Talk:Indus script

Writing systems B‑class Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion about Copyright Violation

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)

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Armaic. Third, the association has been refuted by scholars like Mahadevan (a gap of about 1000 years between the two scripts[2]). Though Kak's work could be of interest elsewhere, here I feel it just adds to the noise. In anycase, 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)[reply]

indeed. Kak is, as always, creating so much hot air beside the point. Should be ignored. dab (ᛏ) 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kak, Talageri etc are accomplished historians. Brushing them aside does not help the debate. Bakaman%% 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't mention Talageri, I agree he knows his stuff even if he is biased and angry. Kak is a sophisticated kook with 'renaissance man' aspirations. dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Since nobody had any comments to offer, I've removed the sentence. -- Arvind 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 (𒁳) 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]