Guest guest Posted January 31, 2009 Report Share Posted January 31, 2009 Hi Irene, Thanks for the paper. I remember reading elswhere in the group that indic connections with China are much earlier than being currently thought. I perceive your research may be supporting that. I run a professional group on Indic studies groups.c.om where many Indian professionals are members. I would like to post your paper there and I hope you have no objection. In case you are in India, I will be glad to hear from you hope to be in touch, best regards, Kishore patnaik Indo-Eurasian_research , Irene Good <igood wrote: > > Dear List- > > To those who may be interested, a new article is about to be published > in Archaeometry on evidence for silk in the Indus civilization. Steve > has kindly provided a link: > > http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/indus.silk.pdf > > > Dr. Irene Good > Peabody Museum, Harvard University > 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 IndiaArchaeology , " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Dear Sarveshji, Quote We must also add another caveat. " chIna " of the itihAsa-purANa-s is not the China of today. Most commonly chIna is used to refer to the North-west region neighboring the Balkh, around the modern turkmenistan and east, and border areas of modern China. Unquote Any reference to support this opinion. Why it cannot be South-East Asia? Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya IndiaArchaeology , Sarvesh Tiwari <sarveshtiwari@> wrote: > > > Please notice that in mahAbhArata, silken, wollen, and deer-skin based textile is mentioned as coming from China, and suitable as royal gifts (see appended note). This, while does not point to an absence of indegenous production of silk etc., and yet indicates China to be the contemporary commercial center for these merchandise, and that the fact was known as such within India. > > Regards > Sarvesh Tiwari > > When kR^iShNa was gifted Chinese stuff! > bharatendu.com/ > > > Interestingly, mahAbhArata mentions cloths `made-in-china' as worthy of royal gifts! Here we find dhR^itarAShTra debriefing vidura, his half-brother and Prime Minister, about preparations for keshava's imminent visit to hastinApura. He mentions the presents he would like to be prepared for the offering to kR^iShNa when he arrives. The list concludes as follows: ajinAnA.n sahasrANi chIna deshodbhavAni chatAnyapyasmai pradAsyAmi yAvadarhati keshavaH(udyoga-parvan) " I shall also present keshava deer-skins produced in the country of chIna, a thousand in number, and also other things worthy of him " This chinese mention comes at the end of a longish list of other such novelties, therefore probably meant as the best of all. At another place, in sabhA-parvan the second book of bhArata, we find his eldest son duryodhana describing the gifts that yudhiShThira had received from various royalties around the world, during the rAjasUya feat of the pANdava-s. Describing the presents brought by the vAhlIka-s i.e. natives of balkha region, he mentions among other things: pramANa rAgasparshADhyaM bAhlI chIna samudbhavamaurNa.n cha rA~NkavaM chaiva kITajaM paTTajaM tathAkuTTI kR^ita.n tathaivAnyatkamalAbha.n sahasrashaHsulakShNa.n vastramakArpAsamAvikaM mR^idu chAjinam(sabhA- parvan) " And the vAhlIka-s also presented numerous types of exotic fabrics produced in chIna country: the woollens of finest texture; the fabric manufactured from metal wires (or deer skins); those of jute and others material; the fabric spun from fine silken threads produced by worms; they also gifted thousands of different fabrics, cotton and others, of brilliant colours like the bright lotus flowers, besides thousands of deer-skins, all of the velvety texture! " Interesting, though not surprising. As we do know, until very recent times, Indians used to consider the skins of Deer (and also Tiger) as auspicious to be used as the bedsheets and for religious occasions. Yogins and Sannyasins of many sects even today use these texture as their seat-material and the cloth. Besides the himAlayan regions of India, the regions from chIna to Korea to Siberia is known to even today be a very rich habitation of diverse Deer species. Between China and India, almost all the species of Deer in the world can be found. Similar is the case of silken and woolen fabrics. chIna is known to be a very old commercial source of the both. Not that the regions of bhArata did not produce these materials indigenously– the value of the gifts is in these being of foreign origin therefore exotic, and worthy of royal gifts. In both the cases, the import of these chinese goods into India is mentioned as done by foreigners. In the first case, dhR^itarAShTra mentions having received these as gifts himself from a certain hill-tribes, and in the second the gift is coming from Balkhans. We must also add another caveat. " chIna " of the itihAsa-purANa-s is not the China of today. Most commonly chIna is used to refer to the North-west region neighboring the Balkh, around the modern turkmenistan and east, and border areas of modern China. it is mahAchIna, that is often used to refer to the China-proper. > > http://bharatendu.com/ > > > > > indiaarchaeology@: kalyan97@: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:38:10 +0530[ind-Arch] New evidence for early silk in the Indus civilization _______________ > For the freshest Indian Jobs Visit MSN Jobs > http://www.in.msn.com/jobs > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala " <p.manansala wrote: IndiaArchaeology , " sunil_bhattacharjya " <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > Dear Sarveshji, > > Quote > > We must also add another caveat. " chIna " of the itihAsa-purANa-s is > not the China of today. Most commonly chIna is used to refer to the > North-west region neighboring the Balkh, around the modern > turkmenistan and east, and border areas of modern China. > > Unquote > > Any reference to support this opinion. Why it cannot be South-East > Asia? > > Cina and Mahacina refer to South China and Southeast Asia respectively. The evidence for this comes mainly from Persian, both Nestorian and Muslim, and other Muslim texts, and even some European ones. They also use different forms of these names i.e., Chin, Machin, Sin, Masin, etc. The earliest historical document to mention these places is related to the Nestorian synod of 410 CE which mentions a " Metropolitan of the Islands, Seas and Interior of Dabag [Zabag], Chin and Machin " Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan http://sambali.blogspot.com --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala " <p.manansala wrote: IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala " <p.manansala@> wrote: > > IndiaArchaeology , " sunil_bhattacharjya " > <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote: > > > > Cina and Mahacina refer to South China and Southeast Asia respectively. > I should clarify this by saying that in India at least Mahacina extended all the way to Tibet. Both Cina and Mahacina were closely connected with the development of Tantra. > > Regards, > Paul Kekai Manansala > Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan > http://sambali.blogspot.com > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 IndiaArchaeology , Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote: Thanks manansalaji, I understand only deer-skins was brought from china and these were to be presented to Lord Krishna when he visited Hastinapur to avert the war. I think silk was not mentioned by Vaishampayana at that point. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 2/5/09, Paul Kekai Manansala <p.manansala wrote: Paul Kekai Manansala <p.manansala [ind-Arch] Re: New evidence for early silk in the Indus civilization IndiaArchaeology Thursday, February 5, 2009, 3:03 PM IndiaArchaeology, " sunil_bhattacharjy a " <sunil_bhattacharjy a wrote: > > Dear Sarveshji, > > Quote > > We must also add another caveat. " chIna " of the itihAsa-purANa- s is > not the China of today. Most commonly chIna is used to refer to the > North-west region neighboring the Balkh, around the modern > turkmenistan and east, and border areas of modern China. > > Unquote > > Any reference to support this opinion. Why it cannot be South-East > Asia? > > Cina and Mahacina refer to South China and Southeast Asia respectively. The evidence for this comes mainly from Persian, both Nestorian and Muslim, and other Muslim texts, and even some European ones. They also use different forms of these names i.e., Chin, Machin, Sin, Masin, etc. The earliest historical document to mention these places is related to the Nestorian synod of 410 CE which mentions a " Metropolitan of the Islands, Seas and Interior of Dabag [Zabag], Chin and Machin " Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan http://sambali. blogspot. com --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 IndiaArchaeology , " Paul Kekai Manansala " <p.manansala wrote: Another point: the geographical term " Manzi " used in medieval times is probably not the same as Machin, although Persian writers sometimes confused the two. Manzi probably comes from Man-tze or Man-tzu " Sons of the Southern Barbarians, " i.e., the lands of the peoples from about the Yangtze southward. Northern China at this time was known as Khitai, Khatai, Cathay, etc. Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan http://sambali.blogspot.com/ --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 The term 'development' also alludes to Gross Contribution and near Genesis (Viz. Developmental Biology). From such perspective we have only evidence that points in the direction that Tantra flourished and continues in Sino-Lama land (as in India). It had developed (initial genesis included) possibly in eastern India, such though, and phylosophy migrated with the Buddhist scholars. Dr. db =========================== - Kishore patnaik Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:26 AM Re: To Irene IndiaArchaeology , "Paul Kekai Manansala"<p.manansala wrote:IndiaArchaeology , "Paul Kekai Manansala"<p.manansala@> wrote:>> IndiaArchaeology , "sunil_bhattacharjya"> <sunil_bhattacharjya@> wrote:> >> > Cina and Mahacina refer to South China and Southeast Asia respectively.> I should clarify this by saying that in India at least Mahacinaextended all the way to Tibet. Both Cina and Mahacina were closelyconnected with the development of Tantra.> > Regards,> Paul Kekai Manansala> Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan> http://sambali.blogspot.com>--- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.