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...
