Indus and Sumeria contacts

[Guest guest]

In the Open Page section, The Hindu (April 1, 2003), Chennai

Prof. Witzel mentions the benefits of co-operation

between GoI and Indologists from abroad. And, comments about

the Vedic Indus "theories" of D. Frawley.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2003/04/01/stories/2003040100110

200.htm

 

The Hindu (April 8, 2003) has a response from

Witzel to N. S. Rajaram:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2003/04/08/stories/2003040800010

200.htm

 

 

MW>"Similar scenarios hold for the Dravidian languages —

>especially if indeed related to the Nostratic ones (Afroasiatic,

> Georgian, Uralic, Indo-European, Altaic) — and as most of

>their agricultural vocabulary seems closely related to

>Sumerian (Blazek & Boisson, Archiv Orientalni 60, 1992, 16-37)."

 

The Indus civilization and Sumeria had many interactions, and

parallels.

a) The "Great Bath" in both Mesopotamia and IVC

George A. Barton 1926-7 (1928). On the so-called

Sumero-Indian seals, AASOR 8:79-85 (p. 80, The Great Bath at Lagash)

& Gerd Gropp 1992, A 'Great Bath' in Elam, SAA 1989: I, 113-8.

 

b) Naming of grandsons in ancient Near East and in s. India:

INDOLOGY/message/573

(Incidentally, I. J. Gelb was the first to suggest

a link between mleccha and Meluhha. Parpola connects

Meluhha with names like (ta)mi_lakam).

 

c) Maritime contacts

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9906&L=indology&P=R7320

 

d) Export of etched beads from IVC

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0011&L=indology&P=R24335

 

e) Indian shankha shells into Sumeria.

 

The anthropologist Clarence Maloney takes IVC as dravidian.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/02/05/stories/2002020500210

100.htm

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

 

The Hindu Open page Archives:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/arcop.htm

[Guest guest]

Millions of kiln-fired bricks were used in the Indus buildings.

Perhaps in the Indus area it was possible with the social system of

serfs and workers to manufacture kiln-fired bricks more than in

Mesopotamia.

 

"....Thus the theory of Kosambi (1950), criticized in Brough (1953,

xiv-xvi), that the Vedic brahmins were to a large extent recruited

from the priest class of the conquered pre-Aryan population, would

seem to be valid at least in the case of the AGgirases.

In conclusion, available evidence suggests that the altar

construction of the Agnicayana, and also the ukhA and mahAvIra

pots--chief ritual vessels of the Agnicayana and Pravargya,

respectively-- are of pre-Vedic origin, and should be explained by

the techniques for firing bricks and pots that were known to the

indigenous population, and that can ultimately be traced back to

the Indus Civilization. Within a wider context, this is not

surprising. The use of baked bricks, though not confined to the

Indus Civilization, was one of its characteristic achievements. Baked

bricks were used in Sumer, though not abundantly. In Mohenjo-daro and

HarappA, the use of baked bricks, rather than mud of mud bricks, was

normal (Wheeler 1968, 8, 55)." (F. Staal, p. 138, Agni, pt. I)

 

It's intersting that the units of length in Indus and Sumeria

are related. Linear scales, kiln-firing of bricks, - Did the

Harappans get from Sumer as also some aspects of relgion?

 

G. G. Joseph, The crest of the peacock: Non-European roots of

mathematics, Penguin, 1991, p. 222

"This uniformity of weights over such a wide area and time is

quite unusual in the history of metrology. Rao (1973) who examined

the considerable finds at Lothal, showed that the weights

could be classified as 'decimal':if we take the plumb-bob

weighing approximately 27.584 grams as a standard, representing 1,

the other weights form a series with values of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5,

2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500. Such standarization and durability

is a strong indication of a numerate culture with a well-established,

centralized system of weights and measures.

Scales and instruments for measuring length have been discovered

at Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa and Lothal. The Mohanjo-Daro scale is

a fragment of shell 66.2 mm long, with nine carefully swan, equally

spaced parallel lines, on average 6.7056 mm apart. The accuracy

of the graduation is remarkably high, with a mean error of only

0.075 mm. One of the lines is marked by a hollow circle, and the

sixth line from the circle is indicated by a large circular dot.

The distance between the two markers is 1.32 inches (33.5 mm),

and has been named the 'Indus inch'.

There are a number of interesting links between this unit of

measurement (if indeed this is what it was) and others found

elsewhere. A Sumerian 'shushi' is exactly half an Indus inch, which

would support other archaeological evidence of a possible

link between the two urban civilizations."

 

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

In his latest book "The Indus Civilization" (2002, Alta Mira), Dr.

Possehl lists as one of the _myths_ about IVC that the use of kiln

fired bricks was typical of that culture. Surprisingly, the words for

brick appear in post RV texts, and in pre-Mature Harappan contexts,

baked bricks are rare. (They have been reported at Kalibangan).

Ishtika has cognates in Tocharian, Old-Iranian etc., as you would be

aware.

 

The view that agnichayana is a borrowing by 'Vedic Aryans'

from 'Dravidian Harappans' (suggested in H. S. Converse,

The agnicayana rite:indigenous origin?, History of Religions XIV:81-

95, 1974) is contradicted by C. G. Kashikar in an article (I will

have to search for the paper at home in case you are interested in

the reference), which argues (pace. Converse, whose views he

controverts) that the rite was a natural internal development within

the tradition of Vedic karmakanda. I find the latter view more

acceptable.

 

It is a fallacy that the Vedic culture was ignorant of pottery wheel

(cf. the chakra of a kulaala mentioned in the Maitrayani Samhita) or

that all of IVC pottery was made by wheel (less than 1/2 was, and the

relapse into hand made pottery post IVC is paralleled in other areas

of the old world). In this connection, the writings of Jean Jarrige

might be read.

 

Vishal

 

-- In INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...>

wrote:

>

> Millions of kiln-fired bricks were used in the Indus buildings.

> Perhaps in the Indus area it was possible with the social system of

> serfs and workers to manufacture kiln-fired bricks more than in

> Mesopotamia.

>

> "....Thus the theory of Kosambi (1950), criticized in Brough (1953,

> xiv-xvi), that the Vedic brahmins were to a large extent recruited

> from the priest class of the conquered pre-Aryan population, would

> seem to be valid at least in the case of the AGgirases.

> In conclusion, available evidence suggests that the altar

> construction of the Agnicayana, and also the ukhA and mahAvIra

> pots--chief ritual vessels of the Agnicayana and Pravargya

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal"

<vishalsagarwal> wrote:

> In his latest book "The Indus Civilization" (2002, Alta Mira), Dr.

> Possehl lists as one of the _myths_ about IVC that the use of kiln

> fired bricks was typical of that culture.

Kiln-fired bricks in the Indus culture

-------

 

"Systematic excavation has hardly started and the chief site,

Harappa, was plundered between 1856 and 1919 for building materials.

During the construction of the Lahore-Multan railway line

*hundreds of thousands* of ancient kiln-burned bricks were used

to provide a firm footing for the rail track across muddy

lowlands". - Thomas Burrow in A. Cotterell, Ency. of ancient

civilizations, 1980

 

------------

 

"The Harappans used millions of kiln-fired bricks

as well as countless sun-baked ones" (p. 83, H. S. Converse,

The agnicayana rite:indigenous origin?, HR 14:81-95, 1974)

 

-------------

 

Frits Staal says the following in page 138 of Part I of "AGNI: The

Vedic Ritual of the Fire Altar":

 

"....Thus the theory of Kosambi (1950), criticized in Brough (1953,

xiv-xvi), that the Vedic brahmins were to a large extent recruited

from the priest class of the conquered pre-Aryan population, would

seem to be valid at least in the case of the AGgirases.

 

In conclusion, available evidence suggests that the altar

construction of the Agnicayana, and also the ukhA and mahAvIra pots--

chief ritual vessels of the Agnicayana and Pravargya, respectively--

are of pre-Vedic origin, and should be explained by the techniques

for firing bricks and pots that were known to the indigenous

population, and that can ultimately be traced back to the Indus

Civilization. Within a wider context, this is not surprising. The

use of baked bricks, though not confined to the Indus Civilization,

was one of its characteristic achievements. Baked bricks were used

in Sumer, though not abundantly. In Mohenjo-daro and HarappA, the use

of baked bricks, rather than mud of mud bricks, was normal (Wheeler

1968, 8, 55). Whatever the explanation of its early distribution, it

is likely that the art of firing bricks was retained by the

inhabitants of Northwest India even after the great Indus cities had

disappeared."

 

--------------

 

J. Bronkhorst, Is there an inner conflict of tradition,

(Aryan and Non-Aryan volume, Harvard, '99)

"Does the opposition which the early Indian tradtion itself

introduces by distinguishing Aryans from non-Aryans help us to

understand later developments of Indian culture? ...

here the use of bricks in the Agnicayana, which H. S. Converse (1974)

tried to explain through the assumption of indigenous influence

on Vedic ritual. Another example is the Mahavira vessel in the

Pravargya, which J.A.B. van Buitenan (1968) considered to have an

iconic nature, and the worship he did not hesitate to describe as

pUjA. ... Indeed, Heesterman concludes his article "Brahmin, ritual,

and renouncer" with the foll. remark: "The brahmin, then, is the

exemplar of the irresolvable tension that is at the heart of

Indian civilization."

 

-----------------------

 

>Are the IVC bricks sun-dried or kiln-baked?

>Thanks for your answer.

 

According to the same authority (Mackay, 1948), the IVC people as a

rule used (in M-D and Harappa) kiln-baked bricks only for the whole

building. But sometimes in the foundations of the buildings each row

of kiln-baked bricks was followed by a row of sun-dried bricks (i.e.,

they alternated) - or - even more rare case - only sun-dried bricks

were used. All best wishes, Yaroslav Vassilkov

------------

 

 

"It is clear that nomads do not carry bricks across high mountain

passes and are unlikely to construct altars from them. It would

stand to reason, then, to assume that the bricks of the Agnicayana

were a product of Indian soil. This thesis was defended by H. S.

Converse in an important article of 1974. Her argument for the

indigenous origin of the agnicayana was not only based upon the

hypothesis that the art of baking bricks is unlikely to have been

known to nomads, but upon the more important positive fact that

it was common in Northwest India in the early second millennium BC,

from the time of Indus Civilization cities such as Harappa."

(F. Staal, p. 119, Greek and Vedic geometry, JIP, 27, 1999).

 

There is a reason why kiln-fired bricks (manufactured by the serf

laborers?) in the Indus culture, but not in Mesopotamia.

 

G. G. Joseph, The crest of the Peacock, Penguin, 1991

p. 223

" A notable feature of the Harappan culture was its extensive use

of kiln-fired bricks and the advanced level of its brick-making

technology.

[...]

In areas where stone was not readily available (and this included most

of the Harappan sites), there was a need for something more solid

than mud-brick, which was easily destroyed by rain or floodwater.

The momentous discovery was the technology for firing bricks.

There is evidence, especially from Kalibanga, a pre-Harappan site,

that kiln-fired bricks were already in use, but by the time the

Harappan culture had matured there had been a veritable explosion

in the production and use of such bricks."

 

Lot more about millions of kiln-fired bricks in the Indus area,

and how they use the 'Indus inch', exellent for reuse even today,

etc., in Joseph.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Possehl has taken all the evidence that you have cited into account.

So why does he reach an opposite conclusion?

 

Because Harappa and Moenjodaro are just two of more than a 1000 sites

in IVC, even though they are important sites. He mentions them

specifically, and states that practically all of MD is made of fired

bricks, and much of Harappa as well. However, this is not true of an

overwhelming majority of the other sites excavated so far (a little

more than 100 have been excavated).

 

On Kalibangan, the presence of kiln fired bricks at pre-Harappan

levels is also more of an anomaly. And it was duly noted in my

earlier post also. Again, Possehl notes this.

 

You will note that all the myriad references that you have cited

pertain to these 3 sites only. Therefore, we cannot extrapolate the

conclsions to cover IVC in general. In sum, we can safely say that in

our present state of knowledge, it is grossly innaccurate to say that

baked bricks are typically of IVC.

 

I urge you to read Dr. Possehl's book for an elaboration. You can see

its description at amazon.com at

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-

/0759101728/qid=1050693522/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-8094070-2292729?

v=glance&s=books

 

 

Bringing in pravargya in the context of agnicayana does not seem to

be relevant to me, unless you want to extend the 'non-Aryan'

influence on Vedic rites in Pravargya to 'prove' that all of Vedic

rituals were heavily influenced by 'pre-Aryan' heritage.

 

I do not have any independent opinion on Pravargya, and prefer Dr.

Jan Houben's opinions over those of Dr. JAB van Buitenen, wherever

the two differ. However, even here, I refer you to Kashikar's

article 'A propos on Pravargya', and would urge you to read his

article on the origins of agnicayana also, before citing Converse

again. After all, we are not indulging in a name-dropping match. On

pottery used in Vedic rites, besides the monograph of Wilhelm Rau, we

also have -

 

KASHIKAR, Chintamani Ganesh. 1969. Pottery in the Vedic Literature.

Indian Journal of History of Science, Vol IV, Nos. 1-2 (May-Nov

1969), pp. 17-26

 

The following article also might be of interest to you -

 

GOPAL, Ram. Refutation of T. Burrow's Theory on the Significance of

Arma and Armaka. PAIOC, 28th session (Dharwar, November 1976), pp.

245-255

 

Vishal

 

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...>

wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal"

> <vishalsagarwal> wrote:

> > In his latest book "The Indus Civilization" (2002, Alta Mira),

Dr.

> > Possehl lists as one of the _myths_ about IVC that the use of

kiln

> > fired bricks was typical of that culture.

> Kiln-fired bricks in the Indus culture

> -------

>

> "Systematic excavation has hardly started and the chief site,

> Harappa, was plundered between 1856 and 1919 for building

materials.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal"

<vishalsagarwal> wrote:

 

> Because Harappa and Moenjodaro are just two of more than a 1000

>sites in IVC, even though they are important sites.

 

There are many small village sites, usually after the decline

of the Harappan civilization. But Harappa and Mohenjodaro

are the 2 out of 5 major cities when the civilization

was in its peak.

 

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Yes, but if only 5 out of a 1000 odd sites are cities, then cities

are not very 'typical' of IVC. Is it not?

 

Consider India at around 1850. Around 15% or even less population

lived in the cities, and so, a typical Indian settlement was

a 'village', not town or city. Likewise, when we say that Harappan

settlements 'typically' used kiln fired bricks, that statement

reflects a myth. A myth which is a widely accepted belief but which

does not rest on the real situation.

 

This realization is sufficient to discount the hypothesis that

the 'typical' use of 'brick-kiln fired bricks' in IVC sites means

some deep contacts between IVC and Mesopotamia. The hypothesis is

based on a flawed interpretation of the current evidence available to

us. In fact, in the mature Harappan context, Harappa was more like an

outpost, with very few Mature Harappan sites west of Ravi.

 

BTW, there are reports that there are 3 sites in the Bhatinda

division which are also quite as large as the other 5. If this turns

out to be true, then Harappa and Mohenjodaro become 2 of the 8

largest sites of IVC that we know of.

 

Vishal

 

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan" <naga_ganesan@h...>

wrote:

> INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal"

> <vishalsagarwal> wrote:

>

> > Because Harappa and Moenjodaro are just two of more than a 1000

> >sites in IVC, even though they are important sites.

>

> There are many small village sites, usually after the decline

> of the Harappan civilization. But Harappa and Mohenjodaro

> are the 2 out of 5 major cities when the civilization

> was in its peak.

>

> N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal"

<vishalsagarwal> wrote:

> BTW, there are reports that there are 3 sites in the Bhatinda

> division which are also quite as large as the other 5. If this turns

> out to be true, then Harappa and Mohenjodaro become 2 of the 8

> largest sites of IVC that we know of.

 

Technology has advanced so that archaeologists can

whether these claims are true.

 

German archaeologists have located the City of Uruk,

and possibly even the tomb of Gilgamesh from ancient Sumeria.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2982891.stm

"He said the amazing discovery of the

ancient city under the Iraqi desert

had been made possible by modern

technology. "By differences in magnetisation in

the soil, you can look into the ground," Mr Fassbinder added.

"The difference between mudbricks and sediments in the Euphrates

river gives a very detailed structure."

This creates a "magnetogram", which is then digitally mapped,

effectively giving a town plan of Uruk."

 

Co-operation between specialists (in philology,

archaeology) from India, Pakistan and the rest of the world

will help.

 

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vishalsagarwal" <vishalsagarwal> wrote:

>In fact, in the mature Harappan context, Harappa was more like an

>outpost, with very few Mature Harappan sites west of Ravi.

 

In the mature Harappan context, Mehenjadaro and Harappa in Pakistan

are the most important sites. Nothing to rival them has been found

so far.

 

All the sites of Stage I (Beginnings of village farming communities)

is found not only west of Ravi, but west of Indus river also.

Fig 2.5 Sites of Stage one, p. 33, G. Possehl, The Indus civilization,

2002.

 

Stage Two: The developed village farming community is mostly west

Indus too (Fig. 2.7, Sites of Stage Two, p. 37, Possehl)

 

Most early Indus sites are west of Ravi (fig 2.11, p. 41)

and a minority have been found on Hakra (Pakistan) and

Ghaggar(Rajasthan).

 

Mature Harappan sites of 50 hectares or more is mostly

in Pakistan, Table 3.1 p.63

 

In the Sindh, Nagoor is a large mature Harappan site.

Tamil Nadu has Nagore, Nagapattinam & Jaffna is

called Nagadviipa in the Buddhist sources.

-uur and -kOT(Tai) are typical dravidian placename

endings.

 

N. Ganesan