The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s20.2

c10.s20.2

The signs in texts 43-54 differ from 𓂡 only in the number of interior lines, and may therefore be regarded as allied. If No. 42 is correctly copied this inference would be also supported by the sequence 𓂢 𓂣 . But the signs on the coins are so faint that it is possible that the sign in No. 42 may also have contained the interior lines. From the evidence of the sequences, notably the absence of the key sequence it is certain that the signs with interior lines are not mere graphic variants of 𓂡 . It is not likely that this modification by interior lines corresponds to the phonetic modification that we have observed in the case of signs modified by the addition of short strokes, firstly because in this case the strokes are not short, and secondly because in the case of text 46 their number is too great. The modification appears to be rather analogous to the modification of Sumerian signs to form gunu signs. In the latter case the number of added strokes is immaterial. We may infer the same here.