Sarasvati (texts & arch.II)

Lakshmi Srinivas lsrinivas at YAHOO.COM
Tue May 26 20:47:26 UTC 1998

---"S. Kalyanaraman"  wrote:
> ---Lakshmi Srinivas <lsrinivas at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> >
> > I do not know if the list members are generally aware of I.>
> Mahadevan's theory that the IVC Cult Object represents a Soma filter.
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > The hypothesis itself seems to have been well received in the world
> of > South Asian archaeology. (See Possehl, Indus Age: The writing
> system,
> > Philadelphia, 1996.)
> >
> I have read Possehl's  book. I do not think Possehl said so. Would
> appreciate the reference since I do not have access to the book right
> away.

Well, Possehl did say the following: "Mahadevan's approach to the soma
press is a departure from his method of parallelisms. It is based
mainly on common sense, and the development of an argument. There may
be more scope to this general approach and Mahadevan's work is
certainly one of the few decipherments that deserves further
attention." (ibid. p 131)

Possehl's work is a review of various attempts at deciphering the
Indus script. Of the 30 or so decipherment attempts reviewed, many
have been dismissed with remarks such as "makes no sense" , "elaborate
fantasy", "difficult to use as a guide", "little to be said by way of
critical evaluation", "unsuccessful venture" etc.. One particular
attempt has even been characterized as "Unlike Mahadevan's work, it
seems to have pretty much run its course".

However  a dozen or so decipherment attempts seem to have been taken
seriously and have been reviewed in detail, of which Mahadevan's is
one. But as may be seen from above, not all of his hypotheses have
been received the same way. For example,  Mahadevan's soma hypothesis
has received much better press than his method of parallelisms. That
is all I meant to say.

Warm Regards.

Lakshmi Srinivas

Get your free address at

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list