Linear B texts

[Steve Farmer]

Thanks, George. Everything you say in your most recent note is  
speculative, as I'm sure you'd admit, so it's hard to know how to  
respond.

Is there a logical contradiction (as opposed to a question of  
plausibility) in claiming that the Indus were the only ancient people  
who have been claimed to be literate who (1) supposedly over many  
centuries wrote long texts on perishable materials, all of which have  
disappeared; and who (2) simultaneously left thousands of  short  
"texts" (averaging 4-5 symbols long, often less) behind  -- the only  
supposed evidence of their putative "literacy" -- on durable  
materials of many different types on which all other known literate  
civilizations left *long* texts?

It isn't logically impossible, but it is grossly improbable when you  
compare the situation with evidence from *every* known literate  
civilizatio (including later ones from India, of course). But why  
would anyone bother with such improbable theses unless there were  
other motives at work?

It's certainly nothing I'd prefer to discuss, but scientific  
discussion does take time (see on Frank Southworth, below).

You write:

> As far as "Dravidianists" are concerned -- I think there has been a  
> natural and understandable tendency to speculate that the IV Civ  
> might have spoken a Dravidian language.  Michael Witzel takes issue  
> with this in his extraordinarily detailed articles on substratum  
> languages in the RV, and his arguments are impressive -- though  
> they're not conclusive, in my opinion.  I do, however, find myself  
> tending to accept his idea that the linguistic composition of the  
> IV and surrounding areas at the time of the RV was quite complex,  
> and that Dravidian was only one of several families spoken there.

Let me hand the ball over to Michael here in my own tag-team, if  
possible, since I'm getting worn out in center ring. :^) (Actually,  
Michael may not be available for a while, but I'll see him in Kyoto  
in a few weeks.)

On this very point: I never could figure out (as a comparativist, not  
a S. Asianist: Michael is the S. Asianist component of my brain) why  
anyone would view the Indus regions as being mono-linguistic. I think  
it is only because I *was* an outsider that it seemed so strange to  
me. Then Michael and I discussed this issue in extenso in 1999, when  
he published some key papers on the substratum issue.

Steve Weber (the Indus archaeologist, with whom we've worked a bit,  
along with Dorian Fuller) and I once had a conversation about this  
I'll never forget. Steve was a student of Possehl's and told me that  
when he was trained, the question was always presented in stark terms  
filled with unevidenced assumptions: "Which language (sic) did the  
Indus symbols encode? Was it some proto-Dravidian language or some  
early form of Indo-Aryan?" As Steve W. pointed out, the either/or  
issue was presented so definitively that no one even thought of  
alternatives.

We realize now -- and I'm including here now Steve W. -- that there  
were a lot of assumptions in these leading questions, in what  
magicians call "Magician's Choice": (1) the unexamined assumption  
before Michael and I began working on this together, later joined by  
Richard Sproat, that there was a language of some sort encoded in  
these symbols; (2) the (largely) unexamined assumption that the Indus  
supposedly spoke one language (a pretty odd assumption when you  
consider the linguistic diversity in those regions in every other  
period, ancient or modern!); and (3) unexamined assumption three,  
that the "language" was supposedly proto-Dravidian (an even odder  
choice when you look at the evidence on the historical movements of  
Dravidian-speaking peoples, as Michael and many others now have  
argued at length).

I remember how happy we all were when our good friend Frank  
Southworth (and deeply ingrained "Dravidianist" himself) finally  
capitulated after lots of heated and fun discussions at Harvard (and  
over drinks) on this back in 2004. During the 2004 Roundtable, he  
called his wife on the phone and said something along the lines of  
"Honey, I'm afraid we have to give in." :^) Frank was gracious enough  
after reading an early copy of "Collapse" to change key lines in the  
final proofs of _The Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia_ (2005) on  
the Indus issue.

You write:

> My particular concern is to get some notion of the prehistory of  
> South India and the influx (if there was one) of the Dravidian  
> languages into that area.  While this area is outside my expertise,  
> my impression is that Dravidian speakers might have come to South  
> India about 3000 BC and brought neolithic culture.  I'd be  
> interested if others have evidence in this regard.

On this issue I'm very pleased to say I'm a total spectator -- which  
may allow me with this post to slip out the door. :^) Maybe we'll  
have more to say after some announcements in Kyoto.

Best wishes and thanks,
Steve