Talk:Somnath temple/Archive 2

Explaining deletion of some sentences
To say "Historians" and "damage was minimal" in wikipedia voice is not only a gross misrepresentation, it is using this Wikipedia article for WP:SOAP and to spread misinformation in the unfortunate Hindu-Muslim and India-Pakistan-Afghanistan conflict/narratives when mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship is stating something very different. This is forbidden by ARBIPA/ARBCOM motions. We need to be careful here and seek to summarize the broad range of peer-reviewed scholarship on this subject. FWIW, the mainstream historians and the majority scholarly publications state that Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed the Somnath temple in c. 1026 CE. For example, all these sources explicitly use the word "destroyed" or "destruction" in Mahmud-Somnath context:


 * 1 (Metcalf & Metcalf (2012), Cambridge Univ Press, p. 7),
 * 2 (Andre Wink (2002), Brill Academic, p. 68),
 * 3 (Hans Bakker (1991), Numen journal, p. 87)
 * 4 (Arvind Sharma (2012), State University of New York Press, p. 97)
 * 5 (Stanley Wolpert (2006), Thomson Gale, p. 200, Section on History and Historiography)
 * 6 (James Harle (1994), Yale University Press, p. 228)

Note that some of these were published years after Thapar's book came out. Here is another which goes further: pages 335–338 of this source, published in 2020 by the Cambridge Univ Press. It states that there are broadly two major sides in the "Mahmud sack of Somnath temple" – the Hindu nationalist historians and the Marxist historians in India. It is critical of the history presented by both. It calls Romila Thapar as a "Marxist historian" and criticizes her arguments in "Somanatha"-related publications, her constructed history as "revisionist", "problematic", and "dependent on synecdochal reasoning". It states that the tendency of recent Marxist historians to trivialize its significance with the revisionist "looting hypothesis as ‘history’ and the religious motivation hypothesis as ahistorical" is problematic (pp. 335–338).

Given the above rationale, and per our guidelines on offensive OR and misrepresentations of the scholarship in conflict-related subjects to either side, I am deleting this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take a look later but Bracey used to be a curator of Kushana coins at British Museum. As far as I know, he has not got any significant publications outside of Kushana coinage. So, his comments on the merits of Thapar are UNDUE. The entire book has been cited only once by other scholars.
 * Many others, far famed than Bracey, consider Thapar's work to be impressive and enviable. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Robert Bracey is a historian. Yes, one of his jobs has been as a curator. The British Museum cryptic bio states, Bracey "researches the history of South and Central Asia". The chapter by Bracey is in a book edited by Jaś Elsner, an art history professor at Oxford Univ and at Univ of Chicago, among other positions. So, that is a scholarly peer-reviewed chapter, one published by Cambridge University Press – it is RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody denies it to be an RS - I suggest that you re-read my note unless you plan to use every scholar who has said something about Somnatha. His academia.edu page says, Robert Bracey, The British Museum, Coins and Medals Department, Department Member. Studies Numismatics, Coin Die-Study, and Kushan history. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The bio in the book (p. xiii) says, Robert Bracey worked as a numismatist of South Asia at the British Museum, with research projects in both Empires of Faith and the Beyond Boundaries programme on the Gupta empire in India. He has wide interests in all aspects of the material and visual culture of Asia, but especially its diversity of coinage. He is at best an art-historian. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been a belief both among the lay people and some historians that Mahmud of Ghazni had "destroyed the Somnath temple". There was also a belief that he had done it out of "religious bigotry" or as some others have said, "religious zeal".

Romila Thapar has written an entire book on the subject to investigate these issues. On the first issue, she has said unequivocally that he broke (or even "destroyed") the linga of Somnath. Whether he had destroyed the temple or not is not known and the available evidence indicates that he probably did not (judged by the 1038 pilgrimage inscription, and the lack of acknowledgement in any Sanskrit sources).

On the issue of his motivations, Thapar has said that the primary motivation was plunder. In the case of Somnath, there was probably "religious zeal" in that there was a belief at that time that the linga of Somnath was the aniconic image of an Arab deity called Manat, and so its destruction would bring religious merit to whoever did it. Mahmud had done it and won laurels for it in the Muslim world.

Pretty much all the scholars that have studied her book and cited it, agreed with these conclusions. So the general beliefs that were current before the book are now out of date, and they cannot be cited on Wikipedia. Knowledge progresses with time and we represent the current state of knowledge. If any scholar has studied the same evidence or better evidence and disagreed with Thapar, please feel free to bring them up. Until then, this is a pointless debate.

To pick one of your counters, let us look at Arvind Sharma, who says "Alberuni clearly refers to the destruction of Somnath.[33]". The phrase "destruction of Somnath" is ambiguous. It could be a reference to (a) the deity/linga, (b) the temple or (c) the entire town. You are attaching a specific meaning: (b) the temple, which is unwarranted. The citation [33] refers you to Alberuni (Sachau translation, Vol. II), pages 9 and 103. On page 9, Alberuni says "destruction of Somnath" (the same phrase) in passing. On page 103, it is clearly the destruction of the linga, and it occurs in the context of discussion of linga in general. Arvind Sharma is a religous studies scholar, and only marginally a historian. He has not cited Thapar's book. The book is entirely about a different subject (missionary aspect of Hinduism). He mentioned Somnath, not to talk about its destruction, but to talk about the "missionary" work of Hindus. While Mahmud was returning, apparently he was attacked and defeated. His troops were captured and converted to Hinduism (forced conversion?). To cite this book as a supposed counter to Romila Thapar is entirely ridiculous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: My context with these six sources, including Sharma, was to identify how the mainstream majority of scholars state the "Mahmud sack of Somnath", that is "destroy? desecrate? or 'minimal damage'?". Some of those six are by well-known history scholars and those are publications on India's history. A few are tertiary, like Sharma, in religious studies. All I was trying to show you was that a wide range of scholarship uses the word "destroyed" or equivalent. No one, not even Thapar, says 'minimal damage'. Please do not misstate my or any source's context. Sharma is not a "counter" to Thapar. A proper counter and balance to Thapar would be scholarly sources with a dedicated discussion of Mahmud, Somnath and Islamic/Sanskrit/Prakrit literature or inscriptions. My version – draft above – did that. Dhaky & Shastri's The Riddle of the Temple at Somanatha is one such dedicated source (see bibliography and draft above). Jamal Malik is another. Etc. FWIW, it is broadly accepted in scholarship that Hindus/Jains/Buddhists in India rarely kept history of their monuments, events or even kings, history in the modern sense of that term (not mythistory). Turko-Persian sources include more details about Mahmud, Somnath, and what happened to Somnath temple in the 11th-century. This includes Al-Biruni and a few others who were contemporaneous with Mahmud. Malik, Dhaky, Wink, and many other scholars cover that in-depth, providing the scholarly viewpoint different from Thapar. Instead of picking on Sharma, you should evaluate the draft and sources I actually offered as a counter. I will re-add it to the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Somnath temple was wooden in early 11th century?: more misrepresentation of Thapar and other sources in legacy-old version
With arguments in sections above, Kautilya3 kept this summary from the old-legacy version of this article:

This misrepresents what Thapar actually states:



Thapar's context is the 12th-century Kumarapala reconstruction, not the older temple or events 125 years before. I cannot find a mention of anything on that page that supports "At the time of Mahmud's attack, the temple appears to have been a wooden structure". Nor do I find support in Yagnik and Sheth on their page 40. All Thapar is saying is that the temple before Kumarapala efforts was wooden, and if read Thapar and other sources... this wooden temple must be the one his father rebuilt after the sack of Somnath temple in the 11th-century. Kautilya3: Do you see any support on p. 79 of Thapar or p. 40 of Y&S? FWIW, following your objections to Sharma, you should be careful with Yagnik and Sheth as they identify themselves as "human right activists" and their book is a generic publication on Gujarat Plurality. I had checked all the sources they cite on Somnath two weeks ago, and found some did not exist/had errors. A more dedicated peer-reviewed scholarly source on Somnath would be better. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I will double check. I don't think any more that any of the temples was wooden. There might have been a temporary structure at some point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Dhaky & Shastri, and Cimino
I think all the new material added regarding Dhaky & Shastri is undue. It is WP:PRIMARY interpretation of the archaeological data. We need secondary sources to figure out what is acceptable and what is not. As far as Cimino is concerned, she did nothing more than summarise Dhaky & Shastri view in one sentence: "This view is shared by our two authors: in fact, they admit the existence of two constructions earlier than the one more clearly documented, pointing to numerous historical and archaeological elements."

I don't see why all kinds of stuff is being attributed to her. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)