Thus we get expressions like"Sanskrit,""Sanskrit characters. It is becoming annoying to me that scholarly histories like these are almost always but poorly supplemented with maps and lists of rulers, let alone genealogies where these are known.
The modern form,renders the name phonetically with characters of no particular semantic significance "print, stamp, or seal" and "a rule, law, measure, degree".
Thus, the prophecy was that Siddhartha Gautama might have become the Buddha or a Cakravartin, a world ruler. Thus, we get orin which can be a kind of bamboo but otherwise is just used for India.
The Moghuls and British, of course, called India by its name in their own languages i. The only question was how much of it was taken up by India. Sumeru or Meruthe only one inhabited with humans identical to us. Indeed, like Greece c. The claims have progressed to the point now where not only are all of Indian civilization and all of its languages regarded as autochthonous with Indo-European languages said to originate in India, and derived from Dravidian languages, rather than arriving from elsewhere and unrelated to Dravidianbut the civilization itself is said to extend back to the Pleistocene Epoch before 10, BCwith any ruins or artifacts conveniently covered by rising sea levels.
The "Saka Era,"as the Indian historical era, significantly starts rather late 79 AD in relation to the antiquity of Indian civilization.
The word was ambiguous, since the term can mean simply a sovereign, but its use is paralleled by the Latin word Imperator, which simply means "Commander" and grew, by usage, into a term for a unique and universal monarch.
The urge towards inflated nationalistic claims is familiar. Keay has an apt comment for the phenomenon just noted in the other histories: In Chinese, Cakravartin could be rendered as"Wheel [i. In addition to these complications, Indian history is also less well known and dated than that of China or Japan.
Indeed, it is even innocent of any acknowledgement of this, which would leave the reader wondering why a word is given as "Vidisha" in one citation and "Vidisa" in another [cf. Both Wolpert and Robb devote much more space to modern India than to the ancient or mediaeval country, and this preference seems to go beyond the paucity of sources for the earlier periods.
In contriving maximum resolution for the present, there is also a danger of losing focus on the past. The supremely foreign unification of India, of course, was from the British, under whom India achieved its greatest unity, although that was lost upon independence to the religious division between India and Pakistan.
In Chinese, we get various ways of referring to India. The rule of the Sult. Indeed, India was once an island in the Mesozoic Ocean, but it moved north and collided with Asia.
Particular claims about India are treated here in several places but especially in " Strange Claims about the Greeks, and about India.
The older practice, however, was dedicated characters that might have a larger meaning.
Classical Indian literature displays little interest in history proper, which must be reconstructed from coins, monumental inscriptions, and foreign references. With the Moghulshowever, the names of the Emperors, more than their titles, reflected their pretensions: Probably India did not have a clear local name earlier because, like Chinait seemed to be the principal portion of the entire world, and so simply the world itself.
As it happened, many of the monarchs who began to claim ruler over all of India did usually use titles that were translations or importations of foreign words.Emperors of the Sangoku, the "Three Kingdoms," of India, China, & Japan.
India and China are the sources of the greatest civilizations in Eastern and Southern Asia. Their rulers saw themselves as universal monarchs, thereby matching the pretensions of the Roman Emperors in the West.
The only drawbacks to their historical priority were that .Download