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 December 7th, 2012, 01:34 AM   #81
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilcar View Post
Had it not been for the Rosetta Stone, Egypt's script would have never been deciphered and ppl would be telling you today they didn't think it was a written language. The fact that the sequence is predictable at times suggests that it is a language.
I am more than sure that IVC will never be deciphered and this is saddest part of whole things.
avantivarman is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:37 AM   #82

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,535
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by shash View Post
I've found it elsewhere too... I can look up the refs if you like.

EDIT: Even Mueller quotes this.



(From "India: What can it teach us?"; I can't link to the exact spot, but you can just do a search for "Nearchus" and find this paragraph)
Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
in a hindi book maurya samrajya ka itihas .

thank you brothers ...
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:43 AM   #83
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by manas teja View Post
thank you brothers ...
anyway, despite my ideaological affiliations to rightist ( if they exist ) , I do not believe that vedic civilization was existing before 3,000 bc .
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 08:40 AM   #84
Scholar
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: uk
Posts: 766
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
while your second part was okay as number of scholars really believe such things but you are so so wrong as regards girnar being oldest sanskrit inscription.


i give you benefit of doubt as only people who say that girnar inscription is oldest sanskrit inscription are christians ( bigots of them not majority ) and all responsible western historians have agreed that it is ghosundi inscription of rajasthan that is oldest sanskrit inscription and dated to 100 BC .


so if you have any acaedemic backing to prove that ghosundi inscription is not oldest sanskrit inscription , tell me and i will look at such scholars .

and please tell me scholars who are professors of epigraphy and such and not Wendy Doniger type.
Can you please let me know the content of Ghosundi inscription and is there any valid proof that there is any such inscription really exists?
unmai53 is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:37 AM   #85
Suspended until November 3rd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,484
Arrow


Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
all responsible western historians have agreed that it is ghosundi inscription of rajasthan that is oldest sanskrit inscription and dated to 100 BC .
I was unaware of the Ghosundi inscription until you pointed it out, and scholars do agree it dates to around 2nd or 1st century BCE, which would indeed make it older than the Girnar inscription, so I was wrong. For some reason the Ghosundi inscription doesn't seem to be as well known.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 09:53 AM   #86
Suspended until November 3rd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,484

Quote:
Originally Posted by shash View Post
My problem with the Ashokan hypothesis is that after 1500 years of nothing, we suddenly see a full script emerging out of nowhere. Nothing like the long evolution that Sumerian, Egyptian or Phoenician script went through. Some people propose an Aramaic origin, but when Ashokan script appears, the letter order is already different from Aramaic (as far as I can make out).

I feel that the script must have evolved a little earlier - maybe as early as 6th or 7th centuries, but committed to stone only later. Birch bark or palmyra wouldn't last long enough to be detectable.
The gap would make logical sense if the Persia invasion in the 5th century BCE :was the spur that inspired their own writing. When the Persians invaded, the Indians could see the benefit of writing for administration and business, and so adopted it themselves. If the Indian writing was created in the 5th BC, that would still be a couple centuries before the 1st inscription. Writing can develop quickly. A single Native American created a written language for his tribe the Cherokees after being exposed to English, even though he couldn't read English himself.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #87

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
The gap would make logical sense if the Persia invasion in the 5th century BCE :was the spur that inspired their own writing. When the Persians invaded, the Indians could see the benefit of writing for administration and business, and so adopted it themselves. If the Indian writing was created in the 5th BC, that would still be a couple centuries before the 1st inscription. Writing can develop quickly. A single Native American created a written language for his tribe the Cherokees after being exposed to English, even though he couldn't read English himself.
Recent mathematical and statistical analysis by Subhash Kak has shown Brahmi to have directly evolved from Indus script.
Pusyamitra is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 01:58 PM   #88
Suspended until November 3rd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,484

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pusyamitra View Post
Recent mathematical and statistical analysis by Subhash Kak has shown Brahmi to have directly evolved from Indus script.
Statistical analysis is very suspectible to manipulation and has to be treaty carefully.

All the solid evidence points to Brahmi not being derived from IVC

1. The shape of of the Brahman characters are different from the IVC. While you may think they look identical, scholars who are not blinded by nationalism don't.

2. The time gap between IVC and the first examples of Brahmi is too great. A thousand years or more separate IVC and the oldest example of Brahmi, and it that entire time in between we haven't any scrap of writing. The IVC wrote on durable material, otherwise we wouldn't have their writing. That supposedly the only time in history people wrote only on perishable materials is very unlikely.

Last edited by Bart Dale; December 11th, 2012 at 02:06 PM.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:09 PM   #89
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,657

Great thread.

I just found the thread, so have not had time to read through all the discussions. So I will respond to the OP. I agree with the OP, the way dates are assigned to Indian history - Indian texts, Indian kings and dynasties - is quite simply a joke. I don't know why such bad scholarship is tolerated. It is so arbitrarily done, that literally they might as well pull out dates from a hat. I have seen so much variance from historian to historian on a single date, of several centuries, and it also seems like there is a tendency for Western historians to choose the latest date possible.

There are two sheet anchors which are used to date Indian history, of which both are highly dubious: 1)The coming of the Indo-Aryans into India in 1500BCE and 2)Chandragupta Maurayas reign - proposed by two scholars who believed the world began in 4004BCE and who used that as their guide in assigning dates to Indian dynasties. Muller who assigned the date of 1500BCE, even later admitted he was guessing, that the Vedas could be thousands of years older - so why the heck have we maintained a date that was based on no evidence at all, but a guess? Jones who proposed Chandragupta Mauraya was Sandocrottus came to this conclusion on a whim on the reading of the Bhagvata purana simply because "Sandocrottus" had a phonetic similarity to "Chandragupta" - but he had not read the older Puranas which mentioned not one, but three Chandraguptas!

It is sordid indeed that the entire history of India has been built on such poor pseudoscientific scholarship - and despite us knowing this today - why the heck do we maintain it in our history books? Now that clear evidence has emerged that AIT is false and the Vedic people were in India even before the IVC, we will have to move the Vedic period back - and subsequently we will have to more every other date back.
Joshua A is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 10:19 PM   #90

Pusyamitra's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: USA
Posts: 672

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Statistical analysis is very suspectible to manipulation and has to be treaty carefully.

All the solid evidence points to Brahmi not being derived from IVC

1. The shape of of the Brahman characters are different from the IVC. While you may think they look identical, scholars who are not blinded by nationalism don't.

2. The time gap between IVC and the first examples of Brahmi is too great. A thousand years or more separate IVC and the oldest example of Brahmi, and it that entire time in between we haven't any scrap of writing. The IVC wrote on durable material, otherwise we wouldn't have their writing. That supposedly the only time in history people wrote only on perishable materials is very unlikely.
A script that links Brahmi with IVC was found in Dwarka remains, dated 1500 BCE.
Pusyamitra is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
civilization, vedic


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
History of the Andean Civilization Thessalonian American History 9 March 29th, 2013 07:00 AM
What type of armor and weapons were used in Bronze Age Vedic India? Byrdsjanuary1954 General History 0 November 10th, 2011 03:26 PM
ask about Anti-Vedic thought's name Cherry Woo Asian History 4 July 29th, 2011 12:54 AM
Civilization: is the West History? Inc General History 1 March 30th, 2011 04:44 PM
First tolerant civilization in history Satuf Ancient History 21 January 30th, 2010 01:26 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.