Science Mag: "no Indus script"

[Dean Anderson]

The ones you mention: Ziva, ritual bathing, status of certain animals,
etc. are indeed some of the items that could be accused of 'circularity'
and they are likely only in the light of some of the more firm
identifications like weights, dress, tools, pipal/banyan worship, etc.
that can be considered as native to South India as opposed to either
part of the larger Mesopotamian-South-Central Asian axis or simply
universal. This is the problem with the attempts to postulate a Harappan
origin of the Brahmi script: the letters that are similar between them
are almost all more-or-less common symbols in many scripts. In the same
way, Mother Goddesses and 'hero' motifs are common throughout the entire
region.

That there is continuity is undoubted; what it means in terms of culture
and ideology is not so clear.

Dean Anderson

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
>Jonathan Silk
>Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 1:27 PM
>To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Science Mag: "no Indus script"
>
>
>I wonder if the zi.s.tas would care to comment on what has
>always seemed to me a classic case of circular reasoning: the
>IVC looks like, and should be understood at least in part as,
>a precursor to later Indian developments (e.g., in the cases
>of Ziva, ritual bathing, status of certain animals), but
>primarily so seen in light of those later developments--thus
>one proves the other. Is there a way to de-link the IVC
>objects/evidence from their retrospective reconstructions, and
>still establish some continuity with later Indian facts?
>--
>Jonathan Silk
>Department of Asian Languages & Cultures
>Center for Buddhist Studies
>UCLA
>290 Royce Hall
>Box 951540
>Los Angeles, CA 90095-1540
>phone: (310)206-8235
>fax:  (310)825-8808
>silk at humnet.ucla.edu
>