Harappan Deciphered?!

[Michael Witzel]

Prof. Rajaram had admionished us, via a surrogate:

>> People should read the whole book before judging it.


Now Rajarshi Banerjee has supplied us with 2 web pages that continue
RR's

attempts of tackling the Indus script, this time even going back to
some of

the earliest Indus writings. Ambitious indeed.


Leaving aside all of Rajaram's usual, useless polemics against
"Western

archaeologists", "racist, colonial, missionary Indologists," [where
are

they today?]  and the polemics on this list which have nothing to do
with

the issue at hand,  decipherment:


What does RR. have to  say on his SWORD OF TRUTH web site?

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/

wowp1vo.html  and  wowp2vo.htlm show


<bold>*SCRIPT:


</bold>Briefly,  he reads the following signs, early c. 3500 BCE:


dotted rhombus  -  \  -  Y -   ^ roof with subscript \  -  ^ roof with

subscript

V -  rhombus



<bold>as: Ilavartate vara



</bold>and gives a variant where   roof with subscript | is expressed
by a sign

looking like M, and 2nd last as  :   Y


and  one more inscriptions <bold>(undocumented </bold>all of them!)
which differs:


dotted rhombus -  ,\    -Y  -     M  -

rimmed vessel


|-   -  rhombus


again explained as Ilavartate vara (once written with long a in:
Ilaa...) as well.

Note that the 2nd last sign differs in the last 2 inscr.!


Strangely enough, the preceding examples seem to have been <bold>read
from left

to right,</bold> the opposite of the normal sign  order.


The difference between signs is explained a inner-Harappan development,
M =

2 times roof with subscript | or \.

The<bold> rimmed vessel</bold> is again introduced as ANY vowel at the
beginning of a

word. NOTE that <bold>this position is *very* unususal</bold> and rare
in Indus script!

Plus a theory of substitution of writing this vowel by double initial

consonant in older writing.


Remember, all based on a still unproven, shaky, fudging
decipherment...


In short, the <bold>3 examples given are not the same</bold> and cannot
be read as the

same unless ADDITIONAL PROOF IS given. Not the case.


And why is  the sound "v" written as "V" once and as rhombus in the
second

line?


In addition to all the fudging criticised by S. Farmer and me, we have

another one here,<bold> VIOLATION of HIS OWN principles</bold>. That's
a FIRST in

decipherments!




<bold>** TEXT AND MEANING


</bold>The "text" '<bold>Ilavartate vara</bold>' is supposed to refer
to the Sarasvati (ila) and

" Ilavarta refers to the sacred Vedic heartland. ....  It could also
refer

to the ancient country Ilavrita, ruled by a king by the same name....

Ilavrita (ila avrita) also means 'surrounded by Ila'. " (his web site)


First, Rajaram's ila or ilaa  seems to be Rgvedic <bold> iLaa </bold>
(with retroflex l)

'portion offered in ritual'.

This, unfortunately for RR.,  is the <bold>POST-Rgvedic form of
iDaa</bold>, as the

meter shows. It has been introduced into the Samhita text only later
on,

by/before Sakalya.

But why sqabble about l or L, when so many consonants and vowels share
the

same character in RR's "alphabet"?? Just more fudging.


Second, <bold>iLaa is found *together* with Bharatii, mahii,
sarasvatii</bold> -- thus

iLaa and sarasvatii are NOT THE SAME.


Third, <bold>Ilavartate makes no sense</bold>.  What is that word??


Fourth,  oh-so-desired <bold>"country" Ilavarta</bold> is <bold>NOT
found in the Rgveda</bold>, as it

is made to appear above, nor is it found for for along time: It
appears

only in the <bold>POST-VEDIC form ilaa-vRt</bold>a (now already with
regular -l- !),  in

the <bold>Mahabharata </bold>and Puranas.   VERY misleading.


Fifth, <bold>vartate</bold>, here obviously taken as 'exists, is'  is
not Rgvedic at all.

Vartate is found in the Rgveda a few times but it<bold> ONLY means
'turns around'

</bold>(of the chariot) , and vartante (plural), of the dice.


And, vartate 'is, exists' is only post-Vedic. Later by at least 1000
years

than the Rgveda.


Sixth, the <bold>sentence is again ungrammatical</bold>. At best:
*iLaa vartate varaa*


<bold>"iLaa turns around as the best one"


</bold>(i.e. as offering to the gods, wife of

Manu" etc. etc. Why does she turn? Certainly, out of horror that she
has

been mangled in these "translations".


<bold>No country, no king ilavarta, not even Sarasvati.

Ouch</bold>!


I wonder: what is Dr.Jha's, <bold>RR's Vedic collaborator'</bold>s role
is in all of this? After all,  "He is one of the world's foremost Vedic
scholars and palaeographers"

(according to  their website).

Does he not know that ilaa is post-Rgvedic? And that vartate 'is' is
only

Epic/Classical Skt.?


<bold>Do we have to discuss what "is" is?



</bold>*****


The unintended irony of  Rajaram's "decipherment" is that he now gets
a

Semitic-style alphabet in the Indus area by 3500 BCE. Long before any

alphabet anywhere, and long before the Semitic one was developed from

Egyptian writing...


Just like the Dholavira horse thieves, do we now have Semitic traders

introducing their alphabet before their time?

Certainly not intended, as the Sarasvati area is the "cradle of

civilization'....


*****


Finally, no one has combatted my criticism of Rajaram yet (beyond some

surrogate saying he despises Indologists anyhow, etc.) and his own
quote

above. If he or his Vedic collaborator Dr. Jha , or his surrogates
cannot

contest it, my criticism stands.



And, my prize contest still stands....


==============================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment.bin
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5534 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20000711/f8347cc1/attachment.bin>