Rajaram's Horse & genitals

[Michael Witzel]

Rajaram, on his high horse, does not let me sleep. I reproduce a message
sent to me by S. Farmer since he is over quota, and I have saved mine --
just in case:

Given the importance Rajaram attaches to the one elusive Mohenjo Daro's
horse and his genitals, and given his emphatic statement about "western,
colonialist-missionary scholars" whose  attitudes misrepresent Indian
history, take another look...

Any calm and objective observer can see that "the horse's " neck and head
is just a break line in the seal and that the artist's impression of a
horse is just the phantasy of Rajaram et al., not to speak of the waxing
and waning linga.

Note also some other details such as the tail with a thick lump at the
bottom... Anyone who has been hit by a cow's tail (e.g.,  when milking)
will prefer to be hit by the rather feathery one of a horse... which is not
seen with this "horse".

In addition, there is another seal, same picture but with clear bull's
Lingam, M-1034, which S.Farmer or I will publish tomorrow. Now we have TWO
copies of the same seal with the same *bull* + same inscription. But no
horse.

Time for Rajaram to clime down from his horse and admit that he has been
had, has imagined something based on a bad representation, and has built a
whole theory on it.

No matter how many more refernces to horses he will find in his
"translations". As has been shown, you can read anything, even Urdu, into
them by using his 'method'. As I now have his book, thanks to S. Farmer
(not yet in our library), more on this non-method soon.

Dr. Rajaram (or Jha) are of course invited to state their case here. If he
chooses not to do so (he has email), we can all draw our own conclusions.

Here is S. Farmer:

xxxxxxxxxxxx


Apparently, I can't put this genital question behind me!

I wrote:

> The original photo in Mackay, which is tiny and of poor quality,
> is very badly lighted and heavily shadowed right where it is
> cracked. The crack in the impression and a *very* heavy shadow
> come together exactly where we expect the genitals to be on
> unicorn bull seals. The genitals are either there in the shadow
> or are broken off, just like the missing head and neck and front
> part of the torso.

Michael Witzel (a noted expert on genitals in Harappan seals) has
reminded me of a critical point that I forgot to make: Different
lighting conditions make genitals on photos of seals and seal
impressions come and go mysteriously. At

http://www.safarmer.com/pico/delusion3.html

I showed (middle of page) one photo for comparison purposes of
Parpola's seal #772 (of a unicorn bull, carrying the same
inscription as the so-called "horse seal" of Jha/Rajaram) showing
it had genitals. Below, at

http://www.safarmer.com/pico/genitals.html

I demonstrate that there is *another* photo of the *same* seal in
Parpola that shows no sign of the genitals at all!

Now you see them, now you don't: They are as elusive as horses
(or horse thieves) in Harappa!

End of story.
========================================================
Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University
2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages)
home page:  http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm

Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies:  http://www1.shore.net/~india/ejvs