Dasarajna Recontextualized: Part 3

All of OIT does not rest upon asserting these connections as true. The case is already made without these notices. But with the case established, it’s special pleading not to see dispersal patterns in Dāśarājña names. Talageri connects Ālinas with the Greek Hellenes, and the Alans of Roman records. The point is not to folk etymologize Ālina, Hellene and Alan. The point is to speculate afresh on previous paradigms, given that IE dispersals did happen OIT.

First attested in Roman sources in the 1st century AD, Alans are considered an Iranian people that spoke an Eastern Iranian language. Witzel marvels at the absurdity of connecting a name that appears in the 1st century AD to another present in the Ṛgveda, at least two millennia prior. But temporal distance in attestation does not prevent the imagination of Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages in the 3rd millennium, and enough linguists have found evidence of their influence in the Ṛgveda. This means that the rationale that names, influences and linguistic strata linger through time is otherwise accepted. Why should it be derided when Talageri uses it?

Other representations of the name are Alanoi, Alanliao, Alanguo, Allon, Alauni and Halani, all of which are considered variations of the self-designation of Aryan. Even Ālina, with Ṛgvedic ambiguity on the -l- and -r- sounds, can be rendered as Ārina. Talageri also connects Ālinas with Hellenes, which Witzel accuses is linguistically impossible. There is little consensus on the origin and timelines of the Hellenes, but the phonetic similarity to Halani (Alan) can be noted. Talageri’s conjecture is that, since IE-speaking people did migrate OIT, especially during Sudās’ era, names such as Hellene and Alan can be traced in the Dāśarājña mantras. This logic does extend to his linking of Śimyu with Sairimas and Sarmatians, but Śimyu is a personal name in the Dāśarājña, so the point need not be insisted.

When Talageri connects Śivas to Khivas, Witzel (mis)understands this to be the 19th century AD kingdom in Uzbekistan. But Talageri alludes to the earliest Iranian roots of the region, otherwise attested as Kheeva, Khorasam, Khwarezm and others. Witzel’s speculation that Śivas relate to Sivis is fair, though he would reject Paurāṇika testimony that affirms this. In the Purāṇas, the Ānavas are composed of Sivis/Sivas, who descend from Sivi Auśinara ~3300 BC onwards. They are attested during the Mahābhārata as Saivyas, and readings from the Brāhmaṇas indicate that Sivi-descendant tribes lived on in India long after Sudās. This makes sense when it’s understood that IE dispersals were primarily through exile/migration/dispersal of specific royal lines.

Talageri’s connection of Viṣāṇins to Piśācas is, according to Witzel, “for no good reason at all.” This is a strange assessment, because 1- It’s a connection that Talageri does explain, and 2- It’s the connection he disclaims is most conjectural. The connection between Bhalāna and Baluch is already speculated by Witzel. Talageri notes the conversion of ‘na’ to ‘cha,’ and conjectures a conversion of ‘va’ to ‘pa,’ to wonder if Viṣāṇin is linked to Piśācina.

Witzel would like to project that Talageri swims uninhibited in a sea of amateurish etymological possibilities, and picks from them at whim and fancy—“Give Talageri one consonant, and he will identify.” In reality, Talageri works within a consistent OIT model where it’s known that Sudās’ reign precipitated outward migrations of IE-speaking tribes. If the modern Nuristanis, located in Afghanistan and with clear IE roots, were not known, Talageri would have no reason to conjecture Viṣāṇin = Piśācina = Nuristani.

The above discussions cover a single Dāśarājña mantra where Pakthas, Bhalānas, Ālinas, Viṣāṇins and Śivas are named together as Sudās’ enemies, and depicted as fleeing under his attacks. It is conclusive that these people migrated out of India, and it is reasonable that they spoke dialects similar to the Pūru-Bharatas’. The question then is, should each of Talageri’s specific connections be dismissed as folk etymology? Or, should the coincidence of connections across Eurasia for each name, all associated with IE-speakers, be noted for its preponderance? It should be reiterated—the OIT model stands plausible as is, it does not need these linkages. But under the OIT paradigm, clear evidence is found in the Dāśarājña mantras. Talageri’s “amateur” linkages to IE dispersal are certainly far more plausible than Witzel’s philological comparisons to Mahābhārata.

Talageri then makes a series of proto-Iranian connections. Kavi/Kavaṣa are linked to Iranian Kauui/Kauuaša. Hoffman and Tichy’s 36 rules are eschewed here and a simple question is asked—are the names not connected? In fact the true question is—do they have common roots outside India, or within India? The Dāśarājña mantras unmistakably place Kavi and Kavaṣa (and also Vaikarṇas, associated with Kavaṣas in Avestan tradition) in Punjab in 2500 BC, likely along the Paruṣṇī. If invasionism/migrationism is still to be clung to, it must now argue that proto-Iranians came all the way to India, fought battles here, and then pedaled back to Iran, which became their eventual homeland.

Cue Occam’s razor—proto-Iranians were in fact Indians (or South Asians, if one likes), and like all other IE-speaking people they migrated west.

Next are the Pārthavas and Parśavas, found only in Ludwig’s translation as Parthians and Persians. Witzel’s protest that Parthians are attested much later is strange for reasons previously discussed. The entire point is that IE dispersals can be traced by finding the same names located first in India, and later out of India. Pārthavas are anyway found in translations of 6-27-8, so they exist in the Ṛg Veda regardless of Witzel’s protest. These two names give clear evidence of dispersal from India to Iran.

A final connection Talageri draws is between Bhṛgus and Phrygians, again dismissed by Witzel as folk etymology. But the Indo-Aryan ‘bha’ is the Greek ‘pha,’ so the linguistic connection is sound. Also sound is the Bhṛgu = Phleguai connection, for -l- and -r- are interchangeable in this context. Bhṛgus are noted for introducing fire to the Āryas, and Phleguai were fire-priests among the Greeks. The connection is both phonetic and semantic. The composite picture then is this:

The Eastern IE languages (proto-Greek, proto-Albanian, proto-Armenian, proto-Iranian and proto-Thraco-Phrygian) migrated out of the homeland 2500-2000 BC.

This homeland was India, and in 2500 BC a political consolidation was triggered by Sudās Paijavana, a Pūru-Bharata. His campaigns are chronicled in the Dāśarājña mantras.

Through Ālinas, a number of proto-Greek/Albanian/Armenian languages were dispersed out of India. Through the Bhṛgu ṛṣis associated with some of these people, proto-Thraco-Phrygian also dispersed out. Kavi, Kavaṣa, Śiva, Pārthavas and Parśavas evidence the dispersal of many proto-Iranian people, in themselves possible precursors to later proto-Greeks and other IE people.

Sudās’reign thus triggers two spatially exclusive trends. Within India, he’s responsible for the emergence of Mature Harappan, and the integration associated with it. Outside India, he’s to be blamed/credited for the arrival of Eastern IE languages. As traced by Hodiwala, Talageri and Elst, the story isn’t complete with Sudās. It continues with his descendants Sahadeva and Somaka, which evidences that IE dispersals happened not as a singular event, but over a few centuries for each wave.

F - The Reign of Sudās Paijavana

Given the re-contextualization, an attempt can be made to paint a temporal sequence of Sudās’ reign. This is conjectural territory that plays within the two frameworks, and brings in Paurāṇika testimony provided it does not violate Ṛgvedic data.

Coming to power some time near 2500 BC, Sudās follows a long line of Bharata rulers that have been consolidating power in the Haryana/Punjab regions, originally from the Sarasvatī-Dṛṣadvatī Rivers.

Contemporary to him are Yadu tribes near the Yamunā, branched into sub-clans such as Andhakas and Vṛṣṇis (not attested in Ṛgveda by name); a host of Ānava tribes that descend from Sivi Auśinara of 3300 BC, and are distant enough by now that their genealogies are not remembered; the Aikṣvāku tribes, where complementary evidence must be considered.

Divodāsa is either Sudās’ father, or his ancestor by a few generations—the latter more likely. In the Ṛgveda, Divodāsa battles the Dāsa named Śaṁbara. In the Purāṇas, his sister is Ahalyā, who is visited in her old age by Rāma, son of Daśaratha. In the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Daśaratha battles a Rākṣasa named Śaṁbara, where his allies are the Kekayas (placed in Punjab, and are Ānavas descended from Sivi Auśinara).

Pargiter’s reconciliation places Daśaratha as contemporaneous to Divodāsa, which with the above synchronisms makes clear that the Rāmāyaṇa’s temporal window exists a few generations prior to Sudās.

Both Divodāsa and Daśaratha battle Śaṁbara, and the Kekaya-Ānavas appear as allies. This agrees with Ṛgvedic evidence, where in the era of Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna the Ānavas were allied to Pūru-Bharatas. It also tallies with Talageri’s reading that Aikṣvākus were Pūru-Bharata allies, which explains the appearance of Trasadasyu Paurukutsa. In Ṛgvedic sūktas involving Divodāsa, a pair referred to frequently is Atithigva-Kutsa. To Talageri, Atithigvas were Bharata rulers and Kutsas were Aikṣvāku ones.

Coming to power in the wake of Divodāsa’s successful expansions (and Maṇḍala 6), Sudās’ is the era of mature Ṛgvedic composition and hymnology (Maṇḍalas 3 and 7, maybe parts of 2, 4, 5). As is common in historically attested dynasties, he possibly contends with internal rivals first. These are the enemy Pūrus of the Ṛgveda, and through the Purāṇas we know them to be led by Saṁvaraṇa. In Paurāṇika genealogy, a prominent descendant of Bharata was Ajamīḍha, who had three sons. His elder son’s line ruled from Hastināpura, in which descends Saṁvaraṇa. The lines of the other two sons are called the North and South Pāñcālas, respectively. The North Pāñcālas are the Tṛtsus under Sudās, and it can be speculated that the South Pāñcālas mounted a confederacy under Bheda.

While there is no evidence for such, the Bheda-conflict along Yamunā is taken first. Here Sudās consolidates the area where later emerge kingdoms named Śūrasena, South Pāñcāla and Matsya. Through Paurāṇika genealogy, the southern Yamunā by 2500 BC is consolidated by a host of Yādava clans—Andhaka, Vṛṣṇi and Śūrasena. It can be argued that this is where Sudās first encounters Kuśikas, or Viśvāmitras.

In the Purāṇas, Viśvāmitra descends in the clan of Jahnu, placed along the Gaṅgā, in Kanyākubja. This is why the river here also gets the name Jahnāvī, attested in the Ṛgveda in Maṇḍala 3, composed by Viśvāmitra Gāthin and his clan. Four centuries before Sudās, exploration, irrigation and excavation by the Aikṣvākus under Bhagīratha disturb the Gaṅgā’s flow, causing a displacement of Jahnu’s clan and flooding its villages. In time, this clan, also called Kuśikas, spreads north along the Gaṅgā and into the Himālaya, familiarizing them with the sources of Vipāś and Śutudrī, which they follow downstream to explore the entire area.

If Kīkaṭas are to be placed in Magadha, and given that they’re mentioned in a mantra composed by Viśvāmitra, a parallel evidence comes from the fact that the original Viśvāmitra attained enlightenment along the Kauśikī River (or Kosi, near Magadha).

Bheda’s allies are Yakṣus, Śighras and Ajas. Yakṣus, as equated to Yadus, tally with Paurāṇika evidence. For Ajas, it could be conjectured that this refers to other descendants of Ajamīḍha. A few centuries before Sudās, a notable king among Aikṣvākus (and Rāma’s ancestor) was named Aja, so the name could stem from here. For Śighras, there is no speculation. Sudās’ Bharatas are initially portrayed as a minority among Bheda’s people. They and their religion are persecuted, the condition improving only once the Vasiṣṭhas become Tṛtsu purohitas.

Co-existence and material connections between Mature Harappan and OCP emerge in the archaeological record by the later 3rd millennium BC. These can be explained by Sudās’ consolidations along the upper Sarasvatī-Yamunā-Gaṅgā geography. His consolidation was federal in nature, since tribes like Yakṣu, Śighra and Aja pay him tribute.

Temporally sequencing Sudās’ alliance with Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha is difficult. Yamunā and Paruṣṇī feature in sūktas by Vasiṣṭha, while Vipāś and Śutudrī in those by Viśvāmitra.

The Paruṣṇī River is the region of battles between Ānavas, Druhyus and their allies on one side, and Sudās’ Pūru-Bharatas on the other. On the Ānava side, also called Dāsas, are Pakthas, Ālinas, Bhalānas, Śivas, Viṣāṇins, Vaikarṇas, Pārthavas and Parśavas, led by men such as Kavaṣa, Śimyu and Kavi Cāyamāna.

Ānava puras are attacked, and the definition of pura seems to depend on the model one uses a priori. In the two frameworks of this essay, this could be Harappan-style cities, or mountain strongholds, or both. These puras are not destroyed. Instead, they are abandoned with resources/bounty left behind. At other places, Indra negotiates treaties, such that Ānava possessions are divided among Sudās’ people. This indicates cultural unifications ushered by ṛṣi clans, which would manifest archaeologically as commonalities in weights, measures, town-planning, ritual artifacts, seal-motifs, architectural geometry, farming techniques, social divisions and other aspects. Sudās also has to contend with Purodātā Turvaśa, who is possibly aided by Bhṛgus and Druhyus.

It may be assumed that the above events happen over a long period. They may even portray the entire duration of Sudās’ reign, of decades of campaigning along several rivers that eventually established a federally organized civilization—the Mature Harappan. This organization is imperial, but not always through conquest. At many places Sudās negotiates treaties, accepts tributes and apportions property/bounty. Yudhyāmadhi may be a final enemy that rejects this structure, and is defeated in one-on-one combat.

At the long end of these campaigns, Sudās conducts a rājasūya, the regnal ritual, where Vasiṣṭha list the many victories and battles, exalting Sudās and Indra. Sudās’ enemies are thought of as the Dāśarājña, and the name is embedded into the sūktas Vasiṣṭha composes. The geography of Sudās’ campaigns covers modern Greater Punjab, Haryana and parts of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

In other words, in 2500 BC, around the time that the Harappan Civilization enters its mature, integration phase, there is evidence of a political force spreading across its entire geographical extent. Sudās Paijavana gives clear evidence of the ruling authority behind Mature Harappan.

G - Conclusion

This essay engages in the following three steps:

1. Establish OIT as the working model for IE dispersals, and focus specifically on the wave that dispersed Eastern IE languages.
2. Base IE dispersal timelines along ISC periodization, such that Mature Harappan and Eastern IE dispersal are seen to coincide.
3. Place Sudās Paijavana squarely in the middle of this, in 2500-2200 BC.

This allows a re-evaluation of the Dāśarājña mantras in the Ṛgveda, which are found to represent much more than a single battle Sudās fought against a confederation of ten kings. In reality, Sudās was an ambitious imperialist that struck out in all directions from his base around the Sarasvatī, and provided the politically organizing force that ushered in Mature Harappan. The Ṛgveda has evidence of gradations in ruling titles—rājan, rājakā, samrāṭ. Preceding Sudās by a few generations, a ruler named Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna is declared a samrāṭ, which most translations acknowledge as some kind of grand sovereign. This indicates that there exists, even in Sudās’ time, a precedence for conquest, empire and consolidation. Various ruling hierarchies and tribal dynamics interact in a shifting, federal manner, which Sudās yokes into a singular structure.

In the epilogue to this era, a final wave of consolidation is conducted a few generations after Sudās, by his descendants Sahadeva and Somaka—an account that is chronicled in the Ṛgveda and Avesta, both. This helps confirm that IE dispersals, or the integration of Mature Harappan, happened over a few centuries that can broadly be placed 2500-2000 BC. All of this makes a strong case not only to read the evident historicity in Dāśarājña, but to overturn its conventional reading and establish a new paradigm for proto-Bhāratavarṣa. It is basis the above findings that we confidently correct Witzel’s characterization of the Battle of Ten Kings to be an account that:

Celebrates the victories of Sudās in his battles against ten kings, which once and for all established Bharata supremacy in northern India, ushered in Mature Harappan, triggered the dispersal of Eastern IE languages, and set the stage for the formation of proto-Bhāratavarṣa.

Authored by Amritanshu Pandey. Published by Brhat.