Archaeology Updates (India)

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,890
Portugal
i hope you get my point now.
Not quite, you just mentioned again the standards that you classify as European (mostly meaning British to you) and the need of the Indian historians to concentrate in pre-Islamic sources. I already had understood those parts.

No worries. Probably I didn’t expressed well my doubts about what you consider to be the “Indian standards”. Let us move on and not derail this thread.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,843
Sydney
On the Tamil seamanship
it is possible for Tamil navigators to have somehow ended in the land of the long cloud
but one single artifact do not history make
The assertion that Vikings reaching north America is based on remain of their settlements and Saga naratives
there is claim of anyone having reached anywhere ,
unless there is a context , it is like smoke on the wind
 
The assertion that Vikings reaching north America is based on remain of their settlements and Saga naratives
nobody denies vikings reached north america, who denies that?

the norse settlment is different from finding datable tamil inscriptions from their ships which predates the european exploration, i dont think thats the case with the vikings.

the more credible evidence would be tamil texts and their geographic descriptions of new zealand, but then again, did indians ever leave lengthy acocunts of philippines, SEA, china etc are their any accounts of IVC exploring the persian gulf? but archaeology proves it any how isnt it?

what explains tamil bell landing up at NZ shore before european arrival? as i already stated one explanation would be portugese, but portugese presence itself is just a theory, another explanation would be tamils themselves, there is no any other alternate explanation.

regards
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,843
Sydney
the bell might have ended in possession of others , I'm not saying this is the case .
after all , a silver Buddha was found in a viking hoard alongside a Coptic ladle
probably the result of trade , tribute or pillage of some intermediate person
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,890
Portugal
This is really interesting rather mind blowing artifact, a metal bell simply cannot end up at new zealand shores by floating around, so tamil ships must have reached there and the dating is particularly interesting since it dates to pre european explored new zealand based on the type of tamil script which is archaic

i also think that eurocentric european scholars are playing down this artifact since their presumed notion is nobody reached/explored new zealand before europeans did, so automatically the tamil ship must have been seized and transported to new zealand by europeans like portugese etc. completely rejecting the possibility that tamils might have landed on new zealand shores which i think more eurocentric then anything else. It is suggested that portugese might have used tamil ships while exploring new zealand, but portugese exploration is also merely a theory since no concrete evidence of their presence there.

thirdly if tamils could have reached SEA, china, philippines etc why couldn't have they explored new zealand or australia which were all really interconnected anyway including philippines and several indonesian merchants were known to have traded with northern parts of australia and its inhabitants.

There are possibilities of tamil ships being captured by europeans etc as they state it happened, but then, why isnt it a possibility that tamils didn't reach there already?

given that how indian navigation is so blatantly undermined and downplayed im not surprised at this european narrative to be honest.

Tamil bell - Wikipedia

how long before all these ''european exploration'' stuff is debuned and challenged?

regards
Pardon me to say, but I think that you see conspiracy theories from the “Europeans” everywhere. Not that there was and in some way still exists a Eurocentric tendency in much of the European historiography, but any artefact that is found out of place is always going to be a theme of a strong debate. And having that debate or raising the questions is not necessarily a question of “Eurocentrism”.

From what you wrote, and from the link that you provided to Wikipedia (and I didn’t knew the artefact before), it is really an open question how the artefact reached New Zealand. It was brought by the Tamils to New Zealand? Apparently it is a possibility, but this artefact found out of context isn’t surely the final prove that the Tamils were there before the Europeans. It is more raising a new possibility than closing other. But only in theoretical terms the reverse reasoning could be made, the Maoris could had trade it (or found it) in other place.

As for the Portuguese using Asian ships (including here Tamil ships), that happened a lot. But the possibility that the Portuguese reached New Zealand it always seemed to me a bit far reached. The theory that the Portuguese reached Australia is much more credible, and yet it is a theory, due again the lack of sources. It is hard to interpret some of the sources and to identify clearly many of the lands and islands.

As for “some Indonesia merchants were known to have traded with northern parts of australia and its inhabitants” I know that it is a strong possibility, since it is quite near, but you have a source for that? That is quite interesting and I wasn't aware of those links.

Furthermore in these things of reaching some far land we always should make the clear distinction of a permanent route and trade links on one side and on the other of an ephemeral contact due to a ships being dragged on a storm or the survivors of a shipwreck.

the bell might have ended in possession of others , I'm not saying this is the case .

after all , a silver Buddha was found in a viking hoard alongside a Coptic ladle
probably the result of trade , tribute or pillage of some intermediate person
Precisely. Again, artefacts founded out of historical or archaeological context sometimes introduce more noise than light to the themes. I recall that in the 18th century were found Carthaginian coins in the islands of Azores (Portugal), out of context, and a wide number of theories (some wild) raised quickly.
 
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.
If you are interested, for context here is the locked thread How credible/biased is european/western scholarship regarding Indian topics, does it reek of some phobia? You can immediately see why it was locked as it is more of a one sided rant than a thread but still.

@Ashoka maurya I've been reading through your threads and comments and I have to ask: Why are you obsessed with European historiography on India so much? It seems like you repeatedly attack European views of Indian history and critique them as ''colonial bias'' or eurocentrism yet you seem to frequently show one-sided and biased views, just like the ones you claim you are against. On earlier threads involving Churchill or Alexander, you attacked the people that said positive things about them and claimed how due to the Indian point of view they are bad, you called Churchill ''a fat little demon worse than Hitler'' and you preceded to show a complete lack of understanding or solid evidence on Churchill or his actions, rather ironically and dare I say it hypocritically shoving the western or any positive view of him aside and dismissing it as colonial propaganda.

For the ones that don't know what I'm talking about: Which Historical Figure was Most 'Sugar-Coated' Post Factum?

That being said, why are you so obsessed with European points of view and ''colonial propaganda'' and their opinions on Indian history? I would be fine with it if you took a more civil, objective approach and backed your more radical claims up with serious evidence and counter-evidence and not an out of context, one sided slivers of source material such as the ones in your locked thread. If you oppose colonialism or European historiography you are free to do so and express your opinion but at least make rational, non-hyperbolic arguments and hold a civil discussion when challenged.
 
why are you so obsessed with European points of view and ''colonial propaganda'' and their opinions on Indian history?
because thats what indian history has become, for more info you can check this article and learn more about indian historiography and eurocentrism, its not like im obsessing over it, it is a very well known phenomenon acknowledged by european scholars themselves and one repeatedly encounters it, as one reads through indian history.

Historiography of India - Wikipedia

if alternate non european indian sources are presented, the english medium simply rejects it as bogus source, just because its indian and non european and is not propagating european agenda.

on churchill, i have presented his secretary views on himself who compared him to hitler, so hardly an indian POV, i think europeans are in denial when it comes to lots of their issues.

regards
 
Last edited: