Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog

Channel Description:

A homage to Hindu civilization.

older | 1 | .... | 352 | 353 | (Page 354) | 355 | 356 | .... | 374 | newer

    0 0

    The continuum is evidenced by: 1. Cunda, kammāraputta, son of the village smith, metalworker who served the last meal to the Buddha. 2. Anathapindika covers Jetavana with gold coins.

    Epigraphia Indus Script -- Hypertexts and Meanings (3 vols.) posits that the entire set of over 8000 inscriptions of Indus Script Corpora are wealth accounting ledgers, metalwork catalogues.

    Indications of the wealth achieved by ancient India through metalwork from 4th millennium BCE is exemplified by two episodes in the Buddha's life: 
    1. Cunda metalworker who offers the last meal to the Buddha and 
    2. Anāthapiṇḍika who covers the Jetavana monastery with gold coins

    Thanks to Prof. Shrinivas Tilak who reminds me that Cunda, who served 'the last meal to the Buddha,' was a metal worker (kammāraputta) living in Pava where the Buddha had reached on his way to Kusinārā. He stayed in Cunda’s Mango grove.

    Kammāraputta (in SanskritKarmāraputra) means son of the smith.
    Cunda prepares Pork.jpg
    Cunda preparing pork, Wat KasatrathirajAyutthaya
    In the Cunda Kammāraputta Sutta, Gautama Buddha stays at Cunda's mango grove and they talk about rites of purification. Cunda declares that he approves of the rites of the brahmins of the West and the Buddha mentions that the rites of purification of these brahmins and the purification in the discipline of the noble ones is quite different. Cunda asks him to explain how there is purification in his discipline, and so the Buddha teaches him the ten courses of skillful action. Cunda praises him for his teachings and declares himself a lay follower from that day on.

    Sūkaramaddava, is translated differently depending on the buddhist tradition. Since the word is composed by sūkara, which means pig, and maddava, which means soft, tender, delicate, two alternatives are possible:
    1. Tender pig or boar meat.
    2. What is enjoyed by pigs and boars.
    In the latter meaning, the term has been thought to refer to a mushroom or truffle, or a yam or tuber. ( K.E. Neumann, in the preface to his German translation of the Majjhima Nikāya, quotes from an Indian compendium of medicinal plants, the Rajanigantu, several plants beginning with sūkara.The idea that the Buddha's last meal consisted of pork is generally supported by the Theravada tradition; while that it was a vegetarian dish, by the Mahayana tradition.

    The Buddha's Last Meal
    When the Buddha and his disciples arrived at Pava, the son of the village goldsmith, whose name was Cunda, invited the party to a meal called sukaramaddava, or "boar's delight". Some scholars believe it was a special delicious dish of mushrooms, while others believe it to be a dish of wild boar's flesh.
    The Buddha advised Cunda to serve him only with the sukaramaddava that he had prepared. The other food that Cunda had prepared could be served to the other monks. After the meals were served Buddha told Cunda, "Cunda, if any sukaramaddava is left over, bury it in a hole. I do not see anyone in the world other than the Blessed One who could digest the food if he ate it."
    "So be it, Lord," Cunda replied, and buried the leftovers in the ground. He went to the Buddha and, after paying homage to him, sat down at one side. Then the Buddha taught him the Dharma. The Buddha also praised Cunda for the meal that had refreshed and strengthened him after his journey. But soon after this, the Buddha suffered from an attack of the dysentery he had been suffering from earlier and sharp pains came upon him. By an effort of will he was able to bear the pain. Though extremely weak the Buddha decided to continue on immediately to Kusinaga, a little more than six miles away. After a painful struggle, he reached a grove of sala trees just outside the town.
    The Buddha took his last bath in the Kakuttha river. After resting a while, he said, "Now it may happen that some people may make Cunda regret having given me the meal that made me sick. Ananda, if this should happen, you should tell Cunda that you have heard directly from the Buddha that it was a gain for him. Tell him that two offerings to the Buddha are of equal gain; the offering of food just before his supreme enlightenment and the offering of food just before he passes away. This is the final birth of the Buddha."
    Then he said, "Ananda, please make a couch ready for me with its head to the North between two big sala trees. I am tired and I want to lie down."
    Now, on that occasion, those two sala trees were covered with blossoms through the influence of the devas, though it was not the season. They scattered and sprinkled the Buddha with the falling blossoms, as though out of respect for him. Then the Buddha said to Venerable Ananda, "Ananda, the two big sala trees are scattering flowers on me as though they are paying their respects to me. But this is not how I should be respected and honoured. Rather, it is the monks or nuns, or the men or woman lay followers, who live according to my teaching, that should respect and honour me."
    A little while later it was noticed that Venerable Ananda was nowhere to be seen. He had gone inside a hut and stood leaning against the door bar, weeping. He thought: "Alas! I remain still but a learner, one who has yet to work out his own perfection. And the Master is about to pass away from me — he who is so kind!"
    And the Buddha, sending for Ananda, said to him, "Enough now, Ananda! Do not sorrow and cry. Have I not already repeatedly told you that there is separation and parting from all that is dear and beloved? How is it possible that anything that has been born, has had a beginning, should not again die? Such a thing is not possible.
    "Ananda, you have served me with your acts of loving-kindness, helpfully, gladly, sincerely, and so too in your words and your thoughts. You have gained merit, Ananda. Keep on trying and you will soon be free of all your human weaknesses. In a very short time you too will become an arahant.
    "Now you can go, Ananda. But go into Kusinaga and tell all the people that tonight, in the last watch of the night, the Buddha will pass away into nirvana. Come and see the Buddha before he passes away."
    So Venerable Ananda, taking with him another monk, did as the Buddha bid him and went to Kusinaga to tell the people. When they heard the news, they were much grieved. And all the people of Kusinaga, men, women and children came to the two big sala trees to bid a last farewell to the Buddha. Family by family, they bowed low down before him and so bade him farewell.
    There are four places for faithful followers to see their inspiration. These are four holy places made sacred by their association with the Buddha. They are:
    1. The Buddha's birth place (Lumbini)
    2. The place where the Buddha attained enlightenment (Bodh Gaya)
    3. The place where the Buddha gave his first teachings and set in motion the Wheel of the Dharma or Truth (Sarnath)
    4. The place where the Buddha attained parinibbana, or final liberation (Kusinaga).

    Anathapindika (Pāli: Anāthapiṇḍika; Sanskrit: Anāthapiṇḍada) was a wealthy merchant and banker, believed to have been the wealthiest merchant in Savatthi in the time of Gautama BuddhaAnathapindika is frequently referred to as Anathapindika-setthi (setthi meaning "wealthy person" or "millionaire"), and is sometimes referred to as Mahā Anāthapindika to distinguish him from Cūla Anāthapindika, another disciple of the Buddha. 

    Image result for bharhut anathapindika
    Anathapindika covers Jetavana with coins (BharhutBrahmi text: jetavana ananthapindiko deti kotisanthatena keta

    Building Jetavana Monastery

    Following Anathapindika's first encounter with the Buddha, he requested to offer him a meal, which the Buddha accepted, and then asked to build a temple for him and his monks in his hometown of Savatthi, to which the Buddha agreed.[3]
    Scene of some remains at Jetavana Monastery.
    Shortly after, Anathapindika went back to Savatthi to search for a place to build the monastery. Looking for a place that was both accessible to followers and peacefully secluded, he came across a park belonging to Prince Jeta, the son of King Pasenadi of Kosala. Anathapindika offered to buy the park from the prince but the prince refused, after Anathapindika persisted, the prince joking said he will sell him the park if he covers it with gold coins, to which Anathapindika agreed.[4][6]
    Anathapindika later came back with wagons full of gold pieces to cover the park with. When Prince Jeta stated he was merely joking, Anathapindika and the prince went to arbitrators who concluded that Prince Jeta had to sell the park at the agreed price. After seeing Anathapindika's resolve, Prince Jeta offered to build a wall and gate for the monastery. Afterwards, Anathapindika spent several million more gold pieces building the temple and its furnishings, in what would come to be known as the Jetavana Monastery, also often referred to in Buddhist scriptures as "Anathapindika's Monastery"

    Anathapindika's Offering

    THE Master was in Rajagriha when a rich merchant named Anathapindika arrived from Cravasti. Anathapindika was a religious man, and when he heard that a Buddha was living in the Bamboo Grove, he was eager to see him.
    He set out one morning, and as he entered the Grove, a divine voice led him to where the Master was seated. He was greeted with words of kindness; he presented the community with a magnificent gift, and the Master promised to visit him in Cravasti.
    When he returned home, Anathapindika began to wonder where he could receive the Blessed One. His gardens did not seem worthy of such a guest. The most beautiful park in the city belonged to Prince Jeta, and Anathapindika decided to buy it.
    "I will sell the park," Jeta said to him, "if you cover the ground with gold coins."
    Anathapindika accepted the terms. He had chariot-loads of gold coins carried to the park, and presently only a small strip of ground remained uncovered. Then Jeta joyfully exclaimed:
    "The park is yours, merchant; I will gladly give you the strip that is still uncovered."
    Anathapindika had the park made ready for the Master; then he sent his most faithful servant to the Bamboo Grove, to inform him that he was now prepared to receive him in Cravasti.
    "O Venerable One," said the messenger, "my master falls at your feet. He hopes you have been spared anxiety and sickness, and that you are not loath to keep the promise you made to him. You are awaited in Cravasti, O Venerable One."
    The Blessed One had not forgotten the promise he had made to the merchant Anathapindika; he wished to abide by it, and he said to the messenger, "I will go."
    He allowed a few days to pass; then he took his cloak and his alms-bowl, and followed by a great number of disciples, he set out for Cravasti. The messenger went ahead, to tell the merchant he was coming.
    Anathapindika decided to go and meet the Master. His wife, his son and his daughter accompanied him, and they were attended by the wealthiest inhabitants of the city. And when they saw the Buddha, they were dazzled by his splendor; he seemed to be walking on a path of molten gold.
    They escorted him to Jeta's park, and Anathapindika said to him:
    "My Lord, what shall I do with this park?""Give it to the community, now and for all time," replied the Master.
    Anathapindika ordered a servant to bring him a golden bowl full of water. He poured the water over the Master's hands, and he said:
    "I give this park to the community, ruled by the Buddha, now and for all time."
    "Good!" said the Master. "I accept the gift. This park will be a happy refuge; here we shall live in peace, and find shelter from the heat and from the cold. No vicious animals enter here: not even the humming of a mosquito disturbs the silence; and here there is protection from the rain, the biting wind and the ardent sun. And this park will inspire dreams, for here we shall meditate hour after hour. It is only right that such gifts be made to the community. The intelligent man, the man who does not neglect his own interests, should give the monks a proper home; he should give them food and drink; he should give them clothes. The monks, in return, will teach him the law, and he who knows the law is delivered from evil and attains nirvana."
    The Buddha and his disciples established themselves in Jeta's park, Anathapindika was happy; but, one day, a solemn thought occurred to him.
    "I am being loudly praised," he said to himself, "and yet what is so admirable about my actions? I present gifts to the Buddha and to the monks, and for this I am entitled to a future reward; but my virtue benefits me alone! I must get others to share in the privilege. I shall go through the streets of the city, and from those whom I meet, I shall get donations for the Buddha and for the monks. Many will thus participate in the good I shall be doing."
    He went to Prasenajit, king of Cravasti, who was a wise and upright man. He told him what he had decided to do, and the king approved. A herald was sent through the city with this royal proclamation:
    "Listen well, inhabitants of Cravasti! Seven days from this day, the merchant Anathapindika, riding an elephant, will go through the streets of the city. He will ask all of you for alms, which he will then offer to the Buddha and to his disciples. Let each one of you give him whatever he can afford."
    On the day announced, Anathapindika mounted his finest elephant and rode through the streets, asking every one for donations for the Master and for the community. They crowded around him: this one gave gold, that one silver; one woman took off her necklace, another her bracelet, a third an anklet; and even the humblest gifts were accepted.
    Now, there lived in Cravasti a young girl who was extremely poor. It had taken her three months to save enough money to buy a piece of coarse material, out of which she had just made a dress for herself. She saw Anathapindika with a great crowd around him.
    "The merchant Anathapindika appears to be begging," she said to a bystander.
    "Yes, he is begging," was the reply.
    "But he is said to be the richest man in Cravasti. Why should he be begging?"
    "Did you not hear the royal proclamation being cried through the streets, seven days ago?"
    "Anathapindika is not collecting alms for himself. He wants every one to participate in the good he is doing, and he is asking for donations for the Buddha and his disciples. All those who give will be entitled to a future reward."
    The young girl said to herself, "I have never done anything deserving of praise. It would be wonderful to make an offering to the Buddha. But I am poor. What have I to give?" She walked away, wistfully. She looked at her new dress. "I have only this dress to offer him. But I can not go through the streets naked."
    She went home and took off the dress. Then she sat at the window and watched for Anathapindika, and when he passed in front of her house, she threw the dress to him. He took it and showed it to his servants.
    "The woman who threw this dress to me," said he, "probably had nothing else to offer. She must be naked, if she had to remain at home and give alms in this strange manner. Go; try to find her and see who she is."
    The servants had some difficulty finding the young girl. At last they saw her, and they learned that their master had been correct in his surmise: the dress thrown out of the window was the poor child's entire fortune. Anathapindika was deeply moved; he ordered his servants to bring many costly, beautiful clothes, and he gave them to this pious maiden who had offered him her simple dress.
    She died the following day and was reborn a Goddess in Indra's sky. But she never forgot how she had come to deserve such a reward, and, one night, she came down to earth and went to the Buddha, and he instructed her in the holy law.

    0 0

    0 0

    Mahabharata & Modern Scholarship: An Interview With Dr. Vishwa Adluri
    IndiaFacts interview of Dr. Vishwa Adluri on Mahabharata, modern scholarship and their new book “Philology and Criticism: A Guide to Mahābhārata Textual Criticism”

    With a degree in civil engineering, and having worked in construction field, Nithin Sridhar passionately writes about various issues from development, politics, and social issues, to religion, spirituality and ecology. He is based in Mysore, India. His latest book “Musings On Hinduism” provides an overview of various aspects of Hindu philosophy and society. Tweets at @nkgrock
    Mahabharata is one of the foundational texts of Indian civilization. Along with Ramayana, it has transformed high abstract philosophies of the Upanishads into an aesthetically appealing literary work which has touched the hearts of millions of Indians and has further manifested as performing arts which has been lived and experienced by common people throughout Indian history.
    Yet, today, we have a modern Mahabharata scholarship which is predominated by the Indologists who have continuously tried to downplay the traditional reception of this text of Itihasa and has instead posited Mahabharata as an evidence of a successful Brahminical conspiracy that turned an originally Kshatriya epic into the current text of Mahabharata which considers itself “Panchamaveda”.
    Two notable exceptions to this general trend in modern Mahabharata scholarship is Dr. Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee. They have created a large reservoir of academic works that not only examines the history and theological basis of the modern scholarship of Mahabharata, but also raises serious questions about their treatment of the text.
    In their new book “Philology and Criticism”, they continue this critical examination of modern Mahabharata scholarship.
    On the behalf of IndiaFacts, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Adluri on Mahabharata, modern scholarship and their new book “Philology and Criticism”.
    [Editor’s note: Page numbers in the interview refer to Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee, Philology and Criticism: A Guide to Mahābhārata Textual Criticism (London: Anthem, 2018). The book is available in open access here.]
    Nithin Sridhar: Dr. Adluri, please accept my congratulations on your latest book Philology and Criticism. You have described your new book as a companion to your previous volume The Nay Science. How does Philology and Criticism carry forward your work in The Nay Science? How does it differ from it?
    Dr. Vishwa Adluri: Thank you, Nithin. In The Nay Science, we traced the origins of contemporary views of the Mahābhārata back to their origins in the work of nineteenth-century German Indologists such as Christian Lassen, Adolf Holtzmann Jr., and Hermann Oldenberg. We showed how these scholars imported racial prejudices into Mahābhārata studies—for example, that an original, heroic epic existed that reflected the Indo-Germanic or Aryan worldview, or that this epic was corrupted due to racial mixing with the dark-skinned population of India. We also demonstrated that the idea of so-called critical scholarship originated with German Protestantism, specifically its rejection of traditional hermeneutics, its insistence on the literal meaning, its emphasis on the historical context, and its desire to recover “original” meanings. Yet when we looked at the work of these scholars, we found there was nothing critical about it. They were trading in anti-Brahmanic and anti-Judaic stereotypes.
    In Philology and Criticism, we continue our critical work on twentieth-century Mahābhārata scholarship. We examine the work of contemporary scholars such as Georg von Simson (19–22, 24, 27–28) and John Brockington (273, 429–53), and also some lesser figures such as Wendy Doniger (14–15) and Michael Witzel (269, 320–24). The book shows how, except for slight changes in terminology, the same prejudices about the Mahābhārata continue (25, 45, 53, 62, 67, 70, 87–88). Thus, scholars now argue that the Mahābhārata critical edition (completed in 1966 by Sukthankar and his team) reconstructs a mere “normative redaction” of the Mahābhārata (2–3, 45–89), that is, a version the Brahmans created from an earlier oral epic tradition. Although these scholars claim they are doing textual criticism, their work reveals that they have not grasped the basics of this method. Brockington, for example, confuses genealogical classification with typological, as discussed here. Both books are about textual criticism. Whereas The Nay Science focused on literary and historical aspects (so-called higher criticism), Philology and Criticism focuses on technical aspects (so-called lower criticism). Philology and Criticism is more abstract and technical, but it is actually the easier book to read.
    What about the BhagavadgītāPhilology and Criticism does not mention it much.  
    That is correct. We already published several papers on the Bhagavadgītā, including “Paradigm Lost: The Application of the Historical-Critical Method to the Bhagavadgītā” and “Who’s Zoomin Who: Bhagavadgītā Recensions in India and Germany.” Perhaps we should collect this research along with sections from The Nay Science and publish it as a separate book. Studying the Bhagavadgītā is useful because Gītā studies presents in a nutshell all the problems with Mahābhārata studies. German Indologists called their work “scientific” as compared with the tradition, yet no two scholars could agree on the extent of the “original” Bhagavadgītā. The idea of an “original” Gītā, moreover, emerged with Adolf Holtzmann Jr., who claimed that there must have originally been a shorter, “heroic” version of the poem that would have been appropriate to the Indo-Germanic warriors. Our paper “Paradigm Lost” showed how contemporary scholars such as Mislav Ježić had fudged their own criteria to fit this prejudice. They were frightened to contradict the academic dogma the German scholars had instituted. 
    You have been arguing for the importance of the Mahābhārata’s critical edition. Can you briefly describe what a critical edition is? How does it differ from the texts preserved by the commentarial tradition/the vulgate text? How should a practicing Hindu approach the critical edition? Why do you think a critical edition is important?
    A critical edition achieves two things. First, it provides a text for the reader—one that strives to approximate the author’s intention as closely as possible by replacing secondary readings with more original ones. Second, it documents the textual variation in the form of a critical apparatus (that is, an apparatus of variant readings found in the manuscripts, readings the editor considered secondary). A critical edition thus differs from the vulgate editions (in the Mahābhārata’s case, Nīlakaṇṭha’s 17th c. text) because it reconstructs the earliest stage of the text possible and provides an overview of the entire manuscript tradition.
    Readers should approach the critical edition like any other text. The sole difference is that, for the first time, they have the entire life of the text before them. The critical edition also allows readers to approach the text confidently after two centuries in which Western scholars claimed that Indians were ignorant of the Mahābhārata’s true nature and were reading a “corrupt” work; that the core of the Mahābhārata was about a historical war, etc. Sukthankar created the critical edition to defend the Mahābhārata. He wanted to show that the text, as far back as we can scientifically reconstruct it, validates the traditional reception of the Mahābhārata as a dharmaśāstra and a mokaśāstra. The critical edition disproves Western scholars’ claims that bhakti was a later interpolation into a Brahmanic work, that the Brahmans had taken over and distorted an original heroic epic, and that the Mahābhārata was composed over 800 years between 400 BCE and 400 CE. Romila Thaparwrongly attributes this view to Sukthankar in an interview with Teesta Setalvad. Sukthankar says the exact opposite in On the Meaning of the Mahābhārata (on page 9). You see how much ignorance about the Mahābhārata exists and how centuries-old prejudices still thrive. Romila Thapar is considered an expert on ancient India, yet her work recirculates the racial and anti-Semitic views of Lassen, Holtzmann Jr., Hopkins, and others already critiqued in The Nay Science.
    In the introduction to Philology and Criticism, you mention three misconceptions concerning the critical edition: “(1) that it is eclectic; (2) that it is not a text; and (3) that it can be replaced by any other text with an apparatus of variants.” Can you elaborate?
    Wendy Doniger calls the critical edition a “Frankenstein’s monster, pieced together from various scraps of different bodies; its only community is that of the Pune scholars, the Frankensteins.” This is a common misunderstanding: because a genealogical-reconstructive edition reconstructs the archetype, the latest common ancestor of the extant witnesses examined for that edition, people wrongly assume that it “pieces together” different texts. In reality, the constituted text does not take one line from one manuscript and another from another to produce a composite text. Rather, for every line, it infers what the reading of their common ancestor must have been such that we can account for the observed variation. The genealogical-reconstructive edition is a mixture of older and newer readings, but less so than the surviving manuscripts, because the editor tries to reconstruct a definite stage of the tradition and print the most original reading (innovations in one or more witnesses being moved to the apparatus as “corruptions” of this reading).
    Moreover, whereas the extant manuscripts may combine readings from different branches, the editor typically discards contaminated specimens and the text he reconstructs is purer and better than any of the available exemplars since it represents the consensus of the main families. Doniger’s metaphor is colorful, but inaccurate. It follows that the constituted text is a text like any other—in fact, it offers a more readable, scientific, and historically accurate text than the others—and deserves to be read as such. Finally, some scholars randomly restore passages from the critical apparatus to the constituted text because they think these passages are typical of a heroic culture or appear “Kṣatriya”, etc. This is to misunderstand the purpose of a critical apparatus: it is not a flea market from which anyone can take anything. There are rules for reconstructing the archetype. Each reading must be justified individually in terms of the manuscript evidence. As Philology and Criticism demonstrated, we should exercise a justified skepticism towards German Indologists’ claims that they do textual criticism (319–24, 339).
    Source: Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth
    In his blurb, Bruce M. Sullivan notes, “Adluri and Bagchee describe how the critical edition’s evidence does not support theories of a prior oral epic or ‘layering’ in the text.” Can you shed some light on the academic debate surrounding the oral tradition and layering, including your views on these issues?
    We must distinguish between two senses of “oral tradition.” The first refers to oral retellings and performances of the Mahābhārata, which have always existed, belong to the work’s transmission, and have been essential to communicating its message. This tradition belongs to the history of reception of the text and it is vital to understand its meaning and continuing interpretation. The second is the sense the German scholars primarily intended by the term—namely, a tradition of “orally improvising bards” who hymned the heroic deeds of Kṣatriya overlords in battle. No evidence exists for such a tradition. Rather, German Indologists tendentiously inferred its existence from the Mahābhārata, arguing that the Brahmans would have taken over and distorted an earlier oral epic to create the Mahābhārata “as an instrument of [their] addiction to spiritual domination” (Lassen). They read the Mahābhārata nationalistically as the saga of a chosen race (the “white Aryans”)— their conquest of an inferior race (the “dark-skinned aboriginals”) and their ultimate downfall due to the priesthood (the “Brahmans”). In this sense, “oral tradition” is a code for an anti-Brahmanic prejudice. (We traced the origins of this prejudice to Protestant anti-Judaic tropes and to German anti-Semitism in “Jews and Hindus in Indology”). It implies a vision of India before the Brahmans and, with some luck, also after them: free, heroic, egalitarian, rational, civilized, developed, etc. No accusation is so base or ridiculous that it cannot be leveled against the Brahmans. One participant at the 17th World Sanskrit Conference asserted a connection between Indian toilet habits and “Brahmanic ideology”. Philology and Criticism demonstrates that no evidence exists for an earlier heroic epic. Mutatis mutandis, Western scholars’ attempts at identifying earlier and later “layers” on the basis of their adherence to a Kṣatriya/Brahmanic ideology have been a failure.
    In conversation, you mentioned that you consider the Mahābhārata śabda pramāṇa. Can you explain? The Mahābhārata is generally categorized as an itihāsa, although it also titles itself an Upaniad. How should we approach the Mahābhārata?
    This is a good question. The Mahābhārata calls itself an itihāsa but also pañcamavedakārṣṇaveda, and an upaniad. The text sees itself as linked with the Veda, yet somehow different from it. Vyāsa, the conscious authorial agency, first “divided” the Veda into four before “composing” the Mahābhārata. The Mahābhārata thus represents the continuing Revelation in the Hindu tradition, especially regarding dharma and moka, the subject of vedānta. But the Mahābhārata is also the Veda for all: it is the strīśūdra-veda. It introduces several innovations—for example, the idea of yugadharma, which changes over time. It critiques patriarchy and celebrates strong women. It criticizes brāhmaas (Paraśurāma and Droṇa) and katriyas (Duryodhana) alike for running amok. It upholds the point of view of a woman (Draupadī) and a stigmatized outsider (the transgender hero Śikhaṇḍin). It praises the virtue of a hunter, who performs lowly work, over an irascible brāhmaa. Thus, while upholding the eternal dharma, the Mahābhārata is more radically egalitarian than liberal democracies today. It is almost “post-modern” in its deconstructive gesture. Without the concept of yugadharma, scripture will become dogmatic and fundamentalism threatens. We would not know what must be changed in society and what the ultimate goals are, which cannot be compromised. Alternatively, there would be skepticism about all values and moral relativism and nihilism would reign. The Mahābhārata presents the praxis of thoughtful inquiry into dharma as an alternative to permanent revolution. It is critical and self-reflexive, and thus historically aware in a way that the Indologists who preached a Reformation for India could never hope to be. I thus regard the Mahābhārata, especially the Bhagavadgītā, as a pramāṇa in itself. I also think it is the best interpretation of the Vedic pramāṇaitihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṃhayet.
    In an interview with Swarajya, you stated, “Itihāsa is history that has overcome historicism: history that has become critical and self-consciousness.” Can you elaborate? How does this affect one’s understanding of the Mahābhārata?
    Let us start with a philosophical problem. What is the reality of the external world and what is the validity of sense perception, our primary source of knowledge about the external world? Until we answer these questions, every history is merely contingent. We only have sense perceptions. Often, what we have is not perceptions of events but of artifacts, which we use to draw inferences about their underlying events, ultimately connecting the events into a narrative in view of some overarching purpose. There is thus no bare historical cognition. Rather, history is something we generate.
    What we call “world history” is a creation of German scholars and philosophers in the nineteenth century. They provided a new intellectual framework for arranging events: the idea of a common historical space, a world stage on which cultures enter and successively vanish. This was a new way of looking at the world’s cultures—and of extrapolating the law of their succession. For Hegel, history was the process by which Spirit actualized itself, developing from primitive forms of statehood such as China and India to its ultimate expression, Prussia. Compare this with the Mahābhārata: external reality is problematized through the author’s interventions in the narrative. Human affairs mimetically enact the paradigmatic conflict, the devāsurayuddha. Humans themselves follow the paradigm of their divine archetypes, the devas and asuras. Instead of a linear, progressive history, we have cycles of time. Instead of a distant salvific event, we have the inexorable rise and fall of souls caught between the conflicting imperatives of dharma and adharma. There is no national salvation; only singularized jīvas. This is a different understanding of history, closer to Empedocles, Plato, and Nietzsche than to Hegel and Ranke. Thus, itihāsa is a history that has become critical about external reality and self-conscious about history’s status as a narrative. And it is asking the Nietzschean question about the uses and disadvantages of history for life: Why do we need history? What purpose should history serve?
    In your introduction to Reading the Fifth Veda: Studies on the Mahābhārata, you note that Alf Hiltebeitel, who has argued for treating the Mahābhārata as a unified literary text, holds that it was composed by a committee of Brahmins over two generations; Vyāsa is just a “narrative fiction.” How different is Hiltebeitel’s position from the Indologists’ speculations that it was originally a Katriya text that was later corrupted by Brahmins? Both positions discard the traditional Hindu view of Vyāsa as the author.
    I prefer “authorial presence” or “textual self-consciousness” to “narrative fiction,” since Vyāsa erases the boundary between empirical and textual reality by showing that both are of the essence of narrative. If reality itself is a fiction, what do we gain by calling Vyāsa a “narrative fiction”? The term presumes that there is still something that, by contrast, we can call non-fictional—a real or a historically existent Vyāsa, against which the textual Vyāsa would be fictive. The Mahābhārata, however, absorbs the mundane world of sense experience into an aesthetic experience of the text (this is why I speak of “the textual universe of the Mahābhārata”). The goal of this “phenomenological reduction” is to show that all experience is illuminated by the intellect and governed by dharma.
    As progressive as Hiltebeitel’s stance on composition is vis-à-vis the German Indologists, it still grants them too much credence. Ultimately, all speculations as to authorship are trivial before the work, which by its very nature as a great literary work resists reductive analyses about the circumstances or motivations for its composition. This has been the greatest failing of Sanskrit studies generally. Every year more vapid dissertations appear, asserting that some work was written because the author wanted to enhance his status or to oppress someone or to insinuate himself with some sect or to assert the superiority of “his” gods. Every year more papers, these “unlovely exercises exacted by the scholarly code” as Arrowsmith calls them, are added to the pile. We are drowning in scholarship, yet little work of philosophical or artistic merit is done. Through Protestant literalism and its emphasis on the realia, we have entered a non-literary, indeed, a non-literate age. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche mocks the anti-intellectualism of the German university. Ironically, Sheldon Pollock runs around exalting the nineteenth-century German university (see my review of World Philology) when the best of the Germans already saw through it and discarded it.
    What has been the reaction to your work from Indologists? Have they responded to your criticisms? How do you think they will react to the new book? How has your criticism affected the field? How will it develop in future?
    There has been no intellectual counterargument. Many Indologists were enraged that we provided a critique that situated them historically and identified their Protestant biases. There were several ad hominem attacks, suggesting that we were “angry” or that we were “Hindutva.” Eli Franco wrote a review of The Nay Science, painting the book in broad brush strokes and accusing us of things we had not said. We wrote a rejoinder titled “Theses on Indology.” The Nay Science exposed the nineteenth-century foundation on which the discipline of Indology rests: names like Rudolf von Roth, Albrecht Weber, Christian Lassen, Adolf Holtzmann Jr., Edward Washburn Hopkins, Hermann Oldenberg, Richard Garbe, etc. Philology and Criticism pursues this inquiry into the work of twentieth-century scholars. The questions that now arise are: (1) Why were these scholars cited as expert authorities, when their work was erroneous (269–74)? (2) Why did scholars fail to detect problems as grave as racism and anti-Judaic and anti-Brahmanic biases, when universities are supposedly bastions of liberal values such as non-discrimination and religious tolerance? (3) Why did academics, who are paid high salaries to discriminate between good and bad scholarship, not notice the many technical errors in their colleagues’ work? (4) Beyond nineteenth-century “‘historical’ method”, what methods and approaches do the Indologists now offer? (5) Why continue with the standard disciplinary hagiography (Pollock’s interview in The Indian Express is a good example) when the episteme is in shambles? (6) What contribution has Indology made to Sanskrit or to India aside from its historicist, interventionist concerns? (7) Finally, how have the Indologists contributed to pedagogy and ethics in their own countries? Except for claiming that certain sections of the Indian population require enhanced oversight, they have not contributed to pedagogy of Indians. Rather, they have used their institutional status to bait Indians, mock their values, seek the thrill of playing stereotypes of East and West against each other, and provoke phony outrage to propel their own careers. The texts have survived for centuries without the Indologists and their “critical” philology. They will continue to survive without them.
    Let me now shift from your academic engagement with the Mahābhārata to your personal engagement with the text. What is the Mahābhārata to you as a person? How has the Mahābhārata influenced you in your personal life? Please share some insights that you have discovered in your long journey with the text.
    The darkest hour in my life was my PhD at Marburg University. I faced horrific racism, disguised as “scientific” philology. As I struggled with my dissertation on the Mahābhārata, my friend and scholar Arbogast Schmitt consoled me, saying ‘Think of the heroes in your Mahābhārata: you must be heroic like them.’ The Mahābhārata saved my life. The German Indologists formed a powerful clique. No one wanted to antagonize them. People talk about how Ambedkar was refused education, but I had a similar experience, and no one objected. I was punished because, like Ambedkar, I didn’t believe these caste or race hierarchies should exist. I didn’t believe I was lower than the German professors, and I didn’t believe I should have to bow to them. I didn’t believe that, as an Indian, I had to follow their unscientific and uncritical episteme blindly and unthinkingly. I could have chosen the path of victimhood, killed myself or burned books. Instead, like Ambedkar, I chose to fight. I read all the Indologists’ works and crafted an intellectual critique. I chose to show how their episteme was responsible for othering. I chose to expose the unjust system. I chose to talk about my experience. I chose to show the collaboration of some Indian Sanskritists (for example, Bhandarkar, Bhargava, and Mehendale), which has perpetuated the legacy of colonialism in Sanskrit studies. Bhandarkar lectured the Indians, “Let us … sitting at the feet of the English, French, and German Ṛṣis, imbibe the knowledge that they have to give.” Can you imagine the scars this left on the minds of young Indians? What gratuitous cruelty! I can’t help thinking that some Sanskritists collaborated with the German Indologists in encouraging deference from the Indians. The Germans profited from this, and rewarded their collaboration (with grants, funding, invitations, semesters abroad, positions, honorary titles, publication venues, etc.).
    You have repeatedly stressed the importance of approaching the Mahābhārata through a hermeneutics of respect rather than the hermeneutics of suspicion. Can you shed more light on this, perhaps with an illustration of how you have cultivated it in your study of the text?
    I come from a scholarly culture that venerates texts. I studied with Reiner Schürmann, who was a brilliant philosopher and a Dominican monk. I had friends who were rabbis. I took courses with Seth Benardete, the most careful reader of Plato I know. Even the tradition of philosophy I was trained in—continental philosophy—works carefully with texts, always in dialogue with past thinkers. Swami Prabuddhananda taught me the text-commentarial tradition of Śaṅkarācārya and his successors in the Advaita parapara. Everywhere I see scholars and readers working carefully with texts, painstakingly interpreting them, trying to make sense of them and learn from them, inspired to ask questions about life, death, ultimate meaning, and the universe. I do not understand what the Indologists do or why they are paid for it. Most Mahābhārata scholarship is jejune. The Indologists barely contributed to pedagogy in their home countries. Even if you argue that a premium was placed on reading texts against the grain, I doubt this qualifies as “a hermeneutics of suspicion”. The latter implies a commitment to a sustained reading, a desire to explore in the depths or locate in the margins an alternate reading immanent in the text. Show me one person who has read the Mahābhārata or the Rāmāyaṇa as carefully as Derrida reads Heidegger. Deconstruction is an art; what the Indologists practiced was the crudest form of iconoclasm, national chauvinism, and vandalism.
    How do you see your work in the context of the long Mahābhārata tradition going back several thousand years in India, on one hand, and Western academic studies of the Mahābhārata in the last two centuries, on the other?
    What strikes me about the traditional commentators is the emphasis on prayojana. No one studies a text without some purpose—prayojanam anuddiśya na mando ’pi pravartate. The commentators clarify the purpose of reading not only the Mahābhārata but also their own commentaries. All study must serve some purpose—dharmaarthakāma, or moka.
    What purpose does the kind of scholarship the Indologists developed serve? They don’t believe in dharma; in fact, they assert that the tradition’s failing was that it had prior ontological and ethical commitments, whereas their work is “factual” and “presuppositionless”. There may have been artha once, but most PhDs today will not earn a decent living. Even currently employed research assistants are exploited. Indology also does not contribute to kāma unless we allow the perverse pleasure of exercising oversight over Indians. (Think, for instance, of the pleasure some academics get from baiting Indians online, tweeting statements that offend them and feeling smugly superior when they react.) Clearly, most Indologists did not gain aesthetic enjoyment from Sanskrit texts, since they called them “monstrous”, “debased”, “degenerate”, “corrupt”, “immoral”, “licentious”, “childish”, and “silly.” We must then assume that they gained a perverse pleasure from denigrating other cultures’ texts, especially scriptures. Finally, few academics believe in transcendence, much less any ultimate or existential concerns that challenge us as humans.
    There are historical reasons for this understanding, so different from anything before it in human history. The humanities developed in a peculiar way in the West after the Reformation. Luther’s attacks on the theologia gloriae of the ancients led to a turn away from ontology. His attacks on the law and the idea that good works can save separated study from ethical conduct. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination led to a bourgeois concept of salvation. Finally, as Fritz Ringer has traced in detail, the unique social and economic conditions of nineteenth-century Germany played a key role. Lacking an entrepreneurial-industrialist class and a tradition of political liberalism and individualism, the professoriate developed differently in Germany than other Western economies. The professor replaced the courtier and cleric. Because of the Erastian state, he was a political appointee, a bureaucrat. He formed part of a mandarin elite distinguished by the fact that it did not physically labor for a living. His goal was to defend the state by providing literature justifying it (Hegel and Albrecht Weber provide good examples). High professorial salaries were accompanied by great freedom and hence were really a kind of benefice. The aim of scholarship also changed: if we are saved by faith alone, why do we need the humanities? Study does not culminate in a gnōsis theou: its sole purpose is to collect and catalog anthropological data (inscriptions, sects, tribes, practices, rituals). Positivist philology became the paradigm of erudition and technical mastery, and true learning was replaced by sophistry.
    We thus have two systems of thought that are incommensurable. One will always ask about the purpose of study and aim to fulfill one of the human goals. The other is a free-standing enterprise. Its sole justification is membership in a club, even as salaries drop and few actually achieve the coveted professorship. We are experiencing the collapse of this system. In a few years, there won’t be any Indologists left to criticize. The court, along with its displays of rank and bestowal of honor, will have disappeared.
    Please share with our readers something about Vishwa Adluri, the person. How do you perceive life? What is your life philosophy?
    Rather than share something personal, let me share a public hope. The people who wrote the Mahābhārata were profound intellects. India has produced some of the greatest philosophical thinkers known to humankind. It has produced works we are still grappling with. I see the Twitter battles, the Marxist-baiting, the arguments over whether the Mahābhārata “really happened,” and the waste of resources determining the dates of the Kurukṣetra war or the moment Bhīṣma fell, and it saddens me. I see Indians at conferences knowing of no higher purpose for Sanskrit than to sing stutis praising their European colleagues, and it fills me with shame. I see the Indian government endowing Sanskrit chairs at foreign universities while institutes in India are destitute, and I despair. I see German scholars awarded grants and prize monies while Indian students go barefoot, and I wonder: will Indians ever learn? I hope that the path Joydeep and I have forged, the path of dedicated study, inspires others to pursue philosophy. Ultimately, identities and ideology must be set aside. A lot of so-called intellectual life or intellectual debate in India is so much self-righteous breast-beating. Indians need to rebuild their institutions and restart indigenous traditions of commentary. They should also overcome the East/West divide, which is a creation of modernity and reinforces a racial division with a cultural and epistemic one. Indian thought shares many features with ancient Greek thought: both cultures developed rich systems of polytheistic philosophy. Reading the history of the pre-Christian West helps us better understand Indian texts. Vice versa, looking at the Indian context helps us understand the history of the West better, especially how access to pagan thought was interrupted. My friend Ed Butler’s work serves as a good introduction. Colonization serves as an excuse only so long.
    [Editor’s Note: Adluri and Bagchee will conduct three independent workshops covering the basics of the Mahabharata critical edition and based on their latest book, “Philology and Criticism”.  
    If you are interested in this workshop go to and register, or fill this form 
    Venue and Date:
     Delhi: August 11th, 2018 (Saturday); Bangalore: August 15th, 2018 (Wednesday); and
    Pune: August 19th, 2018 (Sunday)
    See Indic Today for more details.]

    0 0

    This is an addendum to: 

  This provided evidence of: 1. Cunda, kammāraputta, son of the village smith, metalworker who served the last meal to the Buddha. 2. Anathapindika covers Jetavana with gold coins.

    The continuum of wealth creation activities in ancient India documented in Indus Script Corpora is a continuum of Indus Script tradition to document these activities.

    Examples of this continuum of Indus Script tradition of documenting wealth are collated and presented in this monograph.

    Section 1. Kalibangan cylinder seal is an Indus Script metalwork catalogue, evidence of terracotta cake, fire-altar with yupa (Somayaga) 

    Section 2. Khāravela Hathigumpha inscription with Indus Script Hypertexts celebrating Bhāratavasa

    Section 3. Metaphors & Indus Script hypertexts of mākikāpyrites, śyenáश्येन, mərəγō saēnō, āhangar, 'blacksmith' 

    Section 4. Metaphors of  aya khambhaṛā rebus: aya kammaṭa'alloy metal mint, coiner, coinage' on toraa of Bharhut and Sanchi.

    Epigraphia Indus Script -- Hypertexts and Meanings (3 vols.) posits that the entire set of over 8000 inscriptions of Indus Script Corpora are wealth accounting ledgers, metalwork catalogues.


    Section 1. Kalibangan cylinder seal is an Indus Script metalwork catalogue, evidence of terracotta cake, fire-altar with yupa (Somayaga) 


    Hieroglyph narrative of a tiger tied to a rope (to be tied to a pillar, stake): mēthí m. ʻ pillar in threshing floor to which oxen are fastened, prop for supporting carriage shafts ʼ AV., °thī -- f. KātyŚ, 
    mēdhī -- f. Divyāv. 2. mēṭhī -- f. Pañ, mēḍhī -- , mēṭī -- f. BhP.1. Pa. mēdhi -- f. ʻ post to tie cattle to, pillar, part of a stūpa ʼ; Pk. mēhi -- m. ʻ post on threshing floor ʼ, N. meh(e), mihomiyo, B. mei, Or. maï -- dāṇḍi, Bi. mẽhmẽhā ʻ the post ʼ, (SMunger) mehā ʻ the bullock next the post ʼ, Mth. mehmehā ʻ the post ʼ, (SBhagalpur)mīhã̄ ʻ the bullock next the post ʼ, (SETirhut) mẽhi bāṭi ʻ vessel with a projecting base ʼ.2. Pk. mēḍhi -- m. ʻ post on threshing floor ʼ, mēḍhaka<-> ʻ small stick ʼ; K. mīrmīrü f. ʻ larger hole in ground which serves as a mark in pitching walnuts ʼ (for semantic relation of ʻ post -- hole ʼ see kūpa -- 2); L. meṛh f. ʻ rope tying oxen to each other and to post on threshing floor ʼ; P. mehṛ f., 
    mehaṛ m. ʻ oxen on threshing floor, crowd ʼ; OA meṛhamehra ʻ a circular construction, mound ʼ; Or. meṛhī,meri ʻ post on threshing floor ʼ; Bi. mẽṛ ʻ raised bank between irrigated beds ʼ, (Camparam) mẽṛhā ʻ bullock next the post ʼ, Mth. (SETirhut) mẽṛhā ʻ id. ʼ; M. meḍ(h), meḍhī f., meḍhā m. ʻ post, forked stake ʼ.mēthika -- ; mēthiṣṭhá -- . mēthika m. ʻ 17th or lowest cubit from top of sacrificial post ʼ lex. [mēthí -- ]Bi. mẽhiyā ʻ the bullock next the post on threshing floor ʼ.mēthiṣṭhá ʻ standing at the post ʼ TS. [mēthí -- , stha -- ] Bi. (Patna) mĕhṭhā ʻ post on threshing floor ʼ, (Gaya) mehṭāmẽhṭā ʻ the bullock next the post ʼ.(CDIAL 10317 to, 10319) mēḍhā ‘stake’ rebus: meD 'iron', med 'copper' (Slavic) 
    The terracotta cake found in Kalibangan has the hieroglyph of a warrior: bhaTa 'warrior' Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace', thus reinforcing the smelting process in the fire-altars. Smelters might have used bhaThi 'bellows'. bhástrā f. ʻ leathern bag ʼ ŚBr., ʻ bellows ʼ Kāv., bhastrikā -- f. ʻ little bag ʼ Daś. [Despite EWA ii 489, not from a √bhas ʻ blow ʼ (existence of which is very doubtful). -- Basic meaning is ʻ skin bag ʼ (cf. bakura<-> ʻ bellows ʼ ~ bākurá -- dŕ̊ti -- ʻ goat's skin ʼ), der. from bastá -- m. ʻ goat ʼ RV. (cf.bastājina -- n. ʻ goat's skin ʼ MaitrS. = bāstaṁ carma Mn.); with bh -- (and unexpl. -- st -- ) in Pa. bhasta -- m. ʻ goat ʼ, bhastacamma -- n. ʻ goat's skin ʼ. Phonet. Pa. and all NIA. (except S. with a) may be < *bhāsta -- , cf. bāsta -- above (J. C. W.)]With unexpl. retention of -- st -- : Pa. bhastā -- f. ʻ bellows ʼ (cf. vāta -- puṇṇa -- bhasta -- camma -- n. ʻ goat's skin full ofwind ʼ), biḷāra -- bhastā -- f. ʻ catskin bag ʼ, bhasta -- n. ʻ leather sack (for flour) ʼ; K. khāra -- basta f. ʻ blacksmith's skin bellows ʼ; -- S. bathī f. ʻ quiver ʼ (< *bhathī); A. Or. bhāti ʻ bellows ʼ, Bi. bhāthī, (S of Ganges) bhã̄thī; OAw. bhāthā̆ ʻ quiver ʼ; H. bhāthā m. ʻ quiver ʼ, bhāthī f. ʻ bellows ʼ; G. bhāthɔ,bhātɔbhāthṛɔ m. ʻ quiver ʼ (whence bhāthī m. ʻ warrior ʼ); M. bhātā m. ʻ leathern bag, bellows, quiver ʼ, bhātaḍ n. ʻ bellows, quiver ʼ; <-> (X bhráṣṭra -- ?) N. bhã̄ṭi ʻ bellows ʼ, H. bhāṭhī f.
    *khallabhastrā -- .Addenda: bhástrā -- : OA. bhāthi ʻ bellows ʼ .(CDIAL 9424) bhráṣṭra n. ʻ frying pan, gridiron ʼ MaitrS. [√bhrajj]
    Pk. bhaṭṭha -- m.n. ʻ gridiron ʼ; K. büṭhü f. ʻ level surface by kitchen fireplace on which vessels are put when taken off fire ʼ; S. baṭhu m. ʻ large pot in which grain is parched, large cooking fire ʼ, baṭhī f. ʻ distilling furnace ʼ; L. bhaṭṭh m. ʻ grain -- parcher's oven ʼ, bhaṭṭhī f. ʻ kiln, distillery ʼ, awāṇ. bhaṭh; P. bhaṭṭhm., °ṭhī f. ʻ furnace ʼ, bhaṭṭhā m. ʻ kiln ʼ; N. bhāṭi ʻ oven or vessel in which clothes are steamed for washing ʼ; A. bhaṭā ʻ brick -- or lime -- kiln ʼ; B. bhāṭi ʻ kiln ʼ; Or. bhāṭi ʻ brick -- kiln, distilling pot ʼ; Mth. bhaṭhībhaṭṭī ʻ brick -- kiln, furnace, still ʼ; Aw.lakh. bhāṭhā ʻ kiln ʼ; H. bhaṭṭhā m. ʻ kiln ʼ, bhaṭ f. ʻ kiln, oven, fireplace ʼ; M. bhaṭṭā m. ʻ pot of fire ʼ, bhaṭṭī f. ʻ forge ʼ. -- X bhástrā -- q.v.bhrāṣṭra -- ; *bhraṣṭrapūra -- , *bhraṣṭrāgāra -- .Addenda: bhráṣṭra -- : S.kcch. bhaṭṭhī keṇī ʻ distil (spirits) ʼ.*bhraṣṭrāgāra ʻ grain parching house ʼ. [bhráṣṭra -- , agāra -- ]P. bhaṭhiār°ālā m. ʻ grainparcher's shop ʼ.(CDIAL 9656, 9658) Evidence of yajna in Vedic tradition with a quadrangular yupa.

    Kalibangan. Mature Indus period: terracotta cake incised with horned deity. Courtesy: Archaeological Survey of India See notes at
    kūtī = bunch of twigs (Skt.)The bunch of twigs = kūdī, kūṭī(Skt.lex.) kūdī (also written as kūṭī in manuscripts) occurs in the Atharvaveda(AV 5.19.12) and KauśikaSūtra (Bloomsfield's ed.n, xliv. cf. Bloomsfield,American Journal of Philology, 11, 355; 12,416; Roth, Festgruss anBohtlingk, 98) denotes it as a twig. This is identified as that of Badarī, the jujube tied to the body of the dead to efface their traces. (See Vedic Index, I, p. 177).Rebus: kuṭhi 'smelting furnace‘; koṭe ‘forged metal’ (Santali)

    Kalibangan065 Cylinder seal impression. Note the scarf of the person ligatured to a tiger.

      m.  (also dhaṭhu)  m. ‘scarf’  (WPah.) (CDIAL 6707); 
    Rebus: dhātu ‘mineral (Pali).

    kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolhe 'smelter'

    kūtī = bunch of twigs (Skt.)The bunch of twigs = kūdī, kūṭī(Skt.lex.) kūdī (also written as kūṭī in manuscripts) occurs in the Atharvaveda(AV 5.19.12) and KauśikaSūtra (Bloomsfield's ed.n, xliv. cf. Bloomsfield,American Journal of Philology, 11, 355; 12,416; Roth, Festgruss anBohtlingk, 98) denotes it as a twig. This is identified as that of Badarī, the jujube tied to the body of the dead to efface their traces. (See Vedic Index, I, p. 177).Rebus: kuṭhi 'smelting furnace‘; koṭe ‘forged metal’ (Santali)

    kuṭi 'tree' Rebus: kuṭhi 'smelting furnace‘; koṭe ‘forged metal’ (Santali)(Phonetic determinant of the twig on the horns of the woman ligatured to the tiger'

    koDu 'horn' Rebus: koD 'workshop'

    kolmo 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'
    tagaraka, tabernae montana 'flower', 'hair fragrance' Rebus: tagara 'tin'

    karat.i, karut.i, kerut.i fencing, school or gymnasium where wrestling and fencing are taught (Ta.); garad.i, garud.i fencing school (Ka.); garad.i, garod.i (Tu.); garid.i, garid.i_ id., fencing (Te.)(DEDR 1262). 
    Rebus 1: करडा [ karaḍā ] Hard fromalloy--iron, silver &c. Rebus 2: khara_di_ = turner (G.)

    Hieroglyph: karã̄ n. pl. ʻ wristlets, bangles ʼ (Gujarati) Rebus: khAr 'blacksmith' kola 'woman' Rebus: kolhe 'smelter' kol 'working in iron' kolle 'blacksmith' kolimi 'smithy, forge'.

    Section 2. Khāravela Hathigumpha inscription with Indus Script Hypertexts celebrating Bhāratavasa


    The monograph is organized in the following sections:

    Section 1. Khāravela Hathigumpha inscription
    Section 2.Explaining the continued use of Indus Script Hypertexts in Kharavela’s inscription
    Section 3. Discussion on the continuum of Sarasvati Civilization in Bhāratavasa (Pkt.) = भारत inhabiting भरत-वर्ष i.e. India (भागवत-पुराण)

    Section 1. Khāravela Hathigumpha inscription

    See: This deciphers the svastika hieroglyph as an Indus Script hypertext. In the Indus Script Corpora, the decipherment of this hypertext is presented as follows:

    The cognate word satuvu has the semantics, 'strength, hardness'. This means, that zinc has the chemical characteristic of hardening soft copper when alloyed with copper to produce brass. So, the ancient word for zinc is likely to be sattva.

    kāraṇḍava m. ʻ a kind of duck ʼ MBh. [Cf. kāraṇḍa- m. ʻ id. ʼ R., karēṭu -- m. ʻ Numidian crane ʼ lex.: see karaṭa -- 1] Pa. kāraṇḍava -- m. ʻ a kind of duck ʼ; Pk. kāraṁḍa -- , °ḍaga -- , °ḍava -- m. ʻ a partic. kind of bird ʼ; S. kānero m. ʻ a partic. kind of water bird ʼ < *kāreno.(CDIAL 3059) Rebus:  करडा karaḍā Hard from alloy--iron, silver &c.

    Thus, when zinc is added to copper, the mineral is hardened and becomes copper. This is signified by the following hypertext.
    Source: Thomas Wilson, 1894, Swastika, Library of Congress (embeddedd for ready reference)
    Two geese are shown, because dula 'two' rebus: dul 'metal casting'. Thus, by casting sattva 'zinc' and tamba 'copper', the kāraṁḍa 'aquatic bird' rebus: karaḍā 'hard alloy' of brass is produced.
    Or. ṭaü ʻ zinc, pewter ʼ(CDIAL 5992). jasta 'zinc' (Hindi) sathya, satva 'zinc' (Kannada) The hieroglyph used on Indus writing consists of two forms: 卍. Considering the phonetic variant of Hindi gloss, it has been suggested for decipherment of Meluhha hieroglyphs in archaeometallurgical context that the early forms for both the hieroglyph and the rebus reading was: sattvaatrápu n. ʻ tin ʼ AV.Pa. tipu -- n. ʻ tin ʼ; Pk. taü -- , taüa -- n. ʻ lead ʼ; P. tū̃ m. ʻ tin ʼ; Or. ṭaü ʻ zinc, pewter ʼ; OG. tarūaüṁ n. ʻ lead ʼ, G. tarvũ n. -- Si. tum̆ba ʻ lead ʼ GS74, but rather X tam̆ba < tāmrá --(CDIAL 5992)

    Examples of svastika on Indus Script
    Image result for svastika bharatkalyan97
    Image result for svastika bharatkalyan97
    Pictorial motif

    Five svastika explained: The Meluhha gloss for 'five' is: taṭṭal Homonym is: ṭhaṭṭha brass (i.e. alloy of copper + zinc). Glosses for zinc are: sattu (Tamil), satta, sattva (Kannada) jasth जसथ् ।रपु m. (sg. dat. jastas ज्तस), zinc, spelter; pewter; zasath ् ज़स््थ् ्or zasuth ज़सुथ ्। रप m. (sg. dat. zastas ु ज़्तस),् zinc, spelter, pewter (cf. Hindī jast). jastuvu; । रपू्भवः adj. (f. jastüvü), made of zinc or pewter.(Kashmiri). Hence the hieroglyph: svastika repeated five times. Five svastika are thus read: taṭṭal sattva Rebus: zinc (for) brass (or pewter).

    kola 'tiger' rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolhe 'smelter' kolle 'blacksmith' kollan 'iron worker'

    dhollu 'drummer' rebus: dul 'metal casting'

    Text of inscription
    Sign 403 is a duplication of  dula 'pair, duplicated' rebus: dul 'metalcasting' PLUS  Sign'oval/lozenge/rhombus' hieoglyph Sign 373. Sign 373 has the shape of oval or lozenge is the shape of a bun ingotmũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced atone time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed likea four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes andformed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends; kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt komūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali). Thus, Sign 373 signifies word, mũhã̄ 'bun ingot'. Thus, hypertext Sign 403 reads: dul mũhã̄ 'metalcast ingot'.

    Sign 87 dula 'two' rebus; dul 'metal casting' (Semantic determinative)
    Sign 342 kaṇḍa kanka 'rim of jar' (Santali): karṇaka rim of jar’(Skt.) Rebus: karṇaka ‘scribe, accountant’ (Te.); gaṇaka id. (Skt.) (Santali) copper fire-altar scribe (account)(Skt.) Rebus: kaṇḍ ‘fire-altar’ (Santali) Thus, the 'rim of jar' ligatured glyph is read rebus: fire-altar (furnace) scribe (account)karṇī 'supercargo, a representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible for overseeing the cargo and its sale.'

    Thus, the text message is: supercargo of brass metal castings and bun ingots.

    The inscription reads: smelter, brass worker working with metal casting (possibly cire perdue technique of lost-wax casting).
    Image result for svastika endless knot bharatkalyan97m1356 Copper plate. The endless knot and svastika
    sattva 'svastika hieroglyph' rebus: jasta 'zinc' PLUS meḍhā  'twist' rebus: mēdhā 'yajna, dhanam, wealth'.M. meḍhā m. ʻ curl, snarl, twist or tangle in cord or thread ʼ.मेढा [ mēḍhā ] meṇḍa A twist or tangle arising in thread or cord, a curl or snarl. (Marathi) (CDIAL 10312).  Rebus: मेधा = धन (नैघण्टुक , commented on by यास्क ii , 10). 

    Section 2.Explaining the continued use of Indus Script Hypertexts in Kharavela’s inscription

    Two hypertexts in the Indus Script tradition are highlighted on the margin of the rock inscription.


    The texts are: 

    1.Srivatsa appears between line 1 and 2

    2.Svastika appears between line 3 and 4


    I suggest that these two hypertexts are added on the margin of the inscription because of 1. the wealth creating metalwork activities associated with the hypertexts in Indus Script and 2. the fact that these two hypertexts are sacred in Jaina tradition as evidence on many Jaina āyāgapaṭas.

    The association of śrivatsa with ‘fish-fin’ is reinforced by the symbols binding fish in Jaina āyāgapaṭas (snake-hood?) of Mathura (late 1st cent. BCE). 
    śrivatsa symbol [with its hundreds of stylized variants, depicted on Pl. 29 to 32] occurs in Bogazkoi (Central Anatolia) dated ca. 6th to 14th cent. BCE on inscriptions Pl. 33, Nandipāda-Triratna at: Bhimbetka, Sanchi, Sarnath and Mathura]  śrivatsa  symbol seems to have evolved from a stylied glyph showing ‘two fishes’. In the Sanchi stupa, the fish-tails of two fishes are combined to flank the ‘śrivatsa’ glyph. In a Jaina āyāgapaṭa, a fish is ligatured within theśrivatsa  glyph composition,  emphasizing the association of the ‘fish’ glyph with śrivatsa glyph. meṛh  f. ʻ rope tying oxen to each other and to post on threshing floor ʼ (Lahnda)(CDIAL 10317) Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, me 'iron' (Santali.Mu.Ho.) The m-sound in these lexemes explains the reason for the choice of taurine symbol to signify 'ma' syllable in Brāhmi script.

    (After Plates in: Savita Sharma, 1990, Early Indian symbols, numismatic evidence, Delhi, Agama Kala Prakashan; cf. Shah, UP., 1975, Aspects of Jain Art and Architecture, p.77)

    Svastika hypertext reading:

    sattva 'svastika hieroglyph' rebus: jasta 'zinc' 


    Srivatsa hieroglyph reading:

    The hypertext ligatured to dotted circle (referred to as śrīvatsa or tri-ratna) is explained as: dul aya kammaṭa ’metal casting, alloy metal mint’.



    'Ujjain', 'nandipāda', 'śrīvatsa' ancient coin symbols are Indus Script metalwork hypertexts

    Section 3. Discussion on the continuum of Sarasvati Civilization in Bhāratavasa (Pkt.) = भारत inhabiting भरत-वर्ष i.e. India (भागवत-पुराण)

    The sacredness associated with the two Indus Script Hypertexts explain their depiction on Hathigumpha inscription. 

    There is an added reason which can be suggested by the name of the king Kharavela.
    See: Khāravela conquers Bhāratavasa (ca. 150 BCE), a nation named after bharata, a wealthy alloy, magnetite metalwork celebrated in Indus Script Corpora

    The Hathigumpha inscription refers to Khāravela, the Aira (Aila). The prefatory sentence of the inscription states that it is "...By illustrious Khāravela, the Aira (Aila), the Great King, the descendant of Mahameghavahana..."

    Perhaps for the first time in the history of Sarasvati Civilization, the region controlled by Khāravela is referred to as Bhāratavasa, i.e. Bhāratavarṣa. This nation has to be explained in the context of the messages of wealth accounting metalwork ledgers provided by Indus Script Corpora and hazy outlines of geography seen from ancient texts, Purāṇa-s in particular

    Khāravela, the Aira ऐल m. (fr. इला = इडा) , is a descendant of इला , N. of पुरूरवस् (cf. 1. ऐड्/अ) Hariv. MBh.; m. pl. the descendants or family of पुरूरवस् MBh. xiii (Monier-Williams) Porus who defeated Alexander on the banks of Jhelum river may also belong to the family of पुरूरवस्. It is notable that Porus presented an ukku 'steel' sword to Alexander indicating the close association of Porus with the metalworkers, armourers. In the same lineage, it is possible that the name Khāravela is significant because it is an expression with two words: Khāra and vela which signify khār  खार् 'blacksmith' and beḷē ʻsoldier',
    vēḷ petty ruler, chief, Cāḷukya king, illustrious or great man, hero. 

    Thus, on the top of the inscription, on the margin, the two Indus Script Hypertexts are presented to signify the wealth and valour of King Khāravela who comes in the lineage of Bharata's who are metalworkers who created the wealth of the nation. 

    I suggest that the name of the division of the earth Bhārata (comparable to another division called  हिरण्मय) derives from the semantics of the word bharata related to alloy metalwork:  भरत bharata n A factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c; भरताचें भांडें bharatācē mbhāṇḍēṃ n A vessel made of the metal भरत; भरती bharatī a Composed of the metal भरत.

    Thus, Bhāratavasa (Pkt.) = भारत inhabiting भरत-वर्ष conquered by Khāravela may refer to the regions of Sarasvati River Basin renowned for alloy and cire perdue metalwork and of the region in Sahyadri Mountain ranges (west of Dharwar, Karnataka) renowned for magnetite ferrite ore/steel metalwork. The inscription details  Khāravela's victory over the King of Magadha which means that he also gained control over the mints of Magadha which produced the earliest Punchmarked coins with Indus Script Hypertexts signifying wealth accounting ledgers of metalwork catalogues.

    In Line 11 of the inscription, Bharatavasa is mentioned: "...And in the tenth year (he), following (the threefold policy) of chastisement, alliance and conciliation sends out an expedition against Bharatavasa (and) brings about the conquest of the land (or, country) ........ and obtains jewels and precious things of the (kings) attacked. (L.11)". I suggest that the reference to expedition against Bharatavasa is a reference to the conquests achieved by Khāravela in gaining possession of the metalwork wealth of the Bhārata region of the earth which refers to the region with expertise in alloy metalwork called भरत bharata n a factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c.

    The semantics of khār  खार् 'blacksmith' is the most significant message of hundreds of Indus Script inscriptions. For example, the most frequently used inscription in Indus Script Corpora is composed of three hieroglyphs which signify:

    Blacksmith, supercargo (a representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible for overseeing the cargo and its sale.), daybook
      From r. to l.:

    1. Hieroglyph: khāra खार 'backbone, spine' rebus: khār  खार् । 'blacksmith'
    2. Hieroglyph: karṇīka, kanka 'rim of jar' rebus: kaṇḍa kanka 'smelting furnace account (scribe), karṇī, supercargo' 
    3. khareḍo 'a currycomb (Gujarati) Rebus: karaḍā खरडें 'daybook, wealth-accounting ledger'. Rebus: kharādī ' turner' (Gujarati)

    khār  खार् 'blacksmith': khār 1 खार् । लोहकारः m. (sg. abl. khāra 1 खार; the pl. dat. of this word is khāran1 खारन्, which is to be distinguished from khāran 2, q.v., s.v.), a blacksmith, an iron worker (cf. bandūka-khār, p. 111b, l. 46; K.Pr. 46; H. xi, 17); a farrier (El.). This word is often a part of a name, and in such case comes at the end (W. 118) as in Wahab khār, Wahab the smith (H. ii, 12; vi, 17). khāra-basta खार-बस््त । चर्मप्रसेविका f. the skin bellows of a blacksmith. - -ब&above;ठू&below; । लोहकारभित्तिः f. the wall of a blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -bāy-बाय् । लोहकारपत्नी f. a blacksmith's wife (Gr.Gr. 34). -dŏkuru । लोहकारायोघनः m. a blacksmith's hammer, a sledge-hammer.; । लोहकारचुल्लिः f. a blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -hāl -हाल् । लोहकारकन्दुः f. , a blacksmith's smelting furnace; cf. hāl  । लोहकारकन्या f. a blacksmith's daughter. । लोहकारपुत्रः m. the son of a blacksmith, esp. a skilful son, who can work at the same profession. । लोहकारकन्या f. a blacksmith's daughter, esp. one who has the virtues and qualities properly belonging to her father's profession or caste. -më˘ʦü 1 -म्य&above;च&dotbelow;ू&below; । लोहकारमृत्तिका f. (for 2, see [khāra 3), 'blacksmith's earth,' i.e. iron-ore.; । लोहकारात्मजः m. a blacksmith's son. -nay -नय् । लोहकारनालिका f. (for khāranay 2, see [khārun), the trough into which the blacksmith allows melted iron to flow after smelting. -ʦañĕ -च्&dotbelow;ञ । लोहकारशान्ताङ्गाराः charcoal used by blacksmiths in their furnaces. -wān वान् । लोहकारापणः m. a blacksmith's shop, a forge, smithy (K.Pr. 3). -wah -वठ् । आघाताधारशिला m. (sg. dat. -waas -वटि), the large stone used by a blacksmith as an anvil. (Kashmiri)Rebus: khara 'sharp-edged' Kannada); pure, unalloyed (Kashmiri)

    Si. beḷē ʻ soldier ʼ; Ku. bhaṛ m. ʻ hero, brave man ʼ, gng. adj. ʻ mighty ʼ; B. bhaṛ ʻ soldier, servant, nom. prop. ʼ, bhaṛil ʻ servant, hero ʼ; Bhoj. bhar ʻ name of a partic. low caste ʼ; G. bhaṛ m. ʻ warrior, hero, opulent person ʼ, adj. ʻ strong, opulent ʼ, ubhaṛ m. ʻ landless worker ʼ (G. cmpd. with u -- , ʻ without ʼ, i.e. ʻ one without servants ʼ?)(CDIAL 9588) Ta. vēḷ petty ruler, chief, Cāḷukya king, illustrious or great man, hero; ? title given by ancient Tamil kings to Vēḷāḷas; vēḷir a class of ancient chiefs in the Tamil country, the Cāḷukyas, petty chiefs; ? vēḷāḷaṉ a person of Vēḷāḷa caste. Kur. bēlas king, zemindar, god; belxā kingdom; belō, (Hahn) bēlō queen of white-ants.(DEDR 5545) Ta. vēlai work, labour, task, business, matter, workmanship, situation, office; vēlaikkāraṉ, vēlaiy-āḷ manservant, workman, labourer; vēlaikkāri servant maid. Ma. vēlawork, labour, religious ceremony in temples, difficulty; vēlakkāran labourer, servant. Tu. bēlè work, labour. Te. (K.) vēla work.(DEDR 5540)

     Thus, I submit that the two Indus Script Hypertexts are added with associated sacredness and admiration, on the Hathigumpha inscription 1. to eulogise King Kharavela's lineage in the metalwork tradition of Sarasvati Civilization; and 2. to celebrate the name Khāravela as blacksmith hero, who has added to the wealth of the nation of Bhāratavasa (Pkt.) = भारत inhabiting भरत-वर्ष |

    Section 3. Metaphors & Indus Script hypertexts of mākṣikā ‘pyrites’, śyená श्येन, mərəγō saēnō, āhangar, 'blacksmith' 


    --mərəγō saēnō, Sēnmurw, anzu, Hom bird are Indus Script intimations of vajra, thunderbolt maker āhangar, 'blacksmith', amśu, Soma, ancu 'iron' (Tocharian)

    Hieroglyph: माक्षिकmfn. (fr. मक्षिका) coming from or belonging to a bee (मार्कण्डेय-पुराण)
    Rebus: माक्षिक n. a kind of honey-like mineral substance or pyrites MBh.

    This is an addendum to: Archaeology of śyenaciti, śyena in R̥gveda, Indus Script, Gaṇḍabheruṇḍaarchaeo-metallurgy

    See: Simorg, śyēná (anzu), patanga, mákṣikā: Rigveda riddles, Meluhha hieroglyphs as archaeometallurgy metaphors 

    Image result for shaft-hole axe bharatkalyan97The shaft-hole axhead is conclusive proof of the Indus Script hypertext signified by the double-headed eagle ligatured to the body of a standing human, with wingsemerging from his shoulders.  This hypertext is accompanied with two other hypertexts: winged tiger with feline paws and boar. All three Indus Script hypertexts are read rebus: dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' PLUS śyēná m. ʻ hawk, falcon, eagle ʼ RV.Pa. sēna -- , °aka -- m. ʻ hawk ʼ, Pk. sēṇa -- m.; WPah.bhad. śeṇ ʻ kite ʼ; A. xen ʻ falcon, hawk ʼ, Or. seṇā, H. sensẽ m., M. śen m., śenī f. (< MIA. *senna -- ); Si. sen ʻ falcon, eagle, kite ʼ.(CDIAL 12674) Rebus:  آهن ګر āhan gar 'smith,blacksmith' (Pashto. Kashmiri) PLUS kola 'tiger' rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolhe 'smelter' PLUS kambha 'wing' rebus: kammaṭa 'mint, coiner, coinage' PLUS bahi 'worker in wood and iron' (Santali)  'carpenter' (Bengali) bari 'merchant' barea  'merchant' (Santali) , 'one who helps a merchant (Hemacandra Desinamamamala). thus, three professionals are proclaimed in three hypertexts: blacksmith, iron smelter, worker-in wood-and iron -merchant. The expression āhan gar 'blacksmith' is derived from:  aśáni f. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ RV., °nī -- f. ŚBr. [Cf. áśan -- m. ʻ sling -- stone ʼ RV.] Pa. asanī -- f. ʻ thunderbolt, lightning ʼ, asana -- n. ʻ stone ʼ; Pk. asaṇi -- m.f. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ; Ash. ašĩˊ ʻ hail ʼ, Wg. ašē˜ˊ, Pr. īšĩ, Bashg. "azhir", Dm. ašin, Paš. ášen, Shum. äˊšin, Gaw. išín, Bshk. ašun, Savi išin, Phal. ã̄šun, L. (Jukes) ahin, awāṇ. &circmacrepsilon;n (both with n, not ), P. āhiṇ, f., āhaṇaihaṇ m.f., WPah. bhad. ã̄ṇ, bhal. ´tildemacrepsilon;hiṇi f., N. asino, pl. °nā; Si. senaheṇa ʻ thunderbolt ʼ Geiger GS 34, but the expected form would be *ā̤n; -- Sh. aĩyĕˊr f. ʻ hail ʼ (X ?). -- For ʻ stone ʼ > ʻ hailstone ʼ cf. upala -- and A. xil s.v. śilāˊ -- .(CDIAL 910) vajrāśani m. ʻ Indra's thunderbolt ʼ R. [vájra -- , aśáni -- ]Aw. bajāsani m. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ prob. ← Sk.(CDIAL 11207) vájra m. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ RV., ʻ diamond ʼ ṢaḍvBr. [√*vaj]Pa. vajira -- m. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ, m.n. ʻ diamond ʼ, Pk. vajja -- , vayara -- , vaïra -- ; Sh. (Lor.) b*lc̣, pl. °c̣e m. ʻ thunderbolt, meteorite, lightning ʼ (< *baJ̣?); B. bāj ʻ thunderbolt ʼ; Si. vidu ʻ Indra's thunderbolt (or < vidyút-- ?), diamond ʼ, vadura, viduru.(CDIAL 11204)

    "SIMORḠ (Persian), Sēnmurw (Pahlavi), Sīna-Mrū (Pāzand), a fabulous, mythical bird. The name (which is a Middle Persian word) derives from Avestan mərəγō saēnō ‘the bird Saēna’, originally a raptor, either eagle or falcon, as can be deduced from the etymologically identical Sanskrit śyená (श्येन) "raptor, eagle, bird of prey". Saēna is also attested as a personal name which is derived from the bird name. In the Avestan Yašt 14.41 Vərəθraγna, the deity of victory, wraps xᵛarnah, fortune, round the house of the worshipper, for wealth in cattle, like the great bird Saēna, and as the watery clouds cover the great mountains, which means that Saēna will bring rain." Haans-Peter Schmidt Simorg, 2002, Encyclopaedia Iranica

    Sim-Ring, Simmargl, Seam, Seam, Sam, Semargl, Simurg ("mərəγō saēnō" avvest, later renamed "Sēnmurw" and Persian "Simorgh", Taj "Simur" - "the bird from the top of the tree / mountains ") is a fantastic creature from Iranian mythology, the king of all birds. Also found in the mythologies of the Turkic peoples of Central Asia and the Bashkirs.

    The image of Simurg has various interpretations. More often, he is perceived as a faithful bird of justice and happiness, but in some myths he is a watchman sitting on the top of a mountain that separates the otherworldly world. The image of Simurg was probably borrowed by eastern Slavs in the form of the god Simargra. Perhaps Simurg itself is symbolically depicted on the coat of arms of Ukraine in the form of a falcon. The myth of Simurg spread among the Turkic peoples of Central Asia. For example, in Uzbeks, this bird is called Semurga, Kazakhs are Kaz. Samurik, from the Tatars - Semrug, and in Bashkir mythology - Samrau.

    "The Persian word sīmurğ (سیمرغ) derives from Middle Persian sēnmurw(and earlier sēnmuruγ), also attested in Pazend texts as sīna-mrū...The word was lent to Armenian as siramarg (սիրամարգ) ‘peacock’...Other suggested etymologies include Pahlavi sin murgh ("eagle bird") and Avestan saeno merego ("eagle")...The relationship between the simurgh and Hōm is extremely close. Like the simurgh, Hōm is represented as a bird, a messenger, and the essence of purity that can heal any illness or wound. Hōm – appointed as the first priest – is the essence of divinity, a property it shares with the simurgh. The Hōm is in addition the vehicle of farr(ah) (MP: khwarrah, Avestan: khvarenahkavaēm kharēno) ("divine glory" or "fortune"). Farrah in turn represents the divine mandate that was the foundation of a king's authority...It appears as a bird resting on the head or shoulder of would-be kings and clerics, indicating Ormuzd's acceptance of that individual as his divine representative on Earth. For the commoner, Bahram wraps fortune/glory "around the house of the worshipper, for wealth in cattle, like the great bird Saena, and as the watery clouds cover the great mountains" (Yasht 14.41, cf. the rains of Tishtrya above). Like the simurgh, farrah is also associated with the waters of Vourukasha (Yasht 19.51,.56–57).

    "ABARSĒN, Middle Persian form of the Avestan name Upāiri.saēna, designating the Hindu Kush mountains (Average. iškata; Mid. Pers. kōfgar) of central and eastern Afghanistan. Yašt 19.3 lists it as one of the ranges envisaged as spurs of the High Harā (see Alborz), which, as the mythical world-encircling range, is the source of the mountains. The divine Hōm is said in Yasna 10.11 to have been carried to the Upāiri.saēna range by birds (the Pahlavi version says “Powers” in the shape of birds). Thus already appears an association between the mountains and a bird motif. This is already implicit in their name, “Above the eagle[’s flight].” (Cf. similar Avestan compounds, upairiazəma-, “above-ground,” and upairi.dahyu-, “above the country.”) A parallel Sanskrit form occurs in the “Upariśyena heaven” of the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. (See J. Wackernagel, “Altindische und Mittelindische Miszellen,” BSOS 8, 1935-37, p. 830; he corrects Bartholomae’s attribution, in AirWb., col. 398, of the long vowel in upāiri- to vṛddhi). The archaic character of the name is indicated by the apparently “realistic” sense of saēna as an actual bird, which can not mount to a heroic height such as might be appropriate to the sēnmurw (q.v.) and other mythical birds of Zoroastrian tradition. (Saēna/OInd. śyena will be discussed under sēnmurw. For literature, see M. Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen III/22, Wiesbaden, 1970, p. 385. See also Mēnōg ī xrad 62.37-39; Bundahišn 24.24ff./p. 154 on the mythical birds)." C. J. Brunner, “Abarsen,” Encyclopædia Iranica, I/1, pp. 68-69

    The speculative symbolism of Rigveda Sukta 1.164 detailed by Willard Johnson and Jan EM Houben is resolved by archaeometallurgy.  The riddle of three birds of Rigveda relates to ancu ‘iron’ [Tocharian; amśu, 'Soma' (R̥gveda)]

    ), patanga ‘quicksilver, mercury’ and  mākṣikā ‘pyrites’ – all deployed in metalwork by Bhāratam Janam, ‘metalcaster folk’ a term used as self-designation by Rishi Vis’vamitra Gathina in Rigveda. 

    “The mineral pyrite, or iron pyrite, also known as fool's gold, is an iron sulfide with the chemical formula FeS2. This mineral's metallic luster and pale brass-yellow hue give it a superficial resemblance to gold, hence the well-known nickname of fool's gold. The color has also led to the nicknames brass, brazzle, and Brazil, primarily used to refer to pyrite found in coal.(Julia A. Jackson, James Mehl and Klaus Neuendorf, Glossary of Geology, American Geological Institute (2005) p. 82;  Albert H. Fay, A Glossary of the Mining and Mineral Industry, United States Bureau of Mines (1920) pp. 103–104.) …The name pyrite is derived from the Greek πυρίτης (pyritēs), "of fire" or "in fire"..  Pyrite is sometimes found in association with small quantities of gold. Gold and arsenic occur as a coupled substitution in the pyrite structure.”

    The thunderbolt pattern with an eagle is seen on a coin from Olympia, Greece, 432-c.421 A remarkable parallel is seen between rebus-metonymy layered cipher of Indus Script Corpora and riddles in the Rigveda. Indus Script Corpora is a compendium of metalwork catalogues. Rigveda riddles related to three birds are also rebus-metonymy layered riddles of archaeometallurgy involved in processing Soma, ams’u, ‘electrum’. 

    See notes on speculative symbolism: Johnson, Willard, 1976, On the RG Vedic riddle of the two birds in the fig tree (RV 1.164.20-22), and the discovery of the Vedic speculative symposium, in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Apr-Jun. 1976), pp. 248-258.

    The imagery of the thunderstone or thunderbolt is linked to the metaphor of an eagle carrying away the tablets of destiny in Mesapotamian legends. This Anzu bird ligatured to a tiger is cognate Vedic śyēna. In Meluhha hieroglyphs, an abiding hieroglyph is that of a tiger. The tiger denotes a smithy, forge and smelter: kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron'; kolhe 'smelters'; kolami 'smithy, forge'. The gloss Anzu is a rendering of Tocharian word Ancu, 'iron' (Rigveda ams'u, 'soma, electrum'):

    Rishi: BrahmAtithih kANvah; devata: As'vinau; as'vikas'avah; cedyah kas'uh

    यथोत कृत्व्ये धनेंशुम् गोष्वगस्त्यम् यथा वाजेषु सोभरिम्  (RV 8.5.26)Trans. 8.005.26 And in like manner as (you protected) Ams'u when wealth was to be bestowed, and Agastya when his cattle (were to be recovered), and Sobhari when food (was to be supplied to him). 

    See: Contributions of Bhāratam Janam to Archaeometallurgy: Reinterpreting Mayabheda Sukta of Rigveda (RV 10.177). This article includes a detailed unraveling of the riddles in Rigveda Sukta 1.164 as relatable to Pravargya by Jan EM Houben. (The ritual pragmatics of a Vedic hymn: The 'riddle hymn' and the Pravargya ritual by Jan EM Houben, 2000, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 120 (4), pp. 499-536.) Jan EM Houben indicates the possibility that the riddle in Rigveda Sukta 1.164 is explained as a metaphor of three birds, one of which is Suparna (garumat); the second a bird eating a sweet fig in a tree. The third bird is Patanga. The author of RV 10.177 is Rishi Patanga Prajapati and RV 10.177 is the same as RV 1.164.31. I suggest that the three birds in the Sukta RV 1.164 referred to by Houben are: śyēna, patanga, mākṣikā: 
    • śyēna is suprana (garutmat), falcon
    • mākṣikā is the pippalam sva_du atti: 'the flying bee which eats the sweet fig' (RV 1.164.20)
    • patanga is the third bird, flying insect (RV 10.177) The three flying birds (insects) are rebus-metonymy renderings as hieroglyphs signifying metalwork catalogues in archaeometallurgical transactions of Bhāratam Janam, 'metalcaster folk'  
    patanga, mercury or quicksilver in transmuting metal (Soma, ams'u);

    mākṣikā, pyrites (which are to be oxidised to attain purified pavamAna Soma, electrum as gold-silver compound);

    śyēna, anzu, ams'u (electrum ore filaments in the pyrites).

    Three flying birds are abiding metaphors in Rigveda.

    The glosses are: śyēna, patanga, mākṣikā. The three glosses are rebus-metonymy renderings of sena 'thunderbolt';  patanga 'mercury'; mākṣikā 'pyrites' -- three references to metalwork catalogs of Bhāratam Janam, 'lit. metalcaster folk'. A variant phonetic form of mākṣikā is makha 'fly, bee, swarm of bees' (Sindhi). The rebus-metonymy for this gloss is: makha 'the sun'. Mahavira pot is a symbol of Makha, the Sun (S'Br. 

    In Vedic texts, Divinity Indra is lightning, his weapon is vajra, thunderbolt. The name "thunderbolt" or "thunderstone" -- vajrāśani (Ramayana) --has also been traditionally applied to the fossilised rostra of belemnoids. The origin of these bullet-shaped stones was not understood, and thus a mythological explanation of stones created where a lightning struck has arisen. (Vendetti, Jan (2006). "The Cephalopoda: Squids, octopuses, nautilus, and ammonites", UC Berkeley) In Malay and Sumatra they are used to sharpen the kris, are considered very lucky objects, and are credited with being touchstones for gold.

    See: Contributions of Bhāratam Janam to Archaeometallurgy: Reinterpreting Mayabheda Sukta of Rigveda (RV 10.177) The metaphor of the 'thunderbolt' is depicted as Anzu bird [cognate:asaṇi 'thunderbolt' (Prakritam)] carrying away the tablets of destiny in Mesopotamian legends. A phonemic variant śyēna, 'falcon' gets deified, immortalised as a śyēnaciti 'falcon-shaped fire-altar' in Vedic tradition in Bharatam. This is mərəγō saēnō ‘the bird Saēna’ in Avestan. (See article on Simorg in Encyclopaedia Iranica, annexed. The cognate expression in Samskritam is  śyēna mriga). 

    Bhāratam Janam, 'lit. metalcaster folk' 

    Hieroglyph: Ku. balad m. ʻ ox ʼ, gng. bald, N. (Tarai) barad, id. Rebus: L. bhāraṇ ʻ to spread or bring out from a kiln ʼ; M. bhārṇẽ, bhāḷṇẽ ʻ to make strong by charms (weapons, rice, water), enchant, fascinate (CDIAL 9463)  Ash. barī ʻ blacksmith, artisan (CDIAL 9464). 

    Rebus: baran, bharat ‘mixed alloys’ (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi) bharana id. (Bengali) bharan or toul was created by adding some brass or zinc into pure bronze. bharata = casting metals in moulds (Bengali) भरत (p. 603) [ bharata ] n A factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c. भरताचें भांडें (p. 603) [ bharatācē mbhāṇḍēṃ ] n A vessel made of the metal भरत. 2 See भरिताचें भांडें.भरती (p. 603) [ bharatī ] a Composed of the metal भरत.(Marathi. Molesworth)

    पतं--ग  m. or n. quicksilver L.

    पतं--ग [p= 581,1]the sun (cf. पत-ग) RV. AV. Var. &cN. of one of the 7 suns TA1r. VP.

    पतं--ग a spark ( Sa1y. ; " a पिशाच " Mahi1dh. RV. iv , 4 , 2
    Ancient Greek tetradrachm coin from Akragas, 410 BCE, with a grasshopper on the right.

    पतं--ग [p= 581,1] mfn. flying RV. i , 118 , 4 any flying insect , a grasshopper , a bee , a butterfly or moth S3Br. (°त्/अंग) Up. Mn. &c ( -ता f.Prasannar. 
    pataṅgá ʻ ep. of divine (flying) things ʼ RV., m. ʻ bird ʼ lex.; patáṅga -- m. ʻ (noxious) insect ʼ Br̥ĀrUp.; pataṅga<-> m. ʻ insect ʼ MBh., °gama -- m. BhP.,pataga -- m. MBh. (ʻ bird ʼ lex.). 2. *pattaṅga -- . 3. *paṭaṅga -- . 4. *paṭṭiṅga -- . 5. *phattiṅga -- . 6. *phaṭiṅga -- , phaḍiṅgā -- f. ʻ grasshopper ʼ lex. 7. *phaṭṭiṅga -- .[*patan<-> ʻ wing ʼ with suffix -- ga -- (EWA ii 198) X some nonAryan word. -- √pat] 1. Pk. payaṁga -- m. ʻ grasshopper ʼ. 2. Woṭ. patáṅg ʻ butterfly ʼ, Tor. (Biddulph) "pattang" m., Sv. pataṅg; H. patiṅgā m. ʻ grasshopper ʼ. 3. Pa. paṭaṅga -- m. ʻ grasshopper ʼ, Ku. pilaṅaṭ.4. Ku. piṭaṅo m. ʻ insect ʼ. 5. H. phatiṅgā m. ʻ grasshopper ʼ. 6. A. phariṅ ʻ any winged insect, grasshopper ʼ; B. phaṛiṅ ʻ winged insect ʼ, phaṛiṅgā ʻ cricket ʼ; Or. phaṛiṅga ʻ locust, cricket ʼ; H. phaṛiṅgāphaṅgā m. ʻ grasshopper ʼ, Si.palan̆gā.7. N. phaṭeṅro ʻ grashopper ʼ; -- Dm. phaṭṭäi ʻ butterfly ʼ, Phal. phāṭuṛīˊ f.  S.kcch. pataṅgh m. ʻ moth ʼ.(CDIAL 7721) So<pAp.pAr>//<pAr>(DL)  {N} ``^grasshopper, ^locust''.
    So<pAr>\\<pAp.pAr>(DL)  {N} ``^grasshopper, ^locust''.<phapha>(D)  {NI} ``a big green ^grasshopper''.  #24801. (Munda etyma)
    A tabanid from the Western Ghats, India. Hybomitra micans
    Honeybee landing on milkthistle02.jpg
    Apis mellifera (Honeybee).

    माक्षिकn. a kind of honey-like mineral substance or pyrites MBh.

    माक्षिक [p= 805,2]mfn. (fr. मक्षिका) coming from or belonging to a bee Ma1rkP.n. (scil. मधु) honey Var. Sus3r. mákṣā f., mákṣ -- m. f. ʻ fly ʼ RV., mákṣikā -- f. ʻ fly, bee ʼ RV., makṣika -- m. Mn.Pa. makkhikā -- f. ʻ fly ʼ, Pk. makkhiā -- f., macchī -- , °chiā -- f.; Gy. hung. makh ʻ fly ʼ, wel. makhī f., gr. makí f., pol. mačin, germ. mačlin, pal. mắki ʻ mosquito ʼ, măkīˊla ʻ sandfly ʼ, măkīˊli ʻ house -- fly ʼ; Ash. mačī˜ˊ ʻ bee ʼ; Paš.dar. mēček ʻ bee ʼ, weg. mečīˊk ʻ mosquito ʼ, ar. mučəkmučag ʻ fly ʼ; Mai. māc̣hī ʻ fly ʼ; Sh.gil. măṣīˊ f., (Lor.) m*lc̣ī ʻ fly ʼ (→ Ḍ. m*lc̣hi f.), gur. măc̣hīˊ ʻ fly ʼ (ʻ bee ʼ in gur. măc̣hi̯kraṇ, koh. măc̣hi -- gŭn ʻ beehive ʼ); K. mȧchi f. ʻ fly, bee, dark spot ʼ; S. makhamakhi f. ʻ fly, bee, swarm of bees, sight of gun ʼ, makho m. ʻ a kind of large fly ʼ; L. (Ju.) makhī f. ʻ fly ʼ, khet. makkīˊ; P. makkh f. ʻ horsefly, gnat, any stinging fly ʼ, m. ʻ flies ʼ, makkhī f. ʻ fly ʼ; WPah.rudh.makkhī ʻ bee ʼ, jaun. mākwā ʻ fly ʼ; Ku. mākho ʻ fly ʼ, gng. mã̄kh, N. mākho, A. mākhi, B. Or. māchi, Bi. māchī, Mth. māchīmã̄chīmakhī (← H.?), Bhoj. māchī; OAw. mākhī, lakh. māchī ʻ fly ʼ, ma -- mākhī ʻ bee ʼ (mádhu -- ); H. māchīmākhīmakkhī f. ʻ fly ʼ, makkhā m. ʻ large fly, gadfly ʼ; G. mākhmākhī f. ʻ fly ʼ, mākhɔ m. ʻ large fly ʼ; M. mās f. ʻ swarm of flies ʼ, n. ʻ flies in general ʼ, māśī f. ʻ fly ʼ, Ko. māsumāśi; Si. balu -- mäkka, st. -- mäki -- ʻ flea ʼ, mässa, st. mäsi -- ʻ fly ʼ; Md. mehi ʻ fly ʼ.S.kcch. makh f. ʻ fly ʼ; WPah.kṭg. mákkhɔmáṅkhɔ m. ʻ fly, large fly ʼ, mákkhi (kc. makhe) f. ʻ fly, bee ʼ, máṅkhi f., J. mākhī, Garh. mākhi. (CDIAL 9696) *makṣātara ʻ rather like a fly or bee ʼ. [mákṣā -- ]Sh. (Lor.) m*lc̣hari ʻ wasp, hornet ʼ: more prob. same as m*lc̣hari ʻ bee ʼ < *mākṣikakara -- .(CDIAL 9699) *makṣikākula ʻ swarm of flies ʼ. [Cf. mākṣakulika -- . -- mákṣā -- , kúla -- ]P. makheāl m. ʻ beehive ʼ; Ku. makhyol ʻ swarm of flies ʼ.(CDIAL 9700) माशी (p. 649) [ māśī ] f (मक्षिका S) A fly मासूक (p. 649) [ māsūka ] n R (Commonly माशी) A fly. मधुमक्षिका (p. 629) [ madhumakṣikā ] f (S) pop. मधुमाशी f The honey-fly, a bee. मधुमक्षिकान्यायेंकरून (By the rule or law of the bees.) With selection, by picking and culling, by gathering from all quarters.(Marathi. Molesworth)

    मखतूल [ makhatūla ] m Twisted silk.मकतूल [ makatūla ] m (Usually मखतूल) Twisted silk.

    मख [ makha ] m (Commonly मोख) Kernel &c.

    मखर [ makhara ] n A car or chair of state in which idols or Bráhmans are seated on great occasions and worshiped. 2 A gaily dressed up frame in which a girl under menstruation for the first time sits and receives certain honors.

    मख 1 [p= 772,1] mfn. (prob. connected with √1. मह् or √ मंह्) jocund , cheerful , sprightly , vigorous , active , restless (said of the मरुत्s and other gods) RV. Br.m. a feast , festival , any occasion of joy or festivity RV. S3a1n3khGr2. m. a sacrifice , sacrificial oblation S3Br. &c ( Naigh. iii , 17)m. (prob.) N. of a mythical being (esp. in मखस्य शिरः , " मख's head ") RV. VS. S3Br. (cf. also comp.)

    máhas2 n. ʻ delight in praise ʼ VS., ʻ festival, worship ʼ Pañcar., ʻ sacrifice ʼ lex., mahá -- m. ʻ festival, sacrifice ʼ MBh. [In later MIA. collides with makhá -- m. ʻ sacrifice ʼ ŚBr. -- √maṁh?]
    Pa. maha -- n.m. ʻ festival ʼ; Pk. maha -- m. ʻ festival, sacrifice ʼ; OG. maha ʻ festival ʼ; Si. maha ʻ sacrifice ʼ. mahā -- in cmpds. ʻ great ʼ. [mah -- ] †indramaha  (CDIAL 9937) máhas1 n. ʻ greatness, glory ʼ RV., ʻ splendour, light ʼ Inscr. [máh -- ] Pa. maha -- n.m. ʻ greatness ʼ; -- Si. maha ʻ light, brilliance ʼ (ES 66) ← Sk.? (CDIAL 9936)

    Golden eagle.

    <gOruDO>(P),,<gOruRO>(P)  {N} ``^eagle, any big ^bird''.  *Mu.<gaRur>, Ho<goruR>, H.<gArURA> `large species of heron, eagle', Sk.<gArUDA>.  %11781.  #11691.(Munda etyma)  garuḍá m. ʻ a mythical bird ʼ Mn. Pa. garuḷa -- m., Pk. garuḍa -- , °ula -- m.; P. garaṛ m. ʻ the bird Ardea argala ʼ; N. garul ʻ eagle ʼ, Bhoj. gaṛur; OAw. garura ʻ blue jay ʼ; H. garuṛ m. ʻ hornbill ʼ, garul ʻ a large vulture ʼ; Si. guruḷā ʻ bird ʼ (kurullā infl. by Tam.?). -- Kal. rumb. gōrvḗlik ʻ kite ʼ?? (CDIAL 4041) gāruḍa ʻ relating to Garuḍa ʼ MBh., n. ʻ spell against poison ʼ lex. 2. ʻ emerald (used as an antidote) ʼ Kālid. [garuḍá -- ] 1. Pk. gāruḍa -- , °ula -- ʻ good as antidote to snakepoison ʼ, m. ʻ charm against snake -- poison ʼ, n. ʻ science of using such charms ʼ; H. gāṛrūgārṛū m. ʻ charm against snake -- poison ʼ; M. gāruḍ n. ʻ juggling ʼ. 2. M. gāroḷā ʻ cat -- eyed, of the colour of cat's eyes ʼ.(CDIAL 4138)

    G. garāḍ°ḍɔ m. ʻ pit, ditch ʼ (< *graḍḍa -- < *garda -- ?);*gaḍḍa1 ʻ hole, pit ʼ. [G. < *garda -- ? -- Cf. *gaḍḍ -- 1 and list s.v. kartá -- 1] Pk. gaḍḍa -- m. ʻ hole ʼ; WPah. bhal. cur. gaḍḍ f., paṅ. gaḍḍṛī, pāḍ. gaḍōṛ ʻ river, stream ʼ; N. gaṛ -- tir ʻ bank of a river ʼ; A. gārā ʻ deep hole ʼ; B. gāṛ°ṛā ʻ hollow, pit ʼ; Or.gāṛa ʻ hole, cave ʼ, gāṛiā ʻ pond ʼ; Mth. gāṛi ʻ piercing ʼ; H. gāṛā m. ʻ hole ʼ;  Si. gaḍaya ʻ ditch ʼ. -- Cf. S. giḍ̠i f. ʻ hole in the ground for fire during Muharram ʼ. -- X khānĭ̄ -- : K. gān m. ʻ underground room ʼ; S. (LM 323) gāṇ f. ʻ mine, hole for keeping water ʼ; L. gāṇ m. ʻ small embanked field within a field to keep water in ʼ; G. gāṇ f. ʻ mine, cellar ʼ; M. gāṇ f. ʻ cavity containing water on a raised piece of land ʼ (LM 323 < gáhana -- ).WPah.kṭg. gāṛ ʻ hole (e.g. after a knot in wood) ʼ.(CDIAL 3981)

    Pa. cēna frost, ice. Kuwi (Mah.) hennā hoar-frost. (DEDR 2823)

    Si. senaheṇa ʻ thunderbolt ʼ; aśáni f. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ RV., °nī -- f. ŚBr. [Cf. áśan -- m. ʻ sling -- stone ʼ RV.]Pa. asanī -- f. ʻ thunderbolt, lightning ʼ, asana -- n. ʻ stone ʼ; Pk. asaṇi -- m.f. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ; Ash. ašĩˊ ʻ hail ʼ, Wg. ašē˜ˊ, Pr. īšĩ, Bashg. "azhir", Dm. ašin, Paš. ášen, Shum.äˊšin, Gaw. išín, Bshk. ašun, Savi išin, Phal. ã̄šun, L. (Jukes) ahin, awāṇ. &circmacrepsilon;n (both with n, not ), P. āhiṇ, f., āhaṇaihaṇ m.f., WPah. bhad. ã̄ṇ, bhal. ´tildemacrepsilon; hiṇi f., N. asino, pl. °nā; Si. senaheṇa ʻ thunderbolt ʼ Geiger GS 34, but the expected form would be *ā̤n; -- Sh. aĩyĕˊr f. ʻ hail ʼ (X ?). -- For ʻ stone ʼ > ʻ hailstone ʼ cf. upala -- and A. xil s.v. śilāˊ -- Sh. aĩyĕˊr (Lor. aĩyār → Bur. *lhyer ʻ hail ʼ BurLg iii 17) poss. < *aśari -- from heteroclite n/r stem (cf. áśman -- : aśmará -- ʻ made of stone ʼ).(CDIAL 910) vajrāśani m. ʻ Indra's thunderbolt ʼ R. [vájra -- , aśáni -- ]Aw. bajāsani m. ʻ thunderbolt ʼ prob. ← Sk. (CDIAL 11207)

    श्येन firewood laid in the shape of an eagle S3ulbas

    श्येना f. a female hawk L. श्येन [p= 1095,2] m. a hawk , falcon , eagle , any bird of prey (esp. the eagle that brings down सोम to man) RV. &c  mfn. eagle-like AitBr. mfn. coming from an eagle (as " eagle's flesh ") , Kr2ishn2aj. ?? (prob. w.r. for श्यैन).  śyēná m. ʻ hawk, falcon, eagle ʼ RV. Pa. sēna -- , °aka -- m. ʻ hawk ʼ, Pk. sēṇa -- m.; WPah.bhad. śeṇ ʻ kite ʼ; A. xen ʻ falcon, hawk ʼ, Or. seṇā, H. sensẽ m., M. śen m., śenī f. (< MIA. *senna -- ); Si. sen ʻ falcon, eagle, kite ʼ. (CDIAL 12674) शेन [ śēna ] m (श्येन S) A hawk. शेनी f (श्येनी S) A female hawk.श्येन [ śyēna ] m S A hawk. श्येनी f S A female hawk. (Marathi)

    Alabaster votive relief of Ur-Nanshe, king of Lagash, showing Anzû as a lion-headed eagle, ca. 2550–2500 BC; found at Tell Telloh the ancient city of Girsu, (Louvre)
    Ninurta with his thunderbolts pursues Anzû stealing the Tablets of Destiny from Enlil's sanctuary (Austen Henry Layard Monuments of Nineveh, 2nd Series, 1853)

    śyena, orthography, Sasanian iconography. Continued use of Indus Script hieroglyphs.

    Syena-citi: A Monument of Uttarkashi Distt.

    Geo-Coordinates-Lat. 30° 52’54” N Long. 77° 05’33” E

    Notification No& Date;2742/-/16-09/1996

    The ancient site at Purola is located on the left bank of river Kamal. The excavation yielded the remains of Painted Grey Ware (PGW) from the earliest level alongwith other associated materials include terracotta figurines, beads, potter-stamp, the dental and femur portions of domesticated horse (Equas Cabalus Linn). The most important finding from the site is a brick alter identified as Syenachiti by the excavator. The structure is in the shape of a flying eagle Garuda, head facing east with outstretched wings. In the center of the structure is the chiti is a square chamber yielded remains of pottery assignable to circa first century B.C. to second century AD. In addition copper coin of Kuninda and other material i.e. ash, bone pieces etc and a thin gold leaf impressed with a human figure tentatively identified as Agni have also been recovered from the central chamber.

    Note: Many ancient metallic coins (called Kuninda copper coins) were discovered at Purola. cf. Devendra Handa, 2007, Tribal coins of ancient India, ISBN: 8173053170, Aryan Books International.


    "In the Visnu Purana, the domain of Kunindas is especially defined as the Kulindopatyaka, i.e., the bounding foothills demarcating the Kuninda territory (NSWH, p. 71)...According to Ptolemy (McCrindle's Ptolemy, p. 110), the country of the Kulindrine, Kulindas, was located somewhere in the mountainous region around the sources of Vipasha (the Beas), the Shatadru (the Satluj), the Yamuna and the Ganga...Kulindas emerged as a powerful warrior community...upgrade them as the vratya kshatriya...(Manusmriti, 10.20.22)"(Omacanda Handa, 2004, Naga cults and traditions in the western Himalaya, Indus publishing, p.76.)

    In Dyuta parva (Sabhaparva, Mahabharata) Duryodhana said: "I describe that large mass of wealth consisting of various kinds of tribute presented to Yudhishthira by the kings of the earth. They that dwell by the side of the river Sailoda flowing between the mountains of Mer and Mandara and enjoy the delicious shade of topes of the Kichaka bamboo, viz., the Khashas, Ekasanas, the Arhas, the Pradaras, the Dirghavenus, the Paradas, the Kulindas, the Tanganas, and the other Tanganas, brought as tribute heaps of gold measured in dronas (jars) and raised from underneath the earth by ants and therefore called after these creatures." [cf. Section LI, Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation (1883-1896)].

    The Kuninda warrior clan is mentioned in ancient texts under the different forms of its name: Kauninda, Kulinda, and Kaulinda. Their coins have been found mostly in the Himalayan foothills, between the Rivers Sutlej and Yamuna. The Kuninda were therefore neighbors of the Kuluta and Trigarta clans.

    Their coins have the figure of Bhagwan Shiva holding a trident, with the legend: Bhagwatah Chatresvara-Mahatmanah, translating to Bhagwan Shiva, tutelary deity of Ahichhatra, the Kuninda capital. On the obverse the coins portray a deer, six-arched hill, and a tree-in-railing.

    These coins are made of copper, silver, and bronze, and are found from the 1st century BCE to the 3rd century CE. This suggests that the Kuninda gained independence from both the Indo-Greek and Kushan invaders. A Raja named Amoghabhuti features prominently in the later coins, which bear a striking resemblance to the coinage of the Yaudheya clan. It seems that the Kunindas in alliance with the latter ejected the Kushans in the 3rd century CE.

    By the 5th century the clan-state of the Kuninda disappeared, or more accurately, broke-up into tiny fragments under the families of Ranas and Thakkuras just as their neighbors the Kuluta. The region of Simla Hills, down to the 20th century, was littered with tiny entities ruled by such petty chieftains, which were grouped by the British Empire into the Simla Hill States.

    Silver coin of the Kuninda Kingdom, c. 1st century BCE.
    Obv: Deer standing right, crowned by two cobras, attended by Lakshmi holding a lotus flower. Legend in Prakrit (Brahmi script, from left to right): Rajnah Kunindasya Amoghabhutisya maharajasya ("Great King Amoghabhuti, of the Kunindas").
    Rev: Stupa surmounted by the Buddhist symbol triratna, and surrounded by a swastika, a "Y" symbol, and a tree in railing. Legend in Kharoshti script, from righ to left: Rana Kunidasa Amoghabhutisa Maharajasa, ("Great King Amoghabhuti, of the Kunindas"). NB: Note the svastika, tree and mountain glyphs; these are Indus script hieroglyphs on the coin, attesting to the survival of the writing system in metallurgical contexts -- in this case, in the context of a mint. Note on Kuninda.
    IGNCA Newsletter, 2003 Vol. III (May - June) 

    Syena Chiti, Garuda shaped Chiti Schematic as described by John F Price. Context: Panjal Atiratra yajnam (2011). cf.The paper of John Price: Applied geometry of śulbasūtras.

    First layer of vakrapakṣa śyena altar. The wings are made from 60 bricks of type 'a', and the body, head and tail from 50 type 'b', 6 of type 'c' and 24 type 'd' bricks. Each subsequent layer was laid out using different patterns of bricks with the total number of bricks equalling 200.

    "Sênmurw (Pahlavi), Sîna-Mrû (Pâzand), a fabulous, mythical bird. The name derives from Avestan mərəγô saênô 'the bird Saêna', originally a raptor, either eagle or falcon, as can be deduced from the etymologically identical Sanskrit śyena." 

    Senmurv on the tomb of Abbess Theodote, Pavia early 8th c. "Griffin-like .
    Simurgh (Persian: سیمرغ), also spelled simorgh, simurg, simoorg or simourv, also known as Angha (Persian: عنقا), is the modern Persian name for a fabulous, benevolent, mythical flying creature. The figure can be found in all periods of Greater Iranian art and literature, and is evident also in the iconography of medieval Armenia, the Byzantine empire , and other regions that were within the sphere of Persian cultural influence. Through cultural assimilation the Simurgh was introduced to the Arabic-speaking world, where the concept was conflated with other Arabic mythical birds such as the Ghoghnus, a bird having some mythical relation with the date palm, and further developed as the Rukh (the origin of the English word "Roc")."



    Sassanid silk twill textile of a simurgh in a beaded surround, 6-7th c. CE

    "The simurgh was considered to purify the land and waters and hence bestow fertility. The creature represented the union between the earth and the sky, serving as mediator and messenger between the two. The simurgh roosted in Gaokerena, the Hōm (Avestan: Haoma) Tree of Life, which stands in the middle of the world sea Vourukhasa. The plant is potent medicine, is called all-healing, and the seeds of all plants are deposited on it. When the simurgh took flight, the leaves of the tree of life shook making all the seeds of every plant to fall out. These seeds floated around the world on the winds of Vayu-Vata and the rains of Tishtrya, in cosmology taking root to become every type of plant that ever lived, and curing all the illnesses of mankind. The relationship between the simurgh and Hōm is extremely close. Like the simurgh, Hōm is represented as a bird, a messenger and as the essence of purity that can heal any illness or wound. Hōm - appointed as the first priest - is the essence of divinity, a property it shares with the simurgh. The Hōm is in addition the vehicle of farr(ah) (MP: khwarrah, Avestan: khvarenah, kavaēm kharēno) "[divine] glory" or "fortune". Farrah in turn represents the divine mandate that was the foundation of a king's authority."Sogdian Samarqand in the 7th century AD Archaeology in the landscapes of ancient Sogd has furnished us with a great amount of works of art, mainly from the early Middle Ages. Of highest value are the wall paintings from a palace hall (object 23, room 1) of the Sogdian ruler Varxuman at Samarqand (Afrasiab site)... The western wall is the most important one in room 23/1 due to its position opposite the entrance. This feature seems to be common in Sogdian architectural layouts both of private main halls and palace throne rooms. Who is figure no. 4 of the western wall? (page II) The following proposal for an identification of figure 4 is certainly only an attempt. As we have seen, group A2 of delegates seems to belong to nations of the west. A second hint comes from the clothes of figure 4. The delicate ornamentation depicts fabulous beasts known as "Senmurvs". Look below: 

    Left: The Senmurvs are set into an overall pattern of curved rhomboids. 

    Right: Close-up of the garment of figure 4 Originally more than hundred human figures must have been depicted on the walls of our room. Many of these persons are dressed with richly ornamented and multicoloured clothes. But it seems noteworthy that the Senmurv is, in contrary to other patterns, only to meet with figure 4 on the western wall. The reason for that must be the symbolic nature of the Senmurv. Speaking of this creature we concentrate only on the "dog-peackock" as depicted on the Afrasiab murals. Doubtless it originates from Iranian symbolism. The most spectacular examples can be seen on the late Sasanian rock reliefs of Taq-e Bustan (Iran): 

    Left: Senmurvs as pattern on the caftan of a Sasanian king, Taq-e Bustan, Great Ivan, left wall. 

    Right: Senmurv in medaillon on the clothes of the heavy-armoured rider, Taq-e Bustan, Geat Ivan. Comparing these images with the Senmurvs from Afrasiab we notice a striking similarity. Apparently the Senmurv in Sasanian iconography was a symbol with intimate connection to kingship. Images concentrate on representations of royal persons and on royal silverware. Only in post-Sasanian times, when dynastic restrictions were lost, the Senmurv spread wide as a merely ornamental motif on Near and Middle Eastern textiles, metalwork, and so on. Concerning the Afrasiab murals we have a general date within the limits of the Sasanian dynasty (i.e., before 652), as we have tried to explain on another page. Therefore, if the Senmurv (i.e., the "dog-peacock"!) was a Sasanian royal emblem, his appearance on the Afrasiab murals should point to the same symbolic value. In other words: The "owner" of the symbol should represent a Sasanian king. 

    Wall panel with a Senmurv. Iran, Chal Tarhan. 7th-8th c. Stucco.Inv. Nr. 6642. Image of a quite similar panel which is in better condition that came from the same site, see British Museum, inv. no. ME 1973.7-25.3. 

    Sassanid silver plate of a simurgh (Sēnmurw), 7-8th c. CE. An exquisite and beautifully gilded Sassanid silver plate. The central creature within it is usually identified as the senmurw of Zoroastrian mythology which features the head of a snarling dog, the paws of a lion and the tail of a peacock. This object is today displayed in the Persian Empire collection of the British Museum. Peacock-dragon or peacock-griffin? 

    British Museum. Department: Middle East Registration number: 1922,0308.1 BM/Big number: 124095. Date 7thC-8thC (?) Description Gilded silver plate with low foot-rim and centering mark on the underside; single line engraved around the outside of the rim, with a second engraved line defining the interior; hammered and lathe-turned, then decorated; interior shows a senmurw (a legendary dog-headed bird) facing left, a leaf hanging from its mouth; neck and lower portion of the wing are punched with an imbricated design; the breast is enriched with a foliated motif; the tail feathers are conventionally rendered by punching, the lowest portion concealed by a bold scroll in relief; below the tail, a branch of foliage projects into the field; the foliate border is composed of overlapping leaves, on each of which are punched three divergent stems surmounted by berries in groups of three. Old corrosion attack on part of the underside. Condition of gilding suggests that this is re-gilding. Dimensions : Diameter: 18.8 centimetres (rim)Diameter: 6.8 centimetres (interior, foot-ring)Diameter: 7.3 centimetres (exterior, foot-ring)Height: 3.8 centimetres Volume: 450 millilitresWeight: 541.5 grammes. Hammered gilt silver plate with a low circular foot ring measuring 7.3 cm. across at the base; centering mark and extensive traces of old corrosion attack on the underside; single line engraved around the outside of the rim, with a second engraved line defining the interior. The plate was made by hammering, and decorated through a combination of chasing and punching, with thick gilding over the background. Early published references to the raised portion being embossed separately and added with solder are incorrect, and only the foot ring is soldered on. XRF analysis indicates that the body has a composition of 92% silver, 6.9% copper and 0.45% gold, and the foot has a slightly different composition of 93.4% silver, 5.4% copper and 0.5% gold. The decoration is limited to the interior and shows a composite animal with a dog's head, short erect mane, vertical tufted ears and lion's paws, facing left with a foliate spray dangling from its open mouth like a lolling tongue; a ruff-like circle of hair or fur frames its face; the neck, muscular shoulders and lower tail feathers are punched with an imbricated or overlapping wave design resembling feathers or scales; the breast is enriched with a foliated motif; a pair of wings with forward curling tips rise vertically from behind the shoulders, with a broad rounded peacock-like tail behind decorated with a bold foliate scroll and conventionally rendered by punching; below the tail, a second branch of foliage projects into the field. The foliate border is composed of overlapping leaves, on which are punched three divergent stems surmounted by berries in groups of three. This plate is said to have been obtained in India prior to 1922 when it was purchased in London by the National Art Collections Fund on behalf of the British Museum. It is usually attributed to the 7th, 8th or early 9th century, thus is post-Sasanian, Umayyad or early Abbasid in political terms. Initially described as a hippocamp, peacock-dragon or peacock-griffin, most scholars follow Trever's (1938) identification of this as a senmurw (New Persian simurgh), or Avestan Saena bird (cf. also Schmidt 1980). The iconographic features of a senmurw include the head of a snarling dog, the paws of a lion and the tail of a peacock, with the addition of the plant motifs on the tail or hanging out of the mouth being allusions to its role in regenerating plants. This bird is described in Pahlavi literature as nesting "on the tree without evil and of many seeds" (Menog-i Xrad 61.37-42), and scattering them in the rainy season to encourage future growth (Bundahišn XVI.4). For this reason it was believed to bestow khwarnah (glory and good fortune), and particularly that of the Kayanids, the legendary ancestors of the Sasanians. This motif is first attested in a datable Sasanian context on the rock-cut grotto of Khusrau II (r. 591-628) at Taq-i Bustan, when it appears within embroidered roundels decorating the royal gown. The same motif recurs within a repeating pattern of conjoined pearl roundels depicted on silks from the reliquary of St Lupus and a tomb at Mochtchevaja Balka in the north Caucasus, a press-moulded glass inlay and vessel appliqué in the Corning Museum of Glass, metalwork, Sogdian murals, and the late Umayyad palace façade at Mshatta (e.g. Harper et al. 1978: 136, no. 60; Trever & Lukonin 1987: 115, pl. 73, no. 26; Overlaet ed. 1993: 270, 275-77, nos 119, 127-28). However, there are significant differences of detail between all of these, and a little caution is necessary before making definite attributions of iconography, date or provenance. Many of the features are also repeated on the depiction of a horned quadruped depicted on a 7th century plate in the Hermitage (Trever & Lukonin 1987: 117-18, pl. 106, no. 36); most recently, Jens Kröger has reiterated the possibility of an early Abbasid date for the present plate, and observed that the distinctive decoration on the tail resembles the split palmette motifs on early Abbasid and Fatimid rock crystal. Source: heroic theft: myths from Rgveda and the Ancient Near East - David M. Knipe (1967).

    The Heroic Theft: Myths from Ṛgveda IV and the Ancient near East
    Author(s): David M. Knipe
    Source:History of Religions,Vol. 6, No. 4 (May, 1967), pp. 328-360

    The heroic theft: myths from Rgveda and the Ancient Near East - David M. Knipe (1967) 
    Section 4. Metaphors of  aya khambhaṛā rebus: aya kammaṭa 'alloy metal mint, coiner, coinage' on toraa of Bharhut and Sanchi

    Elapattra worshipping Buddha (Bharhut), Courtesy: Vogel JPH)

    phaḍa 'cobra hood' rebus: phaḍa, paṭṭaḍa 'metals manufactory'

    śrīvatsa (or tri-ratna)                                                 Variant (dotted circle w/ fish-fins on top constituting śrīvatsa): Image result for srivatsa numismaticsParker's Tissa coin Ancient Ceylon 54
    Other variants: 
    Image result for srivatsa sanchi stupa

    Source for Ujjain coin images. Satavahana coins are of copper, silver, lead and potin (which is  a mixture of bronze, tin and lead) 

    śrīvatsa adorns top capital of a fier pillar (skambha) in Amaravati
    Image result for AMARAVATI fiery pillar
    Image result for AMARAVATI fiery pillar
    On Amaravati representation of the fiery pillar of light the skambha is ligatured with a capital on top. The capital is hieroglyph 'srivatsa' atop a circle (vaTTa 'round, circle') as a phonetic determinant that the  aya PLUS kambha is in fact to be pronounced, aya khambhaṛā (Lahnda) rebus: aya 'iron' PLUS kamma
    a 'mint' (Kannada)== 'fish PLUS fin' rebus: ayas kammaa 'metal mint'. meḍ 'foot' rebus: meḍ 'iron' (Mu.Ho.)
    Clear orthography of śrīvatsa hypertext is seen on Sanchi stupa toraṇa, with delineation of two 'fish-fins' next to the śilpi, 'architect' statue. (Explanation of spathe of palm in the sculptural composition: sippīʻspathe of date palmʼ Rebus: sippi 'artificer, craftsman'.
     Srivatsa with kanka, 'eyes' (Kui). 

    Begram ivories. Plate 389 ReferenceHackin, 1954, fig.195, no catalog N°. According to an inscription on the southern gate of Sanchi stupa, it has been carved by ivory carvers of Vidisha.Southern Gateway panel information:West pillar Front East Face has an inscription. Vedisakehi dantakarehi rupa-kammam katam - On the border of this panel – Epigraphia Indica vol II – written in Brahmi, language is Pali –  the carving of this sculpture is done by the ivory carvers of Vedisa (Vidisha). 

    The association of śrivatsa with ‘fish-fin’ is reinforced by the symbols binding fish in Jaina āyāgapaṭas (snake-hood?) of Mathura (late 1st cent. BCE). 
    śrivatsa symbol [with its hundreds of stylized variants, depicted on Pl. 29 to 32] occurs in Bogazkoi (Central Anatolia) dated ca. 6th to 14th cent. BCE on inscriptions Pl. 33, Nandipāda-Triratna at: Bhimbetka, Sanchi, Sarnath and Mathura]  śrivatsa  symbol seems to have evolved from a stylied glyph showing ‘two fishes’. In the Sanchi stupa, the fish-tails of two fishes are combined to flank the ‘śrivatsa’ glyph. In a Jaina āyāgapaṭa, a fish is ligatured within theśrivatsa  glyph composition,  emphasizing the association of the ‘fish’ glyph with śrivatsa glyph. meṛh  f. ʻ rope tying oxen to each other and to post on threshing floor ʼ (Lahnda)(CDIAL 10317) Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, me 'iron' (Santali.Mu.Ho.) The m-sound in these lexemes explains the reason for the choice of taurine symbol to signify 'ma' syllable in Brāhmi script.

    (After Plates in: Savita Sharma, 1990, Early Indian symbols, numismatic evidence, Delhi, Agama Kala Prakashan; cf. Shah, UP., 1975, Aspects of Jain Art and Architecture, p.77)

    Hieroglyph on a Begram ivory plaque: a pair of molluscs tied with a chisel
    Hieroglyph: śaṅkula 'chisel' Rebus: sangin 'shell-cutter'. sangi 'mollusc' Rebus: sangi 'pilgrim'. Dama 'cord, tying' Rebus: dhamma 'moral conduct, religious merit'. A variant ties a fish with the hieroglyph complex: ayira, ayila 'fish' Rebus: ayira, ariya 'noble conduct'. Thus connoting ariya-dhama, ayira-dhamma; ariya-sangha, ayira-sangha (Pali). 

    Figure 1:  

    Bharhut Stupa Gate. Reconstruction Drawing. Bharhut, India, Ca. 100 - 80 I.E.

    Original-Indian Museum, Calcutta, Indiaa

    Figure 2: 
    Sanchi, Grea Stupa Gate. Sanchi, India, Ca. 2nd - 3rd decades of 1st Century I.E.

    0 0


    I submit that Sarasvatī as Vāgdevi pratimā in National Museum, Delhi is a prayer of a hamsa artisan/merchant guild to the Devi. Hamsa signifies anser indicus, a migratory bird of extraordinary prowess, which can fly across the Himalayan heights from 1000 miles away. The earliest art in India, up until the early colonial period, does not depict swans, but rather birds that resemble the Anser indicus. Hence, the birds painted at the Ajanta Caves in the depiction of the Hamsa Jataka resemble the Anser indicus, which are famous for their yearly migration into the Himalayas. Hamsa signifies the Supreme ātman, life principle or sensations.

    Hanse, later spelled as Hansa, was the Old High German word for a convoy, and this word was applied to bands of merchants traveling between the Hanseatic cities whether by land or by sea.

    Haŋsa2 [cp. Sk. haŋsa=Lat. (h)anser "goose," Gr. xh/n= Ags. gōs=E. goose, Ger. gans] 1. a water -- bird, swan S i.148; Sn 221, 350, 1134; Dh 91, 175; DhA ii.170; J ii.176 sq.; SnA 277; Pv ii.123iii.34. Considered as (suvaṇṇa -- ) rāja -- haŋsa ("golden royal swan") to be king of the birds: J i.207; ii.353; Vism 650. -- At SnA 277 Bdhgh gives various kinds of haŋsa's, viz. harita˚, tamba˚, khīra˚, kāḷa˚, pāka˚, suvaṇṇa˚. -- pāka˚ a species of water bird J v.356; vi.539; SnA 277. -- f. haŋsī Dāvs v.24 (rāja˚). -- 2. a kind of building J i.92.(Pali) हंस m. (ifc. f(). ; accord. to Un2. iii , 62 fr. √1. हन् , " to go? ") a goose , gander , swan , flamingo (or other aquatic bird , considered as a bird of passage ; sometimes a mere poetical or mythical bird , said in RV. to be able to separate सोम from water , when these two fluids are mixed , and in later literature , milk from water when these two are mixed ; also forming in RV. the vehicle of the अश्विन्s , and in later literature that of ब्रह्मा ; ifc. also = " best or chief among ") RV. &c; the soul or spirit (typified by the pure white colour of a goose or swan , and migratory like a goose ; sometimes " the Universal Soul or Supreme Spirit " , identified with विराज् , नारायण , विष्णु , शिव , काम , and the Sun ; du. " the universal and the individual Spirit " ; accord. to Sa1y. resolvable into अहं स , " I am that ") Up. MBh. Hariv. &c; rebus: हंस an unambitious monarch, a spiritual preceptor (Monier-Williams).

    [quote]The hamsa (Sanskrit: हंस, haṃsa or hansa) is an aquatic bird of passage, such as a goose or a swan. Its icon is used in Indian and Southeast Asian culture as a spiritual symbol and a decorative element. It is vahana of Lord BrahmaGayatriSaraswati and Lord Vishvakarma...Monier Williams translates the term from Sanskrit as "goose, gander, swan, flamingo, or other aquatic bird of passage". The word is also used for a mythical or poetical bird with knowledge. In the Rig Veda, it is the bird which is able to separate Soma from water, when mixed; in later Indian literature, the bird separates milk from water when mixed.[1] In Indian philosophical literature, hamsarepresents the individual soul or spirit (typified by the pure sunlight-white like color of a goose or swan), or the "Universal Soul or Supreme Spirit".The word Hamsa is cognate with Latin "(h)anser", Greek "χήν", German "Gans", English "goose", Spanish "ganso" and Russian "гусь"...Jean Vogel, in 1952, questioned if hamsa is indeed swan, because according to Dutch ornithologists GC Junge and ED van Oort he consulted, swans were rare in modern India while the Indian Goose (Anser indicus) were common.[6] According to Vogel, Western and Indian scholars may have preferred translating hamsa in Sanskrit text as swan because the indigenous goose appears plump while the swan (and, Vogel adds, the flamingo) appears more graceful. Paul Johnsgard, in 2010, has stated that mute swan (Cygnus Olor) do migrate to northwestern Himalayan region of India every winter, migrating some 1000 miles each way. Similarly, the British ornithologist Peter Scott, in his Key to the Wildfowl of the World, states that northwestern India is one of the winter migration homes for mute swan, the others being Korea and Black Sea.Grewal, Harvey and Pfister, in 2003, identified large swaths of northwestern India and northeastern Pakistan particularly Kashmir and parts of south Pakistan as winter habitats of mute swans.The Sanskrit and Pali languages, both have alternate words for goose such as JalapadaDhamaraCakragki,  
    Majjugamana, Shvetagaruta and others.Dave states that the hymns of Rigveda, and verses in Hindu Epics and Puranas mention a variety of birds with the root of hamsa (हंस), such as Maha-hamsa, Raj-hamsa, Kal-hamsa and others, most of which relate to various species of swans particularly mute swan, while some refer to geese ...Paramahamsa Upanishad calls that Yogi a Paramhamsa who is neither opinionated nor affected by defamation, nor jealous, not a show off, is humble, and is oblivious to all the human frailties. He is immune to the existence of his body, which he treats as a corpse. He is beyond false pretensions and lives realizing the Brahman. In chapter 3, the Paramhamsa Upanishedstates that the one who understands the difference between "staff of knowledge" and "staff of wood", is a Paramahamsa.
    He does not fear pain, nor longs for pleasure.
    He forsakes love. He is not attached to the pleasant, nor to the unpleasant.
    He does not hate. He does not rejoice.

    Firmly fixed in knowledge, his Self is content, well-established within.
    He is called the true Yogin. He is a knower.

    His consciousness is permeated with that, the perfect bliss.
    That Brahman I am, he knows it. He has that goal achieved.
    — Paramahamsa Upanishad, Chapter 4 (Abridged),[unquote].
    A bird probably a goose reliquary, found in TaxilaGandhara (1st century CE). This was found inside a granite bowl, with a gold sheet inscription (now lost). Scholars state the lost inscription read "a relic of the Buddha was placed in the goose reliquary for the benefit of Sira's parents in a future existence". Now at the British Museum

    [quote] One of the rarest pieces of sculptural art anywhere this four-armed divine image, highly sophisticated and delicately carved out of a marble rock, white but time's imprints stripping it of its divine whiteness, represents goddess Sarasvati. Recovered from a strong Jain belt and in view of its iconographic specificity, especially the Tirthankara icon on the top of the 'prabha', an essential feature of the images of subordinate Jain deities, the image represents the goddess as Vāgdevi, Sarasvati's transform in Jain pantheon. As is the iconographic tradition of her images, the goddess has been conceived as four-armed standing on a lotus pedestal and carrying lotus, book, rosary and a pot in her hands. Along with the rosary, the lower right hand displays 'varada mudra', gesture of release. Elaborately bejeweled with a wider range of ornaments than usually seen in her contemporary images, especially the ornaments on her arms, the delicate string on the back of the palms and the stringed ornament defining the roundness of her breasts, the goddess has been modeled with an exceptionally soft and delicate figure, fingers, long, sharp and with pointed nails being most attractive and striking. Besides the lyre-playing devotee females and the donor couple, royal beings or a rich trader and his wife, around her feet the statue also includes a damaged figure of a 'vina' playing Gandharva. Sarasvati, the goddess of learning, music, eloquence and faculties of mind is essentially a Vedic deity, the Rig-Veda itself alluding to her as 'Vak' and the Atharva-Veda attributing to her even a form. The goddess was subsequently adopted in Buddhist, Jain and Brahmanical pantheons. While the Buddhist and Jain pantheons went for her transforms, all being subordinate deity-forms, the Brahmanical pantheon attributed to her quasi-independent status, first as Brahma's 'Shakti' helping creation, then as Vishnu's consort assisting sustenance, and finally, as in VishnudharmottaraPurana or Amsu-madbhedagama and Rupamandana, as a goddess with independent status: the patron deity of arts, music, literature, learning and every aspect of creativity and culture. These texts perceived her as white comple-xioned, in white ensemble, carrying in her hands variously pen, manuscript, lotus, rosary, vina and a vessel of nectar... With more elaborate imagery in Jain pantheon she has been conceived as heading the collective body of sixteen 'Vidya-devis' and is especially worshiped on 'Snana Panchami'.[unquote]

    12th century AD, Chauhan Period
    Place of Origin: Pallu, Bikaner, Rajasthan

    Materials: Stone

    Dimensions: Ht: 77 L: 46 W: 22 cm.

    Acc. No. 1-6/278

    23 tirtankar pārśvanāth on the crown
    The pedestal signifies hamsa with a garland held in its beak and an adorant with a garland in his hand. Hamsa is cognate with hansa, guild.

    "The Hanseatic League (/ˌhænsiˈætɪk/; Middle Low German: Hanse, Düdesche Hanse, Hansa; Standard German: Deutsche Hanse; Latin: Hansa Teutonica) was a commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and market towns in Northwestern and Central Europe. Growing from a few North German towns in the late 1100s, the league came to dominate Baltic maritime trade for three centuries along the coast of Northern Europe. It stretched from the Baltic to the North Sea and inland during the Late Middle Ages and declined slowly after 1450.
    Hanse, later spelled as Hansa, was the Old High German word for a convoy, and this word was applied to bands of merchants traveling between the Hanseatic cities whether by land or by sea.
    The league was created to protect the guilds' economic interests and diplomatic privileges in their affiliated cities and countries, as well as along the trade routes the merchants visited. The Hanseatic cities had their own legal system and furnished their own armies for mutual protection and aid. Despite this, the organization was not a state, nor could it be called a confederation of city-states; only a very small number of the cities within the league enjoyed autonomy and liberties comparable to those of a free imperial city."

    0 0

    'Harappans United Regions Across 2 Million Sq KM’


    'Harappans United Regions Across 2 Million Sq KM’
    Prof V.S. Shinde, senior archaeologist and vice-chancellor of Deccan College, explains how Rakhigarhi extends our understanding of the Harappan civilisation.

    Prof V.S. Shinde, senior archaeologist and vice-chancellor of Deccan College, Pune, is the one steering the research at the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi. In an interview with Sunil Menon and Siddhartha Mishra, he explains how Rakhigarhi extends our understanding of the Harappan civilisation. Excerpts:
    Sunil Menon: Prof Shinde, what does Rakhigarhi tell us?
    V.S. Shinde: We had very little idea about the regional diversity during Harappan times. We always think the Harappan civilisation was homogeneous. In some respects, that’s true. But there were different ecological zones, and you find diversity flowing from that. Like, Gujarat has a slightly different variety compared to the Saraswati region. But overall there is a concept of one ­nation. This concept was introduced by the Harappans.
    Menon: From archaeological findings, how do you arrive at something as ­abstract as a nation?
    Shinde: See, the Harappan culture occupied about 2 million sq km. Over this vast area, they established some kind of uniform culture. This shows they had united different regions. Not by force, but by mutual consent.
    Siddhartha Mishra: Because they never had an army…
    Shinde: Yes, they never had one. So we wanted to understand the specific variation of culture in this part. What are its features, how that came into being. We use two terms: one is Harappan culture, the other is Harappan civilisation. The Harappan culture’s time-span is from 5500 BC to 1500 BC. But there’s one phase within that where we find tremendous development and prosperity, where they started developing cities and towns. That’s the Harappan civilisation phase: from 2600 BC to about 1900 BC. We haven’t really understood how the transformation occurred. We wanted to demonstrate that in the structures, in the pottery, other elements of material culture. And this site is ideal for that as we have the early Harappan phase and then the mature phase too.
    Menon: Rakhigarhi also unsettles the idea that the Indus was the centre of gravity of Harappan culture, with a few radiating elements. The centre of gravity itself seems to be shifting here…given its size and time-scale.
    Shinde: This whole area, the ancient Saraswati region, is so important. Two-thirds of the Harappan sites are in this region. And maybe not many sites in the Indus region.
    Menon: But the Indus as a coherent ­centre also sits well with the idea of a site like Mehrgarh in Balochistan, evolving from the Neolithic to eventually give us the big cities.
    Shinde: So now we have a site like Bhirrana. As old as Mehrgarh. That is, 6500-7000 BC.
    Mishra: All of them coexisting….
    Shinde: Exactly, and they were in touch with each other, all material developments were simultaneous. So we cannot pinpoint the Sindh region as the nucleus, from where it begins to disperse. It’s not like that. The whole map was occupied by the early communities, evolving ­simultaneously; ideas flowed from one region to another because of constant contact right from the beginning.
    Mishra: Are there cultural differences between the sites?
    Shinde: You mostly find the same culture, with a little variation, maybe bec­ause of different food habits, or different traditions. Otherwise it was a more or less uniform culture. The same 1.73 gram weight, maybe a slight variation in the shape of pottery…that’s all.
    “We cannot pinpoint the Sindhu region as the nucleus from where the Harappan culture ­begins to disperse. It’s not like that.”

    Menon: Harappan cities were even int­ernally heterogeneous...we can talk about shared culture, not ethnicity....
    Shinde: We don’t have enough data—very little from Sindh, a bit from Punjab. We have DNA data from Rakhigarhi; we are in the final phase of studying it, but we cannot generalise from that. I believe there were different types of ethnic groups across the Harappan map.
    We now have an idea about the cultural evolution in Rakhigarhi. It’s not like the concept of the city came suddenly. The early farmers around 5500 BC were rural; they lived in small circular huts. In the next stage, we get rectangular structures. In the third stage, there’s better planning, bigger rectangular structures. Then they transform it into a city. Elaborate planning, the concept of drainage, bathrooms.
    Mishra: And what brings on the decline?
    Shinde: Aridity. The Saraswati slowly dries out…probably they had to leave the site itself. The Harappans had flourishing trade with the west, particularly with Egypt. We have archaeological data as well as literary data: the Mesopotamian texts mention it. Of the goods coming from Meluhha, they talk about ‘the red metal’ (copper), articles made of red stones, the semi-precious carnelian, ­various spices, ivory.
    Menon: Was Yamuna the outer limit?
    Shinde: Actually, the Gangetic plain is the main boundary, beyond that are zones of Harappan influence. Harappans may have supplied Bihar and its neighbours with technology. There’s influence up to Jammu and the entire Makran coast and Iran. You find different categories of settlements, all in a symbiotic ­relationship. Out of 2,000 settlements, we have identified five proper cities. Then maybe half-a-dozen towns like Kalibangan or Lothal, and a network of agricultural settlements, villages, and manufacturing centres like Chanhudaro. Also, a large number of ports and small settlements for exploitation of local ­resources. There’s a pattern of interaction between the cities and the rest.
    Menon: Do you find any influence on the Harappans from the outside?
    Shinde: We don’t really see that. Some marginal influence perhaps, like the Mesopotamian figure of Gilgamesh shows up in a Harappan form, that’s all. What sets them apart from contemporary civilisations is this: the Harappans did not have Giza, they did not build pyramids or monumental structures like those. They were very capable of building those, having acquired a lot of wealth from the western trade. Instead, the Harappans used that wealth to create healthy, hygienic living cities for the welfare of the common people. That was the difference in philosophy. So, right from the beginning, we were practical people. Only if you emphasise these aspects will people realise the ­importance of this civilisation.
    Mishra: How were they governed?
    Shinde: They had a two-tier administrative system, such as today’s. Kautilya had these ideas because the system was alr­eady there before his time. We talk of Kautilya’s Arthashastra, but the ideas were very much there from before. Our system is, in fact, derived from theirs. We still have the panchayat system…that continues from Harappan times.
    The Pakistani archaeologist Rafiq Mughal observed that there were two kinds of capitals during those times. In each ecological zone, you find one big settlement. That acted like some kind of a regional capital. Probably, some decisions were taken at the capital. Such as, ‘What should be the brick size?’, ‘What should be the denominations of the seals?’. Then the regional capital enf­orced those. This is how they maintained uniformity over such a large area.
    “Harappans were quite capable of ­building monumental structures like the pyramids, but used their wealth to create happy, living cities.’

    Mishra: And religion?
    Shinde: We don’t have much evidence. But one thing is clear: they were not practising religion as a community, like today. Maybe it was an individual thing. You find a few figurines—probably they were worshipped. The proto-Shiva, a few linga types, but most probably they were in households. We don’t know. But you do not find temples as such.
    Menon: So potentially different ­peoples, perhaps even speaking different languages, sharing only a kind of unified system….
    Shinde: Exactly. They must have had some kind of uniform writing system. Right from Afghanistan or the Iranian border, we find the same sort of letters. Not much difference. Maybe parallel languages were spoken. Maybe there were dialects. But the writing system was the same. Like today’s Devnagari is used by both Marathi and Hindi.

    We Are All Harappans

    The Rakhigarhi project shines light on an old enigma: the ­Harappans were genetically ‘Ancestral South Indian’ stock. Which is to say, all of us in South Asia are their children.

    We Are All Harappans
    Just three-and-a-half hours due northwest of Delhi, the GPS takes you unerringly to ancient India. Not a mythic world, but one made of bricks dried in an age-old sun. It’s a part of Haryana that can pass, at one glance, for Assam: the wet green of paddy stretches to the flat, misty horizons. Some spans of time are as endless—it boggles the mind, for instance, to think that the duration between the early onset of civilisation and its decline in these parts is longer than what separates us now from Harappa.
    Or shall we say, Rakhigarhi.
    “The Rakhigarhi samples have a significant amount of ‘Iranian farmer’ ancestry. You won’t find this DNA in the north Indian population today, but only in south Indians,” says Niraj Rai.

    Yes, the shift in centre of gravity is as fundamental as that. The Harappan site at Rakhigarhi, in Hisar district, is the biggest one known yet—at up to 550 hectares, it’s more than twice the size of Mohenjodaro. It’s also the one with the deepest time-scale, taking shape at 5500 BC and running for four continuous millennia. The nearby satellite site of Bhirrana, part of this Bronze Age metropolitan network, is even older: it offers the classic arc of evolution, beginning from early Neolithic farming around 7500 BC. Almost 10 millennia ago. Even with India’s endless capacity for imagining deep time, that’s serious depth. On the edge of modern Rakhigarhi village, buffaloes amble out of a pond placidly, unmindful of passing archaeologists or of the runic mysteries glimmering under the undulating mounds.
    Decades ago, Wazir Chand would come to these mounds as a dreamy little boy tending to his buffaloes. He started picking up pieces of terracotta bangles, shards of pottery, little bric-a-brac…
    Ongoing ­excavation at a mound in Rakhigarhi
    The Rakhigarhi kaleidoscope has been throwing up very interesting patterns of late. Prof Vasant Shivram Shinde, senior archaeologist and vice-chancellor of Deccan College, Pune, is at the centre of action. In February, his years of studying the Rakhigarhi people’s burial practices became the basis of a definitive article published in a Public Library of Science journal. For that, altogether 37 burials from the necropolis area of Rakhigarhi—one of the few Harappan sites where a well-defined cemetery area has been discovered—were subjected to an examination along standard anthropological lines.
    And now, he is the vital node for two forthcoming papers that may become dramatic, if contentious, landmarks in Harappan studies. The first steps ever by genetic science into the Harappan space, both studies are based on DNA samples taken from those same burials at Rakhigarhi.
    • In one, South Korean genetic scientists are trying to reconstruct, for the first time ever, what the Harappans looked like. Expect a Harappan face, or a DNA artist’s impression of it, to be hitting the internet soon.
    • The other paper, authored by Niraj Rai, head of the Ancient DNA lab at Lucknow’s Birbal Sahni Institute for Palaeosciences, and co-authored by Harvard geneticist Vagheesh Narasimhan et al, maps the genetic ancestry of the Harappans for the first time ever.
    The latter report is due out within a month. Its findings, core elements of which were revealed to Outlook, have all the potential to start a feeding frenzy. The Indus Valley Civilisation, even as an inscrutable self-image, taps deep into the modern Indian imagination. In recent years, it's become a hypersensitive field, riven with claims and counter-claims flying at each other like arrows in a mythological serial. Expect garden variety ideologues and enthusiasts to be going at each other and at bonafide historians, archaeologists and geneticists on Twitter till the much-in-vogue cows come home. (Home? Whose home?) 
    So Who Were the Harappans?
    The answers are now clear. “The sample we are getting is very local,” says Rai, who did the basic work. “We aren’t getting any Central Asian gene flow in Rakhigarhi. Comparing Rakhigarhi with data from modern Indian populations, we have concluded that they have more of an affinity with the Ancestral South Indian tribal population compared to the north Indian population.”
    This March, one of the ­biggest studies on the Central and South Asian population’s genetic ancestry confirmed what is known in ­politicised terms as the “Aryan migration”.

    ‘Ancestral South Indian’. The phrase brims with potent cultural overtones, while claiming the startling force of a ‘scientific truth’. Even if, used in this context, it only confirms commonsense notions about the Harappan and Rigvedic cultures being two distinct lines, one replacing or overlaying the other, with elements of both rupture and continuity—and gradual mixing.
    The Harappan people didn’t vanish into thin air. Over centuries of being unable to sustain their cities due to growing aridity, as Shinde explains, they “went rural” (see interview). Went back to living a more primary economy. And migrated. And mixed. Their knowledge systems too went into hibernation, Shinde believes, only to resurface in the Indian cultural gene whenever the circumstances became more conducive.
    “We still build the same way. Even our bricks are in the ratio they invented—1:2:4 in depth, width and length—even if the size is smaller,” says Dinesh Sheoran, Shinde’s pointsman in Rakhigarhi. He picks up a stray Harappan brick lying atop a kuchha village wall: it's bigger and in good health. No wonder even the British used them, in the 19th century, for railway lines!
    Researchers at a burial site in Rakhigarhi
    But before asking whether the Harappans indeed live on among us—or which interpretive filter to use while trying to read (and write) history—there are two more stark facts in the genetic data. One comes from the forthcoming paper. “The Rakhigarhi samples have a significant amount of ‘Iranian farmer’ ancestry,” says Rai. “In India’s present-day population, only the south Indians have Iranian farmer ancestry. You won’t find Iranian farmer DNA in the north Indian population.”
    Iranian farmer? Yes, this nomenclature owes to studies of early Neolithic farming in the Zagros mountains of Iran—one of the sites in the Fertile Crescent where humanity is said to have first farmed and domesticated animals. At least that’s what the scholarly consensus seems to be. An eastward expansion is then cited as having brought farming and animal domestication to the Indian subcontinent. Along with the people who brought them—a ‘demic’ flow, as they call it—and then proceeded to interbreed with local hunter-gatherer populations to produce the ‘Ancestral South Indian’ type. Of which the Harappans are an instance.
    But couldn’t farming have evolved in India—or elsewhere outside the Fertile Crescent—independently? Perhaps. And goats domesticated? Again, yes…even the last big study on Indian goats suggests a story more complex than it happening at Zagros and then spiralling out. But the present study accepts that model: essentially, that the story of ‘civilisation’ began in the Fertile Crescent and spread east. “The first mixing happened around 6000-5000 BC. As the Neolithic (period) started, the Northwest Indian mixed significantly with Iranian farmers,” says Rai.
    Harappan terracotta bangles
    And then: “Central Asian mixing happened only when the Indus Valley collapsed.”
    Central Asian mixing? That’s the ‘Aryan’ stuff, and genetic data clearly shows it happened—around or after the cusp offered by the decline of Harappan cultures. In a sense, for all the flux offered in between by highly politicised readings, and all the apprehensions about what modern DNA analysis would show, genetic studies are confirming the basic elements of an ‘Aryan’ migration theory. The key takeaway is that earlier mixing seems to have given us the ‘Ancestral South Indian’ (ASI)—with an ‘Iranian farmer’ component as part of it. And ‘ASI’ later mixed with incoming pastoral people from the Central Asian Steppe, giving us the ‘Ancestral North Indian’ (ANI). ANI is simply ASI + Steppe DNA.
    Children at a ­covered mound in Rakhigarhi
    The ‘Indo-Aryan’ Debate
    By now, the racist overtones sloshing around everywhere simply have to be acknowledged and managed. ‘Aryan’ is a word and concept that played a central role in modern political history. It’s not just Nazi Germany. In 1935, responding to the new cachet the word had acquired, Persia offered itself as ‘Iran’ to the world, as a nod to their 'Aryan' ancestry. In India, the word already had prestige: the 19th century revivalist/reform stream already saw us an 'Arya Samaj' (Aryan Society). And politics in the last three decades has gone along a path that insists Vedic culture came out of a local, native, autochthonous strand—that is, born out of India’s womb—when everything in historical linguistics and archaeology has always strongly suggested the opposite. And now, genetics adds its ballast to what linguistics always knew and archaeology had corroborated.
    One of the major advances here came in the spring of 2018. This March, 92 top scientists and researchers from around the world (Shinde and Rai among them) had put their names on one of the biggest studies on the genetic ancestry of the Central and South Asian population. That paper had sampled 612 individuals from diverse groups—carefully chosen ancient samples correlated with modern ones. It confirmed what is known, in loaded and now-politicised terms, as the 'Aryan migration' (the older 'Aryan Invasion Theory' having been refined in scholarship by the 1970s). In technical words, this study called it “large-scale genetic pressure from Steppe groups in the second millennium BC”, showing the “chain of transmission to South Asia”. They found this to be “consistent with archaeological evidence of connections between material culture in the Kazakh middle-to-late Bronze Age Steppe and early Vedic culture in India”. The genetic marker that clinched this connection was the Y chromosome haplogroup R1a (subtype Z93)—“common” in South Asia and “of high frequency” in Bronze Age Steppe DNA.
    “It’s inherently racist,” says historian Irfan Habib. Adds archaeologist Shereen Ratnagar: “You cannot use genetic data to settle questions of historical linguistics.” Nayanjot Lahiri, another Harappa domain specialist, shares the disdain.
    A Harappan toy bull figurine
    The authors of the March paper say “much of the formation of both the Ancestral South Indians and Ancestral North Indians occurred in the 2nd millennium BC. Thus, the events that formed both the ASI and ANI overlapped (with) the decline of the Indus Valley Civilisation.” The researchers suggest the first admixture between the Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gatherers created the ASI, Harappan people among them. Further, around the second millennium BC, the Steppe pastoralists (the ‘Aryans’) intermingled with the Harappan people and others in the northern Indian plains to create the ANI. This is a visualisation that confirms what have by now become popular 'cultural’ notions, so one needs to move carefully—especially if ‘science’ uses apparently technical terms to denote genepools. It needs to be stated that ASI, or the ‘Ancestral South Indian’, is better read as everyone’s ancestor in South Asia—whether Punjabi, Bengali or ‘Madrasi’.
    Pointing out that Indo-European is a linguistic, not genetic concept, Habib says, “What they’ve found is not related to the language problem. Language doesn’t necessarily spread through genes.” He mentions the Greek and Turkish populations: genetically inclined to each other, linguistically separated. Ratnagar, who has worked extensively on Harappan sites, too says: “Indo-Iranian languages have no relation to genetics. This kind of claim is an old-fashioned, racial one.”
    A Kushan era seal found in Rakhigarhi
    “The Rakhigarhi people are six feet tall and sharp-featured, just like the modern Haryanvis,” says Shinde, of the ancient Rakhigarhi people. You scan Wazir Chand’s face for…what…traces of R1a/Z93? He’s a Sirohi, a Jat. “Do you know when Jats settled in these parts? They are medieval immigrants…the first mention of the ethnonym pops up no earlier than 7th century AD,” says Prof Ratnagar.
    The March paper only confirmed on another axis what had always been held to be indisputably true in linguistics and other sciences. It’s a curious time: the bald tools of genetic science, often feared by historians because of the racist uses they can be put to, are actually confirming the ideas about human movements in history that all of us grew up internalising—till politics caught up. But even the March paper, with all its scale across India, Central and West Asia, did not have access to Harappan data. That’s what the present Rakhigarhi samples give us: a clear binocular view of our genetic past from a very specific time, a cusp period just before the Rigvedic influx.
    The present Rakhigarhi ­samples give us a clear binocular view of our ­genetic past ­from a very ­specific time, a cusp ­period just before the Rigvedic influx.

    So you get a zero-Steppe DNA population in the biggest Harappan site, against which to contrast the picture afterwards. “On the basis of modern-day populations, we analysed about 1,800 samples and we concluded that groups in north India still have significant amounts of Central Asian affinity,” says Rai, of the March paper. That’s just the basic facts. To elaborate lightly, “We did some analysis to figure out the exact date of the admixture. We have prepared a model in which all these stats fit together very tightly and that model suggests the Central Asian admixture happened about 1500-1000 BC…. Significant mixing happened around 1000 BC, also at 800 BC and 600 BC.”
    Dravidian Harappa?
    So now, Rakhigarhi comes in as a corroborative element to help settle the ‘Aryan’ debate. Not a conclusive one. But a strongly indicative one. Why not conclusive? Because language remains an open question. We don’t know what the Harappan people spoke—whether it was at all even one language! Vast distances are involved, and even today that supports multiple languages—there’s no reason to suppose that wasn’t the case 6,000 years ago. Moreover, Harappan cities were often even internally heterogeneous, just like any modern city. Not to speak of heterogeneity being a reasonable assumption for a network of well-connected cities situated as far apart as modern Afghanistan, northern Punjab, Gujarat and Haryana, with a vast suburban and rural hinterland.
    But could they have been speaking 'Dravidian' or many, or one among many? That would, prima facie, seem consistent with the genetic data: the data would, in fact, seem to boost even the old claim of Elamo-Dravidian—the idea that Dravidian languages are linked to the ancient Iranian language Elamite. But the fact is, we simply have no idea. Scholars like Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan have spent their lives trying to decode the Indus script and linking it to the Dravidian thought world. But it has always remained speculative, requiring a leap of faith in the end. This is exactly the issue with mapping genes on to language: it’s a slippery connection.
    Maths teacher Ramesh Chandra with ­artefacts he found in his field in Rakhigarhi
    Racism and Other Isms
    Our contemporary minds, coloured by modern political events, are almost primed to misread data such as what Rakhigarhi represents. Beyond the Aryan/Dravidian debates, there’s the competitive nationalism we have between India and Pakistan. It’s not a factor in history beyond one century, when we are dealing with a century of centuries, but we are inevitably and constantly in danger of mapping and projecting our current concerns backwards in time. A sighting of Harappa or Mohenjodaro are anyway out of the common Indian’s reach. It’s the easiest situation in which to breed resentment/envy/defiance. (“Our Harappan city is bigger than yours.”)
    Even the genetic studies freely use the “Iranian farmer” and “South Asian hunter-gatherer” tropes, almost unmindful of the fact that they are dealing with rich, primitive, pre-scientific categories that will almost inevitably be filled out with cultural/racial notions. Imagining that Neolithic farming at Mehrgarh or Bhirrana emerged from an influx of “Iranian farmers” bringing in 'superior knowledge' seems consistent with current data, but it relies on and shores up ideas that carry a strong cultural freight from times that have nothing to do with the period being studied. We inevitably think of modern nations—and of contemporary Iranians or those from a strongly salient part of Iranian history. But an “Iranian” 10 millennia ago would simply not be the same thing as an Achaemenid: s/he would be part of a different kind of human flux, still to put down roots, still in the process of forging the first links to a specific land. The famous Zagros woman known as GD13a would not be culturally distinguishable from someone in ancient Mehrgarh, in Balochistan, a few days away even in the ancient world. Indeed, they would be a cultural continuum: late Neolithic minds.
    Shinde, cognisant of the patterns of evolution of agriculture in pre-Indus sites, agrees with the fallacy of crediting this great civilisation directly to the flow of genes and knowledge from what can be thought of as ‘non-Indian types’ in West Asia. Nations of the Near East and Europe (or China) all have aggressive claims on antiquity, which complicates historical research—being aware of that should ideally free Indian minds from that trap.
    Modern Rakhigarhi is in a hesitant ­dialogue with its remote past. The twin ­villages Rakhi Khas and Rakhi Shahpur have ­literally been ­sitting on history.

    Narasimhan, though, seeks to defend genetics against all the racist antecedents: “Ethically, there is nothing inherently different about the work we do when compared with historians or archaeologists,” he says. “I believe human history is the common heritage of all humans, and it’s amazing to be able to study this directly, in a way, for the first time. This technology has not just been employed to understand the peopling of South Asia, but also of the Americas, Europe and Africa. We are also able to understand interaction not just between groups of modern humans, but also the interaction between modern humans and other archaic hominids, such as the Neanderthals.” He obviously has a point there, and the future lies perhaps in greater coordination—and ensuring genetic research is passed through the filters of commonly accepted protocols—not avoidance. That would enable the strong caveats already known from other sciences to be employed—such that genes, race and language cannot be mapped on to each other unless corroborated by other sciences. Just like the slippery link between script and language, populations too have always been known to shift language.
    Rakhigarhi: A Cultural Gene
    Once the caveats are accounted for, we are left with the complex and fascinating map of a Harappan civilisation—an empire seemingly without kings and armies, a political federation forged across a vast territory of 2 million sq km that achieved a rare unity in terms of planning and coordinated activity for the general weal. A thought world where social stratification did not entail poverty, whose urban systems negated the very ground of caste—and whose gender relations would be a fascinating area of study, judging by the way female bones were buried differently.
    Modern Rakhigarhi is in a hesitant dialogue with its remote past. The twin modern villages have literally been sitting on history—Rakhi Khas and Rakhi Shahpur. They are home to between 12,000 and 13,000 people, 65 per cent of them Jats, a few Brahmins, and there’s a Dalit mohalla along the access to two of the mounds, marked by a high frequency of Ambedkar portraits hung up on walls. Babasaheb would have probably loved to intervene in some of these debates.
    To those of its residents who have grasped the span and scale of history, it’s not only a matter of pride. They also live off the Harappan site on which they live. It offers them infinite resources to wonder at and harness. Wazir Chand has over the years, of collecting, adoring, possessing, himself become a Rakhigarhi artefact. He was sitting on one of the mounds back in the 1970s when R.S. Bisht, the then Archaeological Survey of India chief, tapped him on the shoulder and changed his life.
    Talking to Outlook, the archaeologist reminisces: “I visited Rakhigarhi several times in the 1970s. It had only two known parts until then, but I saw five conspicuous mounds of varying sizes. I said it was one of the five largest cities in the subcontinent.” Bisht later called for a survey of the mounds. “I also found two other mounds just four metres away, clearly pre-Harappan,” he says. “Never before had we found so many mounds except in Harappa. I got it surveyed and protected as a national monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act.”
    Four decades later, there are not only the thematic disputes in history—over its readings, approaches and conclusions—but also the hum of petty disputes, ownership claims and scams. One day, a non-politicised understanding may become possible. Such a day may have already existed. The Jats of Rakhigarhi have been interacting with Muslims who left these parts for Pakistan over the internet: they are overjoyed to learn they still speak Haryanvi and marry among themselves. They’ve been watching videos of old compatriots lamenting having to leave their home. On the edge of RGR2, the second mound outside the village, Sheoran does a quick ‘mathha teko’ at a mazaar. There are scarcely four or five Muslim families in the village, but everyone reveres the pir. An outer layer of history that, elsewhere, has complicated readings of the deeper lies untroubled, freshly painted by Hindu devouts, out here in Rakhigarhi.
    Mapping Ancestry
    Migrations affecting ancient Central and South Asian populations (courtesy the March 2018 genome study)
    • AASI: South Asian hunter-gatherers, the earliest known inhabitants, are referred to as ‘Ancient Ancestral South Indians’
    • ASI: ‘Ancestral South Indians’ emerged from the admixture of AASI with ‘Iranian farmers’
    • ANI: ‘Ancestral North Indians’ are the result of admixture of ASI and the Steppe population
    • Why Rakhigarhi Upcoming studies from DNA samples  of burials from Rakhigarhi will be the first genetic research on the Harappan population. The researches are expected to reveal who the Harappan people were and even how they looked.

    Text:  Sunil Menon and Siddhartha Mishra in Rakhigarhi; Photographs: Jitender Gupta
    A shorter, edited version of this appears in print
    Arogya Sree
    Slice Of Pie
    • Proto-Indo-European was spoken in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4000 BC.
    • Spread through Eurasia. One line went west, into Europe. One, Indo-Iranian, came south.
    • The Indo-Aryan family branched off from that.
    **After Meluhha, The Melange*

    Michael Witzel is the Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. At a conference earlier this year, he gave a talk tit­led Beyond the Flight of the Falcon: Early ‘Aryans’ within and outside India, to be published in Kumkum Roy et al. Excerpts from a version edited and extended for Outlook:
    A major problem was, and to an extent still is, dating the early arya texts, especially the timeframe of the Rigvedic period. Archaeology alone cannot yet deliver relevant dates for northwest India (Greater Punjab), that is, for the end of the Harappan civilisation at 1900/1300 BC and the beginning of the Vedic civilisation. Rather, it is a combination of textual and linguistic data that indicates the Vedic period’s beginning. Increasingly, fine-grained genetic data, especially ancient DNA, may substantiate these results.
    For a potential beginning of the (Rig) Vedic period, only a small area of Harappa has been stratigraphically (the study of rock layers) studied, providing data for around 1300 BC. Importantly, while the general Harappan pottery design is maintained, the vessels reveal some new designs and a shift to cremation with subsequent urn burial; more recently, additional data have emerged, like the extensive Harappan graveyard at Farmana, and the rec­ently found burials at Sinauli, allegedly dating to 1800-2000 BC—well before the immigration of the Indo-Aryans (IAs) to  Gre­a­ter Punjab. Thus, any overlap between Harappan and Vedic civilisations is as yet unclear, though it can be exp­ected for the Haryana/Delhi area.
    Importantly, the people of the Vedic civilisation were semi-nomadic and did not dwell in the post-Harappan agricultural villages of Haryana; instead, they were constantly on the move with their cattle. We still need to find clear pastoral rem­ains of the period. Still, pottery remains and linguistic data ind­icate ext­ensive commun­ication between the two populations: there are many non-IA loanwords from before, during, and after the Rigvedic period.
    As for clear repercussions of the Harappan civilisation on the Vedic populations, we must study: 1. the few clear archaeological indications (continuing pottery style [always the norm in successive cultures], depictions on vases, the red parting line in married women’s hair on some figures, etc.), 2. apparent remnants, merely in low-level strata of religion and 3. the impact of the (northern) Indus language on Rigvedic and later Vedic. All these indicate only minor continuation of Harappan elements, compared to the major rupture in civilisation beginning with the immigration of IA speaking populations around 1200 BC.
    There was a northern and a southern (“Meluhha”) Indus substrate (a language that influences a more prestigious one) that influenced the IA language. Research, including evidence from Sindhi place names, points to a (later?) Dravidian settlement in that area (and Maharashtra), before IA speakers introduced the ancestor of modern Sindhi. It remains unclear when the Dravidians moved into the Indus area.
    In this connection, the question of the Indus inscriptions on seals and small tablets is relevant. Some, like Parpola, assume the underlying language is Dravidian. However, no “decipherment” has been accepted by serious scholars. Farmer, Sproat and Witzel have indicated that these signs must not indicate a script that can depict spoken language, but can be symbols.
    The arrival of IA speakers in Greater Punjab is heralded by many loanwords derived from the substrate language of this area, the Northern Indus language. I have called this northern Indus language “Para-Munda” as it shares only part of typical Munda traits. There are about 300 loanwords in the Rigveda, even discounting loans that occurred earlier during the IA migration. Importantly, the oldest Rigvedic loans are not from Proto-Dravidian.
    There are no loans reflecting the Harappans’ inte­rnational trade, seals, staple cereal (wheat, which appears only from the Atharvaveda onw­ards), towns, mythology (e.g., involving a tree goddess and a tiger, etc.). Clearly, the loans come from the post-Harappan rural population. They increase in post-Rigvedic times and involve other language families, incl­uding Dravidian.
    A revolution has occurred, in the past 10 years or so, with the possibility of sequencing ancient DNA (aDNA), allowing us to specify population history in finer detail. We had no Indian aDNA until very recently, and recent excavations at Indus sites (Farmana cemetery, etc.) have yielded no genetic results so far. But we now (May 2018) have aDNA from the Swat Valley. Further, reports of aDNA from the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi have finally (June 2018) been announced in newspaper reports. Both are preliminary reports that await publication.
    The Rakhigarhi data, published in the Economic Times on June 13, 2018, purports to show, in the words of the excavator, V. Shinde, that “the Rakhigarhi human DNA clearly shows a predominant local element… There is some minor foreign element which shows some mixing up with a foreign [Iranian] population… This indicates quite clearly, through archaeological data, that the Vedic era that followed was a fully indigenous period with some external contact.”
    Niraj Rai, the genetic specialist of the Rakhigarhi report, echoes this: “skeletons at Rakhigarhi point to a predominantly indigenous culture that voluntarily spread across other areas, not displaced or overrun by an Aryan invasion…It will show that there is no Steppe contribution to the Indus Valley DNA… The Indus Valley people were indigenous, but in the sense that their DNA had contributions from Near-Eastern Iranian farmers mixed with the Indian hunter-gatherer DNA”.
    Yet, conversely, he sustains Vagheesh Narasimhan’s May 2018 paper: “A migration into [ancient] India did happen… It is clear now, more than ever before, that people from Central Asia came here and mingled with [local residents]. Most of us, in varying degrees, are all descendants of those people.” Importantly, the R1a genetic marker, typical of the Western Central Asian Steppes, is missing in the Rakhigarhi sample. Rai adds: that “the analysis of the DNA sample will be of a period before [my italics] the Steppe people supposedly arrived in India. If R1a is absent in the Indus Valley sample, it suggests it was brought into South Asia, perhaps by a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking group.” (Obv­iously, PIE is  too early).
    Later newspaper reports add more materials and are more balanced. The initial conclusions about “no Aryan invasion” echo the cultural politics of the past 30-odd years and are blatantly weird, as one cannot expect the genetic materials of IA speakers in the Harappan Civilisation: they entered the subcontinent only after its dissolution, or at best, during its final phase around 1300 BC—not at time of the excavated materials, said to be around 2600 BC. We need confirmed dates for the one or two skeletons with recovered aDNA before we can make definite statements about the contemporaneous Indus population, keeping in mind that people moved around during the Harappan period as isotopes indicate. Archaeological data had already revealed that the population was not homogeneous and individuals had moved into Harappa from distant parts of the Greater Indus area (as seen in teeth enamel, etc.).
    So, after decades of denial of any migration into India by arc­h­a­eologists, the pendulum is swinging back to constant contact, migration and population mixture—which would at  least allow for the migration of IA speakers into the subcontinent.
    Precisely this is maintained in the recent pre-publication of a massive genetic paper by Vagheesh M. Narasimhan et al. According to this study, in the late second millennium BC, a large-scale middle/late Bronze Age Steppe migration entered the Indus periphery, apparently at least in part via the Inner Asian mountain corridor, where up to 30 per cent Steppe DNA is found with the Kalasha in Chitral, in westernmost Pakistan. This movement includes, from 1250 BC onwards, one to the Swat Valley where, for the first time, Indian aDNA has been retrieved. This precisely fits, both in time and space, the migration of the IA speakers of the Rigveda, visible in archaeology and linguistics. These migrants have also left a clear imprint on the genetic setup of the modern Brahmin and Bhumihar population of North India, where Central Asian traits are up to 57 per cent, while with other populations this amounts only to 11 per cent, and it is hardly seen in South India.
    Religion, Mythology, Ritual
    When comparing the texts on Vedic religion, mythology and ritual with those of the Indus civilisation and of those of the Indo-Iranian and Indo-European ancestors of Vedic culture, it is clear that the Veda is not a continuant of the Indus Civilisation (or even an overlap)—with the possible exception of some low level deities, spirits and demons (kimidin, mura-/shishna-deva) that frequently are isolated linguistically and belong to the Greater Punjab (“Para-Munda”) substrate.
    The evidence for Indus mythology (visible on small tablets and some seals) is not reflected at all in the Vedas, and any link with later Hinduism, thousands of years later (championed by Parpola), is a phantasy: for example, the famous “Pashupati” seal reflects a widespread Northern Eurasian deity, the Stone Age Lord of the Animals; likewise, the killing of the buffalo demon Mahisha by a deity, etc., is separated from supposed Hindu continuants by chasms in time and space. Other supposed continuities belong to “low-level” cultural features: the red parting line in married women’s hair, and the Namaste gesture, which is found in the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex around 2000 BC, and…in Jomon time Japan, 1900 BC: certainly not the spread of an Indus feature.
    In Conclusion
    In sum, neither was India ever isolated, nor did all facets of its archaeological, linguistic, textual, genetic/somatic data arise “on their own” locally; instead, they look back to some 60,000 years of Out-of-Africa history. The subcontinent presents a fascinating array of internal developments and external influences that only ­patient and unbiased study can reveal.

    0 0

    Aryan Politics and our Security Concerns
    by B S Harishankar on 11 Aug 2018 2 Comments

    In an article, ‘How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate’, Tony Joseph, former editor of Business World, argued that the population of the Caspian, Central Asian and Indian regions share a common DNA (The Hindu, June 16, 2017). Endorsing the Aryan Migration Theory, Joseph contended that Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans (actually the British designated them as such), streamed into India sometime around 2,000 – 1,500 B.C. when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end. They brought with them the Sanskrit language and a distinctive set of cultural practices.

    Joseph insisted that India is a multi-source civilisation, not a single-source one, and draws its cultural impulses, tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. While the Left historians remained silent, the Left parties were exuberant. CPI (M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury gleefully tweeted: “the historical evidence of Aryan migration and the confluence that India is. Brilliant piece by @tjoseph0010”.

    Then, once again eulogizing Tony Joseph’s article, Yechury observed: “akin to the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back, some recent findings based on scientific investigations on the genetic data suggest that there was, indeed, an Aryan migration into India around 3,500 to 4,000 years ago” (‘Battle against post-truth’, Frontline, June 21, 2017). Yechury argued that the latest scientific study suggests that Aryans came into India from somewhere near the Caspian Sea in Central Asia/Europe, which has shattered the fascist agenda in India.

    Sitaram Yechury is one of the principal architects of the Muziris Heritage Project in Kerala whereby JNU historians and Euro-American scholars excavated Pattanam to ‘prove’ West Asian / Fertile Crescent contacts with India and search for the bones of Apostle Thomas. That the said Apostle never came to India at all is incidental.

    Sunil Menon and Siddhartha Mishra, in a cover story titled, ‘We are all Harappans’ present the same theory of Aryan migration into India, and claim that the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi at Sarasvati Valley in Haryana has more affinity with Ancestral South Indian Tribal Population than with North Indians (Outlook, August 2, 2018). The story claims that Rakhigarhi samples have Iranian farmer ancestry, which can be claimed only by present day south Indians. It identifies the Fertile Crescent as one of the core areas of agriculture and domestication of animals. The authors assert that this shows the Harappans and Rig Vedics were two distinct lines, one replacing or subsuming the other and the Ancestral South Indian is everybody’s ancestor in South Asia.

    Rakhigarhi sparked global controversy in 2014, when eminent South Asian archaeologists criticised the intervention of foreign lobbies and funding by an opulent NGO for this crucial archaeological site. The foreign funding at Rakhigarhi and current media propaganda call for a clearer understanding of the problem.

    The Aryan migration theory currently picked up by Outlook, was repackaged in the early 1990s. Marxist historian Romila Thapar in an article in Journal of Asiatic Society of Bombay (1988-91) contended that, “if invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. These migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda”. Interestingly, Thapar is one of the top patrons from JNU for KCHR’s Rs 200 crore Muziris Project that seeks to establish India’s Fertile Crescent links and the arrival of Apostle Thomas. Marxist historian Irfan Habib earlier vindicated the migration and Dravidian theories, in ‘The Rewriting of History’ (Outlook, February 13, 2002). Habib accused archaeologists and historians up in arms against Dravidian links to any great non-Aryan past: “presence of Dravidians in Indus Civilisation makes it so much more ours.”

    It all began with church missionaries in India who positioned themselves as Indologists. John Wilson, President, Royal Asiatic Society of Bombay and Moderator of Church of Scotland, was one of the pioneers of the Aryan theory. Wilson used the Aryan Invasion Theory to highlight Aryan Dravidian conflict in his work, India: Three Thousand Years Ago. Another Scottish missionary, John Stevenson, who later became President of the Bombay branch of the Royal Asiatic Society contended that pre-Aryan aborigines consisting of Dravidian and Munda language families were a single people. Stevenson argued that the Dravidian element was less in the north which was first invaded by Aryans, greater in the Deccan and maximum in the Tamil region where the invasion of the Aryan Brahminical race extended in the Age of Ramayana. Then, Brian Houghton Hodgson propagated a unitary aboriginal language and people in India, prior to the Aryan invasion. John Baldwin presented the invading Aryans as fanatical religious enthusiasts. F. Max Muller and Monier Williams also  ardently propagated the Aryan Invasion Theory.

    In affiliating Dravidian languages to the Scythian group in the Steppes of southern Russia and Ukraine, Bishop Robert Caldwell, member, Royal Asiatic Society, pointed out how F. Max Muller was supported by Bishop John Coleridge Patteson. Caldwell was assisted in his Dravidian studies by an array of missionaries such as Rev. J. Brigel, Rev. J. Clay, Rev. J. Dawson, Rev. E. Diez, Rev. F. Kittel, Rev. F. Metz, Rev. G. U. Pope, Rev. A. Graeter, Rev. C. Graul, and Rev. H. Gundert. Alexander Cunningham, first director of the Archaeological Survey of India, supported the Aryan invasion theory. Anglican priest Issac Taylor, The Origin of the Aryans, outlined the Aryan invasion and subjugation of aborigines in India.

    T.E. Slater, missionary and member of Christian Literature Society, Madras, contended that Dravidians in India possessed a superior civilisation prior to the Aryan invasion. John Barton of the Church Missionary Society propagated themes such as Aryan invasion, suppression of original inhabitants, and slavery. Herbert H. Risley, a colonial officer, discovered 2,378 castes belonging to 43 “races, on the basis of a “nasal index.” The main racial groups included Indo-Aryan, Turko-Iranian, Scytho-Dravidian, Aryo-Dravidian, Mongoloid and Mongolo-Dravidian.

    Stuart Piggot and Mortimer Wheeler set the seal with their archaeological works and Aryan invasion became the hallmark of ancient Indian history. In the post-colonial period, Aryan invasion and later migration theory were aggressively defended in Indian academia by Left historians such as Romila Thapar, R.S. Sharma, Irfan Habib and D.N. Jha. There are western lobbies who still share similar ideas. American anthropologist David Anthony’s The Horse, the Wheel and the Language. How Bronze Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (2007) is a typical example.

    Prof. Dilip Chakrabarti, one of the foremost authorities in South Asian Archaeology, in his recent work, Nation First, observes that apart from historical and racial issues, the Aryan invasion has been given socio-political dimensions primarily by Christian missionaries. The role of missionaries in propagating the Aryan theory has also been discussed by Prof. Rosalind O’ Hanlon. The Delhi-based Indian Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge and Chennai-based Gurukul Lutheran Theological College are frontline missionary institutions articulating the Aryan Invasion Theory and subjugation of Dravidians and Scheduled Castes in India. The Dalit Christian Forum of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India is another body which propagates Aryan invasion and migration theory. Similarly, the World Council of Churches aggressively promulgates the Aryan Invasion Theory in the context of subalterns.

    Eminent archaeologists and anthropologists such as B.B. Lal, George F. Dales, A. Ghosh, Kenneth Kennedy, J.P. Joshi, S.R. Rao, B.K. Thapar, R.S. Bisht and V.N. Misra have discarded these Aryan invasion and migration theories. Jim G. Shaffer and Dianne Lichtenstein trace Euro ethno-centrism, colonialism and racism in the allegations of mythical invasions and migrations. Indologists Michel Danino and Nicholas Kazanas have brilliantly exposed the major issues underlying the Aryan debate. For the Indian Left, these scholars of global reputation are fascists with a communal agenda.

    The Bronze Age civilisation which attained its maturity in the third millennium BCE had its formative stages at Kunal and Bhirrana in the Sarasvati Valley, beginning fifth-sixth millennium BCE.

    Eminent physical anthropologists such as Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, John Lukacs and Brian Hemphill believe there is no evidence of “demographic disruption” in North-West India between 4500 and 800 BCE. This junks the possibility of any intrusion by so-called Indo-Aryans or other people during that period. Prof. Kenneth A.R. Kennedy has extensively used recent developments in osteobiographical analyses, taphonomical sciences and forensic anthropology in establishing trauma and violent death in skeletal assemblages and has rejected outright the hypothetical theory of invasion and massacre by Aryans. These scholars are a permanent eyesore for Indian leftists and journalists who hardly refer them in their cover stories or bibliographies.

    In 1999, US biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell worked with the early migration of modern man from Africa towards Asia, and found that migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations”. The same year, Estonian biologist Toomas Kivisild, with fourteen co-authors from various nationalities, suggested a connection between Indian and Western-Eurasian populations but opted for a very remote separation of the two branches, rather than a population movement towards India.

    In 2000, thirteen Indian scientists led by Susanta Roychoudhury studied 644 samples of mtDNA from ten Indian ethnic groups, especially from the East and South. In a paper, Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic India, they identified a fundamental unity of mtDNA lineages in India, in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity.

    A major study in 2006 by Indian biologist Sanghamitra Sengupta and fourteen co-authors, was based on 728 samples covering 36 Indian populations. They published their paper, Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists. The authors emphasize how their findings revealed a minor genetic influence of central Asian pastoralists in India. This study indirectly rejected a Dravidian authorship of the Indus-Sarasvati civilisation since it observed that the data are more consistent with a peninsular origin of Dravidian speakers than a source with proximity to the Indus-Sarasvati Valleys.

    Another study in the same year, by Sanghamitra Sahoo and eleven colleagues, covered the Y-DNA of 936 samples covering 77 Indian populations, 32 of them hunting gathering communities. The sharing of some Y-chromosomal haplogroups between Indian and Central Asian populations is most parsimoniously explained by a deep, common ancestry between the two regions, with diffusion of some India-specific lineages northward. So the migration was not into India; it was out of India.

    Sanghamitra Sahoo and her colleagues also found no evidence in the genetic record claimed by Colin Renfrew in late 1980s. In his work, Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Renfrew attributed Indo-European origins to the beginning of agriculture in Anatolia, and identified Indo-Europeans entering India around 9000 BP, along with agriculture.

    Stephen Oppenheimer in The Real Eve: Modern Man’s Journey out of Africa (2003) noted that we find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran. Oppenheimer discards the Aryan invasion and suggests that M17 could have found his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, through Central Asia and Russia, before finally arriving in Europe.

    Recent studies by D.E. Hawkey on 29 dental morphological features confirm that Indus Sarasvati society shared similarities with Indian Mesolithic hunter gatherers rather than with intrusive pastoral population from the west. The Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in collaboration with researchers of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, analyzed 5,00,000 genetic markers across 13 states in India. The genetics proved that castes grew directly out of hunter gatherer groups during the formation of Indian society. The study highlighted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different. It also reveals that the current Indian population is a mix of ancient north and south bearing the genomic contributions from two distinct ancestral populations - the ancestral north Indian and ancestral south Indian.

    Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, in Who were the Shudras?, specifically warned against misappropriation of the Aryan Invasion Theory. He observed that the Aryan theory was not allowed to evolve out of facts but facts were selected to prove this pre-conceived theory. Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai in Ariya Mayai (Aryan Illusion) highlighted the fact that there is no substantial evidence to prove that Aryans invaded India and destroyed the Dravidians.

    Communists across the globe have a notorious history of abuse of genetic studies to achieve political mileage. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology, has written in his work, DNA: The Secret of Life, how genetics played a central role in ugly political episodes, especially in communist regimes. The pseudoscience Lysenkoism flourished in the erstwhile Soviet Union and represents the most egregious incursion of politics into science since the Papal Inquisition. Trofim Lysenko, a minor technician, was adopted by Joseph Stalin to head the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences. He rejected the science of genetics - particularly as developed by Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan - as being foreign, impractical, idealistic and a product of “bourgeois capitalism”. Soviet scientists who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed from their posts; thousands were imprisoned. Several got sentenced to death as enemies of the state or starved in their jail cells or psychiatric hospitals.

    Renowned journalist Jasper Becker describes in Hungry Ghosts how Lysenko promoted the Marxist idea that the environment alone shapes plants and animals. Marxist countries accepted his Law of the life of species which said that plants of the same species do not compete with each other but help each other to survive. This was linked to the Marxist notion of classes in which members of the same class do not compete but help each other survive. The leftists in India, who have inherited this Stalinist heritage, today dig for Aryan bones.

    In the context of foreign collaboration in Indian archaeology, Prof. Dilip Chakrabarti pointed out in 2008 that the issues of race and migration have not gone away from mainstream Euro-American archaeology. They have relocated their space in the archaeological scheme under the new rubrics of ethnicity, historical linguistics and archaeo-genetics. Chakrabarti underlined the fact that people working in South Asian Social Science faculties in foreign universities conveniently develop a tacit patron-client relationship with their Indian counterparts in major Indian universities. He was delivering the presidential address on the topic, Globalization and Indian Archaeology at the annual conference of the Indian Archaeological Society, New Delhi.

    In 2014, Chakrabarti delivered a lecture at the Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi, on “Foreign Archaeological Collaborations and India’s Security Concerns”. He said that there is strong pressure from interested groups to hand over some major Indus sites to foreign money and foreign participants. The recent excavations at Rakhigarhi by the Deccan College, Pune, with money from an American NGO called Global Heritage Fund, is a suitable case in point. The Tribune reported (April 15, 2015) that Global Heritage Fund, an international organisation, has included Rakhigarhi as Asia’s ten most significant archaeological sites. But GHF is not a conglomeration of academicians or a country’s official archaeological expedition team. Its founder, Jeff Morgan, is a former Silicon Valley entrepreneur.

    Chakrabarti also criticizes the Pattanam excavations in Kerala by Left historians with Euro-American collaboration, keeping ASI and Indian Universities out. Similar to Rakhigarhi, the association of Pattanam with Biblical sites in Fertile Crescent and West Asia by KCHR has generated many controversies. There is a similarity between Rakhigarhi and Pattanam. The foreign agencies and their Indian collaborators work hard to associate these two sites with the Fertile Crescent and West Asia which accommodates the major Biblical sites of the world. If Pattanam opts for a maritime route to India from the Fertile Crescent, Rakhigarhi picks up a land route through the northwest. The objectives are now clear.

    Chakrabarti’s observations are important as Sunil Menon and Siddhartha Mishra’s cover story in Outlook(Aug. 2, 2018) presents the old theory of Aryan Migration in the Rakhigarhi context. Chakrabarti emphasizes that if foreign academic groups are allowed to control and interpret India’s past, we must be aware of the dimensions which impinge on our long-term national security. We should be cautious that major premises regarding the nation’s past cannot be allowed to be controlled by foreign groups.


    Chakrabarti highlighted attempts to relate prehistoric Indian cultures to various Indian languages. He cautioned about the consequences if these language groups were given fictional linguistic affinities, leaving the field wide open for regional chauvinistic premises. The Deccan College archaeological group is in the forefront of this endeavour, but in the background one detects the money and influence of a Japanese and an American group, warns Chakrabarti.

    The first attempt to interpret national elections in India within a racial framework was at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, in 2014. On May 27, 2014 a panel discussion was organised by the teachers association to commemorate Jawaharlal Nehru’s death anniversary. Prof. T.K. Oommen, former Prof. of Sociology, pointed out the different voting patterns in the northern and western regions of India, compared to the east and south, since the former areas have an Indo Aryan Population. He meant that the northern and western Indian population have ancestors who migrated to India in 1500 B.C., per the Aryan Invasion Theory protagonists.

    Prof. Oommen is a hard core propagandist of the Aryan Invasion Theory. But few are aware of that in 1984-89, he was vice chair, Church and Society, World Council of Churches, Geneva. The World Council of Churches maintains close links with Communist parties and regimes across the globe.

    When the Aryan invasion or migration theory is re-launched on a Harappan site with funding from an American NGO, to divide society just six-seven months before the national elections, it surely raises concerns about national security. The Central Government needs to be vigilant in this respect, and the Archaeological Survey of India is also answerable.
    User CommentsPost a Comment
    The original author Josey Philip is a business writer. I know no geneticist who supports the Aryan myth. It is now the issue of face saving and academic reputations. I have lectured at several universities in US and UK where geneticists like Oppeneheimer were present. None raised objections. For more, please visit:
    Navaratna Rajaram
    8 Hours ago
    Report Abuse
    I would like to comment on the Outlook rehash which includes an article by Witzel presenting Aryan Invasion morphed as Aryan Migration Theory.

    The views of Witzel are surprising because they persist with an outdated genre of Aryan Migration Theory as a linguistic doctrine. Emeneau had questioned this doctrine and suggested an alternative to the IE language history by positing Ancient India as a sprachbund, speech area or linguistic area (where people of language families absorb features from one another and make them their own). I have presented my translations of over 8000 inscriptions of Indus Script now available in Epigraphis Indus Script -- Hypertexts and Meanings (3 Vols.), 2018. In my view, the inscriptions are wealth accounting ledgers, metalwork catalogues documenting the wealth of a nation shared in a commonwealth structure of guilds of artisans and seafaring merchants. Sure, patient and unbiased study can reveal how ancient India was part of an Ancient Maritime Riverine Waterway Tin Route linking Hanoi with Haifa; a hypothesis posited to explain the presence of three pure tin ingots found in a shipwreck in Haifa with Indus Script inscriptions stating ranku datu muha '1. liquidmeasure/antelope, 2. cross, 3. face' rebus or rupaka, metaphor of similar sounding words ranku dhatu muha 1. tin 2. mineral ore, 3. ingot. This cipher explains the use of both pictorial motifs and 'signs' or hieroglyphs in the world's oldest writing system called Indus Script dated to ca. 3300 BCE (pace HARP Harvard Project).

    I compliment Harishankar for a well-documented and thorough expose of the racist underpinnings of eurocentric bias among Hindu-phobic academics in explaining the peopling of ancient India. Such anti-Hindu diatribes tend to muddle the identity of Hindu legacy and attempt to deny the primacy of Ancient India as the economic power which accounted for 33% of Global GDP in 1 CE (pace Angus Maddison).
    S. Kalyanaraman

    0 0

    Ancient maritime trade from India.Druids' Gundestrup cauldron with Indus Script Hypertexts metalwork wealth ledgers
    See: Cernunnos/Kernunno of Gundestrup Cauldron/Pilier des Nautes, is Tvaṣṭṛ Triśiras r̥ṣi of R̥gveda on Indus Script seal m0304, evokes cognate kārī 'supercargo of a ship'

    m0304 seal Tvaṣṭṛ TriśirasTvaṣṭṛ is invoked in the prayer of RV 10.125 See:A rendering of RV 10.125 by gaṇapāṭhin is embedded in Slide 2 together with the text of the Devi or Rāṣṭrī Sūktam devoted to devatā ātmāA prayer to wealth givers, Rāṣṭrī Sūktamअहम् राष्ट्री संगमनी वसूनाम् I am the mover of nation's wealth:देवता आत्माऋषिका वाक् आम्भृणी (RV 10.125)
    Gundestrup Cauldron Peat bog, Gundestrup (Denmark) First century B.C.E. Silver partially gilded. Diameter 69cm., Height 42cm.Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet.

    The Gundestrup Cauldron is a religious vessel found in Himmerland, Denmark, 1891. It was deposited in a dry section of a peat bog, dismantled with its five long rectangular plates, seven short ones and one round plate. Each plate is made of 97.0% pure silver and filled with various motifs of animals, plants and pagan deities. Sophius Müller(1892) reconstructed these plates into the present form of the cauldron: five rectangular plates are placed in the inside of the cauldron leaving 2cm of space between each, and the seven (originally eight) plates form the outside of the cauldron. The round plate is assumed as the base of the cauldron. The reconstructed cauldron with its spherical base and cylindrical side is 69cm. in diameter and 42cm. high; both the inner and outer plates are almost of the same height ( about 21cm) forming the cylindrical side of the cauldron.

    As the largest surviving piece of Europian Iron Age silver work, the Gundestrup Cauldron has been given a special interest by many scholars. Especially, its high quality workmanship and iconographic variety have generated an incessant inquiry into the origin of the cauldron. Though the date of the cauldron is generally attributed to the 2nd or 1st century BCE (La Tène III), there still remains much room for controversy concerning the place of its manufacture. The main problem comes from the fact that its style and workmanship is Thracian rather than Celtic despite its decorative motifs manifestly Celtic. So far, scholastic opinions have been largely divided into two groups: those who argue for the Gaulish origin and those who argue for the Thracian origin. The former locate the manufacture of the cauldron in the Celtic west while the latter opt for the Lower Danube in southeastern Europe.

    "The proponents of the Gaulish origin put emphasis on the Celtic motifs depicted on the cauldron such as ahorned deitytorques and musical instruments called carnyx. Most representative of all, Klindt-Jensen (Klindt-Jensen, O., 1959, "The Gundestrup Bowl-a reassessment," Antiquity, vol.33, pp.161-9.) sees a horned deity as Cernnunos, the Celtic god and argues that it points toward northern Gaul as the area of its origin...The Gundestrup cauldron is the largest known example of European Iron Age silver work (diameter 69 cm, height 42 cm). The style and workmanship suggest Thracian origin, while the imagery seems Celtic. This has opened room for conflicting theories of Thracian vs. Gaulish origin of the cauldron. Taylor (1991) has suggested Thracian origin with influence by Indian iconography.

    The Base. I suggest that the base  which is the centre-piece of the entire narrative of Gundestrup Cauldron has hypertexts which signify a smithy/forge of a blacksmith.

    "The circular base plate depicts a bull, above its back a female figure wielding a sword, and two one dog over the bull's head..." A crocodile seems to lie under the hoofs of the bull. Hieroglyph: kāru a wild crocodile or alligator (Telugu) ghariyal id. (Hindi)kāru 'crocodile' (Telugu) கராம் karām, n. prob. grāha. 1. A species of alligator; முதலைவகை. முதலையு மிடங்கருங் கராமும் (குறிஞ்சிப். 257). 2. Male alligator; ஆண் முதலை. (திவா.) కారుమొసలి a wild crocodile or alligator. (Telugu) Rebus: kāru ‘artisan’ (Marathi) kāruvu 'artisan' (Telugu) khār 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri). On top of the bull are Hieroglyphs: kola 'woman' kola 'tiger' rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolle 'blacksmith', kolhe 'smelter', kolimi 'smithy,forge'. The bull is bos indicus taurus: पोळ pōḷa, 'Zebu, bos indicus taurus' rebus: पोळ pōḷa, 'magnetite, ferrite ore'. 

    Hieroglyph:Kol. (Kin.) kurra male calf. Nk. (Ch.) kurra id. Pa. kurra id. Go. (A. Mu. Ma. Ko.) kurra, (Tr. W. Ph.) kurrā, (Y. M.) kura id., bull calf (Voc. 785). Konḍa (BB) kuṟa male calf. Kuwi (S.) kurra ḍālu id. DED(S) 1497. (DEDR 1801)

    Hieroglyph: khura m. ʻ hoof ʼ KātyŚr̥. 2. *khuḍa -- 1 (khuḍaka -- , khula° ʻ ankle -- bone ʼ Suśr.). [← Drav. T. Burrow BSOAS xii 376: it belongs to the word -- group ʻ heel <-> ankle -- knee -- wrist ʼ, see *kuṭṭha -- ]1. Pa. khura -- m. ʻ hoof ʼ, Pk. khura -- m. (chura -- after khura -- ~ chura -- < kṣurá -- ); Ash. kū˘r ʻ hoof, foot ʼ, kurkāˊ ʻ heel ʼ; Kt. kyur ʻ foot ʼ, kyurkəté ʻ heel ʼ; Gamb kr ʻ hoof, foot ʼ, Niṅg. xūr, Woṭ. khuru, (Kaţārkalā) khur; Dm. khur ʻ foot ʼ; Paš. lauṛ. khurīˊ f. ʻ hoof, heel ʼ (→ Par. khurīˊ ʻ heel ʼ IIFL i 265), kuṛ. xūr ʻ foot ʼ, dar. kurī ʻ heel ʼ, nir. xurī; Shum. xurem ʻ my foot ʼ, xurigyem ʻ my heel ʼ; Gaw. Kal. khur ʻ foot ʼ; Bshk. khur m. ʻ foot ʼ (khin ʻ heel ʼ, Gaw. khunīk, Sv. khunike X píṇḍa -- or < khuriṇī -- AO xviii 240); Tor. khū ʻ foot ʼ, Mai. khur, ky. khor, Phal. khur m.; Sh. gil. khūrṷ m. ʻ hoof ʼ, khūri̯ f. ʻ heel ʼ, koh. khōrṷ m. ʻ hoof ʼ, jij. khuri ʻ heel ʼ (koh. thŭri, pales. thurī ʻ heel ʼ X *thuḍḍati ʻ kicks ʼ?); K. khor m. ʻ foot (esp. human) ʼ, khōr m. ʻ foot of any living being ʼ, khūru m. ʻ leg of a bed &c. ʼ, khūrü f. ʻ heel ʼ, kash. khōr ʻ foot ʼ, rām. pog. khur; S. khuru m. ʻ hoof ʼ; L. khurā m. ʻ foot track ʼ, °rī f. ʻ heel ʼ, awāṇ. khur ʻ hoof ʼ; P. khur m. ʻ hoof ʼ, °rā m. ʻ hoof -- print ʼ, °rī f. ʻ small hoof, heel of shoe ʼ, °rṛā m. ʻ divided hoof, its print ʼ; WPah. bhal. pāḍ. khurm. ʻ foot ʼ; Ku. N. khur ʻ hoof ʼ; A. khurā ʻ hoof, leg of table or stool ʼ; B. khur ʻ hoof ʼ, °rā ʻ foot of bedstead ʼ; Or. khura ʻ hoof, foot ʼ, °rā ʻ hoof, leg ʼ; Mth. khūrkhurī ʻ hoof ʼ, Bhoj. khur; H. khur m. ʻ hoof ʼ, °rā m. ʻ heel of shoe ʼ, °rī f. ʻ hoof, heel of slipper, hoof -- print ʼ; G. khur f. ʻ heel ʼ, kharī f. ʻ hoof ʼ; M. khū˘r m. ʻ hoof, foot of bed ʼ, khurī f. ʻ forepart of hoof ʼ, °rā m., °rẽ n. ʻ heel of shoe ʼ (khurũdaḷṇẽ ʻ to trample ʼ X *kṣundati?); Ko. khūru m. ʻ hoof ʼ, Si. kuraya. 2. Pk. khuluha -- m. ʻ ankle ʼ; Gy. wel. xur̄xur m. ʻ hoof ʼ; S. khuṛī f. ʻ heel ʼ; WPah. paṅ. khūṛ ʻ foot ʼ. khuriṇī -- ; *khuraghāta -- , *khurapāśa -- , *khuramr̥ttikā -- ; *catuṣkhura -- . Addenda: khura -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) khūˊr m. ʻ hoof ʼ, J. G. khur m.(CDIAL 3906) Ta. kuracu, kuraccai horse's hoof. Ka. gorasu, gorase, gorise, gorusu hoof. Te. gorija, gorise, (B. also) gorije, korije id. / Cf. Skt. khura- id.; Turner, CDIAL, no. 3906. (DEDR 1770)

    Rebus: kh -- forms: Pa. khura -- m. ʻ razor ʼ; Pk. khura -- m. ʻ knife, razor ʼ; K. khūru m. ʻ razor ʼ; S. khuryo m. ʻ grass -- scraper, tip of silver at the bottom of a scabbard ʼ; WPah. bhal. khuro m. ʻ razor ʼ; Ku. khuro -- muṇḍo ʻ the shaving of heads ʼ; N. khuro ʻ head of a spear, ferrule of a stick, pin at the top or bottom of a door; A. B. khur ʻ razor ʼ (whence A. khurāiba ʻ to shave ʼ), Or. khura; Bi. khūr ʻ razor ʼ, khurā°rī ʻ spiked part of the blade of a chopper which fits into the handle ʼ; H. khurā m. ʻ iron nail to fix ploughshare ʼ; Si. karaya ʻ razor ʼ.kṣurá m. ʻ razor ʼ RV., ʻ sharp barb of arrow ʼ R., °rī -- f. ʻ knife, dagger ʼ lex., °rikā -- f. Rājat. [√kṣur]
    ch -- forms, esp. in sense ʻ knife ʼ, are wide -- spread outside dial. bounds: -- Sk. chū˘rī -- f. ʻ knife, dagger ʼ lex., churikā -- f. Kathās., chūr° lex., Pa. churikā -- f., NiDoc. kṣura; Pk. chura -- m. ʻ knife, razor, arrow ʼ, °rī -- , °riā -- f. ʻ knife ʼ; Gy. pal. číri ʻ knife, razor ʼ, arm. čhuri ʻ knife ʼ, eur. čuri f., SEeur. čhurí, Ḍ. čuri f., Kt. c̣urīˊc̣uī; Dm. c̣húri ʻ dagger ʼ; Kal. c̣hūˊŕi ʻ knife ʼ; Bshk. c̣hur ʻ dagger, knife ʼ, Tor. c̣hū, Phal. c̣hūr f.; Sh. (Lor.) c̣ūr ʻ small knife ʼ; S. churī f. ʻ knife with a hooked blade ʼ; L. churī f. ʻ knife ʼ, awān. churā m.; P. churā m. ʻ large knife ʼ, °rī f. ʻ small do. ʼ, Ku. churo°rī; N. churā ʻ razor ʼ, °ri ʻ knife ʼ; A. suri ʻ knife ʼ, B. churi; Or. churā ʻ dagger ʼ, °rī ʻ knife ʼ; Bi. chūrā ʻ razor ʼ; Mth. chūr°rā ʻ dagger, razor ʼ, °rī ʻ small knife ʼ; Bhoj. Aw. lakh. chūrā ʻ razor ʼ; H. churā m. ʻ dagger, razor ʼ, °rī f. ʻ knife ʼ; G. charo m. ʻ large knife ʼ, °rī f. ʻ small do. ʼ (Bloch LM 415 wrongly < tsáru -- : churī ← H. or M.), M. surā m., °rī f.; Si. siriya ʻ dagger ʼ; -- Woṭ. čir ʻ dagger ʼ ← Psht. ← IA. Buddruss Woṭ 96.
    kṣaura -- ; kṣurapra -- , kṣurabhāṇḍa -- ; *prakṣurikā -- ; gōkṣura -- , trikṣura -- .Addenda: kṣurá -- : WPah.kṭg. ċhúrɔ m. ʻ dagger ʼ, Garh. khurchurī ʻ knife ʼ, A. spel. churī (CDIAL 3727) Ta. kūr (-pp-, -tt-) to be sharp (as the edge or point of an instrument), be keen (as the intellect); n. sharpness, pointed edge, cutting or sarcastic speech, pivot on which door swings; kūrcci, kūrppu, kūrmai, kūriyam sharpness, keenness, pointedness; kūrccu id., pointed stick; kūriyaṉ sharp, clever person; kūccu sharp point. Ma. kūr sharpness, point of an arrow; kūruka, kūrikka, kūrkka to be sharp; kūrppikka to sharpen; kūrppu, kūrccam sharpness; kūrmma id., edge of sword, wit. Ka. kūr sharpness, acuteness; kūrike sharpness, pointedness; kūritu, kūrittu that which is sharp; kūrahu sword; kūrida a sharp, acute, or brave man; kūrpu sharpness, valour, a keen, penetrating look; (Bark.) kūpi a barber's knife. Koḍ. ku·ṭ- (ku·ṭi-) to sharpen. Tu. kūṭuni id.; kurpu sharpness as of a cutting instrument. Te. krūru sharp; kūci sharp, pointed, tapering; kūcamu a peg(DEDR 1898)

    Plate A "This plate shows a variety of animals around the horned figure in the center. The horned figure is presented with his legs folded and wears a torque around his neck. he holds another torque in his right hand and a horned serpent in his left hand. This torque-wearing god with stag antlers is generally identified as the Celtic god, Cernunnos. Cernunnnos is the Lord of the animals and the torques he wears are the symbols of wealth and prosperity. Cernunnos was first recognized by the inscription of the Paris monument which, along with the inscription, shows a horned deity wearing torques on his antlers. Because of this antlered deity, this plate has often been cited by those who argue for the Gaulish origin...Apart from the identity of the horned deity, it is recognized, however, that the posture and dress of the figure are not necessarily Celtic. His folded legs seen from above hint at the possible link with Buddhism in the East and his costume - tight-fitting breeches and coat fastened by a belt at the waist - is often matched by the costumes of horse-riding races from southeastern Europe."

    A variant orthography of 'one-horned young bull' to signify a young bos aurochs.
    Hieroglyph: bos aurrochs: खोंड [ khōṇḍa ] m A young bull, a bullcalf. Rebus: kõdā 'to turn in a lathe' (B.) कोंद kōnda. 'engraver, lapidary setting or infixing gems' (Marathi) कोंडण [kōṇḍaṇa] f A fold or pen. khōṇḍī 'pannier sack'खोंडी (Marathi) Rebus: kunda 'nidhi' kundaṇa 'fine gold' PLUS koḍ 'horn' rebus: koḍ 'workshop'. PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting'. Thus, metalcaster, engraver workshop.

    badhia 'rhinoceros' Rebus: badhi 'carpenter'; badhoe 'worker in wood and iron'.

    पंजा  pañjā 'claw of a tiger' rebus: पंजा pañjā 'kiln, smelter.

    Fish-fin rider
    Hypertext: aya 'fish' Rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS 'khambhaṛā 'fish-fin' Rebus: kammaṭi a coiner (Ka.); kampaṭṭam coinage, coin, mint (Ta.) kammaṭa = mint, gold furnace (Te.)  kamaṭa = portable furnace for melting precious metals (Telugu); kampaṭṭam = mint (Tamil). Thus, together, alloy metal coiner. (Hypertext: Person riding on fish-fin). 
    Hieroglyph: seated in penance: kamaḍha 'penance' (Prakriam) Rebus: kammaṭi a coiner (Ka.); kampaṭṭam coinage, coin, mint (Ta.) kammaṭa = mint, gold furnace (Te.)  kamaṭa = portable furnace for melting precious metals (Telugu); kampaṭṭam = mint (Tamil)

    *śārṅgala ʻ horned ʼ. [śārṅga -- ]Paš.lauṛ. ṣaṅgala ʻ a small horn ʼ; K. hã̄gul m. ʻ the stag Cervus wallichii ʼ.(CDIAL 12410) śārṅga ʻ made of horn ʼ Suśr., n. ʻ bow ʼ MBh. [śŕ̊ṅga -- ]Pk. saṁga -- ʻ made of horn ʼ; Paš.lauṛ. ṣāṅg f.(?) ʻ horn ʼ (or < śŕ̊ṅga -- ).(CDIAL 12409) Rebus:જંગડિયો jangaḍiyo 'military guard who accompanies treasure into the treasury' (Gujarati); jangaḍ semantically expanded with meaning well-settled in Indian legal system to signify "Goods sent on approval or 'on sale or return' PLUS Hieroglyph of 'twig' attached to stag horn of the seated person: kūdī 'twigkuṭhi 'smelter'. Thus, together kuṭhi  jangaḍ 'output from smelter invoiced on approval basis'.

    Hieroglyph: फडा (p. 313phaḍā f (फटा S) The hood of Coluber Nága &c. Ta. patam cobra's hood. Ma. paṭam id. Ka. peḍe id. Te. paḍaga id. Go. (S.) paṛge, (Mu.) baṛak, (Ma.) baṛki, (F-H.) biṛki hood of serpent (Voc. 2154). / Turner, CDIAL, no. 9040, Skt. (s)phaṭa-, sphaṭā- a serpent's expanded hood, Pkt. phaḍā- id. For IE etymology, see Burrow, The Problem of Shwa in Sanskrit, p. 45.(DEDR 47) Rebus: phaḍa फड ‘manufactory, company, guild, public office’, keeper of all accounts, registers.

    Hieroglyph 1: kaṅkaṇa n. ʻ bracelet ʼ MBh., °ṇī -- f. ʻ ornament with bells ʼ lex. Pa. kaṅkana -- n. ʻ bracelet ʼ, Pk. kaṁkaṇa -- n., K. kangun m., S. kaṅgaṇu m., °giṇī f., L. kaṅgaṇ m., awāṇ. kaṅguṇ m., P. kaṅgaṇ m., ludh. °an m. (→ H. kaṅgan°gnā m. → N. kaṅgnā, Bi. kãgnā°nī, Bhoj. kaṅnā, M.kaṅgṇī f.); WPah. bhal. kaṅkaṇ n., bhid. kaṅkṇõ n., B. kã̄kan, Bi. kãknā°nī, (Camparan) kaknā, Aw. lakh. kakanā, H. kaknā m., °nī f., G. kã̄kaṇ n., M. kã̄kaṇ n., kākṇī f. Addenda: kaṅkaṇa -- : WPah.kṭg. kaṅgṇu m. ʻ bracelet ʼ, kc. °ṇa; kṭg. °i f., kc. °ṇe f. ʻ finger -- ring ʼ; J. kã̄gaṇo ( ʻ bracelets ʼ, Garh. kaṅgaṇ.(CDIAL 2597) Hieroglyph 2: karã̄ʻwristlets, banglesʼ.(Gujarati)(CDIAL 2779) Rebus 1: khār खार्  'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) Rebus 2: kāgni m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop. [ka -- 3 or kā -- , agní -- ]K. kang m. ʻ brazier, fireplace ʼ?(CDIAL 2999)  *kāṅgārikā ʻ poor or small brazier ʼ. [Cf. kāgni -- m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop.: ka -- 3 or kā -- , aṅgāri -- ]K. kã̄gürükã̄gar f. ʻ portable brazier ʼ whence kangar m. ʻ large do. ʼ (or < *kāṅgāra -- ?); H. kã̄grī f. ʻ small portable brazier ʼ. (CDIAL 3006)

    kola 'tiger' rebus:kol 'working in iron';kolhe 'smelter' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting'

    Kol. (Hislop) kori antelope. Pa. kuri id. Ga. (Oll.) kuruy deer. Go. (Tr. etc.) kurs (pl. -k) deer, antelope (Voc. 792). Kui kruhu (pl. kruhka), (P.) krusu (pl. kruska) barking deer, jungle sheep. Kuwi (S.) kluhuantelope; (Su.) kruhu (pl. kruska), (P.) kurhu antelope. ? Ma. kūran hog-deer. / Cf. Skt. kuraṅga- a species of antelope, antelope or deer in general. (DEDR 1785) Rebus: Ka. kūr sharpness, acuteness; kūrike sharpness, pointedness; kūritu, kūrittu that which is sharp; kūrahu sword; kūrida a sharp, acute, or brave man; kūrpu sharpness, valour, a keen, penetrating look; (Bark.) kūpi a barber's knife. Koḍ. ku·ṭ- (ku·ṭi-) to sharpen. Tu. kūṭuni id.; kurpu sharpness as of a cutting instrument. Te. krūru sharp; kūci sharp, pointed, tapering; kūcamu a peg(DEDR 1898)

    Person shown seated in penance and holding a torc and a cobra hood on the Gundestrup Cauldron is echoed on the Pillar of Boatmen of Notre-Dame, Paris.

    Kernunno is shown seated in a penance posture on the Pillar of Boatmen. Two torcs adorn the stag horns on his head. As on Gundestrup Cauldron, so on the Pillar of Boatmen, the hypertext signified by the person seated in penance is:Hieroglyph: kamaḍha 'penance' (Pkt.) Rebus: kammaṭa ‘mint, coiner’ (Malayalam) PLUS kaṅkaṇa n. ʻ bracelet ʼ Rebus: kāgni m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop. [ka -- 3 or kā -- , agní -- ]K. kang m. ʻ brazier, fireplace ʼ?(CDIAL 2999)*kāṅgārikā ʻ poor or small brazier ʼ. [Cf. kāgni -- m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop.: ka -- 3 or kā -- , aṅgāri -- ]K. kã̄gürükã̄gar f. ʻ portable brazier ʼ whence kangar m. ʻ large do. ʼ (or < *kāṅgāra -- ?); H. kã̄grī f. ʻ small portable brazier ʼ (CDIAL 3006) PLUS dula 'two' rebus:dul 'metal casting'.

    Thus, the hypertext message is: dul kangar kammaṭa 'metal casting brazier of mint'.

    His name is written as kernunno. This is cognate: kārṇī m. ʻprime minister, supercargo of a ship'; kanahār m. ʻ 'helmsman, fishermanʼ. Since k(c)ernunno is also derivable from शृङ्गम् śṛṅgam 'horn', which adorns Kernunnos's head, the semantics of jangaḍ 'cargo invoiced on approval basis' are also echoed.
    The seated, bearded person on the Pillar of Boatmen, wears a shawl wich echoes the cotton shawl worn by Mohenjo-daro priest with neatly trimmed beard.

    The person seated in penance on one register of the Pillar of Boatmen, wears three strands as shawl. tri-dhātu 'three strands' rebus: tri-dhātu 'three ferrite ores' PLUS two torcs on the stag-horns which constitute his hair-dress.  dhāu 'strand (of rope or plait)' rebus: dhāū 'red stone minerals. panca 'shawl, dhoti' rebus: panja 'kiln, furnace, smelter'.

    Pillar of the Boatmen
    Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4
    [C]ernunnos Smer[trios] Castor [Pollux]
    Iouis Esus Taruos Trigaranus Volcanus
    Tib(erio) Caesare Aug(usto) Iovi Optum[o] Maxsumo nautae Parisiaci publice posierunt [three armed beardless men] Eurises [three armed bearded men] Senan[t] U[s]e[t]lo[n][--] [three robed male and female figures]
    Fort[una with Iuno?] [two goddesses] [--]V[--] [Mars with consort (Venus?)] [Mercurius with Rosmerta?]
    The pillar provides the only undisputed instance of the divine name Cernunnos (Koch 2006, p. 396). The Gaulish theonyms are presented as deity names in their own right, and not as epithets for Roman gods (by contrast, see the many Celtic gods syncretized with Mars). Other figures appear on the pillar without legible inscriptions, including the Roman gods Mars and Mercury, who can be identified by their conventional iconography, and other unidentified figures, mainly female.
    Similar replica of the ancient Roman gods pillar was found in Nijmegen, Netherlands,  a municipality and a city in the Dutch province of Gelderland. It is situated on the Waal river, close to the German border.

    This photo of Nijmegen is courtesy of TripAdvisor
    This photo of Nijmegen is courtesy of TripAdvisor

    About 40 attested Cernunnos divinity have been found in Celtic tradition. (Green, Miranda, Celtic Art, Reading the Messages, p. 147, 1996, The Everyman Art Library).

    The name has been compared to a divine epithet Carnonos in a Celtic inscription written in Greek characters at MontagnacHérault 
    (as καρνονου, karnonou, in the dative case). (Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise (Éditions Errance, 2003), pp. 106–107). Gallo-Latin adjective carnuātus, "horned," is also found.(Equivalent to Latin cornutus, "horned"; Delamarre, citing J. Vendryes, Revue Celtique 42 (1925) 221–222.)

    Kernunno or Cernunnos is cognate with kārṇī m. ʻ prime minister, supercargo of a ship ʼ, kul -- karṇī m. ʻ village accountant ʼ (Marathi) kāraṇika m. ʻ teacher ʼ MBh., ʻ judge ʼ Pañcat. [kā- raṇa -- ]Pa. usu -- kāraṇika -- m. ʻ arrow -- maker ʼ; Pk. kāraṇiya -- m. ʻ teacher of Nyāya ʼ; S. kāriṇī m. ʻ guardian, heir ʼ; N. kārani ʻ abettor in crime ʼ(CDIAL 3058)   karṇadhāra m. ʻ helmsman ʼ Suśr. [kárṇa -- , dhāra -- 1]Pa. kaṇṇadhāra -- m. ʻ helmsman ʼ; Pk. kaṇṇahāra -- m. ʻ helmsman, sailor ʼ; H. kanahār m. ʻ helmsman, fisherman ʼ.(CDIAL 2836) 

    Scribe: कारणिक mfn. (g. काश्य्-ादि) " investigating , ascertaining the cause " , a judge Pan5cat.; a teacher MBh. ii , 167. करण m. a man of a mixed class (the son of an outcast क्षत्रिय Mn. x , 22 ; or the son of a शूद्र woman by a वैश्य Ya1jn5. i , 92 ; or the son of a वैश्य woman by a क्षत्रियMBh. i , 2446 ; 4521 ; the occupation of this class is writing , accounts &c ); m. writer , scribe W. करणी f. a woman of the above mixed tribe Ya1jn5. i , 95.
    C1750 Antique Print Pillar of The Boatmen Images Simonneau Plate A

    K(C)ernunnos is shown seated in penance (comparable to the sitting posture of the seated person on the Mohenjo-daro seal m0304). Warriors.

     Image result for tarvos trigaranos

              Musée de Cluny. Now known as the Musée national du Moyen Age.                                                                                                     

    Hieroglyph: kamaha ‘penance’ (Prakritam) Rebus: kammaa ‘mint, coiner’(Telugu). 

    Kernunno or Cernunnos sculpted on the Pillar of Boatmen or Pilier des Nautes -- ca.1 nautae Parisiaci -- at the Musée Carnavalet is composed of Indus Script hieroglyph components: horns of antelope (markhor), torcs, seated person in penance, surrounded by other metalwork hieroglyphs.

    Discovered under the Cathedral Notre-Dame De Paris, the pillar is an offering of the boatmen of the Seine (the nautes) to the Roman Emperor Tiberius who ruled the Gaul (Roman Province). The pillar was originally in a temple in the Gallo-Roman civitas of Lutetia (modern Paris, France).

    Cernunnos is named in an inscription on the 1st cent. CE Pillar of the Boatmen (French Pilier des nautes) with bas-relief depictions. "Dating to the first quarter of the 1st century AD, it originally stood in a temple in the Gallo-Roman civitas of Lutetia (modern Paris, France) and is one of the earliest pieces of representational Gaulish art to carry a written inscription...It is displayed in the frigidarium of the Thermes de Cluny...Cernunnos has stag's antlers from which hang two torcs. From the amount of the body in the top half, Cernunnos is assumed to have been depicted in a cross-legged seated position...Smertrios is shown kneeling, brandishing a club and attacking a snake. Castor and Pollus are shown standing beside their horses, each holding a spear...Jupiter is shown standing, holding a spear and a thunderbolt. Esus is shown standing beside a willow tree, which he is cutting down with an axe. Tarvos Trigaranus is depicted as a large, heavy-set bull standing in front of a willow tree. Two cranes stand on his back and a third on his head. Vulcan is shown standing, with hammer and tongs." 

    The pillar is made of a type of limestone called "pierre de Saint-Leu-d'Esserent", from Saint-Leu, Oise, France. The original pillar would have been 5.24m high, 0.91m wide at the base and 0.74m wide at the top (Saragoza 2003).
    It is formed in four tiers.
    The top tier, of which only the top half remains, depicts CernunnosSmertrios, and Castor and Pollux. Cernunnos has stag's antlers from which hang two torcs. From the amount of the body in the top half, Cernunnos is assumed to have been depicted in a cross-legged seated position as is typical of other Cernunnos depictions (Bober, Phyllis Fray,1951,. "Cernunnos: Origin and Transformation of a Celtic Divinity". American Journal of Archaeology. Archaeological Institute of America. 55 (1): 13–51. pp. 14, 19, 21–24); there is insufficient room for him to be seated on a chair or standing (Bober opcit., p. 30). Smertrios is shown kneeling, brandishing a club and attacking a snake. Castor and Pollux are shown standing beside their horses, each holding a spear (Busson, Didier (1998). Carte archéologique de la Gaule: 75, Paris. Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.p.451. Entry on Notre-Dame, includes detailed photos and line drawings, plus a reconstruction of the block ordering.)
    The second tier, which is complete, shows JupiterEsusTarvos Trigaranos and Vulcan. Jupiter is shown standing, holding a spear and a thunderbolt. Esus is shown standing beside a willow tree, which he is cutting down with an axe. Tarvos Trigaranus is depicted as a large, heavy-set bull standing in front of a willow tree. Two cranes stand on his back and a third on his head. Vulcan is shown standing, with hammer and tongs (Busson opcit.,pp. 449–450).
    Written in Latin with some Gaulish language features, the inscription mingles Roman deities with gods that are distinctly Gallic. The pillar is dated by a dedication to Tiberius Caesar Augustus, that is, Tiberius, who became emperor in 14 AD. It was set up publicly (publice posierunt) by the guild of sailors of Lutetia, from the civitas of the Parisii (nautae Parisiaci). These sailors would have been merchants who travelled along the Seine.
    The main dedication is to Jupiter, in the form of Iovis Optimus Maximus ("Jove Best and Greatest"). The names of the emperor and the supreme deity appear in the dative case as the recipients of the dedication. The remaining theonyms are nominative legends that accompany individual depictions of the gods. These are (in the order they appear below) Jove, Tarvos Trigaranos (the Bull with three Cranes), Volcanus (Vulcan), EsusCernunnosCastorSmertrios, and Fortuna.
    The dedication (CIL XIII, 3026; RIG L2-1) is as follows:
    Tib(erio) Caesare /
    Aug(usto) Ioui Optum[o] /
    Maxsumo /
    nautae Parisiaci /
    publice posierunt //
    Eurises // Senan[t] U[s]e[t]lo[n][-] //
    Iouis // Taruos Trigaranus //
    Volcanus // Esus //
    [C]ernunnos // Castor // [---] //
    Smer[---] //
    Fort[una] // [--]TVS[--] // D[--]

    Esus always conquers the divine bull, but Tarvos is always reborn from mother earth.

     The two reliefs from the Pillar of Boatmen of Notre-Dame de Paris are inscribed "ESVS" and "TARVOSTRIGARANOS". There is also a third relief of a horned god, called Cernunnos (inscribed "(K)ERNENOS"), and a relief of Smertios, a god holding a club, about to kill a snake. Aside from these, there are also reliefs of Vulcan, Jupiter, and Mars.Three-hornedd bull.
    "At the Roman temple in Maiden Castle (Dorset), there was found a bronze bull with three horns and three women on his back. Some have speculated that this was a Mithraic object, and the similarity between the bronze bull and the reliefs are unmistakable. And what is most important is that Mithraism is based around the belief that Mithra slew the cosmic bull; also, the earliest grade of Mithraism was Corax--the crow, who is perched on the bull's back:
    Mithras is clad in a tunic, trousers, cloak, and a pointed cap usually called a Phrygian cap. He faces the viewer while half-straddling the back of a bull, yanks the bull's head back by its nostrils with his left hand, and plunges a dagger into the bull's thoat with his right. Various figures surround this dramatic event. Under the bull a dog laps at the blood dripping from the wound and a scorpion attacks the bull's testicles. Often the bull's tail ends in wheat ears and a raven is perched on the bull's back. On the viewer's left stands a diminutive male figure named Cautes, wearing the same garb as Mithras and holding an upraised and burning torch. Above him, in the upper left corner, is the sun god, Sol, in his chariot. On the viewer's left there is another diminutive male figure, Cautopates, who is also clad as Mithras is and holds a torch that points downards and is sometimes, but not always, burning. Above Cautopates in the upper right corner is the moon, Luna. This group of figures is almost always present, but there are variations, of which the most common is an added line of the signs of the zodiac over the top of the bull-sacrificing scene. --A typical mithraeum. (Griffin,Alison,Mithraism)" loc. cit.
    Image result for tarvos trigaranosImage result for tarvos trigaranos
    The relief of Tarvos or TaruosTrigaranus on the Pillar of the Boatmen. Taros Trigaranus is a bull with three cranesperched on his back. He stands under a tree, and on an adjacent panel, the god Esus is chopping down a tree, possibly a willow, with an axe. (Green, Miranda J. (1992) Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legend. London: Thames & Hudson, pp. 93-94).

    "Reliefs from a pillar dedicated to Jupiter by the 'Parisian mariners' between AD 14 and 37 and rediscovered in 1711 under the choir of the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris.  One shows the god Esus cutting branches from a tree. In the other there is a similar tree with a bull surmounted by three birds. It bears the title Tarvos Trigaranus, 'The Bull with Three Cranes'. That these two adjacent scenes belong together is confirmed by a relief from Treves (page 35) in which a man, similarly dressed in short working tunic, appears to be hacking the trunk of a tree in whose foliage are visible the head of a bull and the same three birds. These three components, the sacred tree, the divine bull and the triad of otherworld birds, are familiar features of insular Celtic tradition, and obviously we have to do here wit some episode from a myth. Unfortunately its precise content can only be conjectured. Musee de Cluny, Paris.
    (Mac Cana, page 35)
    The relief from Treves which corresponds to the Paris reliefs of Esus and Tarvos Trigaramus. It shows a woodcutter attacking a tree on which repose three birds and the head of a bull. Landes-museum, Trier.

    The American Journal of Archaeology [Vol. 1, No. 4/5 (July-Oct. 1897) pp 333-387] mentions this second relief of Esus, having this to say on the subject on p. 374-375:
    "From Differten comes a sandstone relief of Mercury in Gallic costume, with herald's staff and purse, an illustration of Caesar's remark that Mercury was especially honored by the Gauls. Most important is a Gallo-Roman votive monument dedicated to Mercury by the Mediomatrician Indus. On the front, on either side of an open box, stand Mercury, with winged shoes and Gallic collar, and his Gallic mate Rosmerta. On the right side, next to Mercury, is the Gallic god Esus felling a tree, above which appear a bull's head and three large birds, symbols of the god Tarvos Trigaranus, as seen on an altar at Paris. The monument is evidence of the identity of Esus and Mercury."
    In the Gaulish languagetaruos means "bull," in Latin, it is taurus, Lithuanian tauras.  kaṅká m. ʻ heron ʼ VS. [← Drav. T. Burrow TPS 1945, 87; onomat. Mayrhofer EWA i 137. Drav. influence certain in o of M. and Si.: Tam. Kan. Mal. kokku ʻ crane ʼ, Tu. korṅgu, Tel. koṅga, Kuvi koṅgi, Kui kohko]Pa. kaṅka -- m. ʻ heron ʼ, Pk. kaṁka -- m., S. kaṅgu m. ʻ crane, heron ʼ (→ Bal. kang); B. kã̄k ʻ heron ʼ, Or. kāṅka; G. kã̄kṛũ n. ʻ a partic. ravenous bird ʼ; -- with o from Drav.: M. kõkā m. ʻ heron ʼ; Si. kokā, pl. kokku ʻ various kinds of crane or heron ʼ, kekī ʻ female crane ʼ, kēki ʻ a species of crane, the paddy bird ʼ (ē?).(CDIAL 2595).

    Rebus: kāgni m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop. [ka -- 3 or kā -- , agní -- ]K. kang m. ʻ brazier, fireplace ʼ?(CDIAL 2999)*kāṅgārikā ʻ poor or small brazier ʼ. [Cf. kāgni -- m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop.: ka -- 3 or kā -- , aṅgāri -- ]K. kã̄gürükã̄gar f. ʻ portable brazier ʼ whence kangar m. ʻ large do. ʼ (or < *kāṅgāra -- ?); H. kã̄grī f. ʻ small portable brazier ʼ. (CDIAL 3006)

    kaṅkaṇa n. ʻ bracelet ʼ MBh., °ṇī -- f. ʻ ornament with bells ʼ lex. Pa. kaṅkana -- n. ʻ bracelet ʼ, Pk. kaṁkaṇa -- n., K. kangun m., S. kaṅgaṇu m., °giṇī f., L. kaṅgaṇ m., awāṇ. kaṅguṇ m., P. kaṅgaṇ m., ludh. °an m. (→ H. kaṅgan°gnā m. → N. kaṅgnā, Bi. kãgnā°nī, Bhoj. kaṅnā, M.kaṅgṇī f.); WPah. bhal. kaṅkaṇ n., bhid. kaṅkṇõ n., B. kã̄kan, Bi. kãknā°nī, (Camparan) kaknā, Aw. lakh. kakanā, H. kaknā m., °nī f., G. kã̄kaṇ n., M. kã̄kaṇ n., kākṇī f. Addenda: kaṅkaṇa -- : WPah.kṭg. kaṅgṇu m. ʻ bracelet ʼ, kc. °ṇa; kṭg. °i f., kc. °ṇe f. ʻ finger -- ring ʼ; J. kã̄gaṇo ( ʻ bracelets ʼ, Garh. kaṅgaṇ.(CDIAL 2597)

    karã̄ n. pl. 'wristlets, bangles' (Gujarati); S. karāī f. 'wrist' (CDIAL 2779). Rebus: khār खार् 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri)

    *ṭhaṭṭha ʻ brass ʼ. [Onom. from noise of hammering brass? -- N. ṭhaṭṭar ʻ an alloy of copper and bell metal ʼ. *ṭhaṭṭhakāra ʻ brass worker ʼ. 2. *ṭhaṭṭhakara -- 1. Pk. ṭhaṭṭhāra -- m., K. ṭhö̃ṭhur m., S. ṭhã̄ṭhāro m., P. ṭhaṭhiār°rā m.2. P. ludh. ṭhaṭherā m., Ku. ṭhaṭhero m., N. ṭhaṭero, Bi. ṭhaṭherā, Mth. ṭhaṭheri, H. ṭhaṭherā m.(CDIAL 5491, 5493) Tatta1 [pp. of tapati] heated, hot, glowing; of metals: in a melted state (cp. uttatta) Aii.122≈(tattena talena osiñcante, as punishment); Dh 308 (ayoguḷa); J ii.352 (id.); iv.306 (tattatapo "of red -- hot heat," i. e. in severe self -- torture); Miln 26, 45 (adv. red -- hot); PvA 221 (tatta -- lohasecanaŋ the pouring over of glowing copper, one of the punishments in Niraya).(Pali)
    Plate B "This plate shows an antithetical arrangement of animals around a bust of a goddess. The goddess is presented in the center with a six-spoked rosette wheel on either side of her. She is flanked by two elephants confronting each other. Below them are two griffins arranged in the same antithetical manner and a hound is placed in the lower center of the plate, between these two griffins. The goddess seems almost identical with the goddess on plate (g): she has S-curve hair strands and curvilinear eye-ridges forming a T-shape with her nose. The rendering of her arms is also similar to that on plate (e). Though it is not certain that the six-pointed wheels represent a wagon, the goddess is usually interpreted as riding a wagon. Actually, a chariot is often represented by a single wheel of the same type in Gaulish coinage. Olmsted suggests that the presence of the elephants on either side of the wagon could have resulted from the influences of the Roman coinage which portrays elephants pulling a chariot. "

    Hieroglyph: meḍhi 'plaitमेढा [mēḍhā] A twist or tangle arising in thread or cord, a curl or snarl (Marathi) Rebus: meḍ 'iron' , medhā 'dhanam, yajña'
    Hieroglyphs; tiger, woman: kola 'woman', kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron'; kolle 'blacksmith';kolhe 'smelter'; kole.l 'smithy, forge'.
    kara'safflower' Rebus: karaa 'hard alloy' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting'. Thus, hardalloy metal casting.

    dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' PLUS 1. eruvai 'kite' rebus:eruvai 'copper'; PLUS 2. khabba 'wing' rebus:kammaṭa 'mint'; PLUS 3. panja 'talon' rebus: panja 'kiln, furnace, smelter'. Thus, copper, metalcasting mint with kiln/furnace/smelter.

    Hieroglyph: kite: eruvai 'kite' rebus: eruvai 'copper' Ta. eruvai blood, (?) copperKa. ere a dark-red or dark-brown colour, a dark or dusky colour; (Badaga) erande sp. fruit, red in colour. Te. rēcu, rēcu-kukka a sort of ounce or lynx said to climb trees and to destroy tigers; (B.) a hound or wild dog. Kol. resn a·te wild dog (i.e. *res na·te; see 3650). Pa. iric netta id. Ga. (S.3rēs nete hunting dog, hound. Go. (Ma.) erm ney, (D.) erom nay, (Mu.) arm/aṛm nay wild dog (Voc. 353); (M.) rac nāī, (Ko.) rasi ney id. (Voc. 3010). For 'wild dog', cf. 1931 Ta. ce- red, esp. the items for 'red dog, wild dog'.(DEDR 817)

    Hieroglyph: wing: *skambha2 ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, plumage ʼ. [Cf. *skapa -- s.v. *khavaka -- ]
    S. khambhu°bho m. ʻ plumage ʼ, khambhuṛi f. ʻ wing ʼ; L. khabbh m., mult. khambh m. ʻ shoulder -- blade, wing, feather ʼ, khet. khamb ʻ wing ʼ, mult. khambhaṛā m. ʻ fin ʼ; P. khambh m. ʻ wing, feather ʼ; G. khā̆m f., khabhɔ m. ʻ shoulder ʼ.(CDIAL 13640) Rebus:Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mintKa. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner.  (DEDR 1236)

    Hieroglyph: talon: panja 'claw, paw' rebus: panja 'kiln' of metals manufactory: *pañjāpāka ʻ kiln for a heap ʼ. [*pañja -- , āpāka -- ]P. pañjāvāpãj° m. ʻ brick kiln ʼ; B. pã̄jā ʻ kiln ʼ, G. pajāvɔ m (CDIAL 7686) panzĕ पन्ज़्य m. the wound made by an animal's claw (cf. panja) (K. 678). panja पंज । पञ्चसंख्यात्मकः, अङ्गुलिपञ्चकसंघः m. an aggregate of five; a five (in cards, on dice, or the like); the hand with the five fingers extended (cf. atha-po, p. 61b, l. 2) (Gr.M.); the paw or claw of beast or bird (Gr.M.; Rām. 41, 61, 697-8, 73; H. xii, 16-17). -- dyunu ; । पञ्चकाघातः m.inf. 'to give the five', i.e. to strike with the five fingers, to scratch with the five finger-nails or (of a wild beast) to tear with the claws. -ʦoṭu ; । छिन्नपञ्चशाखः adj. (f. -ʦüṭü ), one whose fingers, toes, or claws have all been cut off (of man, beast, or bird). panjī पंजी f. a bird's talon (El.); the five fingers (El. panjih, cf. panja; W. 114, panji).(Kashmiri) *pañja -- ʻ heap ʼ *pahuñca ʻ forearm, wrist ʼ. L. pôcā m. ʻ paw ʼ, (Shahpur) paucā m. ʻ paw, claw ʼ; P. pahũcā m. ʻ wrist, paw ʼ; N. paũjā ʻ paw ʼ; OAw. pahuṁcihi obl. sg. f. ʻ wrist ʼ; H. pahũcā m. ʻ forearm, wrist ʼ; G. pɔ̃hɔ̃cɔ m. ʻ wrist ʼ, M. pohãcī f. PĀ1 ʻ drink ʼ: pa -- 1, pāˊtra -- , pāˊna -- , pānīˊya -- , pāyáyati, *pipāsaka -- , pipāsāˊ -- , pipāsitá -- , píbati, pītá -- 1, pīyátē, pēya -- ; āpāna -- 1, nipāna -- , prapāˊ -- . PĀ2 ʻ protect ʼ: pa -- 2, pā -- ; *āpāna -- 2. pā -- in cmpds. ʻ protecting ʼ: adhipāˊ -- , tanūpāˊ -- , paśupāˊ -- ; -- pa -- 2. Addenda: *pahuñca -- : S.kcch. paũco m. ʻ wrist ʼ, WPah.kṭg. pɔ́̄nj̈ɔ m.(CDIAL 8018)

    Plate C "This plate shows an intriguing iconography of two deities with a broken wheel: in the center of the plate, a bust of a bearded deity is depicted with a half-shaped wheel on his right side and a full-length leaping figure is holding the rim of the wheel from the right. Under this leaping figure, a horned serpent is presented. The rest of animals are placed clockwise around this group of two deities: in the upper part of the plate, two identical beasts are depicted on either side of the group, both facing the left side of the deities and in the lower part, three griffins are depicted in parallel, all facing the right side of the deities. The space between the upper and lower group of the animals is filled with some botanical patterns which are usually identified as ivy tendrils.
    The bust of a bearded god in the center is almost identical with the small bust on the right shoulder of the goddess on plate (e). On the other hand, the leaping figure holding the wheel on the left is similar to the gods of the plate (A) and (E) in its size and dress. He wears tight fitting, short-sleeve clothes and a horned helmet ending in knob like terminals."

    Hieroglyph: Wheel, spokes of wheel, nave of wheel: eraka 'nave of wheel' rebus: eraka 'moltencast, copper' arā 'spoke' rebus: āra 'brass'.

    Hieroglyph: Face, fist: WPah.kṭg. (kc.) mū̃ (with high level tone) m. (obl. -- a) ʻ mouth, face ʼ; OMarw. muhaṛaü ʻ face ʼ; múkha n. ʻ mouth, face ʼ RV., ʻ entrance ʼ MBh.Pa. mukha -- m.; Aś.shah. man. gir. mukhato, kāl. dh. jau. °te ʻ by word of mouth ʼ; Pk. muha -- n. ʻ mouth, face ʼ, Gy. gr. hung. muy m., boh. muy, span. muí, wel. mūī f., arm. muc̦, pal. mu', mi', pers. mu; Tir.  ʻ face ʼ; Woṭ.  m. ʻ face, sight ʼ; Kho. mux ʻ face ʼ; Tor.  ʻ mouth ʼ, Mai. mũ; K. in cmpds. mu -- ganḍ m. ʻ cheek, upper jaw ʼ, mū -- kāla ʻ having one's face blackened ʼ, rām. mūī˜, pog. mūī, ḍoḍ. mū̃h ʻ mouth ʼ; S. mũhũ m. ʻ face, mouth, opening ʼ; L. mũh m. ʻ face ʼ, awāṇ. mū̃ with descending tone, mult. mũhã m. ʻ head of a canal ʼ; P. mū̃h m. ʻ face, mouth ʼ, mū̃hã̄ m. ʻ head of a canal ʼ; WPah.śeu. mùtilde; ʻ mouth, ʼ cur. mū̃h; A. muh ʻ face ʼ, in cmpds. -- muwā ʻ facing ʼ; B. mu ʻ face ʼ; Or. muhã ʻ face, mouth, head, person ʼ; Bi. mũh ʻ opening or hole (in a stove for stoking, in a handmill for filling, in a grainstore for withdrawing) ʼ; Mth. Bhoj. mũh ʻ mouth, face ʼ, Aw.lakh. muh, H. muhmũh m.; OG. muha, G. mɔ̃h n. ʻ mouth ʼ, Si. muyamuva. -- Ext. -- l<-> or -- ll -- : Pk. muhala -- , muhulla -- n. ʻ mouth, face ʼ; S. muhuro m. ʻ face ʼ (or < mukhará -- ); Ku. do -- maulo ʻ confluence of two streams ʼ; Si. muhulmuhunamūṇa ʻ face ʼ H. Smith JA 1950, 179.; -- --  -- : S. muhaṛo m. ʻ front, van ʼ; Bi. (Shahabad) mohṛā ʻ feeding channel of handmill ʼ. (CDIAL 10158) Rebus: mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formeḍ into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end  (Santali) muh 'face' Rebus: muha 'quantity of iron produced from a smelter' (Santali).

    *mukka1 ʻ blow with fist ʼ. [Prob. ← Drav., Prj. muṭka ʻ blow with fist ʼ, Kur. muṭkā ʻ fist ʼ, DED. 4041]
    K. muköli f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ, (El.) mukāl m. ʻ fist ʼ; S. muka f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ, L. mukk°kī f.; P. mukk m. ʻ fist ʼ, °kī f.; WPah.bhal. mukki f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ; N. mukkā°ki ʻ fist ʼ, H. mūkāmukkā m., °kī f., mukkhī f. (X muṭṭhī < muṣṭí -- ); G. mukkɔ m., °kī f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ.(CDIAL 10150) rebus: Rebus: mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formeḍ into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end  (Santali) muh 'face' Rebus: muha 'quantity of iron produced from a smelter' (Santali).

    dhāvḍī 'relating to iron'I suggest that the head of the person in the centre signifies: M. dhāū, dhāv m.f. ʻ a partic. soft red stone ʼ (whence dhā̆vaḍ m. ʻ a caste of iron -- smelters ʼ, dhāvḍī ʻ composed of or relating to iron ʼ); -- Si. dā ʻ relic ʼ; -- (CDIAL 6773)

    dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' PLUS kola 'tiger' rebus: kol 'working in iron' PLUS panja 'claw of feline' rebus: panja 'kiln, furnace, smelter'.

    dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' PLUS 1. eruvai 'kite' rebus:eruvai 'copper'; PLUS 2. khabba 'wing' rebus:kammaṭa 'mint'; PLUS 3. panja 'talon' rebus: panja 'kiln, furnace, smelter'. Thus, copper, metalcasting mint with kiln/furnace/smelter.

    Hieroglyph: फडा (p. 313phaḍā f (फटा S) The hood of Coluber Nága &c. Ta. patam cobra's hood. Ma. paṭam id. Ka. peḍe id. Te. paḍaga id. Go. (S.) paṛge, (Mu.) baṛak, (Ma.) baṛki, (F-H.) biṛki hood of serpent (Voc. 2154). / Turner, CDIAL, no. 9040, Skt. (s)phaṭa-, sphaṭā- a serpent's expanded hood, Pkt. phaḍā- id. For IE etymology, see Burrow, The Problem of Shwa in Sanskrit, p. 45.(DEDR 47) Rebus: phaḍa फड ‘manufactory, company, guild, public office’, keeper of all accounts, registers.

    Hieroglyphs: tendrils: ã̄kṛā 'tendril' rebus: ã̄kṛā 'hook': aṅká m. ʻ hook ʼ RV., ʻ hip where children are carried ʼ Br̥ĀrUp., ʻ curved line, mark, sign ʼ R. [√añc]Pa. aṅka -- m. ʻ hook, mark, brand, hip ʼ, Pk. aṁka -- m.; Dm. aṅkhá ʻ sickle ʼ, Gaw. háṅko, Bshk. ēṅg, Tor. ā̤eṅg, Phal. āˊṅgu m.; K. ang m. ʻ granulation of a healing wound ʼ (ö̃kh m. ʻ mark ʼ ← H.); S. aṅgu m. ʻ numerical figure, ʻ mark ʼ, L. P. aṅg m.; Ku. ã̄k ʻ mole on skin, digit ʼ; A. B. ã̄k mark, line ʼ; Bhoj. Aw. lakh. ã̄k ʻ digit ʼ; H. ã̄k m. ʻ mark, spot ʼ, ã̄kh f. ʻ bend near kneepan ʼ; G. ã̄k m. ʻ digit ʼ, ã̄kɔ m. ʻ notch ʼ; M. ã̄k m. ʻ mark, sign ʼ, ã̄khī f. ʻ pole with hook and netting for gathering mangos ʼ (X ã̄khā s.v. *akkha -- ); Ko. ã̄k ʻ digit ʼ; Si. aka ʻ mark ʼ, äkaya ʻ hip, side ʼ. Ext. -- ṭa -- : B. ã̄kṛā°ṛi ʻ hook, tendril ʼ; H. ã̄kṛā m., °ṛī f. ʻ hook, tendril ʼ; G. ã̄kṛī f. ʻ hook ʼ, ãkoṛī f. ʻ hook at end of a long stick for picking fruit ʼ, M. ãkḍī f. aṅkana -- , aṅkáyati, aṅkita -- ; *aṅkakāra -- , aṅkapāli -- , *aṅkākāra -- , *aṅkāśrita -- ; *udaṅka -- , *kaṭāṅka -- , *graiviyāṅka -- , pañcāṅka -- , śaśāṅka -- ; -- tryaṅgaṭa -- ? Addenda: aṅká -- : S.kcch. āṅghel ʻ branded ʼ; G. ã̄kelɔ m. ʻ branded bull ʼ.
    Plate D "On the lower right side of each bull, a man is standing in the posture of attacking the bull with a sword. Under the feet of each bull, by the side of each man, a dog is depicted as running toward the left while a cat-like creature is running in the same direction over the back of the bull. These cats as well as the dogs have the same hanging feet. As shown in other plates, the spaces between each figure are filled with tear-drop shaped leaves."
    Plate E "Along with the plate (A), plate (E) is said to be the most Celtic in its iconography because of the presence of the carnyx. It consists of a long thin tube at the top of which is added a boar’s head with jaws wide open and a projecting mane on the back. The decorated helmets of the warriors in the upper row are also Celtic. Here, we have five different types of helmets: one has a boar on top, one a pair of crooked thin horns ending in knobs, one a crescent shape with concave side down, one a bird with its wings folded."
    Outer plate a "On plate (a), a bearded god holds a small man in each hand over his shoulders. He is in so-called "orans position"with his arms raised. Like another male god on plate (d), he doesn’t wear a torque; instead he has long whisker-like strings. Each of the two men seems to hold a boar with one of their arms. However, from a closer view, one can recognize that each one reaches his hand upward to a boar and just touches it. The one on the right has a dog below him while below that on the left is a horse with wings, a so called "Pegasus." "
    Outer plate b "Plate (b) shows a male deity holding two sea horses or dragons. These two animals have the mixed characters of horse and dragon; they have a long, serpentine body of a dragon and a horse-like head and two front legs. Their ribs are prominently fluted and the tails and wings are swirled. Below the god is a double-headed monster attacking small figures of fallen early as 1913, Hubert suggested that this scene should be related to the sea or water since the god holds the sea horses. "

    The face wears a torc on the neck. Hieroglyph 1: kaṅkaṇa n. ʻ bracelet ʼ MBh., °ṇī -- f. ʻ ornament with bells ʼ lex. Pa. kaṅkana -- n. ʻ bracelet ʼ(CDIAL 2597) Hieroglyph 2: karã̄ʻwristlets, banglesʼ.(Gujarati)(CDIAL 2779) Rebus 1: khār खार्  'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) Rebus 2: kāgni m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop. [ka -- 3 or kā -- , agní -- ]K. kang m. ʻ brazier, fireplace ʼ?(CDIAL 2999)  *kāṅgārikā ʻ poor or small brazier ʼ. [Cf. kāgni -- m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop.: ka -- 3 or kā -- , aṅgāri -- ]K. kã̄gürükã̄gar f. ʻ portable brazier ʼ whence kangar m. ʻ large do. ʼ (or < *kāṅgāra -- ?); H. kã̄grī f. ʻ small portable brazier ʼ. (CDIAL 3006)

    He is Kernunno: kārṇī m. ʻ prime minister, supercargo of a ship ʼ, kul -- karṇī m. ʻ village accountant ʼ (Marathi) kāraṇika m. ʻ teacher ʼ MBh., ʻ judge ʼ Pañcat. [kā- raṇa -- ]Pa. usu -- kāraṇika -- m. ʻ arrow -- maker ʼ; Pk. kāraṇiya -- m. ʻ teacher of Nyāya ʼ; S. kāriṇī m. ʻ guardian, heir ʼ; N. kārani ʻ abettor in crime ʼ(CDIAL 3058)   karṇadhāra m. ʻ helmsman ʼ Suśr. [kárṇa -- , dhāra -- 1]Pa. kaṇṇadhāra -- m. ʻ helmsman ʼ; Pk. kaṇṇahāra -- m. ʻ helmsman, sailor ʼ; H. kanahār m. ʻ helmsman, fisherman ʼ.(CDIAL 2836) 
    Outer plate c '"This plates shows a deity with his upraised hands in "orans position" as the other male gods on the outer plates. However, unlike the others, his hands are empty. He has a boxing man at his right and on the left is a leaping figure with a small horse rider below it. The leaping figure is similar to the one on the base with his upturned queue of hair, which is also found in plate (g). The two men are dressed in the same type of garment as that shown on the inner plates, a close fitting jacket or vest with tight trousers ending at the knee. Since this kind of dress is commonly observed in horse-riding races, there are no iconographic details characteristically Celtic or Thracian on this plate. "

    The face wears a torc on the neck. Hieroglyph 1: kaṅkaṇa n. ʻ bracelet ʼ MBh., °ṇī -- f. ʻ ornament with bells ʼ lex. Pa. kaṅkana -- n. ʻ bracelet ʼ(CDIAL 2597) Hieroglyph 2: karã̄ʻwristlets, banglesʼ.(Gujarati)(CDIAL 2779) Rebus 1: khār खार्  'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) Rebus 2: kāgni m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop. [ka -- 3 or kā -- , agní -- ]K. kang m. ʻ brazier, fireplace ʼ?(CDIAL 2999)  *kāṅgārikā ʻ poor or small brazier ʼ. [Cf. kāgni -- m. ʻ a small fire ʼ Vop.: ka -- 3 or kā -- , aṅgāri -- ]K. kã̄gürükã̄gar f. ʻ portable brazier ʼ whence kangar m. ʻ large do. ʼ (or < *kāṅgāra -- ?); H. kã̄grī f. ʻ small portable brazier ʼ. (CDIAL 3006) 

    He is Kernunno: kārṇī m. ʻ prime minister, supercargo of a ship ʼ, kul -- karṇī m. ʻ village accountant ʼ (Marathi) kāraṇika m. ʻ teacher ʼ MBh., ʻ judge ʼ Pañcat. [kā- raṇa -- ]Pa. usu -- kāraṇika -- m. ʻ arrow -- maker ʼ; Pk. kāraṇiya -- m. ʻ teacher of Nyāya ʼ; S. kāriṇī m. ʻ guardian, heir ʼ; N. kārani ʻ abettor in crime ʼ(CDIAL 3058)   karṇadhāra m. ʻ helmsman ʼ Suśr. [kárṇa -- , dhāra -- 1]Pa. kaṇṇadhāra -- m. ʻ helmsman ʼ; Pk. kaṇṇahāra -- m. ʻ helmsman, sailor ʼ; H. kanahār m. ʻ helmsman, fisherman ʼ.(CDIAL 2836) 

    Outer plate d "The iconographic details of this plate are comparatively clear: a bearded god is holding two stags in each hand. Stylistically, this plate share some characteristics with the plates (e) and (g): all of them have a dotted background which ends in a zig-zag boundary at the top of the plate and ivy tendrils which fill the empty spaces between the figures. Since boars and stags were the major animals revered by the Celts, one may argue for the Gaulish character of this plate. "

    Hieroglyphs: dula 'pair' rebus:dul 'metal casting' PLUS *śārṅgala ʻ horned ʼ. [śārṅga -- ]Paš.lauṛ. ṣaṅgala ʻ a small horn ʼ; K. hã̄gul m. ʻ the stag Cervus wallichii ʼ.(CDIAL 12410) śārṅga ʻ made of horn ʼ Suśr., n. ʻ bow ʼ MBh. [śŕ̊ṅga -- ]Pk. saṁga -- ʻ made of horn ʼ; Paš.lauṛ. ṣāṅg f.(?) ʻ horn ʼ (or < śŕ̊ṅga -- ).(CDIAL 12409) Rebus:જંગડિયો jangaḍiyo 'military guard who accompanies treasure into the treasury' (Gujarati); 
    jangaḍ semantically expanded with meaning well-settled in Indian legal system to signify "Goods sent on approval or 'on sale or return' 

    Thus, jangaḍ 'metal casting output from smelter invoiced on approval basis'.

    Hieroglyphs: tendrils: ã̄kṛā 'tendril' rebus: ã̄kṛā 'hook': aṅká m. ʻ hook ʼ (RV)
    Hieroglyphs: *mukka1 ʻ blow with fist ʼ. [Prob. ← Drav., Prj. muṭka ʻ blow with fist ʼ, Kur. muṭkā ʻ fist ʼ, DED. 4041]
    K. muköli f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ(CDIAL 10150) rebus: Rebus: mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formeḍ into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end  (Santali) muh 'face' Rebus: muha 'quantity of iron produced from a smelter' (Santali).
    Outer plate e "Plate (e) shows a bust of a goddess in the center and the smaller busts of two male gods on her shoulders. She wears a torque and has a typical mask-like face with her small mouth and T-shaped eye brows and nose. The bearded deity on her right shoulder is almost identical with the central god on the inner plate (C) even in their round shaped pattern beneath their beard. They may represent the same god in a different context or just two different gods. If the former is the case, this means that the decoration program of the cauldron is based on a certain kind of narrative or a group of narratives and that each plate is interconnected with one another iconographically."

    kola 'woman' rebus: kol 'working in iron'
    Hieroglyphs: *mukka1 ʻ blow with fist ʼ. [Prob. ← Drav., Prj. muṭka ʻ blow with fist ʼ, Kur. muṭkā ʻ fist ʼ, DED. 4041]
    K. muköli f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ(CDIAL 10150) rebus: Rebus: mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formeḍ into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end  (Santali) muh 'face' Rebus: muha 'quantity of iron produced from a smelter' (Santali).
    Hieroglyph: three: kolmo 'three' rebus: kolilmi 'smithy, forge'
    Outer plate f "Plate (f) shows an interesting iconography. The central goddess holds a small bird in her upraised right hand while her left arm is placed across her chest. Crossed over her left arm is lying a small man and on the opposite side to the man is a dog upside down. Some have suggested that the goddess is cradling the two figures on her chest. But this would hardly be the case because the figures are depicted as fallen rather than cradled.(Davison: 498) The goddess has two birds of prey - which may be eagles or ravens - on either side of her head. On her right shoulder is seated a small female figure, over whose head is a lion-like animal runs. On the left side, another small figure is holding the hair of the goddess as if plaiting her hair. Olmsted notes that the small bird in her right hand is same as that on the helmet on plate (E): both are seen from the side with a head like those of the larger birds but with a straight beak and their almond shaped wings are folded."

    Hieroglyph: eruvai 'kite' rebus: eruvai 'copper' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting'
    Hieroglyph: kola 'woman' rebus: kol 'working in iron'
    Hieroglyph: dhāu 'strand (of rope or plait)' rebus: dhāū 'red stone minerals. 
    Hieroglyph: meḍhi 'plaitmeḍ 'iron' , medhā 'dhanam, yajña'

    Outer plate g ".The goddess is crossing her arms on the chest. On her right shoulder is a man struggling with a lion and on the left is a leaping figure who is almost identical with the one on plate (c) and base plate. The man on the right is often associated with a motif borrowed from the theme of Heracles and the Nemean Lion. However, it is a widespread motif of ancient times which can be traced back beyond classical art to Near Eastern and oriental prototypes. ..The proponents of the Gaulish origin put emphasis on the Celtic motifs depicted on the cauldron such as ahorned deitytorques and musical instruments called carnyx. Most representative of all, Klindt-Jensen (1959) sees a horned deity as Cernnunos, the Celtic god and argues that it points toward northern Gaul as the area of its origin. However, even among those scholars who opt for the Gaulish origin, iconographic interpretations largely vary with one another."i

    Hieroglyph: dhāu 'strand (of rope or plait)' rebus: dhāū 'red stone minerals. dhāvḍī 'relating to iron'I suggest that the head of the person in the centre signifies: M. dhāū, dhāv m.f. ʻ a partic. soft red stone ʼ (whence dhā̆vaḍ m. ʻ a caste of iron -- smelters ʼ, dhāvḍī ʻ composed of or relating to iron ʼ); -- Si. dā ʻ relic ʼ; -- (CDIAL 6773)
    Hieroglyph: woman, tiger: kola 'woman', kola 'tiger' rebus: kol working in iron' 
    Hieroglyphs: *mukka1 ʻ blow with fist ʼ. [Prob. ← Drav., Prj. muṭka ʻ blow with fist ʼ, Kur. muṭkā ʻ fist ʼ, DED. 4041]
    K. muköli f. ʻ blow with fist ʼ(CDIAL 10150) rebus: Rebus: mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formeḍ into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end  (Santali) muh 'face' Rebus: muha 'quantity of iron produced from a smelter' (Santali).
        Each plate of the cauldron is labeled after Klindt-Jensen 
        whose labeling is generally adopted by the other scholars. 
        Five inner plates are labeled in capitalized letters, 
        and seven outer plates are labeled in small letters.

                (A)                           (B)                           (C)                        (D)                            (E)
            (a)                    (b)                 (c)                (d)                  (e)                 (f)                 (g)
    L'Union religieuse : le Pilier des Nautes  Trans.Religious Union: The Pillar of the Nautes"Indeed, alongside gods and goddesses of the Roman Pantheon (Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Fortuna, Castor and Pollux), we see typically Gaulish deities such as: Esus, Tarvos, Trigaranus, Eurises, Smertrios or Cernannos. This official monument thus consecrates the harmony of various beliefs and a real syncretism: we know for example that Jupiter finds are Gallic equivalent in Taranis, God of heaven, as for Mercury, he became part of the image of several indigenous deities , mainly lug "Prince with multiple sciences" usually accompanied by symbols of world balance and prosperity, this God protector of travel and trade, but also arts and crafts, is the favorite of the Gallo-Romans...Dedication of the pillar to Emperor Tiberius (early 1st century AD). The pillar is offered by the corporation of the nautes of Lutetia, that is to say the boatmen merchants of the Seine. The dedication makes this pillar the oldest in its class."
    Tutari, trumpetPlaying the tutari, 'trumpet'. துத்தாரி tuttāri n. 1. [T. tutāra, K. M. tuttāri.] Long, straight pipe; ஊதுகுழல்வகை.துத்தரி tuttari
    n. [T. tutāra.] See துத்தரிக் கொம்பு. கொம்பு துத்தரி கொட்டு முறைமையன் (கம்ப ரா. கங்கைப். 30).துத்தரிக்கொம்பு tuttari-k-kompu 
    n. < துத்தரி +. A kind of bugle-horn; ஒருவகை ஊதுகொம்பு. துத்தரிக்கொம்புந் துடியும் (சீவக. 434, உரை).

    Parallels of hypertexts on Mohenjo-daro seal m0304 which compare with the hypertexts of Gundestrup Cauldron and Pillar of Boatmen
    Buffalo horns:  ran:gā ‘buffalo’; ran:ga ‘pewter or alloy of tin (ran:ku), lead (nāga) and antimony (añjana)’(Santali)
    If the buffalo horns were attached, the hieroglyphs would have been pronounced in Meluhha speech as taTThAr, 'buffalo horn' Rebus: taTTAr 'goldsmith guild'; ṭhaṭherā 'brass worker' (Punjabi)

    Hieroglyph: goṇḍe ʻ cluster ʼ (Kannada) Rebus: kuṇḍi-a = village headman; leader of a village (Prakritam) mũh 'face'; rebus: metal ingot (Santali) mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced at one time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt = iron smelted by the Kolhes and formed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each end; kolhe tehen me~ṛhe~t mūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali.lex.) Shoggy hair; tiger’s mane. sodo bodo, sodro bodro adj. adv. rough, hairy, shoggy, hirsute, uneven; sodo [Persian. sodā, dealing] trade; traffic; merchandise; marketing; a bargain; the purchase or sale of goods; buying and selling; mercantile dealings (G.lex.) sodagor = a merchant, trader; sodāgor (P.B.) (Santali.lex.) The face is depicted with bristles of hair, representing a tiger’s mane. cūḍā, cūlā, cūliyā tiger’s mane (Pkt.)(CDIAL 4883).Rebus: cūḷai 'furnace, kiln, funeral pile' (Te.)(CDIAL 4879; DEDR 2709). Thus the composite glyphic composition: 'bristled (tiger's mane) face' is read rebus as: sodagor mũh cūḷa 'furnace (of) ingot merchant'. The person on platform is seated in penance: kamaḍha 'penance' (Pkt.) Rebus: kammaṭa ‘mint, coiner’ (Malayalam)  Hieroglyph: arms with bangles: karã̄ʻwristlets, banglesʼ.(Gujarati)(CDIAL 2779) Rebus: khār खार्  'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) khār खार् । लोहकारः m. (sg. abl. khāra 1 खार; the pl. dat. of this word is khāran 1 खारन्, which is to be distinguished from khāran 2, q.v., s.v.), a blacksmith, an iron worker (cf. bandūka-khār, p. 111b,l. 46; K.Pr. 46; H. xi, 17); a farrier (El.). This word is often a part of a name, and in such case comes at the end (W. 118) as in Wahab khār, Wahab the smith (H. ii, 12; vi, 17). khāra-basta khāra-basta खार-बस््त । चर्मप्रसेविका f. the skin bellows of a blacksmith. -büṭhü; । लोहकारभित्तिः f. the wall of a blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -bāy -बाय् । लोहकारपत्नी f. a blacksmith's wife (Gr.Gr. 34). -dŏkuru; । लोहकारायोघनः m. a blacksmith's hammer, a sledge-hammer. -gȧji -ग&above;जि&below; or -güjü ; । लोहकारचुल्लिः f. a blacksmith's furnace or hearth. -hāl -हाल् । लोहकारकन्दुः f. (sg. dat. -höjü), a blacksmith's smelting furnace; cf. hāl 5. -kūrü ; । लोहकारकन्या f. a blacksmith's daughter. -koṭu -क&above;टु&below; । लोहकारपुत्रः m. the son of a blacksmith, esp. a skilful son, who can work at the same profession. -küṭü -क&above;टू&below; । लोहकारकन्या f. a blacksmith's daughter, esp. one who has the virtues and qualities properly belonging to her father's profession or caste. -më˘ʦü 1 ; । लोहकारमृत्तिका f. (for 2, see [khāra 3] ), 'blacksmith's earth,' i.e. iron-ore. -nĕcyuwu ; । लोहकारात्मजः m. a blacksmith's son. -nay -नय् । लोहकारनालिका f. (for khāranay 2, see [khārun] ), the trough into which the blacksmith allows melted iron to flow after smelting. -ʦañĕ -च्&dotbelow;ञ । लोहकारशान्ताङ्गाराः charcoal used by blacksmiths in their furnaces. -wān वान् । लोहकारापणः m. a blacksmith's shop, a forge, smithy (K.Pr. 3). -waṭh -वठ् । आघाताधारशिला m. (sg. dat. -waṭas -वटि), the large stone used by a blacksmith as an anvil.(Kashmiri)

    A pair of hayricks, a pair of antelopes: kundavum = manger, a hayrick (G.) Rebus: kundār turner (A.); kũdār, kũdāri (B.); kundāru (Or.); kundau to turn on a lathe, to carve, to chase; kundau dhiri = a hewn stone; kundau murhut = a graven image (Santali) kunda a turner's lathe (Skt.)(CDIAL 3295) kundaa 'fine gold' (Tulu)


    The three faces of the person seated in penance on Mohenjo-daro Seal m0304 parallels descriptions in RV 10.8 of r̥ṣi Tvaṣṭṛ Triśiras 'lit. translation: carpenter with three faces'. Four rca-s of 

    தொட்டா toṭṭā, n. < TvaṣṭāTvaṣṭṛ. One of tuvātacātittar, q.v.; துவாத சாதித்தருள் ஒருவன்.

    நள்ளிரு ளெறிதொட்டா (கூர்மபு. ஆதவர்சிறப். 2). துவட்டர் tuvaṭṭar , n. < tvaṣṭṛ. Artificers, smiths; சிற்பியர். (சூடா.)  துவட்டன் tuvaṭṭaṉ , n. < Tvaṣṭṛ. A deity representing the sun, one of the tuvātacātittar, q.v.;   துவாதசாதித்தருள் ஒருவன். (திவா.) துவட்டா tuvaṭṭā, n. < TvaṣṭāTvaṣṭṛ. Višvakarmā, the architect of the gods; தெய்வத்தச்சனாகிய விசுவகருமா. துவட்டா வீன்ற தனயன் (திருவிளை. இந்திரன்பழி. 8). 11) త్వష్ట (p. 573) tvaṣṭa tvashṭa. [Skt.] n. A carpenter, వడ్లవాడు. The maker of the universe. విశ్వకర్త. One of the 12 Adityas, ద్వాదశాదిత్యులలో నొకడు. 

    ترکانړ tarkāṟṟṉ, s.m. (5th) A carpenter. Pl. ترکانړان tarkāṟṟṉān. (Panjābī).دروزګر darūz-gar, s.m. (5th) A carpenter, a joiner. Pl. دروزګران darūzgarān (corrup. of P درود گر). (Pashto) tŏrka त्वर्क in tŏrka-chān त्वर्क-छान्  कौटतक्षः m. a private carpenter, a village carpenter who works on his own account, a cabinet maker (H. vii, 17, 2); cf. chān 1.-chān-bāy -छान्-बाय्  स्वतन्त्रतक्षस्त्री f. his wife.-chönil -छा&above;निल्  कौटतक्षता f.(Kashmiri) Thapati [Vedic sthapati, to sthā+pati] 1. a builder, master carpenter M i.396=S iv.223; M iii.144, <-> 2. officer, overseer S v.348. (Pali)

    Head gear: Hieroglyph: taTThAr 'buffalo horn' Rebus: taTTAr 'brass worker'; tatara 'smelter' (Japanese)  <  ṭhaṭṭhāra 'brass worker' (Prakritam) (< is indicated as a possibile transfer mode in language contacts for metalwork technical gloss.) "The tatara (?) is the traditional Japanese furnace used for smelting iron and steel. The word later also came to mean the entire building housing the furnace...tatara is foreign to Japan, originating in India or Central Asia...Tokutaro Yasuda suggests that the word may be from the Sanskrit word taatara, meaning "heat," noting that the Hindi word for steel is sekeraa, which is very similar to the word used in Japan for the steel bloom which the tatara produces..."

    See cognate: sekeseke, sekseke covered, as the arms with ornaments; sekra those who work in brass and bell metal; sekra sakom a kind of armlet of bell metal (Santali) 

    The three-faces person seated in penance on m0304 Mohenjo-daro seal has his arms covered with ornaments. This may signify sekra 'worker in brass and bell-metal'.
    The torc worn on the person with fisted hands on Gundestrup cauldron and on the staghorns of the seated person on Pillar of Boatmen may signify: sḕrā ʻ fillet ʼ rebus: sekra 'worker in brass and bell metal': śēkhara n. ʻ peak ʼ BhP., ʻ top of head ʼ Kathās., ʻ chaplet, diadem ʼ Hariv. [śikhará -- ]Pk. sēhara -- m. ʻ crest ʼ; S. sihiro m. ʻ chaplet worn by bridegroom ʼ; L.awāṇ. sḕrā ʻ fillet ʼ; P. sehrāsihrā m. ʻ chaplet of flowers ʼ; WPah. (Joshi) śehrā m. ʻ garland worn at wedding ʼ, H. sehrā m.; OG. sehara m. ʻ garland of flowers on the head ʼ.Addenda: śēkhara -- : WPah.J. śehrā m. ʻ wedding garland ʼ; <-> poet. śīre f. ʻ garland ʼ, S. sihiro, P. sihrā rather < śikhará -- .(CDIAL 12604).

    Such fillets or torcs are dhamma samjñā 'badges of responsibility' of artisans.

    ·     Seafaring merchant, kārṇī 'supercargo of a ship' engraver (Blkt-6)

    Balakot 06 Ceramic (stoneware) bangle with inscription: karã̄ n.

    pl.ʻwristlets, banglesʼ.(Gujarati)(CDIAL 2779) Rebus: khār खार् । लोहकारः m. (sg. abl. khāra 1 खार; the pl. dat. of this word is khāran 1 खारन्, which is to be khār खार् । लोहकारः m. (sg. abl. khāra 1 खार; the pl. dat. of this word is khāran 1 खारन्, which is to be distinguished from khāran 2, q.v., s.v.), a blacksmith, an iron worker (cf. bandūka-khār, p. 111b,l. 46; K.Pr. 46; H. xi, 17); a farrier (El.). This word is often a part of a name, and in such case comes at the end (W. 118) as in Wahab khār, Wahab the smith (H. ii, 12; vi, 17). khāra-basta 'bellows of blacksmith'. 
     ḍato 'claws or pincers (chelae) of crabs'; ḍaṭom, ḍiṭom to seize with the claws or pincers, as crabs, scorpions; ḍaṭkop = to pinch, nip (only of crabs) (Santali) Rebus: dhatu 'mineral' (Santali) PLUS

    Sign 342 karNI 'rim of jar' rebus:karṇī 'supercargo', 'engraver' (Marathi) karaka 'helmsman'. Thus, supercargo/helmsman overseeing minerals as cargo on a merchantship.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                This provides a list of 21 such badges documented on 'stoneware bangles' with Indus Script hyper texts: 


    Sharply defined inscriptions on each of the 22 ceramic (stoneware) bangles indicate 22 sharply assigned responsibilities within the guild for metalwork, for e.g. 22 functional allocations of responsibilitie of artisans delineated in a Vedic village:

    ·     iron smelting, furnace work (m1659)

    ·     metal casting, engraving, documenting supercargo (m1647)

    ·     bronze (casting)(m1646)

    ·     gota (laterite) (m1641)

    ·     Seafaring merchant, magnetite ingot workshop (m1643)

    ·     Smithy, forge (m1641)

    ·     Moltencast copper, brass (m1640)

    ·     Alloy metal mint, weapons, implements workshop, guild master workshop (m1639)

    ·     Bronze ingots, implements, magnetite ingots (m1638)

    ·     Metalcasting workshop (cire perdue?)(m1637)

    ·     Metal implements, weapons, smithy, forge (m1636)

    ·     Blacksmith, seafaring merchant (m1634)

    ·     Helman for supercargo boat, iron furnace work, metals workshop (m1633)

    ·     Metal casting, alloy mixing workshop (m1632)

    ·     dhā̆vaḍ 'smelter', supercargo of implements (m1631)

    ·     Magnetite ingots, furnace work, supercargo engraver (m1630)

    ·     Iron furnace work, metal casting of tin, helmsman supercargo of metals, bharat ‘mixed alloys’  metalworker (m1629)

    ·     Minerals workshop guild (h2576)

    ·     Magnetite ingots, smelter (h1010)

    ·     dhā̆vaḍ 'smelter' tri-dhAtu, '‘three minerals (H98-3516/8667-01)

    To r̥ṣi Tvaṣṭṛ Triśiras are attributed Sukta RV 10.8 and select  r̥ca-s of Sukta RV 10.9.

    Go to the profile of Subhash Kak

    0 0

    Ajit Singh et al contradict themselves after a convoluted geomorphology study of NW India palaeo-channels. On the one hand, Ajit Singh et al say that in situ data are necessary to determine the existence and timing of Drishadvati river activity (surrounding Rakhigarhi) and on the other hand, the same team says that settlements of the civilization were on a stable abandoned valley. How can both the statements be correct?

    It is clear that Riverine Waterways were the major highways of communication of the Sarasvati Civilization sites from Rakhigarhi to Lothal and beyond through Persian Gulf with Ancient Near East. It is counter-intuitive to suggest that the civilization sites were far removed from the river ports.

    Based on the maps provided by Ajit Singh et al. (appended), I suggest that Rakhigarhi was a river port -- perhaps the capital city of the civilization composed of many regional clusters -- which served both Drishadvati (Sarasvati) and Yamuna-Ganga-Brahmaputra Riverine waterways transporting trade cargo principally related to minerals and metals. This is evidenced by over 8000 inscriptions of Indus Script which are wealth accounting ledgers, metalwork catalogues. It is not mere coincidence that both at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi (both sites on Drishadvati river basin) that cylinder seals were found. A cylinder seal is a marker of links with Ancient Near East sites for trade by Meluhha seafaring artisans and merchants of Sarasvati civilization.
    Image result for kalibangan cylinder seal
    Kalibangan cylinder seal
    Image result for rakhigarhi cylinder seal
    Rakhigarhi cylinder seal

    It is unfortunate that Ajit singh et al ignore the following maps presented by Randall Law on the network of resources which were served by Rakhigarhi artisans/seafaring merchants navigating riverine and maritime waterways.

    Source: Randall Law's maps in: Amarendra Nath, ASI, Excavations at Rakhigarhi (199798 to 1999-2000), Dec. 2014, ASI, Delhi.

    "A significant unresolved issue is that not all urban settlements in the region are necessarily co-located with the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel(Singh, R. N. et al. Changing patterns of settlement in the rise and fall of Harappan urbanism: preliminary report on the Rakhigarhi Hinterland Survey 2009. Man Environ.35, 37–53 (2010).). The largest Indus site in the region, Rakhigarhi, widely considered to be of the scale of an Indus city (Nath, A. Rakhigarhi: a Harappan metropolis in the Saraswati-Drishadwati divide. Puratattva28, 39–45 (1998).), is situated at least 50 km from the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel. Although its location has been linked to another abandoned river system, the Drishadvati, in situ data are necessary to determine the existence and timing of such river activity before drawing inferences on how such sites were sustained...In conclusion, our results firmly rule out the existence of a Himalayan-fed river that nourished Indus Civilisation settlements along the Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel. Instead, the relict Sutlej valley acted to focus monsoon-fed seasonal river flow as evidenced by very fine-grained sediments in the upper part of the valley-fill record. This and the potential to pond flood waters in the topographic depression [Courty, M.-A. in Ancient Peoples and Landscapes (ed Johnson, E.) 106-126 (Museum of Texas Technical Unit, Lubbock, 1995).] formed by the valley likely offered favourable conditions that led Indus populations to preferentially settle along the incised palaeovalley. We find that river dynamics controlled the distribution of Indus sites in the region, but in the opposite sense to that usually assumed: it was the departure of the river, rather than its arrival, that triggered the growth of Indus urban settlements here. We posit that a stable abandoned valley, still able to serve as a water source but without the risk of devastating floods, is a viable alternative model for how rivers can nucleate the development of ancient urban settlements." (Counter-intuitive influence of Himalayan river morphodynamics on Indus Civilisation urban settlements -- Ajit Singh et al. 28 Nov. 2017 )

    Comment of S.Kalyanaraman in Nature:

    The avulsion node of Sutlej shown in Figure 10 has been noted earlier by Yashpal (Ref. 33). The place of the avulsion is an archaeological site called Ropar (Rupanagar). There is no evidence that the researchers of this article have visited this site. Comments made at http://bharatkalyan97.blogs... are equally applicable to this Nature Communication which seems to date the avulsion to ~8k on flimsy evidence, ignoring the evidence of archaeology which points to a navigable channel which served over 2000 sites (i.e. 80% of 2600+ sites of the civilization). The researchers have not explained why there are no archaeological sites along the current channel of Sutlej from Ropar upto Ganweriwala (Cholistan) where a large cluster of sites was explored by Rafique Mughal. Suggestio falsi, suppressio veri is not the way for a scientific enquiry, to make pontifical statements about people preferring abandoned valleys to settle in. There has been no discussion in the Communication, on KS Valdiya's scientific findings and on the geodynamics controlled by recurrent plate tectonic events. To point to climate change is a cop-out, to avoid detailed morphological studies along the entire set of river systems which drained the present-day regions Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, say from 5th to 2nd millennia BCE. To sum up, scientists should consider the possibility of tectonic events to explain the 90 degree turn of Sutlej at Ropar and migration of its flow weswards to join the Sindhu, abandoning its earlier channel flowing southwards to join Sarasvati at Shatrana where the palaeo-channel is as wide as 20 kms. 

    Counter-intuitive influence of Himalayan river morphodynamics on Indus Civilisation urban settlements -- Ajit Singh et al. 28 Nov. 2017

    Fig. 1
    Topographic map showing northwestern India and Pakistan, key Himalayan rivers and the distribution of urban-phase Indus Civilisation settlements. Note how Indus urban-phase settlements are not necessarily located along modern Himalayan river courses. The most prominent cluster of sites occurs located on the drainage divide between the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers, an area devoid of perennial Himalayan drainage. Base digital elevation map is derived from NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)53. Site locations are from the compilation of urban-phase Indus settlement locations collated in Possehl86. Inset locates figure in south Asia
    Fig. 2
    Trace of Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel on northwestern Indo–Gangetic plain. a Background shows Landsat 5 TM colour composite mosaic (bands 456). The Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel is visible as a sinuous, dark blue feature. Location of GS core sites adjacent to the Indus urban centre of Kalibangan, along with core sites at KNL1, MNK6, and SRH5, are also indicated. Location of key Indus urban settlements indicated by triangles. b Geomorphological map showing major alluvial landforms in the study region. Ch, Chandigarh; HFT Himalayan frontal thrust
    Fig. 3

    Topography of Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel. a Detrended relative elevation map of Sutlej–Yamuna drainage divide, derived from NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)53 30 m DEM (2014 release) showing that Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel forms an incised valley. b Corresponding TM colour composite image (detail of Fig. 2) showing correspondence of Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel and incised valley. Locations of urban-phase Indus settlements along Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel are indicated.
    Fig. 4
    Locations of core sites along Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel. Background images are derived from Landsat 5 TM colour composite satellite mosaic shown in Fig. 2. White circles show locations of cores with relationship to Ghaggar–Hakra palaeochannel (dark blue tone). Course of modern ephemeral Ghaggar River is indicated in yellow. a Vicinity of Kalibangan Indus urban centre showing locations of cores GS14, GS13, GS7, GS10 and GS11. Location of Thar Desert modern dune sample also indicated. b Location of core KNL1. Urban-phase Indus archaeological sites in area are indicated by white triangles. c Location of core MNK6. Locations of all drill sites tabulated in Supplementary Table 1
    Fig. 10
    Topography of Sutlej–Yamuna plains showing modern Himalayan rivers occupy incised valleys. a Detrended relative elevation map, derived from SRTM 30 m DEM (2014 release), showing courses of the m