Dravida maayaa of Mahadevan
nA rejoinder to Iravatham Mahadevan’s hurried claim of Tamil/Dravida decipherment of Indus Script
This is in reference to the claim made by Iravatham Mahadevan, 2014, Dravidian Proof of the Indus Script via the Rig Veda: A case study, Bulletin of the Indus Research Centre, No. 4, November 2014 and also reported in The Hindu of November 15, 2014. This Mahadevan monograph is available as Gift Siromaney Endowment Lecture 2014 at www.mrl.inhttp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/indus-script-early-form-of-dravidian-iravatham-mahadevan/article6600394.ece
At the outset, I should compliment and pay my respects to my guru, Iravatham Mahadevan who has devoted decades of his illustrious life to the study of Indus Script. I submit this refutation in the traditional spirit with which Mandana Misra and Sankara debated arbitrated by Ubhaya Bharati without any intention to generate heat which will make the garlands of flowers wither. This is submitted in all humilityl’acte gratuite (as unmotivated action) consistent with the dictum: ekam sat vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. I am sure Iravatam Mahadevan will agree with me at least on this framework of humble submission of mine, though I am no vipra, I am a mere student of Sarasvati-Sindhu (Hindu) civilization.
Dravida maayaa is closely linked to the identity politics of Tamil Nadu founded on myths of false Dravida identities. It is a matter of utter sadness when such identity traps get reflected in scholastic fora lending credibility to the false dravida identities distinct from the identity of Bharatam janam attested in a text attributed to Rishi Viswamitra (Rigveda 3.53.12). I am citing this because Mahadevan also cites Rigveda in another context of his ‘loan translations’ myths.
An extraordinary, non-falsifiable assertion by Mahadevan is a new idiom in linguistic studies called ‘loan translations’. He uses this idiom to link ampalam, ‘assembly’; ampali ‘gruel, porridge’ to vidatha ‘assembly’ and divinity Pushan with karambha ‘gruel’. This is further premised on the unauthenticated obiter dicta: ‘Aryan-speaking people migrated into South Asia in the second millennium BCE, in the wake of the decline and the eventual collapse of the Indus Civilisation…The language of the Indus Civilisatio was an early form of Dravidian…The Vedic Age succeeded he Indus Civilisation.’
How to falsify such articles of faith as Mahadevan’s which run counter to other scholars’ statements such as the continuum of Indus Civilisation in Bharatam by continued worship of Sivalinga, wearing sindhur at the parting of the hair by married women, veneration of s’ankha (turbinella pyrum) used for bangles on a woman’s hand found in a burial in Mehergarh dated to ca. 6,500 BCE, the Rigveda ante-dating even Avestan (pace Nicholas Kazanas’ works) and the reality of Indian sprachbund (linguistic area) attested by MB Emeneau who was a co-author of a Dravidian Etymologial Dictionary?
I submit that Mahadevan has rushed to judgment without examining the Indus script corpora containing the use of what he claims to be a ‘back of a wolf – WOLF for brevity’ hieroglyph on Mohenjo-daro tablet m0337, assuming that he expects consistency of his decipherment of this hieroglyph (or what he calls ‘sign’). It is surprising that Mahadevan has chosen to ignore scores of inscriptions containing what he calls the ‘wolf’ hieroglyph.
I read the hieroglyph as a signifier of a ‘scorpion’ – not a ‘wolf’ -- with accent on the pointed sting on its tail. The rebus reading is: bicha ‘scorpion’ Rebus: bica ‘hematite Iron ore’. Two other types of iron ore, pola and gota are also detailed in Indus script corpora: pola (magnetite), gota (laterite), This decipherment can be debated separately since the purport of this note is to refute Mahadevan’s claims of decipherment of ‘wolf’ sign and other related ‘signs’ read as Dravida/Tamil.
It is also surprising that he has chosen not to review another hieroglyph (ficus religiosa leaf) which has ligatured ‘ears’ identical to the ligatures on his ‘wolf’ hieroglyph or sign.
On a more fundamental basis, Mahadevan’s claim of reading Dravidian/Tamil in the particular Mohenjo-daro tablet m337 is inconsistent with the growing evidence of an Indian sprachbund (linguistic area) which explains the presence of glosses common to Munda, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan language streams.
I would like an opportunity to present my views to the same forum in which Mahadevan has announced his claims. Herewith a monograph which constitutes the refutation of Mahadevan’s claims of decipherment which can be published as a Bulletin of the Indus Research Centre to provide a fair opportunity for a critical refutation of the Bulletin No. 4 for researchers to evaluate and come to their conclusions.
On the question of his claim ‘via the Rig Veda’ I find that his claims violate occam’s razor. If there are cultural parallels, they should also be found in the glosses which constituted the parole of the civilization as contrasted with the literary versions of chandas.
I have made a contrary submission herein that 1) the underlying language of the Indus script is the parole, lingua franca of the civilization spoken – as a proto-Prakrit dialect -- by Meluhha (cognate Mleccha) and 2) the hieroglyphs (both field symbols and ‘signs’) read rebus on Indus Script are short draft memoranda of metalwork by Meluhha artisans/merchants. This stands the test of most of the inscriptions of the Indus Script corpora presented in my works, the latest of which is: Indus Script – Meluhha metalwork hieroglyphs (2014).
It is from this work, the following rebus readings are excerpted as a refutation of Mahadevan’s hurried claims. I request Iravatham Mahadevan to comment on the readings based on the rebus Meluhha cipher.
Read on...