European contacts with Hinduism/Harappan signs

[George Thompson]

In response to the comments of Lars Martin Fosse:

The thing about a mnemonic device, of course, is that it is used to remind
you of what you already know [the competent reader of a sUtra uses the sUtra
to trigger his own thoughts, or perhaps rather the tradition that has been
taught to him].  In the case of the Scythian 'message' to Darius which I
cited in my last post, it was delivered to Darius by a messenger who knew
what it meant, but who declined to interpret it.  So Darius had to consult
with 'scholars' to interpret it for him.  This applies also to sUtras and
early mnemonic writing systems.  Obviously interpretation of such things is
not an easy process.

This illustrates in general the position that a reader is in when confronted
with a mnemonic sign.  If one does not have that prerequisite knowledge, the
sign is opaque.  Now, I've been reading Jean Bottero on the development of
cuneiform script.  Apparently, the earliest samples of such a writing system,
such as the Uruk tablets [dating to the end of the 4th. millennium BCE],
remain for the most part undecipherable.  The only intelligible portion of
them is the number system   The general point behind my suggestion
[admittedly uninformed] is that *IF* the IVC script is of this sort then
deciphering it will be virtually impossible, like these Uruk tablets.

But that is the worst case scenario.  I think that Michael Witzel's better
informed suggestion that we are dealing with logographs for the most part,
with determinatives and a few syllablic signs, is both more likely and more
promising.  Nevertheless, the high frequency of signs that occur only once
would seem to be a troubling omen for those who think that the IVC sign
system is a true script.

Finally, I did not mean to imply that IVC signs, if mnemonic, had to be tied
to fixed narrative sequences, although perhaps in ritual contexts they could
have been.   On the contrary, I meant [perhaps not very clearly] that the
message attached to such signs was rather free-floating and unfixed.  The
difficulty for one interpreting such signs is that one has to rely on one's
own inference from context, since the sign itself is more or less mute [at
least compared to true scripts].  I think that the remarks of David Salmon
make perfect senses in this context.

I hope that I am not belaboring the obvious.

George Thompson