https://tinyurl.com/ygtkbdcg
I present below two fascinating articles; one by Nanditha Krishna and another by Megh Kalyanasundaram. I have a comment to make on the reference to a Mohenjo-daro tablet in Nanditha Krishna's article.
See:
Decipherment of three identical Harappa tablets m478 to m480 with uprooted trees narrative
Uprooted trees signified on the field symbols are a metaphor for the wealth created by working on smelters: kuTi 'tree' rebus: kuThi 'smelter'.
The decipherment demonstrates that the three tablets are catalogues of metalwork competence of the Sarasvati Civilization artisans and DO NOT evoke the two Gandharvas -- Nalakubera and Manigriva -- mentioned in Harivamsa and Bhagavata Purana, However, the names of Gandharvas are significant and signify the context of metalwork and lapidary-work wealth created by Sarasvati Civilization artisans: Nalakubera includes the suffix -kubera signifying the divinity of wealth; and Manigriva signifying the wealth of mani 'jewels' worked on by lapidaries of the civilization. It is possible that Harivamsa and Bhagavata Purana narratives are remembered memories of the wealth produced by the artisans of Sarasvati Civilization which had been embedded in the collective consciousness of the people.
Nanditha Krishna refers to a segment of these three tablets calling it 'uprooting of trees' in her arguments presented below. Her arguments are: 'The Mahabharata floats in and out of India’s consciousness. In a soapstone excavated from MohenjoDaro, Larkana district, Pakistan, there is a boy wearing bangles in both arms uprooting two trees from which emerge two human figures. The only person in our entire cornucopia of literature who does this is Krishna who uproots two trees from which emerged two cursed Gandharvas—Nalakubera and Manigriva. This is among the many popular stories in the Harivamsa and Bhagavata Purana, which establish the divinity of Krishna. Both Dr EJH. Mackay and Prof VS Agrawal have accepted the identification of the seal with the Yamalarjuna episode. The terracotta tablet from Nepal adds yet another dimension to the mystery of the Mahabharata'"
The Yamalarjuna episode mentioned by Nanditha Krishna is also echoed in
Figure 3. Uprooting of trees
S. KalyanaramanSarasvati Research Centre
A New Nepal Terracotta Tablet Predates Mahabharata to Harappa Culture
The terracotta plaque represents Krishna and Arjuna in the epic battle
Nanditha Krishna | 28 Oct, 2019 Nanditha Krishna is a historian, author and environmentalist, and director of the CPR Institute of Indological Research in Chennai
The tablet was authenticated by Oxford Authentication using thermoluminescence or TL dating method on May 14th, 2019. The result of the authentication confirms that the date of the firing was between 2,300 and 3,600 years ago, that is, 1,600 BCE to 300 BCE. This date corresponds to the end of the Indus Valley Civilisation (1,500 BCE) and the historical period (600 BCE), a period known as the Painted Grey Ware Culture, which has been associated with settlements at Hastinapura and the villages mentioned in the Mahabharata – Indraprastha (Delhi), Panprastha (Panipat), Sonprastha (Sonipat), Tilprastha (Tilpat) and Vyagprastha (Baghpat). The TL result means that the story of the Mahabharata was much older, and the tablet was used as an illustration for ritual or storytelling purposes.
Now TL dating is used to measure the accumulated radiation dose of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments). A faint blue light glows when a small sample of ancient pottery is heated. During its lifetime, the pottery absorbs radiation from its environment, creating thermoluminescence. The older the pottery, the more radiation it absorbs and the brighter the pottery sample glows. By measuring the TL, we can calculate how much radiation has been absorbed and use this information to calculate the approximate age of the pottery.
The terracotta plaque is most likely to be the representation of Krishna and Arjuna. While the epic talks about four horses for several people, Arjuna is specifically identified with a chariot drawn by four horses named Saibya, Sugriva, Meghapushpa and Balahaka. Salya, another great charioteer, drove Karna’s chariot with a single horse named Vayujit. However, the identification of Arjuna and Krishna in this tablet is a problem. The outstretched hand is generally associated with Arjuna, who points at his grandfather and cousins and refuses to fight them. Thereafter begins the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna’s advice to Arjuna. But Krishna chose not to fight, so the second quiver of arrows could not belong to him. So, why is it there? One reason might be that Arjuna, the world’s greatest archer, may need more than one quiver of arrows for a day of battle. Alternately, when Arjuna asks Krishna what he would do if Arjuna is killed in battle, Krishna says,“maybe fire will become cold, but IF it happens, I will take up my weapons and kill Karna and Salya”. So, maybe, Krishna had his weapons with him, “just in case”?
If the two figures are Krishna and Arjuna, this would be the first portrayal of the Gitopadesham scene which led to the Bhagavad Gita. The two figures are wearing Harappan-style headbands. In fact, to quote Pine, “the overall art is much more akin to Harappa than to Mauryan sensibilities.”This terracotta tablet is a very exciting discovery. It takes the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata to a much earlier period than what is generally accepted.
Interestingly, BR Chopra’s TV serial Mahabharat depicts the identical half-chariot in the Kurukshetra war. This chariot resembles a similar half-chariot from Sanauli in Uttar Pradesh’s Baghpat district, excavated by a 10-member team led by Dr Sanjay Kumar Manjul, Director of the ASI’s Institute of Archaeology, Delhi. The find is said to date back to 2,000 BCE-1,800 BCE, although a final date will be available only after carbon dating results are published. Baghpat was one of the five villages demanded by the Pandavas. However, whereas the Sanauli wheel is solid, the Nepal wheel is spoked.
The spoked wheel is described in the Rig Veda and is considered to be uniquely Vedic. However, Dr BB Lal has identified a wheel with spokes depicted in a terracotta from Rakhigarhi, while Dr SR Rao had also shown a depiction of a wheel with spokes from Lothal. This means that it was already present in Harappan culture. The date of this tablet begs a question—was the spoked wheel Harappan or Vedic, or both?
![A New Nepal Terracotta Tablet Predates Mahabharata to Harappa Culture]()
Figure 3: Uprooting of the trees
The Mahabharata floats in and out of India’s consciousness. In a soapstone excavated from MohenjoDaro, Larkana district, Pakistan, there is a boy wearing bangles in both arms uprooting two trees from which emerge two human figures. The only person in our entire cornucopia of literature who does this is Krishna who uproots two trees from which emerged two cursed Gandharvas—Nalakubera and Manigriva. This is among the many popular stories in the Harivamsa and Bhagavata Purana, which establish the divinity of Krishna. Both Dr EJH. Mackay and Prof VS Agrawal have accepted the identification of the seal with the Yamalarjuna episode.
The terracotta tablet from Nepal adds yet another dimension to the mystery of the Mahabharata
3600 – 2300 years ago (Oxford authentication certified) Terracotta tablet sample number N119f21 | At least two explanations thus far, from Mahābhārata
There are at least 2 explanations, from Mahābhārata, currently:
First explanation: Sri Krishna and Arjuna during Gitopadesham (by Dr. Nanditha Krishna, Oct 28 2019) [See details in https://openthemagazine.com/special/new-nepal-terracotta-tablet-predates-mahabharata-harappa-culture/ (posted above)
Second explanation: Arjuna and Uttara during विराट पर्व – गोहरणपर्व युद्ध?
Summary graphic of second explanation:
I came across some aspects (1, 3, 4, 6.1) of the seven points (ref. image above for 1-5, 6.1-2, 7) of the second explanation in tweets 1 and 2 by @shyamsshrishri (both tweets dated Nov 4, 2019). It was further developed through discussion (see screenshots of some exchanges, below) between @shyamshrishri and @meghkalyansun1 before being summarised by @meghkalyansun1 on Nov 7, 2019. Attributions of point-wise contributions can be found at the bottom right of the summary image.
…
Some of the verses from BORI critical edition, used in the chart above, with translations from Gita press edition
Some points to note:
1. To the extent that reading anything into something that comes without explicit descriptive identification is a leap, both of the above explanations are, needless to say, interpretive leaps, with other possibilities too, perhaps, existing.
2. Once the above-mentioned interpretative leap has been made (as is done with several thousands of artefacts that don’t come with an explicit descriptive identification) one way to determine the most comprehensive (and hence perhaps compelling) explanation, amongst multiple ones, could be to see which explanation covers as many of the attributes of the artefact that are visible.