Another Shaligram verification today and sadly, the stone turned out to be a fake. Once again, I am seeing more fabricated Shaligrams being passed off as genuine by sellers hoping to capitalize on devotees who cannot travel to #Nepal. (A Thread)
This fake was pretty good though. More convincing than some I've seen.
But here were the obvious signs:
1. There's a seam/break that you can see between the outer nodule and the internal chakras which pries up fairly easily. This is a giveaway that someone took a few likely broken pieces of a real Shaligram (the ammonite imprints) and covered them with a nodule of industrial epoxy.
2. The "printed" look of the outer chakra spiral. This one actually takes a fair amount of experience to recognize though. In some cases, this might actually be convincing as a real, river-worn, ammonite mould but the raised edges are the red flag.
Because! Here, for example, is another fake Shaligram I have. I got this one years ago and use it as a teaching piece. It's entirely fabricated out of M-Seal epoxy and a kind of carved stamp has been used to make the chakra.
So, sadly, I have to return this particular little Shaligram under bad news. It's a fake and was likely made for a seller's market. It didn't even pass my pin test, which revealed the plastic-y exterior. A real Shaligram would powder-scratch.
Anyway, if you want to know more about uncovering fake Shaligrams, or just about Shaligrams in general, check out my discussion here!
I was recently reading a paper on folk/false etymologies (also sometimes called backronyms), and given the proliferation of them I have seen in terms of politicized language policing online lately, I have some thoughts! (A Thread 🧵 about Language Use)
The paper, "The inevitability of folk etymology: a case of collective reality and invisible hands" by Rundblad and Kronenfeld, traces the popularity of folk etymologies through a kind of linguistic consensus. Or, as anthropologists say, because they do a kind of "cultural work."
But what struck me particularly was the line: "Folk etymologies often begin as highly individual constructions, but yet seem to conform to some kind of collective reality, which enables language users to accommodate folk etymologised words with apparent ease."
Unsurprisingly, I am getting very frustrated with media reporting on the arguments between Graham Hancock, his fans, the Netflix series, and actual archaeologists.
The framing of so many of these articles is just awful.
For example, my current aggravations are...
Archaeologists aren't "dismissive" of Graham Hancock's theories. That implies that they are hand-waving him away out of arrogance. Archaeologists don't take Hancock seriously because he's been peddling theories of Atlantis for 30 years with absolutely NO evidence for his claims.
Secondly, they keep quoting Michael Shermer. Who isn't an archaeologist or a scientist. He's a science writer who has a tendency to lean into pop psychology to justify his libertarian political leanings.
"Ancient Apocalypse" isn't going to tell you anything new. At all.
In fact, I can 100% guarantee that the racism you'll be presented with in regards to archaeological finds is straight out of Victorian Imperialism and the colonialist project.
In my "History of Anthropological Thought" lectures, I cover this in regards to two Victorian theories.
1. Hyperdiffusionism 2. Unlinealism
Hyperdiffusionism is a pseudo-archaeological hypothesis suggesting that certain historical technologies or ideas originated with a single people or civilization before their adoption by other cultures.
(In modern New Age circles, it is called "single-sourcing")
And to be perfectly clear, this is about the "right kinds" of babies as well. Fears of "demographic winter" are the rhstorical tactics of white supremacists and Christian ethno-nationalists.
In these stories, men are non-existent. Men are assumed to want to create as many babies as possible; they are merely being stymied by reluctant women who otherwise owe them marriage and children (for the nation!). Lots of children they will happily support of course.
I grew up in a Conservative Christian household in the rural Midwest.
And right now, all the current "save the children" legislation speaks to one particular experience, and it is this:
A lot of people see their children as extensions of themselves. A Twitter thread. 🧵
Take, for instance, this Tweet from Paul Gosar regarding the "Don't Say Gay" bill.
In it, he directly implies that talking to young children about gender identity and orientation is essentially describing gay sex to them. Rather than talking about different kinds of families.
This overt focus on queer sex is not uncommon in conservative circles and is often the focal point of a lot of (totally fair) criticism.
But it's ultimately distractionary. Gosar and other Republicans know that kindergarten teachers aren't showing their classes gay porn.
By the looks of things, I may be starting a new collaboration soon, with a water management and water culture activism group in Nepal who are working towards securing environmental protections for the Kali Gandaki River Valley.
Using my ethnographic work on Shaligrams!
The reason for this is that one of the more successful models of ecological activism in South Asia recently has been to pair religious site significance with environmental protection/planning.
This foregrounds the needs and interests of local and indigenous peoples as well, who are at the forefront of many of these grassroots organizations. And such is the case with Kali Gandaki protections, who are advocating directly with local governments to...