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, 08:30 AM   #51
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
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.


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.


Not citing the Sivalensis, and not relying on evidence of it in purely domesticated contexts



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.

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.
Notice how first you said, "When you use Horse in common parlance, its in reference to a single species. Ferus Caballus." Now you are admitting the "horse" can refer to any subspecies of "ferus". If for whatever reason the equus sivalensis is not identified as equus ferus, that doesn't mean it wasn't domesticated, rode on, and looked like a horse.

Do you think the African elephant and Asian elephants are both elephants? Well guess what, they belong to different genus, the African elephant is "loxodonta", while Asian elephant is "elephas".

Note, that genus is more broader than species, yet both these animals are considered elephants. They are only related at the family level (Elephantidae).

While for our "horses", the genus is the same (equus), while we are disagreeing on the species, "ferus" or "sivalensis".

It's quite obvious that there is a subjective labeling in this organizational hierarchy, and if the so-called sivalensis is rode on like a horse, and even looks like a horse, it should be renamed to "ferus".

As for the existence of a native population, there are none, because they were all either domesticated or eaten.

Therefore, given all this evidence, geography, archaeology, and literature, there is no reason to believe the horse is not native to India.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:34 AM   #52

TupSum's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2016
From: Collapsed wave
Posts: 830

Quote:
Originally Posted by hansolo View Post
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.
You see those PIE words indeed don't exist anymore, they are reconstructed based on common words from different languages. There are NO common words for elephant in all PIE branches, in contrast to all the other ones in that list, which means the PIE didn't have elephant in the first place. That is what I have been trying to say from the beginning.

And then you guys say: oh no, they FORGOT about it. Nobody can argue with a logic like that unfortunately.
TupSum is online now  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:37 AM   #53
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
You see those PIE words indeed don't exist anymore, they are reconstructed based on common words from different languages. There are NO common words for elephant in all PIE branches, in contrast to all the other ones in that list, which means the PIE didn't have elephant in the first place. That is what I have been trying to say from the beginning.

And then you guys say: oh no, they FORGOT about it. Nobody can argue with a logic like that unfortunately.
Then explain to me how Germans and Slavs got the word "Ulbandus" and "velibodu", which are linguistically provable cognates with "elephant" and "labhavant".

Coincidentally, the Hittite word for "hunchback" is "huwalphant", referring to camel.

It just so happens that the Indo-European speakers who use the word elephant for camel, live in places where there are no elephants.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:40 AM   #54
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: usa
Posts: 250

Quote:
Originally Posted by TupSum View Post
You see those PIE words indeed don't exist anymore, they are reconstructed based on common words from different languages. There are NO common words for elephant in all PIE branches, in contrast to all the other ones in that list, which means the PIE didn't have elephant in the first place. That is what I have been trying to say from the beginning.

And then you guys say: oh no, they FORGOT about it. Nobody can argue with a logic like that unfortunately.

Thank you for saying that the PIE words do not exist anymore and the ones that are made up and portrayed as being authentic are fake. No one knows what PIE was.

Just because you say "reconstructed" instead of "made up" does not make this PIE any less fake.

The fact is no one knows how the words came to be. There is just no way of verification.

What surprises me is the impunity with which people use these fake words to substantiate their argument.

Last edited by hansolo; November 28th, 2017 at 08:44 AM.
hansolo is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 08:58 AM   #55

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,154
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharadwaja Brahmin View Post
Notice how first you said, "When you use Horse in common parlance, its in reference to a single species. Ferus Caballus." Now you are admitting the "horse" can refer to any subspecies of "ferus". If for whatever reason the equus sivalensis is not identified as equus ferus, that doesn't mean it wasn't domesticated, rode on, and looked like a horse.

Do you think the African elephant and Asian elephants are both elephants? Well guess what, they belong to different genus, the African elephant is "loxodonta", while Asian elephant is "elephas".

Note, that genus is more broader than species, yet both these animals are considered elephants. They are only related at the family level (Elephantidae).

While for our "horses", the genus is the same (equus), while we are disagreeing on the species, "ferus" or "sivalensis".

It's quite obvious that there is a subjective labeling in this organizational hierarchy, and if the so-called sivalensis is rode on like a horse, and even looks like a horse, it should be renamed to "ferus".

As for the existence of a native population, there are none, because they were all either domesticated or eaten.

Therefore, given all this evidence, geography, archaeology, and literature, there is no reason to believe the horse is not native to India.
When you find a spot of evidence for those hypothesized givens you throw out, get back to me. So far you're quite literally making the argument for why Donkeys should be called Horses.

Yes common parlance isn't always precise. Elephants proves that. But it helps that there aren't a vast array of surviving Elephantidae when Taxonomy evolved. The same was not true of Horses. Saying a Sivalensis is a horse is EXACTLY the same as saying the Indian Ass, the Donkey or the Zebra is a horse.

If you have evidence to suggest that Sivalensis should be classified as a ferus, please, put it up here I'll happily revise my opinion. Till then you're saying Donkeys are Horses.

I do however acknowledge one point - I shouldn't have pressed hard on the Caballus. I was typing on my phone, and thus didn't properly confirm the variation between species and sub-species before posting. That was an error, though your counter examples all being sub-species merely helped prove my case further. Given my training as a historian, I can make mistakes when I recall my school level biology, so for that mistake I do apologize.
tornada is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:21 AM   #56

Immchr's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Western India
Posts: 632

Now moving to the case of the Near Eastern homeland for the PIE,

We have to first note the fact that there has been no native Elephant species West of the Indus, for tens of thousands of years. The so-called Syrian Elephant is only known from archaeological evidence, after the onset of the 2nd millenium BC and they go extinct already by the early 1st millenium BC.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...n-elephant.pdf

Shrikant G Talageri: The Elephant and the Proto-Indo-European Homeland

They appear on the horizon, in quite a co-incidence, at the same time as the appearance of the Mitanni in Syria, and they are also found only within the Mitanni domain. Is this really a co-incidence or is it that the Mittani Indo-Iranians had infact arrived in Syria from their homeland in South Asia and had also brought along a few elephants with them ? The latter looks to be the most obvious option.

---------

Another argument could be that the Near Eastern region knew of the Elephants from Africa via Egypt. And that Indo-Europeans living in the Near East also became aware of them through Egypt.

There is a problem with this argument as well. Elephants in Egypt appear to become extinct already by 3500 BC or thereabouts in the pre-dynastic period. They do not appear ever on the scene in mainland Egypt.

However, the ancient Egyptians probably were trading in Elephant ivory until the 2nd millenium BC. The source of this ivory is an enigma.

So let us look at the linguistic data. According to the standard argument, Egyptian word 3bw or abu is the source of the PIE word for Elephant.

However, as we have noted, the Elephants had already gone extinct in Egypt in the pre-dynastic period around 3500 BC or earlier.

So, the ivory the Egyptians were trading in, must logically come from the South of Egypt from Nubia (modern Sudan) and other Sub-Saharan regions where African Elephant thrives. The source of Egyptian word 3bw must also be looked in that region.

Yet, as Talageri has shown on his blog, there are only a few African languages to the South of Egypt and running upto the Horn of Africa which share a similar word for Elephant as the Egyptian and the PIE word. In all other languages of Africa, the native word for Elephant is very different.

As stated on Talageri's blog,

Quote:
Since it was through Egypt that the rest of the western world became acquainted with the African elephant, and the Egyptian elephant came from the south, it is towards the south that we must look for the source of this word. The entire trail for the elephant in Egypt leads southwards: through the city of Abydos "elephant-mountain" in Central Egypt and the island of Abu/Yebu (Greek Elephantinē) in southern Egypt, the trail leads through Nubia (northern Sudan) into the eastern and coastal areas of the Horn of Africa (present-day Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Ethiopia). This is the area of the Cushitic languages in the east, with the Omotic and (Ethio-)Semitic languages to their west (i.e. in Ethiopia).
Quote:
The East Cushitic words for elephant are: "East Cushitic *ʔarb- 'elephant': Somali arba, Rendille arab, Arbore arab, Dasenech 'arab, Elmolo rap, Oromo arba, Konso arpa, D'irayta arp, Burji rba, Dullay arap-ka" (BLAEK 2004: 15). [the words for ivory are generally "elephant-tooth", e.g. Oromo arba "elephant", ilkan arba "ivory"]. It is also found in the Mbugu language further south (in Tanzania), considered to a mixed register language with Cushitic vocabulary and Bantu grammar, with loss of b: "S.Cush. *'ara > Mbugu ro 'large herbivore elephant'" (BLAEK 1994:198).

The Egyptian word 3bw is clearly derived from this East Cushitic word with subsequent loss of r: "The Egyptian 3 substitutes *r here. Hence the original reading of the Egyptian word 'elephant' should be *r[a]baw or *ʔ[a]rbaw [.] The proposed reading is fully compatible with East Cushitic *ʔarb-" (BLAEK 2004:17).
Quote:
As we saw earlier, this word is practically not found at all in the other African language families (Nilo-Saharan, Niger-Congo, Khoisan). In a copiously researched earlier article (1990, published 1994), Blaek has listed all the (well over a hundred) words for the elephant in the Afro-Asiatic language family. Among the branches of the Afro-Asiatic language family, it is not found at all in the Berber languages of North Africa (the Maghreb). It is not prominent even in the adjacent (Ethio-)Semitic and Omotic languages of eastern Africa (i.e. the Horn of Africa), or even in the Central Cushitic languages of Ethiopia. The word is therefore clearly special to the East Cushitic languages: outside this area, the word seems to have diffused westward as a secondary word only into some of the Central Chadic languages (of the Chad-Nigeria-Cameroon area) with modification of r and/or b: "Buduma ambu, [.] Ngala nve, Makeri rfu, Gulfei rfu(r), Kuseri rvi, oe arfu 'elephant'" (BLAEK 1994:198), unless the resemblance is coincidental.
Quote:
But the Chadic words for "elephant" are also generally different: "One of the most widespread words for 'elephant' in CChad and EChad is the form *bakin > Mafa bikine, Gisiga bigine, Mofu-Gudur bgneg, Mefele bekine, Magumaz bikine, Musugeu bgnī, Muturua bēgīnē, Gidar bḗkne, Lame b'n, (Sachnine) bkny, Peve bwoknai, Misme bakni, Dari bagnei, Musgu (Barth) fgenē, (Karause) pkene, Mbara pkn, Vulum pkn, Kera bān, Kwang bgini" (BLAEK 1994:197). Further: "The most widespread Chadic word for 'elephant', reconstructed as *gyiwan (Newman 1977, 25) on the basis (W) Hausa gīwā, Gwandora gyuwo, Montol kān, SBauci: Seya gwɨ, Bade gynw-an, Duwai gīwɨn; (C) Vizik giwan, Wandala guw, Glavda gun, Zeghwana gwin, Gava gwun, Nakatsa gwona, Paduko gwihana, Lamang gwɨyan, Hidkala gwn, Hide gwɨyɨn, Mora gɨwe; (E) Mubi gwyn" (BLAEK 1994:198-199). Another word for "'elephant' in CChad: Zulgo mbele, Mada mbile, Hurzo, Moreme, Gwendele mbelele, Uldene, Muyang mbele" (BLAEK 1994:197). And also, in Western and Central Chadic, we have: "Hausa torō 'giant male elephant' [.] (C) Musgu (Rder) tauraga, Muskun twrk, Baldamu turogo 'elephant'" (BLAEK 1994:197). Chadic, and particularly Central Chadic, languages clearly have a great many inherited or borrowed words for "elephant". There is even: "CChad: Margi (Meek) pir 'elephant' (Illich-Svtyich 1966,26: Sem+Margi)" (BLAEK 1994:196).

Therefore, the word "East Cushitic *ʔarb- 'elephant'" is clearly special to the East Cushitic languages of the coastal areas of the Horn of Africa, and diffusion of the word took place from this area. But even in these languages, it may not have been the original word, since there is, apart from the Somali word maroodi(ga) (besides arba) "elephant" and fool-maroodi "ivory", a word for the elephant which, in different evolved forms, is common to Cushitic (East, Central, and South Cushitic), Omotic (North and South Omotic) as well as (Ethio-)Semitic, i.e. to the whole of the Horn of Africa: "The most widespread word for 'elephant', common for most of Cushitic and Omotic languages, and attested in CCush: *źaxn- (Ehret 1987, 66) > Bilin ānā, Xamir zohn, Qwara, Dembea, Kemant ānā, Falaa (Beke) djni, Awngi [.] (Fleming) ziγoni [.] borrowed probably in Ethio-Semitic: Amharic zhon, zohon, Gafat zohuni, Caha zxwr, Ennamor zxwra, Gogot zegā, Tigria zihol, [.] Harari doxon, Selti dhano, Ulbareg dehanō [.] ECush: Afar-Saho dakāno, Somali dagon, dogon, Sidamo dano, Hadiya dāneččo, (Borelli) dan, Kambatta danieččoa, (Leslau) zanō, Quabenna zanō, Tambaro (Barelli) zanočo (Dologopolskiy 1973, 107; Leslau 198,125); Yaaku sogmei; SCush: *daxw- (Ehret 1980, 166) > Dahalo dokomi, ḍokomi; Iraqw daṅw, Gorowa, Alagwa, Burunge daw; SOm: Hamer donger, Bako dongor (Fleming 1976, 318); NOm: Bambei toŋgile, Sezo toŋgili, Hozo taŋgil, toŋgil; Nao, Maji dōr, akko dorō; Kafa dangiyō, Moca dngao, inaa dangea, Anfillo dangeččo; Zaise dongor, Wolaita, Gofa, Basketo, Caro dangarsā, Zala, Kullo dangarsa, Doko dangars [.] Janjero zaknō, Kačama, Koyra zākkā, Gofa (Fleming) zakkɨ, Ganjule zakka. The possibilities that the same root existed in Beja is not excluded either.[.] we have here a unique pan-Cushitic - Omotic isogloss" (BLAEK 1994:199).
So very clearly,

Quote:
So what is the origin of the somewhat isolated East Cushitic form "*ʔarb- 'elephant'"? Significantly, this word emanated from the coastal areas of the Horn of Africa, which guard the entrance from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea, and which have always been the first port of halt for ships from India sailing into the Red Sea, and the place from where goods from the East have always been downloaded for transport via the Nile to Egypt.
Quote:
The Egyptian 3bw/abu is derived from the early East Cushitic form "*ʔarb- 'elephant'": "the original reading of the Egyptian word 'elephant' should be *r[a]baw or *ʔ[a]rbaw [.] The proposed reading is fully compatible with East Cushitic *ʔarb-" (BLAEK 2004:17), and both are clearly derived from the PIE word *ḷbha-/*ṛbha-, like the other early Indo-European words for "elephant": Vedic ibha-, Hittite laḫpa-, Greek erepa/elepha-, Latin ebur < *erbo/*erbu (with metathesis of r, which would not have been possible if the Latin word had been derived from the Egyptian word, which had lost the r long before any Egyptian-Roman contacts), and (with the adjectival suffix -vanta/-manta) the Germanic ulbandus and Slavic velibodŭ "camel".
It should be clear from the above, that it is infact from the Indo-European language that the word for Elephant and its ivory entered the lexicon of ancient Egyptian, Eastern Cushitic and other African languages along the Eastern coast from the Horn of Africa upto Egypt. This was the route along which the goods from the Indus civilization were taken from the Horn of Africa to ancient Egypt.

------------------------

Therefore, there is no evidence for a Near Eastern origin for the PIE term for Elephant. Rather, the facts suggest exactly the opposite. And if indeed PIE originated in a place where Elephants were common, that region was certainly not Africa. Therefore, this strongly favours an Indian homeland scenario for PIE.
Immchr is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 09:30 AM   #57
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Indus Valley, Pakistan
Posts: 1,531
Blog Entries: 1

I am with Chacha Ji on this one. Age must be respected. Brahmins are our 'bloodbrothers'.
Bullit is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 10:03 AM   #58
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: United States
Posts: 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
When you find a spot of evidence for those hypothesized givens you throw out, get back to me. So far you're quite literally making the argument for why Donkeys should be called Horses.

Yes common parlance isn't always precise. Elephants proves that. But it helps that there aren't a vast array of surviving Elephantidae when Taxonomy evolved. The same was not true of Horses. Saying a Sivalensis is a horse is EXACTLY the same as saying the Indian Ass, the Donkey or the Zebra is a horse.

If you have evidence to suggest that Sivalensis should be classified as a ferus, please, put it up here I'll happily revise my opinion. Till then you're saying Donkeys are Horses.

I do however acknowledge one point - I shouldn't have pressed hard on the Caballus. I was typing on my phone, and thus didn't properly confirm the variation between species and sub-species before posting. That was an error, though your counter examples all being sub-species merely helped prove my case further. Given my training as a historian, I can make mistakes when I recall my school level biology, so for that mistake I do apologize.

Forget about whether sivalensis is a horse-like donkey or donkey-like horse.

This is the evidence:

The ferus caballus (or any other variation of ferus), is native to India, because it is mentioned all throughout ancient literature, there is evidence of horses and horse domestication throughout ancient India, the geography is suited for horses, and cavalry and chariots were very important for Indian kings throughout history. From all this we can infer that horses are native to India.

Your only objection to this fact is that there is no population of wild horses in India, but this objection is meaningless, because the existence of a wild population is not needed to prove that an animal is native to a particular place.

And even if you find a supposed wild population, it may not actually be wild, but rather "feral" (once domesticated but sent out into the wild).

India is a populous country and it's history is very old, so just like how animals get hunted to extinction, all the wild horses in India were domesticated or eaten.

Last edited by Bharadwaja Brahmin; November 28th, 2017 at 10:26 AM.
Bharadwaja Brahmin is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 10:14 AM   #59

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,534

Bharadwaja Brahmin - you will provide sources and evidence for your claims in all of your recent threads in this subforum if you wish to continue them. Otherwise, they will be closed.

Do not ciite "lack of evidence". That is not how we work in Historum. If you make the claims, it is on you to back them up when challenged, with evidence, not speculation or conjecture.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2017, 10:15 AM   #60

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,154
Blog Entries: 2

never mind
tornada 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.