¹ E.g. Caldwell, , A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages. Thus, all south Indian brāhmans who use Sanskrit were seen as originally Aryan.Google Scholar

² The use of the word ‘Aryan’ in this article refers to those peoples who spoke an Indo-Aryan language. It has no ethnic connotation and is merely used as a more manageable form than the phrase ‘Aryan-speaking’ with which it is synonymous.

³ For a discussion of the nature and impact of Aryan culture on existing cultures in northern India, see Thapar, Romila, Presidential Address, Ancient History Section, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, December 1969.Google Scholar

⁴ Categories of speech are demarcated in Vedic literature reflecting a considerable concern for the correctness of speech. Satapatha Brāhamaṇa, IV, 1, 3, 16Google Scholar; Samhita, Kāṭhaka, I, 11, 5Google Scholar; Samhitā, Talttiriya, VI, 4, 7, 3Google Scholar; Maitrāyanī Samhita, III, 6, 8.Google Scholar

⁵ The Nyāyamalavistāra. Maṇu, X, 43, distinguishes between mleccha-vāc and ārya-vāc.Google Scholar

⁴ Recent exponents of this view are the Finnish scholars, Parpola et al., who have made this identification basic to their reading of the Harappa script as proto-Dravidian, Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus Civilisation, Copenhagen, 1969Google Scholar. An even more recent reading is that of I. Mahadevan who reads two Harappan pictograms as *mil-ey which becomes *mil-ec which in turn becomes mleccha in Sanskrit, all of which mean ‘the resplendent ones’-the assumption being that this was the name by which the Harappan people called themselves. Journal of Tamil Studies, II, No. 1, 1970.Google Scholar

⁷ Vinaya Pifaka, III, 28.Google Scholar

⁸ Buddhaghoṣa's commentary explains it as ‘Andha ḍamil, ‘ādi’ The Jaimini Dharmasāstra gives a short list of mleccha words, I, 3, 10. These are all words used in the Dravidian languages, but are given in this text in a slightly Sanskritized form—pika, nema, ṡata, tamaras, meaning respectively, a bird, a half, a vessel, a red lotus. Pāṇini mentions that the affix an denoting descent occurs in the name of persons of the Andhaka, Vṛṡṇi or Kuru tribes, IV, 1, 115. The affix an in this context is characteristic of Dravidian languages.Google Scholar

⁹ Shafer, R., Ethnography of Ancient India, p. 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Aṣṭadhyāyi, , VII, 2, 18.Google Scholar

¹¹ Bannerjee, N. R., The Iron Age in India.Google Scholar

¹² Such as mleccha-deśa (country), mleccha-bhāṣā (language), Mleccha-nivāha (horde), mleccha-bhojana (food-used by rice-eaters for non-rice-eaters, particularly those eating wheat), mleccha-vāc (speech).

¹³ Mahābhārata, XII, 207, 65.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Majjhima Nikāya, I, 128.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ṛg Veda, III, 12, 6; II, 12, 4; III, 34, 9; V, 29, 10; IV, 16, 9; I, 33, 4; IV, 16, 3; X, 22, 8; II, 20, 8; VI, 20, 10.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ṛg Veda, III, 34, 9; II, 24, 4; I, 104, 2. The word ‘Varṇa’ literally means ‘colour’ and came to be used for Varṇa society or caste society. The word Varṇa does not refer to the actual caste of a person but to a more broadly differentiated group which some writers mistook for caste. With the exception of the brāhmaṇs and the kṣatriyas the precise caste status of the other two groups was never uniform.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, III, 2, 1, 23; which reads, te'surā āttavacaso he'lavo he'lava Hi vadantah pārabābhabūḥ. The Kanva recension has a variant reading (Sacred Books of the East, XXVI; p. 31, n. 3) but the end result is similar.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Vyākaraṇa Mahābhasya, I, 1, 1Google Scholar, which reads, te'surā āttavacaso he'lavo he'lava Hi vadantah pārabābhabūḥ. In both cases the word for enemy, ari, uses T instead of the pure Indo-Aryan ‘r’ The Asuras here referred to are a puzzle. They are described as demons, but also as a maritime people whom the Aryans of the Ṛg Veda had to contend with. Were they the people of the Harappa Culture or were they a branch of the Aryans who came from the southern coast of Iran? Archaeological remains in Chota Nagpur are associated by the local tribes with the Asuras. Sastri, Banerji, Journal of the Bihar Oriental Research Society, XII, pt. ii, 246 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ A characteristic of the Prakrit of eastern India as attested by the inscriptions of Aśoka is that the ‘r’ sound changes into ‘l’, Bloch, J., Les Inscriptions d'Asoka, p. 112.Google Scholar

²⁰ Maṇu, II, 23; X, 45.Google Scholar

²¹ Arya-varta was traditionally the region inhabited by t he āryas. Its precise geographical area is difficult to define as the concept was not static in history. Broadly speaking, however, the Ganges-Yamuna Doab and the plain of Kurukshetra to the north of Delhi would roughly correspond to ārya-varta, in the strict sense. Some texts extend the definition to include almost the entire Indo-Gangetic plain, e.g., Maṇu, II, 17–74.Google Scholar

²² Viṣṇu, LXXXIV, 1–4.Google Scholar

²³ Maṇu, X, 45, 57; speaks of ārya-vāc and ārya-rūpa (noble speech and noble visage) where ārya is used in an adjectival form. The Pali ayya or ajja carries the same sense. The antonym of anārya, dāsa or dasyu again carries the meaning of lacking in worthiness and respect and cannot be taken in an ethnic sense alone.Google Scholar

²⁴ Aiyangar, S. K., Some Contributions of South India to Indian Culture, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar

²⁵ Maṇu, X, 10–12; 16–17.Google Scholar

²⁶ Others included the Āndhras, Ābhira, Pulinda, Khāsa, Magadha, Kirāta, Malla. Gautama Dharmaśāstra, IV, 4Google Scholar; Baudhāyana, I, 9, 3Google Scholar; Vasiṣṭha, XVIII, 9.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gautama, IV, 15Google Scholar; Baudhāyana, I, 8, 8Google Scholar; Vasiṣṭha, XVIII, 1–6.Google Scholar

²⁸ Maṇu, X, 39.Google Scholar

²⁹ Aitereya Brāhmana, VII, 21Google Scholar; The Āmbaṣṭha tribe is frequently identified by modern scholars with the Ambastanoi of Arrian and the Sambastoi of Diodorus. Raichaudhury, H. C., Political History of Ancient India, p. 255.Google Scholar

³⁰ Taittereya Brāhmana, III, 8, 5.Google Scholar

³¹ Taittereya Samhita, I, 8, 9, 1–2; The suta was one of the ratnins at the rites of the vājapeya sacrifice.Google Scholar

³² Pāṇinī, II, 4, 10. Sharma, R. S., Śudras in Ancient India, p. 125, suggests that originally they may have been an aboriginal tribe using their own dialect, the cāṇḍla-bhāsā.Google Scholar

³³ Pañcavimśataka Brāhmaṇa, XVII, 1, 9Google Scholar; 53, 2. Ápastambha Dharmasūtra, XXII, 5, 4.Google Scholar

³⁴ As for example the use Maṇu makes of the term vrātya-kṣsatriya or ‘degenerate kṣatriyas’ when describing the Greeks, or vrātya for those who have failed to fulfil their sacred duties, X, 20; II, 39.

³⁵ Atharvaveda, XV.Google Scholar

³⁶ Also included were the Bedar, Daśārna, Mātanga, Pundra, Lambakarna, Ekapāda, Yaksa, Kinnara, Klkafa, Niṣāda. Some of these are fanciful names—;Long-ears, Single-footed; some were celestial beings; but in the main both literature and epigraphs record the names of many of these tribal peoples.

³⁷ Chanana, D. R., Agriculture in the Ramayana.Google Scholar

³⁸ Yāska, in Nirukta, II, 2.Google ScholarAtharveda, V, 22, 14Google Scholar; Chāndogya Upaṇiṣad, VI. 14, 1, 2.Google Scholar

³⁹ The western Ānavas were the Yaudheyas, Āmbasfha, Śibi, Sindhu, Sauvira, Kaikeya, Madra, Vrṣadarbha. The eastern Ānavas were the people of Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Pundra and Suhma. It has been suggested that the names ending in anga are of Muṇdā origin and these tribes would therefore be pre-Aryan. Bagchi, P. C., ed., Pre-Aryan and Pre-Dravidian in India.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Aitereya Brāhmaṇa, VIII, 14, 23Google Scholar; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, III, 2, 13, 15Google Scholar; Kausttaki Brāhmaṇa, VII, 6.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sutta, Atanatīya, Digha Nikāya, III, p. 199 ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇḍa, II, 19, 24; III, 59, 46. Vāyu, 91, 7; Matsya, 83, 34; 105, 20.Google Scholar

⁴³ The Kuru tribe had a well-known status and antiquity. They acquired fame through the epic Mahābhārata which concerns a family feud between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas, both members of the Kuru lineage. The Pañtcālas were a confederation of five tribes. According to bardic tradition the royal family of the Pañtcālas was an off-shoot of the Bharata family.

⁴⁴ Lai, B. B., ‘Further Copper Hoards from the Gangetic Basin …’, Ancient India, No. 7, 1951, pp. 20 ff.Google ScholarGupta, S. P., ‘Indian Copper Hoards’, Journal of the Bihar Research Society, XLIX, 1963, pp. 147 ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, I, 4, 1, 10.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Atharvaveda, XV, 2, 1–4Google Scholar; Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra, I, 1, 32–3Google Scholar; Maṇu, X, 11.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Texts as late as the Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa and t he Yajnavalkya Smrti, III, 292, repeat the need for the prayaicitta.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Prajñapaṇa Upanga, p. 397Google Scholar; Acāranga Sūtra, II, 3, 1; II, 11, 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Anguttara Nikāya, I, 213. The sixteen mahājanapadas or major states are listed as Gandhāra, Kāmboja, Kuru, Pañcāla, Surasena, Matsya, Kosala, Kāśi, Malla, Vrjji, Magadha, Anga, Vatsa, Cedi, Āvanti, Asmaka.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Sammoha-vinodani, Vibhanga commentary, 388; Manorathapurāṇi, Anguttara Commentary, I, 409Google Scholar; Apādāna, II, 359; Sutta Nipāta, 977.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Jātaka, VI, 208, 210.Google Scholar Cf. Maṇu, X, 44.Google Scholar

⁵² Summahgala Vilasini, I, 276; Sammoha-vinodani, 388.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid; the ancestry of the Pulinda located in Ceylon alone, according to the Buddhist sources, derives from the marriage of prince Vijaya with the demoness Kuveni.

⁵⁴ The cāṇḍāta is known and mentioned in Buddhist sources but usually in the context of his overcoming his low status although this is often done through the acquisition of some spiritual power.

⁵⁵ Major Rock Edict, XII. Bloch, J., Les Inscriptions d‘Asoka, pp. 130 ff. Aśoka lists the Yona, Kāmboja, Nābhaka, Bhoja, Pitinika, Āndhra and Pālida.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The Second Separate Edict. Bloch, J., Les Inscriptions d'Asoka, pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Arthaśāstra, II, 1; III, 16; VII, 8; VIII, 4; IX, 1; IX, 3; X, 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ McCrindle, , India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian, pp. 20–1Google Scholar; McCrindle, , India as Described by Ktesias, pp. 23–4, 86. Earlier Greek writers such as Ktesias, the Greek physician at the Persian court in the sixth century B.C., referred to the Indian king trading cotton and weapons for fruit, dyes and gum with the Kynokephaloi or Kynomolgoi, a barbarian tribe. The identity of this tribe has not been conclusively established as yet.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Matsya Purāṇa, 34, 30; 50, 76.

⁶⁰ Utpala's commentary on the Brhatsamhita, XIII, 3. describes the Śakas as mleccha-Jātayo-rājanas and adds that the period of their destruction by Vikramāditya would be known as Saka-kāla.Google Scholar

⁶¹ A large number of early Sanskrit inscriptions come from the mleccha areas of northern and western India. Corpus Inscriptinum Indicarum, Vol. II.Google Scholar The Greeks had used Greek and Prakrit or Sanskrit bilingually as on their coins: Obverse—Basileus Suthos Menandros, Reverse—Mahārājas Trādarasa Menamdrasa. Smith, , Catalogue of Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Vol. I, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar Kuṣāna coins show a slow but increasing adoption of Indian deities particularly of the Śaivite family. The Saka kings not only affirm their protection of the law of varṇa but even record large donations of cows and villages and wealth to the brāhmaṇṣ. Rudradātnan's Junāgadh Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, VIII, No. 6, pp. 44 ff.Google Scholar

⁶² Maṇu, X, 43–4Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, Anuśāsana Parva, XXXV, p. 226Google Scholar; Aśvamedha Parva, XXIV, p. 74Google Scholar; Sabhā Parva, XIV, p. 44; LII, p. 145.Google Scholar

⁶³ Kanakasabhai, , The Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, pp. 37 ff.Google ScholarSubramaniam, M., Pre-Pallava Tamil Index, p. 618.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ McCrindle, , Invasion of India by Alexander, p. 234; Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, XXX; British Museum Catalogue of Indian Coins, p. cv. The legend reads, malava-gaijasya-jaya.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ McCrindle, , The Invasion of India by Alexander, p. 232Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, XXX; Journal of the Numismatic Society of India, IX, p. 82; British Museum Catalogue, p. cxxiv; the legend reads, sibi janapadasa.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Aṣṭadhyāyi, V, 3, 116Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, XXX; the legend reads, trakafaka janapadasa. Aṣṭadhyāyi, IV, 1, 178; British Museum Catalogue, pp. cxlix-cl. The legend reads, yaudheya-bahūdhānyake, and a fourth-century coin-mould reads, yaudheya-ganasya-jaya.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The Allahabad prasasti of Samudragupta. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III, pp. 6 ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The eighteen major Purāṇas were recorded from about the third century A.D. onwards. They claim to be compendia of information orally transmitted over a period going back to c. 3000 B.C. The texts deal with the mythologies of the creation of the universe, genealogies of kings and sages, social custom and religious practices generally pertaining to a particular sect of which each Purāṇas claims to be the sacred book. In fact much of the material reflects contemporary attitudes at the time of the composition of the Purāṇas. The genealogical sections are in the form of a prophecy, an obvious attempt to claim antiquity.

⁶⁹ Purāṇic cosmology envisages a cyclical movement of time and the world goes through a period of four ages with the golden age at the start and an increase in evil through the duration of the cycle. The last of the four is the Kaliyuga at the end of which evil will be prevalent and the mleccha all-powerful. Ultimately the entire universe will be totally destroyed after which a new universe will be created and the cycle will start again.

⁷⁰ Vāyu Purāṇia, 99; Bhāgvata, XII, 2, 12; 14, 38; II, 38; XII, 3, 25; 3, 35–6. Deprived of sacrificial activities the world will be reduced to mleccha-hood.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Matsya Purāṇa 47, 252Google Scholar; Vāyu, 98, 114Google Scholar; Brahmāṇḍa III, 14, 80; 22, 22; 73, 108; 35, 10; IV, 29, 131.Google Scholar

⁷² Vāyu Purāṇia, IV, 24, 51Google Scholar; Brahmāṇḍa, II, 16, 59Google Scholar; III, 14, 80; IV, 29, 131; Maṇu, X, 8–38Google Scholar; Yajñavalkya smṛti, III, 292Google Scholar; Smṛticandrikā, I, 22–24.Google Scholar This is particularly contradictory in the case of the Purāṇas where a number of mleccha cults and rites had become incorporated into the recognized religion, particularly rites associated with the mother-goddess. For the reference to the Śakas and Yavanas see, e.g., Nasik Cave Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, VIII, No. 8, pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar

⁷³ In the Rudrādhyāya of the Yajurveda. Other degraded professions are the nomads, carpenters, chariot-makers, potters, smiths, fowlers, dog-keepers and hunters. In this text as also the Nirukta of Yāska they are mentioned as the fifth group after the four varṇas. III, 8; X, 3, 5–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Maṇu, X, 8, 18, 48. They were descended from the marriage between a brāhmaṇ and a sūdra woman.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Garuḍa Purāṇa, VI, 6Google Scholar; LV, 15; Padma, II, 27, 42–3Google Scholar; Harivamśa, XV, 27, 33.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Viṣṇu Purāṇa, I, 13.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Matsya Purāṇa, 10, 4–10Google Scholar; Bh¯gvata, IV, 13, 42, 47; Mahābhārata, Ś¯nti Parva, 59.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Matsya Purāṇa, 10, 7.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The Amarakoṣa VII, 21; a lexicon of the post-Gupta period, in its definition of mleccha mentions these three tribes and describes them as hunters and deer killers, living in mountainous country, armed with bows and arrows and speaking an unintelligible language—the conventional description of the mleccha by the time of the medieval period. Yet the location of mleccha-deśa in this text is not in central India but in northern India.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ṛg Veda, III, 53, 14Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, Karṇa Parva, V, 9Google Scholar; Bhāgvata Purāṇa, 11, 21, 8Google Scholar; Maṇu, X. 44.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, LVH, 144.Google Scholar

⁸² Mārkaṇdeya Purāṇa, p. 284; Matsya Purāṇa, 114, 307; a seventh-century author identifies them with the Bhila and Lubhdhaka tribes of the Vindhyas and also connects them with the Mātanga, the lawless hunters of the region, Dandin, Daśakumāracarita, III, 104; VIII, 203Google Scholar. The name Mātanga is very curious and suggests a Muṇḍā—Dravidian combination. The twelfth-century Pampa Rāmāyana of Abhināva Pampa, VII, 105–55, also refers to them.Google Scholar

⁸³ Bhāravi's long poem, the Kirātārjunīya, is based on an episode from the Mahābhārata when Arjuna goes into the Himalayas and does penance. He finally meets the god Śiva in the form of a Kirāta with whom he has a protracted fight, but eventually acquires the divine weapons which he is seeking. It is interesting that the Kirata should be identified with Śiva—perhaps suggesting their worship of Śiva, and also that it is through a Kirāta that the great hero Arjuna acquires the divine weapons.

⁸⁴ Pampa Rāmāyaṇa, Nijagunayogi's Vivekacintamani, pp. 423–4. Chikka Deva inscription of the seventeenth century in Rice, , Mysore and Coorg from its Inscriptions, p. 129.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Buddhist sources refer to the children of the demoness whom prince Vijaya married on his arrival in Ceylon as the Pulinda and state that they lived in the interior of the island at a place called Sabaragamuva (= Śabaragrama, the village of the Śabaras?), Mahāvaṇsa, VII, 68Google Scholar; Vinaya Pifaka, I, 168.Google Scholar These have come to be associated with the primitive Veddah tribes of Ceylon. In early brahmanical sources they are mentioned as a wild mountain tribe of the Deccan, Aitereya Brāhmaṇa, VII, 18Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, Ādi Parva, CLXXVII, 504.Google Scholar Later sources connect them with the Bhilas, Kathāsaritasāgara, II, 12Google Scholar; Amarakosa, II, 20–1.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ptolemy, VII, 1, 64Google Scholar; Ptolemy's phrase brings to mind the use of the Piśāca in Indian literature which also carries the meaning of those who eat raw flesh. Its most obvious connection is with the famous Brhatkatha of Guṇādhya which was written in a Piśāca or goblin language, and the location was the Vindhyas. Possibly the Piśāca language was that of these mleccha tribes. Interestingly, it is often associated by some scholars with the north western areas which may suggest a migration of some at least of these peoples from the northwest to the Vindhyas. Keith, , A History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. 266 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Rāmāyaṇa, IV, 3Google Scholar; XLIV, 12; Kathāsaritasāgara, IV, 22.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Nātyaāstra, XXI, 89Google Scholar; Brhatkathaslokaśangraha, VIII, 31.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Rāmāyaṇa, Ādi Kāṇda, I, 59Google Scholar; Āraṇya Kānda, LXXVII, 6–32.Google ScholarBāṇa, , Kādambari, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Inscription, Dholpur, Indian Antiquary, XIX, p. 35Google Scholar; Khadavada Inscription of the time of Gyas Sahi of Mandu, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXIII, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Rāmāyaṇa, IV, 37–8.Google Scholar

⁹² Amuktamālyada, IV, 206.Google Scholar

⁹³ Viṣṇu Dharmasūtra, 71, 59; 84, 2–4Google Scholar; Vasiṣṭha, 6, 41Google Scholar; Gautama, IX, 17Google Scholar; Atri, VII, 2. The śrāddha ceremony was an essential rite for the arya since it concerned the offering of food to the spirits of the ancestors and thereby strengthened and re-affirmed kin-ties. It is clearly stated in the above texts that the ārya is prohibited from speaking with the mleccha, from learning their language or from making journeys to a mleccha-deśa since contact with the mleccha was polluting. The journeys were regarded with particular disapproval since the śrāddha ceremony could not be performed in such areas.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Medātithi, a tenth-century commentator, on Maṇu, II, 23.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Mahābhārata, Ādi Parva, 174, 38; Mahāvastu, I, 135Google Scholar; Raghuvamśa, IV, 67–8.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Eran Stone Boar Inscription, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III, p. 158Google Scholar; Sharma, G. R., Excavations at Kauāmsbi, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Rājatarahginī, I, 306–7; Kalhana calls him the ‘god of destruction’.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ E.g. Hsüan Tsang's descriptions: Beal, S., Buddhist Records of the Western World, I, pp. 171 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Dhānyaviṣṇu the brother of Matrviṣṇu (yiśayapati of the Gupta king Budhagupta) became the feudatory of Toramāna. Cf. The Eran Inscription of Budhagupta, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III, p. 89Google Scholar with the Eran Stone Boar Inscription of Toramāna, op. cit., p. 158. Budhagupta in his inscription is referred to merely as bhupati (king), whereas Toramana takes the full imperial title of Mahārājādhirāja and is described as ‘the glorious’, ‘of great fame and lustre’ and ‘ruling the earth’.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ It is believed that the Gurjaras came from central India after the sixth century A.D. and were of Tocharian extraction, Bhandarkar, D. R., Indian Antiquary, 01 1911, p. 21–2Google Scholar; Bannerjee, A. C., Lectures in Rajput History, p. 7Google Scholar; Bagchi, P. C., India and Central Asia, p. 17. Place names in the Panjab–Gujerat, Gujeranwala, etc.,–suggest a settlement there as do the presence of the Gujjar herdsmen in Kashmir. The Gurjara Pratiharas ruled in western India, and there is the more recent Gujerat as a name of western India. The existence of the Gujjar caste in Maharashtra points to a further movement towards the south; I. Karve, Hindu Society. The Bad-Gujar clan survives among the Rajputs as also the brāhman caste, Gujai-Gauda.Google Scholar

The Ābhlra are nomadic herdsmen who are believed to have migrated into India with the Scythians. Some of them very soon rose to importance, such as the general Rudrabhuti, Gunda Inscription of A.D. 181 in Epigraphia Indica, VIII, p. 188Google Scholar. They are located in the lower Indus and Kathiawar region, Bhāgvata Purāna, 1, 10, 35Google Scholar; Periplus, 41Google Scholar; Ptolemy, VII, 1, 55Google Scholar. The Ābhtras are described as mlecchas and Mdras in status, Manu, X, 15Google Scholar; Mahabhasya, I, 2, 72Google Scholar. They gradually took over political power from the Sakas and the Satavahanas and spread down the west coast of India where there is mention of the Konkanabhlra, Brhatsamhita, 14, 12; 5, 42; 14, 18Google Scholar. Samudragupta in the Allahabad praiasti refers to the conquest of the Ābhlras, , Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, III, 6 ffGoogle Scholar. A tenth-century Pratihara inscription speaks of removing the menace of the Ābhlras in western India, Ghatiyala Pillar Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 280Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ This situation is discussed by Sharma, R. S. in his book, Indian Feudalism.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ghatiyala Pillar Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 280.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ The Gaṅga and Caṇella dynasty claim Candravaśṃi descent, the Gurjara-Pratihāras Sūryavaṃśi descent and the Parmaras regard their ancestor as having emerged from the Agnikula. The Gūhilas, the Cālukyas of Veṅgi, the Cālukyas of Bādami and the Cālukyas of Kalyāni all claim solar descent, Sircar, D. C., ‘The Guhila Claim of Solar Origin’, The Journal of Indian History, 1964, No. 42.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ An example of this, which was a common condition, is discussed in Sircar, D. C., The Guhilas of KishkindaGoogle Scholar. Even the Khaśa chiefs claim kṣatriya status in the Bodh Gaya inscription, Epigraphia Indica, XII, p. 30Google Scholar. The Pratihāra claim to descend from Lakṣmaṇa the younger brother of Rāma who acted as a door-keeper (pratihāra) is very suspicious, Indian Antiquary, January 1911, p. 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Sharma, R. S., ‘Early Indian Feudalism’, in Problems of Historical Writing in India (Gopal, S. and Thapar, R., ed.) p. 74. These ideas are further worked out in his Social Changes in Early Medieval India.Google Scholar

The same policy was adopted by the Mughals who located colonists in these areas partly to encourage them in the ways of Islam and of‘civilization’ and partly to keep a check on them, particularly at the time of the Maratha-Mughal conflict when the Vindhyan tribes occupied a strategic geographical position. It is not surprising that, during the period of British rule in India, Christian missionaries were extremely active in these regions.

¹⁰⁶ Una Pillar Inscription of Avanivarman II dated A.D. 899, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 6 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Atpur Inscription of Śaktikumār, Indian Antiquary, XXXIX, p. 191 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Kanhadeprabandha of Padmanābha, a fifteenth-century work, mentions a Huna among the list of Rajput jāgirdars, The Journal of Indian History, XXXVIII, p. 106.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Amarakosa, II, 10, 2; 5, 16; 8, 13; 4, 11; 4, 29; 2, 13.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Rice, , Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Epigraphia Carnatica, VII, p. 188; VI, p. 113–14.Google Scholar

¹¹² The Gaṅga king Koṅgunivarman gave a grant in A.D. 887.

¹¹³ Saletore, B. N., Wild Tribes in Indian History, p. 81 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Ray, , Dynastic History of Northern India, II, p. 941.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Bargaon Copper-plate of Ratnapāla, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, p. 99Google Scholar; Pārbatiya plates of Vanmālaveramadeva, Epigraphia Indica, XXIX, pp 145 ff. It has been suggested that the name Śālastambha approximates a Sanskritized version of the name of the Tibetan king, Sron-bstam-sgam-po.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Mahābhārata, Ādi Parva, 174, 38Google Scholar; Maṇu, X, 43–4Google Scholar; Matsya Purāna, 16, 16.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Brhatsamhita, V, 80Google Scholar; Mārkaṇdeya Purāna, 57, 39. Chinese interest in eastern India during the seventh century A.D. is attested to in the reign of Harsa and by his contemporaries in Assam. The pedestal inscription on the tomb of Tai Tsung mentions a diplomatic connection with eastern India.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Gwalior Inscription of Nagabhatta I; Sagar Tal Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, XVIII, p. 107 ffGoogle Scholar. An Arab attack on Kashmir in the eighth century is mentioned in the Rājatarahgini, VIII, 2764.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Māhamadi Sāhi Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, I, p. 93Google Scholar; Jaitrasimhadeva grant, Epigraphia Indica, XXXII, pp. 220 ff.Google Scholar; Vilāsa grant of Prolaya Nāyaka, Epigraphia Indica, XXXIII, pp. 239 ff.Google Scholar; Chitorgarh praśasti, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXIII, p. 49Google Scholar; Madras Museum Plates, Epigraphia Indica VIII, p. 9Google Scholar; Bhilsa Inscription of Jayasimha, Epigraphia Indica XXXV, p. 187Google Scholar; Dantewara Inscription of A.D. 1703, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 164.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Bhatūrya Inscription of Rajyapāla, Epigraphia Indica, XXXIII, p. 150Google Scholar; Chitorgarh praśasti of Rana Kumbhakarṇa, Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXIII, p. 49Google Scholar; Bālaghāta Plate of Prithviśena II, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 270.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Sāgar Tal Inscription of Mihlra Bhoja, Epigraphia Indica, XVIII, p. 107.Google Scholar

¹²² Śaka inscriptions reveal this very clearly as also the names of the Indo-Greeks, Epigraphia Indica, VII, p. 53, 55Google Scholar; Epigraphia Indica, VIII, 90Google Scholar; Archaeological Survey of Western India, IV, pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar

¹²³ Mention is made of the Gandhāra and Kāmboja melodies as also of Śaka and Ābhlra melodies, Pañcatantra, Apaniksetakanakam 55.

¹²⁴ From this point of view at least Indian eating habits and rituals would form an ideal subject for structuralist analysis, along the lines of the theories developed by Lévi-Strauss. See Maṇu, IV, 205–25; 247–53; for laws regarding the acceptance of various kinds of food.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Trikāṇdas'esa in Nāmalinganuśāsana of Amarakoṣạ.

¹²⁶ For the prohibition on onions and garlic, Manu, V, 19Google Scholar; for references to eating the flesh of the cow, Jaiminl, I, 3, 10Google Scholar and Rājatarahginī, VII, 1232.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Mahābhārata, Parva, Santi, LXV, 13–15.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Viṣṇu Dharmaiastra, 84, 4Google Scholar; ArthaSastra, III, 13–15.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Mathura Lion Capital Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, IX, p. 141Google Scholar; Mandasor Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, VIII, p. 95Google Scholar; Viṣṇudatta Inscription, Epigraphia Indica, VIII, p. 88. Śaka kings often refer to themselves as dhārmika on coin legends with the symbol of the Dharmacakra on the coin.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1909, pp. 1053 ff.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Eran Stone Boar Inscription. The varāha cave is at Udayagiri.

¹³² As for example the reference to Jalauka in the Rājataranginī, I, 108–52.Google Scholar

¹³³ The snake cult or worship of the Nāga is attested to in literature as well as in the archaeological remains of a multitude of nāga shrines. It is frequently seen as the symbol of the chthonic goddess, of the ancestors and of lunar and fertility cults, and is commonly found even to this day in the Himalayan and Vindhyan regions. In the historical period it gained considerable respectability particularly in the peninsula.

¹³⁴ There is mention in the Ṛg Veda of the pre-Aryan cults such as the worship of the phallus, śiṣṇadevaḥ, and the existence of sorceresses, yatumati, practising magic. The Harappan evidence clearly indicates the worship of the mother goddess which was new to the Aryan religion.

¹³⁵ Harivanśia, II, 22, 59.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Ibid., II, 22, 53–4.

¹³⁷ Ibid., II, 3, 12. She is sometimes described as krsnachavisama kr$na (as black as can be), adorned with peacock feathers and with dishevelled hair. Bana, writing in the seventh century A.D. when speaking of the mleccha tribe of the Vindyas, describes a Durga temple, Kddambari, p. 331. Of the Pulindas said to be living in the Vindhyan region, an eleventh-century text states that their king adores the cruel Devi, offers her human victims and pillages the caravans, Kathāsaritasāgara, IV, 22.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Harivamśa, II, 58Google Scholar; Daśakumaracarita, I, 14; VI, 149; VIII, 206.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Vākpati, , Gauḍavaho, V, 305.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa, LXXXII, 10–18.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Bhamya Purāṇa, II, 26; I, 39Google Scholar. Samba Purāṇa, 27, 28.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Mahābhārata, Parva, Aṇu, XC, 11Google Scholar. Maṇu, III, 162.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Brhatsamhita, LX, 9.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Patterson, Maureen, ‘Chitpavan Brahman Family Histories’, in Structure and Change in Indian Society, (ed.) Singer, Milton and B. Cohn.Google Scholar