Dravidians' original home

[Guest guest]

Dear list members,

 

In "The Sanskrit Language" by T.Burrow, (Motilal Banarsidass Publishers

Private Limited, Delhi) on page 9, it is stated:

 

The languages of the Indo-European family have become more widely diffused

over the world than those of any other linguistic family. They also form

the majority of the cultivated lnguages of mankind. It is not surprising

therefore that the question of the original home of Indo-European has been

the subject of much speculation. In the early days it was usually held that

this lay in central Asia, and that from there successive waves of

emigration had carried the various members of the family to Europe. This

was mainly due to exaggerated importance attached to Sanskrit and to

confusion btween the primitive Aryans of whom we have spoken with the much

earlier Indo-Europeans. It is as we have seen reasonably certain that it

was from Central Asia, more specifically Oxus valley, that the Indians and

Iranians set out to occupy their respective domains. But there is not the

slightest trace of evidence or probablity that the ancestors of the

Germans, Celts, Greeks and other European mmbers of the family were near

this area. Consequently it is now usually held that the original home lay

somewhere in Europe, The main argument for this is the simple but effective

one that it is in Europe that the greatest number of Indo-European

lnguages, and the greatest diversity of them is to be found, and this from

the earliest recorded times. At an ancient period we find enormous

stretches of Asia in the occupation of Indo-Iranian, a single member of he

family, and as yet little differentiated; in Europe on the other

hand concentration of many languages occupying comparatively restricted

areas, and already markedly different from each other. It follows of

necessity that the presence of Indo-European in the Indo-Iranian area is

the result of late colonial expansion in a vast scale, while in Europe the

existence of such geat diversity at the earliet recorded period indicates

the presence there of Indo-European from remote antiquity.

 

Is this logic still held by the Western Indologists? If so, why the same

logic is not followed for the Dravidian languages? Why are the western

Indologists attributing the original home of Dravidians to be somewhere

near Mediteranian? Just because Elamite has some resemblence with Dravidian

and Brahui exists in Buluchistan, should we deny the origins of Davidian

languages to their present homeland itself? After all, Tamils do have their

earlier myth about Kumari kaNdam, deep south. There are unmistakable

references to floods and last lands in Sangam literature and their

commentaries. Why are these scholars discounting those references?

 

I would appreciate if any Indologists/CTamilists can reply. I am also

cross-posting this e-mail to agaththiyar list

 

With regards,

iraama.ki.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Krishnan Ramasamy <poo@g...> wrote:

> Dear list members,

Why are the western

> Indologists attributing the original home of Dravidians to be

somewhere

> near Mediteranian? Just because Elamite has some resemblence with

Dravidian

> and Brahui exists in Buluchistan, should we deny the origins of

Davidian

> languages to their present homeland itself? After all, Tamils do

have their

> earlier myth about Kumari kaNdam, deep south. There are

unmistakable

> references to floods and last lands in Sangam literature and their

> commentaries. Why are these scholars discounting those references?

>

> I would appreciate if any Indologists/CTamilists can reply. I am

also

> cross-posting this e-mail to agaththiyar list

>

> With regards,

> iraama.ki.

 

 

 

The main concern of Krishnan Ramasamy, "Dravidians' original home"

is a semantic minefield. To answer this question, we have to identify

the real historical groups past and present, going under the

name "dravidian" , define what we mean by "homeland" and then connect

the two.

 

"Dravidian" is the anglicized form of the sanskrit

word "dravida" .Historically these are the self-defined groups

calling themselves "dravida".

 

1. The oldest usage is that of Pancha Dravida brahmins in the south

and western India as contrasted with Pancha Gauda i.e. brahmins in

the east and north India. Even though the original sense of the word

has fallen into much disuse, there are still brahmin castes,

subcastes and names called 'dravida'.

 

2. In the medievel south India, Vaishnavite groups, i.e. those who

considered themselves spiritual succssors of Nammalvar , irrespective

of caste, who called themselves 'dravida'

 

3.In the 20th century, Tamil non-brahmins called

themselves "Thiravidar", a Tamil derivation of "dravida"

 

Now the concept of "original homeland" is even more problematic; What

bothers Mr.Krishnan Ramasamy is why is the homeland of Dravidian

group of languages placed in Medeterrainian?

 

These two are different questions. A)Why is the home of Proto-

Dravidian placed near the Levant and B)what is the 'original'

Homeland of Dravidians of either groups 1 , 2 or 3. The first refers

to the 'homeland' of a putative language X which ultimately gave rise

to Tamil and Tamil can be traced as it's linear descendent through

historical linguistic analysis just as Hindi can be traced as a

linear descendent of Proto Indo European, whose 5th or 6th successor

generation contains Hindi.This is the problem contained in Question A.

 

Question B is even more complex. I think there is a tendency by non-

professionals like Mr. Ramasamy or myself to assume that

the present day Tamils are in direct succession to the genes,

spiritual and material culture of those who spoke Language X, the

ultimate parent of Tamil. If you read the literature dealing with

these questions, such an assumption is untenable, in the eyes of the

professionals anyway. That means flow of genes, languages or

spiritual and material culture are neither simultaneous nor co-

terminous.

 

Now coming back to Mr.Ramasamy's questions "Why are the

western Indologists attributing the original home of Dravidians to be

somewhere near Mediteranian? Just because Elamite has some

resemblence with Dravidian and Brahui exists in Buluchistan, should

we deny the origins of Dravidian languages to their present homeland

itself? "

 

As far as I understand, a historical linguist will go by the simple

chronology of related languages and the places of their occurance. If

no evidence of any Dravidian language can be found in India before

500 BC in India and an evidence of a genetically related and earlier

language can be found in the eastern Medeterrainian about 2000 BC, a

historical linguist will naturally place the origin outside, without

committing himself to the "people" being identical. The idea of

Kumari kandam will be, till proven otherwise by geologists and

archeologists, a myth. Even if Kumari Kandam is discovered by marine

archeologists, the problem will be how to connect it to the present

knowledge of history and linguistics.