Co-existance of the Aryan and Dravidian Language Families in India

I've been reading the Rt. Rev. Dr. Robert Caldwell's book A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages which was first published in 1856. It is a profound work in linguistics. It is meticulous, precise, and factual. It is a scientific work.

Although I have known for quite some time that Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada were Dravidian languages I didn't know exactly how. I still don't know exactly how, but it seems that these languages share identical syntax, that is, rules for sentence formation. 

It's so refreshing to read the work of an enthusiast of Dravidian languages who has spotted this commonality among these superficially different languages. But it brings to a point something much greater in significance. It becomes obvious that the entire peninsula of India is inhabited by speakers of the Dravidian tongue. However, modern India is co-inhabited to the north of Dravidian-speaking areas by speakers of Marathi, and Bengali: both Aryan languages which belong to the Indo-European family of languages. 

A topographical map of the Indian subcontinent is instructive. The Dravidian languages occupy the Deccan plateau and the peninsular coast of East and West India. The Indo-Iranian languages - we'll just call them Aryan - are spoken in the Indus River basin, the Ganges basin and all the way into Bangladesh. The question is: was India always bi-lingual? That is to say was Aryan and Dravidian always spoken in India? Or - as has been the traditional - view, was the current Aryan distribution of languages the results of migrations into the Indian subcontinent displacing the indigenous Dravidians?

The edicts of Asoka are the first tangible archaeological record indicating that Dravidian kingdoms were in existence as early as the third century BC(300 BC). Asoka mentions the Chola kingdoms in Tamil Nadu. Extrapolating from this it seems obvious that the Dravidians were inhabiting the Deccan plateau as early as 300 BC. That is to say, Dravidian languages were being spoken in South India as early as 300 BC.

Whatever the case may be, factually, and historically, in the abstract we have the co-existence of these two language families, and this abstract fact must be reckoned with in the abstract. Speaking abstractly, much is possible. We can ask the question: how did this co-existence come to be?  

Here, it is profitable to discuss a parallel example with respect to China. It is argued by Jared diamond and others that the distribution of Thai, Viet, and Cambodian languages was far more extensive especially to the north into southern China that is currently the case. It is argued that the Sino-Tibetan family of languages “pushed” into areas inhabited by Thai, Vietnamese, and Cambodian speaking people. This is an abstract argument. Based on the current factual evidence of the distribution of language families in China.

The only argument which exists attesting to the presence of Aryan languages in the Indus Valley basin and the Ganges basin puts forth that Indo-Iranian languages were extant in the Indus Valley basin and Ganges basin and Aryan in fact was the language of the Indus Valley civilization. This suggests that the Indo-Iranian family of languages radiated from a common ancestor spreading across the Indus Valley into Iran and Afghanistan. 

How does this compare with Diamond’s parallel argument with regard to the distribution of Sino- Tibetan languages in China? He didn't specifically argue that there was a period of invasion, instead, he certainly does proffer that Sino-Tibetan languages “pushed” southwards displacing the indigenous languages that were present, namely, Thai, Vietnamese, and Cambodian. His argument is based on and follows logically from the modern distribution of languages in China and Indo-China.

So, to construct an argument as persuasive as Diamond’s but addressing the co-existence of Aryan and Dravidian language families in India, we would only have to base a similar argument on the modern distributions of languages in India and Central Asia.

So, arguing from Diamond's position we can conclude - as he did - that the distribution of Dravidian languages was far more extensive than at present and Aryan languages “pushed” southwards displacing the indigenous languages that were present, namely, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Tamil.

Having established this and returning to the parallel argument perspective we cannot go to the Vietnamese and say 'Look your language was far more extensive than it is right now. Therefore, you should use this as a political advantage to at least assert your rights from a historical point of view. The same thing could be said to Thailand, and Cambodia. But this doesn't change the economic and political status quo, which is the economic power of Sino-Tibetan languages and people.

It occurred to me that the civilizations in Cambodia evolved much later than the period of a classical Indus Valley civilization in India. But, what I want to note is that the language of the Huang Ho civilization spread out from the Huang Ho civilization. In China civilization spread out South from the center of civilization around the Huang Ho, and this spread displaced the Vietnamese, Thai, and Cambodians further south. But, what's interesting is that in India 'Dravidian' doesn't really refer to a race so much as it does to the language and culture. For instance the Sino-Tibetan is the language of the Burmese but racially they are much different than the northern Chinese. But the language spread south and assimilated the people.

Is this what happened to the indigenous populations of India? Were they assimilated by the Dravidian language and culture? The only way to know for sure is to decipher the Indus Script.

Aryan Migration or Cultural Transformation

According to Robert Winston 140,000 years ago, or 138,000 BC the African branch of the Homo Heidelbergensis is dying out. It is a period of glaciations -an ice age-and there's very little rain in Africa. This creates the conditions for accelerated natural selection. According to Winston only the most fit and resourceful survive. And in this time of accelerated natural selection Homo sapiens is born.

This species is distinguished from Homo Heidelbergensis by the presence of imagination as attested by the existence of buried ostrich eggs which were used for preserving water in a drought. Arguably, these were found at the same time and is evidence for the dawn of man: the wise ape. 

Then, around 110,000 years ago - that's 108,000 BC - the Ice Age ended and rains returned to Africa. From this time onwards Homo sapiens radiated outwards from Africa coming into contact with Neanderthal in Europe, and perhaps other hominid species of the Homo genus in the rest of the world. 

But how does all this relate to the discussion of Hinduism, the Indus Valley civilization, Dravidians, and the Aryan Migration Thesis? Well, it has to do with indigenous Australians, or aboriginals. The earliest human remains in Australia called Mungo Man date to 38,000 BC, and aboriginals may have been in Australia from as far back as 125,000 years ago - that's 123,000 BC. 

Apparently, they got there by island hopping on boats. There are other aboriginals in Papa New Guinea. But what does this all mean? This means that dark-skinned Homo sapiens radiating throughout modern-day Indonesia, Malaysia, Borneo, and Papa New Guinea, all the way to Australia. Basically, colonizing the known world very soon after the origins of Homo sapiens in about 138,000 BC. 

So, it's almost undeniable that the Dravidians were the original inhabitants of India. Also, that the similarities between Dravidians and aboriginal Australians suggest that there is a very good chance that they are highly related. So, it is not at all certain, or a foregone conclusion that the Indus Valley civilization was an Aryan civilization. 

It's very, very likely that the first inhabitants of the Indus Valley River basin were Dravidians. And the culture of the Indus Valley and later the civilization is one that was built by Dravidians who had called the Indus Valley River their home and settled there. 

It's also very likely that the continuity of Indo-Aryan with Indo-European is highly suggestive that the Aryan Migration Thesis is correct. That is, that the Aryan culture was not indigenous to the Indus Valley civilization. And, if the religion of the Indus Valley civilization was Hinduism, then, it is very likely that Hinduism is a Dravidian and not an Aryan religion. 

Furthermore, with regard to the Persian people also commonly known as the Iranian people, they are the linguistic kin of the Aryan people. Indo-Aryan includes Hindi and Persian languages. The point is that this is the same group of people – linguistically - that occupy the lands of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and north India.

After this brief prelude it becomes possible to ask much more interesting questions such as: is Hinduism the technology of meditation? And is it this technology which is the hallmark of Hinduism instead of a specific language or culture? If the hallmark of Hinduism is meditation, and if meditation is a technology of a settled people, it's very likely that Hinduism was indigenous to the Indus Valley civilization and not the Aryan culture, which was nomadic.

Preface

A few things about Hinduism especially in regard to the debate as to its origins. This debate centers on the Indus Valley civilization which paralleled Mesopotamian civilization which centered on the rivers of the Tigris and Euphrates. Basically one theory suggests that Hinduism originated within the Indus Valley civilization and generally paralleled its evolution. This theory asserts that the Aryan invaders -who are distinguished by their kinship to the Indo-European family of languages and are therefore identified as distinct from the indigenous Dravidian family of languages - were assimilated into the cultural sphere of Hinduism. This theory is known as the Aryan migration thesis.

Gavin Flood writes with regard to this thesis, “the Indus Valley civilization, which speaks a Dravidian language, declines between 2000 and 1800 BC and the Aryans become the dominant cultural force. This has been the traditional, scholarly picture…”(Flood, 1996:31).

The alternate thesis is known as the cultural transformation thesis. Flood writes with regard to this thesis, “Aryan culture is a development of the Indus Valley culture whose language belongs to the Indo-European family, possibly spoken in the region as far back as the Neolithic period, (the Stone Age) in interaction with Dravidian culture. On this view there were no Aryan incursions into India, but Indus Valley culture is an early Aryan or Vedic culture”(Flood, 1996:31).

So, which theory is correct? The seemingly foreign Sanskrit language - the ancestor of Hindi - and the kin language belonging to the Indo-European group – linguistically- is the main evidence for the Aryan migration thesis. The reason is that - linguistically - the Indo-European family of languages includes English, German, Latin, Spanish, Persian, and many languages of Europe. 

But, why is it so pressing to find out which language was spoken by the culture that built the Indus Valley civilization? Is it perhaps because they built the Indus Valley civilization? This would suggest that it was the Indo-Europeans or Indo-European culture was more advanced than the Dravidian culture. If it is actually in fact the Dravidians who built the Indus Valley civilization it would suggest that the Dravidians were more advanced than the Indo-Europeans who were nomadic sheepherders.

So, the debate itself is jaded by this purpose which overshadows the scholarly work in favor of either thesis. Nevertheless, the culture of the Indus Valley civilization is a key piece to understanding Hinduism. The word Hindu is actually the Islamic popularization of the name given by the Islamic invaders of the 13th and 14th centuries to the inhabitants of the Indus Valley basin.

So, when the Muslims arrived in the Indus Valley - which could be called India - they called them Hindus. So, there were Hindus living in the Indus Valley when the Muslims came in the 13th and 14th century. What about in 1500 BC almost 3000 years before the Muslim invasions? 

Where did the name for the river ’Ind’ come from? Is it an Aryan name? Or is it a Dravidian name? Obviously, the river and the people living on its banks are tied together. They are called by the river which enables them to survive and nurtures them, and they may have also named the river. In all likelihood it was them who named the river, ’Ind’ or ‘Indu’.

Of course, being able to decipher the Indus Valley script would be enormously helpful. Which language is being written in the Indus Valley script? Dravidian or pro-Dravidian? Or proto-Aryan?