More on
Yajnadevam’s Claimed Decipherment of the Harappan Script
I recently posted an article on January 18, 2025, titled “Is the Harappan Script Deciphered? If not, is the Harappan Language Likely to be “Aryan” (Indo-European) or Dravidian?”. This was in response to a question by someone from Bangalore.
However, someone has just brought something to my notice
that teaches me two points of wisdom about writing my articles that I should
have learnt by myself long before this, but clearly failed to learn:
1. Never praise something you have not studied and do not
know much about.
2. Never try to be diplomatic, always be either silent
or blunt.
In my article, I repeatedly pointed out that judging the
correctness or otherwise of decipherments was simply not my field of expertise
or skill:
1. “As I have always said, the absolutely final conclusive (i.e. indisputable) answer can only come when the alphabet is conclusively deciphered beyond any reasonable doubt (which I honestly don’t think has happened yet, but I will answer that question, and explain my answer, more in detail further on in Section III of this article), But, till that final conclusive answer is reached, the very much greater likelihood is that it is “Aryan” (Indo-European).”
2. ““Views”? Yes, views. I do not and cannot in any way claim to be an expert able to answer finally and conclusively on the question of the Harappan script and its decipherment. I (in spite of my unchallengeable mastery of the AIT-vs.-OIT issue) do not have either the patience, the skill and technical ability, or, to be frank. the very high level of dedication, knowledge and analytical skills, which would be required to decipher the Harappan script. I would not know how to even start on the project (starting with the massive task of gathering together all the literally tens of thousands − I have no count even of how many tens of thousands are now available − of Harappan seals and inscriptions) arranged date-wise or period-wise and area-wise, In fact, the very thought of this project fills me with awe.”
3. “But while the Harappan language definitely cannot be anything else but “Aryan” (PIE/PIIr/PIr/PIA or whatever), can we take any particular claimed decipherment of the Harappan script (as “Aryan” PIE/PIIr/PIr/PIA or whatever) as decisive, conclusive and final? To be very frank, I cannot answer with a final resounding “yes!”. Because, although it is true that my biases as well as the evidence detailed in Section I make it inevitable that the Harappan script does represent an “Aryan” (PIE/PIIr/PIr/PIA or whatever) language, it does not automatically follow that any and every, or even any particular, claimed decipherment to that effect is really correct, let alone conclusive. And there have been literally dozens of different claimed “decipherments”, by both Indian and western scholars, reaching the correct conclusion (“Aryan”) but by different strange paths and methods, for many of which I have the same perception as for the “Dravidian” conclusions, that they are “based on arbitrary and whimsical methods” and represent “a spree of reckless and whimsical interpretations”.
After making all these clear statements, I should have stopped there and then, but, as I wrote above, I made the great mistake of tying to be diplomatic, rather than remaining silent or being blunt. And, while I had a lot to say about Dr.S.R.Rao’s decipherment, and said it, I stuck my neck out (for no reason at all) and put the claimed decipherment by Yajnadevam on a level with that of Dr.S.R.Rao:
“However, two great claimed decipherments, both different from each other, but both truly great, impressive and admirable ones, stand out from the rest and must be mentioned, and merit study, examination and further research: the claimed decipherments by Dr.S.R.Rao and by Yajnadevam.”
“About the second claimed decipherment that I hold in great awe and respect, the recent decipherment by Yajnadevam also, I will say the same thing: “I myself am not an authority on the subject. Therefore, I am in no position to judge the correctness of his decipherment. I don’t know whether his decipherment is the last word on the subject (though I hope and pray he is generally correct), and I can only leave it at that for the moment””.
I have faced a barrage of questions on Yajnadevam’s
decipherment in the last many months, and have even had his article on the same
sent to me multiple times by different people, and
I believe many people have pronounced favorably on it. Although I went through
his article to the best of my ability, I realized I could not bother to try to
pronounce any conclusions on a subject I knew was beyond my powers. So I
refrained from giving any opinion so far. But one thing I knew (and will still
accept, whether his decipherment is right or wrong): his detailed work does seem to show that he exhibited certain
qualities which (see above quote from my earlier article) I knew I did not have
at least in the matter of “deciphering” the script: “the patience,
the skill and technical ability, or, to be frank. the very high level of
dedication, knowledge and analytical skills, which would be required to
decipher the Harappan script”.
So, although I had a nagging feeling that what I wrote about the Dravidian-decipherers also applied to Yajnadevam (“that they are “based on arbitrary and whimsical methods” and represent “a spree of reckless and whimsical interpretations””), I made the two mistakes I mentioned earlier: I praised something I had not studied, and decided to be diplomatic rather than to remain silent or be blunt. I praised Yajnadevam, without going into specifics, and thought the matter was closed for me.
Shortly after that, someone (I don’t know how he got my email id) sent me a review of Yajnadevam’s article in which he made sharp criticisms about Yajnadevam’s decipherment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/comments/1i4vain/critical_review_of_yajnadevams_illfounded/
This reviewer was clearly a full-fledged supporter of the AIT, and of the Dravidian identity of the Harappans. And he made certain specific AIT-biased wrong comments (about the alleged post-2000 BCE “Aryan” influx, and the alleged pre-Rigvedic nature of the Mitanni data) which led to some sharp altercation between us. However, at no point during this altercation did I reject his criticism of Yajnadevam’s decipherment: I simply skirted the issue (because frankly I could not find fault with his criticism). Again, I thought the matter was closed.
However, today, I was sent some tweets by Yajnadevam in the
past (in 2022, addressed apparently to Nilesh Oak) which I knew nothing about
(since I am not on twitter):
https://x.com/yajnadevam
Elst is stuck on date of vedas by Talageri. He is unable to accept
Mahabharata before this date since it must come after vedas. This will resolve
once Vedic date is more firmly established.
Elst is a follower of Talageri RigVeda dates, which is 3500-1500
BCE. For high chronology to gain acceptance, Vedic date must be established
with the same volume of evidence that you have meticulously gathered for MB.
Apparently, Yajnadevam generally avoids making any
references to my work, and when he does rarely make any comments, they are
extremely critical; and, he otherwise avoids answering any questions about my
work.
A wise man: wiser than me!
But while I made the two above mistakes in my earlier article, I must now correct myself. No, I am not rejecting Yajnadevam’s decipherment, I am simply reiterating that it is not, and was not, my place to accept or reject the correctness or otherwise of any decipherment. So I simply retract my unwisely and unwarrantedly effusive praise for his work.
Incidentally, the person who sent me the tweets also said that the other person (besides Dr.S.R.Rao) that I should have praised is not Yajnadevam, but Steven Bonta. I naturally knew about Steven Bonta’s work, but (apart from my general disinclination to pass judgments of correctness or incorrectness on claimed decipherments of the Harappan script), I had been told that Steven Bonta had also accepted Yajnadevam’s decipherment, so I did not name him. However, “point to be noted, my lord” as lawyers say to judges in Hindi film court scenes: I think he is right, and I do hope Steven Bonta receives all the support he deserves, and his thesis is given its due, and carried forward by other researchers. However, I genuinely am not really qualified to confirm the correctness of anyone’s specific decipherment, and the discussions on various specific claimed decipherments of the Harappan script must take place without my active participation in them.
No comments:
Post a Comment