Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who Invented Trigonometry?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345
Author
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who Invented Trigonometry?
    Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 08:04
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 12:55
Originally posted by TITAN_

Too many issues have been raised. Too many optimistic nationalistic supremacy-driven claims have been made.


Thank you for acknowledging my optimism Titan. I make it a point to hold a smile in defeat and victory alike. Big smile

Oh titan, isn't there a hell lot of issues with our subject matter for the nonce?

Should you really take all that pain to diagnose my intentions and to measure my nationalistic pulses? When you could rather utilize the time to try and disprove my whims and fancies?

Funny, you are sure that my posts are mere supremacist claims , yet you have not dared to quote any of them. Why is that>? Atleast for the pleasure of exposing their silliness , your impartiality should have chosen just one for your victim......JUST ONE Tongue

Originally posted by TITAN_

I am still waiting for academic sources that show that Sanskrit was ever written before 300-400 BC.


Sorry Titan, you seem to be blissfully unaware that the Mittani and Hittites were Indo Aryan, as all scholars of following agree. They were certainly not Greek.

And "Indo Aryan" refers to anyone who speaks Sanskrit, specifically Vedic sanskrit, which is older than the classical sanskrit which came be be when Panini the Great invented grammer proper and applied it to the Vedic speech

If you challege this, you incur the burden of proof.

Do you really want to put yourself through all of that?


Originally posted by TITAN_

The Brahmi script is no older than 400 BC.


You hurt my feelings Titan.
You dont trust me.

CryCryCry

Well, take the shock then Angry.  The oldest Brahmi examples come not from India, but from Sri Lanka

The oldest samples are from SL. These inscriptions dating from 600-500 BC was on remnants of pottery discovered at Anuradhapura. These inscriptions whenever adequately complete to be linguistically diagnostic, is in Indo-Aryan Prakrit.

That means its development in India must be much older than that.

Want a sciency paper old bud?
http://ratnawalli.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Robin-Coningham-Passage-to-India...-Anuradhapura-and-the-Early-Use-of-the-Brahmi-Script.pdf

Originally posted by TITAN_

Especially regarding Rig Veda, I have TOO MANY sources to prove that they were never written down before 300 BC (including encyclopedia Britannica) if you challenge me any further.


Oh that darned feeling of empathy consumes me again !

Why , oh why, do you have this propensity for non primary sources?

Almost all of your references are Wikipedia. Wiki says that Wiki says this. Brittanica says that too.

Wikipedia rule: No primary sources. You must use only secondary (or tertiary) sources.Wikipedia and other such resources are thus third hand accounts.

Not every one can study that deep, I agree. Do you know how I overcome that shortcoming?
I keep track of my favorite scholars, their books and papers and their websites. So my sources are not static. They keep evolving. Mistakes are easily sieved. 


I can show you a hundred contradicting pages on the Indo Aryan issue in Wiki
.

Hope this changes your outlook on sources

Originally posted by TITAN_

Not at all. Hittites had nothing to do with Indians. The Hittites were closer to the Greeks and exhanged letters too back in 1500 BC. That is wrong.


"Exchanged letters"   LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

Nice one Titan, you are quite the man of wit.

Well I am afraid ,however, that I'll have to disagree.

Hittites worshiped Vedic Gods . Noone else on Earth but Indians did that.
 Yep, not even Greeks. (through Greek gods are clearly related to Vedic )

They originally spoke sanskrit. Again, only Indians did that.

Dont think I will allow you to take this in a circleDead. I already showed you that Sanskrit words( Surya, Bhaga, Maruts etc) are attested in Kassite records dating back to 1800 BC.

You are going to have to accept that my boy.

I wish to continue a healthy discussion. Thus I provide you with a list of attested Mittani/Hittie/kassite Indo Aryan words.

Note that I dont have to to this.....this is a generally accepted fact.

Sanskrit Names in West Asia

Over fifty years ago, Roger T. O'Callaghan and W.F. Albright published in Analecta Orientalia of Rome a list of 81 names (13 from the Mitanni, 23 from the Nuzi, and 45 from the Syrian documents) with Indic etymologies. Out of this list, Dumont provided the etymology of 45 names in the much more readily available Journal of the American Oriental Society of 1947.

A few of these names with the Sanskrit cognates in parentheses are:

  • Abirata (Abhirata, pleased, contented)
  • Aitagama (Etagama, with the gait of an antelope)
  • Aitara (the son of Itarā)
  • Artamanyu (Ṛtamanyu, revering the divine Law)
  • Ardzawīya (Ārjavīya, straight, honest)
  • Bīrasēna (Vīrasena, possessing an army of heroes)
  • Biridāšwa (Bṛhadāsva, possessing great horse)
  • Bardašwa (Vārddhāśva, the son of Vṛddhāśva)
  • Bāyawa (Vāyava, the son of Vāyu)
  • Bīryašura (Vīryaśūra, the hero of valour)
  • Bīryawādza (Vīryavāja, owning the prize of valour)
  • Bīryasauma (Vīryasoma, the moon-god of valour)
  • Bīrya (Vīrya, valour)
  • Indarota (Indrota, upheld by Indra)
  • Kalmašūra (Karmaśūra, the hero of action)
  • Purdāya (Purudāya, giving much)
  • Ručmanya (Rucimanya, revering light)
  • Satuara (Satvara, swift)
  • Šaimašūra (Kṣemaśūra, the hero of security)
  • Subandu (Subandhu, being good kinsmen)
  • Sumāla (having beautiful garlands)
  • Sumīda (Sumīḍha, bountiful)
  • Swardāta (Svardāta, given by heaven)
  • Tsitriyara (Citrya-rai, having distinguished property)
  • Urudīti (Urudīti, having wide splendour)
  • Warasama (Varasama, equal to the best)
  • Wāsasatta (Vāsasāpta, possessing seven dwellings)
  • Wasdāta (Vasudāta, given by the Vasus)
  • Yamiuta (Yamyūta, favoured by Yamin)

Analyzing the names, Dumont concludes that the names are clearly Indic and not Iranian.

http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/akhena.pdf

Originally posted by TITAN_


Hipparchus' texts were written again and again in order to be preserved. You can't find the originals because they obviously could not survived unless they were in burnt clay tablets!


Now now Titan, please stick to the format. You have merely made an empty statement.

I am more than willing to accept what you say, provided you kindly answer my questions in as simple words as you choose. Why did you ignore them, though it seems you are confident?

Please reexamine them .

You dont have to show me the solution in Greek . I see that may be asking too much of a non professional (not denying that I too am one)

Please answer the rest.

Originally posted by SuryaVajra



What original text or its copy survives of Hipparchus ?
On what preceding work did Hipparchus draw?
Can you show me just one solution in Greek script of Hipparchus solving the sine function for any angle but 90?Or atleast state approximately in your own words?
The sources for Hipparchus and other Greeks you mention are tertiary sources . (third person description of a second hand account)and rare secondary sources. Why are they considered reliable ?



Originally posted by TITAN_

Any serious source I have encountered insists that Sanskrit was not written down before the era I mention.


My friend, I yearn to understand what source in your ken is Serious. Wacko

Okay Titan, I dont want to distress you . You are so bent on establishing that Sanskrit was written down only in 300 BC that everything I say is ignored. You can keep your belief. I wont protest it.

After all what are buddies for eh?Embarrassed

But Titan.....why do you presume that attestation means entirely epigraphical exemplification >?

Literary or archaeological evidences for the existence of a language also qualify the same for attestation. ---As in the case of the Vedas.


Originally posted by TITAN_

Then you mention something about 2700 BC reference of trigonometry. Your sourses are dot com not dot edu.IF you want a serious debate, use dot edu sources only.


I already told you my sources. It does pain to see you disparage them when you have not yet cared to refute them.

If anyone needs a change of source its you Titan. The "Pedias"--wikipedia and others--are good starting points but not ideal ending points


Originally posted by TITAN_

I have too many sources that insist that the Indians learnt from the Greeks, not the other way around, back in the ages of the Indo-Bactrian hellenistic kingdoms. 


Why am I not impressed ?

Because all the sources you allude to , without exception, presuppose :

1. That the Rig Veda was composed in 1500 BC
2. That "Aryans" invaded/migrated into India in the centuries preceding.
3. That No Indian text is older than this disastrous nail of a date.
4. That India was a closed system before Alexander.
5. That people will always succumb to the colonial versions of history.


I have already shown, in most simple terms, that the 1500 BC date is downright foolish and untenable.
I have provided evidences and quoted scholars for dating the Rig Veda to 4000--3500 BCE.

If you dont enjoy this, if you wish to challenge this, you are welcome.

But you must  (kindly ofcourse) quote and disprove the contents of the following posts of mine.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10496&PID=694668#694668

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10496&PID=694672#694672

Would you do that Titan? It would be saving a lot of energy for me to not have to repeat my arguments indefinitely for every single confabulation.

Originally posted by TITAN_

Perhaps you should read Megasthenes' Indica.


LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

No Titan, I had rather read the worst of the tons of other literature available .

This is a serious blunder on your part.
Megasthenes' Indica does not exist. Only broken references to it are extant.

Why should such a silly text evoke any response from serious scholars?

It has very little value. Colonial historians completely Ignored the Puranic literature and based Indian history on this most unworthy text. They did this to make Indian Civilization look contemporaneous to Greek.

This has done untold damage to Indian history. You wouldn't understand.It might take decades to repair these virulent mistakes.  Not yet.

Even the fragmentary remains of the Indica  is replete with bull crap. It does not mention Kautilya, the most important Indian then. It says stories of mythical animals and tribal people with such large ears that they could wrap themselves up like blankets . All this mixed with precise description of widths of roads? Its a mixture of fact and fable, history and hearsay.

Soon, we will need to face the question : Should Bharatha history be written based on the tens of thousands of historical pages of the Vedas, the Puranas, the Itihasas, the Sutras, the Shastras and the Vedangas ---Or should it be based on the fragment of the Indica


Originally posted by TITAN_

Before the 4th century BC, there was no attested contact between Greeks and Indians.


I already provided you with two examples from Greek literature showing this contact.

Kindly quote and refute them

The Vedic influence on Greek Philosophy is neatly explained by Kazanas in his papers. Please visit OMILOS MELETON

Originally posted by TITAN_

Again, nationalistic pride and supremacy have nothing to do with academic, scientific consensus regarding ancient history that happened and not ancient history that could/should/would have happened.


Cry
Ah well,

It must always come down to this , doesn't it?

At the culmination of an earnest debate, sometimes( usually), the disillusioned opponent must end up hurling abuses. Sometimes, as now, not even one exchange of posts would have passed before the dirty addiction takes charge. 

Worse still, the opponent has not fielded even one interesting point in his long tirade against the poor fellow. Just plain denial.

Even worse, the opponent has not even quoted me once. I should take strong offense at the haughtiness of this dishonor .But I let it pass.

Even worse, the opponent pretends he has high standards of proof as he dismisses a contrary opinion expressed in very friendly terms as the mere flatulence of nationalist pride.



Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 12:59
Originally posted by TITAN_

So we have history on one hand, and speculative supremacy on the other.

History = istoria is a Greek word and it means to know! Therefore, history included only written, deciphered, readable records. Anything that predates that is pre-history (=before the age of readable writing).

Therefore, to talk about the IVC script is a prehistorical debate. It is meaningless to talk about a language we can't even read and to which 1000 different "interpretations" have been given.

The Indians, according to verified scientific information, used their script to write down in Sanskrit, after 500 BC. 

One of the oldest surviving readable Indian records are the edicts of Ashoka,  back in the 3rd century BC.  One of the oldest readable attested surviving records in Greek are they clay tablets of the Minoan and Mycaenean palaces that were actually made circa 1300-1400 BC.

Attestation vs speculation. Guess who wins....

There is no single Sanskrit record back in 1700 BC. That language is no Sanskrit. 



I dont see anything relevant here.

You have posted many irrelevant facts and some superstitions .

I am more than willing to discuss them.---LATER.

 But please stick to the topic FOR NOW.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jun-2013 at 13:04
Originally posted by TITAN_

http://historum.com/asian-history/23396-greco-buddhism-unknown-influence-contribution-greeks.html

""Yona" is a Pali word used in ancient India to designate Greek speakers. Its equivalent in Sanskrit, Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu and Tamil is the word "Yavana". "Yona" and Yavana are both transliterations of the Greek word for "Ionians" (Homer Iāones, older *Iāwones), who were probably the first Greeks to be known in the East. In Telugu another word "Yavanika", means drama stage, an invention brought by Hellenistic people. "Yunani", likewise, means medicine from Greeks.
The Yavanas are mentioned in the Buddhist discourse of the Middle Length Sayings, in which the Buddha mentions to the Brahman Assalayana the existence of the Kamboja and Yavana people who have only two castes, master or slave. The direct identification of the word "Yavana" with the Greeks at such an early time (6th-5th century) can be doubted however.[1]


If you would be kind enough to tell me how this may in any way enrich the present discussion, it would be appreciated.

I wouldn't call it spam--an attempt to divert attention from the highlights of the debate. Shocked

Rather a mere routine check up exercise for the indispensably wonted shift+ c and shift + v
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 04:49
OK this is really funny. Kassites and Hittites belong to the huge family called Proto-Indo-Europeans, which pretty much contains everyone from the Celts to the Northern Indians.  

You present ZERO proof that the Kassites or the Hittites were ancestors of the Indians who spoke Sanskrit back in 600 BC.

Again, since you have difficulty in reading, the Rig Veda was probably ORALLY composed back in the second millenium BC. That means nothing. It wasn't written down  till 300 BC, at best. 

The Rig Veda we know of today, has additions and alterations...

"Rigveda, ( Sanskrit: “The Knowledge of Verses”)  also spelled Ṛgveda ,  the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism, composed in an ancient form of Sanskrit about 1500 bce, in what is now the Punjab region of India and Pakistan. It consists of a collection of 1,028 poems grouped into 10 “circles” (mandalas). It is generally agreed that the first and last books were created later than the middle books. The Rigveda was preserved orally before it was written down about 300 bce."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/503627/Rigveda

Yep, there was no script for the Indians before that. 

No matter what you say, in order to support your blatant nationalistic agenda, The Indians never wrote down anything before 300-400 BCE since the oldest script they ever used to write Classical Sanskrit was the Brahmi script.

Your fantasies about 500-600 BCE are not accepted by the international community, I am sorry.

Your rediculous attempt to use Hittite and Kassite records in order to prove that Sanskrit is even older, only attempts to prove that IVC and ancient Indian civilizations in general were borrowed and not indigenous.

In reality, civilization to the Indian subcontinent was brought by Proto-Indo-Europeans from Caucasus. It was the same tribes that migrated to Greece and the rest of Europe.

Of course, the so-called Indo-Aryan languages are only a small branch and you can't really claim that your ancestors were.... Hittites! This is no scholarship, I am sorry. 

Indian records that we can read begin with Ashoka's Age. Any earlier records were fragmented and contain no valuable information about Indian history or culture, whatsoever. 

Anything else is wishfull thinking of chauvinists who are not satisfied with their nation's history. 

Even Panini's age is debatable. Nationalists say he lived before 500-600 BC while....... more academic sources place him circa 400 BC. Obviously those speculations are not supported by hard evidence. 

Everything we know and it actually comes from Indian records, dates back to circa 300 BC. 

Mesopotamian civilizations that you boast of, are not part of your history. The Babylonians, Hittites, Sumerians etc. only influenced you, they were not "Indo-Aryans" or anything else funny.
They were distinct civilizations, that flourished before IVC.

IVC script is not older than 2500 BCE, while Egyptian and Sumerian writing scripts exist since 3000 BCE.

Of course your nationalistic sources place IVC script back to 3300 BC or even back to 4000 BCE, only to make the rest of the international academic community laugh at them.

In the real word, the undeciphered IVC script was in use from 2500 to 1900 BCE.







αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 04:55
Moreover, books like Vedic influence on Greek philosophy are purely fiction-driven novels with zero academic proof.

The academic consensus suggests that contact between Greece and India did not happen before the Macedonian campaign, and as I showed even Sanskrit theatre and Buddhist statues were heavily influenced by the Greeks.

In fact, Buddha himself was never represented as a human being in any form of art (statues, sculptures etc.) before the ancient Indo-Greek kingdom rose, in the 2nd century BC, just north of India. 

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that the human representation of Buddha is an ancient Greek achievement. The ancient Greek influence on India is well documented and cannot be questioned.


αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 05:06
Trying to downplay Megasthenes is a huge error..... I love exposing lies. Indica has survived to a large extent!


Megasthenes shows what ancient India really was.... That is supported by archaeological evidence.
Writing almost did not exist at all back in the 3rd century BC!

56 pages full of narration regarding ancient India. Read it before you expose yourself more.

I challenge you to find an ancient Indian record, that describes India so extensively, and that was actually written in the same period of time!


αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jun-2013 at 05:33
Regarding the Hittites, they were culturally alien to ancient Indians. Their kingdom covered modern Turkey, Syria and Lebanon and just like the ancient Persians, they were foreign and alien to Indian language and culture. Because they had to deal with the Mitani people, it doesn't mean they were close. The Hittite language "Nesite" is not related to Sanskrit at all. 

" Hittite lacks several grammatical features exhibited by other "old" Indo-European languages such as Sanskrit, Latin, Ancient Greek, Old Persian, and Avestan. Notably, Hittite does not have the IE gender system opposing masculine-feminine; instead it has a rudimentary noun class system based on an older animate-inanimate opposition."    Coulson 1986, p. xiii

"According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[4] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[5]
Hittite is one of the Anatolian languages. It is known from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions erected by the Hittite kings. The script formerly known as "Hieroglyphic Hittite" has been changed to Hieroglyphic Luwian. The Anatolian branch also includes Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Palaic, Lycian, Milyan, Lydian, Carian, Pisidian, and Sidetic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesite

Hittite language is not a parent to Sanskrit.





http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/slides/07ie/IElanguagesmap.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/IndoEuropeanTree.svg

Hittite comes from the Anatolian branch
Vedic Sanskrit from the Indo-Iranian branch
Hellenic = Greek from the...... Hellenic branch.

These are distinct branches.


αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2013 at 08:06

One could ask why I do this, even though its clear its a complete waste of time, even though the opponent seems mentally incapable, in his fixed mentality, to even consider anything I say, even though his posts are hopelessly reiterations and a determined droning on in slightly varying words of his previous fallacious lines of reasoning ,even though he has indulged in unseemly attacks on me ,  even though he refuses to quote me, even though he fails to affirm anything he says with proofs, even though he seems unable to differentiate his own opinions and what is normally understood as proof, even though I learn nothing useful from him.....

Well, because I am havin a vacation after a month of exams and have plenty of time.
Wink

Originally posted by TITAN_

OK this is really funny. Kassites and Hittites belong to the huge family called Proto-Indo-Europeans, which pretty much contains everyone from the Celts to the Northern Indians.  



Why dont you do yourself a favour> ? Just read my last post. You can see the 45 Sanskrit words and their clear corruptions in Mittani/hittites.

On what lines can it be stated that the Hittites were PIE? They are thousands of years past the PIE era. Any man in his senses can see that they are only a remnant of what was once pure Vedic

The sentence in pink shows how inept and unread Titan is in this subject.

PIE is the supposed language spoken in the Urmheit. It does not include every one from the "Celts to North Indians". There were no "Celts" back in those days.

Gosh, even I am beginning to get bored with such impossible blunders

Originally posted by TITAN_

You present ZERO proof that the Kassites or the Hittites were ancestors of the Indians who spoke Sanskrit back in 600 BC.

What outstanding abilities of comprehension !

Why would I provide proofs for something that I dont agree with, something that never once occurred to me?

The Hittites were an Indian tribe that left India between 2500 BC and 2000 BC.  Just like the Vedic texts say.

Just like what Archaeological findings agree with .

Now I could go on to trouble you with genetic data. I could talk of the progressive drop in the frequencies of  R1A1 as you move away from India towards Europe through the middle east.



But lets make it a little more interesting.

It is a Genetically established fact that the Bos Indicus originated in India and was domesticated in The indus valley.




We find the Indian Zebu species appearing in the Middle East and Europe around 2000 BCE. The same time that Indo Aryans arrived there.  Many sites all over the middle east have provided evidence of the Zebu since 2000 BCE.

IT WAS THE HITTITES/MITTANI WHO BROUGHT THE INDIAN ZEBU TO THE MIDDLE EAST AND PARTS OF EUROPE.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IF THEY DID NOT COME FROM INDIA?

HOW CAN ARYANS MIGRATE TO INDIA AND THE ZEBU TO THE WEST? --Migrations in opposite directions?

Are Indians the ancestors of the Hittites or vice versa?

Date palms from Baluchistan reached Sumer already in the 4th millennium BC, also Indian sesame became part of Sumerian agriculture, and zebu (Bos indicus) appears in Mesopotamian archaeology, in  the northern part particularly during the 2nd millennium BC (see here), when and where we have the impressive appearance of the Indo-Aryan rulers of Mitanni.

In this context, we can also cite a study by Chen et al. of 2010 about the origins of the zebu, affirming that "both the I1 and I2 haplogroups within the northern part of the Indian subcontinent is consistent with an origin for all domestic zebu in this area. For haplogroup I1, genetic diversity was highest within the Indus Valley among the three hypothesized domestication centers (Indus Valley, Ganges, and South India). These data support the Indus Valley as the most likely center of origin for the I1 haplogroup and a primary center of zebu domestication." In Harappan sites, remains of Bos indicus are very rich, and also images of its bull are frequent on the seals, like here on the right, and its presence is already attested from the first period of Mehrgarh, as confirmed by Jarrige in an article from Pragdhara 18: "Osteological studies as well as clay figurines indicate that zebu cattle (Bos indicus) is well attested in Period I and became most probably the dominant form. Mehrgarh provides us therefore with a clear evidence of an indigenous domestication of the South Asian zebu."


The local zebu cattle were crossed with Dutch and Swiss Brown bulls and some Simmentals and the best crosses were bred inter se." (see here). So, from this FAO site we learn that in the steppes around the Syr Darya, in present Uzbekistan, there is traditionally a 'local zebu cattle'. But from the cited study on the origins of zebu we learn that zebu is present in a great part of Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan), and also in Oman (an area in close commercial relation with the Indus Valley) and Turkey, besides Iraq.

 Bos indicus has crossed the Channel and reached Jersey Island and Great Britain in the DNA of Jersey cattle... A study by Cymbron, reports:

In the present study, B. indicus influence in Europe was measured systematically using PAAs. These were found at low frequencies in some European breeds (figure 3). The average frequency of B. indicus PAAs is higher in Mediterranean breeds (6.7%) than in the rest of Europe (5.1% without outliers). Within the Mediterranean, the average frequencies of B. indicus PAAs in Italy is the highest (8.1%). The Greek Sykia breed is intermediate (6.3%) and the average frequency in Portugal is 5.4%. The highest absolute values are found in two Italian breeds: Maremanna (8.1%) and Modicana (10.8%). Interestingly, a percentage of individuals of the Modicana breed have bifid processes in the last thoracic vertebrae, traditionally considered a B. indicus anatomical characteristic

http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2012/04/wonderful-adventures-of-bos-indicus.html

Originally posted by TITAN_

Again, since you have difficulty in reading, the Rig Veda was probably ORALLY composed back in the second millenium BC. That means nothing. It wasn't written down  till 300 BC, at best.


You need to give me proofs for saying Rig veda belongs to the second millenium BCE. I have already stated, quite strongly, why it belongs to 3500 BCE atleast.

Its clear you wont even care to see why I reject the 1500 BCE date. Its clear you have not even had a cursory look at my previous posts.

Well, suits you. If you choose to doze in the pseudo pleasures of ignorance.

Your assertion in blue

Its means everything for this debate Titan.

For one, it means that Sanskrit and the Vedas existed back then
It means the Vedic civilization existed.
It means Vedic science existed
It also means that writing was known to the authors of the Vedas. The sheer size of the Vedic literature and the proficiency in Grammer, Mathematics, Astronomy and logic exemplified therein is not possible without some form of a written annotation.



Originally posted by TITAN_

"Rigveda, ( Sanskrit: “The Knowledge of Verses”)  also spelled Ṛgveda ,  the oldest of the sacred books of Hinduism, composed in an ancient form of Sanskrit about 1500 bce, in what is now the Punjab region of India and Pakistan. It consists of a collection of 1,028 poems grouped into 10 “circles” (mandalas). It is generally agreed that the first and last books were created later than the middle books.

Did you suppose I did not know any of this?Confused

I asked you to prove that the Rig Veda was composed in 1500 BC.

You failed. You would rather keep spamming this topic with irrelevant facts.

Thats okay. It seems thats all you are equipped to do.


Originally posted by TITAN_

Yep, there was no script for the Indians before that.


Keep dreaming. Make it a point to ignore the inconvenient parts of my previous posts. They seriously might hurt you.


Originally posted by TITAN_

No matter what you say, in order to support your blatant nationalistic agenda, .

For your nasty mockery in blue : This is the last time I tolerate your insults . You are trying to imitate Red Clay.He is an administrator . You are a just a fellow member. You wont resort to such base tactics with perpetual impunity from the mods .Or so I believe. 

I will reply in fitting terms if you persist to bask in their absence.
And it wont be nice.


Originally posted by TITAN_

The Indians never wrote down anything before 300-400 BCE since the oldest script they ever used to write Classical Sanskrit was the Brahmi script

You know what my favorite definition of stupidity is?

Repeating the same things over and over again expecting a different result.

Sorry Titan, its not working.


Originally posted by TITAN_

Your fantasies about 500-600 BCE are not accepted by the international community, I am sorry.

You mean Wikipedia, right?


Originally posted by TITAN_

Of course, the so-called Indo-Aryan languages are only a small branch and you can't really claim that your ancestors were.... Hittites! This is no scholarship, I am sorry.

 

How is it inside that closed well of your understanding?

There are more Indo Aryan speakers than the European, Iranian and Central Asian speakers put together.(If thats your understanding of size). You do the counting

Sanskrit is older than anything of a language you know.It will remain so until you quote and disprove my previous posts to Alanidragon.  Its ramifications are of such intricacy that its catalog remains loose.

There are over 400. .SIL Ethnologue lists 415 living "Languages of India" .Hundreds more with 100,000 ++speakers. Almost all of them have a profound influence of Sanskrit. Two dravidian languages  Malayalam and Telugu are the closest languages to Sanskrit in respect of vocabulary (75 and 60 % respectively) 

This does not fit your petty layman, asinine description  of this huge language sub group.


Originally posted by TITAN_

Anything else is wishfull thinking of chauvinists who are not satisfied with their nation's history.

Well, it is indeed my wishful thinking that trolls would eventually stop spamming.

History is not a source of satisfaction. Its an archive to have spun the yarns of the future.


Originally posted by TITAN_

Even Panini's age is debatable. Nationalists say he lived before 500-600 BC while....... more academic sources place him circa 400 BC. Obviously those speculations are not supported by hard evidence.

LOLBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileLOL

Ironical. The academician in this forum is the only one not giving proofs.

Noone is bothered right now when Panini lived.Would you please stop trolling? He lived, as I can prove, before the era of the Vedanga Jyotisa(1500 BCE). Its fairly easy too. He is the border between Vedic and Classical sanskrit literature.

But Iam not going to do that. I am not letting you digress your way out of this mess you are creating


Originally posted by TITAN_

IVC script is not older than 2500 BCE, while Egyptian and Sumerian writing scripts exist since 3000 BCE.

The origins of all three belong to the same period.(3500-3300 BCE)

Your particular dislike of one of them is not going to validate the many mistakes of Wikipedia and your fantasies.

I already showed that the Ravi Phase and one of the lower layers of Harappa showed pottery engravings of three Indus script signs of 3300 BCE.


The origins of Indus writing can now be traced to the Ravi Phase (c. 3300-2800 BC) at Harappa. Some inscriptions were made on the bottom of the pottery before firing. Other inscriptions such as this one were made after firing. This inscription (c. 3300 BC) appears to be three plant symbols arranged to appear almost anthropomorphic. The trident looking projections on these symbols seem to set the foundation for later symbols… (Slide 124 Harappa.com) An Early Harappan: Ravi phase inscribed potsherd (H-1522A) contains a symbol which is comparable to the later evolved sign of Indus script. This phase is dated to c. 3700 -2800 BCE. If this is evidence of an Indus script inscription, Indus script could be chronologically dated as an early writing system, coterminous with the Late Uruk period (c. 3500-3100 BCE) in southern Metopotamia. This inscription can be called a ‘graphic expression using a symbol.

https://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/indus-writing


Edited by SuryaVajra - 22-Jun-2013 at 08:28
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2013 at 08:22
Originally posted by TITAN_

Trying to downplay Megasthenes is a huge error..... I love exposing lies. Indica has survived to a large extent!


Megasthenes shows what ancient India really was.... That is supported by archaeological evidence.
Writing almost did not exist at all back in the 3rd century BC!

56 pages full of narration regarding ancient India. Read it before you expose yourself more.




Sorry mate, the ancient Greek references to megasthenes and the impardonable blunders and contradictions it poses classifies even the fragment as unreliable.

Ancient Greek historians , all of them of note, derided the naivety of Megasthenes.

"56 " pages of "accurate descriptions you say?

Now I know you aren't gonna read any of my posts. But I do this only for others who may read.

  1. Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya

  2. He makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya.

  3. Indian historians have recorded two Chandr aguptas, one of the Maurya dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta' s son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.

  4. The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.

  5. Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.
  1. The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE

  2. According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

  1. Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta Maurya and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.

  1. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

  1. To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.

No Concrete Proofs:
The Western scholars and their followers in India have been all along insisting on concrete evidence for ancient Indian chronology but they themselves have not been able as yet, to furnish any such evidence for the sheet anchor.

All the evidence supplied so far is conjectural. No numismatic or inscriptional proof is available for the date. Same was the condition at the time of V. A. Smith. He had written, "Unfortunately, no monuments have been discovered which can be referred with certainty to tile period of Chandragupta Maurya and the archaeologist is unable to bring any tangible evidence afforded by excavations."

Pandit Bhagavaddatta seems to have studied the fragments of Megasthenes in more detail than those who decided the identity. On the basis of Megasthenes's statements, he has arrived at the following conclusions. "Yamuna was flowing through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura. The kshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas. Their king was Chandraketu. The capital Paribhadra was near to Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga." He further states, "Pataliputra cannot be written as Palibothra in Greek because 'P', in Patali is written in Greek as English 'P', only ; then why 'P', in Putra is changed to 'B', in Greek? There is no instance where Sanskrit 'P', is changed to Greek 'B'." Putra cannot be Bothra.



Aelian gives his indebtednes to Megasthnes : "Megasthenes says that in India there are huge scorpions and they drive in their stingers. Snakes with wings go out at night and release their urine with with touch causes immediate putrefaction. Such is the things said by Megasthenes"

That ofcourse is only a sample of ancient stupidity.


Strabo says
Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India, were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next, while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood."

Of course, Strabo is a historian unlike your Mega boy


Edited by SuryaVajra - 22-Jun-2013 at 08:30
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2013 at 08:32
Originally posted by TITAN_


"According to Craig Melchert, the current tendency is to suppose that Proto-Indo-European evolved, and that the "prehistoric speakers" of Anatolian became isolated "from the rest of the PIE speech community, so as not to share in some common innovations."[4] Hittite, as well as its Anatolian cousins, split off from Proto-Indo-European at an early stage, thereby preserving archaisms that were later lost in the other Indo-European languages.[5]
Hittite is one of the Anatolian languages. It is known from cuneiform tablets and inscriptions erected by the Hittite kings. The script formerly known as "Hieroglyphic Hittite" has been changed to Hieroglyphic Luwian. The Anatolian branch also includes Cuneiform Luwian, Hieroglyphic Luwian, Palaic, Lycian, Milyan, Lydian, Carian, Pisidian, and Sidetic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesite



I highly appretiate Craig Melchert throwing us his esteemed opinion.

But would you also ask him to further provide us with the evidences that led him to framing that opinion?


Appeal to Authority is only a silly logical fallacy .

I bet you didn't know that.
Back to Top
SuryaVajra View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
  Quote SuryaVajra Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2013 at 08:51
Originally posted by TITAN_


I challenge you to find an ancient Indian record, that describes India so extensively, and that was actually written in the same period of time!



Challenge accepted. Lets just deal with the Puranas and the Arthashastra.

You really need to read the Arthashastra. Its preciseness is outstanding and unparalled.

It tells us everything about Indian society--The taxes, the names of officers, the standards units of measurements, crime and punishment, judicial system, names of weapons,construction of forts, science of warfare, names of swords, coins and denominations, state policy, purity standards of metals and alloys, family law..........

You name it..... its all there.

And guess what? It was written for the use of Kings .

All its critics are amazed by how such centralization was possible in such a period of history.

 Even the Greeks admitted that Indian history writers maintained a genealogy gaoing back to 6000 BCE.

They were referring to the Puranas ( meaning roughly "Tales of Old"). It gives the list of kings from about 6676 BCE.They are remarkably accurate. We cannot know of the really ancient monarchs but the ones of the historical era in this list has been extensively used by historians and are validated by external evidences. The Mauryas, the Guptas, the Shatavahanas etc all are included.

Here is a small sample from that list....

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4838/lunardynasty.jpg

 

Even the invasion of Semiramis is mentioned.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Jun-2013 at 09:02
Surya, your rudeness and inability to express your opinions without insults has earned you some time off.
 
2 Weeks suspension.
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2013 at 11:30
I do not think I have to fully respond to posts that use sources such as "blogspots" or 6600 BC "proofs". I will only make a few points.


" Even the Greeks admitted that Indian history writers maintained a genealogy gaoing back to 6000 BCE. "   This is no scholarship, this is complete fantasy. There is no such piece of evidence.

The Hittites were neither an "Indian" tribe, nor had anything to do with the history and the languages of India. The most likely derived from the same region that gave birth to all Indo-european languages: Caucasus mountains... I already showed the classification of languages according to the academic consensus, not some weird blogspot.

The argument that some Hittite names sound like ...Vedic Sanskrit names, means nothing. I can find dozens of ancient Greek and Latin words that sound like Sanskrit words. The explanation is one and only: All those languages derive from the PIE language. Sanskrit didn't give birth to Hittite or Greek or Latin, neither the other way around. 


αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Jun-2013 at 12:10
Regarding Indian literature and mythology, the truth is no one knows how old the Rig Veda really is. The oral tradition could come from 1500 or 2000 BC.  We can only speculate. The same applies to the epics of Iliad and Odyssey, in western literature. Those stories describe wars that took place around 1200 BC, but they could easily be much older, from the early Mycaenean history (1600 BC) or even earlier (foundation of Argos, 2000 BC).   

What we do know is that without a script, any oral tradition can change a lot until it is finally attested and copied. Not that a text cannot be modified but it is much easier to add or remove elements from an oral tradition such as Vedic mythology and religion.

Now, the debate regarding Brahmi, the oldest script that the ancient Indians used to write Classical & Vedic Sanskrit, was probably formed around 300 or maybe 400 BC. 

And of course, what really matters is the oldest surviving texts that really prove that a certain script was developed enough to provide a way to write a whole book, not just a couple of words on some stone that have zero historical value.  The edicts of Ashoka (3rd century BC) are the oldest or one of the oldest examples of readable writing in India. 

Regarding Sri Lankan Brahmi inscriptions, they also date back to 300 BC, not 500-600 BC as mentioned above. Megasthenes was right, as modern archaeology confirms what he noted explicitly; that the Indians "have no knowledge of written letters".  




αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jun-2013 at 00:25
Originally posted by red clay

Surya, your rudeness and inability to express your opinions without insults has earned you some time off.
 

2 Weeks suspension.


Ya should have got em three pages back when he was using red as a color for emphasis. And this thread went into the crapper three pages ago. When trig gave way to arguments about language attestation version physical script.

I got to hurry up and get well.



"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'

Back to Top
lincy View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 22-May-2019
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11
  Quote lincy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jun-2019 at 02:49
Interesting post to read. Thanks for sharing this post. 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 345

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.