The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I: Ancient India v1.c24.127

v1.c24.127

Regarding the interpretation of certain other references in the Rigveda as containing allusions, direct or implied, to Persia in a broader sense, there is a wide divergence of opinion among Sanskritists, even though the Irānian investigator may feel assured of the truth of so explaining such passages. Vedic specialists are at variance, for example, as to whether an allusion to the Pārthavas in Rv. VI, 27, 8, is to be understood as a reference to the ancestors of the Parthians, and as to whether the Persians are really referred to under the designation Parçavas (e.g. Rv. X, 33, 2), especially as the difficulty is increased by the uncertainty in determining the real significance historically of the names Pṛithu and Parçu from which the terms Pārthavas and Parçavas are derived. The name Balhika (Atharvaveda, V, 22, 5, 7, 9) has been interpreted by some Indic scholars as containing an allusion to the ancient Irānian tribe of the Bactrians, especially because it is mentioned in connexion with the Mūjavants, a northern people; but other specialists oppose this view and deny an appeal to certain other Vedic words that might be cited. Nevertheless, and in spite of the differences among Sanskrit authorities, there is more than one Irānian investigator who feels positive that some at least of the Rigveda references in question allude to Persia or to Persian connexions in by-gone days. The assumption may reasonably be made that scholarship in the future will tend to prove the correctness of the attempts (wide of the mark though some of them may have been in the past) to show through the Veda the continuity of contact between India and Persia during the period under consideration².