Rajaram's bogus "horse seal"

[Bijoy Misra]

Being only a curious observer in the field
I went through various sites this evening.
Rajaram's site definitely sounds political.
(why is it "sword of truth"?)
He should just point the evidence than
point fingers.  He probably has an audience.

His claim of decipherment may have
some merit.  He claims to have "read" scripts
on 2000 seals and if the reading is scientific,
he deserves credit.  Does he err 2000 times?

Now whether he stretches on the "horse seal"
to create news is another matter.  It's too flimsy
an evidence to establish a theory.  By using strong
language like "bogus" in this forum is playing into
the politics.  We can respectfully disagree.

I will like to hear from the knowledeable sources
if Rajaram's decipherment has merit.  I am an
imaging scientist.  I know some technology behind
such studies and recognitions.  I will appreciate
any comments.

Bijoy Misra


On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Steve Farmer wrote:

> http://www.safarmer.com/pico/delusion3.html
>
> The other day I posted preliminary evidence on a bogus "horse
> seal" that Jha and Rajaram make much of in their new book
> entitled _The Deciphered Indus Script_ (2000). Earlier, M. Witzel
> and I had shown how "evidence" of horses in Harappa was
> manufactured by Jha and Rajaram through supposed decipherments of
> IVC script using methods letting you generate almost any needed
> text out of any inscription.
>
> Rajaram and Jha go to much trouble in their book to present an
> "Artist's reproduction" of the supposed Mohenjo-daro horse seal,
> but the reproduction of the seal impression itself that they give
> is suspiciously blurred (for evidence, see the images in the link
> given with this post). They've also made it extremely
> difficult to track down the original of the seal due to a major
> miscitation in their bibliography.
>
> This morning, following a little detective work, I finally
> located the original of the seal in Plate XCV of Vol. II of
> Ernest Mackay, _Further Excavations of Mohenjo-daro_ (1938),
> which is NOT cited in the bibliography in their book. Over the
> weekend, Michael Witzel also found another photo of the same seal
> impression (or a strikingly similar one), carrying *exactly* the
> same inscription, in one of Asko Parpola's works (see again the
> attached link).
>
> As suspected, the supposed impression of a "horse seal" is, in
> fact, the impression of the kind of unicorn bull seal found
> ubiquitously in Mohenjo-daro. The original photo shows that at
> least 1/2 of the impression is split and broken, cutting off the
> whole of the animal's middle torso and head. If you observe the
> resulting image shown in Jha/Rajaram's badly blurred reproduction
> as a Rorschach inkblot test (as suggested by Dominik Wujastyk),
> part of the broken inscription turns into the animal's head! (I
> originally mistook it for a deer's head with antlers.)
>
> Rajaram (who was claims responsibility for writing the book)
> makes much of supposed anomalies in the animal's genitals, which
> he says demonstrates that the animal is a horse and not a
> unicorn bull. The quality of the original photo in Mackay (1938)
> isn't good enough to show any details in the genital area, but
> the other photo of the same seal impression (or very similar seal
> impression associated with the same inscription), turned up by
> Professor Witzel, shows the bull unicorn's genitals *exactly*
> where they are supposed to be.
>
> In the provided links, I offer a series of photos that follow the
> story of Rajaram's phoney "horse seal" from start to finish. In
> the last series, I show how I have manufactured an even more
> credible "horse seal" than Rajaram by using a scanned image of
> the same broken seal coupled with creative use of the "contrast"
> control in PhotoShop.
>
> http://www.safarmer.com/pico/delusion3.html
>
> Debunking bogus claims like this is extremely time consuming.
> Rajaram's handiwork should be publicized as widely as possible --
> especially in light of his repeated claims in the Indian press
> that "Western scholars" intentionally manipulate evidence.
>
> My best,
> Steve Farmer
>