The qualifier 'full' is important here. The article even makes note of this:
...some scholars have understood the system to not be considered a complete writing system...
In particular, the written and spoken forms aren't precisely equivalent. Some archaeologists consider this a bigger deal than others (I'm more on the "not a big deal" side), but it's worth noting.
Comments
The qualifier 'full' is important here. The article even makes note of this:
In particular, the written and spoken forms aren't precisely equivalent. Some archaeologists consider this a bigger deal than others (I'm more on the "not a big deal" side), but it's worth noting.
I did read the article, they also wrote that it being incomplete is controversial.
Be that as it may, if it can convey ideas, it is workable.