Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols A Short Introduction to the Study of the Indus Script With Comments on the Corner Symbols by Donal B. Buchanan Abstract: The Indus seals were used in connection with commerce, both international and local. The basic elements of the seals must therefore have some relevance to their use. It is argued that the animal figures are totemic, identifying either place of origin or destination, and that certain other symbols denote the character of the goods being transferred and/or the means used to transport the goods to which the seals were probably affixed. It is thus possible to come to certain conclusions as to what information the inscriptions were intended to convey. This article was first published by ESOP in Volume 3, Part 2, Paper 66, September 1976. It has been radically revised in 2010 for Volume 28 based on additional information obtained in the interim. Note: The images in this article all appear in Jagat P. Joshi and Asko Parpola s excellent volume: Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions 1. Collections in India . While many have appeared in other publications as well, we used that volume because of the excellent quality of the photographs of the artifacts. In every case we used a computer to flip the seal photos horizontally so as to publish them in impression format (often photos of actual impressions fail to show all features clearly). Photos of the corner symbols were removed from the seals and rendered as separate graphics using Adobe Photoshop. The Indus script was used by the culture that built Harappa, Mohenjodaro, and other city-sites identified with the Indus Valley civilization between the years 2,550 and 1,900 BCE (as reported in Asko Parpola s Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge, 1994). As one of the undeciphered writings of the world, it has always held a special fascination for linguistic scholars. No long inscriptions hav e yet been found, but numerous short inscriptions, engrav ed on seals, sealings, and copper or bronze tablets have been discov ered. Some are scratched on pots. The seals carry the negative of the inscriptions and it is their impressions which give the positive readings. Several claims have been made for the decipherment of the Indus script. L.A. Waddell, in 1925, used the Sumerian script as a starting point on the basis of the close trading contacts between the Sumerians and the Indus Valley civilization. Although a causal relationship of some kind between the two scripts is not unlikely, his efforts, as well as those of S. Langdon and C.J. Gadd, were unsuccessful. Flinders Petrie compared the script to Egyptian hieroglyphs and G. Piccoli (1933) sought the answer in ancient Etruscan. Also in 1933 the Hungarian scholar G. De Hevesy pointed out the startling resemblance between the Indus signs and the equally undeciphered Easter Island script (best seen on the Rongorongo boards). Prem Nath (1939) and G.R. Hunter (1934) separately saw the Indus writing as the progenitor of the Brahmi script. This theory has been occasionally revived, but without much success. G.R. Hunter did, however, make the first analytical attack upon the script. He indicated certain signs as being suffixes and classified these separately from the basic signs. He believed that it was a distinct script which nonetheless bore resemblances to the Sumerian and Elamite scripts. He felt that the seal inscriptions recorded names and personal titles and was of the opinion that the people were either Dravidian or a foreign riverine people. In 1939 the Czech, B. Hrozny, having been successful with the Hittite script, attacked the Indus writings. He suggested that the language was Indo-European and perhaps proto-Hittite. Swami Shankarananda sought the solution in Tantric literature and also stressed the Indo-European origin of the Indus people. Father Heras study of the script was widely publicized in the 1940s and 1950s. He denied the Indo-European origin of the Indus culture and theorized that the people of Harappa and Mohenjodaro were probably Dravidians and therefore spoke a protoDravidian language. His readings, however, have been called whimsical, but many modern scholars now feel that the Indus language may indeed be a form of ProtoDravidian. 16 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols At the time this present article first appeared (1976), the Indus script was under massive attack by Indian scholars such as Fateh Singh, Krishna Rao, S.K. Roy, and S.R. Rao. Roy, in particular, did excellent work on the identification of ligatures (two or more signs combined to form a new sign). He regarded the script as Indo-European (proto-Sanskrit) and noted relationships with Egyptian, Phoenician, and Greek. Essentially cryptographic attacks (attempts to determine the grammatical and linguistic structure using computer analysis) were separately mounted by teams of Russian and Finnish scholars. The Russians, under the leadership of Y.V. Knorozov, began their work as early as 1964. Both teams assumed that the language involved was proto-Dravidian. In June 1968, the Finns, led by Asko Parpola, reported that they had succeeded in deciphering many signs. Later, however, Parpola admitted that this announcement, written in the first flush of enthusiasm, had been premature and incautious. In December 1971, S.R. Rao announced that he had deciphered many of the signs and had determined that the language used was Indo-European. In 1975 Dr. Barry Fell, the founder of The Epigraphic Society, publishing in ESOP, declared that the script was alphabetic and clothes an Indo-European language related to classical Sanskrit. He identified markings he called vowel points (S.R. Rao also held that certain of the markings on the seals were intended to modify the vowel value). Studies of the script then began to get into high gear. In January 1977, the excellent Indian scholar, Iravatham Mahadevan, publishedThe Indus Script Texts, Concordance and Tables. Between 1979 and 1982 the Finns, Kimmo Koskenniemi and Asko Parpola published a 3-volume set: 1. Corpus of Texts of the Indus Script, 2. Documentation and Duplicates of the Texts in the Indus Script, and 3. A Concordance to the Texts in the Indus Script. In 1987 Jagat Pati Joshi and Asko Parpola published Volume I of the Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 86:Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions 1. Collections in India. In 1994 Asko Parpola published his magnificent book Deciphering the Indus Script. In 1998, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer published Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. In September 1998, Bryan Wells published An Introduction to Indus Writing (Early Sites Research Society West Publication #2). All these volumes are absolute necessities for the student of the Indus Valley Civilization and its script. Although many of the approaches discussed in the works above look promising, there has been as yet no sure-fire break-through on the decipherment of the Indus script. It is not, perhaps, as baffling as it once was; but it remains a mystery. No claim of decipherment is made here. I did attempt the decipherment of one line in the earlier version of this paper, but as Parpola put it above I was premature and incautious (due to the poor condition of the photo I had which contained the inscription, I had completely misread one of the characters). It is my hope that the theory presented below may be useful to those who are working towards a decipherment. No doubt others have already thought along these lines. If so, I have not yet run across them. I became seriously interested in the Indus script in the 1960s and began to collect material on the problem (I was fortunate in that the government agency I worked for sent me TDY to India for 3 months and in the process of working with Indian colleagues managed to meet two chaps, one Indian and the other Pakistani, who had both served as patrolmen at Mohenjodaro). Upon studying the seals (to be more exact, most were seal impressions), it at once became apparent that most of them bore markings that could be broken down into three categories: a. b. c. A short inscription, usually at the top; The figure of an animal; A small figure in the lower right hand corner (or left hand corner depending on whether one was dealing with an impression or with the seal itself). Quite naturally, the heaviest concentration of work by scholars of the script has centered on the inscriptions; but should we not ask ourselves: What was the purpose of these seals and why were they constructed the way they were? This would not permit the immediate decipherment of the script, but it might serve to establish parameters tell us what not to look for in terms of meaning. ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 17 Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols Ancient peoples often used totemic emblems on their flags, structures, shields and seals; and these emblems usually consisted of animal figures. This is known to have been true of the ancient Tamils of the Indian sub-continent (Dravidian speakers). Merchandise was sealed with the totems of kings, tribes, and owners; stamped on clay tablets and attached to bales of goods in the customs yard. This use of seals has been preserved in the Tamil literature and was noticed by the Finns. It should, however, be noted that the Indo-Europeans also used animals as totemic figures. It is known that certain venerable Indian cities are still identified with specific totem animals. As mentioned above, Father Heras early came to the conclusion that the language clothed in the script is probably proto-Dravidian and, in his major work (see the Bibliography) he remarked on the totemic appearance of the animal figures on the seals. Independently of the Finns, I came to the early conclusion that the animal figures on the seals (usually referred to in the literature as Field Objects) must be totemic in nature; and most scholars have long agreed that the seals had something to do with trade (as described above). Thus, the animal figures may denote the totem of the city (or city-state) of origin of the seal (and thus of the merchandise to which the seal is attached) or possibly the city (or city-state) of destination. If the animals are totem figures representing cities or tribes, then we may hav e the explanation for the famous large seal impression from the lower city at Mohenjodaro (it is sometimes called proto-Shiva ; you can see it to the right and on the cover of this issue of ESOP). It shows what appears to be a deity (or a Kingtotem?) wearing a horned headdress, numerous bangles, bracelets, and a v-shaped collar or necklace. In my opinion his face is more like the front view of an animal (buffalo or bull?) than human. He is seated regally on a raised platform and is surrounded by animals typical of the Indian sub-continent: a rhino, a buffalo, an elephant and a tiger. There is also a small man-like figure between the elephant and the tiger. Below the platform there are two animals which are probably identical (one was effaced by damage to the seal, but healed in the version on ESOP s cover). They have been tentatively identified as goats. If we take as our premise that the central figure represents a ruling entity (or the totem of a ruling city-state), the figures surrounding it could be representative of vassal cities (subordinate city-states?) or tribes. In the 1976 version of this article, at this point I discussed Barry Fell s findings concerning the inscription shown on the proto-Shiva seal above and even attempted a faulty translation of my own (mentioned above). I recommend to you Dr. Fell s article in ESOP Volume 2, Paper 39 (followed up by Linus Brunner with some additional material in the same volume, Paper 40). We come now to the small figures noted in the corner of many of the seal impressions. It has become the habit in the literature to refer to these images as Cult Objects (this, no doubt, due to the identifications made by the scholars referenced above). I do not like that term, because it contains a conclusion as to the true nature of the images used and I believe the identification is wrong. I suggest an unloaded term: Corner Symbols. Insofar as this element is concerned, the seals break down into two categories: those with a figure in the corner and those without. Allowing for stylistic differences, Corner Symbols can be divided into two main and three minor categories (shown below; note different stylistic renditions). 1. 18 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols 2. 3. 4. 5. Dr. Fell referred to one or both of figures 1 and 2 as an altar . Walter A. Fairservis inThe Roots of India lumps the Corner Symbols together as a rather enigmatic object that is very probably an emblem or standard of some ritual significance. G.R. Hunter opined that they referred to some kind of religious offering. Jonathan M. Kenoyer identified them as the so-called ritual offering stand and the feeding trough. Mahadevan, speaking of Corner Symbol 1, described it as a representation of a filter, not the filter itself, and the staff shows that (it) is meant to be a standard, carried in processions. We actually have sealings from Mohenjo-daro which show examples of this being carried in processions. Somewhere in the literature (a reference that has escaped me; I think he was an archaeologist) a scholar has asserted it represents a drill. I believe that the identifications cited above are incorrect. There was a functional purpose for the presence or absence of the Corner Symbols on the seals. That purpose must be related to the use of the seals. It is widely agreed that the seals were used to mark objects involved in trade (hmm could one call them Commercial Objects?). Note Corner Symbol 1. Allowing for stylistic differences (as various carvers used their artistic license to render it), most representations of this figure are rather good head-on views of a sailing vessel with a reed sail, oars, and possibly a keel or a long steering oar projecting downward. The sides of the vessel even sometimes show signs of a lapstrake construction typical of boats from many civilizations ancient and modern. We know from finds at Lothal and Mohenjodaro that the Indus civilization possessed vessels with all of these attributes. Indus seals bearing the ship icon have been found in Kish and Dilmun indicating the existence of international trade. I suggest that this symbol denoted either send by sea or arrived by sea . Similarly, all the versions of Corner Symbol 2 would appear to bear resemblance to a container of some sort. I now agree with the designation by many scholars that this represents a container for feed. I believe these are representations of load-bearing receptacles as used on pack animals (again, allowing for stylistic differences). They might denote goods intended to travel overland by pack animals (perhaps grain, used for feed, among other possibilities). An impression of a seal bearing corner symbol 2 is shown on page 132 of Parpola s Decipherment of the Indus Script. It is believed to have been found in Mesopotamia. It seems logical to me that seals bearing these corner symbols were used in international trade. The seals that bear no symbols in the corner, it should be noted, usually depict the same animals which we have tentatively identified above with vassal cities or tribes. Thus, they may denote local trade. Besides the usual unicorn Field Symbol, I have also seen Corner Symbol 2 associated with a tiger and an elephant. Corner Symbol 3 is rather enigmatic. It appears to be a form of Mahadevan s Sign 257 (which in itself, might be a form of his Sign 197). Could it perhaps represent a cage of some sort? That would indicate that the Tiger (the only Field Object I have seen so far bearing this Corner Symbol) might not only be totemic, but also represent the commercial item being transported (we know that Asian tigers were prize occupants in Egyptian zoos of the period and possibly Sumerian). I have no argument with the identification of Corner Symbol 4 as grass . I have seen it only with rabbit Field Objects except for one possible exception (and the rabbit seals are not seals at all since the rabbit and Corner Symbol are scratched on one side of the ceramic square and the inscription on the other). I seem to remember a seal with the tiger associated with Corner Symbol 4, but have yet to relocate it. ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 19 Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols Corner Symbol 5 is clearly a man sitting in a tree. It seems only associated with the tiger Field Object. It is a pretty good match for Mahadevan s signs 45 and 46. When hunting a tiger, it is a good idea to be up high someplace where he can t (you hope) reach you. So, in this case, the chap in the tree might be a hunter or prey. The above observations are consistent with the purported use of the seals as marking devices utilized in connection with trade. What, then does this tell us about the inscription at the top? Briefly, we have so far a clan or city totem, and a sign indicative of means of transport of goods. The inscription, it follows, should contain information along the following lines: a. b. c. d. A description of the type and/or quantity of goods, Name of the sender or owner, Name of the intended recipient, Or a combination of the above. The author expressed these opinions to Dr. George Sales of Pennsylvania University in June 1970. Dr. Sales was polite, listened, and said it was an interesting theory; but he made no further comment. He was, however, extremely helpful in providing me with research material. I must also thank Dr. Asko Parpola who provided me with material as well after I sent him the 1976 version of my paper in 1983. Although I have had access to many of the volumes I ve mentioned above and in the Bibliography below, I cannot claim to have read them thoroughly, but I have delved in them as references. Several of them are newly acquired and I ve not had the time to adequately examine them. I make no excuses for this: Many of them are huge. All are eminently worth examination. It is possible someone else has trod the same road as myself. I have not seen the thoughts expressed above in the literature as yet and welcome comments, criticisms, or information from interested epigraphers. Bibliography Author unknown Indus Script. Article, Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday 30 March 1969. Author unknown Indus Valley Code Broken. Article on Finnish work. Baltimore Sun, 8 June 1968. Author unknown Dating India s Past Article on Carbon-14 dates relating to the Indus civilization,Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday 30 March 1969. Bonta, Steven Christopher Topics in the Study of the Indus Valley Script. Master of Arts Thesis, Brigham Young University, April 1996. Buck, C.D. A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965. Burrow, T Dravidian and the Decipherment of the Indus Script. Antiquity 172, 1969. Craven, Thomas The New Royal Dictionary (Hindi). Methodist Publishing House, Lucknow, India, 1932. Dani, Ahmad Hasan Mystery Script of the Indus Valley. Article,unidentified magazine, c. June 1974. Devasthali, G.V. The Students New Sanskrit Dictionary, Bombay, India, 1955. Diringer, David The Alphabet. Two volumes. Funk and Wagnalls, New York, 1968. Doblhofer, Ernst Voices in Stone. Viking Press, New York, 1961. Fairservis, Walter A. The Roots of Ancient India, the Archaeology of Early Indian Civilization; pp 273-282. Macmillan, New York, 1971. Farmer, Steve with Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization. Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, pp. 19-57, 2004. Fell, Dr. H. B. Proto-Sanskrit, A Bronze Age Language of Mohenjodaro. Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers (ESOP), Volume 2, Paper #39, March 1975. Friedrich, Johannes Extinct Languages. Philosophical Library, New York, 1957. Heras, Rev. H. (S.J.) Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture, (Volume I). Indian Historical Research Institute, Bombay, India, 1953. Hrozny, B. Monografie Archivu Orientalniho, Volume VII: Uber die Alteste Volkerwanderung und Uber das Problem der Proto-Indischen Zivilisation ( On the Oldest Migration and the Proto-Indian Civilization ). Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1939. Hunter, G.R. The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts. London, England, Kegan Paul, 1934. 20 ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 Intro: Study of the Indus Script w/Comments on Corner Symbols Jensen, Hans Sign, Symbol and Script. G.P. Putnam s Sons, New York, 1969. Joshi, Jagat Pati and Asko Parpola Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. Annales Scientiarum Fennicae. Helsinki, 1987. Kak, Subhash C. A Frequency Analysis of the Indus Script. Cryptologia, Vol. XII, #3, July 1988. Indus and Brahmi Further Connections. MS obtained from the author. An Indus-Sarasvati Signboard. MS obtained from the author. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. American Institute of Pakistan Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 998. Koskenniemi, Kimmo and Asko Parpola Corpus of Texts in the Indus Script. Dept. of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Research Reports No. 1. Helsinki, Finland, January 1979. Documentation and Duplicates of the Texts in the Indus Script. Dept. of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Research Reports No. 2. Helsinki, Finland, November 1980. A Concordance to the Texts in the Indus Script. Dept. of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, Research Reports No. 3. Helsinki, Finland, May 1982. Koskenniemi, Seppo and Asko and Simo Parpola Materials for the Study of the Indus Script. Academia Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki, Finland, 1973. Lal, B.B. 1969. Indus Script: Inconsistencies in Claims of Decipherment. Article,Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday, 6 April Mahadevan, Iravathan The Indus Script Texts, Concordance and Tables. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 77. New Delhi, India, 1977. Mackay, E. Further Excavations at Mohenjodaro. Plates of seals and copper tablets plus a sign list. New Delhi, India, 1938. Mitchiner, John E. Studies in The Indus Valley Inscriptions. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, India, 1978. Parpola, Asko Pathak, R.C. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1994. Bhargava s Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the Hindi Language. Bhargava, Varanasi, India, July 1961. Rajagopalan, R. The Secrets of the Indus Valley. Children s Book Trust, New Delhi, India, 1992. Rao, S.R. Indus Script Deciphered. Article. The Illustrated Weekly of India, 12 Dec. 1971. Ray (Roy), S.K. Deciphering the Indus Script: Ray Explains His Methodology. Interview.Sunday Standard (Daily Express), 7 March 1965. Sharan, Anand M. On the Deciphering of the Indus Valley Script and the solution of the Brahui Problem. www.engr.mun.ca/ ~asharan/bihar/indus/indus~3.htm, March 2010. Thapar, B.K. Vats, M.S. 1940. Dating of the Indus Civilization. Article.Hindustan Times Weekly, Sunday 6 April 1969. Excavations at Harappa. Plates of seals and a sign list. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, India, Waddell, L.A. The Makers of Civilization. Luzac and Co., London, England, 1929. Wells, Bryan An Introduction to Indus Writing. Early Sites Research Society West, Publication No. 2. Master of Arts Thesis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, January 1998. Whitney, W.D. Sanskrit Grammar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1941. Wilson, J.V. Kinnier Indo-Sumerian A New Approach to the Problems of the Indus Script. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1974. Zide, Arlene R.K. and Kamil V. Zvelebil (editors) The Soviet Decipherment of the Indus Valley Script Translation and Critique. Mouton & Co., The Hague and Paris, France, 1976 Oldest Hebrew Inscription by Far. An ostracon recently found in Israel carries the oldest known inscription in Hebrew. It dates to the tenth century B.C. and thus pushes the age of Classical Hebrew back four centuries earlier than its origins were previously believed to be, says decipherer Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa. This has implications for the ages of some of the books of the Old Testament as well as for how early Hebrew might have been introduced into distant areas. See World News, in the April/May 2010 Current World Archaeology 4(4). (Provided by Steve Jett, Editor-Publisher of Pre-Columbiana.) ESOP * The Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers * Volume 28 21