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 January 21st, 2012, 06:54 PM   #51

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
I have not seen any evidence of the existence of Aryan and Dravidian cultural divide.

.
That cultural divide ceased to exist when the Aryan culture had the upper hand.

Quote:
I am yet to see a distinct branch of philosophy that is distinctly southern from prehistory. The most compelling case of southern evolution of Indic philosophy is the evolution of Shaivism in southern India, which comes to prominance around 300s CE in the Tamil city-states of Cholas, Cheras, Pallavas and Pandyas.
I am not here to argue whether there existed separate school of philosophies In peninsular India. The argument is there must be a tribal religion or a shaman religion been in practise amongst the Dravidian people which was later absorbed by the religion of the incoming Aryans. People adopt new religion along with the practise of their religion from which they have converted .

Ex Japanese Catholics, even though they are Christian they tend to have the minor religious or superstitious beliefs.

In our case, I suspect there must be a major religious belief that doesn't have ayan-origin.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:02 PM   #52

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
This is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the mtDNA and y-chromosomal DNA analysis of Indians. There is just as much difference between the average Tamil and the average Kannada, as there is between the average Tamil and Bihari.
This proves that the Dravidians were wide spread though out India before and after the Aryan arrival and they adopted the religion of the Aryan and take to much of their previous religions' belief to the new religion. There is no clear cut archaeological evidences to prove that Aryans subjugated the Dravidian through war . If Dravidian were subjugated through warm, they would have taken the new religion with out much compliance. But I do not think that is the case . There were no wars no violence and how could people simply desert their way of life and religious practise for the sake of new religion.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:10 PM   #53

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
That cultural divide ceased to exist when the Aryan culture had the upper hand.
What is the evidence for the 'existence' of such a 'dravidic culture' before its influence from Aryavarta ? The oldest Dravidian (tamil) literature dates to 400s BCE. That is about a millenia of North-to-south influence in the first place.

Quote:
I am not here to argue whether there existed separate school of philosophies In peninsular India. The argument is there must be a tribal religion or a shaman religion been in practise amongst the Dravidian people which was later absorbed by the religion of the incoming Aryans. People adopt new religion along with the practise of their religion from which they have converted .

Ex Japanese Catholics, even though they are Christian they tend to have the minor religious or superstitious beliefs.

In our case, I suspect there must be a major religious belief that doesn't have ayan-origin.
This process- existence of tribalistic/shamanistic religions amongst dravidian people, which then got absorbed into the 'aryan mainstream' is equally valid for all of India: we have tribals from Jharkhand, central India, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the Himalayas, who all show some sort of pre-aryan shamanistic stratum to their religious/philosophical practices.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:15 PM   #54

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
This proves that the Dravidians were wide spread though out India before and after the Aryan arrival and they adopted the religion of the Aryan and take to much of their previous religions' belief to the new religion. There is no clear cut archaeological evidences to prove that Aryans subjugated the Dravidian through war . If Dravidian were subjugated through warm, they would have taken the new religion with out much compliance. But I do not think that is the case . There were no wars no violence and how could people simply desert their way of life and religious practise for the sake of new religion.

Except, there isn't a major influx of DNA into the indian subcontinent prior to 100s BCE.

The major DNA influences in the subcontinent line up neatly with conventional history:
1. a minor Greek substratum (less than 1% of the population) seen in the last segment of 1st millenium BCE: consistent with Alexander's arrival and much later, the Greco-Bactrian expansion into western India.

2. A minor Indo-European substratum seen in the last segment of 1st millenium BCE : consistent with the mass-scale Scythian arrival into western India, Pakistan,Afghanistan and eastern Iran during 1st century BCE

3. A significant Turkic substratum, evident from roughly 1000 CE, when Turkic-Islamic powers conquered vast segments of India and encouraged Turkic immigration into India.

However, there is no significant 'influx' to the subcontinental gene-pool prior to 1st millenium BCE: meaning, there is no significant 'immigration/conquest' of these so-called 'Aryans' from outside of India.

To put it simply, there is no evidence that Aryans arrived in India the first place, on purely DNA basis. There is nothing significant in the DNA of an average Punjabi and an average Tamil to suggest that they are not essentially the same 'ethnicity' of people.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:37 PM   #55

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
What is the evidence for the 'existence' of such a 'dravidic culture' before its influence from Aryavarta ? The oldest Dravidian (tamil) literature dates to 400s BCE. That is about a millenia of North-to-south influence in the first place.
So do you say that there never existed any culture in south India just because the first literature dates back to 400 BCE. That subtly means to me that the Dravidian were not cultured and barbaric and due to Aryan effect they got civilised .

The Scandinavian countries converted to Christianity , does that mean they had no culture before and because of Christianity they were civilised?

Quote:
North-to-south influence
Here is the problem , people see form one perspective. There are no talks about the South to North Influence and it is being denied.


Quote:
This process- existence of tribalistic/shamanistic religions amongst dravidian people, which then got absorbed into the 'aryan mainstream' is equally valid for all of India: we have tribals from Jharkhand, central India, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and the Himalayas, who all show some sort of pre-aryan shamanistic stratum to their religious/philosophical practices.

I believe that these tribal people once belonged to the unified Dravidian tribal cult back then. Due to various immigrations and cultural influences these tribal people seems to be unrelated in the present scenario.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old January 21st, 2012, 07:49 PM   #56

Lord_of_Gauda's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Canada
Posts: 8,402

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
So do you say that there never existed any culture in south India just because the first literature dates back to 400 BCE. That subtly means to me that the Dravidian were not cultured and barbaric and due to Aryan effect they got civilised .
If you mean culture as in having a set of ideas and social norms- then obviously no: every human group has such ideas, including the Sentilinese or the most rudimentary tribal societies on the planet.

Quote:
The Scandinavian countries converted to Christianity , does that mean they had no culture before and because of Christianity they were civilised?
In the case of Scandinavian countries, we have evidence of their culture from 300-400 years prior to their christianization. We have no evidence of a scandinavian 'culture' existing prior to 1000 BCE. As such, we cannot say that Scandinavia was inhabited by anything but isolated hunter-gatherer populations prior to 1000 BCE. Same applies for peninsular India: we cannot say that anything but hunter-gatherers existed there prior to 3000 BCE or so, when farming makes its first foray in southern India.

Quote:
Here is the problem , people see form one perspective. There are no talks about the South to North Influence and it is being denied.
The most obvious South-to-North influence is Shaivism. As far as material evidence goes, it is most definitely a North-to-South origination in the vast majority of it. ie, as far as 2000 years ago, most things were made/produced in Northern Indo-Gangetic plains and made its way to the south.


Quote:
I believe that these tribal people once belonged to the unified Dravidian tribal cult back then. Due to various immigrations and cultural influences these tribal people seems to be unrelated in the present scenario.
First off, that is very incorrect.
The 'tribal' population of India shows dravidic, Indo-Aryan, Dardic, austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-burman languages. This, by default, excludes any 'pan-dravidism/pan-aryanism' ideas. It is rather hard to argue that tribalistic languages have completely changed in the past and that may've been justified if we saw an overwhelming dominance of Indo-Aryan languages amongst the tribals of India. Infact, we don't and we see tribal languages following the same basic pattern (with a few exceptions) of the predominant language-family of their immediate areas: South Indian tribals speak Dravidic languages, Central Indians speak Austro-Asiatic, Eastern Indians speak Tibeto Burmans, North and Western Indians speak Indo-Aryan, while the extreme northern Indians speak Tibeto-Burman or Dardic languages.

Secondly, India is a vast land- the subcontinent, taken from Kabol-Qandahar region, Karakorum mountains all the way to Arakan yoma, is an area as large as continental Europe minus Russia. A region this big, with such a huge diversity of geography, cannot have a single unifying language/culture in prehistory: human constraints to travel and exchange of information makes this virtually impossible.
Lord_of_Gauda is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2012, 12:25 AM   #57

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
If you mean culture as in having a set of ideas and social norms- then obviously no: every human group has such ideas, including the Sentilinese or the most rudimentary tribal societies on the planet.



In the case of Scandinavian countries, we have evidence of their culture from 300-400 years prior to their christianization. We have no evidence of a scandinavian 'culture' existing prior to 1000 BCE. As such, we cannot say that Scandinavia was inhabited by anything but isolated hunter-gatherer populations prior to 1000 BCE. Same applies for peninsular India: we cannot say that anything but hunter-gatherers existed there prior to 3000 BCE or so, when farming makes its first foray in southern India.



The most obvious South-to-North influence is Shaivism. As far as material evidence goes, it is most definitely a North-to-South origination in the vast majority of it. ie, as far as 2000 years ago, most things were made/produced in Northern Indo-Gangetic plains and made its way to the south.




First off, that is very incorrect.
The 'tribal' population of India shows dravidic, Indo-Aryan, Dardic, austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-burman languages. This, by default, excludes any 'pan-dravidism/pan-aryanism' ideas. It is rather hard to argue that tribalistic languages have completely changed in the past and that may've been justified if we saw an overwhelming dominance of Indo-Aryan languages amongst the tribals of India. Infact, we don't and we see tribal languages following the same basic pattern (with a few exceptions) of the predominant language-family of their immediate areas: South Indian tribals speak Dravidic languages, Central Indians speak Austro-Asiatic, Eastern Indians speak Tibeto Burmans, North and Western Indians speak Indo-Aryan, while the extreme northern Indians speak Tibeto-Burman or Dardic languages.

Secondly, India is a vast land- the subcontinent, taken from Kabol-Qandahar region, Karakorum mountains all the way to Arakan yoma, is an area as large as continental Europe minus Russia. A region this big, with such a huge diversity of geography, cannot have a single unifying language/culture in prehistory: human constraints to travel and exchange of information makes this virtually impossible.

So what do you sum up ? No Aryan Dravidian distinction ?
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2012, 10:34 AM   #58

Shaheen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Sweden
Posts: 2,476

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
Lastly, it is rather remarkable folly to consider 'dravidians' to be a different race than the 'northerners/aryans'.
While it is true that regions of Punjab and Sindh have extensive Turkic and Indo-European influences mingling with native Indian influence for the better part of the last 4000 years, Assam and eastern Bangladesh have been deeply influenced by Indo-Tibetan/Burmese admixture, the population of India, by and large, are indegenous to India for atleast the last 20,000 years. This is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the mtDNA and y-chromosomal DNA analysis of Indians. There is just as much difference between the average Tamil and the average Kannada, as there is between the average Tamil and Bihari.
Though Aryan Dravidian thing is exaggerated, India is obviously very diverse when it comes to genetics just like it is in most things. This study highlights this as well, so for example as far as the similarities are concerned this is an example from the study

"ancestral north Indian (ANI) gene pool. Through admixture between an ancestral south Indian (ASI) gene pool, this ANI variation was found to have contributed significantly to the extant makeup of not only north (50%–70%) but also south Indian populations (>40%)."

But then you also have the differences.

"This is in contrast with the results from mtDNA studies, where the percentage of West Eurasian maternal lineages is substantial (up to 50%) in Indus Valley populations but marginal (<10%) in the south of the subcontinent."

The Indus valley population in this case is modern Pakistanis, but as the study also points out.

"the Brahmin and Kshatriya from Uttar Pradesh stand out by being closer to Pakistani (FST = 0.006 on average) and West Eurasian populations (FST = 0.030) than to other Indian populations"

AJHG - Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Thus again you see the diversity. Sorry Sudarshan for making this is a ethnicity thing as i realize you want us to focus on the religious differences of which i have little or no knowledge . So could you please for ignorant people like me explain a little, what is the difference between Shaivaism and Vaishnavism? I know that Shiva and Vishnu are two different Gods but apart from that do the followers of this sects have different philosophies/outlook on life? Appreciate if you could answer that
Shaheen is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2012, 10:58 AM   #59

charles brough's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2008
From: California
Posts: 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
This proves that the Dravidians were wide spread though out India before and after the Aryan arrival and they adopted the religion of the Aryan and take to much of their previous religions' belief to the new religion. There is no clear cut archaeological evidences to prove that Aryans subjugated the Dravidian through war . If Dravidian were subjugated through warm, they would have taken the new religion with out much compliance. But I do not think that is the case . There were no wars no violence and how could people simply desert their way of life and religious practise for the sake of new religion.
Your assessment of the early history of India represents the scholarly consensus even though some scholars in India oppose it.

In my chapter on the social evolution of the Hindu Civilization in "The Last Civilization," I point out that the Aryan invasion by a starkly patriarchal religion based mass of herders (then, languages were technology, religion-based) invaded the sub-continent passing through (and wasting) the more matriarchal agricultural Indus valley society. As inferred in the Rig Veda, they seem to have set up feudal states. Gradually, as in Medeival Europe, the manors gradually amalgamated into kingdoms with a melding of the two main ideologies. The result was the confused faith which, now, no one can honestly state what its doctrines are or are not. With their tens of thousands if not millions of gods, it is fruitless to define it instead of simply describing it.

In any case, it is the religion (or "world-view system") that bonded together a society that built one of the world's greatest civilizations.
charles brough is offline  
Old January 22nd, 2012, 12:15 PM   #60
Just me
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: --
Posts: 6,242
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaheen View Post
Thus again you see the diversity. Sorry Sudarshan for making this is a ethnicity thing as i realize you want us to focus on the religious differences of which i have little or no knowledge . So could you please for ignorant people like me explain a little, what is the difference between Shaivaism and Vaishnavism? I know that Shiva and Vishnu are two different Gods but apart from that do the followers of this sects have different philosophies/outlook on life? Appreciate if you could answer that
The Hindu trinity consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh (Shiva).

Brahma is creator of the universe. He created not just this universe but he is also responsible for the birth of ideas in humans. So he is not only the god of creation but also the god of creativity.

Vishnu is the preserver of the universe hence he is also the one with the highest number of avatars as in every age he sends one of his avatars to earth to set the record straight. Meaning, reign in the forces of evil by joining the ranks of the good guys. His most famous avatar is Krishna, a flamboyant, clever and deceitful god who is also the central character in Mahabharata.

Shiva is the god of destruction. Accordingly he is depicted as a hot-tempered and powerful fellow, albeit naive. (His son Lord Ganesha is considered the bringer of good times.)

The tradition of Shaivism refers to those who believe Shiva is the supreme god, meaning he is the creator, preserver as well as the destroyer of the universe. Similarly, the tradition of Vaishnavism refers to those who believe Vishnu is the ultimate god, with Ram and Krishna being his biggest avatars.

However, most people in India worship multiple gods as the gods aren't mutually exclusive for the most part and there is nothing that states if you follow one you can't follow another. One can choose their god depending on their own philosophy in life and whichever character they like the best.
Rosi is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
hinduism



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
India, Hinduism, Buddhism Cherry Woo Asian History 125 March 13th, 2015 06:38 PM
Morality - Hinduism vs. Christianity Soldiers Valhala Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 41 February 13th, 2012 07:14 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.