Deccan tulwar

[ariel]

Ren Ren,
I am a bit flabbergasted by your comments.
First, I never claimed that Zheng He's trips were the source of Chinese swords entering India. It was simply in response to Mercenary's assertion that China had no direct contacts with India till at least 16 century. This was patently incorrect and maps of Zheng He's travels confirm it. As a matter of fact ZH died in Kozhikode ( Calicut in European sources). The categorical assertion that "This version is so weak that it is not worth wasting time even explaining the reasons for its weakness" is a bit too glib: had it not been so evasive and supercilious, I might have even been insulted. But I was not, so do not worry about it.

Then, you find fault with me using the term " Normans", even though I explicitly mentioned that several names were used in different sources, from Normans, Norsemen, Rus, Vikings, Varyags. It is not how we call them, but where they were from: Scandinavia.

After that you invoke some conclusions from maritime archeology to assert that ZH's fleet did not carry weapons as gifts. This was not supported by any references, locations, dates, sufficient number of shipwrecks examined etc.

And now you totally reject the possibility ( not even probability!) of maritime exchange between China and India. Please pay attention that I explicitly mentioned common land borders between the two as a potential point of contact. But the existence of early maritime contacts is also irrefutable. Interestingly, you yourself mention that " Moghulistan" in the 14th century had trade relations with India.

Your hypothesis that Tibetan Kirthimukha was the inspiration for some Indian quillons is intriguing. But please realize that these motives were used on the swords that Emperor Yungle ( the very same who sent ZH on his journeys !) and even his predecessors gifted to Tibetan monasteries (see book of La Rocca). Thus, it might not be impossible that some of those swords reached India very early on either by land or ( potentially!) as ZH's gifts to Indian nobility.

There is no need to digress into long descriptions of things that do not bear any relations to the topic of current discussion ( such as genealogy of Babur's mother etc). And some attention to the comments that are the targets of your critique as well as some thinking about your responses might also be beneficial.
With best wishes,
Ariel