The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s26: Analysis of Table XXVII
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s26
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table XXVII
c10.s26.1
The original pictogram would appear to have been heaven, plus a covering, plus the shadow of darkness? = Night? The earliest form would appear to be the second sign in Col. IV. Of this the first sign must be a cursive form, with the shadow detached (unless this is a phonetic modification of the second by the addition of ⌢). The third, fourth, and sixth signs are easily admissible as graphic modifications of the second. In the fifth the element ⊗ has almost completely disappeared. In the seventh it has been reduced to Ⅲ, in the eighth and ninth it has entirely disappeared. In the tenth and eleventh the shadow is reduced to one stroke and joined up with the rest of the sign. In the penultimate sign it is joined to the extremities of the body of the sign to form loops. In the two preceding (Texts 15, 16) the shadow has disappeared altogether and of all the original sign only the covering pall remains. Of course in No. 10 the occurrence of ⌢ after ⊽ may be a coincidence. If so the position of the sign in Nos. 11-14 would suggest that this particular sign ⌢ has no connection with the rest of the group. Regarding the remainder discussed above the evidence of the sequences seems inexorable despite the remarkable graphic modifications. The latter however are susceptible, as we have endeavoured to show, of a progressive explanation. The key to the identity of these signs is partly their position as finals, but particularly as finals after the ⊽. There are so few single signs suffixed to ⊽. Again we have the sequences R ⊞ and R ⊽.
c10.s26.2
The last sign may be a compound of ⌢ + Y (= Y) see Table XI).
c10.s26.3
Probably variants. The first sign is obviously the second reversed. But it is unlikely that that alters its significance, as throughout these texts reversed and normal forms of signs seem to be identical. See Tables of 𐀀𐀁 (LVIII, LXXIV, LXXXIV).
c10.s26.4
Analysis of Table XXIX.
c10.s26.5
It will be noted that the sign 𐀀 sometimes occurs at the top of the line, sometimes towards the middle. But it is clear from the sequences that this is immaterial. The same is true of 𐀁 (Table XXX) and many of the signs in Table XXXI. It will next be observed that this sign is often found between sign groups that are whole words and even whole names, the elements before and after 𐀀 being found as complete texts. Cf. No. 23 with M. 286 and M. 184; No. 26 with M. 297, 298 and H. 148, M. 209.
c10.s26.6
Now what sort of an element is this which serves to link together (or separate) words, names, and even texts. Our first answer would be that it is a mark of punctuation as in Phoenician, and comparable to the Virama in the later Indian scripts. But the evidence of Nos. 10, 31 and 19 is against this explanation. Here 𐀀 is final. If we assume that here also it is a mark of punctuation used to indicate the termination of a text, how do we account for the fact that only three texts out of over 750 are so terminated? It seems certain that in these texts it has a phonetic value. But if in these, then also in all the other texts where 𐀂 or 𐀃 are found. Are we then to conclude that 𐀀 had two distinct values, the one phonetic and the other punctuative? In view of the ambiguity that this would introduce into the script, and the fact that elsewhere the script provides so scrupulously for the exact rendering of phonetic values (e.g. 𐀀, 𐀁, 𐀂, 𐀃 ) this would appear most unlikely, and we should only be driven to such a conclusion as the last resort. A far more probable explanation would be to regard 𐀄 as the vowel i or u, which when placed after a word ending in and before a word beginning in a vowel serves to break the hiatus, and is pronounced as the semivowel y or w. In this connection it may be pertinent to recall the principle obtaining in certain of the Munda languages of avoiding a hiatus by the insertion of a semivowel. The Munda group is probably the oldest group of languages in India, and there are evidences of it in Brahui, which speech today covers part of the area of the Proto-Indian ambit. In favour of regarding 𐀄 as a simple vowel there is also the analogy of 𐀅 , and the other signs noticed in the analysis of earlier tables, where the addition of the stroke 𐀄 represents a modification of the vowel of the syllable. Again it is significant that of the cases where 𐀄 may be taken as bridging a hiatus between words; nos. 5, 7, 23, 26, 28, 33, 𐀄 is preceded by 𐀆 or 𐀇 , which we know to be an open syllable, in four instances.
c10.s26.7
Of course the fact remains that though, on the above hypothesis, the sign 𐀄 represents merely a simple vowel (or semivowel) in the spoken tongue, still in actual writing 𐀄 would in point of fact often stand between, and so separate, two words; and it is possible that this may have been the origin of the later Phoenician device of indicating the separation of words by a vertical stroke, .
c10.s26.8
¹ In nos. 10-13, 15-21, 25, 𐀄 is an integral element in the word, or a suffix, it has its vowel value and is not a semivowel. This is clear from nos. 10 and 19 where 𐀄 is final.
c10.s26.9
Now is it possible to determine which of the vowels i (y) and u (w) represents? I think it is.
c10.s26.10
If we examine the Brahmi of the Asoka inscriptions we shall observe that the vowels in composition are written¹ R' = i; R" = i; R^ = ā
c10.s26.11
-R, R = e; R_ ) = ŭ; R A ) = ū; -R ) = o R ) -R- }
c10.s26.12
Of these ŭ, ū and o might be explained as abbreviations of the independent forms of these vowels. In the case of Sign VI 35¹, Proto-Indian has the full independent form of o, But ā, ē, i, I, are susceptible of no such explanation. How then are they to be accounted for otherwise than by assuming that like the other independent signs of the Brahmi script, they are descendent from Proto-Indian prototypes. In the case of ŭ, ⋏ as a variant of ⋏ may be an illustration. In the case of ⋏ and ⋏ we have the prototypes in identical shape and (allowing for the reversal of the direction of writing) in the identical position. Since then we have already shown that ' and " are vowels in Proto-Indian, and we now see that ' and " are vowels in Brahmi, and that their presence in the script cannot be accounted for except on this hypothesis of descent from lost prototypes, can we avoid the conclusion that Brahmi ' is Proto-Indian ' and Brahmi " is Proto-Indian " ? Then we have now fixed the values of Proto-Indian ' and " viz. ' = i, " = i.
c10.s26.13
¹ See Bühler, "Indische Palaeographie", Pl.II.
c10.s26.14
It is further quite possible that Brahmi 𑀉, u, is the element 𑀼 in the sign 𑀼𑀓 ; that Brahmi 𑀮 = u, which before the reversal of the script was probably 𑀮 may be from Proto-Indian 𑀮, (= wa). Again Proto-Indian 𑀭, may well be the ancestor of Brahmi 𑀭 = o, in spite of the apparent derivation of the Brahmi element 𑀭 from 𑀮 . And even if the later element were accepted as the origin of Brahmi 𑀭 , there would still remain the question whether Proto-Indian 𑀧 (which appears only in combination and never independently like 𑀧 , ) is not itself a modification, for purposes of combination, of the Proto-Indian 𑀧 .
c10.s26.15
In conclusion we may now regard Proto-Indian 𑀧 as ĭ (or y), 𑀧 as ĭ, 𑀼 as wi, and 𑀧 as o. This will assist us considerably in deciphering the script, as all these signs are of fairly frequent occurrence. To these we may add 𑀼 in combination as ŭ, 𑀭, 𑀧 , 𑀧 in combination (placed within a sign as in 𑀧 , 𑀧 ) as ĕ, 𑀼 as ū, 𑀼,𑀼 is probably wa, which when followed by 𑀧 contracts to w-i, written 𑀼𑀧 , 𑀼𑀧 , the element 𑀼 in this case being virtually reduced to a mere labial glide. The symbol 𑀧 which we find only in composition may well be this wa in composition. For if, as we shall see from the analysis of the next table there is reason to regard 𑀧 as a closed syllable, and 𑀧 as an open or compound syllable: it is clear that 𑀧 is the consonantal element preceding the initial vowel of 𑀧 . Now this element is something which if omitted causes the vowel of the dative suffix to coalesce with the initial vowel of 𑀧 , and if inserted serves to bridge the hiatus. Surely then it is a semivowel. And since it is not the semivowel y, it must be the semivowel w. (Compare the form of the labial glide 𑀧 in Ethiopic).