# An Introduction to Dravidian Philology/The Dravidian Culture-Complex

THE DRAVIDIAN CULTURE-COMPLEX.
South India, along with the rest of India, has been the meeting-ground of many races and many cultures The stratigraphical method of the geologist, the paleontological method of the fossil-collector, the method of the Ethnographist, and the typological method, have all contributed to the construction of the pre-history of man, and when applied to India have brought to light a whole vista of facts necessitating a readjustment in the old-world theories and a revaluation and newer synthesis of the various points of view that have been advanced from time to time on the discovery of isolated facts. Thus, while the scholars of a former generation postulated the migration of peoples into India from the North beyond the Himalayas and would not think of any other, ​five cycles of migration from the East and the West have been soughr to be established by later researches. In the first place, the rudest Paleolithic culture of Tasmania represented by the rudely chipped stones, implements of wood and stone, a lance-like staff, primitive rafts and simple leaf-shelters, finds its counterpart among the Andamanese nearer home Secondly, the rude Neo-lithic culture represented by the Boomerang and shelters with roof and wells of Australia is echoed among the pre-Dravidian or Negroid tribes in the Deccan. Then, a later culture represented by elaborate sociological divisions, conical huts and propulsuers characterising the totem of Australia, call to mind the corresponding totemistic organisation among the Todas and pre-Dravidians of Chota Nagpur. Again, what is called the Cycle of Masks denoted by agriculture in a primitive form and the use of masks and ​so on is a characteristic of the Australians, the Sinhalese and such other people. Lastly, the bow of warfare represents a further advance and is found in many varied forms among the aboriginese of Australia on the one side and the Nagas of Assam on the other.
Now, the same points of contact in prehistoric culture that subsist between the Australians and the Indians are found among the inhabitants of South Africa. The existence of close affinities between the flora and fauna of these three portions of the world leads to the postulate of a remote continuous stretch of land extending from Australia through India to Africa. Geologists also assert the connection of this vast stretch of land with China, to all of which they give the name of Lemuria.
The problem of the Todas is still involved in obscurity. In the ​Nilgiris are found pottery figurines which ethnologists would connect with the Todas. If so, they show a connection with the Armenoid culture and the terracotta figurines riding on horse-back with prominent noses and flowing beards suggest affinities with Asia Minor. Again, it is urged that certain cultural elements of the proto-Egyptian civilization still survive in the Deccan. The antiquarian remains of Crete, Mycenae, and Hissarlic (Troy) point to some connection with South India. It has been asserted once more that the bulk of Indian historical culture is Aryo-Erythraen, which in its Erythraen aspect is at least as old as the Bronze Age I or the pre-Mycenaen epoch or the Chalcolithic stage in Egypt, Sumer, Elam and Enau. Anthropological research does not stop here, but takes us back to Late-Tertiary and Quaternary times. On top of all this comes the contact of South India with ​Aryan culture, leading us down to the proto-historic age in India.
Thus, the panorama of history is ever widening before us and India is being brought in cultural relation with the various races and nations of the earth. The recent excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro have given rise to another train of thought and laid before us the scene of a stage of civilization whose contacts with other civilizations awai to be properly evaluated. The world is anxiously looking forward to the results of the labours of scholars in the interpretation of the pictographs found on these sites.
While this is so, speculation has been set on foot to go still further behind the point where the anthropologists have reached with respect to India. The study of Paleolithic forms with their successive phases of pre-Chellean, Chellean, Acheullean, ​Mousterian, Aurignacian, Solutrian, Magdalenian, and Azelian, is now intently carried on, extending our vision beyond the Metallic and Neolithic ages. Thus, samples of culture of India are found at various plaees and a tentative chronological classification is advanced:— ​
| | | Early Paleo-lithic age, Nerbudda. |
| | | Mid Paleo-lithic age, Neanderthaloid, Kurnool. |
| | | Upper Paleolithic age, Cromagnoid, Negroid |
| | 9000 B.C. (Solla's date for the Azilian phase | Late-Paleolithic, Australoid |
| Indo Australian | 7000 B.C. (Neolithic, Egypt and Elamite culture) | Early Neolithic- Veddaici |
| | 5500 B.C. Pietric and Manctho's date for the coming of dynastic peoples in Egypt) | Neolithic, Indo- African, Dravidian. |
| Indo Erythrean | (4000 B.C. Semitic movements in Asia Minor) | Eneolithic-Central- Asiatic and Toda. |
| | 2500 B.C. (Jacobi's date for Rigvedic beginnings) | Early copper-Long headed Indo-European |
| Indo Aryan | 1000 B.C. (Oldenbere's date for Rigvedic culture). | Bronze and Iron- Broad-headed Indo European |
Now, it has become a matter for speculation whether all these cultures are indegenous to India and radiated in different directions to all quarters of the globe, or India is only the central meeting ground and is halting place for the various cultures which had found their origin in various parts of the world. It is not necessary here to enter into the merits of this controversy, but we may be satisfied with the generally ​received opinion of Lord Avebury that "it is in the warmer regions of the Earth that we may reasonably find the earliest traces of the human race," and of Dr Haddon that "there can be little doubt that man evolved somewhere in Southern Asia, possibly during Pliocene and Miocene times."
Granting, then, that India was the early scene of Man's evolution, where and in what part exactly did Man first appear? This question is as futile as it is unnecessary at the present stage, considering the paucity of materials to build theories upon. As Sir Arthur Keith says, “It: (India) is part of the world from which the student of early Man has expected 80 much and so far has obtained so little". No systematic survey of the pre-historic reroains has been carried on and the little glimpses that we have of early history are based on the chance discoveries of isolated ​scholars during the last fifty years. No doubt, there has been a respectable collection of pre-historic remains, but they are simply deposited in the various museums of India and still await systematic study. It has become a fashion for some time past and especially among writers in South India to attribute everything to a Tamilian origin. The investigations into the Tamil language by early Missionaries like Pope, Winslow, Rottler and others, and the one-sided conclusions of Caldwell with regard to the antiquity of the Dravidian languages and culture have emboldened others to pursue the theme to the entire exclusion of other and more important factors that ought to enter into any impartial account of the development of any culture. A certain author argues the case, in contravention of the impartial attitude adumbrated at the beginning of his book, and arrives at his preconceived conclusions and ​says, “Hence, we shall not be far wrong if we infer that South India gave a refuge to survivors of the Deluge, that the culture developed in Lemuria was carried to South India after its submergence and that South India was probably the cradle of the post-diluvian human race. As the centre of gravity of the Dravidian peoples, as determined by the density of their population, lies somewhere about Mysore, South India must be considered as the home of those peoples whence they might have spread to the North,” And again, “Nevertheless, it is perhaps not too bold to assert that future discoveries and dipassionate researches may ultimately lead to the universal acceptance of the view that the Dravidians were living iu South India from the remotest antiquity”. Others again are not wanting who would restrict the original home of Man to a particular corner of the Tamil country. Thus ​we find a large number of Southern writers who are harping on this theme, which, if not by the soundness of argument, at least by a process of repetition, may come to be accepted by the general historian who has not the leisure or the inclination to examine the validity of this contention.
This narrow outlook must, however, be given up, for it does not fit in with known facts. The Burma Rostro-Carinate find of Dr. Noetling, the agate chip from the Godavery, and the Boucher from the Nerbudda are considered to belong to types of culture and to times which cannot be brought down later than the eariiest Pleistocene stage. These Rostra-Carinates are said to represent pre-Chellean culture and are also recovered from Chakradharpur in Chota Nagpur and Cuddapah. The early and Middle Paleolithic Indians are thought to have mustered strong in the Cuddapah, Guntur and Nellore ​Districts and the neighbouring tracts of Madras. Logan says, “The Man of the quartzite and most ancient period appears to have inhabited the coast from Orissa to South Arcot and inland as far as Kurnool. From Arcot, a colony detached itself to Tanjore and Madura where quartzoze was used in the place of quartzite, and from Kurnool another branch passed across Tungabhadra perhaps leaving out Bellary, and colonized the Southern Maharata country" This phase of culture is also illustrated by specimens from Bundelkhand and Jaipur Cuddapah, especially, seems to be the centre of the culture of the Paleolithic Man, as this district is practically the home of the quartzite formation, and thus had the best attractions for the primitive settlers. An advance on this Chellean culture iš in evidence in the District of Chengalpat, Arcot, Madras and the Southern Maharatta country. In Kur​nool have been found the earliest of cave-dwellings in Billa Surgam near Banaganapalli, Yerrazari and Yegunta. These belong to the Pleistocene age. Some remains of Krishna and Kathiawar along with the Banda remains belong to the post-Karnul epoch. The Chakradharpur finds of Mr. Panchanan Mitra and Anderson represent the close of tbis epoch and indicate several later stages of culture. Prehistoric art is represented by etchings from Bellary, From the Kappagallu in the Bellary district have been reported more than twenty groups of birds and beasts of various degrees of artistic execution. Among them occur the figures of obscure human beings and elephants. The most interesting of these figures is a hunting scene in which two men are seen proceeding towards a bull with upraised right arms, as if for hurling javelines and having something like shields on their left arms. There is ​also another part of the delineation of a six-rayed star. All these figures are found in a Neolithic site. Bellary along with Salem and Madura, is considered undoubtedly the centre of Neolithic culture, as Cuddapah was of the early and mid-Paleolithic culture Bellary is identified with the Kiskindha of the Ramayana, the home of Vali and Sugriva The monkey-like beings described therein are considered to probably belong to Neolithic times, having their counterparts among the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Dasaratha, the father of Rama, occurs also in Egyptian legend, and the word Ra-amu has a Hamitic ring. However that may be, the Neolithic settlements are of such fascinating interest that it is tempting to say something about them. Here "all sorts of Neolithic weapons and implements were found in abundance. Only from Kappagallu aloue 180 celts were recovered. The North ​East slope of the hill was apparently a Neolithic factory-site and the largest manufacturing industry of polished stones in India flourished there." "No less than 77 pre-historic sites were discovered near that place and in the outlying tracts, and there is no doubt that a large and extensive civilization flourished there. The people, though they still adhered to the primitive forms of life, offered stubborn resistance to the invading races from the North with higher cultures. The cinder mounds in the contiguous districts retain unmistakable traces of big encampments and huge conflagrations and there was most probably a tussle between some bringer of Northern culture with equatorial tribes flourishing with their older type of civilization. Thus on the road from Bellary to Dharwar Rocks a remarkable mound consisting of slaggy cinders full 50 feet high and 400 ft. in circumference is met with." ​The celts found on these sites are in various stages of manufacture. The abundant varieties of mealing-stones, corn-crushers and pounding-stones indicate that they had passed the hunting stage aud were settling down to agricultural pursuits, Their peaceful instruments are more abundant than weapons of war, and they were more vegetarian than carnivorous. Their articles of domestic use show that they had a fascination for colour. The small tools were made of beautiful chert, agate, chalcedony, bloo'stone, Indian stone and rock-crystal Knives, saws, drills and lancets were made from the fakes struck off for them and went to make up the economic comforts of their household. “They had numerous fine rock-shelters. The presence of straw in cinder mounds perhaps indicates that they also lived in thatched houses. But they took their habitation mostly in the citadels on the ​hills and on the little shallow sloping valleys. They perhaps knew how to smelt iron."
We now enter on the Megalithic age where proto history begins. References to this age occur in the Vedas and the Brahmanas. A rapid survey of the movements of culture in South India has been given above just to show that the advocates of Tamilikkam being the original home of Man, to the exclusion of every other, are claiming too much for their point of view. So far as we know, there have not yet come to light any traces in Tamilikkam of the Pleistocene Man and of the rest also the finds are not 80 abundant as to warrant a theory of the kind advanced by the Tamilikkam advocates. The finds at Adichanallur are made much of by them, but with regard to them, it has been said by scholars that the Megalithic skulls of the kind found there range in India from Neolithic (C. 4000 B. C.) to late. ​Metallic times (C 5000 B C.) and thus they are useless for their purpose Their contention based on such meagre evidence, would indeed be less tenable than, for example, if we advance the theory that, because a large number of antiquarian remains have been unearthed in the Andhra country and the Central Deccan Plateau as shown above, representing almost every phase of the life of pre-historic Man, those parts of Southern India must have been the original home of Man. In fact these evidences are ubiquitous throughout the whole of India and no one portion can definitely be said to represent the original home of Man. We are yet in the beginning of studies in this direction and it is too soon to hazard any theory on the existing facts.
The truth, however, seems to be that the on-called Dravidians are not indegenous to India in pre-historic ​times. Ruggeiri, the great anthropologist says, "Every thing induces us to hold that the Dravidians have really been a small number of invaders who have introduced their languages, and even that not everywhere, since in the Munda-Kol Zone languages more ancient have been preserved. It is logical to hold that, if those languages have remained in spite of the Dravidian influences, those who speak them should also have been little contaminated. There is, therefore, no reason to consider them as Platyrrhine Dravidians, but certainly as Veddaic or Australoid, and from the fact that between the Munda-Kols of the North and the Veddas of the South, there intervene other Platyrrhines (Paniyans etc.,) these latter also represent the same ancient pre-Dravidan formation which, at one time, extended over the whole of India and has always been much less affected by the ​newcomers (Dravidians, Aryans etc.,) Thus by the time proto history begins, the Dravidians could not have been in Southern India. And as this stratum of culture is widely held to be Austro-Indo-African, we cannot Assert that Dravidian affinities should be discovered among the people of this region
The term "Dravidian" has been & much abused word. Ever since Caldwell wrote his “Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages" a new turn has been given to its signification which has so much established itself in philological and anthropological discussions that there seems to be no chance at present for its being properly understood in its historical light. But from the earliest times, as the name of a set of languages or of a particular language, it was understood to constitute one of the Prakrit languages. It was con​sidered a 'vibhasba', which Caldwell renders as 'a minor Prakrit', but which must be considered as one of those Prakrits which the grammars did not take special notice of, being one of the many widely distributed Prakrits which had not been specially studied because there was no extensive literature found written in them to allow them to formulate the principles on which they were constructed. At least, they were perhaps not acqnainted with those languages The 'Dravidi Prakrit' was evidently included among the so-called Paisaci Prakrits, about which we shall deal presently. That at least the Telugu language had its origin in a variety of Paisaci seems to be the opinion of some of the Telugu Grammarians The term Dravidi as the name of a Prakrit has been consistently used by scholars till the time of Caldwell'. Babu Rajendralal Mitra speaks of the Dravidi as one of the ​recognized Prakrits equally with the ‘Sauraseni' and as being, like it, the parent cf some of the present verna. culars of India
Even if we take 'Dravida' as the name of a set of people, we come to the same conclusion. Dravida, Karnata, Gurjjara, Maharashtra and Tailinga are alluded to as constituting the five Dravidian tribes and are brought in juxtaposition with the five Gauda tribes Kannoja, Gauda, Maithila, Utkala and Saraswata. If the Gurjjars and the Maharashtras have racial affinities with the five Gauda tribes, the connection between the Gaudas and the Dravidas also is established. Thus, racially and lingustically alike, ancient writers seem to have thought there were affinities with the modern Aryans of North India and the Dravidians of the South.
​'Dravida' is a very ancient word in the Sanskrit literature. Manu includes the Dravidas among the Vrishalas or cut-castes along with Pundrakas, Odras, Kambjojas, Yavanas, Sakas, Paradas Pallavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas and Khasas. But he acknowledges then as once having belonged to the Kshatriya Aryan tribes and says that they were gradually excluded from the Aryan fold because they did not conform to the Brahumannic practices as they were then understood. If the Andhras are to be included under the Dravidians and indentified with the Telugus, they also once belonged to the Aryan tribes, for they are found mentioned in the Aitareya Brahamana along with the Pundras. Sabaras and Pulindas as degraded descendants of Viswamitra. This statement is confirmed by the Mahabharata The dynastic names of the Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras who all held sway in Southern ​India are Aryan in their ring and there were free marital relations between them and the Aryan dynasties of North India.
The attitude of Caldwell towards the problem of the affiliation of the Dravidian languages is puzzling to a degree. He appears to bave made up his mind with regard to the Sythian theory, and although he is fair enough to take notice of Indo-European affinities, he would brush them aside and hunt after the Scythian languages for light and would fain make use of such far-fetched scraps of analogies as he would get at. There is not a detail discussed in his Grammar to which he cannot find an analogy in the Indo-European tongues, and yet he cannot bring his mind to acknowlege it. And yet from very early times the writers of Dravidian Grammar have perceived some sort of connection between Sanskrit and the Southern Indian languages and have called ​them 'vaikritas'. But the pity is, they have not worked up their contention and taken pains to show how the two are connected It is not strange that they did not do it, because no direct connection could be perceived on the surface in point of grammar between the two. However, they contented themselves by showing a direct connection in point of vocabulary, by formulating the "Tatsama' and 'Tadbhava' divisions of each of the Dravidian languages, and contented themselves with relegating the rest to the class of 'desya'. Under 'tatsama' and 'tadbhava' again, they made a distinction between Samskritsama and Prakritasama and Samskritabhava and Prakritabhava. on the other. Indeed their Prakritasamas and Samskritabhavas could be traced to Prakrit originals. But in the affiliation of languages, vocabulary does not count, unless analogies and derivations could be established ​with regard to the grammatical structure also.
Now, however, the Scythian theory of Caldwell is generally rejected by scholars and in thus rejecting it, they have also declined to see any affinity between the Dravidian and the Aryan languages. Caldwell's achievement, therefore, lay only in the perception of unity and homogeneity among the Dravidian languages. Thus, by the rejection of relationship either with the Scythian or the Indo-European, the Dravidian languages have come to acquire a unique position, a position of isolation from any of the known families of languages. It must, however, be acknowledged that the complete unity among the Dravidian languages established by Caldwell was no small an achievement in itself. We shall now proceed to examine whether this isolation of the Dravidian family of languages can be accepted or ​whether we can reopen the question of Indo-European affinities.
The problem of the Brahui language of Baluchistan and the statements with regard to the Paisaci languages made by grammarians may come to our aid in establishing fresh contacts. We shall consider the Paisaci languages first. The Aryan family of languages is well known to belong to the Indo-European languages. This Aryan family, according to the latest researches is sub-divided into (1) Iranian (Eranian or Erano-Aryan) languages (2) Indo Aryan or Sanskritic Indo-Aryan languages, Iranian being also grouped into persian and non-Persian. Of these the Paisaci languages include Pashai, spoken in Laghman in Afghanistan ; a number of Kafir dialects of which the principal are Bashgai, Wai, and Kalasha ; Khowar, the language of Chitral ; and Shina, that of Gilgit in the ​neighbourhood. Shina is the basis of Kashmiri, which is the most Southern of the Dard group of the Paisaci languages, and also of many mixed dialects spoken in the Indus and Swat-Kohistans, now being superseded by Pashto. Khowar occupies an independent position and the Kaffir dialects, at least five in number, differ widely from one another. Wagin Veri, the most Western of them agrees in some phonetic peculiarities with the purely Eranian Munjani. At the present day, these Paisaci languages occupy the three-sided tract of country between the Hindukush on the North-Western Frontier of British India.
This present position of the great Paisaci languages accords to a great extent with the place assigned to them by the Prakrit grammarians. Markandeya (17th century) mentions Kancidesiya, Pandya, Panchala, Gauda, Magadha, Vracada, Dakshi​natya, Saurasena, Kaikeya or Kaikaya, Sabara and Dravida as countries where the Paisaci languages are spoken Of these, he says, only three, namely, Kaikeya, Sourasena and Panchala are Nagara or civilized Ramatarka vagisa, perhaps also of the 17th century, mentions two varieties of Paisaci Viz, Kaikaya and (?) Chaska. He adds that the main Prakrits like the Mayadhi when incorrectly used become asuddha Paisacikas. Lakshmidbara refers to Paisaci as being spoken in Panuy?, Kekaya, Bahlika, Simha(la), Nepala Kuntala, Sudhesbna, Bota, Gandhara Haiva and Kapnojana.
From a perusal of the above lists, it would appear that the Paisaci-speaking people had distributed themselves over the whole of India. No doubt, the lists given above do not agree one with the other, but one at least, Kekays, is common to all of them Markandeya speaks of ​the Kekaya as the standard Paisaci in which Gunadhya is reputed to have written bis Bribatkatha. It is, however, contended by some scholars tbat Gunadhya was a South Indian and the Brihatkatha was composed in the Chuliks Paisaci, centuries before that late literary development in Kashmir which produced Kshemendra, Bilhana, Somnadeva and Kalhana, and that, therefore, it is as much possible that original Chulika Paisaci belonged to the Vindhyas as to Kashmir. Even graniting that this contention is correct, it does not affect the north Western crigin of the Privaci. The main characteristics of Paisacias laid down by Prakrit grammarians are reflected in the inscriptions of Asoka at Shahabazgarhi, a village ou the river Makam, nine miles from Mardan, the capital of the Yusufzai Taluk in Peshawar District of the N. W. Frontier province of India This points to Kekaya as being the original home of ​this dialect. Kekaya, as we know, was a great centre of culture from very early times, of which Takshasila is the chief seat, where Panini, and before him Buddha himself appear to have received their education. The standard Paisaci can therefore be most certainly located as a local dialect of Kekaya and Eastern Gandhara, lying in the extreme North-West of India.
Of the rest of the Paisaci speaking tracts mentioned by Markandeya Kanchidesiya, Pandya, Dakshinaty, Sabara and Dravida belong to Indiv South of the Vindhya mountain , as also the Sabya, Simhala, and Kannojana nanied by Lakshmidbara. Gauda and Magadha belong to the East of India above the Vindhyay. Pancala, is the Panjab. Sourasena is identified with modern Gujerat. Vararuci says the Sauraseni is the basis of the Paisaci. Vracada is modern Sindh. Nepala is well known, Kuntala is ​the country where the Narmada takes its rise of which Vidarbha is the capital. Sudheena is a certain forest tract. Bota is the hilly country of Assam. Haima is a hilly country at the foot of the Himalayas. Some call it Haiva and identify it with Hai, in the forest region of Nepal and Bhutan. These languages are perhaps to be designated as the Asuddha Paisacikas mentioned by Markandeya.
The wide distribution of these languages throughout India and the general concensus of opinion that the language of Kekaya represents the standard Paisaci points to the fact that there must have been at a very remote time, long before the Sanskritic Aryans entered India, an extensive eruption of the Paisaci speaking people overrunning the whole of India in gradual stages and mixing themselves with the aboriginal peoples. While these advanced in civilization ​in certain places, they succumbed to the aboriginal influences in certain others, and continued to live in a low state of culture.
Grierson, however, considers that these people left the main body of Aryans after the great fission which resulted in the Indo-Aryan migration but before all the typical peculiarities of Iranian speech had fully developed They are thus, he says, the representives of a stage of linguistic progress later than that of Sanskrit and earlier than that record. ed in the Iranian Avesta. The separation between the Iranians and the Indian Aryans, however, may not have taken place all at once, but might have begun even before the entry of the Aryans into India, and when they came to India, they had to encounter once more with their ancient rivals of Iran. The immigrants into Kashmir and the sorrounding country may perhaps be taken to ​represent a later migration of allied tribes into those parts
In the light of the above we come to understand why Manu should have included the Pundrakas, the Odras, Dravidas, Kambhojas, Yavanas, Sakas, Paradas, Pallavas, Chinas, Kiratas, Daradas and Khasas among the Vrishalas He does not consider them to be non-Aryan but only as apostates from the Aryan religion. We know that the Yavanas, Sakas, Paradas, Pallavas, Chinas and Daradas, all belong to the region beyond the North-Western Frontier of India and that even now, we find those races being represented there. We also have in this a glimpse into the reason why in the Aitareya Brahmana the Andhras, Pundras, Sabaras and Pulindas should be treated as Vratyas, the degraded descendants of Viswamitra. At any rate, their origin and relationship with the Indo Aryans has never been question​ed. We have also here & clue as to why all these tribes should have been brought together under the common contemptuous name of the Pisacas.
Why these were called the Pisacas can easily be surmised. We know that there was a great schism between the Iranians and the Aryans before they separated over religious and social practices. "Asura" in the Avesta is the mighty God, and "Daeva" the evil one, while the reverse is the case with the Aryans. There was a perpetual fight between the two, during the course of which some of the Asuras seems to have called truce and agreed to occupy a subordinate and yet important position in the Aryan fold. Varuna, for instance, is an Asura and get a god of the Aryans. How this came to pass may be accounted for by the fact that originally he was a powerful rival of Indra and passages can be quoted from the Rigveda to show ​that for some time they were each contending for the upper hand. But in course of time, Varuna contented himself with remaining in the Aryan fold by accepting sovereignty over the 'Antariksha' and administering the Rita or the Law. He seeing to have occupied a portion of the Aryan realm acting as a buffer between the Aryan domain in the Punjab and the wild Iranian tribes beyond the Himalayas. Similarly with the Maruts, originally Asuras, but accepting a subordinate yet important position in the hierarchy of the Aryan gods It is remarkable that no Suras are mentioned in the Rigveda, but only Asuras and the word Suras is only a late formation on mistaken etymology. That is why also the Asuras are called the Purvadevatah. Of the individual enemies of the Aryans, Ahi the dragon-cloud fiend, is found as Ajidabak, the biting serpent, among the Iranians. Vritra, the enfolder, is ​not also unknown among them. Of the tribes opposed to the Rigvedic Aryans, the Panis, the wealthy robber tribe, have a suggestive identity with the Parmiins, whom the Greek philosopher Strabo described as nomads- a sort of Eranian Bedouins having their abodes along the Oxus (modern Amu Darya). The Paravatas or mountaineers and the people whom the vedic Aryans fought are held to be the Parouetai. dwelling in the mountains, also of foreign Aryan stock (Hillebrandt). We now come to the Dasyus, who seem to have molested the Aryans in various ways. The word 'Dasyu' occurs in old Persian and the Achæmenian inscriptions as 'Dahya' also and consistently means only 'peoples' or 'aations'. But in the Veda, its meaning had gradually changed first as enemies and afterwards as fiends and evil demons. Some of the Dasyus are 'Krishna Tvacah' or dark-skinned ​and some not. Perhaps, they represent in a general way all those who were originally in occupation of the land and presented a stout opposition to the Aryan advance. The Dasyus are surmised to have been later on included, after their subjugation, into the Aryan society as the fourth caste or Sudras when the system of caste settled itself as an institution. However that may be, scholars like Edward Meyer, seek to identify them with the 'Dabae' a tribe nearly akin to the Eranians, located in the Kirghiz-Turkman steppe which extends from the Caspian Sea beyond the Yaxartes, now Syr Darya. The war-cry of the Dasyus 'he' layo, for 'he' rayo, i. e., the substitution of l for r is in consonance with the rule of the Culika Paisaci laid down by the Prakrit grammarians.
The term Brahui is the Cynderella of Dravidian philology and the ​race itself has been an ethnological mystery. Various attempts have been made to classify the Brahuis with the Dravidians, the Scythians, the Tatar Mountaineers, the Arabs and the Iranians. Some derive the word from the Persian 'Ba-rohi' caning ‘of the hills'. Others say it is connected with the eponym Braho or Brahin i. e., Ibrahim. Sometimes they are said to have relationship with the Jats or the Jadgal (Jagdal) consisting of the three tribes—the Mengals, the Bizangos and the Zehris. The Zaghar Mengal, a superior division of the Mengal tribe, believe they had come from a district called Zughd, somewhere near Samarkhand in Central Asia. "Men' without the 'gal' appears in the lists of Behistun inscriptions as the name of a tribe deported by Darius, the Achaemenian, for their turbulence. Sajdi, a Brahui tribal name, and Saga the name of a class of that tribe, are ​identified with the Sagatae and Saki of ancient writers and referred to the Scythian stock. The Brahuis say their ancestors came from Aleppo, but there is no evidence to confirm this. The latest and widely held opinion seems to be that they are of Dravidian stock lying isolated in the middle of Iranian tongnes, a way from their kinsmen and much Arabized. They are distinguished from the Baluchis and Pathans by being smaller and sturdier with rounder faces and flat, blunt and course features.
Amidst this diversity of opinion with regard to the Brahuis there is one very significant suggestion expressed by Dr. Gustav Oppert which may give us some insight into the problem. He believes that the word is in some way related to, if not identical with, that of the Baluchis and recognises their origin in the names of 'Paratas' and' Paradas' who dwelt in North-Eastern Baluchistan. ​He thinks that 'bra' is a contraction for 'bara' and says, "Thus in Brahui, is a name whose resemblance to that of the Paratas and Paravar and their kindred the Marathi Paravari and Dravidian Parheyas of Palaman is striking' If this identification of the Brahuis with the Paratas or Paradas is correct, as most probably it is, it gives us a clue to the history of this race and takes us back to Rigvedic times. The Baratas or Bharatas are, we know, a Rigvedic race. Sudas was the chief of the Tritsus. Against him a confederace of ten tribes was formed, among whom the Bharatas are the most important Visvamitra was originally the chief priest of Sudas, but he fell out with him and went over as the chief priest to the side of the Bharatas. Moreover, the Kusikas, to whom Viswamitara belonged were closely connected with the Bharatas. The Bharatas came to the Vipas and Sutudri accompanied ​by Viswamitra. The rivers were in full floods and gave way to them through his prayers, But Vasishta, the successor as chief priest and his rival, came to the aid of Sudas by his invocations and got a victory for the Tritsus. This information is important, for Viswamitra is always found connected with the opponents of the Aryans and all his descendants are known to be Vratyas, ie, those who had gone out of the Aryan fold Thus there appears to exist some connection between the Iranians and the Bharatas and though there exists some relationship between them and the story of the Mahabharata, they had gradually lost their individuality and gave place to, or got themselves merged in, the more powerful Kuru race. Possibly they contented themselves after their defeat to settle themselves in their original locality and it is just probable that the modern ​Brabuis are representative of the that Rigvedic race.
Thus we have reason to believe that racially the Brahuis are connected with the Iranians, just like the Baluchis alongside of whom they live. Most probably they belong to the group of the Paisaci speaking peoples, those non-Sanskritic Iranians who entered India before the Aryan immigration. But now they are like the Baluchis, so much influenced by Arab and Turkish influences that their Iranian identity is much obscured.
According to the census of 1921, the Brahuis number 137,082 souls in Baluchistan and are a little more than 200,000 including those found in Sindh In Baluchistan itself they are the majority group. In Kelat, they number 130.437 and in Chagal 1,404. But they form the minority in Quetta, Pishin, Sili and Las Bela and Bolan There are no Brahuis in the rest of ​the Districts of Loralai, Zhob and the Mari-Bugti country. They live among the Pathans, Sayyids, Baluchis, Jats, Dehwars, Lasis and Medes, all of whom form the indegenous population, wbile there is also a small amount of semi-indegenous and alien population.
The vernaculars of Baluchistan belong to three families, the Eranian Indian and Brahui, if this last with its much changed phonetic character could be regarded as separate from Eranian. Between these three, there is a perpetual struggle for mastery. There is a contest also among the dialects of each family. Thus Pashto ind Baluchi on the one hand, and Jadgali and Sindhi on the other are at close grips. Brahui is alone in its heroic struggle and friendless and solitary, it is gradually losing ground.
So far, an attempt has been made to show that, considered historically, the so-called Dravidian ​people possess a prominently Iranian character and that the origin of most of the South Indian people can be traced to an Iranian origin, represented by the Paisaci speaking people once living beyond the North West of India These peoples had overspread the whole of India at a very early age, in fact, long before the advent of the Aryans and superimposed themselves on the aboriginal population represented by the earliest Austro-Indo-Erythraen peoples These prevented the Aryan advance at every step and presented a resolute fight inch by inch but they had to give way and allow themselves to be absorbed in or themselves absorb the Aryan element. Thus we find that ethnically the Dravidians present such complex features which are historically demonstrated and ethnologically supported. An endeavour will be made in the next lecture to treat this Dravidian ethnic complex in the light of ​the Dravidian culture-complex as represented by the various elements that go to constitute the so-called Dravidian languages.
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, all documents enter the public domain after 60 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year after the death of the author (i.e. as of 2024, prior to January 1, 1964). Film, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, and works first published over 60 years after the death of the author are protected for 60 years after publication.
Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years (before 1991) and copyright has not been restored.
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in India on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of India having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
The critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1941.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse