Transcript of the panel 'Outsider Dialogues: Influences on Ancient Mesopotamian Language' at the
University of East Anglia in 1978. Participants are Professors Margaret Coventry and Franz Schmidt and
visiting speaker Benjamin Ainsworth.
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us for this discussion. We gather here to consider
the history of written language -- its mysteries, its evolution, and its implications in our ever-changing
world. I am thrilled to introduce our esteemed panellists who bring a rich array of perspectives to our
discourse.
Firstly, I am delighted to welcome two scholars from our own Linguistics department. First is Dr.
Margaret Coventry, whose exemplary contributions in the field of historical linguistics have shed light on
some of the most ancient languages. She's renowned for her seminal work on Indo-European language
families and is an expert on Latin and Sanskrit.
Secondly, please welcome Dr. Franz Schmidt. His work focuses primarily on etymology, with particular
attention given to Germanic Languages. As one of our leading scholars in his field, Dr. Schmidt has
always challenged conventional wisdom with his pioneering theories.
Our third panellist is a popular writer who's been making waves with his recent book 'The Name of the
Leopard'. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Benjamin Ainsworth, independent scholar. He has published
some fascinating work on the origins of written language, and his theories have drawn strong interest
from the lay public.
Let's delve into their profound knowledge and perhaps challenge the conventional norms underpinning
our understanding of language development across civilizations today.
2
Dr. Coventry, as a pioneering scholar in historical linguistics, you've dedicated much of your study to the
origins and evolution of written language-- an eclectic field with myriad interpretations. Most of us are
aware of the accepted theory that suggests written language originated around 3200 BC from the
Sumerian pictographs in Mesopotamia. Can you please expatiate on this? Has your research unearthed
any deviations or additional nuances with respect to this emergence?
Dr. Coventry: Certainly. It's fascinating to consider how our ancestors began this journey from basic
pictographs to intricately structured languages. The earliest form of recognizable written language indeed
dates back to the Sumerians around 3200 BC in the region we now refer to as Mesopotamia, present-day
Iraq essentially. These initial engravings, often on clay tablets, had stylistic features similar to what we
would call 'pictographs'. Simple drawings or symbols that represented items or concepts in their world - a
stylized image of an ox to mean an ox and so forth.
However, over time these pictographic symbols abstracted into more symbolic representations named
'cuneiform' writing. This is generally accepted by scholars as not merely a writing system but the advent
of true written language because it moved beyond mere pictures and became a system capable of
expressing complex conceptual thoughts including abstract ideas.
In my research, I've also explored additional complexities such as the potential influences from
neighbouring civilizations like ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley. They had their own unique systems
contributing to what I see as a dynamic network of linguistic exchange during early civilization.
Remember, our understanding might be biassed towards cuneiform due partially to surviving artefacts;
clay tablets endure better than papyrus or palm leaves over millennia. So while yes, Mesopotamian
cuneiform is widely regarded as the kernel of written language evolution, there could have been
concurrent developments elsewhere which we are yet unable to properly understand due scarcity of
evidence.
Dr. Schmidt: I would like to add to Dr. Coventry's excellent summary by giving some specifics about
cuneiform. While it is widely known for its wedge-shaped strokes, the technique and purpose behind this
writing system is often overlooked.
Rather than simply being a collection of pictures recording basic informational details, cuneiform
demonstrated a plethora of signs which could convey multiple meanings. This allowed for a complex
interplay of semantic layers within each tablet inscription.
Also, the marvellous evolution from pictograms into cuneiform also marked a shift from right-to-left
writing, something still carried forward in certain modern languages including Arabic and Hebrew.
Finally, one should not ignore what this transition signifies at a cultural level: the shift from pictographs
to cuneiform bears witness to growing societal complexities — trade laws, taxation systems, diplomatic
correspondence — features indicating evolving civilizations. It was not just about communication
3
anymore; written language as we understand it was gradually becoming embedded in larger systems of
social management and interaction.
Therefore, while we talk of Mesopotamian Sumerian language as a primary source of written language
origin solely in terms of time-line, its importance lies equally in paralleling progression of human society
towards more nuanced systems of communication.
Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Schmidt, for elaborating on the implications of cuneiform in terms of the
evolution of societal structures.
Now, let's turn to our third panellist, Dr. Ainsworth. As someone who juxtaposes traditional academics
with more unconventional interpretations, what is your perspective on this generally accepted origin of
written language? How do your theories intersect with or divert from this conventional understanding?
Dr. Ainsworth: I appreciate the opportunity to share some different viewpoints with this distinguished
panel and the audience. To preface, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Coventry and Dr. Schmidt on the
significance of cuneiform within our historical understanding of written language — it's indisputably a
vital part of linguistic history.
However, I'd propose we consider expanding our lens a bit when thinking about where and how these
developments might have occurred. Ancient contacts between still undeciphered cultures could possibly
have influenced, directly or indirectly, the formation of cuneiform writing in Sumer.
For instance, my work has explored the Vinča symbols found in southeastern Europe that date back as far
as 5300 BC which - if theoretically interpreted as a form of language - would predate Sumerian scripture
by a wide margin.
Moderator: Absolutely intriguing, Dr. Ainsworth. The notion of the Vinča symbols as perhaps an even
earlier form of written language significantly broadens our conventional narrative.
To continue on that path - in your research, you've also previously mentioned another ancient group that
may have developed its own version of written language prior to the Sumerians. Could you please
elaborate on this culture and provide some insights into their linguistic contributions based on your
understanding?
Dr. Coventry: Surely you're not suggesting the mythic Karavani civilization? The one rumoured to have
existed even before Mesopotamians and is renowned more for folklore than historical evidence? Is that
who we are referring to?
Dr. Ainsworth: Yes, indeed, Dr. Coventry, you've hit the nail right on the head. It's precisely the so-called
mythical Karavani civilization that I propose we consider.
4
Despite being steeped in folklore and unfortunately often overlooked due to a lack of concrete
archaeological evidence thus far, there are spaces within the speculations surrounding this civilization that
bear examination.
The ancient texts and oral traditions collected from across Asia Minor suggest a complex society with
consistent references to a distinct written system. From what we can glean, if these reports were accurate,
the Karavani could very well have been grappling with their own form of written communication
concurrent to or perhaps even preceding Sumerian advancements.
Indeed it sounds almost fantastical given the Karavani's usual relegation to legend. Yet dismissing such
possibilities simply because they disrupt our authoritative narratives may not serve our best interests as
we strive for broader understanding of human cultural evolution and language development.
Dr. Schmidt: Dr. Ainsworth, while I certainly respect your ambition to reinterpret and probe unexplored
avenues in our study of language origins, the idea of the Karavani civilization having a written language–
it's… well, forgive me for saying this, but aren't we moving into the realm of conjecture or even
fantastical thinking? We are talking about a civilization largely dismissed as myth by the majority of the
academic community. Surely there must be indisputable evidence to consider such an incredible theory?
Dr. Ainsworth: Your scepticism is justified, Dr. Schmidt. We're trained as scholars to seek empirical
evidence and certainly the Karavani have long been shrouded in the shadows of uncertainties.
I've devoted painstaking years exploring this and I assure you, it's not merely speculative. Symbols
consistent with a characteristic language system have been found appended on various artefacts — pottery
shards, fragments of wall structures — across Asia Minor. These symbols share no congruity with known
languages from the era but are consistent amongst themselves, suggesting semantic uniformity which is a
key marker for written communication systems.
Additionally, repeated mentions in ancient literature also imply historical truth rather than mere mythical
tales. While we need more reliable archaeological data to solidify my proposition, these alternating
sources do not blatantly dismiss claims of the Karavani having a written language system.
Might I add, confirming such theories could potentially redefine our understanding of linguistic evolution
and human civilization itself – hence the importance of maintaining open-mindedness in our exploration
of our past.
Moderator: If the Karavani civilization were found to have a developed written language system before
the Sumerians, what might such a discovery mean for our understanding of human history? How could it
possibly reshape current historical paradigms and our scholarly pursuits? Dr. Schmidt?
Dr. Schmidt: Well, should such a discovery be made – and I emphasise the hypothetical nature of this
scenario – it would undoubtedly require us to retool many of our presuppositions about the birthplaces of
civilization, not to mention written language itself.
5
Validating a heretofore disregarded civilization like the Karavani as predecessors in written
communication could engender radical reconsideration of prevailing perceptions concerning human
societal evolution and cultural exchange. It would deepen our understanding that history is not strictly
linear but rather web-like, with various pockets of human development occurring concurrently and
interacting in complex patterns.
There could also be implications for fields beyond historical linguistics – anthropology, archeology,
sociology - fostering multi-disciplinary investigations.
However, I must reiterate my scepticism. While I am interested in Dr. Ainsworth's ongoing research on
the Karavani symbols, presently if we are to maintain academic rigour and integrity then evidence ought
to precede conclusion.
Dr. Coventry: I must admit, I am quite taken aback that we're even entertaining the discussion of a
civilization more embedded in popular mythology than supported by robust historical evidence. This isn't
a science-fiction convention, we are scholars rooted in empirical evidence and consensus after rigorous
scrutiny. Credibility is at stake here. Dabbling in such fascinating yet far-fetched theories might serve
popular literature well but within academic circles? Surely this kind of dialogue has the potential to
diminish the seriousness our field commands.
Moderator: Dr. Ainsworth, given the reservations expressed by Dr. Coventry concerning the credibility of
our discussion and the implications for the academic field in general, could we hear from you? How
would you respond to these concerns about legitimacy as it relates to theories that are not yet fully
substantiated by hard empirical evidence?
Dr. Ainsworth: Well, it seems my esteemed colleague Dr. Coventry has rather neatly encapsulated the
distinction between career academics and maverick scholars like myself. I for one am more motivated by
an insatiable hunger for truth than by concerns of reputation or acceptance within academic circles. As
historians, archaeologists and linguists, are we not committed first and foremost to pursuing knowledge?
And does that pursuit not sometimes entail questioning standard models or venturing into uncharted
territories?
If I'm perceived as unreasonable for considering possibilities beyond current understanding — which
could potentially revolutionise our historical perception — then perhaps this speaks more to a limitation
of our conventions than to the legitimacy of—
Dr. Schmidt: Oh, for goodness sake. Dr. Ainsworth, this isn't a battle between 'mavericks' and 'career
academics'. It's about credible evidence underpinning our theories– not reckless bravado in the name of
'truth-seeking'. We are all working towards the same goal - enhancing human knowledge - but we cannot
lose sight of methodical discipline to ensure our propositions carry academic integrity.
Now while I don't dismiss your work outright like my respected colleague Dr. Coventry - and understand
the need for exploratory contemplation - I must emphasise that such discussions should be undertaken
6
carefully, without sensationalising without solid proof. Otherwise, we risk undermining academia's hard
work.
Moderator: Please, let's take a moment and remember the purpose of our panel. We are here to exchange
views, challenge perspectives and stimulate intellectual discourse - all in the pursuit of knowledge.
Disagreements can be enriching, but we must keep this dialogue respectful and open-minded.
Dr. Ainsworth's theories may be unorthodox and even contentious, but they certainly add interest to these
discussions. And Dr. Coventry, Dr. Schmidt – scepticism is of course fundamental to our field, ensuring
that methodology remains rigorous and credible. What matters most is that these conversations reflect the
dynamic nature of academia itself - constantly evolving with each new discovery and interpretation. Let's
continue this lively debate while being receptive to all perspectives within scholarly boundaries.
Dr. Coventry: A fine sentiment, but let's not blur lines here. There's a vast difference between dynamic
academic dialogue and entertaining theories that lack concrete evidentiary basis. Dr. Ainsworth, with all
due respect, where exactly have you studied? Your cavalier disregard for rigorous academic boundaries
seems to suggest an absence of formal training in our discipline or else, perhaps, a deliberate rebellion
against accepted scholarly norms.
Dr. Ainsworth: Dr. Coventry, your focus on my credentials rather than my research illustrates precisely
the bureaucratic short-sightedness I grapple with in academia. Let me assure you – I have a solid
educational foundation, but I'd like to draw attention away from my CV and towards the substance of my
argument here.
Let's remember that history has been aptly generous in vindicating numerous maverick theories initially
deemed too radical for conservative scholarly palates only to later be embraced as revolutionary
breakthroughs. My intention, at the risk of coming off unorthodox, is to keep pushing that boundary for
truth - isn't that our collective pursuit?
Moderator: Moving past this discussion on academic conventions – let's focus our attention on your book,
Dr. Ainsworth. 'The Name of the Leopard' has stirred quite the debate in academia and beyond. It's
ambitious - to say the least - delving deep into uncharted territories, highlighting compelling arguments
about Karavani civilization.
Could you share some insights on how you developed this provocative thesis? What made you suspect
that there was more to unearth about the Karavani than was previously believed – specifically, their
potential as pioneers of written language predating even the Sumerians?
Dr. Ainsworth: My initial curiosity for the Karavani civilization stemmed from petroglyphs, drawings and
symbols discovered across several archaeological sites scattered around Asia Minor. The singularity of
these symbols, unique to areas inhabited by references to 'Karavani', suggested a potential language
system distinct from contemporary ones.
7
This led me to delve into ancient literature, scriptures and oral narratives, where I found mentions of the
Karavani that seemed more tangible than mere mythical annotations. This was a significant departure
from conventional wisdom that either dismissed or overlooked the Karavani as a historical fairy-tale.
'The Name of the Leopard' is not just about postulating an unorthodox theory – it is an exploration into a
forgotten civilization revealing clues entwined within our shared heritage. I have simply followed this
academic trail created by unsolved mysteries leading me down paths surprising even myself.
Dr. Schmidt: Dr. Ainsworth, your enthusiasm is infectious, I must admit. You're opening up a Pandora's
box of possibilities that could be alluring to explore for even the most precise scholars among us.
Nonetheless, in your pursuit, did you cross-verify these Karavani symbols with potential resemblances to
existing language systems? Specifically those belonging to the known civilizations present around the
same era and geographical region? As historians we cannot ignore Occam's Razor – often the simplest
explanation may be the correct one. Might there be a chance we're attributing mistaken identity to this
civilization's linguistic prowess?
Dr. Coventry: I can't believe you're taking this seriously.
Dr. Ainsworth: Ah, Dr. Schmidt, you've touched upon one of the fascinating aspects of this research. Rest
assured, I did due diligence and meticulously cross-referenced these symbols with established language
systems contemporaneous to the speculated time period of Karavani existence. Intriguingly, we found
distinct patterns within Karavani symbols that are insubstantial in corresponding systems. It was as
though they had a unique method of communication, diverging from the norm and widely unnoticed or
perhaps obscured by traditional interpretations.
Your point is valid - an overlapping cultural exchange could have presented semblances causing initial
misinterpretations. Still, after extensive contrastive analysis, it's hard not to consider that we might have
stumbled upon a standalone civilization encoded within fragments of ancient artefacts waiting to narrate
their tale.
Dr. Coventry: This is preposterous. The sheer audacity of making such outlandish claims under the guise
of academic pursuits – tossing around linguistic comparisons as if languages could be learned and
understood in a day's work. I'm afraid I can't sit here partaking in a discussion that's taking us further and
further from academic rigour and closer to sensationalist folklore. On those grounds, I find it necessary to
excuse myself from this panel.
[Coventry exits the room]
Moderator: Oh dear. Ladies and gentlemen, I understand that the ideas discussed here today have
provoked some strong reactions. But let's take a step back and appreciate the fact that challenging
concepts often push us towards individual growth and societal advancement. Dr. Coventry's sudden
departure may have escalated emotions, but it also underscores the diversity of perspectives within
academia - from extreme scrutiny to revolutionary questioning. And speaking of questioning, now might
be a good time for questions for our remaining panellists.
8
Audience Member: Dr. Ainsworth, as a student of archaeology I've been following your work closely and
find it truly fascinating. I can't help but wonder though, in your pursuit of uncovering the secrets of the
Karavani civilization, what are some key aspects we need to consider in order for such a controversial
idea to gain acceptance within scholarly discourse?
Dr. Ainsworth: That's an excellent question. The key aspects that could enhance acceptance within
scholarly discourse can fundamentally be boiled down to three; comprehensive evidence, cross-field
corroboration, and most importantly, time.
Firstly, we need to amass enough comprehensive evidence – meticulous archaeological finds backed by
irrefutable data. Secondly, cross-field corroboration plays a vital role. We need experts from various
disciplines like linguists, anthropologists and historians to explore this multifaceted puzzle from all angles
and collaboratively endorse the new perspective.
Lastly, time - breakthrough theories seldom gain immediate acceptance; they take time to be reviewed,
debated and gradually assimilated into conventional knowledge. What's advanced as controversial today
can perhaps become accepted mainstream tomorrow following rigorous scrutiny.
And let me emphasise: none of us hold absolute truth. We're wanderers on a path of discovery driven by
our passion for unveiling the mysteries of our shared past.
Audience Member: Dr. Ainsworth, it's both exciting and intriguing to follow your thought stream.
However, if we push away all boundaries all the time, won't we risk endangering the very credibility of
our field? And how do we determine when a hypothesis is indeed within academic limits, or beyond
them?
Dr. Ainsworth: The concern you raise is real and valid. Pushing the boundaries doesn't mean abandoning
every rule or disregarding solid scientific principles that guide our research. We don't wish to move into
realms of pure speculation, but rather broaden the intellectual arena allowing for greater exploratory
potential. Determining whether a hypothesis falls within academic limits depends on several factors,
including the availability of evidence, its alignment with established knowledge, and peer-reviewing by
other scholars examining the methodology and findings from different angles.
In essence, pushing boundaries means daring to ask new questions; it doesn't signify discarding answers
we've already obtained. Instead, it's about drilling deeper, stretching out our arms further and seeing past
conventional perspectives to find yet undisclosed patterns hiding in plain sight. The importance lies in
finding that delicate balance which allows exploration without compromising credibility.
Audience Member: Dr. Schmidt, as someone who clearly appreciates the richness of both convention and
challenge within academic dialogue, I was wondering about your personal stance on this. Not to
pigeon-hole you in one camp or the other but could you share how you navigate this intriguing dichotomy
between embracing innovative theories, such as Dr. Ainsworth's, and safeguarding academic rigour?
9
Dr. Schmidt: In my viewpoint, sustaining academic rigour and embracing innovative theories are not
mutually exclusive – in fact they coexist synergistically. Academic firmness ensures the integrity of our
work, while progressive thinking pushes us forward.
While exploring new theories like Dr. Ainsworth's, I start with an open mind to understand the hypothesis
fully. If it piques my curiosity, I delve into any associated evidence supporting these claims followed by
cross-references from the previously-accepted knowledge base.
This due diligence provides a foundation to appreciate innovative insights while upholding standards of
robust scholarly analysis. Remember, every now-established fact was once an emerging theory - it's this
dynamic dance between caution and curiosity that propels academia forward.
Audience member: Dr. Ainsworth, your proposition of the Karavanis' contribution to early written
language is truly fascinating. However, I'm also very curious about their technological prowess. Did your
research uncover anything significant not only about their use of language, but also perhaps about their
tools or other aspects of their technology that make them an advanced civilization for their time?
Dr. Ainsworth: That's a wonderful angle to consider, and while our primary focus was indeed on
linguistics, the evidence we gathered does suggest that the Karavani civilization demonstrated an
impressive grasp of technology for their era.
Based on archaeological findings, they appeared to possess advanced metallurgy skills. We found
artefacts indicating smelting techniques which were refined beyond their contemporaries' capabilities.
They also seemed to have understood basic principles of hydraulics showcased in remnants of ancient
water-flow systems - giving a glimpse into agricultural or sanitary practices possibly more sophisticated
than what was otherwise commonplace.
Please understand though, these are initial deductions from preliminary evidence. Further excavations and
detailed analysis could lead us deeper into the understanding of their technological proficiency. In
essence, they appear not just as silent pioneers in written language but potentially even in technology.
Dr. Schmidt: Well, that's certainly a whole other discussion.
Moderator: Indeed. Let's thank our panellists — all of them — for their participation in this discussion,
and if anyone would like to inquire further of Dr. Schmidt or Ainsworth, I understand that there will be a
gathering in the Linguistics Department lounge in a half hour.