Śutudrī of Ṛg veda and Śatadru of Rāmāyaṇa — are the names of same river in different times with different Fluvial and Fan conditions — Part 2
Note to self
The racing of the rivers cannot be viewed from the opposite directions towards each other at the confluence. So the rivers were not viewed at the upper portion where the Vipās’ and Śutudri come very close near Harike. They flow forth parallel from this region before 15ka, i.e., 13K BCE. We noted this in the first part of this blog.
In this part 2 blog we will try to understand the history of geography and the reposition of River Sutlej and Beas due to the change in their outlet position from the Himalayan frontal thrust (HTF) with the help of deposition, aggradation and incision studies. This kind of incedent, where the river flow slow down, is present in the RV 3. 33. Note that 6, 3, 7 are the oldest mandalas as per Shrikant Talageri. I will show how I differ with his relative chronology as well in the later blogs. Before understanding the geological and hydrological conditions of rivers lets delve a bit into the first myth of Sutlej.
The first myth of Sutlej
River Sutlej has interesting stories attached to it which indicates towards tape recordings of geographical hazard recorded by the Rg vedic people. One such remeberance itself comes from Rg veda, of which I have already discussed in the part one on how parallel rivers would appear, with the help of the horse metaphor present in the same mantra of RV 3.33.
RV III.33 Rivers (1–3, 5, 9, 11–13), Viśvāmitra (4, 8, 10), and Indra (6–7), Viśvāmitra (1–3, 5–6, 9, 11–13) and Rivers (4, 7–8, 10) — Note that this Maṇḍala is counted in the oldest.
Further analysis of the first mantra of RV 3.33 is as under.
Commentary by Sāyaṇa: Ṛgveda-bhāṣya on RV 3.33
Śutudri: legend (also given in Nirukta 2.24): Viśvāmitra, the family priest of Sudās, the son of Paijavana, having gained much wealth in his service, was returning with it home, when his road brought him to the confluence of the Vipās’ and Śutudri; in order to make them fordable, he addressed to them the first verses of this sūkta, to which he replied, and allowed him and his followers to cross.
Note that its Niruktakāra who gives his idea of the aforesaid mentioned Viśvāmitra to be the family priest of Sudās, the son of Paijavana. While the third Maṇḍala is specifically dominated by Viśvāmitra Gāthina, and the mantra mentions his victory position. However, Shrikant Talageri negates any idea of victory here and poses this as a problem due to which Vasiṣṭhas came into picture as their priest.
This legend brings into account a geo-hazard where both the rivers stopped or became shallow for a while, probably due to the tectonic issues the artificial dams were created, due to aggradation and probable inscission, which enabled Viśvāmitra to cross both the river from west to east. [गावे॑व शु॒भ्रे मा॒तरा॑ रिहा॒णे विपा॑ट्(west) छुतु॒द्री (east)पय॑सा जवेते ॥]
This brings into few findings.
- The war happened on the old bank of River Ravi (Parushni) very near to or at Multan.
- Viśvāmitra travelled west to east from the older confluence point of Beas and Sutlej. The confluence of rivers is experienced after the parallel contending rivers at Uch.
- The rivers stopped for a while, making it shallow and fordable.
- Viśvāmitra didn’t cross the River Saraswati, which indicates that he and his people inhabited at the left side of River Saraswati. This also indicates that there was no further war attended by Viśvāmitras.
What was happening to the rivers then?
This can be the time of aggradation and repositioning of the rivers from the Himalaya frontal thrust. When I had been to Rishikesh in Dayanand Saraswati Ashram for the conference I was told that the dam releases waters of Ganges after a while and I have some time when I could take a dip in the Ganges when it is very shallow. Similar should had been the case with both the rivers at the same time. I looked into the details of scientific studies and found interesting time frames of deposition for Beas and Sutlej resulting probably from change of courses. For Beas at Site 1 gives 37.4+- 2.3 ka, roughly gives 35.1ka Lower limit and 39.7 Ka higher limit. For Sutlej Site 4 gives 31.4+- 5.3ka, roughly gives 26.1 as lower limit and 36.7 ka as higher limit.
Beas’s lower and Sutlej’s higher limits of times with such upheavals comes out as 35000 years before present (33K BCE), (with the help of genetics I was suspecting it to be 26–29 K BCE, since I was looking into exact timeframe of the new haplogroup emerging from the old, but probably to form a new haplogroup from our own haplogroups, this group must have needed some thousand years after mutation. Yet there’s one astronomical evidence that do go back to 29K BCE, I will look into this later) and this should be the time when both the river stopped for a while before it punctured the HFT to find a new riverine course. The time was enough for Viśvāmitra to cross both the rivers.
Note that this event is posterior to King Brihadratha (34,500 BCE). King Brihadratha is facing only two of the tribes, i.e., Turvasus and Yadus.
The Reasons for War
The northern inhabitants were facing harshness of the climate and the change in environment which was slowly moving towards LGM. The vegetation was shrinking and becoming arid as compared to before 40ka BP, monsoon studies also suggest fluctuation between rapid wet and dry periods from 40ka to 26ka. I have discussed this in a research paper, “Astronomy, Quaternary Paleoclimatic Changes and Eustatic Geo-hazard History in Maitrayāṇī Upanishad — Epoch 34000 BCE". War like situations were evident due to the increase in unbearable cold in upper region. Another paper suggest there was a population explosion during these times. Rivers were shrinking and solidifying as ice and banks were slowly going uphill. Beas riverine problems must have begun during the King Brihadratha times itself. It finally concluded during the Bharata war which was fought between the Bharatas and the ten tribes. I have waited for more evidence to come in for Dāśarājña war via astronomy and the studies will not halt here which has been through for more than a decade now. What I bring today is quite a decisive evidence that cannot be avoided. The wait was fruitful. The paper on “Late Quaternary Deflections of the Beas-Satluj rivers at the Himalayan mountain front, Kangra re-entrant, India: Response to fold growth and climate” came in 15 April 2020. Yet the wait was long for an astronomy evidence. ( I will cover this up later in the scientific paper). Why I am bringing all these accounts, because we want to understand how far Sutlej went with name Śutudrī and when it could have changed to Śatadru.
Note that Śutudrī is mentioned only twice in Rg veda. 1) iii. 33, 1; x. 75, 5; and Uruñjirā is given in the Nirukta (ix. 26) as one of the names
of the river Vipāś (now Beäs). This is attested by the place name Uch which appears to be apabhramsha of Uruñjirā. Uch appears to be a local name remebered from the remote past for Uruñjirā. It was so sacred that even Alexander chose this place and named it as Alexandria on Indus.
Note that in the tectonically active mountain ranges, such as the Himalaya, aggradation and incision processes are mainly influenced by tectonic activity, climate variability, lithological variations and erosional isostasy.
River Ravi and Dāśarājña war
Lets understand the hydrology and climate techtonic imprints of the River Ravi.
A major change in the depositional environment was recorded in terms of discontinuities manifested as gullying and/or aeolian/lacustrine sedimentation in the Ganga plains during late MIS-3 and 2 whereas the river basins in western India record a mixed response (aggradation or degradation) depending upon their rainfall regime along a gradient.
It is also important to note that the fluvial response in terms of aggradation or degradation primarily depends upon the sediment to water ratio and therefore aggradation may occur during wet as well as dry climate and this explains, in some cases, the differential responses of river systems across the different climatic regimes. Further, while sediment production in the hinterland is controlled by tectonic processes, its mobilization into the alluvial plains depends upon the water fluxes which is a function of climate. In western India, several river systems lie on the Thar desert margin and they are extremely sensitive to climate change during the late Quaternary period. This is reflected in frequent switching between the fluvial and aeolian modes of deposition as well as tectonic changes in fluvial styles at several sites. Further, fluvial systems are inherently discontinuous in terms of their depositional records and preservation potential as manifested in the occurrence of major or minor discontinuities. — July 2020, Sinha et al Fluvial_Archives_of_North_and_Northwestern_India_as_Recorders_of_Climatic_Signatures_in_the_Late_Quaternary_Review_and_Assessment
In the Ravi River Valley, two major aggradation phases were reported, i.e. ∼72–46 ka and 39–23 ka, with at least six cut-and-fill and degraded sequences between <23 ka and 7 ka. Note that during <23 ka and 7 ka, i.e., after 21 ka Beas didn’t show much upheaval. We are noting this for further astronomical pointers.
Field study and OSL dating demonstrate aggradation of river terraces and debris-flow terraces occurred in two major phases: 73–46 ka and 39–23 ka and at least six minor phases between <23 ka and 7 ka. — Climate-tectonic imprints on the Late Quaternary Ravi River Valley Terraces of the Chamba region in the NW Himalaya
This gives a fare idea that even in RV 7.18, River Ravi is experiencing similar occurance of shallowing of River for Sudāsa and gushing of River for the rivalries.
Wars before Dāśarājña war?
Dāśarājña war, RV 7.18 also has similar story for River Ravi like Sutlej and Beas of RV 3.33. Thus it appears to be similar to RV 3.33 which does give rise to a speculation of RV 3.33 to be posterior of the war of ten kings..
So, that would mean the VII mandala’s Vasiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇi compromised the Booty with Viśvāmitra, the son of Kuśika, of III mandala whose mantra draśṭā is gopavana ātreyaḥ saptavadhrirvā. Now Ātreya are V th mandala people. The name Bharata appear in Rg Veda 3.33.11,12 but there is no mention of “Sudās Paijavana”. I speculate that Rg Veda 3.33 can be a previous Bharata War, i.e, previous to Dāśarājña war but interestingly both the wars appears to have been fought on Paruṣṇī river and may have happened in the vicinity of each other’s timing. The later Sudās Paijavana of 7.18 appears at Ravi. Note that Viśvāmitra didn’t cross River Ravi.
By now we understand that the Himalaya, aggradation and incision processes which are influenced by tectonic activity, led to such condition of rivers. We also saw that the Rivers were flowing parallel for a long distance before confluencing at Uch.
The want of Onomastic studies
I will come onto the onomastic studies of Ravi, Beas, Sutlej in yet another coming parts to finalize on how their fluvial pattern affected the change of name…
Anyways, the three rivers did face similar situation during 33K BCE.
Whoah! these studies are highly exciting. This study gives a brief idea about other than Dāśarājña war that has happened during 33k BCE. This is a part study of Dāśarājña war too.
..to be continued…
