| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - theory of Indian caste origins
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


theory of Indian caste origins

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2009 at 16:21
Quote A large population having a desire to "separate"...there's something very "inorganic" in that supposition.

A large population and a group within it having a desire to separate or remain separate. There doesn't seem to be anything inorganic about that.
Quote Then there is the strange notion of "Central Asians". Are you making a parallel between the peoples of the 2nd millennia and those of later periods, let us say the Moghuls?

Yes. I said exactly that.
Quote Similarly, you are assuming that large populations characteristic of later India applied far back into the past. Such is a rather questionable supposition.

The supposition has to apply during the formative period of the cast system. It is an assumption, but India has always had a large population.
Quote
Then there is this rather elitist posit:
 
The invaders typically think of indians as dirty and poor, and want very little to do with them. They want india for it's wealth, not its people.
The wealth of any nation is its people and their productivity. Besides, it is rather presumptuos to ascribe a rather contemporary conclusion as the thought patterns of people in the distant past.

Don't tell me, tell Babur.
(Besides, alot of what Babur and Timur didn't like was climate and disease, and that is not contemporary)
Quote Just how would you fit Buddhism into the equation?

Why am I trying to fit it in?


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 18 Oct 2009 at 16:23
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2009 at 02:42
Perhaps, we could get some hint whether castes were brought by Aryans or had formed in India before Aryans from linguistics.
 
Does anybody know if the names of castes in Southern Indian languages are different?  If Brahman is indeed an Aryan word, how is Brahman caste called in Tamil language, for example?
 
If, Southern Indians use Indoeuropean terms for their castes, it might somehow point at the "Aryan invasion theory" origins of the castes.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2009 at 03:01
That would be very unsafe to assume, Sarmat, even if Tamils use the same terms (which I am sure they do).  Language is transient and the Tamil words may well be long forgotten. Besides the language of the Rig Veda is Sansrkit, so the Tamil clergy would use this language too.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2009 at 04:29
May be, but if it's not forgotten, it could give some interesting insights.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2009 at 10:05
Are we not treading perilously close to the pseudo-scientific folly known as "Invasionism". To those unfamiliar with the term, here is a working definition:
 
Invasionism is the theory that all cultural changes in past societies are the result of outside influences, particularly, the influx of foreign ideas and people through migration and external conquest. Late 19th and early 20th century thinking assumed that an archeological complex was the equivalent of a culture and that a culture was the product of a specific people, even a specific race. The concept of a specific people carried with it the presumption that they had a specific language. There was more than a tacit assumption that all artifacts of a specific culture were produced by speakers of a common language and that all speakers of that common language produced artifacts from a specific culture. It therefore followed that the common language must have evolved in the area surrounding the archeological complex, which was designated as the heartland of that specific people or race. Later evidence of its presence in regions beyond the boundaries of the original area was interpreted as the result of the invasion of those regions by people from the heartland.
 
 
That type of thinking is the danger here. Indo-European invasion theories are in a way circuituous arguments feeding upon the detritus of linguistics and archaeology as one side often offers the other side as proof-positive of their suppositions. After all, is anyone still searching for the roots of "Kurgan" culture nowadays?
 
PS: See below...and specially access the studies cited, most are on-line.


Edited by drgonzaga - 20 Oct 2009 at 01:55
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2009 at 12:32
Interesting summary from Wiki:
 
 
Origin

The origin of the caste system as it is today is still obscure.

A 2001 genetic study, led by Michael Bamshad of the University of Utah, found that the genetic affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more like Asians. The researchers believe that the Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest, admixing with or displacing the proto-Dravidian speakers. Subsequently they may have established a caste system and placed themselves primarily in higher castes. The study concludes that the Indian castes "are most likely to be of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture resulting in rank-related and sex-specific differences in the genetic affinities of castes to Asians and Europeans."[1]. Because the Indian samples for this study were taken from a single geographical area, it remains to be investigated whether its findings can be safely generalized.[2]

An earlier 1995 study by Joanna L. Mountain et al. of Stanford University had concluded that there was "no clear separation into three genetically distinct groups along caste lines", although "an inferred tree revealed some clustering according to caste affiliation".[3]

A 2002-03 study by T. Kivisild et al. concluded that the "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene."[4] A 2006 genetic study by the National Institute of Biologicals in India, testing a sample of men from 32 tribal and 45 caste groups, concluded that the Indians have acquired very few genes from Indo-European speakers.[5]

According to a 2006 study by Ismail Thanseem et al. of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (India) "the vast majority (>98%) of the Indian maternal gene pool, consisting of Indo-European and Dravidian speakers, is genetically more or less uniform", while the invasions after the late Pleistocene settlement might have been mostly male-mediated.[6] The study concluded that the "lower caste groups might have originated with the hierarchical divisions that arose within the tribal groups with the spread of Neolithic agriculturalists, much earlier than the arrival of Aryan speakers", and "the Indo-Europeans established themselves as upper castes among this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes." The study indicated that the Indian caste system may have its roots much before the arrival of the Indo-Aryan immigrants; a rudimentary version of the caste system may have emerged with the shift towards cultivation and settlements, and the divisions may have become more well-defined and intensified with the arrival of Indo-Aryans.[7] More recent studies have also debunked the British claims that so-called "Aryans" and "Dravidians" have a "racial divide". A study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups. The study establishes, based on the impossibility of identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any mythical "Aryan Invasion" and "subjugation" of Dravidian people.[8]

Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 10:57
This is a highly controversial and sensitive topic, I request that moderator list this thread under The Minefield.

I had registered in the older allempires and just did as well in this newer one.

Can I create a petition?

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:


I don't think that the Aryan invasion did in fact happen is doubted.
But, in this regard, I have a question why Southern Indian ethnicities like Tamils who don't have Aryan admixture also have caste system?


As a moderator you should refrain from making a statement like that because now you are being pro-Aryan Invasion theory.

Aryan Invasion Theory and caste system are topics that have tremendous implications and should be only allowed to be discussed by serious members.

It is something that requires IMMENSE understanding of Indian genetics, physical anthropology, culture, lingustics and history.

And you should have had visited various regions and its castes before thinking you have the damn right to comment on it.(I am saying this generally)

In Tamil Nadu Brahmins suffer severe discrimination, the politicians are fiercely anti-Brahmin and as a result many Brahmins have migrated to the Western world as refugees.

___

Tamils and other South Indians are mixed between Europids and Australoids. They also have Europid/Caucasoid admixture, just less so than North West Indians.

predominantly Europid Tamil.



The only "Aryan" Indians are those of the Dwija i.e Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. By Aryans, I am explicitly referring to the Vedic speakers to penetrate North West India and then expanding elsewhere.

The "Aryans" divided themselves based on their qualities, the intelligent and religious became Brahmins, the chivalrious and strong became Kshatriyas and the skillful and industrious became Vaishyas.

Dwijas settled in North West India and expanded to throughout the rest of India, especially Brahmins and Vaishyas.

In the earliest era of Vedic India, Brahmin males migrated to South and East India as Hindu missionaries, took local women as wives and placed themselves as the highest caste.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Also, historically, different "caste systems" existed in Indo-China and Indonesia in the local Indianized cultures without actual "ethnic/racial reasons" behind it, but rather like an imitation of the Indian cultural phenomenon.


That is true, Brahmins from South and North East India migrated to Cambodia and Myanmar as Hindu missionaries and later together with the Chinese formed the elites of South East Asia. There were Vaishyas who also settled in S.E.A and traded extensively with China.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 10:59
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 11:02
Not all North West Indians are "Aryan" looking, Telugu and Bengali Brahmins are more Aryan/and also Europid/Caucasoid overall i.e lighter and sharper featured than the pariahs of Uttar Pradesh or Gujarat. Collectively I would only consider Punjab as an Aryan state.

Kashmiri Muslims are not Aryans. Being Aryan is more than just race.
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 11:15
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Yes. If you haven't already realised that theory is called the Aryan invasion theory, and there are plenty of people who vehemently reject that theory.The first thing that should be pointed out is that;1) There is obvious significant differences between North & South India in both genetics and culture.2) While we cannot prove there was a single ancient aryan invasion that created the hindu caste system. There have been numerous invasions by aryans (iranians/iranics) into north india. The last being the Durrani Empire, assuming you don't count the English as Aryan. I think this pretty well defeats any genetic evidence, the "Aryan" genes could just have easily entered into the upper castes from repeated known invasions over the last 2000 years rather than some mythical invasion thousands of years ago.In subcontinent culture you only marry into groups (castes) of similar social standing. So the lowest castes/classes are a completely different people from the upper castes/classes. A new invader can very easily just be slotted into this system. For example, English are merchant caste.3) As Sarmat has pointed out the caste system is not only in north india it exists or existed in cultures all over south east asia which while have had indian cultural influence have not had "aryan invasions"This doesn't mean there wasn't an Aryan invasion in prehistory, but it blurs the issue somewhat. There is ground to argue that the mythical invasion never happened, but that doesn't mean the caste system wasn't originally due to (multiple) central asian invasions.


This is hilarious. Talk about dilusions. Its too comical for me to even take it seriously and respond.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 11:16
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11686
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 11:35
Originally posted by Mangel_Pandey Mangel_Pandey wrote:

This is a highly controversial and sensitive topic, I request that moderator list this thread under The Minefield.

I had registered in the older allempires and just did as well in this newer one.


Welcome back to the updated All Empires. If you don't mind me asking what was your previoius username?

Regarding the minefield, we'll think about it.
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 12:07
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:


Welcome back to the updated All Empires. If you don't mind me asking what was your previoius username?


Thank you. I have no registered here before, in the old forum I just recently registered then through that I found this newer one and registered here as well since it is defunct.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Regarding the minefield, we'll think about it.


I appreciate the consideration.
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 12:07
Just to point out, there has been much misinformation said in this thread that I wish to clear up. Misinformation such as these have grave consequences. You do not realise that the information accumulated on the internet can literally change the fate of someone's life.

The african american black nationalists have been reading about dalits and they have gone to India to spur the dalits into creating calamity. Now the dalits have created a party called the dalit panthers.

dalit fascists get inspired by anti-Semitic hate speech of neo Nazis and White Supremacists and adopt their methods of causing hatred.
___

What nerve does a person have to dare say that some Irani invaders mixed with the High Castes. Do you know the implications of such statements?

Please learn about your own family background before you dare condemn the ancestry of others. Brahmins have well documented paternal ancestry that we trace all the way back to the Vedas. We have the most elaborate and extensive geneology.

While the Parsi Zoroastrians are respected by the High Castes and some Brahmins even consider the Avesta to be a continuation of the Vedas.

It is demeaning to us to suggest or imply that we are the product of some Iranis.

Rajputs commit suicide before they are captured by invaders. Rajput women would kill themselves than to be captured by enemies. Rajput women jump into the burning pyres of their dead husband than to live as widows.

Go read up Jauhar and Sati. High Caste Hindus live by honour till death.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 12:09
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 12:21
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


However, the long digression about the meaning of the word 'Aryan' in Sanskrit is in fact an example: there's no reason at all why 'Aryan' as used by say, Muller, should have any connection with the original meaning of the word.


Aryan means sabhya, the civilized one. The knowledgeble one and the one who lives up to principles.

Nazis who brutally murdered thousands of Jews during the holocaust are far from being Aryan.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 12:23
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 12:36
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I agree that most likely the origins of the Indian castes are "socio-cultural" rather than ethnic. But it perhaps was indeed complicated by some ethnic issues in Northern India. And, in any case, the Indian Caste system is quite unique.


So now you are making statements like as if you have studied about it with great detail?

Your statements are absurd, "ethnic issues in Northern India"? wtf are you talking about?

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 12:37
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 12:40
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


The caste system was mirrored in Zaroastrian Iran and the priest class was also called Brahman. 


Holy... are you for real?
Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Dec 2009 at 13:53
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Perhaps, we could get some hint whether castes were brought by Aryans or had formed in India before Aryans from linguistics.

Does anybody know if the names of castes in Southern Indian languages are different? If Brahman is indeed an Aryan word, how is Brahman caste called in Tamil language, for example?


If, Southern Indians use Indoeuropean terms for their castes, it might somehow point at the "Aryan invasion theory" origins of the castes.


Now these are the kind of posts that make sense and are useful in analysis of the formation of caste.

Now to answer your questions.

The word Brahmin is anglized form of the word Brahmana. Brahman refers to the ultimate omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent singular God of Hinduism. Brahmana has a male gender connotation, the relationship between Brahman and a Brahmana is that between a Father and a Son.

A-U-M is the word that symbolizes the Creator-Sustainer-Judging nature of Brahman. Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra represent the "Arch Angels"/Devas of the creation, sustainance and destruction.

Hinduism only recognizes one God and that is Brahman. The others are simply Devas who can be interpreted as Angels.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Does anybody know if the names of castes in Southern Indian languages are different?


Caste system in the North does differ from that in the South. In the North West, castes are very neatly divided. Because the Vedic Aryans immediately stratified themselves into the 3 High Castes.

The High Castes migrated South subsequently and as several waves. In the South, mostly only Brahmins migrated.

Caste system, like I said is highly complicated. There are the 4 main castes, the High Castes; Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and the low caste Shudras and the dalits and adivasis who are completely outside the caste system.

Brahmins are priests, Kshatriyas are warriors and Vaishyas are merchants and landlords. The Shudras are farmers and peasants.

Of all the 3, the Vaishyas are the ones who have the most contact with the Shudras. Because as landlords they give instructions to the Shudra farmers.

This video shows the relationship between Vaishyas and pariahs in South India.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP_QCXwFlSM

Even the physical features is representative the man and his wife, compared to the darker, shorter australoid pariahs.

Also compare the physical features between the adivasi(tribals) of Gujarat North West India and the Vaishya reporter(shown towards the end).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0SxMXcUg24&feature=related

Throughout India the Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya words and their understanding is the same. However the High Castes have often changed the profession, f.e the Agrawal Guptas of the North have been warriors.

In the South the Vaishya castes have similar names. F.e Naidus of Andhra, Naickers of Tamil Nadu and Nayars of Kerala are regarded as Vaishyas. Shettys of Karnataka have counterparts in Tamil Nadu as Chettiars and Reddys of Andhra have counterparts Reddiars in Tamil Nadu.

In North and Central India, Vaishyas are commonly referred to as Baniyas and in South India they are also referred to as Vanikars. In fact the word has crept into Tamil vocabulary, vaniyam means finance.

In Bengal, there is the dalit caste called Chandalas and in Tamil Nadu as well the dalits are called Sandalas and it is a derogatory word.

In North India the farmers and peasants(craftsmen, labourers) are called by their Varna as Shudras and even far South in Tamil Nadu the Tamil Brahmins call their house sweeper as Shudrachinnis.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

If Brahman is indeed an Aryan word, how is Brahman caste called in Tamil language, for example?


Its the same everywhere, Brahmana. But Tamils use the term Swami and interestingly in Malaysia the word means husband probably due to Brahmin males taking local Malay women as their wives.

In North India, they also use the term Punditji and Tamils use the term Pandithaari.

Vaishyas and Kshatriyas have many ethnic groups.

In North India Rajputs are a common Kshatriya caste. In Andhra Pradesh there are a caste who consider themselves Kshatriyas called Rajus and they claim descent from Rajputs.

I reckon most of the caste terminology is derived etymologically.

You have to understand though that the 3 High Castes only settled in the North West and expanded from thereon. So wherever else they settled they are just an extension.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 01 Dec 2009 at 13:56
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 03:28
Originally posted by Mangel_Pandey Mangel_Pandey wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I agree that most likely the origins of the Indian castes are "socio-cultural" rather than ethnic. But it perhaps was indeed complicated by some ethnic issues in Northern India. And, in any case, the Indian Caste system is quite unique.


So now you are making statements like as if you have studied about it with great detail?

Your statements are absurd, "ethnic issues in Northern India"? wtf are you talking about?
 
Try to make a mental effort to understand what was written there before getting absurdily angry...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 08:18
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Originally posted by Mangel_Pandey Mangel_Pandey wrote:

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I agree that most likely the origins of the Indian castes are "socio-cultural" rather than ethnic. But it perhaps was indeed complicated by some ethnic issues in Northern India. And, in any case, the Indian Caste system is quite unique.
So now you are making statements like as if you have studied about it with great detail? Your statements are absurd, "ethnic issues in Northern India"? wtf are you talking about?

 

Try to make a mental effort to understand what was written there before getting absurdily angry...


Keywords: complicated and ethnic issues

You stated that the origin of Indian castes were, perhaps, socio-cultual and then complicated by, some, ethnic issues.

Did'nt make much sense when I was sleepy back then, don't make sense when I'm wide awake now either.

I'm telling you that the "Aryan" - I prefer to use the term proto-Indic speakers - tribes immediately subjugated the agriculturalists that they encountered the moment they set eyes on them.

Even in North West India where the whole population, the Shudras and dalits included, have clear Caucasoid admixture. There is subracial difference.

The pariahs are short and gracile. The Higher Castes are robust, tall and have a general aggressive and powerful appearance.

I have heard of arguements that caste system is not based upon race and that region rather than caste is a precursor of determining phenotypes/race.

In the South and East of India its general saying that Brahmins can be distinguished merely by glance from a crowd of pariahs.

Then there is also this understanding that North West India is physically different from South and East India. The bulk of Indian population regardless of region - the only exception I know of is Mangalore - is composed of pariahs.

A recent dna study revealed that the pariahs of Uttar Pradesh, North West India; Lodi and Sahariya were less West Eurasian/Europid/Caucasoid then the Vaishyas of Andhra Pradesh, South East India; Naidu and Velama.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 02 Dec 2009 at 08:40
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 12:03
My clarification for some unusually gifted ones...
 
There is an ancient society were people are basically divided into 3 classes class A - priests, class B- warriors, class C - commoners. Classes A & B are basically considered masters and nobility. The origins of the system are complitely indigenous and are rooted in local socio-cultural history of the given society.
 
Then there is an invasion by aggressive war like tribe that conquers our society. But, although, the invaders are strong enough to subdue the locals they do not posses enough "soft" influence to break the local culture and remake it based on their own pattern. So, slowly, the invaders start to adobt to the local circumstances. Of course, they as conquerers blend into the nobility strata of the local society which are classes A and B. So, A & B classes although local in origin (appeared because of socio-economic reasons) in time will have a disproportionary high percent of the "blood" of the conquerors' tribe, while the class C will have minimum.
 
That is exactly "socio-cultural complicated by ethnic"...
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 13:20
Laying down the definition does not mean much other than scoping into the word while leaving out the collective meaning of what all the words in the sentence make.

Again,

keywords: origin > caste system > social cultural complicated by ethnic issues in Northern India. complicated how? ethnic issues what? Northern India why? Why not elsewhere.

I did'nt say you were entirely wrong. I'm just sayin' go head tell me watchu mean.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 02 Dec 2009 at 13:21
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Dec 2009 at 14:05
Why not eslewhere? Because it's believed that the genetic influence of the "Aryan invaders" is most visible in North India, while in the South the original Tamil genetic pool was largely left intact.
 
So, if the theory that the castes had appeared before the Aryans invaded is true, it might have been that the Aryan invaders blended with the two high castes in Northern India so, there, in the North of India, the original socio-cultural concept of caste also got an ethnic "master race" dimension, while in the South it remained as it was before, because Aryans did not reach that far to the South.
 
But that is just a theory, anyway. And I'm not saying that it was like that, but that it might have been like that.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2010 at 13:20
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Why not eslewhere? Because it's believed that the genetic influence of the "Aryan invaders" is most visible in North India,


I honestly think you don't know what you are talking about. There was never any invasion of any sort. Aryans were Vedic tribes that migrated into India and not simply invaders.

Vedic people became "high caste" Hindus. So "Aryans" as a whole settled in Punjab/Kashmir as a whole at most and as sporadic sprinkling throughout the North West.

The lighter skin and sharper features of "low caste" North-Western Indians from Southern/Eastern Indians is owing to their neolithic West Eurasian agriculturalist aka Dravidian ancestry and not "Aryan". Although like I said in Punjab, every caste has to some degree at least such an influence.

Quote while in the South the original Tamil genetic pool was largely left intact.


There has had been several waves of West Eurasians/Caucasoids into India prior and after "Aryan" migration. Aryans were just culturally and historically significant.

Quote So, if the theory that the castes had appeared before the Aryans invaded is true,


IMO Dravidians may have created the caste system or atleast set the basis for it. They must have been a seperate agriculturalist endogamous group.

Quote it might have been that the Aryan invaders blended with the two high castes in Northern India so



"high caste" = Brahmins/Kshatriyas/Vaishyas.

Quote there, in the North of India, the original socio-cultural concept of caste also got an ethnic "master race" dimension,



Wtf? there was never any concept of "master race" as explicitly as you state.

Quote while in the South it remained as it was before, because Aryans did not reach that far to the South.


You're completely ignorant. There are Brahmins and "Upper Classes" in the South as well.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2010 at 14:30
I honestly think you don't understand what you are trying to read and this is not my problem. It is not worth to comment arrogant nonsesne that you write again and again.
 
I do not "state" anything, I'm just explaining a theory. Work on your comprehension skills.
 
Good luck.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2010 at 18:03
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:


It is not worth to comment arrogant nonsesne that you write again and again.


Arrogant nonsense? Whose the one being condescending here? You seem to deliver sweeping statements without the slightest disregard.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I do not "state" anything,


Yes you "stated" your ideas on the origin and formation of caste system. Which are greatly flawed.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I'm just explaining a theory.


Theories are postulated upon great understanding on a given subject.

Don't go to war without ammo.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 22 Jan 2010 at 18:09
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4303
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jan 2010 at 01:00
Instead of trying to understand what other members write in this thread you simply write "wt..." the polite way to comment that would be call it "arrogant nonsense."
 
And I also saw another comment about me in your post above that you already deleted. You should know that there is a Code of Conduct of this forum and either way, you'll have to comply it and respect other member regardless of your "advanced" knowledge of Indian history or you'll be forced to leave.
 
I'm not debating with you anymore, it's not interesting at all, neither productive, but I had to give you a warning regarding your attitude. Peace
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Mangel_Pandey View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 52
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mangel_Pandey Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jan 2010 at 13:09
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

Instead of trying to understand


How can one not respond without understanding what they are responding to?

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

what other members write in this thread you simply write "wt..."d


Say what?

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

And I also saw another comment about me in your post above that you already deleted.d


I editted whatever I thought was rather distasteful. My purpose here is to discuss logically not pick feuds.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

You should know that there is a Code of Conduct of this forum and either way, you'll have to comply it and respect other member regardless of your "advanced" knowledge of Indian history or you'll be forced to leave.


And you're telling me that because you're done with this debate correct? Because its my fault that you decided to talk about something like as if you know it. And all I did was correct you.

Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

I'm not debating with you anymore, it's not interesting at all, neither productive, but I had to give you a warning regarding your attitude. Peaced


Yeah and when you say certain things, that are untrue and even give a bad image, of a highly controversial and important system which is the very fundamental basis of how the Hindu society works. God forbid I defend myself and perhaps show a little emotion while at it.

I'm not interested in discussing, I only want to clear many misconceptions like "caste has race basis".

Bottomline, there are black australoid Tamil Brahmins and fair "Aryan" dalits/low castes.

Most Indians have brown skin. Which is due to climate. For the same reason the Gondh Australoid tribes of the North are brown, the Mongoloid Nagas - who have sharper features than Southern Chinese are - brown, most "Aryan" Indians are also brown, the pure lineage Arab migrants(High Caste Muslims) Sheikhs/Sharifs/Sayyids - who have clear Arabid facial structure - are brown, Indian Christians with Lebanese/Syrian ancestry are brown and Persian Zoroastrians aka Parsis are all brown.

Edited by Mangel_Pandey - 28 Jan 2010 at 17:57
Back to Top
Vajra View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jul 2010 at 18:03
Caste system is definitely not an Issue in India ATM considering many lower caste have high position jobs and powerful political leaders. 

And caste system was not based on "race" by some imaginary "Aryan" race yada yada yada It is similar to how "Class System " works now days.

Quote from Mahabharata

Lord Krishna as saying, in response to the question  How is Varna (social order/cast) determined? 

 Birth is not the cause, my friend it is virtues which are the cause of auspiciousness. Even a Shudra (lower varna) observing the vow is considered a Brahman by the gods.
 
 The four fold division of varna was created according to the apportionment of qualities and duties. 

  Not birth, not sacrament, not learning, make one dvija (twice-born), but righteous conduct alone causes it.

 Be he a Sudra or a member of any other class, says the Lord in the same epic, he that serves as a raft on a raftless current ,or helps to ford the unfordable, deserves respect in everyway. 

I hope this clears all misconceptions. LOL


Edited by Vajra - 22 Jul 2010 at 18:06
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jul 2010 at 13:22
The past has its own integrity, the present naught but rationalizations. The ordering of the world has always been thus.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2010 at 22:56
I hope this link will help in having a better understanding about the Indian caste and tribe genetics

Back to Top
ranjithvnambiar View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ranjithvnambiar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Aug 2010 at 00:29

The Aryan Invasion Theory is False - Genetic Evidence

  • No trace of “demographic disruption” in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE; this negates the possibility of any massive intrusion, by so-called Indo-Aryans or other populations, during that period.
  • Deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split [between Europeans and Indians] is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe.”
  • Haplogroup U, being common to North Indian and “Caucasoid” populations, was found in tribes of eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals, which would not be the case if it had been introduced through Indo-Aryans. Such is also the case of the haplogroup M, another marker frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence of an invasion: in reality, haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%, across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. Tribal populations have higher frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations.”
- U.S. anthropologists Kenneth Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill.

  • Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.”  There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’ — that is,  part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.
- U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.

  • There is a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity, pointing to a relatively small founding group of females in India. Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations is between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation.
- Scientists Susanta Roychoudhury and thirteen others studying 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups.

  • mtDNA haplogroup “M” common to India (with a frequency of 60%), Central and Eastern Asia (40% on average), and even to American Indians; however, this frequency drops to 0.6% in Europe, which is “inconsistent with the ‘general Caucasoidness’ of Indians.” This shows, once again, that “the Indian maternal gene pool has come largely through an autochthonous history since the Late Pleistocene.” U haplogroup frequency 13% in India, almost 14% in North-West Africa, and 24% from Europe to Anatolia. “Indian and western Eurasian haplogroup U varieties differ profoundly; the split has occurred about as early as the split between the Indian and eastern Asian haplogroup M varieties. The data show that both M and U exhibited an expansion phase some 50,000 years ago, which should have happened after the corresponding splits.” In other words, there is a genetic connection between India and Europe, but a far more ancient one than was thought.
  • If one were to extend methodology used to suggest an Aryan invasion based on Y-Dna statistics to populations of Eastern and Southern India, one would be led to an exactly opposite result: “the straightforward suggestion would be that both Neolithic (agriculture) and Indo-European languages arose in India and from there, spread to Europe.” The authors do not defend this thesis, but simply guard against “misleading interpretations” based on limited samples and faulty methodology.
  • The Chenchu tribe is genetically close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear distinction between Indian castes and tribes.

- Twenty authors headed by Kivisild - Archaeogenetics of Europe - 2000.

  • “Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the linguistically defined groups in India should be considered more ‘autochthonous’ than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent.”

- Mait Metspalu and fifteen co-authors analyzing 796 Indian and 436 Iranian mtDNAs. 2001.

  • Geneticist Toomas Kivisild led a study (2003) in which comparisons of the diversity of R1a1 (R-M17) haplogroup in Indian, Pakistani, Iranian, Central Asian, Czech and Estonian populations. The study showed that the diversity of R1a1 in India, Pakistan, and Iran, is higher than in Czechs (40%), and Estonians[12].
  • Kivisild came to the conclusion that "southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup": "Haplogroup R1a, previously associated with the putative Indo-Aryan invasion, was found at its highest frequency in Punjab but also at a relatively high frequency (26%) in the Chenchu tribe. This finding, together with the higher R1a-associated short tandem repeat diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, suggests that southern and western Asia might be the source of this haplogroup".[12]
  • “Given the geographic spread and STR diversities of sister clades R1 and R2, the latter of which is restricted to India, Pakistan, Iran, and southern central Asia, it is possible that southern and western Asia were the source for R1 and R1a differentiation.     ”

- Kivilsid - 2003


  • Based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations, it announced in its very title how its findings revealed a “Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,” i.e. of the Indo-Aryans, and stated its general agreement with the previous study. For instance, the authors rejected the identification of some Y-DNA genetic markers with an “Indo-European expansion,” an identification they called “convenient but incorrect ... overly simplistic.” To them, the subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed much earlier than the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan immigration: “The influence of Central Asia on the pre-existing gene pool was minor. ... There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has been necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the R1a lineages.”
  • “Dravidian” authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilization rejected indirectly, since it noted, “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus....” They found, in conclusion, “overwhelming support for an Indian origin of Dravidian speakers.”
  • The frequencies of R2 seems to mirror the frequencies of R1a (i.e. both lineages are strong and weak in the same social and linguistic subgroups). This may indicate that both R1a and R2 moved into India at roughly the same time or co-habited, although more research is needed. R2 is very rare in Europe.

Sanghamitra Sengupta, L. Cavalli-Sforza, Partha P. Majumder, and P. A. Underhill. - 2006.


  • “The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some Indian-specific lineages northward.”
  • “The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo-Aryan language family.”
  • “Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomal haplogroup compositions.” As a result, “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations between the caste and tribal pools,” a conclusion that directly clashes with the Aryan invasion theory which purports that male European Aryans chased tribal adivasis and aboriginals down south.

Sanghamitra Sahoo,  T. Kivisild and V. K. Kashyap. -  2006.


  • When Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa, he first reached South-West Asia around 75,000 BP, and from here, went on to other parts of the world. In simple terms, except for Africans, all humans have ancestors in the North-West of  the Indian peninsula. In particular, one migration started around 50,000 BP towards  the Middle East and Western Europe: “indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.”

-Lluís Quintana-Murci,Vincent Macaulay,Stephen Oppenheimer,Michael Petraglia,and their associates

  • “For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17(Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a, associated with the male Aryan invasion theory) and his ancestors; and sure enough we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia, but diversity characterizes its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India. One average estimate for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years. All this suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally coming into Europe.”

-Stephen Oppenheimer

  • A (2009) study headed by geneticist Swarkar Sharma, collated information for 2809 Indians (681 Brahmins, and 2128 tribals and schedule castes). The results showed "no consistent pattern of the exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most caste, Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals". Brahmins from West Bengal showed the highest frequency (72.22%) of Y-haplogroups R1a1* hinting that it may have been a founder lineage for this caste group. The authors found it significant that the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh had not only 28.07% R1a1, but also 22.8% R1a*, out of 57 people, with such a high percentage of R1a* never having been found before. Based on STR variance the estimated age of R1a* in India was 18,478 years, and for R1a1 it was 13,768 years.
  • In its conclusions the study proposed "the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins" as well as "the origin of R1a1* ... in the Indian subcontinent".
  • S. Sharma, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.
- Sharma et al 2009

  • "This paper rewrites history... there is no north-south divide."
  • "There is no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral north and south Indians had settled in India."
  • The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally upper and lower castes and tribal groups. "The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society."
  • "Impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different."
  • The present-day Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the Ancestral North Indian (ANI) and the Ancestral South Indian (ASI).
  • "The initial settlement took place 65,000 years ago in the Andamans and in ancient south India around the same time, which led to population growth in this part,'' said Thangarajan. He added, "At a later stage, 40,000 years ago, the ancient north Indians emerged which in turn led to rise in numbers here. But at some point of time, the ancient north and the ancient south mixed, giving birth to a different set of population. And that is the population which exists now and there is a genetic relationship between the population within India."
  • The study also helps understand why the incidence of genetic diseases among Indians is different from the rest of the world. Singh said that 70% of Indians were burdened with genetic disorders and the study could help answer why certain conditions restricted themselves to one population. For instance, breast cancer among Parsi women, motor neuron diseases among residents of Tirupati and Chittoor, or sickle cell anaemia among certain tribes in central India and the North-East can now be understood better, said researchers.
  • The researchers, who are now keen on exploring whether Eurasians descended from ANI, find in their study that ANIs are related to western Eurasians, while the ASIs do not share any similarity with any other population across the world.
Thangaraj and Singh at a press conference.

"Reconstructing Indian Population History"
- David Reich, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Nick Patterson, Alkes L. Price & Lalji Singh
- 2009
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.