India's $22B treasure trove has great 'archeological significance': expert

Edmonton News ^ | July 4, 2011 | Carmen Chai, Postmedia News

[Pan_Yan]

While one of India's richest temples is garnering worldwide attention for its estimated $22-billion treasure trove, a Canadian researcher says archeologists, scholars, economists and even jewellers are eager to flock to the site to study its historical impact.

The haul from the underground chambers of a medieval Hindu temple in Thiruvananthapuram, India, included enormous quantities of gold coins dating back to the era of French military leader Napoleon Bonaparte, and silk bundles full of diamonds, jewelry and Belgian gold — all artifacts that could help researchers paint of a picture of what world trade looked like between the 16th and 19th century, said Amitava Chowdhury, a Queen's University history professor who was an archeologist in Mauritius for several years.

"This finding showed the kind of international trade in billions of precious items, the evolution of jewelry and stone cutting, coins from all over the world. As an archeologist, what's interesting to me is what you can find out about various cultures based on these precious commodities," he said.

K.N. Panikkar, an eminent India historian, told international reporters the treasure was most likely a combination of gifts donated by devotees to the shrine built by Travancore maharajas.

The donations help illustrate how wealthy local and international merchants were and what they had on hand to offer to their deities, Chowdhury said.

With five vaults uncovered, a team named by the country's Supreme Court to monitor the treasure hunt said the valuables could be worth up to a trillion rupees or $22 billion.

"The size of it is staggering," Chowdhury said. "But the archeological significance perhaps outweighs the monetary value of it."

A sixth vault was to be explored Monday while a seventh vault — reinforced with iron walls — will be opened only under direction from India's top court, Agence France-Presse reported.

Chowdhury said the seventh chamber is likely the oldest in the temple and could contain dazzling artifacts dating back to the 16th century when the temple was constructed.

India's national conservation agency, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), said it was stunned by the findings.

"Right now we are working in absolute darkness and we only know that fabulous treasure is pouring out," ASI Director-General Gautam Sengupta told AFP.

"No archeologist has ever experienced vault after vault being opened and treasures being discovered like this," Sengupta said in New Delhi, adding that many of the Hindu shrines across India were "very rich."

Chowdhury said there are thousands of temples in South India but only about 20 are in the same league as this latest hoard of treasures.

Armed commandos cordoned off the South Indian temple, which he anticipated is slated to become the India's richest temple.

The site will probably become a "unique place on the Indian heritage map," adding another layer of protection to the region, Chowdhury said.

For now, surveillance will be in place around the clock and security forces are setting up a special control centre, including a three-tier security ring involving 100 armed policemen.

"It seems to be the only thing you can do in this situation. Decisions might be made to move the hold and ancient coins to a more secure location later on," Chowdhury said.

Since India achieved independence from Britain in 1947, a trust managed by descendants of the Travancore royal family has controlled the temple, AFP reported.

[Cronos]

"British rule" is correct -- with the "" -- the Brits were initially traders purely, and their rule remained more or less like that until the end

They were smart and resourceful and played one nation against the other (as they did in Europe) to their own advantage

In the end they did impact India and they DID enrich themselves to India's disadvantage (by making it a captive market and captive source of raw materials), but they cannot be compared to the other European powers (except Spain and Portugal) in that respect

India's contribution to world GDP in 1800 was about 26%. There are sites on the net that talk about historical gdp like this: theworldeconomy.org

Or better yet this which says that in

1500, GDP of India, China and the world were respectively (in 1990 US$ million): 60,500 61,800 and 247,116 which gives India and China both about 24% of world GDP

In 1820 this is: 111,417 228,6000 and 694,442, so India was 15% of world GDP, China was 30%. Angus Maddison wrote the same -- the economy of the combined sub-continent was 25% of world GDP in 1700 (higher than all of Europe combined) -- though studying this you see that world GDP increased in the 1800s while India and China stagnated. Arguably India stagnated as it didn't initially participate in the Industrial revolution and the British discouraged its growth in India as well until Jehangir Tata started the first factories etc.

Asia did not go "backwards" if one treats Asia as countries. By that I mean that say india's GDP and China's GDP stagnated while Western Europe's followed by america and then eastern europe zoomed ahead.

however, at an individual level they went backwards, just as it did to a lower extent in the rest of the world -- as the 1800s progressed, medical science improved so more people lived, while food, etc. couldn't keep up. Hence the squalor in London until the Edwardian era etc.

What India and China are doing since 1990 and 1978 respectively is zooming at the same rate that Western Europe did in the Victorian era.

the USA won't go backwards but it cannot compete at the same pace as China or India and those two countries have the weight of populations demanding a better life

[Cronos]

The massive take-off of Western European economies is also due to population pressure

Not many folks realise this now, but for much of the centuries since the fall of the Roman Empire, right until the 1800s, France was 25% of Europe's entire population and was in fact the third largest country in the world after China and india

no wonder French was the language of culture -- it supplanted Italy as the centre of culture and power.

Even in the 1800s, at the start, France's population was double that of all of Germany's, but then the French population stagnated, in fact stopped growing while GErmany's doubled and went ahead by 1890 and it's now 81 million as opposed to France's 63 million.

Or better yet take England and Wale's demographics -- at the time of Henry 8 it was just about 2.5 to 4 million in the entire country, by the Napoleonic wars it was only slightly better, maybe 8 million, but by 1900 it had zoomed.

Population explosion filled with medical benefits and discoveries caused a virtuous cycle -- if you check and see the places where things were invented in the 1800s it was in that narrow triangle between London, Paris and Amsterdam -- cutting across religious grounds. Smart people congregate and feed off each other's ideas and feed off ideas across disciplines

It's the same reason Silicon Vally still creates tech wonders and why Bangalore is doing the same.

The problem for the USA is that it is now turning away smart immigrants, folks who get their Phds in American universities have to undergo the same lottery system as an unskilled worker.

Not a smart idea..

[Cronos]

SEtting the historical background -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king.  When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above.  France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas.  The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy   The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.  These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce.   Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic.  In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union.   The strongest nation-state is Denmark.  Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s.   Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies.  This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!).  Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states.  This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc.  Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors.  Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural.  However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule.   Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe.   Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains.  Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes.  Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great.  It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems.  Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews.  This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar).  However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants.  The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs.  The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity.  It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

[Cronos]

Equally obviously, these areas were impoverished by comparison to Europe by 1900.

hmmm... by 1900? in 1800, India's population was (from this site) 255 million. By 1900 it was 271 million -- a 10% growth in contrast the UK went from 10,5 million in 1801 to 35,5 million in 1900 -- a growth of 250%.

Keeping this population stagnation in India in mind and it's impoverishment in a century coupled with the numerous famines in the most populous parts like Bengal, I do think that perhaps the British captive market policy had an effect (ok, I'm contradicting myself, but this is all just musings -- I'm learning myself as we discuss!)

[Sherman Logan]

Not entirely accurate.

The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.

These countries were very wealthy and were not "part of Spain." They were ruled by the Habsburg family, but as separate and in many ways more important to them in 1500 than Spain was. In fact, Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain was considered a Fleming when he first went to Spain. The "Spanish Netherlands" didn't become such till conquered by Spain in the religious wars.

Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence.

"Belgium" was conquered by Spain during the 16th century, with Protestants wisely fleeing to Holland. It is successively ruled by Spain and Austria till conquered by revolutionary France. It isn't handed over to Holland till the peace after Waterloo. So ruled by Holland for only about 15 years.

[himno hero]

...I am still musing about that secure seventh chamber. Huge earthly wealth was relatively unprotected..... so? What requires steel reinforcement? Something far more valuable or disasterously oninous?

[Sherman Logan]

I’m speculating myself.

However, comparing the growth in wealth and population of Britain with the relative stagnation of both in India and blaming it on British policy makes a couple of not necessarily warranted assumptions.

1. Famines would not have occurred had the Brits not been there. Since famine has been a long recurring theme in India, this doesn’t seem likely.

2. Without British intervention an independent India would have had its own Industrial Revolution. I see no particular reason for this to be the case. The scientific and industrial revolutions were unique in history and occurred only as a result of very specific conditions in western Europe.

It also leaves out of account the major beneficial effect of British rule. End of the constant wars between Indian states, not to mention repeated invasion from Afghanistan and Persia. While such wars weren’t high tech by our standards, they generally had 30 Years War levels of damage to those fought over.

FTM, the very idea of “India” as a nation-state was an imported European idea. Left to themselves it is likely India would still be cut up into dozens or hundreds of “nations,” not three.

[OB1kNOb]

That 7th vault has my interest. All the gold and diamonds were relatively unprotected, whereas the 7th vault is reinforced with steel. Was that to keep things in or out??

This news begs for a new Indiana Jones movie - Curse of the Steel Vault.

[Vide]

Perhaps, had he not been otherwise occupied in the Iberian Peninsular, Wellesley (Wellington) might have gone back to India and accelerated the “annexation” of the Southern states.

My previous post was a little intemperate as I’d just watched a quite nasty piece of Chinese revisionist propaganda - “Shaolin”. As Chinese growth slows we’ll no doubt see more appeals to the urban bourgeoisie’s sense of “higher values” in the face of “foreign imperialism”.

The Indian political classes are “lucky” to have the Pakistani bogeyman and a history of “colonial oppression” to deflect domestic discontent.

So what can the media and establishment *here* do to quell/re-direct discontent? The “War on Terror” is wearing thin and the vilification of the Tea Party seems counter-productive.

I’d predict more theatrical appeals to “lower values”: legalization of marijuana and gay marriage are reliable standbys.

[Cronos]

Thanks, though the proper thing would be to say that both the Low countries and spain were ruled by one branch of the Hapsburgs

[Cronos]

1. Not really -- famines before the brits were not as severe as people could and did move from famine struck areas to others. Under the Brits in the 1800s that movement was curtailed

2. it's possible that parts of India would -- especially the south.

Let's not forget that India has a lot of diverse countries inside it and is technically more a continent than a country

[Cronos]

a history of “colonial oppression” to deflect domestic discontent.

that canard is so old it's not even used by politicians in India any more -- it doesn't work.

[ravager]

” however if it wasn’t for the British Raj, Winston Churchill never would have fought the Muslim Pathans in the North with Sikh soldiers... “

In the same vein, the British Raj enlisted the Muslims king, the Nizam of Hyderabad to fight against the Marathas. The British got help from the the Muslim Nawab of Oudh to fight the Kumaons and Gorkhas in the Anglo-Nepal wars. And the British used Muslim recruits from northern Punjab, frontier provinces, united province and Bengal to fight the Sikhs in the Anglo-Sikh wars. So you can thank the British for using the Muslims to beat the Hindus and Sikhs. History of India was a a history of Islamic terror being replaced by European terror. Even today, Pakistan is a threat to India only and only because of Billion of dollars of military aid and weaponry coming from US and UK.

[ravager]

” however if it wasn’t for the British Raj, Winston Churchill never would have fought the Muslim Pathans in the North with Sikh soldiers... “

In the same vein, the British Raj enlisted the Muslims king, the Nizam of Hyderabad to fight against the Marathas. The British got help from the the Muslim Nawab of Oudh to fight the Kumaons and Gorkhas in the Anglo-Nepal wars. And the British used Muslim recruits from northern Punjab, frontier provinces, united province and Bengal to fight the Sikhs in the Anglo-Sikh wars. So you can thank the British for using the Muslims to beat the Hindus and Sikhs. History of India was a a history of Islamic terror being replaced by European terror. Even today, Pakistan is a threat to India only and only because of Billion of dollars of military aid and weaponry coming from US and UK.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I agree with you...

[ravager]

“The Indian political classes are “lucky” to have the Pakistani bogeyman and a history of “colonial oppression” to deflect domestic discontent.”

Pakistan is a “bogeyman” huh? I wonder if it would have been better for the US to have Pakistan as her neighbor instead of Mexico? US and Pakistan would have lived as happy neighbors no? Between Pakistan and Mexico, any Indian would pick Mexico hands down. Mexico($8142 per capita GDP larger then India!) even with drugs trade and illegal immigrants and would be BY FAR more preferable to Pakistan ($955 GDP), 170 million people,with narcotic trade,terrorists, insurgents,training camps, madrassas, nukes......often referred to as the most dangerous place in the world. Ask yourself between Mexico and Pakistan which one is the real “bogeyman” that serves to deflect domestic discontent. I can easily think of a few American domestic discontent for which Mexico can possibly serve as a bogyman.

[ravager]

“The British Raj was imperfect but certainly preferable to the alternatives.”

That is like saying Soviet Union was a good thing for Russia, Eastern Europe and erstwhile Soviet Republics because the alternative would have been Nazi Germany.

Nope. For Indians the only alternative is independent India not a matter of choice between two evils or a dozen evil for that matter.

Besides it wasn't just industrial revolution. Britain would not have become the empire it became without the wealth of her colonies with just inventions alone. And yes raj bhatia is 100% correct to say India before British constituted 26% of world economy and 1% after the British.

[ravager]

“1. Famines would not have occurred had the Brits not been there. Since famine has been a long recurring theme in India, this doesn’t seem likely.”

There were very rare instances of famines in pre-British India. Bengal was the leading food producer in pre-British India. Famines became re-current under the British especially because they were man-made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1770

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

Bengal under independent India never had any famines.
Yes Bengal famines were definitely the result of British policy.

“I see no particular reason for this to be the case. The scientific and industrial revolutions were unique in history and occurred only as a result of very specific conditions in western Europe.”

India and China prior to industrial revolution in Europe were FAR more technologically advanced then Europe. Beside Japan serves as an Asian example for a country that had its own industrial revolution while being independent.

“It also leaves out of account the major beneficial effect of British rule. End of the constant wars between Indian states, not to mention repeated invasion from Afghanistan and Persia. While such wars weren’t high tech by our standards, they generally had 30 Years War levels of damage to those fought over.”

Actually the wars fought by Indian mercenaries under the British in Afghanistan, opium wars in China, plus two World Wars took a far heavier toll on India both socially and economically.

“Left to themselves it is likely India would still be cut up into dozens or hundreds of “nations,” not three.”

Not true. Indian nation state was in existence as “Bharat versa” since ancient times. There were rulers like Chandra Gupta (who defeated the Greeks), Ashoka(who spread Buddhism all over Asia) and Akbar who had united most of Hindustan into a nation state.

[tlb]

>>> And yes raj bhatia is 100% correct to say India before British constituted 26% of world economy and 1% after the British.

As I recall the British left in 1947. The USA alone accounted for half of all the world GDP at that point. Which makes the complaint against the Brits meaningless.

As I said, the world economy had changed. Western industrial countries GDP grew exponentially. Non-industrial states couldn’t grow at any comparable rate, regardless of either their independence or membership in an empire.

>>> That is like saying Soviet Union was a good thing for Russia, Eastern Europe and erstwhile Soviet Republics because the alternative would have been Nazi Germany.

No, it says nothing so stupid that would compare either the Brits or the French treatment of India to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. From the safety of 2011 one can quiver in outrage over the injustices of history. But the differences in actual colonial conduct were real between the major powers of that era. None meet the standards of the 21st century, but since we are referring to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, that’s no surprise.

The age ended half a century ago and building on the legal and administrative foundations laid by the Raj, India prospers. Just be thankful it wasn’t the Spanish.

[Sherman Logan]

Bengal under independent India never had any famines. .

Pretty darn unlikely. Recurring famines are caused byt failure of the monsoon rains, over which I think the British had little control. I am perfectly willing to agree British policies may have been ineffective at reacting to famines when the occurred or have made them worse than they need have been.

India and China prior to industrial revolution in Europe were FAR more technologically advanced then Europe.

In Middle Ages, quite correct. By 1500 Europe had caught up and these three civilizations, with Islam, were at a rough equilibrium in most aspects.

The problem is that Europe continued and increased the acceleration that had allowed it to catch up in a few centuries, while the other three stagnated. No insult to them intended, they were only doing what other civilizations had always done. It was Europe that did something unique, with the industrial/scientific revolution bounding far ahead of all others.

Beside Japan serves as an Asian example for a country that had its own industrial revolution while being independent.

Quite true, but they did so by consciously imitating Europe. This was possible because of their long history of imitating the most advanced civilization of which they were aware, China, while retaining the basics of their own way of life.

China, India, SE Asia, Islam, etc. were incapable of such imitation, as culturally they were convinced of the superiority of their own ways. They were inherently unable to adapt fast enough to meld their own ways with those of Europe. As a result their civilizations were overrun rather than adapted.

With regard to the wars, I find most people have a very limited understanding of the devastation caused by premodern wars. During each of its changes of dynasty, for example, China averaged losing half its population. I doubt similar disruption in India caused less.

Not true. Indian nation state was in existence as “Bharat versa” since ancient times. There were rulers like Chandra Gupta (who defeated the Greeks), Ashoka(who spread Buddhism all over Asia) and Akbar who had united most of Hindustan into a nation state.

Thanks for the laugh. Much, never all, of the subcontinent was intermittently and briefly united by exceptionally capable rulers. However, in every case this quickly fell apart into a welter of semi and fully independent states struggling against each other.

BTW, Akbar and the Moguls were every bit as much invaders as the Brits. They just came overland rather than by sea. Anyway, Akbar never conquered much more than the northern plain and his successors promptly lost control of most of it. His descendant Aurangzeb almost succeeded in conquering the entire subcontinent, but in a classic case of imperial overstretch it fell apart completely on his death.

You might as well claim that Europe since the Romans constituted a single state because much of it was briefly united by Charlemagne, Charles V, Napoleon and Hitler.

I'm no expert on Indian history, but you've obviously fallen prey to the idea that everything negative in Indian history is a result of the evil British rule. This is, IMO, as inaccurate as the Victorian notion of the white man's burden.