[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Archaeology, epigraphy and coins](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy) › [The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934) › c8 # The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c8: The Direction of Writing The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c8 - **Language:** English ### The Direction of Writing ### [c8.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.1) The orientation of the Proto-Indian script is, in the large majority of cases, from right to left, i.e. the signs are placed successively in a horizontal row starting from the right. Evidence of this is afforded by a comparison of the sequence of the signs in texts containing two or more lines on the same face, with the sequence in single-line texts. Attention may first be directed to the single-line texts containing 𝍖 as their left-hand sign. Of these there are 177 at Mohenjodaro and 31 at Harappa (see the Plates passim, but especially V, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII.) It is clear that a large proportion of our texts - nearly one third - either begin or end in 𝍖. Now examine M. 303, 516, 391, 365. In M. 303 𝍖 being the only sign in the second line is clearly the last sign. If then we read the script from left to right we must place 𝍖 at the extreme right of the text and read 𝍙𝍚𝍛 𝍜𝍝𝍞 𝍖 which gives us the sequence 𝍟 𝍖 which is found nowhere else; whereas if we read the script from right to left and place 𝍖 at the extreme left we get 𝍖𝍙𝍚𝍛 etc. a sequence of four signs which occurs no less than five times elsewhere - M. 184; 89; 124; 9; and H. 90. - while the three signs 𝍖𝍙𝍚 occur in a dozen other texts (see Table I nos. 49-65). Treating M. 516 the same way we get 𝍖𝍠𝍡𝍢) which not only gives us 𝍖 in its common position but also the sequence 𝍠𝍞 Now it is significant that the only other occurrence of the sign 𝍠 , viz. M. 447, shows precisely this sequence. There can be little doubt then that both the lines in M. 516 are to be read from right to left (starting of course with the upper line). It is not to be inferred that the second line is always to be read from right to left. Cases of boustrophedon writing, though apparently rare, undoubtedly occur. M. 391 is a case in point. While the upper line reads from right to left the lower one reads from left to right. This reading gives us 𐀚𐀀𐀂𐀃𐀄𐀅 ### [c8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.2) No other reading is tenable in face of the evidence of M. 161; 162; 462; taken in conjunction with the evidence of Table LII, which shows 𐀚𐀀 nine times and 𐀀𐀚 not once. No. M. 365 however is clearly not boustrophedon. That the second line in this text is to be read in the same direction as the single-line texts is clear from the sequence 𐀚𐀆 , which is found eleven times, while 𐀆𐀚 is nowhere found. The two lines of M. 365, then, are to be read in the same direction. That this direction is from right to left is indicated by the position of 𐀚𐀆 , which in single-line texts is found almost invariably as a left-hand group. (See Table VI). We may now examine the other inscriptions containing more than one line on the same face. M. 139 is our longest inscription containing three full lines of script. Each line is to be read from right to left. In the case of the first line this is proved by the sequence 𐀇𐀈 which is one of the commonest sequences in our texts, occuring twentyone times (see Table LXVIII). In the case of the second line it is proved by the sequence 𐀚𐀀 , to which we have already referred; and in the case of the third line by the sequence 𐀉𐀊 , which occurs elsewhere five times, while its reverse 𐀊𐀉 is nowhere found. ### [c8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.3) Regarding M. 141, the position of 𐀋 as a right hand sign makes it probable that the first line reads from the right. Regarding the direction of the second line there is no evidence, as the signs thereof are nowhere else found in association. ### [c8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.4) M. 151. The first line shows a sequence normal in single line inscriptions (see Table XXV), and therefore reads from right to left. Regarding the second line the evidence is scanty. 𐀌 and 𐀍 are not elsewhere found together, and the only instance where 𐀀 and 𐀁 are found is H. 44. But as shown in the analysis of Table LXVI 𐀁 and 𐀂 are not variants of the same sign. However, they probably represent allied sounds, as is explained later, and it is possible that the 𐀂 𐀀 of H. 44, and the 𐀀 𐀂 of M. 151 are the same word with a dialectal variation of pronunciation. There are many such instances of dialectal variations recorded in the script, as we shall see. Provisionally then I have assumed that we have in H. 44 and M. 151 the same word, and have accordingly read the second line of M. 151 from left to right.¹ ### [c8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.5) ¹ In the tables I have written out the texts with more than one line as they would have been written had the scribe placed all the signs in one line. This was essential for purposes of comparison. The reader can readily discover whether any given text in the Tables has more than one line by referring to the list immediately preceding the Tables. ### [c8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.6) M. 162. The first line is from right to left. This is clear from the four signs on the left, a sequence we have already examined under No. 391. The second line also reads from right to left. If we read it otherwise we have 𐀃 final preceded by 𐀄, which is nowhere found, whereas 𐀄 𐀃 is found in seven other cases. (see Table XC.) ### [c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.7) M. 450. The sequence "𐀅" on the right of the first line is one of the commonest in the script. It occurs in this position in single line inscriptions thirty times, or if we treat 𐀆 as a variant of 𐀅 sixty-eight times (see Table XXIV). It is clear then that the second line is to be read to the left, not to the right, of the first line, therefore the reading of all single line inscriptions with "𐀅" or "𐀆" on the extreme right are to be read from right to left. Taking these inscriptions together with those ending in 𐀄, we have no less than 247 inscriptions which demonstrably read from right to left. This may be accepted as conclusive evidence of the normal direction of the writing at Mohenjodaro and Harappa, at least as regards single-line inscriptions and the first line of multiple-line inscriptions. It remains to consider the direction of the writing of the second line in the remainder of the inscriptions with more than one line, i.e. to determine how many of them are, like Hittite, boustrophedon. In regard to no. M. 450 there is virtually no evidence. 🜁 is never found followed by 🜂 and only once by 🜃 (M. 40) and that in a context where the latter sign clearly associates with the sign preceding it and not with the 🜂 . Still in this, as in all cases where no evidence is obtainable from sign sequences in other texts, I have for purposes of transcription assumed a right to left reading, as this is the reading on the majority of second lines where the direction can be determined. ### [c8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.8) M. 193. Not boustrophedon, as 🜄 is never found as a final sign. (see Table XXI). ### [c8.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.9) M. 230. Not boustrophedon, since (i) 🜅 is never final, (ii) 🜅🜆 medial is found in M. 355, (iii) 🜇 final is found twice (see Table XCIX). ### [c8.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.10) M. 341. Probably boustrophedon, since 🜈 is often final (Table LXVI) while 🜉 only once (Table LVI). Neither sign is found elsewhere following 🜊 , so that the evidence is very slight. ### [c8.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.11) M. 232. Boustrophedon, since 🜋🜌 is a common sequence (see Table XLVI and its analysis). ### [c8.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.12) M. 417. Not boustrophedon, since 🜍 is found elsewhere followed by 🜎 and 🜏 is found similarly preceded by 🜎 while no element of a sequence 🜎🜏🜍 is found anywhere.¹ ### [c8.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.13) ¹ See Tables XI, XXVI. ### [c8.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.14) M. 447. Not boustrophedon in view of the sequence 🜐🜑 Cf. M. 516 discussed above. ### [c8.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.15) M. 455. Not boustrophedon, since 🜒 is never final (see Table XXXI) whereas 🜓 is, as already noted. ### [c8.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.16) M. 477. The third line is from right to left in view of the sequence |||| ◓ (see Table VIII). ### [c8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.17) M. 499. Not boustrophedon since ◰ is final in M. 508 (Table XLIX). ### [c8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.18) M. 506. Read from the right ◰ ◱ ◲ ◳ ◴ ### [c8.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.19) M. 514. ◵ is unique. But it is probably a defective form of ◶. The latter is not found elsewhere associated with ◷, but it does appear following ◹ in M. 163. The evidence is thus very slender, but such as it is, it points to a boustrophedon reading. ### [c8.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.20) H. 107. The top line reads from right to left. Cf. M. 20 ◺ ◷. The bottom line is probably boustrophedon, giving with the reverse, which is from right to left, the sequence ◻ || which is fairly common. (see Table XLVI). ### [c8.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.21) H. 241. The evidence is practically nil. If ◼ is a variant of the ◽ group then a comparison with M. 366 would suggest a right to left reading. ### [c8.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.22) I. 24. The sign in the second line is clearly to be read to the left of the first line, and the signs in the third line to the left again. This gives us ◾ ◿ ◿ as our final sequence. We have this sequence in H. 38; while ◾ ◿ is a common final sequence as already noted. ### [c8.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.23) M. 235, 237, 245, 353, 409, 492, 508, I.19, H. 166, all contain a single sign in the second line. In every case the first line is to be read from right to left and the sign of the second line as the final sign. It will be noted that the second line sign in nos. M. 235, 409, I. 19, is a variety of ◿, which in the single line inscriptions also is invariably final (see Table XXVII nos. 1, 3, 4); in nos. 245, 492, it is ◿, which is also normally final (see Table XCIII), which is further confirmation that the script reads usually from right to left. ### [c8.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.24) M. 133 is interesting as containing not only two lines on the same face, but legends on three other faces. By a comparison of the sequences with those found elsewhere the reading can be established as follows. Begin with top line of face, read right to left. Then second line of face left to right. Then reverse right to left. Then right side left to right. Then left side. It will be seen that the reading is boustrophedon throughout. Another peculiarity is that in the lines where the direction of the writing is reversed (i.e. left to right) the form of the non-symmetrical signs is also reversed, on the Hittie plan. Thus we have 𐀀 for 𐀁 (see Table LXXXIII) (𐀂𐀃( for .)𐀂𐀃) (see H. 227). ### [c8.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.25) The consideration of this inscription brings us to our next category of multiple line inscriptions viz. those that have only one line on each face, but have more than one face inscribed. ### [c8.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.26) M. 132. Clearly boustrophedon. The face reads from right to left, while the reverse is clearly left to right, being the last three signs of the face reproduced in reverse order. Again the direction of the writing in this case is proved by the fact that elsewhere 𐀄 is invariably final (see Table LXIV). ### [c8.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.27) H. 118. Boustrophedon. The face reads left to right, the reverse right to left. This is less surprising at Harappa than it would be at Mohenjodaro in view of the fact that at Harappa many of the single line inscriptions read from left to right. ### [c8.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.28) In the remainder of these inscriptions the writing is in the same direction on each face and that right to left for the most part. Those in which the writing is from left to right (principally Harappa) are so indicated in the Tables by placing an asterisk against the inscription. For the most part the inscriptions on the different faces seem to be independent of one another. This is clearly the case in no. M. 132, noted above, where the inscription on one side is an abbreviation of that on the other. An extreme form of this is M. 439, where the sign on the reverse seems to stand much as an initial does to a name. Again in some cases the inscription on either side is identical, viz. M. 16, 18, H. 145. A large proportion of the inscribed objects at Harappa have VIII or VIIII on the reverse. It is clear that in these cases the reverse has no syntactical relation with the obverse. Returning now to the inscriptions with two or more lines on a single face: only in two instances M. 303 and 391 have we reason to suppose from the sequences that the signs in the second line form part of the word or phrase in the preceding line; while in some cases, notably M. 139, 193, 230, 453, it is almost certain that the sense of the first line is complete in itself, and that what follows is an additional name or title. ### [c8.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.29) No. 139 indeed looks like a Sumerian 'burgul' seal, a seal with the names of three different men (perhaps as in Sumer, fashioned for the purpose, combining the names of the parties to a contract in a single seal). It is significant also that this seal alone of all the square seals bears no glyptic design, which again recalls the Sumerian contract seal. ### [c8.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8.30) It remains to remark that at Harappa there are several instances of single-line inscriptions reading from left to right. At Mohenjodaro there are only two (M. 513, 515). ## Linked texts (2) - [Harappā](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.harappa) - [Mohenjo-daro](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.site.mohenjo-daro) --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.epigraphy.hunter-1934.c8) · Pramāṇa