[quote name='HareKrishna' date='18 March 2010 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1268882038' post='105258']
From reconstructions that i've seen , sumerian(babilonian)garments were very similar whit the saree including the ornaments(like all over dots)
and colors.[/quote]I see Bharatavarsha beat me to it last time, when he wrote:
2. There are Hindu texts and sculptures pointing to indigenous development of Sari going back to the Vedas and ancient Hindu sculptures.
3. No documented evidence has been given to show introduction of Indian Sari from anywhere outside.
So why speak of Sari with respect to Sumer or Greece? I'm sure they had names for their own clothes.
And reconstructions of Sumerian wear aside (how authentic are reconstructions BTW, I have always wondered - see also below), what I do know is that images of Hera statues in my possession is with a long cloth draped around her and triangling over one shoulder (and at times rebounding over another shoulder, this is IIRC). But the dress is NOT a sari. It is *very* Greek, *very* unIndian. Same for images of ancient Greek female characters I have. Such ancient Greek women's wear is part of a related series of flowing frilly garments that come in multiple lengths and different shoulder cuts (some have 2-arm slings, forming a V-neck at times, otherwise a close-cut to the neck, at other times a wider boat-neck, etc. Single shoulder is just one of the styles.) All extremely Greek.
Later Roman women's wear is much more similar to the Hindu saree than the traditional Greek kind, but by that time aristocratic Roman women are seen wearing pottu/tilakam on their heads too (IIRC can even see this combination at the end of the film Gladiator where the lovely Danish actress Connie Nielsen is donning both), so maybe it's more than mere "coincidence" since by that time Rome had been getting a lot of their dress material from India. Even so, beyond surface similarities, the Roman style of draping the cloth is not exactly the Hindu saree (at least, in any of the styles I have seen).
Also, IIRC Sumerian civilisation was pre-Babylonian, not the same - though geographically it is still "Mesopotamia". (I have heard doubts whether even the inhabitants were entirely or even largely the same. The place has seen population shifts since a long time ago. Even in islamic times you can see Arabians entering, replaced by Iranians during the time when Baghdad was the islamic capital, and thereafter replaced by Arabians once more until now.)
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='18 March 2010 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1268882038' post='105258']The celts ,germans thracians,dacians,sakas and their priests were depicted by greek-romans sculptors as wearing pants.Even the roman name for pants -braca ,is of celtic origin.Im talking of continental celts not those from isolated islands.
Celtic gods are also depicted whit pants so i doubt that druids wear white robes .Mithra ,dacian and saka priests also wear pants not robes.[/quote]1. IIRC, from images, Persian men had tunic + pants combinations. The dharmics of India had long tunic + close-fitting pants combination too, this was already discussed earlier in the thread. I think people here posted images of scultpures of ancient Indian men. Hmmm, this was back when I was interfering with my posts on churidar (the tunic+tighter-pants that Dharmic women wear).
BTW, even Veshtis have been worn in "pants" style (separation of legs) by Hindu men, but I don't tend to think of these as pants.
2. The point of my previous post above was that pants among women in Iranian and Iranian-influenced lands - i.e. harem pants - are likely to be Persian of origin since Persians had pants (because the Persian men were known to have pants), whereas Arabian men AND women wear long dresses.
3. Shakas are known to be culturally and linguistically Iranian - hence Iranians to all-intents, purposes and knowledge - need not group them with Celts, Germans, Thracians and other ancient "European" communities. Shakas cluster with Iranians. That they would have pants would not be surprising when the Persians have had the tunic+pants.
Mithra -> Persian. Original followers of this religion were Persian. Their clothes are also Persian. The clothing of the Mithradates and other Mithraic influences remains Persian even as far as Italic Roman territory. Again: so, no need to mention clothing of the priests of Mithra separately from Iranians either.
(Even his most catholic German Pope of the 'Roman' church still wears a Persian Mitre. It is regularly stated by those comparing Mithraism with the Empire's christian church that the vestments of the Roman bishops are Mithraic too. So whether their tunic was always as long as that of the Pope and his men, or whether it once had pants to go with it, I don't know.)
4. As for the continental Celts, already mentioned Galatia in the east. The Gallic kind I'm not sure of: am now doubting my recollection of the reconstructed Gauls in the relevant episode from Terry Jones' Barbarians documentary series for the BBC. So far, my recollection has it that the regular populace was shown in non-descript tunics. Can't remember how the statue of the famous ill-fated Celtic warrior chieftain (V-something-ric?) - the one who took a last stand against Julius - was depicted. Besides, don't even know if the statue was contemporaneous with that period or whether it was merely a later romanticisation of events. But IIRC the rich aristocratic Gaulish woman in the episode was shown wearing a long flowing robe. But only watching it again could be provide any validity to my statements here.
In any case, reconstructions *are* dubious. Even the early ones.
- Late centuries BCE Greek and Roman depictions of a Galatian depicted the Celtic man in the nude.
- And the following's a 19th century *reconstruction* (presumably ignoring contemporary accounts) of Celtic clothing at the time of Julius Caesar (1st century BCE?):
IMAGE: http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail...ation-From-$27le-Costume-Ancien-Ou-Moderne$27-1820.jpg
Caption:
Also, by the time of that major Roman face-off with Gaul, the continental Celtic trade empire already had dealings as far east as China (as per doco - again, of dubious memory) and definitely had contact with Persians. This makes the following a fair question in light of what started this topic:
if there's all this wondrous conjecture of the Sari "style" being so "unique and unreplicable" that it *must* have been gifted the Hindus from the Sumerian, Babylonian AND Greek quarters - to make triply sure the Hindoos couldn't have come up with it - surely the Celts could have been gifted the pants by the Persians and Chinese? Except that the Sari is, as I said, documented by and among Hindus from ancient times, well before any (documented) Indian contact with Greece etc. How far back in time do the GrecoRoman depictions of Celtic pants go - do they predate Celtic contact with Persia? (If the GR depictions are from the last centuries BCE then that's the time of the Celtic trade empire in Europe as per "Barbarians", at which point Galatians were already settled in Anatolia then and had contact with the further east.)
Though, again: that's not to say that Celts *didn't* invent their pants, merely pointing out that the Roman word for pants being Celtic in origin doesn't prove anything beyond that when the Romans named it, they were influenced by Celtic presence in doing so.
From reconstructions that i've seen , sumerian(babilonian)garments were very similar whit the saree including the ornaments(like all over dots)
and colors.[/quote]I see Bharatavarsha beat me to it last time, when he wrote:
Quote:Sari is very old & I believe references go as far back as the Vedas.1. Similarity with Sari does not make the other a Sari.
The Greeks & Romans may have worn something similar that they developed independently.
2. There are Hindu texts and sculptures pointing to indigenous development of Sari going back to the Vedas and ancient Hindu sculptures.
3. No documented evidence has been given to show introduction of Indian Sari from anywhere outside.
So why speak of Sari with respect to Sumer or Greece? I'm sure they had names for their own clothes.
And reconstructions of Sumerian wear aside (how authentic are reconstructions BTW, I have always wondered - see also below), what I do know is that images of Hera statues in my possession is with a long cloth draped around her and triangling over one shoulder (and at times rebounding over another shoulder, this is IIRC). But the dress is NOT a sari. It is *very* Greek, *very* unIndian. Same for images of ancient Greek female characters I have. Such ancient Greek women's wear is part of a related series of flowing frilly garments that come in multiple lengths and different shoulder cuts (some have 2-arm slings, forming a V-neck at times, otherwise a close-cut to the neck, at other times a wider boat-neck, etc. Single shoulder is just one of the styles.) All extremely Greek.
Later Roman women's wear is much more similar to the Hindu saree than the traditional Greek kind, but by that time aristocratic Roman women are seen wearing pottu/tilakam on their heads too (IIRC can even see this combination at the end of the film Gladiator where the lovely Danish actress Connie Nielsen is donning both), so maybe it's more than mere "coincidence" since by that time Rome had been getting a lot of their dress material from India. Even so, beyond surface similarities, the Roman style of draping the cloth is not exactly the Hindu saree (at least, in any of the styles I have seen).
Also, IIRC Sumerian civilisation was pre-Babylonian, not the same - though geographically it is still "Mesopotamia". (I have heard doubts whether even the inhabitants were entirely or even largely the same. The place has seen population shifts since a long time ago. Even in islamic times you can see Arabians entering, replaced by Iranians during the time when Baghdad was the islamic capital, and thereafter replaced by Arabians once more until now.)
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='18 March 2010 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1268882038' post='105258']The celts ,germans thracians,dacians,sakas and their priests were depicted by greek-romans sculptors as wearing pants.Even the roman name for pants -braca ,is of celtic origin.Im talking of continental celts not those from isolated islands.
Celtic gods are also depicted whit pants so i doubt that druids wear white robes .Mithra ,dacian and saka priests also wear pants not robes.[/quote]1. IIRC, from images, Persian men had tunic + pants combinations. The dharmics of India had long tunic + close-fitting pants combination too, this was already discussed earlier in the thread. I think people here posted images of scultpures of ancient Indian men. Hmmm, this was back when I was interfering with my posts on churidar (the tunic+tighter-pants that Dharmic women wear).
BTW, even Veshtis have been worn in "pants" style (separation of legs) by Hindu men, but I don't tend to think of these as pants.
2. The point of my previous post above was that pants among women in Iranian and Iranian-influenced lands - i.e. harem pants - are likely to be Persian of origin since Persians had pants (because the Persian men were known to have pants), whereas Arabian men AND women wear long dresses.
3. Shakas are known to be culturally and linguistically Iranian - hence Iranians to all-intents, purposes and knowledge - need not group them with Celts, Germans, Thracians and other ancient "European" communities. Shakas cluster with Iranians. That they would have pants would not be surprising when the Persians have had the tunic+pants.
Mithra -> Persian. Original followers of this religion were Persian. Their clothes are also Persian. The clothing of the Mithradates and other Mithraic influences remains Persian even as far as Italic Roman territory. Again: so, no need to mention clothing of the priests of Mithra separately from Iranians either.
(Even his most catholic German Pope of the 'Roman' church still wears a Persian Mitre. It is regularly stated by those comparing Mithraism with the Empire's christian church that the vestments of the Roman bishops are Mithraic too. So whether their tunic was always as long as that of the Pope and his men, or whether it once had pants to go with it, I don't know.)
4. As for the continental Celts, already mentioned Galatia in the east. The Gallic kind I'm not sure of: am now doubting my recollection of the reconstructed Gauls in the relevant episode from Terry Jones' Barbarians documentary series for the BBC. So far, my recollection has it that the regular populace was shown in non-descript tunics. Can't remember how the statue of the famous ill-fated Celtic warrior chieftain (V-something-ric?) - the one who took a last stand against Julius - was depicted. Besides, don't even know if the statue was contemporaneous with that period or whether it was merely a later romanticisation of events. But IIRC the rich aristocratic Gaulish woman in the episode was shown wearing a long flowing robe. But only watching it again could be provide any validity to my statements here.
In any case, reconstructions *are* dubious. Even the early ones.
- Late centuries BCE Greek and Roman depictions of a Galatian depicted the Celtic man in the nude.
- And the following's a 19th century *reconstruction* (presumably ignoring contemporary accounts) of Celtic clothing at the time of Julius Caesar (1st century BCE?):
IMAGE: http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail...ation-From-$27le-Costume-Ancien-Ou-Moderne$27-1820.jpg
Caption:
Quote:Handmade oil painting reproduction of Celtic people at the time of Julius Caesar, illustration from 'Le Costume Ancien ou Moderne' 1820, a painting by G. Bramati.
Also, by the time of that major Roman face-off with Gaul, the continental Celtic trade empire already had dealings as far east as China (as per doco - again, of dubious memory) and definitely had contact with Persians. This makes the following a fair question in light of what started this topic:
if there's all this wondrous conjecture of the Sari "style" being so "unique and unreplicable" that it *must* have been gifted the Hindus from the Sumerian, Babylonian AND Greek quarters - to make triply sure the Hindoos couldn't have come up with it - surely the Celts could have been gifted the pants by the Persians and Chinese? Except that the Sari is, as I said, documented by and among Hindus from ancient times, well before any (documented) Indian contact with Greece etc. How far back in time do the GrecoRoman depictions of Celtic pants go - do they predate Celtic contact with Persia? (If the GR depictions are from the last centuries BCE then that's the time of the Celtic trade empire in Europe as per "Barbarians", at which point Galatians were already settled in Anatolia then and had contact with the further east.)
Quote:Even the roman name for pants -braca ,is of celtic originActually - the logic is incomplete, not deterministic. That the Romans' word for breeches "braca" is of Celtic origin, does not *necessarily* imply that Celts invented their pants. For example: the late European word "sugar" arrived from Arabic Sukkar, but the Arabians didn't invent it - they got Sakara/Shakara/Sharkara from India via Persia (Shakar). (But apparently at least Greece had already been introduced to sugar much earlier, during Alexander's forrays into India.)
Though, again: that's not to say that Celts *didn't* invent their pants, merely pointing out that the Roman word for pants being Celtic in origin doesn't prove anything beyond that when the Romans named it, they were influenced by Celtic presence in doing so.
Quote:so i doubt that druids wear white robesToo little known about druids in general. Makes them a source of grand speculation. (But, one does wonder: where then does the popular white robe conception arise from? Because it's not just the dunces of the KKK that have made the claim.)