HMS Exploit (P167) is an Archer-class (P2000) patrol vessel of the British Royal Navy, built in Woolston by Vosper Thornycroft and commissioned in 1988.

 

She is assigned to the Royal Navy Coastal Forces Squadron, carrying out a range of activities both in the U.K. and overseas.

 

Pictured here returning to Gosport marina during sea trials after maintenance.

 

In the foreground is a rowing gig crewed by members of Portsmouth Royal Navy Gig Club.

Title / Titre :

"La baigneuse nue." Les exploits fantastiques de Max Beaumont, l'insaisissable aventurier. No. 5 /

 

« La baigneuse nue »,Les exploits fantastiques de Max Beaumont, l'insaisissable aventurier, no 5

 

Creator(s) / Créateur(s) : Maurice Lenoir

 

Date(s) : circa / vers 1950s

 

Reference No. / Numéro de référence : OCLC 1007716604

 

bac-lac.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1007716604?lang=en

bac-lac.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1007716604?lang=fr

 

Location / Lieu : Montreal, Quebec, Canada / Montréal, Québec, Canada

 

Credit / Mention de source :

Maurice Lenoir. Éditions Bigalle. Library and Archives Canada. Rare Books. Pulp Art collection. La baigneuse nue, [195?]. Box 20, nlc010021 /

 

Maurice Lenoir. Éditions Bigalle. Bibliothèque et Archives Canada. Livres rares. Collection de romans en fascicules canadiens. La baigneuse nue, [195?]. Boîte 20, nlc010021

 

EXPLOIT YOURSELF I+D SPEC

Staff recommends that FWC take the lead in addressing concerns expressed by stakeholders about harvesters exploiting mutton snapper spawning aggregations and current year-round mutton snapper recreational bag limits and commercial trip limits.

 

To accomplish this, staff recommends conducting public workshops on specific potential management changes to reduce mutton snapper harvest both during the spawning season and throughout the year. These changes would reduce the recreational bag limit during the spawning season to two fish per person and implement a new vessel limit of 12 fish. During the rest of the year, mutton snapper recreational bag limits would be reduced from 10 fish within the 10-fish snapper aggregate bag limit to five fish within the snapper aggregate. This would reduce the legal bag limit for mutton snapper, while retaining anglers ability to harvest 10 snappers in total. Commercial harvest changes would include matching the proposed recreational bag limit of two fish per person and 12 fish per vessel during the spawning season, as well as considering gear-specific commercial trip limits during the rest of the year. These gear-specific limits could be 300 pounds per trip for hook-and-line vessels and some other limit for long-line vessels in Gulf federal waters that would allow long-line vessels to retain mutton snapper caught as bycatch. Staff would also seek feedback on the timing of spawning season regulations.

 

During this process, staff would collaborate with the South Atlantic and Gulf Councils to maximize public input on this issue and to advocate for uniform regulations across jurisdictions.

 

If the Commission directs staff to proceed with workshops, staff will return with stakeholder feedback on these items and a draft rule at the April 2016 Commission meeting in south Florida.

 

Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.

 

Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.

 

ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES

Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.

 

The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).

 

Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).

 

A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".

 

In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.

 

ICONOGRAPHY

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

 

Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.

 

The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.

 

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

 

Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.

 

VAHANAS

The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.

 

Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.

 

The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.

 

ASSOCIATIONS

 

OBSTACLES

Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."

 

Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.

 

BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)

Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".

 

AUM

Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:

 

(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).

 

Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.

 

FIRST CHAKRA

According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".

 

FAMILY AND CONSORTS

Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.

 

The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.

 

Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.

 

The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.

 

WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS

Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.

 

Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).

 

Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.

 

Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."

 

GANESH CHATURTI

An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.

 

TEMPLES

In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.

 

There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.

 

T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.

 

RISE TO PROMINENCE

 

FIRST APEARANCE

Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:

 

What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.

 

POSSIBLE INFLUENCES

Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:

 

In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.

 

Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."

 

One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.

 

A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.

 

First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).

 

VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE

The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .

 

Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".

 

Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.

 

PURANIC PERIOD

Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.

 

In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:

 

Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.

 

Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.

 

SCRIPTURES

Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.

 

The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.

 

R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM

Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.

 

Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.

 

Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.

 

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.

 

Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.

 

The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

WIKIPEDIA

Ligne 67 - Arrêt : Rigourdière

Exploitant : Transdev CAT 35 - TIV

Réseau STAR - Rennes

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the model, the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

During the 1950s Douglas Aircraft studied a short- to medium-range airliner to complement their higher capacity, long range DC-8 (DC stands for “Douglas Commercial”). A medium-range four-engine Model 2067 was studied, but it did not receive enough interest from airlines and was subsequently abandoned. The idea was not dead, though, and, in 1960, Douglas signed a two-year contract with Sud Aviation for technical cooperation. Douglas would market and support the Sud Aviation Caravelle and produce a licensed version if airlines ordered large numbers. None were ordered and Douglas returned to its own design studies after the cooperation deal expired.

 

Towards late 1961, several design studies were already underway and various layouts considered. Initial plans envisioned a compact aircraft, powered by two engines, a gross weight of 69,000 lb (31,300 kg) and a capacity of 60-80 passengers. The aircraft was to be considerably smaller than Boeing’s 727, which was under development at that time, too, so that it would fill a different market niche. However, Douglas did not want to be late again, just as with the DC-8 versus the 707, so the development of the “small airliner” was soon pushed into two directions.

 

One of the development lines exploited the recent experience gathered through the cooperation with Sud Aviation, and the resulting aircraft shared the Caravelle’s general layout with a pair of the new and more economical Pratt & Whitney JT8D turbofan engines mounted to the rear fuselage and high-set horizontal stabilizers. Unlike the competing but larger Boeing 727 trijet, which used as many 707 components as possible, this aircraft, which should become the highly successful DC-9, was an all-new design with a potentially long development time.

 

This was a major business risk, and in order to avoid the market gap and loss of market shares to Boeing, a second design was driven forward, too. It copied Boeing’s approach for the 727: take a proven design and re-use as many proven and existing components as possible to create a new airliner. This aircraft became the DC-8/2, better known as the “Dash Two” or just “Dasher”. This aircraft heavily relied on DC-8 components – primarily the fuselage and the complete tail section, as well as structures and elements of the quad-airliner’s wings, landing gear and propulsion system. Even the engines, a pair of JT3D turbofans in underwing nacelles, were taken over from the DC-8-50 which currently came from Douglas’ production line.

 

The DC-8’s fuselage was relatively wide for such a compact airliner, and its inside width of 138.25 in (351.2 cm) allowed a six-abreast seating, making the passenger cabin relatively comfortable (the DC-9 developed in parallel had a narrower fuselage and offered only five-abreast seating). In fact, the Dash Two’s cabin layout initially copied many DC-8 elements like a spacious 1st class section with 12 seats, eight of them with wide benches facing each other in a kind of lounge space instead of single seats. The standard coach section comprised 66 seats with a luxurious 38” pitch. This together with the relatively large windows from the DC-8, created a roomy atmosphere.

 

Douglas decided to tailor the Dash Two primarily to the domestic market: in late 1962, market research had revealed that the original 60-80 seat design was too small to be attractive for North American airlines. In consequence, the Dash Two’s cabin layout was redesigned into a more conventional layout with 12 single 1st class seat in the first three rows (four abreast) plus 84 2nd class seats in fifteen rows (the last row with only four seats), so that the Dash Two’s standard passenger capacity grew to 100 seats in this standard layout and a maximum of 148 seats in a tight, pure economy seating. The needs of airlines from around the world, esp. from smaller airlines, were expected to be covered by the more sophisticated and economical DC-9.

 

Douglas gave approval to produce the DC-8 Dash Two in January 1963, followed by the decision to work seriously on the DC-9 in April of the same year. While this was a double burden, the Dash Two was regarded as a low risk project and somewhat as a stopgap solution until the new DC-9 would be ready. Until 1964, when the first prototype made its maiden flight, Douglas expected orders for as many as 250 aircraft from American and Canadian airlines. Launch customers included Delta Airlines and Braniff International (10 each with options for 20 and 6 more, respectively) and Bonanza Air Lines (4). Despite this limited number, production was started, since no completely new production line had to be built up – most of the Dash Two’s assembly took place in the DC-8 plant and with the same jigs and tools.

 

Two versions of the DC-8/2 were offered from the start. Both were powered by JT3D-1 engines, but differed in details. The basic version without water injection was designated DC-8/2-10 (or “Dash Two-Ten”). A second version featured the same engines with water injection for additional thrust and a slightly (3 ft/91 cm) extended wing span. This was offered in parallel as the -20 for operations in “hot and high” environments and for a slightly higher starting weight. Unlike the DC-8, no freight version was offered.

 

However, even though the Dash Two was designed for short to medium routes, its origins from a big, international airliner resulted in some weak points. For instance, the aircraft did not feature useful details like built-in airstairs or an APU that allowed operations from smaller airports with less ground infrastructure than the major airports. In fact, the Dash Two was operationally more or less confined to routes between major airports, also because it relied heavily on DC-8 maintenance infrastructure and ground crews.

 

Even though the Dash Two had a good timing upon market entry, many smaller airlines from the American continent remained hesitant, so that further sales quickly stalled. Things got even worse when the smaller, lighter and brand-new DC-9 entered the short-haul market and almost completely cannibalized Douglas’ Dash Two sales. Boeing’s new 737 was another direct competitor, and foreign players like the British BAC One-Eleven had entered the American market, too, despite political influence to support domestic products.

 

Even though the Dash Two was quite popular among its passengers and crews (it was, for its class, comfortable and handled well), the Dash Two turned out to be relatively expensive to operate, despite the many similarities with the DC-8. By 1970, only 62 aircraft had been sold. In an attempt to modernize the Dash Two’s design and make it more attractive, an upgraded version was presented in May 1971. It featured a slightly stretched fuselage for a passenger capacity of 124 (vs. 100 in the standard layout, total maximum of 162) and was powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney JT8D-11 turbofan engines, capable of generating up to 6800 kg of thrust. This version was designated -30, but it did not find any takers in the crowded mid-range market. The DC-8/2 was already outdated.

 

Therefore, a half-hearted plan to replace the Dash Two -10 and -20’s JT3D engines as -40 series with more fuel-efficient 22,000 lb (98.5 kN) CFM56-2 high-bypass turbofans, together with new nacelles and pylons built by Grumman Aerospace as well as new fairings of the air intakes below the nose, never left the drawing board, despite a similar update for the DC-8 was developed and offered. Douglas had given up on the DC-8/2 and now concentrated on the DC-9 family.

Another blow against the aircraft came in the early 1970s: legislation for aircraft noise standards was being introduced in many countries. This seriously affected the Dash Two with its relatively loud JT3D engines, too, and several airlines approached Douglas (by then merged with McDonnell into McDonnell Douglas) for noise reduction modifications, but nothing was done. Third parties had developed aftermarket hushkits for the Dash Two, actually adapted from DC-8 upgrades, but beyond this measure there was no real move to keep the relatively small DC-8/2 fleet in service. In consequence, Dash Two production was stopped in 1974, with 77 aircraft having been ordered, but only 66 were ever delivered (most open orders were switched to DC-9s). By 1984 all machines had been retired.

  

General characteristics:

Crew: 3 (+ 3 flight attendants)

Length: 125 ft (38.16 m)

Wingspan: 105 ft 5 in (32.18 m)

Height: 42 ft 4 in (12.92 m)

Wing area: 1,970 sq ft (183 m2), 30° sweep

Empty weight: 96,562 lb (43,800 kg)

Gross weight: 172,181 lb (78,100 kg)

Fuel capacity: 46,297 lb (21,000 kg) normal; 58,422 lb (26,500 kg) maximum

Cabin width: 138.25 in (351.2 cm)

Two-class seats: 100 (12F@38" + 88Y@34")

Single-class seats: 128@34", maximum of 148 in pure economy setup

 

Powerplant:

2× Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofan engines, delivering 17,000 lb (76.1 kN) each

 

Performance:

Maximum speed: 590 mph (950 km/h; 510 kn)

Cruising speed: 470–530 mph (750–850 km/h; 400–460 kn) at 32,808–39,370 ft (10,000–12,000 m)

Range: 1,320 mi (2,120 km; 1,140 nmi) with 26,455 lb (12,000 kg) payload

and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve

1,709 mi (2,750 km) with 17,968 lb (8,150 kg) payload

and 12,456 lb (5,650 kg) fuel reserve

Service ceiling: 39,000 ft (12,000 m)

Rate of climb: 2,000 ft/min (10 m/s)

Take-off run at MTOW: 7,218 ft (2,200 m)

Landing run at normal landing weight: 4,757–6,070 ft (1,450–1,850 m)

  

The kit and its assembly:

This model was originally intended to be my final contribution to the “More or less engines” group build at whatifmodelers.com in October 2019, but procurement problems and general lack of time towards the GB’s deadline made me postpone the build, so that I could take more time for a proper build and paintjob.

 

The idea behind it was simple: since the original DC-8 was stretched (considerably) in order to expand its passenger capacity from 177 to 289(!) passengers, why not go the other way around and reduce its dimensions for a short/medium range airliner with just two engines, as a kind of alternative to the Boeing 737?

 

The basis is the Minicraft 1:144 DC-8 kit, in this case the late release which comes only in a bag without a box or any decals and which depicts a late -60/70 series aircraft with the maximum fuselage length. Inside of the fuselage halves, markings show where these parts should be cut in order to take the plugs out for shorter, earlier variants. However, my plan would be more radical!

 

Shortening the fuselage sound simple, but several indirect aspects have to be taken into account. For instance, wingspan has to be reduced accordingly and the aircraft’s overall proportions as well as its potential center of gravity have to be plausible, too. Furthermore, landing gear and engines will have to be modified, too.

 

Several measures were taken in order to find good points where the fuselage could be cut for a maximum length reduction - after all, a LOT of material had to disappear for the twin-engine variant!

First, the fuselage was completed for a solid cutting base. I decided to take out a total of three plugs, with the plan to achieve a length somewhere near a late Boeing 737, even though this turned out to be more complicated and challenging than expected. All in all, the fuselage length was reduced from ~39cm to ~26.5cm. Less than I hoped for, but anything more would have ended in a total reconstruction of the wing root sections.

 

Two plugs are logical, the third one in the middle, only 1.5cm long, is less obvious. But since the wing span would be reduced, too, the wings' depth at the (new) roots was also reduced, so that the original DC-8 wing roots/fuselage intersections would not match anymore. The wings themselves were, also based on late Boeing 737 and Dassault Mercure measures, were cut at a position slightly inside of the inner engine pylon positions.

 

Re-construction started with the rear fuselage; I initially worked separately on the cockpit section, because I filled it with as much lead as possible, and it was connected with the rest of the hull when its three segments were already completed.

The Minicraft DC-8 is basically nice and has good fit, but I found a weak spot: the fin's leading edge. Like on Minicarft’s 727's wings, which I recently built, it's virtually flat. It just looks weird if not awful, so I sculpted a more rounded edge with putty. Since the small air intakes under the radome are open, I added an internal visual block in the form of black foamed styrene.

 

The JT3D nacelles were taken OOB from the Minicraft kit, I used the inner pair because of the shorter pylons. They were attached under the wings in a new position, slightly outside of the original inner engine pair and of the main landing gear. The latter was modified, too: instead of the DC-8’s four-wheel bogies I used a pair of Boeing 727 struts and twin wheels, left over from the recent build. These were attached to 1.5 mm high consoles, so that the stance on the ground became level and mounted into newly cut well openings in the inner wings. The front wheel was taken OOB from the DC-8. I was a little skeptical concerning the main landing gear’s relative position (due to the wing sweep, it might have ended up too far forward), but IMHO the new arrangement looks quite fine, esp. with the engines in place, which visually shift the model’s center of gravity forward. I just had to shorten the engine pylons by maybe 2mm, because the lack of dihedral on the DC-8’s outer wing sections considerably reduce ground clearance for the engines, despite the added consoles to the landing gear. However, all in all the arrangement looks acceptable.

 

For the model’s in-flight pics, and also for the application of the final varnish coat, I added a ventral, vertical styrene tube in the model’s center of gravity as a display holder/adapter. Due to the massive lead weight in the nose, the adapter’s position ended up in front of the wing roots!

  

Painting and markings:

I usually do not build civil airliners, so I took the occasion to represent a design icon: the “flying Colors” livery of Braniff International Airlines from the early Seventies. Braniff featured several bright liveries, but my personal favorite is the simple one with uniform fuselages in varying bold colors, mated with simple, white fins, engine nacelles and wing areas.

 

This choice was also influenced by the fact that 26decals offers a 1:144 sheet for Braniff DC-8s of this era (remember: the bagged Minicraft kit comes without any decal sheet at all). Choosing a color was a long process. Bright red or orange were initial favorites, but the recent 727 already had orange markings, so I rather favored blue, green or even purple. I eventually settled on a light lime green, which has a high shock value and also offers a good contrast to the Braniff markings and the windows. A tone called “Lime Green” was actually an official Braniff tone (check this great overview: web.archive.org/web/20050711080200/http://www.geocities.c..., a great source provided by 26decals in the context oft he decal sheet I used, see below). But my intention was not to authentically replicate it – I rather just wanted a bright color for the model, and I like green.

 

The basic color I used is simple Humbrol 38 (Lime), which was applied with a brush after the wing areas had been painted in white (Humbrol 22) and aluminum (various shades, including Humbrol 11 and Revell 99). The characteristic black area around the cockpit glazing was created with mix of decals and paint, the silver ventral areas were painted with Humbrol’s Polished Aluminum Metallizer. The fin’s and the stabilizers’ leading edges were created with silver decal sheet material (TL Modellbau), grey and silver bits of similar material were used for some small details on the wings.

 

As already mentioned, the decals, including all windows, come from a 26decals sheet. Due to the reduced length, the windows’ and doors’ position and numbers had to be improvised. But thanks to the relatively simple livery design without cheatlines or other decorative elements, this was an easy task. Finally, the model received an overall coat of gloss acrylic varnish from the rattle can.

  

Just like my recent Boeing 727 with four engines, this conversion appears simple at first sight, but the execution caused some headaches. The biggest problem was the reduced depth of the shortened wings and how to mount then to the fuselage – but the attempt to take an additional fuselage plug away was an effective move that also helped to reduce overall length.

I am astonished how modern and plausible this shortened DC-8 looks. While building, the aircraft constantly reminded me of the Tupolev Tu-104 airliner, until the engines were added and it now resembled an Airbus A320!

Plaque beneath this image of Jimmy Melrose reads:-

“Charles James (Jimmy) Melrose (1913–1936)

During the glamorous mid 1930s, few rivalled the celebrity of charismatic South Australian aviator Jimmy Melrose. Image a young 19 year old boy, 6 feet tall, blue eyes, unruly blond hair with a freckled face.

 

Born in Burnside and raised here on Glenelg’s Esplanade at Glenwood Mansions (now Melrose Apartments) Jimmy captivated the world with his aviation exploits across the globe.

He established several Australian flying records and set world records, all within 3 short years.

In August 1934 Jimmy flew his DH Puss Moth, affectionately named ‘My Hildergarde’ 8,000 miles (12,875 km) solo around Australia.

This slashed the previous record by 2 days to 5 days, 10 hours, 57 minutes.

 

Tragically, on 3 July 1936, aged 22, Jimmy died on a charter flight from Melbourne to Darwin when his Heston Phoenix broke up over South Melton, Victoria in turbulent conditions.

His death sent shock waves around the world as people mourned their chivalrous young knight of the air.”

 

*Jimmy Melrose was the youngest competitor in the 1934 MacRobertson Trophy London-Melbourne air race in October 1934 and the only Australian to finish the race. He made the record solo flight in 8 days and 9 hours coming third on handicap.

 

The event was held in 1934: dreamt up by the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Harold Smith to celebrate Victoria’s centenary. It was sponsored by the Melbourne chocolate manufacturer Sir MacPherson Robertson, to test the feasibility of scheduled air services between Europe and Australia.

 

In 1936 Melrose was killed when his Heston Phoenix monoplane VH–AJM disintegrated in mid air at Melton South, Victoria. The tragedy was reported world-wide in the media at the time.

 

*Jimmy Melrose’s memorial is located on the edge of the Stirling Centenary Oval and was handed over to the District Council of Stirling. There was an infantile paralysis epidemic at the time and an unveiling was considered unwise.

It was erected by public subscription: Melrose was once a resident of the district. Of the £101 cost, £22 was raised by children of the following schools Stirling East, Bridgewater, Aldgate, Mylor, Scotts Creek, Heathfield, Upper Sturt and Crafers. [Ref: Mount Barker Courier and Onkaparinga and Gumeracha Advertiser 10-3-1938]

 

*Melrose Killed when Plane Crashes

MACHINE BURST INTO FRAGMENTS

Was on flight to Darwin

MR A G CAMPBELL ALSO A VICTIM

Charles James Melrose, 22, of Glenelg, Australia’s most popular airman, and Alexander George Campbell, 47 of Brighton, Victoria, who had a distinguished career as a soldier and as a mining engineer, were killed instantly when Melrose’s Heston Phoenix high-wing monoplane broke to pieces in dense clouds and crashed at South Melton, Victoria on Sunday morning.

 

They were on their way from Melbourne to Parafield on the stage of a flight to Darwin. Miss Lily Melrose, a cousin of the aviator, was about to leave Adelaide for the flying field to join the fliers when she received news of the fatality.

 

The wreckage was found over an area of two square miles, and the bodies of the two men were 400 yards apart.

 

Warm tributes were paid to the young airman by the Prime Minister (Mr Lyons), and by the Premier (Mr Butler), who recently took the air for the first time with Melrose as his pilot.

 

Melrose's place in the affection of South Australians was strikingly evidenced when the news was received. Mention of his death was made in many churches, and the Government immediately decided to arrange for a State funeral, subject to the approval of Mrs Melrose.

 

The tragedy of the disaster was increased by the fact that Mr Campbell had intended originally to go to Adelaide by train and join Mr Melrose there. Mr Melrose, however, flew his mother to Melbourne on Thursday for a holiday visit and then waited to fly Mr Campbell to Adelaide.

 

Mr Campbell had chartered Mr Melrose's machine on behalf of a syndicate of Melbourne and Adelaide business men. He intended to fly to Darwin, where he was to inspect gold mining areas at Pine Creek. He expected to be away for between 10 and 14 days.

 

The party was to comprise Miss Lily Melrose, cousin of Mr Melrose, and Mr O V Roberts, both of Adelaide, who intended to make the flight an opportunity for a holiday. Mr J Smith Roberts, a mining expert, was to be picked up at Tennant Creek.

 

Mrs Melrose went to the scene of tragedy and she wished to see her son's body at the City Morgue, but she was suffering from such prostration that it was considered inadvisable for her to do so.

The body was identified by the manager of the Oriental Hotel.

A watch which Mr Melrose was wearing had stopped at 8.34 am, indicating the time of the crash. A police wireless patrol prevented the souveniring of fragments from the main wreckage.

 

On the way to the Essendon aerodrome Mr Melrose and Mr Campbell were in high spirits, joking and discussing the projected flight to Darwin.

Mr Campbell had travelled in a taxi cab from his home in Brighton, and joined Mr Melrose at the Oriental Hotel, Collins street.

 

Light rain was sweeping over the aerodrome when they arrived, and Mr R Hart, of the Hart Aircraft Service Pty, Ltd, in whose hangar Mr Melrose had left his plane, advised Mr Melrose not to fly because of the inclement weather.

 

Mr Melrose had on Saturday postponed his flight because of the bad flying conditions, and when he saw a break in the clouds this morning he decided to make the flight, as he wished to reach Oodnadatta before night. He told Mr Hart that he expected to reach Port Augusta or Adelaide in three hours by flying at a height of 3,000 feet above the clouds.

 

Ascending toward a patch of clear sky, the machine reached a height of about 2,500 feet before it passed out of sight of the party on the aerodrome. Apparently Mr Melrose experienced difficulty in finding the break in the clouds, because the time which the machine took to travel the 15 miles to South Melton - 24 minutes - indicates that he spent some time searching for a clear sky.

 

Residents of South Melton saw the machine emerge from low-lying clouds above the railway station. Almost immediately there was a loud roar and many fragments were seen falling from the machine and drifting in the wind.

 

The engine and most of the fuselage spun at a steep angle toward the ground, while the starboard wing drifted in another direction towards the Toolern Creek, and hundreds of smaller fragments were carried by the wind to paddocks near the Ballarat road, which is about a mile and a half from the scene of the crash.

 

The two occupants were hurled out of the machine, but so many fragments were falling that none of the residents was certain of having seen them fall.

Mr Melrose's body was found on the southern end of the gorge of the Toolern Creek, about 50 yards from the engine, and the remnants of the fuselage, while Mr Campbell's body was found about 400 yards away in a paddock on the north side of the gorge. Both men had been killed instantly.

 

The two petrol tanks were found on different sides of the gorge. Tools and luggage were on the cliffs or in the flooded creek, and innumerable pieces of wood and fabric were scattered over an area of nearly two square miles to the north of the creek.

 

The desperate thoughts which must have passed through the minds of the victims in the few seconds before the crash were indicated by the condition of the safety belts. The pin had been drawn to release one safety belt, but in the other belt the pin was bent but still in the socket.

Apparently Mr Campbell had undone his belt so that, if he survived the crash, he could crawl from the machine.

Mr Melrose, who was probably struggling with the controls, apparently did not have time to withdraw the pin of his belt, consequently Mr Campbell was hurled further from the plane than Mr Melrose.

 

A close examination of the area over which the wreckage was strewn was made by the Air Accidents Investigation Committee soon after the tragedy.

The committee has no theory of the cause of the crash at present, but it is understood that it has reached several interesting conclusions.

 

From the range and position of the fragments it is considered possible that the machine disintegrated while it was in a wide spin with the engine running. If the spin was fast enough the strain might have caused the machine to collapse.

 

Because the port wing was found much farther from the engine and fuselage than the starboard wing, it is considered probable that the port wing was the first to crumple. The machine would then have become wholly out of control, and the increased strain would have quickly caused the collapse of the other wing, the tailplane, and other light parts of the machine.

 

The breaking up of the machine was described by Mr. Edward Wickham, of Melton South, who was gathering wood in the back yard of his home.

“For some time I heard the drone of an aeroplane in the clouds,' he said, 'but I could not see it. The clouds were low and a strong southerly wind was driving misty rain. Suddenly there was a roar and the plane came spinning out of the clouds. Just as it came into full view, the machine appeared to burst into fragments and the roar stopped.

“The engine and fuselage hurtled at a fairly steep angle towards the ground, but the other fragments drifted quite slowly with the wind and fell in the paddocks between the Toolern Creek and the Ballarat Road.

“With three other residents, I ran over the paddocks. We lifted the refuse expecting to find someone beneath, but no one was there. Then we searched among the rocks at the edge of the gorge and we found Mr Melrose lying shockingly injured on two flat rocks, just below the top of the cliff about 50 yards from the wreckage. Mr Campbell's body was then found on the other side of the gorge.”

 

Although Mr Campbell had flown many miles on mining business, his wife did not like his flying, and had tried to dissuade him from continuing it. He insured his life for £2,000 for the period of the flight to Darwin.

 

“I regret exceedingly to learn that yet another of Australia's great airmen has passed away,” said the Prime Minister (Mr Lyons).

“In his brief flying career, Melrose won considerable fame,” continued Mr Lyons. “Not the least of his achievements was his skilful search for Sir Charles Kingsford Smith last year. Australia loses a chivalrous young knight of the air whom it can ill afford to lose.

“The sympathy of all the Australian people will, I feel sure, go to his devoted mother.”

 

Before the evensong service at St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne, the organist (Dr A E Floyd) extemporised in the form of a threnody.

The Precentor (Rev Oliver Hole) announced that, in view of the sudden and tragic death of a brave young airman, the anthem had been changed. The choir sang the Memorial Anthem by Sir George Elvey from the Book of Wisdom:— “The souls of the righteous are in the hands of God: in the sight of the unwise they seem to die, but they are in peace.” [Ref: Chronicle (Adelaide) Thursday 9 July 1936]

 

* MELROSE'S MEMORY HONOURED

Crowds Attend Mourning Services In Two Cathedrals

Moving tributes were paid in Melbourne and Adelaide yesterday to the memory of Mr C J Melrose, who was killed when his plane crashed at South Melton, Victoria, on Sunday. Melrose's body was cremated at the necropolis, Springvale. Melbourne, yesterday afternoon.

The ceremony was preceded by a simple service in St Paul's Cathedral, which was crowded. The Archbishop of Melbourne (Dr Head), in his address, referred to "this boy, who was so wonderfully young and so attractive in personality, that he can only be called just lovable”.

 

Adelaide mourned the loss of Melrose at a special memorial service in St Peter's Cathedral which, at the request of the aviator's mother, synchronised with the funeral service in Melbourne.

As the crowds left the Cathedral after an inspiring address by the Bishop of Adelaide (Dr Thomas), three Royal Aero Club machines soared overhead in a last tribute to the club's distinguished member.

Tributes were paid and the sittings of both Houses of Parliament were suspended, the Assembly rising until the evening. [Ref: Advertiser (Adelaide), Wednesday 8 July 1936]

 

*LONDON, July 5

The news of the death of Melrose has caused sorrow in aviation circles. Mr Pemberton Billing, the uncle of Melrose, said:— “What a rotten shame. Jimmie was a protege of mine, and always stayed with me. I do not know what his mother will do now. When Jimmie was here, his thoughts were always with his mother, in Adelaide”.

 

The Agent-General for South Australia (Mr McCann) who bade farewell to Melrose when he flew to Australia in April, says:— “I am dreadfully sorry. He was one of the most charming men it was possible to meet”. [Ref: Chronicle 9-7-1936]

 

*SIMPLE SERVICE IN MELBOURNE

St Pauls Cathedral Crowded July 7

Simplicity marked James Melrose's funeral today. There was no display, the only uniform to be seen being that worn by the officer representing the Air Board.

Long before the service in St Paul's Cathedral was timed to begin, all the available pews were occupied, and knots of silent people gathered in Flinders street.

Inside the Cathedral, the coffin of dark wood rested on a bier of flowers in the choir. Placed on it were only two wreaths, one of laurels from the dead airman's mother, and the other of purple flowers and dark green leaves, inscribed simply ''From Rosebank." [Rosebank has been the station home of Mr Melrose's family in South Australia for nearly a century.]

 

"We have come together today in very sad circumstances,” Archbishop Head said. "Your first thought will be of sadness and terribleness of such an event, and how frightful it is that so precious a life should have been cut off so suddenly.

 

After another hymn, the blessing was pronounced by Archbishop Head from the altar, and the congregation stood while Beethoven's "Funeral March on the Death of a Hero" was played.

 

Then the coffin was carried along the aisle down which Melrose had walked on the day he finished the Centenary air race to Evensong. The people in the crowded street stood bareheaded and silent. Through the suburbs, where streets were lined by children from the schools, the procession passed, and along the Prince's Highway to Springvale. Six planes circled overhead.

The service was brief. The last prayers were offered by Archbishop Head.

The chief mourners were Mr Melrose's mother and his cousins, Mr Melrose MP, and Mrs Melrose, and Miss L M Melrose, all of South Australia, and Mr Brian and Mr F Hickling, of Melbourne (second cousins).

 

Those who attended included Mr Schofield MHR (representing the Prime Minister and Commonwealth Government). Mr Hyland MLA, and Major H A F Wilkinson (representing the Premier and State Government), Mr McIntosh (South Australian Commissioner of Crown Lands and Minister of Repatriation), and Mr Young MLC, (representing the Premier and Government of South Australia), Mr J D Malcolm (NZ), Mr F Emerson (Queensland), Mr L F Bruce (Tasmania), Flight-Lieutenant C S Wiggins (Air Board), Mr R Bennett (Lord Mayor of Melbourne), Mr J W Collins (Australian Aerial Medical Services), Mr B Bremner (Australian Broadcasting Commission), and Mr A P Bevan (Elder, Smith & Co, Ltd, Adelaide).

The pallbearers were the Director-General of Civil Aviation (Captain E C Johnston). Mr T P Manifold (the Aero Clubs of Australia), Mr F Penny (Shell Company of Australia), Mr G R Lamprell (South Australian Government representative), Mr E H Chaseing (Holyman’s Airways), and Mr R Hart.

 

Mr Melrose MP, who is remaining in Melbourne with Mrs James Melrose, said tonight that she had no plans for the future.

It had been arranged, he said, that she should go to Sydney and wait there for her son to join her after his flight to Darwin, but it was now impossible to say what her movements would be or her plans for the future. In the meantime, she would remain in Melbourne.

 

At the funeral, Mrs Melrose wore a brown costume, a fur, and a green hat with a black armband. She thought that her son would have preferred that she wear the colours in which he liked her best.

 

Telegrams were received from persons in all parts of the world, including the Governor-General (Lord Gowrie) and Lady Gowrie, the Governor of South Australia (Sir Winston Dugan), the Prime Minister (Mr Lyons), and the Minister for Health (Mr Hughes). [Ref: Advertiser (Adelaide) Wednesday 8 July 1936:

 

* On his return today from Melbourne, where he represented the State at the memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral to the late Mr C J Melrose, the Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr McIntosh) said that Melbourne's sorrow was a magnificent tribute to a wonderfully beloved young hero.

"Victoria had taken him to its heart equally with South Australia," said the Minister. "His fame in Melbourne was as renowned as in Adelaide. and his memory as dearly cherished”.

 

Mr McIntosh said that the cathedral was crowded long before the time for the commencement of the service, and thousands, unable to gain admission, congregated outside.

The route from the cathedral to the crematorium, a distance of 16 miles, was lined the whole way by thousands of citizens, who stood with heads bowed in final homage to a young hero, triumphant even in death.

The service at the crematorium, said Mr. McIntosh, was equally impressive as at the cathedral, and the wonderful fortitude and courage displayed by Mrs Melrose at both ceremonies provided an example and inspiration to all who mourned with her. There would be some solace for her in the wonderful tributes paid by the people to the memory of her son.

 

Combined with the deep sorrow for Mrs Melrose. there was a deep sympathy for Mrs A G Campbell and her young family in the death of Colonel Campbell, who was killed with Melrose. [Ref: News (Adelaide) 8-7-1936]

 

*Funeral of Mr A G Campbell

There were impressive scenes at the funeral of Mr Campbell.

Officers and men of the 8th Battalion, with whom Mr Campbell served in the Great War, and of the 39th Battalion, of which until recently he was Lieutenant-Colonel commanding, paid many touching tributes to his memory.

 

Every returned soldier present filed past the open grave and dropped his poppy on to the coffin, after which the whole gathering stood to attention as “Last Post” was sounded. [Ref: Chronicle 9-7-1936]

 

**From an article by Craig Cook, published in the Advertiser (Adelaide) 13 September 2013 –

The long lost possessions of world famous aviator Jimmy Melrose were recently discovered in Victoria. Among the items are his white leather flying helmet and documents signed by the aviator.

The possessions were given by his mother to Clive Hamer, who had dinner with Melrose the night before his last flight, and asked him to pack and store them. She never asked for their return. The artefacts were then passed on as part of the estate of a deceased relative, ending up with Wayne and Judy Perry of Victoria. Subsequently they were given to the South Australian Aviation Museum.

 

There also is a permanent exhibition of Melrose’s achievements at the Bay Discovery Centre in Glenelg. It is suitably entitled, Australia’s Forgotten Hero.

 

Such was Melrose’s fame at the time of his death the then state government of Sir Richard Butler considered a proposal to build him a memorial, to “fly over the city”, on Montefiore Hill. The idea was finally scrapped when the statue of Colonel Light, then situated in Victoria Square, was moved to the hill instead.

 

In the first clear sign the local hero’s story was already fading from history, Melrose failed to be recognised among the initial 170 “SA Greats”, that includes his uncle, Sir John Melrose, to have their name on a bronze plaque on the Jubilee 150 Walkway.

 

The Walkway, commissioned as part of the celebrations commemorating the 150th anniversary of the founding of the state, was established along North Terrace in 1986. Fellow air pioneers, Sir Ross and Keith Smith are honoured but, despite the year being the 50th anniversary of Jimmy’s death, he missed out.

  

The greater irony is that Melrose had agreed to be a major attraction at the 100th anniversary of the founding of South Australia, distributing flyers in the lead-up and flying over Adelaide on the anniversary day, December 28, 1936. He died five months before the event.

 

An only child from a prosperous family, Jimmy Melrose grew-up with his mother, Hilda, in a grand house, on the Glenelg South esplanade. His prominent pastoralist father, James, had died in 1922 when his son was aged nine.

 

Throughout his life he had a fascination with the number 13, never regarding it as unlucky. It was both the date and year of his birth and the number of his imposing home, demolished in 1969.

 

A natural athlete, he exercised daily including a morning swim from the beach just outside his home. He was a fanatical early riser, neither smoked nor drank alcohol, and a devotee of the “Oslo lunch” that consisted of a wholemeal bread sandwich filled with cheese and salad, a glass of milk and an apple or other seasonal fruit.

 

While still a student at St Peter’s School he took flying lessons with the (Royal) Aero Club of South Australia at Parafield, gaining his licence at 19. As reward, his mother bought him his own plane, a DeH Puss Moth, which he named My Hildergarde, deliberately using 13 letters, in her honour.

 

In August 1934, aged 20, he flew 12,875km solo around Australia, reducing the previous record by almost two days, to five days, 10 hours, 57 minutes.

 

On his twenty-first birthday he left Parafield in his beloved Puss Moth for England, reaching Croydon in a record eight days, nine hours.

He became a global sensation, as the youngest entrant and only solo competitor, coming third, in the 1934 Centenary Air Race from England to Australia.

 

A dedicated diarist, he recorded the scenes as he left England: “Saturday 20 October 1934, the start of the greatest air race the world had ever seen. 60,000 people came around the aerodrome at Mildenhall at dawn. Thrilling is not the word: we raced across the countryside east of London, the Thames, the Channel off Dover. I shall never forget it!”

 

Soon after returning to Australia [After his search for the missing Sir Charles Kingsford Smith], and in his first major accident, Melrose crashed his Percival Gull, used in the search for Smith, at Penrose in New South Wales. Recovering quickly from severe injuries he sailed to England and flew back in a five-seater Heston Phoenix he intended to use to start the nation’s first flying taxi service.

 

An incredible crowd of 8000 assembled in Adelaide on Anzac Day, 1936, to greet him on his return. Just six weeks later he was dead.

 

In 1968, when his mother died, Jimmy Melrose’s ashes were buried with her at the North Road Anglican cemetery at Nailsworth, north of Adelaide.

 

There are some commemorations to the life and times of Jimmy Melrose. The suburbs of Melrose Park in South Australia and New South Wales, a look-out tower at the Glenelg Surf Life-Saving Club, Jimmy Melrose Park on the Glenelg foreshore and James Melrose Road bordering Adelaide airport are all named after him.

 

Mildenhall in Suffolk, England, where the 1934 Air Race began, has Charles Melrose Close and there is a simple inscribed cairn close to the fatal crash-site at Melton South.

    

Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.

 

Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.

 

ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES

Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.

 

The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).

 

Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).

 

A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".

 

In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.

 

ICONOGRAPHY

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

 

Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.

 

The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.

 

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

 

Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.

 

VAHANAS

The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.

 

Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.

 

The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.

 

ASSOCIATIONS

 

OBSTACLES

Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."

 

Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.

 

BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)

Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".

 

AUM

Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:

 

(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).

 

Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.

 

FIRST CHAKRA

According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".

 

FAMILY AND CONSORTS

Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.

 

The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.

 

Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.

 

The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.

 

WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS

Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.

 

Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).

 

Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.

 

Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."

 

GANESH CHATURTI

An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.

 

TEMPLES

In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.

 

There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.

 

T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.

 

RISE TO PROMINENCE

 

FIRST APEARANCE

Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:

 

What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.

 

POSSIBLE INFLUENCES

Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:

 

In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.

 

Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."

 

One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.

 

A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.

 

First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).

 

VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE

The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .

 

Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".

 

Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.

 

PURANIC PERIOD

Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.

 

In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:

 

Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.

 

Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.

 

SCRIPTURES

Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.

 

The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.

 

R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM

Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.

 

Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.

 

Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.

 

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.

 

Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.

 

The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

WIKIPEDIA

The exploitation rights for this text are the property of the Vienna Tourist Board. This text may be reprinted free of charge until further notice, even partially and in edited form. Forward sample copy to: Vienna Tourist Board, Media Management, Invalidenstraße 6, 1030 Vienna; media.rel@wien.info. All information in this text without guarantee.

Author: Andreas Nierhaus, Curator of Architecture/Wien Museum

Last updated January 2014

Architecture in Vienna

Vienna's 2,000-year history is present in a unique density in the cityscape. The layout of the center dates back to the Roman city and medieval road network. Romanesque and Gothic churches characterize the streets and squares as well as palaces and mansions of the baroque city of residence. The ring road is an expression of the modern city of the 19th century, in the 20th century extensive housing developments set accents in the outer districts. Currently, large-scale urban development measures are implemented; distinctive buildings of international star architects complement the silhouette of the city.

Due to its function as residence of the emperor and European power center, Vienna for centuries stood in the focus of international attention, but it was well aware of that too. As a result, developed an outstanding building culture, and still today on a worldwide scale only a few cities can come up with a comparable density of high-quality architecture. For several years now, Vienna has increased its efforts to connect with its historical highlights and is drawing attention to itself with some spectacular new buildings. The fastest growing city in the German-speaking world today most of all in residential construction is setting standards. Constants of the Viennese architecture are respect for existing structures, the palpability of historical layers and the dialogue between old and new.

Culmination of medieval architecture: the Stephansdom

The oldest architectural landmark of the city is St. Stephen's Cathedral. Under the rule of the Habsburgs, defining the face of the city from the late 13th century until 1918 in a decisive way, the cathedral was upgraded into the sacral monument of the political ambitions of the ruling house. The 1433 completed, 137 meters high southern tower, by the Viennese people affectionately named "Steffl", is a masterpiece of late Gothic architecture in Europe. For decades he was the tallest stone structure in Europe, until today he is the undisputed center of the city.

The baroque residence

Vienna's ascension into the ranks of the great European capitals began in Baroque. Among the most important architects are Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach and Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt. Outside the city walls arose a chain of summer palaces, including the garden Palais Schwarzenberg (1697-1704) as well as the Upper and Lower Belvedere of Prince Eugene of Savoy (1714-22). Among the most important city palaces are the Winter Palace of Prince Eugene (1695-1724, now a branch of the Belvedere) and the Palais Daun-Kinsky (auction house in Kinsky 1713-19). The emperor himself the Hofburg had complemented by buildings such as the Imperial Library (1722-26) and the Winter Riding School (1729-34). More important, however, for the Habsburgs was the foundation of churches and monasteries. Thus arose before the city walls Fischer von Erlach's Karlskirche (1714-39), which with its formal and thematic complex show façade belongs to the major works of European Baroque. In colored interior rooms like that of St. Peter's Church (1701-22), the contemporary efforts for the synthesis of architecture, painting and sculpture becomes visible.

Upgrading into metropolis: the ring road time (Ringstraßenzeit)

Since the Baroque, reflections on extension of the hopelessly overcrowed city were made, but only Emperor Franz Joseph ordered in 1857 the demolition of the fortifications and the connection of the inner city with the suburbs. 1865, the Ring Road was opened. It is as the most important boulevard of Europe an architectural and in terms of urban development achievement of the highest rank. The original building structure is almost completely preserved and thus conveys the authentic image of a metropolis of the 19th century. The public representational buildings speak, reflecting accurately the historicism, by their style: The Greek Antique forms of Theophil Hansen's Parliament (1871-83) stood for democracy, the Renaissance of the by Heinrich Ferstel built University (1873-84) for the flourishing of humanism, the Gothic of the Town Hall (1872-83) by Friedrich Schmidt for the medieval civic pride.

Dominating remained the buildings of the imperial family: Eduard van der Nüll's and August Sicardsburg's Opera House (1863-69), Gottfried Semper's and Carl Hasenauer's Burgtheater (1874-88), their Museum of Art History and Museum of Natural History (1871-91) and the Neue (New) Hofburg (1881-1918 ). At the same time the ring road was the preferred residential area of mostly Jewish haute bourgeoisie. With luxurious palaces the families Ephrussi, Epstein or Todesco made it clear that they had taken over the cultural leadership role in Viennese society. In the framework of the World Exhibition of 1873, the new Vienna presented itself an international audience. At the ring road many hotels were opened, among them the Hotel Imperial and today's Palais Hansen Kempinski.

Laboratory of modernity: Vienna around 1900

Otto Wagner's Postal Savings Bank (1903-06) was one of the last buildings in the Ring road area Otto Wagner's Postal Savings Bank (1903-06), which with it façade, liberated of ornament, and only decorated with "functional" aluminum buttons and the glass banking hall now is one of the icons of modern architecture. Like no other stood Otto Wagner for the dawn into the 20th century: His Metropolitan Railway buildings made ​​the public transport of the city a topic of architecture, the church of the Psychiatric hospital at Steinhofgründe (1904-07) is considered the first modern church.

With his consistent focus on the function of a building ("Something impractical can not be beautiful"), Wagner marked a whole generation of architects and made Vienna the laboratory of modernity: in addition to Joseph Maria Olbrich, the builder of the Secession (1897-98) and Josef Hoffmann, the architect of the at the western outskirts located Purkersdorf Sanatorium (1904) and founder of the Vienna Workshop (Wiener Werkstätte, 1903) is mainly to mention Adolf Loos, with the Loos House at the square Michaelerplatz (1909-11) making architectural history. The extravagant marble cladding of the business zone stands in maximal contrast, derived from the building function, to the unadorned facade above, whereby its "nudity" became even more obvious - a provocation, as well as his culture-critical texts ("Ornament and Crime"), with which he had greatest impact on the architecture of the 20th century. Public contracts Loos remained denied. His major works therefore include villas, apartment facilities and premises as the still in original state preserved Tailor salon Knize at Graben (1910-13) and the restored Loos Bar (1908-09) near the Kärntner Straße (passageway Kärntner Durchgang).

Between the Wars: International Modern Age and social housing

After the collapse of the monarchy in 1918, Vienna became capital of the newly formed small country of Austria. In the heart of the city, the architects Theiss & Jaksch built 1931-32 the first skyscraper in Vienna as an exclusive residential address (Herrengasse - alley 6-8). To combat the housing shortage for the general population, the social democratic city government in a globally unique building program within a few years 60,000 apartments in hundreds of apartment buildings throughout the city area had built, including the famous Karl Marx-Hof by Karl Ehn (1925-30). An alternative to the multi-storey buildings with the 1932 opened International Werkbundsiedlung was presented, which was attended by 31 architects from Austria, Germany, France, Holland and the USA and showed models for affordable housing in greenfield areas. With buildings of Adolf Loos, André Lurçat, Richard Neutra, Gerrit Rietveld, the Werkbundsiedlung, which currently is being restored at great expense, is one of the most important documents of modern architecture in Austria.

Modernism was also expressed in significant Villa buildings: The House Beer (1929-31) by Josef Frank exemplifies the refined Wiener living culture of the interwar period, while the house Stonborough-Wittgenstein (1926-28, today Bulgarian Cultural Institute), built by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein together with the architect Paul Engelmann for his sister Margarete, by its aesthetic radicalism and mathematical rigor represents a special case within contemporary architecture.

Expulsion, war and reconstruction

After the "Anschluss (Annexation)" to the German Reich in 1938, numerous Jewish builders, architects (female and male ones), who had been largely responsible for the high level of Viennese architecture, have been expelled from Austria. During the Nazi era, Vienna remained largely unaffected by structural transformations, apart from the six flak towers built for air defense of Friedrich Tamms (1942-45), made ​​of solid reinforced concrete which today are present as memorials in the cityscape.

The years after the end of World War II were characterized by the reconstruction of the by bombs heavily damaged city. The architecture of those times was marked by aesthetic pragmatism, but also by the attempt to connect with the period before 1938 and pick up on current international trends. Among the most important buildings of the 1950s are Roland Rainer's City Hall (1952-58), the by Oswald Haerdtl erected Wien Museum at Karlsplatz (1954-59) and the 21er Haus of Karl Schwanzer (1958-62).

The youngsters come

Since the 1960s, a young generation was looking for alternatives to the moderate modernism of the reconstruction years. With visionary designs, conceptual, experimental and above all temporary architectures, interventions and installations, Raimund Abraham, Günther Domenig, Eilfried Huth, Hans Hollein, Walter Pichler and the groups Coop Himmelb(l)au, Haus-Rucker-Co and Missing Link rapidly got international attention. Although for the time being it was more designed than built, was the influence on the postmodern and deconstructivist trends of the 1970s and 1980s also outside Austria great. Hollein's futuristic "Retti" candle shop at Charcoal Market/Kohlmarkt (1964-65) and Domenig's biomorphic building of the Central Savings Bank in Favoriten (10th district of Vienna - 1975-79) are among the earliest examples, later Hollein's Haas-Haus (1985-90), the loft conversion Falkestraße (1987/88) by Coop Himmelb(l)au or Domenig's T Center (2002-04) were added. Especially Domenig, Hollein, Coop Himmelb(l)au and the architects Ortner & Ortner (ancient members of Haus-Rucker-Co) ​​by orders from abroad the new Austrian and Viennese architecture made a fixed international concept.

MuseumQuarter and Gasometer

Since the 1980s, the focus of building in Vienna lies on the compaction of the historic urban fabric that now as urban habitat of high quality no longer is put in question. Among the internationally best known projects is the by Ortner & Ortner planned MuseumsQuartier in the former imperial stables (competition 1987, 1998-2001), which with institutions such as the MUMOK - Museum of Modern Art Foundation Ludwig, the Leopold Museum, the Kunsthalle Wien, the Architecture Center Vienna and the Zoom Children's Museum on a wordwide scale is under the largest cultural complexes. After controversies in the planning phase, here an architectural compromise between old and new has been achieved at the end, whose success as an urban stage with four million visitors (2012) is overwhelming.

The dialogue between old and new, which has to stand on the agenda of building culture of a city that is so strongly influenced by history, also features the reconstruction of the Gasometer in Simmering by Coop Himmelb(l)au, Wilhelm Holzbauer, Jean Nouvel and Manfred Wehdorn (1999-2001). Here was not only created new housing, but also a historical industrial monument reinterpreted into a signal in the urban development area.

New Neighborhood

In recent years, the major railway stations and their surroundings moved into the focus of planning. Here not only necessary infrastructural measures were taken, but at the same time opened up spacious inner-city residential areas and business districts. Among the prestigious projects are included the construction of the new Vienna Central Station, started in 2010 with the surrounding office towers of the Quartier Belvedere and the residential and school buildings of the Midsummer quarter (Sonnwendviertel). Europe's largest wooden tower invites here for a spectacular view to the construction site and the entire city. On the site of the former North Station are currently being built 10,000 homes and 20,000 jobs, on that of the Aspangbahn station is being built at Europe's greatest Passive House settlement "Euro Gate", the area of ​​the North Western Railway Station is expected to be developed from 2020 for living and working. The largest currently under construction residential project but can be found in the north-eastern outskirts, where in Seaside Town Aspern till 2028 living and working space for 40,000 people will be created.

In one of the "green lungs" of Vienna, the Prater, 2013, the WU campus was opened for the largest University of Economics of Europe. Around the central square spectacular buildings of an international architect team from Great Britain, Japan, Spain and Austria are gathered that seem to lead a sometimes very loud conversation about the status quo of contemporary architecture (Hitoshi Abe, BUSarchitektur, Peter Cook, Zaha Hadid, NO MAD Arquitectos, Carme Pinós).

Flying high

International is also the number of architects who have inscribed themselves in the last few years with high-rise buildings in the skyline of Vienna and make St. Stephen's a not always unproblematic competition. Visible from afar is Massimiliano Fuksas' 138 and 127 meters high elegant Twin Tower at Wienerberg (1999-2001). The monolithic, 75-meter-high tower of the Hotel Sofitel at the Danube Canal by Jean Nouvel (2007-10), on the other hand, reacts to the particular urban situation and stages in its top floor new perspectives to the historical center on the other side.

Also at the water stands Dominique Perrault's DC Tower (2010-13) in the Danube City - those high-rise city, in which since the start of construction in 1996, the expansion of the city north of the Danube is condensed symbolically. Even in this environment, the slim and at the same time striking vertically folded tower of Perrault is beyond all known dimensions; from its Sky Bar, from spring 2014 on you are able to enjoy the highest view of Vienna. With 250 meters, the tower is the tallest building of Austria and almost twice as high as the St. Stephen's Cathedral. Vienna, thus, has acquired a new architectural landmark which cannot be overlooked - whether it also has the potential to become a landmark of the new Vienna, only time will tell. The architectural history of Vienna, where European history is presence and new buildings enter into an exciting and not always conflict-free dialogue with a great and outstanding architectural heritage, in any case has yet to offer exciting chapters.

Info: The folder "Architecture: From Art Nouveau to the Presence" is available at the Vienna Tourist Board and can be downloaded on www.wien.info/media/files/guide-architecture-in-wien.pdf.

Exploiting the cute factor with a teeny baby Vervet Monkey snuggling its mama, or at least one of the females in the group. There was some baby snatching happening while we watched this group and we were never sure which was the actual parent. September 17, 2016

The Exploits River is one of four large rivers that drain central Newfoundland. In the historic past, it served as the main route taken by the Beothuk Indians on their travels to the coast for the summer and to the interior for the fall caribou hunt and their winter camps.

 

This image was taken using a graduated neutral density filter to handle the extreme in tones.

 

A rain shower is approaching from the left.

Exploitant : RATP

Réseau : RATP

Ligne : 291

Lieu : Pont de Sèvres (Boulogne-Billancourt, F-92)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/24296

Exploitant : Transdev Montesson la Boucle

Réseau : Bus en Seine

Ligne : S5

Lieu : 3 Buttes (Carrières-sur-Seine, F-78)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/21404

Ganesha, also spelled Ganesh, and also known as Ganapati and Vinayaka, is a widely worshipped deity in the Hindu pantheon. His image is found throughout India and Nepal. Hindu sects worship him regardless of affiliations. Devotion to Ganesha is widely diffused and extends to Jains, Buddhists, and beyond India.

 

Although he is known by many attributes, Ganesha's elephant head makes him easy to identify. Ganesha is widely revered as the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. As the god of beginnings, he is honoured at the start of rituals and ceremonies. Ganesha is also invoked as patron of letters and learning during writing sessions. Several texts relate mythological anecdotes associated with his birth and exploits and explain his distinct iconography.

 

Ganesha emerged as a distinct deity in the 4th and 5th centuries CE, during the Gupta Period, although he inherited traits from Vedic and pre-Vedic precursors. He was formally included among the five primary deities of Smartism (a Hindu denomination) in the 9th century. A sect of devotees called the Ganapatya arose, who identified Ganesha as the supreme deity. The principal scriptures dedicated to Ganesha are the Ganesha Purana, the Mudgala Purana, and the Ganapati Atharvashirsa.

 

ETYMOLOGY AND OTHER NAMES

Ganesha has been ascribed many other titles and epithets, including Ganapati and Vighneshvara. The Hindu title of respect Shri is often added before his name. One popular way Ganesha is worshipped is by chanting a Ganesha Sahasranama, a litany of "a thousand names of Ganesha". Each name in the sahasranama conveys a different meaning and symbolises a different aspect of Ganesha. At least two different versions of the Ganesha Sahasranama exist; one version is drawn from the Ganesha Purana, a Hindu scripture venerating Ganesha.

 

The name Ganesha is a Sanskrit compound, joining the words gana, meaning a group, multitude, or categorical system and isha, meaning lord or master. The word gaņa when associated with Ganesha is often taken to refer to the gaņas, a troop of semi-divine beings that form part of the retinue of Shiva. The term more generally means a category, class, community, association, or corporation. Some commentators interpret the name "Lord of the Gaņas" to mean "Lord of Hosts" or "Lord of created categories", such as the elements. Ganapati, a synonym for Ganesha, is a compound composed of gaṇa, meaning "group", and pati, meaning "ruler" or "lord". The Amarakosha, an early Sanskrit lexicon, lists eight synonyms of Ganesha : Vinayaka, Vighnarāja (equivalent to Vighnesha), Dvaimātura (one who has two mothers), Gaṇādhipa (equivalent to Ganapati and Ganesha), Ekadanta (one who has one tusk), Heramba, Lambodara (one who has a pot belly, or, literally, one who has a hanging belly), and Gajanana; having the face of an elephant).

 

Vinayaka is a common name for Ganesha that appears in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. This name is reflected in the naming of the eight famous Ganesha temples in Maharashtra known as the Ashtavinayak (aṣṭavināyaka). The names Vighnesha and Vighneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) refers to his primary function in Hindu theology as the master and remover of obstacles (vighna).

 

A prominent name for Ganesha in the Tamil language is Pillai. A. K. Narain differentiates these terms by saying that pillai means a "child" while pillaiyar means a "noble child". He adds that the words pallu, pella, and pell in the Dravidian family of languages signify "tooth or tusk", also "elephant tooth or tusk". Anita Raina Thapan notes that the root word pille in the name Pillaiyar might have originally meant "the young of the elephant", because the Pali word pillaka means "a young elephant".

 

In the Burmese language, Ganesha is known as Maha Peinne, derived from Pali Mahā Wināyaka. The widespread name of Ganesha in Thailand is Phra Phikhanet or Phra Phikhanesuan, both of which are derived from Vara Vighnesha and Vara Vighneshvara respectively, whereas the name Khanet (from Ganesha) is rather rare.

 

In Sri Lanka, in the North-Central and North Western areas with predominantly Buddhist population, Ganesha is known as Aiyanayaka Deviyo, while in other Singhala Buddhist areas he is known as Gana deviyo.

 

ICONOGRAPHY

Ganesha is a popular figure in Indian art. Unlike those of some deities, representations of Ganesha show wide variations and distinct patterns changing over time. He may be portrayed standing, dancing, heroically taking action against demons, playing with his family as a boy, sitting down or on an elevated seat, or engaging in a range of contemporary situations.

 

Ganesha images were prevalent in many parts of India by the 6th century. The 13th century statue pictured is typical of Ganesha statuary from 900–1200, after Ganesha had been well-established as an independent deity with his own sect. This example features some of Ganesha's common iconographic elements. A virtually identical statue has been dated between 973–1200 by Paul Martin-Dubost, and another similar statue is dated c. 12th century by Pratapaditya Pal. Ganesha has the head of an elephant and a big belly. This statue has four arms, which is common in depictions of Ganesha. He holds his own broken tusk in his lower-right hand and holds a delicacy, which he samples with his trunk, in his lower-left hand. The motif of Ganesha turning his trunk sharply to his left to taste a sweet in his lower-left hand is a particularly archaic feature. A more primitive statue in one of the Ellora Caves with this general form has been dated to the 7th century. Details of the other hands are difficult to make out on the statue shown. In the standard configuration, Ganesha typically holds an axe or a goad in one upper arm and a pasha (noose) in the other upper arm.

 

The influence of this old constellation of iconographic elements can still be seen in contemporary representations of Ganesha. In one modern form, the only variation from these old elements is that the lower-right hand does not hold the broken tusk but is turned towards the viewer in a gesture of protection or fearlessness (abhaya mudra). The same combination of four arms and attributes occurs in statues of Ganesha dancing, which is a very popular theme.

 

COMMON ATTRIBUTES

Ganesha has been represented with the head of an elephant since the early stages of his appearance in Indian art. Puranic myths provide many explanations for how he got his elephant head. One of his popular forms, Heramba-Ganapati, has five elephant heads, and other less-common variations in the number of heads are known. While some texts say that Ganesha was born with an elephant head, he acquires the head later in most stories. The most recurrent motif in these stories is that Ganesha was created by Parvati using clay to protect her and Shiva beheaded him when Ganesha came between Shiva and Parvati. Shiva then replaced Ganesha's original head with that of an elephant. Details of the battle and where the replacement head came from vary from source to source. Another story says that Ganesha was created directly by Shiva's laughter. Because Shiva considered Ganesha too alluring, he gave him the head of an elephant and a protruding belly.

 

Ganesha's earliest name was Ekadanta (One Tusked), referring to his single whole tusk, the other being broken. Some of the earliest images of Ganesha show him holding his broken tusk. The importance of this distinctive feature is reflected in the Mudgala Purana, which states that the name of Ganesha's second incarnation is Ekadanta. Ganesha's protruding belly appears as a distinctive attribute in his earliest statuary, which dates to the Gupta period (4th to 6th centuries). This feature is so important that, according to the Mudgala Purana, two different incarnations of Ganesha use names based on it: Lambodara (Pot Belly, or, literally, Hanging Belly) and Mahodara (Great Belly). Both names are Sanskrit compounds describing his belly. The Brahmanda Purana says that Ganesha has the name Lambodara because all the universes (i.e., cosmic eggs) of the past, present, and future are present in him. The number of Ganesha's arms varies; his best-known forms have between two and sixteen arms. Many depictions of Ganesha feature four arms, which is mentioned in Puranic sources and codified as a standard form in some iconographic texts. His earliest images had two arms. Forms with 14 and 20 arms appeared in Central India during the 9th and the 10th centuries. The serpent is a common feature in Ganesha iconography and appears in many forms. According to the Ganesha Purana, Ganesha wrapped the serpent Vasuki around his neck. Other depictions of snakes include use as a sacred thread wrapped around the stomach as a belt, held in a hand, coiled at the ankles, or as a throne. Upon Ganesha's forehead may be a third eye or the Shaivite sectarian mark , which consists of three horizontal lines. The Ganesha Purana prescribes a tilaka mark as well as a crescent moon on the forehead. A distinct form of Ganesha called Bhalachandra includes that iconographic element. Ganesha is often described as red in color. Specific colors are associated with certain forms. Many examples of color associations with specific meditation forms are prescribed in the Sritattvanidhi, a treatise on Hindu iconography. For example, white is associated with his representations as Heramba-Ganapati and Rina-Mochana-Ganapati (Ganapati Who Releases from Bondage). Ekadanta-Ganapati is visualized as blue during meditation in that form.

 

VAHANAS

The earliest Ganesha images are without a vahana (mount/vehicle). Of the eight incarnations of Ganesha described in the Mudgala Purana, Ganesha uses a mouse (shrew) in five of them, a lion in his incarnation as Vakratunda, a peacock in his incarnation as Vikata, and Shesha, the divine serpent, in his incarnation as Vighnaraja. Mohotkata uses a lion, Mayūreśvara uses a peacock, Dhumraketu uses a horse, and Gajanana uses a mouse, in the four incarnations of Ganesha listed in the Ganesha Purana. Jain depictions of Ganesha show his vahana variously as a mouse, elephant, tortoise, ram, or peacock.

 

Ganesha is often shown riding on or attended by a mouse, shrew or rat. Martin-Dubost says that the rat began to appear as the principal vehicle in sculptures of Ganesha in central and western India during the 7th century; the rat was always placed close to his feet. The mouse as a mount first appears in written sources in the Matsya Purana and later in the Brahmananda Purana and Ganesha Purana, where Ganesha uses it as his vehicle in his last incarnation. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa includes a meditation verse on Ganesha that describes the mouse appearing on his flag. The names Mūṣakavāhana (mouse-mount) and Ākhuketana (rat-banner) appear in the Ganesha Sahasranama.

 

The mouse is interpreted in several ways. According to Grimes, "Many, if not most of those who interpret Gaṇapati's mouse, do so negatively; it symbolizes tamoguṇa as well as desire". Along these lines, Michael Wilcockson says it symbolizes those who wish to overcome desires and be less selfish. Krishan notes that the rat is destructive and a menace to crops. The Sanskrit word mūṣaka (mouse) is derived from the root mūṣ (stealing, robbing). It was essential to subdue the rat as a destructive pest, a type of vighna (impediment) that needed to be overcome. According to this theory, showing Ganesha as master of the rat demonstrates his function as Vigneshvara (Lord of Obstacles) and gives evidence of his possible role as a folk grāma-devatā (village deity) who later rose to greater prominence. Martin-Dubost notes a view that the rat is a symbol suggesting that Ganesha, like the rat, penetrates even the most secret places.

 

ASSOCIATIONS

 

OBSTACLES

Ganesha is Vighneshvara or Vighnaraja or Vighnaharta (Marathi), the Lord of Obstacles, both of a material and spiritual order. He is popularly worshipped as a remover of obstacles, though traditionally he also places obstacles in the path of those who need to be checked. Paul Courtright says that "his task in the divine scheme of things, his dharma, is to place and remove obstacles. It is his particular territory, the reason for his creation."

 

Krishan notes that some of Ganesha's names reflect shadings of multiple roles that have evolved over time. Dhavalikar ascribes the quick ascension of Ganesha in the Hindu pantheon, and the emergence of the Ganapatyas, to this shift in emphasis from vighnakartā (obstacle-creator) to vighnahartā (obstacle-averter). However, both functions continue to be vital to his character.

 

BUDDHI (KNOWLEDGE)

Ganesha is considered to be the Lord of letters and learning. In Sanskrit, the word buddhi is a feminine noun that is variously translated as intelligence, wisdom, or intellect. The concept of buddhi is closely associated with the personality of Ganesha, especially in the Puranic period, when many stories stress his cleverness and love of intelligence. One of Ganesha's names in the Ganesha Purana and the Ganesha Sahasranama is Buddhipriya. This name also appears in a list of 21 names at the end of the Ganesha Sahasranama that Ganesha says are especially important. The word priya can mean "fond of", and in a marital context it can mean "lover" or "husband", so the name may mean either "Fond of Intelligence" or "Buddhi's Husband".

 

AUM

Ganesha is identified with the Hindu mantra Aum, also spelled Om. The term oṃkārasvarūpa (Aum is his form), when identified with Ganesha, refers to the notion that he personifies the primal sound. The Ganapati Atharvashirsa attests to this association. Chinmayananda translates the relevant passage as follows:

 

(O Lord Ganapati!) You are (the Trinity) Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa. You are Indra. You are fire [Agni] and air [Vāyu]. You are the sun [Sūrya] and the moon [Chandrama]. You are Brahman. You are (the three worlds) Bhuloka [earth], Antariksha-loka [space], and Swargaloka [heaven]. You are Om. (That is to say, You are all this).

 

Some devotees see similarities between the shape of Ganesha's body in iconography and the shape of Aum in the Devanāgarī and Tamil scripts.

 

FIRST CHAKRA

According to Kundalini yoga, Ganesha resides in the first chakra, called Muladhara (mūlādhāra). Mula means "original, main"; adhara means "base, foundation". The muladhara chakra is the principle on which the manifestation or outward expansion of primordial Divine Force rests. This association is also attested to in the Ganapati Atharvashirsa. Courtright translates this passage as follows: "[O Ganesha,] You continually dwell in the sacral plexus at the base of the spine [mūlādhāra cakra]." Thus, Ganesha has a permanent abode in every being at the Muladhara. Ganesha holds, supports and guides all other chakras, thereby "governing the forces that propel the wheel of life".

 

FAMILY AND CONSORTS

Though Ganesha is popularly held to be the son of Shiva and Parvati, the Puranic myths give different versions about his birth. In some he was created by Parvati, in another he was created by Shiva and Parvati, in another he appeared mysteriously and was discovered by Shiva and Parvati or he was born from the elephant headed goddess Malini after she drank Parvati's bath water that had been thrown in the river.

 

The family includes his brother the war god Kartikeya, who is also called Subramanya, Skanda, Murugan and other names. Regional differences dictate the order of their births. In northern India, Skanda is generally said to be the elder, while in the south, Ganesha is considered the first born. In northern India, Skanda was an important martial deity from about 500 BCE to about 600 CE, when worship of him declined significantly in northern India. As Skanda fell, Ganesha rose. Several stories tell of sibling rivalry between the brothers and may reflect sectarian tensions.

 

Ganesha's marital status, the subject of considerable scholarly review, varies widely in mythological stories. One pattern of myths identifies Ganesha as an unmarried brahmacari. This view is common in southern India and parts of northern India. Another pattern associates him with the concepts of Buddhi (intellect), Siddhi (spiritual power), and Riddhi (prosperity); these qualities are sometimes personified as goddesses, said to be Ganesha's wives. He also may be shown with a single consort or a nameless servant (Sanskrit: daşi). Another pattern connects Ganesha with the goddess of culture and the arts, Sarasvati or Śarda (particularly in Maharashtra). He is also associated with the goddess of luck and prosperity, Lakshmi. Another pattern, mainly prevalent in the Bengal region, links Ganesha with the banana tree, Kala Bo.

 

The Shiva Purana says that Ganesha had begotten two sons: Kşema (prosperity) and Lābha (profit). In northern Indian variants of this story, the sons are often said to be Śubha (auspiciouness) and Lābha. The 1975 Hindi film Jai Santoshi Maa shows Ganesha married to Riddhi and Siddhi and having a daughter named Santoshi Ma, the goddess of satisfaction. This story has no Puranic basis, but Anita Raina Thapan and Lawrence Cohen cite Santoshi Ma's cult as evidence of Ganesha's continuing evolution as a popular deity.

 

WOSHIP AND FESTIVALS

Ganesha is worshipped on many religious and secular occasions; especially at the beginning of ventures such as buying a vehicle or starting a business. K.N. Somayaji says, "there can hardly be a [Hindu] home [in India] which does not house an idol of Ganapati. [..] Ganapati, being the most popular deity in India, is worshipped by almost all castes and in all parts of the country". Devotees believe that if Ganesha is propitiated, he grants success, prosperity and protection against adversity.

 

Ganesha is a non-sectarian deity, and Hindus of all denominations invoke him at the beginning of prayers, important undertakings, and religious ceremonies. Dancers and musicians, particularly in southern India, begin performances of arts such as the Bharatnatyam dance with a prayer to Ganesha. Mantras such as Om Shri Gaṇeshāya Namah (Om, salutation to the Illustrious Ganesha) are often used. One of the most famous mantras associated with Ganesha is Om Gaṃ Ganapataye Namah (Om, Gaṃ, Salutation to the Lord of Hosts).

 

Devotees offer Ganesha sweets such as modaka and small sweet balls (laddus). He is often shown carrying a bowl of sweets, called a modakapātra. Because of his identification with the color red, he is often worshipped with red sandalwood paste (raktacandana) or red flowers. Dūrvā grass (Cynodon dactylon) and other materials are also used in his worship.

 

Festivals associated with Ganesh are Ganesh Chaturthi or Vināyaka chaturthī in the śuklapakṣa (the fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of bhādrapada (August/September) and the Gaṇeśa jayanti (Gaṇeśa's birthday) celebrated on the cathurthī of the śuklapakṣa (fourth day of the waxing moon) in the month of māgha (January/February)."

 

GANESH CHATURTI

An annual festival honours Ganesha for ten days, starting on Ganesha Chaturthi, which typically falls in late August or early September. The festival begins with people bringing in clay idols of Ganesha, symbolising Ganesha's visit. The festival culminates on the day of Ananta Chaturdashi, when idols (murtis) of Ganesha are immersed in the most convenient body of water. Some families have a tradition of immersion on the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, or 7th day. In 1893, Lokmanya Tilak transformed this annual Ganesha festival from private family celebrations into a grand public event. He did so "to bridge the gap between the Brahmins and the non-Brahmins and find an appropriate context in which to build a new grassroots unity between them" in his nationalistic strivings against the British in Maharashtra. Because of Ganesha's wide appeal as "the god for Everyman", Tilak chose him as a rallying point for Indian protest against British rule. Tilak was the first to install large public images of Ganesha in pavilions, and he established the practice of submerging all the public images on the tenth day. Today, Hindus across India celebrate the Ganapati festival with great fervour, though it is most popular in the state of Maharashtra. The festival also assumes huge proportions in Mumbai, Pune, and in the surrounding belt of Ashtavinayaka temples.

 

TEMPLES

In Hindu temples, Ganesha is depicted in various ways: as an acolyte or subordinate deity (pãrśva-devatã); as a deity related to the principal deity (parivāra-devatã); or as the principal deity of the temple (pradhāna), treated similarly as the highest gods of the Hindu pantheon. As the god of transitions, he is placed at the doorway of many Hindu temples to keep out the unworthy, which is analogous to his role as Parvati’s doorkeeper. In addition, several shrines are dedicated to Ganesha himself, of which the Ashtavinayak (lit. "eight Ganesha (shrines)") in Maharashtra are particularly well known. Located within a 100-kilometer radius of the city of Pune, each of these eight shrines celebrates a particular form of Ganapati, complete with its own lore and legend. The eight shrines are: Morgaon, Siddhatek, Pali, Mahad, Theur, Lenyadri, Ozar and Ranjangaon.

 

There are many other important Ganesha temples at the following locations: Wai in Maharashtra; Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh; Jodhpur, Nagaur and Raipur (Pali) in Rajasthan; Baidyanath in Bihar; Baroda, Dholaka, and Valsad in Gujarat and Dhundiraj Temple in Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. Prominent Ganesha temples in southern India include the following: Kanipakam in Chittoor; the Jambukeśvara Temple at Tiruchirapalli; at Rameshvaram and Suchindram in Tamil Nadu; at Malliyur, Kottarakara, Pazhavangadi, Kasargod in Kerala, Hampi, and Idagunji in Karnataka; and Bhadrachalam in Andhra Pradesh.

 

T. A. Gopinatha notes, "Every village however small has its own image of Vighneśvara (Vigneshvara) with or without a temple to house it in. At entrances of villages and forts, below pīpaḹa (Sacred fig) trees [...], in a niche [...] in temples of Viṣṇu (Vishnu) as well as Śiva (Shiva) and also in separate shrines specially constructed in Śiva temples [...]; the figure of Vighneśvara is invariably seen." Ganesha temples have also been built outside of India, including southeast Asia, Nepal (including the four Vinayaka shrines in the Kathmandu valley), and in several western countries.

 

RISE TO PROMINENCE

 

FIRST APEARANCE

Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Shanti Lal Nagar says that the earliest known iconic image of Ganesha is in the niche of the Shiva temple at Bhumra, which has been dated to the Gupta period. His independent cult appeared by about the 10th century. Narain summarizes the controversy between devotees and academics regarding the development of Ganesha as follows:

 

What is inscrutable is the somewhat dramatic appearance of Gaņeśa on the historical scene. His antecedents are not clear. His wide acceptance and popularity, which transcend sectarian and territorial limits, are indeed amazing. On the one hand there is the pious belief of the orthodox devotees in Gaņeśa's Vedic origins and in the Purāṇic explanations contained in the confusing, but nonetheless interesting, mythology. On the other hand there are doubts about the existence of the idea and the icon of this deity" before the fourth to fifth century A.D. ... [I]n my opinion, indeed there is no convincing evidence of the existence of this divinity prior to the fifth century.

 

POSSIBLE INFLUENCES

Courtright reviews various speculative theories about the early history of Ganesha, including supposed tribal traditions and animal cults, and dismisses all of them in this way:

 

In the post 600 BC period there is evidence of people and places named after the animal. The motif appears on coins and sculptures.

 

Thapan's book on the development of Ganesha devotes a chapter to speculations about the role elephants had in early India but concludes that, "although by the second century CE the elephant-headed yakṣa form exists it cannot be presumed to represent Gaṇapati-Vināyaka. There is no evidence of a deity by this name having an elephant or elephant-headed form at this early stage. Gaṇapati-Vināyaka had yet to make his debut."

 

One theory of the origin of Ganesha is that he gradually came to prominence in connection with the four Vinayakas (Vināyakas). In Hindu mythology, the Vināyakas were a group of four troublesome demons who created obstacles and difficulties but who were easily propitiated. The name Vināyaka is a common name for Ganesha both in the Purāṇas and in Buddhist Tantras. Krishan is one of the academics who accepts this view, stating flatly of Ganesha, "He is a non-vedic god. His origin is to be traced to the four Vināyakas, evil spirits, of the Mānavagŗhyasūtra (7th–4th century BCE) who cause various types of evil and suffering". Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. According to Ellawala, the elephant-headed Ganesha as lord of the Ganas was known to the people of Sri Lanka in the early pre-Christian era.

 

A metal plate depiction of Ganesha had been discovered in 1993, in Iran, it dated back to 1,200 BCE. Another one was discovered much before, in Lorestan Province of Iran.

 

First Ganesha's terracotta images are from 1st century CE found in Ter, Pal, Verrapuram and Chandraketugarh. These figures are small, with elephant head, two arms, and chubby physique. The earliest Ganesha icons in stone were carved in Mathura during Kushan times (2nd-3rd centuries CE).

 

VEDIC AND EPIC LITERATURE

The title "Leader of the group" (Sanskrit: gaṇapati) occurs twice in the Rig Veda, but in neither case does it refer to the modern Ganesha. The term appears in RV 2.23.1 as a title for Brahmanaspati, according to commentators. While this verse doubtless refers to Brahmanaspati, it was later adopted for worship of Ganesha and is still used today. In rejecting any claim that this passage is evidence of Ganesha in the Rig Veda, Ludo Rocher says that it "clearly refers to Bṛhaspati—who is the deity of the hymn—and Bṛhaspati only". Equally clearly, the second passage (RV 10.112.9) refers to Indra, who is given the epithet 'gaṇapati', translated "Lord of the companies (of the Maruts)." However, Rocher notes that the more recent Ganapatya literature often quotes the Rigvedic verses to give Vedic respectability to Ganesha .

 

Two verses in texts belonging to Black Yajurveda, Maitrāyaṇīya Saṃhitā (2.9.1) and Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (10.1), appeal to a deity as "the tusked one" (Dantiḥ), "elephant-faced" (Hastimukha), and "with a curved trunk" (Vakratuņḍa). These names are suggestive of Ganesha, and the 14th century commentator Sayana explicitly establishes this identification. The description of Dantin, possessing a twisted trunk (vakratuṇḍa) and holding a corn-sheaf, a sugar cane, and a club, is so characteristic of the Puranic Ganapati that Heras says "we cannot resist to accept his full identification with this Vedic Dantin". However, Krishan considers these hymns to be post-Vedic additions. Thapan reports that these passages are "generally considered to have been interpolated". Dhavalikar says, "the references to the elephant-headed deity in the Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā have been proven to be very late interpolations, and thus are not very helpful for determining the early formation of the deity".

 

Ganesha does not appear in Indian epic literature that is dated to the Vedic period. A late interpolation to the epic poem Mahabharata says that the sage Vyasa (Vyāsa) asked Ganesha to serve as his scribe to transcribe the poem as he dictated it to him. Ganesha agreed but only on condition that Vyasa recite the poem uninterrupted, that is, without pausing. The sage agreed, but found that to get any rest he needed to recite very complex passages so Ganesha would have to ask for clarifications. The story is not accepted as part of the original text by the editors of the critical edition of the Mahabharata, in which the twenty-line story is relegated to a footnote in an appendix. The story of Ganesha acting as the scribe occurs in 37 of the 59 manuscripts consulted during preparation of the critical edition. Ganesha's association with mental agility and learning is one reason he is shown as scribe for Vyāsa's dictation of the Mahabharata in this interpolation. Richard L. Brown dates the story to the 8th century, and Moriz Winternitz concludes that it was known as early as c. 900, but it was not added to the Mahabharata some 150 years later. Winternitz also notes that a distinctive feature in South Indian manuscripts of the Mahabharata is their omission of this Ganesha legend. The term vināyaka is found in some recensions of the Śāntiparva and Anuśāsanaparva that are regarded as interpolations. A reference to Vighnakartṛīṇām ("Creator of Obstacles") in Vanaparva is also believed to be an interpolation and does not appear in the critical edition.

 

PURANIC PERIOD

Stories about Ganesha often occur in the Puranic corpus. Brown notes while the Puranas "defy precise chronological ordering", the more detailed narratives of Ganesha's life are in the late texts, c. 600–1300. Yuvraj Krishan says that the Puranic myths about the birth of Ganesha and how he acquired an elephant's head are in the later Puranas, which were composed from c. 600 onwards. He elaborates on the matter to say that references to Ganesha in the earlier Puranas, such as the Vayu and Brahmanda Puranas, are later interpolations made during the 7th to 10th centuries.

 

In his survey of Ganesha's rise to prominence in Sanskrit literature, Ludo Rocher notes that:

 

Above all, one cannot help being struck by the fact that the numerous stories surrounding Gaṇeśa concentrate on an unexpectedly limited number of incidents. These incidents are mainly three: his birth and parenthood, his elephant head, and his single tusk. Other incidents are touched on in the texts, but to a far lesser extent.

 

Ganesha's rise to prominence was codified in the 9th century, when he was formally included as one of the five primary deities of Smartism. The 9th-century philosopher Adi Shankara popularized the "worship of the five forms" (Panchayatana puja) system among orthodox Brahmins of the Smarta tradition. This worship practice invokes the five deities Ganesha, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, and Surya. Adi Shankara instituted the tradition primarily to unite the principal deities of these five major sects on an equal status. This formalized the role of Ganesha as a complementary deity.

 

SCRIPTURES

Once Ganesha was accepted as one of the five principal deities of Brahmanism, some Brahmins (brāhmaṇas) chose to worship Ganesha as their principal deity. They developed the Ganapatya tradition, as seen in the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana.

 

The date of composition for the Ganesha Purana and the Mudgala Purana - and their dating relative to one another - has sparked academic debate. Both works were developed over time and contain age-layered strata. Anita Thapan reviews comments about dating and provides her own judgement. "It seems likely that the core of the Ganesha Purana appeared around the twelfth and thirteenth centuries", she says, "but was later interpolated." Lawrence W. Preston considers the most reasonable date for the Ganesha Purana to be between 1100 and 1400, which coincides with the apparent age of the sacred sites mentioned by the text.

 

R.C. Hazra suggests that the Mudgala Purana is older than the Ganesha Purana, which he dates between 1100 and 1400. However, Phyllis Granoff finds problems with this relative dating and concludes that the Mudgala Purana was the last of the philosophical texts concerned with Ganesha. She bases her reasoning on the fact that, among other internal evidence, the Mudgala Purana specifically mentions the Ganesha Purana as one of the four Puranas (the Brahma, the Brahmanda, the Ganesha, and the Mudgala Puranas) which deal at length with Ganesha. While the kernel of the text must be old, it was interpolated until the 17th and 18th centuries as the worship of Ganapati became more important in certain regions. Another highly regarded scripture, the Ganapati Atharvashirsa, was probably composed during the 16th or 17th centuries.

 

BEYOND INDIA AND HINDUISM

Commercial and cultural contacts extended India's influence in western and southeast Asia. Ganesha is one of a number of Hindu deities who reached foreign lands as a result.

 

Ganesha was particularly worshipped by traders and merchants, who went out of India for commercial ventures. From approximately the 10th century onwards, new networks of exchange developed including the formation of trade guilds and a resurgence of money circulation. During this time, Ganesha became the principal deity associated with traders. The earliest inscription invoking Ganesha before any other deity is associated with the merchant community.

 

Hindus migrated to Maritime Southeast Asia and took their culture, including Ganesha, with them. Statues of Ganesha are found throughout the region, often beside Shiva sanctuaries. The forms of Ganesha found in Hindu art of Java, Bali, and Borneo show specific regional influences. The spread of Hindu culture to southeast Asia established Ganesha in modified forms in Burma, Cambodia, and Thailand. In Indochina, Hinduism and Buddhism were practiced side by side, and mutual influences can be seen in the iconography of Ganesha in the region. In Thailand, Cambodia, and among the Hindu classes of the Chams in Vietnam, Ganesha was mainly thought of as a remover of obstacles. Today in Buddhist Thailand, Ganesha is regarded as a remover of obstacles, the god of success.

 

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan had close cultural ties with India, and the adoration of both Hindu and Buddhist deities was practiced. Examples of sculptures from the 5th to the 7th centuries have survived, suggesting that the worship of Ganesha was then in vogue in the region.

 

Ganesha appears in Mahayana Buddhism, not only in the form of the Buddhist god Vināyaka, but also as a Hindu demon form with the same name. His image appears in Buddhist sculptures during the late Gupta period. As the Buddhist god Vināyaka, he is often shown dancing. This form, called Nṛtta Ganapati, was popular in northern India, later adopted in Nepal, and then in Tibet. In Nepal, the Hindu form of Ganesha, known as Heramba, is popular; he has five heads and rides a lion. Tibetan representations of Ganesha show ambivalent views of him. A Tibetan rendering of Ganapati is tshogs bdag. In one Tibetan form, he is shown being trodden under foot by Mahākāla, (Shiva) a popular Tibetan deity. Other depictions show him as the Destroyer of Obstacles, and sometimes dancing. Ganesha appears in China and Japan in forms that show distinct regional character. In northern China, the earliest known stone statue of Ganesha carries an inscription dated to 531. In Japan, where Ganesha is known as Kangiten, the Ganesha cult was first mentioned in 806.

 

The canonical literature of Jainism does not mention the worship of Ganesha. However, Ganesha is worshipped by most Jains, for whom he appears to have taken over certain functions of Kubera. Jain connections with the trading community support the idea that Jainism took up Ganesha worship as a result of commercial connections. The earliest known Jain Ganesha statue dates to about the 9th century. A 15th-century Jain text lists procedures for the installation of Ganapati images. Images of Ganesha appear in the Jain temples of Rajasthan and Gujarat.

 

WIKIPEDIA

GALLOWGLASS WARRIORS AT ROSCOMMON ABBEY

Bonnaught and Gallowglass,

throng from each mountain pass!

Onward for Erin!

O'Donnell abú!

 

The Gallowglass name is the anglicised form of the Irish words Gall Óglach meaning “Foreign Young Hero”

 

In contemporary Irish the word óglach is still in use and is usually translated as volunteer but there is nothing voluntary inherent to the Irish words. In fact they were paid mercenaries from Western Scotland and offered their services to the highest bidders.

 

The traditional view is that they were enlisted by the Gaelic lords of Ireland to help resist the arriving Normans. The appearance of these warriors on a Norman tomb indicates that it was far more likely that it was the Normans who enlisted their help against the native Irish. The Scots and Irish are both Gael and it is hard to imagine how they could be used against each other. This is mostly because we have a twisted view of history since the Nationalist Era (19th and early 20th centuries). The Gaelic tribes of Scotland had no real affinity with the Gaelic tribes of Ireland and vice versa. Worse still, the Gaelic clans of Scotland had no common link to the other Gaelic clans of Scotland and the Irish weren't that fond of each other either!!

 

In Mel Gibson’s version of Braveheart he applies nationalist romanticism in one of his battle scenes. Edward IV of England enlisted Irish mercenaries and Gibson has them changing sides in an epic of never-existent, romantic brotherhood. His representation of the Battle of Stirling Bridge is an epic for die-hard nationalists in Scotland and in Ireland. The fact that it was merely a skirmish at Stirling Bridge is overlooked. There isn't even a bridge in the movie. Art is allowed to use imagination; we simply shouldn’t believe them to be literal. Leonardo da Vinci omitted any women from his painting of the Lord’s Supper. The fact that it was a Passover meal was not foremost in his mind. The Passover was the one ritual meal where men and women ate together – da Vinci wasn’t painting a Gospel scene, he was painting a mural at the end of a refectory and reputedly did it as a continuation of the actual dining tables.

 

I digress!

 

The fact that there was no affinity between the Irish and Scots in the 12th century should not really come as a surprise. The use of divide and conquer (long associated with the British Empire) has been used far longer than we often admit. Romans, Saxons, Celts, Normans and Greeks all exploited local divisions to affect their own progress. It made sense. It was a lot cheaper to raise an army of local rivals than to march a full army into another person’s territory.

 

Bonnaughts are also mentioned in the song O’Donnell Abú. A bonnaught is a soldier that was paid lodgings and keep for his military service. From the references in most old texts the bonnaught referred to a tribute or payment to soldiers and appears to derive from the word bonn meaning a coin. The best translation would appear to be mercenary

 

Mercenaries and hirelings throng from the mountain passes - now there's an interesting lyric for nationalists!

 

Title: British Gangster & Exploitation Paperbacks Of The Postwar Years Vol 2.

Author: Maurice Flanagan.

Publisher: Zeon Books.

Date: 1997.

Artist: H. W. Perl.

Processed with VSCOcam with a6 preset

Ligne C6 - Arrêt : Procé

Exploitant : SEMITAN

Réseau TAN - Nantes

(RPI Book News) – What Art Spieglman’s Maus did for the graphic novel, The Hustitute aims to do for gay porn.

 

Just don’t call it gay porn.

 

So says Hieroynamus Cupid, author and illustrator of the massive 550-page graphic novel chronicling the exploits (and exploitation) of Ricky “Mr. Amazing” Marks – up-and-coming home theater salesman by day, down-and-dirty male prostitute by night.

 

For all his efforts, Cupid is getting slammed by critics at both ends.

 

“This is simply another attempt to promote the homosexual agenda and foist the gay lifestyle on our children,” says Henry Blamblather of the Family Values Council. “Let’s call it what it is. It’s a how-to manual for gay sex in comic book form, which makes it even more repugnant.”

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum comes this terse book review from Gay Today Magazine.

 

“The dialogue makes Rocky Balboa look like Noam Chomsky, the crudity of the drawings make Jack Chick look like Davinci, and the storyline is so appallingly out of touch with reality it makes the rantings of Ralph Reed sound downright authoritative. And as far as the hot and steamy sex scenes, frankly we’ve gotten more titillation out of a random episode of Will and Grace. So if that’s what you’re after, take your money and buy a Stallion Studios DVD. We rate this two willie’s down.”

 

On that count, Cupid said he made a conscious attempt to downplay the sexual content of the novel.

 

“I didn’t want it to be about gay sex. This isn’t porn. This is visual literature.” explains Cupid. “As it worked out the main character just happens to be an incredibly well-endowed, Adonis-like male prostitute. That’s just how the story played itself out.”

 

He says that at the start the project, he originally set out to tell the tale of how Helen Puddingbottoms, a small 6-year old girl in Ames, Iowa and her talking Cocker Spaniel “Lucky” rallied their hometown to stop the demolition of the ice cream & soda shop where her parents met..

 

“But when I started getting into it, the characters took on a life of their own,” he explains.

 

That claim somewhat strains credulity however when one reads the first 2 panes and sees how quickly the characters “took on a life of their own”.

 

Pane 1: “That could have been me. Helen Puddingbottoms and her dog Lucky. Just a girl and her dog walking past the ice cream soda shop down Main Street, Anytown, U.S.A.”

 

Pane 2: “Instead, I’m a male prostitute with the moniker ‘Mr. Amazing’ hustling johns in Alphabet City. And this is my steamy story…”

 

Hieronymus Cupid will be appearing this Friday for a book signing at the Midtown Barnes and Noble at 1:30 and followed by a 4:30 signing at Bob’s Beefhouse Book and Movie Emporium.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Band flier & graffiti on wall, 16th&South, Philadelphia, PA, manipulated

 

Imagine my disappointment after writing the above, do a search and find out that my imaginary graphic novel based on playing with this shot actually was real-life porn novel (but not a graphic novel!) from the 70’s called The Hustitute.. Actually, the shot is here.

 

The band’s from Philly and although I’ve never seen them, after checking out their myspace page I definitely want to. Give ‘em a listen.

 

(Swedish: Muminpappans bravader) Cover illustration of "The Exploits of Moominpappa", the fourth book in the series of Tove Jansson's Moomins books, a novel with illustrations, first published in 1950.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exploits_of_Moominpappa

From an exhibition at the Moomin Museum. The books were written and illustrated by Tove Jansson (1914-2001), a Swedish-speaking Finnish author, novelist, painter, illustrator and comic strip author.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tove_Jansson

Circuit F - Arrêt : Saint-Gilles

Exploitant : Transports Bethuizeau

Réseau Navettes Estivales - Pornic

In honor of the month of the military child, the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion (Aerial Exploitation) hosted a military child appreciation day on April 21. The unit hosted an open house tailored to children.

 

Both children and family members were treated to static displays consisting of unit equipment, vehicles, and reconnaissance aircraft. Children (and parents) were able to climb behind the wheel of an LMTV and a HEMMT. They were also able to pose for photos with M4 training aids otherwise known as ‘rubber ducks’.

B Company, 3rd MI BN (AE) had a static display of their GUARDRAIL RC-12 reconnaissance aircraft and A Company 3rd MI BN (AE) had a static display of their DHC-7 Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) multi- mission aircraft. Under the watchful eyes of Soldiers, who volunteered their time to demonstrate the equipment, the children were able to go inside unit aircraft and learn about the responsibilities and missions of their military parents.

 

While the 3rd MI BN (AE) aircraft and military vehicles made an impression, the USAG-Humphreys Military Police working dogs made a guest appearance and held a working dog demonstration. The MP’s demonstrated how their dogs are trained to sniff for drugs and to attack on command.

 

Military children are a critical part of the Army family and it was great for Soldiers to have the interaction with an enthusiastic audience and teach the children about the unit and its mission.

 

The event concluded with a Family Readiness Group Potluck Dinner. Children and Spouses, of the 3rd MI BN (AE) are looking forward to another fun filled open house this summer.

 

Courtesy photos

 

For more information on U.S. Army Garrison Humphreys and living and working in Korea visit: USAG-Humphreys' official web site or check out our online videos.

 

Exploitant : Keolis Rennes

Réseau : STAR (Rennes)

Ligne : 9

Lieu : Metz Volney (Rennes, F-35)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/34623

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

  

Some background:

The Medium Mark E "Stinger" was a British tank of the late First World War. It was a development of the Medium Mark A "Whippet" and intended to complement the slower British heavy tanks by using its relative mobility and speed in exploiting any break in the enemy lines.

 

On 3 October 1916 William Tritton, about to be knighted for developing the Mark I tank, proposed to the Tank Supply Committee that a faster and cheaper tank should be built to exploit gaps that the heavier but slow tanks made, an idea that up till then had been largely neglected since it had been at that time a typical cavalry task. An armored vehicle would have a much higher survivability, though, and the new tank was to be able to move in the same environment as the rhomboid-shaped tanks of the first generation.

 

The proposal was accepted on 10 November and approved by the War Office on 25 November 1916. Actual construction of the new tank type started on 21 December and it was designated "Mark A". The first prototype, nicknamed "Whippet" due to its (relatively) light structure and high speed, was equipped with a revolving turret taken from an Austin armored car — the first for a British tank design. It was ready on 3 February 1917 and participated in the tank trials day at Oldbury on 3 March. The next day, in a meeting with the French to coordinate allied tank production, the Commander-in-Chief of the British forces Field Marshal Haig ordered the manufacture of two hundred vehicles, the first to be ready on 31 July. Although he was acting beyond his authority, as usual, his decisions were confirmed in June 1917.

 

The first production tanks left the factory in October and they differed from the prototype in having a fixed crew compartment instead of the turret, a polygonal structure at the rear of the vehicle. Two engines of the type used in contemporary double-decker buses were in a forward compartment, each one driving a track separately. The Mark A was armed with four air-cooled machine guns and lacked a heavier cannon.

Two Mark As were delivered to the first unit to use them, F Battalion of the Tank Corps (later 6th Battalion), on 14 December 1917. In December 1917 the order was increased from 200 to 385, but this was later cancelled in favor of more advanced designs, leading to the Mark B, C, D and finally the E types.

 

Medium Mark B-D remained prototypes and introduced several novelties like a separate engine compartment, new transmission systems (the Mark A was complicated to drive since it was steered through the separate throttle input to its two engines), a smoke screen device installed in the exhaust system. However, these medium tanks became bigger and heavier (in excess of 20 tons), and their development appeared like a dead end.

As a short-term alternative, and certainly influenced by the highly successful light Renault FT tank from France, William Tritton proposed a modified variant of the Medium Mark A. It would incorporate many lessons learned from the Mark A's initial operational use in France, as well as proven innovations that had been tested so far in the Mark B-D prototypes and in other vehicles.

 

The resulting Medium Mark E tank was based on the Mark A chassis, but actually only the suspension system, the tracks and the hull’s floor were actually the same. The hull with the engine and crew compartment was thoroughly redesigned and their positions exchanged: The engine was moved to the back, while the crew’s compartment was moved to the front. The fuel tank was re-located from the front to a low position between the engine bay and the cabin. Through this shift of the center of gravity the Mark E was expected to have a much better climbing ability, despite the relatively low front idler wheel.

The Mark A's twin powerplant was replaced by a single Ricardo 4-cylinder petrol engine, which produced 105 hp (76 kW). It not only offered more power and torque than the former arrangement, it also was lighter and was coupled with a new sliding gear transmission that drove the tracks at the rear and featured four speeds forward, one reverse. One main clutch plus two subsidiary clutches (one for each of the two tracks) were used for steering the tank, a much more efficient arrangement than the former dual throttle/gearbox mechanism.

 

Another novelty was the re-introduction of a turret, mounted on top of the crew compartment close to the vehicle's front and with a free 360° arc of fire. The octagonal turret, made from riveted steel plates, just like the rest of the hull, furthermore featured a cupola for the commander at the top. It was fully operated by hand, though, and did not have a rotating floor.

As main armament the turret carried a light Vickers 2-pounder “pom-pom” gun, a 40 mm caliber rapid-fire gun, outfitted with a water-cooled barrel and a Vickers-Maxim mechanism. This weapon was originally ordered in 1915 by the Royal Navy as an anti-aircraft weapon for ships of cruiser size and below, but it had already been earmarked for the use on board of the early "Little Willie" tank. It was successfully tested for this application, but actually never mounted to this experimental vehicle, which never got beyond the prototype stage.

The Vickers 2-pounder was a versatile weapon, though, and added considerable firepower to the Medium tank class. It could fire single shells like an ordinary gun, but it could also be fed with hand-loaded fabric belts and fire automatically at up to 200 rpm (even though this figure was only theoretical, since the barrel would quickly overheat under constant fire or the firing mechanism would jam, esp. in the hot environment of a tank). Typically, short belts of 5 rounds each were used, almost exclusively consisting of explosive shells. A total of 275 rounds could be carried, 45 ready in the turret and the rest in racks in the lower hull. Beyond explosive rounds, the Vickers 2-pounder could also fire armor-piercing shells against fortified bunkers or enemy tanks, as well as shrapnel rounds against soft targets.

Three air-cooled 0.303 inch Hotchkiss machine guns in ball mounts in the lower hull, firing to the sides and forward, completed the vehicle’s armament. 3.000 rounds for the machine guns were carried. While the 2-pounder in the turret was operated by the commander and a dedicated gunner, the machine guns were operated from case to case by one or two assistant drivers who were also tasked with re-supplying the cannon ammunition from the racks in the lower hull.

 

A prototype was built from an unfinished Mark A chassis at Fosters of Lincoln in just six weeks, and, since it was based on an existing design, the trials were radically shortened on behalf of the British Tank Supply Committee. 200 Medium Mark E tanks were almost blindly ordered in late 1917, and production immediately started, even though the output numbers were only limited and detail improvements were made while the tanks went through the workshops.

 

The Stingers' first operational use was, grouped in so-called “X-companies” attached to larger units made of heavy Mk. IV and V tanks, the Amiens offensive on 8 August 1918, which was described by the German supreme commander General Ludendorff, as "the Black Day of the German Army". Behind the heavy British tank the Stingers effectively broke through into the German rear areas causing the loss of the artillery in an entire front sector, a devastating blow from which the Germans were unable to recover.

 

Until the end of the war, only a total of 56 Stingers had been completed and delivered to the troops, the rest of the order was cancelled and the unfinished hulls scrapped. Only about twenty Medium Mark E tanks survived and were soon relegated to training units. In front line service, the Medium Mark E was soon replaced by the Vickers Medium Mark I from 1924 onwards, which introduced a suspension that allowed much higher road and cross-country speed, as well as many features that set the conceptual standard for modern tanks.

  

Specifications:

Crew: 4-5 (commander, gunner/loader, driver, 1-2x mechanic/assistant driver/machine gun operator)

Weight: 16.5 t

Length: 20 ft (6.10 m)

Width: 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)

Height: 10 ft 1 in (3.06 m)

Suspension: none (unsprung)

Ground clearance: 1 ft 1 in (33 cm)

 

Armor:

14 – 22 mm (0.55 – 0.87 in)

 

Performance:

Speed: 8.5 mph (14 km/h) on even ground

Operational range: 240 km (150 mi)

Power/weight: 12,96 PS/tonne (11,5 hp/ton)

 

Engine:

1Í Ricardo 4-cylinder petrol engine with 105 hp (76 kW)

Transmission:

Fosters of Lincoln sliding gear transmission (four speeds forward, one reverse)

Armament:

1× Vickers 2-pounder (1.57”/40mm) rapid-fire gun

3× 7.92 mm Hotchkiss machine guns

  

The kit and its assembly:

This build was inspired by whiffy EMHAR 1:72 Medium Mark A, built by fellow modeler RAFF-35 at whatifmodelers.com. The WWI tank had been thoroughly modified through a simple reverse of the tracks, so that the engine would now be placed at the rear and the crew compartment at the front, with some modifications like a new driver’s hatch and an alcove for a forward-firing gun. I liked the idea and kept it in the back of my mind, and recently got hold of the EMHAR kit.

 

The basic concept would be the same, but I wanted a further update in the form of a turret, so that the tank would feature a “modern” layout like the next generation Vickers Medium tank.

 

The EMHAR kit is very simple, with molded tracks, and it basically goes together well. However, in my conversion almost nothing remained at its original place! The tracks were built and taken OOB, just the mud chutes had to be painted before the assembly because the interior remains well visible, but the opening don’t allow any delicate painting inside (see below).

 

The central hull was reversed and the new front end received a raised underside. Then the engine cover was added and the tank was installed – also onto the new front. Since the reversed tracks were now relatively higher than on the Whippet’s original layout, I decided to discard the original crew compartment and scratch a new one, also with regard to the addition of a turret which would necessitate a lower and flat roof.

The new superstructure was created from single panels from the original cabin (e.g. using the machine gun portholes) and styrene sheet material. The boxy design of WWI tanks made this feat quite easy, and only a few seams had to be filled with putty.

 

Originally I planned to use an early Valentine turret, but found it to look too modern for the rest of the vehicle. Luckily I found an early M3 Stewart turret in my stash (from the Hasegawa kit) as an alternative donor part, and it turned out to be the much better choice. It was taken almost OOB, I just modified the gun barrel to resemble a typical Vickers 2-pounder barrel and muzzle, modified the gun mantlet, and the attachment point for the M3’s AA machine gun disappeared.

I also used the commander figure from the M3 kit and left the cupola hatch open – I just replaced the figure’s head, so that it would (more) resemble a British WWI officer.

 

Once the basic structure was completed, I added some air vents and visor slits made from styrene material and replaced/added rivets with white glue. As an additional detail I added a pair of prongs to the front – I found a help to overcome barbed wire obstacles with the relatively low front tracks to be quite plausible, and it supports the vehicle’s overall “edgy” look.

  

Painting and markings:

Well, this is not really authentic, but I wanted “something different”. British late WWI tanks were, after 1916, typically painted in a uniform dark khaki drab or earth brown, with red and white ID markings. However, I found this option to be quite dull, since there had been some, well, creative alternatives a little while earlier.

One of these were the Solomon schemes, christened by their inventor and typically applied to the early Mark I and IV tanks in France. These were disruptive multi-color schemes, sometimes edged with more or less wide black stripes. Even though there was a standard to be followed, frontline units painted the vehicles AFAIK with much freedom, and if you try to find references, there’s the impression of “anything goes”.

 

My interpretation of the Solomon scheme consists of no less than five colors (sand yellow, blue-grey, medium green, red brown and dark brown) plus black demarcation lines. Painting was done with Humbrol enamels (94, 87, 252, 113 and 173) and thinned Revell 9 (Tar black) for the lines, everything done with brushes. The tracks were painted separately, before the final assembly of the model, with an irregular mix of iron, grey and some red brown.

 

After that, decals were added (taken mostly from the OOB sheet, I just used a different vehicle name) and sealed with acrylic varnish. Next, the model received a wash with a highly thinned reddish brown (acrylic paints), a dry brushing treatment with light grey and sand, and finally some mud was simulated around the lower hull with an individual mix of brown artist pigments: initially, the lower model surfaces were wetted with water and then pigments were rubbed into it with a short brush, in order to create a mud-like paste for the running gear area. Then, once cured, more dry pigments were applied with a big, soft brush, simulating dust in the upper hull regions. This considerably toned the camouflage colors down, and confirms the real life practice of painting tanks in just a uniform brownish khaki tone, because the dirt and mud from the battlefield would soon cover any elaborate camouflage pattern!

  

An unusual project, and the result is certainly “different”. Creating the new superstructure from bits and pieces was a tedious effort, but I think the result does not look implausible? The resulting tank looks a lot like an XXL size Renault FT, and the silhouette reminds me a lot of the later French Somua S-35 tank? The paint scheme is certainly weird, but I think that – despite the bright colors – it would be quite effective in a “normal” environment. Not certain how it would have fared in the blasted no man’s land of WWI, though?

 

Who benefits when there are more workers than jobs? Powerful people? Rich people? People who advertise in the major media?

Who benefits when members of their political party have children? Who benefits when members of their religious faith have children? Who benefits when citizens have children who can be drafted into the military? Just asking.

Delhi.

Exploitant : Transdev TVO

Réseau : Bus en Seine

Ligne : H

Lieu : Gare de Houilles – Carrières-sur-Seine (Houilles, F-78)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/35122

Exploitant : Cars Lacroix

Réseau : Valoise

Lieu : Léon Feix (Argenteuil, F-95)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/20708

Exploitant : Keolis Argenteuil Boucles de Seine

Réseau : IDF Mobilités – Argenteuil – Boucles de Seine

Ligne : B

Lieu : Gare de Sartrouville (Sartrouville, F-78)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/vehicule/14525

Clin d'oeil à l'exploit de la sonde Rosetta et de son robot Philae qui s'est posé sur la comète au nom imprononçable.

2014 odyssée de l'espace

 

J'aime cette structure, vous aviez remarqué peut-être.

A mon avis, c'est finalement l'extérieur qui vole la vedette à l'intérieur

Exploits River, GFW, NL

These old-school B movies were released in the early-VHS cycle small box format. "Vampire Hookers," helmed by the legendary Cirio Santiago, enjoyed at least one Korean VHS reissue later in the 80s. The mad scientist outing "Prisoners of the Lost Universe" (1983) appears to have a goofy 'faux arts' cover promising bikini-ed screams. Rare first-editions.

"Yeah, so you got Creative Commons on your side. Yeah, so the band and artist said it was CC too, and they never made a penny outta it? Ain't they the fools.

 

Read our conditions, and remember, we decide. See them fat lawyers over there? We'll grass you over to the trolls so they can litigate til you run outta money. We're the judge, and if we take you down, there ain't a thing you can do about it. You gonna try fighting it, pretty thing? Go on, you gonna try? I dares yer."

 

YT: "Your dispute wasn't approved.

The claimant has reviewed their claim and has confirmed it was valid.

You may be able to appeal this decision, but if the claimant disagrees with your appeal, you could end up with a strike on your account."

 

As I provided evidence about the music on my video with my original dispute, it seems rather unlikely the claimant is going to suddenly realise they have made an unfortunate error 24 hours later. I know the artist hasn't made a penny out of it, so why should others monetise it?

 

'Shot' at Missing Mile Dark Rural Community: maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Soap/80/127/27

 

'Less than Zilch'. Proudly Creative Commons on Vimeo: vimeo.com/136958109

Translation / Traduction 🇬🇧 UK

● 1st tram with the Ilévia color.

● 2nd day of exploitation to the Ilévia color.

● 3rd Delivered ( Color ).

Bye Bye Transpole, Hello Ilévia ( New brand since February 28th, 2019 )

 

Translation / Traduction 🇫🇷 Fr.

● 1er tramway avec la couleur Ilévia.

● 2ème jour d'exploitation Tram n° 01 au nouvelle couleur Ilévia.

● 3ème livrée ( couleur ).

Bye Bye Transpole, Hello Ilévia ( Nouvelle marque depuis le 28 février 2019 )

 

Tramway de Lille Roubaix Tourcoing.

Parc : 24 Tramways

 

Fiche technique :

- Longueur : 29.6 mètres

- Largeur : 2,4 mètres

- Hauteur : 3,425 mètres

- Masse à vide : 40 tonnes

- Capacité avant ◄ 2015 : 200 personnes

( 50 assises et 150 debout )

- Capacité évolué après rénovation ( voir ci-dessous )

- Capacité après ► 2016 : 245 personnes

( 40 assises et 205 debout )

- Vitesse maxi : 80 km/h

- Captage : pantographe unijambiste Faiveley

- Ecartement : voie métrique ( 1 mètre )

- Constructeur : Breda Costruzioni Ferroviaire

Source : Trans'Lille

www.translille.com/spip.php?article4

 

Exploitant ►Ilévia ( Site officiel )

www.ilevia.fr/fr/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsK7duc3k4AIViZ3VCh3HD...

 

Ilévia ( Wikipédia )

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il%C3%A9via

 

Tramway de Lille - Roubaix - Tourcoing ( Wikipédia )

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway_de_Lille_-_Roubaix_-_Tourcoing

 

Breda ( Wikipédia )

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_VLC

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_costruzioni_ferroviarie

 

Liste des tramways de France

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_tramways_de_France

 

Moomo Design Blog take on Fur Neil poster

Exploitant : Transdev TVO

Réseau : R'Bus (Argenteuil)

Ligne : 9

Lieu : Gare d'Argenteuil (Argenteuil, F-95)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/37467

"Street in the shade"

 

Avignon (Vaucluse - Juin 2019)

 

Website : www.fluidr.com/photos/pat21

 

"Copyright © – Patrick Bouchenard

The reproduction, publication, modification, transmission or exploitation of any work contained here in for any use, personal or commercial, without my prior written permission is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved."

Are you ready for one last ride furious family? Get ready as we continue the global exploits in this unstoppable franchise built on speed with Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and Dwayne Johnson lead the returning cast of Furious 7. James Wan directs this chapter of the hugely successful series that also welcomes back favorites Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Elsa Pataky and Lucas Black. They are joined by international action stars new to the franchise including Jason Statham, Djimon Hounsou, Tony Jaa, Ronda Rousey, Nathalie Emmanuel and Kurt Russell.

Exploitant : Transdev TVO

Réseau : R'Bus (Argenteuil)

Ligne : 3

Lieu : Pont de Bezons (Bezons, F-95)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/25202

Exploitant : Keolis Argenteuil Boucles de Seine

Réseau : IDF Mobilités – Argenteuil – Boucles de Seine

Lieu : Gare de Houilles – Carrières-sur-Seine (Houilles, F-78)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/vehicule/35146

Tompiro speakers lived in a pueblo at the Gran Quivira site through good and bad times for about 700 years. In the last half century, Franciscan calls for labor to build this church and convento at Mission San Buenaventura drew people away from critical tasks of subsistence, contributing to the abandonment of the site by both pueblo people and Franciscans in 1671.

 

Gran Quivira No. 3 in my Salinas Pueblo Missions album.

C'était l'exploit sportif à faire durant ces vacances : l'ascension du Piton des Neiges ! Il y a trois grands itinéraires pour y parvenir : via Cilaos, via Hell-Bourg (cirque de Salazie) ou via la Plaine des Cafres. Nous choisissons donc l'itinéraire le plus simple, enfin, façon de parler...

 

Nous voici donc après quelques mètres de grimpette face à une vue sympathique sur la ville de Cilaos et sur le cirque qui a pris son nom. Une montée de cinq heures nous attend maintenant : 1100 mètres de dénivelé sont au programme pour atteindre le gite du Piton, ou nous passerons la nuit.

Ellipsis Eclipses is a 9m high glass sculpture which stands outside The Gate complex on Newgate Street, Newcastle. The sculpture, by Danny Lane, was commissioned by the Grainger Town Partnership and was unveiled in March 2005.

 

Danny Lane (born 27 January 1955) is an American artist, best known for his glass and steel sculpture. Lane is also known for his work in art furniture and contemporary design. He lives and works in London.

 

Lane came to attention in the 1980s through his art furniture. He moved into large-scale public sculpture in the 1990s, being responsible in 2006 for Borealis, believed to be the largest glass sculpture in the world. Lane's work can be found in public spaces and collections worldwide, such as London Underground, Canary Wharf Plc, Victoria & Albert Museum, Microsoft, British Land Plc, Rolex UK, British Airports Authority, Swire Properties (Hong Kong) and General Motors (USA).

 

To construct his glass sculptures, Lane exploits the strength of glass under compression and its qualities of luminosity. This approach expands on traditional methods of glass and metal smithing and has resulted in a varied body of work, from monumental structures made from industrial float glass and steel, to coloured glass sculpture, casts and design objects.

 

Education and early work

Lane was born in 1955 in Urbana, Illinois, in the United States. During his childhood, his family moved many times, from Virginia to West Germany, New York City’s Greenwich Village and finally Baltimore. Travelling through Europe exposed Lane to a wide range of art and architecture.

 

Lane moved to the United Kingdom in 1975 to begin an apprenticeship with stained-glass artist Patrick Reyntiens at Burleighfield House in Buckinghamshire, and then Ruskin School, Oxford, before attending a foundation course in Fine Art at the Byam Shaw School of Art in London.

 

Reyntiens recommended Lane to the Central School of Art & Design, London, where he trained as a painter under artist Cecil Collins, whose personal philosophy and method of teaching influenced Lane's own creative development. As well as teaching Lane how to be analytical about materials, Collins introduced him to concepts of mysticism and the spirituality of art.

 

1980s and Design Objects

Though now well known for his large-scale public artworks, Lane was first known in the 1980s for the construction of his design objects and art furniture. These objects often have functional names, but frequently venture into abstraction.

 

In 1981, Lane established his first studio in London's East End, Hackney, where time spent in local workshops gave him a respect for traditional craftsmanship, and saw him begin to accumulate stacks of metal, glass and wood with which to experiment. Lane then began developing objects using industrial float glass, and by the mid-1980s he was experimenting with assemblage, uniting found materials in his furniture.

 

During this period in the early 1980s, Lane met designer Ron Arad. Within a year of their meeting, he was offered his first solo exhibition at Arad's influential shop One Off in Shelton Street, London, where he showed several works including Romeo and Juliet table (1984). In 1984 Lane exhibited abroad for the first time at the International Furniture Fair in Milan, making folding glass screens with sandblasted and acid etched drawings.

 

In 1986, Lane began to exhibit work at London's Themes & Variations gallery. During these early years, he developed a series of editioned works and by the end of the 1980s, Lane had exhibited work at solo shows in London, Paris and Milan.

 

Best known from this period, Lane's Etruscan Chair (1985) is featured in several museum collections. The piece was constructed from inch-thick float glass, industrial nuts and bolts, forged stainless steel and aluminium.

 

Another work from this period is Angaraib (1987), which takes its name from the traditional Sudanese rope-bed, united with the concept of the North American Indian 'horse travois'. The work is constructed from the branches of a storm damaged London plane tree, bound together with hemp rope, on top of which sits a raft of glass.

 

By 1989, Lane's focus on larger-scale works required him to move to his current studio and gallery where he is still based today, a 10,000 square foot converted factory in Willesden, West London. The studio employs a team of technicians and is equipped with glass furnaces, kilns, offices and an exhibition space.

 

Public Sculpture

In the early 1990s, Lane's focus shifted to making large-scale glass and steel sculptures for public and corporate spaces. Lane's first public commissions occurred in the late 1980s, including Stacked Glass Fountain (1986) in Miami, Florida and etched glass screens and a wall sculpture for the British Embassy in Helsinki in 1989, both of which contained elements that provided the basis for later work.

 

From 1989 to 1990, Lane travelled to Tokyo and Osaka in Japan to produce new commissions. Further work followed during 1991-93 across China, Spain and London and Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, including Wave Wall (1993) for Dalian Glass Company, China, which saw Lane experimenting with curving glass walls that refract light.

 

In 1994, Lane was commissioned by the Victoria & Albert Museum, London to create a glass balustrade for their new Glass Gallery. The balustrade is made up of 140 pillars of cut glass, lining the stairs leading to a glass mezzanine floor

 

In 1996, the steel and glass sculpture Man Catching A Star was commissioned for the Wembley Stadium approach in London. More public sculptures followed over subsequent years, including glass water sculptures in China and India, Pantheon for Henley Festival in 2000 and The Presence of Seven (2002) in Meadville, Pennsylvania.

 

Borealis, 2006

In 2003, Lane made Parting of the Waves for Canary Wharf Plc, East London. The work is a 4m high, 10m long ribbon of glass running each side of the north entrance. It was constructed from 2000 narrow strips of glass, which are locked into place by their own weight.

 

The following year in 2004, Opening Line, a 90-m long public sculpture, was created for the Gateshead public transport interchange, Nexus at Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. The work contains multiple references to the local culture and history of Gateshead, such as engineering and maritime culture. Also in 2004, Ellipsis Eclipses was made for Newcastle’s city centre, situated outside The Gate entertainment centre.

 

2005 saw further public sculptures produced including Assembly Field at the National Assembly for Wales in Cardiff and Stairway, for Cass Sculpture Foundation in the UK. Stairway is a glass and steel construction that rises up into the sky with no landing platform, designed to be reminiscent of Jacob's Ladder.

 

In May 2006, Lane produced Borealis for the General Motors Renaissance Center in Detroit, USA, which is believed to be the largest glass sculpture in existence. The work was inspired by the Aurora Borealis, a spectacle that Lane references in the refraction of light through the numerous strips of glass.

 

Colour Eclipse was made in 2009 for Bishopsgate's Broadgate Tower in London, one of many coloured glass works created in this period using furnace technology. Other coloured glass works such as Blue Moon demonstrated this method on a smaller scale.

 

In 2010, Lane produced Threshold, commissioned by the Mint Museum in Charlotte, North Carolina. Coloured glass objects arranged behind the curving glass wall were backlit to produce numerous shifting reflections, while the title Threshold directly references Lane's interest in the metaphysical experience of art.

 

In recent years, Aether (2013) was produced for the window of Marble Arch House, London, commissioned by British Land Plc.

 

Steel Work

When first working with metal, Lane did not have his own forge or know how to weld, yet his interest in this process resulted in several pieces early in his career. Lane cites the origin of his interest in steel as his admiration for the work of Antoni Gaudi, and especially the work of Josep Maria Jujol at Gaudí's Casa Milà in Barcelona.

 

Early in his career, Lane produced RSJ Table (1985). Moscow Bar, designed the following year in 1986 with Simon Holbrook, was an interior installation, comprising bar, tables and chairs for the Moscow Club on Soho's Frith Street, London.

 

The late 1980s saw Lane shift into large-scale metal work. Lane developed methods of heating steel, making it possible to bend metal freely into what he calls "steel drawings," which are produced to function much like industrial-scale automatic drawings. An example of this work is Saddle (2006), in which a twisted metallic ribbon supports a glass tabletop.

 

Carved and fuse casts

Lane has experimented with new methods in recent years, producing new non-commissioned sculptural works. Progressing from early explorations with glass casting, Lane has coined a new process as ‘carved casts’, in which he spontaneously cuts into the mold material. This creates thick reliefs when melted into the carved molds.

 

These ‘carved casts’ were influenced by Lane's admiration for ancient traditions of stone carving and classical sculpture relief.

 

Style and process

Lane has developed a "post-tensioning" method that exploits the strength of glass under compression, a process he refers to as 'shish-kebabing'. This is achieved by threading a steel rod through layered glass. His Stacking Chair (1986) was the first demonstration of this technique, now in the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum, London.

 

Lane frequently incorporates smooth pieces of glass with broken edges (polished to safety). He has also created glass screens, in which he draws images on glass through acid-etching. As well as these monumental works in industrial float glass, timbers and forged steel have played a growing role in his repertoire.

 

Lane sees his art as fundamentally metaphysical and experimental. He works intuitively, conscious of maintaining elements of accident and chance in his work.

 

Lane's early training in drawing and fine art has remained a cornerstone of his technique throughout his career. He has produced thousands of drawings, which provide the initial concepts for many of his sculptures.

 

Personal life

Danny Lane lives in Maida Vale, West London. His father, M. Daniel Lane, was a scientist and his mother was an art historian and environmentalist. He has two children, Lauren and Joseph.

Exploitant : Cars Lacroix

Réseau : ValParisis

Ligne : 30-05

Lieu : Gare de Sartrouville (Sartrouville, F-78)

Lien TC Infos : tc-infos.fr/id/21883

Patrouilleur type Archer.

Patrol vessel Archer class.

Me left, Eds right, and Wattie Buchan (of The Exploited) second from right.