A Panorama of the Historical and Mythical Personalities in the Rigveda

 

A Panorama of the Historical and Mythical Personalities in the Rigveda

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

The Rigveda is not a historical text: it is a liturgical text. But, being the oldest text in the world, and especially being the oldest Indo-European language text in the world, it is the database for the oldest data concerning the history of the Indo-Europeans, and contains numerous incidental references to human persons in the course of its liturgical compositions. History is not the story of Gods and Creation, it is the story of historical personalities, and the Rigveda (like its related text, the Zoroastrian Iranian Avesta) contains incidental mentions of numerous people.

It is necessary to understand the exact ways or contexts in which the names of persons appear in the Rigveda:

I. The Beneficiaries of the Rescue or Aid of the Gods.

II. Contemporary “Dānastutis”.

III. Nature Myths and Human Identities.

IV. Mythical “Ancestral” Figures.

V. Personalities in Historical Contexts.

VI. The Most Baffling and Mysterious References in the Rigveda.

VII. Appendix: Saramā and the Paṇis.

 

I. The Beneficiaries of the Rescue or Aid of the Gods

All the people named in the hymns are not necessarily historical persons: i.e. even if they were actual living persons at some point of time in the past, the actual detailed historical contexts about many of the personalities and individual historical contexts have been forgotten, and only their names and the barest minimum references to the actual events remain (often in mythical form). or, it would be more accurate to say that because the detailed contexts were so well known to the people of that time, it was not necessary to do more than just hint at them (and the listeners would immediately recognize or recall the full details) without explicitly going into more details.

To understand the exact sense in which the Rigvedic poets referred to such personalities, we need only see how Indians still follow this typical Rigvedic practice of listing out the deeds of the Gods in song to this day: not just Hindus but even Muslims. Take the two following songs from the golden era of Hindi film music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3bSaS8Z5Vo 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rad2gbRFY8w

The first song is “Jai Jai Ram Raghurai” by Lata Mangeshkar from the film Nastik, lyrics by Kavi Pradeep, music by C Ramchandra.

The second song is “Parvardigar e Alam” by Mohd Rafi from the film Hatimtai, lyrics by Akhtar Romani, music by SN Tripathi. 

In the first song, the first verse refers to Krishna letting loose his sudarshan chakra to save Arjuna from distress, lifting the govardhan hill to save the inhabitants of Brij from distress, and saving Draupadi’s honor in the full assembly by making her clothes extend unendingly. The second verse talks about him making the flames go cold when Pralhad was placed on them, turning Meera’s cup of poison into a cup of nectar as she drank it, saving Gajendra (the elephant king) from the jaws of death, and protecting Dhruva from harm in the jungle.

In the second song, the first verse refers to Allah saving the ark of Nuh (Biblical Noah) from the floods, and turning the flames into flowers when Khalil (i.e. Ibrahim, Biblical Abraham) was thrown into a furnace. The second verse talks about Yunus (Biblical Jonah) being rescued from the stomach of a huge fish, Ayyub (Biblical Job) relieved from his travails, and likewise Ilyas (Biblical Elijah) from the fire. The third verse talks about Yusuf (Biblical Joseph) being released from his confinement, a child being granted to childless Yakub (Biblical Jacob), a path being created for Musah (Biblical Moses) through the flowing rivers, and Isah (Biblical Jesus) being rescued from the cross.

In the Rigveda, we find the earliest recitations of such deeds of the Gods. In this oldest text, the rescuer Gods are the Aśvins (but in a few rare aberrant verses, one or two of their deeds are transferred to some other Rigvedic God) and the hymns name the people who were graced by them with special favors or are rescued or relieved by them from different types of distress.

But before going into the details, it is necessary to understand the similarity and the difference between the Puranic references in the above film song and the similar references in the Rigveda:

The similarity is that in each case, the God provides aid to a devotee or rescues him/her from some distress.

The difference is that we are not hearing about these Puranic cases for the first time through this film song: we already know the details of the Puranic personalities and episodes through countless classical and folk, oral and written, narratives. And so, even just a mere reference to Draupadi or Gajendra being aided by Krishna or Vishnu brings the full story to our minds. In Vedic times, likewise, a mere reference to these persons immediately brought the full story to the minds of the Vedic audience, so just a mere reference or hint was sufficient for them. But for us  (post-Vedic people), while there are more detailed and earlier (to the film song) narrations available to us of the Puranic episodes, we  do not have detailed and earlier narrations of the Rigvedic episodes, since the Rigveda, being the oldest book in the world,  itself contains the oldest available references to these episodes: we have no earlier sources to provide more details, and no available references to context, for these episodes available to us today. This is the handicap.

 

The Aśvins are the main (and almost only) Gods who rescue or help people in distress. The two oldest deeds of the Aśvins in the period of the oldest Book 6 are:

1. They rescue Bhujyu the son of Tugra lost, shipwrecked or abandoned in the seas: VI.62.6.

2. They bless Vadhrimati, wife (or “cow”) of (an impotent/”castrated” husband) Śayu with the birth of a child: VI.62.7.

These two miraculous deeds are based on two different circumstances:

For the first, please see my article on the Elephant:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-elephant-and-proto-indo-european.html

For the second, please see my article on Vadhryaśva:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/04/further-artificial-intelligence.html

 

After this, in the other parts of the Old Rigveda (all of them only in Book 7), the next four new deeds of the Aśvins are:

3. The rescue of Atri from darkness in VII.71.5.

4. The restoration of Cyavāna from old age to youth in VII.68.6, 71.5.

5. The gifting of a swift horse to Pedu in VII.71.5.

6. The rescue of besieged Jāhuṣa by air from over the mountains in VII.71.5.

It must be noted that references to people rescued or aided by the Aśvins are missing in Books 2 and 3 in the Old Rigveda, and in Book 9 in the New Rigveda.

In the oldest of the New Books (which is also the last of the Family books), Book 5, the only new name of a person rescued by the Aśvins from the waters (V.74.4) is Paura, but since Paura seems to be the name of the composer of the hymn and elsewhere in the Rigveda the “Pauras” are associated with Indra rather than the Aśvins, this seems to be an isolated or dubious reference.

Also, in Book 5 (but for this, see the details of the Atri references in Section III), Saptavadhri Ātreya (practically identified as the Atri in question) is mentioned as being rescued by the Aśvins.

In Book 8 in the New Rigveda, there are only three or four genuine references, and most of the other names seem more like the names or family names of rishis or composers present on the scene. There are more references in a few hymns in Book 10, but the bulk of such references with many new names are found in Book 1.

[For the details of the “rescue” of “Atri”, see Section III]

 

The following is a hopefully complete list of the deeds of the Aśvins in the Rigveda:

1. They rescue people lost, shipwrecked or abandoned in the seas:

Bhujyu son of Tugra (I.112.6,20; 116.3-5; 117.14-15; 118.6; 119.4,8; 158.3 [here transferred to Maruts!]; 180.5; 182.5-6;  IV.27.4;  V.5.22;  VI.62.6;  VII.68.7; 69.7; 71.5;  VIII.1.15; 32.20; 45.29 [here transferred to Indra!]; X.39.4; 40.7; 65.12; 143.5).

Rebha (I.112.5; 116.24; 117.4; 118.6; 119.6;  X.39.9),

Viṣṇāpū the son of Viśvaka (I.116.23; 117.7;  VIII.86.1-3;  X.65.12),

Antaka (I.112.6).

2. They bless Vadhrimati, wife (or “cow”) of (an impotent/”castrated” husband) Śayu with the birth of a child. This Vadhrimati reference in Book 6 is presented in later books as two separate references: one  to a Vadhrimati (wife of an impotent person) bearing a child and  the other to Śayu’s “barren cow”, whom the Aśvins made to give milk:

Vadhrimati: (I.116.13; 117.24;  VI.62.7;  X.39.7; 65.12).

Śayu’s “barren cow”: (I.112.16; 116.22; 117.20; 118.8; 119.6;  V.40.8;  VI.62.7; VII.68.8).

3. They restore Cyavāna from old age to youth (I.116.10; 117.13; 118.6;  V.74.5; 75.5;  X.39.4; 59.1;  VII.68.6, 71.5), and do the same for Kali (I.112.15;  X.39.8)..

4. They gift a swift horse to Pedu (I.116.6; 117.9; 118.9; 119.10;  VII.71.5;  X.39.10).

5. They rescue besieged Jāhuṣa by air from over the mountains (I.116.20;  VII.71.5).   

6. They help Vandana (I.112.5; 116.11; 117.5; 118.6; 119.6-7;  X.39.8) from different kinds of distress (mainly from some kind of trap, or from a pit).

7. They bring:

Kamadyū, the daughter of Purumitra, to be a wife for Vimada (I.112.19; 116.1; 117.20;  VIII.9.15;  X.24.4; 39.7; 65.12),

Sudevī as wife for Sudās (I.112.19),

and a husband for Ghoṣā (I.117.7;  X.40.5).

8. They restore the sight of R̥jrāśva, who had been blinded by his father (I.116.16; 117.17-18).

9. They replace the lost foot of Viśpalā with a metal rod (I.112.10; 116.15; 117.11; 118.8; 182.1;  X.39.8)

10. They provide a horse’s head to (the beheaded) Dadhyañc the son of Atharvan (I.116.12; 117.22; 119.9).

11. They save a quail-hen (when she calls upon them for help) from the jaws of a wolf (I.112.8; 116.14; 117.16; 118.8;  X.39.13) [Just as the later Viṣṇu saves Gajendra the elephant from the jaws of a crocodile!].

12. They “help”, in various (unspecified) ways:

 Karkandhu (I.112.6), Vayya (I.112.6), Sucanti (I.112.7), Pṛṣṇigu (I.112.7), Śiñjāra (VIII.5.25; X.40.7), Kṛśa (X.40.8), Paktha (VIII.22.10), Dīrghaśravas (I.112.11), Kaśoju (I.112.14), Śyāva (I.117.8,24;  X.65.12), Aṁśu (VIII.5.26), Daśavraja (VIII.8.20), Gośarya (VIII.8.20), Śrutarya (I.112.9), Narya (I.112.9), Preṇi (I.112.10), Vamra (I.112.15), Syūmaraśmi (I.112.16), Paṭharvan (I.112.17), Ṛtastubh (I.112.20), Kṛśānu (I.112.21), Turvīti (I.112.23), Dabhīti (I.112.23).      

 

The Aśvin hymns of Book 1 (particularly I.112, 116, 117) are among the latest hymns in the Rigveda, and, in a way, the aim of these hymns (as also the hymns of Book 8) seems to be to list as many deeds of the Aśvins as possible, an aim apparently shared by the hymns of Book 8. In the process, historical figures (kings as well as rishis) from the oldest to the (till then) latest parts of the Rigveda are liberally included in the lists of the ones helped or aided by the Aśvins:

Thus, the list includes important kings like Divodāsa (I.112.14; 116.18; 119.4) and Sudās (I.112.19), and Atithigva (usually a title of Divodāsa, I.112.14), as well as Mandhātar (I.112.13), Purukutsa (I.112.7), Trasadasyu (I.112.14), Trāsadasyava (VIII.22.7), and eponymous rishis like Bharadvāja (I.112.13; 116.18), Vasiṣṭha (I.112.9), Agastya (VIII.5.26), Uśanā (I.116.14; 117.12; also X.40.7), Gotama (I.116.9), Dīrghatamas (VIII.9.10), Kakṣīvān (I.112.5; 116.7; 117.6; also VIII.9.10;  X.143.1), Kaṇva (I.117.8; 118.7; VIII.8.20), and other rishis or composers like Sobhari (VIII.5.26), Priyamedha (VIII.5.25), Medhātithi (VIII.8.20), Vaśa Aśvya  (I.112.10; 116.21; VIII.8.20; X.40.7), Vyaśva (I.112.15; VIII.9.10), Adhrigu (I.112.20; VIII.22.7), Babhru (VIII.22.7), Upastuta (I.112.15; VIII.5.25), Triśoka (I.112.12). And even the mythical ancestral Manu (I.112.16,18), Śaryāta (I.112.17) and Pṛthi Vainya (I.112.15; VIII.9.10).

Also Kutsa Ārjuneya (I.112.9,23): but for this, as for Atri, see Section III.

Strangely, a few kings, not important for any historical reason, but who are patrons in dānastutis (see Section II) in Books 8 and 9 (and are therefore late kings belonging to the period of the New Rigveda) are also included in the lists:

Śara (I.116.22, patron of VIII.70), Dhvasra and Puruṣanti (I.112.23 as Dhvasanti and Puruṣanti, patrons of IX.58) and Pṛthuśravas (I.116.21, patron of VIII.46).

This (if I have omitted any name, I will be glad to rectify the omission) is the hopefully comprehensive list of the persons listed out as being rescued, aided or helped by the Aśvins.

 

II. Contemporary “Dānastutis”

There are countless kings and rishis mentioned in the Rigveda. However, 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 donor king to the composer). So these dānastutis are the most reliable pieces of evidence about the chronological period of any person named in them as donor kings or donee composers (i.e. the rishis who received the gifts).

There are thirty-seven (37) dānastutis in the Rigveda:

Old Rigveda:

VI. 45, 47, 63.

VII. 18.

IV. 15.

New Rigveda:

I. 100, 122, 125, 126. [100 is in an Early upamaṇḍala].

V. 27, 30, 33, 34, 36, 61.

VIII. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 21, 24, 25, 34, 46, 55, 56, 65, 68, 70, 74.

IX. 58.

X. 33, 62, 93.

 

Most of the donor kings are lacking in historical relevance, since almost nothing is known about them except that they gave liberal gifts to the rishis of the concerned hymns, and became immortal in being named as donors by the rishi composers concerned.

The exceptions are the historically very important kings named in seven (7) of these dānastutis, belonging to:

a) The Bharata Pūru dynasty in the Early Rigveda (and in a related hymn in Early Book 1) and

b) The Tṛkṣi dynasty in the New Rigveda.

Book 6:

VI. 47: Sṛñjaya,  Divodāsa. [Also Prastoka, Aśvatha].

Book 7:

VII. 18: Sudās.

Book 1 (Early upamaṇḍala):

I. 100: Sahadeva. [Also Ṛjrāśva, Ambarīṣa, Bhayamāna, Surādhas].

Book 4:

IV. 15: Somaka (son of) Sahadeva.

 

Book 5:

V. 27: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa [Also Tryaruṇa Traivṛṣṇa, Aśvamedha Bhārata].

V. 33: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa [Also Gairikṣita, Mārutāśva, Cyavatāna, Dhvanya Lakṣmaṇya].

 

Book 8:

VIII. 19: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa.

 

Including the seven above hymns (with asterisks), the following is the full list of donors in the 37 dānastutis, along with the other historically unknown or less important kings named as donors in other dānastutis:

Book 6:

VI. 45:  Bṛbu.

*VI. 47: Sṛñjaya,  Divodāsa. [Also Prastoka, Aśvatha].

VI. 63: Puraya, Purupanthā, Sumīḷha, Peruka, Śāṇḍa. 

Book 7:

*VII. 18: Sudās.

Book 1 (Early upamaṇḍala):

*I. 100: Sahadeva. [Also Ṛjrāśva, Ambarīṣa, Bhayamāna, Surādhas].

Book 4:

*IV. 15: Somaka (son of) Sahadeva.

Book 5:

*V. 27: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa [Also Tryaruṇa Traivṛṣṇa, Aśvamedha Bhārata].

V. 30: Ṛṇañcaya of the Ruśamas.

*V. 33: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa [Also Gairikṣita, Mārutāśva, Cyavatāna, Dhvanya Lakṣmaṇya].

V. 34: Agniveśī Śātri.

V. 36: Śrutaratha.

V. 61: Rathavīti Dārbhya.

Book 1 (Late upamaṇḍalas):

I. 122: Śrutaratha, Priyaratha.

I. 125: Svanaya Bhāvya.

I. 126: Svanaya Bhāvya.

Book 8:

VIII. 1: Ninditāśva, Prapathin, Paramajyā, Svanadratha Āsaṅga.

VIII. 2: Vibhindu.

VIII. 3: Pākasthāman Kaurayāṇa.

VIII. 4: Kuruṅga.

VIII. 5: Kaśu Caidya.

VIII. 6: Tirindira Parśava.

*VIII. 19: Trasadasyu Paurukutsa.

VIII. 21: Citra.

VIII. 24: Varosuṣāman.

VIII. 25: Varosuṣāman, Ukṣaṇyāyana, Harayāṇa.

VIII. 34: Vasurocis Pārāvata.

VIII. 46: Pṛthuśravas Kānīta, Śvitna, Dāsa Balbūtha, Tarukṣa.

VIII. 55: Dasyavevavṛka (son of) Pūtakratu.

VIII. 56: Dasyavevavṛka (son of) Pūtakratu.

VIII. 65: Daurgahas.

VIII. 68: Indrota, Pūtakratu, (the son of) Ṛkṣa, (the son of ) Aśvamedha, Atithigva, and (the son of) Atithigva.

VIII. 70: Śara Śauradevya.

VIII. 74: Śrutarvan (son of ) Ṛkṣa.

Book 9:

IX. 58: Dhvasra, Puruṣanti.

Book 10:

X. 33: Kuruśravaṇa (descendant of Trasadasyu as per verse 4), Upamaśravas (his son, and grandson of Mitrātithi).

X. 62: Manu Sāvarṇi.

X. 93: Duḥṣīma, Pṛthavāna, Vena, Rāma, Māyava, Tānva, Pārthya.

Clearly, we see here two different eras in the Rigveda: the Old Rigveda in particular (from Book 6 to the Early upamaṇḍalas of Book 1) dominated by the Bharata Pūrus.

The Old Rigveda:

As we see, the Bharata Pūru kings dominate all the Books of the Old Rigveda (6, 3, 7, 4, 2, + Early 1) as donor kings. This Vedic subtribe and clan has the three important donor kings in three distinct Books and chronological eras, Sṛñjaya-Divodāsa, Sudās, and Somaka-Sāhadevya, who expanded the Bharata Pūru rule from Haryana northwestwards into the heart of Afghanistan, through three battles (the Hariyūpīyā battle in VI.27, the Dāśarājña battle in VII.18, and the Vārṣāgira battle in IV.30 and I.100). The three battle hymns are linked together:

1. Through a dynastic connection between the kings.

2. Through a continuous expansionist movement northwestwards.

3. Through two special words in the name of the combatants:

cāyamāna found (except for one late occurrence in X.94.14) only in VI.27.5,8 and VII.18.8.

śimyu found only in VII.18.5. and I.100.18.

The only other donor kings in this period are found in two hymns in the Oldest Book 6: hymns 45 and 63, and not one of the names of these kings (Bṛbu, Puraya, Purupanthā, Sumīḷha, Peruka, Śāṇḍa) is seen again in the entire corpus of the Vedic texts. Clearly they had no particular historical role, except as donor kings.

A word on one of these names: Bṛbu. This name has regularly been touted by AIT-promoting Indologists as a “non-Aryan” name, but not only is there no other known language which could have produced such a name, but the name is a purely Vedic name, Bṛbu being a variant of Bṛhu (derived from the root bṛh-, “to become thick, strong, wide, broad; to expand or increase”). This is confirmed by two facts;

1. Verses VI.45.31-33 pun on the word by referring to Bṛbu as being “as broad of girth as the Ganges” (Jamison), “like the elevated bank of the Ganges” (Wilson), “like the wide bush on Ganga’s bank” (Griffith).

2. Bṛbu = Bṛhu has another parallel in the Rigveda: Bṛbaduktha (VIII.32.10) = Bṛhaduktha (V.19.3;  X.54.6; 56.7).

The New Rigveda:

The Tṛkṣi kings all belong to the period of the New Rigveda. And there is clear New-Rigvedic commonality among the donors of the New Rigveda:

1. Trasadasyu’s clan is common to Books 5 and 8, and even Book 10 (V.27, 33;  VIII.19;  X.33).

2. Aśvamedha is a common link between Books 5 and 8 (V.27 and VIII.68).

3. Śrutaratha is a common link between Books 1 and 5 (I.122 and V.36).

4. Ruśama is a common link between Books 5 and 8 (V.30 and VIII.3, 4, 51) and not found elsewhere in the Rigveda.

5. Pūtakratu links together three donor hymns in Book 8 (VIII.55, 56, 68), Ṛkṣa, links together two donor hymns (VIII.68, 74), and hymn 68, common to both, links all of them to Book V (see Aśvamedha above).

6. Manu Sāvarṇī (X.62) links Book 10 to Book 8 (Manu Sāṁvaraṇī in VIII.51.1, found nowhere else in the Rigveda). This hymn, with two donor hymns of Book 8 (VIII.55, 56, linked to Pūtakratu above) are among the notoriously late Vālakhilya hymns (grouping together VIII.49-59).

7. Four of the donor hymns in Book 8 (VIII.4, 5, 6, 46) have been identified by the Indologists as having donors with proto-Iranian names (Kuruṅga, Kaśu Caidya, Tirindira Parśava). Of these, three (VIII.5, 6, 46) are the only three hymns in the Rigveda where the donors give Bactrian camels to the rishis. And two of these donor hymns (VIII.5, 46) as well as another fifth hymn (VIII.51, not counted as a donor hymn since no specific gifts are mentioned, but linked to Ruśama, see above, who seems to be a donor in the hymn,) are the only hymns in the Rigveda to speak well of the dāsas (i.e. proto-Iranians).

In short, the donor hymns in the New Rigveda form a distinct class separate from the donor hymns in the Old Rigveda, leaving no scope for any genuine doubt about the distinctly different eras that they represent.

 

III. Nature Myths and Human identities

Now we move to a distinct class of names in the Rigveda, which seem to blur the lines between Nature Myths and Human Identities:

1. The main class of such names in the Rigveda is of the Demons of Drought and Darkness:  those basically rooted in nature mythology, but which have acquired some kind of pseudo-historical human appearance.

2. Then there is the word paṇi, where the etymology of the name seems to suggest that it originally referred to a class of human beings by profession: traders or usurers. But the presence of the word in reference to non-human or mythical entities (even with those same characteristics) in at least three distinct Indo-European mythologies (Rigvedic, Greek and Teutonic) makes it difficult to know which could have been the original meaning.

3. Then there are two prominent rishis (Atri and Kutsa) in the Rigveda, whose names already existed as names for nature myth entities before these rishis existed, and so the references to these words (in hymns composed after their rishi-hood) blurred the distinction between the nature myth entities and these rishis.   

[There is also class of names where there are conversions in the opposite direction: human classes become atmospheric demons: the two main (or only) words in this category in the Rigveda are dāsa and dasyu:

In the Rigveda, ārya, dāsa and dasyu are originally the names of human categories: ārya are members of the Pūru conglomerate of tribes, dāsa are members of the non-Pūru conglomerates of tribes, and dasyu are the priestly classes among the dāsas:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/aryas-dasas-and-dasyus-in-rigveda.html

As I pointed out in the above article, “The two words usually, and correctly, pitted against the ārya in the Rigveda are the dāsa and dasyu. It must be noted at the same time that these two words, unlike the word ārya, have also acquired very heavy mythologization, so that in a very large number of cases, they represent mythological entities (primarily associated with the demons of the air who attack the phenomena of nature, such as rain and the dawn, and are therefore vanquished by Indra) at the same time as they represent historical entities. In many cases, the references are so vague, and the mythological and historical symbolism so intertwined, that it is hazardous to draw historical inferences from them.

Nevertheless, they are, at the base, derived from historical entities, so we can examine the general historical bases of the two words without trying to interpret every individual reference in historical terms.”

As I have already written a full-fledged article (above) on these two words, I will not elaborate on them here].

 

1. The Demons of Drought and Darkness:

The first, biggest and most persistent class of these names consists of the “names” of atmospheric “demons” who have acquired a larger than warranted place in the discussion of Vedic history. Both Gods and atmospheric “demons” have been transformed by the vagaries of the passage of time, and the distorted perspectives of Vedic analysts, into human heroes and human enemies respectively. I have dealt with these in great detail repeatedly in my first two books (1993 and 2000), but perhaps they need to be brought into the limelight again.

The Rigveda is basically a religious text consisting of hymns in praise of, and in ritualistic worship of, atmospheric Gods: to begin with, the sun, moon, earth, sky, atmospheric phenomena (the light of dawn, and most importantly rainfall so vital to a monsoon climate like that of India), etc. And where there are Gods there are demons: the divine phenomenon of daylight, represented by Solar Gods, is contrasted with the demons of darkness which shut off the light of the Sun at night, by pushing the Sun into a dark pit from which it has to be rescued in the morning by the Gods. The divine and benevolent phenomenon of rain (its arrival characterized by thunder and lightning) is contrasted with the demons of drought, which, in the form of serpents, completely encircle the rainclouds and refuse to allow the rain to fall on the earth until the demons are killed and the rain-waters released by the Gods.

These atmospheric battles on the celestial plane mingled with human battles on the more earthly plane, and the poetic depictions of the one metamorphosed into descriptions of the other, this cutting both ways.

Thus, on the human plane, the distinction between the human merchants (paṇis) who hoarded commodities and controlled human commercial activities, and the human dāsas (members of the non-Pūru tribes, the “other people” or “outsiders” or “enemies” in the eyes of the Vedic Pūru composers) and the dasyus (the priestly classes of these dāsas), on the one hand, and the atmospheric demons of darkness and drought, on the other, became blurred to an extent where the three words could sometimes be used alternately for the human enemies or for the atmospheric demons, or ambiguously (in subtle double meaning) for both at the same time. See the following:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/aryas-dasas-and-dasyus-in-rigveda.html 

At the same time, there were specific words for the demons of darkness and drought. The most common and well-known word for the demon(s) of drought of course is Vṛtra: the name is derived from the root √vṛ - “to cover, conceal, surround, obstruct”, always depicted as a huge serpent which completely wraps itself around the rain-cloud and obstructs the rain, preventing the cloud from releasing the waters.

Vṛtra is referred to in all the 10 Books of the Rigveda, in 219 out of the 1028 hymns and in 364 of the 10552 verses. These include references in the plural, and in compounds such as vṛtraghna/vṛtrahan (“Vṛtra-killer”, a title of Indra), vṛtrahatyā (“killing of Vṛtras”), etc.

The main names of the demons of darkness and drought are as follows:

Vṛtra:     10 Books,     219 hymns,     364 verses.

Śuṣṇa:     8 Books,     30 hymns,     35 verses.

Vala:     7 Books,     20 hymns,     24 verses.

Dhuni:     7 Books,     23 hymns,     25 verses.

Pipru:     7 Books,     11 hymns,     11 verses.

Namuci:     7 Books,     7 hymns,     8 verses.

Śambara:     6 Books,     19 hymns,     20 verses.

Kuyava:     5 Books,     7 hymns,     7 verses.

Arbuda:     4 Books,     6 hymns,     7 verses.

Mṛgaya:     4 Books,     5 hymns,     5 verses.

Varcin:     4 Books,     4 hymns,     4 verses.

Triśiras Tvāṣṭra:     3 books,     4 hymns,     5 verses.

Cumuri:     3 Books,     4 hymns,     4 verses. 

Ahīśuva:     2 Books,     3 hymns,     4 verses.

Aurṇavābha:     2 Books,     3 hymns,     3 verses.

Rauhiṇa:     2 Books,     2 hymns,     2 verses.

Svarbhānu:     1 Book,     1 hymn,     5 verses.

Many others, named just once, are Sṛbinda, Ilībiṣa, Uraṇa, Dṛbhīka, Rudhikrā, Anarṣaṇi. Needless to say, in some of these cases (especially those named once or twice), there is some ambiguity about whether this “person” “killed” by Indra is atmospheric or human. Even more needless to say, our list does not include “genuine” supernatural “beings” or “forces” (good, evil or neutral) like gandharva, asura, rakṣas, piśāca, yātu, yātudhāna, arāti, druh, kimīdin, etc..

The thing about these names, most especially Vṛtra, is that they have got more and more anthropomorphized during the course of composition of the Rigveda itself, so that in many cases they can be mistaken for human enemies. And, in later periods, the later Vedic literature, and even more so in the Epics and Puranas, some of them have become actual human beings in “historical” contexts (or at least in myths depicted in an extremely anthropomorphized manner).

Nothing is more demonstrative of this phenomenon of atmospheric demons becoming, almost or quite, human beings than the case of Vṛtra:

As pointed out above the very etymology of the word Vṛtra, and its oldest depictions as a serpent which coils itself around the rainclouds, make it clear that he is a demon of draught who prevents prevents rainfall from reaching (human beings on) earth. And the God who kills him and releases the rainfall for mankind is, of course the God of Rain or the Thunder-God. In the Rigveda, Indra (his name derived from the word indu- “drop”) is the God who kills him.

In the Rigveda, we find the oldest form of the myth (as Macdonell puts it, for example, the Vedic gods “are nearer to the physical phenomena which they represent, than the gods of any other Indo-European mythology” (MACDONELL 1963:15). In fact, in the majority of cases, the original nature myths, in which the mythological entities and the mythological events are rooted, can be identified or traced only through the form in which the myths are represented in the Rigveda).

But the myth survives in other IE mythologies as well: Indra, the Thunder-God killing the serpent (Vṛtra), survives in Greek mythology as the Thunder-God Zeus killing the Great Serpent Typhoeus, and in Teutonic mythology as the Thunder-God Thor killing the Great Serpent of Midgard. In Hittite mythology, it survives in a different God/Goddess named Inar/Inara killing the Great Serpent who dares to attack the Weather-God.

In the course of the Rigveda itself, the name of the Serpent Demon of Drought, Vṛtra, has already been transformed into a word simply meaning “enemy”. Indra gets the name or epithet Vṛtrahan (“vṛtra-killer”), meaning “killer of the Demon of Drought” as well as “killer of enemies”. In the New Rigveda, the form of the name can also be Vṛtraghna. In the Avesta, Indra himself has been converted into a demon, and his functions are transferred to an independent “God of Victory” (over Serpents/Dragons as well as humans): Verethraghna (later Iranian Behram). Armenian mythology also has the God (whether independently or borrowed from Iranians) as Vahagn.

In the Rigveda, as the image of Indra becomes more and more fierce and militant, a new and milder Rain-God is found in later parts of the text: Parjanya. In Slavic mythology, his equivalent Perun kills the Great Serpent (cum bear!) Veles. And in Baltic mythology, his equivalent Perkunas kills the Great Serpent. In Roman mythology, the killing of the Great Serpent Ladon is taken over by the half-god hero, Hercules.

Thus, the original nature myth is found all over the Indo-European world.

In the post-Vedic texts, (mainly Epic and Puranic texts), the myth has been so much anthropomorphized and transformed that it bears no resemblance to the original nature myth. And it is linked to another Vedic myth (Triśiras Tvāṣṭra above). According to the new myth, since Indra kills Triśiras Tvāṣṭra (see above list), the son of Tvaṣṭra, Tvaṣṭra is so incensed that he creates Vṛtra to avenge himself. Indra kills Vṛtra, but now (in the Epic-Puranic version) Vṛtra turns out to be a brahmin, and Indra incurs the “sin” of brahma-hatyā. Follows a long story (involving also Nahuṣa of Section IV) which we need not go into here.

 

2. Saramā and the Paṇis:

This is a case where the etymology of the word paṇi makes it look like it originally referred to a class of human beings by profession: traders or usurers. But comparative mythology seems to suggest that it is a case where mythical classes have become human classes, and to an extent where some historians have assigned them a human historical “non-Aryan” identity as part of the AIT rhetoric:

In my very first book (1993) I quoted A.D.Pusalker: “The Paṇis are often mentioned with the Dāsas and Dasyus as the enemies of the Aryans. Though opulent and rich, the Paṇis never worshipped the Gods or rewarded the priests. They have been described as selfish, non-sacrificing, of hostile speech, greedy like the wolf, niggardly, of cruel speech, Dasyus, Dāsas, of inferior status. They were cattle-owners and notorious cattle-lifters, and in some passages definitely figure as demons who withheld the cows or waters of the heavens... The question of the identity of the Paṇis has not yet been settled with any degree of certainty. The words Paṇik or Vaṇik, Paṇya and Vipaṇi, found in Sanskrit, suggest that the Paṇis were merchants par excellence in the Rigvedic age. The Paṇis have been variously identified with an aboriginal non-Aryan people; with Babylonians (on the strength of the word Bekanāṭa); with Parnians, the Dahae and other Iranian tribes; and with non-Aryan caravan traders”.

Likewise, I quoted P.L.Bhargava citing Dr.Altekar: “it seems fairly probable that the Paṇis of the Vedic literature are identical with the Harappans or with a section of them. The Panis are traders, usurers and enormously rich; so were the Harappans...".

There are two aspects to these speculations:

1. That the Paṇis were “non-Aryans”.

2. That they were rich and associated with trading and commerce.

While the speculation about the Paṇis being “non-Aryan” has no basis (since the word is found also in Teutonic and Greek mythologies), the only thing A.D.Pusalker gets right is that “The words Paṇik or Vaṇik, Paṇya and Vipaṇi, found in Sanskrit, suggest that the Paṇis were merchants par excellence in the Rigvedic age” and likewise P.L.Bhargava “The Paṇis are traders, usurers and enormously rich”.

But, was even that human aspect (of wealth and trading) the original nature of the Paṇis?

A comparison with other IE mythologies shows that the Paṇis are originally a class of mythical beings. And behind their mythical class nature, there are nature myths found only in the Rigveda.

As I already wrote a full chapter on this in my second book in 2000, I am giving that chapter (too long and detailed to be summarized here) as an appendix to this article.

 

3. Atri and Kutsa:

Atri is a composer rishi from the last of the Family Books and the oldest book of the New Rigveda: Book 5.

After this period, his name appears in the books of the New Rigveda as a composer or in lists of composer rishis:

I. 45.3; 139.9; 183.5.

V. 2.6; 4.9; 7.8; 22.1,4;  51.8-10; 67.5; 72.1; 73.6,7; 74.1.

VIII. 5.25; 35.19; 36.6,7; 37.7; 38.8; 42.5.

X. 143.1-3; 150.5.

 

However, the word appears in four hymns in the Old Rigveda, where Atri is a name of Fire (Agni) or of the Sun:

1. In II.8.5, Atri is directly identified with Agni, while the previous verse 4 talks about the flaming effulgence of the Sun.

2. In VI.50.10 and VII.71.5, the Aśvins rescue Atri (the Sun) from complete darkness. This is a reference to the daily routine of the Aśvins along with Uṣas (the Dawn), rescuing the Sun from the Darkness of night and bringing it up into the sky again.

3. VII.68.5 also refers to the same natural phenomenon, the gradual appearance of the Sun at dawn, in a different way: it credits the Aśvins with making Atri (the Sun) increasingly bright and glorious with food and nourishment (bhojana) from their rich store.

 

That these references are different from all other later references in the New Rigveda (where the celestial phenomenon has been literally converted into one of the “rescue acts” of the Aśvins): the main difference is that in the four earlier pre-Atri-rishi references, the Aśvins rescue Atri the Sun from Darkness (tamasa, and even mahas tamasa, in VII.71.5 and VI.50.10) while in the later references in the New Rigveda, the Aśvins:

a. To begin with, the exact nature of the “rescue” is left unstated or vague and ambiguous:

I. 51.3; 180.4.

V. 15.5.

b. Then it becomes a rescue of Atri the rishi from an earthen pit in which he has been buried:

I. 117.3.

V. 78.4.

c. Then the pit becomes exactly the opposite of Darkness: it is a fiery pit in which the rishi Atri is being burnt:

I. 112.7,16; 116.8; 118.7; 119.6.

VIII. 73.3,7,8.

 

This change came about in the period of Book 5, when the Atri rishis appropriated the Atri Sun-myth (or, perhaps, the myth became confused with the rishis because of the name Atri), and the original nature myth got converted into a human myth in different ways:

1. As we saw above, Atri the Sun being rescued from Darkness got converted into Atri the rishi being rescued from a fiery pit.

2. In V.40, a hymn describing an eclipse, Atri the rishi himself became the rescuer of the Sun from a Demon of Darkness named Svarbhānu.

3. In hymn V.78, the Atri rishi saved by the Aśvins from the fiery pit is identified with Saptavadhri Ātreya, and this is found  a total of three hymns:

V. 78.4.

VIII. 73.9.

X. 39.9

That the four old references refer to the Sun and not to any rishi is clear from many circumstances:

1. These are the only two verses (VI.50.10 and VII.71.5) where “Atri” is rescued from Darkness: a feat that Uṣas and the Aśvins are performing for the Sun on a daily basis (e.g. VII.78.3). In fact the word tamasa (Darkness) is not found in any other hymn featuring the rescues of the Aśvins.

2. But it is found in V.40.5,6,9, where Atri rishi (during an eclipse) is supposed to save the Sun from Darkness.

3. Hymn VI. 50, the oldest reference to any “rescue” by the Aśvins,  does not talk about any other “rescue” except that of Atri, and all the other verses in the hymn refer only to Gods and celestial phenomena. 

4. Incidentally, without realizing that Atri is being identified with Fire in II.8.5, Jamison comments on the hymn: “A simple hymn in many ways, but with a small twist. The mention of the seer and poet Atri in verse 5 is surprising: Atri is the poet of the Vth Maṇḍala and is otherwise not found in II”.

 

Kutsa is a composer rishi or family of composer rishis in Book 1: composers of 22 hymns, I.94 - I.115 hymns. But the word kutsa in the Rigveda is actually an old name of Indra’s weapon as the Thunder-God: i.e name for the vajra or the Thunderbolt.

The word kutsa is found in the Rigveda as follows:

I. 33.14; 51.6; 53.10; 63.3; 106.6; 112.9,23; 121.9; 174.5; 175.4.

II. 14.7; 19.6.

IV. 16.10,11,12; 26.1; 30.4.

V. 29.9,10; 31.8,9.

VI. 18.13; 20.5; 26.3; 31.3.

VII. 19.2; 25.5.

VIII. 1.11; 24.25; 53.2.

X. 29.2; 38.5; 40.6; 49.3,4; 99.9; 105.11; 138.1.

 

However, the word Kutsa existed before the period of this rishi, as a name or epithet of Vajra, the thunderbolt, the weapon of the Thunder-God Indra. This was was the original meaning of this word.  The rishi of this name came later.  But the word in the above references is confused by the scholars with the name of the rishi Kutsa, which leads to confused conclusions.

Actually only around three hymns seem to refer to a “human” Kutsa in the manner of those rescued by the Aśvins (see Section I):

I.112.9,23 refers vaguely to help received by Kutsa from the Aśvins.

In I.106.6, amazingly, it is Indra who rescues Kutsa from a “pit”.

X.40.6 vaguely mentions Kutsa with the Aśvins.

Then are also the four baffling references to Kutsa along with Āyu and Atithigva (see Section VI).

 

In all the other references, Indra and Kutsa are referred to as jointly battling against the Demons of Drought (in almost all of them, the specific demon is Śuṣṇa). Taking this literally, the scholars have come up with all kinds of amazing interpretations which we will not go into here. The only correct interpretation is that Kutsa is the name of Indra’s weapon Vajra (the Thunderbolt) which accompanies him in his atmospheric battles:

1. No other rishi or composer, not even the most important among them, has anything like this special close “relationship” with Indra.

2. The Naighaṇṭuka (2.20) gives Kutsa as one of the synonyms of Vajra (the thunderbolt).

3. Kutsa is given the epithet Ārjuneya in four of the above hymns (I.112.23; IV.26.1; VII.19.2; VIII.1.11).  This is wrongly interpreted as a patronymic of the rishi Kutsa.  Actually, this is an epithet signifying the white flash of the thunderbolt.

But in another verse, III.44.5 (which does not refer to Kutsa), arjunam, “bright, shining, white”, is given as a synonym of vajram.

4. It is amazing that the identity of Kutsa with the thunderbolt has so consistently escaped the notice of the scholars when there are so many clues:

Griffith, for example, describes Kutsa in his various footnotes as “the particular friend of Indra” (I.33.14); “a favourite of Indra” (I.112.23); “favourite of Indra” (II.19.6); “the favoured friend of Indra” (IV.16.10); “the special friend of Indra” (VI.31.3); “Indra’s favourite companion” (X.29.2).

But, wherever there is a reference to Indra’s “friend” within the hymns themselves, and no names are mentioned, Griffith, in his footnotes, has no doubt as to the identity of this friend: “Thy friend: probably the vajra or thunderbolt, which is Indra’s inseparable associate and ally” (1.10.9); “With thy friend: the thunderbolt” (1.53.7); “His friend: his constant companion, the thunderbolt” (X.50.2).

In fact, there is a direct statement to this effect in VI.21.7: “With thy own ancient friend and companion, the thunderbolt...”.

5. The only other name in the Rigveda identified by Griffith in his footnotes as that of a friend of Indra, in a similar manner, is that of Uśanā Kāvya: “the especial friend of Indra” (I.51.10; IV.16.2); “Indra’s special friend” (V.29.9); “a favoured friend and companion of Indra” (X.22.6); “Indra’s friend” (X.49.3).

What is significant is that Uśanā is very often joined up with the Indra-Kutsa pair in many hymns. He is referred to five times in the same verse as Kutsa (VI.26.1; V.29.9; 31.8; X.49.3; 99.9) and five times in the same hymn (Kutsa: I.51.6; 121.9; IV. 16.10-12; VI.20.5; X.40.6; Uśanā: I.51.10-11; 121.12; IV.16.2; VI.20.11; X.40.7).

When we consider that there are 1028 hymns in the Rigveda, and that the mythical Kutsa and Uśanā are referred to in a very limited number of hymns, the number of hymns they share in common is too significant to be coincidental.  Clearly, Kutsa and Uśanā share a close and special relationship together with Indra.

And what is this close and special relationship?  The Rigveda is very clear at least about the nature of the close and special relationship between Indra and Uśanā: Uśanā is mythically credited with being the person who manufactured the Vajra or thunderbolt, and gave it to Indra for his weapon (I.51.10; 121.12; V.34.2). The nature of the close and special relationship between Uśanā, Indra and Kutsa is therefore clear: they are, respectively, the manufacturer, wielder, and personification of the thunderbolt.

6. Almost all the references to the mythical Kutsa refer directly or indirectly to a celestial battle between Indra, the thunder-god, and Suṣṇa, the demon of drought, whose other epithet is kuyava, “bad grain”. In three references, Indra kills the demon with Kutsa (kutsena) as “with a weapon”: IV.16.11; V.29.9; VI.31.3.

7. In two of the references, Kutsa is even referred to as the charioteer of Indra: II.19.6; VI.20.5.

The connotation of Indra’s “chariot” is clear in the Rigveda: Indra’s chariot is the thunderbolt on which he streaks across the sky.  The Bhṛgus are credited in the Rigveda with the manufacture of Indra’s thunderbolt:  and in IV.16.20, they are described as the manufacturers of Indra’s chariot.

The sense of Kutsa being Indra’s charioteer is therefore clear: the thunderbolt is Indra’s chariot, and the anthropomorphised form of the thunderbolt is Indra’s charioteer.

 

IV. Mythical “Ancestral” Figures

Till now, we have constantly been examining the tendencies of AIT-supporting scholars, both western and Indian, to analyze nature myths as representations of historical situations and events from an “Aryan-vs.-non-Aryan” (i.e “Indo-European invaders/immigrants vs. non-Indo-European indigenous natives”) angle. Right from my first book, I have been showing the fallacies arising from this unscholarly tendency. In this article itself, see how:

1. The nature-myth of Indra-vs.-Vṛtra (with the Thunder-god-vs.-Serpent theme found present in every single IE mythology outside India, and even the name Indra being found in Iranian and Hittite mythologies) is regularly analyzed as a representation of “Aryan-vs.-non-Aryan” conflict, with Indra even being represented (in graphic detail) as a human “Aryan-invader” king..

2. The Paṇi in Vedic mythology and the equivalent Vanir in Teutonic mythology (see Appendix) are both presented as “non-Indo-European indigenous natives” of the respective areas (India and Scandinavia respectively, at the two opposite ends of the IE geographical spectrum) in conflict with  “Indo-European invaders/immigrants”.

Now it is time to see how, even without any “Aryan-vs.-non-Aryan” angle, mythical personalities can still be misrepresented in historical discussions as historical personalities to fudge the issues.

 

An important category of quasi-historical names in the Rigveda consists of the names of mythical “ancestral” people, starting with the Vedic Sanskrit word Manu: in Hindu mythology, Manu was the name of the “first man” or first human (somewhat like Ādam in the Semitic languages). There are many other important mythical “ancestral” personalities who are important figures in Epic-Puranic stories, but should have no place as individual persons in serious historical discussions on Rigvedic history. In this section, we will examine these mythical “ancestral” people whose names are increasingly being brought to the centre-stage in discussions on Rigvedic history, and often being assigned precise historical periods and precise historical locations.

[Somewhat like the chronology-obsessed Hindu writers concerned with assigning precise dates, often ten-thousands of years or more BP, to Epic-Puranic events and personalities].

 

As already stated, we will start out with Manu. The word is of common Indo-European origin, and is related to German mannus (English man).  

In Hindu cosmology, which has an eternal Universe with eternally recurring phenomena of Creation and Dissolution, the first man becomes a series of first men: there are fourteen Manus who reign during a Kalpa (Brahmā’s day), which is a long cosmic cycle (each Kalpa is 4.32 billion years long!). Each Manu rules for 71 Chaturyugas (Yuga cycles) and a little more in each Kalpa which totals 716 Yugas. The current Manu is Manu Vaivasvata.

Before Manu Vaivasvata, there were six other Manus in this Kalpa: Swayambhuva, Swarochisha, Uttama, Tamasa, Raivata, and Chakshusha in this Kalpa. The seventh Manu is Vaivasvata, who is currently reigning in the present Manvantara.

In the Rigveda, in the singular, there is the mythical Manu Vaivasvata and a later Manu Sāvarṇī (or Manu Sāṁvaraṇī). In much later post-Rigvedic times, we have perhaps the most well-known, but totally unrelated, Manu, the writer of the manusmriti.

What is the historical status of this Manu?

In the writing of Hindu traditional history, Manu Vaivavata was the first man (in the world), but more relevant to historiography and this article, he was the ancestor (through his ten sons) of all the people of India. His ten sons were: Ikṣvāku, Iḷa/Iḷā/Sudyumna, Śaryāti, Nābhāga, Nābhānediṣta, Dhṛṣṭa, Karūṣa,  Pṛṣadhra, Prāṁśu, Nariṣyanta.

Other important ancestral figures in the main “lunar” dynasty were:

1. Purūravas (son of Iḷā ).

2. Āyu (son of Purūravas).

3. Nahuṣa (son of Āyu).

4. Yayāti (son of Nahuṣa).

5. Yadu, Turvasu/Turvaśa, Druhyu, Anu, Pūru (the five sons of Yayāti, who were the ancestors of the Five Great Conglomerates of Lunar Tribes).

6. Bharata (son of a much later  Pūru king Duṣyanta).

In the Rigveda, the word Manu is found hundreds of times in different forms: (variously translated as “Manu”, “man”, “human”, “mankind”, “Manu’s sons”, “Manu’s descendants”. “Manu’s tribe”, “Manu’s clan”, etc.), usually referring to men or mankind in general, or to the mythical eponymous Manu (father of mankind) who only figures in lists of persons favored, aided or graced by the Gods, or as the initiator or first performer of Vedic rituals.

Likewise two more of the above names, Āyu and Nahuṣa, are found in the Rigveda in the same manner, variously translated as “Āyu/”, “man”, “human”, “mankind”, “Āyu’s/Nahuṣa’s sons”, “Āyu’s/Nahuṣa’s descendants”. “Āyu’s/Nahuṣa’s tribe”, “Āyu’s/Nahuṣa’s clan”, etc.), usually referring to men or mankind in general, or to the mythical eponymous Āyu or Nahuṣa (as secondary fathers of mankind) who only figure in lists of persons favored, aided or graced by the Gods or as early performers of Vedic rituals.

Of the names of the “sons of Manu” (or in this case, “daughter”) Iḷā figures in around 43 hymns as an ancestral Goddess (one of the Three Great Goddesses named in all the ten Āprī Sūktas of the ten families of composers in the Rigveda).

The names of the Five Great Conglomerates of Lunar tribes (Yadu, Turvasu/Turvaśa, Druhyu, Anu, Pūru) appear as just that, with no indications or details of actual eponymous ancestral historical persons of those names. Likewise, Bharata, while ostensibly the eponymous ancestor of the Bharata Pūrus (the People of the Book in the Rigveda) also carries no historical details.

The other names above (if and when they are found in the Rigveda) also appear casually a few times (usually in the New Rigveda, and with no references to or indications of any noteworthy “ancestral”  historical details):

Ikṣvāku (X.60.4), as a name of the Sun.

Sudyumna (III.19.2).

Śaryāti (I.112.17).

Nābhāga (VIII.41.2).

Nābhānediṣta (X.61.18).

Pṛṣadhra (VIII.52.2).

Purūravas (I.31.4; X.95.5,7,11,15).

Yayāti (I.31.17).

 

Needless to say, Manu and his ten sons (and many of the earliest personalities in the Epic-Puranic stories) were mythical (rather than historic) persons who were incorporated by the earliest compilers of Indian historical traditions into a historical paradigm in which all the people of India, in ancient times itself, were theoretically considered more or less descended from one ancient historical person and linked together from the very beginning into one united civilizational bond.

The compilers of these traditions had the then contemporary situation before them, where:

a) All the western tribal conglomerates of northern India were seen to be forming part of a larger cultural horizon related to the Vedic heartland, which they ascribed to an ancestor “Iḷa/Iḷā/Sudyumna” (and later classified as lunar).

b) The eastern tribal conglomerates (in eastern U.P. and Bihar, corresponding to what some scholars have now started describing as an originally distinctly different Greater Magadha cultural horizon), which they ascribed to an ancestor “Ikṣvāku” (originally meaning Sun, associated with the east, and therefore later classified as solar).

c) All the other cultural horizons in other parts of India (to the South, and to much more northern and eastern areas) which were not defined clearly, were vaguely classified as descended from other “sons” of “Manu” (the Manu whose ancestry was taken as binding all the parts, peoples, and cultures of India into one greater Indian civilization).

The above situation (of the geographical distribution of the various tribal conglomerates) prevailing at the time of the compilation of the traditions (sometime after the Mahabharata period in 1500 BCE), remained roughly the same when these traditions were set down in their final form at least a thousand years later, and was the same as the situation during earlier periods (as confirmed by an examination of the Vedic data now), and so there was a general consistency in the geographical picture. [Interestingly, the dynasties and events before the Mahabharata war are described in the past tense, and those after the war in the future tense, to distinguish the two eras.

But the connecting links between the different personalities in the Rigveda and the Epic-Puranic stories became more and more fudged and diversified in different versions, until there were glaring fallacies. To name just a few, Yayāti, who appears in the New Rigveda only once in a casual reference (I.31.17) is made the link between the five Western (“lunar”) Cultural Tribal Conglomerates as the father of five sons supposed to be the eponymous ancestors of these Five Tribal Conglomerates (as Yadu, Turvasu, Druhyu, Anu, Pūru) which existed well before the first Rigvedic hymn was composed. Likewise, Bharata, the ancestor of the Bharata Pūrus (the People of the Book in the Rigveda) is made a grandson of Viśvāmitra (the priest of Sudās, a Bharata Pūru).

Likewise, Rigvedic rishis were introduced as living persons at widely differing periods in the Epic-Puranic stories. And stories linking different personalities were created. Thus in the Epic-Puranic version of the Indra-Vṛtra episode, when Indra (shamed at having committed the “sin” of “brahma-hatyā”), the Gods unanimously select the human king Nahuṣa to be their (temporary) “king”.

Therefore, the stories in the Epics and Puranas about the earliest characters, while they are rich, complex and gripping collections of Indian cultural and historical traditions in themselves (and should be studied in detail as such), cannot be taken seriously in analyzing Vedic history, so far as individual personalities are concerned (and especially the oldest mythical and quasi-historical stories).

We cannot, for example, claim to be able to pinpoint the historical dates and locations of Manu, Ikṣvāku, Iḷa/Iḷā/Sudyumna, etc. or, for that matter, other pre-Rigvedic early mythical persons who appear in casual mentions in the Rigveda.

Needless to say, Gods, minor deities and divine classes of beings cannot form part of a discussion of historic persons. Also, there are many pre-Rigvedic personalities and groups mentioned in the Rigveda (e.g. Mātariśvan, who introduced fire to human beings, somewhat like Prometheus in Greek mythology, and Dadhyañc who introduced Soma). Also ancestral eponymous semi-mythical rishis or groups of rishis, some very prominent, but some not found, in the Epic-Puranic stories (Aṅgiras, Bhṛgu, Bṛhaspati, Uśanā Kāvya, the navagvas and daśagvas, yatis, etc).  There are also many “persons” who appear in the Rigveda very late in the text, but are considered to be ancient (like Vaivasvat, Atharvan,and Yama).

In discussing these “persons”, it is often difficult to know whether they are historical, allegorical, or based on some original nature-myths. But the one thing we can conclude is that they cannot be seriously discussed in discussions of Vedic history to arrive at chronological and geographical conclusions.            

 

V. Personalities in Historical Contexts.

Finally, we come to the persons who are actually/probably historical or real persons in the Rigveda. We have already seen the most historical and real of them all: the donors in the dānastutis and the composers/priests who received gifts from them.

Among these donors, the most important historical persons are, of course, the Bharata Pūru dynasty in the Old Rigveda and the Tṛkṣi (Ikṣvāku) dynasty in the New Rigveda. First we will again talk about them before going on to minor names of people (minor to these two clans, that is) who seem to be named in historical contexts, especially in battles or conflicts where they were aided by the Gods (mainly Indra or Agni).

I have written so many articles giving the details of these two dynasties (especially in the context of the ruckus created in the name of Purukutsa and Trasadasyu) that I need not go into great details here. The articles contain all the details:

Bharatas:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-identity-of-enemies-of-sudas-in.html

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-varsagira-battle-in-rigveda.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/04/was-visvamitra-involved-in-battle-of.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-dasarajna-battle-or-battle-of-ten.html

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/kavi-cayamana-in-dasarajna-battle.html

Ikṣvākus:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-iksvakus-in-rigveda.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/02/purukutsa-trasadasyu-and-internal.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/04/jijith-purukutsa-and-trasadasyu.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2025/04/my-final-word-on-subject-of-purukutsa.html

 

About the Bharata Pūrus (the People of the Book in the Rigveda), I have already indicated the main relevant hymns in Section II above:

1. The dānastuti hymns (VI.47;  VII.18;  I.100;  IV.15).

2. Two of the above (VII.18 and I.100) along with three others (VI.27, VII.83 and IV.30) provide details on the Three Great Bharata Wars.

3. Other relevant connected references in other hymns are:

VI.26.8. Prātardani.

VII.33.14. Pratṛda.

VII.5.3. asiknī.

VII.6.3. Enemies driven out westwards.

 

Other Historical Personalities:

There are, besides the above great dynasties of the Rigveda, many other kings or persons who seem to have been aided and led to victory in battles or conflicts by the Gods (mainly Indra or Agni), or who are mentioned in vague contexts, who are most probably historical; but, as in the case of the countless people aided and rescued by the Aśvins in Section I, we have no details of their actual identity, or the actual nature or significance of the historical events, and it may even be that some may represent disguised nature myths or allegories, so we will just note the names of as many of them as possible (in no particular order).

[It will be noted that many of these isolated names have some significance of their own: Traitana is clearly Avestan Θraetaona, Śunaḥśepa is part of a famous Puranic story, Lopāmudrā is Agastya’s wife, etc. But here we are only listing the names, not going into each story]:

Firstly, those named from the Old Books 6, 3, 7 onwards:

Daśadyu (I.33.14;  VI.26.4)

Navavāstva (I.36.18;  VI.20.11;  X.49.6)

Ṛjiśvan Vaidathina (I.51.5; 53.8; 101.1;  IV.16.13;  V.29.11;  VI.20.7;  VIII.49.19;  X.99.11: 138.3)

Jarūtha (I.93.4;  VII.1.7; 9.6)

Bṛsaya (I.93.4;  VI.61.3)

Kṛśa (II.12.6;  VI.28.6;  VIII.54.2; 59.3; 75.8;  X.65.4; 70.6)

Vetasu (IV.58.5;  VI.20.8; 26.4;  X.49.4)

Namī Sāpya (VI.20.6;  X.48.9)

Dabhīti (VI.20.13; 26.6;  VII.19.4;  X.113.9)

 

Those mentioned from the Middle Books 4, 2 onwards:

Arśasāna (I.130.8;  II.20.6;  VIII.12.9;  X.99.7)

Māmateya (I.147.3; 152.6; 158.6;  IV.4.13)

Kṛśānu (I.155.2;  IV.27.3;  IX.77.2;  X.64.8)

Agohya (I.161.11;  IV.33.7;  VIII.98.4;  X.64.3)

Urvaśī (IV.2.18;  V.41.9;  X.95.17)

Paura (II.11.11;  V.74.4;  VIII.3.12)

Upamaśravas (II.23.1;  X.33.6)

Trita (I.52.5; 105.9,17; 163.2,3; 187.1;  II.11.19,20; 31.6; 34.10,14;  V.9.5; 41.4,10; 54.2; 86.1;  VIII.7.24; 12.16; 41.6; 47.13-16; 52.1;  IX.32.2; 34.4; 37.4; 38.2; 86.2; 95.4; 102.2;  X.8.7; 46.3,6; 48.2; 64.3; 99.6; 115.4)

Pṛthi/Pṛthu Venya/Vainya (I.112.15;  II.24.10,11;  VIII.9.10; 148.5; 171.3;  X.9.3,10,15; 148.5; 171.3)

Turvīti (I.112.23;  II.13.2;  IV.19.6)

 

And those mentioned only in the New Rigveda in the New Books 5, 1, 8, 9, 10:

Svarṇara (VIII. 6.39; 65.2; 103.14)

Śrutaratha (I.122.7;  V.36.6)

Vṛṣaṇaśva (I.51.13;  VIII.20.10)

Ruśama (V.30.12-15;  VIII.3.12; 4.2; 51.9)

Viśvakarmā (VIII.98.2;  X.81.2,5-7; 82.2; 166.4; 170.4)

Bṛhaduktha/Bṛbaduktha (V.19.3;  VIII.32.10;  X.54.6; 56.7)

Āptya (V.41.9;  VIII.12.6; 47.13-15,17;  X.8.8; 120.6)

Urukṣaya (I.2.9;  X.118.9,10)

Vayya (I.54.6; 112.6;  V.79.1-3;  IX.68.8)

 

Finally, those only mentioned in a single hymn:

Śunaḥśepa (I.24.12.13)

Ugrādeva (I.36.18)

Pṛkṣayāma (I.122.7)

Nirava (I.122.11)

Nabhoju (I.122.11)

Maśarśāra (I.122.15)

Āyavas (I.122.15)

Traitana (I.158.5)

Tṛṇaskanda (I.172.3)

Lopāmudrā (I.179.4)

Pṛkṣa (II.13.8)

Nārmara  (II.13.8)

Dāsaveśa (II.13.8)

Śāṇḍika (II.30.8)

Palasti (III.53.6)

Pramaganda (III.53.14)

Jabāru (IV.5.7)

Dvita (V.2.18)

Śvaitreya (V.19.3)

Viśiśipra (V.45.6)

Sunītha Śaucadratha (V.79.2)

Vṛṣan Pāthya (VI.16.15)

Piṭhīnas (VI.26.6)

Raji (VI.26.6)

Tuji (VI.26.4)

Pāśadyumna Vāyata (VII.33.2)

Adhrigu (VIII.12.2)

Daśagva (VIII.12.2)

Pṛdākusānu (VIII.17.15)

Krivi (VIII.20.24)

Paktha Daśavraja (VIII.49.10)

Puṣṭigu (VIII.51.2)

Śruṣṭigu  (VIII.51.2)

Pārṣadvāṇa (VIII.51.2)

Kali (VIII.66.15)

Purumāyya (VIII.68.10)

Sudīti (VIII.71.14)

Apālā (VIII.91.7)

Jaratkarṇa (X.80.3)

Nṛmedha (X.80.3)

Vṛṣākapi (X.86)

Devāpi (X.98.2,4-7).

Ṛṣṭiṣeṇa (X.98.5.6,8)

Śantanu (X.98.1,3,7,8)

Mudgala (X.102.5,9)  

Mudgalānī  (X.102.2,6)

Śakapūta (X.132.5)

Sumedha (X.132.7)

Kunannamā (X.136.7)

[In my article “Dravidian Connections with the Harappan Civilization and the Rigveda”, I had written: “the word muni, found in only 4 hymns in the whole of the Rigveda, and referring to holy men from the non-Vedic areas of the East and South within India, is also found in the next verse: in VIII.17.14. That we should have so many indications in three consecutive verses is incredible but extremely significant.”

I find now a very Dravidian-sounding name, Kunannamā above, in the only hymn to the munis, X.136!]

Needless to say, the Rigveda is a vast ocean, and there may be some names, and some important and relevant points, inadvertently missing in my lists above and in my article as a whole.

 

VI. The Most Baffling and Mysterious References in the Rigveda

Finally, I end with the most mysterious references in the Rigveda.

There are, of course, many verses in the Rigveda which translators and scholars find difficult to translate, because the words are completely obscure or incomprehensible.

For example, X.106.5-8 are so obscure that most scholars find themselves completely unable to translate them, Jamison, for example, leaves these four verses untranslated, and writes: “following the eminently sensible lead of Geldner (implicitly endorsed by Oldenberg and Renou), we have simply left the middle verses (5–8) untranslated, while attempting to wring sense from the outer frame. Although many ingenious attempts have been made to interpret the baffling lexical items in this hymn and more could have been made, such attempts remain just that—exercises in ingenuity. It seems more honest, as well as truer to the spirit of the hymn, evidently designed to challenge the decoding skills of the most proficient and experienced hearers, to acknowledge its impenetrable center.”

The verses are:

5. váṃsageva pūṣaryā̀ śimbā́tā mitréva r̥ tā́ śatárā śā́tapantā

vā́jevoccā́ váyasā gharmyeṣṭhā́ méṣeveṣā́ saparyā̀ púrīṣā

6. sr̥ ṇyèva jarbhárī turphárītū naitośéva turphárī parpharī́kā

udanyajéva jémanā maderū́ tā́ me jarā́yv ajáram marā́yu

7. pajréva cárcaraṃ jā́ram marā́yu, kṣádmevā́rtheṣu tartarītha ugrā

r̥bhū́ nā́pat kharamajrā́ kharájrur, vāyúr ná parpharat kṣayad rayīṇā́m

8. gharméva mádhu jaṭháre sanérū, bhágevitā turphárī phā́rivā́ram

pataréva cacarā́ candránirṇiṅ, mánar̥ ṅgā mananyā̀ ná jágmī

 

Some scholars like Griffith have attempted to translate them, as follows:

“5 You are like two pleasantly moving well-fed (hills) like Mitra and Varuna, the two bestowers of felicity, veracious, possessors of infinite wealth,

happy, like two horses plump with fodder, abiding in the firmament, like two rams (are you) to be nourished with sacrificial food, to be cherished (with oblations).

6 You are like two mad elephants bending their forequarters and smiting the foe, like the two sons of Nitosa destroying (foes), and cherishing (friends);

you are bright as two water-born (jewels), do you, who are victorious, (render) my decaying mortal body free from decay.

7 Fierce (Asvins), like two powerful (heroes), you enable this moving, perishable mortal (frame) to cross over to the objects (of its destination) as over water; extremely strong, like the Rbhus, your chariot, attained its destination swift as the wind, it pervaded (everywhere), it dispensed riches.

8 With your bellies full of the Soma, like two saucepans, preservers of wealth, destroyers of enemies.

(you are) armed with hatchets, moving like two flying (birds) with forms like the moon, attaining success through the mind, like two laudable beings, (you are) approaching (the sacrifice).”

The above verses are doubtless mysterious since they are almost incomprehensible and are truly “exercises in ingenuity ….. evidently designed to challenge the decoding skills of the most proficient and experienced hearers”, as Jamison puts it. There may many other points in the Rigveda where single words leave translators equally baffled.

 

But I am not referring to such verses when I set out to categorize “the most mysterious references in the Rigveda”.

I am more concerned in this article with historical interpretation, and in that context the most mysterious references in the Rigveda are four verses which seem to refer to certain “persons” in certain conflict situations.

[While there are many verses which refer to obscure events or persons in unknown historical contexts, which have to be left at that, it is only because, as I pointed out earlier in Section I, “the actual detailed historical contexts about many of the personalities and individual historical contexts have been forgotten, and only their names and the barest minimum references to the actual events remain (often in mythical form)” and so, while all those verses are mysterious, they are not baffling.

Further the continuous references in the Rigveda to the destruction of the hundred forts of Śambara destroyed by Indra are also mysterious, and it is not absolutely certain if these refer to some atmospheric event or some historical event (though here they are included in Section III). But they are not baffling since Śambara  is consistently a foe in the references.

However, these four verses are baffling because they seem to be completely contradictory (and incomprehensibly so) to, and incompatible with, all other references in the Rigveda where the same “persons” are mentioned as protégés of Indra.]

 

The four verses are I.53.10;  II.14.7;  VI.18.13;  VIII.53.2.

I.53.10:

tvam āvitha suśravasaṃ tavotibhis tava trāmabhir indra tūrvayāṇam |

tvam asmai kutsam atithigvam āyum mahe rājñe yūne arandhanāyaḥ ||

II.14.7:   

adhvaryavo yaḥ śatam ā sahasram bhūmyā upasthe 'vapaj jaghanvān |

kutsasyāyor atithigvasya vīrān ny āvṛṇag bharatā somam asmai ||

VI.18.13:

pra tat te adyā karaṇaṃ kṛtam bhūt kutsaṃ yad āyum atithigvam asmai |

purū sahasrā ni śiśā abhi kṣām ut tūrvayāṇaṃ dhṛṣatā ninetha ||

VIII.53.2:

ya āyuṃ kutsam atithigvam ardayo vāvṛdhāno dive-dive |

taṃ tvā vayaṃ haryaśvaṃ śatakratuṃ vājayanto havāmahe ||

 

The verses are translated as follows by Jamison:

I.53.10:

You helped Suśravas with your means of help and Tūrvayāṇa with your means of rescue, o Indra.

You made Kutsa, Atithigva, and Āyu subject to him, to the great young king.

II.14.7:

Adhvaryus! Who, having struck them, scattered here the hundred, the thousand on the lap of the earth,

and slung down the heroes of Kutsa, Āyu, and Atithigva—to him bring soma.

VI.18.13:

This deed done by you stands out today—that for his sake [=Tūrvayāṇa’s?] (you ground down) Kutsa, Āyu, and Atithigva;

many thousands did you grind down to earth. You led Tūrvayāṇa up boldly.

VIII.53.2:

You who set Āyu, Kutsa, Atithigva to shaking, while growing stronger every day,

you do we invoke, seeking prizes—you of the fallow bay horses, possessing a hundred resolves.

 

All the four hymns are Indra hymns, and chronologically they cover all the periods of Rigvedic composition. But the references to the three entities named in these four verses (Kutsa, Āyu, and Atithigva: for details, see Sections III and IV), in every way, seem utterly senseless, and totally out of sync with all the rest of the references to these three enities in the Rigveda:

1. All the three words named in these four verses represent distinct entities completely unconnected with each other in the rest of the Rigveda. But in these four verses alone they are clubbed together as one combined entity in some seemingly historical context.

2. All the three words are regularly used (individually) in a positive sense throughout the (rest of the) Rigveda: i.e. the entities represented by these words are always the beneficiaries of Indra’s favors. However, in these four verses, they are Indra’s targets: Indra acts against them, and defeats or destroys them as one combined entity.

 

It is not only verses in other hymns which are incompatible with these four verses. Within the same hymn, I.53.8 exults in Atithigva’s victory over Karañja and Parṇaya, while two verses later, I.53.10 exults in Atithigva’s (and Kutsa’s and Āyu’s) defeat at the hands of Tūrvayāṇa. These four verses are therefore incompatible with all other verses in the whole rest of the Rigveda, if they have to be taken as referring to some historical or quasi-historical event.

And it does not seem possible that the verses could be referring to anything but some historical or quasi-historical event. They do not seem to yield any sense in any symbolical or mystical meaning. Nor can the phrases containing the names be ritual formulaic phrases of any kind.

But they occur in different contexts, which again leaves the exact provenance of the references unresolved:

I.53.10 occurs in a group of references to Indra’s participation in human battles to being victory to his favored ones and defeat to their enemies. I.53.7 begins the group with “battle after battle you join boldly, fortress after fortress do you smash with your power”.

II.14.7 occurs in a group of references to Indra’s battles with the atmospheric demons of drought and darkness.

VI.18.13 is separated by a slight distance from a group of verses 5-9 which also refer to Indra’s battles with the atmospheric demons of drought and darkness.

VIII.53.2 is an isolated reference within the hymn, which does not refer to any other (human or atmospheric) enemy defeated by Indra.

So the four hostile references, as a combined entity, to these three otherwise independently known protégés of Indra are totally incomprehensible and have left analysts totally at a loss.

Further, in two of the verses, the deed seems to be done for some person named Tūrvayāṇa, who is an unknown figure otherwise completely known in any other Rigvedic battle reference. The word occurs, not as the name of a person, once in I.174.3, and as a name in a reference in X.61.2 (where his sweet voice and words in a verbal contest are supposed to win him great prizes and entice the Aśvins), but about this late hymn Jamison tells us: “The near impenetrability of this hymn with all its poetic tricks and semantic evasions produces a certain despair in the translator, and it is no wonder that even sensible and thoughtful interpreters have clearly gone astray—as, no doubt, have the present ones. Much of what follows is tentative and provisional, but we have attempted to give an interpretation that is internally consistent and depends as little as possible on outside and post-R̥gvedic materials.”

But there is no sense in assuming that this “Tūrvayāṇa” of X.61 is the person referred to in the four older verses. They would then be “interpolations” and their utter meaninglessness would be even more senseless.

[Incidentally, in my first book on the Rigveda, my second book “The Rigveda A Historical Analysis” (2000), I made an attempt to try to guess at the meaning of these four verses (TALAGERI 2000:90-93). But I have to admit that my guesswork was speculative and fallacious].

So these four verses remain the most mysterious and baffling references in the Rigveda.

 

 

VII. Appendix: Saramā and the Paṇis 

[Saramā and the Paṇis: A Mythological Theme in the Rigveda

Chapter 10 (Appendix 3) of book “The Rigveda – A historical Analysis” (2000)]

 

The myth of Saramā and the Paṇis is found in the Rigveda X.108. The hymn, as Griffith notes, “is a colloquy between Saramā, the messenger of the Gods or of Indra and the Paṇis or envious demons who have carried off the cows or rays of light which Indra wishes to recover” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.X.108)).

But, according to Macdonell, the hymn is about “the capture by Indra of the cows of the Paṇis … (who) possess herds of cows which they keep hidden in a cave far beyond the Rasā, a mythical river. Saramā, Indras messenger, tracks the cows and asks for them in Indra’s name, but is mocked by the Paṇis” (MACDONELL 1897:63).

Clearly, there is a basic difference in the above descriptions of the myth: Griffith’s description suggests that the cows were stolen by the Paṇis, and are sought to be recovered by Indra; Macdonell’s description suggests that the cows belong to the Paṇis and are coveted by Indra.

The myth is a complex one, which has developed many shades and facets in the Rigveda itself. We will examine this myth as follows:

A. Development of the Vedic myth.

B. The Paṇis in Teutonic Mythology.

C. Saramā and the Paṇis in Greek Mythology.

D. Mythology and History.

 

 A. DEVELOPMENT OF THE VEDIC MYTH

Primitive myths came into being out of efforts to arrive at explanations for the phenomena of nature.

One very common phenomenon in nature is the daily transition from day to night and night to day. This was conceived of in mythical terms as an eternal struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness: the forces of darkness, with unfailing regularity, stole away the Sun or its rays, leading to the onset of night. The forces of light, with equal regularity, rescued the Sun, or recovered its rays, leading to the onset of daytime.

The forces of light had a specific name: Devas (from div-, “light”). The forces of darkness, however, did not have such a clear-cut name, as darkness (being merely the absence of light) is a negative phenomenon. The action of stealing and hiding away the Sun or its rays was likened to that of the miserly traders and merchants who hoarded goods and money, hence the name Paṇi, originally meaning trader or merchant, was applied to them. In the course of time, a regular phenomenon of nature was converted into a single mythical incident: the incident involving Saramā and the Paṇis.

The progressive development of the three main mythical entities in the Saramā-Paṇi myth (ie. Saramā, the Paṇis, and the cows) may be noted:

1. Saramā is progressively:

a. “the Dawn who recovers the rays of the Sun that have been carried away by night” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.62.3).

b. “the hound of Indra and mother of the two dogs called after their mother Sārameyas who are the watchdogs of Yama the God of the Dead” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.62.3).

c. “the messenger of the Gods or of Indra” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.X.108).

2. The Paṇis are progressively:

a. “in accordance with the original meaning of the word, merchants or traders” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.VI.45.31).

b. “a class of envious demons watching over treasures” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.32.11).

c. “the fiends who steal cows and hide them in mountain caverns” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.32.11).

3. The cows are progressively:

a. “the rays of light carried off and concealed by the demons of darkness, the Paṇis” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.IX.111.2).

b. “the rain-clouds carried off and kept concealed by the Paṇis” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.121.4).

c. “the Paṇis’ hoarded wealth, the cattle and the wealth in horses and in kine” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.83.4).

The myth starts off with the idea of the Paṇis, the demons of darkness, stealing the rays of light and hiding them away at night, and Saramā, the Dawn, recovering them in the morning, as a matter of daily routine. The original concept of the rays of light is still present in early hymns (VI.20.4; VII.9.2), but these rays of light are more regularly depicted as cows. Saramā, who searches out and recovers the rays of the Sun is soon conceived of as a kind of (female) hound, “the hound of Indra, who tracked the stolen cows” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.IV.16.8).

A regular phenomenon gradually becomes a single mythological incident: Saramā’s searching out and tracking of the cows stolen by the Paṇis becomes a major incident in itself, and develops new angles. In some versions, the Paṇis, merchants and boarders of wealth, now become the owners of the cows, and Indra becomes the covetous God who covets these cows. Saramā now becomes a messenger of Indra and the Gods in their quest for the cows of the Paṇis. This is the myth represented in hymn X. 108.

The further development of this myth may be noted:

1. In X. 108, as D.D. Kosambi points out, “the hymn says nothing about stolen cattle, but is a direct, blunt demand for tribute in cattle, which the Paṇis scornfully reject. They are then warned of dire consequences” (KOSAMBI 1970:80).

As we have seen, Macdonell notes that “the Paṇis possess herds of cows which they keep hidden in a cave far beyond the Rasā, a mythical river. Saramā, Indra’s messenger, tracks the cows and asks for them in Indra’s name, but is mocked by the Paṇis” (MACDONELL 1897:63).

The gist of the hymn is as follows:

a. Saramā makes her way over long paths and over the waters of the Rasā and conveys to the Paṇis Indra’s demand for their ample stores of wealth.

b. The Paṇis refuse, and tauntingly offer to make Indra the herdsman of their cattle.

c. Saramā warns them of dire consequences if they refuse Indra’s demand.

d. The Paṇis express their willingness to do battle with Indra. But they offer to accept Saramā as their sister if she will stay on with them and share their cattle and wealth.

e. Saramā, however, rejects the offer, and issues a final warning. Here, the hymn ends; and the battle which follows, in which Indra defeats the Paṇis, is to be assumed.

 

2. The myth is later found in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa, II.440-442. Here, the cows are again clearly referred to as the cows of the Gods stolen by the Paṇis. This time, the Gods first send Suparṇa, the eagle or the Sun-bird. However, the Paṇis bribe him into silence, and he accepts their gifts and returns without any information. The enraged Gods strangle him, and he vomits out the curds, etc. received from the Paṇis.

Then the Gods send Saramā. She crosses the Rasā and approaches the Paṇis. She is also offered bribes, but (as in the Rigveda) she refuses their blandishments and returns to Indra with the information that the cows are hidden inside the Rasā. She and her descendants are then blessed by a grateful Indra.

 

3. The myth is found, finally, in the Bṛhaddevatā, viii 24-36. Here, the myth develops a curious twist. The same sequence of events takes place, but this time Saramā accepts the bribe of the Paṇis, and apparently transfers her loyalties to them. When she returns to Indra and refuses to disclose the hideout of the cows, Indra kicks her in a rage. She vomits out the milk received as a bribe, and then goes back trembling to the Paṇis.

Thus, as the myth develops, we find a radical transformation in the relationship between Saramā and the Paṇis. From being initially hostile to each other, the two are increasingly identified with each other, and the nature of the original myth is completely lost.

A side development in this whole myth is the development of the concept of the Sārameyas, the sons of Saramā, as the hounds of Yama. They are a pair of four-eyed hounds who guard the pathway leading to the Realm of the Dead, and conduct the souls of the dead to their destination.

It will also be necessary to examine the characteristics of another Vedic God, Pūṣan, who represents one of the forms of the Sun. Pūṣan is one of the older deities in the Rigveda, being more prominent in Book 6 than in later Books (five of the eight hymns to Pūṣan in the Rigveda are in Book 6), and many of his characteristics later devolve onto Saramā and the Paṇis in Vedic as well as in other mythologies.

The main characteristics of Pūṣan are:

1. Pūṣan is basically an Āditya or Sun-God, and it is clear that he represents the Morning Sun: “according to Sāyaṇa, Pūṣan’s sister is Uṣas or Dawn” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.VI.55.4). Moreover, in I.184.3, the Aśvins are called Pūṣans; and the Aśvins, as Griffith notes in his very first reference to them, “are the earliest bringers of light in the morning sky who in their chariots hasten onward before the dawn, and prepare the way for her” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.3.1).

2. Pūṣan’s main function, however, is as the God of roadways, journeys and travellers: “As knower of paths, Pūṣan is conceived as a guardian of roads. He is besought to remove dangers, the wolf, the waylayer from the path (1.42.1-3) …  He is invoked to protect from harm on his path (6.54.9) and to grant an auspicious path (10.59.7). He is the guardian of every path (6.49.8) and lord of the road (6.53.1). He is a guide on roads (VS.22.20). So, in the Sūtras, whoever is starting on a journey makes an offering to Pūṣan, the road-maker, while reciting RV 6.53; and whoever loses his way turns to Pūṣan (AGS 3.7.8-9, SSS 3.4.9). Moreover in the morning and evening offerings to all gods and beings Pūṣan the road-maker receives his on the threshold of the house” (MACDONELL 1897:35-36).

3. Another important function of Pūṣan is as the God who helps find lost objects, particularly lost animals, and especially lost cattle: “As knower of the ways, he can make hidden goods manifest and easy to find (6.48.15). He is in one passage (1.23.14-15; cp. TS 3.3.9.1) said to have found the king who was lost and hidden in secret and asked to bring him like a lost beast. So, in the Sūtras, Pūṣan is sacrificed to when anything lost is sought (AGS 3.7.9). Similarly, it is characteristic of Pūṣan that he follows and protects cattle (6.54. 5,6,10; 58.2; cp. 10.26.3) and drives back the lost” (MACDONELL 1897:35-36). Moreover, “Pūṣan is the only god who receives the epithet paśupā, “protector of cattle” (6.58.2) directly (and not in comparison)” (MACDONELL 1897:35-36).

Hymn VIII.29, which refers (in riddle form) to the particular characteristics of various Gods, refers to Pūṣan, in its sixth verse, as follows: “Another, thief like, watches well the ways, and knows the places where the treasures lie” (MACDONELL 1897:35).

4. A very distinctive characteristic of Pūṣan is his close association with the goat: His car is drawn by goats (ajāśva) instead of horses. This feature is emphasized throughout the Rigveda: I.138.4; 162.2-4; VI. 55.3,4,6; 57.3; 58.2; IX.67.10; X. 26.8; etc.

5. Another very important function of Pūṣan is that “he conducts the dead on the far path to the Fathers … and leads his worshippers thither in safety, showing them the way (10.17.3-5). The AV also speaks of Pūṣan as conducting to the world of the righteous, the beautiful world of the gods (AV 16.9.2; 18.2.53). So Pūṣan’s goat conducts the sacrificial horse (1.162.2-3)” (MACDONELL 1897:35).

In post-Vedic Indian mythology, all these entities more or less faded away: neither Saramā nor the Paṇis nor Pūṣan have any important role to play in Puranic mythology.

However, the word Paṇi and its variant form Vaṇi (found only twice in the Rigveda: I.112.11; V.45.6) persisted into later times and provided the etymological roots for a very wide range of words pertaining to trade, commerce and economics, and business activities: paṇ, “to barter, purchase, buy, risk”; āpaṇa, “market, shop”; āpaṇika, “mercantile”; paṇa, a coin, vāṇī /baniā, “trader”; vāṇijya, “commerce”, etc. 

 

B. THE PAṆIS IN TEUTONIC MYTHOLOGY

The Paṇis are found in Teutonic mythology as the Vanir:

1. The word Vanir is clearly cognate to the word Vaṇi which is a variant form of Paṇi, found twice in the Rigveda (I.112.11; V.45.6) but increasingly more frequently later. As Yāska points out in his Nirukta (II.17), the word Vaṇi is derived from the word Paṇi: Paṇih vaṇij bhavati.

2. The Gods (Devas) and the Paṇis are two equal and opposite forces (being the forces of light and the forces of darkness in the eternal struggle between day and night). However, the Devas, since they represent the more positive and more desired phenomenon of light, are considered to be desirable and worthy of worship; while the Paṇis, who represent the more negative (ie. being merely the absence of light) and less desired phenomenon of darkness, are considered to be demonic and unworthy of worship. In I.151.9, the Paṇis are depicted as hankering after the divinity (devatvam) of Varuṇa and Mitra (who are called Asuras or Great Gods in the fourth verse of the hymn).

In Teutonic mythology, “besides the Aesir there was a second race of Gods, the Vanir” (LAROUSSE 1959:257). This race was considered less divine than the Aesir (Asura), and less worthy of worship. Hence, the overriding concern of the Vanir was “that their rank should be recognised as equal to that of the Aesir so that they … would receive an equal right to the sacrifices made by the faithful” (LAROUSSE 1959:275).

The rivalry between the Aesir and the Vanir is reflected throughout Teutonic mythology, and the Aesir come out triumphant in every skirmish. This includes the struggle for the sacred mead (reflected in Indian mythology as the struggle between the Gods and demons for Soma, or for Amrita, the divine nectar): “Odin used trickery to obtain the sacred mead, source of wisdom and poetry, which he then shared with the Äsir … the message is clear: the Äsir gained wisdom, while the Vanir proved themselves incompetent” (WINN 1995:64).

The Rigveda, it must be noted, represents an analogous situation, where the Gods are the Devas or Asuras (Aesir) and the demons are the Paṇis (Vanir). In later Indian mythology, the Paṇis fade away, and the demons acquire the name Asura.

 

3. There is a shift in nuance between the status of the Paṇis in the Rigveda and the Vanir in Teutonic mythology: while the Paṇis are outright demons (the forces of darkness), the Vanir are a second, if inferior, race of Gods.

However, the field of association and operations of the Vanir is exactly the same as that of the Paṇis, but in a positive sense: The Paṇis are associated with the “rays of light” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.IX.111.2, etc.) and with “the rain-clouds” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.121.4, etc.), but they are associated as demons who steal these rays of light and these rain-clouds, and try to prevent mankind from receiving the benefits of these gifts of nature. At the same time, they are associated with trade and commerce, and with “hoarded wealth” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.83.4), as “demons watching over treasures” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.32.11) and, again, denying mankind the benefit of this wealth and these treasures.

However, in the case of the Vanir, these negative features have become positive: “They provided the fields and pastures and forests with sunlight and life-giving rain. … From them came the harvests, game, and all kinds of riches in general” (LAROUSSE 1959:275). They are also identified with traders and merchants, and with maritime activities: “the Vanir were also the protectors of commerce and navigation” (LAROUSSE 1959:275).

 

4. The main incident of hostilities between the Gods (Devas) and the Paṇis described in the Rigveda is the Saramā incident in which a female messenger passes between the two (and which is followed by a war in which Indra and the Gods defeat the Paṇis). The provocation for this incident, as depicted in X.108, is nothing but the wealth of the Paṇis which is coveted by Indra and the Gods.

In Teutonic mythology also: “One Nordic tradition represents that war broke out between the belligerent Aesir and the peace-loving Vanir” (LAROUSSE 1959:275). This war is preceded by an incident involving a female messenger: “One day, the Vanir sent to the Aesir - on a mission which is not explained - a Goddess by the name of Gullveig. This Goddess was highly skilled in all the practices of sorcery, and by her art had acquired much gold. When, alone, she reached the Aesir, they were, it is supposed, tempted by her riches. They seized her and submitted her to torture” (LAROUSSE 1959:275). Later she returned to the Vanir in a battered state.

In the Bṛhaddevatā, Saramā has shifted loyalties and is now close to the Paṇis. In the Teutonic myth, Gullveig is already one of the Vanir. She is now a messenger from the Vanir to the Gods (rather than from the Gods to the Paṇis). But she is still the key to the coveted wealth of the Vanir, and she is tortured by the Gods until she yields this wealth (as Saramā is kicked by Indra until she vomits out the milk received from the Paṇis).

 

C. SARAMĀ AND THE PAṆIS IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY

Saramā and the Paṇis are found in Greek mythology as Hermes and (his son) Pan, who also represent, at the same time, Pūṣan and his goat.

It will be noted that all the concerned Vedic entities, Saramā, the Sārameyas, the Paṇis, and Pūṣan, are merged into the character of Hermes:

 

1. The word Hermes is an exact cognate to the word Saramā: the correspondence between the names (though not that between the identities or functions) has been noted by many scholars, including Max Müller; and the Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology tells us that “many etymologies have been proposed for the name Hermes. Some suggest a connection with the Vedic Sarameyas derived from Saramā” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

The word Pan is clearly cognate to Paṇi.

 

2. Saramā in the Rigvedic hymn is “the messenger of the Gods or of Indra” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.X.108), and specially of Indra.

Hermes is also primarily “the messenger of Zeus” (LAROUSSE 1959:133), thereby corresponding to Saramā in both name and function.

 

3. The Sārameyas, the offspring of Saramā, are the guides to the Realm of the Dead: their main function is “to guard the path of the departed spirit and lead it to the place of Yama” (SHENDGE 1977:39). This is originally one of the functions of Pūṣan who “conducts the dead on the far path to the fathers” (MACDONELL 1897:35).

Hermes is “concerned with the underworld” (LAROUSSE 1959:136), and consequently he is also “charged with conducting the souls of the dead to the underworld” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

(Incidentally, the Atharvaveda 18.4.55 refers to the “harmya of Yama” (MACDONELL 1897:173-174), which is taken to mean a tomb.)

 

4. The Paṇis are basically concerned with trade and commerce: they are “in accordance with the original meaning of the word, merchants or traders” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.VI.45.31). This original meaning of the word has survived to this day in different words pertaining to trade and commerce, as we have seen. Another “meaning of paṇ (is) to risk, to wager, to bet” (SHENDGE 1977:46).

An important and special function of Hermes is as “the God of Commerce, the God of Profit - lawful and unlawful - and the God of games of chance” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

This characteristic of Hermes is even more pronounced in the related South European mythology of the Romans (the Greeks and Romans shared a common pantheon, with different names for basically the same Gods), in the name of his Roman counterpart Mercury: “The name Mercury is connected with the root merx (merchandise) and mercari (to deal, trade)”, and he is exclusively the God of merchants … preside(s) over messages and over commerce” (LAROUSSE 1959:220).

 

5. Pūṣan is first and foremost a God of travellers: as we saw, “Pūṣan is conceived as a guardian of roads. He is besought to remove dangers, the wolf, the waylayer from the path … He is invoked to protect from harm on his path … and to grant an auspicious path He is the guardian of every path …  and lord of the road … So, in the Sūtras, whoever is starting on a journey makes an offering to Pūṣan, the road-maker … and whoever loses his way turns to Pūṣan … Moreover in the morning and evening offerings to all gods and beings Pūṣan the road-maker receives his on the threshold of the house” (MACDONELL 1897:35-36).

Likewise, “Hermes was above all thought of as the god of travellers, whom he guided on their perilous ways. His image was placed where country roads branched and at crossroads in towns” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

 

6. Saramā is originally “the Dawn who recovers the rays of the Sun that have been carried away by night” (GRIFFITH 1889: fn.I.62.3).

Hermes is not directly identified with the dawn - he has developed further from his roots - but traces of this origin can be seen in his attributes:

He is a “God of the twilight” (LAROUSSE 1959:133). This can mean either dawn or dusk; here it means dawn: Hermes has “the epithet Argephontes, a probable deformation of Argeiphantes, ‘he who makes the sky clear’” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

Mercury, the Roman counterpart of Hermes, also retains traces of his origin: “among animals, the cock was especially sacred to him” (LAROUSSE 1959:220).

 

7. The canine motif is very prominent in the Rigvedic myth: Saramā and the Sārameyas are conceived as hounds, and even the Paṇis, in one place at least (VI.51.14) are conceived as wolves.

Hermes, however, is conceived as a handsome young man wearing winged sandals and a helmet, and carrying a staff with two entwined serpents facing each other. The reason for this is simply that in Classical Greek art and iconography, all the Gods and Goddesses, unless ugliness is a specified attribute in their description, are depicted as men and women of perfect form and classic beauty.

However, the functions and characteristics of Hermes show that he must originally have been conceived as a kind of dog before the compulsions of Greek art and iconography took over:

a. Hermes was “particularly honoured by the shepherds his mission was to watch over their flocks and protect their huts. From this doubtless arose the Greek habit of placing at the doors of houses a more or less crude image of this God” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

Writing in a different context, Malati Shendge makes a point which is relevant here: Although in Avesta no dog is associated with Yama, an indirect link may be seen in his being described as ‘a good shepherd’. To a shepherd, a dog is an important mate who helps him to look after and protect his flock” (SHENDGE 1977:39).

b. Hermes, as we saw, “is charged with conducting the souls of the dead to the underworld” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

This function is performed by dogs in most mythologies of the world: not only in the Rigveda and the Avesta, but even in Egyptian mythology where we have “Anubis, ancient jackal-headed Egyptian deity … His name means watcher, and guardian of the dogs. With Upuant, he presides over the abode of the dead and leads them to the judgement hall…” (SYKES 1952:13).

c. Saramā, the hound of Indra, helps track down and recover Indra’s cows stolen by the Paṇis. A dog, as we shall see presently, figures in a different way in a jumbled version of this myth found in Greek mythology.

 

8. The main myth pertaining to Saramā and the Paṇis, as we have seen, is the one represented in one whole hymn (X.108) in the Rigveda, and in other developed versions in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (II.440-442) and the Bṛhaddevatā (viii, 24-36).

Incredibly, this myth is found in Greek mythology in three different forms, all of which are individually traceable to the original Vedic myth:

a. The Paṇis, as per the myth, “possess herds of cows which they keep hidden in a cave beyond the Rasā” (MACDONELL 1897:63) to protect them from Indra, the thunder-God or God of rain.

The Encyclopaedia of Classical Mythology tells us that “in the mountains (of Greece) there were numerous caves of Pan into which the cattle were herded in bad weather” (VAN AKEN 1965:110) (ie. to protect them from the rain).

b. Greek mythology relates a myth in which a golden dog belonging to Zeus (the Greek thunder-God and counterpart of Indra) is stolen by a man significantly named Pan-dareus: “It was Hermes who, with the help of Iris, found in the abode of Tantalus the golden dog Pandareus had stolen from Zeus” (LAROUSSE 1959:136).

The first point to be noted is that Zeus (like Indra) possesses a dog. This dog itself is stolen. It is found jointly by Hermes and Iris (who is a female “messenger of the Gods” (LAROUSSE 1959:157)).

As per the original myth, Hermes should have been both the dog of Zeus as well as the female “messenger of the Gods” who finds the stolen cows of Zeus. However, Hermes has been transformed so that he is neither a dog nor a female. Hence, the original Saramā-Paṇi myth is found in a jumbled form: cows are absent in this version, and Hermes finds the dog of Zeus with the help of the female messenger of the Gods!

c. Greek mythology relates another incident which contains motifs of the original myth which are missing in the above version, but now the original identity of the thief is missing: in the first version, as we saw, cows are herded into caves called the caves of Pan, and in the second version, the thief is Pan-dareus.

Here, however, Hermes, who combines in himself the characteristics of both Saramā and the Paṇis, is himself the thief: “On the very day of his birth … Hermes displayed his mischievous nature by stealing the cattle which had been confided to the care of Apollo … He separated fifty heifers which he drove before him under cover of the night to the banks of the Alpheus … shutting up the heifers in a cavern ... (later) Zeus … instructed Hermes to return the heifers” (LAROUSSE 1959:135).

Here, we find all the distinctive motifs of the Saramā-Paṇi myth: the stolen cattle of the Gods, the cave hiding place on the banks of a river, the connection of the theft with night time, etc. Hermes (in the role of the Paṇis) steals the cattle; and Hermes himself (in the role of Saramā) recovers them at the instructions of Zeus.

Even without noticing the Saramā-Paṇi connection, the Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology notes that Apollos heifers are “analogous to the cows of the Vedic Indra” (LAROUSSE 1959:133).

 

D. MYTHOLOGY AND HISTORY

The study of the mythology of the Rigveda is definitely of great importance in the study of Indo-European history. But it is necessary to understand the exact sense in which it is important: it is important in the sense that a proto-Indo-European mythology can be reconstructed from a comparative study of different Indo-European mythologies, but not in the sense that the mythology is itself an actual representation of history.

Unfortunately, an entire academic industry has been built up on the basis of the interpretation of mythology as an actual representation of history, with mythological entities and events being interpreted as actual historical entities and events.

Thus, the Paṇis of the Rigveda, who are identical with the Vanir of Teutonic mythology (as the Gods or Asuras of the Rigveda are with the Aesir) are clearly purely mythical entities, and have nothing whatsoever to do with historical entities or events either in India or in northern Europe.

Nevertheless, at the eastern end of the Indo-European belt, the Paṇis of Vedic mythology are identified as the non-Aryan inhabitants of India, conquered by invading Aryans entering India from the northwest; and at the same time, at the western end of the Indo- European belt, the Vanir of Teutonic mythology are identified as the non-Aryan inhabitants of Scandinavia, conquered by invading Aryans entering Scandinavia from the southeast!

The Everymans’ Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology tells us: “In Nordic myth, the Vanir were the culture heroes of a race which seems to have preceded the Aesir in Scandinavia” (SYKES 1952:224).

Likewise, Shan M.M. Winn tells us about Scandinavia: “we must consider the possibility that the region was once inhabited by a people who were neither Indo-European nor patrilineal. The mythical subordination of the Vanir may echo a historical conquest, in which a matrilineal, agrarian society was disrupted and finally replaced by a new Indo-European ideology originating from elsewhere” (WINN 1995:64).

After all that we have discussed, is any comment required on this kind of “historical| interpretation of mythology?

 

The importance of mythology in the study of Indo-European history, it must be repeatedly emphasized, lies in the comparative study of different Indo-European mythologies.

As we have seen, modified or transformer versions of fragments of the Saramā-Paṇi myth are found in Teutonic mythology as well as in Greek mythology.

What is crucial to our analysis is the fact that the versions of Teutonic and Greek mythology bear absolutely no discernible similarity to each other. If not for the common point of comparison with Vedic mythology, it would be virtually impossible to guess that the Vanir of Teutonic mythology are even remotely connected to Hermes and Pan of Greek mythology; or that the Teutonic mythical incident is in any way connected to any of the three versions in Greek mythology.

 

We have already made clear in our earlier book that any comparative study of the different Indo-European mythologies (Vedic, Iranian, West Asian, South European, West European, North European, East European) shows a situation where:

1. Practically all the elements in any reconstructed proto-Indo-European mythology are found in Vedic mythology, whereas only a few of them are found in any other Indo-European mythology.

2. The common elements are found in Vedic mythology in their most primitive forms, closest to the original nature-myths; while fragments of the original myths, in later developed versions, are found in the other Indo-European mythologies.

3. Each of the other Indo-European mythologies has several elements in common with Vedic mythology, but hardly any with any of the others (not counting historical borrowings, such as Greek Apollo in Roman mythology).

4. In respect of common elements, the Vedic version provides the connecting link, often the only one, between the versions in the other mythologies.

 

Furthermore, considering the theory that the Indo-Iranians had a common history after their separation from the other Indo- Europeans, till they separated into India and Iran respectively, Iranian mythology has no connection with any other mythology except Vedic.

This situation does not fit in with any model of Indo-European origins and dispersals which places the Indo-European homeland outside India.

 

In fact, the particular myth we are examining, that of the Paṇi/Vanir/Pan, goes far in corroborating our case for an Indian homeland:

The Teutonic Vanir and Greek Pan are definitely derived from the Vedic Paṇi, both linguistically (since vaṇi is a later form of Paṇi), as well as from the point of view of mythical development.

But, in the Rigveda itself, the word Paṇi refers to two distinct entities: firstly, it refers to actual merchants and traders, and, secondly, it refers to the mythical Paṇis or demons of darkness. So the question arises: which came first, the merchants or the demons?

The fact is that almost all the Western scholars are unanimous in placing the merchants first: Griffith tells us that “the original meaning of the word” is “merchants or traders” (GRIFFITH 1889:fn.VI.45.31); and that from first being used in reference to “a miser, a niggard, an impious man who gives little or nothing to the Gods”, the word Paṇi came to be “used also as the name of a class of envious demons watching over treasures, and as an epithet of the fiends who steal cows and hide them in mountain caverns” (GRIFFITH 1889:fn.I.32.11).

Macdonell also tells us that “the word Paṇi occurs … in the sense of a ‘niggard’ … from this signification it developed the mythical meaning of demons … who primarily withhold the treasures of heaven” (MACDONELL 1897:157).

If the word Paṇi in the Rigveda, which is the precursor of the Teutonic Vanir and Greek Pan, originally meant a merchant or a trader in the earlier part of the Rigveda, then it certainly means that the Vedic people were already a settled and commercially prosperous people in the geographical region indicated by the Rigveda before the development of the mythical concept of the Paṇis (and consequently of the Vanir and of Pan).

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BHARGAVA 1956/1971: India in the Vedic Age: A History of Aryan Expansion in India. Bhargava, P.L. Upper India Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow, 1956.

GRIFFITH 1889: The Hymns of the Rig-Veda. (tr.) Griffith, Ralph T.H. Munshiram Manoharlal, rep. 1987, Varanasi.

JAMISON-BRERETON 2014: The Rigveda―The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2014.

KOSAMBI 1970/1975: The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline. Kosambi, D.D. Vikas Publishing House, Delhi, 1975. [My pp.].

LAROUSSE 1959: The Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology, tr. by Richard aldington and Delano Ames from Larousse Mytholgie Generale, ed. Felix Guirand. Auge, Gillon, Hollia-Larousse, Moreau et Cie, the Librairie Larousse, Batchwork Press Ltd., 1959.

MACDONELL 1897/1963: Vedic Mythology. Macdonell, A.A. Indological Book House, Varanasi. 1963 (reprint of 1897).

MAJUMDAR ed.1951/1996: The Vedic Age. General Editor Majumdar R.C. The History and Culture of the Indian People. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. Mumbai, 1951.

SHENDGE 1977: The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in the Rigveda. Shendge, Malati J. Abhinav Publications, New Delhi, 1977.

SYKES 1952: Everyman's Dictionary of Non-Classical Mythology. Sykes, Egerton. J.M. Dent and Co. Ltd, London, 1952. [Anubis, Aesir as race].

TALAGERI 1993: The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism. Talageri, Shrikant G.  Voice of India, New Delhi, 1993.

TALAGERI 2000: The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis. Talageri, Shrikant G. Aditya Prakashan (New Delhi), 2000.

TALAGERI 2008: The Rigveda and the Avesta―The Final Evidence. Talageri, Shrikant G. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008.

VAN AKEN 1965: The Encyclopaedia of Classical Mythology. Van Aken, A.R.A. Prentice-Hall Inc. New Jersey, 1965. [Caves of Pan for cows].

WINN 1995: Heaven, Heroes and Happiness: The Indo-European Roots of Western Ideology. Winn, Shan M.M. University Press of America, Lanham-New York-London, 1995.