• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Who are those Dravidians??

Not open for further replies.
Genetic study of Dravidian castes of Tamil Nadu:


The phylogenetic analysis of the caste populations of India showed that Dravidians show closer affinities among themselves than with Indo–Aryans, irrespective of their position in the social hierarchy. This is in concordance with the earlier findings (Basu et al. 2003). The most recent migrants among Dravidians of Tamil Nadu (upper class Iyer and Iyengar) showed close affinity with Indo–Aryans (West Bengal Brahmin, upper class; Mahisya, middle class; and Bagdi, lower class) than the early migrants into Tamil Nadu.

These findings support the earlier evidence that the Dravidians were possibly widespread throughout India before the arrival of the Indo–Aryans and may have retreated to southern India to
avoid linguistic dominance, after an initial period of admixture and adoption of the caste system (Basu et al. 2003). The present study shows that these contemporary caste populations of Tamil Nadu are confounded by assimilation of subsequent immigrants in varying degrees of admixture before the caste system became too rigid.
This paper largely confirms what's known already. However, the following caught my eyes:

"About 10,000 years ago, proto-Dravidian Neolithic
farmers from Afghanistan entered the Indian subcontinent,
and were later displaced southwards by a large influx of
Indo–European speakers ∼ 3500 years ago (Majumder et al.

1. My reading says that the proto-Dravidians are the original people who migrated out of Africa via the Southern Route (Africa to Yemen to Oman to Saudi Arabia to Iraq to Iran to Afghanistan to Pakistan to India to Indonesia to Australia) about 50,000 years ago as per current Anthropological and Genetic data.

Only in India, these original people stayed in large numbers, perhaps due to the perennial rivers of Indus, Ganges, Bramapudra etc. They are the Dravidians. In other parts, they were a few in number and are nearly extinct like in Australia today. Then who are the people present now in other areas in the Southern Route? They are all the "white migrants" from the North, as some people of North India today. In Egypt you can see both the Northern migrants and the original people of Africa (recall Anwar Sadat, a Black man and Hussni Mubarak a "White/Black mix")

2. In India the Indus Valley Civilization (Mohanjeddaro, Harappan and Mehergarh) was mostly due to Dravidian Culture, which for some mysterious reasons ended BEFORE 1850 BCE.

3. Majumdar et al say that Indo-European speakers came to India in large influx around 3500 years ago (1500 BCE). Which means, these Aryans (the "white people" of the steppe lands of Central Asia or West Eurasia) came to India AFTER the demise of Indus Valley Civilization. (They brought their language, the Sanskrit).

Therefore, it appears that Aryans were not responsible for the disappearance of this glorious IV Civilization.

Again, these dates can't be very accurate.

Personally, I don't want to believe that Aryans destroyed the Culture of Dravidians.

Maybe, it's a wishful thinking.

Last edited:
Dear Y,

The term proto-dravidian can turn out to be quite paradoxical. It is very much possible that different dravidian branches have different roots and origins.

Am not inclined to think any dravidian language or indo-european language is ancient/ old. We cannot overlook the indigenous origin of the proto-munda linguistic group either.

According to research by Petraglia and Allchin, Central-Dravidian branched out of proto-dravidian before 2000 BC (before the introduction of wheat and barley into the language), while North-Dravidian branched out even earlier. Moreover, their research provided evidence of an austroasiatic substrate in the Indus valley with linguistic research supporting a native indian indigeneous development for proto-munda...

Pending further research on austroasiatic dispersals, for now, i am more likely to think that IVC was home to tribals like Kuvi, Gond, etc (that is, people of the South-Central-Dravidian and North-Dravidian groups); while the South-Dravidian had already at this time established themselves in other parts of India (most likely central India) before moving down further south.

Though there is no concrete proof, for now, am inclined to think various dravidian groups encountered the native proto-munda groups venerating the pindi (lingam) at around 8000 ybp; and either merged with them in a friendly way or took them as slaves; and in the process created social structures and clans, positing themselves as cheiftains, and practiced and spread the BRW culture.

To this scenario came one group of ancient IE speakers (turkic tribes? elamites?) bringing with them IE influence, the tradition of composing literary stuff, chants, spells, and the influence of agni -varuna (fire and water) as sacred purifying elements. These IE speakers IMO merged with existing clans and give rise to atharva cults (the sort we find in the atharva texts).

And this scenario may have created primitive fire rituals with animal and human sacrifice; and therefore we probably see fire altars and pits in kalibangan and related IVC sites. The influence of this period was the creation of priestly-chieftains, or bharata-chieftains or priest-kings, and enhanced ritualism. This period imo was earlier than the early-vedic (rig) period of 1700-1200 BC; and it formed the basis of the IVC culture. This also explains why we see a proto-munda substrate in IVC.

To this scenario came the indo-aryans from the eurasian steppe with their 33 gods and their own compositions and primitive rituals. Whether they came and destroyed IVC or not is left to the archeologists and other researchers to determine. But IMO these eurasian indo-aryans already had an old enemity with the ancient IE speakers (elamites?? who by this time had merged with native clans). And thus they ended up fighting.

This is why possibly Apasthamba says the brahmans wished to wrest control from kshatriya lineages. It does not follow that brahmans were descendents from indo-aryan speakers and kshatriyas were not. Both the indo-aryans and the kshatriya lineages were interested in acquiring power of the vedic civilisation (stall, 2008).

Apasthamba says the subjects of the king are bharatas, kurus, panchalas, and others. Moreover, the kuru-panchala region was the one from where the reconstruction of atharvaveda came. Parts of its contents are posited to be older than Rig.

IMO, the kshatriya lineages with their concepts of clan-based society, family-branch-off-settlements, earliest of gotras, spells, primitive fire sacrifices to their own divinities, human and animal sacrifices, were the atharvan-angirasas of the IVC who were borne out of the merger of proto-munda + central-dravidian + north-dravidian + ancient-IE (elamite?) (whom i shall call the Elamo-Munda-Dravidian Atharvans. While the brahmans were the incoming hordes from the eurasian steppe. They fought against one another.

IMO, these Elamo-Munda-Dravidian Atharvans fled and found safe sanctury in the south going down all the way to Srilanka, and possibly spreading into SE Asia also. During this time they could have merged partly with the South-Dravidian branch (perhaps partly peacefully and partly thru violence). IMO the brahmanas (ritual texts) were created / composed after this period.

The creation of yajnas were not bereft of fights either. The atharvans must have won, which is why they got to be the presiding yajaman of sacrifices, as the atharva brahmana, while the rest of the trayi veda groups were accorded the places of the adhvaryu, hotr and udgatr. The smrithi period must have come after this, in which the trayi-veda groups must have risen, sought control and reduced the temple priests and atharvans to low positions.

All this is ofcourse a hypothetical reconstruction and a lot would depend on future evidence as it comes by.

Time and again, we get to read posts by some members here that brahmins are not to be blamed alone, for the caste-system. I would agree with that. Too many myriad people (or tribes i may say) were involved in social-organisation structures of the ancient past. It is impossible to claim that only one group was violent and the other was not. It simply depended on who won and who lost. Perhaps, those who lost are able to seek their role, their right, their place in a society today.

Sometimes i think why did EVR happen. Am apt to think perhaps EVR was not some coincidence of history. Maybe it was providence, the epoch that destained him and others like him to "be there" during the destained time. I believe the struggles of social-organisation scenario will continue, in some form or the other, until we reach the time of the SINGULARITY, which according to a TIME magazine article is going to happen just around 35 years in future from now.

After the time of Singularity, our minds, our civilisation, our value systems and even our bodies will be changed......atleast we know reversal of ageing thru genetic manipulation is not very far off...
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads