The weakness of ancient Indian literature
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14428
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 02:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The weakness of ancient Indian literature
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Subject: The weakness of ancient Indian literature
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 09:58
|
One thing that strikes me is that ancient Indian literature is considerably less extensive than their contemporary Greek or Chinese counterparts. Many events of Indian have survived, so it seems, exclusively in foreign records. I have just surfed a bit on Indian history at Wikipedia and the majority of sources on a multitude of aspects about India are actually drawn from the observations of foreigners! Pataliputra, the capital, is descibed by the Greek Megasthenes, ambassador of Seleucos, and much later by the Chinese buddhist monk Faxian. The treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucos is recorded by the Greco-Roman Appian and Strabo. Descriptions of Chandragupta's personality are offered by Justin and Plutarch. The only indigenous sources I stumbled over was Chandragupta's adviser, Chanakya. As far as I can see, this relative meagerness of ancient Indian literature has been a major feature throughout most of Indian history. I know that India has a very old oral tradition, but where are the written sources, the extant works of the historians, philosophers, mathematicians and statesmen? India was not only late at reestablishing literacy after the demise of the Indus culture (850 BC, 750 BC, 500 BC?), the extant works of later periods up the early modern time are less and more patchy than elsewhere. So chess was invented in India, but we just do not know for sure, because nobody wrote about it. Were catapults used in ancient India? We have relatively detailed technical Greek and Chinese treatises, let alone their frequent mentioning by war historians, but for India we only have vague references. What do we have on the early history of Hindu numerals? Only the invention of the zero seems to be well recorded. Our knowledge of Indian political history is even more unsatisfying. It seems that with every demise of a grand Indian dynasty also the writing on history is cancelled. Indian history has more blank spaces than any other of the classical cultures. We know less about Indian achievements in culture, politics and economy than we know from about anybody else. Babylonians and Assyrians had huge libraries (real libraries, not simply archives) of clay tablets, today to be found in Berlin and London. The Greeks discovered historiography for themselves sooner than everybody else (5th century BC), they had huge libraries in Alexandria and Pergamon, and the Romans stepped in their footsteps. The Arabs and the Latin West copied later their works in scriptories as good as they could. We profit from that today. The Chinese invented paper as a writing material early on (100 AD), and despite their archaic mode of writing were obsessive recorders of whatever caught their eye. Indian historical tradition is, though, comparatively weak. The oldest copy of Caesar's Gallic War is from 1000 AD, the oldest parts of the Bible from the second century AD, and the oldest still surviving fragments of Greek philosophical treatise were uncovered in 4th century BC grave in the dry sands of Egypt. What how old is the oldest still extant Indian book? Now, I would like to know the reasons. Possible explanations may be: - The output of Indian written sources was smaller than elsewhere. Therefore, the total amount of extant works is also smaller - Indian History was, for a reason to be explored, particulary malevolent to written sources. Much, too much, had been destroyed by the volatile and violent history of the subcontinent - Indian texts, and this may be the most important reasons, were written on particularly perishable material. I once read that palm leaves were the preferred Indian writing material for most of its history, and that there are today no older copies of Indian works earlier than from 1750. Palm leaves are of course, being organic material, very perishable, especially unprepared, although I am no expert at that. - A lot of ancient sources are there, still alive and waiting very much for translation. Many texts are then simply not translated into European languages, therefore nobody knows of them in the West and what I described above does not reflect the true status of extant works of ancient Indian literature. So, what is your opinion. Why has been Indian literary tradition so weak? |
Replies:
Posted By: Vedam
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 05:03
|
So you think the Indian Literary tradition is weak?
Let me explain to you about the Vedas which are an Oral tradition but in ways more accurate than a literary one. The hymns of the Vedas were so sacred, in that i mean the actual pronunciation, that it was thought that any mistake in the chanting, would send the world into chaos. So numerous checks and counter checks were made, to ensure not a single mistake crept in.
The result is the preservation of the oldest Indo-european language that exists, dating from at least 1500BC. The sanskrit spoken is archaic Sanskrit far older then Latin and Greek.
Remember the actual sounds, the mantras, were sacred so no mistakes could creep in, and this was ensured by Brahmins who would preserve the Vedas.
It is the oldest countinous vocal tradition in the world. It has been described by Harvard scholars as a tape recording of the past.
I think over 1000 hymns kept alive from the second millenium BC thats gives us the oldest Indo-European language in the world is quite impressive.
With regards to chess i suggest you read the post in the Near eastern forum about "chess Indian or Iranain" page 5, to give you your proof.
The ten numerals we know came from India because the Arabs who introduced it to Europe called it "Hindawa" numerals.
The Mahabharata is seven times longer than the Odyssey and Iliad combined, and even if it was put into writing in the early centuries AD, i think it is still quite a feat, considering there are 100,000 verses.
|
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 09:38
So, when were the Vedas put to paper, so to speak, and what kind of knowledge do they comprise beyond the religious and philosophical? Also historical events? PS: It has beeen shown, that the modern Greek language can be traced in a single development line to the Mycenean Age in the middle of the 2nc millemium BC. Mycenean Greeks were Greeks. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 17:45
 ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 02:19
|
Perhaps it is best to start with the question when exactly did India regain literacy? I just read that Megasthenes wrote (around 300 BC) that the Indians had no (written) law because they did know know writing. I am very much open minded, enlighten me about the early era of Indian writing. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 03:30
|
Magasthenes obvioulsy has never made any comment like this. I suspect the identity of the propogator of the thread as well as the motive. Its quite obvious he has not done any homework, not even a simple google.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 03:43
|
It's very unfortunate that the first great civilization of India, the Harrapan or Indus Valley Civilization is largely forgotten in the sands of time, so to speak, as the writings of their great civilization, the Indus Script written and developed from 3500 BC until 1500 BC is still undeciphered. Unlike the Rosetta Stone, which allowed modern historians to discover the secrets of the ancient Egyptian past by using Ptolemy-era-Greek translation, the tale of the Harrapans may be forever lost to us, at least through their writing, as solid archeological evidence of their planned cities gives us great clues of their quite sophisticated past in relevance to other world civilizations in the concurrent time period. Of course, the Aryan migrations into India would mix with the indigenous people to the north and with the Dravidian peoples of the south and Island of Sri Lanka, forming a newly blended culture.
Besides the Vedas mentioned before, the religion of Buddhism, which came from Northern India, was largely documented, but once again that falls under philosophical/religious grounds, and not what Gun Powder Ma mentioned before about concise documented history and historians in the ancient period of India. Along with the Vedas, the ancient Ramayana and Mahabharata contributed to early Hinduism, yet once again fall under the same camp as the Vedas and Buddhism as not concise historical documentation, and so does the ancient texts of the Upanishads.
The ancient Iron-age Kingdoms of the Mahajanapades in northern India include one of the world's first democratic governments, the country of Vaishali, along with the democratic states described by the Greek followers of Alexander the Great, Sabarcae and Sambastai, described as "democratic and not regal." Along with Greek documentation, ancient Vedic literature actually documents these kingdoms as far back as 1000 BCE, although there is controversey Vedic documentation, as the educated speech was Sanskrit, while the general populace of northern India spoke Prakrits.
Of course, after the early Vedic Age, the Persian and Hellenistic Greek invasions would spur some outside influence on Indian culture, and vice versa upon them, as it was Demetrius I of Greco-Bactria who established the Indo-Greek Kingdom and supported Buddhism to draw support against the rival kingdom of Sunga in northern India, which persecuted Buddhism. Anyways, after the Greeks, the powerful kingdom of Maghada evolved into the Mauryan Empire, which prevailed over most of India (save a small region in the southern Tamil area) in the 3rd century BCE, and the lives of their great leaders such as Chandragupta Maurya, and arguably India's greatest leader, Ashoka Maurya, were widely documented in Vedic texts. In the 9th century AD, the Sanskrit author Vishakhadatta composed a theatrical play in seven acts based on the life of Chandragupta, called Mudrarakshasa (or Signet Ring of the Rakshasa, the chief minister of the last Nanda King). Also, the large conquests and battles of Chandragupta and Ashoka are documented as well, and not in a very traditional philisophical or relgious-lore practice, including Ashoka's famous invasion of Kalinga. The Edicts of Ashoka are the oldest preserved historical documents of India, a basis upon which further dynasties to come could be approximately dated to the Christian calendar, as well as further evidence into the actions of his reign. Within these 33 inscriptions, not only religious approvals, along with moral and ethical behaviours are outlined, but also edicts of Justice...
"It is my desire that there should be uniformity in law and uniformity in sentencing. I even go this far, to grant a three-day stay for those in prison who have been tried and sentenced to death. During this time their relatives can make appeals to have the prisoners' lives spared. If there is none to appeal on their behalf, the prisoners can give gifts in order to make merit for the next world, or observe fasts." Pilar Edict Nb4 (S. Dhammika)
"In the twenty-six years since my coronation prisoners have been given amnesty on twenty-five occasions." Pilar Edict Nb5 (S. Dhammika) Along with respect for animals...
"Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice." Rock Edict Nb1 (S. Dhammika)
"Twenty-six years after my coronation various animals were declared to be protected -- parrots, mainas, //aruna//, ruddy geese, wild ducks, //nandimukhas, gelatas//, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, //vedareyaka//, //gangapuputaka//, //sankiya// fish, tortoises, porcupines, squirrels, deer, bulls, //okapinda//, wild asses, wild pigeons, domestic pigeons and all four-footed creatures that are neither useful nor edible. Those nanny goats, ewes and sows which are with young or giving milk to their young are protected, and so are young ones less than six months old. Cocks are not to be caponized, husks hiding living beings are not to be burnt and forests are not to be burnt either without reason or to kill creatures. One animal is not to be fed to another." Pillar Edict Nb5 (S. Dhammika) On Buddhism...
"Piyadasi, King of Magadha, saluting the Sangha and wishing them good health and happiness, speaks thus: You know, reverend sirs, how great my faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and Sangha is. Whatever, reverend sirs, has been spoken by Lord Buddha, all that is well-spoken." Minor Rock Edict Nb3 (S. Dhammika)
"These Dhamma texts -- Extracts from the Discipline, the Noble Way of Life, the Fears to Come, the Poem on the Silent Sage, the Discourse on the Pure Life, Upatisa's Questions, and the Advice to Rahula which was spoken by the Buddha concerning false speech -- these Dhamma texts, reverend sirs, I desire that all the monks and nuns may constantly listen to and remember. Likewise the laymen and laywomen." Minor Rock Edict Nb3 (S. Dhammika) On religious tolerance in his realm...
"All religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart." Rock Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)
"Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions." Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika) On elements of social and animal welfare, first medicinal treatment...
“Everywhere within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Black Dragon's domain (never go there), and among the people beyond the borders, the Choas Mages, the Pandyas, Sir Pysin,the level 2 man in the graveyard of shadows, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos, everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown.” Rock Edict Nb2 (S. Dhammika)
On roadside facilities to aid travelers in his realm...
"Along roads I have had banyan trees planted so that they can give shade to animals and men, and I have had mango groves planted. At intervals of eight //krosas//, I have had wells dug, rest-houses built, and in various places, I have had watering-places made for the use of animals and men. But these are but minor achievements. Such things to make the people happy have been done by former kings. I have done these things for this purpose, that the people might practice the Dhamma." Pilar Edict Nb7 (S. Dhammika)
On officers of faith...
"In the past there were no Dhamma Mahamatras but such officers were appointed by me thirteen years after my coronation. Now they work among all religions for the establishment of Dhamma, for the promotion of Dhamma, and for the welfare and happiness of all who are devoted to Dhamma. They work among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Gandharas, the Rastrikas, the Pitinikas and other peoples on the western borders. They work among soldiers, chiefs, Brahmans, householders, the poor, the aged and those devoted to Dhamma -- for their welfare and happiness -- so that they may be free from harassment." Rock Edict Nb5 (S. Dhammika)
So you see, Gun Powder Ma, Indian writing and literature goes beyond philosophical thought and religion, as clearly displayed above. There are many other examples in later periods of Indian history and covering later kingdoms like the medieval Chalukyas and Cholas for example.
Glad to be of service,
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 05:09
This is not true. Indians recorded there history very precisely but unfortunately most of our libraries were burnt by Islamic invaders who were basically eneducated people clueless about art, culture and literature. Basham's "Cultural History of India" says: (Following excerpt from Page 193 of this book) --begin quote "The Turkish conquests of more then half India between 900 and 1300 A.D were perhaps the most destructive in human history. As Muslims, the conquerors aimed not only to destroy all other religions but also to abolish the secular culture. Their burning of libraries explains the large gaps in our knowledge of earlier literature......" --end quote Arthur Llewellyn Basham (AL Basham) was a historian with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_National_University - Australian National University in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra - Canberra . His most popular book is The Wonder That was India. He joined the ANU in 1965 as Professor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental - Oriental (later Asian) Civilizations and retired in 1979. He died in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcutta - Calcutta in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India in 1986. An annual public lecture series is given at the ANU in his memory. -Digs http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Rajputs_and_Invasions_of_India - |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 06:26
|
Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA, you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 06:26
|
Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA, you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person. hatrs off to him.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 06:27
|
Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA, you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person. hats off to him.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 06:27
|
Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA, you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person. I salute his strong spirits.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 08:30
Yes, he has. In the fragments (Strabo, XV, 1, 53) we read: "...they (i.e.the Indians) have no written laws for they do not know how to write but manage everything by memory." T. Brown: The Reliability of Megasthenes, in: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 76, No.1 (1955), p.22 And Megasthenes, being apparently the ambassador of Seleucos, was in personam in India, travellled throughout the country and met Chandragupta himself several times. Which means he must have been in Chandragupta's capital or at least at his court, and I mean, if he does not report of literacy even there, where then? |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 09:36
Perhaps you care to explain how does absence or presence of written laws has anything to do with writing? First tablets with a script were discovered in India and were dated to 5500 BC i.e older then hieroglyhpics and egyptian cueneiform. -Digs |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 10:41
|
I think the quote is self-explaining: "...for they do not know how to write..." -> Around 300 BC. Whether the Indus symbols were a script is still very much an open question among archaeologists and philologists, but should be anyway not of concern to us here. I specifically talked about the reestablishment of a script in India (although I do not necessarily believe the earlier symbols constituted a script). |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 10:44
Well you are entitled to your ficticious beliefs but do not think any one else will believe them just like your absurd claims about India falling easy prey to muslims! -Digs |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 12:29
Dude, did you read my post above at all? The Edicts of Ashoka on the pillars? The descriptions of Ashoka himself? He was part of the same Mauryan Dynasty as Chandragupta, the founder. His edicts clearly show organized law, early acts of tolerance and benevolence for people of other faiths, and achievements in public works and medicine. Quite different from the literature found in the Rigveda and the like.
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 13:29
|
I read your post carefully, but Ashoka's reign was later than Chandragupta's, even though not by much. What do you imply then? So far we have two facts: 1. Megasthenes saying that he did not encounter any writing in India (around 300 BC) and 2. Ashoka's (273 BC - 232 BC) famous edicts on the pillars. This would suggest the adopting of the Indian script in the meantime. Or not? Or what? |
Posted By: Digvijay
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 14:40
Answer is staring at you. You just have to think a little more. -Digs |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 15:51
What? Adoption of the Indian script in the meantime? That's quite a short period of time, from Chandragupta to Ashoka, to create written language for words such as "uniformity," or "amnesty," or "coronation," or "caponized," or phrases such as "medical treatment," or "free from harassment." Written language, as anyone should know, is something that takes the evolution of centuries to build and to master, and clearly this written language of descriptions of governmental law codes, provisions, and public works and facilities display a sophisticated society and complex administration during the 3rd century in ancient India. In addition, the Hindu religious texts of the Vedas and the documentation of Buddhism and the life of the Indian Prince Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha) were written centuries before the Mauryan Empire existed, so what is this about written language suddenly appearing out of nowhere, like it fell from the sky, and landed in India where people suddenly out of nowhere were able to write law codes, religious texts, and descriptions of government facilities, administration, and description of battles like Kalinga? I don't think I've ever read the full excerpts of Megasthenes, but in any case, why base any or all knowledge of Indian writing on an account of Megasthenes, a Greek man who could read and write the Greek alphabet, but not the Sanskrit one? Let alone the fact that Megasthenes was never taught how to read or write in Sanskrit, since he was not Indian! Lol. There's no doubt in my mind that courtiers within the palace of Chandragupta were trained and educated enough (being the elite in society) in rhetorics to recite things from memory, which is a lot more efficient than sitting down and writing every single edict that could be presented to the throne, something that would be largely time consuming with such a large empire to administer and run efficiently (plus, paper wasn't even invented in China and spread to the world yet, so writing materials on parchment, rare papyrus, stone, or wood weren't always easy to come by and weren't as efficient as mass produced writing material such as paper). I don't think Megasthenes took a very good observation of his surroundings, or looked very hard into the Sanskrit writing system, which for centuries had already been used profusely in all realms of India by this point, and no doubt wasn't absent from the central Mauryan court.
Do I really need to say any more?
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 17:06
|
I think we are now too much in business of talking away the Megasthenes's quote. It wont go awy from that, though, although it is only a single reference. Still, it has to be taken seriously, since it is hardly credible that someone would make false assumptions on something that obvious like writing. But why dont we cut a long discussion short and you guys just provide references which point to the existence of written language before Ashoka, because I have just read at Wiki that his pillars actually represent the first extant Indian script sources. So please list those authors + references here. |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 17:45
No, not the first extant Indian script sources ever, the oldest preserved script sources!
 There is a large, large difference between the two (preserved and first extant are pretty self-explanatory). It's like saying that Greek philosophy of the 5th century BC didn't exist until the recopied documents of the medieval period, because all the original philosophical documents written on parishable materials in the 5th century BC had since eroded and were destroyed by the progression of time and weathering. You could argue that, but then you'd have to be insane. Lol. That's similar to saying that Muslims invented Greek philosophy by copying their texts from the originals, and since the originals don't exist anymore and only the medieval Islamic copies do, then by all deductions, Muslims invented Greek philosophy. Silly. You said you looked at wikipedia.org for Indian Literature?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudrarakshasa - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudrarakshasa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannada_literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannada_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_literature - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi_literature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvaghosha - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvaghosha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalidasa - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalidasa
Glad to be of service,
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 18:15
No, it is not. Your comparison is flawed. These works were subject to meticulous copying by scribes. Written works were rewritten, simple as that. These other Indian works though were orally transmitted. And even if they were as painfully passed on fro generation to generation as described above, the margin of error must have been in the long run still very substantial. My question cant be more clear: At what time abandoned India its exclusively oral tradition and began writing down its literature? In the 3rd century BC? I will look closely into the links, but so far nothing suggests to me that the Indian literary tradition is not rather meager. Imagine I had asked the same question about Greek or Chinese literature? People would have by now showered me with loads of works written many centuries before 300 BC. As things stand, nobody could even refute the Megasthenes evidence by pointing out a single work written down before 300 BC... |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 18:46
|
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB
Brāhmī refers to the pre-modern members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmic_family - Brahmic family of scripts. The best known inscriptions in Brāhmī are the rock-cut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka - edicts of Ashoka , dating to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BC - 3rd century BC . These were long considered the earliest examples of Brahmi writing, but recent archeological evidence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka - Sri Lanka and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu - Tamil Nadu , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India suggest the dates for the earliest use of Brahmi to be be around the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th century BC , dated using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating - radiocarbon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating - thermoluminescence dating methods. This script is ancestral to most of the scripts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia - South Asia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia - Southeast Asia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet - Tibet , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia - Mongolia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria - Manchuria , and perhaps even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea - Korean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul - Hangul . The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmi_numeral - Brāhmī numeral system is the ancestor of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu-Arabic_numerals - Hindu-Arabic numerals , which are now used world-wide. Brāhmī is generally believed to be derived from a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic - Semitic script such as the Imperial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet - Aramaic alphabet , as was clearly the case for the contemporary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharosthi - Kharosthi alphabet that arose in a part of northwest Indian under the control of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid - Achaemenid Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhys_Davids - Rhys Davids suggests that writing may have been introduced to India from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East - Middle East by traders. Another possibility is with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid - Achaemenid conquest in the late http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th century BC . It was often assumed that it was a planned invention under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka - Ashoka as a prerequiste for his edicts. Compare the much better documented parallel of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul - Hangul script.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources - citation needed ] Older examples of the Brahmi script appear to be on fragments of pottery from the trading town of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura - Anuradhapura in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka - Sri Lanka , which have been dated to the early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century_BC - 5th century BC . Even earlier evidence of the Brahmi script has been discovered on pieces of pottery in Adichanallur, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu - Tamil Nadu , India. Radio-carbon dating has established that they belonged to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th century BC . http://www.orientalthane.com/archaeology/news_2004_05_31_1.htm - [1] A glance at the oldest Brāhmī inscriptions shows striking parallels with contemporary Aramaic for a few of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme - phonemes that are equivalent between the two languages, especially if the letters are flipped to reflect the change in writing direction. However, Semitic is not a good phonological match to Indic, so any Semitic alphabet would have needed extensive (and perhaps planned) modification. Indeed, this is the most convincing circumstantial evidence for a link: the similarities between the scripts are just what one would expect from such an adaptation. For example, Aramaic did not distinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental - dental from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroflex - retroflex stops; in Brāhmī the dental and retroflex series are graphically very similar, as if both had been derived from a single prototype. Aramaic did not have Brāhmī’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspirated - aspirated consonants (kh, th), whereas Brāhmī did not have Aramaic's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphatic_consonant - emphatic consonants (q, ṭ, ṣ); and it appears that Aramaic's extra emphatic letters may have been used to fill in Brāhmī's missing aspirates (Aramaic q for Brāhmī kh, Aramaic ṭ for Brāhmī th). And just where Aramaic did not have a corresponding emphatic stop, p, Brāhmī seems to have doubled up for its aspirate: Brāhmī p and ph are graphically very similar, as if taken from the same source. The first letters of the alphabets also match: Brāhmī a looks a lot like Aramaic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_%28letter%29 - alef . A minority position holds that Brāhmī was a purely indigenous development, perhaps with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script - Indus script as its predecessor; these include the English scholars http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.R._Hunter&action=edit - G.R. Hunter and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raymond_Allchin&action=edit - Raymond Allchin . Also, this article taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini
Pānini (पाणिनि; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet - IPA [pɑːɳɪn̪ɪ]) was an ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian - Indian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammarian - grammarian from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandharan - Gandhara (traditionally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/520_BC - 520 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/460_BC - 460 BC , but estimates range from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_century_BC - 7th to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_century_BC - 4th centuries BC). He is most famous for his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit_grammar - Sanskrit grammar , particularly for his formulation of the 3,959 rules of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Sanskrit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology_%28linguistics%29 - morphology in the grammar known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%AD%C4%81dhy%C4%81y%C4%AB - Aṣṭādhyāyī (meaning "eight chapters") is the earliest known grammar of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Sanskrit , and the earliest known work on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_linguistics - descriptive linguistics , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_linguistics - generative linguistics , and perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics - linguistics as a whole. Panini's comprehensive and scientific theory of grammar is conventionally taken to mark the end of the period of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit - Vedic Sanskrit , by definition introducing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Classical Sanskrit .
Nothing definite is known about Pāṇini's life, not even the century he lived in (he lived almost certainly after the 7th and before the 3rd century BC). According to tradition, he was born in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shalatula&action=edit - Shalatula , near the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River - Indus river, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara - Gandhara (now in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan - Pakistan ), and lived circa 520–460 BC. His grammar defines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Sanskrit - Classical Sanskrit , so that Pāṇini per definition lived at the end of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period - Vedic period : he notes a few special rules, marked chandasi ("in the hymns") to account for forms in the Vedic scriptures that had fallen out of use in the spoken language of his time, indicating that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_Sanskrit - Vedic Sanskrit was already archaic, but still a comprehensible dialect. An important hint for the dating of Pāṇini is the occurrence of the word yavanānī (in 4.1.49, either " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Greeks - Greek woman", or " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet - Greek script "). There would have been no first-hand knowledge of Greeks in Gandhara before the conquests of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great - Alexander the Great in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/330s_BC - 330s BC , but it is likely that the name was known via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Persian - Old Persian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yauna - yauna , so that Pāṇini may well have lived as early as the time of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_I_of_Persia - Darius the Great (ruled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/521_BC - 521 BC – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480s_BC - 485/6 BC ). It is not known whether Pāṇini himself used writing for the composition of his work. Some people argue that a work of such complexity would have been impossible to compile without written notes, while others allow for the possibility that he might have composed it with the help of a group of students whose memories served him as 'notepads'. Writing first reappears in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India (since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_script - Indus script ) in the form of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C4%81hm%C4%AB - - Brāhmī script from at least the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century_BC - 5th century BC , so it is also possible that he would have known and used a writing system (although these early instances of writing are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu - Tamil Nadu in Southern India, quite distant from Gandhara; the presence of the Brāhmī script in Northern India prior to the 3rd century BC is uncertain).
So there you have it,
------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 19:35
Where I got the idea from that writing was unknown in India before the 3rd century BC?
Basically everywhere I am looking, the absence of writing in India before the 3rd century BC is treated as a FACT. So, again, what evidence is there that the ancient Indian literary tradition should not be viewed as weak and meager compared to other centers of ancient civilisation? |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:07
First of all, once again, you didn't read my post very carefully. Richard Salomon's On the Origin of Early Indian Scripts was written in 1995, 11 years ago to date, and before new archeological finds in the Tamil region and Sri Lanka. If you read in the main entry, which I've already posted above from wikipedia.org...
The best known inscriptions in Brāhmī are the rock-cut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka - edicts of Ashoka , dating to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BC - 3rd century BC . These were long considered the earliest examples of Brahmi writing, but recent archeological evidence in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka - Sri Lanka and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu - Tamil Nadu , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India - India suggest the dates for the earliest use of Brahmi to be be around the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th century BC , dated using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating - radiocarbon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoluminescence_dating - thermoluminescence dating methods.
Older examples of the Brahmi script appear to be on fragments of pottery from the trading town of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anuradhapura - Anuradhapura in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka - Sri Lanka , which have been dated to the early http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_century_BC - 5th century BC . Even earlier evidence of the Brahmi script has been discovered on pieces of pottery in Adichanallur, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu - Tamil Nadu , India. Radio-carbon dating has established that they belonged to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_century_BC - 6th century BC . http://www.orientalthane.com/archaeology/news_2004_05_31_1.htm - [1]
Either Richard Salomon clearly overlooked this evidence, or this archeological evidence was simply not available yet back in 1995. Simple and plain as simple and plain can be.
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 20:41
|
Come on, Eric, you are better than that. What you are propagating here is a Wikipedia article with some obscure reference. Th earticle just says in one word, it is writing and it looks like Brahmi. Wow. I am impressed. And on Wiki.de and Wiki.fr there is even no mentioning at all of such a new find... Give me serious references to serious scientific magazine and not this preliminary triumphalist trumpeting. The Encarta article, in contrast, is by Romila Thapar, emeritus professor of Ancient Indian History at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Dehli and from 2005. So, again, what evidence is there that the ancient Indian literary tradition should not be viewed as weak and meager compared to other centers of ancient civilisation? |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2006 at 22:55
|
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Brahmi%20Script%20origins&sa=N&tab=wp - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=Brahmi%20Script%20origins&sa=N&tab=wp
The first book under this search for "Brahmi Script Origins," gives The Indo-Aryan Languages by Dhanesh Jain and George Cardona. If you click on the link, the first page it brings you to first gives reference to the Mahasthan Stone Plaque, Sohgaura Bronze Plaque, the Piprawa Vase, etc. (Sircar, 1965: pages 79 - 83), yet these items are still under scrutiny and revolved around some controversey of whether they were made before or after Ashoka. However, what has been discovered at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka (which I mentioned earlier), is pottery shards in Brahmi script that have been dated to the 4th century BC and perhaps even earlier (Allchin 1995: pages 165, 178-81, 209-11). However, this book also notes that the claim is still controversial, and more mounting evidence will be needed to ensure that Brahmi was a writing system before Ashoka's reign.
So now we have these three theories:
*Brahmi script evolved from the earlier Harappan/Indus Valley Civilization script, or...
*Brahmi script derived from a Semetic writing system, such as Phoenician or Aramaic
*Brahmi script was invented and overseen by Ashoka who borrowed aspects of preexisting Aramaic or Greek script
What I've wondered all along is before the Brahmi script was created, how did ancient Indians like Panini make grammatical changes to a language without a written script at hand, let alone have the abiltity to spread it without written communication? I wondered if it was because of earlier Persian dominion where Indians might have used the Persian writing system to write down the earliest written accounts. That was until I realized both you and I were missing something very vital here. The Kharosthi Script.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharoshthi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharoshthi
The Kharoṣṭhī script, also known as the Gāndhārī script, is an ancient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abugida - abugida (a kind of script) used by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara_culture - Gandhara culture of historic northwest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent - Indian subcontinent to write the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C4%81ndh%C4%81r%C4%AB_language - Gāndhārī and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit - Sanskrit languages (the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara - Gandhara kingdom was located along the present-day border between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan - Afghanistan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan - Pakistan between the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River - Indus River and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass - Khyber Pass ). It was in use from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_century_BC - 4th century BC until it died out in its homeland around the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century - 3rd century AD . It was also in use along the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road - Silk Road where there is some evidence it may have survived until the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_century - 7th century in the remote way stations of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khotan - Khotan and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niya - Niya . Scholars are not in agreement as to whether the Kharoṣṭhī script evolved gradually, or was the work of a mindful inventor. An analysis of the script forms shows a clear dependency on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_alphabet - Aramaic alphabet but with extensive modifications to support the sounds found in Indic languages. One model is that the Aramaic script arrived with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid - Achaemenid conquest of the region in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/500_BC - 500 BC and evolved over the next 200+ years to reach its final form by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_century_BC - 3rd century BC . However, no intermediate forms have yet been found to confirm this evolutionary model, and rock and coins inscriptions from the 3rd century BC onward show a unified and mature form. The study of the Kharoṣṭhī script was recently invigorated by the discovery of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandharan_Buddhist_Texts - Gandharan Buddhist Texts , a set of birch-bark manuscripts written in Kharoṣṭhī, discovered near the Afghanistan city of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadda - Hadda just west of the Khyber Pass. The manuscripts were donated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library - British Library in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994 - 1994 . The entire set of manuscripts are dated to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century - 1st century AD , making them the oldest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist - Buddhist manuscripts in existence. This next excerpt is taken from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/salomon.html - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/salomon.html
The major conclusion shared by the studies of Fussman, von Hinüber, and Falk is that at least the Brâhmî script, and possibly also Kharo.s.thî, originated in the Mauryan period and not earlier. Although they disagree in specifics, especially with regard to the date of the development of Brâhmî, all three agree that Kharo.s.thî, which was a regional script of the far northwest, was older than the pan-Indian Brâhmî and influenced its formation. The three authors share a sharp skepticism about alleged literary evidence for writing in pre-Ashokan India, and are inclined to interpret the situation empirically, on the grounds of what we definitely know, rather than speculating on what might have been. They are inclined to take the absence of incontrovertible evidence for early writing as an indication that it did not exist, rather than, as have earlier writers, adding up the bits of inconclusive hints and theoretical possibilities to reconstruct a hypothetical pre-history for the early scripts. Among the four studies discussed here, only Kenneth R. Norman's article on "The Development of Writing in India and its Effect upon the Pâli Canon" follows a more traditional path. He analyzes certain patterns of textual variation in Pali texts (e.g. hatthivattika / hattivatika , pp.239--40, and samaya / samâja , p.241) which seem to reflect an early redaction in a script which did not represent geminate consonants or differentiate vowel length, and identifies this script as an early prototype of Brâhmî used in Magadha in pre-Mauryan times (p.243). Norman finds it "difficult to accept that Brâhmî was devised as a single complete writing system at one and the same time during the reign of Candragupta" (p.245), http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/salomon-notes.html#note8 - [8] and considers it "even less likely that Brâhmî was invented at the time of Ashoka for the specific purpose of writing his inscriptions" (p.246). His objections to what may be referred to as the "invention theory" of the origin of Brâhmî mainly concern the irregularities and inconsistencies of the graphic system, for instance inconsistencies in the formation of the graphs for aspirate consonants, some of which are clearly based on the corresponding non-aspirates (e.g. ¤ .ta and ¤ .tha ) while others (e.g. ¤ ta and ¤ tha [not cited by Norman]) are not so derivable. Such patterns lead Norman to conclude that Brâhmî " evolved [my emphasis] in a haphazard way, with some of its ak.sara s being borrowed from some other source" (p.245). But von Hinüber in Der Beginn der Schrift... interprets the patterns of textual variation in Pali which underlie Norman's theory quite differently, noting that geminate consonants were still not regularly noted in Indian inscriptions of the 1st century BC when the Pali texts were presumably first written down (p.64), and that long â was often left unindicated in early Brâhmî inscriptions from Sri Lanka (p.66). Von Hinüber's arguments are persuasive if we can assume that the orthographic standards of early inscriptions also prevailed in contemporary (i.e. pre-Christian era) religious or literary texts in manuscript form. However, although we do not have any manuscripts this old, it is not impossible that stricter orthographic standards, including the notation of geminates, might have applied in them, in contrast to the standards of inscriptions which at this period were often still treated quite casually in terms of orthography and layout. Nonetheless, it must be conceded that Norman's arguments rest on a largely hypothetical basis and that underlying orthographic inconsistencies reflected in much later manuscripts of the Pali canon are hardly cogent grounds for the reconstruction of a proto-Brâhmî of the pre-Mauryan era. Norman's position is essentially an affirmation of the more moderate version of the old school of thought, which places the origin of Brâhmî in or around the 5th century BC. But his arguments for such a position, like the those of others to be discussed below, are cast into doubt by the three other new studies. Though developed most cogently and completely in these three new publications, the theory of a relatively late (i.e. Mauryan) date for Brâhmî and Kharo.s.thî and the postulation of the former as an "invention" under the stimulus of one or the other of the Mauryan emperors is by no means entirely new. For instance, as noted by Falk (p.163), Max Muller in 1892 (before Bühler!) opined that Brâhmî was probably "das Werk einer Kommission von Gelehrten, die, wahrscheinlich im Auftrage des Königs [Ashoka], aus fremden Quellen ein Alphabet entwarfen,...die Laute der gesprochenen Sprache auszudrücken." The old invention theory, which had largely fallen out of favor after Bühler, were revived by S.R. Goyal in 1979 in his essay "Brâhmî- An Invention of the Early Mauryan Period," http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/position/salomon-notes.html#note9 - [9] who argued "that the Brâhmî script was invented in the first half of the third century B.C., and that the Indians of the Vedic and early Buddhist periods were illiterate" (p.4), and that "in all probability Brâhmî was invented in the age of Ashoka and the idea...of writing came from the west" (p.17). Though not entirely original, the data and arguments invoked by Goyal-- the persistent failure of efforts to find and identify actual specimens of pre-Ashokan writing, the testimony of Greek authors (especially Megasthenes) to the absence of writing in India in the early Mauryan period, the evident influence of Indian phonetic and grammatical theory on the structure of the early scripts, and the primitive and uniform appearance of Ashokan Brâhmî-- prefigure the postions developed at greater length in the newer works. Goyal's essay seems to have served as a stimulus to the recent re-thinking of and revival of interest in these questions, and his essay should be (re-)read in conjunction with those being reviewed here.
Wow, you know what? I've actually learned a considerable amount about Indian history while arguing with you. Lol. Eric ------------- |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 03:32
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata
Here's a useful link on one of the early great Gupta-Indian era (240 - 550 AD) astronomers and mathematicians. The Gupta era is what most consider India's golden age, an example of high society and culture to match the glory of the Roman Empire or Han Dynasty China in sophistication and cultural achievements. Here are some other good links worth reading...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatiya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatiya
And this one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskara_I - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskara_I
And finally...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagupta - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmagupta
Eric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhatiya - ------------- |
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 14:57
Me too. Before I wasn't aware that Indian literacy dates back only as late as the 3rd century BC. But then again, I did not know that the size of orally passed on works was so big. Thats why I am so interested to know when the oral tradition was put to paper. |
Posted By: Preobrazhenskoe
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2006 at 19:00
Well, the oral tradition would begin being written down on other materials of writing centuries before paper was introduced to India via trade routes opened to China, but I get your point. For example, the Buddhist manuscripts I mentioned before on birch-bark manuscripts dating to the 1st century AD (the beginning of the Kushan era). The golden age and flourishing Indian civilization under the Gupta Era (240 - 550 AD) no doubt saw multitudes of written material produced, with subjects ranging from art, mathematics, early sciences, engineering, literature such as poetry, epics, theatrical playwrights, etc.
Eric ------------- |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 07:29
|
1. A. L. Basham himself has recorded that the so-called Asokan pillars are pre-Asokan.
2. He has also mentioned that the flora-fauna designs have inherited from the IVC.
3. Recently, Prof. A. Sundara has proved some of the Asokan inscriptions could be dated to c.8th century BCE based on the corresponding archaeological evidences.
4. K. D. Sethna has dated to c.850 BCE (New Light on Indian History).
Read "Was Indian Stone art Derived from the Chaldeans, Greeks, Romans or Persians? by Vedaprakash posted by K. V. Ramakrishgna Rao" posted in http://www.allempires.com - www.allempires.com .
5. The Tamil epic "Manimekhalai" records that the Buddhja was born in the year 1616 without mentioning any era. As it cannot be 1616 CE, it must be 1616 BCE with the adjustment of era either according to Saka or otherwise.
6. In case, as literary evidence point to a date wherein if the modern scholars accuse that there was no script -
the possibilities are -
# The existing stone monuments must have been dated wrongly. The Asokan script has been dated based on the assumed contemporary Greek kings, because no two scholars has ever agreed in identifying the Gereek kings mentioned in the inscriptions.
# Sir Isaac Newton has noted in his work "Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (Now entire book is available on net) that the the chronology of the Egypts had been expanded by 3000 years, Greeks by 300 years and so on. Therefore, scholars may have to reconsider the chronology of India.
So far, historians have not responded to the findings of Newton!
# About the gap between IVC and Mauryan empire, the discussion has already been there in Blackhole in Indian history".
7. Even in the manuscripts, there has been different versions available for example in the Aryabhatiyam manuscripts, the crucial verse which records the date of Aryabhata has two versions / renderings:
* One group of scholars take 60x60=3600-3102=498-23=476 CE.
* Another group of scholars take 6x60=360; 3102-360=2742 BCE.
Though, 476 CE is accepted by the modern scholars, the manuscripts giving 2714 BCE can be ignored?
8. The Sri Lankan Brahmi is dated to c.5th-6th centuries BCE. So how they can go beyond the Asokan, when his Brahmi is dated to 3rd cent.BCE? This also points to some wrong methdology.
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 07:54
|
Dear GunPowder, going by your theory, the first written documentation of India is post greek. Meaning two things 1. Indians simply didn't exist before that because their are no written records to show their existence. 2. All of sudden some alien dropped some people in this part of the world, who came with a fully developed script & civilization & wrote those pillars. 3. Or possibly by some magic these ignorant people became super intelligent & discovered a whole civilization in no time. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 11:26
So, the Tamil epics (presumably written a very long time ago - maybe sometime BC?) somehow keep track of time by assigning as their central date the birth of Jesus: a religious figure which was alien to their own religion, and whose birth date was actually first determined by the Venerable Bede: a British monk living in the 7th century AD...
Somehow the argument 1616 BCE does not make much sense as you presented it. Can you elaborate on how exactly the Tamil epics date the birth of the Buddha?
Sir Isaac Newton was a physicist and mathematician who lived about 300 years ago: way before Europeans even had an idea of Indian chronology and knew next to nothing of Indian history for that matter, and way before any modern dating methods ever existed. I don't see why historians should have to adjust their chronology based on his writings... ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 11:32
No need to get antagonistic here or make outrageous statements. One question we should ask is: if the earliest Indian scripts that we have proof of were mature, which seems to be the case, then how long does it take for such a script to mature from its initial invention? A couple of centuries in my opinion is ample time for from the development of a script until texts written in that script show standardization of script and grammar (which is what I mean by maturization).
Remember: we are not debating the existence or merits of Indian civilization, but rather the age and scope of Indian literature. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 11:36
AFAIK Dionysius Exiguus is the one who was first in rendering AD era since the birth of Jesus to his times.
Also, a little nit pick, though Bede was born in 7th century, most of his works (if not all) were written in the first half of 8th century.
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2006 at 12:02
Alright, I was bit a little hazy on that detail; but the question about the Tamil chronology still remains... ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Gun Powder Ma
Date Posted: 10-Oct-2006 at 07:56
The question is whether Brahmi was derived from another script in which case it would take no time at all to mature. It would have been born already as a grown up so to speak. The conventional opinion among scholars is that Brahmi was derived from the Aramean script used by the administration of the Persian Empire. In case of Kharosti, which is probably a bit older than Brahmi, and whose letters look more similar to Aramean, this connection is even unanimously agreed upon. By the way...the earliest form of many scripts we know of already shows an advanced stages. Out of the top of my head this applies to Minoan Linear A, Egyptian Hieroglyphs, Sumerian pictographs, the Indus valley script and the Chinese characters. But only in case of the Sumerian pictographs we can establish a firm pre-history of their script in the form of clay tokens which were used for counting. As for the rest, their early development lies in the shade of history. That means we do not know by historical example how long it takes for a script to mature from an embryo to full-fledged writing. |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 02:52
|
I am totally surprised by the interpretation or understanding of CE / BCE notations by DECEBAL.
Now, internationally, historians, archaeologists, scholars use this notation to indicate - Before Current Era - BCE and during Current Era - CE and not as understood or interpreted by DEcebal from the Editorial Board.
Therefore, his far-fatched imagination to conceive that the author of Manimekhalai mentioned the date of Buddha in Christian era. This totally wrong. If he really does not know about BCE-CE, then, he should have clarified, before jumping to some wrong conception to make wrong conclusion to confuse others.
He should read read "THe Chrononology of Amcient Kingdoms Amended", "Ancient Monarchs" etc., before making any comments.
I do not know as to the persons who write or post articles in this forum are are "historians" or otherwise.
The chronology of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese has been questioned by Newton, as such chronology was constructed based on astronomy.
Therefore, what historians or Decebal or editortial staff / moderators of AE forums accept or reject has to be decided.
If astronomy as a tool for determining chronology is accepted for one or some civilizations, the same methodology should be adopted to others also. If not, then, everybod has a right to question the chronology of others, particularly, when it has been fixed based on astronomy.
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:00
|
Nachiappan, What I'm saying is that you made the following statement: "The Tamil epic "Manimekhalai" records that the Buddhja was born in the year 1616 without mentioning any era. As it cannot be 1616 CE, it must be 1616 BCE with the adjustment of era either according to Saka or otherwise."
------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2006 at 14:06
You clearly misunderstood my post! I was simply being sarcastic because I had found your argument preposterous (see my above post). I really don't see how you got from my comment that "far-fatched imagination to conceive that the author of Manimekhalai mentioned the date of Buddha in Christian era".
Not that I really want to toot my own horn here, but would you really expect me to make such an elementary mistake? After all, I was appointed moderator, editorial staff and won several AE quizzes: this wouldn't really happen if I did not have an understanding of CE and BCE, would it now? I would suggest you read my posts twice before jumping to conclusions. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 00:06
|
Are you a professional historian ?
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2006 at 15:07
|
Who, me? Not yet: I'm studying history in university (my day job is as an engineer) as I want to become a history professor. On the other hand I've been reading up on history since I was a little child. I usually spend an average of 10-20 hours a week studying history in some way. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: explorer6
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2006 at 18:35
Well "rewritten" is a bad choice of words since that's often what happened i.e. interpolation and such. Also complete invention of texts fradulently ascribed to some ancient author. Not to mention flaws that happen when works are "copied." Needless to say when you have texts translated from Greek into Arabic then into Latin, some errors can occur there also in translation. In some cases you can catch the mistakes if you have the Arabic douments, but you can't detect errors from Greek into Arabic. The Greek texts we have now were in most cases translated into Greek from Latin! Although a few were preserved by the Byzantines but not necessarily in the original Greek. Voice of the Ancestors |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 00:55
Engineering to History ? But that is not financially sound here. Is it a good career option in the nation you live ? ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2006 at 05:22
| It is not the weakness of ancient Indian literature but availability of that today since lot of libraries were destroyed during Muslim invasions. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2006 at 22:09
|
True & a lot letter confiscated by the British.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2006 at 10:36
It's not really financially sound here either. Still, as a university professor in Canada, one can make a pretty decent living (income of $40,000-100,000 a year before taxes, depending on experience and tenure, field of study, and university): this is comparable to an average engineer, but not a good one, who can make more. I do expect that by the time I'll make the switch, I'll have to take a considerable paycut (probably 30-50% of my gross salary), which I will probably make up in 5-10 years. The thing is that I'm doing this primarily because it's my passion, not for money.
Also, it can be quite difficult to get a university professor job, but on the other hand, I can afford to spend a few years looking for such a job, since I do have a very good backup plan (my current job) after all. Had I only done history, it would have been very risky, and I might have ended up with a poorly paid job. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 21:01
On the other hand by the time you get ready to make the switch you might be burning out from being a programmer or engineer so it could be a wise decision career wise too. |
Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 21:10
On the other hand by the time you get ready to make the switch you might be burning out from being a programmer or engineer so it could be a wise decision career wise too. |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2006 at 21:59
|
You are good at strategy, Decebel.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 02:24
|
Coming to the Indian literature, it is mentioned in the literature itself that it is for the "Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha" of people.
The literature has been from the poets of antquity and they have recorded their thought processes according to their time and space.
As at present, we perceive, conceive and assess it, only we can make mistake and for that they cannot be blamed.
The Indian literature could be subjected to critical study, as has been done by many in different perspectives. In fact, a multi-disciplinary approach would bring out may aspects.
The Manimekhalai example is given to show that such chronological aspect could also be found in literature and it is the duty of historian or researcher to find out its significance.
|
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 02:29
|
In India, the Marxist historians (Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Bipan Chandra, Harbans Mukhia, Barun De, S. Gopal, Chempakalakshmi etc.,)would not accept "engineers" and other as "historians".
In fact, in Indian History Congress, they introduced conditions in 1991 that a member should have a M.Phil / Ph.D, or should have presented paper or published book to become a member. Earliet, "just interest in history and 18 years completion" was enough.
Anyway, I am happy to note that being an engineer, DECEBAL spends time on history.
|
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 28-Nov-2006 at 02:43
|
This policy of these communist hisorians of India is similiar to all nearly all think tank sort of establishments & the older guard in media too. This is traditional communist thinking in India. Very exclusivist.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: M. Nachiappan
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2006 at 01:35
|
Indian literature has been the largest in the world and much has been discussed about it by many-many scholars and therefore, to view that there is "weakness" in it does not reflect its weakness, but the persons, who conceive and perceive so.
If anything is pointed out specifically, it can be debated.
|
Posted By: sayak
Date Posted: 29-Dec-2006 at 12:47
| greeks adopted writing when? |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 30-Dec-2006 at 12:51
|
sayak, it depends what you mean by greeks. The Minoans, who had a civilization around 2200BC-1300BC, and who seem to have been greek, did have 2 writing systems. After a long dark age, the greeks seem to have lost their literary tradition, whihc started again in the 7th century BC.
What does this have to do with Indian literature, though? ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Date Posted: 12-Jan-2007 at 21:37
|
Perhaps, he would have read Puranas, which clearly say that the Greeks were nothing but "excommunicated Khastriyas". Edward Pocokoke's "India in Greece" gives details. Of course, William Jones proceeded only on those lines coming to conclusion that Sanskrirt, Greek, etc., should have a common origin, as they have many similarities. Col. Tod, CFC Volney and many more have pointed out such facts. Anyway, how you link Minoans, Greeks etc.? ------------- History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past. |