IVC script - Notes from Nagaswamy, I. Mahadevan

[Guest guest]

Dr. Nagaswamy is known for his work on the medieval art history

of Cholas (10-12th centuries AD). He mentions about the attempts

by I. Mahadevan and others' attempts to crack the IVC wrtiting.

 

 

Dr. Nagaswamy's article:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/2002/07/02/stories/2002070200110200.htm

[begin Quote]

Witzel emphasises the importance of linguistic science that certainly

cannot be questioned by any. There are two claimants to the Indus

language, the Vedic and the Dravidian. The protagonists of Dravidian

language spearheaded by Dr. Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan

argue the language of the Harappans is Dravidian, though they differ

among themselves on each other's readings. Witzel seems to be in

agreement with Parpola.

 

How confident or conclusive are the Dravidian linguists about their

theories may be seen from the following. Asko Parpola, who came out

with the theory, later discarded it so much so when asked about his

first approach, he himself says that "he has given up the earlier

reports as they were written in the first flush of enthusiasm,

premature and incautious." This Mahadevan calls "rare intellectual

courage" to abandon the paradigm central to the earlier model of

decipherment and is virtually a new beginning. Reviewing Asko

Parpola's present hypothesis Mahadevan says "his (Parpola's)

decipherment based on the hypothesis has not been taken seriously,

because of his lack of familiarity with the Dravidian languages

and linguistics." (http/harappa.com/script/maha0.html) That

dismisses the leading authority on Dravidian hypothesis for

Indus culture in the world. The only other leading Dravidian

expert on Indus script is Mahadevan himself.

[End Quote]

 

Iravatham Mahadevan, who deciphered the Tamil Brahmi script,

has this to say:

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/07/04/stories/2002070401391004.htm

 

[begin Quote]

Indus script

 

Sir,

R. Nagaswamy (Open Page, July 2) has attributed a

statement to me which I never made. According to

him: Reviewing Asko Parpola's present hypothesis,

Mahadevan says, ``His (Parpola's) decipherment based

on the hypothesis has not been taken seriously,

because of his lack of familiarity with the

Dravidian languages and linguistics.''

 

This is a garbled quotation. Parpola's name within

the parantheses and outside is not there in the

original at all. To put the record straight,

this is what I said in the review cited by

Dr. Nagaswamy: ``The latest attempt to decipher

the Indus script, prior to the publication of

the present work, has been made by Walter

Fairservis, the distinguished American

archaeologist with long experience in

Harappan excavations. He has manually arranged

the Indus sign sequences in a `grid' to bring

out their functional characteristics and

syntactical patterns. The analysis is sound,

but his model of decipherment based on the

Dravidian hypothesis (published in 1992 shortly

before his death) has not been taken seriously

because of his lack of familiarity with the

Dravidian languages and linguistic techniques.''

As long as the Indus script remains undeciphered,

every attempted decipherment will be, and must

be, subjected to the severest criticism. But

such criticism must be fair.

 

Iravatham Mahadevan,

Chennai

[End quote]