The
Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda
Shrikant
G. Talageri
According to India's traditional Indian history, in
the most ancient period the whole of India was divided among the ten
sons of the mythical First King Manu Vaivasvata: this
translates into Ten Great (conglomerates of) Tribes, who
are believed to have been the occupants of different parts of India. However, very little is known about eight
of these, and whatever little is given about them is so meagre, garbled, and
mixed with all kinds of contradictory data, that it becomes clear that the
Puranic editors in northern India were well acquainted with the history of only
two main divisions mythically treated as descendants of two of
the "sons", Iḷa/Sudyumna and Ikṣvāku: the Lunar
Race (Aiḷas) and the Solar Race (Ikṣvākus) respectively.
The Rigveda is the Book of the Pūru, and in
fact, in the earlier period of the Rigveda, in the Family Books (2-7),
it is specifically the Book of the Bharata Pūru.
The Anu and Druhyu to their west and
northwest are mostly their rivals and enemies, especially in the
earlier periods, though there is more friendly co-existence in the period of
the New Books, (5,1,8,9,10), the Mature Harappan period.
The Yadu and Turvaśa (Turvasu)
to their south are farther off, almost always referred to as a pair, described
as coming from afar after crossing many rivers, on specific occasions where
they are sometimes friends and sometimes enemies. These are the Five Tribes
known to tradition as the Lunar tribes.
But what is the role of the Ikṣvāku, or the Solar,
tribes in Rigvedic history? It would appear that they were too far to the east
to have played any important role in Rigvedic history. Nevertheless, one
section of the Ikṣvāku did play
an important role in the Rigveda. We will examine here the exact nature of this
role:
I. The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda.
II. The Northwestern Connection.
I.
The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda
The word Ikṣvāku is found only once in the
whole of the Rigveda, in X.60.4. It simply means "the Sun".
However, the Ikṣvāku are referred to in the
Rigveda by another name: as the Tṛkṣi: this word is found twice in the
Rigveda: VI.46.8; VIII.22.7.
a) In the second reference, VIII.22.7,
the word is used as an epithet of a king called Trāsadasyava, "the
son of Trasadasyu". The actual name of this king, "the son of
Trasadasyu", is not given in the hymn, but most Indologists assume his
name to be Tṛkṣi, on account of the phrase "Tṛkṣim Trāsadasyavam"
(mis)translated as "Trikṣi, the son of Trasadasyu". However,
it should actually be translated as "the Trikṣi, the son
of Trasadasyu", meaning "the son of Trasadasyu, of the Trikṣi
(tribe)". The other earlier reference makes it clear that the word is
not the name of a person but of a tribe:
b) The first reference, VI.46.8, is
one of those directional references which names tribes as references of direction.
The two verses VI.46.7-8 are as follows:
"All the manly powers of the Nahuṣa Tribes,
all the Glory of the Five Tribes, bring it together, O Indra!
All the Strength with Trikṣi, with
Druhyu, and with Pūru, bestow it all on us, O Indra, that we may conquer all
our enemies in battle".
Very clearly, tribes are being referred to, not
individuals. The translators clearly translate as "the Druhyu
folk/tribes/people" and "the Pūru folk/tribes/people"
in two of the three cases, but simply "Trikṣi" in the third,
and assume it to be the name of a person! Obviously, it is the name of a
tribe!
The two verses are clear: the first verse refers to
"Nahuṣa Tribes" and "Five Tribes"
in the sense of "All the Tribes". The second
specifically names together the easternmost tribes, the Trikṣi in the
far east, the westernmost tribes, the Druhyu in the far northwest, and
the central tribes, the Pūru, in
the home areas, to again indicate "All the Tribes".
And they ask Indra to give all the strength and power of all these
tribes to Us, the Bharatas.
Therefore also, the word in VIII.22.7
means the Trikṣi, and not Trikṣi.
The Tṛkṣi (Ikṣvāku) kings are referred
to as follows:
1. Mandhātā: I.112.13; VIII.39.8;
40.12.
2. Purukutsa: I.63.7; 112.7;
174.2; VI.20.10.
3. Trasadasyu: I.112.14; IV.38.1;
42.8,9; V.27.3; 33.8; VII.19.3; VIII.8.21;
19.32,36; 36.7; 37.7; 49.10; X.33.4; 150.5.
Paurukutsa:
IV.42.9; V.33.8; VII.19.3; VIII.19.36.
4. Trivṛṣan: V.27.1.
5. Tryaruṇa: V.27.1-3.
Trasadasyu:
V.27.3.
6. Trāsadasyava: VIII.22.7.
7. Kuruṣravaṇa: X.32.9; 33.4.
Trāsadasyava:
X.33.4.
The first of these, Mandhāta is clearly a
distant ancestral king in this line, since he is not referred to in any
contemporary sense: in the first reference, I.112.13, he is
included in a long list of beneficiaries of the grace of the Aśvins. In the next
two (both by one composer), he is clearly an old ancestral figure: VIII.40.12
specifically refers to him as an ancestor (pitṛ). The composer is
Nābhāka Kāṇva: incidentally, in the Ikṣvāku dynastic lists
in both the Puranas and Epics, Nābhāga is the name of one of the far
descendants of Mandhātā.
The rest of the kings are clearly kings contemporary
to the period of the New Books. They are found in all in 14
hymns in the New Books, and in 6 of them they are the
patron kings of the hymns (i.e. the king from whom the composer is receiving
some kind of gifts): V.27,33; VIII.19,49; X.32,33. In the
remaining 8, they appear in regular lists of people aided by the Gods:
in 4 by Indra: I.63,174; VIII.36,37; in 3 by the
Aśvins: I.112; VIII.8,22; in 1 by Agni: X.50.
But then we come to the 4 references to them
in the Old Books: VI.20; VII.19; IV.38,42.
How can kings of the period of the New Books be found in
references in the Old Books?
As I pointed out in detail in my second book
(TALAGERI 2000:66-72), the names of these Tṛkṣi kings in these 4
references are unique and extraordinary in the ethos of the
Rigveda, since they are cases where their names were deliberately added
into the Old Hymns in the period of the New Books,
by composers belonging to the two families most closely associated with the Bharata
Pūrus, the Angiras and Vasiṣṭha composers, as a special
homage of gratitude for some extraordinary aid given by them to the Bharata
Pūrus in particular or the Pūrus in general.
In general, in the Old Books, even
the Redacted Hymns are found modified (due to repeated popular
recitals in front of new audiences during the Rigvedic period) only in language
but not in geographical or historical content. Thus they
refer only to the people, events and geographical features of the Old
times. Book 6 is associated with Divodāsa, and Books 3 and 7
with Sudās:
a) In Book 6, Divodāsa is found in 6
hymns: 3 Old (26,31,43) and 3 Redacted (16,47,61).
There is no reference to the later Sudās in any hymn in Book 6.
b) In Book 3, Sudās is found in 2
hymns: 1 Old (33) and 1 Redacted (53).
c) In Book 7, Sudās is found in 10
hymns: 8 Old (18,19,20,25,53,60,64,83) and 2 Redacted
(32,33).
d) Eastern geographical names (rivers up to
the Asiknī) are found:
In Book 6 in 11 hymns: 6 Old
(1,4,8,17,20,27) and 5 Redacted (45,49,50,52,61). In Book 3
in 10 hymns: 7 Old (4,5,23,45,46,54,58) and 3 Redacted
(26,29,53).
In Book 7 in 13 hymns: 10 Old
(2,9,18,35,39,40,44,58,69,98) and 3 Redacted (36,95,96).
e) Western geographical names are totally
missing in all the three Books (6,3,7) in all
the Hymns, Old as well as Redacted.
The logic of inadvertently interpolating new
pieces of geographical or historical data into old works must be
understood. No one would seriously introduce (except in joke or satire) a
reference to England or apples, or to Nehru or Shivaji,
or to telephones or the internet, in writing out or retelling the
story of the Ramayana or Mahabharata, since a person would normally be aware of
the fact that the places or objects or people or technologies represented by
these words cannot be part of the geographical and historical ethos of
the Epics. But words not known to be representing later phenomenon could
be interpolated into the stories. Thus the writers, editors and redactors of
the Epics and Puranas, which relate events which took place long before
they were set out in writing (in the period after 500 BCE), and which were
carried forward for long periods and countless generations of retelling as oral
traditions, did unknowingly interpolate countless names of
places, people and things which were so common and current in their time
that it did not seem to have occurred to them that they were new things.
As recently as the 1960s, the film Sampoorna Ramayan showed a
scene where, after Sita's abduction, a distraught Rama saw an image of Sita in
a sitaphal and Sita (in her place of imprisonment in the Ashokavan)
saw an image of Rama in a ramphal. Obviously, the filmmaker was unaware
that these two fruits were brought into India from Latin America only a few
centuries ago by the Portuguese! This is why the data in the texts cannot be
taken unquestioningly or without examination in serious historical discussions.
On the other hand, the Vedic texts, and especially
the Rigveda, were carried forward by such a strict, unique and totally
unparalleled system of oral recitation (the ghaṇapāṭha) that the Rigveda
remained totally unchanged once the text was given its final canonical
form sometime around 1500 BCE. I always give the quotations of Witzel
in this respect since they are so perfect, and I will repeat them here (the
quotation from WITZEL 1999a alone is a new one, and it gives an additional
proof):
“Right from the beginning, in Ṛgvedic times,
elaborate steps were taken to insure the exact reproduction of the words of the
ancient poets. As a result, the Ṛgveda still has the exact same wording in such
distant regions as Kashmir, Kerala and Orissa,
and even the long-extinct musical accents have been preserved. Vedic
transmission is thus superior to that of the Hebrew or Greek Bible, or the
Greek, Latin and Chinese classics. We can actually regard present-day Ṛgveda
recitation as a tape recording of
what was composed and recited some 3000 years ago. In addition, unlike the
constantly reformulated Epics and Purāṇas, the Vedic texts contain contemporary materials. They can serve
as snapshots of the political and cultural situation of the particular period
and area in which they were composed. […] as they are contemporary, and faithfully preserved, these texts are
equivalent to inscriptions. […] they
are immediate and unchanged evidence, a sort of oral history ― and sometimes
autobiography ― of the period, frequently fixed and ‘taped’ immediately after
the event by poetic formulation. These aspects of the Vedas have never been
sufficiently stressed […]” (WITZEL 1995a:91).
“[…] the Vedas were composed orally and they
always were and still are, to some extent, oral
literature. They must be regarded as tape
recordings, made during the Vedic period and transmitted orally, and
usually without the change of a single word.” (WITZEL 1997b:258).
"At the outset, it must be underlined that
the Vedic texts excel among other early texts of other cultures in that they
are 'tape recordings' of this archaic period. They were not allowed to be
changed: not one word, not a syllable, not even a tonal accent. If this sounds
unbelievable, it may be pointed out that they even preserve special
cases of main clause and secondary clause intonation, items that have even escaped
the sharp ears of early Indian grammarians. These texts are therefore better than
any manuscript, and as good―if not better―than any contemporary inscription"
(WITZEL 1999a:3).
“It must be underlined that just like an
ancient inscription, these words have not changed since the composition of
these hymns c.1500 BCE, as the RV has been transmitted almost without any
change […] The modern oral
recitation of the RV is a tape recording
of c.1700-1200 BCE.” (WITZEL 2000a:§8).
“The language of the RV is an archaic form
of Indo-European. Its 1028 hymns are addressed to the gods and most of them are
used in ritual. They were orally composed and strictly preserved by exact
repetition through by rote learning, until today. It must be underlined that
the Vedic texts are ‘tape recordings’ of this archaic period. Not one word, not
a syllable, not even a tonal accent were allowed to be changed. The texts are
therefore better than any manuscript, and as good as any well preserved
contemporary inscription. We can therefore rely on the Vedic texts as
contemporary sources for names of persons, places, rivers (WITZEL 1999c)”
(WITZEL 2006:64-65).
In these circumstances, the deliberate
interpolations into Old Hymns, of references to Tṛkṣi kings of
the New Books, during the later Rigvedic period must have been
motivated by a truly extraordinary sense of gratitude for the help given by
these kings to the Vedic Pūrus. While we cannot discover the details,
the basic fact is clear: the 4 references in the Old Books stand out
from normal references to kings in the Rigveda: IV.42.8-9 twice
refers to Trasadasyu as an ardhadeva or "demi-god",
an extraordinarily adulatory phrase found nowhere else in the Vedic texts. It glorifies
his birth in a manner reminiscent of the glorification of the birth of later divine
heroes not only in India but all over the world, but without parallel in the
Rigveda: the Seven Great Sages (sapta ṛṣi) gather together, Purukutsa's
wife gives oblations to Indra and Varuṇa, and the two Gods are pleased to
reward her with the birth of Trasadasyu "the demi-god, the slayer of
the foe-men".
That these 4 references are late interpolations
in the hymns is definite. Although it cannot be expected that there should
necessarily be discernible clues to the lateness of these references in
the Old Books, since that was not the intention of the
interpolators (late composers from the Aṅgiras and Vasiṣṭha
families), we do find such clues:
1. In the case of IV.42.8-9: the idea
of Seven Sages (sapta ṛṣi), is a very late one, common in the
Atharvaveda, but otherwise found in the Rigveda only in two verses in the very
late Book 10: X.82.2; 109.4―it is also found in the
Avesta. Understandably, although the hymn is not a Redacted Hymn,
Griffith tells us that "Grassmann banishes stanzas 8, 9 and 10 to the
appendix as late additions to the hymn".
2. VI.20.10 is the only verse in the Old
Books, singled out by Prof. Hopkins (HOPKINS 1896a:72-73), in the
"Final Note" to his path-breaking article "Prāgāthinī - I",
as a verse which seems to have "interesting marks of lateness",
in spite of the hymn not being a Redacted Hymn. He notes not only that Purukutsa
is a king belonging to a much later period, but that the verse contains the
phrase purah śāradīh, found elsewhere only in the New
Book 1; and, most significantly, the phrase pra stu-
which is "a very important word in the liturgical sense; and it is one
of the commonest of words in later literature", found very commonly in
the Brahmanas, five times in the Atharvaveda, and also very commonly in the
Avesta as fra stu-. But, in the Rigveda, outside
this single reference in an Old Book, it is found 10
times in the New Books.
3. Verse
IV.38.1 is
definitely totally out of place in
the hymn. Hymns 38-40 are hymns
in praise of Dadhikrās, the deified war-horse, and this one verse, out of the
21 verses in the three hymns, is the only verse which stands out from the other
20 verses in deifying Trasadasyu (who is not mentioned at all in the
other verses) rather than Dadhikrās.
4. About VII.19, the hymn itself may have
been composed long after the period of Sudās, since Griffith points out that the contemporaneous
king referred to in verse 8 is "probably a descendant of Sudās,
who must have lived long before the composition of this hymn, as the favor
bestowed on him is referred to as old in stanza 6".
These references in the Old Books (and one
more in Book 1 by a composer belonging to the same Aṅgiras branch
as the composers of Book 4, the Gautamas) are absolutely
unanimous in specifically crediting Purukutsa and/or Trasadasyu
for help given to the Pūrus:
IV.38.1
thanks Mitra and Varuṇa for the services which Trasadasyu, "the
winner of our fields and plough-lands, and the strong smiter who subdued the
dasyus", rendered to the Pūrus.
VII.19.3
refers to Indra helping the Pūrus "in winning land and slaying
foemen" once by way of Sudās (the hero of Book 7) and
once by way of Trasadasyu Paurukutsa (who is otherwise not connected in
any way with Sudās, but is elevated to his level with this reference in
Book 7).
Likewise, I.63.7 refers to Indra
rendering military aid to the Pūrus, once by way of Sudās and
once by way of Purukutsa.
VI.20.10 shows
the Pūrus lauding Indra for destroying the fortresses of their enemies
by way of Purukutsa.
It may be noted that in all the other references to
these Tṛkṣi kings Purukutsa and Trasadasyu, in the New
Books, not one refers even once to the Pūrus in connection with
them, and the only praise for these kings is in the dānastutis (V.33;
VIII.19) for gifts given to the composers of those hymns. It is clear
therefore that the 4 interpolated references in the Old Books
are special memorial references to the two Tṛkṣi kings of the
period of the New Books, who saved the Bharata Pūrus or
the Pūrus in general from total defeat and destruction in some
unspecified wars. They were inserted into the Old Books by late
composers of the respective families since the Old Books represented the
special period of the Bharata Pūrus.
The presence of these Ikṣvāku kings in the
Rigveda has always been a pain for the Indologists, firstly because they are
not specifically called Ikṣvākus (and the Indologists do not realize
that the tribal term for them in the Rigveda is Tṛkṣi, which they assume
to be the name of an individual king) and secondly because they actually
misinterpret the 5 special memorial references (4 in the Old
Books and 1 by the Gautama Āṅgirasa composer in Book 1)
to the great help given to the Pūrus by these two kings to mean
that the two kings themselves were Pūrus!
They are aware that this misinterpretation has no
support anywhere in the Rigveda outside their own misinterpretations
of these 5 references, and certainly nowhere in any other Vedic,
Puranic or Classical Sanskrit text. It is not only the Puranas and Epics
which unanimously classify these kings as Ikṣvāku: other Vedic
texts also do so: the Panchavimsha Brahmana xiii.3.12 calls Tryaruṇa
an Aikṣvāka, and the Shatapatha Brahmana xiii.5,4,5 calls Purukutsa
an Aikṣvāka. Nowhere are they called Pūrus.
But instead of realizing the mistake, some
Indologists try to explain this (most others simply ignore or stonewall it) by
suggesting that "the Ikṣvāku line was originally a line of the princes
of the Pūrus" (MACDONELL-KEITH 1912a:75).
Not only is their misinterpretation of the 5
references totally unsupported anywhere, but it leads them into
contradictions and confusion. Instead of realizing that the word Pūru in
these verses in fact refers to the Bharatas, they somehow conclude that Bharatas
and Pūrus were the main rivals in the Rigveda, and treat Purukutsa
and Trasadasyu as the leaders of these rival or enemy Pūrus. But
then those very 5 references on which their entire
misinterpretation is based become incomprehensible to them, since in 3
of them, I.63.7; VI.20.10; and VII.19.3,
Indra is described as helping both Sudās and Purukutsa/Trasadasyu
to victory!
This confusion and contradiction is reflected in
their interpretations:
Witzel, in his 1995 papers, recognizes that it is “the Pūru, to whom (and to […] the Bharata) the Ṛgveda really belongs”
(WITZEL 1995b:313), and that the Rigveda was “composed primarily by the Pūrus and Bharatas” (WITZEL 1995b:328),
and even that the Bharatas were “a
subtribe” (WITZEL 1995b:339) of the Pūrus. But he convinces himself
that, while Divodāsa and Sudās were Bharatas, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu were Pūrus;
and hence he confuses every reference to Pūrus (i.e. to the Bharatas)
as a reference to those non-Pūru
Tṛkṣi kings, whom, moreover,
he somehow identifies as the enemies
of Sudās and the Bharatas in the Battle of the Ten Kings.
Altogether, therefore, he ends up with a thoroughly chaotic and confused
picture of Rigvedic history, for which
he blames “conflicting glimpses” and
“inconsistencies” in the hymns
themselves (!):
“Although
book 7 is strongly pro-Bharata, it provides several, conflicting, glimpses of
the Pūru […in] 7.5.3, Vasiṣṭha himself praises Agni for
vanquishing the ‘black’ enemies of the Pūrus ― this really ought to have been
composed for the Bharatas. Inconsistencies also appear in hymn 7.19.3, which
looks back on the ten kings’ battle but mentions Indra’s help for both Sudās
and Trasadasyu, the son of Purukutsa, and also refers to the Pūrus’ winning of
land […]” (WITZEL 1995b:331)!
In her comment on VII.19.3, Jamison
tells us: "The first half of this hymn (vss. 1-5) celebrates various
victories of Indra, giving aid both to men of the mythic past (e.g., Kutsa, vs.
2) and those of the present, especially King Sudās (vs. 3, also 6), the
leader also in the battle of the Ten Kings treated in the preceding
well-known hymn (VII.18). The allegiances and enmities of that hymn are
strikingly different here: for example, Indra helps the Pūru king in this
hymn (vs. 3), whereas in VII.18, the Pūrus are the enemy". She
does not comment on the other verses (I.63.7, and VI.20.10)
where both Purukutsa/Trasadasyu and Sudās are led to
victory by Indra!
In fact, as per Macdonell, the early Indologist
Ludwig, in order to push his view that Purukutsa and Sudās were mutual
enemies, went so far as to decide that a word in I.63.7 was wrong,
and to actually alter that word sudāsam to sudāse
(MACDONELL-KEITH 1912b:327,fn7)!
All this had been dealt with in my books, but now we
must discuss a new dimension of this Ikṣvāku or Tṛkṣi history in
the Rigveda.
II.
The Northwestern Connection
There is one more point about the Ikṣvāku
presence in the Rigveda which should cause puzzlement: the prominent presence in
the northwest of these kings―who are located in the Puranas and Epics in
the far east (northeastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar).
This does not cause puzzlement to the Indologists,
of course, because according to their theory, all the ancestors of all
the Puranic tribes and dynasties were located in the northwest in the Rigvedic
period as constituents among the newly arrived Vedic Indo-Aryans,
and it was only later that these tribes migrated eastwards and spread
out all over northern India. Scholars like P.L. Bhargava, who try to fit the
Puranic data into the geographical constraints of this Rigvedic-origin
paradigm, also locate the Ikṣvākus in the northwest. Then we have crank
writers like Rajesh Kochhar trying to push even the geography of the Ramayana
into the northwest. Unfortunately, the views of orthodox Hindus opposed to
the AIT, who support the Vedic-origin-of-Indian-culture-and-history
paradigm, indirectly falls in the same category.
But as we have seen elsewhere (see my books and
articles), the data in both the Rigveda and the Puranas prove that the Vedic
Indo-Aryans were in fact the Pūrus alone (and, in the earlier
period, specifically the Bharata Pūrus). And they alone
occupied the home territory within the Rigvedic horizon. The Ikṣvākus
were indeed to their far east from very early pre-Rigvedic times: the location-based
reference to the Tṛkṣi tribe in the early VI.46 clearly places
them to the far east in contrast to the Druhyu in the far west
and the Pūru in the central home area.
But the 14 hymns in the New Books
which treat these kings as contemporary (in dānastutis) or merely
enumerate them (in lists of persons favored by the Gods) seem to be located in
the northwest. At least, not one of these hymns has an eastern
geographical name, but northwestern rivers Rasā (I.112.12)
and Suvāstu (VIII.19.37) are named in two of them, in the
second as the actual river on whose banks Trasadasyu gave gifts to the
composer. A later reference in the Shatyayana Brahmana records that Trasadasyu's
wife was a Piśācī (i.e. a person belonging
to the Piśāca or Nooristani Anu people who occupied exactly the
same area).
So what accounts for the presence of these Ikṣvāku
kings in the northwest?
The explanation is in the Puranic accounts:
There were non-Bharata Pūrus
living to the east and slightly south of the central area of the Rigvedic
Bharata Pūrus, in western UP and parts of northern Madhya
Pradesh. We have the Pūru Matsyas, who lived to the south of the Yamunā
and fought against Sudās and the Bharata Pūrus in the
battle on the Yamunā in alliance with the Yadus and Turvasus
of the area (VII.18). We have the Kīkaṭa, whom later tradition
actually associates with the Magadha area in the east, but, even without going
that far, even Witzel identifies it as an interior location to the south-east
of Haryana "in eastern Rajasthan or western
Madhya Pradesh" (WITZEL 1995b:333 fn)!
So the Bharata Pūrus of the Rigveda
were certainly generally acquainted with the people to their east and immediate
south from pre-Rigvedic times. They were acquainted so well enough with
the far eastern location of the Tṛkṣi, even in the period
of the oldest Book 6, as to be able to use the name as a
location-based reference to the far east (in VI.27). Doubtless, the
relations between the more eastern (non-Bharata) Pūrus and
the Ikṣvākus to the far east must have been even closer.
In any case, the Puranas tell us that the ancient Ikṣvāku
king Mandhātā of the east was related to the Pūrus through his
mother, who was the daughter of a Pūru king Matīnāra. It is at
least clear from this that Mandhātā (half a Pūru himself) had
reason to be friendly with the Pūrus, who were his maternal relations.
The Puranic accounts of the Ikṣvāku dynasty
associate all the early kings with the east, but in the case of Mandhātā,
they relate his movement westwards in support of his Pūru kinsmen
who were under assault from the Druhyus to their west in a pre-Rigvedic
period. The Druhyus had attacked all the people to their east and all
the eastern people combined against them to drive them out. Mandhātā moved out as far as the Punjab and drove the Druhyus
out from the Punjab into the northwest. Pargiter describes it as follows:
"The Druhyus occupied the Punjab, and Mandhātṛ of Ayodhya had a long
war with the Druhyu king Aruddha or Aṅgāra and killed him" (PARGITER
1962:167). Later, more in detail, he tells us that Mandhātā pushed past "the prostrate Paurava
realm, and pushing beyond them westwards, he had a long contest with and
conquered the Druhyu king who appears to have been then on the confines of the
Panjab, so that the next Druhyu king Gandhāra retired to the northwest and gave
his name to the Gandhāra country" (PARGITER 1962:262).
Later, Mandhātā returned to his own kingdom
in the east, and there is little record in traditional history of the
activities of his successor kings in the east having much to do with the
northwest (until the much later period of the Epics). However, it is clear that
some of his descendants remained in the northwest and originated a new northwestern
branch of Tṛkṣi or Ikṣvāku kings distinct from the eastern ones.
Undoubtedly Purukutsa, Trasadasyu and their descendants in the
Rigveda were late descendants, in the period of the New Books of the
Rigveda, belonging to this northwestern branch.
The evidence for this is that, in spite of both the
Puranas as well as later Vedic texts regularly classifying these kings as Ikṣvākus,
and in spite of the fact that they are the main or only Ikṣvākus in the New
Books of the Rigveda, the eastern Ikṣvāku traditions are
completely blank about these important kings. Purukutsa and Trasadasyu,
though the descendants of Mandhātā, are not known to the Ramayana
traditions as being ancestors of Rama. The Ramayana (II.110) records all the important ancestors of Rama and
kings of Ayodhya known to the Puranic traditions, including (other than Mandhātā)
Ikṣvāku, Triśaṅku, Dhundhumāra, Ajita, Sagara,
Aṁśuman, Dilīpa, Bhagīratha, Raghu, Kalmāṣapāda
and Ambarīṣa, none of whom (again other than Mandhātā) are known
to the Rigveda. But it does not seem to know the very important Purukutsa,
Trasadasyu and the other Ikṣvāku kings known to the Rigveda (but
also to the Puranas).
Bhargava notes this fact: he points out that "Eleven
Purāṇas and the Harivaṁśa give the list of the kings of this dynasty more or
less completely", as also two Upa-Puranas and the Mahabharata, and
also the Ramayana (twice), but "all the lists are in general agreement
except the two Ramayana lists, which differ from all others. Thus the Ramayana
genealogy omits many kings, such as Purukutsa, Trasadasyu, Hariśchandra and
Rohita, who are well-known in Vedic literature as Aikshvāku kings" (BHARGAVA
1956:56).
The reason is clear. Obviously Purukutsa and Trasadasyu
were not known to the eastern traditions as ancestors of Rama, because they
were not ancestors of Rama: they were kings of the northwestern
branch of the Ikṣvākus.
[Incidentally, Bhargava himself provides the logic for different versions in different Puranas or groups of Puranas. He gives a case where "between Mitrasaha and Dilīpa Khaṭvāṅga two lines of kings are given in two sets of Purāṇas for six generations", which he explains as follows: "It is clear that one line is the main line and the other a branch line, and while some Purāṇas have dropped the main line, the others have dropped the branch" (BHARGAVA 1956:59). This is the explanation for the differences in the Ikṣvāku lineages: always keeping in mind that the Puranic lists in different texts are in any case often jumbled, confused and partial (and sometimes even fictitious) except where confirmed by more definite evidence, the fact is that the Puranas retain lists of all the Ikṣvāku kings, while the Vedic texts name only kings from the northwestern branch line, and the eastern traditions (though also in the manner of the Puranic records) name only kings from the main eastern line].
[Incidentally, Bhargava himself provides the logic for different versions in different Puranas or groups of Puranas. He gives a case where "between Mitrasaha and Dilīpa Khaṭvāṅga two lines of kings are given in two sets of Purāṇas for six generations", which he explains as follows: "It is clear that one line is the main line and the other a branch line, and while some Purāṇas have dropped the main line, the others have dropped the branch" (BHARGAVA 1956:59). This is the explanation for the differences in the Ikṣvāku lineages: always keeping in mind that the Puranic lists in different texts are in any case often jumbled, confused and partial (and sometimes even fictitious) except where confirmed by more definite evidence, the fact is that the Puranas retain lists of all the Ikṣvāku kings, while the Vedic texts name only kings from the northwestern branch line, and the eastern traditions (though also in the manner of the Puranic records) name only kings from the main eastern line].
Three other interesting points emerge out of all
this:
1. The fact that the kings of the northwestern
branch of Tṛkṣi or Ikṣvāku kings were close allies of the Pūrus
in the post-Sudās period of the Rigveda may throw light on the identity of the Ambarīṣa
of I.100.17, one of the five Vārṣāgiras in the battle
beyond the Sarayu in the period of Sahadeva and Somaka. He
was not a Bharata Pūru, but an Ikṣvāku―but then there is
no reason to believe that the five Vārṣāgiras were brothers or clansmen.
Ambarīṣa seems to have been a common family name among Ikṣvākus: we have kings of Ayodhya named Ambarīṣa,
and apparently that was also the name of one of Purukutsa's brothers
(PARGITER 1962:93).
2. As inhabitants of the northwest, the
northwestern Ikṣvākus must have been experts at horsemanship and may
have introduced the war-horse of the northwest to their Pūru allies.
There are two clear indications of this in the Rigveda:
a) The verse referring to Trasadasyu in IV.38,
is inserted at the beginning of a group of three hymns (IV.38-40,
with a total of 21 verses) addressed to a divine war-horse Dadhikrās.
The verse (IV.38.1) describes the war-hero Trasadasyu and the war-horse Dadhikrās
as the two great gifts given by Varuṇa and Mitra to the Pūrus which enabled
them to win back their plough-lands and fields.
b) Another divine war horse, named in two late
verses, I.89.6 and X.33.4, is named Tārkṣya,
which is literally derived from the name Tṛkṣi: i.e. "of the Tṛkṣi".
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
BHARGAVA 1956:
India in the Vedic Age: A History of
Aryan Expansion in India. Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow,
1956.
GRIFFITH 1889:
The Hymns of the Rigveda. (tr) Griffith, Ralph T.H. Munshiram Manoharlal, rep
1987, Varanasi.
JAMISON-BRERETON 2014:
The Rigveda―The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford Univ. Press,
New York, 2014.
HOPKINS 1896a: Prāgāthikāni. Hopkins, Edward W.
pp. 23-92 in JAOS (Journal of the American Oriental Society), Vol. 17.
MACDONELL-KEITH 1912a: Vedic Index
of Names and Subjects. Vol 1. Macdonell A.A. and Keith A.B. John Murray,
London, 1912.
MACDONELL-KEITH 1912b: Vedic Index
of Names and Subjects. Vol 2. Macdonell A.A. and Keith A.B. John Murray,
London, 1912.
PARGITER 1962: Ancient Indian
Historical Tradition. Pargiter F.E. Motilal Banarsidas,
Delhi-Varanasi-Patna, 1962.
TALAGERI
2000:
The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis. Talageri, Shrikant G. Aditya
Prakashan (New Delhi), 2000.
WITZEL
1995a:
Early Indian History: Linguistic
and Textual Parameters. Witzel.
Michael. pp. 85-125 in
“The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de
Gruyter. Berlin, 1995.
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 1997b: The Development of the Vedic Canon and Its
Schools: The Social and Political Milieu. Witzel,
Michael. in “Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts”, ed. by M.Witzel, Cambridge
1997 (being the proceedings of the International Vedic Workshop, Harvard univ.,
June 1989).
WITZEL 1999a: Early
Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages. Witzel, Michael. in MOTHER
TONGUE, Special Issue, 1999.
WITZEL
2000a:
The Languages of Harappa. Witzel, Michael. Feb. 17, 2000.
WITZEL 2006: Central Asian Roots and Acculturation in
South Asia: Linguistic and Archaelogical Evidence from Western Central Asia,
the Hindukush and Northwestern South Asia for Early Indo-Aryan Language and
Religion. in “Indus Civilization: Text and Context”, edited by Toshiki
Osada, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2006
Talageri ji, in the last paragraph you justify the occurrence of eastern rivers names Gomatī and Sarayu in the west. Is there also some similar case for SarasVati and Harahvaiti?
ReplyDeleteAlso I have query regarding “Ganga” from your previous articles. Western Indologist said that the Word “Gāngya” in RV 6.45.31 is in a a tṛca section can you please explain what is this tṛca?
Now the Western Indologist will always change their claim just to satisfy their AIT/AMT that’s why they sometimes calls this hymns unsuspicious and sometimes suspicious. But the question is does occurring in this tṛca section really creates any problem for "Ganga"?
These questions about the Sarasvati-Harahvaiti have already been answered fully in the article on "The Logic of Rigvedic Geography".
DeleteIn this very article, I have shown how the geographical and historical references in the Old Books are identical for both the Old and Redacted Hymns, and it is only the language which may get accommodatingly modified (before the final freezing of the text) if the hymn is a popular one which was regularly recited before audiences as in a keertan. So why should a reference being in a trca (which is simply a strophe consisting of three verses) be of any importance in deciding the age of the reference? In fact, this trca section is the danastuti section which in fact shows that the three verses are the most contemporary verses in the whole hymn where the actual living patron of the composer is being praised.
In the article on the logic of Rigvedic geography, I have shown how Witzel in his earlier articles argues hard to show that the Ganga is a very old reference. When he realized the danger to the AIT after my books, he tried to backtrack and give any excuse to now show that it is not old. If he had not found anything else he would have said "this is in a gayatri verse". Then should we have seriously sat down to discuss whether it being in a gayatri verse makes it a late reference?
In an unrelated article (Hinduism vs. Hindutva) above, I gave the example of the wolf in Aesop's fable who is determined to find some excuse to attack and kill the lamb. Here (after my books) Witzel became desperate to find some excuse to show that the reference is a late one. It only shows motive and desperation.
Thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like now Professor Witzel is working on "Out of Africa" theory as the description of this book of his "The Origins of the World's Mythologies" stated. According to the description of this book on Amazon he tries to show the mythology and spirituality of all the world's religion have there origin in Africa.
ReplyDeleteTalageri ji is there really no connection between middle east and Indian subcontinent before 2000 BCE.Because again I came across a name of a middle eastern king name"Amar-Sin", where the word Amar means "Immortal", exactly the meaning it's similar sounding Sanskrit word "Amar" has.
ReplyDelete‘When elephants battle, the grass suffers.’ Power, ivory and the Syrian elephant
ReplyDeletehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00758914.2016.1198068
There is clear evidence of Asian elephants as far away as Syria. They went extinct by 800 BCE.
"Evidence for the Syrian elephant ceased to exist during the 1st millennium BC as textual, pictorial and physical evidence for these animals stops during the second quarter of the 1st millennium BC (Barnett 1982: 74, n. 35; Collon 1977; Miller 1986; Moorey 1994: 119). "
Talageri ji what is the source of PARGITER's information regarding Mandhata?
ReplyDeleteAlso why did Ramayana mentioned Sarasvati and Sindhu as an eastern river along with Sarayu, Ganga and Yamuna?
For people like rajesh kochhar Ramayana occurred in Afghanistan so according to him this makes perfect sense.
Even today we have the "underground Sarasvati" in Allahabad and the Sindh river going north from Madhya Pradesh to join the Yamuna in Jalaun district.
ReplyDeleteNow could you please tell me the source for Rajesh Kochhar's Ganga and Yamuna in Afghanistan?
So you are saying that Sindhu mentioned in here is not Indus but actually river Sindh.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't mention any reference or source for this identification.
"For people like rajesh kochhar Ramayana occurred in Afghanistan so according to him this makes perfect sense."
ReplyDeleteThis is a classic case of Kochhar wanting to have his cake and eat it too.
A review of Rajesh Kocchar's book by Koenraad Elst
Refer to the section "Some far fetched proofs."
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/reviews/kochhar.html
"He really goes overboard when he tries to counter the obvious objection that the whole surroundings of the Vedic Saraswati are unmistakably Indian (e.g. elephants), making its identification with the Afghan river Helmand difficult. Thus, in the famous River Hymn (RV 10:75), the rivers are enumerated from east to west, with the Saraswati coming after the Ganga and Yamuna and before the eastern tributaries of the Indus: here, like in the whole post-Rg-Vedic Sanskrit literature, the term "Saraswati" unmistakably refers to the Ghaggar/Hakra. So, Kochhar decides to move the whole Rg-Vedic setting along with the Saraswati into Afghanistan: Ganga and Yamuna become tributaries of the Helmand (p.131). Well, anything is possible, but this ad hoc solution really is far-fetched.
Also, he sticks to the Afghan identification EVEN FOR THE POST RG VEDIC PERIOD (emphasis added) which he has otherwise admitted as showing Indian locations (with the settlement of Northwest India taking place during the late Rg-Vedic period): "We have shown that the description of Sarasvati and Sarayu in the Rgveda and even sutra literature, fits the Afghan rivers Helmand and Hari-rud better than any river in India." (p.222, emphasis added) Have we really?"
So to sustain the Haraivaitti= Sarasvati equation Ramayana and Mahabharata have to happen in Afghanistan as well.
Ok, I was doing a little bit of search of my own. And yes based on the context there are various reason to believe that this river Sindhu is not the Indus but a tributary of Yamuna named Sindh.
ReplyDeleteThe verses occurs in kishkindha kanda (4-40-20b,21,22,23). It describe rivers like Ganga, Sarayu, Kaushiki, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sindhu, Shona, Mahi, Kaalamahi. All of them are eastern rivers. Regarding Saraswati River which Talageri ji already explained that it is the underground Sarasvati" in Allahabad.
For Sindhu which is actually river Sindh and not Indus in this case. Those same verses also mention places like Brahmamaala, Videha, Maalva, Kaashi, and Kosala, Maagadha, Pundra and Anga. All of them are eastern kingdoms/places.
One of this places Maalva (Malwa Plateau) interestingly is the place from where Sindh River actually flows from and joins Yamuna. Also in this verses there is another river mention i.e river Mahi which is also nearer to Malwa Plateau though not nearer to Sindh River, but still all of them are within that same region i.e central-western MP.
It could also be possible that this tributary was also known as Sindhu in the past. Just like the Sindh province of Pakistan which in ancient times known as Sindhu/Sindhu Kingdom.
Again there is another river i.e Sarayu. But according to Rajesh kochhar’s this Sarayu is the Harayu/Hari/Heart/Hereyrud of Afghanistan which is in the west. So if these verses are mentioning eastern geography why a western river (Sarayu/Harayu) is mentioned with them. Even if kochhar assumed that Saraswati as Helmand and Sindhu as Indus then also Sarayu/Harayu still remains a western river. The logic is simple; this Sarayu just like other rivers is the Sarayu of present day eastern UP.
Finally kishkindha kANDa (4-42-15) which describes the western geography again mentioned Sindhu. So one should ask him why Ramayana mentioning Sindhu twice, once in the east and another in the west. Again simple logic eastern Sindhu is river Sindh and western Sindhu is river Indus.
I hope this analysis is right.
Sir, is TRTSU (mentioned variously as family of Sudas himself or as clansmen of Vasistha) the same as TRKSI?
ReplyDeleteEarliest migration from Ayodhya to Central Asia was by Narisyanta, son of Vaivasvata Manu/brother of Ikshvaku. He is mentioned as the ancestor of SHAKA KSHATRIYAS.
The words Trtsu and Trksi are found only in the Rigveda, and they clearly refer to the Bharatas and the Iksvakus respectively.
DeleteThank you sir.
Deletehttps://www.academia.edu/43115135/Semenenko_%D0%90.%D0%90._Watery_Humpback_Cattle_Pattern_in_Rigveda_and_Archaeology_of_the_Ancient_East
ReplyDelete"Due to the limitations of the text we can’t describe here all material embodiments of the watery
humpback cattle pattern in the archaeological record of the Ancient East regions starting from theIndus Valley around 4000 BCE and moving further in time (between 2800
–
1000 BCE) and fartherWest through Afghanistan, Bactria
–
Margiana and Iran up to the Central Anatolia. It is sufficient tostate that the first ever in the IE studies’ history exact archaeological route of the RVedic (=(Pre)Harappan) IA migration has been reconstructed by us supporting the Out-of-India Theory ofIE dispersal. The readers wishing to learn more are kindly asked to watch our video report on the 5th of December 2019 at the All-
Russian conference at Voronezh State Art Institution entitled ‘The motif of the humpback water bull in the culture of the Ancient East: art history comes to the aid of history’and the conference’s presentation and an updated map. [2]"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4 - so theirs collapsed due to sea men. Ours had to be horse men!
ReplyDeleteArchaeologist/historian Alexandr Semenenko has recently released books in Russian promoting the OIT. Check out his English language videos here
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Vritrahan2014?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
His main claim is that what they call "chariots" in Eastern Europe are just carts.
I have been reading your blogs but have not finished reading all of them. So please excuse if my question is already answered by you.
ReplyDeleteWhile explaining the OIT theory at one place you ask a hypothetical question. If one assumes Aryans coming into India before 3000BC to take in account the later development of Rigveda in India itself still some questions remain. That of them not knowing north west geography and being localized in Haryana/ Western UP region until much later time (i.e. newer books of Rgveda)
How would it pan out if one assumes the Indo-european speakers entering India not through north west as traditionally assumed but across Himalayas? Starting in tarim basin or thereabout where Tocharian was spoken, passing ideally somehwere near Kailas mountain in Tibet, across the himalayan ranges which have some of holiest sites of Hinduism on to north Indian plains. Here they split into Iksvakus and Pūru-Anu-Druhyu groups over next millenia. The further story is already explained by you in detail
By this assumption the questions raised about early and late branches of IE languages are answered. The peculiar position occupied by Tocharian language in relation to early departure from IE homeland is taken care. For this I am assuming a circuitous route from south russia onto inner mountain steppe down to India, outward to west Asia ending back in Europe.
This also answers the question of genetic input (R1a haplogroup). I assume here multiple R1a migration towards India. One of them is already before 3000BC as explained above and one could imagine similar migrations in later stages right upto sakas etc in various numbers.
Does that pass occam's razor?
I would be happy to know what you think.
Thanks and regards,
VY
The theory you suggest above to somehow bring the "Aryans" into India from South Russia into India by 3000 BCE raises many impossible situations. To take just two:
Delete1. The arrival of the ancestors of the Vedic people into India from Tibet over the Himalayas, where they must have been constantly climbing and descending the world's highest mountain ranges and moving through extremely unhospitable terrains and unimaginable routes (with cattle and chariots?) is like a science fiction film.
2. The linguistic point is not the non-mention of the northwest. It is that common terms for cart-and-wheel technology and copper technology, among other things, developed in common in all the 12 branches of IE languages around 3000 BCE. So then did the speakers of all these 12 branches come across the Himalayas into India by 3000 BCE and then spread west to Europe and West Asia after that? If so, where does the question of a South Russian origin arise in the first place?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFirstly thanks for taking out time to reply to my comment.
Delete1. I know it is convoluted. After Narsimhan's paper which suggest there was no interaction of Steppe people coming to India even with BMAC culture I thought on this line to try and align DNA evidence + linguistic evidence from you. I am not talking about bringing 'Aryans' in but rather the steppe dna R1a into India. I read already that 'Aryan' is not necessarily steppe people but could also be honorific term used.
Also I found the chronology of epics Ramayana, Mahabharata peculiar and not in accordance to north west arrival. Hence your hypothesis about vedic aryans being just one of the several IA groups perfect to explain this anomaly of earlier epic being based deeper in gangetic plains. Hence this idea of such a difficult way in for these steppe gene into India without passing north west region of India and still reaching deep into India.
2) I was assuming Indo iranian, hittite and balto slavic group arrive in India before 3000BC and then leave by 2000 BC. Since they have higher affinity to Indic. The rest I am assuming already separating before 3000 BC
I wanted to know your opinion as to whether such a scenario passes occam's razor. It seems it doesnt. Thanks for answering none the less.
Hi Vishwa Yatri,
DeleteIn the context of genetics, I wanted to mention a few points here.
1. Genetics can only serve as an evidence when you there is a population replacement occurring or the migrants are many folds bigger in number than the original inhabitants. Such case is easily seen in Europe, as per Olalde et al 2018, we see a complete population replacement in wester Europe (Britain, Spain, Portugal) ~2,500BCE in such a genocidal extent that it lead to 100% complete Y-chromosome replacement. Similar scenarios are seen across Europe after 3000BCE.
2. Do we see such scenario in South Asia? answer is big fat NO. I will explain what the genetic data tells us. see below
2a. In Modern Indian population (as per Narasimhan et al. 2019), 87.6% of the ancestry comes directly from the Indus Valley. Even in IA speakers of South Asia - 85.4% ancestry is directly from Indus Valley DNA.
2b. Look at the published supplementary data of Narasimhan et al 2019 here - (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/09/04/365.6457.eaat7487.DC1)
They talk about the SWAT valley aDNA which shows admixture between Indus & steppe occurring between 1400-1900 BCE. (these SWAT aDNA skeletons are carbon dated to 1000BCE). Using this and the absence of aDNA from proper South Asia (not the periphery). Furthering their own paradigm, the Narasimhan concluded that steppe ancestry which is seen in the modern South Asian thus arrived here between 2000-1500BCE.
Forget about "alleged" migration of Sanskrit into South Asia, their own data contradicts even with the steppe migration too.
why?
Because of the following reasons
i) The so called aryan gene - the R1a is almost non-existing in the SWAT valley aDNA.
ii) Even in the periphery of South Asia (in SWAT aDNA) - this unique steppe ancestry (with the steppe R1a gene) is a little as 10-20%
iii) The autosomal make up of the SWAT aDNA is incompatible with the modern data South Asians. Implying that the "unique" steppe people whose ancestry is found in SWAT aDNA are NOT the people whose ancestry is found in the modern South Asian.
iv) even as per the Narasimhan, there are almost no admixture dates calculated for the modern South Asian, which are concentrated between 2000-1500 BCE.
3. The last thing is the origin of R1a, I am NOT going to mention the on record claims of Niraj Rai and Gyaneshwar Chaubey, lets just look at what the published researches say about R1a origin.
Although I will admit that there isn't a grand scholarly consensus. But if you want to see which side the scale tips. There are more scholars/ papers which find the R1a origin to be in South Asia. I must also admit that Indus Valley aDNA haven't so far shown the presence of R1a in them, which is interesting. Despite the fact that as per published papers, the R1a age is the oldest in India. to be precise in J&K then as you move south into India and west into Asia and Europe - the age of R1a decreases in a linear fashion. Refer to Table 3 in Shrma et al here - https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20082
* correction to point 2b (ii)
DeleteThe "unique" steppe ancestry found in SWAT aDNA shows almost NO presence of steppe R1a gene.
@Puru
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation. According to you when in time do you place the entry/exit of R1a. As I said above one way is to place it around 3000Bc where all the Vedic/ Sanskrit development happens subsequently, possibly with contribution from IVC people or from a mixture of above steppe and IVC people within India.
Other option is to assign R1a to incursion from outside India but at much later time right down to Sakas etc. Here as far as I know the model fails as no eastern component is seen in India IA speakers are expected from later incursions.
Yet other option is origin of R1a in India as your mentioned in point 3. In this case the model of the dispersal from India towards steppe, Europe needs to be created. Also when would you place such a movement in time?
Sir I have a question, more like confused. King Nimi is descended from the Iksavaku lineage. Is he mentioned in the Rig Veda? King Nimi is said to be the founder of the Vedaha dynasty which located in close to Mithila. King Janaka is also associated with these Area as well. So it means that the these were post Rig Vedic kingdoms as its commonly thaught but Vedic. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteThere is a Nami Sapya twice mentioned in the Rigveda as a beneficiary of Indra's help. I don't think he has any connection with the Nimi of Videha.
DeleteThere is the well known reference in the Shatapatha Brahmana to a Videgha Mathava who took the Agni-worship system to the Videha area. He is identified, I believe, by many scholars as Nimi the founder of Videha. I don't know what conclusions can be drawn from this meagre and vague data.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete