Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Ind-Arch] Re: Banana Phytoliths Suggest Writing in Indus Civilization

Expand Messages
  • RamV
    Paper can be made from various fibrous plants, including banana plants. Finding banana phytoliths need not suggest that a paper industry was flourishing in
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Paper can be made from various fibrous plants, including banana plants. Finding banana phytoliths need not suggest that a paper industry was flourishing in Indus.
      Most "unicorn" seals have a peculiar looking object in front of the animal. No one has come forward with a reasonable answer to the object. Some say it depicts a "manger"? I just wonder if the object depicts a paper making instrument? The Harappans may have considered paper as some sort of sacred artifact to write on. The Harappans may have fabricated paper from banana plants or some other plants.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/mukulb/5211740819/

      http://www.ehow.com/how_4494020_make-paper-from-plants.html

      Ram


      --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
      >
      > Le 30/12/2011 20:27, Carlos a écrit :
      > >
      > >
      > > Take a look at:
      > >
      > > "Indeed, one of these non-culinary uses...might be a more plausible
      > > explanation...than an early dispersal of EDIBLE cultivated bananas"
      > > (Fuller and Madella 2009: 340).
      > > http://tinyurl.com/bmpby2w
      > >
      > > Carlos
      > >
      > ***
      >
      > ok
      >
      > This one is clearer.
      >
      > Anyway I now think that these Indus Symbols probably stand for some kind
      > of syllabary with a huge set of signs like the Yi syllabary.
      > It's also clear that many signs are derivable from other ones by
      > omission or addition of dots. This must stand for something.
      >
      > The oft-repeated idea that a huge set of symbols cannot be a syllabary
      > is false: the Yi syllabary has several hundreds signs, nearly thousands,
      > most of them being not even derivable from each other in any way.
      > Farmer et al's claim is based on the Near-Eastern and Aegean syllabaries
      > but this does not tell all the story. Look at Yi.
      >
      > A.
      > ***
      >
      >
      > >
      > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
      > > <mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com>, Arnaud
      > > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > ***
      > > >
      > > > Your reference does not even contain the word "edible".
      > > >
      > > > How do you infer from that reference that "in all probability" etc?
      > > >
      > > > A.
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Arnaud
      ... *** I don t really understand if you are talking about Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform or Indus Symbols!? A. ... *** Your claim boils down to statistics: too
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Le 01/01/2012 15:58, Richard Sproat a écrit :
        Sumero-Akkadian would indeed be a better example than Yi, IMHO.  What I stated remains true: it was certainly not the case that most syllables in the language had a single-glyph representation. However, because glyphs were so polyvalent, one ends up with a large inventory that could be used to represent syllables. So I do agree with you there w.r.t. the number of glyphs being used to indicate syllables.
        ***

        I don't really understand if you are talking about Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform or Indus Symbols!?

        A.
        ***



        Yes, there are two sets of signs in Japanese, but one has to consider the syllabaries separately. But whatever.

        No, we never made the claim that the symbols in the Indus inscriptions were too many for it to be a writing system.  That wasn't the essence of what we claimed.
        ***

        Your claim boils down to statistics: too many signs, too short strings.

        What else do you think you wrote?


        A.
        ***






        From: Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@...>
        To: richardwsproat <richardwsproat@...>
        Sent: Sunday, January 1, 2012 9:47 AM
        Subject: Re: [Ind-Arch] Re: Banana Phytoliths Suggest Writing in Indus Civilization

        Le 01/01/2012 15:35, richardwsproat a écrit :
        On the question of Yi: you presumably know that Yi is the exception that proves the rule, insofar as it was developed, more or less by committee, into a syllabary from an earlier Chinese-like morphosyllabic system.  Apart from Yi, it is *not* common to have syllabaries with so many elements, and this relates to another observation which is that while the elements of syllabaries surely encode syllables, it is rare for a syllabary to encode *all* the syllables of the language.  This even extends to cases like kana, where in principle the number of distinct syllables to be encoded (about 120 in the case of Japanese), is small.
        
        --R
        
        ***

        I did not know you were lurking around here.

        The Sumero-Akkadian Cuneiform system is another example of very huge set of syllabic items, not to speak about sumerograms on top of that.
        This example is a spontaneous instance of a huge number of syllabic items (of the CV, VC, CVC types)

        Japanese is also much higher than what you say, as there are two sets of signs, and katakana has been modified to write a higher number of signs than before.

        So, as a preliminary conclusion, it is glaringly obvious that your claim, or maybe this is mainly Farmer's claim, that Indus Signs corpora are too numerous to be a writing system is just entirely false.
        And your three-authored paper in 2004 is a huge collection of fallacies, blunders and misleading graphics.

        A.




      • cararam50
        Recently, I. Mahadevan published a new approach regarding this issue. He thinks that the famous FISH symbol in Indus script really means acuatic (female)
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Recently, I. Mahadevan published a new approach regarding this issue. He thinks that the famous FISH symbol in Indus script really means acuatic (female) APSARAS and (male)Ghandarvas who were originally "real" priests and damisels which performed fertility rituals in the Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro...

          Carlos


          --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@...> wrote:
          >
          > Le 30/12/2011 20:27, Carlos a écrit :
          > >
          > >
          > > Take a look at:
          > >
          > > "Indeed, one of these non-culinary uses...might be a more plausible
          > > explanation...than an early dispersal of EDIBLE cultivated bananas"
          > > (Fuller and Madella 2009: 340).
          > > http://tinyurl.com/bmpby2w
          > >
          > > Carlos
          > >
          > ***
          >
          > ok
          >
          > This one is clearer.
          >
          > Anyway I now think that these Indus Symbols probably stand for some kind
          > of syllabary with a huge set of signs like the Yi syllabary.
          > It's also clear that many signs are derivable from other ones by
          > omission or addition of dots. This must stand for something.
          >
          > The oft-repeated idea that a huge set of symbols cannot be a syllabary
          > is false: the Yi syllabary has several hundreds signs, nearly thousands,
          > most of them being not even derivable from each other in any way.
          > Farmer et al's claim is based on the Near-Eastern and Aegean syllabaries
          > but this does not tell all the story. Look at Yi.
          >
          > A.
          > ***
          >
          >
          > >
          > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
          > > <mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com>, Arnaud
          > > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
          > >
          > > > ***
          > > >
          > > > Your reference does not even contain the word "edible".
          > > >
          > > > How do you infer from that reference that "in all probability" etc?
          > > >
          > > > A.
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        • RamV
          Carlos, Could you kindly post the referenced article by I. Mahadevan for us to read? Thanks. Ram
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Carlos,
            Could you kindly post the referenced article by I. Mahadevan for us to read?
            Thanks.
            Ram

            --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "cararam50" <cararam50@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Recently, I. Mahadevan published a new approach regarding this issue. He thinks that the famous FISH symbol in Indus script really means acuatic (female) APSARAS and (male)Ghandarvas who were originally "real" priests and damisels which performed fertility rituals in the Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro...
            >
            > Carlos
            >
            >
            > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Le 30/12/2011 20:27, Carlos a écrit :
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Take a look at:
            > > >
            > > > "Indeed, one of these non-culinary uses...might be a more plausible
            > > > explanation...than an early dispersal of EDIBLE cultivated bananas"
            > > > (Fuller and Madella 2009: 340).
            > > > http://tinyurl.com/bmpby2w
            > > >
            > > > Carlos
            > > >
            > > ***
            > >
            > > ok
            > >
            > > This one is clearer.
            > >
            > > Anyway I now think that these Indus Symbols probably stand for some kind
            > > of syllabary with a huge set of signs like the Yi syllabary.
            > > It's also clear that many signs are derivable from other ones by
            > > omission or addition of dots. This must stand for something.
            > >
            > > The oft-repeated idea that a huge set of symbols cannot be a syllabary
            > > is false: the Yi syllabary has several hundreds signs, nearly thousands,
            > > most of them being not even derivable from each other in any way.
            > > Farmer et al's claim is based on the Near-Eastern and Aegean syllabaries
            > > but this does not tell all the story. Look at Yi.
            > >
            > > A.
            > > ***
            > >
            > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
            > > > <mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com>, Arnaud
            > > > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > > ***
            > > > >
            > > > > Your reference does not even contain the word "edible".
            > > > >
            > > > > How do you infer from that reference that "in all probability" etc?
            > > > >
            > > > > A.
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            >
          • Carlos
            Dear Ram, The reference is: Mahadevan, Iravatham, 2011. The Indus Fish Swam in the Great Bath: A New Solution to an Old Riddle , in Bulletin of the Indus
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Ram,

              The reference is:

              Mahadevan, Iravatham, 2011. "The Indus Fish Swam in the Great Bath: A New
              Solution to an Old Riddle", in Bulletin of the Indus Research Centre No. 2,
              Chennai, pp. 1-73:
              http://tinyurl.com/7wnudjs

              Please also take a look at my recent post with my commentary on this paper:

              http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaArchaeology/message/13527

              Regards,

              Carlos





              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "RamV" <varmha@...> wrote:
              >
              > Carlos,
              > Could you kindly post the referenced article by I. Mahadevan for us to read?
              > Thanks.
              > Ram
              >
              > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "cararam50" <cararam50@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Recently, I. Mahadevan published a new approach regarding this issue. He thinks that the famous FISH symbol in Indus script really means acuatic (female) APSARAS and (male)Ghandarvas who were originally "real" priests and damisels which performed fertility rituals in the Great Bath at Mohenjo Daro...
              > >
              > > Carlos
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Arnaud <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Le 30/12/2011 20:27, Carlos a écrit :
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Take a look at:
              > > > >
              > > > > "Indeed, one of these non-culinary uses...might be a more plausible
              > > > > explanation...than an early dispersal of EDIBLE cultivated bananas"
              > > > > (Fuller and Madella 2009: 340).
              > > > > http://tinyurl.com/bmpby2w
              > > > >
              > > > > Carlos
              > > > >
              > > > ***
              > > >
              > > > ok
              > > >
              > > > This one is clearer.
              > > >
              > > > Anyway I now think that these Indus Symbols probably stand for some kind
              > > > of syllabary with a huge set of signs like the Yi syllabary.
              > > > It's also clear that many signs are derivable from other ones by
              > > > omission or addition of dots. This must stand for something.
              > > >
              > > > The oft-repeated idea that a huge set of symbols cannot be a syllabary
              > > > is false: the Yi syllabary has several hundreds signs, nearly thousands,
              > > > most of them being not even derivable from each other in any way.
              > > > Farmer et al's claim is based on the Near-Eastern and Aegean syllabaries
              > > > but this does not tell all the story. Look at Yi.
              > > >
              > > > A.
              > > > ***
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > <mailto:IndiaArchaeology%40yahoogroups.com>, Arnaud
              > > > > <fournet.arnaud@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > > ***
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Your reference does not even contain the word "edible".
              > > > > >
              > > > > > How do you infer from that reference that "in all probability" etc?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > A.
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.