| VARSHAGIR WAR 5. Varshagir War :
After King Sudas, his grandson King Somak also had to fight a war with those people because those people settled in the clan (kabele) after crossing the Indus wanted to come back and establish their dominion to the prosperous region by crossing Sapta-Sindhu. Some tribes together again attacked the area of Sapta Sindhu, which was defeated by Sudas's grandson King Somak in their own area. This battle was fought in the area which is today's Afghanistan. It is called "War of the Varshagir" - "The Varshagira Battle".
• To know more Click here.
Interpretation :
The Three Priestly Classes :
The basic tribal spectrum of the Rig Ved includes the five tribal groupings of Yadus, Turvasas, Anus, Druhyus and Purus, and of these the Purus alone represent the Vedic Aryans, while the other four represent the Others.
But among these four it is clear that the Yadus and Turvasas represent more distant tribes (they are mostly referred to in tandem, and are also referred to as residing far away from the Vedic Aryans), while the Anus and Druhyus fall into a closer cultural spectrum with the Purus.
a. In the Puran's, the Yadus and Turvasas are classified together as descendants of sons of DevayanI, and the Anus, Druhyus and Purus are classified together as descendants of sons of Sharmistha.
b. The geographical descriptions of the five tribes, as described in the Purans, place the Yadus and Turvasas together in the more southern parts (of northern India), and the Anus, Druhyus and Purus together in the more northern parts.
c. The Rig Ved itself, where it refers to the five tribes together (I.108.8) refers to the Yadus and the Turvasas in one breath, and the Druhyus, Anus and Purus in another: “yad Indragni Yadusu Turvasesu, yad Druhyusu Anusu Purusu sthah”.
But, the Purus represent the various branches of the Vedic Aryans, and the Anus represent various branches of Iranians. It is clear, therefore, that the Druhyus represent the third entity in this cultural spectrum, and that it is mainly the Druhyus who will take us beyond the Indo-Iranian arena onto the wider Indo-European context; and appropriately, while the Purus are located in the heartland of North India (U.P.-Delhi-Haryana) and the Anus in the northwest (Punjab), the Druhyus are located beyond the Indian frontiers, in Afghanistan and beyond.
The priestly categories, as we have seen, play a more important role in the rivalries and hostilities in the Rig Vedic period than the secular categories. In the earliest period, the only two families of Rishis, from among the families who figure as composers in the Rig Ved, were the Angiras and the Bhrigus, who were the priests of Purus and Anus respectively. Logically, there must have been a priestly class among the Druhyus as well, but no such priestly class figures among the composers of Rig Vedic hymns.
The explanation for this is simple : the Druhyus were a rival and non-Puru (Dasa) tribe, hence their priests do not figure as composers in the Rig ved. Of course, the Bhrigu's, who were also the priests of a rival and non-Puru tribe, do figure as composers in the Rig ved, but that is because a section of Bhrigu's (after Jamadagni) aligned themselves with Vedic Aryans and joined the Vedic mainstream where, in fact, they later superseded all the other priestly families in importance, and became the dominant priests of Vedic tradition.
But since the Druhyus figure in the Rig ved, the name of their priestly class must also be found in the text, even if not as the name of a family of composers. Since no such name appears, it seems logical that the name Druhyu itself must originally have been the name of this third priestly class : since priestly categories were more important for the composers of the Rig ved than the secular categories; and since the tribes for whom the Druhyus functioned as priests were an amorphous lot located far out on the frontiers of India and beyond, the name of the priestly classes became a general appellation for the tribes themselves.
Therefore, there were three tribal groupings with their three priestly classes :
Purus – Angiras.
Anus – Bhrigu's and Atharvan's.
Druhyus – Druhyus.
An examination of these words helps us to classify the various Indo-European branches into three groups :
1. PURUS : Indo-Aryan :
In the Rig ved, hymn VII.18, the Dasarajna battle hymn, refers to the enemy confederation once in secular (tribal) terms as “Anus and Druhyus” (VII.18.14), and once in what is clearly priestly terms as “Bhrigu's and Druhyus” (VII.18.6: the only reference in the whole of the Rig ved which directly refers to the Bhrigu's as enemies). Once, it may be noted, it also refers to the kings of the two tribal groupings as “Kavas and the Druhyu” (VII. 1.8.12. Thus, even here, the general appellation “Druhyu” is used instead of the specific name of the king of the Druhyus).
The words Druh / Drugh / Drogha occur throughout the Rig ved in the sense of “demon” or “enemy”.
(The word Bhrigu, for obvious reasons, does not suffer the same fate.)
2. ANUS : Iranian, Thraco-Phrygian, Hellenic :
a. Iranian : In the Avesta, in Fargard 19 of the Vendidad, it is an Angra (Angiras / Ali) and a Druj (Druhyu) who try to tempt Zarathushtra away from the path of Ahura Mazda.
The priests of the Iranians were the Athravans (Atharvanas = Bhrigu's), and the words Angra and Druj occur throughout the Avesta as epithets for the demon enemies of Ahura Mazda and Zarathushtra.
b. Thraco-Phrygian : While the Armenians, the only surviving members of this branch, have not retained any tradition about any of these priestly classes, it is significant that one of the most prominent groups belonging to this branch were known as the Phryge (Bhrigu).
Phrygia also known as "Land of Lions" is a place at present in Turkey where in anicient times Moon Cult which includes Mother-Son worship, Amazons, etc. was present and they were enemies of Sun worshiper Aryans.
Phrygia c. Hellenic : The fire-priests of the Greeks were known as the Phleguai (Bhrigu).
What is more, Greek mythology retains memories of both the other priestly classes, though not in a hostile sense, as the names of mythical beings : Angelos (Angiras) or divine messengers, and Dryad (Druhyu) or tree-nymphs.
3. DRUHYUS : Baltic and Slavonic, Italic and Celtic, Germanic :
a. Baltic and Slavonic :
The word Druhyu occurs in the languages of these two branches in exactly the opposite sense of the Vedic Druh / Drugh / Drogha and the Iranian Druj. In Baltic (eg. Lithuanan Draugas) and Slavonic (eg. Russian Drug) the word means “friend”.
b. Italic and Celtic :
While the Italic people did not retain the name of the priestly class (and called their priests flamen = Brahman), the Celtic priests, as we have seen, were called the Drui (genitive Druad, hence Druid).
A significant factor, showing that the Celtic priests must have separated from the other priestly classes before the priestly hostilities became intense, is that the Bhrigu's appear to be indirectly remembered in Celtic mythology in a friendly sense.
The Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology notes : “whereas the Celtic Gods were specifically Celtic… the goddesses were restatements of an age-old theme”. And two of the three Great Goddesses of the Celts were named Anu and Brigit (Anu and Bhrigu?). And while all the Goddesses in general were associated with fertility cults, “Brigit, however, had additional functions as a tutelary deity of learning, culture and skills”.
The main activity of the Drui, as already stated, was to undergo “years of instruction and the memorization of innumerable verses, as the sacred tradition was an oral one”. The fact that the Goddess of learning was named Brigit would appear to suggest that the Drui remembered the ancient Bhrigu's in a mythical sense, as the persons who originally introduced various priestly rituals among them (a debt which is also remembered by the Angiras in the Mandals of the Early Period of the Rig Ved.
The Bhrigu's, by joint testimony of Vedic and Celtic mythology, would thus appear to have been the oldest or most dominant and innovative of the three priestly classes.
c. Germanic: The word Druhyu occurs in the Germanic branch as well. However the meaning (although the words are cognate to the Russian Drug and Lithuanian Draugas) is more militant : Gothic driugan, “do military service” and ga-drauhts, “soldier”; and Old Norse (Icelandic) drOtt, Old English dryht and Old German truht, all meaning “multitude, people, army”.
The meanings of the word Druhyu as it occurs in the Celtic branch (“priest”), the Germanic branch (“soldier”, etc. or “people”) and the Baltic-Slavonic branches (“friend”) clearly correspond with the word in the Rig ved and Avesta, where Druhyu / Druh / Drugh / Drogha and Druj represent enemy priests, soldiers or people.
Thus, to sum up :
1. Puru (priests Angiras) : Indo-Aryan.
2. Anu (priests Bhrigu's /Atharvan's) : Iranian, Thraco-Phrygian, Hellenic.
3. Druhyu (priests Druhyus): Celtic-Italic, Baltic-Slavonic, Germanic.
The Anu-Druhyu Migrations :
The evidence of the Rig Ved, and Indian tradition, clearly shows that the Anus and Druhyus were Indian tribes. If they were also the ancestors of the Indo-European branches outside India, as is indicated by the evidence of the names of their priestly classes, then it is clear that the Rig Ved and Indian tradition should retain memories of the migrations of these two groups from India.
An examination of the evidence demonstrates beyond the shadow of any doubt that the ancient Indian tribes of the Anus are identical with the ancient Iranians :
1. As we have already seen, the Indo-Aryan-Iranian conflict very definitely had an Angiras-Bhrigu dimension to it, with Angiras being the priests of the Indo-Aryans and Bhrigu's of the Iranians : a situation reflected in the traditions of both the peoples.
This situation is also reflected in the Rig Ved where the dominant priests of the text, and the particular or exclusive priests of the Bharat's (the Vedic Aryans), are the Angiras : All the generations before Sudas have Bharadwaj as their priests (which, perhaps, explains the etymology of the name Bharad-vaja); Sudas himself has the Kutsas also as his priests (besides the new families of priests : the Vishvamitra and the Vashishth); and Sudas’s descendants Sahadev and Somak have the Kutsas and the Vamadev's as their priests.
The Bhrigu's are clearly not the priests of the Bharat's, and, equally clearly, they are associated with a particular other tribe : The Anus. The names Anu and Bhrigu are used interchangeably in Rig Ved : compare V.31.4 with IV.16.20, and VII.18.14 with VII.18.6. Griffith also recognizes the connection in his footnote to V.31.4, when he notes : “Anus : probably meaning Bhrigu's who belonged to that tribe.”
2. The Rig Ved and the Avesta, as we saw, are united in testifying to the fact that the Punjab (Sapta-Sindhu or Hapta-Handu) was not a homeland of the Vedic Aryans, but was a homeland of the Iranians. The Purans as well as the Rig Ved testify to the fact that the Punjab was a homeland of the Anus.
Pargiter notes the Puranic description of the spread of the Anus from the east and their occupation of the whole of the Punjab : “One branch headed by Udinara established separate kingdoms on the eastern border of the Punjab, namely those of the Yaudheyas, Ambasthas, Navarastra and the city Krmila; and his famous son Sivi originated the Sivis [footnote : called Sivas in Rig Ved VII.18.7] in Sivapura, and extending his conquests westwards, founded through his four sons the kingdoms of the Vrsadarbhas, Madras (or Madrakas), Kekayas (or Kaikeyas), and Suviras (or Sauviras), thus occupying the whole of the Punjab except the north-west corner.”
In Rig Ved, the Anus are repeatedly identified with the Parusni river, the central river of the Punjab, as the Purus are identified with the SarasvatI : in the Battle Of Ten Kings, the Anus are clearly the people of the Parusni area and beyond. Likewise, another hymn which refers to the Parusni (VIII.74.15) also refers to the Anus (VIII.74.4).
Michael Witzel remarks about the locations of “the Yadu-Turvasa and the Anu-Druhyu”, that “the Anu may be tied to the Parusnsi, the Druhyu to the northwest and the Yadu with the Yamuna”.
3. The name Anu or Anava for the Iranians appears to have survived even in later times : the country and the people in the very heart of Avestan land, to the immediate north of the Hamun-i Hilmand, was known as the Anauon or Anauoi as late as Greek times (cf. Stathmoi Parthikoi, 16, of Isidore of Charax).
4. The names of Anu tribes in the Rig Ved and the Purans can be clearly identified with the names of the most prominent tribes among latter-day Iranians. The Battle Of Ten Kings (described in three hymns in the Rig Ved, VII.18, 33, 83) was between Sudas on the one hand, and a confederation of ten tribes from among the Anus and Druhyus on the other, which took place on the Parusni i.e. in Anu territory; hence, logically, most of the tribes were Anus.
Of these ten tribes, the following six, named in just two verses, may be noted :
a. Prthus or Parthavas (VII.83.1) : Parthians
b. Parsus or Parsavas (VII .83.1) : Persians
c. Pakthas (VII.18.7) : Pakhtoons
d. Bhalanas (VII.18.7) : Baluchis
e. Sivas (VII.18.7) : Khivas
f. Visanins (VII.18.7) : Pishachas (Dards)
Three more tribes, named in adjacent verses, may be noted separately :
a. Bhrigu's (VII.18.6) : Phrygians.
b. Simyus (VII. 18.5) : Sarmatians (Avesta = Sairimas).
c. Alinas (VII.18.7) : Alans.
A major Iranian tribe which is not named in the Rig Ved, but appears as a prominent Anu tribe in the Purans and epics is the Madras : Medes (Madai).
Significantly, the Anu king who leads the confederation of Anu tribes against Sudas, and is named in VII.18.12, is common among Zoroastrians even today : Kavasa. Furthermore, this king is also called Kavi Cayaman four verses earlier (in VII.18.8). This is significant because an ancestor of this king, Abhyavartin Cayaman, is identified in VI.27.8 as a Parthav (Parthian). At the same time, Kavi is the title of the kings of the most important dynasty in Avestan and Zoroastrian history, the Kavyan or Kayanian dynasty. In later times, it is the Parthian kings who were the loudest and most persistent in their claims to being descendants of the Kayanians.
If the full name of this king is interpreted as Kavi Kavasa of the line of Cayamanas, he can be identified with Kavi Kavata, the founder of the pre-Avestan dynasty of Kavyan or Kayanian kings, whose most prominent descendant was Kavi Vistaspa. Incidentally, other descendants of Kavi Kavasa may be the Kekayas or Kaikayas, one of the two most prominent Anu tribes of the Purans and later Indian tradition (the other being the Madras), who are located in western Punjab, and whose name bears such a close resemblance to the names of the Kayanian kings.
5. The Dasas of the Rig Ved are opposed to the Aryas : since the word Arya refers to Purus in general and the Bharat's in particular, the word Dasa should logically refer to non-Purus in general and the Anus (or Iranians) in particular.
The word Dasa is found in 54 hymns (63 verses) and in an overwhelming majority of these references, it refers either to human enemies of the Vedic Aryans, or to atmospheric demons killed by Indra : in most of the cases, it is difficult to know which of the two is being referred to, and in some of them perhaps both are being simultaneously referred to. In any case, since these references are usually non-specific, it makes no material difference to our historical analysis.
There are eight verses which refer to both Arya and Dasa enemies; and in this case it is certain that human enemies are being referred to. As we have already seen in an earlier chapter, these verses (VI.22.10; 33.3; 60.6; VII.83.1; X.38.3; 69.6; 83.1; 102.3) help us to confirm the identity of Aryas of the Rig Ved. However, they offer no additional clue in respect of Dasas.
But finally, there are three verses which stand out from the rest : they contain references which are friendly towards the Dasas :
a. In VIII.5.31, the Asvins are depicted as accepting the offerings of the Dasas
b. In VIII.46.32, the patrons are referred to as Dasas
c. In VIII.51.9, Indra is described as belonging to both Aryas and Dasas
By the logic of the situation, these two persons should then be two prominent Vedic Aryans (Purus) who had aligned with the enemy Iranians (Anus) in this battle. That the followers of Zarathustra must have included some Vedic Aryans is accepted by the scholars : Gnoli points out that “there is no evidence for thinking that the Zoroastrian message was meant for the Iranians alone. On the-contrary, history suggests that the exact opposite is likely, and there are also indisputable facts … which show clearly that Zoroaster’s teaching was addressed, earlier on at least, to all men … whether they were Iranians or not, Proto Indo-Aryans or otherwise”.
The Cambridge History of Iran, as we have seen, refers to Manuscithra, later ManuchIhr or Minocher, the common Parsee name popularly shortened to Minoo, and notes that his name “means ‘from the race of Manu", and refers to the ancient mythical figure, Manu, son of Vivasvat, who was regarded in India as the first man and founder of the human race. He has no place in Iranian tradition, where his role is played by Yima and later GayOmard.”
The reference goes on to add that the word Manusha is found in only one other place in the Avesta : in Yasht 19.1 as “the name of a mountain”. In later Pahlavi texts, the word is found only in two contexts: firstly in the genealogies of ManuchIhr and Luhrasp, and secondly in the identification of the Manusha of Yt.19.1 as the birthplace of ManuchIhr.
Manuscithra was therefore clearly a Vedic Aryan born in the Kurukshetra region. And the reason he is held high in Zoroastrian tradition is also clear : as The Cambridge History of Iran notes : “In the Avesta, ManuchIhr is called Airyana, ‘helper of the Aryans’…”
In short, Manuscithra was a Vedic Aryan who aligned with the Iranians in the great battle ; and if Manus is his epithet (indicating his Indo-Aryan identity) and Cithra is his name, he is clearly the Citraratha of IV.30.18.
5. The main priestly enemies of the Iranians are the Angras (Angiras / Ali) who are condemned throughout the Avesta right down from the Gathas of Zarathustra. Significantly, the Avesta does not refer to any of the other Rigvedic families : neither the Vishwamitra's and Vashishth's of the Early Period, the Grtsamadas and Kasyapas of the later Middle Period, the Atris, Kanvas and Bharat's of the Late Period, nor the Agastyas. And, of the three branches of Angiras, it does not refer even once to the Bharadwaj's. The Avesta, however, does refer to the two other branches of Angirases (angiras), the Usijs (Ausijas) and Gaotemas (Gautamas (Rishi Gautam / Gaudamu), both of which originated in and dominated the early Middle Period and in whose hymns alone we find references to the conflict with the Zoroastrians.
a. The Usijs (Ausijas / Kakshivan) are mentioned by Zarathustra himself in the Gathas (Y. 44.20) where they are identified with the Karapans, a derogatory word used in the Gathas in reference to enemy priests.
b. Nadhyaongha Gaotema (Nodhas Gautama) is mentioned in the early Yasht's (FarvardIn Yasht, Yt.13.16) as a priest defeated by Zarathustra in debate. While many scholars ignore or reject the identification of the word Nadhyaongha with Nodhas, the identity of the second word as the name of an enemy priest, Gaotema (Rishi Gautam), is not disputed by anyone.
In sum : any analysis of the Rig Ved and Avesta will make it clear that the main enemies of the Iranians in the Avesta, at least at the time of Zarathustra, were the “Indo-Aryans” i.e. the Vedic Aryans or Purus.
A second Avestan hero, whose name may be noted here, is Thraetaona. In the Rig ved, Traitana (Thraetaona) is referred to as being killed by the grace of Indra in I.158.5, attributed to Dirghatamas, the father of Kaksivan.
In later Indian tradition, the Iranians became the asuras or demons of Indian mythology, who ceased to bear even the faintest resemblance to the original Iranian prototypes. Likewise, the angiras and other enemies of the time of Zarathustra were so mythologised in later Iranian traditions in the Pahlavi texts and in the very much later Shahname, and even in later parts of the Avesta itself, that they ceased to be identifiable with the original Indo-Aryan prototypes. Hence, later interpretations of the Avestan words (e.g. the identification of the tuiryas or Turanians with latter-day peoples like the Turks, etc.) are untenable in any study of the Zoroastrian period.
The Avesta does not appear to refer to the Purus or Bharat's by those names, but then it is not necessary that they do so : the Rig Ved refers to the Iranians as the Anus (a term which does not appear in the Avesta); and although Sudas and his descendants are Bharat's, the Battle Of Ten Kings hymns refer to them as Trtsus, and the Varshagira hymn refers to them as Varshagiras. The Iranians must have had their own names for Indo-Aryans in the Avesta. And it is not necessary that the names or epithets used by the Iranians for the Indo-Aryans should be found in the Rig Ved.
However, we can speculate as follows :
a. The word Turvayana occurs four times in the Rig Ved, and in two of the verses it refers to the person for whom Indra conquered all the tribes from east to west i.e. Kutsa - Ayu - Atithigva.
About Turvayana, Griffith notes in his footnote to VI.18.13 : “According to Sayana, turvayana, ‘quickly going’ is an epithet of Divodas.” If this is correct, then it is possible that this may have been a general epithet of the Bharat kings, descendants of Divodas, particularly in conflict situations; and the Avestan word tuirya for the enemies of the Iranians may be derived from this word as a contrast to the word airya. It may be noted that according to Skjærvø. the “evidence is too tenuous to allow any conclusions as to who the Turas were or at what time the conflict took place”.
b. Zarathustra refers in his Gathas (Y.32.12-14) to “grahma” as the most powerful and persistent of his enemies. Though not exactly cognate, a similar word in the Rig ved, grama, refers to the warrior troops of the Bharat's in III.33.11, where the reference is to the armies under Sudas and Vishvamitra crossing the Sutudri and Vipas on their westward expedition; and in I.100.10 it refers to the troops of the Varsagiras.
These are the only two occurrence of this word in the Mandalas and upa-Mandalas of the Early Period and the early part of the Middle Period. The word grama occurs once in the hymns of the later Middle Period, in II.12.7, in its new and subsequent meaning of a “village”. It occurs many times in the Late Mandalas and upa-Mandalas (I.44.10; 114.1; V.54.8; X.27.19; 62.11; 90.8; 107.5; 127.5, 146.10 149.4) always meaning “village” (except in I. 44.10, where it means “battle”, like the later word samgram.
While the early part of the Middle Period of the Rig Ved represents a continuation and culmination of the Indo-Iranian conflicts of the Early Period, the later part (Mandala II and corresponding parts of the upa-Mandalas) is a period of peace in which the two people develop their religions and cultures in their respective areas. Mandala II does not refer to any river other than the sacred Sarasvati.
The first signs of a thaw taking place in Indo-Iranian relations, in this period, are the appearance in the Rig Ved of an Avestan personality, Thrita, who is counted among the important persons (Yt.13.113), and is primarily associated with the Haoma (Soma) ritual (Y.9.10) and with medicines (Vd.20).
• To know more Click here.
From the above points we can summarize that :
|
