share this article
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.
The Dāśarājña data was the examined in Part Two.
Following this data, parsing, and re-contextualization, the Reign of Sudās Paijavana along with the Conclusion, Epilogues, and Appendices are covered in this final installment of the article.
F - The Reign of Sudās Paijavana
Given the re-contextualization, 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 Ṛgvedic 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 Ṛgveda 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 Ṛgveda, 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 Ṛgvedic 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 Ṛgvedic 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 Ṛgvedic 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 Ṛgveda, 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 Ṛgveda 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 called Kuśikas, spreads north along the Gaṅgā and into the Himālaya, familiarizing 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 essay, 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 artifacts, seal-motifs, architectural geometry, farming techniques, social divisions and other aspects. 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 organized civilization—the Mature Harappan. This organization 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 Civilization 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.
G - Conclusion
This essay engages in the following three steps:
Establish OIT as the working model for IE dispersals, and focus specifically on the wave that dispersed Eastern IE languages.
Base IE dispersal timelines along ISC periodization, such that Mature Harappan and Eastern IE dispersal are seen to coincide.
Place Sudās Paijavana squarely in the middle of this, in 2500-2200 BC.
This allows a re-evaluation of the Dāśarājña mantras in the Ṛgveda, 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 organizing force that ushered in Mature Harappan. The Ṛgveda 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 Ṛgveda 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. It is basis the above findings that we confidently correct Witzel’s characterization of the Battle of Ten Kings to be an account that:
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.
H - Epilogue 1 : 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 armor 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.
I - Epilogue 2 : 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 civilization, 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 organized, 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.
J - Appendix
The Dāśarājña sūktas: 7-18-5 to 7-18-19, 7-18-24, 7-33-3 to 7-33-6, 7-33-14, 7-83-1 to 7-83-8, 7-19-3, 1-63-7, 1-126-7, 3-53-9, 3-53-14, 3-53-24, 6-27-5, 6-27-8.
References:
- Witzel, M. Rig Vedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Polities
- Jamison, SW and Brereton JP. The Rigveda (in English). Oxford University Press
- Wilson, HH. Rig-Veda Sanhita. The Bangalore Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd.
- Griffith, RTH. The Hymns of the Rigveda.
- Geldner, KF. Der Rig Veda. Harvard University Press.
- Trivedi, R. Hindi Rigveda. Indian Press Limited.
- Talageri, S. The Rigveda and the Aryan Theory: A Rational Perspective.
- Tonoyan-Belyayev, IA. Five Waves of Indo-European Expansion from the South Asian Urheimat: An OIT Model
- Stuhrmann, R. Die Zehnkönigsschlacht am Ravifluß. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 2016.
- Mallory, JP and Adams, DQ. The Oxford Introduction to PIE and the PIE World. Oxford University Press.
- Bryant, E. The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press.
- Pargiter, FE. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. Oxford University Press.
- Benedetti, G. The Sanauli Chariot and its Archaeological and Historical Context
- Witzel, M. The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rigvedic Tribes Exposed by S Talageri
- Witzel, M. On Indian Historical Writing: The Case of the Vanshavalis. Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 1990.
- Kak, S. On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture. Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 2000.
- Benedetti, G. The Chronology of Puranic Kings and Rigvedic Rishis in Comparison with the Phases of the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization
- Sarasvati, Svami C. Hindu Dharma. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.
- Oldenberg, H. Prolegomena on Metre and Textual History of the Rigveda. Motilal Banarsidass.
- Talageri, S. The Chronological Gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda
- Talageri, S. The Rigveda: Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan.
- Macdonell, AA and Keith, AB. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. John Murray.
- Ali, SM. The Geography of the Puranas. People’s Publishing House.
- Semenenko, AA. On the True Meaning of Ashva in Rigveda
- Kazanas, N. Indo-Aryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues. Aditya Prakashan.
- Semenenko, AA. The Absence of the Sword from the Rigveda and Atharvaveda and the Problem of Indo-Aryans’ Origins
- Gupta, VK and Mani, BR. Painted Grey Ware Culture: Changing Perspectives. Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, 2017.
- Ludwig, A. Der Rigveda. Oxford University Press.
- Debroy, B and Debroy, D. The Rig Veda. Books For All.
- Hodivala, SK. Zarathustra and His Contemporaries in the Rig Veda. Shapurji Kavasji Hodiwala.
- Elst, K. The Conflict Between Vedic Aryans and Iranians. Indian Journal of History and Culture, 2015.