5 ms·

Who disputes origins of Brahmi numerals? Western indologists? Brahmi numerals and Brahmi script are long considered by Indian scholars as indigenous. The dispu

Who disputes origins of Brahmi numerals? Western indologists? Brahmi numerals and Brahmi script are long considered by Indian scholars as indigenous. The dispute arises only because the Western scholars don't wish to recognise it's indigenous origins. These are imperialistic biases. It's in the same vein as conveniently discarding the word Hindu from Hindu-Arabic numeral system just as part of ongoing whitewash of anything Hindu origin. The West has not just whitewashed numeral contributions. It has also, atleast during the British colonial rule, spread the false "Aryan invasion theory" to divide north and south India on racial lines.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Maybe its scholars, who have looked into the matter? Not, you know, nationalist bloggers who just want something to claim for their ethnicity.
- shripadk 10y ago
  Many Indian scholars don't accept the Aryan Invasion theory. Are they "nationalist bloggers" just because they don't concur with their Western counterparts? Or maybe, the all-knowing West knows more about Hindu culture than Hindus themselves. EDIT: Here is a good article written by Dr. Madan Lal Goel (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Florida) on "Myth of Aryan Invasion theory": http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.... Read the article and come to your own conclusions. Some quotes for your convenience: "Hindus collectively have no memory of an Aryan invasion of India that supposedly took place around 1,500 B.C. Hindu epics do not mention any such invasion. Surely, the extensive Hindu literature would describe the Aryan invasions if such had indeed taken place. Swami Vivekananda remarked: “As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.” (Collected Works, Vol. 3). " "The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati River further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up completely about 1900 B.C., much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very ancient times." "Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Advances in genetics make it possible to show ancient migrations. It is generally accepted that modern man arose in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. From there, they spread to India about 90,000 years ago taking the southern route to Yemen, Sindh and the Indus region. In India they multiplied and spread to other parts of Asia and Europe. The research is reported in Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve."
  - vinay427 10y ago
    There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity. In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.
    - shripadk 10y ago
      No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
      - vinay427 10y ago
        You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula
dominotw 10y ago
>Who disputes origins of Brahmi numerals? I remember reading it in a book with following claims, but i haven't verified any of the sources 1. Brahmi is found throughout the sub-continent and in Ceylon. 2. Brahmi has been traced back to the Phoenician type of writing represented by the inscription in which Mesha, king of Moab (c. 850, BC), records his successful revolt against the kingdom of Israel. It was probably brought into India through Mesopotamia, as a result of the early commerce by sea between Babylon and the ports of Western India. It is the parent of all the modern Indian alphabets. Rapson, E.J. (2015-04-09). Ancient India Chios Classics. Kindle Edition.
- shripadk 10y ago
  1. I don't see how Ceylon can be the origin. There is no evidence to back this. 2. How can Brahmi numerals have come into India around 850 BC when Sanskrit already existed during that time period. Again, these claims make no sense. Brahmi scripture is considered older than Sanskrit. How can it be introduced after Sanskrit was already popular? The Vedic scriptures (written in Sanskrit) date back to 1500 BC. Why is it so hard to not realise that maybe it was Mesopotamians who accepted the Brahmi numerals and not the other way round?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Maybe its scholars, who have looked into the matter? Not, you know, nationalist bloggers who just want something to claim for their ethnicity.

shripadk 10y ago
Many Indian scholars don't accept the Aryan Invasion theory. Are they "nationalist bloggers" just because they don't concur with their Western counterparts? Or maybe, the all-knowing West knows more about Hindu culture than Hindus themselves. EDIT: Here is a good article written by Dr. Madan Lal Goel (Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Florida) on "Myth of Aryan Invasion theory": http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.pdf http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/AMythofAryanInvasionsofIndia.... Read the article and come to your own conclusions. Some quotes for your convenience: "Hindus collectively have no memory of an Aryan invasion of India that supposedly took place around 1,500 B.C. Hindu epics do not mention any such invasion. Surely, the extensive Hindu literature would describe the Aryan invasions if such had indeed taken place. Swami Vivekananda remarked: “As for the truth of these theories, there is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryan ever came from anywhere outside of India, and in ancient India was included Afghanistan. There it ends.” (Collected Works, Vol. 3). " "The recent discovery of the dried-up Saraswati River further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Satellite photography from outer space shows the existence of a dried-up river bed in Northern India. The archeological evidence indicates that the river dried up completely about 1900 B.C., much before 1,500 B.C., the date ascribed to Aryan invasions. Saraswati is mentioned numerous times in the Vedic scriptures of the Aryans, indicating that these people lived in India during very ancient times." "Recent DNA evidence further negates the Aryan invasion theory. Advances in genetics make it possible to show ancient migrations. It is generally accepted that modern man arose in East Africa about 200,000 years ago. From there, they spread to India about 90,000 years ago taking the southern route to Yemen, Sindh and the Indus region. In India they multiplied and spread to other parts of Asia and Europe. The research is reported in Stephen Oppenheimer, The Real Eve."
- vinay427 10y ago
  There's clear linguistic evidence that Sanskrit (as well as Avestan/Persian, Latin, etc.) is derived from the Indo-European family. This is apparent even today by comparing modern languages such as Hindi and English. This, as you probably know, does not apply to South Indian languages that appear to be linguistically distinct. However, this of course does not say anything about the ethnicity. In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term.
  - shripadk 10y ago
    No. Sanskrit is not derived from Indo-European family. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Nor do South Indian languages appear linguistically distinct. I'm a Kannadiga and many Kannada words are directly derived from Sanskrit. My mother is a Tamilian and a lot of Tamil words are also derived from Sanskrit. This falsehood was spread by the British. > In any case, Iranians today identify as Aryans (Iran effectively means the land of Aryans in old Persian, as I understand) and the general western consensus these days seems to deem Indo-Iranians as Aryans especially due to obvious recent historical connotations during which many in the west dissociated from the term. It doesn't matter because India was also called Āryāvarta (Abode of the Aryans) in the Ancient days. This was way before Iran got it's name (possibly in the 3rd century A.D). Iran was called Persia in the olden days. The word Aryan itself has multiple meanings. The definition of Proto-European Aryan is different from Indo-Aryans of India.
    - vinay427 10y ago
      You are confusing loanwords with actual linguistic relationships. I understand Kannada fluently and it's quite plausible that the commonalities with Sanskrit are loanwords compared to more structural or fundamental similarities between Sanskrit and Persian, Latin, etc. Consider the basic articles (I, you, etc.) or many fundamental verbs, for instance, which at least modern Kannada almost surely does not share. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_copula

dominotw 10y ago

>Who disputes origins of Brahmi numerals? I remember reading it in a book with following claims, but i haven't verified any of the sources 1. Brahmi is found throughout the sub-continent and in Ceylon. 2. Brahmi has been traced back to the Phoenician type of writing represented by the inscription in which Mesha, king of Moab (c. 850, BC), records his successful revolt against the kingdom of Israel. It was probably brought into India through Mesopotamia, as a result of the early commerce by sea between Babylon and the ports of Western India. It is the parent of all the modern Indian alphabets. Rapson, E.J. (2015-04-09). Ancient India Chios Classics. Kindle Edition.

shripadk 10y ago
1. I don't see how Ceylon can be the origin. There is no evidence to back this. 2. How can Brahmi numerals have come into India around 850 BC when Sanskrit already existed during that time period. Again, these claims make no sense. Brahmi scripture is considered older than Sanskrit. How can it be introduced after Sanskrit was already popular? The Vedic scriptures (written in Sanskrit) date back to 1500 BC. Why is it so hard to not realise that maybe it was Mesopotamians who accepted the Brahmi numerals and not the other way round?