Dear all,

   Long note here, please read at your own risk. The ca. 5th Century Khotanese Buddhist compendium, the so-called Book of Zambasta, contains a short but fascinating tirade against the Sanskrit epics (translation mine):

cū Bāratä pyūṣṭu kye arthä samu ttaṃdya paṃjsa naḍaune
hīśśäḍai pūra Kaṃsadāysna biśśä śśūra jsatāndä
ttä vā biśśä Vyāysä riṣayä nāte Kālśasundhare bīsä
hvanaino āhau haṃbaste tcamna lova bitanda
Rāmä Daśagrīvi Sīysau nāte Laṃggä kīnthai bāste
ttye käḍäna jīvätu rruste Rāmāyąnä ttandī arthi
Valmīki räṣayī haṃbaste haṃtsa drūgyau hāḍe
cvī lovi mānya pyūṣḍe samu haṃdaraysaṃthva karma
     
What has been heard by you in the [Mahā]Bhārata, whose point [is] only that five men,
Sons of a relative (?), [together] with Kaṃsadāsa killed all the heroes,      
These [things] the seer Vyāsa, the servant of Kāśīsundarī, gathered;
He composed a fabulous tale by which the people of the world are misled.
[From] Rāma Daśagrīva took Sītā, he led her to the city of Laṅkā,
For this reason he lost his life. Such is the point of the Rāmāyaṇa. 

The seer Valmīki composed it but together with lies.
That the world listens to him with [any] respect is only [due to] the deeds of [his] other births.

  Many things are noteworthy here, especially the contemptuous tone that the text strikes by referring to Kṛṣṇa as the "slave of Kaṃsa" (cfr. Mbh 9.60.27 kaṃsadāsasya dāyada and Viṣṇupurāṇa 5.27.13) and by bringing up the Buddhist satirical version of the story of Vyāsa and Ambikā, which involves the former being infatuated with the latter, and the latter kicking him in response (cfr. Buddhacarita 4.16; Saundarananda 7.30).
  What interests me here, though, is the form of the name of Sītā. The Khotanese Sīysau should be acc.sing. for a ka-suffixed stem Sīysaā-=/si:za.a:/ (-aā>akā), but conceivably also for a simple thematic stem Sīysā-=/si:za:/ (these generally end in -o, but even in Old Khotanese there is a noticeable o/au oscillation). In the much later "Khotanese Rāmāyaṇa" (9th Century?) the name appears as Sījsā-=/si:dza:/, but this is probably an indigenous Khotanese development.
  To me the most promising way to explain the form Sīysā has to do with the vast number of Gāndhārī loanwords present in Khotanese: in Gāndhārī /z/ is, among others, the outcome of intervocalic OIA [th] and [dh], so that OIA bodhi> Gāndhārī <bosi>=*/bozi/ and OIA śamatha> Gāndhārī <śamasa>=*/çəməzə/. The Khotanese form could be made sense of by postulating a source form *Sīthā or *Sīdhā (or *Sīthakā/*Sīdhakā) for a hypothetical Gāndhārī *<sisa>=*/si:za:/, neither of which seems to be attested. *Sīsā would of course also be a candidate.

  However, under entry "13428. sītā f.  'furrow, goddess of agriculture' " Turner's Comparative Dictionary mentions a form sihā 'furrow' from the Bhalesi language spoken in central Kashmir, which may conceivably act in support of my hypothesis in view of its geographic proximity to ancient Gandhāra proper: here we would have [th/dh]>/h/ instead of Gandhārī [th/dh]>/z/.
  Is anyone aware of (other) Middle Indo-Aryan or New Indo-Aryan versions of the name of Sītā that may point in a similar direction?
 
  namaskaromi,
 
  Diego Loukota  - The University of Winnipeg