My Final Word on the Subject of Purukutsa-Trasadasyu

My Final Word on the Subject of Purukutsa-Trasadasyu

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Plenty of crap has been discussed till now on the question of whether Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are early kings belonging to the period of the Old Rigveda or late kings belonging to the period of the New Rigveda.

I give below my final words on the subject. Already much of my time has been wasted on this. I will not repeat these points again after this. This is the absolutely final time:

 

1. The first thing that any analyst of the Rigveda (and especially from the historical point of view) should know and understand, right from the kindergarten level, is that if a person is named in a hymn, it does not automatically mean that the person lived at the time of composition of that hymn. The ONLY exceptional references which can be taken as completely contemporaneous to the time of composition of the hymn itself, are the references to the donor king and the donee composers in dānastutis (hymns in praise of gifts given by the patron donor to the composer).

In this case:

There are only two hymns which refer directly to Trasadasyu (specifically as the son of Purukutsa) in dānastutis: V.34 and VIII.19.

Three other hymns (one of which also refers to Trasadasyu’s son Tryaruṇa) seem to indirectly suggest that Trasadasyu is the patron of the composer and is present on the scene: VIII.27, 36, 37.

Whether anyone likes it or not, these are the only hymns in the Rigveda which show them as belonging to the time of composition of the hymn, and as being contemporaneous to the Kaṇva and Atri composers (and the Vaiśvāmitra composer Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya).

So no-one (who does not have an illogical and agenda-driven outlook) can deny that Purukutsa and Trasadasyu belonged to the period of composition of the hymns V.34 and VIII.19, 27, 36, 37, and that they cannot have been living in earlier periods.

If the reader has not been able to grasp, understand and accept this most fundamental point, I would suggest that he/she stops reading at this point and move off.

 

2. All five of the above hymns are found only in the New Books V and VIII, and all these five hymns are full of New Words (and in three of them, new meters):

V.27: 1. trivṛṣan, anasvat, cetiṣṭha.  3. naviṣṭha.  4. aśvamedha.  5. aśvamedha.  6. aśvamedha. [5 verses, 7 words].

V.33: 2. prārya, dhiyasāna.  3. ayukta.  5. jagamyāt, yātá.  6. enī, vasavāna, mārutāśva, prārya.  7. piprīhi.  9. anūka, dádāna.  10. saṁvaraṇa. [7 verses, 13 words +C].

VIII.19: 2. vibhūta, īḷiṣva, yantura, sobharī.  6. dyumnintama.  7. svagni.  8. mitriya.  9. kṣayadvīra.  11. viṣa (servant).  12. upari, yahu, makṣūtama.  13. ajiraśocis.  15. atriṇam.  16. indratvota, gātuvid.  20. sāsaha.  24. gandha.  26. pāpatva.  28. tavāham.  31. vastu.  32. sahasramuṣka, āganma, sobharī, trāsadasyava.  35. carṣaṇīsah, mitrāryama.  [17 verses, 27 words +M].

VIII.36: 1. apsujit, sehāna.  2. apsujit, sehāna.  3. apsujit, sehāna.  4. apsujit, sehāna.  5. apsujit, sehāna.  6. apsujit, sehāna.  7. nṛsāhya, śyāvāśva. [7 verses, 14 words +C +M].

VIII.37: 2. sehāna.  5. prayuj.  7. nṛsāhya, śyāvāśva. [3 verses, 4 words +C +M].

 

Further, in continuation of what I had written in my previous article (just before this one):

a) The eponymous Viśvāmitra was a contemporary of Sudās.

b) Trasadasyu is a contemporary and a gift-giving patron of the following composers: an unknown Atri composer (V.27), Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya (V.33), Sobhari Kāṇva (VIII.19), Śyāvāśva Ātreya (VIII.36, 37).

c) The Atris are composers belonging to the (far post-Sudās) last Family Book and first New Book : i.e. book 5. (later to Books 6, 3, 7, 4, 2)

d) Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya is a descendant of Prajāpati Vaiśvāmitra, himself a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

e) The Sobharis are descendants of Sobhari Kāṇva, who is a descendant of Kaṇva Ghaura, who was a disciple or descendant of Ghora Āṅgiras, himself a junior co-composer in a late hymn in Book 3 with a Vaiśvamitra, a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

Inescapable Conclusion: If Trasadasyu is the contemporaneous patron of such far descendants of the eponymous Viśvāmitra (a contemporary of Sudās), and of late Atri and Kaṇva composers so far down the line, how can Trasadasyu be older and earlier than Sudās?   

 

3. For a fuller, complete, and more detailed understanding of the Internal Chronology of the Rigveda, please go through my following blog article, which is basically chapter 4 of my third book “The Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence” (2008).

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/01/chapter-4-internal-chronology-of-rigveda.html 

In this I deal with the hymns in the 10 books of the Rigveda:

Old Rigveda: 6, 3, 7, 4, 2.

New Rigveda: 5, 1, 8, 9, 10.

While the hymns in the five New Books of the Rigveda also belong to different chronological strata, the difference is relatively immaterial from the specific point of view of analysis of the history of the Rigveda.

This is because, while Book 10 is undoubtedly the last and latest book of the Rigveda (so much later than the other nine books, that sometimes all the other nine can be, in some respects, classified together against Book 10), and Book 5 at the earlier end of the group shares many characteristics with the Old Rigveda (being a Family Book like the five  older books, and still being centered in the east rather than over the entire horizon of the Rigveda), and Book 8 in the middle having two parts, a later part (eleven Vālakhilya hymns) and an earlier part (the other ninety-two hymns, the common feature uniting these five books of the New Rigveda (from the earlier five books of the Old Rigveda) is a chronological gulf between the composition periods of the two groups, characterized by many new developments in vocabulary, technology, etc.

It is this chronological gulf which is crucial in any historical analysis of the Rigveda, and in this respect, the differences between Book 5, the two parts of Book 8, and Book 10 (and of course, Books 1 and 9 as well) do not make much material difference in the analysis (at least yet, and in the AIT-OIT historical context). The hymns in all five New Books fall in one category: all the hymns are “New Hymns”.

On the other hand, understanding the distinctions between the different categories of hymns in the five Old Books is crucial for our historical analysis (particularly in the AIT-OIT historical context): The hymns in all five Old Books do not fall in one undifferentiated category as “Old Hymns”. There are important distinctions which are crucial in any historical analysis.

To understand the full extent of this chronological gulf, please go carefully though the relevant article:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html 

The earlier article cited above (Chapter 4 of my 2008 book) explains everything in detail:

a) The division into 10 books (Old Rigveda + New Rigveda), and the progressive differences from the earliest of them (Book 6) to the last one (Book 10).

b) The correct identification (by Oldenberg and other western Indologists) of the hymns of the Old Rigveda which fall into a regular pattern of arrangement (what we call here the proper Old Rigveda), as opposed to those hymns which do not: (what we call here the Redacted Hymns, which contain New Words not found in the proper Old Rigveda).

c) After understanding the correct identification (by Oldenberg and other western Indologists) of the division of the hymns of the Old Rigveda into two categories (the proper Old Rigveda and the Redacted Hymns), we find another category of six hymns, not classified by Oldenberg as what we call Redacted hymns, but which nevertheless were New Hymns inserted into the Old Book 3 in the period of the New Rigveda. We owe this information to the Aitareya Brahmana (affiliated to the Rigveda).

The characteristic of these six hymns is that they are not really Old Hymns, but they were inserted into the Old Rigveda. As they were added later, they contain New Words. So, for all practical purposes, they have to be counted among the Redacted Hymns.

So now, the Old Rigveda consists of three groups:

Old Hymns (of the proper Old Rigveda), which are Old Hymns, arranged in the correct order, and not having New Words.

Redacted Hymns (classified by Oldenberg), which are Old Hymns, not arranged in the correct order, and having New Words.

Redacted Hymns (listed in the Aitareya Brahmana). which are New Hymns, inserted into the Old Books in the correct order, and having New Words.

d) An additional factor (see the above article) is “The only historically significant personalities whose names were interpolated into older hymns are Purukutsa and Trasadasyu (see TALAGERI 2000:66-72)”.

 

Yes, sorry to say, for those whose agenda makes them unwilling to accept this part, this is the situation that I saw in the Rigveda right from my very first book on the Rigveda (in the year 2000), long before I classified the Rigveda formally into the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda, and undertook the massive task of listing out the New Words in the Rigveda (in my above article on the chronological gulf). And all the studies, analyses and applications of new data from the year 2000 to the present day have only confirmed this beyond the slightest shadow of doubt.

Attempts to promote an AIOIT case where everyone originated in the Sarasvati area have led not only to the invention and fabrication of totally fictitious new tribes, new battles, new migrations, new connections between different Puranic kings and tribes and sages, etc. etc., but also to deliberate, illogical and agenda-driven attempts to sabotage the Internal Chronology of the Rigveda (which is so crucial to the OIT) by making:

a) late kings of the New Rigveda (like Purukutsa and Trasadasyu) older than the early kings of the Old Rigveda (like Sudās),

b) late composer families of the New Rigveda (like the Atris and Kaṇvas) older than  early composer families of the Old Rigveda (like the Vasiṣṭhas and Viśvāmitras).

c) descendant composers (like Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya Vaiśvāmitra) older than their ancestors (i.e. Viśvāmitra).

Now the big question (which some people seem to think is a conundrum) is: if Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are so definitely living in the period of the New Rigveda, − and this fact cannot be denied − how is it they are mentioned in four hymns in the Old hymns of the Old Rigveda?

The only logical answer can be that they are interpolations, and that they are very special interpolations since there is no other case in the entire Rigveda where historical or geographical interpolations are found. Is there anything to indicate that they are interpolations?

The answer, already given by me countless times in the last 25 years is that the special priestly families of the Bharata Pūrus of the Rigveda (the Aṅgiras and Vasiṣṭha composers) in the period of the New Rigveda were so overwhelmed with gratitude at the special and life-saving help given by these kings to the Bharata Pūrus that they expressed this gratitude by inserting lavish (and almost sycophantic) praise on them and inserting this praise into their own ancestral compositions in the Old Rigveda. There is no other explanation. And to emphasize this praise, it was expressed in terms unparalleled elsewhere in the Rigveda.

Four hymns (all four by Aṅgiras and Vasiṣṭha composers) in the Old Rigveda contain these insertions:

VI.20.10; IV.38.1; IV.42.8-9 (all Aṅgiras) and VII.19.6  (Vasiṣṭha).

The extraordinary nature of these interpolations is that they contain extraordinary characteristics found nowhere else 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 entire corpus of the Vedic texts. And 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".

IV.38 and IV.42 are the only hymns in the entire Rigveda where Varuṇa is directly associated with any human person: Trasadasyu. Other Gods like Indra, Agni and the Aśvins are described countless times as granting special favors and aid to countless devotees, but there is no other reference in the whole of the Rigveda where Varuṇa is involved in this manner.

 

Further, the suspicious nature of these references has not escaped the notice of the Indologists:

1. In the case of IV.42.8-9, 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.

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".

    

After this, I will not bother to waste any time on this rubbish, no matter what the provocations. People can use their viveka-buddhi to see what is right and what is wrong. And whatever they conclude, it will be their privilege to do so. I cannot go on repeating things forever to “convince” anyone.

[As an amusing aside; Jijith protests that I “argue that a Late Rgvedic king got interpolated into Early Rgveda, without any objection from hundreds of composers who lived in Late Rgveda and contributed to Rgveda. Such an act will be severely opposed. It can never happen in the Rigvedic Composition History! It is as absurd as interpolating Rahul Gandhi into the Mahabharata as a Kurukshetra War hero!” It is funny to visualize the period of composition of the Rigveda as a period where people put up petitions and held morchas holding up placards protesting against things they disapproved of!]      

Jijith, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu

 

Jijith, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I ended my earlier article yesterday with “Stupidity, stubbornness, an inflated ego, and a tendency to lie make for a deadly combination.”. To this may be added incorrigibility.

Today, Jijith has put up another tweet. The latter part of this second tweet refers to Purukutsa and Trasadasyu. I have written many articles about this (apart from dealing with the subject in my various books and articles (including my review of his book), but I will reply to it further on in the article when dealing with his third tweet. I will first only show the first part which demonstrates incorrigible stupidity:

https://x.com/Jijith_NR

“Here is the second mistake found in Talageri's Geochronology which is corrected in my book Rivers of Rgveda. The first one was a geographical error - he mistook the new Rivers discovered in Rgvedic 4th Mandala: Sarayu (Haro) and Rasa (Indus) as Western Rivers in Afghanistan where as both are in Middle Pakistan. This is why he isn't finding western animals, flora and fauna in 4th Mandala.

Western animals, flora and fauna are not in 5th Mandala too. This is because the Rgvedic People just entered Eastern Afghanistan during 5th Mandala Period. When they go further westwards in Late Rgvedic Perod, later to the 5th Mandala Period, they note western animals, flora and fauna”.

 

The clown does not realize that he is again contradicting himself sharply. In the first tweet I dealt with yesterday, he points out that Book 4 does not refer to “western animals, flora and fauna” and gives it as his logical argument that this automatically proves that the rivers referred to in Book 4 cannot be “western rivers” (i.e. “if they could mention western rivers, why not western animals, flora and fauna? So the rivers also cannot be western but must be eastern”).

When I pointed out that Book 5 also does not refer to “western animals, flora and fauna” but does refer to western rivers, so his logic is wrong, he argues back: “This is because the Rgvedic People just entered Eastern Afghanistan during 5th Mandala Period. When they go further westwards in Late Rgvedic Perod, later to the 5th Mandala Period, they note western animals, flora and fauna”!

Does not this Space Scientist understand that he is making a fool of himself by giving an argument for Book 5 which also applies to Book 4? That is: “This is because the Rgvedic People just entered Eastern Afghanistan during 4th Mandala Period. When they go further westwards in Late Rgvedic Perod, later to the 5th Mandala Period, they note western animals, flora and fauna”, and that this, in his own words, proves his earlier logic wrong? Clearly, there is no consistency in his statements and logic.

 

And then, to buttress the “Purukutsa and Trasadasyu” point, he gives a third tweet. As I said, I have already dealt with the topic in innumerable books and articles, right from the year 2000 (my third book). So I will only deal with his warped logic here. He writes the following in this third tweet (quoting out of place my references to Epic events being given new additions in later renderings and narrations);

https://x.com/Jijith_NR

“"However, the most important point to be understood about the Redacted Hymns is that they were linguistically updated, but they were not changed in historical and geographical context and content: the only interpolated references naming historically late persons in the Rigveda (there are no interpolated references pertaining to geographical contexts) are the handful of *deliberately interpolated references to the much later Purukutsa and Trasadasyu*, (see TALAGERI 2000:67-72 for details), but these interpolated references were actually *interpolated into Old Hymns in the Old Rigveda and not into the Redacted Hymn.*"

Talageri admits Purukutsa & Trasadasyu are part of the proper Old Hymns of Early Rgveda / Old Rgveda, and not interpolated into the Redacted Hymns of Early Rgveda/ Old Rgveda.”

 

Jijith puts it very trickily as such tricksters always do. He correctly quotes me to show that I have been pointing out since long that the references to Purukutsa and Trasadasyu were deliberately interpolated into Old Hymns in the Old Rigveda, and that these are the only historical interpolations in the Old Rigveda.

And after quoting my words correctly, he lies brazenly about it in the very next line: “Talageri admits Purukutsa & Trasadasyu are part of the proper Old Hymns of Early Rgveda / Old Rgveda.” Does the quote show that I admit “Purukutsa & Trasadasyu are part of the proper Old Hymns of Early Rgveda / Old Rgveda” or that I call them “interpolated references”?? Jijith shows many times in his writings that his level of English is wanting in many respects. But surely the reader can read what I have written, and see what he fails to understand?

 

The uniqueness of the Purukutsa and Trasadasyu references in the Old Rigveda is that they are the only interpolated references to historical personalities in the whole of the Rigveda. As I pointed out, the New Words in the Redacted Hymns never represent historical and geographical interpolations: they are always natural interpolations where innocuous New Words inadvertently appear in old narrations in the course of their re-narration in later (in these cases, New Rigvedic) times.

As I wrote in my article “The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda”:

“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 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….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…..

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".”

 

While these four references in the Old Rigveda clearly stand out as odd ones, the references to Purukutsa or his son Trasadasyu in the New Rigveda show that they are normal contemporary references to people living in that period. These references show them to be contemporaneous gift-giving kings in the period of the New Rigveda: in V.33.8 and VIII.19.32,36.

And these two hymns, where Trasadasyu is a contemporaneous living person, are New Hymns in the New Rigveda, loaded with New Words:

V.33: 2. prārya, dhiyasāna.  3. ayukta.  5. jagamyāt, yātá.  6. enī, vasavāna, mārutāśva, prārya.  7. piprīhi.  9. anūka, dádāna.  10. saṁvaraṇa. [7 verses, 13 words +C].

VIII.19: 2. vibhūta, īḷiṣva, yantura, sobharī.  6. dyumnintama.  7. svagni.  8. mitriya.  9. kṣayadvīra.  11. viṣa (servant).  12. upari, yahu, makṣūtama.  13. ajiraśocis.  15. atriṇam.  16. indratvota, gātuvid.  20. sāsaha.  24. gandha.  26. pāpatva.  28. tavāham.  31. vastu.  32. sahasramuṣka, āganma, sobharī, trāsadasyava.  35. carṣaṇīsah, mitrāryama.  [17 verses, 27 words +M].

Another additional point:

a) The eponymous Viśvāmitra was a contemporary of Sudās.

b) Trasadasyu is a contemporary and a gift-giving patron of Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya (V.33) and Sobhari Kāṇva (VIII.19, which is actually not even composed by the eponymous Sobhari, but by a descendant who refers to his co-composers as “Sobharis” in the plural).

c) Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya is a descendant of Prajāpati Vaiśvāmitra, himself a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

The Sobharis are descendants of Sobhari Kāṇva, who is a descendant of Kaṇva Ghaura, who was a disciple or descendant of Ghora Āṅgiras, himself a junior co-composer in a late hymn in Book 3 with a Vaiśvamitra, a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

d) If Trasadasyu is the contemporaneous patron of such far descendants of the eponymous Viśvāmitra, so far down the line, how can Trasadasyu be older and earlier than Sudās?  

 

Only a person like Jijith could claim that the contemporaneous patron king of very late hymns like V.33 and VIII.19 could be older than the period of the four Old Hymns of the Old Rigveda, IV.38 and 42;  VI.20, and VII.19, into which the names of Purukutsa and Trasadasyu were deliberately interpolated: all four of these hymns do not contain a single New Word.

I am at any rate happy that Jijith has been forced out of his Trojan Horse into the open, and is now actively and openly attacking the Internal Chronology of the Books of the Rigveda which is the foundation of the OIT, and which he otherwise pretends to be supporting. An open (or still half-open) enemy is better than a chhupa dushman.

Jijith Never Gives Up Lying

Jijith Never Gives Up Lying

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

It may seem incredible, but Jijith is up to his lies again. I find it very difficult to believe that a person who is a genuine scientist in his own field can be so grossly stupid and so incorrigibly persistent in his lies and stupidity. He repeats his lie about the Sarayu, this time compounding it in a strange way.

Today he has apparently tweeted:

https://x.com/Jijith_NR

“Found out one mistake in Talageri's Old Rgveda vs New Rgveda (23-08-2022). He makes this mistake because he think that the Rgvedic river Sarayu is a "Western River in Afghanistan", whereas it is only a Central Pakistan River Haro. Please note that the three Central Pakistan Rivers:- Jhelum (Vibali), Haro (Sarayu) and Indus (Sindhu) are mentioned for the first time in the 4th Mandala. This means, in the continous westward migration from Haryana, these Central Pakistan rivers were discovered/ came into the focus for the 1st time during the 4th Mandala composition period. Remember Talageri's own Chronology Sequence:- 6,3,7,4,2,5,1,8,9,10. (Updated version of 23-08-2022) Now see below what Talageri is writing:- "In the Old Books 6, 7, 3 and 2, references to all Western geographical words are completely missing in both the sets of hymns. In Book 4 (with its westward expansionist thrust), the references to Western rivers are found. But in Book 4 the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, *are missing*." Here, Talageri got a confusing result of an *illusory western river in 4th Mandala*. This is because he thinks that Sarayu is Harirud in Afghanistan. That is why he says:- "In Book 4 (with its westward expansionist thrust), the references to Western rivers are found." But in the next sentence Talageri is faced with the shocking reality - "But in Book 4 the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, *are missing*." Absence of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains in 4th Mandala - as per Talageri’s own admission, favors my identification of Sarayu as Haro in Central Pakistan. It goes against his identification of Sarayu as Harirud in Afghanistan.

8:51 AM. Apr 21 2025

This tweet demonstrates many things:

1. Firstly, he has not understood what the article “The Final Version of the Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda” is all about:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html 

It is about the vocabulary of the Rigveda. It is not about the geographical words in the Rigveda. This article does not mention the Sarayu or indeed any other river in its list of words. So where does Jijith see this word Sarayu in my list of words in this article, when he refers to a “mistake in Talageri’s Old Rgveda vs New Rgveda” in reference to this word? Obviously he has not seen the word in that article. Or does he mean I should have included the name Sarayu in my list of New Words?  But the question is irrelevant. Jijith has not gone through the article at all. All his presumptuous tweets, remarks and conclusions are based on his own fertile imagination, never on actual data. This is his style and level of scholarship.

 

2. People wonder whether I am being too harsh on him when he seemingly regards me as his “guru” and “mentor” and is believed by the credulous to be expanding on my work, and cannot understand why I consider his AIOIT case as more dangerous for the OIT case (by being a Trojan Horse attack on the OIT from “inside”), and as violating the most fundamental aspect of the OIT case: the Internal Chronology of the Books of the Rigveda.

Well, here in this tweet, his attack on the Internal Chronology of the Books of the Rigveda comes out undisguisedly in the open.

 

3. I ask the readers to consult any and every scholar or analytic source on the Rigveda to find a single other scholar, Indian or western, who has identified the Sarayu of the Rigveda with the Haro river. Every single other scholar unanimously identifies the Ārjīkīyā of the Rigveda with the Haro river. What is more, Jijith himself unwittingly identifies the Ārjīkīyā of the Rigveda with the Haro river once in his own book “Rivers of the Rgveda” (p. 99 of his book).

But, in his desperation to locate the Ikṣvākus on the Sarasvati, coupled with the childish belief that a Sarayu in the Punjab, and an Ayodhya on the Sarasvati. also have to be conjured up in the NW (the Rigvedic area) in order to “prove” the earlier (and nowhere recorded) presence of the Ikṣvākus on the Sarasvati, Jijith indulges in all kinds of clownish antics:

 

3a) He discovers five different Sarayus (three new ones within the Rigvedic area) in the Rigveda:

Sarayu-1 = The Sarasvatī:

"The Tṛkṣis….migrated westwards from the Ancestral Sarayu (alternate name of Sarasvatī in its southern course)" (p.42).

"They migrated from what I posit as the 'Ancestral Sarayu' (which I identify as none other than Sarasvatī)" (p.203).

"As per my analysis, this Ancestral Sarayu is none other than the river Sarasvatī herself" (p.208).

"The Ikṣvākus referred to the river (Ghaggar-Hakra) as Sarayu and the Aiḷas called it Sarasvatī" (p.209).

"We designate the Ancestral Sarayu as the dried-up Sarasvatī channel between fort Derawar and Anupgarh" (p.216).

Sarayu-2 = The Sutlej:

"Since Sutlej is the nearest river for the southern-Ikṣvākus, they migrated to Sutlej before any other river. Thus, the name Sarayu got applied to Sutlej (to be precise, the name Sarayu got applied to a Sutlej-distributary joining Sarasvatī). This old name Sarayu, applied to Sutlej  got captured in the 10th Maṇḍala verse 10.64.9 (sarasvatī sarayuḥ sindhur)" (p.209).

Sarayu-3 = The Haro:

"to the Western Sarayu (Haro river, tributary of Indus)" (p.42).

"I identify the Ṛgvedic Sarayu with the Haro river" (p.77-78).

"Northwest upto Sarayu (Haro)" (p.80).

"The region between Sindhu (Indus) and Sarayu (Haro)" (p.91).

"The eastern tributary of Indus that can be identified with Sarayu is the Haro River" (p.202).

"They migrated… to the Śaryaṇāvat region and named the main river (Haro) in the region as Sarayu" (p.203).

The two rivers which actually do bear the name Sarayu are then accounted for by postulating unrecorded and fictitious migrations of the Ikṣvākus from an original Ikṣvāku Homeland within the core Rigvedic area into both the eastern and western directions:

Sarayu-4 = The Ghaghara in U.P. (a tributary of the Gaṅgā):

"The ancient settlements of the Ikṣvākus were distributed along Sarasvatī from Bhirrana in the north to Derawar Fort in the south. This is the region of the pre-Harappan Hakra-Ware culture [….] We call it the Ikṣvāku Homeland, equal in status to the Vara Pṛthivyā, the Aiḷa Homeland" (p.209).

"The Ikṣvākus were the earliest civilization on the banks of Sarasvatī. Their settlements existed along Sarasvatī many centuries earlier than the Ṛgvedic civilization of the Ailas, Pūrus and the Bharatas" (p.217).

"The Aitihāsic river Sarayū (Ghaghara) mentioned prominently in the Rāmāyaṇa is a major tributary of Gaṅgā" (p.197).

"His son Bhagīratha migrated further eastwards into Gaṅgā. The descendants of Bhagīratha went further eastwards and finally settled on its major tributary (Ghaghara) and named it Sarayū in memory of their Ancestral Sarayu river" p.215).

Sarayu-5 = The Herat or Harirud (Avestan Haroyu) in Afghanistan:

"Some of these Ikṣvākus too migrated with their Ānava allies into Afghanistan and Iran. This explains why the name Sarayu is applied to a river (Harirud) in Afghanistan as Harôyû" (p.220).

Occam's razor is a principle of formulating and evaluating theories which says that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". The theory outlined in Jijith's book creates five distinct Sarayu rivers, three of them totally fictitious and unrecorded ones unsupported by any genuine data in either the Vedic or Puranic literature, or even in earlier Indological speculations.

 

3b). But then, all the scholars have identified the Ārjīkīyā of the Rigveda with the Haro river (including Jijith himself, unwittingly, once in his own book). So, to push the Rigvedic Ārjīkīyā out of the reckoning, he identifies it, out of thin air, or rather out of a vacuum, with the present-day Sil river, a small tributary close to the present-day Haro river. Again, no other scholar has ever made this identification, and Jijith sees no need to produce evidence for his claim.

 

3c). But this lands him in another quandary. There is a Sīlamāvatī river mentioned in the Nadī Sūkta. At least, most scholars translate this word as an epithet of the Indus, but a few, like Griffith, take it to be the name of a river. Using Jijith’s kind of logic (Haro=Haroyu, etc.) this Sīlamāvatī river of the Rigveda could be the present-day Sīl river. That would mess up Jijith’s identification of the Ārjīkīyā of the Rigveda with the present-day Sil river. Taking no chances (and not wanting to leave any loopholes), Jijith proceeds to identify the Rigvedic Sīlamāvatī river (again out of thin air, or rather out of a vacuum) with the Suru river in Ladakh!

 

4. And here is this classic example of his absolute failure to understand even the abc of my analysis of the Rigveda. He not only fails totally and absolutely to understand the logic of the westward expansion, but he even finds a contradiction in my analysis and present his extremely fatuous solution to this problem:

“, Talageri got a confusing result of an *illusory western river in 4th Mandala*. This is because he thinks that Sarayu is Harirud in Afghanistan. That is why he says:- "In Book 4 (with its westward expansionist thrust), the references to Western rivers are found." But in the next sentence Talageri is faced with the shocking reality - "But in Book 4 the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, *are missing*." Absence of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains in 4th Mandala - as per Talageri’s own admission, favors my identification of Sarayu as Haro in Central Pakistan. It goes against his identification of Sarayu as Harirud in Afghanistan.”.

He thinks that "In Book 4 (with its westward expansionist thrust), the references to Western rivers are found." contradicts "But in Book 4 the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, *are missing*.", and therefore one of the two sentences must be wrong. And he decides unilaterally that the first sentence is wrong and that Sarayu cannot be a reference to a western river.

But, this again shows how Jijith proceeds with half baked information, both about the data in the Rigveda as well as about my analysis of it. Let us see Book 5:

Book 5 mentions the following western rivers Rasā (V.41.15; 53.9) as well as the Sarayu, Kubhā, Krumu, Anitabhā and Sindhu (all five in one verse, V.53.9). But in Book 5 also “the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, *are missing*.” So, as per Jijith’s kindergarten logic, the first sentence is wrong, and therefore  Rasā, Sarayu, Kubhā, Krumu, Anitabhā and Sindhu (all in one verse) cannot be references to western rivers: Jijith must now again stir up his magic cauldron and find out which eastern rivers Kubhā, and Krumu in particular refer to!!

 

What is more, Book 5 not only does not refer directly to the names of Western animals, places, lakes and mountains, but it does not even refer to the sheep indirectly by its name associated with the sheep in referring to wool (a product of the western “sheep” or avi). However, by the period of the middle Books (4,2), there was greater interaction with the west as compared to the Oldest Books 6,3,7,   and we find a reference in Book 2 to “avi” in the sense of “wool”:

The word ávi-, and its derived words ávya-, ávyaya-, and avyáya-, all signifying "woollen filters" (for filtering the Soma juice),  are distributed as follows in the Rigveda (again, the words are totally missing in the three Oldest Books):

Old Books:

II.36.1

New Books:

I.135.6

VIII.2.2; 97.2

IX.6.1,5; 7.6; 12.4; 13.1,6; 16.6,8; 20.1; 28.1; 36.4; 37.3; 38.1; 45.5; 49.4; 50.2,3; 52.2; 61.17; 62.8; 63.10,19; 64.5,25; 66.9,11,28; 67.4,5,20; 68.7; 69.34,9; 70.7,8; 74.9; 75.4; 78.1; 82.1; 85.5; 86.3,8,11,13,25,31,34,48; 91.1,2; 92.4; 96.13; 97.3,4,12,16,19,31,40,56; 98.2,3; 99.5; 100.4; 101.16; 103.2,3; 106.10,11; 107.2,10,17,22,68; 108.5; 109.7,16; 110.10.  

So, Book 2 at least refers to avi as “wool”. Book 5 does not even do that. So do we conclude that the geography of Book 2 is further west than that of Book 5? And therefore the Sarasvati of Book 2 (Sarasvati being the only river referred to in Book 2) is a western river (since Book 5 does mention the western rivers Kubhā, and Krumu?)

 

Stupidity, stubbornness, an inflated ego, and a tendency to lie make for a deadly combination. 

A Dravidian Element in a Mitanni Name?

 

A Dravidian Element in a Mitanni Name?

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I wrote my last article to expose people who use textbookworm interpretations of the rules of PIE-to-IE phonetic changes to debunk connections between strikingly similar (in form as well as meaning) words in two different branches or contexts.

In the process, I was contacted by the particular tweeter I referred to in that article, Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde, and he brought to my notice a startling fact which I had never noticed.

 

In my three articles on the Mitanni evidence (evidence elsewhere included in my third book and subsequent articles), I have pointed out that the Mitanni personal names show that the ancestors of the Mitanni had migrated out from India during or after the period of composition of the hymns of the New Rigveda (Books 5,1,8,9,10), and very definitely after the period of composition of the hymns of the Old Rigveda (Books 6,3,7,4,2  in that chronological order, or simply Books 2-4,6-7), and that this conclusively proved that the Old Rigveda was composed well before 2500 BCE in an area in Haryana and east, in which area there was complete absence of any non-IE speakers and all the rivers had purely IA/IE names:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/two-papers-by-renowned-indologist.html

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/evidence-for-oit-beyond-mitanni.html

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-finality-of-mitanni-evidence.html

 

Now this tweeter has brought to my notice certain points that I myself had never noticed before. According to him, the Mitanni names even include two names which have, respectively, a Dravidian element and an Austro-Asiatic (Austric or Munda) element: the names Su-māla and Wam-badura.

He points out that the first name has been cited as a Mitanni name by P.E.Dumont, and that the element -māla in the name has been identified by Mayrhofer as a Dravidian word borrowed into Vedic:

I have referred to P.E.Dumont’s paper on the Mitanni names in the first of my three above articles, but, (as I was concentrating on the compound names with new prefixes and suffixes common to the Mitanni and the New Rigveda, and su- is not a new prefix) I missed out on this name Su-māla. But if the prefix is not new, the word māla/mālā is definitely new: it is not found in the Samhitas, and first appears as mālya in the Brahmana texts (I have not checked out if the meaning is the same).

If this is true, here we have the possibility of the Mitanni leaving India with a Dravidian element in one of their names! As I have pointed out many times, Dravidian words started seeping into the Rigvedic language in the period of the New Rigveda. This is very much incremental evidence for the migration of the ancestors of the Mitanni from the Rigvedic area during the period of composition of the New Rigveda.

 

About the second word presented by Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde, i.e. Wam-badura, I find it a bit dubious (perhaps after seeing Witzel going berserk in discovering “Munda” words in the Rigveda). There is no reason for me to reject it, because after all it would only constitute even more incremental evidence for the migration of the ancestors of the Mitanni from the Rigvedic area during the period of composition of the New Rigveda. However, it would not be honest of me to fully accept it only on that count. So I leave a more detailed analysis of that particular name to more competent authorities in that field.

So I have to express my thanks to Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde for bringing this evidence to my notice.

How Textbookworm Historical-PIE Etymologists Go Completely Off the Tracks

 

How Textbookworm Historical-PIE Etymologists Go Completely Off the Tracks

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

A series of tweets by a tweeter (and yes, you guessed it: like all of his AIT-sepoy tribe, he has a Rigvedic-sounding twitter name: Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde) has apparently given a series of tweets on the linguistic untenability of my interpretations of some of the names of the tribes opposing Sudās in the dāśarājña battle):

https://x.com/Heg70412Hegde

Mhmm, a few of Talageri's conjectures aren't linguistically tenable. For example, he identifies Bhr̥gus with Phryges and Bryges. However, Phryges & Bryges come from PIE *bʰerǵʰ-. ǵʰ always gives a ȷ́ʰ in Indo-Iranian which is softened to give voiceless h in IA.

7:50 PM · Apr 14, 2025

So the cognate of Phryge & Bryge in Indo-Aryan would be something like barhá

7:51 PM · Apr 14, 2025

Also Talageri identifies Rigvedic Alina with Ἕλληνες. However, one must note that even if Ἕλληνες is an IE word (which its most probably not), the initial /h/ would imply a PIE /y/, which would yield an IIr /y/.

7:55 PM · Apr 14, 2025

 

Isn’t he clever? But, in idiomatic English, he would actually be called “too clever by half” (in Marathi, dīḍh śahāṇā, in Konkani dēḍ bu:dvantu). Everything does not go by textbook rules, something which these textbookworms just don’t seem to understand.

Is this how ancient words are to be analyzed and compared in historical analysis?

Unfortunately, textbookworms lose the ability to think, and the ability to comprehend natural and normal processes, and I refer particularly to those textbookworms who pass pompous pronouncements on the subject of the PIE origins, relationships and forms of words in the realm of historical studies on IE issues. They seem to think that Linguistics is an absolute science like Physics or Chemistry, so that everything moves in a fixed linear way as per certain rules that earlier linguists have noted down. See above: “ǵʰ always gives a ȷ́ʰ in Indo-Iranian which is softened to give voiceless h in IA”, or “the initial /h/ would imply a PIE /y/, which would yield an IIr /y/”. Anything even slightly different (as per their assumed laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry) automatically means that two words in two IE languages which are strikingly relatable and similar in form and meaning are not cognates, to the extent that far-reaching historical conclusions can be drawn from the conclusion that they are not cognates, e.g. “So the cognate of Phryge & Bryge in Indo-Aryan would be something like barhá”.

 

We have already seen this kind of fake “scholarly” attitude where:

a) the cognate nature of two words in two or more different IE languages (and even the IE nature of one or more of them) is totally and absolutely denied very easily and conclusively by citing such alleged immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry when the historical agenda requires that the cognate or even IE nature of the words be rejected; and

b) at the same time, much more inexplicable and untenable word-formations, which violate every single rule of the same laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry, to the extent that there is absolute etymological chaos, are easily and triumphantly accepted as cognates and IE words, because they do not interfere or mess with that historical agenda:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/indian-fauna-elephants-foxes-and-ait.html 

In this above article, see how another similar textbookworm applies the above double-standard principles to declare the clearly related IE words for elephant to be non-cognate or non-IE, while at the same time smoothly accepting the chaotic IE words for fox (which violate every rule) to be both cognate and IE.

When the IE words for even such an undeniably PIE animal like the fox can develop into so many chaotic forms which require sophistry and rhetoric of the highest degree to claim them to be both cognate and IE, it is clear that these pretentious Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists are fake and agenda-driven.

 

But now, the question in this present article is not even of an undeniably PIE animal like the fox: in this case it is about the names of tribes or people, where the application of strict laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry becomes much more illogical, fake and agenda-driven.

A basic and simple common-sense fact not apparently known to, or understood by, the textbookworm in this present case is that names of people or tribes (or indeed of things like rivers or places) are not necessarily words of linear PIE descent that they should also be accepted or rejected as cognate or IE on the basis of whether or not they follow the alleged immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry. Such names are generally contemporary names, which can be either self-appellations or names given by others, which can be IE or non-IE in origin, but which have become fixed as names. The particular tribe or person (or river or place or kingdom) is known by this fixed name, and others will also know them by the same name modified as per the linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own languages and customs, totally regardless of the origins and etymologies of the name.

When people borrow words from, or use names of, some other people, they simply borrow that existing contemporary form of that word or name (regardless of its linguistic origins) and then automatically modify it as per their own present linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits: they do not consult etymological conversion tables to see what form that name or word would have had (and therefore should now have) as per the laws of immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry.

Thus, when the Rigvedic word or name mitra, which is miθra in Avestan, developed into mihr or mehr in ancient Pahlavi or Persian, and was then borrowed back by Sanskrit as mihira, no Sanskrit etymologist opened up his textbooks of Sanskrit, Avestan and PIE etymological tables to see whether or not it was proper to use a form into Sanskrit which did not fulfill the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of correctness as a Sanskrit form derived from PIE. They simply accepted it into Sanskrit. Today, a textbookworm could claim that Sanskrit mihira is not a Sanskrit or IE word at all, since it does not follow the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of correctness as a derived form in lineage from PIE to Sanskrit.

That is not just one example: Sanskrit borrowed various astronomical and some other technical Greek terms into Sanskrit: e.g. heli-, horā, kendra. Likewise, diámetron and hydrokhóos were borrowed into Sanskrit as jāmitra and hṛdroga. Also words like khalīnós and sŷrinx were borrowed into Sanskrit as khalīna and suruṅga. The Sanskrit pundits, who borrowed these words, simply borrowed them in conveniently modified forms. They did not consult etymological conversion tables to see whether their modified Sanskrit forms were in the exact politically correct forms dictated by the immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry.

Likewise, when the ancient Greeks encountered India in the late first millennium BCE, they recorded the names of certain northwestern rivers (which still retained their millennia-old Vedic names, whether in the exact forms as in the Rigveda or in slightly altered or modified forms – except the Ravi, whose Rigvedic name Paruṣṇī had become Irāvatī) as follows:

Present Name	Sanskrit Name	Greek Name
Beas	Vipāś	Hyphasis
Sutlej	Śutudrī/Śatadrū	Zaradros
Ravi	Irāvatī	Hydraotes
Chenab	Asikni	Akesinēs
Jhelum	Vitastā	Hydaspes
Kabul	Kubhā	Kōphēs

It may be seen that in not a single one of these cases did the Greeks pick up a Sanskrit name (say, Irāvatī), check it up in their PIE-to-Sanskrit and Sanskrit-to-PIE conversion tables to find out what the PIE form of Irāvatī could be; and then check up that PIE form in their PIE-to-Greek and Greek-to-PIE conversion tables to find out what the Greek form of that PIE form could be. They simply coined a Greek term reasonably (to their reasoning) resembling the original Sanskrit word as far as possible in sound.

Today, a Textbookworm Historical-PIE Etymologist like Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde, sitting in his etymology class in his ivory tower, with his collection of books of lists of PIE etymology conversion tables, can check up all these Greek names of rivers (Hyphasis, Zaradros, Hydraotes, Akesinēs, Hydaspes, Kōphēs) in his lists and conclude that they are not, and cannot be, the Greek names  of the respective Indian rivers (Beas, Sutlej, Ravi, Chenab, Jhelum, Kabul) since they do not fit in with the strict and immutable laws of Linguistics-as-Physics-and-Chemistry in the matter of Greek cognates to the Sanskrit forms (Vipāś, Śutudrī/Śatadrū, Irāvatī, Asikni, Vitastā, Kubhā). He could even cite all the necessary phonetic laws (as he does in his above tweets) to clinch the matter!!

 

It might be difficult for textbookworms to understand normal human processes, but the same was the case in respect of the names of the different tribes in the Rigvedic world: there was clearly a tribe named Bhṛgu (or Phryge or Bryge, or any recognizably similar sounding name) and a tribe named Alina (or Eline, or Arina, or any recognizably similar sounding name) in the area. Whether the names were self-given or given by others, whether the names were of clear IE etymology or not, the fact is that these were the names of the tribes, and all other tribes referred to them with similar-sounding names (i.e. the same names modified as per the linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own languages and customs).

Not a single person in those times was concerned about whether all the different varieties of the names, individually or collectively, would pass the eagle-eyed scrutiny of present day Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists in the matter of PIE lineage and of etymological exactitude of cognateness as per all the phonetic laws. So, inevitably, Textbookworm Historical-PIE-Etymologists will end up completely “foxed” when they set out to try and examine these words. It is time for them to keep their textbooks in their desks in their classrooms, and to step out of their ivory towers into the real world if they want to return to a normal and realistic state of mind: according to this particular one, if there had been a tribe named Phryge or Bryge, the Indo-Aryan composer of the hymn would not have called the tribe “something like Phryge/Bryge”,  but “something like Barhá”!

 

To sum up:

The evidence of the names of Sudās’ enemies in the Battle of Ten Kings cannot be submitted to etymological tests of the kind these Textbookworms want (or rather, claim to want when convenient to them. Where it is inconvenient, as in the case of the diverse IE names for the fox, they themselves would refuse such etymological tests).

Simple common sense and an honest approach would only take into consideration the striking and recognizable similarity of the names (i.e. the same names modified as per the linguistic idiosyncrasies and linguistic habits of their own languages and customs). This will of course bring in the references to “P.N.Oak” and allegations of “Oakisms”! But I did say “Simple common sense and an honest approach”. Perhaps I should add viveka-buddhi.

In the particular case of the enemy tribes and enemies of Sudās in the Rigveda:, the evidence is sweeping:

 

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

VII.18.5 Śimyu.

VII.18.6 Bhṛgu.

VII.18.7 Paktha, Bhalāna, Alina, Śiva, Viṣāṇin.

VII.83.1 Parśu/Parśava, Pṛthu/Pārthava, Dāsa.

(Another Anu tribe in the Puranas and later tradition is the Madra).

 

2. The identity of these names is unwittingly backed, in a large number of cases, even by western scholars opposed to the OIT (like Witzel). And the historical Iranian tribes and other (Armenian-Greek-Albanian) people with these names are found in later historical times in a continuous belt covering all the areas from the Punjab (the scene of the battle) to southeastern and eastern Europe:

 

Iranian:

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

NE Afghanistan:   Nuristani/Piśācin (Viṣāṇin).  

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

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

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

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

NW Iran:   Madai/Mede (Madra).

Uzbekistan:   Khiva/Khwarezmian (Śiva).

W. Turkmenistan:   Dahae (Dāsa).

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

 

Thraco-Phrygian/Armenian:

Turkey:   Phryge/Phrygian (Bhṛgu).

Romania, Bulgaria:   Dacian (Dāsa).

 

Greek:

Greece:   Hellene (Alina).

 

Albanian/Illyrian:

Albania:   Sirmio/Sirmium (Śimyu).

 

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

 

3. We also see here an important historical phenomenon of the trail of names: the tribal group which migrates furthest retains its linguistic identity, while those of that tribe who remain behind, or on the way, get linguistically absorbed into the surrounding linguistic group:

1. Anu Alina, Iranian Alan, Greek Hellene.

2. Anu Śimyu, Avestan Sairima, Iranian Sarmaha/Sarmatian, Albanian Sirmio/Sirmium.

3. Anu Bhṛgu/Atharvan, Iranian Athravan, Thraco-Phrygian Bryge/Phryge.

4. Anu Madra, Iranian Mada.

5. Anu Dāsa, Avestan Dahi, Iranian Dahae, Thraco-Phrygian Dacian.

 

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

Can all these be "coincidences" or "Oakish cases"? For really "Oakish logic", read Witzel’s articles listing “non-Aryan” or specifically “Munda” words discovered by him in the Rigveda. But honesty is something impossible to expect from the AIT tribe.  

 

APPENDIX ADDED on same day 15 April 2025, 7 PM:

I just received a personal mail from the person who writes under the twitter name “Rudrāḥ Tanūnapāt@Heg70412Hegde”. In it, he writes as follows: “I have not said anything about the identification of several Iranian tribes in your Dāśarajña scheme and I deem it to be largely accurate. Once again, I have great respect for your work, and I hold it to be largely accurate. However, the reason I am playing devils advocate is because I have the best interests of the anti-AMT side at heart because I am an anti-AMTist myself.”

If that is so, I take back any rude words I may have written in the above article about him. Further, I am even grateful to him for raising such an issue in such a “textbookworm” manner, because it gave me an opportunity to present this very necessary and detailed explanation for why such PIE-etymologizing is incorrect and inaccurate, which I would not have thought of doing if I had not been sent these tweets.