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 Branches―Albanian, 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 *-b^hi- (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:

Iranian:

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).

Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian:

Turkey:   Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).

Romania, Bulgaria:   Dacian (Dāsa).

Greek:

Greece:   Hellene (Alina).

Albanian/Illyrian:

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 facts^173" [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 its west 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: Dā^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 branches―Iranian, Armenian, Greek, Albanian―of 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 oriented―in the direction opposite to the eastern Pūru―it 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 others―Jamison, 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. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

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 http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0702/ejvs0702a.txt