When the Indo-Europeans invaded, or if you prefer, migrated to India, they were apparently restricted to the north of the subcontinent RV oral traditions record encounters with the Dasas, but I wonder if they encountered the AASI peoples in the tropical forests of India. I can imagine it was similar to what the Spanish explorers experienced when entering the tropical forests of the Americas, encountering primitive and hidden natives. The AASI had direct contact with the agricultural peoples of Asia who founded the Indus Valley Civilization, so perhaps they wouldn't have been extinct in the Bronze Age
>>18618929I've imagined the exact same thing. The Indo-Europeans at the end of the Bronze Age were already accustomed to a series of ecological and geographical locations and adapted relatively well to each of them. They were used to dry steppes, forests, arid zones, oasis ranges, and mountain ranges, but the tropical forests of South Asia would be completely new to them. And to be honest, I wouldn't see why they would try to explore these regions. It wouldn't be sustainable for their economy and lifestyle. not even the peoples of the Indus Valley tried to expand southward, sine their mature urban culture was limited to northwestern South Asia (modern Pakistan, northwest India), so it was a very inaccessible region. Indo-Aryan languages were restricted to the north.By the Late Bronze Age Indo-European (such as Andronovo groups) had become more and more horse-breeding semi-nomads. They mastered vertical nomadism in the Pamirs and Tian-Shan mountains, and desert nomadism around the Caspian and Aral. These Andronovans already practiced desert nomadism In Khorezm and southern Turkmenia, (and are also as far south as makran in Balochistan, judging by the material culture found in these locations)Andronovan settlements of the Tazabagyab culture were linked to river channels and were abandoned when rivers dried. These sites were used during spring migrations, But not with the tropical forests of southern and central India the Vedic people, as you said, were restricted to the north of the continent.
>>18619004What cultures inhabited southern India during the Bronze Age?
>>18619021To be fair, I'm not particularly versed in the archaeology of southern India, but from what I understand, "Neolithic ashmounds" are the most studied, but I can't say which population characterized these peoples. The southern peoples still lived isolated by geographical barriers and may be AASI in the the Bronze Age the south remained in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic period. There's a fringe theory that "Rakshasa" could be AASI, but I'm not sure.
>>18618929Yes, the Rakshasas>>18619032This
>>18619038>>18619032No. AASI cannot be the Rakshasas bcuz the latter is described as having two fangs protruding from the top of its mouth and sharp, claw-like nails they are just random demons from local folklore.
>>18619041Well, I was very clear in my post that this is a fringe theory I'm not particularly a proponent of this theory. However, it seems that a considerable number of authors associate them with marginal and separate groups from Vedic society these Rakshasas *could* represent supernatural depictions of demonized forest inhabitants who were outside the society.
>>18619048Anon? These texts say they were shapeshifters and could assume different physical forms, even elephants. I don't think anyone in real life could do that unless you believe satyrs were real, right? The Vedic people didn't even have words for dense jungle.
>>18619052>The Vedic people didn't even have words for dense jungle.That's not true tho
>>18619457That originally meant desert or wasteland
>>18619457? Jaṅgala = Dry savanna / Arid terrain of northwestern India
>>18619457>>18619461>>18619465You're missing something. They obviously had some knowledge of dense forests. If the Vedic poets wanted to refer to a dense, impassable forest, they used the term Araṇya or Vana, and it all depends on the era we're referring to. The early Vedic peoples were restricted to Punjab and the Indus Valley, but as they migrated eastward, forming the Aryavarta,as this map shows>>18619004 the migration of these peoples eastward, towards the Ganges River valley which at that time the Ganges was much more tropical and dense than it is today. Like The texts literally describe the need to burn the forests using the fire god (Agni), which doesn't seem to apply to Punjab. Only in and after 1000 BCE this we had a slight increase in rainfall although aridcondition continued
>>18619052>Anon? These texts say they were shapeshifters and could assume different physical forms, even elephants. Certainly. I don't deny that.>I don't think anyone in real life could do that unless you believe satyrs were real, right? I'm simply saying that, considering the Vedic texts, the Rakshasas are portrayed as forest dwellers with cannibalistic rituals. The Rakshasas could represent exaggerated and supernatural depictions of demonized forest inhabitants.>The Vedic people didn't even have words for dense jungle.Yes, so what? Did someone say that the Vedic people were inhabitants of tropical forests? I literally said in my post above that they were practically restricted to the northwest of the Indian subcontinent>>18619478>at that time the Ganges was much more tropical and dense than it is todayThis would be helpful for the discussion. could you share more information?
>>18619478Ancient Greek chroniclers who visited the region reported that the areas around Pataliputra (present-day Patna) still harbored dense tropical forests teeming with tigers and wild elephants, something unthinkable given the region's current population density. I don't know why this thread turned into a schizophrenic discussion about Vedic fear of forests or something like that.
>>18619465>>18619461You lost
