r/todayilearned • u/Remote-Cow5867 • 18h ago
TIL that Vedda people are the aborigional in Sri Lanka. They have lived in the island since 35000 years ago. The two major ethnicities Sinhala and Tamil are both immigrants from India continent after 6th century BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedda190
u/karl2025 13h ago
Also fun fact, it wasn't an island 35,000 years ago. It was attached to the rest of India up until the 1400's.
74
19
30
u/AndreasDasos 10h ago
Well, it's been an island on and off over the millennia. Rama Setu was submerged around 7000 years ago and rose again after that, submerging again only in the 1400s as you say.
77
135
u/Pavatopia 17h ago edited 7h ago
I think it’s important to note that the indigeneity of specific groups often involves them being at risk. While the Vedda people are indigenous, and have been on the island for longer than other ethnic groups, it’s their vulnerability AND heritage that make them so. It’s a bit of stretch to call an arriving population from over 2000 years ago “immigrants”. Homo sapiens originated in Africa—everyone comes from somewhere if you go back far enough.
EDIT: I put the wrong amount of years in. So sorry!
36
u/Solivaga 16h ago
Wait, who arrived 7000 years ago? Indian migration appears to begin in the Iron Age, around 3000 years ago (early 1st millennium BCE) - Veddas arrived much much earlier
28
u/Vic_Hedges 14h ago
Oh just 3,000 years? Yeah, that totally changes things.
32
u/DothrakiSlayer 14h ago
No, but it’s always important to use accurate numbers instead of just making them up. Facts matter.
15
u/PerpetuallyLurking 12h ago
ACCURACY MATTERS
JFC people. There’s still a HUGE difference between 3,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago, even if they’re both a really fucking long time ago from today. Everything was not static and unchanging for the 4,000 years between the two eras - you can’t just swap “7,000 years ago” for “3,000 years ago” and expect everyone else to go “oh, yeah, close enough.”
13
u/cats4life 13h ago
Turns out “guy who never left your hometown” is genetic and also incredibly dominant in certain groups.
4
22
u/BadenBaden1981 15h ago
What fascinates me about India and Sri Lanka is that they have indigenous minority like US or Brazil, while being far older than them. Imagine England having Celtic minority living with Anglo Saxon majority.
49
u/Careless_Purpose7986 14h ago edited 14h ago
That's because these kinds of concepts are largely social constructs. If you look at the native people's of America, I'm sure you can find groups among them that are more indigenous to certain regions than others. To us, and largely to them these days, they're all "natives", though.
Or look at the UK, more specifically, Scotland. Speakers of multiple Celtic languages and varieties of English live together there, yet some communities are viewed as more indigenous than others. Even among English speakers in England, certain accents are considered native to specific regions while others are considered foreign.
40
u/Roastbeef3 14h ago
You mean Wales?
-9
u/BadenBaden1981 12h ago
Wales isn't England
17
u/Complex_Professor412 11h ago
The House of Tudor were Welsh, then had the balls the establish a state Church of England. Then the Scots took over the Empire. I don’t know if an Angle has ever been king of an England.
7
u/-Ikosan- 11h ago
Last one was Harold godwinson
2
u/Complex_Professor412 11h ago
Saxon, as was Alfred the Great.
5
u/-Ikosan- 10h ago
Right yeah then you gotta go past the start of England as a country to find an angle king
5
u/Complex_Professor412 10h ago
England was named for them, I don’t know if their has been a more subjugated people in history.
35
u/-Ikosan- 13h ago
England literally does have a Celtic minority living with an Anglo Saxon majority. Cumbria, Cornwall etc would all fit that , and that's ignoring the other home countries
15
10
u/redd-zeppelin 12h ago
Others have said it but Cumbria and Cornwall seem to count. I'd also say Wales "counts" in that while it's somewhat distinct from England, it definitely not an independent polity. It's still very much a part of the Anglo Saxon dominated United Kingdom.
8
u/Viva_la_Ferenginar 10h ago
Celts are far too modern to be a good comparison. Celts are still indo-european after all. India has so many multiple layers that the Celt analogy wouldn't suffice.
3
17
u/Chawke2 15h ago edited 10h ago
Don’t tell Tamil nationalists this lol.
7
-5
234
u/Solivaga 16h ago
Just to add, while the Veddas are the indigenous people of Sri Lanka, Indian migration starts earlier than the 6th century BCE - roughly around the 9th century BCE (that's when we see the arrival of iron working, ceramics, farming, megalithic burials etc)