Ok. Let us start with the your initial post.
Jiroft, probably to be identified with the City of Aratta known from Sumerian texts, was like Sumeria itself almost certainly a Dravidian culture,
maintaining trade links with the Harappan culture of the Indus valley, in a sense the missing link between Sumerian and Harappan culture.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that Jiroft/Aratta and Sumeria was a "Dravidian" Culture?
What do you understand by the term "Dravidian"?
there is a proposition that the Jiroft Culture is an Independent bronze age culture.
How does Dravidian culture come into the picture when it is an independent bronze age culture/civilization?
Your iconography is iconography only. not substantiated by science. You bring in science to speculate that the iconography which you mention in your
post does indeed point out a star-gate allegory.
Gentleman, what you refer to as the "Mountain in the Horizon" in your post is nothing but graphical representation of The Ziggurat.
Now, you would argue that the Ziggurat is a symbolic representation of the Mountain in the Horizon. Then would go to the extent and say that even the
Pyramid would be the symbolic representation of the Mountain in the Horizon.
It can be seen that the portals are placed in the context of a general architectural setting, and thus archaeologists somewhat lazily conclude this is
merely representation of the general city, however it must be noted the Egyptians contextualized their Doorways of the Horizon of Heaven in terms of a
Palace Facade, and that this can be seen as representative of the Heavens, thus the mundane reflects the Heavenly;
On what basis do you arrive at this explanation?
Just because "you" think that the graphical representations on the plates, mugs , cylinders are all fitting your theory?
Is your theory acceptable to the scientific or archaeological or historical community?
or is it just your pet theory?
taking the artefacts into consideration?
Why cant the creators of the artefacts have a creative license? Do they have to confirm to some sort of standardized iconography? Each artisan has his
or her own creative philosophy. Why cant the artisans of the jiroft era/culture have some sort of creative license?
Artisans would naturally craft into their creation, the most popular themes of their times, repetitive patterns, patterns that were pleasing to the
eyes of the people of their times.
Do the patterns and themes compulsorily have to represent the ideology of the jiroft culture??
Nothing in the artifices or images indicate anything relating to Stargate.
it is you yourself who is stressing on the term Stargate.
You are finding star-gates everywhere you want to. not that there were star-gates in every object or pattern that was discussed. You want to find
star-gates everywhere and so you found them.
That is what i wrote about Deliberate Pareidolia
Just because some images indicated a domed or parabolic shape, you put in the scientific part of the tale.
Sinusoidal forms can be viewe3d everywhere. In inannas breasts, it mountains. it is just because, the shapes are as such. There is no scientific
theory in the picture.
Human hair is wavy. if there is a graphical representation of a human( a woman) with wavy hair in jiroft artefacts, you would have associated some
scientific aspect to the wavy nature of the hair and would have brought in star gates into it too.
Your specialist art history experience should be applied as symbolic and not as scientific.
Why bring Gobekli Tepe and its carvings into the picture? Just because there was a criss cross pattern you found on one of the carvings which you felt
could match the worm hole theory and voila you got a star-gate science.
is there any connection between the Jiroft culture and the culture that built Gobekli Tepe ??
As far as we know, nothing.
But you are hell bent on linking them because if you could link both, your wormhole theory or essentially the star-gate theory has plausibility.
Essentially you are twisting every image you find to suit your pet theory.
Now isn't that fantastic?
Now isn't that so fringe-ish?
of course it is - fringe.
I do not possess any Specialist art history experience.
I do have a reasonable knowledge on archaeology and history.
But i do possess an analytical mind rich with common sense, which you also possess but which your deliberately refuse to exercise since it would
contradict your theories.
have a nice day.