Archaeology Updates (India)

Since you mention it so often, and since I like history, and since I am European, can you elaborate what are the “european standards” and what are the contraposing “Indian standards”? I usually in history tend to think in the “history standards”, since I don’t think this kind of “standard” should be changing according to the area/region/continent that we are studding.
european and by which i mean colonial british/ anglophone history is an indian history which started as a colonial narrative, hindu vs muslim, prime objective was to divide hindus and muslims after the indian rebellion, secondly, the european scholarship was disenchanted by india after its colonization, a narrative was concocted to dismiss indian culture by injecting concoctions just like i stated in my locked thread.

the european narratives are seldom backed by hard evidences, for instance its a falsification of history to declare indian national dresses like kurta as something was was invented during muslim periods since hindus wore one length unstitched clothing, this is a false propaganda and completely against the clear evidences of pre islamic indian paintings and statuary arts which clearly depict stitched clothes as far back as indian historic eras.

im just providing very few easy examples, indian historical narrative is filled up with these falsifications, and now it has become a standard since one indian scholar doesnt tow this colonial line he is branded hindu nationalist and hindutva or indian nationalist, his scholarship stands challenged by much ore dominant european historiography of indians.

regards
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,251
the thing is, indian history is defined by european standards, indians need to have indept discussion and start challenging this colonial/european constructed indian history in light of evidences which is willfully disregarded/discarded/rejected/denied/ignored while doing indian historiography etc.

regards
Absolutely do! By all means. It would be fantastically interesting.

AND, just to add a facet of complication: In this you sound EXACTLY like the Scandinavian archaeologists of the 19th c. Back then EVERYTHING related to ancient history was understood to be either Greek, Roman, or unimportant – and all European prehistory falling outside the Greek/Roman circle was assumed to be uninteresting for being evaluated through the lens of Classical civilization.

In the end the Scandinavians came up with the three-period-system, typology, stratigraphy etc., all in the effort to push the understanding of prehistory beyond the bounds of European classical scholarship about ancient history.

You're grating like hell about all this because the chip on your should re "colonial/european" is so fecking HUGE.

Are you sore at the British (colonial) or Europeans (mixed bag) – of which there is considerable variety (as said, mixed bag) – or you just don't know/care which?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,373
Portugal
european and by which i mean colonial british/ anglophone history is an indian history which started as a colonial narrative, hindu vs muslim, prime objective was to divide hindus and muslims after the indian rebellion, secondly, the european scholarship was disenchanted by india after its colonization, a narrative was concocted to dismiss indian culture by injecting concoctions just like i stated in my locked thread.

the european narratives are seldom backed by hard evidences, for instance its a falsification of history to declare indian national dresses like kurta as something was was invented during muslim periods since hindus wore one length unstitched clothing, this is a false propaganda and completely against the clear evidences of pre islamic indian paintings and statuary arts which clearly depict stitched clothes as far back as indian historic eras.

im just providing very few easy examples, indian historical narrative is filled up with these falsifications, and now it has become a standard since one indian scholar doesnt tow this colonial line he is branded hindu nationalist and hindutva or indian nationalist, his scholarship stands challenged by much ore dominant european historiography of indians.

regards
Ok. Now I think that I understand what you mean by European Standards, in your perspective, even if it seems that you use the word European in an incorrect and too loose way, since you are now mentioning only the “colonial british/ Anglophone” standards, and even those are a wide group with many changes in time.

But you didn’t answered to me what are the contraposing Indian standards? It is relevant to see both faces of the coin.

By the way I don' know to what locked thread you are mentioning, but if we don't want to see this one locked it is a good idea to avoid that theme.
 
Absolutely do! By all means. It would be fantastically interesting.

AND, just to add a facet of complication: In this you sound EXACTLY like the Scandinavian archaeologists of the 19th c. Back then EVERYTHING related to ancient history was understood to be either Greek, Roman, or unimportant – and all European prehistory falling outside the Greek/Roman circle was assumed to be uninteresting for being evaluated through the lens of Classical civilization.

In the end the Scandinavians came up with the three-period-system, typology, stratigraphy etc., all in the effort to push the understanding of prehistory beyond the bounds of European classical scholarship about ancient history.

You're grating like hell about all this because the chip on your should re "colonial/european" is so fecking HUGE.

Are you sore at the British (colonial) or Europeans (mixed bag) – of which there is considerable variety (as said, mixed bag) – or you just don't know/care which?
i dont really understand why you comparing scandinavians with indians, sure scandinavians are trying to establish their prehistory beyond greek and romans but what has it got to do with the indians, dont you think the parallels you have drawn seem a bit random?

what im stating is indians need to separate from colonial eurocentric narrative, the present indian scholarship is discredited as ''nationalist'' just because it doesnt tow european/colonial lines and hence european scholarship becomes credible. This can only be achieved if indian institutions come out of colonial set up.

i do believe that european scholarship tows british colonial line when it comes to india, i have read few papers and they seem to be towing the same colonial line, obviously dont speak german or french, i can only access english medium papers.

regards
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,251
how long before all these ''european exploration'' stuff is debuned and challenged?

regards
If you mean the European exploration didn't happen — obviously never — since it did.

But there could be a very interesting history of the Southern Hemisphere still waiting to be written. As and when archeological documentation, written records etc. come to light, are reinterpreted, whatever.

The problem with your take on this — ALL THE TIME — is that all you seem to be able to think about is European historiography. And how you've somehow been robbed. I.e. how you are entitled to certain things, but paradoxically they ALL require European recognition to satisfy you. That's a weird amount of influence over yourself you end up granting Europe by it.

There are a common problem of historiography, and how it is limited by certain kinds of historical imagination. And historiography tells us that imagination changes over time, and should change, and we sure as hell aren't done with it. Which is good.

It is also a COMMON, GENERAL, SHARED challenge. But what you chose to do with it, is treat it all as a big Conspiracy...

That's a losing proposition, in every way. It will get you nothing. And mostly because, really, what you are CONSTANTLY on about, is implicitly how you just GAG for European recognition. But since you'd rather die than 'fess up to that – or so I surmise – you invert it all into a conspiratorial litany about Eurocentricism.

As if Indocentricism would solve anything – except perhaps provide some novelty value for a while — especially the kind you seem to specialize in, where your sensitivities demand European recognition, but you want to control every form and aspect it should take as well.

You really can't come up with anything more INTERESTING to do with all this?
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,251
i dont really understand why you comparing scandinavians with indians, sure scandinavians are trying to establish their prehistory beyond greek and romans but what has it got to do with the indians, dont you think the parallels you have drawn seem a bit random?
Because they expanded archaeological practices IN GENERAL and the overall range of possibilities in historical imagination. Last to fall in the Big Battle of the Three Period System in 19th c. Europe was Germany in the 1870's.

You do the same if you like, but just maybe stop fecking COMPLAINING over the general complicatedness of historiography.

The current trajectory of reforming and expanding historic understanding to get it out from under the ORIGINAL "Eurocentric" model of history – the Graeco-Roman – has been ongoing since at LEAST Johann Gottfried Herder was writing in the late 18th c. (The Scandinavians even had a precursor period in the 16-17th c. with Ole Worm Eriksen and Johannes Rudbeckius, Olof Verelius et al.)

If the Indians are somehow still handicapped by the British, they clearly need to do something about it. The trick is to actually come up with something interesting that isn't primarily somehow about compensating for being Indian. As if that was even asked for?
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,373
Portugal
i dont really understand why you comparing scandinavians with indians, sure scandinavians are trying to establish their prehistory beyond greek and romans but what has it got to do with the indians, dont you think the parallels you have drawn seem a bit random?
I think you didn’t understood or even read carefully his analogy. He is not comparing the Scandinavians with the Indians. He is comparing a methodology, a trend that existed in the 19th century in Scandinavia, with a certain trend that today appears to exist in India. Agreing or not the analogy doesn't seem a bit random.

what im stating is indians need to separate from colonial eurocentric narrative,
With that I think we can all agree. It doesn’t make sense and it is not beneficial that the Indian history made by Indians suffer from Eurocentrism, seeing here the word “Eurocentrism” in its dtymological sense: the view of history centred in Europe. I recall the English (European) historian Geoffrey Barraclough in his work “Main Trends in History”, from 1978, to praise the raise of new centres of perspective, including the Indian case. I also see quite interesting the collaboration of Indian historians with Portuguese ones (non-European in your definition) to study the impact and consequences of the arrival of the Europeans (in my definition) to India in the 16th century.

the present indian scholarship is discredited as ''nationalist'' just because it doesnt tow european/colonial lines and hence european scholarship becomes credible. This can only be achieved if indian institutions come out of colonial set up.
I don’t have much knowledge about the current state of affairs of the Indian scholarship in the discipline of history, but the ones that I know aren’t accused of nationalism, at least to my knowledge, and one case that I know, Kirti Chaudhuri, comes immediately to my mind.

i do believe that european scholarship tows british colonial line when it comes to india, i have read few papers and they seem to be towing the same colonial line, obviously dont speak german or french, i can only access english medium papers.
I think that since you state that don’t know much of the European non British scholarship it is unethical to generalise it and accuse it to tend to the British colonial line.

Anyway I would really appreciate that you answered to me to the question that I made about what are the contraposing “Indian standards” to the “European standards”? Let me thank you in advance if you answer to this.
 
what are the contraposing “Indian standards” to the “European standards”?
i have already made this point really clear in my first response, but anyway

its european scholarship which defines indian historiography and bases its conclusions on hindu vs muslim, it was historically done to make hindus and muslims distinct against each other, the way colonial historians perceived indian history was a clear division between them, hindu culture vs islamic culture, hindu art vs islamic art etc, the example i gave for this was indian dress such as kurta, it was declared as an islamic dress, indian historians needs to eliminate this perception of indian history, and should consult pre islamic evidences, for instance there are evidences of kurta even before islamic conquests, so kurtas are not islamic dresses etc, several indian culinary dishes have been declared ''islamic'' just because they were very famous during islamic ruling periods or have non indian persian or arabic names.

i hope you get my point now.

regards
 

Similar History Discussions