The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables c4.s7.t1: Original objects and their present-day impressions
The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables c4.s7.t1
- Language
- English
Original objects and their present-day impressions
c4.s7.t1.1
Because the texts carved in mirror image on the seals are to be read as they appear in the impression, the reports of the excavations at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa published just the impressions. However, the impression may not faithfully reproduce all the features of the original, and the original always remains the ultimate authority. On the other hand, the impression is needed not only because it shows the inscription in its proper form but also because it sometimes reveals details not immediately visible by the inspection of the original. For example, it is harder to see an inscription on a rough or transparent or multicoloured surface than in an impression taken on a neutral and unweathered material (cf. M-221 and L-36). Thus the original and its impression complement each other and furthermore make a double checking possible.
c4.s7.t1.2
As a rule, an impression of an object is always published in this Corpus when the object was originally meant to produce one, as is the case with the stamp seals. Exception is taken to this rule, however, if it was not possible to get an impression, as for example if a seal was too brittle. In addition, an impression is published whenever it clearly helps in understanding an object meant to be read directly (e.g., H-176).
c4.s7.t1.3
The ASI has taken the responsibility for making the impressions of these unique and often fragile Harappan objects. The use of silicone rubber was considered, but in their tests the chemists of the ASI came to the conclusion that the condition of the objects does not allow this material to be used. Unfortunately the plasticine used instead is not sensitive enough, so that all details have often not been reproduced. Moreover, small crevices often form when a forceful impression is made on plasticine, with a result that is not aesthetically pleasing even if it may otherwise be adequate (cf., e.g., M-32 a & M-208 a). And in the case of large seals especially, it is difficult to obtain a good impression in which all parts of the inscription and the device are perfect. However, in the vast majority of the seals, the new impression is much better than the old one.
c4.s7.t1.4
Since an impression was taken and photographed twice for most of the objects, there was often the possibility to choose a second if one was not good, but in numerous cases neither version was publishable. In 1987, an effort was made to obtain a good new impression of such seals. Where this could not be done, recourse was taken to old impressions made soon after the excavations, either those published in the excavation reports or, if better, those available in the Photo Archives of the ASI.
c4.s7.t1.5
It would have been possible to replace missing or bad impressions by reversed prints of the original seals, but this procedure was strictly refrained from; it could have lead to serious misunderstandings, for some seals have a reversed direction of writing.