There are various tribes of RigVeda is described in later scriptures but none of them mentions Ang and Magh as RigVedic tribe. Most of the scriptures mentions Maghadh (whose inhabitants are called Magh) and Ang as area/ country located in present Bihar,but not recognised as RigVedic. Even in AtharvaVeda Maghadh is considered to be outside of RigVedic Aryan sphere.
But RigVeda is a text of very ancient origin and consisting of a language from which classical Sanskrit emerged.Yet Sanskrit helps us only in a limited way to understand RigVedic language because it contains a large number of archaic words and uses. The best way to understand RigVeda is to derive the meaning of words from the internal structure of its corpus. Many words are repeated at several places and it gives us an opportunity to extract a viable meaning by extrapolating the contexts. Magh and Ang are two words here which appears quite frequently in RigVeda and mostly meaning as tribes of great importance.
My question here is - Can it be proved or disproved that Magh and Ang are tribes from the facts described in Rigveda only?