Were Baijini from India?

The topic of this post is from an internet search phrase. Let us look at this question assuming that the Baijini were not a figment of imagination.  In my previous post, the possibility for an Indian connection to Baijini was speculated.  This addendum is not to substantiate it but rather to point out few points that could drive somebody to similar speculation.

According to mainstream view, Baijini were gypsies[1]. Here, the noun “gypsy” was used to infer itinerant nature of Baijini.  Were they really itinerant?  Same document contradicts this view.  The Baijini constructed stone houses, wove cloth, tended small gardens and cultivated rice.  If they had been a wandering community, why did they build stone houses which would be a way for a group of people who wanted a sedentary life?  Why did the wandering people tend gardens or grow rice? To cultivate rice, they had to use unhusked rice. They had to bring it in their vessels.  Why did an itinerant group of people take unhusked rice on their travels?  Could it be for them to settle down somewhere and start cultivating rice varieties they used to grow in the place where they started their journey from?  Did they resemble more to a group of settlers who lost their way? Did the shipwreck mention in the lore of Aboriginal people make any sense? From recorded history, it is known that this part of the world had been very active with Indenisation about 2000BP. If Baijini were Chinese people, it would be bit inappropriate to refer to them as “copper-coloured”.

With a remarkable lucidity, Stephen Jay-Gould points out that “Science, as actually practiced, is a complex dialogue between data and preconceptions.[2]” This remarkably honest insight about the way of Science by a superb scientist of our time shows us the direction the next phase of this journey of facing real Baijini should turn.  To shed a bit more light on this, in the absence of Archaeological data, Population Geneticists are the ones equipped with the required tools. Carefully revisiting the  genetic data without preconceived ideas can lead to an unprejudiced outcome to settle the question whether a plausible genetic admixture between Indians and Aboriginal Australians happened closer to 1000AD or 4000BP. Without prior prejudice or preconceptions, in order to partially answer the question asked at the very outset, let us implore someone with the ready access to data, to try a confirmatory analysis or a meta-analysis.

[1]Possibility C Baijini, National Museum of Australia available at http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/340571/AHM_21-36.pdf

[2] P.244. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Hutchinson Radius, London (1989)

About admin

The website aims to show the possible origin of religion through a ‘uniquely’ human process which has links to the seclusion of girls at puberty. It also advocates the view that the Paleolithic Venus figurines are related to these puberty rites and hence, the prehistoric Venus figurines may carry a much larger meaning. Thus, Religion is something more than a throwback from our animal past.
This entry was posted in Topics of Anthropological Interest and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *