Geography of South Asia

Hi,

as the history of South Asia and South East Asia touches nearly all other civilizations that have existed, it is a pity that my 'Geography' series reach this place in such a time from it's beginning. But be not worried, for I have gained much information about some things that I would have questioned you mostly about and now will only touch in a few sentences and other things have been left more space.

So, if I am to start, I will start with the one and only question about Rome, that I can ask here, as others are answered in the Classical Mediterranean subforum, in topics by Ikki and me, please take a look:

Rome:

1) What were the settlements the Roman traders visited on their voyages to China?

and I can move on, to much more pleasant topics:

India:

1) What did the ancient Indian nations (do not start a war on ethnicity) think the world was like and did they adapt their invaders ideas or were the invaders to take up their looks of the world?

2) Did the people make any notable maps of the known world?

3) How regular was sailing?

4) Did the people ever go to Indonesia, Ceylon, or other, more southward (and westward) islands and even Africa?

5) How often did the Indians communicate with the people in Cameron or in Persia?

South East Asia:

1) What was their look on the world like? Similiar to Indians or what?

2) Any maps?

3) Were the people used to sailing around, did they ever go to China or India, Indonesia or other islands?

4) What were the relations to the Polynesians?

5) Were there any routes through the jungle? Did any people go discovering the jungle?


Thanks for anyone, and I will appreciate the contribution of each and every one of you. I hope the number of questions does not scare you.

Rider

Another interesting thing is (now dont blame me saying I am trying to prove Indian superiority, which I am not, I am too intelligent to do that) that in ancient indian literature there are continuous mentions of ASURs. these ASURs (the demons) are people who dont follow the Indian religion, but don't worship the Indian gods (DEVs) (Anamoly, but this is the tradition). They are related to the mainstream people, but have their own notions of their superiority. (Its lika a racial divide, each claiming to be better & conquering & defeating the other alternatively.) These ASURs are finally said to be defeated &  driven away. (They anyway are always said to have lived on the borders of the land of Gods,(devs) ).

Now their are schools of thought that these ASURs are the same as ASSRYIANs. (Obvioulsy fitting together linguistic similarities of pronounciation & location like most of ancient history does)

The presence of the Mittani ( Subari / Hurric ) people in middle east & their empires existing alongside the HItties, the Egyptians,babylonains, mesopotramia etc.. is also a mystery. The Hitties were also Indo - European to say, but the Mittani people followed the hindu religion. The se mittani people ruled areas from West Iran to Turkey & ere constantly at war with the Egyptian, & the hitties. Eventually there empire became a vassel state of the hitties, who took advantage of thier internal clashes & defeated them. Their are ancient  documents to this effect. These Mittani people are said to have introduced the light horse spoke wheeled chariots to the middle east & existed as a chariot warrior aristocracy all through the middle east, even outside their empires. they are said to have continued as this landed, charioteer - archer - warrior  aristocracy  in the entire  middle east from iran to turkey, even after their empire was defeated by the hitties & they became a vassel stat of the hitties. Tutenkhamen, the popular Egyptial  pharoh, whose mumm is so popular had a mittani grand mother, when Akhenaten had married a Mittani princess after a treaty between the Mittanis & Egyptians.


The present day Kurds from Turkey & syria to Iran claim ancestry from these Mittani (Subari / Hurrian) people.

The mystery is where did these Hindu people come from if they were not a resurgent sect / branch of the Assryians ? The Indians have no other record of them now.
 

1) What were the settlements the Roman traders visited on their voyages to China?

I don't know that one, nor can I find it in any of the books I have.
...
Wait I just found it looking for maps for question 2:

According to Kulke & Rothermund (I can give you a proper reference if you want). We have several towns along both coasts but the majority seem to be around the tip of India, this is the same for the finds of coins. Bharaukaccha (Barygaza), Kalyana (Kalliana), (Byzantium), Cranganore (Muziris), Kumari (Comari), Uraiyur (Argaru), Kaveripatnam (Khaberis), Arikamedu (Poduka), Sopatma, Palura.

I'm not sure what the bracketted non-bracketed names mean, I assume Native and (Latin) names. I'll scan a map in and post here in a second.

1) What did the ancient Indian nations (do not start a war on ethnicity) think the world was like and did they adapt their invaders ideas or were the invaders to take up their looks of the world?

Invaders became indianised much more than the opposite. Most of the major changes to Indian culture have occured through internal means and not through external. Even the muslim community today pretty much takes the place of (and it probably decendent from) the Buddhist community 1500 years ago.

2) Did the people make any notable maps of the known world?

I'm sure they did, but I can't find any. Historical maps of India I've found very difficult to get.

3) How regular was sailing?

Very common I'm sure. Kulke & Rothermund state that the Indus Valley civilisation imported millet from places in Africa via Oman. In addition Wikipaedia has this article

The Indus civilisation's economy appears to have depended significantly on trade, which was facilitated by major advances in transport technology. These advances included bullock-driven carts that are identical to those seen throughout South Asia today, as well as boats. Most of these boats were probably small, flat-bottomed craft, perhaps driven by sail, similar to those one can see on the Indus River today; however, there is secondary evidence of sea-going craft. Archaeologists have discovered a massive, dredged canal and docking facility at the coastal city of Lothal. Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilisation artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and central India, and Mesopotamia. There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilisations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf). [8] Such long-distance sea-trade became feasible with the innovative development of plank-built watercraft, equipped with a single central mast supporting a sail of woven rushes or cloth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization#Trade_and_transportation

4) Did the people ever go to Indonesia, Ceylon, or other, more southward (and westward) islands and even Africa?

Yes. I just mentioned Africa, but sea trade with Indonesia and Sri Lanka is extremely common throughout most of Indian history. Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism all entered Indonesia from sea trade with India.

5) How often did the Indians communicate with the people in Cameron or in Persia?

Persia all the time, they're right next door. Cameroon? I'm not sure if India has an embassie in Cameroon now. What motivates that question?

South East Asian history I'm nowhere near as good at. 1 & 2 I don't know, though since the religions of SE Asia have come from South Asia I assume this means that their world outlook was more similar.

3) Were the people used to sailing around, did they ever go to China or India, Indonesia or other islands?

Indonesia being a big part of SE asia, has a very big maritime tradition (naturally) and has had long contact with all their neighbours from China to India.

Thats all I've found at the moment, if I find more I'll add it, and I'll get the map of Roman contact.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 14-Sep-2006 at 03:53

I haven't forgotten about you Rider, will give you more information as soon as I have time.

For your paitence: There are no records nor archaeological records that I am aware of that Indians reached Australia (unlike chinese, where coins have been found). I personally think it is likely, but arriving at outback western Australia or NT there wouldn't have been anything to interest them.

--Not in a governmental sense. I'm refering to traders, not government sponsered expeditions.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 20-Sep-2006 at 05:56

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma The Indian Kambuj comunity colonised Combodia. Combodia being the name given by the West, their native name is still kambuj. This is one of the ancient communities, which had participated in the Mahabharat war.

It's misleading to call them 'Indians'. The Kamboj were just another group involved in the events of the purans, mahabharat etc.  The idea of Indianness hadn't been invented yet.

Well Cahaya there was the Chola's. Actually that was the only "Indian" empire in SE Asia.

The Chola dynasty began its expansion out of mainland India under the rule of Rajaraja Chola (i'll give you a second to laugh). Under his reign The Chola Empire conquered much of South India, went on to invade the Maldives and conqurered half of Sri Lanka.

After he died in 1014 CE (50 years before the Normans invaded the British Isles, interesting when you think of whats happening in the rest of the world) his son Rajendra Chola I took over and completed the invasion of Sri Lanka. It took little time for Rajendra to take the throne as he wa serving as co-reagent alongside his father. That was a custom in the dynasty that ensured there was no power struggle for the throne on the death of a king.

Apart from continuing his conquest of India Rajendra also began his conquest outside the sub-continent in 1025 CE. He invaded and defeated the mighty Kingdoms of Srivijaya (which was made up of Sumatra, the Malay peninsula and others). The reason for doing this is still unclear, as the Sailendra dynasty of Srivijaya had been in good terms with his father, Rajaraja.

On top of that Rajendra Chola conquered the Andaman and Nicobar islands and also extrated tribute from Thailand and Khmer.

Here is a map of his empire in 1030 CE:




edit: If you want more info check out it's wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajaraja_Chola_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Chola



Edited by Anujkhamar - 27-Sep-2006 at 19:21

Originally posted by Anuj The Chola dynasty began its expansion out of mainland India under the rule of Rajaraja Chola (i'll give you a second to laugh).

Originally posted by jayeshks Originally posted by Vivek Sharma The Indian Kambuj comunity colonised Combodia. Combodia being the name given by the West, their native name is still kambuj. This is one of the ancient communities, which had participated in the Mahabharat war. It's misleading to call them 'Indians'. The Kamboj were just another group involved in the events of the purans, mahabharat etc.  The idea of Indianness hadn't been invented yet.

Then when was it invented ? I am not talking about the word India for we still don't like this word India but are forced to use it somehow, when we are speaking in English. I am talking about the Indians & the Indian civilisation & culture.

For your information the Ruling family in Mahabharat was from the family of King Bharat, (after whom one of the names for the country Bharat Varsha was given ) which was from the same Ikshwaku dynasty of Ram, who is the one of theearliest Indian historical war heros.

And the Indian name for India even at present is Bharat Varsha.

Waiting for your reply.

Originally posted by vivek The Srivijay empire itself was an Indian empire.

Could you explain why you believe this?

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma Then when was it invented ? I am not talking about the word India for we still don't like this word India but are forced to use it somehow, when we are speaking in English. I am talking about the Indians & the Indian civilisation & culture. For your information the Ruling family in Mahabharat was from the family of King Bharat, (after whom one of the names for the country Bharat Varsha was given ) which was from the same Ikshwaku dynasty of Ram, who is the one of theearliest Indian historical war heros. And the Indian name for India even at present is Bharat Varsha. Waiting for your reply.

As you already know 'Bharatvarsha' stood for the entire 'vishwa' or known world.  Finding the conquests of King Bharat or an actual King Bharat himself in the archaelogical record is difficult.  To twist that to represent modern day India is perverse.  The word just doesn't have the same meaning today.  'India' like 'Greece' or 'Italy' was a notion created relatively recently by a nationalist movement which found itself being defined from the outside.

As for the Kamboj, where they come from or went to is unsolved thus far as well.  Ashokan inscriptions indicate them to occupy the north-west of the subcontinent in perhaps Gandhara.  Purans mention the kingdom existing in modern day Gujarat.  Their connections to modern day Kampuchea/Campodia aren't clear if there are even any.