02-17-2008, 08:33 PM
<b>The Row over Indus Script:
Why Asko Parpola's paper questioning Michael Witzel was not published?</b>
<b>"Scripts, Non-scripts and (Pseudo) decipherment":</b> The Dravidologists have been so enthusiastic in declaring that Tamil has been the most ancient language on the earth[1]. In fact, there are Dravidian protagonists who swear that all languages originated only from Tamil[2]. For them, Tamil originated even before the creation of stone and sand (Kal thondri manthodra kalatte thondreya Tamizh). They also vouchsafe that the IVC people spoke only Tamil. Of course, the Western Indologists one way or the other interpret that, though the IVC / Harappans were illiterate[3], even though they spoke Dravidian language[4]. However, A Workshop on "Scripts, Non-scripts and (Pseudo) decipherment" held on July 11, 2007 at the Braun Auditorium, Stanford University In conjunction with the 2007 Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, in which the decipherment of Indus script cropped up and the learned Western scholars decided to criticize such methodology. Of course, Michael Witzel[5] and Asko Parpola[6] had fought with each other in deciding the linguistic question and writing capabilities of IVC people. Now, let us see what happened at the Stanford University[7].
<b>The Stand of Steve Farmer: </b>Steve Farmer, one of the controversial Indologists of Harvard University, in his paper, "The strange case of the so-called Indus script: distinguishing writing from non-linguistic symbols" (http://www.safarmer.com) delved on the evidence of many types that has accumulated in the last half decade that the so-called Indus script was not a speech-encoding or writing system in the strict linguistic sense, as has been assumed since the first Indus artifact carrying symbols showed up in the 1870s (Farmer, Henderson, and Witzel 2002; Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel 2004; Sproat and Farmer 2005). This find is radically changing views of the oldest Indian civilization and has awakened new interest in issues involving non-linguistic symbols, pseudo-decipherments, and related topics addressed in this Workshop. He tried to illustrate a variety of nonlinguistic symbol systems, propose a typology of scripts and non - scripts based on semantic and phonological grounds, and discussed the light recent studies of Indus symbols throw on ways of distinguishing the two classes of symbols. He concluded with a discussion of ways in which our archaeological understanding of Indus society is deepening as a result of abandoning the traditional Indus-script thesis (Weber, Fuller, and Farmer 2007). Thus, Farmer has maintained his stand that the so-called Indus script was not a speech-encoding or writing system in the strict linguistic sense.
<b>Michael Witzel, the other Indologist:</b> The summary of Michael Witzel[8] of Harvard University under the caption was, "The language or languages of the Indus civilization": Indus signs remain "unread" in part because the linguistic nature of the signs is in question and since little is currently known of the language or languages spoken in the Indus civilization. However, two contemporary sources can shed light on this: some 30 loan words in Mesopotamian inscriptions from the Indus (or the Dilmun) areas, and some 200-300 words in early Vedic texts composed in the northern section of the Indus civilization. Both point to a language that was prefixing in nature but radically different from agglutinative, suffixing languages such as Dravidian. Even if Indus signs do not encode full phrases or sentences of a spoken language, as recent studies suggest, determining the languages spoken in the region may be useful in interpreting Indus symbols, which may (like heraldic signs, Mongolian tamghas, and similar nonlinguistic symbol systems) contain occasional puns even without systematically encoding language. Thus the question of associating any language with Indus script is not sustainable.
<b>Asko Parpola opposes the above two! </b>However, Asko Parpola of University of Helsinki presented his paper, "Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?" with slides[9] after him questioned the above two and his other colleagues. His summary was as follows: In December 2004, Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel published (in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11: 19-57) an article[10] entitled "The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization." The authors deny that the Indus script constitutes a real writing system in the sense of being tightly bound to language. In this presentation he reviewed their arguments, repeating what he had already stated in a paper published in 2005 (Transactions of the International Conference of Eastern Studies 50: 33-44) and adding some further considerations. He, thus questioned the Michael Witzel, Steve Farmer & Co.
<b>From Stanford University to Taramani, Chennai! </b>However, the row over the scholars of Western Universities took a different turn, when Asko Parpola paper was not only criticized by his opponents, but also not published! So, the wrangle over decipherment of Indus script of the Western Indologists has been imminent with biased scholarship spilling over academic skirmishes. So perhaps, it was decided by some Indian friends that Asko Parpola would be invited and he would present the same paper here, that too, right now in Madras / Chennai, the bastion of Dravidian protagonists, ideologists and scholars. "The Hindu" gave the coverage like this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Talk on Indus script today
Staff Reporter (The Hindu February 16, 2008)
CHENNAI: A lecture on `Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?' will be delivered by Indus script expert Asko Parpola at Roja Muthiah Research Library, Taramani, at 10.30 a.m. on Saturday.
Mr. Parpola is professor emeritus of Indology Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland.
He has studied the Indus script for over four decades. Mr. Asko Parpola is also the chief editor of `Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions', a multi-volume work comprising photographs of collections in India, Pakistan and other parts of the world.
The Indus Research Centre of the library, functioning on the Central Polytechnic campus in Taramani, was set up in 2006.
It has been operating under the guidance of honorary consultant Iravatham Mahadevan and has been organising several lectures.
For more details, contact the library over the phone at 22542551/52.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Asko Parpola presents the same paper in Chennai also:</b> So Asko Parpola came and presented his paper, ""Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?" with slides on February 16, 2008 at Roja Muthaiah Library, Taramani. V. C. Kulandaiswamy, introduced the speaker before the august audience which included many historians, scholars and others. Iravatham Mahadevan, Chempakalakshmi (retired Professor of JNU), Natana Kasinathan (former Director of State Archaeology department), R. Madivanan (the Dravidian IV script decipher), R. Krishnamurthy (Dinamalar editor), S. Swaminathan, P. Ramanathan, K. Venkatachalam (Dravidian Indology Group), N. S. Valluvan, Srinivasan, K. V. Ramakrishna Rao (Independent researchers), lecturers and students from Tamil, Linguistics and history departments of local colleges[11]. After the presentation, the discussion started.
First Natana Kasinathan asked as to why no reference about Mehargarh was made. Asko Parpola replied that the Mehargarh layers had no correlation with the script under study.
Next, K. V. Ramakrishna Rao asked whether he presented the same paper there at Stanford University. He clarified that he presented the paper but it was not published and it would be published by Iravatham Mahadevan. When asked that he was still discussing about the linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of the Indus script and therefore, whether he could answer directly, he replied that Indus script has been linguistic based. When he was asked about the depiction of IVC script and symbols on Soghura Copper plate, one of the conveners prevented him telling that already it was late and more questions were not welcome.
R. Madvanan asked his view about Indrapala's Sri Lanka finding of an inscription that has both IVC symbols and Brahmi script. Asko Parpola replied that he never heard about such an inscription. However, there has been an article, "Aryan or Dravidian or Neither? A Study of Recent Attempts to Decipher the Indus Script (1995-2000)", by Iravatham Mahadevan published in ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF VEDIC STUDIES (EJVS) Vol. 8 (2002) issue 1 (March 8), which is brought out by Michael Witzel and Company. Can be accessed at: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejv...vs0801.txt I. Mahadevan, in deed not only mentions about it but also discusses about it at length. Ironically, Asko Parpola has been in the Editorial Board! However, he kept quite when Asko Parpola revealed his ignorance about it! Really, it is a wonder how the scholars of international repute have been like this in the case of Indus script decipherment!
Other two-three persons made some general remarks appreciating his lecture.
<b>What is the problem with Western scholars in the case of Indus Script?</b> Earlier Steve Farmer accused that R. Madivanan indulged in the forgery of Indus script specimens[12]. About this, I. Mahadevan says like this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Indus Script found in a Santhal village in Bihar
4.11 Mathivanan has also read the symbols painted on the walls in a Santhal village in Bihar as written in the Tamil language in the Indus script. Here I have to make a brief digression to explain the background to this discovery. N.K. Verma, an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service who has made a special study of the language and culture of the Santhal tribe in Bihar, published a Paper in 1993 claiming to have found symbols in Santhal wall paintings looking like the signs of the Indus script. He also claims to have learnt the phonetic values of the symbols from the village priest. His study has revealed the occurrence of 22 out of 26 letters of the Roman alphabet in the Indus inscriptions from Mohenjodaro published by Marshall. This discovery enabled him decipher the Indus script. He found in the Indus inscriptions not only Santhali words but also words in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Persian-Arabic and English. He knew he was on the right track when he was able to decipher an Indus inscription which reads hai pig 'this is pig' on a copper tablet which has also the figure of a pig (earlier identified by others as a rhinoceros). He reads another inscription as eft 'elephant' on a sealing which has the figure of an elephant on it. When Verma sent me a copy of his Paper, I noticed the extraordinarily close resemblance of Verma's drawings of the Santhali symbols to the Indus signs published by me in the ASI Concordance (1977). At that time I did not think much about it; but now Mathivanan's book throws fresh light on this curious affair.
4.12 In the course of his fieldwork, Mathivanan visited the Santhal village in Bihar accompanied by Verma and met the village priest. He reports seeing the priest writing the symbols on the walls. He also records that the priest 'was taught every detail about the Indus civilisation by Verma'. The colour photographs of the 'Santhali-Indus' paintings published by Mathivanan in his book are revealing. The symbols are painted in black in large size on freshly white-washed blank walls.One of the photographs shows the village priest writing a long inscription of 14 symbols in two lines on a blank wall. The painted symbols do not look like tribal art at all. After closely studying the photographs, I suspect that the ultimate source of the freshly painted symbols on the walls of the Santhal village is the Sign List published in the ASI Concordance. In any case, unless the existence of the 'Santhali-Indus' symbols is confirmed by independent evidence of drawings or photographs published before 1920, the date of the discovery of the Indus civilisation,it would be prudent on the part of the would-be decipherers not to rely on the Santhali wall paintings reported by Verma (emphasis by the author).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I. Mahadevan has mildly put is what Steve Farmer has bombarded in an aggressive manner. But, why the Indologists should stoop down to such fraudulent activities and forgeries? That too why only Indian Indologists should be targeted? Definitely, the frauds and forgeries in history cannot be tolerated, as it is a great crime on the humanity. Therefore, it is imperative to analyze the background or circumstances as to whether Western or Indian in the context. Again history of such IVC indulgences go back to John Marshall.
<b>ASI Manipulations in Publishing Reports on IVC:</b> The ASI headed by the British had evidently interests which were beyond the principles of archaeology or history and hence, the persons headed manipulated and even suppressed the reports prepared by Indian Officers. R. D. Banerji, the Superintendent of ASI, who worked with John Marshall had to such experience. When John Marshall wrote on the Monuments of India in Cambridge History of India (1922), considering the cyclopean walls of Rajagriha to the ancient moist remains of India, expressed his ignorance about the great monuments of of Mahanjadaro underneath the stupa site. However, in 1921 itself Harappa was established as a chalcolithic site by Rao Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni. In 1922 Prof R. D. Banerji found similar chalcolithic remains at Mohanjadaro beneath a Buddhist stupa. He conducted excavations at three sites and submitted a report, bringing thus, entirely a new pre-Buddhist civilization to light. R. D. Banerji submitted his report with notes, charts and photographs in 1926 to the then Director General of Archaeology, John Marshall. He concealed it for four years and returned it on Januay 16, 1930 without original copy of Banerji. Even it was returned not by Marshall through H. Hargreaves without giving any reasons. The unpublished Report has been published perhaps only in 1994 after more than 60 years[13]. Thus, here evidently, the British did not want any new pre-Buddhist civilization existed after IVC to come to light. Ironically, the photographs of the excavation, artifacts etc., submitted along with the report were also reported as missing by H. Hargreaves[14]. Earlier, Dr. Alois Anton Fuhrer, Editor of Epigraphica Indica was dismissed from the service[15] in 1898 for his forgery of creating Buddhist Urns and with Asokan inscription on them[16].
<b>Indians have to careful with the Indologists:</b> Indians are therefore bewildered by the claims of Indologists to whom they should believe? Why ignoring the advanced civilization of Indus Valley, the scholars should have indulged in such polemics among themselves accusing each other. How the civilization could have disappeared and all of sudden Mauryan Empire could have emerged as an Empire? Why the gap between IVC and Mauryan Empire is not explained by the historians? Among all these controversies, now Pakistan claims that IVC has been theirs and it was a Mohammedan civilization. Now it is not known how the Dravidians could lay claim on the IVC!
VEDAPRAKASH
17-02-2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] There have been thousands of such books, e.g, K. Pungavanam, The World's first Language âTamil, International Institute for Tamil Studies, Taramani, Chennai, India.
[2] Devaneya Pavanar was proponent of such hypothesis, which is believed to be proven truth by the Dravidian protagonists. Earlier, one Arunagiri Nadar has published small books forcefully derving words of all world languages from Tamil.
K. C. A. Arunagiri Nadar, Tamil, It's Contribution to the European Languages â An Etymological Survey, 438, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai â 600 010, 1975.
[3] Steve Farmer, Illiterate Harappans, see his website: http://www.safarmer.com
[4] Iravatham Mahadevan, Asko Parpola have been unanimously and persistent in their interpretation though they delve on the issues of Vedic Aryans, Brahmanical religion, Saptarishi etc.
[5] Michael Witzel has been the famous writer on IVC, if one reads "The Hindu" regularly. The "India's only Newspaper" might not publish the articles of R. Nagaswamy, K. V. Raman and others, even if they point out the mistakes in his articles and write-ups!
[6] Asko Parpola, the Finnish Indologist, has come to Madras / Chennai many times and lectured on IVC, Indus script, Aryans-Dravidians and so on. He asserted that all the skirmishes of IVC had been between "Aryans and Aryans" on February 28, 1989 {}Indian Express Feb.28, 1989]. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao's (a Chennai based independent researcher) criticism appeared in Indian Express on March 6, 1989 under the caption, "Riddles of IVC". In his another lecture, he declared that Rama was a Dravidian!
[7] Summaries of these papers can be downloaded from the Stanford University site.
[8] http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007workshop...witzel.doc
[9] All slides without pictures of the seals are downloadable from the site:
http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007workshop...arpola.ppt
[10] Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11: 19-57
[11] The author tried to get the names of others, but the staff of the Roja Muthaiah Library expressed their inability as the "papers" (the list of persons who attended the lecture who signed with their e-mails and phone numbers) had gone to the file.
[12] Steve Farmer, The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth Century, http://safarmer.com/firstforgery.pdf
[13] R. D. Banerji, Mohanjadaro A Forgotten Report, Prithivi Prakashan, Varanasi â 221 095, 1944.
This is actually a photocopy of the typed script report (duplicate) submitted to John Marshall and returned unpublished (original retained by himself).
[14] Letter D. O. No. 839 â 456 dated the 16th January 1936 of the Director General of archaeology of India, New Delhi.
[15] Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue & Agriculture (Archaeology & Epigraphy Section), August 1898, File No. 24 of 1898, Proceedings Nos. 7-10 (National Achieves of India, New Delhi).
P. C. Mukheji, Report on a Tour of Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal, JRAS, 1898.
[16] T. A. Phelps, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, see the article posted in http://www.lumkap.org.uk
H. Luders, On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum, JRAS (UK), 1912, fn, p.167.
Why Asko Parpola's paper questioning Michael Witzel was not published?</b>
<b>"Scripts, Non-scripts and (Pseudo) decipherment":</b> The Dravidologists have been so enthusiastic in declaring that Tamil has been the most ancient language on the earth[1]. In fact, there are Dravidian protagonists who swear that all languages originated only from Tamil[2]. For them, Tamil originated even before the creation of stone and sand (Kal thondri manthodra kalatte thondreya Tamizh). They also vouchsafe that the IVC people spoke only Tamil. Of course, the Western Indologists one way or the other interpret that, though the IVC / Harappans were illiterate[3], even though they spoke Dravidian language[4]. However, A Workshop on "Scripts, Non-scripts and (Pseudo) decipherment" held on July 11, 2007 at the Braun Auditorium, Stanford University In conjunction with the 2007 Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute, in which the decipherment of Indus script cropped up and the learned Western scholars decided to criticize such methodology. Of course, Michael Witzel[5] and Asko Parpola[6] had fought with each other in deciding the linguistic question and writing capabilities of IVC people. Now, let us see what happened at the Stanford University[7].
<b>The Stand of Steve Farmer: </b>Steve Farmer, one of the controversial Indologists of Harvard University, in his paper, "The strange case of the so-called Indus script: distinguishing writing from non-linguistic symbols" (http://www.safarmer.com) delved on the evidence of many types that has accumulated in the last half decade that the so-called Indus script was not a speech-encoding or writing system in the strict linguistic sense, as has been assumed since the first Indus artifact carrying symbols showed up in the 1870s (Farmer, Henderson, and Witzel 2002; Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel 2004; Sproat and Farmer 2005). This find is radically changing views of the oldest Indian civilization and has awakened new interest in issues involving non-linguistic symbols, pseudo-decipherments, and related topics addressed in this Workshop. He tried to illustrate a variety of nonlinguistic symbol systems, propose a typology of scripts and non - scripts based on semantic and phonological grounds, and discussed the light recent studies of Indus symbols throw on ways of distinguishing the two classes of symbols. He concluded with a discussion of ways in which our archaeological understanding of Indus society is deepening as a result of abandoning the traditional Indus-script thesis (Weber, Fuller, and Farmer 2007). Thus, Farmer has maintained his stand that the so-called Indus script was not a speech-encoding or writing system in the strict linguistic sense.
<b>Michael Witzel, the other Indologist:</b> The summary of Michael Witzel[8] of Harvard University under the caption was, "The language or languages of the Indus civilization": Indus signs remain "unread" in part because the linguistic nature of the signs is in question and since little is currently known of the language or languages spoken in the Indus civilization. However, two contemporary sources can shed light on this: some 30 loan words in Mesopotamian inscriptions from the Indus (or the Dilmun) areas, and some 200-300 words in early Vedic texts composed in the northern section of the Indus civilization. Both point to a language that was prefixing in nature but radically different from agglutinative, suffixing languages such as Dravidian. Even if Indus signs do not encode full phrases or sentences of a spoken language, as recent studies suggest, determining the languages spoken in the region may be useful in interpreting Indus symbols, which may (like heraldic signs, Mongolian tamghas, and similar nonlinguistic symbol systems) contain occasional puns even without systematically encoding language. Thus the question of associating any language with Indus script is not sustainable.
<b>Asko Parpola opposes the above two! </b>However, Asko Parpola of University of Helsinki presented his paper, "Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?" with slides[9] after him questioned the above two and his other colleagues. His summary was as follows: In December 2004, Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel published (in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11: 19-57) an article[10] entitled "The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization." The authors deny that the Indus script constitutes a real writing system in the sense of being tightly bound to language. In this presentation he reviewed their arguments, repeating what he had already stated in a paper published in 2005 (Transactions of the International Conference of Eastern Studies 50: 33-44) and adding some further considerations. He, thus questioned the Michael Witzel, Steve Farmer & Co.
<b>From Stanford University to Taramani, Chennai! </b>However, the row over the scholars of Western Universities took a different turn, when Asko Parpola paper was not only criticized by his opponents, but also not published! So, the wrangle over decipherment of Indus script of the Western Indologists has been imminent with biased scholarship spilling over academic skirmishes. So perhaps, it was decided by some Indian friends that Asko Parpola would be invited and he would present the same paper here, that too, right now in Madras / Chennai, the bastion of Dravidian protagonists, ideologists and scholars. "The Hindu" gave the coverage like this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Talk on Indus script today
Staff Reporter (The Hindu February 16, 2008)
CHENNAI: A lecture on `Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?' will be delivered by Indus script expert Asko Parpola at Roja Muthiah Research Library, Taramani, at 10.30 a.m. on Saturday.
Mr. Parpola is professor emeritus of Indology Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Finland.
He has studied the Indus script for over four decades. Mr. Asko Parpola is also the chief editor of `Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions', a multi-volume work comprising photographs of collections in India, Pakistan and other parts of the world.
The Indus Research Centre of the library, functioning on the Central Polytechnic campus in Taramani, was set up in 2006.
It has been operating under the guidance of honorary consultant Iravatham Mahadevan and has been organising several lectures.
For more details, contact the library over the phone at 22542551/52.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Asko Parpola presents the same paper in Chennai also:</b> So Asko Parpola came and presented his paper, ""Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?" with slides on February 16, 2008 at Roja Muthaiah Library, Taramani. V. C. Kulandaiswamy, introduced the speaker before the august audience which included many historians, scholars and others. Iravatham Mahadevan, Chempakalakshmi (retired Professor of JNU), Natana Kasinathan (former Director of State Archaeology department), R. Madivanan (the Dravidian IV script decipher), R. Krishnamurthy (Dinamalar editor), S. Swaminathan, P. Ramanathan, K. Venkatachalam (Dravidian Indology Group), N. S. Valluvan, Srinivasan, K. V. Ramakrishna Rao (Independent researchers), lecturers and students from Tamil, Linguistics and history departments of local colleges[11]. After the presentation, the discussion started.
First Natana Kasinathan asked as to why no reference about Mehargarh was made. Asko Parpola replied that the Mehargarh layers had no correlation with the script under study.
Next, K. V. Ramakrishna Rao asked whether he presented the same paper there at Stanford University. He clarified that he presented the paper but it was not published and it would be published by Iravatham Mahadevan. When asked that he was still discussing about the linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of the Indus script and therefore, whether he could answer directly, he replied that Indus script has been linguistic based. When he was asked about the depiction of IVC script and symbols on Soghura Copper plate, one of the conveners prevented him telling that already it was late and more questions were not welcome.
R. Madvanan asked his view about Indrapala's Sri Lanka finding of an inscription that has both IVC symbols and Brahmi script. Asko Parpola replied that he never heard about such an inscription. However, there has been an article, "Aryan or Dravidian or Neither? A Study of Recent Attempts to Decipher the Indus Script (1995-2000)", by Iravatham Mahadevan published in ELECTRONIC JOURNAL OF VEDIC STUDIES (EJVS) Vol. 8 (2002) issue 1 (March 8), which is brought out by Michael Witzel and Company. Can be accessed at: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejv...vs0801.txt I. Mahadevan, in deed not only mentions about it but also discusses about it at length. Ironically, Asko Parpola has been in the Editorial Board! However, he kept quite when Asko Parpola revealed his ignorance about it! Really, it is a wonder how the scholars of international repute have been like this in the case of Indus script decipherment!
Other two-three persons made some general remarks appreciating his lecture.
<b>What is the problem with Western scholars in the case of Indus Script?</b> Earlier Steve Farmer accused that R. Madivanan indulged in the forgery of Indus script specimens[12]. About this, I. Mahadevan says like this:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Indus Script found in a Santhal village in Bihar
4.11 Mathivanan has also read the symbols painted on the walls in a Santhal village in Bihar as written in the Tamil language in the Indus script. Here I have to make a brief digression to explain the background to this discovery. N.K. Verma, an officer of the Bihar Administrative Service who has made a special study of the language and culture of the Santhal tribe in Bihar, published a Paper in 1993 claiming to have found symbols in Santhal wall paintings looking like the signs of the Indus script. He also claims to have learnt the phonetic values of the symbols from the village priest. His study has revealed the occurrence of 22 out of 26 letters of the Roman alphabet in the Indus inscriptions from Mohenjodaro published by Marshall. This discovery enabled him decipher the Indus script. He found in the Indus inscriptions not only Santhali words but also words in Sanskrit, Hebrew, Persian-Arabic and English. He knew he was on the right track when he was able to decipher an Indus inscription which reads hai pig 'this is pig' on a copper tablet which has also the figure of a pig (earlier identified by others as a rhinoceros). He reads another inscription as eft 'elephant' on a sealing which has the figure of an elephant on it. When Verma sent me a copy of his Paper, I noticed the extraordinarily close resemblance of Verma's drawings of the Santhali symbols to the Indus signs published by me in the ASI Concordance (1977). At that time I did not think much about it; but now Mathivanan's book throws fresh light on this curious affair.
4.12 In the course of his fieldwork, Mathivanan visited the Santhal village in Bihar accompanied by Verma and met the village priest. He reports seeing the priest writing the symbols on the walls. He also records that the priest 'was taught every detail about the Indus civilisation by Verma'. The colour photographs of the 'Santhali-Indus' paintings published by Mathivanan in his book are revealing. The symbols are painted in black in large size on freshly white-washed blank walls.One of the photographs shows the village priest writing a long inscription of 14 symbols in two lines on a blank wall. The painted symbols do not look like tribal art at all. After closely studying the photographs, I suspect that the ultimate source of the freshly painted symbols on the walls of the Santhal village is the Sign List published in the ASI Concordance. In any case, unless the existence of the 'Santhali-Indus' symbols is confirmed by independent evidence of drawings or photographs published before 1920, the date of the discovery of the Indus civilisation,it would be prudent on the part of the would-be decipherers not to rely on the Santhali wall paintings reported by Verma (emphasis by the author).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So I. Mahadevan has mildly put is what Steve Farmer has bombarded in an aggressive manner. But, why the Indologists should stoop down to such fraudulent activities and forgeries? That too why only Indian Indologists should be targeted? Definitely, the frauds and forgeries in history cannot be tolerated, as it is a great crime on the humanity. Therefore, it is imperative to analyze the background or circumstances as to whether Western or Indian in the context. Again history of such IVC indulgences go back to John Marshall.
<b>ASI Manipulations in Publishing Reports on IVC:</b> The ASI headed by the British had evidently interests which were beyond the principles of archaeology or history and hence, the persons headed manipulated and even suppressed the reports prepared by Indian Officers. R. D. Banerji, the Superintendent of ASI, who worked with John Marshall had to such experience. When John Marshall wrote on the Monuments of India in Cambridge History of India (1922), considering the cyclopean walls of Rajagriha to the ancient moist remains of India, expressed his ignorance about the great monuments of of Mahanjadaro underneath the stupa site. However, in 1921 itself Harappa was established as a chalcolithic site by Rao Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni. In 1922 Prof R. D. Banerji found similar chalcolithic remains at Mohanjadaro beneath a Buddhist stupa. He conducted excavations at three sites and submitted a report, bringing thus, entirely a new pre-Buddhist civilization to light. R. D. Banerji submitted his report with notes, charts and photographs in 1926 to the then Director General of Archaeology, John Marshall. He concealed it for four years and returned it on Januay 16, 1930 without original copy of Banerji. Even it was returned not by Marshall through H. Hargreaves without giving any reasons. The unpublished Report has been published perhaps only in 1994 after more than 60 years[13]. Thus, here evidently, the British did not want any new pre-Buddhist civilization existed after IVC to come to light. Ironically, the photographs of the excavation, artifacts etc., submitted along with the report were also reported as missing by H. Hargreaves[14]. Earlier, Dr. Alois Anton Fuhrer, Editor of Epigraphica Indica was dismissed from the service[15] in 1898 for his forgery of creating Buddhist Urns and with Asokan inscription on them[16].
<b>Indians have to careful with the Indologists:</b> Indians are therefore bewildered by the claims of Indologists to whom they should believe? Why ignoring the advanced civilization of Indus Valley, the scholars should have indulged in such polemics among themselves accusing each other. How the civilization could have disappeared and all of sudden Mauryan Empire could have emerged as an Empire? Why the gap between IVC and Mauryan Empire is not explained by the historians? Among all these controversies, now Pakistan claims that IVC has been theirs and it was a Mohammedan civilization. Now it is not known how the Dravidians could lay claim on the IVC!
VEDAPRAKASH
17-02-2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] There have been thousands of such books, e.g, K. Pungavanam, The World's first Language âTamil, International Institute for Tamil Studies, Taramani, Chennai, India.
[2] Devaneya Pavanar was proponent of such hypothesis, which is believed to be proven truth by the Dravidian protagonists. Earlier, one Arunagiri Nadar has published small books forcefully derving words of all world languages from Tamil.
K. C. A. Arunagiri Nadar, Tamil, It's Contribution to the European Languages â An Etymological Survey, 438, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai â 600 010, 1975.
[3] Steve Farmer, Illiterate Harappans, see his website: http://www.safarmer.com
[4] Iravatham Mahadevan, Asko Parpola have been unanimously and persistent in their interpretation though they delve on the issues of Vedic Aryans, Brahmanical religion, Saptarishi etc.
[5] Michael Witzel has been the famous writer on IVC, if one reads "The Hindu" regularly. The "India's only Newspaper" might not publish the articles of R. Nagaswamy, K. V. Raman and others, even if they point out the mistakes in his articles and write-ups!
[6] Asko Parpola, the Finnish Indologist, has come to Madras / Chennai many times and lectured on IVC, Indus script, Aryans-Dravidians and so on. He asserted that all the skirmishes of IVC had been between "Aryans and Aryans" on February 28, 1989 {}Indian Express Feb.28, 1989]. K. V. Ramakrishna Rao's (a Chennai based independent researcher) criticism appeared in Indian Express on March 6, 1989 under the caption, "Riddles of IVC". In his another lecture, he declared that Rama was a Dravidian!
[7] Summaries of these papers can be downloaded from the Stanford University site.
[8] http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007workshop...witzel.doc
[9] All slides without pictures of the seals are downloadable from the site:
http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/2007workshop...arpola.ppt
[10] Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11: 19-57
[11] The author tried to get the names of others, but the staff of the Roja Muthaiah Library expressed their inability as the "papers" (the list of persons who attended the lecture who signed with their e-mails and phone numbers) had gone to the file.
[12] Steve Farmer, The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth Century, http://safarmer.com/firstforgery.pdf
[13] R. D. Banerji, Mohanjadaro A Forgotten Report, Prithivi Prakashan, Varanasi â 221 095, 1944.
This is actually a photocopy of the typed script report (duplicate) submitted to John Marshall and returned unpublished (original retained by himself).
[14] Letter D. O. No. 839 â 456 dated the 16th January 1936 of the Director General of archaeology of India, New Delhi.
[15] Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue & Agriculture (Archaeology & Epigraphy Section), August 1898, File No. 24 of 1898, Proceedings Nos. 7-10 (National Achieves of India, New Delhi).
P. C. Mukheji, Report on a Tour of Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal, JRAS, 1898.
[16] T. A. Phelps, Lumbini on Trial: The Untold Story, see the article posted in http://www.lumkap.org.uk
H. Luders, On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum, JRAS (UK), 1912, fn, p.167.