Throughout the month I will try to post excerpts from the paper I have recently published on Academia.edu regarding the Campana plaques in Paris and the Caeretan hydria in Boston. For now I will briefly summarize my main thesis. These Mediterranean artworks are definitely Eastern or Oriental in their iconography and narrative content. The mythological episodes being told originate in India; the epic Ramayana is the literary source for the characters and their actions which are depicted on these Greco-Etruscan artifacts. The figure painting style is Ionian, the presentation style of the deer hunt is Asian, especially Near Eastern (with Anatolian and Persian influences as well), and the background story is Indian. See the link to my preliminary thesis paper below and share the link with anyone who has a genuine interest in the truth. This truth about the ancient past is independent of any person's religious or political affiliation. Read carefully and enjoy!
Source: Miniature Paintings on the Holy Ramayana by Shantilal Nagar (2001)
Books like these attempt to explain early Roman legends, but do they succeed? My opinion is they always lack a comprehensive approach.
I want to propose a Unifying Theory of History, not a Theory of Everything where one force is the cause of all forces, as in the Grand Unified Theory of Physics.
It is not my desire to propose that India or Persia or Greece is the ultimate source of all the mythologies of the world. A Unifying Theory of History argues that all these different cultures were related, not just in some trivial way, but in a meaningful way which can answer some of the unresolved questions we have about world history. To put it simply, it is a theory where all the nations involved in the so-called Axial Age need to be studied together as a unified whole to reveal historical truths, especially about individual events or people (real or mythical). Unfortunately, the approach that has predominated in historical research is one of provincialism - treating each country’s history as a monolithic entity, with some vague references to foreign influences (e.g. Orientalizing in Greece and Etruria).
Gregory Alles writes about his own approach to world history in his book The Iliad, the Ramayana, and the Work of Religion: Failed Persuasion and Religious Mystification, which compares two major epic works of ancient literature, one Greek and one Indian (pg. 11): "My mode of investigation is not hermeneutics but history - not history as the recovery of the past but as a principled and systematic exploration of events in which religion occurs, including events of meaning."
The formation of the Persian Empire, the founding and development of early Rome, the pre-Socratic philosophical movements in Greece, and the Orientalization of the Etruscan culture all represented meaningful events in which religious thought spread around the nexus of the ancient world at that time (6th century BCE), the Mediterranean Sea. My methodology is focused on recovery of the historical past through systematic analysis of these "events of meaning", as Gregory Alles called them, though he may have been referring to something slightly different.
Max Mueller, the German Indologist, recognized the importance of the sixth century BCE and the need to study the different cultures of the world that were connected to each other at that time: ‘We seem perfectly within our right when we look upon the numerous coincidences between the (Greek) fables of Aesopus and the fables occurring in Sanskrit and Pali literature as proving the fact that there was a real literary exchange between India, Persia, Asia Minor and Greece beginning with the sixth century BC.’ (pg. 29, The Bible and Asia, by R.S. Sugirtharajah)
One of my main motivations is to draw attention to this crucial period in human history that has nevertheless been neglected, not only with respect to ancient Italy, but many other nations of the ancient world such as Persia. Are there as many popular films or plays on Cyrus the Great like there are for Caesar or Alexander? I remember learning about the empires of Greece and Rome in school before college, but the empires of Persia and India were barely covered, if at all. This Eurocentrism prevents any thorough investigation of early Rome and its etymology from being conducted, because Rome was not independently founded overnight without the input of other civilizations from the East.
If someone comes to America and asks us what Memphis means (as in Memphis, Tennessee), we might tell them it is named after a famous city in ancient Egypt. Many people have never heard of Memphis, Egypt and are more familiar with Memphis, Tennessee, probably thinking incorrectly that the name Memphis is a product of English spoken in the American South. Although the Egyptians never founded any place in America, the American people drew inspiration from their great civilization (North African). Similarly, the ancient Italian people, especially the Etruscans, drew much of their inspiration from civilizations of the East, such as the Syrians, Phoenicians and Ionians. The name Rome has its roots in that same inspiration. Attention needs to be focused on the seventh and sixth centuries BC to properly answer the question of the founding and naming of Rome, a word that certainly did not come out of nowhere, as we can all agree.
For those who are still skeptical of the value of knowing the true etymology of a city's name, they should ask themselves whether people care about the origins of their own family surname. As a personal name is necessary for identifying one's ethnic heritage, the name of a city is necessary for identifying all the contributors and factors involved in its inception. Rome's evolving name also reflects the changes that occurred as Rome developed from a small hilly town to a large "eternal" city. Its etymology and subsequent modification over time reinforce our understanding of the gradual but incredible growth of the Roman world. In the beginning, we have Near Eastern Ramah (hinted at by 'Ramnes' of Indo-Persia and perhaps 'horama' of ancient Greece) from c. 700 - 500 BC; then Etruscan Ruma with its legend seen in the Francois Tomb paintings at Vulci, along with Latinized Roma and its legend of Romulus (c. 500 - 300 BC); and finally, the conversion of oral to written tradition, accompanied by the deification of the city Roma and its leaders, including Romulus himself (c. 300 BC - 200 AD). The Greek word for power, 'rhome', naturally became associated with Rome's evolving meaning in the last phase, especially the golden age or Pax Romana, along with Latin 'aeternum' (eternal), which derives from 'aevum' (age). I may note that Memphis had its own evolution from 'Men-nefer' (c. 1550, New Kingdom) meaning enduring and beautiful, to 'Memfi' in Coptic, which the Greeks adapted as Memphis. The pyramid of Pepi (Men-nefer-Pepi) is probably the ancient Egyptian pronunciation of 'Memphis'.
So as we observe the transfer of a Near Eastern Egyptian name to America via the Greeks, Romans, and the British, we also should observe the transfer of a Near Eastern Aramaic and Indo-Persian name ('Ramah' or 'Ramna') to Italy via the Phoenicians, Greeks, and Etruscans.
Summary: The numerous examples of ancient Italian water vases in full color from the Etruscan city of Cerveteri stand in sharp contrast to the Caeretan hydria in Boston (c. 525 BCE). Despite the lack of color photography, Rama and Laksmana can be positively identified as the two hunters on the front side, and Sita can be positively identified as the lady being abducted by Ravana on the back side.
So in this short presentation I want to discuss the possibility that an ancient Italian water vase, which is technically called a hydria, is depicting an episode from the legend of Rama. It is one of only 30 to 35 vases from a particular workshop in Cerveteri, Italy that have been discovered in the last 200 years. Thus, they are incredibly rare works of art, and the world deserves to know about all of them, three of which I have displayed here for your viewing pleasure in color. This terracotta pottery has a distinctive brownish-orange color. Many of these Caeretan hydriae, as they are called, are kept at various museums, many of which are world famous, such as the Louvre in Paris, British Museum in London, and the Villa Giulia Museum in Rome. Some are also housed in American museums, including the one Italian hydria that I will be analyzing in the next few slides.
This example below which has two painted sides from Boston’s Museum of Fine Arts is not only rare because it is one of 30 to 35 vases of the same type still intact, but also likely the only one surviving among them that depicts an Asian Indian mythological scene. Boston’s MFA does not realize how valuable and rare an artifact it is, and how marketable it can be to put it on view based on this fact and its appeal to South Asian visitors. There really is no excuse, given the prestige of the Boston MFA and its size, that they have not put this Caeretan hydria on view and they have not made color photos of this painted terracotta vase available. It is clearly a “very important”, rare, and early vase, judging from Hemelrijk’s commentary. Not making it viewable essentially sends the message that the western world should completely ignore this work of art, without any justification.
Most of the Caeretan hydriae that are relatively intact or not heavily fragmented are either on display in a major museum or have color images available for viewing online (or both). I would estimate that 30 of the vases qualify as relatively intact. Of these 30 vases, about 25 can be tracked down for the purposes of extensive study in color. The only exceptions seem to be this Boston hydria, and a few other obscure examples from museums in distant locales such as New Zealand and Denmark.
Finally, the Caeretan hydria in Boston is therefore likely the only non-fragmented vase that is neither on display nor has color photos available of it online. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do think they are hesitant to make this vase more public because of their inability to correctly interpret its mythological content. The curator of South Asian art at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts in the United States (also called the Boston MFA) is Laura Weinstein. And I actually corresponded with her briefly, and she admitted, quote: “It’s interesting that no subject has been identified for this vase.” This admission means that the Boston MFA does not value the Dutch expert Jaap Hemelrijk’s assertion above that “this is a very important hydria,” and “one of the earliest of all” and therefore should be studied more carefully. I do value his statement, however, and so should anyone interested in ancient art and history.
Before diving into the examination of this Boston hydria, I just wanted to give you another set of Caeretan hydriae from some of the most important museums in the world: New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art which you see on the left, Rome’s Villa Giulia Etruscan Museum in the middle, and London’s British Museum on the right. The one in the middle at Rome represents the popular Greek myth of abduction where Zeus, disguised as a bull, carries Europa away. The Indian myth of the golden deer chase and Sita’s abduction in the Ramayana is the subject actually of the Boston hydria, which I will now analyze.
Now these are black and white photos of the front side of the Boston hydria, in which you see two young men hunting deer. Notice that they both are aiming to shoot their arrows at the same time, which is common iconography in Indian art of the same event. In this event Rama and Laksmana are often painted together (or Rama is painted alone) while aiming an arrow at either a fleeing deer with two heads, or a fleeing deer in multiple running poses. This is what we would call the famous golden deer episode of the Valmiki Ramayana. Unfortunately, one classical scholar named Cornelius Vermeule completely misunderstands the nature of the two figures and calls them “wild men who have horses’ ears but no tails."
This blatantly misleading statement, as you can see in the graphic pointing to the human ears above of the lead character, is exactly the type of remark that makes me concerned about the sincerity of these historians, most of whom are European (or of European descent). This totally wrong assertion appears in the periodical called The Classical Journal, Volume 64, in November of 1968. To my knowledge, it has never been condemned by any of his colleagues.
In my opinion, the two male heroes hunting deer with bow and arrows are none other than the Indian protagonists Rama and Laksmana. The author Hemelrijk carefully notes: “The bow of the first hunter is double-curved (Scythian type) and at both ends provided with a separate string-hook… The bow of the second hunter is like that of the first hunter; its string is seemingly painted over his left arm, but was covered by the white of the skin… The skin of the second hunter was white… His anatomical details are exactly like those of the first hunter.”
In the Valmiki Ramayana, Laksmana is well known for being lighter skinned than his dark and powerful older brother Rama. They are like twin brothers and they are divine incarnations in Hindu tradition. Laksmana accompanies Rama in all his activities. The same type of Scythian bow is also visible on contemporary scenes on the Campana plaques that were also found in Cerveteri. In both artworks, the terracotta hydria and the terracotta painted plaques, I would identify the male hero as Rama. You can see one of the Campana plaques here on this slide, in between the sketch of the hunters Rama and Laksmana and the isolated image of them from the Caeretan hydria with no background.
So just to summarize, Hemelrijk’s observations accord well with the description of the two heroes Rama and Laksmana in the Valmiki Ramayana, whether it be the similar anatomical details, or the same Scythian bow, or the fact that Laksmana is lighter skinned than Rama, which may be the most important detail.
Now these are black and white photos of the back side of the Boston hydria, and they depict two male-female pairs on each half in an abduction sequence. The two pairs of characters are probably Ravana and Sita, with Ravana abducting Sita by grasping her arm on the right and then carrying her off in the next scene to the left. This episode in the Ramayana happens concurrently with the deer hunt by Rama and Laksmana, so it makes perfect sense for it to be painted on the reverse side of that main hunting scene.
Notice the two girls or nymphs are not distinguished easily from one another, whether it be their dresses or facial expressions - both “less pleased”, as Hemelrijk realizes, but due to ignorance of myths outside the Mediterranean world, he cannot fully complete his intelligent observation. He writes that the two girls are “being carried off by formidable satyrs”, which again indicates that the two satyrs are virtually indistinguishable with their beards, long hair, large heads, and horse-like features. Thus, we can conclude that each nymph is Sita and each satyr is Ravana. Hemelrijk also adds that the lady on the right “defends herself against the assault by menacing with her fist”, which is an unusual display of resistance. In the Ramayana, Sita strongly rejects Ravana’s sexual advances, but he eventually takes her away while her husband Rama is still distracted with the task of hunting the golden deer.
The classical scholar Cornelius Vermeule, whom I cited earlier, does recognize the possibility of a connection between the two painted sides of the Boston hydria, which are the deer hunt on one side and the abduction on the other side. However, he wrongly associates the young men hunting deer on the obverse side with the satyrs on the reverse side. He calls the satyrs “older friends” of the young hunters, but the truth is that the satyr Ravana is the enemy of Rama because he abducts his wife Sita. The satyrs have horses’ ears but no tails, whereas the young men have completely human bodies. Even though he is incorrect in this aspect, Vermeule at least sees a relationship between the front and back sides of the Boston hydria. His description of Ravana “dancing away with an acquiescent nymph”, i.e. Sita, on the left half of this back side is not totally accurate, as Sita is forcibly taken away against her will and Ravana’s arm around her chest signifies his need to keep her from escaping.
So she has not really surrendered but is nonetheless unable to free herself. Now to summarize, the maenad or nymph in both scenes here can be identified as Sita, who also had white painted skin before the paint was lost, according to Hemelrijk. The fact that Laksmana and Sita were originally painted with light skin and Rama was painted with dark skin matches exactly with painted depictions in India of these three characters from the Ramayana. So the question, “Are Rama and Sita (and Laksmana) featured on an ancient Italian water vase?”, as improbable as it may seem, it can be answered with a positive YES.
Regarding the small collection of extant water vases called the Caeretan hydriae, the most famous museum in the world, the Louvre in Paris, has the greatest number of artifacts in this pottery group. There are a large number of painted terracotta vases, with six shown here, from Cerveteri, Italy in the Louvre museum, and France is not hesitant to allow us to see them in color. As you can tell, many of them feature animal hunts, including deer, lions, and boars. These hunt scenes sometimes occur within a mythological narrative, such as Atalanta’s hunt of the Calydonian boar in Greek legend.
If the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is confident that the Caeretan hydria in their possession is merely another hunting scene with no mythological context, why hide it from the public view? The truth is that they know it is a mythological scene, but they are afraid of the consequences of acknowledging Indian or Asian influence on ancient Italy. Their reasons may include protection of European or western cultural supremacy and avoidance of any changes or additions to our understanding of world history that are seen as too controversial or hard to fully corroborate. An ancient Italian inscription with the name ‘Rama’, which has never been discovered of course, might be the only remedy that forces these institutions to abandon their ignorance.
Summary: In this short presentation I make the argument that the Indian mythological hero Rama was known to the ancient Etruscans of Italy in the 6th century BC. A comparison with one of the earliest representations of Rama found in India is conducted to make a convincing case that the Campana plaques from Cerveteri in ancient Italy are actually depicting Rama and other figures from the Indian epic Ramayana.
Here I want to make a simple comparison between the ancient Italian depiction of an armed warrior with bow and arrows with his right hand raised, to the most ancient Indian depiction of Rama that is currently known. On these two painted terracotta plaques from the sixth century BC that you see on the bottom left, we observe a heroic warrior who closely resembles the Indian Rama sculpture of the Gupta period that we see on the right side. So this character whom I have shown twice, because he appears on two different terracotta plaques with the bow and arrow in a scene from ancient Italy, is striding confidently like a leader with a solemn expression and powerful torso (in both scenes). He is holding a bow and arrows in his left hand in both scenes as well. And you also see the right hand raised, and more demonstratively on the second pose (in the second scene).
So what are the common features between this ancient Italian painting of a warrior who looks like Rama, and the actual sculpture of Rama from India in the Gupta period? In the book Connected Histories of India and Southeast Asia, on page 136, we have the description of this sculpture: They write that “Rama here is very much a warrior hero, wearing a long tunic and channavira cross-belt, holding a bow in his left hand, and a quiver full of arrows on his back. The big eyes, thick lips, prominent chin, and unadorned ears bear a serious and purposeful expression. Of utmost interest is his oversized right hand, held in a gesture of protection from fear (or what is known as abhaya in Sanskrit). He is represented as a divine hero in this frame, the exact context for which is difficult to tell as the rest of the terracotta composition is damaged and lost. Rama in abhaya-hasta (which is the right hand gesture of fearlessness) is rarely seen in sculptures of the 4th to 8th century period, which makes this an even more significant example.”
So if we compare back to the ancient Italian painting, we can see many features that are in common, including the serious and purposeful expression, the oversized right hand in a gesture of protection from fear, as well as the bow and arrows in the left hand (or at least the bow in the left hand). And he is also standing tall, very confidently like a warrior hero, as he should in both the ancient Italian and ancient Indian depictions. So, honestly it’s hard not to conclude that the ancient Italian painting is also a depiction of the Indian hero Rama.
This excerpt that I just quoted from Connected Histories of India and Southeast Asia: Icons, Narratives, Monuments, is actually part of the Chapter Seven of that book, which is titled “Epic Visions in Terracotta, Stone, and Stucco: Ramayana in Indian Sculpture, Beginnings to 8th Century CE (or Common Era).” So within the book that I just cited, we have that chapter (7), and on page 136 I quoted the description of Rama that is being depicted in this sculpture from the Gupta period. So the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is the location where this sculpture is kept, and they have also added some information that this warrior hero “is identified as Rama by an inscription.” It’s inscribed “in the late Brahmi script of the 3rd to 4th century AD, or Common Era. Given that it’s attributed to the circa 4th century, this is believed to be the earliest extant definitive representation of Rama,” according to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
And even more interestingly, in the book that I just cited on page 136 of Connected Histories of India and Southeast Asia, the author also adds: “For all these reasons (that they cite in terms of the description of it), the Los Angeles sculpture of Rama, or ‘LACMA Rama’, needs more careful attention than he has thus far received.” And I would argue that the Italian Campana plaques kept at the Louvre museum, which you see on the left, should also be getting more careful attention than they have thus far received. These painted plaques are actually five in number, with characters from two of them displayed on this slide. I would argue that each of these two characters is a Greco-Etruscan rendering in Italy of the Indian warrior hero Rama.
Superficially, the main difference that you may observe between the ancient Italian and Indian representations of Rama is the facial hair - the Italian one is bearded, whereas the Indian one has a shaven face. But if we look closer at the Italian painting, we see an additional figure that is clean shaven, has the wings of a divine hero or god, wears the same white clothes as the adjacent bearded figure, and has basically the same facial appearance except for the beard. Thus, the Italian artist is probably indicating that both men are the same person, Rama. In this Etruscan terracotta plaque, the wings on the back of Rama also signal his divinity or special powers of flight like the Greek god Hermes. Similarly, according to the book (Connected Histories of India and Southeast Asia) on the Rama terracotta sculpture from the Gupta period, Rama “is represented as a divine hero”. The Gupta kings viewed themselves as incarnations or representatives of Rama on earth; the Italian aristocrats who commissioned these terracotta plaques may have viewed Rama as a role model and a divine warrior, like Heracles.
So to summarize some of the key points here, the claim that the terracotta sculpture of Rama from the 4th century AD is the earliest definitive representation of Rama may have to be revised one day, if and when it is accepted that these 6th century BC painted terracotta plaques from ancient Italy are also depicting the Indian hero Rama. And the gap in time, of course, is quite large. It almost spans one thousand years, which is quite mind-boggling. I mean, if you look at the gap in the centuries from the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, we are literally looking at ten centuries, or one thousand years, or one millennium. So it’s definitely an astonishing gap in time, but that should not deter us from recognizing the obvious parallels between these two works of art, from Italy and India.
Another important point made about the Rama terracotta sculpture from the 4th century of the Common Era is its lack of supporting characters that are depicted alongside the main hero. The book author of Connected Histories of India and Southeast Asia writes that “the exact context… is difficult to tell as the rest of the terracotta composition is damaged and lost.” Luckily, we have many more painted figures preserved in almost their original condition on these two Italian terracotta plaques, which seem to be identifiable as Sita and Laksmana. This identification would confirm the theory that this is an ancient Etruscan or Italian representation of the story of the Indian Ramayana.
“In the new age of warfare we cling to the outdated notion of the single hero able to carry out daring feats of courage on the battlefield… Peddling the myth of heroism is essential, maybe even more so now, to entice soldiers into war.” (pg. 86, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning by Chris Hedges). In the same vein, Chris Hedges decries the unrealistic picture of “the Rambo heroics we are fed by the state and the entertainment industry.” (pg. 87). The generic cartoon character of G.I. Joe, an American military veteran, represents a national hero, or “a real American hero” (Duke), indicating that national identity is often tied to the symbol of the single, brave warrior who defends that nation’s values and culture. I also would like to add that the comic superhero Captain America is an obvious embodiment of the American military hero who saves the country.
Everyone knows that the name ‘America’ came first before Captain America showed up on the scene, but not everybody realizes that the name ‘Roma’ came first before the heroic Romulus showed up on the scene. We can thus connect ancient Roman national identity to the required sentiment of a singular founding hero, Romulus, who could perform amazing exploits in protecting and expanding the boundaries of Rome.
The concept of a single hero or king with immeasurable powers who acts as a role model for the nation is what underlies the Indian epic Ramayana and the foundation myth of Rome. The role model and the nation’s identity then become inextricably intertwined, which is why Rome is named after Romulus, according to the conventional story of ancient Italy. But the reality is that the imposition of national identity, national culture, or simply nationalism is what fueled the creation of the Romulus legend, while also masking the ignorance of the local population regarding foreign influences that led to the actual process of naming Rome in the Orientalizing and Archaic periods.
English author George Orwell, who rightly questioned the whole idea of national identity (“Do such things as ‘national cultures’ really exist?”, pg. 22, The English People), hints at this ignorance that one could point out in any civilization, modern or ancient. He writes: “Millions of English people willingly accept as their national emblem the bulldog, an animal noted for its obstinacy, ugliness, and impenetrable stupidity. They have a remarkable readiness to admit that foreigners are more ‘clever’ than themselves, and yet they feel that it would be an outrage against the laws of God and Nature for England to be ruled by foreigners.” (pgs. 24-26). In essence, Orwell is telling us that nationalism acts as a shield against foreign influence, and nationalists worship symbols of ignorance such as the bulldog because of their irrational fear of the unknown (‘ignorance is bliss’, as the saying goes).
The Loyal American Soldier exemplifies National Identity
Xenophobia is thus a natural consequence of nationalism. Nationalism also breeds a stubborn unwillingness to explore new or fresh perspectives on history. The entire preface of Cornell’s book (The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars) literally appears to be dedicated to condemning this defining trait of Anglo-American scholars. He laments in a long monologue:
“Who could be so idle or apathetic as not to want to know how Rome grew from nothing to become the dominant power in Italy? When, how, and why did the city come into existence? Who were the Romans, and what were the secrets of their success? Such questions, one would have thought, would stimulate anyone endowed with even the most modest level of historical curiosity… What is surprising, and needs to be explained, is the fact that early Roman history has been largely ignored by scholars in the English-speaking world. This seems to be a curiously Anglo-Saxon phenomenon… Roman history before the Punic Wars is regarded as a marginal topic. It is hardly ever taught in school or university courses, and almost no one chooses it as a subject for research… The lack of any established tradition of scholarship on this subject in the English-speaking world remains a puzzle which I for one am not able to explain.” (pgs. xiv-xv)
The reason for wanting to know why Roma was Roma is that we all are fascinated by the iconic imagery of the twins suckling the she-wolf. It remains ‘the’ symbol of ancient Rome and Italy to this day (e.g. Siena’s tower in the world-famous Piazza del Campo), and we should care to find out what secrets lie behind it. Those secrets reveal our own collective history, as members of western, eastern, and global civilization. As brothers and sisters of the human race, let us be free to repudiate the bigoted Anglo-American intelligentsia.
Perhaps the Anglo-American intelligentsia should decipher the subconscious meaning of John Lennon’s lyrics in the Beatles’ song Hey Bulldog, written almost like an ode to Orwell’s English people: ‘Some kind of innocence is measured out in years… You don’t know what it’s like to listen to your fears. You can talk to me… Big man, walking in the park… Wigwam, frightened of the dark… Some kind of solitude is measured out in you… You think you know me, but you haven’t got a clue.’ One could envision an Etruscan from the past singing these lines to a classical historian in the western world to metaphorically describe the stubborn ignorance of modern scholars when encountering literary and archaeological evidence from or relating to sixth-century Rome and Etruria, especially Caere.
Cornell’s puzzlement at the lack of interest in early Rome can be explained if we are cognizant of the dearth of corresponding scholarship in the field of ancient Persian and Indian studies. Without understanding these two cultures and their connection to Greece and the Near Eastern Mediterranean region, we cannot understand early Rome. The Indo-Iranian civilization is one of the oldest in history and its shared heritage with Greece, culturally and linguistically, is often underestimated. The inherent superiority complex of Western Europe and North America, especially among white scholars of British descent, obstructs a concerted effort to attack the problems with the evidence about early Rome. We cannot just allow the so-called experts from Cambridge, Oxford, and the other prestigious universities in the English-speaking world to monopolize our perceptions about Rome’s beginnings. Faced with these complications, asking an outsider’s opinion, even if he is not a specialist in classics or ancient history, can help advance the field. Yes, the documentation of that uncertain time in the annals of classical historians is scarce. But Cornell does not accept this as an excuse to throw out centuries before the common era from the pages of our books: “The evidence is indeed extremely difficult, and problems of verification are acute, but it is incorrect to say that nothing can be known about how Rome began, or how it developed during the early centuries of its existence.” (pg. xv).
My main conclusion is that Eurocentrism and racist xenophobia, akin to the designation of India and most of South/Southeast Asia as a collection of primitive third-world countries, are the root cause of the stubborn unwillingness to accept the Indian mythological content on these Caeretan works of art. Without researchers of all ethnic backgrounds, East and West, there is little chance that we can arrive at a comprehensive understanding of everything that can be known about the ancient world. European classical scholars are actually doing themselves and others a disservice by not welcoming the input of scholars of Asian or African descent, because this leads to massive gaps in knowledge of their own history, as I have demonstrated in this presentation. Their ignorance of Indian myth and religion, as opposed to Greek myth and religion, is particularly glaring, despite the significant number of Indologists of European descent.
Raffaella Bonaudo and Jaap Hemelrijk concede the potential mythological content painted on the Caeretan hydria in Boston, but they are non-committal and unsure about how to solve this enigma. Otto Brendel is more supportive of the belief in a mythological explanation for the Campana plaques, but is unaware of their close association with the Caeretan hydria No. 2. The inability to correlate these two works of art, which Bonaudo also admits to when she calls the Ramayana episode seen on the Boston hydria "an otherwise unattested mythical tale in Etruria", has led to an inconclusive resolution to this dilemma. The Etruscan art historian Brendel astutely suggests a way out of this quandary when he proposes that the mythological subject matter in ancient Italian artifacts may sometimes be Oriental, even though the production technique is always Greco-Etruscan.
I conclude the presentation with more examples of Indian art, including ancient stone sculpture and medieval painting, to definitively prove that the Caeretan hydria No. 2 in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, dated approximately to 525 BCE, must be a depiction of the golden deer chase of Rama and Laksmana on the front and the abduction of Sita by Ravana on the back. It is a remarkable but true story of the merger of Ionian art and Indian legend in an Etruscan workshop in the late sixth century BCE! Hopefully, this presentation will motivate classical historians, Indologists, curators at major art museums, specialists in South Asian religion, and amateur researchers to also come together in the 21st century AD to tell this amazing story.
Now my main conclusion is that the combination of xenophobia and Eurocentrism lies at the heart of why these works of art have not been identified as Oriental or Indian mythological scenes. And my own personal motivation is not revisionist history per se, but the history that we are not told, simply because these classical scholars choose to focus only on Mediterranean Europe and the Near East, to the exclusion of West and South Asia. A more complete narrative of world history is only possible with the input of researchers who adopt a more holistic approach to the subject, which is what I believe I have done.
There is a double standard unfortunately in the academic circles. There are far more western scholars of European descent who study Oriental history and myth, including the field of Indology. But compared to that there are very few scholars of Asian or African (that is non-European) descent who study classical history and myth, that is the Greek and Roman myth and culture. So this imbalance of having too many scholars in one field and not enough scholars in the other field and lack of diversity; this imbalance leads to a Eurocentric world historical view.
Returning to the same issue of why these works of art, including the Boston hydria, have not been identified as Oriental mythological scenes, I have the following quote from Jaap Hemelrijk, who does indirectly concede the potential mythological content on the Boston hydria. Like the Italian author Raffaella Bonaudo previously, Hemelrijk is non-committal, however. He writes: “The two painters had a great liking for narrative scenes and a surprising knowledge of mythology and literature. They were fond of myths that are rare, or even lacking in the work of other studios. This preference for unusual stories, which are sometimes hard to identify, suggests that certain scenes, so far not regarded as mythological, may represent definite myths as well.” (pg. 119, Caeretan Hydriae). So he really echoes Bonaudo, who also stated previously (as we showed on an earlier slide) that the Boston deer hunt “cannot be defined exactly and… does not necessarily correspond to a mythical tale not otherwise attested.” (pg. 217). They’re very close to the truth but are still hesitant to go any further than kind of knocking on the door.
Now, if you compare that to another scholar’s remarks - Otto Brendel’s remarks about the Campana slabs - we see a more affirmative statement that they at least realize they must be mythological. So he says that, “About the meaning of these representations (on the Campana plaques), general agreement has not yet been reached, though obviously the abduction of a young woman by a winged being calls for some mythological explanation.” (pg. 175, Etruscan Art). So he does realize that there needs to be some kind of mythological explanation. But he’s a little bit incorrect with his wording, because he’s calling it the “abduction of a young woman by a winged being”, when it really is a rescue of a young woman by a winged being.
And I think that’s where, if they would compare the Caeretan hydria in Boston to the Campana plaque that he’s referring to, they would see the distinction between the abduction of a young woman versus the rescue of a young woman. And that’s the problem - not only they’re not able to identify definitively whether the scene is mythological or not, but they’re not doing enough comparison with other scenes that are similar, and could reveal the mythical origins.
Rama kills Maricha, whose real form appears above the golden deer, with bow and arrow after his wife Sita (left scene) requests him to hunt the magic animal.
Sita's
Abduction by Ravana, with common features such as the twisted head, feet
pointed in the opposite direction of the abductor, one arm being held
by Ravana and the other arm of Sita showing resistance to movement, that
are also seen on the Boston hydria.
So I want to present another very important quote from an Etruscan scholar, who realizes that the Etruscans probably represented some Oriental stories in their artworks. The scholar’s name is Otto Brendel and in his book Etruscan Art on pages 66 to 67, he writes: “By this time (which is the beginning of the sixth century) the Etruscan artists had acquired sufficient freedom and mastery of representational form to attempt occasionally the rendition of subjects which lay outside the limits of the Greek parent art. The possibility must at least be taken into consideration thatEtruscan works occasionally represent subject matter acquired from Oriental art, which may not be immediately obvious to a modern critic because it has been translated into Greek or Greco-Etruscan techniques and forms of representation.” And this is an extremely important observation, and is thought-provoking for all modern scholars. It basically summarizes everything that I have presented to you in all these slides.
The translation of the subject matter of the Valmiki Ramayana is not something that is immediately obvious to the modern classical scholar, but that’s what has happened, and it has been translated into the Ionian-Etruscan techniques and forms of representation. And so therefore, it’s not easy to see it on the surface immediately, especially for somebody who’s not familiar with Oriental myth or Indian myth. In addition, when Brendel (see previous quote) says that “the possibility must at least be taken into consideration that Etruscan works occasionally represent subject matter acquired from Oriental art,” he’s basically or essentially pleading with the classical scholars in the western world to at least consider the possibility that this is an Asian myth, rather than a Greek myth. And he’s quite right to do that and to condemn in essence their Eurocentric views and xenophobia.
And finally, I would just like to draw your attention to the graphics below. Once again, we can see the similarity between the Indian depiction on the right of the golden deer chase, and the Ionian representation of it on the left. The Indian painting on the right was made in Jaipur in the 19th century and it actually is one half of a full painting in which on the bottom, you see the abduction of Sita by Ravana. Actually, the demon Ravana disguises himself as a beggar while Rama is distracted by hunting a golden deer in this top scene. So in the bottom scene there is Ravana approaching Sita as a beggar. And in this top scene which I’m displaying here on this slide, (there is) Rama distracted, along with his younger brother Laksmana to the left of him, while hunting the golden deer, which has two heads again, metaphorically indicating the elusiveness of the deer.
And also normally if we are going to be very technical or by the book, only Rama is the one who actually hunts the golden deer, whereas Laksmana only meets him in the forest after he has killed Maricha, in the actual poem of Valmiki. But there’s obviously liberties taken by artists, where you see these variations where Laksmana also joins Rama in hunting the deer. So that’s why we should not be surprised if the Ionian artists also did the same thing, with what we see on the Caeretan hydria - we see Rama and Laksmana, the two nude youths hunting the golden deer Maricha.
To finish this presentation I would like to definitively declare that we have proven exhaustively that the Caeretan hydria No. 2 in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, depicts the Golden Deer episode of the Valmiki Ramayana. What happened here is an amazing combination of Ionian art and Indian legend. They were brought together in an Etruscan workshop from the late 6th century BC. It’s a remarkable story that has never really been told, but needs to be told. So thank you. This painting from Jaipur, Rajasthan is actually kept at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, and you can see it yourself at the link that I’ve provided below the painting on this slide - if you care to analyze it further.
Now this presentation has been thorough and complete, in my opinion, but I wanted to give another example in this appendix of the Golden Deer episode in ancient stone sculpture, rather than medieval painting. This carved stone relief that you can see on this slide depicting two simultaneous events from the Valmiki Ramayana, should be all too familiar by now. It dates to the Kushan period, which is placing it around the 2nd to 3rd century AD, and comes from ancient Gandhara, located in what used to be northwest India or what is now modern Pakistan. So this is in the very ancient past compared to the medieval paintings that we’ve been using for comparison.
And also because Gandhara was near the eastern frontier of the Persian empire in the 6th century BC, and eventually became part of it under Darius around 520 BC, it is my contention that Indians in that region were the ones who narrated the story of Rama to Ionians and Persians when they came into contact with them, in that second half of the sixth century. And this oral tradition then traveled west to Ionia very quickly due to the fast transportation network within the Persian empire, which was also vast. That’s why they talk about the Royal Road from Susa to Sardis. So it was a very vast and fast transportation network.
What is important to not about this particular work of art is that it is one of the oldest sculptures from India that depicts the golden deer hunt as well as the moments before Sita’s abduction where Ravana approaches her. So this work of art is found at the British Museum and you can see that in the link that I provided here. Now the British Museum does give us a description of this scene, and they are non-committal though, about whether the subject is actually the Ramayana. They say that the “subject may be a version of the Rama legend or a theme shared with it.” So they’re not totally sure themselves, but I think as we go through this analysis, I think most people will be certain that it must be, or at least there’s a very high probability that it is.
So in the middle scene here the British Museum tells us that an archer, which I believe is Rama, is holding the bow and is ready to strike his quarry, which is the two rearing cervids that are to the left of Rama, and the nearer one is looking over its shoulder. So if we compare to the Caeretan hydria, we can see that there’s almost a one-to-one match here, where you have multiple deer again that are being portrayed. But the actual reality is that it’s one deer and it’s just moving in a sequence away from Rama. And they’re both rearing, meaning that they are standing on their hind legs in a panic. That is again in accordance with what we see in the Caeretan hydria, with one of the poses. And they’re also showing that one of them is looking over its shoulder, which is again the same twisted head that we see in the middle deer of the Caeretan hydria (the middle pose in the Caeretan hydria).
So really I mean it’s so close to the Caeretan hydria, and it’s also one of the oldest examples from India. So that should really clue us in that this is probably how the Ionian artists really understood it, that this comes the closest to what the Ionian artists were really picturing or imagining themselves. And you can see that the leftmost cervid is not looking back and it’s fleeing away. And that’s analogous to the leftmost deer that we see on the Caeretan hydria. Now if we look at the other scene on the left side, Ravana is posing as an “unhappy suppliant” in the British Museum’s words, and he’s approaching Sita, who is seated in a “partly leaf-covered hut”, according to the British Museum. And this hut is what is acting as kind of a dividing line between the two scenes.
Also in the rightmost part of the middle scene we see that Laksmana and Sita are probably the two standing figures behind Rama, who is the archer hunting the deer. So really it’s again the same two events - the abduction of Sita and the deer hunt - just as we have seen throughout this presentation, including with the main work of art that we’ve been analyzing, the Caeretan hydria from Boston. I think this should be as conclusive as it gets.
