Harappan 'non-texts' (& more for V. Roebuck)

[L.S.Cousins]

Dear Steve,

I thought your original post very interesting and am quite open to
the possibility that it may prove correct. Nevetheless, I do consider
that it remains in part 'an argument from silence'.

Let us accept that most of the seal signs are probably from some kind
of commercial context. That usage might indeed have been fixed over a
long period.

Writing of longer passages of material would be likely to occur in a
different context and probably it would be evidenced only from
certain major sites. There are supposed to be a number of large
unexcavated sites. I do not know how reliable that claim is, but
presume we cannot take it as certain until they actually are
excavated. If there prove to be large cities further east, dating
from a later period, then it might well prove the case that there was
further development of the script and no reason why it could not have
been used for new purposes in new ways.

>The evidence from comparative history is actually strong indeed. Let
>me stick out my neck  -- contra just about everyone -- and predict
>outright that NO evidence will EVER be found that there were extended
>Harappan texts. If some show up, we would have to revise just about
>*everything* we know about the history of writing, gained from long
>study in Egypt, Greece (linear B, etc.), the Middle East, China,
>Mesoamerica, and many other places. Lots of  positive evidence from
>comparative history argues against extended texts; not one iota of
>positive evidence argues for it; the argument in no way depends on an
>'argument from silence.'

Well, I would have thought that there would always be a lack of
'positive evidence' in the case of an argument from silence :-) But,
seriously, consider how radically views about developments in Central
America have changed since, say the 1950s, as a result of new
archaeological finds (leaving aside script decipherment). So new
archaeological finds from a different area or period could easily
change the situation.

Even for the known area and central period where your argument is
obviously stronger, it can only apply to the kind of context which
has been excavated. So I think your claim is rather bold. Nothing
prevents groups of literati using and developing the script in a
different way. If nothing produced by them has been excavated, then
we will know nothing of it.

That said, I think it is an important point which should be explored further.

>More on India/Europe, in response to Valerie Roebuck, as more data
>come in:

Many thanks for your efforts in response to Valerie Roebuck's query.
It is very good to see this kind of useful cross-fertilization
between different scholarly listgroups. I am sure that many others of
us appreciate this.

Lance Cousins


--
HEADINGTON, UK

CURRENT EMAIL ADDRESS:
selwyn at ntlworld.com