So I understand NHST accepts a hypothesis as not false because there is less falsity.
It is also true that we can reject a hypothesis in history if there is zero percentage of truth with full falsity.
As SB Sir and Sankaran have pointed out, not all of Rajaraja Chola's employees were from the same caste/family. So the hypothesis of BV that ALL of his employees shall be rejected. Oh well, most of his employees is different from ALL of his employees, because there can be either THIS or THAT. Therefore the hypothesis/observation that Rajaraja is Egoist (because he wanted to control a particular caste as his servants) is also not true.
I too feel History cannot be purely facts. Even though we get inscriptions, a percentage of hypothesis only can give full picture to what we read from inscriptions. As Sampath rightly pointed out, null hyposthesis though not foolproof, is the only way out to find out whether our hypothesis is correct or not. If proven, correct, else incorrect.
Lets take our own debate, whether the paintings are of RRC or not. One group says its not while the other says it is. But either of the group dont have proof. In this case, the statement of hypothesis can be framed as per the groups wish and can be proved or disproved. If you frame the statement you can easily disprove it and if I frame the statement with the opposite meaning I can prove it. Just a thought flashed in my mind. I remember seeing a similar posture of the painting with a male and a couple of females standing and praying as a miniature sculpture in Mappedu gopuram near Arakkonam, which is supposed to be constructed by RRC. I dont have further details or proof, we can analyse. So as of now I have two instance where the persons looks similar and no fool will project the same COMMON MAN/DEVOTEE in two differnt places he has built.
Similarly, in Rams photo collection of GKC photos I saw a sculpture very much similar to the one in Panchavan madevi pallipadai, one kudumi asami praying before a siva lingam. Both the temples are built by RJC. I think you will accept that both were built by RJC becuase you have FACT for them.
If I create a null hypothesis with these evidences i have, I can prove that they are indeed RRC and RJC. If you creat the null hypothese you can disprove it in your own way.
As sampath said, as long as a theory has been disproved, it will be accepted as fact. And History cannot be written without hypothesis. If I construct a temple, you can very well put a kalvettu there saying that you built it and after 100 years, that becomes history. I am just talking about possibilities. No offense meant my friend.
You talk about evidences and facts. But I would say what you say also maynot be 100% true. Another instance I can quote.
When we were in Pullamangai, Kamal showed a pillar with tarangam and said such taranga podigai with one tarangam in the opposite direction means its of parantaka period. In tiruvalanchuzhi kshetrabalar temple I foudn a very striking similarity between pullamangai pillar and this pillar. And the kalvettu's says kshetrabalar sannidhi was built by RRC. When I showed this to Kamal and asked why there is a conflict, the simple answer was,"its not that all such taranga podigai are of parantaka, but parantaka and later". I think there is around 150 years gap between these two temples and from Venkatesh I learn that in 40 years, the chola architecture reached its pinnacle from mazhapadi to periya koil. If in just 40 years things can change, why the taranga podigai didt change for nearly 150 years.
Can I say Kamal or the source from where Kamal got his information is totally wrong? I can and I cannot, depending on how well I project my hypothesis.
What i mean to say is, its easy to mock others for their aruguement, just for arguement sake. but its difficult to prove or disprove. Each one can have their own school of thought, and its their freedom. If we can , we should prove them otherwise else we should not comment on them as long as we dont have evidences supporting our arguement.
to formulate a hypothesis is everybody's right we saw it happen in the entrance to the periya koil two words, pon and vimanam(?) the hypothesis is an extreme one.the entire vimana of periya koil was covered with gold.
such a stupendous feat would definitely have found mention else where.
and that would have been the single most expensive thing in the temple costs. why was it not mentioned in the kalvettu?
so every kalvettu, every copper plate and every literary mention is subject to many things that corrupt the truth sychophancy, exuberance, poetric nature can all enhance the content appearance and thereby lowering its intrinsic truth so everybody has a right to have an opinion and others cannot mock it.
> What i mean to say is, its easy to mock others for their aruguement, > just for arguement sake. but its difficult to prove or disprove. > Each one can have their own school of thought, and its their > freedom. If we can , we should prove them otherwise else we should > not comment on them as long as we dont have evidences supporting our > arguement.
Dear Satish,
Here comes the difficulty. When two persons are not in the same frame of mind, one person's argument with proof may seem to other as just a mockery. If one cannot understand the proof given, the proof is set aside and the persons arguing would be called "mocking the other".
> I too feel History cannot be purely facts. Even though we get > inscriptions, a percentage of hypothesis only can give full picture > to what we read from inscriptions. As Sampath rightly pointed out, > null hyposthesis though not foolproof, is the only way out to find > out whether our hypothesis is correct or not. If proven, correct, > else incorrect.
I would differ from you on this point of forming a hypothesis to "get a full picture." I feel it is wiser to accept the fact we cannot make it out clearly when there is no evidence rather than forming a theory and "creating a full picture." If one wishes to conclude something based on hypothesis, it is all right and he/she can go ahead. No one is going to question him/her. However, the created picture would at no point show what is history. If you feel this statement is not acceptable, then our definition of the term history differs. We are not sailing on the same boat.
If you feel that no fool will project the same common devotee in two different places, then you have a point. There must be a meaning. But based on this statement if you are going to conclude it is the picture of a person who built the temple, I have nothing to say; it is a possibility, not truth. If you are going to call THIS a hypothesis, go ahead. This need not be disproved, as possibilities cannot be disproved; rather a possibility can only be further researched.
I dont know what made you call Kamal's answer as a simple answer, and I cannot understand the reason behind the question why something did not change because some other thing changed...like architecture changed in 30 years but tharanga podhigai did not change even after 150 years.
Also, I beg to differ from your statement that history cannot be written without hypothesis. After all, all of us would love to know 100% true history, dont we?
A curious question (related to the kalvettus, copper plates thread). This is a thought borrowed from my friend (I have just done a Control+C and Control+V).
If the kalvettus portrayed semi-truth or a lie, why did the successors from other dynasties not destroy it or write by the side that the kalvettu is not (completely) true. Even in a present-day democracy, a government tries to remove (or undermine) the visible victories of a previous, opposition party government. A Pandya king would not have hesistated to call the bluff of a Chozha's kalvettu (and vice versa).
Does this mean the kalvettus were very close to the truth (or) that only hidden kalvettus survived to see our times (or) the kings intelligently inscribed on places like temple walls which no hindu king will dare to touch.
Copper plates could have easily been hidden. Hence, the doubt is regarding kalvettus only.
Of course no one can exclude a possibility if there is no evidence against it. 100% true that such a possibility exists, I never denied THE possibility. But saying it IS RJC is different from it MAY BE RJC. illayaa?
Reg. that tharanga poadhigai concept. I dont know about it. Maybe Kamal will give evidence if such a style had Parantaka's kalvettu below it or any other inference to support that. But there we cannot say that other kings did not build temples with the same style.
Identifying a sculpture's period is entirely different from saying the name of a person in a sculpture. It is so because at least we have one conclusive evidence in the first case, whereas in the second case (identifying a person in a sculpture), we dont have any evidence on both the places. If we know for sure at least one person is Rajendra Chozha, then we can say both of them are RJC who built the temple. Again, I dont deny the possibility.
Regarding your monalisa example, I would like to add more.
The subject in the instance you gave is the name of the person in the painting, not its period. So when it was replicated, it would be done on a different canvas, or photographed. Still we can identify it as Monolisa. The point here is we are able to say WHO IT IS by seeing the face and smile.
Now if you want to say all the replicated mona lisa were painted during the same period by different people, the first criteria should be all the canvasas should be of the same period. So seeing the type of canvas, its weight, the dust in the canvas, the condition of the canvas, we can safely say it is this much or that much old. Then we can conclude that all the paintings were made on the same date/period.
So identification of the person requires different parameters than identifying the period of the canvas.
The features of the sculpture would help us to say whether a sculpture is of pallava's or chozha's. We cant say who is there in the sirppam by seeing the features. We determine if a sculpture is a Murugan or Shiva by using different parameters (like senni, virisadai, etc.), not features.
> Even Dr.Kkv said that people were carried away by this hypothesis > for so long that kanchi kailasanathar and mamallapuram temples were > built by different person because of the dissimilarities. Unless > this hypothesis was broken down with proof, all belived that > mamallapuram was built by mahendra and narasimha. Dont you agree on > this?
> So facts alone can mislead sometimes and hypothesis do help us. I > feel both compliment each other.
See now. The hypothesis mislead and facts helped us to identify who built the temple. Why did people believe kailasanathar and mamallapuram temples were built by mahendra/maamalla? Must be on the hypothesis that both of them were on pallava region and mahendra and narasimha were famous. Could be otherwise? Okay, so this belief/hypothesis was proved false by the dissimilarities which is a FACT
Question: Why did conquering empire not destroy Kalvettu in the conquered country? Does this mean the kalvettus were very close to the truth or only hidden kalvettus survived to see our times ->There is no evidence that the conquering empire did not destroy the kalvettus in a country. So Possibility 1: There is a possibility what we see is the remaining kalvettus if the kings had such a practice. Possibility 2: They dont have the habit of destroying the kalvettus or were cunning enough to hide other's glory. We have or had all of them intact in place.
Question: the kings intelligently inscribed on places like temple walls which no hindu king will dare to touch.
->Inscribing text on temple walls was in practice even when enemy was not a Saivitte/Vaishnavaitte. Therefore this excludes the possibility that kalvettus were free from attack when inscribed on a temple wall. Only possibility is the appropriateness of the place for the particular purpose (kovil patriya seidhigal kovilgalildhaan irukkanum).
if somebody has an hypothesis that the mans picture right behind the lingam in periya koil is not rrc because there is no kalvettu mentiong it below than just because there is a kalvettu with two words gold and vimanam are the same people now ready to beleive that the entire periya koil was covered with god? one place abssence of a kalvettu is enough to say the picture is not rrc in another the presence of a kalvettu about gold vimanam is not beleived?
thousands of kalvettu may have been in palaces. the enemies destroyed the palaces perhaps irritated at the content.
in chola land palaces were destroyed by invading pandyas who destroyed the palaces, ploughed the land and sowed crops( they were just doing what the cholas did in madurai 2 centuries earlier)
an entire place area in gkc (maaligaimedu???) was thus destroyed and with them the kalvettu.
one case of a kalvettu being erased deliberately was pointed to us by ram in the pallipadai of panchavan madevi.
the word palli padai was erased purposefully. that was perhaps to remove the negative aspect of the temple and encourage more people to go there.
the kalvettus at the destroyed palaces may have been more useful for their historical content.temple kalvettus dont give direct info about history and they have to read with a generous dollop of imagination.
the masons and the sculptors must have been trainees under one man or a school of thought during one era.
or they may have all followed the design prevalent at that time.
i certainly dont feel that the royalty had the time or energy to stand by and supervise these things. definitely the style of art remained similar during an era- in sculpture, painting or architecture.thus being a great tool in identifying the era. perhaps that was because it was a proven concept or prevailing fashion. changes started occuring when creativity on part of the artist crept in. or people from faraway moved in. this is common in technology also. for example the huge chinese fishing nets we find in cochin have exactly the same design in far east.
I guess the Tamil kings had atleast the courtesy not to destroy temples and places of worship. Thats why most of the temples and what ever kalvettu they had survived the waves of changing politics.
Even the cankam age brahmi inscriptions carry the same tone - who donated what to which saint for what purpose etc., Only a few bear kings names. This might have been the trend since civilization.
So the people had the authority and literacy to issue local kalvettus that marked donations. These were of little interest to the kings, so they survived perhaps.
First of all, nobody had any hypothesis denying the lingam is periyakoil's just because there is no kalvettu below it. It might be a possibility, that is all.
Second, the same people could have thought there is a possibility had the entire periya kovil been covered with gold if at least the words "pon vimaanam" were there. The actual inscription text that scholars can make out is as follows:
""raajaraajeswaram udaiyaar koyil sri vimaanam pon".
Note, not even "pon vimaanam". After this the lines are not clear. The inscription is extremely damaged. Actually not everyone is sure of even the word "pon". So it is clear that there is no mention of gold vimaanam.
One small clarification. The word 'Pon' is clear in the inscription. But the inscription doesn't call the vimaanam as 'pon vimaanam'. If the vimaanam was covered with gold, I'm sure, it would have got mentioned in atleast one other undamaged inscription. I would also believe that this important detail will be a part of the foundation inscription rather than a comparatively insignificant "rajarajan Thiruvaayil" (note the word comparatively before jumping on me;-))
Quite often it strikes to me, why should the kings be given due credit for building the temples. Is it not the Architect and the Engineers who come out with the idea of building the temples. Don't the Kalvettus have the information of who was the chief architect behind the construction of that temple. A kIng alone can;t just bring changes in Architecture / Engineering of a temple. There might be a Ayanar like person involved in the contruction of all these temples. Can anybody mention such people?
Taj Mahal'aiyum Periya Koil'aiyum yaar kattinaangannu kEttaa, I would still say a few kothanaars mesthiri and sithaaLu, instead of giving Shah Jahan and RRC.
Thanks for your explanation and I agree your points. I am not as knowledgeable as you people are. Just throwing my points in this thread. and I clearly said, people can have opinion and it can be wrong,but making mockery of that opinion is wrong. THATS THE MAIN POINT I AM TRYING TO DERIVE
I think, I didnt write my points clearly, because both you and Krupa didnt take it as i meant.
Reg. Archi. I do accept that it can be mixture of different period. You only taught me that if such a style exist its of a certain period and you yourself now say that period cannot be distinguished by style. Arent you contradicting? Thats why I say that, the hypothesis that a particular style is used in a certain period is negated by the fact that similar style can be used at different period. So both go hand in hand and only facts cannot lead us to anywhere. One cannot go without the support of the other. at the first look we decide on pattern matching and then we search for facts to substantiate our understanding. If we dont get the facts we say our initial understanding was wrong. Hope you atlest agree with this. This is what happened in the case of Kanchi and Mamallapuram, which I tried to point out.
Reg. Sculpture. Again I think I didnt put my points clearly. I never said that the icon in the sculpture or painting should be mentioned. What i said is determining the period of an art piece by looking at it. again we do a pattern matching and if we find similarities between two, for which we have proof for one, we conclude that the other is of the same period. It can be Nataraja statue or a kotravi or anyting. Identifying the period is my point of discussion and not the diety. So we do identify a diety's period without any written proof. Dont we? If we get a written proof which says our understanding s wrong, we stand corrected. So facts will surely supplement hypothesis, but Human brain first tends to devise hypothesis rather than finding facts. I never linked this with the painting which is called RR. I was giving this example to substantiate that assumptions do help us to find facts. If my words misled you or Krupa, i beg pordon.
Lets take the example of Eka Veeri pidari. We did had the FACT from the kalvettu that Eka Veeri Pidari existed. But what will you do with the FACT alone. Its known that a kali statue is there, but the location do not match with the place mentioned in kalvettu. Then a hypothesis can be conceived that this statue could have been brought from there, which was confirmed by the local people. So you say you have discovered Eka veeri. Could you hae done this only with the Kalvettu? If you say yes, I dont have an answer. Probably I am so ignorant to understand such great things.
The basic thing is, no one knows clearly as what happened. We try to derive history from whatever we have at hand. The more the evidence the more the better. We should understand this basics.
Refer below portion of your mail. I remember that Ksethrabalar temple was built during the last few years of RRC's reign, as the inscriptions mentione both RRC and RJC's corule. Do you mean to say that RRC introduced vettu podigai only during his last few years, say 2-3 years? Just wanted to clarify.
It is for sure that the kuLavudan koodiya tharangam transformed into a vettu podhigai. And that transition did happen during RRC's reign. As an effort to pinpoint when exactly this transition comes across and when does the kuLavu podhigai goes into oblivion, let us do a study!!!
Let us collect info on all RRC built temples and look at the podhigai. This exercise should clear all doubts!!! what say??
This exercise does not require much of scholarship. All it requires is travel. So, we can divide the travel among ourself and prepare a database that contains information on temple name/ location/ RRC's reignal year and the type of podhigai.
As a first say, letz contact experts like Venkatesh, Ganesan, SPS who have traveled extensively, to identify temples built by RRC and as the next step we can contact scholars like Kudavoil/Kkvn to extend the list.
May be this can be first project of PSVP!!! what say?