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 | .... | 362 | 363 | (Page 364) | 365 | 366 | .... | 374 | newer

    0 0

    The hieroglyphs/hypertexts of Indus Script Cipher on the Vemaka/Audumbara coins of Bhagavata mahadevasa rajarana are:

    1. zebu, bos indicus पोळ pōḷa, 'zebu, bos indicus' signifies pōḷa 'magnetite, ferrous-ferric oxide Fe3O4',

    2. A dotted circle PLUS lotus  dāya'dot within circle, one in dice' rebus: dhāi'mineral ore' PLUS vr̥tta, vaṭṭa'circle'; together rebus: dhā̆vaḍ 'iron-smelter', PLUS tāmarasa'lotus' rebus: tāmra'copper'.

    3. elephant karibha, ibha'elephant' rebus: karba, ib'iron'
    4. A currycomb PLUS flagpost kharedo 'a currycomb'  rebus: करडा karaḍā 'hard alloy of iron' PLUS dhvajapaṭa m. ʻ flag ʼ Kāv. [dhvajá -- , paṭa -- ]Pk. dhayavaḍa -- m. ʻ flag ʼ, OG. dhayavaḍa rebus: dhā̆vaḍ 'iron-smelter'.

    I suggest that this hieroglyph signifies a cobrahood
    5. phaḍā 'serpent hood' Rebus: phaḍā, paṭaḍe 'metals manufactory'

    Thus, together, the hypertext message on the coin is: tāmra dhā̆vaḍ 'copper, iron smelter' PLUS karaḍā 'hard alloy of iron' dhā̆vaḍ 'iron-smelter'-- 'metals manufactory'  खरडा   kharaḍā'a day-book; a note-book'

    On the Vemaka/Audumbura coins, Brāhmī Kharoṣṭhī syllables are used to signify the title and name of the ruler.

    Coin of the Vemaka or Audumbaras tribe. Obverse: Bhagavata mahadevasa rajarana in Kharoṣṭhī. Reverse: Bhagavata-mahadevasa rajarana in Brāhmī. 1st century BCE

    Audumbaras, "Mahadeva." Circa 1st century BC. AR Drachm (2.23 gm, 6h). "Bhagavata mahadevasa rajarana" in Karosthi, brahma bull standing left; lotus flower(?) before / "Bhagavata-mahadevasa rajarana" in Brahmi, Elephant standing right; trident before. Cf. Sharan pg. 246, 2 = BMCAI 13; MIG -; MACW -. Good VF, toned, softly struck.

    0 0

    Sabarimala (0929N 7706E) falls in Pathanamthitta district of Kerala. It is the destination of world's second largest annual pilgrimage, after Mecca. This annual Hindu pilgrimage takes place between mid-November (Malayalam month of Vrschikam) to mid-January. The temple is open for worship from 15 November to 26 December (for mandalapuja), on 15 January (for makaravilakku), on 14 April ( for Vishu), and on the first five days of each Malayalam month. Although guesstimates put the number of annual pilgrims to Sabarimala between 5 - 50 million, a head count by the ‘India Eco-Development Project’ puts the number at about 4 million during peak Mandalapuja-Makaravilakku season since 1998-99. It stated that 3,943,776 pilgrims (including 96,017 women [pre-10 and post-50 age groups] and 488,718 children) visited the shrine between Nov 15 and Jan 20, 2000-2001. Of these, 2,753,767 came during the Mandala season (Nov 15 to Dec 26). For details, see The Hindu, (Kochi edn.) Dec. 4. 2001)

    Pilgrims undertake a 41-day ritual fasting which include wearing black shirt, mundu, necklace of beads, practicing utmost cleanliness, not uttering any curses, etc. besides abstention from sex and non-vegetarian and rajasic food. Carrying irumudi on thier heads, the pilgrims trekup a narrow and steep four-kilometer forest trail to reach the temple situated at a height of 1260 meters in Western Ghats. Pilgrims prefer the long and arduous 61 km Erumeli route through forest and hill track to the shorter—13 km Vandiperiyar route on the Kotayam-Kumili road, and the 8 km Chalakayam route near Pampa. Officially, tourists, foreigners, and women of the menstruating age are not entry to the main temple.

    Pilgrims address each other as ayyappan or swami and chant Swamiye Saranamayyappa. He is supposed to see in all living and non-living the manifestation of the Supreme Being: they call donkeys (kazhutha) that carries the goods up the mountains as kazhuthaswamy, human excreta as bhuswami. By doing so, theytry to recognize that all manifest realities are nothing but the manifestations of the same transcendental reality. Recognising the the divine in others and realizing the ultimate advaitic knowledge tatvam asi—that the paramatma (universal soul), not different from the jeevatma (one’s life soul) is the essence of Hindu pilgrimages.

    Sabarimala in history

    Ayyappan's lived in the 12th century AD. According to the website of the Pandalam royal family, Pandalam kingdom was established in 903 AD (79 ME) by the descendents of the Pandya kings of Madurai. The Chera–Chola war (985-1085) weakened Kerala’s Chera dynasty and strengthened Pandyan incursion into Punjar and Pandalam. By 1194 (370 ME) they ruled over 1000 sq. miles Airur Swarupam[1], which included Sabarimala, with the help of the friendly[2] Ay kings of Venad.

    After the death of Maravaramban Kulasekara Pandyan of Madurai in 1308, his sons Viran and Sundaran fought for the throne and Viran sought the assistance of Khilji sultanate of Delhi. In 1311, Malik Kafur, the general of Alauddin Khilji (r.1296–1316) sacked and occupied Madurai until 1371 when it was annexed by Vijayanagar which appointed its nayaks (governors) to rule Madurai. Having lost to Malik Kafur, fleeing Pandyans joined the Pandyan settlements at Punjar and Pandalam. King Rajasekhara (c 1200 AD) of Pandalam, Manikantan’s adopted father, was of Pandyan descend.

    There is no clear evidence about the befinning of Sabarimala pilgrimage. Three centuries after the founding of the temple, a later pandalam king, along with the descendants of the Vavar family, rediscovered the path, re-established the pilgrimage and renovated the temple . Erumely, where they rested, is the sopt of Erumely Pettathullal. Even now, new pilgrims thrust arrows at Saramkuthy where they laid down arms.

    Pandalam was added to Travancore in 1821. Following Col. John Munroe’s directive, Travancore Dewaswam Board began to administer Sabarimala temple along with other temples. ‘Memoirs of Travancore’ by William Henry Horsley (1839) speaks of Chowrymully: “Among the other pagodas of celebrity that of Ayapen at Chowrymully attracts particular attention, vast numbers (and many even from the eastern coast) flocking to it at the period of festival in January, to present their vows and offerings, notwithstanding that it is situated in the wildest country possible.”

    The temple was remodeled in 1905 and an idol was installed in 1910. Some religious miscreants burned down the temple in sometime in 1950 and the incident was known only after a month. The fire destroyed the temple and the Stone Idol of Ayyappan. The Govt. of Kerala and the Devaswam board renovated the temple in 1951 and a new Panchaloha idol was installed in May by thantri Kantaru Sankararu of Thazhaom, Chengannur. After the conflagration in 1971, the temple underwent a major revamp.

    Historical and Mythical Ayyappan

    Ayyappan does not figure in any classical Hindu scripture or mythology. But, devotees believe that he is Hariharaputhra, son of Vishnu (Hari) who assumed feminine form as Mohini and Shiva (Hara). The baby born of their union was adopted by the childless king Rajasekhara. The boy was also called Manikantan (jewel-necked) as he had a jewel on his neck. He survived several attempts on his life and lived in the palace for 18 years. Meanwhile, the queen gave birth to a boy. The machinations of the minister and the queen led to sending Manikantan to bring fresh milk of a tigress to cure the queen’s feigned illness. When he came back next morning with a herd of tigresses, the frightened queen confessed her evil intent. Despite the request of the king and the court, Manikantan appointed the young prince to succeed Rajasekhara as king. He shot an arrow and requested the king had to build a temple for him where the arrow was to alight. The king built a sanctuary for the divinity of Manikantan at Sabarimala where the arrow alighted. His devotees believe that it was the place where Manikantan meditated after killing the demon Mahishi when he was in the forest looking for tigress-milk.

    The historical Ayyappan was a Vellala[4] youth called Ayyan Ayyappan. He was the army chief of Pandalam and was the nephew of the Vellal Chieftain of Erumeli, a Perisseri Pillai[5]. He defeated of Udayanan's effort to demolish the Sastha temple at Sabarimala and the Pandalam king renovated the Sastha temple with the help of Ayyan, Vavar (a Muslim youth from Kanjirappally), and Kadutha (a Nair youth from Muzhukeer, Chenganoor). Following Ayyapan's death in a clash, Perissery Pillai constructed a Sastha temple at Erumeli, opposite Vavar mosque. Locals venerated Ayyappan as the incarnation of Lord Sastha and started worshipping him, and in the course of time, Ayyappan and Sastha became synonymous.

    The making of Sabarimala

    Different Indian faiths merge in Sabarimala and it is a pilgrimage to an unusual deity. Sabarimala is the only ancient temple dedicated to Hariharaputra, the Son Vishnu and Shiva. Hariharaputra myth must have originated in the effort to reconcile the rival Shaivite and Vaishnavite faiths. The temple witnessed a gradual transformmation of the deity from the Dravidian deity Shiva to Buddha to Ayyappan.[6] This could be the reasonw hcy the customs of Saivites, Shaktists, Vaishnavites, Buddhists and Jains are part of the pilgrim rites. Pilgrims’ rudraksha chain comes from Saivites, the fasting, penance and continence from Vaishnavites, ahimsa from Jains, the repeated chant from Buddhists, and the offering of tobacco to Kadutha from Shaktists.

    Buddhist claim to Sabarimala

    Sabarimala was once a Buddhist temple complex. Another name of Ayyappan is Sastha which means Buddha. Prior to that it was a Dravidian Shaivite centre. Its Makarajyoti gave it the name Potalaka. Some claim that Potala, the Dalai Lama's palace in Lhasa is named after Sabarimala. Buddshist sources like Avatamsakasutra, Lokesh Chandra’s Hymn to the Thousand-Armed Avalokitesvara,[7] and the writings of Hiuen Tsang (Zuen Xang)[8] mention that Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara Padmapani (Bodhisattva of Compassion) was worshipped at Sabarimala.

    There is ample circumstantial evidence to Kerala's Buddhist past. Kodungallur (Muziris) was a Buddhist centre. It was Bodhidharma (420-479 AD) from Kodungallur who started the Zen (dhyana in Sanskrit, Ch'an in Chinese) Buddhism. He reached China, taught Kerala’s martial art of kalaripayattu to the unarmed monks in China’s Shao-Lin temple, and introduced tea in China. Kodungallur devi temple was originally a Buddhist nunnery and was associated with Kannaki, the heroine of Ilango Adigal’s Silappathikaram. Dethroning of the asura king Mahabali, whose egalitarian reign was ended by Vishnu, is a myth about the egalitarian Buddhist rule overthrown by Upanishadic Hindus. The chant Swamiye saranam Ayyappa is similar to "Buddham saranam gacchami, Sangham saranam gacchami, Dhammam saranam gacchami." The sitting posture of Ayyappa is very similar to the Buddhist image.

    The legend of Malikappurathamma[9] (Leela, a girl from Cheerappanchira Ezhava family of Muhamma in Alleppey who fell in love with Ayyappa when he was there to learn kalarippayattu) takes Ayyappan story to the Ezhavas, Buddhist migrants from Sri Lanka. She is also worshipped at Sabarimala.

    Christian connection to Sabarimala

    A pond at Nilakkal near Sabarimala has remnants of a destroyed churc, which the Christians believe to have been one of the original churches established by St. Thomas. Hindu activists do not permit archeological investigations of the area because of many reasons and fear of subversion. Aleast one report filed by K Kesava Menon, DIG (Special Branch) accuse Christian fanatics of the area for the arson at Sabarimal in 1950s. There was an enquiry report titled “Sabarimala Temple Arson Case”, later published by Government of Kerala in 1957. This 35 pages report is available from a government owned website (Information & Public relations Department) (  / 
    Nilackal and surrounding areas were under the rule of Pandalam king. As the Chera representative in Karimalakotta near Sabarmala did not accept the authority of Pandalam, their fight destroyed Karimala, and exposed to invaders. This resulted in its total destruction by 1341.

    Escaping Muslim persecution (717-822), some Nineveh (modern Mosul in Iraq) Christians reached Kerala under the leadership of Bishops Sobar Esho and Porth. After landing at Quilon in 822 AD[10], Proth settled at Kodungalloor and Sabor Esho at Kollam constructing churches at Kurakkenikollam (Kayamkulam), Chenganoor (Perasseri), Thevalakara, Nilackal (Chayal), Niranam, Kadamattam, Parur, and Malayatoor. Sabor Esho spent his last days at Chayal monastery (chayal in Hebrew means 'bachelors’ place') he had set up near the main church at Nilackal (known as thalappally and as arappally). After his death, the hill where the main church stood was named after him as Sabormala (Mt. Sabor). The place where the Chayal church stood is now known as Plappally or Thalappally. Frequent floods[11] and persistenet pandyan attack destroyed Nilakkal church and Chayal monastry by 1341 . Plunderers under Vikrampuli Thevar (Vakrapuli) and Paraya Pattam (Perumpatta) looted temples, churches, and houses in the High Ranges during 1253-99. Pandiyan plunder, flood and local unrest made people abandon Nilackal and move to other regions by river and through hill tracks.

    Muslim connection

    Vavar (Bawa ?), a Muslim defeated by Ayyappan, figures prominently. His idol, placed at the foot of the 18 steps leading to the main deity, is believed to be as old as the deity of Ayyappan. A Muslim priest performs the rituals related to this carved stone slab near a green silk cloth hung on the wall and an old sword. The offerings to Vavar are green pepper, rose water and sandalwood paste along with coconut and clarified butter. Some pilgrims even bring goats.

    There are many versions about who Vavar was. According to some, he escaped from Madurai from the attack of Thirumala Naickar. He is also believed to be an Arab Muslim who came to spread Islam. Still others suggest that he was a pirate subdued by Ayyappan and became a close associate in his battles. Ayyappa instructed building a mosque for Vavar at Erumeli and a shrine at Sabarimala. Some families practicing the Unani medicine at Vaipur near Thiruvalla claim to be descendants of Vavar.


    Pandalam dynasty, descendents of Pandyan dynasty of Madurai, is hardly older than 1200 AD when a branch of the Pandyan royal family settled there. Historically, it is possible that Manikantan lived after the invasion of Madurai by Alauddin Khilji of Delhi in (1311 AD) and immediately after the annexation of Madurai (1371 AD) from its Muslim rulers by Vijayanagara kingdom which appointed Nayaks governors at Madurai. Vavar must be a Muslim leader who escaped to the Western Ghats from Madurai when Vijayanagar forces of attacked it.

    The Christian settlement of Nilakkal which began with Sabar Eso building a church there sometime around 850 AD must have come to an end with the frequent Pandyan raids symbolized by Vakrapiuli and Perumpatta (1253-99). These raids helped the rise of Pandyan power in Pandalam and Punjar and also played a part in the decline of the defenseless Christian settlement at Nilakkal, which ended with flood of 1341.

    The forsaken Buddhist temple at Sabarimala must have been discovered by the Pandyan rulers when they occupied Nilakkal. Together with the Saivites in Kerala, the Vaishnavite invaders fabricated the myth of Hariharaputran to counter Buddhism and used the legend of Manikantan, the prince of Pandalam for the purpose. Manikantan was called Ayyappan (Ay appan) to garner the support of the Ay kings of Vend. The ancient Shaivite deities of Sabarimala came to be known after Ayyappan and his associates—Vavar and Kadutha and even the Ezhava girl who loved him—as they were deified by local Brahmanical Hinduism.

    The myth lives on. What are forgotten in the story are the Shaivite deities of Sabarimala.

    Who bothers about truth in Kerala when it makes all involved richer, and bestow free celebration for the rest.


    [1] A title of the Pandalam raja is Airur Sree Veerasreedhara Kovil Adhikarikal. Pandalam royal family belongs to the Bhargava clan while other Kshatriya families in Kerala belong to Viswamithra clan.

    [2] Even when the Vendad king Marthanda Varma established the kingdom of Travancore in 1749AD (925ME), he did not annex Pandalam and allowed it to rule independently, and the Pandalam kings helped Marthanda Varma to subject Kayamkulam. Pandalam was merged with Travancore in 1820 (995ME).

    [3] The sanctum sanctorum of the Meenakshi Temple was closed and the main deity was shifted to the Ardhamandapam.

    [4] The old Ezhavarsevampattu mentions Ayyan as vellalar kula jhathan (“born of Vellala caste”) ayyan ayyappan. Ayyan and Ayyappan is a common name among vellalas of nearby districts of Kerala and they have built many Ayyappan temples.

    An old mud house which keeps an old sword with which Ayyappan killed eruma is claimed to be the house of Perissery Pillai is in the Puthenveedu Vellala house compound near Sree Ayyappa movie theatre at Erumeli. The name Erumeli came from Erumakolly [eruma (mahisham, she-buffalo) + kolly (killer). Erumeli pettaithullal is a celebration of the killing of the mahishi.

    [5] Some claim that Ayyappan was the son of a Brahmin. Nalankal Krishna Pillai thinks that Brahmins never had the name Ayyappan or Ayyan (Mahashekthrangalkkumunpil).

    [6] Unlike in the rest of India, the Buddhists and Shivites co-existed peacefully in Kerala, as in Prambanan in Java and Angkor Wat in Cambodia where Eswara and Buddha are interchangeable.

    [7] Potalaka, the earthly paradise of Avalokitesvara is described in Avatamsaka Sutra: ''Potalaka is on the sea-side in the south, it has woods, it has streams, and tanks''. Buddhabhadra's (420 AD) renders Potala (Potalaka) as ''brilliance." Etymologically, Tamil pottu (potti-) ''to light (as a fire)''...brilliance refers to the makarajyoti of Sabarimala.'

    '...Lord Ayyappan of Sabarimala... could have been the Potala Lokesvara of Buddhist literature. The makara jyoti of Sabarimala recalls Potala's "brilliance"... The long, arduous and hazardous trek through areas known to be inhabited by elephants and other wildlife to Sabarimala is spoken of in the pilgrimage to Potala Lokesvara. The Buddhist character of Ayyappan is explicit in his merger with Dharma-sasta. Sasta is a synonym of Lord Buddha.'

    [8] Huen Tsang says that at Potala Avalokitesvara takes the form of Isvara (Shiva) and that of a Pasupata yogin. It was Shiva who was metamorphosed into Avalokitesvara. When Buddhism became dominant, the Saivite image at Potalaka was deemed to be Avalokitesvara. Potalaka Lokesvara and the Thousand-armed Avalokitesvara have echoes of Shiva and Vishnu, of Hari and Hara.

    He refers to Avalokitesvara’s Potala as: ''In the south of the country near the sea was the Mo-lo-ya (Malaya) mountain, with its lofty cliffs and ridges and deep valleys and gullies, on which were sandal, camphor and other trees. To the east of this was Pu-ta-lo-ka (Potalaka) mountain with steep narrow paths over its cliffs and gorges in irregular confusion...' (Summarized by Waters, 1905).

    [9] The legend behind Malikappurathamma is that Leela, daughter of Galavamuni, under curse of her husband Dathan, was reborn as Mahishi, an "asura' female with a buffalo's face. Upon having killed by Lord Ayyappa, the curse was revoked and the beautiful woman rose out of the corpse. She thanked the Lord and prayed to be with him as His wife. However, he told her that he is a 'brahmachari' and so her desire would not be fulfilled. However, He allowed her to remain in Sabarimala, a little distant from his abode, as his sister - Malikappurathamma.

    [10] In 880 during the reign of the Chera king, Sthanu Ravi (Mallan Perumal Vijayaragan), Venadu king Ayyanadikal Thiruvadigal gave Mar Sabor Easo and the Christians in Tharissapally Church in Kollam two separate chepeds (Copper Plaques), now in the custody of the Orthodox and Marthomma Churches at Kottayam and Thiruvella respectively.

    [11] Puthuvipeen in Ernakulam was formed because of this flood.

    Thank :

    Agila Ayyappa Seva Sangam
    January 11 ,2018·

    The Sabarimala Ayyappa vigraham that was destroyed by vandals in 1950.The head was separated which was later temporarily fixed using silver strings , the right hand is damaged beyond repair, the chinmudraim is also damaged , the nose chipped off slightly. The face shows a lot of peace and contentment of a Mahayogin, the cast done by Velappan Achari of Parvathy Jewellers, Chengannur.This appeared in an issue of Sabarimala Supplement brought out by Kerala Kaumudi in the mid 90's.Pic credit Jagan Cr

    Thank to FB : Agila Ayyappa Seva Sangam
    8/1/2018 at 8:11pm ·

    Less than 5000 persons used to visit Sabarimala 50 years ago, but with the coming of the road from Mannarakulanji to Chalakayam, this number has increased to 4 crores, that too in the Mandala- Makaravilakku season alone.

    It was too difficult for the people to reach Sabarimala before 50 years as the journey through the dense forest was so grueling an ordeal as it took days to reach the abode of God.

    The people had to walk from Erumeli to Sabarimala via Peroorthodu, Kottapadi, Kaalaketti, Azhhuthamedu, Kallidaamkunnu, Inchipaarakotta, Karimala, Valiyaanavattam, Cheriyaanavattam, Pamapa, Neelimala ,Appachimedu, Sabareepeedom, and Saramkuthi through the forest.

    Another path was also used by people to reach Sannidhanam. That was from Kumily through Changara Estate, Uppupaara and Paandithavalam, but it was the route from Erumeli that people used regularly.
    Image result for sabarimala old photos
    The Route- Laaha to Chalakayam has a history hidden behind it. This path was actually built not for the devotees to reach Sabarimala.

    It was during 1959-60 that the road was built as part of the Sabarigiri power project that came into being in 1967. Before this project actually started, the Electricity Board tried to bring in a project named ˜Swaami Saranam", which intented to build a dam at Thriveni to produce electricity. For this the board extended the road ( Mannarakulanji- Laaha) to Chalakayam. As time passed the Sabarigiri Project gained importance and to make it a reality another road was made from Chalakayam to Ponnambalamedu. As the Sabarigiri Project became a huge success the Swaami Saranam Project was dropped. Later another road was built from Plapalli to Muzhiyaar via Aangaamuzhi. This is the present Sabarigiri road.

    Eventhough there was the Chalakayam Road KSRTC started service through this path only in 1965. The road from Chalakayam to Pampa was built only 7 years later.

    With new routes in the chart the journey to Sabarimala may get more easier with the glory of the traditional paths dwindling at a rapid pace.

    (Pamba Vilakku )

    Source: Kalyanasundaram
    Forgotten First Attack on Sabarimala; 2nd attack reminds danger to Hindu culture -- Rayvi Kumar

    Note. The blogpost details the first attack based on the Enquiry Report of Shri Kesava Menon, Dy. Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, OLD (On Special Duty) on the Sabarimala Temple Arson Case.

    See Full text
    Image result for sabarimala arson caseRelated image

    Image result for sabarimala arson case
    Related image

    0 0

    The idea that women’s pelvises have been shaped by an evolutionary compromise—also known as the “obstetrical dilemma”—has been influential in anthropology, says Jonathan Wells, an expert in human evolution at University College London who was not involved with the work. But recent studies have challenged it, and the new findings add to that research, he says. If the obstetric dilemma held true, one would expect birth canals around the world to be relatively standardized, Wells says. But that’s not what researchers found.
    Lia Betti, a biological anthropologist at the University of Roehampton in London and evolutionary ecologist Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, measured the pelvises of 348 female human skeletons from 24 different parts of the world. The birth canals were far from carbon copies of each other. Those of women from sub-Saharan Africa and some Asian populations were overall narrow from side to side and deep from front to back, whereas Native American women had wider canals. Native Americans and Europeans also had the most oval-shaped upper canals, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
    Betti and Manica also found that there was less variability in birth canal shape in populations farther from Africa, such as Native Americans. That pattern has been seen in other traits, and is thought to simply reflect lower variability in genes and traits among the relatively small bands of people who moved out of Africa to populate the world. Overall, the analysis suggests a population may have ended up with a particular birth canal shape simply by chance, not because of any sort of selective pressure.
    The birth canal on the top is wider side to side and more ovular, whereas the one on the bottom is deeper from front to back and rounder.
    Temperature could also be a factor. Colder climates favor wider bodies, which are better at holding in heat, and this could have an impact on birth canal shape. But the pelvic data only weakly followed that trend. Wells argues that other environmental factors may play a role and should still be explored.
    The work could improve practices surrounding childbirth, Betti says. For example, a fetus must rotate to negotiate the twisting passage of the birth canal during labor, and these movements may vary depending on the shape of the birth canal. Betti says midwives she has talked to are well aware that women from different parts of the world have marked differences in labor, though it’s not part of their formal training.
    The new findings suggest that if a baby’s movements differ from what’s considered normal for a particular region, she says, it’s not necessarily cause for concern. It may simply reflect the range of birth canal shapes seen throughout the world.
    Posted in: 

    0 0

    Indus Writing is Mlecchita Vikalpa: Meluhha rebus cipher of Indian sprachbund (language union), c. 3300 BCE
    By S Kalyanaraman

    Indus Script: Meluhha metalwork hieroglyphs
    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Cultural history of Bharatam Janam: Indus Script metalwork catalogs

    By Srinivasan Kalyanaraman

    Indus Script Cipher: Hieroglyphs of Indian linguistic area

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Indian hieroglyphs: Invention of writing.

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Outrage for dharma: Pass on the heritage of resistance

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    A theory for wealth of nations: Market economics overturn Adam Smith and Karl Marx

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Harappa Script & Language: Data minining of Corpora, tantra yukti & knowledge discovery of a civilization

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Harosheth hagoyim: Smithy of nations

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Meluhha: A visible language

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Meluhha: Tree of life

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Codex Sarasvati, The Movie

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Harappa Script Primer: Cryptography for metalwork trade

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Economic History of Ancient India: Artha 'wealth' of Vedic Rastram

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Indus Writing: logo semantic rebus, hypertext transfer of Meluhha metalwork wealth accounting

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Proving the form and function of Indus Script Hypertexts: Hypertext Transfer Protocol of ca. 3300 BCE rebus Meluhha spoken metaphor is the cipher

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Indian Ocean Community: Uniting nations on path of progress

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Sagan finds Sarasvati: An illustrated novel

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Samskrta Bharati: Indus Script Dictionary, epigraphia mlecchita vikalpa 'meluhha cipher'.

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Indus Script deciphered: Rosetta stones, mlecchita vikalpa, 'Meluhha cipher'

    By S Kalyanaraman

    Rastram: Hindu history in United Indian Ocean States
    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Akkadian Rising Sun: An illustrated novel

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Philosophy of symbolic forms in Meluhha cipher.

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Epigraphia Indus Script Volume 1: Hypertexts & Meanings

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Epigraphia Indus Script Volume 2: Hypertexts & Meanings

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Epigraphia Indus Script Volume 3: Hypertexts & Meanings

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    Indus Writing in ancient Near East: Corpora and a Dictionary

    By S. Kalyanaraman

    About the author
    Dr. S. Kalyanaraman is Director, Sarasvati Research Center; President, Ramasetu Protection Movement in India; and BoD member of World Association for Vedic Studies. His research interest relate to rediscovery of Vedic Sarasvati River, roots of Hindu civilization, decoding of Indus Script, National Water Grid and creation of Indian Ocean Comunity. 

    He has a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the University of the Philippines; was awarded Honorary D.Litt by Deccan College, Pune, Deemed University. He is a multi-lingual scholar versed in Sanskrit, Hindi, Telugu and Tamil. He is a recipient of the prestigious Vakankar Award (2000); Shivananda Eminent Citizens' Award (2008) and Dr. Hedgewar Prajna Samman (2008); Mythic Society Centenary Award (2009).

    His 1900+ monographs on civilization studies are available and shared at

    His magnum opus, Indian Lexicon: A comparative dictionary of over 25+ ancient languages of India presents over 8000 semantic clusters defining the Indian sprachbund (speech union) of ca. 4th millennium BCE.This work is available, shared online

    Author's page on Amazon

    0 0 --Sarasvati people lived in & traveled on long-distance water ways from Sarasvati River Basin

    GreaterIndia: The expansion of Indian culture and influence both in Central Asia and the South East towards the countries and islands of the Pacific is one of the momentous factors of world history. (Source: A Survey ofIndian History - By Sardar Kavalam Madhava Panikkar).See

    Meluhha as the name of language is attested on an Akkadian seal with cuneiform script of Shu-ilishu, Akkadian interpreter of Meluhha. The spoken form of language called Meluhha (mleccha) is the linguistic basis for Indus Script inscriptions. The cipher is rebus rendered in Meluhha dialectical word forms expressed as hypertexts/hieroglyphs in a logo-semantic writing system called mlecchita vikalpa (meluhha cipher) by Vātsyāyana.
    The rollout of Shu-ilishu's Cylinder seal. Courtesy of the Department des Antiquites Orientales, Musee du Louvre, Paris. The cuneiform text reads: Shu-Ilishu EME.BAL.ME.LUH.HA.KI (interpreter of Meluhha language). Apparently, the Meluhhan is the person carrying the antelope (goat) on his arms. The goat is the cipher. The Shu-ilishu cylinder seal is a clear evidence of the Meluhhan merchants trading in copper and tin. The Meluhha merchant carries melh,meka 'goat or antelope' rebus: milakkhu 'copper and the lady accompanying the Meluhhan carries a ranku 'liquid measure' rebus: ranku'tin'. Ka. mēke she-goat;  the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka,mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id. Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she-goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge, (S.) mēge goat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. [Te. mr̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.] / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat. (DEDR 5087)


    Meluhha is said to explain the origin of the Sanskrit mleccha, meaning "speaker who mispronounces and uses ungrammatical expressions." See: Parpola, Asko; Parpola, Simo (1975). "OnSee the relationship of the Sumerian Toponym Meluhha and Sanskrit Mleccha". Studia Orientalia. 46: 205–238. 

    This monograph provides a framework for identifying and defining the spoken language of Sarasvati people which finds expression on over 8000 Indus Scrpit inscriptions. The thesis is that the spoken language was Meluhha (cognate mleccha, exemplified by mispronounced words, i.e. with dialectical spoken forms of words in various regions of an extensive area of Sarasvati River Basin). The extensive area of the Sarasvati River basin may be seen from palaeo-channels identified by ISRO using satellite images.

    S. Kalyanaraman's Indian Lexicon: A comparative dictionary of over 25+ ancient languages of India presents over 8000 semantic clusters defining the Indian sprachbund (speech union) of ca. 4th millennium BCE.This work is available, shared online This work demonstrates that over 4000 etyma of Dravidian Etymological Dictionary have cognates in Indo-Aryan and Austro-Asiatic lexical entries, thus reinforcing Emeneau's postulate of .Bhāratiya sprachbund (language union) in his Annamalai University lecture.

    India as a Lingustic Area M. B. Emeneau in: Language Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1956), pp. 3-16Published by: Linguistic Society of America

    Indus Script inscriptions are wealth-accounting ledgers, metalwork catalogues. Since Indus Writing is mlecchita vikalpa (Meluhha cipher), both the words signifying the pictographs and the words signifying metalwork wealth read rebus (similar sounding homonyms) are seen in the lexical repertoire of Bhāratiya sprachbund (language union). A good example is provided by deśīnāmamālā: meḍho'merchant' signified by me'ram'. (Indus Script hieroglyph).
    Image result for anthropomorphindus scriptCopper anthropomorph with spread legs, ram's horns, incised fish hieroglyph on chest. The Sheorajpur anthropomorph (348 on Plate A)

    Live History India Published on Jun 30, 2018

    Who were they? Where did they come from? And were they the real architects of India? Catch our exclusive 'Lifting the Veil on the Harappans' and find all the answers as we talk to one of India's greatest authorities on the Harappan Civilization, archaeologist and VC of the Deccan College of Archaeology Dr Vasant Shinde.

    Animals, e.g. tiger and antelope are shown as looking backwards in Indus Script inscriptions. What word signified such 'looking back' in the ancient language spoken by Sarasvati people?

    Tiger looks back

    Ochre coloured tablet H-2001ab. The dark burgundy
    colored tablet fragment, both faces (H-95ab)
    (length: 3.91 cm, width: 1.5 to 1.62 cm)

    Image result for antelope looks back indus script

    Antelope looks back

    Image result for pasupati seal indus scriptImage result for antelope looks back indus script

    The rebus reading comes from Telugu: క్రమ్మరు  krammaru. [Tel.] v. n. To turn, return, go back. మరలు. క్రమ్మరించు or క్రమ్మరుచు krammarinṭsu. v. a. To turn, send back, recall. To revoke, annul, rescind. క్రమ్మరజేయు. క్రమ్మర krammara. adv. Again. క్రమ్మరిల్లు or క్రమరబడు Same as క్రమ్మరు. Rebus: kamar 'smith' (Santali) कर्मार m. an artisan , mechanic , artificer; a blacksmith &c RV. x , 72 , 2 AV. iii , 5 , 6 VS. Mn. iv , 215 &c )(Monier-Williams) 

    Links with: Kho. krəm ʻ back ʼ (CDIAL 3415) kr̥kāṭikā f. ʻ joint of neck ʼ Suśr., kŕ̊kāṭa -- n. AV., ˚ṭaka -- n. lex., kakāˊṭikā -- f. ʻ a part of the skull ʼ AV. [PMWS 29 groups -- kāṭ -- , prefixed by kr̥ -- , ka -- , with kaṇṭhá -- as Mu., and so separates from kr̥ka -- ʻ throat, neck ʼ] Pk. kiāḍiā -- f. ʻ upper part of neck ʼ, kiyāḍiyā -- f. ʻ upper part of ear ʼ; S. kiāṛī f. ʻ back of the head, the hair on it ʼ; L. kīāṛī f. ʻ nape of neck ʼ; P. kiāṛī f. ʻ nape of neck, back of head, jaw ʼ, adv. ʻ behind ʼ; WPah. khaś. kiāṛī ʻ back of neck ʼ; -- ext. with -- kk -- : Wg. kirīk ʻ back of neck ʼ and poss. Ash. kakeṛík ʻ throat ʼ despite apparent survival of -- k --  kr̥kāṭikā -- , kŕ̊kāṭa -- : S.kcch. tiṛo m. ʻ back ʼ, pl. ʻ bones of the back ʼ < *tr̥kāṭa -- with dissimilation of k -- k; WPah.kṭg. keṛi f. ʻ neck ʼ, kc. kēr, J. kyāṛikeṛi f. -- cf. Wkc. keṭho (keṭo?) m. ʻ neck ʼ.(CDIAL 3419). 

    This is a good example of Bharatiya sprachbund (language union) expression. 

    Another example of unique orthography in Indus Script inscriptions is the combination of animal parts to depict a 'composite animal'. What is this composition called in ancient language spoken by Sarasvati people?

    Indus Script Corpora proclaims unusual animals -- 1. with body of a bovine and heads of a young bull, antelope or ox; 2. hypertext of animal/orthographic hieroglyph components: zebu horns, elephant trunk, scarfs on neck, cobrahood as tail, face of human etc.
    In these compositions, the device is सांगड sāṅgaḍa 'joined animals/animal parts' rebus: saṁgaha 'catalogues'  (of metalwork wealth). The cobra hood as tail is:  फड, phaḍa, 'cobra hood' rebus: फड, phaḍa, paṭṭaḍa 'metals manufactory' 'Bhāratīya arsenal of metal weapons, wealth-accounting ledger'.
    Three animal heads + bovine body: 
    1. kõda 'young bull, bull-calf' + koḍ 'horn' Rebus: -kō̃da -कोँद । इष्टिकाभ्राष्ट्रः f. a brick-kiln. (Kashmiri); kõdā'to turn in a lathe'(B.) कोंद kōnda 'engraver, lapidary setting or infixing gems' (Marathi) koḍ 'artisan's workshop' (Kuwi)  
    2. ranku 'antelope' rebus: ranku 'tin'
    3. barad 'ox' rebus: bharat 'mixed alloys' (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin).
    With this hypertexting feature which is unique to Indus Script writing system, the entire Indus Script Corpora of over 8000 inscriptions are read as metalwork, wealth accounting ledgers of the Metals Age from 4th millennium BCE.

    A third example, ayira,'fish' (Malayalam) is an Indus Script hieroglyph. Rebus or similar sounding word signifies Ta. ayil iron. Ma. ayir, ayiram any ore. Ka. aduru native metal. Tu. ajirda karba very hard iron.(DEDR 192) The expression ajirda karba (Tulu) is cognate with ayas, 'alloy metal' (R̥gveda).

    āmiṣá n. ʻ flesh ʼ, āˊmiṣ -- n. ʻ raw flesh, dead body ʼ RV.Pa. āmisa -- n. ʻ raw meat, bait ʼ; Pk. āmisa -- n. ʻ flesh ʼ; B. ã̄is ʻ scales of fish ʼ; Or. āĩsa ʻ flesh, fish, fish scales ʼ; M. ã̄vas n. ʻ flesh of a kill left by a tiger to be eaten on the following day ʼ; Si. äma ʻ bait ʼ; -- der. A. ã̄hiyā ʻ having the smell of raw flesh or fish ʼ, B. ã̄ste (Chatterji ODBL 491 < *āĩsaṭiā < *āmiṣa -- vr̥ttika -- ).Addenda: āmiṣá -- : Md. em ʻ bait ʼ.(CDIAL 1256) Ta. ayirai, acarai, acalai loach, sandy colour, Cobitis thermalis; ayilai a kind of fish. Ma. ayala a fish, mackerel, scomber; aila, ayila a fish; ayira a kind of small fish, loach. (DEDR 191)

     In one ancient language stream of Sarasvati Civilization area (where most of the Indus Script Inscriptions have been found) the word for 'fish' is: ayo. A similar sounding word with cognate pronunciation variants is: aya, 'iron' (Gujarati), ayas 'alloy metal' (gveda). Thus, when a hypertext is seen on Indus Script Corpora (which now exceed 8000 inscriptions) proclaiming 'fish' pictorial motif or hieroglyph PLUS variants including ligatures such as 'lid', circumscripts, fin-marks, slanted/inclined stroke, notch, it is reasonable to read the underlying word as related to aya 'iron' PLUS descriptive ligatures to signify the archaeo-metallurgical use of iron to produce, say, ingots or equipment. 

    The ancient language stream related to the semantics of 'fish' is seen in the set of Munda etyma related to ayo, ayu:

    bea hako (ayo) ‘fish’ (Santali); bea ‘either of the sides of a hearth’ (G.) Munda: So. ayo `fish'. Go. ayu `fish'. Go <ayu> (Z), <ayu?u> (Z),, <ayu?> (A) {N} ``^fish''. Kh. kaDOG `fish'. Sa. Hako `fish'. Mu. hai (H) ~ haku(N) ~ haikO(M) `fish'. Ho haku `fish'. Bj. hai `fish'. Bh.haku `fish'. KW haiku ~ hakO |Analyzed hai-kO, ha-kO (RDM). Ku. Kaku`fish'.@(V064,M106) Mu. ha-i, haku `fish' (HJP). @(V341) ayu>(Z), <ayu?u> (Z)  <ayu?>(A) {N} ``^fish''. #1370. <yO>\\<AyO>(L) {N} ``^fish''. #3612. <kukkulEyO>,,<kukkuli-yO>(LMD) {N} ``prawn''. !Serango dialect. #32612. <sArjAjyO>,,<sArjAj>(D) {N} ``prawn''. #32622. <magur-yO>(ZL) {N} ``a kind of ^fish''. *Or.<>. #32632. <ur+GOl-Da-yO>(LL) {N} ``a kind of ^fish''. #32642.<bal.bal-yO>(DL) {N} ``smoked fish''. #15163.
    The use of Munda word ayo 'fish' is justified by the fact that most Khmer languages originate from Santali/Munda (pace the researches of University of Hawaii on Austro-Asiatic languages). This fact is best illustrated by two maps: Pinnow's map of Austro-Asiatic languages and Ancient Map of Bronze Age sites in Ancient India and Ancient Far East (Khmer region). The maps show a perfect correlation between Munda-Austro-Asiatic Speaker regions and Bronze Age settlements.
    Bronze Age sites of eastern Bha_rata and neighbouring areas: 1. Koldihwa; 2. Khairdih; 3. Chirand; 4. Mahisadal; 5. Pandu Rajar Dhibi; 6. Mehrgarh; 7. Harappa; 8. Mohenjo-daro; 9. Ahar; 10.Kayatha; 11. Navdatoli; 12. Inamgaon; 13. Non Pa Wai; 14. Nong Nor; 15. Ban Na Di and Ban Chiang; 16. Non Nok Tha; 17. Thanh Den; 18. Shizhaishan; 19. Ban Don Ta Phet [After Fig. 8.1 in: Charles Higham, 1996, The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia, Cambridge University Press].

    Pinnow-map of Austro-Asiatic language speakers
    Some Bronze Age sites, Far East. (After Fig. 2.2 in Higham, Charles, 1996, The bronze age of Southeast Asia, Cambridge Univ. Press.

    A unique orthographic style of Indus Script is to create hypertexts using underlying hieroglyph combinations. Thus, a 'fish' hieroglyph becomes a hypertext, with the addition of a ligature of 'lid of pot'. Sign 65 is composed of Sign 59 'fish' PLUS Sign 134 'lid of pot'.
    To read rebus, the Sign 65 as Hypertext, the rebus readings of the underlying hieroglyphs are: ayo 'fish' rebus; ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS ḍhaṁkaṇa 'lid' rebus dhakka 'excellent, bright, blazing metal article'.

    An added justification for the use of Munda etyma in rebus readings together with most of the ancient Indian languages is the fact that linguistic studies have now veered round to accepting Ancient India as a Linguistic Area or Sprachbund (speech union). A sprachbund is a a region of speakers where speakers of various language families interact with one another and absorb language features from one another and make them their own. Thus, some language speakers may have phonetic variants for the semantics of 'fish' such as ayiri 'fish' or  ã̄is ʻscales of fishʼ). Similar-sounding words are: ayas 'alloy metal' (gveda),ajirda karba 'iron' (Tulu). Based on this semantic structure of the sprachbund, the 'fish' hieroglyph is read rebus in Meluhha (speech form) as: ayo 'fish' rebus: ayas 'alloy metal'.


    The following 38 categories of wealth accounting ledgers are identified by cluster analysis 

    Cluster 1 Eagle in flight cluster, thunderbolt weapon, blacksmith classifier

    Cluster 2 Metallurgical invention of aṅgāra carburization, infusion of carbon element to harden molten metal

    Cluster 3 Svastika cluster, zinc wealth category

    Cluster 4 Ficus clusters, copper wealth category

    Cluster 5 Tiger cluster, smelter category

    Cluster 6 Spearing a bovine cluster, smelter work

    Cluster 7 A metallurgical process narrative in four clusters -- four sides of a tablet: 

    Cluster 8 Seafaring boat cluster, cargo wealth category

    Cluster 9 Bier cluster, wheelwright category

    Cluster 10 Sickle cluster, wheelwright category

    Cluster 11 Sun's rays cluster, gold wealth category

    Cluster 12 Body of standing person cluster, element classifier

    Cluster 13 Frog cluster, ingot classifier

    Cluster 14 Serpent cluster as anakku, 'tin ore' classifier

    Cluster 15 Tortoise, turtle clusters, bronze classifiers

    Cluster 16 Seated person in penance, mint classifier

    Cluster 17 Archer cluster, mint classifier

    Cluster 18 ayakara 'metalsmith' cluster, alloy metal smithy, forge classifier

    Cluster 19 Smelter cluster, wealth-category of smelted mineral ores

    Cluster 20 Magnetite, ferrite ore cluster wealth-category or wealth-classification

    Cluster 21 Dhokra 'cire perdue' metal cassting artisans classifier

    Cluster 22 dhāvḍī ʻcomposed of or relating to ironʼ, dhā̆vaḍ 'iron-smelters' cluster, Iron, steel product cluster 

    Cluster 23 Endless knot cluster, yajña dhanam, iron category, hangar ‘blacksmith’ category

    Cluster 24 Dance-step cluster, iron smithy/forge

    Cluster 25 Minerals Smelter, metals furnace, clusters

    Cluster 26 Armoury clusters

    Cluster 27 Double-axe cluster, armourer category

    Cluster 28 Seafaring merchant clusters

    Cluster 29 Smithy, forge clusters

    Cluster 30 Equipment making blacksmithy/forge

    Cluster 31 Tin smithy, forge clusters

    Cluster 32 Alloy metal clusters

    Cluster 33 Metal equipment, product clusters

    -- Metalwork samgaha, 'catalogues' cluster सं-ग्रह complete enumeration or collection , sum , amount , totality (एण , " completely " , " entirely ") (याज्ञवल्क्य), catalogue, list

    Cluster 34 śreṇi Goldsmith Guild clusters 

    Cluster 34a Three tigers joined, smithy village,smithy shop category

    Cluster 35 पोळ [pōḷa], 'zebu'cluster,  magnetite ore category pōḷa, 'magnetite, ferrous-ferric oxide

    Cluster 36 Dotted circles, Indus Script Hypertexts dhāv 'red ores'

    Cluster 37 Indus Script inscriptions on ivory artifacts signify metalwork wealth accounting

    Cluster 38 Diffusion of Metallurgy: Meluhha and western Afghanistan sources of tin

    This accounting classification of metalwork wealth categories is consistent with the finding that the writing system with a recognized pattern of clustering pictorial motifs was consistently used over the entire gamut of contact areas of Sarasvati civilization. Decipherment of the hieroglyph components of field symbols yields the semantic structure of underlying Meluhha speech in Bhāratīya sprachbund(Speech union). 

    Tatsama and tadbhava words in a comparative lexicon of Bharatiya languages (e.g. Indian Lexicon), establish the reality of Bharatiya sprachbund of 4th millennium BCE.

    The total number of objects on M Corpus with distinct, unambiguous pictorials or field symbols is 1894. It is unfortunate that most decipherment claims ignore an analysis of this dominant portion of the documented evidence of the civilization. Some brush them aside as 'cult symbols', some say they are 'religious symbols'. 

    A cluster analysis of these 1894 Indus Script Field symbols has also been ignored by the cluster analysis of triplets of 'signs' done by K-means by Nisha Yadav et al. I submit that pictorial motifs or field symbols are integral parts of the hypertext messaging system of the Indus Script inscriptions. It should be noted that these pictorial motifs or field symbols occupy the major portion of the space for messaging used on an inscribed object in Indus Script Corpora (which now total over 8000 inscriptions). 

    This demonstrable laxity in most decipherment claims or cluster analyses is governed by a hypothesis of the 'text' as the writing system, and perhaps ignoring the field symbol or pictorial motifs are extraneous to the messaging system. 

    I submit that the field symbols or pictorial motifs are the dominant classifiers of the Indus accounting system to identify distinct wealth-accounting category ledgers to document the wealth of a guild of artisans and seafaring merchants. This monograph demonstrates the semantic structure of the field symbols or pictorial motifs in the framework of the principal design principle of the script (which applies to both 'signs' and 'field symbols') which is: sāṅgāḍī 'joined parts' rebus: samgraha, samgaha 'catalogue, list, arranger, manager' janga ,'invoiced on approval basis' -- an accounting classification of ledgers for wealth accounting during the Tin-Bronze Revolution, 4th millennium BCE. This sāṅgāḍī 'joined parts' principle of writing system design explains why animal parts are joined together to create 'fabulour' or 'composite' animal pictorial motifs or field symbols.


    33 clusters of field symbols signify 33 metalwork wealth/guild work classifiers for accounting ledgers

    FS 1-7                    1159 One-horned young bull (bos indicus aurochs)

    FS 120                       67 One or more dotted circles

    FS 122-123                19 Standard device

    FS 8-9                          5 Two-horned young bull (bos indicus aurochs)

    FS 10                         54 Bos indicus, zebu

    FS 11-13                    95 Short-horned bull or ox (aurochs)

    FS 15-17                    14 Buffalo

    FS 18-20                    55 Elephant

    FS 22-23                    16 Tiger

    FS 24-25                       5 Horned tiger

    FS 16-28                    39 Rhinoceros

    FS 29                            1 Two rhinoceroses

    FS 30-38                    36 Goat-antelope, short tail

    FS 39-41                    26 Ox-antelope

    FS 42                         10 Hare

    FS 43                           1 Hare

    FS 51                         20 Fabulous animal

    FS 56                           9 Fabulous animal

    FS 63-67                    49 Gharial (crocodile + fish)

    FS 68                         14 Fish

    FS 73                           9 Entwined serpent, pillar or rings on pillar

    FS 74                           4 Bird (eagle) in flight

    FS 75-77                    34 Kino tree on platform

    FS 79                            3 Pipal leaf

    FS 80-90                     22 Horned standing persons

    FS 105                           3 Person grappling two tigers

    FS 109                           5 Person seated on tree branch

    FS 111                           3 Woman grappling two men with uprooted trees\

    FS 118-119                  50 Svastika (on seals of Indus Script Corpora)

    FS 124                           4 Endless knot, twisted rope

    FS 125                           3 Boat

    FS 131                           6 Sickle

    FS 130                           3 Writing tablet

    FS 133-139                  51 ornamental edges

    TOTAL                    1894
    Sarasvati Civilization core areaFrequently occurring pairs of 'signs' on Corpora (M77) are also linked with Field Symbols to identify lapidary clusters of metals manufactory (phaa, paaa) recorded on daybooks of metalwork catalogues. 
    (Products) Investigated daybook 179 final position; 90 on miniature tablets कारणिक investigating; khareḍo 'a currycomb' rebus: kharada खरडें daybook 


    Why did the Harappans go to such extraordinary lengths and distance to obtain raw materials such as copper?

    This map shows raw material distributions in the Indus Valley and adjacent regions during the Harappan Period (2600-1900 BCE).

    Why (as far as I know) was all the chert obtained from the Rohri Hillsand distributed everywhere else? What does this tell us about the nature of the Harappan economy and society? Submitted by Gharial Abramnova from school student questions

    Jane McIntosh
    Such raw materials were of immense importance to all the civilized societies of the period (and other periods), either for their practical use (eg metals for tools, timber for houses and ships) or for social, political and religious display (eg adorning temples). In terms of the efforts involved, the Harappans were fortunate in being able to obtain many of their raw materials far more easily than many of their contemporaries: the hills and mountains surrounding the Indus region on 2-3 sides were neighbouring sources of many of the minerals they required and were inhabited by friendly cultures, whereas the Mesopotamians, for example, were frequently in conflict with the peoples of the neighbouring regions from or through which they had to obtain raw materials.

    The flint (chert) from the Rohri Hills is of exceptional quality so was better for making tools than that from the many sources closer to many Harappan communities. The universal use of Rohri Hills flint during the Harappan period, and the reliance on more local sources before and after, does indeed give an important insight into Harappan economy and society: it means that during the Harappan period there was a system in place that ensured that the best material was made available to all. This implies a well organised and well integrated distribution network, at the very least, and I would argue that it also implies a strong state and efficient bureaucracy, controlling mining and issuing flint (and other materials) to communities and individuals.

    Rita Wright
    There is a very interesting dissertation by Randall Law that was just published and he has identified the places where they procured their raw materials. According to him, they used a variety of resources, some nearby and others at greater distances and changed their preferred sources over time. They were expert craftsmen and I believe through working with raw materials, they identified the best material for what they wanted to accomplish. They must as well have aesthetic concerns, a preference for grey or brown chert for example, dictating which place to get the source. And also did they have relationships with people near those sources that facilitated the trade and procurement. I don’t think this trading was done through a centralized leader, but more likely by networks of people who knew where the sources were (word of mouth or in their travels) and had connections to people with whom they traded. Or perhaps they paid them in some way, exchanged the raw materials for objects they produced or in some other manner.

    Richard Meadow
    Why do we go to such extraordinary lengths (and depths) to obtain petroleum? Raw materials of one kind or another have formed the basis for human technology for hundreds of thousands of years – to be made into tools for obtaining food and to serve more purely "cultural" purposes (social, ideological, political). Chert was obtained from other sources, but Rorhi chert was of exceptionally high quality and thus prized by knappers. Because it is well preserved in the archaeological record, such raw materials and the resulting manufactured artefacts have been studied extensively. Dr. Randy Law has located many of the sources of the stone found in Indus sites; these come from a huge area surrounding the Indus Valley itself, and it was probably to ensure a supply of such resources that the Indus people sent out expeditions to and maintained relationships with peoples in these resource areas. As you know, once you are used to using something, you want to make sure you continue to be able to use it and to replace it if necessary. See also the comments on trade and exchange above.

    Shereen Ratnagar
    This tells us that there was an engagement in the procurement of materials and tools in the sphere of the public economy, not the individual household or village. [unquote]

    0 0

    We hereby invite abstracts for our conference on human-animal
    relations in the Near East, taking place 22-23 March 2019 at the
    McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge ( Downing
    St, Cambridge CB2 3ER, UK)

    Abstracts should be max. 300 words for 20 minute papers.

    Please send abstracts to Laerke Recht (lr459@...) or Augusta
    McMahon (amm36@...) by 30 November 2018.

    Fierce lions, angry mice and fat-tailed sheep: Animal encounters in
    the ancient Near East

    The theme of this conference is the relationships between humans and
    the environment, with particular focus on interactions with other
    animals. Animals have always been an integral part of human existence;
    in the ancient Near East, this is evident in the record of excavated
    assemblages of faunal remains, iconography and texts. Domesticated
    animals had great impact on social, political and economic structures
    – for example cattle in agriculture and diet, or donkeys and horses in
    transport, trade and war.. Fantastic mythological beasts such as
    lion-headed eagles or lamassu were part of religious beliefs and
    myths, while exotic creatures such as lions were part of elite
    symbolling from the 4th millennium BC onward. In some cases, animals
    also intruded on human lives in unwanted ways by scavenging or
    entering the household; this especially applies to small or wild

    The aim of this conference is to have a broad representation of these
    varied relationships, including large and small, wild and domesticated
    animals, and the many ways in which they connect with human lives. The
    core regional and temporal focus will be Mesopotamia from the 4th
    through 1st millennia BC. The basis for presentations can be texts,
    iconography or faunal analysis, and interdisciplinary approaches are
    especially encouraged.

    0 0

    Leave a comment

    Mathematical and physical arguments are easier to check for basic errors than those in the social sciences and history. You may not divide by zero, because if you did then you could show, for example, that 2 = 3 (because 2/0 = 3/0); likewise, any system that delivers more work than the energy it takes in is a logically impossible perpetual motion machine.
    Authors in the social sciences sometimes get carried away by ideas that are unfalsifiable or logically inconsistent and since these ideas are repeated in the echo chambers of the academia, it can take a generation or two, or even longer, to realize this.
    Here I wish to speak of just one matter of ancient history concerning languages of India and Europe that are far apart geographically but belong to the same family. Recently, people have begun to use ancient DNA to see how India was populated by outside migrants and settlers.
    It is quite fair to assume that people traveled in different directions in the ancient world but to effectively assume that a small number of migrants were able to change the language of India makes little sense, especially if this is proposed to have occurred as recently as 2000 BCE or thereabouts.
    Why? Because we have literary evidence from India that speaks of continuity going back to about as early as 4th millennium BCE and these texts remember no other region but north and northwest India. We have astronomical references, datable geological events, king lists and lists of rishis that span several thousand years. One may dismiss one or two of these as myth, but one can’t do so if the pieces are independent and connected with facts on the ground. Here’s a summary:
    1. Astronomical events in the Ṛgveda and later books are consistent and provide references to events that occurred in late 4th millennium BCE and subsequently in third and second millennia BCE. This is not only in terms of solstice and equinox information but also the very listing of the nakṣatras, which has a spread of several thousand years.
    2. The memory of the Sarasvati River flowing once from the mountain to the sea, which was true latest around 1900 BCE and perhaps a thousand years prior.
    3. When the Greeks came to India, they wrote about an Indian tradition of king-lists that went back several thousand years.
    4. The acknowledgement in later books such as the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa that the Vedic people had moved beyond to the region west and northwest of India across the Himalayas to what is called Uttara Kuru, which is Bactria and the region of the Central Asian steppes and West Asia.
    In the 19th century some scholars came up with the idea that the Indo-European languages were spread by the invasion of the Aryans by horse-riding warriors to India about 1500 BCE. This theory has been debunked time and time again but it takes on new forms. In a new incarnation known as the “Steppe Hypothesis,” horse-riding pastoralists from the Black and Caspian Seas migrated west into Europe and east into Central Asia and India around 3000 BCE. This has also been debunked by a new genetic study.
    It is most amusing that population theories take India to be a vast empty space, a big zero. Doing so may make a sensational news story for a day or two but it cannot square with hard facts. Even if we forget the texts, we have the archaeological evidence related to the nearly 10,000-year-old Sindhu-Sarasvati Tradition that shows India to have been the most densely populated region of the ancient world.
    The density of the population makes it impossible to come up with a model where people from the sparsely populated steppes or the Iranian highlands will be able to change the language of the region.
    A widely spoken language of a region is like an attraction basin in a complex system. The theory of complex systems tells us that after any small perturbations the system returns to its old state. Even if one could think of a process that suddenly made a lot of people in the steppes decide to ride thousands of miles into the hot, baking plains of north India, they would, in a generation or two, lose their language unless they lived in small enclaves as isolated groups. If they did not even bring their women, as is claimed in one bizarre theory, their language, if different from the host language, would not survive a single generation.
    Further ascribing successful replacement of language to superior technology of the chariot or the advantage of horsemanship does not change the argument.
    Now it is quite possible that a large movement of people into India prior to 3000 or 4000 BCE, when the population of the Harappan settlements was not as large as it came to be later on, may have brought about change of the language. But this time-span is not convenient to many for whom the central issue appears to be the ownership of the Vedic literature and, even more importantly, its sciences.
    Migration at such an early period will also have to explain why the injection of a large new population with a different language did not change the basic nature of the Sindhu-Sarasvati cultural tradition. And where did these people come from?
    If one takes ancient India to be effectively zero in population and uses ancient DNA only from regions outside of it, one can “explain” anything about later populations. This is a circular argument that is impossible to sustain in the light of the remembered history of the region.
    Ancient bones hide as much as they reveal and they may not be representative of the populations of the region. This is especially true of India where most have traditionally cremated the dead. The samples we have could very much be setting up equations of the kind 2/0 = 3/0.

    0 0

    24 October 2018

    New Caledonian crows can create tools from multiple parts

    An international team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the University of Oxford has revealed that New Caledonian crows are able to create tools by combining two or more otherwise non-functional elements, an ability so far observed only in humans and great apes.
    The new study, published today in Scientific Reports, shows that these birds can create long-reaching tools out of short combinable parts - an astonishing mental feat. Assemblage of different components into novel functional and manoeuvrable tools has, until now, only been observed in apes, and anthropologists regard early human compound tool manufacture as a significant step in brain evolution. Children take several years before creating novel tools, probably because it requires anticipating properties of as yet unseen objects. Such anticipation, or planning, is usually interpreted as involving creative mental modelling and executive functions.
    The study demonstrates that this species of crow possesses highly flexible abilities that allow them to solve complex problems involving anticipation of the properties of objects they have never seen.
    New Caledonian crow
    Watch Tumulte, Jungle and Mango create and use compound tools: (2:48) University of Oxford

    Published on Oct 24, 2018 New Caledonian crows are able to create tools by combining two or more otherwise non-functional elements, an ability so far observed only in humans and great apes. An international team of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the University of Oxford has shown that these birds can create long reaching tools out of short combinable parts in a study with birds of the same species as the famous Betty, the first animal shown to be able to create a hooked tool by bending a pliable material. Although the underlying cognitive processes remain opaque for now, the study demonstrates that the crows possess highly flexible abilities that allow them to solve complex problems involving anticipation of the properties of objects they have never seen.

    ‘The finding is remarkable because the crows received no assistance or training in making these combinations, they figured it out by themselves,’ said Auguste von Bayern, from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and the University of Oxford. The New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) from the South Pacific are of the same species as Betty, who became famous in 2002 as the first animal shown to be able to create a hooked tool by bending a pliable material.
    Researchers had already been able to show how this remarkable species was able to use and make tools in the wild and in captivity, but they had never previously been seen to combine more than one piece to make a tool.
    Alex Kacelnik, from the University of Oxford's Department of Zoology, said: ‘The results corroborate that these crows possess highly flexible abilities that allow them to solve novel problems rapidly, but do not show how they do it. It is possible that they use some form of virtual simulation of the problem, as if different potential actions were played in their brains until they figure out a viable solution, and then do it. Similar processes are being modelled on artificial intelligences and implemented in physical robots, as a way to better understand the animals and to discover ways to build machines able to reach autonomous creative solutions to novel problems.’
    Overview of the experiment
    The researchers presented eight New Caledonian crows with a puzzle box they had never encountered before, containing a small food container behind a door that left a narrow gap along the bottom. Initially, the scientists left some sufficiently long sticks scattered around, and all the birds rapidly picked one of them, inserted it through the front gap, and pushed the food to an opening on the side of the box. All eight birds did this without any difficulty. In the next steps, the scientists left the food deep inside the box but provided only short pieces, too short to reach the food. These short pieces could potentially be combined with each other, as some were hollow and others could fit inside them. In one example, they gave the birds barrels and plungers of disassembled hypodermic syringes. Without any help or demonstration, four of the crows partially inserted one piece into another and used the resulting longer compound pole to reach and extract the food. At the end of the five-step investigation, the scientists made the task more difficult by supplying even shorter combinable parts, and found that one particular bird, ‘Mango’, was able to make compound tools out of three and even four parts.
    Although the authors explain that the mental processes by which the birds achieve their goals have not yet been fully established, the ability to invent a tool is interesting in itself. Few animals are capable of making and using tools, and also in human development the capacity only emerges late. While children start using tools reliably when they are about 18 months old, they only invent novel tools suited to solve a given problem reliably when they are at least five years old. Archaeological findings indicate that such compound tools arose only late in human cultural evolution (probably around 300,000 years ago in the Middle Palaeolithic) and might have coevolved with planning abilities, complex cognition and language. The crows’ ability to construct novel compound tools does not imply that their cognitive mechanisms equal those of humans or apes, but helps to understand the cognitive processes that are necessary for physical problem solving.
    Article OPEN Published: 

    Compound tool construction by New Caledonian crows

    Scientific Reportsvolume 8, Article number: 15676 (2018Download Citation


    The construction of novel compound tools through assemblage of otherwise non-functional elements involves anticipation of the affordances of the tools to be built. Except for few observations in captive great apes, compound tool construction is unknown outside humans, and tool innovation appears late in human ontogeny. We report that habitually tool-using New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides) can combine objects to construct novel compound tools. We presented 8 naïve crows with combinable elements too short to retrieve food targets. Four crows spontaneously combined elements to make functional tools, and did so conditionally on the position of food. One of them made 3- and 4-piece tools when required. In humans, individual innovation in compound tool construction is often claimed to be evolutionarily and mechanistically related to planning, complex task coordination, executive control, and even language. Our results are not accountable by direct reinforcement learning but corroborate that these crows possess highly flexible abilities that allow them to solve novel problems rapidly. The underlying cognitive processes however remain opaque for now. They probably include the species’ typical propensity to use tools, their ability to judge affordances that make some objects usable as tools, and an ability to innovate perhaps through virtual, cognitive simulations.


    Tool-related behavior, especially innovative tool manufacture, is intimately associated with human evolution, and may have co-evolved with specific neurological capacities, particularly planning and complex task coordination1. Innovative tool manufacture emerges only between 5–9 years of age in human ontogeny2,3,4, probably because inventing new tools requires cognitive operations that include executive functions5 that develop only late6 and after extensive individual and social learning. Outside humans, innovative tool manufacture is only known in a small set of taxa, notably in other primates, corvids and parrots (e.g.7,8,9,10,11,12,13).
    Here we focus on a particularly rare form of tool innovation, a type of tool manufacture that anthropologists and primatologists consider profoundly significant for understanding human evolution1. Creating maneuverable tools by combining complementary different parts into firmly connected units referred to as compound tools hereafter (also labeled composite tool manufacture1 or additive tool making14), is a particularly rare form of tool manufacture, hitherto unproven outside the hominid lineage. Even among hominids, innovative compound tool construction has been documented only through a few reports in captive great apes7,8,10,13,14 and some authors consider it to be absent in wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)15,16. The latter do, however, display behavior that involves combining different elements into functional assemblages. At Bossou, Guinea, for example, some individuals combine 3 or more elements: they stabilize a relatively large planar rock using a second stone as a wedge, and then use a third stone as a hammer to pound nuts17. The components have specific roles (anvil, wedge, hammer) and are chosen and placed appropriately to make the assemblage functional, but this assemblage forms a tool and substrate composite rather than a compound tool, which is an integrated mobile object14. In another example, at the Sonso community in Budongo Forest, Uganda, wild chimpanzees hold together multiple leaves and use them as sponges to extract water or honey from cavities15. The bundles of leaves are jointly mobile, but they form loose, amorphous aggregates of equivalent parts, and it is debatable whether, for the purpose of understanding tool-related cognition, it is useful to integrate them in the category of compound tools. How such tool technologies are discovered and adopted by individual members of different natural populations is an important but as yet largely unsolved problem. In particular, the relative roles of genetic predispositions, individual innovation and social transmission are not easy to establish, because in wild populations all those factors contribute and are confounded from the observer’s perspective. In captivity in contrast, the acquisition process of complex novel behaviors such as compound tools can be studied and manipulated under controlled conditions.
    The best-known case of the invention of a compound tool outside humans was reported in captivity nearly a century ago by Koehler7. He reported that a captive chimpanzee (Sultan) discovered how to combine 2 pieces of bamboo so as to make a longer compound pole with which he could reach bananas placed outside his cage7. Koehler’s observation is of major significance for comparative cognition, because it seems reasonable to hypothesize that for an individual to invent an instrument by joining different objects into a novel structure, anticipating its emergent properties (affordances) the individual must be capable of some form of cognitive modeling. Koehler, and many of his followers, have used the term insight in an explanatory role, but, in the absence of precise controlled experimentation and working definitions, such as used in human psychology (e.g.18,19), this does little more than labelling the observed sudden behavioural transition. His seminal observation, while frequently cited, has remained underexplored in later comparative cognitive research (See10 and13 for exceptions), and has not yet been extended to taxa beyond primates.
    We were inspired by Koehler’s study to investigate compound tool inventions, but in the absence of social inputs, previous experience with similar tasks, or reinforcing feedback, in New Caledonian crows, a species notable for exhibiting multiple flexible and species-specific tool-related abilities20,21,22,23,24. Laboratory experiments have shown that these crows possess a capacity to innovate25,26,27 and to solve novel physical problems with sensitivity to at least some causal physical interactions between objects28,29. Given what is known about this species, it seems a strong candidate to explore its competence for compound tool making. Should this be successful, it would provide a novel and independently evolved biological model30 to help understanding the associated cognition.
    The present study presented 8 wild-caught New Caledonian crows (NCC hereafter), with a problem solving task they had never encountered before. The study includes 5 phases: (i) set-up familiarization, (ii) first construction test, (iii) transfer tests (involving 2 modifications of the task), (iv) need discrimination test and (v) second construction test. In the set-up familiarization phase the subjects were presented with a novel setup, i.e. food placed in a track inside a transparent box, and wooden doweling pieces of sufficient length for them to push the reward along this track and out of the box (Figs 1 and S1). After the crows had successfully extracted the food, the first construction test followed, where the long dowels were replaced by 2 novel kinds of cylindrical elements, all too short to reach the food. These elements were potentially combinable, one kind being hollow (1 ml syringe barrels) and the other solid and thinner (syringe plungers or short wooden dowels; see methods and Supplementary Information, SI hereafter, for further details). They were presented both on holders and scattered on the ground (Figs 1and S2). Subjects were allowed up to 6 attempts (of max. 12 min each) to retrieve the food. Successful birds entered into the third phase, that tested whether the production of compound tools depended on a particular shape and configuration of the combinable elements. This phase involved 2 transfer tests. In the first, subjects were exposed to novel materials; pipe cleaners were provided in addition to wooden dowels and the syringe barrels were replaced by drinking straws presented in a novel position, as well as loosely on the ground (Fig. S3). In the second, the ergonomic difficulty was increased by presenting all the straws and dowels solely on the floor (Fig. S4).
    Figure 1
    Figure 1
    Experimental setup in construction test 1. Upper panels: test box without (A) and with (B) front cover. Notice the food track and side opening in A, and the narrow slot for tool insertion in the front in B. (C) Presentation of tool components. Some details of scale modified for presentation (see SI for details).
    The fourth phase was designed to test whether the birds constructed tools in a goal-directed manner, driven by the need for compound tools, or simply because the action of combining was rewarding by itself. To this effect a ‘close track’ was added, from which a food target could be retrieved with uncombined elements (Fig. S5), and alternated between this situation and the original track, now called ‘distant’. After familiarization with both short and long tools (uncombinable dowels) simultaneously available in the presence of either of the tracks (see SI for details), we provided only short, combinable, tool elements, and positioned the food half of the trials in the distant and half in the close track, in pseudo-random order. Finally, in the fifth phase, the flexibility and goal-directedness of the behavior was examined by further challenging the birds that had succeeded in making stable 2-elements compound tools and extracting food with them in all previous phases. Now they were supplied with even shorter tool elements, so that 2-component tools were insufficient to extract the food (SI; Fig. S6) making an additional recursive combination necessary.


    Set-up familiarization

    All 8 birds readily used the provided long dowels to extract the food within their first trial.

    Construction test 1

    Four of the 8 crows succeeded in extracting the reward by joining 2 elements into a single, longer mobile pole. They did so within a very short time (less than 4–6 minutes of interacting with the parts; see Tables 1 and S1 for details) and with no apparent trial and error learning, i.e. choosing suitable elements and taking no or few unrewarded attempts (Tumulte: 0, Tabou: 3, Mango: 7 and Jungle: 10; see Table S2) before successfully combining them. The successful birds acted in a seemingly purposive manner, using the compound tools to aim at the food immediately after creating them (Movie S1,2). This typically required transporting the compound to the box for use. Except for one individual, Mango, a bird with apparently fluctuating motivation, the successful subjects also solved the task in the 3 opportunities that followed their first success (see SI). Mango refused to participate in 2 follow-up trials but succeeded continuously afterwards.
    Table 1 Individual path to successful use of compound tools.
    Individuals differed in their path to success (see Tables 1 and S1 for details), possibly due to differences in motor ability and/or motivation, as well as in cognition, but none of the individual trajectories point to the behavior emerging through gradual shaping by reinforcement of random actions. The 4 unsuccessful birds continued to aim at the food with the too-short elements supplied, hardly ever making any attempt to combine them.

    Transfer tests 1 and 2

    In Transfer test 1, all 4 birds made and used compounds with no more than 2 combinatory attempts prior to success (see SI, Tables 1S1 and S2 and Movie S3). In Transfer test 2, all 4 birds made compound tools in less than 5 minutes of interaction, (see SI, Tables 1S1 and S2 and Movie S4). Two crows made the compound and extracted the food in their very first trial, and the remaining 2 made their first compounds in their third trial, but one of them (Tumulte) failed to retrieve the target because the compound it built disintegrated during the attempt.

    Need discrimination test

    All 4 birds tried with an uncombined tool first more often when food was in the close than in the distant track (means 70.8% and 20,8% respectively (Fig. 2). Put another way, they made and used compounds without trying at all with uncombined elements first on 79.2% of cases when it was necessary (i.e. food in the distant track), and only 29.2% of cases when it was not (i.e. food in the close track). For 2 birds the results were within conventional significance (see Fig. 2). Even though all birds showed rather strong effects, the fact that only 4 birds reached this stage precludes a statistical evaluation at group level.
    Figure 2
    Figure 2
    Performance in the need discrimination test. The y-axis shows the number of trials (out of 12), in which compound tools were the first to be inserted in the close (blue bars) and distant (red bars) track conditions. Asterisks indicate p < 0.05 in Fisher’s exact test (Fisher’s p = 0.037 for Jungle, 0.001 for Tumulte, 0.100 for Tabou and 0.193 for Mango).

    Construction test 2

    In this final phase a 2-piece tool was not long enough to reach the food, so multiple pieces had to be combined to succeed. One individual (Mango) repeatedly created and used tools made of 3 and 4 elements (movies S5 and S6). The other 2 crows readily created 2-element tools and tried to use them, but failed in the additional recursive step that was now required. They did not make any combinatory attempts beyond non-functional 2-element compound tools. Mango in contrast made the first combinatory action between a 2-component tool and a third element from trial 1, but had difficulties in adding on the third element with enough force to achieve a tool of sufficient stability. From trial 4 onwards and after a total of 7 combinatory actions, he produced stable and usable 3-component tools. Specifically, this subject built 3-compound tools with which he successfully extracted the food in trials 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 (also employing a 3-component tool in trial 9, but failing to extract the food) and created a 4-compound tool in trial 6 and 9, which he employed in the box moving the food. He also built several 3-component tools that had the appropriate length but fell apart during insertion in trials 4 and 6 and additionally a 4-compound tool, which he did not use in trial 11 (see SI for additional details).


    The finding that a bird species has the capability to rapidly discover how to construct novel, functional tools through assemblage of different, otherwise non-functional, parts, matches and exceeds present evidence for this ability in non-human primates7,8,10,13,14.
    In Koehler’s emblematic study7, the male chimpanzee, Sultan, made a useful compound pole, but only after being coached by a human demonstrator who poked his finger into the hollow bamboo element. According to Koehler, Sultan manipulated the tool elements for over an hour and then, after a short break (not long after the aforementioned demonstration), suddenly discovered the solution, as if overcome by an acute insight. In contrast, half of our 8 crows succeeded, similarly abruptly, but within only 4-6 min of engaging with the tool elements, and without any cueing by the experimenter. Also, Sultan did not immediately reproduce the constructive behavior the following day, while 3 of our 4 successful crows readily continued to produce compound tools in the trials that followed their first occasion. They also transferred to modified situations rapidly and demonstrated sensitivity to the need for tool construction.
    Although, operationally defined, the crows achieved a “tool innovation”3,4, because they succeeded in creating a novel compound tool (i.e. a type of tool not found in wild populations and one the subjects had never encountered before) as response to a specific novel problem, the cognitive processes involved remain opaque for the moment, and there is no reason to assume that the cognitive operations leading to compound tool constructions are identical in apes and birds. Labeling the sudden transition to constructing tools as an “insight”, as Koehler and many followers did, does not further elucidate those processes. The question to address is whether the crows invented the compound tool, i.e. whether they came up with the solution as the result of a creative process that potentially involved some form of virtual mental modeling (i.e. simulating operations and motor actions with neural representations of the real objects), or whether they constructed their first compound tools accidentally, and then adopted it through reinforcement learning. Both paths to acquisition would be interesting, and the latter would in principle be a preferable explanation because, prima facie, it relies on simpler and better-known processes. However, while we do not have any algorithmic proposal for how cognitive operations based on representations of the participant objects can be accessed, the reinforcement learning route seems to fall short of being able to reproduce the birds’ innovative behaviour.
    Let us consider in detail the possibility that the successful birds produced their first compound accidentally, i.e. searching for food inside the hollow short element using the solid stick-like elements as poking tools, rather than in an attempt to combine them in order to use the resulting compound tool in the target box. Such probing could indeed occur, since New Caledonian crows do have heritable predispositions to use stick-like tools for extractive foraging and exploration22,31,32. Their natural foraging behavior includes inserting sticks into natural orifices in substrates, aiming tool tips precisely at targets in those holes33,34. If the short pieces accidentally stuck together during food probing, the subject might have subsequently recognized them as a sufficiently long tool to reach for the food target in the box, and reinforcement could lead to an increase in the probability of combining from then on. Judging distances and required lengths of tools, as well as choosing, making and modifying tools accordingly, are all capabilities already known in this species35,36. One thing that speaks against this possibility, however, is that the crows’ food searching was very obviously focused on the box with the visible bait rather than the hollow elements. The 4 successful birds inspected the box persistently and ostensibly from various sides, repeatedly trying to reach for the reward with short single elements. Only in brief interruptions of such food reaching bouts, did they attend to the hollow elements and when they succeeded in making a compound they invariably took it to the baited box and used it to reach the food. This persistence in attempts to extract a detected but unreachable food item is a typical behaviour in the species (e.g. 36). Further, the topography of their behavior when aiming short solid elements into hollow ones did not resemble what they do when searching for food: rather than producing rapid up and down probing movements20, the crows made a single or very few controlled insertions, steadily pushing the 2 elements into each other with substantial force and, once the elements stuck together, carefully pulling the compound out (Movies S14) and transporting it to the food box.
    In trials that followed a first construction the birds constructed compounds immediately, and in the two transfer tests in which the available short elements were different, they rapidly used the novel elements to build compounds. In the need discrimination test in which tool construction was only required in half of the trials. All four successful birds built compounds without previously poking with uncombined elements more often when construction was necessary than when it was not, even if construction had by that stage been reinforced repeatedly (Fig. 2). This difference however was significant for only 2 of them.
    Finally, one of the 3 tested individuals succeeded to manufacture tools out of 3 and even 4 elements. This multi-compound tool construction required dexterity and perseverance. It involved both combining hollow elements with sticks and the other way around, as well as turning the tool to insert the solid end in another hollow element. Accidental discovery of this recursive process (treating a 2-element compound as a potential part for further combination and construction of a 3-element one, and so forth) seems implausible. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence of compound-tool construction with more than 2 elements in any non-human animal. It would appear that at least for one of the birds (Mango), the challenge of making multiple (>2) component tools was ergonomic rather than cognitive: he made his first combinatory attempts with 3 elements from the first trial onwards, thus demonstrating sensitivity to the need for the next recursive step, but took a few trials to make them sufficiently stable to be operable. This was not the case for the other 2 subjects tested in this task. While readily producing 2-compound tools, they did not make any combinatory attempts with a third element.
    Thus, in summary, for a variety of reasons the behaviour of the successful subjects argues against accidental discovery, or gradual trial and error learning through reinforcement. The alternative is less parsimonious as it appeals to ‘higher’ cognitive processes that have not yet been modeled explicitly in either natural or artificial systems. Developing such explicit models is highly timely, as recent comparative cognition research is revealing that different animal species exhibit abilities to solve novel problems beyond the scope of reinforcement learning. Indeed, our own experimental species, the NCC, has been shown to possess other remarkable innovative tool-related problem-solving abilities in the laboratory, such as spontaneous sculpturing of novel materials into functional tools9,37, using novel types of tools25,27 and causal information to solve problems28,29 and employing several tools in a sequence to reach a goal24,36- all in the absence of reinforcement or cueing. Their compound tool construction constitutes a new example of their ability to generate solutions to novel challenges, and corroborates that their abilities are highly flexible and subject to individual variation. The hard challenge ahead is the development and testing of algorithmic models capable of similar performance, whether in silico or in artificial physical systems.


    Subjects and housing

    Subjects were 8 wild-caught, captive, adult New Caledonian crows (Corvus moneduloides), 4 females (Liane, Tortue, Tumulte, Tabou) and 4 males (Jungle, Mango, Aigaios and Papaye) which had a minimum age of 3 years. They had been wild-caught in 2010 and, since then, were kept at the Avian Cognition Research Station of the University of Oxford, UK, hosted by and associated to the Max-Planck-Institute for Ornithology, Germany. The crows were housed in pairs in spacious outdoor aviaries with adjacent heated indoor areas, kept at a 12:12 h dark-light regimen (for more details see SI) and had ad libitum access to food and water. The subjects were naïve in respect to the problems presented here, but familiar with the use of simple tools for extractive purposes, which forms part of their natural behavioral repertoire20,22,31.

    Basic Apparatus

    Testing took place in the indoor enclosures in visual isolation from their mates. The basic apparatus was set up on the ground, and consisted of a partly transparent test box that contained a food reward (Figs 1 and S1) placed in a track that run parallel to the box’ front at 15 cm distance. At one end of the track there was a hole through which the bait could be extracted. Different tool elements were provided on different holders and loosely, scattered on the ground, depending on the condition (see Figs 1S2S3 and S4). They consisted of syringe barrels or drinking straws, which were ca. 8 cm or 5 cm long and could be combined with ca. 8 cm or 5 cm long solid elements of smaller diameter (wooden dowels, syringe plungers, pipe cleaners) into compound tools. The hollow elements were fitted with a clot of children’s modeling clay at ca. 1 cm from the opening for the syringes and from both openings for the straws so that they could consolidate with the counterparts when firmly pushed into each other (for more details see SI).

    Setup and Procedures

    Setup familiarization

    The experimental series started with a 3-hour period of familiarization, during which the subjects were exposed to the test box and both tool holders (see Figs S1S2 and S3) in the indoor enclosures without any tools, tool elements or rewards present, to overcome any initial neophobia. The next day the actual setup familiarization phase followed, during which subjects could experience the functionality of the box. Here, again the test box was present with both empty tool holders and without any tool elements, but now a reward was placed in the food track in the box. and wooden dowels (ca. 15 cm) sufficiently long to reach it were provided. The birds could insert the dowel into the box’s front slot and use it to slide the food along the track, until it fell out of the box through a side opening. Each bird passed to the next stage after it had succeeded at least 6 consecutive times.

    Construction test 1

    In this phase 2 types of potentially combinable 8 cm long tool elements were provided instead of the 15 cm long dowels, thus the food was now beyond the reach of single elements, which the birds had not experienced before. The setup consisted of the box and the syringe tool holder (Fig. S2) equipped with 6 hollow elements (1 ml syringe barrels; syringes thereafter) and 8 solid, thinner elements (syringe plungers, soon substituted by wooden dowels for practical reasons; see SI for further detail) presented on holders and laid out on the board (see Fig. 1 for a graphic representation). Subjects received up to 6 trials that lasted up to 12 min each. Once a subject succeeded in making a compound and extracting the food it participated in “replication trials” to test whether it would readily reproduce its success, until it had either succeeded in 3 or failed in 6 consecutive such trials.

    Transfer tests 1 and 2

    The 4 successful birds were presented with 2 new scenarios, where different, but still combinable 8 cm elements, were dispensed in novel positions and/or loosely on the ground. In transfer test 1 the setup included a straw holder with 6 drinking straws, 8 short dowels and 8 short pipe-cleaners, presented on holders at a 45° angle and laid out on the board, as shown in Fig. S3. Subjects received at least 5 trials that lasted up to 12 min each. In Transfer test 2 all potential tool elements (6 straws, 6 syringes and 8 dowels) were placed on the ground (Fig. S4). To avoid introducing unnecessary changes, the (empty) tool holders were left in place. The trials lasted max. 12 min and each bird received at least 8 trials. As in construction tests, subjects that successfully created compound tools received replication trials.

    Need discrimination test

    In this test, trials differed in whether a compound was necessary or not. The position of the food now varied pseudo-randomly between a new “close track” positioned 6 cm from the box’s front and the original, distant track at 15 cm distance from the front. Targets could be retrieved from the close track with uncombined elements, i.e. without any constructive action (Fig. S5). We first familiarized the birds with the food being either in the close or in the original distanttrack, with both short and long tools (uncombinable dowels; 8 cm and 13 cm respectively) simultaneously available (for details see SI materials and methods section). After familiarization, we provided only short (8 cm), combinable tool elements (6 straws, 6 syringes and 8 dowels), and positioned the food either in the close or in the distant track, in pseudorandom order until completing 12 trials at each position (8 sessions of 3 trials). The setup was the same as in transfer test 2, i.e. the tool elements were presented loosely on the boards, leaving the 2 holders (see Fig. S4) themselves empty. For the subject that had failed in transfer test 2, tool elements were additionally provided on the 2 holders, as in the construction test 1 and transfer test 1 respectively. We focused our analysis on the first attempt to retrieve food by inserting a tool in the box, to exclude cases in which a bird tried a short element even though a compound was needed and only after failing opted for construction.

    Construction test 2

    The 3 birds that succeeded in making stable tools and extracting food in transfer test 2 (i.e. excluding Tumulte, that had made a compound but failed to extract food) were tested with even shorter tool elements (ca.4,5–5 cm) so that a 2-component tool was insufficient to extract the food in the track at 12 cm distance from the box’s front (Fig. S6). A new syringe tool holder consisting of a board with 4 pillars that loosely held short (ca. 4,5–5 cm) ‘syringe tubes’ (each made out of 2 syringe ends glued together) was set up next to or perpendicular to the original test box. Two additional short syringe tubes and 10 short (ca. 5 cm) dowels were also presented as shown in Fig. S6. Functional tools could be obtained by combining 3 tool elements, either using a syringe tube with a dowel at either end, or a dowel with a syringe tube at either end. Twelve trials of max.12 min each were conducted.


    Video analyses were carried out to score individual performance, frequency of combinatory attempts (trying to insert a tool element into the opening of another, or inserting a tool element into another, but without succeeding to create a combined tool sufficiently stable to be lifted) and interaction time with tool elements (time in sec an individual spent manipulating/touching tool elements until first success). A trial was scored as successful if a subject created a sufficiently stable combined tool, inserted it in the test box, and retrieved the food. The data were scored by two raters independently who had absolutely no discrepancies in scoring instances as successful compound tool construction or not. Additionally, inter-observer reliability was assessed for the interaction time until first success and the Pearson’s correlation coefficient was more than 99% (Pearson’s correlation coefficient: r = 0.993, p < 0.001).
    For the need discrimination test, where food was located either within or beyond the reach of uncombined single tool elements, we examined whether the birds first inserted a combined or uncombined tool into the test box in each of the 12 trials of both conditions (close and distanttrack), and also looked at whether individuals successfully retrieved the food with a combined or uncombined tool. Because we had only 4 subjects for this test, we evaluated the statistical reliability of the results with Fisher Exact tests at individual level.

    Ethical approval

    All applicable EU, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. No specific permissions were required under German law (§7 Bundestierschutzgesetz) for this non-invasive study. The methods were approved by the ethics committee for research not involving invasive procedures of the Zoology Department, University of Oxford.

    Data Availability

    Exemplary videos can be accessed in the SI. The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Additional information

    Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


    1. 1.
      Ambrose, S. H. Coevolution of Composite-Tool Technology, ConstructiveMemory, and Language: Implications for the Evolution of Modern Human Behavior. Curr. Anthr. 51(S1), 135–147 (2010).
    2. 2.
      Beck, S. R., Apperly, I. A., Chappell, J., Guthrie, C. & Cutting, N. Making tools isn’t child’s play. Cognition 119(2), 301–306 (2011).
    3. 3.
      Cutting, N., Apperly, I. A. & Beck, S. R. Why do children lack the flexibility to innovate tools? J. Exp. Child Psychol. 109(4), 497–511 (2011).
    4. 4.
      Cheke, L. G., Loissel, E. & Clayton, N. S. How do children solve Aesop’s Fable? PloS One7(7), e40574–e40574 (2012).
    5. 5.
      Diamond, A. Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168 (2013).
    6. 6.
      Brocki, K. C. & Bohlin, G. Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study. Dev. Neuropsychol. 26(2), 571–593 (2004).
    7. 7.
      Koehler, W. The Mentality of Apes (Harcourt, Brace & World, New York, 1925).
    8. 8.
      Lethmate, J. Tool-using skills of orang-utans. J. Hum. Evol. 11, 49–64 (1982).
    9. 9.
      Weir, A. A. S., Chappell, J. & Kacelnik, A. Shaping of hooks in New Caledonian crows. Science 297, 981 (2002).
    10. 10.
      Bania, A. E., Harris, S. H., Kinsley, R. & Boysen, S. T. Constructive and deconstructive tool modification by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Anim. Cogn. 12(1), 85–95 (2009).
    11. 11.
      Bird, C. D. & Emery, N. J. Insightful problem solving and creative tool modification by captive nontool-using rooks. Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 106(25), 10370–10375 (2009).
    12. 12.
      Auersperg, A. M. I., Szabo, B., von Bayern, A. M. P. & Kacelnik, A. A. Spontaneous innovation in tool manufacture and use in a Goffin’s cockatoo. Curr. Biol. 22(21), R903–R904 (2012).
    13. 13.
      Price, E. E., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J. & Whiten, A. A potent effect of observational learning on chimpanzee tool construction. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 276(1671), 3377–3383 (2009).
    14. 14.
      Shumaker, R. W., Walkup, K. R. & Beck, B. B. Animal tool behaviour. The Use and Manufacture of Tools by Animals (John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 2011).
    15. 15.
      Gruber, T., Poisot, T., Zuberbühler, K., Hoppitt, W. & Hobaiter, C. The spread of a novel behavior in wild chimpanzees: New insights into the ape cultural mind. Commun. Integr. Biol. 8(2), e1017164 (2015).
    16. 16.
      Boesch, C. The Ecology and Cognition of Tool Use in Chimpanzees in Tool Use in Animals: Cognition and Ecology (eds Sanz, C., Call, J. & Boesch, C.) 21–47 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).
    17. 17.
      Matsuzawa, T. Stone tools for Nut-Cracking in The chimpanzees of Bossou and Nimba(eds Matsuzawa, T., Humle, T. & Sugiyama, Y.) 73–83 (Springer, Tokyo, 2011).
    18. 18.
      Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. The nature of insight. (The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995).
    19. 19.
      Webb, M. E., Little, D. R. & Cropper, S. J. Insight Is Not in the Problem: Investigating Insight in Problem Solving across Task Types. Front. Psychol. 7, 1424 (2016).
    20. 20.
      Bluff, L. A., Troscianko, J., Weir, A. A., Kacelnik, A. & Rutz, C. Tool use by wild New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides at natural foraging sites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B.277(1686), 1377–1385 (2010).
    21. 21.
      Hunt, G. R. & Gray, R. D. Direct observations of pandanus-tool manufacture and use by a New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim. Cogn. 7(2), 114–120 (2004).
    22. 22.
      Rutz, C. & St Clair, J. J. The evolutionary origins and ecological context of tool use in New Caledonian crows. Behav. Proc. 89(2), 153–165 (2012).
    23. 23.
      St Clair, J. J. & Rutz, C. New Caledonian crows attend to multiple functional properties of complex tools. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 368(1630), 20120415 (2013).
    24. 24.
      Taylor, A. H., Hunt, G. R., Holzhaider, J. C. & Gray, R. D. Spontaneous metatool use by New Caledonian crows. Curr. Biol 17(17), 1504–1507 (2007).
    25. 25.
      Taylor, A. H., Elliffe, D., Hunt, G. R. & Gray, R. D. Complex cognition and behavioural innovation in New Caledonian crows. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 277(1694), 2637–2643 (2010).
    26. 26.
      Jacobs, I. F., von Bayern, A. M. P. & Osvath, M. A novel tool-use mode in animals: New Caledonian crows insert tools to transport objects. Anim. Cogn. 19(6), 12249–1252 (2016).
    27. 27.
      Auersperg, A. M. I., von Bayern, A. M. I., Gajdon, G. K., Huber, L. & Kacelnik, A. Flexibility in problem solving and tool use of kea and New Caledonian crows in a multi access box paradigm. PLoS One 6(6), e20231 (2011).
    28. 28.
      Taylor, A. H. et al. New Caledonian crows learn the functional properties of novel tool types. PloS One 6(12), e26887 (2011).
    29. 29.
      von Bayern, A. M. P., Heathcote, R. J., Rutz, C. & Kacelnik, A. The role of experience in problem solving and innovative tool use in crows. Curr. Biol. 19(22), 1965–1968 (2009).
    30. 30.
      Osvath, M., Kabadayi, C. & Jacobs, I. Independent evolution of similar complex cognitive skills: the importance of embodied degrees of freedom. Anim. Behav. & Cogn. 1(3), 249–264 (2014).
    31. 31.
      Kenward, B., Rutz, C., Weir, A. A. & Kacelnik, A. Development of tool use in New Caledonian crows: inherited action patterns and social influences. Anim. Behav. 72(6), 1329–43 (2006).
    32. 32.
      Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A. & Kacelnik, A. New Caledonian crows use tools for non-foraging activities. Anim. Cogn. 14(3), 459–464 (2011).
    33. 33.
      Troscianko, J., von Bayern, A. M. P., Chappell, J., Rutz, C. & Martin, G. R. Extreme binocular vision and a straight bill facilitate tool use in New Caledonian crows. Nat. Commun. 3, 1110 (2012).
    34. 34.
      Martinho, A., Burns, Z. T., von Bayern, A. M. I. & Kacelnik, A. Monocular Tool Control, Eye Dominance, and Laterality in New Caledonian Crows. Curr. Biol. 24(24), 2930–2934 (2014).
    35. 35.
      Chappell, J. & Kacelnik, A. Tool selectivity in a non-primate, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Anim. Cogn. 5(2), 71–78 (2002).
    36. 36.
      Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A., Clayton, L., Rutz, C. & Kacelnik, A. Cognitive processes associated with sequential tool use in New Caledonian crows. PLoS One 4(8), e6471–e6471 (2009).
    37. 37.
      Weir, A. A. & Kacelnik, A. A New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides) creatively re-designs tools by bending or unbending aluminium strips. Anim. Cogn. 9(4), 317 (2006).

    0 0
    --with cipher traceable to sites on the plains of. Sarasvati River, a navigable, Himalayan river-waterway, ca. 6th -2nd millennium BCE linking with south- and east-flowing Himalayan river navigable waterways of Ancient Far East

    కుందనము  kundanamu. [Tel.] n. Solid gold, fine gold. అపరంజి.குந்தன் kuntaṉn. < Kunda. 1. Viṣṇu; திருமால். வல்வினைமாய்ந்தறச்செய் குந்தன்றன்னை (திவ். திருவாய். 7, 9, 7). 2. Holy person; தூயதன்மை யுடையவன். வண்டீங் கவிசெய்குந்தன் (திவ். திரு வாய். 7, 9, 7).   குந்தனக்காரன் kuntaṉa-k-kāraṉn. < T. kundanamu +. One who enchases or sets precious stones; இரத்தினம் பதிப்போன்Loc.   குந்தனம் kuntaṉamn. < T. kundanamu. 1. Interspace for enchasing or setting gems in a jewel; இரத்தினம் பதிக்கும் இடம். குந்தனத்தி லழுத்தின . . . ரத்தினங்கள் (திவ். திருநெடுந். 21, வ்யா. பக். 175). 2. Gold, fine gold; தங்கம். (சங். அக.)

    kundan कुंदन् । निर्मलं हेम m. pure gold, the finest gold (Śiv. 531, 1293). --char hyuhu --छर् हिहु॒ । अतिनिर्मलम् भूषणम् adj. (f. --hishü --हिशू॒), like a drop of pure gold; hence, very flawless and brilliant. (Kashmiri)  P کار kār, s.m. (2nd) Business, action, affair, work, labor, profession, operation. Pl. کارونه kārūnah. (E.) کار آرموده .چار kār āzmūdah. adj. Experienced, practised, veteran. کار و بار kār-o-bār, s.m. (2nd) Business, affair. Pl. کار و بارونه kār-o-bārūnahکار خانه kār- ḵẖānaʿh, s.f. (3rd) A manufactory, a dock- yard, an arsenal, a workshop. Pl. يْ eyکاردیده kār-dīdah, adj. Experienced, tried, veteran. کار روائي kār-rawā-ī, s.f. (3rd) Carrying on a business, management, performance. Pl. ئِي aʿīکار زار kār-zār, s.m. (2nd) Battle, conflict. Pl. کار زارونه kār-zārūnahکار ساز kār-sāz, adj. Adroit, clever; (Fem.) کار سازه kār-sāzaʿhکار ساري kār-sāzī, s.f. (3rd) Cleverness, adroitness. Pl. ئِي aʿīکار کند kār-kund (corrup. of P کار کن) adj. Adroit, clever, experienced. 2. A director, a manager; (Fem.) کار کنده kār-kundaʿhکار کول kār kawul, verb trans. To work, to labor, to trade. په کار راتلل pah kār rā-tʿlal or راغللrāg̠ẖ-lal, verb intrans. To be fit, to come into use, to be of use, to be proper or useful. په کار راوړل pah kār rā-wʿṟṟal, verb trans. To bring to use, to make use of, to expend. په کار دي pah kār daey, It is useful. په کار نه دي pah kār nah daey, It is useless.
       P کارستان kār-istān, s.m. (2nd) A place of work, a manufactory, an arsenal. Pl. کارستانونه kār-istā(Pashto)

    The monograph is organized in the following sections.

    Section 1. Elamite sculptural frieze kātī 'spinner' rebus khātī 'wheelwright‘ validates Indus Script hypertexts and Meluhha cipher 

    Section 2. Empire of Cotton

    Section 3. Elamite artifacts including Proto-Elamite Clay tablet of British Museum

    Section 4. Proto-Elamite Clay tablet Sb04823 in Louvre Museum

    Section 5. Motifs used in sites of Sarasvati River Basin

    The word 'meluhha' signifying a language which required an Akkadian translator occurs on a cylinder seal. The Shu-ilishu cylinder seal is a clear evidence of the Meluhhan merchants trading in copper and tin. The Meluhha merchant carries melh,meka 'goat or antelope' rebus: milakkha 'copper and the lady accompanying the Meluhhan carries a ranku 'liquid measure' rebus: ranku 'tin'.

      Hieroglyph: tail: Kur. xolā tail. Malt. qoli id.(DEDR 2135)

    Rebus:  Ta. kol working in iron, blacksmith; kollaṉ blacksmith. Ma. kollan blacksmith, artificer. Ko. kole·l smithy, temple in Kota village. To.kwala·l Kota smithy. Ka. kolime, kolume, kulame, kulime, kulume, kulme firepit, furnace; (Bell.; U.P.U.) konimi blacksmith; (Gowda) kollaid. Koḍ. kollë blacksmith. Te. kolimi furnace. Go. (SR.) kollusānā to mend implements; (Ph.) kolstānā, kulsānā to forge; (Tr.) kōlstānā to repair (of ploughshares); (SR.) kolmi smithy (Voc. 948). Kuwi (F.) kolhali to forge. (DEDR 2133)

    Ta. kor̤untu tender twig, tendril, tender leaf, shoot, anything young, tenderness; kor̤umai freshness (as of shoots), beauty; kor̤untaṉhusband, husband's younger brother; kor̤unti wife's sister, brother's wife; kor̤unaṉ husband; kur̤a young, tender; kur̤akaṉ youth, beautiful person, Skanda; kur̤aku youthfulness, beauty, infant; kur̤antai infant, childhood; kur̤avi infant, young of certain animals, young of the vegetable kingdom; kur̤avu tender age, juvenility; kur̤ai (-pp-, -tt-) to cause to sprout or shoot forth; n. tender leaf, sprout, shoot. Ma.kor̤unnu, kor̤untu tender twig, young shoot, new-grown hair. To. kwïζ twig. Ka. koḍa tenderness, tender age, youth; koṇasu young one of wild beasts. Tu. korè weak, small. Kor. (O. T.) korayi, (M.) kori husband; (O. M. T.) korti wife. Te. krotta (in cpds. kro-) new, fresh; koḍuku son; koṇḍika child; kodama the young of any animal; young; komma maiden, female; kōḍalu daughter-in-law; kōṭramu, kōḍaṇṭramu, kōḍaṇṭrikamu, kōḍaṟikamu the position and duties of a daughter-in-law, daughter-in-lawship. Kol. kovve young of bird or animal; koralyounger brother's wife; kommal (pl. kommasil) daughter. Nk. kovve young of bird or animal; koraḷ daughter-in-law, bride; kommaḷ (pl.kommaśil) daughter. Nk. (Ch.) komma daughter; kola bride, son's wife, younger brother's wife. Pa. koṛ very young; koṛuŋg new shoot, sprout; koṛc- to sprout; koṛol bride. Ga. (Oll.) koṛal son's wife, younger brother's wife; (S) koḍus-, koḍc- to sprout; (P.) koṛuŋ young shoot. Go. (Tr.) kōṛsānā, kōrsānā to sprout, grow (of trees, plants, etc.); (A. Mu. Ma. S.) koṛs- to sprout (Voc. 945); (Mu.) koṛk-ila new leaf; (Ko.) koṛi leaf-shoot (Voc. 934); (Ma.) koṛta month of Bhadrā (Aug.-Sept.) when new paddy is worshipped (Voc. 940); (Tr.) koriāṛ son's wife; tammur-koriāṛyounger brother's wife; (W.) koṛiāṛ daughter-in-law; (Mu.) koṛiyaṛ id., sister's daughter, younger brother's wife (Voc. 936); (Koya Su.) koḍiyāḍdaughter-in-law, sister's daughter (of a male); (ASu.) koṛkēlā tender, young. Konḍa koṛo (pl. -k) female child, (pl. -r) male child; koṛonali a nursing mother; koṛya daughter-in-law, younger brother's wife; koṛesi daughter-in-law (when referring to the 3rd person); (BB) kodma male buffalo calf (< Te.). Pe. koṛiya gāṛ son's wife, younger brother's wife; kṛogi fresh, new (of leaves). Manḍ. kṛugdi id.; kuṛiya gāṛ son's wife, younger borther's wife. Kui koṛgi newly sprouted, green, immature, unripe; koṛgari (pl. koṛgai) new shoot, fresh stalk, something green, immature, or unripe; kōṛu new shoot, fresh stalk, stem, or bud; new, green, immature; kōṛa a shoot, sprout, first sprout (of paddy after planting); kōṛa koḍa to sprout (of paddy); kōna bud; gōṇi sprout, offshoot; kuṛa, kṛua, (Letchmajee) kṛuha wife. Kuwi (P.) kuṛia, (F.) kūria daughter-in-law; (Ḍ.) kuṛva younger brother's wife; (F.) khrogi kōma a soft twig (i.e. soft, young, tender; for kōma, see 2115); (Ṭ.) koṛgi young (of children); (Isr.) kṛōgi immature, young. Kur. xōr leaf-bud, new leaves, fresh and tender leaves of vegetables; xōrnā (xūryā) to shoot out new leaves; korrā fresh (recently made, prepared, or obtained), pure. Malt. qóro infant, Indian corn when green; qóroce to sprout. Br. xarring to sprout; xarrun green, blue, black and blue; fruitful; xarrunī greenness; wife. Cf. 3650 Ta. nāy, for -kuṛi, etc., in Konḍa, Kui, Kuwi. / Cf. Skt. kora-, koraka- bud (Turner, CDIAL, no. 3527); kuṇaka- a new-born animal; kuḍaka- child (epic; Burrow, Belvalkar Felicitation Volume, pp. 6 f.; cf. Turner, CDIAL, no. 3245); kuḍmala-, kuṭmala- filled with buds, bud (epic, kāvya; Turner, CDIAL, no. 3250); Turner, CDIAL, no. 3249, *kuḍma- bud. (DEDR 2149)

    Clump:   3266 kuṇḍa3 n. ʻ clump ʼ e.g. darbha -- kuṇḍa -- Pāṇ. [← Drav. (Tam. koṇṭai ʻ tuft of hair ʼ, Kan. goṇḍe ʻ cluster ʼ, &c.) T. Burrow BSOAS xii 374]
    Pk. kuṁḍa -- n. ʻ heap of crushed sugarcane stalks ʼ; WPah. bhal. kunnū m. ʻ large heap of a mown crop ʼ; N. kunyũ ʻ large heap of grain or straw ʼ, baṛ -- kũṛo ʻ cluster of berries ʼ.
       3267 *kuṇḍaka ʻ husks, bran ʼ.
    Pa. kuṇḍaka -- m. ʻ red powder of rice husks ʼ; Pk. kuṁḍaga -- m. ʻ chaff ʼ; N. kũṛo ʻ boiled grain given as fodder to buffaloes ʼ, kunāuro ʻ husk of lentils ʼ (for ending cf. kusāuro ʻ chaff of mustard ʼ); B. kũṛā ʻ rice dust ʼ; Or. kuṇḍā ʻ rice bran ʼ; M. kũḍākõ˚ m. ʻ bran ʼ; Si. kuḍu ʻ powder of paddy &c. ʼ
    Addenda: kuṇḍaka -- in cmpd. kaṇa -- kuṇḍaka -- Arthaś.

    Ka. kunda a pillar of bricks, etc. Tu. kunda pillar, post. Te. kunda id. Malt. kunda block, log. ? Cf. Ta. kantu pillar, post. (DEDR 1723).
    Ta. kuntam haystack. Ka. kuttaṟi a stack, rick. (DEDR 1724)

    Hieroglyph: lathe Rebus: fine gold, treasure

    Ta. kuntaṉam interspace for setting gems in a jewel; fine gold (< Te.). Ka. kundaṇa setting a precious stone in fine gold; fine gold; kundana fine gold. Tu. kundaṇa pure gold. Te. kundanamu fine gold used in very thin foils in setting precious stones; setting precious stones with fine gold.(DEDR 1725)

    कुन्द a turner's lathe; one of कुबेर's nine treasures (N. of a गुह्यक Gal. )(Monier-Williams) 

    kundakara m. ʻ turner ʼ W. [Cf. *cundakāra -- : kunda -- 1, kará -- 1]A. kundār, B. kũdār˚ri, Or. kundāru; H. kũderā m. ʻ one who works a lathe, one who scrapes ʼ, ˚rī f., kũdernā ʻ to scrape, plane, round on a lathe ʼ.(CDIAL 3297)kunda1 m. ʻ a turner's lathe ʼ lex. [Cf. *cunda -- 1]N. kũdnu ʻ to shape smoothly, smoothe, carve, hew ʼ, kũduwā ʻ smoothly shaped ʼ; A. kund ʻ lathe ʼ, kundiba ʻ to turn and smooth in a lathe ʼ, kundowā ʻ smoothed and rounded ʼ; B. kũd ʻ lathe ʼ, kũdākõdā ʻ to turn in a lathe ʼ; Or. kū˘nda ʻ lathe ʼ, kũdibākū̃d˚ ʻ to turn ʼ (→ Drav. Kur. kū̃d ʻ lathe ʼ); Bi. kund ʻ brassfounder's lathe ʼ; H. kunnā ʻ to shape on a lathe ʼ, kuniyā m. ʻ turner ʼ, kunwā m. (CDIAL 3295) *cundakāra m. ʻ turner ʼ. [Cf. kundakara -- . -- *cunda -- 1, kāra -- 1]Pa. cundakāra -- m.; Ku. cunāro ʻ maker of wooden vessels ʼ, N. cunārocan˚cũdārocãd˚.(CDIAL 4862)
    Hieroglyph: pannier: खोंडा   khōṇḍā m A कांबळा of which one end is formed into a cowl or hood. 2 fig. A hollow amidst hills; a deep or a dark and retiring spot; a dell. 3 (also खोंडी & खोंडें) A variety of जोंधळा.  खोंडी   khōṇḍī f An outspread shovelform sack (as formed temporarily out of a कांबळा, to hold or fend off grain, chaff &c.) See under खुंडी. 2 A species or variety of जोंधळा.

    Hieroglyph: young bull:  खोंड   khōṇḍa m A young bull, a bullcalf. (Marathi) G. godhɔ m. ʻ bull ʼ, ˚dhũ n. ʻ young bull ʼ, OG. godhalu m. ʻ entire bull ʼ, G. godhliyũ n. ʻ young bull ʼ; -- or < *gōvardha -- . Both very doubtful.(CDIAL 4315)

     Te. kōḍiya, kōḍe young bull; adj. male (e.g. kōḍe dūḍa bull calf), young, youthful; kōḍekã̄ḍu a young man. Kol. (Haig) kōḍē bull. Nk.khoṛe male calf. Konḍa kōḍi cow; kōṛe young bullock. Pe. kōḍi cow. Manḍ. kūḍi id. Kui kōḍi id., ox. Kuwi (F.) kōdi cow; (S.) kajja kōḍi bull; (Su. P.) kōḍi cow. (DEDR 2199)

    Hieroglyph: horn: Ta. kōṭu (in cpds. kōṭṭu-) horn, tusk, branch of tree, cluster, bunch, coil of hair, line, diagram, bank of stream or pool; kuvaṭu branch of a tree; kōṭṭāṉ, kōṭṭuvāṉ rock horned-owl (cf. 1657 Ta. kuṭiñai). Ko. ko·ṛ (obl. ko·ṭ-) horns (one horn is kob), half of hair on each side of parting, side in game, log, section of bamboo used as fuel, line marked out. To. kwï·ṛ (obl. kwï·ṭ-) horn, branch, path across stream in thicket. Ka. kōḍuhorn, tusk, branch of a tree; kōr̤ horn. Tu. kōḍů, kōḍu horn. Te. kōḍu rivulet, branch of a river. Pa. kōḍ (pl. kōḍul) horn. Ga. (Oll.) kōr (pl.kōrgul) id. Go. (Tr.) kōr (obl. kōt-, pl. kōhk) horn of cattle or wild animals, branch of a tree; (W. Ph. A. Ch.) kōr (pl. kōhk), (S.) kōr (pl. kōhku), (Ma.) kōr̥u (pl. kōẖku) horn; (M.) kohk branch (Voc. 980); (LuS.) kogoo a horn. Kui kōju (pl. kōska) horn, antler. (DEDR 2200)

    Hieroglyph: tip: Ta. koṭi banner, flag, streamer; kōṭu summit of a hill, peak, mountain; kōṭai mountain; kōṭar peak, summit of a tower; kuvaṭumountain, hill, peak; kuṭumi summit of a mountain, top of a building, crown of the head, bird's crest, tuft of hair (esp. of men), crown, projecting corners on which a door swings. Ma. koṭi top, extremity, flag, banner, sprout; kōṭu end; kuvaṭu hill, mountain-top; kuṭuma, kuṭumma narrow point, bird's crest, pivot of door used as hinge, lock of hair worn as caste distinction; koṭṭu head of a bone. Ko. koṛy flag on temple; koṭ top tuft of hair (of Kota boy, brahman), crest of bird; kuṭ clitoris. To. kwïṭ tip, nipple, child's back lock of hair. Ka. kuḍi pointed end, point, extreme tip of a creeper, sprout, end, top, flag, banner; guḍi point, flag, banner; kuḍilu sprout, shoot; kōḍu a point, the peak or top of a hill; koṭṭu a point, nipple, crest, gold ornament worn by women in their plaited hair; koṭṭa state of being extreme; koṭṭa-kone the extreme point; (Hav.) koḍi sprout; Koḍ. koḍi top (of mountain, tree, rock, table), rim of pit or tank, flag. Tu. koḍi point, end, extremity, sprout, flag; koḍipuni to bud, germinate; (B-K.) koḍipu, koḍipelů a sprout; koḍirè the top-leaf; koṭṭu cock's comb, peacock's tuft. Te. koḍi tip, top, end or point of a flame; koṭṭa-kona the very end or extremity. Kol. (Kin.) koṛi point. Pa. kūṭor cock's comb. Go. (Tr.) koḍḍī tender tip or shoot of a plant or tree; koḍḍi (S.) end, tip, (Mu.) tip of bow; (A.) koḍi point (Voc. 891). Malt. qoṛg̣o comb of a cock; ? qóru the end, the top (as of a tree)(DEDR 2049)

    1652 Ta. kuṭar, kuṭal, kuṭalai bowels, intestines, entrails. Ma. kuṭar, kuṭal bowels, placenta, prolapsus ani, etc. Ko. koṛṇ small intestines. To. kwïṛ id. Go. (Tr.) kuṉḍalī a stomach of ruminants (Voc. 740).

    Hieroglyph: pincers:Ta. koṭiṟu pincers. Ma. koṭil tongs. Ko. koṛ hook of tongs. / Cf. Skt. (P. 4.4.18) kuṭilikā- smith's tongs.(DEDR 2052) Semantic expansion: Ta. koṭicci jaws; koṭiṟu, koṭuppu cheek, jaw. Ma. koṭiñña temples. Tu. koḍeñji the inside of the cheeks. Kuwi (F.) kūdṛū, (Isr.) kūḍrujaw (of human beings). (DEDR 2051)

     Hieroglyph: monkey: Ta. kōṭaram monkey. Ir. kōḍa (small) monkey; kūḍag monkey. Ko. ko·ṛṇ small monkey. To. kwï·ṛṇ monkey. Ka. kōḍaga monkey, ape. Koḍ. ko·ḍë monkey. Tu. koḍañji, koḍañja, koḍaṅgů baboon. (DEDR 2196)

    The following examples are of 8 copper tablets recovered in Harappa by HARP project. A third glyph on these tablets is an oval sign -- like a metal ingot -- and is ligatured with an infixed sloping stroke: ḍhāḷiyum = adj. sloping, inclining (G.) The ligatured glyph is read rebus as: ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (G.) ḍhālakī = a metal heated and poured into a mould; a solid piece of metal; an ingot (G.) The inscription on these tablets is in bas-relief:

    Copper tablet (H2000-4498/9889-01) with raised script found in Trench 43. Slide 351

    Copper tablets with Indus script in bas-relief, Harappa. The three glyphs on the ingots are read in sequence: ḍhālako kasērā kaṇḍa kanka 'metal ingot, metal work, furnace scribe'. 

     Sign 48 is a 'backbone, spine' hieroglyph: barao = spine; backbone (Tulu) Rebus: baran, bharat ‘mixed alloys’ (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi) Tir. mar -- kaṇḍḗ ʻ back (of the body) ʼ; S. kaṇḍm. ʻ back ʼ, L. kaṇḍ f., kaṇḍā m. ʻ backbone ʼ, awākaṇḍ, °ī ʻ back ʼH. ̄ā m. ʻ spine ʼ, G. ̄ɔ m., M. ̄ā m.; Pk. kaṁḍa -- m. ʻ backbone ʼ.(CDIAL 2670) Rebus: kaṇḍ ‘fire-altar’ (Santali) bharatiyo = a caster of metals; a brazier; bharatar, bharatal, bharata = moulded; an article made in a mould; bharata = casting metals in moulds; bharavum = to fill in; to put in; to pour into (Gujarati) bhart = a mixed metal of copper and lead; bhartīyā = a brazier, worker in metal; bha, bhrāṣṭra = oven, furnace (Sanskrit. )baran, bharat ‘mixed alloys’ (5 copper, 4 zinc and 1 tin) (Punjabi)

    This is a professional calling card of the artisan engaged in metal work.

    Longest inscription m0314 of Indus Script Corpora is catalogue of a guild-master. The guild master is signified by Indus Script hypertext 'squirrel' hieroglyph 'khāra, šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄' Rebus: plaintext: khār 'blacksmith'.

    Text 1400 m0314
    m0314 (17 signs, 3 lines) This seal details the functions of śrḗṣṭha 'guild-master': moltencast copper, unsmelted metal alloy, metal alloy mint, metal alloy implements, carpenter tools, furnace ingots (for) smithy/forge, supercargo (scribe, account), smithy/forge ingots, gold-braid, laterite ferrite ore, mint, bronze smithy/forge. śrḗṣṭha 'guild-master'.
    Line 1:eraka 'knave of wheel' rebus: erako 'moltencast, copper' arA 'spokes' rebus: Ara 'brass' PLUS sal'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'Line 1: Fish + lid: aya dhakka,Rebus: aya dhakka 'bright iron/alloy metal'. Alterntive: aḍaren ‘cover of pot or lid’ Rebus: aduru ‘native, unsmelted metal’ PLUS ayo 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas'metal alloy'Fish + fin:  aya khambhaṛā rebus: aya kammaṭa 'alloy metal mint, coiner, coinage'
    Fish + sloping stroke, aya dhāḷ ‘metal ingot’ (Vikalpa: ḍhāḷ = a slope; the inclination of a plane (G.) Rebus: : ḍhāḷako = a large metal ingot (G.)
    ayo 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal alloy' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish-fin' (Lahnda CDIAL 13640) Ta. kampaṭṭam, kammaTa 'mint, coiner, coinage'
     Rebus: kāṇḍa 'tools, pots and pans and metalware' (Marathi) ayo 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal alloy' PLUS  खााडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon)(Marathi). Rebus: kāṇḍa 'tools, pots and pans and metalware' (Marathi)
    Thus, line 1 reads from l. to r.: bright iron/alloy metal, alloy metal mint, large metal ingot (ox-hide)Line 2:

    Hieroglyph: adze: Phal. tērc̣hi ʻ adze ʼ (with "intrusive" r). ... clip, peel ʼ; Bhoj. cã̄chal ʻ to smoothe with an adze ʼ; H.cã̄chnā ʻ to scrape up’ Rebus: takṣa in cmpd. ʻ cutting ʼ, m. ʻ carpenter ʼ VarBr̥S. PLUS sal 'spinter' rebus: sal'workshop' PLUS gaṇḍa 'four' rebus:  kāṇḍa 'tools, pots and pans and metalware'. Thus, together, the hypertext reads: takṣa sal kāṇḍa 'carpenter workshop implements'.muka ‘ladle’ mũhe ‘ingot’ (Santali) PLUS baṭa ‘rimless pot’ Rebus: Rebus: baṭa ‘iron’ (Gujarati) bhaṭa ‘furnace’ baṭa = kiln (Santali).dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metal casting' PLUS kolmo 'rice plant' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'. Thus, metal casting forge.kanka, karṇaka 'rim of jar' rebus: karṇi 'supercargo, scribe, account'Alternative reading:
    मेंढा [ mēṇḍhā ] A crook or curved end (of a stick, horn &c.) and attrib. such a stick, horn, bullock. मेढा [ mēḍhā ] m A stake, esp. as forked. Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) The circumscript is composed of four 'splinters': gaNDa 'four' rebus: kaNDa 'implements', kanda 'fire-altar' PLUS sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'. Thus, this hieroglyph-multiplex or hypertext signifies: iron implements workshop.

    S. baṭhu m. ‘large pot in which grain is parched, Rebus; bhaṭṭhā m. ‘kiln’ (P.) baṭa = a kind of iron (G.) Vikalpa: meṛgo = rimless vessels (Santali) bhaṭa ‘furnace’ (G.) baṭa = kiln (Santali); baṭa = a kind of iron (G.) bhaṭṭha -- m.n. ʻ gridiron (Pkt.) baṭhu large cooking fire’ baṭhī f. ‘distilling furnace’; L. bhaṭṭh m. ‘grain—parcher's oven’, bhaṭṭhī f. ‘kiln, distillery’, awāṇ. bhaṭh; P. bhaṭṭh m., ṭhī f. ‘furnace’, bhaṭṭhā m. ‘kiln’; S. bhaṭṭhī keṇī ‘distil (spirits)’. (CDIAL 9656) Rebus: meḍ iron (Ho.) PLUS  muka 'ladle' rebus; mū̃h 'ingot', quantity of metal got out of a smelter furnace (Santali).Thus, this hieroglyph-multiplex (hypertext) signifies: iron ingot.

    kolmo 'rice plant' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metalcasting'. Thus, metalcasting smithy/forge.

    kanka, karṇaka 'rim of jar' rebus: karṇī 'supercargo', 'engraver, scribe, account'

    Thus line 2 signifies metal products -- iron ingots, metalcastings (of smithy/forge iron metals workshop) handed over to scribe (engraver), Supercargo, (a representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible for overseeing the cargo and its sale).
    Line 3:kolom 'three' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'mū̃he 'ingot' (Santali). PLUA*gōṭṭa ʻ something round ʼ. [Cf. guḍá -- 1. -- In sense ʻ fruit, kernel ʼ cert. ← Drav., cf. Tam. koṭṭai ʻ nut, kernel ʼ, Kan. goṟaṭe &c. listed DED 1722]K. goṭh f., dat. °ṭi f. ʻ chequer or chess or dice board ʼ; S. g̠oṭu m. ʻ large ball of tobacco ready for hookah ʼ, °ṭī f. ʻ small do. ʼ; P. goṭ f. ʻ spool on which gold or silver wire is wound, piece on a chequer board ʼ; N. goṭo ʻ piece ʼ, goṭi ʻ chess piece ʼ; A. goṭ ʻ a fruit, whole piece ʼ, °ṭā ʻ globular, solid ʼ, guṭi ʻ small ball, seed, kernel ʼ; B. goṭā ʻ seed, bean, whole ʼ; Or. goṭā ʻ whole, undivided ʼ, goṭi ʻ small ball, cocoon ʼ, goṭāli ʻ small round piece of chalk ʼ; Bi. goṭā ʻ seed ʼ; Mth. goṭa ʻ numerative particle ʼ; H. goṭ f. ʻ piece (at chess &c.) ʼ; G. goṭ m. ʻ cloud of smoke ʼ, °ṭɔ m. ʻ kernel of coconut, nosegay ʼ, °ṭī f. ʻ lump of silver, clot of blood ʼ, °ṭilɔ m. ʻ hard ball of cloth ʼ; M. goṭā m. ʻ roundish stone ʼ, °ṭī f. ʻ a marble ʼ, goṭuḷā ʻ spherical ʼ; Si. guṭiya ʻ lump, ball ʼ; -- prob. also P. goṭṭā ʻ gold or silver lace ʼ, H. goṭā m. ʻ edging of such ʼ (→ K. goṭa m. ʻ edging of gold braid ʼ, S. goṭo m. ʻ gold or silver lace ʼ); M. goṭ ʻ hem of a garment, metal wristlet ʼ.Addenda: *gōṭṭa -- : also Ko. gōṭu ʻ silver or gold braid ʼ.(CDIAL 4271)Rebus 1: gota (laterite, ferrite ore) Rebus 2: goṭā 'gold-braid'.
     dhā̆vaḍ 'smelter' Sign 180 Hieroglyph: tántu m. ʻ thread, warp ʼ RV. [√tanPa. tantu -- m. ʻ thread, cord ʼ, Pk. taṁtu -- m.; Kho. (Lor.) ton ʻ warp ʼ < *tand (whence tandeni ʻ thread between wings of spinning wheel ʼ); S. tandu f. ʻ gold or silver thread ʼ; L. tand (pl. °dũ) f. ʻ yarn, thread being spun, string of the tongue ʼ; P. tand m. ʻ thread ʼ, tanduā°dūā m. ʻ string of the tongue, frenum of glans penis ʼ; A. tã̄t ʻ warp in the loom, cloth being woven ʼ; B. tã̄t ʻ cord ʼ; M. tã̄tū m. ʻ thread ʼ; Si. tatu°ta ʻ string of a lute ʼ; -- with -- o, -- ā to retain orig. gender: S. tando m. ʻ cord, twine, strand of rope ʼ; N. tã̄do ʻ bowstring ʼ; H. tã̄tā m. ʻ series, line ʼ; G. tã̄tɔ m. ʻ thread ʼ; -- OG. tāṁtaṇaü m. ʻ thread ʼ < *tāṁtaḍaü, G.tã̄tṇɔ m.(CDIAL 5661) Rebus: M. dhāūdhāv 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); dhāˊtu n. ʻ substance ʼ RV., m. ʻ element ʼ MBh., ʻ metal, mineral, ore (esp. of a red colour) ʼ; Pk. dhāu -- m. ʻ metal, red chalk ʼ; N. dhāu ʻ ore (esp. of copper) ʼ; Or. ḍhāu ʻ red chalk, red ochre ʼ (whence ḍhāuā ʻ reddish ʼ; (CDIAL 6773) धातु  primary element of the earth i.e. metal , mineral, ore (esp. a mineral of a red colour) Mn. MBh. &c element of words i.e. grammatical or verbal root or stem Nir. Pra1t. MBh. &c (with the southern Buddhists धातु means either the 6 elements [see above] Dharmas. xxv ; or the 18 elementary spheres [धातु-लोक] ib. lviii ; or the ashes of the body , relics L. [cf. -गर्भ]) (Monier-Williams. Samskritam). 

    Sign 342 PLUS notch: 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) karNI 'supercargo' (Marathi) karNaka 'helmsman' PLUS  खााडा [ kāṇḍā ] 'A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon)' Rebus: kaNDa 'implements' (Santali). 
    Sign 180 Signs 180, 181 have variants. Warp-pegs kor.i = pegs in the ground in two rooms on which the thread is passed back and forth in preparing the warp (S.) cf. semantic expansion in: Ta. kōṭi newly purchased cloth; kōṭikam cloth; kōṭikar weaver. Ma. kōṭi new unbleached cloth, shroud for burying. Kuwi (Isr.) kōṛi loincloth.(DEDR 2198) Rebus: Ka. kora-muṭṭu tool, instrument (muṭṭu id.). Te. koṟa use, profit; useful, profitable; koṟa-muṭṭu tool, instrument. (DEDR 2161)Rebus: 2206 Ta. kōṭṭi pleasantry, joke, mimicry, grotesque gestures; kōṇaṅki clown in a play. Ma. kōṭṭi, gōṣṭhi grimaces, pranks; kōṭaṅki buffoon, harlequin. Ka. kōḍaṅgi id. Tu. koḍaṅgye id. Te. kōṇaṅgi buffoon; kōḍigamu, kōḍī ridicule; kōḍigī˜ḍu one who ridicules. / The kōṭṭi forms may be from Skt.    2207 (a) Ta. kōṭṭai fort, castle; kōṭu stronghold. Ma. kōṭṭa fort, residence; kōṭu fort. Ko. ko·ṭ castle, palatial mansion. To. kwa·ṭ bungalow. Ka.kōṭe fort, rampart; (PBh.) kōṇṭe fort. Koḍ. ko·ṭe palace. Tu. kōṭè fort. Te. kōṭa, (Inscr.) koṭṭamu id. Kuwi (S.) kōṭa palace, fort. / Cf. Skt. koṭṭa-, koṭa- fort, stronghold.    2207 (a) Ta. kōṭṭai fort, castle; kōṭu stronghold. Ma. kōṭṭa fort, residence; kōṭu fort. Ko. ko·ṭ castle, palatial mansion. To. kwa·ṭ bungalow. Ka.kōṭe fort, rampart; (PBh.) kōṇṭe fort. Koḍ. ko·ṭe palace. Tu. kōṭè fort. Te. kōṭa, (Inscr.) koṭṭamu id. Kuwi (S.) kōṭa palace, fort. / Cf. Skt. koṭṭa-, koṭa- fort, stronghold. (b) Ko. go·ṛ (obl. go·ṭ-) wall. Ka. gōḍe id. Tu. gōḍè id. Te. gōḍa id. Kol. (SR.) goḍā id. Kuwi (S.) kōḍa wall, prison; (Isr.) kōḍa wall. (DEDR 2206 to 2207) कोठ   kōṭha m (कोट्ट S) A fort: also a castle. 2 The wall of a fort. (Marathi)
       कोंड   kōṇḍa m C A circular hedge or field-fence. 2 A circle described around a person under adjuration. 3 The circle at marbles. 4 A circular hamlet; a division of a मौजा or village, composed generally of the huts of one caste. 5 Grounds under one occupancy or tenancy. 6 f R A deep part of a river. 7 f (Or कोंडी q. v.) A confined place gen.; a lock-up house &c.

       कोंडण   kōṇḍaṇa f A fold or pen. कोंडवाड   kōṇḍavāḍa n f C (कोंडणें & वाडा) A pen or fold for cattle.कोंडी   kōṇḍī f (कोंडणें) A confined place gen.; a lockup house, a pen, fold, pound; a receiving apartment or court for Bráhmans gathering for दक्षिणा; a prison at the play of आट्यापाट्या; a dammed up part of a stream &c. &c.

    Semantic determinant hypertext: Ka. gōṭu border or hem of a garment; fringe, edging, trimming. Tu.gōṭu embroidery, lace. Te. gō̃ṭu an ornamental appendage to the border of a cloth, fringe' Rebus 1:gota (laterite, ferrite ore) Rebus 2: goṭā 'gold-braid'.Rebus 3: 4279 gōtrá n. ʻ cowpen, enclosure ʼ RV., ʻ family, clan ʼ ChUp., gōtrā -- f. ʻ herd of cows ʼ Pāṇ. 2. gōtraka -- n. ʻ family ʼ Yājñ. [gṓ -- ]1. Pa. gotta -- n. ʻ clan ʼ, Pk. gotta -- , gutta -- , amg. gōya -- n.; Gau.  ʻ house ʼ (in Kaf. and Dard. several other words for ʻ cowpen ʼ > ʻ house ʼ: *gōśrayaṇa -- , gōṣṭhá -- , *gōstha -- (?), ghōṣa -- ); Pr. gūˊṭu ʻ cow ʼ; S. g̠oṭru m. ʻ parentage ʼ, L. got f. ʻ clan ʼ, P. gotar, got f.; Ku. N. got ʻ family ʼ; A. got -- nāti ʻ relatives ʼ; B. got ʻ clan ʼ; Or. gota ʻ family, relative ʼ; Bhoj. H. got m. ʻ family, clan ʼ, G. got n.; M. got ʻ clan, relatives ʼ; -- Si. gota ʻ clan, family ʼ ← Pa.2. B. H. gotā m. ʻ relative ʼ.gōtrin -- ; sagōtra -- , *sāgōtriya -- ; *gōtragharaka -- ; mātr̥gōtra -- , *mātr̥ṣvasr̥gōtra -- .Addenda: gōtrá -- : Garh. got ʻ clan ʼ; -- A. goṭāiba ʻ to collect ʼ AFD 336.   4280 *gōtragharaka ʻ cowshed ʼ. [gōtrá -- , ghara -- ]OG. gotiharauṁ n. ʻ cowpen ʼ.   4281 gōtrin m. ʻ relative ʼ Vet., gōtrika -- ʻ relating to a family ʼ Jain. [gōtrá -- ]Pk. gotti -- , ˚ia -- , guttiya -- m. ʻ kinsman ʼ; S. g̠oṭrī ʻ related ʼ, P. gotī; N. goti, gotiyā bhai ʻ kinsman ʼ, Or. goti; H. gotī ʻ belonging to the same clan ʼ, G. gotrī, M. gotī; -- N. goyā, guĩyā bhai ʻ very close friend ʼ, H. goiyã̄, guiyā m.f. ʻ companion ʼ (cf. Pk. amg. gōya -- < gōtrá -- )? (CDIAL 4279 to 4281)

    kamāṭhiyo 'archer' Indus Script copper tablet hieroglyph to signify kammaṭa 'coiner, mint'.a 'coiner, mint'..kolmo 'rice plant' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'.kana, kanac 'corner' Rebus: kañcu = bronze (Telugu)
    Long Indus Script inscription compares with Nindowari0-damb seal 01 which also shows 'squirrel'šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻflying squirrelʼ,'guild master'.

    kanac 'corner' rebus: kañcu 'bronze' 

    मेंढा [ mēṇḍhā ] A crook or curved end (of a stick, horn &c.) and attrib. such a stick, horn, bullock. मेढा [ mēḍhā ] m A stake, esp. as forked. Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) The circumscript is composed of four 'splinters': gaNDa 'four' rebus: kaNDa 'implements', kanda 'fire-altar' 

    खााडा [ kāṇḍā ] 'A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon)' Rebus: kaNDa 'implements' (Santali).

    kole.l 'temple' rebus: kole.l 'smithy, forge'

    kolmo 'rice plant' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' PLUS dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'metalcasting'. Thus, metalcasting smithy/forge.

    kanka, karNaka 'rim of jar' rebus: karNI 'supercargo', 'engraver, scribe, account'

    Hieroglyph: 8 short strokes: gaNDa 'four' rebus: kaNDa 'implements'PLUS sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'. Thus, this hieroglyph-multiplex or hypertext signifies: iron implements workshop.
    *śrēṣṭrīʻ clinger ʼ. [√śriṣ1]Phal. šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻ flying squirrel ʼ?(CDIAL 12723) Rebus: śrḗṣṭhaʻ 'guild master'. Indian palm squirrel, Funambulus Palmarum

    śrḗṣṭha ʻ most splendid, best ʼ RV. [śrīˊ -- ] Pa. seṭṭha -- ʻ best ʼ, Aś.shah. man. sreṭha -- , gir. sesṭa -- , kāl. seṭha -- , Dhp. śeṭha -- , Pk. seṭṭha -- , siṭṭha -- ; N. seṭh ʻ great, noble, superior ʼ; Or. seṭha ʻ chief, principal ʼ; Si. seṭa, °ṭu ʻ noble, excellent ʼ.śrēṣṭhin m. ʻ distinguished man ʼ AitBr., ʻ foreman of a guild ʼ, °nī -- f. ʻ his wife ʼ Hariv. [śrḗṣṭha -- ]Pa. seṭṭhin -- m. ʻ guild -- master ʼ, Dhp. śeṭhi, Pk. seṭṭhi -- , siṭṭhi -- m., °iṇī -- f.; S. seṭhi m. ʻ wholesale merchant ʼ; P. seṭh m. ʻ head of a guild, banker ʼ,seṭhaṇ°ṇī f.; Ku.gng. śēṭh ʻ rich man ʼ; N. seṭh ʻ banker ʼ; B. seṭh ʻ head of a guild, merchant ʼ; Or. seṭhi ʻ caste of washermen ʼ; Bhoj. Aw.lakh. sēṭhi ʻ merchant, banker ʼ, H. seṭh m., °ṭhan f.; G. śeṭhśeṭhiyɔ m. ʻ wholesale merchant, employer, master ʼ; M. śeṭh°ṭhīśeṭ°ṭī m. ʻ respectful term for banker or merchant ʼ; Si. siṭuhi° ʻ banker, nobleman ʼ H. Smith JA 1950, 208 (or < śiṣṭá -- 2?)(CDIAL 12725, 12726)
    An alternative reading for 'squirrel' hieroglyph is also suggested:

    Vikalpa: tuttha 'squirrel' Rebus: tuttha 'pewter, zinc alloy'.

    Note on tuttha

    तुत्थ tuttha [p= 450,2] n. (m. L. ) blue vitriol (used as an eye-ointment) Sus3r.; fire;

    n. a rock Un2. k. (Monier-Williams) upadhātuउपधातुः An inferior metal, semi-metal. 

    They are seven; सप्तोपधातवःस्वर्णंमाक्षिकंतारमाक्षिकम् तुत्थं कांस्यंरातिश्चसुन्दूरंशिलाजतु

    (Apte. Samskritam) Ta. turu rust, verdigris, flaw; turucu, turuci blue vitriol, spot, dirt, 
    blemish, stain, defect, rust; turicu fault, crime, sorrow, affliction, perversity, blue vitriol; 
    tukku, tuppu rust. Ma. turiśu blue vitriol; turumpu, turuvu rust. Ka. tukku rust of iron; 
    tutta, tuttu, tutte blue vitriol. Tu. tukků rust; mair(ů)suttu, (Eng.-Tu. Dict.
    mairůtuttu blue vitriol. Te. t(r)uppu rust; (SAN) trukku id., verdigris. / 
    Cf. Skt.tuttha- blue vitriol; Turner, CDIAL, no. 5855 (DEDR 3343). 
    tutthá n. (m. lex.), tutthaka -- n. ʻ blue vitriol (used as an eye ointment) ʼ
    Suśr., tūtaka -- lex. 2. *thōttha -- 4. 3. *tūtta -- . 4. *tōtta -- 2
    [Prob.  Drav. T. Burrow BSOAS xii 381; cf. dhūrta -- 2 n. ʻ iron filings ʼ lex.]
    1. N. tutho ʻ blue vitriol or sulphate of copper ʼ, B. tuth.2. K. thŏth, dat. °thas m., 
    P. thothā m.3. S. tūtio m., A. tutiyā, B. tũte, Or. tutiā, H. tūtātūtiyā m., M. tutiyā m.
    4. M. totā m.(CDIAL 5855) तुतिया [ tutiyā ] m ( H) Blue vitriol, sulphate of copper.
    तुत्या [ tutyā ] m An implement of the goldsmith.तोता [ tōtā ] m ( H) (Properly तुतिया) 
    Blue vitriol.(Marathi) <taTia>(M),,<tatia>(P)  {N} ``metal ^cup, ^frying_^pan''.  
    *Ho<cele>, H.<kARahi>, Sa.<tutiA> `blue vitriol, bluestone, sulphate of copper',
    H.<tutIya>.  %31451.  #31231. Ju<taTia>(M),,<tatia>(P)  {N} ``metal ^cup, 
    ^frying_^pan''.  *Ho<cele>, H.<kARahi>,Sa.<tutiA> `blue vitriol, bluestone, 
    sulphate of copper', (Munda etyma) توتیا totī-yā, s.f. (6th) Tutty, protoxyd of zinc. (E.) 
    Sing. and Pl.); (W.) 
    Pl. توتیاوي totīʿāwīنیل توتیا nīl totī-yā, s.f. (6th) Blue vitriol, sulphate of copper. سبز توتیا sabz totī-yā, s.f. (6th) Green vitriol, or sulphate of iron.(Pashto)
    thŏth 1 थ्वथ् । कण्टकः, अन्तरायः, निरोध, शिरोवेष्टनवस्त्रम् m. (sg. dat. thŏthas थ्वथस्), blue vitriol, 
    sulphate of copper (cf. nīla-tho, p. 634a, l. 26)(Kashmiri)

    Lexis for squirrel

    tuttūḍ "squirrel' (Sora) Rebus: tuth 'blue vitriol or sulphate of copper'(Bengali) తుత్తినాగము [ tuttināgamu ] tutti-nāgamu. [Chinese.] n. Pewter. Zinc. లోహవిశేషము (Telugu)

    tsāni, tsānye ‘squirrel’ (Kon.) caṇila squirrel (To.); Vikalpa: sega ‘a species of squirrel’ (Santali) rebus: śannī a small workshop (WPah) śannī f. ʻ small room in a house to keep sheep in ‘ (WPah.) Bshk. šan, Phal.šān ‘roof’ (Bshk.)(CDIAL 12326). seṇi (f.) [Class. Sk. śreṇi in meaning "guild"; Vedic= row] Woṭ. šen ʻ roof ʼ, Bshk. šan, Phal. šān(AO xviii 251, followed by Buddruss Woṭ 126, < śar(a)ṇa -- ); WPah. (Joshi) śannī f. ʻ small room in a house to keep sheep in ʼ. Addenda: śaraṇá -- 2. 2. *śarṇa --WPah. kṭg.śɔ́nni f. ʻ bottom storey of a house in which young of cattle are kept ʼ. śaraṇá ʻ protecting ʼ, n. ʻ shelter, home ʼ RV. 2. *śarṇa -- . [√śar] 1. Pa. Pk. saraṇa -- n. ʻ protection, shelter, house ʼ; Ḍ. šərṓn m. ʻ roof ʼ (← Sh.?), Dm. šaran; P. saraṇ m. ʻ protection, asylum ʼ, H. saran f.; G. sarṇũ n. ʻ help ʼ; Si.saraṇa ʻ defence, village, town ʼ; -- < *śarāṇa -- or poss. *śāraṇa -- : Kho. šarān ʻ courtyard of a house ʼ, Sh. šarāṇŭ m. ʻ fence ʼ. (CDIAL 12326)

    Note: -ūsuffix in Sora gloss tuttūfinds expression in the following etyma:
    றுத்தை uṟuttai, n. [T. uṟuta, K. uḍute.] Squirrel; அணில். (W.)
    Ta. uukku (uukki-) to jump, leap over; uuttai squirrel. Te. uu to retreat, retire, withdraw; 
    uuku to jump, run away; uuta squirrel. Kona uRk- to run away. Kuwi (Isr.) urk- (-it-) to dance.(DEDR 713) 
    Ka. uute squirrel. Te. uuta id.(DEDR 590) 
    Ta. uruku (uruki-) to dissolve (intr.) with heat, melt, liquefy, be fused, become tender, melt (as the heart), be kind, glow with love, be emaciated; urukku (urukki-) to melt (tr.) with heat (as metals or congealed substances), dissolve, liquefy, fuse, soften (as feelings), reduce, emaciate (as the body), destroy; n. steel, anything melted, product of liquefaction; urukkam melting of heart, tenderness, compassion, love (as to a deity, friend, or child); urukkiṉam that which facilitates the fusion of metals (as borax). Ma. urukuka to melt, dissolve, be softened; urukkuka to melt (tr.); urukkam melting, anguish; urukku what is melted, fused metal, steel. Ko. uk steel. Ka. urku, ukku id. Koḍ. ur- (uri-) to melt (intr.); urïk- (urïki-) id. (tr.); ukkï steel. Te. ukku id. Go. (Mu.) urī-, (Ko.) uṛi- to be melted, dissolved; tr. (Mu.) urih-/urh- (Voc. 262). Konḍa (BB) rūg- to melt, dissolve. Kui ūra (ūri-) to be dissolved; pl. action ūrka (ūrki-); rūga (rūgi-) to be dissolved. Kuwi (Ṭ.) rūy- to be dissolved; (S.) rūkhnai to smelt; (Isr.) uku, (S.) ukku steel. (DEDR 661)  Te. uḍuku to boil, seethe, bubble with heat, simmer; n. heat, boiling; uḍikincu, uḍikilu, uḍikillu to boil (tr.), cook. Go. (Koya Su.) uḍk ēru hot water. Kuwi (S.) uḍku heat. Kur. uṛturnā to be agitated by the action of heat, boil, be boiled or cooked; be tired up to excitement. Ta. (Keikádi dialect; Hislop, Papers relating to the Aboriginal Tribes of the Central Provinces, Part II, p. 19) udku (presumably uḍku) hot (< Te.) (DEDR 588)
    tuttū "squirrel' (Sora):So. tuttUD(R)  ~ tuttum(R) `squirrel'. Sa. toR `a squirrel (%Sciurus_tristiatus, %Sciurus_palmarum)'.Mu. tuRu `a squirrel (%Sciurus_tristiatus, %Sciurus_palmarum)'.Ho tu `a squirrel (%Sciurus_tristiatus, %Sciurus_palmarum)'.Bh. tuR `a squirrel (%Sciurus_tristiatus, %Sciurus_palmarum)'.KW tu`Ru`Ku. tur `a squirrel (%Sciurus_tristiatus, %Sciurus_palmarum)'.@(V243,M072)(Munda etyma) tarukuTi 'squirrel' (Kannada)
    The glosses 1. खार [ khāraA squirrel, Sciurus palmarum. खारी [ khārī ] (Usually खार) 
    A squirrel. (Marathi) and 2. urukku 'to jump, leap over'finds a parallel in Proto-Mon-khmer See: Thai kra-rook:
    412 *prɔɔk squirrel.A: (Bahnaric, Khmuic, Palaungic, Viet-Mương, North & Central Aslian). Sre pro (→ Stieng prɔh?), 
    Chrauprɔːʔ, Biat, Bahnar prɔːk, Jeh proːk (GRADIN & GRADIN 1979), Kammu-Yuan prɔːk, Palaung [ə]prɔʔ(MILNE 1931), 
    Vietnamese [con] sóc, Sakai prōkn (i.e. Semai; SKEAT & BLAGDEN 1906 M 136 (c)); →Lao, Ahom *rook (BENEDICT 1975 226, bat…); 
    Cham, Jarai prɔːʔ, Röglai proʔ, North Röglai proːʔ.Cf. Khmer kɔmprok, apparently < *koːn prɔːk, for which 
    cf. Vietnamese; → Thai krarɔ̂ɔk (with kr- by hypercorrection) at early stage.
    Sidwell, Paul, Proto-Mon-khmer vocalism: moving on from short's 'alternances'.

    The sequence of hieroglyphsSquirrel + Sign 403 signifies two professional responsibilities/functions  1. khār  'blacksmith'; 2. seṭhi ʻwholesale merchant' (Sindhi).

    A homonymous hieroglyph or allograph: arms with bangles: 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 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'.with inscription.

    Thus, two readings are possible for the 'squirrel' hieroglyph: khār  'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) and/or seṭhi ʻwholesale merchant' (Sindhi) orśrēṣṭhin 'guild master' (Aitareya Brāhmaṇa)

    Hieroglyph: squirrel (phonetic determinant): खार [ khāra ] A squirrel, Sciurus palmarum. खारी [ khārī ] (Usually खार) A squirrel. (Marathi) 

    kolmo ‘three’ (Mu.); rebus: kolami ‘smithy’ (Telugu)

    A. goṭ ‘a fruit, whole piece’, °ṭā ‘globular, solid’, guṭi ‘small ball, seed, kernel’; B. goṭā ‘seed, bean, whole’; Or. goṭā ‘whole, undivided’, goṭi ‘small ball, cocoon’, goṭāli ‘small round piece of chalk’; Bi. goṭā ‘seed’; Mth. goṭa ‘numerative particle’ (CDIAL 4271) Rebus: koṭe ‘forging (metal)(Mu.) Rebus: goṭī f. ʻlump of silver' (G.) PLUS infix of sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop'. Thus, the hieroglyph-multiplex or hypertext signifies: forged silver workshop.

    धातु [p= 513,3] m. layer , stratum Ka1tyS3r. Kaus3. constituent part , ingredient (esp. [ and in RV. only] ifc. , where often = " fold " e.g. त्रि-ध्/आतु , threefold &c cf.त्रिविष्टि- , सप्त- , सु-RV. TS. S3Br. &c (Monier-Williams) dhāˊtu  *strand of rope ʼ (cf. tridhāˊtu -- ʻ threefold ʼ RV., ayugdhātu -- ʻ having an uneven number of strands ʼ KātyŚr.).; S. dhāī f. ʻ wisp of fibres added from time to time to a rope that is being twisted ʼ, L. dhāī˜ f.(CDIAL 6773)

    Rebus: M. dhāūdhāv 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); dhāˊtu n. ʻ substance ʼ RV., m. ʻ element ʼ MBh., ʻ metal, mineral, ore (esp. of a red colour) ʼ; Pk. dhāu -- m. ʻ metal, red chalk ʼ; N. dhāu ʻ ore (esp. of copper) ʼ; Or. ḍhāu ʻ red chalk, red ochre ʼ (whence ḍhāuā ʻ reddish ʼ; (CDIAL 6773) धातु  primary element of the earth i.e. metal , mineral, ore (esp. a mineral of a red colour) Mn. MBh. &c element of words i.e. grammatical or verbal root or stem Nir. Pra1t. MBh. &c (with the southern Buddhists धातु means either the 6 elements [see above] Dharmas. xxv ; or the 18 elementary spheres [धातु-लोक] ib. lviii ; or the ashes of the body , relics L. [cf. -गर्भ]) (Monier-Williams. Samskritam)

    Thus, this hieroglyph signifies three types of ferrite ore: magnetite, hematite and laterite (poLa, bicha, goTa). Vikalpa: Ko. gōṭu ʻ silver or gold braid ʼ.(CDIAL 4271) Rebus: goṭī f. ʻlump of silver' (G.)

    Hieroglyph: Archer with bow and arrow on one hand:  kamāṭhiyo = archer; kāmaṭhum = a bow; kāmaḍ, kāmaḍum = a chip of bamboo (G.) kāmaṭhiyo a bowman; an archer (Skt.lex.) Rebus: kammaṭi a coiner (Ka.); kampaṭṭam coinage, coin, mint (Ta.) kammaṭa = mint, gold furnace (Te.)

    kolom 'rice plant' rebus:kolimi 'smithy, forge'.

    kanac 'corner' rebus: kañcu 'bronze' Vikalpa: (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).

    Hieroglyph: squirrel:  *śrēṣṭrī1 ʻ clinger ʼ. [√śriṣ1]Phal. šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻ flying squirrel ʼ?(CDIAL 12723) Rebus: guild master khāra, 'squirrel', rebus: khār खार् 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri)*śrēṣṭrī1 ʻ clinger ʼ. [√śriṣ1] Phal. šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻ flying squirrel ʼ? (CDIAL 12723) Rebus: śrēṣṭhin m. ʻ distinguished man ʼ AitBr., ʻ foreman of a guild ʼ, °nī -- f. ʻ his wife ʼ Hariv. [śrḗṣṭha -- ] Pa. seṭṭhin -- m. ʻ guild -- master ʼ, Dhp. śeṭhi, Pk. seṭṭhi -- , siṭṭhi -- m., °iṇī -- f.; S. seṭhi m. ʻ wholesale merchant ʼ; P. seṭh m. ʻ head of a guild, banker ʼ,seṭhaṇ°ṇī f.; Ku.gng. śēṭh ʻ rich man ʼ; N. seṭh ʻ banker ʼ; B. seṭh ʻ head of a guild, merchant ʼ; Or. seṭhi ʻ caste of washermen ʼ; Bhoj. Aw.lakh. sēṭhi ʻ merchant, banker ʼ, H. seṭh m., °ṭhan f.; G. śeṭhśeṭhiyɔ m. ʻ wholesale merchant, employer, master ʼ; M. śeṭh°ṭhīśeṭ°ṭī m. ʻ respectful term for banker or merchant ʼ; Si. siṭuhi° ʻ banker, nobleman ʼ H. Smith JA 1950, 208 (or < śiṣṭá -- 2?) (CDIAL 12726) I suggest that the šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻ flying squirrel ʼ? is read rebus: śeṭhīśeṭī m. ʻ respectful term for banker or merchant ʼ (Marathi) or eṭṭhin -- m. ʻ guild -- master ʼ(Prakrtam) Hypertext of Indus Script: šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄  'flying squirrel' rebus: śrēṣṭhin 'foreman of a guild'.  I suggest that the šē̃ṣṭrĭ̄ ʻ flying squirrel ʼ? is read rebus: śeṭhīśeṭī m. ʻ respectful term for banker or merchant ʼ (Marathi) or seṭṭhin -- m. ʻ guild -- master ʼ(Prakrtam)

    Thus, line 3 signifies: bronze guild master of smithy/forge, mint for three types of ferrite mineral (magnetite, hematite, laterite)

    The three lines together, the engtire inscription of m0314 is a metalwork cagtalogue of a guild-master of workshops working in: 

    (1) native unsmelted metal, metal mint, large metal ingot (oxhide)

    (2) metal products -- iron ingots, metalcastings (of smithy/forge iron metals workshop) handed over to scribe (engraver), Supercargo, (a representative of the ship's owner on board a merchant ship, responsible for overseeing the cargo and its sale)

    (3)smithy/forge, mint for three types of ferrite mineral (magnetite, hematite, laterite

    Section 1.  

    The falsifiable hypothesis is that the Susa Elamite 'spinner' sculptural frieze is rebus rendering of Meluhha  Bhāratīya sprachbund (speech union).

    This monograph validates the Meluhha decipherment.

    Hieroglyphs/hypertexts of Sarasvati Script signify metalwork in rebus Meluhha cipher, not only on c. 8000 seals/tablets of Script Corpora, but also on sculptural friezes. An example is provided by a Susa spinner sculptural frieze. 

    This is a conclusive evidence of a visual language rendered in rebus cipher. The apparent message is not that a lady is celebrating a banquet of fish for her dinner. The entire frieze has a number of hieroglyphs constituting a consistent and harmoniously constructed metalwork message of a kātī r'spiner' rebus khātī 'wheelwright‘.

    Is the lady spinner ready to eat food?  áśana n. ʻ eating, food ʼ ŚBr. [√2Pa. asana -- n., Pk. asaṇa -- , asiṇa -- n.; Mth. H. asan m. ʻ food, meal ʼ prob. ← Sk. (CDIAL 909). No, she is just seated on a seat to provide a metaphor (hieroglyph rebus) for metalwork, ironsmithy.

    The Indus Script hypertext message of the sculptural frieze is: copper alloy metal mintwork of Meluhha wheelwright, smelter (kiln, furnace), ironsmith

    Meluhha expressions for each semantic component are listed below for each hieroglyph and rebus reading.
    Image result for susa spinner bitumen
    ig. 141 La Fileuse (Lady spinning) Bitumen compound. H 9.3 cm. W. 13 cm. Neo-Elamite period, ca. 8th -7th century BCE. Susa. Sb 2834 (Louvre Museum) Excavated by Morgan.

    Hieroglyph (cipher-text): Spinner (kātī) lady rebus khātī 'wheelwright‘

    kola 'woman', kola ‘tiger’rebus: kol ‘working in iron’ kolhe ‘smelter’

    Hieroglyph: wristlets of spinner lady: karã̄ n. pl.wristlets, banglesRebus: khãr 'blacksmith, iron worker' (Kashmiri)

    kulya 'fly whisk' rebus: kulya n. ʻ receptacle for burnt bones of a corpse ʼ MBh., A. kulā ʻwinnowingfan, hood of a snake ʼ; B. kul°lā ʻ winnowing basket or fan ʼ; Or.kulā ʻ winnowing fan ʼ, °lāi ʻsmall do. ʼ; Si. kulla, st. kulu -- ʻ winnowing basket or fan ʼ.(CDIAL 3350) Rebus: kolle 'blacksmith' kol 'working in iron, blacksmith'. kolhe ‘smelter’

    Hieroglyph: fish + fins: aya, ayo ‘fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'metal' PLUS khambhaṛā ʻfish-finʼ rebus: kammaṭa 'coiner, coinage, mint (Kannada) Note: कान्त kānta -अयसम् the loadstone ‘magnetite’; कृष्ण-अयसम्,’crude or black iron’; लोहा* यस any metal mixed with copper , (or) copper’ Br. Ka1tyS3r. लोहित lōhita -अयस् n. copper; -कृष्ण a. dark-red. Thus, ayas means ‘iron, metal’.

    baṭa six' Sh.gil. băṭ m. ʻstoneʼ, koh.băṭṭ m., jij. baṭ, pales. baṭ ʻmillstoneʼ; K. waṭh, dat. °ṭas m. ʻround stoneʼ, vüṭü f. ʻsmall do.ʼ; L. vaṭṭā m. ʻstoneʼ, khet. vaṭ ʻrockʼ; P. baṭṭ m. ʻa partic. weightʼ, vaṭṭāba°m. ʻstoneʼ, vaṭṭī f. ʻpebbleʼ; WPah.bhal. baṭṭ m. ʻsmall round stoneʼ; Or. bāṭi ʻstoneʼ; Bi. baṭṭā ʻstone roller for spices, grindstoneʼ. [CDIAL 11348] rebus: bhaṭa 'furnace‘.

    Hieroglyph: stool: Malt. kanḍo stool, seat. (DEDR 1179) Rebus: kaṇḍ 'fire-altar' (Santali) khāṇḍa 'tools, pots and pans and metal-ware' (Marathi)

    Hieroglyph: seat: āˊsana1 n. ʻ sitting ʼ AV., °ná -- n. ʻ seat ʼ ŚBr., āsanī -- f. ʻ small seat ʼ Kauś. [√āsPa. āsana -- , °aka -- n. ʻ seat ʼ, Pk. āsaṇa -- n.; Dm. ãsai ʻ chair ʼ (or poss. < āsādá -- ); Paš. ōson ʻ stool ʼ Morgenstierne IIFL iii 3, 18, Shum. ásan ʻ seat ʼ; Gaw. āsán ʻ stool ʼ; K. āsan m. ʻ buttocks, rump ʼ; S. āsaṇu m. ʻ cloth for sitting on ʼ and P. āsaṇ m. ʻ stool, seat on a horse ʼ (note -- s -- , not -- h -- ); Ku. āsaṇ ʻ small woollen rug ʼ; A. āhon ʻ that part of an elephant's neck on which the driver sits, steersman's seat, natural seat formed by tree -- branches ʼ, āhuniyā ʻ forming a convenient seat (of branches) ʼ; B. āsan ʻ stool, withers of an elephant ʼ, āsni ʻ small stool, stall, shop ʼ; Bi. āsan ʻ driver's seat on an ekka ʼ āsnī ʻ mat of kuśa grass ʼ; H. āsan m. ʻ driver's seat, withers of an elephant, inner part of the thighs ʼ, āsnī f. ʻ a small deerskin ʼ; G. āsaṇ n. ʻ seat ʼ, Si. asunaasna. bāṇāsana -- , śilāsana -- , *śr̥ṅgāsana -- .(CDIAL 1484)

    Rebs: 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 -- .Addenda: aśáni -- : 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).†*aśari -- ʻ stone ʼ see aśáni -- .(CDIAL 910) Rebus: آهن āhan, s.m. (9th) Iron. Sing. and Pl. آهن ګر āhan gar, s.m. (5th) A smith, a blacksmith. Pl. آهن ګران āhan-garān. Thus, aśáni 'thunderbolt' cognate āhan signifies 'iron'; hence, the person seated on the high seat is āhan gar 'a blacksmith' in addition to being khātī 'a wheelwright.'

    Hieroglyph: Claws of feline: 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)

    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) 

    Hieroglyph: Pk. ṭaṁka -- m., °kā -- f. ʻ leg ʼ, S. ṭaṅga f., L. P. ṭaṅg f., Ku. ṭã̄g, N. ṭāṅ; Or. ṭāṅka ʻ leg, thigh ʼ, °ku ʻ thigh, buttock ʼ. 2. B. ṭāṅṭeṅri ʻ leg, thigh ʼ; Mth. ṭã̄gṭãgri ʻ leg, foot ʼ; Bhoj. ṭāṅṭaṅari ʻ leg ʼ, Aw. lakh. H. ṭã̄g f.; G. ṭã̄g f., °gɔ m. ʻ leg from hip to foot ʼ; M. ṭã̄g f. ʻ leg ʼ(CDIAL 5428).Rebus: A. ṭāṅī ʻ wedge ʼ  ṭaṅkaśālā -- , ṭaṅkakaś° f. ʻ mint ʼ lex. [ṭaṅka -- 1, śāˊlā -- ] N. ṭaksāl°ār, B. ṭāksālṭã̄k°ṭek°, Bhoj. ṭaksār, H. ṭaksāl°ār f., G. ṭãksāḷ f., M. ṭã̄ksālṭāk°ṭãk°ṭak°. -- Deriv. G. ṭaksāḷī m. ʻ mint -- master ʼ, M. ṭāksāḷyā m. Brj. ṭaksāḷī, °sārī m. ʻ mint -- master ʼ. (CDIAL 5434)

    Section 2. Empire of Cotton

    "Farmers in the Indus valley were the first to spin and weave cotton. In 1929 archaeologists recovered fragments of cotton tetiles at Mohenjo-Daro, in what is now Pakistan, dating to between 3250 and 2750 BCE. Cottonseeds founds at nearby Mehrgarh have been dated to 5000 BCE. Literary references further point to the ancient nature of the subcontinent's cotton industry. The Vedic scriptures, composed between 1500 and 1200 BCE allude to cotton spinning and weaving . . .." So goes a remarkable new book, Empire of Cotton A Global History by Sven Beckert, which traces the development of the cotton industry in depth. Shown above are the fragments of cotton fibers so identified by Marshall, Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization, p. 585), and examples of weaves whose imprints have been found since at Harappa. Empire of Cotton goes on to show how the cotton industry, which India dominated in the early 18th century, was taken over by the British, how it spurred the slave trade with the Americas and the industrial revolution, its role a century in the independence movement and Gandhi's spinning wheel, and how it once again returned to Asia in a big way at the end of the 20th century. Though very little in the book has directly to do with the Indus civilization, it is a great example of how a single material and its exploitation can have such great impact on history; it is highly likely that the development of textile crafts were a key component of the Indus civilization's rise as well.
    1. Marshall writes (Mohenjo-daro, p. 585): "This fragment of cloth was submitted to Mr. james Turner, Director of the Technological Research Laboratory, Bombay, for examination, who remarks in his preliminary report that 'The fibre was exceedingly tender and broke under very small stresses. However, some preparations were obtained revealing the convoluted structure characteristic of cotton. All the fibres examined were completely penetrated by fungal hyphae. The appearance of once of the convoluted fibres is shown in the accompanying photograph."
    2. Fragment with fabric impression, Harappa. A terracotta fragment with fabric impression from Trench 54 provides clues on the types of weaving carried out by the ancient Harappans.
    3. The earliest evidence of textiles at Harappa goes back to about 3300 BCE, and is another suggestion of how important this product must have been to the later Indus economy.
    4. Textile impressions on a toy bed made during the Harappan Phase (c. 2600-1900 BCE) show finely woven cloth made of uniformly spun threads. This example shows a fairly tightly woven normal weave.

    Section 3. Elamite artifacts including Proto-Elamite Clay tablet of British Museum


    Elam: Religion and language

    "Language. Elamite is traditionally thought to be a language isolate, and completely unrelated to the neighbouring Semitic, Sumerian(also an isolate), and the later Indo-European Iranian languages that came to dominate the region. It was written in a cuneiform adapted from the Semitic Akkadian script of Assyria and Babylonia, although the very earliest documents were written in the quite different "Linear Elamite" script. In 2006, two even older inscriptions in a similar script were discovered at Jiroft to the east of Elam, leading archaeologists to speculate that Linear Elamite had originally spread from further east to Susa. It seems to have developed from an even earlier writing known as "proto-Elamite", but scholars are not unanimous on whether or not this script was used to write Elamite or another language, as it has not yet been deciphered. Several stages of the language are attested; the earliest date back to the third millennium BC, the latest to the Achaemenid EmpireThe Elamite language may have survived as late as the early Islamic period (roughly contemporary with the early medieval period in Europe). Among other Islamic medieval historians, Ibn al-Nadim, for instance, wrote that "The Iranian languages are Fahlavi (Pahlavi), Dari (not to be confused with Dari Persian in modern Afghanistan), Khuzi, Persian

    and Suryani (Assyrian)", and Ibn Moqaffa noted that Khuzi was the unofficial language of the royalty of Persia, "Khuz" being the corrupted name for Elam...Elamite language could be related to the Munda Language of India, some to Mon–Khmer of Cambodia and some to the Dravidian." (Black Athena: The linguistic evidence, by Martin Bernal, p. 701) See: McAlpin, David W., Proto Elamo Dravidian: The Evidence and Its Implications, American Philosophy Society (1981) 

    Kuzi language is relatable to: Go. kōsur (Mu.) a government servant or paik, (Elwin) outsiders and strangers, a paik; (Ph.) kosur, (W.) koshur Hindu man; (Ph.) kostār, (W.) koshtār Hindu woman; (Ph. W.) kosh the Hindi language (Voc. 991). Konḍa (BB) kōslaen (pl. kōska) a peon. Pe. kōsku (pl.)peons. Kuwi (S.) koheesi constable, (pl. kōska police); (Ṭ.) kōh'i (pl. kōska) peon; kōhu haḍa the Oriya language. (DEDR 2192)
    Elamite goddess. Susa. Iran. Around 2400 BCE

    "Supreme goddess in Elam Religion. The Elamites practised polytheism. Knowledge about their religion is scant, but, according to Cambridge Ancient History, at one time they had a pantheon headed by the goddess Kiririsha/Pinikir. Other deities included In-shushinakand Jabru, lord of the underworld. According to Cambridge Ancient History, "this predominance of a supreme goddess is probably a reflexion from the practice of matriarchy which at all times characterized Elamite civilization to a greater or lesser degree."(Edwards, F.B.A., I.E.S.; Gadd, C.J.; Hammond, F.B.A., N.G.L.; Sollberger F.B.A., E., eds. (1970). The Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Volume II, Part 2, History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c.1380-1000 B.C. Cambridge University Press (published 1975). pp. 400–416.)

    The identifier of a Meluhha is the mr̤ēka 'goat' he carries. Significantly Elamite royalty are signified by the animals they carry. Elamite worshippers signified on a gold/silver statues carry a bull/a goat in their left hand. 

    Elamite Worshipper (Golden -- Left; Silver -- Right) holding a bull; Susa, Iran; 12th century BCE. Louvre. Paris. The objects were excavated from Iran in 1904 at the Acropolis of Susa. The objects stands 3 inches tall. dangra 'bull' rebus: dangar 'blacksmith'.
    Female worshipper. Susa. ca. 3300 BCE.

    Kneeling bull holding spouting vessel. Susa. Around 3100 to 2850 BCE.
    Royal axe. Choga Zanbil, Iran. Around 1340 to 1300 BCE.
    Stele of Napirisha, sandstone, ca. 1340–1300 BCE, brought from Tchoga Zanbil to Susa in the 12th century BCE; fish-tailed woman holding snakes. King of Elam, Untash Napirirsha also left numerous building inscriptions for more than 50 temples and buildings, either built or renovated during his reign, in Chogha ZanbilSusa, Choga Gotvand and other places."The stele of the Elamite king, Untash-Napirisha was believed to have been commissioned in the 12th century BCE. It was moved from the original religious capital of Chogha Zanbil to the city of Susa by the successor king, Shutruk-Nahnante. Four registers of the stele are left. The remains depict the god Inshushinak validating the legitimacy of who is thought to be Shutruk-Nahnante. In the periphery are two priestesses, deity hybrids of fish and women holding streams of water, and two half-man half-mouflon guardians of the sacred tree. The names of the two priestesses are carved on their arms." (Borne interactive du département des Antiquités orientales. Malbran-Labat Florence, Les Inscriptions de Suse : briques de l'époque paléo-élamite à l'empire néo-élamite, Paris, Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1995, p.168-169. Miroschedji Pierre de, "Le Dieu élamite au serpent", in : Iranica antiqua, Vol.16, 1981, Gand, Ministère de l'Éducation et de la Culture, 1989, p.13-14, pl.8.)

    Bronze statue of queen Napirisha, wife of the Elamite king Untash GAL, about 1260 B.C.E Height, 1.29 meters. In the Musée du Louvre. The statue 
    exemplifies the metalwork competence achieved by Elamites of the Bronze Age. "This life-size votive offering of Queen Napir-Asu is made of copper using the lost-wax casting method and rests on a solid bronze frame that weighs 1750 kg (3760 lb)...The inscription on the side of the statue curses anyone, specifically men, who attempts to destroy the statue: "I, Napir-Asu, wife of Untash-Napirisha. He who would seize my statue, who would smash it, who would destroy its inscription, who would erase my name, may he be smitten by the curse of Napirisha, of Kiririsha, and of Inshushinka, that his name shall become extinct, that his offspring be barren, that the forces of Beltiya, the great goddess, shall sweep down on him. This is Napir-Asu's offering." " (The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. D.T.Potts, "Subsequent to the casting, a tubelike tool must have been employed to engrave the hundreds of circles with central dot which cover the upper part of the body and part of the skirt.

    Goatfishes ornating a cultual tank, symbolizing the sweet water abyss, domain of the god Ea. Found in Susa, limestone, Middle Elamite period (c. 1500 BCE – 1100 BCE). The rollout of Shu-ilishu's Cylinder seal. Courtesy of the Department des Antiquites Orientales, Musee du Louvre, Paris. The cuneiform text reads: Shu-Ilishu EME.BAL.ME.LUH.HA.KI (interpreter of Meluhha language). Apparently, the Meluhhan is the person carrying the antelope on his arms. The lady accompanying the Meluhha merchant carries a ranku 'liquid measure' rebus: ranku 'tin (cassiterite)ore'.


    Meluhha is said to explain the origin of the Sanskrit mleccha, meaning "speaker who mispronounces and uses ungrammatical expressions." See: Parpola, Asko; Parpola, Simo (1975). "On the relationship of the Sumerian Toponym Meluhha and Sanskrit Mleccha". Studia Orientalia. 46: 205–238. 

    Proto-Elamite clay tablet with five characters on one side and rest of space occupied with a fine seal impression.
    Proto-Elamite clay tablet with five characters on one side and rest of space occupied with a fine seal impression. 3000 BCE. British Museum. 120486

  • Length: 5.8 centimetres Height: 4 centimetres
  • Excavated/Findspot: Susa (said to be from) term details
  • (Asia,Middle East,Iran,South West Iran,Khuzistan (province),Shush,Susa)

    • Walker 1980a p. 75, pl. 1a bibliographic details
    • Hall 1928e p.70, pl. XXXIX.b bibliographic details 
    •                                                 "Report to Trustees, 2 October 1928: "an interesting collection of Persian antiquities of the early Bronze Age, comprising .... 6) A clay tablet from Susa, date about 3000 BC, with short inscription in the 'proto-Elamite' writing, which has not yet been deciphered. Half of the obverse and all of the reverse are occupied by the double impression of a very fine Elamitic [sic] seal, showing grotesque goat-men, with head and hindquarters of a goat and human trunk: a heart-shaped leaf, or conifer, stands between them. This is a fine example of a class of tablet not hitherto represented at all in the collection: it will be the first acquisition of its kind".

    I suggest that this Proto-Elamite tablet is a narrative with Indus Script Hypertexts: 1. Anthropomorph with head of goat; 2. goat 3. goat looks back 4.ficus glomerata leaf.

    No. 1 Hypertext: anthropomorph with head of goat: 1. Ka. mēke she-goat;  the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka, mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id. Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she-goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge, (S.) mēgegoat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. [Te. mr̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.] / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat.(DEDR 5087) 

    Rebus: Semantic stream 1: म्लेच्छ copper; vermilion; a person who lives by agriculture or by making weapons; 

    Rebus: Semantic stream 2: MLĒCH ʻ speak indistinctly ʼ: म्लिष्ट indistinct speech , a foreign language; mfn. spoken indistinctly or barbarously Pa1n2. 7-2 , 18. Sch.=  म्लेच्छित  n. a foreign tongue; म्लेच्छ m. a foreigner , barbarian , non-Aryan , man of an outcast race , any person who does not speak Sanskrit and does not conform to the usual Hindu institutions S3Br. &c (f(ई).); ignorance of Sanskrit , barbarism 

    न्यायमाला-विस्तर Sch.mrēcchati ~ mlḗcchati ʻ speaks indistinctly ʼ ŚBr. [MIA. mr -- < ml -- ? See Add. -- √mlēch]K. briċhun, pp. bryuċhu ʻ to weep and lament, cry as a child for something wanted or as motherless child ʼ.(CDIAL 10354) mlēcchá ʻ non -- Aryan ʼ ŚBr. [√mlēch]
    Pk. maleccha -- , miliccha -- , meccha -- , miccha -- m. ʻ barbarian ʼ; K. mī˜ċh, dat. mī˜ċas m. ʻ non -- Hindu ʼ (loss of aspiration unexpl.); P. milechmal˚ m. (f. milechṇīmal˚) ʻ Moslem, unclean outcaste, wretch ʼ; WPah.bhad, məle_ċh ʻ dirty ʼ; B. mech ʻ a Tibeto -- Burman tribe ʼ ODBL 473; Si. milidumiliñdu ʻ wild, savage ʼ (< MIA. *mlēcha -- or with H. Smith JA 1950, 186 X pulindá -- ), milis (< MIA. miliccha -- ). -- Paš. mečə ʻ wretched, miserly ʼ rather < *mēcca -- ʻ defective ʼ. -- With unexpl. -- kkh -- : Pa. milakkha -- , ˚khu -- ʻ non -- Aryan ʼ, Si. malak ʻ savage ʼ, malaki -- dū ʻ a Väddā woman ʼ. -- X piśācá -- : Pa. milāca -- m. ʻ wild man of the woods, non -- Aryan ʼ; Si. maladu ʻ wild, savage ʼ.(CDIAL 10359)*mlēcchatva ʻ condition of a non -- Aryan ʼ. [Cf. mlēcchatā -- f. VP. -- mlēcchá -- ]
    K. mīċuth, dat. ˚ċatas m. ʻ habit or life of an outcaste ʼ.  (CDIAL 10390)

    No. 2 Hypertext, goat: Ka. mēke she-goat;  the bleating of sheep or goats. Te. mē̃ka, mēka goat. Kol. me·ke id. Nk. mēke id. Pa. mēva, (S.) mēya she-goat. Ga. (Oll.) mēge, (S.) mēge goat. Go. (M) mekā, (Ko.) mēka id. ? Kur. mēxnā (mīxyas) to call, call after loudly, hail. Malt. méqe to bleat. [̤ēka (so correct) is of unknown meaning. Br. mēḻẖ is without etymology; see MBE 1980a.] / Cf. Skt. (lex.) meka- goat.(DEDR 5087)


    Semantic stream 1: म्लेच्छ n. copper; vermilion; a person who lives by agriculture or by making weapons (Monier-Williams) Milakkha [cp. Ved. Sk.](˚rajana "of foreign dye" trsl.; Kern, Toev. s. v. translates "vermiljoen kleurig"). Thus, milakkha signifies 'copper' (colour) in Pali.

    Semantic stream 2Milakkhu [the Prk. form (A -- Māgadhī, cp. Pischel, Prk. Gr. 105, 233) for P. milakkha] a non -- Aryan D iii.264; Th 1, 965 (˚rajana "of foreign dye" trsl.; Kern, Toev. s. v. translates "vermiljoen kleurig"). As milakkhuka at Vin iii.28, where Bdhgh expls by "Andha -- Damil'ādi."  Milāca [by -- form to milakkha, viâ *milaccha>*milacca> milāca: Geiger, P.Gr. 622; Kern, Toev. s. v.] a wild man of the woods, non -- Aryan, barbarian J iv.291 (not with C.=janapadā), cp. luddā m. ibid., and milāca -- puttā J v.165 (where C. also expls by bhojaputta, i. e. son of a villager). (Pali) म्लेच्छ ignorance of Sanskrit , barbarism न्यायमाला-विस्तर Sch.; m. a foreigner , barbarian , non-Aryan , man of an outcast race , any person who does not speak Sanskrit and does not conform to the usual Hindu institutions S3Br. &c (f().)(Monier-Williams) mlēcchá ʻ non -- Aryan ʼ ŚBr. [√mlēchPk. maleccha -- , miliccha -- , meccha -- , miccha -- m. ʻ barbarian ʼ; K. mī˜ċh, dat. mī˜ċas m. ʻ non -- Hindu ʼ (loss of aspiration unexpl.); P. milechmal˚ m. (f. milechṇīmal˚) ʻ Moslem, unclean outcaste, wretch ʼ; WPah.bhad, məle_ċh ʻ dirty ʼ; B. mech ʻ a Tibeto -- Burman tribe ʼ ODBL 473; Si. milidumiliñdu ʻ wild, savage ʼ (< MIA. *mlēcha -- or with H. Smith JA 1950, 186 X pulindá -- ), milis (< MIA. miliccha -- ). -- Paš. mečə ʻ wretched, miserly ʼ rather < *mēcca -- ʻ defective ʼ. -- With unexpl. -- kkh -- : Pa. milakkha -- , ˚khu -- ʻ non -- Aryan ʼ, Si. malak ʻ savage ʼ, malaki -- dū ʻ a Väddā woman ʼ. -- X piśācá -- : Pa. milāca -- m. ʻ wild man of the woods, non -- Aryan ʼ; Si. maladu ʻ wild, savage ʼ.(CDIAL 10389) *mrēcchati ~ mlḗcchati ʻ speaks indistinctly ʼ ŚBr. [MIA. mr -- < ml -- ? See Add. -- √mlēchK. briċhun, pp. bryuċhu ʻ to weep and lament, cry as a child for something wanted or as motherless child ʼ. (CDIAL 10384) *mlēcchatva ʻ condition of a non -- Aryan ʼ. [Cf. mlēcchatā -- f. VP. -- mlēcchá -- ]K. mīċuth, dat. ˚ċatas m. ʻ habit or life of an outcaste ʼ. MLĒCH ʻ speak indistinctly ʼ:(CDIAL 10390) म्लेच्छित mfn. = म्लिष्ट Pa1n2. 7-2 , 18 Sch.; mfn. = म्लिष्ट Pa1n2. 7-2 , 18 Sch.; म्लिष्ट mfn. spoken indistinctly or barbarously Pa1n2. 7-2 , 18; n. indistinct speech , a foreign language (Monier-Williams).    Milakkha [cp. Ved. Sk. mleccha barbarian, root mlecch, onomat. after the strange sounds of a foreign tongue, cp. babbhara & mammana] a barbarian, foreigner, outcaste, hillman S v.466; J vi.207; DA i.176; SnA 236 (˚mahātissa -- thera Np.), 397 (˚bhāsā foreign dialect). The word occurs also in form milakkhu (q. v.). Milakkhu [the Prk. form (A -- Māgadhī, cp. Pischel, Prk. Gr. 105, 233) for P. milakkha] a non -- Aryan D iii.264; Th 1, 965 (˚rajana "of foreign dye" trsl.; Kern, Toev. s. v. translates "vermiljoen kleurig"). As milakkhuka at Vin iii.28, where Bdhgh expls by "Andha -- Damil'ādi."Milāca [by -- form to milakkha, viâ *milaccha>*milacca> milāca: Geiger, P.Gr. 622; Kern, Toev. s. v.] a wild man of the woods, non -- Aryan, barbarian J iv.291 (not with C.=janapadā), cp. luddā m. ibid., and milāca -- puttā J v.165 (where C. also expls by bhojaputta, i. e. son of a villager).(Pali)

    No. 3 Hypertext, goat looks back: Look back:  క్రమ్మరు  krammaru. [Tel.] v. n. To turn, return, go back. మరలు. క్రమ్మరించు or క్రమ్మరుచు krammarinṭsu. v. a. To turn, send back, recall. To revoke, annul, rescind. క్రమ్మరజేయు. క్రమ్మర krammara. adv. Again. క్రమ్మరిల్లు or క్రమరబడు Same as క్రమ్మరు. Rebus: कर्मार  m. an artisan , mechanic , artificer; a blacksmith &c RV. x , 72 , 2 AV. iii , 5 , 6 VS. Mn. iv , 215 &c; कर्मार a bamboo (Monier-Williams) 
     karmaśālā f. ʻ workshop ʼ MBh. [kárman -- 1, śāˊlā -- ] Pk. kammasālā -- f.; L. kamhāl f. ʻ hole in the ground for a weaver's feet ʼ; Si. kamhala ʻ workshop ʼ, kammala ʻ smithy ʼ.(CDIAL 2896) karmāˊra m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ RV. [EWA i 176 < stem *karmar -- ~ karman -- , but perh. with ODBL 668 ← Drav. cf. Tam. karumā ʻ smith, smelter ʼ whence meaning ʻ smith ʼ was transferred also to karmakāra -- ]Pa. kammāra -- m. ʻ worker in metal ʼ; Pk. kammāra -- , ˚aya -- m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, A. kamār, B. kāmār; Or. kamāra ʻ blacksmith, caste of non -- Aryans, caste of fishermen ʼ; Mth. kamār ʻ blacksmith ʼ, Si. kam̆burā.*karmāraśālā -- .Addenda: karmāˊra -- : Md. kan̆buru ʻ blacksmith ʼ. (CDIAL 2898)  *karmāraśālā ʻ smithy ʼ. [karmāˊra -- , śāˊlā -- ]Mth. kamarsārī; -- Bi. kamarsāyar?(CDIAL 2899) Gaggara [Vedic gargara throat, whirlpool. *gṷer to sling down, to whirl, cp. Gr. ba/raqron, Lat. gurges, gurgulio, Ohg. querechela "kehle"] 1. roaring, only in f. gaggarī a blacksmith's bellows: kammāra˚, in simile M i.243; S i.106; Vism 287. -- 2. (nt.) cackling, cawing, in haŋsa˚ the sound of geese J v.96 (expl. by haŋsamadhurassara).(Pali) The expression in Pali is kammāra gaggarī 'a blacksmith's bellows'. Ghaggar is another name for River Sarasvati which has evidenced over 2000 out of a total of 2600 archaeological sites of the civilization in the Ghaggar River Basin. All these settlements have evidence bronze age metalwork.

    No.4 Hypertext: ficus glomerata leaf: 

     Santali lexeme

    Rebus: loha 'copper, metal'    11158 lōhá ʻ red, copper -- coloured ʼ ŚrS., ʻ made of copper ʼ ŚBr., m.n. ʻ copper ʼ VS., ʻ iron ʼ MBh. [*rudh -- ]Pa. lōha -- m. ʻ metal, esp. copper or bronze ʼ; Pk. lōha -- m. ʻ iron ʼ, Gy. pal. li˚, lihi, obl. elhás, as. loa JGLS new ser. ii 258; Wg. (Lumsden) "loa"ʻ steel ʼ; Kho. loh ʻ copper ʼ; S. lohu m. ʻ iron ʼ, L. lohā m., awāṇ. lōˋā, P. lohā m. (→ K.rām. ḍoḍ. lohā), WPah.bhad. lɔ̃u n., bhal. òtilde; n., pāḍ. jaun. lōh, paṅ. luhā, cur. cam. lohā, Ku. luwā, N. lohu, ˚hā, A. lo, B. lo, no, Or. lohā, luhā, Mth. loh, Bhoj. lohā, Aw.lakh. lōh, H. loh, lohā m., G. M. loh n.; Si. loho,  ʻ metal, ore, iron ʼ; Md. ratu -- lō ʻ copper *lōhala -- , *lōhila -- , *lōhiṣṭha -- , lōhī -- , laúha -- ; lōhakāra -- , *lōhaghaṭa -- , *lōhaśālā -- , *lōhahaṭṭika -- , *lōhōpaskara -- ; vartalōha -- .Addenda: lōhá -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) lóɔ ʻ iron ʼ, J. lohā m., Garh. loho; Md.  ʻ metal ʼ.†*lōhaphāla -- or †*lōhahala -- .1159 lōhakāra m. ʻ iron -- worker ʼ, ˚rī -- f., ˚raka -- m. lex., lauhakāra -- m. Hit. [lōhá -- , kāra -- 1]Pa. lōhakāra -- m. ʻ coppersmith, ironsmith ʼ; Pk. lōhāra -- m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, S. luhā̆ru m., L. lohār m., ˚rī f., awāṇ. luhār, P. WPah.khaś. bhal. luhār m., Ku. lwār, N. B. lohār, Or. lohaḷa, Bi.Bhoj. Aw.lakh. lohār, H. lohār, luh˚ m., G. lavār m., M. lohār m.; Si. lōvaru ʻ coppersmith ʼ.Addenda: lōhakāra -- : WPah.kṭg. (kc.) lhwāˋr m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, lhwàri f. ʻ his wife ʼ, Garh. lwār m.   11160 *lōhaghaṭa ʻ iron pot ʼ. [lōhá -- , ghaṭa -- 1]Bi. lohrā, ˚rī ʻ small iron pan ʼ.

    11160a †*lōhaphāla -- ʻ ploughshare ʼ. [lōhá -- , phāˊla -- 1]WPah.kṭg. lhwāˋḷ m. ʻ ploughshare ʼ, J. lohāl m. ʻ an agricultural implement ʼ Him.I 197; -- or < †*lōhahala -- .   11161 lōhala ʻ made of iron ʼ W. [lōhá -- ]G. loharlohariyɔ m. ʻ selfwilled and unyielding man ʼ.
       11162 *lōhaśālā ʻ smithy ʼ. [lōhá -- , śāˊlā -- ]Bi. lohsārī ʻ smithy ʼ.   11163 *lōhahaṭṭika ʻ ironmonger ʼ. [lōhá -- , haṭṭa -- ]
    P.ludh. lōhṭiyā m. ʻ ironmonger ʼ.11163a †*lōhahala -- ʻ ploughshare ʼ. [lōhá -- , halá -- ]WPah.kṭg. lhwāˋḷ m. ʻ ploughshare ʼ, J. lohāl ʻ an agricultural instrument ʼ; rather < †*lōhaphāla -- 11170 lōhī f. ʻ any object made of iron ʼ Kāv., ʻ pot ʼ Divyāv., lōhikā -- f. ʻ large shallow wooden bowl bound with iron ʼ, lauhā -- f. ʻ iron pot ʼ lex. [lōhá -- ]Pk. lōhī -- f. ʻ iron pot ʼ; P. loh f. ʻ large baking iron ʼ; A. luhiyā ʻ iron pan ʼ; Bi. lohiyā ʻ iron or brass shallow pan with handles ʼ; G. lohiyũ n. ʻ frying pan ʼ.
       11171 *lōhōpaskara ʻ iron tools ʼ. [lōhá -- , upaskara -- 1]N. lokhar ʻ bag in which a barber keeps his tools ʼ; H. lokhar m. ʻ iron tools, pots and pans ʼ; -- X lauhabhāṇḍa -- : Ku. lokhaṛ ʻ iron tools ʼ; H. lokhaṇḍ m. ʻ iron tools, pots and pans ʼ; G. lokhãḍ n. ʻ tools, iron, ironware ʼ; M. lokhãḍ n. ʻ iron ʼ (LM 400 < -- khaṇḍa -- ).laúkika -- , laukyá -- see *lōkíya -- .

    kamaṛkom 'petiole of leaf' (Santali); rebus:Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner..(DEDR 1236) thus, together, metals mint.

    Thus, the Proto-elamite clay tablet with Indus Script Hypertexts signifies: mint of copper, metalwork blacksmith

    Section 4. Proto-Elamite Clay tablet Sb04823 in Louvre Museum

    Indus river boat. Shown on a seal, Mohenjo-daro.

    Mohenjo-daro. Sailing vessel depicted on a stone stamp seal (after Potts 1995: Fig. 1)

    “The construction of boats using locally available wood is well attested in the cuneiform sources. One Ur III boatbuilding text refers to 11,787 pieces of wood, stipulating in most cases what part of the ship they were destined to be used for. An Old Babylonian text from Ur (UET V 468) attests to the use of the date-plm midrib (?) in boat construction, three hundred of which were delivered by twenty-five workers. M. Powell has noted a number of wooden elements used in boat construction among pre-Sargonic ‘timber’ texts from Girsu. Planks of asal, (Populus sp. Euphratica?) for short or deep-draft boats are attested, as are the handles of steering oars. Both gig id and gul-bu (unidentified) were probably used for steering oar handles as wel. Ships’ timbers were made of u-suh (pine?), as were steering oars, punting poles and elements of the mooring apparatus…an Ur III text from Umma lists the delivery of 810 boat ribs of ma-nu wood (willow?) Palm-fibre and palm-leaf ropes (Sum. Shu-sar, Akk. Pitiltium) of differing thickness and weights were made by ‘twisting’ (akk. patAlum). Old Babylonian texts from Ur (e.g. UET V 468) show no fewer than 186 labourers are employed in this sort of rope manufacture, and texts relting to the distribution of ropes for the outfitting of boats reveal that enormous quantities of such rope were employed…in the context of reed use in the construction of Magan ships (CT 7:31a) lists no less than 176 talents (8.28 tons) of palm-fibre rope (shu-sar KAxSA) and 34 talents (1.02 tons) of palm-leaf rope (shu-sar pesh). The tons of palm-fibre rope called for in this text suggest that some of the watercraft of the Ur III period must have been sewn or stitched vessels, a possibility to which scant attention has been paid in the literature on Mesopotamian watercraft. Sewn plank boats are an important and well-studied phenomenon in northern Europe, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The sewn vessels of the Gulf, Red Sea and Indian Ocean are justly famous in nautical literature and have been commented on my European observers for almost two millennia. In the mid-first-century CE the anonyumous author of the Periplus Maris Erythraei, a commercial mariner’s handbook containing information on travel between Egypt and India, noted ‘boats sewed together,…known as madarata’ on the southern coast of Arabia. In 1890 the great Austrian Orientalist and South Arabian explorer Eduard Glaser suggested that the word rendered madarata in Greek by the author of the Periplus was undoubtedly the same as Arabic muddarra’at or maddarra’at or madra’at, a vessel fastened with palm-fibre. In his chronicle of the Sasanian wars, Procopius (c. CE 500-560+) wrote of the ships in the Red Sea and in India as follows: ‘Nor indeed are the planks are fastened together by iron nails going through and through, but they are bound together with a kind of cording’ (On the Persian War I xix 23-24). The tenth-century Persian writer Abu Zaid Hasan of Siraf, on the Gulf coast of Iran, described Omani shipbuilders who travelled to the Maldive and Laccadive islands off the Indian coast where they felled coconut palms, ‘and with the bark of the tree they spin a yarn, wherewith they sew the planks together, and so build a ship’. At the end of the thirteenth century Marco Polo observed the use of coconut palm-fibre by the inhabitants of Hormuz, near Minab in southern Iran, noting ‘and from that they spin twine, and with this stitch the planks of the ship together’.  James Bruce who described boats on the Red Sea near Quseir in the late eighteenth century, felt that sewing the hull gave it an elasticity which made it more resistant to damage than one fastened with iron naILS. ‘The planks of the vessel’, he noted, ‘were sewed together and there was not a nail nor a piece of iron in the whole ships; so that when you struck upon a rock, seldom any damage ensued’. The use of palm-fibre cordage in the Gulf was observed in 1828 by GB Kempthrons and specifically on Bahrain in the 1890s by SM Zwemer. Given the fact that the Ur III text express the quantity of palm-fibre rope used by Mesopotamian shipwrights in terms of weight, one can be impressed by the sheer tonnage involved, but it is difficult to get an accurate impression of quantity which, for a commodity like rope or cord, is more easily understood by length. Some impression can perhaps be gained by considering the Fourth Dynasty royal ship of Cheops found near the Great Pyramid at Giza. This vessel, 43.63m long and 5.6 m wide, is said to have needed 5000  (5 km) of cordage. The structurally very different Sohar, a 23-m-long, 6.2 m-wide replica of the type of sewn-plank boat thought to have been sailed in the early medieval era, used no less than 400 miles (640 km) of coconut palm-fibre rope (coir). The 207 talents (6210 kg or 6.21 tons) of fish oil mentioned in CT 731a along with the tons of rope or cord probably represent an anti-fouling agent used on the rope as opposed to the wooden hull itself which was caulked with bitumen. In reviewing the uses of wood, mention was made of a text attesting to the provision of 59,290 wooden pegs for the boatyards of Umma during the Ur III period. Had Paul Johnstone been aware of the data such as this, he would have had a ready answer to the question which he posed in his posthumously published Sea-craft of Prehistory, ‘Did any ancient shipbuilder in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Gulf…use tenons and dowels to keep planks in place?’. The Ur III data is important, particularly in view of the fact that wooden, bamboo or cane pegs were traditionally used in combination with sewing or stitching throughout the Gulf/Indian Ocean region in the pre-modern era. As Gemelli Carreri observed at Kung island in the lower Gulf in the late seventeenth century, ‘Instead of nails, which they were without, they use ‘chevilles’ (pegs) of bamboo or cane, and further join the planks with ‘ficelles’ (strings) made of rushes (probably coir or coconut fibre).’ Similarly, Marco Polo found ‘wooden trenails’ (i.e. nails of wood) used in combination with the coconut palm-fibre cord mentioned above during his visit to Hormuz. Another justification for the use of so many pegs is provided by an account of the repair of a ganja, a large, ocean-going, traditional wooden vessel used on the Malabar coast of South India… The character of watercraft in southern Mesopotamia and the surrounding area. Regardless of the fact that reed boats and sewn plank-built vessels can be found in many parts of the world, there is no denying that these show as many differences cross-culturally as other categories of material culture, such as ceramics. Thus, while certain common techniques and solutions to problems may appear in widely differing regions, their cultural expression and the materials used vary enough for the end product to have a distinctive appearance vis-à-vis others of its type. The late nautical archaeology specialist, Paul Johnstone, suggested that by examining the representations of watercraft on the stamp seals of Bahrain and Failaka in the Gulf (ancient Dilmun), it would be possible to gain at least a partial understanding of the sorts of ships which must have sailed between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley in the late third and early second millennium BCE. A close examination of all the early iconography of sailing vessels from Harappa sites, the Oman peninsula and the Gulf region, however, shows clearly that each differed from the other in many points of detail and overall form, as indeed Egyptian vessels differed from Mesopotamian ones…”(DT Potts, 1997, Mesopotamian Civilization: The material foundations, London, The Athlone Press, p. 74, 126-128, 134).

    Image result for Ur III period boatOne side of a Mohenjo-daro prism tablet shows a boat carrying oxhide ingots PLUS related hieroglyphs signifying technical metalwork information as a knowledge system.

    Proto-elamite clay tablet from the collection at the Loure. Scribes used a stylus typically made of reed to press these shapes into the soft clay. (Photo: University of Oxford) Animal in boat. Excavated at Susa. Image courtesy: Dr. Jacob L. Dahl, University of Oxford. Tablet Sb04823 

    Receipt of 5 workers (?) and their monthly (?) rations, with subscript and seal depicting animal in boat.

    The rightmost hypertext on the Elamite tablet signifies ranku 'liquid measure' rebus: ranku 'tin'. The cargo on the reed boat are tin ingots.
    kolom 'three' rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'.
    This hypertext is splinter PLUS notch: sal 'splinter' rebus: sal 'workshop' PLUS खांडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon). (Marathi) Rebus: khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'. Thus, kuṭhi khāṇḍā smelter metalware.
    Two linear strokes: dula 'two' rebus: dul 'metalcasting'.

    śrēṣṭrī 'ladder' Rebus: seṭh ʻ head of a guild

    I suggest that the text of the inscription on the Proto-Elamite tablet on the obverse signifies a catalogue of metalwork, a form of wealth-accounting ledger for the cargo loaded on a seafaring catamaran.
    Image may contain: food
    No automatic alt text available.
    RTI-Reflectance Transformation Imaging. "Dahl's team shipped an RTI machine to the Louvre museum in Paris, home to the world's largest trove of proto-Elamite tablets, and exposed the tablets to them. The high-resolution images will be put online to allow academics around the world to crowdsource a translation, ideally within two years.The ancient writing has proven particularly maddening to scholars, Dahl says, because it appears to be full of mistakes that have made deciphering them all the more difficult. There also have been no bilingual texts to use for comparison nor any lists of symbols or primers to use as a reference. In addition, scholars don't know how the language was spoken and thus lack phonetic clues that might have helped their work.Yet the writing system is hugely important to experts in ancient languages because it was the first to use syllables and represents the first recorded example of one people adopting writing from another people nearby."

    Boat hieroglyphs and fish on a Mesopotamia proto-cuneiform tablet. Tablet Sb04823: receipt of 5 workers(?) and their monthly(?) rations, with subscript and seal depicting animal in boat; excavated at Susa in the early 20th century; Louvre Museum, Paris (Image courtesy of Dr Jacob L. Dahl, University of Oxford) Cited in an article on Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI) System. 

    On loan from Louvre in British Museum.

    As on the Proto-Elamite clay tablet with five characters on one side and rest of space occupied with a fine seal impression. 3000 BCE. British Museum. 120486, the boatman standing on the boat is signified by the head of a goat read rebus: melh,meka 'goat or antelope' rebus: milakkha 'copper (worker)'

    Holly Pittman notes: “Impressed on a series of small tablets is an image of a demonic feline-like creature in a posture of reverence or power, kneeling in a high-prowed boat with its front legs held together at the chest. In front and back of the creature are two pointed forms that could be either spears or oars. Under the boat is a large fish; to the side is a tall bundle of tied reeds, a shape that is a sign in the Proto-Elamite script. The representation of a boat is most unusual among Proto-Elamite seals.  At least five tablets, in addition to this one, are impressed with the same seal. They carry inscriptions which, although they cannot be read, were certainly  written by the same hand and all end with the same series of signs.” (After Fig. 48. Tablet with impression of a demonic creature in a boat. Clay h. 1 ¾ in. (4.5 cm); w. 2 5/8 in. (6.7 cm) Proto-Elamite period, ca. 3100-2900 BCE Sb 4832). loc.cit. Legrain, Leon, 1925, The culture of the Babylonians: from their seals in the collections of the Museum. University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section 14. Philadelphia. See: Legrain, Leon, 1925, The culture of the Babylonians: from their seals in the collections of the Museum. University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section 14. Philadelphia.

    The hieroglyphs (which are referred to as 'signs' by Holly Pitman) are: boat, tiger, rice-plant next to the tiger, arrow (spear), fish, tall reed bundles

    áritra (arí° ŚBr.) n. ʻ oar ʼ RV.Pa. aritta -- n. ʻ punting -- pole ʼ; Pk. aritta -- n. ʻ rudder ʼ, alitta -- , āl° n. ʻ oar ʼ; Si. riṭa°ṭi ʻ long pole used as an oar ʼ Geiger GS 32 but without explanation of  <tr.(CDIAL 608)

    Three bamboo poles are tied together with three ties and a pair of such posts flank the boat. I suggest that the number three signifies kolom 'three' rebus: kolimi 'smithy' PLUS 
     कर्मार a bamboo (Monier-Williams) 
     karmaśālā f. ʻ workshop ʼ MBh. [kárman -- 1, śāˊlā -- ] Pk. kammasālā -- f.; L. kamhāl f. ʻ hole in the ground for a weaver's feet ʼ; Si. kamhala ʻ workshop ʼ, kammala ʻ smithy ʼ.(CDIAL 2896) karmāˊra m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ RV. [EWA i 176 < stem *karmar -- ~ karman -- , but perh. with ODBL 668 ← Drav. cf. Tam. karumā ʻ smith, smelter ʼ whence meaning ʻ smith ʼ was transferred also to karmakāra -- ]
    Pa. kammāra -- m. ʻ worker in metal ʼ; Pk. kammāra -- , ˚aya -- m. ʻ blacksmith ʼ, A. kamār, B. kāmār; Or. kamāra ʻ blacksmith, caste of non -- Aryans, caste of fishermen ʼ; Mth. kamār ʻ blacksmith ʼ, Si. kam̆burā.*karmāraśālā -- .Addenda: karmāˊra -- : Md. kan̆buru ʻ blacksmith ʼ. (CDIAL 2898)  *karmāraśālā ʻ smithy ʼ. [karmāˊra -- , śāˊlā -- ]Mth. kamarsārī; -- Bi. kamarsāyar?(CDIAL 2899) Gaggara [Vedic gargara throat, whirlpool. *gṷer to sling down, to whirl, cp. Gr. ba/raqron, Lat. gurges, gurgulio, Ohg. querechela "kehle"] 1. roaring, only in f. gaggarī a blacksmith's bellows: kammāra˚, in simile M i.243; S i.106; Vism 287. -- 2. (nt.) cackling, cawing, in haŋsa˚ the sound of geese J v.96 (expl. by haŋsamadhurassara).(Pali) The expression in Pali is kammāra gaggarī 'a blacksmith's bellows'. Ghaggar is another name for River Sarasvati which has evidenced over 2000 out of a total of 2600 archaeological sites of the civilization in the Ghaggar River Basin. All these settlements have evidence bronze age metalwork. 

    Thus, together, the hypertext of a pair of tied three bamboo posts signify कर्मार a bamboo (Monier-Williams) Rebus: karmaśālā f. ʻ workshop ʼ; or, karmāra kolimi 'blacksmith's smithy, forge'.

    bagalo = an Arabian merchant vessel (Gujarati) bagala = an Arab boat of a particular description (Ka.); bagalā (M.); bagarige, bagarage = a kind of vessel (Kannada) Rebus: bangala = kumpaṭi = angāra śakaṭī = a chafing dish a portable stove a goldsmith’s portable furnace (Telugu) cf. bangaru bangaramu = gold (Telugu) 

    kola 'tiger' Rebus: kol 'working in iron' kolle 'blacksmith'
    kolmo 'rice-plant' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'

    kaṇḍe A head or ear of millet or maize (Telugu) Rebus: kaṇḍa ‘stone (ore)(Gadba)’ Ga. (Oll.) kanḍ, (S.) kanḍu (pl. kanḍkil) stone (DEDR 1298).  Rebus: khaṇḍa 'metalware, equipment'.

    ayo ‘fish’ Rebus: ayas ‘alloy metal’ aya 'iron' (Gujarati)

    eruvai 'European bamboo reed' (Tamil) Rebus: eruvai 'copper' (Tamil)(DEDR 817)

    Reeds, arrows:

    kāˊṇḍa (kāṇḍá -- TS.) m.n. ʻ single joint of a plant ʼ AV., ʻ arrow ʼ MBh., ʻ cluster, heap ʼ (in tr̥ṇa -- kāṇḍa -- Pāṇ. Kāś.). [Poss. connexion with gaṇḍa -- 2 makes prob. non -- Aryan origin (not with P. Tedesco Language 22, 190 < kr̥ntáti). Prob. ← Drav., cf. Tam. kaṇ ʻ joint of bamboo or sugarcane ʼ EWA i 197]Pa. kaṇḍa -- m.n. ʻ joint of stalk, stalk, arrow, lump ʼ; Pk. kaṁḍa -- , °aya -- m.n. ʻ knot of bough, bough, stick ʼ; Ash. kaṇ ʻ arrow ʼ, Kt. kåṇ, Wg. kāṇkŕãdotdot;, Pr.kə̃, Dm. kā̆n; Paš. lauṛ. kāṇḍkāṇ, ar. kōṇ, kuṛ. kō̃, dar. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, kã̄ṛī ʻ torch ʼ; Shum. kō̃ṛkō̃ ʻ arrow ʼ, Gaw. kāṇḍkāṇ; Kho. kan ʻ tree, large bush ʼ; Bshk. kāˋ'nʻ arrow ʼ, Tor. kan m., Sv. kã̄ṛa, Phal. kōṇ, Sh. gil. kōn f. (→ Ḍ. kōn, pl. kāna f.), pales. kōṇ; K. kã̄ḍ m. ʻ stalk of a reed, straw ʼ (kān m. ʻ arrow ʼ ← Sh.?); S. kānu m. ʻ arrow ʼ, °no m. ʻ reed ʼ, °nī f. ʻ topmost joint of the reed Sara, reed pen, stalk, straw, porcupine's quill ʼ; L. kānã̄ m. ʻ stalk of the reed Sara ʼ, °nī˜ f. ʻ pen, small spear ʼ; P. kānnā m. ʻ the reed Saccharum munja, reed in a weaver's warp ʼ, kānī f. ʻ arrow ʼ; WPah. bhal. kān n. ʻ arrow ʼ, jaun. kã̄ḍ; N. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, °ṛo ʻ rafter ʼ; A. kã̄r ʻ arrow ʼ; B. kã̄ṛ ʻ arrow ʼ, °ṛā ʻ oil vessel made of bamboo joint, needle of bamboo for netting ʼ, kẽṛiyā ʻ wooden or earthen vessel for oil &c. ʼ; Or. kāṇḍakã̄ṛ ʻ stalk, arrow ʼ; Bi. kã̄ṛā ʻ stem of muñja grass (used for thatching) ʼ; Mth. kã̄ṛ ʻ stack of stalks of large millet ʼ, kã̄ṛī ʻ wooden milkpail ʼ; Bhoj. kaṇḍā ʻ reeds ʼ; H. kã̄ṛī f. ʻ rafter, yoke ʼ, kaṇḍā m. ʻ reed, bush ʼ (← EP.?); G. kã̄ḍ m. ʻ joint, bough, arrow ʼ, °ḍũ n. ʻ wrist ʼ, °ḍī f. ʻ joint, bough, arrow, lucifer match ʼ; M. kã̄ḍ n. ʻ trunk, stem ʼ, °ḍẽ n. ʻ joint, knot, stem, straw ʼ, °ḍī f. ʻ joint of sugarcane, shoot of root (of ginger, &c.) ʼ; Si. kaḍaya ʻ arrow ʼ. -- Deriv. A. kāriyāiba ʻ to shoot with an arrow ʼ.kāˊṇḍīra -- ; *kāṇḍakara -- , *kāṇḍārā -- ; *dēhīkāṇḍa -- Add.
    Addenda: kāˊṇḍa -- [< IE. *kondo -- , Gk. kondu/los ʻ knuckle ʼ, ko/ndos ʻ ankle ʼ T. Burrow BSOAS xxxviii 55]S.kcch. kāṇḍī f. ʻ lucifer match ʼ? (CDIAL 3023)

    Rebus: khāˊṇḍa  'implements' (Marathi)
    Sign 211 'arrow' hieroglyph: kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.) H. kãḍerā m. a caste of bow -- and arrow -- makers (CDIAL 3024). 
    Or. kāṇḍa, kã̄ṛ ʻstalk, arrow ʼ(CDIAL 3023). ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent  iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) Thus ciphertext kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ is rebus hypertext
    kāṇḍa 'excellent iron', khāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans, metal-ware'. 
    Santali glosses
    badhia ‘castrated boar’ (Santali); baḍhi ‘a caste who work both in iron and wood’ (Santali) 

    বরাহ barāha 'boar', bārakaśa 'merchantman' pāṟu 'sailing ship'

    The suffix -kaśa in the expression bārakaśa is semantically cognate with kāsa ʻ moving ʼ Pāṇ. [√kas] S. kāha f. ʻ rush ʼ, kāho m. ʻ driver, persecutor ʼ(CDIAL 3134)

     I demonstrate in this note that the boatbuilders of the Bronze Age Sarasvati civilization were called bāṛaï 'carpenter' and by semantic extension बारकस [bārakaśa or bārakasa] n ( P) A trading vessel, a merchantman. Ta. pāṟu ship, sailing ship; paḵṟi coracle, boat, ship, vessel. Ma. pāṟu small boat, catamaran; pāṟal float, raft. Ka. pāṟu a kind of boat or ship. ? Tu. pāti small boat (DEDR 4120) See: Austro-Asiatic etyma: barau - canoe, Efate; fera - village, Proto-Malaitan, farau - canoe, Tahiti puruwa - village, Faita.poruku - canoe, Futuna peuru - village, Bilua,

    parao - canoe, Tagalog. Ta. paṭaku small boat; dhoney, large boat; paṭavu small boat; paṭavaṉ boatman; paṭuvai raft, float. Ma. paṭavu, paṭaku ship, large boat. Ka. paḍagu, paḍaṅgu, paḍahu, haḍaga, haḍagu id. Tu. paḍa, paḍavu boat; haḍaga, aḍagů ship. Te. paḍava boat. / Cf. Mar. paḍāv a kind of boat carrying from five to twenty. (DEDR 3838) Pilava & Plava [fr. plu, cp. Vedic plava boat, Russ. plov ship] 1. swimming, flowing, floating J v.408 (suplav -- atthaŋ in order to swim through well=plavana C.). -- 2. a kind of duck [so Epic Sk.] Vv 358 (cp. VvA 163); J v.420.(Pali) *plōtra ʻ boat ʼ. [pōta -- 3 m. ʻ boat ʼ MBh. is MIA. (amg.?) < *plōtra -- (EWA ii 346 < *plavata -- ), pōtāra<-> m. or n. BHSk. < *plōtr̥ -- ? -- √plu]Ku. pot ʻ boat ʼ.(CDIAL 9032)

    Seafaring merchants, Indus Script hieroglyph baḍhia,বরাহ barāha 'boar', baḍhi,bāṛaï 'carpenter' बारकसbārakaśa 'merchantman' 

    Indus Script Cipher: hieroglyph and rebus reading: baḍhia = a castrated boar, a hog (Santali) Rebus-metonymy-layered cipher provides the signified, artificer: baḍhi ‘a  caste who work both in iron and wood’ (Santali) baṟea 'merchant'.

    Indian sprachbund retains the early Indus Script hieroglyph of 'boar' rebus: 'boatbuilder, merchantman (seafaring vessel)'

    বরাহ barāha 'boar'Rebus: bāṛaï 'carpenter' (Bengali) bari 'merchant' barea 'merchant' (Santali) बारकश orबारकस [ bārakaśa or bārakasa ] n ( P) A trading vessel, a merchantman. The Bengali etymon bāṛaï is cognate with baḍhi  'carpenter' (Santali)

    Thus, the message of the Elamite tablet is: boat laden with metal implements from smithy/forge, a veritable catalogus catalogorum of metalwork of Meluhha artisans.

    Section 5. Motifs used in sites of Sarasvati River Basin

    The readings presented for the Elamite inscriptions are a continuum of Indus Script Cipher deployed on thousands of inscriptions in the 2000+ sites (80% of all 2600+ sites of the civilization) to signify wealth-accounting ledgers of metalwork catalogues. This will be demonstrated explaining the pictorial motifs which are unique in the Indus Writing System.
    A good summary of the motifs is presented by Ayumu Konasukawa (2014) and full text of his dissertation: Diversity of Harappan Civilization : A Case Study of the Ghaggar Basin (with Special Reference to Seals) is at