From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 15:09:01 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> 6D@datamann.com> <3C3EA23C.firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>>Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>It is a popular New Age myth that Indian and Chinese civilizations are
>>>older than western civilizations like that of Egypt and Sumer, but this
>>>is not so. The fact is that, if you go by the development of written
>>>language, the evidence is that Chinese writing developed only around
>>>1250 BC, that of Sumer dates back to 3500 BC, and Egypt around 3000 BC.
>>>While Indus Valley writing is almost as old as that of the west, it died
>>>out long before the development of ancient Sanskrit, and Sanskrit is
>>>derived from those developed in the west, not the east.
> Early Brahmi scripts first appeared around 500-250 BC and were derived
> from the Phoenecian alphabets developed in the Syria/Palestine area, as
> well as having some Iranian influence. Indus script died out 1750 years
> prior, around 2000 BC.
Since early Sanskrit was a oral only it is not at all convincing
re the opinion that the language was derived from Western
roots to bring up where its written alphabetic characters were
derived from. It is more convoluted to provide proof of such a
contention. One thing that has been tried to date some orally
transmit Hindu Vedas (Rig Veda especially iirc) is to use
atronomical evidence from astronomical references in the text.
Some of these place the Rig Veda as early as 6000 BC. If this
is accurate and given that it was transmitted orally in Sanskrit
for that many millenia, it would he impossible that Sanskrit
derived from the sources stated.
In any event you can pin the origin of an originally oral only
language down by referring to its later alphabet.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:34 MST