Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:07 PM   #11
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Mammuthus exilis and Mammuthus columbi became extinct around 130,000 years ago in the Quartery Extinction event. Humans were around at that time.

Read up, find, collate, that is 'Historical research', not just making assertions. There is so much to know.
They actually lasted till 10,000 years ago:

"Until recently, the last woolly mammoths were generally assumed to have vanished from Europe and southern Siberia about 12,000 years ago, but new findings show some were still present there about 10,000 years ago."

That is 7,000 years for them to either completely lose the word for elephant, or transfer the word to something else. For example, the Germanic and Slavic words for elephant were transferred to camel, since elephants don't live in Europe. And that is within a few hundred years, what to speak of 7,000.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 27th, 2017 at 07:12 PM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #12

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 908

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
Actually, in Old Slavic, particularly in Old Church Slavic, the word for elephant is "velibodŭ". This is a cognate with the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) word for elephant, which is "labhantha".

One Sanskrit word for elephant is "ibha", the more ancient derivative of it is "Rbha".

"Rbha" also means "tusk" (Latin ebur means tusk/ivory), so adding "manta/vanta" to the end makes it "Rbhavantha", which means "tusker". The word "Rbha" comes from the root "Rabh". In the Rig Veda "Rabh" is the same as "Labh", since L and R are interchangeable in Vedic Sanskrit. Both "Rabh" and "Labh" mean "to grasp, seize, take", referring to an elephant's trunk grasping things.

So then you have "Labhamanta", which later became "elephant", which is a cognate with Old Church Slavic "velibodŭ".
In old church slavonic word for elephant is слонъ (slona). What you are claiming to be elephant is close to the word for camel.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B...BB%D1%8E%D0%B4

Camel is not elephant.

Slon and verblud are two very very different words. If you manage to somehow merge them, then you can prove virtually everything.

Last edited by TupSum; November 27th, 2017 at 07:19 PM.
TupSum is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:16 PM   #13
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
It actually isn't. There is a reason there are no native horse populations in India, either as wild or as distinct domesticated breeds.
Even the contested horse evidence of the IVC cannot prove nativity, only presence, which can be explained through trade. It is used to counter the argument that the Horse was unfamiliar to the IVC, but it doesn't prove nativity.

The Horse has historically not only not been native to India, but doesn't particularly thrive here. This is why Indian state fielding cavalry forces have had to consistently and continuously reinforce their stocks with imports from Persia and Arabia, since India's climate tends to result in the inferiorization of horse breeds. This is, AFAIK, a continuing issue.

Its worth noting however that Equuids are native to India. This is the Indian Ass, which is infact found in native populations. It is a close cousin of the Horse.
The Equus sivalensis was a species of horse native to India from 2.6 million years ago to around 8,000 years BC. So horses can in fact thrive in India.

I will now quote you this:

"The claim that horses were unknown since horse bones are not found in the Harappan sites is also a blatant lie. Horse bones have been found in Indus sites and further in the interior of India in periods prior to the alleged "Aryan invasion of India" after 1500 BCE. As Bryant points out: "The report claiming the earliest date for the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills (Ghosh 1989a, 4). In Rana Ghundai, Baluchistan, excavated by E. J. Ross, equine teeth were reported from a pre-Harappan level (Guha and Chatterjee 1946, 315–316). Interestingly, equine bones have been reported from Mahagara, near Allahabad, where six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E. (Sharma et al. 1980, 220–221). Even more significantly, horse bones from the Neolithic site Hallur in Karnataka (1500–1300 B.C.E.) have also been identified by the archaeozoologist K. R. Alur (1971, 123). [.......] In the Indus Valley and its environs, Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had reported the existence of the true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself, and Bholanath (1963) reported the same from Harappa, Ropar, and Lothal. Even Mortimer Wheeler identified a horse figurine and accepted that “it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all a familiar feature of the Indus caravan” (92). Another early evidence of the horse in the Indus Valley was reported by Mackay, in 1938, who identified a clay model of the animal at Mohenjo-Daro. Piggott (1952, 126, 130) reports a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley, dated somewhere between Early Dynastic and Akkadian times. Bones from Harappa, previously thought to have belonged to the domestic ass, have been reportedly critically re-examined and attributed to a small horse (Sharma 1992–93, 31). Additional evidence of the horse in the form of bones, teeth, or figurines has been reported in other Indus sites such as Kalibangan (Sharma 1992–93, 31); Lothal (Rao 1979), Surkotada (Sharma 1974), and Malvan (Sharma 1992–93, 32). Other later sites include the Swat Valley (Stacul 1969); Gumla (Sankalia 1974, 330); Pirak (Jarrige 1985); Kuntasi (Sharma 1995, 24); and Rangpur (Rao 1979, 219)." (BRYANT 2001:169-170). Also, horse bones (Dhawalikar), as well as a terracotta figurine of a horse, have been found at Kayatha in the Chambal Valley in Madhya Pradesh in all the chalcolithic levels, dated 2450-2000 BCE. Also, there is a very distinctive horse figure in a "chess set" found at Lothal. Further, one of the finds (the one in Surkotada in the Kutch region of Gujarat) has been certified by the topmost horse specialist archaeologist of the time: "the material involved had been excavated in Surkotada in 1974 by J. P Joshi, and A. K. Sharma subsequently reported the identification of horse bones from all levels of this site (circa 2100–1700 B.C.E.). In addition to bones from Equus asinus and Equus hemionus khur, Sharma reported the existence of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Twenty years later, at the podium during the inauguration of the Indian Archaeological Society's annual meeting, it was announced that Sandor Bökönyi, a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world's leading horse specialists, who happened to be passing through Delhi after a conference, had verified that the bones were, indeed, of the domesticated Equus caballus: “The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges. Since no wild horses lived in India in post-pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful" (reproduced in Gupta 1993b, 162; and Lal 1997, 285)" (BRYANT 2001:170-171)."


And this is not proof of an invasion, because even if you believe the central Asian horse was imported into India, it could be due to pre-historic trading.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:22 PM   #14
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
In old church slavonic word for elephant is слонъ (slona). What you are claiming to be elephant is close to the word for camel.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B...BB%D1%8E%D0%B4

Camel is not elephant.
You are right, it means camel, I edited my previous post. But this is what the Wiktionary you linked says says:

Click the image to open in full size.

It says: "From Proto-Slavic *velьb(l)ǫdъ, vъlьb(l)ǫdъ, from Latin elephantus, from Ancient Greek ἐλέφας (eléphas)."

Notice how it says "from Latin elephantus, from Ancient Greek ἐλέφας (eléphas)."

So, Proto-Slavic *velьb(l)ǫdъ, which reads "velibodu", is cognate with "elephant", and is common knowledge among all linguists.

It was a word transfer from elephant to camel when the Slavs migrated from India to Europe. Since elephants don't exist in Europe, they transferred the word to the next largest thing on their way out, the Bactrian camel.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 27th, 2017 at 07:38 PM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:24 PM   #15

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,206
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
The Equus sivalensis was a species of horse native to India from 2.6 million years ago to around 8,000 years BC. So horses can in fact thrive in India.

I will now quote you this:

"The claim that horses were unknown since horse bones are not found in the Harappan sites is also a blatant lie. Horse bones have been found in Indus sites and further in the interior of India in periods prior to the alleged "Aryan invasion of India" after 1500 BCE. As Bryant points out: "The report claiming the earliest date for the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills (Ghosh 1989a, 4). In Rana Ghundai, Baluchistan, excavated by E. J. Ross, equine teeth were reported from a pre-Harappan level (Guha and Chatterjee 1946, 315–316). Interestingly, equine bones have been reported from Mahagara, near Allahabad, where six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E. (Sharma et al. 1980, 220–221). Even more significantly, horse bones from the Neolithic site Hallur in Karnataka (1500–1300 B.C.E.) have also been identified by the archaeozoologist K. R. Alur (1971, 123). [.......] In the Indus Valley and its environs, Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had reported the existence of the true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself, and Bholanath (1963) reported the same from Harappa, Ropar, and Lothal. Even Mortimer Wheeler identified a horse figurine and accepted that “it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all a familiar feature of the Indus caravan” (92). Another early evidence of the horse in the Indus Valley was reported by Mackay, in 1938, who identified a clay model of the animal at Mohenjo-Daro. Piggott (1952, 126, 130) reports a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley, dated somewhere between Early Dynastic and Akkadian times. Bones from Harappa, previously thought to have belonged to the domestic ass, have been reportedly critically re-examined and attributed to a small horse (Sharma 1992–93, 31). Additional evidence of the horse in the form of bones, teeth, or figurines has been reported in other Indus sites such as Kalibangan (Sharma 1992–93, 31); Lothal (Rao 1979), Surkotada (Sharma 1974), and Malvan (Sharma 1992–93, 32). Other later sites include the Swat Valley (Stacul 1969); Gumla (Sankalia 1974, 330); Pirak (Jarrige 1985); Kuntasi (Sharma 1995, 24); and Rangpur (Rao 1979, 219)." (BRYANT 2001:169-170). Also, horse bones (Dhawalikar), as well as a terracotta figurine of a horse, have been found at Kayatha in the Chambal Valley in Madhya Pradesh in all the chalcolithic levels, dated 2450-2000 BCE. Also, there is a very distinctive horse figure in a "chess set" found at Lothal. Further, one of the finds (the one in Surkotada in the Kutch region of Gujarat) has been certified by the topmost horse specialist archaeologist of the time: "the material involved had been excavated in Surkotada in 1974 by J. P Joshi, and A. K. Sharma subsequently reported the identification of horse bones from all levels of this site (circa 2100–1700 B.C.E.). In addition to bones from Equus asinus and Equus hemionus khur, Sharma reported the existence of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Twenty years later, at the podium during the inauguration of the Indian Archaeological Society's annual meeting, it was announced that Sandor Bökönyi, a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world's leading horse specialists, who happened to be passing through Delhi after a conference, had verified that the bones were, indeed, of the domesticated Equus caballus: “The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges. Since no wild horses lived in India in post-pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful" (reproduced in Gupta 1993b, 162; and Lal 1997, 285)" (BRYANT 2001:170-171)."


And this is not proof of an invasion, because even if you believe the central Asian horse was imported into India, it could be due to pre-historic trading.
You did notice that I had mentioned the IVC horse evidence? While it's tenous, it only can only prove. knowledge not nativity. Most of your post has quite literally no value in reference to the point I made.

And the sivalensis is not a horse. All Equuids are not horses. If the Sivalensis is a horse then so is the common donkey. You don't get to change goalposts from common English to biological taxonomic families of species because it's convenient. The horse is the ferus Caballus and it isn't native to India. Migration or not the horse isn't an animal native to India. The only "debate" on the horse in the context of Indio Europeans is when knowledge of the non native animal first reached India

Last edited by tornada; November 27th, 2017 at 07:29 PM.
tornada is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:28 PM   #16
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
You did notice that I had mentioned the IVC horse evidence? While it's tenous, it only proves knowledge not nativity.

And the sivalensis is not a horse. All Equuids are not horses. If the Sivalensis is a horse then so is the common donkey. You don't get to change goalposts because it's convenient. The horse is the ferus Caballus and it isn't native to India. Migration or not the horse isn't an animal native to India. The only "debate" on the horse in the context of Indio Europeans is when knowledge of the non native animal first reached India
Not changing goalposts. What makes you think the Caballus isn't native to India? That's quite funny, you are the one who is bringing in biological taxa when you say the horse must be the Caballus. If ancient Indians were riding on something that looked more like a horse than a donkey, then it's a horse.

Even if you argue the horse isn't native to India, there were still other species of horses, such as the sivalensis. The wikipedia article for sivalensis does not specify whether it's a horse or a donkey. The other currently existing species of horse is Przewalski's horse.

Rigveda I.162.18 and the Shatapatha Brahmana 13.5 describe the horse being sacrificed as having 34 ribs, and not 36 like the Central Asian horse, hinting at another species of horse.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 27th, 2017 at 07:49 PM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:38 PM   #17

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 908

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
You are right, it means camel, I edited my previous post. But this is what the Wiktionary you linked says says:

Click the image to open in full size.

From Proto-Slavic *velьb(l)ǫdъ, which reads "velibodu", cognate with "elephant".

It was a word transfer from elephant to camel when the Slavs migrated from India to Europe. Since elephants don't exist in Europe, they transferred the word to the next largest thing on their way out, the Bactrian camel.
Alright, just a last remark: the thing is the slavs DO have a word for elephant, namely slona as I already mentioned

They don't need to transfer anything. But even if there is some confusion between those two animals, if anything it points to the fact that these people didn't know anything about either one of them. Compare that to sanskrit, where you have several words for elephant. Just like eskimos have ten words for snow.
TupSum is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 07:42 PM   #18
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
Alright, just a last remark: the thing is the slavs DO have a word for elephant, namely slona as I already mentioned

They don't need to transfer anything. But even if there is some confusion between those two animals, if anything it points to the fact that these people didn't know anything about either one of them. Compare that to sanskrit, where you have several words for elephant. Just like eskimos have ten words for snow.
The fact that they had a different word for elephant is irrelevant. It's the fact that the word "velibodu" is a linguistic cognate with the proto-indo-european word for elephant that is of interest.

From your wiki link:

"From Proto-Slavic *velьb(l)ǫdъ, vъlьb(l)ǫdъ, ..., from Latin elephantus, from Ancient Greek ἐλέφας (eléphas).

This is not a bizarre coincidence. It's quite easy to explain how the word for elephant was transferred over to camel: while the Slavs were exiting India, they lost the word for elephant (because elephants do not exist natively in Central Asia or Russia), and then transferred the meaning to the next biggest thing, the central Asian Bactrian Camel. Much like how the Germans did the exact same thing with "Ulbandus", meaning camel. And guess what, Germans are neighbors to Slavs.

I'll give another example. The ancient hittite word for "hunchback" is ḫuwalpant. Clearly, this is referring to the camel.

Now, since no one is claiming the Aryans came from Saudi Arabia, it's safe to say they picked up the word from the Bactrian camel while exiting India.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 27th, 2017 at 07:54 PM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:00 PM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: appalacian Mtns
Posts: 4,218

It is my understanding that the horse originated in the great plains area of the present day USA. It was a small creature about knee high. It crossed the Bering Staight land bridge into Asia & then became extinct in the western hemisphere, or did it? Some argue the Appalossa of the Nez Perse tribe is distinct from European horses & evolved in the West. Of course some also claim the Nez Perse are decendants of the Welsh that came here before Columbus? The Nez Perse claim too have always had horses, !ong before the Spanish came.

Last edited by M9Powell; November 27th, 2017 at 08:07 PM.
M9Powell is offline  
Old November 27th, 2017, 08:00 PM   #20
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
This is why Indian state fielding cavalry forces have had to consistently and continuously reinforce their stocks with imports from Persia and Arabia, since India's climate tends to result in the inferiorization of horse breeds. This is, AFAIK, a continuing issue.
That is also not true, since the Rajputs, Marathas, and Delhi Sultanates had very good cavalry, and didn't import any of their horses.

The Delhi Sultanate under Allauddin Khalji defeated the Mongol invaders because the grain-fed horses of India were much stronger than the grass-fed horses of the Mongols.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
homeland, india, indoeuropean, north



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How were Arabia, South India and North Africa able to resist the Indo Europeans Theseus General History 47 January 26th, 2018 03:15 PM
Which is the "more European" language group? Finno-Ugric or Indo-European? Refrigerator European History 14 December 26th, 2017 10:51 AM
Proto-Indo-European fakirbakir Ancient History 68 December 6th, 2014 08:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.