THERE was a joke that went around at the turn of the century. It was about India and Pakistan’s quest for national and religious-identity supremacy.
The Indians wanted to prove that they have been superior in innovations since the dawn of time, started excavating inside an ancient temple. Three metres down, they found a fibreoptic cable. Stumped, by the unexpected discovery the Indian government’s spokesman quickly announced to the world media: the Hindus were the first to introduce Internet broadband.
Not to be outdone, the Pakistanis started digging inside their most ancient mosque. Three metres down, they found nothing. They dug deeper to six metres and still found nothing. The Pakistani government spokesman quickly announced to an anxious global media: the Muslims were the first to introduce wireless broadband.
Although the above is only a joke, it resembles the fantasy-filled narratives that have been flying around in the world wide web surrounding the discovery of the Sungai Batu archaeological site in 2008.
Although archaeology is often filled with romanticism, self/racial-pride, national pride, it has to be approached rationally. It is a science, and science must be backed by substantiated data, peer-reviews, comparative studies. It must fit into the general timeline. The chronology must fit. Sentiments and sentimental notions should be cast aside when dealing with history.
In the above joke, the discovery of a fibreoptic cable beneath an ancient temple does not mean that fibreoptic cable had existed before the construction of the temple began; the non-discovery of anything does not mean one can simply create a narrative just to prove that one’s national, racial or religious pride need to be boosted.
Since its discovery in 2008, Sungai Batu has been revered and referred to as, among others, a technologically-advanced Malay civilisation, a massive Hindu-Cholan settlement, a settlement of the soldiers of Alexander the Great. However, studies since then have proven that those narratives do not fit the timeline nor logic.
The problematic narrative first arose with the dating of an iron artefact to 783 B.C.E. This was when the notion that a technologically-advanced Malay civilisation had existed, pre-dating most known civilisation. The problem lies with the timeline. The rest of the region would still be in a Neolithic stage where people still rely on stone tools and earthenware.
Just like the claim of a Cholan conquest of Ancient Kedah does not fit any documented timeline.
While there is evidence of Buddhist-Hindu structures, it is doubtful that there were overwhelming number of Indians who lived there as a result of a conquest, nor is there evidence that the ancient Malays subscribed to any of the religion which had their structures there. There needs an understanding of the levels of propagation and acceptance of religions of the people, based and compared to the proven norms of that era.
Hence, a narrative for the civilisation of the Bujang Valley needs to conform to the latest data and findings. This shall be discussed in Part Two of this article.
Copy and paste: 21 January 2024 > 9 Rejab 1445H: 1.41 am
No comments:
Post a Comment