A citation of one person's opinion cited ex cathedra ("the arguments brought forward by Farmer, Sproat, & Witzel... are not convincing") is supposed to be taken seriously as a scientific argument?

Citations from linguists on the other side supporting us can be given just as easily, which doesn't prove anything either.

Science isn't a matter of auctoritas.

> The issue is apparently not yet settled.

Which is why I suggested we forgo another acrimonious open-ended discussion that repeats the same views constantly without any attempt to bring things to a resolution.

Many of the key arguments that we forwarded in our 2004 paper, found here

http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf

aren't even accurately summarized in the literature, let alone seriously discussed. It is the kind of paper, like so many others these days when information is bombarded at us so fast, that are downloaded (many hundreds of thousands of times since 2004, probably more than any other paper in the field) and talked about far more than read.

The most recent odd comment about the so-called Indus script controversy is by Meadows and Kenoyer, in an essay included in Vol. 3 of the Corpus, who now leave it all in limbo and argue that it doesn't *matter* whether it was a script or not.

Reference and discussion here:

http://www.safarmer.com/IndusValleyFantasies.pdf

With all due respect to my friend Richard Meadow, it matters a lot -- for reasons discussed in that long abstract. :^)

Please note that Asko's position on the "script" has radically changed as well due to our paper, as he generously acknowledged at the last Indus conference we attended together in Kyoto in 2009 (Parpola's "script" by then had turned into a "proto-script," which is a big change rom the views Asko had consistently put forward since the the 1960s; but note that we anticipated this argument too in our 2004 paper on pp. 33 ff.)

So true, things aren't "settled," or opinions at least aren't settled, on the issue. As I've long argued, what is needed now is a _Current Anthropology_ style discussion that forces all sides to respond point-by-point, in an iterative way, to the arguments rather than turning this into another shouting matching authorities against counter-authorities.

We do plan that (a _Current Anthropology_ style article) for the next year, if we can as we hope free up the time.

'm convinced that the issue *can* be definitively settled this way. We have tried the other ways (e.g. the Conference funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the American Linguistic Society that Richard Sproat and I organized at Stanford in 2007, etc.) without luck, since we couldn't get Asko at the time to agree to the point-by-point discussion we proposed.

But the issue still *does* need to be settled, for many reasons, and I'm convinced it will happen at least in the next few years, via the _Current Anthropology_-type format.

Regards,
Steve Farmer

On Jun 19, 2012, at 3:11 PM, George Thompson wrote:

> Dear List,
>
> I too have grown weary of this debate, but some list members may not
> be aware of this article by Harry Falk:
>
> "Foreign Terms Pertaining to Writing in Sanskrit"
>
> which has appeared in a collection:
>
> *The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity*, ed. by Alexander J. de
> Voogt, Irving L. Finkel, [Brill 2010].
>
> In this article, Harry asserts, in his first footnote, that "the
> arguments brought forward by Farmer, Sproat, & Witzel (2004) against
> the nature of the Harappan signs as 'script' are not convincing,
> individually or as a whole.  I concur  with the counter-arguments
> amassed by Parpola [2008]."
>
> Parpola 2008:
>
> "Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?"  in Airaavati:
> Felicitation Volume in Honour of Iravatham Mahadevan (pp. 111-131).
> Chennai (Varallaru.com).
>
> The issue is apparently not yet settled.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> George Thompson
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Steve Farmer <saf@safarmer.com> wrote:
>> Alakendu Das writes:
>>
>>> If anybody may throw light by way of referring any opinion/journals/books on deciphering of Harrappan Script pertaining to the Indus Valley civilisation.
>>
>>
>> On this acrimonious issue opinion/journal/books flow in endless streams, as they have for the past 135 years or so. :^)
>>
>> Can I suggest that another open-ended discussion about "deciphering" symbols whose linguistic status is itself disputed is hardly appropriate on the List?  It is torturous to have to revisit the same territory repeatedly.
>>
>> I suggest that those interested go to the List archives here
>>
>> http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?S1=indology
>>
>> and type in the words (no quotes) "Indus script".
>>
>> Then add in the Since Box (again no quotes) "2011".
>>
>> That will take you to the last of many List discussions on the topic, involving summaries of the conflicting views of Asko Parpola, me and my colleagues, and others -- all based on already published and readily available papers.
>>
>> If you want older discussions -- often reiterating the same arguments -- expand on the date range in the search fields to 1999 or so. You will find further opinions, etc., in abundance.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Steve Farmer
>>
>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 12:05 PM, alakendu das wrote:
>>
>>> To all,
>>> If anybody may throw light by way of referring any opinion/journals/books on deciphering of Harrappan Script pertaining to the Indus Valley civilisation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alakendu Das,
>>> Post-Graduate,Indology.
>>> mailme
>