<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Apr 17 2007, 10:28 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Apr 17 2007, 10:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->(2) However Eastern civilizations also had slaves - dasas. The Mahabharat has great soliloquies against slavery by Arjuna addressing Uttara Kumara.
[right][snapback]67267[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ramana, I'd read in several Hindu sites that dasa does not mean slave, in spite of what western translators say.
(a) Origin of word 'Dasa'
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...icevidence.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the next page, however, Witzel does mention <b>the ethnonyms of the enemies of the Vedic Aryans, the Dasas (Iranian Daha, known to Greco-Roman authors as Daai, Dahae), Dasyus (Iranian Dahyu, âtribeâ, esp. hostile nomadic tribe) and Panis (Greek Parnoi), as unmistakably the names of Iranian tribes</b>. <b>The identification of these tribes as Iranian has been elaborated by Asko Parpola (âThe problem of the Aryans and the Somaâ, in Erdosy: op.cit., p.367), and is now well- established</b>, a development which should at least <b>put an end to the talk of the Dasas being âthe dark-skinned aboriginals <i>enslaved</i> by the Aryan invadersâ.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(b) How 'Dasa' is different from Welsh, Slave and Oryan
Next point. Merely because the Dasas (Dahas) were an Iranian enemy tribe of Vedic Hindus doesn't mean that they were regarded as slaves. This is certainly different from other cases:
- Been told that <b>'Welsh' means slave</b> in whatever (non-Welsh) British language came up with the term, I think it's English.
Welsh people in their own language, don't call themselves 'Welsh'. They call themselves Cymru or Cymry, Wales' real name is related to that.
Yes, here you go:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/welsh.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The word Welsh is actually an Old English word meaning âforeigner; slaveâ</b> and at first was applied by the Anglo-Saxons to all the native peoples of Britain. As you might guess, the word Welsh is not used by the Welsh: they call their language Cymraeg, their country Cymru and themselves Cymry. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The reason this is different from Dasa in India is because Daha is the Iranian tribe name for their own people, whereas Welsh is the English name for the Cymry.
- Another case: Slav. The word slave comes from this.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slaving
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Origin: 1250â1300; ME sclave < ML sclÄvus (masc.), sclÄva (fem.) slave, special use of SclÄvus Slav, so called <b>because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages;</b> see Slav]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->http://www.brainyquote.com/words/sl/slave220459.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->slave in Afrikaans is slaaf (Afrikaans comes from Dutch, so
slave in Dutch is slaaf
slave in French is esclave
Slave in German is Sklave
slave in Hungarian is rabszolga
slave in Italian is schiava, schiavo
<b>slave in Latin is famulus, servus</b>
slave in Portuguese is escravo
slave in Spanish is esclavo
slave in Swedish is slav<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As you can see, Latin's word for slave is not related to Slav (Hungarian doesn't seem to be either), because, as stated, it was <b>in the Middle Ages that Slavs were enslaved leading to the word 'slave'</b>. That too is christian legacy.
- Finally there is the case of Orya = Uralic for slave. This has led some to think that people who designated themselves as Airya or Arya (Iranians?) were enslaved:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch34.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Uralic term orya, âslaveâ, from either Iranian airya or Sanskrit Arya, <b><i>may indicate</i></b> that their position was not as dignified as that of the Mitannic horse trainers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As it indicates, it's not a certainty either that that's where Orya comes from.
So this - <b><i>if true</i></b> - would be the only case that might bear any similarity to Dasa having a negative connotation in India whereas it was originally a term in Iranian. And that too <b><i>only if</i></b> Dasa had a negative connotation in India. See (c ) below as to why I don't think even this holds.
(c ) Did Dasa ever mean slave?
- Hanuman is referred to Rama's dasa. It does <i><b>not at all</b></i> mean slave, as can be even understood from reading Ramayanam. Hanuman is devoted to Rama. At best we can then say Hanuman considers himself at Rama's eternal service, so we may say that dasa here is servant: Hanuman is Rama's servant.
- 'Kalidasa' - coming after Mahabharatam, Kalidasa is Kali's devotee so in that sense, we can translate it as Kali's servant again.
Mahabharatam lies between both Ramayanam and Kalidasa. So did 'dasa' get a new meaning during Mahabharatam times?
I think there could well be another explanation for this. Arjuna might merely be speaking of the plight of dasas as in the meaning in his time (servants? people in servitude? - no longer the Iranian term of course from Vedic times; but refers to Indian people, perhaps an entire Indian Hindu community's name by Mahabharatam's time?)
Attributing the meaning of 'slavery' to Dasa is where I think it went wrong. Though some translators might have given 'Slave' as the meaning of dasa - but this could just be dependent on the translators. Like the Bible originally uses slave and some later versions translated it as 'servant' to make it more friendly, British colonials could well have <b>done the opposite</b> to Hindu scripture - as indeed they had with the original occurrences of 'Dasa' in the Vedas: read these as references to some imagined 'Dark-skinned aboriginal Indian' instead of the actual (probably lighter-than-average-Indians) Iranian Dahae tribe.
Ramana, could you elaborate on what evidence (or strong indications) you have that Dasa conclusively meant slave? By the time of Mahabharatam, I mean.
Ignore that the meaning of slave has been given to 'dasa' - there is no mention of the occurrence of the events and behaviour associated with the meaning of slavery. Nothing comparable even to Roman or Greek slavery, or even Egyptian, let alone the christian kind. The Persian Empire had paid men, not slaves according to some Iranian sites.
But in old Indian writings there's no allusion to work done by slaves (that is, enforced work for no pay) or slave markets. Nothing I can find or have heard of. Unless someone here knows of examples.
(Indian islamis had slaves of course and instituted slave markets, but they are not of concern in this conversation.)
[right][snapback]67267[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Ramana, I'd read in several Hindu sites that dasa does not mean slave, in spite of what western translators say.
(a) Origin of word 'Dasa'
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/article...icevidence.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the next page, however, Witzel does mention <b>the ethnonyms of the enemies of the Vedic Aryans, the Dasas (Iranian Daha, known to Greco-Roman authors as Daai, Dahae), Dasyus (Iranian Dahyu, âtribeâ, esp. hostile nomadic tribe) and Panis (Greek Parnoi), as unmistakably the names of Iranian tribes</b>. <b>The identification of these tribes as Iranian has been elaborated by Asko Parpola (âThe problem of the Aryans and the Somaâ, in Erdosy: op.cit., p.367), and is now well- established</b>, a development which should at least <b>put an end to the talk of the Dasas being âthe dark-skinned aboriginals <i>enslaved</i> by the Aryan invadersâ.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(b) How 'Dasa' is different from Welsh, Slave and Oryan
Next point. Merely because the Dasas (Dahas) were an Iranian enemy tribe of Vedic Hindus doesn't mean that they were regarded as slaves. This is certainly different from other cases:
- Been told that <b>'Welsh' means slave</b> in whatever (non-Welsh) British language came up with the term, I think it's English.
Welsh people in their own language, don't call themselves 'Welsh'. They call themselves Cymru or Cymry, Wales' real name is related to that.
Yes, here you go:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/welsh.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The word Welsh is actually an Old English word meaning âforeigner; slaveâ</b> and at first was applied by the Anglo-Saxons to all the native peoples of Britain. As you might guess, the word Welsh is not used by the Welsh: they call their language Cymraeg, their country Cymru and themselves Cymry. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The reason this is different from Dasa in India is because Daha is the Iranian tribe name for their own people, whereas Welsh is the English name for the Cymry.
- Another case: Slav. The word slave comes from this.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slaving
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Origin: 1250â1300; ME sclave < ML sclÄvus (masc.), sclÄva (fem.) slave, special use of SclÄvus Slav, so called <b>because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages;</b> see Slav]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->http://www.brainyquote.com/words/sl/slave220459.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->slave in Afrikaans is slaaf (Afrikaans comes from Dutch, so
slave in Dutch is slaaf
slave in French is esclave
Slave in German is Sklave
slave in Hungarian is rabszolga
slave in Italian is schiava, schiavo
<b>slave in Latin is famulus, servus</b>
slave in Portuguese is escravo
slave in Spanish is esclavo
slave in Swedish is slav<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As you can see, Latin's word for slave is not related to Slav (Hungarian doesn't seem to be either), because, as stated, it was <b>in the Middle Ages that Slavs were enslaved leading to the word 'slave'</b>. That too is christian legacy.
- Finally there is the case of Orya = Uralic for slave. This has led some to think that people who designated themselves as Airya or Arya (Iranians?) were enslaved:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch34.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Uralic term orya, âslaveâ, from either Iranian airya or Sanskrit Arya, <b><i>may indicate</i></b> that their position was not as dignified as that of the Mitannic horse trainers. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As it indicates, it's not a certainty either that that's where Orya comes from.
So this - <b><i>if true</i></b> - would be the only case that might bear any similarity to Dasa having a negative connotation in India whereas it was originally a term in Iranian. And that too <b><i>only if</i></b> Dasa had a negative connotation in India. See (c ) below as to why I don't think even this holds.
(c ) Did Dasa ever mean slave?
- Hanuman is referred to Rama's dasa. It does <i><b>not at all</b></i> mean slave, as can be even understood from reading Ramayanam. Hanuman is devoted to Rama. At best we can then say Hanuman considers himself at Rama's eternal service, so we may say that dasa here is servant: Hanuman is Rama's servant.
- 'Kalidasa' - coming after Mahabharatam, Kalidasa is Kali's devotee so in that sense, we can translate it as Kali's servant again.
Mahabharatam lies between both Ramayanam and Kalidasa. So did 'dasa' get a new meaning during Mahabharatam times?
I think there could well be another explanation for this. Arjuna might merely be speaking of the plight of dasas as in the meaning in his time (servants? people in servitude? - no longer the Iranian term of course from Vedic times; but refers to Indian people, perhaps an entire Indian Hindu community's name by Mahabharatam's time?)
Attributing the meaning of 'slavery' to Dasa is where I think it went wrong. Though some translators might have given 'Slave' as the meaning of dasa - but this could just be dependent on the translators. Like the Bible originally uses slave and some later versions translated it as 'servant' to make it more friendly, British colonials could well have <b>done the opposite</b> to Hindu scripture - as indeed they had with the original occurrences of 'Dasa' in the Vedas: read these as references to some imagined 'Dark-skinned aboriginal Indian' instead of the actual (probably lighter-than-average-Indians) Iranian Dahae tribe.
Ramana, could you elaborate on what evidence (or strong indications) you have that Dasa conclusively meant slave? By the time of Mahabharatam, I mean.
Ignore that the meaning of slave has been given to 'dasa' - there is no mention of the occurrence of the events and behaviour associated with the meaning of slavery. Nothing comparable even to Roman or Greek slavery, or even Egyptian, let alone the christian kind. The Persian Empire had paid men, not slaves according to some Iranian sites.
But in old Indian writings there's no allusion to work done by slaves (that is, enforced work for no pay) or slave markets. Nothing I can find or have heard of. Unless someone here knows of examples.
(Indian islamis had slaves of course and instituted slave markets, but they are not of concern in this conversation.)