hem, appear in strong
contrast with the somewhat low and wide heads, slight make, and dark
bronze of the low castes" (Stevenson, quoted by Max Muller, _Chips_, ii.
p. 327).[12] This explanation is, however, generally conjoined with that
founded on the tradition of conquest by the higher castes. There is no
doubt that the three castes of lighter colour (traivarnika), the white
Brahmans, the red Kshatriyas, the yellow Vaisyas, are, at least in the
early hymns and Brahmanas, spoken of as the Aryas, the Sanskrit-speaking
conquerors, in contradistinction to the dark cloud of the Turanian
aborigines Dasyus. In fact arya, which means noble, is derived from
arya, which means householder, and was the original name of the largest
caste, now called Vaisyas. The great Sanskrit scholar, Rudolf von Roth
(1821-1895), in his _Brahma und die Brahmanan_[13] held that the Vedic
people advanced from their home in the Punjab, drove the aborigines into
the hills, and took possession of the country lying between the Ganges,
the Jumna and the Vindhya range. "In this stage of complication and
disturbance," he said, "power naturally fell into the hands of those who
did not possess any direct authority," i.e. the domestic priests of the
numerous tribal kings. The Sudras he regarded as a conquered race,
perhaps a branch of the Aryan stock, which immigrated at an earlier
period into India, perhaps an autochthonous Indian tribe. The latter
hypothesis is opposed to the fact that, while the Sudra is debarred from
sharing three important Vedic sacrifices, the Bhagasata Purana expressly
permits him to sacrifice "without _mantras_," and imposes on him duties
with reference to Brahmans and cows which one would not expect in the
case of a nation strange in blood. But unless a previous subordination
of castes among the conquering race be supposed, it seems difficult to
see why the warrior-class, who having contributed most to the conquest
must have been masters of the situation, should have consented to
degradation below the class of Brahmans. The position of the Sudra
certainly suggests conquest. But are there sound historical reasons for
supposing that Brahmans and Sudras belonged to different nations, or
that either class was confined to one nation? The hypothesis was held in
a somewhat modified form by Meiners,[14] who supposed that instead of
one conquest there may have been two successive immigrations,--the first
immigrants being subdued by the second,