Dāśarājña Recontextualized: Part 2

Part One of this article examined the two frameworks 1) Mature Harappan and IE Dispersals, and 2) Chronology of Indian Lineages, as well as the Ṛgveda and Maṇḍala 7. The following equation was established:

Sudās = Eastern IE Dispersal = Mature Harappan = 2500 BC.

In light of this, the Dāśarājña data shall be examined in this Part Two.

D - The Dāśarājña Data

The bulk of the data about the Battle of Ten Kings is found in sūktas of Maṇḍala 7, all attributed to Maitrāvaruṇi Vasiṣṭha. A complete list of the sūktas in question is shared as appendix to this essay. Some things of note:

• 7-18-5 refers to the crossing of river Parūṣṇī, and the “fords” around this river is read as the well-irrigated situation around this river during the Mature Harappan phase by Stuhrmann as well. The point of departure for us is that while Stuhrmann places this data within an Aryan invasion/migration context, we do precisely the opposite.
• Tribes such as the Turvaśas and Matsyas are shown “questing for wealth,” such that they trouble Sudās and his people. Druhyus and other tribes are found raiding for cattle. This challenges the traditional image of Ṛgvedic Āryans as the raiders and conquerors.
• The modern English translation by JB makes choices that seem strange, and could lead us to wonder whether they are deliberate erasures of historical evidence. For example, Griffith’s and Geldner’s translations of 7-18-7 retain tribal names- Pakthas, Bhalānas, Ālinas, Viṣānins and Śivas. But JB translate all of these as adjectives, not as proper nouns, and so we find “cooked oblations” and “raiders” instead.
• The same happens with 7-18-8, where the clear name of Kavi Cāyamāna is translated as “sacrificial animal” and not taken as a proper noun. This removes his obvious relationship to Abhyavartin Cāyamāna, a figure referred to elsewhere in the Ṛgveda.
• Further evidence comes to us in 7-33, 7-83, 7-19-3, 1-63-7, 1-126-7, 3-53-9, 3-53-14, 3-53-24 and 6-27.

The evidence of 3-53 is crucial on the matter of Vasiṣṭha vs. Viśvāmitra. 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 Ṛgveda, and Debroys contend that the slighted Viśvāmitra mounted the conglomerate against Sudās. Evidence for this is entirely absent, 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 here is more important. If the rivers that 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 were 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 Ṛgveda, 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/Ṛgvedic ritual, which is affirmed by Viśvāmitra’s praise for the Āṅgirasas, the ṛṣis who were aligned to Sudās’ ancestor Divodāsa.

E - Parsing the Data

The general interpretation of Dāśarājña as a singular battle among/with ten kings must be discarded. At the very least, it must be supplemented 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 regionalization era. Regionalization here refers to the emergence of different 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 proceeded through a period of regionalization, 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 expanded 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 peaked by 2500 BC during the era of Sudās. Mature Harappan is astounding for its level of civilizational uniformity, reflected in aspects such as town-planning and weights and measures. Such organization cannot come about without some kind of ruling authority, whether it be federal or sovereign. This organizing force is provided to the ISC by the Bharatas, and the Dāśarājña mantras show precisely how Sudās yokes civilization proper. The hard data can be summarized such:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 to be 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 characterization 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 characterization of the Dāśarājña appears to be a lazy generalization, 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.

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 essay, 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 traveled 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 as Aṅgulisthāna, Vatican as Veda Vātika and more. A recently popular one is Bogota as Bhogāvaṭi, which feeds notions of a prehistoric Dānava civilization 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 scrutinized, 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, even 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 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 etymologize 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 Ṛgveda, 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 Ṛgveda. 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?

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 Ṛgvedic 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 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 it 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 Tichy’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 pedaled 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.

Following this data, parsing, and re-contextualization, the Reign of Sudās Paijavana along with Conclusion, Epilogues, and Appendices will be shared in the final installment of this article, Dāṣarājña Recontextualized: Part 3.

References:

1. Witzel, M. Rig Vedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Polities
2. Jamison, SW and Brereton JP. The Rigveda (in English). Oxford University Press
3. Wilson, HH. Rig-Veda Sanhita. The Bangalore Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd.
4. Griffith, RTH. The Hymns of the Rigveda.
5. Geldner, KF. Der Rig Veda. Harvard University Press.
6. Trivedi, R. Hindi Rigveda. Indian Press Limited.
7. Talageri, S. The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective.
8. Tonoyan-Belyayev, IA. Five Waves of Indo-European Expansion from the South Asian Urheimat: An OIT Model
9. Stuhrmann, R. Die Zehnkönigsschlacht am Ravifluß. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 2016.
10. Mallory, JP and Adams, DQ. The Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World. Oxford University Press.
11. Bryant, E. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press.
12. Pargiter, FE. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. Oxford University Press.
13. Benedetti, G. The Sanauli Chariot and its Archaeological and Historical Context
14. Witzel, M. The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rigvedic Tribes Exposed by S Talageri
15. Witzel, M. On Indian Historical Writing: The Case of the Vanshavalis. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 1990.
16. Kak, S. On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture. Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 2000.
17. Benedetti, G. The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rigvedic Rishis in Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization
18. Sarasvati, Svami C. Hindu Dharma. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
19. Oldenberg, H. Prolegomena on Metre and Textual History of the Rigveda. Motilal Banarsidass.
20. Talageri, S. The Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda
21. Talageri, S. The Rigveda: Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan.
22. Macdonell, AA and Keith, AB. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. John Murray.
23. Ali, SM. The Geography of the Puranas. People’s Publishing House.
24. Semenenko, AA. On the True Meaning of Ashva in Rigveda
25. Kazanas, N. Indo-Aryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues. Aditya Prakashan.
26. Semenenko, AA. The Absence of the Sword from the Rigveda and Atharvaveda and the Problem of Indo-Aryans’ Origins
27. Gupta, VK and Mani, BR. Painted Grey Ware Culture: Changing Perspectives. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 2017.
28. Ludwig, A. Der Rigveda. Oxford University Press.
29. Debroy, B and Debroy, D. The Rig Veda. Books For All.
30. Hodivala, SK. Zarathustra and His Contemporaries in the Rig Veda. Shapurji Kavasji Hodiwala.
31. Elst, K. The Conflict Between Vedic Aryans and Iranians. Indian Journal of History and Culture, 2015.