Dear Dr. Kalyanaraman (yes, Piotr, that is his writing, not
Kelkar's!),
You write:
> Our monograph points to the possibility of the presence of
> austro-asiatic in the Sarasvati civilization area, the saptasindhu
> region. This has been accepted by HH Hock.
...as well as by your _bête noire_ Prof. M. Witzel and several other
Vedicists who nevertheless, because they have repeatedly denounced
the fancifulness and political bias of your linguistic hypotheses,
are completely ignored by you when dealing with Austroasiatic
substrate(s) in Indo-Aryan.
> Kuiper's work on Nahali and munda words in Sanskrit, provides a
> promising approach to identify the austro-asiatic cultural
substratum > in the vedic, post-vedic continuum.
Not "cultural", but "linguistic" substratum. In fact, if we base our
analysis solely on the loan words in the Rgveda that are tentatively
identified as Austroasiatic, we can say practically *nothing* on the
culture(s) of those hypothetical early Austroasiatic speakers of the
Greater Panjab, unless we certify they were the Harappans themselves
or, at any rate, populations living in close proximity to the
Harappans (which is what Witzel has striven to do for many years
now).
> Many lexemes of Santali/Mundarica
The correct language name is "Mundari"; "Mundarica" is a Latin term
chosen by John Hoffman for the title of his great work, the
_Encyclopaedia Mundarica_ (in 16 vols.). Calling
Mundari, "Mundarica" is like calling Hindi, "Indica"!
> point to homonyms which may explain, rebus, the Sarasvati
hieroglyphs > related to furnaces, minerals, metals and alloys. In
fact, the entire > corpus of 4000 epigraphs with over 400 'signs'
and over 100 'pictorial > motifs' seem to relate only to this
category.
This is your well-known, fixed, obsessive idea you have repeated _ad
nauseam_, but the fact remains, that the interpretation of Indus
symbols as "hieroglyphs related to furnaces, minerals, metals and
alloys" is a product of your imagination. To my knowledge (and,
mind, I am an expert "Kalyanaramanologist"!), no other scholar in
the world has accepted your hypothesis. Moreover, you have been
looking for the key to decipher the 4,000 years old "Saraswati-
Sindhu hieroglyphs" in *modern* Munda languages without ever taking
into consideration the fact that you should, in case, build your
argument on sets of *Proto*-Munda lexemes that, for the most part,
haven't been reconstructed *yet*.
> SK Chatterjee thought > Munda was the substratum for austro-
asiatic.
You mean for *Proto*-Austroasiatic? Or else, for which specific
Austroasiatic language(s)?
> This can form a starting > hypothesis for further studies to
unravel the interactions among > munda-dravidian-indo-aryan dialects
in a linguistic area starting from > 6500 BCE to 500 BCE. A long
time-span indeed.
Indeed.
> The start date of 6500 > BCE relates to the find of the burial of
a woman at Mehergarh wearing > wide s'ankha bangle and s'ankha
ornaments. (s'ankha = turbinella pyrum > which is native and
indigenous to the coastline of bharatam and an > industry which
continues even today in Gulf of Mannar (Tiruchendur, >
Ki_r..akkarai) and the s'ankha dvi_pa near Surat, Gujarat. S'ankha is
> a metaphor which defines early hindu civilization and the work of
> riverine, maritime people in evolving this civilization from Nahali
> base (Tapati river valley not far from Bhimbhetka)
The above are but other fixed ideas of yours unsupported by any
serious research. What has the find of _Turbinella pyrum_ at the
Neolithic site of Mehrgarh to do with your fancied "interactions
among Munda-Dravidian-IA dialects in a linguistic area starting from
6500 BCE to 500 BCE"? Why should s'ankha be taken as a "metaphor
which defines the early Hindu civilization" (sure, 8,500 years
ago!)? What is your basis to infer that the authors of the
Mesolithic and Neolithic cave paintings at Bhimbetka spoke an early
form of Nahali, apart from the fact that the latter is considered to
preserve a prehistoric linguistic substratum which is neither IA nor
Dravidian nor Austroasiatic?
> The question of austro-asiatic has to be related to the early
> civilizational advance in Bharatam from 7th millennium to the
> sea-faring peoples of the hindumahasagar parivar.
Aha! Here you go again with the "Hindumahasagar Parivar"! Cf. my
cybalist msg. at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/41862
> The philological challenge is to provide voice to the paintings on
> Bhimbhetka caves.
Perhaps through a spirit séance? :-)
> Even Sankalia called a painting on one of the caves > a
representation of Krishna, wielding a cakra and riding a chariot.
Don't you know that the Bhimbetka paintings have some *layers*? The
later ones date from well into the historical period; in fact,
depictions of Hindu divinities are found in those layers.
> Of course, there are paintings showing ponies (maybe, equus
sivalensis, > may be of the type of Shetland pony with 34 ribs
mentioned in the > Rigveda or of Spanish barb).
Another of your typical "horseplays".
> What was the bronze ratha found at > Daimabad called by the makers
of that civilizational site?
Go, figure it out... Which language among those included in
your "linguistic area starting from 6500 BCE to 500 BCE" would you
use to trace the name of that bronze chariot model?
> Soma? What soma? It could be electrum, like assem (s'm) in ancient
> Egyptian or somnakay as in Gypsy or soma man.al 'sand containing
> silver ore' in Tamil. What soma? Metal.
The idea that soma was a metal (electrum) is another fixed idea of
yours that no scholar would agree upon. Try to get hallucinations or
mystic visions by simply licking a piece of electrum! :-)
Alas...
Regards,
Francesco