Dravidian Madagascar and Southern Africa?

After having done some preliminary reading on the Bantu Expansion lately, it has come to my attention that the Bantus did not begin to make their first incursions into the Zambezi River Valley until the Common Era. This leaves a large portion of Africa populated by the hunter-gatherer Khoisan peoples who were relatively few in numbers. It has always seemed like something of a quirk to me that Madagascar was settled by people from Borneo (and a very specific area of a specific river in Borneo, nonetheless), who in turn, after having made such an incredible voyage across the Indian Ocean were content to sit on their admittedly massive island and wait for the Bantu to arrive.

Getting Dravidians to Madagascar by say, 200 or even 500 BCE seems easy enough to me, but can we posit the settlement of somewhere on the continent, like Mozambique? Potentially Zimbabwe/South Africa down the road? I know that disease was a significant factor in European settlement of Africa, but was it for the Indians that settled there? If so, can this be averted? For example, I have read that the tsetse fly didn’t begin to expand into other parts of Africa until the middle of the 19th century, so that might not be a problem for them and their livestock.

Also, how does South Indian culture develop in Africa? At such an early date, will the Dravidians of Africa maintain strong ties with their homelands or, like the Malagasy peoples, will they lose touch with them and develop a new culture, or a series of new cultures, perhaps by way of intermarriage with the Khoisan/Bantu?
 
After having done some preliminary reading on the Bantu Expansion lately, it has come to my attention that the Bantus did not begin to make their first incursions into the Zambezi River Valley until the Common Era. This leaves a large portion of Africa populated by the hunter-gatherer Khoisan peoples who were relatively few in numbers. It has always seemed like something of a quirk to me that Madagascar was settled by people from Borneo (and a very specific area of a specific river in Borneo, nonetheless), who in turn, after having made such an incredible voyage across the Indian Ocean were content to sit on their admittedly massive island and wait for the Bantu to arrive.

Getting Dravidians to Madagascar by say, 200 or even 500 BCE seems easy enough to me, but can we posit the settlement of somewhere on the continent, like Mozambique? Potentially Zimbabwe/South Africa down the road? I know that disease was a significant factor in European settlement of Africa, but was it for the Indians that settled there? If so, can this be averted? For example, I have read that the tsetse fly didn’t begin to expand into other parts of Africa until the middle of the 19th century, so that might not be a problem for them and their livestock.

Also, how does South Indian culture develop in Africa? At such an early date, will the Dravidians of Africa maintain strong ties with their homelands or, like the Malagasy peoples, will they lose touch with them and develop a new culture, or a series of new cultures, perhaps by way of intermarriage with the Khoisan/Bantu?

Large seafaring Dravidian-speaking polities like the Pandya and Chola colonized parts of Southeast Asia and had a greater influence around the rest of the region. It should be noted that these kingdoms even conducted trade with Rome. At this point, it should be noted that Tamil and Dravidian culture as a whole had been thoroughly influenced by Indo-Aryan religion, language, and culture. Honestly, this is a very realistic and possible scenario.

My question to you is do you want Dravidian colonization of South Africa and or Madagascar before the Indo-Aryan migrations into India? That would be something interesting to work with. Otherwise, you could have a large Dravidian-speaking colonial empire under the Cholas nearly 1500 years before OTL colonial empires.
 
Large seafaring Dravidian-speaking polities like the Pandya and Chola colonized parts of Southeast Asia and had a greater influence around the rest of the region. It should be noted that these kingdoms even conducted trade with Rome. At this point, it should be noted that Tamil and Dravidian culture as a whole had been thoroughly influenced by Indo-Aryan religion, language, and culture. Honestly, this is a very realistic and possible scenario.

My question to you is do you want Dravidian colonization of South Africa and or Madagascar before the Indo-Aryan migrations into India? That would be something interesting to work with. Otherwise, you could have a large Dravidian-speaking colonial empire under the Cholas nearly 1500 years before OTL colonial empires.

Afterward ;)
 
After having done some preliminary reading on the Bantu Expansion lately, it has come to my attention that the Bantus did not begin to make their first incursions into the Zambezi River Valley until the Common Era. This leaves a large portion of Africa populated by the hunter-gatherer Khoisan peoples who were relatively few in numbers. It has always seemed like something of a quirk to me that Madagascar was settled by people from Borneo (and a very specific area of a specific river in Borneo, nonetheless), who in turn, after having made such an incredible voyage across the Indian Ocean were content to sit on their admittedly massive island and wait for the Bantu to arrive.

Getting Dravidians to Madagascar by say, 200 or even 500 BCE seems easy enough to me, but can we posit the settlement of somewhere on the continent, like Mozambique? Potentially Zimbabwe/South Africa down the road? I know that disease was a significant factor in European settlement of Africa, but was it for the Indians that settled there? If so, can this be averted? For example, I have read that the tsetse fly didn’t begin to expand into other parts of Africa until the middle of the 19th century, so that might not be a problem for them and their livestock.

Also, how does South Indian culture develop in Africa? At such an early date, will the Dravidians of Africa maintain strong ties with their homelands or, like the Malagasy peoples, will they lose touch with them and develop a new culture, or a series of new cultures, perhaps by way of intermarriage with the Khoisan/Bantu?

You should check out the genetics of Madagascar’s ethnic groups...there is significant African admixture.

Madagascar absorbed many waves of migrants. However, Tamil merchants reached Madagascar in the 11th century...
 
Wasn't there a TL on this at some point? I distinctly remember one that had S. Africa at least colonized by non-Khoisan and non-Bantu folks. Can't remember if they were Dravidian though. Damn my memory.

I'll try and find it and post a link, may end up being a helpful resource.
 
Looking at the distance between the Peninsular India and Madagascar and Southern tip of Africa, it would be truly amazing feat if this really happened!

How Africa would develop further is also, a spectacularly interesting thing!
 
Wasn't there a TL on this at some point? I distinctly remember one that had S. Africa at least colonized by non-Khoisan and non-Bantu folks. Can't remember if they were Dravidian though. Damn my memory.

I'll try and find it and post a link, may end up being a helpful resource.

Sounds like an interesting TL.
 
I do not see a reason why an earlier Dravidian settlement of Madagascar would evolve structurally very different from OTL's. For your questions, this probably means:
Isolation is likelier than continued Network; cultural developments so divergent that we can hardly see traces of their Common ancestry with Tamils is probable, and colonisation of Mosambique is unlikely unless they land there first.
 
You should check out the genetics of Madagascar’s ethnic groups...there is significant African admixture.

Madagascar absorbed many waves of migrants. However, Tamil merchants reached Madagascar in the 11th century...

Yes, I’m aware. That was why I talked about the arrival of the Bantu in Madagascar.

Looking at the distance between the Peninsular India and Madagascar and Southern tip of Africa, it would be truly amazing feat if this really happened!

How Africa would develop further is also, a spectacularly interesting thing!

And yet, somehow Borneans from the Southeastern Barito River got to Madagascar IOTL, and that’s just the world we live in...

I do not see a reason why an earlier Dravidian settlement of Madagascar would evolve structurally very different from OTL's. For your questions, this probably means:
Isolation is likelier than continued Network; cultural developments so divergent that we can hardly see traces of their Common ancestry with Tamils is probable, and colonisation of Mosambique is unlikely unless they land there first.

Perhaps because Dravidians by the time in question (Classical Antiquity) are already living in cities and, to my knowledge have more sophisticated seafaring technology than the Austronesians, as they are selling elephants from Sri Lanka to Greeks in Egypt and Charax Spasinou in Mesopotamia?
 
Interesting. Wouldn't the Bantus meet the Dravidians already here if they tried to move in Madagasvar?

The Bantu didn’t begin their push into the Zambezi River Valley until Late Antiquity. I am talking about Dravidians settling in Madagascar and the shores of Southeast Africa and possibly up the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers before the Bantus arrive.
 
Dravidians could be a possibility but I don't it'd happen without a fight. Muslim Chinese were already in the north and it seems to have been their trading hub.

Homrik posited a dravidian presence in Southern Africa, I'm not too sure about it anymore and more so believe they would not be able to go down the coast without many trading naval communities fighting for supremacy.
 
The Bantu didn’t begin their push into the Zambezi River Valley until Late Antiquity. I am talking about Dravidians settling in Madagascar and the shores of Southeast Africa and possibly up the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers before the Bantus arrive.

Ethio-Somali Khoe populations were there though and that component probably came with bantu-like roots too.
 
Dravidians could be a possibility but I don't it'd happen without a fight. Muslim Chinese were already in the north and it seems to have been their trading hub.

Homrik posited a dravidian presence in Southern Africa, I'm not too sure about it anymore and more so believe they would not be able to go down the coast without many trading naval communities fighting for supremacy.

???

Chinese Muslims were in “the north” during Classical Antiquity? Here I thought Mohammed wasn’t born until the 6th century...Lol

Ethio-Somali Khoe populations were there though and that component probably came with bantu-like roots too.

??? Ethio-Somalis? What are Ethio-Somalis? Are you referring to Cushitic-speaking peoples? Ok. I’ve never heard that they were present in the Zambezi and Limpopo River valleys before the Bantu. I have certainly heard that there were Khoisans there, but were the Khoisans not hunter-gatherers?
 
Maldivians could probably grab bits of Madagascar if they were more expansionistic, and at one point the islands were populated by Dravidian-speaking people. IIRC the earliest Maldivians were related to the Austronesians who settled Madagascar (their East Barito language was a lingua franca), so you simply need to get later Maldivians, the Dravidian-speaking ones, to go in that direction.
 
Ethio-Somali Khoe populations were there though and that component probably came with bantu-like roots too.
To my knowledge, everyone south of the equator in Africa was Khoisan-like with the Congo jungles being populated by pygmies. Afro-Asiatic speakers never got south of the Horn except a bit in the Great Lakes region.
 
???

Chinese Muslims were in “the north” during Classical Antiquity? Here I thought Mohammed wasn’t born until the 6th century...Lol



??? Ethio-Somalis? What are Ethio-Somalis? Are you referring to Cushitic-speaking peoples? Ok. I’ve never heard that they were present in the Zambezi and Limpopo River valleys before the Bantu. I have certainly heard that there were Khoisans there, but were the Khoisans not hunter-gatherers?

Ethio-Somali is a term that's used to describe cushitic people, merely because you don't have any knowledge/haven't read research on Africa newer than the early 00's doesn't make me wrong.

Step up your game.

Secondly Madagascars settlement is related by and large to the spice trade. We do have bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence of pre-CE settlement but the vast majority of of ancestors came about around the time of Islam with the oldest archeological digs showing rice at about 650ad.

While I do believe earlier settlement occured the reality is an uninhabited massive island wouldn't necessarily draw dravidian settlement with no major economic incentive.

And while there is the belief of cinnamon traders being in Madagascar early it's veiled under so much theory that it may in fact have not existed at all before 500-0bce.

To my knowledge, everyone south of the equator in Africa was Khoisan-like with the Congo jungles being populated by pygmies. Afro-Asiatic speakers never got south of the Horn except a bit in the Great Lakes region.

You're incorrect.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214003194

Before discussing the impact of the Bantu expansion, we highlight three inferred admixture events involving sources unconnected to that migration. We infer admixture in the Ju/’hoansi, a San group from Namibia, involving a source that closely matches a local southern African Khoesan group, the Karretjie, and an East African Afroasiatic, specifically Somali, source at 558CE (311-851CE)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915815/


There's quite a few papers, however I don't not have them on my new computer.
 
Ethio-Somali is a term that's used to describe cushitic people, merely because you don't have any knowledge/haven't read research on Africa newer than the early 00's doesn't make me wrong.

Step up your game.

Someone either woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, or was never taught not to be snotty in kindergarten. Either way, let’s try to be respectful. Nobody said you were wrong, I was just confused as to the terminology you used. I actually live in an area with a decently sized Ethiopian diaspora that is almost exclusively Amharic-speaking. So, when I think “Ethio-“, I usually think Semitic... although I know Cushitic languages are more prevalent.

Secondly Madagascars settlement is related by and large to the spice trade. We do have bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence of pre-CE settlement but the vast majority of of ancestors came about around the time of Islam with the oldest archeological digs showing rice at about 650ad.

Ok, that's great. I believe I already clarified that I wasn't talking about that time period, though perhaps we could entertain the idea. You say that the settlement of Madagascar was interwoven with the spice trade and you said something earlier about Chinese Muslims using "it" (Madgascar, Zanzibar, the coast of Mozambique?) as a trading hub. Can you elaborate more on what you're talking about and how it relates to the subject at hand, which is how to get Dravidians to Madagascar and possibly the continental coast of Africa (maybe even further inland) and make up the ethnic majority, preferably during Classical Antiquity if at all possible?



While I do believe earlier settlement occured the reality is an uninhabited massive island wouldn't necessarily draw dravidian settlement with no major economic incentive.

And while there is the belief of cinnamon traders being in Madagascar early it's veiled under so much theory that it may in fact have not existed at all before 500-0bce.

Would you care to elaborate here? What is the "major economic incentive" that drew Austronesians from the Barito River in Borneo to Madagascar?



You're incorrect.

The first paper you cited doesn't anything about Afroasiatic-speakers, but rather Khoisan pastoralists, while the second one talks about them having migrated well after the time period I was originally talking about. I guess he is technically incorrect however that Afroasiatic-speakers "never" made it south of the Horn, but... they apparently didn't do so in such numbers to outlast the Bantu, did they?
 
Top