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


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

A homage to Hindu civilization.
    0 0


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jfGCi-e0k (14:39) 

    यूपी के बागपत जिले में 5000 साल पुरानी सभ्यता के मिले सबूत

    Published on Jun 5, 2018
    यूपी के बागपत जिले में सिलोनी गांव वालों ने अचानक से जमीन उठने का दावा किया.और जब ऑर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया ने 2 फीट नीचे खुदाई की.तो पांच हजार साल पुरानी सभ्यता के सबूत मिले.शाही कब्रगाहे मिली और ताबूत में एक राजा की कब्र थी तांबे का रथ और ताबें के हथियार थे.


    Published on Jun 5, 2018Image result for facebook baghpat chariot
    Image result for facebook baghpat chariot

    This is an addendum to


    Pipal leaf, twig, horned anthropomorph, penance, wristlets, stars are Indus Script hypertexts, wealth accounting ledgers of Sarasvati Civilization. Context, Baghpat spoked wheel chariot of helmsman (ca.2000 BCE)

    I suggest that further archaeometallurgical work is needed on 3 Baghpat chariots to narrate the Tin-Bronze-Iron continuum in Ancient India linking Sarasvati-Sindhu River Basins with Ganga-Yamuna-Brahmapura river basins.

    Eight copper anthropomorphs on the lid of coffin at Baghpat are the key links of the guild-master to Sarasvati Civilization.
    More work has to be done to re-think the roots of Copper Hoard Culture + iron from Lohar Dewa, Malhar, Raja-nal-ki Tila (18th cent. BCE) on the Ganga-Yamuna doab as a continuum of Sarasvati Civilization, given the R̥gveda & Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa evidence of Gautama Rāhugaṇa moving to Karatoya (Brahmaputra-Ganga confluence), i.e., Sadānīra according to Amara). Bogra is the famous archaeological site on this river (spelled Korotoa on the map).

    Image result for raja nal ki tila iron smelterDamaged circular clay furnace, comprising iron slag and tuyeres and other waste materials stuck with its body, exposed at lohsanwa mound, Period II, Malhar, Dist. Chandauli. See: 

     http://tinyurl.com/ndt2a6b


    Hope we will find metal alloy lynchpins of the three chariots. 

    S. Kalyanaraman
    Sarasvati Research Centre




    0 0


    Lots of speculations have been made abou the significance of Baghpat chariot archaeological discoveries in the TV media and in news reports. 

    The reports are an object lesson for historians to introspect on their ideology-bound speculations about history of Ancient Bharat.

    The chief excavator Sanjay Kumar Manjul of ASI is indeed excited about the finds dated to ca. 2000 BCE. 

    The burial in a coffin is intriguing. 

    I have posted some thoughts in a series of posts. 

    I think the key is to find the alloymetal lynchpins on the axles of the chariots. May provide an archaeometallurgical account of Tin-Bronze-Iron metallurgical competence of Ancient Indian artisans. 

    I am convinced that the Ganga-Yamuna-Brahmaputra basins are integral to the Sarasvati Civilization during 3rd millenniu BCE and perhaps, earlier periods along a Maritime/Riverine Waterway Tin Route between Hanaoi and Haifa (Israel) This route predated Silk Road by 2 millennia. 

    The Sarasvati Civilizations extends into Brahmaputra river basin. 

    Korotoa river mentioned in the map is Karatoya which according to Amara is the river Sadānīrā mentioned in R̥gveda and  Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa -- texts which document the migration of Gautama Rahugaa from Kurukshetra (Sarasvati Basin) to Sadānīrā. This migration in R̥gveda times is an emphatic evidence that Sarasvati Civilization had links with the cultures in Ganga-Yamuna Doab and into Brahmaputra river basin. 

    The dating of ca. 18th century BCE for iron smelters in sites such as Lohar Dewa, Malhar, Raja Nal-ki-tila point to the links of Iron Age with the Tin-Bronze Age of the Bronze Industrial Revolution of ca. 4th to 2nd millennium BCE in Ancient Near East and in Ancient Bharat. There are also Indus Scriptlinks with Dong Son and Karen Bronze drums of Ancient Far East. See reports on finds of iron in Sarasvati Civilization: 

     https://tinyurl.com/yddkmxvx

    Damaged circular clay furnace, comprising iron slag and tuyeres and other waste materials stuck with its body, exposed at lohsanwa mound, Period II, Malhar, Dist. Chandauli.

     
    Karen/Don Son bronze drums with Indus Script hypertexts

    The links are:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCFUyVSTMpw

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q0ThlecboQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlvl4h3OsFk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jfGCi-e0k (14:39) 

    यूपी के बागपत जिले में 5000 साल पुरानी सभ्यता के मिले सबूत

    यूपी के बागपत जिले में सिलोनी गांव वालों ने अचानक से जमीन उठने का दावा किया.और जब ऑर्कियोलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया ने 2 फीट नीचे खुदाई की.तो पांच हजार साल पुरानी सभ्यता के सबूत मिले.शाही कब्रगाहे मिली और ताबूत में एक राजा की कब्र थी तांबे का रथ और ताबें के हथियार थे.

    ASI-Excavated Sanauli Chariots Have Potential To Challenge Aryan Invasion Theory

    Recent discovery of three ‘pre-Iron Age’ carriers in Western Uttar Pradesh has excited the world of ancient history. But equally interesting would be the result of a search: were they horse-ridden?
    ASI-Excavated Sanauli Chariots Have Potential To Challenge Aryan Invasion Theory
    The copper remains of the chariots, found inside burial pits in a quiet spot along the Gangetic plains in present-day Western Uttar Pradesh's Baghpat district, date further back to the Bronze Age. That would mean an antiquity of 4,000 years—and a possible hint at their similarities of what existed during the civilisation in faraway Mesopotamia in Western Asia, according to ASI officials.

    The latest round of a three-month-long excavation in Sanauli, 75 km west of Delhi, began in March this year, and has unearthed eight burial remains as well. Out of these, three are coffins, archaeologists reveal. All the burials have pottery kept around the body: big pots near the legs and small bowls close to the head—indicating their lying in northwest direction, reveals Dr Sanjay Kumar Manjul, director of the ASI’s Institute of Archaeology, in charge of the excavation.
    As for the discovery of the chariots, a conclusion about the animal that pulled them is important. Why? The answer lies in the cultural history of India. For, the discovery of a horse chariot, dated back to 2000 BC, would challenge some of the basic premises of the construct of the ancient Indian history. Historians who support the Aryan invasion theory claim that horses were brought in by the invading Aryan army around 1500 to 1000 BC. Chariots pulled by horses had given the Aryans the edge over the Dravidians and the power to conquer the North Indian plains by pushing them to south of the peninsula.
    According to these historians, the Vedic culture was brought into India by the invading Aryans from central Asia. The Rig Veda, for instance, carries references to horses, they point out about the ancient Hindu text said to be composed during the same period (1500-1100 BC) when the Harappan civilisation was on its decline.

    Of late, several Indian and foreign historians have challenged it, saying that this theory is being floated by Western historians to attribute India’s ancient Vedic culture to the invaders from Central Asia. The Aryan invasion theory will face a more serious challenge if the archaeologists get scientific proof to the presence of horse-ridden chariots dating back to 2000 BC.
    This argument gets empirical support: there was hardly any evidence to show the presence of horses in the Harappan civilisation. Clay seals of different shapes and sizes with figures of bulls and dancing girls had been unearthed in large numbers at the Harappan sites, but none with the figure of a horse. This is one of the prime arguments that support the Aryan invasion theory.
    The swords, daggers, copper-chest shields and helmets confirm the presence of a warrior population in the Gangetic plain—these also challenge the theory of an easy invasion by Aryans from Central Asia.
    The dusty pocket in UP’s Sanauli was first excavated in 2004-05, leading to the discovery of 116 burial remains. Following that, authorities decided to undertake more trail excavations to understand the extent of the burial site and the habitat, points out Dr Manjul, who initiated the excavation. He is of the opinion that the latest findings will aid “recalibrate” India’s position on the map of ancient global history.

    The 2005 excavations helped us discover pottery of different sizes, besides beads and other materials that were similar to those of the Harappan civilisation, but a chariot near a coffin is not seen anywhere in the Harappan sites. That way, this is a “path-breaking” discovery, Dr Manjul adds.
    Globally, excavations have unearthed chariots dating back to 2000 BC, near the burial sites of Mesopotamia and Greek civilisations, but such a discovery is pioneering for the Indian subcontinent, says Dr Manjul.  These chariots have many similarities with those unearthed in Mesopotamia (which has sites tracing back to the initial period of the Neolithic Revolution of 10000 BC). “This would give a new dimension to our history and ancient culture,” he adds.
    In Sanauli, decorated copper-plated anthropomorphic figures having horns, peepal-leafed crowns and even a torso shaped armour made of copper have been found near the coffins, indicating the possibility of the site featuring a “royal burial”, the expert says. Apart from this, researchers have discovered four copper antenna swords, two daggers, three copper bowls, combs, mirrors and beads of different shapes and sizes.

    Yet, coffins with copper decorations, and chariots have never been discovered anywhere in the subcontinent. “It was during one of our visits to Western UP that some villagers informed us of their having found a few pieces of pottery and traces of copper in their fields. This prompted us to start excavations in Sanauli,” says Dr Manjul, revealing how scientists stumbled upon this discovery. On whether the chariots were run buy a bull or a horse, the expert says more research can ascertain the matter.
    The ASI, which functions under the Union government’s ministry of culture, has been surveying the area for the past two decades. The 116 Sanauli burials shed light onto the settlement pattern of Protohistoric period of this region, where they “are very much similar” to those discovered in Harappa and Mohenjo-daro (2500 BC) besides Dholavira (in today’s Gujarat state), also of the Indus Valley civilisation.
    The swords unearthed at Sanauli have copper-covered hilts and medial ridge making it strong enough for warfare. The chariots discovered have two wheels fixed on an axle that was linked by a long pole to the yoke of a pair of animals. A super structure was attached to the axle consist of a platform protected by side-screens and a high dashboard. The wheels were found solid in nature, without any spokes, Dr Manjul says. “This is just a trail excavation. Now we are planning to have more detailed excavations in this area.”

    Locally, many people believe that Sanauli is one of the five villages that the mythological Krishna unsuccessfully negotiated with the Kauravas to avoid the epic war of Kurukshetra. The Mahabharata carries many references of horse-ridden chariots. In fact, a popular image of Lord Krishna is of him revealing the essence of the Bhagavat Gita to the Pandava prince Arjuna, while sitting in his war chariot. That apart, Dr Manjul refuses to link the discovery of a chariot to any mythical story. “As a scientist, I can’t support any such overarching links without having valid scientific evidence,” he says. 
    Local youths are also roped into the excavation activities. The villagers are excited to see their sleepy, backward village grabbing global attention now. The chosen among them have been given basic training to support the ASI’s field staff camping at the site for the past three months.
    People from the nearby areas are coming in large numbers to see the site.  “They are influenced by the Mahabharata serial aired by Indian television channels,” shrugs Dr Manjul, with a smile. “Many who had come here to see an impressive golden chariot are disappointed after seeing the shape and size of the unearthed chariot.” However, for archaeologists Sanauli is much more than a point of ephemeral historical interest.

    (The writer is a Delhi-based television journalist.)



    0 0

    https://tinyurl.com/y8ogqscy

    Meluhha is the language of Indus Script -- S. Kalyanaraman (Author of Epigraphic Indus Script -- Hyperexts & Meanings, 3 vols. 2017). The word Meluhha used in cuneiform texts is called mleccha in Ancient Indian texts. The region of Meluhha speakers may include regions of Ancient India and also Straits of Malaka (Malacca) in the Indian Ocean. More than 2000 words of Meluhha speakers explain the readings of over 8000 Indus Script inscriptions. These inscriptions are in Meluhha hypertexts read rebus; for e.g. karibha, ibha'elephant' rebus: karba, ib 'iron'. Such an elephant is shown on an Indus Script seal from Gonur Tepe. It is for linguists to figure out how Meluhha word for elephant travelled in Eurasia and got used in Gonur Tepe (spelled as Gonur Depe on the map) of Bactria-Mariana Cultural Complex. With the comments of Angela Marcangonio presented in the following excerpts, it is suggested that the linguists shold re-visit their theories about the roots of Indo-European language family.

    Let me cite a reference in Mahābhārata which refers to mleccha (cognate Meluhha, as a language used by Vidura and Yudhishthira): "Vaisampayana continued, 'Hearing these words, the illustrious Kunti was deeply grieved, and with her children, O bull of Bharata's race, stepped into the boat and went over the Ganges. Then leaving the boat according to the advice of Vidura, the Pandavas took with them the wealth that had been given to them (while at Varanavata) by their enemies and safely entered the deep woods. In the house of lac, however, that had been prepared for the destruction of the Pandavas, an innocent Nishada woman who had come there for some purpose, was, with her children burnt to death. And that worst of Mlechchhas, the wretched Purochana (who was the architect employed in building the house of lac) was also burnt in the conflagration. And thus were the sons of Dhirtarashtra with their counsellors deceived in their expectations. And thus also were the illustrious Pandavas, by the advice of Vidura, saved with their mother. But the people (of Varanavata) knew not of their safety. And the citizens of Varanavata, seeing the house of lac consumed (and believing the Pandavas to have been burnt to death) became exceedingly sorry. And they sent messengers unto king Dhritarashtra to represent everything that had happened. And they said to the monarch, 'Thy great end hath been achieved! Thou hast at last burnt the Pandavas to death! Thy desire fulfilled, enjoy with thy children. O king of the Kurus, the kingdom.' Hearing this, Dhritarashtra with his children, made a show of grief, and along with his relatives, including [paragraph continues] Kshattri (Vidura) and Bhishma the foremost of the Kurus, performed the last honours of the Pandavas.' (MahābhārataSection CXLIII,, Jatugriha Parva, pp. 302-303). The Great Epic is replete with hundreds of references to Mlecchas and mleccha speakers.
    Image result for elephant gonur tepe
    Image result for elephant gonur tepe

    "...it is hard to pin down what the foundations of the theory are actually supposed to be”-- Angela Marcantonio

     Türkic in English
    Angela MarcantonioThe Indo-European Language Family: Questions About Its Status
    Introduction

    Institute for the Study of Man, Washington D.C.
    Journal for Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, Monograph 55, 2009, ISBN 978-0-941694-03-2, 978-0-941694-02-5
    www.jies.org, Copyright © 2009 Institute for the Study of Man
    Pagination per reprint in Journal of Eurasian StudiesRepublished with permission
    January-March 2015, Vol. VII, Issue 1, http://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0115.pdf
    Mikes International, The Hague, Holland, 2013, ISSN 1877-4199
    © Copyright Mikes International 2001-2015, All Rights Reserved
    © Copyright Angela Marcantonio, 2009-2015
    Links
    http://www.lettere.uniroma1.it/users/angela-marcantonio University page
    http://uniroma1.academia.edu/AngelaMarcantonio Links to publications
    https://sites.google.com/site/angelamarcantonio/ Scholarship
    Posting Introduction
    The science of modern linguistics is built on the pattern of the Indo-European (IE) linguistics, rather to the detriment of the science. The pattern of the IE linguistics  carries its reasoning and problems to every other linguistic group, bearing on the relationship between Türkic in English and quite a few other “IE languages”. The problems of the IE linguistic theory are massaged from its inception 200 years ago by self-policing acolytes who nearly always found partial fixes, but a systematic synopsis of the problems and solutions has never existed; to see an impartial critical synopsis of the IE linguistics is an  event of the epochal scale. Instead of periodical general review done by any other discipline, this field had discretely circulated dispersed criticisms, citations of diverse opinions, and discussions of some particular aspects, all with an implied premise that the theory is right, albeit requires tweaking. The offered citations on the theme of the sanity of the IE linguistics are extracted from the work of Angela Marcantonio, an editor of a linguistic compendium, who wrote an editorial introduction that laid out IE problems, inventoried positions, analyzed situation, and drew conclusions. The punch line is jesting, it rings “it is hard to pin down what the foundations of the theory are actually supposed to be”. In science, any theory rests on fundamentals. If the fundamentals are not fundamental, the term “theory” is a misnomer for speculation, propaganda, a set of beliefs, and the like craze promoting some cause. The past 200 years have proved that, every imbalance of the IE theory was mitigated by shifting foundation over under. These shiftings, hatched to fix specific problems particular to the IE model, as scientific approaches are useless for the IE linguistics, and even less applicable for the rest of the world's linguistics.
    This posting cites the snippets taken from the Angela Marcantonio's Introduction, and as always, the devil is in the details, they need to be traced in the original publications, follow the links for the JIES and JOES publications. Few accents may be added.
    Any editorial comment added to the text of the author and highlighted in (blue italics) or blue boxes is posting comment unrelated to the views of the author. The author explicitly does not personally believe that there may be a Turkic substratum to IE, or to Sanskrit, not only because there was no IE, but also because, even if IE had exited, the time and area of the two language groups do not add up, each appearing at the scene of history far apart from one another. The author does not subscribe to any links between the Turkic languages and IE, or Sanskrit.
    The origin of the “IE theory” was apt to its time, a biblical model where Noah produced Semitic Shem, African Ham, and Eurasian Japheth, otherwise depicted as a Family Tree. The modern linguistic terminology still uses biblical tales, Semites are from Shem, and Hamites are from Ham. The IE linguistics formed as an obverse side of a racial coin, its dignified theoretical side, while the now eroded reverse side was a practical reality. The biblical model implies that at one remote point in time existed a formed language that split off into various dialects that grew into languages and language families. In most cases, that is a fallacy. The tiny bands of hunter-gatherers needed large tracts to forage, reaching into other's territories and initiating social exchanges. Creolization held the day, or rather many millennia. Then, the “Family Tree” had a shape of a grass lawn with stolons extending from every base and crisscrossing with stolons of their neighbors. After a drought, the surviving islands were restarting the process uncountable number of times. A most aggressive weed propagated and conquered. The emergence of the roving agriculture and animal husbandry tilted creolization toward the more fecund side, the Family Tree took a shape of brush spots in a grassy lawn. Leveling became a greater force in communications, all linguistic aspects were affected by leveling, typology, syntax, morphology, and phonetics. That trend grew with introduction of a 3-field system starting in 800s AD, which reduced agricultural roving, with companion linguistic fallout. The resultant leveling gave Family Tree a shape of groves in brushy tracts surrounded by grassy lawns. The printing presses of the Late Middle Ages made leveling ubiquitous at the expense of minority languages and dialects. At the same time, increased productivity of agriculture allowed rulers to engage in permanent warfare that stirred and dispersed subject population along the path travelled by cattlemen ranchers five millennia earlier. It took another 1000 years for the emergence of linguistics and its biblical-type etiology. Some linguists might have thought of the example of biological evolution. It took another 200 years for some linguists to realize that their model is hopelessly faulty, and come up with an alternate Wave model.
    Every and all IE linguistic broodings see the ancient languages as some frozen codified entities, while our recent experience attests that languages are dynamic creatures with definite lifetimes and a spatial differentiation that makes versions separated by a mountain ridge or 200 km distance mutually unintelligible. So people speak 2, 3 languages, or whatever is needed. One of them is an areal pan-language that is used as a first and last resort, a lingua franca. Each language influences the others in all linguistic aspects, that is an areal Sprachbund. There comes a revolution, a new language becomes a pan-language, say, Greek, but the old  pan-language keeps living within all languages of the Sprachbund. There comes a revolution, a, say, Latin language becomes a pan-language. Then the new pan-language and local languages evolve, becoming a tool of the literati, who start to codify them, setting rules of right and wrong, and deliberately pushing the wrongs way down. Then comes a linguist that discovers too many synonyms and homonyms, and a general linguistic chaos that needs to be systematized and classified. A linguistic model is born, full of contraventions, but suitable as an unifying force blind to its inner conflicts in all linguistic aspects. Throwing the effects of the layers of non-codified and mutually unintelligible causes into the IE studies makes the confused theory unmanageable. The model bursts from the inside.
    One predominating theme of the Introduction is that linguistics is a science with no laws. The laws are created as needed, adjusted as needed, manipulated at will, and have premises as their conclusions. The only reliable element in the study of the linguistic laws is not taught, because it augurs that there are no laws. No law or a defined set of laws can take a student from Anglo-Sax. to English, in reverse, or in any direction. The only utility of the linguistic laws is the self-perpetuating education industry.
    Unfortunately, the typology, a most basic property of language is totally unaddressed, as if it is not linguistics but a whimsical idea. In the ratings of importance within linguistics, typology trails endings in some God-forgotten IE language with a dozen of active speakers. That is not to say that the scholarship of 460 IE languages has 460 dictionaries, in fact it is far from that. And typology trails the last of them
    One of the leading linguistic parameters is “genetic connection”, like “Noah begot Shem”, used as a premise (i.e. cognates) and as an objective. Genetic connection is a statistical parameter with 2 levels, that of a word, and that of a paradigm (class of all items). On the level of word, a critical threshold must be present, constituting a lexical paradigm; the other paradigms may consist of other shared innate linguistic properties. Aside from its inability to project into the future, what sets the linguistic genetic connection apart from the science is the absence of a demographic aspect. Unlike languages that are carried by warm bodies, the linguistic languages are carried by spirits entitled “demic diffusion”, “elite dominance”, and the like abstractions. The roles of maternal language imbibed with milk, of generations raised by mamas systematically imported from the same group, and other physical processes of systemic recurrent movements (a la colonization of Americas) and incidental impacts (a la nearly instantaneous spread of literacy) with heavy demographic impact are systematically neglected. The distorted vision turns a lively bouquet of a blend of languages brought into the family of any modern language into an unrealistic scheme fit for inclusion into unrealistic “IE theory”. Languages as diverse as analytical English, agglutinative Armenian and Ossetian, and morphologically rich Romance languages are facetiously combined into a single rubbery class.
    A reader should keep in mind that the oldest writing in the world belongs to Sumerians, ca. 4,500 BC, and no claims to deeper knowledge are evidentiary supported. We can do many things theoretically, like weighing stars, because we have hard and validatable scientific toolbox, but the intuitive linguistics falls way short from being a science yet.
    Is this analysis auguring the wane of the easy come - easy go biblical model and a coming of a real science? Not so fast, first we need an uncomfortable sober-up period, and a shift of the entire IE education industry. As to the nearly sanctified LIV (IE etymological dictionary), a single critical review by non-IE linguists would go a long way toward its credibility.
    Page numbers are shown at the bottom of the page. The posting's notes and explanations, added to the text of the author, are shown in parentheses in (blue italics) or blue boxes.
    Contents
    Introduction 38
    2. The comparative method and the sound laws 41
    2.1. The strengths and weaknesses of the comparative method 41
    2. 2. The circularity issue 43
    2. 3. Borrowing vs inheritance 45
    2. 4. Is the phonological evidence malleable? 46
    3. The role of morphology 46
    3.1. Is morphology the most reliable indicator of genetic inheritance? 46
    3. 2. The degree of ‘borrowability’ of grammar 47
    3. 3. Is the morphological evidence malleable? 49
    3. 4. Are morphological reconstructions predictive? 52
    3. 5. Counter evidence within morphology 54
    3. 6. Is there hard core evidence at the foundation of Indo-European? 55
    4. Is there a pre-historical reality behind reconstructed Indo-European? 58
    4. 1. Conventionalism vs realism 58
    4. 2. The Aryan debate 59
    4. 3. Sanskrit and the South Asia linguistic area 60
    4. 4. The conventionalist approach 62
    5. Introduction to the chapters (in alphabetical order) 63
    Chapter X. Angela Marcantonio, Evidence that most Indo-European lexical reconstructions are artefacts of the linguistic method of analysis 69
    6. Conclusion 71
    References 72
    Angela MarcantonioThe Indo-European Language Family: Questions About Its Status
    Introduction
    38
    1. 1. The purpose of the present volume is to survey the current state of the Indo-European (‘IE’) theory in the light of modern linguistic knowledge. Included in the survey is also extra-linguistic evidence, such as recent archaeological, genetic and palaeo-anthropological findings. Its ultimate purpose is to revisit the validity of the various tenets of the theory. In fact, when scholars refer to the “IE theory”, they may be referring to one of a number of competing, and sometimes contradictory, models. For example, some regard IE as purely a linguistic classification, whilst others regard it as an attempt to reconstruct a ‘real’ pre-historical language. To take another example, some scholars hold that the original IE protolanguage was a morphologically complex language, similar to Sanskrit, whilst others argue it was morphologically simple.
    ...in a single volume, these various approaches and views about IE that it clearly and explicitly emerges how surprisingly different and, often, even deeply contradictory, these views and approaches may be. Thus, the IE theory is widely accepted despite the fact that opinions differ enormously on what the theory actually comprises. Opinions may clash even as to the very nature and validity of many of the underlying tenets of the theory – whether explicitly stated or quietly assumed. For example, as mentioned, some scholars regard the subject a ‘pure theory’, which helps to describe correlations between languages, whilst others regard it as a valid means to reconstruct pre-historical facts. Although there seems to be a widely shared assumption that at least a ‘hard core’ of the correlations among the IE languages are ‘compelling’ – that is, too striking to be the result of chance – there may be deep divergences on how to interpret these correlations, as well as on other, less central but equally important aspects of the theory. In other words, contrary to what one would expect, the wide acceptance of the IE linguistic classification does not appear to be accompanied by a parallel acceptance of a coherent and equally agreed set of tenets, a coherent common denominator, consisting of what one could call the ‘hard linguistic evidence’ and the ‘fundamental principles’ upon which the theory, supposedly, is based.
    39

     ...This, ultimately, amounts to the task of re-assessing the founding principles of the theory. In particular, one might reasonably ask the following questions:
    1. How is it possible that such widely differing and often contradictory views are still unresolved today?...
    2. Is the IE theory a ‘scientific’ theory, that is, has it been established through “methods of analysis which produce results that are subject to invalidation”1? If so, what precisely is the evidence counter to the model?...
    3. As an alternative, some scholars believe that the theory cannot be invalidated and therefore is not a ‘scientific’ theory; nevertheless its validity is simply ‘compelling’. What is the basis for this claim?...

    The points of views and perspectives... have hardly been dealt with and confronted with one another..., despite being inextricably interdependent. As a consequence, the questions raised in the points (1)-(3) above have hardly been addressed in a targeted and systematic way. ...there are plenty of publications dealing with the issue of the strengths and weaknesses of the methods of historical linguistics... However, these publications hardly ever ponder on whether the acknowledged weaknesses may have a negative impact on the IE theory and, if yes, to what extent. Similarly, there are many publications revolving around “how real(ist) are reconstructions” (Lass 1993), but their scope hardly ever extends to encompass the consequent issue of how to best interpret the IE reconstructed, comparative corpus. On the other hand, there are plenty of publications which... revolve only around the question of the whereabouts of the (assumed) IE proto-community. ...textbooks of IE linguistics (and, often, specialist publications too), hardly ever mention any of these ongoing debates. ...the fact remains that textbooks typically present a highly idealized, monolithic picture of IE: a paradigmatic, problem-free language family, where everything works (especially sound laws, lexical and morphological correspondences), where there are hardly any contradictions or ambiguities in the linguistic or extra-linguistic evidence, or even any significant divergence of views among scholars. ...this idealized picture is in stark contrast with the messy reality – in terms of variation, high level of exception, contradictory evidence, etc. – found in practically all the other language families of the world, as well, admittedly, within branches of IE (such as the Romance and Germanic languages, or the Balto-Slavic continuum, etc.). This in turn has lead several scholars (such as Grace 1990 & 1996) to come up with the rather ‘aberrant’ idea that there must exist in the world two basic types of language families: the ‘the exemplary ones’ (IE and just few others) and the ‘aberrant’ ones (all the rest).
    40

    There are, of course, textbooks that present... the poor quality and /or quantity of the evidence in support of otherwise widely accepted theories. One may compare, for example, Szemerényi’s (1973 & 1996:122 ff.) and Gusmani’s (1979) account of the slippery evidence on which the laryngeal theory is typically based on the Hittite side, or Sihler’s (1995:144 ff.) account of the factual and methodological obscurities found in Verner’s Law, one of the most revered IE sound laws. However,...  it is difficult to evaluate their potential impact on the validity of the theory, or simply just to acknowledge them. ...if, at some stage in the history of a theory the amount of evidence counter to the model reaches what is usually called a ‘point of critical mass’, then a revision of the theory might be in order, whether to modify or update its tenets, or, if necessary, to reject it altogether. In other words, minimizing, re-interpreting or adjusting any evidence found to be inconsistent with the model might be misleading, and therefore not desirable. In fact, scholars identifying problems in their area of research may wrongly assume that the matter has been settled beyond doubt in other areas of study, ...in this way, unwillingly, and maybe wrongly, contributing to reinforce the validity of the theory in question.
    41

    2. The comparative method and the sound laws
    2.1. The strengths and weaknesses of the comparative method
    The debate revolving around the issue of the strengths and weaknesses of the comparative method is an intense, long standing debate. In fact, establishing regular sound correspondences is considered by several (many / most?) scholars to be a crucial part of the process of establishing language families (see for example Campbell (1998:315)). ...this debate has hardly ever been associated with a targeted, extensive investigation of the possible impact the weaknesses of the comparative method may have on the validity of IE as a linguistic classification. In particular, the long standing “Lautgesetz controversy” (for which see Wilbur 1977) subsided without resolution, and despite its recent resurfacing in publications dealing with several linguistic areas / families in the world (see for example Ross & Durie (eds, 1996); Blust (1996)2, Aikhenvald & Dixon (eds, 2001), etc.), it is rarely referred to in textbooks of IE. In fact, these usually assume, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the ‘regularity principle’ and the related family tree model have been established in IE beyond doubt, through the support of an extensive amount of data derived from the various IE languages.
    However, this is not necessarily the case... As a consequence, the reader, including general linguists or even experts in historical linguistics who are not acquainted with the details of IE, may be excused if they are confused as to the actual ‘quality’ and ‘quantity’ of the phonological / lexical correspondences conventionally established for IE. Indeed, within IE too irregularity and exceptions do occur – it would be odd otherwise.
    42

     However, the vital questions are:
    A) How pervasive is this irregularity?
    B) Is it really true that the encountered irregularities can, in most cases, be justified through ‘genuine’ linguistic processes, that is, without stretching the explanatory system up to the point of dangerous ‘circularity’, by ‘appending’ ad-hoc justifications?

    The reader who would expect an answer to these questions which is coherent, unanimous, and, most importantly, decisive – one way or the other – might be disappointed. To show that this is the case, here is a list of the most common justifications put forward to answer question (A):
    1. Only the ordinary nouns in IE, particularly those referring to objects and concepts of everyday life, display a high degree of irregularity (much higher in any case than verbal roots), but this is only because they belong to the lower level of speech, the lower level stratum of the IE population (Meillet 1934: 396 ff.; Benveniste 1935:175 ff.).
    2. The irregularities are only, in most cases apparent, in the sense that linguists have not yet found the appropriate explanation to account for them.
    3. There are some / many / plenty of irregularities (according to interpretations), but there is nothing to be surprised about. We know that sound changes do not proceed so regularly after all, but this does not have a negative impact on the validity of IE, whose establishment, in fact, has not been based (only) on the phonological / lexical correlations, but on the morphological ones. Such a view is embraced, among others, by Harrison (2003:214 ff), Greenberg (1987:18; see also Croft 2005) and, in this volume, by Kazanas. For example, Harrison (2003: 217) states that: “If one can prove that even one single cognate pair holds over two languages, one has proven those languages genetically related”. The (implicit) claim here appears to be that proper lexical ‘correspondences’ are generally hard, if not impossible to attain. Therefore, linguists must come to terms with the fact that also within IE (like within other language families or across macro-families) the correlations among the assumed cognates are not, in the main, as ‘regular and systematic’ as generally claimed.
    This is probably the most inept claim of all claims related to linguistics in general. The mechanism of estimating probability of chance lexical coincidences shows that any two languages have a considerable proportion of lexical coincidences with probability exceeding 1, i.e. in each case is at least one and possibly more valid correspondences. Statistical probability drops exponentially with the increase in the number of morphemes in the word. Any two languages can be mechanically compared across entire dictionary, with probability value for chance lexical coincidence established for each lexeme in the language using the frequency parameter of each morpheme in the language being compared. Once the algorithm is established, comparison and results are produced automatically, providing hard and validatable parameters. The process may be performed with any desired accuracy by setting up the width of phonetic and semantic fields.
    4. Sound changes do, in the main, proceed regularly, but the encountered irregularities are a natural effect of the great antiquity of the IE family, although its precise degree of antiquity is impossible to assess...
    ...the neo-grammarians worked on sound changes only ex post facto; therefore they were unable to observe particular changes in progress.
    43

    ...As to the answer to question (B), we are not aware of any research carried out with the specific purpose of ascertaining whether or not the circularity issue has had a negative impact on the soundness of IE...
    ...On the issue of the reliability... of sound laws, ...the following statement made by Clackson (2007: 60-61) with specific reference to the laryngeal theory: “The comparative method does not rely on absolute regularity, and the PIE laryngeals may provide an example of where reconstruction is possible without the assumption of rigid sound-laws”. This statement begs the question of why, when and where, and on the basis of which criteria, scholars may – or may not – assume the existence of “rigid sound-laws”.
    2. 2. The circularity issue
    If – as it seems – the circularity issue has not been solved (yet?), scholars could attempt to set up some sort of qualitative and / or quantitative constraint to the number of the defining parameters a given law may consist of. In practice, however, as far as we are aware, there has never been any such attempt. On the contrary, in the every-day, painstaking practice of establishing sound laws and correspondences, any mismatch in the evidence (ambiguity or absence of the expected outcome, exceptions, etc.) can always “be explained away” through a range of procedures, a range of ‘adjustable parameters’, to be added to the original definition of the law. In other words, instead of casting doubts on the validity of an assumed law (and, if necessary, dropping it) when faced with exceptions and difficulties, typically the practitioner tries to ‘rescue’ the stated law, even at a cost of making recourse to a (virtually unlimited) number of (often ad-hoc) adjustments, such as:
    44

    1. re-defining the law
    2. identifying a different starting-point of the law
    3. assuming borrowing, from other languages, or ‘transitional’ dialects, or even from unknown (phantom), extinct languages /dialects
    4. assuming analogical processes
    5. re-arranging the stated sequence of rules in a different order
    6. postulating a (/another) laryngeal segment
    7. stating that the mismatches in the expected outcomes of the law are not significant for calling into question a theory as well established as IE.
    The obvious consequence of this circularity deeply embedded in the comparative method is that the explanatory system runs into the risk of becoming so powerful, so flexible, that it can be stretched to match almost any data, in this way making it impossible to compare the results it yields against the predictions of the model. In other words, although each single ‘adjustable parameter’ as listed above may in itself reflect a plausible, genuine linguistic process, the overall cumulative effect of many adjustable parameters added to the definition of a given law may endanger the ‘cumulative effect’, the ‘statistical significance’ any established ‘law’, or even ‘tendency’, should display to deserve these names. This is an issue that has hardly ever been properly and systematically addressed...
    Although the supposedly rigorous, ‘scientific’ nature of the comparative method has often been called into question, and more objective quantitative methods of analysis have been at times adopted within historical linguistics, the statistical significance of the IE comparative corpus itself (both the phonological (/lexical) corpus and the morphological one) has never been tested....
    ...Authors have used the IE family, whose validity is taken for granted, basically as a ‘control case’ for various kinds of statistical tests within historical linguistics, but have not tested the statistical significance of the IE comparative corpus itself.
     45

    ...Marcantonio... argues that the great majority of the conventionally stated IE sound laws lack statistical significance and that, therefore, most of the conventionally established correspondences (within the LIV corpus) are simply similarities, most probably in the given sense of ‘chance resemblances’.
    2. 3. Borrowing vs inheritance
    ...the possibility that the established ‘cognates’ – be they ‘similarities’ or proper ‘correspondences’ – may be due to the common processes of borrowing, diffusion, convergence, or even chance resemblances. As is known, borrowed words tend to integrate into the sound pattern of the receiving language, as well as undergoing the same (more or less regular) changes that inherited words would undergo. Thus, the identification of borrowed elements on the basis of internal, linguistic clues only might not always be easy. Therefore, sound correspondences, whilst fundamental to most approaches in assessing language families, “can be misused”...
    ...several semantic fields within the IE basic lexicon..., in addition to being mainly irregular, typically lack a wide distribution across the IE area, being often confined to just two or three contiguous languages... In contrast, the cognate terms for ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘brother’, ‘daughter’, etc., display a much wider distribution, and a higher degree of regularity. This factor has correctly raised the suspicion that processes of loss (and consequent replacement) of original words, or even processes of chance resemblance, may have been involved in this area. The issue of the wide vs restricted distribution and the (degree of) irregularity of many basic cognates within IE is interpreted differently by different scholars... ...patterns of original words are typically retained, and are therefore easily identifiable even within a context of extensive borrowing...
    46

    2. 4. Is the phonological evidence malleable?
    ...one could certainly argue that the conventional, phonological / lexical evidence on which the IE theory is based, to a closer scrutiny, appears to be rather ‘malleable’ – it is certainly not as decisive (one way or the other) as generally claimed. As a matter of fact, it is always possible to find a plausible, although not always testable, justification to any intervening piece of evidence counter to a stated rule or tendency. Similarly, it is also always possible to provide at least two equally plausible, equally well founded explanations for any given linguistic phenomenon.
    This is also the case within non-controversial areas of IE linguistics, such as the postulation of the so-called ‘Indo-Iranian branch / unity’. One can in fact compare the different interpretations given to this unity – (also) on the basis of phonological /lexical evidence... Schmitt... argues that the data from both Vedic and Sanskrit are not with absolute necessity genuinely antique and that, therefore, Old Indo-Aryan is not as close to PIE as still believed by some scholars...
    At this point one could object that all these methodological and factual difficulties do not, after all, matter, even if they did impact negatively on the validity of the conventionally established sound laws (and related correspondences and reconstructions). This is because... the lexicon is often considered to be the level of language less (or not at all?) relevant for the purpose of assessing genetic relationships. This would be sound and acceptable if there were indeed a consensus among Indo-Europeanists as well as comparativists in general on the principle that it is morphology the level of language (mostly?) relevant in this context...
    3. The role of morphology
    3.1. Is morphology the most reliable indicator of genetic inheritance?
    Unlike lexical comparisons, a low-hanging fruit that needs only a dictionary, morphological comparisons require innate knowledge of compared and candidate languages. Within the IE family, morphological comparisons are as problematic as comparisons between morphologically far-away individual families, attesting that IE languages belong to different morphological families. Applying some notion grown from the IE unity concept to anything grown with an alien morphology, where a morphological element from an unsuspected language is treated as a root element of the IE base form, leads to grotesque conclusions and even more grotesque reconstructions, comparisons, and final judgments. In a minimal case, with one-syllable CVC-type word taken as an IE base root, the second consonant may be a bound marker of deverbal concrete noun that points to the origin of the word from a foreign verb never suspected and never investigated by the grotesque-headed linguist uninitiated on the significance of  morphological elements outside of the IE unity concept.
    Since the very times of the establishment of IE the prevailing opinion appears to have been that grammar can offer the most reliable evidence for assessing genetic relatedness. Grammar has typically been considered to be a rather stable level of language and, often, totally resistant to borrowing – in contrast to the volatility of the lexicon. These properties have made morphological correlations quite popular among many historical linguists, even if it has always been (more or less openly) recognized that it is not clear what the criteria are, if any, on the basis of which to identify and evaluate morphological similarities.
    In fact, not even the regularity principle is expected to consistently operate at this level, due to the overwhelming interference of the analogical principle.
    In addition, there has never been... any systematic attempt to define a possible measure, a ‘unit of similarity’ (in form and / or function) – as it were – to be applied in the practice of comparing morphemes. This measure of similarity would work as a common denominator against which to evaluate the at times vaguely similar, at times very similar and at times identical morphemes occurring among (most / some) IE languages. Thus, the problem is that the morphological correlations are typically observed and established by intuitive, visual inspection (often by single scholars), whereby considerable latitude may be allowed when it comes to phonological forms as well as to similarity of functions. For the morphological (and morpho-phonological) correlations to be rigorous, to be proper ‘correspondences’, one should certainly require regular phonological correspondences between morphs which also indicate similar (but how similar?) meanings and /or functions – condition which is hardly ever met. Indeed, one often reads in the literature that the grammatical correlations within IE are (still nowadays) simply and purely ‘obvious’ to the ‘naked eyes’ of the trained philologist (see Nichols 1996a), exactly as they appeared to the first scholars who dealt with them a couple of centuries ago.
    47

    3. 2. The degree of ‘borrowability’ of grammar
    In recent years a mounting body of evidence has been accumulating according to which not only grammar is found to be ‘borrowable’, but, given the appropriate historical and social context, it may rate quite high on the scale of borrowability. It could therefore be difficult to determine whether shared grammatical innovations are the result of genetic inheritance or of areal convergence. ...is grammar borrowable to such an extent that historical reconstruction becomes impossible?...
    48

    ...within IE studies there is still an open question regarding the nature of the original morphological structure of PIE: was PIE rich in morphology (as is the case, mainly, of Greek and Indo-Iranian), which has then been ‘reduced’ or ‘lost’ in the other languages, or was it rather poor in morphology, in which case the complex morphology of Indo-Iranian and Greek is the result of parallel, shared innovations, rather than of genetic inheritance?...
    Still on the issue of the ‘borrowability’ of grammar, it has been claimed at times that the IE morphological correlations are, on the whole, similar enough to be considered valid correlations but different enough so as not to raise the suspicion that borrowing might have been involved. However, certain IE grammatical forms typically reported in textbooks as ‘obvious’ examples of genetic inheritance – such as the paradigm of the verb ‘to be’, or ‘to bear, carry’ – are so similar, if not in some forms identical across the area, that the suspicion of borrowing may indeed arise. In fact, one would normally expect much more divergence from a long process of inheritance and development. ...In addition to this, one should take into consideration the numerous morphological correlations which supposedly connect the IE family with other contiguous, but different language families, as argued for by the supporters of the so-called macro-families...
    The two suggested examples, the verbs ‘to be’ and ‘to bear, carry’, illustrate the difficulties encountered in concocting and dissecting the IE theory. Both words are not only shared with Türkic, they are shared paradigmatically, attesting to a common genetic connection. Without a demographic aspect, the suspicion of borrowing may indeed arise, and be never solved. Add the demographic aspect, and the linguistic genetic connection becomes a natural result of the demographic preponderance, of the population replacement, subjugation, and amalgamation that supplanted the diverse local languages with a feature typical for the Sprachbunds, an areal feature shared across numerous dissimilar languages. That is a birth of the IE unity that millenniums later occurred, in a vague and mushy form, to the European linguistic explorers.
    49
    3. 3. Is the morphological evidence malleable?
    At this point one could object that the risk of reconstructing false matches within IE grammar is rather low, since one can rely on a wealth of shared (inflectional and derivational) morphology in a great variety of areas. Furthermore, although much of the grammatical evidence put forward by traditional IE studies is certainly rather intuitive and subjective, as it happens, this evidence turns out to fall within the range of what Nichols (1996a: 49 & 64) calls “diagnostic evidence”:
    Traditionally linguistic kinship was identified on the basis of diagnostic evidence which is grammatical and combines structural paradigmaticity […] and syntagmaticity with concrete morphological forms. The Indo-Europeanists’ intuitive feel for what was diagnostic evidence of relatedness corresponds to a computable threshold of probability of occurrence […]. A grouping can be regarded as established by the comparative method if and only if it rests on individual-identifying evidence
    Nichols makes a smooth but loaded connection between intuition and computable science. The role of intuition in science, called “subliminal thinking” in other spheres, is undeniable, in IE linguistics it implies an innate knowledge of native language. The opposite side of that is that a linguist without innate knowledge of the native language has no intuition, and thus can't progress from a superficial knowledge of the language to “computable threshold of probability of occurrence”. The subliminal thinking is also called “vision”, and, unfortunately, Indo-Europeanists without an innate knowledge of the alien language have no vision, they are Indo-Europeanist functionaries, not Indo-Europeanist visionaries. The fate of such functionaries is self-digging predicated by inability to perceive life beyond the horizons of their knowledge or absence thereof. The circularity, speculation, propaganda, beliefs, and other traits of the IE linguistics are logical consequences of a life in an eggshell.
    The idea is that one can compute the probability of occurrence in the languages of the world of certain features, certain patterns, such as consonant sequences (in the dimension of syntagmaticity), or the co-occurrence of some grammatical categories and their morphological indicators (in the dimension of paradigmaticity), etc., whereby the Author assumes that a probability of occurrence of a given phenomenon of 1 in 100.000 is “individual-identifying”. Within IE one finds several, arguably a statistically significant number of instances of individual-identifying diagnostic evidence.
    50

    The following data, as proposed by Nichols herself (1996a: 47), are among the most quoted ones for the purpose of this discussion (notice that to the Latin and Greek endings reported in this table at least the corresponding Sanskrit endings should be added to complete and strengthen the picture...)
    It is not clear why paradigmaticity is of the Latin and Greek, which share a continuous historical and demographical common past, plus the missing Sanskrit, carried from the same Mediterranean area to India. What's wrong with the other 457 IE languages, why are they abandoned, and why not to address all 460 languages claimed by the IE family theory? This kind of evidence does not rate above anecdotal evidence. It is a partial anecdotal evidence that looks at two traits out of extended list of the grammatical traits. It is a selected partial anecdotal evidence because it looks at some selected parameters. Except for a propaganda moment, there is nothing to be the most quoted evidence. As such, it does not reach to the level of phrenology or Biblical Genesis story. It is no different than pulling, say, R1a Y-DNA genetic marker, because it is prominent among Indian brahmans, and pronouncing that all carriers of that haplogroup are Aryans or modern offsprings of the Proto-Aryans.
    ...there is plenty of evidence that wholesale (nominal and verbal) paradigms of the type under discussion can also be the effect of borrowing, as shown by Matras’ contribution... Second, not all the IE languages do possess those rich, (more or less) consistent, paradigmatic morphological systems we would need to establish a wealth of ‘individual-identifying’ grammatical evidence.
     51, 52
    ...Di Giovine... argues that looking at the issue in simple, binary terms of ‘archaism’ vs ‘innovation’ does not lead anywhere, since the status of the IE verbal system is much more intricate and subtle than this dichotomy would lead us to believe. All this, once again, ties in with, and lends support to, the well known fact that a clear-cut IE family tree is still difficult to draw, both at the phonological and morphological level (This problem emerges again in the various IE ‘philogenies’ attained through ‘cladistic’ techniques). ...Drinka insists that areal / contact models of interpretation have to be adopted in addition to, or, actually, incorporated into, the traditional paradigm: only an integrated, three dimensional model (“an amalgamation of family tree and wave models”) can “explain” the nature and distribution of the correlations found among the IE languages...

    Whatever the case, one has to admit and reflect on the fact that the morphological reconstructions are essentially based on a few core languages, whose morphological correlations – whether the result of archaism, or innovation, or borrowing, or convergence – are nevertheless well attested, whilst “the attribution of the other (so called “IE”) languages to the (“IE”) family is necessarily done on partial evidence”...
    The term “necessarily” is a misnomer, since the “partial evidence” is intentionally selected evidence to fit suitable material into the predestined model and ignore the rest of the language, at times including its most basic traits.
    3. 4. Are morphological reconstructions predictive?
    It is reasonable to ask at this point whether the circularity issue (as discussed above with regard to phonology and lexicon) could have a negative impact also on the morphological reconstructions, including the area of diagnostic evidence. In fact, here too scholars can increase the power of the comparative method by making recourse to a number of ‘adjustable parameters’. Actually, the risk of circularity is higher at the morphological level, because of the (supposed) pervasive operation of analogy and the lack of a rigorous definition of ‘morphological correlation / similarity’... some case endings cannot be reconstructed in an economic, straightforward way, or cannot be reconstructed at all, so that a number of ‘adjustable parameters’ have to be introduced in order to overcome the observed mismatches. The adjustable parameters in question include:
    53

    1. a chain of (at times unverifiable) assumptions, including syncretism and reshaping through analogy;
    2. a chain of (at times unverifiable) intermediate reconstructions and alternating forms;
    3. a chain of minor but frequent (and, at time unverifiable) language-specific sound changes,
    4. if any of these procedures fail, there is always the possibility of giving different interpretations to the internal structure, function and origin of the case endings themselves.
    54
    3. 5. Counter evidence within morphology
    It has been argued above that the morphological evidence on which the IE theory is founded appears to be rather ‘malleable’, this problem being caused by the general lack of criteria and guidelines on how to evaluate morphological correlations. This in turn means that it is equally difficult, if not impossible, to identify evidence potentially counter to the model (with perhaps the only exception of the evidence from languages in contact that wholesale morphological paradigms can be borrowed). For example, the absence of the fundamental IE category of feminine gender in Anatolian23 could be considered a paradigmatic example of the inability on behalf of the IE theory (and the methods of historical linguistics in general) to make very clear-cut, testable predictions. There have been no claims (as far as we know) that the absence of this ‘diagnostic’ category should be classified and set apart as potential evidence counter to the IE origin of Anatolian (Hittite, for example, has no nominal declension corresponding to the feminine stems). Quite the contrary, efforts have been devoted only to finding traces of the feminine gender here and there or to justify its absence in the most plausible, natural way... The same could be argued with regard to one of the most puzzling aspects of Hittite verbal morphology, the ‘qi-conjugation’, which, admittedly, does not easily slot into any reconstructed category of IE (although there are claimed to be some good lexical correspondences between verbs adopting this conjugation and verbal roots in other IE languages...). The situation does not appear to be much different at the level of morpho-phonology, as is evident from the state of the research regarding the IE Ablaut (vowel alternation / apophony) (A vowel whose quality or length is changed to indicate linguistic distinctions (such as sing sang sung song). Here, the scanty and irregular distribution of vowel alternations across the IE area has generated an array of complex, sophisticated explanations, none of which however appears to be either testable or satisfactory... Carruba suggests that the original function of Ablaut is to be sought in the ‘deixis’ – a rather archaic, elementary function, but a very productive one within IE.
    55

     He ascribes the poor attestation of coherent patterns of vowel alternations across the IE area to the very ancient origin of phenomenon itself. This is certainly a plausible explanation; however, again, there may be alternative explanations. For example, it could be argued that the Ablaut present in Sanskrit (and partially in Greek), does not represent a phenomenon to be traced back to the IE proto-language, but on the contrary, a language-specific phenomenon. ...Sanskrit would be the only IE language that has roots and a “proper vowel gradation”. ...‘statistical significance’ (or lack of it) of the present vs perfect vowel alternation...
    3. 6. Is there hard core evidence at the foundation of Indo-European?
    Bearing in mind the shortcomings of the morphological correlations as discussed above, it is understandable how several scholars, such as Campbell (2003a & b) and Morpurgo Davies (Cambridge Seminar 2005; see note [19]) have reiterated and emphasized the role of the phonological (/lexical) correspondences for the purpose of assessing genetic relations. One could compare also the case of Proto-Dravidian, where it is the lexicon that has seen the greatest amount of relevant, comparative work, as illustrated by Steever (1996). As a matter of fact, phonology has at times offered us the possibility of testing the validity of the comparative method, in the sense that some predictions made by the comparative analysis have subsequently been proven correct in connection with the discovery of new linguistic material. For example, new evidence from Hittite and Linear B Mycenaean has confirmed the validity of earlier reconstructions, in this way also allowing us to redefine the processes which lead to the attested languages...
     56

    These are undoubtedly remarkable discoveries, and fine analyses. However, the data and analyses under discussion are not void of difficulties... Furthermore, one could observe that the more linguistic material, the more comparanda one brings into the equation whilst doing comparison, the easier it is to find a phonological /lexical (as well as morphological) match with a given form or reconstruction. As Campbell (1998: 277) puts it, referring to the issue of mass-comparison and macro-families: “The potential for accidental matching increases dramatically … when one increases the pool of words from which potential cognates are sought or when one permits the semantics of compared forms to vary even slightly”...  Hock (1993:221ff.) observes the following: “Preliminary results [of an experiment in which English, Finnish and Hindi are compared] suggest that enlarging the data base does not improve the reliability of the method. In fact, if there is any change at all it may consist in a slight increase of false friends”. On the other hand, Hock (ibidem) also recognizes that working through a comparison of only a small number of languages (three in the specific case), may be equally misleading.
    Finally, one could always argue that a few instances of fulfilled predictions – the occurrence of the right, predicted reflex at the right place – are not enough to prove the supposed predictive nature of all the conventionally established IE laws.
    As to the laryngeal theory, it is undeniable that it represents one of the most outstanding examples of a successful theory within historical linguistics. As Andersen (2007)30 puts it: “From a purely algebraic theory in Saussure; given putative phonetic justification by Hermann Moeller; then actually justified by the discovery of some of the posited segments in Anatolian; found to correlate with the 'prothetic vowels' and 'Attic reduplication' in Greek, and of 'final lengthening' in Homer; and then with the Baltic and Slavic distinction between acute and circumflex long vowels and diphthongs”.
     57

    Nevertheless, the laryngeal theory is not uncontroversial, at least with regard to the number of laryngeal segments to be postulated. ...However, the main problem associated with the laryngeal is that the advantages attained by making recourse to the laryngeal theory are counterbalanced by a number of disadvantages. For example, Winter (1990: 20-1) referring to Saussure’s original idea of the ‘coefficient sonantique’ and subsequent developments, describes one of the known ‘disadvantages’ of the laryngeal theory as follows: "We attempt to simplify our statements by subsuming overtly differing phenomena under one common formula which may or may not require positing directly unattested elements conditioning the differences [….]. This analysis had the tremendous advantage that now all subtypes of ablaut in Proto-Indo-European could be treated alike and that canonical forms of roots could be set up; along with this, however, went the disadvantage that the Proto-Indo-European system of vowels apparently had to be reduced in an unreasonable way."
    Sihler (1995:111 ff.), who reconstructs an Ablaut system “considerably leaner” than others thanks to the support of the laryngeal theory, appears to (implicitly at least) identify another, major ‘disadvantage’. In fact, he states that the economy of his model is achieved by “a complication elsewhere in the system”, because his reconstruction also requires “a number of sound laws” applying to the postulated laryngeals. Here, the fundamental questions (which have not been asked yet, to our knowledge) are:
    a) how many more sound laws do we need to make the laryngeal system work?
    b) is this extra number of segments and required operating rules added to the system as high as to nullify the otherwise attained benefits?
    58

    Thus, if we accept the analyses, objections and counter objections expounded thus far, it is still not clear what exactly the uncontroversial, hard core evidence that lies at the foundation of the IE theory is supposed to be.
    ...Last, but not least, one should take into consideration also those further limitations of the comparative method as pointed out in recent years by scholars such as Dixon (1997), Aikhenvald & Dixon (2001) and Nichols (1992, 1993/1995, 1996b, 1997 & 1998); see also Andersen (2006). These are:
    a) the inability of the method to get at a more remote linguistic prehistory than the generally assumed 8000/6000 years);
    b) its inability to account for the actual distribution of the degree of linguistic ‘diversity’ vs linguistic ‘uniformity’ found in the world....

    4. Is there a pre-historical reality behind reconstructed Indo-European?
    4. 1. Conventionalism vs realism
    The ‘conventionalist’ vs ‘realist’ approach to linguistic reconstruction, and related concept of proto-language (in general as well as within IE), is another long standing debate within historical linguistics, and one for which, yet again, there does not appear to be much of a consensus... It is true that between the extreme conventionalist approach on the one side and the full realistic approach on the other there are plenty of more moderate, intermediate positions. Nevertheless, it appears that the fully realistic approach, which in turn is based on the controversial method of palaeo-linguistics, is the one that has so far attracted many supporters, and not only among archaeologists (such as Mallory (1989 & 2001) and Renfrew [1987, 1990]), but also among linguists.
    For example, in his criticism to the thesis by Gimbutas (1970) regarding the location of the IE home land, Schmitt (1974: 283) observes that “[with] the methods of linguistic paleontology anything can be proved as Proto-Indo-European, but it can not be proved as typically Proto-Indo-European”. Thus, Schmitt appears to have confidence in the validity of the realist approach, although he has doubts regarding the factual interpretation of single reconstructions and the hasty conclusions reached about the reconstruction of single ‘pre-historical facts’. It could be said that in this case too (like in the case of the ‘regularity principle’) it is not always made explicit what the motivations are, what the evidence is, that provides the basis for the choice of one approach, or the other.
    The case with Gimbutas theory is illustrating. The archeologist confused two demographic movements, the westward movement of the Türkic Kurgan people, marked by male R1b Y-DNA, with the eastward movement of a hodge-podge of the European people, marked by a soup of the European male Y-DNA, groups G, J, I, and R1a. The two counterflows were separated in time by a full millennia, first the westward expansion of the Kurgan people (First Wave in Gimbutas' nomenclature), and then the eastward flight of the “Old Europeans”. Naturally, the European traces overlaid those of the Kurgans. Thus, in the late archeologist's eyes, the European farmers gained the attributes of the Kurgan nomads, and from a mass of cart-riding refugees turned into Kurgan rider conquerrors of Europe. Gimbutas was right in detecting European farmers in the Eastern Europe of the time, but wrong in the interpretation of a transit point as a (linguistically) Indo-European homeland. The European refugees ended up as upper castes in India (R1a), a variegated human mass in the Caucasus (G, J), and repatriants to the Europe (I).
      59...Di Giovine, on the basis of the analysis of the IE verb inflectional system..., argues that PIE was not a compact language or not even a community language at all.
    Di Giovine is right, the IE verbs are akin to Belgian verbs, they originated in two (actually, many more) different phylа, and just happened to occupy the same spatial and temporal location. If a potato salad is taken as a model for the IE verbs, and scholars would study the amalgamated salad vegetables, they would come to the same conclusions as did Di Giovine: potatoes and cucumbers are not compact, and they even do not speak the same vegetable language at all. They must be cooked differently, they complement each other, and they can be swallowed in a single bite.
    4. 2. The Aryan debate
    Within the camp of the realist approach the debate has revolved mainly around the issue of the whereabouts of the (assumed) IE proto-community. A strand of this debate has recently re-surfaced under the definition of: 'the Aryan Debate'... The Aryan debate centers on the following, major interconnected issues (all questions are linguistic, although framed demographically, but independent from the popular linguistic schemes of elite domination, code change, lingua franca, etc.):
    1. Was the assumed homeland located in the west, somewhere in Europe, or in the east, somewhere in North India /Pakistan? In other words, were the bearers of the Old Indo-Aryan (Vedic and Sanskrit) culture indigenous or intrusive in North India?
    2. Why, how, when and in which direction did the original proto-community disintegrate and migrate / spread, so as to bring about the distribution of the IE languages as we found them in historical times?
    3. How old is Old Indo-Aryan? Is it as old as the traditional IE theory claims (about 1700/1500 BC), in line with the ‘migrationist’ model, or is it much older than that, in line with the ‘indigenist’ model? In turn, these questions are connected with the following major issue (already touched upon above):
    4. Is Old Indo-Aryan the most archaic, and therefore, the most important language for the purpose of reconstruction?

    The issues raised in points (3) and (4) are of particular relevance, not only because they are strictly connected to the home land issue, but also because the assumption of the great antiquity of (Vedic) Sanskrit is (or, at least, it has been) one of the pillar tenets at the foundation of the IE theory, and related traditional reconstructions. As we have seen above (par. 3. 3.), this tenet is now under attack, since several scholars believe that the Greco-Aryan morphological paradigm represents in fact innovation, and not archaism. As to the more specific issue of the archaicity of Sanskrit, Schmitt in this volume calls into question this traditional view, arguing that:
     60

    “the archaism particularly of the Old Avestan language makes it only too clear that, despite the old age of the earliest Vedic texts, the Old Indo-Aryan language is not the only fundament of the IE proto-language […] and that its data are not with absolute necessity genuinely antique; therefore Old Indo-Aryan (both Vedic and Sanskrit) is not so close to PIE as many people think”.
    On the other hand, Kazanas... supports the traditional way of thinking as well as the indigenist model claiming exactly the opposite: Old-Indo-Aryan is indeed the oldest language within the family (actually, much older than conventionally assumed), as well as the closest language to PIE, even though a PIE language cannot be reconstructed. In turn Drinka, in her contribution to this volume, rejects the indigenist / ‘Out-of -India’ model, arguing against it (mainly) on the basis of those very “archaic” morphological isoglosses Indo-Aryan shares with some IE languages and those very “innovative features” it shares instead only with Iranian and Greek.
    4. 3. Sanskrit and the South Asia linguistic area
    This already articulated debate is in turn connected with the other, equally tangled issue of how to interpret the lexical, phonological, structural and even morphological correlations that have been identified as existing between the Old (and Modern) Indo-Aryan languages and the other non IE languages of India, such as (mainly) Dravidian and Munda. In fact, these (and other) various languages / language families of India are widely claimed to form what is usually referred to as the ‘South Asia linguistic area’, for which see Steever (1993:10 & 1996:11 ff.); Masica (1976) and Emeneau (1956, 1971 & 1980). In particular, on the basis of (supposed) lexical borrowing from Dravidian into Indo-Aryan and from the modern geographical distribution of the Dravidian languages, it is often claimed that Dravidian and Indo-Aryan must have been in contact – since prehistoric times– in those extreme northwestern areas of India first inhabited by the Indo-Aryans...
    Thus, the relevant question here, the question which has been hotly debated and whose resolution, if ever attained, could help to break the deadlock of the indigenist vs migrationist model – together with the issue of the degree of antiquity of Sanskrit – is the following: Are the non IE features present in Old-Indo-Aryan the result of sub-stratum, super-stratum, ad-stratum, convergence, or even genetic inheritance?...
    Several scholars... have compiled long lists of (Rig-) Vedic words believed to be of Dravidian or, more generally of non-Aryan origin. Other scholars, particularly Hock (1996: 36 ff.), have drawn attention to the fact that the situation is not that clear-cut after all. In fact, in many instances it is difficult to trace back the origin of the lexical as well as structural similarities observed in this intricate linguistic area, and to sort out whether they are attributable to borrowing, convergence, or chance resemblances. On the other hand... Indian scholars... challenge the traditional classification of Sanskrit as an IE language, observing that under a different socio-politico-cultural context, the similarities under discussion could have been interpreted differently...
    The following selection of Turkisms and Türkic substrate in English cites instances when IE etymology appeals to Sanskrit to establish IE attribution. Selection provides some statistical insight, it plucked 60 Turkisms out of the body of 700 entries, giving about 10% of Türkic content in Sanskrit. In respect to Sanskrit, the sampling is random, since the content of Turkisms in English is independent from the content of Turkisms in Sanskrit, or of Sanskrit loanwords in Türkic. The number 10% is however a very rough approximation, being dependent on the number of factors that influenced the sources. First and foremost is the poor appearance of Sanskrit cognates in the IE etymological exercises: the citing is spotty, only to the degree needed to establish connection to a predestined target; just that variable may underrepresent reality by a factor of 2 or 3, potentially raising proportion to 20-30%. Then there is a loose treatment of semantics, when Sanskritisms are cited inappropriately (Cf. janiṣ is cited for both “queen” and “wife”, the “wipes off”̣ is cited for “milk”, “bewail” for “call”, the avasám “food” for “oat”, etc.); that is falsely inflating the proportion. The presence of Sanskritisms in Türkic also inflates the proportion, since although they entered English as Turkisms, etymologically they originated with Sanskrit; these are terms of Buddhist lexicon that grew on the Indian soil and were brought to English at about the turn of the eras as the Türkic substrate. These cases are few, but with the small sample of 60 items they need to be considered. Then there is a case of erroneous attribution to Turkisms; the questionable cases also inflate the proportion by as much as 1/3. Adjusted for these factors, the proportion of Turkisms in Sanskrit may be reasonably assessed as to be close to 15%. The presence of the basic vocabulary that could not have been introduced by the demographically inferior Indo-Saka, Indo-Scythians, Huns, Kushans, Ephthalites, and later migrants, attests to a time depth of these loanwords ascending to the middle of the 2nd mill. BC, the time of the initial migration of the Indo-Aryan farmers to the South-central Asia.
    English Sanskrit, Avesta (Av.) Türkic English Sanskrit, Avesta (Av.) Türkic
    1 anger (v.) aihus, aihas, Av. azah- “need” özak (adj.) I (arch. ic) ah(am) ič (es)
    2 at(prepos.) adhi “near” at- (v.) juice yus- “broth”
    3 aurora eos, usah ausra “dawn” yaruk kin janati “begets, bears”, janah “race”, jatah “born” kin/kun/kün
    4 axle aksah i:k lull (v.) lolati ulï- (v.)
    5 bake (v.) pakvah “cooked” bukaç mantra mantra-s “sacred message or text, charm, spell, counsel” maŋra- (v.)
    6 band (v. & n.) bandhah ba- (v.) me (pron.) Skt., Av. mam min (pron.)
    7 be (v.) bhavah “becoming”, bhavati “becomes, happens” buol- (v.) mead madhu “honey, honey drink, wine”, Av. maδu mir
    8 bear (v.) bhárāmi ber- (v.) milk marjati “wipes off” meme
    9 bode (v.) bodhi bodi mind matih “thought, mind” ming
    10 bow bhujati boq-(v.) oat avasám “food” ot
    11 bursary buddha sangha, bursaŋ ogle (v.) akshi “eye” ög- (v.)
    12 call garhati “bewail, criticize” qol otter udrah, Av. udra ätär
    13 candle cand- “to give light, shine”, candra- “shining, glowing, moon” kandil pot patra “bowl” patır
    14 cap kaput- “head” kap purge (v.) pavate “purifies, cleanses”, putah “pure” pür- (v.)
    15 cow gaus coy queen janiṣ “wife, woman”, gna “goddess”, Av. jainish “wife”, gǝna-, ɣǝna, ɣna, ǰaini “woman, wife” yeŋä
    16 crust krud- “make hard, thicken” kairy regal (adj.) raj- “king, leader” arïɣ (adj.)
    17 day dah “to burn” dün sapphire sanipriya “dark precious stone” sepahir
    18 din dhuni “roar” tоŋ sari sati “garment, petticoat” sarïl (v.)
    19 ea (OE) ap “water” aq- (v.) sew (v.) sivyati “to sew” sač-
    20 Earth thira Yer sinew snavah, Av. snavar “sinew” siŋir
    21 eye akshi ög- (v.) sip (v.) sabar- “sap, milk, nectar” syp (v.)
    22 fart pard burut- (v.) smile (v. and n.) smayatē, smayati, smēras, smitas semeye (v.)
    23 fire (v. & n.) pu bur- son sunus song
    24 fissure bhinadmi öz stair stighnoti “mounts, rises, steps” šatu
    25 foot pad-, Av. pad- but suture sutram “thread” sač
    26 chintz chint čit tree dru “tree, wood” terek
    27 cook pakvah “cooked” kok- (v.) turf darbhah “bale of grass” ter- (v.)
    28 gene janati “begets, bears”, janah “race”, janman- “birth, origin”, jatah “born” ken- ululate (v.) lolati ulï- (v.)
    29 go (v.) gjihite “goes away” git was vasati var- (v.)
    30 herd sardhah kert wife janiṣ “wife, woman”, gna “goddess” ebi
    The detectable presence of Türkic substrate in Sanskrit points to the demographically mixed origin of the Indo-Arian farmers, an idea that never crossed the minds of the IE linguists. At the dawn of the Bronze Age, and enduring into the 21st century, ethnicity and trades were connected very tightly. The leaders and rulers could have been of one ethno-linguistic group, the military base and its economy of another ethno-linguistic group, the Indo-Aryan Levites of a third group, farmers and their economy of a fourth group, and artisans still of another group. We know for whom the Levites wrote their version of the history, but we may never know the native vernacular of the Levites. The Sanskritic foundation may be a layered cake, misdated, misinterpreted, taken for a gospel, and exploited by patriots and politicians. The problems of the IE theory are rather systemic, precipitated and protracted by loyalty to the premises grown more on the notions of aged popular beliefs than on empiric experience. Started as a lump of raw dough, it was baked into a good-looking tangible and spongy loaf, tunneled through in all directions by incessant criticisms, and now stands as a fossilized crust, to be re-ground and re-baked with whatever flour it contains.
    61
    For example, they could have been ascribed to the postulation of a shared, common ancestor for Sanskrit and Dravidian, and the studies of the South Asian linguistic area, as we know them today, might have taken a totally different course, generating a different production of knowledge, and, possibly, a totally different proto-language as the ancestor of Sanskrit. In turn, these scholars are accused to be strongly biased in their research, being driven by nationalistic feelings and political motivations. Certainly – it has to be said – there are elements of truth in this statement, since the main concerns (mostly unexpressed) of these Indian scholars are for the cultural unity of India under a Sanskritic proto-banner, whereby Dravidian would be some sort of Sanskritic Prakrit...
    Nevertheless, it is also fair to recognize that had the events, the accidents of History been different, in other words, had Sanskrit not been brought to the attention of the western scholars (as a consequence of the English colonization of India,...), the cultural scenario of historical linguistics might well have been totally different indeed, and one can easily imagine how a different paradigm might have been created to account for the origin of Sanskrit and the other languages (/language families) of India. Actually, the fact that the initial choice of comparing a certain pair / set of languages, rather than others, is by its own nature ‘intuitive’ and may be also influenced, or even dictated by circumstances external to linguistics, can increase the risk of circularity embedded in the traditional methods of analysis, as discussed above... (The classification of Sanskrit is not the only known instance of linguistic classification which has been influenced by historical /political events.  ...“The operation of the comparative method does not guarantee a language’s place in the family; only the initial recognition that two or more languages are related can do that […]. When does a linguist decide that there is enough material to relate a language to the IE family? There is no absolute set of criteria beyond the general rule that the evidence must convince both the individual linguist and the majority of the scholar community”).
    The last comment (Clackson 2007: 3) says it all: Catholics have to be convinced of the absence of Catholicism, idealists have to be convinced of the absence of their ideals, and IE linguists have to be convinced of the absence of IE family. That simple. That reminds us that after the the sputnik's flight around the Earth, and after the Apollo's flights to the Moon, a sizable community trusted their leaders that that is all Hollywood trickery staged in Universal City to debase the faithful. Anybody can see that the Earth is flat: put a ball on the football field, and it does not roll off.
    It would therefore be desirable to be able to ‘demonstrate’ that the correlations shared by Sanskrit and Dravidian, for example, are the genuine effect of a typical process of Sprachbund convergence, rather than simply ‘labeling’ them as ‘contact-induced’ just because it is widely accepted that the languages in question are not genetically related... ...The thesis that the correlations shared by Sanskrit and Dravidians are the genuine effect of Sprachbund.... ...the issue of the origin of the non IE features present in Old (and Modern) Indo-Aryan languages...  argue that Dravidian is a clearly distinct linguistic family from Indo-Aryan, although the latter does indeed display Dravidian features. In other words... “some of the four genetically distinct language stocks in South Asia have clear genetic linguistic relations outside of the subcontinent”. ...a comparison of two classical languages of India, Sanskrit and Old Tamil,... would reveal and illustrate a typical Sprachbund situation, where “two languages may be genetically distinct, yet grammatically related”.
    At this point it is interesting to observe that there is at least one aspect within this intermingled debate about which there appears to be consensus among all scholars: there is no archaeological evidence for the assumed migrations of (part of the) original IE community, either from a supposed western homeland eastward into North India, or the other way round...
    62

    ...the explanation of the spread of the Indo-European languages as “the spread of the culture of a concrete group of people from a cradle […] has not been proved by anthropology and archaeology as yet”... ...“all attempts to reconstruct the old culture of the Indo-Europeans as existing in a concrete cradle, by the means of ‘linguistic paleontology’ are wrong”.
    ...scholars are faced here with yet another area of IE studies where the ‘evidence’ (or lack of it) is malleable and un-decisive. As a matter of fact, Häusler himself believes that “the IE linguistic community must have existed at some point in ancient times, since the linguistic classification has been fairly safely established, even if this (assumed) linguistic community is not at all retrievable by the means of archaeological and anthropological research”... Whatever the case, the fact remains that, thus far, the required, supporting (one way or the other) archaeological and palaeo-anthropological evidence has not been found.
    Since the 2009 publication of this work, and its cited publications of 1997, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, things have changed. A new method was developed and validated in genetics to date haplogroups assembled on a phylogenic diagram. The method allowed to trace migration flows from Central Europe to Eastern Europe, and on to South-central Asia. These migrations were validated over and over by independent sampling and independent analyses. The peoples' movement is beyond doubts; the doubts relate to the cultural and technological innovations carried by the migrant peoples, their definitions, their propagation, and their timing. The paleogenetic revolution brings to reality the innate beliefs of the IE Theory and Out-of-India pundits. Both sides are right in accusing the other party to be laughably wrong.Further clarifications on the migration of the Indo-Aryan farmers will be produced by analyses of  phylogenic trees for accompanying haplogroups complimentary to the well-understood R1a group, particularly the Y-DNA of the upstream groups R and R1, and the pre-exodus Central European haplogroups I, J, and G. Some branches of the above haplogroups, taken from the same sample material, must return the date already received for the R1a haplogroup, first to corroborate the dating determined for the R1a haplogroup's Indo-Aryan branch, and secondly to narrow the spectrum of the haplogroups that the Indo-Aryan farmers brought over to the Hindustan peninsula.
    Probably the most important finding of the haplogroup dating methodology is the finding corroborating postulations of the “Circumpontic” hypothesis (Merpert, 1974, 1976) and “Kurgan theory” (Gimbutas, 1964, 1974, 1977, 1980) about the importance of the Eastern Europe in the evolution of the “Indo-European” languages within the framework of the “Indo-European homeland”, albeit without their fancied allusions to the “Indo-Europeans”, but with evolutionary perspective on the migratory processes that had the Eastern Europe as one of the staging stations for the asynchronous counter flows from the Central Europe to the South-central Asia (3rd mill. BC) and from Asia to the Atlantic (starting at 5th-4th mill BC). Unwittingly, Gimbutas had conflated separate migratory events in opposite directions and a millennium apart. The horse was domesticated in the Northern Kazakhstan, a nomadic wave that brought domesticated horse to the Eastern Europe created conditions underlying the Gimbutas'“Kurgan theory”. The migration stipulated within the “Anatolian” (or “Neolithic Gap”) theory (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1980, Renfrew, 1987, Safronov, 1989, Gray and Atkinson, 2003) is a specific episode of the Eastern European parallel path traversing Anatolia to reach the Balkans and Iberia, the “Anatolian theory's” Urheimat results conflict with Anatolia's role as a migratory corridor for particular migrants at a particular time. Within a larger framework, having accounted for the ample reverse migrations, and freed from the parochial biases of the “Indo-European homeland”, the theories' data is largely consistent with the linguistic and migratory processes.
    As to the palaeo-linguistic evidence – place and river names, terms for flora & fauna, names of deities, etc. – mainly from Sanskrit, some scholars claim that this evidence is malleable, and therefore inconclusive when it comes to trying to establish the indigenous or intrusive character of Old Indo-Aryan... ...other scholars claim that the palaeo-linguistic evidence clearly supports the indigenist / ‘Out-of-India’ model...
    ...it is worth mentioning that recent genetic evidence (pre-2009) (whatever its relevance may be in this context) appears to support the indigenist hypothesis of the origin of the Sanskrit speaking peoples and culture...
    The genetic conclusions (unlike their historical interpretations) drawn before 2010 suffer not from incorrect data, but from an absence of reliable dating theory and practice. There, again, a blind trust of other discipline's authorities, who happened to act on intuition instead of empiric data solely because no reliable scientific methods exist yet, raises a cottage industry of patriotic contenders.
    4. 4. The conventionalist approach
    Those scholars who adopt the conventionalist approach to reconstruction claim that linguistic classifications do not necessarily imply and guarantee the existence of the corresponding speech community. Therefore, searching for the original IE community, and the pre-historical, highly intertwined linguistic and extra-linguistic processes that would have brought about the IE languages, is a pointless task. This remains the case even if linguistics is assisted by other disciplines whose methods of analysis are claimed to have recently achieved high levels of reliability, such as archaeology and genetics. In other words, comparative historical linguistics cannot in any way shed light onto pre-historical ‘facts’ (homelands, migrations, institutions etc.). Historical linguistics was not meant to be, it is not and cannot be used as a ‘branch of prehistory’...
    63, 64

    5. Introduction to the chapters (in alphabetical order) (Introduction to the chapters illustrates points of the general observations with specific contents of the contributors. Although immensely interesting in their depth and detail, they are not cited in this posting)
    65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    Chapter X. The main thesis of Angela Marcantonio’s chapter: Evidence that most Indo-European lexical reconstructions are artefacts of the linguistic method of analysis, is that the methods of historical linguistics, including the comparative method, can be so flexible – by their very nature – that they can be stretched to account for almost any data. This means that the explanatory system runs the risk of becoming dangerously circular, and, therefore, of yielding misleading results – in this case within the field of IE studies. Over the course of about two hundred years of everyday practice of reconstruction within IE the encountered counter-evidence has been typically ‘explained away’ through all sorts of (often ad-hoc) justifications, so that today one can find hardly any evidence counter to the model. The Author examines this ‘explaining away’ process critically, by asking the question: have we fitted the IE data to the model, or have we made the model so flexible that it can fit almost any data, including potential counter evidence? Marcantonio analyzes the full comparative corpus of the verbal root reconstructions contained in the most recent IE etymological dictionary (LIV), by adopting simple, quantitative methods of analysis. She argues that the great majority of these reconstructed roots lack the required ‘statistical significance’, the required ‘cumulative effect’. As a consequence, the cognates relating to these roots are to be interpreted as ‘similarities’, rather than ‘correspondences’; in turn, these similarities can be interpreted as instances of ‘chance resemblances’....

    Marcantonio also argues that adding laryngeal segments to the process of reconstruction (whatever the rights and wrongs of the laryngeal theory may be), dangerously increases the explanatory power of the comparative method, in this way further contributing to the flexibility of the overall explanatory model....
    70, 71

    6. Conclusion
    The reader has seen... a variety of views about IE, ranging from the belief that it represents the language of a real pre-historical community; through the thesis that it is only a model to embody linguistic correlations; all the way to statistical evidence that (many) linguistic correlations themselves may be merely an artefact of the method of analysis. In fact, when the various components of the theory are brought together so that they can be seen holistically, it is hard to pin down what the foundations of the theory are actually supposed to be.
    For example, one of the founding principles of the traditional version of the theory was the assumption that morphological paradigms cannot be borrowed, and therefore it is possible to trace genetic inheritance through them. However, we have seen evidence of wholesale paradigm borrowing, based on studies of languages in contact. In any case, some scholars now hold that morphology is less relevant than other factors – but it is at present unclear whether, or how, these other factors may be verified or falsified...
     72-87

    References(all references are intentionally omitted in this posting. Refer to copyright holders www.jies.orghttp://www.federatio.org/joes/EurasianStudies_0115.pdf  for omitted information)

    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/40_Language/MarcantonioA2009IELanguageFamilyEn.htm

    0 0

    Vaidika Bharata 01 Mohit Bharadwaj
    Picture 1 Mohit Bharadwaj
    Mohit Bharadwaj is a man on a mission.
    He wants to have the 21 nitya sacrifices performed again in Madhyadesa, the original homeland of the Vedas and the very air ring with the songs of the Sama Veda and the most ancient Rks.
    He has seen a future of an air with rising smoke from the agnihotra, the earth trodden by horses led to the soma sacrifice and of somayajis taking the ritual avabhrita bath at the conclusion of the somayaga.
    It is the future he and his team of scholars have pledged their lives to.

    Out of the mists of Time

    Imagine a whole version of the Iliad, sung by bards as in Homeric times. Imagine a full manual dedicated to the ritual performance of the Iliadic drama, lost for centuries. Now imagine finding 2 old men in a remote Aegean island singing the stories, unchanged across the centuries, in a village of people dedicated to preserving it in hand-written manuscripts, carefully drafted and secreted away.
    Such is Banswada, a small town in Rajasthan. It was here that a whole recension of the Rig Veda has been discovered, thought to have been lost for centuries. Here, on the border of Gujarat, are two septuagenarians who are the last two living reciters of the Shaankhaayana Shakha of the Rg Veda.

    How Vedic learning is organized.

    The primary corpus of the Vedic trove are the 4 – Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvan. Each of these Vedas has multiple recensions, called shaakhas. Patanjali in his Mahabhaashya mentions 1131 recensions in all – 21 Rig Veda Shaakha, 86 of the Krishna Yajurveda, 15 of the Shukla Yajur Veda, 9 of the Atharva Veda and 1000 of the Sama Veda.
    Each shaakha, to be considered complete – is composed of 4 parts
    • Samhita – the core collection of hymns
    • Brahmana – An expansion of the hymns and some description of the rituals that these hymns are intended for
    • Aranyaka – Philosophical excursions into the inner meaning of the mantra and associated ritual
    • Upanishad – Pure philosophical discussions.
    However, this is not a water-tight definition. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, for example, contains descriptions of certain rituals.
    Different families are required to specialize in different shaakhas, so that the task of memorizing and preserving the text is shared among many people.
    Now, to the subject of ritual. Ritual manuals have been composed for grihya and shrauta rites. Grihya rites are the household rituals, starting from the garbhaadhaana ritual before a child is conceived, to the seemantonnayana ritual for pregnant women, to the choula ceremony at the time of the first tonsure of a child, the upanayana or beginning of studies and so on.
    More complex are the shrauta sutras – manuals composed for the performance of major rites. These rites mainly take the form of fire-sacrifices or homa/havanas. These rituals (or karma, literally meaning ‘something done’ or ‘activity’) are organized into
    • Nitya karma – to be performed as a duty, with expectation of no reward
    • Kaamya karma – performed with certain benefits in mind
    Of the nitya karma performed in the shrauta fashion, they are further divided into 21 rites
    1. 7 paaka yajnas (literally cooked sacrifice) – simple rituals performed at home, such as the aupasana, vaishvadeva rituals
    2. 7 havir yajnas (literally burnt offering or oblation) – more complex rituals, which can be performed at home. These requires the tretagni – or 3 rituals fires permanently burning for the householder. The well-known agnihotra rite is the primary one, to be performed every day by the householder.
    3. 7 soma yajnas – the most complex rituals, which involve the offering of the famed soma juice. These are simply the most complex ritualistic behaviour ever recorded anywhere among human beings, such the intricately choreographed atiratram, which is a 12-day non-stop performed, continuing through the night (hence atiratram).
    Ritual manuals are allocated to different shaakhas and regions. The Bodhayana and Apastamba Shrauta Sutras, for example, are designed for Krishna Yajur Veda and the Baashkala or Aashvalaayana Shakhas of the Rig Veda.
    Sutras, by their very design, are concise and cryptic in their brevity. They were designed for easy memorization and transmission.
    They are further elaborated upon by commentators, and the commentaries are called Bhashyas.
    Of the extant shaakhas, the Aashvalaayana Shaakha of the Rig Veda is the best preserved and has most practitioners in the South of the Vindhya mountains.
    In the North, the given book of Shrauta is the Kaatyayana Shrauta Sutra, whose related Yajur Veda rescenscion is the Vajaseyani Samhita of the Shukla Yajur Veda. The associated Sama Veda rescenscion is the Kauthuma Shaakha. The Kauthuma Shaakha, again, has 2 recitation styles, called paddhatis (literally ‘procedure’) – the Madra paddhati, and the Gurjara paddhati. The Madra paddhati (which originated in the Madra region, said to be the Ravi-Chenab doab in Pakistani Punjab), is well preserved among the Sama Veda reciters in the South. The Gurjara paddhati, however, has no more than 10 experts left, almost all of them resident in Kashi, prominent among them being Shri Sharat Joshi.
    The Rig Veda shaakha associated with the Kaatyayana Shrauta Sutra is the Shaankhaayana. This was thought to have been lost, save for a rare text published several decades ago.
    This brings us back to our tale.

    A Fellowship Is Born

    We begin our tale in 2014, when Mohit, a young engineer working for a multinational IT Corporation in Noida, was scouting the possibility of improving his repertoire of Yajur Veda, when he met Gyanendra Sapkota, a scholar from Nepal, who shared his passion for reviving the Shukla Yajur Veda Shrauta ritual. It was from scholars in Gujarat that the duo learnt of the last two people proficient in chanting the Samhita of the Shaankhaayana Shaakha, thought extinct.
    Vaidika Bharata 02 Gyanendra Sapkota
    Picture 2 Gyanendra Sapkota
    After visiting Banswada in November 2014, they were joined in their quest by Abhijeet Dinkar Savale of Tryambakeshwar, a young man in his 20s, who had completed studies in the Shukla Yajur Veda and who had learnt Vyakarana (grammar) from Shri Gyanendra Sapkota, while Gyanendra was teaching in Varanasi.
    Abhijeet’s hereditary shaakha was the Rig Veda, but he was forced to undergo basic training in the Madhyandina Shaakha of the Shukla Yajur Veda instead. Despite his family’s straitened circumstances, Abhijeet volunteered to spend years in learning the Rig Veda, in order to carry forward the legacy bequeathed to him.
    It is but a manifestation of the eternal nature of Sanatana Dharma that three people, a Maharashtrian Madhva, an engineer from Mathura and a Sanskrit Scholar from Nepal, were brought together on this quest to revive a millennia-old tradition, nearly extinct for several centuries.
    It was during their second visit that the two exponents, Shri Indrashankar Jha and Shri Harshad Nagar, let it be known that they had handwritten manuscripts in their possession.
    After Abhijeet had committed to learning the Shaakha, the three men started going through the manuscripts that were there.
    Nothing had quite prepared them for what lay ahead.

    Inside a secret treasure cave

    What would greet them but a horde of manuscripts from centuries past. Over time, they found that the entire lost Shaankhayana Shaakha was there – Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishad. To their wonderment, the manuscripts were from a wide range of periods. The earliest was a manuscript of the Shaankhaayana Brahmana that declared itself to have been scribed in Vikrama Samvat 1525, or 1468 CE. To put that in perspective, the earliest Rig Veda manuscript found thus far is from 1464 CE, now preserved at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune.
    From this period until the early part of the 20th Century, there were manuscripts in all centuries, with hardly any gaps beyond a couple of decades.
    In this small town, a dedicated group of scholars had preserved and transcribed their knowledge continuously, from before the advent of the Mughals, through the worst depredations of British rule and beyond the rule of Queen Victoria.
    And the range of these manuscripts is equally humbling. Besides the entire Shaankhayana Shakha, there were manuscripts of the Shaankhaayana Sutras for performance of Grihya and Shrauta rites, This Sutra was accompanied by the Bhashya, a commentary by an unknown scholar Narayana, whose commentary on other Sutras is in Jammu.
    Another scholar, possibly local, has written the entire paddhati, or ritual performance manual.
    Vaidika Bharata 03 Digitization Abhijeet
    Picture 3 The task of identifying digitization. At extreme right is Abhijeet, torch bearer of Shaankhaayana
    To give the reader an understanding of the significance of this, the Grihya Sutra would merely state that an aajyabhaaga oblation would have to be given to the accompaniment of a specific Rk or hymn from the Rg Veda.
    The Bhashya would further elaborate how the oblation is to be given, the specific implement to use and more details on the Rk to pronounce.
    The paddhati would elaborate on how the implement is to be cleansed, with what material, if it is to be whisked with the darbha grass, how many times. Essentially, the paddhati is purely for the practitioner, intended as a guide to choreograph every thought and action of each individual involved in the ritual.
    Beyond this, there are manuscripts for various Vedangas or limbs of the Veda, for Vyakarana grammar, as well as paddhati manuals for the pronouncement of these Rks in the Ghana format.
    There are manuscripts on detailed chanting guides for the Kauthuma Shaakha of the Saama Veda in the Gurjara paddhati.
    It is conceivable that with these set of manuscripts, an entire Shaakha, all rituals and rites associated with it can be revived in it’s entirety and in pristine glory, as it was 3500 years ago, at the earliest.

    The Road Ahead

    With support from sponsors, scanners have been purchased and the work of digitization and preservation of the manuscripts is continuing in full earnest.
    Abhijeet Savale has taken leave of his profession as a purohit (which would give him a decent living) and spent the last 3 years in mastery of the Shaakha from the two Acharyas. He has done this for a meager stipend merely for sustenance and travel expenses. These expenses have been met by private individuals. A full pAryAyaNam, or recital, of the entire shaakha is scheduled for June 2018.
    Abhijeet and Mohit are planning to start a paathashaala near Delhi, where Abhijeet shall teach the Rig Veda, Mohit the Shukla Yajur Veda, and together, the two shall conduct the Shrauta rites of yore.
    This tale is destined for a happy ending, provided the Hindu Samaj wills it. It is entirely up to us to support these intrepid scholars in their journey.
    You can reach the Vaidika Bharata team at:
    You can donate to them here:
    Account Name: Vaidik Bharat Trust
    Current Account No: 073405001350
    IFSC : ICIC0000734
    Featured Image: Treasures from Across Time (Author)
    http://indiafacts.org/after-millenia-tradition-reborn-vaidika-bharata/

    0 0

    https://tinyurl.com/y9h9zkdt


    For me, involved in the study of 8000 Indus Script Inscriptions, the significance of the stunning report is that the decipherment has proceeded on DNA validated lines, using lexemes from ancient Bharatiya languages treating the speech area as Meluhha, Indian sprachbund (speech union), not far from the Straits of Malaka (also spelled Macalla, cognate Meluhha, Mleccha)..


    Kalyanaraman

    Harappan site of Rakhigarhi: DNA study finds no Central Asian trace, junks Aryan invasion theory

    By Anubhuti Vishnoi, ET Bureau, June 13, 2018, 06.44 AM IST

    1
    The Aryan invasion theory holds forth that a set of migrants came from Central Asia armed with superior knowledge and arms and invaded the existing settlements to establish a more sophisticated civilisation in India and pushed the original inhabitants down south 
    The much-awaited DNA study of the skeletal remains found at the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi, Haryana, shows no Central Asian trace, indicating the Aryan invasion theory was flawed and Vedic evolution was through indigenous people. 

    The lead researchers of this soon-tobe published study — Vasant Shinde and Neeraj Rai — told ETthat this establishes the knowledge ecosystem in the Vedic era was guided by “fully indigenous” people with limited “external contact”. 

    “The Rakhigarhi human DNA clearly shows a predominant local element — the mitochondrial DNA is very strong in it. There is some minor foreign element which shows some mixing up with a foreign population, but the DNA is clearly local,” Shinde told ET. He went on to add: “This indicates quite clearly, through archeological data, that the Vedic era that followed was a fully indigenous period with some external contact.” 

    According to Shinde’s findings, the manner of burial is quite similar to the early Vedic period, also known as the Rigvedic Era. The pottery, the brick type used for construction and the general ‘good health’ of the people ascertained through the skeletal remains in Rakhigarhi, he said, pointed to a well-developed knowledge system that evolved further into the Vedic era. The study has, in fact, noted that some burial rituals observed in the Rakhigarhi necropolis prevail even now in some community over thousands of years. .. 

    Shinde, who is the vice-chancellor of the Deccan College, Pune, was the lead archaeologist in the study while Rai, who is the head of the ancient DNA laboratory at Lucknow’s Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeosciences, did the DNA study. 

    MINOR TRACES OF IRANIAN STRAINS 
    According to Rai, the evidence points to a predominantly indigenous culture that voluntarily spread across other areas, not displaced or overrun by an Aryan invasion. “The condition of the human skeletons, the burial...all show absence of palaeo-pathology symptoms which could indicate ailments due to lack of medical care. The persons here were healthy; denture morphology showed teeth free of any infection; bones are healthy, as is the cranium,” Rai told ET.

    He also discounted the notion of any violent conflict. “There are no cuts and marks which would be associated with a population subjected to warfare. All this indicates that the people were receiving well-developed healthcare and had full-fledged knowledge systems.” The excavations in Rigvedic phase, he said, corroborate this. “This points to greater continuity rather than to a new Aryan race descending and bringing superior knowledge systems to the region,” Rai said. 

    The Rakhigarhi study, he said, while showing absence of any Central Asian/Steppe element in the genetic make-up of the Harappan people, does indicate minor traces of Iranian strains which may point to contact, not invasion. 

    The Aryan invasion theory holds forth that a set of migrants came from Central Asia armed with superior knowledge and arms and invaded the existing settlements to establish a more sophisticated civilisation in India and pushed the original inhabitants down south. Rakhigarhi is one of the biggest Harappan civilisation sites spread across 300 hectares in Hisar, Haryana. It’s estimated to be 6,000 years old and was part of the mature phase of the Harappan period. 

    Rai disclosed that 148 independent skeletal elements from Rakhigarhi were screened for the presence of DNA molecules at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad. Of the 148 skeletal remains, only two samples yielded any relevant DNA material. 

    Meanwhile, hectic last-minute efforts are on to get additional genetic details of the DNA material. One of the DNA samples recently faced contamination in a Seoul laboratory and efforts are on to segregate it. Samples were sent to laboratories in Seoul and Harvard for establishing accuracy. The contamination, Rai said, is unlikely to have any major bearing on the study’s primary findings. 

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/harappan-site-of-rakhigarhi-dna-study-finds-no-central-asian-trace-junks-aryan-invasion-theory/articleshow/64565413.cms


    0 0

    https://tinyurl.com/yd4c9634

    A parallel for the eight Baghpat anthropomorphs reading occurs on Mohenjo-daro copper tablets which treat two pictorial motifs as synonyms. 

    The pictorial motifs are of a hunter and claws of a crab circumscribed by a pair of pipal leaves. 

    The pictorial motifs are treated as synonyms on B19 and C6 because the obverse of the copper tablets carry an identical Indus Script Inscription.

    kamāṭhiyo'soldier, hunter' (onB19) is a synonym of kamaṭha 'fig leaf' (on C6) PLUS semantic determinant: kamaṭha 'crab'. (Two leaves: dula 'two' rebus: dul 'metal casting'). Both pictorial motifs read rebus:  kammaṭa 'mint'. Eight identical copper bas-relief anthropomorphs on the Baghpat coffin signify a guild of 'mintwork' artisans.





    I suggest that the copper anthropomorph on the lid of the wooden coffin of Baghpat is a variant of these pictorial motifs signifying a ficus leaf circumscribed by two horns of the crown. The dagger shown on the waist-belt is a semantic determiannt of the person as a hunter, soldier: kamāṭhiyo 'soldier, hunter' rebus: kammaṭa 'mint'. The eminence of the person is signified by eight repetitions of the same anthropomorph pictorial motif to signify that the eminent persin is a śreṣṭhin श्रेष्ठिन् 'foreman of a smithy guild with eight goldsmith/ironsmith members in the guild'. 
    Image result for baghpat anthropomorph

    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. kwṛ (obl. kwṭ-) horn, branch, path across stream in thicket. Ka. kōḍu horn, 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)

    Rebus: Paš. kuṛ. kṓri ʻdaggerʼ < *kāri IIFL iii 3, 97 with (?).(CDIAL 2711)

    kōḍu 'horn' is semantically reinforcedby the determinative hieroglyph of 'dagger' which reads kṓri ʻdaggerʼ 
    kamaṭha 'ficus' leaf; kamaṭa 'dwarf' rebus: kamāṭhiyo 'archer, soldier' 

    Eight such bas-relief copper anthropomorphs are shown on the lid of the wooden coffin, suggesting a guild of goldsmiths (Note: the person venerated in a special coffin may have been a guild-master or chief or eminent artisan).श्रेष्ठिन् m. a warrior of high rank Ja1takam.; m. an eminent artisan , the head or chief of an association following the same trade or industry , the president or foreman of a guild (alsof(इनी). a female artisan &c Hariv. Ka1v. VarBr2S. &c; m. a distinguished man , a person of rank or authority AitBr. S3a1n3khBr. KaushUp.; mfn. having the best , best , chief W. (Monier-Williams)
    Image result for baghpat anthropomorphImage result for baghpat anthropomorphImage result for baghpat anthropomorph
    Image result for baghpat anthropomorph
    kamaṭha  'crab' (Skt.) 
    kamāṭhiyo=archer; kāmaṭhum =a bow; kāmaḍī, kāmaḍum=a chip of bamboo (G.) kāmaṭhiyo bowman; an archer(Skt.) 
    kamaṛkom= fig leaf (Santali) kamarmaṛā (Has.), kamaṛkom(Nag.); the petiole or stalk of a leaf (Mundari.lex.) kamaṭha = fig leaf, religiosa (Skt.) dula ‘two' Rebus: dul 'cast metal ’Thus, cast loh ‘copper casting’ infurnace: baṭa= wide-mouthed pot; baṭa= kiln (Te.) kamaṭa, kammaṭamu 'a portable furnace for melting precious metals (Te.) kammaīḍu 'a goldsmith, a silversmith (Telugu) Ta. kampaṭṭam coinage, coin. Ma. kammaṭṭam, kammiṭṭam coinage, mint. Ka. kammaṭa id.; kammaṭi a coiner. (DEDR 1236)

    Vikalpa: Fig leaf ‘loa’; rebus: loh ‘(copper) metal’. loha-kāra ‘metalsmith’ (Sanskrit). loa ’fig leaf; Rebus: loh ‘(copper) metal’ The unique ligatures on the 'leaf' hieroglyph may be explained as a professional designation: loha-kāra 'metalsmith'kāruvu  [Skt.] n. 'An artist, artificer. An agent'.(Telugu)

    B19 copper plate epigraph: hunter-blacksmith: कौटिलिकः kauṭilikḥ कौटिलिकः 1 A hunter.-2 A blacksmith. कौटिलिक [p= 315,2] m. (fr. कुटिलिका Pa1n2. 4-4 , 18) " deceiving the hunter [or the deer Sch.] by particular movements " , a deer [" a hunter " Sch.Ka1s3. f. ( Pa1n2. 4-4 , 18कुटिलिका crouching , coming stealthily (like a hunter on his prey ; a particular movement on the stage) Vikr. कुटिलिक " using the tool called कुटिलिका " , a blacksmith ib. कुटिलक [p= 288,2] f. a tool used by a blacksmith Pa1n2. 4-4 , 18 Ka1s3.mfn. bent , curved , crisped Pan5cat.
    Same inscription as on B19 sets of copper plates appears on C6 sets of copper plates but with a distinct hieroglyph-multiplex of ficus PLUS crab (pincers, tongs) on the obverse of the copper plate.

    C6 copper plate epigraph: ficus PLUS pincers: metalsmith: लोह--कार [p= 908,3] m. a worker in iron , smith , blacksmith R. Hit. Hieroglyph component: loa 'ficus glomerata' Rebus: loha 'copper, iron' Hieroglyph component: kāru pincers, tongs. Rebus: khār खार् । लोहकारः 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri)

    Since loha  signifies 'copper' and kammaa signifies 'mint' this hieroglyph multiplex on the obverse of C6 set of copper plate inscriptions (ficus PLUS crab+pincers) should more precisely signify semantically: mint-master, coppersmith.

    The text of the epigraph common to both sets of copper plates (B16, hunter and C9 ficus+crab/pincers) has hieroglyph-multiplexes

     Inscription message: Supercargo bronze cast metal, ingots (of different shapes), metal implements smithy/forge On C9 set of copper plates, these come from लोहकारः lohakAra kammaa the mint-master, coppersmith's workshop. On B16 set of copper plates, these come from कौटिलिकः kauṭilikḥ bronze worker's (smithy/forge). 

      mū̃h ‘ingot’ (Santali) PLUS (infixed) kolom 'sprout, rice plant' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' Thus, ingot smithy 

    Notes: dula 'pair' Rebus: dul 'cast metal' Ellipse is split into two curves of parenthesis:  (  ) Thus, dula 'cast metal' signified by the curves joined into an ellipse. 

      mū̃h ‘ingot’ (Santali) dula 'pair' Rebus: dul 'cast metal' Thus, cast metal ingot.
    dhollu 'drummer' (Western Pahari) Rebus: dul 'cast metal' 
    kola 'tiger' Rebus: kolle 'blacksmith' kol 'working in iron' 
    kolimi 'smithy, forge' j̈asta, dasta 'five' (Kafiri) jasta, sattva 'zinc'

    dula ‘pair’ Rebus: dul ‘cast (metal)’ PLUS kana, kanac = corner (Santali); Rebus: kañcu = bronze (Telugu) Thus, cast bronze or bronze casting.
    This is a hieroglyph-multiplex: slant PLUS notch: DhAL 'slanted' Rebus: DhALako 'large ingot' PLUS खांडा (p. 202) [ khāṇḍā ] A jag, notch, or indentation (as upon the edge of a tool or weapon). Rebus: Rebus: kāṇḍa ‘tools, pots and pans and metal-ware’ (Marathi) khaṇḍa id. (Santali)

      kolom 'rice-plant, sprout' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'

      goṭ 'seed, rounded object' Rebus: खोट (p. 212) [ khōṭa ] f A mass of metal (unwrought or of old metal melted down); an ingot or wedge (Marathi)
     The 'curve' hieroglyph is a splitting of the ellipse. kuṭila ‘bent’ CDIAL 3230 kuṭi— in cmpd. ‘curve’, kuṭika— ‘bent’ MBh. 

    Rebus: kuṭila, katthīl = bronze (8 parts copper and 2 parts tin) cf. āra-kūṭa, 'brass'  Old English ār 'brass, copper, bronze' Old Norse eir 'brass, copper', German ehern 'brassy, bronzen'. kastīra n. ʻ tin ʼ lex. 2. *kastilla -- .1. H. kathīr m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; G. kathīr n. ʻ pewter ʼ.2. H. (Bhoj.?) kathīl°lā m. ʻ tin, pewter ʼ; M. kathīl n. ʻ tin ʼ, kathlẽ n. ʻ large tin vessel ʼ.(CDIAL 2984)

    rimofjar.jpgkaṇḍa kanka ‘rim of jar’ Rebus: karṇīka ‘account (scribe)’karṇī‘supercargo’.
    kaṇḍa ‘fire-altar’.

     

    Mirror: http://tinyurl.com/nfm5pbc

    meRed bica ‘iron stone ore’, lo ‘copper ore’

    V326 (Orthographic variants of Sign 326) V327 (Orthographic variants of Sign 327)
    Sign 51 Variants. It is seen from all these variants, that the semantic focus signified by the orthography is on the 'scorpion's pointed stinger'

    These are two glyphs of the script with unique superscripted ligatures; this pair of ligatures does not occur on any other ligatured glyph in the entire corpus of Indus script inscriptions. Orthographically, Sign 51 glyph is a ‘scorpion’; Sign 327 glyph is a ‘ficus glomerata leaf’. The glosses for the ‘sound values’ are, respectively: bica ‘scorpion’ (Santali), lo ‘ficus’ (Santali). 


    Dravidian proof of Indus Script has been refuted. See link:  http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/08/a-four-hieroglyph-multiplex-of.html This note provides additional evidence to support this refutation by providing decipherment of inscriptions which are signified by the 'scorpion''fish' or 'ficus' hieroglyphs of Indus Script. The context of life-activity of the artisans is work in a mint, metalwork.

    The inscription on the seal starts with 'scorpion' hieroglyph on modern impression of seal M-414 from Mohenjo-daro. After CISI 1:100. This sign is followed by a hieroglyph multiplex signifyinjg: rimledss pot PLUS ficus leaves PLUS infixed crab hieroglyphs. The terminal sign is 'fish' hieroglyph. 

    Rebus-metonymy readings in Meluhha cipher (mlecchita vikalpa) are of the three sets of hieroglyph multipexes: 1. meed-bica 'iron (hematite) stone ore' 2. bhaTa loh kammaṭa 'furnace copper mint, coiner' 3. aya 'alloy metal'.

    Note: The 'ficus' hieroglyph is signified by two glosses: vaTa 'banyan' loa 'ficus glomerata'. Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace' loha 'copper, iron'.

    m-857 Seal. Mohenjo-daro The four hieroglyph multiplex on Mohenjo-daro seal m-857 signifies: 1. meed-bica = 'iron (hematite) stone ore' 2. dhatu karava karNI 'supercargo of mineral ore', scribed. (The one-horned young bull PLUS standard device is deciphered as: kondh 'young bull' Rebus: kondh 'turner'; koD 'horn' Rebus: koD 'workshop'; sangaDa 'lathe' Rebus: sangAta 'collection of materials, i.e. consignment or boat load. 

    http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/08/a-four-hieroglyph-multiplex-of.html

    On Mohenjo-daro seal m-414, the 'scorpion' sign is followed by a hieroglyph multiplex which is explained by Asko Parpola: 


    Many variants of Sign 123 (Parpola corpus) are identified signifying, according to Parpola [quote] a three-branched 'fig-tree' and of its ligature with the 'crab' sign, where the middlemost branch has been omitted to accommodate the inserted 'crab' sign. (After Parpola, Asko, 1994, Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 235).

    Parpola illustrates the 'crab' hieroglyhph with the following examples from copper plate inscriptions (Note: there are 240 copper plates with inscriptions from Mohenjo-daro):


    Copper tablets from Mohenjo-daro providing a 'pictorial translation' of the Indus sign 'crab inside fig tree' (After Parpola 1994: 234, fig. 13.13)


    Variants of 'crab' hieroglyph (After Parpola 1994: 232, cf. 71-72)

    The hieroglyph-multiplex, thus orthographically signifies two ficus leaves ligatured to the top edge of a wide rimless pot and a crab hieroglyph is inscripted. In this hieroglyph-multiplex three hieroglyph components are signified: 1. rimless pot, 2. two ficus leaves, 3. crab. baTa 'rimless pot' Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace'; loa 'ficus' Rebus: loha 'copper, iron'; kamaDha 'crab' Rebus: kammaTa 'coiner, mint'.

    Examples are:

    Modern impression of Harappa Seal h-598
    Modern impression of seal L-11 Lothal


    The third sign is a 'fish' hieroglyph.

    (http://www.harappa.com/script/script-indus-parpola.pdf Asko Parpola, 2009k,'Hind leg' + 'fish': towards further understanding of the Indus Script, in: SCRIPTA, volume 1 (September 2009): 37-76, The Hummn Jeongeum Society)

    Annex A: loa 'ficus glomerata' Rebus: loha 'copper, iron'

    Parpola also presents a figure of a pot with ficus leaves hieroglyph. A painted goblet with the 'three-branched fig tree' motif from Nausharo I D, transitional phase between the Early and Mature Harappan periods (c. 2600-2550 BCE) (After Samzun 1992: 250, fig.29.4 no.2)


    lauha = made of copper or iron (Gr.S’r.); metal, iron (Skt.); lo_haka_ra = coppersmith, ironsmith (Pali); lo_ha_ra = blacksmith (Pt.); lohal.a (Or.); lo_ha = metal, esp. copper or bronze (Pali); copper (VS.); loho, lo_ = metal, ore, iron (Si.)

    Ficus glomerata: loa, kamat.ha = ficus glomerata (Santali); rebus: loha = iron, metal (Skt.) kamat.amu, kammat.amu = portable furnace for melting precious metals (Te.) kammat.i_d.u = a goldsmith, a silversmith (Te.) kampat.t.tam coinage coin (Ta.);kammat.t.am kammit.t.am coinage, mint (Ma.); kammat.a id.; kammat.i a coiner (Ka.)(DEDR 1236)


    Sumerian cylinder seal showing flanking goats with hooves on tree and/or mountain. Uruk period. (After Joyce Burstein in: Katherine Anne Harper, Robert L. Brown, 2002, The roots of tantra, SUNY Press, p.100)Hence, two goats + mountain glyph reads rebus: meḍ kundār 'iron turner'. Leaf on mountain: kamaṛkom 'petiole of leaf'; rebus: kampaṭṭam 'mint'. loa = a species of fig tree, ficus glomerata, the fruit of ficus glomerata (Santali) Rebus: lo ‘iron’ (Assamese, Bengali); loa ‘iron’ (Gypsy). The glyphic composition is read rebus: meḍ loa kundār 'iron turner mint'. kundavum = manger, a hayrick (G.) Rebus: kundār turner (A.); kũdār, kũdāri (B.); kundāru (Or.); kundau to turn on a lathe, to carve, to chase; kundau dhiri = a hewn stone; kundau murhut = a graven image (Santali) kunda a turner's lathe (Skt.)(CDIAL 3295) This rebus reading may explain the hayrick glyph shown on the sodagor 'merchant, trader' seal surrounded by four animals.Two antelopes are put next to the hayrick on the platform of the seal on which the horned person is seated. mlekh 'goat' (Br.); rebus: milakku 'copper' (Pali); mleccha 'copper' (Skt.) Thus, the composition of glyphs on the platform: pair of antelopes + pair of hayricks read rebus: milakku kundār 'copper turner'. Thus the seal is a framework of glyphic compositions to describe the repertoire of a brazier-mint, 'one who works in brass or makes brass articles' and 'a mint'. 


    Etyma from Indo-Aryan languages: lōhá 'copper, iron'

    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. lòtilde; n., pāḍ. jaun. lōh, paṅ. luhā, cur. cam. lohā, Ku. luwā, N. lohu°hā, A. lo, B. lono, Or. lohāluhā, Mth. loh, Bhoj. lohā, Aw.lakh. lōh, H. lohlohā m., G. M. loh n.; Si. loho ʻ metal, ore, iron ʼ; Md. ratu -- lō ʻ copper ʼ. *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 -- . lōhakāra 11159 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. lohārluh° 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.

    lōhaghaṭa 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 -- . lōhala 11161 lōhala ʻ made of iron ʼ W. [lōhá -- ] G. loharlohariyɔ m. ʻ selfwilled and unyielding man ʼ.

    lōhaśālā 11162 *lōhaśālā ʻ smithy ʼ. [lōhá -- , śāˊlā -- ]
    Bi. lohsārī ʻ smithy ʼ. 
    lōhahaṭṭika 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 -- . lōhi 11164 lōhi ʻ *red, blood ʼ (n. ʻ a kind of borax ʼ lex.). [~ rṓhi -- . -- *rudh -- ] Kho. lei ʻ blood ʼ (BelvalkarVol 92 < *lōhika -- ), Kal.rumb. lū˘i, urt. lhɔ̈̄i. lṓhita 11165 lṓhita ʻ red ʼ AV., n. ʻ any red substance ʼ ŚBr., ʻ blood ʼ VS. [< rṓhita -- . -- *rudh -- ] Pa. lōhita -- in cmpds. ʻ red ʼ, n. ʻ blood ʼ, °aka -- ʻ red ʼ; Pk. lōhia -- ʻ red ʼ, n. ʻ blood ʼ; Gy. eur. lolo ʻ red ʼ, arm. nəxul ʻ blood, wound ʼ, pal. lúḥră ʻ red ʼ, inhīˊr ʻ blood ʼ, as. lur ʻ blood ʼ, lohri ʻ red ʼ Miklosich Mund viii 8; Ḍ. lōya ʻ red ʼ; Ash. leu ʻ blood ʼ, Wg. läi, Kt. lūi, Dm. lōi; Tir. ləwī, (Leech) luhī ʻ red ʼ, lọ̈̄i ʻ blood ʼ; Paš.  f. ʻ blood ʼ, Shum. lúī, Gmb. lūi, Gaw. ; Bshk. lōu ʻ red ʼ (AO xviii 241 < *lohuta -- ); S. lohū m. ʻ blood ʼ, L. lahū m., awāṇ. làū; P. lohī ʻ red ʼ, lohūlahū m. ʻ blood ʼ; WPah.jaun. loī ʻ blood ʼ, Ku. loilwe, B. lau, Or. lohunohula(h)una(h)ulaa, Mth. lehū, OAw. lohū m., H. lohūlahūlehū m., G. lohī n.; OM.lohivā ʻ red ʼ Panse Jñān 536; Si. lehe ʻ blood ʼ, le ʻ red ʼ SigGr ii 460; Md.  ʻ blood ʼ. -- Sh. lēl m. ʻ blood ʼ, lōlyŭ ʻ red ʼ rather < *lōhila -- . lōhitaka -- . Addenda: lṓhita -- : Kho. lei ʻ blood ʼ BKhoT 70, WPah.kṭg. lóu m., Garh. loi, Md. leilē.

    lōhitaka 11166 lōhitaka ʻ reddish ʼ Āpast., n. ʻ calx of brass, bell- metal ʼ lex. [lṓhita -- ] K. lŏy f. ʻ white copper, bell -- metal ʼ. lōhittara 11167 *lōhittara ʻ reddish ʼ. [Comp. of *lōhit -- ~ rōhít -- . - *rudh -- ] Woṭ. latúr ʻ red ʼ, Gaw. luturá: very doubtful (see úparakta -- ) lōhila 11168 *lōhila ʻ red ʼ. [lōhá -- ] Wg. lailäi -- štä ʻ red ʼ; Paš.chil. lēle -- šiṓl ʻ fox ʼ; Sv. lohĩló ʻ red ʼ, Phal. lohíluləhōilo; Sh.gil. jij. lēl m. ʻ blood ʼ, gil. lōlyŭ, (Lor.)loilo ʻ red, bay (of horse or cow) ʼ, pales. lēlo swã̄ṛə ʻ (red) gold ʼ. -- X nīˊla -- : Sh.gil. līlo ʻ violet ʼ, koh. līlṷ, pales. līˊlo ʻ red ʼ. -- Si. luhullūlā ʻ the dark -- coloured river fish Ophiocephalus striatus ʼ? -- Tor. lohūrlaūr, f. lihīr ʻ red ʼ < *lōhuṭa<-> AO xviii 241? lōhiṣṭha 11169 *lōhiṣṭha ʻ very red ʼ. [lōhá -- ] Kal.rumb. lohíṣṭ, urt. liūṣṭ ʻ male of Himalayan pheasant ʼ, Phal. lōwīṣṭ (f. šām s.v. śyāmá -- ); Bshk. lōīˊṭ ʻ id., golden oriole ʼ; Tor.lawēṭ ʻ male golden oriole ʼ, Sh.pales. lēṭh.

    lōhī 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.


    lōhōpaskara 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 -- . 
    laulāha 11172 laulāha m. ʻ name of a place ʼ Stein RājatTrans ii 487.
    K. lōlav ʻ name of a Pargana and valley west of Wular Lake ʼ.


    11172a laúha -- ʻ made of copper or iron ʼ Gr̥Śr., ʻ red ʼ MBh., n. ʻ iron, metal ʼ Bhaṭṭ. [lōhá -- ] Pk. lōha -- ʻ made of iron ʼ; L. lohā ʻ iron -- coloured, reddish ʼ; P. lohā ʻ reddish -- brown (of cattle) ʼ. lauhabhāṇḍa -- , *lauhāṅga -- . lauhakāra -- see lōhakāra -- . Addenda: laúha -- [Dial. au ~ ō (in lōhá -- ) < IE. ou T. Burrow BSOAS xxxviii 74]

    lauhabhāṇḍa 11173 lauhabhāṇḍa n. ʻ iron pot, iron mortar ʼ lex. [laúha -- , bhāṇḍa -- 1] Pa. lōhabhaṇḍa -- n. ʻ copper or brass ware ʼ; S. luhã̄ḍ̠iṛī f. ʻ iron pot ʼ, L.awāṇ. luhã̄ḍā; P. luhã̄ḍālohṇḍā, ludh. lō̃hḍā m. ʻ frying pan ʼ; N. luhũṛe ʻ iron cooking pot ʼ; A. lohorā ʻ iron pan ʼ; Bi. lohãṛā ʻ iron vessel for drawing water for irrigation ʼ; H. lohaṇḍāluh° m. ʻ iron pot ʼ; G. loḍhũ n. ʻ iron, razor ʼ, pl. ʻ car<-> penter's tools ʼ, loḍhī f. ʻ iron pan ʼ. -- X *lōhōpaskara<-> q.v. lauhāṅgika 11174 *lauhāṅgika ʻ iron -- bodied ʼ. [láuha -- , áṅga -- 1] P. luhã̄gī f. ʻ staff set with iron rings ʼ, H. lohã̄gī f., M. lohã̄gīlavh°lohãgī f.; -- Bi. lohãgālahaũgā ʻ cobbler's iron pounder ʼ, Mth.lehõgā.

    0 0


    I present in this monograph some images gleaned from media reports (including archaeologists' comments). Comments on eight copper anthropomorphs in bas-relief on the top lid of a wooden coffin have been presented and discussed in other monographs-- in the context of Indus Script Hypertext tradition pointing to the anthropomorphs as signifiers of guild-master of gold-/iron-smiths. See:

    Baghpat anthropomorph with horned pipal leaf, dagger, Indus Script hypertexts lohār, kammaṭīḍu 'ironsmith, goldsmith', kamāṭhiyo 'soldier, śreṣṭhin श्रेष्ठिन् 'foreman of kammaṭa 'mint' guild'https://tinyurl.com/yd4c9634

    The focus of this monograph is on the following images which point to a an artisan guild engaged in metalwork/mint:

    1. A suggested reconstruction of the Baghpat chariot with two-solid-wheels and a flagpost atop the charioteer's box (three chariots were discovered)
    2. Sword and dagger found near the burials (the nature of the metal and dimensions of the artifacts are not specified); the weapons point to the owners as warriors who rode on two-solid-wheeled chariots



    3. Two bone combs with unique Indus Script hieroglyphs/hypertexts Notes:
    Image of a zebu (bos indicus) is ligatured to one comb; Dotted circles are incised on the second comb. I suggest that these are a continuum of the Indus Script Cipher tradition. 


    Sign 176 wich has the shape of a comb is frequently on used Indus Script Corpora to signify:
    khareḍo'a currycomb' (Gujarati) Rebus: kharādī‘turner’ (Gujarati);karaḍā 'hard alloy';खरडा kharaḍā'daybook' (wealth accounting ledger of metalwork processes).




    The rebus Meluhha signifiers are:

    The dotted circles on one comb are comparable to similar dotted circles which appear on a comb discovered at Tell Abraq (ca 2200 BCE). Dotted circle is an Indus Script hypertext which reads rebus: dāya 'one in dice', dhāū'strand' rebus dhāˊtu 'ore of red colour' PLUS vrtta, vaṭṭa 'circle'; thus, together rebus expression: धावड dhāvaḍa, 'iron smelter'; dhāvḍī ʻcomposed of or relating to ironʼ (Marathi).

    In a remarkable semantic determinative, a zebu (bos indicus) bull is ligatured to the second comb. The rebus readings of zebu are:  पोळ [pōḷa] zebu; a bull dedicated to the gods, marked with a trident and discus, and set at large rebus:पोळ [pōḷa]'magnetite, ferrite ore'. Thus, the comb with a zebu ligatured on the edge of the comb signifies पोळ [pōḷa]'magnetite, ferrite ore'. khareḍo'a currycomb' rebus: 1. [karaḍā] Hard from alloy--iron, silver &c. (Marathi); 2.
    kharādī‘turner’ (Gujarati); 3.खरडा kharaḍā also खरडें n A scrawl; a memorandum-scrap; also खरडें n A rude sketch; a rough draught; a foul copy; a waste-book; a day-book; a note-book (Marathi). Vikalpa (alternative reading) kanasi 'comb'; rebus: kã̄sī'gong';
    कांसें kāṃsēṃ n (कांस्य S) Bell metal: also queen's metal, or any amalgam of zinc and copper; कासार or कांसार kāsāra or kāṃsāra m (कांस्यकार S) A caste or an individual of it. They are braziers or workers in white or bell metal. 2 (By mispronunciation of or mistake for कांचार) A maker of or stringer of glass bangles (Marathi).

    Thus, the comb with Indus Script hypertext/hieroglyphs signifies a daybook of wealth accounting ledger related to iron-/metal-work, work ofकांसारa brazier in particular.

    This comb discovered in Tell Abraq (ca. 2200 BCE) has two Harappa Script hieroglyphs: 1. dotted circles; and 2. tabernae montana 'mountain tulip' Rebus readings: 1.Hieroglyph: dotted circles: dāntā 'ivory' dāya 'one in dice', dhāū'strand' rebus dhāˊtu 'ore of red colour' PLUS vrtta, vaṭṭa 'circle' rebus: धावड dhāvaḍa, 'iron smelter' 2. Hieroglyph: tagaraka 'tabernae montana, mountain tulip' rebus: tagara 'tin'. Thus, two mineral ores are signified by the two hieroglyphs: ferrite, copper ores and tin ore (cassiterite). See:

    Dotted circles, tulips and tin-bronze revolution of 4th millennium BCE documented in Harappa Script http://tinyurl.com/z3x7zev

     




    "The excavation, which began in March, has also unearthed eight burial sites and several artefacts, including three coffins, antenna swords, daggers, combs, and ornaments, among others. The three chariots found in burial pits indicate the possibility of “royal burials” while other findings confirm the population of a warrior class here, officials said."
    Bronze Age chariot India
    The swords and daggers confirm the existence of a warrior population.

    Beside the dead man was buried his sword | Sanjay AhlawatBeside the dead man was buried his sword | Sanjay Ahlawat
    [quote]
    “Even the impressions of the shroud on the coffin were clear,” says Manjul. He believes this to be a royal funeral site. The dig unearthed eight skeletons; some were secondary burials with just the bones collected together. Another coffin, less elaborate, appears to be of a princess or queen. An armlet of semi-precious stones adorned her left arm, and there were even gold beads near the skull, perhaps hair decoration. Beside the coffin, they found a well-preserved comb made of bone, carved to resemble a peacock. A copper mirror completed the grooming kit. Apart from human remains, the site also had burials of a dog and a bird. They also found partial evidence of another chariot. [quote]


    ASI Excavation site

    ASI excavation site 

    The finds from the contemporary Harappan civilisation | Archaeological Survey of India via The Print.in 

    The finds from the contemporary Harappan civilisation | Archaeological Survey of India via The Print.in

     
    Unearthed artifact from the contemporary Harappan civilisation | Archaeological Survey of India
     

    0 0

    AHURA "MAZDĀ"'LORD WISDOM'?

    F. B. J. KUIPER
    Indo-Iranian Journal
    Vol. 18, No. 1/2 (JUNE/JULY 1976), pp. 25-42
    Published by: Brill
    Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24652589
    Page Count: 18 

















     

    0 0

    https://tinyurl.com/y95esn22

    The remarkable finds at Baghpat of a coffin burial, use of Indus Script Hypertexts and of three chariots point to two parallels provide indicators for further researches and field-work archaeological investigations.
    This monograph is organized in the following sections:
    Section 1. Iron smelting in Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
    Section 2: Nazimaruttash kudurru and Aleppo citadel of storm-gods
    1. Iron smelting in Khasi hills (Meghalaya) two thousand years ago points to the need to re-evaluate the Tin-Bronze Age of Sarasvati Civilization in the context of iron smelting in Ganga basin ca 1800 BCE and Copper Hoard Culture of the Ganga-Yamuna doab as a continuum of Sarasvati Civilization Bronze Age. Particular attention is invited to the articles by: 1. Gullapalli, P., Early metal in South India: copper and iron in megalithic contexts. J. World Prehist. , 2009,22 , 439–459; and 2. Possehl, Gregory L., and Praveena Gullapalli, 1999. The Early Iron Age in South Asia. pp. 153–175 in: Pigott, Vincent C. (ed.), The archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World. (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, University Museum Monograph, volume 16.) Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. The researches of Praveena Gullapalli and Gregory Possehl point to evidences of iron-working, together with Tin-Bronze working in Sarasvati Civilization.
    2. R̥gveda and  Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa evidence of Gautama  Rāhugaṇa migrating from Kurukshetra (Sarasvati Basin) to Sadanira (Karatoya) river confluence of Ganga-Brahmaputra suggests that the Tin-Bronze Age of Sarasvati Civilization extended into the Brahmaputra River Basin. This evidence together with the evidence of iron smelting in Khasi Hills points to the need for further archaeometallurgical investigations on the contributions by ancient Indians using the iron ore resources of the country and possible trade contacts with the Ancient Far east.

    3. Discoveries at the archaeological site of Aleppo which provide some parallels with artifacts discovered in Baghpat.
    Section 1. Iron smelting in Khasi Hills, Meghalaya
    Two thousand years of iron smelting in the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, North East India
    • March 2013
    • Current science 104(6):761-768
    • Pawel ProkopPawel Prokop
    • Ireneusz Suliga
    • Abstract
      Radiocarbon dating of charcoal from iron slag revealed evidence of continuous iron smelting in the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, NE India spanning the last two millennia. The slag layer, which is dated to 2040 ± 80 years BP (353 BC–AD 128), is the earliest iron smelting site studied in the entire region of NE India. The presence of wüstite, fayalite, glass and metal iron, together with spinels such as hercynite in the slag, indicates that it was an acid product of a bloomery iron-making process. The relative isolation of the Khasi people, who inhabited a highly elevated plateau, is evidence of the indigenous origin of this manufacturing technology, although diffusion of knowledge through cultural and technical contacts or population migration cannot be excluded.
       
      Location of the Khasi Hills in Meghalaya. Distribution of sampling sites (white squares) and other sites of iron smelting (white dots) is indicated on the basis of reports from the 19th century

    • RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
      CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 104, NO. 6, 25 MARCH 2013

      Two thousand years of iron smelting in
      the Khasi Hills, Megh
      alaya, North East
      India
      Pawel Prokop1,
      * and Ireneusz Suliga2
      1
      Department of Geoenvironmental Research,
      Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization,
      Polish Academy of Sciences, Jana 22, 31-018 Kraków, Poland
      2
      Faculty of Metals Engineering and
      Computer Science for Industry,
      AGH University of Science and Technology, al. A. Mickiewicza 30,
      30-059 Kraków, Poland 

      THE discussion on the early development of iron metal-lurgy in India has been shaped by two primary concepts.The first assumed a diffusive spread of iron smelting technology related to the migration of the Aryans, an Indo-European speaking people, who entered the Indian subcontinent from the northwest 1–3. The second concept postulates that there was an independent origin and development of iron-ore mining, extraction and manufac- turing technology, founded on the raw materials that were
      contemporaneously available in India 4–7
      .
      However, in both cases, North East (NE) India was not taken into consideration. The reason for this was the difficulties involved in archaeological exploration of areas of hilly terrain with frequent
      heavy rain and dense vegeta-tion cover, as well as evidence of the strong material, linguistic and genetic connection of the region with cultures of East Asia and Southeast Asia, at least from the Neolithic period 8–10

      These are clearly visible in the case of the central part of Meghalaya, which is inhabited by the Khasi, an Austro-Asiatic speaking people, representing the remnants of an ancient migration from Southeast Asia11,12
      .
      No demonstrable archaeological evidence of the Iron Age in Meghalaya has yet been found, although the first British naturalists who visited Meghalaya in the early19th century described the iron industry that had developed in the upper part of the Khasi Hills13–17

      The remnants of former iron-ore excavation and iron manu-facturing, visible today in the landscape of the Khasi Hills, indicate that it could be the result of prolonged occupation by the Meghalaya inhabitants. Metallurgical tradition was also accompanied by the erecting of megalithic memorial monuments, bearing similarities to other megalithic sites in India frequently associated with the Copper–Bronze or Iron Age
      18,19
      .
      The aim of this communication is to estimate the temporal extent of iron smelting in the Khasi Hills and to present an analysis of the technological process of iron production development during that time. This study inte-grates field observations with laboratory analysis of sam-ples from the raw materials and products, supplemented by reconstructions based on historical reports of iron smelting given by eye witnesses from the early 19th century. 

      Meghalaya is one of the rainiest inhabited environ-ments on earth, with more than 11,000 mm of precipita-tion recorded annually in Cherrapunji20,21. 

      This small state is a hilly plateau uplifted to about 1900 m above the Bengal Plain in the south and the Brahmaputra valley in the north (Figure 1). The basement of the plateau is formed by gneisses and quartzites with granite intrusions representing a source of iron-ore 22–24

      The upper part of the plateau in the Khasi Hills, 1000 m asl, is deforested, severely eroded and overgrown by grass 25. 

      Only the smallpatches of broadleaved hill forest (sacred groves) that remain, protected through the ages by the people for reli-gious and cultural reasons, are evidence that the plateaumust once have been covered by forest in the past 26 . 

      Historical reports from the British adinistration of the Khasi Hills were used as sources of information concerning the spatial distribution of iron metallurgy sites in the The principal source of iron-ore in the Khasi Hills were the granite outcrops. The ore, primarily titaniferous mag-
      netic oxide (Fe 2+(Fe3+,Ti)2O4), is a colluvial sand that results from the weathering of granite. Wet chemical analysis of colluvial sand from the granite area in Nonk-grem, the most important centre of iron-ore extraction15,indicates that it contained 10–12% by weight of ironoxides (FeO, Fe2O3). The operation of washing the decomposed granite in local streams enriched the content of iron oxides up to 35% by weight. About 65% by weight constituted gangue silicate minerals, which were mainly quartz and potassium feldspar.

      The only fuel used for smelting was charcoal. The best charcoal was produced from local oak species, but in cases where there was a lack of a hardwood other kinds of trees were used for carbonization 16 . The smelting was performed in above-ground bloomery furnaces that could
      hold 0.3–0.5 m3of ore and charcoal in alternate layers.The fire inside was blown by large bellows, from whichthe air was conducted by kaolin clay tuyeres. The tem-perature inside the furnace was controlled by regulating the rate of operation of the bellows. Most interesting from the technological point of view was the intentional preparation and use of slag-ore lumps.Analysis of sections indicates that it contained slag core wrapped up with a mixture of iron-ore and charcoal, which was heated before smelting in the furnace. The slag core additionally favoured the scorification of the gangue, thereby increasing the efficiency of the metallurgical process. 
      The hot porous mass of iron, extracted from the furnace, was immediately shaped into circular lumps andthen split into two with an axe. The split was opened by a couple of wedges and the hot mass was inserted into a trough full of pounded dross to cool. The weight of the lump obtained during a single smelt reached about 6.5 kg.The technology applied permitted up to 15 smelts daily from the same furnace15,17. In most cases, the crude iron,as obtained from the smelting furnaces, was taken tomarket or carried to other villages, where it was manufac-tured into tools. The lumps were placed in the fire and after eight re-heatings and beats, a new tool was formed.The loss of weight arising from impurities of the iron as it comes from the smelting reached about 43% (ref. 17). The manufacturing of iron by the bloomery process generates substantial quantities of waste products in the form of slag.Traces of the iron industry are still visible in the Khasi Hills as deposits of washed sand with charcoal, clay tuyeres and slag. Lithological analysis of deposits containing iron slag, combined with radiocarbon dating of charcoal from four sites scattered in the upper part of the plateau, helped determine the temporal range of iron smelting (Figure 3, Table 1). However, it is important to note that because of the effects of high rainfall, settlement development and road construction, most of the originally deposited remnants of former iron smelting have been destroyed or re-deposited. Therefore, only a few sites located in areas with less rainfall, mainly between Shillong and Nongkrem, are valuable for con-
      tinuous reconstruction of metallurgy development in theKhasi Hills.The Shillong site (27°37′09′′N, 91°53′49′′E, 1500 m asl)is located within the quartzite area on the top of an elongated hill. Several slags up to 20 cm in size were scattered on the surface of a cultivated field over an area oftens of square metres. Remains of a broken quartzite megalith were visible near
      the investigated site. Excavation up to the quartzite bedrock did not reveal any traces of iron smelting below ground level.The Nongkrem site (25°29′34′′N, 91°52′54′′E, 1750 masl) is located within the granite area in the valley bottom. This is the main centre of the former iron-ore exca-vation15,17. The section cut by an adjacent road exposed washed sandy deposits containing charcoal and several layers of slag with broken clay tuyeres. The upper part of the section has a well-developed soil horizon about 50 cm thick. The middle part of the section, up to a depth of
      240 cm, is loamy sand with gravels and layers of slag with diameter between 1 and 10 cm. The charcoal extracted from the slag layer at a depth of 80 cm was dated at 245±25 yearsBP. The lower part is a coarse-grained weathered cover in situ along with partially weathered granite boulders. Several iron slags reaching



       


      15–20 cm in diameter were found at a depth of 270 cm. Charcoal extracted from one of these slags was dated at 2040 ±80 years BP.The Raitkteng site (25°18′00′′N, 91°42′40′′E, 1450 mamsl) is located within a sandstone area at the base of a small hill overgrown by grasses.A section is exposed by a local sand–clay quarry. The skeletal soil covers a 10 cm thick slag layer, stretching over an area of at least several hundreds of square metres. The radiocarbon age of char-coal extracted from the top of this layer was determinedto be 240±60 yearsBP. The bottom of the  profile pre-sents loamy sand with a horizon of charcoal dated at 1110± 30 yearsBP. Relatively large charcoal particles up to 0.5 cm in size probably indicate the main phase of de-forestation. 
      The Cherrapunji site (25°16′12′′N, 91°44′15′′E, 1300 mamsl) is located within a sandstone area at the base of a small hill overgrown by grasses. Several sandstone mega-liths are scattered in the neighbourhood. Many slags up to20 cm in size were found over an area covering tens of square metres. Excavation up to the sandstone bedrock  did not yield traces of iron smelting below ground level.The Cherrapunji location, similar to the Raitkteng site,was probably one of the main iron smelting centres in this region 15,16. However, in the 19th century, slag deposits from both sites were used as material for construction of the Cherrapunji–Shillong road. 
      Slags are the most abundant and best-preserved productof traditional iron smelting and thus are a staple of archaeometallurgical research in the Khasi Hills. Their composition and structure are closely related to the mate-rials used and the conditions of the metallurgical process.The samples from the Shillong and Raitkteng sites rep-resent tap slags, as indicated by the smooth surfaces and pronounced flow structures, composed of multiple fingers of tap slag welded together (Figure 4); evidently, it wasvery fluid.The samples from Nongkrem and Cherrapunji are from the lower part of the furnace and are extremely inhomo-geneous, incorporating numerous inclusions of unreduced or partially reduced ore. Evidently, it was not very fluid at furnace temperatures, because the surfaces are rough and broken surfaces show many cavities from entrapped gas. The slag was rapidly chilled producing very fine structure throughout. In a thin section, slags from Shillong, Raitkteng and Cherrapunji are almost entirely composed of fayalite (Fe2SiO4) in a glass matrix, with dendrites of wüstite (FeO). Wüstite dendrites differ in size reflecting local diversity of slag crystallization. Within the fayalite, her-cynite (FeAl2O4), fusible eutectics (FeOFe2SiO4), mullite(Al6Si2 O13 ) and occasional iron droplets were also crys-tallized. As the slags contain abundant hercynite, the ore must also have contained alumina or aluminosilicate clayminerals in particles too small to be visible in a thin sec-tion. Analysis shows that tuyeres were produced from kaolin clay with quartz sand and heated at low tempera-tures, making possible the poor transition of kaolinite into mullite.

        
      The slag from the Nongkrem site has a more compli-cated microstructure. Iron oxide (56–67% FeO) and sili-con oxide (up to 20% SiO2) are predominant in all the slags with an increased contribution of titanium (TiO2) inthe presence of other phases (Figure 4f: 1–4; Table 2). 
      Apart from fayalite and dendrites of wüstite, visible

      phases have also been identified using the EDS method as a composition of Ti–Fe–O, Fe–Al–O (Figure 4f: 4) andAl–Si–K–O (Figure 4f: 3).Evidence of substantial bloomery smelting has been found in the appearance, microstructure, composition and excavation context of slag, char
      coal and tuyeres, as well as in the surviving 19th century descriptions of iron manufacturing in the Khasi Hills. Iron was produced inthe Khasi Hills over the last two millennia. The Nongkrem site, one of the main sources of iron-ore, was continuously in use for smelting from early in the 1st
      century AD to the middle of the 19th century. The conti-nuity of iron production is confirmed by thick deposits of washed sand with several layers of slag, as well as radio-carbon dating of charcoal from the lowermost and uppermost layers of the slag. Similar features of sedimen-
      tation continuity reveal all deposits of colluvial sandswith charcoal in this part of the Khasi Hills24
      The location of the lower layer of slag almost on the granite boul-ders in Nongkrem, was dated at 2040±80 yearsBP(353 BC–AD128), making it the earliest studied iron smelting site in the Khasi Hills and consequently, in the whole of NE India. The direct reduction process of iron smelting declined after the advent of processes for mak-ing liquid steel on a large scale in the 19th century28
      .
      Official statistics shows that iron was the main export ar-ticle from the Khasi Hills in 1858 (ref. 29), but it does not appear in the statistics prepared in 1876 (ref. 30). The low ore content in the granite rocks and consequent high cost of obtaining it, were additional factors in the rapid collapse of iron smelting in the plateau. This is also con- firmed by radiocarbon dating of charcoal from the top slag layers in Nongkrem and Raitkteng.The results of a study of chemical and phase composition and the microstructure of iron smelting slags, reveal that they are an acid product of a bloomery iron-making process. The process of iron-ore reduction is governed byobjective physical, chemical and thermodynamic rules and cannot be unique by itself. It is carried on in the same material-energetic system: ore + reducer (charcoal, CO, H2), at a suitable temperature. Therefore, despite covering such a vast expanse of land and spanning two millennia,there was little fundamental variability in the resulting products: bloomery iron and fayalitic slag. Specific to the iron smelters’ skills are the materials used, metallurgical devices and the technology of the reduction process that influence the conditions of slag formation.Metallurgical slag from the Khasi Hills reveals typicalheterogeneity for ancient metallurgy, related to incomplete reactions following premature termination of the smelting process or local gradients in oxygen supply in the furnace. Further complications arise from post-process alterations, beginning with rapid oxidation and the rate of crystallization during the removal of liquid slag from the furnace (tapping)31,32
      .
      The microstructure and phase composition show that fayalite and fine wüstite dendrites are dominant compo-nents of iron slag. The presence of wüstite shows that an ideal operation was not attained and that more metal that could have been recovered in the smelting process33
      Additional constituents such as hercynite and identified phases Ti–Fe–O, Fe–Al–O and Al–Si–K–O are derived from aluminium and titanium minerals in the ore. This kind of slag constitutes strong evidence for the practice of bloomery iron smelting in the Khasi Hills34
      .
      The study reveals that both the oldest and youngest analysed slags have high iron content of above 55% (Table 2), similar to slags from furnaces found in many parts of Eurasia 35 . We have no indication that any great changes in technology occurred during the 2000 years of Khasi iron-making. As long as supplies of charcoal and ore remained abundant and bloomery iron was the superior market product, it is possible that producers had no motivation to seek change. However, it is important to mention that as slag from previous blooms had high iron content, it was recycled in the form of slag-ore lumps into the furnace with new ore. This technological innovation has not been described in ot her areas of India so far. Only a small portion of smelted iron was manufactured into tools, such hoes, hammers and arrow heads for the local market. The larger portion was transported in the form of impure lumps and sold in the Bengal Plain (today Bangladesh). There, in the villages along the rivers, iron was used for the production of nails for fastening the planks of boats 17. Allen29, using calculations from custom gates, estimated that the quantity of exported iron from the Khasi Hills was about 1700–2400 tonnes annually.The smelting of iron in the Khasi Hills, which exceeded considerably the needs of the local inhabitants, shows standardization of manufacturing related to mass produc-tion in a seemingly efficient technological system. Standardization may be a sign of more established technologies, when the main engineering parameters have been locally modified and accepted by both producers and consumers 36. 
      The above evidence for bloomery smelting in the ancient Khasi Hills, throughout the last two millennia, raises important questions regarding its origin. Meghalaya is inhabited by two ethnic groups representing the remnants of Neolithic migration. It is assumed that the Khasi and Jaintia groups, belonging to the Austro-Asiatic language family, migrated from Southeast Asia and spread up to the lower Ganges around 3000 BC(ref. 11). Later on, the present-day population of the Garo group, belonging to the Sino-Tibetan language family, migrated southwards from their original homeland in China37. The archaeological record of this period and specifically, the shouldered celts and the cord-impressed potteries found in Meghalaya, confirm close affinity with the materials found in South China and Southeast Asia. However, there was no evidence of Copper–Bronze or Iron Age in Meghalaya, or any relationship to subsequent migration
      or cultural contacts with East Asia. In contrast, the Khasi and Jaintia groups had occasional contacts with the Indo-European speaking people living in the Bengal lowlands. 

      Iron technologies appeared in Southeast Asia around the 5th century BC (refs 38, 39). The production of iron by the bloomery process has led to suggestions that iron technologies were transferred by some means from the west or north38,40. Recent evidence shows that bloomeries
      were used in China, migrating from the West as early as the 8th century BC , before being replaced by the locally developed cast-iron production around the 4thcentury BC (ref. 41). Therefore, despite Neolithic migration of ancient farmers from the southeast to the Khasi Hills, the iron-making technology was probably invented independently or alternatively, could have been introduced from the West. 
      The relative isolation of the Khasi people, who inhabited a highly elevated plateau, suggests the indigenous origin of manufacturing technology. On the other hand, given their trade contacts with surrounding lowlands, one cannot exclude the possibility of the diffusion of iron-production   knowledge, which is known to have reached the lower Ganges and Brahmaputra, close to the western border of the plateau, about 700 years BC (ref. 42). Diffusion of technological practices does not necessarily imply movement of people. However, several colonization waves in the Early Medieval Period forced local Austro-Asiatic language-speakers to move eastwards from the lower Ganges towards the surrounding Meghalaya low-lands43. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and the results of chemical, microstructure and phase composition of iron-ore and slags, indicate that the smelting of iron in the Khasi Hills was initiated at least 2000 years ago and continued up to the middle of the 19th century. Large-scale metallurgic production was the response to the demand for iron from the adjacent lowlands, which did not have iron-ore resources.
      Although we know when iron smelting first began to appear in the Khasi Hills, we do not know how the metal- workers came to possess knowledge of making iron. The relative isolation of the Khasi people, who inhabited a  highly elevated plateau, is evidence of the indigenous origin of manufacturing technology. On the other hand, given their trade contacts with the surrounding lowlands, one cannot exclude the possibility of the diffusion of iron-production knowledge from the West. 
       References

      1. 
      Wheeler, M.,Early India and Pakistan: To Ashoka, Frederick A.Praeger, New York, 1959, p. 246.
      2.
      Allchin, B. and Allchin, R.,
      The Rise of Civilization in India and
      Pakistan
      , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982, p. 396.
      3.
      Shaffer, J. G., The Indo-Aryan invasions: cultural myth and archaeological reality. In The People of South Asia: The Biologi- cal Anthropology of India, Pakistan and Nepal (ed. Lukacs, J. R.), Plenum Press, New York, 1984, pp. 77–90.
      4.
      Chakrabarti, D. K., The beginning of iron in India. Antiquity , 1976, 4 , 114–124. 
      5.
      Chakrabarti, D. K., The Early Use of Iron in India , Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Delhi, 1992, p. 200.
      6.
      Tewari, R., The origins of iron-working in India: new evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas.
      Antiquity 2003, 77 , 536–545.
      7.
      Tripathi, V., History of Iron Technology in India (From Beginning to Pre-Modern Times ), Rupa & Co, New Delhi, 2008, p. 256.
      8.
      Archaeological Survey of India, Indian Archaeology: A Review 1979–80 , Government of India, New Delhi, 1983, pp. 59–60.
      9.
      Ruhlen, M., A Guide to the World’s Languages, Stanford Univer- sity Press, Stanford, California, 1991, vol. 1, p. 492.
      10. Langstieh, B. T., Genetic diversity and relationships among the tribes of Meghalaya compared to other Indian and continental populations. Hum. Biol. , 2004, 76 , 569–590.
      11.
      Bellwood, P., First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Socie- ties , Blackwell Publishing, UK, 2005, p. 384.
      12. Reddy, B. M. et al. , Austro-Asiatic tribes of Northeast India pro- vide hitherto missing genetic link between South and Southeast Asia. PLoS One , 2007, 2 , e1141. 
      13.
      Walters, H., Journey across the Pandua Hills, near Silhet, in Ben- gal. Asiat. Res. , 1832, 17 , 499–512.
      14.
      Cracroft, W., Smelting of iron in the Kasya Hills. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal , 1832, 1 , 150–151.
      15.
      Yule, H., Notes on the iron of the Khasia Hills. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal , 1842, 11 , 853–857.
      16.
      Hooker, J. D., The Himalayan Journals , John Murray, London, 1854, vol. 2, pp. 1–345.
      17.
      Oldham, T., On the geological structure of part of the Khasi Hills.  Bengal Mem. Geol. Surv. India I, 1854, 2 , 99–210.
      18.
      Clarke, C. B., The stone monuments of the Khasi Hills. . Anthro-pol. Inst. Great Britain Ireland, 1874,3
      , 481–493.
      19. Gullapalli, P., Early metal in South India: copper and iron in megalithic contexts. J. World Prehist. , 2009,22 , 439–459. 
      20.
      Prokop, P. and Walanus, A., Trend and periodicity in the longest instrumental rainfall series for the area of most extreme rainfall in the world, northeast India. Geogr. Pol. , 2003, 76 , 25–35. 
      21.
      Murata, F., Hayashi, T., Matsumoto, J. and Asada, H., Rainfall on the Meghalaya Plateau in northeastern India – one of the rainiest places in the world. Nat. Hazards , 2007, 42 , 391–399.
      22.
      Mazumder, S. K., The Precambrian framework of part of  the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya. Rec. Geol. Surv. India
      , 1986, 117 , 1–59. 
      23.
      Hazra, S., Saha, P., Ray, J. and Podder, A., Simple statistical and mineralogical studies as petrogenetic indicator for Neoproterozoic Mylliem porphyritic granites of East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, Northeastern India. J. Geol. Soc. India
      , 2010, 75 , 760–768. 
      24.
      Prokop, P. and Bhattacharyya, A., Reconnaissance of Quaternary sediments from Khasi Hills, Meghalaya.
      J. Geol. Soc. India , 2011, 78 , 258–262. page 8
      25.
      Prokop, P. and Por ę ba, G. J., Soil erosion associated with an up- land farming system under population pressure in northeast India. Land Degrad. Dev. , 2012, doi: 10.1002/ldr.2147.
      26.
      Tiwari, B. K., Barik, S. K. and Tripathi, R. S., Biodiversity value, status, and strategies for conservation of sacred groves of Megha- laya, India. Ecosyst. Health , 1998, 4 , 20–32.
      27.
      Bronk Ramsey, C., Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radio-carbon , 2009, 51 , 337–360.
      28.
      Balasubramaniam, R., Metallurgy of ancient Indian iron and steel.In Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology and Medi-cine in Non-Western Cultures (ed. Selin, H.), Kluwer, The Nether-lands, 2005, pp. 1608–1613.
      29.
      Allen, W. J., Report on the Administration of the Cossyah and Jynteah Hill Territory, Calcutta, 1858, p. 176.
      30.
      Hunter, W. W., A Statistical Account of Assam , Trubner&Co,London, 1879, vol. 2, pp. 1–490.
      31.
      Prakash, B., Metallurgy of iron and steel making and blacksmithy in ancient India.Indian J. Hist. Sci.
      , 1991,26, 351–371.
      32.
      Agarwal, D. P.,Ancient Metal Technology and Archaeology of South Asia , Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 2000, p. 265.
      33.
      Morton, G. R. and Wingrove, J., Constitution of bloomery slags:Part II: Mediaeval.J. Iron Steel Inst., 1972,210, 478–488.
      34.
      Gordon, R. B., Process deduced from ironmaking wastes and arte-facts. J. Archaeol. Sci., 1997, 249–18.
      35.
      Pigott, V. C. (ed.), The Archeometallurgy of the Asian Old World ,University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia, 1999, pp. 1–207.
      36.
      Eerkens, J. W. and Lipo, C. P., Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. J. Anthropol. Archaeol., 2005,24, 316–334.
      37.
      Driem, G. V., Neolithic correlates of ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations. InArchaeology and Language II: Archaeological
      Data and Linguistics Hypotheses (eds Blench, R. and Spriggs,M.), Routledge, London, 1998, pp. 67–102.
      38.
      Bellwood, P.,Prehistory of the Indo-Malaysian Archipelago, Uni-versity of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1997, pp. 1–385.
      39.
      Higham, C. F. W.,Mainland Southeast Asia from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. In Southeast Asia. From Prehistory to History(edsGlover, I. and Bellwood, P.), Routledge Curzon, London, 2004,pp. 41–67.
      40.
      Bronson, B., Patterns in the Early Southeast Asian metals trade. In Metallurgy, Trade and Urbanism in Early Thailand and Southeast Asia (eds Glover, I. C., Suchitta, P. and Viliers, J.), White Lotus, Bangkok, 1992, pp. 63–114.
      41.
      Wagner, D. B., The earliest use of iron in China. In Metals in Antiquity (eds Young, S. M. M. et al.), BAR International Series 792, Archaeopress, Oxford, 1999, pp. 1–9.
      42.
      Gadgil, M., Joshi, N. V., Shambu Prasad, U. V., Manoharan, S.and Patil, S., Peopling of India. In The Indian Human Heritage (eds Balasubramanian, D. and Appaji Rao, N.), Universities Press, Hyderabad, 1997, pp. 100–129.
      43.
      Misra, V. N., Prehistoric human colonization of India, J. Biosci.,2001, 26, 491–531. 
      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. This paper is the outcome of a bilateral project agreed between the Indian National Science Academy and Pol-ish Academy of Sciences. We thank Prof. S. Singh and Dr H. J. Syiem-lieh, Department of Geography,
      North-Eastern Hill University,Shillong for help in organizing our fieldwork.

      Two thousand years of iron smelting in the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, North East India. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261191818_Two_thousand_years_of_iron_smelting_in_the_Khasi_Hills_Meghalaya_North_East_India
      Section 2: Nazimaruttash kudurru and Aleppo citadel of storm-gods
      Reference to storm-gods in Aleppo citadel provides a parallel with Maruts in R̥gveda. The name Nazimaruttash may be in memory of the Maruts, storm divinities. The Nazimaruttash kudurru stone is a boundary stone (kudurru) of Nazimaruttaš, a Kassite king of Babylon, ca. 1307–1282 BC (short chronology). It was found at Susa and is now displayed at the Louvre."Nazimaruttash's kudurru does not use registers. Instead, graphic symbols are used. Nineteen deities are invoked to curse the foolhardy individual who seeks to desecrate it. Some are represented by symbols, such as a goat-fish for Enki or a bird on a pole for Papsukkal, a spear-head for Marduk or an eight-pointed star for Ishtar. Shamash is represented by a disc."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazimarutta%C5%A1_kudurru_stone
      "...text of Nazimaruttash and other similar documents that have recently been discovered prove that the presence of the figures and emblems of the gods upon the stones is to be explained on another and far more simple theory. They were placed there as guardians of the property to which the kudurru referred, and it was believed that the carving of their figures or emblems upon the stone would ensure their intervention in case of any attempted infringement of the rights and privileges which it was the object of the document to commemorate and preserve. A photographic reproduction of one side of the kudurru of Nazi-maruttash is shown in the accompanying illustration. There will be seen a representation of Gula or Bau, the mother of the gods, who is portrayed as seated on her throne and wearing the four-horned head-dress and a long robe that reaches to her feet. In the field are emblems of the Sun-god, the Moon-god, Ishtar, and other deities, and the representation of divine emblems and dwelling-places is continued on another face of the stone round the corner towards which Grula is looking. The other two faces of the document are taken up with the inscription. "http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17321/17321-h/v1c.htm

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Kudurru_of_Nazi-Maruttash.jpgKudurru of Nazi-Maruttaš (Kudurru Sb. 21, a later stone copy of clay original.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi-Maruttash#/media/File:Kudurru_of_Nazi-Maruttash.jpg The Kudurru stones of Nazi Maruttash depict the image of Scorpio that is referred to as Bica in Assamese to mean Iron-stone ore.

    Luwian has been deduced as one of the likely candidates for the language spoken by the Trojans. (Melchert, H. Craig, ed. The Luwians. Boston: Brill, 2003, pp. 265-70 with ref. Watkins, C.1994. ‘The Language of the Trojans.’ In Selected Writings, ed. L. Oliver et al., vol. 2. 700–717. Innsbruck. = Troy and the Trojan War. A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, ed. M. Mellink, 45–62. Bryn Mawr.; Watkins, C. 1995. How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York and Oxford, pp. 144–51)."After the 1995 finding of a Luwian biconvex seal at Troy VII, there has been a heated discussion over the language that was spoken in Homeric Troy. Frank Starke of the University of Tübingen recently demonstrated that the name of Priam, king of Troy at the time of the Trojan War, is connected to the Luwian compound Priimuua, which means "exceptionally courageous". (Starke, Frank. 'Troia im Kontext des historisch-politischen und sprachlichen Umfeldes Kleinasiens im 2. Jahrtausend. Studia Troica 7:446–87.) "The certainty is growing that Wilusa/Troy belonged to the greater Luwian-speaking community," but it is not entirely clear whether Luwian was primarily the official language or it was in daily colloquial use...The two varieties of Proto-Luwian or Luwian (in the narrow sense of these names), are known after the scripts in which they were written: Cuneiform Luwian (CLuwian) and Hieroglyphic Luwian (HLuwian). There is no consensus as to whether these were a single language, or two closely related languages... Hieroglyphic Luwian is the corpus of Luwian texts written in a native script, known as Anatolian hieroglyphs.(Melchert, H. Craig , 1996, "Anatolian Hieroglyphs", in Daniels, Peter T.; Bright, William, The World's Writing Systems, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press) Once thought to be a variety of the Hittite language, "Hieroglyphic Hittite" was formerly used to refer to the language of the same inscriptions, but this term is now obsolete. The dialect of Luwian hieroglyphic inscriptions appears to be either Empire Luwian or its descendant, Iron Age Luwian."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language

    Hieroglyphic Luwian is a unique writing system and has no parallels with Indus Script writing system. But, there are sculptural friezes discovered in Aleppo which have parallels with the anthropomorphs discovered on the lid of a wooden coffin at Baghpat. In particular, the similarities are vivid in the following pairs of images from Aleppo and from Baghpat.

    I suggest that the comparable images are drawn in the Indus Script hypertext tradition.

    Aleppo bull-man with raised hands and hair plaits dhai'strand, plait' rebus: dhau'red ore, mineral ore'dhatu, id.; eraka 'upraised hand' rebus: eraka 'moltencast'arka'gold, copper'dhangra'bull' rebus: dhangar 'blacksmith'.

    Baghpat anthropomorph with horns of a bovine + Pipal leaf + dagger on waistbelt (one of eight)

    Image result for baghpat anthropomorph 

    Aleppo bull-drawn chariot accompanied by a soldier with a sword on waist-belt

    Baghpat chariot (reconstructed drawing)

    Bronze Age chariot India

    Baghpat sword and dagger

    Friday, May 04, 2012

    King Taita's Inscription at Aleppo

    (Guest post by A.D. Riddle.)
    Since 1996, Kay Kohlmeyer has conducted excavations at the storm-god temple atop the citadel of Aleppo.
    Aleppo Storm-god Temple (Gonnella, Khayyata and Kohlmeyer 2005: 112).

    In 2003, a Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription was discovered in the temple which belonged to a king named Taita. We first mentioned the inscription last March. Now, full publication of the inscription by J. D. Hawkins has appeared in the latest issue of Anatolian Studies (vol. 61 [2011]: 35-54). The inscription is in the Hieroglyphic Luwian script and is designated ALEPPO 6 (there are other Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions from the temple, some also by Taita). The 11-line inscription is positioned behind a relief of Taita who faces the storm-god.
    Relief of Taita with Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscription (Kohlmeyer 2009: 198).
    The text of the inscription names Taita, the king of Palistin, and mentions his honoring the image of the storm-god of Aleppo. The majority of the inscription is given to ordering the kinds of offerings that should be brought, depending on whether (1) one is a king, prince, country-lord, or river-land lord, or (2) one is a lower-level ruler of some sort.
    Drawing of ALEPPO 6 (Hawkins 2011: 42).

    In our first post, there was a brief discussion of an article by Charles Steitler, in which he suggests identifying Taita with Toi/Tou, the king of Hamath mentioned in the Bible (2 Sam 8:9-11; 1 Chr. 18:9-11). At this time, there are three issues which make it hard to know for certain if Taita is Toi/Tou. First, it is hard to say why the additional -ta element at the end of Taita would have dropped off. Steitler identifies this element in other Hurrian personal names, but as far as I understand, it is not known for sure what it means, and if we do not know what it means, then we cannot explain why it would be lost. Second, Steitler suggests the shift in vowels from a to ō can be explained by the "Canaanite shift," but this shift is thought to have taken place in the 14th century B.C., long before David, Toi/Tou, 2 Samuel or 1 Chronicles. (A friend has pointed me to an article by Joshua Fox [1996] which discusses a similar Phoenician vowel shift, but it is not clear to me how Phoenician would explain the change when moving from Luwian [or Hurrian] to Hebrew.) Third, Hawkins originally dated Taita to 900-700 B.C., and later adjusted this to sometime in the 11th and 10th centuries B.C., so pinning down the date is an issue for whether Taita could be Toi/Tou. But now, with the publication of ALEPPO 6, this last question concerning chronology has taken a new twist.

    In the new article by Hawkins, he makes two modifications to his previous historical reconstruction. First, he is more confident about dating Taita to ca. 1200 B.C. (11th century B.C.). This date is reached on the basis of (1) archaic features noted in the paleography of the ALEPPO 6 inscription, (2) radiocarbon dating of the storm-god temple phase associated with Taita, and (3) stylistic comparison of the sculptures from the Taita phase of the storm-god temple with the sculptures at the temple of 'Ain Dara. Second, the archaic features in the ALEPPO 6 inscription indicate it is earlier than the other Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions connected with Taita which were found at Shaizar and Muhradah (about 13 miles northwest of Hamah, Syria). Hawkins suggests the possibility of two kings named Taita: Taita I and Taita II. But because the inscriptions of Aleppo, Shaizar, and Muhradah share many similarities—Taita's name and title, and unique epigraphic features—Hawkins believes that Taita I and Taita II were separated by perhaps not more than a single generation, with Taita II possibly being the grandson of Taita I. Thus, Taita I who was responsible for the Aleppo inscription would have ruled in the 11th century B.C., and Taita II would have ruled in the early 10th century B.C.

    It will be interesting to see how the historical picture continues to change as more information is obtained from excavations and studies, and then, what light this might shed on the time of David and our understanding of biblical history.

    Image sources
    Gonnella, Julia; Wahid Khayyata; and Kay Kohlmeyer.
    2005    Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes: Neue Forschungen und Entdeckungen. Münster: Rhema.

    Hawkins, J. D.
    2011    “The inscriptions of the Aleppo temple.” Anatolian Studies 61: 35-54.

    Kohlmeyer, Kay.
    2009    “The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.” Near Eastern Archaeology 74/4: 190-202.


    Hittite Monuments 
    Empire Period
    1480 to 1200 BCE

    Neo-Hittite Period
    1200 to 712 BCE 

    Pictures taken by me or my associates (Bilgin, Anıl, Süer, Yazıcı) can be used for non-commercial and academic
    purposes with a reference to this website (contact me for higher resolution images or for any other question).
    Citation: Tayfun Bilgin, www.hittitemonuments.com, (v. 1.53) 

    Hittites Monuments is an experimental site, built with an aim to provide visual references to all major Hittite monuments. The locations listed below are the sites that has monuments belonging to the times of Hittite/Luwian civilization and culture. The text list below divides the sites in two chronological groups. This is definetely not a complete list, nor the listed sites may have complete information. Some pages are still missing information or images. As time permits I continue to update the pages with more information. I would appreciate any comments, feedback, and information. -Tayfun Bilgin


    Click on Aleppo on the map provides to the following information. 

    Aleppo
    Aleppo (Halab, Halep) came under Hittite rule in 15th century BCE. In 14th century BCE, after his Syrian campaing, Suppiluliuma I installed his son Telipinu as the ruler of Aleppo. Telipinu was succeeded by his son Talmi-Sharruma. During the empire period, the city was overshadowed by Karkamis, which was the main administrative center of the Hittites in Syria. Aleppo was the center of the Storm-God cult in Syria.
    Aleppo survived the attacks of the Sea Peoples as a Neo-Hittite city state beyond 1200 BCE. Excavations in the Aleppo citadel revealed remains of a Storm-god temple with multiple orthostats which date to post empire period, possibly around 11th to 10th centuries. The city came under Assyrian rule in the 9th century BCE.
    A dedicatory inscription of Talmi-Sharruma (ALEPPO 1) is the only monumental inscription from the Empire period. Until the Syrian civil war most of the orthostats from Neo-Hittite period were still visible in the citadel while some others were in the Aleppo Museum. A large stele of Storm-god, which was excavated in Babylon at the palace complex of Nabuchadnezzar II in 1899 (last row of pictures below), was apparently carried away from Aleppo as a trophy. The stele is currently in Istanbul Archaelogy Museum.
    Talmi-Sharruma inscription (ALEPPO 1)




    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo01.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo01b.jpg




    Aleppo Citadel - Temple of Storm God




    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo02.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo03.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo04.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo05.jpg




    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo06.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo07.jpg




    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo08.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo09.jpg
    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo10.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo11.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo12.jpg




    Storm God Stele (BABYLON 1)




    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo13.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo13b.jpg
    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo13c.jpghttp://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo13c.jpg





    http://www.hittitemonuments.com/aleppo/aleppo13d.jpgLiterature:
    Gonnella, J., W. Khayyata, K. Kohlmeyer, Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes: Neue Forschungen und Entdeckungen. Münster: Rhema, 2005.
    Hawkins, J. D. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol 1,Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000: 235-38, 388-97, 562 and plts. 206, 209-12, 320.
    Hawkins, J. D. "Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo: New Light in Dark Age,"Near Eastern Archaeology 72.4, Dec. 2009: 164-173.
    Hawkins, J. D. "The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple,"AnSt61, 2011: 35-54.
    Kohlmeyer, K. “The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.” Near Eastern Archaeology 74.4, 2009: 190-202.
    Laroche, E. 1956. "L'inscription hittite d'Alep,"Syria 33: 131-141 (ALEPPO 1)
    Image sources:
    Gertrude Bell, 1909, University of Newcastle Gertrude Bell Project (www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk)
    Dick Osseman, 2009, Aleppo Citadel Gallery.
    Kay Kohlmeyer, NEA 74.4, 2009.
    Bora Bilgin, 2006.
    Bora Bilgin, Ertuğrul Anıl, 2011.
    Robert Koldewey, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft I, Leipzig 1900.










































    Literature:

    Gonnella, J., W. Khayyata, K. Kohlmeyer, Die Zitadelle von Aleppo und der Tempel des Wettergottes: Neue Forschungen und Entdeckungen. Münster: Rhema, 2005.
    Hawkins, J. D. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol 1,Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000: 235-38, 388-97, 562 and plts. 206, 209-12, 320.
    Hawkins, J. D. "Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo: New Light in Dark Age,"Near Eastern Archaeology 72.4, Dec. 2009: 164-173.
    Hawkins, J. D. "The inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple,"AnSt61, 2011: 35-54.
    Kohlmeyer, K. “The Temple of the Storm God in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages.” Near Eastern Archaeology 74.4, 2009: 190-202.
    Laroche, E. 1956. "L'inscription hittite d'Alep,"Syria 33: 131-141 (ALEPPO 1)
    Image sources:
    Gertrude Bell, 1909, University of Newcastle Gertrude Bell Project (www.gerty.ncl.ac.uk)
    Dick Osseman, 2009, Aleppo Citadel Gallery.
    Kay Kohlmeyer, NEA 74.4, 2009.
    Bora Bilgin, 2006.
    Bora Bilgin, Ertuğrul Anıl, 2011.
    Robert Koldewey, Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft I, Leipzig 1900.


    The temple of the storm god in Aleppo during the late bronze and early iron ages

    ArticleinNear Eastern Archaeology 72(4):190-202 · December 2009

    Abstract
    The temple of the Storm God has sat at the top of the citadel mound of the ancient city of Aleppo in Syria for four and a half millennia, buried for nearly three of those beneath later architectural remains. A German expedition working on the citadel since 1996 has recovered the plan of the temple in all its phases, from the Early Bronze through the Iron Ages. Most spectacular are the high quality reliefs, dating to various periods of the temple's life and carved in different styles, that decorated the temple and the Hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions that accompanied them. These finds provide important artistic, religious, and historical data for the period of the Hittite domination and the subsequent Neo-Hittite period in the region.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295379770_The_temple_of_the_storm_god_in_aleppo_during_the_late_bronze_and_early_iron_ages





    0 0

    Why the Chariot discovered in Baghpat excavation is a game-changer in the understanding of Indian History?

    • By Krishna Baalu June 11, 2018
    • By Krishna Baalu June 11, 2018

    Uttar Pradesh ASI has unearthed first-ever physical evidence of Copper Bronze Age Chariots in Baghpat. This is a sensational discovery by ASI by all counts and will set to change the hitherto held perceptions of ancient Indian History in totality. The excavation is a path-breaking discovery heralding a golden chapter in the ancient Indian History and Culture. The excavated shafts unearthed three royal Chariots and royal burial sites, with battlefield weapons and other related paraphernalia near Baghpat in Western Uttar Pradesh. 

    It is the first ever Chariot that has been found since the Indus Valley Civilization’s exploration was started in the 1920s. The significance of the discovery lies in the fact that it will not only challenge the Marxist historiography with regards to IVC but also pose a serious challenge to Aryan ‘invasion theory’, a staple of Marxist historiography. Even in Indus Valley sites, figurines of Bullock Carts were found, but not a Chariot. Chariot is used in battles by Royals. Some of the salient features of this discovery are:

    The relics suggest the existence of a two-wheeled open vehicle that may have been driven by one person. The wheels rotated on a fixed axle linked by a draft pole to the yoke of a pair of animals. The axle was attached with a superstructure consisting of a platform protected by side-screens and a high dashboard. The wheels and the pole have been found decorated with copper triangles, symbolic of the rays of the sun.

    The copper plated anthropomorphic figures -having horns and peepal-leafed crowns -found on the coffins that indicated a possibility of ‘royal burial’. For the first time in the entire sub-continent, this kind of a coffin has been unearthed. The cover is highly decorated with eight anthropomorphic figures. The sides of the coffins are also decorated with floral motifs. While coffins have been discovered during past excavations in Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and Dholavira (Gujarat) but these were not laden with such ornamental copper decorations.

    The swords, daggers, shields and a helmet confirmed the existence of a warrior population, and the discovery of earthen and copper pots, semi-precious and steatite beads, combs, and a copper mirror from the burial pits point towards a sophisticated craftsmanship and lifestyle.

    “It is confirmed that they were a warrior class. The swords have copper-covered hilts and a medial ridge making it strong enough for warfare. We have also found shields, a torch and daggers” said S K Manjul, director of Delhi-based Institute of Archaeology.

    What these findings can ultimately establish?

    Prima facie, based on the contents of the discovery, some significant facts can be noted.
    It can be observed that the present site at Sanauli Village is just 36 KM from the Harappan site at Alamgirpur.

    Harappan era has been divided into five phases

    1) Ravi / Hakra (3300-2800BC)
    2) Early Harappa (2800-2600BC)
    3) Mature (2600-1900BC)
    4) Transitional (1900-1800BC)
    5) Late Harappa (1800-1300BC).
    Now the present findings were identified with ‘Mature’ period. Also, the present excavation site is in the proximity of Alamgirpur, which is a Harappan site considered to be at the eastern border of Indus Valley Civilization’s extent. This area near Meerut is also known as ‘Parasaram ka -Khera’. This is a truly a thrilling factor for the reason that in Alamgirpur an artefact (a vessel) bearing a ‘bear head’ was also found. If this is believed to be a symbolic representation of ‘Jambavan’ of Ramayana, it has some sensible connection with Parasurama as the trio Jhambavan, Parushuram and Hanuman were considered immortals. In fact, Jambavan is also mentioned in Mahabharata.

    Bijnor which is 90 KM from Alamgirpur is mentioned in Mahabharata associated with the King Vidhura. There is Vidhura Kutir in Bijnor. Bijnor, being part of IVC, the present findings of ‘Chariots’, anthropomorphic figures and ‘Antenne Swords’ are all indicative of a distinguished Royal story closely resembling Mahabharata’s events. Bijnor is known as “Vyghraprastha’ and was founded by Pandavas.

    Next, the ‘Chariot’ discovery would potentially change the hitherto held concept of the existence of ‘Horses’ in IVC. Horse bones were found in another IVC site, Surkotada in Kutch Gujarat some years ago. Royal Chariots were drawn by horses and with one single charioteer. This was also explained by the archaeologist.

    “The wheels of the chariots rotated on a fixed axle linked by a draft pole to the yoke of a pair of animals. The superstructure attached to the axle contains a platform, protective side screens and a dashboard. The wheels and the pole are decorated with copper motifs symbolising the rays of the sun. Although the experts are yet to be certain on whether the chariots were pulled by bulls or horse, they are of the opinion that it was probably horses”

    As the Chariot relics were found in a Royal burial with battlefield weapons, the Chariot was obviously drawn by horses. It cannot be driven by bulls. Going by the built of the chariots, it must be a speed vehicle and combating in nature, and hence ‘slow’ moving bulls to be its yankers, cannot be even imagined.

    Hence the discovery of a well-built Chariot makes the archaeologists rethink the historiography of ‘Mature’ period of IVC.

    “This is the very first-time such evidence has ever been recovered. The coffins and chariots are something we haven’t encountered before. This discovery is not only important in the context of India but the world”, according to SK Manjul.

    This discovery further strengthens the fact that the entire region of Baghpat and Bijnor which is identified as IVC eastern region were booming under a large Kingdom, with Royal dominion, customs and practices. The ‘Anthropomorphic figurines, decorative weapons, decorated Chariot wheels, advanced alchemic, metallurgy and the geographic region’s ancient habitats perfectly matching with the events described in Hindu mythology etc indicates to Mahabharata heritage to the present discovery. However, the Leftists reaction to the Baghpat discovery is rather repulsive and more than stunning.
    The Print asked the opinion of Mrs Ruchika Sharma on the Baghpat discovery, an unknown history doctoral scholar at JNU. She says the ASI has to clarify its findings. “We should first obtain clarity on why ASI is calling them chariots. It isn’t uncommon for a late Harappan site to have bullock carts. There is already Evidence of such terracotta carts,” she said. This history doctoral scholar should understand that ‘bullock carts’ will not be decorated with copper motifs. The wheels will not be carved with design patterns, and Bullock carts will not be found along with battlefield weapons. The chariot was found in a Royal burial.

    I expected this news, at least this time, on the first page of our national dailies. But, the Baghpat discovery appeared on the 11th page of TOI Bangalore. A proud moment for all Indians, a moment to commemorate, yet for the leftists, it is another shock after the NASA findings on Ram Sethu

    Retd Central Govt officer-Ex Superintendent Customs and Central Excise-Telugu, Tamil, Kannda-residing in Hyderabad/Bangalore-writing, poetry, travel, History, Hinduism, right politics Activist 'CFTR' (Citizens for true secularism' HR for Hindus

    https://rightlog.in/2018/06/baghpat-chariot-01/

    Indians used chariots 4,000 years ago, ASI unearths evidence in UP 

    PTI Sanauli June 6, 2018 UPDATED: June 6, 2018 10:32 IST

    Copper-Bronze age chariots
    ASI has unearthed the 'first-ever' physical evidence of Copper-Bronze age chariots. Photo: AajTak

    The "first ever" physical evidence of chariots dating 2000 BC - 1800 BC have been found by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) during a trial excavation in Sanauli village near Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh.

    Decorated with copper motifs, the findings of the Copper-Bronze age have opened up further research opportunities into the area's civilisation and culture.
    The three-month long excavation, which started in March this year, has unearthed eight burial sites and several artifacts including three coffins, antenna swords, daggers, combs, and ornaments, among others.
    The three chariots found in the burial pits could remind one of the familiar images of horse-drawn carriages from mythological television shows.
    The relics suggest the existence of a two-wheeled open vehicle that may have been driven by one person.
    "The wheels rotated on a fixed axle linked by a draft pole to the yoke of a pair of animals. The axle was attached with a superstructure consisting of a platform protected by side-screens and a high dashboard," S K Manjul, director of Delhi-based Institute of Archaeology, said.
    The wheels and the pole have been found decorated with copper triangles, symbolic of the rays of the sun.
    Manjul termed the digging drive a "path-breaking" one, also because of the copper plated anthropomorphic figures -- having horns and peepal-leafed crowns -- found on the coffins, that indicated a possiblity of "royal burials".
    "For the first time in the entire sub-continent we have found this kind of a coffin. The cover is highly decorated with eight anthropomorphic figures. The sides of the coffins are also decorated with floral motifs," Manjul said.
    While coffins have been discovered during past excavations in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Dholavira (Gujarat), but never with copper decorations, he added.
    The findings also shed light on the noteworthy progress the Indian civilisation had made at the time, making it at par with the 2000 BC Mesopotamia.
    "We are now certain that when in 2000 BC, the Mesopotamians were using chariots, swords, and helmets in wars, we also had similar things."
    The swords, daggers, shields and a helmet confirmed the existence of a warrior population, and the discovery of earthen and copper pots, semi-precious and steatite beads, combs, and a copper mirror from the burial pits point towards a "sophisticated" craftsmanship and lifestyle.
    "It is confirmed that they were a warrior class. The swords have copper-covered hilts and a medial ridge making it strong enough for warfare. We have also found shields, a torch and daggers," the archaeologist said.
    The current site lies 120 meters from an earlier one in the village, excavated in 2005, where 116 burials were found along with antenna swords and pottery.
    While it was difficult to ascertain the exact race of the latest buried remains, Manjul asserted that the chariots and coffins did not belong to the Harappan civilisation.
    "The findings of the 2005 excavation -- pottery, beads and other cultural material -- were similar to those of the Harappan civilisation."
    Manjul said the similarities could have been an outcome of the migration of the Harappans to the Yamuna and the upper planes during the late mature Harappan era.
    However, the recent findings were "completely different" from the ancient civilisation.


    https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indians-used-chariots-4-000-years-ago-asi-unearths-evidence-in-up-1251650-2018-06-06

    0 0


    https://tinyurl.com/y9s4vcr4

     

    Wheel: Meluhha bronze-age hieroglyph of the Ancient Near East and Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization

    Bronze Age chariot India

    Bronze model. Chariot box. Chanhu-daro. ca. 2000 BCE. This model with X on the side of the chariot box compares with the chariot-box shown on Ur Standard.

    Sumerian war chariot on the Standard of Ur


    Terracotta spokes painted on wheels and axle. ca. 2500 BCE. Bhirrana. On the specimens found at Kalibangan and Rakhigarhi, the spokes of the wheel are shown by painted lines radiating from the central hub to the periphery, and in the case of specimens from Banawali these are executed in low relief.
    Bronze chariot. Daimabad, Maharashtra. 2000 BCE?
     

    The flow (diffusion) of the civilization is from Sarasvati basin to lower Sindhu areas and thereafter to upper Sindhu regions.
    Elamite chariot ca 2500 BCE drawn by four onagers with primitive and painful harnessing. 
    A mythical chariot to carry the sun across the sky. Gold leaf on bronze, ca. 1500 BCE.

    Bronze chariot model ca. 2500-2250 BCE
    Chariot box on Standard of Ur; chariot has solid wheels; chariot drawn by onagers.
     
     
     


    Meluhha hieroglyph. Spoked wheel. Focus on the nave of wheel. Occurs four times on Dholavira sign board with ten hieroglyphs which adorned the northern gateway, as an advertisement hoarding, welcoming entry into the citadel.


    Another prayer by Tukulti-Ninurta on a fire-altar:

    Altar, offered by Tukulti-Ninurta I, 1243-1208 BCE, in prayer before two deities carrying wooden standards, Assyria, Bronze 

    Another view of the fire-altar pedestal of Tukulti-Ninurta I, Ishtar temple, Assur. Shows the king standing flanked by two standard-bearers; the standard has a spoked-wheel hieroglyph on the top of the staffs and also on the volutes of the altar frieze.The mediation with deities by king is adopted by Assurnasirpal II.
    The two standards (staffs)  are topped by a spoked wheel. āra 'spokes' Rebus: āra 'bronze'. cf. erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) Glyph: eraka

    This rebus reading is consistent with the prayer offered to the karaṇḍa 'hard alloy';
    karandi 'fire god' (Remo)

    Glyphic element: erako nave; era = knave of wheel. Glyphic element: āra ‘spokes’. Rebus: āra ‘brass’ as in ārakūṭa (Skt.) Rebus: Tu. eraka molten, cast (as metal); eraguni to melt (DEDR 866) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Ka.lex.) cf. eruvai = copper (Ta.lex.) eraka, er-aka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); erako molten cast (Tu.lex.) Glyphic element: kund opening in the nave or hub of a wheel to admit the axle (Santali) Rebus: kunda ‘turner’ kundār turner (A.); kũdār, kũdāri (B.); kundāru (Or.); kundau to turn on a lathe, to carve, to chase; kundau dhiri = a hewn stone; kundau murhut = a graven image (Santali) kunda a turner's lathe (Skt.)(CDIAL 3295). 


    arkám. ʻ flash, ray, sun ʼ RV. [√arc] Pa. Pk. akka -- m. ʻ sun ʼ, Mth. āk; Si. aka ʻ lightning ʼ, inscr. vid -- äki ʻ lightning flash ʼ.(CDIAL 624) அருக்கன் arukkaṉ, n. < arka. Sun; சூரி யன். அருக்க னணிநிறமுங் கண்டேன் (திவ். இயற். 3, 1).(Tamil) agasāle ‘goldsmithy’ (Kannada) అగసాలి [ agasāli ] or అగసాలెవాడు agasāli. n. A goldsmith. కంసాలివాడు. (Telugu) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) cf. eruvai = copper (Tamil) eraka, er-aka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); erako molten cast (Tulu) Rebus: eraka = copper (Ka.) eruvai = copper (Ta.); ere - a dark-red colour (Ka.)(DEDR 817). eraka, era, er-a = syn. erka, copper, weapons (Ka.) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Kannada) akka, aka (Tadbhava of arka) metal; akka metal (Te.) arka = copper (Skt.) erako molten cast (Tulu)  

    करडी karaḍī ] f (See करडई) Safflower: also its seed.

    Rebus: karaḍa 'hard alloy' of arka 'copper'. 
    Photograph of excavation site. Shows three culd stands in situ in Room 6 of Ishtar temple of Tukulti-Ninurta I at Ashur. Courtesy: Vorderaslatisches Museum.

    Andrae, 1935, 57-76, pls. 12, 30 1. Jakob-Rust, in Vorderaslatisches Museum 1992, 160, no. 103; Andrae, 1935, 16, figs. 2,3.
    करंडा [karaṇḍā] A clump, chump, or block of wood. 4 The stock or fixed portion of the staff of the large leaf-covered summerhead or umbrella. करांडा [ karāṇḍā ] m C A cylindrical piece as sawn or chopped off the trunk or a bough of a tree; a clump, chump, or block.

    Rebus: fire-god: @B27990.  #16671. Remo <karandi>E155  {N} ``^fire-^god''.(Munda)

    [quote]Description: Although the cult pedestal of the Middle Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta mentions in its short inscription that it is dedicated to the god Nuska, the relief on the front that depicts the king in a rare kind of narrative, standing and kneeling in front of the very same pedestal was frequently discussed by art-historians. More strikingly on top of the depicted pedestal there is not the lamp, the usual divine symbol for the god Nuska, but most likely the representation of a tablet and a stylus, symbols for the god Nabû. (Klaus Wagensonner, University of Oxford)[unquote] http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=pedestal_tukulti_ninurta

    No, it is not a representation of a tablet and a stylus, but a chump, a block of wood, karaṇḍā read rebus: karandi 'fire-god' (Munda). Thus, the chump is the divine symbol of fire-god.

    The hieroglyphs on the fire-altar confirm the link to metallurgy with the use of 'spoked-wheel' banner carried on one side of the altar and the 'safflower' hieroglyph flanking the altar worshipped by Tukulti-Ninurta. It is rebus, as Sigmund Freud noted in reference to the dream. 'I have revealed to Atrahasis a dream, and it is thus that he has learned the secret of the gods.' (Epic of Gilgamesh, Ninevite version, XI, 187.)(Zainab Bahrani, 2011, The graven image: representation in Babylonia and Assyria, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, p. 185).

    Cylinder seal with kneeling nude heroes, ca. 2220–2159 b.c.; Akkadian  Mesopotamia Red jasper H. 1 1/8 in. (2.8 cm), Diam. 5/8 in. (1.6 cm)  Metropolitan Museum of Art - USA 
    Four flag-posts(reeds) with rings on top held by the kneeling persons define the four components of the iron smithy/forge.  

    The key hieroglyph is the hood of a snake seen as the left-most hieroglyph on this rolled out cylinder seal impression. I suggest that this denotes the following Meluhha gloss: paṭam n. < phaṭa. ‘cobra's hood’  phaṭa n. ʻ expanded hood of snake ʼ MBh. 2. *phēṭṭa -- 2. [Cf. phuṭa -- m., °ṭā -- f., sphuṭa -- m. lex., °ṭā -- f. Pañcat. (Pk. phuḍā -- f.), sphaṭa -- m., °ṭā-- f., sphōṭā -- f. lex. and phaṇa -- 1. Conn. words in Drav. T. Burrow BSOAS xii 386]1. Pk.  phaḍa -- m.n. ʻ snake's hood ʼ, °ḍā -- f., M. phaḍā m., °ḍī f.2. A. pheṭphẽṭ. (CDIAL 9040). Rebus: ‘sharpness of iron’: padm (obl.padt-) temper of iron (Kota)(DEDR 3907); patam‘sharpness, as of the edge of a knife’ (Tamil) Alternative complementary reading: <naG bubuD>(Z)  {N} ``^cobra''.  |<naG> `?'.  ^snake.  *IA<naG>.  ??is IA form <naG> or <nag>?  #23502. nāgá1 m. ʻ snake ʼ ŚBr. 2. ʻ elephant ʼ BhP. [As ʻ ele- phant ʼ shortened form of *nāga -- hasta -- EWA ii 150 with lit. or extracted from nāga -- danta -- ʻ elephant tusk, ivory ʼ < ʻ snake -- shaped tusk ʼ].
    1. Pa. nāga -- m. ʻ snake ʼ, NiDoc. nāǵa F. W. Thomas AO xii 40, Pk. ṇāya -- m., Gy. as.  JGLS new ser. ii 259; Or. naa ʻ euphem. term for snake ʼ; Si. nay,nayā ʻ snake ʼ. -- With early nasalization *nāṅga -- : Bshk. nāṅg ʻ snake ʼ. -- Kt. Pr. noṅ, Kal. nhoṅ ʻ name of a god < nāˊga -- or ← Pers. nahang NTS xv 283. 2. Pa. nāga -- m. ʻ elephant ʼ, Pk. ṇāya -- m., Si. nā. śiśunāka -- . (CDIAL 7039) Rebus: nāga2 n. ʻ lead ʼ Bhpr. [Cf. raṅga -- 3] Sh. naṅ  m. ʻ lead ʼ  (< *nāṅga -- ?), K. nāg m. (< *nāgga -- ?).(CDIAL 7040) cf. annaku, anakku 'tin' (Akkadian) நாகம் nākam  Black lead; காரீயம். (பிங்.) 9. Zinc; துத்தநாகம். (பிங்.) 10. A prepared arsenic; பாஷாணவகை (Tamil).

    There is a possibility that the hieroglyph was intended to convey the message of an alloying metal like lead or tin or zinc which had revolutionised the bronze age with tin-bronzes, zinc-copper brass and other alloys to substitute for arsenical copper to make hard weapons and tools.  It is instructive that zinc was called tuthunāg which might have referred to the sublimate of zinc and calamine collected in the furnaces in Zawar. See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/02/metallurgists-of-mewad-meluhha.html

    The phrase tuthunāg as a synonym for zinc or pewter indicates that the gloss nāg meant 'alloying mineral' to create a hard bronze -- a substitute for arsenical bronze which was in short supply in the Ancient Near East and in Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization. And, hence, the recurring hieroglyph of a serpent on hundreds of cylinder seals and artifacts including those with Indus writing -- to denote an alloying mineral to create bronzes.
    At Ahed excavation site statues of the Gods of both Hindu and Jain religion are found. Of particular importance is the statue of Parvati a deity of importance to Dravidians. Also the Nag- Nagini statue indicates the presence of Naga people around Ahed those days. 

              May notice the image of fish on the top of the figure which probably is the symbol of Bhil Meena tribe.

    Thanks to DMR Sekhar from whose blogpost I have obtained this image. 



    I suggest that the fish hieroglyph on the top register of the Nag-Nagini statue is ayo 'fish' (Munda) Rebus: aya = iron (G.); ayah, ayas = metal (Skt.)

    Naga and Nagini are also hieroglyphs. 

    Hieroglyph: nāgá1 m. ʻ snake ʼ ŚBr. 2. ʻ elephant ʼ BhP. [As ʻ ele- phant ʼ shortened form of *nāga -- hasta -- EWA ii 150 with lit. or extracted from nāga -- danta -- ʻ elephant tusk, ivory ʼ < ʻ snake -- shaped tusk ʼ]. 1. Pa. nāga -- m. ʻ snake ʼ, NiDoc. nāǵa F. W. Thomas AO xii 40, Pk. ṇāya -- m., Gy. as.  JGLS new ser. ii 259; Or. naa ʻ euphem. term for snake ʼ; Si. naynayā ʻ snake ʼ. -- With early nasalization *nāṅga -- : Bshk. nāṅg ʻ snake ʼ. -- Kt. Pr. noṅ, Kal. nhoṅ ʻ name of a god < nāˊga -- or ← Pers. nahang NTS xv 283. 2. Pa. nāga -- m. ʻ elephant ʼ, Pk. ṇāya -- m., Si. nā. śiśunāka -- .(CDIAL 7039). నాగము [ nāgamu ] nāgamu. [Skt. from నగ a hill.] n. Lit: That which pertains to a mountain. A serpent, పాము. Particularly, a cobra. An elephant, ఏనుగునాకిని a female supernatural being, a goddess, దేవతాస్త్రీనాకులు nākulu. n. The celestials, the gods. R. v. 35. 176. నాకేశుడు nāk-ēsuḍu. n. A name of Indra. நாகர்¹ nākar
    n. < nāka. Celestials; தேவர். வழுத்த வரங்கொடுப்பர் நாகர் (நான்மணி. 62).
     (Tamil) నాగు, నాగులు, నాగువు or నాగుబాము nāgu. n. A cobra. నాగము.(Telugu) நாகம்² nākam
    n. < nāga. 1. Cobra. See நல்லபாம்பு. நன்மணியிழந்த நாகம் போன்று (மணி. 25, 195). 2. Serpent; பாம்பு. (பிங்.) ஆடுநாக மோட (கம்பரா. கலன்காண். 37).
    Rebus: நாகம்² nākam n. < nāga.  A prepared arsenic; பாஷாணவகை;  Black lead; காரீயம். (Tamil) nāga2 n. ʻ lead ʼ Bhpr. [Cf. raṅga -- 3Sh. naṅ m. ʻ lead ʼ (< *nāṅga -- ?), K. nāg m. (< *nāgga -- ?).(CDIAL 7040). నాగసింధూరము [ nāgasindhūramu ] nāga-sindhūramu. [Skt.] n. A red calx of lead. (Telugu) cf. anakku 'tin' (Akkadian), an alloying ore to create tin-bronzes.

    The semantics of nāga as 'arsenic' or 'lead' are instructive in the context of the Ayad river image of Naga-Nagini and fish hieroglyphs. Arsenic or lead are alloying ores with copper to create ayas 'alloy metal'. Thus, ayas may have denoted arsenical copper or tin-bronze or zin-brass.

    A hypothesis can be posited that nāga or anakku connoted such an alloying metal (tin or zinc or even lead or nickel -- until the distinctive nature of the alloying mineral was recognised) to take the bronze age with the revolution of alloys to harden copper in minerals such as the copper sulfides, chalcopyrite and chalcocite, copper carbonates, azurite and malachite and the copper oxide mineral cuprite.


    The leftmost hieroglyph shows ingots in a conical-bottom storage jar (similar to the jar shown on Warka vase, delivering the ingots to the temple of Inanna). Third from left, the overflowing pot is similar to the hieroglyph shown on Gudea statues. Fourth from left, the fish hieroglyph is similar to the one shown on a Susa pot containing metal tools and weapons. (Picture credit for the Susa pot with 'fish' hieroglyph: Maurizio Tosi).
    This is an announcement of four shops, पेढी (Gujarati. Marathi). पेंढेंrings Rebus: पेढीshop.āra ‘serpent’ Rebus; āra ‘brass’. karaa 'double-drum' Rebus: karaa 'hard alloy'.
    Specific materials offered for sale/exchange in the shop are: hard alloy brass metal (ayo, fish); lokhaṇḍ (overflowing pot)metal tools, pots and pans, metalware; arka/erka  copper; kammaa (a portable furnace for melting precious metals) coiner, mint  Thus, the four shops are: 1. brass alloys, 2. metalware, 3. copper and 4. mint (services).
    erãguḍu bowing, salutation (Telugu) iṟai (-v-, -nt-) to bow before (as in salutation), worship (Tamil)(DEDR 516). Rebus: eraka, eaka any metal infusion (Kannada.Tulu) eruvai‘copper’ (Tamil); eredark red (Kannada)(DEDR 446).
    puṭa Anything folded or doubled so as to form a cup or concavity; crucible. Alternative: ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (G.) ḍhālakī = a metal heated and poured into a mould; a solid piece of metal; an ingot (Gujarati)
    Allograph: ढाल [ ḍhāla ] f (S through H) The grand flag of an army directing its march and encampments: also the standard or banner of a chieftain: also a flag flying on forts &c. ढालकाठी [ ḍhālakāṭhī ] f ढालखांब m A flagstaff; esp.the pole for a grand flag or standard. 2 fig. The leading and sustaining member of a household or other commonwealth. 5583 ḍhāla n. ʻ shield ʼ lex. 2. *ḍhāllā -- . 1. Tir. (Leech) "dàl"ʻ shield ʼ, Bshk. ḍāl, Ku. ḍhāl, gng. ḍhāw, N. A. B. ḍhāl, Or. ḍhāḷa, Mth. H. ḍhāl m.2. Sh. ḍal (pl. °le̯) f., K. ḍāl f., S. ḍhāla, L. ḍhāl (pl. °lã) f., P. ḍhāl f., G. M. ḍhāl f.WPah.kṭg. (kc.) ḍhāˋl f. (obl. -- a) ʻ shield ʼ (a word used in salutation), J. ḍhāl f. (CDIAL 5583).
    They are four Glyphs: paṭākā ‘flag’ Rebus:pāṭaka, four quarters of the village.
    kã̄ḍ reed Rebus: kāṇḍa ‘tools, pots and pans, metal-ware’. 
    1. Pk. kamaḍha -- , °aya -- m. ʻ bamboo ʼ; Bhoj. kōro ʻ bamboo poles ʼ. 2. N. kāmro ʻ bamboo, lath, piece of wood ʼ, OAw.  kāṁvari ʻ bamboo pole with slings at each end for carrying things ʼ, H. kã̄waṛ, °ar, kāwaṛ, °ar f., G. kāvaṛf., M. kāvaḍ f.; -- deriv. Pk. kāvaḍia -- , kavvāḍia -- m. ʻ one who carries a yoke ʼ, H. kã̄waṛī, °ṛiyā m., G. kāvaṛiyɔ m. 3. S. kāvāṭhī f. ʻ carrying pole ʼ, kāvāṭhyo m. ʻ the man who carries it ʼ. 4. Or. kāmaṛā, °muṛā ʻ rafters of a thatched house ʼ; G. kāmṛũ n., °ṛī f. ʻ chip of bamboo ʼ, kāmaṛ -- koṭiyũ n. ʻ bamboo hut ʼ. 5. B. kāmṭhā ʻ bow ʼ, G. kāmṭhũ n., °ṭhī f. ʻ bow ʼ; M. kamṭhā, °ṭā m. ʻ bow of bamboo or horn ʼ; -- deriv. G. kāmṭhiyɔ m. ʻ archer ʼ. 6. A. kabāri ʻ flat piece of bamboo used in smoothing an earthen image ʼ. 7. kã̄bīṭ, °baṭ, °bṭī,  kāmīṭ, °maṭ, °mṭī,  kāmṭhī, kāmāṭhī f. ʻ split piece of bamboo &c., lath ʼ.(CDIAL 2760). kambi f. ʻ branch or shoot of bamboo ʼ lex. Pk. kaṁbi -- , °bī -- , °bā -- f. ʻ stick, twig ʼ, OG. kāṁba; M. kã̄b f. ʻ longitudinal division of a bamboo &c., bar of iron or other metal ʼ. (CDIAL 2774). कंबडी [ kambaḍī ] f A slip or split piece (of a bamboo &c.)(Marathi)
    The rings atop the reed standard: पेंढें [ pēṇḍhēṃ ] पेंडकें [ pēṇḍakēṃ ] n Weaver's term. A cord-loop or metal ring (as attached to the गुलडा of the बैली and to certain other fixtures). पेंडें [ pēṇḍēṃ ] n (पेड) A necklace composed of strings of pearls. 2 A loop or ring. Rebus: पेढी (Gujaráthí word.) A shop (Marathi)Alternative:koiyum [ko, koṭī  neck] a wooden circle put round the neck of an animal (Gujarati) Rebus: ācāri koṭṭya = forge, kammārasāle (Tulu)

    Six curls shown on the hairstyle of carriers of flagposts:

    Allograph: The six curls on the kneeling person’s head denote an copper-brass smelter:

    erugu = to bow, to salute or make obeisance (Telugu) Rebus: eraka ‘copper’.
    Glyphs: six (numeral) + ring of hair: आर [ āra ] A term in the play of इटीदांडू,--the number six. (Marathi) आर [ āra ] A tuft or ring of hair on the body. (Marathi) Rebus:  arā ‘brass’.


    मेढा mēḍhā A twist or tangle arising in thread or cord, a curl or snarl. (Marathi) Rebus: meḍ ‘iron’ (Ho.) bhaa ‘six (hair-curls)’ Rebus: bha‘furnace’.  

    saman = to offer an offering, to place in front of; front, to front or face (Santali) Rebus: samobica, stones containing gold (Mundari)samanom = an obsolete name for gold (Santali) [bica‘stone ore’ (Munda): meṛed-bica = iron stone ore, in contrast to bali-bica, iron sand ore (Munda]
      
    Shamash. Relief image on the Tablet of Shamash, British Library room 55. Found in Sippar (Tell Abu Habbah), in Ancient Babylonia ; it dates from the 9th century BC and shows the sun god Shamash on the throne, in front of the Babylonian king Nabu-apla-iddina (888-855 BC) between two interceding deities. The text tells how the king made a new cultic statue for the god and gave privileges to his temple.

    Šamaš ';Sun' (Akkadian) (As shown in the cuneiform text on Sit Shamshi bronze). Cognates in Meluhha --Indian sprachbund:

    शुष्णः [शुष्-नः कित् Uṇ.3.12] 1 The sun. -2 Fire. शुष्मन् m. 1 Fire; Śi.14.22; सार्धं तेनानुजेनाप्रतिहतगतिना मारुतेनेव शुष्मा Śiva B.2.68; ऋतुशुष्ममहोष्मभिः N.17.168. 1Strength, prowess. -2 Light, lustre. (Sanskrit) شعاعه s̱ẖuœā-œaʿh, s.f. (3rd) (from شع) Light, splendor, lustre, rays of the sun, radiance, sunshine, etc. Pl. يْ ey. پلوشه palos̱ẖaʿh, s.f. (3rd) A ray of light, as of the sun, a lamp, etc. Pl. يْ ey. (Pashto)



    Mohenjo-daro seal. M428b The ‘rays of the sun’ hieroglyph of this Mohenjodaro seal also recurs on early punch-marked coins of India. Rebus reading: arka ‘sun’; agasāle ‘goldsmithy’ (Ka.) erka = ekke (Tbh. of arka) aka (Tbh. of arka) copper (metal); crystal (Ka.lex.) cf. eruvai = copper (Ta.lex.) eraka, er-aka = any metal infusion (Ka.Tu.); erako molten cast (Tulu) Rebus: eraka = copper (Ka.) eruvai = copper (Ta.); ere - a dark-red colour (Ka.)(DEDR 817). eraka, era, er-a = syn. erka, copper, weapons (Ka.)

    Thus, the four flag-posts may be read rebus denoting -- in Meluhha hieroglyphs -- the repertoire and stock-in-trade of bronze-age artisans of Ancient Near East -- dealing in metalware, copper tools and weapons, alloys and ingots.

    Rebus readings (from l. to r.):

    ḍhālako = a large metal ingot (Gujarati)
    uṛu ʻ boatman ʼ (Oriya)
    lokhãḍ ‘metalware, tools, pots and pans’(Gujarati)
    ayo ‘metal, alloy’ (Gujarati)
    These rebus readings of hieroglyphs are consistent with the reading of the hieroglyphs on Tukulti Ninurta altar: prayers to fire-god  karandi (Hieroglyph: करडी [karaḍī]'safflower'); and arka'copper metal' (Hieroglyph: eraka, 'nave of wheel').

    This consistency in semantics between sacredness and smithywork is exemplified by the Kota language (Meluhha) gloss: kole.l with two meanings: smithy, temple.

    So, I suggest Tukulti Ninurta I was offering prayers to the fire-god karandi and announcing the technological contributions made to the bronze-age evolution by using the 'nave of wheel' hieroglyph to denote eraka'nave of wheel' Rebus: arka, eraka'moltencast copper' traded across the Tin Road from Assur to Kanesh.



    0 0


    https://tinyurl.com/y9zpzwnm

    EB Havells provides an architectural appreciation of Indian art with reference to the pointed arch. He misses out on the significant hieroglyphs and profound messages communicated on ancient art of Bharhut and Sanchi.

    This monograph demonstrates that the temple is defined in the ancient Indian tradition with exquisite and precise hieroglyphs to signify the worship of the cosmic dance signified by artisanal work in a smithy/forge during the Tin-Bronze revolution.
     
    Why are trees and elephant shown atop the temple sculptural panel of Bharhut? I suggest that they are Indus Script hypertexts. karibha, ibha 'elephant' rebus: karba, ib 'iron'; kuṭi 'tree' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter'. kole.l 'smithy, forge' rebus: kole.l 'temple' (Kota language). Thus, the kole.l temple which is a smithy/forge is signified by the hypertexts to signify iron and smelting operations of metalwmiths.
     
    A panel from Bharhut stupa depicting temple with arched gateway and hemispherical dome
    Dated: ~2nd century BCE

    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Pasenadi pillar, outer face
    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Pasenadi pillar, outer face, detail. 
    Pasenati
    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB)
    Pasenadi pillar, outer face. Greater detail 

    The 'srivatsa' hypertext signifies: dula 'pair' rebus:dul 'metal casting' PLUS ayo 'fish' rebus: aya 'iron' ayas 'alloy metal' PLUS khambhaṛā 'fish-fin' rebus: kammaṭda 'mint'.

    पट्टः paṭṭḥ ट्टम् ṭṭamपट्टः ट्टम् 1 A slab, tablet (for writing upon), plate in general; शिलापट्टमधिशयाना Ś.3; so भालपट्ट &c. -2 A royal grant or edict; पटे वा ताम्रपट्टे वा स्वमुद्रोपरिचिह्नितम् । अभिलेख्यात्मनो वंश्यानात्मानं च महीपतिः ॥ Y.1.319. paṭṭakḥ
    पट्टकः 1 A plate of metal used for inscriptions or royal edicts. -2 A bandage. -3 A document; (also n.) paṭṭikā पट्टिका 1 A tablet, plate; as in हृतपट्टिका. -2 A document.Rebus: paṭṭalā
    पट्टला A district, community. paṭh पठ् 1 P. (पठति, पठित) 1 To read or repeat aloud, recite, rehearse; यः पठेच्छृणुयादपि. -2 To read or recite paṭhitiḥ पठितिः f. N. of a figure of speech. *prastarapaṭṭaʻ stone slab ʼ. [prastará -- , paṭṭa -- 1]Ku. pathrauṭī f. ʻ pavement of slates and stones ʼ.(CDIAL 8858) Rebus: బత్తుడు battuḍu. n. A worshipper. భక్తుడు. The caste title of all the five castes of artificers as వడ్లబత్తుడు a carpenter.   பத்தர்² pattar
    , n. < T. battuḍu. A caste title of goldsmiths; தட்டார் பட்டப்பெயருள் ஒன்று.

    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Pasenadi pillar, Dharmacakra  dām 'garland' Rebus; dhamma 'dharma'. 
     
    Sanchi sculptural frieze. Cobra hood. phaḍā 'serpent hood' Rebus: phaḍā 'metals manufactory'Ta. paṭṭaṭai, paṭṭaṟai anvil, smithy, forge. Ka. paṭṭaḍe, paṭṭaḍi anvil, workshop. Te. paṭṭika, paṭṭeḍa anvil; paṭṭaḍa workshop.(DEDR 3865)

    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Pasenadi pillar, Nāga 
    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Top of Pillar. Ox-hide ingot, face (within arch) 
    A
    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB)

    An artisan entering through arch. Archway is decorated with ox-hide ingot. The platform has square coins stacked and spread out. dhalako; rebus: 'a large metal ingot (Gujarati) kārṣāpaṇá m.n. ʻ a partic. coin or weight equivalent to one karṣaʼ. [karṣa -- m. ʻ a partic. weight ʼ Suśr. (cf. OPers. karša -- ) and paṇa -- 2 or āpana -- EWA i 176 and 202 with lit. But from early MIA. kā̆hā°]
    Pa. kahāpaṇa -- m.n. ʻ a partic. weight and coin ʼ, KharI. kahapana -- , Pk. karisāvaṇa -- m.n., kāhāvaṇa -- , kah° m.; A. kaoṇʻ a coin equivalent to 1 rupee or 16 paṇas or 1280 cowries ʼ; B. kāhanʻ 16 paṇas ʼ; Or. kāhā̆ṇaʻ 16 annas or 1280 cowries ʼ, H. kahāwan, kāhan, kahān m.; OSi. (brāhmī) kahavaṇa, Si. kahavuṇa, °vaṇuvaʻ a partic. weight ʼ.(CDIAL 3080)


    click to open a full-size photo (2-7 MB) 
    Monkey jataka.kuṭhāru 'monkey' rebus: kuṭhāru कुठारुः 'armourer'
    https://www.photodharma.net/Guests/Kawasaki-Bharhut/Bharhut.htm

    HINDU AND SARACENIC ART—THE POINTED ARCH—THE MIGRATIONS OF CRAFTSMEN—THE FIRST MUHAMMADAN INVADERS OF INDIA
    By Havells E.B.

    THE student who tries to thread his way through the some- what bewildering mazes of Indian art is often confused by the classifications and analysis of European writers. First, by the Græco-Roman or Gândharan theory of the inspiration of Buddhist sculpture; next by a misunderstanding of the whole theory of Indian art in the medieval or Puranic period, and by the sectarian classification of Buddhist-Hindu architecture; and thirdly by the attribution of the masterpieces of painting and architecture in the Muhammadan period to the superior creative and constructive genius of Islâm, or, as in one notable instance, the Tâj Mahall, to the art of Europe.


    All of these misconceptions have their root in one fixed idea, the belief that true æsthetic feeling has always been wanting in the Hindu mind, and that everything really great in Indian art has been suggested or introduced by foreigners.

    Fergusson, though generally far in advance of his time in the appreciation of Indian art, was by no means free from these prejudices, and his analysis of Indian architecture of the Muhammadan period confirms the general belief of the present day that between Hindu and Saracenic ideals there is a great gulf fixed, and that the zenith of Mogul architecture in the reigns of Jahângir and Shah Jahân was only reached by throwing off the Hindu influences which affected the so-called “mixed” styles of Indo-Muhammadan
    art. Fergusson distinctly declares that “there is no trace of Hinduism in the works of Jahângir and Shah Jahân.”1 Though he does not lend his great authority to the legend I have discussed in detail elsewhere, which makes the Tâj Mahall the creation of an Italian adventurer in Shah Jahân’s service, he treats all of Jahângir’s and Shah Jahân’s buildings as not being of Indian origin, but as entirely conceived by architects of Western Asia, and suggests Samarkand, rebuilt by Timûr (A.D. 1393-1404), as the locality which would throw light on “the style which the Moguls introduced into India.”
    This persistent habit of looking outside of India for the origins of Indian art must necessarily lead to false conclusions. One may find primitive types, or any of the forms and symbols which Indian artists moulded to their own desires, and trace them back to their archaic roots in Chaldæa, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, or Greece; but for the vital creative impulse which inspired any period of Indian art, whether it be Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, or Muhammadan, one will only find its source in the traditional Indian culture planted in Indian soil by Aryan philosophy, which reached its highest artistic expression before the Mogul dynasty was established, and influenced the greatest works of the Muhammadan period as much as any others. The TâJ, the Motî Masjid at Agra, the Jâmi’ Masjid at Delhi, and the splendid Muhammadan buildings at Bijâpur were only made possible by the not less splendid monuments of Hindu architecture at Mudhera, Dabhoi, Khâjuraho, Gwalior, and elsewhere, which were built before the Mogul Emperors and their Viceroys made use of Hindu genius to glorify the faith of Islâm.

    The Anglo-Indian and the tourist have been taught to admire the former and to extol the fine æsthetic taste of the Moguls; but the magnificent architectural works of the preceding Hindu period, when Indian sculpture and painting were at their zenith, but rarely attract their attention, though in massive grandeur and sculpturesque imagination they surpass any of the Mogul buildings. Even the term “Mogul” architecture is misleading, for as a matter of fact there were but few Mogul builders in India. The great majority of the builders employed by the Moguls—includin
    g not only the humbler artisans but the masterminds which directed them—were Indians, or of Indian descent. Some were professed Muhammadans, but many were Hindus. Mogul architecture does not bear witness, as we assume, to the finer æsthetic sense of Arab, Persian, or Western builders, but to the extraordinary synthetical power of the Hindu artistic genius.
    The truth of this statement can be demonstrated not only from documentary evidence, which may or may not be trustworthy, but from the incontrovertibl
    e record of the buildings themselves. Western writers have been so eager to seize upon the divergences between Muhammadan and Hindu civilisation, that the common basis which underlies them both generally fails to impress them. Even the main point of difference which divided Muhammadans and Hindus—the use of anthropomorphic symbols—was not by any means essential to Hinduism; and but for the differences, sectarian and racial, which drove many Hindus into the service of Musulmân states beyond the north-west frontier, the Muhammadan conquest of Hindustan would have been hardly possible.
    The fundamental antagonism between Hindu and Musulmân religious beliefs which we so often assume, never existed at any time. The basis of Muhammad’s idealism was the concept of the Unity of the Godhead —“There is One God”—which is only a condensation of the Hindu concept of the Godhead manifesting Itself in all things animate and inanimate. To the simple-minded Arab, either a mariner on the wide ocean or living in tents in the vast expanse of the lonely desert, the idea of the Divine Unity made an irresistible appeal: it sufficed to explain that infinite vastness of sky and earth and sea which surrounded him everywhere by day and night. His whole instinct of art creation was to draw everything in pure outline silhouetted against the sky, as he saw things in the glare of the open desert by day, or in the mysterious splendour of star- and moon-light, like the rocky coasts of Arabia seen from ships at sea.

    All Arab design, whether in architecture, in the forms of domestic utensils, or in surface decoration, was distinguished by this feeling for pure outline and colour, rather than by a plastic treatment of surfaces or the massing of forms for contrast of light and shade in which the Hindu architectural genius especially asserted itself. Practically all Saracenic symbolism in architecture was borrowed directly or indirectly from India, Persia, Byzantium, or Alexandria, though devout Muhammadans put their own reading into the symbols they borrowed, just as the early Christians did with those they borrowed from paganism.

    Even the pointed arch only acquired from India the religious significance which eventually led the Saracenic builders to adopt it as their own, through the contact of the Arabs with the Buddhists of Western Asia; and thus the very feature by which all Western writers have distinguished Saracenic architecture from the indigenous architecture of India was originally Indian. If this proposition is opposed to all architectural authority in Europe at the present day, it is only because Western writers, through treating Indo-Muhammadan
    architecture as a subdivision of the Saracenic schools of Egypt, Spain, Arabia, and Persia, have left out of account the great mass of historical evidence bearing upon the arts of the West which is afforded by the architectural monuments of India.
    It is of course a recognised fact that a certain type of the pointed arch was in use in Egypt and in Asia Minor even before the days of Buddhism, and long before the Hegira. But the mihraâb of Muhammadan mosques—the niche in the wall of the sanctuary—and all its religious associations from which the structural application of Saracenic arches started, was not in any way connected with this early type.

    The permanent mosques of the first Arab disciples of the Prophet, like the churches of the early Christians, were in most cases not buildings specially constructed for their own ritual, but those belonging to rival creeds reconsecrated for the worship of Allah. When the Arabs started on their career of conquest, the first objects of their iconoclastic zeal were the temples and monasteries of the hated idolaters—the Buddhists of Western Asia. After smashing the images and breaking as much of their sculptured ornamentation as offended against the injunctions of their law, the buildings with the empty niches the—quondam Buddhist shrines—remaini
    ng in their solid walls were often converted into mosques.
    The hallowed associations of generations of Buddhist worshippers still clung to these desecrated shrines, and the doctors of Islâm found it necessary to explain them in a Muhammadan sense. Hence the mihraâb—the niche of the principal image of Buddha—came to indicate the direction of the holy city of Mecca; it was traced in the sand or woven in the prayer-mat as a symbol of the faith. The idea appealed strongly to the Arab race, for every mariner saw the mihrâb in the bow of his ship and every desert nomad in the door of his tent. The sentiment of devotion which the image in the niche formerly inspired in the worshipper was thus transferred to the niche itself, and especially to the arch of the niche. The arrangement of niches in Muhammadan houses and palaces (Plate CII) was a secular adaptation of the shrines of Buddhist monasteries. Here, then, was the psychological germ of the pointed style of architecture Saracenic and Gothic or of the idealism which was the motive force behind it.

    All the forms of the pointed arch which characterise Saracenic buildings in the West are found in the niches of the temples of the various Brahmanical sects in India which inherited the early Buddhist traditions. Remove the images and the sculptured ornament of the niches, and you find the ordinary Arab arch, the stilted arch, the foliated arch, etc. The process of adaptation by which Indian arches were converted into Saracenic, begun by the Arabs in Western Asia in the first centuries after the Hegira, were continued in successive centuries by all the Muhammadan invaders of India—Arab, Afghan, Turk, and Mongol.

    The contemptuous name which Arabian historians gave to all the temples of the infidel in India—Boud-khân
    a, or “Buddha-house” is one of the many proofs of the early connections of Buddhism with Islâm. Buddhist influence penetrated much farther west than the borders of Asia and Europe. Professor Flinders Petrie has found evidences of the presence of Asoka’s missionaries at Alexandria; and the resemblance of the so-called horse-shoe arch in Moorish palaces and mosques of the eighth century A. D. and later to the lotus-leaf arches of the seventh-century Buddhist chapter-house at Ajantâ (Plate I) can easily be accounted for by the presence of the Indian craftsman in Egypt. Seeing that Indian mariners carried on a regular trade with Egypt even before the third century B.C., it is reasonable to assume that Indian craftsmen often found their way there in later times. No Western structural process by which this form of arch, derived from bent cane or bambu, might have been evolved independently is known to archæologists.
    Modern European writers who try to trace the derivation of architectural style entirely from constructive or technical processes would do well to note that the pointed arch in Arab architecture was a purely religious symbol before it became a distinctive structural feature in Saracenic building. The symbolic idea connected with the pointed arch preceded the general use of it as an organic structural feature in place of the round arch and horizontal beam. It appealed to the devout Musulmân not because it was architecturally
    useful and beautiful, but because it symbolised the two fundamental concepts of his faith God is One, and Muhammad is His Prophet. It was the architectonic symbol of the hands joined in prayer; it pointed the way to Mecca and to Paradise, and demonstrated mathematically the divine truth that all things converge towards and meet in the One the inverse of the Hindu proposition.
    M. Prisse d’Avennes, in his work “L’Art Arabe,” adopts the ingenious theory put forward by M. Salzmann that the different varieties of the Arab dome and the characteristic “stalactite” pendentives which supported them were originally derived from the form and structure of the water-melon. He places sections of the latter and details of Arab buildings in Cairo side by side to show the striking similarity between them. We can very well admit the similarity without adopting the conclusion which the author derives from it—a conclusion which ignores entirely the religious idealism which lies behind both Saracenic and Hindu art. If the Arab domes and pendentives were derived from naturalistic motifs only we should see the resemblance more marked in the earlier examples than in the later. As a matter of fact there is no such resemblance in any of the earliest existing examples; the illustrations given by M. Prisse d’Avennes are all of late date, and merely indicate that some Arab builders, struck by the similarity between their traditional architectural forms and the structure of the water-melon, made the resemblance more complete. When a Hindu recognised a resemblance between his sacred symbols and any natural forms he dedicated the latter to the deity represented by the symbol. Thus the bel tree and many others became sacred to Siva on account of the resemblance between its compound leaves and the three-pronged trident of Mahâdeva ; but the latter symbol was not derived from the natural forms.

    There is nothing to show that the Arabs attached any religious significance to the water-melon, either before or after the time of Muhammad. On the other hand, the pointed arch, or mihrâb, was a religious symbol before it was used architecturally
    by the Arabs. The so-called stalactite pendentive is simply an agglomeration of miniature mihrâb niches2 geometrically arranged to perform the structural purpose for which it was intended. The pointed domes, pendentives, and other characteristic features of pure Saracenic architecture are therefore not to be derived from any natural motifs, but simply from the application of their religious symbolism to all the ancient constructive forms, Roman, Byzantine, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Phoenician, Buddhist, and Hindu, used by the builders of the many different races and creeds whom the Arabs employed.
    For understanding the development of architecture in different countries it is most important to realise that the conventional nomenclature now given to different styles is apt to be very misleading unless we recognise the very cosmopolitan organisation of the building craft in the Middle Ages as well as in previous periods. No class of society has stood so strongly for religious tolerance and the principle of the universal brotherhood of man as the master-builders
    , and none have done more for the spread of civilisation, peace, and goodwill among all men. However bitter religious and racial animosities might be, the building fraternity knew none of them. Pagan craftsmen built for Christian, Christian for Musulmân, Buddhist for Jain and Hindu, Hindus for every sect. The same rule applied to craftsmen of different races. In times of peace the master-builders wandered far and wide in search of lucrative employment wherever it might be found. In times of war their lives were often the only ones that were spared by the victors in battle or in the sack of cities, for their services were highly valued by all combatants, even by barbarian marauders like the Huns and Mongols. Every new city that was founded or great monument that was built drew to it builders and craftsmen even from far-distant countries. Thus we read of an architect from Ferghâna in Central Asia building the Nilometer in Egypt, of Chinese craftsmen assisting in the building of Baghdad, of Indian craftsmen in Japan, and of Persian architects employed in Cairo. If the master-builders of the East had left written records of their travels, we should probably know many Indian Marco Polos who journeyed westwards as well as eastwards when Buddhism was spreading its civilisation all over Asia.
    When therefore we speak of Arab architecture and Arab art, it is necessary to remember that few builders and craftsmen were Arab by race: we simply mean the different phases of art and architecture which were evolved in different countries and by different races under the influence of Arab culture. Dr. Gustave le Bon distinguishes twelve different styles of Arab architecture, of which the only two which can be considered pure i.e.—not dominated by Byzantine, Romanesque, Persian, or Hindu influences—are an Egyptian style, represented by the series of mosques dating from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries, and a Spanish style, represented by Saracenic buildings in Seville and Grenada. But even in Egypt and Spain, the sources of inspiration of all that is typical of pure Arab art and architecture were in India, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia.

    Though Saracenic and Indian art had this much in common, it is essential to remember that if India, from the time of Asoka down to the early centuries of the Christian era, had borrowed much artistic material from the countries with which she had had intimate commercial and political relations from time immemorial—Meso
    potamia, Persia, and Central Asia—she was at the time of the Muhammadan invasions no longer a borrower, but a lender. Buddhist art had spread all over Western Asia in the previous centuries, and Buddhist-Hindu art was at its zenith when India received the first shock of the Muhammadan invasions. As the armies of Islâm, largely recruited from Tartary and Central Asia, came nearer to the north-west frontier of India, Saracenic art came into closer contact with Buddhist-Hindu civilisation and became more and more impregnated with Indian influences, until at last Arab, Persian, and Central Asian art lost their own individual identity as creative forces, and merged themselves into different local phases of Indian art of which the æsthetic basis was essentially Hindu, and only Arab, Mogul, and Muslim in a political, ritualistic, and dogmatic sense.
    History was, as usual, repeating itself in this; for exactly similar circumstances had arisen in the early centuries of the Christian era, when the art of Gandhâra, from being a provincial phase of Buddhist art with a strongly developed Græo-Roman dialect, became gradually Indianised and merged itself into the Indian æsthetic synthesis. The Saracenic art which came into India had likewise been Indianised before it crossed the Indus; for it was upon the basis of Buddhist-Hindu civilisation that the two earliest styles of Indo-Muhammadan
    architecture, which Fergusson calls the Ghaznavide and the Pathân, had been built. It was in the Gandhâra country that Mahmûd of Ghaznî and his successors had the centre of their power, and Indian builders were employed in constructing “the palaces and public buildings, mosques, pavilions, reservoirs, aqueducts, and cisterns’ with which Mahmûd’s capital was adorned “beyond any city in the East.’ The builders were not the fighting Afghans, but descendants of the peaceful Buddhist builders adapting their art structurally as well as decoratively to the needs of a militant instead of a monastic community, and to the symbolism of a monotheistic creed.
    The Muhammadan invaders of Hindustan certainly did not have the same opinion with regard to the inferiority of Hindu art and architecture, as compared with their own, which is commonly held by Europeans to-day. The Arabs, before they came to India as conquerors, had drunk deeply at many sources of Hindu culture; and though they detested Hindu sculpture and painting on religious grounds, they had the highest respect for the skill of Indian architects and artists. Alberuni, the Arab historian who visited India in the beginning of the eleventh century and knowing all the architectural splendour of Baghdad at the height of its glory, before it was laid waste by the Mongols, expressed his astonishment at and admiration for the works of Hindu builders. “Our people,” he said, “when they see them, wonder at them and are unable to describe them, much less to construct anything like them.”

    With this we may compare the admiration of a later Musulmân writer, Abûl Fazl, Akbar’s chronicler, for Hindu painting. “It passes our conception of things: few indeed in the whole world can compare with them.” Alberuni’s contemporary, the great Sultan Mahmûd of Ghazni, in spite of his detestation of Hindu idolatry, could not refrain from expres ing his admiration for Hindu builders. Ferishta tells us that after the sack of Mathurâ he wrote to the Governor of Ghaznî extravagantly extolling the magnificence of the buildings and the city. “There are here,” he said, “a thousand edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of deenars nor could such another be constructed under a period of two centuries.”3 When he returned to Ghaznî he brought back 5,300 Hindu captives, doubtless the greater number of them masons and craftsmen, for building the magnificent mosque of marble and granite known by the name of the Celestial Bride, which he caused to be built to commemorate his triumphs. Seeing how great the reputation of Hindu craftsmen was, and since we know that Hâroûn-al-Rashî
    d renewed the ancient intercourse of Mesopotamia with India and had Indian ambassadors at his Court, we may safely assume that Indian builders, artists, and craftsmen were among those of other nations which the great Khalif and his successors employed in the building of Baghdad, just as Timur, the founder of the Mogul dynasty, used them five centuries later in the building of Samarkand.
    When the Muhammadan dynasties Arab, Turk, or Mongol established themselves firmly in Hindustan, the reversion of what we may call the pure Saracenic or Arabian characteristics
    to the old Indian or Buddhist-Hindu types becomes more and more evident. The stern simplicity of the Pathân fortress style, which at first sight seems so very un-Indian in conception, gave way to the luxury and elaboration of Akbar’s and Jahângir’s palaces. Of the thirteen local divisions of Indo-Muhammadan architecture enumerated by Fergusson, those of Gujerat, Gaur, and even that of Jaunpur, in spite of its pointed arches, are so conspicuously Hindu in general conception and in detail that it is evident at first glance that the builders and craftsmen must have been almost entirely Indian, and probably many of them Hindus. The Jâmi’ Masjid and other mosques of Ahmadâbâd are, as Fergusson says, “Hindu or Jain in every detail,” only here and there an arch is inserted, not because it is “wanted constructively, but because it was a symbol of the faith.” At first sight the essential Indianness of the remaining Indo-Muhammadan styles, as classified by Fergusson, is not so apparent. In two of the most important, namely the Mogul and Bijâpur styles, Fergusson and all other writers have ignored the Hindu element entirely and treated them both as foreign to India. Here, I think, they are as mistaken as the archæological experts who have attributed the inspiration of Indian sculpture to the Græco-Roman craftsmen of Gandhâra. It is Indian art, not Arab, Persian, or European, that we must study to find whence came the inspiration of the Tâj Mahall and great monuments of Bijâpur. They are more Indian than St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey are English.
    1. History of Indian Architecture,” vol. ii. p. 288 (edit. 1910).
    2. The structure of the stalactite pendentives was in all probability derived from the use of semi-cylindrica
    l tiles, set in mortar, in place of brick corbelling, or arches, for the support of light domes
    3. Ferishta, Briggs’s translation, vol. i. p. 59.

    Link: http://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-167086
     

    0 0


    Preface

    Definition of terms

    Archaeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. . The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities, (sometimes as a sub-field of anthropology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology

    Architecture is both the process and the product of planning, designing, and constructing buildings or any other structures.Architectural works, in the material form of buildings, are often perceived as cultural symbols and as works of art. Historical civilizations are often identified with their surviving architectural achievements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture 

    Divine is sacred and holy. due to their transcendental origins or because their attributes or qualities are superior or supreme relative to things of the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity

    Temples are dwelling places of the divine and for worship of divinities, with religious activities of prayers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple

    Panagla Prousiotissa Greek Orthodoxy Monastery
    monastery-panagia-hozoviotissa-2

    monastery-panagia-hozoviotissa-3
    Panagia Prousiotissa Greek Orthodox Monastery "High above the Aegean Sea on the island of Amorgos, the most eastern of the Greek Cycladic Islands, lies the spectacular Byzantine monastery of Panagia Hozoviotissa. Visible only from the sea as a patch of bright white, it clings to the cliff side 300 meters above the sea level. The monastery was built in the 11th century in order to protect a 9th century religious icon of the Virgin Mary from marauding pirates. The icon, which is on public display inside the monastery, is believed to have mysteriously arrived on the shore below on an unmanned boat from Palestine."http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/07/the-monastery-of-panagia-hozoviotissa.html
     
    The Holy Icon Panagia of Prousiotissa according to tradition was painted by the hand of St. Luke the Evangelist. Since the year 829, this Holy Icon of the Theotokos has been kept in a church that still stands in the city of Proussa, now the Turkish city of Brusa, which is near present day Istanbul. Many miracles have taken place before this icon in the Church. The only known accurate replica of this miracle working icon had resided at the Monastery of Prousos in Greece. In late June 2008 the replica was transported by clergy of the monastery and of the Metropolis of Karpenisi to the United States and placed permanently at the Monastery of Panagia Prousiotissa in Troy, North Carolina.
    A number of monasteries have been dedicated to this icon including:Panagia Prousiotissa Monastery Proussos (Greece)Panagia Prousiotissa Greek Orthodox Monastery, Troy, NC USA)

    Ancient Hindu Thought about temples occurs in 

    1. archaeological site of Mohenjo-daro (ziggurat), 
    2. finds of Śivalinga in Harappa and 
    3. finds of  Śivalinga in Candi Seto, Candi Sukuh atop ziggurats (mountain-tops)
    3. artifacts of Bhirrana (Dancing girl hypertext on a potsherd;Indus Script seals). Do they provive glimpses into Ancient Hindu religious thought?

    Characterist components of ancient Hindu architecture of a heap of earth, a stupa as a temple.

    dhatu is mineral, garbha is interior; thus, the expression dhāṭugarbha (pronounced in Meluhha as dagoba) is 'earth containing in interior, mineral ore'. 

    As a metaphor for a temple, dagoba for ancient metalworkers of Indian sprachbund (speech union), such earth which contained the mineral ores constituted the sanctum sanctorum of the temple.

    Origin and etymology of dagoba: Singhalese dāgoba, dāgaba, from Pali dhātugabbha, from Sanskrit dhātugarbha, literally, having relics inside, from dhātu element, elemental bodily substance, relics (from dadhāti he places) + garbha womb, interior (Merriam-Webster)

    Strand, element, ore: dhāˊtu n. ʻ substance ʼ RV., m. ʻ element ʼ MBh., ʻ metal, mineral, ore (esp. of a red colour) ʼ Mn., ʻ ashes of the dead ʼ lex., ʻ *strand of rope ʼ (cf. tridhāˊtu -- ʻ threefold ʼ RV., ayugdhātu -- ʻ having an uneven number of strands ʼ KātyŚr.). [√dhā] Pa. dhātu -- m. ʻ element, ashes of the dead, relic ʼ; KharI. dhatuʻ relic ʼ; Pk. dhāu -- m. ʻ metal, red chalk ʼ; N. dhāuʻ ore (esp. of copper) ʼ; Or. ḍhāuʻ red chalk, red ochre ʼ (whence ḍhāuāʻ reddish ʼ; M. dhāū, dhāv m.f. ʻ a partic. soft red stone ʼ (whence dhā̆vaḍ m. ʻ a caste of iron -- smelters ʼ, dhāvḍīʻ composed of or relating to iron ʼ); -- Si. ʻ relic ʼ; -- S. dhāī f. ʻ wisp of fibres added from time to time to a rope that is being twisted ʼ, L. dhāī˜ f.(CDIAL 6733)

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

    Ko. kole·lsmithy, temple in Kota village.  (DEDR 2133) kōvil temple; kōṉāṭu a division of the Chola country; kōcar name of certain chieftains mentioned in the Sangam literature and connected with the Tuḷu country. Ma.kō, kōn, kōmān king; kōyil, kōvil palace, temple;kōyilakam palace; kōnma, kōymaroyal authority. Ko. ko·na·ṛ the plains; ko·na·ṭo·n, ko·na·ṭo·r man, men of the plains. Te. kōyila, kōvela temple. Pa. kōcking. Ga. (S) kōsu id. ? Kur. kōhā great, big, haughty, important, eminent in rank, etc.; kōhar elders, grandees, chiefs; (Hahn) koghāgreat one, elder relative; koghar elders.  (DEDR 2127)

    गर्भ   m. ( √ग्रभ् = ग्रह् , " to conceive " ; √2. गॄ Un2. iii , 152) the womb RV. AV. &c; the inside , middle , interior of anything , calyx (as of a lotus) MBh. VarBr2S. &c (ifc.f(आ). , " having in the interior , containing , filled with " S3a1n3khS3r. RPra1t. MBh. &c ); any interior chamber , adytum or sanctuary of a temple &c VarBr2S. RTL. p.445 (Monier-Williams) garbhāgāra n. ʻ inner chamber ʼ Kathās. [gárbha -- , agāra -- ]Aś. man. grabhagara -- , gir. gabhāgāra -- , kāl. gabhāgāla<-> ʻ inner apartment ʼ; G. gabhārɔ m. ʻ inmost sanctuary of a temple ʼ, M. gābhār, gābhārā m. (CDIAL 4060)

    धातु--गर्भ m. (with Buddh. ) receptacle for ashes or relics , a Dagaba or Dagoba (Sinhalese corruption of पालि Dhatu-gabbha) MWB. xxxv

    शिखर m.n. a point , peak (of a mountain) , top or summit (of a tree) , edge or point (of a sword) , end , pinnacle , turret , spire MBh. Ka1v. &c 

    The semantic structure of two metalwork temples is vividly displayed on Sit-Shamshi Bronze Model with an Akkadian inscription.  SeeAnnex:Significance of linga and 4 spheres on Sit Shamshi bronze and Meluhha hieroglyphs on Candi Sukuh lingasit shamshi musée du louvre parís tabla de bronce que parece resumir ... The morning ablutions offered to the Sun Divinity are signified in front of two ziggurat images flanked by eight globules on either side.In my view, the bronze model is a narrative of metallurgical work in a smithy/forge by artisans who were governed by an ancient thought of the divine, represented in a temple with hieroglyphs/hypertexts expressed in Meluhha (Ancient Indian sprachbund, speech union)..

     
    Remains of Sarasvati Civilization Ziggurat at Mohenjo-Daro
    "A ziggurat (/ˈzɪɡəræt/ZIG-ə-rat; Akkadian: ziqqurat, D-stem of zaqāru"to build on a raised area") is a type of massive stone structure built in ancient Mesopotamia. It has the form of a terraced compound of successively receding stories or levels. Notable ziggurats include the Great Ziggurat of Ur near Nasiriyah, the Ziggurat of Aqar Quf near Baghdad, the now destroyed Etemenanki in Babylon, Chogha Zanbil in Khūzestān and Sialk."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

    Comparable structures

     
    Chogha Zanbil, Elam Ziggurat  
    Ziggurat of Ur

    Shape of lingam found at Harappa is like the summit of Mt. Kailas, Himalayas. Plate X(c), Lingam in situ in trench Ai (MS Vats, 1940, Exxcavations at Harappa, Vol. II, Calcutta). In trenches III and IV two more stone lingams were found. (MS Vats, opcit., Vol. I, pp. 51-52). 

    Photograph from Malleret, L., L'archaeologie du delta du Mekong, Paris, 1959
    Ekamukhalinga from Vat Sak Sampou








     
     
     
                         "The JaiyA ekamukhalinga is divided into three parts in accordance with the prescriptions in the Siva Agamas. The base, BrahmabhAga, is cubic in form and is 47.8 cms. High. The middle section, the ViSNubhAga, is octagonal in shape and is approximately 43 cm. High. The topmost section, the RudrabhAga, is cylindrical and is approximately 51 cms high, while the superimposed face measures 29.5 cms from the bottom of the chin to the top of the jaTA. The two lower sections of the linga would not normally be visible, since they would be enclosed in the pedestal (pIThikA)...One of the singular features of these pre-Angkorian mukhalingas is the fusing of the jaTA with the filet on the gland of the RudrabhAga (fig.2)...There is, however, an ekamukhalinga from Vat Sak Sampou (fig. 3) which displays a coiffure which is very muh like that worn on the JaiyA linga.” (O'Connor, SJ, 1961, An ekamukhalinga from Peninsular Siam,  The Journal of the Siam Society. The Siam Society. pp. 43-49).
     

    Bhirrana. Sarasvati River Basin
     
    Seals found at Bhirrana, with animals such as a deer, a three-headed animal, a one-horned young bull (unicorn), and a bull. These seals have typical Indus Script Hieroglyphs/Hypertexts constituting wealth accounting ledgers of metalwork. The red potsherdwith the engraving resembling the Dancing Girl bronze figurine of Mohenjodaro, found at Bhirrana. Terracotta horns.


    Why is a 'dancing girl' glyph shown on a potsherd discovered at Bhirrana? Because, dance-step is a hieroglyph written as hypertext cipher.viśvakarma tradition which created this exquisite cire perdue bronze statue of Mohenjo-daro lives on in many of India even today. The bronzes of Nataraja śiva as a cosmic dancer attest to this tradition.


    Forge scene stele.  Forging of a keris or kris (the iconic Javanese dagger) and other weapons. The blade of the keris represents the khaNDa. Fire is a purifier, so the blade being forged is also symbolic of the purification process central theme of the consecration of gangga sudhi specified in the inscription on the 1.82 m. tall, 5 ft. dia.  lingga hieroglyph, the deity of Candi Sukuh. 

    The sculptural of Candi Sukuh narrative depicts Bhima as the blacksmith in the left forging the metal holding a steel sword on his right hand, Ganesha in the center with a dance-step (med 'dance step' rebus: meD 'iron'), and Arjuna in the right operating bellows

    Ganesa as dancer on a Candi Sukuh sculpture in the context of smelting processes to produce steel swords.

    karibha 'elephant's trunk' rebus: karba 'iron' ibha 'elephant' rebus: ib 'iron' PLUS meD 'step' rebus: meD 'iron, metal, copper'.



    http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-ancient-erotic-temple-candi-sukuh-bali-indonesia-47654149.jpg 
    Candi Sukuh. Another temple is Candi Ceto. Both has Siva temples.

    On top of the Mt.Lawu fortification of Candi Sukuh stood this 1.82m. tall linga.

    The Lingga discovered at Candi Sukuh on the slopes of Mt. Lawu in Central Java and now in the  National Museum in Jakarta; note the keris. (from c.j. van der Vlis report of 1843).



    Candi Cetho. Lingga shows a pair of balls at the top of the penis -- to be read rebus as Meluhha hieroglyph composition: lo-khaNDa, penis + 4 balls; Rebus: iron, metalware.

    The four balls of the penis are also clearly shown on a 6 ft. tall linga inscribed with 1. a sword; and 2. inscription in Javanese, referring to 'inauguration of the holy ganggasudhi...'

    See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/01/sekkizhar-periya-puranam-candi-sukuh.html Histoire ancienne des Etats hindouises along the Tin Road from Haifa to Hanoi. NaMo, Obama, announce United Indian Ocean States.

    lo 'penis' Rebus: loh 'copper, metal'

    Hieroglyphs: gaṇḍa 'swelling' gaṇḍa 'four' gaṇḍa 'sword'
    Rebus: kāṇḍa ‘tools, pots and pans and metal-ware’ (Marathi)

    Together, hieroglyphs: lo + gaṇḍa. Rebus: लोखंड [ lōkhaṇḍa ] 'metalwork'

    Metaphor: Sh. K.ḍoḍ.  m. ʻ light, dawn ʼ; L. awāṇ.  ʻ light ʼ; P. lo f. ʻ light, dawn, power of seeing, consideration ʼ; WPah. bhal. lo f. ʻ light (e.g. of moon) ʼ.(CDIAL 11120). + kaṇṭa 'manliness'. Metaphorical rendering of the effulgence (sun and moon) associated with the pillar of light yielding the imagery of an representation of a fiery pillar with unfathomable beginning, unreachable end, thus of infniity of Mahadeva representing the paramaatman for the aatman in search of nihs'reyas (moksha), from Being to Becoming, the way earth and stones transmute into metal in the smelter and smithy, kole.l 'smithy, temple'.

    Bharatiyo, 'metalcasters' (Gujarati) are awestruck by this parallel with the cosmic energy replicated in the energies of the smelter, fire-altar and smithy. Hence, the veneration of the linga + 4 spheres as the essence of every phenomenon on cosmos, on the globe, of the world. These hieroglyphs and related metaphors thus yield the gestalt of Bharatiyo, 'metalcasters' (Meluhha). This enduring metaphor finds expression in sculptures on many Hindu temples of Eurasia.

    The gloss gaṇḍu 'manliness' (Kannada); 'bravery, strength' (Telugu) is a synonym of the expression on Candi Suku linga inscription: 'sign of masculinity is the essence of the world'. Thus, the gloss lokhaṇḍa which is a direct Meluhha speech form related to the hieroglyph composition on Candi Suku inscription is the sign of masculinity. The rebus renderings of khandoba or kandariya mahadeva are elucidations of the rebus gloss: kaṇḍa, 'mahadeva S'iva or mahes'vara.' The hieroglyphs deployed on the 1.82m. tall stone sculpture of linga with the inscription and hieroglyphs of sword, sun, moon and four balls deployed just below the tip of the phallus are thus explained as Meluhha speech: lokhaṇḍa. The rebus rendering of the phrase is: lo 'light' and kaṇṭa 'manliness'. These attributes constitute the effulgence of the linga as the fiery pillar, skhamba venerated in Atharva Veda Skhamba sukta as the cosmic effulgence as the cosmic essence.

    gaṇḍa -- m. ʻ four' (Munda) गंडा[ gaṇḍā ] m An aggregate of four (cowries or pice). (Marathi) <ganDa>(P)  {NUM} ``^four''.  Syn. <cari>(LS4), <hunja-mi>(D).  *Sa., Mu.<ganDa> `id.', H.<gA~Da> `a group of four cowries'.  %10591.  #10511.<ganDa-mi>(KM)  {NUM} ``^four''.  |<-mi> `one'.  %10600.  #10520. Ju<ganDa>(P)  {NUM} ``^four''.  gaṇḍaka m. ʻ a coin worth four cowries ʼ lex., ʻ method of counting by fours ʼ W. [← Mu. Przyluski RoczOrj iv 234]S. g̠aṇḍho m. ʻ four in counting ʼ; P. gaṇḍā m. ʻ four cowries ʼ; B. Or. H. gaṇḍā m. ʻ a group of four, four cowries ʼ; M. gaṇḍā m. ʻ aggregate of four cowries or pice ʼ.(CDIAL 4001)

    gaṇḍa -- m. ʻswelling, boil, abscessʼ(Pali)

    Rebus: kaṇḍ 'fire-altar' (Santali) kāṇḍa ‘tools, pots and pans and metal-ware’ (Marathi) खंडा [ khaṇḍā ] m A sort of sword. It is straight and twoedged. खांडा [ khāṇḍā ] m A kind of sword, straight, broad-bladed, two-edged, and round-ended. खांडाईत [ khāṇḍāīta ] a Armed with the sword called खांडा. (Marathi)

    लोखंड [ lōkhaṇḍa ] n (लोह S) Iron.लोखंडकाम [ lōkhaṇḍakāma ] n Iron work; that portion (of a building, machine &c.) which consists of iron. 2 The business of an ironsmith.
    लोखंडी [ lōkhaṇḍī ] a (लोखंड) Composed of iron; relating to iron.



    THE ARTEFACTS UNEARTHED include pottery and potsherds, an ivory comb, bone points and chert blades. THE EXCAVATION OF 2003-04 yielded inscribed copper celts.
     

    Göbekli Tepe was founded about 11,500 years ago. Its circular compounds on top of a tell are composed by massive T-shaped stone pillars decorated with abstract, enigmatic pictograms and animal reliefs. It is arguably world's oldest temple. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

    "The more important part in adressing the set of pyramids which Schoch was ascribing to Sundaland starts separately out of the Mesopotamian ziggurats and then continues to India. I am fairly convinced that this line (in blue) separately crossed the Pacific to introduce the specifically Eastern type of pyramid to the Americas. With the old-Atlantic pyramids there is one outstandingly old pyramid in Mexico, the Cuicuilco pyramid mentioned by Hapgood as a possible relic of the Ancient Sea Kings civilisation (However that opinion rests on some already-questioned radiocarbon dates which go as far back as 6000 BCE...." 
     "Thor Heyerdahl included in his Ra and Ra 2 Evidence the fact that pyramids had been discovered on the Canary Islands, a discovery he had a hand in. This is one of the half-dozen remaining pyramids at Guimar on the big island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands, off the NW coast of Africa. It may belong to the very old terraced-pyramid tradition also represented by Cuicuilco, below.These all seem to be broad low staged structures with Kivas (Circular pits and not "Houses") at the top."
    'In Peru this could include possibly the pyramid at Tiahuanaco (also resting on some indefinite dates). However, beginning with the Olmecs, the more usual temple mounds started to be built, and therefore in a culture already suspected to have Indian connections. By this time also, Mayan pyramids had started but in this case also, they were low mounds like mastabahs rather than really pyramids (since 2500-3000 BCE)"
    One of the Mayan "Serpent Balustrades": the same idea occurs at Angkor Wat using the local         7-headed Nagas.
    Tiruvanamala, India
    In Peru this could include possibly the pyramid at Tiahuanaco (also resting on some indefinite dates). However, beginning with the Olmecs, the more usual temple mounds started to be built, and therefore in a culture already suspected to have Indian connections. By this time also, Mayan pyramids had started but in this case also, they were low mounds like mastabahs rather than really pyramids (since 2500-3000 BCE.



    Initially thought to be a 'granary', this 27 part structure is found next to the famous Great Bath water tank. These 27 distinct parts are arranged in 3 rows of 9 each. What are they? For what purpose they were used? 


    In the aerial view shown above, the front structure named Buddha Vihar was formed 2000 years ago. That was not originally the Indus structure. The almost square shaped structure to the right was the original structure built at about 2600 BCE. http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/search/label/Indus%20Valley%20Seals

    Ziggurat (Stupa?) Mohenjo-daro


    Maize in Pre-Columbian India

    Carl L. Johannessen and Anne Z. Parker, "Maize Ears Sculptured in 12th and 13th Century A.D. India as Indicators of Pre-Columbian Diffusion,"Economic Botany 43 , 1989, 164-80, argue that stone carvings of maize ears exist in at least three pre-Columbian Hoysala stone block temples near Mysore, Karnataka state, India. Their article provides 16 photographs of a few of the sculptures in question.
    Johannessen has now made three large-scale color photographs available online at http://geography.uoregon.edu/carljohannessen/research.html (new URL, 10/06), with a brief discussion. These photos reveal considerable detail that is lost in the reduced scale black and white reproductions that appeared in the journal article. His photos are the source of the thumbnails on appearing this site, and may be viewed full size by clicking below:



    Further photographs appear in his 1998 article, "Maize Diffused to India before Columbus Came to America" (see references below).
    In his 1998 article "Pre-Columbian American Sunflower and Maize Images in Indian Temples: Evidence of Contact between Civilizations in India and America" (see references below), Johannessen goes on to cite several appearances of the sunflower, another New World crop, in pre-Columbian Indian temple sculptures. To view Figure 1 from that article, enlarged and in color on his website, click on the thumbnail below:







    The following review has been published in theMidwest Epigraphic Journal, vol. 12/13, 1998-99, pp. 43-44.
    An earlier version appeared in 1998 on the newsgroup sci.archaeology.

    "Much later watercraft depicted at Angkor seem to be of the same conformation with the extremely steep bow and stern. This would be a smaller craft for rowing and not sailing: I imagine Sundaland craft utilised both methods as necessary."http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/search/label/Angkor%20Wat



                                                  
       Above is a photograph of a carved panel from a Hindu-Buddhist temple in India, depicting the "Tree of Life" with probable encoded mushrooms, and a symbol very similar in shape to a the Maya glyph for Venus.
                       
                  
      Above is a limestone carving 1st century B.C. depicting the enlightenment of the Buddha. Note the possibility of what looks like Amanita mushrooms underneath the sacred bodhi-tree. Also note that at the base of the empty throne are the Buddha's footprints. .British Museum, London, Great Britain (from http://www.lessing-photo.com/dispimg.asp?i=03060124+&cr=714&cl=1 

    Pretty Ladies and Indus Script

    Sarasvati civilization, Mauryan images


    This is an Indus Valley Seagoing vessel, presumably the sort of craft that would have made the long voyage.


    The originating port in India would have been like this. The period we are talking about is after the end of the Indus civilization proper and before the beginning of the next recognisable period of Indian history, the Mauryan, but with resemblances to each of those periods. The artwork of those different eras do show some continuity but with an increaed Greek influence after the time of Alexander the Great. The Tlatilco period would have ended well before then.
    Gordon Eckholm was the main author who brought cultural diffusion back into the mainstream of Science in the 1960s with articles published in the Scientific American and other journals. Basically he recognised that the use of various decorative motifs were common to the high-culture areas of India and the Mayan lands of the New World, including "cherubic"figures, sea monsters or makaras with spouts of water or vines issuing out of their mouths, lotuses and decorative bands with double-lined borders and decorative curls. In a collection of articles written about the state of Archaeology in 1964 published at Rice University and repeated
    in An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology, Eckholm and his asociates mentioned multiple probable transpacific contacts starting as early as the introduction of Pottery to South America from the Jomonic period of Japan as early as 3000 BC and then again intermittent cultural packages transmitted across the Pacific at later dates. 




    Tukulti Ninurta Altar with Indus Script hieroglyphs related to metalwork catalogue. http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/12/meluhha-hieroglyphs-of-assur-assur.html
    करंडा [karaṇḍā] A clump, chump, or block of wood. 4 The stock or fixed portion of the staff of the large leaf-covered summerhead or umbrella. करांडा [ karāṇḍā ] m C A cylindrical piece as sawn or chopped off the trunk or a bough of a tree; a clump, chump, or block.

    Allograph: करडी karaḍī ] f (See करडई) Safflower: also its seed.

    Rebus: karaḍa 'hard alloy' of arka 'copper'. 

    Rebus: fire-god: @B27990.  #16671. Remo <karandi>E155  {N} ``^fire-^god''.(Munda)
    The hieroglyphs on the fire-altar confirm the link to metallurgy with the use of 'spoked-wheel' banner carried on one side of the altar and the 'safflower' hieroglyph flanking the altar worshipped by Tukulti-Ninurta. It is rebus, as Sigmund Freud noted in reference to the dream. 'I have revealed to Atrahasis a dream, and it is thus that he has learned the secret of the gods.' (Epic of Gilgamesh, Ninevite version, XI, 187.)(Zainab Bahrani, 2011, The graven image: representation in Babylonia and Assyria, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, p. 185)
     
    Annex
    Significance of linga and 4 spheres on Sit Shamshi bronze and Meluhha hieroglyphs on Candi Sukuh linga

    The message of Sit Shamshi bronze, consistent with the Akkadian inscription is viewed as a metalwork catalog by bronze workers celebrating a gangga sudhi 'water purification' puja, a consecration also referred to on Candi Sukuh linga inscription.The gloss sudhi also indicates that the consecration is related to veneration of ancestors. Water purification is a metaphor for purification processes in metalwork, removing impurities from minerals to produce pure metal and also alloy metals. See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/06/ancient-near-east-bronze-age-legacy_6.html

    Depicting water ablutions on sunrise or sunset in front of the four-step ziggurat: Susa. Sit-Shamshi (Musée du Louvre, París). 


    kolmo ‘three’ (Mu.); rebus: kolami ‘smithy’ (Te.) 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. meḍ(h), meḍhī f., meḍhā m. ʻ post, forked stake ʼ.(Marathi)(CDIAL 10317) Rebus: mẽṛhẽt, meḍ ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) Together: kolami meḍ 'smithy iron'. A pair of linga + 4 spheres is dula 'pair' Rebus: dul 'cast metal'. Thus the reading: dul kolami meḍ 'iron casting smithy'.