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 9th, 2017, 09:09 PM   #431

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

Think. Then think, what all is historical and what is metaphorical.

No, the givers were not alien to the culture of brahmins initially (not too pleased either, nobody likes to part with money), but later the brahmins came against people from other cultures who resented this giving. That gave rise to Chavarkists, Jaina and Buddhists. These cultures had their own fleecers, shamans, witch doctors. So, the two fleecers joined together. The first group of fleecers adopted the deities of the second group of fleecers to succeed. That is the story of assimilation. It is the first group of fleecers who made Sanskrit important.

And how many Hindus in India do their Sandhyas?
Aupmanyav is online now  
Remove Ads
Old August 10th, 2017, 07:49 PM   #432
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,236

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Think. Then think, what all is historical and what is metaphorical.

No, the givers were not alien to the culture of brahmins initially (not too pleased either, nobody likes to part with money), but later the brahmins came against people from other cultures who resented this giving. That gave rise to Chavarkists, Jaina and Buddhists. These cultures had their own fleecers, shamans, witch doctors. So, the two fleecers joined together. The first group of fleecers adopted the deities of the second group of fleecers to succeed. That is the story of assimilation. It is the first group of fleecers who made Sanskrit important.

And how many Hindus in India do their Sandhyas?
I have thought and that is why I asked you to think for your Vamana claim.

Oh common! Why do you need to over-interpret the danastuti of Vedas? There is a reason why Vasishta, Vishwamitra are considered as Brahmarshis, and money is not the reason.
Aatreya is offline  
Old August 10th, 2017, 08:37 PM   #433

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

Vamana, like others is mythology.
Aupmanyav is online now  
Old September 5th, 2017, 09:40 AM   #434
Citizen
 
Joined: May 2013
From: Right here.
Posts: 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by historumsi View Post
Lol. I now realise I was living in such an idealistic and overemotional state when I built the entire previous post around this. Now I accept the stupidity of all of it.

Anyway, in several of my earliest posts, I talked about and even tried to promote the theory that I personally subscribe to- that of crediting the cattle pastoralist, ashmound building and native millet-growing Southern Neolithic Complexes (2800 BC - 1200 BC) of the southern Deccan to the Proto-Dravidian speakers (2800 BC - around 2300 BC (give or take 200 years)) and later to Proto-South-Dravidian speakers, drawing from an archaeobotanical study and a linguistic study.

In this post, I would like to mention the other hypotheses that associate Proto-Dravidian language with different archaeological complexes, not Southern Neolithic Complexes.

1. The hypothesis that the non-Brahui Proto-Dravidian speakers brought iron and megalith-building traditions from Iran area to the southern Deccan as recently as around 1400 BC, which kickstarted the Megalithic and Iron Age in South India.

2. The hypothesis that non-Brahui Proto-Dravidian or Proto-South-Dravidian (don't know which precisely, probably Proto-South-Dravidian) came to the southern Deccan after the formation of Southern Deccan Neolithic but before the Megalithic-Iron Age, bringing copper working with them from the Indus Valley Civilisation, something like Harappan-associated Deccan Chalcolithic cultures in the north. The proponents of this hypothesis consider Megaliths and Iron to have given to the southern Deccan by a new Indo-Aryan elite.

Advantages with either of the two hypotheses above:

1. May support the (almost mystical, if I'm allowed to show my personal opinion) reconstruction of forts, two-storied houses, moats, iron, cotton, weaving and all such wonders to the Proto-Dravidian language?

Problems with the second hypothesis:

1. There is no evidence for copper working in the Southern Neolithic- copper finds are so rare and no copper furnaces are found that the presence of such a less amount of copper can be explained almost entirely by trade with the Deccan Chalcolithic cultures of the north. The idea that the Proto-Dravidian language that arrived with copper-working to the southern Deccan took such a stronghold wiping out the Pre-Dravidian languages completely, does not stand up to the observation that there was no significant copper-working at any time in the Southern Neolithic.

Problems with the first hypothesis:

1. Well, definitely a large scale demographic replacement scenario cannot be supported by the available anthropological evidence, but I'm not sure if an elite imposition type scenario, that changes virtually nothing in terms of certain aspects of material culture but everything in terms of political, social and religious situations, may be ruled out. (That elite migration scenario always stays as a possibility, doesn't it?).

Anyway, the linguistic evidence that I talked about earlier (no Avestan loanwords, participation in the much eastern areal feature of w---> b sound change), clearly points to Brahui not being a relic language in its current location. Just saying. Not that the hypotheses 1 and 2 require Brahui to be a relic of the original Dravidian invasions or something.

Actually, the idea that I find likely, that the Pre-Proto-Dravidian language came anyway from the northwest as part of the agriculturalist expansions of the Neolithic Revolution and established itself to form Proto-Dravidian while in the peninsula, is also not without problems because one would expect the Neolithic package like wheat, barley, etc. to arrive with the first agriculturalists (however not inclined to agriculture they are, just being interested in pastoralism and all that)? But the Southern Neolithic got its wheat and barley later in 2000 BC, having started its journey with indigenous millets.

So, the detailed explanation for the presence of non-Indo-Aryan ANI in Dravidian castes and tribes is not available as of now, I think. We know it is there, but not exactly sure how and when it came about. Long before Southern Neolithic, during Southern Neolithic or at the end of the Southern Neolithic? And can it be undoubtedly associated with the Dravidian languages? More evidence is needed for all of these to be determined precisely. Hopefully, these things get cleared up in the coming 20 years or so.
>>>> The hypothesis that the non-Brahui Proto-Dravidian speakers brought iron and megalith-building traditions from Iran area to the southern Deccan as recently as around 1400 BC, which kickstarted the Megalithic and Iron Age in South India.


The current understanding is that iron age in India started around 2200 BC around Telangana region.

Rare discovery pushes back Iron Age in India - Times of India
mbks is offline  
Old September 5th, 2017, 09:46 AM   #435
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: NA
Posts: 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbks View Post
>>>> The hypothesis that the non-Brahui Proto-Dravidian speakers brought iron and megalith-building traditions from Iran area to the southern Deccan as recently as around 1400 BC, which kickstarted the Megalithic and Iron Age in South India.


The current understanding is that iron age in India started around 2200 BC around Telangana region.

Rare discovery pushes back Iron Age in India - Times of India
Could you link me to any further updates about the above? Such as any archaeology publications or something like that?

EDIT1: It appears people here have discussed something related to this before already, I'll go through it.

EDIT2: Sadly, that thread is mainly talking about Aryan Migration Theory vs. Out of India theory mainly though a poster named Drona Bharadwaja expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the finds, dating and such. So I still request you to provide me a link as far as possible to any publication regarding this 2400-1800 BC find. Thanks a lot.

Last edited by historumsi; September 5th, 2017 at 10:07 AM.
historumsi is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
protodravidian, theories



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Indus Valley Civilisation was Proto-Dravidian Vinnie Asian History 692 August 1st, 2015 11:58 AM
Difference between proto-Mongolic peoples and proto-Sinitic peoples purakjelia Asian History 57 August 24th, 2013 07:56 PM
History Channel Theories.... Estranged Speculative History 5 June 17th, 2011 12:23 AM
Conspiracy Theories in History Melisende General History 21 September 10th, 2007 10:54 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.