).

But it is not axiomatic that the composition of the RV should necessarily be assumed to have occurred, or not to have occurred, in more or less “tidy sequential patterns”: the data should be allowed to tell us what is, and what is not, the case. And these patterns are not “imagined” by me, as Witzel desperately wants his readers to believe: they emerge naturally out of my analysis of the basic data in the RV and the Anukramanis, analysed on the basis of five different criteria: all five of which, independently, show the same sequence (see TALAGERI 2000:37-72).

And when we examine the geography of the RV on the basis of this sequence (TALAGERI 2000:ch.4), we get a clear and unambiguous picture of a movement from east to west — not an “imagined” movement, but a movement shown by the data.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: the clockwork precision with which all the historical and geographical data in the RV — with the sole exception of the Bhrgu hymns and the references to the Trkshi kings — fits into the above picture like the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle, cannot be explained in any other way except by the correctness of my methods, analysis and conclusions.

My analysis, on the basis of the RV and its Anukramanis is so “invincible” that Witzel:

a) does not even try to disprove my case, or prove the opposite case (ie. a movement from west to east), on the basis of the RV and its Anukramanis.

b) accepts that my case is logical on the basis of the source-materials (ie. the present-day RV and its Anukramanis) taken by me: 

“The new picture of Rgvedic history painted by Talageri may in one sense be ‘logical’ as his supporters claim, but only if we accept the unreliable traditional sources, described below, that Talageri depends on in this book and its 1993 predecessor” (Edit).

c) tries, instead, to discredit the very source materials and data used by me as “unreliable” (above): by rejecting the RV as “the wrong Rgveda text”, the Anukramanis as “late”, and the meanings of specific words (ibha, Jahnavi, Sarasvati) as other than what logic and/or tradition understand them to mean.

[Incidentally, Witzel refers to the Trkshi references as follows:

“It is instructive to observe how T. has to twist and turn in order to explain, within his own erroneous framework, ‘the tRkSi dynasty’ (p. 66-72). Facts at all times in Talageri’s work have to agree with his theory, not the theory with the facts!” (§6).

The last comment, as the reader will have noticed, is applicable to Witzel himself. So far as the references to the Trkshi kings are concerned, they are unique in the RV in that “these references alone among all the references to kings and Rsis in the Rigveda, appear to fail to fit into our chronology of the Rigveda” (TALAGERI 2000:66), hence, obviously some explanation is required. But I do not have to “twist and turn” in order to explain these references: Witzel would have to do much more twisting and turning to explain why exactly, even in the case of these only seeming exceptions, the references fall into two distinct categories in line with my classification of the Mandalas into Early, Middle and Late (see TALAGERI 2000:69). The exception here literally proves the rule].

 

IV.8) Conspiracy Theories

Even if Witzel genuinely believed (his frequent somersaults on every point make it difficult to believe that he really believes in anything) that my analysis and conclusions were wrong since the source-materials used by me were “unreliable”, he would still have to explain why exactly all the source-materials used by me (the "wrong Rgveda text”, the “late” concocted Anukramanis, and the wrong “Puranic” meanings of words) fit together, with almost clockwork precision, to produce a perfectly integrated and composite picture which even Witzel has to concede is “logical” in the circumstances.

There can be only two possible explanations. One: the whole thing must be a series of coincidences. But this would involve hundreds, and even thousands, of coincidences, all in perfect harmony with each other, all fitting into each other like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle! Or, two: the whole thing must be a gigantic fraud – the result of a gigantic conspiracy, the biggest and most successful conspiracy in history!

And this conspiracy must have been hatched by a long line of “Piltdown men of ancient India”, covering a great many regions and generations. Or perhaps only the “Piltdown men” of the “competing Vedic schools ... active at the Sanskritising court of Videha” who were hell-bent on “skewing” the “historical evidence found in the original RV”(§5)!

Witzel very rightly praises Acharya Vishva Bandhu for his “great 16-volume Vedic Word Concordance ... created in the age of pencil, paper and typesetting”(§10). The ancient scholars of Videha, whom he accuses of hatching a gigantic conspiracy and concocting material with such eerie precision, lived in a much, much older age, an age of palm-leaf manuscripts, oral traditions, and primitive communication systems.

The reader must decide whether to accept super-coincidence theories and super-conspiracy theories, or to accept straight analysis.

 

IV.9) “Original” vis-à-vis “Interpolated” parts of the RV

Witzel’s recent dogmatic belief (real or pretended) in Oldenberg’s numer(olog)ical principles does not even allow him to take into account the fact there is no difference between the so-called “original” and the so-called “interpolated” hymns within any Mandala, when it comes to the historical and geographical data.

Let us take Mandala 6, in the case of which Witzel has already (as we have seen) clarified that the late or “interpolated” hymns, according to Oldenberg’s principles, are 15,16, 44-48, 49-52, 59-61, 74,75 (and the “original” hymns, therefore, are 1-14, 17-43, 53-58, 62-73). Although (as we have also seen) this classification collapses like a house of cards at the slightest touch, nevertheless, if we examine the geographical data as per this classification, we get the following situation:

Witzel’s “interpolated” hymns refer to the Ganga (45) and the Sarasvati (49,50,52,61).

Witzel’s “original” hymns refer to the Hariyupiya and Yavyavati (27), Ilaspada (1), the elephant (4 and 20) and the buffalo (8 and 17).

Let us go to the next oldest Mandala, Mandala 3. The “interpolated” hymns as per Oldenberg’s principles, according to Witzel, are 26-29, 51-53, 62 (§1) — and, therefore, the “original” hymns would be 1-25, 30-50, 54-61.

Witzel’s “interpolated” hymns refer to Ilaspada (29) and the spotted deer (26).

Witzel’s “original” hymns refer to the Vipas (23), Sutudri(23), Sarasvati (4 and 23), Ilaspada (5 and 23), the buffalo (46) and the peacock (45).

As we can see, neither the “interpolated” nor the “original” hymns refer to the Indus or to rivers west of it; to the Saptasindhu, Gandhari or Soma places; or to ustra, mesa or mathra horses.

If Witzel’s claim, that the Family Mandalas contain two sets of hymns, “original” and “interpolated”, and that the Vedic Aryans came from the west to the east, is right, we should get any one of the four following scenarios (in the event of different migration schedules):

i) Both the sets of hymns should refer only to western rivers, places and animals.

ii) The “original” hymns should refer only to western rivers, places and animals; and the “interpolated” hymns should refer to both western and eastern ones.

iii) The “original” hymns should refer only to western rivers, places and animals; and the “interpolated” hymns should refer only to eastern ones.

iv) Both the sets of hymns should refer to both western and eastern rivers, places and animals.

However, we find a scenario totally incongruous with Witzel’s claim: in the case of both Mandala 6 and Mandala 3, both the sets of hymns refer only to eastern rivers, places and animals!!

In fact, in the whole of the Family Mandalas, the only hymn (other than the reference to the distant battle “beyond the Sarayu” in 4.30.18) which refers freely to western rivers (no hymn refers to western places or animals) is 5.53, and Witzel himself admits that the hymn has no geographical significance, being merely “indicative of the poet’s travels”  (WITZEL 1995b: 317): the poet, Shyavashva, also refers, in another hymn (5.52) to the Yamuna and Purushni!

I repeatedly explained this point in great detail to Witzel “via e-mail, in the summer of 2000, to no avail”!

For example, in my e-mail letter of 26^th August 2000 I wrote as follows:

“I have given a chart on p. 59 of my book which shows the relative chronological positions of the Mandalas and upamandalas in the present RV (which includes both Witzel’s ‘original’ and ‘interpolated’ sections), drawn up, in the first instance, on the basis of the anukramanis (again, including both Witzel’s ‘genuine’ and ‘concocted’ sections).

“Now, an examination of the first 8 Mandalas of the RV shows that there is absolutely no difference between the alleged ‘original’ section, and the alleged ‘interpolated’ section, of each mandala (and upam.) in respect of each of the following factors:

a) Each Mandala (or upam.) contains hymns ascribed to the descendants of earlier mandalas (or upam.s ) or the ancestors of later mandalas (or upam.s).

b) Each Mandala (or upam.) contains references to composers from earlier or contemporaneous mandalas (or upam.s)

c) The Early Mandalas (or upam.s) contain references to eastern rivers, places and animals, but not to western rivers, places and animals. Further, the appearance of the names of western rivers, places and animals takes place in a systematic movement westward (see charts in TALAGERI 2000:104,120); and the names appear in the historically clear context of a westward movement (TALAGERI 2000:106-108).

d) The Early Mandalas (and upam.s) contain no references to technological innovations like ‘ara’ (spokes) which appear only in late Mandalas and upam.s.

In not one of these respects do we find the allegedly ‘concocted’ Anukramani ascriptions or the allegedly ‘interpolated’ hymns differing from the allegedly ‘original’ ascriptions or hymns; or posing a single exception to the regular trend. This cannot be explained on the basis of Oldenberg’s interpolation theory, but only by my analysis, or, to counter it, by a new extrapolation theory.

 

On the other hand, the six hymns named in the Aitareya Brahmana (TALAGERI 2000:73-74) as interpolations DO pose an exception to the general trend: the word ‘gandharva’ (TALAGERI 2000:113).

 

So, without offence to the hallowed memory of ‘great people like Hermann Oldenberg’ who could ‘read the RV back and forth many times’ it should be understood that principles set out by him do not constitute the first and the last word in each and every field of RV analysis: the hymns which ‘violate the order of arrangement’ may be insertions in the formal sense, they are not interpolations in the chronological sense” (my e-mail letter dt. 26^th August 2000).

In my previous e-mail letter of 18^th August 2000, I wrote as follows:

“What you require is not old interpolation-theories, but a new EXTRAPOLATION theory to explain just why those Mandalas which I have designated as Early contain no references to western rivers, places and animals; to later technological innovations like ‘spokes’; to composer-personalities from those Mandalas which I have designated as later ones, etc. etc. Perhaps, some OIT conspirator, in the eighteenth or nineteenth century AD managed to delete all such references from the collective memories of reciters all over India, and from every existing manuscript, even going ‘to each Pandit’s house, in the jungles of Orissa, etc’ and ‘forging their palm leaves???’. It is you who will find yourself in need of ‘conspiracy theories’ in order to counter my analysis” (my e-mail letter dt. 18^th August 2000).”

Unfortunately, “to his undoing”, Witzel does not read. He simply closes his eyes, jams his fingers into his ears, and, like some religious fundamentalist, loudly chants magical formulae from Oldenberg’s writings (or rather, just chants the names of Oldenberg and his books), and believes the OIT storm will blow over. Like Atri in hymn 5.40 (see TALAGERI 2000:81) Witzel believes he can rescue the AIT sun which has been “pierced through and through with darkness”, and been “concealed in gloom”, by the OIT demons, and restore it back to its rightful place in the sky, merely by chanting the names of books and authors!

 

IV.10) Differences in numerical position and language

To sum up, Oldenberg’s principles do not affect my analysis at all. His principles are undoubtedly important, but not in demarcating “original” hymns from “interpolated” ones: as we saw, hymn 6.45, which is a late “interpolated” hymn as per (Witzel’s interpretation of) Oldenberg’s principles, proves to be linguistically very archaic, and hymns 6.3,24,25,28, which are similarly “original” hymns, abound in late words.

Oldenberg’s (or rather, Witzel’s) numer(olog)ical division therefore cuts across another division which could be established on the basis of linguistic analysis. And both these divisions become irrelevant when the data in these hymns is examined from a historico-geographical point of view, since all the hymns in any given Mandala are historically and geographically homogenous.

In my e-mail letter of 26^th August 2000, I wrote to Witzel:

“As I have pointed out in my book, the chronological order of the six Family Mandalas is 6,3,7,4,2,5. And each Mandala represents a separate epoch: these epochs succeed each other and rarely interlap (except Mandalas 3 and 7).

 

“In each of these epochs, hymns were collected together into official collections by the particular family of Rsis which dominated the period (new hymns, by families which had dominated earlier periods and had already finalised their collections, were either kept aside and included in later Mandalas, or formulated into the beginnings of upamandalas).

 

“At the time of formulation of the Six-Mandala RV, the six Family Mandalas were arranged together in their present order (with, give and take a few verses and a hymn or two, the number of verses: 429, 549, 589, 727, 765, 841).

 

“Each of these six collections contained two sets of hymns: the first set, in each case, consisting of prayer or ritual hymns in regular use which were arranged in the order noted by Oldenberg, etc; and the second set consisting of other hymns, not so much a part of the regular ritual of the time, which were placed at the end of the collection. Both these sets of hymns were composed within the period of that particular mandala. At the time of compilation of the Six-Mandala RV, the two sets, in each Mandala, were combined together; the hymns of the second set being inserted into the hymns of the first. Hence, none of these hymns are ‘interpolations’” (my e-mail letter of 26^th August 2000).

These hymns, moreover, continued to be affected by linguistic changes at the time of each subsequent redaction (during the Eight-Mandala, Nine-Mandala and Ten-Mandala stages of formation of the RV, not to mention the “minor phonological changes” made by Shakalya). Various hymns, cutting across the two-set division discussed above, underwent different degrees and manner of linguistic modifications and contemporisation (which did not affect the historical or geographical contents of the hymns) based on different “complex” factors, which could be many and not exactly quantifiable (only the results are before us): for example, the more sacrosanct a hymn, the less the chance of it being affected by linguistic changes, and the more popular a hymn (for example, ballad hymns or historical hymns, which were probably recited before live audiences), the more the chance of it being affected by linguistic changes. Again, the degree of sanctity or popularity of a hymn need not have remained the same at the time of each redaction.

Finally, as I pointed out in my book:

“The completion of the fourth stage saw the full canonisation of the Rigveda, and the text was frozen into a form which it has maintained to this day” (TALAGERI 2000:74-75).

Therefore, neither Oldenberg’s numerical principles, nor linguistic strata discernible in the hymns, can negate the fact that the RV we have today is, for all practical purposes, the “original” RV, and my historical analysis is an “invincible” analysis of the emphatically right Rigveda text.

 

V.      THE ANUKRAMANIS

Finally, we come to that aspect of my analysis which is the primary object of Witzel’s criticism (or venom): my use of the Anukramanis as a primary basic source in my historical analysis of the RV.

He repeatedly — and childishly — refers to my analysis on the basis of the Anukramanis as “garbage in, garbage out”, and in his diatribe on the subject, we find Witzel at his Witzel-est: what we might, to paraphrase Witzel himself, call Vintage Witzel. Here we find the clearest evidence that Witzel does not read anything written by others (especially his “opponents”), and the clearest demonstration that Witzel writes for the “casual reader” who has no time to spend “weeks or months tracking down ... spurious ‘evidence’”.

V.1) Anukramanis of the Rigveda

Witzel repeatedly alleges that there are many different Anukramanis of the RV, of which I have used only one: “competing versions of the anukramaNIs exist” (Edit) and “they differ substantially among themselves” (§2).

In his editorial, he starts out by claming that I am “unaware” that different Anukramanis exist. Later on, my ignorance becomes deliberate evasion: “I have already mentioned, as T. does not, that not one but a number of anukramaNIs are extant” (§2).

I am particularly secretive about the exact version used by me:

“Remarkably, in his long discussion of these lists (pp. 3-20), Talageri does not bother to mention which version of the anukramaNIs he is following” (§2).

But Witzel uncovers my secret:

“Analysis of his book, however, shows that he is using the least ancient of the two extant versions of the RV anukramaNI text” (§2); i.e. “The best known anukramaNI (the one used by T. though he does not mention it by name) ... the sarvAnukramaNI attributed to kAtyAyana “(§2).

Not only is the Sarvanukramani of Katyayana (“used by T.”) later than the other anukramani, the Arshanukramani of Shaunaka, but:

“To crown it all ... The sarvAnukramaNI of kAtyAyana that T. uses throughout – without identifying it by name or further discussion – is the younger one of our two preserved versions of that text. This was shown way back in 1922 by Isidor Scheftelowitz ... that the Kashmir version of the sarvAnukramaNI as well preserves a version of kAtyAyana’s text that is shorter and much older than the normal, received version” (§2) “used by T.”.

The reader of Witzel’s “review article” will notice that throughout his long diatribe, Witzel shows truly remarkable skill in avoiding giving even one single example (let alone a point-by-point refutation of my case) where either the “Kashmir version of Katyayana’s sarvanukramani” or “Shaunaka’s Arshanukramani” differs in the ascription of a hymn to a rishi, from the “normal, received version” of Katyayana’s anukramani, allegedly used by me, in any way which can disturb my analysis of the chronology of the RV on the basis of the anukramani-data (TALAGERI 2000:37-58)!

The cold hard fact is that, for all practical purposes (beyond a few minor cosmetic variations: “paulomi” or “paulumi”, “laba” or “lava”, “suvedas shairishi” or “sarvedhas shaileshu”, etc., mostly in Mandala 10) (see SCHEFTELOWITZ 1922) there is no difference at all in the Rishi ascriptions in the three “competing versions” cited by Witzel, which he claims “differ substantially among themselves”: Witzel, with typical recklessness, expects to bulldoze a blatant lie (of such proportions, and on such a fundamental matter) through purely on the strength of violent rhetoric and innuendo!

Incidentally, the fact that there is practically no difference in the Rishi-ascriptions in the so-called different Anukramanis of the RV is so well known that no-one, before Witzel started his crusade against my book, ever thought it necessary to make a point about it:

Vishva Bandhu, whose unchallengeably great scholarly stature Witzel makes a show of appreciating in the last paragraph of his “review article” (and whose “great 16-volume” work, he admits, “is an excellent tool for research ... It also is largely free of religious and traditional bias” §10) “does not bother to mention which version of the anukramaNIs he is following” when he gives the Rishi ascriptions in his volume on the “INDICES” of the RV — which tally perfectly with the ones given in my book!

Witzel admits that “the family books (RV 2-7) contain other organisational factors that involve the authors (RSi), deities (devatA) and meters (chandas) of the hymns. Even today all three are still uttered before any formal Vedic recitation of a hymn” (§1). Does the reciter “bother to mention which version of the anukramaNIs he is following” every time he utters the name of the Rishi before reciting a hymn?

Witzel himself, in his 1995 paper (“Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities”), refers very frequently to the “Rgveda Anukramani”, or simply “the Anukramani”, and equally frequently refers to, or uses, data from the Anukramanis in his discussions on the “poets” of the RV; but not once in the whole of the paper does he “bother to mention which version of the anukramaNIs he is following”!

There is a very logical reason behind the total failure, of everyone concerned, to “mention which version of the anukramaNIs he is following”: There is essentially only one anukramani of Rishis, and this is known to every single publisher and printer of the text of the RV – almost every single published text of the RV prints the Rishi, deity and meter at the head of each hymn!

 

V.2) Anukramanis of the other Vedas

Witzel does not stop at the RV: “It is important to point out – as Talageri does not – that different anukramaNIs attached to the RV, SV, YV and AV often disagree concerning the poets of the very same hymns or verses. This fact is more than enough to demonstrate the absurdity of his absolute reliance on these late-and post-Vedic texts, which he tells us (p. 4) must be the ‘very basis’ of any analysis of the RV” (§2).

Again, it will be noticed that Witzel does not bother to give one single example of a verse or hymn regarding which the anukramanis of the SV, YV or AV disagree with those of the RV. But, in this case, although Witzel’s silence is suspicious, let us assume that a diligent search will produce many such verses. However, Witzel’s citing of the Anukramanis of the SV, YV or AV to disprove those of the RV reeks of typical Witzellian hypocrisy:

V.2.a) No-one takes the Anukramanis of the SV, YV or AV seriously even in discussing the Samhitas concerned, let alone in discussing the RV. On the other hand, scores of serious scholars have treated the RV Anukramanis seriously in discussing the RV.

V.2.b) Everyone is aware that if there are common verses in the RV on the one hand, and the SV, YV or AV on the other, the verses in the RV are the original ones and those in the other Samhitas are repetitions of the RV verses.

In my book (TALAGERI 2000:4-6) I have pointed out that, even within the RV, when the same verse is found in two different hymns attributed to two different Rishis, it does not prove the incorrectness of the Anukramani ascriptions: it is purely a case where “one Rsi has borrowed from the composition of the other” (p. 6). In the present case, such borrowing would clearly be from the RV to the SV, YV or AV.

V.2.c) Treating the Anukramani ascriptions in the SV, YV or AV as a criterion for disqualifying the Anukramani ascriptions in the RV is bad scholarship.

Witzel himself, in discussing the Dasarajna battle in his 1995 papers, writes as follows:

“It is interesting to note that later texts show confusion about the participants in the battle, notably JB 3.244 which speaks of Pratrd instead of his descendant Sudas”. [These “later texts” include the other Samhitas:] “the shifting of the tradition (has) already (taken place) in the early YV Samhitas: MS 3.40.6, JB. 3.244, PB 15.3.7 have substituted other names for Sudas and Vasishtha”’ ... “even these relatively early texts manage to garble the evidence. Thus the JB (§205) calls Sudas Ksatra, while KS 21.10:50.1 has Pratardana and MS 37.7 Pratardana Daivodasi” (WITZEL 1995b :335,340).

In this case, Witzel does not write: “different verses in the MS, JB and PB disagree concerning the chieftain and priest involved in the very same battle. This fact is more than enough to demonstrate the absurdity of relying on the RV verses which tell us that the chieftain involved in the Dasarajna battle was Sudas and his priest Vasistha”. Instead, he straightaway accepts the RV evidence, and rejects the YV evidence as “garbled evidence”, “shifted tradition” and “substituted names”.

Elsewhere in his 1995 papers, he informs us that “the Atharvaveda, SV and Yajurveda mantras” were “transmitted with a lesser degree of care” (WITZEL 1995b: 310).

What is sauce for the actual internal contents of the other Samhitas vis-à-vis the internal contents of the RV, is certainly sauce for the Anukramanis of the other Samhitas vis-à-vis those of the RV: it is only Witzel’s hypocrisy and dishonesty which make him raise the point at all.

V.3) Lateness of the Anukramanis

Witzel criticises my use of the Anukramanis on the ground that they are -

“late-and post-Vedic lists of RV poets (many of them clearly fictional), deities and meters. These lists are clearly related to other later and traditional sources, including the PurANas. The most common versions of them including the one used by Talageri, were still being revised in the early Middle Ages” (Edit).

“The language of the text (displaying late compounds, use of perfect, etc) is certainly not Rgvedic, not even upaniSadic, but follows a terse sUtra style. (In other anukramaNIs, zlokas even are the norm). All this points to late/post-Vedic and Eastern origins as well” (§2).

In fact, he concludes his discussion on the Anukramanis with the incredible claim that the Anukramani

“..used by Talageri – which the latter fantasises goes back to RV times – may date no earlier than the middle of the first millennium CE!” (§2).

Further:

“T. however ... does not mind using a later text as a primary source to explain an older one in front of him, just as he does not use the archaic Sanskrit text of the RV front of him but only a Victorian English translation three thousand years more recent” (§2).

Just as Witzel does not use the ancient Sanskrit texts of the Anukramani ascriptions front of him but only a 19^th century German book two thousand years more recent? Or just as Witzel himself certainly “does not mind using a later text as a primary source to explain an older one in front of him” (see TALAGERI 2000:469, 471-475, as well as Vishal Agarwal’s eye-opening article “The Aryan Migration Theory: Fabricating Literary Evidence” on the Internet at http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/AMT.html for his use of Baudhayana Shrautasutra 18.44 for deriving Rigvedic history)?

Witzel cannot refrain from imputing motives and suggesting conspiracies [although he quotes p. 119 of my book, where I write “the information in the Anukramanis cannot be rejected on any logical ground (short of suggesting a conspiracy theory)”, and innocently asks “Conspiracy theories created by whom?”], and complains that I depend “on late sources like the Anukramanis – with the motives of their composers remaining unstudied”!

We will leave the Freudian study of the “motives” of the composers of different ancient texts to the likes of Witzel, and examine instead Witzel’s main allegation about the “lateness”, and hence “unreliability”, of the Anukramanis:

V.3.a) Witzel concludes his discussion on the Anukramanis with the incredible date, “the middle of the first millennium CE”  for the Anukramani “used by Talageri”! Throughout his article, he alleges that I have been secretive about the exact Anukramani text “used” by me; but he himself decides that it is the “normal, received version” of Katyayana’s Sarvarukramani, and, obviously after a prolonged hunt, manages to find a scholar (the German Scheftelowitz in 1922) who he claims has given a date as late as “the middle of the first millennium CE!” for this version. Incidentally, the “casual reader”, who is bound to lose the thread of Witzel’s convoluted distinctions on the subject, will naturally assume this is the date of “the Anukramanis” (period!).

i) Actually, I have not only not used any one particular Anukramani text from among many, but I have not used any Anukramani text at all: throughout my book, I have used only the names of the Rishis (the names of the deities and meters still had no role to play in my book under discussion) which I have listed in chapter one – names which are common to all the anukramanis, and which are printed at the head of every hymn in every published copy of the Rigveda text  — about which Witzel tells us: “the family books (RV 2-7) contain other organisational factors that involve the authors (RSi), deities (devatA) and meters (chandas) of the hymns. Even today all three are still uttered before any formal Vedic recitation of a hymn” (§1).

ii) Witzel’s date, “the middle of the first millennium CE!” (ie around the first century AD!) for the “normal, received version” of Katyayana’s Sarvanukramani is untenable: the generally accepted dates for this text range from the eighth to the third centuries BCE (and this, it must be remembered, is in the context of the generally accepted dates for the Rigveda itself as the twelfth to the tenth centuries BCE!). Witzel’s authority MACDONELL (1886:viii) himself places the author of the Katyayana Sarvanukramani to the 4^th century BC!

iii) All the Anukramanis, whatever their alleged dates, give the same data on the Rishis.

 

V.3.b) Witzel’s long discussions about “the language of the text” (of any Anukramani) are totally irrelevant. The names contained in any Anukramani text are not the inventions of the authors of that Anukramani: they are the traditional names “uttered before any formal Vedic recitation of a hymn” (Which, according to Witzel himself, as we have seen, constituted one of the “organisational factors” in the compilation of the RV)(§1), which are merely listed by them.

The language of each text will naturally be the language of the compiler of that Anukramani. Dating the names to the date of the language of the text would be somewhat like dating the “numerical principles” pointed out by Oldenberg to the date of the language in which he wrote his book, and concluding: “the language of the book is 19^th century CE German, and follows a modern academic style. All this points to a modern origin for the numerical principles as well”!

The names contained in the Anukramanis are the original names maintained in the oral traditions along with the hymns themselves. The various Anukramanis merely incorporate these traditional names into formal texts. The superiority of the oral tradition is repeatedly emphasised by Witzel himself. For example, he writes:

“The Vedic texts have been composed orally; and, what is more, to this day are also largely transmitted in this fashion. The earliest manuscripts date to the 11^th century AD, and generally all manuscripts remain inferior to the orally transmitted version, which has been extremely faithful, contrary to the norm (as exhibited by the transmission of the Epics for example). Right from the beginning, in Rgvedic times, elaborate steps were taken to insure the exact reproduction of the words of the ancient poets. As a result, the Rgveda still has the exact same wording in such distant regions as Kashmir, Kerala and Orissa, and even the long-extinct musical accents have been preserved ... We can actually regard present-day Rgveda-recitation as a tape recording of what was first composed and recited some 3000 years ago.” (WITZEL 1995a:91).

He further describes the hymns as “equivalent to inscriptions” and “snapshots”.

When such elaborate, and uniquely effective, steps were taken to “insure the exact reproduction of the words of the ancient poets”, why does Witzel want his readers to believe that similar steps were not taken to “insure the memory of the names of the ancient poets”?

Dating the origin of the Rishi names to the date of the language of any Anukramani text (even the earliest one) would be doubly wrong: in the first place, as already pointed out, the language of the text would naturally be the language of the particular compiler who incorporated these names into a formal text. In fact, it would be that language further modified through the ages until that particular Anukramani text was committed into manuscript form.

As Witzel points out, the transmission of the actual RV hymns “has been extremely faithful, contrary to the norm”, and, elsewhere, he points out, about many of the hymns in Mandala 10, that they were “transmitted with a lesser degree of care, typical for the Atharvaveda, SV and Yajurveda mantras” (WITZEL 1995b:310).

The Anukramani texts were naturally transmitted with a “lesser degree of care” than the actual hymns and the poet names recited with them; and hence even the earliest dates of the language in the Anukramani texts, as available to us now, do not represent even the actual dates of the texts — let alone of the names contained in them.

 

V.3.c) Witzel tries to emphasise the “unreliability” of the Anukramanis on the analogy of other lists:

“It is well-known that traditional attributions of this sort may change over time: from the oldest surviving in Sumerian texts to modern Polynesian lists of chieftains, we can observe that there is no such thing as a fixed list ... this makes use of attributions like this an extraordinarily tricky business, as has again been known (but not to Talageri) since the 19^th century” (§2).

Witzel refers here only to “Sumerian texts” (presumably king-lists in those texts) and “Polynesian lists of chieftains”: during our e-mail debate, his “cohort” Farmer also offered the analogies of “West African oral traditions, ... Mesopotamian and Egyptian genealogical lists, ... lists of poet-seers in China and Greece, and ... similar materials in Mesoamerica” to point out that such lists were ruled out “as trustworthy historical evidence”.

An impressive list of lists, but totally irrelevant to the point:

i) Witzel’s claim that “there is no such thing as a fixed list” is incongruous: whatever the case with “Polynesian lists of chieftains”, etc., there is a fixed list of composers of the RV, common to all the Anukramanis (with negligible phonological or other variations).

ii) All the lists liberally named by Witzel and Farmer are analogous to the genealogical lists (whether of kings or Rishis) in the Puranas, and not with the lists in the Anukramanis. There is a world of difference between vague genealogical lists of kings and holy men hanging in the air, and a concrete index of the composers of sections of a concrete text.

Even here, there is still a vast difference between, on the one hand, the lists in the Puranas (which were committed to writing many centuries ago) and, on the other, some of the lists named by Farmer and Witzel: “Polynesian lists of chieftains”, “West African oral traditions” and “similar materials in Mesoamerica” (which, in keeping with “the norm” referred to by Witzel above, must have been “transmitted with a lesser degree of care” for a much longer span of time than the Puranic lists).

iii) The list of composers in the Anukramanis do not pertain to any run-of-the-mill text, but to a text whose transmission is described by Witzel himself as uniquely “contrary to the norm” and “superior to that of the Hebrew or Greek Bible, or the Greek, Latin and Chinese classics” (Let alone Polynesian, West African and Mesoamerican oral traditions).

 

V.4) Period of Compilation of the Anukramanis

An examination of the Rishi-names in the Anukramanis, on the other hand, provides conclusive positive evidence to demonstrate that the Rishi ascriptions are as old as the hymns to which they refer.

As already pointed out in the previous section, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: the Rishi ascriptions in the Anukramanis fall into a very regular pattern, fitting into each other like the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle; and everything indicates that the Rishi ascriptions were not compiled at one single point of time, but at different points of time in keeping with the chronological order of the different Mandalas:

V.4.a) To begin with, as pointed out in the earlier section (quoting from my e-mail letter of 26^th August 2000): “a) Each Mandala (or upam.) contains hymns ascribed to the descendants of earlier mandalas (or upam.s), or the ancestors of later mandalas (or upam.s). b) Each Mandala (or upam.) contains references to composers from earlier or contemporaneous mandalas (or upam.s)”. And “in not one of these respects do we find the allegedly ‘concocted’ Anukramani ascriptions ... differing from the allegedly ‘original’ ascriptions”.

 That is, none of the Rishi ascriptions (either for an allegedly “original” hymn or an allegedly “interpolated” hymn) shows a contrary order: ie. if Mandala A has a hymn ascribed to an ancestor of a Rishi composer from Mandala B, we do not find another case where Mandala B has a hymn ascribed to an ancestor of a Rishi composer from Mandala A. And the references within the hymns follow suit: no hymn from Mandala A refers to a Rishi composer from Mandala B (for example, the three Early Mandalas do not contain a single reference to a Rishi composer from the Middle or Late Mandalas, the case of the Bhrgu hymns being a special case apart).

All this can mean one of only two things: either the Anukramani ascriptions are genuine; or else they have been concocted with incredible efficiency and coordination: this would involve great skill not only in concocting ascriptions for new hymns, to make them fit into the pattern, but also in changing older Anukramani ascriptions where a descendant of a Rishi composer from a later (as per my chronology) Mandala figured as a composer in an earlier (as per my chronology) Mandala, and in extrapolating references from within the hymns of an earlier (as per my chronology) Mandala which referred to a Rishi composer from a later (as per my chronology) Mandala!

 mong other things, these “Piltdown men of ancient India” must also have been in telepathic communication with me, across the passage of time, to find out which concoctions, changes and extrapolations would best suit my theory!

V.4.b) Further, if the Rishi ascriptions had all been concocted and compiled in a later (post-RV) age, there should have been no distinctions in their treatment of the ten Mandalas of the RV.

However, we find a clear gradation of change in the ascriptions for the Mandalas in line with my chronological order (see TALAGERI 2000:51-52):

i) The older the Mandala, the greater its identification with a particular family of composers, and the more homogenous its family structure; and the later the Mandala, the lesser its identification with any particular family of composers, and the more heterogeneous its family structure.

ii) The older the Mandala, the fewer the number of unknown / fictitious names; and the later the Mandala, the greater the number of such names.

V.4.c) Furthermore, there is the extraordinary distinction between the system of ascriptions for Mandala 5 (which falls in line with the non-family Mandalas) and the system of ascriptions for the other Family Mandalas (6,3,7,4 and 2) (TALAGERI 2000:8-10, 52-53).

As per our analysis of the data in the Anukramanis and the RV, Mandala 5 is the latest of the Family Mandalas and hence closest in time to the non-family Mandalas (and in fact, unlike the other Family Mandalas, belongs to the Late Period).

This is proved by many other factors, apart from those listed in my book. For example, the apri-sukta of the Atris in Mandala 5 has verses in common with the apri-sukta of the Kanvas (of Mandala 8) in Mandala 1; the language of Mandala 8 is closest, among the Family Mandalas, to that of Mandala 5 (Prof. Hopkins, in his 1896 study of the vocabulary of Mandala 8, “Pragathikani” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, calls it “the intermediate character of v. between viii and the other family books”, and proceeds to give a discussion of the similarities between the two Mandalas – pp. 88-89, JAOS, 1896); even the meters used in Mandala 5 distinguish it from the other Family Mandalas: the pankti meter, rare in the other Family Mandalas, is very common in Mandala 5 and in the non-family Mandalas.

The question is: did the alleged concocters of the Rishi ascriptions of the Anukramanis, in an allegedly post-RV period, sit down and examine all the above factors and then deliberately decide to concoct the Rishi ascriptions as per one system in the other Family Mandalas, and as per another system in Mandala 5 and the non-family Mandalas?

Obviously, except for those with an irresistible passion for conspiracy theories, the only conclusion is that the Rishi ascriptions in the Anukramanis are perfectly genuine, and hence absolutely valid in any historical analysis of the text.

 

V.5) Rishi Ascriptions.

There are many minor points raised by Witzel, to question the reliability or genuinity of the Rishi ascriptions, or my treatment of these ascriptions, which we will examine now:

V.5.a) To deprecate the Rishi ascriptions, or my use of them, Witzel writes: “It should be obvious to most readers that vAc (‘Speech’) is not likely to be the author of RV 10.125, as the anukramaNIs claim — although the hymn does deal with speech (vAc). Nor is it very likely that all the hymns of book 4 (which includes known late hymns) were composed by one seer, vAmadeva — as they also tell us” (§2).

The above provides the most perfect illustration of Witzel’s mode of academic(?) discussion: he does not raise points because he believes in them and wants to get them either clarified or accepted; he raises them only to heckle and raise a din, like a speaker in a political harangue or a schoolboy in a school slanging match between two rival groups, where the same accusation is repeated again and again with a deaf ear turned to the response or clarification.

In his e-mail letter of 28^th July 2000, Witzel wrote:

“The Anukramani often does not know who was the author, most typical examples Ka/Prajapati or the hymn to Vaac composed by Vaac herself, etc. etc.”

This point is so obvious that no serious scholar would have raised it: obviously, in cases where the compiler of the Anukramanis does not know the name of the composer of the hymn, the deity of the hymn is itself named also as the composer. These cases, as I have already pointed out, occur only in the later Mandalas, mostly in Mandala 10, and in fact, this type of ascription constitutes one of the pieces of evidence showing that the Rishi ascriptions of the hymns of different Mandalas were compiled at different points of time (ie. the points of time at which the different Mandalas themselves were compiled or gathered together into a collection).

I already pointed out in my book:

“There are obviously corruptions in the Anukramanis in the form of ascriptions to fictitious composers. This is particularly the case in Mandala X, where a large number of hymns are ascribed to composers, whose names, or patronyms/ epithets, or both, are fictitious” (TALAGERI 2000:19).  Further, about Mandala 10: “The ascription of hymns in this Mandala is so chaotic that in most of the hymns, the names, or the patronymics/epithets, or both, of the composers are fictitious; to the extent that, in 44 hymns out of 191, and in parts of one more, the family identity of the composers is a total mystery” (TALAGERI 2000:49).

Vishal Agarwal, in a response to Witzel’s above e-mail letter, pointed out, in his e-mail letter of 29^th July 2000: 

“the examples pointed out by you are the exception rather than the rule (except in Mandala X where they are very common)”.

However, in his e-mail letter of 11^th August 2000 to me, Witzel repeated: “No author ‘Vaak’”, and added: “Often hymns of a whole book are attributed to one author when they clearly belong to the clan. You do not account for that fact, as far as I remember”!

To this, I replied in my e-mail letter of 18^th August 2000 by quoting from my book: 

“Read the following: ‘There are basically two systems of ascription of compositions of the hymns ... in the older system, the hymns composed by an eponymous Rsi, as well as those composed by his descendants, are ascribed solely to the eponymous Rsi himself. It is only when a particular descendant is important enough, or independent enough, that hymns composed by him (and consequently by his descendants) are ascribed to him. This system is followed in the first five Family Mandalas (VI, III, VII, IV, II) and also in Mandala I’ (TALAGERI 2000:52). Mandala I also because ‘it is, for the most part, older than Mandala V’ (p. 53)”!

My quote was in response to Witzel’s dig: “you do not account for that fact, as far as I remember”, but when I demonstrated that I had accounted for the fact, Witzel’s only response, in his e-mail letter of 19^th August 2000, was to snap back:

“ ... why do I have instantly to learn by heart, take notes, and quote back and forth his 500 pp., at the drop of a hat? No time for that fruitless pursuit now.”!

But, in his e-mail letter of 20^th August 2000, he was back to square one:

“In short, to ascribe many of the above hymns to the same time frame and the same author (Bharadvaaja) simply does not work, and consequently the Anukramani is not correct here ... Talageri in his 2000 book, has not investigated such problems. Ergo, it is unreliable”!

To this, I responded, in my e-mail letter of 26^th August 2000: 

“The rest of Witzel’s letter (I ignore minor jibes) is repetitive: inspite of my last letter, he STILL writes: ‘in short, to ascribe many of the above hymns to the same time frame and the same author (Bharadvaaja) simply does not work, and consequently the Anukramani is not correct here’! ... ”.

Totally undaunted, Witzel repeats these points yet again in his review article in 2001! Is it really surprising if “Occasionally ... T. lapses into ‘a bored yawn’ (p. 344)” (§9)?

 

V.5.b) In pursuance of the above point, Witzel writes:

“Despite his enthusiastic claims for the anukramaNIs, it should be noted that Talageri does not hesitate to change them when he is embarrassed by their contents (see pp. 19 ff). We hence find that his list of supposed RV authors (pp. 7-19) varies considerably from what is found in any anukramaNI. Talageri writes: ‘There are obviously corruptions in the Anukramanis in the form of ascriptions to fictitious composers ... We have replaced the fictitious names in the Anukramanis with the names of the actual composer ... The Rsi of the hymns or the Rsi of the Mandala’. Talageri’s free-form adjustments of such evidence, late as it may be, is still another distinctive mark of his book. The method by which he determines the ‘actual composers’ in such cases remains a mystery” (§2)

Witzel’s attempt to mislead his readers is pathetic. My list of composers (pp. 7-19) does not “vary considerably from what is found in any anukramaNI”: the only hymns in which I have affected what Witzel fatuously calls “free-form adjustments” is in the hymns which I have specifically listed on p. 20 of my book. And the method by which I “determine” the actual composers can be a “mystery” only to people like Witzel who either do not read, or who read and even quote (as he does in this case, above) without comprehending: he actually quotes my criterion, which is a single, rigid (rather than “free-form”) and objective one: the actual composer in each such case, as I have clearly stated, is “the Rsi of the hymn or the Rsi of the Mandala”.

As already quoted, I have pointed out that the Anukramanis contain “ascriptions to fictitious composers. This is particularly the case in Mandala X” (TALAGERI 2000:19). In respect of around 63 of the 191 hymns in this Mandala, I have analysed the names and identified the family affiliation of composers in cases where there is “general ambiguity in the ascriptions of the hymns to their composers” (TALAGERI 2000:25-32), and, inspite of that: “In respect of 44 hymns, and 2 other verses, it is virtually impossible even to identify the family of the composer” (TALAGERI 2000:26). All this is in respect of Mandala 10, which plays no direct role in my chronological and geographical analysis of the RV.

There are only 22 hymns in the first eight Mandalas of the RV where there is even the slightest ambiguity about the names, and about these I write:

“However, in the first eight Mandalas, except in the case of one single hymn (VIII. 47), it is very easy to identify the actual composer (by which we mean the Rsi who actually composed the hymn, or his eponymous ancestor to whose name the hymn is to be credited as per the system followed in the particular Mandala) of a hymn ascribed to a fictitious composer” (TALAGERI 2000:19)

Then I proceed to replace “the fictitious names in the Anukramanis with the names of the actual composers, whose identity is clear from those same Anukramanis” in respect of those 21 hymns (TALAGERI 2000:19-20) (Witzel quotes the first part of this sentence, and cleverly omits the second part of it!).

The reader can examine pp. 19-20 of my book to see how, in respect of each of the 21 hymns, I have used the same criterion and logically ascribed the hymn to the actual composer, who is either the Rishi named in the Anukramani of that hymn as an alternative composer (or as a composer of the other verses not ascribed to the fictitious entities, the Gods or rivers) or the Rishi of the Mandala or upamandala.

[Incidentally, Witzel finds that I am “embarrassed” by the contents of the Anukramanis! Witzel clearly has very funny ideas about the meaning of the word “embarrassment”: at another place, he refers to “Talageri’s embarrassing lack of scholarly linguistic and philological skills” (Summary). Apparently, there, it is Witzel who is “embarrassed” by my alleged lack of skills!]

 

V.5.c) Witzel also objects to my division of the Rishis into ten families on the basis of the ten Apri-suktas:

“Again, for unclear reasons he also wants to limit the clans involved in the composition of the Rgvedic hymns to ten families ... T.’s statements are inconsistent and are a clear indication of how cavalierly he establishes his divisions of the RV.”  [And then he proceeds to reel out some more names of books and authors which (without explaining why) he insists I should have read or quoted: “Incidentally, no study of the Apris is mentioned, neither that by K.R. Potdar (1945) nor the last one by van den Bosch (1985)” (§2)].

If the fact that there are only ten apri-suktas in the RV, that each apri-sukta is clearly composed by a Rishi belonging to a distinctly different family, and that the families distinguishable in the RV are precisely those very ten families — apart from the fact that “during the performance of any sacrifice, at a point where an apri-sukta was to be recited, the conducting Rsi was required to recite the apri-sukta of his own family” (TALAGERI 2000:6) — are “unclear reasons” to Witzel’s powers of comprehension, one can only pity him.

To see some really “inconsistent statements” and “cavalier” establishment of “divisions” of the composer families of the RV, the reader should read Witzel’s 1995 papers, where Witzel shows himself to be completely and (as his present statements show) irretrievably lost at sea (see TALAGERI 2000:446-449): there, at one point, he “wants to limit the clans involved in the composition of the Rgvedic hymns” to only three families, the Vishvamitras, the Atris and the Angirases (in the third of which, he includes all the other Rishis); and, at another point, his broom sweeps all the Rishis in Mandala 8 into two “divisions”, the Kanva and the Angiras. At another, he counts the Vishvamitras in the Bhrgu family, and then goes on (in the absence of even the faintest hint to this effect anywhere in the RV, or even in any subsequent text) to place Vishvamitra at the head of the coalition against Sudas in the Dasharajna battle. This is apart from basic slip-ups like treating the Shaunakas as non-Bhargavas, and Ghora as a son or descendant of Kanva!

 

V.5.d) Witzel makes many more remarks which can only be described as naïve and inane. The two following examples will illustrate this:

i) About hymn 6.75, Witzel comments -

“the version of the anukramaNIs used by Talageri identifies the hymn’s deities as ‘Bows, Arrows’, etc!”(§2).

Witzel appears to be the only person in the whole world who uses a “version of the anukramaNIs” which does not “identify the hymn’s deities as ‘Bows, Arrows’, etc”!  Apart from that, Witzel appears to be a naïve Westerner who does not know: One, that “devata” in the case of Rigvedic hymns refers to the person, God, or thing to whom or to which a verse is dedicated (or addressed), and, Two, that “Bows, Arrows”, and other weapons and tools are indeed worshipped by Hindus even today on special occasions like Vijayadashami, or even on a daily basis before starting the day’s work!

 i) Witzel comments that if “T.” had studied the original Old Vedic text and

 “not Griffith’s badly outdated Victorian translation ... he would not only find references to authors who do not appear in the Late Vedic list but would also discover apparent poet or clan names hidden away in Sanskrit anagrams (see eg. RV 10. 24.2, where we find vi ... made for ‘vimada’)” (§2).

If Witzel had studied p. 15 of my book, he would have “discovered” that the “Late Vedic list” (his term for the Anukramani ascriptions) does take note of at least the particular “poet or clan name” he gives as an example. I also point out a similar, and obvious, “hidden name” in the case of RV 10.95 (see TALAGERI 2000:30).

In any case, a study of the text, to discover “poet or clan names hidden away” in the verses, can only be a purely subjective affair. Scholars like Witzel and his friend Farmer, as both of them demonstrated during our e-mail debate, feel as free to “discover” such hidden names in words occurring in the text, as to reject names given in the Rishi ascriptions as being the results of similar, but wrong, “discoveries” by the “late” compilers of the Anukramanis:

Farmer, in his e-mail letter of 25^th July 2000, quoted Gonda to show that “many of the names that show up in these Indices are obviously fictive, arising from Nirukta-like word confusions”: “ ... the word nema (‘one, several’) in 8.100.3 followed by ‘(he) says’ has occasioned the author’s name ‘Nema’; ‘Dharuna’, the reputed author of 5.15 owes his name (and existence!) to the homonymous word for ‘bearing, bearer’ which occurs four times in this short text ... ”.

How Witzel, or anyone else, can decide with certainty that a word occurring in a hymn is actually the name of the Rishi (although not taken as such in the Anukramani), or that the name of a Rishi (according to the Anukramani) is actually not a name but only an innocuous word occurring in the hymn mistaken by the compilers of the Anukramani to be the name of the Rishi, is not known. In Witzel’s own words: “The method by which he determines the ‘actual composers’ in such cases remains a mystery” (§2)!

 

V.6.) Kashi

 Naturally, Witzel cannot “let ... slide by” (§10) my only use of the Anukramani data in a geographical context (the reference to Kashi in the Rishi ascription of 10.179.2):

“Since the anukramaNI used in Talageri’s book knows of a king of kAzI, Talageri — who does not mention the country of aGga — provides us with a curious analysis (p. 118)” (§2).

(Witzel points out earlier that Anga is also mentioned in the Anukramanis, in respect of 1.116., and Anga Aurava as the poet of 10.138).

After quoting from p. 118 of my book, above, Witzel comments:

“Here we have T,’s historical logic in full bloom. Unfortunately for his views, kAzI and other Gangetic lands mentioned here do not show up in the RV at all. When the term kAzI first occurs, in AV 5.22 (Witzel 1980, 1987, 1995, 1997, n.259), the kAzI tribals were still regarded as despised outsiders to whom one sends illnesses. Even in the late Vedic ZB 13.5.4.19, they still are not regarded highly. The rise of kAzI comes only in much later periods. In Vedic times, they remained a small tribal area ... Predictably, T. makes much use of this late reference to the kAzI in the anukramaNI to argue that the oldest parts of the RV are eastern in origin” (§2).

Typical Witzel techniques:

V.6.a) It is not only the “anukramaNI used in Talageri’s book” which “knows of a king of kAzI”, as dishonest Witzel misleadingly tells his readers: everyone (everyone, it appears, except Witzel!) uses an Anukramani which “knows of a king of kAzI”: every scholarly western (let alone Indian) translator of the RV from Max Muller, through Wilson and Griffith, down to Geldner (Pratardana, konig von Kasi – “konig”=king: even Geldner, like “T”, apparently had a puranic mindset!) every single western and Indian scholar writing on the Anukramanis, from Macdonell and Scheftelowitz down to Kunhan Raja, Rahurkar and Vishva Bandhu (see his volume on Indices of the RV); and every single printer and publisher of the text of the RV: the reader can pick up his nearest available copy of the RV and see for himself!

V.6.b) Again, it is not only “Talageri” who “does not mention the country of aGga”: no scholar who deals with the Anukramani ascriptions will “mention the country of aGga”. For a quick look, the reader can again examine his nearest available copy of the RV: there is a world of difference between the Kashi mentioned in a Rishi’s name ascription and the Anga mentioned in the late descriptive text of an Anukramani, as Witzel knows very well – but innuendo is the weapon of the dishonest!

Witzel’s suggestion that the word Anga, wherever it occurs, as for example in the name of the poet of 10.138 (Anga Aurava), refers to the “country of aGga” is ludicrous: if so, then the “country of aGga”, as per Witzel’s definition, is mentioned dozens of times within the text of the RV, including within some of Witzel’s “original” hymns!

V.6.c) Witzel’s claim that “kAzI and other Gangetic lands mentioned here do not show up in the RV at all” is rather strange: Mandala 6 – Pratardana’s Mandala – refers to the Ganga (besides referring only to other eastern rivers like the Sarasvati and the Hariyupiya-Yavyavati), and Divodasa (Pratardana’s ancestor) and his priest Bharadvaja are referred to along with the Gangetic dolphin in 1.116.18, with the Jahnavi (Ganga) mentioned in an “adjacent (!)” verse. So mentions do “show up” in the RV – that Witzel does not accept them as evidence is a different story.

On the other hand, Central Asia, and other lands beyond, certainly do not “show up” in the RV. But (as per a one-way invasionist logic described by me in TALAGERI 2000:95) this apparently does not suffice as evidence that the Vedic Aryans did not come from the West through these lands!

V.6.d) That Kashi occurs in the AV (5.22) as a land to whose people one sends illnesses, is claimed as conclusive evidence by Witzel that Kashi is a land of “despised outsiders” which could not have been an ancestral land of the RV Aryans! The Purus are referred to in the RV itself (7.8.4; 18.3) as people to be conquered in battle, and there are verses in the RV (by Vasishthas) cursing Vishvamitra and (by Vishvamitras) cursing Vasistha: does Witzel conclude that the Purus, Vasistha and Vishvamitra were “despised outsiders”?

Witzel, moreover, “does not tell us” (to use his own favourite phrase) at this point that the “despised outsiders” referred to in this AV verse include, besides the people of Kashi, the people of Magadha, Gandhari and Mujavat: if the reference to the eastern peoples as “despised outsiders” is evidence that the earlier habitat of the RV Aryans could not have been to the east, isn’t the identical reference, in the same verse, to the western peoples as “despised outsiders”, evidence that the earlier habitat of the RV Aryans could not have been to the west? [Later on, Witzel refers to this verse again, in a different context, to tell us that these various people “are mentioned in parallel fashion as distant tribes, seen from the point of view of the central land of the Kuru (Witzel 1980)” (§7) but the “casual reader” will naturally not connect that up with the totally different interpretation that Witzel places on the verse here].

In fact, Witzel goes even further in his conspiracy of silence: he “does not tell us” that this verse is actually found in two versions in the two recensions of the Atharvaveda. The version which refers to (the people of) Kashi is the version found in the Paippalada recension – in the Shaunaka version, Anga (much further east) is mentioned instead of Kashi, but the other names remain the same: i.e., in both the versions, the people of Gandhari and Mujavat in the west are the “despised outsiders”, while the people of Kashi are “despised outsiders” only in one version. In the other, Kashi is clearly part of the “central land”: the “despised outsiders” to whom illnesses are sent are the people of Magadha and Anga further east.

But, while Witzel takes criticism of eastern places like Kashi in the post-RV texts as evidence that the pre-RV habitat of the RV Aryans could not have been in and around Kashi, he not only does not apply the same rule to western places, but, even as he is silent on identical criticism of those western places, he puts forward a blanket excuse to pre-empt any moves to draw attention to such criticism:

“..criticism of the Northwest, especially the Panjab, is made from the point of view of the post-Rgvedic orthoprax kuru-paJcAla centre” (§9)!

 V.6.e) Witzel writes - 

“The rise of kAzI comes only in much later periods. In Vedic times, they remained a small tribal area”.

Here, he is perfectly right if he means that the rise of Kashi as an Amar Chitra Katha type kingdom took place in later times, but, that, in the Vedic period, it was inhabited by other IE-language speaking “tribals” (in the sense that the Purus etc. are also referred to as “tribes”).

If, however, he means that Kashi itself, by that name, did not exist in the RV period, and that, in that period, it was an alien area inhabited by non-IE “despised outsiders” who were “Aryanised” much later, then he is presuming a great deal from the reference described above. The same logic, if applied to the northwestern places, would not be acceptable to him.

Ironically, this view is contested by none other than Oldenberg in a book written after his Prolegomena: Deshpande refers to the theory of two waves of Aryan invaders (dealt with in TALAGERI 1993: 191-195), and writes:

“Oldenberg also supported and elaborated this idea and pointed out that ‘probably the first immigrants, and therefore, the farthest forward to the east ... are those tribes ... the Anga and the Magadha, the Videha, the Kosala, the Kasi’. He (1890:9) also claims that it was the second wave that produced the Vedas” (DESHPANDE 1995:70)!!

[Incidentally, the reference to Anga and Magadha to the east, and Gandhari and Mujavat to the west, as the lands of “outsiders”, fits in with the situation even at the time of Sudas, whose battles were with the people of Kikata (Magadha) on the eastern front and the people of the Punjab and beyond on the western front].

To sum up: except for violent rhetoric, heavy (and misplaced) sarcasm, and deliberately false or  misleading statements, Witzel can produce no evidence, or even logical arguments, to question the validity of the Anukramani ascriptions so far as it affects my analysis.

Therefore, until Witzel can produce a new set of Anukramanis, which can be proved to be older than the existing Anukramanis, and which contains distinctly different data (different from the data common to all the existing Anukramanis) which produces a completely different chronological and geographical picture to the one produced by me in my book – but one at least as coherent, complete and integrated as mine – my analysis stands unchallenged and (as Witzel is so fond of repeating) “invincible”.

It is clear, from his complete dependence on abuse, innuendo, misleading statements and lies in his “review article”, that Witzel has no logical argument to offer against my theory, analysis and conclusions. In fact, it is clear that he has not even bothered to go through my book with even the minimum circumspection necessary for writing a review – apparently he had better things to do in his “recent month-long stay at the centuries-old College de France, in the thought-inspiring city of Paris” than “wade through Talageri’s 544-page book” (Edit).

 

VI. INANE ACCUSATIONS AND OUTRIGHT SLANDER

We have examined the chaff as well as the supposed grain in Witzel’s “review article” so far as it concerned my thesis, now we will examine the more personalised chaff: the bullets and missiles of the “cultural war ... in full swing” (§9).

Witzel accuses Indian superpatriots of filling the internet with “inane accusations and outright slander” (§9).

But these are the typical features of Witzel’s own writings, exemplified in this very “review article”:

VI.1) Germocentric Racist

Witzel writes:

“S. Talageri, during Rajaram’s recent ‘Naimisha Vedic Workshop’ held in March 2001 at the Mythic Society, Bangalore, is reported to have angrily denounced me as a ‘Germo-centric Racist’ (O grammatica, o mores!)”. (Edit).

In a subsequent e-mail letter, Witzel clarifies that this was “reported” to him by a person on whose integrity he could “take oath”.

Here we have an incredible case of totally reckless slander: Witzel does not claim I abused him in a private conversation, which would have been impossible to prove or disprove, but that I abused him in an open conference in a public hall which was free for anyone to attend and even to taperecord the proceedings if they wanted. In fact, someone must have recorded the proceedings, and I have no doubt that Witzel’s reporter (if there was one) must also have done so.

I did refer to Witzel in the Bangalore conference, but only to approvingly quote his “Rigveda-is-a-tape-recording” statement (WITZEL 1995a: 91). And, just in case his name was unfamiliar to the audience, I reminded them that this was the same Harvard Professor who had carried on an abusive media campaign against N. S. Rajaram (also from Bangalore, and the organizer of the conference). That was all!

And it is not just that I did not use such loaded epithets for Witzel in this conference: I have never used and would never use politically loaded adjectives (racist, fascist, Nazi, etc) — and definitely not in the course of academic debates or in the context of academic disputes — for any person who did not claim the epithet for himself. I talk about leftist or secularist scholars, in reference to scholars who would be the first to accept that they were leftist or secularist. If my presumption in any case would happen to be wrong, I would be open to correction. Obviously no-one would claim himself to be a “Germo-centric racist”!

In fact I generally refer to “academic scholars”, or even simply to “scholars” — a circumstance which Witzel finds so irritating that he comments: “T. usually refers derisively to ... ‘the scholars’ (implying that he is not one?!)” (§5)!

Even when referring to Rajesh Kochar (TALAGERI 2000:96), I only called him a “political scholar”. I did place him in “an extreme lunatic fringe”, but with good reason; and this is not a political epithet. Witzel quotes this phrase (§9), and cleverly avoids the rest of the sentence: “There is even an extreme lunatic fringe which would like to suggest that the Ganga and Yamuna of the Rigveda are rivers in Afghanistan” (TALAGERI 2000:96)

Even when discussing Victor H. Mair (TALAGERI 2000:232-235), who equates “persons  ... who locate the Indo-European homeland in ... The Indus Valley” with “kooks and crazies who attribute the rise of Indo-Europeans to extraterritorial visitations”, and “nationalists” with “racists of various stripes”, I avoided retaliating in kind (his epithets, in any case, were general, and not directed at any specific persons named by him) and only went so far as to comment that the homeland Mair admitted to prefering was “in Hitler’s homegrounds” (p.235).

Whether Witzel’s blatantly false accusation, and that ridiculous phrase (which, subsequently, in an e-mail discussion, in a letter with a copy to me, he actually analyses from the point of view of grammar in order to show my lack of grammatical knowledge!), are concocted by himself or by his mysterious reporter (if this reporter is not himself a concoction) — in either case, it represents a case of double slander: a slanderous statement by Witzel falsely accusing me of making a slanderous statement against him!

 I am told that in private e-mails and on public discussion forums, at least 3 other speakers (Michel Danino, David Frawley and Navaratna Rajaram) at that conference have clearly denied that such a phrase was ever used at the conference for Witzel or anyone else. This makes it the testimony of four against one (assuming of course that Witzel is not lying about his reporter being present there!).

 

VI.2) “Fascist” Savarkar and HINDUTVA

At the same time, in referring to my “silly but infuriating use of irregular abbreviations of book titles” (see section III.11.c of this article), Witzel writes:

“Amusingly, HINDUTVA (given just like this – all in caps!), a book by the nationalist politician V. D. Sarvarkar, who closely worked with Italian and German fascists, is not further abbreviated in T.’s bibliography – indicating, in an almost Freudian way, the bent of mind of the author under discussion here. Nomen plenum est omen.” (§5).

An unbelievable chain of free association and wholesale slander: Witzel starts out with the claim that Savarkar (spelt “Sarvarkar”) “closely worked with Italian and German fascists” – a statement so grotesquely and blatantly false that, if such a verifiably false statement had been made about any historical personality from Europe or the U.S.A., I doubt if Witzel could have got away without, at the very least, a convincingly worded public apology!

From this he concludes that Savarkar was a fascist. For a detailed discussion on the ugly misuse of terms like “fascist” in current political debate, Witzel should read Koenraad ELST’s recent book “The Saffron Swastika” (2001).

And then, he concludes, from my reference to Savarkar’s book “HINDUTVA (given just like this – all in caps!)”, that I have a fascist “bent of mind”!

Savarkar’s book is the only book in my entire bibliography which has a one-word title (two other books, The Mahabharata and The Yajurveda, are not the original texts, but translations of ancient texts by modern scholars). Since I have referred to the books (except the Mahabharata and the Yajurveda) by the initials in the titles — “Vedic Mythological Tracts” being VMT — Hindutva would have become simply H, which would certainly have been “silly”!  Freudian Psychology being one more of those countless subjects about which I know nothing, and Witzel knows everything, I was not aware that I was exposing all my darkest secrets by the simple slip of giving the name of a book “all in caps”!

“Amusingly”, my entire discussion about the parts of Savarkar’s book relevant to my subject (TALAGERI 2000:367-368) is a sharply critical one. And yet, Witzel discovers my fascist bent of mind from these references! The reference to Freud is very apt: Freud would have found Witzel an interesting specimen for a special study!

What if a similar chain of free association is applied to Witzel himself? 

1. Witzel is a speaker of German. So was Hitler!

2. Witzel’s most sacrosanct academic idols in RV studies are Germans: Oldenberg, Geldner, Mayrhofer, Rau, Kulke. At the same time, Witzel has a heady contempt for Indians and Indian scholarship in general. So did Hitler!

3. Witzel is so antipathetic to the idea of an Indian homeland that he has made it his life’s mission to counter the idea. Hitler would have been equally antipathetic!

4. Witzel seems to function within an Axis-centric circle: he is a German, his wife (I am told) is a Japanese. The Editorial Board of his EJVS consists of Germans, Japanese and Italians, with a sprinkling of a couple of others teaching in German universities, and two scholars (a Finn and an Indian Brahmin) having an ancestral association with the Swastika!

No – I am not proud of what I have just written: I am only holding up a mirror to Witzel (with due apologies to everyone else named in the process) to show him how cheap such slander mongering can sound!

 

VI.3) 19^TH century Colonialism.

Witzel claims my book: 

“is written throughout in a tone of ‘rightful outrage’ against 19^th century colonialism, as though that were still an active force today” (§9).

I challenge Witzel to list all the expressions — or even quote a single one — of ‘“rightful outrage’ against 19^th century colonialism” that he can cull from my book.

Any criticism in my book is against certain modern scholars and political writers (TALAGERI 2000:xix, 426, etc), and the criticism is relatively mild: I accept that invasionist scholars include “purely academic scholars” and “scholars who genuinely do believe that linguistics has ‘proved’” the AIT (TALAGERI 2000:338).

Far from launching a crusade against 19^th century colonialism (Witzel’s review article is a typical specimen of how a crusading article sounds), I in fact point out at some length why I cannot subscribe to any view which holds the 19^th century “colonial” scholars more than superficially guilty for the AIT or its present-day ramifications (TALAGERI 2000:403-404).

And anyone reading chapter 8 of my book (one of the two chapters containing my criticisms) will get the impression that it is Indian writers of all brands who are the targets of my “outrage”: I even point out why the Hindu Imperialist school of interpretation is generally worse than the normal invasionist school (TALAGERI 2000:365-366, 373)!

Witzel notes that I do not “spare” fellow Indian superpatriots, but he still writes:

“T.’s polemics against those who do not automatically treasure the ‘hoary’ tradition that he imagines for ancient India come in for special scorn” (§9).

Ironically, anyone who reads, for example, my criticism of the Hindu Imperialist school will conclude that it is I who “do not automatically treasure the ‘hoary’ traditions” that others imagine for ancient India! (Also, note the grammar in Witzel’s statement above. The main clause reads: “T.’s polemics  ... come in for special scorn”! — “O grammatica, o mores”?)

 

VI.4) Hindutva

All the above is not to deny that I am pro-Hindutva: I definitely am, and strongly and very openly so. But the kind of free association with which the likes of Witzel link Hindutva to any and every ideology they see fit is totally inexcusable.

Witzel and Farmer recently wrote for the “Frontline”, a Marxist biweekly published in India. I am told that Witzel’s friend and “cohort” (Edit.) Steve Farmer, is a staunch admirer of Karl Marx, and that he has admitted publicly to having a large portrait of Karl Marx on the wall of his bedroom. If this does not show his “bent of mind” (and, by association, that of Witzel himself) — as the kind of mind which supports the massacres of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, who were one and all fervent Marxists — I fail to see how even the most rabid Hindutva supporter can, by any stretch of terminology, imagination and free association, be linked to the totalitarian ideologies of early 20^th century Europe.

In this “review article”, Witzel is clearly out to prejudice his readers by painting Hindutva in general, and my book in particular, in all kinds of lurid colours:

VI.4.a)Mother of All Civilisations:

 Witzel writes:

“this book and its 1993 predecessor ... tried to teach us that ‘India was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages’ and the Mother of All Civilisations” (Edit).

A blatant falsehood typical of Witzel: in this very book, I have pointed out the basic difference between the two ideas that Witzel lumps together here (TALAGERI 2000:427-428) and even criticised scholars who, directly or indirectly, try to portray India as the Mother of All Civilisations (TALAGERI 2000:376-377). In fact, I repeatedly insist that “Rigvedic history ... is like the history of any ancient civilisation” (TALAGERI 2000:405).

VI.4.b) Hoary Bharat:

 My book, according to Witzel, is

“driven by the perceived need to prove the ‘hoariness’ of ancient Bharata, supposedly represented by unbroken traditions reaching back to pre-Harappan times – that is to 7^th millennium Baluchistan (!). This, of course, would make them the oldest traditions on the planet” (Summary).

Another blatant falsehood: again, in this very book, I reject attempts to take the RV back into extremely remote periods (TALAGERI 2000:363-364, 373-374); and, incidentally, nowhere do I mention the 7^th millennium BCE, let alone 7^th millennium Baluchistan, since I talk about movements from the east to the west in a very much post-7^th millennium BCE period, and reject, even from a Hindutva viewpoint, attempts to trace the beginnings of Indian traditions to the northwest (TALAGERI 2000:416-420).

VI.4.c) Non-Hindu Foreigners:

 “Underlying” my statement (in the preface of my book) that the RV is “the oldest and hoariest text of the oldest living religion in the world today: Hinduism”. (TALAGERI 2000:xix), Witzel finds “the familiar Hindutva agenda that suggests that all non-Hindus are ultimately ‘foreign’ peoples in India, and a blot on the body politic” (Edit. & §9).

Firstly, how is my statement wrong? Isn’t Hinduism a living religion? Isn’t the RV a Hindu religious text? Isn’t it the oldest Hindu religious text? Isn’t it older than the religious texts of other living religions today? Even if Witzel has arguments based on convoluted reasoning (“‘Hinduism’, pray tell, in 2600 BCE or even 1200 BCE?” he asks fatuously in his Editorial) to dispute any of the above, it is he who has to explain himself, and not I.

Further, what is so remarkable about my statement: do I suggest that the RV is a “divinely inspired” text, let alone the best, holiest or “only true” text? Do I use, in any context and any manner, words which would suggest that the RV is intrinsically superior to the texts of other religions? What would have been Witzel’s reaction if it had been I, and not Witzel himself, who wrote the following:

“Vedic transmission is thus superior to that of the Hebrew or Greek Bible, or the Greek, Latin and Chinese classics” (WITZEL 1995a: 91)?

And yet Witzel recklessly claims, from my above statement, by a chain of free association which is totally beyond me, that I am suggesting that “all non-Hindus are ultimately ‘foreign’ peoples in India”!! For this, Witzel should read what is probably my strongest Hindutva writing to date (chapters 1-3 in my 1993 book, Voice of India edition), where I clearly state: “Muslims and Christians are not foreigners in India ... they are all Indians, as much as the Hindus. At a certain point of time, their ancestors were the more helpless among the Hindus who were forcibly converted ... ” (TALAGERI 1993:46).

VI.4.d) Bharata Ueber Alles:

 Witzel claims that the motto of my book is: “One culture (Vedic), one language (Sanskrit), one people: Bharata ueber alles” (§9).

A greater travesty of what I have written in my book cannot be imagined: I have rejected the ancestral position of Sanskrit even for the so-called Indoaryan languages, and “reduced” (as S.D. Kulkarni put it in a private conversation) Vedic language and culture to the language and culture of one Indian tribe. This is a central theme in both my books. What is it, in Witzel, which makes him so persistent in trying to graft Nazi ideas onto Hindutva ideology?

Just for the records, let me quote myself from another book (“Time for Stock Taking – Whither Sangh Parivar?”, Voice of India, 1997, pp. 227-228):

“(Hindutva organisations) should spearhead the revival, rejuvenation and resurgence of Hinduism, which includes not only religious, spiritual and cultural practices springing from Vedic or Sanskritic sources, but from all other Indian sources independently of these: the practices of the Andaman islanders and the (pre-Christian) Nagas are as Hindu in the territorial sense, and Sanatana in the spiritual sense, as classical Sanskritic Hinduism. And this ideology should cover not only religious and spiritual practices and concepts, but every single aspect of India’s matchlessly priceless cultural heritage: climate and topography; flora and fauna; races and languages; music, dance and drama; arts and handicrafts; culinary arts; games and physical systems; architecture; costumes and apparels; literature and science ... A true Hindutvavadi should feel a pang of pain, and a desire to take positive action, not only when he hears that the percentage of Hindus in the Indian population is falling due to a coordination of various factors, or that Hindus are being discriminated against in almost every respect, but also when he hears that the Andamanese races and languages are becoming extinct; that vast tracts of forests, millions of years old, are being wiped out forever; that ancient and mediaeval Hindu architectural monuments are being vandalised, looted or fatally neglected; that priceless ancient documents are being destroyed or left to rot and decay; that innumerable forms of arts and handicrafts, architectural styles, plant and animal species, musical forms and musical instruments, etc. are becoming extinct; that our sacred rivers and environment are being irreversibly polluted and destroyed ... ”

and all this is not meant only for India:

“Hinduism is the name for the Indian territorial form of worldwide Sanatanism (call it Paganism in English). The ideology of Hindutva should therefore be a Universal ideology: On the international level, the Sangh, as the apex organisational body of Hindutva ideology, should spearhead a worldwide revival, rejuvenation and resurgence of spiritualism, and of all the religions and cultures which existed all over the world before the advent of imperialist ideologies like Christianity, Islam, Fascism, Marxism, etc.”

And so on: ie. A true Hindutvavadi should be equally concerned about the preservation of every aspect of world heritatge!

All this may sound Utopian, or regressive, or even simply plain nonsense to different people, depending on their views. But it is certainly not what Witzel encapsulates in his Nazi motto.

VI.4.e) Purely Indigenous Development:

 Witzel treats my book as a manifestation of the dictum:

“no cultural innovation and certainly no trickling in, immigration or invasion from the outside is allowed. Everything created by ‘Indian’ civilisation for the past 9000 years or so, beginning with the early agriculturists of Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (!) has been local and no (major) influence from the outside can be tolerated” (§9).

For the umpteenth time: my book is about the IE family of languages. Far from suggesting that there was “no cultural innovation from the outside” and “no (major) influences from the outside”, my book actually insists that the central aspects of the Vedic religion and ritual, Soma and fire-worship, were introduced from outside by the Anus or their priests the Bhrgus, who were geographically located between the Purus (the Vedic Aryans) and the outside world, and who, therefore, became the conduit for “cultural innovations” and “(major) influences” from outside! Besides, there were probably many other innovations and influences, the listing of which was not the purpose of my book, which came in from outside: the Central Asian camel for instance (TALAGERI 2000:122-123, 206,207, etc.), just as there were so many others which went out from India.

And again, where do “the past 9000 years or so” or “Mehrgarh in Baluchistan (!)” ever enter into my analysis, theory or book?

As we can see, Witzel is not writing a review article of my book: he is writing a “review article” of an imaginary book — a book he imagines would be written by an OIT proponent on the basis of principles which Witzel imagines Hindutva represents — and “exposing” the “underlying political agenda” behind this book by letting the imaginary ‘“facts speak for themselves”!

It is clear that Witzel himself has a political agenda: note his resentment of the “present Indian (right wing) denouncement of the ‘eminent historians’ of Delhi” (§9) — some of these “eminent historians” actively collaborated with Witzel and Farmer in their recent media-blitz in the Indian press. The reader is invited to go carefully through Arun SHOURIE’s book “Eminent Historians” (1998), which is being referred to here, and see the kind of political scholarship to whose defence Witzel has no compunctions in rushing!

What stands exposed, by Witzel’s slanderous statements about the political agenda “underlying” my book, is Witzel’s own political agenda and the blatantly dishonest nature of his “review article”.

 

VI.5) Allegation of Plagiarism

Finally, desperate Witzel unleashes the brahmastra in his slander-campaign: he declares that I am guilty of plagiarism in stealing the basic criteria for my analysis from his 1995 papers!

He writes:

“A careful comparison of T.’s parameters will show that he surreptitiously took many cues from my 1995 paper and adopted something crudely approximating the methods suggested than. But  ... he never clearly says so in the first part of his new book. On the contrary, in the very first sentence of his book he claims: ‘I have little to acknowledge to anyone ... since this section is almost entirely a product of my study’. ... How does the saying have it? ‘plagiarism is the best form of flattery’?” (§10).

Witzel lists the parameters given by him in his 1995 papers (also quoted by me in TALAGERI 2000:437), “many if not all of which are ‘echoed’ (if only in a distorted way) in T.’s initial chapters some five years later!” (§10):

“A) The Structure of the RV itself, with its relative order of hymns ...

B) The relationship of the various tribes and clans to the books of the RV ...

C) The authors of the hymns: deduced from occasional identification of themselves, from the patterns of refrains which act as ‘family seals’, and from the traditional attribution of hymns to certain authors in the Anukramani.

D) Geographical features, especially rivers and mountains.

E) This information can then be combined in a grid of places, poets and tribes.

F) Finally, this grid can be combined with a chronological grid established on the strength of a few pedigrees of chiefs and poets available from the hymns” (§10).

My book has, according to Witzel, “echoed” these parameters “in a distorted way” because :

A) I arranged the books of the RV in a certain chronological order on the basis of five criteria including that of relationships between the Rishis and the kings in the RV.

B) Then I examined the geographical data in the RV in the light of the above arrangement, and derived a geographical picture of a movement from east to west.

To begin with, the reader should read Witzel’s 1995 papers, as well as my book, in detail, and see the sharp differences in the criteria and data used, the methods employed, and the conclusions reached, as well as the general sloppiness of Witzel’s analysis and the almost clockwork precision of mine.

Next, the reader should examine my 1993 book. My present book is clearly a logical development from my 1993 book, which contains all the seeds of this present analysis:

VI.5.a) In that first book, I distinguished sharply between the mythological data in the RV (gods, demons, nature-myths) and the historical data in the RV (kings, rishis) in my chapter on “Non-Evidence in the Rigveda”; and then proceeded to analyse them separately: the mythological data in my chapter on “Positive Evidence in the Rigveda”, and the historical data in my two chapters on the Puranas – obviously, the next logical step was to move out of the Puranic ambit and analyse the historical data in the RV on its own.

VI.5.b) Further, I analysed the different “tribes and clans”, and already identified the Purus and Bharatas as the Vedic Aryans [is this identification in my book published in 1993 “echoed ... in a distorted way” in Witzel’s papers published in 1995?], and the Anus and Druhyus as the ancestors of the other IEs.

VI.5.c) I already analysed in detail the chronology and geography of Vedic history – in my chapter “Non-Evidence in the Puranas”! Again, it is clearly a logical step from analysing Vedic geography, in its chronological sequence, through the Puranas, to analysing it on its own.

VI.5.d) The “pedigrees of chiefs” (or kings) was already the predominant basis of my analysis (chapter “Non-Evidence in the Puranas”). Vedic Rishis were already mentioned in the process. The “pedigrees of poets” (ie. Rishis) would obviously be the next logical step inherent in a shift from the Puranas to the RV — particularly since “pedigrees” of both kings and Rishis was the major subject of Bhargava’s book which was the basis for my 1993 analysis. [See also Rahurkar’s book, “Seers of the Rigveda,” quoted in my book, which attempts a detailed study of the “pedigrees of poets”. Did Witzel plagiarise his 1995 parameters from Bhargava, 1956, or Rahurkar, 1964? But Witzel is totally at sea in his analysis of the Rishis: see TALAGERI 2000:446-449].

My book on the Rigveda was commenced soon after my 1993 book, as an answer to friendly criticism from various people, particularly S. D. Kulkarni, who attempted a historical analysis of the RV in his book “Beginnings of Life, Culture and History” (quoted and criticised by me in my present book) published in 1988: incidentally, Kulkarni’s story of the exodus of the Bharatas, led by Vasishtha, from Iran to India across the Indus (see TALAGERI 2000:369-370) is definitely “echoed” seven years later in Witzel’s papers published in 1995 (see TALAGERI 2000:458-459)!

The major portions of the first section involving my analysis of the chronology and geography of the Rigveda were already well in place by the time I sent a paper (in early 1996) to the WAVES Conference in Atlanta, October 1996, later published in the volume containing the proceedings of the conference, which contains a very explicit summary of my findings (SHARMA & GHOSE 1998: 103-108). For a person supposed to be totally ignorant in every academic field relevant to the subject, and totally ignorant of all significant literature on every possible aspect of the subject, as per Witzel, this was indeed — if my work was based on Witzel’s 1995 papers — miraculously quick work on my part.

My book was practically completed in 1997, and I had even written an article on the subject, which was published later in the February 1998 issue of “the Astrological Magazine”, where I stated:

“I have undertaken a thorough geographical and historical analysis of the material in the Rigveda in my book The Rigveda A Historical Analysis to be published by Voice of India, New Delhi, in 1998 ... The Rigveda consists of ten books, known as Mandalas, consisting of 1028 hymns, knows as Suktas. These Mandalas were composed at different points of time. When the Mandalas are arranged in chronological order, and when the geographical and historical material in the hymns is analysed from that point of view, we get a clear picture of the origin and movements of the Vedic Aryans. The earliest Mandalas of the Rigveda, in chronological order, are Mandalas Six, Three & Seven ... ” (Astrological Magazine, February 1998, p. 235).

Just then, various people (named in the Acknowledgements in my book), aware of the subject of my (then) forthcoming book, sent various books and papers to me which required major additions in chapters 6 and 8 of my book, and which led to the necessity for writing chapter 7 and chapter 9, and a few additions in some other chapters. Koenraad Elst, who had read the drafts of my book, sent me a copy of Witzel’s 1995 papers with the message that this was an American professor with a similar approach (to mine) to the analysis of the RV, who, however, claimed to derive evidence of a west to east movement from the data!

This new material, combined with a persistent spate of problems at home and at work, led to a further delay of 2 years in the completion and publication of my book.

Now, Witzel accuses me (clearly as an afterthought — since it did not occur to him throughout the course of our e-mail debate) of “plagiarising” his 1995 papers, and tries to grab every opportunity to stress this claim:

At one place, he writes: “Tacitly following my 1995 historical paper, the close connection of Sudas with books 3 and 7 is accepted, as well as the tenor of book 6 where the prominence of Sudas’ father Divodasa points to a slightly earlier time-frame” (§6). Does anyone require to “plagiarise” or “follow” Witzel in order to note the connection between Sudas and books 3 and 7, or Divodasa and book 6, or Divodasa’s precedence over Sudas??

At another, he quotes a line from my book, and adds a comment: ‘“It is clear that the Rigveda was not composed in one sitting, or in a series of sittings by a conference of Rishis’ [echoes of my 1997 paper – MW] ... ” (§6). Apparently Witzel finds the idea, that the Rigveda was composed over a long period of time, so brilliantly original that he cannot imagine anyone could have thought of it unless they had read, and stolen the idea from, his 1997 paper — a paper that was, incidentally, totally unknown to me at the time!

So far as Witzel’s claim is concerned, the reader can read my book, as well as Witzel’s 1995 papers, and draw his own conclusions. But one thing is clear: for all his vicious and violent rhetoric against my book, Witzel is no fool.

After chapter 9 (etc) of my book, his unscrupulous and unfruitful “offer” of a “fully-paid scholarship” under him, and our rather acrimonious e-mail debate, and now this “review article” that he was compelled to write as a natural sequel to all this, Witzel cannot easily admit that he finds anything in my analysis and conclusions acceptable.

But, at the same time, with one eye on the future, he makes a determined bid to try to take at least indirect credit for my analysis by staking a claim to be the unacknowledged inspiration behind my book!

To sum up: when it comes to indulging in “inane accusations and outright slander”, even under cover of writing a “review article” of a book, Witzel is second to none!

Throughout the whole debate, Witzel epitomises the kind of scholar described by Max Muller (in his book “India – what it can teach us”) as being very rare in India, but not so rare in the west (a generalisation which need not be true in general, but is definitely true in this case): the scholar who indulges in “rudeness of speech  ... quibbling ... special pleading ... (and) untruthfulness” and who “writes down what he knows perfectly well to be false, and snaps his fingers at those who still value truth ... ”

Witzel is apparently secure in his knowledge that (as he put it in his e-mail letter of 3 August 2000): 

“Nothing of all this is of any importance to our daily life. Nobody cares, neither in the University, nor outside, what we write on such matters.”

This leaves him free to indulge himself to the utmost without bothering about his academic reputation.

But it cannot be that “nobody cares” – or else, so many people would not have so much time and energy to spend in acrimonious debates on “such matters”. Presumably, many among those who “care” to study and discuss “such matters” will also “care” for THE TRUTH.

And hopefully, as the well-known Sanskrit proverb proclaims: THE TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AGARWAL, Vishal. 2001a. The Aryan Migration Theory – Fabricating Literary Evidence. Available at  http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/AMT.html

________. 2001b. What is the Aryan Migration Theory. Available on the Internet at http://www.voi.org/vishal_agarwal/What_is_AMT.html

ARNOLD E.V. 1897. Historical Vedic Grammer. The  American Oriental Society, New Haven, Connecticut.

BEEKES, R. S. P. 1999. Review of ‘Hoffmann, Karl, und Bernhard Forrssman: Avestische Lautund Flexionslehre. Innsbruck, Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft der Universtat Innsbruck, 1996’. In Kratylos 44: 62-

DESHPANDE, Madhav. 1995. Vedic Aryans, non-Vedic Aryans, and non-Aryans: Judging the Linguistic Evidence of the   Veda.; pp. 67-84 in George Erdosy (ed.), ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’. Walter de Gryuter. Berlin

ELST, Koenraad. 2001. The Saffron Swastika. Voice of India. Delhi

ERDOSY, George. 1989. Ethnicity in the Rigveda and its Bearing on the Question of Indo-European Origins. pp. 35-47 in ‘South Asian Studies’ vol. 5. London

GELDNER, Karl Freidrich. 1951. Der Rig-Veda, vol. I. Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 33. Harvard University Press. Cambridge (Masschusetts)

GOPAL, Ram. 1983. The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation. Concept. New Delhi

GRIFFITH, Ralph T. H.; 1889. The Hymns of the Rig-Veda. Benares

HAUG, Martin, 1863. The Aitareya Brahmana of the Rigveda. Trubner and Co., London.

HOPKINS, E. W.; 1896. Pragathikani. pp. 23-92 in the ‘Journal of the American Oriental Society’, Vol. 17

_______.1898. The Punjab and the Rig-Veda. pp. 19-28 in the ‘Journal of the American Oriental Society’, Vol. 19, July 1898

KAZANAS, Nicholas. 1999. The Rgveda and Indo-Europeans.; pp. 15-42 in ‘Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research   Institute’, vol. LXXX. Poona

KEITH, A.B., 1920. Rigveda Brahmanas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 

MACDONELL, A. A.; 1886. Katyayana’s Sarvanukramani of the Rigveda, with extracts from Shadgurushishya’s commentary entitled Vedarthadipika. Clarendon Press. Oxford

MALLORY, J. P. and D. Q. Adams. 1997. Encycopedia of Indo-European Culture. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers. London and Chicago

MEADOW, Richard et al. 1994. Agricultural and herding in the early oasis settlements of the Oxus Civilization. pp. 418-27, in ‘Antiquity’, vol. 68

MEADOW, Richard H, and PATEL, Ajita. 1997. A Comment on “Horse Remains from Surkotada” by Sandor Bokonyi.; pp. 298-315, South Asian Studies, vol. XIII. Toronto

RAHURKAR, V.G. 1964. The Seers of the Rgveda. University of Poona. Poona

RAU, Wilhelm. 1976. The Meaning of Pur in Vedic Literature. Abhandlungen der Marburger Gelehrten Gesellschaft.   Munich (Germany)

RAULWING, Peter. 2000. Horses, Chariots and Indo-Europeans. Archaeolingua Foundation. Budapest (Hungary)

SCHEFTELOWITZ, Isidor. 1922. Die Kasmirische Rezension von Katyayanas Sarvanukramani.; pp. 89-133 in ‘Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistik’, vol. I

SHARMA, Bhu Dev, & GHOSE Nabarun. 1998. Revisiting Indus-Sarasvati Age and Ancient India. World Association for Vedic Studies, Atlanta.

SHOURIE, Arun. 1998. Eminent Historians – Their Technology, their Life, their Fraud. ASA. Delhi

TALAGERI, Shrikant. 1993. Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism. Voice of India. Delhi

_______. 2000. The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan. Delhi

UPADHYAYA, Baladeva. 1968. Sanskrit Sahitya ka Itihasa (3^rd ed.). Varanasi

VISHVA BANDHU. 1935 – 1965. A Vedic Word Concordance (16 volumes). Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute. Lahore/Hoshiarpur

WITZEL, Michael.

______. 1986. Tracing the Vedic Dialects in Dialectes dans les Litteratures Indo-Aryennes, Paris (Fondation Hugot), 16-18 Septembre, 1986.

______. 1987. On the Localization of Vedic Texts and Schools in ‘India and the Ancient World –History Trade and Culture Before AD 650’ ed. by Gilbert sPollet, Orientalia  Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 25, Departement Orientalistiek, Leuven.

______. 1991. Notes on Vedic Dialects in ZINBUN, Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 67(1991).  

______. 1995a. Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters; pp. in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin

______. 1995b. Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics. in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin

______. 1997a. Sarama and the Panis – Origins of Prosimetric Exchange in Archaic India.; pp. 397-409 in Joseph Harris and Karl Reichl (eds.), Prosimetrum: Crosscultural perspectives in Narrative Prose and Verse. D. S. Brewer. Cambridge

______. 1997b. The Development of the Vedic Canon and Its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu in Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts, ed.by M.Witzel, Cambridge 1997 (being the proceedings of the International Vedic Workshop, Harvard univ., June 1989).

______. 2000a. The Languages of Harappa. Feb. 17, 2000.

______. 2000b. The Home of the Aryans. in Anusantyai, Fest schrift fur Johanna Norten zum 70, Geburtstag. Ed. Almut Hintze, Eva Tichy, JH Roll.

______. 2001. Autochthonous Aryans: The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. (EJVS)7-3(2001)

______. 2002. Early Loan Words in Western Central Asia: Substrates, Migrations and Trade. Jan 19, 2002 (Preprint).  

 WITZEL, Michael; Lubotsky, Alexandar; Oort, M. S.; 1997. F. B. J Kuiper: Selected Writings on Linguistics and Philology. Rodipi. Atlanta/Amsterdam