Monkeys and the Indo-Europeans – Revised & Enlarged

Jaydeepsinh_Rathod

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.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧


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 ?

+3

Hindoo History: An Introduction

Vishal

 

Greetings, Brown Pundits readers! For those of you have been following @HindooHistory on Twitter and Instagram, you may have seen that I now have a Substack where I’ll be posting longer pieces from time to time. I wanted to go ahead and post the introductory piece here for the benefit of the BP audience. Enjoy! 

Welcome, readers! Alas, despite my best efforts I could no longer resist joining the newsletter bandwagon. In the course of my day-to-day research for Hindoo History, I often come across characters and stories that warrant more than an instagram caption or a tweet thread. I’ll be using this newsletter to explore those topics in greater detail. To start, however I wanted to elucidate the idea behind Hindoo History. After all, to this day the most frequent question I get is some variation of “Why ‘Hindoo’ and not ‘Hindu'”? There is a superficial answer— simply that this is how “Hindu” was rendered by colonial-era missionaries and journalists, but there is also a deeper response that goes to the root of the project.

When I started collecting newspaper clips, I didn’t really have an overarching intellectual framework in mind— I would just collect and sort clips that I found interesting. I did however have a general sense that newspapers (as opposed to, say, works of scholarship) offer a more robust sense of what the “average American” thought at the time. Enter Professor Michael Altman. Dr. Altman is a professor of religion at the University of Alabama, and his book “Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu: American Representations of India, 1721-1893” was and is instrumental in providing the scaffolding for the collected data.

Dr. Altman’s key insight is that the American conversation about Hinduism long pre-dated the arrival of Hindus and Hinduism to American shores. So, rather than asking how Hinduism arrived in America, Dr. Altman asks how “Hinduism became conceivable in America.” This idea of “conceivability” is a key methodological pivot because it shifts the focus away from Hinduism per se, and towards the “genealogy” of a particular set of ideas, themes, and attitudes that shaped the American conception of Hinduism. Dr. Altman defines “genealogy” as follows:

“For my purposes, genealogy means an attention to the powers, identities, forces, constraints, agents, and discourses that form a particular category. It means paying attention to the connection between categories, the ways they overlap, include, and exclude one another. It traces how the formation of one category draws on others and produces yet more”

Whereas the traditional narrative marks Swami Vivekananda’s speech at the World Parliament as the beginning of the story of Hinduism in America, Dr. Altman notes that when Vivekananda entered the stage, “Hinduism as a world religion emerged in the midst of various representations of religion” and although these representations made Hinduism “conceivable” to the average American, “they were not its direct antecedents.” So what’s the take-away here? Many of the newspaper clips I post involve descriptions of Hindoos engaging in widow burning, infant sacrifice, and all sorts of other pagan bloodletting. It is not my intent to analyze the “accuracy” of these claims vis-a-vis the historical practice of Hindus in India, because that’s not what “Hindoo History” is concerned with. Whether these claims were true or not, they were for the most part the only data regarding the “Hindoo” the average American had access to.

This leads us to another key methodological contribution of Dr. Altman’s book, that I rely on in my own posts: The resulting conception was formed against the backdrop of an on-going debate in America regarding what “religion” was, and as a result the debates around Hinduism in America are drawn into broader sociological and theological disputes raging in America contemporaneously. Dr. Altman eloquently observes that “when Americans talked about religion in India, they were not really talking about religion in India. They were talking about themselves.” Focusing on newspaper clips and tracing themes chronologically helps illuminate not just how the American conception of the “Hindoo” changed over time, but also the shifting socio-cultural fabric of the country as a whole.

+3

Monkey see – Monkey Do ?

GauravL

This is not a well-thought-out piece but a sort of rambling rant of thoughts in my mind for a year.  My previous writing on Covid is here and Ayurveda.

I have no medical/biology/medicine background nor am I am a scientist nor do I claim to understand statistics. Read this as some thoughts of a layman.

It’s been a year since India went hard into the lockdown. And after trying N things for over a year, we are back on the verge of lockdown in Maharashtra. (at least the CM keeps threatening a lockdown). Unlike initial predictions of respite from Covid in warm weather, it appears both Covid spikes in India have occurred in the considerably warmer weather while mysteriously getting low during the winter months. While I am yet to find a convincing argument that explains several strands associated with mechanisms of spread of Covid19, some aspects of the challenge, namely public reaction needs to be assessed as we get into the second year of the pandemic.

A question to ask here is – how different would the global reaction to covid19 have been without the world witnessing the Chinese state response in the first place? Did it act like a guess in an optimization algorithm – which eventually decides the outcome in some cases no matter it’s value? The European nations first chose to ignore and when they acted they acted in echoes of China. While totalitarian states like China or the gulf countries have been able to reign in the pandemic, no significantly sized country has. What would have been the Italian reaction had they First Guess been other than China? This is not to condone any herd immunity strategies – but at least in a country like India, the cost-benefit analysis needs to be done.

Additionally, should we ask if how much did lockdown work? Dr. Watve, a scientist based in Pune has some good blogs on the topic. While I am not convinced by Dr. Watve’s reasoning yet, its opposite doesn’t appear convincing too.

What else (if anything) could we have done differently? especially in India.  Critics of government often talk about the lack of testing as an issue in India. Personally, I feel once we get a critical mass of vectors, testing and tracing becomes merely a placebo exercise. Aping the WHO models on test, trace on Indian scale (at least with the resources we have).

Another thing that continues to bother me is the Fomite transmission theory. Going through the literature, I couldn’t find convincing research to believe it in the first place, let alone taking it to the insane level it was taken to – especially in India. Newspapers and milk delivery was turned off for months. Home deliveries of groceries were turned off initially. Shops were open only for small durations of the day. All these measures together meant that whatever essential services were available were often extremely crowded with people.  How much did these bizarre policies initially aid the transmission of covid?

I still remember vividly the most spectacularly stupid team meeting I have been part of. This meeting took place around 10-15 March 2020 to let the employees know that the company was doing everything they can to stop covid around the company premises (which was mostly a rain of sanitizers). In this meeting, the management called around 30-40 people in a closed room and talked without masks (that was early 2020, and even the scientists and WHO were maskophobic back then). Anthony Fauci who today, parades in “Rand Paul’s words” in two masks after getting two shots of vaccine, was saying a year back that masks are unnecessary (or even counterproductive). It’s perfectly acceptable for humans to make errors and correct those in the course of action – that’s something we should all try to do. But an analysis of what led us to make those mistakes in the first place ought to be done. Or was it just another example of the Sun revolves around the earth?

Local authorities (including society chairmen etc) have been on a different level of insane. After seeing city authorities sanitizing roads, pavements, trees, and even migrant laborers, whenever a patient is found in a building, the staircases, floors, and grounds continue to be sanitized. I am not even a novice on Bacterial evolution, but on my rudimentary understanding- this use of sanitizers scares the shit out of me. It is not that I am totally sure that fomites don’t spread covid, but the focus on fomites has also meant the possible aerosol spread was not focussed on. What’s worse, in my opinion – the focus on fomites and sanitization has lulled large swathes of people into the sense of false security. People wash their hands, sanitize groceries, but when talking to people often take down masks. Almost 95% of the cases I have heard have of contracting covid from a distant family member indoors or at some function. Yet people continue to focus on sanitization while attending public gatherings and religious ceremonies. At one point in my society, deliveries had to be collected at the society gate while members celebrated Diwali, New years, and Republic day inside without masks in large numbers. To this day, servants and handymen are treated with suspicions while friends and family (some of whom may have more exposure) arent. We have a separate lift for non-members – while members don’t mind traveling in lifts with unmasked members.

However, another question posed by this pandemic is, what should be the role of the state? and what should be its Aim?

  • Is the Aim to try and prevent every covid infection – at cost of the economy and livelihood?
  • Is the aim to avoid the overcrowding of medical facilities so as to avoid collateral damage?
  • Is the aim to keep pushing potential cases in the future – so as to reduce potential cases by vaccination?

When it comes to livelihoods, we need to separate two strands – the effect on the economy due to natural fear in people & and lockdown invoked economic downturn.

The mathematics of economic catastrophe is clear enough to follow – while the mechanism of spread seems to allude even the best of the minds. Every time someone comes up with reasons for why Covid stopped spreading rapidly around the end of 2020 in India and began afresh in 2021. The lockdown had ended in October and *new normal* activities had opened by November, but it appears this increased activity didn’t immediately accelerate the pandemic. Intuitively I would guess it takes time to gain a critical mass and a similar time for it to reduce. The momentum of the critical mass of vectors ought to carry on the spread (due to unavoidable contacts) in spite of overall contacts being low. Maybe once the first fuel was exhausted, it took time to gain a similar mass of vectors before it could truly explode. Add to this the new variants and reinfections (especially those who were asymptomatic the first time), then maybe the second wave starts making sense. Or maybe I am just pulling theories out of my ass which has no value – Either way I don’t mind as no one seems to have any deep insight into this.

All well-meaning people have been trying to shield the elderly for over a year. I have myself spent hours convincing older people to stay secure. But at what point does this become unbearable for a 75-year-old? Would it be wrong for an older person to be to think that they might not survive the pandemic (dying naturally amidst it) to live the end of the pandemic? Can they decide to take the risk of living a few months dangerously ahead of being condemned to a year in lockdown. (This equation has changed now with vaccines but the question still carries some weight I reckon)

Maybe this time next year we would have more answers than we have at this point. And hopefully, we would devise better strategies in countering such events in the future than acting like imitating monkeys in an experiment.

+3

The Mughals!

Razib Khan


The Brown Pundits Clubhouse channel hosted a discussion on “the Mughals” yesterday that went on for a while. There seem to be two polarized extreme views

1) The Mughals were great Indians! Long live the Mughals.

2) The Mughals were genocidal colonizers and induced inter-generational trauma.

Most people occupy a position in the middle. As for myself, I think it is clear that the Mughals were to some extent an alien and occupying influence because that is how they viewed themselves more, or less. They were Turanian Muslims of Turco-Mongol provenance. No matter how much Rajput or Persian blood they had, their paternal lineage came down from the Turk Timur. The maternal lineage of Babur was Genghiside. If India had been mostly Islamicized this would have changed. But it wasn’t. Despite the deep cultural synthesis between Mughal culture and that of India and their indigenization of the generations, there remained a connection between ashraf Muslims and Persia and Central Asia. They were not equivalent to Muslim Bengali peasants or Ismaili traders in Gujurat.

And yet the flip side of this is that the Mughals, and Muslims as a whole, in particular Turks, drove change within Indian society. To some extent, the native reaction and response in the dialectical synthesis can only be understood in the light of the Islamic shock. More generally, an Islamicate civilization evolved that extended beyond the Mughals and included the Rajputs and Marathas (reciprocally, the Mughals internalized many Rajput values, but this is to be expected due to their long residence in India and intermarriage with Rajputs).

Those Hindus who are traumatized by the impact of Islam are free to feel this way, but I am genuinely curious about an Indian culture stripped away of Islamic influence. What would that look like? Perhaps Odisha and Sri Lanka might come close?

More generally, the excited and emotional response of both Hindus and Muslims and their inability to engage in epoché makes me think that the prospects for deeper analysis are poor. Emotion has reason by the leash.

+5

Monkey and the Indo-Europeans

Jaydeepsinh_Rathod

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.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

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 ?

+1

Review: Magic in Islam by Michael Mohammed Knight

Omar Ali

This is an old capsule review I wrote a few years ago. I have been busier than usual and not writing at all, so I decided to post some old reviews..

26192917

A hot mess of a book, but still worth reading. Michael Knight is now a postmodern conventionally educated scholar, and that is beginning to show. He has obviously read VERY widely and the book contains countless extremely interesting tidbits about magic and magical ideas in Islamicate tradition. But all of this wonderful research is embedded within a curious postmodern framework that can be off-putting and irrelevant to the story. The story he COULD have told is the story of magic and related ideas in the history of Islam and Islamicate culture. THAT story would have been a fascinating and interesting tour through a history that is not well known, especially to outsiders and Western-educated Muslims (like us). And he provides some of that and that is why the book is worth reading. But he is also eager to “correct” our supposed misconceptions about religion and history and too much pleading takes up too much space in this book. Then again, many people seem to want that kind of “mandatory re-education/rectification of names”, so maybe you will like that part too. But personally, I would have preferred more historical details, fewer lectures about orientalism and “the clash of civilizations”.
Best new bit of information for me: that Ibn ul Arabi claimed he had sex with the Arabic letters in paradise. I wish i knew more about the context of that particular quote. But like many fascinating little details in the book, Michael mentions it and moves on. He has clearly read a lot, I wish he had spent more time presenting the information he has collected and less time lecturing us about how “opening space for new fields of knowledge potentially decenters traditions of jurisprudence, even forcing increased opening of an Islam outside normative Muslim legal traditions” and suchlike. Sure, that would be nice. But let us hear the story first, then we can figure out what it means for magic to be (as he describes it) “deconstructive”.
Not that I disagree with his project of “engagement and deep intersection”, just that I wanted more of the facts, less of the postmodern interpretation.

0

Browncast: Chris Iwanek, India-analyst from Poland

Omar Ali

Another BP Podcast is up. You can listen on LibsynAppleSpotify, and Stitcher (and a variety of other platforms). Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe to one of the links above!

Krzysztof IwanekIn this episode Mukuna and Omar talk to Krzysztof Iwanek (aka Chris), who heads the Asia Research Center in the War Studies University in Warsaw, Poland. Chris also writes regularly for “The Diplomat” and is writing a book about the Ram Rajya Parishad Party (a small traditional Hindu party in India). We talk about Indian politics, his research and whatever else comes up..

0