The Indus Script

[Guest guest]

http://www.harappa.com/script/maha15.html

4. The Indus Script (from Intro/Rise and fall of the Indus Civilization)

 

The Indus script has about 400 signs and is mainly pictographic in

character. However there are also many signs too stylised or simplified

to be identified pictorially. Two main characteristics of the script are

modification of signs by the addition of diacritic-like marks and

combination of two or more signs into composite signs. According to

Parpola's estimate, about half the number of signs are basic and the

other half are composite. Many of the signs also show minor graphic

variants due to different scribal styles or materials on which the

inscriptions are recorded.

 

Parpola's latest and comprehensive Sign List (with 398 signs and no

less than 1839 variants) illustrated in this volume (pp.70-78) will

replace all earlier lists to remain as the standard source of reference.

Experts may differ whether a given sign is basic or composite or a

variant of another sign. However Parpola has now provided the most

complete documentation enabling other scholars to draw their own

conclusions.

 

The Indus Inscriptions

 

The Indus inscriptions are found only on small objects, mostly stone

seals and on pottery. According to Parpola about 3700 inscriptions are

presently known from about forty Harappan and twenty foreign sites.

 

 

5. Earlier Attempts at Decipherment

 

 

Structural studies of the Indus inscriptions have been carried out by a

number of scholars ever since the discovery of the Indus Civilization

and its writing. The most outstanding work in the earlier period is that

of Hunter who provided reliable eyecopies of the inscriptions, a

manually arranged sign concordance and a detailed positional analysis.

 

The computer arrived on the scene in the mid-Sixties. A Soviet team led

by Knorozov published a series of papers entitled Proto-Indica, in which

they set out briefly the main results of their computer-aided

investigations. The Soviet group has made outstanding contributions to

formal analysis in areas like direction of writing, word-division and

syntactical pattems. In particular they have demonstrated that the Indus

inscriptions have a Dravidian-like word order. However the Soviet model

of linguistic deciphemment of the Indus script has not won general

acceptance mainly because of the implausibility of the proposed

readings.

 

Almost simultaneously Asko Parpola and his Finnish colleagues began

their independent computer-aided investigations of the Indus texts. The

Finnish team also made use of computational linguistic techniques to

deal with structural problems like word-division procedures and

synctical analysis. However the earlier Finnish attempt at linguistic

decipherment did not also meet with much success. Parpola himself now

describes their earlier reports as "written in the first flush of

enthusiasm" and "premature and incautious" (p.xv). With rare

intellectual courage he has now abandoned the paradigm central to the

earlier Finnish model of decipherment and has made a virtually fresh

beginning.

 

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.

 

In his brief review of the earlier attempts at decipherment of the

Indus script, Parpola takes no notice of the models based on the

Indo-Aryan hypothesis, presumably because there is hardly anything in

common between them and his own work. However Parpola leaves no one in

doubt about what he thinks of the other approach. "Nationalistic bias

makes it difficult for some North Indians to admit even the possibility

of the Indus Civilization being pre-Aryan; they deny the very concept of

Aryan immigration and insist that the Harappan and Vedic cultures are

one and the same. So the language chosen has usually been Sanskrit"

(p.58). I agree with Parpola about the existence of 'nationalistic

bias', but would like to remind him that S.R. Rao and Krishna Rao,

leading proponents of the Indo-Aryan theory, can hardly be called 'North

Indian'!

 

 

6. Structural Analysis by Parpola

 

 

No attempt at linguistic decipherment of an unknown script can hope to

succeed unless it is preceded by a thorough structural analysis of the

available inscriptions to bring out the typological features of the

script as well as the underlying language.

 

A great merit of this book is that Parpola has presented in it a very

detailed structural analysis incorporating the previous work of the

Finnish group and advancing further. The following is a very brief

summary of his main results in a somewhat simplified form.

 

A) Direction of Writing

 

Parpola has summarised the already well-established evidence proving

the general direction of the Indus script to be from right to left.

External evidence for the direction of writing is provided by the

shorter inscriptions starting at the right edge leaving blank space

nearer the left edge, and the displacement of the left-most signs of the

longer inscriptions to the second line for want of space. Internal

evidence for the direction of writing is obtained by comparing

single-line and two-line sequences of identical inscriptions.

 

Even though the question of direction of writing in the Indus script is

now a settled fact, Parpola's re-statement is timely as claims of

'decipherment' based on a left to right direction still continue to be

made.

 

B) Sign Analysis

 

Parpola lays down clear guidelines for the recognition of basic signs,

graphic variants and composite signs. The numerals are identified as a

set of short stroke signs comprising upto nine strokes arranged in one

or two tiers. Groups of small inverted semi-circles which occur along

with the 'stroke' numerals are very likely to be tens.

 

The estimate of the number of signs as about 400 (with only about half

of them basic signs) leads to an important deduction regarding the

typology of the Indus script. It is well known that the total number of

signs is specific to each type of writing within a range. The number of

signs in the Indus script is too small for a purely logo-graphic script

(with word-signs only) and too large for a purely alphabetic or syllabic

writing. Thus the Indus script is most likely to be logo-syllabic

writing with a mixture of word-signs and syllables.

 

C) Word-Division

 

Segmentation procedures lead to the identification of probable words,

phrases and longer syntactic units. Segmentation has shown that the

Indus texts mostly consist of phrases of one to three signs.

 

D) Language Typology

 

The very short Indus texts are unlikely to be complete sentences. They

may consist of mostly noun-phrases only. Subject to this limitation some

typological features of the language can still be detected. For example,

the occurrence of numerals before the enumerated objects makes it likely

that in the Harappan language the adjective precedes the noun it

qualifies. Parpola has devised a 'grid' in which inscriptions are so

arranged as to place identical or similar signs in the same columns. On

the basis of this analysis Parpola constructs a general model of Indus

'sentences' with a maximum of three main positions or 'slots'

corresponding to linguistic units in the language. However he admits

frankly his "present inability to identify morphological markers with

any certainty"(p.97).

 

Parpola's structual analysis is brilliant and mostly on sound lines. I

am particularly struck by the fact that despite differences in detail

there is a clear convergence of results flowing from the Soviet, Finnish

and Indian computer-aided structural analyses. The major points of

agreement are on the logo-syllabic character of the Indus script, the

syntactical pattern of the inscriptions and the Dravidian-like features

of the Harappan language. A major area of disagreement concerns the

identity and functions of morphological markers. I have no doubt that

the areas of disagreement will progressively get eliminated as we learn

more about the Indus script through objective analysis of the kind

undertaken by Parpola in this book.

 

 

7. Parpola's methodology of decipherment

 

 

Parpola's methodology for deciphering the Indus script consists

essentially of two parts, namely the rebus principle generally

applicable to all ancient logo-syllabic scripts and the linguistic

techniques applicable to Dravidian.

 

Word-signs (one sign for each word) first developed from pictures.

 

It was then discovered that a word-sign could also be used to represent

any other word with the same sound but having a different meaning. Such

sets of words are known as homophones (as in English can (noun), 'a

container' end can (verb), 'to be able to'.). Thus a sign which is

pictorially easier to draw can be used to represent another word with

the same sound, but the meaning of which cannot be depicted by pictures

as, for example, abstract nouns, grammatical particles and proper names.

This technique, employed in all ancient logo-syllabic scripts, is known

as rebus writing (from Latin rebus, 'by means of things').

 

Parpola is careful to point out that rebus writing can be deciphered

only if four conditions are simultaneously fulfilled:

 

1. The object depicted by the word-sign can be recognised.

 

2. The word-sign has been used phonetically for a homophone with a

different meaning.

 

3. The intended meaning can be deduced from the context.

 

4. Linguistically satisfactory homophones can be found in the presumed

language.

 

The last point leads to the second stage of the operation with

Dravidian linguistic techniques. According to Parpola the signs of the

Indus script are likely to represent Dravidian mono-syllabic roots. In

Proto-Dravidian the bare stem could stand for inflected forms. Parpola

believes therefore that it may not have been necessary to mark the

case-endings in the Indus script. In principle only words and forms

reconstructable for Proto-Dravidian are acceptable for the decipherment,

and in such reconstruction one must follow strictly the rules

established by comparative linguistics. Variations between short and

long vowels and single and double consonants may however be allowed

subject to Dravidian morpho-phonemic rules.

 

As a set of rules, Parpola's formulations are unexceptionable. However

he does run into problems in applying them in practice,partly because

the rules themselves are difficult to apply with precision, and also

because he occasionally transgresses his own rules as we shall see

presently.

 

 

8. The 'fish' signs

 

 

The 'fish' sign: Starting Point

 

As the starting point for his linguistic decipherment Parpola accepts

the famous rebus (Fig. I a) first suggested by Father Heras half a

century ago. In almost all Dravidian languages the word for 'fish' is

meen. Many Dravidian languages have also the homophone meen meaning

'star' (derived, in this case, from the root meen, 'to shine'). It can

be reasonably inferred from the widespread occurrence of the homopones

that they must have been present in Proto-Dravidian with similar

meanings. This is the linguistic basis for reading the 'fish' sign as

meen, but interpreting it as 'star'. This interpretation has gained

popularity among the Dravidianist scholars on account of its simplicity

even though it has remained unverifiable.

 

'Number + fish' signs: Asterisms

 

This hypothesis is seemingly corroborated by the occurrence of 'number

+ fish' sequences (Fig. I b-d) interpreted as asterisms first by Heras

and further elaborated by the Soviet scholars and Parpola. It is

interesting to note that the numerical names for the three asterisms are

actually attested in Old Tamil. There is however no proof that these

interpretations are the only correct ones. There are, in the Indus

texts, several sets of 'number + sign' sequences. The interpretation of

'number + fish' signs as asterisms would make this set unique among such

sequences.

 

 

9. The Planets

 

 

'Modified fish' signs: Planets and a Star

 

The Indus texts very often feature the 'fish' sign modified by some

diacritic-like markings (Fig.II). These signs are identified by Parpola

as planets or stars on the basis of his pictorial interpretations of the

markings. The Dravidian word meen may denote either 'star' or 'planet'

as attested in Old Tamil.

 

The planet Mercury

 

Parpola interprets the line drawn horizontally or obliquely across the

body of the 'fish' sign (Fig. Il a) as expressing the idea 'dividing or

halving'. He identifies the Proto-Dravidian root *pacu, 'to halve,

divide'. There is an exact homophone *pacu, 'greenish-yellow'. Hence by

rebus the 'halved fish' sign is read as pacu meen and interpreted as the

planet Mercury which is greenish-yellow in colour. The word paccai,

'green (planet)' is one of the names of Mercury in the Old Tamil star

lists.

 

The Planet Saturn

 

Parpola regards the inverted V-like element above the fish as depicting

a 'roof' (Fig. II b). He equates it with Dravidian *vey/mey, 'to cover a

house with thatched roof'. This suggests to him the "partially

homophonous" root *may, 'black'. Hence the reading may meen, 'black

star,' interpreted as the planet Saturn which is dark in colour. The

term mai(m) meen, 'Saturn'is attested in Old Tamil.

 

The Dravidian words chosen by Parpola in this case are however

problematic. The ProtoDravidian root for 'roof, to thatch' has been

reconstructed as *vey, not *mey. Even assuming *vey/*mey alternation in

Proto-Dravidian, *mey is not homophonous with *may, 'black'. The

morpho-phonemic rules regarding alternation of included vowels in

Dravidian apply only to cognate forms and cannot be invoked to justify

'partial' homonymy of unrelated etyma.

 

The Planet Venus

 

According to Parpola the sign of two long vertical strokes expresses

pictorially the idea of 'enclosed, intervening or intermediate space'.

He chooses veli as the equivalent Dravidian word which leads him to the

homophone vel/velli, 'white', 'bright'. The pair of signs 'two strokes +

fish'(Fig. II c) is then read as vel(li) min meaning the planet Venus.

Velli is still the name for Venus in Tamil.

 

However the word veli does not by itself convey the qualified meanings

'enclosed, intervening or intermediate' imported into it by Parpola. The

central meaning of veli is 'open (space), out, outside, exterior,

external'. One would have to use some qualifying expression like

itai-veli to mean 'intermediate space'. The interpretation of a sign

which suggests 'enclosed space' to denote the word for 'open space'

seems inapt.

 

 

10. The Star Rohini

 

 

The Star Rohini

 

Parpola starts with the assumption that the 'dot + fish' sign (Fig.II

d) occurring in the 'Fig Deity' seal is likely to represent the deity

depicted on the seal identified by him as the goddess of fertility and

victory in war, the Harappan proto-form of Durga. He asks himself which

star is most likely to be associated with this goddess and decides,

after a good deal of delving into Hindu mythology, that Rohini

(Aldeberan) fits the context best. The association of Rohini (the 'red

star') with the carp (rohita, 'the red fish') becomes the basis for

identification of this sign as the carp also. Finally the mark inside

the 'fish' sign is identified as the auspicious red tilaka mark worn by

women on the forehead, which is equated with Dravidian pottu, '(red)

dot, drop'. Hence the reading pottu min is interpreted as the 'carp' as

well as the 'star Rohini'. The occurrence of pot (kike) in Gondi for

'Rohita fish' is pointed out as evidence in support of the reading.

 

However the expression pottu meen is not attested in Dravidian with the

meaning 'star Rohini'. If *pottu meen means 'carp' in Central Dravidian

languages, it must be on account of the dot-like scales rather than the

red colour, as pottu does not mean 'red' in Dravidian. Similarly pottu,

'dot (on the forehead)' cannot by itself mean 'red' even if it is mostly

red in colour. In short, Parpola interprets the words as 'red' by

association and not by homonymy.

 

Quite apart from the linguistic problems pointed out above, Parpola's

readings and interpretations of the 'modified fish' signs are, in

general, insecure as they rest primarily on rather arbitrary meanings

assigned to the conventional diacritic-like markings which cannot, by

their very nature, be identified pictorially with any degree of

certainty. Alternative interpretations are possible and have been

proposed.

 

 

11. 'Bangles' Sign: God Murukan

 

 

The principal deity of early Tamils was Murakan, the youthful god of

war and love, who became identified with the North Indian war-god

Skanda. Parpola has identifiedthe sign depicting a pair of intersecting

circles (Fig. III a) as 'ear/nose rings' or 'bangles', muruku in

Dravidian, which by rebus represents the god muruku (Murukan = Skanda)

in the Indus texts.

 

The sign of intersecting circles can well depict a pair of bangles.

There is also the solid evidence recently unearthed of quantities of

stoneware bangles from Mohenjodaro, many of them inscribed. Parpola

points out that the sign of intersecting circles occurs with

disproportionately high frequency on the bangle inscriptions. The rebus

proposed by him is also exact.

 

If in spite of all this, there is a nagging doubt about the correctness

of the reading, it is due to the fact that muruku is not the appropriate

word for stoneware bangles. The word muruku is derived from the verbal

root *mur/mur-V which has the specific meaning, 'to twist, be twisted';

(e.g.) murige (Kannada), 'twisting, a twist'; murige (Tulu), 'a twist';

murutaka (Malayalam), 'to pluck by twisting'. In fact the ear-ring or

nose-ring known as muruku is made from twisted silver wire as one would

expect from the etymology of the word; (e.g.) murugu (Kannada), 'a wire

ring used as ornament for the nose and the ear'. The name muruku can be

applied to a bangle or bracelet only if it is made of twisted metal or

wire; (e.g.) murgi (Tulu), 'twisted bangle or bracelet made of silver'.

Even assuming that the word muruku came to be used for all types of

bangles by extension of meaning, this is unlikely to have happened at

the Proto-Dravidian stage. In view of this linguistic discrepancy one

hesitates to accept the proposed rebus. Except for its occurrence on

bangles where this sign may have a literal meaning, there is no

indication in other contexts that it represents a divinity.

 

 

12. The 'Squirrel' Sign: Title of Murukan

 

 

Parpola has proposed reading a pair of signs as 'bangles ++ squirrel'

(Fig.III b), interpreting it as a divine title. The second sign appears

to depict a small animal perched on a tree branch. Parpola has, in my

opinion, convincingly shown that this animal is the striped palm

squirrel shown in its characteristic posture of hanging upside down. Two

faience figurines of the palm squirrel have been found at Mohenjodaro.

The Tamil word for squirrel is anil (*canil). This loveable creature is

often endearingly referred to as anil pillai (pillai being the general

term for 'young one'). Parpola suggests that pillai by itself can mean

'squirrel' and the usage may go back to Proto-Dravidian as indicated by

the words warce, verce (Gondi) and pirca (Parji) which mean 'squirrel'

and are, according to him, cognates of pillay, Thus he reads the pair of

signs as muruku pillay taken as referring to the god Murukan with the

title pillay. Pillai is attested in Tamil as an appellation of Murukan,

as the son of Siva.

 

Parpola departs in this case from his own rules of rebus, which require

the finding of another meaning for the same word ( * canil), and not for

an associated term ( * pillay). Further as far as I know, there seems to

be no attested usage in Dravidian for pillay by itself to mean

'squirrel'. The suffix pillai is added in Tamil to a wide variety of

words to indicate the 'young of the species" and not specifically or

even mainly to the squirrel. As regards the Gondi and Parji words for

'squirrel' cited by Parpola, the suggested derivation from * pillay is

not supported by regular phonetic correspondences.

 

 

13. 'Fig Tree + Crab' Sign: Proto-Rudra

 

 

Parpola refers to two sets of copper tablets, both with the same

inscription on one side but two different motifs on the other. One of

the motifs is the 'fig tree + crate' sign (Fig.IV: Sign 124) occurring

as a single sign all by itself. The other is a pictographic

representation of an anthropomorphic male deity with horns and a tail,

and holding a bow and arrow. This deity ('the horned archer') is

identified as the Harappan predecessor of the Vedic god Rudra

(euphemistically called Siva) who is described in the Vedas as a cruel

hunter with bows and arrows. Parpola interprets the evidence of the

copper tablets as indicating that the 'fig tree + crab' sign represents

the name of the deity it replaces.

 

The 'crab' is interpreted here as a phonetic determinative and read as

kol/kol, 'seizing, grasping (as with claws)'. The composite 'fig tree +

crate' sign is then read as koli, 'fig tree which bears fruits without

flowering' or 'fig tree with grasping roots'. Parpola interprets koli by

rebus as the name of the deity ('horned archer') derived from kol, 'to

seize,' kol, 'plunder', which is compared with Rudra's epithet Hara,

(literally) 'seizer, robber'.

 

This composite sign occurs in three forms which Parpola regards as

simple variants of a single sign (Fig. IV: Sign 124 a, d & g). However

the outer U-like form has two sharply differentiated additions, either

the 'fig-leaf' (sign no. 118) or the 'man' (sign no.13). Similarly the

'crab'sign has two clearly differentiated forms, either with 'fees'

(sign 88a) or without (sign 88e). The two 'crate' forms occur in wholly

different contexts in the seal texts. Hence the 'fig tree + crate' forms

have to be regarded as independent signs with distinct though possibly

related meanings. (Compare Parpola's treatment of each 'modified fish'

sign as having a distinct phonetic value.)

 

 

14. Assessment of Parpola's model of decipherment

 

 

One can try to assess Parpola's decipherment at two levels. First, one

can analyse his interpretations and readings of individual signs, some

of which I have attempted above. To sum up, problems arise at this level

due to implausible identification of pictorial signs, arbitrary

assignment of values to non-pictorial signs and diacritic-like marks,

and doubtful classification of basic, composite and variant signs.

 

There is also uncertainty in fixing the context of occurrence to

provide clues to likely meanings, and linguistic problems in the

handling of Proto-Dravidian reconstructions and choice of homophones.

These specific problems are important and may have to be sorted out in

the light of constructive criticisms from experts in the related

disciplines.

 

Secondly, and even more importantly, one may look at Parpola's model of

decipherment holistically to assess its overall plausibility and the

likelihood of its being the generally correct solution. At this level

the two major problems as I see them are Parpola's excessive, almost

obsessive, preoccupation with the 'Harappan religion', and the

inexplicable absence of matters relating to the social life and

administration of the Harappan polity, which one may reasonably expect

to be recorded in the Indus inscriptions.

 

Parpola's interpretations rely more on mythology than on textual or

linguistic analysis. For example, his interpretations of the 'fish'

signs are mainly based on his iconographic identifications of the

'Proto-Siva' end 'Fig Deity' seals which lead him to believe that the

signs must represent no merely stars or planets but also gods. To him,

the 'fish' sign is "not simply a phonetically used grapheme, but a

highly condensed religious symbol" (p.272) (with) "unbelievably rich

symbolism" (p.274). Parpola ranges far and wide in search of supporting

evidence from the vast resources of Hindu religious texts and

traditions. As one goes through the last part of his book dealing with

decipherment, the overwhelming impression one forms is of a treatise on

Harappan religion rather than decipherment of the Indus script.

 

Archaeological evidence points to the presence of a centralised

administrative structure in the Harappan cities employing a large

bureaucracy. Since almost every household has yielded at least one seal,

it is only reasonable to expect that the seal inscriptions would

mention, besides names, the professions or callings of the seal-holders

like those of scribes, city officials, tax colIectors, merchants,

sailors or armed auards. Judging from the short votive inscriptions of

later times, one may expect at least some kinship terms like father,

son, wife or daughter to occur in the Indus inscriptions too. Granting

that the seal-texts are probably only strings of names and titles, and

assuming that the writing is mostly logo-graphic, it would still be

necessary to employ minimally parts of speech like pronouns,

conjunctions and verbal participles and also grammatical morphs to

indicate person, number, gender and case.

 

The near-total absence of matters relating to the mundane, everyday

concerns of the Harappans, and of the minimal linguistic features

expected even in short texts is perhaps the strongest argument against

accepting Parpola's model of decipherment in its present form.

 

Parpola is too good a scholar not to be aware of the "grave

limitations"" like the difficulties in pictorial interpretation of the

simplified signs and the scantiness of the available inscriptional

material. Thus he concludes his presentation with these words: "For

these reasons it looks most unlikely that the Indus script will ever be

deciphered fully, unless radically different source material becomes

available. That however must not deter us from trying" (p.278). Amen.

 

 

| INTRO | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

 

| CONTENTS | HOME |

 

© Harappa 1998