[Y-Indology] Myth-making on Indus script

[Guest guest]

In reference to the Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel article, reported in

this week's _Science_, etc. For our article, go, e.g., to

 

http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf (1.1 Meg PDF)

 

Kalyanaraman writes;

 

> Why have the learned authors of the EJVS article chosen to make

> arbitrary selection of symbols and to ignore the

> unambiguous `symbols' such as the following; and, if indeed, all

> these `symbols' have been taken into account, how do they relate to

> heraldry or agricultural practices:

>

> Alligator

> Lizard

> Snake

> Brahmani bull

> Ox

> Buffalo

> Vagina of a woman with outstretched thighs...

 

K's long list continues. None of these iconographical images has ever

been claimed to be part of the so-called 'Indus script'.

 

Are you asking us why we don't discuss every symbol that shows up in

Indus iconography one by one? That would be quite a long discussion. :^)

 

Moreover, the things you note here aren't considered part of symbols in

the so-called 'script', but part of the accompanying iconography on

some classes of inscriptions. I have, of course, discussed some of

these iconographical images in many other places: see, e.g., my last

slide lecture on the mythological functions of Indus symbols - with

beautiful slides - which is item#1 at my download page:

 

http://www.safarmer.com/downloads

 

We have focused on symbol chains in this article, obviously, not

individual symbols. But do see Farmer, Weber, et al., now in the works,

on agricultural symbolism (Weber is a leading Indus ethnobiologist, and

editor of _Indus Ethnobiology_. Book description with table of contents

at:

 

http://www.booksmatter.com/b0739106090.htm

 

But first things first: you first need to demonstrate, as Witzel,

Sproat, and I have done, that you aren't dealing with a 'writing

system'. That is the obvious object of our article. To overturn 130

years of research here is maybe ambigious enough for this one paper. :^)

 

We'll leave the "Vagina of a woman with outstretched things" for

another day. :^)

 

> I have no comments to make on Richard's work on corpus linguistics.

> The issue in the present context of `no Indus script' is why they are

> not hieroglyphs. A mere reference to an Egyptian hieroglyph example

> does not answer my specific questions on why the 'symbols' of Indus

> script are NOT heiroglyphs.

 

We don't give an Egyptian hieroglyph "example", but a detailed

comparison of Egyptian hieroglyph frequencies with Indus symbol

frequencies. And Richard [sproat's] collaborative work with us in

studying those frequencies is obviously central. For his work in

general, see:

 

http://compling.ai.uiuc.edu/rws/newindex/publications.html

 

But to your main question: I don't know why you keep referring in your

posts to "heiroglyphs" -- is this just a misspelling?? Are you talking

about Egyptian hieroglyphs (which we discuss in our article), Luwian

hieroglyphs (which we discuss in our article), so-called Cretan

hieroglyphs (which we discuss in a long footnote too?).

 

The term 'hieroglyphs' does not have any specific meaning in

linguistics, but is just a very loose term associated with certain

types of mixed scripts, often very different in each case: Egyptian

hieroglyphs are a mixed system of consonant sequences (no vowels) plus

logograms, determinatives, function words, etc. Luwian hieroglyphs are

a mixed system of syllabograms, logograms, determinatives, and function

signs. So-called Cretan hieroglyphs refers to a certain class of

symbols not all of which may be linguistic at all (see on this Pope

1968, Olivier and Godart, _Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae

_(1996). But your question doesn't really have any meaning as stated.

We certainly do put forward a lot of evidence that indicates that the

Harappans were illiterate, didn't write long texts, didn't possess a

phonetic script, and much more.

 

Steve Farmer

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Steve Farmer <saf@s...> wrote:

> > K's long list continues. None of these iconographical images has

ever > been claimed to be part of the so-called 'Indus script'.

 

It is only a selective list. The long list will include about a

hundred glyphs. It is clearly arbitrary to ignore unambiguous images

as 'iconographic' and not treat them as part of the 'symbols'. If

Egyptian heiroglyphs could be posted on to the computational

analysis, why not these arbitrarily christened 'iconographic'

symbols. I fail to see what is iconographic about alligators or

lizards or the hundreds of other pictorial motifs. What is the view

of FSW about the symbol, 'svastika'; it occurs flanked by an elephant

and a tiger looking back.

 

> Are you asking us why we don't discuss every symbol that shows up

in > Indus iconography one by one? That would be quite a long

discussion. :^)

 

I am asking you as to why you did not include these glyptics in the

analysis, when you choose to include other 'iconographic' symbols of

other civilizations.

 

> Moreover, the things you note here aren't considered part of

symbols in > the so-called 'script', but part of the accompanying

iconography on > some classes of inscriptions.

 

This is clearly a cop-out; what is iconographic about them and why

are they used in some classes of inscriptions?How are the

inscriptions classified according to FSW?

 

> We have focused on symbol chains in this article, obviously, not

> individual symbols.

 

My question again is why the symbol chains include only what are

called 'signs' by the corpuses of Mahadevan and Parpola and why they

the symbol chains do not include other pictorials?

 

But do see Farmer, Weber, et al., now in the works, > on agricultural

symbolism (Weber is a leading Indus ethnobiologist, and > editor of

_Indus Ethnobiology_.

 

Again, the learned authors do not clarify why they consider the

symbols to relate to agricultural symbolism. What is sought to be

conveyed in relation to agricultural practices?

 

> But to your main question: I don't know why you keep referring in

your > posts to "heiroglyphs" -- is this just a misspelling??

 

As I understand, hieroglyphs are supposed to be read rebus, i.e.

denoting by pictures to connote similar sounding words.

 

Well, you can define a 'writing system' the way you want; but, it

generally connotes use of graphics to convey 'verbal' messages.

 

Kalyanaraman