Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
§ 11.1. Procedure
§ 11.2. Evidence
§ 11.3. Proof
In short, the facts adduced from the various sciences that have
been operating independently from each other and independently from the
present 'Aryan' question -- in most cases actually without any knowledge
of
the Aryan discussion, -- must match, before a certain theory can be
accepted. If the linguistic, textual, archaeological, anthropological,
geological, etc. facts contradict each other, the theory is in serious
difficulty. All exceptions have to be explained, and well within
plausible
range; if they cannot, the theory does not hold. It never is proper
working
procedure that such inconsistencies are explained away by ad hoc
assumptions and new theories, in other words, by special pleading.
Occam's
razor applies. We can no longer maintain, for example, that the earth is
flat and then explain away the evidence of aerial or space photos by
assuming, e.g., some effect of light refraction in the upper strata of
the
atmosphere, or worse, by using one conspiracy theory or the other.
§ 11.5. Linguistics
§ 12.3. Emigration
In order to achieve his new U.P. homeland, Talageri has not only
to
rely on the purANas, he also has to read them into his RV evidence,
though
pretending to use only the RV to interpret the RV (Talageri 2000) -- in
fact one of the basic requirements of philology (Witzel 1995, 1997). In
casu, the single two appearances of jahnAvI in the RV at 1.116.19 and
3.56.6 are made out to refer to the Ganges. However, both passages
clearly
refer to a jahnAvI which translators and commentators (including sAyaNa)
have taken as a tribal designation (cf., indeed, such an 'ancestral
goddess' next to hotrA, bhAratI, iDA and sarasvatI at RV 2.1.11, etc.).
It
is, thus, by no means clear that jahnAvI refers to a river, and
certainly
not to the Ganges in particular (Witzel 2001). That is an Epic/Puranic
conceit. Instead, it can simply be derived from the jahnu clan. Yet, it
is
in this way that Talageri tries to strengthen his case for a Gangetic
homeland: the Ganges is otherwise only mentioned twice in the RV, once
in a
late hymn directly (10.75.5), and once by a derived word, gAGgya
(6.45.31,
in a tRca that could be an even later addition to this additional hymn,
which is too long to fit the order of the arrangement of the RV, see
Oldenberg 1888). However, nothing in the RV points to knowledge of the
Gangetic basin, or even of the lower Doab. The medieval and modern Doab
rivers sarayu and gomatI[N.88] have sometimes been mentioned but the
context of these RV rivers is one of the western hills and mountains, in
Afghanistan.[N.89] Talageri's identification of jahnAvI with gaGgA is
clearly based on post-Vedic identifications;[N.90] the RV passages only
speak about an ancient clan (deity) which could have 'settled'
anywhere.[N.91]
The evidence set forth by Talageri is not conclusive even for
the
tribes of the RV, -- in fact the location of the yadu-turvaza, anu-
druhyu
and pUru is not very clear for most of the Rgvedic period (Macdonell &
Keith 1912).[N.92] One hardly does have to mention the features that
would
not agree with a 'tropical' PIE language in the Gangetic Basin (see §
12.6). As a curiosity, it might be added, however, that we certainly
would
expect tribal names such as druhyu (or anu) in Europe, -- just as the
Gypsies have carried their tribal/caste name Domba to Europe, where they
still call themselves roma. However, we do not find any IE tribe or
people
in Europe derived from Ved. druh / IE *dhreugh: there are no tribes
called,
e.g., German Trug, Be-trueger, Engl. *Tray, Be-trayer -- we only find
spirits: 'ghost' and 'apparition' (Pokorny 1959: 276).
In passing, it should be mentioned that the Epic and Puranic
accounts of the western neighbors of India are based on a view, already
found in ZB and BZS 18.13: 357.6 sqq, 18.44:397.8 sqq, that regards all
tribes and peoples outside the Center, the kuru(-paJcAla) realm, as
'outsiders' (bAhIka ZB 1.7.3.8, udantya, mleccha, asurya). They are
characterized by their 'incorrect' speech and obnoxious behavior (ZB
9.3.1.24, Panjabis) and lack of proper zrauta ritual (ZB 13.5.4.19,
kAzi).
Consequently, both the Panjabis (bAhIka) as well as the Benares
(kAzi) and S. Bihar (aGga) people are denigrated by middle Vedic
texts.[N.93] This attitude mellowed somewhat with regard to eastern
North
India (AB 7.18 where the andhra, puNDra, zabara, pulinda, etc. are
included
as vizvAmitra's sons, Witzel 1997) but it continued with respect to the
west which was under constant and continuing threat of immigration,
incursion and actual invasion from the Afghan highlands (cf. Rau 1957:
14).
In fact, the Panjabis have been regarded as outsiders since the AV and
ZB
and pataJjali's mahAbhASya has preserved the oldest "Sikh joke", gaur
bAhIkaH 'the Panjabi is an ox'. There is nothing new under the Indian
sun.
There is, on the other hand, nothing particularly Indian about
this
attitude, it is reflected not only in manu's concept of madhyadeza (>
mod.
Nepali mades 'lowlands'), but also in ancient and modern China (chung
kuo,
'the middle land'), and elsewhere. Ritual, world wide, often regards
one's
own location as the center of the universe (or its navel/eye, o mata o
te
henua, in Polynesian).
The Epic and Puranic accounts simply build on such Vedic
precedents: the Panjabis are regarded as 'fallen Arya', or in the words
of
BZS, the gandhAri have emigrated [from the center].[N.94] This is "the
view
from the center", kurukSetra, a view that was not yet present in
Rgvedic
times.[N.95] All of this is, incidentally, another indication of the
(post-Rg)Vedic attitude against 'outsiders', the Other. To regard the
alleged, actually mistranslated Puranic story (contra Witzel 2001, cf.
n.
42, 86) about an emigration from India as statement of facts is as
far-fetched and mythological as the Roman insistence of their descent
from
the heroes of Troy (Virgil's Aeneid, see above §9), or as the many tales
about the lost tribes of Israel (note that the Pashtos, in spite of the
E.
Iranian language and pre-Muslim IIr culture, claimed to be one of them).
It
is completely anachronistic, and in fact unscientific, to use such
legends,
concocted long after the fact, as indications of actual historical
events.
(The Gypsies, who actually have emigrated from India, rather claim
origins
in S. Iraq or Egypt).
========================================================
Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University
2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA