 |
| Tablet M-1405 A and B: POT-HATTED BEARER, side A, on right above, followed by an unusual form of anthropomorph -- a sign or part of the icon? An equally odd anthropomorph, with both arms raised, appears on a purported manuscript from Kabul, Afghanistan. Is MAN intended? |
I have not posted recently as I have been working on my
database on Indus inscriptions. I have
been going through the concordance of Koskenniemi and Parpola (1982), looking for
each of their noted inscriptions in my database.
It is a slow and tedious process, because I look up many of their
inscriptions in two or three different ways due to our often different “readings.” It will be some
time before I completely finish the process.
The purpose of doing this is, first, to correct errors that
I have made (especially frequent on the difficult-to-“read” tablets) and,
second, to establish whether similar symbols are indeed independent signs or variants
of a single sign. Since I began my
classification by counting the strokes required to draw each sign, minor differences
in the number of stripes (as in the STRIPED TRIANGLE, STRIPED VEST, etc.) or
prongs (as in the TRI-FORK, QUAD-FORK, etc.) included in a symbol distinguished
independent signs. It is now clear that most
of this type of variation is not meaningful.
For example, the STRIPED TRIANGLE appears in essentially the same
contexts regardless of the number of internal stripes.
 |
| Seal M-58 with inscription: CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // STRIPED TRIANGLE (7 stripes) / TRIPLE TRIANGLES / POT. |
As a result, I no longer distinguish the CIRCLED BI-FORK
from the CIRCLED TRI-FORK, and so on.
All are now encoded CIRCLED FORK.
In fact, a short post that is encircled (PACMAN) is merely another
variant of the same sign. A circle
without any stripes at all remains distinct from the striped variety. This is a general rule, as striped versions
of a sign appear in a set of contexts that differ from those in which the
unstriped versions appear. Additionally,
a striped symbol occasionally occurs in the same inscription as an unstriped
symbol of similar shape. This indicates
two independent signs, one striped and one empty. Generally, the seal carvers seem to have
included more stripes/prongs on the larger seals containing few symbols. On smaller items and where a relatively large
number of signs are crowded together, there are fewer prongs and stripes.
 |
| Tablet H-187A with inscription (right to left): STRIPED TRIANGLE (4 stripes) / TRIPLE TRIANGLES / POT / COMB (note the first sign differs in stroke count from that in the previous inscription, but pairs with the same following sign, which indicates that the number of stripes does not distinguish independent signs). |
In a few cases I retained the distinct names where it is not
entirely clear to me that Koskenniemi and Parpola’s
groupings are correct. For example, they consider
two common motifs to be essentially one sign, CIRCLED VEE and VEE IN
DIAMOND. Both occur in the same
positions, especially in the prefix. This tends to show variants of one sign. However,
these two “versions” both appear together on rare occasions, an indication that
they are independent signs (M-855 and M-196).
These scholars are undoubtedly aware of the general rule that two
versions appearing together indicates independent signs, but the more common
occurrences in the same contexts must have convinced them to ignore the
anomalous inscriptions (1982: 196-200).
In most cases, though, Koskenniemi and Parpola’s groupings of signs
are clearly correct. They do not
distinguish the versions of PANTS, for example, since all variations appear in
much the same contexts. They do not
distinguish BELTED FISH from SLASH IN FISH or BACKSLASH IN FISH. I am changing my own database to reflect
this, noting all as MARKED FISH.
Similarly, they do not usually find mirror images of a sign to be distinct, so
the LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH (or BACKSLASH) now has the slightly simpler
name, LOOP MAN HOLDING SLASH. The
SKEWERED CHEVRON and ANKH signs should probably be merged, as these two are
grouped together into one section of the KP concordance. In fact, in several cases, I identified a particular
sign as SKEWERED CHEVRON but it is shown as ANKH in KP, or vice versa. This fact also suggests that these two are really
just variants of a single sign.
 |
| Detail from seal M-103 with inscription: CARTWHEEL / BI-QUOTES // FOUR QUOTES / TRI-FORK. This and other common prefixes fail to appear in the manuscript from Kabul, just as apparent numerals comprising short strokes (QUOTES) do not occur there -- two suspicious findings. |
Working through the concordance in this painstaking manner
assists in recognizing pairs of signs that often go together, as noted. I only mentioned a few of these in earlier
posts, based on the observations of M. Korvink.
The sign pairs that include apparent numerals are the ones I find most
intriguing. For example, several types
of “numeral” commonly appear before FISH, and many of the same ones also
frequently appear before one or another type of FORK. This regularity is part of the evidence that
various researchers use to conclude that numerals – and other modifiers – must
precede substantives in the language underlying the Indus script. But some of the “numerals” occur most often following another sign. For example, STACKED SEVEN normally follows
EF TOPPED EXIT or BATTERY. And the
CUPPED SPOON/CUPPED POST group frequently comes before THREE POSTS. Thus, there is not a clear-cut preference for
“numerals” as a group to either precede or to follow. It depends on the particular sign pair. Given such equivocal evidence, one cannot
really declare the Harappan language to be “right-branching” or
“left-branching.” As is so often the
case with this script, the overall impression is that the script is not closely
coupled to any particular language.
 |
| Round seal from those in the British Museum, this one found in 1883. Inscription: AY ON QUOTES / CRAB / SINGLE QUOTE // DOUBLE POTS (the only instance of this doubled terminal). |
This brings us to the matter of a supposed manuscript
containing Indus symbols that is displayed in a museum in Kabul,
Afghanistan. This “manuscript” surfaced
around the same time that Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel published their famous
paper entitled “The Collapse of the Indus Script Thesis” (2004). That timing arouses suspicion
immediately. Now a paper has become
available online describing this manuscript and comparing the symbols found on
it with those in the Indus script (Zuberbühler 2009). Zuberbühler finds 230 signs, of which 58 are
too damaged to be read. These include
between 62 and 76 independent signs depending on how they are analyzed. Of the 62 most securely identified symbols,
26 are nearly identical to Indus signs listed in Parpola (2009: 70-78). The author adds another sign to this group,
the LOOP or finless fish, based on its appearance among graffiti on pot
shards. Nine of the manuscript signs are
mirror images of symbols in Parpola’s list, while eight are simplified
variations containing one or more stroke less than the forms shown in Parpola’s
list. Four more are probable matches but, being partly obliterated by defects
in the manuscript, cannot be seen clearly.
There are 11 more possible matches, generally similar in shape to
Parpola’s signs but with more significant variations. Finally, one sign resembles the SPEAR but
contains an additional element not found among Parpola’s listed variants,
perhaps to be added to the dubious category.
Thus, of the 62 securely identified symbols in the manuscript, just three
are unlike Indus signs.
After comparing the individual signs, Zuberbühler counts the
frequency of each. Her conclusions are
that frequencies are broadly similar: “23 of the top 30, 27 of the top 40, 30
of the top 50 and 35 of the top 60 Indus symbols are present on the Kabul birch
bark” (2009: 26). In comparison, the
unrelated Easter Island script shares 10 of the top 30, 11 of the top 40, 14 of
the top 50 and 16 of the top 60 Indus signs.
These figures suggest a relationship between the Kabul signs and the
Indus script. But what
relationship? Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel
issued a challenge shortly after their paper was published, offering to pay
$10,000 to the discoverer of an Indus manuscript containing 50 or more
signs. The purpose of their challenge
was to underline their confidence that no such manuscript would ever be
discovered, because the Indus “proto-writing” system just was not used to
create such things. Should they now
prepare to pay up?
Before they consider such a payment, certain conditions must
be met. The first step, clearly, is to
determine whether the “relationship” of the Kabul manuscript is simply that of
a clever forgery. The bark manuscript could be carbon tested to determine its
age, for example. If it dates to the 20th
or 21st century – as most experts would expect – then it is a
forgery and no payment is due.
But let us suppose that our clever forger had discovered,
not an ancient manuscript, but an ancient piece of birch bark. Using an appropriately aged surface, he might
have created his fake manuscript by writing on the old bark with a modern
felt-tipped pen, carefully counting the signs so as to make them appear in the
proper frequencies. Perhaps the ink,
too, would have to be tested.
But even without such tests, which would have to be
conducted by reputable labs at well-known institutions, one can test the
validity of such a manuscript. Having
worked with the Koskenniemi and Parpola concordance, I would expect at least
some of the familiar patterns of Indus signs to appear in any genuine
manuscript. But even a cursory glance at
the supposed manuscript shows that they do not.
Korvink, for example, established three segments occurring in authentic
Indus inscriptions: prefix, medial section, and terminal. I looked for these three segments in the data
shown in Zuberbühler’s paper, with disappointing results.
No prefixes at all appear in the Kabul manuscript. There may be three occurrences of BI-QUOTES,
but only once alongside one of its most common variables, the VEE IN DIAMOND. And in this one instance, since the direction
of the script is from right to left, the VEE IN DIAMOND is on the "wrong" side. Likewise, there are two possible occurrences
of the PINCH. Of these, one occurs
between two terminal signs, something it never does in authentic
inscriptions. In the other instance, it
is so oddly written that its identity is not clear. There remains the SINGLE QUOTE which seems to
appear only once, alongside one of the symbols that has no clear match among
the Indus signs. There are odd inscriptions in the familiar Corpus (including a single instance of a doubled POT), but none contains as many different peculiarities as the Kabul manuscript.
There are a few terminal signs, as Zuberbühler identifies
the POT and SPEAR on the Kabul artifact.
Among the Indus terminal signs, though, some of the more common ones are
altogether missing from the Kabul manuscript.
Those that do appear are clearly not behaving as they do in known Indus
inscriptions. In one area, three
different terminal signs are bunched together in an odd fashion (a single POT-HATTED BEARER is immediately followed by SPEAR in the second row, while a SPEAR / POT sequence occurs in the seventh). Elsewhere, the POT simply seems to pop up now
and then -- usually after two or three signs. More peculiarly, the COMB seems to be confused with a multiply striped rectangle that does not occur in the Indus script. Thus,
although some of the Indus terminal signs are present, there is no clear
terminal function in the Kabul manuscript.
 |
| Tablet H-216 A and B sides: STRIPED CHEVRON / STRIPED VEST / POT (A side, reading from left to right, which is unusual); CUP / THREE POSTS (B side, showing the most common grouping of one to four posts, with CUP). |
The medial section remains to be discussed, an element more difficult to
analyze because it is more variable. Among the more numerous signs
that occur in the medial section of known inscriptions, the various types of
FISH are prominent on authentic artifacts.
Some fish-like symbols do occur in the Kabul manuscript, drawn a bit
oddly, while others that we would expect to see are not present (no MARKED FISH, for example). More damning, the ones that do appear do not
follow the standardized sequences that Korvink outlined.
Similarly, there are a few apparent numerals in the Kabul
manuscript as well. But again, not all
of the more common types found in Indus inscriptions make an appearance here. In particular, there is only one “stacked”
form, the STACKED TWELVE. There are no “shorts”
aside from the possible SINGLE QUOTE and BI-QUOTES. Of the few “longs” that occur, frequency
statistics from Indus inscriptions lead us to expect SINGLE POST, TWO POSTS,
THREE POSTS, and possibly FOUR POSTS (up to six occur on the rare tablet and seven are even more rare on pot shards).
However, the only reason these “numerals” appear among the 60 most common Indus
signs is because of their frequent occurrence on tablets alongside CUP. In spite of this close association, the CUP is missing from the Kabul manuscript. A peculiar version of CUPPED POST occurs
several times on the Kabul artifact, but it does not pair with THREE
POSTS. An oddly angular FISH appears on
the Kabul artifact as well, but it does not pair with TWO POSTS. Thus, expectations are not met even if we look only at expected pairs with the four apparent numerals that do occur in the Kabul manuscript.
As a result of the lack of expected patterning, most scholars who have weighed in on the
matter consider the Kabul manuscript a forgery.
Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel are not going to pay for that. Nor should they.
