Thursday, March 13, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Lineage and Language-0.1
Caucasian languages: Y-Hg-J1
Indo-European languages: Y-Hg-R1a1
Dravidian languages: mtDNA-M
Basque language: mtDNA-H
Austro-Asiatic languages: Y-Hg-O2a
Sino-Tibetan languages: Y-Hg-O3a5
Mongolic languages: Y-Hg-C3
Austronesian languages: Y-Hg-O1
Sumerian language: Y-Hg-J2a
Afro-Asiatic languages: Y-Hg-E3b
Niger-Congo & Nilo-Saharan languages: mtDNA-L2
Indo-European languages: Y-Hg-R1a1
Dravidian languages: mtDNA-M
Basque language: mtDNA-H
Austro-Asiatic languages: Y-Hg-O2a
Sino-Tibetan languages: Y-Hg-O3a5
Mongolic languages: Y-Hg-C3
Austronesian languages: Y-Hg-O1
Sumerian language: Y-Hg-J2a
Afro-Asiatic languages: Y-Hg-E3b
Niger-Congo & Nilo-Saharan languages: mtDNA-L2
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Absurdities of Caste Genetic Studeis - Notes
Sengupta et al. 2006 (or 2005, Y-chromosomal variation in India) makes the following statement
The statement basically talks about haplogroup frequencies in their samples which of course is not representative of percentage distribution of various groups in India. Unfortunately, I have seen many people making the mistake of considering the frequencies as a representation of haplogroup distribution within India.
For example O2a forms about 15% of Sengputa et al. samples. But this haplogroup is mostly restricted to Munda tribes. Tribes make up 8% of Indian population and it includes Dravidian, Munda, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan. Mundas probably form 1 or 2% of total Indian population. Hence, the total frequency of O2a can be around 1-2% (or less) of total Indian male population.
Eight HGs display frequencies 15% within India and account for 95.8% of the samples.
They are, in descending frequency order, HGs H and its subclades H1*, H1c, H1a, and H2 (26.4%); R1a1-M17 (15.8%); O2a-M95 (14.6%); R2-M124 (9.3%); J2-M172 (9.1%); O3e-M134 (8.0%); L1-M76 (6.3%); and F*-M89 (5.2%) (p. 5 of 20).
The statement basically talks about haplogroup frequencies in their samples which of course is not representative of percentage distribution of various groups in India. Unfortunately, I have seen many people making the mistake of considering the frequencies as a representation of haplogroup distribution within India.
For example O2a forms about 15% of Sengputa et al. samples. But this haplogroup is mostly restricted to Munda tribes. Tribes make up 8% of Indian population and it includes Dravidian, Munda, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan. Mundas probably form 1 or 2% of total Indian population. Hence, the total frequency of O2a can be around 1-2% (or less) of total Indian male population.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Hart's Caste System - IV
Indian anthropological arena is infested by Philologists or Folklorists whose scientific temperament is suspect. I believe my particular scientific training as an engineer gives me particular insights which a pure humanist might not have. These imaginative and ideological Philologists like DD Kosambi, George L Hart have only managed to confuse rather than offering any concrete solutions.
Frogowellian arguments:
Menstrual blood:
As I have already pointed out Hart just does not want to go beyond Tamil region to compare the similar the cultural aspects. Of course, he goes beyond Tamil region but only to cover South India when it fits to his argument. Consider his footnote on menstrual blood taboo.
Menstrual blood taboo is part and parcel of all West Asian derived pre-Christian religions like Judaism, Yazidi, Zoroastrianism and Caste system. I still believe ritualized menstrual blood taboo was first codified in West Asia though people living in present day India might have practicing it before entry of Indo-Turks (Y-Hg-R1a1 people also known as Indo-Europeans in popular literature) and Aryans (from Iranians/Caucasian lands). As Y-Hg-J2b appears to be older than any of those migrations.
Yazidis in Georgia have haplogroups K*,F*,P*,R2 and J2*. Though some have speculated Indo-Turk influence in Yazidi religion I rather believe it is built upon old West Asian beliefs. Lack of R1a1 in this highly endogamous community with caste like structure may show the oldest haplogroup distribution in that region before the advance of R1a1. But we need to check whether that J2* is entirely J2a or mix of J2a and J2b or J2b alone.
Now consider the exact word, pole, used by Hart to put forward his arguments.
This is what I found at Hobson-Jobson's dictionary;
I have already argued that we should restrict ourselves to the exact meaning of the word. In one of previous posts I mentioned about Mala in Andhra Pradesh equivalent to Holeya in Karnataka. In my opinion, the idea behind their designation must be the same. Hence I proposed it could have been derived from Sanskrit malIna meaning 'polluting'. Recently I was reading "At the botton of Indian society" (author: Stephen Fuchs). There Fuchs says;
Now let us examine the relationship between pole meaning pollution and 'pole' meaning impurity due to menstrual blood and child birth. In Tulu, the word for former is pole and the word for the latter is pile. In Tulu too the word for the outcast is Poleya or Holeya showing the connection with the first word. But I am not in a strong ground here. According to Ravi Mundkur at Tulu Research, the word pole meaning pollution does not exist. I am following this database. Let us say pile is derived from pole. But that certainly shows the outcast Poleya has much to do with pollution than the menstrual blood (the uncontrolled thing that characterizes them). If there any strong correlation between menstrual blood and outcastyism is existed then it must have appeared in Tulu outcasts' identity. It should have been pileya and not poleya.
Polemics and Red herrings:
There is this idea going around that Brahmins' position was low in the early Tamil society. I wonder if Hart is responsible for that. He discusses about 'drum' the source of power and quotes;
Then he discusses about the identity of 'high one' mentioned in that poem. He concludes that it must be a drummer whose status is higher than other drummers. In the run of the argument he discards Brahmins being high ones with an unqualified statement thus;
So? Was a Paraiyan drummer ever called 'high one' until Hart zeroed in on him? Who qualified most for that at that time? Who do you associate most with 'pinda' and 'mantra'(hymn)? Anyway, I too talk about likely scenario therefore not really a strong point.
I still don't understand the necessity of this following paragraph;
Brahmins never really lived outside the village even when Hart believes they weren't at the top of the society. That argument reminded me something I read few years back. Those were words from an African though I don't remember the exact words and am writing them from my memory.
Of course, Hart wants Brahmin to be non-high in the early Tamil society at any cost. He needs existence of caste in Tamil society based on certain other aspect (here controlled/uncontrolled power). Even when all his arguments are likelies/pluasiblies he makes a unequivocal statement in the end based on them.
Controlled and uncontrolled power:
Hart's arguments are centred around controlled and uncontrolled power. There were communities not really directly involved with possession and menstrual blood. These groups like leather workers and fishermen were confined to lower rungs all over India. But Hart tries to equate them with ghostistic groups like Pulaiyan, Panan etc...
The fish eating taboo could be found in Arab regions too. According to Stephen Fuchs Bedouin tribes considered fish a low food and higher classes abstained from it. They did not marry with the communities that ate fish or involved in fish catching. I believe Bedouins might have still kept that old West Asian taboo about fish that the Aryans from that region brought to India. I have come across myths of losing once high caste status involves fish eating or get caught with fish in South India. Fish and only fish no other meat.
Konkani and Bengali Brahmin communities do eat fish. Among them there are sections that do not. What we need is proper scrutiny of their haplogroup distribution. I have observed Bengali Brahmins do not have any J2a, a West Asian lineage. They are predominantly Indo-Turks(R1a1).
From Sengupta et al (2006) study.
R1a1-72%, R2=22% and H=6%
Unwanted qualifications:
In my opinion, an objective study must keep clear of all kinds positive and negative qualifications. I found couple of them unwarranted in this paper.
Epilogue:
Tulu society has never really moved away from its ghostistic traditions (probably true in the case of Kodava and north Malabar societies too). But even in that society I don't believe position of Brahmin and that of Poleya was different from the Tamil society in any degree in the past. The ghost possessor can be from any non-brahmin caste in the case of Kodava and Malayali society. But in Tulu society sometimes even Brahmin took up that role.
When you look at Tulu society then in my opinion there are two things that we can observe. There were occupational groups like leather workers that were deemed untouchable or low ones (fishermen). Then there are communities that were considered low like Holeya. A tribe can become an untouchable group as it moves closer to caste society(Koragas in Tulu region). However, Holeyas have been mainstream (if the dating of anthologies are correct) for nearly 2000 years now. That is probably for the reasons related to economics (as Holeyas were slave agricultural labourers in the past in South India).
But we should also note that people involved in ghost possession or shamanic traditions were not in high position in many societies (Siberian communities). Ghost possession or experience in my opinion is generally restricted to malnourished, illiterate classes of the society (and probably women). There can be no comparison of them with literate godistic priests.
Typical to societies around the world, South India too might have developed a society with masters and slaves. When Varnashrama was applied to the society I do not think slaves could be part of zUdras as the dominant classes themselves were grouped under them. It is more likely that Holeyas because of their controlled status(by landlords) than their uncontrolled status(by Hart) were relegated to untouchable status.
Article:
Early Evidence for Caste in South India
References:
1. At the Bottom of Indian Society, Stephen Fuchs
2. MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups, Nasidze et al. 2005
Frogowellian arguments:
Menstrual blood:
As I have already pointed out Hart just does not want to go beyond Tamil region to compare the similar the cultural aspects. Of course, he goes beyond Tamil region but only to cover South India when it fits to his argument. Consider his footnote on menstrual blood taboo.
Though the segregation of women during their menstrual periods must have been
universal in South India during the time of the anthologies (as it is found in all South Indian cultures today and in medieval times),
Menstrual blood taboo is part and parcel of all West Asian derived pre-Christian religions like Judaism, Yazidi, Zoroastrianism and Caste system. I still believe ritualized menstrual blood taboo was first codified in West Asia though people living in present day India might have practicing it before entry of Indo-Turks (Y-Hg-R1a1 people also known as Indo-Europeans in popular literature) and Aryans (from Iranians/Caucasian lands). As Y-Hg-J2b appears to be older than any of those migrations.
Yazidis in Georgia have haplogroups K*,F*,P*,R2 and J2*. Though some have speculated Indo-Turk influence in Yazidi religion I rather believe it is built upon old West Asian beliefs. Lack of R1a1 in this highly endogamous community with caste like structure may show the oldest haplogroup distribution in that region before the advance of R1a1. But we need to check whether that J2* is entirely J2a or mix of J2a and J2b or J2b alone.
Now consider the exact word, pole, used by Hart to put forward his arguments.
This is what I found at Hobson-Jobson's dictionary;
HULLIA, s. Canarese Holeya; the same as Polea (pulayan) (q.v.), equivalent to Pariah (q.v.). ["Holeyas field-labourers and agrestic serfs of S. Canara; Pulayan being the Malayālam and Paraiyan the Tamil form of the same word. Brahmans derive it from hole, 'pollution'; others from hola, 'land' or 'soil,' as being thought to be autochthones" (Sturrock, Man. of S. Canara, i. 173). The last derivation is accepted in the Madras Gloss. For an illustration of these people, see Richter, Man. of Coorg, 112.]
I have already argued that we should restrict ourselves to the exact meaning of the word. In one of previous posts I mentioned about Mala in Andhra Pradesh equivalent to Holeya in Karnataka. In my opinion, the idea behind their designation must be the same. Hence I proposed it could have been derived from Sanskrit malIna meaning 'polluting'. Recently I was reading "At the botton of Indian society" (author: Stephen Fuchs). There Fuchs says;
An old Telugu dictionary derives Mala from maila, dirty. This sounds more appopripriate, for the Hindus consider the Malas as ritually impure
Now let us examine the relationship between pole meaning pollution and 'pole' meaning impurity due to menstrual blood and child birth. In Tulu, the word for former is pole and the word for the latter is pile. In Tulu too the word for the outcast is Poleya or Holeya showing the connection with the first word. But I am not in a strong ground here. According to Ravi Mundkur at Tulu Research, the word pole meaning pollution does not exist. I am following this database. Let us say pile is derived from pole. But that certainly shows the outcast Poleya has much to do with pollution than the menstrual blood (the uncontrolled thing that characterizes them). If there any strong correlation between menstrual blood and outcastyism is existed then it must have appeared in Tulu outcasts' identity. It should have been pileya and not poleya.
Polemics and Red herrings:
There is this idea going around that Brahmins' position was low in the early Tamil society. I wonder if Hart is responsible for that. He discusses about 'drum' the source of power and quotes;
...at that pindam [ball of sacrificial food] hard to get raised by the high one [uyarnton] to supplicate the god [in the drum, according to the old
commentary] wont to be hard in his might with mantras [mantiram] roaring
[i.e. shouted] out.
Then he discusses about the identity of 'high one' mentioned in that poem. He concludes that it must be a drummer whose status is higher than other drummers. In the run of the argument he discards Brahmins being high ones with an unqualified statement thus;
Brahmins are generally called Antanan and Parppan, not “high ones.”.
So? Was a Paraiyan drummer ever called 'high one' until Hart zeroed in on him? Who qualified most for that at that time? Who do you associate most with 'pinda' and 'mantra'(hymn)? Anyway, I too talk about likely scenario therefore not really a strong point.
I still don't understand the necessity of this following paragraph;
If one uses purely economic criteria, then the high position and
influence of the Brahmins in later times must be mysterious, for it is not
clear that they had any tangible economic commodity or skill to offer.
Brahmins never really lived outside the village even when Hart believes they weren't at the top of the society. That argument reminded me something I read few years back. Those were words from an African though I don't remember the exact words and am writing them from my memory.
When the Whites came we hand the land and they had the Bible. They asked us to close our eyes and pray and said miracle would happen. When we opened our eyes miracle did happen. We had the Bible and they had the land.
Of course, Hart wants Brahmin to be non-high in the early Tamil society at any cost. He needs existence of caste in Tamil society based on certain other aspect (here controlled/uncontrolled power). Even when all his arguments are likelies/pluasiblies he makes a unequivocal statement in the end based on them.
As important as the Brahmins and the Brahmanical religion were, they were not the creators of the caste system in South India. They influenced the system profoundly, no doubt, but caste is found in most of its manifestations before the Brahmins became prominent.
Controlled and uncontrolled power:
Hart's arguments are centred around controlled and uncontrolled power. There were communities not really directly involved with possession and menstrual blood. These groups like leather workers and fishermen were confined to lower rungs all over India. But Hart tries to equate them with ghostistic groups like Pulaiyan, Panan etc...
The fish eating taboo could be found in Arab regions too. According to Stephen Fuchs Bedouin tribes considered fish a low food and higher classes abstained from it. They did not marry with the communities that ate fish or involved in fish catching. I believe Bedouins might have still kept that old West Asian taboo about fish that the Aryans from that region brought to India. I have come across myths of losing once high caste status involves fish eating or get caught with fish in South India. Fish and only fish no other meat.
Konkani and Bengali Brahmin communities do eat fish. Among them there are sections that do not. What we need is proper scrutiny of their haplogroup distribution. I have observed Bengali Brahmins do not have any J2a, a West Asian lineage. They are predominantly Indo-Turks(R1a1).
From Sengupta et al (2006) study.
R1a1-72%, R2=22% and H=6%
Unwanted qualifications:
In my opinion, an objective study must keep clear of all kinds positive and negative qualifications. I found couple of them unwarranted in this paper.
For this purpose, they could offer to the king their whole tradition of sacrifice and magic, already developed for almost a millenium and extremely impressive.
In other words, the function of the untouchables no longer included serving kings—a function that must have enhanced their low status—but was limited to such mundane and undignified tasks as cutting hair, washing clothes, and catching fish.
Epilogue:
Tulu society has never really moved away from its ghostistic traditions (probably true in the case of Kodava and north Malabar societies too). But even in that society I don't believe position of Brahmin and that of Poleya was different from the Tamil society in any degree in the past. The ghost possessor can be from any non-brahmin caste in the case of Kodava and Malayali society. But in Tulu society sometimes even Brahmin took up that role.
When you look at Tulu society then in my opinion there are two things that we can observe. There were occupational groups like leather workers that were deemed untouchable or low ones (fishermen). Then there are communities that were considered low like Holeya. A tribe can become an untouchable group as it moves closer to caste society(Koragas in Tulu region). However, Holeyas have been mainstream (if the dating of anthologies are correct) for nearly 2000 years now. That is probably for the reasons related to economics (as Holeyas were slave agricultural labourers in the past in South India).
But we should also note that people involved in ghost possession or shamanic traditions were not in high position in many societies (Siberian communities). Ghost possession or experience in my opinion is generally restricted to malnourished, illiterate classes of the society (and probably women). There can be no comparison of them with literate godistic priests.
Typical to societies around the world, South India too might have developed a society with masters and slaves. When Varnashrama was applied to the society I do not think slaves could be part of zUdras as the dominant classes themselves were grouped under them. It is more likely that Holeyas because of their controlled status(by landlords) than their uncontrolled status(by Hart) were relegated to untouchable status.
Article:
Early Evidence for Caste in South India
References:
1. At the Bottom of Indian Society, Stephen Fuchs
2. MtDNA and Y-chromosome Variation in Kurdish Groups, Nasidze et al. 2005
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Buddhism and Jainism in South India - 5
Blogger Ravi Mundkur discusses about the Natha cult and its influence in south-west coastal India. My interest stems from the fact that it appeared to have bridged Brahmins and Buddhists in the Tantra aspect.
But even today Natha cult is alive in small pockets as an independent movement. Therefore, any argument that Buddhists turned Brahmans because of this cult in this region can not be ascertained for surety. But there are couple of things that I find rather intriguing.
There is a rather curious tradition among Malayali Brahmins. The Namboodiris who are temple priests were excluded from Vedic studies. The Vedic beginning of Tantra has always been suspect. In fact, it rather sounds like ghostistic than godistic in its worship of a deity. That is, the priest gets possessed by the deity before the ritual.
Ravi Mundkur gives the following account on origin of Matsyendranatha, a dominant figure of Natha cult(by legends),
Then we have Grama Paddhati account, a manuscript belonging to Tuluva Brahmins, on the dual origin of Tuluva brahmins(probably, both Tulu and Malayali Brahmins). According to legends;
-> Parashurama upgraded fishermen to Brahminhood
-> Kadamba kings brought Brahmin families from Godavari region and settled them here
If one understands the polluting character of fish and in turn fishermen in caste system then Parashurama account sounds rather strange. Why fishermen?
That, in my opinion, can be explained if those are Matsyendranatha's Brahmins.
Update:
Read comments
But even today Natha cult is alive in small pockets as an independent movement. Therefore, any argument that Buddhists turned Brahmans because of this cult in this region can not be ascertained for surety. But there are couple of things that I find rather intriguing.
There is a rather curious tradition among Malayali Brahmins. The Namboodiris who are temple priests were excluded from Vedic studies. The Vedic beginning of Tantra has always been suspect. In fact, it rather sounds like ghostistic than godistic in its worship of a deity. That is, the priest gets possessed by the deity before the ritual.
Ravi Mundkur gives the following account on origin of Matsyendranatha, a dominant figure of Natha cult(by legends),
Macchendra (Matsyendra) Natha hailed from a fisher community of probably Bengal area. (However, the sculptures show him riding on fish and the legends metaphorically describe his birth from the semen of Shiva swallowed by a fish).
Then we have Grama Paddhati account, a manuscript belonging to Tuluva Brahmins, on the dual origin of Tuluva brahmins(probably, both Tulu and Malayali Brahmins). According to legends;
-> Parashurama upgraded fishermen to Brahminhood
-> Kadamba kings brought Brahmin families from Godavari region and settled them here
If one understands the polluting character of fish and in turn fishermen in caste system then Parashurama account sounds rather strange. Why fishermen?
That, in my opinion, can be explained if those are Matsyendranatha's Brahmins.
Update:
Read comments
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Buddhism and Jainism in South India - 4
In my previous posts on the very topic I maintained that both these were elite religions and certainly not part of common people. I based my opinion on the fact that Theravada Buddhism was strongly associated monastic life and could have been beyond common people. Also, Jainism from its present distribution appears to be mostly restricted to ruling classes.
However, it looks like I need to take a paradigm shift about Buddhism and Jainism in the context of South India.
I came across the following comment at Indo-Eurasian_research;
I have talked about these metronymics of Satavahana and Ikshvaku kings before. There are two things that come out of these discussion.
-> The gotra belongs to mother
-> mother is a brahmin
The best example is Goutami Balasri(a la Goutama Buddha/Siddhartha) mother of Goutamiputra Satakarni. Okay, the weak point is why feminized gotra name for Balasri. Anyway, I'll consider it as an aberration.
However, if you read history then you'll know that these queens were strong supporters of Buddhism. I would rather consider them as Brahmin Buddhists. That explains Vedic/Buddhist nature of all these kingdoms in Andhra/Central East region. The most famous Buddhist (mythical?) Nagarjuna was also a Brahmin. In fact, one of the earliest Kannada Jain poet Pampa was also believed to be a Brahmin by birth.
What it shows is that South India was never Pushyamitra Sunga's North India when it comes to Vedics on one side and Buddhists/Jains on the other. Brahmins moved to Buddhism and Jainism freely without ever losing their identity (based on the gotra-s). And if you observe that kings took up their mothers' gotra-s so as to upgrade themselves for higher ritual purity, it points to a rather ominous aspect that became part of Buddhism(probably Jainism).
I would argue the purity-pollution world view of Brahmins as part of Buddhism and Jainism didn't change much. Therefore, it need not be surprising that proselytizing zeal was lacking in South India. Whatever the Buddhist/Jain population existed in South India might have moved to brahminhood as the political climate changed(the parallel could be found in Tengalai Vaishnava movement).
Notes:
1. Non-brahmins claiming brahminhood on account of Brahmin mother is known in South India. Amma Kodava-s, a section of Kodava-s, considered themselves Brahmins as they traced their maternal ancestry to a Brahmin woman. In fact, a Kannada Brahmin community accepted them in their fold.
Ref: Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, M. N. Srinivas
2. One of the versions about the origin of the name 'Namboodiri' is it is derived from 'Namboodhiran', a title of advisers of Buddhist kings. It seems that has been discounted. I feel that is the most accurate root.
However, it looks like I need to take a paradigm shift about Buddhism and Jainism in the context of South India.
I came across the following comment at Indo-Eurasian_research;
naming one's mother in constructions like: x-(fem.)-putra is common
usage in inscriptions, the more so if the mother is a brahmin to a
royal (i.e. kshatriya son) and thereby providing ritual virtues.
I have talked about these metronymics of Satavahana and Ikshvaku kings before. There are two things that come out of these discussion.
-> The gotra belongs to mother
-> mother is a brahmin
The best example is Goutami Balasri(a la Goutama Buddha/Siddhartha) mother of Goutamiputra Satakarni. Okay, the weak point is why feminized gotra name for Balasri. Anyway, I'll consider it as an aberration.
However, if you read history then you'll know that these queens were strong supporters of Buddhism. I would rather consider them as Brahmin Buddhists. That explains Vedic/Buddhist nature of all these kingdoms in Andhra/Central East region. The most famous Buddhist (mythical?) Nagarjuna was also a Brahmin. In fact, one of the earliest Kannada Jain poet Pampa was also believed to be a Brahmin by birth.
What it shows is that South India was never Pushyamitra Sunga's North India when it comes to Vedics on one side and Buddhists/Jains on the other. Brahmins moved to Buddhism and Jainism freely without ever losing their identity (based on the gotra-s). And if you observe that kings took up their mothers' gotra-s so as to upgrade themselves for higher ritual purity, it points to a rather ominous aspect that became part of Buddhism(probably Jainism).
I would argue the purity-pollution world view of Brahmins as part of Buddhism and Jainism didn't change much. Therefore, it need not be surprising that proselytizing zeal was lacking in South India. Whatever the Buddhist/Jain population existed in South India might have moved to brahminhood as the political climate changed(the parallel could be found in Tengalai Vaishnava movement).
Notes:
1. Non-brahmins claiming brahminhood on account of Brahmin mother is known in South India. Amma Kodava-s, a section of Kodava-s, considered themselves Brahmins as they traced their maternal ancestry to a Brahmin woman. In fact, a Kannada Brahmin community accepted them in their fold.
Ref: Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, M. N. Srinivas
2. One of the versions about the origin of the name 'Namboodiri' is it is derived from 'Namboodhiran', a title of advisers of Buddhist kings. It seems that has been discounted. I feel that is the most accurate root.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Origins of Malayalees-?.1
Development of Malayalam:
I shall broadly put the number of theories that I have come across on the said topic into three categories and I'll call them schools.
1. Scientific (the one proposed by H. Gundert)
2. Imaginative (the one proposed by Bishop Caldwell)
3. Ideological
Let us examine each theory briefly.
1. Scientific: H. Gundert proposed that old Malayalam and Tamil were two dialects of a Proto-language.
2. Imaginative: According to Bishop Caldwell Malayalam is a very ancient and much altered off-shoot of Tamil. I believe this theory is the one generally taught to students in Kerala.
3. Ideological: Namboodiri-s sanskritized Tamil and turned it into Malayalam.
Let us discuss each one of them in the reverse order.
Ideological:
This school is not bothered much about doing any research on its own. They borrow theories from either imaginative or scientific school and come out with their own interpretations. In this case, they have borrowed it from Imaginative school. However, even Imaginative school does not say a new language can be constructed by adding words from other languages. It may just say isolation of Proto-Tamils in Kerala region might have give risen to a new language. Languages change drastically with migration.
And I find it hard to believe that foreign word/s in Malayalam instead of being Malayaliized in its morphology and pronunciation can modify the language itself. But though that is a common sense, is not the obvious reason. Addition of Sanskrit words was mere a literary feature and until 19th century a big chunk of the population was hardly literate in any language. (And there are people who believe Malayalam started branching out of Tamil around 9th century CE, which is based on literary evidence. It is absolute foolishness to equate literary beginning to distinct spoken beginning).
I think there must be a study to understand the influence of literary Tamil on spoken Malayalam(even literary) and that makes more sense than talking about Sanskrit influence on spoken Malayalam (also, there must be a study on the influence of Malayalam on literary Tamil, especially on the works produced during Chera period).
Coming to Chera, it is obvious that Chera-s are Tamils considering the literature produced during that time in Kerala. However, probably motivated by this false notion of being lapsed Tamils has led to few historians(Sreedhar Menon/Prof. Elamkulam) in Kerala to argue for absolute Kerala origins of Chera kings (who in my opinion were Munda elites who became Dravidians and created a kingdom with the help of Brahmins). However, I find the so-called the Second Chera empire proposed by Prof. Elamkulam is interesting for some other reason.
I found the following passage in William Logan's "Malabar Manual". It is attribued to some Mr. Ellis.
For the remark that Tamil literature didn't survive after Chera-s, Logan makes a point that that was not true and in fact Tamil literature was produced between 10-13th century long after the fall of Chera-s(according to him in 9th century). However, Prof. Elamkulam has unearthed the Second Chera Empire(Kulashekaras of Mahodayapuram) that ruled until 12th century. That probably explains uninterrupted Tamil literature after the fall of the original Chera kingdom. This in my opinion would show there was a difference between the language of the ruling elites to that of common people.
Imaginative:
This school though for most part of the things follows scientific methodology cannot control itself from getting influenced by its own unparalleled imagination. George L Hart too is part this school.
One thing I appreciate about Bishop Caldwell's theory is that he considers migration path. I hold on to the view that any linguistic branch must make sense with the migration path taken by people.
According to him, Kerala was inhabited by Proto-Tamil people from the Tamil region. Well, if that is true then indeed there can be no doubt that Malayalis were Tamils once. Unfortunately, he came to the conclusion not based on any physical evidences but just like George L Hart's 'pole' based on couple of words whose etymology he derived with a great imagination. Logan calls this explanation fanciful though ingenious one.
Logan tries to match Caldwell's imagination with his own explanation for the terms.
This is the problem I see in studies that run wild in their imagination on semantics. Though Logan makes it clear that he doesn't have any stance on Malayalam being the daughter of Tamil or otherwise, he is attracted towards that argument. Now the whole migration theory (From Tamil region to Kerala) revolves around these words. A situation similar to George L Hart's pole. Where the concept of pllution taboo arising from various factors or regions, just like the migration to Kerala region from regions other than Tamil Nadu, gets overlooked.
Scientific:
By scientific I do not mean correct. I just mean it is at least falsifiable unlike the last one(where you can come out with multiple arguments for kizhakku/melku/pole). I rather think Proto-Tulu-Kannada(or just proto-Kannada) people migrated south at some point of time and gave rise to two new languages(many in fact). One group became isolated in the region of present day Kerala and became Malayalis. I have grown skeptical about the language of Tuluva-s. I believe it may be a mix of SD-I and some other Dravidian linguistic family. I have argued that it must be SD-II but recently I have come across (and old study) that one of the linguists(Shankara Bhat?) observes it has characteristics of North-Dravidian. Therefore, the people who inhabited Kerala region may have been culturally Proto-Tuluva-s but not necessarily linguistically proto-Tuluva-s.
However, as required by linguistics, two languages are considered separate languages if they are either;
1. mutually unintelligible
2. intelligible only one way (Danes understand Swedish but not the other way round or is it vice versa?).
But political definition of an independent language may differ. In China, there are eight languages that are mutually unintelligible. Though by linguistics, those are eight independent languages for the people themselves those are eight dialects of a single language.
With these definition I believe Malayalam spoken by people in Kasaragod must be considered a separate language in view of the fact that central/south people would find it difficult to comprehend.
Conclusion:
It is tough to say Dravidians are the first people to colonize south India. It is also difficult to say whether the Dravidian language is the first one to be spoken in that region. It is possible that Dravidians as we know them today by their certain cultural markings came later and picked up the existing Dravidian language spoken by earlier migrants. By genetics, as far as I can see, the previous population was certainly not Munda in South India. It can be Vedda, however, any distinct language that the Vedda might have spoken doesn't exist anymore. Also, the genetic profile of Vedda is not available.
References:
1. Malabar Manual, William Logan
2. Linguistics, MIT Press Publication
3. A Survey of Kerala History, Sreedhara Menon
4. The Dravidian Languages, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti
I shall broadly put the number of theories that I have come across on the said topic into three categories and I'll call them schools.
1. Scientific (the one proposed by H. Gundert)
2. Imaginative (the one proposed by Bishop Caldwell)
3. Ideological
Let us examine each theory briefly.
1. Scientific: H. Gundert proposed that old Malayalam and Tamil were two dialects of a Proto-language.
2. Imaginative: According to Bishop Caldwell Malayalam is a very ancient and much altered off-shoot of Tamil. I believe this theory is the one generally taught to students in Kerala.
3. Ideological: Namboodiri-s sanskritized Tamil and turned it into Malayalam.
Let us discuss each one of them in the reverse order.
Ideological:
This school is not bothered much about doing any research on its own. They borrow theories from either imaginative or scientific school and come out with their own interpretations. In this case, they have borrowed it from Imaginative school. However, even Imaginative school does not say a new language can be constructed by adding words from other languages. It may just say isolation of Proto-Tamils in Kerala region might have give risen to a new language. Languages change drastically with migration.
And I find it hard to believe that foreign word/s in Malayalam instead of being Malayaliized in its morphology and pronunciation can modify the language itself. But though that is a common sense, is not the obvious reason. Addition of Sanskrit words was mere a literary feature and until 19th century a big chunk of the population was hardly literate in any language. (And there are people who believe Malayalam started branching out of Tamil around 9th century CE, which is based on literary evidence. It is absolute foolishness to equate literary beginning to distinct spoken beginning).
I think there must be a study to understand the influence of literary Tamil on spoken Malayalam(even literary) and that makes more sense than talking about Sanskrit influence on spoken Malayalam (also, there must be a study on the influence of Malayalam on literary Tamil, especially on the works produced during Chera period).
Coming to Chera, it is obvious that Chera-s are Tamils considering the literature produced during that time in Kerala. However, probably motivated by this false notion of being lapsed Tamils has led to few historians(Sreedhar Menon/Prof. Elamkulam) in Kerala to argue for absolute Kerala origins of Chera kings (who in my opinion were Munda elites who became Dravidians and created a kingdom with the help of Brahmins). However, I find the so-called the Second Chera empire proposed by Prof. Elamkulam is interesting for some other reason.
I found the following passage in William Logan's "Malabar Manual". It is attribued to some Mr. Ellis.
The Malayalam has not been cultivated as an independent literary language, nor does the Tamil literature, notwithstanding the length of time the country was subject to Kings of Seram(Chera), appear to have been extensively known here, or at least has not survived that dynasty. This is the more extraordinary as some of the earliest and the best of Tamil works were composed in Seram. This remark, however, applies more to Keralam proper(present day north and central Kerala) than to Mushikam or Travancore (present day south Kerala); the residence of Seram viceroys (Logan speculates Peruamals) was in this province, and a knowledge of pure Tamil has always been more prevalent here than in northern districts.
For the remark that Tamil literature didn't survive after Chera-s, Logan makes a point that that was not true and in fact Tamil literature was produced between 10-13th century long after the fall of Chera-s(according to him in 9th century). However, Prof. Elamkulam has unearthed the Second Chera Empire(Kulashekaras of Mahodayapuram) that ruled until 12th century. That probably explains uninterrupted Tamil literature after the fall of the original Chera kingdom. This in my opinion would show there was a difference between the language of the ruling elites to that of common people.
Imaginative:
This school though for most part of the things follows scientific methodology cannot control itself from getting influenced by its own unparalleled imagination. George L Hart too is part this school.
One thing I appreciate about Bishop Caldwell's theory is that he considers migration path. I hold on to the view that any linguistic branch must make sense with the migration path taken by people.
According to him, Kerala was inhabited by Proto-Tamil people from the Tamil region. Well, if that is true then indeed there can be no doubt that Malayalis were Tamils once. Unfortunately, he came to the conclusion not based on any physical evidences but just like George L Hart's 'pole' based on couple of words whose etymology he derived with a great imagination. Logan calls this explanation fanciful though ingenious one.
The Malayalam word for east, kizhakku, means beneath, and because melku (west) means above, Dr. Caldwell argues that the Malayalis must have come from the Tamil country east of the ghats, since there they had the low level of the ocean on the east and the high level of the ghat mountains on the west.
Logan tries to match Caldwell's imagination with his own explanation for the terms.
But it is quite reasonable to suppose that the Dravidians, in finding names for east and west, selected words denoting that east was where the sun appeared from below, as it would seem to them, and west as the place where he similarly disappeared from above.
This is the problem I see in studies that run wild in their imagination on semantics. Though Logan makes it clear that he doesn't have any stance on Malayalam being the daughter of Tamil or otherwise, he is attracted towards that argument. Now the whole migration theory (From Tamil region to Kerala) revolves around these words. A situation similar to George L Hart's pole. Where the concept of pllution taboo arising from various factors or regions, just like the migration to Kerala region from regions other than Tamil Nadu, gets overlooked.
Scientific:
By scientific I do not mean correct. I just mean it is at least falsifiable unlike the last one(where you can come out with multiple arguments for kizhakku/melku/pole). I rather think Proto-Tulu-Kannada(or just proto-Kannada) people migrated south at some point of time and gave rise to two new languages(many in fact). One group became isolated in the region of present day Kerala and became Malayalis. I have grown skeptical about the language of Tuluva-s. I believe it may be a mix of SD-I and some other Dravidian linguistic family. I have argued that it must be SD-II but recently I have come across (and old study) that one of the linguists(Shankara Bhat?) observes it has characteristics of North-Dravidian. Therefore, the people who inhabited Kerala region may have been culturally Proto-Tuluva-s but not necessarily linguistically proto-Tuluva-s.
However, as required by linguistics, two languages are considered separate languages if they are either;
1. mutually unintelligible
2. intelligible only one way (Danes understand Swedish but not the other way round or is it vice versa?).
But political definition of an independent language may differ. In China, there are eight languages that are mutually unintelligible. Though by linguistics, those are eight independent languages for the people themselves those are eight dialects of a single language.
With these definition I believe Malayalam spoken by people in Kasaragod must be considered a separate language in view of the fact that central/south people would find it difficult to comprehend.
Conclusion:
It is tough to say Dravidians are the first people to colonize south India. It is also difficult to say whether the Dravidian language is the first one to be spoken in that region. It is possible that Dravidians as we know them today by their certain cultural markings came later and picked up the existing Dravidian language spoken by earlier migrants. By genetics, as far as I can see, the previous population was certainly not Munda in South India. It can be Vedda, however, any distinct language that the Vedda might have spoken doesn't exist anymore. Also, the genetic profile of Vedda is not available.
References:
1. Malabar Manual, William Logan
2. Linguistics, MIT Press Publication
3. A Survey of Kerala History, Sreedhara Menon
4. The Dravidian Languages, Bhadriraju Krishnamurti
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Matriliny in Andhra Pradesh -III
It appears many Art historians have concluded that seemingly metronymics of Satavahana/Ikshvaku kings are in fact Gotra names. (Via Indo-Eurasian_research, Yahoo Groups).
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Conceptualization of pronouns
1. In spoken Kannada if a person is required to get the attention of somebody s/he would use third person plural pronoun ivare or avare. This is a significant aspect of a language, I feel. In my opinion, the third person (for human and non-human) is the first one to come into usage among pronouns. One can live without using any pronouns while chatting. Therefore, personal identifiers (names) are invented before pronouns.
2. I have observed females using he or him instead of s/he or him/her in their writings. Does that mean they are conditioned to use 'he' because of patriarchy? I think not. Ideally, I would have expected men using masculine pronoun and its genitive case and females using feminine. But if a Kannada ( where third person plural avaru (they, their) is used in such context) speaker, naturally uses masculine pronoun then that in my opinion betrays innate third person neutral (ie.both for human and non-human) beginning of that word.
3.
3.1 The concept of pronoun arises in calling sounds.
3.2 The pronoun system is strongly associated with the glide 'y' in any language.
In Kannada if one wants to call somebody the crude form can be Ey or Oy. By (1), this glide y must have been used for third person pronoun initially then extended for other two pronouns with some modification.
This property can still be observed in Tulu among Dravidian languages and English among IE languages.
The Tulu word for I is yAn; you was yI (now it has become I ) and he is Aye. In English first person pronoun is Ay; second person pronoun is yU and third person pronoun was Iy (now it has become hI).
4.
4.1 The declension of neutral pronouns (eg. 'he' in English) or genderless markers (eg. 'an' in Kannada/Tamil) tends towards masculinisation(Patriarchy?).
The morphemes 'an' and 'ad', which are used to differentiate between human and non-human forms in Dravidian languages are later developments. These innovations for a great extent have kicked out the glide 'y' from pronouns in most of the Dravidian languages. In fact, morpheme 'an' was only a human marker initially. In Tulu, both genders say yAn ( Vy + a + an) for I. Kannada (that even shows gender marking for second person singular verb) uses only nInu (probably, n + Vy + ee + an) in second person singular pronoun. Hence 'an' being associated with male marker must be a later development.
Note:
V: Unknown vowel. May be O as in Oy or E as in Ey.
2. I have observed females using he or him instead of s/he or him/her in their writings. Does that mean they are conditioned to use 'he' because of patriarchy? I think not. Ideally, I would have expected men using masculine pronoun and its genitive case and females using feminine. But if a Kannada ( where third person plural avaru (they, their) is used in such context) speaker, naturally uses masculine pronoun then that in my opinion betrays innate third person neutral (ie.both for human and non-human) beginning of that word.
3.
3.1 The concept of pronoun arises in calling sounds.
3.2 The pronoun system is strongly associated with the glide 'y' in any language.
In Kannada if one wants to call somebody the crude form can be Ey or Oy. By (1), this glide y must have been used for third person pronoun initially then extended for other two pronouns with some modification.
This property can still be observed in Tulu among Dravidian languages and English among IE languages.
The Tulu word for I is yAn; you was yI (now it has become I ) and he is Aye. In English first person pronoun is Ay; second person pronoun is yU and third person pronoun was Iy (now it has become hI).
4.
4.1 The declension of neutral pronouns (eg. 'he' in English) or genderless markers (eg. 'an' in Kannada/Tamil) tends towards masculinisation(Patriarchy?).
The morphemes 'an' and 'ad', which are used to differentiate between human and non-human forms in Dravidian languages are later developments. These innovations for a great extent have kicked out the glide 'y' from pronouns in most of the Dravidian languages. In fact, morpheme 'an' was only a human marker initially. In Tulu, both genders say yAn ( Vy + a + an) for I. Kannada (that even shows gender marking for second person singular verb) uses only nInu (probably, n + Vy + ee + an) in second person singular pronoun. Hence 'an' being associated with male marker must be a later development.
Note:
V: Unknown vowel. May be O as in Oy or E as in Ey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)