Dear Kenneth, Thanks for your reply.But My Dear Friend, I have only One Head.Whether you call it Nationalistic or Global. Hence, I cant pull my head out.YOu would have to manage with this head.for now. I did Request for comments and suggestions from Group Members regarding the item,but I m not confused in any way.Only the thing is We are Misdirected to the subject of Iron Artefacts made in India around 2000 B.C instead of Talking on the Laddle.Most of members are discussing to the point on the Laddle. Secondly, Manufacture of Iron objects in India around 2000 B.C is a Fact and doesnt need to be discussed.Also it makes no sense on challenging a Proven fact, however, if you are interested and willing, then you are free to challenge all those Arhcaeologists, Engineers, Historians who have proved that Iron Artefacts and Casting were prevalent in India around 2000 B.C. I have shown you number of links who speak of the fact and for more it would suitable for you to discuss with them, since I am busy with my listing and my Business. And I wouldnt be paid for proving you that Iron artefacts were prevalent in India around 2000 B.C. I do understand you and Robert very good.And whether you assume that the Books listed were understood by me or not is not the issue.The Point is I had mentioned it for your reference to Read them if you came across to find the Evidences and Facts that I have mentioned about Iron Age In India around 1000- 2000 B.C. For Your clarification, Robert mentioned that Iron age in India started around 9th Century A.D. and Hence I said that He seems to be excited that His idea of what he mentioned is correct.But unfortunately, Iron age in India existed even around 2000 B.C. speaking about Robert, I think you are misleading the point here,I did never say he has an Agenda, it is your interpretation.So pl dont blame me for that.Robert is a very nice guy and I know him very well.Still unknowingly If I have hurt him, I offer my sincere apologies to Robert. I am very glad that you read my Mind.But I m sorry to say that you have read it incorrectly.I hope you read it correct next time. I do not want to make this a Political Discussion.Just confining the discussion to Archaeological and some what Historical is ok. And I dont differentiate between my Indian Friends, Chinese Friends and American Friends. Friends are Friends, whether from China, India,Russia , Iran , North Korea, South Korea. I Think I dont need to address some baseless allegations as they are timeconsuming and energyconsuming not related to the Group.I m not and have not posted any message for any conspiracy (white or Black).Secondly, I am aware of much of the History of India and for that part which I dont know, I welcome suggestions and comments from Fellow Group Members.I and hopeful you wont take this as conspiracy. But Referring to one message, When I said" As far as Iron artefacts in India are concerned, I am more aware of it ", I did mean that I was sure of Iron artefacts belonging to 2000 B.C prevalent in India. I didnt mean to say that I am more knowledgable than Robert.because Robert is more experienced than me in this field and has more knowledge than myself. Addressing a Person as a Friend is a Good thing.But If you consider it as insincerely,I would refer you as Dear Kenneth.Your choice. I do agree and understand that you have suggested that Wiki is not a Proven source to be used to judge the Authenticity of an Artefact in Antiquity Field.And One should look for more genuine sources of Reference to Correlate that Reference with Antiquity to define its Authenticity. That is a Point that I would work upon and I do feel you are correct on that. There is no hesitation in accepting my Shortcoming and accepting your suggestions.Secondly if I called you a Friend, then I meant it .If you don't believe its your choice. Well , I did know it before and now that Iron existed and Iron artifacts were made in India around 2000 B.C,but it has nothing to do with my Laddle.Because I wanted to know whether this Laddle belonged to that Age or not.And as my Friend Firdause suggested, that There is lack of corrosion as per the Age of 2000 B.C, I do Think that there is a Point. And anyway I am going to List it ,but I think I would rather list it as an Ancient Civilization Laddle rather than specifically belonging to 2000 B.C Indus Valley. Because I don't want to Mislead any Clients who Buy this Item. Casting was a New or Old practice in India during 2000 B.C, is not sure,But it was prevalent in India during that period is sure.Well, If you talk about Blast Furnace, You did be rather astonished to know that it was known to Indians.It is known as Bhatti. In Sanskrit. One could very well understand that a Civilization which has a Very developed Language could develop more sophisticated tEchnologies and Civlization than others. Sanskrit is an Ancient Language and rarely spoken In India today except some Pockets.But Sanskrit is the most developed and Grammatically Correct Language in the World , is an established Fact.I hope you would have no problem with that. Secondly, I am not aware if any Indian or other National called your Chinese Friend a "Stooge". I don't like a Person being called a "Stooge",moreover I don't like that feeling of a person calling something like that. I don't know who called and you have not mentioned any reference so I cant comment onthat.But I offer my condolences to your Chinese Friend for being called so. And Hope no one calls him that word Again. I don't have ebay Ids of those who attended the Conference,Else I would have directly sold them if they did be interested in Collecting Antiquities.And it doesn't make any sense on removing your Anger over the Engineers for speaking out the Truth.The link was a Valid Reference. Regards, Nirav
Nirav, Pull your nationalistic head out. You asked for comments and you still seem to be confused in what people actually reply. "...Indians in their lust for white skin just repeated what the West taught." You show your true colours. You however know the 'truth' beyond white peoples lies? If you can't even cite Robert or myself properly than why should I assume any of the long list of books you gave was understood by you either. Rather than giving a list of scholarly titles, with the inference they support a pseudo-history I have no confidence you represent them accurately. If you want to move beyond a Wiki article then give me an established dating in "....18. Srinivasan, S. and Griffiths, D., Crucible steel from south
India, preliminary investigations on some newly identified sites,1997," I do not believe for a second they would be citing scriptures or claiming India worked iron before the ancient civilisations in Mesopotamia.
Your poor reading comphrehension is shown repeatedly in responses on this subject on AncientArtifacts, in the most recent I will give a few where you cross wires and confuse points. Just now you claim I said "...that Stone and Metal dont go side by side in the same period.Good point." Nonsense. Absolutely wrong way around. I pointed out that stone and bronze were both worked by the same culture on your link, as did others in an early "transitional" period. They do exist side by side, just like in other cultures. This is metallurgy in its emergent period. Of Robert you say: ...."I think you are more than excited to show that Iron artefacts were
not prevalent in India before 9th Century A.D {or} ...you think that because
Iron was not made or even INVENTED in India before 9th Century A.D....." yet this is not what he said at all. You suggest he has agenda.. I can see who has an agenda however. You seem to not be able to follow the discussions here. Note your own source dates the Pillar of Delhi to the 9th century AD, but Robert did not say this was the earliest iron in India but he mentioned the date the pillar was made correctly. Re-read and show me where he said Indians did not work iron untill the 9th century AD. He did not. The sourced you cited to Phil Jones that says iron objects were made in 2,000 BC is not an archaeological analysis but a foreword into a modern discussion of iron working by modern engineers and was not the primary purpose of the paper. The primary information on the Delhi, Roopar and Nashik excavation sites is needed instead since this is just hearsay. Assuming this non-archaeological paper is even correct (and in reading you do need to check primary sources as not all printed words are equal) then it still requires a distinction with meteoric iron, that was also worked in other bronze age societies. Take note of this point. Meteoric iron was worked almost 1,000 years before the true Iron Age in China as a rare exotic material. The source you use is a paper of Mechinal Engineers with just a short part on 'history' during which it claims lost wax, bronze casting and iron working all came from India and was brought to Europe. Wow. This is psuedo-history since such metal working began in the 'cradle of civilisation' area, which is the near East, and iron working is shown via archaeology to enter via the Balkans both later & sequential in a manner than tracks it from this direction. The opening serves as an audascious "feel good" for the Indian audience before it delves into its primary actual purpose (modern casting/fabrication of metals).. You say:...."My Friend Kenneth had mentioned that In Antiquity
field personal research and conclusions are crucial and not considered valid." You are using the term 'friend' insincerely and also I only suggested you look beyond Wiki, and nothing else. How can conclusions be crucial and yet not considered valid? Is that what I said? You make no sense. I said that you need to confirm statements outside of Wiki as a source. You still do. The list of references you gave that you suggest Phil Jones reads I dont for a second believe you have grasped them either. Cite a passage from one that says i.e: "Iron was worked by casting and forging direct from iron ore in India in 2,000 BC based on metallurgical analysis of an excavated site" .....but dont try to use them irresponsibly. you say: ...."the reference I had mentioned {Conference on Investment casting }clearly suggests the cire perdue method of Casting,
which not only persisted to Brass and Gold but also included Iron and Zinc." Huh? Iron and Zinc lost wax casting? Lost wax casting of iron? ....Iron? lost wax casting of Zinc? (do they mean zinc-bronze or brass?) You need to find the facts behind these statements since these people are clearly not archaeologists nor do they really elaborate by citing a document or artefact, or analysis to confirm this. These are not academic writings, i.e what Bronze-Age artefact at this time was ever found to be manufactured in true brass? "Lost wax casting" of iron is a new & novel concept for 2,000 BC, to state the obvious since casting of iron requires the specific technologis as Robert outlined. Are there blast furnaces in India at this time? Nope. If you believe Indians were using iron in 2,000 BC then list your ladle for sale as such and don't bother with this group. I am aware of Indian nationalisms affect on historical discussion, I have known Indians to attack Chinese historians with claims of 'We were first!' over an invention (one Chinese-author friend was accused of being a stooge of Europeans & Americans! Lol) . This is when history becomes an ugly tool of ego.. Discussions over this are futile I suspect. Please don't post artefacts for comment if you then want to invoke a white conspiracy against true history which you alone are privy to. Why did you ask or opinions when you already know all the 'facts?' (cough) You believe it is potentially 4,000 years old. Sell it to one of the people from the conference you mentioned then. Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:55 am (PDT) Dear Friend Kokotailo, Thanks for your message.I think you are more than excited to show that Iron artefacts were not prevalent in India before 9the Century A.D. I hope your statement date about Iron artefacts in China about 6th Century B.C is confirmed.If any change pl let me know. Now let me classify my message : 1) Indus valey civilization Iron laddle ,1800- 2000 B.C 2) The laddle acquired from a Collector. (does it belong to Indus valley civilization) As far as my First message was concerned whether the Laddle I acquired is actually as old as Indus valley civilization ,1800 -2000 B.C as per the Collector.If not then I requested a reasonable reason from the Group Members. Well, My reason for why I believed it to be belonging to Indus valley civilization had been mentioned in the previous message.Apart from that I have no idea about it. But if you think that because Iron was not made or even INVENTED in India before 9th Century A.D. Then I would definitely deny your statement.As far as Iron artefacts in India are concerned I would say I am more aware about its existence in India about or before 2000 B.C. Also the reference I had mentioned clearly suggests the cire perdue method of Casting, which not only persisted to Brass and Gold but also included Iron and Zinc.I would be more than glad to hear from you that when do you think Zinc was first discovered in India and rest of the world. As you said Wiki is just for guidance and not as a valid proof.I would say pl refer to http://tinyurl. com/38579f < http://tinyurl. com/38579f> . It is from a Google Book, written ,published by the Conference on Investment casting ,NCIC 2003 at the Durgapur,WestBengal ,India Central Mechanical Engineering Research Insitute. I Hope you dont find Google Books unreliable.And you are comfortable with the Mechanical Engineering Research Institute , Or could visit it personally to challenge them about their Papers in the National conference on Investment casting. Secondly going into how many degrees Celsius is required to melt Iron, copper and Gold and other metals is a Long subject,I would be glad to rather confine the message to Iron casting method and Iron artefacts in India as about 2000 B.C. If you wish We would discuss the topic of temperature for casting metals in detail later or in private. I would just like to conclude that, whether Ancient Indians were aware of which technology was not a matter,but what We are aware of those Ancient Technologies in India is surely in Doubt. Regarding the Iron Pillar that some one stated to be of 4 th Century A.D. My dear friend could you pl explain me what research made you conclude that it was not of good quality Iron and had much phosphorus init. Because it would of much help that you have solved the Big mystery which other websites are still exploring. Regards, Nirav Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:00 am (PDT)
Dear Mr. Blair,
Thanks for your valuable message.I would
like to repeat that the Reply I Posted previously was correct
and to the point assuming that You are aware of Iron being casted
by cire perdue method (presently called Investment casting).I
didnt feel it necessary to mention that Iron was used to cast
using that method for more than 2 pieces of casting.I felt it was
know to everyone..But However, In my message addressed to Mr.
Robert Kokotailo, Pl refere to the reference that I have made.It
clearly mentions the Use of Iron and Iron made artefacts ranging
from small to big size used during and before 2000B.C .I would
also show you more ancient scriptures proving the fact.
I Think if Mr. Kokotailo read "Shiv Puran"
he would find numerous examples of Iron and Iron artefacts
ranging from Utensils to Arms and Armour of highest quality made
during those days.If I remember Robert has read Those scriptures
and was interested in it.as mentioned in one of his emails.
I do not blame Mr. Kenneth Blair for
his explanation of Iron artefacts not made in India during 2000
B.C, because you are a Modern Person and speak what has been
taught to you by the so called Touts of World History. Ancient
India had Technologies in those days which were of the highest
Kind.Some were known to only a small circle and some to all in
common.But Modernism and Newton and Darwin Theories replaced
those Ancient knowledge and Indians in their lust for white skin
just repeated what the West taught.Today even India is foremost
in Technology but it is way backward in comparison to Ancient
India.some of the Rare technologies have become extinct and are
unaware of .West has never known it nor has even thought of some
technolgy in their dreams.For them Newton is God and his theory
are the end of their Science world.But Newton just translated
the Ancient Indian Theory of "Gurutvakarshan" in English and
became a Hero.Whereas Foolish Indians looked at him with much
wonder and never considered their Own Ancient technology as
Pride.Above that, their are ways to be free from "Atmospheric
pressure":. Newtons Discovery.but surely not the first discovery.
Mr kenneth means to say that Stone and Metal dont go
side by side in the same period.Good point.But I would not
contradict him rather say that India is a fast growing
country,but there are people within the country, Bhils, in
Dang,Gujarat, India who live in the aboriginal way using stone
chisels and wearing leaves made clothings.The place is just
beside the Heavy Engineering zone manufacturing Gear Boxes and
goods and also Indias Biggest Textile and Cloth Manufacturing
Industry, Surat. How would you explain this.
Assam in Eastern India has oil refineries, but people
living in vicinity are wearing tribal cloths and using stone
chisels and axe till today.do you believe me, if not visit it
personally and say that It is wrong.
The area where least technology has touched, is
andaman Nicobar Island.The local tribal people do not speak,they
have their own language yet not decoded by Brilliant scientists
and do not wear any clothng, but just remain Nude living in
families and eating Fruits from trees as only means of
livelihood.No arrow, no Chisel, just stones to break nuts.People
think them as dumb, and Indians being smart think they are very
advanced .But the same Advanced educated Modern Indians were
drowned in the ocean during the Tsunami, which they never were
able to predetermine nor Their advanced technology like ships, or
helicoptors or medical science save them.Thousands perished in
the sea.But it came to knowledge after research that those
aboriginals from Andaman Nicobar Islands living without houses,
got an Idea about the Tsunami before it struck and ran uphill and
stayed there till the waters subsided.NONE of Those were Dead
in the Ravaging SEA.But still are considered Technologically
Backward.
So never think that Stone chisels and electric
drills cant be found side by side..It is possible in the Same
period, forget about Transitional Periods.
My Dear Friend, What I replied till now was about the
fact that Iron and Iron artefacts were prevalent in India during
and before 2000 B.C.But regarding the Iron Laddle, I had no
provenance apart from the Collector from whose collection I
acquired.Secondly I use his Records to say that It belonged to
Indus valley civilization, I do not by myself just speak it to
be belonging to Indus Valley.But I do think that you do your own
research to show that Iron didnt prevail during 2000 B.C in
India.In that case you should challenge the Mechanical Research
Institute and many other Institutes and Individuals who say that
Iron was prevalent in India before 2000 B.C.Are you ready for
doing that.
I suggest you think if relying on independent
thoughts and confirming is possible to prove that Iron didnt
exist in India during that period.I too like Wiki and refering to
wiki because many Group members refer it as a proof within many
examples of Roman artefacts to be correct.If you dont believe in
Wiki How did Group members prove those Artefacts to be Real or
fake.Secondly I have refered to the National Conference papers,
by Mech Eng Insitute, Durgapur. I hope that is not and
independent Thought.
Still if you have any queries pl dont hesitate to
contact me on Group message or in private.
Regards,
Nirav.
Further Reference to Iron In Ancient India.
Suggestions for further reading
1. Agrawal, D. P. and Ghosh, A. (eds.). 1971, The Copper-
bronze Age in India. Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.
2. Agrawal. O. P., Narain, H., Prakash, J. and Bhatia, S. K.
1992, Development of Iron Metallurgy in Ancient India,
Archeometallurgia Richerche e Prospettive, Bologna.
3. Anantharaman, T. R. 1997, The Rustless Wonder, Vigyan
Prasar, New Delhi..
4. Prakash, B. (ed.) 1997 (in press), Archaeometallurgy,
Proceedings of the World Archaeology Congress-3 held at New
Delhi, Dec. 1994, Routledge, London.
5. Bhardwaj, H. C. 1979, Aspects of Ancient Indian Technology,
Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi.
6. Biswas, A. K. and Biswas, S.. 1996, Minerals and Metals in
Ancient India, 2 vol. D.K. Printworld, New Delhi.
7. Chakrabarti, D. K. 1992, The Early Use of Iron in India,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
8. Craddock, P. T. 1995, Early Metal Mining and Production,
University Press, Edinburgh.
9. Ganorkar, M. C. and Rama Rao, N. (eds), 1991, Role of
Chemistry in Archaeology, Birla Archaeological Institute,
Hyderabad.
10. Hegde, K. T. M. 1991, An Introduction to Ancient Indian
Metallurgy, Geological Society of India, Bangalore.
11. Kuppuram, G. 1989, Ancient Mining, Metallurgy and Metal
Industries in India, 2 vols. Sundeep Prakashan, New Delhi.
12. Radhakrishna, B. P and Curtis, L. C. 1991, Gold, The Indian
Scene. Geological Society of India, Bangalore,
13. Smith, C. S. 1981, A Search for Structure, MIT Press,
Boston.
14. Srinivasan, 1997(In press), Archaeometallurgy of Bronze
Images and High-tin Bronzes from South India, (D.Phil. thesis
research, University College London), Indicopleustoi & IGNCA,
Brussels.
15. Sundaram, C. V., N Rajagopalan and Baldev Raj (eds.) 1997,
(In Press) Where Gods Come Alive, Vigyan Prasar, New Delhi.
16. Srinivasan, S., High tin bronze working in Kerala, in
Tripathi, V. (ed.)Archaeometallu rgy in India, Proceedings of the
First National Seminar in Indian Archaeometallurgy, 1991, Sharda
Publishing Ltd., New Delhi.
17. Srinivasan, S and Glover, S., Wrought and quenched, and
cast high tin bronzes from Kerala, Journal of Historical
Metallurgy, 29(2), London
18. Srinivasan, S. and Griffiths, D., Crucible steel from south
India, preliminary investigations on some newly identified sites,
in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology, Materials Research
Society Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 462, 1997, Materials Research
Society, Pittsburgh, USA
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002. |
