Indian Palaeography c9.s5: Nature of the Script

Indian Palaeography c9.s5

Language: English

Nature of the Script

c9.s5.1

In all, 537 symbols have been listed here. Out of these the living beings, which are of 8 categories, include 99 symbols; the stylized objects, which are 19 in all, have 132 symbols; and the remainder, 306, are grouped under other categories. There can be no finality in the correctness of the number as long as the script remains undeciphered. Probably symbols as in Pl. I*a*. II. 6, 7, or in Pl. I*a*. VII. 5, 6, may represent the same sense. Such possible corrections must be borne in mind.

c9.s5.2

Quite obviously a system with such a large number of symbols must be very different from any known alphabetic scripts. On the other hand, the compound symbols, such as Pl. I*a*. III. 1 (= Pls. I*a*. I. 1 and II*b*. IX. 5), Pl. I*a*. X. 6 (= Pls. I*a*. X. 1 and I*b*. VII. 10), Pl. II*a*. IV. 4 (= Pls. II*a*. III. 7, Pl. I*b*. IV. 3), suggest the same principle as underlies the conjuncts in the later Indian scripts; e.g. म्ह = म + ह; च्य = च् + य; क्ख = क् + ख. Probably this feature led Langdon to propose the syllabic nature of the script, and Hunter further argued that this very nature is preserved right down in modern Indian scripts, which are not truly alphabetic except in the case of the initial vowels (e.g. क is actually क् + अ). This can hardly be dogmatically asserted when the recognizable objects easily suggest pictographic or ideographic meanings. On the other hand, the way in which strokes—horizontal, vertical, or slanting—are added to the original object symbols (e.g. fish sign or jar sign) militates against taking them to be simple pictographs or ideographs. The addition of strokes to the original sign is one of the chief characteristics of the Indus Script. They cannot all be taken to be *guṇa* additions. If they have any other meaning, they suggest different values. But such additional strokes are not to be found at all in homo-signs and some others. Obviously in these cases the pictographic character is preserved. Hence it seems that the nature of the Indus Script is picto-phonographic or ideo-phonographic—included by David Diringer among 'transitional scripts'.

c9.s5.3

*Special features*

c9.s5.4

The homo-signs depict a man as a simple vertical line with slanting strokes, two for arms and two for legs. He is single as in Pl. I*a*. I. 1, 2, or double as in Pl. I*a*. I. 3, but more often in action, suggested by the addition of recognizable objects. Symbols, Pl. I*a*. I. 7, 8, have two additional upward strokes, one on either side of the head. They are usually taken as horns, as these play an important role in the Indus civilization, but Father Heras takes them to be hands and suggests a four-handed deity, on the analogy of the later Indian iconography, probably because the strokes start from the shoulder and not from the head. Whatever they are—horns, additional hands, or a simple aureole—they indicate a superman or divine being, and hence the symbol in Pl. I*a*. I. 10 with only a single additional stroke on the left may be a semi-divine being. Symbols, Pl. I*a*. IV. 8–12, probably show two men carrying a load, although two heads with a single body are depicted. The sub-classes show objects carried in the hand, at the waist, over the head, at the leg or feet, and on the shoulders.

c9.s5.5

In the bird-signs one can see a creature in flight (probably a bat), Pl. *Ia*. VI. 14; a bird in a cage or enclosure of some kind, Pl. *Ia*. VI. 12; and a bird with a cross in the belly, Pl. *Ia*. VI. 13. One can also possibly recognize a hen, Pl. *Ia*. VI. 10; a crow, Pl. *Ia*. VI. 9; and a peacock, Pl. *Ia*. VI. 6; but probably these different species are immaterial. What is more important is the addition of strokes, 1–3 in the belly and at the tail.

c9.s5.6

The strokes are clearer still in the fish-signs: (i) one or three downward slanting strokes on either side of the fish; (ii) one vertical or horizontal stroke, or three slanting strokes, in the belly; (iii) two upward slanting strokes as in the case of the divine man; and (iv) an arch-like sign above.

c9.s5.7

In the case of the scorpion one or two horns are discernible, and these can be compared with Pl. *Ib*. I. 11–14. The quadruped-sign, Pl. *Ia*. VIII. 11–12, is taken by Hunter to be a development from the one in Pl. *IIb*. VII. 8. But here again the internal and external strokes are well marked.

c9.s5.8

In the jar and container signs the strokes range from 1 to 3, but in the latter a fourth stroke and also a fifth stroke (Pl. *Ia*. X. 12) can sometimes be seen. The container is also found in combination with others, like wheel, cross, &c. The horn (Pl. *Ib*. I. 15) has significant dots at the mouth, suggesting the historical cornucopiae. Some of the *pipal* leaves (Pl. *Ib*. II. 4–5) are also horned. Father Heras's suggestion that they are double leaves is hardly tenable

c9.s5.9

The wheel has four, six, or eight spokes, and sometimes shows what appears to be the axle hole (Pl. *Ib*. IV. 1). It is also found in combination, the most significant example of which is the wheeled vehicle (Pl. *Ib*. IV. 6). The bow has its arrow pointed upward, and it is often found in combination with a man. Another compound containing this symbol is Pl. *IIb*. VII. 6. To the water-sign is significantly attached a horn (Pl. *Ib*. IV. 15). The shrimping net, besides having strokes from 1 to 4, is found in combination with a man (Pl. *Ia*. III. 11). The hill-sign has significantly two or three peaks, or two or three internal strokes. The plant has 1–5 strokes, besides the arch-like sign; in Pl. *Ib*. VIII. 6, 7 there are ten strokes and in 8 we have eighteen.

c9.s5.10

The same system of compounds and stroke addition is followed in the case of ovals and their parts; but in quadrangles, triangles, angles, and crosses, the addition of strokes from 1 to 6 is most common. The only compounds noticed are with the cross, taurine, wheel, or sun within rhombus (Pl. II*b*. II. 8–9, 15), or double tree attached to rhombus (Pl. II*b*. III. 6), or as in Pl. II*b*. III. 2 and VII. 6–7. The arch-like sign is flattened in Pl. II*a*. VI. 9–12 and VIII. 1. The four-armed cross has ovals or crosses at the ends (Pl. II*a*. VIII. 2, 15). It sometimes develops into a six-armed symbol, Pl. II*a*. VIII. 3.

c9.s5.11

A fuller idea about the strokes can be obtained from Pl. II*b*, group F, where we see them ranging from 1 to 12. In one case (Pl. II*b*. IX. 12) we can count 15. Whether they all signify numerals cannot be dogmatically asserted, but some of them obviously suggest it. In the ninth row over Ts we have 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 strokes. In the tenth row we have only 4 in the first group; 3 and 4 in the second group; and 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in the third group. The long strokes in the line occur in groups of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The smaller strokes show 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12. It is difficult to say whether these are different systems of enumeration, or whether some represent tens, hundreds, &c.

c9.s5.12

*Conclusion*

c9.s5.13

If we leave aside the additional strokes and compounds, the actual number of signs in the Indus Script, according to the present reckoning, is 27 objects and 27 geometrical forms, besides numerals, brackets, and two magic emblems. The number is increased to 474 (the remainder 63 being numerals, &c.) by the following two principles:
(i) by combination with other signs;
(ii) by the addition of strokes (*a*) internal, (*b*) external, from 1 to 6, besides the arch-like sign.

c9.s5.14

The combinations are always with some recognizable objects, and strokes are found added to all but the homo-, snake-, wheel-, vehicle-, and bow-and-arrow-signs.

c9.s5.15

Can we draw any conclusion regarding their significance? Suggestions can be made, and have already been made, but nothing definite can be asserted in the present state of the materials. One thing is certain, that the Indus Script, in its ultimate analysis, is not very complicated. Probably the two fundamental principles of combinations and stroke-additions, if they survived, influenced the formation of the conjuncts and the open syllables in the later historical Indian scripts.

c9.s5.16

Barua, B. M., ‘Indus Script and Tantric Code’, *Indo-Iranica*, Calcutta, vol. i, 1946. Diringer, D., *The Alphabet*, London, 1947. Gadd, C. J., ‘Seals of Ancient Indian Style found at Ur’, *Proceedings of the British Academy*, London, xviii, 1932. Heras, H., *Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture*, Bombay, 1953. Hevesy, G de, ‘Sur une ecriture océanique paraissant d’origine néolithique’, *Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française*, Paris, xxx, 1933. Hrozny, B., *Die älteste Völkerwanderung und die proto-indische Zivilisation*, Prague, 1939. —— ‘Inschriften und Kultur der Proto-Inder von Mohendscho-Daro und Harappa. Ein Entzifferungsversuch’, *Archiv Orientalni*, Prague, xii, 1941. —— *Les Inscriptions proto-indiennes. Essai de dechiffrement, I.* Monograph, vol. xiv, Prague. —— *Ancient History of Western Asia, India and Crete*, Prague, 1943. Hunter G. R., *The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with other Scripts*, London, 1934. Mackay, E. J. H., *Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro*, Delhi, 1937–8. Marshall, J., *Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilisation*, London, 1931 (containing contributions from C. J. Gadd, Sydney Smith, and Professor Langdon). Meriggi, P., ‘Zur Indus Schrift’, *Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft*, Leipzig, xii, 1934. Petrie, W. F., ‘Mohenjodaro’, *Ancient Egypt*, 1932. Pran Nath, ‘The Script of the Indus Valley’, *J.R.A.S.*, London, 1931. —— ‘The Scripts of the Indus Valley Seals’, *I.H.Q.*, Calcutta, 1931. Quintana Vives, J., *Apportaciones a la interpretacion de la escritura protoindica*, Madrid–Barcelona, 1946. Ross, Allan S. C.: ‘The Numeral-signs of the Mohenjodaro Script’, *M.A.S.I.*, no. 57. Sankarananda, Swami, *The Rigvedic Culture of the Prehistoric Indus*, Calcutta, 1943–4. Vats, M. S., *Excavations at Harappa*, Calcutta, 1940. Waddell, L. A., *The Indo-Sumerian Seals Deciphered*, London, 1925.