roadrunner said:
Lol. In other words, ignore the bits that are difficult.
Vanishing river or vanishing population has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. Therfore irrelevant.
Since, I have said nothing about the language of the script, and curiously enough, neither have O'connor and Robertson, your explanation of the language in an attempt to stake your claim, was, therefore, strawman argument.
But I can see, thats how you like to debate.
roadrunner said:
But the point is you have no evidence for any of this!!!!
The evidence is a Manuscript found in Mardan, Pakistan and dated to 200 AD, in a language of Buddhist Sanskrit hybrid of the Gatha dialect. Since this dialect was not spoken in Bharat, it wasn't someone from there who wrote it!!
Extending this with your eskimo example. I go to Alaska and write in English,and my Manuscript is discovered at a later date. This would suggest someone whose first language was English had wrote the Manuscript. Similarly, the person who wrote the Bakhshali Manuscript had a first language is Gatha, which was not spoken in Bharat, it was a Ghandarian dialect.
The logic is very clear if you think about it, the evidence, even if it is a copy of an earlier work (of which no evidence exists just like none exists of rivers disappearing!) suggests that it is the earliest recorded manuscript of the number zero's usage in calculation.
You finally get my point and yet, somehow, don't. Lack of proof is one point you do get. But the fact that it cuts both ways, is something you don't get.
Your first argument was that since it was found in Pakistan, therefore, the script was written in Pakistan. (That is, if highlighting the relevant portion, that speaks of the script being found in Pakistan, can be called an argument). I argued, that a script can easily change hands and find its place anywhere in the world. Location of a script does not indicate the place of writing.
You then fell back on the language argument. (Thats why I called it a strawman argument). Your argument was that since it is in a language, not popular in "Bharat", therefore it was written in an area where the language was popular. My eskimo example was to prove that it can very well be otherwise.
Since we do not know where it was written, we should leave it at that, and not draw any conclusion on it. (O'connor and Robertson do not. In fact no historian, that i have so far been able to reference on the net, has.) Any argument on its place of writing can be successfully deconstructed, simply because there is no evidence.
Arguments that are good for ruins, are not applicable for scripts or people or any other artifacts that can move around or capable of being moved around. Getting an accurate fix on their place of origin can be extremely tricky.
roadrunner said:
They look very relevant to me. I've shown at least 4 authors refer to him as a Multani. Did they all just happen to stumble across a map and throw darts at it to decide he was from Multan?
Of course they are relevant to you. You are seeing, what you want to see. The inconvenience of the fact that they are not historians, the fact that they don't give any clue as to how they arrived at their decision, shouldn't weigh you down.
I am sure they had their own logic for calling Brahmagupta, a Multani. But unless you come up with the original source, something like Al Beruni's writing, that unequivocally establishes that Brahmagupta was born in Multan, his birthplace would continue to be at Ujjain, India.
Well, even if he was born in Multan, it still wouldn't matter though.
And you have probably missed this:
karnivore said:
roadrunner said:
Manmohan Singh's ancestors are from Pakistan. He has renounced his citizenship of Pakistan, and therefore has become an Indian.
One could ask similarly is Vitali Klitschko German or American?
Silly point.
So you agree that nationality and/or citizenship is a mere modality of modern geo-politics.