Sarasvati (texts & arch.)

Fri May 22 18:15:22 UTC 1998

At 05:49 PM 5/20/98 -0400, Michael W1tzel wrote:

>NOTE that Sarasvati/Haraxvaiti mean "(river) having ponds", certainly not
>a good name for a mighty stream; that this must at least refer to a slow
>flowing river with many bends and u-shaped cut-off ponds, or it may be a
>river disappearing in the Iranian/Indian desert with many ponds in its
>lower course.
>unless the whole passage is not a reminiscence of the  E. Iranian
>Sarasvati (= Avestan: Haraxvaiti)  and the great Hamum lake (Kangsaoiia,
>cf. also Avestan texts on Vourukasha), into which the E.Ir. rivers flow,
>as *sam-udra.

As far as I am concerned whether aryans are indigenous or
immigrants does not make any difference to me. I am trying to point
out just something which does not click in the argument.

If the river had the name Haraxvaiti even in Iran where it is supposed
to be mighty river (vasiSTa remembers it as such!) how can you justify
the interpretation of the name as a river made up of ponds, not mighty and
disappearing? A mighty river could not have been given the name Haraxvaiti
which represents only a small river made up of ponds.

The word Vourukasha is very close to Bharukaccha (modern Broach). Does
this have any significance?



More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list