Dear List, I would request Phillip to kindly mention what ARchaeological evidence demonstrates that the earliest use of Iron in India was around 1000 B.C. And I hope Wiki wouldnt be a valid source to prove the point in Antiquity Field. I mentioned earlier that it had been existent in and before 2000 B.C. Kindly refer to reference mentioned in previous mail.
I do not understand how does one conclude that anything seen before 1000 B.C should be considered random appearance.My Friend Kenneth had mentioned that In Antiquity field personal research and conclusions are crucial and not considered valid.How do you explain your consideration about anything prior to 1000 B.C be considered as random appearance.ON what basis and How do you say that.
Well I had mentioned it earlier pl read my previous messages that I didnt prove by any reference that the Laddle was belonging to Indus valley civilization,apart from the Records of the Collector . But what other Members insisted that Iron and Iron artefacts were non existent in India before 2000 B.C was incorrect and hence my messages was for them to prove that Iron belonged to India prior to 2000 B.C.
I had attached pics of the Laddle for members to review it.
Even though Robert believed Iron in scarcity and lack of technology in India, I dont blame him, because many biased History texts have defamed Ancient Indian Technology as a way to boast their respective Technologies.And people speak what they learn from thost History Books.But no Regrets.But since Robert came to know about the REal fact he would be ready to learn the REal Story.Scarcity of knowledge and lack of correct conclusions has brought many Historians to believe that India was an under developed country before 2000 B.C. , which is incorrect.Instead India had much of the Technologies even during 5000 B.C as mentioned in many scriptures.But that is not the point of Our discussion so I would confine it to here. Regards,
Nirav
|
