Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 20th, 2017, 05:00 PM   #41

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
But in the whole of India and the world, we have to battle Euro-centrists and Steppe chauvinists
You are not battling Euro-centrists or Steppe Chauvinists, you are battling history and evidence.
BTW, Caspian steppes are on the borders of both Europe and Asia, and Aryan homeland may have been in Siberia.

"Scientists are interested in knowing more about ice from the Eemian period, a time from 115,000 to 130,000 years ago that was about as warm as today. This new age volume provides the first data-driven estimate of where Eemian ice may remain."
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-d-view...sheet.html#jCp

The snow is melting now, future generations may see habitation and agriculture in Greenland.
"The greening of Greenland" https://www.ft.com/content/91635aac-...a-00144feab49a
Click the image to open in full size. Click the image to open in full size. Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; August 20th, 2017 at 05:31 PM.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Remove Ads
Old August 20th, 2017, 06:08 PM   #42
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
Very nice post again. I appreciate your knowledge in Dravidian linguistics.

I think Megalithic Culture developed from the Southern Neolithic, as said by Tewari "that they had already been experimenting for centuries".

And I don't think there is any archaeological proof that Iron technology reached directly from Iran to South India by surpassing Western India. Linguistically also, Dravidian family is not showing affinity with any other Language Family, that makes this Family quite isolated to the Indian Subcontinent.

And I think originally rather than North-South it is more like East-West divide between SD-II and SD-I. Original South-Dravidian very likely developed between River Krishna and River Penneru in Southern Deccan Plateau. Here SD-II from the East moved towards North and reached till Gondwana and SD-I from the West moved towards South and reached till Tamil Nadu. It were teh sub-divisions of SD-I and SD-II that have North-South split e.g. Kannada-Tamil and Telugu-Gondi.
Thank you. I agree about the eastern languages (Telugu-Pengo) moving more towards north and the western languages (Tulu-Tamil) moving more towards south too. And archaeologist Tewari's statement if true, would make me very happy lol.*

But the problems related to this Dravidian thing mainly come from genetics which shows all non-Brahmin Dravidian speaking people having a recent neolithic era Iran-like northwestern ancestry. If most of us had been fully native Indian ASI, I personally would have considered the problem solved as to the urheimat and pre-urheimats of Dravidian languages. But the neolithic Near Eastern ancestry troubles me because there is a clear case of a language loss here. Either the near eastern migrants gave up their languages and took up the Dravidian languages of one group of Native Indians belonging to South India (which does not preclude the possibility that other non-Dravidian native languages being lost except one native language, the Dravidian), which if true, would make me beyond happy and ecstatic (yes, partly because of our Near Eastern-like ancestors losing their languages lol), or the ultimately (that is, however ancient migration might have brought them into India) Near Eastern Dravidian migrants, alas, caused the loss of the languages of the pre-Dravidian Native Indians. Sadly, the second is more likely. That this problem gets resolved ultimately is a strong wish of mine currently.

Also, what do you assess to be the linguistic situation in South India during the neolithic? Do you think the entire South India or at least most parts of it were speaking Dravidian languages during the neolithic too? I don't know much about archaeology but from a linguistic point of view, my problem is this: if South Dravidian linguistic family expanded throughout the South Indian peninsula far before the iron age and the iron technology was an innovation by the western South Dravidian-I people from whom the already differentiated South Dravidian-II people of the east borrowed the technology, then it is at least a bit better, in that it establishes Dravidian language family in most parts of South India before iron age. But wouldn't we expect a bit more diversity in the current distribution of languages instead of only two major branches (Tulu-Tamil and Telugu-Pengo)? (And in that case, Krishnamurti's 11th century BC date for the split of South Dravidian would be quite late too.) But if South Dravidian initially split and expanded because of the iron technology, then doesn't it mean that there were other languages in South India during the neolithic? Now, there is a relatively simple and perhaps likely possibility that these lost languages were Central Dravidian or North Dravidian or other unknown branches of Dravidian or Munda languages (also I would be glad if you enlighten me if any scholars associate Munda languages with Orissa Neolithic) but there could have been languages belonging to entirely different and unknown language families too? Or was South India too sparsely populated during the neolithic to not even have non-Dravidian-speaking hunter gatherers or neolithics of other traditions?

Personally, I'm inclined to find likely the second possibility that there were other unknown languages in South India till as recently as the 11th century BC. That is because of the pre-Dravidian substratum words list of five words in Irula as given by Kamil Zvelebil. (Don't know what those words are currently. Should know as soon as possible.). I also wish that they do similar studies to find pre-Dravidian words in languages like Gondi, Telugu, Konda, Kondh languages etc. to let me know more about some of the lost languages of my ancestors.

*EDIT: I'm already quite happy though for there was at least one major achievement of the speakers of Dravidian languages (likely Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Irula-Kodagu-Kota-Toda) related to this in the development of wootz steel. May not be as full of wonders as the Indo-Aryans but maybe they did at least a bit okay on the ancient world stage lol, with Indian ocean sea trade with Southeast Asia and Southern Europe (Tamilakam profusely) (Some-branch-of-Dravidian speaking people even managed to get sandalwood at some pre-historic point from Southeast Asia and make it endemic to South India lol).

Last edited by historumsi; August 20th, 2017 at 06:52 PM.
historumsi is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 08:07 PM   #43
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,236

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
You are not battling Euro-centrists or Steppe Chauvinists, you are battling history and evidence.
BTW, Caspian steppes are on the borders of both Europe and Asia, and Aryan homeland may have been in Siberia.

"Scientists are interested in knowing more about ice from the Eemian period, a time from 115,000 to 130,000 years ago that was about as warm as today. This new age volume provides the first data-driven estimate of where Eemian ice may remain."
https://phys.org/news/2015-01-d-view...sheet.html#jCp

The snow is melting now, future generations may see habitation and agriculture in Greenland.
"The greening of Greenland" https://www.ft.com/content/91635aac-...a-00144feab49a
Click the image to open in full size. Click the image to open in full size. Click the image to open in full size.
What has all of this to do with the argument? Evidence and history indicate Vedic is PIE.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 20th, 2017, 09:38 PM   #44

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
What has all of this to do with the argument? Evidence and history indicate Vedic is PIE.
Establishes at least one thing - I am not Euro-centric. I do not consider Aryan homeland to be Scandinavia but in Siberia (East or West, I am open to it). I do not feel diminished if Aryans were from Siberia. It is a question of history.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old August 21st, 2017, 04:24 PM   #45

mnsr's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2014
From: Asia
Posts: 1,429

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
But the problems related to this Dravidian thing mainly come from genetics which shows all non-Brahmin Dravidian speaking people having a recent neolithic era Iran-like northwestern ancestry. If most of us had been fully native Indian ASI, I personally would have considered the problem solved as to the urheimat and pre-urheimats of Dravidian languages. But the neolithic Near Eastern ancestry troubles me because there is a clear case of a language loss here. Either the near eastern migrants gave up their languages and took up the Dravidian languages of one group of Native Indians belonging to South India (which does not preclude the possibility that other non-Dravidian native languages being lost except one native language, the Dravidian), which if true, would make me beyond happy and ecstatic (yes, partly because of our Near Eastern-like ancestors losing their languages lol), or the ultimately (that is, however ancient migration might have brought them into India) Near Eastern Dravidian migrants, alas, caused the loss of the languages of the pre-Dravidian Native Indians. Sadly, the second is more likely. That this problem gets resolved ultimately is a strong wish of mine currently.
If you are talking about Haplogroup L-M20, then that is something that happened 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. That is not really recent !

And as humans originate from Africa, the only way to reach India is through Near East/Middle East.
Click the image to open in full size.

And Krishnamurti puts the Urheimat of Dravidian Family in Western India, and I think during Neolithic Period, they were spread from Balochistan to Western Deccan.

And there would definitely be non-Dravidian people with whom they interacted and almost all these non-Dravidian people ending up shifting there language to Dravidian, as you said "the second is more likely".

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
Also, what do you assess to be the linguistic situation in South India during the neolithic? Do you think the entire South India or at least most parts of it were speaking Dravidian languages during the neolithic too? I don't know much about archaeology but from a linguistic point of view, my problem is this: if South Dravidian linguistic family expanded throughout the South Indian peninsula far before the iron age and the iron technology was an innovation by the western South Dravidian-I people from whom the already differentiated South Dravidian-II people of the east borrowed the technology, then it is at least a bit better, in that it establishes Dravidian language family in most parts of South India before iron age. But wouldn't we expect a bit more diversity in the current distribution of languages instead of only two major branches (Tulu-Tamil and Telugu-Pengo)? (And in that case, Krishnamurti's 11th century BC date for the split of South Dravidian would be quite late too.) But if South Dravidian initially split and expanded because of the iron technology, then doesn't it mean that there were other languages in South India during the neolithic? Now, there is a relatively simple and perhaps likely possibility that these lost languages were Central Dravidian or North Dravidian or other unknown branches of Dravidian or Munda languages (also I would be glad if you enlighten me if any scholars associate Munda languages with Orissa Neolithic) but there could have been languages belonging to entirely different and unknown language families too? Or was South India too sparsely populated during the neolithic to not even have non-Dravidian-speaking hunter gatherers or neolithics of other traditions?
I also think the Krishnamurti's 11th century BC proposal for South Dravidian split is quite too late. Even within South Indian Neolithic, there were two distinct cultural traditions existings. One in Lower and Middle Krishna Valley and other in Upper Tungabhadra, South Karnataka and Pennar Basin. (Upinder Singh, page 124). Could this split in South Indian Neolithic corroborates with the split in SD-I and SD-II ? I think very likely.
And I think it is very hard to comment as really which group discovered Iron.

And if SD-I and SD-II actually splits during South Indian Neolithic, that implies South Indian Neolithic was originally South Dravidian. And Central Dravidian and North Dravidian would exist outside South Indian Neolithic.

It is pretty difficult to comment linguistically as from where comes Central Dravidian, was it a split from South-Central Dravidian, that splits into South Dravidian and Central Dravidian or they are distinct branch within Dravidian family. That makes it difficult to comment on them from archeological point of view as well, if they were a small group that split from South Indian Neolithic at very early stage or they came from Chalcolithic culture of Western Maharashtra, though I incline towards the first option. And for North Dravidian, there origin lies in the Chalcolithic cultures of the North India.

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
Personally, I'm inclined to find likely the second possibility that there were other unknown languages in South India till as recently as the 11th century BC. That is because of the pre-Dravidian substratum words list of five words in Irula as given by Kamil Zvelebil. (Don't know what those words are currently. Should know as soon as possible.). I also wish that they do similar studies to find pre-Dravidian words in languages like Gondi, Telugu, Konda, Kondh languages etc. to let me know more about some of the lost languages of my ancestors.
In my opinion it is almost next to impossible to construct any pre-Dravidian substratum with academic consensus as the sources available with us are very very scarce !
mnsr is offline  
Old August 21st, 2017, 06:49 PM   #46
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnsr View Post
If you are talking about Haplogroup L-M20, then that is something that happened 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. That is not really recent !
No I wasn't having that L haplogroup in mind. I was having the ANI-ASI research which finds ANI as a composite of an ancient sample found from Neolithic Iran (7000 BC or so) and the later Indo-European component found in elevated levels in North Indians. Non-Brahmin South Indians don't have much of the latter but they have a lot of the former. (While this is currently interpreted as a neolithic migrations of people from Iran towards Indus Valley and then into inner India, it could very well mean that the Paleolithic people of at least the northwestern subcontinent themselves were genetically related to the Iran people and need not have been a result of the 7000 BC physical migration from Iran, but I don't know though, they say there are biological discontinuities in Mehrgarh and all that.) Waiting for the ancient DNA from India next month, but don't know if they have collected and analysed samples, belonging to different layers, from the peninsula at all. If you know if they did collect aDNA from the peninsula, please do tell me.

Quote:
And Krishnamurti puts the Urheimat of Dravidian Family in Western India, and I think during Neolithic Period, they were spread from Balochistan to Western Deccan.
Could you tell me what time you have in mind exactly when you say Neolithic Period? Do you mean the grandpa neolithic periods like the Near East and Indus Valley Neolithic (like 7000 BC or so onwards till the bronze age)? And by Balochistan, you mean an ancient Brahui as a relict language in that location? But linguistic evidence supports the hypothesis that Brahui language was a much later entry into its current area, no? If you did not have Brahui in mind but some lost Dravidian languages of that area, then it's okay, but Balochistan is still quite near the extreme peripheries of the subcontinent, no? Also, in my view, better than Krishnamurti's placement of the urheimat (which he actually does more or less randomly, doesn't he? At least that's what I felt. But I do request you to tell me about what makes you think Krishnamurti's view of the urheimat may be correct, if you differ with me.) is Dorian Fuller's 2007 Dravidian tree name study which majorly brings out two possible locations for the urheimat though Fuller himself carefully chooses to place the urheimat "somewhere in the peninsula". Those two locations are: "Eastern Ghats Dry Deciduous zones north of the Krishna river" and some areas around Mount Abu, Rajasthan. The urheimat of Proto-Dravidian at least (as opposed to the language stages earlier than Proto-Dravidian) could likely have been in either of the two locations above theoretically, according to that paper and I felt Dorian Fuller's study was very detailed and good, so I think that paper is worth a read. If you have already done so, please ignore but please do try to give your comments on that paper.

Quote:
It is pretty difficult to comment linguistically as from where comes Central Dravidian, was it a split from South-Central Dravidian, that splits into South Dravidian and Central Dravidian or they are distinct branch within Dravidian family. That makes it difficult to comment on them from archeological point of view as well, if they were a small group that split from South Indian Neolithic at very early stage or they came from Chalcolithic culture of Western Maharashtra, though I incline towards the first option. And for North Dravidian, there origin lies in the Chalcolithic cultures of the North India.
The tree in Krishnamurti's book shows the currently accepted placement of Central Dravidian as a distinct branch alongside North Dravidian and South Dravidian because there are no much shared innovations between Central Dravidian and any of the other branches, though Krishnamurti talks of some "lean evidence" to set up a common node for South and Central Dravidian, which I'm not aware of. Dorian Fuller thought based on some archaeobotanical-linguistic research proposed that Central Dravidian may have separated out from some common stage of South Dravidian and itself, perhaps shortly after North Dravidian separated. Also, your mentioning of the Chalcolithic Western Maharashtra in that context seems to mean that it was a contemporary of South Indian Neolithic? I agree they were, but the Deccan Chalcolithic cultures started later than the South Indian Neolithic (2800 BC onwards), no? Also, could you tell me what archaeological sites do you have in mind when you say Chalcolithic cultures of North India as possible early settlements for North Dravidians? I personally consider likely the possibility that the North Dravidians also migrated from the South Indian Neolithic at some point, to the north into the Narmada valley mainly. This is because, I read there is linguistic evidence of a Kurukh-specific Dravidian influence found in the isolate language Nihali and the Munda language Korku present in the Narmada region. It is quite intriguing, even if unreliable as an evidence, that the Kurukh people have traditions that say that they migrated to their current lands from Karnataka.
historumsi is offline  
Old August 22nd, 2017, 07:51 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,236

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
Thank you. I agree about the eastern languages (Telugu-Pengo) moving more towards north and the western languages (Tulu-Tamil) moving more towards south too. And archaeologist Tewari's statement if true, would make me very happy lol.*

But the problems related to this Dravidian thing mainly come from genetics which shows all non-Brahmin Dravidian speaking people having a recent neolithic era Iran-like northwestern ancestry. If most of us had been fully native Indian ASI, I personally would have considered the problem solved as to the urheimat and pre-urheimats of Dravidian languages. But the neolithic Near Eastern ancestry troubles me because there is a clear case of a language loss here. Either the near eastern migrants gave up their languages and took up the Dravidian languages of one group of Native Indians belonging to South India (which does not preclude the possibility that other non-Dravidian native languages being lost except one native language, the Dravidian), which if true, would make me beyond happy and ecstatic (yes, partly because of our Near Eastern-like ancestors losing their languages lol), or the ultimately (that is, however ancient migration might have brought them into India) Near Eastern Dravidian migrants, alas, caused the loss of the languages of the pre-Dravidian Native Indians. Sadly, the second is more likely. That this problem gets resolved ultimately is a strong wish of mine currently.

Also, what do you assess to be the linguistic situation in South India during the neolithic? Do you think the entire South India or at least most parts of it were speaking Dravidian languages during the neolithic too? I don't know much about archaeology but from a linguistic point of view, my problem is this: if South Dravidian linguistic family expanded throughout the South Indian peninsula far before the iron age and the iron technology was an innovation by the western South Dravidian-I people from whom the already differentiated South Dravidian-II people of the east borrowed the technology, then it is at least a bit better, in that it establishes Dravidian language family in most parts of South India before iron age. But wouldn't we expect a bit more diversity in the current distribution of languages instead of only two major branches (Tulu-Tamil and Telugu-Pengo)? (And in that case, Krishnamurti's 11th century BC date for the split of South Dravidian would be quite late too.) But if South Dravidian initially split and expanded because of the iron technology, then doesn't it mean that there were other languages in South India during the neolithic? Now, there is a relatively simple and perhaps likely possibility that these lost languages were Central Dravidian or North Dravidian or other unknown branches of Dravidian or Munda languages (also I would be glad if you enlighten me if any scholars associate Munda languages with Orissa Neolithic) but there could have been languages belonging to entirely different and unknown language families too? Or was South India too sparsely populated during the neolithic to not even have non-Dravidian-speaking hunter gatherers or neolithics of other traditions?

Personally, I'm inclined to find likely the second possibility that there were other unknown languages in South India till as recently as the 11th century BC. That is because of the pre-Dravidian substratum words list of five words in Irula as given by Kamil Zvelebil. (Don't know what those words are currently. Should know as soon as possible.). I also wish that they do similar studies to find pre-Dravidian words in languages like Gondi, Telugu, Konda, Kondh languages etc. to let me know more about some of the lost languages of my ancestors.

*EDIT: I'm already quite happy though for there was at least one major achievement of the speakers of Dravidian languages (likely Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Irula-Kodagu-Kota-Toda) related to this in the development of wootz steel. May not be as full of wonders as the Indo-Aryans but maybe they did at least a bit okay on the ancient world stage lol, with Indian ocean sea trade with Southeast Asia and Southern Europe (Tamilakam profusely) (Some-branch-of-Dravidian speaking people even managed to get sandalwood at some pre-historic point from Southeast Asia and make it endemic to South India lol).
For God's sake tell me how do you tie archaeology and language. What is the earliest evidence of writing in South India, and how do you know what language people spoke in Neolithic? I'm interested to know the thought process.

Also, please tell me how one gets those dates of 1100 BCE (the 100 next to 1000 BCE is really comical).
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 22nd, 2017, 07:53 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,236

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Establishes at least one thing - I am not Euro-centric. I do not consider Aryan homeland to be Scandinavia but in Siberia (East or West, I am open to it). I do not feel diminished if Aryans were from Siberia. It is a question of history.
But it looks like you feel diminished if Aryans were from India (which they were anyway).
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 22nd, 2017, 09:48 PM   #49

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 2,180

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
But it looks like you feel diminished if Aryans were from India (which they were anyway).
Not really. I would be just as happy - if there were proofs enough. Actually, it would have made me happier. But history should not be tiffled with because of our likes or dislikes. So what if Maharana Pratap lost at Haldi ghati and later sent a mission to Akbar. When Chadrasen Rathore of Jodhpur told him that among the kings of Rajasthan only his horses are not marked by the Moghul seal. He should try to keep it that way. Even Chhatrapati Shivaji Mahraj was negotiating peace with Aurangzeb. It does not matter if it could not be amicably settled.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; August 22nd, 2017 at 09:53 PM.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old August 22nd, 2017, 10:18 PM   #50
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
For God's sake tell me how do you tie archaeology and language. What is the earliest evidence of writing in South India, and how do you know what language people spoke in Neolithic? I'm interested to know the thought process.

Also, please tell me how one gets those dates of 1100 BCE (the 100 next to 1000 BCE is really comical).
You are basically right that one should exercise a lot of caution while attempting to attach languages to archaeological sites. From now on, I will include a disclaimer every time I engage in this sort of a discussion. All that out of the way, however, I think we can still infer about the linguistic affiliation of a particular archaeological culture, strongly even, in certain conditions. Take the case of the earliest Old Tamil literature. Now that literature was available from the second century BC onwards or so (I have a very rough idea only. So please pardon me if I've mistaken. And I know next to nothing of Old Tamil literature personally, except reading it referred to in some stuff that I read.) and that literature, I read, describes details of megalith construction and such stuff. So I think we can at least conceive of a scenario where the beginnings of the iron age in the region (1200 BC onwards) also had Dravidian languages, just by linking the observed cultural continuity (which is undeniably strong) with a linguistic continuity, because it is quite likely generally in the world. Also, not just megaliths or iron or steel, linguists generally attempt to connect other culturally salient items, fruits, crops, etc. found archaeologically with the native vocabularies of the languages they are having in mind. They then proceed to report on how much percentage of the archaeologically found items match the linguistic stuff. It goes without saying that linguists, just like other scientists, do not make any claims of absolute certainty in these matters; they only evaluate and report the likelihoods making the best use of whatever simple statistics useful in these cases like percentages, and write their papers in an extremely conservative tone.

Now, you somehow appear, to me, to be agreeing with the scenario that the current South Dravidian languages can be associated with the iron age of South India (pardon me if I'm wrong), seeing that you have mainly questioned how we come to know what people spoke in the neolithic. Now your challenging is not without merits, because it is definitely harder to associate the South Indian Neolithic with the Dravidian languages than to associate the succeeding Iron Age with those languages. In fact, there are proposals that there were no Dravidian languages in India before the iron age, implying that the Ashmound Tradition spoke entirely different languages. They try to arrive at these proposals by some reasonable reasoning too. And as you pointed out, Dravidian literature is definitely not available from the period that corresponds to the South Indian Neolithic. In such cases, as I mentioned earlier, linguists do studies of fruits, vegetables, crops, etc. found from the archaeological sites and compare them with the earlier linguistic stages reconstructed of the languages they have in mind, and report the results. One such study that proposed a connection between the Phases II and III of the South Indian Neolithic with the Proto-Dravidian language was a study by Franklin Southworth which actually reported an overall 73% figure of matching of the archaeologically found items with the reconstructed vocabulary from the Proto-Dravidian language. Now while this is all still hypothesising, and this even the linguist in question I'm sure does not deny, it is still a valuable addition to the general discourse I think, considering that the alternatives are to either assume with certainty that these were Dravidian languages that were spoken during the Neolithic or that they were not, or hold an extremely sceptical view and assert that since we will never know, there is no point in discussion; all of these alternatives I personally believe are quite inferior to the method of advancing and testing hypotheses, even if based on a kind of educated guesswork in this type of situations (I'm mainly talking about these lexical reconstructions and their association with archaeological cultures part; not the entire historical linguistics whose bulk is based on subjects like phonetics that are much closer to natural sciences like chemistry or physics and on very scientifically formulated methodologies to do reconstructions, such as the comparative method)

Now the 1100 BC number. Again, the idea is to somehow try to get a chronological picture of the splits within a language family, observed after basic reconstruction is completed. In this light, I'll reproduce Krishnamurti's reasoning and you decide if it is worthy of your consideration or not. First of all, Krishnamurti like many mainstream linguists never trusted the method of glottochronology whose basic premises are held to be suspect by mainstream historical linguists (see "Additional models" subsection in the "Limitations" section of Comparative method.) Krishnamurti therefore makes use of Sanskrit textual evidence from the 7th century BC Aitareya Brahmana and the 4th century BC Natyashastra (now I don't know how these dates were assigned to these Sanskrit texts. They do seem to be the accepted numbers. Anyway does not directly bother with the matter in hand I think). Now, Aitareya Brahmana mentions a group called "Andhras" by name and Natyashastra an "Andhra" language alongside a "Dramila" language. Krishnamurti, then, associates the Andhra language with his reconstructed Pre-Telugu (since it is 7th century BC) and the Dramila of 4th century BC with Pre-Tamil (Proto-Tamil-Malayalam-Kodagu-Irula-Toda-Kota) and infers that the split in South Dravidian that gave rise to the Andhra language recorded by Sanskrit speakers in 7th century BC might have preceded it by four or five centuries, arriving at the 1100 BC number (his reasoning being that it would take a long time for the observed phonological and morphological changes from the ancestral Proto-South Dravidian to develop in the South Dravidian-II.) Now that is Krishnamurti's reasoning. You can question it all you want, pose all kinds of questions about the identity of "Andhras" and argue that they were literally the cursed fifty originally-Sanskrit-speaking sons of Vishwamitra and all that. To such arguments, I don't have counter arguments. I'm not competent at all. There is no way for me other than to once again ask you to relieve me of the duties that I'm admittedly not competent to perform. But in my defence, I'd still point out that, in most, if not all posts I wrote earlier, I clearly indicated from which scholar I scavenged off the relevant ideas, using phrases like "Krishnamurti's dating" or "Southworth's study" or such things. (I'll try to include the page numbers of the books too, from now on, so that enthusiasts can take at a look at the reasoning behind a particular inference and evaluate that reasoning in all its entirety.) There is nothing more I can do really. I'm definitely not competent enough to do original research in these fields and discuss my research in these forums. And my general thinking is such that even in the exceptionally unlikely event that I did do some original research, I would never discuss it or would discuss it with bold disclaimers included at the least, unless I considered it to be somewhat well received and accepted in the scholarly community. Also, from now on, I'll try to find and include here, what particular criticisms each and every viewpoint that I present had already attracted from other reputed scholars.

But at the end though, if what you did in your post was to reject the legitimacy of the entire field of historical linguistics too in addition to the association of archaeological sites with languages (the latter I tried to discuss, above), then I must be extremely stupid to not recognise it till now, but even after so recognising, I don't know if I can do anything more, as I don't think I'm not competent or energetic enough. In such case, perhaps the best bet for us is to go for the old principle of agreeing to disagree.
historumsi is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
language, origin, puzzles, tamil



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the origin of the Tamil Brahmins ? Augustus04 Asian History 119 April 20th, 2017 06:59 AM
KOREAN spoken language connection to tamil alexk345 Asian History 137 July 5th, 2016 11:52 PM
sanskrit or tamil, which one is oldest Language? Aham Brahmasmi Asian History 66 May 23rd, 2016 04:44 AM
Tamil-Japanese Language relationship 1991sudarshan Asian History 87 June 7th, 2013 11:48 AM
Words of Tamil Origin In Hindi 1991sudarshan Asian History 2 September 13th, 2011 06:13 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.