Monkeys and the Indo-Europeans – Revised & Enlarged

𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐨-𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 – Revised & Enlarged

(In view of Ugra’s very useful comment, I had to look deeper and found that the post itself needed revision. So here it is.)

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗸𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗱𝘇𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘃, 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘁 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟵𝟴𝟬𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻. 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶.𝗲. 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱.

𝗧𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 –

𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚, 𝒂𝒑𝒆’ 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒐-𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒊𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝒂 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍-𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐-𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒐-𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒉. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒔, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒌- 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑺𝒌𝒕. 𝒌𝒂𝒑𝒊- ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚’ … 𝑮𝒌. 𝒌𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒔 – 𝒌𝒆𝒃𝒐𝒔 ‘𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈-𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚’… 𝑶𝑰𝒄𝒆𝒍. 𝒂𝒑𝒊, 𝑶𝑬 𝒂𝒑𝒂 (𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍. 𝒂𝒑𝒆), 𝑶𝑯𝑮 𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒐 (𝑮𝒆𝒓. 𝑨𝒇𝒇𝒆), 𝑪𝒆𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒂𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒐𝒔… 𝑶𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂 (𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒂), 𝒐𝒑𝒚𝒏𝒊 ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚, 𝒂𝒑𝒆’… 𝑶𝑷𝒐𝒍. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂 (𝒍5𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚), 𝑪𝒛. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒆, 𝑼𝑺𝒐𝒓𝒃. 𝒘𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂, 𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒃. 𝒐𝒑𝒐, 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒃𝒐-𝑪𝒓. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂. 𝑺𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂.

𝗜𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲  𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗶𝗱𝗱𝗹𝗲 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗸𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗴. 𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗿𝗶𝘁, 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗸, 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗔𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰, 𝗖𝗲𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻.

𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗸𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗱𝘇𝗲 & 𝗜𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘃, 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗔𝗸𝗸𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗽𝘂, 𝗛𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗲𝘄 𝗸𝗼𝗽, 𝗔𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗰 𝗸𝗼𝗽𝗮, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗷𝗳 – ‘𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆, 𝗮𝗽𝗲’ 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀.

𝗜𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗞𝗹𝗲𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗰 𝗾𝘂𝗽𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗾𝘄𝗽. 𝗛𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟯𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖, 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗹𝗲𝗶𝗻, 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘂𝗴𝘂𝗯𝗶. 𝗜𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘂 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘇𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻, 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 & 𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗴𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲. 𝗚𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁.

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖𝗘, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟯𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖𝗘 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.

𝗡𝗼𝘄, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀  𝗼f 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗮, 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮, 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲.

T𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗶𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮, 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁, 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳  𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗰 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀. 𝗦𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻.

𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗿𝗶𝘁 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗗𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶, 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 ‘𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆’ 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻 ‘𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁’, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝘀𝘂𝗻’, ‘𝗶𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝘇𝗼𝗶𝗻’, ‘𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲’, 𝗮 ‘𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗷𝗮 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲’ 𝗲𝘁𝗰. 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗼𝗵𝗮𝗺 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘀’, 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝗰𝗮𝗯𝗯𝗮𝗴𝗲’, 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗮/𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝘁𝗮𝘄𝗻𝘆, 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗵’ 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗿, 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 ‘𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗺’ 𝗼𝗿 ‘𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿’, 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 ‘𝗽𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗻’ 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗼 𝗼𝗻. 𝗔𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗿𝗶𝘁 𝗘𝘁𝘆𝗺𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 *𝗸𝗮𝗺𝗽 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝗲’ 𝗼𝗿 ‘𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲’. 𝗔 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗸𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗮 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴’ 𝗼𝗿 ‘𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻’ 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 ‘𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲’, ‘𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗹𝗲’ & ‘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸’. 𝗔 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 *𝗸𝗮𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗸𝗮𝗽 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 ‘𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲’. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶, 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆, 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 ‘𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘆’, 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗽𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

𝗟𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱, 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 *𝗸𝗮𝗽 𝗼𝗿 *𝗸𝗲𝗵𝗽, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 ‘𝘀𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽 𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱’. 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲 – ‘𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗼𝗻’, 𝗸𝗼𝗽𝗲 – ‘𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗽,𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲’, 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗼𝘀 – ‘𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻, 𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱’, 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝘀 – ‘𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱, 𝘀𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻’. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 ‘𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗸’ 𝗮𝗻𝗱 ‘𝗰𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲’ 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗜𝗘 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲. 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗣𝗜𝗘 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 *𝗸𝗮𝗽 – ‘𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗶𝘇𝗲, 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱’ 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽. 𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀, 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗯𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗸𝗮𝗽𝗶 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗸, 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘄𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗽 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗽 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆, 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗸𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗱𝘇𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘃, 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗜𝗘 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁. 𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘁𝘆𝗺𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀.

𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗻𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲(𝘀) 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻. 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 A𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 E𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

𝗧𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀.

𝗕𝘂𝘁, 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁, 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗔𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁.

𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟯𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖𝗘.  𝗥𝗵𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗿-𝗶-𝗦𝗼𝗸𝗵𝘁𝗮 𝗶𝗻 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻, 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗵𝗿-𝗶-𝗦𝗼𝗸𝗵𝘁𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 ‘𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘁’ 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹. 𝗧𝗵𝘂𝘀, 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀.

𝗔𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗼𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗨𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝟮𝟲𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗖 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝗮 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝟮𝟯𝟰𝟬-𝟮𝟭𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗖.

𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗮 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗨𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟯𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿/𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿, 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮, 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗿. 𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗠𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻,

𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒆 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒏 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝑼𝒓, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 3𝒓𝒅 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝑩.𝑪., 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒉 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒏𝒐 𝒅𝒐𝒖𝒃𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒑𝒐𝒑𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒓, 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒕 𝒇𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒔.

𝗔𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗞𝗹𝗲𝗶𝗻,

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒖𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒓𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕, 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒖𝒔 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒚…  𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒖𝒎 𝒂 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒏𝒖𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒆𝒙𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒕𝒚𝒑𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝒉𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑬𝒈𝒚𝒑𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏. 𝑻𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒃𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒈𝒓𝒂𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒄 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆. 𝑻𝒉𝒖𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑼𝒓 𝑰𝑰𝑰 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚 𝒊𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒔 “𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏, “𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕... 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑵𝒆𝒐-𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒚𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒇𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑬𝒈𝒚𝒑𝒕…

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘂𝗴𝘂𝗯𝗶 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗺 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘂𝗴𝘂𝗯𝗶 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲, 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻.

𝗔𝗴𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗽𝘆𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁, 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝘆𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗲𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝘁 𝗨𝗿, 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝘂𝘀𝗮, 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗺 (𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻), 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗳𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗲. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹, 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗿.

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗶, 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗠𝗔𝗖 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ,𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗼-𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗛𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗼-𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶, 𝗛𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝘆𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗲.

𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗶 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀.

𝗔𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗶,

𝑫𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂, 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒂 𝒔𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆…𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒍𝒊𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒂, 𝑺𝒚𝒓𝒊𝒂, 𝑴𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒈𝒚𝒑𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒖 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒕 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒓 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒂.

𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗶 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖. 𝗛𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗡𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘀 𝟮𝟰𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗖𝗘 𝗶.𝗲. 𝗵𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝟭𝟵𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗖𝗘, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗱𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗦𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆.

𝗬𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗱𝗶 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖 𝗜𝗘 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮, 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗻, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 – 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗘 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 ? 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗳 𝘀𝗼, 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 ? 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ?

𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝘅𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗼-𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗹 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘄 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿, 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗹𝗮𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗮, 𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗠𝗔𝗖 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖𝗘 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁. 𝗔𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.

𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲, 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗮 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗽-𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻.

𝗔𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗮,

𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒚𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒊𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒕𝒔. 𝑨𝒍𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔 𝒐𝒖𝒕𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅, 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍 𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒅𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒅 (𝑭𝒊𝒈. 9), 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒓𝒄 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝑪- 𝒐𝒓 𝑺-𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒆 (𝑭𝒊𝒈. 10). 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒉𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒍𝒔’ 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒃𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒕𝒔, 𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍. 𝑳𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒚 𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒕-𝒔𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒕𝒔.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗔𝗸𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗶 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗮 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗮 𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗿𝘀. 𝗔𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗮,

…𝒊𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒅𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕, 𝒔𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒑𝒉𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒏𝒖𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒑𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑵𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒖𝒃𝒕𝒍𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆: 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒌 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒂𝒓𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒆! 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒔, 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝒄𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒂 𝒐𝒇 “𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚” (𝒂𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝑬𝒈𝒚𝒑𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌). 𝑰𝒕 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒕𝒐 𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒕 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆.

𝗙𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀, 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗿𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗰𝗼, 𝗮 𝗳𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝗱𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘀.

𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗮 𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗼𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝘃𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗽 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘃𝗿𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘃𝗿𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗠𝗲𝘀𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗮, 𝗘𝗴𝘆𝗽𝘁, 𝗟𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁, 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗻.  𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗺𝗽 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗕𝗠𝗔𝗖 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀, 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝘆𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀.

𝗪𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺 𝗕𝗖𝗘, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽𝘀. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻, 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗭𝗲𝗯𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗼, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗻𝘁, 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗲𝘁𝗰. 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻.


𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘃𝗶𝗮 𝗮 𝗻𝗼𝗻-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗽. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀.

𝗪𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝘅𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶, 𝗛𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗔𝗴𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗷𝗼𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘇𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲.

𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻, 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗼-𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗵𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶 𝗦𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗵𝘂 𝗖𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 ?


Monkey and the Indo-Europeans

𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐤𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐨-𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, two major linguists hailing from the former Soviet Union, came out with a major book in the 1980s in Russian, where they proposed the Armenian homeland theory for the origins of Indo-Europeans. They made several arguments to support their theory. Many of these arguments incidentally better support an Indian homeland for Proto-Indo-European. One such argument was their proposal that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were aware of the monkey before they dispersed i.e. they knew of the monkey in their homeland.

To put it in their own words –

𝑾𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒖𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚, 𝒂𝒑𝒆’ 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒐-𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒎𝒂𝒌𝒆 𝒊𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝒂 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍-𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒐-𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒐-𝑬𝒖𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒕𝒉. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒂𝒍 𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒔, 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒌- 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑺𝒌𝒕. 𝒌𝒂𝒑𝒊- ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚’ … 𝑮𝒌. 𝒌𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒔 – 𝒌𝒆𝒃𝒐𝒔 ‘𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈-𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒅 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚’… 𝑶𝑰𝒄𝒆𝒍. 𝒂𝒑𝒊, 𝑶𝑬 𝒂𝒑𝒂 (𝑬𝒏𝒈𝒍. 𝒂𝒑𝒆), 𝑶𝑯𝑮 𝒂𝒇𝒇𝒐 (𝑮𝒆𝒓. 𝑨𝒇𝒇𝒆), 𝑪𝒆𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒂𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒐𝒔… 𝑶𝑹𝒖𝒔𝒔. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂 (𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒊𝒄𝒂), 𝒐𝒑𝒚𝒏𝒊 ‘𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚, 𝒂𝒑𝒆’… 𝑶𝑷𝒐𝒍. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂 (𝒍5𝒕𝒉 𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒚), 𝑪𝒛. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒆, 𝑼𝑺𝒐𝒓𝒃. 𝒘𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂, 𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒂𝒃. 𝒐𝒑𝒐, 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒃𝒐-𝑪𝒓. 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂. 𝑺𝒍𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒂.

So we have the cognate word for monkey in Sanskrit, Greek, Germanic, Celtic and Slavic languages of Indo-European.

Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, though arguing that the word for monkey was already known to the Indo-Europeans in their homeland, insist that this word has come into Indo-European languages through their contact with Southwest Asian or Near Eastern languages. They cite Akkadian ukupu, Hebrew kop, Aramaic kopa and Egyptian gjf – monkey, ape as the early examples.

Yet the problem with this theory, as we shall come to it again, is that monkeys are not native to any place in the Near East. The standard theory so far has been that it is through contact with the Egyptians that the Near Eastern civilizations of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Levant and the Aegean came to know of the monkeys. Therefore, it is from the Egyptian word that the word for monkey in Indo-European and other Near Eastern languages should derive. Yet as can be seen, the Egyptian word is ouite different and looks unlikely to have been the source word for the other languages. Moreover, it now appears that even in Egypt, the monkey may have gone long extinct and was likely imported via the Horn of Africa, southeast of Egypt.

This leaves us with only the Harappan or Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization which is the only Bronze Age civilization whose geography indeed overlapped with the natural habitat of monkeys. So provisionally, it maybe argued that the word for monkey could have come into the Indo-European and the Near Eastern languages from the Harappan language or languages, whatever they may have been.

Digging into the linguistic aspect of this, we find that as per the Practical Sanskrit English Dictionary, the word kapi, usually referring to ‘monkey’ can also mean an ‘elephant’, the ‘sun’, ‘impure benzoin’, ‘incense’, a ‘species of the karanja tree’ etc. kapiloham means ‘brass’, kapishak means ‘cabbage’, kapila/kapisa means ‘tawny, brownish or reddish’ colour, kapana is a ‘worm’ or ‘caterpilar’, kapota is a ‘pigeon’ and so on. As per the Sanskrit Etymological Dictionary, the word kapi is said to derive from the root word *kamp which means ‘to tremble’ or ‘shake’. A derivative word kampra means ‘trembling’ or ‘shaken’ but also ‘movable’, ‘agile’ & ‘ouick’. A likely derivative of *kamp is kap which means ‘to move’. Therefore kapi, in the context of a monkey, may plausibly mean ‘one who moves ouickly’, an apt description.

Looking for the Proto-Indo-European root, we come across a root *kap or *kehp, meaning to ‘seize or grasp or hold’. Possible derivatives of this root include Greek kapane – ‘wagon’, kope – ‘grip,handle’, kapos – ‘garden,orchard’, latin captus – ‘captured, seized, taken’.

It is also said to be the root for the English words ‘hawk’ and ‘captive’ among many others. While the Proto-Indo-European root and its meaning fail to adeouately explain all the myriad different ways in which the derived words are used in various IE languages, for our purpose it is ouite adeouate. kapi may thus be derived from PIE root *kap – ‘to seize, hold’ to mean as one who grasps or can grasp. Monkeys, ouite uniouely among animals, have the ability to grasp things or objects with their forelimbs and this would not have gone unnoticed to the ancient people. This may also explain the name of kapi for elephant since it can also grasp with its trunk, as also the hawk in English since the hawk has a habit to grasp its prey in its sharp talons.

It may therefore be argued that the Proto-Indo-European word for monkey, as argued by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, is not a loan word but derives from a sound PIE root. We already noted earlier that the word for monkey in the Near East may have been a loanword from the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization and now we can see that this word is of likely Indo-European origin.

Does this mean, that Indo-European languages were spoken in the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization ?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞

Turning to the archaeological evidence, monkeys were depicted on frescoes and seals and objects, accessories were often fashioned in the shape of monkeys. The inspiration for this in Near Eastern art is usually considered to have come from ancient Egypt.

But, it has now become increasingly clear, as this recent study shows, that monkeys or baboons were not native to Egypt either and the ancient Egyptians themselves imported their monkeys from much further south and east, mostly from the fabled land of punt, which is the eastern African coast, and from where incidentally, objects of Harappan origin also reached Egypt.

Viktor Sarianidi, was an archaeologist credited with the discovery of the Bronze Age civilization of BMAC, also known today as the Oxus civilization. He was an ardent supporter of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov’s theory and argued for an archaeological evidence of Syro-Anatolian influence on the Oxus civilization. He believed the Oxus civilization to be Indo-Iranian speaking and therefore interpreted the perceived Syro-Anatolian influence on Oxus in terms of Indo-Iranian migrations from that region, which during that period had various Indo-European groups such as the Mitanni, Hittites and Mycenaeans dominating the landscape.

He also interpreted the depiction of monkeys on Oxus seals as yet another evidence of Near Eastern Indo-Europeans.As per Sarianidi,

𝑫𝒆𝒑𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂, 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒚 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒂 𝒔𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆…𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒉 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒍𝒊𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔. 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒓 𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒓 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒂, 𝑺𝒚𝒓𝒊𝒂, 𝑴𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒎𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒈𝒚𝒑𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒖 𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒎𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒌𝒆𝒚𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒕 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒇𝒂𝒓 𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝑩𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒂 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒂.

Sarianidi admits that none of these parallels in the Near East could be dated to earlier than the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Sarianidi believed in a lower chronology of the Oxus civilization and therefore found nothing out of place in this. Nevertheless, we now know that the Oxus civilization began as early as 2400 BCE i.e. hundreds of years before the Indo-Europeans begin showing up in the Near East.

Yet if we were to hold onto the parallels Sarianidi draws between the culture of the Oxus and the 2nd millenium BC IE groups in Syria, Anatolia and the Aegean, we have to wonder – is this evidence of Oxus influence on the IE groups of the Near East ? And if so, was Oxus an Indo-European civilization ?

In this context, the monkey iconography also assumes significance. The Near Eastern monkey iconography is unlikely to have influenced the parallel iconography in Oxus since the Oxus dates from an earlier period but also because, the Oxus was culturally close to the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization where monkeys were found in their natural habitat.

Rather, it is more likely that the monkey iconography of the Oxus influenced the Indo-European groups of the 2nd millennium BCE Near East. Also important to note in this respect is that the monkeys were depicted in religious and sacred imagery both in the Oxus and in the Indo-European Near East which demonstrates the importance that monkeys held for them.

More recently, archaeologists of the Aegean Bronze Age, managed to conduct a multi-disciplinary study of the Minoan frescoes and were pleasantly surprised to find that the uptailed blue colored monkeys were Hanuman langurs of Indian origin. Not only that, these Indian monkeys were found playing an important role in an iconic Minoan frescoes fundamental in the understanding of Minoan religious beliefs and practices. In that fresco, a female attendant in shown giving a flower to the Hanuman langur who in turn in shown giving to a seated goddess.

Pareja et al also show that Indian monkeys are also depicted in some other objects found among the Minoans such as a seal made from carnelian, a stone of Harappan origin and also an ivory stamp seal with a typical Harappan cross and chevron motif. The depiction of monkeys on Minoan frescoes is so realistic that Pareja et al argue that the Minoan artist must have seen a real Hanuman langur.

Here we may note that monkeys have been found buried at the site of Shahr-i-Sokhta in Iran, far away from its Indian homeland. Shahr-i-Sokhta is the site from which the majority of Harappan ‘migrant’ samples were published by Narasimhan et al. Thus, Harappan monkeys could well be travelling long distances with their human masters.

We can see that monkeys from Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization went on to become important players in sacred and religious iconography of the Oxus civilization and likely in Eastern Iran and subseouently in the Syrian, Anatolian and Aegean world of the 2nd millennium BCE, in a period when that region was dominated by several Indo-European groups.


We have seen that the Indo-Europeans knew of the monkey in their homeland and had a word for it directly derived from a proto-Indo-European root and not borrowed from another language group. This would mean that the Proto-Indo-European homeland had direct contacts with the monkeys and not secondary via a non-Indo-European group. This would imply the presence of monkeys in Proto-Indo-European homeland. The only Bronze Age civilization whose geography overlaps with the natural habitat of monkeys was the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization.

Similarly, we can also see that it is the monkeys from the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization that likely inspired and played an important role in the religious and cultic beliefs of the Oxus civilization and the Near Eastern civilizations, several of which were Indo-Europeans such as the Mitanni, Hittites and the Mycenaeans.

Therefore, there is strong evidence that it is from the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization that the monkeys and the word of it became known in the Bronze Age Near East. The sacred role of monkeys is also worthy of note and may have also derived from the Harappans since in Hinduism, a religion majorly derived from the Bronze age civilization of Harappans, monkeys continue to hold a sacred significance.

Since this word for monkey is clearly of Indo-European origin, how does one explain it if the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization was not an Indo-European civilization ?


The Fair-Skinned Sintashta folks did not spread Indo-Aryan languages in India

I haven’t written a post on the blog since July 2020. This has partly been due to a slightly more busy schedule and partly due to the fact that I have become a little ambitious and am trying to write more comprehensive and voluminous articles which take time to prepare. After having written about the dating of the Kushans on my blog, I delved into the linguistics aspect of Indo-European origin. Having been only partly through the subject, I came across a recent paper on the Podolian cattle of southern and eastern Europe, which are distinguished by their significant levels of Indicine admixture.

I decided to write a more lengthy and detailed article on the migration of Indicine cattle westwards from India but as I went about gathering the data, it dawned on me that there was a great amount of archaeological research, most of which has come up in the last few years, that can be marshalled to make a comprehensive case for OIT. So while keeping the focus on the Zebu migration, I am now making a case of how nicely it ties with an OIT scenario. As things stand, the preliminary draft of my article/paper is already quite big with more than 25k words but then I have managed to stumble on some more important data from Bronze Age Europe which I could not neglect. Adding this to the existing draft will likely enlarge the text by a few thousand more words. Once I am able to complete a legible final draft I am planning to get it published somewhere, God willing, on an online platform. Lets see how it goes.

To just give an idea, let us note that cow was a very important animal for Indo-European people. This Anglo-Saxon guy gives you some good understanding on the topic,

Here is a map from that recent Senczuk et al preprint,

You can see that in a large number of native southern and eastern European cattle, there is significant levels of Indicine Zebu admixture. These regions are Indo-European speaking and includes speakers of Slavic, Italian, Greek and Albanian languages. Now if cow was a very important animal for Indo-Europeans, it is likely that they must have taken it along with them in their migrations. Is it not therefore quite noteworthy, that it is the genetic ancestry of the Indian origin Zebu that unites the cattle of all these Indo-European people ? Is it just co-incidence ?

Moving on, recently, Razib came up with the assertion that a relatively fair-skinned group of people with their origins on the steppe, somewhere around Sintashta, are likely the people who spread the Indo-European culture and language in the Indian subcontinent. He also implied that these ‘fair-skinned’ steppe migrants must have perceived the native people of the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization as dark-skinned. So essentially, the racist colonial trope of fair-skinned Aryans vanquishing the dark-skinned native Dravidians may be true. This is a very fanciful flight of imagination and it is necessary to show just how groundless it is.

The most popular theory for the origins of Indo-Europeans, is the Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland theory. However, being popular has little to do with being true. David Anthony and James Mallory, both American archaeologists, are today the two most prominent proponents of this theory. Here is what James Mallory says, in a book he co-authored with the linguist D Q Adams,

All too often surveys of the Indo-Europeans eventually conclude with something on the order of ‘scholars have concluded that the most likely area of the homeland is . . .X’ with a brief defence of one particular solution (this type of scholarship has been going on since the late nineteenth century). In fact, we not only lack total consensus but where we seem to find something of a major school it is often formed by deference rather than conviction, i.e. linguists or archaeologists indicate agreement with a particular theory that they have not themselves investigated in any depth. This situation means that a small number of advocates—at times, very vigorous advocates—provide an assortment of homeland theories for the rest of their colleagues to comply with passively. The homeland is an interesting question but it is so difficult to resolve (we have over two centuries of dispute to prove that) and requires the application of so many less than robust means of argument that most archaeologists and historical linguists do not find it a worthwhile enterprise, at least for themselves. The last word is, therefore, far from written…

So, one of the major proponents of the Steppe hypothesis is himself admitting that most academics acquiesce passively with the IE origin theory without having come to the conclusion by any significant research on the topic themselves. There are infact weighty reasons to question the steppe origin hypothesis as we shall see.

  • Lack of Indisputable proof of Indo-European languages on the steppe before 1000 BCE.

The earliest evidence of an Indo-European language or of Indo-European speakers on the steppe comes from around the 9th century BCE when the Cimmerians (likely Iranian speakers), inhabited the steppe region north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea.  This too, is based on the record of Herodotus. There is no inscriptional or literary evidence in their own language that directly attests it.  The Balto-Slavic branch of Indo-European languages are today the only IE languages found in and around the proposed Pontic-Caspian homeland of Indo-Europeans. Yet the earliest attestation of a Slavic language on the steppe or anywhere is not earlier than the 6th century CE while the earliest attestation of a Baltic language comes from the 14th century CE. THESE ARE FACTS.

With such a state of affairs, how can you argue that, in a region like the steppe, which is in constant flux, and which has seen language turnovers many times, that Indo-European languages originated around 4000 BCE, when there is no hard evidence of any IE language speaker there before 1000 BCE ? How can we assume that for more than 3000 years from 4000 BCE to 1000 BCE, people on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and its surrounds were speaking Indo-European languages, when there is zero attestation of an IE language during this long period on the steppe ?

It is still understandable if one were to argue that IE groups existed from around 15th century BCE on the steppe, since it is temporally much closer to the first attestation of the Cimmerians a few centuries later. But to suggest that the IE languages were continuously spoken on the Pontic-Caspian steppe from around 4000 BCE right down to Cimmerians more than 3000 years later, without a shred of evidence in terms of attestation of an IE language there is quite incredible. I find it hard that people are so happy and eager to lap up and propogate this shoddy theory.

  • Earlier attestation of Indo-Iranian languages in South Asia and Near East than on the steppe

As we saw, the earliest evidence of an IE group on the steppe comes around 9th century BCE. This is infact, several centuries later than the arbitrary dating of the Rigveda around 1200 BCE and the presence of Indo-Aryan words among the Mitanni in the 14th century BCE. And mind you, the Mitanni Indo-Aryan elites, land up in Syria with Indian elephants and Indian humped cattle.

According to Chakirlar & Ikram,

In Southwest Asia, the earliest representations of elephants appear in art and mythological literature, originating from eastern Lower Mesopotamia, and date to the end of the 3rd millennium BC (Potts 1997: 260–61). The style of depiction, though, seems to derive from that of the Indus Valley (Salonen 1976: 146–47). This strongly suggests a second-hand knowledge of elephants, rather than first-hand, real-life experience. From Greece to Arabia, no single reference to, or depiction of, an elephant or elephant parts, ante-dates these first finds from the end of the 3rd millennium BC… the Holocene elephants of Southwest Asia were not endemic to the region and that the Early Bronze Age peoples of the region knew about them only through their contact with India, or possibly Egypt. The latter is less likely as these animals were no longer indigenous there by that time, although remembered… Secondly, ancient accounts indicate that live elephants roamed and were hunted in the Orontes Valley, the Upper Euphrates Valley and the Middle Euphrates Valley around modern Ana in Iraq, at least between the end of the 16th and 9th centuries BC, possibly into the 8th century BC (Breasted 1906–07; Gardiner 1964: 179, 201; Moorey 1994: 117; Scullard 1974: 28). The core of this region comprises the area of influence of the Mitanni Kingdom, the main local political player in LBA northern Syria… Based on all the evidence reviewed above, and in the absence of fossil evidence, we also support the hypothesis that the Syrian elephant was not endemic, but arrived in Southwest Asia later in the mid-Holocene as an import from Southeast Asia that took hold locally.

Is it also just another co-incidence that the Mitanni also happen to be Indo-Aryan speakers, a language group dominant across much of North India where these Bronze Age Elephants in Mitannian Syria came from ?

The actual date of the Rigveda, on the other hand, is likely to be much earlier to 1200 BCE and probably before 2000 BCE, when the mightly river Sarasvati of the Rigveda had already dried up.  The Rigvedic geography extends from Eastern Afghanistan to Western UP.

Even the Avesta, is older than 1000 BCE, and its geography does not extend further north than the Bactrian region of North Afghanistan. So, we have the attested presence of Indo-Iranians in South Asia more than a millenia before their attestation on the steppe.

This is not all. The linguistic diversity of the Indo-Aryan languages from the Middle Indo-Aryan period is such that the linguists admit, that these languages do not directly descend from Rigvedic Sanskrit but from its sister dialects. According to Thomas Oberlies,

The problem of the linguistic affinity of Pali and the other Middle Indo-Aryan (= MIA) languages is well-known and is undisputed: These languages are by no means straightforward continuants of the Old Indo-Aryan (= OIA) of the Vedic corpus, as in all of them words and forms turn up which cannot be the (regular) outcome of any atte- sted OIA ones…There are a number of words where Pali/Prakrit does not continue what we expect as the regular outcome of OIA. applying the MIA. sound laws. These words point either to the pre-Vedic language or (more probably) to (a) Vedic dialect(s) different from the dominant one.

OIA or Old Indo-Aryan refers to the language of early Vedic texts including that of Rigveda which is Vedic Sanskrit.

According to Claus Peter Zoller,

In the textbooks dealing with the history of Indo-Aryan, a linguistic family tree is drawn with OIA on top and ever new ramifications down to the modern languages, even though every specialist can tell that the different MIA languages (e.g. Pali) are not direct descendants of the Vedic corpusthere is no doubt that at the time of the immigration of Old Indo-Aryan into South Asia a whole bunch of Indo-Aryan dialects/variants existed.

Infact, it has been a long standing theory, going back to the 19th century, that the Indo-Aryan languages can be classed into an Inner Indo-Aryan (represented by Sanskrit and its descendents) and an Outer Indo-Aryan, where the peripheral Indo-Aryan languages in the IA language geography of South Asia are said to have several archaic features in common with other IE languages but not preserved in Sanskrit.

To account for the more southern and eastern geographical presence of these Outer Indo-Aryan in South Asia, the linguists have even proposed that these Outer Indo-Aryan speakers must have migrated into South Asia before the Inner Indo-Aryan speakers who composed the Rigveda.

In other words, when the Rigveda was composed, sometime around or before 2000 BCE, before the drying up of Sarasvati, there were already multiple Indo-Aryan languages present in South Asia, as per the admission of these linguists. Yet, on the steppe, you have no evidence of any IE language until the 9th century BCE and the single parent language of the Slavic languages cannot go further in time than the 6th century CE. So there is a gap of more than two millenium between the earliest attestation of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia and the earliest attestation of Balto-Slavic languages on the steppe.

So on what grounds can you claim that the Sintashta folks, whose language, we have no clue about and who existed more than a millenia before the earliest attestation of any IE language on the steppe, are actually the precursors of Indo-Iranians in the Indian subcontinent ? Isn’t this stretching the bounds of credulity ? Even if, hypothetically, the Sintashta folks admixed with the people of the Indian subcontinent, it cannot in any way prove that it is these Sintashta folks who spread the Indo-Iranian languages in the region. You simply have no solid proof of what language they spoke. Presence of chariots (questionable) and weapons is not enough. Chariots were also used heavily by the Egyptians and the Minoans and even by ancient Chinese. Yet that does not make them Indo-European.

  • No proof of cultural intrusion from the steppe into South Asia

As I have already shown here before, there is no archaeological evidence of any steppe cultural marker penetrating into South Asia. As per James Mallory,

This is indeed the problem for both the Near Eastern and the Pontic-Caspian models and, following the logic of this analysis, the Bouckaert model appears to be in the same boat. All of these models apparently require the Indo European languages (including their attendant agricultural vocabulary) to be superimposed/adopted by at least several major complex societies of Central Asia and the Indus… In any event, all three models require some form of major language shift despite there being no credible archaeological evidence to demonstrate, through elite dominance or any other mechanism, the type of language shift required to explain, for example, the arrival and dominance of the Indo-Aryans in Indiaall theories must still explain why relatively advanced agrarian societies in greater Iran and India abandoned their own languages for those of later Neolithic or Bronze Age Indo-Iranian intruders.

According to Kristiansen et al. (Supplement A of Damgard et al),

contacts between Bronze Age steppe populations and NMG V and BMAC populations appears to have been one in which the dynamic of cultural influence was stronger on the side of the well-established sedentary food producing populations, and this resulted in the partial assimilation of these initial newcomers to the region both culturally and, to a lesser degree, biologically as well. Third, not all of those who emigrated from the north turned to farming but may have continued a semi-nomadic existence in the highlands, which were unsuitable for the kind of intensive farming practiced in the BMAC homelands or in the regions of Khorezm. Fourth, if there was any Central Asian influence on South Asian populations, that influence likely long predated any development of Iranian, let alone Indo-Aryan, languages, and most likely occurred during the late NMG IV to early NMG V period (ca. 2800–2300 BCE) and even earlier during the Eneolithic from Kelteminar culture groups (4000–3500 BCE).

In other words, not only is there no archaeological evidence of cultural intrusion from the steppe in South Asia but the steppe groups actually ended up getting assimilated into the sedentary agriculturalist society of the Oxus civilization. This is a very significant and fatal blow to the theory of steppe origins of Indo-Europeans. How do groups who get assimilated culturally, get to spread their language, culture and religion ?

In the absence of any solid linguistic attestation of an IE language on the steppe before 1000 BCE, it is merely the presence of the steppe cultural markers attested via archaeology which is taken as evidence of Indo-European presence or spread, as is the case in Europe with the corded ware culture. Now, if this steppe cultural marker did not intrude even in the settled agricultural settlements of Central Asia, what to speak of South Asia, how does the theory of steppe groups spreading Indo-Iranian languages into South and Central Asia, still hold ?

And this is not a minor slip for the PIE on steppe theory. Indo-Iranian languages makes up 311 of the 445 extant Indo-European languages spoken today. In other words, 70 % of all Indo-European languages spoken today are Indo-Iranian. They also constitute 50 % of the population of all IE speakers. Yet, the steppe theory cannot explain how these Indo-Iranians spread from the steppe into these present southern homelands.

  • Evidence of bidirectional exchange between the steppe and the Oxus

It should also be noted that, not only did steppe groups migrate southwards and got partially assimilated into the settled societies of the Oxus, but the Oxus or BMAC influence also spread further north into the heart of the steppeland. As per David Anthony, the major advocate of the steppe theory,

Stepped pyramids or crenellations appeared on the pottery of Sintashta, Potapovka, and Petrovka. The stepped pyramid was the basic element in the decorative artwork on Namazga, Sarazm, and BMAC pottery, jewelry, metalwork…This motif had not appeared in any earlier pottery in the steppes, neither in the Bronze Age nor the Eneolithic…Stepped pyramids appeared for the first time on northern steppe pottery just when northern steppe pottery first showed up in BMAC sites… later it became a standard design element in Petrovka and Andronovo pottery…A lapis lazuli bead from Afghanistan was found at Sintashta. A Bactrian handled bronze mirror was found in a Sintashta grave at Krasnoe Znamya. Finally, the technique of lost-wax metal casting first appeared in the north during the Sintashta period…Lost-wax casting was familiar to BMAC metalsmiths. Southern decorative motifs (stepped pyramids), raw materials (lead and lapis lazuli), one mirror, and metal-working techniques (lost-wax casting) appeared in the north just when northern pottery, chariot-driving cheekpieces, bit wear, and horse bones appeared in the south.

Besides this material cultural influence from the Oxus on the steppe groups far into the North, there was a gene flow, likely from Oxus into the steppe populations. As per Narasimhan et al.,

In the Central Steppe (present-day Kazakhstan), an individual from one site dated to between 2800 and 2500 BCE, and individuals from three sites dated to between ~1600 and 1500 BCE, show significant admixture from Iranian farmer–related populations that is well-fitted by the main BMAC cluster, demonstrating northward gene flow from Turan into the Steppe at approximately the same time as the southward movement of Central_ Steppe_MLBA-related ancestry through Turan to South Asia. 

As per Krzewinska et al,

The Bronze Age Srubnaya-Alakulskaya individuals from Kazburun
1/Muradym 8 presented genetic similarities to the previously published Srubnaya individuals. However, in f4 statistics, they shared
more drift with representatives of the Andronovo and Afanasievo
populations compared to the published Srubnaya individuals. Those
apparently West Eurasian people lacked significant Siberian components (NEA and SEA) in ADMIXTURE analyses but carried traces of the SA component that could represent an earlier connection to ancient Bactria.

Complementing these datasets is the recent Jeong et al paper on ancient samples from Eastern Eurasian steppe, which also documented extensive Iranian farmer related ancestry most likely from BMAC/Oxus from the Bronze Age onward.

Thus, the data clearly indicates a bidirectional cultural and genetic exchange between the steppe groups and people of the Oxus civilization, where those steppe groups coming down south got more influenced by rather than influencing the settled urbanised agriculturalists of the south.

In this milieu, how can one argue that it is the steppe groups that spread their language and culture on the southern populations all the way into India ? On the contrary, since the presence of Indo-Iranian languages is attested much earlier in South Asia than the earliest attestation of any IE language on the steppe, it is more parsimonious to argue that it is these southern agriculturalists who spread their language and culture onto the steppe.  Such a proposition, though quite logical, will make people very uncomfortable.

It may well be that it was the dark-skinned southern urbanised agriculturalists that assimilated and acculturated the fair-skinned nomadic steppe groups who then spread the cultural toolkit onto the steppe.

  • What about the genetic evidence of steppe admixture in South Asia ?

The genetic evidence is also not in favour of a steppe origin of Indo-European people. Whether it is David Reich or Willerslev, both agree that it is likely that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated within a population with a largely Iranian farmer type ancestry, south of the steppe. Such a population already existed in South & Central Asia since the Neolithic.

So how can we be sure that those early urbanised populations of South & Central Asia were not already Indo-European speaking ? Why should one insist that it is only the steppe ancestry that could have brought the Indo-Aryans into South Asia when we don’t even have any proof of an IE language on the steppe before 1000 BCE ?

The steppe ancestry was clearly absent from Bronze Age Anatolia when we know that Hittite and Luwian groups lived in the region. Nor was R1a found among the Mycenaeans who were clearly Indo-European. Among the Western Europeans, R1a is hardly present and their y-dna profile is dominated by R1b, which is hardly present in South Asia.

When the steppe ancestry is recorded in the ancient Iron Age samples from NW South Asia, we do not find any R1a but find plenty of steppe maternal lineages. This rather supports in favour of the steppe ancestry entering South Asia via the steppe females. It also fits in perfectly with the lack of any steppe cultural marker in South Asian archaeological record. A case can be made that the steppe ancestry spread among South Asians after 1900 BC, when the South Asians took brides from the steppe groups who were also reaching out South. Thus the South Asian people got steppe admixture without any cultural influence of the steppe people by taking the steppe brides.

One final roll of the dice could be that why is it that the steppe ancestry is highly correlated with the high caste individuals in India ? Why do Brahmins have the highest steppe ancestry if steppe ancestry had nothing to do with the spread of Indo-Aryans in South Asia ?

There is also an easy answer for this – the spread of Indo-European or Indo-Aryan languages across much of northern half of South Asia, was followed by what is referred to as the Sanskritization process by the likes of Witzel. It is this Sanskritization which spread the steppe ancestry. A good example of this process spreading the steppe ancestry is the higher steppe ancestry found among Brahmins in South India. There was no language change in South India. There was only heavy Sanskritic cultural influence in South India, yet the Brahmins in this region have a higher steppe component than the rest of the surrounding population. This is what likely happened throughout North India as well,the difference merely being that people across much of North India who got Sanskritized were not Dravidian speakers but speakers of different Indo-Aryan languages that were related to Sanskrit.

As per Witzel, the process of Sanskritization occurred in North India, in the aftermath of the Mahabharata war, when the Kuru state re-organised the Vedic religion and ritual and spread it across the expanse of North India which was already speaking various varieties of Indo-Aryan languages. It is a known fact that the older layer of Indo-Aryan languages across much of North India has been overlaid by a subsequent process of heavy Sanskritic superstratal influence. This was a major political and cultural event according to Witzel who summarizes it thus,

It can be said that the Bh¯arata/Kaurava/P¯ariks.ita dynasty of the Kurus sucessfully carried out and institutionalized a large scale re-organization of the old R°gvedic society. Many aspects of the
new ritual, of the learned speech, of the texts and their formation reflect the wish of the royal Kuru lineage and their Brahmins to be more archaic than much of the texts and rites they inherited. In this fashion, the new P¯ariks.ita kings of the Kurus betray themselves as typical newcomers and upstarts who wanted to enhance their position in society through the well-known process of “Sanskritization.” …The new orthopraxy (and its accompanying belief system, “Kuru orthodoxy”) quickly expanded all over Northern India, and subsequently, across the Vindhya, to South India and later to S.E. Asia, up to Bali…the new dynasty was effective in re-shaping society and its structure by stratification into the four classes (varn. a), with an internal opposition between ¯arya and ´s¯udra which effectively camouflaged the really existing social conflict between brahma-ks. atra and the rest, the vai´sya and ´s¯udra; further, the Bh¯arata/P¯ariks.ita dynasty was successful in reorganizing much of the traditional ritual and the texts concerned with it….The small tribal chieftainships of the R°gvedic period with their shifting alliances and their history of constant warfare, though often not more than cattle rustling expeditions, were united
in the single “large chiefdom” of the Kuru realm. With some justification, we may now call the great chief (r¯aj¯a) of the Kurus “the Kuru king”…we are, I believe, entitled to call the Kuru realm the first state in India…It must be underlined, again, that the developments which brought about the the Kuru realm were lasting and not transient ones as those under the R°gvedic P¯uru or Bharata.
In effect, many of the changes in religion and society then carried out shape Indian society even today.

This Sanskritization, like in South India, is likely the reason for the spread of steppe ancestry across the non-Kuru Indo-Aryan states via the Brahmins from the Kuru realm, who would have been primarily responsible for the spread of the re-organised Vedic religion.

What is most interesting is that the Kuru kingdom was centred in the region of Haryana and Western UP, and it is the Jats of Haryana and Western UP, who have the highest steppe ancestry of any South Asian group, higher than the Jats of Punjab or even the Pashtuns further west. It therefore makes perfect sense, that if Sanskritization was spread from a region with a relatively very high steppe ancestry, its genetic influence on those regions it Sanskritized would also result in the spread of steppe ancestry in those regions. And if that spread was mostly related to the spread of Sanskritized Vedic ritual and religion, the group primarily responsible for such a transmission would be Brahmins from the Haryana and Western UP region, where steppe ancestry was quite high. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Brahmins over a period, all across India, began to show higher levels of steppe ancestry than their surrounding non-Brahmin populations.

The only necessary situation for this is that the Sanskritization process must have taken place after the steppe ancestry had admixed into the NW populations including among the Kurus. In other words, if steppe ancestry spread into North or NW India around 1500 BCE, the spread of Sanskritization from the Kuru realm across much of North India, must have been after 1500 BCE.




The Jats and Indo-Aryan expansion in South Asia

There is this belief that is held by many that the high steppe ancestry in Jats is based somehow on some latter steppe migrations into the region. But obviously there is no proof for it.  The association of Jats with some Central Asian migrants and more specifically the Indo-Scythians is a myth created in the 19th century and does not have any foundation whatsoever. However some people hold onto this myth and feel a vague sense of pride in it.

Nevertheless, there is a very easy and straightforward explanation for why the Jats have such a high steppe ancestry.  Here are a few things to keep in mind.

  1. The Haryanvi and Western UP Jats have apparently the highest ‘steppe’ ancestry among South Asians.
  2. This ‘steppe’ ancestry is associated with the spread of IE langauges in South Asia with Brahmins and Kshatriyas in any region having a higher share of this ancestry than the other groups within that region.
  3. The Vedic homeland was in Haryana and Western UP, the Kuru heartland from where the Vedic cultural influence spread into interior South Asia.

Let me quote Michael Witzel which is an avowed AMT proponent,

Kuruksetra, the sacred land of Manu where even the gods perform their sacrifices, is the area between the two small rivers Sarsuti and Chautang, situated about a hundred miles north-west of Delhi. It is here that the Mahabharata battle took place. Why has Kuruksetra been regarded so highly ever since the early Vedic period?…

…It can be said that the Bharata/Kaurava/Pariks.ita dynasty of the Kurus sucessfully carried out and institutionalized a large scale re-organization of the old Rgvedic society. Many aspects of the new ritual, of the learned speech, of the texts and their formation reflect the wish of the royal Kuru lineage and their Brahmins to be more archaic than much of the texts and rites they inherited. In this fashion, the new Pariks.ita kings of the Kurus betray themselves as typical newcomers and upstarts who wanted to enhance their position in society through the well-known process of “Sanskritization.” In fact, to use this modern term out of its usual context, the establishment of  the Kuru realm was accompanied by the First Sanskritization. Incipient state formation can only be aided if it is not combined with the overthrow of all inherited institutions, rituals, customs, and beliefs. The process is much more successful if one rather tries to bend them to one’s goals or tries to introduce smaller or larger modifications resulting in a totally new set-up. The new orthopraxy (and its accompanying belief system, “Kuru orthodoxy”) quickly expanded all over Northern India, and subsequently, across the Vindhya, to South India and later to S.E. Asia, up to Bali.

This procedure is visible in the Bharata/Kaurava dynasty’s large scale collection of older and more recent religious texts: In all aspects of ritual, language and text collection, these texts tend to be more archaic than much of the inherited older texts and rites. On the other hand, the new dynasty was effective in re-shaping society and its structure by stratification into the four classes (varna), with an internal opposition between ¯arya and ´sudra which effectively camouflaged the really existing social conflict between brahma-ksatra and the rest, the vaisya and ´sudra; further, the Bharata/Pariksita dynasty was successful in reorganizing much of the traditional ritual and the texts concerned with it. (It must not be forgotten that public ritual included many of the functions of our modern administration, providing exchanges of goods, forging unity and underlining the power of the elite.)

The small tribal chieftainships of the R°gvedic period with their shifting alliances and their history of constant warfare, though often not more than cattle rustling expeditions, were united in the single “large chiefdom” of the Kuru realm. With some justification, we may now call the great chief (raja) of the Kurus “the Kuru king”. His power no longer depended simply on ritual relationships such as exchange of goods (vidatha) but on the extraction of tribute (bali) from an increasingly suppressed third estate (vi´s) and from dependent subtribes and weak neighbors; this was often camouflaged as ritual tribute, such as in the a´svamedha.

In view of the data presented in this paper, we are, I believe, entitled to call the Kuru realm the first state in India.

Witzel also states elsewhere in the text,

The famous Videgha Mathava legend of ´SB sqq. tells the story of the “civilization process of the East” in terms of its Brahmanical authors, and not, as usally termed, as the tale of “the Aryan move eastwards.For it is not only Videgha Mathava, a king living on the Sarasvatı, but also his priest Gotama Rahugana who move towards the east. Not only is the starting point of this “expedition” the holy land of Kuruksetra; the royal priest, Gotama Rahugana, is a well known poet of R°gvedic poems as well, and thus, completely anachronistic. Further, the story expressively mentions the role of Agni Vai´svanara, the ritual fire, in making the marshy country of the East arable and acceptable for Brahmins. All of this points to Sanskritization or rather, Brahmanization) and Ks.atriyazation rather than to military expansion.

The M¯athavas, about whom nothing is known outside the ´SB, may be identical with the m´athai of Megasthenes (c. 300 B.C.), who places them East of the Paz´alai (Pancala), at the confluence of the Erennesis (Son) with the Ganges. The movement of some clans, with their king Videgha and his Purohita, eastwards from the River Sarasvatı in Kuruksetra towards Bihar thus represents the ‘ritual occupation’ of Kosala(-Videha) by the bearers of orthoprax (and orthodox) Kuru culture, but it does not represent an account of the first settlement of the East by Indo-Aryan speaking tribes which must have taken place much earlier as the (still scanty) materials of archaeology indeed indicate.

According to Talageri,

…the geographical area of the Rigveda extends from westernmost U.P. and adjoining parts of Uttarakhand in the east to southern and eastern Afghanistan in the west. Strictly speaking, in present-day political-geographical terms, this includes the whole of northern Pakistan, adjoining areas of southern and eastern Afghanistan, but, within present-day India, only the state of Haryana with adjoining peripheral areas of western U.P and Uttarakhand..

…The descriptions in the Puranas about the locations of the Five Aila tribes in northern India clearly place the Purus as the inhabitants of the Central Area (Haryana and adjacent areas of western U.P.), the Anus to their North (Kashmir, etc.), the Druhyus to their West (present-day northern Pakistan), and the Yadus and Turvasus to their South-West (Rajasthan, Gujarat, western M.P.) and South-East (eastern M.P. and Chhattisgarh?) respectively. The Solar race of the Ikshvakus are placed to their East (eastern U.P, northern Bihar). This clearly shows that the Purus were the inhabitants of the core Rigvedic area of the Oldest Books (6, 3, 7): Haryana and adjacent areas, and they, and in particular their sub-tribe the Bharatas, were the “Vedic Aryans”. Their neighboring tribes and people in all directions were also other non-Vedic (i.e. non-Puru) but “Aryan” or Indo-European language speaking tribes. The Puru expansions described in the Puranas explain all the known historical phenomena associated with the “Aryans”: the expansion of Puru kingdoms eastwards explains the phenomenon which Western scholars interpreted as an “Aryan movement from west to east” (the area of the Rigveda extends eastwards to Haryana and westernmost U.P., the area of the Yajurveda covers the whole of U.P., and the area of the Atharvaveda extends eastwards up to Bengal), and their expansion westwards described in the Puranas and the Rigveda explains the migration of Indo-European language speakers from the Anu and Druhyu tribes (whose dialects later developed into the other 11 branches of Indo-European languages) from India..

The evidence is unequivocal. Quite clearly, the Vedic culture spread into the Gangetic plains and later on elsewhere from its central locus of the Kuru realm which was in Haryana and Western UP.

So is it so outrageous that the dominant community living presently in the traditional Vedic heartland from where the Vedic culture, ritual, language and religion is suppossed to have spread across inner South Asia, also has the highest ancestry of the type which is usually today associated with the spread of IE or Indo-Aryan languages and culture in South Asia ?

So why hold onto the unsubstantiated 19th century colonial myths when the evidence is so clear and straightforward ? As Razib has pointed out, a latter steppe admixture into the Jats from groups like Scythians is also difficult to argue because the Jats lack the East Eurasian component which is present in very signficant proportion in steppe groups from Iron Age onwards.

Infact, the close ancestry sharing between the Kalash, Pashtuns, Pamiris and Jats indicates, as I have argued earlier in greater detail, that this shared ancestry with high ‘steppe’ component goes back to the days of Indo-Iranian unity within the northwest of the subcontinent because while Jats are Indo-Aryan and Pashtuns are Iranian speakers, the Kalash are representative of the Nuristani branch which is often taken as the 3rd branch in Indo-Iranian.

One question that is often asked is – why are Jats not at the top of caste heirarchy ?

There is also a good explanation for this. The Indo-Aryan expansion from its Haryana-Western UP heartland is a roughly 4,000 year phenomenon. A lot of water has flown under the bridge since then. Mahapadma Nanda, who established the first major South Asian empire is stated in the Puranas to have  destroyed the Kshatriyas, and attained undisputed sovereignty. The Kshatriyas said to have been exterminated by him include Maithalas, Kasheyas, Ikshvakus, Panchalas, Shurasenas, Kurus, Haihayas, Vitihotras, Kalingas, and Ashmakas.

As you can see, the Kshatriyas among the Kurus, along with those of other kingdoms, were already exterminated during the time of Mahapadma Nanda eons ago.  So it is no surprise that present day Jats don’t hold any special position in the caste heirarchy.

I end here by taking a detour with the beautiful story of Pururavas, who is the ancestral figure of all Vedic tribes and is most likely an Indo-Iranian ancestor from the remote past. Noticeable aspects of the story include the fact that the place of Kurukshetra, Haryana has a mention in the story as a place of action and that sheep herding appears to have been  a feature of this early nascent Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian period.

Pururava was a good king who performed many yajnas. He ruled the earth well. Urvashi was a beautiful apsara. Pururava met Urvashi and fell in love with her.

“Please marry me,” he requested.

“I will,” replied Urvashi, “But there is a condition. I love these two sheep and they will always have to stay by bedside. If I ever lose them, I will remain your wife no longer and will return to heaven. Moreover, I shall live only on clarified butter.”

Pururava agreed to these rather strange conditions and the two were married. They lived happily for sixty-four years.

But the gandharvas who were in heaven felt despondent. Heaven seemed to be a dismal place in Urvashi’s absence. They therefore hatched a conspiracy to get her back. On an appropriate occasion, a gandharva named Vishvavasu stole the two sheep. As soon as this happened, Urvashi vanished and returned to heaven.

Pururava pursued Vishvavasu and managed to retrieve the sheep, but by then, Urvashi ahd disappeared. The miserable king searched throughout the world for her. But in vain. Eventually, Pururava came across Urvashi near a pond in Kurukshetra.

“Why have you forsaken me?” asked Pururava. “You are my wife. Come and live with me.”

“I was your wife,” replied Urvashi. “I no longer am, since the condition was violated. However, I agree to spend a day with you.”

When one year had passed, Urvashi returned to Pururava and presented him with the son she had borne him. She spent a day with him and vanished again. This happened several times and, in this fashion, Urvashi bore Pururava six sons. They were named Ayu, Amavasu, Vishvayu, Shatayu, Gatayu and Dridayu.


Iran_N/CHG Ancestry and the Genetic Origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

This is a post I was writing a few months back but had abandoned midway. It is in response to  what Razib had argued in one of his posts. According to Razib while an Aryan Migration model, that suggests an entry of Indo-Aryans into South Asia, might not have textual and archaeological support, when looked at in a wider context, that necessitates explaining the origin and migration of all Indo-Europeans from a PIE homeland to their respective places of present or last known (e.g. Hittites & Tocharian) inhabitation, the steppe theory makes a far more compelling case as PIE homeland than an OIT.

Admittedly, we haven’t had a major attempt being made in the academia, Western or Indian, which tries to take stock of all available evidence, linguistic and archaeological, and uses that evidence to argue for the PIE origins in South Asia and the subsequent dispersals of the daughter languages to their known destinations.

It is beyond the remit of my present subject to ponder why this has been so but we may note that an elegant and solid linguistic case (1,2) for a spread of IE languages from a locus in the region of Bactria has been already made more than two decades back by Johanna Nichols. However, the linguistic community has chosen to sideline her work without a proper rebuttal.

Continue reading “Iran_N/CHG Ancestry and the Genetic Origins of the Proto-Indo-Europeans”


The Landmark Chola Invasion of Srivijaya

I found this video on the Chola invasion of Srivijaya and it is so well made and informative, about this little known but nevertheless a major event on Indian and SE Asian history, that i couldn’t help posting it here.

It is a shame that this video does not have more views.

The Chola invasion of Srivijaya dispels a major myth about Indian history that is bandied about often which is that India or Indians never invaded another nation.

The timing of this major world event is also quite interesting. It came about in the early part of the 11th century CE when the Greater India region stretched from Afghanistan and Balkh in the Northwest to the Phillipine Islands in the southeast and had been so for more than a millenium already. Indian religion and ideas also held great sway over the countries of China, Japan & Korea.

This was the phase of the greatest afflorescence of Indian civilization. Yet by the turn of the 2nd millenium, this civilization which the Arabs referred to as Al-Hind was already well past its high point. The kingdoms of the Tarim Basin such as Khotan, Kucha, Shanshan etc were already lost as were the Central Asian kingdoms of Balkh and Sughd (Sogdia).

Yet, most poignantly, in the very timeframe that the Cholas invaded Srivijaya in the southeast, the Turco-Afghan Mahmud Ghazni invaded from the Northwest and devastated North India.

What a turning point in Indian history were these initial years in the new millenium of the Christian era !



The Era of the Kushans

I have written a new post on my personal blog about the dating of the Kushan empire. I have shown through a range of facts and arguments that the Kanishka Era should start around 233 CE and not 127 CE as is currently believed.

The Era of the Kushans

Most of you folks are unlikely to go through the entire article. My intention behind it is to get some attention from the scholars and the academia. Hence I have tried to gather as much evidence as I could to strengthen my case.

Let me state here in brief what this article is all about.

It is generally believed now that the era established by Kanishka in his 1st yeat began in 127 CE. A minority of scholars still believe that it begins in 78 CE. At the same time there is a minority view that also believes that the Kanishka Era began in the 3rd century CE – most of them being numismatists.

The main reason why 127 CE and earlier 125 CE is so popular among the scholars as the likely Year 1 of Kanishka is the belief that Chinese historical texts of the Later Han and Wei dynasties, which are chief textual sources on the Kushans, give information about Kushans and India from a report that was given to the Chinese Court in 125 CE. As per the account Kushans had recently conquered North India and were ruling over it but Kanishka is not mentioned leading scholars to infer that he must have come to the throne around or after 125 CE.

Already a few years ago, I had come across an old article by the doyen of Indian historians, R C Majumdar, where he pointed out quite clearly that there was no basis to believe that this information about the Kushan state and India was only from this report of 125 CE since the Chinese texts mention lots of information which is clearly several decades later than 125 CE. And the texts maintain that their record of history closes at the end of Han period i.e. 220 CE and 239 CE respectively. So by default one has to assume that the current state of affairs these texts relate about India and the Kushans, according to which Kushans were in control of North India, dates to around 220 and 239 CE respectively.

Most strikingly I found out, the early Kushan Emperors, before the time of Kanishka were dating their inscriptions using two Eras which were separated from each other by 129-144 years. There are only two historical eras, which incidentally happen to begin around this period, which can fit in as per this criteria and these are the Vikram Era of 57 BC and Saka Era of 78 CE which are separated in time by 135 years. Dating the early Kushan inscriptions using these two Eras pushes the Kushans in the 3rd century CE which we already noted is what the Chinese texts seem to support.

Even more remarkable was the fact that in the homeland of the Kushans in Balkh or Bactria, there was an Era, referred to commonly as the Bactrian Era, which began in the 3rd century CE and was in use atleast until the 9th century CE. It is difficult to argue that this Era is not the same as that of Kanishka the Kushan since the Kushans were native to Bactria and we know of no one else who possibly inaugurated an Era during this period. So the Kanishka Era aka the Bactrian Era began in 233 CE as it fits in well with the dates given in Vikram and Saka Era of the early Kushans.

Modern Kushan scholarship is dominated by numismatic studies. The credit for this goes to Robert Gobl, an Austrian numismatist, who revolutionised the numismatic research on Kushan coins by his indepth study and research on the subject, unlike anything that came earlier. What is worth noting is that Robert Gobl, based on his indepth study of Kushan coinage and that of Sasanian and Roman coinage as well came to the conclusion that the Great Kushans ruled in the 3rd century CE.

So, I realised that there was strong inscriptional, textual and numismatic data that supports the date of Kushans in the 3rd century CE yet no one has tried to bring all of this data together in one place and make a strong case for the Kanishka Era beginning in 3rd century. This lockdown gave me the time and opportunity to do that and I bit the bullet, as it were.

One quite interesting fact about the history of the Kushans is that they appear to have had a long standing rivalry with the Sasanians on their west. As I have argued in my article, the Kushans seem to have lost their homeland Bactria to the Sasanians during the reign of Kanishka I’s son Huvishka who nevertheless appears to have regained it within a handful of years. However, during Kanishka II’s reign in the 330s CE, as per our dating, Bactria was again lost to the Sasanians under Shapur II, and this time for several decades. The Sasanians even managed to conquer Gandhara south of the Hindu Kush.

By the end of Shapur II’s life in the 370s, a new force rises and they are conventionally referred to as the Kidarites by the scholarship. These Kidarites however claimed that they were descendents of the Kushans and the Chinese texts also endorse this. But ofcourse, there is very little evidence to confirm or deny this claim. Nevertheless, these Kidarites get hold of all existing Kushan territory and also reclaim Gandhara and Bactria from the Sasanians. Later on, the Kidarites also manage to conquer the kingdom of Sogdia (Sughd) north of Bactria. What is also quite revealing is the evidence that the Sasanians were apparently forced by these Kidarites to pay tribute to them.

In the latter half of the 5th century CE, the Sasanians refuse to pay tribute and this leads to a conflict which perhaps brought the downfall of the Kidarites around 460-470 CE. Bactria again went to the Sasanians. But by 484 CE, another obscure group, who are known as Hephthalites in modern convention defeated the Sasanians and even killed their emperor Peroz I. The Sasanians were again forced to pay tribute, this time by this new group and Bactria was lost by the Sasanians once again.

Another interesting thing during this period is that Hinduism’s influence in Central Asia kept on spreading during the Kidarite and Hephthalite rule. During the Kidarite era, it even spread to Sogdia. The Indian cultural influence across Bactria, Sogdia and all across the kingdoms of Tarim Basin lasted for several centuries until they were Islamised.


The Unravelling of the AMT

The thought of writing this article came as I recalled a recent interview of Vagheesh Narasimhan with the Caravan magazine, where he explains how in his view, the Indo-Aryans must have spread across South Asia.

Before coming to what Vagheesh said in the interview, let us take a brief detour so that his comments could be understood in its proper context.

The Textual Evidence for AMT

Except for the truly ignorant on the subject, it is clear as daylight to all scholars, whether Indian or Western, that the Rigvedic geography is centred in North India, more specifically around Punjab, Haryana & Western UP.  The westernmost lands mentioned in Rigveda are the eastern regions of Afghanistan and these were certainly peripheral in the scheme of things of Rigvedic Aryans.

Yet, through the last two centuries several attempts have been made to parse out some sort of evidence from Rigveda or any of the early Vedic texts, in the form of memory or otherwise, that could support the argument of an extra-Indian homeland of the Rigvedic Indo-Aryans. However all such attempts have come to naught.

Let us go through the opinion of the mainstream western Indologists on the matter so that there remains no room for doubt on the matter.

Edwin Bryant notes in his seminal book,

The first prominent note of discord between traditional exegesis and Western scholarship was sounded because of the lack of explicit mention, in the Vedic texts, of a foreign homeland of the Aryan people. As mentioned previously, this conspicuous silence had been noted even by nineteenth-century Western scholars (e.g., Elphinstone 1841). The absence of any mention of external Aryan origins in traditional Sanskrit sources is, to this day, perhaps the single most prominent objection raised by much of the scholarship claiming indigenous origins for the Aryan culture. (pg 59)

Already in the middle of the 19th century we have scholars such as Curzon (1855) who argues, “Is it legitimate … to infer that because the Aryans early spread to the South . . . and extended themselves over the peninsula, they also originally invaded, from some unknown region and conquered India itself?” (pg 65) and Muir(1860) who notes that “none of the Sanskrit books, not even the most ancient, contain any distinct reference or allusion to the foreign origin of the Indians” (pg 63)

Bryant quotes Srinivas Iyengar, who in 1914 quite pertinently said,

The Aryas do not refer to any foreign country as their original home, do not refer to themselves as coming from beyond India, do not name any place in India after the names of places in their original land as conquerors and colonizers always do, but speak of themselves exactly as sons of the soil would do. If they had been foreign invaders, it would have been humanly impossible for all memory of such invasion to have been utterly obliterated from memory in such a short time as represents the differences between the Vedic and Avestan dialects. (pg 59)

Bryant refers to Indian scholars as early as the latter half of the 19th century who object to the external origins of the Indo-Aryans, which should clear the doubts of those who think that opposition to AIT/AMT is a modern Hindutva invention.

As per Bryant, “… the fact that the Vedas themselves make no mention of any Aryan invasion or immigration reveals a major epistemological concern in this debate. ” (pg 59)

Bryant concludes the chapter thus, “The sequence of texts does seem to suggest a movement of the Brahmanic geographical horizons from the Northwest to other parts of India. Nonetheless, the Indigenous response needs to be considered: the texts give no obvious indication of a movement into India itself. Indigenous Aryanists, on the whole, are prepared to accept a shift of population from the Sarasvatl region eastward toward the Gangetic plain…But they do not feel compelled to then project this into preconceived hypothetical movements into the subcontinent itself in the pre- and protohistoric period.”

Hans Henrich Hock, a well-known linguist and Sanskritist, in his contribution to this major volume, The Indo-Aryan Controversy, also observes,

Some publications claim that the Rig-Veda contains actual textual evidence for an Aryan in-migration…suffice it to state that none of them provide unambiguous clues that the point of origin for these travels was further (north-)west or outside of India/South Asia, or that the direction of travel was to the east or further into India/South Asia. (pg 290)

Hock rather candidly tells us that “…the passages cited by Biswas and Witzel do not provide cogent evidence for Aryan in-migration and thus cannot be used to counter the claim of opponents of the so-called “Aryan Invasion Theory” (e.g. Rajaram and Frawley 1997: 233) that there is no indigenous tradition of an outside origin.” (pg 291)

Another major linguist George Cardona concurs that “… there is no textual evidence in the early literary traditions unambiguously showing a trace of such migration. “(pg 38)

Cardona goes one step further and analyses a particular passage Michael Witzel, an ardent proponent of the AMT, cites from the Baudhayana Srauta Sutra, to support his argument of textual evidence.

Continue reading “The Unravelling of the AMT”


The Ayodhya Verdict

November 09, 2019 was a momentous date in the history of modern India. An end to the decades and centuries old Ayodhya dispute has likely happened. The Supreme Court of India has, by a unanimous verdict of 5-0, pronounced that the disputed site of 2.77 acres be given for the building of a Ram temple while at the same time allotting a land of 5 acres somewhere else for the construction of a mosque.

In all respects this was a very fine judgement by the Supreme Court. However, there are mischief mongers who are busy spreading falsehoods about this judgement for their own vested interests. Let me here share a few videos which give us a very clear picture of why the SC judgement is neither biased nor is it giving precedence to faith over evidence.



Please also watch these two long presentations as they explain the available evidence at length.

The Case For Ram Mandir at Ayodhya

What Do The Ram Janmabhoomi Excavations Tell Us?

To put it briefly :-

Ayodhya is one of the seven holy cities of ancient India and for Hindus or Sanatan Dharmis. Its holy precisely because it is associated with the birth and life of Lord Ram, one of the most revered figures of Hinduism.

Now what exactly is the significance of Ayodhya for Muslims ?

Particularly with regard to the Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid site, it is clear and the SC judgement also points out that the Babri Masjid was not built on a vacant land but was built over a large pre-existing non-Islamic structure. Archaeologists and scholars have pointed out that this structure was most likely a Vishnu temple built by a feudatory of the Gahadavala King Govindchandra, the most powerful king of North India in his time and the grandfather of none other than Jayachand of Prithviraj/Samyukta fame.

While the SC has acknowledged the existence of this temple structure since the 12th century, it points out that between the 12th century and the early 16th century when the Babri Mosque was built on the site, we do not have records documenting what was happening at the site. The SC also states that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) could not prove that this earlier temple was destroyed to build the mosque i.e. perhaps the temple was already destroyed & lying in ruins. However, proving it conclusively is a tough ask.

Nevertheless, it has already been proven without a shadow of doubt that the remains of the pre-existing temple, including its pillars were used in the construction of the mosque.

Lastly, there are numerous eye-witness and other accounts in English, Persian, Arabic & Urdu from the 16th, 17th & 18th centuries which clearly prove that the particular site was holy for the Hindus and that the mosque was built by destroying the mandir or temple, and the site is often referred to in the accounts as the Ram Janamsthan.

Hindus were able to show that they were worshipping at the site for several centuries and people used to flock the site particularly on Ram Navami, the date of Lord Ram’s birth. They were also able to show the outer courtyard was always under the control of Hindus while there was often disputes between Hindus and Muslims for the inner courtyard of the mosque.

One may ask, what is the evidence that Lord Ram was born at this very site. And infact we don’t have any. But it can be shown that for several centuries it has been a Hindu belief that this very site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that there is no other site at Ayodhya or elsewhere for which such a belief exists or has existed.

When one looks at this evidence in totality it is clear that the claim of Hindus on the site as an important place of worship for several centuries is supported by much more substantial evidence than anything the Muslim side could muster.

Therefore, the Verdict was a foregone conclusion. The Supreme Court has merely gone by the balance of evidence and has not buckled under the pressure of majoritarianism nor has the rights of the Muslim minority been suppressed by it, as alleged by some unscrupulous lot who perpetually want to keep the communal cauldron burning.



The Archaeological Evidence for OIT – I


The Chalcolithic & Bronze Age civilizations geographically closest to the Harappan or the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization were the twin Eastern Iranian civilizations of Helmand and Halil Rud/Jiroft and the Central Asian civilization of BMAC spread over the southern margins of Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan and as far east as Tajikistan.

We have discussed the genetic evidence which showed profound Harappan influence in Helmand and BMAC while the aDNA from Halil Rud civilization, situated in the Kerman province of modern Iran, further west of Shahr-i-Sokhta, remains to be sequenced and published.

After having had a look at the genetic data that supports an Out of India migration into these adjacent regions of Eastern Iran & Central Asia, it would be in the fitness of things to also have a brief encounter with the archaeological evidence that can prop up the above said genetic evidence.

The archaeological data is much varied and quite interesting. However there is a lot more to learn and perhaps we have so far just scratched the surface.

Helmand & Halil Rud

The twin civilizations of Helmand and Halil Rud, situated to the west of the Harappan civilization, were not known until a few decades ago and even today we know very little about them. In many ways, we know even less about them than what we know about the Harappan civilization itself.

From what we know it is fairly clear that both of these Eastern Iranian civilizations preceded by several centuries the BMAC civilization and were roughly contemporaneous with the Harappan civilization. All of these southern civilizations, including the Harappan, are in turn considered to have played a defining role in the formation of the BMAC, a proposition which has been confirmed by ancient DNA evidence.

Both the Helmand civilization and its western neighbour, the Halil Rud civilization were intimately in contact with their geographically massive eastern neighbouring civilization of the Harappans.

In order to avoid an unduly long post, I shall limit myself over here to the very intriguing linkages of Harappans with the Helmand civilization only.

Helmand & Harappan


(Mundigak, Afghanistan)

(Burnt Building, Shahr-i-Sokhta)

The Helmand civilization centred on the river Helmand which flows from Afghanistan into Sistan province of Eastern Iran. We know atleast two of its major sites – Mundigak in Afghanistan and Shahr-i-Sokhta in eastern Iran.

The genetic evidence from Shahr-i-Sokhta, the biggest Helmand site, confirms that the relations with the Harappans were quite strong with nearly half of all ancient samples from that site considered to have been migrants from the Harappan region, especially from Baluchistan and the rest of the ancient samples showing admixture from these migrants.

According to the French archaeologist, Jean Francois Jarrige, the principle excavator of Mehrgarh, as stated in this article, the foundation of Mundigak, the other Helmand site, can be interpreted as the settling of people from Baluchistan of the Mehrgarh Chalcolithic tradition and the remains of Period I at Mundigak fit almost perfectly the cultural assemblage of Mehrgarh Period III.

It is also significant that the pottery of Mundigak I, the earliest occupation of the “Helmand” cultural complex, corresponds to the Mehrgarh III pottery, in technique—quality of the paste and manufacture— as well in the shapes and decoration, probably within a phase dated to the end of the 5th millennium. The pottery of Mundigak I-II (fi g. 2: 3-5, 7-8) can also be related to the context of Balochistan ceramic productions, especially from Mehrgarh IV around 3500 BC. (link)

The foundation of Mundigak, incidentally dates to around 5000 BC and is therefore significantly older to the foundation of Shahr-i-Sokhta, its sister site in Helmand more than 400 kms to its west, whose earliest dates go only upto 3300 BC and where we have already seen that the Harappan or Baluchistani migrants were already present from the earliest period.

While , “..there is general agreement that Shahr-i Sokhta and Mundigak have the same material culture including similar buff ceramic material, validating the existence of a Helmand Valley archaeological culture at the time corresponding to Period I at the former and Period III at the latter…” it also needs to be understood that “Shahr-i-Sokhta I nonetheless has inter-regional connections that are not recorded at Mundigak. In particular, a series of objects point to contacts to the west…”(link)

With regard to Shahr-i-Sokhta, which in its most expansive phase was atleast around 150 hect. it should be noted that “…Shahr-i-Sokhta I is the foundation period of this site and that no other site (or no context at this site) has been observed thus far in Seistan with older archaeological deposits. Since no evidence for an older settlement is observed in this region, the most rational reconstruction is that Shahr-i Sokhta was founded by communities coming from (an)other area(s) in the late fourth millennium BCE.” (link same as above).

An important provenance study of the Shahr-i-Sokhta ceramics also indicated a strong influence from the west from the Baluchistani region and Mundigak. Almost all of the deluxe pottery that was found at the site and associated with elite graves was of non-local origin and were imports from the Iranian and Pakistani Baluchistan region.

The authors of this study also observe, “The possibility indeed remains that, for instance, the cultural assemblage at Mundigak, or  a part of it, belonged to people who later moved to Shahr-i-Sokhta.”

We have already noted earlier how, Mundigak itself likely derives from the Mehrgarh Chalcolithic tradition of Pakistani Baluchistan. This tradition, also known as Damb Sadat or Quetta pottery tradition is one of the 4 major early pottery traditions of Early Harappans.

Continue reading “The Archaeological Evidence for OIT – I”