From: selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
Subject: Ancient Indian History
Keywords: Dravidian, Aryan, 4000 year old artifact, Indus Civilization 
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:00:18 GMT



In article <1992Nov6.132923.28731@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, bond@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (GIRISH) writes:
> In article <BxA0w9.v3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selvakum@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
> >
> >[.....]
> >     It is absolutely amazing how the new artifact can stir anything !!
> >     The artifact of 3000-4500 old human head has nothing to link with
> >     either dravidian or aryan and why should it give 'a new life'
> >     to a 'controvesy'? Well there were so many artifacts and scripts !!
> >     What is so special about this ? You found the nose more straight ?
> >     It somehow looks like an aryan to you ? It looks like a handsome
> >     Tamil king to *me* ! (-; (-; Who knows it could be the statue 
> >     of the Great Paandian King 'VeNdEr Sezhiyan' who is said to have 
> >     ruled 7,552 years ago ! Or he could be the Paandian King 
> >     MudaththirumaaRan who ruled 3852 years ago! 
> >     [ I am saying these in a lighter vein- just to joke
> >     about some equally baseless claims made by Prof. Kak in the
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >     Yoga Journal (-; (-; ]  [ However, it is true that names of these
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >     Kings are mentioned in a commentary written for a tamil work 
> >[.....]
> 
> 
> Prof. Kak did not make any 'baseless' claims in 'Yoga Journal'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Whatever he has written is based on Hick and Anderson's conclusions.
> Seems to me that you have not read this paper. So your comments about
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> him are baseless and ridiculous.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


        Prof. Kak has contributed a sidebar on page 67 of the Yoga Journal
        ( July/August 1992 issue). Let me quote the "basis":

     [A]   "The life-sized head has a hairstyle that the Vedas describe as
            being unique to the family of Vasishta, one of the great seers
            who composed parts of the Rig Veda. The hair is oiled and coiled 
            with a tuft on the right, and the ears are riveted."

           ......

     [B]   "Stylistically the head is unique with some parallels from the 
            realistic torso that has survived from Harappan era of the 
            third millenium B.C. "

           ......
     
     [C]    "Although identification of the head with Vasishta may yet be
             contested, it seems fairly certain that the head is Vedic"

       The missing parts of the quote above deal with (1) the citation
       of the article by Hicks who obtained the item in 1958 in Delhi,
       and that the article was published in the 'prestigious' Journal
       of Indo-european studies, (2) description of who Vasishta was
       namely he was a priest of vedic king Suda who defeated a coalition of
       10 kings in a battle on the banks of the Parushni River,
       and (3) where all  carbon-14 dating was performed.


      Please look at the the three parts of the quote, which I have 
      named A, B, and C ( for the sake of discussion).

     I don't believe there is ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE in the above( A,B,C
     about the artifact being VEDIC HEAD).
     The quote 'C' explains the baseless nature of the whole thing !
     First, it is said that the hairstyle is unique to Vasishta
     ( I cited earlier that the 'oiled and coiled' head-dress is nothing
      uncommon and the Sun-God Shamash giving the Hammurabi Code 
      dated 1792 B.C has remarkably similar headress. Or if you look at
      Elamite god on chariot belonging to 17century B.C you will find
      such 'oiled and coiled' head dress. If the 'tuft' is what he means
      unique as vedic that is also NOT correct because all kinds of 
      non-vedic Tamils like warriors [Tamil Kings], potters, leather workers
      had tufts ( in Tamil it is called 'kudumi' ) ) 

      Girish, if you felt that my observation - Prof. Kak's  claim of the
      'vedic head' is baseless, why don't you supply the substantive points
      to show that the head is 'vedic' and offer prof. Kak's explanations
      you read ? 

      Now, I will offer some more thoughts [ these are NOT substantive
      but interesting in a related way (-: :-) ] 
      
          [1]  There is an ancient tamil song in the anthology 
               'Pura_naanUru' written by a poet called 'kaari kizhaar'
                about Pandian King 'Palyaagasaalai muthukudumi Peruvazhuthi'
                [ the name literally says multi-yagna-halled old-tuft
                  Big-vazhuthi ; Vazhuthi is a honoric title taken by 
                   many Pandian kings]  

                The song goes like this:
                     vadaaAthu panipadu neduvarai vadakkum
                     thenaaAthu thurukezhu kumariyin theRkum
                     kuNaaAthu karaiporu thodukadaR kudakkum
                     kudaaAthu thonRumuthiR pauvaththin kudakkum
                     .............
                     .....
                The song talks of the boundaries of snow capped mountain
                Himalaya on the north and the oceans on east and west and
                talks of 'kumari of the south'. Towards the end of the song
                poet Kaari Kizhaar says 'thaNdaa vIgai thagaimaaN kudumi'
                ( = unbending honorful kudumi (tuft) ); he also says that
                let his high 'kudumi' be shining with fame like the bright
                hot sun and bright cool moon.
                
                The date of this song is not ascertained except that it is
                considered one of the oldest songs and probably belonging to
                pre 1000 B.C. This conclusion is based on the facts that
                the language is extremely archaic, the southern boundary
                talks of 'kumari' which some consider as mountain or 
                ferocious river ( these conclusions based on other songs)
                which had been submerged in an ocean flooding  ( kadal_kOL
                = ocean_submerged).  
                
                Thus this description of 'Peruvazhuthi' fits well with the
                head found !! ( I intuitively feel this could be true,
                but I can't claim it is true)

           [2]  Even more interesting is that a lady poet by name 
                "Nettimaiyaaar" had sung another song on the same 
                 'muthu_kudumi (old-tuft) peruvazhuthi'. This lady
                poet offers blessing to him as follows:
                  "munnIr vizhavi nediyO
                   nannIr pahRuLi maNalinum palavE"
               She basically says 'live more number of days than the
               number of sand grains on "PahRuLi river". I believe that this
               "PahRuLi" river might be the one mentioned in Vedas
               as river 'Parushni' by Prof. Kak. The lady poet further
               says that this Tamil king 'old-tuft' did duties faithfully
               to his ancestors in the 'south' ( the tamil words are
               'then_pula vaazhnar karungadan iRukkum' ; then_pulam
                means southern region; 'vaazhnar' = people living in the
                south, 'kadan iRukkum' = paying faithful
                duties ). The lady poet Nettimaiyaar also praises this
                Paandian king as 'en kO vaazhiya kudumi' ( en = mine,
                kO = king, vaazhiya = long live, kudumi = Mr.Tuft !).
                I might also remark that quite possibly the king
                mentioned in Vedas as 'Suda' might be the Tamil 
                Pandian King "Peruvazhuthi" since he is called 
                'muthu_kudumi' ( = old_tuft) and in Tamil 'SUdu' means
                to wear on the head and this Mr. 'Old_tuft' might be
                called as Suda in Vedic derived from Tamil sUdu !!

                The important point is this 'PahRuLi' river is considered
                by many to have been submerged by ocean-flooding. 
                Can this be the same as "Parshuni River" mentioned in
                Vedas ?  Some Tamil scholars like 'Maraimalai AdigaL'
                who were extremely knowledgeable in Tamil and Sanskrit
                says that some of the Ancient Tamil history and philosophy
                might have been incorporated in Vedas although they
                might have been distorted or biased or some meaning lost
                due to translation. 
        
          Although, the above two points might not link with the 
          particular artifact ( because the connection of tuft etc.
          are unsubstantive in my opinion), they DO offer Tamil parallel
          to the IMPLIED connections with the artifact. Since Tamil
          has a long record of factual track record mostly devoid of
          mythologies, it might be worth considering the above.

          Read the sidebar on the Yoga Jouranl and this simple posting
          of mine and you will know why I said the 'vedic head'
          claim was 'baseless' I don't think ANYTHING VEDIC is attached
          to the 'head' found . If you think Prof. Kak had given anything
          of substance on this 'vedic head' in the Yoga Journal, please
          post, I might better understand your 'anguish'.

       Regards
       Selva Selvakumar.
              
> 
> -- Girish.
> 
>