At this point, we should examine the evidence presented
against the hypothesis that the Indus script is a writing system (Farmer,
Sproat, and Witzel 2004). There are
several indicators noted in this famous paper, all of them suggesting that this
script is not a fully developed writing system:
(1)
Brevity of the inscriptions, with an average of
4 to 5 signs each, the longest by any count containing fewer than 30 signs;
(2)
The absence of evidence that longer inscriptions
once existed on a perishable medium (such as remains of “inkpots, brushes,
palettes, styli, pens, and other literate paraphernalia; representations of
scribes, texts, and writing instruments in art or pictographic scripts; and
major changes in the shapes and orientations of signs tied to scribal attempts
to increase the efficiency of copying long texts” (2004: 25);
(3)
The odd sign frequencies, described above, in
which twenty signs account for over 50% of all sign occurrences, while the vast
majority of signs are rare;
(4)
The low frequency of sign repetition within
single inscriptions, which suggests that the signs did not represent phonetic
information;
(5)
Within the group of repeating signs, some seem
to appear in groups (such as the various types of FISH that appear in a
series), and when a specific sign does repeat in an inscription, it may repeat
several times in a row, which suggests a possible enumerative function rather
than encoding of phonetic information;
(6)
Besides the large number of singletons and rare
signs, new excavations tend to turn up still more of this class, suggesting
that new symbols were created as time went on, a characteristic not normally
found in phonetic writing;
(7)
Some non-linguistic symbols “exhibit a kind of
linearity that is not dissimilar from the sort found on some (but by no means
all) Indus inscriptions,” including VinĨa inscriptions from southeastern Europe
and the symbols of deities on kudurru
and elsewhere in the Near East;
(8)
Sometimes symbols with seemingly clear meaning
behave in odd ways, such as apparent numerals appearing in inscriptions where
they appear not to qualify or enumerate anything -(e.g., K-59 which reads:
DEE-SLASH / SINGLE POST / STACKED THREE / STACKED FIVE; or K-49: THREE
QUOTES / STACKED SEVEN / MAN
WITH SHOULDER YOKE).
The conclusion of Farmer et al is that “Indus
inscriptions were neither able nor intended to encode detailed ‘messages,’ not
even in the approximate ways performed by formal mnemonic systems in other
nonliterate societies. Their most likely
function, as suggested by Near Eastern parallels, was to associate individuals,
families, clans, offices, cities, festivals, or professions, etc., with
specific gods or their celestial correspondents, partly for identification
purposes and partly to draw down whatever magic was accessible through those
gods’ symbols” (2004: 42-43).
A sealed proto-Elamite economic tablet from Susa, with two numerals; perhaps to be read "twelve [animals]" (after Potts 1999: 61, Pl. 3.1) |
We may wish to examine some of these arguments in greater
detail. For example, some scholars
counter the fact of the brevity of inscriptions by presuming that longer texts
did occur, but on perishable media. They
may cite the existence of long texts on such media in later, historical
periods, as evidence by analogy (e.g., Parpola 2009: 54). Historical
arguments of this type are very weak evidence, since we know of a great many
things that only came to exist in later, historical periods. For example, we cannot look at the bronze
artifacts from the Indus Valley and say that, because iron and steel implements
also appear later on, the Indus Civilization must also have produced iron and
steel – in the Bronze Age. No, in the Bronze Age, implements were made of bronze, while iron came into use later. No doubt many
objects were made of perishable material during the Bronze Age and so are lost
to us. For example, cloth has not
survived from this period in the Indus Valley.
However, unlike the proposed long texts, there is evidence of cloth and
clothing from Harappan statues and figurines that were modeled to depict
clothing. Thus, even though the cloth
itself is gone now, we do find evidence that it existed during the Bronze
Age. This is the type of evidence that
Farmer et al do not find when it
comes to longer Indus texts. Not only are
there no long texts, there is no indirect evidence that lengthy inscriptions
once existed.
This by itself is insufficient to make the case against
Indus script being a fully developed writing system, of course. Most of the evidence for a Lycian script
comes from short inscriptions, for example, as is also true of Etruscan (although in
each of these cases there is also at least one long text). It is sometimes argued that absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.
But, of course, when no evidence is forthcoming, that does suggest
something. In other words, absence of
evidence is indeed a kind of evidence for absence; it just is not proof.
Regardless of this point, Farmer et al have additional
arguments that are stronger. The
statistics on sign frequency suggest that Indus “script” is a proto-writing
system along the lines of proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite. They themselves note this parallel. Now, an Assyriologist may not focus on
proto-cuneiform not being a fully developed writing system, because, in time, it did develop into such a system. Determining the precise point at which this
happened seems unimportant because of the continuity.
A tag from Egyptian Tomb U-j at Abydos bearing possible early hieroglyph (after O'Connor 2009: 145). |
Egyptian hieroglyphs also had an early phase that may have
been proto-writing, as evidenced by the brief inscriptions on tags (small,
flat, rectangular objects of wood or ivory on which there may be a glyph or
two) found in pre-Dynastic tombs at Abydos (O’Connor 2009: 143-147). Here again, the determination of the exact point
at which proto-writing developed into true writing is not a major focus of
scholars. That it did develop into true
writing is clear.
But in the case of both proto-Elamite and the Indus script,
there is no continuity with later writing systems. Instead, these early systems died out. This is also the case with Aztec
proto-writing in Mesoamerica. Unlike the
neighboring Mayans, the Aztecs (and their predecessors) did not develop true
writing and eventually their symbols ceased to be used at all.
Moving to the second argument against the Indus script
thesis, Farmer et al note the absence of Harappan artwork depicting scribes at
work along with the equal absence of archeological evidence that writing
occurred. This, too, is rather weak
evidence, but evidence it still is. The
third argument, the peculiar frequency data, with many rare signs versus a
small core of frequent signs, was discussed in the previous post.
The fourth argument focuses on the behavior of the frequent
signs, the core symbols that appear again and again. I noted in the last post that the Egyptian
glyphs representing single consonants tend to occur the most frequently, even
in the limited area of royal names and titles in cartouches. I noted that the bread loaf representing t is
one of the most common glyphs, a symbol that appears twice in King Tut’s name
(in the New Kingdom) and twice in the name of two First Dynasty kings, Atet I and II (during the Old Kingdom). Other
glyphs are sometimes doubled, as is the case with the irrigation ditches (N24) representing Semti, fifth pharaoh of the First Dynasty, and as is the case with Bebi, a king of the
Second Dynasty (the glyph of a human leg and foot, D58, is doubled, representing b).
The final element in these names is –i or y, a sound that
represents dual number in the Egyptian language. In the names, the same sound may or may not represent the dual. Glyphs can also be tripled to represent the
plural, as in the name of the fifth king of the Fourth Dynasty, Menkaure. But besides such consecutive repetitions,
glyphs can be repeated in non-adjacent positions. This is the case of the chick (G43) representing
w in the name of Khufu (Fourth
Dynasty), as is also true of the reed (M17) in Asa (son-of-Ra name of
Shepseskara of the Fifth Dynasty).
Tablet H-764AB with inscriptions: CIRCLE / 3 TOED FOOT / POT (A side); TRIPLE CUPS (B side) (tripling may be enumerative, i.e., equal to 3 + CUP). |
A fair number of Indus signs appear either singly or
doubled, e.g., the GRID, the CEE, and CIRCLE.
Less commonly, one finds a symbol repeated in a non-consecutive position:
M-396 contains two of the BLANKET WITH FOUR TICKS separated by four signs;
H-369 contains two of the POTTED ONE separated by one sign; M-634 contains
three of the CARTWHEEL with one sign separating each instance. If this type of repetition were common in
Indus inscriptions, this would suggest that phonetic information was conveyed
by the common, repeating signs, as in Egyptian.
But since this kind of repetition is infrequent, the argument against
phonetic encoding is supported.
The fifth argument addresses the kind of sign repetition that
occurs more often, doubling and tripling in consecutive series. Parpola mentions this:
A few signs occur with three- or
fourfold repetition: [TRIPLE BOATS, TRIPLE RECTANGLES, TRIPLE CUPS, QUADRUPLE
TRI-FORKS]. Of these signs, only [CUP]
and [TRI-FORK] are preceded (in other texts) by groups of strokes, which
evidently denote numbers. The sequence [CUP
/ CUP / CUP] occurs on the reverse sides of some of the miniature tablets from
Harappa, which normally show the sequences [CUP], [TWO POSTS / CUP], [THREE
POSTS / CUP], or [FOUR POSTS / CUP]. The
sequence [CUP / MAN HOLDING CUP] in the broken seal inscription 1165 [CUP / MAN
HOLDING CUP / BI-QUOTES // BELTED FISH /...] is paralleled by the sequence [TWO
POSTS / MAN HOLDING CUP] on the reverse of tablet H-247. The sequences [TRIPLE TRI-FORKS] and [QUADRUPLE
TRI-FORKS] form the entire inscriptions of two ivory sticks (2795 and 2803),
but a third ivory stick (2792) bears the inscription [FOUR QUOTES / QUINT-FORK]. It therefore seems safe to regard [TRIPLE
CUPS] and [THREE POSTS / CUP] as alternative ways to write ‘3 CUP' (2009: 81).
Farmer et agree that this kind of sign repetition is
enumerative rather than phonetic. It may very well be. I would point out, though,
that such repetition is only quasi-enumerative in Egyptian, with three
repetitions of a glyph often representing a plural form (ending in –w), alongside rare instances of
quadrupling where three instances still represent the plural form with the
fourth representing phonetic repetition, as in Nefer-neferu-aten, with three nfr glyphs for –neferu- and a fourth nfr
representing the initial Nefer-.
Impression of a cylinder seal with Mesopotamian images but Indus inscription, MS2046 (from right): STACKED TWELVE / DEE & BACK DEE OVERLAPPING / MAN WITH SINGLE STRIPED EAR (?) / SPEAR. |
Farmer et al further note that continuing excavations
periodically turn up additional Indus symbols.
For example, there is an apparent lizard, depicted in bird’s eye view,
on a seal in the Schoyen collection, a sign not included in any published list. Another seal contains an inscription with
another new symbol, a DEE with a BACK DEE overlapping it. This type of open-endedness is to be expected
in a proto-writing or non-glottographic system, especially if there is a need
for new symbols to representing “owners” – just as in modern Texas, there is
always room for another cattle brand to represent the owner of the
livestock.
An additional argument focuses on the linearity of Indus
symbols. The fact that the signs often
appear in neat rows makes the script seem like writing. But this is only a subjective judgment. Symbols that are not linguistic have been
known to appear in similar rows. Farmer
et al cite the symbols on kudurru,
the foundation stones of Kassite Babylonia that bear both written texts and
non-linguistic emblems of deities. Both the signs of the text and the non-linguistic emblems are neatly aligned in rows. To this observation
I note some Navaho sand paintings, in which representations of yeis (supernatural beings) also line up
in rows (Newcomb and Reichard 1975: Pl. III, with three rows of four Snake
People). In fact, the preschool child
often arranges toys in a neat linear manner as a habitual form of play. So the urge to make linear arrangements may
be universal (although obviously that urge is much less strong in some people
than in others).
Proto-cuneiform inscription on the Blau chisel, showing grouping of signs in compartments rather than a strictly linear arrangement (drawn after Aruz 2003: 39). |
The reverse of this argument is also of interest. Signs of a known writing system may not
necessarily be arranged in lines – whether rows or columns. Egyptian hieroglyphs could be written either
in rows or columns, from right to left or from left to right. But even within each row or column, the
glyphs do not always follow one another in a perfectly linear sequence. Two small glyphs are frequently stacked one
on top of the other in a row. In effect,
this creates a short column within a row.
And in a column, two tall and thin glyphs are frequently placed side by
side, in effect forming a row within a column. In addition, even within a word,
glyphs sometimes follow a peculiar sequence.
Theophoric elements in names precede other glyphs, regardless of the
sequence in the spoken language. In King
Tut’s name, for example, the last element is Amun, the name of the ram
god. But when the king’s name is
written, the two glyphs spelling Amun appear in initial position, with Tut- and
–ankh- following. Luwian hieroglyphs
appear even less ordered than Egyptian, in a great jumble of symbols minimally arranged in rows. So linearity is not necessarily a sign of a
writing system and writing is not necessarily linearly arranged.
Indus seal B-10 with non-linear arrangement of symbols in the inscription: SEVEN QUOTES // TRI-FORK (or is the latter an abbreviated cult stand?). |
Farmer et al also note some of the peculiarities of the
apparent numerals in the Indus script.
Some of the oddest inscriptions seem to contain nothing for the “numerals”
to enumerate. With Korvink’s analysis of
the various BEARER signs as terminals, how does one analyze such inscriptions as
M-96 (FOUR QUOTES / POT-HATTED BEARER), or M-919 (THREE QUOTES / BEARER), or
the bare "numeral" in B-10 (SEVEN QUOTES)? Similarly, bearing
in mind Korvink’s analysis of sign + BI-QUOTES as a prefix, how can one
interpret M-692 (CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // FOUR QUOTES / SINGLE POST)?
Tablet H-892A and B: note inscription on B begins with CUP on right. |
Tablet H-951A and B: note the B begins with FOUR POSTS on right, ending with CUP. |
The apparent numerals that do appear alongside other types
of signs are sometimes described as preceding the other sign, supposedly an
indication that qualifiers in general must have preceded their referents in the
Harappan language. For example,
Koskenniemi and Parpola cautiously state, “Soviet scholars have expressed an
opinion which we share that the Indus language appears to be fairly consistently
left-branching” (1982: 12). It is indeed common
to find CUP preceded by an apparent numeral on tablets (reading right to
left). But there are also tablets with
the opposite sequence, the “numeral” preceded by the CUP (H-771B right to left
FOUR POSTS / CUP; H-777B CUP / TWO POSTS; H-784B TWO POSTS CUP; H-781B CUP /
THREE POSTS).
It is not just the tablets that present such contradictory data. On seals, one frequently
finds a sequence with one or another form of SEVEN preceding EF TOPPED EXIT (e.g.,
in H-268) (19 occurrences), but almost as common is STRIPED TRIANGLE followed
by SEVEN (12 occurrences). Similarly,
some form of THREE precedes OVERLAPPING CIRCLES 18 times, but typically follows
CUPPED POST or CUPPED SPOON (as in M-714).
Thus the “numerals” neither inevitably precede nor invariably follow a
sign in pair-wise combinations. If these symbols were interpreted linguistically, one would be at a loss to explain such contradictory pairings.
It is for these reasons that I accept the argument of Farmer et al that the Indus script does not represent fully developed writing. Or, as Malcolm Hyman prefers to express it, this script is non-glottographic. In his point of view, the important question is what
relationship exists between glottographic and non-glottographic writing? (2006:
1-29). His suggested answer is that
there is no simple dividing line between these two types. Even a society that has glottographic writing
will often still continue to use non-glottographic “writing” or symbols. As noted earlier, while we have true writing
today, we also use non-glottographic numerals.
Thus, semasiography or non-glottographic systems are not failed writing,
not mere historical stages on the way to true writing.
They may serve entirely different functions. So it would be more useful to focus on the
question of what functions a non-glottographic Indus system performed and how
this was accomplished rather than attempting to assert that it was
glottographic in the absence of clear evidence.
REFERENCES
Aruz, J., ed. 2003. Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press.
Budge, E.A. Wallis. 1920 and 1978. Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. Volume I-II. New York: Dover
(1978 reprint of 1920 original, published by John Murray, London).
Dahl, Jacob L. 2005. “Animal Husbandry in Susa during the
Proto-Elamite Period” in SMEA 47:
81-134.
Damerow, Peter and Robert Englund. 1989. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University.
Englund, Robert. 2001. “The State of Decipherment of
Proto-Elamite,” available at cdli.uncla.edu online.
Fairservis, Walter A. 1992. The Harappan Civilization and Its Writing: A Model for the Decipherment
of the Indus Script. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Farmer, Steve, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel. 2004. “The
Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan
civilization,” in Electronic Journal of
Vedic Studies (11) 2: 19-57.
Available at http://www.safarner.com/downloads
Hyman, Malcolm D. 2006. “Of Glyphs and Glottography,” in Language and Communication.
Koskenniemi, Kimmo and Asko Parpola. 1982. A
Concordance to the Texts in the Indus Script. Helsinki: Department of Asian
and African Studies, University of Helsinki.
Korvink, Michael P. 2007. The Indus Script: A Positional Statistical Approach. Gilund Press
(Amazon).
Nakanishi, Akira. 1980. Writing
Systems of the World: Alphabets, Syllabaries, Pictograms. Boston: Tuttle
Publishing.
Newcomb, F.J. and G.A. Reichard. 1975. Sandpaintings of the Navajo Shooting Chant. New York: Dover (orig.
1937 by J.J. Augustin).
O’Connor, David. 2009. Abydos:
Egypt’s First Pharaohs and the Cult of Osiris. London: Thames & Hudson.
Parpola, Asko. 2009 and 1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: University Press.
Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: University Press.
Smith, M.E. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Wells, Bryan K. 2011. Epigraphic
Approaches to Indus Writing. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Old Persian cuneiform unicode document: http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/personal/jg/unicode/table8.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0274-1
ReplyDelete