Monday, February 3, 2014

Shun Racist instincts and intentions in research - an appeal from Dr S. Kalyanaraman.


From

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/02/dangers-posed-by-comparative-mythology.html


 

Dangers posed by comparative mythology theories which are camouflaged 'race' studies

Imagining categories of people

The world has been witness to devastations caused by racism, as a theory, resulting in the massacres of millions of innocent people.  For example, assuming racial superiority of redheads, and imagining an entire community of people called a Jew as hate symbols, horrendous genocides and holocaust have been perpetrated in engineered mass hysteria. The problem arises from creating false categories of people.

Imagining the white-man's burden to save or redeem sinful souls or to civilize tribal 'natives', evangelical activities continue unabated to indulge in the violence of 'religious' conversions rendering a united family relationship into smithereens.

Premised on the superiority of a race, books like Catherine Mayo's account of India have also appeared which Mahatma Gandhi labeled as a Drain-inspector's report.

Such misdirected, motivated approaches in searching for the roots of or categorizing communities have led to establishment of colonial regimes until the last century. The root cause is the denial of the imperative of recognizing all living phenomena as demanding of respect for common human dignity and the environment we live in as demanding of diligent care to be sustained to protect present and future generations.

The new kid on the block for pursuing racist agendas in academic studies is the category called 'comparative mythology'. This category lacks its own methodological tools and draws upon a variety of other disciplines. The underlying danger of this category is the perpetuation of 'race' studies.

Camouflaged 'race' studies

First, attempts were made citing Biblical inputs of the Tower of Babel, breaking up the world into distinct races descending from some specific, named individuals. Similar attempts are now being tried out using comparative studies of gene sequences.

Mythology studies quickly degenerate into race studies. Witzel's book is a good example because the underlying assumption providing a framework for the book is an assumption of racial superiority of groups such as redheads.

In studies attempting to trace the 'roots' of communities, many failed attempts using questionable analytical frameworks can be cited. As we delve into the mists of time into distant pasts, we have limited evidences to access.

One framework is from a discipline called 'archaeology' which results in comparison of artifacts unearthed from digs and in some cases, using decoded epigraphs from archaeological sites.

A second framework is from a discipline called 'anthropology' which has resulted in a plethora of 'ethnic' studies.

A third framework is from a discipline called 'linguistics' premised on the assumption that language features and their travels across space and time can be traced. This assumption has the fallacy that there is no falsifiable method to prove the direction of 'borrowings' of words. A more serious problem created by the fallacies of language studies is that a lot of guesswork is involved in assuming the 'meaning or meanings' assigned to words by ancient people who may or may not be the ancestors of the present-day language communities.


Now, a fourth framework has assumed the dimensions of a sexy option. The discipline is called 'genetics' used to study common genetic sequences among communities. Gene-based evidence is not really evidence because it is based on one huge assumption. It assumes that the original home of whichever race is being studied is wherever the concentration of the genes specific to the race is the highest. It then sorts the appearance of the gene in the population in descending order of density in various geographical areas and concludes that the path of dispersion was from the region of higher concentration to the region of lower concentration.

 More devastation of such genetic studies is caused by the fact that communities of people get categorized as 'races'. A good example is the recent work of Witzel, a Harvard academic who tries to trace mythologies from the days of the continental drift which resulted in the identification of a mythical entity called 'Laurasia'. This is called by a variety of names such as 'Gondwana' or 'Atlantis' or 'Lost Continent' or 'Kumari-k-kandam'. There is, of course, the famous narrative of the super-eruption of Krakatoa. In the Dravidian political parlance, a dravidian race is imagined as traceable to this lost continent as the Indian subcontinent started drifting away from the African continent. Continental drift is explained in geological eras running into time-depths of millions of years. Same is the case with genetic mutations with time-depths of tens of thousands of years. This is the clear danger posed by using tools of various disciplines to explain cultural phenomena which provide the core basis for perceived identities of communites in the globe. Straitjacketing the communities into sub-categories as 'ethnic' groups or 'language-speaking' groups or 'local natives' tends to create more divisions among people, thus negating the principal purpose of researches which should be to promote the essential unity and inter-relatedness of the living phenomena, human groups, in particular.

Peoples' identity problem

The identity problem is central to any social community. This problem is exemplified by the as yet unresolved definition of a 'nation'. Though nation-states have been formed and polities established, a consistent framework to define a 'nation' has not been achieved so far. Witness the recent break-up of the Soviet Union and the earlier break-up of Yugoslavia and creation of multiple states still in search of 'identity' of the citizens of the states. Though the roots of another world war III have not yet firmed up, there are continuing tensions dividing the communities of people and setting one group in opposition to another. An added category in firming up the divisions is the 'identity' politics based on another construct called 'religion'. 'Religious' wars are ongoing with one group vehement on evangelizing and claiming the 'right' to save souls by forcing adherence to one perceived 'truth' declaring the rest as 'blind heathen'.

Mischievous academic interventions

It is a disturbing trend in the academia to foster divisive studies and perpetuate a climate of fostering hatred among communities. The Harvard University, for example, has instituted a study group called Mythology studies earmarking huge funds. Many are using the platform to peddle their pet agendas of race studies, the way early anthropology studies tried to categorise races by the size characteristics of brains or bone structures of human beings. This trend should be reviewed and institutions like Harvard University will do well to scrap its mythology studies project, which have only ended up in self-serving exercises of wasting academic time with spurious publications of the Witzel type. I do not have to list the examples of mischievous comparisons Witzel tries to make between the Vedic heritage and the 'myths' of many communities. They ca be seen from the 'Look inside' snippets which can be seen on amazon.com of the blurbs and reviews of the tome by Witzel which should be declared as rubbish and Oxford University, the published asked to withdraw the book from the bookstores. Harvard Corp. should also institute an inquiry into the author of the book and call him to order for violating academic ethic. There is no falsifiable basis for such comparisons since the time and space assumptions are as absurd as the earlier polemics related to Aryan invasion or migration or trickle-in theories intended to debunk the perceived identities by the communities themselves as descendants of, say, a Vedic or Hindu heritage. 


First, incursions of a mythical race called 'Aryan' were sought to be proved with Biblical inputs of the Tower of Babel; the same sage is now being tried out with gene sequences in Witzel's book premised on an underlying racial superiority assumption of redheads who need to understand Veda in a German translation, little realizing that the translation of such an document will be an act of irresponsibility without fully getting immersed in the tradition which holds the Veda as a sacred text sustained for generations and transmitted with high-fidelity of oral transmission with very strict regulations of education and error-corrections in pronunciations. The dangers of mistranslating are huge and such translations should be abandoned so as not to cause further tensions among communities which do not believe in a divinity and those whose faith is based on the sacred text as the pramaana (rough translation of the Sanskrit word: a measuring standard) for all subsequent explanatory texts. A good example of mistranslation by Witzel has already been cited when he mischievously mistranslated Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44 to justify his pet, false theory of Aryan invasion into Indian Subcontinent.


This is a plea to the academic world-over to leave the peoples' communities to their own preferences instead of trying to superimpose strait-jacketed 'categories' which more often than not tend to be divisive and false.


The dangers of academic interventions resulting in social tensions are present and real and academia should deliberate further on the pursuit of such hobby-horses as the now sexy mythology or genetic studies to prove the identities of peoples' communities.

A plea to revamp the curricula and institute an academic or inquirer's oath

This expose on the dangers of mythology as race studies is not to deny the need for study of history or social sciences to satisfy the innate urge of every human being to trace his or her roots and to pay tribute to the ancestors who have given him or her an identity and a system of values to regulate his or her life activities.

Sure, study history or psychology or study civilizations or cultures, but let such studies of people be done with compassion, empathy.

Let there be a renewed academic ethic of search for satyam, moderated by social responsibility and the inviolate, global ethic of dharma-dhamma.

Such studies should also be governed by the fact that the academic should have humility, accepting the limitations of his or her knowledge of the emotions of people they are studying. A private language exists but it is impossible to subject it to any linguistic study of any kind because it is entirely 'personal'.

Such a private language is integral to the human being's own life-experiences and consciousness. This is called chitta in the Indian tradition, exemplified by the compound: sat-cit-ananda, roughly translated as: truth, consciousness, bliss or nihs'reyas (which is the obverse of dharma-dhamma coin; the reverse is abhyudayam, social welfare).

Why can't academic institutions reframe their curricula to study means of social welfare, abhyudayam? Test every academic project on this anvil of abhyudayam and abandon those exercises which do not satisfy the test of resulting in abhyudayam.


In conclusion, I end this plea with a direct plea to the Harvard Corp. to institute an inquiry into the Mythologies Project, to inquire into the racist narratives perpetrated by Witzel which present a clear danger to the students who get exposed to the academic. This is also a plea to Oxford University Press to review its editorial standards and withdraw Witzel's mythology book from the bookstores. Surely, the entire narrative of the nation-state is an unfinished struggle to set the limits to freedom of expression which should not be allowed to degenerate into provocations for conflicts among communities of people. There should be an ethical standard set for unbridled freedom of expression or academic liberties without allowing such liberties as a free-for-all anything goes orgies indulged in without regard to sensitivities of millions of people and without regard to what may be termed, respect for human dignity.


Maybe, it is time to deliberate on an academic oath for every inquirer (functioning in an academic environment or a corporation or unincorporated grouping) governed by respect for human beings as living entities with an inalienable responsibility to live in a community with harmony. This oath can be a variant of the Hippocratic oat(horkos) which many medical practitioners live by to vow honesty in their profession and should certainly apply to inquirers working in the discipline of genetics.


One part of the horkos reads, in translation from Greek: In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or men, be they free or slaves. Shouldn't a similar oath apply to inquirers spreading cock-and-bull stories in the name of comparative mythologies?


The central components of the oath have to be a vow not to hurt the sentiments of groups of people, and a resolve, a responsibility to promote respect for human dignity.


The renewed oath has to underline fundamental responsibilities or duties pushing 'rights' as mere complements derived from the discharge of responsibility. A good example is provided by the Vietnam Constitution which gives primacy to Fundamental Duties and makes them justiciable.


Let me prove my bit of compassion. I offer this as a tribute to the Jew whose travails in life and in history have been recently remembered in one word, 'JEW' which is repeated 6 million times in a published book. To cite an ancient Hindu prayer, let me say: jeevema s'aradah s'atam, may you live a hundred autumns. Every jew is my brother and my sister. Everyone is a Sarasvat. I will live and die for protecting their human dignity.

Let a million historical narratives bloom

Just as there are a myriad flowers of various hues and shades, as the law of nature, there could also be myriad perceptions of value systems governing lives of groups of people. Let a myriad of narratives of local histories or community histories bloom. Let a unifying framework be seen in such narratives such as the unifying dharma-dhamma imperative in many regions and among many peoples' communities of the globe. Let people of Bosnia-Hersegovina or Kyrgystan or Xinxiang write their own historical narratives and their world-views. Let the Hindus, Sufi Muslims, Shia Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Christians of various denominations, Bohras, Ahmedias, Zoarastrians, Gypsies write their own narratives. There ain't no need to compare the narratives which are integral presentations from the dars'ana of the adherants. In the Hindu tradition, for example, there is space even for a Carvaka dars'ana with its own ground-rules of inquiry. Why should academe indulge in straight-jacketing such narratives? Such indulgence is no different from the myths created by so-called Dravidian studies premised on shaky foundations and with the evil intent to divine communities.


Sotto voce, this is my Veda, my search for truth. I must start with a confession: I have no adhikaara to talk about the Veda. I just do not know. It will be a travesty of responsibility to claim to know what the chandas – the language of the Veda -- seeks to communicate. Even Panini did not dare to write a grammar for that language. I will try to abide by what my gurus tell me, because they have lived it.


An example of an inquirer's oath from an ancient text
Satyam vada, dharmam caraस्वाध्यायान्‌ मा प्रमदः 'svādhyāyān mā pramadaha' were the starting phrases of the oath administered by the teacher. The exhortations meant: speak the truth, live a righteous life, never get intoxicated with learning. I take the last ethic to mean 'humility' in scholarship and conveying such scholarship to others.


The guidance goes on to provide methodologies and guiding principles appropriate to living a life by dharma. Some scholars refer to it as a graduation speech. I see it as containing the oath of an inquirer: ya evam veda, this is the Veda, to know.


The key ingredients of the inquirer's oath can be gleaned from the ancient text given below in English translation. This should be deemed to be an ever-lasting documentation for all climes and seasons. There could be errors in the translation of the text and the present writer seeks pardon for any errors and would willingly accept corrections to the rendered text which should be translated into all languages of the globe for oral or written transmission.


Taittiriya Upanishad is a testament of complete education.

'ऋतं  स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च। सत्यं  स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च। तपश्र्च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च। दमश्र्च स्वाध्यायप्रवचने च।' 'tam ca svādhyāyapravacane ca; satyam ca svādhyāyapravacane ca; tapaśca svādhyāyapravacane ca; damaśca svādhyāyapravacane ca' (Taittireeya Upanishad: 1/17). Svādhyāya 'act of learning'; pravacana 'teaching'. Let the oath be elaborated if necessary defining the words: tam, satyam 'cosmic order' 'truth'.


'यान्यस्माकं सुचरितानि तानि त्वयोपास्यानि। नो इतराणि। ये के चास्मत्व्छ्रेयांसो ब्राह्मणाः। तेषां त्वयाऽऽसनेन प्रश्वसितव्यम्‌।' 'yānyasmākam sucaritāni tāni tvayopāsyāni, no itarāi, ye ke cāsmacchreyānso brāhmaāh, teshām tvayāsanena praśvasitavyam' 'Only adopt good conduct, nothing else.  After leaving here, if you find a teacher better than us, then respect him, pay homage to him by offering him a seat'.


'मातृदेवो भव। पितृदेवो भव। आचार्यदेवो भव। अतिथिदेवो भव।'  'mātvedo bhava, pitdevo bhava, atithidevo bhava' – 'Know your mother to be like a divinity, know your father to be like a divinity, know your teacher to be like a divinity, know a guest to be like a divinity.' 


Will the leaders of the academic community come forward and adopt an inquirer's oath?

S. Kalyanaraman, Sarasvati Research Center, February 3, 2014

--
S. Kalyanaraman


Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Identifying Harappan people - inputs from Mahabharata and Silappadhikaram..


Given below is a note by Dr S.Kalyanaraman on the need to take into account the cultural symbols and Indian sprachbund in the analysis of Harappan sites that can be aptly called as Indus- saraswathi civilization. He points out the Nausharo images with sindhur on the forehead, stones resembling linga and trefoil in the Indus images as some of the  items to prove the cultural identity of the Harappan people as Vedic.


On my part I wish to point out in brief that Harappan culture was indeed the post- Mahabharata culture that saw the growth of trade after Pandavas wrested control from Kauravas over Gandhara, - the main route to central Asia -  which was the maternal country of the Kauravas. This connection of Kauravas to Gandhara justifies the overt interest that their maternal uncle, Shakuni had in wiping out Pandavas from the political scene of that time. This also justifies why the entire Bharat including southerner Pandyas chose to fight on the side of Pandavas and Krishna though Sarangadwaja (the Pandyan king who fought on the side of Pandavas) had a personal grouse against Krishna.


The Indus - saraswathi settlements were a necessity of time as Arabian sea engulfed Dwaraka forcing the people to look for newer places to settle, after their protector Krisha exited from the world. Their previous abode in the Gangetic plain from where they left (18 clans according to Mahabharata) along with Krishna to escape trouble from Jarasandha was the last one in their mind for a place to live. Mahabharata tells that Arjuna guided them out of Dwaraka and settled them. Where were they settled is the question. Going towards Ganges was ruled out and the only option was to go north or north west of Dwaraka / Kutch. The route explained in Mahabharata precisely puts them in the now known Indus - Saraswathi region that includes Dwaraka bound Gujarat too. The map created based on the inputs from Mahabharata is shown below.



























Now coming to the issue of the so-called scripts on the Indus seals, any analysis without taking into account the local or indigenous inputs can't give correct results. I wish to point out that there is reference at two places in Silappadhikaram on the bundles or trade goods that are stamped with seals that bear "KaNNEzhutthu" (கண்ணெழுத்து) - meaning, " letters by the eyes" which are signs or symbols that indicate the nature of goods, the trader etc which can be easily understood just by looking at it.


In one place this is being told in the context of goods that had reached Pumpukar. Another reference is to the goods sent by Satakarni (Gauthami putra Satakarni of the 1st century AD) to the Cheran king. These goods contained the wealth and goods of North India and bore Kannezhutthu - the letters by the eye. Those verses are reproduced below.

 

"வம்ப மாக்கள் தம் பெயர் பொறித்த

கண்ணெழுத்துப் படுத்த எண்ணுப் பல்பொதிக்

கடைமுக வாயில்.." (சிலப் – 5 – 111.113)

 

அடியார்க்கு நல்லார் தரும் பொருள்:-

 

வம்ப மாக்கள்- புதியோர்.

தம் பெயர் பொதித்த தம் பெயரெழுதிய

கண்ணெழுத்துப் படுத்த அடையாள எழுத்தினை இலச்சினையாக அமைத்த

எண்ணுப் பல் பொதி பலவாகிய எண்களை உடைய பொதிகள்

கடைமுக வாயில் பண்ட சாலை வாயில் (ஏற்றுமதி இறக்குமதிப் பொருள்கள் வந்து இறங்கியிருக்கும் பண்ட சாலை)

 

"எய்யா வடவளத்து இருபதினாயிரம்

கண்ணெழுத்துப் படுத்தன கைபுனை சகடமும்"

அனுப்புகிறான். ( சிலப்- 26 -135 & 136)

 

இதற்கு உரை எழுதும் அடியார்க்கு நல்லார், "வேறோரிடத்தும் கண்டறியாத வடதிசை வளங்களை உடையனவாயும், சரக்கின் பெயர், அளவு முதலியன பொறிக்கப்பட்ட பொதிகளை உடையனவாயும் அணி செய்யப்பெற்ற இருபதினாயிரம் வண்டிகளும்" என்கிறார்.

 

These verses clearly indicate what the seals convey. They being sent by Satakarni containing the wealth of North India do imply that they had been sent from Indus regions. The detailed article on this is written in Tamil in my Tamil blog. Read it here: http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.in/2012/10/109-ogham_4138.html

When we have cross-referential inputs like this from within India, it is matter of waste of time to look elsewhere or differently to decipher the Indus seals.

- Jayasree


From


http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2014/01/the-most-vexed-problem-of-indian.html




After referring to the contributions made by many scholars to Harappan civilization (1921-2013), RS Bisht makes a passing mention that it as also known as Indus-Sarasvati civilization.


This is in Dr. YD Sharma Memorial Lectue delivered at Kokata on 31 August 2013 (Published in Puratattva 2013) which concludes after 18 pages: "Finally, comes up the most vexed problem of the identification of the people who built the Harappan civilization. In this case also diametrically opposite views are held by the scholars. Efforts have been made to identify with the Dravidians, the Proto-Elamites, the Mundas, the Aryans or even to a lost tribe. In this connection it is most pertinent to refer to the detailed anthropological studies carried out by a group of experts led by Hemphill, who hold that there are only two breaks in the anthropological records in the northwestern Indian subcontinent -- one occurs around 4500 BCE, in the beginning of the Chalcolithic era and the second around c. 800 BCE that falls in the Iron Age. The controversy will remain alive until and until the Harappan script is deciphered." (p.25)

The anthropological argument mentioned by Bisht is in the following citation:

Brian E. Hemphill, Alexander F. Christensen & S. I. Mustafakulov, "Trade or Travel: An Assessment of Interpopulational Dynamics among Bronze Age Indo-Iranian Populations," South Asian Archaeology, 1995, ed. Raymond Allchin & Bridget Allchin (New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing, 1997), vol. 2, pp. 855-871. 

Hemphill's observation was that there was no trace of "demographic disruption" in the North-West of the subcontinent between 4500 and 800 BCE.

When this 'demographic' observation negated the possibility of any massive intrusion, of non-Harappans into India, why should there be a 'vexed' problem identifying Indians while evaluating the archaeological efforts of 92 years between 1992 to 2013? 

I wish Bisht had paused and deliberated on this identity problem a bit more to indicate pointers which could resolve the 'vexed' problem instead of merely using the non-decipherment of Indus writing as the crutch? 

Some hope that genetics will help resolve the problem of identity. Genetics may not help if one starts with the problematic assumption that the language and culture somehow follow the same set of evolutionary rules.

Semantics of language are cultural indicators. Replacing anthropological construct of 'democratic disruption', one can postulate continuity of cultural practices and using cultural indicators to affirm that there was no 'cultural' disruption between 4500 BCE and 800 BCE. 

This may be one approach to resolve the 'vexed' Indian identity problem in Indian civilization studies.

Indeed, it is commonsense to study culture for effective civilization studies not to have any vexatious theories about identity of people in the civilization continuum.

One tool for studying culture is language but more important is the discipline of semantics -- as distinct from study of phonetics or syntax. Mere glossary won't help but the glosses have to be explained with 'meaning' as the meaning evolved over time in socio-cultural interactions.

Semantics as the study of meaning postulates relation between signifiers, like wordsphrasessigns, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation (translation of a sign to its literal meaning). Denotation should be contrasted with  connotation, which translates a sign to meanings associated  with it.

Let us take some examples signifiers.

Signifier 1

The cultural practice of wearing characteristic marking sindhur (red vermilion mark) on the forehead or parting of the hair is a signifier of an Indian woman.

We have to terracotta figurines of Nausharo which show such signifiers.
Nausharo: female figurines. Wearing sindhur at the parting of the hair. Hair painted black, ornaments golden and sindhur red. Period 1B, 2800 – 2600 BCE. 11.6 x 30.9 cm.[After Fig. 2.19, Kenoyer, 1998].

Don't these two figurines provide a signifier which identifies Indians, say between 4500 BCE to 800 BCE on the assumption that this practice of wearing sindhur (red vermilion) continues even into the present times?

Signifier 2

The cultural practice of venerating linga, a polished pillar-like stone is a signifier of Indians from 4500 BCE to the present day.

Two decorated bases and a lingam, Mohenjodaro. 
Lingam, grey sandstone in situ, Harappa, Trench Ai, Mound F, Pl. X (c) (After Vats). "In an earthenware jar, No. 12414, recovered from Mound F, Trench IV, Square I
Terracotta sivalinga, Kalibangan.

Signifier 3


A tre-foil is a signifier of some 'importance', something or someone venerated (say, an ancestor)


The trefoil signifiers appears in the civilization in the following examples:




Statue, Uruk (W.16017), c. 3000 B.C.; bull with trefoil inlays; shell mass with inlays of lapis lazuli; 5.3 cm. long; Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin; Parpola, 1994, p. 213.

Steatite statue fragment; Mohenjodaro (Sd 767); trefoil-decorated bull; traces of red pigment remain inside the trefoils. After Ardeleanu-Jansen 1989: 196, fig. 1; Parpola, 1994, p. 213.


Trefoils painted on steatite beads, Harappa (After Vats, Pl. CXXXIII, Fig.2)


Trefoil inlay decorated base (for linga icon?); smoothed, polished pedestal of dark red stone; National Museum of Pakistan, Karachi; After Mackay 1938: I, 411; II, pl. 107:35; Parpola, 1994, p. 218.


Statue (DK 1909), Mohenjodaro; four views; white steatite, with remnants of red paint inside the trefoils of the robe; height 17 cm.; National Museum of Pakistan, Karachi; After Marshall 1931a:pl.98; Parpola, 1994, p. 212.


What word in spoken language, was used to denote this signifier? Would it be not be a reasonable and useful exercise to trace such signifiers in the Indian sprachbund, on the assumption that the present-day words (from one or more languages of the Indians) contain such signifiers with the same denotation which was in vogue in the early days of the civilization?




History is all around us. Civilization continuum is a living reality. Why should we still treat it as a 'vexed' problem when we can look for signifiers in the archaeological record or even i the anthropological record, to identify Indians in the Indian civilization?

One wonders why the identity problem is looked upon as an intractable problem. The problem can be resolved, if only we look for signifiers -- like the three examples cited above -- which are already available instead of hoping for some new or high-tech genetic markers which may create more problems than they can really resolve.


What gloss connoted a trefoil in Indian sprachbund?


I find a word in Malayalam which may provide the word as a signifier which matches with trefoil as a 'symbol'.


These examples may provide signifiers of cloth, of someone of importance, or young animal as may be seen from these artifacts displaying the trefoil. 


These artifacts evoke the following glosses from Indian sprachbund with literal meanings of 'trefoil' signifiers:


Glosses (words and semantics): 

पोतृ pōt " Purifier " , Name of one of the 16 officiating priests at a sacrifice (the assistant of the Brahman (Rigveda)

போற்றி pōṟṟi , < id. n. 1. Praise, applause, commendation; புகழ்மொழி. (W.) 2.Brahman temple-priest of Malabar; கோயிற் பூசைசெய்யும் மலையாளநாட்டுப் பிராமணன். (W.) 3. See போத்தி, 1.--int. Exclamation of praise; துதிச்சொல்வகை. பொய்தீர் காட்சிப் புரையோய் போற்றி (சிலப். 13, 92).


potṛ.  pōtrá1 ʻ *cleaning instrument ʼ (ʻ the Potr̥'s soma vessel ʼ RV.). [√pū]

Bi. pot ʻ jeweller's polishing stone ʼ

பொத்தல் pottal n. < id. [K. poṭṭare, M. pottu, Tu. potre.] 1. Hole, orifice. 

pṓta, pōtalaka, pōtalikā young animal, heifer; pōāla -- m. ʻ child, bull ʼ

potṛā m. ʻ baby clothes ʼpotrẽ n. ʻ rag for smearing cowdung ʼ. pōta ʻ covering (?) ʼ RV., ʻ rough hempen cloth ʼ AV pusta --2 n. ʻ working in clay ʼ (prob. ← Drav., Tam. pūcu &c. Pkt. potta -- , °taga -- , °tia -- n. ʻ cotton cloth ʼ செம்பொத்தி cem-potti, n. prob. id. +. A kind of cloth.


Te. poṭṭi, poṭṭiya scorpion;
Tu. poṭṭè tender ear of corn; Pa. poṭ grain in embryonic stage.
Ta. poṭṭu chaff
Ta. poṭṭu drop, spot, round mark worn on forehead. Ma. poṭṭu, poṟṟu a circular mark on the forehead, mostly red. Ka. boṭṭu, baṭṭu drop, mark on the forehead. Koḍ. boṭṭï round mark worn on the forehead. Tu. boṭṭa a spot, mark, a drop; (B-K.) buṭṭe a dot. Te. boṭṭu a drop, the sectarian mark worn on the forehead. Kol. (SR.) boṭla drop. Pa. boṭ id. Ga. (P.)boṭu drop, spot. Konḍa boṭu drop of water, mark on forehead. Kuwi (F.) būttū, (Isr.) buṭu tattoo. 

Rebus readings:

pōta ʻ boat ʼ

H. pot m. ʻ glass bead ʼ, G. M. pot f.; -- Bi. pot ʻ jeweller's polishing stone ʼ; Pk. pottī -- f. ʻ glass ʼ; S. pūti f. ʻ glass bead ʼ, P. pot f.; N. pote ʻ long straight bar of jewelry ʼ; B. pot ʻ glass bead ʼ, putipũti ʻ small bead ʼ; Or. puti ʻ necklace of small glass beads ʼ
Discussion

While it may be debated if a 'temple priest' of the civilization was called pōṟṟi as the gloss is used today in Malayalam, or pōt as the gloss is used today in the performance of a vedic yajñathere seems to be a substantial semantic evidence to relate to the other characteristics of the artifacts deploying the trefoil symbol: cloth, young animal. 

Both symbols -- cloth and young animal -- have pottu as word signifiers. If pōṟṟi or pottu is the word signifier, there is a rebus reading possible: pot 'boat' or pot 'bead' or pote 'long straight bar of jewelry'.

We seem to be looking at trefoil as a hieroglyph read rebus. 

1. Shown pota 'cloth' worn as a shawl by the important person, the trefoil hieroglyph can be read rebus as the homonymous word: pōtṛ 'temple priest'.

2. Shown on pota 'young animal or heifer', or on beads, the trefoil hieroglyph can be read either as pot'boat' or pote 'long straight bar of jewelry or bead'.

These three examples of signifiers have thus provided a framework for resolving the 'vexed' problem of identity.


A conclusion is drawn by rebus readings of hieroglyphs deployed on about 7000 inscribed objects, over an extensive area along the Persian Gulf and along the Tin Road into the Fertile Crescent.

The conclusion is that Meluhha was the spoken idiom the people who denotated these Meluhha hieroglyphs and their rebus readings, almost all in the context of lapidary or smithy or forge. A corollary conclusion is that the Meluhhans were from the Indian sprachbund.

The substantive road traveled is the cultural continuum of Indian civilization. Hence, we do not have to find alternative excuses of substitutes such as Harappan or Indus civilization. If locus has to be a signifier the civilization can be called Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization without any hesitation because the civilization lives on not only on these river basins but has left traces which can be found even today in many parts of Eurasia --signifiers such as Tocharian ancu 'iron' or Vedic amśu 'soma'; Kota language kole.l as signifier word for 'smithy' as well as 'temple'.

Would it be ok to venture a suggestion that the problem of identity calls for special efforts on the part of archaeologists to attempt to use the vernacular words to signify artifacts such as pots and pans discovered in the digs, instead of using ONLY English words as signifiers.

Go vernacular, is the lesson to resolve the 'vexed' problem.


S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
January 28, 2014

--
S. Kalyanaraman



--


The Aryan Debate: A 200 Year Old Question -- NS Rajaram (Nov. 2013)

From



A paradigm change from the eurocentric approaches to civilization studies. This approach should result in the promotion of multi-disciplinary studies into the roots of and civilizational continuum in Indian and later Eurasian cultures.

Kalyanaraman

Published on Nov 30, 2013

Dr. N S Rajaram talks about how Aryan Debate no longer exists now. He says, "It's not a debate anymore". Sharing latest research on Genetics and Human migration -- he claims that Aryan Invasion never happened in India. He shares that Africa is the original homeland of Human (homo sapient) from where humans have migrated across the world. This new Genetic research shows that how first few migrations from Africa brought Humans in India where it give rise to great Indic civilization.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnuevHgciI

Monday, January 27, 2014

A racist book by Witzel, a Harvard Professor.

From



Subject: A racist book by Witzel, a Harvard Professor. Socially irresponsible publication of a grandiose, brash, ill-informed, problematic scholarship -- Tok Thompson. Witzel should be sacked from Harvard University -- Kalyanaraman.



I have made additional comments (appended in Section 3) on Witzel's motivated attempts to debunk the Vedic tradition using a Vedic workshop as a forum in Kozhikode, India, in January 2014 and with mistranslations (Section 2). 

This workshop which he used as a venue to peddle his published book which has been honestly reviewed by Tok Thompson of University of Southern California (review appended -- Section 1), is enough cause for action against this person by the Harvard Corp. 

Witzel is certainly NOT advancing the cause of Harvard University exemplified by its logo. Harvard Corp. should take note of this and take immediate remedial action.

I have to underscore the dangers posed by academics like Witzel and how Harvard Corp. should seriously consider expelling him from the Harvard University to protect the present and future generations of students who look upon Harvard as the exemplar of social responsibility to a worldwide scholar community. 

The minimum Harvard Corp. should do is to ensure that Witzel is stopped forthwith from any further dealings in a classroom of Harvard University -- to avoid further poisoning of impressionable, young minds of students.

I request the President, Harvard Corp. to treat this as a documented chargesheet against Witzel and take appropriate action to save the reputation of Harvard University.

S. Kalyanaraman
Sarasvati Research Center
January 27, 2014

Section 1

The Origins of the World's Mythologies
By E.J. Michael Witzel. 2013. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Reviewed by Tok Thompson, University of Southern California
[Review length: 1535 words • Review posted on December 5, 2013]

This is an astonishing book, but not for the reasons the author intended.
The Origin of the World's Mythology utilizes completely out of date and highly questionable scholarship to claim a grand scientific discovery which relies on the author's "theory" of ultimate mythological reconstruction, dating back all the way to reconstructed stories (i.e., made up by the author) told some 100,0000 years ago. The "theory" (I would say hypothesis) is implausible (in terms of data, scholarship, logic, internal plausibility, etc.), even more so than quasi-academic concepts, like Nostratic, which it relies on as proven fact.

The book's main claim is explicitly racist. I define "racist" here simply as any argument that seeks to categorize large groups of people utilizing a bio-cultural argument ("race"), and that further describes one such group as essentially better, more developed, less "deficient," than the other(s).

The book claims that there are two races in the world, revealed by both myth and biology: the dark-skinned "Gondwana" are characterized by "lacks" and "deficiencies" (e.g., xi, 5, 15, 20, 88, 100, 105, 131, 279, 280, 289, 290, 313, 321 315, 410, 430, 455) and are labeled "primitive" (28) at a "lower stage of development" (28, 29, 410), while the noble "Laurasian" myths are "our first novel," the only "true" creation stories, and the first "complex story" (e.g., 6, 54, 80, 105, 321, 372, 418, 421, 430), which the Gondwana never achieved.
Such a grand evolutionary pronouncement, published by Oxford University Press and penned by a Harvard Professor (of Sanskrit), demands attention and careful investigation of its claims. If the author is correct, then indeed the field of mythology, and folklore, will be entirely rewritten. Not only this, but the ideas of a separate, deficient "dark-skinned race" will be, for the first time, scientifically validated.

The theoretical justification of this work is derived from a sort of straw man contest between ethnologist Leo Frobenius (1873-1938), representing monogenesis and diffusion, and Freud's errant disciple Carl Jung (1875-1961), with his universal archetypes of the collective unconscious. This straw man argument is not an appropriate one: Jung's theories have long been derided in scholarship on mythology, and the data have been shown not to support his claims of universals (Dundes, 2005). Indeed, the resounding refutation of universals not only invalidates Jung's theories, but also stands in direct contradiction to many of the claims of this book.

His sole factual claim to his grand separation of the races seems to be his assertion that only the light-skinned Laurasians developed a "complete" myth. He makes several claims about what this myth "is," but these are contradictory, vague, and with many exceptions or permutations (variously: 53, 64, 76, 120, 183, 323). At some points he claims that the only actual differences between the two is that the Laurasian has the world end, and the Gondwana do not (e.g., 283). At other times, however, he claims that the Gondwana actually have no cosmogonic myths whatsoever. For example:

• "Gondwana mythologies generally are confined to the description of the emergence of humans and their culture in a preexisting world" (5).
• "The Laurasian stress on cosmogony, however, is entirely absent in Gondwana mythologies" (105).
• "In Gondwana mythologies the world is regarded as eternal" (20).
• Describing Gondwana mythology: "In the beginning: heaven and earth (and sea) already exist" (323, restated 361).

This particular claim is made even more remarkable in light of his own comment on page 474, where he himself discusses the common African myth of the world being created from a god's spittle and/or vomit.

In previous publications the author argued that the Gondwana had no flood myths as well. However, in this book the author relates recently encountering Alan Dundes' The Flood Myth, which disproved the assertion (see the author's discussion, page 284). Taking pains to explain this change, the author now claims the flood myth "is universal" (wrongly: see Dundes 2005) and not, as he previously decreed, "Laurasian." This late encounter with Dundes' scholarship is instructive: Dundes is generally regarded as one of the most important folklore theorists of the last century, yet aside from this one problematic citation of The Flood Myth, no notice is taken of him, not even his classic work on myth, Sacred Narrative. Nor are other seminal recent works in scientific myth scholarship cited, such as Schrempp and Hansen's Myth: A New Symposium, or even the earlier Sebeok's Myth: A Symposium. The sustained overlooking of the scholarship on mythology over the last fifty years or more is one of the larger foundational problems of this work.

For example, aside from a brief early mention (45, 46), the concept of polygenesis is never considered as a potential explanation, yet a mere acknowledgment that different people do sometimes create similar-sounding plots and motifs removes any necessity to view every similar motif or narrative as united in some grand historical scheme (see Thompson 2002). An instructive case in point might be the flood myths of the seismically active coastal regions of the Pacific Northwest, held to be caused by mountain dwarves dancing (a compelling explication of which can be found in McMillan and Hutchinson 2002)—there is absolutely no reason to assume this is derived from the same source as the very different biblical flood myth, simply because they both involve floods in flood-prone areas. Stripped of any emic understanding of the explanatory and rhetorical majesty of sacred stories, myth is reduced to a mere grab-bag of words and motifs.

I consider my own research specialties, and the many Dene and Inuit/Yupiq mythologies I have heard, and watched, and read. In the Dene, and the Inuit, one finds no apocalypse stories, no end of the world. This should, then, disqualify them completely from the Laurasian. Nor is there "Father Heaven/Mother Earth," or the time of "nobles," or a "slaying of the dragon," or a "drinking of soma," all of which are expected to be in his Laurasian story (at least as per page 53). But according to the author, all this is irrelevant, since they are simply Laurasians who haven't told it all, or haven't been recorded telling it, or have forgotten parts, or there is some other reason. In other words, they are Laurasian because he says they are Laurasian. But when the same question is asked of the South African San, who also do not have all those elements, the answer is that they are Gondwana. The criteria are not applied equally, but rather only as the author sees fit in justifying his hypothesis.

In chapter 4, the author seeks to buttress support for his hypothesis by using reconstructions in linguistics and genetics. Genetically, he states that specific DNA haplogroups "seem to represent the Gondwana type of mythology" (233). His appeal to linguistics is at least marginally more appropriate, as language is a cultural, not biological, phenomenon. But here, too, he utilizes less-than-scientifically-accepted hypotheses, such as a "Dene-Caucausian" language family linking Basque and Navajo, and "Nostratic." The all-too-breezy use of non-academic claims can be seen in the following two quotes, located on the same page (193):

"Nostratic theory has not been accepted by most traditional linguists."
"Once we accept the reconstruction of Nostratic, we can establish the natural habitat, the material culture, and theWeltanschauung and mythology of the Nostratic populations."

To be clear: if linguists don't think that languages could be reconstructed back more than 6,000 years, why does the author believe they can, and further, that entire stories can be reconstructed for over 100,000 years?

Finally, the startling claim that the book proves the existence of two races, going against all other scholarly data, would have profound implications for global society as a whole, yet these implications are never discussed by the author. Instead, in his conclusion he claims that the reason Abrahamic religions have made inroads into the global south in recent times is simply because Laurasian myth is "better" and "more complete" than any ever formulated by the Gondwana themselves (430), a remarkably naïve view of global political history.

To conclude: this book will no doubt prove exciting for the gullible and the racist, yet it is useless—and frustrating—for any serious scholar. This is a work which should never have reached book publication stage: a whole series of scholarly checks and balances—ranging from Harvard's venerable Folklore and Mythology Department, to the editors and reviewers at Oxford University Press—should have been in place to guide the scholarly inquiry, which would have prevented the socially irresponsible publication of such grandiose, brash, and explicitly racist claims based on ill-informed, highly problematic scholarship.

Works Cited

Dundes, Alan. 2005. "Folkloristics in the Twenty-First Century." Journal of American Folklore 118:385-408.
-----, ed. 1984. Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
McMillan, Alan D., and Ian Hutchinson. 2002. "When the Mountain Dwarfs Danced: Aboriginal Traditions of Paleoseismic Events along the Cascadia Subduction Zone of Western North America." Ethnohistory 49:41-48.
Schrempp, Gregory, and William Hansen, eds. 2002. Myth: A New Symposium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sebeok, Thomas, ed. 1966. Myth: A Symposium. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Thompson, Tok. 2002. "The Thirteenth Number: Then, There/Here and Now." Studia Mythologica Slavica 5:145-160.


http://www.indiana.edu/~jofr/review.php?id=1613