Science Mag: "no Indus script"

[Dean Anderson]

I think in general George and I agree on the inability to make
definitive statements about the IVC due to a lack of certain crucial
pieces of evidence. I should point out that I did not include the
proto-Ziva identification among those things that I consider "undoubted"
but rather among those that are widely, but not universally, accepted by
many mainstream scholars. Those familiar with the discussion of
IVC-South Asian continuity may note that I did not mention at all many
other much more controversial issues.

Regarding proto-Ziva other identifications have included MahiSa
(Hiltebeitel) and S.R. Rao (Agni). I cite these just as examples of
other scenarios all of which are possible since, at this time, we really
have no way to confidently judge at all.

Dean Anderson


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of
>George Thompson
>Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 9:30 AM
>To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Science Mag: "no Indus script"
>
>
>Well, I am no ziSTa when it comes to IVC, but I have paid
>attention to the general discussion.  Since genuine IVC ziSTas
>have not made appearance on the list in a long while, maybe it
>is not presumptuous of me to comment.
>
>It seems to me that IVC ziSTas have at times acknowledged this
>very circularity that Jonathan refers to, but typically they
>have returned thereafter, with a polite tipping of the hat in
>passing, to their familiar and indeed circular beaten paths.
>
>Let us take the treatment of proto-Ziva in Parpola 1994 [chapter 10].
>
>This interpretation of some very famous seals [M-304 & M-305;
>Parpola 1994's Fig. 10.18 ('Proto-Siva') & Fig. 10.9 ('deity
>in "yogic" posture'] is a brilliant, fascinating
>tour-de-force, a great example of what is called "thick
>description."  Whenever I read this chapter I am dazzled
>again.  It ranges over so much Sanskrit literature, Vedic,
>Epic, Puranic, and also moves gracefully between old Dravidian
>etymologies and passages from early Tamil literature;
>iconography from Buddhist and Hindu traditions of late
>historical periods; Mesopotamian iconography that is sometimes
>as much as 4000 years older than their Indic parallels
>[whereas the later Indic parallels are sometimes 2000-3000
>years younger than their IVC parallels; there is a great deal
>of IE and Dravidian etymologizing, etc. etc.
>
>It is a grat story, or maybe I should say that is a chapter in
>an even greater story: a unified theory of all of Indian history.
>
>For Dean, some of the elements of this story are "undoubted."
>But I think that there is a lot that is doubtful in this grand
>narrative, not only in the general telling, but also in the details.
>
>This doesn't mean that I think that the whole story is wrong
>or worthless [far from it!].  It means that in my view much of
>it is speculative and that little of it has been truly
>demonstrated beyond a reasonable "doubt."
>
>I don't think that I am alone in having such a view.
>
>A note to Ferenc: I agree with your point that finds of 20+
>pieces at several sites, instead of only a few at one site,
>would in fact strengthen "the no-lost-mss" thesis.  I also do
>not have access to the volumes of Maarshall right now, but if
>you take a look at Salomon's  epigraphy survey you will find
>that many of the paraphernalia are found at IVC-neighboring
>sites.  Also, one might compare the inscribed pots and
>potshards discussed in Salomon's *Ancient Buddhist Scrolls
>from Gandhara.*  To be sure, there is a significant difference
>between "much evidence" and "a little evidence," but perhaps
>there is a more significant difference between "a little
>evidence" and "absolutely none."
>
>Best wishes,
>
>George Thompson
>