[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Reference works](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference) › [An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989) › v1.c25.s4.14 # An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4.14 An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology v1.c25.s4.14 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c25.s4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.14) While agreeing on certain broad points with the Finns, Gurov and Knorozov consider that their work is characterized by very sweeping and hasty generalizations (Gurov and Knorozov, 1969; Pande, 1970). According to Lal, 1969, not only is the identification of Indus signs by the Finns incorrect and their hypothesis ‘that the inscriptions have a genitive ending goes against their theory that the language used is a Dravidian one’ but there are several inconsistencies. (Also see for criticism of the Finns’ work, Burrow, 1969, pp. 274-8, 1970, pp. 149-56; Glauson and Chadwick, 1979, pp. 200-7, 1970, pp. 135-48: Diakonov, 1970, p. 49.) - [Previous: v1.c25.s4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.13) - [Next: v1.c25.s4.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.15) - [Up: v1.c25.s4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.reference.ghosh-1989.v1.c25.s4.14) · Pramāṇa