The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c9: The Connection with Other Scripts
The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its Connection with Other Scripts c9
- Language
- English
The Connection with Other Scripts
c9.1
The discovery of any new script at once suggests a search among existing scripts for possible ancestors or descendants. In pursuing this search one naturally first directs one's attention to those scripts which are (a) contemporary in date and from which there may have been borrowing, and vice versa, (b) those which are found in the same locality at an earlier date, (c) those which are found in the same locality at a later date. In the present instance category (b) is entirely wanting. In category (a) we have Sumerian, Proto-Elamite, Egyptian and Minoan. In category (c) we have Kharoshthi, Brahmi, and Sabaean. With regard to Kharoshthi its descent from Aramaic is proved. Not so, I think, in the case of Brahmi. It is true that Bühler's derivation of the Brahmi syllabary¹ from the Semitic scripts has long held the field. But it was never universally accepted. Cunningham in particular believed it to be derived from a lost pictographic source. A detailed refutation of Bühler's equalisations seems unnecessary in view of the positive evidence set forth in the Comparative Table (Appendix III). It will be seen that I accept certain of Bühler's equalisations with the Phoenician, but these are precisely the cases where it seems that the Phoenician signs themselves are probably derived from Proto-Indian. Now it may be argued that the interval of time between the disappearance of the civilisation of Mohenjodaro and the first appearance of Brahmi (c. 300 B.C.) is too great to make a direct descent probable. But what do we know concerning the lower limits of the Proto-Indian civilisation? The bricks of the Buddhist stupa at Mohenjodaro lie immediately upon Proto-Indian remains. Nothing has so far come to light to suggest that the Proto-Indian civilisation came to an end before the Aryan invasion. And it must be remembered that the script that we possess is all monumental - seals, sealings and coins. It is quite possible that alongside of this there may have been a demotic approximating more closely to the script of the Eran coin and Asoka inscriptions.
c9.2
¹ It is incorrect to speak of the Brahmi characters as alphabetic. No signs except the vowels stand for single letters.
c9.3
With regard to Sabaean the time interval is less. And though the inscriptions may not antedate the sixth century, a much earlier date is claimed for the beginnings of the Minaean empire, and presumably for the origin of the script also. If distance is urged as militating against the probability of Sabaean being derived from Proto-Indian, it should be remembered that the distance from the mouth of the indus to the Sabaean coast is less than 1000 miles, that the monsoon winds are absolutely reliable and sailing conditions ideal, making it possible during six months of the year to sail from Karachi to Aden with the shore almost continuously in sight without tacking once, and during the other six months to perform the same feat in the opposite direction. Again, both areas were known to the ancients as Ethiopian. In view of the fact that both the form and the names of some of the Sabaean signs have not yet been satisfactorily accounted for, it has seemed to me legitimate and desirable to bring out in tabular form the undoubtedly striking resemblances between Sabaean and Proto-Indian.
c9.4
With regard to contemporary scripts:
c9.5
Many of the signs bear a remarkable resemblance to the monumental script of Ancient Egypt. The entire body of anthropomorphous signs have Egyptian equivalents which are virtually exact. And it is interesting to note that not one of these anthropomorphous signs have the remotest parallel in Sumerian or Proto-Elamite. On the other hand there are many of our signs that are exactly paralleled in the Proto-Elamite and Jemdet-Nasr tablets, such as ⁋ that have no conceivable morphographic equivalent in Egyptian. One is bound to conclude that the presumption is strong that our script has been borrowed in part from Egypt, and in part from Mesopotamia.¹ Of course there is a considerable proportion of signs that are common to all three scripts, such as the signs for tree, fish, bird. But this is coincidental, and indeed inevitable in the very nature of pictography. It is only safe to draw inferences of causal connection where the less obvious and more conventionalised ideograms, especially those that are so conventionalised that their pictographic origin is hardly determinable, show a marked correspondence; and in a lesser degree, where easily recognisable pictographs show the same variations. Now the latter is very marked as between our script and Proto-Elamite, as will appear from a study of the Comparative Table.
c9.6
¹ This is just what we should expect, if, as has been suggested in the Introduction, our people were a race of overseas traders, like the Phoenicians.
c9.7
The resemblance of our script to Proto-Elamite is closer than its resemblance to Sumerian. This is natural in view of the geographical proximity of Baluchistan to Elam. The resemblance to Sumerian is not really apparent till we reach the Jemdet-Nasr period. Now the script of that period (B.C. 3500) is so closely related to Proto-Elamite that Professor Langdon affirms a common ancestry of the two. This would seem to be confirmed by the evidence of our script, which approaches the Sumerian in similarity in measure that the latter approaches Proto-Elamite. One is led to the conclusion that the element in our script which was borrowed from Mesopotamia was borrowed at a period before the separation of the Sumerian and Proto-Elamite scripts. Of course it is possible that all three had a common ancestry, and that the Egyptian element in our script alone was borrowed. It is even possible that all four scripts may have had a common origin. But this is an enquiry that does not concern us here, and which in the nature of pictography, would be very hard to solve without the aid of anthropological evidence as to whether or not there was in prehistoric times racial affinity between the inhabitants of the Nile, Euphrates and Indus valleys.
c9.8
The connection between Proto-Indian and Proto-Elamite is so close that Professor Sayce has suggested that the languages may be allied.¹ This I have endeavoured to test. There is no doubt that our texts are entirely proper names (and titles). If the languages are allied we may expect identity of some at least of the proper names. Now in the Proto-Elamite tablets it is possible to detect the proper names with some degree of certainty: see the analysis of Tablet No. 490 by Father Scheil on page 30 of Vol. XVII *Mémoires de la mission archéologique en Perse*. Applying his method I have collated all the proper names occurring on the tablets in this volume and vol. VI containing certain signs that could be reasonably safely identified with Proto-Indian signs to see whether in any case the same sequence of signs could be observed. The method adopted was the same as that adopted in the preparation of the tables of Proto-Indian texts. The signs selected as possible equivalents of Proto-Indian signs were ʘ, ⋈, ⋋, ⋌, ⋍, ⋎, ⋏, ⋐ ; the various bird signs; ⋑, ⋒, ⋓, ⋔, ⋕, ⋖, ⋗, ⋘, ⋙, ⋚, ⋛, ⋜, ⋝, ⋞, ⋟, ⋠, ⋡, ⋢, ⋣, ⋤, ⋥, ⋦ and their variants. Every occurrence of each of these signs in all contexts that could conceivably be proper names was tabulated. The result was that out of 355 occurrences the only sequences discernible that tallied with those of our texts were:
c9.9
¹ See *Antiquity*, June 1927, p. 206.
c9.10
" ♾ XVII. 346. cf. M. 18. ♾ XVII. 73. 5. ) cf. H. 53. ♾ VI. 373. 4. )
c9.11
𐀀 XVII. 73. 3. cf. H. 137.
c9.12
𐀁 𐀂 𐀃 203 cf. Table XLVI. 𐀄 𐀅 XVII. 17. 1. cf. M. 143.
c9.13
This is less than might have been anticipated as the result of mere coincidence, and infinitely less than we should have expected had there been any causal connection between the scripts. Indeed the evidence is in the opposite direction, for there are sequences containing signs that are common to both scripts, which, found frequently in Proto-Elamite, are absent from Proto-Indian, and vice versa, e.g. 𐀆 𐀇 𐀈 𐀉 𐀊 in Proto-Elamite; 𐀋 , 𐀍 𐀎 , 𐀏 ♾ , in Proto-Indian. It is then fairly certain that while the scripts are allied the languages are quite distinct since they have not a proper name, and scarcely the element of a proper name, in common.
c9.14
A survey of the possible affinities of Proto-Indian with Hittite and Minoan is not included here, not for lack of superficial resemblance, but for lack of space and time, and because it was deemed better to investigate the apparent affinities with scripts which were already very fully deciphered. An exception has been made in the case of Proto-Elamite on account of its proximity both in time and place to Proto-Indian. The inclusion of Cypriote in the comparative table was made on the principle that at this stage of the work of deciphering Proto-Indian it was desirable to include in our comparative survey all independent and deciphered scripts. Chinese has not been included because after a study of the articles of Mr. Hopkins in the J.R.A.S. supplemented by a visit to view his collection, and especially after receiving the considered opinion of Mr. Hopkins who spent a week in examining my autograph copies of the Proto-Indian texts, I concluded that the relationship, if any, was too remote as between Proto-Indian and the earliest Chinese of the Honan bones, to warrant a detailed investigation at this stage.
c9.15
My conclusion is that the Proto-Indian script is connected as to its origin with Egypt on the one hand, and Sumer-Elam on the other; that the script is, on the majority if not on all of our texts, a simplified syllabary of open and closed syllables, roughly 250 in number, many of them constituting complete words; that from the open syllables of this script are derived the Brahmi quasi-alphabetic script, and a large portion of Sabaean; that it is quite possible that Phoenician and Cypriote are likewise modifications of Proto-Indian, which however presupposes a common meeting ground of their sailors and merchants in the Isthmus of Suez and the mines of Sinai - at least evidence of any such intercourse at this point would assist in deciding whether the morphographic resemblances are coincidental or not. This of course reopens the question of the origin of the Alphabet, and suggests that Proto-Indian was an all-important link in the chain of its development from pictographic origins.