Formation of North Indian and South Indian male population(Hierarchical model).
Note: Moving Austro-Asiatics so high in the hierarchy may seem bit odd. But I have my reasons for that. It is true that Austro-Asiatics may appear at low frequencies (<1%) among many castes and as such do not show any particular distribution. However, their influential presence is among Brahmins in South India. The defining South Indian kingdoms like Satavahana (IE), Kadamba(IE, Dravidian), Chera(Dravidian) and Kalabhra(I don't know)show very strong Austro-Asiatic cultural motifs.
It appears Buddhist-Brahmin kingdom of Satavahana gave rise to Jain-Brahmin kingdoms of Kadamba in Karnataka and Chera in Kerala. Whereas Kadamba gave rise to Kalabhra in Tamil Nadu (kaDaMbaru -> kaLaMbar -> kaLabra?).
The study, "Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: Inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA", Thanseem et al. (2006) found O2a-3/86 in a combined pool of Kannada and Telugu Brahmins. I feel that explains mixed Munda and Vedic/Jain/Buddhist identities of these kingdoms.
Tribes forming a their own kingdoms is not unheard of in Central India. In the last millennium a Dravidian tribe, Koitor(Gonds), also carved out a reasonable big but short-lived kingdom in that region. Probably, technological/cultural gulf between Koitor at one end and Mughals/Marathas(their destroyers) at other end might have been too high, whereas, that of Mundas and others 2000 years back might not be so.
6 comments:
Interesting. An image says more than a thousand words. I guess you base that on Y-DNA frequencies among castes or caste groupings, right?
I am a little perplex on the position of Austroasiatics in the Dravidian society. AFAIK they are mostly tribals and I would think tibes are generally in the lower layers of society, right? Can you explain me what I'm missing?
It is a very nice illustration in any case.
I guess you base that on Y-DNA frequencies among castes or caste groupings, right?
Yes.
I am a little perplex on the position of Austroasiatics in the Dravidian society.
The late AA-s attempt at assimilation might have driven them to either Dravidian tribes or lower castes. But their presence in Brahmins also noticeable. I have added a note on that.
Brahminization of tribes has been suggested. The Kadamba could be an example of it.
In the similar lines, historically partial Dravidization of Austro Asiatics is also probable situation.Consider the example of two versions-Munda and Dravida- of Gadaba language.
It is absolutely correct. The historians are unnecessarily bogged down by Aryan Dravidian controversy. The Contribution of Kadambas to South Indian history has been relegated. The classification of PATHINENBHOOMIYAR/VAANGAI/IDANGAI the establishment of Temples with Shalas/Gatikas with military trainining the emergence of Brahmathirajas wrongly identified as Brahmins were not analysed properly. The Cholas completely Tamilised it and standardized which could not be changed and remained up to the advent of Britishers. It is even more puzzling to note that Tulu language retains Tamil words and why Ihole Ainooruvar popularly known as Nanadesathisai Ayirattu Nooruvar wholeheartedly supported Cholas against Chalukyas and adopted Tamil as International mercantile link language. Setting aside Mayuravarman's claim adopting Bigothra a custom introduced by Satavahanas and Buddhists his connection with Kanchi Ghatika cannot be correlated to present Kanchipuram since even though there has been reference to numerous Saivite/Vaishnavite/Jain/Buddhist shrines there is no mention about Gatikas/Shalas attached to temples but establishment of Vyakarana/Epic reading was alone made by Cholas. Further Bharavi who hails Kanchi does not make mention of Pallavas and hence original Kanchi would have been in Tulu country only.It is even more mysterious why Apabrahmsa kings like Pallavas and Banas shifted to Tamil. The real history of South India and Tamil lies in Tulu country and the emergence of Kadambas and the growth of Sanskrit. Who will analysed it?
Tejaswininimburia:
I assume all the points you have made are supporting arguments for for proposal that Tulu region as the proto-Dravidian urheimat.
I'm afraid without the proper references many of the points you have made here are impossible to understand.
Some of the points you made here are debatable.
1. Tulu is part of the South Dravidian - I language family, to which Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam also belong. In this context, Tulu having Tamil words is immaterial. They are, in fact, Tulu words.
2. South India includes Telugu region, whose language is part of SD-II family and not SD-I (other languages of the family are tribal languages). You can only claim (as I have claimed), the dispersal of SD-I family of Dravidians was via the coastal Karnataka region.
3. I suppose you are referring to Valangai/Idangai(Balanga/Edanga) divisions which emerged during Chola period. I'm not sure of the significance of it here. My understanding is that these groups are mostly observed in Tamil Nadu, southern Karnataka and southern Andhra Pradesh. Tulu and Malayalam regions didn't have these divisions among the indigenous communities but some of the assimilated groups from Tamil regions do show them.
And please refrain from any Tamil fantasies.
At last there is no place for holistic approach of South Indian history since India is suffering from acute anti Tamil anti Sanskrit phobia with unnecessary vehement hatred. I am not a Tamil chauvinist and I am a Tamil speaking Brahmin who were always pro Sanskrit. My conclusions are based on the following facts: Why should Indo Aryan languages adopt Akshara concept and mathras against phonecian phonetics which is combination of accepted signs known as alphabets? There is no answer but it is another far reaching assumption that Sanskrit took consonants from Ethiopian script. Why was Sankrit dormant up to the period of Bhasa?Why did Satavahanas used Prakrit and bilingual coins? The bilingual with proto-Tamil is available as far as Sholapur. The most important question how did great Sanskrit dramatists and astronomers belong only to Deccan-Bhasa/Gunadya/Bharavi/Randi/Aryabhatta/Bhaskaracharya and why did they refer only Kerala/Pandiya and not Pallavas/Cholas? Why did there was no kingdom in North up to the advent of Indo-Bactrians and even Mauryas can never be considered as Indians since Story of Chandragupta is exactly similar to Alexander and Megasthenes specifically links Chandragupta as a descendent of Diosius. Why did Yagyas were popular in South but for Sungas who themselves cannot be considered as North. The answer is up to invasion of Alexander the common dialect was Apabrahmsa only. Here also there is one curious thing. Bharata has categorised Apabrahmsa as having its own grammar and differed from others like Patanjali that it was colloquial of Sanskrit. It is further puzzling to note that why in Sanskrit alone even royal ladies could speak only in slang how much literate they be. Thus it is clear that Sanskrit originated by fusion of foreign rulers and local Apabrahmsa. Here comes Tamil question. What made Tamil to adopt grammar of Apabrahmsa-the notable one being Thatsam/Thatbhav and Desi/Margi--Vaidiki/Laukik AHAM/PURAM. The comparison of Gathasattasi is limited one only. There has been uniform culture from Sholapur to Kanyakumari--the notable being hero stones/burial/burn urns in circular and four dimensional chambers which was not in North as aboundant in entire south. My surmise is there has been first wave of emigration of kings and nobles from middle east and formation of protosouth indian language with fusion of Apabrahmsa and second emigration during the time of Kadambas splitting into so called Dravidian and Sankrit languages.Till third century BC pre Mauryan period the region south of Krishna and Tondi was never recognized and even Mahavamsa did not recognize Dravidian States but for Damela which is Telugu surname for merchants. The Satavahanas displayed head panel like Greeks and they used ship signs extensively. As per Sangam literature Kadambas had Kadamba tree as their tree which was not disputed. It is further not disputed they inherited maritime activities. Sangam literature does not speak about functional groups but Kadamba inscriptions mention them. Even now the mother tongue of most of Valangai/Idangai is Telugu/Kannada(Devanga Chettiyars and Ayira Vaishyas). One should shed the prejudice that a person championing for Tamil need not have Tamil as mother tongue. Most of Tamil Chauvinists like Vaiko and Justice party leaders are non Tamilians.Last but not the least-- there was nil immigration of North Indian Brahmins into Tamilnadu during the holocaust of Islamic revulsion in North and nil immigration to Cauvery basin after the battle of Talaikottah. People from time immemorial travelled/migrated to places only they were well conversant with already. Thus large scale contact between Kongu and Pandi mandalam and North is from time immemorial establishing my theory. Inspite of the largest revenue earning Subha in Vijayanagar and Maratta period Cauvery Basin never attracted persons from Andhra/Karnataka unlike other places in the absence of similar contact of Kongu and Pandi mandalam but for Tamil speaking Brahmins and their associates in other groups with Tamil as mother tongue.
Post a Comment