Smt. HH,
These are some of my own thoughts on the different points brought out in your above
post addressed to Shri Nara.
I think there is as yet no solid evidence for the supposition that in the vast continent (which you postulate) people "(e)ach definitely sharing atleast some amount of a common cultural basis, and yet squabbling over parts that were individualistic to each of them. Competition perhaps..". To the extent of basic requirements like protection from inclement weather, graduation from the wild existence when nudity was not a problem, etc., the people could have had commonality. But beliefs, cultural practices, etc., seem to have undergone significant changes even in the different layers of BMAC or Andronovo. Hence it may not be easy to assume the part about culture and beliefs.
As to competition, I am not sure. But it was (and perhaps still is) a basic human trait of us versus they; xenophobia in its primitive form. That was more at work even in those days. Plus the lure of plunder of whatever was considered valuable — cattle, horses-perhaps, - in BMAC and even in the tri-vedic people - and, most probably women too. (That this plunder is reflected even in sangam poetry is the opinion of many scholars.)
Dear Sir,
I stand corrected regarding lack of solid evidence. Esp in the BMAC and Andronovo culture part.
Wrt common culture and beliefs, i was taking into consideration that Rig and Atharva share common basis of worship directed towards the vedic-deities despite their dis-similarities. Am aware there are different takes on it though.
One is position (A) which opines that Rig and Atharva shared a common cultural basis before splitting and evolving independently. The next is position (B) which opines the commonality of worshipping vedic-deities must have come about as a later merger.
Ushanas takes position A. He feels Rig and Atharva split in a cultural evolution scenario [Indus script and Rg-veda, p.175]:
The Indus script and the Ṛg-Veda - Google Books
One example of those who take position B is Randall Collins. He also has some additional interesting takes on the vedic splits and mergers [Sociology of Philosophies, p.193-195]:
The sociology of philosophies: a ... - Google Books
Another theory i took into consideration for a common cultural basis was the idea that vedic branches / shakhas themselves split and grew as sects or guilds to propagate their own (sectarian-like) shakha primacy (so they may have been competitors). This too has been mentioned by Collins in the link above.
I do not understand how you put the atharvans as one of the tribes/classes/groups; is there enough supporting evidence for such an assumption?
I feel one cannot really say if the atharvans were a tribe or a group (or were they?). Am thinking they more likely fit the description of a ‘class of priests’. Like one cud say the atharvangirasas were a ‘class of priests’ – and i suppose such a description wud be more appropriate?
The rest of what you say is also new to me. It will be enlightening if you open a new thread (despite your studies and research) and elaborate as to how it is that "(atharva) were explorers and gave the world vedic-astronomy, ayurveda, vedic-mathematics... Even the concepts of karma, moksha, and after-life are supposedly from the atharva."
I mentioned so based on info available on Atharva-Veda (AV)
Frawley says Ayurveda goes back to the angirasa rishis who used herbs in the rigveda. However AV contributes maximum to the veda which came to be called ayurveda.
There is even a saying that “atharva-vedasya ayurvedatvam uktam bhavati” (atharvaveda gave rise to ayurveda). Page 278-280 of this book provides some info on the development of ayurveda from atharvaveda:
A history of Indian philosophy - Google Books
Although Rigveda mentions nakshatras, i read on google books that a complete listing of the nakshastras are given only by Yajur-taittiriya and atharva-veda (AV 19.7). The books mention that AV provides placement of ayana (in magha / leo), uses the term ‘divichara graha’ to refer to 'planets', mentions “rahu”, mentions constellations and prescribes expiatory rites for those born under unlucky stars. So i suppose the AVs were into astronomy (and astrology also).
Was reading google books that even sthapatya- shastra-veda (building architecture particularly related to temples), and vastu-shastra is said to belong to AV [Ref: Hindu Temple, p.11] -
The Hindu temple - Google Books
As regards ‘vedic-mathematics’ i think i got unduly carried away by the work of Bharati Krishna Tirtha who claimed it to be from atharva-veda. Wiki has a nice article on his work:
Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Am also wondering how true is the idea that siddha tradition is "derived from the non-vedic cults of yati, vratya, muni and even sisna-devas" as claimed by SA Sarma in his book “Tamil Siddhas: a study from historical, socio-cultural, and religio-philosophical perspectives”.
Incidentally, I am not clear about the term "arur-magha". (In an earlier post you had referred to "arun mukha" but that directly means "ruddy-faced" rather than about skanda, IMO.)
I had mentioned "arur-magha" as the yatis thrown to wolves by Indra in this post (it does not refer to skanda):
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...impses-south-indian-history-46.html#post73519 Monier-Williams also mentions in his Sanskrit-English dictionary (p.88) that 'arun-mukha' is an irregular form developed from 'arur-magha', a class of certain Yatis. There is some info on the yatis here:
Veda - Vedas [Its a blog and no references have been provided so dunno how far it is true].
I had read a web page saying that a large random sample DNA analysis of Indians showed that there is a nearly pure "south gene" which is found in some of the exclusive tribes of Andaman & Nicobar islands and as one travels from south India northwards, the south-gene gets progressively diluted and what the analysis termed as "north-gene" becomes more and more. But the study also said that north-gene of the same purity as in the A&N islanders is not found in any of the north Indian stock. Hence I doubt if genetically the scenario you envisage will hold good. (I am still searching for that paper in my hard disk; as soon as I am able to trace it out, I shall post the details. So, till then it is only my word. But you may be in a better position to find out if there is some research paper of this sort and whether it is genuine.)
Dear Sir, Shall we keep genetics for a seperate thread? But i sense not many are interested in such things here based on my previous postings on that topic.
Now I quote from your post:
"Wonder why the brahmins and the non-brahmins of the colonial time could not realise the deep-rooted commonalities they shared with themselves as the 'south', esp the shared cultural ethos of temples, stunning sculptures, magical rituals of fire and idol worship, etc.
If only better sense had prevailed, then both the Bs and the NBs, could have worked productively for collective-growth together instead of becoming competitors for government jobs.."
That is a big "if only" and this thread, I hope, gives at least some reasons for that.
Yes its a very big "If Only". Sigh.
