Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v2.c4.s7.385

v2.c4.s7.385

It is well known that the Iranian polity presents a division of classes comparable in some respects¹⁶⁷ with the Indian polity. The priests (Athravas) and warriors (Rathaesthas) are unmistakably parallel, and the two lower classes seem to correspond closely to the Pāli Gahapatis, and perhaps to the Śūdras.¹⁶⁸ But they are certainly not castes in the Indian sense of the word. There is no probability in the view of Senart¹⁶⁹ or of Risley¹⁷⁰ that the names of the old classes were later superimposed artificially on a system of castes that were different from them in origin. We cannot say that the castes existed before the classes, and that the classes were borrowed by India from Iran, as Risley maintains, ignoring the early Brāhmaṇa evidence for the four Varṇas, and treating the transfer as late. Nor can we say with Senart that the castes and classes are of independent origin. If there had been no Varṇa, caste might never have arisen; both colour and class occupation are needed for a plausible account of the rise of caste.¹⁷¹ 33. 549; Shridhar V. Katkar, History of Caste in India. The Jātaka evidence is all collected by Fick, Die sociale Gliederung im nordöstlichen Indien zu Buddha's Zeit (1897); its value is considerable, but its date is extremely doubtful, and it certainly cannot be regarded as really contemporary with Buddha (fifth century B.C.). The Dharma Sūtras also give full details, but their date likewise is uncertain.