Topic started by prakash (@ hse-toronto-ppp312249.sympatico.ca) on Sat Feb 2 11:31:50 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

One such historical study can be found here. May be others can point to other studies. I would like to discuss caste from a historical perspective (from prior to 1900AD).
http://www.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~zushima9/Archive/1-8.txt

Karthik and Karthik admirers, I would appreciate it if you could skip this thread completely. Thanks.

If anyone has referennces to historical documents (not religious documents) please post here. Please refrain from converting this thread into caste politics. Thanks.

Responses:

• From: I (@ h66-59-174-253.gtconnect.net) on: Sun Feb 3 20:15:17
  
  http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden
  
  Check Prof David Luddens papers on the above link. It is very interesting
  
  
• From: P.N.Kumar (@ 202.51.208.6) on: Sun Feb 3 22:05:29
  
  Dear Prakash,
  >>>
  Karthik and Karthik admirers, I would appreciate it if you could skip this thread completely. Thanks.
  >>>
  It shows the child in you!
  
  
  
• From: I (@ h66-59-174-253.gtconnect.net) on: Mon Feb 4 10:34:03
  
  One conjecture
  
  Prof. George Hart has already published about the evidence for caste in CT texts: Early Evidence for Caste in South India, p. 467-492 in Dimensions of Social Life: Essays in honor of
  David G. Mandelbaum, Edited by Paul Hockings
  Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam, 1987.
  
  Here's G. Hart's letter:
  
  I should like to write a few words here on the subject of caste in early Tamil Nadu.
  
  First of all, I should like to point out that this is an extremely contentious subject. It would not be excessive to say it is as vexed
  as that of the origin of the Aryans. There is a school of thought, one accepted by most Indians, that caste is the creation of the Aryans, who, after creating their monster, proceeded to impose
  it on everyone in South Asia. Tamils have become followers of this school with great enthusiasm, as it places the stigma for one of the
  least enlightened features of their society on someone else. Indeed, so strongly have some Tamils supported this idea that they have come
  to resemble the inquisition in their zeal: any Tamilian who does not accept what they say does not deserve to be called a Tamilian. As a
  VeLLaikkaaran, I am somewhat exempt. While I am not excoriated, it is often suggested that I could not really understand what is really
  going on as I do not come from the culture.
  
  None of this is germane to caste. It has to do with modern Indian politics, pure and simple. Whether the Tamils had caste before the
  Aryans is in no way a reflection on the great literature and culture they created. Do we blame the Greeks and Romans for having slaves
  when we read the Homer or Virgil? All premodern societies had glaring social inequities. None functioned like modern welfare states. It would be quite strange if this rule did not apply to the Tamils of the Sangam age. In my article, I give what I feel (still) is irrefutable evidence that caste existed in ancient Tamil Nadu.
  Now, consider the following:
  
  1. The whole caste system cannot be attributed to the Jains, who did not believe in caste.
  2. The caste system is characterized by the multiplicity of groups at the bottom. How could this have happened if it was brought and
  imposed by an outside group?
  3. The texts state in clear and unequivo\cal terms that the people at the bottom were engaged in funerary practices, in beating drums,
  in working leather, in washing clothes, and in performance. Such words as 'of low birth' and 'low one' are applied to such people. Consider the following poem (Puram 363):
  Before the grim day comes when on the burning ground where thorn bushes grow wound together with spurge on that broad site where the
  biers rise up and a man of a caste that is despised picks up the boiled, unsalted rice and does not look anywhere around him and
  gives it to you so that you accept a sacrifice for which you have no desire with its dish the earth itself... Here, the critical words
  are 'izi piRappoon iiyap peRRu' (as the one of despised birth gives it and you get it). Do you really think that by any stretch of the
  imagination this could mean 'as the one who will have a low birth
  (next time he is reborn)'?
  4. Much is made of the similarity between poli, 'shine' and
  pulaiyan, 'despised or polluted person.' These are two different
  roots. All languages have words that appear similar yet are
  unrelated. NT
  Ramarao can't pronounce the difference between krtaghna and krtajna,
  which have opposite meanings. One can find hundreds of such words
  everywhere in every language -- good and God; day and die; lead
  (metal) and lead (conduct); black and back; read and red; -- one can
  think of literally thousands. The fact is, pul means 'dull' while
  poli means 'shine.' These are totally unrelated, and their
  similarity means nothing. Emeneau and Burrough, who looked at all
  the Dravidian languages (not just Tamil), have said they are
  definitely two unrelated roots.
  5. How about the other Dravidian languages where derivatives of
  pulai mean pollution in some form or another?
  
  6. Do you really suppose it is credible that a few outsiders --
  whether Brahmins, Jains, or Martians -- came into Tamil Nadu and
  managed to impose something as complex as the caste system in a few
  centuries? Remember, the caste system is not something that is
  legislated. It reflects and determines the basic structures and
  workings of the culture. Castes do not look outside themselves for
  their identity -- each has its own customs, its own history, its own
  occupations, etc. etc. etc. This sort of thing cannot be legislated,
  and it can't suddenly spring up in 300 years. Sangam literature
  shows it was already well-established.
  
  7. No Aryan group has anything remotely like caste. Even the early
  Aryans did not. They had a 3-fold division (Brahmins, Ksatriyas,
  Vaisyas), and Sudras only come in at the very end of the Rig Veda.
  It seems obvious to me that this Aryan system was a response based on
  what they found in South Asia when they arrived (see Witzel's
  excellent article for the arrival of the Aryans). Note that even the
  Avestans, who were extremely closely related linguistically and
  culturally to the Rig Vedic Aryans, had nothing remotely resembling
  varna.
  
  8. My own view? That caste (jati, not varna) is an extremely ancient
  institution, at least 3000 years old, and probably even older, in
  South Asia. Its characteristic features is not Brahmins but dalits.
  It is as much a part of the landscape as the mountains and oceans,
  and it is nearly as old. As a friend of mine once remarked, 'No
  caste, no India.' Sad but true. – George Hart
  
  
• From: I (@ h66-59-174-253.gtconnect.net) on: Mon Feb 4 10:42:05
  
  "had nothing remotely resembling varna. "
  
  I think that was a typo by Prof. Hart. It should read nothing remotedly resembling Jati because they (Avestans) did have three fold division of society.
  
  
  

Want to post a response?