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


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 23rd, 2013, 07:57 AM   #31

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Even Kushan paintings showing a Kushan worshipper worshipping Zeus, Shiva, Pharro aren't white washed like how you expect it. None of their gods are white washed either.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.

3rd Century

Last edited by Aberc; March 23rd, 2013 at 07:59 AM.
Aberc is offline  
Remove Ads
Old March 23rd, 2013, 07:59 AM   #32
Just me
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: --
Posts: 6,242
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakshasa View Post
Thapar, Habib, Lal, etc. In fact, almost all the mainstream historians including those who write history textbooks for school syllabus. I dont know ANY historian of Indian origin who writes about the non-Aryan people. None.
So what sources are you looking at?

Quote:
This is inherent, because of the region where Austroasiatics have "evolved" over the last few thousand years. The Caucasians, being from colder regions, were on an average taller compared to the natives of those living near equator.



Jats are an agrarian people, which is why their culture is very simplistic compared to the complex culture that rose amongst the South Indians with their sophisticated temple complexes, architecture, beliefs etc. Take a Jat to Khajuraho caves, and he would laugh at them because it doesn't conform with HIS culture. Also, vegetarianism amongst Jat was adopted when Indo-Scythians settled in Northern India because they wanted to win over Brahmins who still dominated state policy and declared these Jats as "Sudras". This is also why they changed their basic clan culture into gotra culture imitating the Brahmin gotras. Jats have hundreds of Gotras/clans among them.


I am not talking only about the malnutrition among the Hindus in general. Anthropometric studies by Britishers during Colonial times also indicated that they were distinct from North-western Indians. Besides, you know very well that today the Austroasiatics are mainly found in the Chhotanagpur region, especially in the state of Chhattisgarh where they form almost 50% of the population. They were once spread all over the Gangetic plains and Southern India. But when the people of Gangetic plains adopted Aryan culture, they abandoned their original tribal identities (their tribe and clan names) and adopted Hindu castes to identify themselves. The royalty among them were converted as Brahma-Kshastra kings (Rajputs) by the Brahmins. So today they proudly proclaim to be Aryans (and even Caucasians) but they are ignorant about history.

Same happened in places like Orissa, Bengal etc, which were also dominated by Austroasiatic people, and even today many mainstream Hindus are direct descendants of these people, but this identity has come to be restricted to their brothers who continued to live in forests, secluded from mainstream Indians.

The people of Central India were largely Dravidians (Gonds especially). Many of the Rajputs of Chandel, Chauhan clans etc, also originated from the royalty of these Gonds. There is an inscription from 12th century from somewhere in Madhya Pradesh which records how Brahmins were assigning different Castes to different people. Before this happened, they were called Gonds. In fact, as I have observed while traveling to Jabalpur and surrounding areas, majority of the people there are dark skinned, although they do have good stature and physique.




Point noted. But this is exactly what happened to the lower castes and continues to happen to them. As you know, majority of these people had restrictions on them over gaining property, resources etc. Many of them were not even allowed to drink water from a mainstream well or pond or even river. Some of them worked as slaves (bonded labour) in the fields of the Brahmins (Indo-Aryans) and Thakurs (White Hunas mostly). So it is natural that they gradually have become more diminutive in stature compared to the most prosperous high caste Hindus who were already Caucasians when they came as Scythians, Hepthalites (Hunas) or Aryans.




This applies to Dravidians who are Caucasians but are dark skinned, and often darker than the Austroasiatic copper/bronze colored people.
Thank you. I just checked out the Wikipedia article on South Asian ethnicities ( [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asian_ethnic_groups"]South Asian ethnic groups - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]) and the section on Austroasiatic peoples tallies with your description of their prevalence today. What sources say they were once widespread across the Gangetic plain and southern India?

I'm curious if you think the 'Out of India' theory is just propaganda from Hindu nationalists? I know it's not hugely relevant here, but I was just wondering.
Rosi is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 08:01 AM   #33

Aberc's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 688

Quote:
I'm curious if you think the 'Out of India' theory is just propaganda from Hindu nationalists? I know it's not hugely relevant here, but I was just wondering.
That theory is no good.
Aberc is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 08:51 AM   #34
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jul 2011
From: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,668

Aryan theory from outside made sense to the British, because it allowed them to convince high caste Hindus such as Brahmans and other minor rulers that they were not really Indian, they had descended from foreign invaders so it was not a big deal if they were on the side of the new outside invader -- divide and rule policy.

They also allowed the children of such people to study in Britain and be indoctrinated with such theories. Nehru is a good example, although in his case that did not work and Nehru turned out to be the first truly great Indian leader since Chandragupta Maurya.

India will have to purge itself of all these silly Victorian theories.
Fireatwill is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:03 AM   #35

pustinyak's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Bactria
Posts: 829

In any case Aryan or Indo-European speaking invaders weren't bringers of culture, merely they adopted the culture of conquered people and added some new elements to it. This doesn't apply only to India but elsewhere where there was such invasion. Don't understand all this noise.
pustinyak is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:08 AM   #36

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

This Argument is ridiculous, Tribal people working in Brahmins land. By Hindu tradition , Brahmins should not own anything and should earn their living through alms. During the Pallava period, the Kings of Pallava dynasty gave lands to the Brahmins to win their support. But technically , Brahmins were not land lords. But things changed during the colonial period, in my province i.e erstwhile Madras Presidency, Brahmins took up the Law as their profession, during the same period, other Brahmins would have become landlords. But it is very foolish to tell Brahmins owned lands from the prehistoric times. This is nothing but a propaganda.

I agree that the Austronesian people were once spread through the Indian Sub-continent, but there are no written records about their civilization and that is why the Austronesian(in India) studies are confined to the scholarly world. I am wondering about the Dravidian- Austronesian relationship.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:16 AM   #37

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 4,646
Blog Entries: 1

Austronesian? You mean Austro-Asiatic right?

'Austronesian' (from Austros & Nesos, meaning 'South' & 'Island) refers to the islandic SEAns - like Malays, Sumatrans, Javanese, people of Philipine archipelago etc. - while 'Austro-Asiatic' refers to their mainlandic cousins, the Mon, Khmer (of Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia etc.)

Of course, it is believed that they sprang from one supertribe, Austric, which later split into two. While the ancient peoples of Peninsular Malaysia, I believed, were a mixture of Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian.

On second thoughts, maybe they were both in India too, before the Dravidians came. From Elam in ancient Iran, I have read.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; March 23rd, 2013 at 09:32 AM.
Dreamhunter is online now  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:34 AM   #38

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Austronesian? You mean Austro-Asiatic right?

'Austronesian' (from Austros & Nesos, meaning 'South' & 'Island) refers to the islandic SEAns - like Malays, Sumatrans, Javanese, people of Philipine archipelago etc. - while 'Austro-Asiatic' refers to their mainlandic cousins, the Mon, Khmer (of Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia etc.)

Of course, it is believed that they sprang from one supertribe, Austric, which later split into two. While the ancient peoples of Peninsular Malaysia, I believed, were a mixture of Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian.

On second thoughts, maybe they were both in India too, before the Dravidians came. From Elam in ancient Iran, I have read.
Thanks for the Clarification. I mean the Austro-Asiatic people. Are they are any theories relating Dravidian languages and Austro_Asiatic languages. I read in a News paper that the Australian aborigines are related to Indians genetically.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:47 AM   #39
Scholar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Breakdancing on the Moon.
Posts: 898

Quote:
Originally Posted by pustinyak View Post
In any case Aryan or Indo-European speaking invaders weren't bringers of culture, merely they adopted the culture of conquered people and added some new elements to it. This doesn't apply only to India but elsewhere where there was such invasion. Don't understand all this noise.
Well, sort of. The only really controversial thing here is the word "Aryan". I mean Arya has been a self identifier in India for ages, Aryavarta as the country, the idea of Aryabhasa, Aryajanah, Aryadharma and so on and forth. You get chinese travellers talking about Aryadesha, constant references in religious texts, popular entertainment and so on well into the modern period. So since this word was erroneously conflated with Indo-European you can see why Indians get tetchy.

Basically they don't see it as extraneous "Aryans" giving them their culture, since this is their own ethnonym, so much as being told (wrongly!) that they're alien to their land, ancestors, religion. Which is obviously false in that India has always been a place of plurality, a melting pot anyway.

I now blame the Indians, they're the ones who don't bother reading more updated works, they're the ones who continue this stuff when we've actually moved on and have much more sophisticated theories.

Actually Edwin Bryant has a fantastic book summarising this stuff (The Origins of Vedic Culture) though he sides with the Indians more than I would. I mean they already easily acquire Sanskrit and other Prakrits...that they refuse to learn related languages like Greek and get involved with comp phil whilst demanding to be heard is ludicrous.
World Focker is offline  
Old March 23rd, 2013, 11:27 AM   #40

Rakshasa's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 410

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
Thanks for the Clarification. I mean the Austro-Asiatic people. Are they are any theories relating Dravidian languages and Austro_Asiatic languages. I read in a News paper that the Australian aborigines are related to Indians genetically.

Quote:
When Early Tulu tribes migrating from Pirak region came and settled in Karavali (coastal tract) of present Karnataka around 750 -600 BC, they found the coastal tract was already inhabited by civilized people living in village type settlements with agricultural, farming and pastoral occupations. The whole of southern India, especially all hospitable river banks and estuaries were inhabited by proto-Munda tribes.

Proto-Munda (south)
Let us use the word ‘Proto-Munda (south)’ to denote these aborigines of southern India because the generally prevailing socio-anthropological impression is that there are no Munda (language/ culture) groups in southern India at present. But there are distinct and strong evidences for their presence in southern India and by the time Early Tulu and Dravidian tribes arrived on the south Indian scene ca.750-600.
The Munda tribes are currently distributed in parts of central and eastern India. This present limited distribution of Munda tribes may be only the relics of a bygone vast empire of Proto-Munda groups that were spread all over India during the Neolithic period. They evolved into several subgroups and sub languages of their own before the arrival of relatively later entrants. The civilized among the Proto-Munda tribes during the course of subsequent history, were eventually assimilated with later entrants into the region like Dravidians and Indo-Aryans.

Early Tulu and Proto-Munda encounter
Early Tulu tribes initially settled in favorable estuaries of rivers proximal to the sea. Probably the estuaries and river banks of Sharavathi (around Honnavar), Swarna-Seetha (around Hoode-Hangarakatta), Haladi (around Barkur-Kundapur), formed the initial settlements of Early Tulu tribes judging by the distribution of major ancient primary settlements (moolasthanas).Adequate archeological supporting data may not be available for want of detailed studies or because of destructions due to extensive rainfall, fluctuation in the sea levels, changes in the river courses and floods that characterize the region.
Proto-Munda tribes must have been a dominant cultural group in Tulunad when people with ‘Tulu’ tag arrived from the north. As the Early Tulu tribes encountered Proto-Munda tribes, the former noticed that the latter are relatively a shorter breed, a physiology characterized by broad foreheads, Munda were wearing different attires or dressing styles. Early Tulu people coined several words containing Munda affixes to denote items new or strange to them but common for the pre-existing Mundas! Obviously,these words are not from Munda language but coined by early Tulu people.
So Tulu language acquired a few new words like ‘mundu’1 (= a sheet of cloth traditionally wrapped around the hips) ‘mundas’(a sheet of cloth wrapped around the head), ‘mundu’2 (a measure about five feet, average size of a Munda man in those days),’mundu’3 (=knee),’munda’(=forehead) etc. (The Munda tribes apparently had prominent, high or wide foreheads and their knees were exposed, unlike the new comers from colder region who covered their entire body in the beginning).
Newcomers from the northwest were of tall breed. They called themselves ‘aaL’ (=literally means one person) One ‘aaL’ represented six feet of height.
Both these relative height measures of ‘mundu’ and ‘aaL’ co-exist even now in rural Tulu usage.
Tulu tribes slowly encroached into the Karavali inlands, where Munda tribes already had built settlements. For convenience of refernce, Tulu tribes named these Munda dominated settlements like Mundadi, Mundukur,Mundaje etc.

‘Munda’ related words in Tulu
Some of the Munda related words coined in Tulu language are cited below:
1. Names of Munda villages/settlements:
Mundukur, Mundagaru, Mundagodu, Mundadi, Mundodi, Mundaje, Mundur, Mundrupadi, Mundaka, Kallamundukur etc
2.Names of Munda plants:
‘Mundevu’ (Pandanus utilis), Mundu tevu, Munda kalli,
3. Names for Munda Attire:
‘Mundu’(waiste cloth, a standard part of rural attire even now in southwestern coastal India), ‘Mundas’ (=a native headgear, fashioned by rolling and tying a longer cloth around the head),
4. Names of Munda measure:
1.one ‘Mundu’=about five feet. (Average height of a short Munda man).
Possibly Munda men were of shorter stature than the newly arrived Tulu tribes.
2.one ‘AaL’= about six feet (An average height of a tall man).
5. Names of parts of the human Body:
‘mundu’= knee, ‘munda’ =forehead. (Kasha ) ‘mundana’ =shaving head.
(The word ‘munda’ in Kannada refers to the trunk or the body part below the head, as against runda=head .
6. Name of Tribe/language: Mundala.
TuLu Studies: 52. Munda aborigines of Karavali
Rakshasa is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
caucasoids, india, indoaryans



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Aryans? Mohammed the Persian General History 66 January 1st, 2017 06:28 PM
Indo-Aryans and Semites Disciple Middle Eastern and African History 30 February 15th, 2014 05:06 PM
The First Indo-China War The Amyclae Asian History 13 December 24th, 2012 09:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.