The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s15: Analysis of Table XVI
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s15
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table XVI
c10.s15.1
From the evidence of their shape and sequences there can be no doubt that the 2nd, 4th and 5th signs in Col. IV are identical. Again the evidence of the sequence ♁ * R " is so powerful that we must conclude that the third sign T which has no neighbour in shape among the other signs of the Proto-Indian script, is an abbreviated or simplified, probably later form of ♁ . This view is strengthened by the shape of the last sign in the text (No. 12) which, as we have urged in the analysis of Table I, must be regarded as a late form of the sign ♁ . It is interesting to observe that both these late forms approximate to the shape of the corresponding signs in Brahmi. (See comparative Morphographic Table).
c10.s15.2
With regard to the first sign in Col. IV the evidence of the sequences is negative, and this sign is probably independent. As it occurs only once it may well be an ideogram rather than a phonogram. The sign in text 41 may not be a sign at all but a decorative device. On the other hand it may be the fuller and more complete form of 𐀀. As it occurs alone there is no help to be derived from the evidence of sequences. If it is a sign, it is probably an early form of 𐀀. The shape of this sign 𐀀 and its variants 𐀀, 𐀀 is exactly parallelled in Sumerian and Proto-Elamitic; and in those scripts also we have no morphographic clue as to its original ideographic significance. It is hardly likely to be a man's hand, as we already know the sign for this in Sumerian, and it was quite distinct from 𐀀. It is possible that 𐀀 is a compound of 𐀀 + 𐀀. The fact that the sign appears in the upper right-hand corner of the seal (which below contains the design of a many-headed beast) makes it probable that it is to be regarded as script and not a decorative device.¹
c10.s15.3
¹ See Miscellaneous Table, C 11.
c10.s15.4
The signs in Col. IV that accompany Text 5 Nos. 42-48 are clearly a doubled form of 𐀀. They are simple variants of one another. Their significance is argued in the discussion on Plurals p. 74.