The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s36: Analysis of Table XLIX
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c10.s36
- Language
- English
Analysis of Table XLIX
c10.s36.1
The sequences indicate that the first five signs are all variants. The key sequence in this Table is RV . The form ℵ is interesting as being an exact approximation to the Brahmi form of the sign. The fifth form is perhaps the oldest. The sign is clearly the silhouette figures of a man. The sixth and seventh signs in Col. IV are probably the base form modified by the vowel ℐ. The eighth and ninth are probably pictographically independent. They have their exact parallels in Egyptian. But the sequence RV in texts 39 makes it possible that ℵ may be a variant of Å .¹ The tenth sign is probably, almost certainly, the base form modified by the vowel u. In view of what we have noted regarding the fluidity of the liquid vowels it is not surprising to find this sign in the same sequence as the sixth and seventh. The eleventh sign is probably a variant of the tenth. It is not probable that the position of the modifying vowel relative to the sign is pertinent in view of the evidence of texts 32, 33. If 𓀀 were bi and 𓀀 ib we should not expect an identity of sequence. The twelfth sign is probably the base form modified by ∧ = o.
c10.s36.2
¹ We have said in the Analysis of Table I that Å after V is probably the determinative 'servant'. ℵ may be the Egyptian determinative 'high' signifying that the man V 0 (servant of 0 ) was a high official.
c10.s36.3
The thirteenth sign (texts 42, 43) is pictographically different from the first, but it appears in identically similar circumstances (cf. Nos. 14 and 42). It is probably, like 𓀀 and 𓀀 a determinative. In shape it approximates to the Egyptian sign for a man, performing the hnw rite. The next two signs in Col. IV closely resemble the Egyptian determinative slave 𓀀 plus the sign 𓁹 . From the evidence of Table XXXVI, 42, we know that 𓁹|| are to be read together as one word or phrase, || being a numeral and 𓁹 some numerable object forming the subject matter of a receipt. To this object is ligatured the determinative 𓀀. The object itself is then probably a slave. It is difficult to think of any other commodity which could be at once the subject of a receipt and qualifiable by the determinative slave. The texts then probably read "From X (name) two slaves - det 𓀀." "From Y two slaves - det 𓀀." For there are strong reasons for taking 𓀀 as the suffix 'from' (See Analysis of Table LVIII).
c10.s36.4
With regard to the next two signs in Col. IV, the second is but the first reversed, and this reversal is due to the reverse of text 48 being read boustrophedon from left to right. Is the sign 𓀀𓁹 to be read as 𓁹 ligatured to its determination, or as a phonetic compound standing for 𓀀𓁹, or as an ideographic compound? Against the first it may be argued that 𓀀 is never followed by 𓁹, while its 'compounds' are so found on four occasions - texts 46, 58, 64, 85. The same evidence is opposed to regarding it as a phonetic compound.
c10.s36.5
euphonic considerations. We may then regard it either as a true compound phonogram (a compound of two syllables to form a word unconnected in meaning with that of either of its syllables) or as a compound ideogram. In selecting between these we have to guide us only the analogy of the script from which the compound may have been borrowed, and the rationality of the compound from the ideographic point of view. We may compare the sign with Gardiner. E.g. p. 439, Nos. 36, 37, where it is an ideogram - 'brewer'. The element U in Proto-Indian may well have been a vessel¹, like the parallel element in its Egyptian fellow.
c10.s36.6
¹ This of course without prejudice to its meaning 'slave' in the contexts aforementioned. The words for slave and vessel may well have been homophonous.
c10.s36.7
Similarly [Figure: ] may be in Egyptian op. cit. p. 437.24 " [Figure: ] " " " " " " p. 437.21 " [Figure: ] " " " " " " p. 439.34 " [Figure: ] " " " " " " p. 439.35 " [Figure: ] " " " " " " p. 436.12
c10.s36.8
The last two signs in Col. IV are probably variants of [Figure: ] Cf. texts 70 and 86 for sequence R|, R||
c10.s36.9
[Figure: ] is perhaps a man with shield, an ideogram for 'defence'. [Figure: ] [Figure: ] a standard-bearer.
c10.s36.10
] a man with a fetter on his leg - a prisoner.[^2
c10.s36.11
The next sign in Col. IV is a man invoking (Gardiner op. cit. p.438.27) plus the sign of divinity in the plural = 'He who invokes the gods'.
c10.s36.12
The next sign is probably an ordinary phonetic compound. If we separate its syllables and read [Figure: ] we get the sequence 𓀀 and 𓂝 final, both of which are well established elsewhere. Had the scribe desired to make a compound ideogram of a man and a flag he would probably have written 𓀀𓂝 on the analogy of 𓀀𓐍.
c10.s36.13
² I am indebted for this suggestion to Professor Langdon.
c10.s36.14
The next sign is probably ideographic representing a man with umbrella. It is clearly a combination of 𓀀 and 𓂝.