Jump to content

Talk:Indus script/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


On http://www.ancientscripts.com/term_of_use.html it says:

If you are browsing through this site and want to keep or use any of my texts or images for whatever reason, please read the following:

  • If any image or text that you have reproduced is to be used for academic, educational,

or otherwise non-commercial publications, projects, papers, or as part of a course curriculum,in either electronic or printed form, then you may take any material from Ancient Scripts without any penalty or fee. The only thing I ask in return is that you credit me as the author, and send me an email about what you are doing with my material. You do not have to wait for approval from me before using the material.

  • No part of this site, meaning all texts and images, may be directly quoted, copied, or reproduced for any commercial product without my explicit permission.
  • If neither one of the above applies to you, contact me via email about what you want, and I will evaluate your request.

--Zenzee 15:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi All,

As I visited the Indus Valley Civilization article on Wikipedia today, to which I had made some minor contributions, I was pleasently surprised to see the sheer amount of interest and enthusiasm it had generated, in such short a time. I would also like to thank the Wikipedia Admins for selecting the IVC article as a 'Featured Article' on Nov. 22nd, 2004. Now to the point..

1. I admit that I copied parts of text on Indus Script from www.ancientscripts.com. It turns out to be an unacceptable practice on Wikipedia, hence, I wholeheartedly apologize for my mistake. It was my first attempt on contributing to Wikipedia, and I did not spend enough time and effort on learning the prevailing code of ethics, yet again, my mistake !

2. I must also admit, that my reason for this copying was simply to avoid spending a lot of time in re-writing something yet over again, which has been re-written countless times, and is generally considered "information" in the public domian (as in News), as opposed to a work of literature or scientific discovery etc. the credit and copywrite for which always belong to the original author. Despite this, I did specifically check for a copywrite notice, and did not find any on www.ancientscripts.com, neither on Nov. 22nd, nor today.

Despite all the above, I would like to aknowledge that I am tremendously encouraged to see so much interest in Indus Valley Civilization by so many fellow Wikipedians. For a person like me, whose mission is to disseminate knowledge of IVC worldwide, I seem to have hit a gold-mine ! As I read the texts on IVC article today, I wonder at how much they have been improved, and how meticulously, in just about two days time.

I hereby make the following commitment: I am off to Paris today for a week of seminars, but I would try my best to write an original piece on Indus Script, exclusively for Wikipedia, in part as apology for my earlier misbehaviour, and in part because Wikipedia is beyond doubt one of the best platforms I have found so far, and hence deserves exclusive treatment. My time and effort would be well-spent, and I know I can depend on You, my fellow Wikipedians to further improve and add to my initial work.

A last word: Attempts to "own" the Indus Valley Civilization by any one culture or nation are, at best, naive. Indus Valley Civilization is the joint heritage of entire mankind and transcends such petty conflicts. I humbly request all Wikipedians to avoid such claims, in the true spirit of shcolastic research and discovery.

--Atla 12:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


This article seems to belong to the camp that claims that the Indus culture was Indo-European and that there is an unbroken continuity between the Indus culture and the modern Indian.--Wiglaf 18:16, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, read the last line too fast.--Wiglaf 18:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By all means, if you know about the subject, expand the article. I did only a minor NPOV edit (I hope), to make the article compatible with teh Brahmi article. -- Pjacobi 18:45, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would welcome an original rewrite. As long as it is made clear that the IVC remains "silent" in the sense that the "script" remains undeciphered. The original text severely distorted Asko Parpola's stance. He is indeed a serious scholar, and afaik he doesn't claim any decipherment. He suspects the language represented could be Dravidian, but that is from circumstantial evidence. This doesn't keep Hindutva sources from elevating him to some sort of IVC-guru status, all but obscuring his Dravidian theory, making it seem like he essentially expects to unearth the Harappan Rigveda any moment. The IVC is part of the human heritage. It is a prehistoric culture, just like Catalhuyuk, and it is unrelated to modern politics or modern religion, be it British imperialism or Hindutva. dab 13:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Picture Request

Could the article be updated to have a small example picture of the script? I don't know where one could be found with the correct licensing terms. 71.145.182.209 05:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"amateur research"

I realize Rao is an archaeologist and Kak is an electrical engineer, making them academics. Decipherment of a script is still outside their disciplines, and their results are dismissed by linguists. Note that Michael Ventris was likewise an "amateur researcher", with the difference that his results (deciphering a different script) were embraced as convincing by specialists. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I wonder how come that Farmer didn't make it into the Amateur section? He is not a indologist or linguist either (neither is co-author Sproat really qualified for the indus script, though co-author Witzel could be). Lawler described him as an outsider, and Possehl was surprised that his ideas have raised interest. (see Parpolas 2005 paper, [1]...) I have also seen the Farmer paper described as pseudo-scientific or Erich von Däniken like. It seems better not to have such section titles in order to avoid potential pov problems. --Rayfield 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was reference to Ranajit Pal's work deleted? Was it because Pal is critical of M. Witzel of the Harvard School? Pal's work has been praised by none other than I. Mahadevan and has been published in a widely acclaimed book "Non-Jonesian Indology and Alexander" [2] [3]. Is this the egalitarianism that the founder of the Wikipedia dreamed of? Hundreds of words for Harvard wisdom and elbowing out other views. The editor is not only ignorant he is also bigoted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejda (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the Indus script proponents and authors and scholars and proponents, does any body (?the Russians, the Finnish, I.Mahadevan, Witzel, Rao, Farmer et al) has a qualified degree in Indus research?(self-published works, hypotheses, are all amateurish as observed here) Nil. CapeIrk (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Brahmi-Indus script

I do not think Kak's reference is at all relevant here. First it is admitted that he has not tried to decipher the script, so the reference should not be made under the "Attempts at decipherment" section. Second, Brahmi itself is associated more closely with Aramaic. Third, the association has been refuted by scholars like Mahadevan (a gap of about 1000 years between the two scripts[4]). Though Kak's work could be of interest elsewhere, here I feel it just adds to the noise. In any case, even if the Indus script was the precursor to Brahmi, that does not mean the language of the Indus script was Indo-Aryan (do not mix language and scripts). Chaipau 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Kak, Talageri etc are accomplished historians. Brushing them aside does not help the debate. Bakaman%% 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, Kak could be an important scholar, but what is questioned here is the reference to him in the present context. Chaipau 22:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Making statements like Brahmi is closely associated with Aramaic would be speculative. A simple comparison of Phoenician,Aramaic and Brahmi shows that Brahmi is not linked with the other two —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.202.89 (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia article says, "Some early scholars, starting with Cunningham in 1877, thought that the script was the archetype of the Brahmi script used by Ashoka. Cunningham's ideas were supported by G.R. Hunter, Iravatham Mahadevan and a minority of scholars, who continue to argue for the Indus script as the predecessor of the Brahmic family." Mahadevan's name should not be mentioned here, as he is in fact emphatically opposed to this view. See http://www.harappa.com/script/mahadevantext.html#4 124.123.151.232 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of the previous post, I will delete Mahadevan's name from the list of scholars supporting Indus Script-Brahmi links, and replace it with Allchin. 76.191.212.189 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, article is locked, please ask an admin for help in making this change.76.191.212.189 (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at decipherments

User:Krsont has reverted a reversion of vandalism.

There have been many serious attempts to decipher the Indus script. Replacing the info on these attempts by just one attempt is vandalism. I am reverting the changes for a second time. I hope this matter would not go beyond this. Chaipau 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I had no idea. I should have looked closer at your edits. I wished only to mention the aramaic/brahmi thing, not to get involved in the decipherment debate. --Krsont 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Suzanne Redalia has cracked the Indus script, after working on it periodically for 40 years. She says it is Sanskrit, and has written a dictionary translating hundreds of seals and inscriptions. Redalia is self-publishing and sending copies to universities and Sanskrit scholars.

9tmaxr (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bilinguoids have been discovered in Indus script. I request the administrators to include related texts with references: "Study of pictograph-based bilingual-like scripts point toward Tamil as the definite language of Indus artefacts. ref: ISBN 9789380733029, Read Indussian -the archaic Tamil from c.7000BC(2012), Senthilkumaras. Senthilkumaras (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rjabchikov

The following seems rather dubious:

"The last serious research of the script was conducted by the Russian scholar Sergei V. . His method is based on the structural linguistics. Sergei V. Rjabchikov has reconstructed the Proto-Indo-Aryan (Proto-Indo-European) language, and as a result he has decoded the Proto-Indian Writing System.[5] Sergei V. Rjabchikov is the author of the well known decipherment of the rongorongo script, too."

The famous scholar Mr. Rjabchikov seems to have a hotmail address, and to have set up this "foundation", which essentially seems to be a website [5] which asks for donations. Is our hero really the author of a "well known decipherment of rongorongo"? His theories seem to be getting short shrift over on that page. Paul B 14:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think our hero is a kubannet.ru customer situated in Moscow :) dab (ᛏ) 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes he's very famous indeed. I think he has deciphered every known undeciphered script. 98.246.150.203 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Witzel's Para-Munda Hypothesis

This article already shows something about the so called "Dravidian Hypothesis" which seems to be popular with some Indian researchers. But what about the "Para-Munda" Hypothesis by Prof. Michael Witzel (Witzel, 1999), which is presented in quite some detail and coupled with a wealth of comparisons of substrate vocabulary in post-Harappan Indo-Aryan and possible syntatic clues in the Indus script? http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501article.ps —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.255.59 (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The article currently says that Witzel and Farmer now claim that the Indus script encodes Para-Munda, and have repudiated the views expressed in Farmer, Sproat and Witzel (2004). The source cited in support of this claim makes absolutely no reference to any such repudiation - as far as I can see, it only makes a reference to Witzel's 1999 paper. Nor does the claim seem very likely, seeing as Farmer's given lectures trumpetting his views as recently as this July. I'm minded to remove the sentence, but thought it prudent to ask here first. -- Arvind 16:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody had any comments to offer, I've removed the sentence. -- Arvind 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
you are right. Witzel assumes "Para Munda" on the basis of substrate influence in Sanskrit. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Indus script. --dab (��) 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

recent statistical study

Of course this will deserve closer attention once it is published. So far, we only have a single page pdf saying they did the study, the study itself remaining unpublished. --dab (��) 07:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I note a lot of pov editing around this. It's got to stop. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

people want this script to be deciphered, a lot. "Want" is a valid motivation fuelling research, but it is a terrible guide in interpreting research results. Wikipedia doesn't need to report on every new study five minutes after they appear. Once the dust settles a bit, it will be soon enough for us to try and figure out if any progress has been made. Fwiiw, I can understand the experts remain unimpressed. This study appears to be a textbook case of "we want this to be true very badly, so we'll just fiddle with statistics until they say what we want them to say". This is not, of course, the sort of thinking behind the scientific method that helped end the middle ages. Of course, scholars dying to make the headlines and journalists pressed to come up with juicy headines form an unholy alliance that is going to kill science. Wired wasn't beyond reporting "An ancient script that's defied generations of archaeologists has yielded some of its secrets to artificially intelligent computers." Pereira has blown this study ouf of the water in five minutes. If Science would condescend to have actual linguists peer-review their content on linguistics, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. --dab (��) 06:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"dab" -- So you conclude that "Science" did not use linguists as reviewers just because some linguists have criticized the paper? Also, your edits clearly show your bias on this topic. For example, if one looks at: [6] one can see that you deleted the sentence regarding the response of Rao et al to the criticisms and hid them under "notes". You also deleted the sentence regarding a discussion on what Rao et al did and stuck that as a subnote! Finally, you even changed the phrase "Rao et al.'s response" to "Rao's reaction"..."at his homepage". Such pov editing has no place in wikipedia. Avrosenfeld (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"Avrosenfeld", my "bias" is sparing Wikipedia every little WP:RECENTISM. We are not a blog. --dab (��) 09:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In keeping with Wikipedia policy, I will refrain from editing things about myself, but for the record I am a linguist, not a computer scientist. It would be good to correct that in the discussion of the 2004 Farmer, Sproat, Witzel paper. --Richard Sproat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.36.170 (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The following quote from Rao underscored the disingenuousness of this whole enterprise: "However, speaking on the issue of whether language families can be identified using conditional entropy, Rao and colleagues already state in their Science paper that “answering the question of linguistic affinity of the Indus texts requires a more sophisticated approach, such as statistically inferring an underlying grammar for the Indus texts from available data and comparing the inferred rules with those of various known language families”.

Sure, but they also state: "The similarity in conditional entropy to Old Tamil, a Dravidian language, is especially interesting in light of the fact that many of the prominent decipherment efforts to date (9–11) have converged upon a proto-Dravidian hypothesis for the Indus script."

Presumably if conditional entropy can tell us nothing about linguistic affinity (the correct conclusion), then it is not "especially interesting" at all that the Indus and Old Tamil curves are similar. It is just coincidence (which I happen to believe is the right conclusion to draw). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.150.203 (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly for the following paragraph:

"Responding to their critics, Rao and colleagues have pointed out that the counterexamples proposed by Liberman, Sproat and others are based on the assumption that conditional entropy by itself is a sufficient condition for language, a claim not made in their paper (for the full response, see pdf: [35]). They define their methodology as Bayesian in nature (see [36]) focusing on uncovering the necessary conditions for language, which they enumerate as “Zipfian frequency distributions, syntactic structure such as the clear presence of beginners and enders, preferences of symbol clusters for particular positions within texts etc. and finally, similarities in conditional entropy”. They cite the fact that the Indus script also satisfies a growing list of these properties of natural languages as evidence in favor of the linguistic hypothesis."

This misses the point that the critiques of the conditional entropy paper were not presenting "counterexamples": they were presenting the argument that conditional entropy does not provide evidence for structure. In other words that it is a worthless measure for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.150.203 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The following interesting discussion belongs in the article, not in the infobox:

|typedesc=(Prime candidate of the decipherment claim is a form of early Dravidian language, related to archaic Tamil

Sheldon Lee Gosline

I have deleted this entirely. I've just spent some time trying to find out more about this guy. I found his cv here [7] on his website (his company). I note that the two 'Honors and Peer Recognition' don't seem significant even if they are real, which is a bit odd. I also note that "His Grace, Lord Sheldon Lee Gosline, 1st Duke of Otsego, 1st Marquis of Cooperstown in New York and 1st Duke of Warren in Pennsylvania is third among equals in the new American Aristocracy by virtue of receiving the third Title of Nobility." which is even odder.[8]. He seems to have a few genuine publictions but most of his stuff is self-published.[9]. I can't find any reaction to his self-published paper, which suggests it was a damp squib, not ground-breaking research as it was described. My conclusion is that it shouldn't be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

script vs. signs

I understand, that this is a controversial and hot debated topic. However, the style of writing gets increasingly unencyclopedic towards the end. It appeals to me like twitter. There should be only the notice, that the newly published paper by Rao et al. was being critised by Farmer in terms of methods etc. Not the whole thing live! Thanks. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article say something about the dispute in the lead? It seems to take for granted that this is a script (as everyone did until recently), up until you get to the last paragraph where you read that a growing number of scholars think the whole thing is bunk. It's as if cold fusion talked about the great potential of room-temperature fusion reactions for six paragraphs and then the last paragraph said, "oh, by the way, nobody can reproduce the results". Maybe the scholarly debate isn't quite at the point where Wikipedia can take a side, but if established academic consensus is now in doubt it can't just be a footnote. 140.247.128.58 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in the position to say, whether the challengers have a point or not. Obviously the study of Rao et al. was received well by the media, while Farmer, Witzel, Sproat were left behind. Thus, I think, it would be appropriate to keep the criticism in the subsection. However, my main problem was the style used in the section, obviously created by highly nervious people supporting Farmer, Witzel, Sproat. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What "media"? It is WP:UNDUE to dwell on this silly point of "entropy" at any length, no matter which side in the "dispute" is being preferred over the other. Whether the Indus script is a "script" depends much more on your preferred definition of the term "script" than on any disputes regarding the nature of the Indus script. --dab (��) 10:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Bryan wells's volumetric system

There is some reporting on today's The Hindu about Bryan wells' (unpublished) thesis.[10] should this be added to the article? or should we wait till it gets published and peer reviewed. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mention of possible Easter Island / rongorongo connection?

I noticed on Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's article, a scan of an article he wrote was linked to, in which he mentions the similarity of a number of Indus Valley glyphs to rongorongo glyphs. I know little of these matters, but I was surprised it was not mentioned on here. It seems notable enough to be worth mentioning, even if it is not considered particularly compelling. 76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

no, it's not notable. --dab (��) 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Farmer et al

Can you pl avoid giving space to Farmer... his terminologies are considered pseudo-science. Even vinca symbols which are much,much simpler are considered Proto-writing. Even if a small linguistic component is added as they themselves agree, it qualifies for full literacy. I know the history of writing systems pretty well and the terminologies associated with them. There have been many allegations against the team from all over the world & is highly controversial and they haven't said anything new really. The Indus Valley Civilization is the common heritage of humanity and has to be treated as such and countries like India and Pakistan didn't exist then! What do you mean by "often considered literate". 4000 + seals have been discovered although only 5% of the IVC has been excavated and a public signboard which didn't exist anywhere else in the world. Indus seals have been found alomst all over the ancient world. This will mislead thousands of school teachers and children! I would suggest you modify immediately. This would go against your own principles. Otherwise a brilliant article - Sujay


Who considers Farmer pseudo-science? He publishes in academic journals, he works with Harvard Prof Michael Witzel, is he fringe also? They meet our criteria for sources at WP:RS. This is a very controversial subject, granted (see this recent newspaper article [11] and Farmer says he's received death threats. This article from the last issue of Archaeology Magazine also mentions death threads [12] and says "We don't know what the symbols mean--in fact, we don't know whether the "script" encodes language at all or is a kind of symbol system, like heraldry or signs in an airport.". Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone alleges he has received death threats does not automatically exclude him from the crank roster. 76.191.212.189 (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


I agree that you have made an earnest attempt to be as unbiased as possible. I am not even saying that Farmer is fully incorrect - he may be largely correct. I publish in academic journals too . But even Vinca symbols which are much much simpler are considered proto-literate= 85% of Vinca symbols occur in isolation (!!). Careless use of terminologies such as literate and non-literate are wrong!..Even if a small linguistic component is added - rebus principle or punning (Witzel Kyoto, 2009 or Sproat in his presentations) or acriphony is added, it qualifies for full literacy. I assume some 'sound coding' would have been useful to them atleast on some occasions.. the longest seal is 17 characters non-analomous and 26 characters analomous. I have never said that what Farmer is saying is necessarily wrong, but even Parpola has been reading them mostly as logograms with a linguistic component. So how much of what Farmer is saying is new apart from the fact that he popularized the idea? Till 2900 BC Egypt and Mesopotamia were considered proto-literate even if their texts are shorter(not non-literate!!!!). Terminologies pertaining to literacy cannot be changed unless all scholars agree - and any demands to change terminology must be met with suspicion, naturally. Only a very small portion of the IVC has been excavated, you know, 5% maybe! Even Farmer agrees “Judging from modern examples and research in the linguistic history of South Asia, the Indus Valley was probably intensely multi linguistic throughout its history. This may have provided the Indus emblem system with an advantage over ordinary writing as a means of providing the civilization with social cohesion. The fact that the majority of inscriptions rely on a surprisingly small core of symbols suggests that the meaning of Indus signs could have potentially been known by almost or all (ALL!!) of the population, resulting in a pervasive quasiliteracy far beyond that achieved in Mesopotamia or Egypt.” Interesting, and I know it will take some time for the dust to settle down. I know you are making an effort to be balanced and everyone can be partly right and partly wrong in the debate, but some terms such as 'often considered literate' are wrong and can mislead people since this will be used by teachers and students all over the world. Imagine the confusion it will cause in the minds of students .and teachers . I can instead cite Farmer and declare it the most literate civilization on erth. And he and I could be saying the same thing. I say such terms must be avoided. Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Mohenjo-daro

Mohenjodaro as written in the article should be linked with Mohenjo-daro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.197.159 (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, done. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Iravatham Mahadevan

A link to Iravatham Mahadevan should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.145.40.44 (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Time period

Can someone please change the time period in the info box in the top right of the article so it says 3500-3000 just so people don't get confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.56 (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? It is correct now the way it is. Varlaam (talk) 06:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


in my opinion the languages spoken in Indus valley were different. The scripts might be different too or may be had some variations. This needs to be looked into. I think in Harappa Punjabi was spoken, in Mohanjodaro sindhi and in Lothal Gujrati was spoken just like in the present times.the scripts were different too, just like the modern times.In present day India the main script is Devanagri but there are regional scripts in use too.Rajbaz (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Why no possible deciphered readings in the article.

Indus seal and its script

The figure shows an indus seal and it still remains undeciphered. But the question is why cant it be done? For example, the word in the figure can be tentatively read as poroyitha.

  • The first symbol resembles pa of Tamil and using the Brahmi glyphs it can be read as po.
  • The second symbol resembles ra and it can be read as ro.
  • The third symbol looks like brahmi ya and along with the fourth symbol be read as yi
  • The last symbol resembles tha in Kannada.
  • So the word becomes poroyitha which in many indian languages means priest and it could well represent seal of preistly class.

This is just a tentative reading and not a researched thing. So it is strange the script is still undeciphered. Why shouldnt the article include possible decipherement from experts which is often claimed by them in many sources?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.128.73 (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis

my published paper 'The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis' . this was published in a scienfitic journal recently. This shows why longer texts certainly existed in the Indus and why the Indus script was logo-syllabic. This is a complete refutation of Farmers thesis and refutes sproat's smoking gun completely. This is a very comprehensive refutation of Farmers thesis. If he doesn't agree with me, he must refute all my points convincingly

Sujay Rao Mandavilli


http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.91 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Indus script was logo-syllabic: simple proof adddessed to mainstream researchers

Few sensible scholars will be able to deny that the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script. Facts about the Dholavira signboard. However seals may have been non-linguistic. (a) It is one of the most famous of Harappan inscriptions. (b) It was very large in size. (c) It was located in Far from Mesopotamia Dholavira and in one of the furthest sites from Mesopotamia. (d) It hung over the citadel there. (e) It must have represented the name of the place and must have been closely tied to speech: note the sign repetition. (f) The sign which was used as a determinative was a very common Indus sign. (g) The sign used as a determinative appears to have been also similar to determinatives in other writing systems. (h) The Indus script was also related to Proto-Elamite which means it probably had a linguistic component. (i) The other signs with which the determinative was used were also common Indus signs. (j) Few sensible scholars will now dispute the fact that the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script on the basis of this evidence. (k) Few sensible scholars will deny the fact that speech encoding was one of the major functions of the Indus script and had this feature had reached a very precocious maturity. (l) This inscription was apparently more closely tied to speech than most proto-Elamite inscriptions. (m) Dholavira was not even the most important of sites. (n) The fact that it was hung over the citadel meant it was meant to be read by elites. (o) It was put to the most frivolous use. (p) Speech encoding would have been a prized possession: no one would have used it just for a decorative signboard at far-from-Mesopotamia Dholavira. Why would a man who had inscribed this, done so (a) if nobody else could read it (b) why would he have learnt to encode speech only to inscribe this signboard? This automatically implies the existence of longer texts. It also shows that the Indus elites used more complex forms of communication. (q) Even if we assume that speech-encoding was added in Mature Harappan 3B, this logic would still hold good. (r) This logic is already accepted by mainstream Indus archaeologists as a precursor to the existence of longer texts


please refer to the book by Jane Macintosh (Mcintosh 2008 p 374) "The Harappans did not create monumental art or architecture on which such inscriptions may have been written. The nearest that the Harappans came to this is the Dholavira signboard which is quite possibly the tip of the iceberg of a now vanished public inscriptions.Farmers arguments fail to account convincingly for the structural regularities that analysis have revealed in the use of Harappan signs. These strongly seem to support the hypothesis that the Indus script represent a writing system"


122.167.137.22 (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Harappans could not have spoken Sanskrit

The Harappans could not have spoken Sanskrit which was primarily liturgical.I discussed this in detail in my paper on the Aryan problem, and will be discussing this in greater detail in a new paper. I have supported the 'remote ancestor of prakrit hypothesis'. The Prakrit hypothesis in some form has been supported by Madhav Deshpande (Sanskrit Profesor)- Early form of Prakrit, S Kalyanaraman (Alien (mlecha prakrit), me (remote ancestor of Prakrit).

You must distinguish between the two. One can propose the Vedic Indus theory in good faith, but this can't make it correct! THis encourages religious fanticism Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.112.154 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

again read part two

> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.112.154 (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would its use in religious context prevent its use in daily life? Liturgical use certainly didn't stop people from speaking Latin. 9tmaxr (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

There are clearly different schools of thought about the Indus script. On the one had there is a school which suggests that it is a script and can be deciphered, with disagreement as to whether it is Dravidian or Indo-European. On the other hand there is a school which suggests that it is not a script, but a system of nonlinguistic tokens. It is encyclopaedic to include both views. The edit I made today restores arguments from the non-linguistic school, in a new section. I trust that this will help to improve the article and make it more balanced. -- Evertype·✆ 11:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if discussion could occur here rather than in lightning-edits. -- Evertype·✆ 20:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree it is encyclopedic to include both views. Your edit restored arguments from only the non-linguistic school. I have added arguments from the linguistic school as well as recent discussion in a journal. I trust you will be fine with this. -- AlWheeler (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the order of prevalence of views is still the following,

  1. we don't know if it is a script. Likely as not, it's proto-writing
  2. we have no idea how to decipher it, but it is
    • plausible that it is a logo-syllabic script
    • plausible that it is just a non-linguistic symbol system
  3. it it is a logo-syllabic script, apparently encoding an agglutinative language, probably (Proto-)Dravidian
  4. it's "Sanskritic" (exacly one scholarly proponent, Rao)
  5. various crackpot decipherment claims

so, there clearly is more than a dichotomy of two opposing views, and not all of these views have equal credibility. WP:DUE. Basically, the less assertive the view, the more credibility it has. --dab (𒁳) 12:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Asko Parpola Admits Sanskrit-speakers Contributed To Indus Valley Civilization

I propose to add this new information to the article; In an August 12, 2012 interview with the Deccan Herald, Asko Parpola clarified his position on Indus script by admitting that Sanskrit-speakers had contributed to the Indus Valley Civilization.

Also, the wikipedia article incorrectly lists Mahadevan as a supporter of the Sanskrit hypothesis, which he is not. However, F. Raymond Allchin, a well-known archeologist, does support the Sanskrit hypothesis and should be included.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/79062/sanskrit-has-contributed-indus-civilisation.html

I may not be the right person to do the edit, since I have published a book about Indus script and may have a conflict of interest. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying that Sanskrit speakers may have been involved in the Indus civilization says nothing about the Indus script, and there is nothing in the interview that suggests that Parpola has changed his mind about the nature of the script. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Saying that Sanskrit speakers contributed to the Indus Civilization opens the door for Prakrit/Sanskrit interpretations. And Parpola did not say that Sanskrit speakers 'may' have contributed, he said that they did contribute.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not you are the IP who added this to Parpola's article (are you?) copy and paste to another article is a violation of copyright - you need to put (copied from - article name with link) in the edit summary.
And 'admitting' is clearly pov unless you are quoting him. This clearly needs rewriting. It would be nice to find another source, which I'm sure we will in time, that clarifies his position. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

why the indus script was true writing and why a lost corpus existed in the indus valley civilization: simple proof addressed to mainstream researchers and archeologists

INDUS SCRIPT WAS TRUE WRITING

Please find my two papers below and circulate amongst the skeptics, particularly!

To state the obvious, the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script and a lost corpus did exist.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

Published in the ICFAI journal of history and culture, January 2011

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

Published in International journal of philosophy and journal sciences , November 2012

I am also introducing logo-syllabic thesis B in this paper

The paper is very self-explanatory! does anybody still beg to differ?

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

70.242.121.167 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Brahmi : new paper

i am pleased to announce the publication of my fifth research paper in a peer-reviewed journal

this deals with the origin of Brahmi . this is a logical and self-explanatory paper and is written using a multi-disciplinary approach. it is written in such a way that anybody can cross-verify the conclusions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-Final-Final-Final

sujay rao mandavilli

182.72.239.115 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Litercy in pre-Buddhist India

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

- There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)


http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)


http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi

Sujay Rao Mandavilli


210.211.203.231 (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths

I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper explains why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths

Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers.

The older papers were written taking the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct

Part one

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One

Part Two very,very important!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two

the first 5 papers were published in peer-reviewed journals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.239.115 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sujay Rao Mandavilli sujayrao2012@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.239.115 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2013

title - seals as tokens of faith "Bold text last line- The analysis supports both sides on the language issue.--Vinaykantdave (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Considering the stamp seals as tokens of faith, offers a different approach to the decipherment problem. Parpola has speculated that the fish sign represented a God [1]. This sign was extensively used and on some seals as the only symbol [2]. Various mythical images on the stamp seals suggest that they were a means of communicating with the supernatural, but in a tightly restricted space. The inscriptions were to symbolically represent chants, prayers, invocations or records of religious ceremonies. Such an analysis is consistent with their brevity, identical initial or end signs on many seals [3], and the relative stability of the script [4]. Numerous lines with an identical sequence of symbols would have been a chant or a prayer in common use. These lines had an inevitable linguistic element. The most used symbols would be the small number of generally recognised ideographs for the deities. In this context, all the main characteristics of the script can be coherently explained. The writers across the Indus River region could have freely converted religious concepts into symbols. Some of these would be pictographic, others rare, but mostly the conventional ones. Recognising the religious context of the inscriptions offers some validity to both sides in the language debate. The seal as a token of faith bears religious concepts as symbols, including the inscription. Most used signs were the ideographs for the deities. Identical lines were prayers or chants, carrying a language. The analysis supports of sides of the language issue.

Notes: [1] Parpola, Asko (2009) Deciphering the Indus Script (p.178) Cambridge University Press ISBN 0 521 79556 4 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum [2] I. Mahadevan (1977) The Indus Script (p.717) Archaeological Survey of India 1977 [3] I. Mahadevan (1977) The Indus Script (p.13) Archaeological Survey of India 1977 [4] Possehl, Gregory L. (1996) The Indus Age The Writing System (p.57) ISBN 0 8122 3345 X University of Pennsylvania

Vinaykantdave (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- TOW  talk  18:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Buehler (2009)

This is interesting.[13] I think we'd need peer review before mentioning it, but it's not crackpot or nationalistic. — kwami (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Steve Farmer thinks the manuscript is a fake [14]. I haven't followed the links further. Chaipau (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Not surprising. Good to have a comment and links on this talk page for future reference. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Rao

Removed the paragraph for now. Rao directly contradicts the conclusions of Farmer et al w entropy etc, but this is not noted, implying that this is new evidence supporting only Rao. The result (not just of this but of the paragraph in general) is a severe WEIGHT problem. Interestingly, the BA thesis I linked to above has a nice summary of the problem. I think we should be able to do at least as well. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Indus scrip has a linguistic structure? An important paper to be discussed..

Since most my edits to Indus page is continually being deleted, i would like to discuss this topic and share this important paper with you. In 2009 a paper published by Iravatham mahadevan in the journal 'science' challenged Farmer's argument that the Indus script might have been a nonlinguistic symbol system. The paper showed that the conditional entropy of Indus inscriptions closely matches those of linguistic systems like Sumerian logo-syllabic system, Rig Vedic Sanskrit etc.[1]

Since this article has a history of people pushing a particular POV, no matter what the evidence, we're a bit cautious. Especially as you say he's "shown" this, as if it's proven and done with. It would be good to see what reviewers have to say about it. — kwami (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand. However, if the word 'shown' is of trouble that can be replaced by another word which could make it appear 'impartial'. This paper was published in the journal ' Science', probably the most cited journal in the world. This fact highlights the importance of the work. I think if Farmer's argument can be written there, so can that of Mahadevan's. Perhaps you should go through the paper to find out its importance. I think this is an important piece of information to be shared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoopc23 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Indus scripts date

  • 3500 BCE - 3100 BCE[15]
  • "A recent discovery of written characters belonging to the ravi phase has pushed back the date of the first Indus script to 3300 - 2800 BCE."[16]
  • 3400 BCE - 3150 BCE[17]
Not all writings are 3300 BCE+ that's why we mentioned 3300 - 1900 in Infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll take a look in a bit. Right now I'm in the middle of things. But the sources we had in the article only justified a date of ca. 2600 BCE. There were earlier inscriptions, but the researchers could not tell if they were writing (they accept that the Indus script is writing). — kwami (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The BBC article quotes Meadows as saying that he wants to trace the inscriptions to see when they *became* writing. Higham does not provide a source. Without that, it's impossible to tell why he says what he does, but if I had to guess I'd say he's misunderstood Meadows' research, or maybe just read a newspaper account of it. The last source if for Sumerian, not Indus. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Third source is also about Indus, it reads "indus script would have appeared to have been formalized by the late fourth early third millenium BC." Bladesmulti (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
They're guessing when it might have started, based on its standardization according to a source from 1931. That's entirely different from being able to say that it actually existed then. It makes sense that Egypt, Sumeria, Iran, and India might have all had writing from a very early date, due to trade and other contact, but "might" doesn't mean "did". — kwami (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC) copied from Kwamikagami's talk page
Meadow estimated about 3500 BCE for these writings, and also that these writings may have predated all others.[18]. From the site, it includes "This year's discovery of inscribed sherds comes in the wake of even earlier examples of script discovered in March 1998 from occupation levels dating to between 3500 and 3300 B.C., possibly the earliest known writing in the Indus Valley." There are more reliable sources, that estimate the same or bigger. But 3500 BCE seems to be widely accepted.[19],[20] That's the main point. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The first is a "newsbrief" without enough detail to tell what Meadows claims to have found. Of the others, one says "if indeed it does", and the other is a 'Typographic Workbook'! Are these really your idea of reliable sourcing? — kwami (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please find the collection of all my six papers

please find all my 6 papers The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths

I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths

Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization!

Part one

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One

Part Two very,very important!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two

(These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem)

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.72.11.98 (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Indus script which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 03:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Indus script which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Indus script which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://ebooks.abc-clio.com/print.aspx?isbn=9781851099344&id=A1725C-7729
    Triggered by \bebooks\.abc-clio\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the Indus Script clans and religious concepts?

The Indus Script was used for trade with Mesopotamia and clearly would not have symbolized clans and religious concepts. By promoting such theories, you are making a fool of yourself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.184.113 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone has any idea what it was used for.Mcswell (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Decipherability question

The concluding sentence in this section reads: "The June 2014 issue of Language carries a paper by Sproat that provides further evidence that the methodology of Rao et al. is flawed." - meaning Rao's methodology is in fact flawed, and Sproat provides further evidence of it. Is that the writer's intent? If so, on what basis? Sooku (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No bilingual texts (like a Rosetta Stone) have been found.

I suggest a need to update this statement reflecting the article "Little man with huge potential". 5.28.168.211 (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Pottery with Harappan and Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions

Ref 20 (Mahadevan) is not peer reviewed yet. I suggest softening the language ("it has been claimed that") or just stating that it has not yet been peer reviewed. Helenuh (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The 2010 article in 'The Hindu' (https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/Tamil-Brahmi-potsherds-found-at-urn-burial-site/article15996829.ece) states the:

"Of the three potsherds, one can be nearly fully assembled, and it has five Tamil Brahmi letters reading ‘a-ti-y(a)-ka-n.' This could probably be read as ‘Atiykan.' As the front portion of the potsherd is broken, the preceding word, if any, is not known. The second potsherd has four letters, of which two are Tamil Brahmi, reading ‘a-m.' The remaining two are graffiti marks, resembling the Indus script, says Dr. Rajan. The front portion of the potsherd is missing."

Which makes the claims of the Indus Script being used alongside the Tamil Brahmi script seem intentionally disingenuous. IMO, it should be removed from the article. 174.3.228.242 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed. If someone wants to add it back with a better reference. --regentspark (comment) 02:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Indus Script or Indus Symbols?

Are Indus Symbols widely accepted as scripts?--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Seals are merely the medium where these inscriptions are found so the correct question would be 'script or symbols'. I believe that there is general acceptance, but no certainty, that the inscriptions are from a script (and the view that the inscriptions are not a script is detailed in the article). --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think what you're doing is equating scripts with written language, in contrast to symbols, which could be anything (stop signs, for instance). If that's what you mean, then no, there is not general acceptance that the inscriptions represent a language; it's a contentious issue, with no resolution in sight. Mcswell (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark I changed the sub-topic.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)



Chinese scholar xuanzang says, 1. Referring to the most ancient times letters were numerous. 2. Then Brahma deva and sakra modified the script and letters were 47. Then the different rishis modified and made up different scripts. After a long time people forgot about the script. 3. Then rishi panini modified and made up a new script (new brahmi). Xuanzang is clearly talking about pre indus script, indus script, and panini,s brahmi script for the same language sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

According to xuanzang indus script is sanskrit script.At panini,s time people had forgotten about writing and reading. Panini revived writing and reading. Panini,s sanskrit grammar ashatadhyae has survived 3000 years. This is a great achievement. Indus script should be called brahmi script or aryan script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajbaz (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to refer to Aryans as an ethnic group or Indo-Aryan as a language. It's understandable why this is used until a better understanding can be made, but there are no references or evidence to 'Aryan' being an ethnic group or language in any ancient literature. 'Arya' in the Vedic and Persian sources always refers to nobility, noble behavior, righteousness or brotherhood. The use of these terms have been weaponized and used by racial supremacists for over a century without any basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7927:A500:14AA:AFDF:439A:F789 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This paper reads more like an advertisement for Steve Farmer than a proper article

This paper reads more like an advertisement for Steve Farmer than a proper article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.128.252 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

of course it's a logo syllabic script

of course it's a logo syllabic script — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.111.139.82 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indus script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indus script. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mahadevan, Iravatham (6 may 2009). "Entropic Evidence for Linguistic Structure in the Indus Script". Science. 324. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_script/Archive_1&oldid=1136817893"