I obtained the hand-written manuscript of Pata Khazana through the late Abdul Ali Khanozay, a Kâkarh at Psheen in 1943. First I translated it into Persian, provided explanatory notes and annotations and published it in 1944 through the Pashto Academy. In 1961 five thousand copies of the original edition were republished by the Publications and Translations Department. Due to the great demand for the book, the third edition was published in 1976 by the Pashto Development Board of the Ministry of Information and Culture. This edition contained a complete facsimile of the original hand-written manuscript.
Since its publication 33 years ago different opinions have been expressed about this book and certain people have cast their doubts upon it. Some have said that I have composed the book while others have claimed that it was forged by Mohammad Hothek to please his monarch, Shah Hussain, son of Haji Mirwais Khan. Such claims have been heard over the years, but unfortunately, the critics have not compiled any detailed or scholastic analysis of the work so that they may be studied, and if found refutable, commented upon scholastically.
Scholars in the field have not discussed this book in detail so far. What has been written has been brief and expressions of doubts. No scholastic or positive criticism from the viewpoint of linguistics or etymology has been provided so that the authenticity or forgery of words may be evaluated and the facts clarified.
When I met the famous Norwegian philologist, Professor Morgenstierne, in Kabul in 1946 I asked him his views regarding the book. Earlier I had sent him a copy of the book. He answered that his study of Pashto had not reached a level where he could comment on the literature and poetry and their evolution. However, in the second edition of the English version of The Encyclopaedia of Islam he has written an article on the Pashto language where he says:
"Pashto is in its origin and structure an Iranian language, although it has borrowed freely from Indo-Aryan. It shares all the common Iranian sound-changes. It sides with other Eastern Ir. languages... In its origin it is probably a "Saka" dialect, introduced from the North, but it is not possible to define its relationship more closely...
Until recently no Pashto literary work older than the 17th century had been published. But in the Almanach de Kabul, 1940-1 (Da Kabul Salnama) Àbd al-Hayy Habibi published fragments of the Tadhkirat-i Awliya by Sulayman Maku, containing poems said to go back to the 11th century. In 1944 he published in Kabul the Peta Khazana by Muhammad Hotak, which is professed to be written in Kandahar (finished 1729), and to be an anthology of Pashto poets from the 8th century down to the time of the compiler. But these works raise a number of grave linguistic and historical problems, and the question of their authenticity cannot be finally settled until the manuscripts are made available for philological investigation. Even if the authenticity of the Khazna is admitted, however, Muhammad Hotak's dating of the oldest poems may be doubted. According to Raverty, Shaykh Mali in 1417 wrote a history of the Yusufzays, but nothing more is known about this work." (The Encyclopaedia of Islam, vol. 1, p. 220, 1960).
Now I would like to conduct a critical analysis of Morgenstierne's assertions:
First: The fact that he considers Pashto to be related to the Saka languages is not surprising at all. There is no doubt that Pashto has close affiliation with Aryan languages, because these languages belong to the Indo-Aryan family. Even now remnants of old Aryan words are used in Pashto such as ãryanavijah (in present day Pashto avijah means a domicile) or ãrya warsha; warsho (pasture) is a living Pashto word. Similarly hundreds of other common Vedic, Avestan, Medic and old Persian words are seen in the language. Under the name of Saak, a tribe exists among the Pashtoons until this day. With regard to Morgenstierne's statement that the language is affiliated with eastern Iranian languages there is ample evidence to consider it a Bactrian language. It is a link between the Indian (eastern) and Iranian (western) languages. With respect to the structure of sentences, and etymology it has close resemblance to the eastern Indian languages such as Vedic, Sanskrit and Prakrit. Similarly it shares common words and sounds with Iranian and even Aryan-European languages.
In Pashto the sounds (te, dal, rhae, nooñ) are common with Indian languages while in the (tse, dze, sen) it is close to the western Aryan languages such as Slavic and German. On this basis calling it an Eastern-Iranian language is a matter of concern. Afghan culture manifests many newly acquired western and eastern elements. The Surkh Kotal inscriptions show that during the second century, the Bactrian-Koshanid language had old elements of both Pashto and Persian. ãb, naubakht and shakhalesi are three Persian words while bag, loy and malwakht are three living Pashto words seen in the Surkh Kotal inscriptions. Similarly, pohar (por), bad yen (baden), aweg yak, bo, roz mehr, farman and norla are close to Pahlavi. Just as Professor Toynbee has said that Afghanistan was at the crossroads of ancient civilizations, it can be said that Pashto served as a link between the eastern, western and northern Aryan languages. The words daz, dazhdi which meant a fortress has been written as layz in the Surkh Kotal inscription. In the northern and Sughd languages deza was used as a suffix in names such as Chakar Deza, a famous graveyard in Samarkand, or Shahlez, the name of a place in Ghazni or warw alez which has been changed to walwaloj in Arabic.
Like other cultural elements, the Bactrian-Koshanid language stood at the crossroads of eastern, western and northern civilizations, a trait which is seen in Pashto today.
Second: If the distinguished scholar would glance at the history of the literature of eastern languages and evaluate their structure and style of writing, it will be clear that new research on languages and the finding of new historical material is underway in these languages. In particular, numerous such findings have been made in Persian literature.
Another issue is that one cannot just rely on the findings of past European scholars alone. When Raverty (1825-1906), Darmesteter (1849-1894) and Dorn (1805-1881) started their research on the language one hundred years ago, their work was based on a few well-known literary and religious books. Such as the Makhzan of Akhund Darweza, Fawayed-al-Shariat of Akhund Qasim and the divans of Rahman Baba and Khushal Khan Khatak. Other works were less famous at the time, but now we have at our disposal a great deal of new material.
The distinguished scholar cites Raverty and states that Shaikh Mali wrote a history of the Yusufzay in 821 H. (1418 A.D.). The fact is that this book was not a historical treatise, but a book on tribal legend and even today the Yusufzay call it the dawtar or daftar of Shaikh Mali. It contains rules for distribution of land and water rights. This social system continued among the mountainous people of Swat until the colonial British system known as band wa bast was imposed on them in 1869. Feudal lords had tried to abolish this system for a long time to enable them to take personal possession of the land. Therefore the Dawtar of Shaikh Mali was destroyed. Even in the time of Khushal Khan the dawtar was kept hidden in Swat as Khushal Khan says:
In Swat there are two things, hidden or revealed,
They are the Makhzan of Darweza or Daftar of Shaikh Mali.
Unfortunately this book has not been found, but it is so revered among the mountain people of Swat and the Yusufzay that they refer to it as the beginning of the historical era. When the Swat and Multan elders refer to an event they say it happened so many years before or after the dawtar.
The distinguished scholar has said that Pata Khazana should be evaluated linguistically and historically. This is true but who should do such an evaluation? Such an evaluation will be meaningful if it is done by someone whose mother tongue is Pashto, knows modern philology and is familiar with etymology. And he or she is totally familiar with the history of Afghanistan and the Pashtoons and is well-informed in the developments of Central Asian languages.
In his writing the distinguished orientalist thinks that the oldest Pashto literary document, according to Raverty, is Shaikh Mali's (History of Yusufzai?). Since Mohammad Hothek writes about Pashto works prior to the ninth century thus doubt can be cast on the authenticity of his book! The fact is that we can show several such examples in the history of literature of other languages whereby history of literature has been compiled from known sources. When new material has been found it cannot be disregarded by saying that the material has not been mentioned in such and such a book. If Shaikh Mali's dawtar is found and there is no mention of the old references cited by Mohammad Hothek it cannot be reasoned that Mohammad Hothek has forged Pata Khazana.
What is evident is that until a century ago, the oldest document of the Persian language was Daulat Shah Samarkandi's Tazkerat-al-Shuàra {written in 892 H. (1487 A.D.)}. Daulat Shah in the introduction of his book writes: "No scholar has written about the history, work and life of Persian poets." Thus our information regarding Persian literature was confined to what Daulat Shah had written in his biographical account. In some instances he cites references but in many other cases he has failed to cite any references at all. Toward the end of the book he discusses the biography of only seven contemporary poets. In 1846, Nathaniel Blend, in the London Asiatic Society Magazine, introduced us to another biography of the Persian language. The Lubab-al-Albab of Àwfi. Only two hand-written manuscripts of this work exist. One is in the possession of Mr. Blend and the other is preserved in the Berlin Imperial Library. Mr. Blend's version was later published by the late orientalist Edward Brown and the late Qazweni. Thus with its publication our knowledge of Persian literature was enhanced. We do not reject the material provided by Àwfi merely because it has not been mentioned by Daulat Shah despite the fact that the Àwfi manuscripts are of very recent origin.
The divans of most Persian poets have been lost or do not exist, but based on the information provided by Àwfi and Daulat Shah, we accept their works if they match the principles of Persian literature and corroborate with historical events. No doubt has been cast on such works. The fact that the honorable orientalist states that Pata Khazana raises grave philological and historical problems is far from a just statement. He talks about problems but does not state what the problems are? Nor does he explain the problems? Beside creating confusion such a statement has no academic value.
After Lubab-al-Albab and a few other Arabic references, Tarkh-e Seistan is only the other book which cites Persian verse or prose. Neither is the name of the author or the name of the book known. Its style of writing corresponds to the styles of writing prevalent from the 5th century Hejira and continues to 725 H. (1325 A.D.). Based on this it can be said that the book has not been written by one person nor does it follow one style of writing.
This book had not been recognized previously. Even the author of Ahya-al-Mulook, Shah Hussain, who was one of the Safavid princes and wrote his book in 1028 H. (1619 A.D.) did not know of its existence. The book was printed from an unknown hand-written manuscript in the former newspaper of Iran {Issues 474 to 562, 1299-1302 H. (1882-1885 A.D.)}. Other copies were made after it appeared in the newspaper. Finally the late poet laureate, Bahar, published it in Tehran in 1936.
This book has added a great deal of information on the history of Persian literature. Among them is the ballad of the Karkoy fire temple of Seistan, the encomium of Mohammad bin Waseef Sagarzi and the poems of Mohammad bin Mukhalid are accepted as examples of old Persian literature based on the style of writing and their relevance to historical events, despite the fact that neither Àwfi nor Daulat Shah mention anything about these writers. It must be added that only one copy of Tarekh-e Seistan exists. Despite this no one has doubted the poets mentioned in the book or said that the author of the book had forged it. Nor has anything been stated as to what kind of problems the book presents with regard to philology or historical events.
A closer look at Lubab, the biographical account by Daulat Shah, Tarekh-e Seistan, other biographical works and old sources, reveal a great deal of problems which cannot be accepted in view of philologial and historical facts. For example look at this couplet of the famous encomium written by Marwazi {circa 210 H. (826 A.D.)} for the Caliph Mamoon:
aye rasaneda ba dawlat farq khwd tha farq din
gustaraneda ba jowd wa fazl dar àalam ba din
O ruler, you who can distinguish thyself and religion
You are the forgiver and giver in this world. (Lubab, p. 20).
This encomium is written in a new style and is tainted with forgery. In the same book, which is considered on of the most renowned and ancient biographies in Persian, a poem appears which is said to be written by Sultan Mahmud. It is an elegy for a slave woman named Gulistan. The language of the poem does not at all resemble the style of Persian verse during the era of the Ghaznavids:
Ta tho aye mah zer-e khak shudie
khak ra bar sephar fazl ãmad
del juzà kard, guftam aye del sabr
ayn qaza az khuday-e àdl amad
ãdam az khak bood wa khaki shud
har khe zawzad baz asal ãmad
O moon faced when you were buried
Your grave's soil brought kindness all around.
When my heart grieved, I said be calm, O heart
For this is the work of the just God.
From dust we come and to dust we go
For he who wails is the righteous. (Lubab, p. 25).
That a mighty emperor such as Sultan Mahmud would recite an elegy for a slave girl in these words is difficult to believe. In the book a hemistich is also said to have been written by Sultan Mahmud: zi beem-e tegh-e jahangir-e qalà kushay, (from the fear of arrow, world conqueror and vanquisher of fortresses) (Lubab, p. 26). The same hemistch appears in a hand-written manuscript preserved in the National Assembly Library of Iran and in Tarekh-e Guzedah (p. 457). In these documents it is said that the line has been written by Mohammad bin Malikshah Saljouqi.
We do not have any manuscripts close to the Àwfi period; the available manuscripts were written later and their date of writing is not known. On the other hand, the author of Bazm Ãra, Àli bin Mohammad Hussaini, copied all the material of Lubab-al-Albab in his book without citing the references or the name of the author. Does not the question arise as to who is the creator of this book?
Despite the fact that some of the poems in Lubab-al-Albab have come under criticism, the prose and poetry seen in the later manuscripts, preserved in London and Manchester, is reproduced in Bazm Ãra around 1000 H. (1592 A.D.). Does not this create doubts and problems.
Despite these doubts, Lubab-al-Albab, Daulat Shah, Azar and Hedayat maintain their celebrated status, and these books are considered important sources of the history of Persian literature. A weakness in one part of the book or skepticism about one topic of the book does not taint the authenticity of the whole book. Those of us whose mother tongue is Pashto, and who are students of the history of the evolution of our language, having read and evaluated Pata Khazana word by word have not come across any problem that may contradict philological or historical facts. Were there such a problem to arise we would have dealt with it in the annotations of the book. It is regrettable that the distinguished orientalist does not explain what the philological or historical anomalies are but creates confusion by alluding to some vague skepticism. A scholar should not act in this manner.
Formerly, there did not exist a biography of poets in Pashto, and if one did exist, it probably has been lost like Munaqeb-al-Shuàra of Khatoni which has been mentioned by Haji Khalifa and Daulat Shah. In 1942 I published the first volume of Pashtana Shuàra through the Pashto Academy. Included in this book was material which I had gathered until that time. For example I had found six pages of the lost Tazkerat-al-Awlia in the mosque of a village along the banks of Helmand river. These pages were photographed and presented in the book together with my comments. This finding negated what Raverty had said regarding the history of Pashto literature e.g. he had dated it back to the 17th century only. The finding showed that Pashto literature dated back at least to the 12th century A.D. But when other old manuscripts such as the Keramat of Sultan Sakhi Sarwar, circa 577 H. (1182 A.D.), who was the establisher of the Sultania sect of Punjab, Pata Khazana and Makhzan-e Afghani of Nàmatullah Herawi, 1018 H. (1609 A.D.) were discovered, it was deemed necessary to revise the information in Pashtana Shuàra. All the new material was presented in the second volume of Tarekh-e Adabiyat, which was published in 1964 by the Pashto Academy. If more material is found it will be added to it. However, such material should not be doubted by the distinguished orientalist and other scholars like him because the history of literature is continually being updated with the discovery of new material. At the present time there is a great deal of new material at hand regarding the history of Persian literature than what had been included in Brown's history of Persian literature. The new material has been added to that book, and some of the older material deleted from it, for example, the attribution of Tarjuman-al-Balaghah of Mohammad bin Omar Radwayani to Farukhi and the attribution of the Yusuf and Zuleikha poem to Firdausi.
It is surprising that a scholar of such caliber, a hundred years after Raverty cited Shaikh Mali's lost Dawtar (Register), incorrectly calls it the history of the Yusufzai and considers it as the first literary book in Pashto. This work has not been found nor does the distinguished orientalist sheds light on it. It is surprising and difficult to grasp that based on a lost book he casts doubt on the known material of Pata Khazana.
In Pata Khazana we come across words which are not used in Pashto today, but every native student of the language can easily recognize them and with the help of philology and etymology arrive at their Pashto origin. Words similar in form exist in the Avestan and Vedic literature.
It is deplorable to note that those who have doubts talk of problems but do not provide any details so one may understand what these philological and historical problems are and what is their scholastic merit to discredit a celebrated, useful and rare book?
Under the title of Afghanistan a book was published in 760 pages by the Princeton University Press, New Jersey in 1973 authored by Dr. Louis Dupree. The reading of this book (with reservations) is beneficial to gain information about the country.
The author is an archaeologist and has published several papers in his field which have proved useful in understanding the ancient history of Afghanistan.
The statistics provided in the book are categorically incorrect. Beside there are other errors in the book. For example on page 185 he considers koranai (family) as a Pashto word and in another column gives its meaning as khanawada in Persian. In a following line he considers koranai to be a Persian word and gives its meaning in Pashto as kahol. In fact koranai and kahol are both old Pashto words and their Persian equivalents are doodman, khanadan and khanawada.
On page 75 he has recorded the word par-darya, called mawara-un-nahr in Arabic, as pay-i-darya. Par is an ancient Aryan root. The people of Afghanistan still use the word par-darya. In page 80 he states that Mirza Abdul Qadir Bedil was born in Patna in 1644 and died in Delhi in 1720. He is considered to be a teacher of Persian at the Moghul court of Delhi. However, in page 92 he considers the same Mirza Abdul Qadir to be among the contemporary poets of the time such as Betab, Qari and Mustaghni.
On page 82 he considers Sardar Ghulam Mohammad Khan Tarzi, a politically exiled poet and epigrapher and conceives him a master of the shekestah form of writing. The shekestah form of artistic calligraphy originated after the 9th century Hejira. Dupree translates this word as broken-line poetry. This is totally incorrect and the word has no relation to poetry. He further adds that in a period when family names were almost unheard of in Afghanistan, he called himself 'Tarzi', stylist. This is also incorrect and shows total non-familiarity with the issue.
Tarzi was the poetic pseudonym of Ghulam Mohammad Khan. For hundreds of years poets have used pseudonyms in Afghanistan such as Farukhi, Dakiki, Jami, Mashreqi, Tarzi's uncle, and Andaleeb, Mashriqi's son. These were not family names but like Mustaghni, Qari and Betab they were poetic pseudonyms. It is necessary that family names and poetic pseudonyms are differentiated. The fact that Tarzi's eldest son adopted his fathers pseudonym as a family name is an issue of modern day and age. Following western traditions, people started to adopt family names.
There are numerous mistakes in the historical material of the book. For example on page 312 he talks about the spread of Islam in Afghanistan and states that the first major Arab raid took place through Qandahar in 80-81 H. (699-700 A.D.). The fact is that the Arab raids took place through Seistan, Helmand, Bost and Rukhaj. Kabul was conquered by Ibn Samra in 36 H. (657 A.D.) (Tarekh-e Seistan, p. 85; Futuh-al-Baldan, p. 488). Similarly there are numerous other errors in the book with which we may not concern ourselves. On page 75 he mentions the names of past Persian literary figures such as Mahmud Warraq and Hanzala Badghisi, without any comment or reservations, and provides translations of examples of their poetry. But in relation to Pashto he writes:
"Pashto as a literature tends to get short shrift even in Afghanistan. In his excellent survey of Islamic Literature, (1963), Najib Ullah (Afghan scholar and diplomat, whose last name was Toraviana) almost completely neglected Pashto...
"The authenticity of the Puteh-Khazaneh, published in Qandahar in 1749 (correction: finished in 1729) and claiming to contain several eighth- and ninth-century poems, has been recently questioned (Wilber, 1967, 412).* No matter, for Pashto literature does not come into its own until the seventeenth century, but then seems to move along at a relatively uninspired pace until the twentieth century." (Afghanistan, p. 83).
This short commentary by Dupree does not rest on any reasoning or detail. Apart from creating confusion, it seems to have no other purpose. The fact that he cites Wilber, who neither knew Pashto nor had studied the history of the language is not befitting of a scholar. I have not met Wilber but have read his articles. They are of a general nature and have a political tone that is not a subject of discussion here.
In that the late Najibullah does not allude to Pashto language or its literature does not mean that the language does not have an old literature and history. It is possible that in what he was asked to write, the history of Pashto was not the subject of discussion.
I remember the time when the late Najibullah participated in the meetings which were held to discuss the annotations and translation of the poetry of Pata Khazana prior to its publication. He voiced no objections regarding the poetry or the annotations. Sometimes when he would hear the translation of the old Pashto poetry he would get so overwhelmed that tears would roll down his cheeks. It is possible that the editorial policy of the publisher prevented him from writing anything about Pashto literature. Moreover, if in some books, published in Afghanistan, nothing has been mentioned about the history of Pashto this does not have any bearing on the validity of Pata Khazana. The late Najibullah was not familiar with Pashto literature so how could he have commented on the extensive literature of the language. Dupree criticizes Shaikh Sàdi, for including the couplet in his book on morality.
If the king says the day is night.
Say here are the moon and the Pleiades.
He accuses him of justifying untruth. If such criticism is valid, it is the opinion of one person and does not lessen the literary value of Gulistan.
Several articles appear in the 1968 issues of the literary journal, Sukhan, regarding Pashto authored by Jàfari. Issue 17(4) of this journal contains a discussion of Pashto literature. It refers to my articles and books and considers Tazkerat-al-Awlia of Sulaiman Maku and Pata Khazana among the earlier works of Pashto.
In the beginning Jàfari admits that he is not familiar with the subject matter to voice an opinion (Sukhan p. 335), but later it appears that he has come under the influence of Professor Morgenstierne's writing in The Encyclopaedia of Islam and quotes his skepticism. Once again no explanation is provided and without giving any examples or analysis he writes: "By looking at some Indian words, whose pronunciation is not older than a few centuries, it appears they have been unknowingly adopted into their language by Pashtoon conquerors who invaded India". He seems to be baffled by this issue and believes there are three reasons:
1. In Persian, story writers insert their poetry where they feel fit or use the poetry of others to praise heroes such as Rustam, Afrasiab, Alexander, the daughter of the Chinese Kublai Khan, Amir Hamza, etc. It is possible that Pashtoon story writers did the same and in his references Mohammad Hothek came across such poems... To what extent Mohammad Hothek examined the validity of such works we do not know.
2. From old days to the time of Mohammad Hothek these poems have been recited by people to one another and have been converted (made new).
3. The calligraphers have changed the poems according to the style of the time. But despite the new tone which is seen in these poems they also retain their old style (Sukhan, p. 337).
These ambiguous statements do not make mention of any Indian words or new words nor is there an example provided of the new style that may have raised his doubts concerning poems with a new tone which also retain their old style.
With regard to Indian words it has to be clarified that Pashto has similarities with the old Vedic and Sanskrit languages. A large number of old Vedic and Sanskrit words are in use in Pashto until now or have been used in the Middle or old Pashto literature. This is because the Aryans went to northern India from this land (Afghanistan) and during their migration took with them elements of their language. Moreover, due to the exchange of goods and the movement of people over the eras a large number of Hindi words have been introduced into Pashto and vice versa. These issues have been discussed in detail in the History of Pashto Literature, (vol, 1 1947, second edition 1976). In old Pashto poetry, or in documents prior to the Mongols {around 600 H. (1204 A.D.)}, I have not come across words, whose pronunciation is not older than just a few centuries, as hypothesized by Jàfari. Since he does not provide any example nor have I come across such words in the old literature, therefore I cannot add anything further to this argument.
It would have been fruitful had the critic provided some examples of the issues he has raised. In his first argument Jàfari considers Pata Khazana (the biography of Pashto poets) to be similar to prose texts of Persian fables. This is an incorrect comparison because he has mixed the writing of a biography with that of fictitious works. Pata Khazana is a biography of poets such as the biographical account of Daulat Shah, Lubab-al-Albab, Majmà-al-Fusaha and other such works. In a great many instances they refer to lost books, while sometimes they do not reveal their sources, a criticism which can be equally applied to a great deal of biographies of eastern languages. Mohammad Hothek provides a reference for the poem of Amir Krorh e.g. Larghoni Pashtana of Shaikh Kata, who had taken his material from Tarekh-e Suri in Balishtan of Ghor {around 750 H. (1349 A.D.)}. Therefore it is incorrect to compare the contents of Pata Khazana with the fictitious works of Persian tales.
The other issue which he has raised is how does he substantiate his claim that some of the poetry has 'new elements and yet maintain their 'old form'. In reality there is a difference between old and new poetry, although he sees the two styles together. Is there a logical possibility for such a blend to have taken place or is the logic of the skeptic irresolute?
Changes brought about by scribes in old texts are real. In the eastern languages no two copies of a text are alike. If we look at the celebrated Shahnama of Firdausi, which has been copied several hundred times after the conquests of the Mongols, it is difficult to find two versions that match each other exactly. Unfortunately, we do not have an old hand-written version of Pata Khazana nor are the references mentioned therein in our possession to allow us to make a comparison and see how much text has changed with the passage of time.
Prior to the advent of the Mongol era, Pashto poets had maintained the originality of their language and style of writing. Their works contain a large number of words which are pure from the point of view of etymology, but are not used in the language now.
With regard to Indian words, that Jàfari has mentioned, it can be said that these are those ancient common words of the western and eastern Aryan languages between which Pashto serves as a link. The use of such words has been going on for centuries. For example in the encomium of Skarandoi boodtoon has been used. This word has a common root with the budd of Hindi. Its usage had started before the advent of Islam in Pashto and cannot be related to the conquests of Sultan Mahmud.
Al Biruni states in Al Hind (vol. 1, p. 163) that there are three elements of the mind: intellect, religion and ignorance, the first of which is called budh which brings forth a state of rest and peace of mind. This word later found usage in other Aryan languages such as mobadd (protector of faith), sepah jamà budd (commander) etc.
According to Al Biruni, the name of Buddah is derived from budd which has been recorded in the same form in the book Shapoorgan of Mani. In Arabic budd means an idol. Abu-al-Àla Màri in the book Conversion of the World writes:
wa al qalb min ahwaya àabed
ma yàbad alkafer budda
And the heart of the adorer desires
An idol in the infidel's temple.
This analysis and the historical use of the word shows that boodtoon (temple) of Pashto was a compound place noun in use in the Ghorid era (11-12th centuries A.D.). Such a combination cannot be considered a new element in the language. There are several hundred such Hindi, Turkish, Pahlavi and Avestan words that were used in old Pashto literature. They were in use prior to Islam and can not be considered new elements, as Jàfari has stated, but are old words.
At any rate, old works of Pashto which predate the Mongol era should be evaluated with respect to etymology, the evoloution of the language, and correspondence to historical events. This can be done by a person who is knowledgeable in these fields and who is able to substantiate the claims with examples. Brief allusions should be avoided so that it may not result in confusion.
Another issue which needs to be discussed here is what has been said by some people in Afghanistan, or in some instances what they have written about Pata Khazana. These people have voiced their personal opinions about the book, but what they have said is not based on facts. Here I do not want to take the position of a total defender of the book but would like to scientifically analyze what I have heard. If someone should criticize the work in a scholarly manner in the future, without showing bigotry, he or she should be heard, but if the critique is questionable, then it should be researched and evaluated thoroughly.
One of the writers holds the view that the first poem of Pashto should have strong historical backing and documentation. Without it researchers cannot rely on its authenticity.
It should be mentioned that when studying Pata Khazana, or the biographies of poets in other languages, the use of the terms 'first poem' or oldest prose or poetry is not correct. It is not proper to state that a certain poem is the first one. Poetry is not revealed suddenly from heaven but goes through constant transformation and improvement. Compilers of Persian biographies, who have attributed the oldest Persian poem to Bahram Gor, Mohammad bin Waseef Seistani, Abas Marwazi or Abu Hafs bin Ahwas Sughdi have erred in doing so. It should be said that the first known poem recognized in a certain language has been written by such and such poet. Based on Pata Khazana we consider the poem of Amir Krorh as the first known poetic work of the Pashto language. As I have mentioned in the annotations of the book, the literature of the language evolved well before the writing of Amir Krorh's poem and during the eighth century A.D. it had reached a highly refined stage. My view regarding this matter is similar to what scholars have said about old Persian texts.
All of what has been written about ancient poetry in biographies of poets cannot be taken for granted because in these books one comes across non-scholarly issues which should be rejected on a scientific basis. Modern research is based on an evaluation of facts based on philology, etymology, poetics and stylistics. Mohammad 's claim regarding the qasidah of Marwazi in Lubab-al-Albab is untenable, but the book contains a great deal of material which has been accepted as genuine.
All aspects of research on poetry (whether new or old), should conform with the standards of philology and poetics. It is the duty of scholars of poetics to differentiate good from bad and genuine from non-genuine. By collating all the ancient poems of Pashto in order of their antiquity, we can say that the poem of Amir Krorh is the oldest one known to us. It is possible that in the future older works may be discovered.
The writer states: "Mohammad Hothek's view, in the 12th century Hejira regarding the poem of Amir Krorh is not convincing, and when a researcher of the day comes across such an issue it should not convince him". The respected writer should be asked what he means by researchers of the day? If he is referring to reviewers or researches of the history of literature, then such scholars would not out rightly reject the book.
In Lubab-al-Albab, Daulat Shah's biography of poets and other such works in Persian and Arabic and other eastern languages there are thousands of poems that have been accepted as genuine by scholars on the basis of a singular citation. The works of Brown, Hamayee, Safa, Sàeed Nafisi, Dr. Shafaq and others are full of such narratives. If such people are not considered scholars then who is a scholar?
Today the divan of Hanzala Badghisi does not exist but according to the Chahar Maqala of Nizami Samarkandi (p. 69), this divan was in possession of Ahmad bin Abdullah Khajestani {died 262 H. (876 A.D.)} who used to read it. Only one verse of this anciet Persian poet has been cited in Lubab-al-Albab and Chahar Maqala, although their style is dubious. Àwfi states that he had seen the Arabic and Persian divan of Abu-al-Fatha (Lubab, p. 62). Beside a few couplets we do not have in our hand any other part of the divan of this famous poet from Bost. His complete Arabic divan was published by Ibrahim bin Ali Tarablusi in 1294 H. (1877 A.D.) and Dr. Amir Mahmud Anwar completed the work containing 1350 couplets in Tehran from several hand-written manuscripts (Maqalat wa Barasiha, vol. 13-16, p. 345). Many ancient divans have been lost. If we reject the aforementioned arguments, then there will be no material left for present day scholars to work with. In this manner half the works on the history of Persian literature would have to be discarded because the material in works such as Lubab-al-Albab has been collected by the writer of the biography. If we do not rely on such works then today's researcher will have very little material to work on because the originals of the old works (including the celebrated Shahnama) do not exist today and we only have copies in our possession. If some doubt the authenticity of Mohammad Hothek's work then one could cast doubts on the works of others such as Àwfi, Daulat Shah, Azar and Hedayat. It may be stated that Àwfi and Daulat Shah lived before Mohammad Hothek but Azar was his contemporary and Hedayat lived after him.
He further writes: "The opinion of a writer such as Mohammad Hothek..." It is difficult to understand why he is not convinced by the opinion of Mohammad Hothek? The truth is that the works of Àwfi, Daulat Shah, Azar and Hedayat are also under discussion by scholars. Mohammad Hothek's celebrity in and familiarity with Pashto literature far exceeds that of Àwfi and Hedayat in Persian. He has made far less mistakes in the writing of Pata Khazana than has Daulat Shah and Hedayat in their works. The command of language which Àwfi, Daulat Shah, and Nezami Samarkandi had in Persian, Mohammad Hothek has shown in Pashto. By profession, Mohammad Hothek was secretary of the Hothek court in Qandahar. He has shown eloquence in his style of writing and like Arab historians has extensively cited both written works and the narrations he had heard. A number of the works he refers to are present at this time such as the Makhzan of Nàmatullah Herawi, the works of Khushal Khan and Nafà-al-Muslimeen of Noor Mohammad Ghaljay.
The lost books which Mohammad Hothek saw and has cited cannot be considered dubious. There is no evidence of forgery in the narrations provided by Mohammad Hothek with respect to poetics or the presentation of historical events. They resemble the narrations that Daulat Shah cites from Munaqebat-al-Shuàra of Abu Tahir Khatooni. This book is lost but we accept the narrations of Daulat Shah until another source is found which is contrary to Khatooni.
There are other celebrated historical works such as Tarekh-e Baihaqi and Tabaqathh-e Nasiri which quote narrations from lost texts. For example the Maqamat of Abu Nasr Mushkan, secretary of the Ghaznavid court, in ten volumes that does not exist now. What Baihaqi has narrated from this book is considered valid and we trust what Baihaqi has said (although the original version of Baihaqi's book is not available today). The history of Mahmud Warraq, Musamara-e Khwarazm and Maqamat-e Mahmudi are all lost documents on which Baihaqi relies and provides them as references for his book. Minhaj Seraj also quotes from lost books such as Takamilat-al-Latayef, Tarekh-e Mujdool, Ahdas-al-Zaman, Muntakhab-e Tarekh-e Nasiri, Nasab Nama-e Ghoriyan and Tarekh-e Naabi. We accept Minhaj Seraj's citations from these books even though neither the versions written during the time of Jouzjani and Baihaqi nor any later manuscripts are available.
If these Persian biographies and historical works are accepted there is no reason whatsoever why Mohammad Hothek's biographical account is not acceptable. If it is claimed that Mohammad Hothek was referring to old texts during the 12th century Hejira then the same formula should be applicable to Ãtaskkada of Azar and Majmà-al-Fusaha of Hidayat because they were written during the 12th and 13th centuries Hejira.
Historians do not use such reasoning. Therefore, these books should be treated equally without any doubt or bigotry especially where the writer refers to a certain source or provides a narration and does not add anything himself. Mohammad Hothek follows these rules strictly. With respect to the poem of Amir Krorh he cites Larghoni Pashtana of Shaikh Kata Mathizay Ghoryakhel bin Shaikh Yusuf bin Shaikh Mathi {around 750 H. (1349 A.D.)}. Shaikh Kata had copied his material from Tarekh-e Suri of Mohammad bin Ali Bosti. This shows that Mohammad Hothek's citation is well-documented. If we accept the citations of Minhaj Seraj and Baihaqi, taken from now lost sources, then there is no reason why Mohammad Hothek's citations should not be acceptable.
We know that the citations provided by Mohammad Hothek from Makhzan-e Afghani, the divan of Rahman Baba, the divan of Abdul Qadir Khan and the work of Khushal Khan are correct and valid, therefore, we should not have any doubt in accepting his citations from books that are lost. As stated earlier such citations and narrations are seen in other biographies and we also come across cases where the authors present material they have collected. There are many such volumes in use in the history of literature. Prior to the finding of the complete manuscript of Lubab-al-Albab, Hedayat's latest version was accepted in which he had relied on Arafat-al-Àshuqeen. When in 1903-1906 Lubab-al-Albab was published by Brown, according to the late Sàeed Nafisi, Hedayat had taken a great deal of the material of Lubab from Arafat, but had insinuated he had actually seen Lubab himself (refer to the introduction of Lubab-al-Albab by Sàeed Nafisi, 1947). How is it possible that the material presented in Lubab-al-Albab, Daulat Shah and other biographical accounts, is acceptable to scholars, even though they do not cite their references, while Mohammad Hothek's work is not. If the validity of Pata Khazana is doubtful then others have the right to look with uncertainty at the works of Àwfi, Daulat Shah and their likes. Leaving bigotry aside let us evaluate the following narration of Daulat Shah: Abu Tahir Khatuni has said that during the era of Azd-al-Daula Dailami, the Shereen palace, which is near Khaneqin, had not been totally destroyed. In the inscription of that palace this couplet, written in old Persian style, was found:
hazh bara ba kaihan anosha bazi
jahan badedar tusha bazi
What kind of a verse is this? Is not the Manaqeb-al-Shuàra of Khatooni lost. Can we rely only on Daulat Shah's statement? Mohammad Hothek's reference to Larghoni Pashtana has similar impost. There are many instances in biographical anthologies in which the author is the sole narrator. If such narrations are removed from the literature of Pashto, Persian and other languages, a large number of poets and old writings will have to be forgotten, and the 'present day researcher' will be left empty-handed.
He further writes: "It has not been explicitly stated in history what language was spoken by the people of this era (8th century A.D.) or later and what was their form of writing? Some scattered documents, however, show that different ethnic groups of the country wrote their national and local languages, more or less, in their own form of writing without any foreign influence. During the beginning of the second Islamic century the language of the people of the central and mountainous regions was free from Arabic influence. This was because Arab influence had not taken hold, or was in the early stages of development.
"The antiquity of Pashto and Persian literature can be proved from Vedic and Avestan ballads and the writings of Greek and Arab historians. The question here deals with the national language and its present day form of writing, and the time of its origin. As stated earlier, Arab influence in the central part of the country during the second century was minimal. Even if there was some influence, it was not much so as to greatly influence language, religion, style of writing and dialect. Furthermore, Tarekh-e Baihaqi, Tabaqathh-e Nasiri, Futuh-al-Baldan, Shahnama-e Tabari and the works of neutral historians and scholars are documents which allow us to form an opinion.
"These documents and other reliable sources state that Islam's influence had not spread to Ghor until the 4th century Hejira. Based on this, Arabic had not influenced the language or writing of the people of Ghor. If samples of the writing of the language are found they will certainly not be in Arabic. The style of writing can be visualized from the excavated inscriptions. In my opinion the Arabic script, as in the case of Persian, was adopted by Pashto when these regions came under the influence of Moslem administrators.
"If Islam was introduced to Ghor by the Ghaznavids, then how it is possible that the Arabic language found its way into the area two centuries before the Ghaznavids? Is it possible that Arabic had so much influence in the area that Amir Krorh was able to write his poem in Arabic script with such eloquence and leave it to us as a souvenir of his age. If this unexpected influence spread so quickly in Ghor, then their inscriptions should also have been written in Arabic."
The first part of this statement belies historical facts and events. The issue of script has been extensively treated in the writings of Indian, Arab and Greek writers and clarified by inscriptions, coins and Avestan, Pahlavi and Chinese sources. That the Avestan script was used in former Aryana is evident from the book of Avesta itself. The Avestan influence is seen in Balkh, Seistan and the Helmand valley up to Rakhd. Most of Avestan rulers and events pertain to Afghanistan. That a religion and a book are produced in this country and that a religious book is written in a particular script does not mean that the script was popular in this country as history does not show this clearly.
From the hundreds of Greek inscriptions and coins which have been found in Afghanistan and are preserved in the museums of the world, one cannot come to the conclusion that from the time of Alexander's conquests (230 B.C.) until the 8th and 9th centuries Greek script was in use in Afghanistan.
The religious tablets found in Mansehra and Shahbaz Garhay, related to the Mauryan king, Ashoka (273-232 B.C.), were written in Kharoshti and Prakrit scripts. The Daronta tablets have been written in Aramaic, and the Qandahar's old city inscriptions are in Greek and Aramaic scripts. Is it not possible to say that during the second and third centuries B.C. that Greek, Aramic and Kharoshti script were used in Afghanistan up to the banks of the Indus river by the people? Or is it possible that they wrote religious sermons in some other form of writing other than the script of the people?
The tablets of the early Koshanid period are in the Takhari language written in Greek script. The Uruzgan and Jaghato tablets are similar and date back to the 5th century A.D. Later inscriptions and coins, belonging to the 6th and 7th centuries are in Sarada, Brahman, Greek and Pahlavi scripts. In later years all these scripts were replaced by Kufic and Arabic scripts. Thus the statement by the writer, "local languages, without the influence of other languages, were written, more or less, in a special script...", is incorrect.
The Aramaic script was introduced by the Achamenids, the Greek script by Alexander and Greek rulers, the Pahlavi script came from Fars by means of the Sassanids, and Sarada from Wagri, and Brahmi came from India. Only the Kharoshti script is believed to have originated in the area between the Helmand and Indus rivers. Wilson also considers it as the Aryana script (Aryana Antiqua). Therefore, one cannot say that historical documentation is not clear. Are these not historical documents? If the writer considers compiled volumes historical documents, I refer him to the two volumes of History of Afghanistan by Kohzad, my Short History of Afghanistan and the History of Afghanistan after Islam.
It will become clear that the issue of language is similar to that of culture and Afghanistan has been considered at the crossroads of different cultures. Then how is it possible to say that local languages had not come under the influence of other languages? With the coming of the Hephthalites and the Koshanids many Turanian words were introduced into our language. In Pashto, Turkish words such as olas, jerga, aegh, toura and hundreds of others, are in common usage and have become an integral part of the language. All the words of the 25 line Surkh Kotal inscription are of ancient Aryan origin, and as mentioned earlier, the deep cultural influence of east and west is seen in it.
The word mandar, used in the inscription is originally a Sanskrit word which means a palace, temple, resting place etc. This vividly shows the effect of Indian culture and language. The month of Neisan is a Babylonian month, also in use in Syriac and Jewish calendars. In Akhadian the word is written as neisun, in Armaic as neis and in Arabic as neisan. This word has found its way from Babylon to Aryana via the Scythian, Median and Achaemenid civilizations and became established in the civilization of the Koshanid era.
When it is evident that Afghanistan has served as the central hub of different civilizations and cultures then how is it possible to say that our language has remained aloof from the influence of other languages (as the writer of an article has put it)?
The assertion that the effects of Arabic language and culture had not reached Ghor during the 4th century H. is incorrect. Also Islam was not introduced to Ghor by the Ghaznavids during the 4th century H. The historical facts are different. Islam was introduced into the regions of Ghor during the first Islamic century and the influence of Arabic spread at that time.
Minhaj Seraj states that Malik Shansab bin Kharnak, the Ghorid king, embraced Islam through Hazrat Ali, the fourth Caliph in 36 H. (657 A.D.) (Tabaqathh-e Nasiri, vol. 1, p. 320), and considers Amir Polad a contemporary of Abu Muslim Marwazi, circa 130 H. (748 A.D.) (vol. 1, p. 324).
The Arabic and Islamic influence did not reach the inner valleys of Ghor until 107 H. (726 A.D.), when the Arab conqueror, Asàd bin Abdullah attacked Gharistan and that region's ruler, Namroon. Later he also attacked the mountain dwellings of Ghor, who hid their possessions in a cave in one of the mountains. Asàd made coffins in which he hid his soldiers. The coffins were sent to the cave. Thus his soldiers were able to take out the possessions (Tabari, vol. 5, p. 328). As far as we know from historical documents, people living in the far reaches of the mountainous valleys of Ghor had not pledged allegiance to Islam until 253 H. (867 A.D.) (Tabaqathh-e Nasiri, vol. 1, p. 318).
In the circumstances that the rulers of Ghor were traveling to the courts of Hazrat Àli and Haroon al Rashid and Amir Polad participated in the conquests of Abu Muslim, it is clear that Arab civilization and religion had spread to some parts of Ghor. The rulers of Ghor maintained their local power until the time of Sultan Mahmud and Sultan Masàud. The possibility exists that in the far reaches of the mountainous regions of Ghor some people did not embrace Islam until the passing of a long time. The influence of Arab culture and language on the cities of Ghor is evident. The statement that Islam's influence had not reached Ghor until the 4th century Hejira, and that until the era of Timur, Islam had not completely penetrated Ghor is incorrect. One has only to look at Tabari and Tabaqathh-e Nasiri to clarify this matter. The statements of the skeptics do not correspond with historical facts.
How is it possible that the rulers of Ghor, who had access to the Arab courts, participated in Arab conquests, fought in alliance with Abu Muslim's armies, where Arabic poetry was recited and Arabic was the language of the court, were so distant from the cultural setting that they did not know a word of Arabic?
The writer of the article has mixed the issue of hand-writing with that of language. He states: "It is far from possible that in 130 H., during the early stages of Islam, a man by the name of Amir Krorh wrote his poem in Arabic script."
It must be mentioned that in Pata Khazana there is no allusion to the script of the poem. If for the sake of argument let us accept that the rulers of Ghor, despite being involved with Abu Muslim Marwazi, did not know how to write Arabic, the possibility exists that they wrote their language in Greek, Kharoshti or Pahlavi script. With the spread of the Islamic influence, during the first and second centuries Hejira, in the area they could have adopted the Arabic script. The ancient relics of Persian language such as the hymns of the Karkoy temple, the poem of Bahram Gor, manam ãn sher galah, and the inscription of the Qasr-e Shireen, were most likely written in Avestan or Pahlavi script. When these poems found their way into Persian works they were transcribed in the Arabic script. Based on this, it is important that the issue of the use of script should not be mixed with that of language.
In the epic poem of Amir Krorh, the names of certain places such as Zaranj, Jurm, Gharj and Hariwa-al-Rud, have been Arabicized without any doubt. In geographical works of the time the names appear in similar fashion. During that time Arabic was the literary language of the court. In the Arabic writings of the people of Khorasan the Arabicized forms have been used. The fact that the rulers of Ghor had affinities with the citizens of Khorasan and the Khorasanian courts, the Arabicization of four Ghorid names in the poem, does not mean that the poem is forged. We see that the Taherid rulers of Poshang of Herat, who were not that far away from Ghor, recited poetry in Arabic only 50 years later.
After the dominance of the Arabs, during the first century Hejira, the names of a large number of cities were Arabicized and the native people also used the Arabicized forms. For example Sagistan became Sajistan, and Zarang became Zaranj. These forms were used in all Persian and Arabic documents. If in the ancient works their original form was written, the scribes converted them to the Arabic form. For example the word chol, meaning desert or empty space, is commonly used in Pashto and Persian. In a copy of Tarekh-e Seistan its Arabicized form appears as jol. Similarly rakhj which is an Arabicized form of the rakhot in Pahlavi and rakz in Persian, has been written in the Arabic form in all books. All these changes took place during the early conquests of the Arabs and the spread of Arab influence. The word jurm was also coined by the incoming Arabs. It stems from garm, (with reference to a land of hot clime) Arabicized as jurm, the plural of which is written as juroom. The word, sard (cold), has been Arabicized with the use of the letter swad instead of the letter seen, the plural of which was written as surood, referring to cold mountainous areas. These terms came into use during the middle part of the first Islamic century, gained prevalence in Khorasan and found their way into Persian and Pashto literature. It is pertinent to say that the Arabs did not have such usage in their language.
He continues to write: "It is impossible to imagine that the people of Ghor, despite not accepting Islam, adopted the Arabic script?"
The issue of the acceptance of Islam by the people of Ghor was treated earlier, but to say that the people of Ghor had no contacts with Islam at that time is negated by historical facts. According to Ibn Asir (Asad-al-Ghaba, vol. 4, p. 239) and Hafiz ibn Hajr Àqalaniani (Alasaba, vol. 5, p. 268), Kais (Arabicized as Qais), one of the forefathers of the Pashtoons from the Sulaiman mountain, had met with the Holy Prophet. They refer to Ketab-al-Kabir as a source which deals with the classes of the people of Balkh (Fazayal-e Balkh, p. 317). It is not possible to disregard such authentic and noteworthy books.
Arabic script reached Afghanistan and Ghor during the first two Islamic centuries and had extended one thousand miles toward the east. The Touchi tablet of Waziristan, preserved in the Peshawar museum, has been inscribed with two scripts, namely Sanskrit and Arabic. The Arabic is written in the Kufic style of calligraphy. This inscription is dated 243 H. (858 A.D.). It reinforces the statement that a hundred years after the time of Amir Krorh, Arabic script had found its way into the mountains of Waziristan.
Now let us discuss his statement: "Amir Krorh's language is mixed." Beside the four Arabicized names of places, there is not a single word in the epic poem of Amir Krorh that is not pure Pashto. There are certain words with which Pashtoons are not familiar now. These words have been recognized through etymological analysis. Is it possible to call the language of such a poem mixed? If someone thinks it is mixed, then the question arises with what language? Can someone show a single word of another language in this poem? If there are words which have similarities with other languages, it is not with Arabic but with Persian. This is a natural phenomenon because in Ghor both languages were spoken and their linguistic closeness is possible. The language of Amir Krorh's poem is not mixed and this is clear to students of language.
He continues to write: "According to Habibi, if the language of the people of Ghor was Pashto after Islam, then prior to Amir Krorh or after him some documents should have been found in it."
Here it is important to mention that I have not stated that prior to Islam the language of the people of Ghor was Pashto. I have said that the language was so refined during the first century of Islamic era that magnificient epic thoughts could be expressed in it. From this it can be deduced that it was not a new and undeveloped language.
To show that the language of some people of Ghor was Pashto I present a passage from Tarekh-e Baihaqi. When Prince Masàud bin Sultan Mahmud attacked the Juros region of Ghor in Jamadi-al-Awal of the year 411 H. (1021 A.D.), Baihaqi writes: A learned messenger was sent there with a Ghorid man...so he may act as translator (p. 125). This shows that the language of the Ghorid people was something other than Persian as the emissary of Sultan Masàud certainly knew Persian and did not need a translator. So what language did the people of Ghor speak to require a translator. Since the clues of any other language have not been found in Ghor, then the probability is high that the language they spoke was Pashto. With regard to his statement that prior or later documents should have been present, suffice it to say that if we look for documents predating every literary work, then we assume that every written work should be preceded by a former piece of work. Such an argument is negated by logic and common sense. In Pata Khazana itself later works from the courts of Ghor are presented. If the skeptics believe that the prior work of every piece of Pashto literature should have a work prior to it, then the question arises where are such works of Persian and Arabic literature? If we consider a Persian poem as old, then should we ask what was it preceded by or what has happened to the older poem? If we are unable to find such a document then is it logical to reject the work?
He continues to write: "This Amir Krorh is a vague personality because not a single Arab or non-Arab historian has mentioned anything about him. It is far from possible that historians should not mention such a mighty and brave king. According to his own poem, Herat and Jurm were under his sway and he was even known in Rome."
It should be reminded here that the poem in question is a piece of epic poetry. In such poems poets say whatever they like and not all of it is true. In epic poems, the poet uses his utmost imagination to boast and exaggerate and to show a great deal of pride. When a poet says that he is recognized in Rome this does not mean that we should look for his name in Roman history. And if we are unable to find it then that does not mean that the poet did not exist. There is no doubt that Amir Krorh has resorted to poetic exaggeration. It is possible that he was recognized in Herat and Jurm but was certainly not known in Rome given the limited mode of transportation of the time. Poetic exaggeration is common in literature as shown in the following lines:
A lord, a world conquering king
The kings of all the world are his subjects.
Sometimes you see his signs in India
Sometimes they read his decree in Rome.
(Jamaluddin Mohammad Nasir, Lubab, p. 107)
Truly, the monarch praised in these lines was neither known in India nor did anyone read his decree in Rome. Such exaggerations cannot be accepted as historical facts. When the Arab poet of the court of Yàqoub Lais Safari wrote a qasidah as an epic poem he sent it to the caliph of Baghdad. Let us evaluate four lines of the poem to check its historical validity:
Ana ibn al-akaram min nasl jam
wa haiz ars mulook al-àjm
maà àlam al-kabian al-lazi
ba artaji an aswad al-lamam
I am son of the worthy, from the Jam race
Inheritant from the Alajam sovereigns.
Holder of the Al Kabian banner
With which I will become master of nations.
Was Yàqoub in reality of Jam lineage and did he possess the flag of Kawiyans? The fact is that, during the Sassanid period, this flag fell into the hands of Arab conquerors in the battle of Qadisia, 14 H. (636 A.D.), and was distributed as booty. Four centuries after Amir Krorh, Sultan Àlauddin Hussain, recited these lines after destroying Ghazni:
The world knows I am the Sultan of the world,
The light of the Abbasid dynasty.
When I sit on the royal throne,
The world and sky are one and alike.
Like Alexander, I will conquer the whole world,
And appoint a ruler in every city. (Tabakath-e Nasiri)
Are all these lines realistic and was he the emperor of the world? Was it possible for him to conquer the world like Alexander? We know that later he was captured by Khwarazm Shah. When Yàqoob Lais claims he is a descendent of Jam and when Hussain boasts to be the sultan of the world, we know that they are using poetic hyperbole. The boasting of Amir Krorh, who was a local king, is in the same token, and he could not have been an international celebrity at the time. The skeptic continues to write: "Tabaqathh-e Nasiri only speaks about Amir Polad (whom Mohammad Hothek citing, Shaikh Kata, introduces as the father of Amir Krorh) and does not mention Amir Krorh. Moreover, in Tabaqathh-e Nasiri, it has been written that after the death of Amir Polad, the throne was ascended by his nephews. Pata Khazana writes that after Amir Polad, Amir Krorh became the king. These statements are contradictory."
The silence of Minhaj Seraj regarding Amir Krorh does not negate his existence because historical narratives are taken from different sources. Every historian discusses a particular subject according to his sources of reference and what he hears about the topic. It is possible that what is written in one book is stated in another or that the other source may not contain the same information. Minhaj Seraj himself admits that at the time when he was writing Tabaqath he was away from his country in Delhi and did not have access to the sources he had left behind in Ghor. The information provided in Tabaqath and by Mohammad Hothek are complementary. Tabaqath discusses issues that we do not find in other books. While certain authors may have not treated an issue this does not mean that the information provided should not be considered correct. With regard to historical events the two books do not contradict each other. There were several rulers in different parts of Ghor governing simultaneously. It is possible that Amir Krorh ruled a certain region at the same time when Amir Folad's nephews were kings in other regions. Tabaqathh-e Nasiri clearly states that the members of this family were kings in Mandesh, Khaisar, Bamiyan, Takhar, Gailan and Kajran.
He continues to state: "It must be remembered that the science of Arabic prosody (urood) was founded at the beginning of the second century Hejira. The poem of Amir Krorh, though having nationalistic and local flavor conforms to the rules of Arabic prosody. How is it possible for someone in a far off land, away from Arab influence, to write poetry in accordance with the rules of Arabic prosody, when those rules were compiled only a few years earlier? Except that we consider such closeness to Arabic meter purely on the basis of chance."
This statement completely contradicts scientific thinking. Meter has a long history in Arabic verse and existed during the era of jahiliyat (ignorance) well before the time of Khalil bin Ahmad (circa 175 H.). Khalil compiled and classified meter in Arabic; he did not invent it. In Arabic literature we come across numerous poems which were written well before the time of Khalil but conform to Khalil's rules of prosody. These qasidahs were written before Khalil and even before the advent of Islam. Even if we assume that Amir Krorh's poem is based on Arabic meter, it is not correct to say that it is an occurrence by pure chance. In fact Amir Krorh's poem does not conform to Khalil's prosodic system whatsoever.
Personally, I am not aware of any such meter in Khalil bin Ahmad's rules of prosody where the first and second hemistich are four times the length of the third and fourth ones. If the respected skeptic is able to show such a pattern in the rules of Arabic metric prosody, it will be to good purpose. It is true that some Pashto poetry has been written with Arabic metric prosody in mind but this does not apply to compiled or non compiled Pashto poetry. Every Pashto poem cannot be made to fit the rules of Arabic prosody. Meter in Pashto poetry differs from meter in Arabic and this can be recognized on the basis of the use of accent, sound and other Aryan metric characteristics.
He states: "It should be remembered that prose was written before poetry. When we come across a poem written in such an eloquent style in 130 H. (748 A.D.) then there should be ample evidence of other works of prose and poetry in the language. At this juncture we will wait for such works to appear."
It is true that prose may have been written before poetry, but incidentally, the ancient documents of some languages of the world are in verse only. Examples are the Veda, Avesta, Eliad and others. On the other hand if we are unable to find works of prose this does not mean that the discovered verse is not acceptable. With this logic Persian poetic works of the first, second and third century Hejira should be discarded, because we have not found any work in prose belonging to this period.
We do not understand what is meant by 'pure poetry'? If the skeptics are able to show one foreign word in the poem of Amir Krorh then we would admit that the poem is not pure. By comparing this poem with ancient pieces of Persian poetry, recorded in Tarekh-e Seistan, we can tell which one is pure. In a verse from Mohammad bin Waseyf five out of ten words are Arabic. He wrote this poem in 296 H. (909 A.D.). Another couplet written 60 years after the era of Amir Krorh and cited in Lubab (p. 20) contains seven Arabic words from a total of 11. The skeptics do not have to wait for other pure Pashto poems to appear. They have at their disposal Pata Khazana which contains several pure Pashto poems. Such waiting applies to other languages.
After their sickening tirades (which are not based on scientific facts), these honorable writers come forward with their real motive and reveal their skepticism regarding Pata Khazana in the following words: "With the encouragement of the ruler of the time, Mohammad Hothek decided to include in his book such an unknown poem by an unknown person from unknown sources. The references mentioned in Pata Khazana have not been found anywhere, therefore Mohammad Hothek's statements cannot be believed in their entirety."
From the above it is clear that these skeptics consider the poems to have been forged by Mohammad Hothek with the encouragement of Shah Hussain. In answer to this we shall state that it is possible for one person to forge poetry related to one era and one style of writing. In Pata Khazana, however, we come across different styles of poetry written in different periods. Is it possible that Mohammad Hothek forged all of the poems? Is it possible for one person to write poetry of different intellectual trends, philosophies and tastes with varying dialects? Is it possible to write the epic poem of Amir Krorh with its special meter and use of words, and then be able to fabricate poems in the style of the poets of Ghaznavid courts such as Shaikh Asàd and Skarandoi? Furthermore is it possible for one person to fabricate tens of poems in tens of different styles and meters in tens of different dialects? And, at the same time be so well familiar with historical events that not a single poem shows any variance with historical events. If this is not conjecturing on absurdity then Hothek certainly was a genius.
If we look at biographical anthologies with such skepticism and disapproval then Lubab and other old works fall in the same category. If someone says that the poems presented in Lubab and other works are forgeries because these books have not provided references, or if the references cited are lost, and that Àwfi and others have forged them for unknown reasons; would it not be appropriate to call such a person malevolent and a bigot. We do not have doubts and reservations with respect to Persian and Arabic books and narrations. Is it not unjust to expound such reservations and skepticism when it comes to Mohammad Hothek?
Let us assume, for arguments sake, that Mohammad Hothek (as he has been accused) forged the ancient poem in the name of Amir Krorh for the satisfaction of the king. Why did he not forge it in the name of Amir Polad or his father Amir Kharnak, who were known personalities, and their exploits recorded in Tabaqathh-e Nasiri. In this case no one could have accused him or cast doubt on the historical events. Mohammad Hothek did not indulge in such fabrication because he had access to an old document. He refers to it on an accepted and scientific basis and cited what he saw in that book. Mohammad Hothek understood the responsibility of a writer or compiler of a biographical anthology to narrate what he saw or heard and to cite his references. If we continue to doubt biographical anthologies in this manner, then these words will ring true: Neither you will be left, nor him, or Fakhr Razi.
Here, I must add that the original calligraphed manuscript of Pata Khazana is preserved in the Calligraphy Library of the Ministry of Information and Culture and available for public viewing. In 1976 it was photographed and published.
Translator's note: Il Tesoro Nascosto Degli Afghani, Lucia S. Loi, Bologna, il Cavaliere azzurro, 1987 is a study of Pata Khazana. According to her reviewer C.J. Brunner, she provides a lexicographic analysis of 216 words which were listed as rare words by A. H. Habibi in the 1944 edition of the book. The words are analyzed and most are shown to be usages represented in 19th and 20th century Pashto dictionaries. Some problems of interpretation are resolved by using Platt's dictionary of Urdu, Classical Hindi and English. Brunner, in his review notes: "Habibi's mystifications, deliberate or not, are removed and with them the only prop of Hothek's dating and of the 1729 dating of Pata Khazana."
The list provided by Habibi has no 'mystifications', unless one is looking at it with a biased perspective. It is clear to Pashto speakers that some of the words are not in use in the language anymore. Over the years the Pashto Academy of Afghanistan and Pashto writers have started to reintroduce the words into the language as suggested by Habibi in his annotations. The commentary and annotations of the book clarify the issue of usage of such words. Pashto has common bonds with Indo-Iranian languages and the roots of a large number of old Pashto words can be traced in eastern languages which are out of use such as Sanskrit, Avesta, and Pahlavi and ones that are in use at the present time i.e. Hindi and Persian. The fact that certain words which appear in Pata Khazana, are not in use today, but are found in 19th and 20th century dictionaries does not prove that they are not rare or that the work is a pastiche of authentic old poetry in a fictional framework. To understand and analyze the subject, a thorough examination of the origin of the words, their etymology, structural relationships, Pashto poetics and the cultural and social setting of the Pashtoons at the time needs to be undertaken. This examination should provide a definitive critical study of the book based on philological considerations of linguistics and historical facts. To appreciate and understand the depth of Pata Khazana one has to have the ability to engage into another culture.
* Translator's note: In the bibliography of the book Wilber, D.N., 1967 appears as "Language and Society: The Case of Iran," Behavior Science Notes 2(1):22-30, 1967. In this article Pata Khazána or Pas'hto literature have not been discussed. Regarding Pata Khazána, Wilber writes in his book, Afghanistan 1962, p. 108-109: "The Puteh Khazaneh, published at Qandahar in 1729, includes Pushtu poems of the eighth and ninth centuries. Amir Kror, called Jahan Pahlavan, a ruler of Ghur in the second half of the eighth century, is said to have composed poems in Pushtu, and in the ninth century Shaykh Reza Ludi wrote poetry and Abul Mahmud Hashem wrote prose, both also in Pushto..." It seems that Dupree has not only made an error in citing Wilber but is raising an issue which the author has not even commented on.