Little man with huge potential

Mar 2019
1,535
KL
artifact is definitely genuine, it has been endorsed by archaeological survey of india was exhibited by an indian art guy called naman ahuja, the only people who are claiming its fake are those who have published research paper to declare indus script as not literate script but only set of symbols for instance steve farmer, michael witzel etc.

the date is how ever contested, one can clearly see its brahmi letters written over it, although the artifact itself indicates a much earlier dating, the copper anthropomorhes do belong to copper hoard culture which are dated to the second mil BC easily or atleast early first mil BC.

the only thing which separates it from regular brahmi are few symbols which dont seem to be brahmi symbols, some scholars opine that there were many brahmi scripts not just one script for instance bhatiprollu script, tamil script and hathi gumpha script which later evolved into orissa script, but sanjay manjul who obtained this artifact concludes that it is from the second mil or earlier than brahmi and epigraphically earlier than brahmi script.

but this artifact has two uses, if it is dated earlier, it will extend the timeline of indian literacy and if dated later than this will ultimately be a very big evidence of the indus and copper hoard connection with the historic period of india.

some people based on paleographic evidences date brahmi no earlier than mauryan period, but if the dating between 2nd mil BC to 1st mil BC, it would effectively mean either later half of 2nd mil BC or first half of 1st mil BC

it is also stated that the mound from which it was obtained was related to indus civilization from haryana.


1559555717976.png

one can clearly see it in 0:45

this paper also discusses it, here you can also see reference to pragdhara, manjul paper on it.

8 Manjul, S.K. and Arvin Manjul 2007 Composite Anthropomorphic figure from Haryana: A solitary example of Copper Hoard. Pragdhara 17 : 17-26.
http://www.jorhsa.com/Edition_2015/Copper.pdf

1559554285231.png
1559554339767.png

regards
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,755
New Delhi, India
OK, it is Varaha. But why would it have a deer or unicorn in his stomach?
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
A composite copper Anthropomorphic figure along with a copper sword was found by the speaker at the Central Antiquity Section, ASI, Purana Qila in 2005. This composite copper Anthropomorph is a solitary example in the copper hoard depicting a Varah head. The Anthropomorphic figure, its inscription and animal motif that it bears, illustrate the continuity between the Harappan and Early Historical period
IIC| India International Centre - Home

does indicate chalcolithic period

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/50573

These anthropomorphic figures, harpoons, ax blades (celts), and antennae swords were cast and hammered from unalloyed copper. They may be dated to 1500 to 1000 B.C. Given that pure copper is a relatively soft metal and most of the objects show little or no signs of wear, it seems likely that their function was largely dedicatory. Hoards of such objects have been found across north India, the greatest concentration being in Uttar Pradesh. The findspots suggest they were ritually deposited in rivers or marshes, though several related antennae swords were recorded in late Indus Valley civilization (ca. 1500 B.C.) burials at Sanauli.
1559555297058.png

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
most of the copper hoards have been found in such a manner, meaning locals accidentally discovered it and the survey verified it, this is not the first item to be registered in such a way, so calling it fake because its not discovered through systematic excavation is BS as most of the copper hoards artifacts have been collected in such a manner, when ASI verifies it than it does hold a mark of authenticity.

regards
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
i think this artifact is not being studied or give a damn by any scholar of because a very big reason.

it is from copper hoard culture and probable date of 1000 BC or 1500 BC, 1600 BC even 2000 BC according to scientific dating of the culture, but paleographically it should not be existing earlier than ashokan period/western dating of brahmi.

if the artifact is studied a lot of paleographically dated artifacts will come under serious criticism, it is possible that entire concept on brahmi paleography may change.

i know of some artifacts which have been dated by indian scholars from pre mauryan time period for instance,

Barli Inscription - Wikipedia
Earlier scholars assigned the Barli inscription to the pre-Ashoka period, but more recent scholars have assigned it to a later date.[1]

According to historian G. H. Ojha, who discovered the inscription in 1912, the inscription contains the line Viraya Bhagavate chaturasiti vase, which can be interpreted as "dedicated to Lord Vira in his 84th year". Based on this reading, Ojha concluded that the record was inscribed in 443 BCE (year 84 of the Vira Nirvana Samvat), 84 years after the death of the Jain leader Mahavira.[2] K. P. Jayaswal disagreed with Ojha's interpretation, but nevertheless assigned the inscription to a pre-Ashoka period: he dated it to 374-373 BCE, equivalent to the year 84 of an imaginary calendar era.[3]

Historians such as D. C. Sircar and S. R. Goyal have disputed that theory that the inscription is dated in the Vira Nirvana Samvat, arguing that this era was first used in the early medieval period, and most probably did not exist in the century following the death of Mahavira.[3][4] On paleographic grounds, the inscription can be assigned to the first century BCE.[5] Sircar dismisses Ojha's reading of the inscription as inaccurate, and states that word "Bhagavata" in the inscription refers to the first century BCE Shunga king Bhagavata.[6]
as one can see from above that this inscription being dated to first BC is also very dubious since there is no shunga king name bhagavata

there is another inscription attributed to the Nandas

1560087849657.png

Proceedinds And Transactions Of The Second Oriental Conference (1923) : The Calcutta University : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

it also has the capability to question aryan migration theory and illiteracy of the aryans, if a study is conducted on this artifact which most probably may result in a very ancient dating of brahmi script than imagined.

it should be noted tht early buddhist literate mentions no less than 64 scripts among one of which is brahmi, so brahmi script definitely is not the ancestor of all the indian scripts as it is mentioned as only one of them.

the present western scholars reject any view of early dating of brahmi, this copper hoard inscription will definitely challenge a lot of their presumptions.

if all the artifacts dont date from pre mauryan era, when even the nandas are verified empire even from the greek source, something does seem very fishy to be honest.

some scholars even believe that ashokan pillars which most of them never mention ashoka by his real name may predate ashoka and be from Bindusara period.

it is also interesting that the entire classical period of india between 600 BC to 200 BC have been give just one timeline and one big dating, based on northern polished ware culture, the recent dating may push the presumptuous dating back atleast a couple of centuries.

it also has indo aryan words as suggested and also indus type figures which will connect indus with historic periods as well.

big scholars wont like to revise the date and small scholars wont like to jeopardize their career with such controversy.

most status quo scholars would consider it as a fake and probably not attempt to study it because of status quo dating of brahmi and the controversy this artifact may cause.

regards
 
Last edited: