Fw: Hamsa

[Dominik Wujastyk]

Julia Leslie was preparing a comprehensive re-examination of the whole 
hamsa/swan/goose/flamingo issue, but sadly her premature death last year 
prevented that work being completed.  I do remember several conversations, 
however, in which Julia noted that the various "hard" positions on the 
fixed identity of the hamsa were always wrong.  It's not "always" a goose, 
or swan, flamingo, or mythical bird.  In deciding how to understand what 
is meant by "hamsa", "rajahamsa" etc., in any passage, context is very 
important, Julia thought, including chronological, geographical and 
narrative context.  Her 1998 "A Bird Bereaved" article in JIP demonstrated 
this method admirably.  Unfortunately there isn't a simple, general answer 
about the identity of hamsa.  Interestingly, Julia felt that it was indeed 
appropriate to understand "swan" in many cases, though not all. She 
deprecated the rigid identification of "hamsa" with "goose" which has 
become an automatic reflex in much indological writing since Vogel's 1962 
book _The goose in Indian literature and art_, which she felt was based on 
a too-narrow selection of sources (mainly architectural and mainly 
Sinhalese).  She felt that Dave's _Birds in Sanskrit Literature_ was often 
more nuanced, better informed ornithologically, and more appropriate.

DW



On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Sven Sellmer wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harsha Dehejia" 
> <harshadehejia at hotmail.com>
> To: <sellmers at GMX.DE>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:49 PM
> Subject: Hamsa
>
>
>> Sven:
>> 
>> A hamsa is neither a swam or a duck but a mythic bird.
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> Harsha
>> Prof. Harsha V. Dehejia
>> Ottawa, ON. Canada
>> 
>> PS Can you post this on the Indologist as I am unable to do this as I have 
>> a new computer address.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>