Fwd: The illiterate Harrapans (and beyond)

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Claus Peter Zoller

<peter_zoller wrote:

Dear List,

Even though it has been pointed out by several

contributors that being an ï¿½illiterateï¿½ culture must

not be equaled with ï¿½uncivilizedï¿½, I still would like

to stress that the reduction of the former four

ancient literate societies to three has a certain

script centric bias. While some of the present

European countries have opted for dropping out of the

production of atomic electricity and others decided

not even to begin with it, I think that nobody would

seriously consider the idea of dividing these

countries into atomic and non-atomic civilizations. A

differentiation between literate and illiterate

civilizations makes sense only for those for whom

literacy is of central importance ï¿½ however, if a

civilization opts, for whatever reasons, for

non-literacy, then this is simply a non-issue there.

And even though I am not an expert on ï¿½Indus scriptï¿½,

this much I have learned: if the Indus people would

have ï¿½wantedï¿½ (a word here certainly not without

pitfalls) to use a script, they could have done so.

Besides a script centric attitude I guess there is

another reason, which has made this debate slightly

emotional. Namely the unquestioned equation of script

and text. There is not much disagreement with regard

to what characterizes a script, but, and that is my

imputation, there is a lot of vagueness with regard to

what constitutes a text.

There is, of course, an endless series of answers to

this question, but I think it makes sense to pin it

down in our discussion in the following way: In recent

years linguists have concentrated on phenomena

subsumed by some under the notion of formulaic

language. It is now undisputed that a significant

portion of all linguistic interaction and expression

is formulaic in the sense that holistically stored

phrases and sentences are used side by side with newly

built-up ones. The production of fixed sequences is an

ongoing process through time, and what holds good for

the level of an individual and a speech community,

holds also good on the cultural level. Probably all

cultures/civilizations permanently produce shorter or

longer fixed linguistic sequences. The production of

fixed sequences on the individual level has a lot to

do with the expression of belonging to a community and

with the promotion of self (arenï¿½t we all just doing

this now?) (Alison Wray. 2002. Formulaic language and

the lexicon. CUP). On the larger cultural level, I

would say, basically the same happens: individuals,

groups or whole communities produce fixed linguistic

sequences to express their affiliation with a specific

culture - also to promote themselves.

I have equated here text with fixedness. This does not

make sense within our modern world, but I think it

makes sense within our discussion context. Scripts

seem not to have been invented in order to record

fixed linguistic sequences. Therefore one cannot say

that they served initially the same purpose as the

production of culturally relevant fixed sequences. But

how can linguistic sequences be fixed and how fixed do

they have to be? Now I am of the opinion that it is of

secondary importance whether such sequences are fixed

on clay pots, on stone tablets, on birch barks, on CDs

or in neuronal networks of the human brain. Therefore,

for me, all of them are texts. Consequently, when you

hear a Vedic recitation, you listen to a text fixed in

neuronal networks, and when you look at a seal from

the Indus valley you look at a text fixed on clay,

stone etc. Since the signs on the seals of the Indus

valley, as I have understood, are neither mere

ornaments nor early forms of SMS, they must have been

produced in order to ï¿½sayï¿½ something in a fixed and

orderly way. Whenever it was decided to present oral

texts in script form, one got oral-derived written

texts. The same could have been done (but apparently

was not so) with the texts of the seals from the

Indus, at least for some time, resulting in

visual-symbol-derived written texts. When it was

decided to apply very strict standards regarding the

degree of fixedness, then it was likely that problems

of comprehension would show up during later

generations. This was certainly the case with the

Vedic tradition, and it seems likely that this was

also the fate of the Indus seals.

I would like to end all this with a question packed

into some speculation. If I remember it correctly,

then it has been suggested that the procedures for

producing very fixed Vedic texts might have been

developed before the background of preexisting similar

procedures followed by the people of the Indus

civilization. This, of course, would imply that they

possessed a corpus of strictly fixed oral texts (more

durable media than the human brain for fixing have, as

we all know, not been found). Could it be that the

seals of the Indus civilization fulfilled a kind of

index function with regard to that corpus of oral

(religious, political, economic?) texts? Let me

illustrate with a small example what I mean: scholars

of oral performance traditions have wondered why there

are oral texts where the actors had not just simple

names like John or Bhima, but for instance Bhimasena

ï¿½Wolf bellyï¿½ or something like the fair-skinned

Athena. It has been pointed out, for instance by John

Miles Foley, that such 'flowery' names are used in

order to furnish them with an index function: they

evoke in the hearers a whole universe of familiar

associations. Could the signs on the Indus seals have

done something similar by referring to specific

segments of an oral tradition? Could thus a specific

symbol on an Indus seal not just simply have referred

to a certain deity but to a whole myth cycle - then

known to everyone -, to certain rituals, festivals

etc.?

Claus Peter Zoller

_________

Gesendet von Mail - Jetzt mit 250MB Speicher kostenlos - Hier

anmelden: http://mail..de

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

Thanks to Claus Peter Zoller and Sudha Shenoy for their interesting

posts. I'm on a tight deadline today and can't comment for 12 hours or

so on their posts or any that follow, but I would like to quickly say

something about what Claus refers to as 'script centric' point of view.

He writes:

> A

> differentiation between literate and illiterate

> civilizations makes sense only for those for whom

> literacy is of central importance ï¿½ however, if a

> civilization opts, for whatever reasons, for

> non-literacy, then this is simply a non-issue there.

> And even though I am not an expert on ï¿½Indus scriptï¿½,

> this much I have learned: if the Indus people would

> have ï¿½wantedï¿½ (a word here certainly not without

> pitfalls) to use a script, they could have done so.

I agree totally with the last point, and we argue in fact that they

did, in fact, know about it and rejected it. Some prima facie evidence

also suggests that they may have done so in part for religious reasons

(think here of the negative discussion of writing in the _Phaedrus_, or

of the resistence to literate encoding of Vedic sources, or the similar

situation in relation to the Celts).

But while I agree with your last point, I disagree with your first,

that a " differentiation between literate and illiterate civilizations

makes sense only for those for whom literacy is of central importance "

(that, is, I take it, modern viewers with 'script centric attitudes'.

Rejection of writing has secondary costs, since a full script is what

is often referred to as an 'enabling technology' -- the ability to

encode information in a stable form extra-mentally pushes civilizations

in new directions. (Good, bad, whatever you want to think, but still

*different*.) The material simplicity of the Indus Valley (compare it

with Egypt or Mesopotamia in the last half of the 3rd millennium) has

always struck people as odd, simply *because* the Indus supposedly had

a script. Well, they didn't opt for writing, and the material

simplicity suddenly makes sense.

Anyway to divide societies into script/nonscript societies isn't to

make a value judgment, but -- to state the obvious -- simply to note

that they either did or didn't have a 'script' (in the linguistic

sense). Our *entire* view of Indus society -- and, indeed, everything

east of Elam -- changes when we recognize that the Indus civilization

did not have writing.

On what you say about " texts " , Claus: consider the length of the symbol

chains (even the word 'inscription' is a bit odd) in the case of the

Indus. No matter how you define " text " , this isn't what people mean.

The only " texts " people ever claimed for the Indus Valley were the

mythical lost ones that sustained the Indus-script myth for so long.

Sorry, must run for the day. Hopefully others will keep up the 'script

talk' at least until tomorrow; then we can turn to another thread; the

more focused we stay on one issue, the better the chances that this

List will succeed.

Best -- and thanks for a userful discussionn,

Steve

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Robert Simpkins

<bobsahib wrote:

Steve,

I also have issues dividing up the world into literate and illiterate, or

non- or pre-literate, civilizations. For me, this ignores the vast

variation of literate forms within societies, and the fact that in many of

these early civilizations, even when a ï¿½trueï¿½ script appears, it is often

being used for very limited purposes by a very limited sector of society.

So the vast majority of the population are still not literate. What

we are

really talking about are the individual groups within these cultures or

civilizations, and it is these groups that we should be comparing, not

entire civilizations. So we should be looking at the temple complexes of

Uruk and other early Mesopotamian sites, and trying to understand how they

were different organizationally from other groups within Uruk and the

other

Sumerian city-states that were functioning at a complex level without the

use of cuneiform.

We should be doing the same with the Proto-Elamite Culture, about which we

understand very little still. What does the fact that these tablets are

found over such a vast area, but were used apparently so briefly and for

such limited purposes tell us about the people who were using them? I

applaud Jacob Dahlï¿½s detailed and innovative approaches to Proto-Elamite,

and hope in addition to his careful inductive procedure he will share with

us some fun if premature speculation as to the nature of the organization

that was responsible for the Proto-Elamite tablets. Years ago,

Lamberg-Karlovsky speculated that this was a short-lived ï¿½stateï¿½ that

expanded across the Iranian Plateau, then collapsed within a century

or two.

Equally possible, it seems to me, is that this represented a non-state

organization, perhaps a merchant association or family that attempted to

integrate their interests over a large area through a standardized

accounting system; perhaps the system died when the family business

collapsed. Most organization rarely last beyond a few generations, or at

least rarely maintain their integration beyond that.

> Rejection of writing has secondary costs, since a full script is what

> is often referred to as an 'enabling technology' -- the ability to

> encode information in a stable form extra-mentally pushes civilizations

> in new directions. (Good, bad, whatever you want to think, but still

> *different*.)

What do you mean ï¿½extra-mentally pushes civilizationsï¿½? You have already

conceded that complex social organization and urbanism are possible in the

absence of writing, so what is it that these ï¿½literateï¿½ civilizations can

produce that others cannot? This sounds a bit like the old Jack Goody

hypothesis, which I thought had been thoroughly discredited. And

given that

literacy is generally found among only a minority of the citizens of a

civilization, it also therefore means that those who are literate have

ï¿½extra-mentalï¿½ powers of some sort. The main difference I see is in

permitting increased levels of organizational complexity, as in centrally

organized, bureaucratic administrations. For this reason, I suspect that

large urban centers like Teotihuacan, that apparently did not utilize

writing technology, were less centralized in the way that the elite

controlled that diverse groups that were responsible for generating the

surplus their wealth was based on.

> Anyway to divide societies into script/nonscript societies isn't to

> make a value judgment, but -- to state the obvious -- simply to note

> that they either did or didn't have a 'script' (in the linguistic

> sense). Our *entire* view of Indus society -- and, indeed, everything

> east of Elam -- changes when we recognize that the Indus civilization

> did not have writing.

What I see them not having are these highly centralized, complex

organizations within civilizations, like Sumer and Dynastic Egypt. They,

and all of the other urban systems we can point to without writing

probably

had numerous complex organizations that were interdependent and in

competition, but until you have the ability to ï¿½captureï¿½ the other

economies

(I credit archaeologist David Small for introducing me to this

concept) of a

cultural system, you cannot consolidate power. This is precisely what

starts to happen in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and what I suspect did not

happen

in the Indus Valley.

Bob Simpkins

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , jacob dahl

<jacob.dahl wrote:

Dear Bob,

you wrote:

>... fun if premature speculation as to the nature of the organization

>that was responsible for the Proto-Elamite tablets. Years ago,

>Lamberg-Karlovsky speculated that this was a short-lived 'state' that

>expanded across the Iranian Plateau, then collapsed within a century

or two.

>Equally possible, it seems to me, is that this represented a non-state

>organization, perhaps a merchant association or family that attempted to

>integrate their interests over a large area through a standardized

>accounting system; perhaps the system died when the family business

>collapsed. Most organization rarely last beyond a few generations, or at

>least rarely maintain their integration beyond that.

Your guess is as good as mine, I am afraid. I don't understand it.

Perhaps new excavations in Malyan, and other traditional Elamite

centers can give us a clearer picture.

(now only about the aspect of the expansion, spread of the writing

system, I will get back to Susa it self later)

I think it is important to make a distinction between proto-Elamite,

and Uruk-IV, and in-between. We have Uruk IV tablets (numerical

tablets) from Susa, from Sialk, from Shahr-i-sokhtar, and Choga-Mish,

probably other places too. Some sites have numero-ideographic tablets

where the sole sign may be called proto-Elamite. Such signs may just

be examples of indigenous regional symbols, such as the so-called

hairy triangle.

We have full proto-Elamite writing (with stronger or smaller regional

variation), at Susa, at Malyan (closest to Susa texts), at Sialk

(only what I would call early proto-Elamite), at Yayha, at Tepe

Ozbaki (as far as I remember), and perhaps some other places.

The evidence is not impressive! I hesitate to draw any conclusions,

but I think the same people must have lived at these places, for them

to be identified by almost the same ideograms. (we find the hairy

triangle in both Susa, Malyan, and Yayha), at least the elite must

have been the same people culturally, ethnically (this is not my

strong side!!). There is one Malyan tablet which I wouldn't even be

able to tell apart from the Susa ones, if it wasn't for the use of a

stamp-seal instead of the tradition at Susa of using cylinder-seals.

One Sialk tablet has a seal which could be Susa (it has a numerical

sign on it which is also known on Susa seals (N30C)).

I think the area shared in the same cultural back-ground, and was

flavored by the culture of the Uruk-Expansion (or what you want to

call it). I also think there must have been contact between these

places, the tablets cannot have been written in Susa for example and

brought to Yayha, since the style is clearly regional, etc.

I think I believe Lamberg-Karlobsky's theory most, but again I really

don't know. And I would also like to see the tablets, for collations,

and they are not always easy to get to.

I am sorry I don't think this was very fun, the one wild idea that I

have is that Malyan has as extensive archives as Susa, just waiting

to be found. I really do expect that.

Jacob

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

Hi Bob,

You write:

> I also have issues dividing up the world into literate and illiterate,

> or

> non- or pre-literate, civilizations. For me, this ignores the vast

> variation of literate forms within societies, and the fact that in

> many of

> these early civilizations, even when a ï¿½trueï¿½ script appears, it is

> often

> being used for very limited purposes by a very limited sector of

> society.

> So the vast majority of the population are still not literate.

No argument here at all here -- no one could possibly disagree -- but

that's a very different issue than the one argued in FSW, which

concerns the fact that the so-called Indus script wasn't a script. The

upshot is that here you certainly didn't have any " variation in

literate forms. " Nor in the BMAC, nor apparently in SW Iran, nor in the

Gulf region.

So by dividing the world into literate and illiterate, I'm obviously

not talking about how many people were literate (maybe under 1% in

Mesopotamia??), but about the existence or non-existence of a

technology in a particular civilization: that 1% obviously were those

in power.

Cheers,

Steve

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

I want to pick up on another of Bob's points, since it is a contentious

one: NB that Bob and I are near neighbors and friends and squabble

about lots of things -- but *not* about the non-linguistic nature of

Indus symbols; we agree on that totally.

On other views, we negotiate, constantly. E.g., when I wrote:

>> Rejection of writing has secondary costs, since a full script is what

>> is often referred to as an 'enabling technology' -- the ability to

>> encode information in a stable form extra-mentally pushes

>> civilizations

>> in new directions. (Good, bad, whatever you want to think, but still

>> *different*.)

Bob responded:

> What do you mean ï¿½extra-mentally pushes civilizationsï¿½? You have

> already

> conceded that complex social organization and urbanism are possible in

> the

> absence of writing, so what is it that these ï¿½literateï¿½ civilizations

> can

> produce that others cannot? This sounds a bit like the old Jack Goody

> hypothesis, which I thought had been thoroughly discredited.

Goody (also Havelock, Ong, many others) claimed there was a *sharp*

either/or break between literate/illiterate civilizations, not a fuzzy

phase transition (as all phase transitions are). But you don't have to

accept Goody's version of that thesis to recognize that shifts in

information technologies (of all sorts) can induce massive changes in

civilizations -- just not the single state either/or flips that Goody

et al. claimed. Consider how fast ideas can change in wide-ranging

fields (well, look at this List, or Internet as a whole) and try to

deny that. Or look at the big transitions in thought that accompanied

the printing revolution in Europe from the late 15th c. on; my early

research dealt with part of that in Latin scholastic traditions.

On what you earlier characterized as " narrow " views of writing (=

must encode speech, the way most linguists specializing in scripts

define the term ) vs. " broad " interpretations (= any systematic series

of symbols, the sort of claim made by Harald Haarmann, etc.) -- NB:

-- The traditional claim about Indus symbols was always that they

*were* writing in this " narrow " (= linguistic) sense -- i.e., were

sound encoding, were tied closely to language, were capable of writing

long texts, could be used to record narratives, etc. Neither

Cunningham, Marshall, Hunter, Langsdon, Knorozov, Parpola, Mahadevan,

Fairservis, Possehl, Kenoyer, Rajaram, Rao, etc. -- any of them -- ever

claimed this was 'writing' in the " broad " sense; indeed, they would

have violently denied that. It was full writing, in their eyes, in the

" narrow " sense of the term, along with grammatical markers, diacritics,

the ability to encode long narratives, etc.

And *that's* what has changed. If someone wants to call (say) Vinca

symbols, with Gimbutas and Haarmann, " writing " , Indus symbols were

" writing " . (I know that isn't your view, Bob.) That definition of

" writing " is a very fringe view, however -- and it is certainly NOT

what has been typically claimed for the Indus Valley, whose " script "

has normally been fantasized as a fully loaded writing system.

I know you don't want me to give you a string of quotes to demonstrate

that...

So was the Indus Valley illiterate? Yes, absolutely, 100%,

unequivocally, in the sense that the civilization didn't possess and

apparently did not want to possess a sound-encoding script. Certainly

they were in continuous contact with Mesopotamia throughout the entire

so-called integration era (2600-1900 BCE), so we have to think they

rejected it outright. Was Mesopotamia and Egypt literate? Yes,

absolutely, in the sense that they *did* have a speech encoding script,

could write long narratives, could encode long texts, etc. -- exactly

what they couldn't do in the Indus Valley.

No reason to get *too* subtle with terms...

Cheers,

Steve

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Juha Savolainen

<juhavs wrote:

Dear Jacob,

You mention in your post that

> We have full proto-Elamite writing (with stronger or

> smaller regional

> variation), at Susa, at Malyan (closest to Susa

> texts), at Sialk

> (only what I would call early proto-Elamite), at

> Yayha, at Tepe

> Ozbaki (as far as I remember), and perhaps some

> other places.

>

> The evidence is not impressive! I hesitate to draw

> any conclusions,

> but I think the same people must have lived at these

> places, for them

> to be identified by almost the same ideograms. (we

> find the hairy

> triangle in both Susa, Malyan, and Yayha), at least

> the elite must

> have been the same people culturally, ethnically

> (this is not my

> strong side!!). There is one Malyan tablet which I

> wouldn't even be

> able to tell apart from the Susa ones, if it wasn't

> for the use of a

> stamp-seal instead of the tradition at Susa of using

> cylinder-seals.

> One Sialk tablet has a seal which could be Susa (it

> has a numerical

> sign on it which is also known on Susa seals

> (N30C)).

>

> I think the area shared in the same cultural

> back-ground, and was

> flavored by the culture of the Uruk-Expansion (or

> what you want to

> call it). I also think there must have been contact

> between these

> places, the tablets cannot have been written in Susa

> for example and

> brought to Yayha, since the style is clearly

> regional, etc.

>

> I think I believe Lamberg-Karlobsky's theory most,

> but again I really

> don't know. And I would also like to see the

> tablets, for collations,

> and they are not always easy to get to.

>

Now, I learn from Robert Englundï¿½s

http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004c.pdf

(see the map on page 103)

that Proto-Elamite clay tablets have been found also

from Shahr-i-Shokhta, which is nowadays much better

known as the " Burnt City " , just at the border of

present-day Afghanistan.

Does that mean that you think that the inhabitants of

the Burnt City had a common cultural and/or linguistic

and/or biological background as the Proto-Elamites

(whoever they were) at Susa? The answer to this

question, whatever the right answer might be, could

have profound consequences for the study of the whole

area!

All the best,

Juha

Plan great trips with Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!

http://travel./p-travelguide

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , jacob dahl

<jacob.dahl wrote:

Dear Juha,

As far as I know we have one tablet from Shahr-i-Sokhta with one or a

couple of signs that could be proto-Elamite, and a numerical notation

which is comparable to notations from Uruk, and proto-Elamite. See an

image of the text here (

http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009502 ), and compare with a

Yahya text ( http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009535 ), for

example, Yahya texts displays a much more advanced level of writing,

and are clearly proto-Elamite (although with a very high number of

singletons = evidence of regionality?).

I hesitate to use the single piece of evidence from Shahr-i-Sokhta to

make any big claims. On the other hand I can't give a good

explanation.

I think my thoughts of some connection between Susa and the areas

using the same writing system are more valid for the places where we

can demonstrate that they actually used some of the same symbols. The

Shahr-i-Sokhta (Burnt City) tablet has one sign that may look like a

proto-Elamite sign. Again, that is not enough, in my book, to claim

any connection.

Susa, Malyan, Yahya, perhaps even Sialk have so many common features

that I think there must have been a strong connection.

Best regards,

Jacob

>Dear Jacob,

>

>You mention in your post that

>

>> We have full proto-Elamite writing (with stronger or

>> smaller regional

>> variation), at Susa, at Malyan (closest to Susa

>> texts), at Sialk

>> (only what I would call early proto-Elamite), at

>> Yayha, at Tepe

>> Ozbaki (as far as I remember), and perhaps some

>> other places.

>>

>> The evidence is not impressive! I hesitate to draw

>> any conclusions,

>> but I think the same people must have lived at these

>> places, for them

>> to be identified by almost the same ideograms. (we

>> find the hairy

>> triangle in both Susa, Malyan, and Yayha), at least

>> the elite must

>> have been the same people culturally, ethnically

>> (this is not my

>> strong side!!). There is one Malyan tablet which I

>> wouldn't even be

>> able to tell apart from the Susa ones, if it wasn't

>> for the use of a

>> stamp-seal instead of the tradition at Susa of using

>> cylinder-seals.

>> One Sialk tablet has a seal which could be Susa (it

>> has a numerical

>> sign on it which is also known on Susa seals

>> (N30C)).

>>

>> I think the area shared in the same cultural

>> back-ground, and was

>> flavored by the culture of the Uruk-Expansion (or

>> what you want to

>> call it). I also think there must have been contact

>> between these

>> places, the tablets cannot have been written in Susa

>> for example and

>> brought to Yayha, since the style is clearly

>> regional, etc.

>>

>> I think I believe Lamberg-Karlobsky's theory most,

>> but again I really

>> don't know. And I would also like to see the

>> tablets, for collations,

>> and they are not always easy to get to.

>>

>

>Now, I learn from Robert Englundï¿½s

>

>http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004c.pdf

>

>(see the map on page 103)

>

>that Proto-Elamite clay tablets have been found also

>from Shahr-i-Shokhta, which is nowadays much better

>known as the " Burnt City " , just at the border of

>present-day Afghanistan.

>

>Does that mean that you think that the inhabitants of

>the Burnt City had a common cultural and/or linguistic

>

>and/or biological background as the Proto-Elamites

>(whoever they were) at Susa? The answer to this

>question, whatever the right answer might be, could

>have profound consequences for the study of the whole

>area!

>

>All the best,

>

>Juha

>

>P.S. I delay, in deference to the expresses hopes of

>the moderators, my comments on (the highly

>interesting) posts that were relevant for my earlier

>post.

>

>Plan great trips with Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!

>http://travel./p-travelguide

>

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Juha Savolainen

<juhavs wrote:

Dear Jacob,

Many thanks for clarifying the situation. Of course, I

do not pretend to have the required expertise to

accept or reject identifications of Proto-Elamite

tablets with any confidence, but your judgement seems

very reasonable here. Indeed, all interpretations

should be based robust evidence and a rigorous

analysis of its implications, not on speculations (no

matter how obvious they may appear even to scholars).

A clear confirmation of Proto-Elamite tables so far

from the home, say, in the Burnt City (and Jiroft,

although no coherent and meaningful information seems

to be coming from there!) would have momentous

consequences if your interpretation on the

well-attested case could be extended to them.

But even a smaller geographic distribution for the

Proto-Elamite tables raises intriguing questions, as

you have yourself pointed out. After all, the area is

very big anyway. What sort of influence did the core

area have over the more distant regions? Was it a

premature attempt for some sort of political

unification? And if it was not, why did all areas drop

the Proto-Elamite script and reverted to non-literacy

ï¿½ assuming that they really did so. The contrast to

the later and very successful Harappan cultural

unification of the Indus Valley area is very striking.

Why were these paths so different? What other factors,

besides the obvious geographic differences, were

operative here? And what were the cultural, linguistic

and ethnic (biological) affiliations of the various

peoples who inhabited the vast area from Elam to the

Indus Valley? Many vitally important questions remain

unanswered.

Best regards,

Juha

--- jacob dahl <jacob.dahl wrote:

>

> Dear Juha,

> As far as I know we have one tablet from

> Shahr-i-Sokhta with one or a

> couple of signs that could be proto-Elamite, and a

> numerical notation

> which is comparable to notations from Uruk, and

> proto-Elamite. See an

> image of the text here (

> http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009502 ),

> and compare with a

> Yahya text (

> http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009535 ),

> for

> example, Yahya texts displays a much more advanced

> level of writing,

> and are clearly proto-Elamite (although with a very

> high number of

> singletons = evidence of regionality?).

> I hesitate to use the single piece of evidence from

> Shahr-i-Sokhta to

> make any big claims. On the other hand I can't give

> a good

> explanation.

> I think my thoughts of some connection between Susa

> and the areas

> using the same writing system are more valid for the

> places where we

> can demonstrate that they actually used some of the

> same symbols. The

> Shahr-i-Sokhta (Burnt City) tablet has one sign that

> may look like a

> proto-Elamite sign. Again, that is not enough, in my

> book, to claim

> any connection.

> Susa, Malyan, Yahya, perhaps even Sialk have so many

> common features

> that I think there must have been a strong

> connection.

> Best regards,

> Jacob

>

> >Dear Jacob,

> >

> >You mention in your post that

> >

> >> We have full proto-Elamite writing (with

> stronger or

> >> smaller regional

> >> variation), at Susa, at Malyan (closest to Susa

> >> texts), at Sialk

> >> (only what I would call early proto-Elamite), at

> >> Yayha, at Tepe

> >> Ozbaki (as far as I remember), and perhaps some

> >> other places.

> >>

> >> The evidence is not impressive! I hesitate to

> draw

> >> any conclusions,

> >> but I think the same people must have lived at

> these

> >> places, for them

> >> to be identified by almost the same ideograms.

> (we

> >> find the hairy

> >> triangle in both Susa, Malyan, and Yayha), at

> least

> >> the elite must

> >> have been the same people culturally, ethnically

> >> (this is not my

> >> strong side!!). There is one Malyan tablet which

> I

> >> wouldn't even be

> >> able to tell apart from the Susa ones, if it

> wasn't

> >> for the use of a

> >> stamp-seal instead of the tradition at Susa of

> using

> >> cylinder-seals.

> >> One Sialk tablet has a seal which could be Susa

> (it

> >> has a numerical

> >> sign on it which is also known on Susa seals

> >> (N30C)).

> >>

> >> I think the area shared in the same cultural

> >> back-ground, and was

> >> flavored by the culture of the Uruk-Expansion

> (or

> >> what you want to

> >> call it). I also think there must have been

> contact

> >> between these

> >> places, the tablets cannot have been written in

> Susa

> >> for example and

> >> brought to Yayha, since the style is clearly

> >> regional, etc.

> >>

> >> I think I believe Lamberg-Karlobsky's theory

> most,

> >> but again I really

> >> don't know. And I would also like to see the

> >> tablets, for collations,

> >> and they are not always easy to get to.

> >>

> >

> >Now, I learn from Robert Englundï¿½s

> >

> >http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004c.pdf

> >

> >(see the map on page 103)

> >

> >that Proto-Elamite clay tablets have been found

> also

> >from Shahr-i-Shokhta, which is nowadays much better

> >known as the " Burnt City " , just at the border of

> >present-day Afghanistan.

> >

> >Does that mean that you think that the inhabitants

> of

> >the Burnt City had a common cultural and/or

> linguistic

> >

> >and/or biological background as the Proto-Elamites

> >(whoever they were) at Susa? The answer to this

> >question, whatever the right answer might be, could

> >have profound consequences for the study of the

> whole

> >area!

> >

> >All the best,

> >

> >Juha

> >

> >P.S. I delay, in deference to the expresses hopes

> of

> >the moderators, my comments on (the highly

> >interesting) posts that were relevant for my

> earlier

> >post.

> >

> >Plan great trips with Travel: Now over

> 17,000 guides!

> >http://travel./p-travelguide

> >

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

I see that the posts that Jacob and I both sent out on the claimed

Shahr-i-Sokhta proto-Elamite tablet crossed in -space. It's nice

to see that our views here are practically identical -- Jacob's even

goes farther in questioning the evidence..

Lots of skepticism is needed for claimed proto-Elamite (also much later

linear Elamite) inscriptions for peripheral sites. E.g., I think the

claim that a 6-sign linear Elamite inscription comes from Shahdad is

equally dubious (Farmer, Sproat, Witzel 2004 p. 22, n. 7).

Steve

On Saturday, April 16, 2005, at 11:21 AM, jacob dahl wrote:

>

> Dear Juha,

> As far as I know we have one tablet from Shahr-i-Sokhta with one or a

> couple of signs that could be proto-Elamite, and a numerical notation

> which is comparable to notations from Uruk, and proto-Elamite. See an

> image of the text here (

> http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009502 ), and compare with a

> Yahya text ( http://cdli.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/Pget.pl?P=P009535 ), for

> example, Yahya texts displays a much more advanced level of writing,

> and are clearly proto-Elamite (although with a very high number of

> singletons = evidence of regionality?).

> I hesitate to use the single piece of evidence from Shahr-i-Sokhta to

> make any big claims. On the other hand I can't give a good

> explanation.

> I think my thoughts of some connection between Susa and the areas

> using the same writing system are more valid for the places where we

> can demonstrate that they actually used some of the same symbols. The

> Shahr-i-Sokhta (Burnt City) tablet has one sign that may look like a

> proto-Elamite sign. Again, that is not enough, in my book, to claim

> any connection.

> Susa, Malyan, Yahya, perhaps even Sialk have so many common features

> that I think there must have been a strong connection.

> Best regards,

> Jacob

>

>> Dear Jacob,

>>

>> You mention in your post that

>>

>>> We have full proto-Elamite writing (with stronger or

>>> smaller regional

>>> variation), at Susa, at Malyan (closest to Susa

>>> texts), at Sialk

>>> (only what I would call early proto-Elamite), at

>>> Yayha, at Tepe

>>> Ozbaki (as far as I remember), and perhaps some

>>> other places.

>>>

>>> The evidence is not impressive! I hesitate to draw

>>> any conclusions,

>>> but I think the same people must have lived at these

>>> places, for them

>>> to be identified by almost the same ideograms. (we

>>> find the hairy

>>> triangle in both Susa, Malyan, and Yayha), at least

>>> the elite must

>>> have been the same people culturally, ethnically

>>> (this is not my

>>> strong side!!). There is one Malyan tablet which I

>>> wouldn't even be

>>> able to tell apart from the Susa ones, if it wasn't

>>> for the use of a

>>> stamp-seal instead of the tradition at Susa of using

>>> cylinder-seals.

>>> One Sialk tablet has a seal which could be Susa (it

>>> has a numerical

>>> sign on it which is also known on Susa seals

>>> (N30C)).

>>>

>>> I think the area shared in the same cultural

>>> back-ground, and was

>>> flavored by the culture of the Uruk-Expansion (or

>>> what you want to

>>> call it). I also think there must have been contact

>>> between these

>>> places, the tablets cannot have been written in Susa

>>> for example and

>>> brought to Yayha, since the style is clearly

>>> regional, etc.

>>>

>>> I think I believe Lamberg-Karlobsky's theory most,

>>> but again I really

>>> don't know. And I would also like to see the

>>> tablets, for collations,

>>> and they are not always easy to get to.

>>>

>>

>> Now, I learn from Robert Englundï¿½s

>>

>> http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004c.pdf

>>

>> (see the map on page 103)

>>

>> that Proto-Elamite clay tablets have been found also

>> from Shahr-i-Shokhta, which is nowadays much better

>> known as the " Burnt City " , just at the border of

>> present-day Afghanistan.

>>

>> Does that mean that you think that the inhabitants of

>> the Burnt City had a common cultural and/or linguistic

>>

>> and/or biological background as the Proto-Elamites

>> (whoever they were) at Susa? The answer to this

>> question, whatever the right answer might be, could

>> have profound consequences for the study of the whole

>> area!

>>

>> All the best,

>>

>> Juha

>>

>> P.S. I delay, in deference to the expresses hopes of

>> the moderators, my comments on (the highly

>> interesting) posts that were relevant for my earlier

>> post.

>>

>> Plan great trips with Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!

>> http://travel./p-travelguide

>>

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

On Saturday, April 16, 2005, at 06:32 AM, Juha Savolainen wrote:

> Now, I learn from Robert Englundï¿½s

>

> http://cdli.ucla.edu/staff/englund/englund2004c.pdf

>

> (see the map on page 103)

>

> that Proto-Elamite clay tablets have been found also

> from Shahr-i-Shokhta, which is nowadays much better

> known as the " Burnt City " , just at the border of

> present-day Afghanistan.

Actually, Juha, it's my understanding that only ONE proto-Elamite

tablet has been found at Shahr-i-Sokhta. I think I have a photo

somewhere of that tablet (I'm not sure).

Shahr-i-Sokhta's geographical location is interesting, no doubt; see a

map, e.g.:

http://home.columbus.rr.com/malyan/iranmap.html

But what does the find of a solitary tablet at a well-excavated site

suggest about the use of proto-Elamite in far Eastern Iran, compared to

the thousands of inscriptions found in SW Iran? To me that distribution

rather suggests that the use of the system was geographically limited,

despite the much quoted claim that the system was used " from Susa to

Shahr-i-Sokhta " -- which I think is misleading.

Take away that one (displaced??) proto-Elamite tablet from

Shahr-i-Sokhta and the system's area of evident use drastically shrinks.

Am I overlooking evidence? I don't think so...

Cheers,

Steve

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , " George Thompson "

<gthomgt wrote:

Since Steve has other commitments, perhaps I can step in and make an

observation in his place. He may not agree with it, of course, so please

don't direct any emotions toward him.

I accept the point that Claus makes to distinquish script from text, and I

would agree that the IVC sign system may be a text in his sense. But

let's

also remember other semiotic systems like tattooing, scarification, the

wearing of amulets and body adornments, make-up, as well as dance and

gestural 'texts' [mudraa].

I am willing to put script into the same category as all of these other

semiotics systems, but I would not want to thereby obscure the

features that

distinguish a script from all of these other semiotic systems.

I look forward to the next installment from Jacob Dahl.

Best wishes.

George .

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Boris Oguibenine

<boris_oguibenine wrote:

I would like to let know to all interested :

I. Casule (pronounced as Tchashule, a Rumanian or

Moldavian name?), Burushaski-Phrygian Lexical

Correspondences in Ritual, Myth, Burial etc. - Central

Asiatic Journal, 48, 2004, 1, pp.50-103.

I browsed through it to discover the claim that

Burushaski is closely related, if not akin (!) to

Phrygian, a Paleobalkanic language. If true, that

should prompt to reconsider many former statements on

Burushaski, Phrygian and Indo-European, not to speak

of the substantiation of the research foundations in

Nostratic linguistics. I think I will inquire

Shevoroshkin about that, a nostratic-oriented

linguist, most knowledgeable in Anatolian and Balcanic

linguistics.

Boris Oguibenine

Mail Mobile

Take Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.

http://mobile./learn/mail

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Michael Witzel

<witzel wrote:

On Apr 15, 2005, at 12:47 AM, Boris Oguibenine wrote:

> I. Casule, Burushaski-Phrygian Lexical

> Correspondences in Ritual, Myth, Burial etc. - Central

> Asiatic Journal, 48, 2004, 1, pp.50-103.

I have not seen the paper yet, however, let me add that John Bengtson

has recently shown, I think to the satisfaction of any Indo-European

style linguist, that Basque, N. Caucasian and Burushaski form a

Macro-Caucasian family: we do not just have strict sound

correspondences, but also those in grammar, for example the IE-like

difference between Nominative and Oblique forms of the pronoun...

See our Round Table of 2004 (

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewitzel/RT2004.htm ) :

J. Bengtson: & #65533; Recent findings on Burushaski and its probable genetic

relationships & #65533; (Evolution of Human Language, a project of the Santa Fe

Institute). [i still have to put up his paper, sorry, can send it in

scanned form, on demand.]

> I browsed through it to discover the claim that

> Burushaski is closely related, if not akin (!) to

> Phrygian, a Paleobalkanic language. If true, that

> should prompt to reconsider many former statements on

> Burushaski, Phrygian and Indo-European, not to speak

> of the substantiation of the research foundations in

> Nostratic linguistics.

If Casule' s correspondences (surprisingly) should fall into the

Macro-Caucasian category, fine: we would have another member of the new

family.

Incidentally, some geneticists investigating Pakistani DNA, mentioned

(quite innocently) at the end of their paper dealing with the

differences between Panjab and Sindh that the Burushos were closest to

.... the Basques.

See: S.Q. Mehdi et al., The Origins of Pakistani Population. In:

Papiha et all, (eds.) Genomic Diversity. Applications in Human

Genetics, New Yoerek: Plenum 1999: 83-90.

----------

Michael Witzel

Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University

1 Bow Street , Cambridge MA 02138

1-617-495 3295 Fax: 496 8571

direct line: 496 2990

http://witzel/~witzel/mwpage.htm

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Christophe Vielle

<vielle wrote:

Incidentally (for the history of ideas only) it can be mentionned that

Bernard Sergent in his Gen & #65533;se de l'Inde, pp. 137-38, assumes that the

language of the Harappans may have been the Burushaski. He refers to some

linguistic remarks by Karl Menges ( " Contributions & #65533; l' & #65533;tude de la

parent & #65533;

primitive des langues " , Orbis [publ. Leuven] 13, 1964, pp 66-103) who

there

asserted (without demonstrating it) that Burushaski come from a

proto-language close to elamite (ibid. p. 98).

>

>> I. Casule, Burushaski-Phrygian Lexical

>

>> Correspondences in Ritual, Myth, Burial etc. - Central

>

>> Asiatic Journal, 48, 2004, 1, pp.50-103.

>

Dr. Christophe Vielle

Centre d'Etudes de l'Inde et de l'Asie du Sud

Institut orientaliste

Place Blaise Pascal 1

B - 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve

BELGIUM

Tel. +32-(0)10-47 49 54 (office)/ -(0)2-640 62 66 (home)

E-mail: vielle

--- End forwarded message ---

December 9, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , " Jim Rader "

<jrader wrote:

> I have not seen the paper yet, however, let me add that John Bengtson

> has recently shown, I think to the satisfaction of any Indo-European

> style linguist, that Basque, N. Caucasian and Burushaski form a

> Macro-Caucasian family: we do not just have strict sound

> correspondences, but also those in grammar, for example the IE-like

> difference between Nominative and Oblique forms of the pronoun... See

> our Round Table of 2004 (

> http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewitzel/RT2004.htm ) :

>

> J. Bengtson: Recent findings on Burushaski and its probable genetic

> relationships (Evolution of Human Language, a project of the Santa Fe

> Institute). [i still have to put up his paper, sorry, can send it in

> scanned form, on demand.]

>

> Michael Witzel

If I may continue to be a bit off topic...

I have not seen this paper, but I must caution non-linguists that in

linguistics the specialists have been quite critical of much of the

work done by Bengtson, Sergei Starostin, and others associated with

the Evolution of Human Languages project. I have in mind

particularly Wolfgang Schulze's critique of Starostin's North

Caucasian, Stefan Georg and Alexander Vovin's critiques of

Starostin's Altaic and--not least--Larry Trask's evaluation of

Bengtson's Basque etymologies. Maybe things have changed. But

acceptance of Bengtson's hypothesis by any established " Indo-European-

style linguist " would be quite a surprise to me.

Jim Rader

--- End forwarded message ---

December 14, 2008

Indo-Eurasian_research , Steve Farmer <saf

wrote:

This is a resent post meant to correct several typos in the orignal

version, one of which reversed my intended sense. The original post

will be erased from the server.

saf

xxx

Dear List,

This is a post meant (very experimentally) to kick off our first formal

thread. The experiment is roughly modeled on the format used in the

annual Harvard Roundtables on the Ethnogenesis of South and Central

Asia, which is loosely connected to this List. In that format, informal

presentations on ongoing research (like the summary of part of my work

found below) are supposed to trigger extended comments around the

table, with the idea that focused discussions of this sort can lead to

something interesting.

It may be impossible to handle a discussion like this online with 256

members (from 0 --> 256 in one week!), but let's try once and see what

happens. If this format flops, we can experiment with others until

(hopefully) we find one that works.

Obviously some of the issues that I raise below are complex and may

take some time to digest; certainly no instant responses are desired or

expected.

For this trial thread, let's try to follow the " Five Golden Rules " on

List posting that George Thompson and I drew up this weekend. One aim

of the " Rules " is to try to keep the number of posts to 10-15 daily

(fewer is better), taking into account the needs of members who can

only access their email intermittently, working out of Internet cafes

in Negombo and other distant places.

Here is a web page with a slightly edited version of our (quite

experimental) " Golden Rules " :

http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/goldenrules.html

........

In this post, I'd like to discuss large-scale illiterate urban

civilizations in the Old World. Note that I am not talking just about

the Indus Valley.

The ideas presented below take off from the article entitled the

" Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis " that R. Sproat, M. Witzel, and I

published this last December. In the last 3 months, many thousands of

copies of that article have been downloaded from the Web, and our

findings have been discussed in news articles (more will soon appear)

in the U.S., Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy (oddly none yet

in India, where the issue is extremely sensitive politically).

I have no interest here in summarizing the main points in our paper,

since the original can be readily downloaded on the Web (as a 1.1 meg

pdf file) from http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf and other sites. For

those who have commented on our paper without working through our

arguments, we have also posted a (partly tongue-in-cheek) " One-Sentence

Refutation of the Indus-Script Myth " at

http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html . The argument given

there obviously isn't a refutation in a strict logical sense, but it

does introduce a simple argument, not raised in our original paper,

that not even the staunchest Indus-script adherent has not found a way

around yet.

..........

Bypassing then the most discussed parts of our paper, I'd like to open

discussion on one of its broader conclusions: the way in which our

findings affect current views of Old World urban civilizations in

general.

Since the late 19th century, it has been widely assumed that literacy

and large-scale urbanization in antiquity were closely related. This

assumption helps explain Alexander Cunningham's automatic assumption in

the 1870s, based on the discovery at Harappa of a single (!) Indus seal

carrying six mutilated signs, that the inscription must have encoded

speech. (On Cunnigham and the early history of the Indus-script story,

which contains many funny elements, see my little essay at

http://www.safarmer.com/firstforgery.pdf .) When large scale

excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro began in the 1920s, the fact

that all of the hundreds of inscriptions found on well over a dozen

different types of materials (the popular idea that almost all are

" seals " is a myth) were anomalously brief was not considered as even

potential evidence that the inscriptions might not have encoded speech.

In the 20s, urban life and writing were thought to be indivisibly

bound, with the result that the idea that the symbols were part of a

" writing system " was taken for granted: no discussion (and certainly no

evidence) was necessary. The fact that the story of the discovery of

the " mysterious Indus script " made fund raising easier (John Marshall

spent much of his time in the mid 20s globe trotting to raise money)

undoubtedly also was a factor in spreading the idea that the Indus

Valley possessed a fully developed 'script'. That vision was not

challenged in any serious way until our paper was published back in

December.

Later full-length overviews of the so-called script question -- right

up to the last decade, in fact, in works like those of Parpola (1994)

and Possehl (1996) -- continued along the same lines of reasoning.

Hence Parpola (1994: 54) suggests that " On the analogy of 'empires'

comparable to the Indus Civilization " that the Harappans surely once

possessed (besides the seals, etc.) written documents, which like

researchers stretching back to the 20s Parpola argued were written on

perishable materials and were hence (conveniently) lost. (The " lost

manuscript " thesis is the backbone of the Indus-script myth, and in our

paper we discuss the myth's origins at length.) Possehl 1996, 2002

never takes a strong stand on whether or not long texts existed in the

indus Valley, but nevertheless is adament (2002: 127) in linking urban

civilizations with writing, which he finds " symptomatic of the size and

complexity of ancient urban systems. " As a result, in his 1996 book on

the Indus symbols, Possehl critiques past script " decipherments " , but

never questions (even in passing) the old unexamined assumption that

the inscriptions were part of a fully developed speech-encoding system.

The general assumption that writing and large-scale urbanization are

linked is reflected in the textbook view that four major literate

centers existed in the late third millennium BCE, all tied to massive

urban civilizations -- in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Elam (SW Iran), and NW

India. The logical implication has followed that in any major urban

settlements *between* Elam and the Indus Valley, or further north in

Central Asia, we might also reasonably look for evidence of literacy as

well.

Given the fact that the discovery of " early writing " is something of a

professional Holy Grail -- the type of discovery welcomed by funding

agencies, tenure committees, nationalistic governments, and journalists

desperate for a story -- such expectations have had predictable

results. Hence the excited announcement of the discovery of the now

infamous Anau seal in Turkmenistan in 2001 -- supposed evidence of a

new " writing system " , or maybe the earliest Chinese writing, but known

today to have been misdated by perhaps 2000 years. The New York Times

story on the find quoted a number of big named archaeologists on the

importance of this misdated find, including familiar figures who also

factor in the Indus-script story (must reading for all new scholars):

http://www.usemb-ashgabat.rpo.at/archive/lostcivilization.html

Similar claims of discoveries of new " writing systems " (understood in

the strict sense, as speech-encoding systems) between Elam and the

Indus Valley or in Central Asia are familiar stories in the popular

press -- the most recent example arising in the massive stream of press

releases concerning recent excavations in and around Jiroft in SE Iran.

(In respect to these excavations, hopefully Jacob Dahl can tell us at

some point what evidence he thinks has and has not been found there of

" writing. " If new caches of proto-Elamite accounting tablets in strata

dated to c. 3000 BCE show up in those excavations, that would be

interesting but hardly surprising, given the proximity of the Jiroft

excavations to Tepe Yahya, where similar finds were made many decades

ago. But the press reports coming from Iran (apparently at the

instigation of the lead excavator) often suggest finds of " writing "

that are claimed to be much more important than that, although the

reports are uniformly vague about the identification of those findings.

Given the total lack of photographic evidence accompanying these

claims, and the obvious reluctance of Western archaeologists working in

these excavations to comment on them, it is difficult to know -- but

easy to speculate -- on what we should think.)

.......

Assuming the claimed finds in the SW Iranian excavations are simply

more familiar cases of " script hype " , I'd like to suggest that our new

findings concerning Indus symbols, which are accepted now by a

significant number of Indus researchers (especially the younger ones),

underline just how inadequate were the old models of the links between

literacy and urbanization. East and northeast of Elam, beyond limited

evidence in some areas of limited use of the (very early and very

short-lived) proto-Elamite accounting system (not a 'script' in the

full linguistic sense, although I look forward to hearing about the new

data that Jacob Dahl mentioned last week), the evidence suggests that

all urban settlements were uniformly illiterate. This includes

well-organized civilizations like the Indus, the BMAC, and the urban

civilizations (of still unknown extent) currently being excavated in SW

Iran. I know less about urban (large village?) sites in the Gulf

regions, but so far as I can tell (and I stand open to correction) too

fall into the nonliterate category.

Moreover, considering what we know of the extensive trade between these

civilizations and Mesopotamia and Elam, it is impossible to believe

that the elites of these urban societies were unaware of writing --

implying that the decisions not to adopt the technologies in their

societies were made consciously. (We discuss potential evidence for

this in the Indus case in our paper.) In a phrase I really like that

Michael Witzel introduced in an informal discussion a year or so ago,

in the vast geographical expanses east and Neortheast of Elam, and all

the way into Central Asia and throughout the Indus Valley, we find

large and sometimes very well-organized urban civilizations in the

third millennium that " didn't like writing " -- opening up the

intriguing question as to the reasons for that dislike. (In the last

sections of our paper, we hypothesize a combination of two possible

causes for this in the Indus case: the first involves whatever

challenge writing might have offered to the political-religious elites

that apparently controlled the Indus symbol system, who are often

portrayed on mass-produced ritual inscriptions, in some cases involving

human sacrifice; the second involves what evidence (from studies of

loan words in the Rgveda) suggests was the apparent multilinguisticity

of Indus-era NW India, which may have favored the development of

nonlinguistic rather than linguistic sign systems -- just as was true

of similar New World urban civilizations.

The idea that huge urban civilizations could consciously reject

writing, or could exist side-by-side with fully literate civilizations

over long periods, may be shocking to some Indus specialists, but would

not surprise any serious comparative historian or student of

Mesoamerican or Andean cultures. The Mixtecs, Aztecs, and Incas all

ruled vast civilizations that included giant urban centers that were

many times larger (and more complex) than any that existed in the third

millennium BCE in Central Asia, the Iranian plateau, or the Indus

Valley. And in all three cases, they managed their empires (pace

Parpola 1994 on the Aztecs) without true scripts -- despite the fact

that both the Mixtecs and the Aztecs, at least, were in regular trade

contact with literate civilizations like those of the Maya.

While familiar enough to New World scholars, the model of highly

organized urban civilizations that were illiterate is not a common

notion in Old World studies, largely because of the long-time effects

of the Indus-script myth. Consideration of how major traditions were

preserved in such civilizations *without* writing opens up the question

of to what extent continuity existed between oral mnemonics used in

Central Asian and Indus urban civilizations and later Vedic and Avestan

cultures. Early in the period of reurbanization in India, in the middle

of the first millennium BCE, about the time in which the Persians first

introduced literacy in NW India, suggestions at least again exist of

Indian elites who " didn't like writing. " We are fortunate in this case

to know something about *how* these elites managed to retain their

traditions without writing -- involving the elaborate high-fidelity

mnemonic techniques involved in orally encoding Vedic texts. What we

currently know little or nothing about is how old these techniques

were, where they developed, or how those methods might have been

altered by these early contacts with literate traditions. Farmer,

Henderson, and Witzel 2002 suggests that the most extreme of those

high-fidelity techniques may have developed in NW India as a kind of

" counter-literacy " , meant to protect sacred oral traditions, soon after

the literate Persians appeared on the scene. But hints also exist that

older versions of those techniques, possibly emerging over long periods

in a natural way from slow chanting of sacred texts, may have provided

a preliminary (if lower-fidelity) foundationsfor those later

techniques. Much in this picture is still speculative, and hopefully

some of the types of evidence that support this view (part of a broader

project conducted by George, Michael, and myself) can be pursued at

some point on the List. But given the illiterate status of the large

older urban settlements in Central Asia and the Indus Valley, which

clearly required *some* reasonably reliable means of preserving key

traditions, it is plausible to assume that these societies may have

employed some early 'beta-version' of these later high-fidelity

techniques.

I'd like to end with a quick comment on how our paper affects the

significance of Indus studies. A handful of Indian critics have

objected that our central conclusion -- that Indus symbols were not

part of a writing system, and that the Harappans were illiterate --

detracts from the importance of Indus studies. I would argue that the

exact contrary is true: the fact that Indus symbols were *not*

sound-bearing or word-bearing signs, but apparently carried symbolic

meanings linked to both religious and political traditions, opens up

powerful high-resolution means of studying Indus society by examining

statistical fluctuations in the distribution of those symbols over

space and long periods of time. Exciting results of early studies of

this sort are the subject of a paper (to be presented at the next

Roundtable session in June, in Kyoto) currently being written by me,

the Indus ethnobiologist Steven Weber, and several other collaborators;

for a preliminary abstract:

http://www.safarmer.com/downloads/abstract2.html

We know a great deal about urban illiterate civilizations in the Old

World, but up until now virtually have known nothing about illiterate

ones: indeed, their very existence has often been overlooked. New

methodologies that are suggested by nonlinguistic views of Indus signs

open a unexpected window on how the largest and apparently most complex

of all those Old World civilizations functioned. In my eyes, the vision

of an illiterate Indus civilization that we can study using such new

methods is far more interesting than the fantasy of a literate Indus

civilization that no one since the time of the first large-scale

excavations has been able to fit to the archaeological evidence.

There is lots to discuss here, and -- if anyone can make sense of my

really hastily written summary -- I'll be interested in what anyone has

to say. (No hurry.)

Best, Steve

This is a resent message made to correct typos that in one key place

reversed my intended sense. The old message will be deleted from the

List Webpage. saf