1 Indus Musicians in Mesopotamia

2 Bull Lyre of Indus Valley and 90 words that Harappans

3 May Have Spoken
4
5 Shail Vyas
6 Homi Bhabha Fellow, Mumbai
7
8 shail@songsofmystery.org
9
10
11
12
13 Abstract
14
15 Human is a musical creature. It is seen ubiquitously through times and spaces
16 that a certain percentage of human population is always musically inclined
17 irrespective of their profession. Music is also an integral part of many social
18 activities humans generally observe like religious practices, marriages, deaths
19 and what more. Due to the possible presence of Harappan population in
20 Mesopotamia, it may be surmised that a number of Harappan musicians and
21 some of their musical instruments could also have reached there. In this
22 investigation, crucial help could also come from the fact that many a times,
23 names of musical instruments travel with them.
24
25
26 On account of a very likely possibility of such an occurrence, a study of
27 archaeological and Sumerian textual records in Mesopotamia was strongly
28 suggestive of a significant presence of Harappan musicians and musical
29 instruments in Mesopotamia. In fact, study of Sumerian text has shown that
30 about 30 musical terminologies out of a total of nearly 60, in the categories such
31 as names of instruments, singers, names of songs and even musical notations,
32 etc. in Sumerian (PSD) are found to be phonetically and semantically very similar
33 to ancient Indian terms with some “Sumerianization”. The study also
34 demonstrated certain patterns in the way words were sumerianized. To verify
35 the data, other words were studied from the areas that are related to Harappan
36 presence in Mesopotamia based on the patterns obtained from musical
37 terminologies; which yielded many more positive results. A total of 90 such
38 words are found till now, which are reported here. Furthermore, the study of
39 iconography in Mesopotamian archaeological records has also shown very
40 compelling parallels in musical traditions. Importantly, it predicted a possibility
41 of a Harappan lyre, shaped realistically like a bull, that may have travelled from
42 Indus to Mesopotamia and evolved there in local styles in the forms as found in
43 the Royal Cemetery of Ur.
44
45
46 Introduction
47
48 It is sad that Harappan Archaeomusicology hadn’t been studied in any
49 detail so far and Harappan music remained just a quick passing reference in
50 publications. Present paper is a part of an ongoing effort to work towards a
51 better situation. In a forthcoming paper, we discuss in detail some of the
52 archaeological artifacts (iconography/toy forms/likely non-perishable parts of
53 instruments) found at various Indus sites that show a possibility of presence of a
54 variety of instruments including:
55
56 (a) Arched Harp, Drum (both are seen on seals)
57
58 (b) Multiple specimen of what are most likely different types of tuning pegs
59 (made of ivory, bone and terracotta, sometimes decorated) with expected
60 damage patterns, found at various sites indicating possibility of multiple types of
61 stringed instruments. Similar pegs are used till today in the Indian subcontinent
62 in a very large variety of instruments (c.f. Fig. 1.1-1.2 Harappan and modern
63 tuning pegs). Fig 1.3 shows comparison of damage patterns in Harappan
64 specimen and modern tuning peg of a Sitār. As apparent in both the cases, lower
65 part is damaged more. This part goes inside the body of instrument and since the
66 tuning is required to be adjusted frequently, more damage occurs to this part in
67 general. String marks are present at similar position in both examples and
68 appear fairly consistent, as musicians usually tie the strings quite neatly. Modern
69 Sitār uses fine metallic strings but for Harappan specimen, it is more likely to be
70 gut (or even silk?) (For presence of silk see Good, Kenoyer, Meadow 2009 “New
71 Evidence For Early Silk In The Indus Civilization”).
72
73 (c) A terracotta object that is probably a sound box of a small or toy lute.
74

2
75 (d) Early Ocarina (vessel flute) type instruments found in miniaturized form of
76 terracotta toy whistles. A tradition of similar instruments is still present in rural
77 areas of Pakistan and India around some major Harappan sites. (c.f. Fig. 2
78 Harappan whistles and modern vessel flutes).
79
80 (e) Terracotta specimen of rattles; etc.
81
82
83

84
85

86
87
88 Fig. 1.1 Examples of use of tuning pegs (indicated by arrow) in south Asian instruments:
89 (clockwise from left) sindhī sārangī, sitār, sārindā (many more examples can be seen in fig.
90 6 and 7)
91
92

93
94
95 Fig. 1.2 some of the pegs (terracotta) found at various Harappan sites
96

3
 97
98 Fig. 1.3 A Comparison of damage patterns in (Left) a Harappan (terracotta) and (Right)
99 modern Indian tuning peg (of a Sitār, wooden) (details in Vyas, forthcoming). In both the
100 cases, lower part is damaged more. String marks (indicated by arrow) appear at similar
101 position and are fairly regular in both, as musicians usually tie the strings quite neatly.
102 Modern Sitar uses fine metallic strings but for Harappan specimen, it is more likely to be gut
103 (or even silk?).
104
105

106

107
108 Fig. 2: Harappan toy whistles (above) and (Below) a tradition of similar instruments, which
109 is still present in rural areas of Pakistan and India around some major Harappan sites. Only
110 major difference between Harappan and modern ones is the number of holes.

4
111 However, in context of a large urban civilization like Indus, presently
112 available evidence in archaeology doesn’t seem to give any comprehensive
113 account of music. Profuse use of perishable material in the manufacture of
114 instruments usually makes it very difficult in archaeology to provide any direct
115 evidence for actual instruments in reasonable detail. Most importantly, there is a
116 conspicuous absence of central temples, palaces and (especially) elaborate elite
117 burials (Kenoyer 2006a), where one would hope to seek better evidence, like in
118 Egypt or Mesopotamia. Another equally important issue is, according to Kenoyer
119 (2010) “(…) because the earliest phases of the Indus cities are deeply buried,
120 very few examples of early art have been recovered”. Standardized nature of
121 majority of seals, which usually employs animals (real or composite/imaginary)
122 as main motif, further compounds the problem. Few parts of instruments, which
123 are non-perishable or a few fortunate depictions of instruments in iconography,
124 are the only help here. The Indus script remains undeciphered till date and with
125 presently available corpus of ‘Harappan text’ where about 5 signs is average total
126 length of a piece of text, i.e. on seals, how much a decipherment would directly
127 help in understanding the intricacies of their musical ideas is highly doubtful.
128
129 However, Indus was the largest urban civilization of its time. Sea-faring urban
130 Harappans built planned cities with water management and sewage systems,
131 implemented civilization wide standardizations for units of measurements and
132 seals, etc., had very developed craftwork and associated technologies and more.
133 It is highly likely that they had reasonably intricate musical traditions as well; it
134 is only natural that it would be so.
135
136 But there still are some untapped resources that can bring new knowledge, i.e.
137 the other contemporary cultures and civilizations with which Harappans traded.
138 Harappan articles, trade connections and even settlements are found at far and
139 wide places and the most important of them is Mesopotamia. According to
140 Massimo Vidale, “The connections between these ancient Bronze age
141 civilizations could one day help answer a lot of questions. People moved around
142 a lot more than we think, and interactions between cultures were just as rich as
143 they are today.” Vidale’s 2004 paper “Growing in a Foreign World: For a History
144 of the “Meluhha Villages” in Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium BC” is a good
145 reference here. The paper, in his own words, is “aimed at summarizing part of
146 the information piled since Gadd’s paper (1932), and presently available on the
147 question of the Meluhhan communities in Mesopotamia”. I’ll reproduce a few
148 relevant passages here as needed.

5
149 Nature of connections between Mesopotamia and Indus
150
151 “In 1932, C.J. Gadd opened a new line of archaeological research, collecting and
152 publishing in a fortunate paper a series of seals from Mesopotamia (found during
153 digs or acquired on the antiquarian market) sharing what he regarded as an
154 “Indian style”” (Vidale 2004). Since then numerous scholars have studied the
155 nature of relations between both the civilizations. Connections between Indus
156 valley and near east may have started quite early.
157
158 “Long-distance trade by navigation between the two poles of the Gulf was
159 already established by late-Neolithic and early Chalcolithic times (Carter 2002a,
160 2002b). It was the beads and shell trade that, in Mesopotamia, in the Gulf, most
161 probably at Susa and possibly even in Bactria, gradually promoted the local
162 settlement of families of specialized merchants and craft-persons from the Indus
163 valley, who channeled along their tracks the supply of raw materials and, in
164 general, the complex know-how of the Indus crafts. Archaeological evidence
165 pushes back the beginning of this process at least to the end of the 4th
166 millennium BC, when Late Uruk Sumerian engravers frequently employed the
167 colummella of the Indian shank shell (Turbinella pyrum) for their cylinder seals
168 (Kenoyer, in print)“ (Vidale, 2004).
169
170 J. M. Kenoyer too, is of similar opinion about Harappans in near east, “(…) if
171 people were moving from one region to the other, it is not unlikely that trading
172 colonies were established at different locations along the trade route.” He goes
173 even further and suggests possibility of marriage exchange to solidify trade
174 relations as documented in later historical periods (Kenoyer 2013). If true, this
175 would obviously have implications in the spread of Harappan cultural elements
176 in Mesopotamia.
177
178 Apart from the known settlement of Harappans, situated in the territory of the
179 old city-state of Lagash, there is evidence that suggest colonies and trade
180 enclaves of Indus merchants and craftsmen at many other sites in Mesopotamia
181 (and surrounding area) like Ur, Kish, Susa, Elam and more.
182
183 The trade between Mesopotamia and Meluhha (the name of Indus in
184 Mesopotamian records, agreed by most scholars) flourished with time and by the
185 middle of third millennium BCE and later, a larger-scale trade is attested in
186 archaeological records. Meluhhan ships exported to Mesopotamia precious

6
187 goods among which exotic animals, such as dogs, perhaps peacocks, cocks,
188 bovids, elephants (? Collon 1977) precious woods and royal furniture, precious
189 stones such as carnelian, agate and lapis lazuli, and metals like gold, silver and tin
190 (among others Pettinato 1972; During Caspers 1971; Chakrabarti 1982, 1990;
191 Tosi 1991; see also Lahiri 1992 and Potts 1994). In his famous inscriptions,
192 Gudea, in the second half of the 22nd century BC, states that Meluhhans came
193 with wood and other raw materials for the construction of the main temple in
194 Lagash (see Parpola et al. 1977: 131 for references).
195
196 “(...) Indus settlers in Mesopotamia intelligently established critical connections
197 with local cults and temples. Besides temple overseers, in charge of scribes and
198 craftpersons, keepers and financers of sacred gardens, traders transporting
199 cereals for the temples (…) Wood, timber for construction, ships and wooden
200 furniture are consistently mentioned as coming from Meluhha, and both the
201 trade in timber and the overall industry had a strategic economic role in 3rd and
202 early 2nd millennium economies” (Vidale 2004).
203
204 During Casper (1979) concludes, “When one sums up the salient points (…) and
205 adds them to various applicable factors (…) then one is almost irresistibly drawn
206 to the acceptance of strong cultural and/or commercial liaison, between
207 Mesopotamia and Indus valley, already established in Early Dynastic-or pre
208 Akkadian-times.”
209
210 In this milieu, it is not unlikely that some Harappan musicians (and other
211 performing artists) may have also reached Mesopotamia. A few possible
212 scenarios could be as follows:
213
214 (a) It is seen everywhere in human societies that a certain percentage of
215 population is always musically inclined, irrespective of their profession. Their
216 level of expertise may vary but some of them would surely be very accomplished.
217 In the absence of outrageous number of ways of entertainment and complicated
218 life like modern times, it is highly likely that a larger percentage of people would
219 have been musically active in the past. Music is also an integral part of many
220 social (and personal) activities humans observe like religious practices,
221 marriages, deaths and what more. Therefore, on account of these very natural
222 reasons, the possibility of arrival of Harappan music in Mesopotamia seems
223 likely even for no other reasons.
224

7
225 (b) For long distance trade, overland or maritime, it is likely that traders would
226 keep means of entertainment along with them. Some big and wealthy traders
227 could even carry along a reasonable orchestra, dancers or other performers with
228 them. This can be postulated a little further that these artists would also perform
229 for their friends, partners and wealthy customers in Mesopotamia (at the
230 banquettes perhaps), which would not only be helpful for trade but could also
231 have played a significant role in popularizing Harappan culture.
232
233 (c) Music (and other performing arts) itself is a profession and so is the business
234 of making and selling musical instruments. The manufacturing of musical
235 instruments would not be very different from that of royal furniture, which the
236 Indus trade centers were regularly supplying to Mesopotamia. The possibility of
237 involvement of Harappan craftsmen in the manufacture of musical instruments
238 in Mesopotamia is thus a tenable premise and as evidence suggest, could be the
239 case (see below).
240
241 This process may have its roots in early times of their relations due to these
242 natural and trade related reasons. We should also remember the scale of such
243 probable interactions in terms of both the area and time, which makes it more
244 likely that the actual situation could be a combination of many such phenomena
245 occurring simultaneously at different places and times in Mesopotamia.
246
247 While there is clear evidence for a lot of Harappan activity in Mesopotamia,
248 situation back home in Indus Valley, surprisingly, was completely different.
249 According to Vidale, “(…) it soon became clear that no Mesopotamian article – for
250 example, not a single Sumerian cylinder seal – had been recovered at Mohenjo-
251 Daro (nor would have been found in later excavations at other Indus sites). (…)
252 On the basis of the present evidence, it is more likely that, although we have
253 ascertained that Indian groups travelled, traded and settled in the west,
254 Sumerians did not travel directly to the coasts and plains of the Indus, nor they
255 settled – at least in substantial groups – in the Indus cities” (Vidale 2004).
256 Parpola in his book “Roots of Hinduism” (2015) says that “(…) the fact that
257 hardly a single object of clearly West Asian origin has been excavated in the
258 Indus realm, makes it very unlikely that the language spoken by the
259 Harappans was any of the West Asian languages”. Another important issue here
260 is that Harappans settled in Mesopotamia never came back. This situation, thus,
261 forces us to conclude that any significant Mesopotamian impact on local musical
262 traditions in Indus Valley is highly unlikely. But there can still be some (although,

8
263 most likely very rare) musical elements from Mesopotamia that may have
264 reached Indian subcontinent. Such a find would be equally useful but the
265 identification of those elements can be very tricky as there is no support in
266 archaeology for such an occurrence. Therefore, any speculation in this regard
267 should be splendidly supported otherwise.
268
269 But such ideas were presented earlier too. Archeomusicologist Fancis W. Galpin,
270 in his 1937 book “The Music of Sumerians and their Immediate Successors – The
271 Babylonians and Assyrians”, had drawn some parallels between Indian and
272 Mesopotamian music and musical instruments. He even suggested the Indian
273 origin of a couple of the instruments seen in Mesopotamia. Comparing the music,
274 Galpin remarked that the musical note intervals were taken as “leaps” and
275 “slides” in very ancient sāman chant of India, as in the modern rāgās. It may have
276 been so in Babylonia, too (pp. 64). At that time, Indus civilization was recently
277 discovered and little was known about the depth of inter-civilizational
278 relationship, although it was evidently clear that there were connections
279 between them. Unfortunately, nobody worked on musical instruments in the
280 Indus civilization and this angle of musical connections was not investigated
281 until this study.
282
283 We shall discuss textual and archaeological records separately in what follows.
284
285 Textual Evidence
286
287 Musical instruments have a unique, albeit majorly overlooked quality i.e. when
288 they travel to other places, many a times, their names travel with them too, just
289 like any technical term. E.g. Violin, Guitar and especially Harmonium (which has
290 now become an integral part of Indian music), etc. are all known with the same
291 names in India (and the world). This is a very common phenomenon recorded
292 since ancient periods, e.g. musical terms from Sumerian are seen not only in
293 Akkadian but also in Hittite, Egyptian, etc. as well. Therefore, if Harappan musical
294 instruments indeed reached Mesopotamia, then it is possible that some of their
295 ‘Indian’ names may also have got recorded in the text.
296
297 Language of Indus Valley civilization is among the most hotly debated topics with
298 contenders including Dravidian, Indo Aryan, Austro-Asiatic, an unknown
299 language and also ‘all of them’ probably with a lingua franca.
300

9
301 While musical tradition is not directly or specifically related to language but
302 names of instruments are. Any surviving Indian names of instruments in
303 Mesopotamian records can also give us some clues on language/s spoken by
304 Harappans.
305
306 The Translators of Meluhhan Language in Mesopotamia
307
308 Assyriologist A. Leo Oppenheim in his book “Ancient Mesopotamia:
309 Portrait of a Dead Civilization” 1964, mentioned a Mesopotamian cylinder seal
310 referring to an interpreter of the “Meluhhan” language, Shu-ilishu, who probably
311 lived around 2020 BCE during the late Akkadian period. Possehl (2006)
312 suggested that he may have been literate and could read the undeciphered Indus
313 script.
314

315
316
317 Fig. 3.1 Seal of Shu-ilishu, the Interpreter of Meluhhan Language
318
319 Fig. 3.1 shows a roll out of the seal. Iconography of the seal has a very curious
320 thing to note: depiction of a musician playing an instrument. Musicologist
321 Richard Dumbrill in his book “The Archaeomusicology of the Ancient Near East”
322 (pp. 367) identified the instrument as a kettledrum placed on stand and a person
323 sitting at far left is playing the instrument (c.f. Fig. 3.2, an example of similar
324 tradition in India).
325

10
326
327 Fig. 3.2 Mizhavu, played in Koodiyattam performances in Kerala in southern India. In fact, a
328 large variety of pot/kettle drums are found till today all over India. They are present since
329 earliest known records, e.g. Rigveda mentions ‘dundubhi’, which is a kettledrum.
330
331 Specific depiction of a musician with an instrument on a seal related to an
332 interpreter of Meluhhan language is quite intriguing and supports the
333 assumption that Harappan traders may have brought musicians and musical
334 instruments with them, or it may show some kind of significance of music (and
335 animals) in relation with identity of Harappans in Mesopotamia. This appears
336 quite probable when we see that about 50% of the Sumerian names of musical
337 instruments and related words are quite similar to early Indian terminologies.
338
339 Sumerian (a language isolate) was chosen to be studied first (and the focus of
340 present paper), because this was the language spoken in Mesopotamia at the
341 time when relations between Indus and Mesopotamia started and developed.
342 Akkadian (a Semitic language) started to spread in Mesopotamia after conquest
343 of Sargon of Akkad around 2250 BCE (exact date is debated). Even then,
344 Sumerian was still spoken in the region, creating a sprachbund, area of linguistic
345 convergence (Deutscher 2007). It remained language of literature, liturgical and
346 scientific texts. While it gradually became extinct as spoken language after 2000
347 BCE, as a classical language it was preserved till as late as around 200 BCE (100
348 AD?). Another issue is that Akkadian borrowed heavily from Sumerian.
349 Therefore it was necessary to search for Harappan musical instruments in
350 Sumerian first and then to extend the search in Akkadian. After all, the seal of
351 interpreter of Meluhhan language, while from Akkadian period, still have
352 inscriptions rendered in Sumerian.
353
354 Since, many a times, random phonetic similarities in some words can be found

11
355 between languages, certain strict measures were used to identify a positive
356 result:
357
358 1. Words should, not only be similar phonetically but semantically as well, i.e.
359 they should have similar meaning too. Only occasional variations within
360 same context were allowed, which is a natural occurrence. Such as name of
361 an instrument in one language recorded as part of instrument in other, or
362 name of a performance or style recorded as name of instrument etc.
363
364 2. To maintain verifiability, the phenomenon to look for is “direct word
365 transfer”. E.g. there should generally be no need to invoke proto-roots and
366 create unattested combinations using them. This is not to suggest that such
367 interactions may not have happened but these hypothetical occurrences
368 were deliberately kept out from the present paper. For a nonmusical
369 example, a person-name “which sounds Indian and may be created by
370 combining these two roots” would not be considered as a positive result here.
371
372 3. Phonetic variations should be within the scope of the usual patterns seen in
373 other words. A general formula for these patterns is given below.
374
375 Sumerian names of musical instruments were compared with early terms found
376 in two major language families in India namely Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, as
377 well as instruments from other areas, e.g. Santhāli terms. As the study
378 commenced, some of the Sumerian terms began to show affinity to those found
379 in early Sanskrit texts. These texts pertain to the same geographic area as that of
380 Indus civilization. While there is a huge debate on their time periods, but at any
381 rate, some of them are quite close temporally as well and even overlap with late
382 Harappan period. Michael Witzel (1999) considers the early Vedic texts, since
383 they are earlier than Dravidian texts by at least a thousand years, to be at an
384 advantageous position of having the oldest linguistic data of the region.
385
386 Detailed list of words is given later in this text; here are just a few examples:
387
Sanskrit Sumerian Sanskrit meaning Sumerian meaning
ḍiṇḍima dimdim a kind of drum a musical instrument
mṛja meze a kind of drum a drum
śarkara šukarak a kind of drum a musical instrument
vāṇa bana arched harp arched harp
ḍamaru dimmaršu a sacred drum a musical instrument

12
 śamyā šamuša a kind of cymbal or a type of instrument
other musical
instrument
mangalatūrya malgatum an instrument played a musical instrument
at festivals
mṛtyutūrya miritum an instrument played a musical instrument
at funerals
sāyaṃtūrya sabitum an instrument played a musical instrument
at evening
kinnara nar a class of a musician and singer
anthropomorphic
musicians and
singers
ṣaḍja sagida a musical notation a musical notation
gada gude a musical instrument a lute
gargar harhar/ ĝarĝar a lute a musical instrument
svara saĝara a musical notation a musical notation
stavitṛ eštalu a praiser, singer a type of singer
gatṛ/gala gala a singer/a musical lamentation singer
instrument and
throat
388
389 There are about 60 words in total in Pennsylvania Sumerian dictionary that are
390 related to music, particularly in categories like singers, musical instruments,
391 musical notation, songs, etc. Out of which some 30 words are found to be very
392 similar to Sanskrit phonetically as well as semantically but with an apparent
393 “Sumerianization”, as evident in examples given above.
394
395 Interestingly, many similar instruments are found in the southern region of India
396 as well, where the Dravidian languages are primarily spoken today and similar
397 cultural symbolism can also be seen in their designs. But the Dravidian names of
398 instruments did not show resemblance to Sumerian names, except for just a
399 couple of terms, which too seem to be of Sanskrit origin. In fact, there are many
400 terms of Sanskrit origin in south Indian musical spheres. Another clinching
401 evidence comes from a study of musical scales. There are some seven scales
402 mentioned by Anne Kilmer that are recorded in Mesopotamia; all of which are
403 heptatonic (having seven notes) (Kilmer 1998) and are descending in order
404 (Dumbrill 2017). Earliest known scale from north India is of Sāmveda, which too
405 is heptatonic and descending; and importantly, it is similar to one of those seven
406 recorded in Mesopotamia. Whereas, scales in early Dravidian texts are pentatonic
407 (having five notes) and only later heptatonic scales enter Dravidian music.
408

13
409 But the curious part is the “Sumerianization” seen in most cases. Which is, in a
410 way, seems similar to “Phono-Semantic Matching”.
411
412 Phono-Semantic Matching
413
414 Phono-semantic matching (PSM) is the incorporation of a word into one
415 language from another, often creating a neologism, where the word's non-native
416 quality is hidden by replacing it with phonetically and semantically similar
417 words or roots from the adopting language. Thus, the approximate sound and
418 meaning of the original expression in the source language are preserved, though
419 the new expression (the PSM) in the target language may sound native. (See
420 Zuckermann 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2006, 2009)
421
422 One of the Sumerian text (from Sargonic period) records that Lu-sunzida “a man
423 of Meluhha” paid to the servant Urur, son of Amar lu KU, 10 shekels of silver as a
424 payment for a tooth broken in a clash. The original text is as follows:
425
426 BM 86314 = E. Sollberger, CT 5o (I972) no. 76.
427
428 Obv.
429 1. 10 gin kug
430 2 kug zu gul-la-kam
431 3 ur-ur ni-is-ku
432 4 dumu amar-lu-ku4
433 5 lu-sun-zi-da
434 6 lu me-luh-ha-ke
435 7 i-na-ab-su-su
436
437 Rev.
438 8 lugal-iti-da
439 9 maskim
440 10 ugula EN-ilu
441
442 The name Lu-sunzida literally means “Man of the just buffalo cow,” a name that,
443 although rendered in Sumerian, according to the authors (Parpola et al. 1977),
444 does not make sense in the Mesopotamian cultural sphere and must be a
445 translation of an Indian name (Vidale 2004). Another similar example is found on
446 an Indus style seal with Sumerian inscription from 2500 BCE. (Aruz & Wallenfels

14
447 2003a no. 301b, p. 410; Gadd 1932a no.1, pp.5-6, pl.I: 1; Mitchell T C 1986a no.7,
448 p.280, fig.111; Woolley 1956a p.174). The inscription on the seal is believed to be
449 an Indian name translated to Sumerian (either SAG.KU(?).IGI.X or
450 SAG.KU(?).P[AD](?)). Unfortunately, in both the cases, we don’t know their
451 original Indian forms; therefore it cannot be verified that whether or not these
452 names had any phonetic similarity to their respective origin. But this is not the
453 situation with the names of musical instruments and other words that are found
454 in this study, as corresponding Indian words are known.
455
456 Curiously, a comparative study demonstrated certain patterns in the way words
457 were sumerianized in terms of handling of phonemes and word structures that
458 are not compatible with Sumerian. Some part of it could be a necessity to make
459 them expressible in the Cuneiform script.
460
461 Sanskrit has 33 consonants, 11 vowels (14 in Vedic variety), whereas Sumerian
462 has only 16-18 consonants and 4 vowels (Sumerian is still not understood well
463 and there is a debate on their exact number of consonants and vowels and their
464 phonetic values). There are other inherent limitations too, like no word in
465 Sumerian can have two or more consecutive consonants in the beginning or at
466 the end of the word and not more than two anywhere in the word (mostly at the
467 intersection where morphemes join). This is not the case with Sanskrit, which
468 uses clusters of half syllables (consonants with no power or vowel attached to it)
469 as well as many compounds like tṛ, pṛ, etc. Let us call them “non-compatibles”
470 here, some examples are mentioned with the list of words.
471
472 Close study of musical terms suggested some consistency in process of
473 sumerianization, which was evident in majority of cases. It can be loosely
474 understood in general as:
475
476 Sanskrit word à Removal of non-compatibles à Replacement with closest
477 Sumerian phoneme/morpheme/root/word à Final word rendered in
478 Sumerian
479
480 Along with this (a sort of) global theme, some other intermittent sub-patterns
481 were also observed in some examples (mentioned with the associated words in
482 the list).
483
484

15
485 Words related to Music
486
487 Sans. = Sanskrit
488 Sum. = Sumerian (Period of attestation is given with the words wherever
489 possible)
490 Akk. = Akkadian (while Sumerian is point of discussion here but Akkadian terms
491 are given wherever possible)
492 wr. = written as
493
494 (1) Sans. ḍiṇḍima िड#$डम a kind of drum. This instrument is played till today in
495 India, known as dimdi.
496 Sum. dimdim a musical instrument wr. ĝešdim3-dim3
497
498 ṇ (ण्) is a non-compatible, rest of the word remains the same. In Sanskrit,
499 there are many similar names of instruments like dundubhi, dardura,
500 dardara, bhambha, etc. as found in the Rigveda and later texts, showing a
501 continuing tradition of such names.
502
503 (2) Sans. mṛja मृज a kind of drum (lex., mṛj root RV, AV)
504 Sum. meze a drum (3x: Old Babylonian) wr. me-ze2; meze; mezem?
505 Akk. manzû
506
507 ‘two consecutive consonant in the beginning of the word’ and ‘ja’ are non-
508 compatibles. (‘ṛ’ is actually a vowel in Sanskrit, which is also not present in
509 Sumerian). Interestingly, while mṛja is shown as lexical entry in Sanskrit
510 dictionaries but a somewhat ‘apabhraṃśa’ (literally means "corrupt") and
511 probably later form ‘muraja’ is attested in Mahābhārata and Nātyaśāstra.
512
513 (3) Sans. śarkara शक#र, a kind of drum
514 Sum. šukarak a musical instrument (5x: Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Baby-
515 lonian) wr. ĝeššu-kara2
516
517 (4) Sans. sālikā सािलका a kind of flute
518 Sum. SALI a musical instrument wr. SA.LI Akk. Pagû
519
520 Large number of similar variations or word pairs are seen in Sanskrit itself

16
521 and in later IA languages as well, e.g. bhumi-bhumika, jeev-jeevika, etc.
522 Alternatively, removal of ‘kā’ could be an example of clipping, a.k.a.
523 “truncation" or "shortening"; in this particular case apocope, i.e. the loss of
524 one or more sounds from the end of a word. Clipping is seen in many other
525 examples as here. There are no non-compatibles, hence, no change in the
526 word otherwise.
527
528 (5) Sans. vāṇa/bāṇa arched harp, arrow (Rigveda), a harp with 100 strings
529 (Taittirīya Saṃhitā, Brāhmṇa, Śrauta Sūtra)
530 Sum. bana/pana/ban arched harp; bow; a geometric figure (63x: ED IIIb,
531 Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr.
532 ĝešpana; ba-na; ĝešpanax(|ŠE.NUN&NUN|) Akk. qaštu
533
534 Both the syllables are non-compatible, but such isoglosses are commonly
535 seen. Similar variations of the word are found in Indian musical sphere too
536 like Bāṇam and Pena (both instruments played using a bow). A sign in
537 Harappan script is clearly derived from a multi-stringed arched harp (Sachs
538 1944) (sign no. 311 Mahadevan 1977). Indus script possibly had its roots in
539 about 3500 BCE and was fully formed by 2800 BCE (Kenoyer, 2006b).
540 Their presence in script suggests that they were already popular by then.
541 Therefore, it is highly likely that multi stringed arched harps were present
542 in Indus culture at least (well) before 2800 BCE. It is also an important
543 instrument in vedic literature, in Rigveda and others. Taittirīya Saṃhitā
544 mentions it as an instrument with 100 strings. A simple single stringed
545 ‘harp’ i.e. ‘musical bow’ is basically a bow in construction with a simple
546 resonator e.g. human mouth, any pot with bow resting on it while playing, a
547 gourd, etc. Men probably had bows long before 3500 BCE (13000 BCE?).
548 Adding one more string is very easy and in a way, an obvious next step. So
549 it is not improbable for harps to have evolved into simple multi stringed
550 variety (e.g. 2 or 3 strings) relatively early after people had realized
551 musical use of a bow. Harps continued and remained popular in India till as
552 late as second half of 1st millennia AD, after which they faded away.
553
554 Vāṇa appears to be an onomatopoeic word, which represents sound of the
555 string of bow or bow-shaped harp. Phonetic quality of the second syllable ṇ
556 is very close to sound of resonance of a vibrating string that is heard after
557 the initial attack of the sound. Fig. 4 shows volume envelope curve (ADSR)
558 of a sound waveform. This phenomenon can be easily experienced by

17
559 vocalizing or mimicking sound of any stringed instrument that decays
560 quickly i.e. which do not have long or continuous sound like a violin. E.g. a
561 musical bow, but any similar sound would suffice for the purpose. When we
562 try to vocally mimic sound of a vibrating string, a component of a nasal /ṇ/
563 like sound is mostly present there in combination with other sounds
564 depending on timber of instrument being mimicked.
565

566
567 Fig. 4 Volume envelope curve (Attack-Decay-Sustain-Release) of a sound waveform
568
569 In the Vedic literature, another meaning of vāṇa (or bāṇa) is ‘arrow’. This is
570 interesting; as a similar sound would be produced by the action of shooting
571 an arrow. Hollow and airy quality of /v/ could be a representation of whizz
572 of arrow and /ṇ/ of the sound of the string vibrating after that. This
573 suggests a possibility that origin of this word could be very old, expressed
574 in the root vaṇ (√ वण्), to sound. Thus, Vāṇa could be what produces that
575 sound whether it’s an arrow or the bow itself in the form of a harp. There
576 are many other words found in Sanskrit text which clearly indicate its
577 relation to sound, such as:
578 vaṇa वण sound, noise
579 vāṇī वाणी sound, voice, music (plural a choir of musicians or singers)
580 vīṇā – A generic term for the category of stringed instruments. Also used as
581 suffix with any instrument that is stringed, to denote its nature. E.g.
582 Kachhapi vīṇā, Rudra vīṇā, etc. In other words, vīṇā could be any
583 instrument that produces the sound by means of vibrating string. It
584 appears in Taittirīya Saṃhitā and Atharva veda and remains highly popular
585 till today. It is possible that vīṇā is an invented term, coined colloquially
586 most probably by musicians (and not grammarians).
587 kvaṇa !ण the sound or tone of any musical instrument

18
588 dhvaṇ !वण् to sound
589 Interestingly, in both the above example (kvaṇa, dhvaṇ) different
590 phonemes are added in the beginning of the word. As explained above, this
591 could be due to different characters of the sounds these words may be
592 representing. E.g. kvaṇa, with its strong attack section, could be inspired
593 from sound of a string instrument played with a plectrum, which would
594 naturally have stronger attack than something played with fingers. C.f.
595 kvaṇit to vibrate.
596 śravaṇa !वण the act of hearing śatapatha brāhmaṇa, mahābhārata, etc.
597 vāṇaśabda वाणश%द the sound of a lute, the whizz of an arrow (here the
598 connection is with lute instead of harp along with arrow, which may
599 suggest that its not about a particular instrument but the sound of it).
600
601 While arched harp exists in Dravidian records too but the Dravidian word
602 for it, ‘vil’ or ‘vil yazh’, does not match as closely with the Sumerian word.
603
604 In the context of Indo-European languages, the word vāṇa is exclusive to
605 India. It is part of those about 300 words from Rigveda listed by Kuiper
606 (1955, 1991) and proposed to be part of ‘Harappan’ language by some
607 (Witzel 2001(?)).
608
609 (6) Sans. gargara गग"र a kind of musical instrument (Rigveda viii , 69 , 9)
610 (possibly a lute)
611 Sum. harhar/ĝarĝar a musical instrument (31x: Ur III) wr. ĝešhar-har

612
613 (7) Sans. sara सर a cord, string (c.f. sans. trisarī ि"सरी Name of a stringed
614 instrument having three strings)
615 Sum. sa string (of a bow, musical instrument), gut, sinew, tendon, catgut
616 string (68x: Old Babylonian) wr. sa Akk. dāmu; erru; matnu; pitnu
617
618 It could be result of clipping seen in many example here. Attestation is late
619 in Mesopotamia and there are older words with similar meaning. Sā is also
620 an abbreviation for the first note in Indian scales.
621
622 (8) Sans. stavitṛ !तिवतृ a praiser, singer, Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā

19
623 Sum. eštalu a type of singer (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. eš3-ta-lu2; aš-ta-lu2
624 Akk. aštalû
625
626 Sanskrit word is pronounced as istavitr. –vitr is clearly a non-compatible.
627 Word seems to have entered in Akkadian period as attestation is late and
628 word is very similar in both Sumerian and Akkadian.
629
630 (9) Sans. gātṛ गातृ a singer
631 Sans. gala an instrument; throat; also gai singer
632 Sum. gala singer, lamentation singer (500x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash
633 II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. gala; gala10 Akk. kalû
634
635 (10) Sans. Svara musical notation (Rigveda)
636 Sum. saĝara a musical notation (54x: Old Babylonian) wr. sa-ĝar-ra
637
638 ‘sva’ is non-compatible.
639
640 (11) Sans. ṣaḍja ष"ज A musical notation, an ancient musical scale (one of the
641 three ancient intonation schemes i.e. grama) Nārdiya Śikshā, Nātyaśāstra,
642 etc.
643 Sum. sagida a musical notation; a musical instrument (59x: Old
644 Babylonian) wr. sa-gid2-da Akk. sagiddû
645
646 ‘ḍja’ is non-compatible.
647
648 (12) Sans. godhā गोधा a chord; a musical instrument - possibly a lute (Griffith,
649 Roth, Hillebrandt etc.) (Rigveda viii, 58, 9). Sans. godhāvīṇākā गोधावीणाका a
650 kind of stringed instrument (Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra xiii, 3, 17) (the term
651 godhāvīṇākā would generally mean “a vīṇā i.e. stringed instrument named
652 godhā“). Also Sans. gada गद name of a musical instrument, and Sans. guṇa
653 गुण the string of a musical instrument, chord
654
655 Sum. gude lute (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. gu3-de2
656
657 Non-compatible ‘o’ and ‘dhā’. It is seen in many examples here that ‘o’ is
658 seemingly replaced by other vowels.

20
659
660 (13) Sans. ḍamaru डम# a sacred drum shaped like an hourglass, used by the God
661 śiva
662 Sum. dimmaršu an instrument (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešdim
3-mar-šu

663
664 Fancis Galpin (1937) had suggested that ḍamaru may have originated in
665 Indus Valley. There is a signs in Indus script that appears quite similar to it
666 (sign no. 214 and its variations, Mahadevan 1977). Ḍamaru is the
667 instrument of śiva in Hinduism, the originator of music. Hourglass drums
668 are played till today in sumptuous varieties throughout India, which
669 supports its ancient Indian origin as suggested by Galpin and others.
670
671 (14) Sans. ghuṣ घुष् to sound; to cry or proclaim aloud, call out, announce
672 publicly, declare, etc. (Rigveda, Mahabharat, etc.)
673 Sans. ghoṣa घोष The sound of a drum (or any musical instrument), of a
674 conch-shell, of the soma stones, of a carriage, etc. Rigveda, Atharvaveda, etc.
675 Sans. ghoṣavatī घोषवती a peculiar kind of stringed instrument
676
677 Sum. guš a musical instrument?; a part of a musical instrument? (1x: Old
678 Babylonian) wr. ĝešgu2-uš
679
680 Although exact meaning is not clear in Sumerian but relation to music is
681 apparent. Only comes in a praise poem of Culgi. (ĝišgu2-uš za-mi2-a kam-ma
682 sag9-ga mi-ni-zu (Culgi B, 161))
683
684 (15) Sans. śamyā श"या a kind of cymbal or other musical instrument
685 Sum. šamuša type of instrument? (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ša-mu-ša4
686
687 ‘y’ is non-compatible.
688
689 (16) Sans. kamrā क"ा a kind of musical instrument
690 Sum. kamma a part of a musical instrument?; tuning? (2x: Ur III, Old
691 Babylonian) wr. kam-ma
692
693 (17) Sans. mṛtyutūrya मृ#युतूय( a kind of drum beaten at funeral ceremonies
694 Sum. miritum a musical instrument (4x: Old Babylonian) wr. mi-ri2-tum

21
695
696 Very difficult word from Sumerian perspective with many non-compatibles
697 like consonant cluster in the bigining ‘mṛty’, as well as ending ‘tūrya’ . There
698 is a particular pattern is seen in many examples here in use of ‘tum’ (or
699 lum/hum, etc.) as a replacement for such non-compatible parts at the end of
700 the word.
701
702 (18) Sans. sāyaṃtūrya सायंतूय$ instrument played in evening
703 Sum. sabitum a musical instrument (5x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešsa-

704 bi2-tum; sa-bi2-tum

705
706 ‘y’ is non-compatible (ṃ is a transliteration of anuswaar) and also the ‘tum’
707 pattern is present for non compatible ending tūrya.
708
709 (19) Sans. maṅgalatūrya म"लतूय' a musical instrument used at festivals
710 Sum. malgatum a musical instrument; a type of song (5x: Old Babylonian)
711 wr. ma-al-ga-tum Akk. malgâtu
712
713 (20) Sans. āḍambara आड#बर a kind of drum
714 Sum. adab a drum; a song (42x: Old Babylonian) wr. a-da-ab; a-da-ba
715 Akk. adapu
716
717 Clipping or shortening of apocope variety seems to be the case here, as seen
718 earlier in sālikā/SALI and other words.
719
720 (21) Sans. śabdaviśeṣa श"दिवशेष a particular note, the varieties of sound (these
721 the sāṃkhya- arranges according to the accents, udātta-, an-udātta-,
722 svarita-, and the notes of the gamut, ṣaḍ-ja-, ṛṣabha-, gāndhāra-,
723 madhyama-, pañcama-, daivata-, niṣāda-, etc.)
724 Sum. sabarsud notation; composition division notation (1x: Old
725 Babylonian) wr. sa-bar-sud
726
727 (22) Sans. kroḍa !ोड an additional verse or note, a notation
728 Sum. kidu a musical notation (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ki-du12
729

22
730 (23) Sans. karatāla करताल beating time by clapping the hands, clapper, small
731 cymbals, clappers with cymbals, etc. Kara (RV)+ Tāl (Tal root (RV)) Nardiya
732 Shiksha, bhāgavata-purāṇa
733 Akkadian. Katral small cymbles?, clapper? Galpin (1937), Sachs (1940)
734
735 karatāla is made from combining kara i.e. hand (Rigveda) and tāla i.e.
736 rhythm (Naradiya Shiksha, root tal, present in Rigveda). Galpin (1937)
737 connected the Akkadian word ‘katral‘ to small cymbal and suggested its
738 origin from Indian word ‘karatāla’. But Curt Sachs in “History of Musical
739 Instruments” (1940) identifies Indian karatāla with clappers and so he
740 disagrees with Galpin’s identification of the instrument but he agrees that
741 “the Akkadian term ought to be taken from it (Indian term karatāla) and
742 transformed by metathesis”. This confusion about exact meaning is easily
743 understandable if one looks at the vast tradition of karatāla-s all over the
744 subcontinent. It is one of most popular percussion instrument in folk,
745 temple related and classical music in some form or other. Sage Narada, the
746 celestial musician of highest regard in Sanskrit texts, is always depicted
747 with a vīṇā and a karatāla. There are innumerable varieties of karatāla-s
748 found in India since ancient times ranging from two simple pieces of wood
749 or small cymbals to highly decorated or zoomorphic clappers with
750 jingles/small-cymbals and/or small metallic rattles attached to them. Usage
751 of the word is same all over India including Dravidian speaking south. The
752 word karatāla represent a family of instruments, which sound somewhat
753 like handclap and perform a similar function in music i.e. of keeping time.
754 There is a sign in Indus script (sign no. 294 Mahadevan 1977) similar to the
755 clappers seen in Mesopotamian iconography, being played by
756 anthropomorphic musicians (discussed in detail in the section of
757 Archaeological Evidence). Although it is a simple shape but as arched harp
758 and damaru are seemingly represented in the indus script, it becomes
759 tenable that there could be a few more script signs inspired by musical
760 instruments, at least the most popular ones.
761
762 (24) Sans. sindhu िस#धु a rāga in Indian classical music (a rāga is a melodic
763 framework based on which many compositions/songs can be performed)
764 sindhu bhairavi िस#धु भैरवी a rāga
765 sindhi bhairavi िस#धी भैरवी a rāga
766 Sindh िस#ध a rāga

23
767 sindhurā िस#धुरा a rāga
768 sindhurā bhairavi िस#धुरा भैरवी a rāga
769 Sans. sindhu िस#धु the name of the river Indus
770
771 Sum. endu a song (76x: Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. en3-du; en-du
772 Sum. enduana a song (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. en3-du-an-na
773
774 Sum. enduĝarĝar composer (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. en3-du-ĝar-ĝar
775 Importantly, gargara is an instrument mentioned in Rigveda.
776
777 Sum. endudugdug chanter? (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. en3-du-dug4-dug4
778
779 Despite similar names, they are different rāga-s. Many of them are present
780 in both Hindustani (northern) and Carnatic (southern) classical music and
781 existent as important part in long standing folk traditions of Rajasthan,
782 Sindh, Gujarat and Panjab. Sans. sindhu िस#धु is the name of the river Indus;
783 it has been used in identification of geography, populace and cultures of
784 Indian subcontinent (or part of it) by outsiders throughout later historic
785 period and from which India got its names (more on that later with word
786 no. 55 Sum. hindum, beads).
787
788 (25) Sans. lāsya ला#य dancing, a dance (especially accompanied with
789 instrumental music and singing), a dance representing the emotions of love
790 dramatically (this was at one time a principal part of the drama), including
791 also a style of dramatic composition in which there is abrupt transition
792 from Sanskrit to Prakrit and from Prakrit to Sanskrit; the term lāsya is also
793 applied to the Nach [Nautch] dance of the Indian dancing girls, consisting
794 chiefly of gesticulation with a shuffling movement of the feet forwards and
795 backwards, as invented by pārvati (wife of śiva) and opposed to the
796 boisterous masculine dance called tāṇḍava practiced by śiva and his
797 followers (Mahābhārata, Nātyaśāstra, etc.) Also Sans. las लस् to sound,
798 resound; to play, sport, frolic; to embrace; to dance; to cause to teach to
799 dance; to exercise an art
800
801
802

24
803 Sum. lilis a musical instrument, kettledrum (8x: Old Babylonian) wr. li-li-
804 is3; li-li-is3zabar; li-li-is2; liliz Akk. lilisu
805
806 Fig. 5: Lilis
807
Lilis seems most likely of Indus origin because
the tablet on which its drawing and name is
present (Fig.5), also has a humped bull shown
on it, which is native to south Asia only. The
bull is sitting in a calm position similar to how
it is represented heavily in śiva-‘s temples in
India. On the other hand, lāsya is related to
pārvati, wife of śiva.
816
817 (26) Sans. bhāṇḍa भा#ड a musical instrument, any pot (especially metallic)
818 implement, tool, instrument (root bhaṇ, to sound, most probably
819 onomatopoeic, has resemblance to the sound of metallic object/pot struck
820 loudly.)
821 Sans. bhāṇḍa भा#ड a class of folk musicians, performers and entertainers.
822 Later became a cast. Also known for using disguises during performances,
823 also a jester, buffoon, mime
824 Sans. bhāṇḍa भा#ड a form/school of drama and performance; can also
825 mean mimicry, buffoonery. C.f. bhāṇa भाण name of a sort of dramatic
826 entertainment (in which only one of the interlocutors appears on the scene,
827 or a narrative of some intrigue told either by the hero or a third person)
828 Sans. bhaṇḍila भ"#डल an artisan
829
830 Sum. balaĝ a large drum or harp (154x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian,
831 Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. balaĝ; ĝešbalaĝ

832 Akk. balangu

833 Sum. balaĝ temple functionary or servant Gods, associated with variety of
834 instruments (Wolfgang Heimpel, Franklin John Curtis 2016)
835 Sum. balaĝil musician (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. balaĝ-il2
836
837 bh>b is easy, ‘ṇḍa’ is non-compatible. There is a similar example in category
838 of ‘Other Words’ below, sans. śaṇḍa à sum. saĝĝa, which replaces ṇḍa with
839 ĝĝa. Whereas in this case, instead of bhāṇḍa to something like baĝĝa, a ‘la’

25
840 is also present between ba and ĝ. A deeper study revealed that there is no
841 word in Sumerian (PSD) that starts with ba followed by ĝ, effectively
842 rendering ba-ĝ combination, a non-compatible. Ba-la combination, on the
843 other hand, is present in many other words.
844
845 bhāṇḍ-s are a class of traditional folk entertainers of India. In later time it
846 became a cast. According to Henry Miers Elliot (Supplement to the glossary
847 of Indian terms, N.H. Longden, 1845), “(...) Those also are called Bahand
848 (bhāṇḍa) who without reference to caste follow the occupation of singing,
849 dancing, and assuming disguises (...)”
850
851 Today bhāṇḍ-s are present in Uattar Pradesh, Kashmir, Panjab, etc. in India.
852 While most present day bhāṇḍ-s belong to families that are/were engaged
853 in folk entertainment as their hereditary profession, their specific art forms
854 vary greatly by region, community and language. The term bhāṇḍa itself
855 can also mean a specific dramatic story or an entire form/school of drama.
856
857 (27) Sans. Svara sound of any musical instrument or singer; music; notation, etc.
858 (Rigveda)
859 Sum. sur plectrum?; a musical instrument? (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešsur9
860 Akk. zannaru
861
862 Exactly same variation (sur) is present in many later Indian languages as
863 well. Exact meaning is not clear in Sumerian.
864
865 (28) Sans. vidūṣaka िवद$षक a jester, wag, buffoon (especially in dramatic
866 language) (Bhagvata Purana, etc.)
867 Sum. uddatuš jester (40x: ED IIIb, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. ud-da-tuš
868
869 Apart from non-compatible beginning ‘vi-’, there is no Sumerian word
870 (PSD) that ends with ‘-saka’. Sans. vidūṣaka is mentioned as “the jocose
871 companion and confidential friend of the hero of a play (he acts the same
872 confidential part towards the king or hero, that her female companions do
873 towards the heroine; his business is to excite mirth in person and attire,
874 and to make himself the universal butt; a curious regulation requires him to
875 be a Brahman, or higher in caste than the king himself)” (Monier William
876 Sanskrit dictionary).
877

26
878 (29) Sans. kinnara (kiṃnara pronounced kinnara) िक#नर kiṃ+nara literally “is
879 it a man?” “whether a man?” "what sort of a man?"; anthropomorphic
880 mythical beings with a human figure with animal head or animal figure
881 with human head, usually horse or bird but may be others too; reckoned
882 among the gandharva-s or celestial choristers and celebrated as musicians;
883 also attached to the service of kubera; a class of traditional musicians and
884 performers known for their use of animal costumes and disguises, similar
885 traditions still continue in small pockets; in Jainism, one of the eight orders
886 of the vyantara-s
887 Sans. kinnarā िक#नरा a kind of musical instrument
888 Sans. kinnari a lute, also a female kinnara
889 Sans. kinnara kingdom- a kingdom of kiṃnara-s in Mahābhārata
890 Sans. kinnara nagara िक#नर नगर a town of the kiṃnara-s (Divyāvadān)
891 kinnaur – name of a present day district in northern state of Himachal
892 Pradesh in India.
893
894 Sum. nar musician; singer (643x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Ebla, Old Akkadian,
895 Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. nar
896 Akk. kinnāru a lyre
897 Akk. nāru a musician and singer
898 Akk. nārē a band of lyre and harp players
899 Egyptian. knr a lyre
900 Hittite. Kinir a lyre
901 Hurrian. kinnar uhuli a lyre player
902 Hebrew. kinnor a lyre
903
904 The cuneiform sign for Sumerian ‘nar’ is derived from a pictogram of an
905 animal head (Cheng 2009). Similarly, kinnara-s in Sanskrit records, are
906 often depicted with animal heads or as part human and part animal/bird.
907 There is a remarkable tradition of mixing animal and human attributes
908 recorded in Harappan archaeology and in later periods in south Asian
909 cultures; (more on that later in the section of archaeological records). This
910 word seems to follow the pattern of “clipping” as found in some other
911 words, in this particular case, “initial clipping”, “apheresis” or “procope”.
912 Initial clipping retains the final part of the word, e.g. phone (telephone), net
913 (Internet), gator (alligator), varsity (university), etc. Other similar example
914 here is Sans. romaś/lomaś à Sum. maš, a goat (see below). But curiously, in

27
915 both the cases, the removed first syllable is also accompanied with a non-
916 compatible, i.e. vowel ‘o’ in romash and anusvāra with ‘ki’ in kiṃnara,
917 expressed as a dot in devanāgri script as िक# and transliterated as ṃ.
918 Pronunciation of anusvāra depends on the sound that follows. In kinnara, it
919 is pronounced as the first ‘n’. Sans. Kiṃnar is not a word but actually a
920 sentence with a question mark in it “kiṃ nara?” meaning “what sort of a
921 man?” or “is this a man?” etc. (in a way, expressed as “What! man?”). It
922 encapsulates the expression of an astounded observer. Both ‘kiṃ’ and ‘nara’
923 are Rigvedic words. Apart from the popular clipped version, i.e. Sum. ‘nar’
924 or Akk. nāru, etc., the word is duly present in its entirety as well in names of
925 instruments and as musicians in Mesopotamia and surrounding region in
926 many languages like Akkadian, Hittite, Egyptian, etc. and remained popular
927 till later, e.g. attested in Hibrew Bible as kinnor, a lyre. Parpola (2010)
928 confirms with help of Assyriologists that its word structure doesn’t match
929 with west Asian languages and is clearly of south Asian origin.
930
931 A detailed comparison of the tradition of anthropomorphic musicians in
932 both the cultures is given below in the section of archaeological records.
933
934 (30) Sans. ājakāra आजकार śiva-'s bull
935 Sum. alĝar a musical instrument, bull lyre (Galpin 1937, Dumbrill 2005,
936 Cheng 2009, etc.) (12x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešal-ĝar; al-gar Akk. Alû
937
938 ‘j’ is non-compatible. k>g/ĝ is seen in other examples here but it is also
939 present in Sanskrit itself e.g. abhikara/abhigara (a priest). ājakāra to alĝar,
940 not only fits well according to the formula but also, importantly, to the
941 traditions of naming instruments in India, (discussed below). An
942 instrument named ‘algojā’ is still found in folk music of modern day Panjab,
943 Rajasthan and Sindh (all of which are home to many important Harappan
944 sites), although it is not a stringed instrument anymore but a pair of reed
945 flutes.
946
947 Śiva is considered to be the originator and supreme God of music and there
948 are many terms in south Asian musical spheres that are related to him or to
949 the concepts associated with him, which include names of instruments,
950 raga-s (scales), tāla-s (rhythmic meters), dance forms, poetic meters and
951 more (see ḍamaru and lāsya above). In later periods, in India, word nandi is

28
952 attested as śiva’s close aid and his bull (actually a bull-calf). Consequently,
953 in Mahābharta and sutrā literature of late vedic period, bull-shaped
954 instrument too gets the moniker ‘Nandi’, mentioned as an instrument
955 played on happy occasions. Nandi as instrument is attested later in
956 Harivamsh as well, after which it doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere.
957 But many other instruments associated with Śiva (e.g. rudri/rudra vīṇā,
958 damaru, etc.) and rāga-s, tāla-s, etc. continues till today.
959
960 Traditions of naming instruments in India – In India, names of
961 instruments are mostly found to be auto-logical or self-describing and
962 sometimes onomatopoeic (representing sound of the instrument). Thus,
963 names mostly give additional information about the instruments. While
964 concentration of this discussion is on Sanskrit but similar practices are
965 found in all language families in India, which is in a way, remarkable.
966
967 A. Sometimes they describe shape of the instrument like Kachchapi – a lute
968 shaped as tortoise or Kachchapa; Mayuri – a lute shaped like peocock or
969 Mayura, Gomukha – an instrument with cow/bull face, Nandi - an
970 instrument shaped like bull, etc. There are many such examples
971 mentioned later. If it is a stringed instrument of any kind then some times
972 word “vīṇā” is suffixed with names to denote that.
973 B. Material used in manufacture like Vamsha – a flute made from vamsha i.e.
974 bamboo; Mridang – a horizontal drum played from both sides, made from
975 Mrida i.e. clay; Tumbi vīṇā – a lute which has a tumbi i.e. a gourd used as a
976 soundbox.
977 C. Sound of instrument – Dindima, Gubguba, Tuntuna, Vāṇa, etc.
978 D. Number of strings in the instrument like Ektantri, Dotārā, Sapta tantri,
979 etc.
980 E. Based on name of the person/deity they belong like Rudri/Rudra-vīṇā,
981 Saraswati vīṇā, Rāvan-Hast, instruments related to Śiva, Saraswati and
982 Rāvana of Rāmayan respectively; Tumburu vīṇā, the vīṇā of a celestial
983 anthropomorphic musician Tumburu) and Kinnari/Kinnarā/Kinnaram,
984 instruments related to Kinnara-s.
985
986
987
988 While all of these musical terms are fully verifiable in both the languages but it
989 could be confirmed further. If these findings were correct about the kind of

29
 990 cultural impact this list suggests, then there must be more words in Sumerian
991 records pertaining to the other fields and activities for which there is direct or
992 indirect evidence for Harappan involvement of some kind, belonging to same
993 underlying language as that of musical terms (i.e. Sanskrit) and also exhibit
994 similar patterns in the process of sumerianization.
995
996 Below is a list of terms found in other areas. Same strict measures were
997 employed to identify a positive result as mentioned earlier along with an added
998 condition that it should be related to the fields or activities that can be linked to
999 Harappans or south Asia in some way.
1000
1001
1002 Trade and Craft Related Words
1003
1004 Units of Measurement
1005
1006 Harappan style weights have been found not only in Mesopotamia but also in
1007 Bahrain, Oman, etc. in archaeological records. The same appears to have
1008 reflected in the Sumerian text as well:
1009
1010 (31) Sans. māna मान a particular measure or weight (equals kṛṣṇata-or raktikā-;
1011 according to scholiast or commentator on TS and KSS 100 māna-s = 5 paṇa-
1012 s or pala-s) Taittirīya Saṃhita, Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra
1013
1014 Sum. mana a unit of weight (9459x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash
1015 II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. ma-na Akk. manû
1016
1017 (32) Sans. paṇa unit of weight, coin, share in gambling, a trading community in
1018 Rigveda
1019 Sum. ban unit; unit of capacity (117x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old
1020 Babylonian) wr. ba-an; ban2; ban3; ba-an-AŠ; dugban3 Akk. sūtu
1021
1022 As seen earlier ṇ becomes n. p/b isogloss is anyways seen a lot.
1023
1024
1025
1026

30
1027 (33) Sans. Kola कोल the weight of one tola- (= 2 ṭaṅka-[or śāṇa]= 1/2 karṣa-
1028 Sum. kila weight (2450x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old
1029 Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. ki-la2 Akk. šuqultu
1030
1031 "o" is non-compatible.
1032
1033 (34) Sans. agra/agrā अ"/अ"ा a measure of food given as alms/ measure of
1034 amplitude (Surya Siddhānt) (the distance from the extremity of the
1035 gnomon-shadow to the line of the equinoctial shadow)
1036 Sum. aĝ measure ; to measure (219x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Early
1037 Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. aĝ2 Akk. Madādu
1038 (35) Sans. bhāra भार a burden, load, weight (Rigveda), a particular weight (= 20
1039 tulā-s = 2000 pala-s of gold)
1040 Sans. bhara भर in full measure ,a large quantity, great number, mass, bulk,
1041 multitude, abundance, excess, etc., with all one's might, a burden, load,
1042 weight and also a particular measure of weight equals bhāra
1043
1044 Sum. bur unit; a unit of area; a unit of volume (123x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian,
1045 Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. bur; bur3 Akk. Būru
1046
1047 (36) Sans. droṇa !ोण a measure for measuring fields (as much land as is sown
1048 with a droṇa of corn), a measure of capacity (= 4 āḍhaka-s = 16 puṣkala-s =
1049 128 kuñci-s = 1024 muṣṭi-s, or = 200 pala-s = 1/20 kumbha-, or = 1/16
1050 kharī-= 4 āḍhaka-s, or = 2 āḍhaka-s = 1/2 śūrpa= 64 Seras, or = 32 Seras), a
1051 wooden vessel, bucket, trough, etc. (Rigveda, Mahābhārata, Lex)
1052
1053 Sum. dana a unit of length, double-hour (distance), double-mile (54x: ED
1054 IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. da-na; danna; dana2
1055 Akk. bêru
1056
1057 The combination ‘dr’, ‘o’ and ‘ṇ’ are non-compatibles.
1058
1059 (37) Sans. goṇī गोणी a weight measure of 4 droṇa-s, still used in India.
1060 Sum. gun load; yield; a unit of weight; rent, tax, tribute; (5551x: ED IIIb, Old
1061 Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, Middle
1062 Babylonian) wr. gun2; gu2-un Akk. biltu

31
1063
1064 (38) Sans. īṣā ईषा a particular measure (Sulbha Sūtra)
1065 Sum. eše area unit; a unit of length (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. eše3; eše2 "a
1066 unit of area; a unit of volume" Akk. eblu, also Akk. aslu
1067
1068 (39) Sans. krośa !ोश a measure of distance, commonly called a kos= 1000
1069 daṇḍa-s = 4000 hasta-s = 1/4 yojana-; according to others = 2000 daṇḍa-s =
1070 8000 hasta-s = 1/2 gavyūti-) Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra, Mahābhārat, etc.
1071
1072 Sum. kuš unit; a unit of length (1990x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur
1073 III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. kuš3 Akk. ammatu
1074
1075 (40) Sans. guru गु! heavy, weighty (Rigveda i, 39, 3 and iv, 5, 6; Atharva veda),
1076 large, valuable, highly prized
1077 Sum. gur/guru unit of capacity; a measuring vessel; grain heap; grain
1078 store; ship's hold; to heap up; unit of capacity (27945x: ED IIIb, Old
1079 Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. gur;
1080 gur9 "" Akk. kurru; namandu / (849x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Early
1081 Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian)
1082
1083 (41) Sans. likhya िल#य a measure of weight, nit, young louse, the egg of a louse
1084 (Śārṇgadhara Samhitā, Agni Purāṇ) Also likṣā िल#ा (as a measure of weight

1085 = 8 trasa-reṇu-s) (also written likkā) also laghu लघु small, little, light, easy,
1086 not heavy or difficult
1087 Sum. lidga measuring vessel; a unit of capacity (158x: ED IIIb, Old
1088 Akkadian) wr. lid2-ga; lid2-da-ga; li-id-ga; lid2; lidda; lidda2 Akk. litiktu;
1089 namaddu; parsiktu
1090
1091 It is striking that all the words (except one) related to units/measures are
1092 attested in Mesopotamia since Early Dynastic periods and are mostly attested
1093 well.
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098

32
1099 Trees/Woods, Wooden Furniture and Related Words
1100
1101 As quoted earlier, trees/woods, timber for construction, ships and wooden
1102 furnitures are consistently mentioned as coming from Meluhha in Sumerian
1103 accounts.
1104
1105 (42) Sans. meṣī मेषी the tree Dalbergia Ougeinensis (Oujeinensis/Ujjeinensis)
1106 a.k.a. the Ujjain Desmodium or Desmodium Oojeinense or Ougeinia
1107 Oojeinense or in Hindi sandan (from Sans. syandana, see below, not to
1108 confuse with candan i.e. Sandal) and many other names
1109
1110 Sum. mes a tree (81x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr.
1111 ĝešmes Akk. mēsu
1112 It is mentioned to have come from Meluhha in Sumerian records and a
1113 popularly cited example. [ĝešmes me-luḫ]-ḫa (Emar 6/1, p. 105-109, Msk
1114 731030 o ii 56; OB Nippur Ura 1 51; IB 1535+ ii 15; Syria 12, pl. 46-47, 03 +
1115 pl. 47, 04 o ii 35; SLT 143 o 1; IB 1547 iii 1).
1116
1117 J.S. Gamble in “A Manual of Indian Timbers” (1972, first published in 1881)
1118 states:
1119
1120 “This very pretty and useful tree is a valuable one in India (...) The wood is
1121 much in request for agricultural implements, such as ploughs; and, being
1122 tough and strong, is useful for carriage-building. It makes excellent
1123 furniture. Roxburgh mentions that the pillars of Maharaja Sindhia's palace
1124 at Oojein (Ujjain) are made of it”. The timber of this species is superior to
1125 Teak (Tectona Grandis) in terms of shock resistance, shear strength and
1126 hardness (Pearson and Brown 1932). It has a slew of medicinal usages in
1127 Ayurveda, Siddha, Folk and Sowa Rigpa systems of medicine. Bark fibers
1128 are suitable for making rope. A red, transparent, astringent gum is obtained
1129 from incisions in the trunk. It is also a specialty timber for marine plywood.
1130 The tree is a host plant for lac producing insects. The resulting shellac is of
1131 high quality (Purkayastha and Krishnaswamy 1958).
1132
1133 So named in Sanskrit most probably because of its flowers, which appear
1134 similar to face of a sheep i.e. meṣa मेष with its ears stretched outwards (c.f.
1135 fig. M.1)

33
1136

1137
1138 Fig M.1
1139
1140 Dalbergia Ougeinensis is native to Indian subcontinent only. It is found in
1141 almost the whole of northern and central India and into the greater part of
1142 the Deccan peninsula. Including lower Himalaya from Jammu to Bhutan,
1143 Punjab, Sindh (Pakistan), Rajasthan, Gujrat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh,
1144 Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and the northern slopes of the Nilgiris.
1145
1146 Its bark is sometimes black, grey or dark brown; hence in Hindi and
1147 Marathi, the tree is also known as Kālā Palāsh and Kāḷā Paḷas respectively,
1148 literally 'a black Butea Monosperma’, with which it bears some similarities.
1149 Interestingly, in the Mesopotamian text too mes is occasionally referred to
1150 as a black tree/wood. Even more interestingly, it is also mentioned as
1151 ĝešmes-babbar, lit. ‘a white mes tree’. It could be possibly because of white
1152 color of its flowers in central Indian variety as found in Gujarat,
1153 Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and surrounding regions as opposed to a
1154 darker purple hue as found in northern regions like Panjab, Himachal
1155 Pradesh, etc. (fig. M.3). In full bloom, the tree of the central Indian variety
1156 would actually appear white (fig. M.4).
1157
1158

34
1159
1160 Fig. M.2 the tree and fig. M.3 full flower - purple variety from Himachal Pradesh
1161

1162
1163 Fig M.4 Full flower - white variety from Maharashtra
1164
1165 It is mentioned in Rigveda as spandan (iii, 53, 19) in contexts of parts of a
1166 chariot. According to V. S. Agrawala (1952) “it certainly denotes a tree. Its
1167 variant is syandana. The botanical name may be Ougeinia dalbergioides
1168 denoting the tree called sandan in Hindi”. Its popularity and usage since
1169 ancient periods is reflected in its many Sanskrit names (more than 25!) as
1170 found in Rigveda and other texts. Several of these names are derived from
1171 various wooden objects, which suggests its preferential use in manufacture
1172 of those objects. Some examples are given in the table below.
1173
1174
1175
1176

35
 Other Sanskrit names of meṣī Derived from
syandana/syandanadruma/syandani syandana - a war-chariot, chariot,
car
akṣaka/akṣika/akṣīka akṣa - an axle, axis, wheel, cart,
car, beam, chariot
cakrin cakra - wheel
nemi/nemin nemi - the felly of a wheel, any
circumference or edge or rim
ratha/rathadru/rathadruma/rathika ratha - a chariot, car, especially a
two-wheeled war-chariot, any
vehicle or equipage or carriage
(applied also to the vehicles of the
gods), waggon, cart
śakaṭa śakaṭa - a cart, waggon, car,
carriage, an implement for
preparing grain
citrakarman citrakarman - any extraordinary
act, wonderful deed, a painting,
picture, devoted to various
occupations
citrakṛt citrakṛt - astonishing, painting
sarvasādhaka sarvasādhaka is a name of śiva
1177
1178 Consequently, it is called “Chariot tree” in English.
1179
1180 “The natural reproduction of Sandan is excellent, and it is very easily
1181 propagated artificially. (...) It is often grown for ornament in gardens and
1182 when in full flower and covered with its purple inflorescences, it is very
1183 pretty” (Gamble 1881). Intriguingly, as stated earlier, Harappans are also
1184 mentioned as keepers and financers of sacred gardens and one of the terms
1185 for ‘gardener’ in Sumerian and Akkadian is Sum. santanak/šandana and
1186 Akk. sandanaku. Its leaves are trifoliate. It is worth noting that trefoil
1187 designs are present in Harappan art and script (sign no. 233 to 235
1188 Mahadevan 1977). Similar designs are also found in Mesopotamia and
1189 considered to be a Harappan influence (Bisht and others).
1190

36
1191
1192 Fig M.5 Trifoliate leaves as seen on a young shrub
1193
1194 No wonder if Harappans used and brought this multi-purpose tree with
1195 them to the west. Unfortunately, today, timber exploitation has degraded
1196 the natural stands of this species. In fact, according to Jagdish Chander,
1197 Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana state (india), “(in Hariyana) tree has
1198 almost become endangered and so is not exploited commercially”.
1199
1200 Oddly, despite having much importance historically as suggested by its
1201 Sanskrit names, this tree seems to have eluded scholarly attention until
1202 now in the studies related to these subjects.
1203
1204 (43) Sans. śiṃśapā िशंशपा/śāṃśapa शांशप the tree Dalbergia Sissoo/made of its
1205 wood; commonly known as (North) Indian Rosewood and śīśam, sisam,
1206 sissu, etc.
1207 Sum. samazum a tree (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešsa-ma-zum
1208
1209 It’s an important commercial timber species native to Indian subcontinent
1210 and southern Iran. It is interesting to compare its popular Indian
1211 vernacular forms śīśam/sisam with Sumerian word.
1212
1213 Gamble (1972/1881) states “the wood is very durable, seasons well, and
1214 does not warp or split. It is highly esteemed for all purposes where strength
1215 and elasticity are required. (…) It is extensively used for boat-building,
1216 carts and carriages, agricultural implements, in construction, and especially
1217 for furniture. As a furniture-wood and for carving, it is probably the finest
1218 wood in India, and it is in regular demand for these purposes all over the

37
1219 North. (…) Sissoo wood is an excellent fuel, good pieces burning almost like
1220 coal; it also makes excellent charcoal.”
1221
1222 Importantly, it is highly regarded in manufacture of musical instruments
1223 for its superior acoustic qualities and durability, traditionally in India – for
1224 folk and classical instruments, as well as all over the world today. In fact, it
1225 is one of the most widely used woods in guitars (Paiva and Santos, 2014)
1226 and in other instruments.
1227
1228 Another tree that is known with same/similar names vernacularly
1229 (śīśam/sisam/sissu, some times with prefix kālā i.e. ‘black’) and in Sanskrit
1230 (kṛṣṇa-śiṃśapā, śyāma-śiṃśapā, lit. ‘black Dalbergia Sissoo’) is Dalbergia
1231 Latifolia, also known as (East) Indian Rosewood, Bomabay Blackwood, etc.
1232 Found mostly in central and southern parts of India and scarcely in the
1233 North. Its wood is similar to D. Sissoo but with a darker purpal shade
1234 instead of light brown; highly valuable for furniture work and used for
1235 musical instruments as well.
1236
1237 (44) Sans. asana असन the tree Terminalia Tomentosa (synonyms: Terminalia
1238 Alata, Terminalia Elliptica) commonly known as Indian Laurel, asain, asin,
1239 sain, ain, saaj, aisan, etc.
1240 Sum. esi a tree (40x: Ur III) wr. ĝešesi Akk. ušû
1241
1242 A large deciduous tree. It is mentioned to have come from Meluhha in
1243 Sumerian records. According to Gamble “perhaps the most widely
1244 distributed of all the important Indian forest trees, and the one in the most
1245 universal employ for building native houses and other country purposes. It
1246 is found in the sub-Himalayan tract and Lower Himalaya from the Ravi
1247 eastwards, ascending to 4000 ft. in the hills, in places. From the Himalaya it
1248 extends down both Peninsulas.” The wood is used for furniture,
1249 cabinetwork, joinery, paneling, specialty items, boat-building, railroad
1250 cross-ties (treated), decorative veneers and for musical instrument.
1251 Silkworms (Antheraea paphia) feed on its leaves that produce the Tussar
1252 silk, which is a commercially important wild silk. Bark and fruits are used
1253 to dye and tan leather. The “white wax" insect (Ceroplastes ceriferus, Sign.)
1254 is often found on it, the resulting wax (commonly known as Chinese wax) is
1255 used in the manufacture of polishes, sizes, and candles. (Size - a gelatinous

38
1256 solution used in glazing paper, stiffening textiles, and preparing plastered
1257 walls for decoration)
1258
1259 Asansol city in present day West Bengal state in India is named after this
1260 tree. It is situated on the banks of river Damodar where asan trees are also
1261 found (possibly from Sans. asana + cola/kula i.e. bank/shore/coast). It is
1262 the second largest city in the state and has a long history.
1263
1264 (45) Sans. abja अ"ज the tree Barringtonia Acutangula
1265 Sum. ĝeša'abak/ĝešabak a tree wr. ĝeš-ab-ba; ĝeš-a-ab-ba; ĝeš-a-ab Akk.
1266 kušabku
1267
1268 Mentioned to have come from Meluhha. Barringtonia Acutangula is native
1269 to Indian subcontinent, Afghanistan and south-east Asia to northern
1270 Australasia and Philippines, etc., commonly known as Mangrove, Indian
1271 Oak, Itchytree, Mangopine, etc. It is found on riverbanks, swampy sites and
1272 rocky or sandy shores.
1273
1274 Sans. abja literally means born in water. It has many other names in
1275 Sanskrit that are related to water like nadija (born in river), jalaja, ambuja
1276 (born in water) and samudraphala, literally, sea-fruit. Similarly on account
1277 of Sumerian a-ab-ba meaning ‘sea’, it has sometimes been translated as ‘sea
1278 wood’ (Landsberger 1964–1966: 261; Hansman 1973: 560; Thapar 1975:
1279 9; Parpola 1994: 14b).
1280
1281 According to Gamble (1972/1881) its bark is dark brown, rough but the
1282 wood is white, shining, soft, even-grained. The wood is more durable than it
1283 seems at first sight; if cut on the quarter it presents a noticeable silver grain
1284 and apparently does not warp much if so cut. It is used for boatbuilding,
1285 well construction, and for making rice pounders, cabinets, and carts. The
1286 bark is used to intoxicate fish, also for tanning; the leaves and fruit are used
1287 in native medicine.
1288
1289 (46) Sans. kūrca क"च$ a bunch of anything, bundle of grass, etc. often used as a
1290 seat (Taittirīya Saṃhitā, Śatapatha Brāhmṇa); almost all later Indian (and
1291 surrounding region's) languages have words like khurcī, kursi, khuraśī,

39
1292 kurcī, kasēra, etc. for chair; also Sans. garta गतर् a high seat, throne (of mitra-
1293 and varuṇa-)
1294 Sum. guza chair, stool, throne (1431x: Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early
1295 Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. ĝešgu-za; gu-za; gu2-za;
1296 ĝešguza; ĝešaš-te Akk. kussû
1297
1298 It is mentioned to have come from Meluhha in Sumerian records [ŋešgu-za
1299 me-luḫ-ḫa (OB Nippur Ura 1 180)]. k>g is common. '-rca' is a non
1300 compatible. Akkadian form, kussû, makes it even clearer. The Sanskrit word
1301 kūrca has most archaic and broad meaning for anything used as a seat. The
1302 word seems to have spread in far and wide places and popularly used for
1303 chair till today, e.g. Marathi khurcī, Hindi kursi, Gujarati khuraśī, Tulugu
1304 kurcī, Malayalam kasēra, Indonesian kursi, Khmer kawei, Arabic kursii,
1305 Chinese Yǐzi, Thai kêāxī, Malay kerusi, Ukrainian krislo, etc.
1306
1307 Word 'kursi' and its variations are usually thought to have come from
1308 Arabic kursii but the akkadian and sumerian records evidently show its
1309 existence well before that and its relation with Meluhha.
1310
1311 (47) Sans. vaṃśaja वंशज made of or produced from bamboo; from Sans. vaṃśa
1312 वंश Bamboo cane (Rigveda), in Hindi, Panjabi, Ranjasthani, Nepali - bānsa,
1313 Gujrati - vānsa, Marathi - bāmbū, Bangla - bāṃśa; c.f. Sans. vaṃśa/vaṃśī or
1314 commonly bānsurī/bansurī/bansarī, flute made of bamboo.
1315 Sum. banšur table (256x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Early Old
1316 Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr. banšur; ĝešbanšur; banšur2; ĝešbanšur ;
2

1317 banšur3; ĝešbanšur3; banšurx(|URU×IGI|) "table" Akk. paššūru

1318

1319
1320 Fig. B.1 serving table seen on panel of a lyre from Ur and fig. B.2 a modern table
1321 made from Bamboo

40
1322
1323 banšur is mentioned to have come from Meluhha. In Sumerian textual
1324 records, it is mostly mentioned with food object including various fishes,
1325 pig, sheep, cheese, bread, fruits, etc. In Mesopotamian iconography, tables
1326 with food and drinks are shown in many banquet scenes as found on seals
1327 and otherwise. Those tables appear very similar to furniture made from
1328 Bamboo (c.f. fig. B.1 and B.2). Figure B1 shows the second register of the
1329 panel on one of the bull-headed lyre from Ur cemetery (discussed in later in
1330 this text), an animal costumed figure is carrying a similar table, lifting it
1331 quite high. Bamboo furniture can be far lighter in weight than the ones
1332 made from any hardwood and thus, serving in the manner shown on lyre is
1333 actually very much possible. Bamboos are of notable economic and cultural
1334 significance in South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia where majority of
1335 the Bamboo species are found and being used for building materials,
1336 furniture, as a food source, as a versatile raw product and for musical
1337 instruments since ancient periods. Its uses are mentioned in Rigveda.
1338 Bamboo doesn’t occur natively in West Asian region where ancient
1339 Mesopotamia was situated.
1340
1341 (48) Sans. mattavāraṇa म"वारण a bedstead
1342 Sum. mayaltum bed (44x: Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian) wr.
1343 ĝešma-al-tum; ĝešma-a-al-tum Akk. Mayyaltum
1344
1345 (49) Sans. mañca म" a bedstead, couch
1346 Sum. maršum bed (2x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešmar-šum Akk. maršu;
1347 mayyaltu
1348
1349 ‘-ñca’ is non compatible.
1350
1351 (50) Sans. maṅginī मि#नी a boat, ship
1352 Sum. magilum a boat (5x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešma
2-gi4-lum;
ĝešma
2-gi-

1353 lum; ĝešma2-gi-la2 Akk. magillu

1354
1355 Identified as coming from Meluhha in Sumerian records - ĝišma
2-gi4-lum

1356 me-luh-ha-ki-a-ke4 (Enki and the world order 128)

1357
1358

41
1359 (51) Sans. gopura गोपुर the ornamented gateway of a temple
1360 Sum. ĝešbur architectural ornament (5x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝeš-bur2
1361
1362 'o' is non compatible, p>b is commonly seen here. Sumerian texts clearly
1363 suggest it to be a door ornament or gateway or gate (most likely wooden as
1364 suggested by use of ĝeš in place of ‘go-’). E.g.:
1365
1366 ĝiš-bur2-ba me-te e2-a-ke4 ni2 il2-il2-a il2-bi ba-e-gub (The lament for Eridug
1367 44)
1368 The loftiness of its awe-inspiring door-ornament, befitting a house,
1369 collapsed. (ETCSL)
1370
1371 e2-e ĝiš-bur2 mah-bi ba-šub bad3-si-bi ba-gul (The lament for Sumer and
1372 Urim 420)
1373 The house's great door ornament fell down, its parapet was destroyed.
1374 (ETCSL)
1375
1376 ĝiš-bur2-de3 muš-šag4-tur3 muš-huš-e gu2-da am3-mi-ib-la2 (The temple
1377 hymns 418)
1378 (...) on your awesome and radiant gate a horned viper and a mušhuš are
1379 being seized in a trap. OR (…) on your awesome and radiant gate a
1380 decoration displays horned viper and a mušhuš embracing.
1381
1382 (52) Sans. sūtrakāra सू#कार a carpenter (Rāmāyaṇa)
1383 Sum. šukara carpenter wr. lu2ĝeššu-kara2; ĝeššu-kara2 Akk. naggāru
1384
1385 (53) Sans. ammarā अ"मरा the second beam of timber over a door
1386 Sum. amra/amru beam, timber (15x: ED IIIb, Ur III) wr. am-ra; am-ru;
1387 amra Akk. amrû
1388
1389 (54) Sans. praśas !शस् a hatchet, axe, knife (Aitareya Brahmana) also paraśu
1390 परशु
1391 Sum. pašu a type of axe (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. pa-a-šu
1392
1393 There are other words for axe in Sumerian that are older and more
1394 popular; least popular is pašu with only single entry.
1395

42
1396 Jewellery
1397
1398 (55) Sans. sindhu िस#धु the Indus river
1399 Sum. hindum a bead (3x: Ur III) wr. hi-in-dum
1400
1401 Harappan beads are found almost all over Mesopotamia and are one of the
1402 most important Harappan export attested in archaeology. As mentioned
1403 earlier, historically, variations of the word sindhu have been used to
1404 identify the region i.e. Indian subcontinent – the area around and beyond
1405 sindhu river, its people, culture, ethnicity, religion and products. E.g. later
1406 Akkadian words attested in Standard Babylonian, sindu/sinda/sindū and
1407 sinduja (c.f Sans. sindhuja, born or produced in the country Sindh,
1408 Mahābhārata), used as adjective ‘Indian’ (said for Indian wood). The
1409 ancient Greeks referred to the Indians as Indoi (Ἰνδοί), "the people of the
1410 Indus" and Persian used hindu for the same.
1411
1412 Hindum seems to be the only word in Sumerian dictionary (PSD) that starts
1413 with ‘hin’ (or hi-in) combination. Many other words exist for bead in
1414 Sumerian, e.g. ellaĝ, nunuz, ad, allanum, za, etc.
1415
1416 (56) Sans. hāra हार a garland of pearls, necklace (according to some, one of 108
1417 or 64 strings) Mahābhārata, etc.
1418 Sum. hara an ornament wr. na4hara5 Akk. harû
1419
1420 (57) Sans. hiraṇya िहर$य any vessel or ornament made of gold RV AV
1421 Sum. hiriatum an ornament (of gold) (3x: Ur III) wr. na
4hi-ri-a-tum

1422 Akk. hirītu

1423
1424 Always mentioned/associated with gold in Sumerian. Again non-
1425 compatible ending i.e. -aṇya becomes ‘-tum’.
1426
1427 (58) Sans. karṇāndu कणा$%द' an ear-ring
1428 Sum. kamkammatum earring (30x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. kam-kam-
1429 ma-tum Akk. anşabtu
1430
1431

43
1432 (59) Sans. śaraṇḍa शर#ड a kind of ornament
1433 Sum. šerkan ornament (56x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. še-er-ha-an; še-er-
1434 ka-an; še-er-kan2; še-er-ga-an; še-er-kan
1435
1436 (60) Sans. nepathya नेप$य an ornament, decoration, costume (especially of an
1437 actor), attire, Mahābhārata, etc.
1438 Sum. nabihum an ornament (65x: Ur III) wr. na-bi2-hu-um Akk. nabihu
1439
1440 p>b is commonly seen here. -thya is non-compatible ending (tum/lum/hum
1441 pattern)
1442
1443
1444 Trade - General Terms
1445
1446 (61) Sans. mudra seal, inscription, mark, gesture, pose
1447 Sum. musara inscription (55x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Old
1448 Babylonian) wr. mu-sar-ra Akk. Musarû
1449 Sum. mašdara inscription (3x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. ĝešmaš-dara
3

1450 Akk. mašţaru

1451
1452 Seals most likely played a very important role in Harappan trading
1453 methods. As mentioned earlier, many Harappan and “Indus style” seals are
1454 found in Mesopotamia.
1455
1456 In Sanskrit, word mudra has wide spread, varied and important usage in
1457 the context of fields like yoga, art, music, dance, drama, martial arts; many
1458 types of symbolic or ritual gestures or poses in Hinduism, Jainism and
1459 Buddhism; economy (in this context, it means money in general and coin as
1460 well); trade and administration (i.e. seal or mark); jewellery (finger ring);
1461 and even for sexual positions! This gives an impression that origin of this
1462 word could be very ancient. In Rigveda, it appears as part of a name
1463 Lopamudra, which may show popularity of the word in common people.
1464
1465 (62) Sans. sravadraṅga !व#$ market, bazaar, stirring town, a fair
1466 Sum. šakanka market; market-price (10x: Old Babylonian) wr. šakanka
1467 Akk. mahīru
1468

44
1469 (63) Sans. nidhimat िनिधमत् containing treasure or forming a store, abundant
1470 (Rigveda)
1471 Sum. nakamtum storehouse (9x: Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian)
1472 wr. na-kam-tum
1473
1474 (64) Sans. goraṅku गोर$% a bailsman, guarantee
1475 Sum. ginatum guarantee (10x: Ur III) wr. gi-na-tum "" Akk. tūnātu
1476
1477 “o” is non compatible, there is no word in Sumerian (PSD) that has ranku or
1478 anku anywhere in the word. We have seen this particular pattern of use of
1479 ‘tum’ etc. as a replacement for such non-compatible parts at the end of the
1480 word.
1481
1482 (65) Sans. śratkṛ !"क$ to make secure, guarantee (Rigveda)
1483 Sum. šudua guarantee (31x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian)
1484 wr. šu-du8-a
1485
1486 Except for ś, everything else seems non-compatible.
1487
1488 (66) Sans. sarga सग# agreement, assent
1489 Sum. šega agreement (16x: Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, un-
1490 known) wr. še-ga Akk. mitgurtu
1491
1492
1493 Trade - Miscellaneous
1494
1495 (67) Sans. kṛvi क"िव Name of a utensil used by a weaver, loom (?) (Uṇādi-sūtra iv,
1496 57)
1497 Sum. kura ~loom; a designation of looms (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. ĝeškur-
1498 ra; ĝeškur4-ra; ĝešku-ra Akk. işi kura
1499
1500 (68) Sans. akṣadevana अ"देवन dice-playing, gambling
1501 Sum. EKIDma a wooden object used in a game (9x: Old Babylonian) wr.
1502 ĝešE.KID-ma

1503

45
1504 Harappan dices are found at many places in Mesopotamia (Dales 1979).
1505
1506 (69) Sans. ūrṇā ऊणा$ wool, a woollen thread, thread (Rigveda, etc.)
1507 Sum. ulin twine, colored twine wr. u2-li-in Akk. barumtu
1508
1509 (70) Sans. kṣurin !ु#रन् a barber
1510 Sum. šu'i barber wr. šu-i Akk. gallabu
1511
1512
1513 Animals
1514
1515 As cited earlier, Meluhhan ships exported many animals to Mesopotamia. Here
1516 are some of the Sumerian terms that are found similar to Sanskrit in this context.
1517
1518 (71) Sans. aṃsakūṭa अंसक%ट a bull's hump, the protuberance between an ox's
1519 shoulders.
1520 Sum. asqumbitum hump wr. as-qum-bi-tum Akk. asqubbītu
1521
1522 Humped bull is native to south Asia and considered to have reached
1523 Mesopotamia with Harappans.
1524
1525 (72) Sans. nandi śiva’s bull; also nanda son, RV
1526 Sum. ninda breeding bull; bull calf (19x: ED IIIb, Old Babylonian) wr.
1527 gudninda
2 Akk. bīru; mīru
1528
1529 It is important to note that śiva’s bull too is a calf and not a fully-grown bull.
1530 It is a very commonly seen human behavior to address (and actually
1531 consider) pets as sons and daughters. It is possible that early people
1532 addressed their bull calves as nanda, their son or its affectionate variations
1533 like nandi or nandu, still used in names of people.
1534
1535 (73) Sans. romaś/lomaś a goat (Rigveda)
1536 Sum. maš goat; extispicy; sacrificial animal for omens (10699x: ED IIIa, ED
1537 IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian,
1538 1st millennium) wr. maš2; maš Akk. bīru; urīşu
1539
1540 Intial clipping like in kinnara (both words are discussed with word no. 29

46
1541 kinnara above). On translator’s seal (above) we see a figure holding a
1542 (baby) goat.
1543
1544 (74) Sans. barkara बक#र a goat
1545 Sum. barakara (meaning unknown) (3x: Ur III) wr. ba-ra-kar-ra
1546
1547 This Sanskrit word barkara seems to represent the sound of the goat,
1548 which would be the easiest way to describe the animal. It is also basis of
1549 most common words for goat, i.e. bakarā/bakari (for male/female) in India
1550 today. The meaning of this word is unknown in Sumerian records.
1551 Sumerologists may check and report on this matter, if this meaning i.e. goat,
1552 fits the context. At one place it is mentioned with udu i.e. sheep (below),
1553 udu ba-ra-kar-ra PDT 1, 462 3.
1554
1555 (75) Sans. huḍu !ड# a ram
1556 Sum. udu sheep (28818x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Ebla, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur
1557 III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, 1st millennium, unknown) wr.
1558 udu; e-ze2 Akk. immeru
1559
1560 (76) Sans. bhaiḍaka भैडक (fr. bheḍa, bheṇḍa) relating to or coming from a sheep
1561 Sum. barsuga ~sheep, a designation of sheep; without fleece; plucked
1562 fleece (61x: Ur III) wr. bar-su-ga; bar-sug4-a Akk. ?
1563
1564 (77) Sans. vṛṣākapi वृषाकिप "man-ape" or “great-ape” Rigveda (RV iv, 18, 8) a
1565 mythological anthropomorphic monkey like creature; Sans. kapi a monkey
1566 Sum. ugubi monkey (13x: Old Babylonian) wr. uguugu
4-bi;
uguu-gu
5-bi

1567 Akk. uqūpu

1568
1569 ‘Vṛṣ’ is non-compatible and k>g and p>b are common. It is understood that
1570 Indian monkeys reached Mesopotamia. Figurines of monkeys performing
1571 act of climbing on a stick or in various acrobatic poses are found at Indus
1572 sites. Kenoyer suggests that pet monkeys were probably a common sight in
1573 the bazaars or neighborhood markets of Indus cities (Kenoyer 1998).
1574 Similar figurines are found in Mesopotamia as well and it is generally
1575 thought that the bulk of Early Dynastic to Larsa period monkey figurines in
1576 Mesopotamia depicts Indian primates (Ratnagar 1984, Possehl 1994).
1577 There are still-present traditions of classes of folk/street performers who

47
1578 perform with a short tailed monkey. The monkey is mostly dressed like a
1579 human. As part of their performance, they address the monkey using
1580 mischievous names to generate interest in the audience. They usually
1581 emphasize that their monkey is no ordinary one; it has human like or even
1582 super-human qualities and more. ‘Vṛṣākapi’ surely fits such descriptions
1583 and its transformation into ugubi is well within the scope of the formula.
1584 Same strategy could have helped merchants who were selling monkey
1585 figurines.
1586
1587 (78) Sans. vājibhūmi वािजभूिम a place where horses are bred or a spot abounding
1588 in or suitable for horses.
1589 Sum. wadaltum shed? a shed where animals are born? (3x: Ur III) wr. wa-
1590 da-al-tum Akk. ?
1591
1592 It is very rare in Sumerian for words to start with ‘w’.
1593
1594 (79) Sans. haṃsira हंिसर a kind of mouse
1595 Sum. humsirum mouse wr. ha-mun-zi-lum Akk. humşīru
1596
1597 Possibly a large mouse (a rat?) according to Akkadian records. Stories
1598 about ship-rats are present everywhere in world. This could be a species
1599 that travelled on ships and reached.
1600
1601
1602 Other Words
1603
1604 Most of the words listed above are related to the fields that can be connected
1605 with Harappans or south Asia through some way or the other. But given the
1606 influence seen in above list, there could be many more words related to general
1607 human activities. Only some examples are presented here:
1608
1609 Disease
1610
1611 Humans do fall ill and so would Harappans in Mesopotamia. It appears that some
1612 of Indian names of disease also got attested. Here are some as under:
1613

48
1614 (80) Sans. adhimāṃsaka अिधमांसक impaction; inflammatory oedema of the last
1615 molar teeth or wisdom teeth; proud flesh or cancer (especially in the eyes
1616 or the back part of the gums)
1617 Sum. amudaseke dropsy (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. a-mud-a-se3-ke
1618
1619 (81) Sans. aṅgaja अ"ज a disease
1620 Sum. aganĝar a disease (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. a-ga-an-ĝar
1621
1622 (82) Sans. ajagallikā अजगि%का "goat's cheek"; an infantile disease
1623 Sum. aĝizzal a disease (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. aĝizzalx
1624 (|GIŠ.TUG2.PI.ŠIR2t.SIL2|) Akk. na'lu
1625
1626
1627 (83) Sans. agnidāha अि#दाह a particular disease
1628 Sum. agantum skin disease (5x: Old Babylonian) wr. a-ga-an-tum3
1629 Akk. epqēnu
1630
1631
1632 Other - Miscellaneous
1633
1634 (84) Sans. sneha !नेह tenderness, love, blandness, attachment to, fondness or
1635 affection for
1636 Sum. neha calm, peace (14x: Old Babylonian) wr. ne-ha Akk. nēhtu
1637
1638 Cluster ‘sn’ in the begining is non-compatible. Exactly same variation of the
1639 word i.e. neha is present in later Indo Aryan languages too.
1640
1641 (85) Sans. mud joy, happiness, gladness, etc. (Rigveda, Vajasneyi Samhita)
1642 Sum. mud joy (1x: Old Babylonian) wr. mud5
1643
1644 Mud has many meanings in Sumerian. Most attested is ‘jar’. Others are tube,
1645 blood, etc. Joy is most poorly attested (i.e. only once).
1646
1647 (86) Sans. umā उमा fame, reputation, splendour, light, wife of the god śiva; also
1648 called pārvatī and durgā

49
1649 Sum. uma triumph, victory (18x: Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr. u3-ma; u2-ma
1650 Akk. ernittu
1651
1652 (87) Sans. mah मह् / maha मह great, strong, powerful, mighty, abundant
1653 (Rigveda, Vajasneyi Samhita)
1654 Sum. mah great; (to be) great (3271x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur
1655 III, Early Old Babylonian, Old Babylonian, unknown) wr. mah; mah2
1656 Akk. kabtu; mādu; rabû; şīru
1657
1658 Sanskrit and later indo Aryan speakers have a habit of using “maha” (as an
1659 adjective) with almost everything to show a greatness or superlative
1660 quality, e.g. pandit-maha pandit, gyani-maha gyani and many more. Similar
1661 practice is found to be present in many Sumerian examples where the word
1662 is used for same purpose. But as suffix instead of prefix. E.g. gala ‘lament
1663 singer’ - galamah ‘chief lament singer’; agrig ‘steward, housekeeper’ -
1664 agrigmah ‘top administrator’.
1665
1666 (88) Sans. amlavetasa अ"लवेतस vinegar (obtained from fruit)
1667 Sum. aĝeštinak vinegar (98x: ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Ur III, Old Babylonian)
1668 wr. a-ĝeštin-na
1669
1670 Almost entire word seems non-compatible as ‘am-la’ combination in the
1671 beginning of the word is not seen as well as ‘v’, and even t-s- (with any
1672 vowel) in the end too is quite rare.
1673
1674 (89) Sans. śaṇḍa श"ड name of an asura priest (son of śukra); name of a demon,
1675 a patronym (Vajasneyi Samhita, Maitrayani Samhita)
1676 Sum. saĝĝa an official, the chief administrator of a temple household
1677 (1862x: ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Old Babylonian) wr.
1678 saĝĝa; |GAR.ŠID|; |ŠID.GAR| Akk. šangû
1679
1680 ṇḍa is non-compatible (see bhaṇḍa above).
1681
1682 (90) Sans. saraṇyu/śaraṇyu सर#यु/शर#यु wind, air
1683 Sum. satium east wind; east; easterner (7x: Ur III, Old Babylonian)
1684 wr. tumusa12-ti-um; sa-ti-um; tumusa12-tu-um; tumusa12-tum3; tumusa-ti-um

50
1685
1686 -raṇyu is non-compatible. It is very interesting to compare the meaning in both
1687 the languages. Indus Valley is, in fact, in the east of Mesopotamia.
1688

1689
1690
1691 Much more study from all angles is required to understand this
1692 phenomenon and its extent. Its implications can be far reaching. The
1693 sumerianization process requires investigation from sumerologists. Formula is a
1694 general indicator of the patterns that were seen in musical terms that lead to the
1695 discovery of other words that were following similar patterns, which also
1696 confirmed the music related data. But the apparent accuracy in transformation of
1697 many of the words may suggest the possibility of some kind of active human
1698 involvement in the process. It is possible that interpreters like Shu-ilishu were
1699 probably not only translating the languages but also employing mechanisms
1700 similar to Phono-Semantic Matching to bring foreign words into local languages.
1701 It is also possible that early Harappan traders or their scribes themselves may
1702 have started sumerianizing their words for local customers and also, importantly,
1703 to make them expressible in the cuneiform script.
1704
1705 About 30% of the words are attested since Early Dynastic periods but they are
1706 also some of the important ones, e.g. classes of musicians and jesters i.e. kinnara,
1707 gatr/gala, bhāṇḍa, vidūṣaka; most of the measuring units; some of the
1708 trees/timbre and furniture and some other trade related terms including seal;
1709 etc. This suggests that Harappan cultural and commercial influence was already
1710 established by this time, which confirms with conclusions drawn by During
1711 Casper (see above) and many others.
1712
1713 It seems likely that early Harappan merchants had a practice of keeping
1714 musicians with them. As the data suggest, Harappan music and performances
1715 may have become very popular in Mesopotamia.
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721

51
1722 Language of Indus Valley?
1723
1724 So does this data provide definitive evidence for the language of Indus Valley?
1725 This is a big question and requires debate but here are a few observations:
1726
1727 (a) Data is statistically significant and found en-bulk in the areas where
1728 Harappan words were likely to be found. Their periods of attestation, i.e.
1729 from Early Dynastic, through Akkadian till Old Babylonian, correspond with
1730 the Harappan presence in Mesopotamia in archaeology. Qualitative analysis
1731 of the list of words suggests that they may belong to a fairly advanced/urban
1732 culture. Approximately same time period is the mature urban phase of
1733 Harappan civilization.
1734
1735 (b) Majority of the words found in this study, are technical terms i.e. ‘jargon’, e.g.
1736 musical terms, measuring units and other trade related terms. Jargon is the
1737 specialized terminology associated with a particular field or area of activity
1738 (Murray, 2012). Most jargon is technical terms, involving terms of art, or
1739 industry terms, with particular meaning within a specific industry. Use of
1740 jargon can make it very difficult for the outsiders to understand a
1741 conversation between members of a given group, even if they speak same
1742 language. There can be very rare, random or coincidental similarities but it is
1743 not likely for technical terms to be very similar en-bulk in unrelated
1744 languages without borrowing. For example, without some kind of direct
1745 influence, it would be highly unlikely that about 50% of the musical terms in
1746 Sumerian dictionary would be very similar in sound and meaning to those
1747 found in a linguistically and geographically unrelated language i.e. Sanskrit.
1748 This is way beyond some random coincidence; direct contact would be very
1749 crucial to account for such an occurrence. Musical instruments themselves
1750 are inventions and similarity in instruments and their names between
1751 different areas are usually considered as a sign of borrowing.
1752
1753 (c) For these words to have come from Mesopotamia to south Asia, there should
1754 be at least some archaeological evidence found in Harappan sites accounting
1755 for such degree of Mesopotamian influence. However, as mentioned above,
1756 there are none – not even a single object of clear Mesopotamian origin is
1757 identified till now in the Indus realm (Parpola, Vidale, etc., see above).
1758 Whereas, as detailed earlier, a lot of Harappan activity is recorded in
1759 Mesopotamia. There is also a well-defined presence of symbols of Harappan

52
1760 origin or resemblance in Mesopotamian art, (a part of that is discussed in the
1761 section of archaeological evidence below).
1762
1763 (d) Just like nature of relation between Indus Valley and Mesopotamia, the
1764 formula too appears to be ‘one-way ticket’, because it provides a way for
1765 Sanskrit to Sumerian but the other way round doesn’t seem possible. In
1766 other words, for many cases it is not possible to obtain Sanskrit words from
1767 Sumerian forms, e.g. many words appear to be clipped forms of Sanskrit
1768 terms or parts are removed. This again makes it very difficult and unlikely
1769 for these words to have come from Mesopotamia to south Asia directly or
1770 indirectly. Which is similar to what is suggested by archaeological records
1771 and echoed by many scholars as mentioned earlier. Moreover, most of the
1772 phonemes present in Sumerian are compatible with Sanskrit; therefore,
1773 phonetic change would not be a necessity, like it is for Sanskrit to Sumerian.
1774
1775 (e) Most significantly, several words are related to items that are native to south
1776 Asia or known to have reached Mesopotamia through Harappans. E.g.
1777 humped bull, species of trees/wood, units of measurement, seals, beads,
1778 dice, wooden furniture, monkey, etc. E.g. Humped bull (zebu) is one of the
1779 important and clinching evidence, which is native to south Asia (and not to
1780 west or central Asia) and established to have reached west Asia with
1781 Harappans. Sumerian word is found to be similar to Sanskrit for bull's hump
1782 (word no. 71). It is also depicted clearly on a tablet with a drawing of a
1783 musical instrument along with the name of the instrument (fig. 5), which too,
1784 has a corresponding Indian term (word no. 25). Similar is the case of species
1785 of trees, which are stated in relation with Meluhha in Sumerian records and
1786 are native to south Asia (and foreign to either of west or central Asia).
1787 Importantly, both the major categories i.e. music and trade have words that
1788 corresponds to sans. Sindhu (Indus) for different purposes. Which is how the
1789 world has identified the south Asian region, people, their religion and
1790 products throughout historic period and till today - India.
1791
1792 (f) Some words are specific to India from Indo-European (IE) perspective as
1793 well i.e. corresponding terms are not present in other IE languages e.g. vāṇa,
1794 gargar, akśa, koś, goṇī, śaṇḍa, bhāṇḍa, etc. (Kuiper 1955, 1991). Again, some
1795 of these too are related to known Harappan exports to Mesopotamia. An
1796 example could be akśa-devana, game of dice, present in Harappan
1797 archaeology, known to have reached Mesopotamia with Harappans (Dales

53
1798 1979) and the Sanskrit word for dice ‘akśa’ is not related to other Indo-
1799 European languages.
1800
1801 (g) Words are Indo Aryan (Sanskrit) in nature. Which is the language of the
1802 earliest known texts from south Asia that pertain to the same geographic
1803 areas as that of Indus civilization. Rigveda is generally dated around 1500-
1804 1200 BCE and a wider approximation is also given i.e. 1700-1100 BCE. These
1805 dates overlap with late Harappan period (ending around 1300 BCE).
1806 Although suggestions of its early dates (sometimes based on astronomy)
1807 may go to 3rd or 4th millennia BCE or even earlier. Later parts of these date-
1808 ranges are mostly related to completion of the text. This is because of the fact
1809 that Rigveda is not a single book but a multilayered compilation. The Rigveda
1810 Samhita is the core text (considered to be the oldest), which itself is a
1811 collection of 10 books (maṇḍala-s) with about 10,552 verses in 1,028 hymns
1812 (sūkta-s) composed by many families of sages and others over an unknown
1813 period of time.
1814
1815 The archaeological evidence and the circumstances present with the data seems
1816 to unambiguously connect it to Harappans and at the same time contradict with
1817 other possibilities i.e. origin of this phenomenon in either Mesopotamia or
1818 Central Asia.
1819
1820 According to the generally excepted hypothesis, Indo-Aryan language reached
1821 south Asia around 1st half or middle of second millennia BCE with pastoralists
1822 from central Asia. But this data seem to suggest that there is a strong possibility
1823 that Indo Aryan (Sanskrit) was already present in south Asia in Indus Valley
1824 civilization. According to this data, Harappans who travelled, traded and settled
1825 in Mesopotamia may have spoken a form of Sanskrit or it was the lingua franca
1826 of the Indus region. Detailed linguistic study is required to know the exact type of
1827 Sanskrit.
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835

54
1836

1837

1838

1839

1840

1841

1842

1843

1844 Archaeological Evidence

1845
1846 Given the kind of cultural impact suggested by Sumerian texts, there should be
1847 some evidence related to music, recorded in archeology of the region as well. A
1848 study of iconography in Mesopotamian archaeological records showed many
1849 compelling parallels in musical traditions between both the cultures. A
1850 forthcoming paper (briefed in the introduction section) talks about music related
1851 evidence found at various Harappan sites that show the possibility of existence
1852 of many instruments. It also provides a comparative study with Mesopotamian
1853 records. Suffice to say here that many of those possible Harappan instruments
1854 have parallels in Mesopotamian art and their Sanskrit names are recorded in
1855 Sumerian texts. This paper, instead, particularly concentrates on certain
1856 identifiable aspects of south Asian musical traditions, which may have reached
1857 and assimilated into Mesopotamian culture and seen in archaeological records
1858 there. Importantly, it predicted the possibility of existence of a Harappan lyre,
1859 shaped realistically like a bull, which may have travelled from the Indus Valley to
1860 Mesopotamia and evolved there in local styles as found in the Royal Cemetery of
1861 Ur.
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868

55
1869 Zoomorphism in Indian cultural traditions: zoomorphic musical
1870 instruments (and other objects) and animal-musicians
1871
1872 Zoomorphism is found in many cultures around the world but Indian traditions
1873 seem to have taken these ideas to a completely different level. Zoomorphism
1874 (applying animal-attributes or designs to humans and objects), anthro-
1875 pomorphism (giving human qualities to animals) and therianthropomorphism
1876 (shape shifting beings), in general, are prevalent refrains in Indian cultural
1877 spheres since prehistoric periods and can be seen in countless examples. Largest
1878 majority of the Indus seals have animals as the principal motif. Further
1879 interesting development of the idea is seen on many seals in form of composite
1880 animals, where various parts of different animals are mixed. In certain examples,
1881 there are multiple heads emanating from a common neck and each head is of a
1882 different animal. There are anthropomorphic horned deities in terracotta
1883 figurines and on seals. On a famous seal, a human figure (probably a deity,
1884 sometimes called paśupati or proto- śiva) with water buffalo horns is flanked
1885 with many animals and is sitting in possibly a yogic posture on a throne that also
1886 has animals carved on it. On another seal, we find a half-human and half-tiger
1887 figure. There are zoomorphic lamps (mostly bull or cow), bird-shaped ocarina
1888 type whistles, pottery with zoomorphic figures and miniaturized terracotta
1889 anthropomorphic masks excavated at various Indus sites. There is a continuity of
1890 similar ideas in material culture till modern times (Fig 6: Seals, Lamps and other
1891 objects). Some signs in Indus script too have zoomorphic shapes. Kenoyer (2010)
1892 is a very good reference here, a few relevant excerpts:
1893
1894 “Iconographic depictions of humans and animals, as well as interactions between
1895 the two, are common in the art and graphic expression of South Asia, beginning
1896 as early as the late Upper Palaeolithic (ca.12,000 YA) and Mesolithic periods
1897 (10,000 YA) (Kenoyer 1992)”. “(…) anthropomorphic figures, have a long history
1898 beginning in the Upper Palaeolithic, continuing through the Indus Tradition, up
1899 to the present.”
1900
1901 “During the Early Harappan phase (ca. 3300–2800 BC) conflict scenes with
1902 humans and animals, as well as depictions of horned anthropomorphic images
1903 that may have been shamans or deities, are found at many sites throughout the
1904 Indus Valley. (…) These early motifs continued to be used in the subsequent
1905 Harappan phase (ca. 2600–1900 BC) when Indus cities established vast
1906 economic and ideological networks.”

56
1907
1908 “ (…) Other images portray animal-headed humans or human-headed animals
1909 that may represent complementary or contrasting imagery of what might be
1910 anthropomorphic animal deities or an Animal Master or Mistress.”
1911
1912 Likewise, in earliest records of Hindu religious imagery we see a supernatural
1913 anthropomorphic monkey like creature “Vṛṣākapi” of Rigveda; many of the
1914 important divinities like Indra, in Rigveda, have zoomorphic forms e.g. a vriśabh
1915 or bull, Aśva or horse, Mesha or a ram and so on; later Gods like Ganeśa, Varāha,
1916 Narsimhā and Hanumān etc. have heads of animals like elephant, wild bore, lion
1917 and monkey respectively with human body (sometimes with other animal like
1918 features as well); there are also multi-headed versions of many gods where each
1919 head is of a different animal; as well as other therianthropic figures such as the
1920 Nagas and Garudas etc. A non-religious and very important example is highly
1921 popular anthropomorphic characters of Panchtantra. Early date for its surviving
1922 version is around 300 BCE but it is understood to have content whose roots may
1923 go back to vedic period and even beyond (cit?). This list can go on and on, but for
1924 this study, the most relevant manifestation of these ideas is the tradition of
1925 zoomorphic musical instruments and various classes of zoo/anthropomorphic
1926 musicians such as Kimpurusa-s, Kinnara-s, Gandharva-s and Bhand-s.
1927
1928 It is important to note that what we are discussing here, are general artistic ideas
1929 and aesthetic choices that have been repeatedly seen in the subcontinent and are
1930 not specifically related with any language or religion. Rather, it is an over-
1931 encompassing cultural phenomenon. Irrespective of the interpretations these
1932 ideas held in different periods, these particular aesthetic choices show a
1933 remarkable continuity from very early periods to modern times and present
1934 themselves in large variety.
1935
1936 In India, there is a long-drawn tradition of making instruments (specially
1937 chordophones i.e. stringed ones but others too) entirely in the form of various
1938 animals and birds and thereby lending their name to the respective instrument,
1939 as already mentioned earlier. The tradition of such chordophones continued in
1940 India until recently, although animal motifs and partially zoomorphic designs
1941 still continues. Mahābhārata mentions many instruments that are zoomorphic
1942 such as nandi (a bull shaped instrument), kachchapi (a turtle shaped lute),
1943 gomukha (an instrument with cow or bull’s head), govishan (a trumpet made
1944 from cow or bull’s horn) and rudri (partially zoomorphic, still continues) etc.

57
1945 Lāṭyāyana (a late vedic period author) mentioned an instrument named
1946 kapiśīrṣṇī किपशी&ण(, ‘kapi’ is monkey and śīrṣa is head, therefore, it could be an
1947 instrument with monkey’s head attached to it or shaped like it in full or part. Fig.
1948 6 (6.1-6.12) shows a whole gamut of animals shown as instruments from
1949 different areas and originating periods in India, which have continued and
1950 survived (at least in museums). A few examples of other objects are also
1951 included, which show presence of a larger cultural phenomenon.
1952
1953 Fig. 6: (6.1) Peacock harp (6.2) Peacock lute (6.3) Fish Harp (6.4) Fish clapper
1954 (6.5) Fish Object (6.6) Crocodile lute (6.7) Crocodile harp (6.8) Tortoise Lute
1955 (6.9) Tortoise Fiddle (6.10) Anthropomorphic Snake Trumpet (6.11) zoomorphic
1956 objects. Interestingly, all of these animals i.e. fish, peacock, crocodile, tortoise and
1957 even snake etc. are recurring features in Harappan art too.
1958
1959
1960

1961
1962
1963 Fig. 6.1 Peacock Harp

58
1964
1965
1966 Fig. 6.2: (Above) Peacock Lutes, despite similar shape these are different instruments – one is
1967 plucked and other is bowed instrument. (Below) Another exquisite specimen at MET museum
1968

1969
1970
1971
1972
1973 Fig. 6.3: Fish Harp (modern
1974 reconstruction)
1975
1976
1977

59
1978
1979
1980 Fig. 6.4: Fish Clappers
1981

1982
1983
1984 Fig. 6.5: Fish shaped Beetle Box, 18th Century AD
1985

1986
1987
1988 Fig. 6.6: Crocodile Lute
1989

60
1990
1991
1992 Fig. 6.7: Gharial (Indian fish eating crocodile) shaped Harp
1993
1994
1995

1996

1997
1998 Fig. 6.8 Tortoise shaped lute ‘kachchpi’ – mentioned in Mahābhārata.
1999

61
2000
2001
2002 Fig. 6.9: Tortoise Fiddle
2003

2004

2005
2006
2007 Fig. 6.10: Anthropomorphic Snake Trumpet from Rajasthan, India and details of the
2008 hood of the snake
2009

62
2010
2011

2012
2013
2014 Fig. 6.11: (Above) Harappan lamps; (Below) A lamp and a hair dryer from Maharashtra,
2015 India, 18th Century AD
2016

2017
2018
2019
2020 But apart from instruments that are fully zoomorphic, there are many more
2021 instruments found in India (Fig. 7) that have animal motifs or are partly animal
2022 like. In many cases an animal head (sometimes tail part too) is attached to the
2023 main body, which is shaped more conventionally, perhaps for sound or
2024 convenience of some kind. Here we see a kind of contrasting idea, the instrument
2025 becomes the body of the animal/bird instead of body of the instrument shaped
2026 like one. Similar feature is seen on Mesopotamian lyres as well.

63
2027
2028
2029 Fig. 7- (7.1) Rudra vīṇā, (7.2) Vichitra vīṇā, (7.3) Saraswati vīṇā (7.4) Swan
2030 shaped vīṇā (7.5) Phet Banam, (7.6) Sārindā (7.7) drum with bulls, (7.8) Multi-
2031 headed Snake Tānpurā.
2032

2033
2034
2035 Fig. 7.1: Rudra vīṇā with a snake’s head emanating from it; mentioned in mahābhārata.
2036
2037
2038

2039
2040
2041 Fig. 7.2 Vichitra Veena, a fretless plucked stringed instrument played using a slide
2042

64
2043
2044
2045 Fig. 7.3: Saraswati Veena with golden lion head
2046
2047
2048

2049
2050
2051 Fig. 7.4: Swan shaped lute
2052
2053

65
2054
2055
2056 Fig. 7.5: Taanpura with a multi-headed snake emanating from the neck
2057
2058

2059
2060
2061 Fig. 7.6: Drum with two bull-calves and a Shiva Lingam (c.f. fig. 5 lilis)
2062
2063

66
2064
2065
2066 Left - Fig. 7.7: Phet banam with an assortment of animals carved on it; a fish, tortoise
2067 elephant, monkey, scorpion and horse etc. with three human figures. It is played by Santhali
2068 (an Austro Asiatic language) speaking people in northwestern region in India.
2069
2070 Right - Fig. 7.8 Sarinda (a bowed stringed instrument) with possibly a Himalayan Monal bird
2071 like figure attached above it. Monal is the “state bird” of Uttarakhand state in India. It is
2072 found in Afghanistan and Pakistan through the Himalayas in India, Nepal, southern Tibet,
2073 and Bhutan.
2074
2075 As the figures 6 and 7 show, presence of such a large variety of large-sized
2076 zoomorphic stringed instruments in India is striking and exist among speakers of
2077 both Aryan and Dravidian languages in India. It is very reasonable to think that
2078 this tradition is part of the same cultural synthesis involving animal symbolism
2079 that originated with Indus valley civilization.
2080
2081 Apart from instruments, the notes of musical scale in India are mentioned to
2082 have originated from different birds/animals e.g. peacock, nightingale, etc. There
2083 are also many ragas-s/ragini-s (melodic frameworks), tala-s, etc. that have
2084 names derived from animals/birds.
2085
2086
2087
2088

67
2089 Symbol of Harappans settled in Mesopotamia – The Bull
2090
2091 Most of the round and rectangular seals found in Mesopotamia with Indus script
2092 or iconographies depict a bull and there is an almost general consensus that this
2093 big bull visible in these seals is the Indian gaur (Bos gaurus gaurus). Thus Vidale
2094 says, “(...) the Indus families living in the western commercial enclaves already
2095 recognized the gaur, one of the standard animal figures of the standard seals in
2096 the motherland, as their symbol.“
2097
2098 The “Harappan” Bull Lyre
2099
2100 With this background, a very rarely depicted fully zoomorphic bull-shaped lyre
2101 in Mesopotamia becomes of great interest here (not to confuse with popular bull-
2102 headed lyres). Fig. 8 shows scene of a banquet on a cylinder seal from a grave in
2103 the Ur cemetery (PG L054). In the bottom register there are 2 figures playing
2104 clappers, a dancer (could also be a musician playing a straight clapper or a
2105 rattle), and a seated figure playing a bovine lyre. The top register shows festive
2106 banqueters. U. 11904 (Woolley 1934, pt. 1: fig. 23) (Anne Kilmer, 1998).
2107

2108
2109
2110 Fig. 8
2111
2112 In context of the presence of perhaps many Harappan musicians in Mesopotamia,
2113 Indian tradition of zoomorphic instruments and the bull being the symbol of

68
2114 Meso-Harappans, one is tempted to connect this particular lyre to them or of an
2115 Indus origin. As discussed earlier, Sumerian word alĝar, i.e. bull lyre corresponds
2116 to Sanskrit ājakāra, i.e. śiva-'s bull. Other instruments shown in the scene are
2117 clappers, which, as already discussed earlier in textual records, possibly reached
2118 Mesopotamia from India. (Also c.f. fish-shaped clapper in fig. 8). Moreover, there
2119 is nothing about this particular lyre that specifically shows that it cannot be
2120 Harappan in origin or inspiration, unlike other bull-headed lyres found at Ur
2121 cemetery, which have artwork that is clearly Mesopotamian in style. In fact, its
2122 realistic shape like an actual bull is distinctly congruous with Indian traditions in
2123 its inspiration. But there is still more evidence that may point towards such a
2124 conclusion.
2125
2126 In the course of this study, to distinguish this particular instrument from other
2127 bull-headed lyres found in Ur cemetery, it was designated “nandi” (or “nandi
2128 vīṇā”), an epithet of śiva’s bull, in accordance with the Indian tradition of naming
2129 instruments. Same term is used in this work, for the same purpose.
2130
2131 Note: Harps and lyres are similar instruments except that in a harp, strings are attached to the
2132 body directly from both ends or enter directly into the hollow body of the instrument. Whereas in
2133 lyres, at least some part of the total travel of the strings happens over the body, employing a
2134 bridge. But it is not necessary and in fact, unlikely that ancients differentiated them in this
2135 manner.
2136
2137 Animal Musicians and the Lyres of Ur Cemetery
2138
2139 Primary source of animal-musician imagery, especially from the early periods in
2140 Mesopotamia, are the inlays on bull lyres found in Ur cemetery. Depiction of
2141 anthropomorphic musicians is extremely rare otherwise in that period.
2142
2143 Mortimer Wheeler (1960a: 90-3) included the representation of “humans
2144 disguised as animals” in his comprehensive description of the most significant of
2145 the similarities in both the cultures. Many other scholars have expressed similar
2146 thoughts. R.D. Barnett (1973) of the British Museum writes, “Perhaps such ideas
2147 of animals acting like humans, which we find in Mesopotamian art, came to
2148 Sumer with the monkey from India, the classic home of the animal fables”. (On
2149 animal fables, see A. Aarne and S. Thompson, The Types of Folk Tale, 1961). This
2150 idea is further supported by the fact that, “we may have evidence of visual motifs
2151 for which we do not have a comparable text, especially in the early periods of
2152 Mesopotamia. In other words, we do not know what other stories of scorpion

69
2153 men (see below) or animal orchestras existed” (Piotr Steinkeller). Also relevant
2154 here is Max Muller’s statement in “On the Migration of Fables”, where he writes,
2155 “(…) it is extremely likely that fables, in particular animal fables, had their
2156 principal source in India”.
2157
2158 Scenes on panels of these lyres are usually interpreted in relation with
2159 underworld banquet. But according to Cheng (2009), “(…) The oft-repeated
2160 underworld interpretation of these decorations has stemmed primarily from
2161 their context of discovery, the Royal Cemetery. (…) We should not let the burial
2162 context of the finds drive our interpretation of how and where they were used
2163 generally. Furthermore, these afterlife interpretations are a case of generalizing
2164 from a small sample; the panel from Great Lyre is given more prominence than
2165 perhaps it deserves.”
2166
2167 On the other hand, in south Asia, as explained earlier, the traditions of animal-
2168 musicians and performers are part of mythology as celestial musicians and
2169 singers even in the oldest textual records found in the region e.g. the Rigveda and
2170 many other. As discussed earlier, themes that amalgamate human and animal
2171 attributes are abundant in Harappan iconography as well. It is likely that these
2172 ancient indigenous traditions may have become part of later mythology. Two of
2173 the classes of Indian traditional performers recorded in Sumerian and Akkadian
2174 texts i.e. Kinnara-s and Bhand-s (both discussed in detail above), are well known
2175 to use animal getups or disguises in their acts.
2176
2177 Leonard Woolley (1934) excavated remains of many lyres from the royal
2178 cemetery of Ur, Early Dynastic III period. The Lyres had a zoomorphic head
2179 protruding from the body, (mostly it is of bull but on two of them, it’s probably
2180 cow, identified of the basis of presence or absence of beard like feature,
2181 respectively). One lyre has a goat like figure attached above sound box.
2182
2183

70
2184
2185
2186 Fig. 9: One of the Mesopotamian bull-headed lyres at British Museum (BM 121198 a)
2187
2188 Iconography on panels of the lyres is clearly Mesopotamian in style. Yet,
2189 protruding zoomorphic heads strikingly remind of the design philosophy of
2190 Indian instruments as mentioned above. Not only that, the iconography seems to
2191 depict themes that are similar to south Asian traditions, e.g. anthropomorphic
2192 musicians and more.
2193
2194 Let us examine the panel on so-called Great Lyre and compare those images with
2195 the traditions in south Asia. It is divided in four registers (Fig. 10.1).
2196

71
 2197
2198 The first register shows a scene similar
2199 to the “master of animals” that is
2200 paralleled well in both the civilization.
2201 But in this particular example, an
2202 explicitly male nude figure lovingly
2203 holds two anthropomorphic bulls in his
2204 arms. Unlike that common “combat”
2205 image, here he is a “friend of animals”
2206 or a “protector of animals”. So much so
2207 that the line between human and
2208 animals itself is blurred, a trait which is
2209 characteristic to the south Asian artistic
2210 thought. While female nudity is well
2211 attested and discussed in Mesopotamia,
2212 but explicit display of masculinity is
2213 somewhat peculiar. According to Dales
2214 (1979), “neither male nudity, male
2215 obesity, nor animation are found
2216 among Sumero-Akkadian figurines of
2217 this date (Of Dice and Men, GEORGE F.
2218 DALES (1979); Ancient Cities of Indus
2219 (Edited by Gregory L. Possehl pg. 142)).
2220 While not in figurines, male nudity is
2221 still present in Mesopotamia but only in
2222 very specific contexts. One of them is of
2223 dead soldiers (probably enemies) or
2224 prisoners. But in most of those
2225 examples, it is generally part of a larger
2226 narrative or scenes and showcasing
2227 masculinity is usually not the point; nor
Fig. 10.1: Panel on The Great Lyre (Penn
Museum B17694A) 2228 it is given any particular prominence in
2229 many of those cases. In other context,
2230 strangely, in Early Dynastic and Akkadian periods, display of masculine nudity is
2231 mostly found in iconographies on the objects (seals or otherwise) that also
2232 feature zoo/anthropomorphic or horned human figures, musicians, priests, or
2233 water buffalo and other animal similar to panels of bull-headed lyres. Other than
2234 that, male nudity is more or less absent in Sumero-Akkadian periods. Some

72
2235 scholars have proposed that male nudity may represent foreigners, which may
2236 include not only foes but friends as well. Whereas, in south Asia, it is present in
2237 large number of figurines in Indus archaeology in both early and mature
2238 Harappan phases and on many seals as well. In some examples,
2239 anthropomorphic horned figures are shown in ithyphallic state. It is also
2240 commonly found in sculptures in many temples related to Hinduism, Jainism and
2241 Buddhism throughout historic periods in the region. śiva, who is generally
2242 considered to be one of the most ancient, widely worshipped God and the third
2243 of the Hindu Trinity, is worshipped much more commonly in the form of the
2244 lingam, or the phallus. Evidence of the lingam in India dates back to prehistoric
2245 times (2300-2800 BCE?). In his human form, in early periods (?), śiva is some
2246 times depicted in ithyphallic state.
2247
2248 Second register shows a couple of animals serving food and some kind of
2249 beverage, perhaps in a banquet (see word no. 47 vaṃśaja/banšur – table).
2250

2251
2252
2253 Fig. 10.2 and 10.3
2254
2255 Third register (Fig 10.2) on the bull-headed lyre shows an anthropomorphic
2256 musician playing a bull-headed lyre. Another animal, a bear, is holding the
2257 instrument, some times interpreted as a dancer. A third small figure is like a fox
2258 or jackal, playing a Sistra (or Sistrum). Galpin (1937) suggested its origin in India.
2259 Similar instrument is mentioned in Sanskrit records as sṛṣṭā (सृ#ा), a stick with
2260 jingles. Fig 10.3 shows an Indian painting (1820 AD, British Museum
2261 2007,3005.53) of highly celebrated celestial anthropomorphic musician,
2262 Tumburu, playing a lute that has a zoomorphic head attached at the end of its

73
2263 neck. He appears in both the epics i.e. Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata as well as in
2264 other texts. The painting is reasonably analogous to his description in the ancient
2265 texts. If we ignore the elements that are clearly of later origin (ornaments,
2266 clothing, general ‘modernity’ in the form) or the exact choice of instrument, and
2267 compare it to Mesopotamian image in fig. 10.2, then both the images seem to
2268 represent basically the same thing; i.e. “an anthropomorphic musician, playing
2269 an instrument that has a zoomorphic head attached to it”. Even the choice of
2270 animal part of musician is harmonious in appearance. Discussion here is not to
2271 postulate in particular that it is in fact Tumburu depicted on Ur lyre, but the
2272 cultural synthesis behind it.
2273
2274

2275
2276
2277 Left - Fig. 10.3: Fourth register on the panel of great lyre. Right - Fig. 10.4: A folk musician
2278 from Rajasthan, India playing a clapper (karatāla or kharatāla)
2279
2280 In the last one (fig. 10.3), a human-scorpion musician is playing a clapper
2281 instrument and a gazelle is playing a rattle/shaker (or serving drinks?). Exactly
2282 same variety of clappers is still played in India and Pakistan (Fig. 10.4) especially
2283 in present day Rajasthan, Sindh and Gujrat provinces where many important
2284 Harappan settlements are found. Technique of these folk musicians, who play
2285 this simple instrument today in the subcontinent, is highly sophisticated. They
2286 can play very intricate rhythmic patterns at a very fast tempo.
2287
2288 Other than lyres of Ur, the only attestation of animal-musicians in early periods

74
2289 in Mesopotamia is on a seal (ED II, 2650-2550 BCE), which was also found in Ur
2290 (Fig. 11) (Hansen 2003). There are two instruments clearly seen in this seal
2291 being played by these musicians (2nd and 3rd equids) i.e. an arched harp and a
2292 clapper. As discussed above, Sumerian/Akkadian words for both are very similar
2293 to their Indian names and shapes of harp and possibly clappers are represented
2294 in Indus script as well. The first equid might be playing a small lyre (or holding a
2295 jar?).
2296
2297

2298
2299
2300 Fig. 11: Drawing of impression on clay from a cylinder seal: Ur, Early Dynastic II, 2650-2550
2301 BCE
2302
2303 Similarities between Indian and Mesopotamian forms in the registers of this lyre
2304 and in other examples are very striking and seem unlikely to be a random co-
2305 incidence. Rare presence of animal-musicians in Early Dynastic period and no
2306 evidence of existence prior to that, support Harappan influence.
2307
2308 Despite so many similarities, the distinctive Mesopotamian style of the
2309 decorations on Ur lyres cannot be ignored.
2310
2311 Many of the carnelian beads found in the graves of the main Sumerian cities or at
2312 Susa in the second half of the 3rd millennium BCE are presently interpreted as
2313 made locally by Indus craft-persons or artisans trained in an Indus technical
2314 tradition but producing shapes and decorations after the specific local demand.
2315 Vidale (2004) points out that Indus craftsmen had developed an intimate
2316 understanding of Mesopotamian culture and markets. They promptly adapted
2317 their products and trade to the fast-changing political and ideological
2318 environments of the local social and cultural evolution. Musical instruments are
2319 usually fragile and regularly require repairs. If there were so much of Harappan

75
2320 music was present in Mesopotamia as textual evidence suggest, then a respective
2321 number of instrument makers would also be needed. The “Epic of Gilgamesh”
2322 mentions a “flute of carnelian” (British Museum BM 36909, BM 37023, etc.). As
2323 Gilgamesh prays to the gods of the Netherworld, he names the gifts he is burying
2324 with Enkidu for his journey in the afterlife including a flask of lapis lazuli and a
2325 flute of carnelian (from Book VIII of the Epic, lines 144–149)(George 1999, 2003,
2326 2003a). If such an object actually existed, even for symbolic or ritualistic
2327 purposes, it would be not very different from a larger barrel type long carnelian
2328 bead with holes note. Only Harappans had the technology to make such an object
2329 (Kenoyer?). Therefore, the possibility of involvement of Harappan craftsmen in
2330 the manufacture of musical instruments in Mesopotamia is thus, very much a
2331 tenable premise and as the evidence suggest, could be the case.
2332
2333 Note: Indian transverse flutes are extremely simple in construction; it is just a hollow pipe (of
2334 many sizes and materials) with holes. But the technique and virtuosity of its players, just like
2335 karatāla, is a completely different story. High-pitched variety of Indian flutes can be very small,
2336 as short as about 18 cm in length with a diameter of about 1.5 cm.
2337
2338 These wooden lyres were richly decorated or overlaid with gold, silver, copper,
2339 lapis lazuli, mother of pearl, etc. (Kilmer 1998). Interestingly, most of these
2340 materials (as well as certain types of wood) are mentioned regularly as supplied
2341 to Mesopotamia from the Indus area or through Harappan traders in both
2342 prepared and raw forms. The particular material used in manufacturing of
2343 surviving parts of these lyres may be tested to know their origin. Moreover, the
2344 manufacturing of wooden musical instruments would not be very different from
2345 that of royal furniture, which the Indus trade centers were supplying to
2346 Mesopotamia (see above).
2347
2348 The excavator (Wooley) suggested that prior to this form, the bull-headed lyre
2349 could be more like a real bull with legs, etc.; and rightly so, because nandi type
2350 lyre is attested only in early periods with low occurrence. Whereas bull-headed
2351 lyres seem to be popular in Sumero-Akkadian periods, as found in art and actual
2352 remains.
2353
2354 Here is another example that may reiterate the possibility of Harappan
2355 participation in musical spaces in Mesopotamia - Fig. 12.1 shows the lower
2356 register of so-called “Stele of Music” found in Telloh (ancient Girsu) dating to the
2357 reign of Gudea (2100–2000 BCE). It has a seated musician playing on a large lyre
2358 with a small but realistic figure of a short-horned bull attached above sound box.

76
2359 Interestingly, the bull appears quite similar to the ones seen on “Indus style”
2360 seals found in Mesopotamia, and as found in Indus Valley.
2361

2362
2363
2364 Fig. 12.1 Lower register of “The Stele of Music”
2365
2366 All of the above-presented evidence strongly suggests that bull-headed lyres of
2367 Ur cemetery could be a hallmark of fusion of Harappan and Mesopotamian
2368 cultures. Tradition of zoomorphic instruments of south Asia and specially nandi
2369 type fully zoomorphic bull lyre may had been their inspiration. But they were
2370 manufactured in Mesopotamia, possibly by acculturated Harappan artists and
2371 artisans in local styles. In other words, these lyres could be Harappan in
2372 inspiration but Mesopotamian in presentation.
2373
2374 The bridge
2375
2376 A bridge is a device that supports the strings on a stringed musical instrument
2377 and transmits the vibration of those strings to another structural component of
2378 the instrument—typically the soundbox. The bridge of these lyres is quite wide
2379 and appears flat on the top. Such wide and flat (or slightly curved) bridge is
2380 widely found in Indian instruments (see figures 6 and 7 above) including most
2381 prominent (and ancient) ones like Rudri, Saraswati, Kachchapi and many other
2382 vīṇā-s (many of which are fully or partially zoomorphic) and continuing till
2383 modern Tānpura and Sitar. This bridge is the reason behind that certain twang in
2384 the tone of these instruments (C. V. Raman, 1905). Indian smaller lutes (Ektara,
2385 Dotar, Sarod, etc.) and bowed instruments (Rāvanhast, Sārangi, Sārinda, Isrāj,
2386 etc.) mostly have a bridge of thinner variety.
2387
2388

77
2389 Dilmun connection
2390
2391 Another evidence suggesting Indus origin of this fully zoomorphic lyre, is found
2392 on a ‘Gulf seal’ from Falaika in Bahrain (Fig. 13), which was of course en route
2393 emporium through which the Harappan trade was carried out with Mesopotamia
2394 after the direct trading had come to a stop somewhere around 2100 BCE. A
2395 strong Harappan impact is seen in the archaeological records from that period.
2396 The area is usually identified as Dilmun. According to Steffen Terp Laursen
2397 (2010) “The innovative group of risk-taking entrepreneurs that were
2398 instrumental in transmitting Indus Valley sealing, writing and weight technology
2399 into Dilmun culture must at first have been composed of break- away Harappans
2400 (c.2100 BC), followed by a combination of Dilmunite and acculturated Harappan
2401 merchants (c.2050 BC)”.
2402

2403
2404 Fig. 13
2405
2406 But in such a case, assuming that Nandi reached Mesopotamia with Harappans,
2407 did these “break–away Harappans” bring their beloved instrument here too? Fig.
2408 13 shows a round seal from Falaika, which depicts a bull and a musician playing
2409 nandi like instrument. Presence of this particular instrument in Dilmun does
2410 support its Indus origin, but not exclusively so, since Dilmun had relations with
2411 Mesopotamia too since probably 3000 BCE. However, circumstantial evidence
2412 supports its origin in Indus valley because the attestation is from the period
2413 around 2000 BCE when strong Harappan influence is recorded and Harappans
2414 were trading with Mesopotamia exclusively through Dilmun. Whereas, nandi in
2415 Mesopotamia is attested only in early periods when Harappan direct trade
2416 started to appear in Mesopotamia and afterwards it is only Ur style bull-headed
2417 lyres seen in iconography. In other words, this instrument is attested in
2418 Mesopotamia and Bahrain in separate periods but in both cases, coinciding with
2419 the time when Harappan contact start to appear.

78
2420
2421
2422 CONCLUSIONS
2423
2424 Just as concluded by During Casper (1979) and others, the textual and
2425 archaeological data is suggestive of a strong Harappan cultural impact in music
2426 and performance spheres along with economic domains in Mesopotamia –
2427 already established by Early Dynastic periods and which intensified in later
2428 periods of their acquaintances. Impact in music seems to be very strong on the
2429 basis of percentage of similar words. The spread of the cultural elements may
2430 have ultimately helped, perhaps greatly, in strengthening the trade or they even
2431 possibly became active contributor to it.
2432
2433 The idea of anthropomorphic musicians and zoomorphic musical instruments
2434 may have reached to Mesopotamia from India, the classic home of animal fables.
2435 One such example could be a lyre that was realistically shaped like a bull. Those
2436 ideas may have evolved there and amalgamated with local styles - in forms of the
2437 lyres found in Ur cemetery - with possible involvement of acculturated Harappan
2438 artisans in their manufacturing. Study on materials used in manufacture of
2439 surviving specimen may help to know if Harappan traders supplied some of the
2440 raw material.
2441
2442 There is much work to be done to better understand the textual data but this
2443 data in conjunction with independent archaeological and circumstantial evidence
2444 suggest that there is a strong possibility that Harappans who travelled, traded
2445 and settled in Mesopotamia may have spoken a form of Sanskrit or it was the
2446 lingua franca of the Indus region.
2447
2448 _______
2449
2450
2451 About the author: Awarded with Homi Bhabha fellowship, author is a composer,
2452 orchestrator and music producer with extensive experience in working with
2453 musicians and instruments from all around the world. He is an independent
2454 musicologist and founded “Songs of Mystery Research Project” in 2011, an ongoing
2455 research on music in Indus valley civilization and subsequent periods in Indian
2456 subcontinent.
2457

79
2458
2459
2460 Acknowledgements
2461
2462 I’m very grateful to Homi Bhabha Fellowships Council, without their generous
2463 support this paper wasn’t possible.
2464
2465 I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. R. S. Bisht for his valuable and
2466 patient guidance, as well as for detailed examination and editing of the
2467 manuscript. My earnest thanks to Dr. Mayank Vahia for generously allowing me
2468 his time to discuss various aspects and providing useful critique of the work.
2469
2470 Very special thanks to Prof. S. M. Chitre for his enthusiastic encouragement and
2471 help in improving the language.
2472
2473 I would also like to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Aravind Jamkhedkar,
2474 Prof. Vasant Shinde, Dr. Kirit Mankodi, (Late) Mr. Kersi Lord and Mr. Avinash Oak
2475 for their guidance and support. I would also thank Raja Dinkar Kelkar Museum
2476 and Rajasthan Sangeet Natak Akademy Folk Art Museum for some of the
2477 illustrations used in this paper.
2478
2479 Finally, I wish to thank my family for their never-ending support and assistance
2480 throughout my journey, for which I shall remain forever indebted.
2481
2482
2483
2484 References
2485
2486 Dictionaries
2487 Monier Williams Sanskrit Dictionary
2488 Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary (ePSD)
2489 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CAD)
2490
2491 Agrawala, V. S. (1952). Ancient Indian Flora in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini.
2492
2493 Beck H.C. (1933) “Etched carnelian beads.” Antiquaries Journal, XIII, pp. 384-398.
2494
2495 Bhan K.K., J.M. Kenoyer & M. Vidale (1994) “Harappan Technology: Theoretical and
2496 Methodological Issues.” Man and Environment, XIX, 2, 141-157.
2497

80
2498 Carter R. (2002a) “Prehistoric navigation and exchange in the Persian Gulf.” Paper presented
2499 at the International Congress “Early Navigation and Trade in the Indian Ocean,” Ravenna, 5 July 2002.
2500
2501 Carter R. H. Crawford (2002b) “The Kuwait-British Archaeological Expedition to As-Sabiyah: Report
2502 on the Third Season’s Work.” Iraq, LXIV, pp. 1-13.
2503
2504 Casanova M. (1997) Le lapis-lazuli dans l’Orient Ancien: gisements, production, des origines au debut
2505 du second millenaire avant J.-C. Doctorat, Universite de Paris I, Pantheon, Sorbonne (2 vols.).
2506
2507 Chakrabarti D.K. (1982) “‘Long-barrel-Cylinder’ Beads and the Issue of Pre-Sargonic Contact between
2508 the Harappan Civilization and Mesopotamia.” In G.L. Possehl (ed.) Harappan Civilization: a
2509 Contemporary Perspective. Delhi, 265-270.
2510
2511 Chakrabarti D.K. (1990) The External Trade of the Indus Civilization. New Delhi.
2512
2513 Cleuziou S. & M. Tosi (2000) “Ra’s al-Jinz and the Prehistoric Coastal Cultures of the Ja`laan.” The
2514 Journal of Oman Studies, 11, pp. 19-73.
2515
2516 Collon D. (1977) “Ivory.” In J.D. Hawkins (ed.) Trade in the Ancient Near East. London, pp. 219-222.
2517
2518 Collon D. (1990) Near Eastern Seals. University of California/British Museum, Berkeley.
2519
2520 Deutscher, Guy (2007), Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential
2521 Complementation, Oxford University Press US, pp. 20–21
2522
2523 Dikshit M.G. (1949) Etched Beads in India. Poona. During Caspers E.C.L. (1971) “Etched Carnelian
2524 Beads.” Bullettin of the Institute of Archaeology, 10, 83-98.
2525
2526 Dumbrill, Richard (2005) “The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient Near East”, second edition.
2527 Victoria, Canada.
2528
2529 Dumbrill, Richard (2017) “The Truth about Babylonian Music” Near Eastern Musicology Online 4 6
2530 |2017-08| p. 91–121
2531
2532 During Caspers E.C.L. (1982) “Harappan Trade in the Arabian Gulf in the Third Millennium B.C.”
2533 Mesopotamia, VII, 167-191.
2534
2535 Foster B. (1995) From distant days... Myths, tales and poetry from ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda.
2536
2537 Franke-Vogt U. (1991) “The Glyptic Art of the Harappa Culture.” In M. Jansen, M. Mulloy & G.
2538 Urban (eds.) Forgotten cities on the Indus. Mainz, pp. 179-187.
2539
2540 Franke-Vogt U. (1992) “Inscribed Objects from Mohenjo-Daro: Some Remarks on Stylistic Variability
2541 and Distribution Patterns.” In C. Jarrige (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1989. Madison, 103-118.
2542
2543 Gadd C.J. (1932) “Seals of Ancient Indian styles found at Ur.” Proceedings of the

81
2544 British Academy, XVIII, pp. 191-210.
2545
2546 Galpin, Francis W. (1937), “The Music Of The Sumerians and Their Immediate Successors: The
2547 Babylonians & Assyrians” Cambridge At The University Press
2548
2549 George, A. R. (1999). What’s new in the Gilgamesh Epic?, Bulletin of the Canadian Society for
2550 Mesopotamian Studies, 34, 51–58.
2551
2552 George, A. R. (2003). The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic — Introduction, critical edition and cuneiform
2553 texts, Volume 1.
2554
2555 George, A. R. (2003a). The epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian epic poem and other texts in Akkadian
2556 and Sumerian, Reprint edition, 67–68 Penguin.
2557
2558 Glassner J.-J. (2002) “Dilmun et Magan: Le Peuplement, l’Organisation Politique, la Question des
2559 Amorrites et la Place de l’Ècriture. Point de Vue de l’Assyriologue.” In S. Cleuziou, M. Tosi & J.
2560 Zarins (eds.) Essays on the Late Prehistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Roma, pp. 337-381.
2561
2562 Possehl, Gregory L. (2006), “Shu-ilishu’s Cylinder Seal” Expedition, Volume 48/Issue 1/2006 pp. 42-
2563 43
2564
2565 Hansen, Donald P. (2003), “Art of the Early City States” in Joan Aruz, Ronald Wallenfels (eds.) “Art
2566 of the Ancient Cities – The Third Millennia B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus”.
2567
2568 Heimpel W.L., L.Gorelick & A.J.Gwinnet (1988) “Philological and archaeological evidence for the use
2569 of emery in the Bronze Age Near East.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 40/2, 195-210.
2570
2571 Inizan M.-L. (2000) “Importation de cornalines et agates de l’Indus en Mésopotamie. Le cas de Suse et
2572 Tello.” In V. Roux (ed.) Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-systémes
2573 de l’Indus. Paris, 473-502.
2574
2575 Joshi J.P. & A. Parpola (1987) Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 1. Collections in India. Helsinki.
2576
2577 Kenoyer J.M. (1997) “Trade and technology of the Indus Valley: new insights from Harappa,
2578 Pakistan.” World Archaeology, 29/2, 262-280.
2579
2580 Kenoyer J.M. (1998) Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi.
2581
2582 Kenoyer J.M. (in print) “Indus and Mesopotamian Trade Networks: New Insights from Shell and
2583 Carnelian Artefacts.” In E. Olijdam (ed.) E. During Casper’s Memorial Volume.
2584
2585 Kenoyer J.M., K.K. Bhan & M. Vidale (1994) “Carnelian Bead Production in Khambhat, India: an
2586 Ethnoarchaeological Study.” In B.Allchin (ed.) Living Traditions. Studies in the Ethnoarchaeology of
2587 South Asia. New Delhi, pp. 281-306.
2588
2589 Kenoyer J.M. & M. Vidale (1992) “A New Look to the Stone Drills of the Indus Tradition.” In P.B.

82
2590 Vandiver, J.R. Druzik, G.S. Wheeler & I.C. Freestone (eds.) Material Issues in Art and Archaeology
2591 III, Material Research Society, Pittsburgh, pp. 495- 518.
2592
2593 Kenoyer J.M., M. Vidale & K.K. Bhan (1991) “Contemporary Stone Bead Making in Khambat, India:
2594 patterns of craft specialization and organization of production as reflected in the archeological record.”
2595 World Archaeology, 23 (1), pp. 44-63.
2596
2597 Kenoyer J.M. (2006a) “Cultures and Societies of the Indus Tradition”, 28
2598
2599 Kenoyer J.M. (2006b) “The Origin, Context and Function of the Indus Script: Recent Insights from
2600 Harappa” in Osada Toshiki, Hase Noriko (eds.) Proceedings of the Pre-Symposium of RIHN and 7th
2601 ESCA Harvard-Kyoto Roundtable
2602
2603 Kenoyer J.M. (2010) “Master of Animals and Animal Masters in the Iconography of the Indus
2604 Tradition” in Derek B. Counts and Bettina Arnold (eds.) “The Master of Animals in Old World
2605 Iconography” pp. 37
2606
2607 Kenoyer J. M., Price, T. Douglas, Burton James H. (2013) “A new approach to tracking
2608 connections between the Indus Valley and Mesopotamia: initial results of strontium isotope
2609 analyses from Harappa and Ur” Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) 2286-2297
2610
2611 Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn (1998) “The Musical Instruments from Ur and Ancient Mesopotamian
2612 Music”, Expedition, Volume 40 Issue 2
2613
2614 Krishna, S. and S. Ramaswami. 1932. Calorific values of some Indian woods. Forest Bulletin No. 79,
2615 (New Series). Chemistry, Government of India, Central Publication Branch, Calcutta.
2616
2617 Kuiper, F. B. J. (1955) “Rigvedic loan-words”. In: O. Spies (ed.) Studia Indologica. Festschrift für
2618 Willibald Kirfelzur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. Bonn: Orientalisches Seminar.
2619
2620 Kuiper, F. B. J. (1991) “Aryans in the Rigveda”. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.
2621
2622 Lahiri N. (1992) The Archaeology of Indian Trade Routes (upto c. 200 BC). New Delhi.
2623
2624 Lamberg-Karlovsky C.C. (1972) “Trade Mechanisms in Indus-Mesopotamian Interrelations.” Journal
2625 of the American Oriental Society, 92, 2, April-June 1972, 222-229.
2626
2627 Laursen, Steffen Terp (2010) “The westward transmission of Indus Valley sealing technology: origin
2628 and development of the ‘Gulf Type’ seal and other administrative technologies in Early Dilmun,
2629 c.2100–2000 BC”. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy, 2010: 21: 96-134.
2630
2631 Ligabue G. & S. Salvatori (n.d.) Bactria, an ancient oasis civilization from the sands of Afghanistan.
2632 Venice.
2633
2634 Lombardo G. (1988) “Etched Beads’ in Cornalina.” In G. Lombardo (ed.) Perle Orientali”. Tradizione
2635 antica e artigianato moderno nella lavorazione delle pietre semipreziose in Medio Oriente. Museo

83
2636 Nazionale d’Arte Orientale, Roma, 85-90.
2637
2638 Mahadevan, Iravathan (1977) “The Indus Script. Text, Concordance And Tables”, Memoires of the
2639 Archaeological Survey of India No. 77.
2640
2641 Mackay E.J.H. (1933) “Decorated Carnelian Beads.” Man, XXXIII, pp. 143-146.
2642
2643 Mackay E.J.H. (1937) “Bead Making in Ancient Sind.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 47,
2644 1-5.
2645
2646 Mackay E.J.H. (1938) Further Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro. New Delhi.
2647
2648 Mackay E.J.H. (1943) Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36. New Haven.
2649
2650 Marshall Sir J. (1931) Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization. London.
2651
2652 Meadow R.H. & J.M. Kenoyer (2000) “The ‘Tiny Steatite Seals’ (Incised Steatite Tablets) of Harappa:
2653 Some Observations on their Context and Dating.” In M. Taddei & G. De Marco (eds.) South Asian
2654 Archaeology 1997. Rome, pp. 321-340.
2655
2656 Meadow R.H., J.M. Kenoyer & R. Wright (1999) Harappa Archaeological Research Project. Harappa
2657 Excavations 1998. Report submitted to the Director General of Archaeology and Museums,
2658 Government of Pakistan, Karachi. March 30, 1999.
2659
2660 Meadow R.H., J.M. Kenoyer & R. Wright (2001) Harappa Archaeological Research Project. Harappa
2661 Excavations 2000 and 2001. Report submitted to the Director General of Archaeology and Museums,
2662 Government of Pakistan, Karachi. December 2001.
2663
2664 Murray, Neil (2012). Writing Essays in English Language and Linguistics: Principles, Tips and
2665 Strategies for Undergraduates. Cambridge University Press. pp. 147
2666
2667 Parpola, A. (2015) The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization, Oxford
2668 University Press
2669
2670 Parpola A. (1994) “Harappan Inscriptions. An Analytical Catalogue of the Indus Inscriptions from the
2671 Near East.” In P. Mortensen (ed.) Qala’at al-Bahrein. Volume 1. The Northern City Wall and the
2672 Islamic Fortress. Aarhus, pp. 304-492.
2673
2674 Parpola S., A. Parpola & R.H. Brunswig, Jr. (1977) “The Meluhha Village. Evidence of acculturation
2675 of Harappan traders in the late Third Millennium Mesopotamia.” Journal of Economic and Social
2676 History of the Orient, 20, 129-165.
2677
2678 Parpola, Asko et al. 1969. Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus
2679 Civilization, A First Announcement. (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Special
2680 Publications, 1) Copenhagen: The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies.
2681

84
2682 Paiva, G. and Santos, J.M.C. Dos (2014) “Modal Analysis of a Brazilian Guitar Body” SMA 2014, Le
2683 Mans, France.
2684
2685 Pearson, R. S. and H. P. Brown. 1932. Commercial timbers of India. Volume 1. Government Press,
2686 Publication branch, Calcutta. p 352-356.
2687
2688 Pettinato G. (1972) “Il commercio con l’estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel 3. Millennio av. Cr.
2689 Alla luce delle fonti letterarie e lessicali sumeriche.” Mesopotamia, VII, 43-166.
2690
2691 Peyronel L. (2000) “Sigilli Harappani e Dilmuniti dalla Mesopotamia e dalla Susiana. Note sul
2692 Commercio nel Golfo Arabo-Persico tra III e II Mill. a.C.” Vicino Oriente,12, pp. 175-240.
2693
2694 Pezzoli-Olgiati D. (2000) “Images of cities in Ancient Religions: Some methodological
2695 considerations.” Zurich. Site <http://www.cwru.edu/affil/GAIR/papers/2000papers/Daria.html>
2696
2697 Possehl G.L. (1984) “Of Men.” In J.M. Kenoyer (ed.) From Sumer to Meluhha: contributions to the
2698 archaeology of South and West Asia in memory of George F. Dales, Jr. Wisconsin Archaeological
2699 Reports, 3, pp. 179-186.
2700
2701 Possehl G.L. (2002) The Indus Civilization. A Contemporary Perspective. Walnut Creek.
2702
2703 Potts T. (1994) Mesopotamia and the East. Oxford.
2704
2705 Rao S.R. (1973) Lothal and the Indus Civilization. Bombay.
2706
2707 Rao S.R. (1979) Lothal a Harappan Port Town (1955-62). Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
2708 India, 78, Volume 1. New Delhi.
2709
2710 Rao S.R. (1985) Lothal a Harappan Port Town (1955-62). Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
2711 India, 78, Volume 2. New Delhi.
2712
2713 Reade J. (1979) Early Etched Beads and the Indus-Mesopotamia Trade. London.
2714
2715 Reade J. (2001) “Assyrian King-Lists, The Royal Tombs of Ur, and Indus Origins.” Journal of Near
2716 Eastern Studies, 60, 1, 1-38.
2717
2718 Roux V. & Matarasso P. (2000) “Les perles in cornaline harappéennes. Pratiques techniques et techno-
2719 systéme.” In V. Roux (ed.) Cornaline de l’Inde. Des pratiques techniques de Cambay aux techno-
2720 systémes de l’Indus. Paris,417-438.
2721
2722 Sax M. (1991) “The Composition of the Materials of the First Millennium BC Cylinder Seals from
2723 Western Asia.” In P. Budd, B. Chapman, C. Jackson, R. Janaway & B. Ottaway (eds.) Archaeological
2724 Sciences 1989. Exeter.
2725
2726 Shah S.G.M. & A. Parpola (1991) Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 2. Collections in Pakistan.
2727 Helsinki.

85
2728
2729 Simoons F.J. (1968) A Ceremonial Ox of India. The Mithan in Nature, Culture and History with Notes
2730 on Domestication of Common Cattle. Madison.
2731
2732 Sollberger E. (1970) “The Problem of Magan and Meluhha.” Bulletin of the University of London, 8-9,
2733 pp. 247-250.
2734
2735 Tallon F. (1995) Les Pierres Précieuses de l’Orient Ancien des Sumériens aux Sassanides. Paris.
2736
2737 Tosi M. (1991) “The Indus Civilization beyond the Indian Subcontinent.” In M. Jansen, M. Mulloy &
2738 G. Urban (eds.) Forgotten cities on the Indus. Mainz, 111-128.
2739
2740 Vidale M. (2000) The Archaeology of Indus Crafts. Indus craftspeople and why we study them. IsIAO
2741 Reports and Memoirs, IV, Series Minor, Rome.
2742
2743 Vidale M. (2002) “Aspects of the Indian bead trade in the Bronze Age.” Paper presented at the
2744 International Congress “Early navigation and Trade in the Indian Ocean,” Ravenna, 5 June 2002.
2745
2746 Vidale M. (in print) “The Short-Horned Bull on the Indus Seals: a Symbol of the Families in the
2747 Western Trade?” Forthcoming in South Asian Archaeology 2002, Bonn.
2748
2749 Vidale M. & P. Bianchetti (1997) “Mineralogical Identification of Green Semiprecious Stones from
2750 Pakistan.” In R. Allchin & B. Allchin (eds.) South Asian Archaeology, 1995. New Delhi, Vol. 2, 947-
2751 953.
2752
2753 Vidale M. & P. Bianchetti (1998-1999) “Identification of grossular (garnet) as a possible item of long-
2754 distance trade from the Indus Valley to Mesopotamia in the Third millennium BC.” Ancient Sindh, 5,
2755 39-43.
2756
2757 Vidale (2004) “Growing in a Foreign World. For a History of the “Meluhha Villages” in Mesopotamia
2758 in the 3rd Millennium BC” in A. Panaino and A. Piras (eds.) Melammu Symposia 4 Winkelmann S.
2759 (1999) “Ein Stempelsiegel mit alt-elamischer Strichschsrift.” Archäologischen Mitteilungen aus Iran
2760 und Turan, 31, pp. 23-32.
2761
2762 Witzel, Michael (1999) “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic)”
2763 Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. 5 (1)
2764
2765 Zarins J. (2002) “Magan Ship Builders at the Ur-III Lagash Dockyards.” Paper presented at the
2766 International Congress “Early Navigation and Trade in the Indian Ocean,” Ravenna, 5 June 2002.
2767
2768 Zarins Y. (2003) “Magan Shipbuilders at the Ur III Lagash State Dockyards (2062-2025 BC).” In E.
2769 Olijdam & R.H. Spoor (eds.) Intercultural Relations Between South and Southwest Asia. Studies in
2770 Commemoration of E.C.L. During Caspers (1934-1996). Bar International Series, pp. 66-85.
2771
2772

86