IVC on Indology list

[Dean Anderson]

>A few notes on D. Anderson's message, below:
>On Dec 21, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
<snip>

I think we are agreed on the existence of connections if not the exact
details. The original context of this message was whether the IVC was
appropriate for Indology *at all* and my reply should be viewed with
that in mind.

>> More speculative, but still widely accepted, are the identification
>> among Harappan remains of proto-Ziva, <snip>

>"less widely accepted" indeed. All of them have been disputed by
>competent scholars.

I would be interested in any references you have for those in case I
have missed any.

>This is the field of popular papers/books (and
>some rather inventive/speculating colleagues who print their
>speculations as facts).

I think this is an unfair portrayal if you are referring to Possehl,
Kenoyer, Parpola, et. al. I have read most of their "popular" books as
well as their articles in specialist journals (in addition to some
papers prior to publication or that have not yet been published) and I
have always found them to make clear the speculative nature of their
ideas given the incomplete nature of our knowledge about the IVC.

One thing has just become clear to me since reading the FSW paper is the
new split between the "old school" like those mentioned above and those
supporting the Farmer, Witzel, Sproat position.

Congratulations on your publication, by the way. It was
thought-provoking as always and I eagerly look forward to more
discussion in the academic community. Have any linguists weighed in yet?

Dean Anderson