RICE, WHEAT, BARLEY & GRAPE FROM 7000 BCE IN GANGA JI
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Rice, wheat, barley & grape from 7000 BCE in Ganges
Forwarded message from Carlos Aramayo
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Dear friends,
Let's take a look at
Pokharia A., J.N. Pal and A. Srivastava, 2009. "Plant macro-remains
from Neolithic Jhusi in Ganga Plain: evidence for grain-based
agriculture", in Current Science, Vol. 97, No. 4, 25 August 2009,
pp. 564-572.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252009/564.pdf
This recent and revolutionary article establishes that, since at
least 7th millennium BC, the Neolithic plant remains in Jhusi show
that possibly the Middle Ganges people were in contact with the
original home of winter crops (i.e. Mehrgarh in Baluchistan around
7000-5500 BCE).
Until now, it was thought that wheat and barley were introduced into
Gangetic region only around 2500-2000 BC from Harappan region, now
three calibrated C14 samples show a range of 7106 to 5642 BCE for
wheat and barley at Jhusi.
Also, Pokharia et al 2009 contributes with the report of 250 new
oriza sativa (cultivated) grains from these earliest Neolithic
levels in Jhusi that come to support the Rakesh Tewari's findings of
cultivated rice grains from 6400 BCE in Lahuradewa IA level.
And that's not all. Pokharia et al also reports the finding of a
grape seed, which could suggest viticulture in Ganges Valley since
such early times.
Who knows what other surprises can research in Ganges Valley show us?
Best regards,
Carlos
End of forwarded message from Carlos Aramayo
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Franz Gnaedinger
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
> This recent and revolutionary article establishes that, since at
> least 7th millennium BC, the Neolithic plant remains in Jhusi show
> that possibly the Middle Ganges people were in contact with the
> original home of winter crops (i.e. Mehrgarh in Baluchistan around
> 7000-5500 BCE).
The cultivated cereals of the Göbekli Tepe region,
southeast Anatolia northern Syria, are still older.
> Since newsgroup posts are being removed
> by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
> this post may be reposted several times.
Are you trying to suffocate sci.lang again?
Must I resume my earlier thread on you and your
astrological self-promotion? Is the Mayan end of
civilzation frenzy announced for the end of 2012
giving you an indirect right to abuse sci.lang again?
anal...@hotmail.com
I predicted perhaps about two years ago that somebody (with scholarly
credentials) would take a stab at (essentially) demolishing
establishment PIE theory after coming across Marcantonio's critique of
the Uralic family. It turns out that she herself made the prediction
come true.
Your linguistic approach might be similar to these folks' :
http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(316)gell-starostin-jlr1.pdf
Have you see their work?
Happy new year.
Franz Gnaedinger
wrote:
>
> I predicted perhaps about two years ago that somebody (with scholarly
> credentials) would take a stab at (essentially) demolishing
> establishment PIE theory after coming across Marcantonio's critique of
> the Uralic family. It turns out that she herself made the prediction
> come true.
>
> Your linguistic approach might be similar to these folks' :
>
> http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(316)gell-starostin-jlr1.pdf
>
> Have you see their work?
>
> Happy new year.
A happy New Year to you too, and thanks for the link,
I shall look into that book tomorrow. PIE theory reminds
me of the X-ray photographs taken of DNA crystals,
most intricate pictures that helped guessing at the true
structure of DNA. Finding the true structure was then
another task, involving a lot more aspects, and ultimately
a game of combining cardboard shapes of molecules,
until, all of a sudden, all fit together. In matters of early
language we are in the stage of X-rays, the immensely
complicated and intriguing PIE reconstructions, while
a clear idea of early language is missing. Guess work
going on. I am proposing a new approach, resembling
Watson's game of combining cardboard shapes,
a bottom up approach, an experimental approach,
and if I won't succeed I am at least showing how such
an approach works. My revised version of the Göbekli
Tepe and Indus seal chapter is online, by the way:
www.seshat.ch/home/lascaux3.htm
Peter T. Daniels
> On Jan 2, 5:28 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I predicted perhaps about two years ago that somebody (with scholarly
> > credentials) would take a stab at (essentially) demolishing
> > establishment PIE theory after coming across Marcantonio's critique of
> > the Uralic family. It turns out that she herself made the prediction
> > come true.
>
> > Your linguistic approach might be similar to these folks' :
>
> >http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(316)gell-starostin-jlr1.pdf
>
> > Have you see their work?
You ought to try reading for comprehension instead of what you _want_
to find.
They start out by proclaiming the (antiquated) view that all language
family relationships can be modeled as a tree with nodes, and by
praising two hundred years of rigorous comparative method that has
arrived at such groupings for many language families.
They then point out that Marcantonio's attack on Uralic was a lousy
job, based in ignorance.
They then list lots of "long-ranger" proposals that _cannot_ rest on
the traditional comparative method.
And they properly point out that the comparative method can't reach as
far back as 10,000 years -- and they want to reach that far back.
> > Happy new year.
>
> A happy New Year to you too, and thanks for the link,
> I shall look into that book tomorrow. PIE theory reminds
> me of
[something utterly irrelevant, as usual]
johnk
> On Jan 2, 5:28 pm, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I predicted perhaps about two years ago that somebody (with scholarly
> > credentials) would take a stab at (essentially) demolishing
> > establishment PIE theory after coming across Marcantonio's critique of
> > the Uralic family. It turns out that she herself made the prediction
> > come true.
>
> > Your linguistic approach might be similar to these folks' :
>
> >http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(316)gell-starostin-jlr1.pdf
>
> > Have you see their work?
>
> > Happy new year.
>
> A happy New Year to you too, and thanks for the link,
> I shall look into that book tomorrow. PIE theory reminds
> me of the X-ray photographs taken of DNA crystals,
> most intricate pictures that helped guessing at the true
Since you constantly demonstrate that you have no idea how historical
linguistics works and have absolutely no understanding of the basic
ideas of linguistics, I can only assume that your ideas on DNA
crystals and X-ray photographs are wrong also.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> PIE theory reminds
> me of the X-ray photographs taken of DNA crystals,
There are no DNA crystals. X-ray interferometers used for
crystallography were also usable for studying DNA because
crystallographers skilled in deducing crystal structures from
interferographs recording the diffraction of X-rays passed through
crystals were able to reuse their skills to study interferographs of X-
rays passed through DNA. Actually, this technique was first used for
deducing the triple helical structure of collagen before it was used
for deducing the double helical structure of DNA.
Franz Gnaedinger
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There are no DNA crystals. X-ray interferometers used for
> crystallography were also usable for studying DNA because
> crystallographers skilled in deducing crystal structures from
> interferographs recording the diffraction of X-rays passed through
> crystals were able to reuse their skills to study interferographs of X-
> rays passed through DNA. Actually, this technique was first used for
> deducing the triple helical structure of collagen before it was used
> for deducing the double helical structure of DNA.
Thank you for the correction. However, X-rays of DNA
didn't automatically lead to the double helical structure
of DNA. Rosalyn Franklin, leading expert in this technique,
assumed another structure. I see much the same problem
now in the reconstruction of early language. The homeland
problem of PIE is still not solved, Nostratic is a stretcher
of the comparative method, a new approach is needed,
an experimental approach, a bottom up approach that
follows the arrow of time instead of working against it,
as do the PIE reconstructions based on weak sound rules.
I let myself guide by visual impressions, and I see a parallel
between the hyper-complicated-*-PIE-reconstructions and
the equally complicated DNA X-rays of Rosalyn Franklin.
Only a new approach can help, a new approach that is as
clear as the one by Watson who shoved cardboard shapes
of molecules around on his desk ...
António Marques
There was a time I thought I should try to address some of the most bizarre
things people say here related to biology. I've grown lazy (even more than I
already was).
António Marques
> ... a new approach is needed, an experimental approach, a bottom up
> approach that follows the arrow of time instead of working against it,
Whatever else you can say about your 'approach', it is *not* bottom-up. It's
top-down. It would be bottom-up if your starting point were the actual data
and you got from there to your 'roots'. Instead, you start from your
hypothetical 'roots' and try to get to the actual data, 'follow[ing] the
arrow of time' like you say.
António Marques
> I let myself guide by visual impressions (...)
And then you wonder why others ridicule you.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(316)gell-starostin-jlr1.pdf
My review from this morning did not arrive, so I write
another one.
I looked into that paper, as promised, and spent almost
five minutes of my ever more precious time reading it.
Murray Gell-Mann and the other authors ask me to fall
on my knees before the comparative method and to
consider word language only. I will oblige if Murray
Gell-Mann returns his Noble prize in physics and goes
on his knees before Newton and confesses his errors
and promises to return to the mechanical paradigm
and stay within the boundaries of a deterministic
clockwork universe from now on. I gues he won't do
that, instead he would give me a lesson that Newton's
physics failed in certain cases and had to be both
challenged and complemented and modified by
radically new approaches like relativity theory and
quantum dynamics. And in like manner I challenge
the comparative method, pointing out its shortcomings
and flaws: the sound laws (German Lautgesetze) are
sound rules at best, one regular case allowing a PIE
reconstruction goes along with nine irregular cases
allowing no reconstruction (see the estimation about
the number of PIE words in Mallory and Adams 2006),
the quasi-algebra failed, the language-only approach
is hubris. What we need is a completely and radically
new approach, a bottom up approach that follows
the arrow of time instead of ploughing against it,
an experimental approach, and one that considers
all the testimony we have of our forebears, cave art
and rock art and mobile art of the Ice Age in Eurasia,
the mind bogging discovery of the Göbekli Tepe,
visual language that requires empathy and patience
and a true eros of understanding - I loved and admired
cave art for decades without understanding anything,
but then, by and by, my understanding grew. Nostratic
is a stretcher of the comparative method, whereas
my approach is completely different, based on the one
by Richard Fester, but going way beyond him. And
I claim the same freedom of thinking along new ways
in paleo-linguistics as Murray Gell-Mann in physics,
a right to go beyond PIE as his right to go beyond
Newton and the clockwork universe and mechanical
paradigm of old.
Peter T. Daniels
Is there a word for someone who continues to attack straw men long,
long, long after it has been conclusively demonstrated to him that
they are an army of straw?
anal...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 3, 2:51 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f...@bluemail.ch> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> They then point out that Marcantonio's attack on Uralic was a lousy
> job, based in ignorance.
>
which is a poetic interpretation of what thry actually wrote:
start quote:
Within the linguistic community, there are two approaches to
evaluating research on ‘suspicious’
families of these kinds. We may provisionally call those approaches
‘hypercritical’ and ‘bona fide’. The
former is perhaps best illustrated by a series of publications
criticizing the Altaic theory (the hypothesis
of a genetic relationship among Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus,
Korean, and Japanese languages)
by authors such as G. Clauson, G. Dörfer, and, more recently, J.
Janhunen, S. Georg, and others.
This kind of criticism usually aims at weaker, less easily defensible
parts of the theory and, upon discarding
them, uses induction to carry the skepticism over to its stronger
sides. It is possible, for instance,
to concentrate one’s attention on several etymologies containing
mistakes on the part of the authors
Distant Language Relationship: The Current Perspective
21
(usually mixing together factual mistakes and alternate hypotheses, so
that it is hard for the general
reader to tell one from the other) and omit the better etymologies
from the discussion altogether15.
What is forgotten in the process of such criticism is that the same
procedure can easily be used
to discredit even commonly accepted, ‘traditional’ theories of genetic
relationship, essentially bringing
comparative research to a standstill altogether. The first effects of
this may already be observed
in such works as [Marcantonio 2002], in which the author presumes to
discredit the well-proved
theory of Uralic (Fenno-Ugric and Samoyed) relationship. Fortunately,
the work met more criticism
than appraisal from specialists in the field, but it should be noted
that the author is a professional
linguist, and that the book was issued by no less than the
Philological Society series at Cambridge.
It is alarming to imagine that this may, indeed, be but the first sign
of things to come; surely there
are plenty of things that can be criticized about Indo-European as
well.
end quote.
anal...@hotmail.com
I am sorry if the paper turned out to be a disappointment. I was
strcuk by the passage
start quote:
The climatic changes near the height of the last Ice Age some twenty
thousand years ago shrank
drastically the territories suitable for human habitation, with ice
caps and deserts occupying a large fraction
of the land mass. We may picture the human beings of that time
confined to refugia often separated
by hostile areas. Under those conditions linguistic diversity could
have been greatly reduced and it may
therefore be the case that all or most of the languages of subsequent
times are descended from a single
ancestor, the tongue of a particular refugium. If the similarities of
attested languages are found to suggest
a common origin for all or most of them, that origin could well be a
speech that survived the height of the
Ice Age when most others did not. With the improvement of climatic
conditions, humans began to move
out of their refugia, colonizing territories previously unsuitable for
permanent occupation. This led to
growth and subsequent division of their communities, resulting in the
development of new languages.
end quote.
as having similarities to yoru approach.
Your primary focus is semantics first and sounds later. Linguistic
relationships are derived from semantic relationships that can be tied
to development in time of the total culture of the speech communities
involved.
Franz Gnaedinger
wrote:
>
> I am sorry if the paper turned out to be a disappointment. I was
> strcuk by the passage
No reason for being sorry, I always like to look up
a link.
> start quote:
>
> The climatic changes near the height of the last Ice Age some twenty
> thousand years ago shrank
> drastically the territories suitable for human habitation, with ice
> caps and deserts occupying a large fraction
> of the land mass. We may picture the human beings of that time
> confined to refugia often separated
> by hostile areas. Under those conditions linguistic diversity could
> have been greatly reduced and it may
> therefore be the case that all or most of the languages of subsequent
> times are descended from a single
> ancestor, the tongue of a particular refugium. If the similarities of
> attested languages are found to suggest
> a common origin for all or most of them, that origin could well be a
> speech that survived the height of the
> Ice Age when most others did not. With the improvement of climatic
> conditions, humans began to move
> out of their refugia, colonizing territories previously unsuitable for
> permanent occupation. This led to
> growth and subsequent division of their communities, resulting in the
> development of new languages.
>
> end quote.
The Franco-Cantabrian space was a refugium in the last
Ice Age, which has been proved genetically. However,
people wandered, spending winter in the region of
Marseille and summer in Switzerland, where they hunted
the last mammoths. And they also wandered eastward
and westward, making some four hundred kilometers
per year. The Magdalenian culture spread from the
Cordilleras in northern Spain to Malta near Irkutsk on
lake Baikal in Siberia where one found no cave art, of
course, but ample specimens of mobile art. I claim that
Magdalenian, as the fully developed form of the language
of Ice Age Eurasia, was spoken everywhere north of the
very long mountain barrier, from the Spanish Cordilleras
via the Alps to the Himalayas. With the end of the Ice Age
animals retired northward and eastward, people followed,
and the Göbekli Tepe was a late Magdalenian center where
what is now called Neolithic I began some 12,000 years
ago, and a new culture spread from there, to Asia Minor
and the Indus Valley and Crete and Egypt and northward
to the region of the Aral Sea, all this in the era of the
Japhetic language - reviving an old and obsolete concept
of paleolinguistics, level of Nostratic. The region of the
Aral Sea became the homeland of PIE and of the Greeks
who, originally, were miners in the mountains to the
southeast of the Aral Sea. In this region you find many
derivatives of TYR names, Magdalenian TYR meaning
overcomer, to overcome in the double sense of rule
and give. TYR became Middle Helladic Sseyr Doric Sseus
Homeric Zeus, and is also present in the Serri bull of
the Hittite weather god, and in Jahwe from Mount _Seir_
in the Negev, and so on. Magdalenian went over into
Japhetic, acquiring a grammar, and Japhetic became
PIE in the region southeast of the Aral Sea, where
the first bronze was cast some 5,500 years ago.
This region, in my opinion, was the long sought for
PIE homeland, and PIE spread so quickly because it
grew out of a common substratum, namely Magdalenian.
The people who populated Europe some 42,000 years
ago came via India and spoke an Afroasiatic language.
The harsh conditions of the Ice Age made technology
develop which made language change and evolve and
develop in turn, and when the Ice Age was over and
the more developed language spread via the Göbekli
Tepe and met with earlier language - then the most
interesting things must have happend, interesting in
the view of a linguist. I can see that in Egyptian where
I can make out many Magdalenian roots but also other
words, two linguistic families that were intertwined and
formed something new. I never looked into the case
of Uralic, though, I can't do everything at the same time,
and don't force my work, I take it as it comes, following
my ideas one by one.
> as having similarities to yoru approach.
>
> Your primary focus is semantics first and sounds later. Linguistic
> relationships are derived from semantic relationships that can be tied
> to development in time of the total culture of the speech communities
> involved.
My approach is an experimental one, all belongs
together.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> Whatever else you can say about your 'approach', it is *not* bottom-up. It's
> top-down. It would be bottom-up if your starting point were the actual data
> and you got from there to your 'roots'. Instead, you start from your
> hypothetical 'roots' and try to get to the actual data, 'follow[ing] the
> arrow of time' like you say.
Artificial Intelligence has big problems making robots walk.
The top down approach failed, you can hardly program
walking. So at the university of Zurich they try a bottom up
approach, building simple robots of cheap components
and electromotors and looking what walking abilities emerge.
In one case they attached four legs - each one driven by
one of the cheap electromotors - to a flxible spine and
called the thing a dog. Now what will happen if the motors
get more and more electricity? will the dog walk faster
and faster? Here is what really happened: first it walked
faster and faster, then, all of a sudden, it began running,
again faster and faster, and all of a sudden again it fell
into kind of a gallop ... So there are three different gaits
emerging, owing solely to the flexible spine and nothing
else, and certainly no programming. Programming such
a triple gait were a nightmare, and made the walking dog
weigh half a ton, perhaps. Now what I do is the same,
I ponder language from the begin, making it as simple
as I can. I told you all several times of our humming
experiment performed almost fourty years ago. You
can say a lot just by humming, and the more so when
the humming goes along with gestures and smiles and
glances and other facial expressions. Once again: it is
now being assumed that human language originated
some two million years ago and was embedded in
gestures. Then you can punctuate your body language
with sounds and combinations of sounds that form
short words, and explore the possibilities of such
a language, and look what properties emerge when
you do so. I found my four Magdalenian laws that way,
and my method of following a word through evolution
by pronouncing it silently, over and over and over again.
When I give voice the word is kept within what I call
the verbal morphospace, but when I pronounce the
word silently, without giving voice, not even whispering,
it begins to shift (from which I conclude that the voicing
system in the brain must play a role in keeping the word
language in shape, a hypothesis that one day can be
tested). I look what language properties emerge,
my approach, mutatis mutandis, is the same as the one
followed by the AI lab at the university of Zurich where
they speak of embodiment while I speak of the physiology
of language.
Franz Gnaedinger
Postscript. The correct name is Rosalind Franklin,
and the X-rays were taken of DNA in crystaline form,
which I simnply and wrongly rendered as DNA crystals.
Harlan Messinger
> The Franco-Cantabrian space was a refugium in the last
> Ice Age, which has been proved genetically. However,
> people wandered, spending winter in the region of
> Marseille and summer in Switzerland, where they hunted
> the last mammoths. And they also wandered eastward
> and westward, making some four hundred kilometers
> per year.
One-way from Marseilles to any part of Switzerland is more than that.
harmony
<use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20100101MH39l7yXLe1iNZyjLenr9l6@C9Noi...
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
In article <4b428292$0$5337$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net>,
"harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> and they all tasted a whole lot better and cost less.
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Franz Gnaedinger
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> One-way from Marseilles to any part of Switzerland is more than that.
Hole tribes with women and children wandered
four hundred kilometers a year, a small group
of mammoth hunters, men only, was far quicker.
António Marques
> On Jan 4, 12:33 pm, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>
>> Whatever else you can say about your 'approach', it is *not* bottom-up.
>> It's top-down. It would be bottom-up if your starting point were the
>> actual data and you got from there to your 'roots'. Instead, you start
>> from your hypothetical 'roots' and try to get to the actual data,
>> 'follow[ing] the arrow of time' like you say.
>
> Artificial Intelligence has big problems making robots walk. The top down
> approach failed, you can hardly program walking. So at the university of
> Zurich they try a bottom up approach, building simple robots of cheap
> components and electromotors and looking what walking abilities emerge
And your approach is like the former, not the latter. Like the former, your
starting point is a model of how the language should be (those 3-letter
things, those 'L-forms are comparatives', those 'permutations yield related
meanings'...), and then you try to get from that to the actually observed
data (modern languages). It's a top-down approach.
The fact that you start from 'simple elements' and combine them according to
some 'possibilities' doesn't make it one iota 'bottom-up'. FYI,
'programming' is also starting from simple elements and combining them
according to some possibilities.
Franz Gnaedinger
>
> And your approach is like the former, not the latter. Like the former, your
> starting point is a model of how the language should be (those 3-letter
> things, those 'L-forms are comparatives', those 'permutations yield related
> meanings'...), and then you try to get from that to the actually observed
> data (modern languages). It's a top-down approach.
>
> The fact that you start from 'simple elements' and combine them according to
> some 'possibilities' doesn't make it one iota 'bottom-up'. FYI,
> 'programming' is also starting from simple elements and combining them
> according to some possibilities.
Cellular automata, for example John Horton Conway's
Game of Life, and neural networks are bottom up
while their implementations and simulations on traditional
von Neuman computers are top down. The terms 'top down'
and 'bottom up' name just the prevailing directions.
And don't you spread false quotes of what I said !
My third law of Magdalenian from the spring of 2006
states that S-words are comparative forms of D-words,
comparative as in good better. For example DAI means
protected area, consider Daidalos, the mythical first Greek
architect, French dais 'canopy', English dais 'lectern',
then Greek tektos and German Dach 'roof'. DAI is given
as tectiformes, roughly rectangular patterns, in cave art.
Now the comparative form of DAI, a D-word, is the S-word
SAI meaning life, existence, namely those who live in
the protected areas, indicated by dots, and lines and fields
of dots, in cave art. Walls of Neolithic houses in Switzerland
were decorated with red dots that say much as: May this
house be blessed with life, may it see many healthy children ...
Trefoils in the Harappan civilization had the meaning of life,
health, and offspring, while assembled trefoils, for example
on the well known bust of the king from Mohenjo-daro, and
the red trefoils on a lingam stand, have the same meaning
of life, health, and offspring, covering the Paleolithic meaning
of SAI for life.