Very interesting, please say more .. hopefully logically.
tribal gods are all forcibly came under Hindu umbrella. eg: someone worshipped a living person, a local tribal god,A Bull or a Elephant - all are seen as another form/avatar of trio-gods of Hinduism Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwar(
Srushti-Sthiti-Samhara. samhara means destruction).
so, any pagan act is covered as a part of Hinduism in Bharat.
intriguing is, Maheshwar(Shiva) the Moon God worship is practised in Arabia and even now under a different religious name.
I think the tamils arrived from australia or africa, which is the reason why the natives of Australia have almost same language and same facial features as Tamils or Dravidians.
They has nothing to do with the IVC, a Indo-Aryan civilization
Of late, there have been more and more weird theories oozing out of the woodwork, couched in really weird language. It is scary to look at the kind of stuff that is floating around in Internet forums nowadays. It seems that the basic lack of education in humanities has made more and more of the Internet generation vulnerable to the kind of appalling rubbish floating around on the Internet. Now, what YouTube says is being cited as historical proof.
Having said that, there is a strong case for supposing, first, that the caste system is the method by which a certain cultural homogeneity was spread all over south Asia by speakers of Indo-Aryan, also identified with the Vedas and called Vedic Sanskrit, who came into India in 1500 BC or so (if one accepts elements of the AIT). As the original speakers of this language entered south Asia, they, being themselves ethnically diverse, encountered a series of tribes in the Indus plain first, thereafter in the Gangetic plain, who looked sufficiently different from them to excite their interest and fix their prejudices firmly enough to be reflected in their hymns to their steppe-based gods. These tribes, probably speaking a set of Dravidian languages, which are still to be found all over south India in a significantly developed and advanced form, but with an underlying sub-stratum of Austric languages which have still survived in north India, as their speakers were sheltered by the thick forests and wild regions in which they survived, were gradually converted to speaking Indo-Aryan in the north-west. This should have been around 1500 to 1350 BC.
Historically, we are still in the realm of pure speculation, strictly speaking, in the realm of proto-history:
Protohistoric may also refer to the transition period between the advent of literacy in a society and the writings of the first historians. The preservation of oral traditions may complicate matters as these can provide a secondary historical source for even earlier events. Colonial sites involving a literate group and a non-literate group are also studied as protohistoric situations.
It can also refer to a period in which fragmentary or external historical documents, not necessarily including a developed writing system, have been found. For instance, the Proto–Three Kingdoms of Korea, the Yayoi[1] and the Mississippian groups recorded by early European explorers are protohistoric.
Around 500 BC (give or take a century), the rules of grammar of the previous Indo-Aryan, or Vedic Sanskrit, were meticulously compiled by Panini, and formed a very well matured language which hardly changed thereafter in linguistic terms through the next 2,500 years. However, this was used as a cultural high language, and the language(s) which were used as a synthesising influence were the Prakrit languages, notably the western version, centred around Sauraseni dialect, and the eastern version, or Magadhi.
The same process continued in the south, and there seems to have been a process of synthesising of earlier faith systems; their gods got absorbed into the pantheon, and were worshipped along with those mentioned in the Vedas. The language of the local people remained the same, Proto-Dravidian. Their tribes were absorbed as new castes, just as their gods had been absorbed as additions to the pantheon.
.
