Monday, 20 April 2020

The Identity of the Enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña Battle in the Rigveda

The Identity of the Enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña Battle in the Rigveda

Shrikant Talageri

To most people with a general knowledge of India and Hinduism, the most famous war or battle in ancient India is the Mahābhārata war described in India's Great National Epic of the same name.

However, to people with a much deeper knowledge of Indian and Hindu history and texts, and to Indologists and Vedicists, there is another very important and more ancient battle in India's history: the Dāśarājña battle described or referred to in the seventh Maṇḍala (book) of the Rigveda: more specifically in VII.18 and 83, and also referred to in VII.19 and 33, and indirectly in VII.5 and 6.

This battle has always been grossly misinterpreted by the Indologists to be a battle between invading "Aryans" and a coalition of "non-Aryan natives". But as has been clearly shown in my various books and articles, the battle was very clearly a battle between the Pūru Bharata king Sudās and his warriors on the one side, and a coalition of tribes mainly belonging to the Anu or Ānava tribal conglomerate on the other. These Anu tribes were the ancestors of the various Iranian tribes―and also of the Greeks, Armenians and Albanians―of latter-day history.

This completely revolutionizes Indo-European history. As per the linguistic analysis, the twelve known branches of Indo-European languages were together in a contiguous area of mutual contact, in and around the Proto-Indo-European Homeland, till around 3000 BCE. The first branch to separate from the rest was the Anatolian (Hittite) branch. The next was the Tocharian branch. Then the five European branches: Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Finally, five branches were left in the Homeland after the departure of the other seven, and these five Last BranchesAlbanian, Greek, Armenian, Iranian and IndoAryan―developed certain new linguistic features in common which are missing in the other earlier departed branches:
a) A “complete restructuring of the entire inherited verbal system” (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:340-341,345), with the formation of athematic and thematic aorists, augmented forms and reduplicated presents.
b) Oblique cases in *-bhi- (GAMKRELIDZE 1995:345).
c) The prohibitive negation *mē (MEILLET 1908/1967:39).
d) Also, some of these developed a change of *s > h from initial *s before a vowel, from intervocalic *s, and from some occurrences of *s before and after sonants, while *s remained before and after a stop (MEILLET 1908/1967:113): Greek, Armenian and Iranian.

The official theory, not based on any records or other evidence but only based on speculations and arguments, holds that this Homeland was in the Steppes.
But the recorded evidence of the Rigvedic hymns places all these five Last branches in the Punjab, on the banks of the Paruṣṇī (Ravi) river, at the time of the Dāśarājña battle.
Obviously there is opposition to this evidence from the entrenched vested interests: i.e. the AIT-theorists. Therefore it is necessary to clarify it again in clear terms.

We will examine the validity of this evidence as follows:
I. The Evidence in the Dāśarājña hymns.
II. The Doubts and the Objections.
III. The yardsticks: Data, Logic and the Weight of the Evidence.
IV. The Evidence Again.

I. The Evidence in the Dāśarājña hymns

The basic evidence, as given in my earlier books and articles, is as follows:

Sudās, the Vedic (Indo-Aryan/Pūru) king enters the Punjab area from the east and fights this historical battle against a coalition of ten tribes (nine Anu tribes, and one tribe of the remnant Druhyu in the area), and later these tribes start migrating westwards.

The Anu tribes (or the epithets used for them) named in the battle hymns are:
VII.18.5 Śimyu.
VII.18.6 Bhṛgu.
VII.18.7 Paktha, Bhalāna, Alina, Śiva, Viṣāṇin.
VII.83.1 Parśu/Parśava, Pṛthu/Pārthava, Dāsa.
(Another Anu tribe in the Puranas and later tradition is the Madra).

These tribal names are primarily found in only two hymns, VII.18 and VII.83, of the Rigveda, which refer to the Anu tribes who fought against Sudās in the dāśarājña battle or "the Battle of the Ten Kings". But see where these same tribal names are found in later historical times (after their exodus westwards referred to in VII.5.3 and VII.6.3).  Incredibly, they are found dotted over an almost continuous geographical belt, the entire sweep of areas extending westwards from the Punjab (the battleground of the dāśarājña battle) right up to southern and eastern Europe:

Afghanistan (Avesta):   Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa).
NE Afghanistan:   Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin).  
Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan:   Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha).
Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran:   Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna).
NE Iran:   Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava).
SW Iran:   Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava).
NW Iran:   Madai/Mede (Madra).
Uzbekistan:   Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva).
W. Turkmenistan:   Dahae (Dāsa).
Ukraine, S. Russia:   Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu).

Turkey:   Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).
Romania, Bulgaria:   Dacian (Dāsa).

Greece:   Hellene (Alina).

Albania:   Sirmio/Sirmium (Śimyu).

The above named historical Iranian tribes (particularly the Alans and Sarmatians) include the ancestors of almost all other prominent historical and modern Iranian groups not named above, such as the Scythians (Sakas), Ossetes and Kurds, and even the presently Slavic-language speaking (but formerly Iranian-language speaking) Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians and others.

II. The Doubts and the Objections

Many people, not necessarily only those rejecting the evidence, have asked some questions about how these Rigvedic tribes have been identified with the Iranian-etc. tribes of latter-day. One reader of my article "The Full Out-of-India Case in Short" has very genuinely asked: "In the verse 7.83.1 you have identified the word 'pṛthuparśavo' as tribes (Pṛthu/Pārthava and Parśu/Parśava) but Griffith has translated this word as 'broad(pṛthu) axes(parśu)'. So how did you come to the conclusion that the word 'pṛthuparśavo' are names of some tribes and not broad axes?"
Another, in the comment section of my above article, asked Koenraad Elst: "Do you agree with Shrikant Talageri that Hellene are descendant from the Rig Vedic Alina tribe?"

It is possible that some readers may have genuine doubts or queries about these identifications, and, given the tendency among many Indian writers to freely indulge in such "identifications" based on chance or coincidental similarities in name, such questions are valid and must be clarified.

But it must be borne in mind that this article is meant to clarify these identifications for people who are genuinely open-minded and want to know the Truth in these matters, and not for objectors of the heckle-and-troll variety. Those can never be "convinced" and there is no need to explain anything to such people, since they are not interested in the Truth and will only simply brush aside all the evidence, whatever evidence is put forward, without blinking an eyelid.

There is the "Aesop's fable" about the wolf and the lamb:
A lamb is drinking water at a mountain stream. A little further up the hill, a wolf, also drinking from the stream, notices the lamb and decides he wants to eat that lamb and tries to think of an excuse to do so. He loudly calls out to the lamb and asks him why he is muddying the water of the stream that he, the wolf, is drinking from. The lamb answers that he can't be muddying the water, since he is downstream and the wolf is upstream. In any case, says the wolf, aren't you the same lamb who was calling me all kinds of names from a distance about one year ago? The lamb answers that he cannot be, since he is new to the area and is only a few months old. The wolf snarls in rage and says, anyway, if it wasn't you, it was your father. And he pounces on the lamb and kills and eats him up.

The people who refuse to accept the Rigvedic evidence that we are dealing with here, even after reading this article, are in the category of that wolf: they are not arguing because they really believe in something or have any genuine doubts or objections; they are arguing with a purpose in mind. Their purpose is to reject the evidence.

Well, there is nothing that can be done about these wolves. This article is meant for intelligent and honest human beings.

III. The yardsticks: Data, Logic and the Weight of the Evidence

So how does one evaluate any evidence? There are three yardsticks: data, logic and the weight of the evidence. Another requirement is intelligence and honesty.

To illustrate how such evidence can be understood, let me give one very hypothetical example. You are at a loose end, and you casually pick up a story-book in English that you see lying around, and start reading it, without paying much attention to the title or author. You read through 8-10 pages. The story is about a small boy named Boris, whose father is a carpenter in a village. The story begins with the boy being given some breakfast by his mother, and then he leaves for school. On the way he speaks to his neighbor, then he meets various friends also proceeding to the school. They stop on the way to buy sweets from a village shop and have some altercation with the grouchy shopkeeper. They then go on to school, and then follow some descriptions of the classes conducted by two or three schoolmasters. That is as far as you have reached, when you misplace the book somewhere outside the house and that is all you know about it: later you cannot find the book.

A friend turns up and asks you what the book you were reading was about, and you tell him. He asks you where the story is situated: is the village, in the story, a Russian village or an English one?

What you have read till now does not mention the country. But you have one immediate piece of data: the boy's name is Boris, which (you happen to know) is a Russian name. So the village, you logically feel, must be in Russia. It is a story of a Russian boy in a Russian village.

But, persists the friend, it may just be a coincidence that the name sounds like a Russian name. And even if it is one, the boy may actually be in England. After all, the present PM of the UK is Boris Johnson. Also, there was an old and famous British actor named Boris Karloff. A little research shows that Boris Johnson was named Boris by his parents after a friend who was an immigrant from Russia. And Boris Karloff was a stage name adopted by the actor (1887-1969) borrowed from a novel which had a Russian character named Boris Karlov, and his actual name was William Henry Pratt. Nevertheless, the friend persists, there could be a boy in an English village named Boris, for whatever reason.

However, racking your brain, you remember the names of the neighbor and the shopkeeper, and of some of the friends and schoolmasters of Boris, in the story―and they are all Russian names. Now logic dictates that this could only be in a Russian village and not in an English one.

Why not, insists the friend? There are areas in England today filled with immigrants from some particular country even Indian neighbourhoods. This story could be situated in a Russian neighbourhood in England.

You now realize that your friend is not really interested in knowing where the story is situated. He is just determined, for the heck of it or for reasons of his own, to make you "accept" that the location may not be in Russia and could be in England.

Then you remember another point: the story mentions the year, if not the country, in which the story is supposed to be taking place: it is 1890 (although the actual book itself is a new one). Now it is extremely unlikely that there could have been a Russian neighbourhood in England in 1890.

But, as expected, your friend refuses to accept this as any kind of evidence. He insists that since the data (so far as the 8-10 pages you have read and remember) does not actually mention the country, it could be either Russia or England. More likely England, since the book is in English and not Russian!!

For a moment you are irritated: the data, the logic and the entire weight of the evidence makes it very clear that the story is located in Russia and not in England. Then you suddenly realize: why on earth are you even discussing the subject with that friend? Does it make the slightest difference to him? Can you "convince" him, or is it even at all necessary to "convince" him? Does it matter what he thinks, or claims or feigns to think? What a waste of time!! So you just give a tired and bored yawn, and firmly change the subject.

[As an irrelevant aside, the phrase "bored yawn" was used by me in my second book, where I wrote: "Some academic scholars have sought to prove such a migration by asserting that the Rigveda itself was composed in the west: 'Brunnhofer, Hertel, Hüsing and others, argue that the scene of the Ṛgveda is laid, not in the Punjab, but in Afghānistān and Irān'. [HCIP, p.248]. However, this view is so absurd, and so clearly contrary to the geographical facts of the Rigveda, that it can be dismissed with a bored yawn.'' (TALAGERI:2000:343-44). In his cantankerous review of my book, "Westward Ho:…", Witzel took note of this phrase: "Occasionally, however, T. lapses into 'a bored yawn' (p.344)", which I found so funny that I have a soft corner for this phrase ever since].

Well (to return to the issue on hand) , the entire weight of the evidence gives us the identity of the enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña battle in the Rigveda as Iranians-Armenians-Greeks-Albanians. There is no need to "convince" people of the type represented by the friend above. It would be an unbelievable waste of time to even try.

But there is a need to present the weight of the evidence before more logical and honest questioners.

IV. The Evidence Again

1. So let us examine the weight of the evidence, starting with pṛthu-parśavah in VII.83.1: is it "the Pṛthus and the Parśus", meaning the names Pṛthu/Pārthava and Parśu/Parśava,  literally "the Parthians and the Persians"? Or does it mean "with broad axes"?
The thing is that this combined phrase, pṛthu-parśavah, is not found anywhere else, not only in the whole of the Rigveda, but in any subsequent text in the whole of Sanskrit literature, so clearly it is not a common idiomatic "phrase".

And the word parśu does not mean "axe" at all: the word for "axe" in both the Rigveda (where it is found in 11 verses) and in later texts is paraśu, which is a different word altogether.

Parśu, which is found exactly four times in the Rigveda, means "rib" in I.105.8 and X.33.2, and is the name of a person in VIII.6.46.
The word in the sense of "rib" makes no real sense in the context of VII.83.1, but the Indologists do not want to create problems for themselves translating it as "the Pṛthus and the Parśus", literally "the Parthians and the Persians", so they either try to translate it clumsily as "holding some kind of broad (pṛthu) weapon or tool", or somehow treat the word as a reference to the "ribs" of the chest. So each translator makes up his own meaning (Sāyaṇa, obsessed with ritualistic translation, and ignorant of historical implications, treats it as the "ribs" of a horse, used for cutting the kusha grass for the sacrifice!):
Griffith: "with broad axes".
Peterson: "with broad axes".
Wilson: "with large sickles".
Grassmann: "with broad sabers" (i.e. swords).
Sāyaṇa: "with the large rib-bones of a horse"
Geldner: "with swollen chest".
Jamison: "the broad-chested ones".

However, as Griffith points out in the footnote to his translation of the verse, "Ludwig declares that the former meaning is perfectly impossible, and argues that pṛithu-parśavah must mean 'the Pṛithus and the Parśus'".

The clinching evidence that the phrase does indeed mean "the Pṛthus and the Parśus", apart from the fact that the combination of the two words is not found anywhere else, is that the first word Pṛthu (Pārthava) in VII.83.1 definitely refers to a tribe and not to the adjective "broad": the leader of the alliance against Sudās in the battle is Kavi Cāyamāna (VII.18.8), whose ancestor Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna is clearly called a Pārthava in VI.27.8.
[Incidentally, like the phrase pṛthu-parśavah, the name Kavi Cāyamāna is also camouflaged in most translations, the notable exception being Wilson].

But the evidence of "the Pṛthus and the Parśus", literally "the Parthians and the Persians", does not stand alone. Every next step produces additional, and more and more weighty, evidence that the enemies of Sudās in the battle were, to begin with, proto-Iranian tribes:

2. The other tribes named in the hymn include the Pakthas and the Bhalānas (VII.18.7). Is there any doubt about who these two tribes are? The words here cannot be identified as anything else but the names of tribes, and they are too distinctive and peculiar to be identified as anything but references to the two Iranian groups found immediately to the west of the Punjab-Sind line in Pakistan today: the Pakhtoons/Pashtuns and the Bolans/Baluchis. Even Witzel, among many others, makes the very obvious identification of the Pakthas with the Pakhtoons (incidentally also identifying the word Parśu with Persians!) and of Bhalānas with the Bolan pass area in Baluchistan:
"Parśu ~ Old Pers. Pārsa 'Persian', Paktha 8.22.10 (mod. Pashto, Pakhto)" (WITZEL:1999a:24, 2000a:§11).
"the Bhalānas tribe took part in the Ten Kings Battle (RV 7.18) that settled the suzerainty of the Bharata chieftain over the Panjab tribes. The Bhalānas are identified with the Bolān pass and river near Quetta in Baluchistan" (WITZEL:1999a:24).
And again: "The southernmost tribe mentioned in the RV are the Bhalānas took part in the Ten Kings Battle (RV.7.18) and are certainly to be located near the Bolān pass and river near Quetta" (WITZEL:2000a:§11)

So here we have, to begin with, four very prominent historical Iranian tribes whose ancestors were undoubtedly present as inhabitants of the Punjab at the time of the Dāśarājña battle: the Persians, Parthians, Pakhtoons, Baluchis.

In 2001, after my second book, there was a desperate attempt by Witzel to do some firefighting with a broad sweeping and uncouth denial: "The eager efforts made by many Indian scholars of various backgrounds to rescue these lists as representing actual historical facts173" [fn.173: "The latest example is Talageri (1993, 2000) who builds a whole imaginative prehistory of South Asia on such 'data': with an early emigration of the Druhyu branch of the Aryans to Iran and Central Asia in the 5th millennium BCE, including such fantastic etymologies and identifications as Bhalānas  =  Baloch (who only appear on the scene after 1000 CE!), Bhṛgu = Phrygians, Madra = Mede (Māda), Druhyu = Druids, Alina + Hellenic people, Śimyu = Sirmio (Albanians), etc. -- these are Oakish cases where even Elst (1999: 192 sq.) does not always follow him"] (WITZEL:2001a:57).

This diatribe above represents a classic example of the brazen and fraudulent nature of the western vested interests backing the AIT:
a) See Witzel here superiorly telling us that the Baluchis "appear on the scene after 1000  CE" in sharp contradiction to his own identifications published just two years, and one year, earlier, and in fact even as early as 1995 (WITZEL:1995b). Note that Witzel earlier even specifically identified the Bhalānas as "Aryans": "the IA Bhalānas" (WITZEL 1999a:37).
b) Needless to say, when there are four clear identifications of the enemy tribes of Sudās in the battle with four major Iranian people of later times, this determined "scepticism"―to the point of sharp criticism and rejection―of a whole other bunch of identifications which add to the weight of the evidence, is clearly nothing but outright chicanery and mendacity. All these are not names culled from different sources or from some long, late list of persons from some extended Puranic account or from the Epics. They are all names found in just four verses from two hymns out of the 1028 hymns and 10552 verses of the Rigveda, all these names pertaining to a single historical event.
Note that while he summarily and sweepingly rejects as "Oakish cases" the massive evidence identifying the names of the tribes with the inescapably near-identical names (many identified even by himself) of latter-day Iranian and other Indo-European groups, he persists to this day in propagating the theory that the battle was a battle between invading "Aryans" represented by Sudās and native "non-Aryans" represented by the enemy tribes―in insolent defiance of the fact that he cannot produce any evidence at all, not even a single "Oakish case", showing that the names of the enemy tribes are Dravidian, Austric, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan, Andamanese, Sumerian or Semitic, or anything else linguistically "non-Aryan".
In fact, as recently as 2016, he published, in his Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, an article by a "scholar" repeating such trash―see my article "Stuhrmann, Witzel and the Joke that is Western Indology".
By his logic―and with there apparently being no need for him to produce evidence for his linguistic assertions and dissertations and for his very "imaginative prehistory of South Asia" (without any data)―he could well claim that the enemy tribes of Sudās were Japanese, Aztec, Inca, Eskimo, Maori, Papuan or Hottentot!

3. Before moving on to the other tribes, it would be significant to see the leaders of the enemy coalition. The battle hymn tells us that the king of this coalition is Kavi Cāyamāna (VII.18.8), and the priest is Kavaṣa (VII.18.12).
Both these names are Iranian names found in the Avesta: Kauui, Kauuaša.
Taking this backward, we see that the ancestor of Kavi Cāyamāna, Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, is called a Pārthava in VI.27.8. Going forward, the main royal dynasty in the Avesta (after the Iranians have moved from the Punjab to Afghanistan) is the Kauuiiān (Kayanian) dynasty descended from their ancestral king Kauui. Still much later in time, it is the Parthians (Parthava) of ancient Iran who claim to be descended from this Kayanian dynasty.

4. Going to the larger picture, we must note the collective identity of the enemies of Sudās in the battle: they are tribes belonging to the Anu or Ānava tribal conglomerate: the battle takes place on the Paruṣṇī river, and the hymn tells us that the land taken over by the Bharatas was the land of the Anu: "Indra at once with conquering might demolished all their strong places and their seven castles; the goods of Anu's son he gave to Tritsu" (i.e. to the Bharatas): VII.18.13. This point is also noted by P L Bhargava: "The fact that Indra is said to have given the possessions of the Anu king to the Tṛtsus in the battle of Paruṣṇī shows that the Anus dwelt on the banks of the Paruṣṇī" (BHARGAVA 1956/1971:130). The area, nevertheless, continues even after this to be the area of the Anu, who are again shown as inhabitants of the area even in the Late Books: "The Anu live on the Paruṣṇī in 8.74.15" (WITZEL 1995b:328, fn 51), and even in later historical times, where it is the area of the Madra and the Kekaya, who were Anu.
Even apart from the Iranian names of the Anu tribes in the battle, there is more evidence that they were proto-Iranians:
a) According to the accounts in the Puranas, the Anu were originally inhabitants of Kashmir and areas to the east before a large section of them migrated southwards and occupied almost the whole of the Punjab: these northern areas are even today the areas of the Nooristani languages which have proto-Iranian linguistic features.
b) The Puranas narrate this migration from the north: "One branch [of the Anu], headed by Uśīnara, established several kingdoms on the eastern border of the Punjab […] his famous son Śivi [Auśīnara] originated the Śivis [footnote: called Śivas in Rigveda VII.18.7] in Śivapura, and extending his conquests westwards […] occupying the whole of the Punjab except the northwestern corner" (PARGITER 1962:264).
The name Auśīnara is an Iranian name found in the Avesta: Aošnara.
c) In later historical times, the name Anu is prominently found at both the southern and northern ends of the area described in the Avesta: Greek texts (e.g. Stathmoi Parthikoi, 16, of Isidore of Charax) refer to the area and the people immediately north of the Hāmūn-ī Hilmand in southern Afghanistan as the anauon or anauoi; and Anau is the name of a prominent proto-Iranian or Iranian archaeological site in Central Asia (Turkmenistan).
There is plenty of detailed evidence showing the Iranians migrated from India, but this massive evidence is connected with terms like dāsa, with the history of the priestly classes, and with geographical data in the Avesta, etc., so we will not detail it here, since here we are primarily concerned only with the identity of the enemies of Sudās. Whoever is interested can go through this evidence elsewhere (TALAGERI:2000:202-231; TALAGERI:2008:265-273).

5. The names Alina and Śimyu as enemy tribes in the battle are very important. Like the pairs Pṛthu-Parśu and Paktha-Bhalāna, so important in Iranian history, the pair Alina-Śimyu represents a pair of very important historical tribes which spread the furthest in later times: as far as South Russia and Ukraine in the north and as far as southeastern Europe in the south.
The Alina and Śimyu spread furthest in the north as historical Iranian or Iranized  groups―the Alans and Sarmatians―who are the ancestors not only of many later Iranian people like Ossetes, Kurds and Scythians (Shakas), but also many presently Slavic-speaking people like Serbs, Croats, Bulgarians and others.
And Alina and Śimyu, the original groups, spread furthest in the south in even earlier times, and reached southeastern Europe with their original languages which became the Hellene (Greek) and Sirmio (Illyrian, modern Albanian) branches of Indo-European.
Now, the objectors who say these identifications are far-fetched should note the following facts:
a) If four of the names of the tribes in the Anu coalition who fought against Sudās in the battle can be so clearly and irrefutably identified with the names of four very prominent Iranian tribes of latter-day history (Persians, Parthians, Pakhtoons and Baluchis), then it becomes a matter of very special pleading to deny similar identifications of the other names, out of the few names mentioned in just four verses in two hymns referring to the battle, without investigation and serious consideration.
b) The two names are very significant names since they are found only in the Rigveda, and are not found anywhere else in any Indian text or record after that.
In fact, Alina is found only once, in the battle hymn in VII.18.7. Śimyu occurs twice in the Rigveda, and the two occurrences only strengthen the significance of the total disappearance of the name from later texts: it is found in VII.18.5 for the enemies of Sudās, and in I.100.18 for the enemies of Sudās' descendant Sahadeva (I.100.17) who has taken the expansion further westwards.
c) The two words are clearly not part of the Vedic or Sanskrit vocabulary, not only because they are not found anywhere else, but also because the word Alina at least is phonetically a non-Vedic word: the linguistic normal for Vedic and in fact for Vedic-Avestan (including Mitanni) words, is that the Indo-European "l" is represented by "r"―the Avesta, and the Mitanni records, in fact do not have the "l" sound at all, and its occurrence in the Rigveda is a result of influence from eastern dialects, which are supposed to have retained the "l" in many words.
[This, incidentally, is strong linguistic evidence for the OIT, see TALAGERI:2008:283-285].
The names in the hymns are therefore clearly the self-appellations of the two Anu tribes (the proto-Greeks and proto-Albanians), and their exact phonetic forms in the Rigveda are the approximate forms of these self-appellations as pronounced by the speakers of the Pūru Vedic language. In spite of that, the identification is very clear: Vedic "a" represents Greek "a", "e" or "o", so the Rigvedic Alina could be a representation of  a Greek Eline (note: the modern Greek pronunciation of their name Hellene is Elini-ka). Śimyu is certainly a representation of the ancient Albanian/Illyrian self-appellation Sirmio.
d) These two words clearly leave a historical trail east-to-west from the Punjab to southeastern as well as eastern Europe, which would be too much of a coincidence if the strong similarity in names was purely accidental:
Alina (Sanskrit equivalent of a Greek Eline) found in the battle hymn as the name of an Anu tribe in the Punjab. Later it is found as Hellene, the Greeks  in southeastern Europe. Finally, as Alan, or Alani in Roman records, (which would be an Iranian equivalent of a Greek Eleni), an important Iranian tribe which migrated northwards and westwards towards eastern Europe.
Śimyu is first found in the Old Book 7 in the Rigveda as the name of an enemy Anu tribe in central Punjab, then in the New Book 1 as the same enemy tribe now in Afghanistan (in the area beyond the Sarayu river). Then it is found in the Avesta in Afghanistan as Sairima. Then it is found as Sirmio, the ancient Illyrians/Albanians in southeastern Europe―the capital city of the Illyrians was Sirmium. Finally, as the Sarmatians―Iranian Sarmaha, or Sarmatae in Roman records, an important Iranian tribe which migrated northwards and westwards towards Ukraine.

Too much of a "coincidence" if the similar words refer to different people.
The Alina who migrated furthest retained their Greek name and language (Hellene), while those among them who settled down on the way got linguistically absorbed into the Iranian branch (Alan).

We also see here an important historical phenomenon: the tribal group which
migrates furthest retains its linguistic identity, while those of that tribe who remain behind, or on the way, get absorbed into the surrounding linguistic group:
The Śimyu who migrated furthest retained their Albanian identity and language (Sirmio), while those among them who settled down on the way got linguistically absorbed into the Iranian branch (Avestan Sairima, later Sarmaha).
We will see this phenomenon similarly repeated in the case of two more names.

6. Next we see the name Bhṛgu mentioned as the name of one of the enemy groups in the battle hymn, which can be identified with the Phrygians or Phryge, the ancient representatives of the Armenian branch of IE languages.
As we saw earlier, Witzel treats this identification also as an "Oakish case". Here he clearly seems to reject linguistically confirmed identifications: that Vedic bhṛgu = Greek phleguai = Phrygian phryge is an accepted linguistic case. In fact, this identification, even without the help of modern Linguistics, was made as long ago as in the ancient Greek records of Herodotus. The Wikipedia entry on an ancient tribe called Bryges tells us: "The earliest mentions of the Bryges are contained in the historical writings of Herodotus, who relates them to Phrygians, stating that according to the Macedonians, the Bryges 'changed their name' to Phryges after migrating into Anatolia".
Again we see: the Bhṛgu who migrated furthest retained their Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian name and language (Phryge), while those among them who settled down on the way got linguistically absorbed into the Iranian branch (as their priestly class the Āθrauuan), and those who remained behind got linguistically absorbed into the Indo-Aryan branch (as the priestly class of Bhṛgu). The Armenians, in the Caucasus area, lost the name, but retained the original language much influenced by Iranian.

7. Now we have a strong set of seven names of enemy tribes from the battle definitely covering nine historical Iranian-Armenian-Greek-Albanian tribes: Persians, Parthians, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, Alans (and Hellenes), Sarmatians (and Sirmios), and Phrygians. It would be churlish to still be too "sceptical" of the identifications. The following are two such cases:
Two more tribes in the list are Śiva and Viṣāṇin, both named in VII.18.7. [No, they are not Śiva and Viṣṇu! The context is clearly of enemy Iranian tribes].

About Śiva, we already saw Pargiter's reference to this tribe: "One branch [of the Anu], headed by Uśīnara, established several kingdoms on the eastern border of the Punjab […] his famous son Śivi [Auśīnara] originated the Śivis [footnote: called Śivas in Rigveda VII.18.7] in Śivapura, and extending his conquests westwards […] occupying the whole of the Punjab except the northwestern corner" (PARGITER 1962:264).
Curiously, Witzel also notes this connection with Śivi: "Śiva (= Śibi?)" (WITZEL:1995b).
This Anu tribe of the Śivas can easily be identified with the Khivas or Khwarezmians of latter day Uzbekistan.

That leaves Viṣāṇin. I identified this tribe, admittedly speculatively, in my books with the Nooristani or Piśāca people: the proto-Iranians of the north. Witzel, in his review of the second book, put it as: "the Viṣāṇin, identified, for no good reason at all, with the 'Piśācas (Dards)". My logic for the identification was that p and v are sometimes interchangeable in the Rigveda (paṇi=vaṇi), and the final n could become c in later times (bolan=baluch), so viṣāṇ could be piśāc.
This is admittedly speculative logic, and this last named word could be rejected as a mere, and non-justifiable, speculation, made just to round off the list. So I will not add this name in the list at the end of this article.

8. Now we come to a word which is regularly used in the battle hymn for the enemies of Sudās: dāsa.
This word is used in the Rigveda to refer to all non-Pūru people, but specifically to the Anu or proto-Iranians. This is proved by the fact that while the word is used in an inimical or hostile sense throughout the Rigveda, it is used in a good sense in three hymns: in VIII.5.31 (where the Aśvins are depicted as accepting the offerings of the dāsas), VIII.46.32 (where the patrons are directly called dāsas) and VIII.51.9 (where Indra is described as belonging to both āryas and dāsas). These three hymns belong to a special group of four hymns in the Rigveda, where (in three of them) the patrons gift camels to the composers of the hymn, and (in three of them) western Indologists (including Witzel) have identified the patrons as being kings with Iranian names.
Also, daha means "man" in the Iranian Khotanese language
Further, the Avesta has names with both dāsa and the related dasyu: oŋha, Daŋhu.frādah, Daŋhu.srūta, Ātərədaŋhu, Jarō.daŋhu, Ərəzauuaṇt-daŋhзuš.

But, as in many such cases, dāsa could also be the name of a particular Iranian tribe (perhaps in fact, the ancestors of the Khotanese, known as the eastern Sakas).
In any case, we find a trail of this tribal name also spreading westwards: the Dahi in Afghanistan in the Avesta, and later the Dahae in W. Turkmenistan. And also the Thraco-Phrygian Dacians in southern parts of  eastern Europe.

9. And finally, back to a very important Anu tribe which happens to be not mentioned in the Rigvedic battle hymn: the Madra.
Although not mentioned in the battle hymn, they are a very important tribe in Indian history: in fact, in the Puranic accounts, the two most important Anu tribes of ancient Punjab are the Madra and Kekaya. Obviously this is the post- Dāśarājña-battle ancient Punjab known to the Puranas and Epics―the Anu tribes of the battle, no doubt, are better known, as we saw, for their roles in world history after their departure from India. But anyone who knows the Epics knows the Madra and the Kekaya, and also the Gāndhār further west. Though they are Anu, they are Indo-Aryanized Anu of the area long after the battle (which took place in the period of the Oldest Books―6, 3, and 7―of the Rigveda, well before 2500 BCE). At the same time, though Indo-Aryanized, they remain perhaps in many ways rivals of the eastern Pūru. In my third book, I have pointed this out in some detail (TALAGERI:2008:105-6).

But, though not mentioned in the battle hymns in the Rigveda, the ancestors of these two tribes must obviously have been part of the Anu population, and perhaps the alliance against Sudās as well, and some of them may have formed part of the westward movement of the Anu Iranians out of India. We have no evidence of this in respect of the Kekaya (even if the name may remind the reader of some Parsi friend named Keki, short for Kaikhushroo), but we do have evidence of a very important Iranian tribe outside India: the Mada (Medes or Medians).
Again, we see the phenomenon, of the Madra who migrated furthest retaining their Iranian name and dialect (Mada/Mede/Median), while those who remained behind got linguistically absorbed into the Indo-Aryan branch (Madra) while retaining their tribal identity as Anu.

So this is the full case for the proto-Iranian-Armenian-Greek-Albanian identity of the enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña Battle in the Rigveda.
It may be noted again that:

1. This evidence (except for the name of the Madra) is based wholly on names mentioned in just four verses in two hymns out of the 1028 hymns and 10552 verses in the Rigveda, and all pertain to one single event.

2. The identity of these names is unwittingly backed, in a large number of cases, even by western scholars opposed to the OIT (like Witzel), as we have seen. And the historical Iranian tribes and other (Armenian-Greek-Albanian) people with these names are found in later historical times in a continuous belt covering all the areas from the Punjab (the scene of the battle) to southeastern and eastern Europe:
Afghanistan: [Avesta: Sairima, Dahi] (and NW Pakistan): Pakhtoon.
Iran: SE (and SW Pakistan): Baluchi, NE: Parthian, SW: Persian, NW: Mede.
Uzbekistan: Khiva.
Turkmenistan: Dahae.
Turkey: Phrygian.
Greece: Hellene.
Albania, Slovenia: Sirmio.
Romania, Bulgaria: Dacian.
Ukraine, S. Russia: Alan, Sarmatian.

3. The names correspond to the names of ancient tribes or people belonging to exactly those four branchesIranian, Armenian, Greek, Albanianof Indo-European languages which, according to the linguistic analysis, were (along with Indo-Aryan) together in the IE Homeland after the departure of the other seven branches.

Can all these be "coincidences" or "Oakish cases"?

Should one accept all this massive evidence, or simply accept, without any evidence at all, that the enemies of Sudās in the battle were Dravidian, Austric, Burushaski, Sino-Tibetan, Andamanese, Sumerian or Semitic, or anything else linguistically "non-Aryan"? Perhaps, Japanese, Aztec, Inca, Eskimo, Maori, Papuan or Hottentot?

Appendix: The Eastern Front

(added 22/4/2020)

As the title of the article makes clear, it deals with the enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña battle. However, Dr Kalyanaraman has raised the point that the article is incomplete if it does not deal with all the names of the enemies of Sudās as given in the battle hymn VII.18. He is right: I am selectively dealing with the OIT aspect of the Dāśarājña battle, but since the main hymn dealing with this event is the battle hymn VII.18, it is necessary to deal with the hymn as a whole as well­―and this includes other battles and other names in this hymn .
The battle hymn VII.18 does contain some more names of the enemies of Sudās, both by tribe and by personal name:
VII.18.6: Turvaṣa, Yakṣu, Matsya.
VII.18.11: Vaikarṇa.
VII.18.18: Bheda.
VII,18.19: Bheda, Aja, Śigru, Yakṣu.
VII.18.20: Devaka Manyamāna.

Who were these persons (Bheda, Devaka Manyamāna) and tribes (Vaikarṇa, Aja,  Śigru, Yakṣu, Matsya, Turvaṣa) and what was their role in the battles of Sudās?

As we know from the Rigveda, Sudās' campaign of expansion and conquest starts in Book 3, where he performs a yajña and lets the horse loose and starts conquering "east, west and north" (III.53.11) under Viśvāmitra's priesthood. The yajña was in the Haryana homeland of Sudās, and he first (under Viśvāmitra) conquers eastwards in the region of the Yamuna.
Later, under Vasiṣṭha's priesthood, Sudās moves in the westward direction, towards the Punjab, and fights the Dāśarājña battle on the banks of the Paruṣṇī (Ravi) in central Punjab.
The battle hymn VII.18 is composed after Sudās completes all his conquests and the dust has settled down, by the Vasiṣṭhas, who receive gifts from Sudās (at the end of the hymn), and the hymn refers to all the battles of Sudās in a glorificatory summarization of his valour.

These other names in the hymn, which we have not dealt with earlier, pertain largely to his earlier eastern battles on the Yamuna. It may be noted that these names are distinctly different from the earlier names, and cannot be similarly identified with Iranian and other tribes. And they all clearly represent the east:
Thus VII.18.19 clearly tells us that the battles involving Bheda, Aja, Śigru and Yakṣu took place on the Yamunā. The previous verse, 18, again refers to Bheda, and the next verse, 20, to Devaka Manyamāna. All these are clearly earlier and eastern battles.
VII.18.6 refers again to the same Yakṣu, thus making it clear that this verse also refers to the earlier eastern battle. This is confirmed by the other two names in the verse: Turvaṣa and Matsya:
Turvaṣa and Yadu are the two great tribes (of the Five Tribes, or tribal conglomerates) to the south of the Yamuna, and this clearly shows that at least the Turvaṣa are directly named among the enemies of Sudās in the eastern battle.
Significantly, the name Yakṣu in the hymn is very regularly identified by Witzel, in practically every article of his, with the Yadu. In one place, he tells us: "Yakṣu 'sacrificer'―a pun for Yadu" (WITZEL:1995b).
Matsya is extremely important: the Matsya kingdom is one of the sixteen Mahajanapadas described in texts referring to the pre-Buddhist era, and it was located to the southwest of the Yamuna, south of Haryana. This analysis of the eastern enemies of Sudās in the Yamuna battle proves that it was already in existence in the time of the Old Books of the Rigveda!

That leaves only the Vaikarṇa, mentioned alone (in fact as the name of two allied tribes) in VII.18.11. It is not certain whether this tribe fought in the eastern battle or the western one, but it occurs among the western verses. For what it is worth, it may be noted that Witzel frequently associates this word with Vaēkərəta, the Iranian land mentioned in the Avesta: "Vaikarṇa (cf. Vaēkərəta V.1.19)" (WITZEL:1999b). And again "the caturgaoša in Avestan: v.i" (WITZEL:1995b).
If correct, we have here one more Iranian connection.

Actually, there is one final word left to be explained to round off the whole hymn: the word Pūru, referred to critically in VII.18.13. This is notable, since it is known that Sudās and the Bharatas (also called Tṛtsus in this hymn―although, since the word is used only by the Vasiṣṭhas and only in three of the hymns which refer to this battle, i.e. in VII.18,33,83, it is assumed by some people to be a reference to the Vasiṣṭhas themselves) are themselves a sub-tribe of the Pūru.
So what exactly is this critical reference to the Pūru? What does it indicate?
As pointed out repeatedly and in great detail in my books and articles, the Pūru are the Vedic "Aryans", the "People of the Book" in the Rigveda, and the Bharata (to which Divodāsa and Sudās belong) are a sub-tribe of the Pūru, but the Bharata Pūru are the particular "People of the Book" in the earlier period of the Family Books (2-7) before the Rigveda became a general Pūru book.
The Rigveda therefore refers to the Pūru (meaning particularly the Bharata Pūru) throughout the Rigveda in a benevolent and first-person sense. But in two cases, where there is some conflict or difference of interest between the Bharata Pūru and the other or non-Bharata Pūru, to whom the word then refers, the references are critical: VII.8.4 and VII.18.13. One of the two references is in the battle hymn.

Does this mean that the non-Bharata Pūru were also among the enemies of Sudās in the battle, as many scholars interpret? It is not impossible that this should be the case at least in the earlier eastern phase of the campaign, since it is clear that Sudās was an ambitious conqueror, and we have the numerous references to "ārya and dāsa enemies" and "kinsmen and non-kinsmen enemies", and finally Viśvāmitra's hymn in Book III which refers to the eastward beginnings of Sudās' campaign and explicitly tells us (III.53.24) that the Bharatas, when they set out to do battle or conquest, do not differentiate between kinsmen and non-kinsmen.
But, apart from that, there is no direct reference to the Pūru in references to the eastern battle. They are mentioned in the battle hymn in the verse which talks about the Tṛtsus (i.e. Sudās and the Bharatas) taking over the lands and properties of the Anu.
However, in the Dāśarājña battle hymn (VII.18.13), which is westward orientedin the direction opposite to the eastern Pūruit is not likely that these Pūru could be directly involved.
And indeed, the reference is so vague (since it refers to the Pūru as "scornful" and talks of defeating them "in sacrifice" rather than in actual battle) that it can lead to different interpretations:
1. Many scholars sweepingly include them among Sudās' enemies in the Dāśarājña battle which is clearly extremely unlikely, although this could be modified to take this as a reference to the earlier eastern battle.
2. In my books, I have suggested that the Pūru may have "scornfully" refused to align with the Bharatas in their westward campaign, and hence were expressly snubbed in the victory yajña.   
3. Some othersJamison, Stuhrmann, etc.treat them as allies of the Bharatas, and the verse in question as a dispute over the "spoils".

[IMPORTANT ADDITION 24/4/2020: As I never paid attention to the eastern battles, beyond noting that they had taken place, in my earlier books and articles, until I started out on this appendix to this article two days ago, let me make note of a fact that I found out today; the Matsya referred to in the eastern Yamuna battle in VII.18.6 along with the Turvaṣa and Yakṣu (=Yadu) are also a branch of the eastern Pūru, so it could well be that at least this section of the eastern Pūru counted among his enemies in the eastern expansions of Sudās].

In any case, the exact role of the other non-Bharata Pūru in the hymn and battle does not change the main historical consequence of the war: the westward emigration of the Iranian, Armenian, Greek and Albanian ancestral speakers. 


BHARGAVA 1956/1971: India in the Vedic Age: A History of Aryan Expansion in India. Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow, 1956.

GAMKRELIDZE 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Ivanov, V.V. Mouton de Gruyter, 1995, Berlin, New York.

MEILLET 1908/1967: The Indo-European Dialects. Meillet Antoine (tr. Samuel N. Rosenberg). Alabama Linguistic and Philological Series No. 15, University of Alabama Press, 1967.

PARGITER 1962: Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. Pargiter F.E. Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, 1962.

TALAGERI 2000: The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan (New Delhi), 2000.

TALAGERI:2008: The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence. Aditya Prakashan (New Delhi), 2008.

WITZEL 1995b: Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics. Witzel, Michael. pp. 307-352 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin.

WITZEL: 1999a: Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages. Witzel, Michael. in MOTHER TONGUE, Special Issue, 1999.

WITZEL 1999b: Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the Linguistic Situation, c.1900-500 B.C. Witzel, Michael, 1999, Harvard.

WITZEL 2000a: The Languages of Harappa. Witzel, Michael. Feb. 17, 2000.

WITZEL 2001b: WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri, at


  1. I have a question for you Shrikant Talageri. Where were the five major Rig Vedic located prior to the Rig Vedic composition? Because the Indian tradition records that the origin inhabitants of many parts of India were Nagas.

    1. By "Nagas" do you mean people speaking the Sino-Tibetan languages spoken today in Nagaland, or have you (or whoever is making these claims, or whoever is an expert on the records which contain these "traditions") some texts or inscriptions revealing the linguistic identity of these original "Nagas", proving that they were speaking non-Indo-European languages?
      No-one has claimed that all Indians spoke Sanskrit or some Indo-European tongue. I have always maintained that the South was Dravidian and the East was Austric. The borders between these three linguistic groups may have been fluctuating, and people must have changed their languages in time. Also, I have pointed out that the northwest had a different type of religion from the rest of India (as jointly represented in the Rigveda, Avesta and ancient Druidic traditions in Europe).
      Wherever (i.e. whichever part of India) the five major Rigvedic tribes were located in the earliest times,the evidence certainly shows that all the known branches of Indo-European languages were in India and the migrations took place out of India. So they were originally in some part of India. And by "originally", as I have pointed out many times,I do not mean ten thousands of years ago or lakhs of years ago. Let us stick to reasonable time lines and the available data.

    2. By Naga I mean snake worshipers, whatever language they may have spoken or whatever ethic group they may belong to, they certainly by all accounts such as the Kashmir tradition, records inhabitants were Nagas prior to the Aryanization of that Area.

    3. I think you had better brush up your knowledge of the issues concerned before expressing opinions. On the one hand you say "whatever language they may have spoken" and on the other you say "prior to the Aryanization of the area".

      "Aryanization" means "switching over to an Aryan/Indo-European language from a non-Indo-European one". It does not mean switching over from worshiping snakes to worshiping Indra or performing a yajna. It does not mean switching over from wearing a skin to wearing a dhoti.

      How can "Kashmiri tradition" record that the people spoke a non-Aryan language before they were "Aryanized"? The concept of Aryan and non-Aryan languages is a new linguistic concept just 300 years old. And in the absence of records how do you know there was a pre-Aryan language era?

  2. The Central Asians essentially came under IE rule and their culture was reshaped. This reshaping eventually reverted but you can see the genetic history with Tajik people.

    The reason Sanskrit remains 'untouched' is due to the fact that Vedic Sanskrit (along with the 'untouched' Ancient Greek, and the now-dead Avestan) were one of the first languages to separate from the original IE language.

    Another important thing is that say the PIE people did originate in India. So first of-course the should-have come from Bengal as that is the farthest out region that the IE language spreads in India (other than Sri Lanka which is just so far off I wouldn't even know what to say). But you keep referencing that Vedic Sanskrit and Indo-Aryans culture comes from North-Western India. Despite this Bengali Brahmins are in fact the people group with the highest amount of R1 DNA (associated with IE).

    Now suppose they came from North-WEstern India. They would then have to spread all the way across Iran, spread through Central Asia while another group splits off and spreads through Asia Minor(?), then pass through the Caucasus while the other group takes over Greece, then culturally/linguistically morph Russia (to varying degrees in different places), then pass through Scandinavia while the other group spreads through the Balkans and onto Italy, then spread through Germany, spread through France and spread through the British Isles, and finally spread through Iberia.

    Now consider this: Ancient Greek emerged as a language before Vedic Sanskrit.

    Does any of this seem feasible in the time that they had? No, not really. Is it even possible to spread that much without taking time to pause to have enough men to even carry such a thing out? No, probably not. Would the way languages are branched still match up? Not in the same way, though they could possibly resemble the way language groups are today. You see the Germanic languages are fairly distant from Sanskrit, while Greek and Old Persian are much closer. In accounting for the severe differences in the Avestan language and in the Germanic languages it would take some kind of intoxicant or something to believe that Germanic languages came from the Avestan language. They pronounce things in a very different way. The Greeks are much closer yet geographically they are just as far away from IA as Germanics are.

    We also have the Dravidians spreading in from the Arabian Peninsula. How is it possible for them to have spread into India such a long time before and then for some reason out of nowhere a IE comes out from Dravidian culture. The languages and culture are indeed very distinct. The Dravidian languages use different functions of grammar and such. If you say we cannot be sure that Dravidians came from the Arabian Peninsula, you'd be denying genetics. I mean you already are as R2 I'm fairly sure is found only in Europe. Dravidians were not fair-skinned per se but they were definitely lighter than what they are today. They were probably similar to what the modern Arabs skin color is. Regardless, they mixed with the Austroloid populations already in India and replaced their culture (like the IA).

    To say that the IA came from an initially Austroleseian and then a Dravidian cultural zone is absurd. To say that it then spread out farther from there is even more absurd. And to denounce linguistics (which is in-fact a science) for the sake of making a point outside of the realm of truth is probably the most absurd thing I've heard.

    It is understood that the Indo-Europeans may have maintained some sort of cohesiveness as a distinct group of people for a while after their initial spread.

    1. Many faults in your comment.
      1. About "genetics", please read my book "Genetics and the Aryan debate". All this talk about R1 and "skin color" is extremely outdated. Please check: Dravidian-speaking Chenchu and Kota, Sino-Tibetan speaking Manipuris, and Hebrew-speaking Ashkenazi Levites have more R1a1 than "Aryan" Persians, Germans, Greeks and Englishmen. There is no connection between Genetics and language spread.
      2. Do you even know the abc of linguistics? It does not seem so from what you are writing. You are writing pure rubbish. If you cannot bother to read the linguistic evidence in my books and articles, please at least read books on general linguistics.
      I cannot discuss things with a person who is trying to learn abc and presumes to be able to write a thesis on Shakespeare's works.


  3. Unknown:

    " Because the Indian tradition records that the origin inhabitants of many parts of India were Nagas"

    Provide evidence. Don't act like a bully.

    "But you keep referencing that Vedic Sanskrit and Indo-Aryans culture comes from North-Western India."

    He makes no such claims. In fact it just the opposite of what he claims. Read carefully the article about Rig Vedic geography and chronology of the Mandalas. Rig Vedic Puru's expanded both east and west because of the Sudas' expansionist wars. Western rivers like Sindhu appear late in the Rig Veda. Do your homework before badgering other people with questions.

    "Despite this Bengali Brahmins are in fact the people group with the highest amount of R1 DNA (associated with IE)."

    There is no evidence that a particular haplogroup which is found in many non IE speakers can be associated with IE only. Your argument is patently circular and based on the AIT .

    Regarding the R1a controversy watch these latest presentations by geneticist Chaubey and Swarkar Sharma

    with slides in English

    Pay particular attention to the slide at 33:45. The European Z280 and its various subclades have not been found in South Asia. On the other hand Subclades of Z93 like L657 have been found on the steppes. So if genetics has any relevance in this debate at all it going to favor Talageri's work.

  4. Unknown:

    Read the following article by London based geneticist Premndra Priyadarshi slowly and repeatedly. There are four parts to it

    1. I have read some his works but its not all correct, he makes a claim that modern homo-sapiens have their origin in India. He also states that the gene for light complexion also originated in India. He has some good points though.

  5. Unknown:

    More recent articles FYI

  6. Unknown:

    "The reason Sanskrit remains 'untouched' is due to the fact that Vedic Sanskrit (along with the 'untouched' Ancient Greek, and the now-dead Avestan) were one of the first languages to separate from the original IE language."

    All Indo European linguists agree that Anatolian was the first one to split off from IE followed by Tocharian.

    Avestan is hardly dead. The modern Iranian languages are related to it the same way Indo Aryan languages are related to Sanrkrit.

    Not a clue what "untouched Greek" means. Please enlighten us.

  7. Part 1:

    Shrikant Talageri below is a short summary refuting your thesis my an Indic Scholar called Sanjay Sonawani. Please read through it carefully.

    While “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT) is being widely disputed, Mr. Shrikant G. Talageri has proposed “Out of India Theory” to add to the further dispute. Though Talageri, often is dubbed as Hindu nationalist scholar, have heavily been criticized for that, still we need to look into his theory and discuss how he, like other AIT/OIT theorists, is going wrong unnecessarily complicating the simple issues.

    According to Talageri, it is evidenced from Rig Veda that the Aryans moved from east to west, from Haryana towards Iran and Europe. He cites chronology of the River names appearing in various Mandala’s of early to late part of the Rig Veda and implies that the changing graph of the river names shows that after the time of King Sudasa Aryan movement began from east to west. “In the Early period, right from pre-Rig Vedic times to the time of SudAs, the Vedic Aryans were settled in the area to the east of the Punjab: MaNDala VI knows of no river to the west of the SarasvatI.” Talageri states in his book, “Rig Veda” A Historical Analysis, chapter 4 titled as “The Geography of the Rig Veda”

    It is clear that Talageri is implying demographic migration of the Vedic Aryans from east Punjab, Vedic Aryan’s original habitat, to Afghanistan, from the graph of the rivers appearing in Rig Veda. From battle of ten kings too Talageri wants to impress upon us the westward movement of the Vedic Aryans and not otherwise as has been claimed by the AIT/AMT theorists.

    Let us have a closer look at his theory. Mention of river names in Rig Veda in different order does not imply the demographic migration of the Aryans in either direction. Rig Veda has been composed over the time span of about 300 to 500 years in the clans of ten different seers. 300 to 500 years time span that is given to the composing of Rig Veda, however, may not be accurate. It is just an assumption based on the calculation of generations of the Rig Vedic seers. Still it can be assumed that the composing of Rig Veda was continued for at the least couple of centuries. Talageri himself classifies Rig Veda in early, middle and later parts thus agreeing that the Rig Veda was composed over the longer period. Over this longer period of few centuries, and being mostly the pastoral, semi-nomadic, community, it is but natural that they would have been aware of the rivers located nearer or farther. If, as Talageri claims, the oldest part of Rig Veda does not mention any river from the west, they did not knew any other river of the west, hence they must have been settled east of the Sarasvati River, is a strange logic! He is forgetting the main purpose of the Rig Vedic texts is religious, not to document the geography.

    1. Part 2:

      I must draw your attention to a fact to which most of the Indologists give deaf ear. First of all it is not certain that the present available Rig Veda is in complete form consisting of all the verses composed by various seers over the period!

      A mythology is the Veda’s had become obscure and mostly forgotten in Ved Vyasa’s time. Ved Vyasa gathered the available verses from different parts and put them in order dividing the bulk in the four parts. Ved saMhita was originally said to be consisting of over hundred thousand hymns, whereas the present Veda’s are just 1/10th of the original compositions. Whether myth is true or not is not a matter of our present discussions, but there seems various detectable interpolations in the Rig Veda. The order of Rig Veda, from first to tenth Mandala too is not chronologically correct. For example first Mandala of Rig Veda is actually has been composed in the late Vedic times. From 2nd to 7th Mandala’s are older whereas remaining Mandala’s form part of the later compositions. From late addition of Purusha Sukta in tenth Mandala it clearly seems that available Rig Veda is also interpolated to some extent though the claim is that the Rig Veda has orally been preserved as it is from ancient times without any alteration.

      Hence the scholars should have been more careful while taking every word from Rig Veda as a final to support their theories. The riddle of original language of Rig Veda too remains unsolved, though the attempts are being made in that direction.

      However, we will have to do with the available text because we will not know ever what contained in the missing portions of the Rig Veda.

      If considered Talageri’s Aryan migration theory, it seems that Vedic people were hopping from one place to another while compositions of Rig Veda were continued by the Vedic seers. Basis of his theory is, as described before, the names of the rivers appearing in each Mandala in certain chronology. For example in early Mandala only Saraswati River finds its mention and he thus concludes that Vedic Aryan’s didn’t know any river located to the west of the Sarasvati. Doubtless this is a bold statement. Mention or omission of any river name cannot become an evidence of the geography known to the Vedic people.

      Also mention of any river in any verse does not also necessarily mean that the Vedic people were settled by that particular river when the specific verses mentioning the river name (s) were composed. One should not forget the main objective of Rig Vedic rhymes is religious in particular, not to describe geography in general! Mention of the river names in Rig Veda are in praise of them in poetic form. For such praises it does not necessarily requires that the Vedic people’s or seers had to be inhibited in the close vicinity of those mentioned rivers.

      Talageri states, “SarasvatI is still the most important river in the MaNDala: it is referred to by the eponymous RSi Atri (V.42.12; 43.11) who also refers to the RasA (V.41.15). All the other references to the western rivers (Sarayu, KubhA, Krumu, AnitabhA, RasA, Sindhu) occur in a single verse (V.53.9) by a single RSi SyAvASva, obviously a very mobile RSi who also refers elsewhere to the ParuSNI (V.52.9) and even the YamunA (V.52.17).”

      From the above statement Talageri shows that Seer Syavasva was a mobile person hence he could mention the rivers from Afghanistan to Punjab. Again this is a blatant statement as he has blindly considered Ghaggar being the Vedic River Sarasvati. Rather all above mentioned rivers refer to the geography of present Afghanistan and bordering India. Of Yamuna we cannot be so sure whether it is another river from Afghanistan or present Yamuna of India. Yamuna name derives from “Yama”, a Vedic God, who also is frequently mentioned in Avesta as “Yima”. Hence there is probability that Yamuna of Rig Vedic seers was not the Yamuna River that still flows through India.

    2. Part 3:

      In his above quotation Talageri uses his imagination to support his farfetched theory. As said earlier, knowing the river names one needs not to be only mobile. One can acquire such information from the travelers, traders or even from the friendly tribes. In a way Talageri contradicts himself. Finding no mention of any western river except Sarasvati in oldest part of the Rig Veda doesn’t mean at all that they really did not know the western geography.

      Migration and Invasion theorists often suggest that the Vedic people renamed the rivers out of their nostalgic sentiment when they reached new places. Here they forget that similarity in the river names do not necessarily require the presence of the migrants. The similarities can be tracked to the other circumstantial and linguistic factors prevalent in those times. Strangers giving some name to the existing places and locals accepting it are only possible if the locals are conquered or outnumbered by the migrants. This is not the case with Vedic people. Rig Veda doesn’t support any of the above.

      Also the fact should be noted that many river names mentioned in Rig Veda are not in use since ancient times. Hence it is difficult to ascertain to which river Vedics are referring to by particular name. For example Ganga is thought to be having mentioned in Rig Veda by another name, Jahnavi. This identification is already disputed by the several scholars including Michael Witzel. Case with Shutudri too is same. It is now being identified with Satlej. Vipasha is said to be present Bias. Vedic Drushadvati is said to be present Chowtang! If Ghaggar is considered to be Vedic Sarasvati, there is no explanation to its name change! Many river names mentioned in Rig Veda remains to be unidentified with any other river. How logical are these identifications is a matter of another debate. Corruption in the river names in the course of the time is very much possible, but looking at the above name-changes, they at the least are not at all the corrupt forms of the original Vedic river names.

      Sindhu not necessarily refer to the Indus River all the time, but is frequently used in plural for rivers. The “Sindhu” word also has been used as a synonym for large lake or sea.

      In short Talageri’s chronology of the river names appearing in various Mandala’s of Rig Veda to prove the westward migration of the Aryans is faulty because the identification of the rivers itself is based on flimsy premises. This applies to the Aryan Invasion or Aryan Migration theorists too, because they too use the same logic to prove their theories.


      We will turn towards Talageri’s another argument in support of his out of India theory. Battle of ten kings was fought on the banks of the Parushni River. Parushni is identified with present Ravi. Ravi was known in ancient times as Iravati. “Ravi” is said to be have derived from Iravati. There indeed is no satisfactory explanation to the drastic changes in the some River names whereas many rivers bear the ancient names even today.

      However, even if taken Talageri’s theory as it is for the moment, he states that King Sudasa’s movement is from east to west whilst his enemies are attacking from western direction. He uses this information to add one more proof to his pet “Out of India” theory.

    3. Part 4:

      Sudasa and his allies won this war. But what does it prove? How does it prove migration of Vedic Aryans from east to west?

      In the battle Sudasa defeated his enemies. His camp was at eastern side of the Parushni whereas his enemies, such as Siva’s, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas etc., had gathered towards the western side of the river.

      Parshu’s are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhta’s are identified with present Pakhtun tribe. Siva’s may be the people from Sivalik Mountains. Bhalanas are identified with the people living in Bolan Pass region. Except few tribes, it clearly seems that, rest of the tribes were inhibited the present day Afghanistan and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the Parushni (present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, they would have to travel for longer distances, even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu River to reach the banks of the Parushni. Though identification of Parushni with Ravi seems improbable, let us assume that indeed Sudasa’s enemies did cross that huge distance to approach Parushni to wage war against Sudasa.

      After defeat, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated. Number of dead of the war is given 6666. Though the figure could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have traveled back to their homeland after paying huge tributes. Rig Veda (7.33.6) mentions that Bharata’s under Sudasa received tribute from the defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus and yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave treasures of Anu to Sudasa. (Talageri identifies Anu's with Iranians.)

      Sudasa, after this victory would have returned to his capital, whatsoever and wherever the war took place. Surprisingly there is no mention of his capital in Rig Veda. It does not mean he had none. Also we are left to mere guesswork as to how large had been his tribe? What was expanse of his kingdom? Looking at the population of those times his tribe could not have been too large occupying vast lands. Area of about forty-fifty square miles would be enough to provide his tribe the necessary livelihood. Had the tribe been settled in Afghanistan or India, it needed not to cross vast distances in an order to migrate unless there was natural calamity of any kind or enemies driving them out of their original habitat. Rig Veda mentions none of such incident. Rather Sudasa had won the war!

      However, battleground being at the banks of Parushni and both the parties to the war attacking from different directions, how does it can prove the demographic migration of the Aryans to either direction?

      If Talageri’s theory is considered true, then it will appear that the Pakhta, Bhalanas, Parshu and some other tribes were certainly had come to the war from western side as their geographies are identifiable and they do exist even today. This is not the case with Sudasa and his tribesmen as there is no evidence that after victory he too moved to settle somewhere in the west. Why a victorious king should have to migrate from his native place? Rig Veda describes that Sudasa and his allies chased the fleeing enemy, some drowned in the rivers and some were slain while on the run.

    4. Part 5:

      But the original habitat of the enemy tribes doesn’t seem to have changed. Then why only Sudasa would desert his habitat and migrate?

      As stated earlier, the description of the battle of the ten kings is mixed up with mythical elements, such as active involvement of Lord Indra in the war and his destroying seven fortifications of the enemy. One cannot take the rhymes as describing the exact history. Also the location of the war can be disputed as the river Parushni itself is unidentifiable. Its identification with Ravi is farfetched. Even if we agree to this identification for the time being, it does not prove migration of any tribe from east to west or west to east. Battle taking place on the banks of the River Parushni also does not indicate Sudasa’s homeland being at the east of the Parushni. The positions of the warring parties are decided by so many other strategic factors at the given moment of the war. Direction from which they fight does not indicate their homeland too belonged to the same direction.

      In nutshell whole premises that there was Aryan migration (or expansion) from east to west can be surmised as a whimsical idea of a scholar.

      Demographic migrations are not new to the even modern world. Small nomadic tribes can be seen on the constant move. From Rig Veda it seems that Vedic society could have been semi-nomadic as it was mostly a pastoral community. However semi-nomads tend to move around in a circle of their habitat. That too applies to the clan of Sudasa in whose rein the entire corpus of the Rig Veda was composed. Had Rig Vedic society been constant on move, there would have been at the least mention of the alien tribes they came across during the movement. In Rig Veda about 50 tribes are mentioned in different contexts and they appear to be located in the almost circular positions, if Avestan Harxvaiti basin is considered to be center point of Vedic Aryan’s habitat.

      Except few tribes related to Puru brotherhood all other tribes were non-Vedic…ayajnya’s. (Non performers of the fire sacrifice.) Even the tribes those fought against Sudasa and his allies are described as non-performers of the fire sacrifices. True reason behind the war may be the religious conflict between different faiths. From the Rig Vedic story of enmity between Vashishtha and Sudasa’s former priest Vishvamitra that became main reason of the battle suggests that there were many tribes that were against Vedic religion and finally gathered against Sudasa for a war. Vishvamitra is said to have gathered enemy tribes against Sudasa over the religious conflict only.

      Anyway, the war took place and Sudasa turned out to be victorious. How does it can be connected with the western migration of the Vedic Aryans as Mr. Talageri suggests?

      Actually Talageri indirectly supports to the theory of Vedic homeland being a part of Afghanistan or bordering north-west regions of ancient India. The most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan origin, including Sarasvati. Most of them bear the same name even today though Afghanistan has undergone many political and religious upheavals. Sindhu means river or sea, can be applicable to any river or rivers, whenever used in plurals. Hence it does not necessarily mean to have used all the time for Sindhu (Indus) river. Parushni could not have been present Ravi as the geography itself goes contrary to the Rig Vedic descriptions of the war.

      Hence Talageri’s migration theory is bad in the light of his farfetched conclusions.

    5. You are merely quoting reams and reams of rubbish from a political writer who writes as per his ideology and in total defiance of the data. I don't know whether this is an attempt to advertise that writer's book here, but I think it will be better if you read my earlier article "Full Out-of-India Case in Short".
      I will not bother to go into details. But just to take one half-witted mentally-deficient claim from your above: "Most of the rivers in the Rigveda are of Afghan origin". Please just look at the graph of the rivers in the above article, and read the details of the geographical data in the Rigveda given there.

      You are wise to save yourself embarrassment while writing rubbish by doing so under a pseudonym as an "unknown".

    6. There is no sense in discussing things witth people who can't read,, and who quote other writers who also can't read, but just one challenge. You write "the Rig Vedic story of enmity between Vashishtha and Sudasa’s former priest Vishvamitra that became main reason of the battle". Please, can either you or your fairy-tale writer give the exact Rigvedic verse which says that Vasishtha-Vishwamitra rivalry was the reason for the battle?
      Just trolling is of no use. Even typing out 1000 pages here is of no use if you are writing nonsense. Please learn to read first.

    7. India has been the land of many invasions, whether its Sakas, Greeks, Persians, British, Afgans and so. India is located in the centre of Europe and Asia, so its naturally going to be in a cross road for different tribes to enter and find a new home in that area. There is no records from any IE cultures outside India that claims their ancestry from India, likewise it maybe wishful thinking for you to say that the Indians do record a migration outside India when their is absolutely nothing to back it up. A conflict between two tribes does not necessary imply an Exodus. The Puranas are late texts and they are not to be interested but you insist on using for your wishful thinking. No true scholar uses the Puranas for history. Lets say that Rig Veda and the Puranas do tell a similar story, were is the evidence for the Madras in the Rig Veda for you to relate them to the Medes of Central Asia. The Puranas have references to other tribes such as the Yavanas or Sakas who are foreigners by all means but the Puranas present them as being Indian. One cannot trust the Puranas as they are fanciful thinking trying to distort true history. The Rig Veda maybe historical but they do not present history as we know it now.

    8. You don't sound like a sane person, so I will not bother to reply to, or comment on, any further rants from you.
      You are of course free to go on putting comments. Other readers can have a hearty laugh at least.

    9. You are force fitting information and you calling me insane. Is it not a fact that India is a land of many invaders who eventually settled there? Is it not a fact that the Puranas don't record historical facts which is widely agreed upon by scholars including yourself? These are facts and if you calling this insane then you must be the more insane person here, which is also why your works are never widely read or accepted. Its sad because its your works that a lot people are laughing at not my few comments to you. If all that laugh they are only your followers and they are so insignificant that no one will take them seriously.

    10. @Jesus,

      First of all India is not a land of
      invaders. It is a land of Indian/Hindu
      people. India is not made up of
      invaders but only her indigenous people
      called Indian Hindus. Most invaders
      were resisted and eventually wiped out.

  8. Unknown:

    Why don't you just post a link?

  9. Unknown:

    "The most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan origin, including Sarasvati."

    Here is the Nadi Sukta

    Which one of the rivers are in Afghanistan? Rajesh Kochhar came up with the idea of equating Sarasvati to the Haraquiti

    Here is a review of his book by Koenraad Elst

    See the section below "Sarasvatī and Haraxvaitī"

    All this stuff has been out there for MANY years. Stop the spam and do your homework and post under your real name.

    1. Here is a link to Kazanas' article: read sections 15 and 16


  10. "Anyway, the war took place and Sudasa turned out to be victorious. How does it can be connected with the western migration of the Vedic Aryans as Mr. Talageri suggests?

    Who ever wrote this Sonwani (or you) needs to learn English first and then read Talageri's work.

  11. What are you trying to achieve by writing such articles/post?

    1. Unknown

      The answers to your objections are in there!

      This will be my last reply to you unless you post under your real name.

  12. 1. “Parshu’s are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhta’s are identified with present Pakhtun tribe.......had to cross the vastness of Sindhu River to reach the banks of the Parushni”.

    So it seems like this author believes that all this tribes were already living in their respective present day homeland in Iran, Afghanistan & Central Asia even before the battle. While Talageri ji already mentioned that this tribes (Anu’s and remaning Dhruyus’s) were living in greater Punjab and they migrated westward after the war. So this distance argument doesn’t make any sense.

    2. “ if Avestan Harxvaiti basin is considered to be center point of Vedic Aryan’s habitat.”

    And why we should accept it, as if there are any proof. But most common question is this Harxvaiti river cognate of Vedic Saraswati river is being told by the Indologists as present day Helmand river. So if this Helmand was Vedic Saraswati river then they should also answer that why the Vedic Aryan’s had left the region of their holiest most river and migrated to a foreign country, and not only that how dare they transfer the name of their most holiest river to a foreign river of Haryana. They have already won the battle so they don't had to flee to a foreign country and Helmand river is not dried up it is still there at this present time then why did they left the region of their holiest most river.

    1. Bravo, thanks I agree with you. The writer certainly doesn't understand the OIT model.

    2. Then why did you posts his points to criticize Talageri ji's work?

    3. I don't know how "Unknown" has suddenly become "Jesus" in all the above comments at one go. And whether after all that abuse ("wishful thinking", "no true scholar", etc., followed by our mutual comments about sanity and laughter), he now agrees (if not with me at least with arish108) and feels that Sanjay Sonawani "doesn't understand the OIT model".

      Also, when he cannot find anything (except the Madra as an Anu tribe) taken from the Puranas but missing in the Rigveda, how can he sweepingly accuse me of using the Puranas?
      About the Madra, I have explained in my above article that when there is so much evidence, every extra bit which fits in adds to the weight of the evidence and has to be treated seriously.

      About Sonawani, I will not go into detail, but a person who does not even the name of the main hero of the battle hymn cannot be expected to have any right to consider himself a judge on my writings. If he is constantly referring to Sudās as Sudasa, then he is a total ignoramus on the subject. The "dās" in the name of Sudās is not the same as the "dāsa" in the name of "Divodāsa": it is the grammatical pronounciation of "Sudā:" which comes from the root "dā" - to give. And the name means "one who gives auspicious gifts".

      About the rest of the nonsense written by Sonawani, he has either not read my works at all, or is significantly deficient in understanding and digesting what he reads. All the pieces in my OIT case fit in unerringly like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

    4. Yes, I agree with most of you said however you not conclusive. I agree with Sanjay on some point again but I truly feel he does not understand the OIT model.

      The reason being that most people who oppose your work still believe that you trying to convey that its the Indians who conquered and ruled Eurasia and implanted their language and culture on the locals. In contrast to the ancient Indian concept of Ahimsa, and top of that India never tried to invade a foreign land in its whole history ( The Cholas are a different story ) which makes many people like myself, to consider your OIT model as laughable, silly, far-fetch and ridiculous.

      Instead of calling it the Out-Of-India theory you should rather call it the Exodus theory. It better explains what you trying to say in your IE model.

      As for the Puranas, most scholars don't accept it as history but if we going to use something in the Puranas to justify or support a claim thats historical. That we can't be picky on what we select from the Puranas as historical fact and what we reject. In your works you have considered the Madras are Indians, then whats stopping someone from saying that the Yavanas are also Indians.

    5. If there are people (on both sides) who feel that my theory shows that Indians conquered and ruled Eurasia, I can do nothing about their (and you specify that "they" includes yourself) deficiency in common sense and understanding. It is pathetic, but outside my control. It is their brain-level which is laughable, silly, far-fetched and ridiculous (and genuinely mentally deficient), and honestly I will not be wasting any more time after this on such people.

      You have a very limited concept of India. "Ahimsa"-followers and tantriks who perform animal sacrifices are both Hindu and Indian. Hinduism allows all kinds of beliefs and ideologies.

      And the very concept of ashwamedhas, chakravartis, etc., and the battles between es between different kingdoms consisted of invasions, conquests and expansions. Only, unlike Christian and Muslim ideologies, Hinduism never taught to kill and destroy civilians and people who followed other beliefs. We don't require Jesus to teach us what is Hindu or Indian.

      Out-of-India means the languages went out of India all the way to western Europe through different stages of migrations and cultural diffusion. Exodus means people went out of India all the way to western Europe. They didn't. Even in the AIT, no scholar claims that people went out of the Homeland all the way to the different Indo-European countries. Only missionaries and Indian politicians claim that the Aryans invaded India: even the AIT scholars now dilute it to migrations and cultural diffusion. So your statements are really beyond the pale.

      No sane western historian says that if the Madras were an Indian tribe, then the Yavanas also must have been. All of them accept that the Madras were Indians and the Yavanas the historical Greeks. Only mentally deficient people will equate the two just because both are in the Puranas!

    6. Well sir I am not presenting what I feel but what most Indian and Western scholars think and believe about India. Especially when I talk and debate to them about the AIT. This is a common misconception, which is main reason why most opposes of the OIT model don't accept this theory.

      Well you can do something about it by making it more clear, that it was an Exodus and migration of Indians out India.

      "No sane western historian says that if the Madras were an Indian tribe, then the Yavanas also must have been. All of them accept that the Madras were Indians and the Yavanas the historical Greeks. Only mentally deficient people will equate the two just because both are in the Puranas!"

      The above stated is entirely false. First there are no Western scholar who accept the AIT model and who declares that Madras are the same as the Medes. All Indologist agree that the Madras are Indians but not all agree that are the same as the Medes, they considered them as only Iranian not related to the Madras.

      Second the European fascination with Greeks will obviously not allow them to declare that the Yavanas are originally and ancient Indian people.

      Third, if you going to use the Puranas for history, you can't pick and choose which you think is factual and which is not. Just because the Europeans say Yavanas originally meant Greeks does not mean we have to abide to that statement. We need facts. So if you going to take the Madras as being Indian but reject the Yavanas as being foreigners, although the Puranas clearly describe them as native, then we just being silly.

    7. Jesus:

      "I agree with Sanjay on some point".
      Can you please share those points?

    8. For example Sanjay stated "Also mention of any river in any verse does not also necessarily mean that the Vedic people were settled by that particular river when the specific verses mentioning the river name (s) were composed"

    9. @Jesus,

      Most Western and some Indian scholars
      have wrong notions about India that
      it is actually laughable. India has a
      rich history of militarism spanning
      millenias. Most Indian kings kept armies and waged wars frequently, so how is that Ahimsa?? Your understanding of
      India is quite shallow.

  13. On the existence of a perennial river in the Harappan heartland

    " We establish that during 80-20 ka and 9-4.5 ka the river was perennial and was receiving sediments from the Higher and Lesser Himalayas. The latter phase can be attributed to the reactivation of the river by the distributaries of the Sutlej. This revived perennial condition of the Ghaggar, which can be correlated with the Saraswati, likely facilitated development of the early Harappan settlements along its banks. "

  14. I kept asking you this but you never gave me an answer. How are the Hellene, Ion and Dan tribes related to each other if we suppose to believe in your model. The Indian tradition clearly says that the Yavanas are decedent from Turvasas. The Greek as pointed to you earlier does not record a tradition of the Ion being related to the Hellene. The reference is below:

    "94. The Ionians furnished a hundred ships, and were equipped like Hellenes. Now the Ionians, so long time as they dwelt in the Peloponnese, in the land which is now called Achaia, and before the time when Danaos and Xuthos came to the Peloponnese, were called, as the Hellenes report, Pelasgians of the Coast-land, and then Ionians after Ion the son of Xuthos." - Histories

    Notice the words "like" and reported by the "Hellenes". Also take not of the words "Pelasgians of the Coast". So it seems that these Ionians were coastal people, possibly traders and were foreigners by all means to that land.

    Another point to not is they are mentioned in the Bible as Javan, with a different genealogy but fits well the Greek history as being foreigners and late called the descendant of Xuthos.

    Greek history is not plain black and White and needs further studying.

    The Turvasas according to some scholars are related to the Turyas of the Avesta texts. Both the Zoroastrian Aban Yasht and Farvadin Yasht mention then as "Dānavo Tura." It is also important to mention that in ancient Indian texts Dānu's great-grand daughter Devyāni had married the Indian King Yayāti and had a son named Turvasu, who was "cursed" and began a Yavana dynasty.

    So Danava -> Turvasa -> Yavana -> Yona -> Ion.

    Also its important to note that the Danavas are a real class of people and not just evil spirits or monsters, thats only a metaphor to describe those people.

    1. Now, after stating that the Puranas cannot be used for history, you are referring to the Puranas and Epics to bring in people like Yavanas who are not mentioned in the Rigveda. In the Puranas and Epics (completed and constantly redacted after 300 BCE), the words Yavana and Romaka refer to the historical Greeks and Romans. If these texts say the Yavana are descended from the Turvasa, this can be taken with as much salt as the Biblical claims making all the people of West Asia and North Africa descendants of persons named in the Book of Genesis of the Old Testament.

      If you are saying that Hellene and Ion are different people, you must discuss this with western scholars, who consider both to be Greeks. In my article on the numerals and numbers, I have given the two Greek systems, the Ionian and Attican. If some late (though ancient) Greek writer uses the words differently, it represents some internal prejudices like the Bharatas (themselves Puru) occasionally using the word in reference to non-Bharata Puru, or the Mahabharata being a "battle between Kauravas and Pandavas" when the Pandavas are also Kurus by ancestry.

      In ancient-most IE traditions (Rigvedic and Celtic), Danu is the name of a Goddess, and the word Danava in the Rigveda (in only five verses) is a name of the demon of draught Vritra, treated as the son of the Goddess Danu, killed by Indra. This, as I have shown in my books, has a parallel in European mythologies.

      Turya (Tuirya) in the Avesta is a name applied to all other tribes (Airya-Tuirya, like Arya-Dasa).

      Greek history may not be all black and white, but the Greek texts are contemporaneous with the Epics and Puranas and not with the Rigveda.

  15. Yes, but the Greeks also have their own genealogy and history of their own people, likewise the same goes for Biblical history AND the Indian history ( Rig Veda ). Going by your own logic then every ancient culture has some claim of the origins of their own people. Which one should we believe? You may say the Indian origin is correct because all of the IE tribe are located in one area and Rig Veda is older than all of them so it credits plausibility. But we can apply the same logic to the Yavanas who is located in India in historical times along with the other tribes such as the Sakas, Kambujas, Hunnas. They are found in ancient texts such as the manusmriti, Ramayana, Mahabharata, atharva veda parisista and the Puranas. Bu you also find them mentioned in later literature such as the Buddhist cannon. We have too many references of them to be considered as foreigners. As I pointed to you earlier the Greeks don't consider themselves as "Pelasgians". Even linguistically speaking the older form of the word "Ion" is found in a fragmentary Linear B tablet from Knossos (tablet Xd 146) which bears the name "i-ja-wo-ne". Now this is very interesting because its so close to the Sanskrit word "Yavana" and to not forget its also very close to the Hebrew word "Yāwān". The word 'Yona' is also used in Indian texts in a much later period. This word is cognate to "Ion" while Yavana is cognate with "i-ja-wo-ne" when first appeared in Greece.

    Now it seems silly to anyone who has common tense if the homeland of IE is India then the Ionian surely should also have their origin in India. The reason being since they are very ancient tribe mentioned in Greek and Biblical texts along with the Hellene tribe.

    As for the Danavas they are a real class of people, they descendants and lineage is mentioned in Indian texts. Most Western historians do accept the Danavas as a tribe but its strange that you don't. The Turyas are said be related to the the Turvasas of the Rig Veda by again Western historians.

    1. In the above article, I made it clear:
      "The people who refuse to accept the Rigvedic evidence that we are dealing with here, even after reading this article, are in the category of that wolf: they are not arguing because they really believe in something or have any genuine doubts or objections; they are arguing with a purpose in mind. Their purpose is to reject the evidence.
      Well, there is nothing that can be done about these wolves. This article is meant for intelligent and honest human beings."

      "is no need to 'convince' people of the type represented by the friend above. It would be an unbelievable waste of time to even try.
      But there is a need to present the weight of the evidence before more logical and honest questioners."

      You have wasted enough of my time and your own. This is not a Vaudeville cross-talk show. My responses end here.
      As I wrote earlier, you are free to continue posting mails for the entertainment of the other readers.

      But I would advise you to grow up, do your homework, learn the abc of the subject, learn to read and to digest what you read, and try to use your brain.

    2. Well I will state this to you I have read your work and understand the so call "abc" of what you trying to convey. But your works are not conclusive and seem to miss certain points. Though I do agree with you that the IE language did originate in India they are still unanswered questions. For example the old model of equating Yavanas = Greeks and Danavas = Demon is still something that you follow. This is certainly a problem as the OIT model can be strengthened if this equation is rejected.

      My comments are here for you to answer, if you cannot answer them then it just shows your theories have loop holes.

    3. could you please give a list of all the queries you have.

  16. Well elaborated Shrikant ji,
    Though, I have a query.
    #.One vedic scholar Mrugendra Vinod says,as per tradition there is no such thing as older veda or younger veda.All four Vedas along with the upanishads were always in vogue.Is it true....???

    1. How can anything always have been in vogue? There is no sense in debating these fundamentalist views. Would you seriously discuss with a Muslim the view that there is only one God, Allah, and his One Final messenger, Mohammad, and that if you don't accept Islam, you will burn forever in Hell? Or similar views about Jesus the "Son of God" and Christianity with a Christian? Discussing the chronology of Vedic texts with Hindus who believe they are Eternal Revealed texts is the same. I am always willing to discuss things based on Facts, Data and Logic. Not on Faith and Belief.

    2. No its not true. The are different layers to the vedic corpus and it was never been in vogue.

    3. As,for me I am for facts not for fantasy.So,I am completely satisfied with your logic and arguments.

      Keep it up.....������

      One more question.....???
      Puranas mention other tribes like Abhiras,Tarushka,Kambojas etc.As you say these tribes find no mention in any of the Vedic geography....So,who exactly were these people ? Why they have been called mlechhas...? Were these people really foreigners for Vedic people...???
      Can you give your opinion on this ??

    4. The Rigveda was restricted to the area from Westernmost U.P. and Haryana westwards to southern and eastern Afghanistan, and ranges from 3500 BCE to around 1900 BCE (some final hymns in Book 10 perhaps as late as 1500 BCE). It mentions tribes of that area and period, and only in context, not to provide lists.
      The Puranas and Epics were finalized and completed after 300 BCE: they mention not only countless people from all over North India of all periods till that date, but even the Yavana and Romaka of Europe (who were in contact with them) and the Cholas, Chera and Pandyas of the South. It is a bottomless source, but difficult to analyze correctly.
      As the Puru culture again shifted westwards after 1900 BCE, the people of the northwest again became more distant people. The more orthodox eastern-based later Vedic texts referred to the Anu-Puru mixed people of the northwestern and western parts of the Harappan area as "mleccha", and the people of Mesopotamia to their west also called them "Meluhha".

    5. Are you saying that the so called word "Meluhha" was a sumerian pronunciation of the word "Mleccha"?

    6. Now whom should we ask as to who gave the original name and who changed the name in pronunciation? We can only accept the generally accepted fact that the two names are connected.

    7. Well perhaps Mrugendra Vinod ji says that because he don't want people to define the Old part and New part of the Vedas on the basis of Old and New testament of the Bible which are two different books written by two different groups of people belonging to two different belief system. RigVeda is however nothing like that.

      Also Mrugendra Vinod jis work should also be studied as he very logically shows that the places and distances beside the banks of Sarasvati river mentioned in the Brahmanas matches exactly with the river of Haryana.

      So here is a another challenge for the Indologist's,if they thinks that Vedic Sarasvati was not the river of Haryana then they should also try to match all those places with their respective distances as mentioned to that any other river which according to them was the Vedic Sarasvati river.

    8. @Shrikant Talageri ji

      actually that's what I am asking can you please provide some source(papers, articles) that talks about this connections.

    9. Mrugendra Vinod keeps changing is views.

    10. Yes in the case of time period for different dynasties but not in case of places and distances.

  17. @Jesus,

    Well it has been in vogue far longer than
    the BIble has been. And it has been far
    better preserved in it's original language
    than the Bible. This has been admitted
    by the AIT supporter MIchael Witzel himself.

  18. @Jesus,

    The Puranas do infact contain historical
    information on various aspects of Vedic age
    India even though they are not purely focused on history per se. It's called
    Critical Analysis. Being able to separate what is relevant historically from myth.
    The PUranas contain both History and Myth.
    Where the Puranic testimony tallies with the Rig Veda on history is accepted. Where
    it contradicts the Rig Veda, of course the
    info in Rig Veda gets the upper hand.
    Where detailed info is lacking in Rig Veda,
    the Puranas can be used as a supplement to
    fill any gaps. Did you understand?

    1. I'm aware of that, but Shrikant Talageri is not.

    2. I wonder why all these people who are so aware, and know things so much better than I do, are merely left making such comments in my blogs. I'm sure they could write books which would explain everything in a much better and more complete way than I could. In fact, I'm sure everything I have written, and much much more, would have been written by them if I had not beaten them to it like a spoilsport. Sad!

  19. @Jesus,

    The proof that Puranas contain historical
    information is that all the historical
    Characters of the Rig Veda are also mentioned in the Puranas. The Five Tribes
    Of the Rig Veda are also there in Puranas.
    As I said above, one has to compare and
    correlate the two. The Puranas contain
    historical information that may be lacking
    In RIg Veda and the Rig Veda helps to correct any errors that may be in Puranas.


  20. Jesus:

    "Well I will state this to you I have read your work and understand the so call "abc" of what you trying to convey. But your works are not conclusive and seem to miss certain points. Though I do agree with you that the IE language did originate in India they are still unanswered questions. For example the old model of equating Yavanas = Greeks and Danavas = Demon is still something that you follow. This is certainly a problem as the OIT model can be strengthened if this equation is rejected.

    My comments are here for you to answer, if you cannot answer them then it just shows your theories have loop holes."

    Yavanas = Greeks and Danavas = Demon is the model you think Talageri is following. He actually does not follow it because the Rigveda never mentions Yavanas. He uses Danu to relate the Rig Vedic evidence to the Celts and Alan to relate it to the Greeks. Talageri clearly states above

    "Now, after stating that the Puranas cannot be used for history, you are referring to the Puranas and Epics to bring in people like Yavanas who are not mentioned in the Rigveda."

    In conclusion, you are just erecting straw man arguments to massage your own ego about the quality of your own so called scholarship. No western Indologist to my knowledge other than Fournet Arnaud has reviewed Talageri's books or challenged them in away and Talageri has responded to Arnaud imo very satisfactorily. Just google to find out more.

    1. Dear Mayuresh, not all tribes are mentioned in the Rig Veda such as the Madras but nonetheless Shrikant does consider the tribe to be Indian then why does he not consider the Yavanas as well. As for the Danavas they are a real class of people even Western scholars have accepted it. Here Shrikant Talageri is not looking at all the evidence.

    2. Hi Jesus:

      That is a good point. He does include Madra/Medes but only because they are a confirmed Anu tribe according to Puranas and Anus have been mentioned in the Rig Veda and located in around modern Kashmir.

      "The Yavanas are described as the descendants of Turvasu, the son of Yayati, in the Mahabharata, Adi Parva Chapter 85, v. 34."

      But the Rig Vedic geography puts the Turvashas way over to the east, nothing to do with the Greeks.

      I think the Yavana=Greek connection emerged much later during
      the Buddhist period and around the time of Alexander when all people coming from the West were referred to as Yavanas.

    3. Hi Jesus:

      Another important issue is that the Greeks self identify themselves as Hellenes which Talageri links to the Rig Vedic Alans. Similarly the Madra identify themselves as Medes in later history. I am curious as to whether the Greeks call themselves Yavana anywhere.

    4. Dear brother Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, as I have pointed out earlier to you that Greek history is not black and White and needs to be re-looked at. The word Greek does appear as name of a tribe(s) nor does it appear to refer to all Greek related people in any on the Greek texts. This term Greek for all Greek tribes is of much later vintage. Now coming to your statement, the term Yavana has not been used in any Greek texts, but a similar word termed Ion/Ionia/Ionian is used. Now the problem is that non of the Greek texts use Ion as a name for all Greeks. In fact the Greek historians clearly describe the Ionians as different from the Hellene, in other words they are seafaring foreigners (Pelasgian). But whats also interesting is that the Alexender the Great is not a Ionian but a Macedon. By the time of Alexander, the term used in many Indian texts was Yona, which is cognate with the word Greek term "Ion", since there is no "Y" in Greek in must have been replaced with "I". But the term "Yavana is clearly of much earlier vintage.

    5. Hi Raghavar:

      "In fact the Greek historians clearly describe the Ionians as different from the Hellene, in other words they are seafaring foreigners (Pelasgian)."

      My best response to that would be Talageri is only talking about the Hellenes and not the Ionians. Perhaps you are right about the later category. In any case, if they all spoke a dialect of Greek these distinctions do not directly relate to the migration of IE dialects.

  21. "It mentions tribes of that area and period, and only in context, not to provide lists." Well....ok that makes sense.
    #.After reading "DASARAJANA" battle account,I found that these two guys Vashisht and Vishvamitra are real mess.Wherever they have gone,they have created ruckus.It's said that these two were the real brain behind Rama's invasion of Lanka's Ravana.If it's true, then Sudasa and Rama would have been the contemporaries.But as you have said that geography of Rig Veda is around Haryana.How come these two managed to travel that far east...??
    Or As the Bharata people later shifted there capital in Kaushambi near Prayag. All these Vedic stories became popular in those areas so when Valmiki wrote his epic Ramayana he took out these two Rishis in particular and put them into his stories.
    What's you opinion on this...???

    1. Well, to be frank, the Rigvedic rishis have been used in the Puranas and Epics in all kinds of ways not always compatible with their Rigvedic status. They appear in all kinds of situations in all ages and periods and geographical locales. It may be that they represent later and other members of the respective families, or else, legends associated with other local sages were transferred to these more famous rishis.
      But I don't understand the reference to them being the "real brain behind Rama's invasion of Lanka's Ravana". Where is there any reference to any kind of "brain" being behind the "invasion", let alone either of these two being behind it?

      Also, as I pointed out in a reply to "Jesus" above, it is not Sudasa but Sudas.

  22. "But I don't understand the reference to them being the "real brain behind Rama's invasion of Lanka's Ravana". Where is there any reference to any kind of "brain" being behind the "invasion", let alone either of these two being behind it?"
    #.There wasn't much behind.It was just a casual and playful way of saying the facts.As it is said Vashishtha was Rama's spritual mentor while Vishvamitra being his military trainer.

    "it is not Sudasa but Sudas."....ok, I got the point it is Sud+as not Su+Das.

    *What exactly do you mean, when you say about migration of specific tribe ???
    Is it King and his family that moves ?? or entire settlement moves be it peasants,priestly class and other common folks along with the King as their tribal leader.

  23. No, it is not Sud-as, it is Su-das. But it is not Su-dasa, which would be Su(good)+(root)damsh. It is Su(good)+(root)daa (to give).

    We do not know exactly how the movements took place, but the fact is that migrations have been taking place all over the world since the beginnings of time. Whether AIT or OIT, the same question remains, and it can be answered by, I suppose, sociologists and not historians. We can only trace the direction and identity of the migrations, from the available data. We cannot, and certainly I cannot, give the sociological processes and logistics involved.

  24. "It is Su(good)+(root)daa (to give)."
    Ohh..... that's quite a revelation for me.
    Anyways,traditionalists say that there is some kind of division in Vedas like Karmakand and Gyankand.All the rituals are attributed to Karmakand while the spritual part comes under Gyankand, which later becomes Upanishads.

    *After being into the subject for so many years,have you ever noticed such a division in the Vedas.?
    *Such a division is just a later innovation...??

    1. It looks like you have not read my other books and articles. Thye previous article "The Full Out-of-India Case in Short" gives a summary of most of the evidence.

      About the Upanishads:"All the basic philosophical concepts of mainstream Hinduism are likewise adopted from the tribal and local populations of different parts of India: the concept of rebirth and transmigration of souls, the concept of auspicious moments based on the panchanga and the tithis, the worship of particular trees and plants, animals, birds and reptiles, the worship of particular forests, groves, mountains and rivers, the worship of ancestors in elaborate ceremonies, etc., etc.

      The spread of this Vedic religion (ultimately Vedic only in name) from an original Pūru centre in Haryana to all over India can in no way be treated as an invasion, any more than the spread in later times (after 600 BCE) of Buddhism and Jainism from an original Ikṣvāku centre in Bihar to all over India (and in the case of Buddhism, all over Asia at one time).

      And all these features in Hinduism are not "new" or "later" developments from (or in) an original Rigvedic kind of religion, as is generally assumed. For example, it is believed that the philosophical culture of the Upanishads is a "later" development from the Vedic religion: the karma kāṇḍa of the Rigveda developing into the upāsana kāṇḍa of the Upanishads, etc. But in actuality this culture of philosophical speculation and religious organization was clearly a feature of the Ikṣvāku culture of the east (just as the Vedic type religion of hymns and fire rituals was a feature of the Pūru-Anu-Druhyu culture of the North and Northwest, the Harappan area): here we find the development of the Upanishad philosophies (many of the speculative philosophical discussions in the Upanishads take place in the eastern court of the Ikṣvāku king Janaka), of the Buddhist, Jain, Vratya and Charvaka religions and philosophes, of the concept of Vegetarianism as a virtue, etc. Further east of the Ikṣvāku culture was the home of Tantric customs and religious practices. To the South, as already pointed out, was the home of the elaborate systems of Idol-worship and Temple Culture which are the central feature of Hinduism all over India today.

      All these (and many, many more) different aspects of the Pan-Indian Hindu Religion and Culture, and of Classical Indian/Hindu Civilization, may appear to be "new entrants" into an "original Rigvedic culture" if looked at from the point of view of their chronology of appearance in the Sanskrit texts as Indian civilization consolidated itself. But that would be like treating the areas of America and Australia as "new areas" looked at from the point of view of their chronology of appearance in European references. All these religious systems are probably as old as the Vedic/Harappan culture itself: it is not mere myth which makes the Jains talk about long lineages of Tirthankaras preceding Mahavir, or the Buddhists refer to the many previous incarnations of the Buddha."

  25. Shrikant Talageri wrote:

    "And all these features in Hinduism are not "new" or "later" developments from (or in) an original Rigvedic kind of religion, as is generally assumed."

    This is of course the classical Parpola type argument used by the invasionist to disconnect Hinduism as it is currently practiced today from the supposedly imported religion of the Rig Veda.

    But then,

    "About the Upanishads:"All the basic philosophical concepts of mainstream Hinduism are likewise adopted from the tribal and local populations of different parts of India:"

    I do see a bit of self contradiction here. One cannot say that the Upanishadic philosophy has all been adopted from different parts of India and hence has no connection to Rig Veda and still counter the invasionist who seem to be saying the same thing anyway. Some people want to replace the term Hinduism with Vedic Sanatan Dharma. Upanishads are popularly known as Vedanta or the end of the Vedic era. Your response please? Thank you.

    1. The purpose of analyzing the Rigveda is to solve the AIT-OIT problem and to arrive at the historical truths, not to confirm orthodox viewpoints or to show that everything is the opposite of what any westerner may ever have said.

      So my critics are not just the AIT supporting academicians and politicians but, even more so, the orthodox Hindus who don't like
      (a) the idea of different language families and all that it implies,
      (b) the idea that the Vedic texts are human-written documents belonging to different areas and periods from which we can derive historical data, rather than eternal timeless revelations
      (c) the idea that the Rigveda and Vedic culture is not the fountainhead of the whole of Hinduism, etc.

      If I had set about trying to prove orthodoxy right and everything that "foreigners" said wrong, rather than analyzing the data objectively and arriving at the truth, I would never have been able to solve the whole problem in such a way that everything fits into place like the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

      Unfortunately, orthodox elements would rather stick to orthodoxy and lose the battle, rather than analyze objectively and arrive at the truth and win the battle.

      I have set everything out clearly and detail in my books and articles, so I will not repeat the full story here. Just two points:

      1. I nowhere said the Upanishadic philosophy is adopted from different parts of India. Please read only the part quoted by me in the above mail: Upanishadic philosophy developed in the Iksvaku area. Some of the things which were "adopted from the tribal and local populations of different parts of India" are given in the above paragraphs, and in greater detail in the earlier article from which the quotations are taken.

      2. At the very beginning of the earlier article "The Full Out-of-India Case in Short", I have pointed out how it is in fact the orthodox Hindus who are "saying the same thing" as the AIT supporters:
      "the opponents of the AIT are united with the proponents of the AIT in treating the Vedic language and culture as some form of 'ancestral' culture to the rest of Indian or Hindu Civilization: treating, for example, the present-day 'Aryan' languages of northern India, as well as religious and other elements in Hinduism not found in the Rigveda or in the other Samhitas, as 'later' developments from the Vedic language, religion and culture. Such an approach actually leaves no scope for any other logical interpretation of the facts other than the AIT scenario itself."

    2. " I nowhere said the Upanishadic philosophy is adopted from different parts of India. Please read only the part quoted by me in the above mail: Upanishadic philosophy developed in the Iksvaku area. Some of the things which were "adopted from the tribal and local populations of different parts of India" are given in the above paragraphs, and in greater detail in the earlier article from which the quotations are taken."

      Thank you for the detailed explanations. There is no question that you have been up against established orthodoxies all across the political spectrum. That is what makes your work so ground breaking and useful to all of us. I myself had the impression that the Rig Veda are just incomprehensible chants devoid of any real information. The Puranas also have been seen as only good enough for television serials. Now we are able to see that the relationship between the Vedic and the Puranic traditions.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. Sentence corrected:
      Now we are able to see that the Vaidic and the Puranic traditions compliment each other well.

    5. Dear Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar, would you be interesting in joining the IHAR (Indian history awareness and research) WhatsApp group?

  26. You should do a blog which responds to orthodox OIT scholars. That includes pushing date of Vedas to an irrational antiquity.

  27. "It looks like you have not read my other books and articles."

    *Well that is not the case....yes, I can't say each and all of them but I can say most of them I have read.But as it is difficult to recall all of them at once I asked, to be reassured.

    "Upanishads take place in the eastern court of the Ikṣvāku king Janaka), of the Buddhist, Jain, Vratya and Charvaka religions and philosophes, of the concept of Vegetarianism as a virtue, etc."

    *Who are these "Vratyas".? I have been told that they are people living outside the the Vedic fold.
    *Who exactly can be termed as Vratyas an individual,a group or an entire tribe/community.?

  28. I posit that Dasarajna or the battle of ten kings was a Civil war of indigenous Aryan tribes people, belonging to the Chandravanshi race and related by blood. So, it was an internecine Civil war fought between relatives, just like the Mahabharata.
    We know that Yayati was a Chandravanshi and had five sons from whom five clans are derived and exist to this day. This can be traced when we trace Gotra and Pravara of individuals.
    (Srimad Bhagavata Mahapurana – book 9, discourse 18), from Devayani (daughter of Shukracharya, the asura Guru), he begat Yadu and Turvasu. From Sarmishta, daughter of Danava King Vrsapavaa, he begat Druhyu, Anu and Puru).
    When Yayati renounced his throne (discourse 19), he gave Druhyu, South-Eastern/ Yadu, South/ Turvasu, West/ Anu, North and made Puru the emperor (discourse 19, verse 22).
    Clearly, there was no East, which means that there was no crossing over to the Indi-Gangetic plain.
    However, this also means that Dasarjnya was an internecine battle between related tribesmen. There is only question remaining, why?
    We do know that Viswamitra was the Guru on one side and Vasishta on the opposing side, and there was intense rivalry between them. We also know that they were ideologically very different. So, we can assume that the battle had its roots in this ideological disagreement, because Sudas switched from Viswamitra, himself an ex-Bharata King to Vasishta, a Brahmin Guru. Changing Gurus, we know is a big thing and occurs only when there is an ideological schism.
    Bharat is descended from Puru. Also, descended from Bharat are Hasti, who founded Hastinapura (discourse 21, verse 19, 20). Descended from Hasti is Kuru (founder of the Kuru tribe) and Mudgala (founder of the Panchala kingdom (discourse 21, verse 33, and author of Mudgala Purana). Sudas is the great-grandson of Mudgala (discourse 22, verse 1).
    Sudas’s grandson was Drupad, the father of Draupati.
    Now, let us put some timelines. Assuming Kali Yuga starts with the expiration of Sri Krishna, we can approximate the Mahabharata war to have occurred around 3100 BC. Assuming that each generation begat progeny every 22 years, this brings the date of Dasarajna to around 3100.
    Hence, the logical assumption is that Dasarajna was fought around 3100 BC by related clanspeople of the Bharata tribe, on the banks of the River Ravi.

    1. While much of the above seems to be just a restatement of already discussed material, I fail to understand the following:
      1. "Dasarajna was fought around 3100 BC by related clanspeople of the Bharata tribe". By what logic are all the participants converted into Bharatas?
      2. "Sudas’s grandson was Drupad, the father of Draupadi." I don't know where this equation came from. Then who were Sudas's descendants, Sahadeva and Somaka, of Draupadi? The Dasarajna occurred in the period of the Oldest Books, and the Mahabharata took place long after the newest of the New Books: all within a generation or two?

      3. Most of all, the statement: "We do know that Viswamitra was the Guru on one side and Vasishta on the opposing side". I, for one, don't know this, and I have been challenging people since a long time to produce a single piece of data in the Rigveda which connects Vishwamitra in any way with the Dasarajna battle, let alone as part of the enemy coalition.

      This is only imaginative mixing of the Vedic and Puranic data.

    2. 1 - Puru was made emperor by Yayati, with his brothers and step brothers under him. So, they were essentially of one tribe. Bharata comes 20 generations after Puru. However, he is still the emperor with the descendants of the other brothers under him. So, there is no reason to doubt that all of them belong to the same race or tribe.
      2- Sudas's relationship to Drupad. Please don't believe me, please ready Discourse 22, verse 1. From Divodasa (son of Moudgalya), came Chyavana, Sudasa, Sahadeva and Somaka. Somaka had a hundred sons of whom Prsata was the youngest. His son was Drupada (sorry, I erroneously said Sudasa), whos son was Dhrishrtadyumna and others, while Draupati was his daughter.
      3- I don't have curated data right now. Will respond when I find out.

    3. This is my final reply. I am not going to discuss these mixtures of Epic-Puranic myths with Rigvedic events and personalities any further:
      1. Every single person in the Rigveda, according to you, will "belong to the same race or tribe" because some Purana or Epic traces all of them to Manu or Kashyapa Prajapati or the Sun or the Moon. People having a hundred sons is all right as part of our rich Puranic-Epic lore, but has no place in serious historical discussions of Vedic history.

      2. The Druhyu, Anu, Puru (including the king Bharata, remembered in Book 6), Yadu and Turvasu are there from pre-Rigvedic times. Yayati, ancestor of the Kauravas, comes in only in Book 10 (a few hundred years before the Mahabharata war), in a hymn composed by his brother Devapi. So he cannot be their ancestor.
      Also Vishvamitra is not an ex-Bharata king except in the Puranic-Epic legends. In those same legends, he is also the grandfather of Bharata through Shakuntala.

      3. I don't know which "Discourse 22" you are talking about,but it cannot teach us Vedic history.

    4. 1- I am comfused as to why you consider Vedic history to be different from Puranic history. After all, they both refer to Indic peoples. In fact, Srimad Bhagavatam forms the bedrock of today's Hindu philosophy, more than even the Rig Veda.
      2- Also, both Rig Veda and Srimad Bhagavat Purana were composed by the same person, Veda Vyasa. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the significant congruence in data points.
      3- I am enclosing the link to relationship between Sudas and Draupati for your easy reference -

      Thank you for your time and best wishes...

    5. There is only Indian history: not Vedic history as distinct from Puranic history, except that the Puranic historical memories of Indian history go back to pre-Rigvedic times and cover a much vaster area than the Rigveda whose geographical area is also limited.

      The difference is that the Rigveda is not a history book: it is a book of hymns which have been preserved down to this day without the change of a word or syllable or even a tone. As even Witzel has to admit, it is like a tape-recording of the original chanting when each hymn was composed. No alterations were made to prove historical points or to change old details or add new ones. So, the incidental clues we get from the Rigveda are unchallengeable.

      The Puranas-Epic are not only heavily mixed with myths even as they claim to be history, but additions and changes were made in every age.

      In my first book, I gave equal emphasis to Rigvedic and Puranic data, based on PL Bhargava's Puranic analysis. But when I started to write my second book, the Historical Analysis of the Rigveda, I found nothing made any sense if I took the Puranic data as the base. According to Bhargava, the oldest rishis were Atri and Kanva and the latest Vishvamitra and Vasishtha. But the Rigvedic data showed exactly the opposite. So I realized
      that they can only be taken in serious analysis when they confirm, conform to or explain the Rigvedic data.

      If I take the Puranic data seriously, I will have to explain why Bharata is both the ancestor and descendant of Vishwamitra, why the same rishis are found in every area of India in every day and age, why Yayati who appears at the end of the Rigveda and is a Puru (sorry I mistyped Yayati for Shantanu in the earlier mail) is the ancestor of the Rigvedic tribes, etc. And even why not only Romakas and Yavanas, but also Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras, all of whom are known only after 500 BCE, are present at the time of the Ramayana, etc.

      The sixties film "Sampoorna Ramayana" showed Sita seeing Rama's image in a Ramphal, and Rama seeing Sita's image in a Sitaphal. If it had been written down as a Purana, a thousand years from now it would have been cited as proof that these two fruits were not brought by the Portuguese from Latin America, but existed in India in Rama's time.
      Those who want to get into such quicksand are free to give importance to Puranic-Epic data in writing Vedic history.

    6. Thank you for your detailed response. Both Srimat Bhagavad Purana and Rig Veda were composed by VedaVyasa. So, it seems inconceivable to me that he would use different data points. Also, if we read the Purana, the detailing of people, names and outcomes make it impossible to ignore.
      While I understand the complexity that an increased variable may make to the research, I think that, in the interest of veracity, both Rig Veda and Srimad Bhagavatam need to be somehow reconciled, at least for Dasarajnya.
      I read your analysis which is is very impressive but pushes the envelope of credibility.
      This is my view. I have struggled with the same issues as you are and can understand the conflicts,
      In fact, my current view is that both AIT and OIT are valid. They occured at different times. AIT between (4200 to 4000 BC) and OIT around (1000 BC to 1000 AD)

    7. This will be my last response: I really cannot go on bandying words back and forth interminably.

      Who said that either the Srimad Bhagavad Purana and the Rigveda were composed by VedaVyasa? Did he compose the Rigveda in one month, or did he take a few years to do so? And who are all the composer rishis named before each hymn? Vyasa means "arranger" or "compilor", who can be anyone.

      Why don't you give up subterfuge and say you support the AIT? Is there even an atom of sense in your "current view that both AIT and OIT are valid. They occured at different times. AIT between (4200 to 4000 BC) and OIT around (1000 BC to 1000 AD)"?

      As all the other eleven branches of Indo-European languages are found outside India more than a thousand years before 1000 BCE, who exactly are the "Aryans" who went out of India from 1000 BC to 1000 AD? This is pathetic!

    8. You seem to have decided that you are right and all other opinions are wrong. I agree, pointless continuing this discussion.
      Thank you for your time and best wishes.

    9. Dear

      You made some very interesting points. How can I contact you sir/mam.

    10. You could also check out my site I come from one of India's oldest schools of Yoga. My research and interest in Ancient India is derived from the schism between Yoga and ancient Aryan methods of worship and the subsequent amalagamation of the two, with distinct fault lines, for example the drop in value of Indira from Rig to Yajus and the rise of Rudra in Yajus. ALso, you will notice, almost no synchronisation between Yoga and Rig.

    11. What is really troubling is the force fitting of tribes in this article.

      For instance, Bhṛgu has been equated with Phrygians. Bhrgu is descended from Shukracharya (the Brahmin asura guru and brother of Deva Guru Brhaspati). Bhrgus were famous for archery and rearing horses. One of the famous descendants of Brghu was Parashurama. Today, these people belong to the Bhargava gotra and those with the surname of Bhargava are Brghus.

  29. As Rigveda only refers to these five tribes as "Panchajana".There is no mentioning of these five coming from same father.

    Thereafter, in puranic literature we find they had a common father "Yayati".It seems that the authors of later puranic literature were seeking some sort of cultural unification through these stories, just like the story of "Manu Vaivasvat" and his ten sons. Which looks far mythical than reality.

    What is your view on this ?

  30. Yayati is mentioned in Mahabharata, a few centuries before the first Puranas. An entire genological list is given.

  31. Dear all knowing Srikant ji, there a lot of things that we need to learn from you. You have certainly paved the way for many Indians to look at an alternate theory that was largely previously existing before you arrive at the scene. You have made it clear that your concern about writing your three books is only about the PIE homeland and nothing else. But you should also note this, that you should refrain from writing things that you have no knowledge of such as the Indian Chronology, archaeoastronomy, and Dravidian words in the Vedas.

    1. I am not all-knowing. It is trolls like you, who have no time to write your own versions of historical interpretation but have plenty of time to make armchair comments, who are truly all-knowing.

      I have reached so far in my analysis because I immediately take note of genuine criticism, examine the issues, and make the necessary action, even if I have to amend something I have already written. But that criticism has to have substance.

      And I have some respect for such critics, even if they have only criticism for me. But I am a bit tired of people on "our" side who give armchair suggestions and then take umbrage and become resentful because I do not act upon their suggestions when I find those suggestions inadequate.

      If such critics find that I "have no knowledge" of various things, but they do, and that my writings consist of things that were "largely previously existing" before I arrived on the scene, why don't they write out books giving their totally new versions based on their superior knowledge, instead of complaining like spoilt brats whose demands are not being fulfilled?

    2. I just noticed: "Unknown" had become "Jesus" and now "Jesus" has become "Raghavar Voltore". Please at least have some self-respect.

  32. Dear Sirs, I humbly request to read Bhagavad Gita As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada.
    Why? Since 2009, I also was immersed in these subjects. AIT, History, unification of all "theories" and "versions of histories" by diverse peoples of diverse backgrounds (some from different countries and some from the same countries).
    So now, after more then 10 years, I find a link to this blog about Sudasa and the Battle of 10 Kings. I have read the article and the comments and I am so thankful for Srila Prabhupada.

    If I offend, I beg for forgiveness. I just want to help. All these discussion about who is right, proves that no-one can explain everything. And when you try to give your understanding, then you will be cursed.

    So read Bhagavad Gita As It Is. At least the introduction. If you want to skip, checkout chapter 7, verse 16. Check it out seriously. Also know about Lord Krishna's (God) energies. When you do not want to follow Sattva Guna rules, you will be binded in Raja and Tama Gunas and you will get the intelligence to proceed as an animal in your limited lifespan as humanbeing. This while the goal of humanlife is to go back home, back to Godhead.

    What happens after you get old, sick and then die? What gain will you get by these kinds of bickering. And if you want to discuss, the do insult eachother. Because of this, the next generation of Indians will become more westernized and will not care about their parents, culture, language, history and become a third-world country.

  33. Thank you very much, but I have read it, and the ISKCON temple is close to my house and I have been to it many times. But, if you have read the Gita, you will know that Krishna advised Arjuna to fight his battles, not just "bickering" in writing with trolls but actually killing with arrows his own relatives, before going "back home, back to Godhead". So thank you for your concern for me, my parents, my culture, language and history.
    But, please don't hide behind anonymous pseudonyms like "Unknown" when giving advice. And please pray that I don't get "cursed".
    And I don't think you have read the articles and comments, or you would not have said "Sudasa".

    1. I you suggesting that we should start a war, a physical one at that.

    2. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada asserted many times that Aryan people went from India due to various factors and settled in Europe. So I think Srikanth Ji is doing the GREATEST SERVICE by proving the words his divine grace. So no earthly curse can do anything for performing a divine service, which is being done by Talageri Ji.
      Not a single western linguistic have dared to touch the massive data sweeping(Mitanni, Avestan, Rg) data given by Talgeri Ji.

  34. Check out this latest podcast from Kushal Mehara. They discuss he overwhelming compulsion modern Indians and particularly Hindus have to see themselves as pacifistic. Sudas's wars to the east and west from the Sarasvati basin were definitely expansionist. Let us not forget the Mittanni IA in Turkey also. Then there was the Varsagira war between the Vedic and Iranian people. And then the Mahabharata war. These are the wars that sustain the OIT. Chola's expansion of Hinduism to East Asia was exactly done through vacation cruises liners.

    1. Here is the link to the Mehra podcast

  35. Raghavar:

    "I you suggesting that we should start a war, a physical one at that."

    Not a good idea. Americans have been pushing India to get involved in Afghanistan. But the time is not ripe yet. A war against China is unthinkable.

    1. I think you missed by previous comment, would you like to join the IHAR WhatsApp group? If so please give me your WhatsApp number we'll add you to the group.

      Now coming to my question, what didn't Srikant Talageri pay much attention to the Varsagira war? In fact I hardly find him talking about it. He mostly mentions the "The battle of the 10 kings"

  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

  37. Talageri ji can you tell me the meaning of this word "Bharat" after which this land has been named?

    1. Its named after the Puru king Bharat after he subjugated and conquered most of South Asia. He is the first Chakravartin. It is from is expensive empire that the Aryan culture has sprung up from and spread all across South Asia. Anyone who do not follow the Aryan way of life was called a Anaryan or Mleccha. Exact meaning of this word has more to do with a kind of metal compound, since this tribe was expert in mental (Copper) working hence their name.

    2. I know very well which kings was called as Bharat. Its the meaning of the word that I wants to know.
      How metal(Copper) working is related to "Bharat"?

  38. Hello Sir,

    I purpose you to turn your attention more on the Scythian language issue.

    There is a serious debate on whether the Scythian language is actually an Iranian language, or if it is an even an IE language.

    This site argues strongly that Scythia is definitely not an Iranian nor an IE language.

    "Can you declare a language that does not have any grammatical, phonetical, or morphological connection with any and all members of the Indo-European family to be an Indo-European language? Can you declare a language that has only a sprinкle of the occupier or Lingua Franca language to be that language?"

    (Quote from the below-given site)

    Now, this is an important factor that all the linguistic must concentrate upon since it is well known that Scythians' main inhabitant area was Eurasia Steppes, which is claimed to be the supposed homeland of PIE.

    Now if the language of the Scythia is conclusively proved to be not an Iranian language nor an IE language, it might serve as a huge blow to the Steppe homeland theory/AIT.

    I also suspect because of this particular reason the western Linguistic community has branded the Scythian language as Iranian(IE) even in spite of lack of proper evidence.

    I suggest you go through the links given, the author of the link strongly argues it is not an IE, I have to tell after careful examination of his work, there is a huge deal of truth in his claim, so if it is proved it is a gigantic blow to the Steppe homeland theory.

    You were able to relate many Iranian tribes such as Paktoons, Persians, Phrygians, Medes, etc with Etymology

    Quoting from your article.


    Afghanistan (Avesta): Sairima (Śimyu), Dahi (Dāsa).

    NE Afghanistan: Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin).

    Pakhtoonistan (NW Pakistan), South Afghanistan: Pakhtoon/Pashtu (Paktha).

    Baluchistan (SW Pakistan), SE Iran: Bolan/Baluchi (Bhalāna).

    NE Iran: Parthian/Parthava (Pṛthu/Pārthava).

    SW Iran: Parsua/Persian (Parśu/Parśava).

    NW Iran: Madai/Mede (Madra).

    Uzbekistan: Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva).

    W. Turkmenistan: Dahae (Dāsa).

    Ukraine, S. Russia: Alan (Alina), Sarmatian (Śimyu).


    Turkey: Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).

    Romania, Bulgaria: Dacian (Dāsa).


    Greece: Hellene (Alina).


    Albania: Sirmio/Sirmium (Śimyu)."

    But it was not possible with Scythians, maybe because they are not IE nor did they speak IE dialect.