Purukutsa-Trasadasyu and the Internal Chronology of the Rigveda
This is a subject dealt with in very great detail in my
books( and blog articles), but I have been requested to deal with this in
particular by a reader, so I will do this very briefly just once
in an article. Apparently people on twitter (this will be the last time
hopefully that I will bother to respond to birds twittering on twitter) are
claiming that Trasadasyu was either earlier than or contemporary to Sudās, and
a friendly reader has written to me as follows, referring apparently to a post (not
on twitter) on this subject:
"Below is the screenshot of a post by someone on “Indo-European chronologies” page by someone related to your thesis. Although I understand that there were two Purukutsa-Trasadasyu pairs who are generally confused by people. I thought maybe if you want to do a small writeup on it, unless you have already explained this somewhere in blogs.
"
Firstly, let me reply to a point made by the person who requested me to deal with this post on "Indo-European Chronologies": that "there were two Purukutsa-Trasadasyu pairs". There is only one Purukutsa-Trasadasyu pair: the Ikṣvāku (Tṛkṣi) pair known to the Vedic literature and the Puranas, but not to the Ramayana dynastic lists of Ayodhya, because they belonged not to the eastern Ayodhya dynasty but to a different northwestern dynasty sired by the Ayodhya king Mandhātā in the northwest during his campaigns in the northwest in the pre-Rigvedic period.
I have dealt with this subject already in detail in my blog "The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda", including with the half-baked idea of an alleged Pūru Purukutsa-Trasadasyu pair, and will not repeat the details here.
What amazes me beyond belief is that people (blind, ignorant, illiterate or just plain stupid?) can, and do, continue to raise quibbling objections about the internal chronology of the Rigveda (and even draw clownish discoveries "fatal" to my chronology!) even after this chronology has been made very clear by me in my books and blogs, and even after my very very detailed and choked-with-data article "The Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda" which makes it very clear to the meanest intelligence that there cannot be even the shadow of a doubt about the fact that there is a massive and absolutely unchallengeable chronological gulf between the Old Rigveda (books 6,3,7,4,2) and the New Rigveda (books 5,1,8,9,10). No amount of rhetoric, abuse or Purana-mongering can possibly establish that anything material in the Old Rigveda (e.g. book 7) is contemporaneous to or later than anything in the New Rigveda (e.g. book 8).
As I said, I will not repeat the material in my two above articles ("The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda" and "The Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda") here: any reader who has any questions about the internal chronology of the books of the Rigveda or about the position of Purukutsa-Trasadasyu in that chronology, should read the two articles in detail. Beyond that, I will not bother to "clear" stupid doubts based on armchair objections having nothing to do with the data in the Rigveda.
Just one additional point (from my earlier books):
Sudās is contemporaneous with the eponymous Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha of books 3 and 7 respectively, and Ghora Āṅgiras (the ancestor of Kaṇva Ghaura, the eponymous ṛṣi of book 8) is a junior partner of a Viśāvāmitra composer (clearly a descendant of the eponymous Viśāvāmitra) in a Redacted hymn III.36 (a late hymn in that book as per the testimony of the Aitareya Brahmana).
Trasadasyu is a contemporary of a descendant of Kaṇva Ghaura, a composer named Sobhari Kāṇva, in VIII.19.
Apart from the linguistic evidence of the gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda, we therefore have a vast chronological gulf between Sudās and Purukutsa-Trasadasyu, taking into consideration all these above lineal chronologies.
The internet is full of half-baked armchair proponents of the AIT, and of Purana-obsessed "Hindu" brigadiers, with little or no knowledge and puffed-up egos who think they are discovering "facts" in the data which are "fatal" to my chronology. I am a bit tired of repeating things which are already fully, conclusively and (yes) irrefutably detailed in my books and blogs, and will try henceforward to ignore the illiterate objections of these people who cannot be bothered to read my books and blogs diligently but are ever eager to think they know everything and have found out things "fatal" to my case.
Let me add here that every single material or data-based objection that I have recently seen raised against my case has already been answered in detail in my books and blogs, and I do not even require to do any further research or write anything new in order to answer their objections. To be honest, I will really welcome new objections and doubts which will require me to examine the data once more and write something new, but I have little patience with repeatedly having to answer the same points again and again and quoting my earlier writings ad nauseam for the sake of illiterate objectors.
Then when would Rama have lived relative to the people in the Veas assuming we are conservative in geneological lists?
ReplyDeleteI try to avoid making guesses when direct evidence or data is missing. The only common early factor in the eastern (Ayodhya, etc.) and Vedic histories is Mandhata, whose mother was a westerner (Puru) and who therefore moved westwards in pre-Rigvedic times to help the Puru, and left a different western Iksvaku dynasty in the northwest before returning to Ayodhya and continuing the main line there. The Valmiki Ramayana, with all its interpolations, was set to writing in Mauryan times, while the Rigveda was maintained like a tape-recording. I hesitate to make positive chronological declarations about the Ramayana on such little comparative data.
DeleteSir do you think that Ramayana is fictional story? I suppose so! Ramayana is not an Ithihasa while Mahabharata is. But I like to hear your opinion.
DeleteIt is definitely not a fictional story, and has a hard core of history. The only question is which are the original historical aspects and which are the added fictional or poetical aspects. I have not done detailed research into the Ramayana history as I have done in the general Puranic and specifically Vedic history (and of course the related Indo-European hiistory).
Delete
DeleteOnly sharing my opinion,
- In RV, Divodāsa battles Dāsa named Śambara; in Rāmāyaṇa, Daśaratha battles Asura named Śambara.
- In RV, in Divodāsa's time the Ānavas are not clear enemies, Abhyavartin Cāyamāna even donates to Bharadvāja; in Rāmāyaṇa, Daśaratha is aided in battle by Kekaya (an Ānava janapada) and even brings home a wife Kaikeyī.
- In RV, son of Divodāsa is most likely Pratardana; in Rāmāyaṇa, Pratardana is present at Rāma’s coronation.
- In Rāmāyaṇa, Rāma’s journey heralds opening of southern India to northern India, and the Agastyas begin travelling to the north, with traditional Aikṣvāku purohitas being Vasiṣṭhas; in RV, by Sudās’ time few generations after Divodāsa, Vasiṣṭha appears to be Sudās’ purohita, and is introduced to him by an Agastya- both Maitravaruṇīs.
In other words, the RV period of Divodāsa and the Rāmāyaṇa period of Daśaratha temporally coincide. Rāma is a generation or few prior to Sudās.
Also explains why Kaikeyī names her son Bharata- for that name would be favourable and prominent among her people at the time.
A short note on hittites. I could be wrong. But it suspiciously matches with linguistic theory. Baudhyana shraut sutra remembers a person named Amavasu who moved to gandhara and aratta. Amasya in anatolia was settled by hittites. This is too much of a coincidence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure whether Rama's genealogy given in Ramayana should be trusted at all - it looks like an interpolation by someone with an improper knowledge of Rama's ancestors. Let me give just one example - Ramayana lists Trshanku as an ancestor of Rama but do not mention his son Harishchandra at all. Sequence is also not correct - for instance, Trshanku is placed before Mandhata in Ramayana while Purana puts him many generations after Mandhata. Puranic list mentions kings like Susandhi, Dhruvasandhi, Sighra, Agnivarna, Maru and Sudarsana as descendants of Rama while Ramayana makes them his ancestors.
ReplyDeleteEven Kalidasa uses Puranic genealogy for his Raghuvamsa and not the one given in Ramayana.
Evidence for a western branch of Ikshvakus descended from Mandhata also comes from story of Muchukunda and Krshna (the sleeping king who scorched Kala Yavana to death for disturbing his sleep) though in the form of a fable.
Now the story is that he went to sleep in a cave somewhere in North Eastern Rajasthan after he lost his family and dear ones in Ayodhya when he went to heaven to assist Indra in war against Asuras (as days in heaven ran into several centuries on earth). So after the end of war, he asks Indra for a boon of long sleep.
But the history behind this allegory seems to be interesting.
Muchukunda is son of Mandhata and he evidently continued his father's wars in western India and stayed there for such a long time that he lost his clout in Ayodhya. So he settles down in Western India where he and his descendants lived in political isolation until time of Krshna. But yet they were powerful enough as evidently Krshna sought help of this branch of Ikshvakus to fight and defeat Kala Yavana.
All that you are saying only supports my point that the genealogical lists must be taken with a heavy pinch of salt because they are confused and jumbles. Even the different Puranas differ from each other and not only from the Ramayana list. Compare the "dynastic lists" culled by Pargiter, Pusalkar, and any other scholar who has tried to prepare such lists, and you will see the utter chaos.
DeleteKings like Susandhi, Dhruvasandhi, Sighra, Agnivarna, Maru and Sudarsana, that you name, are found in both the Puranic and Ramayana lists (whatever their chronological positions) although there was nothing particularly important about them. But Purukutsa, Trasadasyu, etc. are completely missing in the Ramayana list, although their very great importance in the Vedic texts shows them to be very important kings. This is the big difference, and the only explanation is that they were western descendants of Mandhata unknown to the Ayodhya list of the Ramayana but known to the Puranas (who jumble the eastern and western Ikshvaku kings together).
True indeed - there is not even a single reference to Purukutsa and Trasadasyu in the whole of Ramayana - while at the same time, ancestor of Purukutsa named Kakutstha (a name repeated frequently while referring to Rama) is frequently referred throughout the text.
DeleteAnd even within Ramayana, there are hints to kings from other branches of Ikshvakus - like king Anaranya (killed by Ravana) and king Mandhata (killed by Lavanasura). Usually these two figures are mentioned as ancestors of Rama but more likely they are Rama's contemporaries who belong to the western branches of Ikshvakus.
Sir, I would like to know your invaluable opinion on a subject related to this.
1. Rama and Sita occur in Rigveda in 10.93.14 and 4.57.6-7 respectively - that is, in a Late Rigvedic mandala and a Middle Rigvedic mandala. Are these two Rama and Sita of Ramayana?
2. If yes, is there any justification for assumption that Rama and Sita lived at time when Middle Rigvedic period transitioned into Late Rigvedic period? i.e around 2200 BC?
3. Would it be far fetched to assume that the Late Rigvedic phase of Samhita compostion could have been initiated during and due to Rama's reign (as Rama's domain had extended as far west as Gandhara/ and as Rama is remembered even in Epic-Puranic tradition as a patron of Vedic tradition)?
Namaste Talageri ji,
ReplyDeleteI am a long-time reader of your books and blog articles and I have great admiration for your monumental scholarship. I am always astounded by your razor-sharp logic and cold hard facts. Your tenacity in responding to your opponents is truly inspiring. I believe that you are a rishi in the tradition of our Vedic rishis in your firm stand with the truth at any cost.
I had a few comments and questions that I've collected. These are most likely not critically related to your central results on the historical analysis of the Rig Veda or the OIT postulates, but nevertheless they are some "side points" that I was curious to get some further clarification of your views.
1. In one of your books, either "RV a historical analysis" or "RV and Avesta the final evidence", you write that the yajna in all its forms, i.e. the basic fire ritual as well as the Soma yajna, was not originally practised by the Vedics, but was borrowed from the Iranians via the Bhrgus. However, even in the oldest parts of the RV, i.e. 6th mandala, Agni is very central both in physical rituals and in metaphysical/spiritual symbolism. Agni is very intimately associated with the Angiras rishis, and in fact is called "Angiras", "Angirastama" repeatedly. As far as I know, the Angiras family of rishis is purely Vedic from the beginning. As for spiritual significance, a great example is Bharadvaja's hymn RV 6.9
(https://goldenreed-hiranyayavetasa.blogspot.com/2020/04/rsi-bharadvajas-enlightenment-in-rgveda.html)
In fact, Vishvamitra's RV 3.26.7 ("I am Agni") is the pinnacle of non-dual self-realization, mirroring the later Brhadaranyaka Up. "I am Brahman".
So I don't see any evidence for the yajna rituals and Agni's central position in Vedic culture needing to have been borrowed from the Zoroastrians. In fact, it is very likely the other way around. As the Iranians were pushed westwards, they just retained the common Vedic heritage and adapted the fire rituals even further by making their sacred fire so holy as to not even throw offerings into it.
2. You write that the Bhrgu family was originally Iranian and hostile to the Angiras family, and only one branch of the Bhrgus was later "Vedicized" and included in the Vedic canon. But I don't see any evidence in the RV for this. To the contrary, the Bhrgus are highly revered even in the oldest parts of the RV. For e.g., RV 3.2.4 "rAtim bhRgUNAm", RV 4.7.1 "yam apnavAno bhRgavo virurucuh", RV 6.15.2 "mitram na yam sudhitam bhRgavo dadhur vanaspatau" etc.
(Continued below)
3. You use the phrase "pre-Vedic" or "pre-Rig Vedic" to describe for example the era of Divodasa, etc. who are only referred to as ancient even in the oldest parts of the RV. However, even the oldest rishis constantly refer to their ancestors who were the "first pathfinders". The ancient Angiras (Navagvas & Dashagvas) and Bhrgu rishis, Trita Aptya, Atharva, Brhaspati, etc. are frequently revered by the rishis whose hymns are available in the extant RV text. So wouldn't it be highly plausible that there might have existed an earlier version of the RV which contained the hymns of those ancient rishis who are only mentioned by name in the current RV, or who have only 1 or 2 hymns attributed to them in the current RV? E.g. Trita Aptya has only 7 hymns placed in the 10th book (considered late) but he is already a demigod even in the older books. Similarly Brhaspati, father of Bharadvaja, has only 1 hymn (10.71). Surely, these named ancient rishis would have had a considerable output of hymns that were lost even by the time of Bharadvaja, or at least they were not available when the current RV was being canonized. So I would say that the term "pre-Vedic" would only be in a limited sense of the age prior to the available hymns, but not an age when there was no Vedic culture. Maybe "proto-Vedic" would be a better term to denote the fact that Vedic culture was already flourishing much before the age of the rishis of the current RV.
ReplyDelete4. What is your opinion on the papers published by Igor Tonoyan-Belyayev? He takes the OIT scenario and high dates for the RV, for granted, and builds his theories on it. Has he had any communication with you, as it appears your work might have influenced his work.
Hope to see your response. Apologies if any of my questions sound silly or repetitive.
I think you should read the section on Angirasas and Bhrgus in my book "The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis" again: every point raised by you above is answered there.
DeleteI have never used the word "pre-Rigvedic" to describe the era of Divodasa: he (and even his father Srnjaya and many further ancestors) belonged to the long era of Book 6.
Trita Aptya is totally unknown to the three oldest books (6,3,7), and Trita (without the appelation Aptya) is known as a contemporary person to the Middle Books (4,2). Trita Aptya by this combined name is known only to the New Books (5,1,8,9,10).
The attributions to the composers in Book 10 (as I have pointed out in detail in "The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis") are often confused, and even fictitious. Hymns were attributed to ancient rishis, kings (e.g. even Sudas) and even to the deities or to mystical qualities by the composers. All the hymns in Book 10 are late hymns.
Sir what is the etymology of word 'मैल(Dirt)' of hindi ? Is it from sanskrit 'मल' or any other source ?
ReplyDelete(Sorry for taking your precious time for silly classroom like questions !)
It is from the Sanskrit mal- "dirt", related perhaps to Latin mal- "bad".
DeleteAt least for etymology, I suppose you would let me reply here. mAl is black in tamizh and that is why ViShNu Narayana goes as tirumAl. It has been taken into Samskrit with a different attribution/connotation.
DeleteOr perhaps original word is of Sanskrit origin and "It has been taken into Tamil with a different attribution/connotation".
Delete@Shrikant Talageri,
ReplyDeleteIf we were to reconstruct the Vedic history of India in a standardized form, how would we go about that? What sources should we use? Any views on this?
What do the later Vedic texts say about the ilshvakus
ReplyDeleteShrikantji, can I make a suggestion?
ReplyDeleteIt would be a good idea if you were to translate the chapter of isoglosses in "Rigveda and Avesta - the Final Evidence" into Hindi.
This is the most important point of your work but I can guarantee that most of the laymen would not have understood that in English due to its technical nature. I think your most important discoveries in that chapter need to reach a wider audience.
Mr Shrikant, what would you suggest is the best way to study the Rig Veda, from a standpoint of reading the story itself, in the English language?
ReplyDeleteNamaste Talageri ji,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I apologise for the comments on your article regarding Ikshvakus in the Rig Veda which I wrote yesterday without due consideration of the topic. This comment will be better, but before I move on to it, I just want to say that I am reading your book The Rig Veda: A Historical Analysis and that I appreciate your work very much. You presented a very well though-out case for OIT and showed the faulty nature of various AIT arguments.
Going back to the article on Ikshvakus, you wrote there that some Puranas say that Mandhata married Matinara's daughter. I am not sure which Puranas you had in mind since Bhagavata and Vishnu Purana both say that he married Bindumati, the daughter of Sasabindu, who was a Yadava, not a Paurava. Could you please tell me which Puranas you were referring to?
On the whole, it seems that there is a big dispute between the Puranas and the Rig Veda with regard to Purukutsa and Trasadasyu's place in history, insofar as if it is true that Sobhari Kanva was a descendant of Kanva Ghaura, who was apparently a descendant of Ghora Angirasa, that would mean that Sudas lived long before them, as you say. Personally, I am a little sceptical about that becuase it seems that the Divodasa and Sudasa who are referred to in the Rig Veda are descendants of Mudgala, one of the five Pancala brothers, which means that they were around 35 generations removed from Ila, while Mandhata was clearly the 18th descendant of Ikshvaku. I know that Puranic dynastic lists are rather unreliable, but I think we can generally at least get an approximate number of generations between various kings.
So, what do you think about this incongruity? Also, is there an explicit statement that Sobhari Kanva was a descendant of Kanva Ghaura and where is it located? According to the Puranas, Purukutsa and his son lived around the time of Kanva and his son Medhatithi Kanva, so Sobhari Kanva may very well have been Medhatithi's son or something like that.
Looking forward to your reply,
Goran Peric aka Gaura Nitai Dasa
I did not see your comment yesterday, so I don't know what you mean. I checked just now, but the comment has been deleted anyway.
DeletePL Bhargava (India in the Vedic Age" 1956, p.86): "The Aiksvaku genealogy says that Yuvanasva II married Gauri, the daughter of Atimana (=Atinara, Ratinara, Matinara), and their son was Mandhatri. The Paurava genealogy says Matinnara's daughter Gauri was mother of Mandhatri" ,
In footnote to above: "The Harivamsa itself as well as the Vayu and the Matsya makes her mother of Mandhatri and so wife of Yuvanasva".
After my first book, I made the mistake of trying to mix Rigvedic and Puranic data, and ended up in a mess. So I only accept Puranic data which agrees with the Vedic data. The word panchala is a post-Rigvedic word, and even a post-Samhita word not found in any of the four Samhitas. And Mudgala in the Rigveda is the name of a very late king in the latest book 10. Puranic data, which jumbles up everyhing, cannot be used to decide the ancestors of Rigvedic people, except where it fits in with the scenario indicated by the Rigvedic data.
That Sobhari Kanva was a descendant of Kanva Ghaura is implicit in the two names itself, which is a regular pattern in all Rigvedic names.
Further, the five tribes are found throughout the Rigveda, and clearly from pre-Rigvedic times itself, and the Bharatas are one of the branches of the Purus. But the Puranas make all the five tribes into descendants of Yayati (whose brother is a composer in a very late hymn in Book 10, where he names Yayati). Likewise, Bharata, ancestor of Divodasa and Sudas becomes a grandson of Vishvamitra in the Puranas, while in the Rigveda Vishwamitra was a priest of Sudas.
DeleteClearly, anyone writing a compendium of Puranic stories can mention all these Puranic relationships. But a serious study of Rigvedic history cannot accept Puranic data which jumbles up different periods and personalities.
Thank you for your reply and the information about Mandhata's mother. For some reason I thought that you had written that his wife was a Puru, and not his mother, but now it is clear that his mother was a Puru and that his wife was a Yadu. I will check what the Puranas mentioned by Bhargava have to say about his connection with the Purus, though I do not expect to find much more information than what you wrote in you summary.
DeleteAs regards the Kanvas, I suppose there is no arguing with what you said because Trasadasyu simply cannot have lived before Sudas even if Sobhari Kanva was Ghora Angirasa's grandson. Therefore, it is difficult to make a case for him having lived before Sudas, despite the fact that his later descendant Hariscandra is already mentioned in the Aitareya Brahmana's account of the well-known story about Sunahsepha, who was adopted by Visvamitra in the end.
Concerning Mudgala and Yayati, yes, it is true that they are mentioned in the later mandalas, but that need not mean that the Puranas are necessarily wrong as regards their relative positions in the dynastic lists because there is no doubt about the fact that suktas are often not chronologically ordered, which is not surprising since the main criterion for deciding where most hymns should be put was the rishi's family if we are talking about the family mandalas. However, compilers of the Rig Veda obviously had different criteria for the remaining four mandalas, but one thing is clear: some of them are much older than others because they are ascribed to Vaivasvata Manu, very old rishis such as Jamadagni, etc. Consequently, I do not think there is a good reason to say that Pururavas and Yayati were not people from the remote past, even though they appear as composers or are menitioned only in the last mandala. Furthermore, sukta I.31 supports that argument because Pururavas and Yayati are mentioned there together with Manu and Angiras, as well as Ayu and Nahusha.
In conclusion, I agree that trying to fit the dynastic lists found in the Puranas with the names of the kings of the Rig Veda is often not a very good idea, as can be seen in the case of the Ikshvakus, but it seems that it cannot be denied that there is nothing in the Rig Veda to suggest that the Bharata kings mentioned in it did not appear one after the other in the order that is given in the Puranas. For example, Anukramani gives the following names: Pururavas Aila, Nahusha Manava, Yayati Nahusha, Mudgala Bharmyasva, Mandhata Yauvanasva, Ajamidha and Purumidha Sauhotra, etc. However, names like Pijavana and Devavata which do not appear in the Puranas are definitely enigmatic.
Yayati is mentioned in a hymn by his brother Devapi in Book 10. That they were brothers is clear even from the Puranic data. Unless there is some very strong evidence, there is no sense in speculating that any hymn from Book 10 can be older than the hymns from the earlier books. As per all tradition, the Rigveda was given its final form roughly at the time of the Mahabharata. Yayati, a not-too-distant ancestor of the Kauravas and Pandavas, as well as his composer brother, must have lived only a few generations or centuries before the Rigveda was given its final form. The Rigveda was given its final form roughly between 1900 BCE and 1400 BCE, and the later Samhitas (composed in the period of the New Rigveda) refer to Dhritarashtra as well. Everything fits in well.
DeleteTreating a particular individual (even if one gratuitously assumes that he was a pre-Rigvedic character) who is not mentioned anywhere else in the whole of the Rigveda, as the ancestor of not only the Purus and the Anus and Druhyus (i.e. of all ancestral IE groups) but also the Yadus and Turvasus of the east and south, is clearly a matter of myth rather than historical fact.
Sir, I am not sure what you are talking about. There is no mention of Yayati in sukta X.98 composed by Devapi Arstisena for his younger brother Santanu in order to propitiate Indra so that he would finally shower rain and stop the draught. That story is already mentioned in Brihad-devata, let alone in the Puranas and Mahabharata. Santanu is mentioned twice in that sukta.
DeleteYayati is mentioned in X.63.1 and the company in which he appears leaves no doubt about how far removed he is from the kings featured in the Rig Veda. Here is the quote:
parāvato ye didhiṣanta āpyam manuprītāso janimā vivasvataḥ | yayāter ye nahuṣyasya barhiṣi devā āsate te adhi bruvantu naḥ ||
“May the gods who, (coming) from afar proclaim their affinity (with men), and beloved by men, (support) the generations of (Manu, the son of) Vivasvat; may they who are seated on the sacred grass of Yayāti, the son of Nahuṣa, speak favourably unto us.”
As you will see, Rig Veda I.31.17 substantiates the above:
manuṣvad agne aṅgirasvad aṅgiro yayātivat sadane pūrvavac chuce |
accha yāhy ā vahā daivyaṃ janam ā sādaya barhiṣi yakṣi ca priyam ||
“Pure Agni, who goes about (to receive oblations), go in your presence to the hall of sacrifice, as did Manu, and Aṅgiras, and Yayāti, and others of old; bring hither the divine personages, seat them on the sacred grass, and offer them grateful (sacrifice).”
Lastly, here are the composers of sukta IX.101: Andhīgu Śyāvāśvi (1–3), Yayāti Nāhuṣa (4–6), Nahuṣa Mānava (7–9).
I think I do not need to comment on this because the text of the Rig Veda speaks for itself.
You are absolutely right. This is extremely embarrassing, and illustrates what can happen when you are doing too many things at one time and fail to focus on the subject under discussion. In replying hastily to your comment while in the middle of various articles, I got muddled up between Yayati and Santanu (who is the close ancestor of the Kauravas and Pandavas, and is mentioned in X.98 by his brother). I am really glad you brought this faux pas to my notice before more readers read it and pronounced judgement on me before I could correct myself.
DeleteAbout the actual references to Yayati, all of them are only in the New Rigveda, and still do not prove that Yayati was the ancestor of the Five Tribes (which includes not only the Vedic Purus but also the linguistic ancestors of the Anus and Druhyus who took the other 11 branches of IE languages out of India, as well as the Yadus and Purus in the interior). He is also mentioned, as you point out, with Nahusha and Manu, all of whom are mythical figures who cannot be postulated as actual human ancestors of entire masses of different peoples as is the practice in the Puranas and in the Bible.
That explains why you made that faux pas. It is not uncommon for people to make all sorts of mistakes when they are not focused.
DeleteAs for the references to Yayati, I agree that they do not definitely prove that he was the founder of the five tribes, but they certainly do not rule out that possibility either because it is clear that Manu, Pururavas, Ayu, Nahusha and Yayati were (real or mythical) persons from a remote past. According to your chronology, sukta I.31 by Hiranyastupa Angirasa is most probably from the middle period of the composition of the Rig Veda, so there may be some truth to it after all. Angiras is also mentioned in that sukta, and since we assume that some such person after whom the Angirasas were named must have existed, I do not see why we should assume that the aforementioned persons were mythical. If one believes that, apart from different gods, all persons who took part in the composition of the Rig Veda or are menitioned in it were historical personalities, then there is no reason to doubt their existence in the past. Similarly, while Biblical scholars probably doubt the existence of the early members of Adam's family tree (not without a good reason I suppose), I think that they at least agree that persons from Abraham onwards did actually exist.