A New Reading of the Dāśarājña, or Battle of Ten Kings, in the Ṛg Veda

Abstract

This paper proposes a novel interpretation of the Ṛg Vedic sūktas 7-18, 7-33 and 7-83, which are together taken to contain the chronicle of a battle of ten kings, or Dāśarājña. In this proposal, the Dāśarājña is shown to be an account of separate campaigns by Sudās Paijavana in ~2500 BC, which can be mapped to IE dispersal and Mature Harappan timelines. This yields Sudās as a unifying force for Indus-Sarasvatī Civilisation, and a catalytic agent for the formation of proto-Bhāratavarṣa.

Introduction

An account of a historical battle of ten kings has been found in some sūktas of the Ṛg Veda, for example by Witzel who considers the Dāśarājña a “battle of ten kings of the five peoples of the Panjab (Yadu, Turvaśa, Anu, Druhyu, Pūru) against the Bharata king Sudās”. This account is contained in Maṇḍala 7, in the sūktas 18, 33 and 83. Witzel also speculates this to be the kernel event for the later Mahābhārata. In contrast to this is the reading by Danino, who points out that dāśarājña only means ‘ten kings,’ and the ‘Battle of’ is an addition in English. In Danino’s words, “Anyone expecting a workable, even partial or ‘poetic’ narrative of this event, on which so much historical reconstruction has been attempted, will be disappointed.”

This paper examines all sūktas in question through 5 translations of the Ṛg Veda. The base is the Jamison-Brereton (henceforth, JB) version in English, which is supplemented by Wilson and Griffith’s translations. Geldner’s German translation and Trivedi’s Hindi translation are also used. All of this is done under a specific paradigm for Indo-European (IE) dispersals and the Mature Harappan Civilisation, as established by Talageri and Tonoyan-Belyayev (henceforth, TB). The exercise will reveal that the Dāśarājña sūktas can be read as an account of political consolidation of Mature Harappan, and of IE dispersals out-of-India (OIT).

This is at odds with the general view of Dāśarājña, surveyed by Stuhrmann. This sees the events occur in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, as part of the invading wave of Āryas that descend upon late Harappan civilisation. To Stuhrmann, “historical events can be detected in the poetry of the mighty wordsmith, Vasiṣṭha,” who should “also be seen as a major victor.” In this model, Sudās invades from the west, crosses the Sindhu, and faces his enemies at the Paruṣṇī. Stuhrmann identifies the enemies as a hydraulic civilisation, clearly the Harappan. This view will be reassessed in light of forthcoming data.

Any attempts to press history out of Ṛg Vedic sūktas are notoriously problematic, and no attempt is free of critique from multiple quarters. But there are many examples of singular sūktas or mantras being used to support all kinds of Aryan invasionist/ migration scenarios. This paper is premised upon the assertion that the Dāśarājña sūktas contain enough richness of information to consider their historicity not an isolated evidence, but an overwhelming preponderance. When supplemented with other mantras, it paints a clearly historical picture. Before examining the data in these sūktas, two important frameworks must be established, which together allow Sudās’ placement in 2500 BC, coinciding with the Mature Harappan.

Framework 1 – Mature Harappan and IE Dispersals

The proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland question is a scholastic field too vast to succinctly discuss here. The overall landscape is well covered by Mallory-Adams, and the Indian view of this by Bryant. It bears reiteration that dogmatic (or ignorant) dismissals of the PIE question are untenable. Whether one appeals to a wave-theory of language evolution, or to the archaic nature of Saṁskṛta, the linguistically validated existence of a hypothetical PIE is taken as established in this paper. A few periodisations are important in this context, beginning with Kenoyer’s periods of the Indus-Sarasvatī Civilisation (ISC):

1. Early Harappan (3300-2600 BC) - this is also considered the last sub-period of an era of ISC regionalisation.
2. Mature Harappan (2600-1900 BC) - this is the integration era, when different preceding and regionalised sub-cultures coalesce through a common system of weights and measures, town planning, agricultural kits and other artefacts of cultural unification.
3. Late Harappan (1900-1300 BC) - this is also called the localisation era, and it blends at places with Cemetery H and Ochre-Coloured Pottery (OCP) Cultures. But new archaeological finds in Atranjikhera, Lal Qila, Nasirpur and other places compel placement of OCP in the latter half of 3rd millennium BC.

TB maps a chronology of Vedic development to the above periodisation. Against this, waves of IE dispersals, OIT, are given in brackets.

1. Early Harappan - the period where only separate Ṛg Vedic sūktas or shorter blocks of mantras existed. TB uses the expression ‘Period of the First Hymns’ and also sees it as the Varuṇa-Dyaus-Agni period. There was no widespread worship of Indra, and the cult of Soma was still in the process of development (Dispersal of Western IE languages).
2. Mature Harappan - the classical Ṛg Vedic period which TB also calls the Indra-Agni-Soma period. The Ṛg Veda came into being as a collection in this period, and the other three Vedas might have begun to exist regionally (Dispersal of Eastern IE languages).
3. Late Harappan - the Brāhmaṇa or Prajāpati-Viṣṇu-Agni period, also one of various recensions of the Vedas. To TB, this period also saw the core events that constitute the Mahābhārata, which lines up with Pargiter’s genealogy.

The above lists establish a temporal connection between ISC and the Ṛg Veda, but there’s the matter of spatial connection. It implies asserting that north India was the original PIE homeland. The primary reasons why India cannot be the homeland are examined:

1. The use of linguistic palaeontology to rule India out as the PIE homeland. Witzel does this by finding evidence for a temperate climate that knows the wolf and snow in reconstructed PIE. Linguistic palaeontology, though alluring, is highly suspect. And Bryant shows that it can be used to support any PIE homeland theory. Mallory-Adams’ take is more conclusive:

“The picture provided by the reconstructed lexicon is not very informative concerning the physical environment of the speakers of the ancestral language, although there have been scholars enough who have tried to press the slender evidence into revealing the precise location (or type of location) inhabited by the Proto-Indo-Europeans.”

That linguistic palaeontology can be pressed in any way is exemplified in the case of lion, tiger and elephant. These typical Indian exotica are not found in reconstructed PIE, which leads some to assert that the homeland was outside India. But this logic is flawed, for if people migrated out of India, why would they retain words for flora and fauna they no longer encountered? Linguistic palaeontology works with knowledge gaps, filling it with a priori paradigms, and is rejected as a rationale to rule India out.

2. The absence of Dravidian loanwords in reconstructed PIE, though they appear in Indo-Aryan. This is used to assert that the homeland was outside India, and only Indo-Aryan came in contact with Dravidian, when the Aryans invaded/migrated to India. TB challenges this by finding evidence of Dravidian influence in reconstructed PIE, and the emergent picture here is only a few years old. Bryant declares this to be the most compelling argument against an Indian PIE homeland, but as TB’s work develops this picture will change.

A flaw in this argument is the logic that’s used for evidence of Indo-Aryan influence in Finno-Ugric languages. This evidence is taken to mean that the Indo-Aryans occupied space next to the Finno-Ugrics for some period, presumably prior to their entry to India. But the relationship is one way, and no Finno-Ugric influence is found in Indo-Aryan. Talageri asserts, rightly, that this can happen only when some Indo-Aryans are in touch with Finno-Ugrics, but so far away from the original homeland that no Finno-Ugric influence travels back.

If the Dravidian logic is used in the Finno-Ugric case, the Steppe is ruled out as the PIE homeland. If it was, then Indo-Aryan should have shown Finno-Ugric influence. Talageri argues that Dravidian influence is in the later layers of the Ṛg Veda, and Bryant confesses how the influence can in any case be an adstratum, not a substratum—a scenario which allows for Indo-Aryan to be in contact with Dravidian while the remaining IE dialects are not. The apparent differences between ISC and Vedic cultures. This is a flawed argument on many counts, and relies primarily on argumentum ex silentios. For example, the absence of iṣṭakā in the Ṛg Veda is taken as evidence that the Vedic people did not know Harappan cities. But invasionist/migrationist models have no problem imagining Indo-Aryans (or their linguistic ancestors) spending some time in the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) before making their entry into India. BMAC is a monumental civilisation that knew bricks and temples. The absence of iṣṭakā in the Ṛg Veda does not prevent associating Indo-Aryans with BMAC, so why should it prevent associating Indo-Aryans with ISC?

Witzel argues that

“Vedic texts do not know of a single town prior to the 2nd urbanisation in the Gaṅgā Valley,” but this has been convincingly challenged by Kazanas. In any case, this is also argumentum ex silentio. If Vedic texts were composed by ṛṣis living in the forests, or in small villages/āśramas along river banks, why would they include cities? There are any number of reasons why something could be absent in the Ṛg Veda.

Mutually exclusive chronologies for Mature Harappan and Indo-Aryan arrival. This has the Indo-Aryans arrive in India in the 2nd millennium BC, where they compose the Ṛg Veda 1500-1200 BC. Since this is long after the Mature Harappan phase, it’s never been considered in the mainstream that the two could be aspects of the same civilisation. But here too argumentum ex silentios have led the way. Iron Age was previously thought to commence in north India in the early 1st millennium BC, and since it is absent in the Ṛg Veda, this lent a terminus ante quem for its composition.

But archaeology is finding increasing evidence of iron and iron metallurgy in the 2nd millennium BC, and the earliest evidence yet of iron is from Harappa in 2600 BC. This necessitates a reassessment of dates, and the Sanauli chariot of 1900 BC reiterates the point. There is also evidence of the Sarasvatī, which is generally thought to have dried up considerably by 1900 BC. Witzel challenges this date, and his notice of the Vipāś and Śutudrī meeting even in Sudās’ time is relevant. But there is currently significant multidisciplinary consensus that the Sarasvatī dried up completely by 1900 BC, in which case it’s unlikely that Ṛg Vedic Āryas lived after this period.

3. Claims of high chronology for Vedic composition, which (allegedly) violate PIE and archaeological constraints. This may well be a valid critique, when referring to attempts to put the Ṛg Veda prior to 4000 BC. Timelines for Ṛg Vedic composition must account for PIE origin and IE dispersals. But these must deal with terminus ante quems, for it is not possible to timeline the knowledge-systems, practices and rituals embedded in the Ṛg Veda.

There is the issue of archaeoastronomy, which Witzel rejects but Kazanas feels there’s good case for—‘heavens don’t lie.’ It’s entirely possible that embedded in the Ṛg Veda are astronomical timestamps from even prior to the Holocene, but linguistic and archaeological evidence make the dates of composition and assembly quite clear. Interestingly, Witzel’s forthcoming timelines for IE dispersal are strengthened through Paurāṇika evidence, which he rejects altogether.

To summarise—when the matter is examined to detail, and when all circular logic is removed, there is no strong case at all why India cannot be the PIE homeland. Against this, the combined works of Talageri, TB, Kazanas, Semenenko and Elst make a convincing case for OIT—the scenario where India was the PIE homeland. A final constraint can be conceded to Witzel’s timeline for IE dispersals, which are mapped to the broad waves outlined by Talageri and TB:

1. 3000/2500 BC: Western IE languages leave the homeland. They possess ayas (copper/bronze) but no chariot yet. They know the wagon, driven by oxen, and all parts of the heavy, solid wheel. To Witzel, they also know the domesticated horse, but this is contested even at reconstructed PIE level. Consisting of proto-forms of Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Baltic and Slavic, this maps to dispersals in 3300-2600 BC in the OIT model. Occurring in the Early Harappan, this is TB’s Varuṇa-Dyaus-Agni period.

2. 2500/2000 BC: Eastern IE languages leave the homeland. They have satem characteristics, but still no chariots. Witzel notes the Lithuanian ratas to mean wheel, circle. In OIT, this is when proto-forms of Armenian, Greek, Albanian and Iranian leave the homeland in 2600-1900 BC, during the Mature Harappan. This is TB’s classic Ṛg Vedic period, of Indra-Agni-Soma. Talageri asserts that “the recorded evidence of the Ṛg Veda has the last 5 IE branches in Punjab, on the Paruṣṇī’s banks.” This is predicated on a reading of the Dāśarājña sūktas, but Witzel rejects Talageri’s conclusions even as he too reads a battle of ten kings.

Framework 2 – Chronology of Indian Lineages

There are many debates on whether to consider any historicity to the Purāṇas at all. Witzel favours discarding their authority altogether, and whether this is done or not, the Ṛg Veda must be taken as a more reliable timestamp. But the baby need not be thrown out with the bath water, and the Purāṇas are surprisingly in note with archaeological, linguistic or other evidence—provided they are read a certain way.

Paurāṇika genealogies give the list of kings/rulers in two primary lines, descended from Vaivasvat Manu. While there are others, both genealogy and tradition follow closely the lines descended from Ilā and Ikṣvāku. Ilā’s descendants are thus called the Ailās, and from them descend Yadu, Turvaśa, Anu, Druhyu and Pūru tribes. Ikṣvāku’s descendants are the Aikṣvākus, or the legendary Sūryavaṁśa dynasty of Rāma Dāśarathi. When generations are counted between Vaivasvat Manu and those that fought in the Mahābhārata, the Ailā lines yield ~60 generations. But over the same period ~90 generations are found in the Aikṣvāku line.

Witzel points to Paurāṇika habit of assigning parallel dynasties sequentially, which combined with the above discrepancy presents the case to consider a shorter genealogy list altogether. But Pargiter argued to the contrary. To him the Aikṣvāku genealogy was the better preserved, owed in part to its proximity to Magadha—the source of ancient India’s sūta-māgadha traditions. In his reconstruction, he assigned 94 generations between Vaivasvat Manu and Bṛhadbala, the Aikṣvāku that fought in the Mahābhārata. For the Ailā lines, he identified synchronisms to extend their genealogies over the same period.

Pargiter’s reconstruction need not be taken as entirely correct, and a possibility of 50, 60 or 90 generations can be allowed for. Taking 25 years between each generation, a time period of 1200-2200 years is being referred to. This should not be confused to mean the duration of the entire Vedic period, for which TB’s chronology is clear. This paper takes Pargiter’s reconstruction as broadly correct, which places Sudās at generation 68.

What’s left is a date for the Mahābhārata. Archaeoastronomical readings that require extraordinary evidence, such as 5000 BC or prior, are rejected. As is a date around 3000 BC, both because it stems from a late astronomical reading by Āryabhaṭa, and also because it violates the Sarasvatī evidence. Kak points to the actual options—2100, 1900 or 1500 BC. Benedetti favours 1500 BC, which yields 2150 BC as the era of Sudās. A date of 1900 BC places Sudās in 2550 BC. In other words, he falls squarely in 1- the Mature Harappan, and 2- the wave of Eastern IE dispersals.

The Ṛg Veda and Maṇḍala 7

The Ṛg Veda is a collection of 10 books, or Maṇḍalas, which each contain several hymns, or sūktas, that are made of verses, or mantras. To Indian tradition, the Ṛg Vedic poets were not mantra-kārtas but mantra-dārṣṭas. This means they did not create or compose the sūktas, but perceived them through their evolved dṛṣṭi. This is why the Vedas are considered apauruṣeya—authorless, and anādi—eternal. Comparable situations are the law of gravitation, which existed before Newton described it, and the continent of North America, which existed long before Columbus discovered it.

But while the nature of what they discovered was eternal or prehistoric, both Newton and Columbus are historic personalities, with accepted placement in world chronology. This is why there can be a chronology of Ṛg Vedic composition, while accepting the traditional view of Vedic knowledge as apauruṣeya and anādi. Some facts of Ṛg Vedic internal chronology are well established since the work of Oldenberg. His extensive analysis of Ṛg Vedic structure and assembly led him to conclude three broad stages:

1. Beginning at the center with Maṇḍalas 2-7, which are also called the family books.
2. Maṇḍalas 1 and 8 forming a second layer.
3. Maṇḍalas 9 and 10 forming the last layer, the latter considered “the great appendix to the Ṛg Veda” by Witzel.

There are nuances and disagreements to this broad stroke, but the general fact accepted by most scholars is that the family books (2-7) represent an earlier stage than do the books 1, 8, 9 and 10. Further, Talageri quotes other linguists who look at Maṇḍala 5 as structurally (and temporally) closer to Maṇḍalas 1 and 8 than to the family books. Further technicalities need not be examined to understand that the family books and non-family books possess an internal chronology of, broadly, three layers.

The family books are so called because each of them contains sūktas from an exclusive ṛṣi-clan. Maṇḍala 2 is composed almost entirely by Gṛtsamada Bhārgava, Maṇḍala 3 by the Viśvāmitras, Maṇḍala 4 by Vāmadeva Gautama, Maṇḍala 5 by Atris, Maṇḍala 6 by Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya and his clan, and finally Maṇḍala 7 by Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇi. Though Witzel criticises Talageri when the latter assigns chronology within the family books, he also asserts that Oldenberg’s analysis proves that Maṇḍala 3 was composed only a few years or months before Maṇḍala 7—which if nothing else means that there are indeed ways to an internal chronology for the family books. Maṇḍala 7 is of interest to this paper, where the chief patron of Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇī’s sūktas is Sudās Paijavana. The identification of Sudās as a Tṛtsu Bharata, and of the Tṛtsus as the ruling sub-clan among Pūru-Bharatas, who are the figurative people of the book of the Ṛg Veda, is well established by Talageri. To this is supplemented Paurāṇika evidence, which is not considered historical in the mainstream. Certainly, it should only be supplementary on the linguistic issue of PIE origins, or of IE dispersals.

Data: The Dāśarājña Sūktas

The two frameworks allow the temporal and spatial equation—Sudās Eastern IE Dispersal Mature Harappan 2500 BC. With this equation established, the Dāśarājña data can now be examined. IAST renditions of mantras are presented first, and the translations are Jamison-Brereton (henceforth, JB). Other translations are given as appendix.

Maṇḍala 7, Sūkta 18

The first four mantras of sūkta 7-18 are general invocations to Indra, so they are ignored for this historical analysis, which begins from mantra 5. The entire sūkta is composed by Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇi.

5: arṇāṃsi cit parpathānā sudāsa indro gādhāny akṛṇot supārā | śardhantaṃ śimyum ucathasya navyaḥ śāpaṃ sindhūnām akṛṇod aśastīḥ || Even the floods that had spread out—Indra made them into fords easy to cross for Sudās. Śimyu, who was vaunting himself above our newer speech—he (Indra) made him into the flotsam of the rivers and his taunts (too).

Mantra 5 names the first of Sudās’ enemies—Śimyu. It’s not clear what tribe Śimyu is from, or the river this event is based around. Trivedi’s Hindi translation reads it as Paruṣṇī though the word is not found here. The floods and fords should be read as the rivers-system around Haryana and Punjab during Sudās’ era, or ~2500 BC. This mantra indicates Sudās crossing the Paruṣṇī River, and besting Śimyu.

6: puroḍā it turvaśo yakṣur āsīd rāye matsyāso niśitā apīva | śruṣṭiṃ cakrur bhṛgavo druhyavaś ca sakhā sakhāyam atarad viṣūcoḥ || Turvaśa Yakṣu (the “sacrificer”) was himself the offering cake—also the Matsyas (“fish”), whetted down (in their quest) for wealth, like fish in water. The Bhṛgus and the Druhyus (just) followed orders. (Former) comrade crossed (former) comrade on the two opposing (sides).

The beginning of line 1 is interesting here—puroḍā it turvaśo yakṣur. JB translate the name to Turvaśa Yakṣu, and puroḍā as the epithet of sacrificer. In contrast Griffith took the name as Turvaśa Puroḍās, and the epithet yakṣu as fain to win wealth. The latter is attested in Paurāṇika etymology for the name of Yakṣas, but it need not detain us here. JB speculate whether Yakṣu is a pun on Yadu, a reading which in this mantra would affirm the usual clubbing of Yadu and Turvaśa tribes. Wilson finds Turvaśa, who is preceding at solemn rites and diligent in sacrifice, going to Sudās for wealth. This isn’t definitive of battle.

The Ṛg Vedic pañcajana, or five tribes, are generally taken to be the Yadu, Turvaśa, Druhyu, Anu and Pūru, but nowhere does the text explicitly list these as the definitive five tribes. The notion of them as the pañcajana actually comes from Paurāṇika genealogies, which list their eponymous founders as descended from the same father. Either way, mantra 6 gives more names for Sudās’ enemies—Turvaśa, Bhṛgus, Druhyus and possibly Yadus. Matsyas may also be considered, though they are a later Indian tribe in the Purāṇas, and appear as a Mahājanapada in the Buddhist era.

But Trivedi’s Hindi translation is markedly different from the others. He reads Yāgyika and Purodātā Turvaśa as names of one ruler, and takes matsya to literally mean fish, not a tribe. In his translation, the Bhṛgus and Druhyus attempt to negotiate a truce between Sudās and Turvaśa. In line 2, Trivedi confirms that Turvaśa and Sudās are enemies, and that Indra is more benevolent to Sudās. Purodātā Turvaśa is thus the second of Sudās’ named enemies, taking Śimyu to be the first.

Bhṛgus and Druhyus are not necessarily to be seen as enemies, but rather mediators between warring clans. JB also comment that “the shifting alliances of the participants in the Ten Kings battle are notorious and well discussed.” The relationship between Bhṛgus and Druhyus in this mantra is not entirely clear. Griffith’s reading is friend rescued friend while JB find former comrades on two opposing sides. Geldner’s German translation is friend helped friend among the two opponents. These readings suggest that erstwhile allies might have been on opposing sides in the event, or previously opposing ones took arms on the same side. Historically, this means that inter-tribal/dynastic dynamics in the Ṛg Vedic era were more complex than usually portrayed. To note in JB’s translation is that it’s Turvaśa and the Matsyas who quest for wealth. This challenges the traditional image of Ṛg Vedic Āryas as the raiders and conquerors. In later mantras Ānavas, Druhyus and other tribes are also found raiding/vying for cattle, and there is only one clear example of Sudās’ people being the cow-greedy ones.

7: ā pakthāso bhalānaso bhanantālināso viṣāṇinaḥ śivāsaḥ | ā yo ‘nayat sadhamā āryasya gavyā tṛtsubhyo ajagan yudhā nṝn || The Pakthas (“cooked oblations”?) and the Bhalānases (“raiders”?) spoke out, and the Ālinas, the Viṣāṇins, and the Śivas: “The feasting companion of the Ārya (Indra?), who led (us?) hither—with desire for cattle for the Tṛtsus he has gone with battle against superior men (us).”

This mantra is good example of difficulties in translating Ṛg Veda to modern languages. JB’s cooked oblations and raiders represent the confusion well. Should words in the Ṛg Veda be translated literally, adjectivally, or as proper nouns? Context should guide the way, but a reading of different translations shows this not to be the case. Both Griffith and Geldner translate the five names in line 1 as proper nouns for tribes—Pakthas, Bhalānas, Ālinas, Viṣāṇins and Śivas. But Trivedi and Wilson’s translations erase all proper nouns completely. In line 2 JB’s translation differs considerably from Geldner or Griffith’s. Geldner favours Ārya allies coming to the Tṛtsus’ aid, in desire for cattle for themselves. But JB translate line 2 as being uttered by the 5 tribes in line 1, which would imply they are the Ārya allies in question. Trivedi agrees with JB, where he sees line 2 being uttered by those mentioned in line 1, as a stuti to Indra. Geldner’s take on line 1 confuses further—The Pakthas, Bhalanas, Ālinas, Viṣāṇins called themselves his good friends. The ‘he’ here is Indra, not Sudās. For the last part of line 2, JB’s translation of superior men is unnecessary. Neither Geldner nor Griffith take that reading, and Trivedi even finds gau-taskara in the line.

Talageri’s OIT model sees these 5 tribes as precursors to IE dispersals, triggered by Sudās’ campaigns, and he supports it by evidence from other mantras. Witzel’s critique of this is predicated on dismissing Talageri’s connections as folk etymology. These elements will be discussed in the next section.

8: durādhyo aditiṃ srevayanto ‘cetaso vi jagṛbhre paruṣṇīm | mahnāvivyak pṛthivīm patyamānaḥ paśuṣ kavir aśayac cāyamānaḥ || The ill-intentioned ones without insight, causing Aditi to abort, diverted (the course of) the (river) Paruṣṇī. With his greatness he (Indra? Turvaśa?) enveloped the earth, being master (of it). The poet lay there, being perceived as (just) a (sacrificial) animal.

This mantra too is an example of variations in Ṛg Vedic interpretation. JB, Griffith and Geldner are in broad agreement over the first line, which alludes to geological myth. Ancient Indian tradition on geography, the conception of cosmic rivers, and their connection to the Pamirs as Mount Meru are well explained by Ali. The ancient Indians conceived of their rivers as descended, metaphorically, from the heavens (Ākāṣa Gaṅgā) to Śiva’s head in the high mountains (Hema Gaṅgā). Line 1 may well refer to an ancient diversion in the Paruṣṇī’s course, so the first reference to this river in the sūkta may not even be speaking of Sudās’ present. But even a channel or canal dug from a river is a diversion to its course, and Trivedi and Wilson offer a different version. To them the ill-intentioned ones in line 1, while digging up the Paruṣṇī River, cause its banks to collapse. This is a real event that happens in Sudās’ time, and when linked to Mature Harappan offers an image of irrigation along the Paruṣṇī—either attempts for it or attacks that hinder it. Stuhrmann agrees with this reading, for he concludes that Sudās’ enemies, in an attempt to inundate his forces, cut dykes and end up spreading a flood. In line 2 also Trivedi/Wilson differ considerably from other translations. Here they have Kavi, the son of Cayamāna, slain by Sudās as one slays a sacrificial animal.

In a sūkta well accepted as some kind of historical account, where in other mantras reading proper nouns is common, it’s strange that JB, Griffith and Geldner read kavi literally, and thus see the poet himself as the sacrificial animal. But with the evidence of Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna from RV 6-27, there’s no reason not to read Kavi Cāyamāna in this mantra. Abhyāvartin in Maṇḍala 6 appears aligned to the Pūru-Bharatas, while here Kavi is Sudās’ enemy. This is significant in Talageri’s model, which sees the Cāyamānas as a branch of Ānavas. It shows Ṛg Vedic Pūrus and the proto-Iranian Ānavas to be allied in the early Vedic period, with conflicts emerging by Sudās’ era.

The correct reading of mantra 8 is thus completely historical. It refers to troubles faced due to irresponsible and/or malicious digging of channels around the Paruṣṇī, and to the defeat and killing of Kavi Cāyamāna by Sudās. JB’s confusion over Turvaśas in line 2 is unnecessary, and to the others it’s clear that the mantra refers to Indra’s benevolence towards Sudās. We now have the personal names of three of Sudās’ enemies—Śimyu, Purodātā Turvaśa and Kavi Cāyamāna. Tribes such as Pakthas, Bhalānas and others were also, possibly, among Sudās’ enemies, and the likes of Bhṛgus and Druhyus might have attempted mediations.

9: īyur arthaṃ na nyartham paruṣṇīm āśuś caned abhipitvam jagāma | sudāsa indraḥ sutukāṁ amitrān arandhayan mānuṣe vadhrivācaḥ || They came to the Paruṣṇī, to a failed end as if to their (real) goal. Not even the swift one made it home for supper. Indra made those without alliance (to us) subject to Sudās, those, easy to thrust away, who, (though) in Manu’s (race), were of gelded speech.

Like JB, Geldner and Griffith see in line 1 some kind of congregation at the Paruṣṇī. This reading is critical to seeing the Dāśarājña as the account of a single battle along the river. But Trivedi/Wilson’s translation is that, proceeding from the previous mantra, Indra restores the Paruṣṇī to its proper flow, so that it flows neither here nor there. This is Geldner’s confusion over wrong destination as if it were the right destination, or Griffith’s they sped…they sought….the swift returned not for iyur arthaṃ na nyartham paruṣṇīm.

In line 2, the Saṁskṛta vadhrivācaḥ is of special interest. For JB this refers to enemy tribes who, though of the same ancestry, are of somewhat different speech. Geldner’s die wie kastraten reden or those who talk like neuters, and Griffith’s unmanly babblers reflect a sense of defect in the speech. Trivedi reads vadhrivācaḥ as bakavādi, Wilson as idly-talking. Under an IE dispersal lens, this indicates that Sudās’ enemies do not necessarily speak a different language. Instead, theirs is a kind of defective dialect, at least from the Ṛg Vedic Āryas’ point-of-view. This is relevant to negate invasionist/migrationist scenarios, which try to portray Ṛg Vedic Āryas as intruding into space(s) occupied by Dravidian/ Austro-Asiatic/ Language X speakers.

Mānuṣe is equally important, translated by JB as those of Manu’s race and confirmed by Trivedi as simply manuṣya. A critique of Paurāṇika genealogies is that they fabricate ancestral connections between all known tribes and peoples, which may well be true in many cases. But in the Ṛg Veda itself we find evidence that, either the different tribes do descend from common origins, or that they already create myths around common ancestries.

A reading of Mānuṣa as the name of a place comes from Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa 3-244, which identifies it as a place of battle. Even without this, some kind of decisive event along the Paruṣṇī can be interpreted, and the previous mantra gives images of a flooding of its banks and disturbance in its course—seemingly due to actions by people who are enemy to Sudās. By mantra 9 Sudās subdues these people and restores order along the river. Since the Paruṣṇī is the Ravi, and since Sudās is placed near 2500 BC, this presents a case for the political unification of Mature Harappa.

10: īyur gāvo na yavasād agopā yathākṛtam abhi mitraṃ citāsaḥ | pṛśnigāvaḥ pṛśninipreṣitāsaḥ śruṣṭiṃ cakrur niyuto rantayaś ca || They went like cows without a cowherd from a pasture, (though) seeming (to go) to an alliance properly concluded—the Pṛśnigus, propelled down to the dappled one (/Paruṣṇī). The teams and the battlers (?) followed orders. Translations are historically obscure, since the identity or meaning of Pṛśnis is not clear, but they agree that an alliance/friendship is being talked of. Trivedi renders the analogy of line 1 such—like cows without a shepherd nevertheless find their pasture, the assembled people (presumably Pṛśnis) eventually find amity with Indra and Sudās. The word niyuto, or ‘appointment’ implies some kind of treaty. There’s no reference to the Paruṣṇī here, but JB’s addition follows Geldner’s suggestion that Pṛśni is a pun on Paruṣṇī.

11: ekaṃ ca yo viṃśatiṃ ca śravasyā vaikarṇayor janān rājā ny astaḥ | dasmo na sadman ni śiśāti barhiḥ śūraḥ sargam akṛṇod indra eṣām || He who as king with desire for fame has strewn down the one and twenty peoples of the two Vaikarṇas, just as a wonder-worker “whets down” the ritual grass on the seat. The champion Indra made a gush of them.

This mantra is of an obviously martial character. It has Sudās slaying 21 people of the Vaikarṇa tribes, which Trivedi reads as two pradeśas. The martial character is reinforced in line 2 by comparing Sudās’ actions to that of a priest that cuts the ritual grass. Sudās is similarly shown to cut down his enemies, the Vaikarṇas. It should be apparent by now that the sūkta is talking of several different events, not all of which can be convincingly placed along the Paruṣṇī. Further, in some cases Sudās rather negotiates treaties than wages war, while in others his attacks are less merciful.

An alternate reading is to reject Vaikarṇa as the name of a tribe, and take it to mean of various kinds. Then the mantra alludes to Sudās battling 21 kings of various types. This reading does not change the overall interpretation of mantras, so is taken only as a note. Wilson refuses to translate Vaikarṇa as anything at all, and just finds 21 men.

12: adha śrutaṃ kavaṣaṃ vṛddham apsv anu druhyuṃ ni vṛṇag vajrabāhuḥ | vṛṇāna atra sakhyāya sakhyaṃ tvāyanto ye amadann anu tvā || Then famous old Kavaṣa he wrenched down into the waters, and Anu and Druhyu—he with the mace in his arms. The ones devoted to you, who cheered you on, (were) choosing there your partnership for their partnership.

Here JB see the names Kavaṣa, Anu and Druhyu in line 1, Griffith and Geldner see only Kavaṣa and Druhyu, and Trivedi/Wilson see Śruta, Kavaṣa, Vṛddha and Druhyu while missing Anu. These differences notwithstanding, the meaning of the mantra is clear. Indra helps Sudās defeat more enemies, and Kavaṣa, Vṛddha and Śruta are possibly personal names.

Line 2 tells the nature of conquests. Those who adopt Ṛg Vedic ritual and its devotion to Vedic deities such as Indra and Mitra, and participate in the Ṛg Vedic style of stuti to these deities, are considered friends and allies. For the rest, previous mantras make clear the kind of options Sudās utilises. Note that the word aśva in this sūkta has occurred, so far, only in mantra 1, where it refers to Indra’s mythological activities. And the word ratha has not been encountered at all. Semenenko and Kazanas’ re-evaluations of these words are pertinent, as is Danino’s take on demilitarising the Ṛg Veda.

Whether there was a battle of ten kings or many battles, the evidence so far should not lead to imaginations of Sudās’ armies propelled by horse-driven chariots. This is in line with Mature Harappan timelines, where evidence of horse or chariots in Indian archaeology is not found around 2500 BC. The Sanauli chariot is dated to 1900 BC, and true horse bones appear towards the end of the 2nd millennium BC. Martial technology is further evident when the epithet for Indra is vajrabāhu. Yes, the association is to mythic Indra. But while mythic Indra can ride chariots, he still does not know the sword.

This compares well with Witzel’s chronology, which sees Western IE languages disperse from the homeland 3000-2500 BC and Eastern IE ones disperse 2500-2000 BC. Crucially, Witzel sees these waves familiar with copper, bronze and the wheel, but not yet chariots or iron—which appear after 2000 BC. Since Sudās is placed at 2500 BC in the geography of the Mature Harappan, any IE dispersals triggered by him satisfy this criteria.

Talageri links Kavaṣa to Kauui, Kauuaša and Kauuiiān in Avestan tradition, and finds in this further evidence to link Sudās’ enemies with proto-Iranians and IE dispersals. This is bolstered through Avestan tradition, where the Kauuašas were Vaikarṇa purohitas, since the Vaikarṇas are also Sudās’ enemies in mantra 11. The name Kavi appears in later Iran as well, where kings styled themselves descendants of the Kavi dynasty, and exists in mantra 8 as Kavi Cāyamāna. Paurāṇika tradition names Kavi as the primeval Bhṛgu ṛṣi, which gives a separate supplement to Talageri’s idea of the Bhṛgus as initially Ānava priests.

13: vi sadyo viśvā dṛṃhitāni eṣām indraḥ puraḥ sahasā sapta dardaḥ | vi ānavasya tṛtsave gayam bhāg jeṣma pūruṃ vidathe mṛdhravācam || In an instant Indra split open all their fortified places, their seven strongholds, with his might. He shared out the patrimony of the descendant of Anu to Tṛtsu. We defeated the Pūru of scornful speech at the rite of distribution.

This mantra introduces an important Ṛg Vedic debate—the meaning of pura. Reservations in equating it to a general city/settlement have come from a priori exclusion of Ṛg Vedic and Harappan. The logic is that Ṛg Vedic Āryas arrived in India after the decline of Mature Harappan, and thus did not know of its elaborate cities. This is evidenced by the absence of iṣṭakās, or bricks, in the Ṛg Veda—which is argumentum ex silentio. Kazanas cites examples of metal and mobile puras in the Ṛg Veda to indicate that the matter is open.

JB, Griffith and Geldner all translate pura as fortified strongholds in this mantra, and Trivedi’s translation agrees. The Saṁskṛta dardaḥ alludes to mountains and ravines, so the phrasing here could refer to mountain strongholds. Witzel and Parpola favour translations of pura to mountain strongholds, since it supports their visions of Āryas attacking Dāsa mountain fortresses. Wilson finds seven kinds of cities, and Griffith even translates pura as castle here! The Purāṇas list four traditional kinds of settlements, and it’s entirely plausible that all of them co-existed during various phases of the Mature and Late Harappan.

The first part of line 2 makes clear that Sudās’ attacks do not cause material damage. Whatever is owned by defeated Ānavas is taken by the Tṛtsus, implying that Mature Harappan is only politically consolidated—it suffers no notable destruction. The second part of line 2 can be read in multiple ways. JB’s scornful speech comes from mṛdhavācam, which is to be contrasted with the vadhrivācam of mantra 9. The Saṁskṛta mṛdha means war/battle/fight, so JB’s translation is correct versus Griffith’s scorned Pūru. Trivedi translates it as duṣṭa-vācana, so all sources assure of belligerent people.

But the shift in line 2 is sudden, moving from Ānavas in line 1 to Pūrus. One conjecture is that Ānavas and the belligerent Pūrus are closely located, so invocation of one in the mantra automatically invokes the other. Paurāṇika testimony is more illuminating in this regard. It has Sudās descend in the line of one of the sons of Ajamīḍha, who in turn descends from the eponymous Bharata. Contemporary to Sudās, in another of Ajamīḍha’s lines, is Saṁvaraṇa, who is besieged by a Pāñcāla king and exiled to the forest. Pargiter’s synchronisms make a good case to equate this Pāñcāla king to Sudās, which in turn means that the scornful Pūru of mantra 13 are those led by Saṁvaraṇa.

Stuhrmann prefers a different reading in this scenario. To him, the Pūrus appear enemies only in the context of spoils, not in true war itself. This is in line with his larger model of Pūrus and Bharatas being the invading wave of Āryas led by Sudās, in the Dāśarājña affairs. This is detailed in mantra 1-63-7 later. Under an OIT model the Mature Harappan is necessarily occupied, predominantly, by Ānava tribes. This means its primary language should be an Indo-Iranian dialect.

In itself this is not outrageous, and scholarly attempts to find Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan in the Indus Script have been held back by the a priori paradigm of Aryan invasions/migrations. But new attempts are being made in this direction, and to TB “the language of the Mature Harappan period was lexically and grammatically close to or identical with Rigvedic and, to a lesser degree, Samavedic and Atharvavedic, but as for its phonology, it was significantly different.” Any definitive conclusions here will have to await better consensus on the Indus Script.

14: ni gavyavo anavo druhyavaś ca ṣaṣṭiḥ śatā suṣupuḥ ṣaṭ sahasrā | ṣaṣṭir vīrāso adhi ṣaḍ duvoyu viśved indrasya vīryā kṛtāni || The cow-seeking Anu and Druhyu people fell down to sleep—sixty hundred, six thousand (of them). (But on the other side there were just) sixty heroes with six on top, in search of (Indra’s) favor. All these are the manly deeds of Indra.

JB, Geldner, Griffith and Wilson agree that line 1 refers to cow-greedy Ānavas and Druhyus, and that a large number of them are killed by Sudās. But Trivedi translates that Sudās slays his own kinsmen, sambandhī, who were cow-greedy, on behalf of the Ānavas and Druhyus. This inverts interpretation of the mantra. The former shows a continuation of Sudās’ rivalry with Ānavas and Druhyus, while the latter suggests he struck alliances that cut across tribal divisions. Similar ambiguity is found in mantra 6, where the Druhyus appear as mediators between Sudās and Purodātā Turvaśa. Neither case is necessarily remarkable, for in other mantras there is evidence of Sudās both waging war and striking alliances.

15: indreṇaite tṛtsavo veviṣāṇā āpo na sṛṣṭā adhavanta nīcīḥ | durmitrāsaḥ prakalavin mimānā jahur viśvāni bhojanā sudāse || These Tṛtsus, constantly laboring alongside Indra, ran like waters released downward. The ill-allied ones, meting (their supplies) out with a miser’s eye, (yet) left behind all their goodies for Sudās.

The standard interpretation here is straightforward. Favoured by Indra, Sudās’ forces marshal out like released waters and besiege their enemies, who surrender to them their prized possessions. But Trivedi/Wilson offer a different reading. They see Tṛtsus as a people with malevolent friends, and of weak intellect themselves. The released waters analogy is instead read as a sign of Tṛtsu cowardice on the battlefield, and in their fleeing they leave behind possessions for Sudās’ to take over.

JB draw attention to the durmitrāsaḥ in line 2, speculating that it signals “the fraying of loss of alliances that bound them and perhaps also to identify these alliances as badly formed in the first place.” This agrees with Trivedi/Wilson’s reading and reiterates that the sūkta collects from many different events, alliances and battles in Sudās’ reign.

16: ardhaṃ vīrasya śṛtapām anindram parā śardhantaṃ nunude abhi kṣām | indro manyum manyumyo mimāya bheje patho vartanim patyamānaḥ || The (mere) half a hero, who drinks the cooked oblation without Indra, who vaunts himself, did he thrust away to the ground. Indra confounded the battle fury of the one who confounds the battle fury (of others). He took to the course of the path, being master of it.

This mantra is non-controversial, and even Trivedi agrees with English and German translations. It continues the theme from previous mantras of Sudās’ enemies fleeing under attack. JB’s confounded the battle fury of one who confounds the battle fury of others is simplified by Trivedi as krodhiyoṅ kā krodha. Trivedi’s reading of the fleeing enemies using getaway-paths as shelters gives more detail to line 2, and raises images of mountain passes north/northwest of Greater Punjab. In 2500 BC these should be familiar passes, given the contacts between Mature Harappan and BMAC.

17: ādhreṇa cit tad v ekaṃ cakāra siṃhyaṃ cit petvenā jaghāna | ava sraktīr veśyāvṛścad indraḥ prāyachad viśvā bhojanā sudāse ||
Even with a feeble thing he performed this unique (deed): he smote even the lioness with a wether. Indra hewed down the poles with a pin. He handed over all the goodies to Sudās.

Another non-controversial mantra, which indicates Sudās taking on forces larger than his scale and emerging victorious, though this could be hyperbolic effect. The analogies are of a lamb taking on a lion, or hewing poles with a pin. The idea of Sudās’ people as initially weak, or over-powered, emerges in other mantras too.

18: śaśvanto hi śatravo rāradhuṣ ṭe bhedasya cic chardhato vinda randhim | martāṁ ena stuvato yaḥ kṛṇoti tigmaṃ tasmin ni jahi vajram indra || Because one after the other, the rivals become subject to you, procure the subjugation even of vaunting Bheda. Who(ever) commits an offense against mortals who praise, smash your sharp mace down on him, o Indra.

This mantra expands the geographic potential of the sūkta. In the very next mantra, Bheda is placed unambiguously along the Yamunā River. There is no reason to consider him in this mantra to be placed along the Paruṣṇī, especially since the case for a singular battle of ten kings is already weakened. All translations also show Bheda’s animosity for Ṛg Vedic worship and ritual, and Trivedi is explicit when he says that Bheda harms those who conduct stuti for Indra. Sudās and Bheda along the Yamunā is not addressed by invasionist/migrationist models, and when Witzel declares Vasiṣṭha an immigrant across the Sindhu in RV 7-33, the reference in fact is to Yamunā. But the situation is unremarkable when accounting for Paurāṇika tradition, where Tṛtsu Bharatas are the same as the North Pāñcālas. Pargiter’s synchronisms establish that the core Pāñcāla region is the Yamunā-Gaṅgā Doab, spilling over in the immediate north/northwest to the northern Sarasvatī-Yamunā Doab. Even without this, Ṛg Vedic evidence suffices to establish that Sudās’ campaigns cut a wide territory, and the following mantra furthers the argument.

19: āvad indraṃ yamunā tṛtsavaś ca prātra bhedaṃ sarvatātā muṣāyat | ajāsaś ca śigravo yakṣavaś ca baliṃ śīrṣāṇi jabhrur aśvyāni ||
The Yamunā (River) helped Indra, as did the Tṛtsus. He despoiled Bheda there entirely, and the Ajas, Śighras, and the Yakṣus brought horses’ heads as tribute.

All translations are in near-unanimous agreement on their reading of this mantra. This is the first mention of aśva in the sūkta with reference to Sudās, and here too the evidence is not of horse-driven chariots. Even as tribute the horse heads have to be symbolic, for what is any regent to do with such a gift? Given the context, Ajas, Śighras and Yakṣus must be taken as tribes local to the Yamunā. If Yakṣu is read as Yadu this tallies with the Purāṇas, which have Yādava tribes such as Andhakas and Vṛṣṇis active near Mathurā during this period.

The archaeology around Mathurā, where OCP has been found at 2200-2100 BC layers, is well detailed by Gupta and Mani. OCP has been found near Ganeshwar since 3000 BC, at Kampil from 3300 BC onwards, and at Nasirpur from 2650 BC. These were developments parallel to and in interaction with Mature Harappan, and Sudās’ 2500 BC account from these mantras agrees with the picture.

Another reading is to interpret Yakṣus, Ajas and Śighras as coming to pay tribute to Sudās after his victories, accepting his sovereign rule and occupying vassal positions within it. If the Ṛg Vedic Āryas are understood to have imported their horses from outside India, then the horse-head reference here could mean horses itself—foreign tribes accepting Sudās’ dominion and gifting him horses, much like the Mauryas later gift elephants to the Greeks.

Mantra 20 lauds Indra’s past victories, and alludes to ancestral battles against Dāsa Śaṁbara that were waged by Sudās’ forefather, Divodāsa. The remaining mantras are dānastutis, and mantra 25 invokes the Maruts to protect Sudās. But mantra 24 may be noted for its interesting interpretations.

24: yasya śravo rodasī antar urvī śīrṣṇe-śīrṣṇe vibabhājā vibhaktā | sapted indraṃ na sravato gṛṇanti ni yudhyāmadhim aśiśād abhīke || He whose fame the Apportioner has apportioned to every head between the two wide world-halves, they hymn (him) just as the seven streams do Indra. He “whetted down” Yudhyāmadhi at the moment of encounter.

This mantra is a dānastuti, so the ‘he’ refers to Sudās. It portrays him as apportioning things (regions? resources?) among people, which emerges better in Griffith’s translation as gives each chief his portion. Geldner also reads verteiler and beute verteilt hat. Trivedi finds wealth sharing with śreṣṭha vyakti, and Wilson eminent person. Line 2 gives the personal name of another enemy, Yudhyāmadhi, which all translations find. But while JB translate moment of encounter, Geldner sees a duel and Griffith a close encounter. Might this suggest the resolution of final conflict through one-on-one combat?

Maṇḍala 7, Sūkta 33

Not all mantras here are of interest in the Dāśarājña context. The historical relevance begins at mantra 3.

3: even nu kaṃ sindhum ebhis tatāreven nu kam bhedam ebhir jaghāna | even nu kaṃ dāśarājñe sudāsam prāvad indro brahmaṇā vo vasiṣṭhāḥ ||
It was certainly just with them that he crossed the Sindhu; certainly just with them that he smashed Bheda (/the “Splitter”); it was certainly just by reason of your sacred formulation that Indra helped Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings, o Vasiṣṭhas.

This mantra is of dual interest. The first is due to the appearance of dāśarājñe in line 2, where even Trivedi adds yuddha in his translation. The second interest is due to Witzel’s use of this mantra to declare Vasiṣṭha an immigrant from across the Sindhu. This is problematic on multiple fronts. 1- Geldner’s translation shows that it’s Indra who crosses the Sindhu, not Vasiṣṭha, and Wilson’s translation has Sudās doing the crossing. Only Trivedi has Vasiṣṭha-putras crossing the river. 2- It’s known from context that Bheda is placed along the Yamunā, not the Sindhu. 3- The sindhu in this mantra is to be taken generically, and Griffith does translate it simply as river.

Therefore, if an immigration is to be seen, it’s that of Indra to the Yamunā River, and this is but the metaphorical meaning. Indra travels with Sudās, as his beneficent deity, so his coming to the Yamunā is only a reference to Sudās’ known campaigns there against Bheda. This is one of Witzel’s vague references to migrations from the west, so parsing it through is important to understanding invasionist/migrationist lacunae. Kazanas and Bryant expose these well, the latter not as an endorsement of OIT but through general survey.

4: juṣṭī naro brahmaṇā vaḥ pitṝṇām akṣam avyayaṃ na kilā riṣātha | yac chakvarīṣu bṛhatā raveṇendre śuṣmam adadhātā vasiṣṭhāḥ ||
(Indra:) Gladly, you superior men, by reason of your fathers’ sacred formulation, I have engirded the axle: you will certainly not be harmed, since with a lofty cry in Śakvarī (martial) (meter) you established impetuous force in Indra, o Vasiṣṭhas. This mantra is to be noted for its reference to the axle (akṣam). The word ratha does not appear, so it’s at best a tangential reference to chariots, and only in reference to the mythic Indra. JB comment that the axle is in reference to a vehicle pulled by oxen.

---

5: ud dyām ivet tṛṣṇajo nāthitāso ‘dīdhayur dāśarājñe vṛtāsaḥ | vasiṣṭhasya stuvata indro aśrod uruṃ tṛtsubhyo akṛṇod ulokam || Like thirsty ones looking toward heaven (for rain), in distress they looked toward (Indra) when they were surrounded in the Battle of the Ten Kings. Indra hearkened to Vasiṣṭha as he was praising; he made the broad space broad for the Tṛtsus. A mantra in praise of Indra, it alludes to the aid he gave to Sudās, when the latter was surrounded by ten kings. Dāśarājñe appears, but the battle of is added in translations. Wilson’s bestowed a spacious region on the Tṛtsus is evocative, and may be connected to the very early rise of Sudās and his people. This is echoed in the next mantra.

---

6: daṇḍā ived goajanāsa āsan parichinnā bharatā arbhakāsaḥ | abhavac ca puraetā vasiṣṭha ād it tṛtsūnāṃ viśo aprathanta || They were cut off short, like goads for driving cattle—the puny Bharatas. When Vasiṣṭha came to be the leader, right after that did the clans of the Tṛtsus spread out. JB’s translation of puny Bharatas here is uncharitable, and Geldner’s weak, Griffith’s defenceless or Wilson’s inferior (to their foes) are better. But detail is given by Trivedi, whose translation for line 1 shows the Tṛtsus living as a kind of persecuted minority under Bheda’s rule. Only in line 2, when Vasiṣṭha becomes their purohita, are the Tṛtsus under Sudās brought to fame and glory. With the previous verse, it can be imagind that the persecuted Bharatas move to new land, the bestowed spacious region, before establishing their kingdom. This tallies with previous portrayals of Bheda as inimical to Bharatas and their rituals. The remaining mantras in this sūkta move away from the Dāśarājña, but the final mantra can be noted for occurrence of the word pratṛdo.

14: ukthabhṛtaṃ sāmabhṛtam bibharti grāvāṇam bibhrat pra vadāty agre | upainam ādhvaṃ sumanasyamānā ā vo gachāti pratṛdo vasiṣṭhaḥ ||
(Agastya?:) He supports the supporter of solemn speech (Hotar), the supporter of the melody (Udgātar); supporting the pressing stone he will speak forth at the beginning. Do you reverently approach him, seeking benevolence. He will come to you, you thrusters forth—Vasiṣṭha.

JB translate pratṛdo as thrusters forth, but Griffith and Geldner favour Pratṛdas as the name of a tribe. To Trivedi/Wilson the mantra is entirely ritual, and pratṛdo refers to the adhvaryu that officiates the Vedic ritual and guides the patron. Oldenberg agrees when he sees the mantra identifying the three priests of ritual, though not by title—hotar, udgātar and adhvaryu. Talageri reads Pratṛdo as a patronymic for Sudās, which is supported by Paurāṇika genealogy which has Pratardana descend from Divodāsa. But Pargiter has conclusively shown this Divodāsa to be an earlier ruler of Kāśī, not the Ṛg Vedic Divodāsa. This mantra should therefore be delinked from the Dāśarājña.

Maṇḍala 7, Sūkta 83

To quote JB—“This hymn looks back at the Battle of the Ten Kings described in VII.18, in which the Bharata king Sudās with the help of the Vasiṣṭhas triumphed over an alliance of ten rulers. This battle was a key moment in Vasiṣṭha history, and the poet recalls this historic victory in order to extend it into the present.” This supports the conjecture that the Ṛg Vedic Bharatas looked to the Dāśarājña battles in hindsight, likely towards the end of Sudās’ reign.

1: yuvāṃ narā paśyamānāsa āpyam prācā gavyantaḥ pṛthuparśavo yayuḥ | dāsā ca vṛtrā hatam āryāṇi ca sudāsam indrāvaruṇāvasāvatam || Looking upon you two and their friendship (with you), o you superior men, the broad-chested ones have gone forward in their quest for cattle. Strike down the obstacles, both Dāsa and Ārya! Help Sudās with your help, Indra and Varuṇa!

English translations do not show it, but this mantra is of import. In the Saṁskṛta text, line 1 contains the term pṛthuparśavo. To JB, Geldner and Griffith, it only represents broad-chested men. To Trivedi/Wilson, it means men holding sickles. But an alternate account comes from Ludwig’s translation, where he reads Parthians and Persians. The situation is best parsed by Talageri, who first points to RV 6-27-5 and 6-27-8, which refer to Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna as a Pārthava. Then Talageri identifies Kavi Cāyamāna in RV 7-18, who must be taken as a Pārthava descendant of Abhyāvartin.

The Pārthavas are thus already known, as is their involvement in Dāśarājña affairs. This gives enough reason to read pṛthuparśavo the way Ludwig reads it, and find Pārthavas and Parśavas as further names of Sudās’ enemies. Line 2 reiterates the evident Dāśarājña pattern—that among Sudās’ enemies are both Dāsas and Āryas. These nuanced readings into the mantras throw a heavy challenge to invasionist/migrationist models.

2: yatrā naraḥ samayante kṛtadhvajo yasminn ājā bhavati kiṃ cana priyam | yatrā bhayante bhuvanā svardṛśas tatrā na indrāvaruṇādhi vocatam || Where superior men gather together with their banners set, in a contest where there is nothing at all to love, where living beings, seeing the sun, become afraid, there speak for us, Indra and Varuṇa! 3: sam bhūmyā antā dhvasirā adṛkṣatendrāvaruṇā divi ghoṣa āruhat | asthur janānām upa mām arātayo ‘rvāg avasā havanaśrutā gatam || “The ends of the earth have appeared covered in dust! O Indra and Varuṇa, the tumult has mounted to heaven! The tribes’ hostilities have come upon me: o you hearing my call, come near with help.”

The above mantras are visited together as they paint a composite image of battle. Translations of mantra 2 are unanimous that it refers to a terrifying assemblage of warriors, where both sides know that death awaits them and pray to Indra-Varuṇa. Mantra 3 continues the vivid imagery.

4: indrāvaruṇā vadhanābhir aprati bhedaṃ vanvantā pra sudāsam āvatam | brahmāṇy eṣāṃ śṛṇutaṃ havīmani satyā tṛtsūnām abhavat purohitiḥ || Indra and Varuṇa, conquering Bheda without opposition with your deadly weapons, you helped Sudās. Hear the sacred formulations to summon you! The placement of the Tṛtsus (the Vasiṣṭhas) in front came to be their true (place).

A non-controversial mantra where translations are in agreement. Referring to the past victory against Bheda, it praises Vasiṣṭhas for their aid to the Tṛtsus. The multiple references to Bheda give reason to see him as a kind of leader figure in the imagined conglomerate against Sudās. But his association with the Yamunā then suggests the true(r) battle happened along its banks, not the Paruṣṇī’s.

Debroys see the Dāśarājña as a conglomerate put together by Viśvāmitra, having been slighted when Sudās makes Vasiṣṭha his purohita. Though there is no evidence in the Ṛg Veda for this, including Paurāṇika evidence strengthens the case. Viśvāmitra and his clan are better placed in the Yamunā-Gaṅgā Doab, which is likely to put them in touch with a ruler like Bheda. But in the Ṛg Veda, Sudās’ encounter with Viśvāmitra happens along the Vipāś and Śutudrī Rivers.

5: indrāvaruṇāv abhy ā tapanti māghāny aryo vanuṣām arātayaḥ | yuvaṃ hi vasva ubhayasya rājatho ‘dha smā no ‘vatam pārye divi || Indra and Varuṇa, the evils of the stranger and the hostilities of the aggressive ones burn against me. Because you two are kings of the good belonging to both (war and peace?), so once more help us on the decisive day. 6: yuvāṃ havanta ubhayāsa ājiṣv indraṃ ca vasvo varuṇaṃ ca sātaye | yatra rājabhir daśabhir nibādhitam pra sudāsam āvataṃ tṛtsubhiḥ saha || Both (sides) call upon you two in the contests, upon Indra and upon Varuṇa, to win what is good, (as) when you helped Sudās together with the Tṛtsus, when he was hard pressed by the ten kings.

These two mantras are visited together because they establish a common theme of Indra and Varuṇa as patron deities to both sides in the conflict(s). Across the translations, they show that both sides appeal to these deities, and that it was Sudās the deities favoured when he was faced by the ten kings.

This theme is relevant on Vedic-Avestan relationship. Indra is a primary deity in the Ṛg Veda, but is only marginally remembered in the Avesta. Varuṇa’s importance fades in Vedic tradition, while in the Avesta he is elevated to Ahura Mazda, or Asura Medha. In the early Ṛg Veda, both Devas and Asuras are powerful deities and there is no good vs. evil divide. But in the Avesta, the Daevas are decisively malevolent entities that work against Ahura Mazda, the force of light. If among Sudās’ enemies are found proto-Iranians (broadly, Ānavas), the above makes good sense. Pūrus and Ānavas are culturally allied people at first, as evidenced by Abhyāvartin’s alliance with Sudās’ ancestors. They have similar rituals, a sense of the fire as sacred, and a practice of hymnology that shares common deities. Over time, Indra emerges as favoured totem of the Pūru-Bharatas, and their victories over Ānavas precipitate the Ānavas’ distancing from Indra. The Avesta, as the tradition of Ānava descendants, reflects this memory in its mythology.

By mantra 6, it becomes clear that Sudās is not to be counted among the ten kings, for it has Indra and Varuṇa help him when he was hard pressed by the ten kings. So the battle of ten kings is actually one of eleven kings. Sudās may have fought against dāśarājña, but the yuddha was of ekādāśarājña. Some personal names are known with certainty—Śimyu, Purodātā, Bheda, Kavaṣa and Yudhyāmadhi. Others, like Kavi, Vṛddha and Śruta, are not found by all.

7: daśa rājānaḥ samitā ayajyavaḥ sudāsam indrāvaruṇā na yuyudhuḥ | satyā nṛṇām admasadām upastutir devā eṣām abhavan devahūtiṣu || Gathered together but without a zeal to sacrifice, the ten kings gave no fight to Sudās, o Indra and Varuṇa. The invitatory praise of the superior men (priests) sitting down to the (sacrificial) meal came true: at the call of these to the gods, the gods became present.

This mantra gives further hints to the theme of mantras 5 and 6, when it declares that the opposing kings had no zeal to sacrifice. Griffith uses worshipped not, Trivedi yagyahīna, and Wilson irreligious. This paints a picture of emergent ritual, cultural and religious differences among a previously allied people. The gathering together of ten kings here is indication of a single battle, and the gathering is assumed to be at the Paruṣṇī. But this sūkta speaks of the past, as does sūkta 33, and only sūkta 18 is a present account. This explains why by this mantra, the composer Vasiṣṭha clubs past events into a single account. Only long after the bulk of Sudās’ campaigns, and possibly during the era of peace, is dāśarājña coined and are past victories commemorated.

8: dāśarājñe pariyattāya viśvataḥ sudāsa indrāvaruṇāv aśikṣatam | śvityañco yatra namasā kapardino dhiyā dhīvanto asapanta tṛtsavaḥ || Indra and Varuṇa, you did your best for Sudās, surrounded on every side in the battle with the ten kings, when they, the bright-faced ones with braided hair, through their reverence—the insightful Tṛtsus through their insight—offered their service.

The description of Tṛtsus here as bright-faced and with braided hair has been taken by some as a description of Vasiṣṭha ṛṣis, implying that Tṛtsus were Vasiṣṭhas. But this is reading too much into a single line, and the larger evidence equates Tṛtsus with Pūru-Bharatas, specifically the clan led by Sudās. JB’s insightful Tṛtsus though their insight is translated by Geldner as artful poetry and by Griffith as skilled in song. These give rise to images of a gāthin, which could well be equated with Viśvāmitra! In other words, the safer conclusion is that Tṛtsus are a sub-branch of Pūru-Bharatas, with Sudās as their leader and Vasiṣṭha(s) as their purohita.

Supplementary Mantras

The above covers all mantras generally considered relevant in the Dāśarājña context, but a few more add to the picture.

7-19-3: tvaṃ dhṛṣṇo dhṛṣatā vītahavyam prāvo viśvābhir ūtibhiḥ sudāsam | pra paurukutsiṃ trasadasyum āvaḥ kṣetrasātā vṛtrahatyeṣu pūrum || You, o bold one, boldly helped on Sudās, whose oblation is worth pursuing, with all forms of help; you helped on Trasadasyu, son of Purukutsa, and Pūru in the winning of land, in the smashing of obstacles.

Following sūkta 18 in Maṇḍala 7, this sūkta celebrates many of Indra’s past victories and refers to events (mythic or historic) that are referred to in other sūktas, by other composers, as well. Any translation of vītahavyam in line 1 as Vitahavya Haihaya must be rejected, for even in Pargiter’s genealogy Vitahavya precedes Sudās by at least six centuries. Accordingly, no translation actually interprets Vitahavya. More damningly, the Haihaya line is conclusively ended by Sagara Aikṣvāku and Rāma Jamadāgneya, both of whom precede Sudās by many generations. JB see this mantra in sharp contrast to 7-18, where the Pūrus are enemies. But Sudās’ martial engagements cut across tribal lines. And accounting for Talageri’s identification of Tṛtsus as Pūru-Bharatas, that Pūrus are beneficiaries in this mantra is not remarkable at all. Of interest are Trasadasyu and Purukutsa, and confusion over their identity is covered in the Vedic Index. The general agreement is that this mantra suggests Trasadasyu to be Sudās’ contemporary and ally, which is not problematic from a Ṛg Vedic point-of-view. It finds challenge from Paurāṇika genealogy, where Trasadasyu and Purukutsa are names in the Aikṣvāku line, but nowhere contemporaneous to Sudās.

There is a plausible resolution to these issues, but it lies outside the purview of this paper. In the Dāśarājña context, all that can be gathered is that Trasadasyu was an ally of Sudās, and his tribal identity is ambiguous. The name translates as tormentor of Dasyus, so it could apply to any notable warrior/ruler on Sudās’ side. With the translation of kutsa as thunderbolt, it’s tempting to translate Purukutsa as Pūrus’ thunderbolt, but then the rendition should be Pūrukutsa.

1-63-7: tvaṃ ha tyad indra sapta yudhyam puro vajrin Purukutsāya dardaḥ | barhir nay at sudāse vṛthā varg aṃho rājan varivaḥ pūrave kaḥ || You then, mace-bearing Indra, attacking, split seven fortifications for Purukutsa, one after the other. When at will you twisted them like ritual grass for Sudās, o king, from narrowness you made wide space for Pūru.

Stuhrmann associates this mantra with 7-18-13, which also refers to the destruction of seven cities. He sees Bharatas and Pūrus (led by Purukutsa) adopting a strategy similar to one Alexander did, centuries later. In this model, Sudās takes the bulk of his force to the Paruṣṇī, where he detains the enemy soliders. From the rear, Purukutsa leads an attack to the seven cities, which now lie unprotected. Seeing the Dāśarājña events as occurring in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, he connects these seven cities with Harappan old settlement hills and hinterland clusters.

But this mantra is in Maṇḍala 1, which is a late Maṇḍala and refers to all events in the past tense. Sūkta 63 refers to many events, mythic and historic, and there should be caution in making temporal or spatial conclusions on the basis of this.

1-126-7: upopa me parā mṛśa mā me dabhrāṇi manyathāḥ | sarvāham asmi romaśā gandhārīṇām ivāvikā || (Saying,) “Feel me up—keep going further. Don’t belittle my “little things (private parts). I am entirely hairy, like a little ewe of the Gandhāris.

This mantra is important as evidence of Paurāṇika memory. Note the reference in line 2 to Gandhāris, which is found by Geldner and Griffith as well. The Purāṇas tell of the Druhyu king Aṅgāra, who was defeated by Māndhātṛ and migrated west. His descendant, Gandhāra, established a kingdom in his own name. Given Pargiter’s genealogy, this event preceded Sudās by more than a millennium. Māndhātṛ’s campaigns can in fact be associated with the first wave of IE dispersals—proto-Anatolian and proto-Tocharian.

While Gandhāra appears cognate to modern Kandahar, in the Vedic era it corresponded to the modern regions of north Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan. These regions are known to have supplied sheep wool through the ages, confirmed in this mantra by the association of an ewe to Gandhāris. Given Oldenburg’s internal chronology for the Ṛg Veda, Maṇḍala 1 was composed after the core family books. But since the gap was not more than a few centuries, Maṇḍala 1 can be placed around 2200 BC. This means that Gandhāra was a known region, and Gandhāris a known people, by Sudās’ time.

3-53-9: mahāṁ ṛṣir devajā devajūto ‘stabhnāt sindhum arṇavaṃ nṛcakṣāḥ | viśvāmitro yad avahat sudāsam apriyāyata kuśikebhir indraḥ || The great seer—god-begotten, god-sped, (though) possessing a man’s sight—stayed the river in flood. When Viśvāmitra conveyed Sudās (across the rivers), Indra made friends with the Kuśikas.

Sūkta 53 in Maṇḍala 3 is important to constructing Sudās’ political history. Composed by Viśvāmitra Gāthin, it celebrates the Viśvāmitras’ (or Kuśikas) association with Sudās, and refers to the benefits the latter received through this. Though the rivers are not directly mentioned in this mantra, the reference is known to be to Vipāś and Śutudrī through RV 3-33. Two aspects are important here. For one, in Maṇḍala 7 Sudās’ purohita is a Vasiṣṭha, and the associated rivers are Paruṣṇī and Yamunā. In Maṇḍala 3 the purohita is Viśvāmitra, and the associated rivers are Vipāś and Śutudrī. Witzel asserts that, using Oldenberg’s principles, Maṇḍala 7 was composed a few months or years after Maṇḍala 3. He uses this to show that the Śutudrī met the Vipāś even in Ṛg Vedic times, and that the Ṛg Vedic Sarasvatī was never the mighty river it’s made to be. That merits a separate discussion, but here it’s noted that Viśvāmitra is Sudās’ earlier purohita, and Vasiṣṭha the latter.

This alone has prompted images of a great Vasiṣṭha vs. Viśvāmitra conflict in the Ṛg Veda, and Debroys contend that the slighted Viśvāmitra mounted the conglomerate against Sudās. Evidence for this is extremely scant, and is made significant only if one brings in Paurāṇika evidence. But while the Purāṇas talk of many Vasiṣṭhas and Viśvāmitras, they make no reference to any aligned with Sudās, or to the Dāśarājña. If the Purāṇas lifted their traditions from Vedic sources, Sudās’ absence from Paurāṇika legends needs explaining.

The geographical aspect in mantra 9 is more important. If the rivers Sudās is associated with are ordered west to east, one gets—Paruṣṇī, Vipāś, Śutudrī, Yamunā. Vasiṣṭha helped Sudās along the Paruṣṇī and Yamunā, while Viśvāmitra was his purohita for Vipāś and Śutudrī. This throws the simplistic chronology of Viśvāmitra the earlier purohita and Vasiṣṭha the latter (or vice versa) into disarray. Whether Sudās moved from Paruṣṇī to Yamunā or in the other direction, he would have to cross the Vipāś and Śutudrī midway. In any scenario, he starts with Vasiṣṭha as the purohita, has Viśvāmitra officiate midway, and then brings Vasiṣṭha back again! Alternately, if Oldenberg’s chronology is to be maintained, then Sudās first campaigned along Vipaś/Śutudrī, where associations with Viśvāmitra where of limited success. Later, on associating with Vasiṣṭha, he was able to consolidate Paruṣṇī to Yamunā.

This is good reason not to read Vasiṣṭha vs. Viśvāmitra conflicts in the Ṛg Veda, and to consider that ruler-purohita relationships were dynamic and complex. Line 2 here, combined with RV 3-33, gives evidence of Viśvāmitra helping Sudās cross Vipāś and Śutudrī, and should arguably be taken as no more than that. For the part of Sudās’ campaigns around these rivers, he was aided by the Kuśikas, and this is how Indra made friends with them. The reference indicates Kuśikas taking on Pūru-Bharata/Ṛg Vedic ritual, which is affirmed by Viśvāmitra’s praise for the Āṅgirasas, the ṛṣis who were aligned to Sudās’ ancestor Divodāsa.

3-53-14: kiṃ te kṛṇvanti kīkateṣu gāvo nāśiraṃ duhre na tapanti gharmam | ā no bhara pramagandasya vedo naicāśākham maghavan randhayā naḥ || What do the cows do for you among the Kīkaṭas? They do not milk out the milk mixture; they do not heat the gharma(hot)-drink. Bring here to us the possessions of Pramaganda. Make the descendant of Nīcāśākha subject to us, bounteous one.

Kīkaṭas appear only here in all of the Ṛg Veda, and in Yāska’s Nirukta Kīkaṭa was the name of a non-Ārya region. Vedic Index lists that Kīkaṭa is a synonym for Magadha in the St. Petersburg Dictionary. Zimmer and Weber agree that Kīkaṭa is synonymous with Magadha, but Weber sees Kīkaṭas as an Ārya tribe. This might indicate a cognate relationship between Pramaganda and Magadha, but that seems incidental. Griffith finds no name in naicāśākham and translates it as low-born, which Trivedi’s nīca-vaṁśa agrees with.

Paurāṇika tradition shows Kīkaṭas as a mountain tribe loosely located in modern Nepal, and it can be assumed that in 2500 BC they spread across a much larger area. Since Viśvāmitra and Sudās are placed together near the Vipāś and Śutudrī, this is at odds with the identification of Kīkaṭa as later Magadha. Line 1 declares that cows are useless among Kīkaṭas, implying that they’re better off with Sudās’ people. It seems very unlikely that Sudās would go, or need to go, cattle-raiding far off to Magadha, from his general base near the Sarasvatī River. If the connection is true, it has deep implications for the range of Sudās’ campaigns, but the safer conclusion should place Kīkaṭas in the mountains Vipāś and Śutudrī emerge from.

3-53-24: ima indra bharatasya putrā apapitvam cikitur na prapitvam | hinvanty aśvam araṇam na nityam jyāvājam pari ṇayanty ājau || Are these the sons of Bharata, Indra? They take note of the non-meal, not the meal. They spur the alien horse, not their own. At the contest they lead around the one whose prize is (just) a bowstring.

To JB, this mantra presents the Bharatas in an unflattering light. Geldner’s translation generally agrees, but Griffith sees the Bharatas as regarding neither severance nor close connection. Where JB see a contest in line 2, Griffith sees a battle, and to him the horse is led with the speed of a bowstring. Trivedi/Wilson’s reading is interesting. In this translation, line 1 says that the Bharatas, in relation to the Vasiṣṭhas, know apagamana, or splintering, and not gamana, or unity. In line 2, it’s Vasiṣṭhas that Bharatas urge horses and take bows against. This is the Viśvāmitras casting Sudās’ relationship with Vasiṣṭhas in a poor light, and is arguably the only evidence of a Viśvāmitra/Vasiṣṭha rivalry. Temporal sequences are challenged here, for if Maṇḍala 3 was composed a few years/months before Maṇḍala 7, how does Viśvāmitra already know of a Bharata-Vasiṣṭha alliance?

Note in this mantra the clear reference to horses. All translations agree that the Bharatas urge a horse, but JB see it only as a contest. This supports the view that horses were known to Ṛg Vedic Āryas more in ritual, festive and sportive contexts. In any case, the reference to horse here is without a (war)chariot.

6-27-5: vadhīd indro varaśikhasya śeṣo ‘bhyāvartine cāyamānāya śikṣan | vṛcivato yad dhariyūpīyāyāṃ han pūrve ardhe bhiyasāparo dart || Indra smashed the posterity of Varaśikha, doing his best for Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, when at the Hariyūpīyā (River) he smashed the Vṛcīvants in the front division, and the rear (division) shattered from fear. 6-27-8: dvayāṃ agne rathino viṃśatiṃ gā vadhūmato maghavā mahyaṃ samrāṭ | abhyāvartī cāyamāno dadāti dūṇāśeyaṃ dakṣiṇā pārthavānām ||

O Agni, chariot-steeds by twos and twenty head of cattle together with brides does the bounteous, universal king give to me—Abhyāvartin the son of Cayamāna. Difficult to attain is this priestly gift of the Pārthavas.

Composed by Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya, these mantras are not directly related to Dāśarājña. Bharadvāja is the purohita to Divodāsa, who is Sudās’ ancestor. But these mantras are noted for the occurrence of important words. First, the presence of Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna and Pārthavas, which makes glaring the erasure of Kavi Cāyamāna and Pārthavas from translations of RV 7-18 and RV 7-83, respectively.

Ratha makes an appearance in line 1, but Geldner and Griffith both translate it as wagon. This is because the mantra refers to gifts Abhyāvartin gives to Bharadvāja, which come laden on a wagon. Trivedi translates it as ratha and Wilson as cars, but both see it laden with women and cows. This points to the many ways ratha is used in the Ṛg Veda, and to the conspicuous absence in all mantras surveyed of any reference to horse-driven war-chariots.

Finally, the word samrāṭ is interesting. JB translate it frankly as universal king, Geldner agrees with allkönig, and Griffith with sovereign. Wilson is generous with opulent supreme sovereign. This throws relief on Witzel’s derision of the idea of kings and empires in Ṛg Vedic India. Even when the mantra is accepted as hyperbolic, especially as it praises the donor, note that the idea of sovereigns is real in the 3rd millennium BC. Further evidence comes from RV 8-21-18, which states that Citra is the only rājā, while other rulers around him are mere rājakās. This implies that there were real gradations in rulers during the Vedic era, and a final evidence is found in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa:

“By offering the rājasūya he becomes the rājā, and by the vājapeya he becomes samrāṭ. The office of the rājan is lower, and of the samrāṭ higher.”

Sudās Paijavana is attributed as composer of RV 10-133, but with the attributions of Maṇḍala 10 quite suspect, this need not be taken literally. In any case, while JB do find some connections with RV 7-33, this sūkta does not yield historical information, so can be ignored. A lacuna in the regnal gradations shown above is that none of the Dāśarājña mantras declare Sudās to be a rājā, rājakā or samrāṭ, though at least the latter is a known title from before his time. This concludes the survey of Ṛg Vedic data.

Dāśarājña Re-contextualised

The general interpretation of Dāśarājña as a singular battle among/with ten kings must be discarded. At the very least, it must be supplemented it with the clear evidence of Sudās’ campaigns along at least 4 rivers, and possibly as far as Magadha. When done with Sudās’ placement in ~2500 BC, this reorients the view for IE dispersals and Mature Harappan. Given the two frameworks, the few centuries prior to Sudās can be briefed.

Archaeologically, 3500-2500 BC is Early Harappan, itself the end of a regionalisation era. Regionalisation here refers to the emergence of difference village/town clusters, not necessarily linked together in material or cultural terms. This is noticed as the Hakra Ware Culture and Ravi Phase (3500 BC onwards) along the Paruṣṇī River, Sothi-Siswal Culture (4600 BC onwards) along the Sarasvatī-Dṛṣadvatī Rivers, Kot Diji Culture (4000 BC onwards) in the northern end of the Sindhu, and the Ahar-Banas Culture (3000 BC onwards) in modern Rajasthan, among other cultures.

These cultures should not be thought of in discrete terms, and various layers of overlap are found in them. But till the 3rd millennium BC they proceed through a period of regionalisation, their internal characteristics possibly the result of local political consolidations. For the latter, Paurāṇika genealogy as outlined by Pargiter maps quite well to the archaeological picture.The Hakra Ware and Ravi Phase consolidations in Early Harappan map to the rise of Ānava dynasties following Sivi Auśinara, who is placed in ~3300 BC.

Paurāṇika tradition has him establish a capital called Sivipuri, geographic hints to which are remarkably close to Harappa, which appears in the archaeological record 3500-3300 BC. He is remembered as a cakravartin, and his descendants expand across the Greater Punjab and Kashmir regions, establishing kingdoms later known as Kekaya and Madra. Sothi-Siswal, which has deep roots from the 8th millennium BC, in this period maps to the Pūru dynasties, and by 3000 BC sees the rise of Bharata Dauṣyanti.

The rise of the Bharata dynasty conveniently follows the beginning of Harappan integration, which peaks by 2500 BC during the era of Sudās. Mature Harappan is astounding for its level of civilisational uniformity, reflected in aspects such as town-planning and weights and measures. Such organisation cannot come about without some kind of ruling authority, whether it be federal or sovereign. This organising force is provided to the ISC by the Bharatas, and the Dāśarājña mantras show precisely how Sudās yokes civilisation proper. The hard data can be summarised such:

Personal Names:

Śimyu (tribal affiliation uncertain), Purodātā (Turvaśa), Kavi (Ānava/Pārthava), Kavaṣa (Ānava), Śruta, Vṛddha, Bheda, Trasadasyu (as ally of Sudās), Yudhyāmadhi, Pramaganda, Vitahavya (extremely unlikely). If all possibilities including Vitahavya are accepted, there are ten names for Sudās’ enemies.

Tribe Names:

Yakṣu (possibly Yadu), Matsya, Bhṛgu, Druhyu, Paktha, Bhalāna, Ālina, Viṣāṇin, Śiva, Pṛśni, Vaikarṇa, Anu/Ānava, Pūru, Tṛtsu, Bharata, Aja, Śighra, Pārthava, Parśava, Kuśika, Kīkaṭa.

Locations (Rivers and Places):

Paruṣṇī, Yamunā, Vipāś, Śutudrī and possibly a place named Manuṣa. Tangentially, if the identification of Kīkaṭa with Magadha is accepted, then the latter. One reading places Bheda at Sindhu, but here the term should be understood generically, and yield Yamunā through context.

Events:

• The possible drowning and killing of Śimyu (7-18-5).
• Sudās prevails over Purodātā Turvaśa. It’s unclear whether he defeats/kills him through war or through some kind of treaty/negotiation (7-18-6). In corollary,
• Bhṛgus and Druhyus either aid Purodātā, or try to mediate between the warring parties. They cannot be counted as Sudās’ enemies with certainty from this mantra.
• Pakthas, Bhalānas, Ālinas, Śivas and Viṣāṇins are mentioned together, indicating they were a kind of conglomerate. They appear to come raiding for cattle, though some among them could have switched sides (7-18-7).
• A series of unclear events occur along the Paruṣṇī. Irrigation channels are possibly damaged by attacking parties, Pṛśnis among them. Sudās overcomes this and restores order. Enemies likely gather against him here, though the evidence is weak. Sudās’ named enemy is Kavi Cāyamāna, who is killed. These enemies are possibly of a similar dialect as Sudās’ people (7-18-8; 9; 10).
• Sudās defeats the Vaikarṇas (7-18-11).
• Sudās defeats Kavaṣa, who is aided by Ānavas and Druhyus (7-18-12).
• There’s seemingly a prolonged period of conflicts with Ānavas and Druhyus, where Sudās attacks their fortified strongholds. The Ānavas abandon these strongholds and resources within them. Sudās also battles Pūrus (7-18-12; 13; 14; 15).
• The fleeing people take shelter in getaway paths, which could mean mountain passes and ravines (7-18-16).
• Some distribution treaties are struck, which determine who gets ownership of what (7-18-13).
• Sudās battles and defeats Bheda. Multiple references to the latter indicate this conflict was significant. It happened along the Yamunā, and among Bheda’s allies were Ajas, Śighras and Yakṣus (Yadus?). These tribes pay tribute to Sudās (7-18-18; 19, 7-33-3, 7-83-4).
• In the battle against Bheda, Sudās’ people were for a while outnumbered, or distressed, or both. Bheda also persecutes their religion/ritual. They overcome this condition, apparently, when Vasiṣṭha becomes their purohita (7-18-18, 7-33-5; 6).
• Sudās institutes some kind of federation, where resources/ power/ territory/ bounty is apportioned. An enemy here is Yudhyāmadhi, who is defeated in close encounter (7-18-24).
• Among Sudās’ enemies are Pārthavas and Parśavas, who appear cattle-raiders, like Ānavas and Druhyus (7-83-1).
• A terrifying gathering of warriors happens, possibly along the Paruṣṇī. There is a definitive battle here that could be the same as that of 7-18 (7-83-2; 3; 4)
• Sudās’ enemies consist of Dāsas and Āryas, both. This is evidenced when we find both sides appealing to Indra and Varuṇa (7-83-5; 6; 7; 8).
• Among Sudās’ allies is Trasadasyu Paurukutsa (7-19-3).
• When campaigning along the Vipāś and Śutudrī Rivers, Sudās is aided by Viśvāmitra and his clan of Kuśikas. Kīkaṭas are the enemy here, and Sudās’ people covet their cattle. Pramaganda is the possible name of the Kīkaṭa leader (3-53-9; 14). Allusions to Magadha should be held as an extreme interpretation.

In light of the above data, Danino’s suspicion that “anyone expecting a workable, even partial or ‘poetic’ narrative of this event, on which so much historical reconstruction has been attempted, will be disappointed” seems unfounded. With the data standing for itself, even removing all parts that translations are not in agreement on, the Dāśarājña mantras are clearly a historical account. What’s more, the history and information embedded in them is remarkably detailed, and when combined with the two frameworks paint a new landscape for India circa 2500 BC. Stuhrmann and Witzel would agree, but their frameworks are different (invasionist/migrationist, in mid-2nd millennium BC).

To begin, re-examine Witzel’s Dāśarājña—“a battle of ten kings of the five peoples of the Panjab (Yadu, Turvaśa, Anu, Druhyu, Pūru) against the Bharata king Sudās” and a “kind of precursor to the Mahābhārata.” By the latter, Witzel means that the events of Dāśarājña were appropriated into the fictional myth of the Mahābhārata. He goes as far as saying that the Dāśarājña’s pañcajana were made the five Pāṇḍavas of the Mahābhārata, and it must be wondered what kind of philology makes this association tenable.

Of the pañcajana, the Yadu are among Sudās’ enemies only if Yakṣu is accepted as a pun on Yadu. A connection to the Paurāṇika Yakṣas could have been speculated, but Yakṣa does not occur in the Vedas. Turvaśas, Ānavas and Druhyus are clearly enemies. And for the Pūrus, the Purāṇas affirm that there are other Pūru lines besides Sudās’. Thus the characterisation of Dāśarājña as Sudās’ conflicts against the pañcajana is fair. But two misconceptions to shed are that 1- this was a single battle along the Paruṣṇī, and 2- all enemy tribes were in a single, allied conglomerate.

This alone makes untenable any comparisons between Dāśarājña and Mahābhārata. Witzel also declares—“(Dāśarājña) is fought between the Bharata chieftain Sudās on one side, and the Pūru chief with his nine ‘royal’ allies on the other.” How true does this appear in light of the data? For one, what informs one that Sudās is a chieftain, but his enemies are royal? Should these be taken as different titles at all? Next—the image of Sudās on one side and an allied conglomerate on the other side is false. There are at least two legs of Sudās’ campaigns, one on the Paruṣṇī and one on the Yamunā. The Vipāś/Śutudrī event adds a third arena. Sudās is aided by allies, mediators and defectors, so his people do not stand alone.

And who is the Pūru chief? On the Paruṣṇī campaign, the name of Kavi Cāyamāna is not even found in translations, and of the ones found—Śimyu, Purodātā, Kavaṣa—none is declared Pūru. There is only the reference of Pūru with scornful speech, which does not suffice for Witzel’s assertion. On the Yamunā campaign the enemy is Bheda, again not a Pūru. In the Vipāś/Śutudrī area we have Pramaganda, who rules Kīkaṭas. In short, Witzel’s characterisation of the Dāśarājña appears to be a lazy generalisation, serving more his theory that the Mahābhārata was a fiction inspired by it. It should be asked if this isn’t (an example of) what he finds in autochthonous models—careless philology.

He adds—“The entire book 7 is a snapshot of history: the incursion of Bharata into the Panjab from across the Sindhu, and their battle with the five peoples and the Pūru. It celebrates the victory of Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings, which once and for all established Bharata supremacy in the Panjab, and set the stage for the formation of the first South Asian ‘state’ under the Kuru tribe.”

As already seen, evidence for across the Sindhu is non-existent, and is based on ignoring the clear contextual reference to Yamunā. In any case, Witzel’s analysis is that Vasiṣṭha is the immigrant from across the Sindhu, so the sūktas do not show Bharata migration to begin with. What’s important, and will be cast in a different light, is once and for all established Bharata supremacy. When using the two frameworks of this paper, this implies something else altogether.
In the IE dispersal context, Talageri’s “the recorded evidence of the Ṛg Veda has the last 5 IE branches in Punjab, on the Paruṣṇī’s banks” must be examined. Talageri traces the dispersal of tribal names from the Dāśarājña across Central Asia and Europe, proving that they travelled west and took IE languages with them. This is not a consensus field, and Kazanas was hesitant to follow Talageri all the way. Witzel’s criticism is limited to deriding Talageri’s entire attempt as folk etymology. Folk etymology is the false derivation of one word from another, which nevertheless becomes popular in people’s imaginations.

Famous folk etymologies came from PN Oak—England Aṅgulisthāna, Vatican Veda Vātika and more. A recently popular one is Bogota Bhogāvaṭi, which feeds notions of a prehistoric Dānava civilisation in Central and South America. Witzel refers to Hoffmann and Tichy’s 36 rules of procedure to show how complex it is to establish proper etymologies, and certainly the process should be more than just identifying phonetic similarities. But etymologies of much larger significance on Indian history have been made with less evidence, and become definitive and unchallenged. What rules of procedure were followed in equating Sandrocottus with Candragupta, for example? Or in declaring that Mleccha Meluhha?

In this backdrop Talageri’s connections may be scrutinised, beginning with the five names in RV 7-18-7—Paktha, Bhalāna, Ālina, Viṣāṇin and Śiva. Sudās reign establishes definitive control over the Mature Harappan, pushing it into the integration era. In turn, this affects an outward dispersal from Harappan geography, and these five tribes are among the fleeing people. Witzel—“…the Bhalānas tribe, which may represent the Bolān area in modern Baluchistan.” In other words, Witzel sees possible connections between Bhalāna/Bolān/Baluch.

Talageri connects Paktha with the modern Pakhtuns, which Witzel rejects because Pakhtun is a modern dialect of Pashtu, and because paktha in the relevant mantra is the ordinal number five. But the underlying logic must be consistent. The five tribes above are named together, in a single mantra. For Bhalānas, Witzel too speculates on an association with Bolān Pass in Baluchistan. It’s not unscientific to speculate on similar connections for the remaining four names. The Dāśarājña mantras evidence that Sudās’ enemies fled through and took shelter in mountain passes. Which are the two great mountain gateways to India? The Khyber and Bolan Passes. Pakthuns are placed near Khyber, and Baluchis near Bolan. This is a footprint in the westward trail of IE dispersal.

All of OIT does not rest upon asserting these connections as true. The case is already made in framework 1, without these notices. But with the case established, it’s special pleading not to see dispersal patterns in Dāśarājña names. Talageri connects Ālinas with the Greek Hellenes, and the Alans of Roman records. The point is not to folk etymologise Ālina, Hellene and Alan. The point is to speculate afresh on previous paradigms, given that IE dispersals did happen OIT. First attested in Roman sources in the 1st century AD, Alans are considered an Iranian people that spoke an Eastern Iranian language. Witzel marvels at the absurdity of connecting a name that appears in the 1st century AD to another present in the Ṛg Veda, at least two millennia prior. But temporal distance in attestation does not prevent the imagination of Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic languages in the 3rd millennium, and enough linguists have found evidence of their influence in the Ṛg Veda. This means that the rationale that names, influences and linguistic strata linger through time is otherwise accepted. Why should it be derided when Talageri uses it? Yes, the usage is done through what may be a kind of folk etymology, but here the context overwhelmingly necessitates a nuanced consideration.

Other representations of the name are Alanoi, Alanliao, Alanguo, Allon, Alauni and Halani, all of which are considered variations of the self-designation of Aryan. Even Ālina, with Ṛg Vedic ambiguity on the -l- and -r- sounds, can be rendered as Ārina. Talageri also connects Ālinas with Hellenes, which Witzel accuses is linguistically impossible. There is little consensus on the origin and timelines of the Hellenes, but the phonetic similarity to Halani (Alan) can be amateurishly noted. Talageri’s conjecture is that, since IE-speaking people did migrate OIT, especially during Sudās’ era, names such as Hellene and Alan can be traced in the Dāśarājña mantras. This logic does extend to his linking of Śimyu with Sairimas and Sarmatians, but Śimyu is a personal name in the Dāśarājña, so the point need not be insisted.

When Talageri connects Śivas to Khivas, Witzel (mis)understands this to be the 19th century AD kingdom in Uzbekistan. But Talageri alludes to the earliest Iranian roots of the region, otherwise attested as Kheeva, Khorasam, Khwarezm and others. Witzel’s speculation that Śivas relate to Sivis is fair, though he would reject Paurāṇika testimony that affirms this. In the Purāṇas, the Ānavas are composed of Sivis/Sivas, who descend from Sivi Auśinara ~3300 BC onwards. They are attested during the Mahābhārata as Saivyas, and readings from the Brāhmaṇas indicate that Sivi-descendant tribes lived on in India long after Sudās. This makes sense when it’s understood that IE dispersals were primarily through exile/migration/dispersal of specific royal lines.

Talageri’s connection of Viṣāṇins to Piśācas is, according to Witzel, “for no good reason at all.” This is a strange assessment, because 1- It’s a connection that Talageri does explain, and 2- It’s the connection he disclaims is most conjectural. The connection between Bhalāna and Baluch is already speculated by Witzel. Talageri notes the conversion of ‘na’ to ‘cha,’ and conjectures a conversion of ‘va’ to ‘pa,’ to wonder if Viṣāṇin is linked to Piśācina.

Witzel would like to project that Talageri swims uninhibited in a sea of amateurish etymological possibilities, and picks from them at whim and fancy—“Give Talageri one consonant, and he will identify.” In reality, Talageri works within a consistent OIT model where it’s known that Sudās’ reign precipitated outward migrations of IE-speaking tribes. If the modern Nuristanis, located in Afghanistan and with clear IE roots, were not known, Talageri would have no reason to conjecture Viṣāṇin Piśācina Nuristani.

The above discussions cover a single Dāśarājña mantra where Pakthas, Bhalānas, Ālinas, Viṣāṇins and Śivas are named together as Sudās’ enemies, and depicted as fleeing under his attacks. It is conclusive that these people migrated out of India, and is reasonable that they spoke dialects similar to the Pūru-Bharatas’. The question then is, should each of Talageri’s specific connections be dismissed as folk etymology? Or, should the coincidence of connections across Eurasia for each name, all associated with IE-speakers, be noted for its preponderance? It should be reiterated—the OIT model stands plausible as is, it does not need these linkages. But under the OIT paradigm, clear evidence is found in the Dāśarājña mantras. Talageri’s amateur linkages to IE dispersal are certainly far more plausible than Witzel’s philological comparisons to Mahābhārata.

Talageri then makes a series of proto-Iranian connections. Kavi/Kavaṣa are linked to Iranian Kauui/Kauuaša. Hoffman and Trichy’s 36 rules are eschewed here and a simple question is asked—are the names not connected? In fact the true question is—do they have common roots outside India, or within India? The Dāśarājña mantras unmistakably place Kavi and Kavaṣa (and also Vaikarṇas, associated with Kavaṣas in Avestan tradition) in Punjab in 2500 BC, likely along the Paruṣṇī. If invasionism/migrationism is still to be clung to, it must now argue that proto-Iranians came all the way to India, fought battles here, and then pedalled back to Iran, which became their eventual homeland. Cue Occam’s razor—proto-Iranians were in fact Indians (or South Asians, if one likes), and like all other IE-speaking people they migrated west. Next are the Pārthavas and Parśavas, found only in Ludwig’s translation as Parthians and Persians. Witzel’s protest that Parthians are attested much later is strange for reasons previously discussed. The entire point is that IE dispersals can be traced by finding the same names located first in India, and later out of India. Pārthavas are anyway found in translations of 6-27-8, so they exist in the Ṛg Veda regardless of Witzel’s protest. These two names give clear evidence of dispersal from India to Iran.

A final connection Talageri draws is between Bhṛgus and Phrygians, again dismissed by Witzel as folk etymology. But the Indo-Aryan ‘bha’ is the Greek ‘pha,’ so the linguistic connection is sound. Also sound is the Bhṛgu Phleguai connection, for -l- and -r- are interchangeable in this context. Bhṛgus are noted for introducing fire to the Āryas, and Phleguai were fire-priests among the Greeks. The connection is both phonetic and semantic.

The composite picture then is this:

The Eastern IE languages (proto-Greek, proto-Albanian, proto-Armenian, proto-Iranian and proto-Thraco-Phrygian) migrated out of the homeland 2500-2000 BC.

This homeland was India, and in 2500 BC a political consolidation was triggered by Sudās Paijavana, a Pūru-Bharata. His campaigns are chronicled in the Dāśarājña mantras. Through Ālinas, a number of proto-Greek/Albanian/Armenian languages were dispersed out of India. Through the Bhṛgu ṛṣis associated with some of these people, proto-Thraco-Phrygian also dispersed out. Kavi, Kavaṣa, Śiva, Pārthavas and Parśavas evidence the dispersal of many proto-Iranian people, in themselves possible precursors to later proto-Greeks and other IE people.

Sudās’ reign thus triggers two spatially exclusive trends. Within India, he’s responsible for the emergence of Mature Harappan, and the integration associated with it. Outside India, he’s to be blamed/credited for the arrival of Eastern IE languages. As traced by Hodiwala, Talageri and Elst, the story isn’t complete with Sudās. It continues with his descendants Sahadeva and Somaka, which evidences that IE dispersals happened not as a singular event, but over a few centuries for each wave.

The Reign of Sudās Paijavana

Following the above re-contextualisation, an attempt can be made to paint a temporal sequence of Sudās’ reign. This is conjectural territory that plays within the two frameworks, and brings in Paurāṇika testimony provided it does not violate Ṛg Vedic data.

Coming to power some time near 2500 BC, Sudās follows a long line of Bharata rulers that have been consolidating power in the Haryana/Punjab regions, originally from the Sarasvatī-Dṛṣadvatī Rivers.

Contemporary to him are Yadu tribes near the Yamunā, branched into sub-clans such as Andhakas and Vṛṣṇis (not attested in Ṛg Veda by name); a host of Ānava tribes that descend from Sivi Auśinara of 3300 BC, and are distant enough by now that their genealogies are not remembered; the Aikṣvāku tribes, where complementary evidence must be considered:

Divodāsa is either Sudās’ father, or his ancestor by a few generations—the latter more likely. In the Ṛg Veda, Divodāsa battles the Dāsa named Śaṁbara. In the Purāṇas, his sister is Ahalyā, who is visited in her old age by Rāma, son of Daśaratha. In the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa, Daśaratha battles a Rākṣasa named Śaṁbara, where his allies are the Kekayas (placed in Punjab, and are Ānavas descended from Sivi Auśinara). Pargiter’s reconciliation places Daśaratha as contemporaneous to Divodāsa, which with the above synchronisms makes clear that the Rāmāyaṇa’s temporal window exists a few generations prior to Sudās.

Both Divodāsa and Daśaratha battle Śaṁbara, and the Kekaya-Ānavas appear as allies. This agrees with Ṛg Vedic evidence, where in the era of Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna the Ānavas were allied to Pūru-Bharatas. It also tallies with Talageri’s reading that Aikṣvākus were Pūru-Bharata allies, which explains the appearance of Trasadasyu Paurukutsa. In Ṛg Vedic sūktas involving Divodāsa, a pair referred to frequently is Atithigva-Kutsa. To Talageri, Atithigvas were Bharata rulers and Kutsas were Aikṣvāku ones.

Coming to power in the wake of Divodāsa’s successful expansions (and Maṇḍala 6), Sudās’ is the era of mature Ṛg Vedic composition and hymnology (Maṇḍalas 3 and 7, maybe parts of 2, 4, 5). As is common in historically attested dynasties, he possibly contends with internal rivals first. These are the enemy Pūrus of the Ṛg Veda, and through the Purāṇas we know them to be led by Saṁvaraṇa. In Paurāṇika genealogy, a prominent descendant of Bharata was Ajamīḍha, who had three sons. His elder son’s line ruled from Hastināpura, in which descends Saṁvaraṇa. The lines of the other two sons are called the North and South Pāñcālas, respectively. The North Pāñcālas are the Tṛtsus under Sudās, and it can be speculated that the South Pāñcālas mounted a confederacy under Bheda.

While there is no evidence for such, the Bheda-conflict along Yamunā is taken first. Here Sudās consolidates the area where later emerge kingdoms named Śūrasena, South Pāñcāla and Matsya. Through Paurāṇika genealogy, the southern Yamunā by 2500 BC is consolidated by a host of Yādava clans—Andhaka, Vṛṣṇi and Śūrasena. It can be argued that this is where Sudās first encounters Kuśikas, or Viśvāmitras:

In the Purāṇas, Viśvāmitra descends in the clan of Jahnu, placed along the Gaṅgā, in Kanyākubja. This is why the river here also gets the name Jahnāvī, attested in the Ṛg Veda in Maṇḍala 3, composed by Viśvāmitra Gāthin and his clan.

Four centuries before Sudās, exploration, irrigation and excavation by the Aikṣvākus under Bhagīratha disturb the Gaṅgā’s flow, causing a displacement of Jahnu’s clan and flooding its villages.

In time, this clan, also Kuśikas, spreads north along the Gaṅgā and into the Himālaya, familiarising them with the sources of Vipāś and Śutudrī, which they follow downstream to explore the entire area.

If Kīkaṭas are to be placed in Magadha, and given that they’re mentioned in a mantra composed by Viśvāmitra, a parallel evidence comes from the fact that the original Viśvāmitra attained enlightenment along the Kauśikī River (or Kosi, near Magadha).

Bheda’s allies are Yakṣus, Śighras and Ajas. Yakṣus, as equated to Yadus, tally with Paurāṇika evidence. For Ajas, it could be conjectured that this refers to other descendants of Ajamīḍha. A few centuries before Sudās, a notable king among Aikṣvākus (and Rāma’s ancestor) was named Aja, so the name could stem from here. For Śighras, there is no speculation.

Sudās’ Bharatas are initially portrayed as a minority among Bheda’s people. They and their religion are persecuted, the condition improving only once the Vasiṣṭhas become Tṛtsu purohitas.

Co-existence and material connections between Mature Harappan and OCP emerge in the archaeological record by the later 3rd millennium BC. These can be explained by Sudās’ consolidations along the upper Sarasvatī-Yamunā-Gaṅgā geography. His consolidation was federal in nature, since tribes like Yakṣu, Śighra and Aja pay him tribute.

Temporally sequencing Sudās’ alliance with Viśvāmitra and Vasiṣṭha is difficult. Yamunā and Paruṣṇī feature in sūktas by Vasiṣṭha, while Vipāś and Śutudrī in those by Viśvāmitra.

The Paruṣṇī River is the region of battles between Ānavas, Druhyus and their allies on one side, and Sudās’ Pūru-Bharatas on the other. On the Ānava side, also called Dāsas, are Pakthas, Ālinas, Bhalānas, Śivas, Viṣāṇins, Vaikarṇas, Pārthavas and Parśavas, led by men such as Kavaṣa, Śimyu and Kavi Cāyamāna.

Ānava puras are attacked, and the definition of pura seems to depend on the model one uses a priori. In the two frameworks of this paper, this could be Harappan-style cities, or mountain strongholds, or both. These puras are not destroyed. Instead, they are abandoned with resources/bounty left behind. At other places, Indra negotiates treaties, such that Ānava possessions are divided among Sudās’ people. This indicates cultural unifications ushered by ṛṣi clans, which would manifest archaeologically as commonalities in weights, measures, town-planning, ritual artefacts, seal-motifs, architectural geometry, farming techniques, social divisions and other aspects.

The above is confirmed when Indra and Varuṇa are shown as common deities among the warring parties. Over time, their favour leans towards Sudās, which means the rise and spread of Pūru-Bharata ritualism.

Sudās also has to contend with Purodātā Turvaśa, who is possibly aided by Bhṛgus and Druhyus.

It may be assumed that the above events happen over a long period. They may even portray the entire duration of Sudās’ reign, of decades of campaigning along several rivers that eventually established a federally organised civilisation—the Mature Harappan.

This organisation is imperial, but not always through conquest. At many places Sudās negotiates treaties, accepts tributes and apportions property/bounty. Yudhyāmadhi may be a final enemy that rejects this structure, and is defeated in one-on-one combat.

At the long end of these campaigns, Sudās conducts a rājasūya, the regnal ritual, where Vasiṣṭha list the many victories and battles, exalting Sudās and Indra. Sudās’ enemies are thought of as the Dāśarājña, and the name is embedded into the sūktas Vasiṣṭha composes. The geography of Sudās’ campaigns covers modern Greater Punjab, Haryana and parts of Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. In other words, in 2500 BC, around the time that the Harappan Civilisation enters its mature, integration phase, there is evidence of a political force spreading across its entire geographical extent. Sudās Paijavana gives clear evidence of the ruling authority behind Mature Harappan.

Conclusion

This paper engages in the following three steps:

1. Establish OIT as the working model for IE dispersals, and focus specifically on the wave that dispersed Eastern IE languages.
2. Base IE dispersal timelines along ISC periodisation, such that Mature Harappan and Eastern IE dispersal are seen to coincide.
3. Place Sudās Paijavana squarely in the middle of this, in 2500-2200 BC.

This allows a re-evaluation of the Dāśarājña mantras in the Ṛg Veda, which are found to represent much more than a single battle Sudās fought against a confederation of ten kings. In reality, Sudās was an ambitious imperialist that struck out in all directions from his base around the Sarasvatī, and provided the politically organising force that ushered in Mature Harappan. The Ṛg Veda has evidence of gradations in ruling titles—rājan, rājakā, samrāṭ. Preceding Sudās by a few generations, a ruler named Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna is declared a samrāṭ, which most translations acknowledge as some kind of grand sovereign. This indicates that there exists, even in Sudās’ time, a precedence for conquest, empire and consolidation. Various ruling hierarchies and tribal dynamics interact in a shifting, federal manner, which Sudās yokes into a singular structure.

In the epilogue to this era, a final wave of consolidation is conducted a few generations after Sudās, by his descendants Sahadeva and Somaka—an account that is chronicled in the Ṛg Veda and Avesta, both. This helps confirm that IE dispersals, or the integration of Mature Harappan, happened over a few centuries that can broadly be placed 2500-2000 BC. All of this makes a strong case not only to read the evident historicity in Dāśarājña, but to overturn its conventional reading and establish a new paradigm for proto-Bhāratavarṣa.

Witzeḷ’s characterisation—“It celebrates the victory of Sudās in the Battle of the Ten Kings, which once and for all established Bharata supremacy in the Panjab, and set the stage for the formation of the first South Asian ‘state’ under the Kuru tribe”—should be modified in a new light. It should now read:

“Celebrates the victories of Sudās in his battles against ten kings, which once and for all established Bharata supremacy in northern India, ushered in Mature Harappan, triggered the dispersal of Eastern IE languages, and set the stage for the formation of proto-Bhāratavarṣa.”

Appendix A – Prior IE Dispersals

Sudās’ era is one of Eastern IE language dispersals. Prior to this were dispersals of proto-Anatolian and proto-Tocharian in 3700-3300 BC and of Western IE languages in 3000-2500 BC. Talageri traces Western IE dispersal in the attestation of Celtic drui, or druids, who were priests that held sacred knowledge in an exclusive dialect and transmitted it orally for generations, and connects it to Druhyu. He notes Druhyus to be a general name for IE people and priests, both, that are distant from Pūru-Bharatas. This is why they are mentioned alongside Bhṛgus in the Ṛg Veda, and the Aṅgrā in the Avesta (both are priestly classes).

Finding the cognate Druids in Celtic culture is not folk etymology, it’s a clear trace of IE dispersal all the way to where it should be expected. Talageri supplements this by noting that drui and cognate words in Baltic/Slavic languages mean friend, and in Germanic languages they mean soldier. These attest to the status of ancient Druhyus as allied priests, with a possible martial character.

Paurāṇika testimony shows how this dispersal may have happened. Using framework 2, the Ānava cakravartin Sivi Auśinara can be placed in 3300 BC. His status as cakravartin affirms his imperial nature, and his descendants are shown to expand across the Greater Punjab and Kashmir regions. They are attested as Kekayas, Sivis/Saivyas and Madras in later eras as well, and Sivi-descendants named Sauviras are placed along the lower Sindhu. This expansion can be conjectured to trigger a wave of OIT dispersals, which given the timeline are to be linked with Western IE migrations. It can also be linked to the Ravi Phase in Early Harappan.

The first wave, 3700-3300 BC, of proto-Anatolian and proto-Tocharian, has interesting parallels from Paurāṇika literature, which are as ambiguous as is scholarly consensus on the wave itself. Some linguists argue that Anatolian is a sister to PIE, not a daughter, which means that it split much earlier. There is also the hypothesis of a Nostratic mother language, which is conjectured to have split in the 7th-6th millennia BC. Renfrew’s PIE-origins hypothesis argues PIE split in the same era, and genetic evidence indicates a flux into India around this period. In framework 2, the legendary cakravartin Māndhātṛ Yauvanāśva is placed in 3600 BC, and Paurāṇika accounts of him give good evidence for PIE dispersals. Paurāṇika accounts from 4000 BC onwards paint a clear picture of many conflicts and outward dispersals. Around 4000 BC a final Āditya-Daitya war occurs, during the era of Yayāti Nāhuṣya. Māndhātṛ’s father-in-law, Śaśabindu Caitraratha, is also remembered as a cakravartin. Around 3500 BC is seen the emergence of fortified cities along the Sindhu—Rehman Dheri, Kot Diji, Amri. These cities fall mostly to the west of the river, indicating that attacks came from the east. There are enough accounts in the Purāṇas to testify to the first wave of IE dispersals OIT.

Finally, if Anatolian is sister to PIE and split much earlier, or if major linguistic/ethnic/technological events took place in the 7th-6th millennia BC, then the Indian answer is Pṛthu Vainya, remembered in the Purāṇas as the first cakravartin. Pṛthu is located in the sixth manvantara, and necessarily comes prior to the 5th millennium BC. There is distance between him and Vaivasvat Manu, evidenced by a few generations between him and the Pracetas, many years of Pracetas’ apathy towards lineage, the birth of Dakṣa, Dakṣa’s failed attempts at reproductive progeny, and finally the birth of Ādityas anew through whom descends Vaivasvat.

In other words, Paurāṇika tradition distinctly remembers that notable changes took place 7000-6000 BC. These are attested archaeologically in Mehrgarh and Bhirrana, and genetically through influx of “Iranian” genes into India during the same period. Pṛthu Vainya is remembered as the first king, born with armour and weapon in hand. Before him there were no cities, no agriculture, and no metallurgy. After him there were large farms, irrigated canals, long-distance trade and major shopping complexes. This is why Greek records knew of 6000 years of Indian dynasties.

Appendix B – Forgotten Sudās

Why is Sudās not remembered by Paurāṇika tradition? In the traditional list of ṣoḍaśa-rājikas, or sixteen cakravartins, why does Sudās not feature, if he was so instrumental in proto-Bhāratavarṣa? In the entire Bharata dynasty, which lent India its name, only Bharata and Suhotra are remembered as cakravartins, and they are early kings in the line. What of the Bharatas mentioned in the Ṛg Veda—Sudās, Divodāsa, Sṛñjaya, Devavāta, Vadhryāśva, Devaśravas, Sahadeva and Somaka? Why has an entire dynasty, clearly pivotal to ushering mature Indian civilisation, been ignored by historical tradition?

We should note our fortune that we know of these names at all. They are found in the Ṛg Veda because of its exacting preservation and transmission. It was a sacred instrument of sound, culture and religion—inviolable and interpreted not for its history but its meaning and application. If this was not the case, these names would have been erased from it, just like they were erased from Paurāṇika memory. And the blame for this falls squarely on Kuru-Bharata shoulders.

Political power shifts from Sudās’ Pūru-Bharatas to the Kuru-Bharatas, a few generations after him. In genealogy, Sudās’ lineage ends with Jantu, his great-grandson, and is found again only in the Mahābhārata through Drupada. The Kuru rise can be traced 2200 BC onwards, and parallel to them develop various Yādava tribes. This is the period when India’s sūta-māgadha traditions are formally collected and organised, culminating in the great ur-Purāṇa composed by Veda Vyāsa. Politics plays a major role here, as it does in the patronage of anything.

The Kurus have no hesitation alluding to their Bharata origins, or even to Pūru and Ailā ones before that. The vast tribal and political history of India is collated, and the only major bias is of geographic center. Thus genealogies most distant from Indraprastha-Mathurā-Magadha are the ones most poorly recorded. But one other bias prevails, and this bias is responsible for erasure of the Bharata dynasty.

The eponymous Kuru founder is said to descend from Saṁvaraṇa, the Pūru that Sudās defeated and exiled into the forest. Kuru and his descendants can be excused for holding a dynastic grudge against the Tṛtsus, which they eventually vindicate—evidenced by the quick end of Sudās’ line after Kuru’s rise. In the new Bhāratavarṣa of the Kurus, the only rulers bards were not permitted to sing of were the ones that besieged the Kuru ancestor. This is why Sudās is known, not through historical tradition, but through his incidental presence in assiduously preserved instruments of sound.