Ancient mariners

[Guest guest]

Would this type of ship have sailed to India?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7550162.stm

 

 

Brian

 

 

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

http://www.YogaVidya.com

http://www.BrianDanaAkers.com

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

 

 

 

 

**************

Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?

Read reviews on AOL Autos.

 

(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017

)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY , Sfauthor wrote: Would this type

of ship have sailed to India?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7550162.stm

 

There is considerable evidence suggesting that Indians have engaged

in maritime activity since ancient times. Chaman Lal in his " India:

Mother of us all " (Delhi: Modern School, 1968) cites " Indian

shipping: A history of the sea-borne trade and maritime activity of

the Indians from the earliest times " by the well known historian

Radha Kumud Mookerji in which Mookerji affirmed that Indians

initiated the art of navigation on the Sindhu River six thousand

years ago. The very word navigation is derived from Sanskrit navagati

(speed of a boat or ship). Yuktikalpataru of King Bhoja is a renowned

treatise on the art and science of shipbuilding. Bhoja refers to two

classes of ships: river-going (s & #257;m & #257;nya) and ocean-going

(vi & #347;e & #351;a) each

subdivided into ten sub-classes. With cabin as the criterion, ships

were divided into three types: the Sarvamandira type had the largest

cabin and was used to transport royal treasury, women, and horses;

the Madhyamandira type had cabins specially fitted for the rainy

season; the Agramandira type had cabins equipped for the dry seasons

used for long voyages and naval warfare. Classical Sanskrit

literature, Jain scriptures, Buddhist J & #257;taka and Avad & #257;na texts abound

in references to sea voyages undertaken by all kinds of Indians. They

inform us with many interesting details as to the sizes, shapes,

furniture and decorations, articles destined for export and import,

names of sea ports and islands from different parts of India and

elsewhere in the world. In R & #257;javaliya, the ship in which King

Simhala of Bengal sent Prince Vijaya and his retinue, was large

enough to accommodate seven hundred passengers. The Samuddha V & #257; & #326;ija

J & #257;taka mentions a ship big enough to transport a village full of

absconding carpenters (numbering one thousand) who had failed to

deliver goods paid for in advance (see Lal 1968: 51-53).

 

Writing in the Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (vol 1) Sir John

Malcolm wondered, " Indian vessels are so admirably adapted for the

purpose for which they are required that, notwithstanding their

superior science, Europeans were unable, during an intercourse with

India for two centuries, to suggest or to bring into successful

practice one improvement " (cited in Lal 1968: 48). Archaeologist B.

C. Chabra has remarked that riverine traffic within the country,

shipping along the entire length of India's coastline, and on high

seas was brisk until as recently as the days of the East India

Company. Owing, however, to historical competition by the British,

ancient Indian shipping was wiped out without a trace. No wonder, the

common person in India today believes that Indians are only now

learning the ABC of navigation (see Lal 1968: 63).

 

P. N. Oak in his " World Vedic Heritage: A History of Histories " (New

Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003) 559) while discussing the maritime

relations of India with China (dating from about 680 B.C.) cites

Professor G. Phillips who has remarked that Hindu sea-traders founded

a colony called Lang-ga (about the present gulf of Kias-Tehos) after

the Indian name Lanka of Ceylon where they arrived in vessels built

according to the patterns specified in the Yuktikalpataru (Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society 1965: 525)(see Oak 2003: 559).

 

Shrinivas Tilak

[Guest guest]

I was not aware that the likes of P.N.Oak and Chaman Lal are relied

upon by Indologists for asserting that we had ships accomodating 1000

passengers and an untraced " a colony called Lang-ga (about the present

gulf of Kias-Tehos) " .

[Guest guest]

Shrinivas Tilak wrote:

 

> There is considerable evidence suggesting that Indians have engaged

> in maritime activity since ancient times. Chaman Lal in his " India:

> Mother of us all " (Delhi: Modern School, 1968) cites " Indian

> shipping: A history of the sea-borne trade and maritime activity of

> the Indians from the earliest times " by the well known historian

> Radha Kumud Mookerji

 

This work dates from 1912, i.e., from a time at which the

archaeological remains of the Indus Valley civilization had yet to be

discovered and studied. The standard work in this field is now Seán

Mcgrail, _Boats of South Asia_, London, Routledge, 2003 (limited

preview on the Google books website at <http://tinyurl.com/5pf3nf>).

 

> Mookerji affirmed that Indians initiated the art of navigation on

> the Sindhu River six thousand years ago.

 

What kind of evidence can such a claim rest on, given that (1) no

prehistoric boat remains have been discovered at sites located on the

Indus, and that (2) the earliest archaeological evidence for river

navigation in Sindh (viz., seal imagery) dates from the Mature

Harappan period? Although I haven't read his book, I suspect that

Mookerji's " evidence " is provided by references to river navigation

contained in the Rgveda, which he is likely to have anachronistically

projected back to as early a date as c. 4000 BCE.

 

> The very word navigation is derived from Sanskrit navagati

> (speed of a boat or ship).

 

This looks like one of the countless fantastic etymologies proposed

in the past by the late P.N. Oak, of which I know you're an

estimator -- see, for instance, your obituary article on the

Sulekha.com website at <http://tinyurl.com/3dwk72>, which you wrote

on the aftermath of Oak's death, as well as your mention of Oak in

this very post (cf. below). I have seen this statement repeated many

times over the Internet, but what is the rationale behind it? Briefly:

 

1. Skt. nAva-gati is an unattested compound. I don't even know

whether such a compound, formed by nAva 'boat/ship' + gati 'motion',

would be allowed by Skt. compound formation rules. Monier-Williams

says that nAva- is the form of the Skt. noun nau- 'boat/ship' first

used by PANini to form compounds such as ardha-nAva, dvi-nAva, where

the term nAva is placed at the end, not at the beginning of the

compound. Yet, in the case of the hypothesized compound nAva-gati,

the term nAva- would occur in initial position.

 

2. In any event, the etymology of the Lat. term navigatio (> English

navigation) is crystal clear, and has nothing to do with Sanskrit.

The Lat. term navigatio (-onis) is formed by adding the noun-forming

suffix -tio to the stem of the verb navigare (i.e., naviga-); this

verb, meaning 'to sail', is in turn formed by navis 'ship' + the verb

agere 'to drive, conduct, move'. Thus, Lat. navigatio means 'the act

of driving/conducting/moving a ship'.

 

> P. N. Oak in his " World Vedic Heritage: A History of Histories "

>(New Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003, 559) while discussing the

> maritime relations of India with China (dating from about 680

> B.C.)...

 

What is the evidence Oak adduces for the existence of maritime

contacts between India and China at so an early date?

 

Regards,

Francesco

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY , " Francesco Brighenti " and Pradip

Bhattacharya raised doubts about the utility of works of Radha Kumud

Mookerji, Chaman Lal, and p.N.Oak that I had cited in discussing the

maritime activity in ancient India. I provide below my general

responses to their objections:

 

Before I sent my initial note on the maritime activity in ancient

India, I had to deal with the following dilemma: should I (a) include

the references to Chaman Lal and P. N. Oak or (b) mention only the

work of Radha Kumud Mookerji that they had referred to. Option (b)

seemed more tempting because I could then protect myself from the mud

that is usually thrown at the works of Lal or Oak. Secondly, my note

might appear a little more credible without their input.

 

In the end I decided to go with option (a) because Mookerji's

monograph had come to my attention through Lal and Oak and I had to

give them the credit. Secondly, whatever the quality of these

secondary writings, I expected scholars to go to the original sources

cited in my note through Lal and Oak: Mookerji, Phillips and, through

them, the Sanskrit text of Yuktikalpataru for more reliable and first-

hand information.

 

Radha Kumud Mookerji in his " Indian Shipping: A History of the Sea-

borne Trade and Maritime Activity on the Indians from the Earliest

Times " (Bombay: Orient Longman, 1957, revised edition [1912] does

refer to Mohen-jo-daro. " There are several representations of ships

and boats in old Indian art. The earliest of these is the one found

on a rectangular seal unearthed by archaeological excavation at Mohen-

jo-daro in the Indus Valley, dated to at lest 3000 BC (see two

illustrations facing Mookerji: 1957: 32). Mookerji then goes on to

describe the representation of one vessel found on the seal in more

detail (see Mookerji 1957: 22-23,).

 

In his book Mookerji deploys a mix of literary, visual (paintings and

sculptures), and numismatic sources to describe an advanced state of

maritime activity in ancient India. He begins with a passage from the

Rigveda (1:116.3) mentioning a naval expedition on which Tugra, the

Rishi king, sent his son Bhujyu against some of his enemies in the

distant islands. Bhujyu, however, is shipwrecked by a storm. He is

rescued by the twin Ashvins in their hundred-oared galley (emphasis

in the original; see Mookerji 1957: 38).

 

The Baveru-jataka points to the existence of commercial intercourse

between India and Babylon in pre-Asokan days. In support Mookerji

cites Rhys Davids (Mookerji 1957: 51, 54). He also cites an

Assyriologist (Dr Sayce) to argue that the commerce by sea between

India and Babylon must have been carried on as early as about 3000

B.C. when Ur Bagas, the first king of United Babylonia, ruled in Ur

of the Chaldees. This is proved by the finding of Indian teak in the

ruins of Ur (Mookerji 1957: 60).

 

Mookerji refers to the story of a merchant named Punna who persuaded

his fellow merchants to build a Buddhist vihara with red-sanders

timber which they had brought home on one of their voyages. The ship

in which they made their trading was of a so large size that besides

accommodating over three hundred merchants there was room left for

the cargo of that timber which they brought home (Mookerji 1957: 49).

 

The intercourse of India with China by way of the sea began,

according to Mookerji, at least as early as the commencement of the

Christian era. In support, he cites G. Phillips (Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society, 1895: 525). Reference to Phillips is also cited by

Oak. Brighenti and Bhattacharya incorrectly impute this claim to

Oak.

 

The representations of ships and boats furnished by Ajanta paintings

are mostly in Cave no 2 dating from between 525-650 C.E. Mookerji

describes the representation of a pleasure-boat of one emperor that

belongs to the Madhyamandira type. Mookerji notes that it corresponds

exactly to the type specified in the Yuktikalpataru (see Mookerji

1957: 28-29, see also my previous note).

 

In the Philadelphia Museum there is on exhibit a model of one of the

Hindu-Javanese ships with the following notes: Length 60 feet;

Breadth 15 feet. Reproduced from the frieze of the great Buddhist

temple at Borobudur, Java (7th century). Mookerji adds that the

Javanese chronicles relate that about 603 A.D. a ruler of Gujarat

started his son with 5,000 followers in 6 large and 100 small vessels

for Java where they laid the foundation of a civilization that gave

to the world the sculptures of Borobudur (Mookerji 1957: 34, fn 1).

 

As for the feasibility of forming the compound navagati, I have no

competence in the matter. I request those with expertise in vyakarana

to address this issue.

 

For anyone interested in my obituary of Oak, it would be preferable

to look up the original document (now enlarged to 23 pp and

revised) " P.N. Oak 1917-2007: The lone fighter, etymologist, and

historian " on www.sulekha.com If you prefer, send me a private

message and I will e-mail it to you.

 

As for my share of the mud, ricocheting off Lal and Oak, I can live

with it. Regards,

 

S. Tilak

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Tilak,

 

Not to be pedantic, but your latest post, in which you have

clarified the info you meant to convey in your post archived at

 

INDOLOGY/message/6350 ,

 

still deserves some additional counter-comments.

 

You write:

 

> Radha Kumud Mookerji in his " Indian Shipping: A History of the Sea-

> borne Trade and Maritime Activity on the Indians from the Earliest

> Times " (Bombay: Orient Longman, 1957, revised edition [1912] does

> refer to Mohen-jo-daro. " There are several representations of

> ships and boats in old Indian art. The earliest of these is the

> one found on a rectangular seal unearthed by archaeological

> excavation at Mohen-jo-daro in the Indus Valley, dated to at least

> 3000 BC...

 

Good to know that the reference to the notion that " Indians

initiated the art of navigation on the Sindhu River six thousand

years ago " , which you had cited in your earlier posting in this

thread, comes from a revised (1957) edition of Mookerji's 1912 book.

Since this bibliographic detail had not been mentioned in your

earlier posting, I had thought the said reference came from the

first edition of that book, written at a time at which Indus sites

had not been excavated yet. Now I see the reference is to Indus

seals showing river boats -- which, at any rate, date neither

from " six thousand years ago " (cf. your first post) nor from " at

least 3000 BC " (cf. your second post), but to the second half of the

third millennium BCE instead (viz., from the Mature Harappan

period).

 

By this I am not saying we must exclude that navigation on the Indus

and on other Indian rivers was *unknown* before the Mature Harappan

period; rather, I am pointing to the fact that there is no

archaeological or literary evidence for that. Some identical

considerations apply to the knowledge of maritime navigation in

South Asia before the Mature Harappan period.

 

> Mookerji... begins with a passage from the Rigveda (1:116.3)

> mentioning a naval expedition on which Tugra, the Rishi king, sent

> his son Bhujyu against some of his enemies in the distant islands.

> Bhujyu, however, is shipwrecked by a storm. He is rescued by the

> twin Ashvins in their hundred-oared galley (emphasis in the

> original; see Mookerji 1957: 38).

 

The legend about Bhujyu's naval expedition against his father's

enemies living in a distant island is found in Sayana's 14th century

CE commentary to the RV, *not* in the RV itself -- see at

 

http://tinyurl.com/6h28q3

 

and

 

http://www.srivaishnava.org/scripts/veda/rv/rvbook1.htm

(scroll down to 1.112.06 to read Wilson's note based on Sayana)

 

References to the story of Bhujyu rescued from the " ocean " after his

ship wrecked, making *no* mention of a naval expedition against his

father's enemies, are found in RV 1.112.6,20; 1.116.3-5; 1.117,14-

15; 1.119.4,8; 1.182.5-7; 4.27.4; 6.62.6. The incident of Bhujyu's

rescue by the Ashvins takes place in the atmospheric sea, not in the

terrestrial sea. Bhujyu's is, indeed, an ecstatic voyage taking

place in the night time sky, across which his " ocean-going " ship

travels -- see N. Oettinger, " Zu den Mythen von Bhujyu- und von

Pauruua- " , _Indo-Iranian Journal_ 31 (1988), pp. 299-300.

 

In sum, no " naval warfare " in sight, such as is erroneously claimed,

with reference to this Rigvedic story, in P.C. Chakravarti, " Naval

Warfare in Ancient India " , _Indian Historical Quarterly_ 4 (1930),

pp. 646-47, from which I quote the following excerpt:

 

" That the art of employing boats and ships for military purposes was

known and practised in very remore days is testified to by the

ancient literature of India. The Rgveda retains the echo of a naval

expedition, on which Tugra, the Rsi king, commissioned his son

Bhujyu... "

 

What " military purposes " , and what " naval expedition " ?

 

> The Baveru-jataka points to the existence of commercial

> intercourse between India and Babylon in pre-Asokan days.

 

The story related to in the Baveru ('Babylon')-jataka, dealing with

Indian merchants sailing to the Gulf and thence up the Euphrates to

the city of Babylon, where they sell crows and peacocks as rarities,

is poor evidence of Indo-Babylonian trade, and even of actual

voyages across the Arabian Sea. What's the other evidence

(archaeological, literary) for such a trade and the associated sea

crossings from India to Mesopotamia or vice versa in the concerned

period (say, in the third quarter of the first millennium BCE)?

 

> The intercourse of India with China by way of the sea began,

> according to Mookerji, at least as early as the commencement of the

> Christian era. In support, he cites G. Phillips (Journal of the

> Royal Asiatic Society, 1895: 525). Reference to Phillips is also

> cited by Oak. Brighenti and Bhattacharya incorrectly impute this

> claim to Oak.

 

This is what you had written in your first posting:

 

> P. N. Oak in his " World Vedic Heritage: A History of Histories "

> (New Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan, 2003) 559) while discussing the

> maritime relations of India with China (dating from about 680

> B.C.) cites Professor G. Phillips who has remarked that Hindu

> sea-traders founded a colony called Lang-ga (about the present

> gulf of Kias-Tehos) after the Indian name Lanka of Ceylon where

> they arrived in vessels built according to the patterns specified

> in the Yuktikalpataru (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1965:

> 525)(see Oak 2003: 559).

 

I note that two different dates for the earliest maritime contacts

between India and China are now attributed to G. Phillips (from an

article of his dating back to 1895!). One is " the commencement of

the Christian era " , which seems reasonable to me, the other -- which

I had contested in my reply to your first posting -- " about 680

B.C. " Which of the two dates is actually the one proposed by G.

Phillips?

 

Regards,

Francesco Brighenti

[Guest guest]

Very interesting point counter-point.There is very wise saying by Thoreau : A

amn is wise with the wisdom of his age only and ignorant with its

ignorance.Human being is a very intelleigent animal. People living near water

would have found ways of transportation over it.There is no need to claim

uniqueness about it.Throughout civilizational history, people , ideas and things

have travelled.No claims about priorty should be made unless there is sufficirnt

evidence at hand.Uncertainties in data/information/evidence must reflect in the

conclusions drawn.

 

We are primarily interested in the past 10000 years ( Mehrgarh , Jericho, etc.)

but human beings are known to have spread over a vast portion of the earth much

before that.Let us take note of technological capabilities of human beings at a

given time and then see what attributes belong to specific cultural or ethnic

groups

 

 

 

Rajesh Kochhar

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY , " Francesco Brighenti " <frabrig

wrote:

 

(1) References to the story of Bhujyu rescued from the " ocean " after

his ship wrecked, making *no* mention of a naval expedition against

his father's enemies, are found in RV 1.112.6,20; 1.116.3-5; 1.117,14-

15; 1.119.4,8; 1.182.5-7; 4.27.4; 6.62.6... > In sum, no " naval

warfare " in sight, such as is erroneously claimed...

 

I carry no brief for Mookerji's claim of " naval warfare " etc. I was

rather more interested in Ashvin's " hundred-oared galley " [in

italics] (Mookerji 1957: 38) because it might help, I thought, in the

assessment of the level of boat building technology and other

maritime activities in ancient India. Incidentally, Mookerji supplies

the following verses from the RV not included in your note: 1:25.7;

1:48.3; 1:56.2; 7:88.3-4 where a reference to maritime activity is

made (Mookerji 1957: 37).

 

 

(2) ...two different dates for the earliest maritime contacts between

India and China are now attributed to G. Phillips (from an article of

his dating back to 1895!). One is " the commencement of the Christian

era " , which seems reasonable to me, the other -- which I had

contested in my reply to your first posting -- " about 680 B.C. " Which

of the two dates is actually the one proposed by G. Phillips?

 

I agree there is a reasonable ground for confusion here. The problem

may be located (1) in the manner Mookerji cited G. Phillips and (2)

for the sake of brevity, I did not quote the entire sentence in

question. I will reproduce it below (hopefully, it will clarify the

confusion).

 

The intercourse of India with China by way of sea began at least as

early as the commencement of the Christian era, while " the Chinese

did not arrive in the Malay Archipelago before the 5th century, and

they did not extend their voyages to India, Persia, and Arabia till a

century later. " 2 [this is the footnote number, Mookerji 1957: 114].

 

Footnote number 2 has the following: Mr. G. Phillips in the J.R.A.S.

[in italics], 1895, p. 525. According to Professor Lacouperie

(Western Origin of Chinese Civilization)[this is in italics] the

maritime intercourse of India with China dates from a much earlier

period, from about 680 B.C., when the " sea-traders of the Indian

Ocean, " whose " chiefs were Hindus, " founded a colony called Lang-ga,

[in italics] after the Indian name Lanka [in italics with diacritical

marks] of Ceylon, about the present Gulf of Kiao-tchoa, where they

arrived in vessels having the prows shaped like the heads of birds or

animals after the patterns specified in the Yukti Kalpataru [in

italics] and exemplified in the ships and boats of old India art...

(Mookerji 1957: 114 fn 2).

 

It was not clear to me if the reference to Professor Lacouperie is in

Phillips or Mookerji found it in some other source. I thought it had

to be from Phillips because Mookerji does not provide any source for

the claim attributed to Lacouperie. I therefore suppose the reader

may legitimately pick up either of the two claims depending on

his/her own inclination: (1) ...the commencement of the Christian era

or (2) 680 B.C. I think Mookerji probably went for (1).

 

Shrinivas Tilak

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY , " shrinivast_k11612 "

<shrinivast_k11612 wrote:

 

> [Re RV 1.116:]

>

> I was rather more interested in Ashvin's " hundred-oared galley " ...

> because it might help, I thought, in the assessment of the level

> of boat building technology and other maritime activities in

> ancient India.

 

The 'technical' model for this " hundred-oared galley " mentioned in

the RV may have been provided by a simple river boat with a few

oars. 100, 1000 are commonly used as 'many' in Vedic texts.

Moreover, see what Prof. George Thompson wrote in this connection on

the old Liverpool Indology List already ten years ago:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5pgjlb

> Please examine RV 1.116 more closely. You will see that, besides

> having 100 oars, these " ships " had Atmans [Atmanva'tIbhiH] [and

> thus alive], they swam in the sky [antarikSapru'dbhiH], and were

> far from water [a'podakAbhiH, if we accept the explanation of

> Lueders, in *VaruNa*, p.115]. Elsewhere in this hymn there is

> reference to chariots with 100 feet [st. 4], to a horse's hoof

> from which 100 jugs of wine are poured [st. 7], etc., etc.

> This ocean by the way is without basis, without support, and

> ungraspable [st. 5: anArambhaNe' ...anAsthAne' agrabhaNe'

> samudre'].

 

Srinivas Tilak continues:

 

> According to Professor Lacouperie (Western Origin of Chinese

> Civilization)[this is in italics] the maritime intercourse of

> India with China dates from a much earlier period, from about

> 680 B.C., when the " sea-traders of the Indian Ocean, "

> whose " chiefs were Hindus, " founded a colony called Lang-ga,

> after the Indian name Lanka of Ceylon, about the present Gulf of

> Kiao-tchoa...

 

I have traced the online version of A.E.T. de Lacouperie's book at

 

http://tinyurl.com/5s84vl

 

The author of this 1894 (!) book doesn't provide many clues as to

the above mentioned equation of the ancient Chinese toponym " Lang-

ga " with the Indian name Lanka. Perhaps some member of the List will

be able to identify his sources. In my opinion, the main problem

with this thesis is that the name Lanka was, most likely, not used

to designate the island of Ceylon in 680 BCE. It would seem that the

name Lanka was a later adoption of the centuries CE -- see Romila

Thapar's article at

 

http://tinyurl.com/665g4s (pp. 1-2)

 

Maybe de Lacouperie didn't know that as early as 1894?

 

Regards,

Francesco