Was Viśvāmitra involved in the Battle of Ten Kings?
Shrikant G Talageri
This is a point which is made so overwhelmingly often that, although refuted many times in my books, I felt it necessary to write a separate blog on it. The reason was the following invitation to a "Sangam Talks" episode:
A. To begin with, I find the reference to "10 disgruntled kings" rather out of place: the battle took place because Sudās, the Rigvedic Bharata Pūru king, wanted to conquer surrounding lands. The story may be summarized as follows from the data in the Rigveda:
The Bharata Pūru king 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 conducted in the Haryana homeland of Sudās, and he first (under Viśvāmitra) moves westwards across the Vipāś and Śutudrī (present day Beas and Satlej), the two easternmost rivers of the Punjab.
Later, under Vasiṣṭha's priesthood, Sudās moves further in the westward direction into the Punjab, and fights the dāśarājña battle (the Battle of the Ten Kings) on the banks of the Paruṣṇī (Ravi) in central Punjab against a coalition of 10 tribes of the area.
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.
Therefore, the 10 kings (or, more properly, the ten Anu tribes) were merely coming together under their king Kavi Cāyamāna to ward off the attack on their lands from their east. The word "disgruntled" can be used for them only if we are also prepared to use the word for Porus who stood up against Alexander's attacks from the west in a later period. Whether the attacker is a foreigner or a fellow Indian (both Sudās and the 10 tribes were Indians), surely our sympathies should be with the attacked and not the attacker!
While advocates of the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) try to convert this battle into a battle between an "Aryan invader" Sudās and a coalition of indigenous native tribes of the Punjab (to which they sometimes generously add that a small section of the Aryan invaders also sided with the 10 native "non-Aryan" tribes against Sudās) — a claim which is not supported by the Rigveda, since none of the antagonists have "non-Aryan" names — a section of anti-AIT writers take the "side" of Sudās and treat the battle as if the original attackers were the 10 tribes. For example, an article by a very great writer, environmentalist and activist, Nanditha Krishna, entitled "Sudasa: India's First War Hero" (https://openthemagazine.com/columns/sudasa-indias-first-war-hero/), with the subtitle "he drove away north-western tribes, which have attacked India over the millennia, from the Ravi", calls the 10 kings "a coalition coming from the west" and sums up the case as: "tribes from the east resisted the onslaught and banished the tribes back to the west". She further categorizes the 10 tribes as follows: "The Ten Kings were cattle raiders, a constant cause of war in ancient times. All these tribes have been attacking India through ancient, medieval and modern times".
[Nanditha Krishna, for whose scholarship I have the very greatest respect, cites my blog article "The identity of the Enemies of Sudās in the Dāśarājña Battle in the Rigveda". But clearly she has not understood the article:
1. She not only refers to Sudās as "Sudāsa" (a completely different name not found in the Rigveda, as I have pointed out many times), but even concludes that "Sudasa, the Arya hero, is a dasa. He was the grandson of Divodasa, another Vedic hero and a dasa".
2. She refers to the Anu coalition as a "Puru confederation", further referring to them as "the cattle-stealing Pūru tribes". It is Sudās himself who is a Bharata Pūru, and none of his opponents in the dāśarājña battle were Pūrus, although his earlier battles on the Yamuna included the non-Bharata Pūrus (the Matsyas, for example) as opponents.
B. But my main point is about the statement, in the above intimation of the talk by Dr. Shankar Kashyap, that the dāśarājña was "also a battle between two of the RgVeda's most powerful sages, Vashista and Vishwamitra".
Nanditha Krishna also tells us: "The spiritual head of the Tritsu-Bharatas was Vashishtha and that of the invading Purus was Vishwamitra, who was advisor to the cattle-stealing Puru tribes".
This has been the most persistent misconception about the battle which has been reiterated time and again by different scholars, both Indian and western, and among them the supporters of both the AIT and the OIT.
There is absolutely nothing in the Rigveda or in any other Vedic text or in any reference from the Puranas or the Epics to suggest that Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra were antagonists in this battle, or that Viśvāmitra was anywhere in the picture in the battle, and no-one has been able to produce the slightest evidence for such a claim.
The only fact that can be ascertained from the Rigveda is that Viśvāmitra was the earlier priest of Sudās when he started out on his campaign of conquest, and he was later replaced by Vasiṣṭha. That this must have caused bad blood between the two families of rishis is a plausible conclusion: certainly the Puranas and Epics are full of stories indicating their mutual rivalry (although none of these stories refer to, or even know about, this historic battle), and even in the Rigveda, various scholars have, rightly or wrongly, pointed out verses in the books of the two families which are interpreted as imprecations against each other. Also, I am told, some later texts discourage marriage between people belonging to gotras of the two families.
Viśvāmitra may have been replaced by Vasiśṭha either because differences arose between Sudās and Viśvāmitra, or because Sudās under Viśvāmitra failed to conquer the Paruṣṇī territory after crossing the Vipāś and Śutudrī and consequently he felt that Vasiṣṭha was a better bet. This is confirmed by the fact that the eastern battles on the Yamunā are also mentioned only in book 7 and not in book 3, and perhaps it was Sudās' eastern conquests under his new priest Vasiṣṭha that convinced him to resume his western campaign from the point where he had earlier left off after crossing the Vipāś and Śutudrī, There is no specific data and we can only speculate. But none of this indicates that Viśvāmitra fought against Sudās in this battle, and if he did do so, there is no reason why such an important fact would have remained unmentioned in the Rigveda.
The only early western Indologist who has attempted to try to show, by inference from the Rigveda, that Viśvāmitra was the opponent in this battle is Edward Hopkins, who, in a paper "Problematic Passages in the Rig-Veda" (JAOS, VOL 15, 1893, pp.252-283) cited the words amitra (opponent), durmitra (bad friend) and sakhā (friend) used in the battle hymn (VII.18) by Vasiṣṭha as puns referring to Viśvāmitra.
This is an extremely doubtful conjecture, since the word amitra is used for the opponents even in the two hymns referring to the subsequent vārṣāgira battle which took place in Afghanistan (in I.100.15 and IV.15.4), and unless we want to assume that Viśvāmitra was consistently an Iranian priest opposed to the Vedic Aryans till that period, this is clearly absurd. Further, the word amitra is used even by the Viśvāmitra composers themselves (in III.18.2; 29.15; 30.16) to refer to their opponents.
Even if one assumes the words were used as puns by Vasiṣṭha to needle Viśvāmitra, this only shows their mutual rivalry, and does not lead to the very serious conclusion that Viśvāmitra was even a part (let alone the leader) of the Anu coalition in this battle and was defeated! As the aim of the hymn is to emphasize the role of the Vasiṣṭhas in Sudās' victory (VII.18.21, etc.) the "puns" (if they are that) could be a way of rubbing it in that Sudās did the right thing by replacing Viśvāmitra with Vasiṣṭha as his priest.
Another western scholar, Michael Witzel, goes a few steps forward in trying to prove that Viśvāmitra was the main architect of the alliance opposed to Sudās. He first converts Viśvāmitra into a Bhṛgu (a totally different family): "Viśvāmitra is, via his teacher Gāthin, a Jamadagni, ie. a Bhṛgu" (WITZEL 1995b:334 f.n.); and then tells us: "there is even the possibility that it was Viśvāmitra who - in an act of revenge - forged the alliance against his former chief. Whatever the reason, however, the alliance failed and the Pūru were completely ousted (7.8.4, etc) alongwith Viśvāmitra (=Bhṛgu, 7.18.6)" (WITZEL 1995b:334). Thus he actually manufactures a fake reference to Viśvāmitra in the battle hymn by treating a reference to Bhṛgu as a reference to Viśvāmitra!
But then, as he tries to elaborate that theme further, he ends up so confused with his own story that he ends up tying himself into knots in a funny way:
In the very same above article, on the previous page, Witzel writes about Book 3: “This book was composed by Viśvāmitra (and his clan), the purohita of Sudās until his ouster by Vasiṣtha, the reputed author of much of book 7. It praises the dominant position of the Bharata in an area more or less corresponding with the later Kurukṣetra, culminating in an aśvamedha by Sudās to commemorate his triumphs in a late hymn ([footnote] i.e. 3.53.11-14)” (WITZEL 1995b:333). In his critique of my earlier book, Witzel elaborates this further: “RV 3.53.14 clearly speaks of Kurukṣetra and surroundings, some 750 miles to the west. It refers to the performance of the aśvamedha (3.53.11) after Sudās’ victory in the Ten Kings’ Battle (7.18: cf. Witzel 1995)” (WITZEL 2001b:§8).
In other words, according to Witzel’s account of the events, Vasiṣṭha ousted Viśvāmitra as the priest of Sudās; and, in revenge, Viśvāmitra led a coalition of tribes in the Ten Kings’ Battle against Sudās and Vasiṣṭha, and was “completely” defeated. And, later, the descendants of Viśvāmitra organized an aśvamedha and composed a hymn, III.53, in “praise” and glorification of the Bharatas, in order to celebrate and “commemorate” the “triumphs” of Sudās and Vasiṣṭha and the defeat and humiliation of their own ancestor Viśvāmitra!
Note that the aśvamedha, which is organized before the commencement of Sudās' campaign of conquest, and which clearly refers to him letting loose the horse before setting out "east, west and north" (III.53.11) on his conquests, is now transposed by Witzel to after the completion of his conquests, and the Viśvāmitras are supposed to have conducted the aśvamedha to commemorate their own defeat at the hands of Sudās and the Vasiṣṭhas!
This is what happens when research into documented history degenerates into the fabrication of unsubstantiated stories. The fact is that Viśvāmitra has no connection at all with the dāśarājña battle.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
WITZEL 2001b: WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri. The Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 2001.
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.
HOPKINS 1893: Problematic Passages in the Rig-Veda. Hopkins, Edward. JAOS, 1893.
So a good amount of the Rig Veda is a praise of conquest? Did Sudas conquer the west specifically for the Soma, the way Europeans did with India for spice? It seems interesting how real the people of the Rig Veda can be.
ReplyDeleteSir, completely agree with your assessment that there is little to no evidence for a Ṛgvedic rivalry between Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha. Also agree that the dāśarājña account should be seen as a political conflict, and not as a religious or ideological one.
ReplyDeleteBut just to discuss, sir, for I wouldn’t argue with you- I think that characterisation of Sudās as the sole and/or unprovoked aggressor is unfair. For example, RV 7-18-6 shows Turvasas and Matsyas as “fain for wealth” or in “quest for wealth,” hinting that they could have been the aggressors too. 7-18-8 calls Sudās’ enemies as the ill-intentioned ones, and in 7-18-14 the Ānavas and Druhyus are called the “cow-seeking” ones.
I think it’s possible that Sudās’ Tṛtsus were initially not that powerful or widespread, and were possibly under the thumb of Bheda along the Yamunā. They overcome this situation first, and then the emboldened Sudās decides to become a true conqueror. This is all conjecture, of course, but my submission is that the true situation could have been of shifting balances in power, and different dynasties vying for control, rather than the Tṛtsus being the singular aggressors.
You are right when you say that "the true situation could have been of shifting balances in power, and different dynasties vying for control", not only in the Rigvedic period but in any period and any part of the world, since that is human history.
DeleteHowever, in this particular case, the earlier references in Book 3 are concerned only with Sudas performing an ashvamedha and releasing a horse before he starts conquering "east, west and north", and him crossing the two rivers of the Punjab in quest of Soma, and the claim that the Bharatas do not differentiate between kin and strangers when they set out to do battle.
All the other references are in Book 7, when Sudas has already fought battles on both the Yamuna in the east and the Parushni in the west. So references to the enemies as people craving for wealth have to be taken with a pinch of salt. As Sita Ram Goel used to say, in the records of conflicts between two sides, we have to take with a pinch of salt bad motives attributed to the enemies, but have to take seriously bad motives claimed for themselves by the protaganists of the records. Muslim texts gleefully describe how they attacked and killed kafirs, destroyed temples, desecrated idols by putting them in the steps of masjids, etc. A Muslim friend once gave me the lame story that Mahmud Ghazni attacked Somnath because it had been converted into a den of sin where women were captured and kept as sexual slaves, and he wanted to rescue them! But the Muslim texts were more truthful.
On a different matter, although I also earlier took the Trtsus to be the same as the BHaratas, some scholars say the Trtsu is another name for the Vasishthas. The word is found only in three hymns in the Rigveda, all by the Vasishthas and all dealing with Sudas (VII.18,33,83) and after that it is not found anywhere. It is therefore a mystery. Perhaps it referred to the Bharatas+Vasishthas as a team?
Sir, yes, you are right that we should take accounts of the enemy with a pinch of salt. In any case, I think it’s far more amusing and curious what people like Witzel read into the dāśarājña. I fail to see how, for example, it is the kernel of events that formed the base for Mahābhārata, as he says. Most characterisations of the account are in fact lazy and over-generalise, in my opinion.
DeleteYes, there is debate on exact identity of Tṛtsus. Maybe we should pay attention to RV 7-33-6, which declares that the Tṛtsus flourished once Vasiṣṭha became their leader. I think this indicates Vasiṣṭha became the purohita, and implies that Tṛtsus and Vasiṣṭhas were different. Further, 7-83-4 refers to Vasiṣṭha as the Tṛtsus’ priest, which again confirms him as their purohita, and thus them as a tribe/dynasty of people that adopts Vasiṣṭha ritual/prayers.
Lastly, I think Pargiter was at least right in identifying Sudās as the ruler that defeated Saṃvaraṇa. The names North and South Pāñcāla are of later origin and were retroactively applied, so in Sudās’ own era his people would have had a different self-identification. “Tṛtsu” then appears the clear option. Of course, we perhaps cannot be certain at all and the possibility of a Vasiṣṭha-Bharata team cannot be excluded. Even if so, it does not remove the valid notices and nuances to dāśarājña that you have identified. For example, the recorded evidence of the final 5 IE branches on the Parūṣṇī River does not change, regardless of Tṛtsu identity.
How do you find how many times a sanskrit word appears in the rig veda. Is there like a rig veda word finder?
ReplyDeleteYou can use 'The Vedic Index.' PDF is available on archive.org
DeleteThere is the Vedic Word Concordance in many volumes, published by the Vishweshwarand Vishwa Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological Studies (an Arya Samaj institution), called the Vaidika Padanukrama Kosh, which gives all the words in the Rigveda in alphabetical order, and gives the hymn and verse number of every word. This is what I used during my research for all my books. It is a laborious process, because the references to every word include the hymn and verse numbers from all the four Veda Samhitas, so you have to search out all the Rigveda references and verify them. Also, if there is a prefix to the word, you have to go according to the prefix: thus the references for the word cakra will not include words like ratha-cakra, uru-cakra, pari-cakra, etc. For that you have to look under ratha, uru and pari. There is another supplement to the volumes called Uttara Padanukramasuchi which gives a list of all the prefixes for each word: but some words have two or three prefixes, so it is quite a head-spinning process.
DeleteNow I also have a pdf of a transliterated text of the Rigveda. You can search out every word in the word-searcher. But again, you cannot distinguish between two similar words with different meanings, or find the same word in a grammatically different form, so you have to cross-check all the references in the Word Concordance volumes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have read in Puranas and Ramayana that during reign of Bahu in Ayodhya , "foreign" tribes like "Shaka Yavana Darada Pahlava Kamboja" invaded and occupied Ayodhya before being expelled by Sagara (who is son of Bahu).
ReplyDeleteWe know well that this is a 300 AD version as there were no Shakas or Yavanas in time of Sagara (who lived 50 generations before Mahabharata - 2500 BC?).
Could the "foreign tribes" referred in this story be the tribes involved in Dasarajna like Alina, Pakhta, Simyu, Prthu and Parsu?
(I am asking this because you have pointed out that Greeks, Afghans, Parthians and Scythians originated from Dasarajna tribes).
Could it be that the editors to Puranic literature changed the old names to new ones (like Alina into Yavana, Pakhta into Kamboja, Simyu into Shaka) so as to suit their contemporary readers?
Thanks in advance.
DeleteI’d like to discuss this, though of course, Shrikant sir can give the data-based, rational view here.
Shakas, Yavanas, Kambojas etc could not have existed during era of Bahu and Sagara, but yes there are reasons to think of Sagara’s role in out of India dispersals and migrations. If you give only a broad credence to Pauranika genealogies, then Sagara existed somewhat alongside Bharata, and therefore some centuries prior to Sudās. While you suggest ~2500 BC, I prefer ~3000 BC for Sagara/Bharata and 2500 BC closer to Sudas. Either way, this falls within the period of IE dispersals ongoing from Mandhatra many generations prior, and the Puranas tell us that after destroying the Haihayas beyond the Godavari, Sagara turns north and northwest.
Interestingly, the Puranas show that he exiles primarily the royal, male survivors in the defeated tribes. If these survivors migrated out of India, their dispersal would follow the pattern of father-tongue + elite-male-dominance models of linguistic dispersal. Another interesting curiosity is that Sagara assigns absurd (at the time) beard patterns to the survivors as punishment. To the Kambojas he is said to have assigned permission to keep a beard but no mustache- which is the appearance of the famous priest-king bust of Mohenjodaro. This is just a coincidence though, I think.
We anyway know that the Puranas do not remember much Sudas and his battles or enemies, so it is indeed possible that later compilers used contemporary names for those broad centuries when Indian conquerors triggered out of India dispersals.
The Alinas, to take just one name, were an Indian tribe who migrated westwards well before 2500 BCE (when the period of the New Rigveda may have started). They traveled long journeys through different lands and terrains over a thousand years before settling down in Greece and neighboring areas, linguistically influencing the natives of the area over a long period of time, and developing the Greek civilization.
DeleteHow could any writer or redactor of the Puranas after 500 BCE possibly know that the Alinas of the Rigveda (with whom actually they show no acquaintance at all) were to be identified with the Ionian Greeks/Yavanas of their times, so as to make them introduce contemporary names into the stories of ancient emigrations?
Sir, to understand correctly, is your point that any story about Sagara and Yavanas, Kambojas etc. could not have had anything to do with Ṛgvedic-era migrations of many thousands of years prior?
DeleteYes, true indeed.
DeleteAnd since Dasrajna tribes (who were originators of Last Dialects) were Indians before their outmigration, it stands to reason that the "foreign" tribes of Sagara's story cannot be speakers of early forms of Last Dialects.
Thanks for clarification.
The Druhyus are mentioned in the Rigveda, and it is already clear that they (or rather their remnants) are a small ingredient in the northwest (beyond and in alliance with the Anu). In the Puranas, the Druhyu have no place except in the earliest era, after which they are reported to move out of India and fade into oblivion (their remnants getting absorbed in other tribes). Further, the existence of the Druids, etc. complete the picture.
DeleteOn the other hand, Sagara, Yavanas, Kambojas, etc. are later Puranic people who are missing in the Rigveda. Tribes or people missing in the Rigveda can only be missing because they belong to a later time or because they belong to the interior area outside the ken of the Rigveda.
I think reason why Sudas is not remembered in Puranas could be due to the fact that he was most likely allied to a larger political power (which I think are Ikshvakus of Ayodhya).
DeleteSudas's exploits mostly come to us from Vasistha's Mandala.
Now Vasisthas were only associated with Ayodhya and Videha before Kusa's reign (son of Shree Rama) as observed by Pargiter.
Now Sudas lived in early Rigvedic period which seems to be far before Rama's time (who lived 30 generations before Mahabharata of 1500 BC) around 2100 BC (30 x 20 years).
It wont be far fetched to conclude that Sudas had some close ties with Ayodhya. (as an ally, vassal or relative of its royal family).
I don't understand why, if Sudas was so important as to be glorified in the Rigveda, the Puranas should have thought him unimportant just because he was aligned to the Ikshvakus. Certainly there is nothing in the Rigveda or the Puranas to connect Sudas with the Ikshvakus of Ayodhya in any sense.
DeleteBut yes, he was aligned to the western branch of the Ikshvakus who had moved to the northwest and settled down there in the time of Mandhata. I have elaborated on this in my article "The Ikshvakus in the Rigveda".
Further "Vasishthas were only associated with Ayodhya and Videha" is not right. This (even if one is determined to accept and account for every story or association of people in the Epics and Puranas, which I am not) may be a much later history of The Vasishthas.
I was only quoting Pargiter's view of Vasisthas' exclusive association with Kosala and Videha before Rama's reign.
DeleteBut as you pointed out, as there were Ikshvakus in North West (Purukutsa and his descendants), then it stands to reason that a branch of Vasisthas also would have accompanied them as royal priests (and thus spread west into Sarasvati Valley and beyond).
If he is not a an ally or vassal of a larger power, but a conqueror in his own right, then one probability is that Sudas of Rigveda is none other than Suhotra of Puranas, who is a descendant of Bharata and reputed to be a great conqueror.
You may wonder why I proposed such a strange thing that Sudas could be allied to a larger power and that was why he was missing in Puranic narrative.
I considered this possibility while reading about ballads of Bappa Rawal, an 8th century hero from Rajasthan who founded kingdom of Mewar (to which Rana Pratap belongs) and who defeated invading Arabs and raided as far as Northern Iraq. If we go by ballads alone, he looks nothing short of a great conqueror.
But in 8th century historical records (like inscriptions, eye witness accounts and literature) it is exceedingly clear that he was a vassal of Gurjara Pratiharas and that he was one of the kings who joined Lalitaditya of Kashmir in his anti-Arab crusade into Iran.
While without doubt he was a great warrior and general who contributed immensely to defeating Arab invaders and even in invading Iran, he was in fact only a vassal king to a larger dynasty.
But interesting point is that ballads do not remember Lalitaditya or Pratihara rulers at all. Which is not surprising as ballads are composed in homeland of Bappa Rawal where focus of attention was the native heroes instead of his allies or overlords.
Since Sudas was a Bharata in whose territory was Rigveda composed and who was also a patron of Vedic composers, it should not be unsurprising that they chose to remember his exploits rather than of his overlord or ally (if that indeed is the case).
But in comparison, Puranas do not have this regional or dynastic orientation. They covers pretty much whole of North India from Peshawar to Bengal and many dynasties as well.
But whether Sudas acted on behalf of a greater power or was an independent figure, I entirely agree with your concluding remarks in your book "Rigveda and Avesta - The Final Evidence" that Battle of Ten Kings is one of the most important battles in world history.
Without the migration triggered by his invasion, there will be no Iranian civilization nor Greek civilization (without ancient Greeks there would be no modern West either).
And that makes Sudas, son of Pijavana, an important figure in world history.
Delete@Sagar I think you could be on to something here. Suhotra is in the list of 16 cakravartins, and Sudās is entirely absent from the Purāṇas. The speculation that they are the same person is interesting. I also like your theory of Sudās possibly being a smaller vassal, despite his own achievements. We should think of the entire Gangetic Plains to Indus Valley region as a contiguous belt, and the fact that even in the Ṛgveda we find gradations such as rājan, rājā and samrāṭ means that there were indeed hierarchies in political rulership. The Purāṇas show many branches of the Bhārata family tree, and give evidence of internecine rivalries. These could be reasons why Sudās was in fact not as prominent (internal to India, for I too agree with Talageri sir’s findings that Sudās was critical to Indo-European history). Further, Sudās’ descendants Sahadeva and Somaka are found campaigning in Afghanistan/Balochistan regions, and Paurāṇika genealogies lose track of their dynasty for a while till it appears in Mahābhārata as Drupada.
So maybe Sudās’ dynasty kind of got removed from the central Indian geography themselves, where on the Sarasvatī different dynasties/conquerors gained more prominence. There is in any case more confusion with Sudās’ genealogy. Some Purāṇas list his father as Pijavana, but others name him Cyavana/Cyamana. Now, the Ṛgveda mentions Abhyavartin and Kavi Cāyamāna, who are decidedly Ānavas. Cāyamāna is the patronymic from Cyamana, implying ‘son of Cyamana.’ So does this mean Sudās could have been Ānava? No, I don’t think so, but I think it’s an interesting confusion in the Purāṇas.
I have a personal favourite theory about why Sudās is missing in the Purāṇas. I take as true Pargiter’s conclusion that Samvaraṇa of the Purāṇas was defeated by Sudās of the Ṛgveda. From Samvaraṇa descended the Kurus, and the primary period of early, proto-Paurāṇika compilations happened under them, before, during and after the Mahābhārata period. The theory is that they held a dynastic grudge against Sudās and his dynasty, and thus did not patronise any ballads/eulogies of them at all. On the flip side, since the Ṛgveda was diligently maintained as is, Sudās was retained in it and is found even today. This theory could be linked to your theory, for maybe soon after Sudās his dynasty became a smaller vassal to the surging Kurus, and thus was not prominently featured in ballad and songs during the entire Kuru period.
Since discussing these things is fun, let me offer another theory for your opinion. I believe that Sudās can be tangibly dated to a few generations following Rāma Dāśarathi. This is because- 1) Sudās’ ancestor, Divodāsa, in the Ṛgveda fights a Dāsa named Śambara. Rāma’s father, Daśaratha, also fights an Asura named Śambara. 2) Daśaratha is aided in battle by people from Kekaya, which is in the Ṛgvedic territory of Divodāsa and would have consisted of allied people at the time. I say this because the Ānavas do not appear as clear Pūru enemies till Sudās’ era. 3) Purāṇas name Ahalyā as Divodāsa’s sister, and Rāma meets an aged Ahalyā in his travels.
For these 3 reasons I think we can place the Rāmāyaṇa between Divodāsa and Sudās, closer to the former. Additionally, I like speculating that this is why Kekayī, of all people, names her son Bharata. It is a favourable and popular name for the Kekayas of her time. This could also have been the period when the Vasiṣṭha ṛṣis, previously allied with Aikṣvāku clans, spread in the Sarasvatī region and soon would become purohitas to Sudās. By Sudās’ period, Agastya is also mentioned as a ṛṣi, and a brother to Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇi. Rāma meets Agastya in his travels, and this is when southern ṛṣis start moving to the north. Thus Agastya’s appearance by Sudās’ era also lines up in this framework.
I don't like to contradict people with whom I am on good terms, but sometimes, in the interests of clarity in the discussion, it becomes unavoidable. I have completely eschewed the "fun" of trying to coordinate the Puranas and the Rigveda, and I have written on this so many times that I will not repeat it all here. And people who want to write ancient most Indian history on the basis of Puranic data are free to do so. But certain points in the above require to be clarified:
Delete1. Suhotra cannot be Sudas. Suhotra is a separate Bharadvaja composer in Book 6 (VI.31-32) and his descendants Ajamilha and Purumilha Sauhotras are composers in Book 4 (IV.43-44). The appearance of his name in a Puranic-Epic lists of chakravartins is a typical examploe of the disconnect between the Vedic figures and the Puranic stories.
2. Puranas converting Pijavana into Cyavana/Cyamana is a typical example of Puranic fudging of data. Cyamana cannot be back-transferred into the Rigveda to connect with Cayamana (patronymic of an enemy of Sudas in the Rigveda) and identified with Pijavana (Sudas' father or ancestor).
3. Sudas' exploits are not referred to in the Puranas because, except for the two rishis who accompanied him in his exploits, and modern analysts like myself who connect him with the emigration of the Greeks and Iranians, his exploits were not regarded as important by the Puranic writers.
The absence of Sudas' exploits in the Puranas is not the result of any boycott or grudge, but simply because, except for their occurence in the oldest books, they were already forgotten or jumbled memories to the writers of even the later Vedic texts (let alone Puranic narrations). As Witzel has pointed out in the last paragraph of his paper "Rigvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Kings" (WITZEL `1995b), the events are so old and forgotten that even the Vedic texts retain garbled memories of even the name of Sudas: the Jaiminiya Brahmana calls Sudas Kshatra, and calls an Ikshvaku king Sudas Paijavana, the Katha Samhita calls him Pratardana and the Maitrayaniya Samhita calls him Pratardana Daivodasi. Let alone the Puranas.
However, I find it an interesting suggestion (although largely speculative) that the Vasishthas may be an eastern family of the Ikshvakus, one branch of which migrated westwards into the northwest with Mandhata and became the priests of the western Ikshvakus and one of them took up Sudas' priesthood in replacement of Vishvamitra after Vishwamitra had taken Sudas beyond the Vipas and Sutudri but no further.
Sir, half the fun of a discussion like this on your blog is that it gets dissected by you, with doodh-ka-doodh-paani-ka-paani clarity. Thank you for these points.
DeleteSir, as I lay in bed last night thinking more about these things, one counter-argument did come to me. Hope you will indulge.
DeleteI do not think Sudās' absence from Purāṇas can be explained by saying his exploits were not considered important by Paurāṇika writers. I feel this because they remembered names and exploits of people long before Sudās too- Māndhātṛ and Sivi for example. In fact, it's through you I realised that the Druhyu migrations were recorded in Purāṇas.
My point is, regardless of how we think of Paurāṇika testimony, the entire tradition has memories of countless events and personalities preceding Sudās and exceeding the geography he operated within. Thus, his absence from Purāṇas must have a different explanation. I’m not saying my explanation is correct, for I anyway only speculate
You are absolutely right on this: "regardless of how we think of Paurāṇika testimony, the entire tradition has memories of countless events and personalities preceding Sudās and exceeding the geography he operated within." That is what I have been saying all along. As you say, Mandhata and the Druhyus.
DeleteHwever, in the case of Sudas, except for the rishis directly recording his exploits, no-one else seems to have remembered details about him even in the Vedic literature. To the Puranic compilers, he was one of countless kings who fought countless wars, all of which were incidental ones. The Rigveda also records vague references to so many other wars of which no relevant details are known and which are not recorded in the Puranas either. To us, the hymns of Vasishtha and Vishwamitra concerning Sudas represent a windfall of information because of the IE angle, but that angle was not known to the Puranic writers..
Thinking more on this, and yes- the Purāṇas anyway remember so many migrations out of India, that it shouldn't be surprising if Sudās' campaigns gained no internal notice.
DeleteFurther, maybe there is something to be speculated from fact that in Vārṣāgira event, Sahadeva and Somaka are found campaigning in Afghan/Baloch areas? If it indicates that, in time, Sudās' own descendants also migrated/shifted/displaced somewhat out of India, or at least away from Sarasvatī sphere, that could also explain the absence from Purāṇas.
@Amrit
DeleteAfter reading Shrikant ji’s books “Rigveda – A Historical Analysis” and “Rigveda and Avesta – Final Evidence”, I had to conclude that there is a problem with Pargiter’s synchronization of various king lists – since Divodasa and Sudas belongs to a remote past (as they are mentioned in Old Books of Rigveda which was composed much before 2500 BC) whereas Pargiter puts them as later kings.
Or we will have to argue that all references to Panchala kings in Rigveda are later day interpolations done by vested interests – But this argument - due to lack of evidence - will amount to no more than a baseless allegation.
Ramayana also indicates that Ikshvakus of Ayodhya had expanded west with their border touching Kekaya (an Anu kingdom) in North Pakistan.
After all, why would a ruler from Ayodhya marry a princess from such a distant kingdom? – Unless both kingdoms share a border?
During Rama’s rule, Ikshvakus expanded further as far as Gandhara (where sons of Bharata were installed as vassals).
It seems as if Purus in this period were subordinate to Ikshvakus – thus allowing Ikshvakus to expand into Sapta-Sindhu region.
And when Ikshavaku power went into decline, Bharatas took advantage of it and established their prominence in North India under Kuru and Uparicha Vasu which reached its zenith under Yudhishtira.
I am not convinced that the Panchala king who drove Samvarana out of his kingdom is Sudas of Rigveda – Samvarana lived at a time when droughts wreaked havoc in his kingdom (likely around 2000 BC when desiccation struck Western India and destroyed Harappan civilization).
Sudas of Rigveda as far as we know lived much earlier.
But it is indeed a matter of interest to note that unlike Sudas, Somaka is remembered as a great king in both Vedic as well as Puranic narratives.
Delete
Delete@Sagar
There are indeed more than one problems in Pargiter’s reconciliation. But yes, despite it I parse Divodāsa in a way that Talageri sir does not approve of. I like to indulge my view, but if betting I’d put money on his accuracies any day. For me, I reconcile it with imagining multiple Divodāsas, and separating Ṛgvedic Divodāsa from Kāśī Divodāsa(s), but that’s not the point.
I’m happy just to discuss these things and entertain various ideas, and I’m aware that we test Talageri sir’s patience by being behind the curve, from his POV, by at least a few decades. I’ve lost count of how many times questions/issues have been raised here (by myself too) that are already addressed in previous articles.
Nice to meet you. And Talageri sir- thank you for moderating :)
The word "Helllene", meaning "greek" actually comes from "Hella" a region in greece. The myth of "Helen" likely came after. "Alinas" are likely the "Alans", which there is more phonetic imilarity. Moreover Iranian identity of the Alans strengthns this alternative view as it is the Iranians that are no doubt to come out of India.
ReplyDeleteIn fact Shrikant ji had mentioned this in his book The "Rigveda and the Avesta - Final Evidence". Some of the Alinas who migrated west settled in eastern Europe where they gave their name to local population who later adopted an Iranian language. So both Hellene and Alan have origin in "Alina".
DeleteIf the name "priya" in rig veda is a very late one, yet there are cognates of this name in Eurpean langauges, like English "friend". The European languages moved away from the homeland before the Rig Veda was composed so the word or name would have been in the Vedic language vocaublary by the time of the compostition of the Older Rig Veda. How can this be though? Perhaps there is a reasonalble explanation.
ReplyDeletePlease read my article "A Detailed Reply to a Joker (Arnaud Fournet)'s Review of my Book". He had also raised a similar point. I wrote as follows in my article:
Delete"Fournet shows his total inability to comprehend what is placed before him, or even to use his brains and think, when he complains: “Person names built with the same Indo-European components appearing in the Avesta and the Rig Veda are not inherited but ‘came into vogue’ (p.188) or ‘have gone out of vogue’ (p.44)”.
It is clear that this joker cannot even comprehend the difference between inherited roots and inherited names. Is it Fournet’s contention, for example, that the Rigvedic name Shyavashva (patronymic Shyavashvi, Avestan Siauuaspi) is actually a personal name inherited from the Proto-Indo-European community: i.e. that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had a personal name like *khy-e-H-ekhwos, which has been “inherited” by the Indo-Iranians? Since the components of the words tele-phone and tele-vision are also traceable to their Proto-Indo-European roots through Greek and Latin, are these words and concepts “inherited” from our Proto-Indo-European ancestors? Personal names do indeed come into existence, “come into vogue”, and “go out of vogue”, even if the root component parts of those names may have been in existence from long before. Fournet’s objection only shows up the pointlessness and inherent stupidity of his review."
My evidence is based on name-types, not on the words which are components of those name types. Of course the single word priya is common throughout the old books as well. But it appears not only in names (in the New Rigveda, the Avesta and the Mitanni data), but even in compound words only in the New Books as Hopkins pointed out long ago.
https://youtu.be/B5FiqDFlLTM?t=2404 - puri in tamizh attested in tolkAppiyam means viruppam: liking, desire, wanting, preference. That became pri(PIE) -> fri -> friend,freedom,friday. Now that video analyzes yet another word "*Raj" from IE for king. The root starts from 'ul' a root for kUTTa karuttu - collective/grouping sense. ul becomes uRA -> R is a hard consonant R special in tamizh - meaning relationship uRavu). The soft consonant variant 'ura' - meaning strength (valimai) - uram: fertilizer. Now the transformation to *Raj goes like this: uravu -> aravu -> arasu -> *rAj -> *Reg -> regiment, region. Also note the full word “rAjan” with an suffix in samskrit close to the tamizh suffixed arasan for King. Dr. Aransendiran decomposes the word Fredric ( as in Fredric Angels) – as Fred ( from Fri) and ric – peaceful king.
DeleteWord arasan – has a cognate in Greek for “archon” https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=archon.
And the word monarch is postulated as from *men (PIE) – single ruler. But mannan in tamizh is derived from maN – earth, soil, land – holder of lands – king.
More and more a post-deluge migration of tamizhs from down south into western asia and beyond cannot be ruled out! Many words seem to have been carried across in the pre-grammatic era. The current language family classification is post-grammatic with comparative grammar by Caldwell and others for Dravidian family.
Shrikant sir,
ReplyDeleteIf Vishwamitra, Vashishtha etc were cheif priest of clans of Rig Vedic people then
How are these sages have roles in Ramayana, as Ramayana should have happened many generations later?
Clearly you have not been reading my writings. I repeatedly point out that this is why I do not treat Puranic stories as "data" in deriving the historical narrative.
DeleteIn general it may be that the references to many rishis in the Epics and Puranas can refer to the family name (instead of the actual personal name) of the contemporaneous rishi rather than to the direct eponymous ancestral rishi who gave his name to the family of rishis.
I read your blog now share great information here.
ReplyDeleteSports betting I'd