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 28th, 2017, 08:10 AM   #41
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
The germans and the slavs got their word for camel from the Phoenicians from Africa. The slavs got the word from elephant from somewhere else althogether, which you continue to ignore, the word slon.

What I have been referring to is the sanskrit. Yes, indo-europeans, who got to india and remained there have 10+ words for elephant they learned from various indigenous tribes.

The ones who never got there have only one and it is the wrong one on top of everything. This is NOT the case with cow per example. For cow there is one and only one word for slavs, germans, sanskirt etc and this is because they did know this animal from the beginning.

It is a very simple and reasonable logic. You can continue to pull all kinds of far fetched theories, but they don't seem very convincing to me.
First of all, camel is a completely different word in the Semitic languages, unrelated to "elephant". The Egyptian word for ivory/elephant is "Ebha".
So Slavs/Germans did not get it from the Phoenicians and apply the word to the non-existent camel in Northern Europe.

The Phoenicians and Egyptians got the word for elephant from the Aryans in the Indus valley, who did extensive trading with ivory and tusks around 3000 BC, and which is recorded in the Rig Veda itself.

The Slavs and Germans in 4000 BC were not trading ivory and tusks with the Phoenicians, because the middle East people themselves were vaguely familiar with elephant ivory or elephants at that time, as their primary source of ivory was the Indus valley civilization and sub-Saharan Africa.

The Slavic world for Elephant 'Slon' is a borrowing from the Eastern Asiatic Languages.

All of the words in Sanskrit for 'elephant' are etymologically related to grasping, king, large, etc. and not from Dravidian languages. In fact, the Dravidian words for elephant are not even found in the Sanskrit languages. So Aryans did not learn about elephants from them.

So, you explain to me how Germans, Slavs, and Hitties all have retain the PIE for elephant, but have now applied the meaning to "camel/hunchback", if their ancestors did not migrate from India, through central Asia where the Bactrian camel existed, and into Europe?

This would be the most convincing case.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 28th, 2017 at 08:59 AM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:20 AM   #42

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,106
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
I am not claiming they rode donkeys, you are putting words in my mouth.

What you are trying to do is limit the word "horse" to "caballus" to try to support your claim that India had no horses, but this is biologically incorrect because there are many species of horses, for example Przewalski's horse and the recently extinct Tarpan . All of those are "horses", so now you have 2 other species of horses that aren't "Caballus", which means that the horse isn't just the "caballus".

Now, I quoted that large paragraph in a previous reply, which you probably ignored, that shows evidence of horses and horse domestication all throughout India going back thousands of years, which supports that horses also did exist in India.

Horses indeed do thrive on plains, and guess what, north India does have plains, so the geography is suited for horses.

Therefore, the horse is native to India.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the horse was not native?
You are aware that your above quoted entities belong to the Equus Ferus species? They are quite literally the same species, merely being a different sub-species.

The Sivalenis is NOT of the Ferus species. Do you not understand taxonomy and biology? There is the Horse FAMILY. Then there is a HORSE. Saying the Sivalensis is a horse is EXACTLY like saying a Donkey or the Indian Wild Ass is a horse. If the Sivalensis is proof that the "Horse" is native to India, you might as well as just say the Horse is native to Africa because you find Zebra there. And why bother reaching for an extinct animal? You find Donkeys in India, which are also of the Horse Family, so Horses are native to India.


Your "evidence" of Horse existence in India is quite literally meaningless. Stray Horse remains in the form of teeth or such like don't prove nativity, merely presence. You can explain this through trade. The IVC evidence of the horse remains openly contested, not to mention based on ridiculously small and stray samples of evidence. But since contesting that evidence isn't not in the domain of arguments I've advanced, why you keep harping on it is beyond me. It only tells me you're selectively choosing your arguments. The likes of Bokonoyi when they claim to identify horses in India are themselves talking about the Ferus Caballus, or at best a related sub-species. They are NOT talking about the sivalensis.

Please show me how HORSES are native to India. This means evidence of NATIVITY (not simply presence) and of that of a FERUS species sub species. If the Sivalensis is a "Horse" so is a Hemionus. Why do you think I said Donkeys are Horses if Sivalensis is?

Last edited by tornada; November 28th, 2017 at 08:29 AM.
tornada is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:29 AM   #43
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
You are aware that your above quoted entities belong to the Equus Ferus species? They are quite literally the same species, merely being a different sub-species.

The Sivalenis is NOT of the Ferus species. Do you not understand taxonomy and biology? There is the Horse FAMILY. Then there is a HORSE. Saying the Sivalensis is a horse is EXACTLY like saying a Donkey or the Indian Wild Ass is a horse. If the Sivalensis is proof that the "Horse" is native to India, you might as well as just say the Horse is native to Africa because you find Zebra there. And why bother reaching for an extinct animal? You find Donkeys in India, which are also of the Horse Family, so Horses are native to India.
Why do you keep thinking the Sivalensis is a donkey and not a real horse? As far as I know, it's not conclusive from the fossil remains to determine whether it's ferus or a donkey.

Regardless of this, there is still no reason to think the horse is not native to India, because it's mentioned all throughout ancient literature, there is archaeological evidence of it's domestication in the Indus, etc., and the north Indian geography is suited for horses.

So one can infer that the horse is native.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:35 AM   #44
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

"Stray Horse remains in the form of teeth or such like don't prove nativity"

What do you exactly mean by nativity? Even if the horse originated from central Asia, then some populations migrated into the Indian subcontinent, which were then later domesticated by the native Aryans.

The main claim of the Aryan invader theory is that the invading Aryans invaded India and brought horses with them, which there is no proof of because horses existed in India before the timeframe of the alleged Aryan invasion.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:56 AM   #45
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: usa
Posts: 248

Bharadwaja Brahmin, what you say makes sense. However I have noticed that no amount of evidence is good enough for people who subscribe to the AIT.
They will hang on to the AIT on the basis of mistranslation and misinterpretation of the Rigveda by Eurocentric historians and "scholars" of the 19th and 20th century.

Anyone opposing them is part of the Hindutva brigade.
hansolo is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:59 AM   #46
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolo View Post
Bharadwaja Brahmin, what you say makes sense. However I have noticed that no amount of evidence is good enough for people who subscribe to the AIT.
They will hang on to the AIT on the basis of mistranslation and misinterpretation of the Rigveda by Eurocentric historians and "scholars" of the 19th and 20th century.

Anyone opposing them is part of the Hindutva brigade.
Thank you, I have noticed this too, that opponents of the AIT are automatically labeled as "Hindu nationalists".
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:10 AM   #47

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,106
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
Why do you keep thinking the Sivalensis is a donkey and not a real horse? As far as I know, it's not conclusive from the fossil remains to determine whether it's ferus or a donkey.
If it were Ferus, it would classified as such. It is NOT. If you have positive evidence to suggest it is a subspecies of Ferus, then provide it. If you don't, you've failed your burden of proof, and it cannot be regarded as a Horse. It is not on me to provide negative evidence. If you think it is a Ferus, then you must have positive evidence. I am not required to wait for evidence conclusively DISPROVING something for me to think something is unlikely. I don't have conclusive evidence showing that Sargon of Akkad was not of Latin American origins. Doesn't mean I should assume he was.

And I am not saying Sivalensis is a donkey. That would be as false as saying its a horse. Sivalensis is a Sivalensis. It is you who is saying it is a horse. That is no different from saying a Donkey or a Zebra is a horse. Yes, they belong to the same family. But a Donkey, Zebra and Onager is not a horse.

Quote:
Regardless of this, there is still no reason to think the horse is not native to India, because it's mentioned all throughout ancient literature, there is archaeological evidence of it's domestication in the Indus, etc., and the north Indian geography is suited for horses.
North Indian Geography absent human intervention isn't actually all that suitable for Horses. Its testament in Human records proves merely presence of domesticated variety, which trade and import explains away. It doesn't show nativity. So far as I know, to show nativity, you need to show existence prior to human contact, or the prevalence of a species in wild form (but not feral, ie domesticated animal gone wild - dingo style) contemporaneous to Human society, to explain non-trade source of domesticated animal.

Quote:
So one can infer that the horse is native.
Not citing the Sivalensis, and not relying on evidence of it in purely domesticated contexts


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
"Stray Horse remains in the form of teeth or such like don't prove nativity"

What do you exactly mean by nativity? Even if the horse originated from central Asia, then some populations migrated into the Indian subcontinent, which were then later domesticated by the native Aryans.
I would have thought that simple - origins independent of human intervention. The Horse did not naturally exist in India. Members of the Horse Family did, but none of the Ferus species AFAIK.
Quote:
The main claim of the Aryan invader theory is that the invading Aryans invaded India and brought horses with them, which there is no proof of because horses existed in India before the timeframe of the alleged Aryan invasion.
Even if you can show the presence of the Horse in the IVC, it merely shows that the Horse was introduced to the IVC from outside earlier than the Migration theory allows for. It doesn't prove that the Horse was native to the region, since you cannot show its existence independent of human intervention/context. The Aryans are irrelevant to the question of the nativity of the horse in India. The debate about the horse is WHEN it was introduced to India, not WHETHER it was. There is some limited possibility of a debate on the former, though I don't believe the evidence yet supports this given the presence of Equuid non-Ferus alternatives for the small sample. There is no debate on the latter issue, not unless you turn up positive evidence of FERUS being in India outside of human intervention and control.
tornada is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:10 AM   #48

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 694

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post

So, you explain to me how Germans, Slavs, and Hitties all have retain the PIE for elephant, but have now applied the meaning to "camel/hunchback", if their ancestors did not migrate from India, through central Asia where the Bactrian camel existed, and into Europe?

This would be the most convincing case.
There is no PIE for elephant that is part of the common PIE lexicon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-E...bulary#Animals

So you are asking me to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist?

TupSum is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:19 AM   #49
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
There is no PIE for elephant that is part of the common PIE lexicon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-E...bulary#Animals

So you are asking me to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist?

Let me add that to Wikipedia by tonight.

The real reason why it's not there is because Western Indologists are fearful of the implications of admitting that the PIE word for "elephant" is a cognate with Vedic Sanskrit "ibha".

How do we know this? Because Western Indologists lie and say that "ibha" doesn't actually mean elephant, even though this is false because it directly contradicts the Nirukta of Yaska, which is the primary traditional interpretation of Vedic Sanskrit used by all Vedic scholars in India that was developed around 2000 BC.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 28th, 2017 at 09:34 AM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:21 AM   #50
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: usa
Posts: 248

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
There is no PIE for elephant that is part of the common PIE lexicon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-E...bulary#Animals

So you are asking me to provide evidence for something that doesn't exist?


As far as I know none of the PIE words exist. They are basically a bunch of made up words no matter what fancy terminology or method is used to describe the process.

PIE cannot be verified. That is a fact.
hansolo 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 42 January 7th, 2018 10:51 AM
Which is the "more European" language group? Finno-Ugric or Indo-European? Refrigerator European History 14 December 26th, 2017 11:51 AM
Proto-Indo-European fakirbakir Ancient History 68 December 6th, 2014 09:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.