Dear Shri Sangom,
Reg the indo-iranian 3-fold society and the idea that they encountered the 'shudra' northwestern indians, i too think it is very highly probable (sindh was supposedly ruled by 'shudras').
In all probablity, shudra was merely the name of a tribe / kingdom / a region, which was not welcoming of the indo-iranians. They were not yet slaves in the vedic, late-vedic, mahabharat and pre-dharmashastra periods. There were also 'shudra' kings (dasyu kings like sudasa, trasdasyu in the rigveda and those like paijavan in the mahabharat). There were 'shudra' soldiers accompanying the ashvamedha horse in mahabharat and so on.
However it is noteworthy that the so-called 'shudras' were already 'vedic' during the vedic period. In this regard, am in favor of the theory of an earlier indo-aryan split that wud have happened before the aryan-zorashtrian split:
American Institute of Vedic Studies - Vedic Origins of the Europeans: the Children of Danu Seems like a family feud, with war mongering fathers and squabbling sons calling each other names.
Based on philological and archeological evidence, Staal confirms that the rigveda was composed to the west of the IVC. The yajur was composed in regions around kuru proper. The atharvan's place of origin remains obscure (some say it rose independetly of rig, and yajur and parts of it are older than the rig. Am sort of waiting in hope that the language of the BMAC, which incidentally is considered non-IE, might provide clues).
The frequent skirmishes and war mongering between the indo-aryans of various regions, got described in the vedas. Each described the other as non-arya or even as demons (or perhaps evil spirits). This regular confrontation is what we see in the "vedic period". Imo, it was merely major and minor confrontations between the "regions of the rig-veda" and "regions of the yajur veda".
So who were the earliest shudras (during the late vedic period ??)...
Please have a look at the Sudra kingdom here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg
In the sabha parva
chapter 31 of the mahabharat Sudra and Abhira are described as tribes residing on the banks of Saraswati (very close neighbours). Alternatively in the same Chapter 2, the Abhiras are also called Shudrabhira as a single word as people residing on the banks of saraswati where the river ends:
gaNAnutsava sa~NketAnvyajayatpuruSharShabha .
sindhukUlAshritA ye cha grAmaNeyA mahAbalAH .. 8..\\
shUdrAbhIra gaNAshchaiva ye chAshritya sarasvatIm .
vartayanti cha ye matsyairye cha parvatavAsinaH .. 9..\\
Vishnu Purana also calls Abhiras as Shudras dwelling on the banks of Narmada (VP.4.24.66). The Kishkinda Kanda of the Ramayana also uses the single term "sudrabhira" for a country or region. Patanjali bhasya describes the abhiras as shudras whose duty lay in rearing cattle (
Shudrabira go bali bardhanau). Please
read more about the abhiras here (p.192-193).
To me, it is clear that the abhiras were the early shudras. Cud it be likely that the dharmashastras refer to these very people as the enslaved shudras? Or perhaps the ones defeated and enslaved at the end of the vedic period were shudras (referred to as such based on their region of origin)?
If the Abhiras were Shudras, it wud mean that the hordes of the vedic Indra(s) (asuras) were in frequent confrontation with the combine of Yadu (sura) allies. It is apparent that during the vedic period, Indra (asuras) and his men won. At the end of the Vedic period (vedanta period), the Yadus won in the Mahabharat war (for this scenario to exist, the mahabharat should have happened after the vedic period not before).
The
Shanti parva of mahabharat allows the shudras to accumulate money for religious purposes. They were eligible for yagya and to give alms. These were not deprived from them though put in the servile category.
And today, we have a mixed culture on our hands. In terms of ethnicity, both (those of kuru proper and those to the west of IVC) were indo-aryan. The dharma shastras ofcourse appeared later. By this time, imo, everyone ‘non-vedic’ was put in the shudra category, including the yavana greeks, sakas and mleccha tribes like chinese kushans, etc. This wud mean that the aryan culture spread from east into the west...
Today, the abhiras claim to be Yaduvanshi. The only connection the Abhiras have with the Yadavs is that they stole the yadava women (after the war) when Arjuna was trying to move them from Dwaraka to Indraprastha (Mbh 16.7, 16.8).
All Yadava men died in the Mahabharat war. So how come we now 100s of communities all over india claiming to be Yaduvanshis. Imo, this whole lunar dynasty genealogy is a hoax (for that matter, so is the claim of suryavansh, agnivansh and whatever vansh - all are "created" products of the puranic period imo). The puranic period, imo, played a complex role when the victors (at each epoch) got to portray history as they wanted it to be.
Wrt to DNA tests, we wud need to depend on the introduction of powerful new markers in the market, better detection methods and improvised statistical methods; and wait for the future patiently to unravel things.
Wrt to your last post, i do not think the life of a peasant was any diff from the life of a brahmana. I suppose only the nobility and the so-called 'military-type-brahmins' sought and manipulated power.
I
do agree that migrations from the very beginnings of history
could have happened anywhere, and in that way also out of or into the NW of the Indian subcontinent through present day
Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. But we have no clear evidence of
such historical events being mentioned either in the RigvEda
or in the zend avesta. The mirror image-like position of the
dEvas and asuras in the scriptures of the two groups gives us
an overwhelming impression that what we find in these two
sets of scriptures is due to a recent split. The reference to the
vEdic Gods mitRa and varuNa as asuras (RV 5.63.3) is
possibly a vestige of the pre-split days when varuNa and
mitRa were considered to be asuras.
The atHarva vEda is considered to have been compiled in the
present Kasi/Benares area based on certain internal
evidences, but I could not lay my hands on the relevant
material.
As I explained in another of my posts in the thread relating to
Aryan Migration, there are scholars (many of whom surfaced
during the BJP rule at the centre) who go on harping that the
entire Aryan (Indo-European) civilization, the languages
under that umbrella, etc., originated on the banks of the
Ganges and spread westwards and reached up to the British
isles in due course of time. But they overlook the fact that
there is a sudden change in the Sanskrit language as also
their Gods and demons, as soon as the westward-looking
Aryans crossed the Afghan border and are unable to explain
this. Again we do not find such close similarity between the
scriptures of any two IE language groups preserved to date, as
we find in avesta and RigvEda. There are a host of other valid
reasons which make me subscribe to the group opposing the
Out of India Theory (OIT). David Frawley belongs to the OIT
group and his interpretations will naturally be not unbiased.
He, like other OIT exponents, will shut his eyes to
inconvenient facts and rely on purANic evidences as far as
possible.
Now purANas are at least a millennium later, if not more,
than the RigvEda and so no scholarly work would base its
opinions about the socio-cultural scene of the RigvEdic times
on what is contained in the M Bh. I could not find any
reference to Sudra or Abhira in the web page you have cited.
However you will find two slokas which are of interest to us.
The first one is stanza 10 which is as under:
10 saha sarvais tathā mlecchaiḥ sāgarānūpavāsibhiḥ
pārvatīyāś ca rājāno rājā caiva bṛhadbalaḥ
We see that all the kings who dwell in the seas (across the
ocean) are classified as mLEcHa.
Stanza12:
12 draviḍāḥ siṃhalāś caiva rājā kāśmīrakas tathā
kuntibhojo mahātejāḥ suhmaś ca sumahābalaḥ
We find a reference to draviDa and simhaLa here. Whether
the draviDa kings were of the Aryan fold is not known. If we
assume that they were, it will mean that South India was
under the vEdic religion even as early as the Mahabharata,
which was coeval with the start of Kaliyuga, as per purANic
lore, i.e., 5000 years ago. Whether the sangam Tamil
literature will bear this out, I don't know. If we say no, the
draviDa kingdom was of draviDian culture then we have a
curious phenomenon on our hands. As per OIT and Frawley,
etc., the vedic people who spread all the way up to the end of
western Europe, did not/could not go upto the draviDa country
lying just south of their starting point near the Ganga!
If, therefore, we take the statements contained in the M. Bh.
to unravel who were the original SUdras, we will be trying to
look at what happened some 1000 or 1500 years before the M.
Bh. through its slOkas and that will only lead us to erroneous
conclusions. We will then have to concede that the PS was
interpolated into the RV after the time of M.Bh. This will be
highly improbable in view of the fact that there are
'anukRamaNis' which are supposed to be of the late vEdic
period. So, IMO, we should not consider the puraNa evidence
at all to decide a matter such as this.
We cannot therefore say that there was no atrocity against the
SUdras till the ManusmR^ti days (200 B.C.E. - 200 C.E.). Such
a view will compel us to say that wherever remarks against
the SUdra are found (like in SatapatHa bRahmaNa) those are
all skilful interpolations of a very recent date.
Again see M. Bh. 3.130 says:
03,130.003a eṣā sarasvatī puṇyā divyā coghavatī nadī
03,130.003c etad vinaśanaṃ nāma sarasvatyā viśāṃ pate
03,130.004a dvāraṃ niṣādarāṣṭrasya yeṣāṃ dveṣāt sarasvatī
03,130.004b*0635_01 kṣīṇapāpā śubhāṃl lokān prāpnute
nātra saṃśayaḥ
03,130.004c praviṣṭā pṛthivīṃ vīra mā niṣādā hi māṃ viduḥ
03,130.005a eṣa vai camasodbhedo yatra dṛśyā sarasvatī
03,130.005c yatrainām abhyavartanta divyāḥ puṇyāḥ
samudragāḥ
It would seem that the river sarasvati disappeared so that
nishAdAs do not see her. If we take the straight meaning,
nishAdAs were so unacceptable. Hence to depend on M. Bh. for
support is very tricky. Same will apply to other purANas.
I, therefore, feel (and it is just a hunch) that the tripartisan
rebel group of avestan Indo-Iranians during their journey
through the North-west into the Sarasvati basin, must have
considered unfriendly groups or tribes such as dAsa, dasyu,
etc., as their enemies and those who were not unfriendly or
were subjugated, as SUdras. As time passed, and the open
hostility gave way to some sort of peaceful co-existence with
the originally inimical groups/tribes, they must have been
allowed SUdra status but with some give and take with those
particular groups, which gets reflected now as though the
SUdras as a whole, had a better treatment than what
happened afterwards and that they were allowed some amount
of social intercourse with the three classes.
This underwent a great change after the vEdic religion
declined in importance because buddhism flourished by
attracting into its fold the vaiSyas and Sudras in the main.
When Pushyamitra Sunga usurped the throne after killing the
last Mauryan king, he being a sAmavEdi brahmin, wanted to
reestablish the vEdic religion. The priests then wrote
Manusmriti and other Dharma Sastras and started going with
a vengeance against the vaiSyas and Sudras as a whole. Most
of the people in the agricultural sector, who were earlier
considered vaiSyas, were lowered to the SUdra status as
punishment for their embracing Buddhism.
The above will summarise the history of SUdras in the caste
structure. I suppose whatever the historical past might have
been, in the more recent past, things were not at all good, and
our merely talking about some past which might have been
comparatively better (in order to assuage our conscience,
possibly), will not serve any purpose now to mollify the hurt
nurtured by the SUdras.
Regarding the epic map, I have one observation. The term
"piSAcha" refers to a tribe. People used the dialect "paiSAchi"
which had no script of its own. I don't know whether there are
any speakers now left. At the time of partition some of these
people, who were in Sindh, came and settled down in Mumbai.
One of the MLAs in the Maharashtra during the 80's or so was
reportedly from this tribe. unfortunately I am not able to
recollect the name now. Incidentally the original of katHA
sarit sagara was written in paiSAchi language as br^had
katHA.
, just kidding!!!!
