05-12-2006, 12:48 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+May 12 2006, 11:15 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ May 12 2006, 11:15 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> As a Bengali, you ought to know that most Bengalis are not considered Aryan either according to the AIT (though their language is considered Indo-Aryan). Some Bengali brahmins long ago were thought to come from the Vedic heartland of the Punjab. So some Bengali brahmins of today might have a bit of that ancestry.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
#1. This a Bengal History thread, so your posts will make more sense in "Ancient History Thread".
#2. Bengalis not being Aryans. In ethinicity context or cultural context?
#3. Not just Brahmins, but the supportings castes too were brought from Punjab in Bengal. It will be in order to point out that surnames like Dutt/Dutta, Mithra/Mitra, Malik/Mullick are found only in "Punjab and Bengal". And these castes/surnames are not Brahmins. Additionally, Rai/Ray/Roy and Chaudhary/Chaudhuri is consistent through the entire Gangetic plains upto Punjab.
So, point #2 "not Aryan" is correct in cultural context only upto late Rig Vedic period.
#4. Bengal had three waves of ethnic Aryanization (i.e. pushing indigenous tribes to interiors/jungles). Read some of the works of David Fraweley on this. Split of Anu tribe after Battle of Ten Kings and movement of rishi Dirghtamas towards east.
#5. Bengal population is indeed mixed. In fact the oldest layers (Vanga, Pundra) are grouped with Andhraties(Andhra), Souhtern Biharis(Ang), Oriyas(Kalinga) etc. They are said to be fallen Kshatriys, sons of rishi Vishvamaitra.
The point is movement of people in and out of Bengal is well documented since Rig Vedic times and most have explicit connections with North West & West (#3, #4, #5).
Non-Aryanness (could not find a better word) upto a period was a definite truth in cultural context.
Now regarding your contention with Ben_Ami's theories.
First, let us reach a common understanding that accusing anyone of being an AIT supporter does nothing constructive (and we know who gains from this infighting) in a forum like this (which I understand is meeting place of Nationalists).
But beside this, we should impartial with observations and conclusions. People have talked about DNA findings. How large is the sample? So use the data as a supplementary evidence only.
How large should be such samples if you need to evaluate a Billion people with hunderds of ethincities? Poorly designed test can yield any statistics, pro or anti AIT.
Actually, to answer ideas like Ben-Ami's, we need to first account for the reason for diversities instead of throwing accusations.
How is that different communities living togather for last 5000 years still display remarkable differences in skin colour and facial patterns? Or the marked differences in marriage customs North vs. South (one of the things that doesn't change unless forcibly converted)? Or language groupings for instance?
Asking these questions doesn't mean support for AIT. Ben_ami is of course quick with his conclusions.
Husky, I'm in agreement with you (and the DNA data) that bulk of Indian population (excluding Sinic tribes in East and some central asian tribes in North West) came from South.
DNA apart, there are too many detailed references to oceanic imagery in Rig Veda to be ignored. Actually the DNA data and the oceanic references nicely fit with each other. So some people must have moved North at some point of time (Manu during the Great Floods ???).
The point is how long is the difference between the isolation of the Northern and Southern offshoots? 3000, 5000 years?
The reason why I recommended Fraweleys work (not the random articles on Net, but books) is that he has tried to explain precisely this apparent North-South difference.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
#1. This a Bengal History thread, so your posts will make more sense in "Ancient History Thread".
#2. Bengalis not being Aryans. In ethinicity context or cultural context?
#3. Not just Brahmins, but the supportings castes too were brought from Punjab in Bengal. It will be in order to point out that surnames like Dutt/Dutta, Mithra/Mitra, Malik/Mullick are found only in "Punjab and Bengal". And these castes/surnames are not Brahmins. Additionally, Rai/Ray/Roy and Chaudhary/Chaudhuri is consistent through the entire Gangetic plains upto Punjab.
So, point #2 "not Aryan" is correct in cultural context only upto late Rig Vedic period.
#4. Bengal had three waves of ethnic Aryanization (i.e. pushing indigenous tribes to interiors/jungles). Read some of the works of David Fraweley on this. Split of Anu tribe after Battle of Ten Kings and movement of rishi Dirghtamas towards east.
#5. Bengal population is indeed mixed. In fact the oldest layers (Vanga, Pundra) are grouped with Andhraties(Andhra), Souhtern Biharis(Ang), Oriyas(Kalinga) etc. They are said to be fallen Kshatriys, sons of rishi Vishvamaitra.
The point is movement of people in and out of Bengal is well documented since Rig Vedic times and most have explicit connections with North West & West (#3, #4, #5).
Non-Aryanness (could not find a better word) upto a period was a definite truth in cultural context.
Now regarding your contention with Ben_Ami's theories.
First, let us reach a common understanding that accusing anyone of being an AIT supporter does nothing constructive (and we know who gains from this infighting) in a forum like this (which I understand is meeting place of Nationalists).
But beside this, we should impartial with observations and conclusions. People have talked about DNA findings. How large is the sample? So use the data as a supplementary evidence only.
How large should be such samples if you need to evaluate a Billion people with hunderds of ethincities? Poorly designed test can yield any statistics, pro or anti AIT.
Actually, to answer ideas like Ben-Ami's, we need to first account for the reason for diversities instead of throwing accusations.
How is that different communities living togather for last 5000 years still display remarkable differences in skin colour and facial patterns? Or the marked differences in marriage customs North vs. South (one of the things that doesn't change unless forcibly converted)? Or language groupings for instance?
Asking these questions doesn't mean support for AIT. Ben_ami is of course quick with his conclusions.
Husky, I'm in agreement with you (and the DNA data) that bulk of Indian population (excluding Sinic tribes in East and some central asian tribes in North West) came from South.
DNA apart, there are too many detailed references to oceanic imagery in Rig Veda to be ignored. Actually the DNA data and the oceanic references nicely fit with each other. So some people must have moved North at some point of time (Manu during the Great Floods ???).
The point is how long is the difference between the isolation of the Northern and Southern offshoots? 3000, 5000 years?
The reason why I recommended Fraweleys work (not the random articles on Net, but books) is that he has tried to explain precisely this apparent North-South difference.