The below links are really interesting and some of it is enlightening to me.

Recent excavations in SOUTH India (2500 year old Keeladi) established that international trade prevailed on a global scale in South India.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...h8njDZB&opi=89978449

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...YMunLEw&opi=89978449

I grew up in the southern part of India and knew from school days that the Romans traded with India. Roman coins were unearthed all over the place even in the 1960s and before. But we never knew about the above excavations & their implications. We were taught that the Harappan Indus Valey Civilization was in the North West part of the subcontinent.

A different approach has now led Western scholars to publish the kind of detail that colonial history did not include.

https://www.theguardian.com/bo...iam-dalyrmple-review

https://www.theguardian.com/bo...ransformed-the-world

There is a lot more information on the web about Indian cultural and trade links to the East.

There are even some incredible images of ancient India sculptures that are so stunningly similar to other iconic images from South America. That is another story.

One of the most upsetting displays of racism I've seen was from a corporate manager who grew up in northern India addressing a university student who grew up in the south. The other people in the room did not seem to know what was taking place.

But how is that relevant to the topic?

Are you trying to sabotage this discussion?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
But how is that relevant to the topic?

Are you trying to sabotage this discussion?

No, and now that I'm looking at it, it's kind of a non sequitur. Did the Romans trade with northern India?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
But how is that relevant to the topic?

Are you trying to sabotage this discussion?

how much of that trade was in slaves, little naki?

"Little naki"? You're trying to provoke him now.

Why don't you post what you know about ancient Roman coins found in southern India?

All of it. Your direct ancestors.

So your butt still hurts eh?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
But how is that relevant to the topic?

Are you trying to sabotage this discussion?

how much of that trade was in slaves, little naki?

I can see what's coming. I hereby resign from this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I can see what's coming. I hereby resign from this thread.

Im sorry that I gave a rye laugh at that.

Your a good man Roland. for trying. Its just the ground is so fetid there is no high ground to stand on.
Nothing Naki plants has a hope of growing into anything decent. Because he needs others to fertilise it. And 12 years of ill will has meant that wont happen.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
"Little naki"? You're trying to provoke him now.

Why don't you post what you know about ancient Roman coins found in southern India?

Sort of.. the phrase naki-ito makes no grammatical sense, in marathi or Spanish, which translates into little naki.. oh, that have nil respect for his intellectual honesty... which isn't entirely true, I have a proud "respect" for his lack of same

Why would I be surprised at Roman coins in southern India? There were Greek coins in northern India before the Roman tribes had one ruling tribe of the 7 hills. One would know it wasn't romans to india, as the romans were terrible sailors, rarely getting out of sight of land, unless it was in the bathtub of the med-sea - so i expect, just as the guardian story shows, it was indian trade to egypt .. which COULD have been overland, but the indians are much better sailors than that, and could have either cut across the arabian sea to red sea, if they didn't follow the coast to the same ports.

no one is projecting that the indians (like Tamil people, i would expect, due to their expansion eastwards) sailed around africa, up the atlantic, through Gibraltar, and on to rome - the voyage time alone would be ridiculous, not to mention unnecessary ... the guardian article infers that once egypt was taken over by the romans that the trade started -- tada

in fact, the guardian "golden road" article infers this, strongly, in the first sentence

quote:

At the height of the Roman empire, after its conquest of Egypt in 30BC, luxurious Indian goods suddenly became available to Europeans in unprecedented quantities.

-- arguably incorrect, as 30 bc, height, and empire are pretty inaccurate - 30bc, it was still the republic, not even having the first emperor, "height of the Roman empire" when the truth is the empire didn't exist as yet, though it was near the height of the Republic, and height of empire again, nah.. not even close, as 30bc it was largely (not entirely) still just a med-sea republic. it wasn't even the height of the so-called western empire ...

it's a cool story, though

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
All of it. Your direct ancestors.

So your butt still hurts eh?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
But how is that relevant to the topic?

Are you trying to sabotage this discussion?

how much of that trade was in slaves, little naki?

Awe.. so precious. hmm, i know you need help in areas, but the romans were JUST A LITTLE into slaves and the slave trade .. but, little naki, you'd have to go a bit further north to find my ancestors at that time -- i am certain they would have provided a warm welcome