The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s27: Analysis of Table XXX
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s27
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table XXX
c10.s27.1
It will be observed in Nos. 14-26 we have the familiar sequence AN-I. If we were right in analysing this as meaning 'To (the god) AN', it is probable that what precedes is in the nature of a preliminary formula 'For (the life of) Dungi', 'for my life', 'for the patesi' etc. It will be observed that while that which follows in these texts is normally proper names, sometimes prefixed by the 'fish' sign 'son of', that which precedes the dedicatory words " is not found elsewhere either as a complete text or in such a position on a text that we might infer it to be a proper name. This confirms us in our inference that what precedes " is a formula rather than a name. With regard to the remainder of the texts in this table, it is probable that that which follows " is in every case a proper name (with or without the usual prefixes to proper names such as , ). In many cases there can be no doubt about this, viz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14-16, 18-22, 25, 26, 28, 32-35, 37, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47-50, 53-57, 61-63, 66, 67, 70, 72, i.e. 44 out of 74. This proportion of certainties is so high that it will probably be not rash to assume till evidence to the contrary that in every case that which follows " is a proper name and utilize this knowledge for the purpose of elucidating those texts which do not contain ".
c10.s27.2
Conversely it is desirable to point out that of the 60 sequences found preceding " only three (and these only once each) are found as initial elsewhere, viz. M. 458, 405, and I.13 Now these are very instructive. Compare M. 458. with text 21, Y" If our previous inferences are correct then M. 458 = 'Servant (of) the god ' and text 21 = 'to the god ' (name of owner).
c10.s27.3
Now compare M.405 🜂 🜃 🜄 🜅 🜆 with text 67 🜇 🜈 🜉 🜊 🜋 🜌 🜍
c10.s27.4
If our previous inferences are correct then M. 405 = 🜂 🜃 🜄 🜅 🜆 , ‘Goddess (?)’¹ and text 67 = ‘To 🜇 🜈 🜉 🜊 🜋 🜌 🜍 , Servant of 🜈 🜉 ’ from which we see (a) that 🜂 and 🜃 are determinations (or titles) of divinity, probably male and female, (b) that these determinations (or titles) are placed after the word they qualify, (c) that they may be omitted, (d) that 🜄 is a variant of 🜅 , which proves they are not numerical signs,
(e) that 🜃 is a variant of 🜆 .
c10.s27.5
¹ Probably a temple seal.
c10.s27.6
Compare I.13 🜎 🜏 🜐 🜑 🜒 = (To) 🜑 🜒 (name)² and text No. 37 🜈 🜉 🜊 🜑 🜒 = To 🜑 🜒 (name).
c10.s27.7
² The name is normal, see Table XIV. The disappearance of 🜊 is to be explained as elision or contraction. See analysis of Table XXIV.
c10.s27.8
So the three exceptions only serve to strengthen our conviction that 🜂 is a symbol of divinity (or by itself a god's name like Sumeric 🜓 = Anu or dingir), that 🜊 is dedicatory (a dative suffix), and that what precedes it is either a god's name or a prayer.
c10.s27.9
If we combine the evidence of the contexts where 🜔 is a semivowel and those where 🜊 is elided we find that the signs: 🜕, 🜖, 🜗, 🜘, 🜙, 🜚, 🜛, 🜜, 🜝, 🜞, 🜟, 🜠 ³, are closed syllables, 🜡, 🜢, 🜖 are open syllables.
c10.s27.10
³ To which may be added 🜖 on the evidence of Table I.