Rules of Membership

[Steve Farmer]

Subrahmanya writes:

> Also, Dr. Witzels and Dr. Farmers posting's were not polite
> by any standard.

There is a big difference between satire, which is backed by a
venerable tradition in the world of scholarship, and meanspirited
namecalling. Those posts were backed by solid evidence and served an
extremely useful scholarly purpose. When public claims of
revolutionary discoveries are made -- and the claims for Jha/Rajaram
have *definitely* been revolutionary -- the people making those claims
have to expect close scrutiny and even ridicule if those claims are
groundless. Recall the "cold fusion" debacle of a few years ago?

How many times have claims been made that the Harappan code has been
cracked? Take a look at the list in Possehl (1996). Do you think that
those inflated claims have helped or retarded research in Indology?
The Jha/Rajaram book is entitled _The Deciphered Indus Script_. Well,
it hasn't been deciphered. As M. Witzel has shown with good humor,
using the method of Jha/Rajaram you can generate just about *any*
reading that you want. Any "method" that flexible invites a little laughter.

Voltaire would have gone much further than M. Witzel or I did in
satirizing the "avaricious horse thieves" reading of the Kholavira
signpost, which fits so perfectly and conveniently into the OIT scene.
I agree totally that simple namecalling doesn't serve any good
scholarly purpose. But I don't think that is true of satire, which has
been with us since the beginning of scientific historical research in
the eighteenth century.

Laughter has a legitimate place in the scholarly world -- as in life
in general.

My best,
Steve Farmer