Hieroglyph Tradition

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

1

Continuity of Sarasvati hieroglyph tradition from ca.1000 BCE into historical periods of Hindustan

Sarasvati hieroglyphs comprise of over 100 pictorial motifs and over 400 signs. Almostall glyphs are remarkably precise including those glyphs which are referred to asgeometric designs or dotted circles or svastika or ligatured composite animals or ligaturedsigns. This monograph explores the continuity of this hieroglyph tradition into thehistorical periods in India consistent with other cultural markers which continue in Hinducivilization traditions (markers such as worship of shivalinga, wearing of shankhabangles, wearing of sindhur in the parting of the hair, continued use of cire perduetechnique for casting bronze murti-s, wearing of uttariyam comparable to the garmentworn by the ‘priest’, yogic postures, postures of sitting in penance).The hieroglyph tradition continues most pronouncedly in the tradition of punch-markedand cast coins from circa 1000 BCE. Some glyptic styles are also evident in Begramivories and on the sculptures of Bharhut and Sanchi stupas and other architecturalmonuments. Ref. http://www.scribd.com/doc/11114439/Ancient-HieroglyphsThis continuity established in the arrays of evidence adduced in this monograph lead toone hint – that the words associated with the glyphs (and meanings assigned tohomonyms in the context of metalsmiths’ and miners’ repertoire) in desa bhaashaa are acontinuum of the mleccha (meluhha) – the spoken, ungrammatical vernaculars as distinctfrom arya bhaashaa which was a literary tongue with strict adherence to grammaticalrules.The continuity of the Sarasvati civilization into the historical periods has profoundimplications with particular reference to language evolution. The mleccha words arelikely to have been borrowed into the languages and dialects spoken in the interactionareas of the civilization which extended fully along the Vedic River Sarasvati basin.There are indications that Munda-speakers moved towards the Ganga river basin as thesmelting of iron ore begain circa 18

th

century BCE. The area of Munda-speakers isvirtually coterminus with the bronze age civilization sites.

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com

2Pinnow map.

Austroasiatic Languages:

Munda (Eastern India) and Mon-Khmer (NEIndia, mainland SE Asia, Malaysia, Nicobars)http://www.ling.hawaii.edu/austroasiatic/ Bronze Age sites of eastern Bha_rata and neighbouring areas: 1. Koldihwa; 2. Khairdih;3. Chirand; 4. Mahisadal; 5. Pandu Rajar Dhibi; 6. Mehrgarh; 7. Harappa; 8. Mohenjo-daro; 9. Ahar; 10. Kayatha; 11. Navdatoli; 12. Inamgaon; 13. Non Pa Wai; 14. Nong Nor;

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com

315. Ban Na Di and Ban Chiang; 16. Non Nok Tha; 17. Thanh Den; 18. Shizhaishan; 19.Ban Don Ta Phet [After Fig. 8.1 in: Charles Higham, 1996,

The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia

, Cambridge University Press].The linguistic area of Sarasvati civilization interaction zones; 2) the existence of Language ‘X’ to explain the large number of agriculture-related words in Bharatiyalanguages with no cognates in Indo-European; and 3) the presence of Munda words inVedic/Sanskrit point to this language continuum. Colin Masica could not findetymologies – from Indo-European or Dravidian or Munda or as loans from Persian -- for31 percent of agricultural and flora terms of Hindi. These words could be part of Language ‘X’. (Colin Masica, 1979, Aryan and non-Aryan elements in North Indianagriculture, in: Deshpande and Hook (eds.),

Aryan and non-Aryan in India

, Ann Arbour,Univ. of Michigan, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies, 55-152). This substratefound in the evidence attested in middle and late Vedic texts in Uttar Pradesh is differentfrom proto-Munda (without the typical prefixes). Only 5.7% and 8.9% of the terms wereseen to be directly from Munda or Dravidian. The absorption of agricultural glosses intoall subsequent Bharatiya languages is a unique phenomenon attesting to both LanguageX and proto-Munda substrates. FBJ Kuiper had also noted this phenomenon that manyagricultural terms stemmed neither from Munda nor from Dravidian (1955, Rigvedicloan-words in: O. Spies (ed.)

Studia indologica Fetschrift fur Willibald Kirfel zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres

, Bonn, Orientalisches Seminar: 137-9; 1991,

Aryansin the Rigveda

, Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi)Southworth (1979) also notes that the flora terms did not come from either Dravidian orMunda. Southworth found only five terms which are shared with Munda, leading to hissuggestion that “the presence of other ethnic groups, speaking other languages, must beassumed for the period in question” (205), with hardly the ‘slightest hints’ as to what thelanguages were. Out of 121 terms for plants, Southworth finds only a little over a thirdhave Indo-European etymologies. (Southworth, Franklin, 1993, ‘Linguistics andArchaeology: prehistoric implications of some south Asian plant names’ in:

South Asiaarchaeology studies

(81-85), ed. G. Possehl, New York, International Science; 2005,

Linguistic archaeology of the south Asian subcontinent

, London, Routledge-Curzon,Taylor and Francis Group)

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com

of 00

Leave a Comment