Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Merchant of the City or Master who Collects Wind?

Detail from seal H-12 showing inscription over unicorn: CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES /
FISH UNDER CHEVRON / WHISKERED FISH / FISH / CIRCLED FORK / PRAWN /
ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT (the last 4 signs are the focus of this blog post).

Iravatham Mahadevan recently published an article purporting to demonstrate that the Indus script represents a Dravidian language (2014).  His argument focuses on the interpretation of a single “phrase” or four-symbol series which I term PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT.  According to the concordance of Koskenniemi and Parpola, this sequence occurs at least 23 times, appearing in inscriptions from Mohenjo daro, Harappa, and Kalibangan (1982: 53).  As Mahadevan notes, this sequence can form the whole inscription (M-857 is cited but it also occurs on M-455 and M-950).  More often, this is part of a longer inscription (M-377 is depicted but additional such inscriptions include M-38, 369, 425C, 525-6, 626, 671, 682, 1061 [?], 1156, 1206, 1474-81, 1548-9, 1667, 1691; H-12, 61, 358, 703B [?],834; K-10; KP 2424, 7064E, 687).  In addition, there are two inscriptions that may contain the sequence but the final sign is illegible or broken away (H-579 and KP 6058).

Indus seal H-61 with inscription: FIGURE EIGHT WITH LADDER / PINCH /
SINGLE QUOTE / PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT.
Mahadevan’s interpretation of the sequence is “merchant of the city” (2014: 1).  The method he used to arrive at this conclusion is (1) identify what each sign represents, as if it were an ideograph; (2) find a word for the literal meaning in the revised Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (referred to as DEDR; Burrow and Emeneau 1984); and (3) determine the intended meaning by comparing homophonous words in the same source on the rebus principle.  This is an abbreviated version of the method proposed and used by Fairservis (1992: 23-24):
1.       Identify a given sign and what it represents;
2.       Find an equivalent word in the extant Dravidian languages;
3.       Choose the most suitable word, one with wide usage due to historical inheritance (not a loan from another language family);
4.       Consider both the sign’s substantive value (i.e., the literal meaning) and the chosen word’s phonetic value (assuming the rebus principle was in use);
5.       Ensure that values chosen for the signs hold true in texts other than those first considered;
6.       Ensure that orthographic variation is accounted for.

Interestingly, Mahadevan’s method does not seem to take into account the last two steps of Fairservis’ technique.  Mahadevan explicitly states that he has not deciphered the Indus script as a whole (2014: 40).  I will return to this point later.  As for Fairservis’ step 6, presumably Mahadevan took variants into account in producing his earlier works on the Indus script, including his own concordance (1977).

Detail from Indus seal M-38 with inscription over unicorn: TWO POSTS / BLANKET / MAN WITH DEE-SLASH /
FORK / BI-QUOTES / FISH UNDER CHEVRON / WHISKERED FISH / TWO POSTS / FISH / PRAWN / ZEE /
CROSSROADS EX / POT (note the asymmetrical attachments at the top of the PRAWN, which Mahadevan
interprets as a wolf's ear {left side} and braided or knotted hair {right side}).

As his first step, Mahadevan identifies the initial sign in the sequence (my PRAWN) as a wolf as seen from the back, with one ear covered by braided and knotted hair, a feature indicating “the anthropomorphic character of the sign” (2014: 3).  This is a surprising interpretation, given that Fairservis identifies the same sign as a prawn (Fairservis 1992: 158; C-1, “a prawn {shrimp},” Dravidian root irā {DED No. 440}, homophones meaning “food; master”).  Elsewhere, this symbol is seen as a scorpion (e.g., Marshall 1931 & 2004: 450; an interpretation also found widely among claimed decipherments, as in Richter-Ushanas 2001: 48 & 184). 

If PRAWN were indeed a scorpion, this would be a problem for those proposals relying on the DED/DEDR for Dravidian, since there does not seem to be a word for this critter that is common to most of this language family.  “Scorpion” appears in the DED as entry 2362 (Tamil ñaṇṭu and cognates in 12 out of 18 languages, in only one of which it means “scorpion” – the others mostly mean “crab”), 2409 (Kolami tiṭor and cognate in only one other language), 2855 (Tamil tēḷ and cognates in 8 other languages), and 3672 (Telugu poṭṭi and cognate in only one other language).  In contrast to the paucity of Dravidian cognates for “scorpion,” we may recall the often cited FISH.  According to the DED, the Tamil word n “fish” has cognates in 14 other languages, out of total of 18 languages referenced (entry 3999).  As Parpola notes, this is one identification accepted by a number of scholars, a rare occurrence in this contentious field (1994 & 2009: 277).  Even so, Fairservis did not agree with it, identifying the FISH instead as a twisted thread (my LOOP) plus an affix of two strokes (1992: 185).  As Parpola also observes, “Many of the signs of the Indus script are so simplified and schematic that it is very difficult to understand their pictorial meaning unambiguously and objectively” (1994 & 2009: 278).  One cannot, then, simply accept Mahadevan’s identification of PRAWN as a wolf seen from the back.

Indus seal M-626 with inscription: FAT EX / PINCH / PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT /FAT EX /
PINCH / CIRCLED FORK / POT /MAN WITH DEE-SLASH / BUD / CAGED OVERLAPPING CIRCLES.

Mahadevan cites the earlier work of G.R. Hunter as evidence for his proposal, although Hunter saw the symbol as a jackal (2014: 3).  Mahadevan states, “The animal is more likely to be the wolf as it looks larger and its tail is curled up.”  I am uncertain what he means when he says it “looks larger,” as the signs of the Indus script are all roughly equivalent in size.  But if one focuses on the curl of the tail, one is as likely to conclude that the animal is a domestic dog as either a wolf or jackal. 
The real problem with Mahadevan’s identification, however, is that it is hard to find a parallel anywhere for an animal shown in perspective from the back.  Animals are far more often depicted in profile in ancient scripts and indeed in much ancient art.  In Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example, Gardiner’s list includes 34 different animal depictions.  All are profile views.  The Egyptians also used depictions of various parts of animal bodies.  These include glyph F4, the front end of a lion – head and attached front leg – found in the word ḥ3t “front”; and F22, the back end of a lion found in pḥwy “hindquarters” (Gardiner 1976: 462 & 464).  Among the glyphs there are also various animal heads, legs, an ear, a jawbone, a tail, a heart, and so on.  But there is no parallel to Mahadevan’s proposed view from the back.

Egyptian hieroglyphic text from the tomb of Nefertiabet, showing
Gardiner's glyph F4, the front part of a lion, in the upper register.
Note also the owl in the upper register and the chick in the lower,
both in profile, the standard depiction for people & most animals.

Proto-cuneiform often makes use of a sort of graphic abbreviation, with only the head of an animal depicted, as for example dara3, a wild goat or mountain goat, pirig, a lion, and šaḫ2, a pig (CDLI sign list online).  But where the whole beast is depicted, as for aquatic fauna and birds, profile views dominate (e.g., mušen, bird, and sumaš, a marine fish). 

Proto-cuneiform sign ZATU 710, of unknown meaning, depicting a quadruped in profile,
rotated 90 degrees (so that the legs are to the right) as is typical.

As a third example, Chinese may be considered.  Early Chinese writing, as found on so-called “oracle bones,” was largely pictographic.  Here, too, animals are typically depicted in profile, even where later writing seems to show them from some other viewpoint.  For example, the modern quan3, “dog,” might be described as a flat rug of a dog with the legs spread-eagled.  But in the ancient writing, it was a profile view; one of the modern strokes originates from the tail, not a limb (Keightley 1985: 218).  According to Wieger, though, the character for sheep, yang2, is the animal “seen from behind,” with diagonal strokes representing the horns at the top, and horizontal strokes beneath this for the limbs (1965: 253).  A better way of describing this depiction is to call it a bird’s eye view.  This type of depiction is quite common – see, for example, the bird’s eye view of a lizard in rock art from various different continents (Le Quellec 2004: 64, for Africa; Bernardini 2009: 32, for North America; Layton 2009: 157, for Australia).

Old Chinese characters for sui, "pig," as found on oracle bones (top)
and old seal writing (below).  The modern form is still more schematic.

Thus, I find Mahadevan’s identification of PRAWN as a wolf seen from behind to be most doubtful.  Unfortunately for his interpretation of the four-sign sequence, the literal meaning of this first sign is vital.  Because it is the back of the wolf, in his view, the literal meaning is “back” or “to turn back,” which he specifies as DEDR entrees 4761 (Tamil mari ‘to turn back, turn about’) and 4834 (Tamil ru ‘to become changed, exchanged, retreat {as showing one’s back}’).  Then, applying the rebus principle, he gives the intended meaning (or extended meaning) as DEDR entry 4834 (Tamil ru ‘exchange of goods, barter, sell’).  Extending the meaning a bit further, he argues that PRAWN means the person who barters or sells, i.e., ‘merchant’ (2014: 5).

American rock art from Texas, showing a probable lizard (lower left) shown
in bird's eye view, alongside a possible mountain goat in profile (after
Newcomb & Kirkland 1967 & 1996: 192, Pl. 142).

If PRAWN is not a wolf, it would not mean ‘merchant’; if it not a view from the back, it cannot have that meaning either.  But for the sake of argument, let us assume this is correct and continue with the second sign, my ZEE.  Mahadevan identifies this as a depiction of a hook, which yields DEDR entry 2151, koḷ- ‘hook,’ and through the rebus principle the sign takes the meaning of the homophonous koḷ - ‘take, receive, buy; one who takes, receives, buyer’ (2014: 6).  To convince the reader of his initial identification, Mahadevan includes a photograph of a copper fishhook from Khirsara (fig. 5, p. 5).  This, he states, “offers a close parallel.”  Since the actual hook has a smooth and curving S shape, while the symbol ZEE is quite angular, it is not actually close, if a parallel at all.  But again, let us assume this is correct for the time being.  Fairservis makes the same proposal, after all (1992: 169).
The third sign is my CROSSROADS EX.  The meaning of this sign is obvious to Mahadevan -- it depicts actual crossed roads (2014: 7).  He cites a similar Sumerian sign, the proto-cuneiform symbol that came to be kaskal, “expedition, caravan; road, course; journey” (for the symbol see CDLI, for the meaning in Sumerian, see Halloran 2006: 136).  Mahadevan also cites the Egyptian hieroglyph of an outlined ex in a circle which is Gardiner’s sign O49, depicting a village with crossroads (Gardiner 1976: 498).  This glyph originated as an ideograph in the word niwt, “village.”  Usually it serves as a determinative in names of villages, towns, and inhabited regions, as at the end of Kmt, literally “the black land,” i.e., Egypt.  Mahadevan interprets the Indus CROSSROADS EX as an ideograph for DEDR entry 4064 (Tamil pāṭi ‘town, city, hamlet, pastoral village’) or for DEDR 5297 (Tamil vali ‘way, path, road’) (2014: 8).  The intended meaning becomes ‘resident of a city,’ by extension of the basic meaning of DEDR 4064 or by the rebus principle for DEDR 5297 which sounds like DEDR 5372 (Tamil vāl ‘to live, flourish’) (2014: 9).

Proto-cuneiform KASKAL, "road, journey, etc."
Cf. Indus CROSSROADS EX in inscriptions above.

Although he does not state this explicitly, Mahadevan’s reasoning seems to be that, because the protocuneiform kaskal, which resembles the Indus sign graphically, came to mean “road,” and the Egyptian glyph niwt, also similar graphically, can mean “city,” then the Indus CROSSROADS EX must mean either “road” or “city” and, by extension, “resident.”  However, one is on very shaky ground when using the signs of one civilization to interpret the symbols of another, especially in the absence of evidence of a link between the two. 

Egyptian glyph niwt, "village."  Cf. Indus CIRCLED EX.

Now, there was some kind of contact between the Indus civilization and Mesopotamia, as Harappan seals and trade items such as carnelian beads and lapis lazuli have been found in Mesopotamian cities (Possehl 2002: 221-222).  But there is no evidence of direct contact between the Harappans and Egypt.  Further, although it is possible to find parallels between symbols of the Indus script and protocuneiform, or Indus script and Egyptian hieroglyphs – or, indeed, between the symbols of any two writing or protowriting systems – this in itself is not proof of contact.  As noted in previous posts, the circled cross or circled ex is extremely common around the world, but the meaning of this ubiquitous symbol varies from place to place and over time.  In ancient China, the circled cross represented a field; in Egyptian hieroglyphs a village; in protocuneiform a sheep.  Thus, the meaning of a given symbol in (proto)writing system A does not necessarily reveal the meaning of the same or a similar symbol in (proto)writing system B.

Egyptian glyphs Z10, crossed sticks for "break," and Z11, crossed planks for imi.
Compare the somewhat similar Indus sign CROSSROADS EX.

But suppose that, for the sake of argument, we accept the validity of Mahadevan’s premise, that the proto-cuneiform kaskal “road” or the Egyptian niwt “town” does reveal the meaning of the graphically similar Indus sign.  In such a case, it seems to me that we face a conundrum.  If the appearance of kaskal in proto-cuneiform demonstrates that the Indus CROSSROADS EX means “road,” as Mahadevan proposes, then the CIRCLED EX and CIRCLED FAT EX should also be interpreted by means of proto-cuneiform.  In that case, it must mean “sheep” rather than “city.”  If, instead, we ignore the proto-cuneiform “sheep” and turn to Egyptian niwt, we derive Mahadevan’s meaning of “city” for CIRCLED FAT EX, but then CROSSROADS EX should no longer represent roads.  Instead, the latter sign has two possible parallels in Egyptian: Gardiner’s Z10, an ex shape formed by two crossed sticks, or Z11, two planks joined, forming a cross.  Unfortunately for Mahadevan’s proposal, Z10 functions most often as a determinative for words having to do with breaking; Z11 is phonetic for imi, as in “not be” (1976: 538-539).  Neither suggests roads or cities.

If one can simply pick and choose among ancient writing systems to find parallels and thus meanings for Indus symbols, one could argue with equal justification that the Indus CIRCLED EX means “sheep” (based on proto-cuneiform) and CROSSROADS EX “break” (based on Egyptian).  For that matter, if there is no need to demonstrate contact between two cultures, what would prevent one from choosing yet another writing system for one’s source?  Luwian hieroglyphs include a parallel to the Indus CROSSROADS EX in sign 224, made with three parallel diagonals in each direction, which may represent the syllable ha or pa (Payne 2010: 177).  There is also a circled cross, perhaps a wheel (ROTA) among the logograms (Payne 2010: 181).  But, of course, the relatively late appearance of Luwian makes it a much less attractive source for inferring the meanings of Indus symbols than either Egyptian hieroglyphs or Mesopotamian proto-cuneiform.  Luwian hieroglyphs only appear in systematic usage on Hittite seals from the 14th century BCE, after the demise of the Indus script (Payne 2010: 2).

Indus tablet M-1475 with barely legible inscription (from right to left): PRAWN /
ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT / PINCH (?) / 3 QUOTES / GARDEN.

In any case, the final Indus symbol in the four-sign sequence is Mahadevan’s “jar,” which I term POT.  Because this most common of Indus signs often ends an inscription, Mahadevan (as well as a number of other researchers) considers it a grammatical suffix.  Specifically, he regards it as the pronominal masculine singular suffix (2014: 10).  Adding this interpretation to the previous ones yields, literally, “barterer + receiver + resident + he-of-the,” or “merchant of the city” (2014: 10).
Mahadevan’s article continues with various cultural items he associates with one or another of the Dravidian words that he connects with the Indus signs of this phrase.  At the end, he boldly states, “The quality and quantity of interlocked findings at the three levels described in the paper have transcended the level of mere evidence and attained the level of proof: the Dravidian proof of the Indus Script via the ŖgVēda!” (2014: 40; author’s emphasis).  I have noted enough problems with his analysis to show that he has not proved his case. 

Returning to Fairservis, who used much the same methodology, we could equally well interpret the same Indus sequence as “master (who) collects wind.”  PRAWN is a prawn for Fairservis, Dravidian irā, with irai as a near-homophone meaning “master” (1992: 158).  ZEE is still a hook, Dravidian koṭu, with a near-homophone kūṭu meaning “to collect (as with food)” (1992: 169).  EX is a cross or hook (Fairservis does not include CROSSROADS EX in his sign list), Dravidian gāḷa, with the near-homophone gāḷ meaning “wind” (1992: 162).  Finally, Fairservis proposes much the same interpretation for POT as Mahadevan, though terming it a third person singular honorific ending (1992: 173). 

So, how is PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT to be interpreted: “Merchant of the City”?  Or is it “Master (who) Collects Wind”?

REFERENCES
1.       Bernardini, W. 2009. Hopi History in Stone: The Tutuveni Petroglyph Site. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 200. Arizona State Museum, the Univ. of Arizona: Tucson.
2.       Burrow, T. and M.B. Emeneau. 1998. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (originally published 1984 by Oxford University). Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers: New Delhi.
3.       Çambel, Halet. 1999. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. Vol. II. Karatepe-Aslantaş. The Inscriptions: Facsimile Edition. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin & New York.
4.       Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (or CDLI) online at http://www.cdli.ucla.edu/tools/SignLists/protocuneiform/archsigns.html
5.       Gardiner, Sir A. 1976. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.). (orig. pub. 1927) Griffith Institute and Ashmolean Museum: Oxford.
6.       Halloran, J.A. 2006. Sumerian Lexicon: A Dictionary Guide to the Ancient Sumerian Language. Logogram Publishing: Los Angeles.
7.       Keightley, D.N. 1978 & 1985. Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. University of California Press: Berkeley & Los Angeles.
8.       Koskenniemi, K. and A. Parpola. 1982. A Concordance to the Texts in the Indus Script. Department of Asian and African Studies Research Reports No. 3. University of Helsinki.
9.       Layton, R. 1992 & 2009. Australian Rock Art: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.
10.   LeQuellec, J.-L. 2004. Rock Art in Africa: Mythology and Legend. Transl. Paul Bahn. Flammarion: Paris.
11.   Mahadevan, I. 1977. The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables. ASI, New Delhi.
12.   Mahadevan, I. 2014. “Dravidian Proof of the Indus Script via the Rig Veda: A Case Study” in Bulletin of the Indus Research Centre No. 4. Roja Muthiah Research Library: Chennai. Pp. 1-44.
13.   Marshall, J. 1931 & 2004. Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization: Being an Official Account of Archaeological Excavations at Mohenjo-Daro Carried out by the Government of India between the Years 1922 and 1927. (Orig. pub. 1931 in London) AES Reprints: New Delhi.
14.   Payne, A. 2010. Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts (2nd rev. ed.). Harrassowitz Verlag: Wiesbaden.
15.   Possehl, G.L. 2002. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD.
16.   Richter-Ushanas, Egbert. 2001. The Indus Script and the Ŗg-Veda. ( 2nd rev. ed.) Motilal Banarsidass Publishers: Delhi.
17.   Wieger, Dr. L. 1965. Chinese Characters: Their Origin, Etymology, History, Classification and Signification. (Orig. pub. 1915 by Catholic Mission Press). Transl. L. Davrout. Dover & Paragon: New York.


Monday, March 10, 2014

Ligatures in Indus Script: Part 3


Tablet H-1319, sides A & B, showing the ligature EX UNDER CHEVRON.


This post continues the discussion of ligatures in Indus script.  To briefly recap, one hypothesis concerning such complex signs is that a ligature is simply the sum of its parts.  Thus, the sign EX UNDER CHEVRON is graphically composed of two simpler signs, EX and CHEVRON.  The hypothesis is that EX UNDER CHEVRON also means the same thing as EX and CHEVRON in sequence.  The ligature (as in H-1319), then, would be an abbreviation of the sequence (as in H-1367 -- though note the unusually large space between the last two signs).  This certainly describes the significance and function of some ligatures in another ancient script, namely Egyptian hieroglyphs.  But even in ancient Egyptian, not all ligatures can be interpreted in such a straightforward manner.  In other scripts, such as Chinese, ligatures cannot be interpreted as the sum of their parts.  To test whether Indus ligatures are indeed the sum of their parts, I have examined the sequences of these parts to see whether they occur in the same contexts as the ligatures. 

Graffiti on pot shard H-1367 with inscription (right to left): CEE / THREE QUOTES / CHEVRON / EX.

In my first post on this topic I noted that POT BEARER appears to be the graphic combination of POT + BEARER.  The sequence POT + BEARER does occasionally occur in inscriptions as a terminal sequence, just as POT BEARER occurs as a terminal sign.  This supports the hypothesis.  But evidence for combinations of POT and an apparent numeral (from one to four “quotes”) does not support the hypothesis.  There is no sequence of “numeral” + POT for comparison with the ligatures.  Further, POT is a terminal, whereas POTTED ONE, POTTED 2, POTTED 3, and POTTED 4 are medial signs. 

Seal M-415 with inscription: CIRCLED DOT / PRAWN WITH ATTACHED POST.

In Part 2, I noted that evidence on ligatures of CHEVRON and one of seven different signs is mixed, with three sequences possibly supporting the hypothesis but the absence of four others not supporting it.  I also examined eleven ligatures with FORK.  Of these, three are not supported by a matching sequence.  Evidence concerning FORK thus tends to support the hypothesis but not unequivocally.
I turn now to SINGLE POST, another sign that occurs in in a number of ligatures: besides MAN HOLDING POST and CAGED MAN HOLDING POST, the “post” is attached to PRAWN (as in M-415), FIGURE EIGHT, RECTANGLE, GRID, BED, and FORK TOPPED POT.  Graphically, these ligatures differ from sequences only in the presence of a short diagonal line connecting the two elements of the ligature.  Thus, the proposed purpose of ligatures as abbreviations does not make sense here.  SINGLE POST does not occur adjacent to MAN although it precedes other anthropomorphs.  Nor does it precede PRAWN, FIGURE EIGHT, RECTANGLE, GRID, or BED.  The only sequence that matches a ligature is SINGLE POST + FORK TOPPED POT with two (possibly three) occurrences (K-40, KP 1385 and KP 2785).  This evidence is summed up in Table 1.

Sign A
Sign B
Ligature AB
Sequence A + B
Sequence B + A
POST
MAN
MAN HOLDING POST
--
--
POST
PRAWN
PRAWN W/ ATT. POST
--
--
POST
FIGURE EIGHT
FIGURE 8 W/ ATT. POST
--
--
POST
RECTANGLE
RECTANGLE W/ ATT. POST
--
--
POST
GRID
GRID W/ ATT. POST
--
--
POST
BED
BED W/ ATT. POST
--
--
POST
FORK TOPPED POT
FORK TOPPED POT W/ ATT. POST
SINGLE POST + FORK TOPPED POT (3)
--
Table 1. Ligatures with SINGLE POST compared to sequences containing POST.

There are a few other ligatures not yet discussed.  Some have a small, chevron-like attachment I have termed an EAR: CIRCLED QUADRANGLE, CIRCLED DOT, DOUBLE CEES/DOUBLE ESSES, two variations on CEE, BOXED BI-RAKE, FISH BETWEEN PARENS, and MAN.  The “ear” on the anthropomorph differs in size and shape from the others and is probably not the same appendage.  In two cases, the component bearing the ear is not an independent sign; i.e., there is no FISH BETWEEN PARENS or BOXED BI-RAKE without the "ear."  In all of these cases, it is hard to say which independent sign the EAR is to be identified with – if any.  This prevents further analysis.

Seal H-5 with inscription showing CEE WITH EAR as the first sign.
A similar situation exists for the TABLE.  In its independent form, the two “legs” are of unequal length but both are relatively long compared to the TABLE in most ligatures.  Thus, the independent sign and the element in ligatures may not be the same.  Assuming for the moment that they are the same element, I note the TABLE in ligatures above STACKED NINE, DEE WITH LASHES, EN, STRIPED TRIANGLE, CAGED STRIPED TRIANGLE, STRIPED TRIANGLE UNDER DOUBLE TABLES, SPACESHIP, EX, ASTERISK, RECTANGLE EXIT, SQUARE AY, and PAW.  None of these ligatures is common.  For example, one of the more frequent ones, EX UNDER TABLE, occurs only 15 times.  When considering sequences involving TABLE, the second element in these ligatures is often rare.  The EX has just 14 occurrences.  EN may not even be an independent sign unless it is a variation of ZIGZAG (it may occur on H-1676).  Not surprisingly then, in most cases there is no sequence to compare with the ligature.  

Sign A
Sign B
Ligature AB
Sequence A + B
Sequence B + A
TABLE
STACKED NINE
STACKED NINE UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
DEE WITH LASHES
DEE WITH LASHES UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
EN (ZIGZAG?)
EN UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
STRIPED TRIANGLE
STRIPED TRIANGLE UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
SPACESHIP
SPACESHIP UNDER TABLE
--
SPACESHIP + TABLE (2)
TABLE
EX
EX UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
ASTERISK
ASTERISK UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
RECTANGLE EXIT
RECTANGLE EXIT UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
SQUARE AY
SQUARE AY UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
PAW
PAW UNDER TABLE
--
--
TABLE
SINGLE QUOTE
QUOTE UNDER TABLE / TABLE WITH SLASH
TABLE + SINGLE QUOTE (4)
--
Table 2. Ligatures with SINGLE POST compared to sequences containing POST. 

In one case, that of STRIPED TRIANGLE (or its STRIPED HORN variant), the second element is common enough, with 68 occurrences.  However, this sign never occurs in sequence with the independent TABLE.  In contrast, there are 33 inscriptions containing SPACESHIP, in two of which it appears alongside TABLE.  This compares favorably with SPACESHIP UNDER TABLE.  Likewise, there are four inscriptions containing the sequence TABLE + SINGLE QUOTE.  This compares favorably with QUOTE UNDER TABLE (and this ligature contains the long-legged version of the TABLE).  With so little data, any conclusions are highly provisional.  Even so, evidence that ligatures are to be interpreted as abbreviated sequences is not strong.  


Inscription from M-34 showing the sequence BUD + SKEWERED DONUT + FORK (above) before BI-QUOTES; impression of seal M-1759 showing the ligature BUD, SKEWERED DONUT, FORK TOPPED DUBYA (below).

There are a number of rare ligatures yet to be discussed.  Compare the sequence BUD / SKEWERED DONUT / FORK / BI-QUOTES / HAIRY HUNCHBACK / STRIPED VEST / POT (M-34) with the ligatures FORK & BUD TOPPED POT, and especially FORK, SKEWERED DONUT, & BUD TOPPED POT (M-1759 in KP 1982: 70).  Note that both the sequence and the comparable ligature precede BI-QUOTES.  This supports the hypothesis that the ligature is equivalent to the sequence.  However, the various signs that I term DUBYA (topped with SHISH KEBAB or BUD) do not support the hypothesis because neither BUD nor SHISH KEBAB occurs adjacent to CRAB.  Thus, the ligature CRAB IN BUD TOPPED POT remains unexplained.  A comparison of various other ligatures and sequences of their components is summarized in Table 3 below.
 
Sign A
Sign B
Ligature AB
Sequence A + B
Sequence B + A
CRAB
TOPPED DUBYA
CRAB IN BUD TOPPED POT
--
--
BUD + SKEWERED DONUT
FORK
BUD, SKEWERED DONUT, FORK TOPPED DUBYA
BUD + SKEWERED DONUT + FORK
--
SQUARE / RECTANGLE
BI-RAKE
BOXED BI-RAKE WITH EAR
--
--
SQUARE / RECTANGLE
STACKED NINE
BOXED ODD STACKED 9 & VEE
--
--
DIAMOND
FAT LEG LAMBDA (?)
PENNANT IN DIAMOND
VEE IN DIAMOND + FAT LEG LAMBDA (17) (?)
--
DIAMOND
HAMMER
HAMMER IN DIAMOND
--
--
MALLET
FOOTED STOOL WITH MID EARS
FANCY STOOL IN MALLET
--
--
BLANKET
FOOTED STOOL WITH MID EARS
FANCY STOOL IN BLANKET
--
--
TRIPLE BRICK
CUP
CUP IN TRIPLE BRICK
--
--
Table 3. Comparison of various ligatures with sequences of components.

In most cases, there is no sequence to compare to the ligature.  One possible exception concerns the PENNANT IN DIAMOND, in which the infrequent DIAMOND encloses a PENNANT which does not occur independently.  It is possible that the PENNANT element is a miniature version of (STRIPED) FAT LEG LAMBDA.  The latter sign often follows VEE IN DIAMOND but never appears alongside the basic DIAMOND.  Conceivably, the ligature here could be a simplified version of both components, each changed by the necessity of fitting into a very small space. 

Seal M-1087 with final STOOL WITH BENT FOOT + PINWHEEL.

Detail from seal M-63 with final FOOTED STOOL WITH TICK + PINWHEEL.
 
Finally, there is the question of minor modifications that seem to make little or no difference, which I have sometimes termed the addition of a TICK.  The STOOL WITH BENT FOOT appears in 10 inscriptions, in 7 of which it precedes PINWHEEL; FOOTED STOOL appears 68 times, in 26 of which it precedes PINWHEEL; FOOTED STOOL WITH TICK occurs 18 times, always preceding PINWHEEL.  Despite the fact that these three signs are visually distinct, they appear in the same contexts.  This suggests these variations on the “stool” theme are more closely related to each other than any is to the other variations (FOOTED STOOL WITH MID POST, FOOTED STOOL WITH MID EARS, FOOTED STOOL WITH HAIRY LEGS, etc.).

Broken seal M-244 with final FOOTED STOOL + PINWHEEL.

Such a situation is found in another imperfectly understood script.  The Khitan Small Script was used briefly in what is now northern China (southwest Manchuria) to write a language related to Mongolian (Wu and Janhunen 2010: 13).  This script resembles modern Chinese.  In fact, a number of characters are borrowed directly from Chinese while others are modifications.  One very common modification of Khitan characters is the addition of a single short stroke or dot (2010: 42-43).  For example, the Chinese character da “big, great” (resembling the Indus MAN) is used in Khitan for the syllable ud.  The addition of a short stroke or “tick” to the left “foot” – which changes the Chinese character to tai “too, very” – represents the Khitan syllable ung.  Besides indicating phonological differences, the dot can also sometimes denote a grammatical distinction.  For example, the Chinese character jiong “border, wasteland” (resembling an Indus TABLE with “legs” of equal length) is the Khitan “seventy”; the addition of a dot beneath this “table” indicates masculine gender.  But in all too many cases, the difference between the two similar characters is simply obscure.

In conclusion, the evidence concerning ligatures in Indus script is mixed.  There are some ligatures that occur in the same contexts as sequences of the same elements.  But all too often this is not the case.  Thus, it seems to me that there is insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that a ligature AB is the sum of its components A + B.
 
REFERENCES

Gardiner, Sir A. 1976 (1927). Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum and Griffith Institute.

Joshi, J.P. and A. Parpola. 1987. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 1. Collections in India. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. 

Keightley, D.N. 1985 (1978). Sources of Shang History: The Oracle-Bone Inscriptions of Bronze Age China. Berkeley: University of California.

Korvink, M.P. 2008. The Indus Script: A Positional Statistical Approach. Gilund Press (Amazon).
Koskenniemi, K. and Parpola, A. 1982. A Concordance to the Texts in the Indus Script. Helsinki: Department of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki.

Parpola, A., B.M. Pande, and P. Koskikallio. 2010. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 3. New Material, Untraced Objects, and Collections Outside India and Pakistan. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Shah, S.G.M. and A. Parpola. 1991. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 2. Collections in Pakistan. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. 

Wu, Y. and J. Janhunen. 2010. New Materials on the Khitan Small Script: A Critical Edition of Xiao Dilu and Yelü Xiangwen. Leiden: Global Oriental.