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 January 13th, 2018, 09:43 PM   #321

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,706
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
OK expert, fantastic analysis (as always)!

So first Vedic developed alongside Mitanni, and then again it developed alongside Prakrits in India! You are a genius!
Fantastic? If you are saying fantastic ridiculous, perhaps not.

But if you're saying fantastic brilliant, then IMHO it's not anything fantastic at all, but rather quite mainstreamesque indeed in nature.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Tamilia...ges-is-derived

https://books.google.com.my/books?id...rit%3F&f=false

https://books.google.com.my/books?id...rit%3F&f=false

Your own personal, rigid Rigveda-centred position might not allow it, but proto-Indo-Iranian split into Avestan & Vedic Sanskrit ca 1,800 BC or earlier. Parpola proposes early Indo-Aryan appearance in late Harappa around 1,900 BC. And subsequently 'proto-Rigvedic' (aka proto-Dardic) Indo-Aryan: (1) entry into BMAC; and (2) appearance in Gandhara grave culture of Punjab; both ca 1,700 BC. While oldest hymns of Rigveda only go back to 1,500 BC at the vaguest earliest. Despite your weak-founded faith in much earlier times.

Mahulka explains by way of the adverb 'iha', which is both Rigvedic Sanskrit & classical Sanskrit, was borrowed first from pre-Middle IE (i.e. old Prakrit), which was present in Gandhari, Pali, Sauraseni, Maharashtri & Magadhi as 'Idha', and in Avesta too as 'ida', that every language starts as Prakrit, i.e. language of the people, and only in the course of time develops into a mould of formalised literary expression. Certainly not the other way around, for sure, but which you seem to be hopelessly convinced they do. And it is definitely not some sacred language delivered on a plate, all flawlessly glossed & polished, by some celestial divine deity to some community of mortals on earth.

As a matter of fact, present Sanskrit, routinely touted as a hybrid, is nothing more than original Prakrit incompletely mechanically Sanskritised, with phonetic forms changed to so called 'refined Sanskrit', but with original Prakrit grammar retained. I mean, sticking to your position is kind of like saying that synthetic rubber is older & more original than natural rubber.

Dude. I hate to burst your 'scholarly' bubble. But your unstinting belief in Sanskrit being the oldest mother language of India is indeed stood on extremely shaky ground. After all Samskrta relates to 'artificial' or 'elaborated', while Prakrta is associated with 'original', 'natural' or 'unrefined'. Indeed, saying that Prakrit developed alongside Sanskrit is actually a vast, exaggerated compliment to Sanskrit, when in actuality, in the final analysis, Prakrit in chronological terms is more like one of the parents of Sanskrit.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; January 13th, 2018 at 11:10 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:10 PM   #322

tornada's Avatar
Wind Lord
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: India
Posts: 15,156
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
The scythed chariot was invented by the King of Magadha, Ajatashatru around 475 BCE. He used these chariots against the Licchavis.[citation needed] A scythed war chariot had a sharp, sickle-shaped blade or blades mounted on each end of the axle. The blades, used as weapons, extended horizontally for a metre on the sides of the chariot."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot#Ancient_India

That is much later than the presence of chariots in other parts of the world.
Maybe this will help in terms of citation
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...tapult&f=false

I'm not however sure whether this qualifies as a scythed chariot. Based on what I've read, its described as some sort of armored war machine, which had maces attached to it. The scythed chariot had scythes on wheel, and sought to move quickly through enemy ranks, cutting legs and bodies. Ajatshatru's invention, going by the descriptions I've read, appears to have been a somewhat heavier vehicle designed to plow through formations of men, likely crushing them with weight or giving them heavy blunt force trauma.

Its a somewhat similar principle to the Scythe Chariot, ie a tool designed to cause disruption to enemy ranks. But I don't think its a scythe chariot per se.

Also, I'm not sure whether we can say someone specifically invented the scythed chariot. Its basically a chariot which has blades attached to the wheels, or along its body. I would posit that its reasonable to assume that different people came up with the idea independently. Its not like one individual invented the sword after all. So why would someone specifically (ie, why can't we assume it was a generally common idea) need to invent putting a blade on a moving war vehicle?
tornada is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 10:53 PM   #323

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
So first Vedic developed alongside Mitanni, and then again it developed alongside Prakrits in India! You are a genius!
IMHO, the Vedic and prakrits were there, Panini gave rules to make it Sanskrit (refined, elaborated). Then the scholars accepted it. Prakrits continued to be used by the populace and developed into various Indian languages of North/West/East India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Your own personal, rigid Rigveda-centred position might not allow it, .. While oldest hymns of Rigveda only go back to 1,500 BC at the vaguest earliest.
Well DM, differ with you on a few points. My position also is rigid RigVeda centered, and I believe that some hymns of RigVeda may be from 4,000 BC or even earlier. By 2,000 BC, and in Central Asia, Aryans had forgotten the meaning of their old lore, that is why Taittiriya Samhita was written in an attempt to clarify things (though it was not wholly successful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Maybe this will help in terms of citation
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...tapult&f=false
Unfortunately, low on proof (which is not a negation). Cites only Buddhist and Jain legends. And you know, what the scriptures can do - they can make the creation of universe a six-day affair and the seventh as the rest day.
However, I concur with your view that many people may have similar ideas. We have the example of Jagadish Basu and Marconi, and that of Wright-brothers and Otto Lilienthal.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 14th, 2018 at 12:00 AM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 13th, 2018, 11:07 PM   #324

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,381

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
Do we have an archaeological evidence of a chariot wheel, and what is it dated to? Why is that chariot picture dated to early centuries BCE? What dating method was used?
Why don't you go through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot (if it is not against your religious sentiments)? All information at your finger tip with reference.

"Starokorsunskaya kurgan in the Kuban region of Russia contains a wagon grave (or chariot burial) of the Maikop Culture (which also had horses). The two solid wooden wheels from this kurgan have been dated to the second half of the fourth millennium. Soon thereafter the number of such burials in this Northern Caucasus region multiplied."

IMHO, wheeled vehicle were probably not a novelty. Bulls, buffaloes, donkeys might have been used before the introduction of a horse-drawn vehicle. Use of horse was new, not the vehicle, the speed was the novelty. Reindeer or dogs are used to pull sledges in arctic regions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aatreya View Post
If they came earlier, where are the chariot evidences?
Perhaps there were only a few, and we have a strong tradition of not letting anything go waste. If it was wood, we would burn it during lohri/pongal/holi bonfire; if it was iron, then we will re-melt it and make something useful out of it again.

Last edited by Aupmanyav; January 13th, 2018 at 11:25 PM.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 01:53 PM   #325
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 1,179

Quote:
Originally Posted by tornada View Post
Maybe this will help in terms of citation
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...tapult&f=false

I'm not however sure whether this qualifies as a scythed chariot. Based on what I've read, its described as some sort of armored war machine, which had maces attached to it. The scythed chariot had scythes on wheel, and sought to move quickly through enemy ranks, cutting legs and bodies. Ajatshatru's invention, going by the descriptions I've read, appears to have been a somewhat heavier vehicle designed to plow through formations of men, likely crushing them with weight or giving them heavy blunt force trauma.

Its a somewhat similar principle to the Scythe Chariot, ie a tool designed to cause disruption to enemy ranks. But I don't think its a scythe chariot per se.

Also, I'm not sure whether we can say someone specifically invented the scythed chariot. Its basically a chariot which has blades attached to the wheels, or along its body. I would posit that its reasonable to assume that different people came up with the idea independently. Its not like one individual invented the sword after all. So why would someone specifically (ie, why can't we assume it was a generally common idea) need to invent putting a blade on a moving war vehicle?
Yes, it doesnt seem a far jump for someone to ; instead of wielding a blade on a pole as a chariot carries you ... just attach some more blades to the chariot.

( Aside .... one of the better 'men on the ground' formations I have seen is the '4 man chariot' ; on the left is a left handed swordsman with shield, on the right is a right handed swordsman with shield, between them and behind the shields is a spear man, and behind him is one with a pole ax . They trotted around cleaning up everyone. ... you are confronted by two shields, with swords swinging at you from either side, a spear coming at you from between the shields, and an ax coming over them from behind to strike down on you from above.

specul8 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 04:14 PM   #326

Dreamhunter's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Malaysia
Posts: 5,706
Blog Entries: 1

^
Dear, oh dear. Now, that wud hv been like having to face a vast overgrown dude with eight arms. Well, they'd be more or less unstoppable. For as long as the four men cud move body & wield shield & weapon with the precision & coordination of an eight-armed cyborg.

As for the scythed chariot, I believe it's more for show & a bit of shock & awe effect, rather than sheer effectiveness. It wud hv been quite cumbersome to operate, other than when charging into a dense big, thick mass of even denser, bigger, thicker idiots.

I mean, you just keep your distance, and there's nothing a scythe on a wheel cud do to you. And in the case that one or more of the chariot dudes somehow lose their balance & fall over, you cud just charge right into them as they're falling or landing, and make them crash smack bang into the scythed wheel of their own chariot.

As for the spearman, what spear cud he be throwing with two shields in front of him. While the poleaxer at the back, well you can't really be wielding any poleaxe properly in a restricted space atop a chariot. For a start, you're going to need 360-degree completely unrestricted space around you.

And what wud they all do, when taken on from behind the chariot, by a bunch of enemy archers, lancers, spearers & javeliners, either on foot or on horse. They're all toast then, I guess.

Last edited by Dreamhunter; January 14th, 2018 at 06:07 PM.
Dreamhunter is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 05:22 PM   #327
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Australia
Posts: 1,179

y ha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
^
Dear, oh dear. Now, that wud hv been like having to face a vast overgrown dude with eight arms. Well, they'd be more or less unstoppable. For as long as the four men cud move body & wield shield & weapon with the precision & coordination of an eight-armed cyborg.
They had code words they would shout for different maneuvers ... and were well practiced . They went around 'killing' everyone ... until all that was left was a small , lightly armored, lone, young woman who fought with a long and short cutlass . She did remarkably well ! I was cheering her on ; " Go little feral pirate girl ! " ... but the inevitable happened .... and they finally 'killed' her ... and the crowd watching boo ed them severely .




Chaos !


Click the image to open in full size.

Kurgan warriors
specul8 is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:47 PM   #328
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,671

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamhunter View Post
Fantastic? If you are saying fantastic ridiculous, perhaps not.

But if you're saying fantastic brilliant, then IMHO it's not anything fantastic at all, but rather quite mainstreamesque indeed in nature.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Tamilia...ges-is-derived

https://books.google.com.my/books?id...rit%3F&f=false

https://books.google.com.my/books?id...rit%3F&f=false

Your own personal, rigid Rigveda-centred position might not allow it, but proto-Indo-Iranian split into Avestan & Vedic Sanskrit ca 1,800 BC or earlier. Parpola proposes early Indo-Aryan appearance in late Harappa around 1,900 BC. And subsequently 'proto-Rigvedic' (aka proto-Dardic) Indo-Aryan: (1) entry into BMAC; and (2) appearance in Gandhara grave culture of Punjab; both ca 1,700 BC. While oldest hymns of Rigveda only go back to 1,500 BC at the vaguest earliest. Despite your weak-founded faith in much earlier times.

Mahulka explains by way of the adverb 'iha', which is both Rigvedic Sanskrit & classical Sanskrit, was borrowed first from pre-Middle IE (i.e. old Prakrit), which was present in Gandhari, Pali, Sauraseni, Maharashtri & Magadhi as 'Idha', and in Avesta too as 'ida', that every language starts as Prakrit, i.e. language of the people, and only in the course of time develops into a mould of formalised literary expression. Certainly not the other way around, for sure, but which you seem to be hopelessly convinced they do. And it is definitely not some sacred language delivered on a plate, all flawlessly glossed & polished, by some celestial divine deity to some community of mortals on earth.

As a matter of fact, present Sanskrit, routinely touted as a hybrid, is nothing more than original Prakrit incompletely mechanically Sanskritised, with phonetic forms changed to so called 'refined Sanskrit', but with original Prakrit grammar retained. I mean, sticking to your position is kind of like saying that synthetic rubber is older & more original than natural rubber.

Dude. I hate to burst your 'scholarly' bubble. But your unstinting belief in Sanskrit being the oldest mother language of India is indeed stood on extremely shaky ground. After all Samskrta relates to 'artificial' or 'elaborated', while Prakrta is associated with 'original', 'natural' or 'unrefined'. Indeed, saying that Prakrit developed alongside Sanskrit is actually a vast, exaggerated compliment to Sanskrit, when in actuality, in the final analysis, Prakrit in chronological terms is more like one of the parents of Sanskrit.

As I see, you copy pasted what Sanjay Sonawani (the guy who claims Saraswati is in Afghanistan) has written in his book.

First let us take some examples.

If Bhikku the PrAkrit word was original, then in Vedic, the word could be Bhikru or Bhiktu or Bhikku or Bhikshu, etc.. A more natural transformation is Bhikshu -> Bhikku, where ksha reduces to kha. So Vedic is original and Prakrit its reduction. Furthermore, since Vedic supported word forms such as Satta, Parucchepa, there is no reason for one to assume that Bhikku could not have been retained in the same form had Bhikku was a borrowed word from PrAkrit. So Bhikshu is original word and Bhikku the reduced form. Another example is Shakra (meaning one who is capable, i.e. Indra), and that reduces to Shakka. Notice how both words ending with Kshu and kra in Vedic end with kka in PrAkrit.

Your example of iha is laughable at best. The word "ida" is present in umpteen number of hymns in Rig Veda, not to mention of its presence in Avesta and in South Indian languages as well. The meaning of that word is "this" or "now". The same word has another form "iha", which also means the same thing. The guy who you have quoted has probably not done his homework right.

And now don't keep parroting the same Wikipedia entries of Indo-Iranian and blah blah, about which you don't have the slightest clue. The 1500 BCE timeframe for the oldest hymn of Rig Veda is trash-worthy. Anybody who has a bit of common sense, appropriate knowledge of texts and ancient geography, would ridicule such timeframe. It is only people like Parpola who talk of such useless theories (that guy has been claiming that he deciphered IVC script, it being Dravidian and all such nonsense for decades making zero progress).

Satya becomes Saccha because of error in pronunciation and subsequent transmission over generations. The word formation of Satya is an established way in Vedic, and there are many words that follow the pattern (PrApya, Guhya, sahya, nitya......).

And the funny thing is you did not realize the objection that I raised. The word "sapta" of Vedic has "hapta" as equivalent in Avesta, "satta" as equivalent in Mitanni and PrAkrit. How could all of them evolve at the same time from a parent language? If Vedic had to evolve alongside PrAkrit, then obviously it could not have evolved alongside Mitanni and Avesta, no? Think of the stupidity of your theory. The only possibility is this:

Vedic ->Mitanni
Vedic->Avesta
Vedic->PrAkrit

The transformations are of two different kinds from the original word "sapta", one where 's' becomes 'h' in Avesta, and the other, pta reduces to tta in both Mitanni and PrAkrit.

First try to learn a word or two on your own (without doing a copy-paste job that is) before bursting my bubble.
Aatreya is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 08:52 PM   #329
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2014
From: USA
Posts: 2,671

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
Why don't you go through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot (if it is not against your religious sentiments)? All information at your finger tip with reference.

"Starokorsunskaya kurgan in the Kuban region of Russia contains a wagon grave (or chariot burial) of the Maikop Culture (which also had horses). The two solid wooden wheels from this kurgan have been dated to the second half of the fourth millennium. Soon thereafter the number of such burials in this Northern Caucasus region multiplied."

IMHO, wheeled vehicle were probably not a novelty. Bulls, buffaloes, donkeys might have been used before the introduction of a horse-drawn vehicle. Use of horse was new, not the vehicle, the speed was the novelty. Reindeer or dogs are used to pull sledges in arctic regions.Perhaps there were only a few, and we have a strong tradition of not letting anything go waste. If it was wood, we would burn it during lohri/pongal/holi bonfire; if it was iron, then we will re-melt it and make something useful out of it again.
So we failed to produce chariot evidences from 1500 BCE to 400 BCE because of the effect of climate and geography, but we use the absence of such evidences before 1500 BCE as a proof of AIT/AMT, hah? So you think those chariot wheels would have survived if they existed before 1500 BCE?

There is no such evidence of chariot burial in Rig Veda. If you have one, please quote the hymn.
Aatreya is offline  
Old January 14th, 2018, 09:39 PM   #330

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Atheist, Advaitist, Hindu
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 3,381

I do not know what you are pointing at. Burials with chariots are common all around the old world in all ages, but not in India. Firstly, we never had expensive burials as in other countries with tons of gold, pets, servants and the dead person's coveted possessions; and secondly, we changed to cremations for disposal of dead bodies, where the gifts for the services were given to brahmins or to poor. Before the coming of Aryans brahmins, the indigenous priests/shamans must have been doing that. Aryan brahmins too joined in providing the services when they came here. They found the business rewarding.
Aupmanyav is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
aryas, pie, vikings



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vikings okamido History in Films and on Television 231 January 28th, 2018 01:37 AM
Vikings Zitadelle Medieval and Byzantine History 2 October 26th, 2015 02:44 AM
Vikings Zitadelle History Help 1 October 15th, 2015 03:37 PM
Why do some Indians hate Aryas? dara Asian History 21 October 22nd, 2014 11:10 AM
New Vikings Helfaeng European History 97 September 25th, 2010 02:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.