Solve the Problem with Bangla Writings in Facebook.

বাঙলা লেখায় স্বাচ্ছন্দ বোধ করার পরেও কেন আমরা বাঙলা ব্যবহার করি না??? এই প্রশ্নের একটি সহজ উত্তর বাঙলা লেখা খুব বাজে ভাবে ছোট দেখায়। মাঝে মাঝে ভাবি এটা যেন ইলেকট্রন অনুবীক্ষনযন্ত্রের নিচে রাখলেও দেখতে কষ্ট হবে। এই ঝামেলার সমাধান দিতেই এ ক্ষুদ্র প্রচেষ্টা। বন্ধুরা তোমরা যারা ইউনিকোড বাংলায় তৈরী করা
যাবতীয় ওয়েবসাইট ব্যবহার করে আসছ তাদের জন্য বলছি।এই সকল ওয়েবসাইটের ‘বাংলা অক্ষর’ ছোট দেখার হাত থেকে বাঁচতে তোমরা  বেছে নিতে পার ইউনিকোড বাংলা ফন্ট Siyam Rupali/কালপুরুষ. কে । আমি অনেকদিন হতেই এটি ব্যবহার করে আসছি। এমনি এর অবয়বও বেশ দৃষ্টিন্দন।  সারা বিশ্বের সকল ইউনিকোড বাংলা ফন্টগুলোর মধ্যে Siyam Rupali-ই সম্ভবতঃ এখনো পর্যন্ত একমাত্র ইউনিকোড বাংলা ফন্ট যা তার দৃষ্টি নন্দন অবয়বের সঙ্গে সঙ্গে Corresponding Size -এর ইংরেজী স্টান্ডার্ড ফন্টগুলোর আকার বা আকৃতির সঙ্গেও সমান সামঞ্জস্য বজায় রাখতে সমর্থ্য হয়েছে।
  বন্ধুরা তোমাদের প্রয়োজনীয় ফন্টটি ডাউনলোড করতে পার এখান থেকে
সিয়াম রুপালী ফন্ট

তারপর
copy > start menu >control panel >font > Paste.
ব্যস কেল্লা ফতে।
তবে অল্পএকটু ঝামেলা আছে। ব্যাপকভাবে ব্যবহারের ক্ষেত্রে তোমাকে প্রথমেই নিশ্চিত হতে হবে যে, তোমার ব্যবহৃত ব্রাউজারটির ডিফল্ট ফন্ট হিসাবে  Siyam Rupali-কেই নির্বাচিত বা সিলেক্ট করা হয়েছে কি না।
এর জন্য সহজ উপায় বলতে চেষ্টা করছি আমি ।
১. Firefox ওপেন কর।
২.Tool>Option>content এ যাও ।
৩.ডিফল্ট ফন্ট হিসেবে ডাউনলোডকৃত কালপুরুষ বা সিয়াম রুপালীকে সিলেক্ট কর।
৪. OK বাটন চেপে একবার রিফ্রেশ দিলেই এর সুফল পাবে।

ধন্যবাদ সবাইকে। সবাই উপভোগ করতে থাক। এই সুবিধা।

মোঃ আদনান আরিফ সালিম অর্ণব
লেখক ও প্রত্নতাত্ত্বিক
http://aurnabarc.blogspot.com/

Feminism and Gender Studies In Archaeological Perspective. (Women, sexuality, and representation of gender in so called classical art and archaeology)

While the academic term “feminism” within archaeology can indicate simply the study of women’s roles in society and women’s relationships with others, obviously including men, it usually connotes as well a strong desire to view the world from a new perspective. This new perspective is predominantly female, but also emphasizes the point of view of groups  regarded as marginal or outside the cultural mainstream. Its goal is
generally to challenge
a particular male-centred, usually white European or Anglo-American, point of view. This can be an uncomfortable experience for those whose ideas are being questioned. Linda Nochlin( 9), in her introduction to Women, Art, and Power, described feminist art history as “there to make trouble” and, at its strongest, “a transgressive and anti-establishment practice, meant to call many of the major precepts of the discipline into question.”As feminists attempt to see antiquity with new eyes, however, simple inversion of the status quo (women finally on top) has rarely been their goal. Rather, one of the aims of feminism has been to look at the “big picture” from the perspective of the many different people in it, and not just that of the (white, heterosexual) men. Archaeologists, especially within the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) – and classical archaeologists in particular – have only recently become aware of feminist issues. Preferring “gender studies,” many have shied away from the term “feminist” as an indicator of an unseemly and unnecessary critical stance; after all, women are highly visible within the organization, and research on Women in Antiquity has been carried out for a long time. “Gender studies” sounds safer, more inclusive of and friendly towards men. Although in practice it is sometimes the same enterprise as “feminist studies,” it is less likely to represent a perspective grounded in women’s experiences of “otherness,” or to be directed towards undermining
the status quo. Unlike archaeologists, many art historians, classicists, and anthropologists have confronted feminist issues for decades, and have long faced the problems associated with perceived or actual feminist
aggressiveness. Scholars in these fields lament the ways in which feminism has been prematurely subsumed into the more inclusive, supposedly (but usually not) neutral field of gender studies, which is often less judgmental and political.Both feminist studies and gender research have been cited by archaeologists in polarizing ways, as positive signs of an appropriate openmindedness or as symbols of negative trends in the field. An increasingly widespread acknowledgement of gender research seems to be related to archaeologists’ broader acceptance of multicultural and anticolonialist perspectives, reflected in other fields of social science and the humanities, and in society at large. As evidenced in several contexts, through the agendas of committees, the subjects of publications and public lectures at annual conventions, and the many recent communications on the Internet, increasing numbers of archaeologists agree that research on women and gender is not a sideline to the study of society. Ironically, through ignoring almost two decades of feminist debate, many archaeologists have skipped from a masculinist world-view directly into the new, supposedly genderneutral one, without having to experience the discomfort of confronting impolite feminist perspectives. Meanwhile, classical archaeologists in particular continue to avoid feminist theory, and indeed theoretical debates of all kinds. The reasons are illuminated by the history of interpreting ancient images of women and of attitudes towards engendering ancient material culture.

For more You can read..

1.Barber, E. J. W., Women’s Work: The First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth and Society
in Early Times, New York, Norton, 1994.
2.Betterton, R., “Introduction: Feminism, Femininity and Representation”, in R.
Betterton (ed.), looking On: Images of Femininity in the Visual Arts and Media,
New York, Pandora Press, 1987,
3.Bonfante, L., “Votive Terracotta Figures of Mothers and Children”, in J. Swaddling
(ed.), Italian Iron Age Artefacts in the British Museum, London, British
Museum Publications, 1985,
4.Cohen, B., “The Anatomy of Kassandra’s Rape: Female Nudity Comes of Age in
Greek Art”, Source: Notes in the History of Art, 1993,
5.Garrard, M. D., “Leonardo da Vinci: Female Portraits, Female Nature,” in N.
Broude and M. D. Garrard (eds), The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art
History, New York, IconEditions, HarperCollins, 1992,
6.Halperin, D. M., One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and other Essays on Greek
Love, New York, Routledge, 1990.
7.Miller, B. D, “The Anthropology of Sex and Gender Hierarchies,” in B. D. Miller
(ed.), Sex and Gender Hierarchies, New York, Cambridge University Press,
1993.
8. Koloski-Ostrown & C, L. Lyons, NAKED TRUTHS (Women, sexuality, and gender in
classical art and archaeology)
9.Nochlin, L., “Eroticism and Female Imagery in Nineteenth-Century Art,” in L.
Nochlin (ed.), Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays, New York, Harper
and Row, 1988, pp. 136–44. Reprinted from T. B. Hess and L. Nochlin (eds),
Woman as Sex-object: Studies in Erotic Art, 1730–1970, New York, Newsweek
Books, 1972,

The Famous Archaeological Site `Salban Vihara ‘, Mainamati Bangladesh

With great Homage and Respect to late
Prof. M Harunur Rashid 

Mainamati an isolated ridge of low hills in the eastern margins of deltaic Bangladesh, about 8 km to the west of Comilla town is a very familiar name in our cultural heritage, where archaeological excavations have revealed very significant materials. A landmark of or ancient history, it represents a small mass of quasi-lateritic old alluvium. The ridge, set in the vast expanse of the fertile lower Meghna basin, extends for about 17 km north-south from Mainamati village on the Gumti River to Chandi Mura near the Lalmai railway station. In its widest parts, the ridge is about 4.5 km across and its highest peaks attain a height of about 45 metres. These highlands were once thickly wooded with an abundance of wild life, but modern developments have rudely disturbed its serene and idyllic setting. 

The Discovery During the course of rebuilding the old axial road through these hills in 1875, workers accidentally uncovered the ruins of what at that time was thought to be ‘a small brick fort’. It was actually a Buddhist monastery. Some 72 years earlier (1803), from the same area, was discovered the first Mainamati relic, the copperplate of Ranavankamalla Harikaladeva, dated 1220 AD, which records a description of the capital city of Pattikera as ‘adorned with forts and monasteries’. The name now survives in the modern Patikara pargana of the locality.
 
Excavated Sites
Most important among the excavated sites is shalvan vihara, which lies about the middle of the ridge in the vicinity of the present day Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (BARD) at Kotbari. Excavations have exposed a large paharpur type Buddhist monastery and a wealth of material objects datable from the 7th to 12th centuries AD. The discoveries from the site include eight inscribed copperplates, about 400 gold and silver coins, many terracotta and baked clay seals and sealings, a large number of sculptural specimens in stone, bronze and terracotta found in situ or otherwise. The grand monastery together with its central shrine was built by Shri Bhavadeva, the fourth ruler of the early deva dynasty of devaparvata, sometime towards the end of the 7th or early 8th century AD.
At kutila mura, the highest mound in the northeastern part of the ridge near ananda vihara, were unearthed the most attractive monuments in Mainamati The excavated monuments include three principal stupas and a number of subsidiary chapels and chaitya-halls built around them, all of which were enclosed by a massive boundary wall. Interesting and intricate structural forms and decorative styles have been preserved at the site. Excavations have not yet been completed here; the monastery in the northern end and two grand stupas in two wings of the site remain to be cleared yet. The excavated evidence suggests 7th century AD as the date of the beginning of these monuments. The site continued to be occupied till the 13th century AD as indicated by an Abbasid gold coin recovered from an upper level of the site.
charpatra mura is an interesting small site, situated in the northern part of the ridge in about the centre of the Cantonment area, where was uncovered the remains of a small Hindu temple dated in the Chandra period (10th-11th century AD). It is one of the earliest known examples of Hindu temple architecture in Bangladesh. Four copperplates were discovered in this monument and hence the name Charpatra (four plates) Mura.
Largest among the Mainamati monuments is the Ananda Vihara. Situated in the archaeologically rich Kotbari central area, it represents a huge religious-cum-educational establishment of viharas, stupas and chapels all around. Together with the largest water tank in the area, this Vihara complex was built by Shri Anandadeva, the third ruler of the early Deva dynasty, sometime at the end of the 7th or beginning of the 8th century AD. Military contractors and brick hunters damaged this great establishment with its central shrine beyond recognition in 1944-45. Subsequently, the process of Cantonment building seriously affected the site. Excavations carried out here for a few seasons in the late seventies on a limited scale were incomplete in nature.
Next to Shalvan Vihara and Ananda Vihara, the third most important and extensive monastic establishment in Mainamati is the bhoja vihara, situated almost in the centre of the Kotbari area adjacent to BARD. A huge water tank lies on its east. Excavations have revealed the outlines of a square monastery with a large cruciform shrine in the centre of its open courtyard, very similar to Shalvan Vihara and Ananda Vihara.
Queen ‘Maynamati’s Palace Mound is the largest and highest mound in the northern extremity of the ridge near to the village that still bears the name of the queen, just east of Brahmanbaria road. The site is traditionally associated with the legendary Chandra queen Mainamati, mother of the last-known Chandra king, govindachandra. Excavations on a limited scale have uncovered here parts of a massive defense wall round different parts of the site, probably a citadel, and the corner of a substantial structure, probably a palace, at the centre of the site. This is probably the only site in Mainamati that has revealed structures of secular nature.
rupban mura, an important site, lies on a hillock between modern BARD and BDR establishments in the Kotbari area on the south of the Comilla-Kalirbazar road. Excavations have revealed here the remains of a remarkable semi-cruciform shrine together with other subsidiary structures. Deep diggings have revealed three main periods of building and rebuilding, the earliest of which correspond to c.6th – 7th centuries AD. Very little of the last period remains (10th – 11th centuries AD) survive now in this very heavily disturbed site. Significant discoveries from the site include, besides the colossal stone Buddha, five debased gold coins of Balabhatta, the Khadga ruler.
The archaeological remains of itakhola mura lie in three terraces on the hillock opposite to the Rupban Mura site across the Kotbari road. It served for long as a quarry for old bricks and hence the name. Excavations have revealed here a grand stupa complex with an attached monastery to its north. Of the five cultural phases the earlier three lie buried underneath the later remains. Mentionable antiquities from the site, besides the stucco image, are three round pellets of solid gold (19 tolas) and a copperplate, which is still to be deciphered.
Just near the Mainamati Bus Stop, north of the Dhaka-Chittagong highway, lies mainamati mound 1a, where limited excavations have revealed six long walls, straight and cross roads, gateways and other scant remains. The non-religious and secular features of the remains suggest the existence of a garrison barrack (?) here.
Unexcavated Sites Among the many unexcavated sites, mention may be made of the Bairagir Mura, a medium sized high mound directly to the west of Kutila Mura in the Cantonment. Brickbats, potsherds and fragments of stone images found scattered on the surface strongly indicate its archaeological importance. The site has been badly damaged by the construction of two huge water tanks on its top for water supply to the Cantonment. A number of objects were discovered during construction work; only two (dated in the Chandra period) have found their place into the local museum – the lower part of an inscribed colossal stone image standing on a lotus throne, and the bronze life-size head of a Bodhisattva image.
The discovery of a colossal bronze bell, large dressed stone square blocks (presumably pillar bases), one copperplate, and one stone plaque inscriptions, and a number of bronze and terracotta sculptures clearly indicate the importance of the Rupban Kanya Mura, situated in the middle of the Kotbari area. But the site has now been levelled to accommodate the parade ground and garages of the Cantonment.
The Kotbari Mound showed clear traces of a Shalvan Vihara type monastery with a cruciform shrine in the centre. A grand mosque and its attached graveyard have taken over the site.
Pakka Mura is an important unexcavated site (274m by 91m, 15m high) on the western edge of the ridge, about a mile and a half southwest of the Kotbari ruins. The importance of the site lies in its subsequent extension to its lower base on the west, presumably after the river had dried out or changed its course. A part of the silted up riverbed was turned into a huge water reservoir called Tara Dighi, the deeper central part of which has now been turned into two modern tanks. While constructing the larger tank, about two acres in size, two interesting black stone images of Visnu, one life-size and the other slightly smaller, showing mature Sena-Deva characteristics, were found. Among other associated finds most significant is a copperplate inscription of Dasharathadeva (13th century), son and successor of Damodaradeva of the later Deva dynasty.
The extensive high mound on the western edge of the ridge, about 2.5 km to the northwest of the southernmost site of Chandi Mura, locally known as Rupban Mura, had visible structural remains in the shape of a circular dome at the top of the mound. Removal of bricks by local inhabitants has already caused destruction of the exposed structural remains. The site has the potential of yielding important remains.
At the extreme southern end of the ridge, about 1.6 km to the northwest of Lalmai railway station, is a prominent mound (457m by 183m, 18m high), locally called Chandi Mura. The site derives its name from the twin temples of Chandi built on the summit of the mound, some 250 years back by a Maharaja of Tripura. The archaeological character of the site is undisturbed; the mound probably contains the remains of a large temple. The top of the mound was badly damaged, first by the construction of the Chandi temples, and later by modern constructions undertaken by people associated with the temples. However, the archaeological remains at the lower levels may still be intact.
Among other unexcavated sites, mention may be made of Mainamati Mound 2, Abbas Ali Mura, Station Commander’s Residence, Hatigara Mound, Ujirpur Mound, Ghila Mura and Balaghazir Mura. All these sites have yielded evidence of remains of archaeological importance. Most of these sites are now in bad shape due to willful or unwillful negligence of the people occupying the mounds or their neighbourhood.
Antiquities The Mainamati excavations have yielded an exceptionally rich harvest of valuable antiquities including twelve copperplate grants and shorter image-inscriptions, over 400 gold and silver coins, innumerable terracotta and clay seals and sealings, some Neolithic stone axes and chisels, a large collection of stone, bronze, stucco and terracotta sculptures, stone and terracotta beads, gold, silver and bronze ornaments, decorative terracotta and architectural pieces, metal and earthenware pots, pans, vases and utensils, oil lamps and a variety of other objects of everyday use. The majority of these objects comes from Shalvan Vihara, the most systematically excavated site. Together, they contribute significantly to our knowledge of ancient Vanga-Samatata, covering a period of about seven hundred years from the 6th to 13th centuries AD. 
Mentionable among the numismatic finds are a few Gupta and post-Gupta imitation gold coins, a rare silver coin of shashanka, about a dozen gold coins of the Khadga ruler Balabhatta, few Arakanese and hundreds of harikela and ‘Akara’ dynasty coins, and one gold, and a few silver coins of Abbasid Caliphs. 
The sculptural finds in stone, bronze, stucco and terracotta represent the largest single group of antiquities other than pottery. Stone sculptures are rare, but include a fine stucco sculpture though damaged, it is an interesting specimen. The bronzes primarily represent religious art and show a perplexing variety of iconographic types, revealing the gradual transformation of the popular faith Mahayana to Tantric and ultimately to polytheistic forms in which Buddhism became inextricably mixed with Hindu and aboriginal elements. The sculptured terracotta plaques are the most numerous, attractive and representative of local folk art. They are remarkable both for their crude but vigorous style and local characteristics.
About a dozen ground and polished narrow-butted hand-axes and chisels, mainly of fossil wood, have been recovered from the excavations. Recent explorations have uncovered a few Neolithic settlements in the southern part of the Mainamati ridge. The collected specimens must have originally come from there. They show clear affinity with the Neolithic industries of West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa.
Mainamati excavations have, thus, thrown a flood of light on almost every aspect of the life and culture of the southeastern part of Bengal. It has supplied detailed information regarding the social, political and economic condition of the region and has led to the discovery of the remarkable early Deva dynasty and of Balabhatta, the founder of Devaparvata. It has settled a number of historical and geographical questions, for instance, concerning the extent and bounds of Samatata, the location of Devaparvata, Pattikera and Lalambi-vana, and the situation of Harikela. More important, with the studies and analysis of terracotta and the classification and sequence dating of the pottery types and other common objects, Mainamati has now provided set a workable basis for further investigations and research in the field. Mainamati finds have no doubt broadened the horizon of our understanding of our past.
The primary significance of this collection lies in the fact that it represents the only available authentic and contemporary stratified materials from southeast Bengal that provide for the first time a dependable archaeological basis for the reconstruction of the history and civilisation of this region of Bengal. 
This Article is From Banglapedia .(National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh)

My Favorite Poet Robert Frost

Robert Frost was born in San Francisco, California. His father William ––––Frost, a journalist and an ardent Democrat, died when Frost was about eleven years old. His Scottish mother, the former Isabelle Moody, resumed her career as a schoolteacher to support her family. The family lived in Lawrence, Massachusetts, with Frost’s paternal grandfather, William Prescott Frost, who gave his grandson a good schooling. In 1892 Frost graduated from a high school and attended Darthmouth College for a few months. Over the next ten years he held a number of jobs. Frost worked among others in a textile mill and taught Latin at his mother’s school in Methuen, Massachusetts. In 1894 the New York Independent published Frost’s poem ‘My Butterfly’ and he had five poems privately printed. Frost worked as a teacher and continued to write and publish his poems in magazines. In 1895 he married a former schoolmate, Elinor White; they had six children.
Robert Frost
 From 1897 to 1899 Frost studied at Harvard, but left without receiving a degree. He moved to Derry, New Hampshire, working there as a cobbler, farmer, and teacher at Pinkerton Academy and at the state normal school in Plymouth.  When he sent his poems to The Atlantic Monthly they were returned with this note: “We regret that The Atlantic has no place for your vigorous verse.”
In 1912 Frost sold his farm and took his wife and four young children to England. There he published his first collection of poems, A BOY’S WILL, at the age of 39. It was followed by NORTH BOSTON (1914), which gained international reputation. The collection contains some of Frost’s best-known poems: ‘Mending Wall,’ ‘The Death of the Hired Man,’ ‘Home Burial,’ ‘A Servant to Servants,’ ‘After Apple-Picking,’ and ‘The Wood-Pile.’ The poems, written with blank verse or looser free verse of dialogue, were drawn from his own life, recurrent losses, everyday tasks, and his loneliness.
While in England Frost was deeply influenced by such English poets as Rupert Brooke. After returning to the US in 1915 with his family, Frost bought a farm near Franconia, New Hampshire. When the editor of The Atlantic Monthly asked for poems, he gave the very ones that had previously been rejected. Frost taught later at Amherst College (1916-38) and Michigan universities. In 1916 he was made a member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters. On the same year appeared his third collection of verse, MOUNTAIN INTERVAL, which contained such poems as ‘The Road Not Taken,’ ‘The Oven Bird,’ ‘Birches,’ and ‘The Hill Wife.’ Frost’s poems show deep appreciation of natural world and sensibility about the human aspirations. His images – woods, stars, houses, brooks, – are usually taken from everyday life. With his down-to-earth approach to his subjects, readers found it is easy to follow the poet into deeper truths, without being burdened with pedantry. Often Frost used the rhythms and vocabulary of ordinary speech or even the looser free verse of dialogue.
In 1920 Frost purchased a farm in South Shaftsbury, Vermont, near Middlebury College where he cofounded the Bread Loaf School and Conference of English. His wife died in 1938 and he lost four of his children. Two of his daughters suffered mental breakdowns, and his son Carol, a frustrated poet and farmer, committed suicide. Frost also suffered from depression and the continual self-doubt led him to cling to the desire to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. After the death of his wife, Frost became strongly attracted to Kay Morrison, whom he employed as his secretary and adviser. Frost also composed for her one of his finest love poems, ‘A Witness Tree.’Frost travelled in 1957 with his future biographer Lawrance Thompson to England and to Israel and Greece in 1961. He participated in the inauguration of President John Kennedy in 1961 by reciting two of his poems. When the sun and the wind prevented him from reading his new poem, ‘The Preface’, Frost recited his old poem, ‘The Gift Outright’, from memory. Frost travelled in 1962 in the Soviet Union as a member of a goodwill group. He had a long talk with Premier Nikita Khrushchev, whom he described as “no fathead”; as smart, big and “not a coward.” Frost also reported that Khrushchev had said the United States was “too liberal to fight,” it caused a considerable stir in Washington. Among the honors and rewards Frost received were tributes from the U.S. Senate (1950), the American Academy of Poets (1953), New York University (1956), and the Huntington Hartford Foundation (1958), the Congressional Gold Medal (1962), the Edward MacDowell Medal (1962). In 1930 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters, Amherst College appointed him Saimpson Lecturer for Life (1949), and in 1958 he was made poetry consultant for the Library of Congress.
At the time of his death on January 29, 1963, Frost was considered a kind of unofficial poet laureate of the US. “I would have written of me on my stone: I had a lover’s quarrel with the world,” Frost once said. In his poems Frost depicted the fields and farms of his surroundings, observing the details of rural life, which hide universal meaning. His independent, elusive, half humorous view of the world produced such remarks as “I never take my side in a quarrel”, or “I’m never serious except when I’m fooling.” Although Frost’s works were generally praised, the lack of seriousness concerning social and political problems of the 1930s annoyed some more socially orientated critics. Later biographers have created a complex and contradictory portrait of the poet. In Lawrance Thompson’s humorless, three-volume official biography (1966-1976) Frost was presented as a misanthrope, anti-intellectual, cruel, and angry man, but in Jay Parini’s work (1999) he was again viewed with sympathy: ”He was a loner who liked company; a poet of isolation who sought a mass audience; a rebel who sought to fit in. Although a family man to the core, he frequently felt alienated from his wife and children and withdrew into reveries. While preferring to stay at home, he traveled more than any poet of his generation to give lectures and readings, even though he remained terrified of public speaking to the end…”

Heinrich Schliemann The Great Discoverer of ancient Troy

     We all are familiar with the Famous English Movie Troy. Nevertheless, would we think about the great discoverer of this famous and well-known civilization. No one But Heinrich Schliemann make it true from the epic of famous poet  was born in Germany in 1822. His commercial skills and gift for languages allowed him to close down his business interests in 1863 to devote himself to traveling and studying the ancient Greek world until his death in 1890. Part of the enduring appeal of Schliemann’s life-story lies in his rather dubious role as an outsider who took on the academic establishment and outwitted the Greek and Turkish authorities in the relentless and successful pursuit of his theories. How far this view is correct may be debated, but the ersistence, discipline and intelligence that brought him commercial success and a rapid rise from shop assistant to Californian banker would have been helpful in approaching excavation: ‘The grocer who unpacks crates is better equipped to unpack the middens of antiquity than the polite scholar who has never seen the inside of his own dustbin’ (Casson 1939, 224). However, Schliemann was not the only archaeologist in Greece or Turkey to pay attention to the recognition and recording of stratigraphy and finds during an excavation. In the 1870s an Austrian, Alexander Conze, working at Samothrace and a German, Ernst Curtius, at Olympia both applied rigorous methods of excavation inspired by the recent work of Guiseppe Fiorelli at Pompeii in Italy (Trigger 1989, 196–7).  Nineteenth-century German literary scholars considered that the Iliad (Homer’s epic poem recounting  stories of the Trojan Wars) was not based on a historical reality, but involved miscellaneous  accounts of mythical heroes. Schliemann held the opposite view and, having combined study of the Homeric text with fieldwork in Greece and Turkey, he published observations about Mycenae and
https://i1.wp.com/wiki.phantis.com/images/9/9e/Heinrich_schliemann_portrait.jpg
Heinrich Schliemann(1822-1890)
the location of Troy in 1869—two years before he began to excavate that site. He drew wide attention to his findings through the rapid publication of his work at Troy and related sites, as well as popular reports to newspapers such as The Times. His results have undergone considerable reinterpretation, initially by his co-worker Dörpfeld, who only three years after Schliemann’s death, redefined the occupation level at Troy that was considered to have belonged to the Homeric period. Although Schliemann’s excavations and research around the Aegean were initially motivated by the desire to elucidate a specific literary text, they brought the Greek Bronze Age and its antecedents to light for the first time. He conducted his work as a conscious problem-oriented exercise, rather than simply to recover attractive finds from a known historical site; he also paid attention to the whole  stratigraphic sequence at Troy, not just a single period. His approach was in stark contrast to Mariette’s discovery of the  Serapeum, at Memphis in Egypt, in 1851. Mariette knew about the site from an ancient Greek traveller’s account and from references in Egyptian papyri, but only discovered it thanks to a good memory and the chance observation of the head of a sphinx sticking out of the sand; four  years of excavation followed (Daniel, 1967, 229). Happy accidents of this kind were the rule rather than the exception. Many sites mentioned in historica sources or the Bible were only identified because their names appeared on building inscriptions or clay tablets found during plunder for museum exhibits. One example of this kind was the site of Sippar in southern Mesopotamia (the biblica Sepharvaim) where Rassam excavated by British Museum in 1881 . Ironically, one of the cuneiform inscriptions that he found recorded an excavation carried out by the Babylonian king Nabonidus in the sixth century BC. Nabonidus dug beneath the foundations of a temple dedicated to the Sun-God Shamash to find out who had built it, and discovered an inscription through which he can get the answer of his question (Lloyd 1980, 156).
Schliemann has interest in Archaeology since his childhood.  Schliemann claimed that his father had already introduced him to tales of the Greek Classical Era as related in The Iliad and The Odyssey, and had given him an Illustrated History of the World as a Christmas gift in 1829. Heinrich Schliemann even claimed in later life that by the age of eight he had already formed the ambition to excavate the ancient city of Troy. Schliemann also related how he and a young playmate, a girl named Minna Meincke, used to conduct “archaeological excavations” at the local churchyard and would spend time in the ruins of a local castle. It happened that Schliemann senior was accused of embezzeling church funds and the ensuing scandal and loss of income contributed to his sons presence in the Gymnasium being only a brief one. Despite having a real interest in the Greek language, and a scholarly cast of mind, Heinrich spend a few years in a trades and commerce related ‘vocational school’ before becoming a apprenticed to a grocer at the age of fourteen. Heinrich stayed in this employment for some five years but continued to read in line with his interests in his limited spare time. He later claimed to have taught himself Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, over some two years. In 1841 Heinrich abruptly left his employer and embarked as a cabin boy on a ship bound for South America but a shipwreck saw him being returned to German territory after a rescue and landing in the Netherlands. He subsequently gained employment in merchant trading enterprises and was sent by one such firm to the Russian city of St Petersburg where his talent for and interest in languages allowed him to learn Russian and Greek in order readily converse with his clients and other business contacts. Schliemann seems to have employed a system that he used his entire life to learn languages – that of writing up his diary in the language of whatever country he happened to be in. Circa 1851 Heinrich moved to California where one of his brothers had made a fortune during these years which were years of “Gold Rush.” Heinrich started a banking enterprise that bought and sold the gold dust won by the miners. Although he seems to have made a lot of money, (his bank seems to have handled $1,350,000 worth of gold in just six months), Heinrich Schliemann returned to Russia in 1852. Back in Russia Heinrich set himself up on somewhat gentlemanly patterns of life and married Ekaterina Lyschin, a niece of one of his wealthy friends.
The new Mrs. Heinrich Schliemann seems to have expected Heinrich, although already quite wealthy, to continue to be prosperously active in business. Involvements in commerce as a contractor of military supplies at the time of the Crimean War (1854-1856) brought yet more wealth to the Schliemann household. This level of wealth allowed Heinrich Schliemann to retire from being an active merchant and to actively pursue his deep interest in the world of the ancient civilisations of Greece and Troy. He based himself in Paris and unsuccessfully tried to encourage his wife to bring their three children to continue their lives there. In 1868, after several years of archaeological exploration principally undertaken in Turkey, Heinrich Schliemann took on a partnership interest in a site at Hissarlik, previously investigated by a British Archaeolgist named Frank Calvert, that Schliemann himself was convinced was the site of the ancient city of Troy. Schliemann by this time seems to have become firmly committed to finding the site of Troy and to decisively proving the actual historicity of the “Trojan War” as related in the ancient greek classics. It happened that there was a falling out between Heinrich Schliemann and Frank Calvert as Schliemann, then an enthusiastic but perhaps unscientific excavator, assuming that “Homeric” Troy must be at the lower levels of the remains of the settlement appeasrs to have dug straight down to those levels without, in Calvert’s view, sufficiently investigating the materials removed.
Ancient fortifications were discovered, however, in 1872. A cache of artifacts in copper, silver and gold was unearthed in 1873 and styled by Heinrich Schliemann as being “Priam’s Treasure” after King Priam of Troy. By this time Heinrich Schliemann and his first wife, (who was not interested in Archaeology), had parted company, Schliemann had asked a friend to help him find a well-educated, Greek woman, who was beautiful, dark-haired, poor, and shared a great interest in Homer. Schliemann’s new younger wife appeared wearing the so-styled “Jewels of Helen.”
(Two children were born to this second marriage. These two, male, children were given the names Andromache and Agamemnon Schliemann). In the event the Turkish government disapproved of Heinrich Schliemann’s approach to publicizing his discoveries and revoked permissions to excavate at Hissarlik. Schliemann and Calvert further alienated the Turkish
authorities by smuggling the so called “Priam’s Treasure” out of Turkey. Scliemann subsequently embarked on excavations on the island of Crete where, in 1876, he enearthed elaborate golden artefacts, including a so styled “Mask of  Agamemnon” discovered alongside skeletal remains in shaft graves associated by Schliemann with the ancient civilisation of the Myceneans. The Turkish authorities had agreed to allow Schliemann to resume excavations at Hissarlik / Troy in 1876 but Schliemann did not return there to dig until a “second excavation” of 1878-1879. Other excavations followed in 1882-1883 and 1888-1890. During these later periods Heinrich Schilemann was assisted by other archaeologists including Wilhelm Dörpfeld, (in 1888-1890), who taught him to stratigrapize. Heinrich Schliemann developed a serious infection in his ears and after an operation in Greece in November 1890. Against the advice of his doctors he subsequently traveled to Leipzig, Berlin and Paris but medical complications associated with his initial ear complaint set in. He was on his way back to Athens for Christmas of that year but came to rest in Naples too unwell to complete the journey. He did visit the ruins of Pompeii but collapsed on Christmas day and died the following day. His friends ensured that he was buried in Greece in an elaborate mausoleum that Schliemann had already had built upon an Athenian hill and in the ancient Greek style as his final resting place. An inscription in ancient Greek above the entrance to this mausoleum declared it to be “For the hero, Schliemann.” Heinrich Schliemann remains a controversial figure often accused of manipulating the details of his own life and his “discoveries” to build a misleading picture of his career and achievements. Other sources, including early personal letters, do not seem to support his claims that he had a very serious interest from an early age in Archaeology. More seriously still a servant of long standing claimed that metal “artifacts” were manufactured at Schliemann’s request such they they could be “salted” for “discovery” at ancient sites. Even the Mask of Agamemnon itself is sometimes alleged to be in this category as it seems to be in a style not known elsewhere in Greek Archaeology.
According to Books and online sources :

Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
http://archaeologyofhumankind.blogspot.com/
Jahangirnagar University .
Banglades

For More you can read
Casson S 1939, The Discovery of Man, London, Hamish Hamilton..
Daniel G 1967, The Origins and Growth of Archaeology,Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Kevin Greene 1983, Archaeology: An Introduction ,The History, Principles and Methods of
Modern Archaeology ,Third Edition .
King, Wellington. Heros & Mythos, University of Texas, 1997
Lloyd Seton 1980, Foundations in the Dust: The Story of Mesopotamian Exploration, London,
Payne, Robert. The Gold of Troy: The Story of Heinrich Schliemann and the Buried Cities of Ancient Greece, Funk & Wagnalls Co, NY, 1959
Poole, Gary & Lynn. One Passion, Two Loves: The Story of Heinrich and Sophie Schliemann, Discoverers of Troy,
Trigger B G 1980, Gordon Childe:Revolutions in archaeology,London, Thames and Hudson.
Trigger B G 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge Univ Press

Bodhisattva of Infinite Compassion or "" Avalokiteshvara ""

Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Infinite Compassion, may be the most well known and beloved of the iconic bodhisattvas. Throughout all schools of Mahayana Buddhism, Avalokiteshvara is venerated as the ideal of karuna. Karuna is the
activity of compassion in the world and the willingness to bear the pain of others. Avalokiteshvara is the earthly manifestation of Amitabha Buddha, who represents mercy and wisdom. The bodhisattva is said to appear anywhere to help all beings in danger and distress.The Sanskrit name “Avalokiteshvara” is interpreted many ways — “The One Who Hears the Cries of the World”; “The Lord Who Looks Down”; “The Lord Who Looks in Every Direction. “The bodhisattva goes by many other names. In Indochina and Thailand he is Lokesvara, “The Lord of the World.” In Tibet he is Chenrezig, also spelled Spyan-ras gzigs, “With a Pitying Look.” In China the bodhisattva takes a female form and is called Guanyin (also spelled Quanyin, Kwan Yin, Kuanyin or Kwun Yum), “Hearing the Sounds of the World.” In Japan, Guanyin is Kannon or Kanzeon; in Korea, Gwan-eum; in Vietnam, Quan Am. One can find many more variations of those names.Most scholars say that until the time of the early Sung Dynasty (960-1126) the bodhisattva was portrayed in art as male. From the 12th century on, however, in much of Asia Avalokiteshvara took the form of a mother-goddess of mercy. Exactly how this happened is not clear. Here’s an utterly unsupported and probably off-the-wall speculation: The rise of the veneration of mother goddess Guanyin happened at the same time — 12th and 13th centuries — that the cult of the Virgin Mary was gaining popularity in Europe. Was there some cultural cross-pollination the historians don’t know about? Or some other factor that made mother goddesses particularly appealing during that time?  Sometimes the bodhisattva is pictured with features of both genders. This is symbolic of the bodhisattva’s transcendence of dualities, such as male-female gender distinctions. Further, the Lotus Sutra says that the bodhisattva can manifest in whatever form is best suited for the situation.
There are more than 30 iconographic representations of Avalokiteshvara in Buddhist art. These are distinguished by the number of heads and arms the bodhisattva displays, the bodhisattva’s body position, and by what is carried in the bodhisattva’s hands.
There is often a small figure of Amitabha gracing the bodhisattva’s head. He may hold a lotus, mala beads, or a vase of nectar. He may be standing, in meditation, or seated in a “royal ease” pose.
The bodhisattva often has multiple heads and arms, which symbolize his limitless capacity to perceive suffering and to help all beings. According to legend, when Avalokiteshvara first heard the suffering of the world his head burst from pain. Amitabha, his teacher, took the pieces of his head and remade eleven heads in its place. Then Amitabha gave Avalokiteshvara a thousand arms with which to ease all suffering.You may look for the bodhisattva in the form of a white-robed woman, or an angel, or an unseen spirit. However, Zen teacher John Daido Loori said,  “Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva is the Hearer of the Cries of the World. And one of the characteristics of Avalokiteshvara is that she manifests herself in accord with the circumstances. So she always presents herself in a form that’s appropriate to what’s going on. In the Bowery, she manifests as a bum. Tonight, in barrooms across the country, she’ll manifest as a drunk.?
“Every time there’s a stranded vehicle on the side of the road and a motorist stops to help Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva has manifested herself. Those characteristics of wisdom and compassion are the characteristics of all beings.  We all have that potential. It’s just a matter of awakening it. You awaken it by realizing there’s no separation between self and other.”  Do not think of the bodhisattva as a being separate from yourself. When we see and hear the suffering of others and respond to that suffering, we are the heads and arms of the bodhisattva.

According to Internet and Books…..

Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
http://archaeologyofhumankind.blogspot.com/
Jahangirnagar University .
Banglades

Some Images from Wikipedia are given below …

The Nataraja or Dancing Shiva

Nataraja or Nataraj, the dancing form of Lord Shiva, is a symbolic synthesis of the most important aspects of Hinduism, and the summary of the

central tenets of this Vedic religion. The term ‘Nataraj’ means ‘King of Dancers’ (Sanskrit nata = dance; raja = king). In the words of Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Nataraj is the “clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of…A more fluid and energetic representation of a moving figure than the dancing figure of Shiva can scarcely be found anywhere,

An extraordinary iconographic representation of the rich and diverse cultural heritage of India, it was developed in southern India by 9th and 10th century artists during the Chola period (880-1279 CE) in a series of beautiful bronze sculptures. By the 12th century AD, it achieved canonical stature and soon the Chola Nataraja became the supreme statement of Hindu art.
In a marvelously unified and dynamic composition expressing the rhythm and harmony of life, Nataraj is shown with four hands represent the cardinal directions. He is dancing, with his left foot elegantly raised and the right foot on a prostrate figure — ‘Apasmara Purusha’, the personification of illusion and ignorance over whom Shiva triumphs. The upper left hand holds a flame, the lower left hand points down to the dwarf, who is shown holding a cobra. The upper right hand holds an hourglass drum or ‘dumroo’ that stands for the male-female vital principle, the lower shows the gesture of assertion: “Be without fear.” Snakes that stand for egotism, are seen uncoiling from his arms, legs, and hair, which is braided and bejeweled. His matted locks are whirling as he dances within an arch of flames representing the endless cycle of birth and death. On his head is a skull, which symbolizes his conquest over death. Goddess Ganga, the epitome of the holy river Ganges, also sits on his hairdo. His third eye is symbolic of his omniscience, insight, and enlightenment. The whole idol rests on a lotus pedestal, the symbol of the creative forces of the universe.
This cosmic dance of Shiva is called ‘Anandatandava,’ meaning the Dance of Bliss, and symbolizes the cosmic cycles of creation and destruction, as well as the daily rhythm of birth and death. The dance is a pictorial allegory of the five principle manifestations of eternal energy — creation, destruction, preservation, salvation, and illusion. According to Coomerswamy, the dance of Shiva also represents his five activities: ‘Shrishti’ (creation, evolution); ‘Sthiti’ (preservation, support); ‘Samhara’ (destruction, evolution); ‘Tirobhava’ (illusion); and ‘Anugraha’ (release, emancipation, grace).The overall temper of the image is paradoxical, uniting the inner tranquility, and outside activity of Shiva.
Fritzof Capra in his article “The Dance of Shiva: The Hindu View of Matter in the Light of Modern Physics,” and later in the The Tao of Physics beautifully relates Nataraj’s dance with modern physics. He says that “every subatomic particle not only performs an energy dance, but also is an energy dance; a pulsating process of creation and destruction…without end…For the modern physicists, then Shiva’s dance is the dance of subatomic matter. As in Hindu mythology, it is a continual dance of creation and destruction involving the whole cosmos; the basis of all existence and of all natural phenomena.”
Shiva Nataraja Chola, South Indian, 12th-13th century (bronze) (see also 137114), Indian School, Nataraja means king of the dance; symbol of the eternal movement of the universe; circle of flames is energy in its purest form, the fire of cremation and the symbol of the holy mantra, AUM, the basic sound of creation;
Image of A Shiva Nataraja 
According to Internet and Books…..
Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
http://archaeologyofhumankind.blogspot.com/
Jahangirnagar University .
Bangladesh

What is the First University ever established on this earth ???????????

It’s really a matter of debate as what is the first university ever established on this earth ?? Someone try to proof Bologna as the first , someone speaks strongly about the Karuine at Morocco while someone is talking about the Al-Azhar of Egypt. But

there is no strong Archaeological evidence on behalf of this to prove. But Taxila or Takshashila at Pakistan hold this strongly to proof. However Takshashila or the well known Taxila was in real sense an international seat of learning where students from as far as Babylonia (Iraq), Greece, Syria, Arabia and China came to study. Takshashila could accommodate 10,500 students and during its time this university was the Harvard and MIT of the world.

The University taught subjects using the best of practical knowledge acquired by the teachers.Takshashila offered as many as 64 different specialized courses like Vedas, grammar, philosophy, ayurveda, agriculture, surgery, politics, archery, accounts, warfare, astronomy, commerce, futurology, occult, music, dance, etc. There were even curious subjects like the art of treasure hunting, decrypting encrypted messages, etc. The students would opt for electives and then would do indepth study and research into their field of choice.
Admission seekers into this great seat of learning first had to complete their basic education in their local institutions and reach the age of 16 before they were eligible for admission. Admission was highly competitive and based purely on merit. Even the sons of Kings would have to prove their merit before they were considered for admission. The course of study at Takshashila extended to as many as seven years. The students were always spoken of as going to Takshasila to ‘complete’ their education and not begin it. Every single student who graduated from this university would become a well sought after scholar all across the Indian subcontinent. There are not much of evidence to suggest that Takshashila had any female students in its campus.
The students were usually admitted to instruction in Takshashila by their teachers on payment of advance of their entire tuition fees, which would normally include lodging and food. In lieu of paying the fees in cash, a student was allowed to pay them in the shape of services to his teachers. To this class apparently belonged the majority of the students who attended on their teachers by day and received instruction at night. They gathered firewood for their teachers or cleaned their houses and did the cooking. Some were allowed to pay after the completion of their study. Some would even have to beg to pay their cost of education at Takshashila. Payment would normally be in gold.
Some scholars date Takshashila’s existence back to the 6th century BCE. It became a noted centre of learning at least several centuries before Christ, and continued to attract students from around the old world until the destruction of the city in the 5th century CE. Takshashila is perhaps best known because of its association with Chanakya. The famous treatise Arthashastra (Sanskrit for The knowledge of Economics) by Chanakya, is said to have been composed in Takshashila itself.
Besides Chanakya other great scholars of their time like Panini (language and grammar), Jivak (medicine and surgery) and Charaka (Ayurvedic healer), the Maurya Emperor Chandragupta are also taught at Takshashila.The city of Takshashila is mentioned by the Chinese monk Faxian (also called Fa-Hien), who visited ancient sites of Buddhism in India. He came to Takshashila in 405 CE. In his book “A Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms. Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon in search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline” he mentions the kingdom of Takshasila (or Chu-cha-shi-lo) meaning “the severed Head” (Chapter 11). He says that this name was derived from an event in the life of Buddha because this is the place “where he gave his head to a man”.
Xuanzang (also called Hieun Tsang), another Chinese monk, visited Takshashila in 630 CE. He mentions the city as Ta-Cha-Shi-Lo. The city appears to have already been ruins by his time.There is some disagreement about whether Takshashila can be considered a university. While some consider Takshasila to be an early university or centre of higher education, others do not consider it a university in the modern sense, in contrast to the later Nalanda University. Takshashila is described in some detail in later Jataka tales, written in Sri Lanka around the 5th century.Takshashila was destroyed by the invading Huns who came from across Hindukush into Punjab in the fifth century, and never recovered.
The British archaeologist Sir John Marshall conducted excavations over a period of twenty years in Takshasila.In 1980 Takshashila was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site with multiple locations. Recently it has been ranked as the top Tourist Destination in Pakistan by The Guardian.
The world’s first University was established in Takshila or Taxila or Takshashila (now in Pakistan) in 700BC. This centre of learning was situated about 50 km west of Rawalpindi in Pakistan. It was an important Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist center of learning. It was not a well organized university like Nalanda.

There is some disagreement about whether Takshashila can be considered a university. While some consider Taxila to be an early university or centre of higher education, others do not consider it a university in the modern sense.

More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied here. The campus accommodated students who came from as far as Babylonia, Greece, Arabia and China and offered over sixty different courses in various field such as science, mathematics, medicine, politics, warfare , astrology, astronomy, music, religion, and philosophy. Generally, a student entered Takshashila at the age of sixteen. Students would come to Takshila and take up education in their chosen subject with their teacher directly.
They were supposed to pay for their expenses. However, if a student was unable to pay then he could work for his teacher. The Vedas and the Eighteen Arts, which included skills such as archery, hunting, and elephant lore, were taught, in addition to its law school, medical school, and school of military science.

Takshila was specialized in the study of medicine.Panini, the famous Sanskrit grammarian, Kautilya (Chanakya) and Charaka, the famous physician of ancient India, and Chandragupta Maurya were the products of this university. It gained its importance again during the reign of Kanishka. It was probably, the earliest of the ancient seats of higher education. Takshashila is perhaps best known because of its association with Chanakya. The famous treatise Arthashastra (Sanskrit for The knowledge of Economics) by Chanakya, is said to have been composed in Takshashila itself.

According to Internet and Books ..

Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
http://archaeologyofhumankind.blogspot.com/
Jahangirnagar University .
Bangladesh

Glimpse at the fantastic Architectural Monuments of Bagerhat,Bangladesh "" The Sait Gambuz Mosque""

 

Shat Gambuj Mosque
Ancient Khalifatabad or well known place Decleared as World Heritage Site by UNESCO Sait Gambuz Mosque is a part of our past glorious days . As we the Bangladeshies can speak Bravely we are independent as we are strong enough to protect all oppressors. During Sultani period of Bengal Rule this Famous mosque was Built by Saint Ulugh Khan Zahan Ali. According to Medival History of Bengal he is the founder of Ancient city of Khalifatabad known as now a days Bagerhat .


We get a lot of Archaeological evidence regarding it’s past history represents those golden age of Bengal. As the ruins of Architectural Monument or Archaeological remains lost city of Bagerhat now mainly consists of a number of mosques and the tomb of its founder, Khan Jahan Ali as well as his followers . This fantastic Architecture consists of 77 Domes but well known as  60 domed or tower mosque .If you go inside this mosque most of the ancient remains destroyed by recent construction or the destruction by the name of restoration as  60 pillars, now mostly covered in cement, hold the roof of this largest mosque of its time. In Fridays, the museum is closed and the mosques are reserved for praying. There are a lot of Bangladeshi daytrippers around. Most of them are gathered near the large pond behind the Khan Jahan tomb. They are staring at  feeding a crocodile that lives in this pond Kalapahar(কালাপাহাড়).and Dhalapahar(ধলাপাহাড়) by name. This not only a site for archaeological interest and an important part of Bengal History but also a plese for religious sect. On the other side of the road is another small mosque, built in the traditional brick style. A few kilometers down the road is the shrine of Khan Jahan. This still is an active site of worship. It attracts both visitors and beggars.
© aurnab arc

Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab
Archaeology grad Student,deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University.
Bangladesh
aurnab_arc@live.com
auranab_arc@yahoo.com
aurnab.arc@gmail.com

Archaeological Culture and Prehistory (a case study)

The prehistoric archaeology is one of the most important disciplines to learn about evolution of human society. It provides primary evidence of when and how people began to create and reproduce households, to develop successful strategies for healthy life and to create the wonderful human culture as a synthesis of beauty, interactions with nature and human creativity.

One of the basic categories of prehistoric archaeology is archaeological culture. This is a regional term since the archaeological culture encompasses similar and identical material culture over a specific region during a specific period. The sites can be compact (the typical case) or spread over vast region (e.g. Pit Grave Culture). Archaeological culture requires a diachronic connectivity and presumes territorial connectivity although there are exceptions. As a rule, inner migrations result in a change of the material culture style, so one and the same population can be a barrier of different cultures. It is also presumed in prehistory that identical or very similar culture means a population with one and the same social identity that can be also named ethnicity.
Defining an archaeological culture is a primary and extremely huge responsibility of the professional archaeologists. From global perspectives it is accepted that the local archaeologists have competence and enough academic education for correct recognition of the different archaeological cultures. Although usually based on replication and updates, defining new archaeological culture nowadays means in some cases a new scientific knowledge. However, some “new” cultures unfortunately create theoretical and ethical problems in the contemporary prehistoric archaeology.
One of the lines of scholarly misconducts in prehistoric archaeology is rediscovering or renaming of well-known archaeological cultures. Typical instance is the case with Galatin in historiography: a well known culture (Salcuta IV or Salcuta IV – Telish IV, or Salcuta – Telish) was renamed Galatin by P. Georgieva in her contradicting PhD thesis in later 20th century (see the cited literature by P. Georgieva in Nikolova 1999). There was no single argument for such renaming.
Salcuta IV was first discovered in Oltenia and most data still come from Romania. In Bulgaria the only site with rich settlement and pottery information was Telish, while Galatin provided handful well known from the other sites shards without any stratigraphic context. During the battle of culture naming there was even a rumor that Georgieva imported Sheibenhenkel shards from Telish to make “her culture” more impressive. Curiously, it is a fact that the initial excavations of Galatin conducted by B. Nikolov and H. Todorova did not report Scheibenhenkel shards. On top of everything, as a student P. Georgieva tried to mislead the director of a summer excavation that there was an artifact discovered in a grave of Pit Grave Culture. It was put by her under the head of the buried although with inventory number. Such joke was out of understanding of all other students who accepted the excavations as a scientific laboratory and not a place of game-like practicing of fraud.
Salcuta IV (or Salcuta – Telish) is organically connected with Central Europe, so Northwest Bulgaria is just a periphery of this culture, which is of primary importance for understanding the Final Copper Age period in the Balkans (among the new literature online about Salcuta and Bodrogkeresztur see Luca, Roman & Diaconescu (online), Patroi (online), Thomas (2007-2009)).
Curiously, instead following the scientific line of Balkan prehistoric research, new authors, without proved long-term and in depth knowledge on the region, replicated non-scholarly line of research. Recently, I. Merkyte included Galatin in a complicated chronological table, without any explanation why was chose Galatin. Such accumulation of mistakes creates layers of difficulties to understand Balkan prehistoric archaeology, which is important for so many crossing prehistoric and other humanitarian disciplines. Luckily, after the popular rediscoveries of cultures in Northeast Bulgaria by H. Todorova in later 20th century who had used the Romanian scientific contributions for building cultures and schemes named as “new for science”, Galatin is a rare instance of theoretical misconduct on Balkan prehistory in which usually work serious and respectful archaeologists.
The chronological scheme of I. Merkyte in her 2005 publication also poses other essential questions: How can the replication of mistakes create a long diachronic line of misunderstanding of Balkan prehistory? For instance, it is stated that Sitagroi IV is synchronous with “Galatin” while there are serious in depth researches that clearly show that Sitagroi IV is a typical Early Bronze Age multilevel village founded over the prehistoric mound that followed Salcuta IV – Telish IV. In addition, there is a series of extensive researches that clearly shows that in light of present evidence Early Bronze Age began abt 3600 and there is no Transition period – a term introduced by S. Morintz and P. Roman in considerably early stage of modern understanding of Balkan prehistory. In late 1960s were missing so many rich excavations from different parts of this region that later showed not only continuity in the development of the cultural process but also the mechanism of the cultural and social transformations in later Balkan prehistory. Salcuta IV – Telish IV (or just Salcuta – Telish) is a stage of the Final Copper transformation of the Balkans that included intensive interactions with Central Europe and graduate increasing of this line of contacts together with steppe contacts and possible multidirectional ethnical migrations.
The main fault of the Bulgarian variant of Transition period adopted by H. Todorova is that it ignored the Central European line of interactions and described the changes of the material culture as one direction invasion from the Russian steppe. This hybrid thesis that combined the Romanian term Transition period with the popular Gumbutas’ invasion theory has one of the biggest negative impacts on Balkan prehistory in later 20th century which extension is also the renaming of well-known and well-researched culture Salcuta IV (or Salcuta – Telish). According to online information, Gimbutas – Bulgarian model was replicated in a dissertation by I. Merkyte and also posed a very serious academic question: If a new archaeological material (like Liga and Ezero-Kale) is not a base for a new scientific conclusions by the author, should this material be defended as a PhD dissertation? What is in fact the scientific meaning of the PhD dissertation in archaeology – new theoretical knowledge or applied replicated knowledge? It is really pity in case with Liga, since the publication of the site (Merkyte 2005) shows a very rich material that could be a base for new brilliant scientific theses if it is analyzed in depth. As a matter of fact, as the identical dissertation by P. Georgieva showed in Bulgaria, it is impossible to resolve the problems of transition from late Copper Age to the Final Copper Age and from the Final Copper Age to Early Bronze Age base on limited regional case studies. Only broad regional comparative analyses provide relevant scholarly conclusions (see Nikolova 1999).
The prehistoric chronological scheme is a primary research tool for expression of scholarly knowledge. However, from archaeological perspectives, they need to be well-argued in the text since seeing mixed chronologically cultures or unreasonable renaming create the impression of absence of deep and professional knowledge.

                                                                        From a Case Study by  Lolita Nikolova
Md.Adnan Arif Salim Aurnab 
Archaeology Grad Student, Deconstructive Writer,
Blogger and Online Archaeologist.
Jahangirnagar University .
Bangladesh .

ইতিহাস, ঐতিহ্য, প্রত্নতত্ত্ব আর রাজনীতি