Shri Yamaka,
The first "out-of-africa" migrats were not dravidian speakers. The earliest occupants of india were the austroasiatic speakers (these were the "original" people of india), not dravidian speakers.
I am not venturing, at this time, into Languages: I use the word Dravidian here to indicate people of high melanin content in their skin.. I believe that Austroasians are the people of South East Asia including Eastern part of India and Bangladesh. It's conceivable that the Original people who settled in India spoke a form of the Austroasian language(s).
I have no idea when the dark skinned people started talking one of the Dravidian languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam).
Considering climatic influence and long period of nativisation in the south of india, those with high melanin content shd have been the austroasiatic speakers, i feel.
Even today the "originals" are around in andaman and nicobar islands (the sentilenese, great andamanese, jarawa, onge..)...They are pitch black, some with a tinge of blue.
[An aside: i can't help comparing them with Rama, Krishna, Vishnu who are represented as black with a tinge of blue. Mal (or Thirumal), according to some, was the God of the early peoples, who involved in one of the earliest forms of food-gathering known to man -- fishing].
Also sir, there is some research that the earliest civilisations of the south must have been by the austroasiatic groups. But very insufficient and very inconclusive.
From my end i have been making comparisons between megalithic cultures of south-india and those across the world. There is an astounding similarity between some Indonesians and the southindians (those who were persumably austroasiatic alone, or a combined autroasiatic-dravidian group) -- that is in the town planning / layout and the usage of megalithic stones (Megalithic literally means “large stones”).
In East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia, a single megalithic stone, is found at the center of a village. Such a stone can never be moved. This stone is erected for “communication with the ancestors”. This is exactly similar to Southern Indian layouts of towns, where a stone structure (the temple) was the centre point and the town was built around the temple.
The Ngada people of Indonesia are amongst the people who till date live in villages built around a megalithic stone and continue the practice of ceremonial offerings to the stones. Megalithic tombs with elaborate carvings symbolized the status of the person who will be erected. And
a great tomb might weight 30 tons; take 40 men two years to prepare and 1000 men to drag it from the quarry to its site. This pales in comparison to Angkot Vat though. I think Stone Structures were an integral part of the austro-asiatic culture.
Megalithic burial urns were found in Kerala:
The Hindu : Kerala News : Burial urns point to Megalithic clans in Idukki Unfortunately no research in this matter is available from northern india.
There is also some research that the people of Kerala were originally austroasiatic. The Pallavas were supposedly the first people who shifted from rock-cut shelters (rock-cut temples) to stand-alone temples, and created towns centered around a temple structure.
According to some, this is the reason why early settlements end in the word 'palli' (like tiruchirapalli, etc). It is also claimed that their kings were a series of Perumals (the great Mals), hence you have places like Pallikonda (and also Pallikonda Perumal, that is, The Great Mal of the Palli mountain (palli mountain settlement)).
In those days, there were only 2 versions of people -- the Pallis who lived in towns, and very many myriad kinds of Banjaras (forest-dewllers). Obviously forest-dwellers became town-dwellers. So there is no question of people being genetically different just because of their place of residence. And obviously there were no varnas in such early settlements.
It is impossible to say which were the tribes that became part of the Palli settlements. Or which tribes remained banjaras. Please do not confuse the words banjara and pallis with present day "castes" of the same names, there were far too many different kinds of banjaras. Ex: the Veddas of Srilanka are ban-jaras (forest-dwellers that are supposedly indo-european speakers), and so are the Irulas, Uralis, Kadars, etc (these are dravidian speaking tribes).
Even today there are austroasiatic tribes across india. They are considered adivasis and forest-dwellers. I shd think the adivasi priests were the earliest of priests and represent earliest forms of hindu worship. The Khasis of north-east india are austro-asiatic. Me thinks, people may have moved around from here and there. But everyone is right here. Each one having re-invented themselves with the progression of culture.
I do not think that present-day skin color can represent ancient migrations. While i was a student in chennai, i had a wheatish looking kashmiri classmate who was born and raised in chennai. From photos we cud see that her cousins in delhi were much fairer compared to her. Understandly she was fair compared to the rest of our class mates. But then, lets say she works in the hot sun everyday (perhaps in a field as a farmer with no facials, bleaching), i think she too can become black within 10 years.
Am not able to agree that nomadic people fought and grabbed land from the dravidians. There is no hard evidence for it. For all we know the earliest creators of the brahmanas (texts) that is the kurus, cud have been dravidian speakers. You must be aware that BMAC culture belongs to a non-indoeuropean speaking group. I suppose its all about waiting for more research.
Among the current Indian population, the genome has both wild type and mutated alleles for melanin and gets expressed in an astonishingly complex ways.. For example, I am from the small town in Ramanathapuram District. My paternal and maternal grandmothers looked "very fair" colored like Central Asians. My grandpas were "brown" colored.. my father was "brown" colored, my Mom was "fair" colored; I am "dark brown" (little lighter than President Obama) and my TB wife is "very fair" colored. My daughter is "fair" and my son is "brown". Depending on the expressions of the different alleles of melanin genes you get different hues of color. I surmise people of Kanyakumari has minimal mix with the "Northern Immigrants".
To me it is conceivable that the Original People well settled at the banks of perennial rivers like Indus and Ganges..they were quite people focusing on their own Literature (Iyyal), Music (Isai) and Drama (Nadagam) in their leisure time.. there came the nomadic people from the North in their horses and horse-driven chariots all hungry for "good living". I expected great Wars between the groups, and the Northern Immigrants won to some extent: Meaning getting strong footholds in the lush agricultural lands of the great rivers...but, I don't have proof. I agree.
IMO, the only thing that shines in the vedas is the depth of language wrt the compositions. They were expressing things just as poets do today, somethings profund, and something mundane.
For all talk of sattva guna and such crap, the vedas (samhitas, brahmanas) contain things like cattle-raids, petty fights, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice...wonder where did their sattva guna go at that time..So much for "pathway of vedic truth".
But yes, there is this 'folk memory' that things that were non-vedic got stolen by the 'vedic'.
Non-vedic is our everyday poojas, temples, yoga, tantra (and perhaps even the concept of moksha). These were not known to the peoples who expressed themselves thru compositions in the "vedic period".
But again, i think the idea of things being 'stolen' exists mainly because of the caste system.
I like talking to you Yamaka. As for your early posts in this thread, i shall post some points made by indologists after 16th july (if time permits, then will try to do that over the next few days).
I agree.
Regards.
