The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c4: Abstract

The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c4

Language: English

Abstract

c4.1

The material for the above work was provided by some 750 inscribed objects unearthed at the above-mentioned sites up to February 1927. These objects were mostly seals, containing on average about 6 signs apiece. A few copper coins were also found, and some slabs of clay impressed. There were also at Harappa several incised slabs of steatite which appear to have served as receipts.

c4.2

The signs are clearly of ideographic origin, some readily recognisable pictures, e.g. of birds, but most are conventionalised, in many cases beyond recognition of their pictorial originals. Graphically the script bears a close resemblance to Proto-Elamite, and a less close to Sumerian of the Jemdet-Nasr and Fara periods, except as regards the anthropomorphous signs. The latter bear a close resemblance to Egyptian of the Old and Middle kingdoms. The resemblance to these three scripts seems too close to be accidental, but whether the connection is due to community of descent or borrowing cannot yet be determined.

c4.3

One of the cardinal features of the script is a system of modifying basic signs (a) by internal and external strokes similar to the gunu modifications in Sumerian. These do not always alter the sense or pronunciation (b) by the addition of one or more short strokes. The latter do modify at least the sound. These strokes are applied on exactly the same principle as in Brahmi, and with the same effect. Indeed the entire Brahmi 'alphabet' is shown to be derived from the script of Mohenjodaro and Harappa. It is also shown that those scholars were not mistaken who connected Brahmi with the South Semitic and Phoenician scripts. For there is much evidence to show that these also were derived from the script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro (which I have called Proto-Indian). It is thus seen that Proto-Indian forms an important link in the history of the evolution of the alphabet from pictographic writing. The method adopted in elucidating the script has been to tabulate every occurrence of each sign together with those signs whose morphography suggested the possibility of their being variants. In this way certain sign sequences showed themselves to be of common occurrence. Thus it was possible to recognise variants and also words.

c4.4

The languages of Harappa and Mohenjodaro are shown to have been one and the same. It has not been possible to determine from the material at hand the identity of this language. It appears however to be monosyllabic. It does not appear to be the language of the Proto-Elamite tablets. It is possible on the latter to recognise those sign groups which constitute proper names. Similarly on the Proto-Indian seals the bulk of the legend is always a proper name. Many signs are common to both scripts, but the sequences are quite different. If then there are no proper names in common it is not likely that the languages are closely related.

c4.5

Many of the signs of the Cypriote syllabary bear a close resemblance to Proto-Indian signs, but the phonetic values of the latter, as far as these can be determined from Brahmi and the Semitic scripts, are irreconcilable with the Cypriote phonetic values. If connection there be it must have been at a period before Proto-Indian became a phonetic script.

c4.6

The script reads normally from right to left, but occasionally from left to right, and sometimes boustrophedon. In the latter case the signs are sometimes reversed, but not always. It is certain that the reversal of a sign had no effect on its significance. The reading is over the backs of the animal signs, as in meroitic, but the anthropomorphous signs face the direction of the writing.

c4.7

It has been possible to determine the significance of a few of the signs from the regularity of their occurrence in particular positions and contexts: In particular (a) the numeral signs, (b) the ordinal suffix, (c) the word for 'servant' and its determinative, (d) the ablative suffix, (e) the dative suffix, (f) the word for 'slave' and its determinative, (g) the word for 'son'. The coins bear the same names as the seals, votive tablets, and receipts, but of course without the dedicatory preface often found on the seals and votive tablets, and without the ablative suffix common on the receipts and not uncommon on the seals and votive tablets.

c4.8

The work is divided as follows: (1) Introduction, (2) Descriptive catalogue, (3) Museum catalogue, (4) The direction of the writing, (5) Connection with other scripts, (6) Analysis of the Tables of Signs, (7) The Tables of Signs with a sign list, (8) A Comparative Table of Proto-Indian and allied signs, (9) An Appendix giving an analysis of Sumerian ideograms, with a view to elucidating their pictographic significance for the purpose of comparison with Proto-Indian.