The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s1: Analysis of Tables I and VI
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s1
- Language
- English
Analysis of Tables I and VI
c10.s1.1
It will be shown on the completion of the analysis of these tables that we have only 234 distinct signs, apart from compounds. Now the Brahmi script makes provision for 33 consonantal and 8 vowel sounds (ă (inherent) ā, i, ī, u, ū, ē, o). Now a syllabary consisting of 33 consonants each articulated with 8 following vowels would give us 264 signs. The number of syllabic signs required to form a simple syllabary of open syllables to represent Brahmi sounds 50 closely approaches the number of signs on our Texts that we may be moved to assume that our script is mainly a syllabary of this kind, as a first working hypothesis; provided of course we are previously impressed by the evidence of the Brahmi signs being derived from the Proto-Indian.¹ But this hypothesis has not been assumed before first investigating the script to discover whether an ideographic conception was tenable. It is not. There is clear evidence in Table I itself of the presence of phonetic elements. We may first take the sequence 𐍈 𐍈. Of this 𐍈 𐍈 will be seen to be a simple variant. 𐍉 𐍉 (variant 𐍉 𐍉 ) is clearly closely allied. For 𐍈 𐍈 is followed by 𐍈 final or quasi-final² in every case save one (T. VI. 31) and 𐍉 with its variants is similarly followed in every case save one (T. VI. 5). Now if we compare 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 with 𐀀 preceded by other signs, we shall find that of the 17 signs and sign-groups found immediately preceding 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 no less than 16 are also found immediately preceding 𐀀 alone, and that frequently. Compare T. I. Nos. 6-20, 22-38, with Tables LV, LXV, XXXIV¹, XCII, LIX, XIII, LI, XLVI, XXXI, LXXXIV, VII, XVI. In these 16 combinations the proportion of occurrences with an intercalated 𐀀 or 𐀃 to those without is as follows:
c10.s1.2
¹ See evidence of Comparative Morphographic Table. It is not to be inferred that any relation between the language of the Proto-Indians and the Aryan of the Asoka edicts is implied. Sanskrit and Pali and the other Prakrits had by this time absorbed the phonetic elements, notably the cerebral sounds of the Dravidian population.
c10.s1.3
² The 𐍉 in Table VI Nos. 18-21 is an independent suffix. See analysis of Table LVIII.
c10.s1.4
| 𐀄 | 3:8; | 𐀅 | 3:7; | 𐀆 | 1:4¹; | 𐀇 | 1:1; |
| 𐀈 | 1:7; | 𐀉 | 2:3; | 𐀊 | 2:1; | 𐀋 | 1:4; |
| | 1:1²; | 𐀍 | 1:5; | 𐀎 | 1:3; | 𐀏 | 1:6; |
| 𐀐 | 1:2³; | 𐀑 | 3:3; | 𐀒 | 7:2; | 𐀓 | 1:1. |
c10.s1.5
¹ See Analysis of Table XXXIV for identification of 𐀐 with 𐀐
c10.s1.6
² It is possible that this bird sign is a variant of the bird sign in No. 21 of Table I. In that case the proportion will be 2:1, and incidentally all 17 of the signs preceding 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 will have been found preceding 𐀀
c10.s1.7
³ For identification of 𐀐 with 𐀐 see analysis of Table XXXI.
c10.s1.8
There seems good reason to conclude that 𐀀𐀁, 𐀀𐀂 is a 'spelling-out' (as we so frequently have in Sumerian and Assyrian names) for 𐀀. It is probable that 𐀀, which is so often final, is an open syllable. The principle which we see in Brahmi of regarding the simple form of every sign as containing an inherent final ă; and the fact that to this day in the Indian vernaculars words that we should regard as terminating in a consonant (from their pronunciation) are always regarded by the Indian grammarians as possessing a final ă and written accordingly; and the fact that in Sumerian, words appear to have been similarly so regarded, since the Sumerian never says lugal-na, lugal-ka but always lugala-na, lugala-ge etc., should make us be prepared to regard signs which are normally final (as 𐎠 is) as open syllables: while a sign which like 𐎡, 𐎢 is never final we may provisionally regard as a closed syllable. If then 𐎠𐎡 is a 'spelling-out' it is something in the nature of ak-ka. Whether this doubling of the consonant in the script had any counterpart in pronunciation (as in Assyrian) or not (as in Sumerian) is difficult to say. If it had it may well have been due to the quantity of the preceding vowel. The combination 𐎠 𐎣 is peculiarly interesting. Not only from its appearance, but from the fact that it is always followed immediately by 𐎠 final, we may be sure that it is a compound and that one of its elements is 𐎣 . The other element is clearly 𐎤 (see Table XVI). It is equally certain that this compound is phonetic and not ideographic. If it were ideographic, then by all our knowledge of ideographic writing its meaning must necessarily be different from 𐎣 . How then shall we account for its being found invariably in the same circumstances as 𐎣 . But this is not all. 𐎡 and 𐎢 though closely allied as shown from their relationship to 𐎠 are not actually variants. This is clear from the regularity and difference of their antecedents. If we take 𐎣 as ak we may take 𐎤 as ek¹. Probably the selection of one or other of these syllables in the 'spelling-out' process was influenced by the quality of the vowel of the preceding syllables, a principle common to Sumerian and many languages - vowel harmony. Now it is surely most significant that these same alternations of 𐎣 and 𐎤 are observable in the compound formed with 𐎤 . If then there is a difference of initial vowel as between 𓂝 and 𓂜 there is clearly a vowel difference between 𓂝 and 𓂞 . But if 𓂞 be a full syllable in itself, as must be presumed, and if that syllable is fully pronounced in the compound, then, with this constant syllable intervening, the carrying of vowel harmony over and in spite of it on to 𓂝 would be incomprehensible. But suppose that the syllable 𓂞 is, on combination with 𓂝 truncated, that it loses its vowel, that ba-ak becomes bak; ba-ek, bēk. Then everything is explained: the syllable bak has become bēk under the influence of something antecedent. In other words the compound represents the contraction or an open and closed syllable into one 'compound' syllable, and the first element in the compound has been reduced to a mere consonant, it has lost its inherent ă, it is what the Sanskrit grammarians call halant. This is precisely the principle governing the formation of compound (Samyukta) signs in Brahmi and Nagari to this day. If we are right the sequence 𓂝𓂞 (which twice occurs) is to be read ba-ka, while 𓂝𓂞 is b'ak-ka; a mere graphic variant as in Sumerian.
c10.s1.9
¹ It is of course to be understood that the selection of any particular consonant or vowel for purposes of illustration in the analysis of the Tables is arbitrary. For the selection of vowels see Analysis of table XXIX.
c10.s1.10
With regard to the sign 𓂝 and its variant form 𓂜 , the latter is probably original, and may be taken to represent a pair of arms with hands. This is one of the signs that shows affinity with Egyptian. See Gardiner, E.G. p. 445.D.28. The sign 𓂞 , which as we have shown is but 𓂝 articulated with a different vowel, is morphographically so akin to 𓂝 that it may well have arisen from it. This would imply the deliberate differentiation of signs to supply cognate phonetic symbols. There is abundant evidence of this elsewhere, as will be noted in the analysis of other Tables. In the present instance this differentiation will have been made by adding to 𐀀 a horizontal stroke in each half,¹ producing 𐀁 The further modification to 𐀂, 𐀃 is probably of the gunu order, and without effect on sense or sound.² The deliberate modification of a given sign to provide a symbol for a cognate phonetic value would presumably arise first in the case of syllables which, not forming a complete word in the language, or forming a word that was difficult or cumbersome to express ideographically, could not be written otherwise. It is an intelligent device that the cuneiform users seem never to have taken, being content to the end to represent e.g. ah, ih, uh by a single symbol. As far as we know Proto-Indian would appear to have been the first script to adopt this device. It is not without interest to observe that Ethiopic and Brahmi have the same traits. With regard to the shape of 𐀄, it probably represents a vase or jar with two handles, the upper horizontal elements representing the lips of the vase, the lower its handles. For the variety of its shapes and its Sumerian and Egyptian affinities see the Comparative Table.
c10.s1.11
¹ The symmetry of Proto-Indian signs is one of the characteristics of the script. It is in harmony with the artistic sense of its users, so abundantly exemplified in their glyptic designs on these very seals. In the modification of signs this symmetrical principle was continued, each equal portion (whether ½ or ⅓) of the sign receiving the same modifying strokes. See Tables V, XV, XIII, LXXIV, LXXV, LXXVI, CII, CVII.
c10.s1.12
² As often is the case with Sumerian gunu signs.
c10.s1.13
With regard to the meaning of 𐀄, at any rate of 𐀄 final, we may say that it is an affix. That it is an affix is suggested (1) by its normal position at the end of the text, (2) that it is preceded by well defined sign groups which there is reason to regard as complete words, either names of gods used in the formation of proper names, or titles, (3) that when it is found in the body of the text it is normally preceded by precisely the same combinations. That it is a suffix which is not a determinative is probable for the following reasons: (1) If 𝍖 be a determinative its frequency indicates that it is one of a very wide class. 'Man' and 'scribe' are the only two that seem possible. But if it is either of these how do we account for its presence on the copper coins where we should expect rather the determinatives of king or ruler? If we reply that the determinative 𝍖 = man was probably used after all men's names whether rulers or not, then how do we explain the fact that a large number of typical square seals end in or which, as is shown in the analysis of Tables XV and LXVIII, stand in exactly the same relation to their antecedent words as 𝍖 does to its antecedent words? So that if 𝍖 is a determinative then they also are determinatives. No! If 𝍖 is a determinative after men's names it is only one of several, and it would be difficult to account for its prevalence on the coins, in place of one of the more distinctive determinatives. While if we are right in deciphering one of these coins 'King of the land', 𝍖 would have to be regarded as a determinative either of 'king' or 'land', which in view of its prevalence on the seals, is impossible. So much for the negative evidence.
c10.s1.14
(2) That 𝍖 is a suffixed element in name-formation is strongly suggested by a comparison of Tables I and LXVIII. It will be seen that like 𝍖 is normally final. Like 𝍖, if followed by any single sign, it is followed by , . Like 𝍖 it is preceded by well defined sign-groups that clearly constitute words. But, the three distinguishable words that precede , viz., , , , , occurring as they do 26 times are never once found preceding 𝍖, while of all the many sign-groups found regularly preceding 𝍖 not one is found preceding ⌂. Are we to assume that all the men whose names ended in, say., Enlil, Nannar, -mansum, were leather workers, and all other men whatsoever were scribes? For that is the position to which we are reduced if we insist on regarding ⌙ and ⌂ as determinatives.
c10.s1.15
We must now consider the forms ⌙ etc. Table I, Nos. 348-400, Col. IV. The first thing we notice is that these forms are never found at the end of a text. Secondly we note that they are often found with the same antecedents as ⌙. Compare Nos. 269-273 with 348-353, 375-6, 387; Nos. 49-65 with 354; Nos. 164-168 with 359. Nos. 243-245 with 360; No.309 with 364; No. 321 with 365; No. 43-44 with 367-368; 330-331 with 369; 157-163 with 372, 376; 195-197 with 373, 398; 290 with 382; 138-148 with 392, 399; 215-217 with 400.
c10.s1.16
The example ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠, ⌙⌠ has this peculiarity: it is the one combination commonly found with ⌙ in which ⌙ is not final. In all the other combinations with ⌙, the ⌙ is final in the totality or large majority of occurrences; with ⌠ it is not once final, but on the contrary, in all five occurrences the combination is initial. But I doubt if this signifies anything more than that this combination is a name (of a deity?) that lent itself to employment as an initial element in the formation of proper names. When we find ⌙⌠ it is the same word with a change of vowel in the final syllable. In the case of this word ⌙ would appear to have its normal use as a suffix, and consequently ⌙, ⌙, ⌙ also. But there is no reason to suppose that in their other¹ occurrences the ⌙ group are other than the syllabic elements of roots. It is significant that the great majority of combinations commonly found preceding ⌙ are not found preceding the ⌙ group (i.e. the signs in the 4th column of Table I, pp. 6 & 7). Thus both the form of the signs, which suggest deliberate differentiation from 𐀀 , and the circumstances of their occurrence combine to show that they are syllables allied to but not identical¹ with 𐀁 . Taking this evidence in conjunction with what has been observed concerning the modification of 𐀀 we may assume as a working hypothesis that both in the case of open and in the case of closed syllables signs were modified by the addition of short straight lines to represent syllables containing the same consonant but a different vowel.
c10.s1.17
¹ i.e. other than those in which a comparison with ⌙ has been invited above.
c10.s1.18
¹ A further proof that they are not identical is that 𐀀 is found on one and the same seal in conjunction with other members of the group. It will be observed however that of the other members no two varieties are found on the same inscription suggesting that they are mere variants of each other, or phonetically interchangeable. This is further borne out by the presence of the same sequences with different members of the 𐀀 group, which are not found with 𐀀 . Cf. Nos. 361 and 381; 355 and 386; 357 and 390; 372 and 378.
c10.s1.19
We may now consider the function of certain signs that follow 𐀀 when the latter would otherwise be final. These are 𐀂, 𐀃, 𐀄 and 𐀅 .
c10.s1.20
Now 𐀂 follows not only 𐀀 , but 𐀆 (which we have seen is functionally similar to 𐀀 ) and a miscellaneous collection of signs (see Table LVIII). It is probably a suffix. Allowing for the difference in the number of inscriptions as between Mohenjodaro and Harappa this sign is proportionately seven times as frequent in Harappa, where it appears on 77 texts as against 20 at Mohenjodaro. But these are mostly business receipts (see analysis Table LVIII). 𐀃 occurs twice after 𐀀 and four times after other signs. It is in every case final. It may be taken as a determinative. (See Table LXIV). 𐀃 in 9 out of its 10 occurrences (see Table XI) is final. It follows 𐀀 3 times, and of its other antecedents one is 𓃀 . It may be taken as a determinative. 𓊪 is final in 6 out of 7 occurrences (see Table CIV). It follows 𓍿 4 times, and 𓃀 twice. It is probably a determinative.
c10.s1.21
𓂋 when final is preceded by 𓍿 13 times out of a total of 15. The proportion is so high as to suggest that it may stand in functional relationship to the 𓍿 it follows. It is perhaps the determinative of the word 'servant' (𓍿 𓂋). That in point of grammar and syntax the combination of 𓂋 𓍿 appears to hold the same position as 𓍿 simple is suggested by the fact that, like 𓍿 , when final it is liable to be followed by the determinative suffixes 𓇋 and 𓏏, 𓊪 (see Table XLIX, 11, 14).
c10.s1.22
We may now examine the condition of that 𓍿 which is neither final nor quasi-final, but truly medial, being followed by several signs which are clearly words or portions of words, and not mere determinatives or suffixes. We shall observe a very interesting phenomenon. 𓍿 medial is preceded by signs which form complete words, sometimes complete texts! . The same words which precede 𓍿 final. It is then performing the same function as 𓍿 final. The sense of the inscription may then be said to halt at this 𓍿 medial, just as it does at 𓍿 final; i.e. we have reached the end of a word or phrase, complete with suffix; what follows must be something new - a further name or title. And this inference is confirmed by an examination of what follows medial 𓍿 in our texts. It reveals that medial 𓍿 is followed by complete names, sometimes found by themsevles as complete texts. The best illustrations of the argument in this paragraph are:-
c10.s1.23
Table I. 17, compared with I. 14-16 on the one hand, which shows that 𐀁𐀂𐀃 is a complete text¹; and LXX. 2,6,7 on the other hand, which shows that 𐀄𐀅 is a complete text.
c10.s1.24
Table I, 41 compared with I, 39 and VII, 1, 49, 45, 48 and passim.
c10.s1.25
T. I. 51² compared with T. I, 50 and XI, 2, 19, 27, 38, 37, 39, 78, 97.
c10.s1.26
T. I, 139 compared with T. I, 138 and XI, 28, 46, 47.
c10.s1.27
T. I, 106 " " T. I, 103 and I, 206, 209.
c10.s1.28
T. I, 230 " " T. I, 122 and I, 200 and Table LXXXVI³.
c10.s1.29
T. I, 192 " " T. I, 191, 193, 194 and Table XII, 3, 2, 4, 14.
c10.s1.30
T. I, 213 " " T. I, 212, 211 and T. I. 243-245.
c10.s1.31
Other examples might be given, but these are sufficient to substantiate our contention.
c10.s1.32
In Nos. 339, 341-347 𐀁 appears to be used simply as a syllable forming part of a word; in these cases it has probably no sense-connection with 𐀁 the suffix.
c10.s1.33
It remains to consider Nos. 4, 5 and 385 of Table I. If, as we have reason to believe, 𐀁𐀂 and 𐀁𐀂 are merely a spelling out of the same word (with a dialectal or euphonic modification of its pronunciation) which word when suffixed is usually written 𐀁, it follows from Nos. 4 and 5 that the full word is a bi-syllable ak-ka (perhaps pronounced as though containing a single consonant). Now it has been urged that this word is a mere suffix. How then do we explain its appearance alone? A clue to the explanation is afforded
c10.s1.34
1. On 𐀆𐀆 = 𐀆𐀇 see analysis of Table XIII, and on the detachable nature of 𐀈 and its antecedents see analysis of Table XXX.
c10.s1.35
2. with regard to the short perpendicular stroke ' being a mere liaison semi-vowel, virtually equivalent to a point of punctuation see Table XXIX analysis.
c10.s1.36
3. From which it will appear that 𐀉𐀊 is a word in itself.
c10.s1.37
by No. 385, where 𐍈 is found alone on each face of the prism (H. 77). While at Harappa I did not copy the design accompanying each of these 𐍈 in the blank portion of the prism, as I did not at that time appreciate its importance; I made a record in my notes however that the design was a figure like that shown on M. 440, facing right on face (a), left on face (b), and the figure of a woman (?) facing right on face (c). In the case of No. 4 (M. 24) the design on the reverse of the coin was too effaced to be distinguishable, while regarding No. 5 (M. 503) I observed one horn and a portion of an animal whose identity I could not determine. Now it has been shown above that 𐍈 and 𐍉 are allied sounds, and that in the case of the word 𐍈𐍊, 𐍈𐍊 they are undoubtedly variant pronunciations of one and the same word. I suggest then that in 𐍈𐍈, 𐍈𐍈 = 𐍈 and in 𐍈 of Nos. 4, 5, and 385 respectively we have the final element (suffix) of the word 𐍈𐍊, the 𐍊 portion being represented pictorially by the divine or heroic figure. In other words 𐍊 is the name of the figure in H. 77 and M. 440. If this is so, as what sort of a suffix are we to regard 𐍈? If the three seals are intended to give the owner's name, like all other seals, this name can hardly be Enlil-la-ge or Enlil-ra but only warad-enlil; or, to give a Hindu parallel which will be closer as preserving the order of the Proto-Indian, not Narayan-ka or Narayan-ko, but Narayan-Dass. In other words 𐍈 final is a suffix not in the sense of a grammatical suffix but as a suffixed element, 'servant' or the like, used in the formation of proper names.
c10.s1.38
The last 3 signs in Col. IV of Table VI are compounds. The last is a phonetic compound for 𐍈. If 𐍈 and are both closed syllables, as there is reason to believe (see analysis of Table XXIV) there can be no case of contraction or elision here. The compound will be either ideographic or integral (i.e. each syllable being pronounced fully as is the case with Sumerian compound phonograms.) The two preceding signs are probably phonetic compounds of the integral sort. The compound is resolved in text No. 5. The reason for writing integral syllables as a compound is probably the same as in Sumerian: viz., that they form one word.
c10.s1.39
¹ In which case the coins M. 25-31 should be read not 'King of the land' but 'servant (of the) King (of the) land.'