Volume 2

Worldwide Circulation through Authorspress Global Network

First Published in 2022
by
Authorspress
Q-2A Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110 016 (India)
Phone: (0) 9818049852
E-mail: authorspressgroup@gmail.com
Website: www.authorspressbooks.com

Historiography and Ethnomethodology Studies

(In Two Volumes)
ISBN 978-93-91314-85-9

Copyright © 2022
Respective Authors & Editor Vridhachalem Subramaniam

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the express written consent of the respective
authors/ the editor, where relevant. Concerned authors are solely responsible for their views, opinions,
policies, copyright infringement, legal action, penalty or loss of any kind regarding their articles. Neither the
publisher nor the editor will be responsible for any penalty or loss of any kind if claimed in future.
Contributing authors have no right to demand any royalty amount for their articles.

Printed in India at Thomson Press (India) Limited

 "This work is
humbly dedicated to
all the Migrants,
who are
rendered homeless,
for reasons
beyond their
control."
 The Editor’s Introduction to
“Historiography and Ethnomethodology”
(From the earliest of times
to the current developments)

The research studies on Indology carried out during the past few years, ever since the earliest
report on the findings of Mohenjo-Dharo and Harappa was first published in The Illustrated
London News, (September, 1924) have been blatantly marked by ideologies of polemics and bias.
The genuine basics got overshadowed by arguments for or against theories of Aryan invasion,
resulting in terminating the last of Mature Harappan Civilisation, impact of Indo-European
versus Proto-Dravidian linguistic features, Sumerian versus Akkadian interpretations, Vedic
versus Pre-RgVedic elements of faith and culture so on. Most recently there has been an
increasing interest in reviewing Indology studies with the aid of tools of Science and
Technology, such as the satellite technology-oriented identification methods, Carbon Dating
techniques and determination of the precise period of many age – old artefacts such as human
skulls and bones. Not only within the borders of India and South Asia, but also in the whole
geographical field of the globe as a single field of study. The advent of the internet and World
Wide Web Services have accelerated a spirit of scientific enquiry for truth. These recent
developments in studies of the universe, origin of mankind, patterns of migration and different
patterns of cultural life of humans, have enabled us to ponder holistically on these macro issues
in an impassionate and scientific manner. In the words of the eminent historian, Professor
Romila Thapar, “When the present changes, things will fall into place and are likely to give our
immediate world a better shape. I say this because as a historian I know that paradigms change.
… and that the paradigm will shift in future, as one can predict. It is the only thing that the
historian can predict, that the paradigm will shift, and that there will be new priorities of
explanation for us to defend as historians.”1 The Poet Laureate of the earlier Victorian
generation had voiced it prophetically, “Old order changeth yielding place to new, lest one good custom
should corrupt the world.”2
This volume of anthology of eighty-four odd pieces of research publications brought
together under one roof, as it were, has to be viewed dispassionately in the light of changing
paradigms of history of Civilisations. They are classified under different interdisciplinary
sections, interrelated by the undercurrent of trends in History, especially prehistory, inscribed in
mysteriously carved scripts reflecting the Civilisation of the times. It is no longer a record of a

1 Thapar, Romila., in “Questioning Paradigms Constructing Histories” (Edited by Kumkum Roy and Naina
Dayal) – A Festschrift for Romila Thapar, Aleph Book Co., New Delhi, 2019.p. 469.
2 Lord Alfred E Tennyson, “Mort d’ Arthur” in Idylls of The King.
sad saga of conflicts of cultures, ideological interests and material possessions but one that
reveals multifarious layers of human activities some of which measurable and perceivable, as in
trade practices and commercial dealings, and some of which are beyond immediate senses of
ordinary perception. The Harappan Script falls under the latter category of perception. Hence
the challenge in interpreting its meaning continues. We are glad to suggest a probable solution
to the crux through the medium of ‘Archeme’. Thereby It makes the interpretation open and
all-inclusive.
We are deeply conscious that a scholarly investigation has commenced in the field of
Indology during the course of last century in the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology and
historical linguistics by very eminent scholars such as (to mention a few): Col. Cunningham,
James Princep, Max Müller, Sir William Jones, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Rev. R. Caldwell, Rev.Fr.
Heras, Professor T. Burrow, Professor M.B. Emeaneu, Y. V. Knorozov, Jean Filliozat, Xavier
Thaninayagam, Asko Parpola, Iravatham Mahadevan, J M Kenoyer, Possehl, and R.
Balakrishnan, Clyde A Winters, R. Mathivanan, Franklin Southworth et al. Their indepth
research publications have shed light on new perspectives of changing paradigm of Indian
prehistory. Despite their best efforts the studies of the interpretation of the Indus Script have
not so far resulted in a universally acceptable solution. We have herein recorded all the various
readings and interpretations without fear or favor, free from any iota of prejudice. The
historical and academic paradigm of each point of view can be viewed and appreciated within
its own properly appreciated perspective.
To add impetus to these current developments, Science and Technology have empowered
historic facts with their objective and most scientific tools of analysis. The satellite – sourced
Radar studies of potential excavation sites, the Carbon Dating techniques to determine the
vintage of excavated artefacts including long-buried bones and Genetic studies of the racial
features are some of the most recent innovative techniques, impacting global research pursuits.
Besides the availability of Computer based programming analysis of newly discovered Data,
including the use of Artificial Intelligence (A I) is waiting round the corner to add their own
role to the objective discovery process. In brief, Historiography studies are attracting the
attention of global scholars. Based on the light of all that have been included in the pages that
follow, we are conscious of our serious limitations on our present level of Knowledge and
appreciate the circumstances of the rhetorical question posed by Romila Thapar, Michael
Witzel, Jaya Menon, Kai Friese and Razib Khan in raising a meaningfully rhetorical question,
“Which of US are Aryans?”3
As we go to press on this interesting dilemma of Indological research comes a bolt from
the blue in the form of Vasant Shinde, Rai et al., who have arrived at a scientific conclusion
that, “Indus Valley Civilisation is the largest source of ancestry for South Asians.” 4 To a pointed

3 Thapar, Romila, Witzel, Michael, Menon,Jaya, Friese, Kai and Khan, Razib(eds.) “Which of US Are Aryans” –
Rethinking The Concept of Our Origins.Aleph Book Company, New Delhi, 2019.
4 Cell, quoted by The Hindu Newspaper of an Interview given by Vasant Shinde of Deccan College, Poona and
his team of coresearchers in Genetics.
question put to Professor David Reich of the Harvard Medical School, his response was as
follows:
Question: “Do the findings of the study in any way indicate that the IVC is the largest source of ancestry
for South Asians and not the Aryan Civilisation?”
Professor David Reich: “I don’t know what the Aryan Civilisation is, there is certainly no
archaeological evidence of a Civilisation north of the Black and Caspian Sea or in the Steppe in
the Bronze Age that could compare in any way in complexity or cultural sophistication to the
IVC being the largest source of ancestry for South Asians.” (‘Cell’ quoted in The Economic
Times).5
R. Balakrishnan’s sustained research publications culminating with his most phenomenal
publication, “Journey of a Civilisation”6 provides further evidence to the possible solution to
the ‘Origin of the Harappans’, as a continuum of migrated population, linking the The Indus in
far west with the far south east of the subcontinent, along the banks of the River Vaigai and
other rivers such as Tambaraparani (also known as PoruNai river in literature).
In conclusion, one has to admire and accept the frank logical analysis of Tony Joseph in his
most recent book “Early Indians”7 wherein he concludes that,
“The understanding that our present demography is the product of four migrations leads to many
surprises in our day-to – day life may be well understood. For example, we now know that the Harappans
are the ancestors of both North Indians and South Indians because when their Civilisation declined
around 3,900 years ago, they spread across the country, carrying their genetic and cultural heritage. You
could therefore say that the Harappan Civilisation is what holds us together, and is the fountainhead of
our culture.
Second, the language of the Harappans, most likely Proto-Dravidian, continued to thrive in
south India but was overlain by Indo-European languages when the Steppe pastoralists arrived
in the north later.
Third, between around 4000 years ago and 2,000 years ago, there was a great mixing
between the groups with different migration histories that left no Indian population group
untouched (except perhaps the Andamanese).
Fourth, endogamy, or the practice of the people marrying within their own groups, began
only around 2,000 years ago, which suggests that the caste system did not begin with the arrival
of the Arya, but was the result of the political developments around the beginning of the
Common Era.
Fifth, almost all population groups of India carry 50 -65% of their ancestry from the first
Indians, no matter where in the caste history they stand, what language they speak, which region
they inhabit or what religion they belong to.”8 All these points of view narrated meticulously in

5 Https://e.paper.timesgroup.com/ Olive/ODN/ The Economic Times/Print Article.aspx?doc=ETM%2F0

9%2F09FO9&Entity=ar00511&uq=20191011080…2/2.
6 Balakrishnan, R., “Journey of a Civilization” (Indus to Vaigai); RMRL., Chennai, 2019.
7 Joseph, Tony., “Early Indians” (The Hindu Prize 2019 Shortlist) Vide: The Hindu Magazine, Sunday, February
2, 2020. Literary Reviewp.8., Cols. 7-8.
8 Ibid. p8. Cols. 7-8.
the words of those researchers have already been anticipated sagaciously and succinctly by the
two editors of the monumental “Atlas of the World’s Languages”9, with whose observations we
conclude this introductory note justifying our academic mission through this collective
presentation:
“Southern Asia: From Iran to Bangladesh
The early records of Dravidian are in Tamil and are of two types, both going back to the
second century B.C. These are inscriptions in Brahmi script in caves and on rocks, principally in
what is now Madurai district of the Tamil Nadu State. Since, some millennia ago, most of the
subcontinent was Dravidian – speaking, it could be that there are much earlier records of a
Dravidian language in the inscriptions belonging to the ancient Civilisation of Harappa in the
Indus Valley. However, until such time as these inscriptions get convincingly and
unambiguously deciphered, the question must remain open.”10 It reflects the enlightened vision
for Universalism by Rabindranath Tagore, who longed for a world of universal wisdom, “Where
the clear stream of reason is not lost in the desert sand of dead habit” 11

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under

CC BY-NC-ND After CC-BY_NC_ND

9 Asher, R E and G S Mossley, (Eds.) “Atlas of The World’s Languages,” Second edition, Routledge, London,
pp.451-455.
10 Ibid., p. 217.
11 Tagore, Rabindranath., “Gitanjali”, Translated into English by the Author and William B. Yates, Macmillan,
London, 1936. Verse 35.
 Foreword on Ethnolinguistic
Features of the Anthology

I am glad to provide a brief foreword to the present volume highlighting the ethnolinguistic
features of a survey of many valuable research articles, published in National and International
Journals, ever since the discovery of seals was reported by Col. Cunningham in The Illustrated
Times of London. The popular belief that the Mohenjo-Daro Harappans were linked with Vedic
Aryans through their Indo-European linguistic connections, advocated by eminent scholars like
Max Müller at Oxford, had to be reviewed in the light of excavated seals. Much polemic
interpretations were expressed on the links between the ancient Brahmi and Kharoshti Scripts,
found among the historical ruins, representing religious, social and commercial interests of the
times. Consensus was elusive.
International archaeologists expressed different points of view about the meaning conveyed
through these seals. For a long time, the issue of Pre-Aryan versus Proto-Dravidian elements
traced in the four hundred odd Seals of the Indus Valley Civilisation engaged the attention of
scholars. After the advent of computer science, researchers from Russia, Finland, India and the
United States furnished their findings in support of a possible Dravidian legacy in the IVC.
Several Concordances compiled with the help of advanced Computer systems provided new
clues to reopen the issue. They are referred to in this volume. And yet the riddle remains open.
This anthology of eighty four published articles, in peer-reviewed journals and books, bring
together at one holistic spot, indicating a need for objective rethinking on our earlier
knowledge, methods and conclusions. The bulky volume presents substantial evidence on
Prehistory, Ethnolinguistics, Archaeological field work all over South Asia and concludes with
the most recently reported Genetic analyses from reputed Laboratories. These may probably
help researchers all over the globe to review the long-pending issues without bias.
 At a historic moment such as the present time, when plenty of new evidence is getting
unearthed, it will be my earnest hope that this volume, representing a large variety of
scholarship over the past few centuries, should serve its intended mission of resolving long-
pending issues in historiography and ethnomethodological linguistics, with respect to the Indus
Valley Civilisation.
R. E. Asher, D. Litt.,
Professor Emeritus,
University of Edinburgh,
Scotland., U.K.
 Foreword:
A Word of Appreciation of this Work

This work of a number of carefully chosen research extracts meets a long-felt need of
reviewing past knowledge of the Script used during the prehistoric INDUS VALLEY
CIVILIZATION. The archaeologists stumbled upon a vast treasure of hidden artefacts in
Mohenjo Daro and Harappa in 1921. It was published in 1924. (The Times Illustrated News,
London)
That was a turning point in our understanding of the past history of India.
These reports arranged in five Sections reveal a depth of scholarly revisions made by
eminent linguists, historians and archaeologists. They help us review our past knowledge of the
IVC Seals & Script, analytical methods and conclusions. They lead us to a totally objective
perspective of understanding the complex issues. It is heartening to find that the editor has
chosen to highlight different opinions on the riddle of Script and Seals of the Harappans and
leaves us to draw our own judgment.
In brief, this interdisciplinary approach meets the long overdue objectivity. While heartily
commending it, I am happy to be associated with the noble motives in alleviating the sufferings
of humanity due to the disastrous Covid-Pandemic, reflecting the true ethos of the inhabitants
of Bharath.
J'éprouve un immense plaisir à exprimer ma vive appréciation au Dr V.P. Subramaniam pour
ses recherches inestimables faites pendant plusieurs années sur cette fameuse civilisation de la
vallée Indus. Son ouvrage servira, j'en suis sûr, de guide a d'autres chercheurs de par le monde
pour mieux comprendre les différentes facettes de la grande civilisation humaine.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Armoogum Parsuramen, GOSK
Founder-President
Global Rainbow Foundation
 Foreword by an Eminent Historian to
“Historiography and Ethnomethodology Studies”

As a Historian, I am extremely glad to find that this exhaustive compilation, “An Anthology of
Research Articles on Historiography and Ethnomethodology from the earliest of times to modern days” marks
fruitful completion of scholarly pursuit undertaken by my illustrious colleague and renowned
educationist, Professor Vridhachalem Subramaniam, formerly a Professor of English,
Presidency College, Madras. Hailing from a devout Saivaite family of Tirunelveli district,
consisting of most disciplined scholars, he owes his academic inspiration to his grandfather, Mr.
V. Chockalingam Pillai, who, after 36 years of distinguished service in the Revenue Department
of the erstwhile Madras Presidency, under the British Government in the undivided India, spent
all his life-time, in retirement, studying archaeology reports, anthropology, history of the world
and historical linguistics, including philology, to pen a voluminous work called “The Origin of The
Indo-European Races and Peoples”1 and dedicated that precious work to H. H. The Emperor
George the V, on the grand occasion of his Coronation and received an endorsement from The
Buckingham Palace. This scholarly analytical work on the conflicts of the people of the “Bulls
Race” with the “Horse Race” was recognised by the famous British dramatist, George Bernard
Shaw, who appreciated the enormous work that had gone into the research work, despite his
personal reservations, as a Fabian Socialist, on the debatable theory put forth by the author.
Thiru Cho. Vridhachalem, the eldest son of the above-mentioned author, writing under the
pseudonym Pudumaippittan, meaning a “a lover of novelty in style”, was one of the eminent
short story writers in Tamil language during the period of Tamil renaissance during the early
part of the twentieth century, earning the well – deserved sobriquet from the world of scholars
of Tamil as “a prince among short story writers in Tamil”. Those stories have been translated world-
wide as models of the short story genre in Tamil language.
 His nephew, Professor Vridhachalem Subramaniam, inspired and motivated by Professor
Ronald E Asher, his mentor and Guru in the University of Edinburgh, has brought out a
translation of “The Complete Short Stories of Pudumaippittan” in English, which has been
published by the Sahitya Akademi, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, one of the most
well-known Institutions in India for promoting regional language creativities through
translation.2 The quality of translation has been hailed for its cultural and thematic accuracy by
several knowledgeable scholars in the field.
It is quite natural that with a grounding of such a tradition and love for deep scholarship
that Dr. Vridhachalem Subramaniam has undertaken this Herculean task of collecting and
editing this anthology of several research articles of immense academic value, ranging from
Professor Max Müller of Oxford University and Sir Mortimer Wheeler, on the one hand, and
Dr. Sunitikumar Chatterjee, Dr. Asko Parpola, Dr. Iravatham Mahadevan and Dr. R.
Balakrishnan, Dr. Clyde A Winters on the other. Within this comprehensive compendium, he
has covered broadly three centuries of national and international scholarship on Indology:
originating from philological studies of classics such as Proto-Dravidian studies and Tamil,
Proto-Indo European Languages and Sanskrit, the corresponding historical developments,
archaeological excavations and numerous interpretations, sociological and religious literatures
reflective of the philosophy of Jainism, Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism, as depicted in the
numerous edicts and rock cuttings. In addition to these, he has also undertaken to delve deeply
into the voluminous researches on the puzzling riddle of the Indus Script, deciphered by ever
so many eminent archaeologists of repute such as Col. Cunningham, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Sir
William Jones, Dr. C. Sunderamurthy, Yuri N. Khorozov, B.B. Lal., S.R. Rao., Asko Parpola,
Iravatham Mahadevan, R. Balakrishnan and several others of different Schools of thought.
More details are to be found in his Chicago Article, 2019. 3 An updated and revised version of
that is to be found in this volume.
The timely publication of this erudite volume of extracts, on research methodology
involving historiography techniques and scientific ethnomethodological linguistics, cannot be
overstated. At a crucial juncture of close scrutiny of not only Indian historical records and
archival materials, but also, in a wider perspective, the study of human Civilisation itself by
several inter disciplinary experts, we are positioned quite close to arriving at an ultimate solution
to the complex issue of tracing the migratory patterns of the earliest of human beings,
probably intimately connected with the inhabitants of Le Muria, otherwise known to
geographers as Gwendonland or to the grammarians as part of early Thamizhagam. The
realistic frontispiece draws our attention to the fundamental issue through its very aptly
suggested design.
The significant work carried out by anthropologist Tony Joseph4, and the detailed study of
the scientific analysis of the Genes of the skeleton of an old woman traced in Rahigarhi 5 by a
team of genetic researchers, led by the Director of the Harvard Medical Laboratory, are
tremendously innovative and significant. I am quite confident that these research papers
classified meticulously into various disciplines of study, will be wholeheartedly welcomed by all
research scholars and current practitioners of historiography and ethnomethodological
linguistic studies. I can also happily visualise that the world of academicians in India and
elsewhere interested in this field of Indological research would find this anthology highly
beneficial to their in-depth research pursuits. Such future studies should consequently pave way
to unearth more robust evidence firming up our current and firm understanding of the glory of
Indology.
I am glad to wish the Editor, Professor Vridhachalem Subramaniam, Godspeed and convey
my very best wishes for further research output.
Dr. P. Rajaraman.,
UGC Visiting Professor,
Department of History,
Presidency College, Chennai.
Note
1. Chockalingam Pillay, V., The Origin of Indo-European Races, Vol.1., Diocesan Press, Palamcottah, Tinnaveli
District. 1935.
2. Asher, R. E., and V. Subramaniam, “The Complete Short Stories of Pudumaippittan” (in English) The Sahitya
Akademi, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi. 2014.
3. Vridhachalem Subramaniam, “Problems and Perspectives in Decipherment of The Indus Script” (2019), (a
revised and updated article), in the Proceedings of the X – IATR, Chicago, July 2019.
4. Tony Joseph, Early Indians: Who are We and Where we came from, Juggernaut, New Delhi, 2018.
5. “Cell (2019) reports published in Media especially”, The Hindu, September 7, 2019.
 Foreword

One of the biggest challenges the country faced in the field of archaeology is the decipherment
of the Indus Script. The continuous accumulation of material remains unearthed through
systematic excavations till date could not solve the unsolved problem such as authors of the
Civilisation, the ancestry of the Civilisation and the language of the Civilisation, though their
trade and technology, rural and urban life, dawn and downfall and many other finer aspects of
the Indus Valley Civilisation could be understood to the satisfaction of all. One of the major
hurdles that prevented in understanding the Indus society is due to the non-decipherment of
Indus Script written or engraved on a variety of materials like bronze chisels, copper tablets,
ivory, bone, steatite, faience, shell and gold objects. More than 6000 inscribed objects carrying
300-400 symbols of Indus Scripts/signs with an average of 4-5 signs per object have been
recovered from the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent covering a wider geographical area of 1.5
million sq.km. The maximum number of inscribed objects are seals and sealing’s made of
steatite. These seals and sealings had distinct signs/symbols/Script with/without the
representation of animals. The most common animal witnessed on the seals is the unicorn bull
with a standard or manger in front. Apart from a unicorn, some of the other animals
represented in the seals are bison, zebu, buffalo, goat, rhinoceros, elephant, tiger, and gharial.
Human figures such as man in yogi posture and a man grappling with two tigers are also figured
in the seal. The purpose of the seal could not be fully understood due to the non-decipherment
of the Script. The occurrence of seals in the entire Harappan territory and also in Mesopotamia
indirectly suggest that it might have used as one kind of authority both in internal and external
trade. A kind of script engraved on the seals and sealings had survived more than a millennium
from the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE to the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. The very
interesting part is that one hardly sees any palaeographical or morphological change irrespective
of its thousand years of usage and survival. Neither evolution nor transformation could be
visibly identified. Besides, all of them are very short in depiction probably carrying names of a
person/administrator/trader/organisation. Irrespective of their painstaking methodological
approaches, the decipherment of Indus Script still eludes the scholars. The early attempts are
concentrated around the Dravidian or Indo-European centric approach. As these approaches
fail to yield desired results, the scholars turn their attention towards graffiti marks that survived
since the downfall of Indus Valley Civilisation until the emergence of the Brahmi Script in the
6th century BCE. The result is that now there is a convergence of opinion among the scholars
that these graffiti marks are evolutionary or transformed form of Indus Script as nearly eighty
percent of the graffiti marks resemble Indus Script. The lack of data, methodological issues,
improper documentation and other related issues fail to provide a clue towards its
decipherment.
However, for any successful decipherment, we require huge data both in terms of material
and textual. The present work An anthology of selected research papers on Historiography and
ethnomethodology: From the earliest of times to current developments in India is an attempt to consolidate
the critical literary data so far encountered in this narrow field. The author gathered all the
literary data scattered in different sources both in time and space. He placed all the published
data under a particular theme so that the reader could understand the background and its off-
shoot effects on interdisciplinary studies, particularly in historical linguistics. Now, one can have
a kaleidoscopic or panoramic view of the history of decipherment in one place. The most
stimulating and fascinating nature of the present volume is the author’s unbiased approach in
consolidating the diverse views. I do hope, all the readers would be joining with me to
appreciate the sincere efforts of the author for bringing an anthology on Indus Script at an
appropriate time.
Professor K. Rajan
Head, Department of History & Archaeology,
Central University
Pondicherry
April 2020
 Acknowledgement

It has been quite some time – perhaps a decade or two, if not more – during which time this
research topic kept me mentally preoccupied. The spark of inspiration came to me while
attending the classes of Professor Ronald E Asher in the University of Edinburgh during the
autumn months of 1979, when he dealt with the intricacies of structure of languages, culture,
social communications and the polemics within it. He pointed out that proper
ethnomethodological linguistic studies would provide ample illustrations.
When I came across the classical work of Professor Asko Parpola and Dr. Iravatham
Mahadevan, on the decipherment of the Indus Script and the hidden cultural pasts which are
embedded within each one of them, it attracted my imagination. No doubt, it has been a huge
challenge to browse through oceans of research materials that have been published so far.
Herein I am sharing the pleasure of studying some of them in great depth. These excellent
passages that allured me are presented here, as I found them, in various sources. I am aware that
this is merely the tip of the iceberg. There is no plagiarism involved in my presentation here.
Each source is indicated in detail. That may also account for variations in styles adopted by each
one of the authors, which have been left untouched during this anthology. This Editor's priority
is on content and not on uniformity of style in presentation. Readers may kindly bear that in
mind.
I am most grateful to Professor Ronald E Asher for his special Foreword to this volume, in
which he has stressed upon the importance of new paradigms of inter disciplinary approach to
research to solve long pending issues.
I am equally indebted to Professor P. Rajaraman, a trustworthy scholar cum historian and a
painstaking researcher, who derives his passion for the use of English language from his
mentor, Professor R. Sathianathaier. I am also beholden to spontaneous academic recognition
granted to this unbiassed and timely publication by Professor K. Rajan, Department of History
and Archaeology, Central University, Pondicherry, to whom I was introduced by my esteemed
senior, Dr. S. V. Shanmugham, who retired as a Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in
Dravidian Linguistics, Annamalai University.
I shall be failing in my duty if I do not express my gratitude to all the sources of my study.
They are far too many, no doubt, but these are the most important ones that helped me shape
my ideas to a very large extent:
1. The Librarian of The Sahitya Academi, New Delhi, and all his ever obliging staff for
reference help in many ways
2. The Director, Librarian and Research Assistants of the National archives in the Office
of the Director General of Archaeology, New Delhi, for their readiness in sharing all
their records
3. The Librarian and staff of the International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai, a
Unesco-supported research organisation of repute
4. The Officer-in-Charge as well as the most helpful library assistants of the Roja Muthiah
Research Library, Taramani, a veritable heaven for all archival materials so painstakingly
gathered and catalogued in memory of late Dr. Iravatham Mahadevan
5. To all my friends in The Deccan College Post Graduate Institute, Poona, where we
learned the basics of Linguistics and Archaeology from great masters, before sharing our
sustained life-long faith in academic excellence
6. To all my numerous friends and well-wishers who stood by me in this Herculean task of
unravelling the mysteries of the Indus Script
7. To all the members of the family of late V. Chockalingam Pillay, for inspiration, help and
understanding throughout these many years of committed work.
8. To all my close friends such as Dhanesh Laveeniah (KL), Abhishek Yadav (NPL, N.D.),
Devaraj Payakkal (Chicago) and Selvamurti (Chennai) for their creativity in the wrapper
design as well as initial production stages
9. Finally, on behalf of the Publishers, I am indeed grateful to all the contributors and
authors for having so kindly shared the benefit of their research publications. I wish to
assure all of them, as a perfect academic professional of advanced age, that the
Intellectual Property Rights will always rest with each one of the authors selected herein
and their legal heirs, where applicable, through their Publishers or individually, as may be
the case.
10. May I sign off thanking all of you the researchers for whom this compendium of past
research should mean much more than a set of words, diagrams and sketches reminding
you of the lost Continent and culture. It is more than a legacy. It is our glorious heritage.
For all of you, Ulysses will be more than a mere classical role model, who gave a timely
clarion call to his fellow men,
“to follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.”
(A. E. Tennyson: 'Ulysses')
Now start your exploration and enjoy smooth surfing.

Vridhachalem Subramaniam.
Chennai 600085.
15th July, 2020.
Introduction by the Editor vii
Foreword by an Eminent Linguist, Professor R. E. Asher xi
Foreword by an Ex-Director of Unesco, Dr. Armoogum Parsuramen xiii
Foreword by a Historian, Professor P. Rajaraman xv
Foreword by Professor K. Rajan xix
Acknowledgement by Editor Vridhachalem Subramaniam xxi
Historiography and Ethnomethodology Studies xxvii
SECTION I. ‘KADAL KONDA THAMIZHAGAM’ - LE MURIA TIRUVALLUVAR
1. தமி நா ெதா ைம நிைல 3
ந.சி. க ைதயா ப ைள
2. எ 16
ந.சி. க ைதயா ப ைள
3. தமி வரலா 22
இரா– இராகவ ய கா
4. தமி ெமாழிய றன நிைல 29
இரா. இராகவ ய கார (ெதாட சி]
5. கட ேகா 38
இரா – இராகவ ய கா
6. 54
7. 66
8. ெமாஹ ெசாதேரா (அ ல ) சி ெவள நாக க 72
ைனவ மா. இராசமாண கனா
9. நிைற க க நிைற அள க 80
ைனவ மா. இராசமாண கனா
10. இராேச திர ேசாழன தி வால கா ெச ேப க 89
ச. கி ண தி
11. ெச ெமாழி: ெச வய ெமாழி 100
ைனவ வா.ெச. ழ ைதசாமி

SECTION II. PRE-HISTORY AND INDOLOGY STUDIES

How Ants Walking Backward find their way Home 107
12. The Wonder that was India 109
A.L. Basham
13. Cultures and Societies of The Indus Tradition 120
Jonathan Mark Kenoyer
14. Periodisation of the Development of Tamil 136
Kamil V. Zvelebil
15. Mohenjo-Daro 141
Sir Mortimer Wheeler
16. The Indus Civilisation 148
Irfan Habib
17. Indus Civilisation (-1750 BCE) 164
Asko Parpola
18. Traces of the Indus Valley Civilisation in Cilappathikaram 178
K. Chellappan
19. Indological Studies 182
Bernard Anderson, John Correia Afonso, S. J., and Fr. Heras
20. On the Problem of Genesis of Ancient Indian 205
G.M Bongard Levin
21. The Three Tamil Sangams 225
P.T. Sreenivasa Iyengar
22. The Origin of the Tamils 239
P. Rajaraman
23. Beginnings of the Writing System in Tamil 246
R. Kothandaraman
24. Historical Factors Shaping Chemmozhi 270
Vridhachalem Subramaniam
25. Tamil Cultural Influences in South East Asia 285
Xavier S. Thani Nayagam
26. The Indian Synthesis: Racial, Cultural Mixture 295
Suniti Kumar Chatterji
27. Research in South-East Asia and in the Far East 327
Jean Filliozat, T.P. Meenakshisundaran, S. Singaravelu
28. Athens, Adens, Arikamedu 341
Marie Françoise Boussac and Jean- François Salles
29. Problems of South Indian History 349
K.A. Nilakanta Sastry
30. History of Tamils Since 600 A.D. 360
P.T Sreenivasa Iyengar
SECTION III. MATTERS OF RACE AND DIVISIVE DEBATES

Introduction Max Müller 371

Alexander Wilder
31. What Can India Teach Us? 374
Max Müller
32. The Historiography of the Concept of ‘Aryan’ 389
Thapar, Kenoyer
33. An Interview with the Historian Romila Thapar 412
Ranbir Chakravarti
34. German Scholars’ Contribution towards the Promotion of Brahui Language 446
Sikander Brohi
35. Hindustan in the Third to First Millennium B.C. 452
G.M. Bongard-levin
36. Where did the Dravidians come from? 457
T. Balakrishnan Nayar
37. Linguistic Evidence for the Common Origin of the Dravidians and Indo-Europeans 465
Nallur Swami S. Gnana Prakashar
38. Origin of Indo-European Races and Peoples 481
V. Chockalingam Pillai
39. The Dravidian Question Answered 501
J.T. Cornellus
40. The Aryan Invasion Theory: The Final Nail in its Coffin 510
Stephen Knapp
41. Semantic Changes: The Proto-Indo-European Language Family 536
John McWhorter
42. Which of us are Aryans?
Rethinking The Concept of our Origins 540
Jaya Menon
43. Regarding the Early ‘Aryans’ within and Outside India 552
Michael Witzel
44. Indological Research in India 566
Dr. S. K. Bajpai
45. Lothal and The Fall of Indus Civilisation 571
S.R. Rao
46. The Date of The Indus Civilisation: Indus and Ghaggar Valley Sites 579
S.R. Rao
47. Lothal and Indus Civilisation: Origin of the Indus Civilisation 586
S.R. Rao
48. End and Devolution of The Indus Civilisation 595
S.R. Rao
49. Foreign Trade: 2nd Millennium BCE 610
P.T Sreenivas lyengar
SECTION IV. DEVELOPMENT OF SCRIPTS IN INDIA – A SURVEY
50. The Forgotten Ancestor 617
Prakrit in South
51. The Edicts of Ashoka (Pali and Ashokan Brahmi) 620
Edward Thomas
52. Ashoka 628
Charles Allen
53. Evolution of Brahmi Script A linguistic Approach 657
Dilip Rajgor
54. Aksara as a Linguistic Unit in Brāhmī Scripts 666
Purushottam G. Patel
55. Akshara as the Minimal Articulatory Unit 699
Pramod Pandey
56. The Deciphered Indus Script: Methodology 713
N. Jha and N.S. Rajaram
57. The Indus Seals: Vedic Literature 727
N. Jha and N.S. Rajaram
58. Decipherment I: Basics and Methodology 731
N. Jha and N.S. Rajaram
59. Indian Epigraphy: A Guide To The Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit and
Other Indo-Aryan Languages 754
Richard Salomon
60. Indus Seals and Glyptic Studies: An Overview 793
Asko Parpola
61. Study of Specific Aspects of Indus Seals 803
Asko Parpola
62. The Trefoil Motif: Further Evidence for Astral Religion 809
Asko Parpola
63. Unsealing The Indus Script Anatomy of its Decipherment 829
Malati J Shendge
64. A Dravidian Solution to The Indus Script Problem 856
Asko Parpola
65. Copper Tablets from Mohenjo-daro and the Study of the Indus Script 880
Asko Parpola
66. Early Tamil – Brāhmī Inscriptions – Orthography 890
Iravatham Mahadevan
67. Evolution and Chronology of South Indian scripts: A Summary 910
Iravatham Mahadevan
68. Dravidian Models of Decipherment of The Indus Script: A Case Study 913
Iravatham Mahadevan
69. ‘Murukan’ In The Indus Script (1999) 923
Iravatham Mahadevan
70. “A Historic Legacy” (1998) 939
Sundar Ganesan (after FRONTLINE.COM)
71. An Unofficial History of The Indus Script 945
Clyde Winters
72. The Indus Script is Dravidian 991
Clyde Winters
73. Grantha over the Ages 1004
Heritage Circle
SECTION V. MOLECULAR AND GENETIC EVIDENCE
74. Aryans and the Indian Civilisation Molecular Evidence 1017
Michel Danino
75. Flogging a Dead Horse: A Rejoinder 1038
Michel Danino
76. The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilisation 1061
Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel
77. Special Lecture: Study of the Indus Script 1098
Asko Parpola
78. A Statistical Approach for Pattern Search In Indus Writing 1125
Nisha Yadav, M N Vahia, Iravatham Mahadevan and H Joglekhar
79. Deciphering The Indus Script 1136
R.A.E. Coningham
80. Indus Valley Civilization is the Largest Source of Ancestry for South Asians
(Report in “Cell”) 1159
Vasant Shinde et al
81. “Early Indians-Who we are and where we came from” 1161
Tony Joseph
82. “Deciphering The Indus Script: Problems And Perspectives” 1164
Vridhachalem Subramaniam
83. Harappan Civilisation: Heritage to Legacy 1185
Vrindhachalem Subramaniam
84. The ‘High-West: Low-East’ Dichotomy Of Indus Cities: A Dravidian Paradigm 1195
R. Balakrishnan

About the Contributors 1249

A List of Videos on the above Themes 1253
References 1254
Index 1259
A brief executive summary is presented below for the benefit of readers.
The book is structured along these Sections, comprising.
Introduction
Introductory Pages: Mission Statement, Forewords by an eminent Linguist, an eminent
UNESCO Official, an eminent Historian and an eminent Archaeological Expert-cum-Historian
followed by an acknowledgement by the Editor.
The book is divided into five sections with an inter-disciplinary thrust area indicated below:
1. Section I: Le Muria – The Lost Continent: “Kadal Konda Thamizhagam” and the
Sangam Period literature, composed before the Common Era, as traced from rock and
pillar inscriptions, copper plates and temple carvings. The six authors explain how and
why various kinds of inscriptions are made and their relevance to the understanding of
Pre-History of Tamils, leading to the recognition of Chemmozhi Tamil, on par with
other Classical languages of the world. (1-11)
2. Section II: Describes popular international and national evaluation of Indology, with
special reference to the contributions made by the Tamils. Very eminent Scholars such
as Kamil Zvelebil, Xavier Thaninayagam and S. K. Chatterjee, Jean Filliozat et al., point
out the significant role played by the ancient Tamil literature, its grammatical treatises
and poetics, besides a stream of recorded religious devotion impacting cultural values
of SE Asia.(12-30).
3. Section III: Delves deeply into the impact of indological studies on European Scholars
such as Professor Max Muller of Oxford and others such as Romila Thapar, Sikander
Brohi (Brahui links with Dravidian), T. Balakrishnan Nayar, Nallur Swamy
Gnanapprakasar and anthropologist V. Chokkalingam Pillai and John McWhorter et al
on the interrelationships as well as conflicts between different races reflected in the lexis
of families of languages developed by them. S. R. Rao’s research provides a deep
understanding of the Indus Civilisation from its origin to its sudden decline, more
probably due to natural calamities than due to man-made ones. Sreenivasa Iyengar
provides a clue to the underlying trade practices, which linked them through strong
commercial interests promoting mutual prosperity. Such trade connections spread from
the west, mid-west and spread through the whole of South East Asia, thereby enabling
a great deal of racial integration. (31-50)
4. Section IV: leads us into the depths of various scripts used for communication between
the groups over the past three millennia. Commencing from Old Prakrit and ancient
Pali scripts, we gradually get exposed to the Chandragupta-era of Brahmi and
 Karaoshti, distinctly differentiated by their characters, direction of writing and its
purpose. However, it was firmly established through the Ashokan pillar edicts,
proclaiming rule of Dhamma to all the citizens. It was given to James Princep, a British
Civil Servant in the Bengal Mint, to report these in great depth through the Journal of
Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal of which he was the founder Secretary cum Editor, till
his death. We also get to know of the Vedic elements and literary devices that
influenced Brahmi at all levels. However, the advent of computer-assisted analyses
transformed the basis for arriving at such conclusions. The Russian scholars led by
experienced Yuri Knorozov, the Finnish Scholar Asko Parpola, the American
researchers like Clyde Winters backed the theory propounded initially by Iravatham
Mahadevan, followed closely by other eminent researchers such as Professor Asko
Parpola, Professor Mathivanan and Dr. R. Balakrishnan. The lone exception was Dr.
Malati J Sendje, who took all efforts to associate the Indus Script with Akkadian
language. This Section on Decipherment of ancient scripts concludes with an illustrated
Grantha Script of the Pallava period followed by a chart describing the evolution of the
Script through the period of Tamil Kings, in the form of Thamizhi – VaTTezhuththu -
– Thamizh ezhuththu. [Serial numbers: 51-73.]
5. Section V: leads us into the contemporary area of Science and Technology impacting
historical data analysis, thereby causing sensational paradigm changes. The theory of
‘Aryan Invasion’ gets knocked down by Genetics – oriented researchers such as Michel
Danino, while a radically reported, vehemently argued analysis about “the myth of a
literate Harappan Civilisation” by Farmer-Sproat-Witzel group gets turned down by
Asko Parpola and the TIFR Group led by Nisha Yadav and Iravatham Mahadevan et al..
The vexatious problem of determining the ‘ gene’ of the skull of an ancient woman
found in Rahigarhi by Dr. David Reich and Director Professor Vasant Shinde group of
researchers created a sensational coup. It is closely followed by anthropological
revelations on migrant patterns by Tony Joseph. A thorough Survey of the State of Art
as far as Decipherment of the Indus Script is provided by Vridhachalem Subramaniam
followed by a possible holistic solution through an acceptance of the concept of “
Archeme”. In the course of the Final extract, the eminent Indus Scholar R.
Balakrishnan examines the pattern of ‘High-West’ and ‘ Low-East’ dichotomy, which is
a prevalent social practice among Dravidian societies. [74-84]
The two annexures provide useful information of the scholars represented here and a list
of suggested videos, on this crucial issue of prehistory, taken at random. Sources are
acknowledged. However, if there are unintended omissions due to ignorance, the Editor is
willing to correct the Data in future editions.
 SECTION – IV.
DEVELOPMENT OF SCRIPTS IN INDIA – A SURVEY
A Sample of Indus Script Found

ttps//:WWW.Harappa.com
Rummindei Pillar-Inscription

A 1925 impression of Prakrit inscriptions on an Ashokan pillar at Lumbini in Nepal. photo: Alamy
Despite being the progenitor of multiple spoken languages, Prakrit does not enjoy as exalted a
position as Sanskrit. It isn’t generally disputed that most modern Indo-Aryan Languages –
namely, those spoken in northern, western and eastern India – trace their origins bank to
Sanskrit. Sanskit is indeed the parent of virtually all these languages. But what is frequently
omitted is that the road from Sanskrit to these languages meandered through two other
destinations: the little-know Prakrit and the even lesser-known Apabhramsa (pronounced
Apabhransh).
Even after flourishing for more than 1000 years (from fourth or fifth century BC to eighth
century AD) as an independent language of sorts, being the court language of at least one
important ancient Indian dynasty and possessing a considerable body of literature, Prakrit is
largely discussed in relation to Sanskrit and rarely commands an identify of its own.
Occasionally, it finds mention as that amorphous tongue that occupied the centuries that lie)
between Sanskrit and the modern Indo-Aryan languages of the subcontinent. But while Indo-
Aryan tongues are mostly eager to trace their history to Sanskrit, the Prakrit connection rarely
receives any attention.
In part, this is on account of Sanskrit’s exalted position in India’s language order.
Historically, Sanskrit has been cast as the “refined” or “polished” tongue (that’s what the word
“Sanskrit” means) that was the repository of high culture and the language of the scriptures.
Since it was the domain of the scholarly and the hight-born, it was inevitable that the language
of the masses could not be Sanskrit. And so, the language morphed into what came to be
regarded as a crudity---Prakrit, meaning the “natural” tongue---the lingo of the street. It’s not
easy to trace the evolution of this language of the street without an inquiry into the origins of
Sanskrit itself.
That Sanskrit evolved from what has been termed by scholars as Proto-Indo-European
(PIE), the original ancestor tongue, is undeniable. What’s unclear is where the original home of
PIE was. There is some evidence to suggest that PIE speakers were located in the Central Asian
region and moved into India at some point(perhaps, over several points in time)in the days of
the Indus Valley civilisation (3000-1500 BC). But to which language family did the denisens of
Indus belong? One school of thought holds that the Indus Valley civilisation was part of the
PIE universe and so, Sanskirt is home-grown. Evidence for this claim is scanty. Another school
claims that the Indus Valley civilisation was Dravidian, perhaps even Austro Asiatic. This, too, is
not definite. Since Indus script has not been decoded yet, this has ensured that there is no final
word on this matter.
Linguists have also identified “non-Aryan” (the word “Aryan” being used in a linguistic
sense here) elements in Vedic Sanskrit. This has been done by comparing Vedic Sanskrit with
Avestan or Old Iranian, both of which trace their origins to PIE. If Vedic Sanskrit contained
words from other tongues then extant in India, the reasoning goes that these tongues must have
been spoken fairly widely at a time when Sanskrit was also being used. Therefore, is it owing to
the influence of these tongues (possibly of Dravidian or Austro-Asiatic origin or perhaps both)
that Prakrit came into being? Or is Prakrit merely debased Sanskrit? This is unclear.
What is clear though is that Prakrit is a term for a collection of tongues widely used in
different parts of Aryavarta from fourth or fifth century BC to eighth century AD, when these
tongues evolved into Apabhramsa, before finally settling down as early forms of the various
modern Indo-Aryan languages spoken today. Linguists therefore do not speak of “Prakrit” as a
monolith, preferring the term” Prakrits” instead.
Several Prakrits have been identified. Pali, the language the Buddha (circa 563-486 BC)
preached in and Ardhamagadhi, which was Mahavira’s (circa sixth century BC) tongue, are both
Prakrits. Using these tongues for religions discourse and eschewing Sanskrit was, for both the
seers a deliberate choice, in line with their larger philosophy of reaching out to the masses,
indeed, much of the Buddhist and Jain religious corpus are in these tongues. Ashoka (ruled 268-
231 BC) had his edicts inscribed in Prakit, again deliberately, to ensure that people understood
his message. These Prakrits are among the oldest that are known. Around the time of Ashoka,
or perhaps a little later, it appears that Pali was taken to Sri Lanka by Buddhist bhikkus and later
evolved into modern-day Sinhalese.
 Roughly between 100BC and 100AD, Prakrit evolved in interesting ways. From a crude
tongue, it appears to have transformed into a literary language. Shauraseni, Maharashtri and
Magadhi came to be regarded as Dramatic Prakrits owing to their extensive use in plays written
in this period. The Gathasaptasati, a compilation of Prakrit love poetry written by several
writers and possibly compiled by King Hala of the Satavahana dynasty (ruled first century AD),
was written in Maharashtri, which was also court language of the Satavahanas, who ruled over
large parts of the Deccan. Kalidasa (fourth or fifth century AD), too, has used Prakrits in his
Sanskrit plays.
Gandhari Prakrit, spoken in the north-west, in the region that today constitutes Pakistan,
was among the more unusual Prakrits. It employed the Kharoshthi script, usually written from
right to left, as opposed to the other Prakrits, which used the Brahmi script that ran from left to
right. Gandhari inscriptions have been found in Central Asia and China, indicating that it was
used over a wide expanse of geography.
Paishachi (from pisach, ghosts or ghouls, literally, the language of the dead) is perhaps the
most interesting Prakrit of this period. For one, its existence is unattested. No text in this
tongue has survived. What remain are references to this tongue by Prakrit grammarians.
Secondly, there is the matter of its name. It is likely that “language of the dead” actually meant
a language that was extinct or not in use when the grammarians were writing about it. But
interpreted literally, the term has lent itself to many fanciful explanations. Post the eighth
century, in their final stage, the many Prakrits broke up into various Apabhramsa dialects, from
which the modern languages were derived in and around 800-1,200 AD. Maharashtri and the
Apabhramsa tongues it spawned eventually evolved into Marathi and Konkani. Similarly, the
Apabhramsa dialects that emerged from Shauraseni gave birth to Gujarati, Rajasthani. Pujabi
and, later, to what the poet Amir Khusrau called “Hindavi”, to which modern Hindi and Urdu
trace their origins. Magadhi gave birth to the Indo-Aryan tongues of eastern India: Bengali,
Assamese, Odia, Maithili and so on.
Given the overarching influence of the many Prakrit on modern Indian linguistic
distribution, its absence in the wider language discourse is perplexing---and a pointer to how the
politics of language plays out.
The writer is an editor with a publishing firm based in Bengaluru.
Edicts of Ashoka (3rd century B.C.) Cast of inscribed Rock, Girnar (Gujarat)
The Emperor Ashoka (272-232 B.C.) dedicated himself to the service of man and beast within
and beyond his vast dominion and strove to elevate the social and moral outlook of his
subjects. His edicts (Dhamma lipi) incised on pillars and rocks, in both condensed and elaborate
versions are found all over the Indian sub-continent, from Shahbazgarhi now in Pakistan to
Lauriya Nandangarh in Bithar and from Girnar in Gujarat to Dhauli in Orissa and further south
up to Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh.
The Girnar edicts represented here by a metal cast of the inscribed rock are fourteen in
number, like those found at Yerragudi, Kalsi, Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra.
1. No living being may be slaughtered for sacrifice.
2. In and outside his dominions, Priyadarshi Ashoka has arranged for the medical
treatment of man and beast.
3. Priyadarshi Ashoka ordered tours by his officers every five years to inspect and preach
Dhamma (moral and social code of conduct his dominions, in addition to their regular
duties and to teach his people to obey parents, be liberal to friends, relatives, Brahmanas
and Sramanas (Monks), to abstain from killing animals.
4. Priyadarshi promotes Dhamma and expects his descendants like-wise to continue to
promote it.
5. ‘Dhamma Mahamatras’ have been appointed for establishing and promoting Dhamma
in his land and even among the Yavanas, Kambojas, Gandharas, Rashtrikas and others.
English Translations of Girnar Rock Edicts of Maurya King Ashoka
6. Reports of affairs in his kingdom could be brought to his notice anytime, as he
considered it his duty constantly and speedily to attend to the welfare of his subjects.
7. Priyadarshi wishes that all religious sects in his dominions should live in peace and amity
and stresses self-control and purity of mind.
8. Priyadarshi who visited Sambodhi (Bodh Gaya, Bihar) started on pilgrimage of
Dhamma making gifts to Brahmanas and Sramanas, contacting the people of the
countryside and exhorting them to follow the path of Dhamma.
 9. Caremonies associated with Dhamma produce great results. These are courtesy to slaves
and servants, reverance to elders, restraint and liberality to Brahmanas and Sramanas. By
this practice heaven it won.
10. Priyadarshi does not consider glory in this life or fame after death as of any
consequence except the glory of his being able to induce his people to practice
Dhamma. There is no gift like the gift of Dhamma;
11. There is no distribution like the distribution of Dhamma and no kinship like the kinship
of Dhamma.
12. The growth of Dhamma is by the restraint of speech which means no praise of one’s
own faith or disparagement of another.
13. The conquest of Kalinga resulting in unprecedented slaughter and carrying away of
captives brought remorse to priyadarshi. He was therefore determined for conquest
though Dhamma.
14. This record relating to Dhamma has been inscribed in abridged or expanded form, so
that people may act accordingly.
English Translations of Girnar Rock Edicts of Maurya King Ashoka
Plate I. exhibits; facsimile Tablets 1,2, of the Girnar rock. Of the former I have merely
transliterated the first sentence. But as I have had occasion to extract the full translation of
Tablet 2, I have now added the type-text, in the old character, together with an interlineation in
Roman letters1 which will admit alike of preliminary readings, and suggest further crucial
comparisons by more advanced students.
The Contrasted Tenor Of The Three Periods Of Asoka’s Edicts.----Period I., 10 TH and 12TH
Years after his Abhishek or Anontment.
The first sentence of the Rock-cut Edicts, of the twelfth years of Asoka’s reign,
commences textually:22

1. This type was originally cut under James Prinsep’s own supervision. I am indebted to the Asiatic Society of
Bengal for the Font now supervision. Which is in the possession of Messrs, Austin. Some slight modifications
of the original will be noticed, especially in regard to the attachment of the vowels; but otherwise the type
reproduces the normal letters in close facsimile. The most marked departure from the old model is to be seen
in the vowel, Which in the original scheme was formed out of the a and e, thus 1; whereas, in the type, for
simplicity of junction, the e and the a have been ranged on one level, in this form. It will be seen that the
Sanskrit is has not yet put in an appearance, the local having to do duty for its coming associate. A full table of
the alphabet itself will be found in Vol.V.N.S. of our journal, p. 4222.
2. I quote as my leading authority Professor Wilson’s revised translation of the combined texts embodied in the
Journ. R.A.S. Vol. XII. P.164,et seq., as his materials were necessarily more ample and exact than Prinsep’s
original transcripts, which were unaided by the highly important counterpart and most efficient corrective in
Semitic Letters from Kapurdigiri, the decipherment of which was only achieved by Mr. Norris in 1845.
 “This is the edict of the beloved of the gods, Raja Priya-dasi---the putting to death of
animals is to be entirely di continued.”.....
“The second tablet, after referring to the subject races of India and to “Antiochus by name,
the Yona (or Yavana) Raja,” goes on to say: “( two designs have been cherished Dictionaries,”
by the Rev.F. Kittel, Mercara, Indian Antiquary, 1872, p.235. F.Müller, “Academy,” 1872, p.319.
by Priyadasi: one design) regarding men, and one relating to animals

Savata Vijitamhi Devanampiyasa Piyadasino ratio

Evamapi pl chainters yathai Ghodd poda Satiyaputo Kotaleputo at Tamba-

Pamni, Qntiyako yonardja yevapi tara Antiyakasd sdmipain

Rdjdno Savatd Devdnainpiya Piyadasino rdno dve chikichhakata

Manusa chikichhacha pasuchikichhacha osudhanicha yadni manusopaganisha

Pasrpagaini cha yata-yata nasti savata hdrdpitanicha ropidpitanisha

Mildnicha phaldmicha yata-yata nasti savara hdrdpitanicha ropitdnicha

 Painthosu kupacha khanapita vachhacha ropdpita paribhogaya pasumanusanam
I give Dr. Kern’s later translation of this passage entire, on account of its historical interest;
there does not seem to be any material conflict in his rendering of the religious sense:
“ In the Whole dominion of King Devanampriya Priyadarsin, as also in the adjacent countries, as chola,
pandya, Satyaputra, Keralaputra, as far as Tamraparani, the Kingdom of Antiochus the Grecian King and
of his neighbor Kings, the system of Caring for the sick, both of men and of cattle, followed by King
Devanamapriya Priyadarsin, has been everywhere brought into practice; and at all places where useful
healing herbs for men and cattle were wanting he has caused them to br brought and planted; and at all.

Inscription at the Gate of the Jaina Temple, Mount Girnar

Photograph of Charans of Lord Nerminath at Girnar Hills

Places where roots and fruits were wanting he has caused them to be brought and planted; also
he has caused wells to be dug and trees to be planted, on the roads for the benefit of cattle.”-
Indian Anti-quary, p. 272; Arch. Rep. 1874-5, P.99.
The 3rd section adverts to “expiation,” and the 4th continues: “During a past period of
many centuries, there have prevailed, destruction of life, injury to living beings, disrespect
towards kindred, and irreverence towards Sramans and Brahmans.” 1
The 5th edict, after a suitable preamble, proceeds:
“ Therefore in the tenth year of the inauguration have ministers of morality been made, 2 who are
appointed for the purpose of presiding over morals among persons of all the religions, for the sake of
the augmentation of virtue and for the happiness of the virtuous among the people of Kamboja,
Gandhara, Naristaka and Pitenika. The shall also be spread among the warriors, the Brahmans, the
mendicants, the destitute and others.”…..
The 6th edict declares: – “An unprecedently long time has passed since it has been the
custom at all times and in all affairs, to submit representations. Now it is established by me
that.. the officers appointed to make reports shall convey to me the objects of the people’ – and
goes on to define the duties of supervisors of morals, and explain their duties as “ informers,’
etc., continuing: ------------
“There is nothing more essential to the good of the world, for which I am always labouring. On the many
beings over whom
1 Dr. Kern’s elaborate criticism of Burnouf ’s revision of Prof. Wilson’s translation of this
passage (Lotius de la Bonne Loi, P-731) scarcely alters the material sense quoted above. His
version runs:
“In past times, during many centuries, attacking animal life and inflicting suffering on the creatures, want
of respect for Bràhmans and monks.”
Dr. Kern, in the course of his remarks upon his new rendering, observes, “Apart from
the style, there in so little exclusively Buddhistic in this document, that we might equally
well conclude from it that the King, satiated with war, had become the president of a
peace society and an association for the protection of the lower animals, as that he had
embraced the doctrine of Sakya Muni.” – I, A., p.262.
The Cuttack version of the Edicts differs from the associate texts, saying, ‘who shall be
intermingled with all the hundred grades of unbelievers for the establishment among
them of the faith, for the increase of religion….. in Kambocha and Gandhara, in
Surastrika and Pitenika,…. And even to the furthest (limits) of the barbarian (countries).
Who shall mix with the Brahmans and Bhikshus, with the poor and with the rich.”-p.
190; Prinsep, J.A S. Bengal.
I rule I confer happiness in this world,-in the next they may obtain Swarga (heaven).”1

1. Dr. Kern’s conclusion of Tablet 9 runs as follows, ‘By doing all this, a man can merit heaven; therefore let him
wishes to gain heaven for himself fulfill, above all things, these his duties,” – I.A., p. 271.
 Tablet 7 does not seem to call for any remark. Tablet 8 refers to some change that came
over the royal mind in the tenth year of his reign. ‘Piyadasi, the beloved of the gods, having
been ten years inaugurated, by him easily awakened, that moral festival is adopted (which
consists) in seeing and beatowing gifts on Brahmanas and Sramanas, overseeing the county and
the people; the institution of moral laws,” ect.
Burnoufs amended translation differs from this materially. He writes:
“[Mais] Piyadasi, le roi cheri des Deveas, parvenu a la dixieme annee depuis son sacre, obtient la science
parfaite que donne la Buddha. C’est Pourquoi la promenade de la roi est cette qu’il faut faire, ce sont la
visite et l’aumone faites aux Brahmanes et aux Samanas.”……
I see that Dr. Kern now proposes to interpret this contested passage as,
“But King Devanampriya Priyadarsin, ten years after his inauguration, came to the true insight. Therefore
he sees at his house and bestows gifts upon Brahmans and monks…. Since then this is the greatest
pleasure of King Devanampriya Priyadarsin in the period after his conversion” [to what?], – I.A.p. 263.
In his remarks upon the tenor of this brief tablet Dr. Kern continues,
“It in distinguished by a certain simplicity and sentiment of tone, which makes it touch a chord in the
human breast, There is a tenderness in it so vividly different from the insensibility of the later monkish
literature of Buddhism, of which Th. Pavie observes, with so much justice, ‘Tout rests done glace dans ce
monde bouddhique.”
Tablet 9, speaking of festivities in general, declares:
“Such festivities are fruitless and vain, but the festivity that bears great fruit is the festival of duty, such as
the respect of the servant to his master; reverence for holy teachers is good, tender.
Tablet 10 contrasts the emptiness of earthly fame as compared with the “observance of moral
duty,” and section 11 equally discourses on “virtue,” which is defined as ‘the cherishing of
slaves and dependents, pious devotion to mother and father, generous gift to friends and
kinsmen, Brahmanas and Sramanas, and the non-injury of living beings.”
Tablet 12 commences: “The beloved of the gods, King Priyadasi, honours all forms of
religious faith,”2 … and enjoins “reverence for one’s own faith, and no shown nor injury of
others. Let the reverence be shown in such and such a manner, as is suited to the difference of
belief,” 3… “for he who in some way honours his own religion and reviles that of others, saying,
having extended to all our own belief, let us make it famous, he, who does this, throws
difficulties in the way of his own religion: this, his conduct cannot be right,”… The Edict goes
on to say,” And as this is the object of all religion, with a view to its dissemination,
superintendents of moral duty, as well as over women, and officers of compassion, as well as
other officers” (are appointed).4

2. D. kern’s rendering says “honour all sects and orders of monks.”

3. “so that no man may praise his own sect or contemn another sect.’
4. For this end, sheriffs over legal proceedings, magistrates entrusted with the superintendence of the woman, hospice-masters (?) and
other bodies have been appointed.” – I.A., p.268.
5. Gen. Cunningham, Arch. Report, Report, vol. i. p. 247, and vol. v. p. 20. See also my Dynasty of the Guptas in
India, p. 34. I append the tentative trans.
 Which Professor Wilson declined to translate, as the Kapur di Giri text afforded no
trustworthy corrective, seems, from Mr. Prinsep’s version, to recapitulate much that has been
said before, with a reiterated “injunction for the non-injury of animals and content of living
creatures” sentiments in which he appears to seek the sympathy of the “Greek King
Antiochus,” together (as we now know55) with that of the “four kings Ptolemy, Antigonus,
Magas and1 Lassen renders this, “my whole endeavor is to be blameless towards all creatures, to
make them happy here below and enable them hereafter to obtain Svarga.” – Indian Antiquary,
p-270. Neasness for living creatures is good, liberality to Brahmans and Sramanas is good.
These and other such acts constitute verily the festival of duty… With these means let a man
seek Swarga.”1
Alexander.” The postscript in larger letters outside the square of this tablet adds, according
to Prinsep, “And this place is named the White Elephant, conferring Pleasure on all the world.”
Prof Wilson, in conclusion of his review of the purport of these paleographic documents,
adverts to the Tablet numbered 14 in the original list, but he does not seem to have had
sufficient confidence in his materials to have ventured upon a continuous translation. 1
Period II. The Advanced Stage
The contrasted Lat, or Monolithic Inscriptions,2 as opposed literation of the several versions of this tablet, which I
had prepared for the latter work.
My learned friends are unwilling as yet to compromise themselves by a translation of the still imperfect text.
Transliterations Of Tabler XIII. Of The Asoka Inscriftions At (1) Kafun-Di-Giri, (2) Khalsi, And (3) Girnar.
.Ka.Antiyoka name Yona raja paran cha tenan Antiyokena chature IIII rajano
.Kh. Antiyega nama Yona. … lan cha tena Antiyo. Na chatali + lajane
.Gir….. Yona raja paran cha tena... chaptena [vie] rajano.
.Ka. Traramaye nama Antikina nama Maka nama Alikasandaro nama
.Kh. Tulamaye nama Antekina nama Maka nama Alikyasadale nama
. Gir. Turamayo cha Antakana aha Maga cha....
.Ka.nicham Choda, Ayam Tambupanniya hevammevamhena raja
2.. Kh. nicham Cjoda, Pandiya, Avam Tumbapapaniya hevamevahevameva.. laja
3. Gir......
1. Ks. Vishatidi Yonam Kamboyeshu Nibha Kanabhatina Bhojam Piti
2. Kh. Vishmavasi Youa Kambojasu Nubha Kanabha Pantisa Bhoja Piti
3. Gir.
1. Ka. Nikeshu, Andrapalideshu savatam. .
2. Kh. Nikesa Adhapiladesa savath.
3. Gir ndhepirandesu savata .
Under the Elephant at Khalsi, Gajatemre? As Girnar, Sveta hasti, as above, p.34.
1. The 14th Edict at Girnar is more curious, in respect to the preparation of the Edicts, than instructive in the
religious sense. Dr. Kern’s revision produces, “King Devhnampriya Priyadarsin has caused this righteousness
edicts to be written, here concisely, there in a moderate compass, and in a third places again at full length, so
that it is not found altogether everywhere worked out I (F) full the kingdom is great, and what I have caused
to be written much. Repatitions occur also, in a certain measure, on account of the sweetness of certain points,
in order that the people should in that way (the more willingly) receive it, If sometimes the one or other is
written incompletely or not in order, it is because care has not been taken to make a good transcript (ehhdyd) or
by the fault of the copyist (i,e. the stone – cutter).”-I. A, p.276.
2. J.As. Soc. Bengal,vol.. vi.1837, p.566. The text on the Dehli has been taken as the standard; these edicts are repeated
verbatim on the three other lats of Allahabad, Betiah and Radhia.
This was to be the first of fourteen essays published by Hodgson on the subject of Buddhism
and to his great gratification it ehcired an enthusiastic response from the illustrious French
Orientalist Eugene Burnouf at that time Europe’s leading authority on the Pali languages. A
friendship developed by correspondence and many more Sanskrit texts followed. This
unprompted generosity went down badly with some of companions but it led to Burnout
taking up Sanskrit culminating in the publication in 1844 of his seminal Introduction of
Pohistoiredu Buddhisme Indian-probably the most mlluential work on Buddhism to be published in
the nineteenth century.
Horace Hayman Wilson’s narrow –mindedness _for it was Wilson whose inaction had so
frustrated Hodgson-also blighted the career of that most eccentric of scholars the Hungarian
Cosma de koros who had spent years travelling through Central Asia in search of the languages
roots of Hungarian before settling in a Buddhist monastery in ladakh to learn Tibetan. In 1824
de koros offered to make the fruits of his researches into Tibetan language and literature freely
available to the Asiatic Society, an offered he repeated in 1827. Wilson spurned both offers.
After three further years of isolated study in Zanskar, during which he compiled the first
Tibetan dictionary and grammar, de koros applied to the EICo for permission to enter India.
Fortunately, this application reached the desk of Governor General Lord Benomek. Who
recognised the value of de Koro’s work as an aid to trade and saw to it that he and his
manuscripts were made welcome at the Asiatic Society. Here he was given a small government
salary and put to work by Wilson cataloguing Brian Hodgson’s collection of Sanskrit and
Tibetan works. This had the advantage of enabling de koros and Hodgson to continue a
correspondence begun while the former was still in Zanskar. Nevertheless, Wilson’s hostility
towards the Hungarian continued and he refused to sanction the publication of de koros’s
Tibetan Grammar and Tibetan – English Dictionary on the grounds of cost.
However, in 1832 the logjam created by Wilson’s long tenure as secretary of the Asiatic
Society at last began to break up when he secured the newly established Boden Chair of
Sanskrit at Oxford. Two years earlier James Prinsep had joined him in Calcutta as deputy Assay
Master, and had been proposed by him for membership of the Asiatic Society. The two had
then collaborated on an article for Asiatick Researches on the coins in the Asiatic Society’s
museum, centred on the lettering on a number of gold and silver coins, ‘some of them
resembling the characters of the staff of Feroz Shah at Delhi, and on other columns’. 9 The
article was illustrated by four plates of engravings of coins, some of which had been acquired
by the Italian mercenary General Ventura from his excavation of the Manikyala Tope, a famous
landmark beside the Sadak-e-Azam or ‘Great Highway’ (afterwards known as the Grand Trunk
Road) running from Peshawar to Calcutta.
These engravings were the work of James Prinsep, whose involvement had the happy effect
of leading him to make his own study of Indian coins. Two published articles on Roman and
Greek coins found in India were soon followed by other on Indian coinage, each progressively
demonstrating Prinsep’s growing authority in an area of numismatics about which virtually
nothing was known. Unlike Wilson and his predecessors, Prinsep had neither classical learning
nor language skills but he made up for these shortcomings by the application of scientific
method, a rigour that underpinned all his work. Prinsep’s collaboration with his senior drew
him into the heart of the Asiatic Society. Within months he had accepted Wilson’s proposal that
he succeed him as the society’s Secretary. A double transfer of power then took place as Prinsep
took over both as Assay Master at the Calcutta Mint and as secretary of the Asiatic Society. And
no sooner had Prinsep been voted in as the latter than he set about making the position his own
with the energy that had characterised his years in Benares. One of his first actions was to
propose Csoma de koros as an honorary member after which he found quarters for the
Hungarian at the Society, doubled his salary and secured funds for the publication of his two
books. Prinsep also brought in a native clerk from Fort William College, Babu Ramkomal Son,
to act as his personal secretary the first Indian to hold a recognised post within the Society.
Although opposed to the modernisers led by the Bengali reformer Ram Mohan Roy. Son was
an able Sanskritist and later became principal of Calcutta’s Sanskrit collage.
Prinsep’s main concern was to revitalise the Asiatic Society. It now became the Asiatic
Society of Bengal (ASB), while the bulk folio tomes of Asiatick Researches were replaced by the
more accessible occavo-sised pages of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (IASB),
hence forward published in regular monthly issues. Prinsep appointed himself the JASB’s editor
and in the first issues sent out a rallying cry that was a deliberate echo of the appeals made by
Sir Wilson Jones and Henry Colebrooke. Calling all naturalists, chemists, antiquaries, philologers
and men of science, in different parts of Asia’ to unite efforts and to ‘commit their
observations in writing and send them to the Asiatic society in Calcuitta’. 10
It was calculated attempt to jolt the Orientalist movement out of the defeatism into which
its members had retreated over the preceding decade, and it worked, initiating a second round
of advance in Indian studies even more dramatic than the first _made possible by the happy
combination of a second Jones at the centre and some outstanding scholars on the periphery,
extending from Brian Hodgson at one end of the subcontinent to George Turnour at the other.
But it was James Prinsep upon whom every advance depended, no longer the creature of
‘constitutional shyness’ he had been a decade earlier but an inspirational leader. ‘Himself the
soul of Enthusiasm. ‘wrote one of his admirers, the botanist Dr. Hugh Falconer,’ he transferred
a portion of his sprit into every enquirer in India; he seduced men to observed and to write;
they felt as if he observed and watched over them; and the mere pleasure of participating in his
sympathies and communicating with him, was in itself a sufficient reward for the task of a
laborious and painful investigation.’11
The timing was perfect. That first joint article on the coins in the Asiatic Society’s collection
had provoked a flood of correspondence, much of it coming from the Punjab and Afghanistan:
from foreign mercenaries such as the Italian and French generals Ventura and Court; travellers
such as Lieurenant Alexander ‘Bokhara’ Burnes, Dr James Gerard and Dr Matin Honingberger,
and adventures such as the supposed American from Kentucky who called himself Charles
Masson but whose true identity was James Lewis, a deserter from the EICo’s army, inspired to
visit Afghanistan by reports of gigantic statues at Bamiyan.
This correspondence was supported by tangible evidence in the form of gold, silver and
copper coinage, confirming James Tod’s view that Macedonian rule in Bactria and ancient
Gandhara had given way to an equally dynamic ‘Indo-Sevthian’ civilisation that had reacted
deep into northern India and had embraced Buddhism. Indeed, Buddhism itself had patently
Hourished throughout that region for centuries prior to the Islame invasions. Writing to James
Prinsep from beyond the Khyber pass at Jelalabbbad in December 1833,Dr Gerard reported the
existence of scores of ‘ topes’ similar to those found in the Punjab. These stupas were to be
found ‘along the skirts of the mountain ridges’ between Kabul and Jalalabad and very thickly
planted on both banks of the Kabul river. Known locally as ‘sprit-house’. They produced coins,
jewels and reliquaries when opened but gave few clues as to who had limit them. ‘Whether we
view them as contemporary with the Grecian dynasty’. Speculated Gerard or of those
subsequent satrapies which emanated from the remains of that kingdom, the same thoughts
recur, the same suggestions anse: Who were these kings?
Meanwhile in the Punjab, the French soldier of fortune General Claude Auguste Count
engaged to remodel the artillery of Maharaja Ranji Singh’s army along French lines, was
spending his leisure hours excavating stupas for their coins and relies and taking note of other
ancient monuments among them a large boulder close to the village of Shahbazgarhi on the
edge of the Vale of Peshawar abutting the mountains of Swat_ ‘a rock on which there are
inscriptions almost effected by time’13. Falling into the old trap of associating the inscription
with Alexander and his Macedonian successors. Court tried and failed to decipher its ‘Greek’
inscription.
In every field report published in the IASB Prinsep appended his own notes based on a
better understanding of the early Indian ruling dynastics made possible by the ever-growing
numbers of Indian coins now coming his away. The finest of these coins had been inspired by
the Mediterranean models first introduced by Alexander’s Macedonian saraps and continued by
their successors in Bacteria and the Gandharan region; coins bearing a regal portrait on the
obverse, a variety of human or animal figures on the reverse, and with Greek lettering on one
or both faces. Prinsep’s studies showed that the later Bacterian coins continued to bear proper
Greek characters on the obverse but a different script on the reverse, superficially similar but
clearly relating to some other language. This same writing also shared some but not all of the
characters of the writing found on Firoz Shah’s Lat and on the rock inscriptions found by
Major Tod at Girnar and by Andrew Stirling at Khandagiri in Orissa.
 Only later did prinsep realize that what he termed ‘Gandharan’ writing was in fact a quite
separate language altogether today known as Kharosthi – with its own script and often written
from right to left. Indeed, in what was to be one of his last articles he announced that he had
identified almost half of the consonants of this unknown language and three of its vowels. 14
Another half – century would pass before it was based primarily on Aramaic, the officially
written and spoken language of the Persian empire. It would take another full century before it
was understood that the Brahmi alphabet of the Mauryas was itself a development from
Kharosthi, improved to better express Indian language sounds. 15
Another type of coinage proved even harder to understand small coins of a type already
shown by Colonel Colin Mackenzie to have been used all over India: ‘They are of irregular
form,’ wrote Prinsep, ‘being square, angular, round, oval, etc., they here no inscription, are not
infrequently quite plain, and in any case have only a few indistinct and unintelligible symbols.’
These symbols included lions and elephants but most appeared to be more basic such as
radiating suns or crosses. One symbol in particular, caught Prinsep’s eye: ‘a pyramidal building
with three hers of rounded suras, spies or domes. It may be intended to pottery some holy hill’,
he proposed, in what was a remarkably astute conjecture.16 Further study led him to conclude –
correctly –that what are today known as punch-marked coins must have constituted India’s
earliest coinage.17 Prinsep further assumed that these crude and relatively easy to produce punch
–marked coins must have given way to the Greek model, as used by the Gracco-Bactrian rulers
and their successors, the Scythians and Kushans. In fact, they continued to be minted
throughout that period.
Helping Prinsep to sort out his coins was an enthusiastic subaltern engineer Alexander
Cunningham, who had arrived in Calcutta in 1833 as a nineteen-year-old military cadet and had
found himself at a loose and while he waited for his first posting. When despatched up-country
to Benares two years later. Cunningham kept in touch with Prinsep through a correspondence
that continued until the latter’s death. ‘Even at this distance of time.’ Cunningham was to write
four decades later, I feel that his letters still possess the same power of winning my warmest
sympathy in all his discoveries, and that his joyous and generous disposition still communicates
the same contagous enthusiasm.18
Much of this correspondence concerned their shared interested Indian coins but there was
also Prinsep’s unfinished business relating to the great stupa at Sarnath. At Prinsep’s request and
expense. Cunningham hired a team of labourers and having checked that no religious group
would be offended created a wooden tamp that gave him access to the top of the 143-four-high
structure, today called the Dharmekh stupa see illustration. P.86). Beginning in January 1835,he
and his workmen sank a shaft down through the centre of the movement, a process that took
far longer than anticipated as the structure turned out to have been built of blocks of stone
secured to each other with iron clamps. Only when they had dag down to a depth of 110 feet
did the work become easier, for here the stonework gave way to large flat bricks. The dagging
then went on until they reached the soil at the base of the structure without producing any
result. ‘Thus ended my opening of the great tower,’ wrote Cunningham, ‘after 14 months labour
and at a cost of more than five hundred rupees19’. All he had to show for it was an inscribed
slab from the Gupta era (330-550CE) uncovered at an early stage of the evacation.
 James Prinsep’s engravings of various coins recovered from two ancient sites. Behat and Kanouj. In the
Gangetic plains, including a number of what are today known as punch-marked coins (E.g. bottom right,
number zz). The ‘stupa’ symbol can be seen on the reverse of serval coins (numbers1.5,8 and22). (JASB.
Vol.III. Muv1834).
However, in the course of the dig Cunningham became friendly with an old man who had
been involved in the quaraing of the site reported on by Jonathan Duncan back in 1795. What
Cunningham learned was that this quarrying had completely destroyed a second stupa as large
as the remaining structure. But it had also uncovered an underground chamber full of stone
states, which had been hastily covered over for fear of disturbing evil spirits. He was able to
lead Cunningham to the spot, where his workmen unearthed a cache of ‘about 60 statues and
bas-reliefs in an upright position all packed closely together within a small space of less than ten
feet square’. All were Buddhist and had been deliberately hidden. From the copious layer of ash
overlaying his find Cunningham concluded that some catastrophic fire had brought an end to
the Buddhist occupation of the site.
Then duty called and Cunningham was ordered away to join the staff of the governor
General as an aide-de-camp. He just had time to arrange for some twenty of those statutes
bearing inscriptions to be transported downriver to the Asiatic Society in Calcutta. It was four
years before he was able to return to Benares, only to learn that by order of the city magistrate.
Mr. Davidson, the remaining forty statues together with fifty cartloads of carved stonework had
been thrown into the River barna to serve as a breakwater for the city’s first iron bridge. This
vandalism made a deep impression or Cunningham, who in later years became almost observe
in his calls for the protection of ancient sites.
James Prinsep always acknowledged the help he received from his young correspondent.
However, it was his own for middle intelligence that counted. Over the course of six years he
wrote a series of increasingly erudite articles on Indian coinage, each illustrated with his own
engravings, which together laid the foundations of Indian numismatics up to the post-Gupta
period, an achievement eclipsed by his later work on proto-Sanskrit languages. But it was the
one that led to the other, for it was his work on the lettering on Indian coins that directed
Prinsep towards the inscriptions on Firoz Shab’s Lat and the other inscribed columns and rocks.
Prinsep was initially unaware of the efforts made by Sir William Jones, Henry Colebrooke
and others, all faithfully recorded in the early volumes of Asiatick Researches and since forgotten.
However, during his time in Benares he had visited the fort at Allahabad and had been
dismayed to see how the sun and rain were eroding the lettering on the broken pillar lying just
inside the fort gates. ‘I could not see the highly curious column lying at Allahabad, falling into
decay, without wishing to presence a complete copy of its several inscriptions,’ he wrote ‘The
Mogul emperor Jehangir was content to engrave his name and proud descent in a belt through
the middle of the most ancient inscription-the English would rightly deprecate such
profanation, but their own passive negative has proved a few short years even more destructive
than the barbarous act of the Muhammadan despot. ’20
The more he looked into the subject the more intrigued Prinsep became by the mystery of
the undeciphered script on that fallen column, a script he now termed ‘No, i. He wrote to one
of his correspondents in Allahabad, Lieutenant Thomas Burt of the Bengal Engineers, and
within weeks was rewarded with a set of drawing which he engraved and published in the
March issue of the JASB in 1834.21 That article provoked an immediate response from Brian
Hodgson in Kathmandu, whose letter Prinsep read to a meeting of the Asiatic Society of
Bengal in May.
Hodgson began with a complaint, which was that some years earlier he had sent Horace
Wilson’s drawings of what is called Mattiah Lat pillar (today better known as the Lauriya-
Nandangarh pillar). Seen by him on his travels to and from Nepal, together with an eye-copy of
the ancient inscription it bore. Dr Wilson had failed to respond. Now he attached drawings of
two more pillars he had encountered. There were the three pillars seen and recorded in earlier
times by John Marshall. Father Marco della Tomba and others.
Brian Hodgson and Csoma de koros had each independently established that the Tibetan
alphabet was based on written Sanskrit. Hodgson now proposed to Prinsep that his ‘No. was
probably an early written form of the same language: ‘When we consider the wide diffusion
over all parts of India of these alphabetical signs, we can scarcely doubt their derivation from
Deva Nagari, and the inference is equally worthy of attention that the language is Sanscrit’.
22
Armed with Lieutenant Burt’s copies of ‘No. I’ from Allahabad and the Asiatic Society’s set of
copies of No.1 from Firoz Shah’s Lat copied four decades earlier by Captain Hoare, James
Prinsep now set out to determine if this was indeed the ease. He began by making a painstaking
analysis of the alphabet; ‘I soon perceived that that each radical letter was subject to five
principal inflections, the same in all, corresponding in their nature with the five vowel marks of
the ancient Sanskrit No.2. This circumstance alone would be sufficient to prove that the
alphabet is of the Sanskrit family, whatever the language maybe.
The five inflections Prinsep presumed-correctly-to correspond with the five basic vowel
sounds ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘I’, ‘o’, ‘u’ found in Sanskrit and other Indo-European root languages. After
drawing up a chart showing all the radical letters with their inflections he found that twenty-
nine radical characters were employed_ less than in modern languages based on Sanskrit, but
what might be expected if this was an early form. He went on to highlight one particular group
of fifteen characters, which he observed recurring in identical form at the beginning of almost
every section or paragraph of text.
Prinsep’s convection that this group of fifteen characters would prove to be the keystone of
‘No.1’ grew all the stronger when he retrieved Brain Hodgson’s eye-copy of the Mattiah Lat
inscription, where each section also began with that same group of fifteen letters. But then as
he examined the three sets of facsimiles from Allahabad. Delhi and Bihar side by side he made
an even more as counding discovery – ‘namely, that all three inscriptions are identically the same. Thus
the whole of the Bettiah inscription is contained verbatim in that of Feroz’s Shab’s published in
four consecutive plates in the seventh volume of the Asiatick Researches [Captain Hoare’s eye-
copies]; and all that remains of the Allahabad inscription can with equal facility be traced in the
same plates.23 The italics are Prinsep’s Prinsep went on to speculate on the implications of the
discovery; ‘Whether they mark the conquests of some victorious raja; whether they are as it
were the boundary pillars of his dominions; or whether they are of a religious nature, bearing
some important text from the sacred volumes of the Buddhists or Brahmins, can only be
satisfactorily solved by the discovery of the language.’
The publication of Hodgson’s letter and Prinsep’s response in the October 1834 issue of
the IASB caused a hurry of excitement among its readers an excitement intensified when an
eve-copy made by Hodgson of the inscription on mother of the North Bihar columns (today
known as the Laurva-Maraj pillar) 24 was shown by Prinsep also to be identical to the other three
sets. ‘So we are now in the possession of four copies of the same inscription, three of them
perfect, viz. the Delhi the Matthiah and the present one, and that of Allahabad mutilated. 25
These revelations led Princep to cast around for more examples of No.1 text. He reprinted
in the JRAS Captain Edward Fell’s account of a visit to the Great Tope at Sanchi, originally
published in the Calcutta Journal back in 1819, together with an appeal for more drawings from
Sanchi and more importantly copies of its inscriptions. 26
It was precisely at this point that George Turnour joined the debate from his distant
outpost in Ceylon. What prompted him to resume his work on the island’s Great Dynastic
Chronicle is not known, but after some months of reflection he submitted to James Prinsep in
Calcutta a short article on the importance of the Great Dynastic Chronicle as an accurate account
of early Buddhism. It meant so little to James Prinsep that he unwittingly forwarded it to his
former mentor Professor H.H. Wilson in Oxford for comments. Prinsep then added these
comments as highly critical footnotes to Turnour’s article when it appeared in the JASB in
September 1836.27
 Wilson had been one of the sponsors of the two volumes of The Mahavansi, the Raja-
Ratnacari and the Raja-vali, forming the Sacred and Historical Books of Ceylon, as translated by the
Reverend William Fox. He had no time for Turnour’s central argument, which was that Great
Dynastic Chronicle demonstrated the major role played by the Mauryan king Ashoka in the
development of Buddhism, both in India and beyond India’s borders, after himself converting
to Buddhism. This was nonsense, declared Wilson. It was well known that Ashoka was a
worshipper of Shiva, and besides, ‘the faith of Ashoka is a matter of very little moment, as the
prince himself is possibly an ideal personage’. Furthermore, the Great Dynastic Chronicle was a
thoroughly unreliable document when compared to Brahmanical texts such as the Puranas and
the poet Kalhana’s chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, the River of Kings.
This very public rebuke did not go down well with Turnour. He appealed to the Asiatic
Society of Bengal for its support in publication of his translation of the first twenty chapters of
the Great Dynastic Chronicle. Probably because of his own close with Wilson, Prinsep passed this
appeal on to the Reverend William Mill, the Asiatic Society’s Vice-President-a wise move as it
turned out, for despite being a Unitarian and principal of Calcutta’s newly established Bishop’s
Collage. Mill was a Sanskritist and a genuine scholar to his own right.
Mill’s reading of Turnour’s manuscript left him astonished and in no doubt that the Great
Dynastic Chronicle was, as Turnour claimed, a work of great antiquity and of huge importance as
a source document. Not only did it pre-date the Puranas by some centuries but it showed every
sign of being a far more authentic chronicle of events. Despite the Great Dynastic Chronicle’s
focus on Ceylon. Mill declared it to be the most valuable historical source yet known relating to
the history of India prior to the Muslim invasions. Furthermore, it highlighted the peculiarly
interesting connection between the history of Ceylon before the Christian era, with that of
Magadha – a connection that extended to the language in which the Great Dynastic Chronicle had
been written.28
That language was Pali, which Turnour had shown to be ‘no other than the Magadha
parakrit – the Sanskrit were both derived from the same source; Magadhan Prakrit.
The Reverend Mill’s unequivocal support for Turnour led to a meeting of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal held in Calcutta on 4 January 1836, at which those present disregarded the
advice of Professor Wilson and voted ‘to advocate the patronge by the Government of India
of Mr. Turnour’s intended publication. That funding enabled George Turnour’s Epitome of the
History of Ceylon, Complied from Native Annals: and the First Twenty Chapters of the Mahavanso to be
published by the Cotta church Mission Press in Ceylon later in the same year, complete with an
introduction in which its author comprehensively demolished many of the claims made by
Wilson and others in their studies of early Indian history. 29
Turnour was able to show that the Great Dynastic Chronicle’s early source, the Dipavamsa or
‘Island Chronicle’, contained the oldest account yet known of the life of Gautama Sakyamuni
Buddha and the subsequent development of the Buddhist community in India and Ceylon over
some seven centuries. Here was a very different slant on historical events hitherto seen only
from the perspective of Brahman writers and one that directly challenged their version of
Indian history.
 The Great Dynastic Chronicle was, first and foremost, a history of the Buddhist Church on
the island of Lanka but it included events on the mainland from the time of the Buddha,
helpfully backed up with a twin dating system: one based on years since the death of Sakyamuni
Buddha, the other on years since the accession of the ruling monarch. Thus, the Sakyamuni’s
death -year zero in the Buddhist calendar –had taken place in the eighth year of the region of
King Ajatasatru of Magadha. Exactly a century after the Buddha’s death the Second Buddhist
Council had taken place, that being the tenth year of the region of King Kalasoko, whose ten
sons had ruled for twenty-two years before giving way to the nine Nanda overthrown brothers,
the last of which was Dhana Nanda, overthrown by the B4rahman minster Chanakya.
Having put him to death’, wrote Turnour in his translation Chanako installed in the
sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo [India], a descendent of the dynasty of Moriyan
sovereigns, endowed with illustrious and beneficent attributers, named Chandragutto. He
reigned thirty-four years. His son Bindusara reigned twenty-eight years. The sons of Brndusra
were one hundred and one, the issue of different mothers. Among them, Asoko [the Pali form
of the Sanskrit Ashoka rendered as Ashoka from here on to avoid confusional of his piety and
supernatural wisdom, became all-powerful. He having put to death one hundred brothers,
minus one, born of different mothers, reigned sole sovereign of all Jambudipo. Be it known,
that from the period of the death of Buddha, and antecedent to his installation, two hundred
and eighteen years had elapsed.
In other words Ashoka had been anointed king of Magadha 218 years after the death of
Sakyamuni Buddha.
Tumour’s translation went on to give details of king Ashoka’s rise to power. Due to a
rumour that he is destined to munder his father and take the throne for himself. Ashoka is sent
away to govern the kingdom of Avanti, with its capital city at Ujjain. On his way there Ashoka
halts at Vidisha and meets a ‘lovely maiden named Devi, the daughter of a merchant. He made
her his wife, and she was (afterwards) with child by him and bore in Ujjeni a beautiful boy,
Mahindo [Mahinda in Sanskrit, and in that form hereafter], and when two years had passed she
bore a daughter, Samghamitta [Sanghamitta in Sanskrit, and in that form hereafter]. 30
Adecade late while acting as his father’s viccroy in Ujjain, Ashoka receives news that King
Bindusara is drying. He hastens to Pataliputra and immediately on arrival presents himself at his
father’s deathbed: ‘As soon as his expired, seizing the capital for himself and putting to death
his eldest brother in that celebrated city, usurped the sovereignty. 31
Four years pass before Ashoka’s position as ruler of Magadha is strong enough to allow his
official anointing as king to take place. He appoints his younger brother Tisso (Tissa in Sanskrit,
and in that form hereafter), born of the same mother, as his deputy. However, Ashoka’s violent
conduct earns him the epithet Candasoka or ‘Angry Ashoka’. He then begins to have religious
doubts. His father King Bindusara had been ‘of the Brahmanical faith’ and had supported sixty
thousand Brahmans with alms, a practice which Ashoka’ follows for three years until the
‘despicable ‘ behavior of the Brahmans at court leads him to order representative from all
religions to come before him separately so that he can question them about their tenets. While
this examination is in progress his eye is caught by the calm bearing of a young Buddhist monk
passing under his window. The boy’s name is Nigrodh, and he turns out to be the orphaned son
of Ashoka killed in his rise to power. Sitting Nigrodha on his throne, Ashoka questions him on
matters of Buddhist doctrine until he is satisfied that this is the true faith_ and when the lord
of the earth had heard him he was won to the doctrine of the Conqueror [i.e., Sakyamuni
Buddha].32
Ashoka now becomes an upasaka or ‘lay Buddhist’, the Brahmans are expelled from court
and sixty thousand Buddhist monks take their place. The leading elder of the age, Moggaliputta
Tissa (Tissa son of Moggali), becomes King Ashoka’s teacher and remains the dominant figure
in Ashoka’s life until his death in the twenty –sixth year of Ashoka’s reign.
Having learned that there are eighty-four thousand discourses on the tenets of Buddhism,
king Ashoka orders stupas and monastic institutions to the built in eighty-four thousand places.
Outside his capital of Pataliputra he builds the Ashokarama, a major monastic complex bearing
his name. the building of these monasteries takes three years and to celebrate their completion
Ashoka holds a great festival, bestowing lavish gifts upon the Buddhist Church. On the day of
the festival itself he proceeds in state to visit his Ashokarama and is proclaimed Dhammasoko-
in Sanskrit Dharmashoka, or ‘Ashoka of the Moral Law’.
On that day the great king wearing all his adornments with the women of his household,
with his ministers and surrounded by the multitude of his troops, went to his own arama as if
cleaving the earth. In the midst of the brotherhood the stood, bowing down to the venerable
brotherhood. In the assembly were eighty kotis [millions]of bhikkhus [monks], and … ninety
times one hundred thousand bhikkhunis [nuns] … These monks and nuns wrought the miracle
called the ‘unveiling of the world’ to the end that the king Dharmashoka might be reason of his
evil deeds; he was known as Dharmashoka afterwards because of his pious deeds. 33
The elder Moggaliputta Tissa acknowledge the king’s great generosity towards the Buddhist
Sangha but explains that a greater means of gaining merit would be allow his two children
Mahinda and Sanghamitta to enter the Buddhist order. Mahinda is then aged twenty and his
sister eighteen. Their ordination takes places in king Dharmashoka’s younger brother Tissa then
seeks permission to become a monk, which is reluctantly given.
The fortunes of the Buddhists now improve greatly, thanks to the generosity of
Dharmashoka. But this success attracts ‘heretics’ who bring their own false doctrines, leading to
great confusion within the Buddhist community and causing Moggaliputta Tissa to describe
them as a ‘dreadful excrescence on religion, like unto a boil’. These schisms continue for seven
years and eventually force the king to act. However, his teacher had gone into a seven-year
solitary treat in the Himalayas, so king Dharamashoka sends one of his ministers to the
Ashokarama with orders to settle a particular dispute, resulting in an incident in which a
number of monks are killed.
Greatly distressed, king Dharmashoka sends for Moggaliputta Tissa, who finally breaks his
retreat when the king despatches a ship up the Ganges to collect him. Ashoka then summons
the whole of the Buddhist priesthood to assemble for a special convocation beside the
Ashokarama. Each monk expounds the doctrines according to his school, after which sixty
thousand are expelled as hertics. Under the direction of Moggaliputta Tissa the remaining
Buddhist succeed in making ‘a true compilation of the true dharma’. 34 This important event –
afterwards known as the Third Buddhist Council-lasts nine months and ends in the seventeenth
year of Dharmashoka’s reign.
 Meanwhile, in ‘the celebrated capital Anuradhapura, in the delightful Lanka,’ the Lankan
king Mutasiwo has died after a reign of sixty years. His second son becomes king and takes the
name Dewananpiatisso or ‘Tisso beloved-of-the-Gods’ (Devanamapiyatissa in Sanskrit, and in that
form hereafter). He decides that no one is more worthy to receive a gift of such jewels than his
friend king Dharmashoka. To escort the jewels he sends his nephew Maha Aritto, who journeys
for seven days by sea and then another seven days by land to reach Pataliputra and present the
gift to king Dharmashoka. The Magadhan king responds with gifts of his own that include
sacred water from the Ganges, ‘a royal virgin of great personal charms’ and one hundred and
sixty loads of hill paddy [rice] which had been brought by parrots’.
Along with these material presents Dharmashoka sends the gift of pious advice’ in the form
of the following words: ‘I have taken refuge in Buddha, his religion and his priesthood: I have
avowed myself a devotee in the religion of the descendant of Sakya. Ruler of men, imbuing thy
mind with the conviction of the truth of these supreme blessings with unfeigned faith, do than
also take refuge in this salvation.
The first religious contact between the two monarchs is followed by a far more ambitious
missionary project attributed in the Great Dynastic Chronicle not to Ashoka but to his religious
teacher Moggaliputta Tissa, who sends missionaries to every corner of the Indian subcontinent
and beyond. This includes a deputation of five elders, led by king Dharmashoka’s son Mahinda,
who are despatched south with the instruction. ‘Establish ye in the delightful land of Lanka, the
delightful religion of the Vanquisher [i.e., Sakyamuni Buddha]
Understandably, the Great Dynastic Chronicle devotes a great deal of space to Mahinda’s
mission to Lanka, which takes place when Mahinda has been a monk for twelve years. Before he
leaves for Lanka, Mahinda goes to Vidisha to say goodbye to his mother his party now
including his sister Sanghamitta’s son Sumano his mother Devi is described as living in a
monastery at Chetiyagiri or the Hill of the Stupa’, and being overjoyed at seeing her beloved
son.
After a month at his mother’s monastery on the Hill of the Stupa. Mahinda and his party
depart for Lanka – not by land and sea but by air, alighting on a mountain peak in the centre of
the island king Devanmpiyatissa of Lanka receives the missionaries at Mihintale and is
converted to Buddhism, along with his family and his court. Several chapters later Sumano is
asked to return to Pataliputra to beg his great-uncle king Dharmoshoka for relies of the
Buddha. Sumano returns to Magadha to find Dharmashoka engaged in worshipping the Bodhi
tree at Bodhgaya. Having received the Buddha’s alms bowl from him, Buddha relics: a
collarbone and an eye-tooth. These precious relics are transported to Lanka and interred by
King Devanamapiyatissa in a great stupa built for that purpose at Anuradhapura.
King Devanampiyatissa’s next request is for a cutting from the sacred Bodhi tree, which is
communicated to Dharmashoka by his daughter Sanghamitta, now a female elder of the new
Buddhist Church in Lanka. The king is greatly troubled as to how this can be done without
harming the tree but performs a complex ceremony that ends with his taking a cutting from the
Bo tree, potting it and placing it on board a sea-going vessel under Sanghamita’s care. The boat
then sails down the Ganges to the sea while the king and his army march across the land for
seven days before meeting up with the boat at the port of Tamalitta (Tamalitta in modern
Bengal). Here a final ceremony is held before the king wades into the sea up to his neck to place
the cutting on board and bid it farewell. ‘The maharaja having thus spoken, stood on the shore
of the ocean with uplifted hands; and, gasing on the departing bo-branch, shed tears in the
bitterness of the grief. In the agony of parting with the bo-branch, the disconsolate
Dharmashoka, weeping and lamenting in loud sobs, departed for his own capital. 35
After planting the Bodhi-tree cutting in his pleasure garden at Anuradhapura the king of
Lanka follows his neighbour’s example by establishing stupas and monasteries throughout his
island. Thus this ruler of Lanka, Dewanamapiyatissa[sic], ‘ declares the Great Dynastic Chronicle, ‘
for the spiritual benefit of the people of Lanka executed these undertakings in the first year of
his reign; and delighting in the exercise of his benevolence, during the whole of his life, realised
for himself manifold blessings.’ He reigns for forty years, his death being followed eight years
later by that of Dharmashoka’s son Mahinda, ‘the light of Lanka.
From this point onwards the Great Dynastic Chronicle has little more to say about events on
the Indian mainland_ except for one ambiguous paragraph at the start of its twentieth chapter,
which tells how in the thirtieth year of King Ashoka’s reign his Buddhist queen Asandhimitra
dies, and how four years later he remarries.
Dharamashoka, under the influence of earnal passions, raised to the dignity of queen
consort, an attendant of his former wife. In the third year from that date, this malicious and
vain creature, who thought but of the charms of her own person. Saving ‘this king, neglecting
me, lavishes his devotion exclusively on the bo-tree’_ in her rage attempted to destroy the great
bo with the poisoned fang of a load. In the fourth year from that occurrence [I, e, after the
death of Queen Asandhmitra, thus thirty-seven years after Ashoka’s anointing]. this highly
gifted monarch Dharmashoka fulfilled the lot of mortality.
This summary hints that all was not well in king Ashoka’s royal household in the last years
of his life. Thirty years after his anointing his beloved Buddhist queen dies. Four years later he
takes one of his late wife’s attendants as his new queen, who becomes so jealous of her
husband’s devotion to Buddhism that in the thirty-seventh year after his consecration she seeks
to destroy the Bodhi tree. Ashoka dies soon afterwards, but he is accorded none of the
laudatory remarks that the Great Dynastic Chronicle gives his son or his daughter at their deaths.
The disappointment is almost palpable. King Devanamapiyatissa’s great ally and model sets
Buddhism in motion in Lanka, but then at the very end of his life lets himself and the Buddhist
cause down.
With Dharmashoka’s death the Great Dynastic Chronicle loses all interest in the affairs of the
mainland. In fact, India as Jambudwipa features only once more, when a later Lankan monarch
builds a new relic stupa at Anuradhapura and invites Buddhist monks from all over India and
beyond to attend its inauguration. According to the Great Dynastic Chronicle, many thousands of
monks attend from Rajgir, Isipatana, the Jetavana monastery at sravasti, the Mahavana
monastery at Vaishali, kosambi, the Ashokarama at Pataliputta, Kashmir, pallavabhogga,
‘Alasanda [Alexandra] the city of the Yonas [probably modern Kandahar]’, the ‘Vinjha forest
mountains’, the Bodhimanda monastery, the Vanavasa country’, and the ‘great Kelasa vihara’. 36
It seems that a century after the death of king Dharmashoka Buddhism was flourishing
mightily both in Lanka and on the Indian mainland.
George Turnour’s Epitome of the History of Ceylon, Compiled from Native Annals: and the First
Twenty Chapters of the Mahawanso showed beyond all reasonable doubt that king Ashoka was not
merely the instrument for the establishment of Buddhism in Lanka but a major figure in Indian
history in his own right, whose sovereign authority extended throughout the Subcontinent
and whose influence as a propagator of Buddhism extended beyond its borders. And
for those who cared to look. It provided an important clue as to why the complex of
stupas at Sanchi might have some special significance in the Ashoka story. The Great
Dynastic Chronicle had described how the Prince Ashoka’s first wife Devi, whom he
had first met at Vidisha, afterwards lived in Chetiyagiri, ‘ the Hill of the Stupa’, so
named because of the superb Chetiya wiharo [monastric complex] which had been
crected by herself ’. It was from here that their eldest son Mahinda had set out with
his follow missionaries to take the Buddhist teaching to Lanka. There are several hills
in close proximity to the town of Vidisha but the nearest is the hill today known as
Sanchi. Here, it seems, lay the explanation as to why that particular Buddhist site
might have become the object of special attention both during and after Ashoka’s life
time.
With Turnour’s revelation the stage was now set for what would be the last act of the
mystery of the golden pillar of Firoz Shah a dramatic denouement that would come in the
form of a double revelation.
Thus Spake King Piyadasi

James Prinsep’s page of engravings of the Sanchi stupa donations,

which when brought together gave him the first clues to the
deciphering of the Brahmi script. (JRAS, Vol VIII, July 1837)
In Britain the year 1837 is best remembered for the start of the Victorian era. To political
historians of India, 1837 represents the black year in which the Orientalist movement, led by
professor H.H Wilson in Oxford and James Prinscp’s elder brother Henry Thoby Prinsep in
Calcutta, was finally defeated by the Angliersts and the evangelicals under Thomas Macaulary
and Lord Be----a defeat that led to the imposition of English as the chief medium of
instruction and the ending of government funding for the printing of works in the vernacular. 1
But for students of Indian the year 1837 will always be remembered as the annus mirabilis of
Indian historiography and philology: the year in which astonishing revelations came so thick
and fast there was no time to absorb the implications of one before the next had been
announced.
The year began with James Prinsep’s announcement that he had identified two inscribed
two inscribed stone stabs in the collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal as stolen property.
Some months ear her he had asked a correspondent in Orissa to re-examine the rock
inscription at Khandagiri near Bhubaneshwar. First identified by Andrew Stirling twenty years
earlier. However, this correspondent had been prevented from carrying out that examination by
the local Brahmins, who had complained that some years earlier an English colonel had stolen a
number of stone effigies and inscriptions from their temples. That disturbing news of the
Asiatric Society of Bengal leading to the unmasking of the Asiatric of the culprit as the Late
General Charles “Hindoo Stuart who a generation earlier had scandalised Calcutta society by
adopting Hindu manners and urging English memsahibs for the sake of their right dresses and
wear – instead ----arranged for two stone slabs taken by Stuart from Bhubaneshwar to be sent
down the coast to Cuttack, the provincial capital of Orissa where his contact restored them to
their proper owners.3
The correspondent concerned was Lieutenant Markham of the 6th Native Infantry and he
was at this time in disgrace. Kittoe was one of John Company’s misfits, a keen young
antiquarian who had come out to India. in 1825 as a seventeen year-old military cadet but failed
to get along with his brother officers. He had found love in the arms of a colonel’s daughter.
Emily whom he had married in 1835 and who had already borne him the first two of their nine
children. But he had made the mistake of accusing his commanding officer of oppression. and
was at time awaiting a court material at which he could material at which he would be found
guilty of insubordinate, disrespectful, and litigious conduct, unbecoming of an officer and a
gentlemen and discharged from the services. It was James Prinscp who had come to his rescue
by finding him temporary as secretary of the Coal Committee, post which allowed him to tour
Orissa ostensibly in search of coalfields.
The goodwill engendered by the return of the two stolen slabs now worked to Kitto’es
advantage, for he was allowed to make a copy of the Khadagiri rock inscription but as he did so
he heard talk of a second rock inscription, said to be on a hill on the other side of
Bhubaneshwar town and on the far side of the River Daya – a name that in Sanskrit means
‘compassion. The significance of which would only later become apparent. However. when
Kittoe tried to track down this new inscription he was again frustrated, this time by the local
inhabitants the Oriyas. Only the intervention of a passing Hindu religious mendicant from
Benares enabled Kittoe to find what he was looking for Such I the aversion the Ooriyahs have
of our going near their places of worship’ Kittoe afterwards wrote. That I was actually decoyed
away from the spot, when within a few yards of it being assured that there was no such place,
and had returned for a mile or more, when I met with a man who led me back to the spot by
torchlight. I set fire to the jangal (Jungle) and perceived the inscriptions. Which was completely
hidden by it.’4

Lieutenant Markham Kittoe, with the Ashokan elephant rock at Dhaoli shown behind him and the temple
spires of Bhubaneshwar in the distance. (A drawing by Coles worthy Grant published on his
Lathographic skteches 1850)
The hostility experienced by Kittoe remains one of the hazards of Indian archaeology to
this day sometimes inspired by religious prejudice but more often than not arising from the
belief that anyone who comes to dig into old ruins is seeking buried treasure, and anything
inscribed on rocks or pillars must be the key to those treasures. 5
When Kittoe returned to the rock the following morning to begin copying the inscription,
he was confronted by a she-bear and her two cubs who had made their home at the base of the
rock. To evade them, Kittoe scrambled up the rock face, where rock. To evade them, Kittoe
scrambled up the rock face, where he found himself confronted by a small elephant four rather
the found himself confronted by a small elephant, four feet high of superior work
manship…hewn out of solid rock’ The bear cubs had field but not the mother, so Kittoe shot
her. Only then was he able to examine the inscription on the rock face below.
 The Dhauli Edict inscription, with the head of the Dhauli elephant
just visible on the terrace above. This photograph was taken by Alexander Caddy in 1895
(APAC British Library)
What Kittoe termed the Aswastama6 rock inscription is better known today as the Dhauli
Rock Edict, taking its name from the nearby village of Dhauli. These edicts had been chiselled
across the face of a rock just below the summit of one of three low hills overlooking the River
Days: “The rock has been hewn and polished for a space of fifteen long by ten in height, and
the inscription cut thereon being divided into four tablets. The first of which appears to have
been executed at a different period from the rest: the letters are much larger and not so well cut.
The fourth tablet is encircled by a deep line and is cut more care than the others.
The arrival in Calcutta of Kittoe’s of the Dhauli inscription was opportune, for it coincided
with the receipt of two other sets of facsimiles of inscriptions. The first had been copied from
the great elephant rock at Girnar discovered by copied from the great elephant rock at Girnar
discovered by Colonel James Tod back in 1823. This had been takes at prinseps request by a Mr
Wathen from an earlier set of facsimiles made by the Reverned Dr John Wilson, a scots surgeon
and missionary who besides founding the first school for Indian girls in Bombay and giving his
name to what became Wilson College was a keen antiquarian. The other set of inscriptions had
come from the Great Tope at Sanchi taken by Captain Edward Smith of the Royal Engineers in
answer to Prinsep’s call for copies of its inscriptions and drawing of its sculptures.
Smith’s Sanchi inscriptions were accompanied by some lively drawings showing a number
of the sculptures that adorned the four gateway of the Great Tope. But Prinsep had eyes only
for the former for in addition to the several pilar inscriptions from the Gangetic plains he now
had three more different inscriptions from three widely separated locations in Western Central
and Eastern India-all of them written in the same No 1 script.
 One of the readers who readers who respond to Prinseps’ appeal for illustrations of the
Sanchi sculptures was Captain William Murray, assistant to the commander of the
Saugor and Narbada Territories He sent in two drawings. both taken from the
cross-beams of the fallen South Gateway of the Great Tope. Prinscp selected for
reproduction in the JASB the more striking of the two scences, showing a city under
attack and what appeared to be a monarch on a huge elephant directing the assault.
Unknown to Murray and prinsep both scenes were part of the Ashokan story that
would not understood until eighty years later for an earlier drawing of the upper scene
seep.108,and for a later photograph see p.240) (Royal Asiatic Society)
This inscription will be seen to have arrived at a most fortunate moment’ declared Prinsep
when he rose to speak at the monthly meeting of the ASB held on 7 June 1837. The minutes of
that momentous meeting state quite simply. The Secretary read a note on the inscriptions, which
had proved of high interest from their enabling him to discover the long-sought alphabet of the
ancient Lat character (or No 1 of Allahabad)-and to read there with the inscriptions of Delhi,
Allahabad, Bettiah, Girmar, AND Cuttack the Dhauli inscription-all intimately connected, as it
turns out, in their origin, and in their purport.
Prinseps note was subsequently published in the JRAS, providing posterity with a step-by-
step explanation of how he came to break the code of No 1. 7
The inscriptions from Sanchi were of two sorts. The first two recorded grants of land from
the early Gupta dynasty of the fourth century C.F The remaining twenty-three (see illustration
p.153) consisted of a number of much shorter inscriptions of No. 1 script found on the
crosspieces of the pillars that formed the colonnade the surrounding the stupa, most of them
cut in a rough and ready way that was in marked contrast to the finely wrought sculptures that
decorated the four gateways. “These apparently trivial fragments of rude writing, declared
prinscp ’have instructed us in the alphabet and the language of those ancient pillars and rock
inscriptions which have been the wonder of the learned since the days of Sir William Jones’,
Prinscep went on to explain how, as he set about arranging the inscriptions to appear together
as one lithographed plate for publication in the Society Journal, he had been struck by the fact
that virtually every one ended in the same two letters: a snake-like-squiggle formed by six
straight lines. followed by an inverted capital T with a dot on one side:
 Coupling this circumstance he continued with their extreme brevity…it immediately
occurred to me that they must record either obituary notices. or more probably, the offering
and Presents of votaries. These two characters were in many cases preceded by a third symbol
resembling a double-barbed hook or anchor in which one of the hooks had been distorted to
curve downwards rather than up:

By yet another of those happy conjunctions of timing that surrounded this great
breakthrough, Prinsep had only days earlier been working on the coins of Saurashtra in western
India.8 Now this (character) I had learned from the Saurashtra coins, deciphered only a day or
two before, to be one sign of the generative case singular, being the ssa of the Pali, or sya of the
Sanskrit’ If that character represented the genitive ’of Justas the apostrophc’s’ in English
represents ‘ of it was logical to suppose that the rest of each short phrase concerned a donation
and the name of the donor:” Of so-and so the gift.” Must then be the form of each brief
sentence’
Both in Sanskrit and Pali the verb’ to give’ was dana and the noun, gift’ or ’donation’ danam,
sharing the same Indo European root as the Latin donare (to give) and donus (gift). This led
Prinsep to ‘the speedy recognition of the word danam (gift) reaching me the very two letters d
and n. The snake-like squiggle represented the sound ’da’ the inverted “T’ the sound ‘na’ and the
single dot the muted m’ together forming the word danam.
With these two letters and the genitive singular understood all the concentrated study that
Prinsep had put in over the previous four years suddenly and dramatically fell into place. It was
the cureka moment of Indian philology. My acquaintance with ancient alphabets had become
so familiar that most of the remaining letters in the present examples could be named at once
on re-inspection. In the course of a few minutes I thus became possessed of the whole
alphabet, which I t tested by applying it to the inscription on the Delhi column.
Having announced the single most important advance in the study of Indian history.
Prinsep then backed off, explaining that before he could give the Society his complete
translation of the Ftoz Shah Lat inscriptions he needed to prepare a fount of type for his
alphabet of No 1 which he was himself in the process of making. He then sought to mollify
those present at that historic meeting by offering them a few titbits. These included the
statement that the language of the No 1 inscriptions was Magadhi…the orginal type whereon
the more complicated structure of the Sanskrit has been founded. If carefully analysed each
member of the alphabet will be found to contain the element of the corresponding number,
not only of the Deva-Nagari but of the ---the pali, the Tibetan. The Hala Canara and of all the
derivates from the Sanskrit stock.
In other words. No 1 the written languages of the Magadhans was the ancestor of most
India’s modern languages and alphabets. Written from left to right its alphabet consisted of
thirty-three basic letters, each representing a consonant followed by the ‘a’ vowel the other
vowels being formed by the addition of ancilliary glyphs to the base consonant, which only
initial vowel sounds having their own specific characters. It had all the simplicity of an original
developed to give written expression to a popular spoken language Prakrit which had preceded
Sanskrit Initially Prinsep called this alphabet ‘Indian Pali’ but it was later recognised that the
early Brahmans had termed it Brahmi lipi, the’ language of Brahma’. Today it is best known as
Brahmi, with the earliest form often being referred to as Ashokan Brahmin.
Once he had understood how the Brahmi alphabet worked, Prinsep applied it-speedily and
triumphantly-to the translation of the twenty-three records of donations from the Sanchi
strupa and the names of their donors. Next came translations of the lettering on a number of
bilingual Indo-Bactrian coins bearing Greek lettering on the obverse and No 1 on the reverse. A
number of short inscriptions from Bodhgaya followed Only then did Prinsep feel ready to take
on the Firoz Shah’s Lat inscription, beginning with the fifteen-character phrase that they had
earlier found to begin virtually every paragraph at Delhi. Allahabad, Girnar, Dhauli and
elsewhere. The most usual reading’ he declared’ and the equivalent according to my alphabet,
are as follows:

Devananapiya piyadasi laja hevam aha

The word laja initially threw both Prinsep and his Pali-speaking Sinhalese assistant Ratna
Paula, until they realised that this was the licence of a loose vernacular orthography and that the
intended word was raja. That gave them the opening phrase: ‘Beloved of the Gods beloved
king,’ That gave them the opening pharse: Beloved –of-the-gods beloved King. The last two
words hevam aha-translated as ‘spake thus’ which together gave the complete sentence:
Thus spake King piyadasi, Beloved of the-Gods
These words, professed Prinsep, had every appearance of a roval edict” The simplicity of
the form reminds us of the common expression in our own scriptures – “Thus spake the
prophet” or in the proclamation of the Persian monarch “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia”
Prinsep’s first thoughts were that here were that here the doctrines of some great reformer
such as (Sakyamuni Buddha) But when he translated the second sentence it immediately became
clear that this could only be the work of a monarch, for It began Saddavisati vasa abhisitename-‘In
the twenty-seventh Near of my anointment” – a pharse that was repeated in another four places
of the inscription. Today that sentence is generally read as When I had been consecrated
twenty-six years”or twenty-six years after my coronation.’ 11
Who then, Prinsep asked, could this monarch have been for he was patently a ruler
powerful enough ’to spread his edicts thus over the continent of India? So far as Prinsep knew,
no Indian ruler before Akbar the Great had over such a large area as that covered by the pillar
and rock inscriptions He had gone through all the Hindu genealogical tables and-----no one by
the name of Devanamapriya Piyadasi----accurately Devanapriya Priydarsin, the form most often
used today in academic circles.)
Only one contender seemed to fit the bill-but a monarch from outside India: In Mr
Turnour’s Epitome of Ceylonese History, then we are presented once and once only, with the
name of a king. Devenampiatissa [sic], as nearly identical with ours as possible, George
Turnour’s translation of the Great dynastic ----had described how this king Devanamapiyatissa
of Lanka had been converted to Buddhism through the efforts of the Indian king
Dharmashoka, who could only be the Mauryan ruler Ashoka. ‘Was (it) possible, then, that this
Lankan king was the author of the rock edicts’ that Devanampiyatissa (sic) the royal convert,
caused, in his zeal, the dogmas of his newly adopted faith to be promulgated far and wide.
James Prinsep presented his Complete translation of the Firoz Shah Lat inscription at the
next meeting of the ASB, held in early August 1837. It was in his view, ‘a series of edicts
connected with the Buddhist faith issued by Divanamapiya piyadasi (sic) a king of ‘Ceylon’,
their purpose being to ‘proclaim his renunciation of his former faith, and his adoption of the
Buddhist persuasion’.
Even though the edicts made no reference to Buddha Sakyamuni, they appeared to be
directly associated with Buddhist thinking. The word dharma ran through the inscription like a
thread: The sacred name constantly employed – the true keystone of Shakya’s reform-is Dharma
or Dharma,’ this word Prinsep translated or, rather, mistranslated, as ’virtue or ‘religion’. The
promotion of Dharma lay at the heart of these edicts’. Even though it was quite clear that the
real authority lay with the edicts author, whose name appeared no less than sixteen times on the
Delhi column: The chief drift of the writing seems to enhance the merits of the author-the
continual recurrence of esa me kate, so I have done” arguing a vaunt of his own acts rather than
an inculcation of virtue in others.
Prinsep established that the first of seven edicts-known today as pillar Edicts-1-7 (PE 1-7)
inscribed on Firoz Shah’s Lat began on the north side of the column. Here three edicts had
been set down within one compartment, each beginning
With the solemn fifteen letter sentence declaration. ‘Thus spake King Pivadasi, Beloved-of-
the Gods’. The fourth edict appeared by itself on the west side of the column the fifth on the
south, the sixth on the east and the seventh and longest beginning under the east compartment
and continuing right found the column.
‘Thus spake king Devanamapiya Piyadasi begins Prinsep’s historic translation of Edict (PE
here quoted in its entirety)
 In the twenty-seventh year of my anointment I have caused the religious edict to be
published in writing. I acknowledge and confess the faults that have been cherished in my heart.
from the love virtue by the side of which all other things are but sins-from the strict scrutiny of
sin, and form a fervid desire to be told of sin-by the fear of sin and by the very enormity of
sin-by these may my eyes be strengthened and confirmed. The sight of religion and the love of
religion of their own accord increase: and will ever increase: and my people whether of the
lairy, or of the priesthood-all mortal beings, are knit together thereby and prescribe to
themselves the same path and above all having obtained the mastery over their passions. They
become supremely wise for this is indeed true wisdom it is upheld and bound by religion which
reaches -----religion which bestows pleasure.
By today’s standards of epigraphy, this first translation was very wide of the mark. Neither
Prinsep nor Ratna translation was very wide of the mark. Neither prinsep nor Ratna paula
could fully group the meaning of many sentences as can be seen when the above set beside a
modern translation see Appendix p. 419)
The second pillar Edict (PE 2) was casier to translate although it too was taken up with the
meaning of Dharma here defined by King piyadasi as the performance of good works that
included (in Prinsep’s translation) the non-omission of many acts: mercy and charity purity and
chastity’ To this end King Piyadasi had had himself performed many acts of benevolence
towards the poor and afflicted, towards bipeds and quadrupeds, towards the fowls of the air
and things that move in the waters, It closed with an explanation as to why these edicts were
being promulgated: Let all pay attention to it, and let it endure for ages to come, and he who
acts in conformity thereto, the same shall attain eternal happiness.’
James Prinsep’s translation of the Pillar Edicts cannot be quoted here full simply for reason
of space. However, an exception has be made for Prinsep’s rendering of the closing sentences
of the last of the seven Pillar Edicts (PE 7) where he came closest to catching the essence of its
author’s call for his message to be read by future generations.
For such an object is all his done, that it may endure to my sons and their sons sons-as long
as the sun and the moon shall last wherefore let them follow its injunctions and be obedient
thereto-and let it be held in reverence and respect In the twenty-seventh year of my reign have I
caused this edict to be written so sayeth Devanamapriya-Let stone pillars be prepared and let
this edict of religion be engraven thereon that it may endure into the remote ages.
The modern translation may be more precise but no less moving (see Appendix, p, 425)
Prinsep’s breaking of the No 1 script. His translations of the Sanchi donations and the seven
Pillar Edicts of the Firoz Sanchi donations and the seven Pillar Edicts of the Firoz Shah Lat
inscription. and his identification of their author that they gave his fellow Orientalists little
respite. But hard on the heels of Prinseps first identification of Piyadasi, Beloved-of-the Gods
king Devanamapiyatissa of Lanka. Published in the July 1837 issue of the JASB. Came a
dramatic response from George Turnour in Colombo.
I have made a most important discovery, Turnour wrote You will find in the Introduction to
my Epitome that a valuable collection of Pali works was brought back to Ceylon from Siam, by
George Nodaris. Modliar (chief of the cinnamon department and then a Buddhist priest) in
1812”13 This collection of Pali texts included a copy of the Island Chronicle, the original chronicle
from which the later Great Dynastic Chronicle took its earliest historical material, but in a lees
corrupted version than that upon which Turnour had based his translation – and with crucial
differences. While casually turning the leaves of the manuscript Turnour had hit upon an
entirely new passage relating to the identity of Piyadasi. In translation it read. ‘Two hundred and
eighteen years after the beatitude of Buddha was the mauguration of Piyadassi… who the
grandson of Chandragupta and own son of Bindusara, was at that time viceroy of Ujjayam
Here was Tirunour,s revelation The King Devanamapriva piyadasi of the Fronz Shath Lat
inscription was not king Devanamapiyatissa of Lanka as Prinsep had assumed. He was his
Indian contemporary Ashoka Maurya. The unfortunate Western missionary William Fox had
published just such a conclusion four years earlier but had gone to his grave
Unacknowledged, so it fell to George Turnour to receive all the plaudits-and rightly so. 14
Thus, the identity of Ashoka Maurya as the author of the Rock and pillar Edicts was
established beyond reasonable doubt – another milestone on the road to the recovery of India’s
lost history another missing piece of the jigsaw.
Prinsep announced the next breakthrough in the August issue of JASB: his translation of
eye-copies of two inscriptions in the Society’s collection which had come from the Nagurjun
caves north of Gaya.15 These were William Harrington’s eve copies, which had been gathering
dust for almost forty years. They were in Brahmi and almost identical, except that one referred
to the Brahman’s cave’ and the other to the Milk mans’ cave’ According to Prinsep’s reading.
They had been granted to the most devoted sect of Bauddha ascetics, by Dasharatha, the
Beloved of-the-gods, immediately on the ascending the throne Dasharatha had used exactly the
same epithet as that used by Ashoka in the pillar Edicts. Furthermore the name Dasaratha
appeared in the lists of kings of Magadha as given in several of the Puranas. ’Looking into the
Magadha catalogue we find a raja also named Dasharatha next but one below Dharma Asoka,
the great champion of the Buddhist faith, Here was evidence that a grandson of Ashoka had
ruled in Magadha and had used the same epithet as Ashoka perhaps as an expression of
identification with him.
What Prinsep declared to be another link of the same chain of discovery 16 came before the
end of the year with the arrival in Calcutta of Markham Kittoe’s improved version of the
Dhauli inscription. Kittoe had been asked to make a second and more accurate copy at
Prinsep’s request and had done so at some cost for not only had he re-encountred the bear
cubs, now fully grown. But had also hurt himself by falling off the edict rock: Being intent on
my interesting task I forgot my ticklish footing; the bearer had also fallen asleep and let go his
hold so that having overbalanced myself I was pitched head foremost down the rock” 17
Kittoe much improved facsimile of the Dhauli inscription arrived just as Prinsep was
completing his first reading of an inaccurate eye-copy of the Girnar Rock Edicts I had just
groped my way through the Girnar text Prinsep afterwards wrote which proved to be like that
of the pillars, a series of edicts promulgated by Ashoka… when I took up the Cuttack [Dhauli]
inscriptions of which Lieut. Kittoe had been engaged in making a lithographic copy for my
journal. To my surprise and joy I discovered that the greater part of these inscriptions was
identical with the inscription at Girnar!”18
 Despite being located on India’s east and west coast and nine hundred miles apart, these
two great rocks bore messages that were for the most part identical or as Prinsep put it from
the first to the tenth (edict) they keep pace together;19 At this point the two diverged the Girnar
rock carrying three edicts not found at Dhauli, rock two not found at Girnar In essence the
Girnar rock carries the edicts known today as RES 1-14 but the Dhauli rock omits Res-11-13
and compensates by adding two RES of its own known today as the Separate Rock Edicts (SRE
1 and 2) Markham Kittoe’s two versions of the Dhauli Res also showed that what Prinsep had
taken to be his errors of copying were actually differences in language between the western and
eastern edicts, pointing to regional chalects of a common language. Prakrit
The Girnar and Dhauli Res were presented in the same solve and shared the same royal
author as Firoz Shah’s Lat and other PEs from the Gangetic plains to the north. But they were
different both in content and in the time of their making.
The Firoz Shah Lat and the other pillar Edicts had declared themselves to have been written
twenty-six years after Ashoka’s consecration whereas the third of the Girnar and Dhauli Rock
Edicts began: Beloved-of-the Gods, King piyadasi, speaks thus, Twelve years after my
coronation this has been ordered’20 In other words, the Rock Edicts had been cut fourteen years
before the pillar Edicts.
What also become clear Prinsep as he worked on his translation of this second set of edicts
was that the Girnar and Dhauli edicts were significantly less sophisticated than the pillar Edicts.
Indeed, they appeared disorganised even haphazard, as if they had been dictated off the cuff
with frequent repetitions and asides, seemingly the thoughts of a monarch used to despotic
rule, his mind filled with conflicting notions about the nature of the Dharma he had committed
himself to implementing and how best he should go about it. This confusion made Prinsep’s
work of translation doubly difficult.
RE 1 began simply enough Beloved –of the gods king piyadasi he caused this Dharma edict
to be written. It went on to order a ban on the taking of all forms of life and on festivals
involving animal sacrifice. It also threw some surprising light on Ashoka’s own culinary tastes
and his seeming reluctance to give up his favourite meats (In Venerable Shravasti Dhammikas
modern translation here and below):
Here in my domain no living beings are to be slaughtered of offered in sacrifice. Not should festivals be
held. for Beloved – of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi. Sees much to object to in such festivals, although there
are some festivals that Beloved-of-the-Gods. King Piyadasi, does approve of formerly in the kitchen
Beloved-of-the-Gods King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make
curry But now with the writing of his Dharma edict and the deer not always. And in time, not even these
three creatures will be killed.21
Respect for all living things was a feature of several of the edicts that followed. RE 2 talked
about medical aid being provided for both human and animals. As wells dug and trees planted
beside roads for their benefit RE 3 called on the king’s subjects to respect their parents show a
generosity to others and live with moderation. Some edicts were distinctly personal in tone.
even to the point of eccentricity, such as RE 6. which ordered that its author was to be kept
fully informed at all times:
 In the past state business was not transacted nor were reports delivered to that king at all hours. But now
I have seen this order that at any time, whether I am eating, in the women’s, quarters the bed chamber the
chariot the planation in the park or wherever, reporters are to be posted with instructions to report to me
the affairs wherever I am.. Truly I consider the welfare of all to be my duty and the root of this is
excretion and the prompt dispatch of business.
As the central focus of the edicts was always the practice of Dharma defined m RE in
practical rather than spiritual There is no gift like the gift of the Dharma. No acquaintance like
acquaintance with Dharma. No distribution like distribution of Dharma, and no kinship like
kinship through Dharma. It consists of this proper behaviour towards servants and employees,
respect for mother and father generosity to friend’s companions, relation Brahmanas and
ascetics, and not killing living beings. Therefore a father a son, a brother, a master, a friend a
companion or a neighbor should say: This is good this should be done, One benefits in this
world and gains great merit in the next by giving the gift of the Dharma Ashoka himself was
promoting the practice of Dharma throughout his realms and beyond following religious
instruction he had received in the tenth year after his consecration This was the subject of RE8:
In the past kings used to go out on pleasure tours during which there was hunting and other
entertainment But ten years after Beloved-of-the-Gods had been coronated, he went on a tour
to Sambodhi and thus instituted Dharma tour’s. The Sanskrit term Sambodhi means proceeding
towards enlightenment which could mean either that Ashoka went to the place of Sakyamuni
Buddha’s Enlightenment, which was Bodhgaya and its Bodhi-tree, or that he received Buddhist
teaching Either way, it was explicit confirmation that Ashoka had received some form of
Buddhist instruction.
To assist the spreading of the Dharma Ashoka had created a special class of religious
officers known as Dharma Mahamatras, as explained in RE5. They had been created thirteen
years after his consecration to promote the Dharma not only within his borders but also among
his neighbours for They Work among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Gandharas, the Rastrikas,
the Pirinikas, and other people on the western borders. These religious officers also worked
among all religions. This toleration was the subject of RE7-the briefest of all the edicts.
Beloved of the Gods King Piyadasi, desires that all religions should reside everywhere. for all of
them desire self-control and purify of heart. But people have various desires self-control and
purity of heart. But people have various desires and various passions, and they may practice all
of what they should not only a part of it. This principle of freedom of religious. Expression
was also the subject of RE 12 (at Girnar) which encouraged all forms of religious activity’ One
should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others this edict reads in part. It
continues (modern translation): Beloved-of-the Gods. King Piyadasi, desires that all should be
well learned in the good doctrines of other religions. Those who are content with their own
religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the Gods. King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and
honours as much as he values that there should be growth in the essential of all religions.
The final edict RE 14, explained how and in what form Ashok’s Rock Edicts had been
written Prinsep describes it as a kind of summing up of the foregoing. We learn from this edict
that the whole was engraved at one time from an authentic copy. issued doubtless under the
royal mandate by a scribe and pandit of a name not very easily deciphered. It is somewhat
curious to find the same words precisely on the rock in Catak (Dhauli) 22RE 14 also gave notices
to Prinsep and his yellow Orientalists India that many more edicts were waiting to be found
modern translation):
Beloved-of-the Gods, king Piyadasi, has had these Dharma edicts written in brief, in
medium length, and in extended form. Not all of them occur everywhere, for my domain is
vast, but much has been written, and I will have still more written. And also there are some
subjects here that have been spoken of again because of their sweetness, and so that the people
may act in accordance with them. If some things written are incomplete this is because of the
locality or in consideration of the object or due to the fault of the scribe.
But this was not all. For Prinsep, the greatest cause for excitement after the discovery of the
true identity of Piyadasi was to be found in the extra nuggets of historical detail tucked away in
RE 2 and RE 13 (Girnar) RE 2 concerned itself chiefly with medical provisions made by king
piyadasi, apparently extending beyond his borders into the territories of his immediate neighbor
to the west. ‘Everywhere within the conquered provinces of raja Piyadasi, was how Prinsep
translated its opening sentences. as well as the parts occupied by the faithful such as Chola,
pida, Satiyaputra and Keralaputra even as far as Tambapanni-and moreover within the
dominions of Antiochus the Greek of which Antiochus, generals are the rulers everywhere the
heaven-beloved raja Piyadasi’s double system of medical aid is established. 23
The Cholas and Pandyas (pida) were South Indian tribes. The satiyaputras and Keralaputras
were from India’s south western seaboard, and Tambapanni was Taproban, the ancient names
for Ceylon. But then came the phrase antiyoke name yona lajaya which Prinsep read ‘Antiochus the
Greek King’. His immediate assumption was that this was a reference this was a reference to the
Gracco-Persian Antiochos Soter. son of the man who had taken on Ashoka’s grandfather
Chandragupta and lost. Antiochos had succeeded his father Sclckuos over victor after his
assassination in 281 BCE and had presided over shrinking empire until his own death in 261
BCE.
However, the most astonishing revelation was to be found in the last of the Girnar
interpolations RE13. It told of King Ashoka’s brutal conquest of the country of kalinga in the
eighth near after his concentration. The name Kalinga was familiar to Prinsep. From the
fragments of Megasthenes India. It was an ancient kingdom in central-eastern India known in
Prinsep’s time as the province of Orissa. Under the authority of the Bengal Presidency,
Meghasthenes had written that at the time of Chandragupta. Kalingha’s capital was Parthalis,
defended by an army of sixty thousand foot-solders, seven hundred war elephants and one
thousand horsemen. According to the Girnar rock those forces had proved no match for
Ashoka’s army which. by his own admission had followed his orders in showing no mercy. So
much suffering had ensued in his conquest of Kalinga that Ashoka had been overcome by
remorse and, so the Rock Edict implied. had become a convert to Buddhism RE 13 set this all
out in quite remarkable detail. It began (for the full edict in modern translation see Appendix,
p.413):
Beloved-of-the-Gods King Piyadasi conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One
hundred and fifty thousand were deported. One hundred thousand were killed and many more died from
other causes. After the Kalinga had been conquered. Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong
 inclination towards the Dharma a love for the Dharma and for instruction in Dharma. Now Beloved-of-
the Gods feel deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas..24
Dharma and for instruction in Dharma. Now Beloved-of-the Gods feel deep remorse for
having conquered the Kalingas..24
It was now clear why that particular edict was missing from the Dhauli rock in Orissa. It
had been omitted to spare the feelings of the conquered people of Kalinga it also helped to
explain why the river that flowed past the Dhauli rock was known as the River of Compassion,
Daya.
RE 13 closed with a call for Ashoka’s descendants to follow his example and to continue to
rule by non-violence:
Truly, Beloved-of-the Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong
has been done Now it is conquest by Dharma that Beloved-of-the Gods considers to be the best
conquest … I have has this Dharma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider
making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made that they be done with forbearance and
light punishment. Or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dharma only, for that bears fruit
in this world in this world and the next
In the middle section of that same RE 13 were still more revelations-except that since Tod’s
visit in 1823 the Girnar rock had suffered severe damage to one corner after a pious Jain had
used gunpowder to widen the pilgrim trail leading up Girnar’s sacred mountain. The explosion
had blown off a corner of the rock at the point where the left-hand section of RE 13 had been
cut, leaving just enough for Prinsep to make out that it listed seven kingdoms within the Indian
subcontinent where King Ashoka’s conquest by Dharma had been achieved as well as other
kingdoms beyond Ashoka’s western borders influenced by his Dharma, even as far as six
hundred yojanas’ or approximately three thousand miles! The names of five foreign monarchs
had originally been inscribed of which only two were now decipherable: Antinochus the ally of
Asoka (already mentioned inRE1) and one of the Ptolemies of Egypt.
The loss of the remaining three names was deeply frustrating Even so the names of
Antiochos and Ptolemy allowed Prinsep to speculare as to when the Girnar edicts might have
been written, for both must have been ruling at that time. The first he had taken to be
Antiochos Soter, son of Scleukos the Victor 128-261 BCE).so it followed that the rule of the
king named Ptolemy had to tall within his dates. Ptolemy, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty of
kings of Egypt, had declared himself ruler in 305 BCE. However, this first Ptolemy had died in
285 or283 BCE – at least two years before Antiochos had succeeded his father in 281 BCE-so
the Ptolemy in question had to be Ptolemy II Philadelphos. Who had ruled Egypt from
285/283 to 246 BCE. Since Ptolemy II was ruling in Egypt when Antiochos became king in
281 BCE and was still on the throne when the latter died in 261 BCE. it followed that RE 13
must have been inscribed somewhere between those two dates 281 BCE and 261 BCE. And
since the Girnar Rock Edict declared itself to have been cut twelve years after Ashoka’s
consecration, it further followed that he must have been anointed king of Magadha at some
point between 293 and 273 BCE)
The window challenged the dating established by Sir William James in 1789, which had
placed the year of Chandra gupta’s accession in 317 BCE. Or soon after Chandragupta had
ruled for twenty four years before being succeeded by his son B----who ruled for twenty five
years before being followed by Ashoka That had given a provisional dating for Ashoka’s
consecration as king as the year 266 BCE-which fell outside Prinsep’s window by six years.
What Prinsep had failed to take into account was that Ptolemy II had been followed by
Prolemy III-and Antiochos Soter by his son of the same name, Antiochos II. it would take
another generation and the discovery of more complex Rock Edicts before the names of the
three missing allies of Ashoka would be determined-and with them more exact dating.
This was a rare error among many advances. By the early spring of 1838 Prinsep’s work on
the Pillar and Rock Edicts had established a rough chronology of events in the rule of king
Ashoka: in the eighth year after his consecration he had waged war on kalinga, effecting such
destruction that he had been overcome by remorse and had turned to the Dharma (RE 13) in
his tenth year Ashoka had gone on a tour of the holy places of Dharma, which had included
‘visits and gifts of Brahmans and asctics, visit and gift of gold to the aged, visit to people in the
countryside, instructing them in the Dharma and discussing Dharma with them as suitable’ (RE
8); in his twelfth year Ashoka had started to have Dharma edicts written in various forms for
the happiness of the people. And so that not transgressing them they might grow in the
Dharma’ (PE 6); in his twelfth and thirteen years Ashoka had set up a missionary organisation
staffed by a new cadre of religious officers for the spreading of the Dharma through his
kingdom and beyond (REs 3,5): and his twenty-sixth and twenty-seven years Ashoka had
brought out further edicts that were inscribed on pillars rather than rocks (PES 1,4,5,6and 7)
Prinsep’s translation had also showed that the Rock and Pillar Edicts were unequivocally the
work of one omnipotent rule. Ashoka Maurya, known to his subjects as Piyadasi Beloved-of-
the-Gods Those edicts had been inscribed in terms that were personal and idiosyncratic,
repetitious and heavy handed, but unquestionably heartfelt. They showed Ashoka to be a man
of paradoxes; highly intelligent, self-confident, comfortable in the exercise of power, and
believing himself divinely appointed to rule as the father of his people. They also repeated him
to be deeply-even Obsessively-spiritual, passion are in the belief in a higher morality, in showing
kindness and helping the poor, in moderation and self-control, in tolerance for all religious in
the sanctity of life, in the virtues of self-examination, truthfulness, purity of heart and above
all, in his love of the Dharma, In sum, the edicts were the work of a ruler like no other-and a
revolutionary one at that. ‘Conquest by Dharma along for an all-powerful monarch to express
such pacific sentiments and make them the central Piller of his rule was without parallel, utterly
at odds with the duties of kingship as land down in the ledas and other texts. And no less
revolutionary was Ashoka’s call for religious tolerance and his ban on animal sacrifice. for the
first undermined the authority of the Brahman priesthood and the second struck at the heart
of the cult of blood sacrifice that was a central feature of Brahmanistic religious practice. At
this time.
Ashokan studies came into existence in the annus mirabilis of 1837-and continued to flourish
mightily until the autumn of the following year. But in September 1838 James Prinsep was
struck down by paralysing headaches brought on by an inflammation of the brain. It soon
extended to the loss of his mental faculties, leading to his removal to England as a help -less
speechless invalid. And his death on London seven months later at the age of forty-one
 This poor quality etching of James Prinsep shows him already in the
grip of illness that would kill him four months later,
(Colesworthy Grant, Lithographic Sketches, 1850)
Unaware that Prinsep was dying George Turnour wrote to him on 18 October 1838
enclosing another article for the JRAS on the Great Dynastic Chronicle and explaining than this
world be his last contribution: ‘in a few days I leave Kandy for Colombo The duties of my new
office and my separation from the Buddhist Pandits, and the libraries of this place, will prevent,
for some time at least, the further prosecution of this examination.’ 25
For Turnour, too, the separation was final. His health destroyed by malaria, he took early
retirement and died an invalid in Italy in 1843 at the age of forty-three.

The Indic Scripts

Paleographic and Linguistic Perspectives

Aksaras
Sha ka lya
Shau na k
Bha ra t
Sam pu rna
Ta mi l
Onset syllable rime nucleus coda
Introduction
FROM cave paintings to computer languages, human beings have made a commendable
progress. Two landmarks, stand apart; first the development of language; and second, invention
writing. The writing system evolved over a period of thousands of years from pictographs to
alphabetic scripts, and now the most sophisticated computer languages. Though we still use the
alphabetic scripts throughout the world, this system of writing is not yet perfect.
The evolutionary process of script in India can be traced back to pre-history where we find
cave paintings at sites Bhimbetka in Madhya Pradesh and Tarsang in Gujarat. Leaving aside the
pictograph of these caves, India witnessed a sudden growth in the writing system in the Mature
Harappan period during 2500-1900 BCE. The undeciphered Harappan script suddenly appears
on the Indian proto historic horizons stays, there for about seven hundred years and
miraculously disappears in the dark pages of history only to be discovered after three thousand
eight hundred years. From about 1700-250 BCE, no evidence of any writing system is
encountered in ancient India. Then suddenly, like the Harappan script, emerges Brahmi? Script
in the third century BCE. Fortunately, since the reign of Mauryan emperor Asoka (2500 BCE)
continuous evidence of writing is known to exist in the form of various styles of Brahmi
known as Mauryan or Ashokan ----Gupta Brahmi and so on.
Evolution
It can be observed from fig 1 that the first and the third letters of each phonological type or
varga of the consonants, i.e. the unaspirated sounds, and the three basic vowels have
independent or primary shapes. The presence of only two aspirated letters out of ten among
the primary form suggests that these are not part of the earliest Indian alphabet, which did not
express aspiration. Though independent in shape, they may have been invented by the
grammarians who perfected the alphabet (Upasaka 1960)
The inclusion of the two aspirated consonants, viz gh and jh should have been done when
there were no aspirated consonants at all, as they are totally independent forms in the Mauryan
Brahmi. However, the rest of the eight derived aspirated consonants were included in the later period.
As far as the vowels are concerned, and three basic vowels gave rise to seven derived vowels viz a, I, u, ai,
o and au the anusvara was a later addition, as it is not derived directly. Similarly, the visarga was a still later
addition in the post-Mauryan period that is included in the post Mauryan period that included in the
Ksatrapa Brahmi. Hence it appears that the evolution of Brahmi was in four stages preceded by the
Harappan script (Rajgor 2000)
(i) (i)Harappan script (c 2500-1700 BCE)
(ii) (ii)Proto-Brahmi script (c 1700-600 BCE)
(iii) (iii)Pre-Mauryan Brahmi Script (c 600-350 BCE)
(iv) (iv)Mauryan Brahmi script (c 150 BCE),and
(v) (v)Post-Mauryan Brahmi scripts (c 150 BCE 600)
Harappan Script (c 2500-1700 BCE)
Harappan script that is also known as the Indus script appears on the horizon of the Indian
subcontinent from c.2500 to about 1700 BCE. Approximately four thousand Harappan texts
are known consisting mostly of seal impressions. This undeciphered script is supposed to have
been written from right to left. Nearly four hundred different signs were employed in inscribing
the Harappan language. Though nothing conclusive is known about the final decoding of the
Harappan script, it seems quite probable that this script was logosyllabic (Parpola 1994).
It is a matter of speculation that Brahmi script evolved from the Harappan script. This is
mainly due to the fact that the former is an alphabetic script whereas the latter is a logosyllabic
script. Furthermore, there is a wide gap of about one thousand five hundred years between the
Harappan script and the Brahmi script
Proto-Brahmi Script (c 1700-600 BCE)
With the final disappearance of the Harappan script in c 1700 BCE, 1700 BCE, a wide gap of
about one thousand five hundred years is noticed in Indian archaeology where not a single
example of written records in encountered. Though no geometric forms are available of a
script during this period; it is possible that experiments were carried out to form were carried
out to form the proto-Brahmi script.
The proto-Brahmi script should have minimum vowels including the three basic vowels, viz.
/a I u/.A list of consonants should look like/kg fc d t d n p b m u r I u s h. However, to
supplement this linguistic reconstruction, archaeological evidence is awaited.
Pre-Mauryan Brahmi Script (c 600 350 BCE)
During the sixth century BCE, with the decline of the tribal organisation of the society and the
growth of towns, trade and commerce, there arose a distinct cognitive change. At that trade and
commerce, there arose a distinct cognitive change. At that period of time there prevailed a
marked tendency towards doubt and dissent and free speculation (Verma 1979: 104) Hence the
use of writing in the age of the janapadas (states) was related to the social, religious, economic,
political and cognitive changes. This ultimately resulted in the need for a better writing system
that could encode the spoken language more precisely.
Consequently, in the pre-Mauryan Brahmi, certain additions took place. In this phase, some
vowels evolved from the basic vowels which could have been a, I u, e and o. in the list of
consonants, twelve consonants were added. Hence the number of vowels increased to eight,
and the consonants to thirty. The vowels were / a; ii u u e o/ The consonants were//k k h g gh c
ch f fh t th d dh n t th d dh n p ph bb hm j r l u s S h/
Unfortunately not a single example of Pre-Mauryan Brahmi has been excavated in India.
Nevertheless, it is known from the evidence of the kharosti script (Ojha 1918) that at a
particular point of time in the pre-Asokan period, the Kharosti script followed such a linguistic
theory. in the said script, the number of vowels were only six, namely /a i u e o/ and/am/.
Though the evidence at Mauryan Brahmi script in India does not go beyond c. 250 BCE,
recent excavations at Anuradhapura in Sri Lanka have revealed earlier evidence of Mauryan
Brahmi. These are inscribed potsherds, which are dated to c 400 BCE by the C 11 dating method
(Allchin 1997) The topography of the recent inscriptions is similar to the Mauryan script.
However, the only difference reported is the crude forms in Sri Lanka, which are similar to
those on the Piprahwa vase inscription. This implies that by 400 BCE, Sri Lanka, and for that
matter, the Indian subcontinent was already literate enough to read and write.
Mauryan Brahmi Script (c 350-150 BCE)
Mauryan Brahmi script in the third century BCE, i.e. during the reign of Maurya emperor
Asoka, appears to be a well-established alphabetic script with as many as eleven vowels and
thirty-four consonants. In this script, the knowledge of the phonetic rules of Sanskrit is well
manifested, here one finds seven derived vowels with an anusvara, and thirteen derived
consonants including eight aspirates (fig 1) it appears that the derived forms numbering to
twenty-one got their shapes from the early Sanskrit grammarians like Yaska, who perfected the
Sanskrit alphabet. Upasaka (1960) has rightly argued that in course of this process of perfection
the early Sanskrit grammarians accepted those letters that already existed and evolved the new
shapes, either basing them upon previous forms or coining them independently to suit their
purpose. In the form in which we have the Brahmi alphabet, it is the work merchants, but of
learned men who had knowledge of grammer and Sanskrit phonetics.
Post-Mauryan Brahmi Scripts (C 150 BCE 600)
The evolution of Brahmi script did not end in the Mauryan period. In the post Mauryan period,
vowels like /r/ and /l/were added to the script. The earliest example of vowels like/r/and I/
were added the script. The earliest example of vocalic /r/ is found on the inscription of
Castana-Rudradaman I at Andhau in Kutch, Gujarat (Mirashi 1981 ) Interestingly, a manuscript
called Usnisavijayadharani dating back to the sixth century CE was discovered at a monastery
called Horyuji in Japan (Ojha 1918) At the end of the said manuscript a complete list of all the
letters is Given. It includes sixteen vowels: /a a: I i: u u: r r: l l: e ai, o, au, am ah/ The
manuscript is wroth noticing as it is the earliest evidence depicting separate forms of four rare
vowels: /r r: l l:/ Hence, it can be concluded that the evolution of Brahmi was a continuous
process, beginning with the proto-Brahmi script through the post Mauryan Brahmi scripts like
Ksatrapa, Gupta and Kutila Brahmi scripts (fig 2)
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be observed that the evolution of Brahmi as a script was a slow and
gradual process. It can further be argued that the linguistic design of Brahmi was a product of
the phonetic-phonological-grammatical work done by Indian linguistic over a period of a few
centuries. In the evolutionary process, the Harappan script did influence the evolution but it is
not certain whether the Harappan script ever served as a prototype for the successive Brahmi
script. However, it is very clear that the fall of the Harappan script must have forced the
intelligent minds of the post-Harappan period to invent a better representation, namely Brahmi
Script.
Table 1: Basic and Derived Letters in Mauryan Brahmi (c 250 BCE)
(Rajgor 2000)
Place of Articulation Basic of primary Letters Derived of Secondary
Letters
Vowels
/a/ = /a:/ =
/u/ = L /t/ =
/ai/ =
/au/ =
Consonants
Velar /k/ = + /kh/
/g/ = /n/
/gh/ =
Palatal /c/ = /ch h/ =
/n/ =

Retroflex

Dental /t/ =
/d/ =
/n/ =
Labial /p/ =
/b/ = □
/m/ =
Liquid /r/ =
/l/ =
Semi-vowel /j/ =
/w/ =
Fricative /s/ =
/□
Aspirate /h/ =
Total = 24 = 21
 Phonetic proto-Brahmi Pre- Mauryan Post-Mauryan Brahmi scripts
value script c.1700-600 Mauryan Brahmi Ksatrapa Gupta Kautila
BCE Brahmi script c c. CE Kutila c. CE
(Reconstructed) Script c. 600-350 400 c. CE 550-990
600-350 BCE 400-
BCE 550
Vowels
a      
ā     
i      
Ī    
u     
u   
r  
r 
l 
l 
e     
ai  
o     
au  
am    
ah   
Total Vowels 3 8 11 10 8 16
Consonants
k      
kh     
g      

Phonetic proto-Brahmi Pre-Mauryan Mauryan Post-Mauryan Brahmi

value script c.1700-600 Brahmi Script Brahmi script c scripts
BCE c. 600-350 600-350 BCE Ksatra Gupt Kautil
(Reconstructed) BCE pa c. a a c.
CE Kutil CE
400 a c. 550-
CE 990
400-
550
gh     
n   
 c      
ch     
j      
jh   
n   
t      
th     
d      
dh     
n     
t      
th     
d      
dh     
n      
p      
ph     
b      
bh     
m      
y      
r      
l      
v      
ś     
s    
s      
h      
l   
Total
Conso- 18 30 34 32 32 33
Nants
Total 10+32 8+32 6+33=
3+18=21 8+30=38 11+34=45
Values =42 =40 49

Fig 2: Evolution of Phonetic Values in Brāhmī Scripts (c.1700b BCE –CE 900)
Acknowledgement
My sincere thanks are due to Prof. P.G Patel of the University of Ottawa, for encouraging
me to carry out the linguistic research of Brāhmī script. I am also grateful to Dr. P.K.S Pandey
of the M.S. University of Baroda for guiding me during the research endeavour.
References

Bhattacharya H.K. (1959) The Language and scripts of Ancient India, Calcutta: Bani Prakashan.
Bright, W. (1990), “Written and spoken Language in South Asia,” in his Language variation in South Asia. New York:
Oxford University Pres, pp 130-47.
Bühler, G (1904, Indian Palaeography Pathe: Eastern Book House, Reprinted in 1959 (first published in Indian
Antiquary)
......... (1882) “On the origin of the Indian Alphabet and Numerals” Indian Antiquary, vol XI, p. 268
......... (1896) On the origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet, Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit studies [rept].
Burnell A.C. (1878), Element of south Indian palaeography, London.
Crystal D. (1987), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy press.
Cunnigham, A (1854, The Bhilsa Topes or Budhist Monuments of Central India, London Smith, Elder and Co.
......... (1877), Corpus Inscription Indicaram, vol.I, Inscriptions of Aśoka, Calcutta:Superintendent of Government Printing.
Dani, A.H. (1986), Indian Palaeography, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal [first published in 1963].
Daniels, P.T and W.Bright (eds.) (1996). The Worlds Writing systems, Oxford: Oxford University press.
Diringer, D (1969) The Alphabet: A key to the History of Mankind, New York: Funk and Wagnallas, 3rd edn.
Gelb, L.J. (1963), A study of writing, Chicago: University of Chicago press [revised]
Goyal,S.R.(1979), “Brāhmī –An invention of the Early Mauryan period”, in Gupta and Ramachandran (1979).
Gupta, S.P and K.S. Ramachandran (eds.) (1979). The Origin of Brāhmī, Delhi: D.K Publications.
Hutlzsch, E (1925), Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol.I-Inscriptions of Asoka, Oxford: Government? of India.
Jensen,Hans (1970), Sign, symbol and Script-An Account of Man’s Efforts to write, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
[3rd edn].
Jha, A. and D. Rajgor (1994), Studies in the Coinage of the Western Brāhmīs, Nasik:Indian Institute of Research in
Numismatic Studies.
Mahalingam, T.V. (1967) Early South Indian Palaeography, Madras:University of Madras Press.
Mahulkar, D.D (1980), The Prastisakhya Tradition and modern Linguistic, Baroda: M.S. University of Baroda Press.
......... (1990), Pre-Paninian Linguistics, Delhi, Northern Bookm Center.
Mehendale, M.A. (1981), Aśokan Inscriptions in India: A Linguistic study, Bombay: University of Bombay.
Mirashi, V.V. (1981) The Hisory of Inscriptions of the Satavahanas and the Western Brāhmīs, Bombay: Maharashtra State
Board for Literature and Culture.
Ojha, G.H. (1918) Bharatiya Prachin Lipimala, Delhi:Munshiram Manoharlal (Hindi), Reprint. First edn., 1894,
Udaipur: Sujjain Press.
Pandey, R.(1952), Indian Palaeography, Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass, part I (rept. 2nd edn,1957).
Parikh, P.C. (1974), Gujaratman Brāhmīti Nagari sudhino Lipivikas (Ȋśā 1500 sudi) Ahmedabad: Gujarat University
(Gujarati)
Parpola, Asko (1996) The Indus script in Daniels and Bright (1996), pp. 165-71.
......... (1994), Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patel, P.G (1993), “Ancient India and the Current Orality-literacy Divide Theory” in RJ. Scholes (ed.) Literacy and
Linguistic Analysis, pp. 199-208, NJ Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
......... (1995) “Brāhmī Scripts, Orthographic Units and Reading Acquisition” in I.Taylor and D Olson (eds.), Scripts
and Reading: Reading and Learning to Read World’s, Scripts, pp.265-75 London: kluwer Academic Publishers.
......... (1996), “Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of the Orality-Literacy Complex in Ancient India”. Language and
communication, vol.16, pp 315-29.
Raigor, D. (2000), Palaeolinguistic Profile of Brāhmī script, Pratibha Prakasan, Delhi.
Sivaramamurti, C. (1952), Indian Epigraphy and South Indian scripts, Madras: Bulletin of the Madras Govt Museum.
Upaska, C.S. (1960), The History and Palaeography of Mauryan Brāhmī script, Patna: Nalanda Mahavihara.
Verma, TP. (1971), The Palaeography of Brāhmī Script in North India, Varanasi:Siddharth Prakashan.
......... (1979), “Comments on Goyal’s Paper: Brāhmī? – An Invention of the Early Mauryan Period,” in Gupta and
Ramachandran (1979), pp.98-110.
Walawalkar, AB. (1951) Pre-Aśokan Brāhmī: A study on the Origin of Indian Alphabet, Bombay: Mum Brothers.
 Brāhmī

Introduction
IN Sanskrit, the classical language of India and a major member of the Indo-European family
with Greek and Latin, the term akṣara means a minimal orthographic unit in the dominant
writing system known as Brāhmī. As van Buitemen (1959, p. 186) points out “Originally aksara
meant “syllable.” This syllable was not a grammatical artifice of analysis, but a very concrete
tool for priest-poets who measured their metrical utterances by syllable.” The linguistic design
of the akṣara is rooted in ancient Indian phonetics and metrics; it is relevant to current
phonological theory, as it can be interpreted as a sub-syllabic unit in terms of the modern
models of syllabic structure.
The process of developing a new script requires preparation at two levels: (a) the
demarcation of speech units for linguistic representation; and (b) the topographic (visuo-
spatial) design to encode (a). In the case of Brāhmī, the linguistic unit akṣara was available in
both Vedic literature and linguistic analysis. The second level (b) may be a result of outside
influences, specifically Greek and Aramic in terms of the selection of visuo-spatial organisation
of some of the aksaras, especially those of the secondary vowels, however. The complexity of
the problem is succinctly captured by Scharfe (1977, p.79):
According to the dominant theory, the Brāhmī script goes back to a North Semitic script as it was used in
the eighth to sixth century. According to others the source had been a South Semitic script; and still
others believe that the script is autochthonous. Whatever the origin, the phonetic principles of the Śikṣās
have been applied to this script: a separate letter (and only a single letter!) denotes each phoneme; short
and long vowels are differentiated. The alphabet is phonetically ordered which raises it above the semitic
(and European) arbitrary arrangements.
The same principles characterize various later scripts found in India and in neighbouring
countries where Indian culture travelled.
The objective of this paper is twofold: To offer a phonological analysis of the orthographic
unit aksara in terms of current phonological theory, and to present a hypothetical perspective
on ancient Indian linguistic contexts which can be related to the linguistic basic of Brāhmī. So
far the emphasis in the philological scholarship has been on Brāhmī as a script, that is, the
visuo-spatial shapes of letters, and the issue of the antiquity of writing in India (see Rastogi
1980 for relevant references and discussion). This is an attempt to develop a linguistc
perspective on Brāhmī as a writing system. It will be demonstrated that the sophisticated
linguistic phenomena like graded vowel-consonant quantity, abhinidhāna, sarabhakthi, and anusāra
discussed in the Prātisākhyas and Śikṣās, underline the structure of Brāhmī orthography.
A Caveat
It is necessary to note at the outset that the examples employed in this paper to illustrate the
linguistic structure of Brāhmī unit aksara are taken from modern Indo-Aryan languages which
are the direct descendants of Sanskrit and Prakrit. This is considered legitimate as the structure
of the aksara has remained constant through the countries, while the visuo-spartial features of
the different aksaras changed through the different phases of historical development.
Background
Writing first appeared during the late fourth and the third millennium BCE in Sumeria and
Egypt (Naveh 1982: 13-14). These were the Sumerian Cuneiform and Egyptian Hieroglyphic
writing systems, which were primarily pictorial-syllabic. From these sources emerged the West
Semitic consonantal –alphabetic systems known as Phoenician and Aramaic during the eleventh
century BCE. The Greeks borrowed the Phoenician letters for consonants and reorganised
these letter shapes into their abecedary with both consonants and vowels during the eighth
century BCE or earlier.
The Aramaic and Greek scripts reached north-west India beginning the fifth century BCE .
The Persians and Greeks ruled this region for a few centuries and used their scripts mainly for
administrative affairs. By this time, phonetics, metrics, and grammer had progressed to a
sophisticated level in India. What actually happened in north-west India between the Persian
and Greek contacts and interactions with Indians is a mystery awaiting research. These
geographical associations between the Aramaic and Greek scripts have led some scholars to
inferential links between these scripts and Brāhmī.
The scientific sophistication of Indian phonetics, metrics, and grammar has been
recognised and acclaimed; and the link between the unit akṣara in the modern derivatives of
Brāhmī and ancient Indian linguistics is not a mystery. Referring to Panini in relation to Greece,
McEvillery (2002:672) suggests that.
Pāini’s major work Aādhyāyī, then, may have been as early the grammatical observations of
photagroas, which were seemingly far more primitive, or he may have been a contemporary of
the early Stoic grammarians. In either case he seems well in advance of the Greeks.
Except the Roman alphabetic and the Perso-Arabic scripts which used to write English and
Urdu, respectively, the scripts adopted in India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Tibet, Thailand, and
Kampuchea are offshoots of an ancient Indian script known as Brāhmī (Upasak 1961; Verma
1971; Mahalingam 1974; Gupta and Ramachandran 1979; Salomon 1996, 1998, 2003; Sharma
2002; Court 1996). The first major use of Brāhmī is associated with the edicts of Emperor
Aśoka during the middle of the third century BCE (Hinuber 1990; Falk 1993); the edicts
communicate to the ordinary people the word of Siddārtha Gautam, as it was understood by
Aśoka. According to Salomon (2005), Buddhist philosophy is only marginally touched by
Aśoka’s edicts. Buddha lived and preached during 566-486 BCE later (Warder 2000: 38).
Following Buddhas’s practice, Aśoka used the different regional varieties of the Prakrit language
to reach people in their own dialects.
Undoubtedly, the study of phonetics, metrics and grammer evolved before the use of
Brāhmī in the Aśokan edicts. The Veda-specific and general phonetic manuals known as
Prātisākyas and Śikās, respectively were definitely pre-Aśokan. It is likely that the graphic shapes
of the basic letters were modelled on Aramaic and/ or Greek. However, the phonetic-metrical
concepts created to help oral learning and recitations were applied to develop the orthographic
unit akṣara, which is different from its initial spoken form. Even though the influence of
ancient Indian phonetics upon the linguistic underpinnings of Brāhmī has been recognised in
general terms (Bühler 1959; Upasak 1961; Sharfe 1977; Dani 1986; Salomon 1998), there is no
explicit specification of the phonetic design involved in the orthographic structure of the unit
akṣara. The visuo-spatial shapes of the akṣaras have changed over the centuries as it was used
to represent the sound systems of Prakrit, Tamil, and Sanskrit. However, the ancient linguistic
deign of the unit akṣara has remained unchanged through the centuries since the emergence of
Brāhmī orthography.
As Staal (1975) points out, in India, metalinguistic notions originated early, and a phonetics
system of writing was adopted later. This is the opposite of what happened in Greece where
the alphabetic system was constructed before the beginning of language science. As Verma
(1971: 5) emphasizes, “there is a fundamental difference between the evolution of Brāhmī and
the evolution of the alphabet of the West. In India, the script follows ʋarṇamālā while in the
West the alphabet followed the script”.
In the case of Greece, the vowels of Greek were added to the Phonenician consonantal
system. The Greek alphabet began functioning during the eighth century BCE (Naveh 1982),
when the state of phonetic science in Greece was no sophisticated (Allen 1974).
Chronologically, the two Greek grammarians, Dionysius Thrax and Dionysius Halicarnassus
belong to 166 BCE (birth) and first century BCE (Allen 1974:150). Burnell (1976) points out
that “Until Greeks began to teach their language to the Romans, grammar made but little
progress….” (p. 38).
In India, the practice of learning through recitation created the need for an understanding
of the processes and mechanisms involved in speech particulation, which led to the
development of phonetics, metrics, and grammar. This is considered to be the beginning of
modern linguistics. It seems to be the case that the emergence of Brāhmī in India in the
inscriptions of Aśokan during the third century BCE followed the development of phonetics,
metrics, and grammar. The ʋarṇamālā was developed long before the appearance of Aśokan
Brāhmī. The ʋarṇamālā is a phonetically organised chart of the sound units of Sanskrit.
The earliest deciphered epigraphic record after the as-yet –undeciphered writing left behind
by the literate Indus Valley Civilisation is the body of inscriptions associated with the Mauryan
Emperor Aśoka of Magadha, who “took the reigns of the vast empire sometimes between 277
BCE and 261 BCE” whose dominions were very extensive, stretching from the confines of the
realm of Amtiyoka II Theos, King of Syria in the North-West and to the Chittaldroog district
in the Mysore State in the south, and from the Arabian sea in the west to the frontiers of
Bengal in the East (Mehendale 1948: xxxv)
The Indus Valley Civilisation arose at about 7000 or 8000 BCE and the cities of Mohenjo-
dāro and Harappā reached a mature level of functioning during 2500 to 2000 BCE (Possehl 1999:
1-5).
Aśokan Inscriptions
According to Chaudhary (1983), Aśokan inscriptions can be divided into three classes –Rock,
Pillar and Cave inscriptions. The Rock and Pillar inscriptions can be sub-divided into two
classes “fourteen inscriptions on rocks from a serially arranged set, as except at Sopara,
wherever one of these fourteen has been found the other thirteen have also been found “ (p.
43). Chaudhary (1983) further explains that:
Detached inscriptions on rocks are known as the Minor rock inscriptions on account of their comparative
brevity. Rock Edicts I-VII, IX, X and XIV are each in seven recessions – Girnār, Kalsī, Yerragudi,
Shahbāzgarhī, Mansehra, Dhauli and Jaugada. Rock Edicts XI and XIII are each in five recensions----
Girmar, Kalsi, Yerragudi, Shahbāzgarhī and Mansehrā. Kaliṅga edicts are each in two recensions. Seven
inscriptions on stone pillars from a serial and with the exception of the seventh they have always been
found together. On the single pillar, viz.Delhi-Topra, where the seventh pillar has been found, it follows
the first six and the group of seven. Hence these are known as seven pillar inscriptions. Some pillars have
been found with single inscriptions containing matter different from those of the seven pillar inscriptions.
These are known as Minor pillar inscriptions. Three commemorative inscriptions in the caves of Barbar
Hills are known as cave inscriptions (p. 44)
During the ninth year of his region, Aśoka converted to Buddhism and issued the edicts for
the first time in the 12 years of his regin. The Aśokan inscriptions were written in the Brāhmī,
Aramaic, and Greek scripts and represented mainly Prakrit languages, not Sanskrit. Sircar (1965:
390-40) makes the following autho-ritative statement:
The earliest epigraphic records of the indigenous rulers of India are written in the Prakrit language.
Originally the epigraphic language of the whole of India was mainly Prakrit, and Sanskrit is first noticed
in the inscriptions of north India from about the second half of the first century BCE . Sanskrit gradually
ousted Prakrit from the field of Indian epigraphy in all parts of the country. In north India, the
establishment of Sanskrit in the place of Prakrit in inscriptions was nearly complete by the end of the
third century CE. But the suppression of Prakrit in the epigraphs of south India took place as late as the
second half of the fourth century.
Bloch (1965: 13) provides the socio-linguistic perspective on the use of Prakrit and Sanskrit:
The language described by Pāṇini, following his predecessors, in contrast to the mantra and the
chandas is the standard of the colleges of the brāhmanas ad not that of the people of
Shalatura, where Pāṇini was born. And that described about 150 BCE by his commentator
Paṅtanjali, a native of the Deccan, is represented as the standard of the educated brāhmana of
the Madhyadeśa. Sanskrit is the property of a class, a cultural language. So much so that at this
very time Khāravela, a king of kalinga, celebrated his exploits in an already refined Middle
Indian. The inscriptions in which Aśoka addressed his subjected a century earlier are rendered
in middle Indian in several dialects.
 To recapitulate, the empirical evidence clearly indicating the beginning of Brāhmī is
restricted to the stone and rock pillars carrying the message of Mauryan Emperor Aśoka. The
Brāhmī used in these inscriptions is Prakrit-based; hence it reflects Prakrit phonology which
allowed only open syllables; hence the akṣaras in Aśokan Brāhmī were open syllables, that is,
without end consonants.
Advances in Linguistic Analysis before Aśokan Brāhmī
There is a general consensus that linguistics as a science originated and matured in India
approximately between the seventh and fifth centuries BCE . The three branches of linguistic
analysis, namely phonetics, metrics, and grammar reached advanced levels with Pāṇini, who is
known as the father of modern linguistics. The approximate date for Pāṇini, is the fifth century
BCE (Allen 1953; Cardona 1997). These achievements preceded Aśokan Brāhmī.
The RgVeda is the oldest known Hindu Literary creation, which was composed without the
use of writing and preserved orally for centuries. This must have required a mastery of poetic
pitch, which followed the Indo-European accentuation system, that is, rising falling, and
elongated syllables. To help oral learning and memory, several forms of the original text were
constructed. The continuous version was called Saṁhitāpātha. The term pātha refers to
recitation. The continuous text Saṁhitāpātha was segmented into pādas, which consisted of
word stems and affixes (Jha 1987). According to Deshpade (1997), the pāda is a metrical foot.
The padapātha was a segmented text, which could be considered the first case of
morphophonemic type of analysis, as it involved the decomposition of the sandhi
transformations. The kramapāṭha and the vikṛtis were complicated rearrangements and
distortions of the segmented text (Devasthali 1978). The sequence of the segmented pādas in
the kramapāṭha must have required a highly developed oral memory. In the different types of
vikṛti, the order of the pādas is rearranged and the kind of oral learning and memory developed
by the seers and their pupils is simply unimaginable for those who are not familiar with the
traditional Indian system of recitation, which is alive today in specific areas like Kerala in south
India (Staal 1961). The practice of recitation of the RgVeda, padapātha, RgVeda kramapāṭha, and
the different vikṛtis must have fostered the rise of phonetics, metrics, and grammar.
Veda-specific manuals for the four Vedas were created to aid standardised recitation without
the aid of written texts; these are known as Prātisākhyas for example, RgVeda-Prātisākhya and
Vājasaneyī-Prātisākhya (Verma 1992, 1987). In addition to these veda –specific guidelines, general
principles were constructed. These general texts (oral) were known as Śiksās, for 3 example,
Pāṇinīya Śikṣa and Nāradīya Śikṣa (Ghosh 1991. Bhise 1986). The chronology of the Śiksās is
highly uncertain (varma 1961;Sharfe 1977 ). The state of the metrical science is reflected in the
sūtras of Piṅgaḷa (Tarkasiddhanta 1914; Chatterjee 1987).
From Spoken to Written Aksara
The concept of akṣara in ancient Indian linguistics, which forms the basis of the minimal
written unit in Brāhmī, initially stood for a speech unit. In the Ṛgveda, the term akṣara was used
to refer to the spoken metrical unit, and often, it meant “vowel” (Allen 1953). The Ṛgveda
Prātisākhya viewed the unit akṣara in the context of the concepts sʋara, ʋarna, and mātrā (VśK.
Verma 1992). Detailed rules of syllable composition, hence, spoken akṣara formation, were
worked out by the Prātisākhya scholars (Varma1961;Chakrabarty 1996); The Prātisākhyas were
composed as applied phonetic manuals to provide guidance in articulation and accentuation,
which were necessary in Vedic recitation and memorisation (see Patel 1996 for a brief account
of recitation techniques).The Ṛgveda Prātisākhya stipulates that a vowel whether pure, combined
with consonants or anusʋāra (nasalisation) is an akṣara (Chakrabrati 1996). It is important to
note that the term syllable is used as a synonym for the spoken akṣara which is appropriate, as
the modern syllable stands for (C) (C) (C) (V) (V) (C) (C). The important point is that spoken
akṣara can have a consonant after a vowel, which is the case for the syllable. The definition of
the akṣara as a written unit is significally different.
The akṣara as a written unit appears to be derived by decomposing the spoker syllable (the
spoken akṣara as it was understood in the Prātisākhyas ) into two parts (1) consonants (s) +
vowels(s) and (2) consonants(s):
CVC = C V + C

VC =V+C

The CV in CVC is considered in independent unit, while the C following CV or V depends

upon certain conditions related to duration or quantity. This applies to the distinction between
the modern open and closed syllables. In the open syllable there are no consonants after the
vocalic peak, while the closed syllable include consonants after the vowels(s):

Open syllables: (C) (C) (C) V(V)

Closed syllables: (C ) (C ) V(V) C (C ) (C )

The distinction between open and closed syllables and the concept of syllable quantity appear
to be implicit in the design of the written aksara. The orthography akṣara seem to be related to
the ʋarnamālā, that is, an inventory of pronounceable units of articulation. The ʋarnamālā
provides a classification of the sound of Sanskrit Which was worked out before the
development of Brāhmī orthography? The ʋarnamālā may be considered an antecedent of
modern articulatory phonetics.
Linguistic Design of Written Aksara: Underlying Concepts
In his pioneering monograph Indian palaeography Georg Bühler (1904/1959:33) suggests that “it
is a priori probable that the Vaṇiās were the first do adopt the Semetic alphabet”. Vaṇiās are
merchants who form a community even today. Bühler here refers to the visuo-spatial shapes of
the letters and clearly recognises the contribution of the Vedic linguists. Of particular interest is
Bühler’s reference to the rules of guṇa and ʋṛddhi according to which the vowels O and I can be
derived from the vowels U and E, respectively. Guṇa vowels are the sources and the ʋṛddhi
vowels are the outcome; the rules of derivation are based upon linguistic principles worked out
by the Vedic linguists. Bühler’s hypothesis, Upasak (1960:15-20)shows how theo-spatial
(graphic) shapes of the ʋṛddhi vowels can be derived from the guṇa vowels. In this context,
Bühler also considers the principle of the inherent involvement of the schwa in consonant
articulation as well as other linguistic processes which will be taken up later. Dani (1986: 46-
47)also explains the role of Sanskrit grammar in the visuo-spatial formation of the medial
vowels in Aśokan Brāhmī:
The medial vowels e and o, which, according to Sanskrit grammar are the guṇa forms of i and u, derived
from them by the addition of a horizontal stroke to the top (or middle) left of the consonant.

The vowels ai and au are again, according to Sanskrit grammar, the ʋṛddhi of e and o, and
hence as before an additional stroke to the left is given. Actually the medial vowel au does not
occur in Aśokan Brāhmī, but this principle is observed in the later inscriptions.
Dani (1986: 47) concludes that “Throughout the formation of the medial vowels the hand
of the Sanskrit grammarian is clearly observable” and clarifies that “The signs follow the
grammar, and not vice versa.
Turning now to the other linguistic principles underlying the structure of the orthographic
akṣara, it can be argued that the concept of syllable quantity is crucial in understanding the
mechanism of akṣara formation. Syllable quantity does not equate with the duration of a
syllable as a whole, it is related to syllable ending, that is the presence or absence of consonants
after the syllabic peak or nucleus. As Allen (1987:104) points out, the ancient Greek
phoneticians realised that syllabic quantity and vowel length were not the same. Furthermore,
Allen (1974: 97-98) points out:
The Greek grammarians did not distinguish in their terminology between length and quantity, but applied
the terms “long” and “short” to both vowels and syllables... the Indian grammarians, who used the terms
“long” and “short” to apply to vowel length, but “heavy” and “light” to apply to syllabic quantity....
Without creating a special terminology, the Greeks established a convention: the short
vowel was taken as a “primary measure of time” and the long vowel or the diphthong was
treated as equivalent to two such measures, while the consonant was considered equivalent in
duration to a half short vowel.
The Indian phoneticians created the notion of timing quantity in consonant – vowel-
consonant sequences and worked out a quantitative system to assign duration values to vowels
and their preceding and following consonant associates. The light syllable stood for a short
vowel with or without consonants preceding it, that is, V or CV, CCV, CCCV. It was understood
that the consonants before vowels in light syllables did not add to syllabic quantity. The heavy
syllable stood for a long vowel or a diphthong as well as for a short vowel followed by a
consonant or a consonant cluster, that is, VV or VC, VCC. Allen (`1953: 85) points out that
beside the terms “shorts” and “long” (hrasʋa, dirgha) we find listed in the introduction to the
Ṛgveda Prātisākhya and in the concluding stanzas of the Taittirīya Prātisākhya the terms: light”
(laghu) and “heavy” (guru). These latter terms refer primarily to the quantity of the syllable fopr
metrical purposes; but since the term akṣara, “syllable” is also used to mean “vowel”, the vowel
rather than the syllable is regularly stated to be “light” or “heavy”.
 The interesting point is that the increase in syllable quantity depended upon the presence or
absence of consonants (s) after the vowels(s), and not vowel length alone. Allen (1987) suggests
that the Greek and Indian ideas were independent scientific achievements; to be explicit, Greeks
or Indians did not borrow from the other side. The critical problem, which the ancients seem to
have grasped, was a signal for separating CV or V from CVC and VC, respectively. The Indian
phoneticians adopted the musical term mātrā as a primary measure of time and developed a
scale for mātrā assignment (for strangway 1994; Howard 1988 Ghosh 1991; Bhise 1986):
Short vowel = one mātrā
Long vowel = two mātrā
Diphthong = two mātrā
Short consonant = half mātrā
Long consonant = one mātrā
The significance of mātrā as a primary measure of time in relation to syllable structure was
specified in the guidelines for chanters which is the subject matter of the classic Mātrālakṣaṇam
(Howard 1988). The role of the consonants after vowels in syllables in specified in this treatise,
which is an authority on the use of mātrā values. Howard (1988:43) suggests that:
The rule stating syllables with short vowels are worth one mātrā is valid only where conjunct consonants
do not follow. The T (Tanjore District, Tamil Nadu) chanters increase this value to one and one-half or
two mātrās before conjuncts...

According to Mātrālakṣaṇam, CVC = CV; C. This syllabic division division is indicated by

the increase in the duration of V before C in CVC. This guideline for recitation is applicable to
the practice of transforming syllables into akṣaras;
Syllable units Aksara units
CV CV
CVC CV; C
VC V; C
CVVC CVV; C
VVC VV; C

It must be noted that the concept and operational use of the term mātrā is related to the
early phase of phonetics and metrics in India. It is discussed in Ṛgveda Prātisākhya (V.K Verma
1992), Śaunakīya Caturādhyāyika (Deshpande 1997), Pāṇinīya Śikṣā (Ghosh 1991), Nāradīya Śikṣā
(Bhise 1986), and Mātrālakṣaṇam (Howars 1988). The operational formula for the insertion of
vowel fragments between a liquid and a spirant is stated in mātrā values of one ½ and ¼ in
Śaunakīya Caturādhyāyika:” After an r, and before a spirant followed by a vowel, there is an
insertion of a vocalic fraction (sʋarabhakthi),which is (equivalent to) half of a short a, quarter
according to some authorities” (Deshpande 1997: 255), Allen (1965: 74) points out that the
lengths of the sʋarabhakthi vowels include the 1/8th part of a short a, that is, one mātrā, reffered
to as sphoṭana which is denied by Uvaṭa “as the (optional) separation of a consonant cluster.”
Uvaṭa is known as an authoritative scholarly commentator who lived during the time of Bhoja,
a ruler in Gujrat during the eleventh century CE. Allen (1953: 74) adds that “This would appear
to indicate a type of s sʋarabhakthi, whether voiced or voiceless, the infinitesimal duration of
which is suggested by the specification of a value of 1/8 a, in fact a minimal audible release.”
The term sʋarabhakthi will be considered later in the paper in relation to a similar phenomenon
known as abhinidhāna.
Since the mature use of Brāhmī is noticeable after the development of the concepts
underlying akṣara formation, it is reasonable to inter that the creator(s) of Brāhmī divided the
spoken akṣara that is the syllable, into two units, based upon mātrā values. The short or long
vowel/dipthong with or without the onset was encoded into an akṣara. The post-vocalic
consonant, if it was long enough for a full mātrā value, was also encoded into an akṣara, that is,
in current terminology, it was treated as an extrametrical. If the post-vocalic consonant, was
short, that is, if it was only a half of mātrā, it was integrated into the onset of the following
akṣara; in terms of current phonology, what takes place in akṣara a formation is the process of
resyllabification.
Varma (1961: 107) points out that “Indian grammarians had also noticed the difference
between merely orthographic sandhi phonetic sandhi of finals” In discussing this difference,
varma cities Kaccāyana’s Pali Grammar according to which “… a final; consonant is to be
carried to the succeeding sound “ in orthographic sandhi (1961:108). The “Law of Morae “in
Pāli phonology may be involved in the process of how the written akṣara evolved from its
earlier spoken form. Geiger (2000) points out that “In Pāli, as generally in Middle Indian, a
syllable can contain only one mora or two morae but never more” (p. 4). Warder (2001: 4), an
expert on Pāli metre, (Warder, 1967), suggests that “The distinction of quantity (short or long
vowels or syllables) is very important in Pāli, but the distinctions of stress are insignificant. A
syllable is long if its vowel is long or if the vowel, though short, is followed by the pure nasal or
two or more consonants. A long syllable is exactly equal to two short syllables”.
As pointed out earlier, Kaccāyana’s Pāli Grammar (Senart 1871) deals with orthographic
sandhi of the syllable-final consonant and the following syllable. That is, the syllables CVC + CV
in a sequence in a word are resyllabified to form the akṣaras CV + CCV. Consider the following
examples,
Words Syllables Akṣaras
mātrā CVVC CVV CVV CCVV
krama CVC CV CV CCV
cāṇakya CV CVC CV CV CV CCV

Now look at the following modern examples where the word – final post-vocalic consonant
is allowed the status of an akṣara;
Words Syllables Aksaras
kajol CV C C CV CV C
 uvaṭ V CVC V CV C
kiran CV CVC CV CV C
gauraʋ CVV CVC CVV CV C
caṇak CV CVC CV CV C
The problem of the word-final consonant is illustrated in Colloquial Malayalam. What T.
Mohanan (1989: 591) suggests about the word –final consonants in spoken Malayalam applies
to akṣara formation in general in Brāhmī scripts… colloquial Malayalam allows to word-final
consonants other than m and n. A morpheme that ends in a consonant other than m or n
undergoes obligatory Schwa-Epenthesis, unless it is followed by a vowel-initial form. Thus, the
underlying form/ kaat? “ear” undergoes Schwa-Epinthesis and is pronounced kata, because
otherwise the final consonant is unsyllabifiable. When followed by another stem in a
compound, an inflection, or another word that begins with a vowel, the final consonant
becomes syllabifiable with the following vowel, and the schwa is not inserted.
There are two other specific problems in akṣara formation which provide compelling
evidence regarding the involvement of the phoneticians underlying the design of orthographic
akṣara, namely, anusʋāra and abhinidhāna. Anusʋāra is the vocalic nasalisation maker and
abhinidhāna indicates the presence of a brief perceptible break between two consonant sounds
(Chakrabarti 1996; V.S. Pandeya 1987). Anusʋāra is the only case which seemingly violates the
generalisation that the akṣara stands for (C)(C)(C) V(V), as nasalisation would indicate the
presence of C after V if anusʋāra is treated as a consonant. In a useful book written in Hindi,
Vijay Shankar Pandeya (1987: 244) points out that Śaunaka’s RgVeda Prātisākhya treates
anusʋāra as both vocalic and consonant: anusʋāra vyańjanam ʋa sʋaro ʋa ( V.K Verma 1992: 48).
The akṣara for V+ anusʋāra can be represented as VV; the generalisation about the akṣara
as (C)(C)(C)V(V) unit can be maintained. The view on the vocalic nature of anusʋāra is
supported by the Vājasaneyī Prātisākhya which indicates that the articulation of vowel +
anusʋāra requires two mātrās (V.K. Verma 1987:21).
Interestingly, in the Japanese Kana syllabary (morabary), the nasal after CV is treated as a
mora (Sato 1993). Vance (1987:38) refers to this as “the mora nasal” and suggests that Japanese
has short and long syllable and that “a short C syllable consists of one mora, while and long
syllables and that “a short C syllable consists of one mora, while a long CN syllable consists of
two moras”. Millar (1967) suggests that the Japanese Katakana and Hiragana systems are
derivates of Brāhmī. However, Salomon (2005) argues that the Japanese Syllabaries were
influenced by Brāhmī, and are not direct.
Brāhmī –derivatives. The orthographic units in the Japanese systems are akṣaras it is not far-
fetched to suggest that the Japanese treatment of the syllable final nasal reflects the
interpretation offered by the ancient Indian phoneticians.
In regard to vowel nasality, Bloch (1965: 48) suggests that in the course of the history of
the language nasal vowels have appeared which do not owe their nasality to their being followed
by nasal occlusives. They owe it to the fact that the nasal resonance innate in vowels asserts
itself in favourable circumstances and particularly in connection with long vowels and a.
 The phenomenon of abhinidhāna refers to the separation between the two consonants in a
cluster. In Allen’s (1953) precise terms, abhinidhāna “refers to the non-release of a consonant,
more particularly a stop, when followed by a stop, and parallels the French term “implosion” (p.
71 ). Chakrabarti (1996: 121) explains the position taken by the RgVeda Prātisākhya:
When contact consonant and semi-vowel stand after ʋisarga then that ʋisarga changes into
“r” and that “r” goes on the top of the next consonant. In all these consonants, which stand in
the end, their abhinidhāna takes place. Semi-vowels, when followed by themselves even if
nasalised, suffer abhinidhāna.
Varma (1961) equates abhinidhāna with “incomplete articulation.” As pandeya (1987) points
out, between C and C in CC, there is a very brief gap. For example, the Guajarati words/
chakli/ and / bakri/, are written as /chakali/ and /bakari/ even though they are pronounced as
/chakli/ and /bakri/. According to the ancient Indian phoneticians, there is brief but
perceptible break between the two consonants /kl/ and / kr /. Hence, the mātrā value of the
first consonant is increased, which makes it an akṣara. Similarly, consider the following words
from the different modern Indo-Aryan languages:
Spoken Forms written Forms
mukharji: CV CVC CVV mukharaji: CV CV CV CVV
śāktayāna: CVC CV CV CV śākatayana: CV CV CV CV CV
śaltura: CVC CV CV śalatura: CV CV CV CV
marʋadi: CVC CV CV maraʋadi: CV CV CV CV
For a detailed discussion on abhinidhāna, see Allen (1953: 70-71), Varma (1961: 137-45),
Chakrabarti (1996: 121-23); and Basu (2003: 138-46). Basu (2003: 142-44) even has worked out
the number of cases of abhinidhāna in Rgʋeda and Atharvaʋeda prātisākhyas.
Related to the phenomenon of abhinidhāna is the combination of r + consonant known as
sʋarabhakti which means “vowel fragment” (anaptyxis) (Allen 1953:73) Basu explains the
phenomenon as follows.
Visuo-spatial (Topographic) Design of Akṣaras
In the early stages of the development of Brāhmī as a script, the vowels were added on to the
consonants at the edges as diacritic makers. In the current version in the different scripts
derived from Brāhmī, the vowels are added on at the top, at the bottom, at the left, and at the
right. In topographic organisation, the different scripts derived from Brāhmī fall into two
groups. In one group dominated by the Indo-European linguistic section, for example, the
languages Sanskrit, Hindi, and Marathi which use the Devānagarī script, the akṣaras are vertical
in orientation. While in the other group dominated by the Dravidian linguistic side, the
topographic orientation is horizontal and circular, as in the case of the scripts for the languages
Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam (Krishnamurti 2003).
What is characteristically important in the topographic design of Brāhmī akṣaras is the way
the vowels are placed around the consonants. The vowels and consonants are not placed
sequentially as independent letters in words, as it is done in Roman and other European
alphabetic scripts. In Brāhmī, akṣaras are visual configurations, which stand spatially separated
from one another. Akṣaras are sequenced in words; and they are phonological units, mainly
larger than phonemes. The Brāhmī reader does not need to segment words into linguistic units
and there is no ambiguity about what phonemes belong to which akṣaras. The reader facing the
Roman alphabetic system has to recognise the orthographic –linguistic units in the linear letter
sequences. In Brāhmī, the level of linguistic-orthographic structure of words in transparent.
The consonants are assumed to involve the shwa, the mid-central vowel /a/. The presence
of absence of the shwa is marked differently in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian scripts. In Gujarati
and Devānagarī, the absence of the shwa is indicated by a diacritic under the consonant
concerned at the end of words; while in Telugu, it is the presence of the shwa that is indicated:
The superscript called “talakattu” is placed over most consonants; there are exceptions to this
rule (Krishnamurti and Gwyn 1985). In Tamil orthography, this dot is called puḷḷi; the difference
between the pure and vowelled-consonants was specified in the earliest known Tamil grammar
Tolkāppiyam (Rajam 1981). Mahadevan (2003: 198) suggests that those who adapted Aśokan
Prakrit-based Brāhmī to Tamil had to invent the puḷḷi; “to provide what the parent Brāhmī script
lacked, viz. markers for the basic consonants and the short vowels e and o”, Mahadevan
(2003:231) adds that Tolkāppiyam not only describes the puḷḷi as the “natural” adjunct of the
basic consonant and the short vowels e and o, but also uses the expression puḷḷi to denote the
basic consonant itself by transfer of meaning. It is thus clear that this grammatical work must
have been composed after the puḷḷi was invented and had become an integral part of Tamil
writing.
Also noteworthy in the topography of the vertical and the circular orientation is the way the
nasalisation symbol, the anusʋāra, is placed in the two visuo-spartial systems. In Devanāgarī and
Gujarati, the nasalisation dot is placed over the vowel it nasalizes, while in Kannada and Telugu,
the nasalisation is a circle; and it stands independently in a sequence, that is, an independent
akṣara; the nasalisation circle stands for V. As it has been noted earlier, the Indian phoneticians
considered both the vocalic and the consonantal components in the nasalisation process. In
Devanāgarī and Gujarati, the position of the nasalisation dot over an akṣara indicates that it is
treated as a vowel; hence the nasalised vowel akṣara in these scripts is VV, and not VC.
Situating Brāhmī in Indian Linguistic History
In order to situate the emergence of the linguistic design of the unit akṣara in Brāhmī
orthography, some understanding of the chronological frame of the different sign posts before
the actual use of Brāhmī may be helpful. It must be noted that the chronology suggested here is
a hypothesis guided by the available scholarship.
Pāṇini pays homage to Śākalya and many other scholars who contributed to his
understanding of sound production and metrical structure of prosody (Cardona 1997). The
Pre-Pāṇinian language scholars responsible for the creation of phonetic manuals and treatises
are identifiable to some extent. Śākalya segmented the continuous text of Ṛgveda into pāda
forms, known as Ṛgveda Padapātha, as pointed out earlier. Śaunaka composed the phonetic
manual for Ṛgveda known as RgVeda Prātisākhya. (V.K. Verma 1992). Śaunka mentions Yaska, the
lexicographer, and Piṅagaḷa, the metricist. Audavraji is considered to be the creator of
Ṛktantram, the Prātisākhya associated with the Sāmaveda (Suryakanta Shastri 1970). Puspasütram
is a Sāmaveda Prātisākhya (Tarlekar 2001). Apiśali and Śakṭāyana are supposedly associated with
some general phonetic manuals known as Śikṣas. It may be that Pāṇiniya Śikṣa was created by
Pāṇini (Ghosh 1991). Piṅgala is credited with the manual on metrics known as Piṅgala
Chandaḥsŭtra which is assigned “ a tentantive date of 600 BCE by Ghosh (1931:733) and 400
BCE by Chatterjee (1987:81) Scharfe (2005) assigns a much later date to piṅgala.
Kātyāyana’s Vājasaneyī Prātisākhya contains a complete ʋarṇamālā (V.K.Verma 1987:67),
which may be somehow related to the creation of Brāhmī orthography. The concept of
ʋarṇamālā existed before his time, but Kātyāyana gave it the final form Kātyāyana’s Vārttikas
refer to yaʋanallipyam (the Greek script) (Mishra 1996: 22), but does not mention Brāhmī or
Kharoṣṭi. The case of Kātyāyana, the author of Vārttikas, is interesting in understanding the
different schools of grammatical study. Mishra (1996: 23) cites Vedapati Mishra’s (1970) Hindi
publication which argues that “there is a very intimate relationship between Kātyāyana and the
Kāśakṛtsna grammar belonging to the Aindra tradition.” The Aindra system differs from the
Pāṇinīyan model of grammatical analysis; supposedly Pāṇinī transformed the simple Aindra
concepts and terms into an elegant formulaic model. Burnell (1976: 10-11) compares
Tholkāppiyam, Katantra, and Kaccāyana as the derivatives of the Aindra system with Pāṇinī.
Also Burnell (1976) stresses that “the terms used in Tholkāppiyam, Katantra, and Kaccāyana all
hang together as parts of one system, and the resemblance holds good throughout “ (p. 19).
Burnell (1976: p. 62) suggests Kaccāyana’s grammar of Pāli belongs “to a system for older than
the fourth century CE”
It must be noted that most of the scholarly treatises in ancient Indian linguistics have early
and late forms, in several recensions in some cases (Belvalkar 1998). In the case of the
Prātisākhyas, the early forms were created before Pāṇinī and the revisions took place
contemporaneously or after his time (Deshpande 1997). It should be noted that, in Scharf ’s
(1977, 2005) perspective, the Prātisākhyas were composed much later. The case of the time of
Pāṇinīya Śikṣa is particularly puzzling. In general, it is understood that Pāṇinī refers to the term
lipi which is not necessarily Brāhmī. interestingly; Pāṇinīya Śikṣa contains a list of common
errors in recitation practice. Among the six types of “bad reciters” are those who use “a written
text at the time of recitation” (Ghosh 1991: 72). It is difficult to decide whether Pāṇinīya Śikṣa
was composed after the use of writing began in India or the practice of writing existed a few
centuries before Aśoka’s inscriptions, that is, the third century before the historical Christian
Era. It is possible that Pāṇinīya Śikṣa was enlarged after it was first composed, especially after
the beginning of writing in India.
For the emergence of Brāhmī orthography, there are two developments between Ṛgʋeda
Saṁhitā and Asoka’s inscriptions, which are crucial: akṣarasamāmnāya and ʋarnamālā. Deshpande
(1997: 35) suggests that “Sometime around 700 BCE, a standardised ordered alphabet of
Sanskrit called akṣarasamāmnāya had come into existence. By this process, I am referring to an
ordered presentation or groping of Sanskrit sounds, with no necessary connection with any form of
writing” (italics added).The other event is the development of ʋarnamālā, which is also an
articulatorily-based inventory of ʋarṇas. according to Deshpande (1997:49) the term ʋarṇa”…
is very much like the English term’ letter, ’ making oblique reference to the art of writing” (italics
added) consider the following hypothetical sketch for the linguistic genesis of Brāhmī:
Linguistic Contextx for the Emergence of Brāhmī
2300-1900 BC Harappan Writing
1000 BCE Ṛgʋeda saṁhita
1000-600 BCE Ṛgʋedapāṭha:Śākalya
Early forms of Prātisākhyas and Śikṣās Śaunaka, Audavraji, Śakaṭayana,
Apisali Spoken akṣara, mātrā sʋara ʋarņa, anusʋāra, abhinidhāna, ʋarnamālā,akṣarasamāmnāya, Brāhmīkaraņa
500 BCE Panini’s Aṣṭadhyāyi: Reference to Greek Script ( yaʋanāni lipi)Persian ruler Darius I
conquered North –West India
300 BCE Greek ambassadors with Candragupta Maurya, Kharoṣṭī
250 BCE Kātyāyana’s Varttikas: Reference to Greek Script Kātyāyana’s
Vājasaneyī Prātisākhya
250 BCE Aśoka’s Inscriptions in Prakrit-based Brāhmī
200BCE Tamil-based Brāhmī (Early) Inscriptions, Sinhala-based Brāhmī
(Early) Inscriptions
150BCE Patańjali’s Mahābhāsya: Reference to Brāhmī and Kharoṣṭī
100BCE Kaccāyana’s Pāli Grammar, Katantra Sanskrit Grammar,
Tolkāppiyam
100CE Sanskrit –based Brahmi Inscriptions
On purely empirical grounds, the beginning of Brāhmī is assigned to the middle of the
third century BCE. However, the linguistic milestone necessary for the foundation of Brāhmī
orthography were available after the sixth century. The intellectual and socio-political climate
for a literate society was also emerging at the time. As Verma 1971, suggests, by this period in
India, the tribal organisation of the society has given to territorial units and a large number of
the janapadas had come into being, vying with each other for supremacy. Growth of towns and
development of trade and commerce is another distinct feature of this age. Probably money
was invented during this period. In the field of religion and philosophy, the age is still more
noteworthy. There was a very marked tendency towards doubt and dissent and free speculation.
Also, as Ramesh (1984: 66) argues, Brāhmī was already a “pan –Indian “script when Aśoka
decided to use it.
The earliest ancient grammatical treatise that refers to orthography clearly is the Tamil
grammar known as Tolkāppiyam. According to Mahalingam (1974:117)”……the period of the
Tolkāppiyam is fixed somewhere about the second half of the first millennium BCE if not
earlier.” This Tamil grammar refers to some specific forms of graphic units and states the
general rules. The rules about pure consonants and consonants with the inherent shwa is stated
specifically: The absence of the shwa is indicated by a dot called puḷḷi over consonants, the
practice common today in Tamil and other Dravidian scripts (Mahalingam 1974: 121). The puḷḷi
was introduced as a vowel-suppressing device in Tamil Brāhmī. Mahadevan (2003: 231) assigns
Tolkāppiyam to the period between the second century and the fourth century CE . It is possible
that Tolkāppiyam was not written by one person, as it seems to have different layers (Scharfe
2005). Hence, there may be an earlier version. While Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyiī includes the akṣara –
samāmnāya without any reference to Brāhmī orthography, Tolkāppiyam refers “to the aural as
well as the graphemic representations of speech sounds and does not include anything like the
akṣara – samāmnāya (Rajam 1981: 15). According to Scharfe (2005), Pāṇini’s akṣara – samāmnāya
presupposes an alphabetic (written) list as its base.
In north India and upper south India (Karnataka), Brāhmī was used for centuries mainly for
inscriptional and administrative purposes. Also important is the point that this Brāhmī was
Prakrit-based, not Sanskrit –based. The Tamil region in lower south India (Tamil Nadu) began
using Brāhmī much earlier, and it was fitted to Tamil phonology, in constrast to the Prakrit-
based Brāhmī used in upper south India (Mahadevan 2003). The first attempt to record
Buddha’s teachings known as the Pāli canon was made in Sri Lanka during the first century,
specifically during the regin of Vaṭṭagāminī in 29 BCE (Warder 1967; Goyal 1979: 23). As
pointed out earlier, the Vedic people who were basically pastoral, composed orally and used the
practice of recitation as an aid to oral memory. On the other hand, Buddha’s followers felt the
need to transform his teachings held in the heads of some monks to preserve in writing. The
Buddhists rebelled against the Brāhmanical practice of oral memory and the worship of speech
as the cosmic cow.
They accepted the need for the available technology of writing and the recently developed
Brāhmī orthography. As T. P. Verma (1979:104) suggests,”…. The Brāhmī script was perhaps
the creation or invention of these people. Anxious as they were to record the teachings of the
Buddha in a local dialect, they created a new script of 46 letters which could serve their
purpose. “ Verma (1979: 104) also attributes the motivation for the development of Brāhmī, in
particular, and the need for writing, in general, to the intellectual –social –political change in the
sixth century BCE in India, especially “the marked tendency towards doubt and dissent and free
speculation”.
Relationship Between Kharoṣṭi and Brāhmī
The script known as Kharoṣṭi is important in understanding Brāhmī, especially in terms of the
relationship between the two (Das Gupta 1958; Mangalam 1990; Salomon 1998). Kharoṣṭi
prevailed mainly in “the territory along and around the Indus, Swat, and Kabul River Valleys of
the modern North-West Frontier province of Pakistan; that is, the ancient Gandhāra and
adjoining region” (Salomon 1998: 43-44). This script was associated with the inscriptions in the
Shāhbāzgaṛhī and Mansehrā rock edicts of Emperor Aśoka dated to the middle of the third
century BCE (Das Gupta 1952). Kharoṣṭi flourished during the reigns of the Indo-Greek,
Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian, and Kuṣāṇa kings from the first century BCE to the second
century CE; it fell out of general use in South Asia by sometimes in the third century CE
(Salomon 1998: 46). According to Salomon (1998: 54), the view proposed by several experts
that Kharoṣṭi is older than Brāhmī is “fairly certain” and “ if the theory of an invention of
Brāhmī under Asoka, for which pervasive arguments have been recently proposed by von
Hinuber and Falk, is correct, the common graphic system of both scripts must have been
originally developed in Kharoṣṭi and later adapted and refined in Brāhmī”.
However, Salomon (1998:54) suggests that a direct linear connection between Kharoṣṭi and
Brāhmī is unlikely: “The paleographic dissimilarity of the great majority of the basis characters
of the two scripts suggests that Kharoṣṭi and Brāhmī essentially developed separately…”
The phonological organisation of the akṣara in Kharoṣṭi is a fascinating problem for
research. As in Brāhmī, the Kharoṣṭi akṣara represents basically (C) (C) V. The samples given in
Mangalam (1990: 64-71) do not show the codaic, that is, post-vocalic consonantal akṣara. The
anusʋāra, as in “kham, gham, jam” is treated the way it is in Brāhmī. As Mangalam (1990: 6)
points out, “ In spite of its direction from right to left, its nature is Indian, specially in attaching
anusʋāra and medial vowels and in the formation of ligatures.” Look at the akṣaras in Kharoṣṭi
(Mangalam 1990: 17-21):
Words Akṣaras
Demetrius di me tri ya sa CV CV CCV CV CV
Dionysius di u ni si ya sa CV V CV CV CV
Indravarma im dra va rma VV CCV CV CCV
Bhanumitra bha nu mi tra CV CV CV CCV

Note that in the akṣara / im/ in the word / Indravarma/ the / m/ stands for the anusʋāra
which increases the mātrā value of the nasalised vowel, hence, / im/ = VV. The samples of the
Kharoṣṭi akṣaras given by Mangalam are from the Aśokan inscriptions.
190 The Indic Scripts
The phonological organisation of the askara in the Kharosti manuscripts of the first
century CE described by Glass (2000: 160) is more complex in terms of the pre – vocalic
consonants: ska,rkha, rga,sa,rtha,lpa,mra,psya,tsma. Note that the askara still stands for
consonant(s) plus vowel, that is, there is no consonant after the vowel.
The issue of the linguistic underpinnings of the aksara in Kharosti relative to Brahmi is
centrally important in understanding the relationship between the two scripts. The treatment of
conjunct characters (ksa, mra, vha, sta), diacritic conjuncts (post – consonantaly, pre-consonantal,
post-consonantal, etc.), anusvara, virama, and visarga presented by Glass (2000:114-38) appears to
reflect the teachings of the prātisākhyas and Śiksās.
Salomon (1998: 22) suggests that Falk (1993), “influenced by the arguments of Halevy, sees
Brāhmī as an intentional creation of the time of Aśoka, created on the model of Kharostī and
Greek.” It is apparent that Falk’s conclusion is related to Brāhmī as a script, that is, its visuo-
spatial topography, not its linguistically-based orthography. Salomon (1998: 22) considers the
orthographic features of Brāhmī and argues that “The development in Brāhmī of a system for
the differentiation of vowel quantity can be more easily seen as indigenous, in the light of long-
standing Indian tradition of sophisticated phonetic analysis, than as influence from Greek.”
 The absence of the differentiated short and long vowels in Asokan Kharostī inscriptions is
considered by Pandey (1957) in support of argument rejecting the Aramaic roots of the
Kharosī script. Scharfe (2002: 392) suggests that the lack of differentiation of vowel length in
the Kharostī has nothing to do with the phonetic or phonemic reality of other Prakrit languages
underlying the inscriptions. It derives ultimately from the technique of Semitic writing that
essentially only wrote the consonants – with the occasional option to mark a vowel with the
letter yod or waw (for / i/ or/ u/) in the so-called plene writing.
The nature of relation between Kharostī and Brāhmī orthographic systems, not so much
the topographic organisations, is clearly a critically important problem for research. How the
two orthographies represented Prakrit in the Aśokan inscriptions, specifically the structure of
the aksaras, needs to be considered.
Towards Brāhmī Orthography: Historical Developmental Phases
It is now time to synthesize the different observations and insights cited so far. These
seemingly unrelated ideas seem to make sense when they are considered from a coherent
perspective, which can take into account the various contexts in the linguistic history of India
from the Vedic times to Classic Sanskrit. The thread linking the different steps leading to
Prakrit-, Tamil-, and Sanskrit – based Brāhmī orthography is a hypothesis grounded in the
synthesised available research findings in paleography, epigraphy, and Sanskrit linguistics.
The Indo-Iranian and Proto-Elamo – Dravidian people arrived in the Indian sub-continent
by about 3000 BCE with farming as an occupation(Renfrew 2000: 423; Bellwood 2000: 127).
Within the framework of pastoral life some Indo-Aryan families cultivated habits of literary
composition and learning without using the technique of writing that was developed by the
Indus-Valley Civilisation, which flourished at the time on the Indian soil. The Indo – Aryans
developed and practiced the art and science of orality and avoided the use of writing for
centuries.
The Vedas were composed orally and the techniques of recitation helped the Vedic families
to preserve their creations in oral memory. This process required the transformation of the
Samhitāpātha into Padapātha, Kramapātha, and the vikrtis. The corollary of this process led to
the creation of the Prātisākhya and Śiksa literature: This process stimulated and fostered the
development of phonetics, metrics, and grammar which created aksara –samāmnāya and
varnamālā. Soon the natural process of socio-linguistic variation occurred and the need to
preserve the Vedic speech patterns led to the movement for standardised speech known as
brāhmīkarana.
The process of brāhmīkarana and the devices of aksara – samāmnāya and varnamālā prepared
the linguistic foundation for the emergence of Brāhmī orthography. The prevalence of Prakrit
was fostered by Buddha’s decision to use the language of the ordinary people to communicate
his teachings. When Emperor Aśoka embraced Buddha’s way of life and ordered the creation
of the inscriptions to promulgate Buddhism, the available shapes of the different of letters,
perhaps borrowed from Aramaic or Greek, were aligned with the varnamālā and aksara –
samāmnāya and adapted to Prakrit phonology to develop Prakrit orthography. The Vedic
linguistic unit aksara fitted the sound system of Prakrit easily as the units were basically(C) (C)
V.
The socio-linguistic forces underlying brāhmīkarana correspond with the cognitive changes
taking place at the time. Verma (1971) points to these changes that took place India during the
sixth century BCE. Similar changes took place in Greece, Iran, and China at this time. These
changes appear to mark the beginning of a literate society.
As Buddha’s preaching spread to lower south India, the sound system of Tamil was fitted to
the Brahmi unit aksara, which found a way to represent word – final consonants. The treatment
of the word – final consonant as an aksara adopted for Tamil was indeed an important step in
the development of Brāhmī orthography. In Tamil
Brāhmī, the pulli was invented to indicated the final vowelless consonants. When Sanskrit
regained its original dominant position, the Prakrit and Tamil –based Brāhmī orthography was
revised for Sanskrit phonology. The problem of word – final consonants in Sanskrit once again
needed to be solved.
The question of who developed Brāhmī orthography may be answered in terms of the
concepts of caraṇa and pariṣad. Caraṇa was a group of scholars in charge of a certain tradition
of a given Veda; the Prātisākhyas were named after the caraṇas. The pariṣads were also such
groups that met traditionally to discuss and determine Vedic pronunciation, grammar, and
interpretation. Such groups included what Patanjali called vaiyākaraṇas (Puri 1990: 146). The
Prātisākhyas were the results of such pariṣads. In the context of the possibility that Brāhmī
orthography was created by such a pariṣad. Also worth considering is the role of Buddhist
monks in this enterprise (T.P. Verma1971).
The complicated issue of when and how the use of writing began in ancient India needs to
be reopened and considered in terms of the historical development of Bāhmī orthography. In a
footnote on p. 36, Burnell (1976) suggests an important point of context for this issue “. by the
time of the redaction of the Prātisākhyas to their present form the Vedas had already been
reduced to writing.” It must be, emphasised, as Burnell (1976:36) points out: “Much in the
Prātisākhyas is, it appears to me, older than written vedas, much is later.”
Also necessary is the consideration of the issue of the influence of Aramaic language and
script in the development of Brāhmī orthography. The Achaemenid ruler Darius I conquered
Gandhāra, Sindh, and part of the Punjab in 500 BCE (Tarn 1966: 130. The Aramaic script was
used to represent non-Aramaic languages for official communication in Assyrian, Babylonian
and Persian (Achaemenid) empires, including the north-west Indian provinces. Mukherjee (198:
44-45) suggests that the Aramaic language and script, used in administration and also in trading
circles in the Achaemenid empire, could have been continued to be known to a class of
population in parts of the north-western section of the Indian subcontinent and its borderlands
in a period, when not long after the fall of the Achaemenids in 330 BCE, The Mauryas began
to rule there”.
Aśoka’s edicts in Aramaic and Greek show the prevalence of the use of these scripts during
his reign. The way Aramaic and Greek Scripts were adopted to represent Prakrit phonology
must provide interesting and relevant insights toward the development of Brāhmī
orthographies for Prakrit, Tamil and Sanskrit.
The possible influence of Greek is also a relevant issue. There was written communication
between the Mauryan rulers and Greece. Nilakanta Sastri (1988:80-81) points out that “India
and Greece met in the Persian empire some two centuries before the time of Alexander” and
“Not a few of Alexander’s officers and companions were men of high attainments in literature
and science...” Seleucus and Megasthenes met Candragupta Maurya, Asoka’s grandfather.
Candragupta Maurya possibly married Seleucus’s daughter, which might imply that Asoka as
well as his father Bindusāra became familiar with the Greek alphabet (Goyal 1979: 3). Thapar
(1997: 129) points out that “Interest in India on the part of the various Greek kings is apparent
from the fact that they sent ambassadors to the Indian court, particularly during the Mauryan
period.” Banerjee (1981: 163) adds an interesting useful perspective on the issue of Greek
influence:
It is to a large extent possible that the Brāhmī lipi was at first written from right to left, and
that its change in direction is attributable to the contact with the Greek mode of writing.
It is equally probable that Indians borrowed from the Greeks, the usage of the feather, of the tablets,
even of the book, if we can infer from the names which they had given to these diverse objects such as
ink (malan), kalama (kalamos), pustaka, book (in Aristophanes pyzion, tablets to write upon) perhaps also
phalaka (plakos, plaque) and even pitaka (pittakion, tablet. Finally it is perfectly admissible that India had
taken from the Greeks the idea of the inscriptions on stone, and of the legends on money.
As pointed out earlier, the hypothesis about the influence from Aramaic and / or Greek
sources on the visuo – spatial features of the Brāhmī script is hard to falsify. It is also clear that
“The pattern of the phonemic analysis of the Sanskrit language achieved by Vedic Scholars is
much closer to the Brāhmī script than the Greek Alphabet (Scharfe 2002: 392) The essential
role of Indian linguistics in the creation of Brāhmī orthography is especially apparent in the
distinct initial vowel signs. As Scharfe (2002: 393) argues, why did the creators of Brāhmī go
their own way in the denotation of initial vowels, creating discrete letters for each of them?
One could suspect Greek influence, but Greek influence cannot explain the precise notation of
vowel length in Brāhmī, and it would have failed to promote a true alphabetic script. As the
notation of vowel length can be fully explained by the advances of Indian phoneticians and
grammarians, we should look at these achievements for inspiration when trying to explain the
initial vowel signs of Brāhmī. In the “semi-syllabic” Indian scripts (both in Kharoṣtī and
Brāhmī) the vowels are marked on the preceding consonant: ka (by default), ki, ku, etc. (by
diacritics). But how could an initial vowel be marked by a diacritic?
The critical question in the historical development of Brāhmī as a writing system is the
series of correlated changes that took place after the Aśokan inscriptions (according to Verma
1971: 82-83).
The first century CE is the most important period of the history of the Brāhmī script simply
because the changes introduced at the beginning of the century proved to be a turning point,
paving the way for accelerated changes and consequently developing into regional scripts.
For the first four countries of its history, the Brāhmī script remained practically the same
for the whole sub-continent. But by the end of the fourth century CE, script –wise, India was
split up into many regional pockets. Until the close of the first century BC, the Brāhmī script
developed uninterrupted on the old traditional lines established during the time of Aśoka.
Verma (1971: 17) identifies “the close of the third century BCE as a “transitional period “and
suggests that “During this period, Brāhmī freed itself from the stereotyped formula of Aśoka’s
imperial mode of expression and tended towards popularity.” During this, what Verma (1971:
17) calls, “the age of experiments,” writing appeared on the coins for the first time. The
“movement towards the popularisation of the art of writing” during the first century BCE and
the introduction of the pen style during the early first century CE occurred while Sanskrit was
regaining its original dominant position. The transition from Prakrit-based to Sanskrit-based
Brahmi orthography must be easy as the varnamālā was available in its complete form.
The picture of the developmental changes painted by Salomon (1996) succinctly captures
the critically important signposts:
All early documents in both Brāhmī and Kharoṣtī are written in various middle Indo-Aryan (“Prakrit”)
dialects, and it appears that the scripts originally developed in connection with these languages. The early
forms of these scripts thus lack signs for certain sounds, such as the vowels r, l, ai, and au, the velar nasal,
and the visarga (unvoiced aspirate h), which occur in Sanskrit but not in Prakrit. These characteristics begin
to appear only around the first century BCE, when we first find Brahmi inscriptions in Sanskrit. It is also
then that vowelless consonants in final position are first represented, usually by a reduced form of the
normal consonant with a horizontal line above. From this time onward the phonetic repertoire of
Sanskrit comes to be the defining framework of Brāhmī and the Indic scripts derived from it.
Perhaps the most telling evidence pertaining to the direct role of ancient linguistics is
observed in the way the original Prakrit-based Brahmi was adapted to represent Tamil
phonology during the second century BCE. The orthographic unit akṣara in prakrits Brāhmī
stood for the open syllable: (C) (C) V (V). Look at the following quotation from the Rummindei
pillar Edict of Aśoka marking the spot where Buddha was born (Mahadevan 2003: 226):
dē va na pi ye na pi ya da si na lā vī sa ti va sa bhi dsi tē na
a ta na ā gā ca ma hi yi tē hi da bu dhē ja tē sa kya mu ni
As Mahadevan (2003: 226) points out, prakrits – Brāhmī orthography was “unsuitable for
Tamil, which abounds in final consonants. “Mahadevan (2003: 226) suggests,
Tamil which has much fewer consonant clusters than Indo-Aryan (mostly geminates and nasal-
homorganic clusters) does not also need the saṁyuktākṣara system of writing. Those who were
responsible for the adaptation of the Brahmi script for Tamil must also have decided to modify the
notation for medial vowels to suit Tamil phonetics. A period of bold and innovative experimentation
followed during which no less than four alternative systems of vowel notations were evolved, all different
from one another and from that of the parent Brāhmī script.
Just take the examples of the presence of voiced consonants in Prakrit-Brāhmī and the
absence of voiced consonants in Tamil – Brāhmī and the creation of the pulli system of medial
vowel notation (Mahadevan 2003: 248):
There are no voiced consonants in the graphemic inventory of the Tamil-Brahmi script, even though they
may be present in the Brahmi script and known to the local scribes as proved by the exceptional
occurrence of dhammamdhamam in two of the earliest inscriptions. The presence of voiced consonants in
contemporary prakrit inscriptions on pottery from ancient Tamil sites like Arikamedu also shows
familiarity with the full range of the Brahmi script. And yet Tamil words in the Tamil –Brahmi
 inscriptions are written without exception employing only the voiceless consonants of the Brahmi script
in initial as well as medial (inter –vocalic post-nasal) positions.
Following the dictates of the Sanskrit grammarians, the creators (s) of Brāhmī assumed that every
consonant contained the medial vowel schwa. The absence of the schwa in word-final consonants is
indicated by a diacritic, which is placed over the consonant grapheme in Brahmi. The creator (s) of
Tamil-Brahmi came up with the idea of marking the basis, that is, vowelless consonant with a dot called
pulli, which has survived in modern Tamil orthography Mahadevan (2003: 230) suggests that firstly, it
appears that the removal of the “inherent “a from the consonantal symbol was too radical a
departure from all other Indian systems of writing which still follow the principle.
Secondly, as the syllables ending in a outnumber all others in Tamil, it is more economical to
treat the unmarked consonant symbol as having the “inherent” a and invent a marker (pulli) to
denote the relatively infrequent basic consonant (p. 230).
The pulli system was developed before the time of Tolkāppiyam, which describes the
notation in precise phonetic terms.
The phonology of the Prakrit differs from the sound system of Sanskrit in specific details.
For example, the Sanskrit r and the diphthongs ai and au are absent; “The vowel r-normally
becomes a-in an initial syllable in the west and i-in other regions in the third century BCE
(Mehendale 1948: ii). Mehendale’s (1948: xxii) study also shows that “The orthography of
prakrit inscriptions allows a single consonant to serve the purpose of a double one.” In the case
of the consonants, the three sibilants s, ṥ, and ṣ are represented by the dental s. It must be noted
that “It is only the north western inscriptions of Aśoka and the later Kharoṣtī inscriptions
which preserve the distinction between the three sibilants” (Mehendale 1948: xxiii).
Scharfe (2005) makes a point, which needs serious reconsideration: Pāṇini’s aksara
samamnaya and the pratyaksara-sastras presuppose in alphabetic base. In the Ṥiva -Ṥastra which
consists of the aksara – samamnaya, Panini arranges the varnas into this samamnaya “for the
purpose of having the various pratyaksaras on which he bases his work “(Sarma 1968: 36).
Sharma (2002: 32) points out that “The Ṥiva -Ṥastra is a set of fourteen aphorisms enumerating
the sound segments (varna-samamnaya) of the Sanskrit language in the order most conductive to
forming the abbreviatory terms (pratyahara) used in the grammar.” Cardona (1999: 184) suggests
that “scholars generally accept that Panini’s sound catalog bears a historical relation with
comparable lists of sounds found in the Pratisakhya works and works on phonetics (siksa). The
issue of the role of the Ṥiva-Ṥastra in Panini’s Astadhyayi warrants an explanation of the terms
anubandha and pratyahara. Abhyankar and Ṥukla’s (1986). A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar says
anubandhanais “a letter or letters added to a work before or after it, only to signify somer specific
purpose … These anubandha letters are termed it.” In this context, the term Pratyahara means
“bringing together several letters (or words in a few cases, such as roots or nouns) by
mentioning the first and the last only for the sake of brevity. It is a means to obtain brevity of
utterance. The term pratyahara is generally used in connexion with brief terms such as ag, ak,
ach, hal, and the like, created by Panini in his grammar by taking any particular letter and
associating it with any mute final letter (anubandha) of the fourteen Ṥiva-Ṥastras with a view to
including all letters beginning with the letter uttered and ending with the latter that precedes the
mute letter.
Cardona (1969: 12) points out that, according to Patanjali, “the ordering of sounds and the
placing of anubandha are both intended for the formation of pratyaksaras to be used in rules.
“According to Cardona (1969:12) Panini used only forty – one pratyaharas. The obvious question
is how such abstractions can be preserved in oral memory without the support of a written text,
Panini’s use of the device of pratyahara is more like the prototype of literature genre, not of oral
transmission and storage Kielhorn (1963: 50) rightly wonders about the question by Panini used
the aksara samamnaya in the first place:
When we are told that Panini intended to teach the correct formation of words actually used, we may well
raise the question why he should have commenced his grammar with an enumeration of the letters (italics
added).
Panini‘s pratyaharas are like what Havelock (1963: 182) calls “Kantian imperatives,
mathematical relationships, and analytical statements” which are characteristic of written
language. As Rubin (1995:60) suggests,
The observation that oral traditions avoid the abstract, and the theoretical claim that the abstract can
enter when writing is present to lessen to lessen the demands on memory, are made convincingly by
Havelock (1963, 1978) in his discussions of Homeric epic and the Greek written literature that followed
it.
The possibility of Panini’s access to writing jells with the developmental track for Brahmi
orthography, specially the creation of the aksara as a written unit, presented here. Panini’s time
period has been assigned to the fifth century BCE by most of the Paniniyas, including Cardona
(1969, 1997) and Sharma (2002). The advances in linguistic analysis leading to the complete
varmnamala and aksara-samamnaya, the process of brahmikarana, the contacts with the Greek and
Aramaic scripts must have paved the way for some form of Sanskrit-based Brahmi. The
absence of empirical evidence does not obviate the theoretical possibility of a Sanskrit-based
Brahmi during the fifth century BCE, that is, before the appearance of prakrit-based Brahmi in
the Asokan inscriptions during the third century BCE.
What is necessary in developing a proper perspective on the historiography of Brahmi is the
need for an understanding of early India (Thapar 1992). It is now being realised that the Vedic
society was not a homogeneous Indo-Aryan speaking community. The contact between the
Indo-Aryans who spoke Vedic Sanskrit and the people who spoke Elamo-Dravidian were
significant from the beginning (Basham 1979; McAlpin 1979; Deshpande 1979; Sjorberg 1992).
Southworth’s (1979 203) evidence based upon lexical borrowings between the Indo-Aryan and
the Dravidian groups indicates that
Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers must have been in contact with each other for some
time before the composition of the Ṛgveda. Assuming the position that it was composed in the
period 1500-100 BCE, then the period of contact must be placed around the middle of the
second millennium BCE at the latest.
Southworth (1979:203) further suggests that “the contact with Dravidian involved the
group of Old Indo-Aryan speakers in the Panjab as a whole, before the beginning of the
movement towards the east and south of the subcontinent.”
 The borrowings of linguistic, cultural, and occupational features between the Elamo-
Draviḍian and the Indo-Aryan communities suggest that they interacted in some substantial
ways. How these communities approached the Harappans and their literate civilisation is also an
important question. Thapar (1992:83) suggests the necessary direction.
The claim that the earliest of the Vedic texts, the Ṛgveda dating back to the second
millennium BCE is linguistically purely Aryan is now under question for it is being argued that the
text already registers the presence of non-Aryan speakers. The later Vedic texts show an even
greater admixture of non-Aryan and specifically when dealing with certain areas of activity,
such as agriculture. The emergent picture might suggest that the speakers of Indo –Aryan may
been in a symbiotic relationship with speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, with a mutual adopting
of not only vocabulary and linguistic structure in a bi-lingual situation but also technologies and
religious practices and beliefs.
The contact between the Vedic people and the Harappans might solve the problem of
where the idea of a writing system was acquired. There are substantive arguments which
suggest that the Harappan writing involves a Draviḍian linguistic substrate (Parpola 1994).
Southworth (1979: 208) is inclined to support Fairservice’s (1992) hypothesis linking the
Harappan and the Draviḍian people linguistically. Deshpande’s (1979)) attempt to trace the
genesis of retroflex sounds in the Ṛgveda leads tom an interesting observation on the
representation of the retroflex and dental signs. In the context of the hypothetical derivation of
these sounds in Brāhmī from the phenomenon, Deshpande b(1979:272-73) comments on
Buhler (1895:66) and points out that a single sign probably served in the beginning to express
both s and ṣ and the two separate signs were developed later out of his original representative
of the phonecian samech. As the Sanskrit grammarians teach, the sound s changes to ṣ under the
influence of the preceding i, u, r, e, ai, o, au, k-series r, or l. It is quite possible that originally ṣ
was looked upon only as an allophone of s and was not distinguished from s in writing.
Gradually as s became phonemically different from the original s through changes in its
distribution, s and ṣ came to be distinguished in writing. The derivation of the Brāhmī sign for l
and ḍ may indicate a similar evolution. Buhler has amply demonstrated that Indian grammarians
and phoneticians must have been involved in the formation of the Brāhmī script.
The different issues related to the Aryan communities centuries before the rise of Brāhmī
suggest insight into the linguistic origin and underpinnings of Brāhmī orthography.
Brāhmī Akṣara and Current Model of Syllable Structure
In current phonology, there are at least three models of syllable structure that are relevant to
the phonological design of the written akṣara proposed in this paper (vennemann 1988;
Carstairs –McCarthy 1999). In the approach that has influenced psycho-linguistic research, the
syllable is divided into two major units, the onset and the rime. The onset includes only
consonant(s), while the rime involves two constituents: nucleus and coda consists of a
consonant. The bond between the vocalic nucleus and the coda, that is, the rime, is considered
natural (kiparsky 1979):
Syllable
 onset rime nucleus coda
The other model divides the syllable into” body” and coda. The body consists of the onset
and the nucleus, while the coda is the same:
Syllable
body coda
onset nucleus
The metrical approach divides the syllable into two units based on the concept of mora:
Syllable
onset nucleus coda
mora mora
200 The Indic Scripts
The mora is a timing unit, which corresponds with a short vowel. The duration of a
diphthong or a long vowel takes two morae. The consonants (s) in the onset play no role in
timing, hence, have no phonological weight; while the coda is a timing unit and carries weight.
Hayes (1995: 51) suggests that the pre-vocalic consonant within a syllable “prosodically inert”
and adds: “assign a mora to a post-vocalic consonant within a syllable. “As it was pointed out
earlier, the corresponding term for mora as a timing unit that the ancient Indian linguistics used
and considered in great detail was mātrā.
Obviously, the onset + nucleus, that is, (C ) (C )(C ) V ( V)or the codaic consonant
organisation of the akṣara corresponds with the current models which divide the syllable into
onset + nucleus (body) and onset +nucleus and coda. The structure of the written akṣara does
not favoured the hypothesis about the rime as a natural unit. According to Kirparsky (1979), the
rime is a natural unit. The rhyme is also not favoured as a natural unit. As Kubozono (1989:
254) indicates, in Japanese “the linguistic evidence from the language hints at cohesiveness
between the onset and the peak rather than between the peak and the coda.”
Recent analysis of syllable structure and its constituents in the different languages of the
world suggest that “the onset is an immediate constituent of the syllable whereas the coda is
not, and the onset is always attached moraically to the nucleus” (Carstairs –McMcCargty 1999:
141-42). What was realised by the ancient Indian phoneticians ad grammarians who worked out
the design of the akṣara as an orthographic unit seems to be close to modern linguistics.
The phonological model underlying the written akṣara is also relevant in relation to the
sonority principle. According to the theory of Dependency phonology (Anderson and Durand
1987), only syllables are serialised lexically: At the lexical level, syllables individually consist of
bundles of segments which again are arranged in sub-bundles of onset and rime, that is,
linearity takes places derivatively. The dependency principle so far corresponds with the view of
the spoken akṣara propounded by the Ṛgveda prātisākhya. However, the core principle of
sonority in Dependency phonology is violated by the orthographic akṣara. The sonority scale
operates as follows:
Stop > fricative >nasal >liquid > approximant > vowel
 That is so far as sonority is concerned, the vowel is the highest, followed by the semi-vowel,
the liquid, nasal, fricative and stop: The sonority of segments must decrease towards the edges
of a syllable. Look at the following syllables and akṣaras;
Words Syllables Akṣaras
at man at man a tma n
sarsvatī sa ras va tī sa ra sva tī
lakṣmi lakṣmī lakṣmi
In the first case, the sonority principle is observed by both the syllables and the akṣaras: The
vowel / a / in the syllable / at/ is followed by a stop and the vowel in the syllable / man / is
preceded and followed by a stop. The sonority scale is not violated by the akṣaras in the word /
ātman/, which is the case in general. However, consider the following examples where the
sonority principle is not observed:
Words syllables Akṣaras
Carca car ca ca rca
Bhārgava bhār gava bhā rga va
Candra cn dra ca ndra
In the first two examples, the akṣaras rcā / and / rga / allow the liquid / r / to precede the
affricate/ c/ and the stop/ g /. Similarly, in the third example, the akṣara / ndra/ allows the
nasal/ n/ to precede/ the stop/ d /. According to the sonority scale, the liquid and the nasal are
more sonorous than the affricate and the stop. It may appear that these examples are restricted
to the liquid/r/. Look at the following examples where the liquid/ r/ and the nasal/ n/ follow
the sonority principle:
Words Syllables Akṣaras
cῡrṇa cῡr ṇa cῡ rṇa
aiṥvarya ai ṥvar ya ai ṥva rya
kṛṣṇa kṛṣ ṇa kṛ ṣṇa
rudradᾱman rud ra dᾱ man ru dra dᾱ ma n
sῡrya sῡr ya sῡ rya
It must be emphasised that the sonority principle is violated only by the written akṣara; the
spoken akṣara follows the sonority scale. Vennemann’s (1991, 2000) model of “syllable cut”
prosody captures the phonological as well as articulatory basis of the Brᾱhmῑ. aksara. Murray
(2002: 92) succinctly explains the essence of venneman’s model: (1) The vowel and consonant
length are independent, that is,, there are only two types of contrasts per syllable: smooth versus
abrupt cut; and (2) Abrupt cut requires a following tautosyllabic consonant; that is, short vowels
do not occur in open syllables, but only in syllables closed by a tautosyllabic consonant or by
ambisyllabicity. Within vennemann’s
The phonological design of akṣara is also relevant to reading acquisition theory and models. The sub-
syllabic units onset and rime do not matter to children learning to recognise akṣaras, which are acquired
 as whole units (patel 2004). It is the same for the children learning to read Kannada, a Draviḍian language
spoken in upper south India (Prakash, Rekha, Nigam, and Karnath 1993). It is only in Grade 5 that
children are taught to analyse the phonological unit into its phonetic components (patel 2004)

Brāhmī as a Writing System

In the context of the perspective of the Brᾱhmῑ unit akṣara, a note on the place of Brᾱhmῑ in
the classification of writing system is warranted. Until recently, Brᾱhmῑ was labelled “semi-
syllabic”. Now the term “abugida “proposed by peter T. Daniels is used widely; the term
involves the concept “alphasyllabary” and is derived “from the Ethiopian word for the aῡxiliary
border of consonants in the signary” (Salomon 1998:15). Daniels (1996: 3) indicates that “ In
an alphabet, the characters denote consonants and vowels. In an abugida, each character
denotes a consonant accompanied by a specific vowel, and the other vowels are denoted by a
consonant modification of the consonant symbols, as in Indic scripts.” Rogers (2005: 205)
offers a clear account of the term abugida in relation to Brᾱhmῑ and Kharoṣṭῑ.
The Kharoṣṭῑ and Brᾱhmῑ abugidas have very similar structures. In both scripts, all
consonants are written. Vowels generally have two allographs: one is a free allograph used only
in word-initial position; the other allograph is bound, and is used word medially and-finally.
Further, the vowel / a/ the most common vowel in Sanskrit, is not written in word –medial
and-final position; the absence of any vowel diactritic predicts the presence of /a/. Thus, /a/
has only one allograph, the one occurring in word-initial position. The Indian tradition
considers / a/ to be inherent in the consonant symbol. Vowels, other than short /a/, are shown
by diacritics on the preceding consonant. Consonant clusters are written as ligatures. The
abugida came to dominate Indian writing and remains the organising principle of the
indigenous scripts of South Asia today.
It should be noted that the characterisation Brᾱhmῑ scripts given by Rogers does not apply
to the Brᾱhmῑ-derived Dravidian scripts,. The addition of the schwa marker piḷḷi has been
discussed earlier in relation to Tamil orthography and Tolkᾱppiyam. The puḷḷi indicates that the
consonant is pure, that is, without the vowel schwa. As pointed out earlier, those who worked
out the orthography of Tamil following the Prakrit-based Brᾱhmῑ decided to mark the
difference between vowelled and pure consonant.
Methodological Remarks
Recently attempts have been made to emphasize the virtues of empirical evidence it relates to
the problems involved in dating Brᾱhmῑ. Because there is no “hard evidence clearly showing
the use of Brᾱhmῑ before the time of Aṥokan Brᾱhmῑ, a the hypotheses suggesting the
possibility of the earlier (developmental) stages (Brᾱhmῑ have been rejected. The history of
scientific progress in all the fields, hard and soft, firmly argues in favour of theoretical thinking.
Empirical evῑdence can simple tilt the balance of probability. As Buddha as well as modern
Philosophy of science suggest, empirical knowledge is always relative and theories involve
mysteries an assumptions, Both theoretical arguments and empirical evidence should be
considered together, not in isolation.
 In the case of Brᾱhmῑ, the influence of ancient Indian linguistics in the formatic of the
orthographic unit aksara is overwhelming. As far as the possibility of Pr Mauryan Brᾱhmῑ is
concerned, the issues related to the intellectual climate and socio political conditions necessary
for the beginning of literacy cannot be ignored. Changes that took place in India during the
sixth and fifth centuries BCE should take into account. The fact that the linguistic devices like
varṇamᾱḷᾱ and akṣara samᾱmnᾱya and the socio-linguistic process of brᾱhmῑkaraṇa were
available do a weight to the theoretical preference for an earlier date for Brᾱhmῑ.
Conclusion
The linguistic design of Brᾱhmῑ orthography and its derivatives used in mode India is rooted in
ancient Indian linguistics, especially phonetics and metrics. The Written akṣara suits the syllable
structures in the different modern Indo-Aryan at Dravidian languages. According to the recent
large-scale survey conducted by P.K. Pandey (2006), the possible syllable structures in the
written languages of India can be captured as: (C) (C) (C) V(C) (C) (C).
The onset as well as the codas can be simple or complex; and there is no language with an
obligatory coda. While the codas are more complex than the onsets Draviḍian languages, in the
Indo-Aryan languages like Bengali and Marathi, the onsets are complex, but the codas are
simple. Both the onset and the codas in Hin are complex: ( C) (C) (C) V(C) (C) (C)
It may be that the structure of written akṣara was first designed for Sanskrit phonology.
However, the available evidence shows that, initially, Brᾱhmῑ orthography was designed for the
different Prakrit languages like Magadhi and Pali. The aksara Prakit phonology was an open
syllable (C)(C )V(V), which suited prakrit phonology did not allow final consonants. The
creation of Brᾱhmῑ orthography for Tamil during the second century BCE required several
linguistically significant changes which included the puḷḷi as a vowelless consonant marker,
representation of final consonants, and so on. The groundwork for Sanskrit -Brᾱhmῑ
orthography was simple, as the varṇamᾱlᾱ was constructed in its present from long before the
appearance of Aṥokan Brᾱhmῑ.
The issue of the origin and time of Brᾱhmῑ has been examined so far mainly in terms of
the topography of the written units, that is, the visuo-spatial shapes of the different akṣaras.
The focus was on the shapes of consonant letters and the way the different vowels were
attached to them. The perspective on Vedic phonetics and metrics in the context of the practice
of orality presented in this paper moves the focus on to orthographic structure of the unit
akṣara. The developmental steps involved in the creation of Sanskrit Brᾱhmῑ orthography from
its earlier Prakrit and Tamil bases reveal a compelling story. The process of brᾱhmῑkaraṇa that
is, standardisation of speech patterns, the phonetic –musical concepts like mᾱtra, svara, aksara,
and the linguistic analytical devices like akṣara -samāmnāya and varṇamālā must have paved the
way for Brᾱhmῑ orthography. The topography of the script, that is, the visuo-spatial features of
the letters, was available in Greek and Aramaic scripts as models in northwest India due to the
Persian and Greek contacts. The question of the origin of Brᾱhmῑ has so far been constricted
by what Chakrabarti (1997) calls “Colonial Indology”.
 The model of syllable structure encoded into akṣara formation has modern currency, as it is
relevant in the context of current models of syllable structure in generative phonology as well
as psycho-linguistic research on reading acquisition. Akṣara stand for (C) (C) (C) v (V) and
post-vocalic long C. This orthographic unit is based upon syllable quantity and the primary
measure of time called mātrā. In current terminology, akṣaras encode bodies and codas. It is
assumed that people can perceive akṣara breaks in a sequence of syllables in words. Children
learning to read in languages using Brahmi scripts find it easy to recognise the akṣara as a
psycho-linguistic unit in the beginning phase (patel 2004). It may also turn out to be critically
useful in mechanical orthographic processing in India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Tibet, Kampuchea,
Thailand Japan and Korea where the script used are Brahmi derivatives.
It is also possible that initially Brāhmī was guided by the early phoneticians, but the process
of influence may have reversed the direction, and the practical thinking involved in developing a
working writing system might have influenced advances in phonetics as a discipline. Ghosh
(1991:53) seems to be inclined to think that it is likely that the graphic system was ahead of the
phonetic development. It is also not unlikely that the interaction between Kharoṣtī and Brāhmī
was mutually beneficial. After all, both the scripts created orthographies for the Prakrit
languages used in their respective linguistic –cultural areas. The conclusion can be schematically
presented as follows:
Indus Valley Civilisation
Aramaic and Greek Vedic Linguistics Scripts in north-west India Brāhmī script Topography
Linguistic Unit: Akṣara, Prakrit, Tamil, Sinhala, Sanskrit.
Indo-Aryan and Dravidian Modern Indic Languages
The statements about the chronological timeframe for specific treatises are educated guesses
guided by the available scholarship. In order to further research on this basically important
topic, this adventure is necessary.
References
1. Abhyankar, K.V. and j.M Shukla (1986), A Dictionary of Sanskrit Grammar, Baroda: Oriental Institute.
2. Allen, W.S (1953), phonetics in Ancient India, Oxford: Oxford University press.
3. (1974, Vox Graeca: A Guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
4. (1987), “The Greek Contribution to the History of Phonetics” in R.E Asher and E.J. A. Henderson (eds.),
Towards a History of Phonetics, pp. 115-22, Edinburgh University press.
5. Anderson, J.M. and J. Durand (eds) (1987), Explorations in Dependency Phonology Dordrecht: Foris publications.
6. Annamalai, E and S.B. Steever (1998), “modern Tamil,” in Steever, 1998, pp. 100-28.
7. Auer, p. (1989), Some ways to count Morae: Prokosch’s law, streberg’s law, pfalz’s law and other Rhythmic Regularities,
Linguistics, 27, 1071-1102.
8. Aurer, H. von S, P. Gilles and H. Spiekmann (eds) (2002), Silbenschnitt und Tonakzente, Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
9. Bli, S.K. (1976), Bhattoji Diksita: His contributon to Sanskrit Grammar, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal publishers
pvt. Ltd.
10. Bancerjee, G.N. (1981), Hellenism in Ancient India, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal publishers’ pvt. Ltd.
11. Bancerjee, S.R. (1977), The Eatern school of prakrits Grammarians, Calcutta: vidyasagar pustak mandir
12. Basham, A.L (1979), “Aryan and non-Aryan in south Asia” in Deshoande and Hook, pp. 1-9.
13. Bellwood, p. (2000), “The Time Depth of major Language Families An Archaeoligist’s perspective,” in
Renfrew, McMahon, and Trask, vol. I, pp. 109-40
14. Bhise, U (ed.) (1986), Naradiya Siksa, Pune: Bhandarkar oriental Research Institute (Research Unit series No.
8)
15. Bloch, j. (1965), Indo-Aryan: From the Vedas to modern Times Paris: Librarie d’ Amerique et d’ Orient Adiren-
Masisonneuve.
16. Bright, W.(1998), “The Dravidian Scripts,” in Steever (1998) pp. 40-71
17. Bubenik, V. (1996), The structure and Development of Middle Indo-Aryan Dialects, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
18. Buhler, G. (1959), Indian Palaeography, Patna: Eatern Book House (originally published in 1904
19. Buitenen, J. A. B. Van (1959), “Aksara, “Journal of the American Oriental Society, 79, pp. 176-87.
20. Burnell, A. C. (1968), Elements of South Indian Epigraphy: From the Fourth to the Seventh Century AD, Varanasi:
Indological Book House (rept. Of 1878).
21. (1976), On the Aindra Scholl of Sanskrit Grammarians, Varanasi: Barat-Bharati (Oriental publishers and
Booksellers ) (rept. Of 1875).
22. Cardona, G. (1969), “Studies in Indian Grammarians I, The Method, of Description Reflected in the Ṥiva-
Ṥᾱstras,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 59, part I.
23. (1997), Panini: His work and its Traditions, vol. I, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass publishers.
24. (1999), Recent Research in Paninian Studies Delhi: Banarsidass Publishers private limited.
25. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (! 999), The origins of complex Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of sentences,
Syllables, and Truth Oxford: Oxford University press
26. Chakrabarti, D.K. (1997), Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian past, Delhi: Munshiram Manohalal.
27. Chakrabarti, S. (1996), A Critical Linguistic Study of the Pratisakhyas, Calcutta: Punthi-Pustak.
28. Chatterjee, A. (1987) Pingalacchandaῡṥᾱstra: A study, Calcutta: University of Calcutta.
29. Chaudhary, R (1983), Inscriptions of Ancient India, New Delhi: Meenakshi Prakashan.
30. Clements, G.N. And S.J. Keyser (1983) CV Phonology: A Generative Theory of the syllable, Cambridge MA. The
MIT Press.
31. Coulmas, F. (1989), The writing systems of the World, Oxford: Blackwell.
32. , F. (2003), Writing Systems: An Introduction to their Linguistic Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Court, C (1996) “The spread of Brahmi script into south-East Asia,” in Daniels and Bright eds 1996, pp. 445-
49.
34. Dani, A. H. (1986), Indian Palaeography, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal publishers Pvt. Ltd.
35. Daniels, P.T. and W. Bright (eds.) (1996), The World’s Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Daniels, P. T. and W. Bright (eds) (1996), “The study of Writing Systems”, in Daniels and Bright (eds). 1996,
pp. 3-20.
37. Das Gupta, C.C. (1958), The Development of the Kharosti script, Calcutta: Firma K.L Mukhopadhyay.
38. Deshpande, M.M. (1979, “Genesis of Rgvedic Retroflecion: A Historical and Sociolinguistic Investigation” in
Deshpande and Hook, 1979, pp. 235-15
39. (1993), Sanskrit and Prakrit: Socio linguistic issues, Delhi Motilal Banarsidaas publishers Pvt Ltd.
40. (1997), Shaunakhya Caturadhyayika, Cambridge, MA: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard
University
41. and P. E. Hook (eds) (1979), “Aryan and Non-Aryan in India, “Ann Arbor: Center for south and south Asian
studies, The University of Michigan.
42. Devasthali, G. V (1978), “Karma,” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute (Diamond Jubilee Volume), 573-82.
43. Fairservis, W.A. (1992), the Harappan Civilisation and its Writing, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
44. Falk, H. (1993), Schrift in alten Indian: Ein Forschungsberichtmit Ammerkungen, Script –Oralia 56, Tubingen: Gunter
Narr Verlag.
45. Ferv, C. and R. van de Vijver (eds) (2003), The syllable in Optimahty Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
press.
46. Fox Strangway, A.h. (1994), The Music of Hindostan, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal published private Ltd.
(originally published in 1914).
47. Geiger, W. (2000), A Pali Grammar (translated into English by B. Gosh and revised and edited by K. Norman),
Oxford: The Pᾱli Text Society.
48. Ghosh, M. (1931), “The Chando –Vedanga of Pingala,” “Indian Historical Quarterly, December.
49. (1991), Paniniya Ṥῑkṣᾱ, New Delhi: V. K. Publishing house.
50. Ghosh, S.B. (2003), Sanskrit phonetics in the Light of modern phonology, Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depc
51. Glass, A. (2000), A Preliminary study of Kharosti Manuscript palaeography, unpublished M.A. These University of
Washington, Seattle.
52. Goyal, S.R. (1979), “Brᾱhmῑ-an Invention of the Early Mauryan period,” in Gupta and Ramachandra pp. 1-53.
53. Gupta, S.P. and K.S Ramachandran (1979), The origin of Brahmi script, Delhi: D.K. Publications.
54. Havelock, E.A. (1963), Perface to Plato, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
55. Hayes, B. (1995), Metrical stress Theory: principles and case studies, Chicago: The University of Chicag press.
56. Howard, W. (1998), Matralaksnam, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidaas publishers Pvt. Ltd.
57. Hinuber, O. Von. (1990), Der Beginn der Schrift und fruhe Schriftlichtkeit in Indian, Mainz: Akademine d
Wissenschaften und der literature.
58. Hoole, p. and C. Mooshammer (2002), “Articulatory Analysis of the German vowel system, “in gill Auer and
Spiekermann, pp. 129-52.
59. Jessen, M. (2002), “Spectral Balance in German and its Relevance for syllable cut Theory, “in Gill, Auer and
Spiekermann, pp. 153-79.
60. Jha, V.N. (1987), Studies in the Padapathas and Vedic philology, Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
61. Kielhorn, F. (1963), Katyayana and Patanjali: Their Relation to Each other to Panini: Varanasi: Indologic Book
House (originally published in 1876).
62. Kiparsky, p. (1979) “Metrical structure Assignment is Cyclic, “Linguistic Inquiry, 10, pp. 421-41.
63. Krishamurti, Bh. (1998), Telugu, “in Steever, 1998, pp. 240.
64. (2003), The Dravidian Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
65. and J.P.L. Gwynn (1985) A Grammar of Modern Telugu, Delhi: Oxford university press.
66. Kristoffersen, G. (2002), “Are Tonal Accents and Syllable structure Related in Norwegian and Swedish?, in
Gilles Auer and Spiekermann, pp. 283-92.
67. Kubozono, H (1989), “The Mora and Syllable structure in Japanese: Evidence from speech Errors, Language
and Speech, 32 pp 283-98
68. Lehmann, T. (1998), “Old Tamil, “in Sanford, 1998, pp. 75-99.
69. Mahadevan, I. (1977), “The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance ad Tables, “Memories of the Archaeological survey of
India 77, New Delhi: Archaeological survey of India.
70. (2003), Early Tamil Epigraphy: from the Earliest to the Sixth Century AD Chennai, Cre-A and Cambridge, MA: The
Department of Sanskrit and Indian studies, Harvard University.
71. Mahalingam, T. V. (1974) Early South Indian Palaeography, Madras: University of Madras press
72. Mahulkar, D, (1981), The Pratisakhya Tradition and Modern Linguistic, Baroda: The M.S University press.
73. Mangalam, S. J. (1990), Kharoṣṭῑ Script, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers.
74. Masica, C.P (1991), The Indo-Aryan Languages, New York: Cambridge University press.
75. McAlpin, D.W. (1979), Linguistic Prehistory: The Dravidian Situation in Deshpande and Hook, pp. 175-89.
76. McEvilley, T. (2002), The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative studies in Greek and Indian philosophers, New York:
Alloworth press.
77. Mehendale, M. A. (1848), Historical Grammar of Inscriptional Prakrits, Poona: Deccan College post Graduate and
Research Institute.
78. Miller, R. (1967), The Japanese Language, Chicago: University of Chicago press.
79. Mishra, M. (1996), Critical study of the Varttikas of Katyayana, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers
80. Mishra, V. (1972), A Critical study of Sanskrit Phonetics, Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit series office.
81. Mohanan, T. (1989), “Syllable Structure in Malayalam, “Linguistic Inqiuiry, 20, pp 589 -25.
82. Mukherjee, B.N (1984), Studies in Aramaic Edicts of Asoka, Calcutta: Indian Museum.
83. Murray, R. W. (2002), “Accents and Medieval English Phonologists “in D. Restle and D, Zaefferer (eds)
(2002), sounds and systems: studies in structure and change, A Festchrift for Theo Vennemann, pp. 91-120, Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
84. Narain, A.K. (2003), The Indo-Greeks: Revisited and Supplemented, Delhi: R. B Publications.
85. Naveh, J. (1982), Early History of the Alphabet: Ann Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Paleography, Jerusalem:
The Magness Press, The Hebrew University.
86. Nilakanta Sastri, K.A. (1988) (ed), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidaas (reprint of 1967).
87. Norman, K. R. (1988), “The Origin of Pali and its position Among the Indo-European Languages, “Journal of
Pali and Buddhist Studies, 1, 1-27.
88. Oberlies, T. (2001), Pali ----A Grammar of the Theravada Tripitaka, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.
89. (2003), “Asokan Prakrit and Pali: in G. Cardona, D. Jain (eds), The Indo-Aryan Languages, pp, 161-03, London
and New York: Routledge.
90. Ojah, G. H. (1971), Bharatiya Pracina Lipimalaa (The Palaeography of India), New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal (first published in 1918).
91. Olson, D.R. (1994), The world on paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading, Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
92. Pandey, P.K.S. (2005), Sounds and their patterns in Indian Language, Manuscript in progress, New Delhi: Jawaharlal
Nehru University.
93. Pandey, R.B. (1957), Indian palaeography, Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass (2nd edn)
94. Pandeya, V.S (1987), Vaidik Dhvani Vignan (Vedic phonetics), Ilahabad: Akshayavat Prakashan.
95. Possehl, G. (1999), Indus age: The Beginnings, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press.
96. Parpola, A. (1994), Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
97. Patel, P.G. (1996), “Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of the Orality-literacy complex in Ancient India,
“Language and communication, 16, 315-29.
98. (2004), Reading Acquisition in India: Models of Learning and Dyslexia, New Delhi: Sage publications
99. and H. Soper (1987), “Acquisition of Reading and Spelling in a Syllabo-Phonemic Writing system, “ Language
and Speech, 30, 69-81.
100. Pattanayak, D.P. and M.S. Thirumalai (1980), An Introduction to Tamil Script: Reading and writing, Mysore: central
Institute of Indian Languages.
101. Prakash, P, R. Rekha, m R. Nigam and p. Karanth (1993), “Phonological Awareness, Orthography, and
Literacy” in R. J. Scholes (ed), Literacy and Language Analysis, pp.55-70, N.J. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, publishes.
102. Puri, B.N. (1990) India in the Time of Patanjali, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers pvt. Ltd
103. Rajam, V.S. (1981), A Comparative Study of Two Ancient Indian Grammatical Traditions, Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
104. Ramesh, K.V. (1984), Indian Epigraphy, Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan.
105. Rastogi, N.P. (1980), Origin of Brahmi script, The Beginning of Alphabet in India, Varanasi Chowkhamba
Saraswatibhawan.
106. Renfrew, C. (2000), “10, 000 or 5000Years Ago? Questions of Time Depth, “ in C, Renfrew, A McMahon and
L Trask (eds), Time Depth in Historical Linguistics, vol. 2, pp. 413-39, Cambridge: The McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
107. Rogers, H. (2005), Writing systems: A Linguistic Approach, Oxford: Basil Blackwell publishing.
108. Rubin, D.C. (1995), Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and counting –out Rhymes,
New York: Oxford University press.
109. Salomon, R.(1995), “On the Origin of the Early Indian Scripts Review Article,” Journal of the American oriental
Society, 115 pp.271-79.
110. (1996), “Brāhmī and Kharoṣtī” in P.T Daniels and W. Bright (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems, pp. 373-83,
New york: Oxford University Press.
111. (1998), Indian Epigraphy, New York: Oxford University Press.
112. (2003), “Writing Systems of the Indus –Aryan languages” in George Cardona and Dhanesh jain (eds.),The
Indo-Aryan languages, pp.67-103, Londen: Routledge.
113. Sarker, R.(2002), Indus Script and its language, Delhi: Sharadha Plublishing House.
114. Aksara as a Linguistic Unit in Brahmi Scripts, 211
115. Sarma, K.M.K. (1968), Pᾱnini Katyayana and Patanjali, Delhi: Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit
Vidyapeeth.
116. Sato,Y. (1993), “The Durations of Syallable –final Nasals and the Mora Hypothesis in Japanese,”Phonetica,
50,44-67.
117. Scarfe, H. (1997), Grammatical Literature, Wiesbanden: Otto Harrasowitz.
118. (2002), “Karosti and Brahmi”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 122.2, pp.391-93.
119. (2005), Personal Communication, Comments on an Earlier Version of this paper.
120. Senart, E. (ed.)(1871), “Grammaire Pali de Kaccayana,” Journal Asiatique, March-April, pp.193-42
121. Sharma,R. (2002), Brahmi Script: Development in North-Western India and Central Asia, Vol. І and ІІ, Delhi: B.R.
Publishing Corporation.
122. Sharma, R.N. (2002), The Astadhyayi of Panini Volume 1:introduction to the Astadhyayi as a Grammatical Device, Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt.Ltd.
123. Shastri, Surya Kant (1970), Rktantram, Delhi: Meharchand Lachhmands.
124. Sircar, D.C (1965), Indian Epigraphy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt.Ltd
Introduction
Central to the knowledge of phonetics and grammatology among the ancient Hindus was the
concept of the akṣara. As a unit a unit of grammatology, akṣara has been a model for most
Indian languages in Asia (see e.g. Daniels & Bright 1996), owing their source of Brāhmī, the
earliest deciphered script in India. The term is usually translated in English as “syllable”, or, in
recent linguistic and psycho-lingustic literatureas “semi syllable”. The latter term is often used in
the sense of an incomplete syllable. a Phonological unit. Psycho-linguistic research on modern
Indian scripts (e.g. Patel and Soper, 1087, Prakash et al.1993,Vaid and Gupta 2002,Spoart 2000,
2003) showed Indian writing systems to be more complex than alphabetic systems in
developing segmental awareness among speakers. However, more recent work on phonological
knowledge appears to have misgivings regarding phonemic awareness to be intrinsic to
phological knowledge. It is seen rather as an epiphenomenon, on account of writing systems
(e.g.Faber 1999), or as an outright scientific invention (e.g. Ladefoged 2001). Patel (2004[2002],
this volume ) has suggested (see also Pandey 2003,Prakash 2004,following Patel)that the akṣara
may well be the minimal articulatory unit of speech.
In this paper I focus on the evidence for the linguistic significance of akṣara as a unit of
speech, and not just of writing (as discussed in Pandey 2003),examine the relation between the
akṣara and the syllable as speech units, and explicate the relation in theoretical terms.
The Significance of Aksara
The difference between the syllable and the aksara is that while the syllable includes one or
more post-vocalic consonsonants,the aksara does’t,as can be seen in (1) below:
Pronouced forms CV structure Aksara
neha CV.CV CV.CV
carculata CV.CV.CV.CV CV.CV.CV.CV
ek VC V.C
upkara VC.CVC V.C.CV.C
indira VC.CV.CV VC.CV.CV
ast VCC V.CC
aksara VC.CVC V.CCV.C
 It is argued that Brahmi was originally designed for aksara formation (see Patel 1995, 1996),
had waysoe accomadating syllabic characters devised in it, such as the anusuara (homorganic
nasal consonants ). Hindi and several other Indian languages, which adopted it, came to acquire
syllabic characters (with exception of Malayalam), but did not modify the aksara –based charcter
of Brahmi order to adapt to the new syllabic structures of these languages, leading to their
noted “complexity”. It is proposed here however that contrary to the assumption that the semi-
syllabic nature of the aksara lends complexiy in language learning, in fact, it must facilitate
language learning, being a favoured articlatory and perceptual unit.
What are the significant properties of speech sounds that writing systems can take into
account to facilitate reading acquisition and literacy?
As the beginning quote from Ladefoged (2001)states,alphabets do not represent real
properties words. Sound segments are not perceived as discrete, but rather as mingled with the
context, somewhat like the “diphones”used in speech synthesis. They are affected by the sounds
before and after them. For example, /ᶑ/at the beginning of words in Hindi is different from its
occurrence at the end of words or between two vowels,where it is pronouced as [ζ],so much so
that Hindi orthography has different symbls for them. Not all of the differences perceived
bythe human brain in the qualities of speech sounds in different contexts are transferred to
writtng systems. For example, short vowels are legthened word-finally in Hindi, but the
orthography represents the vowel as short. The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) takes
account of most noticeable changes in soumd segments owing to the context in which they
occur. But there is no conventional writing system that can go to the extent of giving phonetic
details that IPA does. Writing systems differ with regard to the level of phonological awareness
they represent –broadly, phonetic or phonological or a combination of these. In the case of
character-type writing systems, such as Chinese,phonetic information may be very limited.
Recent phonetic studies of speech sounds (e.g. studdart-kennedy 1987, 1998, Browman ad
Goldstein 1992, 1995, Sproat and Funjimura 1993, Clements 1999) provide evidence in support
of the view that speech segments emerge from the organisation of the gestures, which are
differently for different sound sequences.The Gestures are most commonly organised within a
frame called the “syllable”, and are subject to universal and language –specific constraints.The
syllable is seen as a hierarchically structured unit, consisting of the Onset, the Nucleus and the
Coda. Of these, the Nucleus is an obligatory constituent; the Onset and the Coda are optional
constituents. On account of their role in the phonological processes of quantity –sensitive
systems (cf.Hayes 1981, Hyman 1984), syllables are also seen as constituted of the intervening
weight units called the “mora”. The nature of the relation between the syallable and its
constituents is controversial, and has been modelled in at least three ways (cf.carstairs-
McCarthy1999), as given below:

Fig.1:Three Models of Syllable Structure.

 The difference among the models concerns the internal structure of syllables
(distinguishing (1)from (2) and (3)), and the asymmetry between the Onset and Coda
(distinguishing (2) from (3)).(2) shows the coda as more closely related to the Nucleus than the
Onset, while (3) shows the opposite.
Phonological Insights in the Aksara Script
Some of the phonological insights in the aksara can be discussed in relation to one of the
derivatives of Brahmi, the original aksara script. I take up Devanagari for the purpose.The most
bnoticeble and significant of the insights are briefly presented below a) The akṣara is the
minimal articulatory unit. It consists of the Onset and the Nucleus constituents of a syllable, as
illustrated in table 1 below in a simplified form:
Table 1:Devanagari CV akṣaras

The Coda consonant goes to the following grapheme, with the exception of the anasvārā,
the underlying nasal consonant surfacing as homorganic with the following stop, as in [bandi]
“prisoner” and [campa].
It should be noted that the inclusion of the anusvāra in the aksara perhaps assumes that as a
segment it has more of the vocalic than the consonantal gesture in it. This insight needs
exploration within the gestural theory of articulatory phonology as presented in Brown man
and Goldstein (1989, 1992).
Vowels and consonants are treated as different types of units,as assummed in
Autosegmental phonology (e.g. Goldsmith 1989[19761]), and are so represented in the
graphene, as shown in Table 2 below, adapted erom sproat (2000).
Table 2:Devanagari Vowels in their their Full and Diacritic Forms,
Adapted from sproat (2000:46)

The long vowels are represented as derived from the short vowel counterparts,for examples
An influential theory of phonology, known as Dependency phonology (cf. Anderson and Even
1987), claims and human speech has three basic vowels –[ә], [i], and [u], and the rest are derived
from their combination. The vocalic representations in Brahmi are in consonance with that
claim.
For consonant letters, the neutral vowel/ә/is assumed to be inherent in them. Notice
that the assumption regarding the inherent vowel in Brahmi scripts goes with the cocept of
underspecification in current generative phonology. The theory of Radical Underspecification
(cf.steriade 1982)specifically assumes that one amongst the vowels of a language is fully
underspecified and surfaces as /ә/(or/i/). Government phonology (cf.kaye et al.1984)also
assumes Thjat a consonant has an inherent neutral vowel,which surfaces in default cases as
[ә],Devanagari, but which has to be suppressed by individual languages in which it
doesn’tSurface.
Onset clusters are treated as a single constituentaround which the vowel diacritics are
marked. Onset formation involves various processes,such as the “prescript”,e.g. <sk>, <pt>,the
inscript, e.g. <kr>, < kh r>,the superscript, e.g. <rm>, <rt>, or an entirely new ligatured group,
e.g. <tr>, <ks>.All the preceding examples are for two consonant clusters.Three consonant
clusters follow the same patterns.
Aksara as an Articulatory Unit
As pointed out above,the central assumption in forming the aksara script is that the aksara is
the minimal orthographic unit. Pandey (2003) has argued on the basis of a large body of
evidence in the current litetarature in phonetics, phonology, sound change, phonological
processing, and linguistic evoulution that the askara is an orthographic representation of what
in fact is aminimal soundn unit.This is the original insight in the unified science of speech and
grammatology developed by ancient Indians,sometimes reffered to as Ganesa Vidya (Pandey
2004). The earliest evidence of the insight is found in the parent Brahmi script, in the
development of which ancient Indian grammariens had played an important role (see verma
1961).
The main ponts of the evidence in favour of the aksara as an articulatory unit are presented
below.
Textual Recitation Methods in Ancient India
One oe the motivating factors in the formation of aksara in Devanagari was the memorisation,
recitation, and reproduction of orally preserved texts,keeping in view.
The nature of morphemic representation and word-formation in Sanskrit. The
predominant structure of Sanskrit roots in monosyllabic, e.g./cәr/ “move”, /kr/ “do,”etc. The
morphological structure of the language itself is agglutinative, involving considerable affixation
and morpho phonemic changes.One of the characteristic features of Sanskrit word-formation
is resyllabification, resulting in the coda of a syllable being resyllabified as the onset oe the
following syllable, a well-known process in world languages. For instance,the Hindi tatsama
word/sәda:ca:r/ “good behavior” has the following derivational structure in Sanskrit: [[sәt][[a:
[[cәr][a:(<] “ghas “suffix)].
 A common factor among the various styles of decitation (Pa-Tha/pa;thә/) of Vedic texts is
the break-up of the text in to aksads,which is suited also for mnemonicpurposes. Consonant
cluster’s asonsets are hardly a problem because of the deliberate style of the breakuop of word
forms. Anyone who pays attention to the recitation techniques will easilynoticethe articulatory
ease and flexibility accorded by the aksara-based reproduction of the memorised texts.
Phonetics
Support for the outstanding position of the Code Syllable from phonetics is available from two
areas, namely speech perception and spontaneous speech. Findngs from psycho-linguistic
research on the perceptual efficacy of syllables suggest that not all syllables are convenient
perceptual units. It has been found, for example (see Newman and Spitzer 1987), that the
auditory storage is about 250mscs, the period unsuitable for long syllables.
Investigations of Spontaneous speech show that CV units arise as a consequence of units
arise as consequence of phonetic processes such as cluster simplification, vowel epenthesis and
vowel contraction in many languages. For example, Engestrand and Krull (2000), on the basis
of a sudy of exensive database on unscriped speech in Dutch, hypothesize that “a tendency to
on – line reduction of complex syllables might favour the predominance of simple phonotactic
structures (I.e., CV Structures---pp] in the world’s languages.”
Phonology
While the Onset – Nucleus –Coda sequential frame (see.eg. Kiparsky 1979) may be assumed to
be the ubnit of Phonological representation matching the Minimum articulatory unit. The
evidence in favour of separating the Onset from the Coda on account of the difference in their
roles in phonetic and phonology is considerable (see Mc Cawley 1968, Selkirk 1982, Browman
and Goldstein 1989, 1991, Jun 1995 Lombardi 1995, Padgett 1995), as can be seen below.
a) Languages may require an obligatory onset in the canonical syllable structure, but there
is no language requiring an obligatory coda in its canonical syllable structure.
b) Onsets must be released; codas, more often than not, are unreleased.
c) Codes may have moraic weight in quantity-sensitive systems, while onsets do not have
any moraic weight.
d) Onsets allow more open classes of consonants than codas.
e) While onsets may typically undergo strengthening processes such as aspiration and
lengthening, codas typically undergo weakening processes such as devoicing.
f) Consonants in the coda position can be deleted in many languages, but are seldom
inserted. It is characteristic of consonants to be inserted in the form of glides or glottal
stops in many languages requiring obligatory on sets.
Language Acquisition
It is uncontroversial that children acquire open syllables prior to closed syllables (see, e.g. Locke
1993). The babbling stage of children’s speech has CV units; CVC units are found at later
stages. The Maximal Onset principle that accounts for the favoured status of onsets vis-à-vis
codas in world languages is thus, as discussed above, a part of our biological endowment.
Language Change
Bybee (2001) maintains that CVC syllables are derived from CV syllables on account of a loss
of vowels in CVCV sequences. Hindi provides a strong case for such a hypothesis. The loss of
schwa in the world-final (see Srivastava 1968, Pandey1992) and foot-final positions (Pandey
1989) has given rise to CVC syllables from CVCV sequences. The “lost vowel” hypothesis for
the rise of closed syllables can account for exceptional complex consonant clusters in certain
languages. For example, Toda, asnoted by Emeneau (1979, 1984) and Saktivel (1977),has a
sequence of consonant clusters, e.g.-tjxw-, -mksp-,etc. The consonants in the sequences have
cryptic vowels intervening one another. Emeneau (1984:27)treats each consonant to be a
syllable of the “isolated onset” type.
Gondi (ANDRES 1977, Steever 1998) shows asymmetry in the distribution of consonants
at word edges and word-internally. While it does not permit clusters at word edges, many words
in it have medical clusters up to four consonants. It is quite likely that they are a result of lost
vowels in open syllables
Language Evolution
The majority view in the evolutionary accounts of the human linguistic ability assumes that it
originates in the emergence of human muscular control for articulation (see Lieberman 2002).
Carstairs-MacCarthy (1999) proposes an explanation for the special status of CV units along
this line. Relatively more muscular control is feasible for consonants in the onset position, in his
view, than in the coda position. Onsets have thus greater perceptual distinctness than codas.
A corollary and influential view of the emergence of human speech ascribes an
instrumental role to the lowering of the larynx in humans (Lieberman 1984, Carstairs-McCarthy
1999). As a result of the lowering of the larynx, the human articulatory mechanism can
manipulate the vowel space on two axes-vertical, causing F1 distinctions among vowel on the
close-open parameter, and horizontal, causing F2distinctionns among vowels on the front-back
parameter. In number_ recent studies, Fitch (2001, in press) has shown that the lowering of the
larynx is not unique to human speech production, but is found among Animals, too. The
finding supports Lieberman’s (1984) argument for the main motivation for the lowering of the
larynx in humans in increased phonetic scope rather than bipedal postures, as assumed by
Carstairs-McCarthy. The lowering of the larynx adds resonance to the vowel-like sounds
helping the animals to achieve various communicative effects (Fitch 2004). It is reasonable to
hypothesize that evolution of the lowered larynx in humans has led to develop the
communicative needs of a rich alphabetic system. Further, the preponderance of open syllables
in world languages has the biological motivation of underscoring the increased resonance and
greater muscular control over the production of syllables, a function that codes cannot perform
so well. Onsets helps achieve the targeted quality and resonance of the following vowels and
thus function as an intrinsic part of the minimal sequential unit of speech.
Speech Processing
Psycho-neuro-linguistic studies on speech processing attempt to account for universal
characteristics of the production and comprehension of human language, especially in relation
to phonological structure. Studies in this fast growing field are varied. There is however a
general consensus that the basic unit of speech production and comprehension is larger than
the segment; it may be the syllable or the mora or the foot or all of them (see. e.g. Otake and
Cutler 1996). It usually involves overlapping of gestures (see Browman and Goldstein 1989,
1991, Kroger 1993, Jun and Beckman 1993) and may take up to 250 ms for the integration of
perception (see. e.g., Kakehi, Kato and Kashino 1996).
Orthography too may play a role in processing, but whether by ignoring the phonological
structure is uncertain (see Peretz, Lussier and Beland 1996).
There is some evidence in the existing literature to show that speakers of language with
both CV and CVC type syllables, show preference for the former. Derwing, Yoon and Cho
(1993), for example, in a word-blend experiment (e.g., fat and rich can be blended as fach or fich)
found out that Korean speakers prefer CV type segmentation to VC type segmentation,
although Korean has both types of syllables represented in their orthography, known as
Hankul. It is a syllable-based orthography that encodes the onset and the nuclear vowel on the
upper half, and the coda on the lower half. This supports a corollary finding in a phonetic study
by Engestrand and Krull (2000) of Dutch spontaneous speech, cited above, which shows that
in spite of the existence of VC syllables in Dutch, there is a preponderance of derived CV units
that arise as a result of phonetic processes, such as cluster simplification, final nasal deletion,
vowel contraction, and vowel epenthesis
The Akṣara and the Syllable Phonological Theory
Phonological theory recognises the CV syllable as the Core syllable (see Jakobson 1941, Ohala
and Kawasaki 1984, prince and Smolensky 1993). We prefer the term akṣara to “Core syllable”
to characterize open syllable for the reasons given below.
It should be noted that the concept of akṣara differs from that of the Core syllable as an open syllable in
admitting two additional features: one, complex onset, and two, certain post-vocalic nasals called anusvāras
by ancient Indian phoneticians (see Allen 1955).
With regard to complex onsets, it is found that irrespective of the syllabification criteria in
languages, the human articulatory apparatus permits a rich variety, as cab be seen in the
following chart of permitted two consonant onset clusters in the languages of India (see
Pandey forthcoming). The abbreviations for the sub-classes of consonants are given at the
bottom of Table 3 below. The first column of the table has the serial numbers of the onset
cluster types, the following five columns the right mention the cluster types in term of
decreasing generality, and the rightmost five columns specify the languages of the five language
groups in India.
The second feature that diverges from the Core Syllable is, as mentioned above, certain
post-vocalic nasals. The latter in all probability are underspecified nasals that may remain so
through a good part of the phonetic module and play a role in speech recognition (see Lahiri
and Reetz 2002). The concept of the Core Syllable is restricted to the CV syllable on account of
it being the universally optimal syllable
Cluster Types Languages
AA Dr IA TB AN
1 C+C Didayi
2 C+G/L Malayal Assamese Khamp
am (L) Gujarati
Telugu Hindi
(L) Marathi
Tulu

3 C+C S+G/L Purki

4 N+G/ mj nj Gr.And
L
5 C+G Korku Toda Gojri Bo Ro
Kacchi Kabui
Lamani Karbi
RangPo
Stod
Spiti
6 N+G C+ w Purki
7 S/F/+
w
8 sw Bhumij Byangsi
9 C+j
10 Gadaba Bangru Apatani
11 S/F/N Byangsi
+j
12 P/N+ j Ladakhi
13 P+ j
14 pj Bhumij
15 gj Gondi(A)
16 N+ j
17 Mj nj
18 C+L Gadaba Tarao
Irula
Kota
19 S+L Byang
20 N+L Maithili
21 S/F/L +r Koraga Gojri Chokri
Kacchi Stod
Kashmiri Karbi
22 Kr, Ir, sr Bonda
23 S/F+ r P/s+ r Bhumij Garo
24 S+ r Juang Monpa
25 p/ph/ Mao
k/kh+ r Angami
26 p/k+ r Kinn
27 tr Gon-A
28 hr Maithili Hmar
 29 C+ l
30 Pl tl Ao-Naga
31 sl
32 tl, hl, Hmar
33 kl, gl Bonda
34 C+N
35 C+n/m BoRo
36 sn Bonda Irula
37 kn Bonda
38 hm Hmar
39 PU/m+ r// Kuvi
40 C+F
41 ps Monpa
42 C+h Bangru
Mandeali
43 Marathi
44 N+C Lotha
45 Nd,nt Tulu
46 mb Bonda
47 F+C Purki
48 S+C Gujarati
Marathi
Hindi
Assamese

49 S/ +P/N Ladakhi

50 S+S Maithili

51 Z+PI Ladakhi

52 S+p/t/k Garo

53 sk Kinnauri

54 H+C Chokri

55 L+O Purki

56 L+S Ladakhi

57 r+O/A Purki

Abbreviations
Table 3: Onset Clusters in Indian Languages
AA : Austro-Asiatic Pvd : Voiced Plosive
Dr : Dravidian PA : Aspirated Plosive
IA : Indo-Aryan PU : Unaspirated Plosive
 TB : Tibeto-Burman F : Fricative
AN : Andaman-Nicobar Sn : Sonorant
C : Consonant A : Apporximant
O : Obstruent N : Nasal
S : Stop G : Glide
P : Plosive L : Liquid
Pvl : Voiceless Plosive
The aksara satisfies the universal principle of Maximal Onset, according to which maximal
formation of onset, following both universal and language-specific requirements, takes
precedence over the formation of codas. The inclusion of the underspecified nasal as part of
the vocalic gesture is consistent with the unique status of nasals undergoing progressive
assimilation, it can be argued that they are fully specified in the underlying representation.
Note that both the akṣara and the syllable integrate segmental material into pronounceable
units. They are thus related to each other in terms of the general Elsewhere Condition, now
known as Panini’s Theorem (e.g. McCarthy and Prince 1993). According to an interpretation of
the Theorem, the formation of the more specific unit, the syllable. Since the onset is an
intrinsic part of the akṣara, Panini’s Theorem ensures the formation of maximal onsets prior to
the formation of codas. Incorporating the akṣara as an articulatory unit of phonology has the
advantage of explaining the asymmetry between the onset and the coda, and accounting for
maximal onsets using the universal Panini’s Theorem, instead of an additional Maximal Onset
Satisfaction Principle, which is now rendered redundant.
Conclusion
We have tried to present above a brief discussion of the grammatological insights of ancient
Indian grammarians in the concept of aksara, a graphemic unit in Brahmi and its derivative
writing systems. We have tried to show how these insights are in consonance with current
knowledge about phonological representations. We have also made a proposal in the end for
incorporating the aksara as a minimum articulatory unit in a phonetics-based phonological
theory. The concept of aksara as a minimal articulatory unit certainly needs further
investigation along these lines.
References
Allen, W.S. (1995), Phonetics in Ancient India, London: Oriental Series [rept., 1961,London: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, J.M. and C.J. Ewen (1987), Principles of Dependency Phonology, Cambridge: Cambride University Press.
Andres, Susie (1977), A Description of Muria Gondi Phonology and Morphology with a Transformational Account of the
Morphophonological Processes Employed, PHD. Dissertation, Pune: Deccan Collage.
Blevins, J. (1995),”The syllable in Phonological Theory,” in J. Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological
Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 206-44
Bright, W. (1996), “The Devanāgari Script,” in P. Daniels and W. Bright (eds.) The World’s Writing System, New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 384-90.
Browman, Catherine and L. Goldstein (1989), Articulatory Gestures as Phonological Units, Phonology 6, pp.201-51.
......... and L. Goldstein (1991), “Gestural Structures: Distinctiveness, Phonological Process, and Historical
Change,” in I. Mattingley and M. Studdart-Kenney (eds.), Modularity and the Motor Theory of Speech Perception,
Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 313-38.
Bybee, Joan (2001), Phonology and Language Use, Cambridge University Press.
Carastairs-McCarthy, A. (1999), The Origins of Complex Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences,
Syllables and Truth, Oxford: University Press.
Clements, G.N.(1999), “Affricates as Non-contoured Stops,” in O. Fujimura, B.D. Joseph, and B. Palek (eds.),
Proceedings of LP ’98: Item Order in Language and Speech, Prague: The Karolinum Press.pp.271-99.
Daniels, P. and W. Bright (1996). The world’s Writing Systems, New York: Oxford University Press.
Derwing, B.L., Y.B. Yoon and Cho.(1993), The Organisation of the Korean Syllable: Experimental Evidence,
Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2, pp. 223-38.
Emeneau, M.B. (1979),”Toda Vowels in Non-initial Syllables,” BSOAS, 42, PP. 225-34.
......... (1984), Toda Grammar and Texts, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Engestrand, O. and Diana Krull (2000), CV Syllables in Spontaneous Speech. Paper Presented at Sankelmark
Symposium on “Patterns of Speech Sounds in Unscripted Communication; Production, Perception,
Phonology,” University of Kiel.
Faber, Alice (1992), “Phonemic Segmentation as Epiphenomenon: Evidence from the History of Alphabetic
Writing,” in P. Downing, S. Lima and M. Noonan (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, pp. 111-34.
Fitch, W.T. (2004), Talk at Max-Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, June 2003, Leipsing.
......... (in press) “Functional Evolution of the Vocal Production System,” “in: MIT Encyclopedia of Communication
Sciences and Disorders (ed. Raymond D. Kent), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fitch, W.T. and D. Reby (2001), “The Descended Larynx is not Uniquely Human,” Proceedings of the Royal Society,
Biological Sciences, 268 (1477), 1669-1675.
Hayes, B. (1995), Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hyman, L.M. (1985), A Theory of Phonological Weight, Dordrech: Foris.
Jakobson, R.(1941), Kindersprche, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze, transl. A.R. Keiler, Child Language, Aphasia and
Phonological Universals, The Hague: Mouton, 1968.
Jun, J. (1995), Perceptual and Articulatory Factors in Place Assimilation: An Optimality Theoretic Approach, Ph.D.
dissertation, UCLA.
Jun, S.A and M.E. Beckman (1993), A Gestural-overlap Analysis of Vowel Devoicing in Japanese and Korean, paper
presented at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Los Angeles.
Kakehi, K.,K. Kato and M. Kashino (1996), “Phoneme/syllable Perception and the Temporal Structure of
Speech,” in T. Otake and Anne Cutler (eds.), Phonological Structure and Language Processing: Cross-Linguistic Studies,
Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 125-126.
Kaye, J,J.. Lowenstamm and J.R. Vernaud (1985), The Internal Structure of Phonological Elements: A Theory of Charm and
Government, Phonology Yearbook 2, pp. 305-28.
Kiparsky, P. (1979), “Metrical Structure Assignment is Cyclic,” Linguistic Inquiry 10, pp. 421-41.
Klima, E. (1972), “How Alphabets might Reflect Language,” in James Kavnanagh and Ignatius Mattingley (eds.),
Language by Ear and by Eye:: The Relationships between Speech and Reading, Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, pp. 57-80.
Kroger, B.J. (1993), “A Gestural Production Model and its Application to Reduction in German,” Phonetica 50, pp.
213-33.
Kubozono, H. (1996), “Speech Segmentation and Phonological Structure,” in T. Otake and A. Cutler (eds.), Phonological
Structure and Language Processing: Cross-Linguistic Studies, Berlin, N.Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77-94.
Ladefoged, P. (2001), Vowels and Consonants: An Introduction to the Sounds of Language, Landon: Blackwell
Publishers.
Lieberman, p. (2002), Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain: The Subcortical Bases of Speech, Syntax and Thought,
Cambridge, Mass. And London: Harvard University Press.
Locke, J. (1993), The. Child’s Path to Spoken Language, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Lombardi, L. (1995), Positional Faithfulness and the Phonology of Voicing in Optimality Theory, Ms. University of Maryland,
Collage Park.
McCarthy, J. and A. Prince (1993), Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction, Ms. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
McCarthy, J.D. (1968), The Phonological Component of a Grammar of Japanese. The Hague: Mouton.
Newman, C.W. and J.R. Spitzer (1987), “Monotic and Dichotic Presentation of Phoemic Elements in a
Background Recognition – Masking Paradigm,” Psychological Research 49 (1), pp. 336..
Ohala, J. and H. Kawasaki (1984), Prosodic Phonology and Phoetics, Phonology Yearbook 1, pp. 113-27.
Otake, K. and Anne Cutler (eds.) (1996), Phonological Structure and Language Processing: Cross Linguistic Studies, Berlin,
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Padgett, J. (1995),” Feature Classes,” in University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18: Papers in Optimality
Theory, (eds.) Jill Beckman, Laura Dickey and Suzanne Urbanczyk, 385-420. Amherst: GLSA.
Goldsmith, J. (1989[1976]), Autosegmental and Metrical phonology, Oxford: Blackwell.
Pandey, PK. (1989), “Word Accentuation in Hindi” Lingua 77, pp.37-73
......... (2002), “Hindi me Shabdant a” (Word final a in Hindi), Gaveshana.
......... (2003), “Phonetic and Phonological Bases of Hindi Orthography,” in P. Bhaskararao (ed.) Working Papers of
International Symposium on Indic Scripts: Past and Future, Tokyo: ILCAA, pp. 41-61.
......... Interpretation in Indian Thought, New Delhi: Mantra Books, pp. 66-79
Petal, P.G. (1995), “Brahmi Scripts, Orthographic Units, and Reading Acquisition,” in I. Taylor and D. Olson
(eds.), Scripts and Reading and Learning to Read in the World’s Scripts, London: Kluwer Academic.
(1996), “Linguistic and Cognitive Aspects of the Orality-Literacy Complex in Ancient India,” Language and
Communication, 16, pp. 315-29.
(2004), Reading Acquisition in India: Script, Culture, and Models of Learning and Dyslexia, New Delhi: Sage publications.
and H.V. Soper (1987), “Acquisition Of Reading and Spelling in a Syllabo-alphabetic Writing System,” Language and
Speech, 1987, 30, pp.69-81
Peretz, Isabelle, Lussier, Isabelle and L. Beland (1996), The Roles of” Phonological and Orthographic Code in Word Stem
Completion, in T. Otake and Anne Cutler (eds.), pp. 217-26.
Prakash, P., D. Rekha, R. Nigam and P. Karanth (1993),”Phonological Awareness, Orthography and Literacy,” in
Robert Scholes (ed.), Literacy and Language Analysis, N.J. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 55-70.
(2004),”Indian Orthography and Teaching How to Read: A Psycholinguistic Framework,” in Technical Papers of the
International Conference on Education and the Social Science Paradigms (ESSP), March 11-13, 2004, Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi, pp. 188-07.
Prince, A. and P.Smolensky (1993), Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in generative Grammar, Technical Report 2
of the Rutgers Centre for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University.
Selkirk, Elisabeth (1982), in H. van der Hulst and N. Smith (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol. II,
pp. 337-8
Sproat, R. (2000), A Computational Theory of Writing Systems, Cambridge University Press.
(2003), “A Formal Computational Analysis of Indic Scripts,” in P. Bhaskararao (ed.),” Working Papers of
International Symposium on Indic Scripts: Past and Future, Tokyo: ILCAA, pp. 9-40.
and O. Fujimura (1993),” Allophonic Variation in English /I/ and its Implications for Phonetic Implementation,”
Journal of Phonetics 21, pp. 291-311.
Staal, J.F.(1975), “The Concept of Meta language and its Indian Background,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 3, pp. 315-
54.
Steever, S.B.(1998), “Gondi,” in S.B Steever (ed.), The Dravidian Languages, London: Routledge.
Steriade, D. 1982), Greek Prosodies and the Nature of Syllabification. Ph. D. thesis, MIT Published by Garland, New
York, 1991.
Studdart-Kennedy, M. (1987), “The Phoneme as a Perceptuomotor Structure,” in A. Allport, D. Mackay, W. Prinz
and E. Scheerer(eds.), Language, Perception and Production, New York: Academic Press, pp. 67-84.
Studdart-Kennedy, M. (1998). “The Particulate Origins of Language Generativity: From Syllable to Gesture,” in: J.
Hurford, M. Studdart-Kennedy and C.K night (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 202-21.
Vaid, Jyotsna and A. Gupta (2002), “Exploring Word Recognition in a Semi-alphabetic Script: The Case of
Devanagari,” Brain and Language 81, pp. 679-90.
Varma, S. (1961), Critical Studies in the Phonetic Observations of Indian Grammarians, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

References
Abler, W.L. (1989), “On the Particular Principle of Self-diversifying System’” Journal of Social and Biological Structures
12:1-13.
Anderson, J.M. and C.J. Ewen (1987 of Dependency principle of Dependency Phonology, Cambridge: Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bickerton, D.(1990), Language and Species, Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
Buhler, G. (18969), On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet, Varanasi: Chowkhamaba Prakashan.
Cho, Doo-Sang (1999), The Similarity and Influence Between Gujarati and Korean Scripts, Ms. Department of Linguistics,
M.S. University of Baroda.
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
, (1995), The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Clements, G.N. (1985), The Geometry of Phonological Features, Phonology Yearbook 2:225-53.
Clements, G.N and J. Keyser (1983), C.V. Phonology: A Generative Theory of the Syllable, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT
Press.
Coulmas, F. (1997) (ed), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, Oxford: Blackwell.
Dani, A.H. (1986[1963]), Indian Palaeography, Delhi: Munshiram Manoharal.
Fisher, R.A. (1930), The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Goldsmith, J. (1989), Austosegmental and Metrical Phonology, Oxford: Blackwell.
Goyal, S.R. (1979), “Br: An Invention of the Early Mauryan Period” in S.P. Gupta and K.S.
Ramachandran (eds.), The Origin of the Br Script, Delhi: D.K. Publications, pp.1-53.
Hocket, C.F. (1958), A Course in Modern Linguistics, N.Y.: The Macmillan Company.
Kaye, J., J. Lowenstamm and J.R. Varnaud (1985),” The Internal Structure of phonological Elements: A Theory of
Charm and Government Y,” Phonology yearbook 2:305-28
Liberman, A.M. (1992), “The Relation of Speech to Reading and Writing “in R. Frost and L. Katz (eds.),
Orthography, Phonolgy, Morphology, and Meaning, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B V., pp. 167-78.
Liberman, I.Y. and A.M. Liberman (1990), “Whole Language vs. Code Emphasis: Underlying Assumptions and
their Implications for Reading Instruction,” Annals of Dyslexia 40.
Macneilage, P.F. (1998), “Evolution of the Mechanisms of Language Output: Comparative Neurobiology of Vocal
and Manual Communication” in J.R. Hurford, et al. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language, Cambridge
University Press.
Masica, cp (1991). The Ido-Aryan Languages, Cambridge University Press.
Mistry, P.J. (1996),” Gujarati Writing” in P.T. Daniels and W. Bright (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems, New York,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phonological and Generative Aspects of Brahmi 24
Mohanan, K.P. (186), Theory of Lexical Phonology, Amsterdam: D. Reidel & Co.
Mohanan, T. (1989),” Syllable Structure in Malayalam,” Linguistic Inquiry 20:
Nagaswamy, R. (1979), “Comments [on papers by Goyal and Soundara Rajan]” in S.P. Gupta and K.S.
Ramachandran (eds.), The Origin of the BR Script, Delhi: D.K. Publications, pp. 72-82.
Pandey, P.K. (1988), Word Accentuation in Hindi,” Lingua 77:37-73.
Pandey. R. (1952), Indian Palaeography, Varanasi: Motilal Banarasidas; Part I.
Patel, P.G. (1996), Linguistic and cognitive aspects of the Orality-Literacy complex in Ancient India Language and
Communication. 16:315-29.
Rajgor, D. (2000). Palaeo linguistic Profile of Brahmi Scripts. Delhi: Pratibha Prakashan.
Sivaramamurthy, C. and Deva, K.(1970), Indian Scripts and Languages in Asian countries.
In: S.P Gupta et.al. (eds.) India’s Contribution to World Thought and Culture. Madras.
Studdart-Kennedy, M. (1998). The Particulate origins of. Language generativity: from syllable to gesture In:
Hurford, J. Studdart-Kennedy, M. and Knight, C. (eds) Approaches to the Evolution, Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Pp. 202-221.
Upasak, C.S. (1960), History and Palaeography of McCarthy, J. Maurya Brahmi Scripts, Patna: Nava Nalanda Mahavihara.
Verma, T.P. (1971), The Palaeography of the Brahmi Script in North India, Varanasi: Siddarth Prakashan.
Walawalkar, A.B. (1951), Pre-Aṥokan Brahmi: A Study of the Origins of Indian Alphabet, Bombay
Preface
This book is intended to provide a general survey of all the inscriptional material the Indo-
Aryan languages. This is a vast body of material, comprising tens of thousands of documents
over a chronological range of more than two millennia an…. geographical range including not
only “India” in the broadest traditional sense.. The term but also much of southeast, central,
and other parts of Asia. The range the material is equally broad in terms of languages, scripts,
style, and content. I h….. attempted to survey the entire corpus of inscriptions in all the Indo-
Aryan language and to present it in such a way as to make it accessible not only to specialists in
field but also to non-specialists, whether they be Indologists working in other… field (e.g.,
South Asian historians) or scholars involved in epigraphic and …studies in other regions of the
non-specialist, who may be less interested in technical data and the desire to present a complete
and accurate picture of this complex subject… where it proved necessary to choose between
the two. I preferred to err on the side... completeness.
This book is intended to supplement rather than to supplant previous gen…….studies of
Indian epigraphy, especially Indian Epigraphy by D.C. Sircar, whose pertise in the subject no one
could hope to exceed or even equal. Nonetheless, I h…. felt it worthwhile to attempt a more
up-to-date survey (that of Sircar being now m… than thirty years old), one which will present
the field from a somewhat broader:.. Less specialised point of view.
It seems advisable to state clearly at the outset the limits which have been set… this study.
This is, first of all, a book on epigraphy, not paleography; that is to say… is mainly concerned
with the study of inscriptions and their contents rather than… the forms, varieties, and
historical development of the scripts in which they are w… en. The term “inscription” is
interpreted in the loose sense in which it is tradition… ally used in Indic studies, including
documents written in ink on such surfaces… clay, wood, or skin (the German Aufschrift) as well
as inscriptions proper, that.
The terms “epigraphy” and “paleography” are used here in the senses in which they are
traditionally employed in Indic and Semitic studies (see G.S. Gai, Introduction to Indian
Epigraphy, and Joseph Naveh. Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic
Epigraphy Palaeography [Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1987], 6) rather than as they are used in
class.. Studies, wherein “paleography” is generally used to refer to the study of texts written in
ink, as..Posed to those engraved on hard surfaces.
Century beliefs that have been discredited by science in the twentieth century; we cannot
remain attached to them as we enter the twenty-first. 1
Our only hope for making any headway is to start from scratch and go directly to the
material that has remained unaffected by the prejudices and assumptions that gave rise to
nineteenth century Indology and its theories; for it is precisely these theories that have placed as
in our present predicament. This means we must go to the primary sources ----the seals
themselves, and the ancient Indian literature. Both are products of the same milieu and must be
studied together. Modern theories are much later impositions, separated by millennia from the
source; they cannot be placed on the same level of importance as the primary source ---and
their creators---to behave accounting to modern theories. Since they don t’s, these theories must
go ---not the sources.
When we say ‘primary sources’ we mean ancient texts in their original language, and not
their modern translations and interpretations. These, as we shall soon demonstrate, are mainly
mistranslations and interpretations. Only by recognising this fundamental fact can we hope to
be in a position to bring a new perspective to the study of the Indus script and language, and
place them also in their proper historical context. Without such a fundamental departure there
can be no understanding of the Harappans, including their language and writing.
New direction II: reading must come before interpretation
We depart from current opinion in one other important respect: we hold that the Harappan
Civilisation cannot be understood unless we first read their writing. As long as we are unable to
read the messages, which the Harappans have left behind, all we have are conjectures, the most
successful of which are those that can be neither proved nor disproved; they can only be
endlessly argued over. The choice of any inherent merit.
Again, as one of the authors of this book recently pointed out (Jha 1997):
It has been asserted that the Indus Civilisation had no trace had no trace of the Aryan [Vedic] in it. But
people making such claims are in no position to discuss anything relating to the Indus Civilisation for
being unable to read the script. And yet they want everyone to accept their conclusions as to who these
people were. What language they spoke, and even what they wrote on the seals!

1. As remarked in the Preface, a belief that has had a major influence on Indology is the Bjblical that the world
was created on 23 October 4004 BC at 9:00AM! (The time zone was not specified by its creator, the Irish
Bishop Ussher. Presumably it was GMT.) This given 2448 BC for the Biblical Flood and Noah’s building of
the Ark. Belief in these dates led Max Müller ---a Christian Fundamentalist---to assign 1500 BC for the Aryan
invasion and1200 BC for the RgVeda. For the same reason. Max Müller was a strong critic of Charles
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. He used ‘linguistic evidence, in his attempts to refute Darwin. a tactic
borrowed by modern Indologists to refute scientific findings. Their linguistic evidence is properly called the
‘Iinguistic dogma’---to do full justice to its Biblical origins. So it is no accident that Malati Shengde should
have constructed a new ‘linguistic theory’ claiming the Harappans to the speakers of Akkadian.
 We must also note that most such scholars are not students of the Vedic literature---at least
in the original language. Our basic point: we must first read the seals before we presume to interpret their
culture. Otherwise, our impressions of the Harappan Civilisation will be little different from the
description of the elephant by the Blind Men of Hindustan.
We would also like to point out that anthropological interpretations of Harappan
archaeology are of no help in reading the writing; the problem is of an altogether different
dimension. It demands totally different ---and more exact – methods. To begin with, in order to
study the seals (and the primary sources) ---and flow what we have called a ‘new direction’ – we
need a complete break from the scholarship of the past two hundred years. In the chapters to
come we shall be following just such a path---one that is radically different from what is
founded in history books. When we do so, it will probably-come as a great a surprise to most
readers to learn that what has been presented as ‘history’ is almost completely false. And this
includes such hoary beliefs as the date of the RgVeda (1200 BC) and others that have been held
to be sacrosanct. Our goal is to make it apparent to the reader that these theories, far from
helping us understand the Indus script, have served only to mislead us.
In order to make this point clear---that indological scholarship of the last two centuries has
been a barrier to process---we next provide a critical summary of their crucial aspects by
contrasting them with some of the latest findings. This will also help acquaint the reader with
recent research results, and prepare the ground for the discussion to follow in later chapters.
This will eventually take us to the decipherment.
We propose to do this by highlighting what we see as four basic misconception of all – that
the model of ancient history is based on objective research and sound scholarship. As we shall
soon demonstrate, this is far away from the truth.
First misconception: Vedic Aryan as Nomadic Invaders
History books on ancient India accord a central place to the Aryan invasion. (Now there is a
semantic shift calling it a migration rather than invasion, but the foreign origin) of the Vedas
and its creators is ought to be kept intact.) The date usually given for the invasion is 1500 BC,
and the RgVeda itself is claimed to have been composed around 1200 BC. As previously noted,
the Aryan invasion theory is racial in origin, but that is not how it is presented today. It is said to
be supported by linguistics. It is claimed that these Aryan, whose original homeland is placed in
Central Asia or even Europe, invaded India and destroyed the Harappan Civilisation of the
original inhabitants called Dravidians.
Archaeological evidence emphatically contradicts this scenario. It is not necessary here to go
into the details of Harappan archaeology, but it suffices to know that Archaeologists have
found no evidence for any invasion or massive migration into India in ancient times. As
American archaeologist Jim Shaffer has observed:
Current Archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into
South Asia any time in the pre-or proto historic periods… (Shaffer1984: p 88.)
In persisting with their invasion scenario, and insisting that both Sanskrit and the Vedas
were brought by nomadic foreign invaders, linguists continue to ignore empirical evidence from
fields like archaeology; in fact, it is not just Archaeology, but also astronomy, ancient ecology,
metallurgy and even ancient mathematics, that go to contradict the scenario of the linguists. 2
The question then becomes; if Aryan ere not pastoral nomads from the Eurasian steppes as
history books tells us, what were they really like? Here is the surprising answer: the RgVeda tells
us they were mainly a maritime people. The dominant metaphor in the RgVeda is of a maritime
society. So, while modern Indologists have been telling us that the Aryans were a nomadic
people who were ignorant of the ocean, the idea itself is nowhere to be found in the Vedas. It is
in fact contradicted by profuse reference to the oceans. And the pervasiveness of the oceanic
symbolism that is found throughout the RgVeda. This alone can explain why the Vedic people
thought primarily in terms of oceanic symbolism. Otherwise this profusion of oceanic
symbolism would be inexplicable. Here are some examples including from the famous creation
hymn in the RgVeda. (Translations by David Frawley.)
In the beginning, there was darkness hidden in darkness,
all this universe was an unillumined sea.
RgVeda X.129.3
The Gods stood together in the sea. Then as dancers
they generated a swirl of dust.
When, like ascetics, the Gods overflowed the world,
then from hidden in the ocean they brought forth the Sun.
RgVeda X.72.6-7
The creative Sun upheld the Earth with Lines of force.
He strengthened the Heaven where there was no support.
As a powerful horse he drew out the atmosphere.
He bound fast the ocean in the boundless realm.
Thence came the world and the upper region,
Thence Heaven and Earth were extended.
RgVeda X.149.1-2
Law and truth from the power of meditation were enkindled.
Thence the night was born and then the flooding ocean.
From the flooding ocean the year was born. The Lord of
all that moves ordained the days and nights.
The Creator formed the Sun and Moon according to previous
Worlds; Heaven and Earth, the atmosphere and the realm of light.
All these passages are pervaded by the image of the ocean. And there are literally hundreds
of them. As Frawley points out, a society totally ignorant of the sea does not visualize the
process of creation itself in terms of the ocean.
Can anyone believe this to the poetry of a nomadic people who had never seen the ocean?
What trust are we to place in a scholarship that denied all this for over a century while insisting

2 We have given what we feel is the barest minimum necessary for the purpose of the present book. A
discussion of different sources of evidence can be found in Vedic Aryans and the Origins of the Civilization. Second
Edition (1997) by Rajaram and Frawley, New Delhi: Voice of India. See also The Vedic Harappans (1995) by
Bhagwan Singh, New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
that its creators were nomadic invaders ignorant of the sea? What are their ‘interpretations’
worth?
Second Misconception: ‘petty conjectural ‘pseudo-science’ as a scientific tool
According to the model of ancient Indian history found in history found in history books, the
Aryans invaded India, established themselves in North India, and then went on to create the
Vedas and the vast body of Sanskrit literature that followed. This, according to historians, is the
reason why North and South Indians speak different language families-the Aryan and the
Dravidian. This is supposedly the result of modern linguistic research. 3
Thus uprooted, the Dravidians are said to have migrated en masse to the southern part of
the peninsula. They took with them their original language – said to be an ancient form of
‘Dravidian’ – but not the script that they had created while living in their original Harappan habitat.
Further, they remained illiterate for some fifteen centuries, and when they started writing again
they used the Brahmi script that had originated in the North. In addition, when they started
writing, their original’ Dravidian’ language –some kind of early Tamil – had lost its pristine
purity and become heavily indebted to Sanskrit for its vocabulary, literary forms and even
grammar. 4
This scenario assumes that there existed a ‘pure ’form of Dravidian language
uncontaminated by Sanskrit – usually called Proto Dravidian – which prevailed among the
Harappans before the Aryans invaded and uprooted them. And this Proto Dravidian, of which
not a single word is found anywhere is sought to be recreated by linguistics in order to read the
writing on the Indus seals. This assumes that linguistics has the necessary predictive power to
compute past states from the present, like astronomy has with celestial mechanics. This is not
easy to accept in a qualitative discipline like linguistics.
Lack of technical power is only one of the problems in dealing with the historical scenario
created by linguists. They have totally ignored evidence and claimed that the Vedas are the
creation of nomadic invaders from Central Asia and therefore ignorant of the ocean. This, as
we just saw, is refuted by the RgVeda itself. And yet this dogma of the Vedic people as foreign

3. Some scholars now recognise that there is no evidence for any invasion in ancient times. It is the position of
these scholars that even without the invasion there is ‘linguistic evidence’ (sic Biblical evidence?)to show that
Vedas and the ancestor of Sanskrit were not indigenous to India but foreign imports! This is particularly the
case with Marxist historians of India. As previously observed, Malati Shengde’s latest theory of Akkadian as
the source of Sanskrit is only the latest exercise in Marxist theology.
4 The differences between Sanskrit and so-called Dravidian language have been greatly exaggerated in an effort
to make them fit linguistic theories. Dravidian languages are said to be ‘agglutinative’ while Sanskrit and other
Aryan languages are inflected. As a native speaker of a so-called Dravidian language (and a writer in that
language), Rajaram can attest that Dravidian languages are inflected like Sanskrit and have cases that are
identical. In many ways these so-called Dravidian languages have preserved forms and usages – including
sounds-that are no longer in vogue in North Indian languages like Hindi. Sri Aurobindo, a linguist of genius,
had reached a similar conclusion following his study of Tamil bears no relation to reality either qualitatively or
chronologically .
invaders is an article of faith among linguists. It is expressed by the well-known linguist Murray
Emeneau in the following words:
At some time in the second millennium. B.C., probably comparatively early in the millennium, a band or
bands of speakers of an Indo-European language, later to be called Sanskrit, entered India over the
northwest passes. This is our linguistic doctrine which has been held now for more than a century and a half. There
seems to be no reason to distrust the arguments for it, in spite of the traditional Hindu ignorance of any
such invasion. (Emeneau 1954::p 282; emphasis added.)
As Emeneau himself acknowledges, this notion of a foreign origin for the Vedas and
Sanskrit is a ‘linguistic doctrine’ for which there is no evidence in the Vedic or other ancient
literature. Presumably Emeneau expects us to accept his doctrine on faith – as revealed truth.
To us this sounds more like theology than science. (Remember Thomas Aquinas’ dictum:
Philosophia ancilla thologiae or” Rational inquiry must be subordinate to theology.”)
Since this ‘Dravidian theory’ has played, and continues to play such a crucial role in the
reading of the Indus script, let us clearly understand what all this entails. First, it assumes the
Aryan invasion and the subsequent displacement of the Dravidians to Dravidian – that was
without a trace of Sanskrit, and this was the language of the Harappans; third, it assumes that
when the uprooted Harappans migrated south to become of Dravidians of south India, they
took with them the language but not the script; finally, it assumes that these Dravidians remained
illiterate for some fifteen centuries, and when they started producing their own literature they
used a northern script and a language that was heavily influenced by Sanskrit.
Anyone who tries to read Proto Dravidian in the Indus seals is implicitly assuming all these
to be true. Such a person is also assuming that he or she can recreate this ‘pure’ Dravidian as it
existed fifteen centuries earlier by filtering out all the Sanskritic influences that are found in later
Tamil, not to speak of other so-called Dravidian languages like Kannada and Telugu. This in
effect is the power claimed by linguists for their creations though it is never started so
explicitly.(Also, scholars like Father Hears who have sought to read Proto Dravidian in the
Indus writing have invariably ended up imposing modern Tamil constructs! He had no choice,
for it is not easy to create a language out of thin air.)
This scenario therefore assumes that modern linguistics, a subject that is barely two hundred
years old, has the predictive and computational power that is comparable to exact sciences like
mathematics, physics, is incapable of such extraordinary precision; errors of the order of 5000
to 1000 years have been noted by archaeologists and physicists when dealing with the third and
the early fourth millennium – the same period during which the Harappans and well beyond the
realm of scientific possibility. 5
Seen from a strictly scientific point of view, it appears that linguists in their flights of fancy
have been guilty of an elementary methodological error. They have mistaken their own man-
made classifications for fundamental laws of nature. They have failed to note that, a classification
is not a cause-and-effect law. This is a common error committed by scientifically uninformed
people. Any classification depends crucially on the features selected; the choice of a different

5. For more on inaccuracies arising in radiocarbon dating of ancient sites see for example before Civilization by Colin
Renfrew (1990), London: Penguin.
set of features gives rise to a different classification scheme. This makes the whole thing a
largely subjective exercise. It is the height of scientific naiveté to expect such a classification to
function as a law of nature. For this reason, no scientist who recognises this fallacy an take the
claims of linguists seriously. Sri. Aurobindo, a linguist of genius who knew both Indian and
European language, saw this fallacy long ago. Speaking of linguistic classifications and what he
saw as extravagant claims by linguists, he observed:6
The philologists [i.e., linguists] indeed place a high value on their line of study … and persist in giving it
the name of science but the scientists are of a very different opinion…
Where there is insufficient evidence or equal probability in conflicting solutions, science admits
conjectural hypothesis as a step towards discovery. But the abuse of this concession to our human
ignorance, the habit of erecting flimsy conjectures as the assured gains of knowledge is the curse of
philology.(Sri Aurobindo 1971: pp551-3; emphasis added.)
We must recognise that our divisions are popular, not scientific, based, upon superficial identities not
upon one sound foundation for a science… The reproach of the real scientist against the petty
conjectural pseudo-science of philology is just… (op. cit. pp 561-2; emphasis added.)
It was the great nineteenth century scholar E. Renan who called linguistics a ‘petty Conjectural
pseudo-science’. But linguists have chosen to ignore such warnings while.
Continuing to press into service their unscientific methods and tools. When faced with
practical problems – like the decipherment of the Indus script – linguists do not have a single
correct solution to show. Whenever presented with new data, or faced with a new problem, they
come up with another theory often in the form of a new language family. This has now become
a standard ritual. One recent example will suffice to illustrate this theory building.
When some inscriptions in Elamite came to light, several linguists went about creating a
new language family, which they called the Elamo-Dravidian family. It will not be long before
we begin to hear of attempts at script decipherment based on this imaginary family. It will not
lead to any decipherment, but only add to the burden of the already over-burdened student.
(Recently Malati Schengde has claimed the Harappan language to be Akkadian without of
course being able to read the writing. She even claims that Sanskrit is a derivative of Akkadian.
See Note 1.)
On the strength of all this, we are forced to conclude that modern linguistics simply lacks
the analytical power needed to solve a technical problem like the decipherment of the Indus
script. In its present state it is not a science, let alone a technology. Nor are linguists equipped to
solve technical problems. We must therefore look elsewhere.
Third Misconception: Ancient Dates Based on Objective Research
The current model of ancient India based on the Aryan invasion contains serious errors relating
to ancient dates that have been exposed by science. It is started that the Aryans entered India in
1500 BC and composed the RgVeda in c.1200 BC. Archaeology makes this impossible. The

6. Sri Aurobindo often used the term ‘philology’—a usage current before the Second World War that is now
obsolete among linguists. Historians and Indologists, especially in India, continue to use obsolete term.
RgVeda describes an ancient river called the Sarasvati. It is now known that the Saraswathi river
system, and not only any invasion that was the main cause of the loss of the Harappan
Civilisation.) The so-called Aryan invaders coming into India only in 1500BC could not be
describing and worshipping a river that had ceased to exist nearly 500 years earlier. In fact, the
latest evidence suggests that the Saraswati described in the RgVeda as the greatest of rivers, and
flowing ‘form the mountain to the sea’, had begun to dry up even before 3000 BC.
This suggests that the dates assigned by Indologists to the Vedic literature and episodes have
errors that routinely exceed 2000 years. This should not come as any surprise; the same methods
(and scholars) that turned the maritime Vedic people into steppe nomads gave us also the dates.
In trying to understand such gross errors. A useful point to note is that pioneer Indologists like
Max Müller were not scientifically trained.
In the fullness of his maturity as a scholar, Max Mullur came to recognise his short comings
as a Sanskritist. In a letter he wrote to the distinguished Nepalese scholar and Sanskrit poet
Pandit Chavilal of Kathmandu, the author of the Sanskrit play Sundara charita, he candidly
admitted: 7
I am surprised at your familiarity with Sanskrit. We, in Europe, shall never be able to equal you in that. We
have to read but never to write Sanskrit. To you it seems as easy as English or Latin to us…. We can
admire all the more because we cannot rival, and I certainly was filled with admiration when I read but a
few pages of your Sundara charita. 8
So he finally saw the light, just as he had seen the light about his dates for the Vedas and
admitted that he could easily be wrong by two thousand years – as indeed he has been proved
wrong by science. In fact, a critical reading of his remarks on Sayana’s commentary reveals that
Max Müller had considerable difficulty with Sanskrit texts. He frequently expresses his
puzzlement over Sayana’s terse references to Panini’s Astadhyayi and Yaska’s Nirukta. Both are
basic to any reading of the Vedic literature. Sayana lived in the 14th century and yet Max Müller
found him difficult. Sayana is also known for a lucid and easy style.
So here is a basic point to ponder: when he had such difficulty with Sanskrit written only
five hundred years before his time, what qualifications did he have to interpret the RgVeda
written some five thousand years earlier? The result was inevitable: Max Müller gave as a
massive, nay, monumental misinterpretation of the Vedas as the record of a nomadic people
who had never seen the ocean! And yet there are people who when today regard him as the

7 This letter was left out of Max Müller’s biography (more likely his autobiography) but was published in 1900 in
Vritalankara brought out by Pandit Chavilal.
8. This candid admission reflects credit on Max Müller. Though he could be masterful and even disdainful in
dealing with his colleagues, he was full of courtesy and even humility before real scholars of Sanskrit at the
letter shows. Since archaeologists and Indologists seen to be excessively deferential towards the claims of
Western Sanskritists, here is a point worth considering: Indians began their study of Sanskrit. Many Indians
have attained distinction writing in English: but there is note a single work in Sanskrit-not even one sloka-
written by a Western Sanskritist that is worth anything. This should help place their scholarly claims in
perspective.
ultimate authority on the Vedas. The more closely we study the Vedas in the original, the more
apparent his shortcomings become. 9
David Frawley, probably the foremost Western Vedic scholar working today had this to say
regarding such interpretations and the Aryan invasion:
For all the emphasis on an Aryan invasion of India which remains the common view in historical books
today, no solid evidence can be shown for it, and the so-called literary evidence, the misinterpretation of
the Vedas as the records of a nomadic people is the least credible.(Frawley, 1991; p 256; original
emphasis.)
In bringing all this to light, it has not been our intention to needlessly malign Max Müller
whose contributions we recognise; our criticisms apply to an even degree to other scholars. He
was a great and imaginative publisher of ancient works (Sacred Books of the East series), and a
pioneer in bringing the Vedas to the general public. But this does not mean we should
unquestioningly accept his interpretations, especially when it has been such a barrier to our
understanding of ancient India, not to speak of the decipherment of the Indus script. Since he
looks so large in the history of Indology, we have found it necessary to place his work in the
proper perspective. He was a pioneer whose level of scholarship may have been acceptable in
nineteenth century Europe, but not today.
The basic point to note is: the Aryan invasion and the non-Indian of the Vedas are not
conclusions that follow from any study of the Vedas, but only preconceptions used in interpreting them. These
‘interpretations’ were derived mainly by European colonial and Christian missionary interests.
And yet this is the nature of scholarship on which Indologists, including students of the
Harappan Civilisation, have based their own interpretations. Not knowing any Sanskrit, perhaps
they had no choice. But it is the height of insularity to believe that this gives one the necessary
background to interpret the Harappan Civilisation, and even decipher the Indus scripts. This
takes us to the next misconception, one that is basic to a re-definition of the connections
between Vedic literature and Harappan archaeology.
Fourth Misconception: Harappan Civilisation as unconnected with the Vedic
Most Indologists, particularly students of Harappan Civilisation, seem unaware of the
magnitude of the error involved in basing their conclusions on the theories of linguists. The
Harappan Civilisation may be placed in the 3100-1900 BC period, though the exact dates are by
no means certain. Linguists, following Max Müller’s choronology, tell us that the RgVeda was
composed about 1200 BC. Since Harappan archaeologists, especially in Europe and America
(and their Indian followers) know little Sanskrit, they have by and large accepted this date as
proven. Going a step further, they have subordinated their own. finding to the dates and other
conclusions of linguists. For instance, Gregory Possehl notes:

9. As previously noted, our intention in bringing all this to light is note to malign Max Müller but only highlight
the risks involved in accepting conclusions on the force of authority. Here the blame lies not so much with
Max Müller himself who had the defects that go with a pioneer, as with his followers, especially the prominent
school of India historians of the last fifty years. They have taken the easy route by uncritically accepting his
findings.
 Most western and many Indian scholars are content to date the RgVeda to the early centuries of the first
millennium. … The date of the historical material in these texts is an open question, but it could go as far
as back as the second millennium B.C. (Possehl 1996; p 65.)
In making this casual remark, as if the actual date of the RgVeda were a point of minor
concern in the study of the Harappan Civilisation, possehl probably does not recognise the
magnitude of the distortion he has admitted into his own study-.. distortion so great as to
foreclose any possibility of arriving at a correct historical understanding of the Harappans, and
with it any possibility of reading the Indus seals.
Since it is so crucial an assumption-though possehl seems unaware of its true m port-it is
worth a serious look. To begin with, this assumption means that the Vedas… no connection
with the Harappan Civilisation. not only the Vedas, but the vast … of literature that derives
from it –the Brahmanas, the Upanishads, the Sutras, the Vedanta and the ancient epics-all are
made post-Harappan and therefore irrelevant.. the Harappan Civilisation by the force of this
assumption. At the same time, the Harappan, who have left behind such vast archeological
remains, must have had history.
Let us examine where exactly this leaves us. The Vedic Aryan have created what is
undoubtedly the largest body of literature of antiquity. In sheer size, it exceeds all the literature
put together by other ancient civilisations taken several times over. And yet there is no
archaeological or even geographical record of the creators of this immense literature or of their
invasion. The Harappans on the other hand have left is archaeological remains that are also the
most extensive in the ancient world, but o literature. This, as Frawley has pointed out,
introduces a great paradox-known.. ‘Frawley’s paradox’ – of a history without a literature for
the Harappans and a literature without history, archaeology or geography for the Aryans. this is
made doubly... aradoxical when we note that the Aryans who created the Vedas were supposed
to have been illiterate, while the Harappans we know were literature. And yet it is the vast
literature of the literature Aryans that has survived while the literate Harappan have vanished
without a literary trace. A paradox indeed!
The simplest way of resolving this paradox is to attribute both achievements-rchaeological
and literary-to the same people. These are the Vedic Aryans who related both the Vedas and the
great material civilisation of the people we now call Harappans. There are many connections
between the Vedic literature and Harappan archaeology which scholars have striven to negate in
their misguided efforts to subordinate their findings to the dogmas and diktats of the linguists.
This has been a serious barrier to progress. As we shall see in later chapters, the connections
between the Harappans and the Vedic literature are very deep indeed. The best way of resolving
the paradox is to throw off this’ linguistic tyranny’-as Jim Shaffer calls it-and equate the two.
That is to say, the people who created the greatest literature in antiquity must have been the
same people who have left behind the most extensive archaeological remains. This brings us to
the dates of the various ages of ancient India as recorded in her literature and tradition. 10

10. In this effort to divorce Harappan archaeology from the Vedic literature one can also detect a trace of wishful
thinking-that one can somehow interpret the Harappan Civilization without going to the trouble of learning
the Vedic language and literature. The same mindset seems to be at work with regard to the Indus script also-
Ancient Indian Chronology
Chronology is not a primary concern of our book. At same time, since the current model
assumes the Vedas to be post-Harappan, and the Harappan Civilisation to be totally unrelated
to the Vedic, it is necessary to correct some basic misconceptions. First, the most recent
research shows this idea of Vedic as post-Harappan to be emphatically false. As we shall
demonstrate in the next chapter, the Harappan Civilisation of c. 3100-1900BC corresponds to
the late Vedic Age. This reverses the chronological relationship between the Vedic and the
Harappan Civilisations by placing the RgVeda before the Harappan Civilisation. The
consequences of this reversal are far-reaching: it profoundly alters the whole perception of the
Harappans as a people and their civilisation.
Anthropologists studying Harappan archaeology have claimed that agricultural surpluses
generated in the centuries before 3000 BC gave rise to a burst of activity leading to the great
urban civilisation. This is a purely materialistic view that fails to explain advances in knowledge
in fields like metallurgy, mathematics, town planning and others, which go to make such an
extensive civilisation possible. No less important is knowledge of astronomy without which a
maritime civilisation like the Vedic (and the Harappan) would be out of the question.
We should not fail to note that the same period saw also an explosion in knowledge in
abstract disciplines-as it evident from works on grammar, etymology, philosophy, mathematics
and no doubt others. So a knowledge revolution must have accompanied.
Agricultural revolution. A similar revolution came about in Europe following the action of
printing by Gutenberg, and is happing today following the invention of: computer: the former
gave rise to the Renaissance, and the latter the Information We cannot attribute all these simply
to food Surpluses. 11
This means: Harappans of the Indus-Sarasvati were the Vedic Harappans. They were come Pre-
Vedic proto Dravidians, Much less Elamo Dravidians or anybody else. All theories are
productions of Philological fantasy. More significantly, much of the Vedic nature, particularly
the contents of the four Vedas, were already in existence when the cities and structures of the
Harappan were coming into existence towards the centuries of the fourth millennium. We shall
see in lather chapters that this is cited in the writing and images on the seals themselves.
As far as the dates for the Harappan Civilisation are concerned, we use 3100 BC to BC as a
first approximation for the period that corresponds to the bulk of the archeological remains
including the seals; its antecedents take us back at least to 7000 an sites that have been

that there is an easy solution it here that easy! Unfortunately, science is not so accommodating. “There is no
royal road to mathematics”-as Euclid told a king.
11 It is not unreasonable to suppose that it was the invention of efficient method of writing some ries before
3000 BC that made possible the growth of such an extensive civilization as the Harappan. is what became the
Indus script .There are claims of seals with writing that go back to 3300 BC,I we have not had an opportunity
to examine. Rajaram has seen figures in pre-historic rock paintings Central India, some of which resemble
Indus sings, and could be the source of the writing. This is that awaits study. (see Appendix).
discovered so far.12 It should further be noted that published dates for the Harappan civilisation
give an appearance of greater certainty than is warranted by science. To begin with, radiocarbon
dates are not as precise as commonly believed especially when we reach back to periods beyond
the third millennium. When we move to the fourth, the errors often “pass belief ” in the
picturesque phrase of sir Mortimer Wheeler –one of the pioneers in the use of the radiocarbon
method. Several corrections, particularly the one put for wade by H.E. Suess are useful, but
none is what might be called foolproof. Nor is the calibration entirely easy to use, especially for
those unfamiliar with quantitative methods.
To make matters worse, for reason best known to them, Indian archaeologists seem to fight
shy of using these corrections. Raymond and Bridget Allchin in their latest (1993) revision of
The Birth of Indian Civilisation observe (page 8):
When the present system (calibration of the radiocarbon dates)came into use, in the mid-Seventies, it
significantly changed many of the dates, especially for certain periods. However the new system of
calibration was not adopted in India, and CI4 dates from the National Physical continue to be published
without calibration.
This is only part of the problem. Radiocarbon dates are often affected by extraneous
factors such as the introduction of chemicals like carbon and volcanic ash (which often
contains burnt organic substances). Since the region of the Harappan sites is tectonically
unstable, earthquakes and resulting fires have been frequent. Further, there is considerable
salinity in the region due to encroachment of the sea during various periods. And there are
other technical problems as well. All this makes the dates less certain than one would like.
It is a mistake therefore to believe that we are certain about the dates assigned to the various
levels of the Harappan sites, or the stages of the civilisation. Terms like ‘early’, ‘mature’ and

12. The site of Mehrgarth in Baluchistan is probably the best know dating to c. 7000 BC. As to question why such
ancient sites are not Found in the Harappan heartland, we may point out that the were continuously inhabited
unit 2000 BC. At which date the Sarasvati river went more or less am and Frawley (op. cit.) that the rise of the
Vedic Civilization probably owed much to the melting as to wards the end of the last lee Age. Then there was
gradual loss of water sources culminating in year drought which led the collapse of ancient civilization
including the Harappan (see note 21) Those in the north west –like Mehrgarh – we the first to feel its impact.
This explains why the sites preserved are in that area (north west ). Far from the sarasvathi (Harappan )
heartland: they were the first to be abandoned.
Other point to note is that the Harappa site of Dholavira in the Rann of Kutch. Which has been sively studied
by R.S Bight (among others) has revealed the existence of a planned city that may go to 3500 BC. This is likely
to push back the date the Harappan civilization further, almost touching of the closing period of the RgVeda.
Rajaram and Frawely (op.cit) place the latter date c. 3750 BC so, that distinguished archaeologist S.R. Rao
recently told Rajaram that Koldihwa in the interior of has May of the features like rice and horse bones that
point to Harappan (and vedic) antecedents bones at Koldih wa-of both wild and domesticated variety – go
back to the seventh millennium. Can forget the claim of ‘no horse at Harappa.”) As noted in a footnote
earlier. There are distinct flarities between some rock painting in central India and several Harappan signs. A
comparative study Harappans and the prehistoric sites of Central India could Yield important into the
evolution vedic-Harappan Civilisation.
‘late’ are subjective and the dates and durations for each are still tentative. Also, at several
important sites –Mohenjo-Daro itself is an example archaeologists have not yet reached the
lowest habitation levels. It therefore borders on the presumptuous to label a later level as ‘early’
or ‘mature’.
There are also technical problems associated with radiocarbon dating itself for which reason
several important sites have none. Even when we do have them, they are less certain than one
would wish. As Possehl observes regarding the assignment of dates:
Archaeologists have learned that constructing a radiocarbon chronology is neither simple nor straight
forward. Anomalous dates occur at most sites, sometimes in abundance, as at Mehrgarh and Kalibangan
(both important sites). Some important sites, like Anjira, Kulli and Chanu-Daro, do not have radiocarbon
dates: which means that comparative methods have to be used to estimate their ages. Single radiocarbon
date for a phase or Phase strata cannot be relied on. One has to be ready to sift and weigh the evidence
and follow what one hopes is the preponderance of data. There is ample room for honest error in the
exercise, as well as occasions to become trapped in various from of self-fulfilling hypotheses, circular
reasoning and bag guesses. (Possehl 1996, p 8.)
The comparative method referred to by Possehl involves finding another site of own date
that is at a comparable level of cultural development as the being studied, d assigning to a
similar date as the former. This is highly subjective, and errors of the der of a thousand years
are not unknown. (Errors of the same order are not unknown in dio carbon dating itself,
especially when we go beyond the third millennium.) The sum all of this: archaeology is not an
exact science whose determination of dates can be as precise.
For all its technical limitations, we are nonetheless able to work within the broad me work
of these dates while not regarding them as hard and fast limits. Further, since lowest levels of
the Harappan civilisation have not been reached even at some well own places like Mohenjo-
Daro, we feel that archaeological data are incomplete, and blushed dates cannot be used to set
barriers in investigating civilisation and events suggested by ancient literature and other
evidence. We feel that Harappan civilisation it’s have been preceded by a long period of
evolution, which we find recorded in the dic and other ancient literature; since exploration at
Harappan sites have not reached lowest levels, and are therefore incomplete, we feel that
archaeology cannot be used contradict-let alone refute –these accounts some of which may
point to earlier (Recently published refute – about the Harappan site of Dholavira suggests the
presence of planned city going back to 3500 BC.)
In addition, the level of artistry displayed in the creation of the seals point to a long of
development and cannot be a sudden burst. As we shall see in later chapters, the capture of the
Indus script is also indicative of earlier phases of writing from which its evolved. we shall also
demonstrate that it has deep connections with the rules Vedic grammar found in ancient works,
which presuppose the existence of Vedic nature at even earlier dates. Here again we find that
adopting a specialised approach on the phonetics and grammar of a known language has
significant advantages over realised theories commonly favored by linguists.
In summary, this is one of the major advantages of placing the Vedas before the own
Harappan civilisation as science now tells us: we have much better agreement been archaeology
and literature where none existed before. It also cuts the Gordian of known as ‘Frawley’s
paradox above all we now have a clearly defined historical next for the Harappans.
Two Basic Errors in Methodology
With the benefit of hindsight, even setting aside irrational biases due to politics and Biblical
superstitions, we can now recognise that Indology has been guilty of two fundamental
methodological errors. First, linguists have confused their theories –based on their own
classifications and even whimsical assumption-for fundamental laws of nature that reflect
historical reality. Further, they have attributed to the ‘petty conjectural pseudo –science’ of the linguistics-
as Renan called it –a degree of precision not matched even by radiocarbon dating.
This approach has led to the following fundamental error: linguists seem to prefer
generalisations and theory –building to detailed structural analysis of grammar and phonetics
of individual language as practiced by masters like Panini and Yaska. It is axiomatic in
mathematics the more general a theorem is, the less deep it is the same is true of linguistics.
While we find the Vedic grammar and etymology of the ancient masters to possess great power
and precision, the same cannot be said of modern linguistics which consists mainly of weak
generalisations of little practical value. They crumble too easily when faced with new data and
problems. While old masters like Panini made linguistics a science, modern linguists seem to be
practicing something closer to theology.
The second fundamental error: archaeologists, at least a significant number of them, have
subordinated their own interpretations to the historical, cultural, and even the chronological
imposition of the linguists. (Remember the Biblical Creation in 4004 BC which gave the Aryan
invasion in 1500 BC!) This has resulted in a fundamental methodological error of confounding
primary data from archaeology with modern impositions like the Aryan invasion and other theories and
even their dates. It is surprising that so crucial a factor as the dates of the Vedic Age –deriving
as we now know from Biblical superstitions and fairy tales –should not have been investigated
by scholars before basing their own interpretations on them. This mixing of un likes further
confound by Biblical beliefs and ghost stories is a primary source of the confusion that plagues
the history and archaeology of ancient India. In their failure to investigate the sources, modern
scholars – Indian. Scholars in particular –have much to answer for.
An immediate consequence of this is that the vast body of primary literature From the Vedic
period has been completely divorced from Harappan archaeology this has meant that this great
literature and its creators have no archaeological existence. In our views, the correct approach to
breaking this deadlock is by a combination of likes a study of primary data from archaeology
alongside the primary literature from ancient periods. This means that we must be wary of
modern theories intruding upon ancient data and exits we find the safest course is to ignore
them.
In summary, we find ourselves able to work within the board limits of dates assigned to
Harappan and pre-Harappan archaeology, trough we are unable to accept the Interpretations
offered by scholars about the civilisation. These interpretations, as we previously emphasised,
are fatally flawed by the imposition of modern linguistic theories, unacceptable preconception,
Biblical superstitions and the like thus, while we have come occasional problems with
radiocarbon dates, we find most interpretations to be totally unacceptable.
Focus on Primary –sources: Seals and Ancient Literature
We have other sources also that have proven invaluable in our study of the language and script
of the Harappan sources that have either been completely ignored or sufficiently understood
they consist of the vast body of literature from the Vedas to the epics, and ancient works on
etymology and grammar we find these to be extra ordinarily helpful in our study. As one of the
authors of the present volume put it (Jha 1997); there are many misconception about this
[Harappan] civilisation going back Mahabharata times these can only be dispelled by a proper
reading of the writing on the Indus seals.. the Kashyapa Prajapathi inspired Nighantuka –
Padakhyana mentioned in the Mahabharata is preserved on the Indus seals By reading this
ancient Vedic glossary thus preserved with the help of the knowledge of this ancient script, the
secrets of this Vedic civilisation [Of the Harappan ]are revealed with success exceeding our
expectations.
This connection between Vides glossaries and Harappan seals recorded in so ancient I
works as the Mahabharata is proving to be of fundamental importance. This is something that
will became clear in lather chapters. In addition to helping us understand the language and
script of the Harappans. They helps us related literature to archaeology. This assistance extends
to chronology also; ancient works contain profuse astronomical and other references that us to
determine some approximate dates. But as previously observed, these are not as primary
concern in the present book: it discussed elsewhere.13
When we go to the ancient literature, we obtain dates that are part of the literary tradition,
and also some that can be computed from astronomical records. The most famous of is a date
of c. 3100 BC for the Mahabharata war, sometimes associated with the beginning of Kali.
Tradition therefore places the Mahabharata war in what is now called the ‘early ’Harappan
phase. This has been disputed by scholars on the ground that the Aryans who were participants
in the war had not yet arrived in India. This objection is no longer valid. it has shown elsewhere
that c. 3100 BC for the war has the best scientific support. In fact there is a substantial body of

13. “This is discussed in Vedic Aryans and the origins of civilization by Rajaram and Frawley, and also in Gods
suges and Kings by Frawley (see Bibliorgraphy).
evidence supporting it though it is not easy to accept a precise date like the Kali date. (see
Rajaram and Frawley op.cit.)
This data is now supported by some recent archaeological finds. Silver ornaments found at
the Sarasvathi site of Kunal prove that copper purification (which releases silver as a byproduct)
was known in Indian before 3000BC; this date is likely to be pushed further back as a result of
additional discoveries and the necessary correction. (see Note ).we take this to be another piece
of technical evidence in support of the c.3100 BC for the Mahabharata war which already had
the best scientific support. A study of ancient metallurgy therefore supports this date, showing
that a majority of the hymns of the Regveda must have been in existence by 3500 BC. 14
This means that the early Harappan period. When the seals began to be created,
corresponds to the Mahabharata period, we shall see lather that this makes the picture much
clearly, by allowing us to relate the seals and their writing to the Vedic literature In what is
perhaps more remarkable, this leads to the discovery that the Mahabharata records how and
why the seals came to be created. this account is found in the santi parva of the Mahabharata: it
contains also a description of the etymological texts whose contents are recorded on the seals
as well as the Vedic symbolism relating to the images on them. this is indeed one of the major
discoveries to follow from what we have called the ‘new direction’ in the study of the Indus
seals. It holds the key not only to the decipherment, but also to an understanding of the culture
and civilisation of the Harappans. We discuss this in some detail in Chapter 4.
Idology: Past is Prologue

Surveying the scene as the it has evolved over the past century and more, we would like make a
few board observations. When the Harappan civilisation was discovered, in light of the then
massive contradiction which it present to the then prevailing view of story, the proper course
for scholars was to re-examine the foundations of their theories out ancient Indian beginning
with the Aryan invasion itself. Instead they reacted by opposing ingenious modification to the
same theories; instead of using new data as the sis for possibly a new model, they sought to
somehow fit the date to the old theory with hope of preserving it. when race theories were
discredited by science (and by Naziro cities later) they again reacted by switching from race to
language while retaining theory in its essentials.
In all this, the principal concern seems to have been an irrational attachment to a theory
that was created in a political and social milieu of Euro-colonialism that no longer cists.
(Neither does it make sense to impose Euro-colonial beliefs and values on a civilisation that
existed thousands of years before European colonialism.)

14 This follows from the fact that the Rigvedu the does not know silver , the earliest Vedic word for silver
rajatam hiranyam or ‘white gold ‘ appears in the yajurveda. Archaeological evidence shows that silver
separation from sulphide ore was known in India(and in surrounding areas) c. 3500 BC if not earlier. This
shows that the bulk of the RgVeda must be anterior to that date. There is good deal more evidence supporting
this date for the Regveda while there is none for the 1200 BC date Biblical Creation in 4004 BC. And the
ghost story in Somadeva’s Kathasarilisagare (see Rajaram and Frawely, op cit )
 This was only the beginning. As additional data came to light casting further doubts the
theory – like the discovery of the Sarasvati river, and the great drought that ended ancient
civilisations –advocates of the non-Indian origin of the Vedas offered ever more ingenious
arguments to keep their theory Intact.15 The result of all this ingenuity was exorably to move
their theories further and further away from reality. As a result, dology today rests on a
foundation of assumptions very far removed from empirical reality. it has no foundation to
speak of, other than “conjectures supported only by wilder conjectures” – as Sri Aurobindo put
it.
A serious, even fatal flaw in these efforts is a complete failure to relate them to y existing
historical, literary or cultural milieu. Often the reverse is the case: a purely imaginary culture
(like the proto Dravidian)is created to which the seals and its language are sought to be related
and then deciphered! This method of ‘the blind leading the blind’ around a circle has led the
field (and its works) to nowhere.
In the light of all this, the underlying theme in our study of the Indus script and the
Harappan Civilisation is that the two hundred –year-old academic subject known as Indology is
incapable of providing the tools and thoughts necessary for the decipherment of the script. A
more fundamental theme is that Indology itself is built on a foundation of beliefs and practices
that have no basis in reality; it has given us a picture of ancient Indian, as it never existed. It has
us more about the people who created them about ancient India.
This being the case, it is futile to expect Indology and Indologists to solve a sharply defined
and technically demanding problems like the decipherment of the Indus script. Expecting these
theories to provide the technical basis for the decipherment would be like asking a bullock cart
to fly us to the moon. It simply cannot be done. Our answer is to go to the primary sources.
Indus Script: The Challenge
Here in a nutshell is the central problem of Indology: the achievements of the Harappan
civilisation have been attributed to a people called proto Dravidians who never existed speaking
a language that also never existed. The writing that they left behind have been sought to be read
by imposing this non-existed language on these imaginary people inhabiting this very real
civilisation. In the process, the immense body of literature left behind by the ancient Indians is
sought to be totally divorced from the writings. ‘misguided’ is probably not too storing a term in
the circumstances.

15. It is now recognised that Dynastic Egypt, Akkadian Empire of Mesopotamia and much of Harappan lia fell
victims to a 300 –year drought (c. 2200-1900 BC)that struck the ancient world across an mense belt from the
Aegean to India. But the insularity of most Indologists was such that hardly anyone k notice of this even
though it was published in so prestigious a Journal as Science, popular article reference to the collapse of the
Harappan Civilization penned by Rajaram appeared in the leading by the Hindustan times on march
6.1994.(see Vedic Aryans and the Origins of civilization –was the in cause of the collapse of the greater part of
the Harappan Civilization. Another contributors was aroachment by sea, making –part of the land
uninhabitable due to salination. As seen lather in the book, of the seals hint at this.
 It is not only the misguided path followed by Indology that presents challenges to the
decipherment, but also the nature of the script itself. Writing systems are described as being
pictorial, logographic, syllabic and alphabetic, but the Indus script defiles classification by
refusing to fall into any one of these. It is none of these and yet all of these. It is script in
transition. It is mainly syllabic in character but moving in a direction that would lead eventually
to the highly scientific and phonetically precise Brahmi, while retaining pictorial symbols and
such archaic traits as doubled consonants that hark back to an earlier phase. in fact. by studying
the Indus script along with its neighbors (and ancient Vedic texts). It is possible to get a
snapshot of the evolution of writing itself.
But such a study calls for a significantly greater familiarity with the literature of the Vedic
period and ancient writing than what most Indologists are likely to possess.
Preliminaries and Prerequisites
In this chapter we shall be presenting the basic signs and the methodology for reading the
message on the Indus seals. Both the signs and the method of reading will be explained with
the help of examples, all taken from the seals. Readers might find some of the ideas of earlier
chapters –especially the last two-occasionally repeated. We find this to be unavoidable. Many
topics that were only touched on earlier will receive elaboration in the present chapter. We shall
also be expanding on our comments on the grammatical rules mentioned in previous chapter.
These are of fundamental importance not only for understanding the methodology presented
here, but also for resolving ambiguities in reading new seals. This will allow readers to grasp the
essentials of Indus writing, which we go on to explore further in the next chapter.
As far as the prerequisites for following the present chapter concerned, we suggest the
following: (1) a familiarity with the Vedic /Sanskrit language. Or at least the vocabulary(2) some
basic knowledge of Sanskrit grammar to the extent at least of splitting and forming words
according to rules of sandhi (euphonic combination); (3) recognition of the role of guna and
vrddhi vowels; and (4) knowledge of the basic features of the Indian system of writing based on
phonetics and composites. These we feel are not especially demanding, no more than what any
student should know after one semester of Sanskrit, In addition, some familiarity with be basic
rules of inflection –or terminations for subanta and tignata (for case and tense) will prove
helpful.
In order to study the Indus writing, it is convenient, to view the script as consisting of the
following elements: (1) the generic vowel symbol (used also as a semi-vowel); (2) consonants
(actually halantas which for the sake of simplicity we treat as akṣara consonants ); (3) composite
letters; (4) numerals as letters and ‘numeric rules’; (5) pictorial symbols; (6) terminal su-te
symbols; and (7) vowel strokes. Readers familiar with Indian languages will recognise that all
these features except numeric letters and ictorials are found in modern script also. The major
difference is that there is greater standardisation today In the vowel strokes, and the generic
vowel symbol has given way a full complement of vowels as described for example in Panini’s
Aṣtadhyāyi. In addition originally pictorial symbols like ‘om’ and sri’ have taken on a cursive
aspect.1

1. “Even the eleven vowel signs used in the modern Devangari are derived from just a few signs. For stance a ,ā,
u ,ū ,o, ou are all derived from the single bow-shaped ‘onkar’ sign Even I ,I ,e and ai can be written
 From this it can be seen that the Indus is a complex script with an extremely rich naracter
set. This gave its scribes several ways in which to express the same sounds, and write the words
in different ways, For all its richness, the Indus writing is best approached as consonantal (or
syllabic) script.
Decipherment
A comprehensive decipherment must include a list of the commonly occurring composite
letters and pictorials also. The pictorials are explained in a letter section, and all –useful
composites are given at the end of the chapter. Here we shall be presenting the decipherment
one step at a time beginning with the basic sign list including the generic vowel sign. This
constitutes the ‘alphabetical subset’ of the Indus script.2 We begin with the simplest examples
using only the consonants We then proceed to the more complex ways of writing using some
of the simpler composites. As just observed, a more comprehensive list of composites is given
in the final section of this chapter.
Table 5.1 gives the basic sign list and their values. This is the alphabetical subset of the
Indus script. The reader will notice that all the consonants used in Vedic (and modern) Sanskrit
are there; the retroflex la disappeared from Sanskrit though it persists in languages of the west
and South of the country-from Tamil and Malayalam to Gujarati and Sindhi. In the
sign/phonetics list given in Table 5, 1, the various vargas (classes) are as follow: Ka-varga=
guttural; Ca-varga= palatal; ta-varga= dental; and pa-varga=labial. This is the standard method of
classification used in India.
Homophones and Polyphones
A few points are worth noting before we proceed to the reading themselves Several of the
community occurring letters like ‘ka’ pa’ ‘ma’ ‘ra and other have homophones, or different signs

unambiguously as a modification of the same sign as is done in some Marathi manuscripts. We find is bow-
shaped’ sign on the Indus seals. It is described as the ‘bow-shaped’ letter (pranavāksara) in the ‘undaka and the Katha
Upanishads, and even the Gitā. These observations apply to other major members the Devangari family like
Gujarati. It is substantially true of the South Indian scripts also notably Kannada and Telugu Tamil also uses a
similar symbol for ‘om’ This is discussed in more tail in Chapter 7.
So we can say that the ‘onkar’ or the om-sign (also called pranavāksara was the root from which the vowel
signs were generated in the later Indian scripts. This is truly in the Indian spirit-of generating words from
roots as Yaska and Panini so brilliantly demonstrate. So the connection between the grammar –phonetics and
the structure of writing are very deep indeed. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Vedic writing should be
phonetically the most precise in the world, or that the science of phonetics and grammar should have been
taken to the highest levels by the Indian masters.
1. ‘Interestingly, this basic sign list---or the ‘alphabetical subset’ – along with method of forming composites, is
adequate for representing all the sounds in Sanskrit and other Indian languages. And this is exactly what
happened in the evolution of Indian writing. There was a gradual simplification of signs with redundancies
giving way to standardization. At the same time the generic vowel symbol was expanded include the eleven
(thirteen including the anusvāra and visas) vowels in Indian languages. This was companied by an expansion and
standardization of vowel strokes. We may thus see that all the elements went to make the Indian system of
writing phonetically the most precise in the world were already resent in the Indus. This is undoubtedly due
to the advanced state of knowledge of grammar, phonetic etymology, and their influence on writing.
representing the same sound. For example, the letter ‘ra’ is represented both by a single vertical
line, and by man-shaped sign (for nara-man’ these could be due to local variations, as is the case
with the Devangari family, which includes Bengali and Gujarati; the same can be said of Telugu
and Kannada scripts of South India which are members of the same family. It could also be
due to change over time. We see evidence of the latter in the seals themselves, with the writing
showing a tendency towards simplification, eventually evolving into the purely cursive Brahmi
alphabet. Homophones serve other functions also as we shall see later. It is necessary to get
familiar with homophones before one can read the writing with any degree of fluency.
Homophones and polyphones exist in nearly all the writing with systems of the world.
Homophones are different symbols expressing the same or similar sounds. In English, the
phonetics of the letters ‘v’ and ‘w’ are indistinguishable to most ears and may therefore be
regarded as homophones Many have difficulty in distinguishing between ‘c ’k’ and, q’ in word
like, cat’ ‘kitten’ and, queen’ They may also be regarded as homophones.
Polyphones arise when the same letter is given different phonetic values in different
contexts. The letter ‘y, in English is a typical example; it is pronounced differently in ‘yes’, buoy’
and my’ The letter ‘g, is also a polyphone-as seen in ‘gentle’ and great’ The letter ‘c’ is a
particularly interesting polyphone, which is pronounced differently in, cut’ circle’, chat’ and
charlatan’ It is therefore both a homophone and a polyphone. Being phonetic like most Indian
scripts, the Indus writing is nowhere near as irregular as modern English, but of course, it has a
much richer character set Further, because of the different ways of combining the basic signs,
we get a great profusion of composite letters also. (This was also simplified and standardised in
later Indian scripts beginning with the Brahmi).

Table 1 (a) Basic sings or the ‘alphabetical subset’

 Numerals 1

Numerals 2

Numerals 3
Table 1 (b): The Indus number system
With this background we can begin our study of the Indus writing by looking at some
simple examples. The reader is advised to refer to Table 5.1 for the basic signs as we present
examples of deciphered readings, beginning with the simplest cases.
Writing with Consonants
When we use the term ‘consonant’ we mean the combination of a halanta (mute) and a vowel-
most often ‘a’ (or akāra) for the sake of convenience we shall be working with consonants like
‘ka’, ‘ga’, ‘ta’ and others instead of the mutes ‘k’, ‘g’, ‘t’ and the like. (Technically signs like ‘k +a’
are known as akāras) This will simplify the presentation. It should be noted, however, that in
consonantal writing it is the responsibility of the reader to supply the necessary vowels, and the
result will not always be an akāra, (Henceforth, we shall not be making a distinction between
‘consonantal’ and ‘syllabic’ writing’.) We can begin with the following simple examples given in
Table 5.2. All the reading are presented in the left-to-right direction, the dominant mode of
writing on the seals. We shall have more to say about this in a later section.
Reading with consonants and the generic vowel symbol.

\\

Table 2a: Readings with consonants I

 It is a characteristic of Sanskrit (and many Indian languages) that vowels are written only at
the beginning of a word, never in the middle or at the end.3 (This should be contrasted with
languages like Arabic in which words never begin with a vowel.) In the Indus writing, the U-
shaped generic vowel symbol appearing at the beginning of a word can take on any of the
following values: a, a, i, i, u, u, e, ai, o, ou, and on very rare occasions, ya and va. In what are
probably later stages of the Indus writing, there are separate signs for I. i.

Table 2bReading with consonants II

There are also separate signs for the vowel r and the extremely rare lr. There is often some
confusion between the vowel r and the semi-vowel r, a situation not uncommon in all Sanskrit
manuscripts including modern ones, except when prepared by a scholar.
From a practical point of view, the single most important point to note in reading the Indus writing is
that the vowels have to be supplied by the reader. This may have to be done in one or more of several
ways. First, if the word begins with a vowel then the generic sign has to be given the proper
vowel value. Next, the intermediate consonants have to be shaped properly by assigning the
correct vowel combinations. Finally, the terminal letter may also have to be modified according
to context. In the last case, a missing visarga or an anusvāra may have to be supplied though this
is often indicated.
The Indus is therefore a rough and ready script like Landa and Muriya, rather than a precise
one like Brahmi or Devanagari.
For example the word ka-ta must be read as kātu. In addition, the scribes often leave out the
terminal ‘h’ (visarga) symbol in many words. The reader has to supply it when appropriate, as is
always the case with the vowels. For instance, kapiḥ is often written ka-pa; the reader has to

3. The one possible exception is what is known as the avagyākshara formed by the composition of two vowels,
the second being the letter ‘a’. An example is raāmo+ham which becomes raāmo ham. When a word ends in a
vowel (which is very common), it is indicated with the appropriate vowel stroke. Which is sometimes missing
in the Indus writing and has to be supplied. Similarly the terminal subanta (often visarga) is sometimes missing.
This dropping of the visarga, however, was a common practice in the Vedic language.
supply both the vowels ‘i’ in ‘pi’ and the terminal ‘h’ or the visarga sound. (This is probably the
reason why alphabet lists in Indian languages even today include the visarga as part of the vowel
set.) The dropping of the visarga is related also to the rules of Sanskrit grammar and Vedic
practices as follows.
The rules of Sanskrit grammar specify that the visarga is to be dropped when the following
word begins with a vowel. (For example it is proper to write sa icchati by dropping the visarga or
‘h’ in saḥ because the next word begins with the vowel ‘i’.) But in Vedic and other early Sanskrit
this is not strictly adhered to; it is sometimes dropped even when the subsequent word does not
begin with a vowel. The Indus writing, being a product of the Vedic milieu, shows the same
kind of flexibility. It is up to the reader to supply not only the vowels, but on occasion the
visarga also.
The following two tables give examples of Indus writing with the generic vowel sign. The
akāra or the flat vowel ‘a’ is a very common first letter in Sanskrit words. In addition, a
substantial percentage of words in Sanskrit begin with a vowel – probably more so than in any
other language. This is of course the reason that the innovation of the U-shaped generic vowel
symbol represents such a significant development. This also explains why such a large number
of messages on the Indus seals have this vowel symbol as the first letter: it represents all the
vowels, and, on occasion, the semi-vowel va also.4
Terminal Signs: Subanta and Tiganta
A striking feature of the Indus writing system is its generic vowel symbol, which is used as the
initial letter in words beginning with vowel. We shall see later that in accordance with the rules
of Sanskrit grammar, this vowel sign came to be used for them.
The same is true to a lesser extent of the generic terminal (su-te) symbols except that the
‘te’ sign is sometimes put to use as letter‘t’, and may appear at the beginning of a word.

Table 3a: vowel beginnings I: words beginning with a, ā

4. Scholars employing statistical methods for analyzing the Indus script seem to have missed the following: the
very high incidence of the generic vowel symbol is due to the fact that it represents not just one letter, but all
the vowels. The confusion was compounded when many scholars’ misread it as the terminal symbol, resulting
from their belief that the writing is always from right-to left. In reality the U shaped symbol almost never
appears at the end of a word. In fact, it is often useful in determining the direction of writing of specific
words, which as we pointed, out follows no hard and fast rules.
 mi-vowels ya and va also. This usage always holds when the vowel-sign appears in the middle
of a word, but on very rare occasions when it is the initial sign also. What is interesting is that
we find a similar practice being followed in the case of the terminal su-signs, and occasionally,
the ‘am’ or the anusvāra sound that terminates many Sanskrit. rds.
To see this we need to understand basic features of Sanskrit grammar. The nouns and
adjectives) in Sanskrit are declined in seven cases, eight if we include the vocative... subanta (‘su’
or the visarga) appears very commonly at the end of declined words. …us the Indus scribes had
need for a sign to indicate these terminations. Similarly, the verbs in Sanskrit are conjugated for
different tenses and moods, which again are indicated terminal signs. The endings ‘t’, ‘ti’, ‘te’
and ‘tu’ arise in verb conjugations. It was tural therefore for the Vedic scribes to have invented a
terminal symbol for verb dings also – or the tigantas. Thus, the structure of the Sanskrit
language dictates the e of subanta and tiganta terminal sign for both nouns and verbs. This is
exactly what … sees in the Indus script.

Table 4: Subanta and Tiganta Ending And Other Uses

The ‘te’ sign, is represented by a rhombus (or diamond –shape) with a notch. The banta sign
is an oval with a notch. On some rare occasions, the tiganta is used for the ‘l’ or the visarga
(terminal ‘h’), but the opposite of ‘su’ being used for ‘te’ is much …er. This suggests that the ‘te’
sign may at one time have served as the generic terminal symbol before their separation into ‘su’ and ‘te’ signs:
noun terminations used ‘su’, while verbs used ‘te’. That is to say, prior to the separation into
noun and verb endings, the tiganta sign – diamond with a notch-must have served as a generic
terminal symbol for all inflected endings. This would exactly be in the spirit of using a generic
vowel symbol at the beginning of a word.
(This idea of using a generic terminal sign is found in their use as anusvāras also. When we
look at Table 5.4 (b) we find the su-te sign serving as the anusvāra ‘-am’. The reason is again the
same: it is often the terminal sign of inflected words.)
All this is strictly in accordance with the rules of Sanskrit grammar. Characteristically, the
Indus scribes used the terminal sign – representing ‘tu’, ‘te’ and ‘ti’ –as a phonetic sign for those
sounds also, just as they put the generic vowel symbol to use as semi-vowels as semi-vowels as
dictated by the sandhi rules. (This is explained later.) Here again we see the influence of Sanskrit
grammar on the writing practice. We see also the enormous influence of the phonetics of the
language on the structure of the script. It is easy to see why all Indian scripts, beginning with
the Indus, are phonetic.
We may therefore see that the evolution of Indian writing serves as a window on the
grammatical and linguistic thoughts of the Vedic people. Whenever they needed an advance in
writing, the scribes borrowed an idea or a practice from Vedic linguistics or phonology and tried
to invent a written symbol for it. (More of this later.) A research program examining the
influence of Vedic grammar and etymology on writing practice is likely to prove highly
rewarding.
Reading with Composite Letters
A significant number of Indus words use composite letters something that is true also of
modern Indian writing. It can safely be said that trying to read the Indus script (or modern
Indian writing) without familiarly with composite letters leads to very unsatisfactory results.
Table 5.5 gives some of the commonly used composite used letters along with examples of
their usage. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the basic letters and the use of the
generic vowel sign described in earlier sections.
We next present examples of readings using composite letters. It is worth noting that the
sounds of composite letters are not always free of ambiguities as regards the precedence of the
sound to be pronounced. In resolving ambiguities, one is forced to fall back on one’s knowledge
of the Vedic language and the literary context. For example: when the common composite
letter r+k is employed, the context determines if it is to be pronounced as ‘rka’ (as in arka) or as
‘kra’ (as in krūra). On very rare occasions the composite r+k may represent the composite kṛ
(as in kṛṣṇa). Again, knowledge of the language and the literary context determine the
phonetics.
 Table 5. Common composite letters with examples
While this may seem capricious to the modern reader, it should be noted that the Indus
writing is far more regular than the much later Linear B script; it is not necessarily the letters
themselves that give rise to ambiguities, but their composition. Modern Indian scripts also are
not free of this kind of ambiguity though it is less frequent. (Modern English of course is full
of them.) Whatever the case, one has no choice but to learn to read composite letters in reading
all Indian scripts on their own terms; the Indus is no exception. 5

5. Many students of the Indus script have failed to recognise this fact – that the Indus script is more ‘primitive’
than modern Indian scripts. They have attempted to impose on this script some of the modern rules and
structures which, did not exist in ancient times.
Pictorial symbols and their values
Pictorial symbols as in Tables 5.6 are fairly common in Indus writing. We have reasons to
believe that there existed a stage of Vedic writing – long preceding the Indus – in which the
writing was entirely pictorial. We feel also that the images on the seals are remnants from that
stage of writing. We shall be exploring this idea further in Chapter 7, but for the present it is
necessary to learn only the common pictorial symbols and their use.
It is worth noting that pictorial symbols are redundant; they are not needed in writing with
the Indus alphabet. For example, the sound ṥva represented pictorially by the aṥvattha leaf can
easily be written as ṥ+va as is done in modern Indian writing. The character set is sufficiently
rich to cover all the phonetic needs of the Vedic language without using the pictorial signs. (In
fact it is much richer than modern Indian scripts except for a deficiency of vowels.) So the use
of pictures is in all probability a holdover from an earlier stage of writing. Also, in the case of
the ‘om’ sign at least, it was retained because of its sacredness, a practice that persists in modern
Indian writing. We have previously explained how some of the cursive Indus signs can be
derived from the pictorial.
Numeric Symbols and their use
Numeric symbols, particularly I (ra), II (da or dva), III (tra or tri), IIII (na), and IIIII (pa) are
common. Those for six (IIIIII), seven (IIIIIII), eight (IIIIIII) and nine (IIIIIII) are much rarer

Tables 6 Pictorial symbols as in

 These numeric symbols are used in two distinct ways: (1) as characters by themselves; and
(2) for repetitions of other consonants. (Please refer to Chapter 4 for more explanations.) Both
uses are illustrated in the examples in Table 5.7.

Table 7. Numerals and repititions

Homophones again
Since repetitions are used to express words like dvāra (ra-ra), dviṣa (ṥa-ṥa) and the like. some
device has to be adopted to indicate repetitions that are actually meant. Words like mama, papa
cannot avoid repetition of the letters ‘ma’ and ‘pa’. If we write such words without
homophones-i.e., without different signs, these may be read as ‘dama’ and ‘dvipa’ – both
legitimate Sanskrit words. To resolve this ambiguity homophones are put into use. Table 5.8
gives examples of readings in which homophones are essential in resolving ambiguities.
 Table 8: Use of homophones to avoid repetition
This shows that homophones are needed in the –Indus script to resolve ambiguities. In the
later Indian writing, beginning with the Brahmi itself, homophones became redundant since the
practice of employing repetitions with numerals for words like trāna, dvāra and so forth fell out
of use. As a result, homophones have all but disappeared from modern Indian scripts. (There
exist sibilants ṥa, ṣa as well as la, la that may sound like homophones to non-natives but are not.
This is true in English of ‘v’ and ‘w’.)
Direction of Writing
It is commonly stated by scholars that the direction of writing on the Indus seals is right-to-left.
This is not supported by the decipherment. We find the direction on the seals themselves (as
presented in original publications) to be mainly from left-to-right as Brahmi and modern Indian
scripts. But this statement requires some qualifications. First, the opposite mode of right-to-left
writing is fairly common. We have seen examples which the same word or phrase appears on a
different seal but written in the opposite direction. Furthermore, the impressions of the seals on
soft materials reverse the direction. To make things more complicated for the student, it is not
uncommon to see photographs of the seals printed in ‘reverse negative’ giving a wrong
impression. (See chapter 4 for a brief discussion.)
This is not the full story however. A few longer messages are written in the boustrophed on
mode – of writing in opposite directions in successive lines. In addition, we find example of
curvilinear writing, following the curvature of the seal in question. On rare occasions we see
signs written in the vertical mode, from top to bottom as in Chinese! A combination of these
different modes of writing is also found on a few seals.
Furthermore, unless all the original seals are individually examined, it would, it would be rash
to make blanket statements about the direction. We should not lose sight of the fact chat what
scholars have seen for the most part (including the present authors) are reproductions – either
photographs or artist’s drawings. As a result, errors including image reversals are not
uncommon; artist’s drawings (and computer generated sign lists) are always a source of error.
The sum total of all this is: no define statement can be made about the direction of writing.
 Our position on the direction of Indus writing is as follows: no definite rules can be laid
down dealing with individual seals; each has to be approached with all these possibilities in
mind. While it is true that the great majority of published examples that we have examined are
written from left-to right, this is of no help in reading individual seals. The meaning and the
context make the direction clear, which again calls for familiarity with the language and the
basic vocabulary. We have not experienced much difficulty in determining the direction from
the seals, just as one who can read English will find little difficulty in recognising words written
from right –to-left.66 We next illustrate these different modes of writing with the help of a few
examples. These are displayed in Table5.9.
In Table 5.9, we draw attention to the example angata-vai-to-kam, which appears, on two
different seals written in opposite directions. The example of anga-rāta-dāsa-srī-pā-narottamah
appears in the boustrophedon mode. Whether this is because of the length of the message or if it
had some sort of sacred symbolism has to remain a matter of conjecture at this time. We present
our readings mainly in the left-to-right-mode, as they appear on the published seals. We feel that our
decipherment is sufficiently comprehensive to enable reading in either direction, once the basics
are mastered, and as the reader gains familiarity with the Vedic language and vocabulary.

Table 9: Different modes of writing found on the seals

6. “Leonardo da Vinci had the idiosyncratic habit of recording his notes written in ‘mirror reversal’ but those
who know Italian experience little difficulty reading them after a little practice. Similarity, we seldom had
difficulty recognizing and reading messages written from right-to left.
 In this context it is worth noting that deviation from the ‘standard’ direction of writing is
encountered in later scripts like Brahmi also. Don Martino de Silva
In this context it is worth noting that deviation from the ‘standard’ direction of writing is
encountered in later scripts like Brahmi also. Don Martino de Silva Vikramasing he reported as
far back as 1895 that some rock edicts in Sri Lanka had Brahmi written from right-to-left. 7 In
addition, at least two coins belonging to the Andhra Dynasty are known in which Brahmi is
written from right-to-left.
Grammar rules I: sandhi, Vibhakti
Since most of the messages on the seals are brief, it is not possible to say much about the
grammar of the language from the readings; for the most part we know only the vocabulary.
But we find enough evidence to conclude that rules of Vedic Sanskrit are reflected in the Indus
writing; in fact, we find that Sanskrit grammar and phonetics have influenced the script to a
significant degree.
Sanskrit is unusual in the sense that grammar and phonetics are inseparable. This has two
immediate consequences: (1) inflections due to case and tense (and mood) result in changed
phonetic at the end of a word; and (2) sandhi (or euphony) rules which combine letters result in
phonetic changes in the middle of a word. We find both these features reflected in the structure
of the Indus script. We already discussed the inflections (su-te terminations) earlier; we can look
at the sandhi rules next.
In chapter 3 we noted that in West Asian languages like Arabic words never begin with a
vowel. With Sanskrit it is the opposite: vowels never appear in the middle of a written word. The
rules of sandhi-or of combining vowels-ensure that vowels are transformed into semi-vowels ya
and va. When we split the euphonic combination and separate the words, we recover the vowels.
We shall not go into the details of grammar rules, but here are a few examples (in Roman
transcription):
yadi+ api = yadyapi i+a gives rise to ya
ati+ uttama = atyuttama i+u gives rise to yu
gru+ ājnā= guruvājnā u+a gives rise to va
prācinau+ iti= prācīnaviti u+I gives rise to vi
In all these examples the vowel combinations give rise to the semi-vowels ya and va. This is
known in Sanskrit grammar as yaṇ sandhi. It was perfectly natural therefore for the Indus scribes
to be using the genetic vowel symbol to represent the semi-vowels ya and va also, especially in
the middle of a word. This is exactly what we find in the Indus writing. (On some rare occasions the
vowel symbol must be bread as the semi-vowel at the beginning of the word also. These appear

7 “Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1895), pp 895-98. In addition, in the Southern version of the script known as
Bhattiprolu Brahmi, we see letters like ‘ta’ being the Mirror image of their counterpart in Ashokan Brahmi
suggesting the influence of right-to-left mode. (Both ‘ta’ appear in Indus)
to be scribal errors or individual idiosyncrasies; usually, semi-vowels appearing at the beginning
of a word are distinguished)
Another common sandhi is the replacement of the first letter of a consonant group (such as
the guttural) with the third letter such as ka by ga, ta by da, and so on. This is known as jastva
sandhi. It is again unnecessary to go into details, but here are a few examples (in Roman
transcription).
Supplement to the Decipherment: Tables of Composite signs
In this section we provide tables for the composite signs in the Indus script. This supplements
the sign list given in earlier sections – especially for the basic signs and the pictorial signs. This
should allow the reader to generate independent readings, provided the reader is willing to gain
familiarity with the phonetics and the language of Vedic Sanskrit. Since the Indus is a syllabic script,
there will be occasional ambiguities in the readings. These have to be resolved with reference to
the literary context.
An observation that might help is to note that the historical context for the Harappans is
post-Rigvedic.8 As Just noted, if any writing examples from an earlier period are located, the
writing system is likely to be more primitive than what we find on the Harappan seals – that is
to say, more pictorial and less cursive. Thus, literary references for deciphering the Harappan
seals are likely to come from the post-Rigvedic period.
The tables given below probably do not cover all the cases to be found on all the seals (and
other media). But are sufficiently comprehensive to suit most requirements. Also, because of
the different ways of combining basic signs, which include homophones, we get a great
profusion of composite letters also. One has no choice but to master them.
As far as the organisation of composite letters is concerned, we present them in separate
groups under the following headings: (1) accenting; (2) the r-combinations; (3) repetitions; (4)
compound letters; and (5) miscellaneous letters. This should allow readers to resolve unfamiliar
composite letters also. The letter ‘ra’ (or ‘r’) is very common in all Indian languages, particularly
in combination with other letters. All Indian scripts – including southern script like kannada and
Telugu---use some variation of a linear stroke to indicate this. The Indus is no exception. We
may term them ‘r-combinations’, We have also seen that composite letters are formed by
repetition. These, like pictorials. Later dropped out of usage. We use the term ‘compound
letters’ for those composite letters that involve a combination of more than two letters. These
also seldom occur in modern Indian scripts.
This grouping in meat only as a rough guide based on observation. Since the Indus writing
was yet to evolve into the scientifically precise system that we find with the later Indian scripts –
from the Brahmi onwards – it is not possible to organise the signs along strictly scientific lines.

8. This does not mean that passages from the Rigvedic mantras are not to be found on the seals. We are speaking
of the historical context of the Harappans, more precisely their chronological place in the Later Vedic Age.
Which implies that it was later than the period that saw the creation of the RgVeda.
Ultimately, only familiarity acquired through practice will allow one to read the Indus script with
fluency. The necessary special characters are presented in the following tables.
Table 13 a: Comparison with r-combinations I
Table 13b: Composites with r-combinations II
Table 14: Composites with Miscellaneous Combinations I
Table 15: Composites with Miscellaneous Combinations II
Table 16: Composites with repetitions and number combinations
 Table 17: Compound letters, or composites with three or more letters

Decipherment II: Steps towards Interpretation

Introduction: Patterns and References
In the last chapter, we gave a detailed decipherment of the Indus script supplemented by
numerous examples. The decipherment was presented in the form of comprehensive sign lists,
and a methodology based on Vedic phonetics and grammar accompanied by illustrative
examples – all taken from the seals. The readings for the most part consisted of single words
and short phrases. In this chapter we extend the methodology to a wider range of readings. To
facilitate this, we shall be presenting our readings in the following format: certain repeating
patterns, which appear in words and phrases, accompanied by textual references to their
occurrence in the Nighantu and the Nirukta. This will be followed by words and phrases built
around those patterns.
This will allow us to make a beginning towards interpreting the symbolism of the seals also
by combining the deciphered readings with the seal images. In order to do this we shall be
presenting those readings that have a bearing on several aspects of the thoughts of the
Harappans. These will us to extend the methodology to longer sign lists in a systematic fashion.
By studying methodology, the reader should eventually be able to generate his or her own
readings independently. In addition, linking a part of each written message – or what we have
called a ‘pattern’-to a Vedic or other literary source will act as a necessary constraint against
uncontrolled speculation. Finally, it will lead us to a better understanding of the symbolism
contained in the seals. A clear historical and cultural context will begin to emerge from this
exercise, which we go on to explore further in the next chapter.
There is also a technical reason why it is advisable to move in this incremental fashion.
Since many of the written messages, especially the repeating patterns, tend to be short, it is
often possible to come up with several meaningful readings by supplying different vowels. For
example, the string‘s-m’ can represent sāma, soma suma, or sīma.
But when we encounter the pattern as a subset in ‘h-t-tm-sm’, we know sāma is the correct
word in the context which is hutāma-sāma.
In reading words and phrases written in the Indus script, a few idiosyncrasies of Indian
languages and scripts have to be kept in mind. First, ‘va’ and ‘ba’ are often interchangeable – as
for example in ‘Sulva’ and ‘Sulba’. This feature is particularly notable in Bengali, but found in
Sanskrit also. The writing reflects it. For instance, the word sāma-bruvas on occasion written
sāma-vruva and has to be adjusted accordingly. Letters, the reader will have to decide how it is t6o
be pronounced. For example, a composite letter like ‘r+t’ may have to be pronounced as either
rta or tra depending on the context. 1
In general, longer texts allow less variability in reading, and finding the same pattern –like
sama---repeating in different contexts often allows one to ‘fix’ the correct reading for the initial
pattern also. For example, we present the following readings:
Surmise-sāma
Hutam-sama
Hutatma-sama
The phrase soma-sāma in the above list is a particularly good example of how ambiguity can
sometimes be resolved by examining the context. we would not have been able to decide on the
correct choice without reference to the context. But the decipherment of the patterns in
different contexts allows us to distinguish between the two patterns – sāma and soma.
It should be emphasised however, that this approach, while a useful guide is not infallible; it
is not realistic to expect to regain the facility and the accuracy in reading these messages which
its creators possessed thousands of years ago.2

1. For example ma+ (r+ ra) has to be read marta, whereas sa+ (r+ta) must be read satra. Such variations occur in
modern Indian writing also. Someone who knows the language is unlikely to be troubled by such minor
ambiguities.
2. Such nineteenth century Indologists as Albrecht Weber and William Dwight Whitney claimed they could
understand the Vedas better than the Vedic seers. But that was based on a combination of ignorance and
arrogance. The best we can hope for is to approximate the level of mastery of the ancients by working closely
with traditionally schooled Vedic scholars. But this will require much greater effort in (and support for) such
work than is available today.
The Languages of Indic Inscriptions
Middle Indo-Aryan (“Prakrit”)
General Remarks
In early Indian inscriptions the Prakrit or, more precisely, the Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA)
languages predominated. Indeed, from about the third to the first century B.C. these were the
only languages in epigraphic use, and they continued to predominate for at least two centuries
more, and longer in some regions. It was only in the early centuries of the Christian era that the
“mixed dialect”, or “Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit” (EHS), and for several centuries all three---
MIA, EHS and Sanskrit ---were in use simultaneously. But the letter two gradually gained the
upper hand over the Prakrits, and then Sanskrit gradually superseded both Prakrit and EHS.
Thus the Prakrits practically ceased to be epigraphic languages by the early fourth century A.D.
in northern India, and a century later in the south.
The inscriptional Prakrits are diverse and largely unstandardised. Much more than is the
case with literary Prakrits of later times,1 the morphology and especially the orthography of the
inscriptional dialects is unstandardised and inconsistent, to the extent that it is not unusual to
find the same word spelled several different ways within the same inscription. The orthography
can be characterised as approximative, as contrasted to the precise orthography of Sanskrit
inscriptions. Thus, for example, geminate consonants are almost always (except in some late
specimens) represented by the single constant, and the anusvāra is only sporadically used to
indicate a homorganic nasal before a stop constant, the nasal often being left unindicated.
Among the Prakrit inscriptions in general, the earlier the inscription, the looser and more

1. Literary Prakrits do appear occasionally in later inscriptions, but from a linguistic point of view this is a
separate matter.
colloquial the language and orthography are likely to be (although the Aṥokan inscriptions
constitute in some respects an exception to this rule). Thus some of the earliest examples
preserve a very informal, colloquial level of Prakrit, which may present serious problems in
interpretation, while the later specimens often tend to approach sanskritic usage in style,
Vocabulary, and orthography.
The Prakrits of the Aṥokan Inscriptions
Grammatical descriptions: E. Hultzsch, Inscriptions of Asoka, lvi-cxxxi, Bloch, Les inscriptions d
‘Aṥokan, 43-88.2
In general, the Prakrits of the Aṥokan inscriptions represent an early stage of development
of MIA, in which, for example, the voicing and elision intervocalic consonants are only
occasional and sporadic, and some archaic feature are preserved which are lost in later prakrits,
such as ātmanepada verb forms of the present tense (e.g., karote, Girnār IX.1-3) and the present
participle (vijinamane [sic] Kālsῑ XIII.36). Moreover, the resolution of consonantal groups by
assimilation epenthesis (svarabhakti) is less advanced, especially in the western and northwestern
dialects, than in later literary and inscriptional Prakrits. In these respects, then the Aṥokan
Prakrits on the whole (and especially the western dialect of the Girnā and Bombay-Sopārā rock
edicts) more closely resemble Pāli than any other of the literary forms of MIA.
Overall, the Aṥokan inscriptions can be said to comprise three main dialects: the eastern,
the western, and the northwestern.
The Eastern Aṥokan Dialect
Among the three Aṥokan dialects the eastern dialect3 clearly predominates, as it was the local
language of the imperical capital at Pātaliputra (where it is sometimes referred to as the
“Chancellery Language”). The original versions of the edicts were drawn up in this dialect, to
be translated later into the other dialects where deemed necessary. The majority of the Asokan
inscriptions, including all the pillar edicts and minor rock edicts (MRE), 4 as well as the rock
edicts at Kalsi, Dhauli, Jaugada, and yond its orginal geographical range.
The distinctive features of the eastern dialect include:
1. The three sibilants of Sanskrit are represented by s. 5

2 Some writers, e.g., Sukumar Sen (A Comparative Grammar of Middle Ino-Aryan [Poona: Linguistic Society of
India, 1960], 10-11), posit a fourth dialect, the “middile Eastern”, for some of the rock edicts. But on the
whole it is preferable to consider the languages of these texts, which show a mixture of eastern and western
characteristics, as essentially the eastern dialect with sporadic admix-true of westernises, rather than as a
distinct dialect.
3 For a specimen of this dialect see Appendix, no. 1 (Rummindeῑ minor pillar edict).
4. Though some of the MREs, especially those in the south, show an admixture of western forms, e.g., in
preferring r to l; seen. No 2.
5. Rock edicts X-XIII at Kalsi show all three sibilants used indiscriminately (e.g., x.27 has both yaso for Sanskrit
yasas-). Though this peculiarity has never been fully explained, it is evidently a matter of scribal confusion
 2. The dialect has only l for Sanskrit r and l; e.g., lājā=raja.
3. The Sanskrit nasals n, n and n all become n.
4. Sanskrit kṣ become kh.
5. Consonantal groups are subject to resolution by svarabhakti more frequently than in
theother dialects.
Final – as of Sanskrit (as in the nominative sing. Masc. of noun stems in a becomes-e.
7. The locative sing. Masc. /neut. Ends in –si (for-ssi).
8. The present participle ātmanepada often ends in –mina (e.g., pāyamῑnā, Delhi-Toprā V.8.).
The main feature of this dialect-the predominance of I, the nominative masculine in -e, the
loss of it and n, and n, and the sibilant s6 – accord on the whole with the later literary prakrits
known as Ardha-Māgadhῑ, whence it has been called by Luders and others7 “old Ardha-
Māgadhῑ.”
The western Aṥokan dialect
The western dialect appears only in the rock edicts of Girnār and the Bombay-Sopārā
fragments. Its characteristics include:
1. The three Sanskrit sibilants become s.
2. Both r and l are retained as in Sanskrit.8
3. The Sanskrit nasals n, n and n are retained.
4. Sanskrit k, s generally becomes cch (but occasionally also kh).
5. Many consonantal clusters are retained, especially those involving the Semivowels (kr, tr,
Pr, vy. etc.).9 Sanskrit st and sth are sometimes reflected By the anomalous combination st
(written ts; e.g. stitā= sthitāh, Girnār. VI. 4).
6. Sanskrit-as becomes-0
7. The locative sing. Masc. /neut. ends in –e or-mhi.
8. The gerund ends in-tpā (written-ptā; see 2.2.4) = Sanskrit-tvā.

rather than a true dialect feature. The retroflex and palatal sibilants also occur occasionally in the minor rock
edicts, sometimes with etymological justification (e.g., Maski 1. 2, vasani = Skt. varsani).
6. This is the principal feature which distinguishes the dialect from the “ture” Māgadhῑ of later literature, which
has only s.
7. See Oskar von Hinuber, Das altere Mittelindisch in Uberblick (Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Phill-hist. Klasse. Sitzungberichte-467= Veroffentlichungen der Kommission for Sprachan and Kulturen
Sudasiens 20; Wien; academic der wissenschaften, 1986). 27-8.
8. The Bombay-Sopārā fragment of rock edict IX even has r in place of Sanskrit l( phara, mangara= phala,
mangala). It is not certain whether this is a true dialectal feature or the result of hypercorrection.
9. In the script, however. Many of the conjuncts are reversed. E.g. the conjunct pr is actually written as rp with
the sign for r above the p (). this is probably a graphic rather than a dialectal peculiarity: see section 2.2.4.
 In general, the western dialect is the one most similar to literary pail and the later
inscriptional prakrits. It contrasts with the other dialects (especially the eastern one) in its
generally archaic aspects, in both phonetics and morphology (e.g. the ātmanepada verb karote,
citied earlier). The Girnār edicts also frequently differ from the other dialect versions in
vocabulary; for instance, Girnāt has pas(s) ati (=pasyati, 1.5) where the others have
dakhatildekhati, and pamthesū instead of mag (g) esu (II.8; for other examples see Bloch, Les
inscriptions d’ Asoka, 83-4).
The northwestern Aṥokan dialect
The language of the rock edicts at shāhbāzgarhῑ and Mānsehrā is essentially an early from of
the MIA dialect which is nowadays known as Gāndhārῑ10 Like all records in Gāndhārῑ, these
inscriptions are written in the Kharosthῑ script, Whose graphic peculiarities-particular the
absence of notation of vowel quantity tend to obscure some of the feature of the language.
The principal distinctive futures of the dialet include:
1. The three sibilants are maintained, generally as in Sanskrit (but see also item 5).
2. Both r and l are retained as in Sanskrit.
3. The Sanskrit nasals n, n, and n are retained.
4. Sanskrit kṣ is apparently retained in the form of a special characters(y; see 2, 3,4 ),
variously transliterated as kṣ, ch, ch. And so on, whose precise phonectic value in
uncertain.11
5. Many consonantal clusters are retained, especially those with r; but the later are
frequently subjects to metathesis, for example, in dhrama= dharma and
karma=karma.12 special developments include sy>ṥ (e.g., manuṥya= manuṣya.
Shahbazgarhi II.4; cf. item 8) and sv and sm (in the locative sing. Ending)> sp (e.g..,
spagram= svargam, shāhbāzgrahῑ VI.16).
6. Final -as in Sanskrit it represented by -0 at, shāhbāzgrahῑ, but at Mānsehrā generally by -e
(see later remarks).
7. The locative sing. ends in –e or -spi<* -smin; cf. item 5).
8. The future tense affix is –iṥa-<-isya-[see item 5]; e.g., vadhiṥati=vardhiṣyati. Shāhbazgraahῑ
IV.9).

10. On dialectal difference between Aṥokan and later” Gāndhārῑ” see Burrow. “The Dialectal position of the
Niya Prakrit.” BSOS 8.1935-37, 419 -35 (esp. 419-22)
11. H.W. Bailey (BSOAS 11, 1946, 774) Suggest the pronunciations /ts/or /ts’/.
12. This metathesis way formerly thought by some ( notably senart; IA 21, 1892. 148-50) to represent merely an
orthographic peculiarity of Aṥokan Kharoṣthῑ, as seems to be the case with the reversed conjuncts noted in
the Girnār Brahmi inscriptions ( seen n. 9 ) .But it has been pointed out by Grierson (JRAS 1913,682-3) and
others since him (see discussion and reference in Von Hinuber, Das altere Mittelindisch, 28-9) that such
metatheses are characteristic of the Dardic language of the northwest to the present day, and that such form in
Aṥokan ( and in later Gāndhārῑ / kharosthῑ) inscriptions therefore must reflect actual dialect features.
 The dialects of the two northwestern sets of rocks edicts diverge in several respects notable
in the treatment of final – as noted earlier (item 6). Thus as the equivalent of Sanskrit rājnah
(genitive), shāhbāzgarhῑ has rano but Mānsehrā rajine, reminiscent of the eastern from lājine.
Some dialectal peculiarities of Mānsehrā have thus sometimes been dismissed as “Māgadhisms,”
But this may not be the case; later Gāndhārῑ /kharosthῑ inscriptions also vary between-0 and –e
(CII 2.1, cxii-cxiii), and recent research into the historical grammar of Gāndhārῑ13 has shown
that the notation of finals vowels in highly inconsistent in Gāndhārῑ generally 14
All in all, the Aṥokan inscriptions give a broad view of the dialect spectrum of MIA
vernaculars in the third century B.C.. But it must also be understood that they do not provide
anything like a real dialect map of time. For the geographical distribution of the dialects-
especially of the eastern dialect-can hardly correspond with linguistic reality; the eastern dialects
was obviously not the mother tongue of residents of the far north and the central south,
though it was used for inscriptions (Kālsῑ, Erragudi, etc.) in those regions. Moreover, the
language as they presented in the inscriptions are surly not exact renditions of the
contemporary vernaculars. It has been suggested,15 for example, that such features as the
retention of consonantal clusters reflect orthographic conservatism and the influence of
Sanskrit, and that the actual stage of phonetic development of MIA in Asoka’s time could have
been further advanced than it would seem from the inscriptions.
Other Inscriptions of the Mauryan era

The scanty epigraphic remains of the Mauryan period other than the records of Asoka ( see
4.3.1.2.) are all from the northeast, and most of them exhibit the typical Ardha Māgadhῑ feature
of the “chancellery Language” (-e for –as, l for r, s for all sibilants, etc.). Some of these
inscriptions, notable Mahāsthān (SI I. 79-80) and Sohgaurā (SI I.82-3), seem to reflect a more
colloquial and/or archaic variety of this dialect.
The jogimārā cave inscription (ASIAR 1903 -4, 128-31) is the only from any period
preserving what seems to be pure Māgadhā, showing the sibilant s instead of s (e.g.., ṥutanka…
devadāṥikyi= sutanukā devadāsῑ) besides the aforementioned characteristic feature of Ardha-
Māgadhῑ.16
Later Inscriptional Prakrits
Inscriptions in the west –midland dialect.

13. Notably G. Fussman . “Gāndhārῑ ecrite, Gāndhārῑ parlee,” 473 and 479-80.
14. See also the comments of Brought in GD 115.
15. See for example senart, IA 21 1892, 146-8.
16. The Nāgārjunῑ hill inscriptions of Asoka’ s grandson Daṥaratha ( SI I. 77-8) have in some places the sibilant
s, e.g., in the king’s name daṣalatha, and in others s. But this variation may not be dialectally significant; cf. the
similar cases in Kālisῑ and some other Aṥokan inscriptions noted previously (3.1.2.1. n. 5).
After the Mauryan period there is a major shift in the linguistic feature of the inscriptional
prakrits. The predominance of the eastern dialect of the Aṥokan and other inscriptions of the
Mauryan period ends abruptly; in fact, not a single inscriptional record in eastern dialect has
been found from the post-Mauryan era. The dominant role in all regions except the northwest
and Sri Lanka falls hereafter to a variety of Prakrit which most resembles, among the Aṥokan
dialects, the western dialect of the Girnār rock edicts, and which among literary languages has
the most in common with pail and archaic forms of ṥaurasenῑ. In other words, this dialect
partakes of the typical characteristics of the western and central MIA languages: nominative
singular masculine in-o, retention of Sanskrit r and l, predominance of the sibilant s, and soon. 17
Like the Aṥokan prakrits, this central-western epigraphic Prakrit is still relatively archaic, with
only occasional intervocalic voicing of unvoiced stops and elision of voiced stops. But unlike
some of the Aṥokan inscriptions, consonant groups from Sanskrit are nearly always
assimilated.18
The causes of the abrupt dialectal shift from east to west undoubtedly lie in political and
historical developments. That is, the decline of Magadha as the center of power in northern
India after the collapse of the Mauryan empire and the Movement
The of the center of center of political power in the following centuries toward the west
and northwest.19 like the eastern dialect under Asoka, the central – western dialect of the
Mauryan era was used far beyond what must have been its original homeland. we find
inscriptions in this standard epigraphic Prakrit as far afield Orissa in east, for instance, in the
Hāthῑgumphā inscription from such sites as Nāgārjunakoda and Amara This central –western
MIA dialect was, in fact, virtually the sole language in epigraphic use in the period question, and
therefore seems, like Pāli, to have developed something like a northern Indian lingua franca, at
least for epigraphic purposes the last two centuries B.C.
This is not to say that the inscriptions in this dialect, which senart called “Monumental
Prakrit,”20 are totally devoid of local variations. On the contrary. We do casionally find, in the
southern inscriptions, for example, instances of the influence of the local (Dravidian) language,
as in ayira-haghāna= ārya-sanghānām Nāgārjunakonda (Ayaka-pillar ins. C-2; SII, 232, I. 10).
There are also considerate variations in orthography, with inscriptions from the later part of the
period in question, that is those of about the third and fourth centuries A.D., showing an
increasing precision, most notable in indicating geminate consonants which had hitherto am
always been represented by the corresponding single consonants ( see examples in SIE 43-4).
Stylistically too, there is a considerable range of variation, from brief and unadorned style of
the donative inscriptions from Buddhist stupa sites su as sāncῑ and Bhārhut to the quasi –literary

17. for a specimen of this common epigraphic Prakrit. See Appendix, no. 3 (Bhārhut label inscriptions).
18. An apparent exception is the Besnagar pillar inscription of Heliodoros (Appendix, no .2). Which contains
conjuncts such as tr (putrena, I, A-3) and dr (bhāgabhadrasa. I. A-6). But these examples woulto fall into the
category of early orthographic Sankritisms (see 3. 2. 3. 2) Rather than of phonetic archaisms.
19. See the comments of Mehendale, HGIP, xxxviii.
20. IA 21, 1892, 258.
compositions of the Hāthῑgumphā inscription of king Khāravela or the Nāsik inscription time
of Vāsisthῑputra Pulumā (SI I. 203-7). But all in all, the standard epigraphic or “Monumental”
Prakrit can treated as essentially a single language whose should not be taken to represent the
local vernacular of every region and period where it appears.21
Inscriptions in other MIA dialects
Gāndhārῑ
Grammatical descriptions: S. known, CII 2.1, XCV-CXV; Brough, GD 55-118; G. Fussman, “Gāndhārῑ ecrite,
Gāndhārῑ parlee.”
In the northwest and adjoining regions, inscriptions of the post – Mauryan era ( see 4.3.2.)
continued to be written in essentially the same language the Aṥokan rock edici from this area,
that is, the MIA dialect which used to be referred to as” Northwester Prakrit” but which is
nowadays more commonly called “Gāndhārῑ,” following H.W. Bailey’s suggestion.22 The
inscriptions in this language are invariably written in Kharosthῑ script and are virtually all
Buddhist in content. They range in date from approximately the second century B.C. to third or
possibly fourth century A.D. ( seen 2.3.2), and their findspots extend from Afghanistan in the
northwest to Mathura in the southeast, with stray finds farther to the east and north (2.3.1). 23
Inscriptional Gāndhārῑ preserves most of the characteristics feature already mentioned in
connection with its early form seen in the northwestern Aṥokan dialect ( 3.1.2.3 ), such as the

21. For this reason, the methods of analysis followed by Mehendale in HGIP are misleading. Hi classification of
prakrits inscriptions of the post-Mauryan epoch into geographical groups ( western , southern , central and
eastern ) is vaild only with reference to their find spots; but to trace separate linguistic developments within
and influences among the various groups, as Mehendale does, is based on the misconception that each of
them constitutes a distinct linguistic entity. As senart showed in Le inscriptions de Piyadassi, this is not the case,
and most of the conclusions drawn by Mehandale concerning the trends and directions of phonetic and
morphological change cannot be accepted. A definitive historical linguistic of the post-Aṥokan epigraphic
Prakrit. Bearing in mind the compli Cations introduced by loss standardisation on the hand vagaries of scribal
usage and local influences on the other, remains to be written.
22. BSOAS 1 1, 1943-46, 764. Although Bailey’s suggested name has been accepted and come into general use, it
should be remembered that it is a modern creation and has no attestation in traditional materials (see 2.2.2. on
the traditional names of scripts).
23. Until recently, besides the many inscriptions and central Asian secular documents in Gāndhārῑ, only one
literary specimen of the language, namely the Dharmapada ms. From khotan, definitively published by Brought
(GD), Was known. But a large collection of fragmentary Gāndhārῑ mss. On birch bark scrolls has recently
been discovered , Confirming , as had already been suspected on the basic of traces of Gāndhārῑ words in
Buddhist texts translated into Chinese ( see Fussman, “Gāndhārῑ ecrite, Gāndhārῑ parlee,” 442 n. 20), that
Gāndhārῑ was a major Buddhist literary language . See R. Salomon, “A Preliminary survey of some Early
Buddhist Manuscripts Recently Acquired by the British Library,” JAOS 1 1 7. 1997. 353-8 and Ancient Buddhist
scrolls from Gandhāra (London/ Seattle: British Library and university of Washington press, forthcoming).
retention of three Sanskrit sibilants and the tendency to preserve certain consonant groups,
especially those with r. It also exhibits several further developments, notably the following;
9. Fricative pronunciations of certain intervocalic consonants, sometimes marked by a
diacritic sign (cf. 2.3.8) resembling the subscript r, as in the Wardak inscription (CII 2.1.
170,1.1), bhag (r) avada=bhagavatah.
10. A voiced sibilant (/z/) derived from intervocalic s, dha, etc.., indicated by various
spellings such as majhe < mase (Manikiāla stone ins.., CII 2.1. 149, 1.1) and bosisatva
<bodhisattva (Taxila silver scroll, CII 2.1. 77, 1. 3).
11. In general, a more advanced stages of development with respect to the voicing an
elision of intervocalic consonants, as compared to the contemporary Brahmi
inscriptions (cf.3.1.4.1); see example cited by Fussman,” Gāndhārῑ ecrite, Gāndhārῑ
parlee,” 457.
12. A Weakening of the distinction between Sanskrit n and n, reflected in orthographic
inconsistency in the use of the two characters( CII 2.1, cii-civ)
13. A Weakening of the distinction between aspirate and nonaspirate consonants, perhaps
attribute to the influence of the neighboring non-Indic languages (CII 2.1. ci-cii)
14. Extreme inconsistency in the notation of final vowels, which according to Fussman
(473) indicates that they were largely neutralised in pronunciation. This is especially
notable in the nominative singular masculine, for which the endings –o,-e, and –a are
attested in the same phrase (examples in Fussman. 459-60).24
15. The occasional use (not surprising in view of the geographical position of the dialect)
of loanwords from non-Indic languages such as Greek and Saka.
The kharosthῑ documents from central Asia (see 4.3.7.12) provide specime a separate dialect
of Gāndhārῑ used far beyond its native region. These document show that Gāndhārῑ became
the official language of the Indianised kingdom shan-shan or Kroraina in the southeastern
Tarim basin in about the third century (cf. 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). This “Niya Prakrit” or “Kroraina
Prakrit,” which was analysis in detail by T. Burrow in The Language of the Kharosthi Documents from
chi Turkestan, agrees on the whole fairly closely with the language of the post-Asc Gāndhārῑ
inscriptions from India,25 but also differs from Indian Gāndhārῑ in seve significant particulars,
such as the following

24. Cr. The earlier comments (3.1.2.3) concerning –o and –e in northwest Aṥokan. Konow (exiii) divided the post
– Aṥokan inscriptions into “an eastern o-dialect.” but the recent study of Fussman. Based on a much larger
corpus, has shown that this distinction does not hold. The Meridarkha=Swat ins ., CII21.4 and Sake
(Erjhuna+ alysanailw yasanal: Takht –bahi-I bahi ins 1.5 CII 2.1 62 and XcvII).
25. See also Burrow, “The Dialectal Position of the Niya Prakrit” (see n. 10). 419-35 (esp. 4235); and recently,
Colette Caillat.” Connections Between Aṥokan ( Shahbazgarhi) and Niya Prakrit?” 35, 1992, 109-19.
 1. Certain phonetic tendencies, such as a confusion between voiced and unvoiced
consonants (more pronounced than in Indian Gāndhārῑ), and particular a tendency to
deaspirate India aspirates, apparently reflecting the phonetic structure of the
(unattested) local dialect ( Burrow, Language, 5 and 9 ).
2. The loss of distinction between endings for the nominative and accusative endings. The
ending is generally –a, in both the singular (<-e according to Burrow, “The Dialectal
position,” 421 and 424) and the plural (presumably for –a).
3. The use of an ending –tu for the second person singular of all tenses of the verb: for
example, labhisatu ‘you will get’. According to Burrow (Language, 43), this is “probably
take from the 2nd person of the pronoun.”
4. The development of a periphrastic construction for the present active, consisting of the
past participle plus the personal endings of the present, except for the third-person
singular where the endings is omitted; for example, trithemi=* drstah + -mi ‘ I saw’;
tadita ‘ he beat’ (Language, 50-3).
5. The frequent use of the infinitive in-amnae ( also occasionally found in Indian
Gāndhārῑ; Burrow, Language. 49): for example, karamnae ‘to do’
6. The frequent use of post positions not found in other MIA dialects, such as prace
‘concerning’ (<*pratyayam) and vamti ‘to, with’ (<upānte; Language, 42).
7. The extensive use of loanwords from various non-Indic languages, especially from
Iranian language (Language, vii-viii). From the local “krorainic” language which
apparently was closely related to Tocharian (Language, viii-ix), and occasionally from
Greek (e.g., milima= Language, 1 1 1).
Mixed or” Hybrid” Dialects
The character of “Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit” (EHS)

From about the first to the fourth century of the Christian era, a large number c inscriptions
from northern, central, and occasionally also southern India were write in a peculiar language
which is neither fully Parkrit but partakes the chactercteristics of both. This language has
accordingly been referred to by such term as “mixed dialect ““Sanskirt influenced by Prakrit.”
Or” Prakrit influenced by Sanskrit.” In 1978. Th. Damsteegt coined the term “Epigraphical
Hybrid Sanskrit”-(EHS) in his book of the same name. On the analogy of Franklin Edgerton’s
“Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit”, and although like its prototype, the term is potentially misleading is
some cases, it deserves to be, and largely has been adopted for general use.
EHS texts are typically more or less Sankritic in orthography but Prakritic ir morphology
and syntax. Thus a typical EHS word occurring frequently in the inscriptions is bhiksusya’ of
(the) monk’. Corresponding to sanskirt bhiksoh and MIA bhikkhus (s) a. Here the stem is spelled
as in Sanskrit, while the inflection is a pseudo-Sanskrit rendition of the middle indic -ssa.
Similarly, the standard EHS dating for mula is etāye purvāya or variants thereof, equivalent to
Sanskrit etasyām purvāyam ‘on the aforementioned [date (tithau)]’, An example of typical EHS
text,26 in both content and form, is the Kankāli Tῑlā (Mathurā) torana inscriptions (Luders, MI.
20 [Luders’ tr.]):
Bhadata-jayasenasaya āntevāsinῑye dhāmaghoṣāye dāno[o] pāsādo
“The temple (is) the gift of Dhārmaghoṣā (Dharmaghoṣā). The female disciple of the venerable
Jayasena”
Notable here, among other characteristics features, is the juxtaposition of the Sanskrit
genitive masculine ending –sya with the Prakrit feminines in –aye and –iye; the semi-Sanskritised
stem of the proper name dharmaghoṣā-( according to Luders interpretation) contrasting with
the un-Sanskritised stem of pāsādo (Skt. Prāsāda-); and the spelling influenced by MIA
orthography, (of bhadanta) and āmtevasinῑye (for amte).
It must be emphasised that EHS, like the epigraphic prakrits, is by no means a standardised
or a unified language. The orthography and morphology of EHS in-Scriptions vary widely and
unpredictably, and they display various grades or degrees of hybridism. In general, one may
think in terms of more Prakritic varieties (“Prakrit influenced by Sanskrit,” in the terminology
used by Sircar in SI I) versus more highly Sanskritised varieties (“Sanskrit influenced by
Prakrit”).27 But it must be understood that these divisions, like any categorisation of EHS, are
inevitably somewhat arbitrary, In actual practice, the boundaries between the two main types of
EHS, and indeed between EHS as a whole and MIA on the one side Sanskrit on the other, are
far from clear.28 it is probably impossible to establish fully objective criteria for EHS, particularly
for the more sanskritised varieties where there is no clear dividing line between Sanskritic EHS
and informal epigraphic varieties of standard Sanskrit29. It may therefore be more appropriate
to think of EHS in terms of a broad spectrum of Partial sanskritisation, verging into pure MIA
at one end and standard Sanskrit at the other.
Geographical and chronological distribution of EHS

The city of Mathurā and its environs are the source of the earliest and largest number of EHS
inscriptions. Luders’ Mathura inscriptions (MI) thus constitutes the largest and most convenient
corpus for the study of these documents. But from around the late first century A.D., many
other inscriptions in EHS have been discovered over a wide range of India, particularly from
the west, at sites such as Andhau in Gujarat and Nasik in Maharashtra; from north central and
northeastern India, at Sārnāth, Kosam, and so on; from central India, at Sānci; and even from

26. 31. For a longer specimen of EHS. See Appendix, no.5 ( Sārnāth umbrella shaft ins).
27. Damsteegt (EHS 143) similarly divided EHS inscriptions into “a) those basically in MIA, but with Sanskrit
features: [and] b) those basically in Sanskrit, but with MIA features.”
28. Note that Damsteegt devotes an entire section of his study (2.1, “criteria”) to a consideration of marginal cases
of EHS.
29. See e.g., MI S 67; and for a highly Prakritic specimen. 137.
the south, at Nāgār-junakonda.30 Throughout the period in question, EHS coexisted as an
epigraphic language with Prakrit and/ or Sanskrit, but it was definitely the predominant
language overall for the first three centuries of the Christian era in northern and central India.
Although individual records of similar date may vary widely in their degree of hybridism, EHS
does follow an overall pattern of development toward greater sanskritisation EHS, with some
specimens in completely or nearly standard Sanskrit. This variety is characteristic, for instance,
of the later inscriptions of the western K satrapas and related dynasties of the third century
Overall, the pattern of distribution of EHS inscriptions gives the impression that they
radiate out from Mathura toward the northeast and southwest. Thus the origins and
development of EHS seem to parallel the foundation and spread of the kingdoms of the
Scythian and Kusana rulers in the heartland of India (see 3.2.3.2).
Relation to Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

The epigraphic mixed dialect bear a clear and clos linguistic relation to the syncretic Sanskrit of
Buddhist texts generally and particularly to the true “Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit “(BHS) of texts
such as the Mahāvastu Although the epigraphic and literary hybrids do differ in particular, this
is at least in part due to the different character and content of the documents preserved in
them. In any case, the variety of both of this unstandardised language presents major obstacles
to a detail comparison. But despite these complications, there can be no doubt that the two
resent different manifestations of the same basic linguistic phenomenon, namely gradual
sanskritisation of MIA vernaculars. It is also certain that the hybrid language used in the first
three centuries of the Christian era was neither an exclusively Buddhist nor an exclusively
literary construction, as seems to be assumed by certain – (notably Edgerton) who did not
sufficiently consider the epigraphic envied-for among the hybrid inscriptions of this period, we
documents composition the hybrid dialect.
Thus the epigraphic evidence contradicts the notion espoused by Edgerton others that the
specimens of hybrid dialects that we have are merely incomplete-imperfect translations into
Sanskrit of texts originally written in MIA dialect; in – words, that the hybrid language 31 is
merely a literary artifact and not a real language The inscriptions prove that hybrid Sanskrit was,
or at least eventually became, a – ing linguistic entity. And thus support the position of Lamotta
(HBI 638) and-that some Buddhist texts were actually composed in BHS.
The origins of EHS

This still leaves unanswered the question of the epigraphic (and Buddhist) hybrid dialect. In
general, opinions on the controversial question the motivations and mechanics of the semi-
sanskritisation of MIA fall into two can The first is the school which holds that the hybrid is

30. Damsteegt (156) also includes certain southern Indian copper plate inscriptions such as Penugonda.
Mattepād. And Bāsim as example of EHS; I would not agree with this classification, and treat them (3.3.4) as
bilingual (Prakrit and Sanskrit) records.
31. The Sanskrit Language, the Great Language (London: Faber and Faber, 1955), 61.
little more than a bad imita-of Sanskrit, that is, that its incomplete and imperfect sanskritisation
reflects – petence and ignorance on the part of the composers of the documents. Thus T.-row
says that “such a mongrel language was actually employed by those who wis-to employ the
superior Sanskrit language but were not able to master its grammar K.R. Norman elaborates
this view: They [the donars] would presumably dicta-Pkt, and once it had become fashionable
to write inscriptions in Skt, the scribes – translate’.to the best of their ability, into that language.
The correctness of the depended, therefore, on the scribes’ competence.” 32
The other school of thoughts tends to view the degree of hybridism in a given document as
a matter not so much of knowledge or ability as of taste; thus Lamotte describes hybrid
Sanskrit as “une language litteraire ou le dosage du Prakrit et du Sanskrit etait laisse a leur
appreciation personelle” (HBI 642; see also 638 and 645). The epigraphic evidence in particular
tends to support the views of this second school. Especially worthy of note are cases such as
the mora well inscriptions (MI -113; see 3.3.2) where a single inscription comprise portions
both in hybrid and in more or less standard Sanskrit, distributed according to function; here, as
is usually the case, the prose portion is in hybrid language while the verse-which is composed
for the occasion, not quoted from another source-is in good Sanskrit. Such cases indicates that
Lamotte was correct in supposing that the use and degree of hybridism were essentially
controlled by the taste and judgment of the composers of the texts, and that at least some of
them could write in standard Sanskrit when they saw fit.
Certain grammatical features of the epigraphic language also support this view. Particularly
interesting in this regard is the sporadic application of Sanskrit sandhi rulers. The “wrong”
application of sandhi is one of the most features of the epigraphic hybrid, and is often what
most clearly distinguishes inscriptions in highly Sanskritised hybrid from fully standard Sanskrit;
a characteristic examples is the label inscriptions on the Kaniṣka portrait statue from Māt
(Mathurā; MI-97). Which reads maharaja rajatiraja devaputro kanisko. Here the MIA nominative
masculine ending-o is used instead of Sanskrit visarga, not only in pausa (Kanisko) but also before
K (devaputro k-). This usage is very common in EHS, and of course actually reflects not “wrong
sandhi” but the retention of the old MIA ending in the otherwise (i.e.., orthographically)
Sanskritised word. contrast with this the peculiar sandhi forms found in later Mauthra
inscriptions of the posthybrid era, such as sakyabhiksunyar jayabhattayar yad… in the katra
pedestal inscriptions (MI-8) and visnusyah gomindraputtrasyah ha [ku] data-p [au] ttrasyah (Mathura
Naga statue ins., MI -161). Both of these inscriptions date from Gupta period, when Sanskrit
had become the standard epigraphic language, and in them we clearly do have incompetent
attempts to write Sanskrit; the incorrect sandhi does not reflect underlying MIA forms, but
simply the misapplication of Sanskrit rules improperly learned or understood by the composer.
Thus the combined evidences of grammar and usage speaks the assumption that the hybrid

32. Review of Damsteegt, EHS, in Lingua 48, 1979, 293. A similar position was manintaine – senart in his
important but buy now largely outdated discussion in Les inscriptions de Piyadassi of “ M Sanskrit, ”which he saw
as essentially an orthographic phenomenon with no real linguistic basis:” M Sanskrit is only a manner of
writing Prakrit. Consisting in going as near as possible to the orthographic and the etymological forms known
to the religion language [i.e.., Sanskrit]”(IA 21., 1892, 275).
language simply represented failed attempts to write Sanskrit and supports the notion that
hybrid was a coherent (through not rigidly standardised ) language in and of itself, and that
those who wrote it did so intentionally. This is not to say, however, that the hybrids were
consciously formulated and development. Rather, the available evidence suggests that hybrid
Sanskrit arose in the course of a gradual. Sanskritising movement which had its origins in the
late centuries B.C., expanded in the early centuries of the Christian era, and culminated in the
final triumph of classical Sanskrit in the Gupta era. Early tendencies toward sanskritisation, in
the form of sporadic semi-Sanskritised orthography, appear in some Prakrit inscriptions of the
pre-Christian era. Such “Prakrit influenced by Sanskrit” is seen, for example, in the Besnagar
pillar inscriptions (Appendix, no.2) in such spellings as bhāgabhadrasa trātārasa (1. A-6; cf. n. 18),
and in the Pabhosā cave inscriptions (SI I.96), rājnogopāliputrasa (1. 1.) The hybrids would seem
to reflect the extension and regularisation of these early tendencies toward sanskritisation
prakrits of the early Christian era gradually attained a de-status of their own as semiliterary
language; in jean Filliozat’s words, it was – merely a matter of “seulement sankritisation de texts,
mais encore sanskritisation de dialects.”33
Thus it is more likely that scribes and authors wrote in such a dialect not because they were
unable to write in “pure” Sanskrit (or “pure” prakrits) but simply because this had become the
prevalent and preferred style of their time and place. The linguistic borders, in other words,
between “Sanskrit” and “Prakrit” were probably – as strictly fixed in practical usage as they
appear to be when the matter is viewed (it usually is) from the point of view of formal
literature.. from the less formal Buddhist texts, and especially from the epigraphic remains of
the period in question –instead get the impression that a variety of dialects, or perhaps rather
of dialectal style covering a broad spectrum from pure MIA to pure standard Sanskrit were
available for varying purposes and contexts. The choice of a given dialect by a given – was to be
sure, governed to some extent, by his knowledge and level of education but to an equal, and
perhaps greater, extent, it was the content and nature of the document he was writing which
would determine the appropriate level of sanskritisation Due to the limitations of the materials,
it is not possible to specify with a precision the MLA dialect or dialects underlying the hybrid
language. But both the geographical concentrations of the inscriptions in the Mathurā area and
its predominal graphical features such as the nominative masculine in –o indicate that the –
graphic dialect, like the Buddhist literary hybrid, reflects an underlying midland dialect (HBI
645).
Attempts to explain the motivations and linguistic forces shaping the development of the
hybrid tends to focus on two main concepts. First, there is the idea, promoted – joseph
Mansion34 and Filliozat,35 that they essentially arose as a lingua franca enabling Buddhist monks
from various regions of India to converse easily at a period history when their local MIA
dialects were beginning to diverge to the point where they were no longer easily mutually

33. Review of F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar/ Dictionary, T’ oung Pao 43. 1954. 147-71 (quoted 168).
34. Esquisse d’ une historic de la langue sanscrite (Paris; Paul Geuthner, 1931).109.
35. Op. cit .., 164-6.
intelligible. This assumers, first of all, that the hybrid remain reflect an actual spoken language, 36
which would be difficult to prove. Other element of the theory too are less than u totally
convincing. For one thing, it is questionable whether the MIA dialects of the time were really so
different; from the available literary – inscriptional date, it would appear that they were not yet
so widely divergent as to Present-major difficulties of communication. moreover, while it is true
that, Buddhist, the inscriptional data, as we have seen include hybrid documents of all three
major religious traditions, that is, Buddhist Brahmanical, and Jaina; the statistical predominance
of Buddhist records may simply reflect the predominance of Buddhist itself at the time in
question. The development of hybrid Sanskrit may well have been influenced and promoted by
the Buddhists; – the epigraphic evidence shows that hybridisation was actually part of an overall
line guistic trend which transcended sectarian di9visions. In the words of LaMotte, “le Sanskrit
mister n’est pas un phenomenon strictement bouddhique, mais s’ insere dans I’ evolution
generale de la langue indigene”(HBI 638).
The second theory hybridisation places more emphasis on the status value of Sanskrit as
the traditional language of the learned elite. According to this view, the early adoption of
Sanskrit spellings and the ever-increasing Sanskritisation of the epigraphic language, and
eventually adoption of classical Sanskrit itself, all reflect the irresistible influence of Sanskrit as
the language of learning par excellence. In this c9onnection it has been pointed out several
authors, from sylvain Levi37 to Damsteegt (EHS 207-9), that the sanskritising trend was
accelerated by the influence of the Scythain and Kusana rulers of northern and western India
in the period concerned. As foreigners, they were evidently inclined to patronise the elite
language in an effort to legitimize their rule and emphasize their own Indianisation. Thus it is
no accident that the sanskritised hybrid came into extensive use at precisely the time and place
that the Kusans and Saka Ksatrapas were ruling; just as it is no coincidence that the first major
literary Sanskrit inscription, Rudradaman’s Junagadh rock inscription (see 3.3.3), was written on
behalf of a Sake king who, like his predecessors in Mathura, was trying to appear “more Indian
than the Indians.”
All in all, the theories based on the status of Sanskrit seem to provide the strongest
explanation for the gradual hybridisation of the inscriptional Prakrits, and for the Ultimate
Sanskritisation of Indian epigraphy. The status of Sanskrit was so deeply ingrained by Asoka
(presumably for Buddhist motivations) of using Prakrit for epigraphic purposes.
Sanskrit
The earliest Sanskrit inscriptions

It is, in the words of Louis Renou,” Ie grand paradoxe linguistique de I’Inde” 38 that Sanskrit,
the linguistic parent of MIA, first appeared in inscriptions much later than its own descendants.

36. Cf. Filiozat, op. cit .., 166. Describing the hybrid language as “un language reellement parle”.
37. “Sur quelques terms employés dans les inscriptions kes Kṣatrapas,” JA, ser. 9, vol 19, 1902, 95-125
(esp 117-9)
38 Histories de la langue Sanskrit, Les Langue’s du Monde 10 (Lyon: IAC ,1956), 84.
For Sanskrit began to come into epigraphic use only in the first century B.,C., according to the
now generally accepted dating (mainly on paleographic grounds) for the oldest Sanskrit
inscriptions, namely, the Ayodhyā (SI I.94-5) and the Ghosuṇḍī (SII.90-1) and Hathībāḍā (EI
22, 198-205) stone inscriptions.
The Ayodhyā inscription records in two lines of essentially standard Sanskrit the
founadation by the “righteous king” (dharmarājnā) Dhana [* deva? ] of a structure (ketanam) in
memory of this father Phalgudeva.39 The formation of the compound dharmarājnā instead of
the theoretically correct dharmarājena is of nogreat consequence, since compounds of this type
are found frequently in less formal registers c Sanskrit. Also worthy of note is the apparent use
of the genitive instead of the abletive in pusyamitrasya sasthema, assuming, that the usual
interpretation40 as “Sixth (indecent) of (I.e., ’from’)….” Is correct. But here, too, the intrusion
of the stronger genitive case into the domain of the weaker ablative, is not uncommon in
inform Sanskrit usage.
The three inscriptions from Hathibada and one from Ghosundi are all separate renderings
of the same text, recording the construction of a structure 41for the worship of the deities
Sanmkarsana and Vasudeva. The text, which except for the beginning of the first line can be
reconstructed from the four extant fragmentary versions, is again in essentially” correct”
Sanskrit with a few possible with a few possible exceptions. For instance, the word
accompanying the names samkarsana-vasudevabhyam is spelled bhagavabhyan instead of the
expected bhagavadbhyam in both versions (Hathibada A and Ghosundhi) in which it is
preserved; but this may be more than a scribal error (cf.EI 22, 201)Also, it has been suggested
(SI 1.91 n 1) that the donors’ personal name, given as sarvata,” may be actually Sarvatrata” But
this is uncertain, as the king in question is otherwise unknown, and even if the inscription did
record a Prakritc from of the rulers name this would be of no great linguistic import, since
personal names are frequently recorded in Prakritic forms in Sanskrit inscription.
It conclusion, then, the language of the Hathibada-Ghosundi inscriptions, like that of
Ajodhya, is essentially standard Sanskrit, though with some marginal indications of informal
usage and style.
3.3.2 Early Sanskrit inscriptions from Mathurā

Except for these very few examples from the last century before the Christian era, the earliest
Sanskrit inscriptions are found in Mathura, which has yielded several records of the first and
second centuries A.D., that is, the time of the Saka Ksatrapas and the early Kusanas, which are
written in Sanskrit or a dialect very closely approaching it. 42 The earliest of the Sanskrit

39 The paleographic estimate of a date in the first century B.c is corroborated by the statement that the donor is
the “ sixth (in descent) of (ie., from: cf. SI 1.95 n.3) General Pusyamitra” (senapateh pusyamitrasya asthma) since
the Pusyamitra referred to is presumably the founder of the Sung dynasty in ca. 187 B.c
40 Cf.SI 1.95 n3
41 pūjāśilāprākāro nārāyaṇavāţakā; the exact sense of the phrase is uncertain.
42. Here, as in the case of the hybrid dialects discussed earlier, it is not always absolutely clear whether or not a given text
should be labled “Sanskrit.”
inscriptions from Mathura are probably those of the time of the Ksatrapa Sodas’, who is dated
with reasonable certainty to the early the time of the Ksatrapa Sodasa, who is dated with
reasonable certainly to the early years of the first century A.D. The most important of these in
the Mora well inscription discussed earlier (3.2.3.2; MI $ 113), which seems to record the
dedications of a shrine to five epic heroes The opening portion of this fragmentary inscription,
recording its date, was written in the hybrid dialect (mahakṣatrapasa rājūvulasa putrasasvāmi…)
while the remaining three lines are in Sanskrit, evidently including a verse of a type often seen in
Sanskrit inscriptions (cf.3.3.8.1), such as arcadesam sailam instead of arcadesan sailan (accusative
plural), the latter part of the inscription is virtually standard Sanskrit.
A similar linguistic situation in observed in another fragmentary Mathura stone slab
inscription of Sodasa’s time (Mi$178) whose first two lines appear to be in hybrid dialect (“ not
quite correct Sanskrit,” in Luders’ words) as indicated by the nonstandard sandhi in parvato
prasado, 1,2 but whose third and fourth lines seem to countain an upajati verse in standard
Sanskrit. A third inscription of Soda’s time (Mi& 115) on a doorjamb from Mora is in standard
Sanskrit inscriptions attributable to the same general period include a fragment of a stone
inscription from Kankali (THa (possibly a Jaina inscription) with text in sardalavikridita meter
(MI &21) and a fragmentary Mathura coping-stone inscription in “pre-Kussan characters and
composed in pure Sanskrit “ (MI $ 62), which is probably a Brahmanical dedication.
The Sanskrit inscriptions from the earliest phase at Mathura show certain interesting
patterns. First, they are mostly Brahmanical in affiliation, While the KankalrTilla inscription
may be Jaina (It is too fragmentary to be identified) in any case there are no Buddhist
inscriptions among them. Second, some of them comprise two dialects, with the practical
portion (Containing the date, etc.) in the hybrid language and a eulogistic portion in standard
Sanskrit verse. Others, such as the Mora doorjamb inscription, are in Sanskrit but show
occasional hybrid tinges in morphology or orthography.
Moving on the period of the Great Kussanas (i.e., Kaniska and his successors, provisionally
assumed here for purpose of discussion to have begun ruling in A.D 78; cf. 5.5.1.4) we now
find more Mathura inscriptions in reasonably standard Sanskrit, including for the first time
some of Buddhist content. For instance, several of the pillar base donations from the Jabalpur
mound (eg., MI & 47-9 and 53) are in standard Sanskrit or very close to it; for instance,$ 48, aya
(Mkum/bhako da/nam sanghaprakrtan a m Bh (ad) raghios-pramukha (nam) A longer
inscription is the Isapur yupa (MI $ 94) of the year 24(= ca. A.D.102?) of Vasiska,
commemorating the performance of a dvadasaratra sacrifice in proper Sanskrit but for some
minor orthographic variations (grsma-for grisma (1.3); – hiatus in -cchadogena istva (1.6) A few
decades younger is a pedestal inscription from Tokri Tilla (MI& 99) recording donations,
apparently Brahmanical, during the reign of Huviska (the date is lost) in more or less correct
Sanskrit but with some peculiarities such as the apparent gerund drsya (1.3) and the unclear
word nanayar (1.1)
Overall, a fair number (but still only a fraction of the total corpus ) of the inscriptions of
Mathura from the early first to about the middle of the second century A.D, are written in fairly
Sanskrit Most of the Sanskrit inscriptions are Brahmanical in affiliation. And the Sanskrit of
Buddhist inscriptions is more prone to hybridism, through these are also not totally absent from
the Brahmanical ones. In conclusion, itself as an epigraphic language in this era. Especially in
Brahmanical circles, continuing the trend which began in the first century B. c.
Sanskrit inscription from western India
In the Ksatrapa period
The inscription of the earlier house of Western Ksatrapa kings, namely, the Ksaharata line of
Nahapana (middle of the first century A.d?) are mostly in Prakrit or in hybridised Prakrit, with
the important exception of Nasik inscription no 10 of Nahapana’sSon-in-law Usavadata (SI
1,167-70) The opening portion of this inscription (II 3), eulogising Usavadata, is written in a
fair approximation of standard Sanskrit wi some hybrid features such as frequent Sandi hiatus
(eg., dharmamana idam, 1. And hybrid morphology such as bhojapayitra (1.1) The remainder of
the inscription, recording the actual donations, is in a somewhat more hybridised style, Sena(El
8, 79) pointed out that about the first half of the egoistic portion is virtually the Sanskrit
rendition (or, as Senart puts it, a “reproduction in Sanskrit orthography”) the description of
Usadata in the Prakrit Karle cave inscription of the time elects contemporary developments in
Mathura and adjoining regions, though it is no clear why Sanskrit was used for this inscription
only; apparently, this is an instance of the orthographic options alluded to previously (3: 2.3.2).
The Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman (SI 1.175-80), the greatest kini of the second
Western Ksatrapa line of Castana, was written shortly after A.D.15 and represents a turning
point in the history of epigraphic Sanskrit. This is the first long inscription record entirely in
more or less standard Sanskrit, as well as the first extensive record in the poetic styele. Although
further specimens of such poeticprasasits in Sanskrit are not found until the Gupta era, from a
stylistic point of view Rudradaman’s inscription is clearly their prototype. But as noted by
Kilehorn43 and others,44 the language of the Junagadh inscription is not pure classical Sanskrit in
the strictest sense of the term. The orthography is inconsistent in the use of anusvara and visarga
and in the notation of double consonants, and the no classical retroflex 1 occurs several times
(eg., pali, 1.1) Local dialect features are probably reflected in the lengthened vowels in nirvyajam
avajtyraviyya (1.12) Visad-instead of standard vimsati-(1.7) also reflects local dialect pronunciation
of the epic variant vimsat (cf. siha for sinha in the Ghunda ins., discussed in the next
paragraph).Patina. instead of patya (1.11) in the sense of ‘lord’ is likewise a common epicism, though
technically incorrect. Other questionable uses from the classical point of view include anyatra sangramesu
instead of….sangramebhyah (1.10; cf. Kielhorn, EI 8, 40 n2) and the redundant a grabhat prabhrit
(1.9) The language of the Junagadh inscription is thus a close approach to high classical
Sanskrit, but like early literacy Sanskrit generally, it shows the influence of the less formal epic-
vernacular style in which some of the grammatical niceties of Panini an/ classical Sanskrit were
not observed. But the nonstandard feature in question are in general not of the same order as

43. 8,39-40
44. E.g., Reno. Histories de la langue Sanskrit, 96.refers to “des epismes linguistiques .”
those which characterize the hybrid and hybrid influenced inscriptions of Madura. Thus
although we can suspect that the inscription for using Sanskrit for epigraphic purposes
emanated from Mathura (there are clear historical connections between the Western Ksatrapas
and the Scythian dynasties of Mathura), the source of the Sanskrit of the Junagadh inscription
was evidently the pre classical literacy style current among the literati of the day rather than the
Sanskritised hybrid of Mathura and adjoining regions.
This literacy style of Sanskrit was not, however, employed in the inscription of the time of
the Western Ksatrapa rulers who succeeded Rudradaman. These inscriptions, which are
unofficial records, reflect a less formal style which retains some characteristics of the hybrid
language. A typical example in the Gunda inscription (SI 1.181-2) of the time of Rudrasimha I
(Sake 103= A.D 181). Which contains such nonstandard forms as (tri) uttarasate for truttara-and
rudrasihsya for rudrasimhasya (cf.visad-for vinsat-in the Junagadh inscription), as well as the
hybrid Sandi rajno ksatrapasya. Inscription of contemporary dynastics in western India show
similar linguistic characteristics. A Satavahana inscription of the time of Vasisthputra Sri-
Satakarni (second century A.D) from Kanheri (Buhler, IA 12,1883, 272) is in hybridised
Sanskrit (e.g., sri-sata/kara slya, 1.1) From a slightly later period, the Kanakhera inscription
(SII.186-7) of A.D 279 is in mostly standard Sanskrit but still shows some features reminiscent
of hybrid, such as the causative participle khanapita (1.6).
Also from the third century A.D., we have several Sanskrit inscription on yapas from Badva
(SI 1.91-2) and Barnala (EI 26,118-23) in Rajasthan. Their languages still shows significant
hybrid characteristics, most strikingly in the dating formula krtehi for Sanskrit krtaih i.e., (lit ‘by’
(Krta (==Vikrama) years.” This follows the familiar pattern of inscriptions from the early
centuries of the Christian era (e.g., the Mora well inscription discussed earlier), with the
portions concerning the date and other mundane information in more Prakritic language. This
suggests that everyday documents were still being written in MIA or mixed dialects at his time,
so that people would habitually employ set pharses like krtechi in recording dates, even at the head
of documents which were to be composed in Sanskrit. 45
Early Sanskrit inscriptions from the Deccan India
In general, Sanskrit began to appear in southern Indian inscriptions somewhat later than in the
north, and also lagged behind in its gradual adoption there as the primary epigraphic language.
The first significant body46 of southern Sanskrit inscriptions is from Nagarjunakondu, where, in

45 The Devalmori stone casket inscription (SI 1.519), dated in the year 127 of the “Kathika kings”
(Kathikanrpanam), is written entirely in correct classical style. The date of the inscription, however, in
controversial; Sirear (ibid.,) interprets it as a year of the Saka era, equivalent to A.D 205. Others, how ever,
such as P. Srinivasan (EI 37,67-8), judge inscription, to be considerably later on paleographic grounds and
think that the otherwise unknown “ Kathika” era may be equivalent to the Kalacuri-Cediera, in which case of
the date of the inscription would be ca. AD., 376. The latter opinion is preferable on linguistic grounds, as the
classical style would be quite typical of the early Gupta era but unusual for the early third century (see also
5.5.1.16).
46. An anomalously early inscription in what appears to be hybrid Sanskrit (cf. EHS 144) is the fragmentary
Amravati slab inscription of the Satavahana ruler Gautamputra Sri-Yajna Satakarni, of about the late second
additions, to many Prakrit inscriptions, a few in Sanskrit have also been found. Most of these
date from the reign of the later IKsvaku king Ehavala Cantamula. Who probably reigned in the
late third and/or early fourth centuries A.D, The earliest dated Sanskrit inscription from
Nagarjunakonda, of the year 11 of king Ehavalsari (= Ehavala Cantamula; EI 33, 147-9),
records a Brahmanical (Saiva) donation in good classical verse (anustubh and sragdhara meter A
pillar inscription of the sixteenth regional year of the same king (EI 34, 17-20), al of Saiva
content, is in the Sanskrit prose but with numerous hybrid characteristics su as the frequent
absence of Sandi (eg., naptryath mahatalavarasya,1,6) and the suppression of the dative in the
introductory invocation (name bhagavate mahadevas puppabhaddrasvaminah 1.1) A Buddhist
inscription of Ehavala’s year 24 in Sanskrit prose (EI 35,11-13) shows similar linguistic features,
including hybrid infletions such as bharyyaya sresthintya. A fragmentary fourth Sanskrit inscription
on pillar from the same site (EI 35, 17-18), probably of the same period records a Buddhist
donation is good classical verse.
Thus we have at Nagarjunakonda examples of both standard and hybridize Sanskrit in both
Buddhist and Brahmanical records, and all from a period when Prakrit inscriptions were also
still being written. The determining factor in the linguist choice seems to be neither sectarian
nor chronological but verse versus prose. Standard or near-standard Sanskrit is used in versified
inscriptions, while hybridize Sanskrit appears in the prose texts. This distinction is reminiscent
of similar pattern in earlier inscriptions from the north, notably the Mora well inscription.
Several of the early specimens of epigraphic Sanskrit from other southern Indiansities
occur in bilingual Sanskrit and Prakrit records. Atypical example is the Basin copper plates of
the Vindhyasakti II (Si 1,430-5), who ruled rounds the middle to late fourth century A.D in this
inscription the introductory genealogical portion (II,1-5) is in the Sanskrit, while the remainder,
that is the functional portior of the grant, is in Prakrit, 47 Here once again situation is
comparable to that of some northern inscriptions of an earlier period, such as Nasik, no 10
(see 3.3.3)
Similar patterns emerge in this period in the far south. For example, the oldest copper plate
inscriptions of the early Pallavas (Mayidavolu and Hirahadagalli), SI 1.457-61 and 461-6),
datable to about the fourth century A.D., are in Prakrit, but on some of them the king’s name
on the seal is given in Sanskrit. Some slightly later records. such as the Gunapadeya copper plate
of the time of Skandavarman (SI 1.467-9) have imprecatory verses (bahubhir vasubhir vasudha
data…. Etc) at the end in Sanskrit. A further step toward the adoption of Sanskrit is illustrated
by the Mattepad copper plates of King Damodaravarman (EI 17 327030). These come from
approximately the same region and period (late fourth century A.D) as the Gunapadeya plates
but are written primarily in Sanskrit, with only the portion enumerating the donees and their
shares in Prakrit; and even the Prakrit shows the influence of Sanskrit orthography, for example
in kasyapanamdijisaya amso 1(1.13)

century A.D (JAIH 4,7-8) But here (as also in the Knavery Satavahana inscription discussed earlier) the
unusually early Sanskritization is probably due to Satavahana contacts with the Western Satraps.
47. See Sicar’s comments in SI 1.430 n.2.
 This shift from Prakrit to Sanskrit around the latter part of the fourth century A.D in
southern India is also attested in the inscriptions of several other dynasties (see SIe 44-5 for
further references). A particularly clear case appears in two copper plat inscriptions of the
Salankayanas from Kanukollu (EI 31, 1-10). The earliest set, dated in the year 14 of
Nandivarman, is Prakrit except for the imprecatory verses at the end (as in Gunaapadeya
inscriptions of the Salankayanas from Kanukollu (EI 31, 1-10) The earliest set, dated in in the
Gunapadeya inscription mentioned previously), while the later set, issued in the first year of
Nandivarman’s grandson Skandavarman, is in Sanskrit According to Sircar (SIE 44), these
inscriptions are datable to the fourth and fifth centuries, respectively.
Finally, after this transitional period in the fourth and early centuries A.D., Prakrit fell out
use completely in Southern Indian inscriptions. For the next few centuries Sanskrit was the sole
epigraphic language, until the regional Dravidian languages began to come into use around the
seventh century (see 3.5.1).
Early Sanskrit inscriptions from other regions
With the exception of the very early Ayodhya inscription discussed earlier (3.3.1), there are few
early Sanskrit inscriptions from eastern and northeastern India. Some brief records of the
“Magha” of Kausambi of the second century A.D are in Sanskrit or in a highly Sanskritised
hybrid: for example, the Bandhogarh inscriptions nos.18 and 19 of Vaisravana (and apparently
also the fragmentary no. 14 of Sivamagha; EI 31, 184-6) and the Kosan pillar inscription (EI
24,146-8) of Vaisravana. A part from such scattered and marginal examples, the earliest true
Sanskrit inscription from the northeast (besides Ajodhya) is probably the Susaniya (West
Bengal) rock inscription (SI 1.351-2), datable to about the middle of the fourth century.
From the far north, a notable set of relatively early Sanskrit inscriptions in more or less
correct classical style are the Jabalpur (Dehradun Dist., UP) asvamedha brick inscription of king
Silavarman (SI 1.98-9) dated paleographic ally to about the third century A.D
Outside of India proper, the oldest Sanskrit inscription is probably the Va-canh (Vietnam)
stele inscription, composed in standard Sanskrit prose and verse (vasanta tilaka and
sardulavikridita).48 Its date is highly controversiak, but sometime in the third century A.D is the
most likely (see 4.3.7.8); if this date is correct, this record would be at least as advanced
linguistically and stylistically as the contemporary epigraphs within India. 49 From about the fifth
century A.D., Sanskrit inscriptions become common in various countries outside of India,
particularly, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Nepal.
The emergence of Sanskrit in the Gupta period
It was during the reign of the early Gupta emperors in the fourth century A.D that Sanskrit was
finally established as the epigraphic language par excellence of the Indian world. The turning

48. 53. See Claude Jacques BEFEO 55, 1969,117-24

49. It is interesting to note that, somewhat surprisingly, Prakrit was not used as an epigraphic language in
Southeast Asia; see Jean Filliozat, BEFEO 55.1969,112
point appears in the inscriptions of Samudragupta (middle to late fourth century), especially the
Allahabad pillar inscriptions (SI 1.262-8), which, despite a few trivial orthographic irregularities,
is often held up as a mode; of high classical literacy style of the mixed prose and verse (campu)
class. From this point on, all the inscriptions of the Guptas and their neighbors and feudatories
in northern India were written in correct classical Sanskrit; and as we have already seen (3.3.4),
similar developments followed soon after in southern India and elsewhere.
Thus by about the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries A Sanskrit had at
last established itself as virtually the sole language for epigraphic throughout India. Prakrit,
from this time onward, virtually fell out of epigraphic with occasional exceptions for literacy
effect or sectarian considerations (see 3.1) Sanskrit continued to enjoy its privileged position in
the north for many century until regional NIA and “Islamic” languages (3.4 and 3.5.2) began to
appear inscriptions of the medieval period; even then Sanskrit was never completely splintery
and has continued to be used sporadically up to modern times. In the south, the regional (i.e.,
Dravidian) languages made their appearance earlier and more prominent(3.5.1) but there too
not entirely at the cost of Sanskrit, which continued to be us as an alternative to or in bilingual
combination with the Dravidian languages throughout the ancient and medieval periods.
Summary: Historical and Cultural Factors in the development of Sanskrit as an
Epigraphic Language
Near the end of the pre-Christian era, we find a smattering of inscriptions of Brahmanical
content recording religious donations and foundations in standard or near] standard Sanskrit,
and we may assume that these are isolated survivals of what mu – have been an increasingly
common practice in this period. About the beginning the Christian era, we begin to find more
examples of epigraphic Sanskrit among the abundant inscriptions from Mathura and
surrounding regions, and it appears be more than coincidence that this development appeared
at precisely the time when this area of northern India came under the domination of the
Scythian” Ksatrapa rulers (see 3.2.3.2) This suspicion is confirmed by the appearance, in the
next century, of Sanskrit inscriptions in the domains of the early Western Ksatrapas it
Maharashtra and Gujarat, culminating in Rudradaman’s Junagadh rock inscription the first long
epigraphic text in virtually classical language and style.
Thus it appears that the use of Sanskrit for inscriptions was promoted, though non-
originated, by the Scythian rulers of northern and western India in the first two centuries of the
Christian era. Their motivation in promoting Sanskrit was presumably a desire to establish
themselves as legitimate Indian or at least Indianised rulers and to curry the favor epigraphic
Sankritisation were evidently the same as those which promoted the development must have
taken place more or less simultaneously. As discussed earlier, for several centuries there was
available to the composers and scribes of inscriptions a range of linguistic choices comprising
MIA, hybrid, and Sanskrit, from which the appropriate dialect could be chosen according to
such factors as the purpose abilities. But the direction of movement along this spectrum was
consistently toward Sanskrit, promoted by the previously mentioned legitimising motivations of
the non-Indian rulers, as well as by the inherent status of this elite language. Thus, eventually,
and inevitably, Sanskrit completely supplanted Prakrit and the mixed dialects.
 The spread of epigraphic Sanskrit to the south in subsequent centuries can also be
attributed to the influence, direct or indirect, of the Western Ksatrapas. In this connection it is
significant that the earliest southern Indian Sanskrit inscriptions come from Nagarjunakonda
(see 3.3.4), since other inscriptions from the same site attest to the connections of the
Ksatrapas and other inscriptions western Indian rulers with it; for instance, a Nagarjunakonda
memorial pilar inscription of the time of King Rudra purusadatta (EI 34,20-2) attests to a
martial alliance between the Western Ksatrapas and the iksvaku rulers of Nagarjunakonda.
The movement toward Sanskrit was thus already well entrenched by the early years of the
Gupta empire, when Sanskrit was adopted as the sole administrative language for epigraphic
and (presumably) other purposes, and when the high classical style become the standard mode.
The Gupta thus merely brought to its logical conclusion a gradual process which had been
going on for the previous four centuries or so. The adoption of Sanskrit by the Guptas is
sometimes thought to represent a Brahmanical revival under their auspices; and while there may
be something to this, it would be a serious oversimplification to picture the trumph of Sanskrit
merely as a victory of the Brahmanical language over the Mia and hybrid dialects associated
with the Buddhists and Jains. It is certainly true that, on the whole, Sanskrit was first and most
frequently employed epigraphically in Brahmanical circles (as in Ayodhya. Hathibada/
Ghosundi, etc,) and that many of the earliest and best specimens of Sanskrit from subsequent
sites such as Mathura and Nagarjunakonda are in Brahmanical records. But several other early
Sanskrit inscriptions from these sites are Buddhist, and possibly also Jaina (Kankali Tilla).
Particularly interesting is the situation at Nagarjunakonda, where the Sanskrit inscriptions seem
to be distributed equally. In terms of number and style, between Buddhist and Brahmanical
records Thus while the Brahmans and their clients may have led the way in the Sanskritisation
of epigraphic language, the Buddhists did not lag far behind and were no doubt also influential
in the process.
The patterns should not, however, be uncritically extrapolated to no epigraphic contexts. It
should be kept in mind that, in the words of Burrow,” (T) he inscriptional evidence gives a very
one-sided picture of the contemporary linguistic conditions. ….Sanskrit was always, even when
the use of Prakrit was most flourishing, the primary literacy language of India,” 50 In other
words, the limited and sporadic use of Sanskrit in inscription prior to the Gupta era does not
mean that Sanskrit as a language of literature, culture, and ritual was in abeyance but simply that
inscriptions were not yet felt to be literary documents worthy of its use. The gradual
Sanskritisation of inscriptions reflects, on the one hand, the formalisation of inscriptions into a
mode of literary expression, and on the other, the spread of Sanskrit into the administrative
realm, which was fully accomplished under the Guptas and their contemporaries.
Linguistic characteristics of inscriptional Sanskrit
The style and quality of inscriptional Sanskrit varies over wide range from the finest classical to
the near-illiterate. In broad terms, one may discern three levels.

50 The Sanskrit Language (see n 36 reference)59

 The first level comprises more or less standard classical Sanskrit, found most frequently in
inscriptions from the Gupta era down to the early medieval period, particularly in records of
the prasasti class. Example of the high classical style are very numerous; among the outstanding
ones, in terms of both grammatical correctness and literacy polish, may be mentioned the
Allahabad inscription, the Aihole inscription of the time of Pulakesin II (SI II.443-50), and the
Deopara inscription of Vijayasena (SI II.115-22).51 But even in inscriptions of this class, it is not
uncommon to find occasional lapses from the strictest standards of classical grammar and
orthography (cf.3.3.8.1) Thus in the Allahabad inscription we find I for d in –vyalulitena (1.8).
Some inscriptions written in what may broadly be called classical Sanskrit show stronger
tendencies toward a colloquial style, as in the Junagadh inscription, whose epicisms and other
no classical features have been discussed earlier (3.3.3)
The second level comprises a looser, more vernacular style, characteristic of what might be
termed “functional Sanskrit”52 frequently in Sanskrit inscriptions, particularly of the medieval
era. Such documents partake in substantial but varying degrees of vernacularisms in
orthography, vocabulary, syntax, and so on (see 3.3.8.1-3.3.8.4 for details). The first part of the
Styadont inscription (Ei!,162-79) words, “were evidently influenced by, and have freely
employed words, phrases, and constructions of, their vernacular” (163). Atypical example of
this style is the following version of a formulatic malediction (1.6) ya-kopi purusah
paripanthanakhasra karoti utpadayati sa pancamahapatakai lipase (any person who causes or
instigates obstruction (or) damages53 is guilty of the five great sins”).
The third level comprises semiliterate Sanskrit, found in some inscriptions, typically later
copper plate charters, often from eastern India. An example is the Madras Museum plates
(originally from an unknown site in Orissa) of the time of Narendradhavala (EI 28, 44-50),
whose language, in the words of the editor, “is only seemingly Sanskrit and is greatly influenced
by the local dialect” (45) Here, for example the malediction is rendered (II21-2) as sadatam va
paradatam/va/yo haretivasudhura/visthyam krmi bhuta pitrbhi saha54 A comparison of this with the
example cited in the preceding paragraph (the inscriptions are roughly contemporary, both
dating from around the tenth century) shows that we are indeed dealing with a different leve; of
linguistic competence; while the author of the Styadoni inscription evidently had a somewhat
limited command of Sanskrit, the text of the Madras plates is, as Sircar, states, merely a poor
imitation of Sanskrit.
The following summary of the typical peculiarities of inscriptional Sanskrit there fore does
not take the third class of inscriptions into account, since from the linguistic point of view they

51 See also section 7.2.2.3

52 Similar types of Sanskrit used for practical functions are also attested in some relatively late no epigraphic
sources, including manuals for letter writing such as the Lekhapaddhati or for instruction in spoken Sanskrit
such as the Ukavyakriprakarna
53. For khastra Kielhorn suggests “ compare the Hindi khasar damages, loss ,injury, fraud” (165)
54. The intended verse is familiar svadation paradottam va yo hare to vasundharam/ svavielse becomes a worm in his own
excrement (He” who would steal land given by himself or by someone else becomes a worm in his own
excrement and rots along with his ancestors”) Cf .section 4.1.23 (i). and se SIE 196 for reference and variants.
are of more interest for the study of the underlying vernacular than of Sanskrit. The features
described are characteristic mainly of the second class of inscriptions, that, is, those in formal
or “practical” Sanskrit, although, as already noted, many of them are also to be found in the
generally more formal and correct inscriptions of the first group. This fact is linguistically
significant because it indicates an overall consistency within epigraphic Sanskrit; the features
enumerated here are not a mere random accumulation of “errors, but rather establish consistent
patterns of usage of nonformal Sanskrit has a grammar of its own,55 a sketchy outline of which
is given in the following sections; a more detailed study of the subject remains to be done.
Orthography and Sandi
R is often written as ri, and sometimes also vice versa. See the example of ri for r in the
Allahabad inscriptions, noted earlier, and examples of the converse in the Ramtek stone
inscription of the time of Ramachandra (EI 25,7-20), pryatama for priyatama (1.19) and
tribhuvana-for tribuvana (1.31).
L is sometimes written for d, mainly in early Sanskrit inscriptions. See the example noted
earlier (Allahabad).56
Notation of anusvara and nasals is often in violation of strict orthographic rules. Anusvara is
commonly used in pausa in place of m. N or n is often written for m before sibilants and h, for
example, vansa-(Bhitari ins., SI 1.3.23,1,13); mansa (Depara ins., cited in 3.3.8) Final –n before
consonants is sometimes written as m, for example, pancedram sthapayitva (Kahaum pillar ins.,
Appendix no 7,1.11).57
Notation of doubled consonants is often inconsistent, Word such as sattva, ujjvala, and sattra
are very commonly written satva, ujvala, satra, and so on. The doubling of intervocalic ch is not
always observed. The optional doubling of consultants’ in conjunction with r or y (eg., kartta or
karta) is frequently but be no mean regularly applied, even within the same inscription.
In many later Sanskrit inscriptions, especially from northern and eastern India the
distinction between v and b is not consistently maintained, and often the two are represented by
the same character and not distinguished at all. Similarly, in many such inscription s and s. and
sometimes also S. are frequently interchanged. The distinction between n and n is not always
correctly maintained.
Besides these common orthographic irregularities, Sanskrit inscriptions also occasionally
display spellings which reveal nonstandard or vernacularised pronunciations, such as asvoja for
asvayuja in the Manado stone inscription of the time of Narvarman (SI 1.397-8, 1.3) Sandi is left

55. This form of Sanscrit is by no means exclusive to inscriptional language. Most of its characteristics can also be
found in. or at lest resemble, those of the less formal literary varieties of the language, particularly tose of the
epic and of some strata of Buddhist literature: see R. Salomon, “Lingustic Variability in Post-Vedic Sanscrit”,
in C Caiillat, ed., Dialectes dans les litteratures indo-aryenners, 275-94 (esp. 282-4, Epigraphical Sanscrit.)
56. Further examples given in H Luders, “Zur Geschinte des I im Altindischen” in antidoran: Festschriff Jacob
Wackernagel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1923), 294-308= philological Indicia, 546-61.
57. See also examples in the Mora well ins., cited earlier (3.3.2)
unapplied not only is prose (see also, not frequent in verse, especially at the juncture between
Padas.
Morphology
The formation of causative verbs and their derivatives with the p-affix where n called for by
Panini an rules is particularly characteristic of epigraphic Sanskrit. The occurs in both early
Sanskrit inscriptions, as in bandhapitas in the Gundha stone in (A.D. m 181;SI 1.181-2,1,5) and
later, for example, karsapayato(=karsayato) in the Dhulev plate (EI 30,4,1.3) The late (A.D1264).
Veraval inscription (SI II,402-8 which presents a good example of the second class of “fun
ctionl” epigraphic Sanskrit described earlier, contains numerous forms of this type, including
sever derivatives of vrt/ (varttapanartham, varttapaniyam, varttapayatam, II, 21,34,35 and lopapayati
(1.42)
Also typical of epigraphic Sanskrit, particularly of the second class mentions previously, are
nonstandard gerunds formed contrary to the rule of distribution the suffixes-tva and (t)ya to
simple and prefixed roots, respectively. A notable can is the Jodhpur stone inscription of Bauka
(SI II.236-41) with three gerunds of the type: prahatva, tyajya, and stambhiya (II,15,17)
A pleonastic-ka suffix is frequently applied to nominal and participial form for example, in-
{u} panakotpadyanaka-and karitaka-in the Khoh copper plant of Sarvantha (CII 3, 135-9,!! ,
9,11)58
Other miscellaneous morphological peculiarities are far too numerous to list here. One
examp;e is the frequent formation of compounds of mahant – with mahat or other stem forms,
rather than maha, as the prior member; for example, mahaddyuti in the Sakrat inscription (EI
27,27-33,1,6) and mahaddharmma-(also mahatadharmma)in the Styadont inscription (EI 1, 162-79,
11,8,20,29,etc.)
Syntax
A notable peculiarity of epigraphic syntax is the mixing of active and passive constructions as
in prapittracyrna… krtavan in the Parasuramesvara temple inscription (EI 26,126-7,11.1-2) and sa ca sa
ca… talldatayva in Styadoni (EU 1,174,1.9 Like many of the features enumerated in this section,
this peculiarity has parallel inscriptional Prakrit, for instance, in MI$ 150, katubiniye… pratithapeti,
and in some of the Nagarjunkonda inscriptions, for example, B 5 mahadevi rudradharabhatarik imam
selakhambam.. patithapitam (SI 1. 1231, 1.4)
Vocabulary
Sanskrit inscriptions (like those in other languages) contain a large number of word which are
rarely or, quite often, never attested in no epigraphic Sanskrit. The majority of this vocabulary
consists of technical terms, typically connected with sucl matters as agriculture. weights and
measures, coinage and currency, revenues and taxation, local and territorial administration, and

58. See also the comments of Fleet in CH. 3,69, and of Buhler in EI 1,74 n.28.
various other official terms and titles59 Also included in this category are abbreviations of
technical and other terms (see 2.5.2.3) The definitive collection of epigraphic terminology.
Particularly of technical vocabulary but also including some of the other types mentioned
subsequently, is D.C Sir car’s Indian Epigraphically Glossary (IEG)
There is also a stock of semi technical words which are exclusive to or characteristic of
epigraphically Sanskrit. This class includes terms such as parva in the special sense of the
preceding {date}’ cf.3.2.1) or the preceding {prasasta}’ and satka ‘belonging to’ (EI 1,164)60
Inscriptions not infrequently also provide examples of rare or otherwise unattested words of a
poetic or literacy rather than technical character; see, for example, the “rare Sanskrit words”
(asvtya ‘a number of horses’, anandhatu ‘joy’ etc). cited by Hulzsch from the Motupali inscription
(EI 12, 188) Inscription thus also constitute an important source for the lexical study of
classical Sanskrit. For which see S.P. Tewarl’s Contribution of Sanskrit Inscriptions to Lexicography.61
ITt has traditionally been the practice in epigraphic studies to regard orthographic and
grammatical peculiarities of the Type noted previously as mere errors. And to correct them
either in the text itself (usually by adding the “correct” form in parentheses) or in the notes.
This often leads to a situation where inscriptional texts, particularly those written in the less
formal modes, are burdened with an inconvenient number of notes correcting often trivial
variants. Moreover, as pointed out by Ramesh in his essay “Indian Epigraphy and the Language
Medium” (RIE 44-8), it is not only impractical but also misleading to indulge in such
overcorrection of informal epigraphic Sanskrit. In this words, such “departures from Paninian
rules of grammar, which are dubbed as inaccuracies by the epigraphic need not necessarily have
appeared un grammatical to the composers and contemporaneous readers of those inscription
and, on the other hand, may have been accepted as legitimate usages “ (45). This position is
supported by the fact that many inscriptions contain what Ramesh (44) calls a “formal” Portion,
containing genealogical and eulogistic passages written in the high literary style. As well as an
“operative” or technical portion presenting the legal details of the document formulated in the
less formal vernacularised epigraphic Sanskrit described earlier (3.3.8). Thus Rajesh is no doubt
correct in his claim that inscriptions prove that there was, in the early and medieval periods, a
Sanskrit whether one prefers to look upon them as errors or as legitimate linguistic or stylistic
variants, are an important source of linguistic or stylistic variants, are an important source of
linguistic data which throws light both on the history of the Sanskrit language 62 as a means of
functional and official communication (as opposed to a purely literary vehicle) and on its
relations with the various vernacular with which it coexisted.

59. Not surprisingly, such vocabulary includes many loanwords, borrowed directly or in a pseudo Sanskrit form.
From the local languages, including MIA, NIA, Dravidians and others: see, eg., the case mentioned in n58.
60. See Renou’s Historie de la langue sanskrite (ref in n 43) 100 n 1 for a brief sampling of such typical epigraphic
vocabulary.
61. See also K. Bhattacharya, “Recherches sur ie vocabularies des inscriptions Sanskrit’s du Cambodge”

62 Eg., the frequent orthographic interchange of r and r alluded to earlier (3.3.8.1) establishes that the modern
Indian pronunciation of syllabic as r goes back at least as far as Gupta times.
The New Indo-Aryan (NIA) Languages
D.B Diskalkar,” Inscriptions in Sanskrit Languages,” JOI 6,1956-57, 129-39: SIE 53-60.
The study of inscriptions in the NEW Indo-Aryan languages could well be described as the
stepchild of Indian epigraphy. Compared with the attention which has been paid to Old and
Middle Indo-Aryan inscriptions on the one hand and to Dravidian on the other, NIA epigraphy
is virtually an untouched field. Reliable collections and studies are lacking for most of the NIA
languages (Tulpule’s practina Marathi Kortva Lekha is one of the few important exceptions), and
many of the collections and editions of individual inscriptions are in local publication and /or
in the various regional languages concerned, rendering them difficult of access to the scholarly
community as a whole. Although editions of NIA inscriptions are occasionally published m EI
and other major journals, the majority have been merely reported in ARIE, often with only the
vague designation of “Local dialect,” and never properly published elsewhere. Because of these
problems, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive and reliable survey of the subject: what is
presented here is based on the available published materials but can hardly be considered
complete or authoritative.
The neglect of the NIA inscriptions is attributable to various factors (see Diskalkar), 129),
For one thing, none of them can claim any great antiquity. Moreover, they have on the whole
less historical importance than those in the other Indic and Islamic languages (i.e., Arabic and
Persian; see 3.5.2).the majority of them being private records of a rather humble character.
Nevertheless, they are worthy of much more attention than has until now been accorded to
them, as they are potentially excellent sources of data for such subjects as social history,
religion, and historical linguistics.
The earliest clear-cut specimens of NIA language (notably Marathi and Oriya; see 3.4.1 and
3.4.2) appear in inscriptions of about the eleventh century. It is often difficult, however, to
specify a precise date for the earliest epigraphic attestation of a given NIA language, as their
emergence is gradual (not unlike the situation with Sanskrit at a much earlier time). Occasional
traces of NIA have been observed within Sanskrit records somewhat before the eleventh
century,, and the earliest definite specimens are typically mixed in varying degrees with Sanskrit
at a much earlier time). Occasional traces of NIA have been observed within Sanskrit records
somewhat before the eleventh century, and the earliest definite specimens are typically mixed in
varying degrees with Sanskrit. Even in later centuries, it is very common for NIA inscriptions to
be bi-or multilingual with Sanskrit, Dravidian, other NIA languages, or Islamic languages.
The dates of earliest epigraphic attestation for the various NIA languages vary widely, as do
the degrees to which they are developed as epigraphic languages. These discrepancies are due to
various historical and geographical factors, most importantly the date and extent to which
Islamic governments were established in the different regions (see SIE 53). In those portions of
northern and central India in which Islamic rule was firmly entrenched at an early date. The
Islamic languages directly supplanted Sanskrit as the principal epigraphic medium, whereas the
NIA languages developed in this function in areas where Islamic rule was established only later
in the medieval period. This accounts, for example, for the discrepancy between Oriya, which
became one of the most important NIA epigraphic languages, and neighboring Bengali which
was almost negligible in this respect; for Bengal was one of the first parts of India to come
under Islamic rule, while Orissa was among the last.
In some regions-again, most notably in Maharashtra and Orissa-the regional NIA
vernaculars were even elevated to the rank of imperial Languages. In such cases one may
suspect the influences of neighboring Dravidian –speaking regions. In which epigraphic use of
the local vernacular, instead of or in addition to Sanskrit, was a long-established tradition. 63 In
these regions we find the vernaculars regularly used for official records of the usual sorts.
Elsewhere, NIA inscriptions are pronominally private in character; especially common are
memorial records of various types.
Marathi
Sam. Go. Pracina Marathi Korva Lekha{old Marshall Inscriptions”) A Master “ some Marathi Inscriptions, A.D.,
1060-1300,” BSO AS 20,1957, 417-35; Silaharas (CII 6): D.B. Diskalkar, JOI 6, 132-7; SIE 53-5.
The epigraphic in Marathi is the most abundant and best-documented among the NIA
languages. The principal reference sources are Master’s brief anthology of sixteen inscriptions
and Tulpule’s larger though by no means exhaustive complication of seventy-six texts. Diskalkar
(132) estimates a total of some three hundred inscriptions in Marathi, of which about two
hundred are from Maharashtra proper and the rest from neighboring territories, mainly
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Marathi first began to appear in inscriptions around the
eleventh century A.D.,64 and Marathi inscriptions became especially common in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries when the language was widely used by the Yamahas of Devagiri and the
Silaharas of northern Konkan (see CII 6) for their inscriptions. Marathi continued to be used
epigraphically in the later medieval period’ for instance in the records of the Adil Shahis, and
even into the European period; an interesting the records of the Adil Shahis, and even into the
European period; an interesting late (A.D. 1803) Marathi inscription is the long history of the
Tanojore Marathas inscribed on the wall of the Brhadisvara temple in Tanjavur (V.
Srinivasachari and S. Gopalan, Bhomsle Vansa Caritra).
Most Marathi inscriptions are of the usual types of the period concerned, that is, donatives
or memorial records on stone, and copper plate charters; according to Diskalkar (132) the
former type constitutes about three-quarters of the total. The majority are written in
Devanagari, but some are in the Modi and Kannada scripts. As with other NIA language
inscriptions, many of the Marathi inscriptions are bilingual Very common are bilinguals of
various types with Sanskrit for example, Sanskrit copper plate charters with some of the
“functional” portions written in Marathi (see master, 417-8). Many later Marathi inscriptions are
bilingual with other languages such as Kannada, Telugu, or Persian. There are, of course, also
monolingual Marathi inscriptions; the Drive Agar, plate, for example (Tulpule), 10-14; Master

63. Cf the comments of Kunjabihari Tripathi in The Evolution of Oriya Language and Script v.
64. “Occasional Marathi words and usages have also been noted in some inscriptions of the tenth century eg., the
Marmuri copper plates, Journal of the Bombay Historical Society 2, 213-4.
422-3, EI 28, 121-4) is an early copper plate grant composed entirely (except for the date in
Sanskrit) in Old Marathi.
Oriya
K. Tripathi, The Evolution of the Oriya Language and script; iden, Practma Oria Abhilekha; R. Subrahmanyam,
Inscription of the Saryavanthi Gujapatis of Orissa.
After Marathi, Oriya is the most abundantly attested and important among the inscriptional
NIA languages; Diskalkar (JOI 6, 129) estimates the number of Oriya inscriptions at 150, and
Tripathi presents a selection of 71 Oriya inscriptions from A.D. 1051 to 1568 in The Evolution of
Oriya Language and Script (222.ff.)65 The records are found in various districts of Orissa as well as
in neighboring districts Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal. The early manifestation of Oriya in
inscriptions follow a pattern similar to that of Marathi. Characteristics the Oriya language can
first be discerned in inscriptional Sanskrit of the tenth century A.D., instance, in the Madras
Museum Plates (EI 28,44-50).66 Oriya proper began to appear sporadically in inscriptions of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries the earliest specimen being dated A.D 1051 (Tripathi, The
Evolution, 222-4), an became common in the thirteenth and following centuries. Oriya was used
frequent in the records of the Eastern Ganga kings and of their successors, the Suryavarna
Gujarat’s. Many later inscriptions of local dynasties as well as private records continued to be
written in Oriya into the eighteenth, nineteenth, and even the early twentieth centuries (e.g.,
ARIE 1951-2, no.A20).
Most Oriya inscriptions are the usual donative stone records and copper plate charters. The
early ones were written in “Gaudi” or “proto-Bengali” script, which gradually developed into a
distinct Oriya script from the fourteenth century onward Oriya inscriptions were also
sometimes written in the Devangari (eg., Tripathi Evolution,248-9) or Telugu (ibid., 229-31)
scripts. Like the Marathi inscriptions in Oriya alone is larger than for Marathi. The multingual
records include inscriptions in Oriya together with Sanskrit and/or Telugu, Tamil (eg.,
Bhubaneswar stone ins., EI 32, 229-38), and Hindi (eg., Baripada Museum stone ins., OHRJ 2,
94-8).
Gujarati
D.B Diskalkar, Inscriptions of Kathiawar.
Inscriptions in Gujarati from various parts of the modern state of Gujarat, especially the
Kathiawar and Kacch regions, number well in the hundreds; for examples see Diskalkar, no’s
79,82-3, 85, 87-8,90, and so on, and ARIE 1969-70, nos B.22-138. Gujarati linguistic features
appear in some Sanskrit inscriptions of the fourteenth century (eg., Diskalkar nos. 36-7 etc; New
Indian Antiquary 1,587-8), and inscriptions written entirely or nearly entirely in Gujarati date

65. Several Oriya inscriptions are also transcribed (in Devangari) in SII 5 (nos.1006 ,119,1121), 1132-3, 1161) and
6 (nos. 654,697,700-3,748-9,778,895, 903,908-927, 1089,1145-65)
66. See 3.3.8.3 and SIE 58.
from the second half of the fifteenth century on. The latest Gujarati inscription cited by
Diskalkar (no.193) is dated Vikrama Samvat 1935= A.D 1879.
The majority of Gujarati inscriptions are private dedicatory of memorial records. The
former typically record land grants, the foundation or repair of temples or mosques, or the
digging of wells, Memorial inscriptions are very frequently seen on memorial pillars or pallyas,
typically recording deaths in battle (“hero-stones”) or by sahagamana (“satt-stones”) Pilgrims,
records are also common (eg., ARIE 1969-70, no B 24,etc) Many of the Gujarati inscriptions
are informally or incompetently written.
Gujarati inscriptions are generally written in Devanagari script or its local variant, called
Boriya, but some are inscribed in script forms similar to modern Gujarati (NIA 1.588) Bilingual
(and sometimes trilingual) inscriptions, usually with Sanskrit or Persian, are found in some
numbers, but the majority or Gujarati inscriptions are monolingual.
Hindi and related languages and dialects
Due to the linguistic complexities involved and the generally poor documentation of the
materials, the study of inscription in Hindi and related languages in particularly problematic. As
a matter of convenience the term “Hindi” is used here in a very loose sense, as in the other
literature on the subject. The documents concerned actually cover a wide geographical and
dialectal range, but since no comprehensive linguistic study of them has been attempted it is in
most cases not possible to specify the dialects concerned, and it is regrettably necessary to
resort to vague terms such as “Hindi or “Rajasthan.”
Inscriptions in various dialects of Hindi in the relatively strict sense of the term are found
mainly in central and eastern Madhya Pradesh.67 (NIA inscriptions from Uttar Pradesh are rare,
presumably because of the early establishment of Islamic dynasties there; see Diskalkar, JOI 6,
138, and section 3.4) There seems to be a particular concentration of Hindi inscriptions in the
territory of the former Gwalior State and adjoining regions; these inscriptions are catalogued
and briefly described in H.N Dvivedis, Gvaliyara Rajya ke Abhilekha.68 They consist largely of
sati- and other memorial stones, image inscriptions, and other private records from the
thirteenth century on.69
Hindi inscriptions from the eastern regions come mainly from relatively remote districts
such as Damoch and Baster. Here we find official stone inscriptions and copper plate charters
of various local dynasties dating from the sixteenth and following centuries, for example, the

67. For inscription in Hindi (and Punjabi ) from Azerbaijan, see section 4,3,7,4.
68. The concentration of Hindi inscriptions in this region of central India may, however, be only apparent, as a
result of their being relatively well documented in this book.
69. A Jaina image inscription from Radeb tentatively dated Vikrama (1078(=A.D 1022) and described as being in
Hindi was noted in the Annual Report of the Archaeological Department of Gwalior State for Vikrama 1992
(35, ins no 39) but this has apparently never been published in detail and hence cannot be taken as firm
evidence of the epigraphic use of Hindi in the eleventh century (see SIE 55 and n 3)
Dantewara bilingual70 (Sanskrit and Hindi) inscription (EI 12, 242-50) from Rajasthan and
adjoining areas of western Madhya Pradesh we have numerous inscriptions of the fourteenth
and following centuries in the local NIA dialects, Which, however (for reasons stated earlier),
cannot be specified with any linguistic precision on the basis of currently available published
materials, Most of the material concerned is published only in the form of brief summaries in
the various numbers ARIE (eg., 1962-63, nos B.849-954, passion), wherein the language is
usually cited only as “Local dialect” or occasionally as “Rajasthani.” 71 The vernacular
inscriptions of Rajasthan are mainly memorial and sati-stones72 and other foundations and
renovations, concerning. the usual matters, that is, grants and donations, temple foundations
and renovations, construction of wells, pilgrims’ records, and so on. A few of these records
have been published in detail in various journals; see, for example several inscriptions in
Sanskrit and “Rajasthan Bhasa” published by L.P Tessitori in JPASB, n.s 12, 1916, 92-116.
Of an entirely different character is a unique inscription from Dhar containing a poetic
composition entitled Raula-vela by a poet named Roda (Bharatya Vidya 17. 130-46: 19, 116-28,).
Which is datable on paleographic grounds to approximately the eleventh century The precise
identification of the language of this composition is problematic, as it appears to imitate
characteristics of various contemporary dialects by way of a pastiche. But the underlying dialect
seems to be a transitional stage between late Apabharasna and early western NIA, 73 and hence
this curious inscription can be considered as an early epigraphic specimen of Hindi in the broad
sense of the term.
Vernacular languages were also used epigraphically in some of the hill-states of the
Himalayan foothills in medieval times. Among these languages (again, loosely classed here
under “Hindi”) Cambyall is the most important as an inscriptional medium. This language,
which shows affiliations with eastern dialects of Punjabi, 74 was used in combination with
Sanskrit in the copper plate charters of the local kings of Chamba from the fourteenth to the
nineteenth centuries. These inscriptions were published in a scholarly edition in B. ch
Chambray’s Antiquities of Chamba State. Part II, which is thus one of the few authoritative
collections of NIA inscriptions. Unlike most of the Hindi” inscriptions described in this
section, which are Written in the several varieties of Devangari script, the Chamba records are
in Devasesa, a local script intermediate between Sarada and Takari (chhabra,2-3) Some late

70 Like several of the NIA bilingual inscriptions, this is a “true” bilingual (see 3.6). with (approximately) the same text
repeated in Sanskrit and Hindi.
71. For further references see Mangilal Vya’s Rajasthan ke Abhilekha and Marinara ke Abhilekha.
72. On these see B.D Chattopadhyay, “Early Memorial Stones of Rajasthan: A Preliminary of their Inscriptions/”
in S. Settar and G.D. Sontheimer, eds., Memorial Stones, 139-49.
73. See R. S. McGregor, Hindi Literature from its to Beginnings the Nineteenth century, A History of Indian Literature, vol.8
fasc 6 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowite 1984-), 7-8 cf. Bhayathi in Bharatya vidya 17.132.
74. See B.Ch Chhabra, Antiquities of Chambal State, part 11.13
(nineteenth-century) inscription from Garthwal in the “local dialect” have also been reported
(ARIE 1948-49, nos A7-10 SIE 55 n.8)
As is generally the case with NIA the inscriptions in Hindi and affiliated languages are
frequently bilingual, especially with Sanskrit as already noted, but also occasionally with other
languages such as Oriya (3.4.2) Also common are inscriptions from central India written or
Rajasthan together with Persian or Urudu.75
Bengali and other eastern NIA languages
As noted earlier (3.4) the eastern NIA languages, except for Oriya, on the whole have not been
widely used for epigraphic purposes. In Bengali for Oriya, on the whole have not been widely
used for epigraphic purposes. In Bengali we have several dedicatory temple inscriptions, 76
mostly from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but dating back in one case to the
fifteenth77 Some of these are Bilingual with or mixed with Sanskrit. There are also a few other
stone inscriptions in Bengali (eg., ARIE 1975-76. No B 45/D 272. Bilingual with Arabic) and
some late copper plate records of the kings of Tripura in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries (ARIE 1951-52, no’s A13-19) are written in Bengali and Sanskrit.
Assamese inscriptions are similarly late few in number, at least as far as they are reported in
published sources. Some copper plates of the Ahom kings of the eighteenth century in Sanskrit
and Assamese have been noted (ARIE 1957-58, nos. A 3-5)as well as a few stone inscriptions
(ibid., nos B.65,74-5)
A seventeenth-century inscription in Maithili has been published in R.k. Choudhary’s Select
Inscription of Bihar, 138 (cf.SIE 60).
Nepali
Nepali did not become an important inscriptional language until relatively recently. The
principal epigraphic languages of Nepal in earlier times being Sanskrit and Newari (see 3.5.3.3
and 4.3.7.2). It is only during the time of the Shah kings in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries that donatives and dedicatory stone inscriptions In Nepali (often together with
Sanskrit) were written in good numbers.78
Sinhalese
Due no doubt to its special geographical and cultural setting, the pattern of the development of
Sinhalese as an epigraphic language is entirely different from that of the NIA languages of

75. Urudu, though strictly speaking an Indo-Aryan language, is traditionally treated in epigraphic contexts along
with Persian and Arabic as a part of Islamic epigraphy, and hence will be discussed in that connection in
section 3.5.2
76. See A.K Bhattacharyya, A corpus of Dedicatory Inscriptions from Temples of west Bengal, no’s 56,58,62,
74,96,106,115,116 etc.
77. Bhattacharyya, op.cit., no S-1 A.D 1490
78. See section 4.3.7.2 for references.
India proper. Unlike other NIA languages, Sinhalese and its direct linguistic predecessors were
the main languages of inscriptions from early times in Sri Lanka. According to Geiger and
Jayatilaka’s formulation,79 the period of the Sinhalese Prakrit or Old Sinhalese inscriptions (see
3.1.4.2.2) ended about the third or fourth century A.D and was followed by a “proto-Sinhalese”
period from the fourth to the eighth century, represented by the relatively sparse (see 4.3.7.1)
epigraphic remains of that period. The more abundant inscriptions of the medieval period,
especially of the ninth to the thirteenth century, represent the “Medieval Sinhalese” phase, at
which stage, in Geiger’s words,” the language has now become a modern Indian idiom
and…the principal and most characteristic feature of the modern language are recognisable”
(op.cit., xxxix).
Most of the medieval and later Sinhalese inscriptions, some of which are of great length,
are on stone. They generally record foundations, grants, regulations, and other matters
pertaining to Buddhist monastic establishment.80
Other (Non-Indo-Aryan) Languages in Indian Inscriptions
Although the primary subject matter of this book (see the preface) is restricted to epigraphic
material found of India. Needless to say, the following is meant only as a very general
introduction and has no pretensions to completeness.
Dravidian languages
The epigraphy of the Dravidian languages constitutes an enormous field of study in itself,
which can be presented here only in the broadest outlines, although ideally Dravidian epigraphy
cannot be completely separated from Indo-Aryan epigraphy, there being a great deal of
geographical, historical, linguistic, and stylistic overlapping between the two fields. Although for
the most part Dravidian inscription are less ancient than the Indo-Aryan ones, their numbers
overall, and especially in the medieval period and in the Tamil and Kannada languages, are very
great, perhaps greater than those of the Indo-Aryan languages
Major publication and reference sources for Dravidian inscription are mentioned in section
8.12 (esp. south Indian Inscriptions and Epigraphic Karnataka). The complete literature of the field is
vast, but there is unfortunately still no single authoritative study of the subjects as a whole. 81
Tamil

Inscriptions in what is now generally in what is now generally agreed to be an early form of
Tamil date from approximately the last centuries before and/or the first centuries after the
beginning of the Christian era (see 2.2.5.1) There are also a few Tamil inscriptions datable on

79. In A Dictionary of Sinhalese Language (see 3.1.4.2.2),xxiv-xxxi

80. See also section 4.3.7.1 for further information
81. Brief surveys of Dravidian inscriptions are given by D.C Sir car in SIE 46-52 and by D.B Diskalkar in JAHRS
21,1950-52,163-8
paleographic grounds to the second through sixth centuries A.D., 82 but Tamil’s emergence as a
full-fledged epigraphic language actually began during the reign of the Pallavas, some of whose
copper plate inscriptions from the seventh century onward were bilingual in Tamil and Sanskrit.
This practice was continued by succeeding dynasties of the Tamil country such as the Colas and
Pandas, but some of their copper plates (especially in the later centuries) were in Tamil only.
The majority by far of Tamil inscriptions are donatives and other stone records, especially on
temple walls, mostly dating from the Cola era and later these number in many thousands. As
With other Dravidian languages, Tamil generally predominates in stone inscriptions and private
records, while Sanskrit tends to be retained for imperial grants on copper plates.
Kannada
Next to Tamil, Kannada is the earliest and most important of the Dravidian epigraphic
languages, The earliest such as the Halmidi (s.Srikantha Sastri, Sources of Karnataka History {for
reference see Index of Inscriptions Cited},20) and Badami Vaisnava cave (IA 10, 59-60)
inscriptions, date from around the late sixth or early seventh century A.d., From this time
onward, inscriptions in Kannada, mainly private donatives records on stone but also some royal
copper plate charters, are extremely common.83 Many of these are bilingual with Sanskrit or
occasionally other languages.
Telugu
Like Kannada, Telugu first appeared in inscriptions at about the end of the sixth century A.D,;
the earliest Telugu inscriptions are usually considered to be the Kalamalla and Erragudipadu
inscriptions of Telugu as an epigraphic language also follows similar lines to those of Kannada,
with private dedicatory stone records predominating Though numerous, /Telugu records are
not as abundant as those in Kannada.
Malayalam
Compared with the other three major literacy languages, Malayalam is ---much less epigraphic
significance, coming into use only around the fifteenth century. The number of stone and
copper plate inscriptions in Malayalam is thus far smaller than in the other Dravidian languages.
Among other Dravidian languages, a few late inscriptions in Tulu have also been reported;
for reference see SIE 52.
Islamic languages (Arabic, Persian, Urdu)
Z A. Desai, “Arabic and Persian Inscriptions”, A19, 1953, 224-32; SIE,31-8; V.S Bendery A study of Muslim
Inscriptions.

82. See 1. Mahadevan , “Tamil Brahmi Inscriptions of Sang am Age” (ref in 2.2.5.1 n. 103) 84-5.
83. Diskalkar (JAHRS 21, 167) estimates that there are twenty-six thousand kannada inscriptions.
Inscriptions in the Islamic languages84 first appeared in India in the last decade of the twelfth century
A.D(Desai 226) and gradually became more numerous, especially in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, and continued into the nineteenth. In the earlier centuries Arabic was the
preferred language, but from the fourteenth century on Persian become more prevalent, while
Urdu came into only from the mid-eighteenth century on. Bilinguals among these languages,
especially Arabic and Persian are common, as are bilinguals with Indic languages (eg., Persian
and Sanskrit or Kannada). In general, Islamic inscriptions are most numerous in northern Indi
but they are found in virtually all parts of the subcontinent.
The majority of the inscriptions in Islamic languages are dedicatory in nature recording the
construction of mosques or other common types are endowments, administrative records, and
memorials (tombstones, etc)
Unlike Indo-Aryan and Dravidian inscriptions do no constitute a major primary. Source of
historical information, not only because the are of no great antiquity but, more importantly,
because (unlike earlier times) extensive historical chronicles are available for the period
concerned, Nonetheless, Indo Muslim epigraphy is important as a source of corroborative and
supplementary historical and cultural data.85
Other non-Indic languages
D.B Diskalkar, “Inscriptions of Foreign Settlers in India,” JH 34, 1956,39-52.

(Non-Islamic) Semitic, Iranian, and other Near Eastern languages

Aramaic and a mixed “Arramaeo-Iranian” are represented in six inscriptions of the Mauryan era
from Pakisthan (Taxila) and Afghanistan (see 4.3.7.3). Several hundred brief inscriptions in
Sogdian have been found in the Shatial region on the upper Indus, 86 as well as a few others from
Ladakh,87 Some inscriptions in Parathian and Bactrian were also found on the upper Indus
Inscriptions in Parathian and Bactrian were also found on the upper Indus, 88 Inscription in
Pahlavi have been found in western and southern India; the most important examples are the
Pahlavi pilgrims’ records in the Kanheri caves (IA 9, 265-8= ICTWI 62-6) dating from the early
eleventh century, and the Christian inscriptions in the churches at Madras and Kottayam (IA, 3,
308-16; West, EI 4, 1896-97, 1746), some of which may be as early as the seventh century. A

84. “Islamic” is used here as a term of historical and cultural convenience rather than as a linguistic category;
cfn.80
85. For examples see Desai, 229-32.
86. Helmut Humbach, “The Sogdian Inscriptions of Thor-Sharial,” Journal of Central Asia 8,1985, 51-7; Nicholas
Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus; A preliminary Report,” in k. Jettmar, ed.,
Antiquities of Northern Pakistan. 1.131-7 Sims-Williams, Sogdian and other Iranian Inscriptions of the Upper Indus.
87. N. Sims-Wiliams, “The Sogadian Inscriptions of Ladakh,” in K Jet mar, Antiquities of Northern Pakistan 11.151-
63.
88. Humbach op, cit, 57, Some other inscriptions of the Kussana period in Bactrian, notably the Surkh-Kotal
(Afghanistan) inscription of Kaniska (JA 246,345-440), are found outside of India proper.
few Christian inscriptions in Syria have also been found at Kottayam and other places in South
India (eg., IA 3,314)
Some medieval inscriptions in Hebrew have been found in southern India, for example a
tombstone of A.D 1251 from Chennamangalam (IA 59, 134-5).89 A similar Hebrew inscription
of A.D. 1269, together with two others in Himyaitric, were found in Bhuj (EI 19,300-2) but
these are thought to have been brought to India from South Arabia (301) There are also a few
Hebrew graffiti from near Chilas among the newly discovered inscriptions on the upper Indus
(K.Jettmar, Oriental losephl Tucci Memoriae Dicata (for reference see Index of Inscriptions Cited},
II 667-70). Armenian tombstone inscriptions, mostly of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, are found in fair numbers in various parts of India, especially in Bengal, Madras, and
the west coast, for example, the epitaph at the Little Mount, Madras (EI 6,89). 90
European languages
Although Greek was extensively used in coin legends in northern India in the “foreign Period,”
and although from the neighboring region of Afghanistan we have Asokan and other Greek
inscriptions (see 4.3.7.3) in India proper only a very few minor epigraphic specimens of it have
been discovered in the form of inscribed potsherds from the Swat region (eg., Birkot-Ghundai;
Journal of central Asia 7, 49-53). There are also a few tombstone inscriptions from the colonial
periods in modern Greek (ARISIE 1912, 86).
Several other European languages are represented in inscriptions of the modern period,
that is, from the sixteenth century onward. The earliest of these are the numerous Portuguese
inscription from Goa, Daman and Diu, Bassein, and other Portuguese settlements, 91 Some of t
inscriptions of the Portuguese and other European settlers are composed in Latin. Tombstones
and other inscriptions in Dutch dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are found
in the Dutch settlements in western and southern India (eg., Chingleput; EI 24, 123-6) 92 There
are similar though less numerous records in French, mostly from the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Finally inscriptions in English are very common all over India from the seventeenth
century on: these include inscriptions on tombs and other memorial records, administrative
orders, foundations, and the like.
Sino-Tibetan languages and Chinese
Only a few late inscriptions in Sino-Tibetan languages of the border regions of India have been
published. Inscriptions in Manipuri have been complied by M. Bahadur and P.G Singh in
Epigraphically Records of Manipur. A few late copper plate inscriptions in Whom are noted in SIE

89. For other examples and references, see Diskalkar, 43-4.

90. Foe other examples, Cunna Rivara, Insccripcoes Lapidares da India Portuguesa (Lisboa; Impernsa National 1894).
For other references see Diskalkar, 48-9
91. See J.H da Cunha Rivara, Inscripcoes Lapidares da India Portugeuza (Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional, 1894). For other
references see Diskalkar, 48-9.
92. See also ARSIE 1909, 121-4; 1911, 90-1; and 1912, 85-6.
60. Stone and copper plate inscriptions in Newer of the Malla period. Usually bilingual with
Sanskrit, are regularly found in Nepal from the late fourteenth century A.D and become very
common in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries (see 4.3.7.2 for references). Also quite
common are ritual and historical inscriptions in Tibetan found in many parts of the Himalayan
regions of India; see for example, IA 35,1906, 237-41, 325-33 (A.H. France.).
Inscriptions in Sino-Tibetan languages of East and Southeast Asia are also occasionally
found in India, generally in the form of pilgrims records or Buddhist donations, At Bodh-Gaya,
for example, inscriptions have been found in Burnese (EI 11, 118-20) and Chinese (JRAS, n.s
13,552-72) Some Chinese inscriptions have also been discovered in other parts of India, for
example, several recently found at Chilas, Hunza-Haldeikish, and other sites in northern
Pakistan.93
Bilingual and Multilingual Inscriptions
As will be clear from the several examples already noted in this chapter (and as would have been
expected in any case in such a linguistically complex cultural area as India), inscriptions in two
or more languages are common. The majority of these involve Sanskrit and one or more other
languages; for example, Sanskrit and Prakrit (examples cited in 3.3.4) in inscriptions of the
transitional period of the fourth and fifth centuries A.D Beginning around the sixth century.
Inscriptions in Sanskrit and one of the Dravidian languages become common. In the medieval
period, Sanskrit is often combined with one of the Islamic languages, especially Persian or with
one of often combined with one of the NIA language.
These Sanskrit bilinguals are for the most part not true” bilinguals’ that is the same text
repeated in full in two languages, but rather contain a single text divided on functional grounds
between the languages concerned. Typically, the invocatory’ genealogical, and concluding
portions will be in Sanskrit, while the “functional” portions recording the specific details of the
gift, transaction, and the like, will be in the other languages (3.3.4) In the medieval period we
also find Sanskrit bilinguals, involving two NIA languages or an NIA and a Dravidian language
(eg., the Bhubaneswar Oriya-Tamil inscription cited in 3.4.2) Among this group we do find
some true bilinguals, for example, the Baripara Museum Oriya-Hindi inscription (3.4.2)
Trilingual inscriptions are also not rare, Examples include the Kurgod inscription (EI
14,265-78) in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and Kannada, and the Ciruvroli copper plates (EI 34, 177-88) in
Sanskrit, Telugu, and Oriya.

93. Ma Yong in Jettmar, Antiquities of Northern Pakistan 1,139-57; Thomas O. Holman in ibid.,
II.61-75.
 MAP 2
Some Major Epigraphic Sites
‘

MAP3
Location of Asokan Inscriptions
 Abstract
This chapter introduces Indus seals, and provides a chronological overview of seals in the various phases
of Indus civilisation. It then addresses various aspects of Indus seals, including inscriptions, the
photographic Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, seals as badges of authority and amulets, seals as
administrative tools, and seal manufacture. As such, the chapter provides a brief but thorough
introduction to the more detailed studies that comprise the rest of this section.

Introduction: Discovery of the Indus Civilisation

A In the Beginning Were Seals
An unusual “stone seal” was among the few antiquities in Alexander Cunningham’s 1875
account of Harappa, the largest ruin mound of the Punjab. Two further seals were acquired at
Harappa in 1884 and 1886. After all three had been presented to the British Museum, their
photographs were published by J. F. Fleet (Fleet 1912). Inscribed with the same unknown script,
they caught the interest of Sir John Marshall, who as director-general of the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) got excavations started at Harappa in 1921. More seals were immediately
discovered, and they came from beneath Mauryan levels, at that time the oldest known in India.
In 1922–23 R. D. Banerji examined the ruins of Mohenjo-daro in Sind and found similar seals there,
some 650 kilometers from Harappa. In 1924 Marshall announced that a new civilisation had been
discovered, and started large-scale excavations at both sites.

Excavations in the Greater Indus Valley

The numerous seals with their beautiful images and enigmatic script were the most exciting
objects in Marshall’s 1924 article in The Illustrated London News The. true identity of some Indus
seals found in Western Asia was now realised, which established the Bronze Age affinity of the
Indus Civilisation and its contacts with Mesopotamia and the Gulf. In 1925, after Ernest
Mackay had reported a typically Harappan square stamp seal unearthed in his excavations at
Kish, Marshall invited him to direct excavations at Mohenjo-Daro between1925 and 1931.
Mackay described in detail the seal finds in the successive excavation reports of the site (Mackay
2004 [1931], 1938), while Marshall (2004[1931]: 52–73) also commented on some important
glyptic motifs, calling one “Proto-Śiva” (Pl. IX) and suggesting continuity from Harappan
religion to later Hinduism. Both found iconographic parallels in Western Asia, an avenue
explored further by Heinz Mode (Mode 1944). In 1935–36 Mackay directed American
excavations at Chanhu-daro; the seals found there included the previously unknown Jhukar-type
seals of the post-urban period (Mackay1976 [1943]). M. S. Vats, in charge of the Harappa
excavations after D. R.Sahni, published the numerous seals found there in his report (Vats 1997
[1940]).
Large-scale excavations at Mohenjo-daro and Harappa stopped in 1931 and1934, but the
site custodians continued digging. Their short annual reports were virtually forgotten in 1971,
when Iravatham Mahadevan and I studied inscribed Indus materials in the museums of
Pakistan and India, and to our surprise discovered more than four hundred seals and
inscriptions that had never been published (cf. CISI I [Joshi and Parpola 1987]: xx). The study
of these sites was revived by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who in his excavation strained a new
generation of Indian and Pakistani archaeologists in modern excavation methods. At Harappa
in 1946 he exposed the “citadel” walls and cemetery R37, and at Mohenjo-daro in 1950 the
“Great Granary.” Wheeler’s Indian students B. B. Lal and B. K. Thapar excavated the major
Early and Mature Harappan site of Kalibangan between 1960 and 1969 (Lal et al. 2003,2015),
while S. R. Rao in 1954-63 unearthed significant finds discussed below at the Harappan harbor
town of Lothal in Gujarat.
Of the later Indian excavations I single out those by R. S. Bisht at Dholavira and Banawali,
which besides other interesting features have produced a fair number of Indus seals and
inscriptions. In addition to the ASI, State Departments of Archaeology, universities (particularly
in Pune and Vadodara) and some foreign collaborative projects, notably those of Gregory
Possehl in Gujarat and Rajasthan and Toshiki Osada’s Japanese Indus Project (see Osada 2010-
12) have much furthered Harappan studies in India. By now more than a thousand Indus sites
have been located in the Greater Indus Valley (cf. Possehl2002a, 2002b). Even small habitation
sites, such as Kanmer, measuring just 115-105 meters, have yielded Indus seals and seal
impressions (cf. Kharakwal et al. 2012: 484-90).
In Pakistan, in 1955-58 F. A. Khan excavated Kot Diji, a small site with key importance for
the “Early Harappan” phase recognised by M. Rafique Mughal (Mughal 1970); the presence of
several urban characteristics justified changing the name of some “Pre-Harappan” cultures. A
number of prehistoric cultures had been traced in surveys of the Indo-Iranian borderlands
since the1920s. They could be ordered chronologically only after French excavations directed by
J.-F.Jarrige at the sites Mehrgarh, Sibri, Nausharo, and Pirak on the border of Baluchistan and
Sind had yielded an unbroken cultural sequence around 7000-800 BCE (Jarrige et al. 1995;
Jarrige 1991; Jarrige et al. 1979).Mundigak, Amri, and Nindowari, important sites in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, had been excavated already by Jean-Marie Casal (Casal 1961, 1964; Jarrige et al.
2011), while Roland Besenval has continued French archaeological research on the Makran
coast (Besenval 2011).
The American archaeologists Walter Fairservis and George Dales both carried out surveys
in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fairservis also excavated the small Harappan site Allah-dino near
Karachi, publishing its seals and inscriptions in 1976. Dales (1962) discovered the westernmost
Harappan sites on the Makran coast, conducted a small excavation at Mohenjo-daro in 1964,
and then dug at the coastal site of Balakot. In 1986 he established a research station at Harappa
and started important excavations which after his death have been co-directed by Richard
Meadow and Mark Kenoyer (Kenoyer and Meadow2010). The German-Italian Mohenjo-daro
documentation project started by Michael Jansen in the 1970s has also significantly furthered
the study of Indus seals (Jansen and Urban 1984, 1985, 1987).
Seals and Harappan Contacts with Western and Central Asia
After Mackay (1925) had reported a square Indus seal from Kish and Scheil (1925) a clay tag
with the impression of a square Indus seal from Umma, C. J. Gadd (1932) in a major paper
published several round seals that had Indus script and the typically Indus-type grooved knob
on the back, cylinder seals, and several uninscribed round seals of a somewhat different kind.
The affinity of the round seals with the Gulf started being understood only after Danish
excavations on Bahrain and Failaka Islands began to produce more seals of both kinds (cf.
Bibby 1958, 1969; Kjaerum 1983). When Dales (1962) moreover reported the Harappan
outposts on the Makran coast and Rao (1963) published the “Dilmun” seal from Lothal,
attention focused on cuneiform documents on maritime trade with the foreign countries
Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha (Oppenheim 1954). It is now generally agreed that Dilmun
principally refers to Failaka and Bahrain, Magan to the Oman peninsula and Iranian Makran,
and Meluhha to the Greater Indus Valley (cf. Maekawa and Mori 2011).
Steffen Terp Laursen (2010b) has examined 121 “Gulf Type” seals (27 bearing Indus script)
and their relationship to the later “Dilmun” seals; this is his topic also in this volume. The Joint
Hadd Project directed by Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi has documented Harappan
presence in Oman, and Frenez and Tosi (2005) have identified further seals at Lothal associated
with the Gulf trade: the square copper seal (L-44) has a parallel in the square Indus seal found
at Ra’s al-Hadd in the copper-rich Oman, and the rectangular stone seal decorated with
concentric circles at the back like “Dilmun” seals (L-100).
Besides stained carnelian beads, Indus-related seals discovered in Western Asia have
provided most important chronological and geographical evidence of the intercultural relations
between these regions (cf. Collon 1996; Possehl 2002c: 221-29; Reade 2008). Harappan
presence in Central Asia is attested by two square seals (with swastika and two signs of Indus
script respectively) and other objects of Harappan affinity from Altyn Depe in Turkmenistan
(cf. Masson 1981; Possehl 2002c: 229-30). In 2004 a square Indus seal with an elephant and a
line of Indus script with native Harappan sequences was excavated at Gonur in Turkmenistan.
It probably belonged to a high-ranking Harappan “diplomat,” like a cylinder seal from Gonur
possessed (according to its cuneiform inscription) by the cup-bearer of an Akkadian king (cf.
Parpola 2006). In Afghanistan, the Harappan colony of Shortughai near the lapis lazuli mines
also produced a classical Indus seal (Francfort 1989).
Evolution of Indus Seals: Types And Motifs
A Pre-Harappan Phase ca. 3500–3000 BCE
For the Pre-Harappan and the first part of the Early Harappan phase this sketch is based on
Akinori Uesugi’s recent paper (2011). During the latter half of the fourth millennium BCE the
regional cultures of the Greater Indus Valley reached a high level of development, and
interregional interaction began. Round, square, and rectangular button seals with geometric
motifs and two holes in the middle for threading are attested from Mehrgarh IV and V in
Baluchistan. They have close parallels on the Iranian Plateau, especially at Shahr-i Sokhta II in
Seistan and at Mundigak III in southern Afghanistan. One (broken) bone seal of this type (H-
1521) comes from Harappa I. An ivory seal from Rahman Dheri IB has two holes in the middle
but figurative motifs (including a pair of scorpions). The early seals at Mehrgarh were found in
compounds dedicated to craft activities and possible storage (Frenez 2004); this is compatible
with the evidence of the earliest seals from Harappa (Kenoyer and Meadow 2010).
Early Harappan Phase ca. 3000–2500 BCE
During the first half of the third millennium BCE button seals with geometric motifs and two
holes in the middle continue in Mehrgarh VI and VII; in period VII there are also stylised
human and animal figures. The later layer also has seals with geometric motifs and a perforated
knob on the reverse. Both types spread over the northern part of the Greater Indus Valley as
far east as Kunal in Haryana.
Uesugi underlines the diagnostic importance of a new type of seal. Square and quatrefoil
seals have in each corner the previously unattested motif of concentric circles; the center may
have a four-pointed star and/or a fifth dot-in-circles. From Mehrgarh VI (3000–2900 BCE) this
seal type has spread through Rahman Dheri and Tarakai Qila in the North West Frontier
Province, Harappan II and Manorama in the Punjab, Tarkhanewala Dhera and Baror I in
Rajasthan to Kunal in Haryana (Fig. 1). The motif continues in the Mature Harappan period,
on seals with two holes in the middle at Nausharo II (ca. 2500-2300 BCE) in Baluchistan and at
Nagwada in Gujarat, and on seals with a knob on the back at Harappa (period 3B) in the
Punjab, in Baror II in Rajasthan and Bagasra in Gujarat.
The new excavations at Harappa have much clarified the evolution of Indus seals. Besides
seals with geometric motifs (including one with concentric circles), the Kot Diji levels (2800–
2600 BCE) have the earliest example of a seal with an animal (elephant) as the main motif,
clumsily cut into this unfinished and unfired steatite seal (H-1533, Fig. 8.2) (cf. Kenoyer and
Meadow 2010: li).
The origin of animal motifs on Harappan seals and pottery can be traced to the Indo-
Iranian borderlands. From Nausharo IB (ca. 2900-2800 BCE) in Baluchistan comes a
compartmented copper seal representing a humped bull and loop on the back (Ns-1). Such
seals with geometrical and animal motifs come from female burials of the “Shahi Tump
cemetery culture” of the Kech-Makran coast, period III a (3100-2800 BCE) (cf. Besenval 2011:
48-51 and 119-24 with pls. 97-103a). Comparable animal motifs, including humped bulls and
felines, appear on painted pottery of the following “Dasht culture 1,” Kech-Makran period III
b (2800-2600 BCE) and they have parallels widely in both kinds (cf. Bibby 1958, 1969; Kjaerum
1983). When Dales (1962) more over reported the Harappan outposts on the Makran coast and
Rao (1963) published the “Dilmun” seal from Lothal, attention focused on cuneiform
documents on maritime trade with the foreign countries Dilmun, Magan, and Meluhha
(Oppenheim 1954). It is now generally agreed that Dilmun principally refers to Failaka and
Bahrain, Magan to the Oman peninsula and Iranian Makran, and Meluhhato the Greater Indus
Valley (cf. Maekawaand Mori 2011).

Seals in Pre-, Early, and Mature Harappan phases.

After Uesugi 2011: 365, fig. 3. Courtesy © Akinori Uesugi
Steffen Terp Laursen (2010b) has examined 121 “Gulf Type” seals (27 bearing Indus script)
and their relationship to the later “Dilmun” seals; this is his topic also in this volume. The Joint
Hadd Project directed by Serge Cleuziou and Maurizio Tosi has documented Harappan
presence in Oman, and Frenez and Tosi (2005) have identified further seals at Lothal associated
with the Gulf trade: the square copper seal (L-44) has a parallel in the square Indus seal found
at Ra’s al-Hadd in the copper-rich Oman, and the rectangular stone seal decorated with
concentric circles at the back like “Dilmun” seals (L-100).
Besides stained carnelian beads, Indus-related seals discovered in Western Asia have
provided most important chronological and geographical evidence of the intercultural relations
between these regions (cf. Collon 1996; Possehl 2002c: 221-29; Reade 2008). Harappan
presence in Central Asia is attested by two square seals (with swastika and two signs of Indus
script respectively) and other objects of Harappan affinity from Altyn Depe in Turkmenistan
(cf. Masson 1981; Possehl 2002c: 229-30). In 2004 a square Indus seal with an elephant and a
line of Indus script with native Harappan sequences was excavated at Gonur in Turkmenistan.
It probably belonged to a high-ranking Harappan “diplomat,” like a cylinder seal from Gonur
possessed (according to its cuneiform inscription) by the cup-bearer of an Akkadian king (cf.
Parpola2006). In Afghanistan, the Harappan colony of Shortughai near the lapis lazuli mines
also produced a classical Indus seal (Francfort 1989).
Evolution of Indus Seals: Types and Motifs
A Pre-Harappan Phase ca. 3500–3000 BCE
For the Pre-Harappan and the first part of the Early Harappan phase this sketch is based on
Akinori Uesugi’s recent paper (2011). During the latter half of the fourth millennium BCE the
regional cultures of the Greater Indus Valley reached a high level of development, and
interregional interaction began. Round, square, and rectangular button seals with geometric
motifs and two holes in the middle for threading are attested from Mehrgarh IV and V in
Baluchistan. They have close parallels on the Iranian Plateau, especially at Shahi-I Sokhta II in
Seistan the Indo-Iranian borderlands: Shahr-i Sokhta II, Mundigak IV, Nal polychrome/SohrII–
III, Mehrgarh VIIB–C, Nausharo IA–C (cf. Besenval 2011: 51-52 and 141-42 with pl. 136-37;
Didier 2013).
To these sites can be added Nindowari I (2800-2600 BCE) in southern Baluchistan; the
following Nindowari II period (ca. 2600-2300 BCE) represents the early “Style A” phase of The
Kulli culture, with bulls tethered to trees or Harappan Kot Diji phase at Harappa. 350 the
ground, a motif adapted at Nausharo ID and Amri ID (ca. 2600-2500 BCE) in a style heralding
that of the Indus Civilisation (cf. Jarrige et al. 2011: 82-88, 182-86).

The earliest Indus seal (H-1533A) with an animal motif (elephant) from the Early
Harappan Kot Diji phase at Harappa. 350%. Photo Richard Meadow. Courtesy
Archaeological Research Project.

Early Mature Harappan Phase ca. 2500-2300 BCE

Only two fragmentary seals can be ascribed to the Early Mature Harappan phase 3A at
Harappa. Both have an animal motif: H-1688 probably represents the water-buffalo. H-1689
with a finely carved elephant already has the shape of the dominant type of the following peak
phase of the Indus Civilisation. Kenoyer and Meadow (2010: xlv) date period 3A to around
2600-2450 BCE. It seems to correspond to the “transition period” of Nausharo ID (2600-
2500BCE) plus “Indus 1” of Nausharo II (2500-2300 BCE) in the chronology of Jarrige et al.
(2011: 208). I follow the latter chronology here, although the scarcity of 3A seals at Harappa
suggests a shorter duration of this Early Mature phase.
Middle Mature Harappan Phase ca. 2300–2100 BCE
Jarrige et al. (2011: 208) date “Indus 2” corresponding to Nausharo III, Amri IIIB, and the first
half of Nindowari III with “Kulli style B” to around 2300-2100 BCE, while Kenoyer and
Meadow (2010: xlv) date the 3B phase at Harappa to around 2450-2200 BCE. With Harappan
carnelian beads in the Royal Tombs of Ur and classical Indus seals in Akkadian contexts, the
latter dates agree better with the traditional Mesopotamian chronology and the former better
with the recently suggested lower chronology (cf. Reade 2008:15, fig. 2).
Predominantly the most typical Indus seals, stamp seals with square faces, belong to this
phase. The reverse side normally has a bisected, oval, perforated knob; rarely, the reverse side is
flat and also engraved or not, while the seal body may be transversely pierced or without a hole.
The side of the largest seal (M-1203) measures 68 millimeters and that of the smallest 12
millimeters, but for most seals the side length is between 20 and 30 millimeters; the thickness
varies between 18 (with the knob 30) and 2 (6) millimeters. Normally the face has one line of
Indus script at the top (a second line –often just one sign – is not uncommon, but three lines
are very rare, and then occupy the whole face). Beneath the text, or without it, is usually a
pictorial motif. Rarely, there is engraving on one or more edges in addition to the face(s). The
knob on the reverse in some seals has a short inscription, a partial repetition of that on the face
(cf. Parpola 1994a: 92). Three seals (M-319 andM-1204 from Mohenjo-Daro and a seal from
Bagasra in Gujarat) have a hollow case with a lid.
The naturalistic animals of Indus seals rank very high among the artistic achievements of
the Harappans. Seal glyptics also constitute one of the principal sources for understanding
Harappan religion (on this topic see Parpola 2012b, 2015). Depicted in more than half of the
seals is a “unicorn” bull, usually facing right (in the impression) toward a “cult object” (two
different super imposed containers on a stand) (Fig. 3). Among the other motifs, most common
are other male animals: the zebu, elephant, and (usually with a trough) bison, water-buffalo,
rhinoceros, and tiger; rarer animals include goats of various kind, chinkara (Indian gazelle),
long-spouted crocodile (gavial), wild ass, and two kinds of “mythical” beasts, either with one
body and three different heads, orone animal with a human face and other body parts coming
from different animals. Rarely depicted are (one or more) anthropomorphic deities, heroes or
priests, with or without animals and/or trees; one more often repeated scene shows a man with
a chignon squatting in a tree while a tiger beneath looks backwards at him. I would like to add a
few comments on these glyptic motifs while referring to Marta Ameri’s chapter in this book, in
which she examines Indus iconography from a new angle.
The “unicorn” is a new motif in the iconography of Greater Indus Valley, including painted
pottery, and probably comes from Mesopotamia, where aurochs bulls have been represented in
this fashion since Uruk times. That the single horn is intentional is proved by three-dimensional
figurines, and related Eurasian “unicorn” legends and later South Asian parallels confirm its
phallic symbolism. Humpless cattle did not exist in South Asia, where this foreign animal was
identified with the native cow-like nilgai antelope, in Vedic religion a prominent symbol for the
creator god Praja¯ pati (cf. Parpola 2011b).

3. A typical square Indus seal (M-147 from Mohenjo-daro) made of steatite, with an inscription in the
Indus script and the motif of a “unicorn” bull plus a “cult stand” on the face (photo Erja Lahdenperä),
and a bisected and pierced knob on the reverse (photo Archaeological Survey of India [ASI]). Courtesy
ASI.
The “cult stand” is likewise a new motif. On some molded tablets it is carried by
worshipers, once (M-490) in a procession behind the “unicorn” image, also carried on a shaft.
The “cult stand” resembles the tree-like post to which humped bulls are tethered on “Kulli style
B” painted pots, whereas the earlier “Kulli style A” bulls are tethered to a tree (often a fig) or to
the ground (cf. Jarrige et al. 2011: 73-74, 89, 195). In the “transition period” pots of Nausharo
ID, humped bulls are tethered to a fig tree, and caprids to a fruit tree (cf. Jarrige et al. 2011: 88).
Perhaps the stand and the tree correspond to the sacrificial stake to which animal victims were
tied in Vedic and Hindu religion. One clearly Mesopotamian motif adopted by the Harappans is
the “contest”: a human hero holds back two felines with bare hands. Such details as the hairstyle
of the hero (either six locks of hair or the chignon), or the “victory pose” (in the buffalo-killing
scene) date the adoption to the Late Early Dynastic or Early Akkadian period (cf. Parpola 1984,
2011c, 2012a, 2015).
Harappan anthropomorphic deities often squat in “yoga posture,” which may ultimately
come from the “sitting bulls” of proto-Elamite art (cf. Parpola1984). Contact with proto-
Elamite culture is attested by bevel-rimmed vessels at Miri Qalat (ca. 2800 BCE) in Pakistani
Makran (cf. Besenval 2011: 49 and133 with figs. 121-22).
Late Mature Harappan Phase ca. 2100–1900 BCE
Jarrige et al. (2011: 208) date “Indus 3” of Nausharo IV, Mehrgarh VIII, Amri III C–D, and the
latter part of Nindowari III to 2100-1900 BCE, while Kenoyer and Meadow (2010: xlv) date
phase 3C at Harappa to 2200-1900 BCE.
The second major type of Mature Harappan seals (about 10 percent of the material) is the
“bar seal.” Its rectangular face is engraved with text only. The back is usually convex and
perforated in the middle (Fig. 4). Among several variants is a flat back with a perforated knob.
“Bar seals” come at Harappa from phase 3C only. Also practically all seal stamps impressed on
pottery vessels before firing come from phase 3C; most of them have text only and occur
chiefly on the mass-produced “pointed base goblets” characteristic of this late layer (cf.
Kenoyer and Meadow 2010: l).
Square stamp seals with just a geometrical motif (swastika, cross of various kinds,
concentric circles) resurface in this late phase. They continue Early Harappan tradition
somehow kept alive in the meanwhile. Simultaneously, seals typical of the Bactria and Margiana
Archaeological Complex (BMAC) or Oxus Civilisation of southern Central Asia (on these cf.
Baghestani 1997 and Sarianidi 1998) are found at Indus sites. One is H-166 at Harappa, a
bifacial steatite seal with the shape of a stepped cross and the motif of an eagle and snake.
From Mohenjo-Daro come two BMAC-type compartmented metal seals (Franke 2010) and
some terracotta “passports,” one side stamped with a compartmented metal seal, the other side
with an Indus seal (Parpola 2005).

4. A typical rectangular Indus “bar seal” (M-357) with just a line of Indus script on the face (photo Jyrki
Lyytikkä) and a pierced convex back (photo ASI). Courtesy National Museum of India.

A perforated cylinder seal from Kalibangan (K-65) is of the type prevalent in Mesopotamia,
the homeland of cylinder seals (cf. Collon 1987), and its rare motif has a Mesopotamian feature
in the chignon of the warriors depicted, but the seal is carved in Harappan style and bears an
Indus inscription with native Harappan sign sequence. Some other cylinders, such as those from
Sibri (CISI 2 [Shah and Parpola 1991]: 412–13]), are unperforated and have a stamp seal at one
or two ends, conforming thus and in motifs to the BMAC-type cylinders. Bifaced, rectangular,
transversely perforated BMAC seals come from Sibri on the border of Baluchistan and Sind
(CISI 2 [Shah and Parpola 1991]: 411), and from Prabhas Patan (Somnath) in Gujarat, the latter
depicting equids (CISI 1[Joshi and Parpola 1987]: 359).
The round “Gulf ”-type Indus seal (2100–2000 BCE) is rare in the Greater Indus Valley;
four come from Mohenjo-daro. Lothal in Gujarat is rather exceptional among the excavated
Indus sites in having many very poorly made Indus seals, predominantly of terracotta, and
mostly containing just script or geometrical motifs. That they represent the very latest Mature
Harappan phase is suggested by the “Dilmun” seal from Lothal, datable to2000–1900 BCE.
Late or Post-Harappan Phase 1900–1300 BCE
The Late Harappan or Cemetery H phase at Harappa has not yielded any seals. From the
southernmost Indus site of Daimabad in Maharashtra comes an unperforated cylinder seal and
two round seals, dating perhaps to 1800 BCE. One of the round seals bears a single sign,
identical in shape to one of the most diagnostic signs of the Indus script and one that occurs
most frequently in Indus inscriptions, yet in earlier texts never alone as here.
At the Ahar-Banas culture site of Gilund in southern Rajasthan, a “ware-house” was
exposed in 2001-03. It contained a bin with over a hundred clay tags with single and multiple
seal impressions. The seals are both round and rectilinear and contain geometrical motifs similar
to BMAC seals and to the Jhukar-type seals of Late Harappan (post-urban) Chanhu-daro in
Sind (cf. Shinde et al. 2005).
The terracotta seals of Pirak I-III (1700-800 BCE) continue, in a rough fashion, Early
Harappan geometric motifs (including “eyes” in four corners),and have high perforated knobs
on the reverse (CISI 2 [Shah and Parpola 1991]: 379-86)While the spread of the BMAC culture
and its seals to the Greater Indus Valley after 2000 BCE reflects the coming of an early wave of
Indo-Aryan speakers to South Asia, the terracotta models of horse riders in Pirak I–II should
be connected with the post-BMAC Yaz I culture of southern Central Asia and the coming of
the first wave of mounted Old Iranian (proto-Saka) speakers to these parts, reflected also in the
references to inimical people called Dāsa and Dasyu in the RgVeda (cf. Parpola 2012a).
A Seal Inscriptions and the Indus Script
One of the most important and fascinating aspects of the Indus seals consists of their
inscriptions. Roughly 60 percent of Indus texts are seal inscriptions (including ancient seal
impressions). Apart from some odd inscribed objects, other text categories are small ivory or
bone sticks; copper or bronze weapons; stoneware bangles; Pre-and post-firing graffiti on
pottery; and small tablets, the two last-mentioned groups being the largest after seals. Many
seals share identical inscriptions with other kinds of text, and molds for making tablets include
seals. The tablets apparently have both religious and economic significance. Incised copper
tablets characterize late layers of Mohenjo-daro, other kinds come chiefly from Harappa (not
early layers as previously maintained but from the middle of 3B onwards): two-sided tablets of
various shapes, or three – or four-sided rectangular bars; they are either incised into steatite, or
molded of terracotta or faience. Sometimes many identical copies come from one find spot.
The incised steatite tablets were earlier (cf. Vats 1997 [1940]; Wheeler1968: 106) wrongly
considered to be “tiny seals” (cf. Kenoyer and Meadow2010: xlix–l.)
The Indus inscriptions on round “Gulf ” seals and cylinder seals from Mesopotamia often
have sign sequences that differ from those of South Asian Indus texts, while the typically
Harappan-type square “unicorn” seals from Western Asia in particular have typically Harappan
sign sequences. This suggests that many Indus people living in the west not only knew local
languages but also adopted local names, just as they adopted local seal types (cf. Parpola et al.
1977; Parpola 1994b).
The Indus script and inscriptions hold crucial keys to Harappan language and religion. So
far there are no bilingual texts, which have usually opened up forgotten ancient scripts, though
tablets may turn up mentioning in cuneiform Harappan names stamped on them with Indus
seals (cf. Buchanan 1967; Parpola 1994: 273-74). Yet valid decipherments have been achieved
even without bilinguals, as in the case of the Mycenaean Linear B script; this encouraged my
colleagues and me to embark upon the study of the Indus script in 1964. There is no space here
to go deeper into the problems and results connected with this study, and just a few words must
suffice. A full decipherment is impossible with present materials, but one can penetrate into the
Indus script to some extent, find out its type of writing (a logo-syllabic script) and the
underlying language (proto-Dravidian), and obtain some readings, which agree with later South
Asian (Vedic, Hindu, and Old Tamil)traditions (see Parpola 1994a, 2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c,
2012a, 2012b, 2015).
Photographic Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions
To decipher any forgotten ancient script, a fundamental task is to collect all existing material in
as reliable a form as possible. Dissatisfaction with the quality of documentation in the
excavation reports of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, and the hundreds of unpublished seals and
inscriptions discovered in museums, made me start the project of a comprehensive
photographic Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (CISI) in international collaboration. All sides
of all objects, including seals without inscriptions, and modern impressions of the seals, were to
be (re)photographed and selectively published, if feasible, in twice the natural size. Pictures of
hundreds of seals that had disappeared after the excavations were to be collected from the
photographic archives of the ASI and identified. To enable studies of many kinds, “Indus” was
defined broadly to include also all prehistoric seals and inscriptions before and after the Indus
Civilisation proper in the Greater Indus Valley, thus including also BMAC and “Dilmun” seals
found there. The material is arranged according to the owner countries, sites of discovery,
chronological periods (if possible), and then according to object typology, iconography, and
size. Introductions contain corresponding classifications, descriptions of sites, and other topics.
The provisional documentation of the objects gives their excavation and museum numbers. So
far three volumes have appeared, comprising collections in India (1 [Joshi and Parpola 1987]),
collections in Pakistan (2 [Shah and Parpola 1991]), and a supplement to materials from
Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa (3.1 [Parpola et al. 2010]); a global supplement (3.2, in preparation)
will complete the photographic documentation. Updated computerised concordances to the
inscriptions (to replace the out dated ones of Koskenniemi et al. 1973 and Mahadevan 1977)
and other supplements are also planned. Some Indus seals are cited in this chapter with CISI
references.
Seals and Inscriptions of Mohenjo-daro
Mohenjo-daro covers at least 100 hectares, and its excavated area of 10 hectares is the largest
among all Indus sites. It has also yielded the greatest number of Indus seals, just over 1,500 in
all. Unfortunately the real stratigraphy of the site was not properly recorded in the early mass
excavations, but in his Mohenjo-Daro project initiated in the 1970s Michael Jansen has tried to
reconstruct it. The original field registers that he has located record the three-dimensional
coordinates of the excavated finds. They enable the placing of seals in their find spots on
streets and within buildings, whose other contents may throw light on the seal owner’s
profession or rank (cf. Fig. 5a, b, and 6, and Parpola 1994a: 117-18).
 5. Michael Jansen’s analysis of house I in the HR-A area of Mohenjo-daro.
After Jansen1986: 200–01, fig. 125: (a) isometry; (b) distribution of the seal finds. Courtesy © Michael
Jansen.

6. Michael Jansen’s analysis of house I in the HR-A area of Mohenjo-daro.

After Jansen1986: 200–01, fig. 125. Reconstruction of the original

Using the field registers, Ute Franke-Vogt wrote her dissertation on the temporal and local
distribution of the seals and other inscribed material from Mohenjo-daro (Franke-Vogt 1991).
Her principal aim was to find out whether any meaningful patterns would emerge, particularly
regarding variation in the typology and iconography of the objects. Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-daro
in two large volumes will remain a major reference work in the study of Indus seals and
inscriptions. Franke-Vogt refines earlier classifications of object types and iconographic motifs
(such as in CISI 1–2 [Joshi and Parpola 1987; Shah and Parpola 1991] and Mahadevan 1977).
She illustrates each object type and motif with excellent line drawings, and discusses them
thoroughly with reference to material found outside Mohenjo-daro (in the Greater Indus Valley
and Western Asia), reviewing the views of many scholars. She has compiled manifold statistics
displayed in tables, diagrams, and crosswise correlations. Data related to each object are listed
and the find spots are plotted with symbols of different shapes and colors on the maps of the
excavated areas. In studying these maps, however, one must bear in mind that the excavated
layers at Mohenjo-Daro belong almost exclusively to Middle and Late Mature Harappan phases.
Critical analyses of the stratigraphy at the site have revealed the presence of secondary deposits,
resulting in mixed seals and other materials from different stratigraphic layers, in some cases for
depths of several meters. Consequently, primary floors with direct and undisturbed
chronological associations are nearly absent in the urban compound. Among Franke-Vogt’s
main conclusions is that the absolute predominance of the “unicorn” bull motif in the seals
and their random distribution does not support interpretations that see in the iconographic
motifs guild marks, to tems of kin groups, or caste emblems. The absence of clear local
distributions rather suggests rank and status distinctions and a hierarchical division of the
society. The extreme poverty of finds in the “citadel” (excepting the L area and the Great Bath)
likewise makes it unlikely that it served as the residence of the eliteor as the administrative
center.
Seals as Badges of Authority and Amulets
The great concentration of seals and inscribed objects in the southern part of DKG area of
Mohenjo-daro (cf. Franke-Vogt 1991: I, 145, 152-54, II, tables LIII–LIV) agrees with the
previously suggested identification of a “palace” in this area. Two seals with most impressive
iconography of anthropomorphic deities come from this very location (cf. Possehl 2002c: 209
with fig. 11.21).Both seals have inscriptions that end in the “man” sign, recalling Mesopotamian
priestly titles (“Man of god NN”). Indeed, their “Proto-Śiva” and “Fig-deity” motifs may
convey pictorially the message expressed in writing in their inscriptions (cf. Parpola 1994a: 261,
2012b: 16). In Western Asia, kings ruled on behalf of gods as their high priests, and the
Harappans adopted the “contest” motif which in ancient Western Asia had an explicitly royal
association (cf. Parpola 2011c, 2012a). Moreover, the “Proto-Śiva” and “Fig-deity” seals are
carefully carved and relatively large, which suggest high-ranking owners. Such seals contrast
with the small and more roughly made seals with much-repeated inscriptions or motifs (cf.
Parpola 1986b).
The Indus seals had holes for cords so that they could be carried on the person. The
ownership of a seal was a mark of prestige, and seals undoubtedly functioned as badges of
rank and authority. It is possible that the different animal motifs were linked with different
social positions or occupations. The association of the gaur bison with the “Gulf Type” seals
(Vidale 2004) may be seen as evidence of this. Being worn in this fashion probably means that
they also had an amuletic function, protecting their owners as well as their property. The case
seals probably contained some talisman, and the seal’s iconographic motif undoubtedly also had
a religious significance (compare the association of the bull with Śiva in later Indian seals). The
inscriptions have been sawn off some of the larger seals; perhaps the text indicated the seal
owner’s high position – later lost, for instance through death – and his family were able to keep
the rest of the seal as a status symbol. In any case, it is remarkable that the Indus seals have
been found scattered all over habitation sites, while elsewhere seals were often buried with their
owners (cf. Parpola1997: 49-50).
The Indus Seals as Administrative Tools
Originally seals came into existence as administrative tools, to secure property (cf. Collon 1997).
That this was also their primary function in the Indus Civilisation can be deduced from
preserved ancient sealings and seal impressions. A terracotta tag impressed with a seal
containing script (H-1538) comes from as early as the Kot Diji layers at Harappa. From the
same period there is evidence of writing (different from simple potter’s marks), and
standardised cuboid stone weights were used to control economic activities (cf. Kenoyer and
Meadow 2010: xlviii). In ancient Mesopotamia, textual sources give detailed information for the
use of seals to protect packed merchandise against pilfering. On the arrival of the goods at their
destination, the seals were broken open and the contents weighed and checked, in the presence
of witnesses.
“Gulf ” seals and stone weights of Harappan type were found in remarkable numbers in the
customs house right next to the city gate in Bahrain (cf. Bibby1972: 368; Parpola 1994a: 113–
15).Round clay lumps with seal impressions and smoothed backs were probably “passports.”
Some such passes from Mohenjo-daro bear on opposite sides impressions of an Indus seal and
a BMAC seal (cf. Parpola 2005). Three “passes” from Kanmer have the impression of the same
Indus seal on one side, and different incised inscriptions on the other (cf. Kharakwal et al. 2012:
487). Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra, an ancient Indian handbook of statecraft, details the procedures at
the customs houses near the city gates; these include checking whether stamped sealing’s are
intact, and “road-passes” are also mentioned (cf. Parpola 1994a: 114-15).
A clay tag with the impression of a square Indus seal and marks of coarse cloth on the
reverse comes from Umma in Mesopotamia (Scheil 1925). The excavations at Lothal (Rao
1979-85) uncovered a large (210m X35m X 4.5m) water tank lined with baked bricks and
connected through a channel with the Sabarmati River flowing to the sea. Next to this dockyard
was a 50 X40 meter mud-brick platform with the remains of a burnt-down “warehouse” with
ventilation arrangements under an assumed wooden floor. Collected in one place, probably as
an archive from the past season, were seventy fire-baked clay tags, with twenty-six additional
tags coming from elsewhere in Lothal (CISI1 [Joshi and Parpola 1987]: 268-89). These ninety-
six tags provide evidence of how Indus seals were used and of Harappan bureaucratic and
administrative practices, in which several persons took part as participants or witnesses of
transactions. One tag bears five seal impressions (all broken off or indistinct),two tags (L-189,
L-193) bear four seal impressions made with four different seals, three tags bear three seal
impressions, twenty-six tags bear two seal impressions, and sixty-three tags bear a single seal
impression; among there a dable seal inscriptions, twelve occur more than twice in the Lothal
tags. Overlapping of seal impressions show that it was the text portion of the seal that mattered
(cf. L-211). Two of the actual seal stamps used in making these impressions have been
identified among the seals excavated at Lothal (Parpola1986a, 1994a: 114, 2007).
Sealings are much rarer in the Indus Valley than they appear to be in West Asia, Egypt, and
across the Iranian Plateau. While some argue that this hints at a different way of using seals and
sealings, others rather believe that it is an accident of preservation. It is possible that unfired
clay sealings, in the moist layers of the Indus Basin, are much more difficult to see and to
recover than their western counterparts. The known Indus sealings were all strongly fired, either
purposefully, or accidentally, as in the burnt warehouse of Lothal.
In addition to the seal impressions, these lumps of clay have impressions of the objects to
which they were attached. Dennys Frenez and Maurizio Tosi(2005) have studied them with the
help of comparative material from Mesopotamia and Shahr-i Sokhta in Seistan. Their results
suggest that the tags sealed doors bound with strings to pegs fixed to holes in wooden walls;
joints between movable parts of doors or furniture or crates (without any strings);cane
wrappings of packages with strings; pottery closed with textile covers tied with strings under
the rim; and finely polished wooden surfaces, perhaps boxes. The last-mentioned twelve items
(L-161 to L-172) all bear impressions of a single seal, unique with its elephant motif. The lumps
impressed with this elephant seal also have fingernail tallies, apparently to record how many
objects were kept inside the sealed box closed with knotted strings.
Indus seals were also used to control craft processes producing valuable goods. Thus, at
Mohenjo-daro, a sealed clay tag closed a container in which were stoneware bangles
manufactured by a difficult process involving heating them at very high temperature (Halim and
Vidale 1984). The production of seals must also have been tightly controlled. It has already
been mentioned that the earliest seals at Mehrgarh and Harappa were found in compounds
dedicated to craft activities.
Seal Manufacture
A seal-making workshop has been discovered at Chanhu-daro (Mackay 1976[1943]). Unfinished
seals at different stages of completion enable conclusions about the process of manufacture.
The typical material for making Indus seals was the soft stone steatite. It is easy to carve, but
has the drawback of becoming easily worn. This could to some extent be remedied by baking
the completed seal. Rarer materials of manufacture include agate, lapis lazuli, copper, and silver.
Analysing and sourcing the materials of which the Harappans made their seals and other
artifacts has provided important information on Harappan activity spheres and trade routes
(Law 2011). Blanks for seals were first sawn from larger blocks by means of copper saws.
Smooth flat surfaces were then made with grinding stones of different grades, from coarse to
fine. The iconographic motif was carved first, using incising tools of stone and metal, then the
inscription. In C-14 (CISI 1 [Joshi and Parpola 1987]: 331) the inscription was sketched before
carving. The prepared seal was heated to harden the steatite, and glazed by adding a silica
coating. The hole, whether through the body of the seal or through the knob on the reverse (in
this case in an angle from two sides), was made with drills of stone or metal. Microscopes and
silicone impressions taken of the seals have been used in order to catch the finest tool traces.
Paul Rissman (1989), assuming chronological and local significance in the variations of the most
popular iconographic motif, tried to use them as a means to penetrate into the history and
organisation of Harappan seal carving. Franke-Vogt (1991: I, 111-24) elaborated the analysis of
this motif of “unicorn” plus “cult stand.” Mark Kenoyer’s research in this field (cf. Kenoyer
and Meadow 2010: li–lvi) has paid particular attention to carving techniques and chronological
aspects of boss types. In this volume, Gregg Jamison hunts for idiosyncracies of individual
artisans and workshops, and Adam Green studies sequencing and styles in inscription carving.
Indus bull figurines and dresses
The ‘fish’ pictograms of the Indus script are not the only indicators of the possibility that stars
and planets may have played an important role in the Harappan religion. In 1931, C.J. Gadd (in
Mackay 1931a:1,356f.,n.2) assumed an astral symbolism for the trefoil decoration of the
garment worn by the statue of the ‘priest-king’, one of the best known and most cited
examples of Harappan art (fig,1). In this chapter we shall take a closer look at this hypothesis,
concentrating on the symbolism of the ‘trefoils’
The designation ‘priest-king’ goes back to Sir John Marshall (1931a:1, 54), who thought that
‘probably it is the statue of a priest or maybe of a king-priest, since it lacks the horns which
would naturally be expected if it were a figure of the deity himself ’. Marshall’s argument is
invalid, however. The two holes drilled just beneath the ears and the flat circular patch on the
crown of the head suggest that interchangeable head-dresses could be secured there with metal
hooks. The buffalo-horned crown of the ‘Proto-Śiva’ is a likely possibility. The Proto-Śiva’
(fig,10.18) squats with the kness bent and hands on his kness. The ‘priest-king’ was probably
represtend in a seated position, which is an expression of senior status and authority: it shares
many features with other seated statues from Mohenjo-daro, and the right arm is bent forwards,
evidently for the hand to rest on the knee.
The priest-king’ cloak is decorated all over with a design of trefoils roundel, suggesting that
it had been made by the point of a drill. Two linked concertric circles or “figures-of-eight’ are
seen at the top of the back. There are also single circles with a dot. All these designs were once
filled in with red pigment, traces of which remain here and there.
Trefoils and occasionally quatrefoils, cut into the stone surface and originally inlaid with
lapis lazuli and carnelian, are found on several small amulets from Sumer which are in the shape
of reclining bulls; they come from Uruk and are dated to the Jemder nasr period (i.3100-
2900BC) (fig.2).
Fig.I. The ‘priest – king’ statue from Mohenjo-daro (DK 1909,Viewed from different sides. White steatite,
with remanants of red paste inside the trefoils of the robe. Height (after repair 17cm. National Museum
of Pakistan, Karachi. After Marshall 19ra Pl.98.

Fig 2. A bull statuette with trefoil inlays from Uruk (w 16017), i. 3000BC. Shell mass with inlays of lapis
lazuli. Length 5-3cm. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin.
 Fig.3. A bull incumbent and decorated with trefoils. Fragment of a steatite bowl from Ur (u.239), i.
twenty-first century BC. The explicitly astral symbols of the sun, the (sickle of) moon, and stars, which
have been added to this later image of a reclining bull, suggest that trefoils and quatrefoils, which alone
appear in the older statuettes (fig.2), had a similar meaning. They could at the same time represent hair-
whorls in the animal’s hide. After Ardeleanu-Jansen 1989:205, fig. 19. Cf. Woolley 1955:52 and pl.35;
Hartner 1965:4 and pl.6, fig.12.
In the time of Gudea and the third Dynastry of ur (i.2100-2000BC), trefoils decorate a
couple of small stone reclining bulls with a bearded human head from Tello and similar bulls
surround a bowl from Ur (fig.3). C J. Gadd’s suggestion quoted at the bengining of this chapter
was based on the assumpation that the Sumerian bulls with trefoils are ‘represntations of the
“Bull of Heaven” (a babyloni9an name for one of the constellations [i.e. Taurus]) and therefore
the trefoils represent stars’.
The Harappans, too, associated the trefoils pattern with cattle. A steatite fragment from
Mohenjo-daro represents an animal decorated all over with trefoils, with some red pigment still
visible inside the trefoils, with some red pigment missing, the animal may be identified as a bull
(fig.4). An alabaster mosaic representing humped bulls decorated with trefoils has been found at
Quetta in 1985, culturally related to Dashly, included a large number of trefoils shown in outline
and made of ivory. These discoveries show that harappan traditions, apparently with all their
associated symbolism, were taken over by the Bronze Age culture of Bacteria and brought back
to the Indus Valley around the nineteenth century BC. This warrants the expectation that
relevant information may have survived in the later Aryan sources of India and Central Asia.

Fig. 4. Trefoil –decorated bull. Fragment of a steatite statuette from Mohenjo-daro (Sd 767). Traces of
red pigment remain inside the trefoils. After Ardeleanu-Jansen r989:e196, fig I.
 Fig.5 Fragments of alabaster mosaic in the form of a bull ornamented with trefoils. From ‘place’ of
Dashly-3 in north Afghanistan, C.I800 After Ardeleanu – Jansen 1989: 205.
In 1949, A. Leo Oppenheim analysed the cuneiform texts and monumental evidence
relating to the golden garments of the god’s and divine kings. Numerous Neo-Babylonian texts
of the seventh century BC refer to the making of splendid festive garments reserved for divine
beings alone. The Neo-Babylonian documents provide ample evidence for attaching golden
ornaments described as rosettes, stars (mul.guskm), discs,rings and lions. Althrough these texts
are rather late, sporadic textual references testify to the existence of such ‘golden garments’ as
early as around 2000BC. Such a

Fig.6 A gold rosette with four holes for fixing it on clothing. From an Uruk period tomb at tepe Grawn,
late fourth millennium BC. After Mallowan in Piggott 196r.
use has now been attested also in Ebla around the twenty-fourth century BC. The oldest
archaeological evidence for ‘golden garments’ comes from the twelfth stratum of Tepe Gawra
representing the Uruk period (i.3500-3200 BC): it consists of thin gold rosettes which have
‘four small holes (arranged approximately in a rectangle) near the center and were therefore
obviously destined to be sewed onto some fabric’(fig.6). The prompted Oppenheim to suggest
that the trefoils in the garment of the Harappan ‘priest-king’ ‘could be interpreted as
representing some kind of applique work of applique and/or colour to decorate a
monochrome garment’(1949:188). In fact, Mackey (1931a:1,362), while discussing the shawl of
the ‘priest-king’, had already found that ‘the prominence of the design suggests that the trefoils
and circles were sewn or fastened on in some way instead of being woven in the material’.
What do the Near Eastern sources tell us about the ideological implications of these
decorative ornaments? In his report to the king, a Babylonian astrologer quotes some ritual text
as follows:
The sixteenth (and) seventeenth day a bull shall be slaughtered… before Nabu, the eighteenth day he (the
god) shall be clad in AN.MA.
The logograms AN.MA (as well as their Akkadian gloss nalbas same) literally denote
“garment of the sky’. In Oppenheim’s opinion (1949; 180f.), this text evidently refers to
vestment of the image of Nabu decorated with starts sewed on’. This seems to be confirmed
by Nonnos (Dionysiaca 40,367,416), who in the fifth century AD described Dionysus ‘visit to
the temple of the ‘Starcled god’ (bel astrokhton), the guardian deity of the Syrian city of Tyrus
The cult image was ‘clad in a patterned robe like the sky, an image of the universe’, and
Dionysus in his hymn of praise states: ‘be thoucalled the starclad, since by night starry mantes
illuminate the sky’.
But the phrase nallabus same has another meaning too, for in a lexical text it is identified
with erperu (ur-pi-ti) ‘clouds’, which cover the sky like a garment. In this latter meaning it is
attested twice in the great astrological text Enuma Anu Enlil.
Clouds and stars are thus placed in a relationship which is difficult for us to appreciate and
to grasp, which, however, on a different level of artistic expression, is patently paralleled by the
comparative ease with which stars and rosettes are seen in hair whirls (oppenhem1949:187,n-25)
One may speculate that the special value of stars in the divine garments may be due to the fact6
star was the symbol of divinity in Mesopotamia (2.2; 10.1-2).
The Near eastern data relating to the Harappan ‘priestking’ garment have some striking but
so far overlooked parallels in the Indian tradition, starting with the hymns of the Ṛgveda.
Significantly, these Indian parallels are intimately associated with Varuṇa the divine king par
excellence, who as the chief Asura appears originally to have been the principal god of the
Dasas, the probable rulers of Bronze Age Bacteria (84). Varuna is the guardian of the cosmic
order and truth, but also the god of waters (10.2). As the lord of heavenly water the naturally
controls rain, and is the numerous hymns implored to send rain: ‘Wet our pastures with (gushes
of) melted butter!’ ‘Grant in abundance lovely heavenly water!’ In RS7, 64,1, ‘clothes of ghee’
are attributed to Varuna and Mitra for rainclouds.
According to RS1.25,13, king ‘Varuna bearing a golden mantle dons a shining dress, while
his spies sit around him’. It is likely that the rainclouds were not the only model for Varuna’s
shining dress. In the description of varuna’s hall in the waters Mahabharata 29,6says that varuna
‘wears celestial jewellery and attire, adorned with celestial ornament’. A clue to the nature of
Varun’s bejeweled attir is provided by a comparison in Mahabharata 10,1,25: ‘Adorned with
planets, constellations and stars that have been scattered all over, the night sky, like a festal
garment, shines everywhere beautiful to the view.’ In the avesta, the stars are explicitly
mentioned as ornaments of Ahura Mazda’s sky garment: ‘The sky … which the wise one is
wearing as his garment, is decorated with stars, made of as heavenly substance ‘(Yast13,3). It is
generally accepted that Ahura Mazda, the chief deity of the Zarathustran pantheon,
corresponds to Varuna, the greatest Asura in the RgVeda.
 The Brāhmana texts appear to connect Varuna with the nocturnal heaven. On the one
hand, this world is said to be Mitra and that (celestial) world Varuna (SB 12, 9,2,12). On the
other hand, the day belongs to Mitra and the night to Varuṇa (TWS2,1,7,4). In fact Varuna is
often directly equated with the night and darkness (MS 2,5,7, etc.) and ‘whatever is black
belongs to Varuna’ (SB5,2,5,17).
Stars and blackness are among the principal characteristics of the night sky and there is
general agreement that the stars are meant in RS 10,127,1, where the goddess Night is said to
have arrived, looked in many places (or directions) with her many eyes, and to have put upon
herself all her splendid ornaments (or royal insignia). In RS 7,34, 10, Varuna is thousand-eyed.
Why? Varuna is the righteous king of the universe, whose duty it is to see that the central laws
are followed and to punish wrongdoers. For this reason, Varuna vigilantly watches everything
that is secret, every deed done and to be done. Like an earthly king, varuna (with or without
Mitra) is surrounded by spies, who a trustworthy and wise. Abel Bergaigne suggested that’ in
the purely naturalistic order of the world the spies of Varuna,. Of the god who chiefly rules
over darkness, might here represent the starts, the “eyes” of night’. He pointed out that in RS1,
33, 8’the spies whom Indra “envelops” (causes to disappear) in (a ray of) the sun… appear
definitely to be stars’ (Bergaigne 1978:111,172).
Unwinking vigilance is, according to Amarakośa (3,218),a quality shared only by gods and
the fact that ’when the fish sleeps it does not close its ‘eyes’ was noticed by ancient Indians.
While the ‘fish’ sign seems to have stood for both ‘fish’ and ‘star’ ‘god’ in the Indus script, the
dots-in-circles, figures-of-eight and trefoils on the ‘ priest-king’s garment seem to symbolize
both stars and eyes (on the ‘third eye’ implied by the trefoil,see&14.4). I would like to suggest
that sign of the Indus script is the stylised ‘dot-in-circle’ eye of the fish-shaped Harappan
amulets (fig.10.22) and that it is to be read in Dravidian as ka ‘eye’, a basic word attested in all
Dravdian languages and related to the Proto-Dravidian verbal root kan ‘to see’. The repetition
of the ‘eye’ sign corresponds to the figure-of –eight’ sign found on the Harappan ‘priest-
king’s’ cloak, and suggests a pair of eyes. The reduplication is meaningful in Dravidian in Tamil
we have the word kan-kan’overseer’. This would be a fitting epithet for Varuna, who is probably
meant in RS 10,129, 7. Which speaks of an ‘over of an ‘overseer (adhyaksa) of this (world) in
the highest heaven’. Varuna is the ‘thousand-eyed’ guardian of the cosmic order, and looks
down on the earth with the eye of the sun. in the RgVeda, the sun is the eye of Mitra and
Varuna of Varuna alone, of the sun-god Svar or Surya, of Agni, or of the gods in general; in
other vedic texts, the sun and moon are the eyes of the highest Brahma.

Fig..7. inscription on a moulded terracotta amulet from Mohenjo-daro(M-1429).After Dales 1968:39. The
two other zides of this triangular prism show a fish-eating alligator (fig.10.1c) and a ship (fig.1.10).

The sequence forms the entire4 text of one ordinary seal(2582) and of one pottery
stamps (2877): these inscriptions may well have referred to quite mundane ‘overseers’. But at
the end of an inscription on a three-sided terracotta amulet from Mohenjo-daro (fig.12.7), the
same sequence is followed by the ‘man’ sign, possibly meaning ‘Servant (or devotee) of the
Overseer…’ the two other sides of the amulet suggest that the text relates to the water-god of
the Harappans; one has the picture of a boat, the other an alligator. Both designs refer to water,
which is the realm of the god Varuna. Varuna is the lord of aquatic animals’, including the
Crocodile(10.2), and the boat is explicity connected with Varuna in RgVeda 7,883.
In Mesopotamia the starry garments of the gods were worn not by their images (to which
the Harappan ‘priest-king’ can be compared) but also by their human representatives, the priest-
kings. The garment of the divine king Varuṇa, too, has a counterpart in the Vedic ritual – the
garment called tārpya, intimately associated with kingship and with Varuna. Thus the trapya
garment is among the essential paraphernalia of the royal consecration (rājasurya) which is also
called Varuṇa-sava ‘Varuna’s nature, anointing him (the king) with the waters he has made him
(identical with)Varuṇa’ (MS 4,49,17).
The tārpya garment is not mentioned in the Ṛgveda. In fact, KS 12’3 relates that the tārpya
garment originally belonged to the Asuras, the rivals and enemies of the Vedic gods. Yet it must
be a very ancient dress, because there is uncertainty about the meaning of the name tārpya even
in the oldest Śrautasutras. Baudhāyana’s Karmāntasutra (25,34) is the first to record different
explanations of the word tārpya, repeated by later commentators. One reads: ‘this is a cloth
satiated (trp-) with melted butter’. The numerous Rgvedic references to Varuns’s (and Mitra’s)
‘fatty garment’ suggest that this is the correct interpretation.
The investment of the sacrificer for the unction ceremony of the royal consecration is
explained in the Satapath-Brahmana (5,3,5, 20-4) as follows: ‘He then makes him (the king) put
on garments. There is that one called tarpya; therein are wrought all forms of sacrifice: that he
makes him put on,(with the mantra VS ro,8) “Thou art the inner caul of knighthood.” A more
accurate description of the figures sewn into it is given in connection with the three-days rite of
Garga. According to ĀpŚS 22,16,3 and HSS 17,6,31, ‘in the tarpya garments is tied the form of
the fireplaces (dhiṣṇiyānām rupam), J C Heesterman (1957: 92) understands this to mean that the
tarpya garment ‘is decorated with images of the dhisniyas (i.e. probably a series of circles)’. This
would match well the devices on the Harappan ‘priest-kings’ cloak, which consist of
combinations of one to three ‘dots-in-circles’. In order to understand the symbolism of these
images, we must subject the term dhiṣṇ(I) yu to a closer scrutiny.
In the Vedic ritual, the word dhiṣṇ(I)yu in the strict sense denotes the fireplaces of seven
priests officiating in a soma sacrifice; six of these are built in a row in the sitting-half; the
seventh (belonging to the agnīdh or fire-kindler) is in a separate shed on the northern edge of
the sacrificial area (fig.5).
If the circles on the ‘priest-king’s’ garment represent fireplaces, it becomes clear why they
have been filled with a red paste-the colour of fire and why the trefoil pattern even elsewhere is
associated with the colour red. Two sherds of Harappan polychrome pottery and Mackay’s
commentary on them underline this most important fact and its significance: They are
decorated with irregularly placed red trefoils with white borders on an apple-green ground…
The red colouring of the lobes also suggests that this pattern is not derived from the clover leaf,
for otherwise the painter of the jar would surely have painted them green. That red was the
recognised colour for this motif is clear from the fact that in no instance has a trefoil of any
other colour been found at Mohenjo-Daro.(Mackat1938:1,227f.).
But why should a fireplace be represented by a trefoil? Traditionally, the fireplace in an
Indian kitchen consists of three stones set in a triangle so that the kettles and other utensils can
be placed firmly over the fire. Sometimes a mud wall is plastered around the three stones, so as
to prevent the ashes from spreading about; such an arrangement comes close to the trefoils
motif. Definite evidence for a fireplace with three stones comes from the Late Harappan
(jhukar) levels at Chanhujo-daro.
On the basis of references to Varuṇs’s starred dress and the Mesopotamian parallels,
however, we would have expected the embroidered patterns of the tarpya garment to represent
stars and not fireplaces. In fact, the word dhiṣṇ (I) ya, used of the embroidered decorations and
of the ritual fireplaces, is occasionally used with the meaning ‘star’ in later astronomical texts
(e.g. Surya-Siddhānta 8,1; Vasiṣtha –Samhitā 37,27). A striking explanation of this double
symbolism is found in the epic description of Arjuna’s journey to the heavenly world of Indra
(Mahābhārata3, 43). Arjuna flies upwards into the sky in a divine car driven car driven by Indra’s
charioteer, Matali:
While becoming invisible to the mortals who walk on earth, he saw wondrous airborne
chariots by the thousands. No sun shone there, or moon, or fire, but they shone with a light of
their own acquired by their merits. These lights that are seen as the starts look tiny like oil
flames because of the distance, but they are very large. The Pāṇḍava saw them bright and
beautiful, burning on their own hearths (dhiṣṇya) with a fire of their own. There are the
perfected royal seers, the heroes cut down in war, who, having won heaven with their austerities,
gather in hundreds of groups. So do thousands of Gandharvas with a glow like the sun’s or the
fire’s and of Guhyakas and seers and the hosts of Apsaras… (Matali) said… “Those are men of
saintly deeds, ablaze on their own hearths, whom you saw there, my lord, looking like stars from
the earth below.’ (trans.Buitenen 1975:11,308)
This is not the only such instance in the Mahābhārata. Thus in 3,290,20, princess Kunti,
given divine eyesight by the sun-god, ‘saw all the thirty gods, who stood in the sky upon their
own hearths’
The association of the dhiṣṇya-fireplaces with the stars can be directly traced back to early
Vedic texts. That the stars in the sky were understood to be the heavenly abodes of holy people
is explicitly stated in TS 5,4,1,3-4 (the passage deals with the piling of bricks upon the fire-altar):
He puts down the constellation bricks, these are the lights of the sky; verily he wins them;
the Nakṣatras are the lights of the doers of good deeds; verily he wins them; verily also he
makes these lights into a reflection to light up the world of heaven.
The Śatapath-Brāhmaṇa also refers to the stars as the lights of holy people (6,5,4,8). All
these references agree that it is ancient sacrifices who shine in the sky upon their own hearths.
MS 1,8,6 is most explicit in connecting the starts with ancient Sacrificers: ‘If someone, after
having given much (as sacrificial gifts or as alms) and having scarified much, removes (i.e. gives
up, or rather, has to give up) his fires, this (I.e. the fruit of his giving up and sacrificing) is not
lost for him. The virtuous who have offered this reach yonder world. They are these stars’.
The dhiṣṇyas as decorations of the tāpya garment thus represent not only fireplaces but
also stars. In Mesopotamia, where the trefoils motif also seems to have astral symbolism, the
word mul ‘constellation’ was written with a pictogram consisting of a group of three stars.
Could the trefoil refer to some particular three-star asterism?
Post-Vedic sources describe the asrterisms as having the shape of specific objects. The
object connected with the three-starred asterism of (Apa-) Bharaṇī strikingly fits with the
inference concerning the relation between the dhiṣṇya hearths and the ‘trefoils’ motif. The
Digambara Jainas explain the Bharaṇī asterism as having the form of a ‘fireplace consisting of
three stones’. The Digrambara tradition of South Indian is in agreement with the Tamil
tradition, for one of the Tamil names of the Bharani naksatra in pinkala’s Nikantu is mu-k-
kuttu ‘oven, as formed of three stones or lumps of earth placed triangularly’. In Burushaski,
spoken in the extreme north, the word is denoting ‘fireplace of three stones’ is likewise the
name of a three-starred asterism. On the other hand, the three stars of (Apa-) Bharani are
pictured as forming the public triangle: the Svetambara Jainas speak of the ‘vulva’ (bhaga) and
the late Vedic texts of the ‘womb’ (yom). This symbolism is inherent in the Dravidian
etymology that may be proposed for the word cullī in the Digambara sources.
The word cullī i is the most common word for the traditional Indian fireplace, which
consists of three stones serving as a stand on which vessels can be placed above the fire. This
etymon is attested in practically all of the Indo-Aryan languages. In Sanskrit, however the word
cullī is not attested until the Laws of Manu (3,68), around 300BC, and it has no Indo-European
etymology. Lt is generally held to be of Dravidian origin, being derived from Tamil cullai, culai
‘potter’s kiln, funeral pile’, and its cognate in Malayalam. While this is plausible both
semantically and phonologically (as Proto-Dravidian*land*l have merged in North and Central
Dravidian), it is strange that a word belonging to the basic household vocabulary should have
survived only in these two southernmost languages on the Dravidian side. In south Dravidian,
Proto-Dravidian *i-has frequently been dropped. Therefore, the Indo-Aryan words are rather to
be connected with an etymon for ‘fireplace’ found in 16 Dravidian languages, including Tamil
ulai, Kannada and Kodagu ule, Manda huli,Pengo hol, Kuwi hollu, holu, Konda solu, Parji colngel (with
kel’stone’).
On the basis of the regular morphophonemic rules governing Proto-Dravidian, *cul-ay/
*cull-V ‘fireplace, hearth’ may be assumed to have had a variant *cul, homophonous with Proto-
Dravidian homophony may be reflected in the double image of the (Apa-) Bharani asterism as
‘fireplace’ and ‘womb’. The idea that the ‘fireplace’ is a ‘womb’ is also fundamental to Vedic
religious thinking, starting with the RgVeda, where the three sacred fires are said to be the
‘wombs of Agni’ (RS 2,36,4). According to the Brāhmaṇa texts, the fireplace is the womb of
the sun, who ‘dies’ in the evening and passes the night in the fireplace in the condition of an
embryo, to be reborn in the morning (JB 1, 8; 1,9;1,11;etc.).
The Apabharaṇī nakṣatra is connected with the god of death Yama, and its three stars are R
identified with the ‘womb’ as well as the ‘hearth of three stones’. This could therefore be the
asterism denoted by the trefoil on the ‘priest-king’s’ garment and by the images of
fireplaces/stars’ on the Vedic tarpya garment, the nightly robe of Varuna, which itself is replete
with womb symbolism. W3e have already seen that the tarpya garment is called ‘the embryonic
cover of kingship’. ‘Varuna, assuredly, is the womb,’ states the Śatapatha-Brāhmana (12,9,1,17).
Darkness, which the JUB (3,2,4,2) associates with the womb, is in other Vedic text connected
with the colour black, sin or evil and death. Moreover, the colour black is said to be ‘the symbol
(or form, colour) of rain ‘ or symbol of waters. Varuṇa is the god of waters and rain as well as
of night. The Apabharani nakṣatra ruled by Yama could thus be the asterism par excellence of
king Varuna and the asterism primarily represented by the trefoils of the Harappan ‘priest-king’.
This is suggested also by the ideas associated with the Apabharaṇī nakṣatra.
The name apabhaṇīh (later shortened to bharaṇī) means ‘those (waters) which carry away’.
Apabharaṇī is the very last asterism of the old nakṣatra cycle, and thus understandably
connected with death and Yama, the king of the dead: ‘Let the Bharaṇīs carry away (our) evil,
let the venerable king Yama perceive that; for he is the great king of a great world, let him make
the path easy to go and fearless for us!’ (TB 3, 1,2,11). Apabharaṇī is synonymous with avabhrtha,
the name of the expiatory bath of the Vedic sacrifice. The two words are close to each other
even etymologically and are likely to have referred originally to one and the same thing. The
Apabharaṇī asterism marks the close of the year, and the avabhrtha bath is taken at the end of
the sacrifice (according to ŚB6,2,2,38, ‘the purificatory bath is the completion’). Both aim at
getting rid of evil.
There is a most intimate connection between the avabhrtha bath and Varuṇa:
Where there is a standing pool of flowing water, there let him (the sacrifice) descend into water for
whatsoever parts of flowing water flow not, these are holden by Varuṇa; and the expiatory bath belongs
to Varuna-to free himself from Varuna. But if he does not find such, he may descend into any water.11.
While he makes him descend into water, he bids him say, ‘Homage be to Varuna: downtrodden is
Varuna’s snare!’ Thus he delivers him from every fetter of Varuna, from everything pertaining to
Varuna….23. Thereupon both (the sacrificer and his wife) having descended, bathe, and wash each
other’s back. Having wrapped themselves in fresh garments they step out: even as a snake is delivered
from its skin, so he is delivered from all evil. There is not in him even as much sin as there is in a
toothless child. (SB4,4,5,10.23;trans, adapted from Eggeling 1885:11,381,385).
Reference is here made to the ‘fetter’ or ‘noose’ of disease and death, which is an attribute
of Varuna, the god of avabhrtha bath, as well as of Yama, the god of the Apabharanī asterism.
Pāpman ‘evil’, from which one is to be delivered, is likewise connected with both Varuna and
Yama. Pāpman refers to all kinds of evils but especially to death; it occurs as a synonym as well
as an attribute to Mrtyu ‘Death’. The avabhrtha symbolizes both death and rebirth. We have
seen that the Brāhmana texts identify Varuna with the night, darkness, the colour black and the
womb. The Vedic texts speak of the removal of the embryonic cover from a newborn baby.
While discussing the avabhrtha bath of the sautrāmanī sacrifice,SB1 2,9,2,7 connect the
shedding of evil with the shedding of the garment of consecration. Here the discarded cloth is
equated with sin and darkness, while the very next paragraph (ibid.:8) likens the clean sacrificer
in his fresh garment to the sun rising in the sky. There cannot be any doubt that the dark
garment which is discarded in the waters of the avabhrtha bath represents the black garment of
which the rising sun divests himself is the star-decorated mantle of night and death. In the royal
unction, this discarded garment of consercration is the tārpya garment of king Varuna, whose
symbolism and probable connection with the Harappan ‘priest-king’s’ trefoil-decorated robe we
have discussed above.
The three-starred Apabharani asterism may have been meant by the sequence of ‘three’+’
fish’=Dravidan mu-m-min’ three-star(red asterism)’ (attested in a Medieval Tamil lexicon as the
name of another asterism with three stars, the Mrgasrusa). This compound occurs on the three-
sided terracotta amulet from Mohenjo-daro (12.7), which shows an alligator (fig.10.1c) and a
boat (fig.1.10) on the other two sides. We have already assumed that this amulet was associated
with the water-god Varuna and that Varuna may have been meant by the sequence of repeated
‘eye’ motifs, which follows (perhaps as an apposition) the sequence of ‘3’ + ‘fish’ (both
sequences end in the hypothetical ‘genitive suffix’). Both the external and the internal context,
then, suggest that the compound ‘3’+ ‘fish’ stands for an asterism of Varuna.
‘Linga stands’: the seven sages and the great bear
The initial working hypothesis concerning the Harappan ‘priest-king’s’ garment examined in the
proceeding section was that its trefoil motif had an astral meaning. We have seem that its Vedic
counterpart, the royal tarpya garment of the god Varuna, was decorated with images of
fireplace equated with the stars.

Fig. 8 A ‘linga stand’ from Mohenjo-daro (Dk4480), made of finely polished red stone and decorated with
trefoil” inalys. National Museum of Pakistan, Karachi. For a section drawing, See mackay 1938: II,
pl107:35.
It was thought that the trefoil represented for the Indus Civilsation one particular asterism,
the three-starred Apabharani. In the vedic religion, the fire place, the Apabharani star and the
tarpya garment all symbolize the womb or the female organ. A find from Mohenjo-daro seems
to give substance to the hypothesis that this ‘womb’ symbolism was shared by the trefoil motif
in the Harappan religion.
The trefoil pattern has been incised at regular intervals on the surface of a carefully
smoothed and partially polished pedestal of dark red stone (fig.12.8). its extraordinary
workmanship indicates that this stand must have been described from Mohenjo-daro, and they
have been compared to the round stand of the later Hindu lingas (images of Siva’s phallus)
representing the yoni (the ‘vulva’ or ‘womb’ of the goodness): ‘they are invariably carefully
made… the exact purpose of these stands is problematical, but…some of them may, in fact, be
the bases of lingas’ (Mackay 1938:1,411).
In recent years both archaeologists and art historians have seriously questioned the sexual
interpretation of conical and circular stones from Indus sites:
Where then the evidence to support published statements such as ‘phallic worship was an important
element of Harappan religion’ (Basham 1954:24)? With the single exception of the unidentified
photograph of a realistic phallic object in Marshall’s report (pl.13, 3) there is no archaeological evidence
to support claims of special sexually-oriented aspects of Harappan religion. (Dales1984:115)

Fig. 9. A standing human couple in sexual intercourse (a tergo) on one of the three sides of the moulded
tablet from Mohenjo-daro (M-489B). The other motifs include to goats eating leaves from a tree; a cock
hen (?); and a three-headed animal.

It is true that Marshall’s and Mackay’s hypotheses of a Harappan worship of the linga and
yoni rested on rather slender grounds. However, some pieces of evidence for a Harappan sexual
cult appear undeniable.
George Dale, the author of the critical article quoted above, himself finds one of the
conical stone objects mentioned by Marshall ‘very convincingly phallic-shaped’ and another
‘possible’. The difficulty in accepting them as proofs of phallism ‘is that, apart from a general
mention that these object belong to the Indus civilisation, no information is published
concerning where they were found’. After a study (in 1975) of the photographic archives of the
Archaeological Survey of India, I can to some extent supply the missing data. The later object
was found at Mohenjo-daro in 1925-6, and the more important one, of terracotta, at Mohenjo-
daro in 1927-8. But we still lack the excavation numbers and the exact provenance.
That these cones are phallic in nature is made likely by the existence of ithyphallic male
statuettes. In addition to the two from Chanhujo-daro and (as a Harappan import) from
Nippur, which have been considered ithyphallic by Dales (1968), there are several further clear
examples from Mohenjo-daro (parpola1985:fig.27). It is not difficult to find parallels for these
ithyphallic statuettes in later Indian religions.
Even more important evidence of Harappan sexual rites is provided by a three-faced
terracotta amulet from Mohenjo-daro(fig.9). One of its motifs, interpreted as ‘a man driving a
goat’ in the excavation report, actually seems to depict sexual intercourse between a human
couple: a women bends forward in front of a standing ithyphallic man. Comparable scenes are
found on Mesopotamian (fig.10)and Gulf seals (fig.11). A round stamp seal with Indus script
presumably coming from Mesopotamia represents a bull in the act of mating with a cow(fig.12).
In addition, a scene engraved on a seal from Chanhujo-daro appears to depict an Indian
bison (gaur) bull mating with a nude human priestess lying on the ground.
 This motif may be compared to the Vedic horse sacrifice with its simulated sexual
intercourse between the chief queen (mahisa, literally ‘great female’, but also ‘buffalo cow’) and
the horse-victim (which probably substitutes a pre-Aryan buffalo-victim, mahisa ‘the great male,
buffalo bull,’ to match the queen’s title). We can further compare the copulation of Yama’s
buffalo with an old or dead woman in the Lamaist iconography, and the marriage of the
Goddess and the Buffalo demon in the South Indian village religion (14.2).

We must conclude that there is direct archaeological evidence for sexual cults in the
Harappan religion. This permits us to take up the old hypothesis of Harappan ‘linga stands’ for
serious consideration. Additional support for this hypothesis is provided by the fact that the
trefoils is also found on a small moulded ‘gamesman’ or ‘phallus’ made of paste.
In classical Hinduism, the linga and yoni symbolize male and female gential organs untied in
sexual intercourse. They are cult objects and an integral part of their worship consists of
throwing leaves of the bilva tree upon them (fig.13). The bilva or ‘wood-apple’ tree (Aegle
marmelos) ‘is one of the most sacred of Indian tree, cultivated near temples and dedicated to
Siva, whose worship cannot be complete without its leaves’. The leaves of bilva are trifoliate ate,
so the trefoils depicted on one of the Harappan linga stands may represent bilva leaves actually
thrown on such an object in the cult.
Singnificantly, the Sanskrit name of the tree, bilva, is generally considered to be of Dravidian
etymology, being compared to Tamil vellil and its cognates. This word is closely homophonous
with the Proto-Dravidian root vel ‘to be(come) white or bright, shine’ and its derivative velli ‘star,
Venus’, also ‘semen’ (both being white). If the bilva leaves symbolize drops of semen, one can
understand why they are thrown on the linga and yoni in the cult.
Ernest Mackey (1938:1,411) observed that through no linga stones have been found fixed to
such Harappan ‘yoni’ stands, this absence can be explained by assuming that they were of
wood. However, because in the historical period ‘the linga is invariably made of stone’, Markey
thought it likely that this was so in Harappan times as well. But Mackay’s rather categorical
statement is not true: in Puri in Orissa, for example, pillars expressly identified as Siva’s linga are
made of wood.
The hypothesis of a Harappan origin of the linga cult has been objected to because (1)
there is no archaeological evidence for a linga cult after the Indus Civilisation and before the
second or first century BC, and because (2) the earliest historical lingas are realistic and contrast
with the abstract shapes – the famous pillars (stambha) of Ashoka and his predecessors: ‘The
association between cosmic pillar and phallus is explicit in Mahabharata x.17.8ff. where Siva
pulls off his own penis and sets it up as a sacred pillar’(Irwin 1980:259 n.18).
In goddess worship in Kannapuram, a south Indian village, the tree-trunk (called in Tamil
kam-pan from Sanskrit skambha ‘pillar) in front of which the sacrificial victims to the Goddess
are decapitated is said to be the husband of the Goddess. At the end of the yearly marriage rite,
when the last victim is slaughtered, the trunk is uprooted and the Goddess is divested of her
ornaments like a widow. The pillar and its uprooting correspond to Siva’s phallus and its
castration. The sacrificial post used to be burnt in South Indian after the marriage feasts of the
goddess. In a story about the origin of the tree-trunk (kampam), Parvati is said to have
implanted herself in the womb of a Brahman woman and been born as a girl. An untouchable
Paraiya boy fell in love wither and obtained her parent’s consent to their marriage, the fact that
he was an untouchable being discovered only later. Parvati was so angry that, with a look, she
engulfed her husband in flames and from his ashes caused a margosa tree to grow. In this form
her husband was to stand forever outside her house.
Some of the stories describing how Śiva burnt Kāma (erotic desire) in a fit of anger, further
mention that the object of his wrath took the form of a tree. The myths also link this burning
of desire to the use of ashes in ritual. Hence the ashes on Śiva’s ascetic body are said to be
those of the when Māriyamman burnt her outcaste lover, she turned him into ashes. A
description of a festival celebrated by Tamil workers in Sri Lanka explicitly reenacts this myth
of Siva’s burning of Kama. In that festival kāma is not only impersonated, but also burnt in his
form as a post (kampan).(Beck1981:121n.60)
In central and South India, the spring festival Holi (around the time of the vernal
equinox,11,3) is celebrated to commemorate the death and resurrection of Kama with a big
bonfire. The Mannewars make human figures representing Kama qand his wife Rati (‘Sexual
pleasure’), and throw the male figure into the fire. In Maharashtra, people walk around the fire
shouting words for female genitals, and dances imitating copulation are performed. In Kumaon,
each clan celebrates the Holi by planting a pole in the ground, dancing around it, singing songs
in honour of the amorous cowherd god Krsna and his milkmaids, and burning the pole on the
last day of the festival.
The sacrificial stakes (yupa) of the Vedic ritual to which the victims were tied were made of
wood. They symbolised the primeval cosmic tree on the navel of the earth upholding the sky
and thus leading to heaven (AS10.7.35 ‘the skambha sustains both heaven-and-earth here’). ‘It is
through the sacrificial stake that the offerings go to the heavenly world’. Says MS4,8,8.After a
vedic animal sacrifice the post was either left standing or thrown into the sacred fire. The
burning of the sacrificial stake is explained by the notion that the fireplace is the womb of the
gods, and the sacrifice will be born in heaven with a body of gold (AB2,3).
That the (partially burnt) sacrificial post had a phallic connotation even in the Vedas is
evident from the Vedic rite of pumsavana ‘causing the birth of a male child’. Here various
symbols of the male generative organ are used, such as two beans (for testicles) together with a
barleycorn (for the phallus), a shoot of the bayan tree with a fruit on either side, and an aerial
root of the bayan(JGS 1,5;HGS 2,1,2,2-4; GGS 2,6,9-11; PGS 1,14,3). The bayan shoots and air
roots are pounded with millstones (an activity symbolising sexual intercourse) and the husband
inserts the resulting paste into the right nostril of his wife. Among the other things that may be
mixed with this potent paste….exposed to the fire’(HGS2,1,2,6).
The deity prayed to in the pumsavana ritual is Prajāpati ‘the lord of offspring ‘; but the means
used in it, barley and beans (KS36,6;MS1,10,12), as well as the banyan tree (GGS4,7,24), are all
said to belong to Varuna. According to AB 7,14,1,Varuna is also the deity to approach to get a
son. This underlines the phallic nature of Varuna and his relationship with prajāpati and with
Siva, the god of the linga in later Hinduism.
We can conclude that wooden sacrificial pillars representing the phallus were burnt to ashes
at the end of their ritual use, both in Vedic times and later. Such burnt pillars seem to me to
have been the prototypes of Siva’s famous ‘flaming linga pillar’ in Hindu mythology. If this is
correct, it becomes clear why the missing linga of the trefoil-decorated pedestal from Mohenjo-
daro was made of wood, and why the stand itself was made of red stone: like the trefoil motif,
which is always red in Harappan art(12.1),the pedestal represents the fireplace; and the fireplace
was in Vedic times conceived to be a womb (12.1). A comparison with the later yoni stand does
not appear to be far-fetched.
In the context of the Harappan ‘linga stands’ and the myth of ‘Śiva’s flaming linga’, the
finds in the ‘citadel’ of kalibangan assume great importance. The southern rhomb of this
bipartite structure contained no residential buildings, but at least five (and probably once eight
or nine) ceremonial platforms built of mud-brick. A flight of steps led to these platforms from
the stress that separated them from each other. On the top of the platforms was ‘a row of
seven “fire-altars”’ (Thapar 1985:55), partly damaged clay-lined pits containing ash, charcoal,
the remains of a clay stele and terracotta cakes (fig.14). Fire-altars with a clay stele in the middle
are known also from the Lower Town of Kalibangan, where one room of many of the
dwellings was set aside to house one. Better preserved clay stelae from the Lower Town were
cylindrical or slightly faceted and 30-40 cm high.
 At Lothal, too, ritual fireplaces have been discovered in Mature Harappan layers, from the
earliest (IIA) to the latest (IV). ‘A terracotta ladle found in close proximity to the altar in street
and bearing smoke-marks… suggests that it was used in pouring a liquid into the
fire’(Rao1979:1,216-18). The ‘posthole’ discovered in this altar suggests the use of wooden
parallels for the clay stele at Kalibangan. The libation of liquid on such a heated stake we recalls
the ablutions of Siva’s linga with the five products of the cow(milk, sour milk, melted butter,
urine qand dung) and sacred water mixed with bilva leaves in the present –day Hindu cult.
The Vedic ritual provides an even more striking parallel in the milk poured as an offering
into the fire (in the daily ritual) or into a heated vessel (in the pravargya sacrifice). The heated
milk is the sun or the sun’s seed poured into the womb: ‘Surya (the sun) and Agni (the fire) were
in the same receptacle {yoni ‘womb’}. Thereupon Surya rose upwards. He lost his seed. Agni…
received it…he transferred it to the cow. It (became) this milk’(KS6,3).
The seven ‘fire-altars’ at Kalibangan are closely paralleled by the dhiṣṇya hearths of the
Vedic Soma sacrifice (fig.12.15). Six of these hearths are in a north-south row inside the ‘sitting-
hall’ (the priests sit to the west of them, facing east, as at Kalibangan). They belong to six
priests, while one more priest (the ‘fire-kindler’) has a fireplace of his own to the north of the
others, on the border of the sacrificial area. The seven officiating priests who have a special
dhiṣṇya are also known as ‘the seven sacrifices’ (sapta hotrāh).

Fig 14 Seven fire-altars in arrow on the top of a ceremonial platform in the Mature Harappan period
‘citadel’ at Kalibangan. After Thapar 1985: 59 Fig 27.
In ancient India, the stars were conceived as ancient sacrificers standing in heaven on their
own fireplaces, dhiṣṇyas (12.1). Almost all the Brāhmaṇa texts equate the dhisṇya hearths of the
sacrificial area with the Gandharvas, mythical beings who guard Soma (Indra’s sacred drink and
the Moon) in the heavenly world (11.4).In Vedic texts, the number of these Gandharvas is 27,
the number of the lunar asterisms, or, when identified with the ritual fireplaces, seven.
 There are many references to the ‘first divine or heavenly sacrificers’, seven in number; they
are undoubtedly the ‘seven divine sages’ in RS 10,130,7,apparently identified with the ‘human
sages, our forefathers’ who were the first to performs a sacrifice (10.2). they are said to the
stages who won the world of heaven with ascetric practices. JUB 4,26,12 makes it quite clear
that the Seven Sages are the circumpolar stars of Ursa Major by stating that ‘the canter of
heaven is where the Seven sages are’. These Seven sages are involved in the myths concerning
the origin of the linga worship, which deserve a closer security.
The Śatapatha-Brahmana (2,1,2,4) states that ‘the Seven Sages (sapta rsayah) were formerly
called ‘Bears” (rksah). The latter is an old Indo-European appellation of Ursa Major, for Homer
(Iliad18,487~9=odyssey 5,273-5) speaks of a single circumpolar asterism called ‘she-Bear’
(arktos) ‘that circles ever in her place… qand alone has no part in the baths of the Ocean’. But
since the times of the late RgVeda (RS10,82,2), this constellation is almost exclusively called ‘the
Seven sages’. As the younger name does not differ very much phonetically from the older one,
it looks like a transformation based on an earlier Indian name for the asterism.
A most important piece of evidence relating to the early symbolism of the constellation of
Ursa Major and its connection with the phallic linga cult is given by the Avestan name of this
asterism. Avestan hapto-riniga. ‘Ursa Major’ corresponds to *sapta-linga-‘having seven linga’ in
Sanskrit, though such a compound is not known from the Indian texts. The Sanskrit word linga
is first and other contexts; it has the meaning of ‘penis, phallus’ as the ‘characteristic mark’ of
the male sex. Averstan iringa-has been explained as having the basic meaning of ‘mark,sign’.
While this explanation naturally remains valid and possible, the seven fireplaces of Kalibangan
with clay ‘lingas’, corresponding to the Vedic dhisnya fireplaces, in turn associated with the
‘Seven Sacrifice’ (=Ursa Major), do suggest that the Avestan name hapto-iringa may be
understood to imply the meaning ‘phallus’ too.

Fig 15 The fireplaces (dhisnya) of the ‘seven sacrificial priests’ in the Vedic Soma sacrifice. After caland
and hennery 1906: I pl4
A fairly frequently occurring sequence of two Indus signs may or may not be relevant here,
Number ‘7’ is followed by a sign resembling the Sumerian pictogram for ‘phallus’, It is
noteworthy that in Proto-Dravidian, the word for ‘seven’, *clu, happens to be homophonous
with the root *elu ‘to rise, ascend (as a heavenly body), to be high, to be high, to be roused or
excited, inflame (as passions), to grow, to swell (as breasts)’, meaning that fit both Ursa Major
and the phallus. That the sign possibly depicting ‘phallus’ had an astral meaning is suggested by
the sign sequence (5.1)
The etymology of the word linga is an open question. Because it is not found in the oldest
Sanskrit texts, because it is so central to the terminology of the non-Aryan phallic cult, and
because none of the proposed Indo-European etymologies is convincing, many scholars have
opted for a non-Aryan origin. We know that the Aryans had a different Indo-European name
for the constellation Ursa Major, while ‘seven lingas’ is in agreement with the seven fireplaces
with a clay stele in their midst at Kalibangan. A translation loan is not excluded, but in view of
the Harappan influence on the Bacteria and Margiana Archaeological Complex (figs.12.4-5),
which could be the source of the Avestan term, it looks more likely that linga is a Dravidian
loanword. If this is the case, it should be possible to find a solution. Moreover, since Avestan,
like the Rgvedic language, was characterised by rhotacism (merger of l and r into r), while
classical Sanskrit has preserved the distinction between l and r, linga may be closer to the original
than*ringa.
Proto-Dravidian seems to have had no word-initial l-or r-, but a number of etyma in
Kannada, Telugu and some Central Dravidian and North Dravidian languages beginning with l-
originally had *n-intially. There are also a few words in Sanskrit of Dravidian origin which show
initial l-as opposed or n-or n – in Dravidian. A fluctuation between l-and n-occurs sporadically
in Indo-Aryan at all periods… Consequently it is not surprising to find l-for n-in Sanskrit words,
even in cases where no form with initially-is found in Dravidian.(Burrow 1943-6c:615)
On this basis, Sanskrit linga can be derived from the Proto-Dravidian root *ning-/*nig-‘to
rise, become erect, stand upright, be extended’. Such a derivation agrees well with the meanings
‘phallus’ and ‘erected post’ for linga. The meaning ‘mark, sign’ can be understood to have
developed form ‘(out) standing object >’(land)mark’.
Hindu mythology associates the linga cult with the Seven Sages and therefore also with Ursa
Major, thus endorsing the suggested interpretations of the Kalibangan fire-altars and of
Avestan hapti-iringa~. In many well-known myths, the Seven Sages and their wives are, in one
way or another, specifically associated with sexual intercourse and with Śiva’s linga or seed. It
was in the hermitage of the seven sages that Śiva broke his vow of chastity and had intercourse
with the wives of the seven sages:
The sages cursed Śiva’s linga to fall to the earth, and it burnt everything before it like a fire… Brahmā said
‘As long as the linga is not still, there will be nothing auspicious in the universe. You must propitiate Devī
so that she will take the form of the yoni, and then the linga will become still’…. Thus linga-worship was
established. (Śiva-Purāṇa 4,12, 17-52, summarised by O’ Flaherty 1973:257)
It was suggested above that Śiva’s mythical ‘fiery linga’ may correspond to the burning of
the sacrificial stake in rituals, and the uprooting of the stake to which the husband victim is
bound to the castration of Śiva in the myth. The establishment of the linga cult by the Seven
Sages and the burning of Śiva’s linga fit with the seven fire-heated ‘lingas’ of the Kalibangan
ritual hearths.
 The specific relationship between the linga cult and the Seven Sages becomes clear if the
pole star (surrounded by the stars of Ursa Major) was understood as Śiva’s or Varuṇa’s linga.
This is quite likely, for the pole star is called the ‘pillar’ (methī) of the universe (14.1).In PB
13,9,17, methī is used of the post to which the milch cow and its calf are tethered. Usually,
however, the word denotes the pillar in the middle of the threshing ground, to which oxen
walking round it are bound, and in this sense the Bhāgavata-Purāna 4,9, 20ff. Connects it with
t6he mythical Dhruva, who is to become the pole star. The pole star was also conceived in this
way in ancient Rome (where Ursa Major was called septem triones ‘the seven threshing oxen’) and
among the Turkic and Chukchi nomads of Central Asia and northeast Siberia (who think of the
pole star as a post to which horses or reindeer are tethered). In India, as in ancient China, the
pole star as the firm centre around which everything else whirls is a symbol of royalty
(Mahābhārata14.15). The pole star as the ‘pillar’ of the universe consecration (14.1)
The asceticism (tapas, literally ‘fiery heat, glow’) of the Seven stages is seemingly in conflict
with sexuality, but actually purports to heighten their powers of creation: in Hinduism the seven
sages are the mental sons of the creator-god Brahma who actually carry out the creation of the
world. Indeed this same paradox ‘asceticism and eroticism’ is central to the mythology of Śiva
and his linga: Śiva is ‘permanently ithyphallic, yet perpetually chaste’ (O’Flaherty 1973). The
seed is synonymous with creative powers: spilling it means loss of power and energy; restraining
it means accumulation of power.
In the epic versions of the myth, as in the Śatapatha Brāhmana, the seven sages forsake
their beautiful wives, the Pleiades, because they all had intercourse with Agni (the Fire) or Śiva,
excepting Arundhatī, the faithful wife of Vasistha, who could not be seduced. In some variants,
the Pleiades (krttikah) bathe in the river Ganges at the spot where the fiery seed falls down; the
Pleiades become pregnant by it, or nurse the child who is instantly born of the seed, the
warrior-god Skanda-Karttikeya. Note the parallelism between the falling down of the fiery seed
and the falling down of the fiery phallus: we are dealing with two variants of one and the same
mythic complex.
This myth of kumāra-sambhava ‘the birth of the male child (the war-god Rudra, Skanda,
Kārttikeya)’ – as it is called in the title of Kālidāsa’s celebrated poem – is one of the very oldest
and most central myths in the entire Vedic and Hindu mythology. Its antiquity is demonstrated
above all by its connection with the seven sages and their wives: these mythological figures can
be traced back to Harappan seals and fireplaces, and they are centrally connected with the
naksatra calendar and its creation i.2300BC (11,3). In the next chapter we shall deal with various
aspects of this myth.
The Logic of Graphic Invention
As seen above early man was very conscious of his individuality and also had a profound sense
of self-esteem, which is many times found wanting in his modern descendants. Therefore,
whenever he added to his cultural repertoire, every care was taken to see to it that his creation
has the impress of his individuality and his culture. The Harappans have all through the relics
of their civilisation displayed great individuality and surprisingly precociously scientific attitude
even in the creation of the material culture not even once reminding their modern discoverers
of their past before coming to the Indus valley. The interdisciplinary work done by this author
has shown that the Asuras, who built the Indus civilisation were no doubt Mesopotamian by
origin. But when they left the Ferule Crescent, they had a clean break with their cultural past
and create a new civilisation in the Indus valley with some inherited cultural concepts and
practices which are traced in that study.
Creation of a New Script
When it came to the creation of a new script in the Indus valley, they did not imitate any of the
existing systems, the Egyptian hieroglyphic or the Sumerian pictographic It has been sand
above that the harappans were aware of the Egyptian hieroglyphic But they did not imitate that
system and create its replica. They created a new and original system of their own.
It is possible in penetrate into the logic of inventing the graphs which is the basic process in
script -creation. The script – inventors created the graphs by backing at the empirical world
reality Amongst them, there were some with very strong imagination and an eye for catching
the most characteristic or representative trait or feature of a given item, animate or inanimate.
So that by the discrete selection of the trait, the whole object was represented. The served
twofold purpose: one, of saving the effort to give all the details in the graph, which may be
called the process of abbreviation, still maintaining the identity with the original icon two, the
simplicity of the graph made it easy to remember and reproduce, for the newcomers. Thus this,
method of creation of graphs proved to be useful. Moreover the selection of the striking or
characteristic features set the graphs apart from those of other scripts, thus giving individuality
to the Indus graphs. As not all the details were reproduced, as for example was done in the
Egyptian hieroglyphs, the graphs assumed a somewhat enigmatic external look, which
concealed the original Icon. The conventionality woven into them had to be imparted to the
new learner. This in actually the reason why the script did not lend itself to easy decipherment.
The process is not stylisation, but it is rendering a concrete icon into a denoter. This
shortens the mage without losing the characteristic form. Using this single method, the
Harappan inventors of the script produced all the graphs. It is possible that the method was
imparted to the generations of the scribes, who when it came to adding of the new graphs, as
the strata at MID reveal, created new graphs which fitted with the earlier ones.
The icons used by the script inventors were the things they were going to enlist. There is a
very straight forward logic in the selection of icons. Since they were going to compute the
icons, they used the graphs, which were abbreviations of icons themselves thinking that good
enough. To this author, a directness underlies this decision which is both logical and practical.
In other words. These things were going to be accounted, reported, recorded, etc. and
therefore, the renderings of the things themselves, which consisted of commodities,
implements etc. were legitimately the beat possible graphs.
The Inner Logic
The principle or inner logic of the script-graphs is one single and it is that all graphs are closely
related to or rendered from their original icons in the and which retain an identifiable trait of
the original as in the case of fish, birds, humanoids, etc. and in others by a characteristic trait, as
in the case of grains, plants, quadrupeds, utensils, implements, etc. This principle was
consistently observed in the creation of new graphs and reveals the consistent and logical
thinking of the inventors. The script graphs when closely examined reveal that the scribes and
the carvers knew each graph intimately and there are no mistakes of careless writing. All graphs
are correctly and carefully drawn; the graphic shapes do not change or deteriorate, and script is
the same.
The inventors of Egyptian hieroglyphs also created their graphs from real life icons. So did
the Harappan inventors. But the similarity ends there. The next step is that the hieroglyphs
reproduce the icon in used them daily in their life. They derived the graphs from these originals.
No further proof is required.
In many cases, the graphs have been confirmed to beat scientific traits as for example in the
case of fish varieties, wild animals etc. This is the supporting evidence for the graphs and for
the accuracy of interpretation. Supporting evidence is the inductive proof. Since the graphs
were created out of the image /icon of the real thing, to derive the graph from the original
thing/item is to produce not only supporting evidence, but is to give the proof, as the thing is
traced back to the archaeologically known relics which are real. The use of these items in the
Indus civilisation is attested in the archaeological findings, therefore, they constitute the truth
and hence the proof.
 To find exact or closely resembling counterparts of the graphs in the archaeological material
is to find proof that such items were in use and the Harappans drew upon them to create the
graphs of their writing system.
In fact, since a script is not a natural phenomenon being studied by a scientist, its study is
based on the graphs and the archaeological background can yield supporting evidence which in
this case is the inductive proof. The frequent tracing back of the graphs to the items used by
the Harappans and found in their relics is proof enough for their being created out of them.
No other proof is necessary or can be enlisted.
In this case, finding the original items in the archaeological material is the hundred per cent
proof for the graph being derived from it.
Thus the icons from which the graphs are derived are not hypothetical objects, but true to
his objects which determines the meaning of the graphs as rooted in empirical reality.
The Objective of the Writing System
The creation of the script and underlying thinking gone into its creation now becomes
manifest. The script was created expressly for keeping records of trade and administration. It is
unlikely that it was used for any other purpose like longer literary compositions. The script did
not have the in-built capacity to face the language in all its grammar and nuances. It was
explicitly crated to make lists, without the ability to reproduce grammar of the language.
It was created out of the symbols derived from items used in daily life by its creators. The
symbols /graphs created by them were independent and new, not imitations of foreign scripts.
The system in which the graphs were organised was minimum, but it was also created by them,
they stuck to the rules laid down by them and did not at any stage try to expand the scope of
the script system by trying to accommodate the language. This was done by their Egyptian and
Mesopotamian contemporaries.
It the script is looked at with a desire to know the underlying thinking of the script –
inventors, in the first stage were created graphs for to weigh, count, give, divide etc. which
served as end graphs. Along with these the humanoid, animals, cattle, birds, pots, implements,
natural elements, etc. basic graphs were created from their icons. When the need for additional
graphs was felt, some abstract concepts, composite graphs by joining two graphs were created
e.g. ground + hoe = dig; ground/stone + hammer = to break a rock /stone etc. These two
graphs reveal the underlying thinking. They throw light on the method of creation of
composite graphs. This helped to keep the number of graphs low.
Not much grammar, in fact not at all, is found in the texts. If at all such graphs were used,
they would occur after groups of graphs. But no such graphs are to be found. The numerical
graphs occur with good frequency and work for us as phrase or word markers. No punctuation
marks are also used which follows from the nature of texts i.e. lists.
Bilinguals
Through all these pages, bilinguals have not been mentioned for two reasons: At the present
stage of our knowledge of the Indus civilisation, no bilinguals have been recorded. It is most
likely that they do not exist, were not even thought of by the script – users. Moreover, from the
beginning the absence of bilinguals was known and the present author knew that an
independent method has to be created based on the script data which will which will not
depend on or even look for bilinguals. It has been possible to do so. The supporting evidence
from scientific knowledge and archaeology have made the use of bilinguals redundant and
simultaneously created confidence and certainty in the interpretation.
Another question that is asked many times is about the language written on the seals found
in the Indus civilisation and those outside the Indus valley in Iraq for example. It appears that
the language of transactions is the same can be concluded from the following texts.
1851 (from Ur) cp 4614 (fromHarappa in which the words represented by
are minor features of the fish species. This turned out to be the secret principle used by the
script – inventors in their quest for new graphs. This is a kind of key which worked in the case
of most of the graphs and thus became the method which brought about a breakthrough. For
the first time since its discovery in 1919, the script started meaning something.
The principle of comparing the script graphs with the scientific species has two advantages:
The icons and their denotation is known in their real and correct form directly leaving no room
for doubt. Secondly, the widespread, almost universal application of this principle to the graphs,
besides bringing them under the same principle reveals to us the script – inventors’ actual way
of thinking and their systematic application of that principle.
As will be seen below, with this same method are identified marine and estuarine
invertebrates, cattle and quadrupeds, goats, birds, measures – dry & liquid, wild animals, staples,
numbers (decimals and units), anthropoids, and so on.
This has not been thought of by any of the earlier workers on this problem. And it is for
the first time, it has been done here. This very principle or method has been applied to as many
graphs as possible and almost all of them to our greatest delight, have yielded their meaning
and the original object from which they were derived by their inventors. They i.e. the script-
inventors tried to retain some very characteristic features from the object, which was in turn a
familiar object in everyday life. Most of them are natural things but the graph repertoire also
includes manmade objects or implements in it. This was indeed a very exciting discovery and
what is important, it is found to be universal applicable to most of the graphs, which also
means that this was the underlying principle, well thought out before the script inventors started
creating the graphs and executed meticulously. This is the reason why it has been possible for us
to identify it. Further it means that the script – inventors were familiar with the concept of
writing and were making a systematic effort to give a script to themselves. Their system will
become clearer when the graphs are discussed and their original icons identified.
Already two scripts were in use viz. Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Sumerian picture script,
though the latter had not then (i.e. 3000 B.C.) developed much. They were aware of both but
were using the former as their model. This can be said as both the hieroglyphs and the IS
adopted the original shapes of objects though in denoted stylised form. Whereas the
hieroglyphs used their original forms in all their details. Again they did not use this model
slavishly but merely borrowed the idea of writing and created their own system, quite different
from the hieroglyphic or the Sumerian. This becomes obvious when we see the number of
graphs. Hieroglyphs and cuneiform have hundreds of signs and in the former’s developed form
and elaborate system, of giving the sound/reading of the word and modifiers. The Harappans
have comparatively smaller number of graphs, which has reasons:
1. They did not think of relating the writing to language, as that concept was not born in
the world at all. This was done much later after 2000 B.C. when the Indus civilisation
after its Mature phase had received a set-back and was alive only partially.
2. The hieroglyphic system continued to function in its original form till A.D. 395. But at
least a millennium before that, north India had developed a new script viz. the Brāhmi a
syllabic script.
Fishes in the Water of the Indus Script
There are in the Indus script 10 graphs which are clearly drawn as fishes. They are treated here
as meaningful graphs by which is meant that the graphs bear shapes identifiable with real life
things with the same meaning. They clearly represent the fish varieties used by the Harappans as
both food and as a traded commodity. The graphs are

Out of these signs, 1&6 may be identical and perhaps also nos. 8&9. The Indus people were
real fish eaters. Eight different varieties of fish are recorded. The texts with simple fish graph
cover pp. 215-32 and total number of fish-texts cover from 215-64, 1nearly50 pages of the
Concordance. The biggest frequency of fish graphs occurs at MJD where they enjoyed eating
sea and fresh water fish. Harappa occupies second place. The fish varieties in demand were.

The most important thing to be noted is that there is an effort on the part of the inventors
of the script to clearly demarcate the varieties by adding different strokes. Taking these into
consideration and treating them as an advantage, it is attempted below to identity the species
according to the minor features added to the basic fish shapes. And surprisingly enough it has
been possible to identify the various species in the scientific literature and also, at least some of
them can be
This species resembles the photographs provided by Day under the name
stegostoma tigrinum, popularly known as Tiger shark. It is described as “colour white or
buff in the form of markings, the fish appearing black brownish with narrow white
lines or bands across the head or with more or less transverse bands of rounded spots.”
The horizontal line on the fish graph perhaps represents these white bands. Its habitat is
from Red Sea, East coast of Africa, seas of India to Malaysia and beyond, attains a
 length of at least 6. It is common at Madras Chennai on the Tamil Nadu coast. (See
Fig.1)

Fig 1
3. The addition of an arrowhead on the head of the fish has been found to be the most
important feature of this variety. It resembles very closely and also perhaps tries to
reproduce pictorially the special feature of this fish variety. Bal and Rao have
described it as ‘Arrow headed Hammerhead’. Day describes it as Hammer headed
shark/dogfish, Zygaena Malleus being the scientific name. It is a marine variety available
both on the eastern and western coasts of India. They also record two more varieties:
round headed hammerheads and squat-headed hammerheads. They identify it as a shark
widely distributed in tropical and subtropical and temperate waters of the seas around
the world Dried fins of sharks and rays used in making appear rising soups are much
valued in the export trade with the Middle Eastern countries. Of course, a
contemporary observation but could be equally applicable to earlier times ). Tiger sharks
and sand sharks are round off Mumbai and Sindh coasts. Sharks are valued for their and
oils.(See Fig.2)

Fig. 2
4. The picture as drawn in the Indus script of this fish species is distinctly, different from
others in that the body of the fish is squarish …… whereas other species are avoid in
shape. The fins form a continuous part of the body. The shape resembles that of the
genus called Pampus family out of which stromateidae has several species. The vertical
line on the body may be indicative of the species. Pampus argenteus P. Chinensis and
Apoplectic Niger are the three species available. The habitat of Pamphlet is described
by Bal and Rao as abundant in Gujarat and Maharashtra, and less in Kerala, Tamilnadu,
 Andhra and Orissa, as also in Persian Gulf, Pakistan, Malaysia and eastern seas. The
variety described by Chandy as Eormio Niger or Black pomphrer has a black line
cunning from the gills to the tail which may be indicated by the vertical line on the body
of the fish graph. Pomphret is highly valued by fish eaters for its delicate taste. (See
Fig.3)

Fig.3

There are several varieties of Pomphret of which three are well known: (i) Pampus
argeteus, (ii) Pampus Chinensis, (iii) Apolectis Niger, Pomphret can be white, gray, deep
brown or grayish brown. It is considered essentially a fish of south Indian and Arabian
seas, Malaya archipelago and China. But the depiction at Mohenjo-daro is very clear. It
may be of Stromateus niger which has a dark straight line from its tail to its grills, which
is indicated by a line across the body of the fish. It is possible that this fish variety was
imported from south to ancient Sindh.
5. This is the fish graph without any other special features being added to it. It is identical
with the fish type known as Labeo Rohita (Rohu) and identified in bones by Belcher
as Labeo sp. It is described as tropical and is found in Tropical Africa, Syria, throughout
the fresh waters of India. Ceylon, Burma, Particularly this species is found in Sindh,
Punjab, Deccan, Bengal, Orissa, and South India. Day informs us of a type called Labeo
Sindensis with two barbels (feelers) available in Sindh, Punjab, etc. Besides LabeoRohita,
several other species are found all over North India. Robu, as it is popularly known is an
Indian carp, with anclongafed body, with a moderately rounded abdomen. There are
(10)Number 10 is a barbelled variety and has four barbels which identifies it with
the sea catfish Tachysurus dussumieri abundantly on the Malabar coast, Bal & Rao say
that Tachysurus sona species is found in Pakistan, India-Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa-
Burma, etc. Tachyurus maculatus, can be caught in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc.
According to Day Arius has six barbels. Arius sago, sona, serratus etc. all have barbels and
two sets of fins. Arius serrarus is available in Sindh. Different species of Arius are found all
over India. (See Fig.6). It is described as body stout with broad snout blush along back, lighter
below. This is a commercially important fish as its flesh is relished as food in fresh and salted
conditions.

Fig.6
 It is thus obvious that the Harappans consumed large quantities of fresh water fish and also
marine fish and also marine fish. Varieties of catfish seem to dominate the fish varieties
available in Sindh. Of course two marine varieties viz. pomphret and sea catfish Tachysurus
sona were also eaten.
Thus there are at least nine fish varieties which form part of the repertoire of the graphs of
the IS. It is possible to identify them fairly correctly with the different species of fish from the
minor features depicted. This adds a scientific dimension to the creation of graphs by the script
– inventors.
Nine fish graphs is really a large number to be in a script-repertoire even if all may not have
been used all the time. This preponderance suggest not only the population’s preference for the
fish as a food item but it may have also been an important export trade commodity. To this may
be added the frequent mention of (Skt) Dāś, sailor, mariner, fisherman in the RgVeda as an
important section of Asura society who were rich and perhaps could exert some political
pressure on the Government. Thus the fish-trade was an important item in domestic economy.
Fishing was also a flourishing lucrative occupation, and possibly hundreds of citizens were
engaged in it.
It may even be that the export fish-trade may have been the first one to begin. The question
that poses itself is: Did the IS beginning in the context of flourishing and extensive fish trade?
and did it later develop, and embrace wider areas? An answer to this question will be sought in
the subsequent pages.
The Harappans did not confine themselves to the river and lake fishing. Dales and Kenoyer
confirm the coastal-interior trade of marine shells in the Indus valley. The Harappans are the
inventors of barbed fish hooks. They are recovered by Vats at Harappa and by Mackay at
Mohenjo-daro. Fish hook as a graph of the IS is attested. (See below) The use of nets is
attested in pottery paintings to obtain bigger quantities of catch. Hook and line fishing was also
practised as was spearing in the case of large fishes. The use of fish traps or small nets is found
represented in pottery paintings. Needless to point out, the existence of boars of several kinds
were in use in the Indus civilisation.
Belcher’s observations on trade and fishing industry support what has already been said
above. He says: “Based on the high numbers of individuals represented in the small areas
excavated as well as the large size of some of the individual fish, it is clear that an active and
sophisticated fishing industry was present during the Harappan period.”
As a last detail, the keenness of the script inventors to make it as realistic as possible may be
noted, which has been very helpful in identifying the various species depicted. The barbels of
catfishes have been depicted as The Arrow headed or Hammer headed shark is identified by
an arrow on the head. This introduces us to their way of thinking and their concept of
creativity.
In the hieroglyphic script of Egypt, there are two fish graphs…. Which, though
appear to differ from each other, are difficult to identify with distinct species.
 The second variety is identified as oxythynchus fish. So this can be said to illustrate the
special thought bestowed by the Indus script inventors to create a distinct script with distinct
graphs.
There are some fish graphs in the Sumerian” cuneiform script. But the IS has Probably the
largest number In Sumerian the three fish depictions, given by Anton Deimel” have three
specimens which stood for ‘spawn fish’ (fish with eggs). The IS has clearly studied depictions
relating to particular species because of which it has become possible to identify them.
Also called spiral gastropod (see Fig 19)
 Fig 19

(20)… gastropod bivalve with

a conch on the back?

(21) ….. Cylindrical shell

(See Fig 20)

Fig 20

(22) … Penaeus indicus, Prawn distributed on the east

Popularly known coast India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,

As prawn Malaysia, Indonesia, Philipines, New Guinea
and Australia.

(23)……. . River or canal, in short fresh

water molluses with small
animals inside.
(24)… . Shrimp with (a book))

(25)… crab Neptunus This is one of the larger species of crabs which
grows to about 180 mm. It has in all four pairs
of legs which is the most visible identifying
feature and is reproduced in the graph Its habitat
India. Sri LNKA,ETC. Frequency is very
sparse,compared to fish.
See Fig 21
1a This is a ligatured graph, the basic graph representing the Bos Indicus, The two
stroke ligature may represent a dual or a cow of the same species or another animal of bull
species.

2. This graph is distinctly different from the one discussed above. The shape of head is
triangular and the horns are drawn as extending from it. In the earlier graph the shape of the
head is oval and the horns are externally attached to it. Thus to the creators of these two graphs
the objects were distinct and this distinction is conveyed through these distinct traits observed
in the iconic objects. As seem above, Bos indicus was the iconic object from which the graph
was derived.
In the present graph, the species Bos gaurus represented, (see Fig 22) Mackay83 has
identified this species at MJD amongst the pottery figurines. He also differentiates the two
varieties, a long-horned species viz. Bos indicus and the short-horned. The species depicted in
the graph closely resembles the head of a bull Gaur hunted in Cooch Behar and illustrated by R
Lydekkar 84 S,H Prater,” considers this

Fig22

bull ‘The embodiment of vigour and strength’. Though Mackay dentes seeing the muscular
ridge upon the shoulder drawn in the bull on seals. Friedrichs identities this type as Bos gaurus.
Also Hindi has the word, gaur or gaurgai. However, a fresh examination of the seals (numbers
indicated by Mackay of short horned bull is being carved which he has already shown by the
body posture of the bull and especially his rounded horns though it is true that the ridge on the
shoulder is not shown which may be because of the head posture, which is lowered and shown
which lowering had flattened the slight curve on the back. However, a figurine of the same
animal is rounded horns and the ridge on the back. This seems to prove beyond doubt that Bos
gaur us was domesticated by the Harappans.
Another piece of evidence is the mention of Guar in the RV in several places. This author
has shown in her previous work that the authors of the Rgvedic poems were of Asura stock
who founded the Indus civilisation.
2a The graph probably represents a gaur Indian bison) caught from the jungle, and
brought under control by trying up with a rope harness.

This graph is the basic one for three others with modifications.
2b This graph is modified by adding a vertical stroke to its lower or left horn, indicating a
dewlap, which type of bull with a very big dewlap is depicted on several seals recorded at MJD
and as on the graph. The position of the dewlap is exactly below the horns as on the graph. The
folds of the dewlap run parallel to each other.

2c A modification of this graph has a vertical line running between the head and the
horns. It could indicate drooping ears of the wild bull.

These details leave little doubt the original icon of this graph being the gaura bull, which was
probably domesticated by the Harappans. However, it may also be of interest to note that wild
gaura bull is also mentioned in Vājnasaneyi-samhita.

3 The third variety of the cattle graph is differentiated by its straight horns Such straight
horns is the characteristic of the Gayal or (Gava, gaur) Mithan, Bibos frontalis. It is
characterised by its zebu closely matches with this graph. However, this identification of the
Gayal with this graph is not supported by seal-depictions Amongst the roughly made figurines
is a straight horned variety.

But in the RgVeda gavaya variety of bull is mentioned and along with the Gaura. It continues
to appear in the Samhitās, Brāhmanas and the Srauta-sūtras.

Fig 23

3a This is the same graph with a modification attached to it. It may represent a humped
variety of this same though no evidence can be offered for this.

6a This, by the depiction of its horns, may have been derived by the creators of the
script from the Kashmir stag or hangal, and hanghu (male) and Hindi Barasingha (big horned one).
The horns of this variety are drawn exactly as they are found on the animal.
 Its habitat is forest, living singly or in small groups. They roam around in groups, to find
good grasing. They shed their antlers between March and April and go uphill and assemble
about the snow-line.
They descend to the lower elevations in the early spring to feed on the new sprouting grass.
As the zoologists vouchsafe, the adult sambar, (see Fig 27) spotted deer, and hog-deer
normally have only three tines to each antler, So it is not impossible that all three types of deer
may also have been represented by this graph or also it could have stood only for deer-horn,
which are recorded in the hog-deer Cervus at MJD) by Sewell $ Guha.. They point out that the
hog-deer (Cervus porcinus) is an inhabitant of Sindh and the areas around the excavated sites.
But the other types are not known and only their horns are found.

Fig 27

6b Again the script-inventors have tried to create a new graph which is no doubt
related to the deer species. It seems possible that this may have been derived from Thamin
(Cervus eldi) or Brow antlered deer. The depiction of a three-pronged antler attached to the
head clearly indicates this type (See fig 27 a) The name Sangai contes from Manipur (Assam)
and Thamm itself from Burma which indicates the north-eastern and south-east Asian habitat
of this variety. The brow-antler trait is shared by it with the Swamp Deer.

Fig. 27 a
 Some doubts may be cast on the last-named type’s identification because of the long
distance involved. However, even in the very ancient times commodities required could travel
over long distances through direct and indirect trade involving many persons. So procurement
of most probably the horns of this type of deer from Assam or Burma need not be a fanciful
explanation.

It is suggested that a single graph may have represented the deer horn and probably its
import for medicinal use. Even to-day as per Ayurveda Sambar-singa is a recognised remedy for
external application to the injured body limb, and finding only horns, attests such a usage.
As far as the Harappan familiarity with the various species in archaeological evidence is
concerned, amongst the animal bones examined by Sewell and Guha, 110 four species of deer are
recorded. They are 1.Cervus porcinus,Hog-deer;2.Cervus axis, Spotted deer; Cervus unicolor, the sambar 4
Cervus Cashmeriants, the Kasmir stag or hangul.
The point raised by Sewell and Guha about the habitat of these animals, not being in Sindh
and Punjab, it is not necessary that they were part of the local fauna. As only horns and their
pieces are recorded, it is possible that only the horns were procured for medicinal use. However,
as the types of animals are clearly defined through their special traits, means that the script-
inventors were familiar with the animal’s physiology and hence could distinguish the types or
species. In fact, its appearance in the graph repertoire indicates it as a stored and traded
commodity.
As observation about the script may not be out of place here. The inventors created the
script graphs out of things which they were likely to list. Thus their pruned images were used
for directly representing them. It follows from this that they were bound to call these graphs by
the names of things. Thus the script is expected to contain the

(5) The graph was also probably derived from a sheep icon known as Bharal (Hindi) or
Blue sheep Alternative Hindi names are Bharat or Bharut. Prater thinks that the Bharal by its
structure and habits holds a place between sheep and goat. (See Fig. 28 a)

Fig 28a
 Its main characteristic is that its horns are rounded and smooth and curve-backwards over
the neck. This is mainly reproduced in the graph. The Bharal is found in the Himalayan range.
Prater considers it a mixture of goat and sheep. The graph represents a male.

(6) The graph Probably represents a wild goat, Capra ibex. The male ibex has a
conspicuous beard, and a cost of coarse brittle hairs. The curvature attached to the top
represents the beard. The horns are flat, and can differ in different races. Its habitat is in the
western Himalayan ranges which he beyond in Kashmir and Baltistan. Its eastern limits are set
by the upper reaches of the Sutlej river. (see Fig 29)

Fig. 29
The beard and horns are shown clearly. The head of the animal is identical with the
parallelogram on which are shown the horns. In reality the horns are long and curve backwards;
to draw them in their natural shape would have occupied large space, which is avoided. The
graph creators were Probably well aware of the limited space on a seal in which the message
was going to be accommodated. The ibex probably provided soft wooly under fur. It is rich,
soft and full, and has no comparison. The skin provides the best leather for sock like boots.
The Harappans were familiar with ibex from early times. A bronze figurine of ibex is
recorded by Mackay, besides two other figurines. It occurs on the seals only four times,
sometimes only by its head, The ibex occurs also in the pottery paintings. Ibex occurs also in
the pottery paintings ibex amongst the pottery painting motifs is also mentioned by Marshall,
who thinks as it is still found Kirthar Range to the west. This was a well know local animal.
It seems possible that the ibex spoken by Marshall is the Sindh wild goat (capra bircus), found
or the barren hills of Baluchistan and western Sindh, but not east or north-east of the Bolan
pass and Quetta. This is confirmed by its habitat described as the ‘arid hills of the Kirthar
Range’ by Prater. This species to a layman’s eye( like mine!) is similar to the Capra ibex but
described by Prater as of ‘smaller size’ In Sindhi, it is called ter, sarah and in Baluchi Pashin,
pachin, In English it is called Sindh lbex. (See Fig. 30)

Fig 30
 Its horns are tall but backwards, it has a dark beard and a short tail. Very likely that the
graph is derived from this wild goat capra bircus. It is important to note that mostly males have
been used for the iconic objects. slaughtered cattle’. The Indus graph-inventors have not
physically borrowed it but have invented it on their own. It occurs in one case along with the
tiger-graph. Thus the graph depicts the hide of cattle.(Chapter XL, 32)
Amongst the wild animals may as well be mentioned the reptiles:

(1) a tortoise2 a serpent which may be counted as meaningful graphs.

(1) Though the graph does not have a head and tail, still it is identifiable by its shape
and the four legs as that of a tortoise. No other detail can be added

(2) This graph is also meaningful in that the elongated and curved body without legs can
represent nothing but a serpent. It occurs only at MJD

(3) The graph occurs a few times along with its ligatured form.
Both these occur at MJD and have no parallels at Harappa. In one of the texts, Mackay,
(FEM) seal 206, it occurs along with another graph. The ligatured one is a part of a text. It
seems like a long necked animal, a quadruped and appears arbitrarily to be a camel when looked
from above.
The camel was known to the Harappans and was most probably domesticated by them.
Camel is the animal mentioned by Marshall amongst animals whose skeletal remains have been
excavated at MJD at a depth of 15 feet. Wheeler supports this further by citing its knowledge at
Khurab near Makran. Moreover Rajasthan as an arid region may have known camel Wheeler
confirms the domestication of camel at Harappa, but the graph does not occur at Harappa.

The other graph is a ligatured form.

(4) Five signs occurring mainly MJD appear, even on the first look, to have been derived
from the dog in both natural and stylised form. Dog is not a faunal exotica, only that its non-
appearance in the earliest levels especially at Harappa is rather surprising Also though five
graphs used they appear in different phases. It is more probable that they variants of a single
graph drawn by different scribes or Carvers with stylistic difference. In the area of MJD
excavated by Mackay except one, three other graphs seem to denote dog. In the level excavated
by Marshall, three dog graphs are found on seals, out of which two are stylised and one is in
natural form.
The graphs are:
1 (Mackay,313,527)

2 (Mackay,219,305)

3 stylised variety (Marshall, 544)

4 (Marshall,101)

5 Dog looking back (Marshall)

6 (Marshall,150)

7 This animal is rather difficult to identify but its

silhouette does resemble that of a dog. Vats mentions bi-jugate figurines at Harappa And
probably the graph depicts a violently barking dog whose head looks doubled, thus creating the
impression of violence in two dimensions.
The excavators have recorded several dog terracotta figures. For example, Vats records at
least ten figurines mostly on Mound F, and similarly does Mackay, But surprisingly the later
inventors of graphs have not thought of putting the dog-figure in the symbolic framework used
by them predecessors.
(5)… This graph is present from the oldest stratum at Harappa and is enigmatic. A very
important clue was furnished by its comparison with proto-Elamite tablet on which are drawn
horses donkies and carts. The animals heads up to their necks only appear there.
 (8) These two graphs denote the same thing with the second being more
elaborate. Both occur only at MJD. It seems that the graph is derived from a pitfall created to
catch bison (a wild bull). The bowl like shape is a deep ditch, at the top of which is spread some
grass to attract it. The animal is shown fallen in the ditch. The messages–rive in all-probably
keep an account of the rations of barley, fish, bipods paid to the catcher.
Vedic literature records the different devices used for catching wild animals. For example,
antelopes were caught in pit. Boar was captured in the chase by dogs. Gaura (wild bull) was
captured by shooting an arrow (of which a depiction is found on seals) or by means of ropes,
perhaps by a lasso (noosed rope of untanned hide for catching cattle etc.) or net. Lion was
captured in pitfalls or was surrounded by hunters and slain.

(9) This graph also depicts a pitfall with a wild bull fallen inside. The top of the pit
was probably covered with leaves. The message is a record of barley ration, probably paid to the
hunters.
Graphs and Their Iconic Originals: Bird etc. Representation
Introductory
In this chapter, further identifications of the graphs with their original icons are tried with the
basic principles laid down in the earlier chapters. It is of great significance that the same
methodology is applicable to almost all the graphs, indicating that this is the basic principle
along which the script-inventors worked in the creation of graphs, and that this is really the key
for the interpretation of graphs.
The Bird etc. Representations
In general, the bird shapes are easily identifiable as such in the graphs of the Indus script, as
they are in their near natural forms. Therefore besides the fish, they can also be called
‘meaningful graphemes’ meaning thereby that by looking at them the graphs can be recognised
to have been derived from the birds.
However, it is not just one species of birds or one bird that is used by the script-inventors.
When the graphs are carefully looked at, the differences in them are perceptible. However, they
are so small that the different species cannot be easily identified on the basis of perceptible
differences. In fact it is a very difficult and dangerous task, fraught with risk. So the
interpretations are to be treated as tentative.
There are in all eighteen graphs based on the birds. Curiously enough only three out of
them are used at Harappa whereas at MJD in the Mature Harappan levels fifteen bird graphs
are added which have no parallels at Harappa. The bird graphs occurring at Harappa are in the
earliest stratum(Str. VI)at Harappa, the fish graphs are frequent through only one bird graph
occurs in it, which is drawn very roughly, even crudely.
 Another bird graph probably identical with the first, occurs in Str.V, though it is now carved
vertically. In Str. II, the third graph containing a cluster of the bird graphs with fish occurs. All
these are single occurrences at Harappa.
The following graphs belong to this series:
Early strata at Harappa: (Seal nos. in bracket from Vats)

Later strata forms at Harappa:

These forms, just like other graphs seen above, are clusters, that is, composite or made by joining
two separate graphs:

Single graph indicating weight, weighting, counting etc.

Two graphs. = shares

weighed or counted.

Two graphs
Even in the non-humanoid form, the same graphs are combined together.

The dot between the legs of this form sets it apart and quite possible it may be for
indicating a grain measure.
Perhaps the differences in these forms indicate an ongoing evolution in the graphs. Because
of lack of proper stratigraphy, definite observations are somewhat difficult. But indications are
noted.
It is rather strange that a commercial advertisement of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs,
Food and Public distribution has for its logo a balance and a humanoid balance!(see Fig 43)

Fig.43
 To go back to the humanoid graphs listed above Out of these only eleven graphs

are common to Harappa and MJD, Whereas the rest occur only as MJD and that
too mostly once. Of course, the balance graphs are found at both the sites.
On the analogy of Egyptian hieroglyphic ‘occupation’ graphs, Hunter through the
Harappan humanoid graphs too represented occupations and functioned as determinants.
However, a comparison between these scripts, especially of the above type is not possible, as
the basic principles of the two script systems are different. On a closer examination it can be
seen that the human figures of hieroglyphic are nor occupations but man in diverse actions.
These graphs are thirty in number. However, the Harappan humanoids do deserve to be called
occupations especially as their clustered forms do denote some of the actions, probably
practised to earn a living.
However, the two scripts differ in that (1) the Harappan script has no graph for woman. (2)
Similarly, it does not use body parts amongst icons for graphs. (3) And the boldest step of this
script and more so of its inventors, is that not a single graph is found denoting god or goddess.
Thus it is completely secular. As has been so far seen, most of the graphs are derived from the
animals etc. they had around them. The total absence of a divinity graph may be purposeful, as
they did not see god as a traded commodity for which the script was intended to be used.
The Egyptian hieroglyphs have at least thirty-two graphs representing different body parts.
The absence of the above three items in the Harappan script is no accident, but it is the
outcome of consistent thinking and choice.
Below is offered a tentative identification

(1) Human figure without any other sign.

(2)

(3)”

(4) Official recovering tax in the form of grain (?) or granary in charge This
humanoid graph with a dot in the lower portion is quite enigmatic. It occurs in six texts. In one
text it is followed by a Wheat measure, in another preceded by number-graph, etc. It seems that
he probably was the tax collector, representing king or the ruler. He was hundred over wheat
honey and mullet (by way of tax).
24) A humanoid graph with the graph for hand drawn close on its body A weaver?

(25) The graph represents a man with barley head.

(26) The digger of ditches, house (foundations/floors etc. harrower? The little curvature
attached to his leg can represent the instrument, the spade, a wooden handle and a pointed
metal rod, which when reduced to two dimensions would look like The texts,34 in which the
graph occurs, suggest the interpretation.

(27) These two graphs are made by joining together a humanoid and the bull graph,
thus representing a cowherder.

(28) The graph represents a mollusk collector as it is created by joining together the
humanoid and the mollusk graph.

(29) Cow-milker. While milking the cow, the person has to hold the pot in his lap or two
legs, sitting in a crouching position. The crouching position is clearly represented here. The
graph can also represent potter who works in the same position.

(29 a) Though this graph resembles, no. 29,the human figure in this graph is standing on
some sort of stool which is depicted clearly. The context suggests that he may be fish rationer
/distributor/ auctioneer.35

(30)” Though this graph does not have the human sitting in a crouching position, it has the
pot and the graph and it is ligatured. Therefore, tentatively it may be identified as a ligatured
form of no 29.

(31) This may possibly denote a measurer of grains etc.

(32) Probably the graph represents a masked man.

(33) This graph is a ligatured form of no 32.

(34) Thus graph represents a humanoid with a hamper on his leg and hence it may
represent a captive.

(35) The graph represents a ligatured and reversed form of no 34.

(36 ) The graph has immortalised the small businessman, a hawker of herbs and such other
items with his ware tired up in thick cloth and placed on the head. The present author has seen
such hawkers in her childhood and perhaps they exist even now, in the rural areas.

(37) These two humanoids are Probably fishermen along with the net. They may also
represent palanquin-bearers.

(38) The graph draws very accurately a boatman in this boat.

(39) The humanoid is Probably wearing the tiger skin or any other hide, around its
shoulders.

(40) The graph may represent a fisherman with net.

(41) This may be a humanoid graph of a carrier of metal knives, chisel etc.

42) A humanoid denoting a bird-catcher with a net or a fisherman with a net.

(43-48) . This is a series of humanoid graphs which represent an important personage of

king’s stature. But these are variant forms of a single graph.

(49) The graph is a variant of the above, but probably represented a female counterpart
VIZ queen. The sense was obtained in the context of metal ornament worn by women.
The cartouche may indicate this sense.36

Though some attempt has been made to identify the humanoid graphs, it is true that the
interpretations are not very definite and sharp. The only excuse to offer these is that they can be
improved upon at a later stage. They may be treated as tentative. In the absence of a bilingual
and or other clues, this is the only way of proceeding towards a decipherment.

These graphs form part of the repertoire and are on the same level. They are not determinants
as in Egyptian hieroglyphics. They are ligatured just like other signs and their status is the same
like others, i.e. they are used as logographs.

Because the graph represents shell pieces for making bangles as well as beads, it is included
here.
 The graph represents the bells hung round the necks of the sheep, goats, and the
cattle, along with beads----round and barrel type. The bell graph is actually turned 180 around.
Now the bells are generally made of brass, a yellow metal, and they occupy the central position
in the beads strung round a goat’s neck by a metal chain or a string. Also the beads appear along
with the bells.

A pair of decorated bullocks.

Fig 44
The custom of decorating the cattle is still in vogue.
8) This graph is comparable with the graphs in cuneiform and hieroglyphs with the
ones indicating hills identified with a geographical area, country etc. From its distribution it
does not seem to have this sense here, but is probably derived from a collar or girdle for the
bullocks. It may have been decorated as is usually the case, with big and small bells, beads and
other ornamental items.
Mackay’s report of MJD has two fragments of bull figurines, both with such a decorative
collar round their neck. One has the design of a chain and the other is a chain of
parallelograms. Dog figurines are depicted with collars.(See fig 44)
Indians are in the habit of decorating the cattle with collars of beads bells, coverlets etc.
which expresses their fondness and affection for these animals who work for them. Beads
meant for these purpose, with a variety of colours, are specially produced and traded.

(9 ) The graph is rather difficult to interpret. It shares some sense with

which means piece or scarp. Altogether 32 texts have this another ten it is preceded by
number thirty and in four by unpounded wheat or barley
When preceded by fish, it seems to have a meaning similar to….. which may mean fish-
rings, pieces. This sense may be applicable to another text where the context of Xanthus
pyrum. In the other ten texts also this sense may have been meant, though the commodity
which is weighed remains unspecified. So in this case the graph itself may have conveyed or
borne the sense inherently. But to us it remains unspecified.
This brings us to the end of icons of graph derived from a variety of objects.
Preface
Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi, Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu created out of his personal
funds an endowment in his name for research in Classical Tamil. The endowment includes an
award, which is given to scholars for a lifetime contribution in different spheres, of research
relating to Dravidian art and culture. This year, the selection committee made a careful scrutiny
of 131 nominations received from scholars of eminence from various countries and it was
unanimously decided that the Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award for 2009 be
presented to Professor Asko Parpola, a distinguished scholar of international renown from
Finland, whose Contribution to advocating a Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem is
exceptional and acknowledged internationally as a work of great erudition. His conclusion, after
a lifetime of painstaking research in Indology, has led to the conclusion that the Harappan –
Indus script – that defied for long any attempt to read it ----does not belong to the Indo –
European family but to the Dravidian family of languages, the oldest of these being Tamil.
Several studies of inscriptions have been made recently to deciphere the Indus script but
Parpola’s conclusion seems the most convincing of all. His masterpiece Deciphering the Indus
Script (1994) is hailed a trailblazer in this area of study. His Concordance to the Indus Texts and The
Indus Seals and Inscriptions in two volumes have now come to be considered as indispensable
material for any research on Indus script.
The paper that Parpola presents at the World Classical Tamil conference “A Dravidian
Solution to the Indus Script Problem” succinctly summarises the work he has done so far,
besides showing the lead for further work. He feels confident that ‘an opening into the secrets
of the Indus script has been achieved’ and the ‘underlying language was Proto – Dravidian’.
The Central Institute of Classical Tamil feels honoured at undertaking the publication of this
loamed paper. It is hoped that this paper will serve as an eye-opener for laymen as well as for
those interested in culture studies while promoting scholarship in Tamil studies.
16.06.2010 S. Mohanan
Director
aȓuvar payanta … perum peyar muruka
ninn atiy –ulli vantanen
(Thirumurukarruppatai 255,269,279)
The Indus Civilisation and its forgotten script
Stone seals inscribed with an unknown script were obtained from Harappa in the upper Indus
Valley in the 1870s and 1880s. In the early 1920s. curiosity about their origin initiated
excavations at Harappa and 750 km away at Mohenjo-daro in Sindh.

Figure1. Discovery sites of Indus seals and inscriptions.(After CISI 2:448).

Immediately more seals of the same kind were found The Publication of these discoveries
turned attention to a few seals of the Harappan type that had come to light in Mesopotamia.
They dated the newly found Harappan or Indus Civilisation to the third millennium BCE.
Radiocarbon dating has fixed the duration of the Mature Harappan phase, during which the
Indus script was used, to 2600-1900 BCE. About 30Harappan seals come from the Gulf and
Mesopotamia, left there by sea-faring Indus merchants.
Since the 1920s, ceaseless archaeological research has revealed some 1500 Harappan sites in
Pakistan and western India. The Harappan realm in the Greater Indus Valley is one of the
earliest cradles of civilisation. Its urban culture is among the first four in the world to possess a
script of its own. Some 5000 short Indus texts from more than 50 sites are known today, and
much other data as well has accumulated. But the decipherment of the Indus script has
remained the most intriguing problem pertaining to this impressive city culture that initiates
Indian civilisation. The Indus script vanished together with the Indus Civilisation, which
collapsed many centuries before hymns composed in Vedic Sanskrit begin in the historical
period in South Asia around 1000 BCE.
The numerous unsuccessful attempts to understand the Indus script include a recent claim
that it is not a writing system based on language, but consists of non – linguistic symbols.
Similar misconceptions prevailed about the Mesopotamian Cuneiform script and the Egyptian
hieroglyphs before their decipherments. Extreme shortness of texts and their restriction to
seals, small tablets and pottery graffiti have been adduced as proofs for this thesis, but all these
features characterize also the Egyptian hieroglyphic script during the first 600 years of its
existence, Yet this early form of Egyptian script was real writing, and can be partially read on
the basis of later texts.

Figure2. Two-sign hieroglyphic inscription of c 3100 BCE, rendering the name of the Proto-Dynastic
King Narmer with the images of ‘catfish ‘(Egyptian n,r ) and ‘awl’ (Egyptian mr). Detail of Narmer’s
palette. (After Flinders Petrie 1953:K26.)
The high degree of sign standardisation, the arrangement of texts into regular rows, and the
presence of hundreds of recurring sign sequences from different sites all indicate that the Indus
script is real writing.
Most attempts to read the Indus script apply the unsuited method of comparing the Indus
signs with similar-looking signs of other scripts and transferring their phonetic values to the
Indus signs. This general error is often coupled with the mistake of deriving Brahmi from the
Indus script, though it is based on the Semitic consonant alphabet.
Preparatory Work
How then can the Indus script be deciphered? We may turn to successful decipherments and to
the history of writing for guidance. Most ancient scripts have been deciphered with the help of
translations into known scripts is virtually missing. Later Indian texts tell us nothing about the
Indus Civilisation. Contemporary cuneiform sources speak of the most distant land called
Meluhha, widely understood to denote Greater Indus Valley, but they offer little further
information. There is no related writing system to help with the Phonetic values of the Signs.
Nor is there any fair certainty of the underlying language. Which was a great advantage in
unraveling the Ugaritic and Mayan scripts. All surviving texts are very short and probably not
complete sentences but noun phrases. This naturally hampers grammatical analysis, as does the
absence of word dividers.
In spite of all the difficulties, there are some positive circumstances. One is the relatively
high numbers of preserved inscriptions. Collecting and publishing all available evidence reliably
and legibly belongs to the fundamental preparatory tasks that have proved useful in all
decipherments. This aim is being realised partly in the photographic Corpus of Indus Seals and
Inscriptions; its third volume has just come out.
Several versions of a standardised text edition in machine-readable from have been
completed, and a thorough revision is again being done. Computerisation has enabled the
compilation of concordances that systematically record all occurrences of individual signs and
their sequences, and various other indexes and statistics. Among the things to be standardised is
the direction of writing, normally from right to left and in seal stamps carved in mirror image
from left to right. Other routine tasks are location of word boundaries and search for possible
grammatical markers. One way to segment longer texts is to see if their component parts occur
elsewhere as complete texts.
A crucial but difficult task is the compilation of a reliable sign list, which distinguishes
between graphemes and allographs. The allographic variation constitutes one important basic
for interpreting the pictorial meaning of the Indus signs. Signs may represent in very similar
contexts. Based on these criteria, my sign list has very nearly 400 graphemes.
It is difficult to construct even parts of the Indus grammar on the basis of textual analysis.
The positional sequences of signs can be exploited to analyse the Indus texts syntactically, to
define textual junctures, and to classify the signs into phonetically or semantically similar
groups. Such analyses have been carried out with automated methods. Data accumulated in this
way will certainly be useful in decipherment once a decisive breakthrough has been achieved in
other words when the language has been identified and some signs have been read phonetically
in a convincing manner. But such analyses alone are unlikely to provide that breakthrough.
The Language underlying the Indus script
In the decipherment of any ancient script, there are two principal unknowns to be clarified,
namely the underlying language or languages and the type of the script.
The language problem is most crucial. If the language of the Indus script belonged to a
language family not known from other sources, the Indus script can never be deciphered. This
is clear from the case of Etruscan, an isolated language written in an easily read alphabetic
script. Etruscan can be read phonetically, but in spite of this is not much understood beyond
the texts covered by copious translations. But as the Harappan population numbered around
one million, there is a fair chance that linguistic relatives have survived and that traces of the
Harappan language can be found in the extensive Vedic texts composed in the Indus Valley less
than a thousand years after the collapse of the Indus Civilisation.
While it is likely that various minority languages were spoken in the Greater Indus Valley,
only one language was written. The sign sequences are namely uniform throughout South Asia.
This argument is reinforced by the Indus seals found in the Near East. Some of them have
native Harappan and some non-Harappan sign sequences.
One would expect that most frequently attested Indus sign would very often occur next to
itself, but this never the case in the Indus Valley. The combination is however attested on a
round Gulf –type seal coming from the Near East. The seal contains five frequently occurring
Indus signs but in unique sequences. This suggests the Harappan trade agents who resided in
the Gulf and in Mesopotamia became bilingual and adopted local names, but wrote their
foreign names in the Indus script for the Harappans to read. The cuneiform texts in fact speak
not only of a distant country called Meluhha, but also of a village in southern Mesopotamia
called Meluhha whose inhabitant had purely Sumerian names.
According to its inscription, one Old Akkadian cylinder seal belonged to “Su-ilishu,
interpreter of the Meluhha language”. This implies that the Meluhhan language different from
the languages commonly spoken and understood in ancient Near East, above all Sumerian,
Akkadian and Elamite. Near Eastern languages appear historically much less likely to have been
spoken in the Indus Valley than languages known to have existed in South Asia.
Because the origin of the Aryan languages is such a controversial issue, especially in India, it
is necessary to trace these languages back to their source, the Proto-Indo-European. The
location and dating of Proto-Indo-European too have been long debated, but a fair concerning
this problem is in sight. When the Proto-Indo-European-speaking community dispersed, its
language had a dozen terms related to wheeled vehicles. Wheeled vehicles were invented shortly
before 3500BCE in south-eastern Europe, from where they quickly spread to areas where the
principal Indo-European languages were later spoken.
Greek and Armenian are the closest linguistic relatives of Indo-Iranian, and the proto forms of
these languages are likely to have been spoken in the Pit Grave or Yamnaya cultures which
between 3300 and 3000 BCE spread with ox carts from North Pontic steppes eastwards to the
Ural mountains. The Eurasian steppes are the native and minor participation in the linguistic
convergence in South Asia, are also unlikely to have descended from the Harappan language.

Figure 3. Distribution of some Proto-Indo-European terms referring to wheeled vehicles.

(After Anthony 1995:557, fig.1.)
 The only remaining alternative among the well-known potential linguistic relatives of the
Harappan language is the Dravidian language family. The 26 Dravidian languages are now
mainly spoken in Central and South India.

Figure 4. The Dravidian languages and their subgroups. (After Krishnamurti 2003:18)
However, one Dravidian languages, Brahui, has been spoken in Baluchistan in the northwest
for at least a thousand years, as far as the historical sources go. In contrast to Burushaski,
Tibeto-Burman and Austro-Asiatic languages. which are very small minority languages in South
Asia, the Dravidian speakers until recently constituted one fourth of India’s population.
Loanwords from Dravidian have been identified from Indo-Aryan composed in
northwestern India around 1100-600 BCE. These six examples are from the earliest text, the
RgVeda (the capital letters are retroflex consonants.
Which did not exist in Proto-Indo-Iranian):
Mukham ‘face, front, mouth’ < PD *mukam ‘id.’
Khalam ‘threshing floor’ < PD* kaLam ‘id.’
kuNDam ‘pit’ <PD*paZam ‘ripe fruit’
kuNDam ‘pit’<PD *kuNTam ‘pit’
kaaNa-‘blind in one eye’,< PD *kaaNa ‘not seeing’
kiyaambu – ‘watery plant’ < PD *kiyampu ‘taro, aroid, Colocasia’.
 The retroflex consonants, a diagnostic feature of the South Asian linguistic area, Can be
divided into two ma groups. One of them is distributed over the Indus Valley and the Dravidian
–speaking areas.
In addition to the retroflex consonants, Indo-Aryan has several other structural features
that have long be interpreted as borrowings from Dravidian. Some of them exist at the earliest
level. Historical linguistics thus suggest that the Harappans probably spoke a Dravidian
language. With this conclusion we turn to the problem of script y)
The Type of Writing System Represented by the Indus Script
Recent American-Pakistani excavations at Harappa with meticulous stratigraphy have produced
new evidence the evolution of the Indus script. Pottery has scratched symbols since 3300 BCE.
Some of these post-marks because signs of the Indus script. Which was created during the final
phase of the Early Harappan period, between 280 2500 BCE. It is possible and indeed even
probable that the Early Harappans got the idea of writing through stimuli diffusion from the
proto-Elamites of the Iranian Plateau, but they did not copy the signs of the Proto-Elanute
script.Only few specimens from this formative period are presently available. During the Mature
Harappan period, the found developed script was used without much change at all major sites.
The script disappeared fairly soon after collapse of the Indus Civilisation.
Archaic Sumerian the oldest logo-syllabic writing, mainly consists of iconic word signs or
logograms occasion complemented with rebus-based syllabic signs which also initially expressed
“words”. Grammatical markers at first ignored in writing, but were gradually introduced with
the growing familiarity with phonetic signs and he ability to analyze language.
The logo-syllabic system demanded hundreds of signs. Devising the first syllabic scripts
became possible around 2300 BCE, when many syllabograms were already in use in the
cuneiform script. Logograms could now large eliminated. The Egyptian variant of logo-syllabic
writing, whose rebus puns ignore vowels altogether, enables even more drastic reduction of
graphemes. Around 1600 BCE, Semitic scribes in Egyptian-occupied Levant sta writing their
own language with just those phonograms of the Egyptian script that comprised a single
consonant.
Logo-syllabic scripts have hundreds of graphemes. Syllabic scripts manage with less than
100 and most alphabetic scripts with less than 40.
The number of known Indus signs is around 400, which agrees well with the logo-syllabic
type but is too high for the script to be syllabic or alphabetic. Word divisions are not marked,
but many inscriptions comprise only one two or three signs, and longer texts can be segmented
into comparable units. This is a typical word length in Sumerian type logo-syllabic script, while
in syllabic and alphabetic scripts many words require more signs. The Indus script was created
before any syllabic or alphabetic script existed, so all main criteria agree in suggesting that the
Indus script is a logo-syllabic writing system.
Methodology; The basic Decipherment Formula and Initial Clues
The prospects and methods of deciphering a logo-syllabic script without translations differ in
some essential respects from those of syllabic and alphabetic scripts. The syllabaries and
alphabets form closed systems that cover the entire phonology of the language, and can be
decoded as a systemic whole. In logo-syllabic scripts, there are many more signs, and the
phonetic bond between the signs is weaker. There is no chance of building such phonetic grids
as in the decipherment of Linear B. and a complete decipherment of the Indus script is
certainly not possible with presently available materials.
Most signs of early logo-syllabic scripts were originally pictures denoting the objects or
ideas they represented But abstract concepts such as ‘life, would be difficult to express
pictorially. Therefore the meaning of a pictogram was extended from the world for the depicted
object to comprise all its homophones. In the Sumerian script the drawing of an arrow meant
‘arrow’ but in addition ‘life, and ‘rib, because all three words were pronounced alike in the
Sumerian language namely ti. Homophony is usually language-specific and rebuses thus enable
language identification and phonetic decipherment.
Individual signs of logo-syllabic scripts may be deciphered if four conditions can
simultaneously be fulfilled: 1) the object depicted in a given pictogram can be recognised; (2)
the said pictogram has been used as a rebus;(3) the intended rebus meaning can be deduced
from the context (s); and (4) acceptably homophonous words corresponding to the pictorial
and rebus meaning exist in a historically likely known language. (Method demands strictness
with homophony; in the case of proto-Dravidian variation in the length of vowels and
consonants is allowed, but not much else.)
The iconic of the Indus signs thus constitutes one of the chief keys to their interpretation.
Unfortunately the
Pictorial meaning of most Indus signs is not clear. In some rare cases an iconographic
motif added to an Indus inscription can suggest the intended meaning of a sign. The scene at
the right end of one tablet from Mohenjo-daro (M,478) shows a human being who kneels in
front of a tree and extends a V-shaped object towards it. The person apparently presents
offering to a sacred tree in what may be a pot shown in cross-section. If so, the intended and

Figure 5 pot of offering in the text and iconography of the tablet M-478 from Mohenjo -daro. (After CISI
1:115.) Iconic meanings of the V-shaped sign in the text coincide, and it can be understood directly from
the pictogram. We need not know what the Harappan word for the depicted object was.

Figure 6 (offering of) “four pots of fish” on the tablet H-902 from Harappa (After CISI 2: 339.)
 The plain ‘fish’ sign probably has the intended meaning ‘fish’ on Indus tablets such as H-
902 B which seems mention offering of four pots of fish. In Mesopotamia fish offerings were
made in temples, in India fish and meat strong drinks were offered to goslings inhabiting sacred
trees. That the signs looking like a ‘fish’ really have this pictorial meaning is certified by the
Indus iconography, in which it is placed in the mouth of a fish-eating crocodile.
But if phonetic decipherment is possible only in cases where the rebus principles has been
employed, how can we locate such cases, and how can we deduce the intended rebus meanings?
These are certainly among the most difficult tasks. Contextual clues include the function of
inscribed artifacts. The vast majority of Indus texts are sea stamps and seal impressions. As with
iconographic clues, we can use for their interpretation parallels from else when Western Asia
and historical South Asia being most relevant.
A clay tag stamped with cloth impression on the reverse and with a square Indus seal on the
obverse comes from Umma in Mesopotamia. The Harappans, contact with the Near East
makes it highly probable that the Indus sea

Figure 7. The fish-eating crocodilian ghariyal with the ‘fish’

sign of the Indus script on the seal M-410 from Mohenjo-daro (After CISI 1: 98.)
inscriptions chiefly contain proper names of persons with or without their occupational or
official titles and descent, as do the contemporaneous Mesopotamian seal inscriptions.
Starting point: the ‘fish’ signs of the Indus script
In Mesopotamian and later Indian onomastic, names of gods are used to form personal names.
We can except to have theophoric components of proper names and of priestly titles in some
fairly large and uniformly distributed group of signs in the Indus seals.
Although Mesopotamian ECONOMIC texts often record rations of fish is NEVER
mentioned in Mesopotamian SEAL inscriptions. Yet the ‘fish’ sign, both plain and modified
with various diacritic additions, occurs so frequently on Indus seals that almost every tenth sign
belongs to this group. This suggests that at least in the Indus SEAL inscriptions, the ‘fish’ signs
denote something else than ‘fish’ and are used as rebuses.
The most commonly used word for ‘fish’ signs in Dravidian languages is miin, which has the
homophone miin meaning ‘star’. Both words may be derivatives of the root min ‘to glitter.’
of course, one must check that the words in assumed readings are represented in more than
one subgroup and can be reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian. In addition, the hypotheses must
be checked against script-external evidence. Do the proposed interpretations make sense in the
Harappan context, and with regard to the later South Asian tradition, and the Mesopotamian
contacts?
There is some external evidence supporting the proposed Dravidian rebus reading of the
‘fish’ sign. The motifs fish and star co-occur on Mature Harappan painted pottery. Tamil
speakers, who call these two things with the same word, have imagined the stars to be fish
swimming in the ocean of night sky.
Additional support for reading the ‘fish’ sign as a rebus for ‘star’ is the absence of a sign
depicting ‘star’ from the Indus script, although the ‘star’ symbol is painted and incised on Early
Harappan pottery. The omission of a ‘star’ pictogram from the script is understandable as an
economic measure, as the ‘fish’ sign covers the meaning ‘star’ as well.
The rebus meaning ‘star’ suits the expected meaning ‘god’ as a component of proper names
in seal inscriptions. Whenever a god or goddess is mentioned in cuneiform texts, the pictogram
of ‘star’ is prefixed to the name as its determinative, to indicate that what follows is divine. In
the Sumerian script, the ‘star’ pictogram means not only ‘god’ but also ‘sky’. ‘Star’ is thought to
have originally been an attribute of the sky-god An. With An as the leading divinity of the
Sumerian pantheon, his symbol would then have started to mean ‘god’ in general. Astronomy,
including the use of a star calendar, played an important role in ancient Mesopotamia, and
deeply influenced the religion: all the main gods were symbolised by particular stars or planets.
In the Near East, the ‘star’ symbol distinguished divinities even in pictorial representations.
Significantly, a seal from Mohenjo-daro depicts an Indus deity with a star on either side of his
head in this Near Eastern fashion.

Figure 8. A seated deity with stars on either side of the head on the seal M-305 from Mohanjo-daro
 The ‘fish’ signs could well have been parts of Harappan proper names, for ever since Vedic
times people in India have had astral names derived from their birth stars. There are indicates
that this kind of name-giving is of non-Aryan origin.
Methodology: checking and verifying
The hypotheses can and must be subjected to script internal checking in the manner of cross-
word puzzles. One cannot overemphasize the importance of this operation. If we apply exactly
the same assumptions and methods of interpretation to signs associated with an interpreted
sign in a compound sign or in a recurring sign sequence, do we get sensible results? If yes, these
provisional results If yes, these provisional results must be subjected to further external
checking. Are the posited compound words actually attested in Dravidian languages and not
mere imagination? Particularly important is Old Tamil literature, the only ancient Dravidian
source not much contaminated by Indo-Aryan languages and traditions. Interlocking of
consistent readings with each other and with external linguistic data and clues constitutes the
essence of all decipherments.
Compounds formed with ‘fish’ signs and Indian Mythology
The numerals belong to those few Indus signs whose function and meaning can be deduced
with fair certainty, partly from the fact that they consist of groups of vertical strokes, which is
the way numerals are represented in many ancient scripts, partly from their mutual
interchangeability before specific signs, including the plain ‘fish’. Reading the sequence ‘6’ +
‘fish’ in Dravidian yields the Old Tamil name of the Pleiades, aṟu-miin literally 6’stars’. Note that
the numeral attribute precedes its headword in the Indus scripts as it did not Proto-Dravidian,
but by no means in every language of the world.
“7” +’fish’ corresponds to the Old Tamil name of Ursa Major, eZu-miin. This sequence
forms the entire inscription on one big seal from Harappa (H-9).

Fig 9. The Sequence of sings deicing ‘seven’ and ‘fish; these two sings form the whole inscription of the
large seal H-9 from Harappa. (After CISI 1 166)
 In Mesopotamia big dedicatory seals were sometimes presented to divinities. The stars of
Ursa Major have since Vedic times been identified with the ancient “Seven Sages”. These
mythical ancestors of priestly clans play an important role in early Indian mythology.
Because the Pleiades constitute the first constellation of the Vedic star calendar, its heliacal
rise at the vernal equinox is thought to have marked the beginning of the New year. Thus and
the position of the marking stars in the sky dates the calendar to the twenty third century BCE
and suggests its Harappan origin. The Vedic people did not inherit the calendar from the Indo-
Iranian tradition but adopted it in India. Vedic texts prescribe the kindling of sacred fires under
the Pleiades, because the Pleiades now have the Fire God Agni as their mate. We are told that
the Pleiades were the wives of the Seven Sages, but are now precluded from intercourse with
their husbands, who divorced them. Therefore the Pleiades now rise in the east, while the Seven
Sages (that is, the stars of Ursa Major) are in the north. The Fire God Agni mentioned as the
mate of the Pleiades apparently represents the young vernal sun, whose conjunction with the
Pleiades started the New Year.
Later Sanskrit texts tell the myth in more detail and in several variant forms. According to
them, the Fire God Agni (or the great ascetic god Siva) seduced the Pleiades in the absence of
their husbands, the Seven Sages. They were divorced. Only Arundhatii, the faithful wife of Sage
VasiSTha, could not be seduced. She could remain as the star Alcor with her husband, the star
Mizar of Ursa Major (see fig.13)
This is really one of the central myths of the Hindu religion. In a Puranic version, God Siva
seduced six of the wives of the absent Seven Sages in their Himalayan hermitage. The Sages
cursed Siva’s phallus to fall down. The phallus started to burn the world and stopped only when
the Sages placed it on a vulva-shaped platform and worshipped it with cooling water –libations.
This is how the cult of Siva’s linga or phallus originated. Śiva, one of the greatest gods of
Hinduism, has mostly the phallus as his cult icon since the earliest historical times. Śiva’s Vedic
predecessor Rudra is thought to be of non-Aryan origin. In Vedic texts, Rudra is
euphemistically called Śiva ‘benign’ and equated with the Fire god Agni as is Śiva in the Pleiades
myth.
Banyan fig and the pole star
One recurring sign sequence with the plain ‘fish’ sign as its latter member begins with a sign
whose iconic meaning seems to be’ fig tree’. Can we here too have a Dravidian astral term?

Figure 10 The seal M-414 from Mohenjo-Daro. The normal direction of writing, from right to left, is that
of the impression; in the original seal stamp, the text has been carved in mirror image. (After CISI 3. 1:
409)
Figure 11 Allographs of the Indus sign (no 123) representing a three-branched fig ’tree’ and of its ligature
with the ‘ crab’ sign (no.124), where the middlemost branch has been omitted to accommodate the
inserted ‘crab’ sign. (After Parpola 1994:235.)
The iconic interpretation as ‘fig’ is based on a comparison with Harappan painted pottery. In
the script, the fig tree is shown as three-branched, just as on the painted pottery, except when
another sign is placed inside it; then the central ‘branch’ is omitted. In the combined sign, the
branches end in fig leaves as they do on the pained pottery, but in the basic sign with less space
the fig leaves are simplified, and one or two down –going lines are sometimes added beneath
the leaves on either side; in some variants three or four such lines replace the leaves altogether.

Figure 12 A painted goblet with the ‘three-branched fig tree’ motif from Nausharo ID, transitional phase
between the Early and Mature Harappan periods (c.2600-2550 BCE). (After Samzun 1992: 250, fig. 29.4
no.2)
The ‘three-branched fig tree’ motif occurs on Harappan pottery from the Early through the
Mature to the Late phase. In one variant from the time when the Indus script was created, four
strokes are attached to either side of the middle stem. They are similar to the strokes of the
Indus sign, except for their upward direction, which may be due to the direction of the two
lower stems. The strokes seem to represent the air-roots of the banyan fig.
 The rope-like air-roots are characteristic of the banyan fig, Ficus bengalensis or Ficus indica.
This mighty tree is native to South Asia and does not grow in the parts where the Indo-Aryan
speakers came from. A post-Vedic Sanskrit name for the banyan fig is vaTa.
This is a Dravidian loanword, ultimately derived from Proto-Dravidian vaTam meaning ‘rope
or cord’. As a name of the banyan fig. vaTam is short for the compound vaTa-maram, ‘rope-tree’,
which is attested in Tamil. VaTam ‘banyan’ has a Proto-Dravidian homophone vaTa ‘north or
northern’. This yields the expected astral meaning to the sign sequence ‘fig’ + ‘fish’. vaTa-miin
‘north star’ is attested in Old Tamil as the name of the star Alcor in Ursa Major.
In Old Tamil texts, vaTa-miin is a symbol of marital fidelity and this star is pointed out to the
bride as an object of emulation during the wedding. Originally vaTa-miin probably denoted the
pole star, which in the third millennium was the nearby star Thuban. The pole star is the
‘immobile’ centre of the rotating heavens, and called in Sanskrit dhruva, ‘fixed, firm, immovable,
constant’. It is a fitting symbol of firm fidelity, and indeed in Vedic marriage ritual the pole star
is pointed out to the bride as a model in addition to Arundhatii.

This interpretation explains in a new way some peculiar cosmological conceptions. In the
first place, the Sanskrit texts mention the banyan fig as the tree of the northern direction.
Omony my connects the banyan with north in Dravidian, but there is no such linguistic
association in Indo-Aryan languages. Secondly, in reply to the question, why do the stars and
planets not fall down from the sky, the texts say that the heavenly bodies are bound to the pole star with
invisible ‘ropes of wind’. In Dravidian vaTa-miin as the name of the pole star also means ‘rope – star’
and ‘banyan – star’.
Around 1000 BCE, a late hymn of the RgVeda (1,24,7) speaks of the roots of a cosmic
banyan tree being held up in the sky by God VaruNa.
The Vedic and Hindu texts repeatedly refer to heavenly fig tree. This conception seems to
be reflected on an Indus tablet, which depicts an anthropomorphic deity inside a fig tree. At
bottom the fig tree is flanked on either side by a star. They suggest a heavenly connection for
the tree.
Identifying Murukan’s name in the Indus texts
If the Harappan language was Dravidian, the Old Tamil literature assumes great importance in
the study of the Indus religion. It is the only source granting us glimpses into the culture that
prevailed among Dravidian speakers before their language and traditions became much
contaminated with Indo-Aryan languages and traditions.
The principal native deity of the Old Tamil pantheon is a youthful god of war and love, in
many resembling the North Indian war-god Skanda and early on explicitly identified with him.
This god has various native Dravidian names, but the most important is Muruku or Murukan,
which means ‘youth, youth man’. Skanda’s Vedic predecessor Rudra is represented as a newborn
baby and called in Sanskrit Kumaara, ‘young boy, young man’, an exact synonym of Murukaṉ.
Both Vedic and epic myths of Rudra’s or Skanda’s birth mention the Pleiades, in Sanskrit
krttikaah, as the mothers or nurses Rudra or Skanda, whose metronym therefore is Kaarttikeya;
in late Old Tamil and Medieval. Tamil texts Murukaṉ is called aṟu-miiṉ kaatalaṉ ‘son or beloved
of the Pleiades’. Both Murukaṉ and Rudra-Skanda are connected with the colour red and the
rising sun. One reality behind the myth of Rudra’s birth seems to be the sun’s heliacal rise in the
Pleiades, which marked the beginning of the New Year.
It seems possible that Murukaṉ and Rudra-Skanda are both descended from a Proto-
Dravidian deity and that this god is mentioned in the Indus inscriptions. But how to locate his
name or names in the texts if we cannot read the script? The most reliable clue seems to be his
association with the Pleiades, because the Pleiades can be identified in the Indus texts: their Old
Tamil name aṟu-miiṉ ‘six – star’ corresponds to the sign sequence ‘6’ + ‘fish’.
One particular context where ‘6’ + ‘fish’ occurs is a seal from Mohenjo-daro (M-112). The
first three signs of this seal possibly denote an epithet. They recur in this same order in one
other text only, another seal from Mohenjo-daro (M-241). The first sign has here a variant
shape. In passing I would like to introduce here an interpretation of this sign not included in
my 1994 book. It seems to depict the traditional Indian spinner’s spindle, i.e. the instrument
used to spin threads from cotton. The cotton-cultivating Harappan must have had the spindle.
In Proto – Dravidian spindle was called *katir. which is homophonous with the root *katir’ ‘to
shine, be radiant’, often occurring in Old

Figure 15.The seal M-112 from Mohenjo-daro and its modern impression. After CISI 1:40.)

Figure 16. The seal M-241 from Mohenjo-daro its modern impression. (After CISI 1:60.)
 Tamil poems in connection with Murukan, who is associated with the rising sun. The sun is
called in Old Tamil katir k-kaTavul, ‘radiant deity’.
In any case, the two first signs both occur very infrequently, which makes their co-
occurrence in these two texts significant. Therefore, the immediately following sequence in the
second seal, the signs ‘two intersecting circle’+ two long vertical strokes’, may be a name of
Murukaṉ, because it corresponds to a sequence in the first seal that includes ‘6’ + ‘fish’, i.e, the
name of the Pleiades. The identified sequence occurs very frequently in Indus inscriptions and
some contexts strongly suggest that it refers to a deity. For example, it occurs on the observe
side of amulets whose reverse sides show an anthropomorphic deity sitting on a throne,
surrounded by a kneeling worshipper and a snake on either side. In South India, Murukaṉ is
associated with snake cult.
If the sign of ‘two intersecting circles’ expresses an ancient Dravidian name of Murukaṉ, or
a part of his name, the most obvious choice is Old Tamil muruku, ‘young man’, which has
cognates in many South and Central Dravidian languages.

Figure 17ab. The obverse and reverse (b) of the faience tablet M-453 from Mohenjo-daro.
(After CISI 1: 111.)
This word has an exact and ancient homophone, whose meaning strikingly fits the form of
the pictogram involved, namely muruka, ‘ring, bangle’ derived from the Dravidian verbal root*
mur V ‘to bend or to be bent’, be curved, turn around, surround, enclose’.) The idea of ‘ring’,
of course, could be expressed by means of a single circle, but this could be interpreted in
various other ways as well. But ear-rings are usually worn pairs, one in each ear. This pictorial
interpretation of the sign of ‘intersecting circlers’ is supported by its formal identity with a
symbol that in the traditional Tibetan Buddhist art represents royal ear-rings. The sign could
also depict the ear with its ear-ring.
Muruku and the bangle cult

Besides ‘ear-ring’ the word Muruka in Dravidian languages denotes ‘arm-ring, bangle’. The
meaning ‘bangle is endorsed by the disproportionally high frequency of the 40 more inscribed
Harappan’ stoneware’ bangles. Several of these bangle inscriptions in fact contain nothing but
the sign of ‘intersecting circles’ It is not unusual for ancient inscriptions carved on various
objects to mention the name of the object concerned, especially when given as votive offerings.
These stoneware bangles were manufactured with a very difficult and expensive process, and
they must have been prohibitively expensive. This is suggested by the fact that the saggars in
which these bangles were heated were carefully sealed and stamped to prevent stealing. On a
votive bangle, this pictogram could denote the Dravidian word muruka not only in the sense of
‘bangle’ but also in the sense of a ‘boy child wished for by the donor of the votive bangle. The
homophony alone could make a bangle an appropriate gift in sympathetic fertility magic. But is
there any factual evidences for such a usage?
The bangle has a strong association with pregnancy in many parts of India. During
pregnancy and childbirth, the mother and baby are both in great danger of being attacked by
demons. In Tamil Nadu, in the fifth or seventh month after the conception of the first
pregnancy, the expectant mother is ritually adorned with bangles and blessed by older women.
The bangles symbolize an enclosed circle of protection. Bangles and rings are connected with
pregnancy not only as protective amulets but also as charms effecting reproduction. Such a
practice is attested as early as around 1000 BCE, in Atharvaveda 6,81 a three-versed hymn
addressed to pari-hasta, ‘bracelet’ literally ‘what is around’ the arm’. The bracelet is fastened
upon a woman ‘intending that she shall beget a son’, as a charm that drives off the demons,
opens up the womb and brings an embryo into it. In Indian folk religion, pregnancy bangles are
offered to tree spirits or hung on sacred trees. William Crooke reports that at Allahabad, near
the tomb of a Muslim saint, is. “a very old, large Champa tree (Michelia champaka), the branches
of which are hung with glass bangles. Those anxious to have children come and offer the saint
bangles. 7,11,13,21,29; or 126, according to their means and importunity. If the saint favours
their wish the Champa tree snatches up the bangles and wears them on its arms.” (William
Crooke, Religion and folkore of northern India, 1926,p 417)
 In Karnataka, bangles are similarly offered to Hindu goddess Ellamma (a form of Dhurga)
by woman wishing to become pregnant. This widespread folk custom is likely to go back to
Harappan traditions. The deity standing inside the fig tree in a famous seal from Mohenjo-daro
wears bangles on both arms. The seven anthropomorphic figure at the bottom of this seal
wearing their hair in the traditional fashion of Indian women, are likely to be female and to
represent the ‘Seven Mothers’ the Pleiades, famous as child-granting and child-killing goddesses
like their son Skanda.
Several Harappan tablets illustrate worshippers kneeling in front of sacred trees and
presenting offerings to them.
The Buddhist Jaataka texts show that such worship of trees especially to obtain children,
was an important part of early historical folk religion, and tree spirits continue to be among the
principal divinities that the Indians approach for getting children. In Bengal, the goddess SAS
Thii who presides over childbirth is worshipped under the banyan tree in the form of a cat
made of rice paste, and bangles made of rice paste are presented to her. Thus it does not seem
farfetched to read the sign of ‘intersecting circles’ on Harappan bangles as Dravidian muruku
and to understand it to denote ‘bangle’ as well as ‘boy child’ and the proper name of the child-
granting divinity, himself the divine child par excellence. Even today In Tamil Nadu, many
couples desiring a male child make a pilgrimage to a famous shrine of Murukaṉ and, after the
birth, name their son after the god.

PiLLai ‘Young’ as an attribute or the squirrel and of Muruku

The sign of ‘intersecting circles’ is three times (on a seal from Nausharo, M-1202 and H-771)
followed by a complex sign, whose pictorial shape can be understood on the basis of a seal
from Nindowari It depicts the five-striped palm squirrel, which is found everywhere in the
Indus Valley and is represented among the Harappan animal figurines. In the Indus sign the
animal is represented with its tail up and head down and its four feet cling to a long vertical
stroke that can hardly represent anything else than a tree. The creators of the Indus script have
tried to secure the identification by depicting the animal pose, for “in cool weather, the
squirrels…. hang head down in the sun on the vertical trunk of a tree for periods”. (T.J
Roberts, The mammals of Pakistan 1977, p. 228).
 Figure 21. The squirrel sign of the Indus Script engraved on the seal Nd-1 from Nindowari.
(After CISI 2: 419)
In Tamil, the striped palm squirrel is called aNil or aNil + piLLai, In the latter expression, the word
PiL ‘child, infant, son, boy’ as well as ‘young of animals and trees’. In the case of the squirrel, parrot and
mon word PiLLai is added to the basic word in order to form an affectionate deminutive, and the word
PiLLai alone refer to the animal concerned. This Tamil usage of piLLai in the meaning ‘squirrel’ goes
back Dravidian, for Central Dravidian preserve cognates of piLLai meaning ‘squirrel’. This word is
similarly the various names of the god Muruku to form affectionate variants that are popular as male
proper names Tamil, and these names include Muruka-p-piLLa. Thus the compound sequence we are
considering, ‘into circles’ and ‘palm squirrel’, is matched by an actually attested Tamil compound.
Murukan’s name and the planet Venus: a case for cross-checking
Another possibility for verifying the reading muruku is to try and interpret the sign of ‘two long vertical
which is frequently post fixed to the sign of ‘intersecting circles’. Actually this sign makes a double cross
possible, for it also often precedes the plain ‘fish’ sign.

Figure 22. Obverse of the moulded tablet H-723 from Harappa.(After CISI 2:319.)

Figure 23 The seal H-669 from Harappa, flipped to show the signs as
they would appear in an impression. (After CISI 2: 310.)
 How can we read the pictogram of ‘two long vertical strokes? Such a simplified symbol
lends itself to pictorial interpretations, and it would be difficult to decide which of them, if any,
is correct But the tentative real for ‘two intersecting circles’ and ‘fish’ enable a different
approach. We can collect, first, all actually affected comp names of the god Murukaṉ that start
with the word muruku, and secondly, all actually attested compounds den either stars or fish
which end in the word miiṉ. We are looking for two Dravidian compounds in which the mis
component X (muruku-X and X min) is the a same. If such a shared member should be found in
these two limited groups of actual compounds, the solution can be further tested by asking
whether its meanings (s) will adequacy explain the pictorial shape ‘two long vertical strokes’.
To start with the name of the Old Tamil war-god, the best match for the sequence is the
compound Muri. veeL. The component veeL occurs in the same position in several other names
of Murukaṉ as well: besides Ka veel. Occurs in the same position in several other names of
Murukan as well besides KarveeL and Kumara-veeL, in which the first members Kanta and Kumara
are derived from Sanskrit Skanda and Kumara, Murukaṉ is often called in Old Tamil Ce-v-veeL.,
with Dravidian *ke-‘red’. VeeL ‘desire’ even occurs alone as the name of Murukaṉ, who is not
only the god of war but the god of love and sex as well.
From Murukaṉ’s name we now turn to astronomical terms. The word for ‘white’ with the
widest distribution in Dravidian languages is veL, a close homophone of Murukaṉ’s name VeeL.
The compound veN-miin (<veL+ miin) ‘white (or bright ) star’ is known from Old Tamil as the
name of the planet Venus, the brightest star of the morning and evening sky. The noon veLLi,
derived from the root veL ‘to be white or bright’, denotes ‘Venus’ in several Dravidian
languages, and the compound veLLi-miiṉ occurs in Tamil.
The phonetic shape veL/veeL has thus emerged as the shared component X in the
compounds Muruku-X and X-miin. This intended meaning of the sign ‘two long vertical
strokes’ is homophonous with Proto-Dravidian veLi ‘open or public space (in general)’ and
‘intervening space’, i.e. the atmosphere between heaven and earth (Sanskrit antarikSa).
‘Intervening space, atmosphere’ could be the pictorial meaning of the sign, for on the basis of
various other evidence it seems likely that the sign consisting of three long vertical strokes
denotes the three worlds’. Another attested meaning for veLi is ‘space between two furrows’ in
ploughing, which also fits well the ‘two long vertical strokes’.
Additional cross-checking
The sign ‘two long vertical strokes is used in the Indus script not only as an ATTRIBUTE of the
‘fish’ pictogram, namely in the compound ‘two long vertical strokes’+ ‘fish’ = veL/ veLi+ min
‘white star’= ‘Venus’, but also as a SYNONYM of the ‘fish’ sign. The synonymous usage can
be observed by comparing two inscriptions. M-172 and H-6.

Figure 24. Impressions of the seal M-172 from Mohenjo-daro (After CISI 1: 50.)
 Figure 25. Impression of the seal H-6 from Harappa. (After CISI 1: 162)
The two signs the plain ‘fish’ and the ‘two long vertical strokes’, both occur a s the second
member of a compound after one and the same first member. Identity of meaning is suggested
by the fact that both compare embedded in the Same context, which includes the preceding as
well as the following sign. The matter is complicated by the fact that three graphemes in this
sequence of four signs have variant forms (allographs) in the two inscription.
It is striking that this double usage of the ‘two long vertical strokes’ happens to agree
with the semantics of word veLLi, which offer yet another support to this interpretation of the
sign ‘two long vertical strokes’. In Tamil least, veLLi means not only ‘Venus’, but also ‘star’ in
general. Two renderings for English ‘star’ in Chetti English-Tamil dictionary are viN-miiṉ and vaaṉ-
veLLi. Here the words viN and vaaṉ, both meaning ‘sl have been prefixed to miiṉ and veLLi
‘star’, in order to avoid confusion with homonyms, such as miiṉ ‘fish’, word veLLi meaning ‘star’
also occurs in other compounds as a synonym of miiṉ. Thus both viTi-veLLi and miin are used
in Tamil for ‘the star of the dawn, Venus’( the first member veTi / viTi means ‘to drawn, break
as day’).
Future Prospects
Thus there is a fair number of consistent rebus interpretations which interlock with each other
and will extern linguistic and cultural data to an extend that excludes chance coincidences.
These readings have been achieved we strictly adhered methodology which is in full agreement
with the history of writing. Methods of decipherment, a historic linguistics. Including the
comparative study of Dravidian languages. The reading are based on reasonable identification
of the signs pictorial shapes. Moreover, the results make good sense in the framework of
ancient Indian cultural history and the Harappa context, and they keep within narrow limits:
fertility cult connected with trees a central Hindu myth associated with astronomy and time-
reckoning and chief deities of Hindu and Old Tan religion.
 For all these reasons, I am confident than an opening to the secrets of the Indus script has
been achieved know that the underlying language was Proto-Dravidian and we know how the
script functions. The confirmed interpretations and their wider contexts provide a lot of clues
for progress, but there are some serious difficulties or the way. One is the schematic shape of
many signs, which makes it difficult to recognise their pictorial meaning with certainty.
Possibilities of proposing likely reading and their effective checking are severely limited by our
defective knowledge of proto-Dravidian vocabulary, compounds and phraseology.
I hope that at this stage scholars who speak Tamil and other Dravidian languages as their
mother tongue will actively participate in this exercise and develop it further. The problem of
the Indus script resembles to some extent that of the logo-syllabic Maya script. Where advance
was phenomenal once native Mayan speakers were trained in the methods of decipherment.
Laymen, too, can make useful contributions in suggesting possible pictorial meanings for the
Indus signs, and here there is no need to be a Dravidian speaker-but good acquaintance with
the realities of Indian culture and South Asian nature is definitely an advantage. All such
suggestions that hopefully will be forthcoming from Tamil people could perhaps be
coordinated by the Indus Research Centre established by Dr Iravatham Mahadevan at the Roja
Muthiah Research Library at Chennai. Perhaps the Centre might make them available in the
internet.
What I have presented here, and many other aspects of the Indus script not mentioned
here. including further interpretations based on the same premises and supporting the above
results, are available with full documentation, references and illustrations in my book Deciphering
the Indus script (1994) and in other publications by myself and my colleagues, detailed in the
following bibliography (otherwise only the sources of the illustrations published here are given;
for fairly comprehensive bibliographies concerning the Indus script in general, see CISI and
Parpola 1994 and 2005).The paper which I present later in this conference deals with some very
recent developments.
Bibliography
Anthony, David W. 1995. Horse, wagon and chariot: Indo-European languages and archaeology. Antiquity 554-
565. Beer, Robert, 1999. The encyclopedia of Tibetan symbols and motifs: Test and illustrations. Boston: Shambha
Carpelan, Christian, & Asko parpola 2001. Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-Europeans, Pro
Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. p55-150 in: Carpelan, Christian, Asko Parpola & Pett
Koskikallio (eds). Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and archaeologic
considerations. (Memories de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne, 242.) Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.
CISI= corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 1: collections in India, edited by Jagat Pati Joshi & Ask Parpola,
1987. 2: Collections in Pakistan, edited by Sayid Ghulam Mustafa Shah & Asko Parpola, 1991,3: N material,
untraced objects and collections outside India and Pakistan, edited by Asko Parpola B. M. Par& Petteri
Koskikallio, Part 1: Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, in collaboration with Richard H. Meadow & J. M Kenoyer,
2010; Part 2 All sites, in preparation. (Annales Academiac Scientiarum Fennicae B/H 239, 240, 35 Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Flinders Petrie, W. M. 1953. Ceremonial slate palettes. British School of Egyptian Archaeology, vol.66, London: British
School of Egyptian Archaeology.
Koskenniemi Kimmo 1981. Syntactic methods in the study of the Indus script. studio Orientatiolia 50: 125-13 Koskenniemi,
Kimmo & Asko Parpola 1979. Corpus of texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and Africa studies,
University of Helsinki, Research reports 1.) Helsinki.
......... 1980. Documentation and duplicates of the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African
Studi University of Helsinki, Research reports 2.) Helsinki.
......... 1982. A concordance to the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies, University
Helsinki, Research reports 3) Helsinki.
Koskenniemi, Seppo, Asko Parpola 1970. A method to classify characters of unknown anciscripts. Linguistics 61: 65-91.
......... 1973, Materials for the study of the Indus script, 1: A concordance to the Indus inscriptions. (Anna Academiae
Scienntiarum fennicae, B 185.) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju 2003. The
Dravidian languages. (Cambridge language surveys.) Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Liebert, Gosta 1969. “Beitrag zur Frage des Polarsterms in der altindischen Literatur.” Orientalia Suecana 17: 155-
170.
Parpola, Asko 1975. “Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
of Great Britain and Ireland 1975 (2): 178-209.
......... 1975. “Isolation and tentative interpretation of a toponym in the Harappan inscriptions.” Pp. 121-143 in:
Jean Leclant (ed.), Le déchiffrement des écritures et des langues: Colloque du XXIXe congrèss International des
Orientalistes. Paris: L’ Asiathèque.
......... 1975-76 “Sanskrit kâla-‘time’ Dravidian kâl ‘leg’ and the mythical cow of the four yugas.” Indologica
Taurinensia 3-4: 361-378.
......... 1981. On the primary meaning and etymology of the sacred syllable Ôm. Studia Orientalia 50: 195-213.
......... 1981. On the Harappan ‘yoke-carrier’ pictogram and the kâvaDi worship. Pp. 2.73-89 in: M. Arunachalam
(ed.) proceedings of the Fifth International Conference-seminar of Tamil studies, Modurai-Tamilnadu-India, January 1981,
Vol.1 Madras International Institute of Tamil Studies.
......... 1983. “The pre-Vedic Indian background of the Śrauta ritual.” pp. 41-75 in: Frits Staal (cd.)Agni: The vedic ritual
of the fire oltar, II. Berkeley Asian Humanities press.
......... 1984. “New correspondences between Harappan and Near Eastern glyptic art.” Pp. 176-195 in: Bridget
Allchin (ed.),South Asian Archaeology 1981.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
......... 1985. The Sky-Garment: A study of the Harappan religion and its relation of the Mesopotamian and later Indian religious.
(studia Orientalia, 57.) Helsinki: The finish Oriental Society.
......... 1985. “The Harappa “priest-kings” robe and the Vedic târpya garment: Their interrelation and symbolism
(astral and procreative).” Pp. 385-403 in: Janine Schotsmans & Maurizio Taddei (eds.), South Asian
Archaeology 1983, I-II (Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento di studi Asiatici, Series Minor, 23)
Naples Istitution Universitario Orientale
......... 1986. “The Indus script: A challenging puzzle.” World Archaeology 17 (3): 399-419.
......... 1986. “The size and quality of the Indus seals and other clues to the royal titles of the Harappans.” Tamil
civilisation 4 (3-4) 144-156.
......... 1988. “Religion reflected in the iconic signs of the Indus script: Penetrating into long-forgotten picto+
graphic messages.” Visible Religion 6: 114-135.
......... 1988. “The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dâsas.” Studia
Orientalia 64: 195-302.
......... 1990. “Astral proper names in India: An analysis of the oldest sources, with argumentation of an ultimately
Harappan origin.” The Adyar Library Bulletin 53: 1-53.
......... 1990. “Bangles, sacred trees and fertility: Interpretations of the Indus script related to the cult of Skanda -
Kumâra.” Pp. 263-284 in: Maurizio Taddei (ed.) South Asian Archaeology 1987,1. (Serie Orientatale Roma, 66:
1) Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.
......... 1991. On deciphering the Indus script Pp. 188-197 in: Michael Jansen. Máire Mulloy & Günter Urban (eds.)
Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilisation in Pakistan from the 8th to the 2nd millennium B.C Maniz: Verlag Philipp
von Sabern.
......... 1992. “The “fig deity seal” from Mohenjo-Daro: Its iconography and inscriptions.” Pp. 227-236 in:
Catherine Jarrige (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1989. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.
......... 1994. “Deciphering the Indus script: A summary report. Pp. 571-586 in: Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio
(eds.).” South Asian Archaeology 1993, II. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series B. 271 2)
Helsinki: suomalanien Tiedcakatemia.
......... 1994. “Harappan inscriptions. An analytical catalogue of the Indus inscriptions from the ancient Near
East.” Pp. 304-315& 483-492 (bibliography) in: Flemming Højlund & H. Hellmuth Andersen, Quala at-al
Bahrain 1: The northern city wall and the Islamic fortress. (Jultand archaeological Society Publication 30:1) Aarhus”
Jutland Archaeological society.
......... 1994 Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
......... 1996. “The Indus script.” Pp. 165-171 Peter T. Daniels & William Bright (eds.) The world’s writing systems.
New York: Oxford University Press.
......... 1997. Deciphering the Indus script: Methods and select interpretations. Keynote address delivered at the 25th Annual
South Asia Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 18-20 October 1996. (Occasional
Papers Series, 2.) Madison: Centre for South Asia, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
......... 1997. “Dravidian and the Indus script: On the interpretation of some pivotal signs.” studia Orientalia 82: 167-
191.
......... 2002. “Pre-Proto-Iranians of Afghanistan as initiators of Śâkta Tantrism: On the Scythian/ Saka affiliation
of the Dâsas, Nuristanis and Magadhans,” Iranica Antiqua 37: 233-324.
......... 2003. “Sacred bathing place and transcendence: Dravidian kata(vuL) as the source of Ondo-Aryan ghâT,
tîrtha, tîrthankara and (tri)vikrama.” Pp. 523-574 in: Olle Qvarnström (ed.), Jainism and early Buddhism: Essays
in honor of padmanabh S. Jaini, I-II. Fremont, California: Asian Humanities Press.
......... 2004. “From archaeology to a stratigraphy of Vedic syncretism: The banyan tree and the water buffalo as
Harappan Dravidian symbols of royalty. Inherited in succession by Yama VaruNa and Indra, divine kings of
the first three layers of Aryan speakers in South Asia,” Pp. 479-515 in: Arlo Grififths & Jan Houben (eds.)
The Vedas: Texts language and ritual (Groningen Oriental Studies, 20.) Gronigen: Egbert Forsten.
......... 2005.” Study of the Indus script.” Proceedings of the International Conference of Eastern studies 50 (2005) 28-66
Tokyo The Tôhô Gakkai.
......... 2005. “The Nâsatyas, the chariot and proto-Aryan religion.” Journal of Indological Studies 16 & 17 (2004 2005):
1-63.
......... 2008. “Writing in India”. pp. 2320-2325 in Selin Helaine (ed.), Encyclopedia of the History of Science, Technology
and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. 2nd ed Vol 2 Berlin: Springer Verlag.
......... 2008. “Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?” pp. 111-131 in: Airavati: Felicitation volume in honour of
Iravatham Mahadevan. Chennai: Varalannu com http/ www com/ script/Indus script pp. 132-139 in Eric
Olijidam & Richard H Spoor eds) Intercultural relations between South and southwest Asia: studies commemoration of
E C.L During Caspers (1934-1996) BAR International Series 1826 OXFORD Archacoppers
......... 2008 proto-Indo-European Speakers of the Late Tripolye Culture as the Inventors of Wheeled Bley Vehicles
Linguistic and archaeological considerations of the PIE homeland problem. pp. 1-59 in: Karlene Jones-Bley
 Martin E Huld Angela Della Volpe & Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceeding of the Nineteenth Annual UCIA
Indo European Conference November 2-3, 2007. (Journal of Indo-European studies Monograph 54) Washington DC
Institute for the study of man.
......... 2009 (in press). “The Indus script as a key to the Harappan language and religion: Methods and results of a
limited decipherment.” Harizons: Seoul Journal of Humanities 1.
......... 2009. “The face urns of Ghandhâra and the Nâsatya cult.” PP 149-162 in: Michael Willis (Gen. Ed.),
Migration, trade, and peoples (European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, proceedings of the
Eighteenth Congress, London 2005) Part 3: Aryans and nomads, edited by Asoka Parpola. London: The
British Association for South Asian studies, The British Academy.
......... 2009. ‘Hind leg’+ ‘fish’ Towards further understanding of the Indus script Scripta 1: 37-76
......... 2010. The Indus script Harappan Dravidian and the wild ass. Paper presented at the World Classical Tamil Conference in
Coimbatore, 23-27 June 2010.
Parpola, Asko Dorian Q fuller & Nicole Boivin 2007. “Comments on the incised stone axe found in Tamil Nadu
in 2006 and the claim that it contains an inscription in the classical Indus script.” Pp. 13-19 in: OSADA
Toshiki Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human past. ( Occasional Paper 2.) Kyoto, Japan: Indus Project Res
Institute for Humanity and Nature.
Parpola Asoka & Juha Janhunen 2009. “On the Asiatic wild asses (Equus hemionus & Equus kiang) and vernacular
names.” Pp. 423-466 in: P.M Kozhin, M.F. Kosarev & N.A Dubova (red.), Na putti otkrtsivilizatsii: Sbornik
statej k 80-letiyu V.L Sarianidi. (Trudy Margianskoj arkheologicheskoj èkspedisii, to Sanki-Peterburg: Aleteia.
Parpola, Asko, Seppo Koskenniemi, Simo Parpola & Pentti Aalto 1969. Decipherment of the Proto-Draw inscriptions of the
Indus Civilisation: A first announcement (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian studies Sp Publications, 1.)
Copenhagen.
......... 1969. Progress in the decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Indus script. (The Scandinavian Institute of Studies, Special
Publications, 2.) Copenhagen.
......... 1970. Further progress in the Indus script decipherment. (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian studies sj) Publication
3.) Copenhagen.
Parpola, Asko,& Simo Parpola 1975. “On the relationship of the Sumerian toponym Meluhha and Sanskrit,” studia
Orientalia 46: 205-238.
Parpola, Päivikki 1988. “On the Synthesis of context-free grammars.” Pp. 133-141 in: Matti Mäkelä, Seppo Linnai
and Esko Ukkonen (eds.) STeP-88 (Finnish artificial intelligence symposium University of Helsinki 15-18 1988)I.
Helsinki.
Parpola, Simo, Asko Parpola& Robert H Brunswig, Jr. 1977. “The Meluhha village: Evidence of acculturate
Harappan traders in late third millennium Mesopotamia?” Journal of the Economic and social History Orient 20 (2):
129-165
Samzun Anaick 1992. “Observations on the characteristics of the pre-Harappan remains. Pottery and artifi
Nausharo, Pakistan (2700 2500 BCE) pp. 245-252 in: Catherine Jarrige (ed.).” South Asian Archaeology
(monographs in world Archaeology) Madison, Wisconsin prehistory Press.
The main purpose of this paper is to present a new systematic analysis of all known copper tablets from
Mohenjo-daro and to underline the special significance of this category of inscribed objects for the study of the
Indus script. At the end of the paper, I deal with the problem concerning the creation of the Indus script.
Definition of ‘copper tablets’
In this study the term ‘copper tablets’ is reserved for flat tablets made of copper which have (or
originally had) an inscription or iconographic motif engraved or painted (with red or white
paint) on either side. Such tablets are only known from Mohenjo-daro. They are to be
distinguished from copper tablets which are made by casting and have inscriptions in relief –
few of which are known from Mohenjo-daro and Harappa – and from metal (silver) stamp
seals with intaglio text and iconography. The tablets are either square or rectangular, the length of
one side varying between 12 and 39 mm and the thickness between 1 and 6 mm. 7
The Material and Previous research on copper tablets
In the first official excavation report of Mohenjo-daro, Ernest Mackay mentioned 80 copper
tablets, of which only 22 were illustrated in drawing due to their poor state of preservation
(1931, ii: 398-401, Pls. 117.1-16, 118.1-6). Hunter’s edition and study of the Indus inscriptions
that were available in 1927 contained drawings and data for 37 copper tablets (1934: 26-28, Pls.
III, IV.24-61). In his report on the successive excavations at Mohenjo-daro, Mackay published
another 22 copper tablets, again only in drawings (1938: 363-369, Pls. 93.1-14, 103.1-7, 12).
In January to May 1971, I examined Indus inscriptions in the museums of India and
Pakistan and discovered hundreds of previously unpublished texts, among them copper tablets.
These were included in the computer generated concordance to the Indus inscriptions
(Koskenniemi, Parpola & Parpola 1973). Similar research was carried out in the museums of
India in 1971 by Mahadevan for his computer edition and concordance (1977).
Our museum work inspired Pande to write an article on the copper tablet corpus in the
National Museum of India and in the Central Antiquities Collection of the Archaeological Survey of India,
as well as the 43 tablets published by Mackay in 1931 and 1938. Presented at a symposium held
in1972, his article contained drawings and descriptions of 123 tablets, arranged by their
provenance within Mohenjo-daro (Pande 1973). In this article, which unfortunately contains
numerous inaccuracies,8 Pande presented a typology of the copper tablets based on the
inscriptions on the obverse side. He distinguished 19 types of inscriptions and tabulated the
iconographic motifs and Indus signs on the reverse sides.
Independently of Pande, I presented an analysis of 205 copper tablets in a symposium held
in 1973 (Parpola1975).9 The present study is to be considered an update of that analysis.
In his book on various Harappan copper objects, Yule provided accurate drawings, detailed
descriptions and an analysis of 137 more or less legible copper tablets, as well as a catalogue of
18 quite indistinct copper tablets (1985: 32-45, Tables 17-26). 10
The first volume of the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, edited in 1987 by J.P. Joshi and
myself, contained photographs of 110 copper tablets from Indian collections,9 of them with a
quite indistinct design. Some basic data – such as the excavation and museum numbers – was
also provided. Volume 2, edited by S.G.M. Shah and myself in 1991, contained photographs of
127 copper tablets from Pakistani collections, 13 of them indistinct. The two volumes comprise
237 copper tablets, of which 22 are illegible. In her doctoral dissertation on the glyptics of
Mohenjo-daro, Franke-Vogt (1990) deals with 262 copper tablets. Due to their poor
preservation, however, she was only been able to identify the motif on 141 of them. For her
analysis she was able to use the unpublished Sind volumes of the photo archives of the
Archaeological Survey of India, as well as the (mostly unpublished) field registers of the Mohenjo-
daro excavations.
The present paper is based on all the published information and on autopsy copies made of
the objects in various museums.
Relation between the Text and Iconography
The Indus inscriptions carved on the stamp seals are likely to express the names and/or titles
of the seal owners. Although these inscriptions are mostly accompanied by some iconographic
motif – usually a naturalistically represented animal – generally there does not appear to be a
direct11 relation between the two (Mackay 1938: 363). One of the most interesting and
important features of the copper tablets is the clear interrelation between the inscription and the
accompanying iconographic motif that prevails in this object category.12 This was as early correctly
concluded as by Mackay (1931: 400): “The fact that all of the tablets bearing the representation
of a hare have the same inscription – different, however, from the inscription on the hare
tablets... – , suggests that in some cases at least the inscription on the tablet refers in some way
to the animal on the tablet. Of three tablets, each with an elephant engraved upon it, all bear
the same inscription...”.13 It is very clear that there are many groups of identical copper tablets,
and that often (a part of) the inscription on the obverse side or the iconographic motif on the
reverse is enough to predict what is engraved on the other side.
In the accompanying table I have included only copper tablets whose typological
classification I consider certain, regardless of their actual state of preservation – in some cases,
relatively few traces of the Indus signs or the motif will suffice [Fig 1a-b]. Some of the
remaining tablets could have been assigned as uncertain additional examples to the determined
46 classes, but I have preferred to exclude them from the analysis together with the completely
illegible ones.
Instead of showing all duplicate tablets, as was done by Pande and Yule, I present for each
type only the original text of the inscription on the obverse and the text or iconographic motif
on the reverse as it can be reconstructed from the extant examples. Their frequency is indicated
in the right upper corner. Tentative reconstructions are indicated by broken lines.
Typology
The copper tablets appear to have been cut to definite sizes. Three classes can be distinguished
according to size and shape (Mackay 1938: 368):14
A= square tablets (N=34); average measurements:15
26.6 x 26.5 x 3.5 mm
B= rectangular tablets (N=144); 33.8 x 26.5 x 3.5 mm
C= long and narrow (rectangular) tablets (N=39);
33.0 x 24.0 x 3.0 mm
Within each class, the next sorting criterion is the inscription or iconographic motif on the
reverse. The inscription on the obverse is the other diagnostic criterion. The addition of
another (upper) line of inscription on either the obverse (as in A3, B15 and B17) or on the
reverse (as in A1 and B12), or the reversed direction of writing in the inscription(s) (as in C4
and C5) distinguishes subtypes.
The Iconographic Motifs
Because opinions differ as to what the different iconographic motifs represent, it is necessary to
specify my own interpretations:
 A1: A backwards looking deer with branching horns.
 A2: A backwards looking human-faced and buffalo horned composite animal with the
body of a deer (cf.A1) and a snake for a tail; there is a star in both loops of the horns,
and a branch of some plant in the middle of the horns.
 A3: The ‘endless knot’ (in Near Eastern and later Indian art, formed by two snakes).
 B1: ‘Unicorn’ with a manger (instead of the usual ‘cult object’).
 B2-B3: Zebu bull16 with a manger.
 B4: Water buffalo with a manger.
 B5: Rhinoceros with a manger.
 B6: Elephant with a manger.
 B7: Hare with a bush.

B8-B9: The markhor-goat (or a composite animal consisting of the horns and tail of the
markhor and the head and body of a ‘unicorn’ bull, with a kidney shaped figure in the
forepart of the body: cf. B1).17
 B10: A composite animal with two front half ’s stuck together, with the horns of a zebu,
the head of a tiger
  (?) and the front body of a ‘unicorn’ bull.
 B11: A composite animal with the horns of a markhorgoat, the head and front part of a
camel, and the back part of a water buffalo.
 B12: A tiger with the horns of a zebu.
 B13: A composite animal with the horns of a zebu, the head and front part of a tiger,
and the back part of a water buffalo.
 B14: A composite animal with the horns of a zebu, the head and front part of an
elephant, the back part of a rhinoceros, and a snake for a tail.
 B15-B16: A composite animal with the horns of a urusbull,18 the head and the forepart
of a dog,19 and the
 back part of a rhinoceros; in front of this animal stands a manger.
 B17-B18: The head20 and neck of a camel; the body of a rhinoceros; and a horned
snake for a tail.21.
 B19: A human-shaped archer (with a bow in the left hand and three arrows in the right
hand) having
 goat-like elongated eyes, horns (of a zebu?), a plait of hair behind the head, a long tail,
and a body covered with hair or a dress made of hides, leaves, or feathers.
 C1: The ‘shield’ or ‘double-axe’ motif.

C2-C10: All the remaining reverses bear signs of the Indus script. 22
It is striking that while the reverses of the most common, rectangular (B) tablets never
show inscriptions but only iconographic motifs, Indus script predominates on the reverse of
the two remaining types, both square (A: 8 out of the 11 main types) and longish rectangular,
particularly the latter (C: only 1 type out of the 9 where the reverse is legible has an
iconographic motif, the rest have script).
Pictorial bilinguals’
In Fig. 1a-b certain types have a thicker frame than the others. Each of these is linked to
another tablet type through an identical inscription, normally the inscription on the obverse
consisting of at least three but often many more signs.
The corresponding type is indicated in the right lower corner. Type B12 is exceptional for it
is the inscription on the reverse – itself a rarity – which links it with B6. This is also the only
case in which inscriptions of the rectangular (B) type are in this way interrelated; in all other
cases identical inscriptions connect an iconographic motif of the reverse (A2 and B1, B5, B7,
B9, B10, B19) with an inscription on the reverse (C4, C1, A11, C2, C5, A7, and C6
respectively).23 Usually the inscription on the reverse – which is linked with a particular
iconographic motif – consists of a single Indus pictogram (A11, C2, C4, C5 and C6), a longer
sequence is quite rare (A7 and C3). One of the individual pictograms, viz. the one occurring in
both C5 and C6) is connected with two different iconographic motifs, i.e. the markhor-goat (B9)
and the horned archer (B19).
I have suggested that these interrelations between specific Indus signs and specific
iconographic motifs provide extremely valuable clues to the meaning of these Indus signs. In
my opinion one can even consider them ‘pictorial bilinguals’, since in these cases, the iconographic
motifs appear to express pictorially the same thing that the corresponding Indus signs express in writing: both
seem to symbolise particular Harappan divinities. The mythical nature of the animals is
suggested by the fact that many of them consist of parts belonging to different creatures. The
religious function of the copper tablets implied by this hypothesis is in agreement with the
following considerations about their purpose.

Fig. 1a: An analytical classification of the copper tablets from Mohenjo-daro by Asko Parpola.
Drawn by Mrs. Virpi Hämeen-Anttila. © 1992 by APand VHA.

Fig. 1b: An analytical classification of the copper tablets from Mohenjo-daro by Asko Parpola. Drawn by Mrs.
Virpi Hämeen-Anttila. © 1992 by APand VHA.
The Purpose of Copper Tablets
Normally, the texts of the copper tablets have been engraved or painted positively, i.e. the way
they were meant to be read, from right to left. Two types, however, have the text written in the
reversed direction, from left to right (C4b and C5b). It is therefore clear that the copper tablets
were not meant to be used as stamp seals, for which the writing is normally engraved negatively
so as to yield a positive impression. What then was the purpose of the copper tablets? I am
inclined to agree with Mackay (1931: 401), who thought that the copper tablets “were probably
used as amulets, wrapped up in some material and worn round the neck or wrist, or sewn to the
clothing. This would account for the rough finish of some of them, for if worn in this way they
would not have been exposed to view. It is possible that the possession of one of these amulets
placed the wearer under the special protection of the deity whose particular animal was
engraved upon it”. We must bear in mind the great numbers of duplicate copper tablets and
remember that the copper tablets are part of the major category of Indus texts called ‘tablets’.
Some of the other tablets therefore must be briefly considered.
The ‘miniature tablets’ from the lower levels of Harappa are incised flat plates of steatite. In
addition, terracotta or faience tablets were mass produced in moulds; their texts are in relief.
Sometimes great numbers of identical tablets have been found together, or in places close to
each other. This suggests that the tablets may have been amulets or tokens of votive offerings
to temples. Historical parallels may exist in the large numbers of identical seal impressions
belonging to Hindu temples mentioning the name of the deity. They are supposed to have been
distributed by the priests to devotees visiting the shrine. The Chinese pilgrim Yi-jing remarks
that sealings inscribed with the Buddhist creed, if placed in the stupas, were sources of great
blessing. Such clay sealings were often returned to the worshippers, who kept themas potent
objects of worship.
The inscriptions on the tablets other than the copper tablets also point to such a function.
Many have on one side a U-shaped sign, which looks like a pot drawn in profile. This sign
appears either alone or it is preceded by one to four vertical strokes, which clearly represent
numbers. Three identical tablets have the sequence……. (e.g. Shah & Parpola 1991: H-764 and
H-765). This may be another way to write ….., which can be found on numerous tablets and
apparently means ‘three pots’. Sometimes, the U-shaped sign on the reverse of the tablets is
held in the hand of a kneeling or standing ‘man’ sign (e.g. Joshi & Parpola 1987: H-247). In one
particular moulded tablet, which exists in several identical copies, (Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-453
to M-455), we see an anthropomorphic deity sitting on a low dais, surrounded on either side by
a kneeling man and a snake. One of these supplicant men has raised both his hands in worship,
the other man presents what looks like a sacrificial vessel to the deity. Another moulded tablet –
again available in several copies (Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-478 to M-480) – has a similar offering
scene, except that the kneeling worshipper extends the pot towards a tree. In both tablets the
sacrificial vessel looks exactly like the U-formed Indus sign, but in the latter the iconographic
motif is accompanied by the text…... It seems evident that the tree is sacred and that the
sacrificing person (possibly expressed through the phrase….. ) has presented four pots (= the
sequence…. ) to it as an offering. The sequence meaning ‘three pots’ (of offerings) also occurs
on the copper tablets (A7).
The ‘archer’ God
Many years ago, I tried to interpret the Indus sign which links the identical inscription on the
obverse with the ‘horned archer’ (Parpola 1975: 196-203). It would take us too far to go into
this matter here, a more extensive treatment of the topic can be found in my book Deciphering
the Indus script (Parpola 1994: 225-239). I would, however, like to note that while I have identified
the Harappan archer god as a predecessor of the Vedic archer god Rudra, the latter is often
explicitly equated with fire, and fire again with the goat. In Hinduism, the goat is the animal
form of Rudra’s successor Skanda. The markhor-goat in particular is, however, also linked to
Rudra (cf. Parpola 1992). As noted above, the identical sign on the reverse of copper tablets C5
and C6 links the ‘archer’ of B19 with the ‘markhor-goat’ of B9.
The ‘fig tree’ Pictogram
In the intervening years I have also given more evidence for Rudra’s connection with the fig
trees, especially the pipal and the banyan (Parpola 1990; 1992; 1994). One component of the
ligatured Indus sign on the reverse of copper tablets type C5, C6 and C9 (C6 corresponds to
the horned archer on B19) consists of two branches that start from a single stem and end in fig
leaves. I have suggested that there was originally a third branch in the centre, which was left out
when the other component of the ligature was inserted, but which was preserved in other
uncombined variants of the sign. This sign, a three branched fig tree, is known as a motif of
the painted pottery in many parts of the Harappan realm over an extended period, from Early
Harappan times (represented by Mundigak IV,1 and Nausharo ID, ca. 2600 B.C.) to Late
Harappan times (represented by Bir-Kot Ghundai in Swat and Cemetery H in the Punjab).
Here, then, appears to be a sign adopted into the Indus script from the earlier local symbols (see
now Parpola 1994: 232-239).
The origins of the Indus script
This circumstance gives rise to some remarks on the creation of the Indus script. There are
graffiti consisting of numbers, i.e. repeated vertical strokes, as well as ‘potter’s marks’ or
‘owner’s marks’ on Early Harappan pottery that well predate the Mature Harappan period,
which is characterised by the presence of the Indus script. Yet, there is no evidence of real
writing anywhere in the Greater Indus Valley prior to the 26th century B.C. The creation of the
Indus script thus coincides with the emergence of the Indus Civilisation, 24 which according to
the present evidence took place very rapidly, perhaps during the first 50 years after 2600 B.C.
This process of full urbanisation seems to have been triggered by the shift in the direction and
volume of trade at this juncture. The ancient overland trade routes to Central Asia withered,
while the first traces of Harappan sea trade appear in Early Dynastic III Mesopotamia.
It seems, therefore, that the Harappans got the idea of writing from the Near Eastern
traders with whom they first came into direct contact, probably in the Gulf region around
Oman. The writing used along the Iranian Makran around 2600 B.C. may have been a late form
of Proto-Elamite, although such a script is not yet attested on any actual document. Its
existence may, however, be inferred from the fact that even though the Linear Elamite script
created in the 23rd century B.C. is ultimately based on the Proto-Elamite script, the Proto-
Elamite script as we know it ceased being used ca. 2900 B.C. Some support for this hypothesis
can be found by the arrival of new iconographic motifs in the Harappan iconography, such as
the ‘yoga posture’ of the famous ‘Proto-Śiva’. Even though his has been considered a typically
Indian element in the Harappan art, it seems to go back to Proto-Elamite models (Parpola
1984, especially pp. 178-183).25
In spite of superficial similarities between the Indus and the Proto-Elamite script, the Indus
script appears to be essentially an independent creation as far as the signs are concerned. Some
of the Indus signs seem to go back to Early Harappan symbols, such as the three-branched fig
tree. The invention of the Indus script thus appears to be largely similar to the invention of the
Egyptian hieroglyphic writing at the end of the 4th millennium. At this very juncture, there is
evidence of a short-lived presence of Sumerians in Upper Egypt, including the superbly carved
handle of the large flint knife from Gebel el-Araq which depicts a victory of a Sumerian-style
boat over an Egyptian style boat. The winners of this naval battle are likely to have become the
first pharaohs of Egypt, and soon Egyptianised. How else is it possible that an Egyptian object
of prestige would depict an event that was a disgrace to the Egyptians? The Sumerians brought
to Egypt the principles of writing, though the hieroglyphic script was created on the basis of
the native Egyptian art traditions.
Notes
* This paper was first presented at the International Symposium on Mohenjo-daro held in Karachi and
Mohenjo-daro on 24-26 February 1992, and distributed to the participants of that symposium. It was
submitted for publication to the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan, which
organised the conference but as nearly a decade has passed without having heard anything about the fate of
this paper, I take the liberty to publish it in memory of my colleague and friend Inez During Caspers, as I
trust it still has some value and interest. Some parts of the paper and the table giving the classification of the
copper tablets have been included in my book Deciphering the Indus Script (1994), where this paper was referred
to as forthcoming. Because of recent developments minor changes have been made to the original text.
1. See the colour photo of M-1540 B (Shah & Parpola 1991: 428).
2. Yule reports 57 engraved tablets, 49 painted tablets, and 13 both engraved and painted tablets (1985: 35).
Mackay (1938: 364) explained the red colour as follows: “After cleaning, if the tablet is not too corroded, the
animal or inscription, as the case may be, appears in faint dark red lines upon the lighter red of the copper, the
incisions being filled in with cuprous oxide”.
3. The spatial distribution within Mohenjo-daro has been studied in a preliminary way by Pande (1973) and in
detail by Franke-Vogt (1990: 334-335). In comparison with other object groups, the copper tablets are
relatively rare in the DKC, E and HR areas; in the DKG, VS and Citadel areas their occurrence is slightly
higher than expected, while the amount of copper tablets found in the DKI area is twice as high as expected.
According to Mackay (1938: 363), “copper tablets... are found in considerable numbers in the buildings of the
Late Period. They also occur at levels of Intermediate date, where, however, it is suspected that they may have
been dropped by people grubbing for brick during the Late Period”. Franke-Vogt (1990:130, n. 3) finds
Mackay’s hypothesis likely in one case, but notes that in the DKG area at least 21 copper tablets come from
lower levels (Inter III and Early).
4. Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-436 = Yule 1985: no. 424 (a round copper tablet having an identical two-sign
inscription and the motif of ‘composite animal’ in bas-relief on both sides); Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-444
=Yule 1985: no. 473; Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-474 = Yule 1985: no. 472; Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-475
 (rectangular copper tablets with text only in bas-relief); Shah & Joshi 1991: M-1423 (a rectangular copper
tablet with an elephant in bas-relief on either side).
5. Joshi & Parpola 1987: H-169 (a square copper tablet with text and iconography in bas-relief on one side); Joshi
& Parpola 1987: H-220 to H-225 (rectangular copper tablets with text in bas-relief on one side); and Shah &
Joshi 1991: H-803 to H-805 (rectangular copper tablets with text in bas-relief on one side).
6. Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-317 = Yule 1985: no. 386; Shah & Parpola 1991: M-1199 (shown in colour on p.
429).
7. For exact measurements of 138 copper tablets, see Yule 1985: 35-45.
8. Also in its catalogue and drawings (Yule 1985: 32, n. 66).
9. See the tabulation in Parpola 1975: 197-198, Fig. 12. The last tablet (= Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-474) is in bas-
relief and therefore has to be excluded on the basis of the present definition of ‘copper tablets’.
10. Yule speaks of 142 copper tablets, but this number includes one silver seal and one round and three
rectangular copper tablets with an inscription in relief, made by casting. In addition, he tabulates 18 copper
tablets that have no inscription or motif.
11. In the sense that the inscription would express the name of the animal or deity represented by it. However,
there are important exceptions to this rule (Parpola 1992).
12. Hunter (1934: 27) came to the opposite conclusion, viz. that the inscriptions on the copper tablets “are
Independent of the accompanying animal design”. In this connection Pande (1973: 306) noted: “While it is
true that certain inscriptions are common in certain tablets having different reverse devices, it is, however,
noticeable that certain inscriptions occur only with particular reverse devices... The problem of the connection
between the reverse device and the inscription, however, requires further study”.
13. Cf. also Mackay 1938: 363. Franke-Vogt (1990: 312-313) likewise concludes: “Die besondere Bedeutung der
Kupfertäfelchen... liegt vor allem in ihrer einmaligen normative Relation zwischen Bild und Schrift (Abb. 29).
Obwohl einige Motive mit verschiedenen Inschriften (maximal zwei) und gleiche Inschriften mit
verschiedenen Motiven (ebenfalls maximal zwei) vergesellschaftet sein können (Tab. 33, Abb. 29), bleibt diesel
fester Relation bestehen”.
14. Some of the copper tablets show marks of hammering and filing.
15. The average measurements are taken from Yule 1985: 34.
16. Not bison (Bos gaurus) as suggested previously (Joshi & Parpola 1987: 131).
17. This latter alternative was suggested in Joshi & Parpola 1987: xxxi.
18. I.e. the bull similar to the ‘unicorn’, but with two horns (cf. Joshi & Parpola 1987: M-232, M-233). Not the
horns of a zebu, as suggested in Joshi & Parpola 1987: xxxi.
19. At least the forepart looks like that of a dog rather than that of a tiger (cf. B12 and 13), which was suggested in
Joshi & Parpola 1987: xxxi; the head may still be that of a tiger.
20. What were thought to be horns (Joshi & Parpola 1987: xxxi), may be the ears of the camel.
21. Another possibility is that this is a second head and neck of the camel (cf. B10).
22. The Indus sign….. found on the reverse of copper tablets of type C3 and C4 is a ‘mirror image ligature’ (see
Parpola 1994: 81) of the signs…. + ….
23. Pande (1979: 269) observed: “In certain tablets the obverse inscription is the same, though the reverse device
is different”. A little later he returns to this topic: “It may also be examined as to why certain copper tablets
have, instead of the animal/human figure, signs on the reverse as well... “.
24. During the Mohenjo-daro symposium, I learnt that Dr. Nilofar Sheikh stressed this same point in her PhD
dissertation presented at Khairpur University (not accessible to me).
25. Ongoing excavations at Harappa have recently suggested that the Indus script was created during the
26. Kot Diji period (ca. 2900-2600 B.C.), though the evidence is still very slight. This would, of course, make the
influence of the Proto-Elamite writing system even more likely: the Proto-Elamites used it as far east as Shahr-
i Sokhta (in Seistan), which was in contact with the Early Harappan cultures of Baluchistan, as evidenced by
the Faiz Muhammad Ware.

References
Franke-Vogt, U. 1990. “Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-Daro. Uniformität und Variabilität in der Induskultur:
Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Ikonographie und räumlichen Verteilung,” I-III. Ph.D. dissertation, Freien
Universität Berlin. [Published in 1992 in two parts as volume 13 in the series Baghdader Forschungen].
Hunter, G.R. 1934. The script of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro and its connection with other scripts. (Studies in the History of
Culture, no. 1). London.
Joshi, J.P. & A. Parpola (eds). 1987. Corpus of Indus seals and inscriptions, vol. 1: Collections in India. (Annales Academiae
Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 239). Helsinki.
Koskenniemi, K. & A. Parpola. 1979. Corpus of texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies,
University of Helsinki, Research reports, 1). Helsinki.
......... .1980. Documentation and duplicates of the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies,
University of Helsinki, Research reports, 2). Helsinki.
......... .1982. A concordance to the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies, University of
Helsinki, Research reports, 3). Helsinki.
Koskenniemi, S., A. Parpola & S. Parpola 1973. Materials for the study of the Indus script. Vol. I: A concordance to the Indus
inscriptions. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol.185). Helsinki.
Mackay, E.J.H. 1931. Seals and seal impressions, copper tablets, and tabulation. Pp. 370-405 in J. Marshall (ed)
Mohenjo-daro and the Indus civilisation, vol. II. London.
. 1938. Further excavations at Mohenjo-daro (2 volumes). Delhi.
Mahadevan, I. 1977. The Indus script: Texts, concordance and tables. (MASI no. 77). New Delhi.
Pande, B.M. 1973. “Inscribed copper tablets from Mohenjo daro: A preliminary analysis.” Pp. 305-322 in D.P.
Agrawal & A. Ghosh (eds) Radiocarbon and Indian archaeology. Bombay. [Reprinted in 1979 in G.L. Possehl (ed)
Ancient cities of the Indus. New Delhi, pp. 268-283].
Parpola, A. 1975. “Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1975: 178-209.
......... .1984. “New correspondences between Harappan and Near Eastern glyptic art.” Pp. 176-195 in B. Allchin
(ed) South Asian Archaeology 1981. Cambridge.
......... .1990. “Bangles, sacred trees and fertility: Interpretations of the Indus script related to the cult of Skanda-
Kumâra.” Pp. 263-284 in M. Taddei (ed) South Asian Archaeology 1987. (Serie Orientale Roma, vol. LXVI).
Rome.
......... .1992. “The “fig deity seal” from Mohenjo-Daro: its iconography and inscription.” Pp. 227-236 in C. Jarrige
(ed) South Asian Archaeology 1989. (Monographs in World Archaeology,14). Madison.
......... .1994. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge.
Shah, S.G.M. & A. Parpola (eds). 1991. Corpus of Indus seals and inscriptions, vol. 2: Collections in Pakistan. (Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, vol. 240). Helsinki.
Yule, P. 1985. Figuren, Schmuckformen und Täfelchen der Harappa-Kultur. (Prähistorische Bronzefunde I/6). Munich.
 – Brāhmī

Figure. 1. Mangulam 1
Inscripion No.1
Tracing (in five segments). Scale: one-tenth.

I. Mangulam ( )-I
A. kā ŋi ya nā na tā a si ri ya ï
Ku va a na ked ha ma mā ma
ï ta tā a ne țu ȕa cā ļi yā ņas
Pā ņā a ņa kā țā la a ņa vā Įu ta ti ya
Ko ța țȕ pi ta tñ a pā ļi ï ya
 –

B Bkani –y namnta – a-siri-y-i2

Kuv-anke dhammam3 [ |*]
Ittii –a 4 neturicaliyan5
Pana – an4 katal –a7 valutti -y8
kottupitta-a9 pali-iy10

Charity to Nanta –siri Kuvan, the kani. Behold! The hermitage was caused to be carved by Katalan
Valuti, the servant of Netuiicallyan.
ILL. Tracing: Fig. 1 Direct photograph (computer-enhanced): PI.I.
ILL: LocusOn the brow of the upper southern cave known as the ‘kitchen’ on the
Kajukumalai hill; too weather wom and faint to produce a legible estampage, but
clearly visible to the naked eye.
No. of lines 1
Lengh 564 cm.
Date ca.2nd century a. c.
Publ ARE 465/1906 IM 1/1966.
HTS 1.1 (pp.43-44, 69-73); MSV 9.3 (pp. 87-91); rn1.1 (pp. 48-53); RPS: 1(pp.
163-197).
K.V. Ramesh (in A. Chakravani 1974): No. 1.1. Sumdaram 1984: No. 4.
Notes
1. Kani-< gani (Pkt.) < gamin (Skt.), title of a senior Jains monk heading a gana.
2. Word-division as in RPS, but treating – siri-y-i as a suffix.
nanta –a-siri-< narirda – siri (Pkt.)< nandn-siri {Skt.}. Cf. nanta-siri-(No.2) and nata –siri-(No.3).
3. Dhammam < dharima (Pkt.)< dharma (Skt.). Cf. dhamam (No. 2).
4. Cf. LT ita ‘behold’ See Commentary on the form itti-a. Cf. ita (No.2).
5. Cf. Nejunceliyan, N of a Pantiya king. Cf. nejinkehyan (No.2). See section 4.2.i.
6. Cf. panavan ‘servanl’ (TL).
7. Katalan. Cf. Katalag. N. of a chieftain.
8. Read valuti-Cf. Valuti, a Pāntiya dynastic name.
9. Kottupitta-< kottu ‘to hammer’. Cf, (inscr.) kottuvittān ‘he caused to be carved’ (so in RN).
10. Palli. Cf. LT palli ‘hermitage’. See section 6.17 on the omission
 Figure 2. Mangulam
Inscripion No.2
Tracing (in five segments). Scale: one-tenth.

2. Mangulam 2
A. kā ŋi ya nā na tā si ri yak u a ŋa1
dha2 mā ma ï tā ne ți rïa cn tai ya cā ți kā ŋa
Ï ļā ña cā ți4 kā ŋa tā na tai ya cā ți4 kā ņa
ce ï yā5 pā ļi ya
B. kani-y nanta-siri-y ku-aņ
dhamam4 [ |*] iti netiñcaliyan’ sālakaņ4
Ilarïcatikaņ tantai-y catikaŋ
cȅ-iya” paļi-y10

Charity (to) Nanta-siri Ku (v) aŋ, the kaņi, Behold! The hermitage was made by Catikaņ, the father of
Iļañcatikaņ, the husband of the sister-in-law of Nețiñcaliyaņ.
 –

ILL. Tracing: Fig..2 Estampage (photograph computer – enhanced): Pl. 2.

Locus On the rear wall of the lower cave. See section 1.2.1 (iii)

No. of lines 1

Length 478 cm.

Date ca. 2nd century B.C.

Publ ARE 460/1906/1906; ARE 1917-18. Pl. facing p. 6. 1M:2/1966.

CNR:IV-A(pp.367-370):HKS: IV –A ipp. 339).; HTS: 1.2(pp.43-44, 69-73); Kvs: iii

(PP.289-294); kz:3-1(P.20), msv:9.2 (PP.81-87): RN:1.2(PP.48-23); RPS: 2 (pp.163-197);
tvm:1-A (PP.201-211, PI.1 &2). K.V. Ramesh (in A. Chakravani 1974):No. 2.
J.Sundaram 1984: No.6.

Notes
1. The character ņ is consistenlly read as ‘nā of the Bhatriprolu typee’ by HK, See secrion 2.3.2..
2. HKS and KVS also read dha. TVM prefers to read ē.
3. HKS reads ithi and KVS ri.
4. HKS reads ți and KVS ri.
5. There is no evidence in sini of correction of overwriting of the letter as stated by TVM.
6. dhammam. Se n.3, No.I.
7. Cf. Nețañceliyaņ. See n5, No.1.
8. Cf. sālaka (Pāli) < syālaka (Skt.). Cf. cālakaņ ‘sister-in-law’s husband’ (TL.).
9. cȅ-iya ‘which was made’ < cȅ (LT cey). See Commentary on the form cȅ for cey.
10. Palli., See n. 10, No. 1.
 Figure.3. Mangulam
Inscripion No.3
Tracing (in five segments). Scale: one-tenth.

3. Mangulam –3
A. kā ņi nā tā si ri ya vā
Ve ļa a rai2 ya ni kā mā tũ
Kā vi ti ya kā Įi3 ti kā a na tai
a sũ tā ņa pi ņā ȕ ko țu pi to ņa
B. kaņi-i nata-siri-y4 kuva [ņ*]...
veĮ-arai-y nikamatu6
kā viti-iy7 kāĮitika8 antai9
asutan10 pina-u11 kotupitōņ12

(To) Na (n) ta-siri Kuva (ņ), the kaņi, Antai Assutaņ, the superintendent of pearls and kāviti
of the merechant guild of Vellarai, caused to be given the cave (?).
ILL. Tracing Fig.3 Estampage: Pl. 3.
 –

Locus On the brow of the upper northen cave; weather – wom and faint. HKS and
KVS (and others following their lead) have mixed up segments of this
inscriprion with two other inscriptions (Nos. 5 & 6) in another cave. See section
1.2.1 (ii).
No. of lines 1
Length 15 cm.
Date ca. 2nd century B.C.
Publ. ARE 463-464/1906, ARE 1917-18: Pl. facing p. 6 (463 only). lM:3/1966.
CNR: IV-B & E (pp. 367*-370); HKS: IV-B & e PP. 336-336(; hts:1.3 (PP. 43-44,
69-73);
Kvs. IV –A & C (PP. 289-294); K2:3 –II.A& C (P.20); MSV:9.1 (PP. 70-73; RBN:
1.3 (PP.48-53;
RPS: 3 (PP.163-197;TVM: 1-B & E (pp. 201-211, PL 3 & 5);
K.V.Ramesh (in A. Chakravarati 1974); No. 3.1. Sundaram 1984. No. 5.
Notes
1. There is a gap of about 30cm, here due to flaking of the stone.
2. HKS and KVS read dai KZ and TVM read tai.
3. HKS, KVS and KZ read si. TVM reads si.
4. nata-<nada (namrids) (Pkt.). See also n.2, No.1.
5. [ņ*] restored from the near=identical passages in Nos.1 & 2.
6. Nikamath Cf. L.T nikamam.
7. Kāvili-, an ancient title bestowed on officiats and merchants. See section 4.6.9.
8. Read kājatika. Cf. L.T kāl peart; atikaŋ < adhinka (Pkt.) ‘superintendent, chief.’. Cf, kaņatikaņ (No. 40).
9. antai, an honorifie suffix (masc.) for an elder or scnior person. See section 3.2.2 (v)
10. assutaņ. Cf. assuta (Pāli), assudh (AMg.)<asruta (Skt.). A personal name; (RPS).
11. Cf.LT piļavu cleft . pina-u might have meant a partition or eleft” (Sundaram).
12. Kotuppitiōņ < kotu to give . See Commentary on the distinction between koļu and kottu.
 Figure.4. Mangulam
Inscripion No.4
Tracing (in five segments). Scale: one-tenth.

4. Mangulam –4
A kā ņi ya nā ta ti 1 ya ko ți ya a vā2 ņa
B. kaņi-y natti-y koțiy –avaņ3

Nattti, the kaņi, engraved.4

ILL. Tracing: Fig.8.4. Estampage: Pl. 4.

Locus On the brow of the upper southern cave; engraved at a higher level above and
to the left of the long inscription (No.1).

No. of lines 1
Length 97 cm.
Date ca, 2nd century a.c.
Publ. ARE B. 242/1963-64, IAR 1963-64: p. 71. IM: 4/1966.
HTS: 1.4 (pp.43-44,69-73).
I. Mahadevan 1965 c. J. Sundaram 1984: No. 3.
 –

Notes
1. The short horizontal line cutting across the vertical of this letter is a fissure in the rock as verified in situ.
2. The letter looks like cā and has been read as such in ARE, However, it appears to be vā in this context. There
are several such instances of confusing similarity between. E and. V. (Cf. Nos. 28, 29, 31,35,43,49, 101,119. ).
See section 5.11, v.
3. Koțțiyavaņ < koțțu. Cf. oți-ōr (koțți-ōr) (No.6) and koțal-(koțțal-) (No.12). See also n.9, No.1.
4. ‘the inscription’ is understood from the context. The reference is to the engraving of the main inscription (No.
1) in this cave. See Commentary for discussion.

5. Mangulam 5
A. cā na tā ri ta na ko tū pi to na
B. cantaritan2 kotupition3

Cantaritan caused to be given.4

ILL. Tracing: Fig. 4 Estampage: pl.4.
Locus At left on the brow of the upper middle cave known as the ‘school’.
No.of lines 1
Length 92 cm.
Date ca. 2nd century B.C.
Publ. ARE 461/1906.IM:5/ 1966.
CNR: IV-C (pp. 367-370): HKS: IV-C (pp.. 336-339); HTS 1.
5 (pp 43-44, 69-73);
KVS:IV-A (pp.289.294); KZ: 3-IIA (p.20); MSV: 9.5 (pp.73-74); RN: 1.4 (pp.
48-53);
J. Sundaram 1984 No.1.

Notes
1. The left medial stroke of ko is attached at a slightly higher level than the right, though both
appear
continuous due to the scale of reduction of the illustrations.
2. A composite personal name cantan+aritan. The name may also be read cantāritan.
Cf. ar-itan (No.8 ) and aritan (No. 60).
3. kutuppition.
4. ‘the cave’ is understood from the context.
Early Tamil-Brahmi Inscrptions

Figure 8.5 II. ARITTAPATTI

Inscripion No.7
Tracing (in two segments). Scale: one-eighth.
–
–
–
–
–
–
The evolution and approximate chronology of the South Indian scripts are summarised in
Table 1

Table 1. Evolution and chronology of South Indian scripts.

 

Introduction
This paper offers a brief case Study of the Dravidian models of decipherment of the indus
Script. The method adopted is to select one of the frequency occurring signs of the script and
make a comparative and critical study of different interpretations of the sign proposed by
scholars working within the Dravidian linguistic framework. For the purpose of the present
paper, it will be as – summed that the Harappan language was a form of Dravidian and that the
Indus Script includes words signs. While these are still assumptions, there are good grounds to
belive that they are likely to be true.
The ‘bearer’ signs

Fig.1: The ‘bearer’ signs

The ‘beare’ signs (Fig.1) are Among the more frequent anthropo-Morphic signs of the
Indus Script.
Sign A is a clearly recognizable Pictograph depicting a standing person Carrying across his
shoulders a long Pole or yoke with loads slung from Each end. Signs B and C are the Principal
modifications of the basic Sign A with the ligaturing of the lance’ and ‘jar’ signs respectively at
the top. In this paper the signs illustrated in Fig. I will be referred to as the ‘bearer’ sign (A),

 Updated version of the paper read at the 10th Annual Conference of Dravidian Linguistics Association, New
Delhi, 1980.
THE ‘lance-bearer’ sign (b) and the ‘jar-bearer’ sign, and collectively as the ‘bearer’ signs. Sign
and Text Numbers And data are Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables (1977).
Pictographic Character of the ‘bearer’ Sign
The pictographic character of the ‘bearer’ signs becomes obvious when on studies the graphic
variants of the signs and their principal modifications (Fig. 2). The hands of the person holding
the yoke are shown sometimes parallel to the yoke and at other times pointing upwards or
downwards or bent at the elbows. The head of the person as well as his feet are occasionally
depicted. In an unique example from Harappa (5123) the person seems to be wearing a robe
and shoes with upturned toes. The loads are slung by ropes or sometimes directly attached to
the pole. The loads are represented by larger or smaller ovals or circles or occasionally as
triangles upwards or downwards. In an unqiue example from Ur (9842) the loads are shown as
water skins, no doubt influenced by the West Asian traditions.

Frequency Distribution Analysis of the ‘bearer’ signs

The ‘bearer’ signs occur pre-dominantly in the final position in the texts, as may be seen from
the following Tables:
 Even in the medical positions, the ‘bearer’ signs are mostly quasifinal, that is, they are
followed by a terminal sign (generally the so-called ‘comb’sign) which is a separable suffix. In
this respect the ‘bearer’ sings behave exactly like the ‘jar’ and the ‘lance’ signs showing that all
them belong functionally to the same class or category of signs. The affinity is revealed both
graphically and syntactically; the ‘bearer’ sign of often found ligatured with the ‘lance’ or the
‘jar’ signs, especially with the latter. The ‘bearer’ sign can replace the ‘lance’ or ‘jar’ signs from
otherwise identical texts. There are rare instances when the ‘jar’ sign is placed before the ‘bearer’
sign in a sequence instead of being ligatured. It is however possible that the two arrangements
have different functions as the preceding sequences in either case are different. Another
significant point is that even though the ‘bearer’ signs are mostly final, the ‘jar bearer’ sign can
sometimes occur alone comprising the whole text (as in 2841) and also in quasinitial positions,
that I, where the proceeding signs are clearly separable (as in 1178).
Earlier Ideographic Interpretations of the ‘bearer’ sign
The earlier ideographic interpretations of the ‘bearer’ sign flowed naturally from the self-
evident pictographic identification of the sign. Langdon described the sign as ‘a man carrying a
yoke with baskets’. After noting that the sign occurred commonly in the final position in the
texts, he expressed the view that it was “clearly a determinative of a profession, builder, carrier,
etc.” (Langdon, ed. Marshall:1931). Hunter (1934) described the sign as a ‘water carrier’, no
doubt basing himself on West Asian parallels. Flinders Petrie (1934) interpreted the sign as an
ideogram for a load or weight.
Interpretations of Heras

Father Henry Heras (1953) was the earlist scholar to propose a Dravidian solution to the riddle
of the Indus Script. He described the ‘bearer’ sign as a ‘man lifting something’ and proposed
the following ideographic interpretations of the sign:
tuk: (1) to weigh, (2) scale,

(3) justice, tuk-an:

(4) lifter,

(5) teacher,
 tuk-il: (6) in the scale (sign B in Fig.1)

The root tik (DED 2777) does have the meanings ‘to lift, weigh’ though the choice is
arbitrary, as it is only one of many possible alternatives, and not the best possible one either,
since usage as recorded in DED does not associate this word with the meaning ‘to carry as
yoke’. The meaning ‘scale’ (‘balance’) is also possible, but there is no evidence of Dravidian
usage of the symbol ‘scale’ to indicate the concept of ‘justice’. ‘Lifter’ may be alright, but it is
not clear how Heras derives the meaning ‘teacher’ there form. Heras does not provide examples
from texts to illustrate any of these meanings. In the only text cited by him the ‘bearer’ sign is
interpreted to mean ‘ the constellation or the month of scale’. There is no evidence that the
Harappans had the same names for the stellar constellations as found in later Hindu or Greek
astronomy. The attempted decipherment by Heras has not won general acceptance of the
scholars in the field.
Interpretation of the Finnish Team
It is interesting that the finish attempt to decipher the Indus Script (Parpola et al; 1969) began
with the ‘bearer’ sign when Pentti Aalto asked “can (this) be plural suffix?”. Starting with this
‘clue’ and taking into account the frequency distribution characteristics of the signs, the Finnish
Team proposed the following paradigm of case suffixies (Fig.3).

According to the original proposal made by the Finns, the plural suffix (‘bearer’ sign) was to
be read after the case suffixes (the ‘jar’ or ‘lance’ signs) as the ligatured signs are generally to be
read from top to bottom.
When Dravidians pointed out that this morphemic order did not exist in any Dravidian
language, the Finns withdrew their as an exceptional case, these ligatures were to be read from
bottom to top on the ground that graphically the reverse order (i.e, placing the ‘bearer sign on
the top) would offend ‘the principles of economy and aesthetics governing ancient scripts.
The Finnish Team (Asko parpola: 1970) interpreted the ‘bearer’ sign as a ‘picture of a man with a
carrying yoke’ and suggested the following Dravidian homophones:
*kari: ‘carrying yoke’ (DED 1155)
 *kari: ‘much (DED 1144)
“ an originally independent word suffixed to denote the plural concept, which in course
of time has become shortened resulting in the modern plural suffix-kal”.
The cases where the ‘bearer’ sign is placed after the ‘jar’ sign in sequence are explained
by another set of homophones, vis.
Kari: ‘carrying yoke’ (DED 1155)
Kari: ‘to wash ‘ (DED 1154), ( which is supposed to stand for ‘bath’, or ritual bathing).
There are several difficulties in accepting these interpretations. There is no evidence from
any Dravidian language the kari much (DED 1144) was ever used as aplural marker. The word
meaning ‘much, in excess’ does not have the plural signification of ‘more than one’. It is
doubtful whether –kal, as a single plural suffix can be reconstructed for PDr. This difficulty is
not got over by the Finns’ argument that 5the “universal tendency of suffixes is to become
shortened (kari>kal>ka, k, not to become lnger (k,> kal )” as it is doubtful whether kar-and –
kot, can be considered homophones at all. While the ‘bearer’ sign when succeeding (and not
ligatured with) the ‘jar’ sign may have a different function, there is no evidence to connect such
occurrences with the meaning ‘bath’. There is also no usage connecting the word karu ‘bathe,
cleanse’ (DED 1154) with ‘bath’ (water ‘tank’). It appears that the Finnish Team has become
aware of the problems connected with their interpretations of the ‘bearer’ sign, which is also
excluded from Parpola’s 1976 paper on ‘suggested semantic and phonetic values of selected
Indus pictograms’. (See postscript on the revised interpretations recently proposed by Asko
Parpola 1981).
Interpretation of the Soviet Team
Gurov (1968) pointed out the most apt word in Dravidian to describe the ‘bearer’ sign
(designated as the ‘porter’ sign by the Soviet Team): ku: ‘poles with ropes hung on each end
used to carry loads on the shoulder, a yoke’. (DED.1193). Gurov also resorts to the technique
of homonymy to explain the intended meaning of the sign. The homophone selected by him is:
ka: ‘to guard, protect’ (DED 1192). Gurov interprets the bearer sign accordingly to mean
‘Protector’, an epithet applied to deities in the so-called ‘sacrificial’ inscriptions (engraved on tiny
tablets occurring at Harappa). Gurov further suggests that the sign could also represent a ‘protective
formula’ (like Ta, kdval, kappu) when used on amulets or donative texts as the case of later
Indian inscripation. As regrads the phonetic value of the ‘bearer’ sign, Gurov has this to say:
“We should add we do not attempt to reconstruct the ‘real’ morphological appearance of the
proto-Dravidian (or Harappan)’ word. We only try to point out that in our opinion the sign
corresponded in the ‘Harappan’ language to some word derived from the root *kđ-with the
same meaning as the old that the ‘jarbearer’ sign when preceded by ‘humerals’ may be an
ideogram with phonetic value corresponding to kα ‘a weight,burden’.
There can hardly be any doubt that the suggestions made by Gurov are linguistically more
sophisticated and much more persuasive than those of Heras or the Finnish Team. Gurov has
identified not only the most apt Dravidian word to suit the pictographic significance of the
‘bearer’ sign, but also the most satisfying homophone from linguistic as well as cultuaral
considerations. If Gurov can be shown to be right, the Dravidian character of the Indus Script
would be conclusively established as the pair of homophones kα: ‘to bear/to protect’ occurs
only in Dravidian. The question however is whether Gurov is right when he claims that “ the
appearance of the sign (A) with its variants (C and B) in the same position can hardly be
explained from the extra-linguistic point of view”.
At the outset one can point out that Gurov himself provides an ‘extra-linguistic’ alternative
when suggests the ideographic value of ‘weight,burden’ to the ‘bearer’ sign. Other scholars (not
necessarily working with the Dravidian hypothesis) like Meriggi (1934) and Kinnier –Wilson
(1974) have suggested this ideographic interpretation. If the sign signifies a ‘unit of weight’ the
homonymy suggested by Gurov becomes irrelevant and phonetic values other than kα burden,
weight’ become possible even within Dravidian, if the interpretation is not based on
homonymy, the unique Dravidian solution suggested by Gurov cannot be established with
certainty.
Another and more serious problem with Gurov’s interpretation is his treatment of the
‘bearer’ sign as a substantive, but the ‘jar’ sign as a derivational morpheme (the Dr.oblique case
8-t in the Soviet model). This conflicts with the well-established fact arrived at by textual
analysis that the ‘jar’ and the ‘bearer’ signs belong functionally to the same class or category of
signs. As mentioned earlier they can replace each other in otherwise identical texts. The
ligaturing of the ‘jar’ sign with the ‘bearer’ sign is unlikely to represent as common a
grammatical feature as the addition of the oblique case suffix to form an oblique stem as there
are only three other similar ligatured signs in the Indus script. (sings (‘jar’, ‘lance’ and ‘bearer’) in
an integrated paradigm of suffixes on the basis of observed functional similarity-an attempt
which failed for other reasons as noticed earlier. It is possible to build an alternative model in
which all the three signs are substantives but placed in text final positions for syntactical
reasons. What does not seem permissible is to treat one the others as suffixes or derivational
morphemes as attempted by the Soviet Team.
A New Ideographic Interpretation
I have presented my ideas on the ‘bearer’ signs in a series of earlier papers (Mahadevan 1970,
1975,1980,1982) and I shall only briefly recapitulate them here for purpose of comparative
study.
It is possible to study the inscriptions in the Indus Script and Comprehend their context in
a broad manner by observing the parallels between the ideograms in the script and their
possible survivals in the later Indian tradition. Such parallels can be found In the Indo-Aryan
and the Dravidian traditions and can be explained on the basic of the substratum influence of
the Harappan Culture on later traditions. The advantage of the method is that it is not
necessary to make any a priori assumption about the linguistic affinity of the Harappan
language. The limitation of the later traditions would preclude us from assigning any specific
phonetic values to the ideograms of the Indus script.
It appears possible to interpret the ‘bearer’ sign (depicting a person carrying a yoke across
the ’bearer’ and ‘yoke’ motifs occurring in later Indian tradition. The term ‘bearers’ is applied
both in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian idiomatically to a person who ‘shoulders any responsibility
or burden of any office Examples are skt. bhart ‘husband’ from bhr to ‘bear’ and karyavanka
office bearer’ (from vah, to carry) The yoke’ words are Yugamdhara and dhuramdhara (lit, yoke
bearers) used as honorifics. One should naturally look for such terms among the royal and
priestly families who wielded power and authority in ancient times, It is significant that the most
famous royal and priest family of the Vedic and Epic periods bore the name ‘Bharata’ (lit,
bearer) The Satavahanas also had names derived from the ‘bearer, motif (from vah, to carry), In
the Tamil country the Cheras were also called paraiyar (lit., ‘bearers’, from poru to ‘bear’ ) Copper
coins from the Travancore area of Kerala depicting the ‘bearer, motif probably preserve the
Chera/poraiyar tradition (Elliot 1886, No 197) On the basis of the evidence summarised above
we can interpret the ‘bearer’ sign in the Indus Script when suffixed to names as an ideogram
with the approximate meaning officer, functionary’
A comparison between the Soviet model and the one proposed by me is instructive
Basically the difference is that the Soviet interpretation is phonetic and based on Dravidian
homonymy while mine is extra-linguistic and based on ideographic depiction and cultural
survivals in the later tradition. Fig 4 brings out the comparison clearly.
Evidence in Support of the Proposed ideographic Interpretation
The interpretation of the ‘bearer’ sign proposed by me has proved more productive than other
models considered above and has led to accumulation of evidence throwing light on related
group of signs. For the first time, we are able to establish credible parallels between the
ideographic signs of the Indus Script and royal names and titles recorded in the later Indian
traditions. Only some examples have been given here. What is more, the ligatured signs, Viz. ‘jar
– bearer’ and ‘ lance – bearer’ royal names. The evidence is worth Have exact parallels in the
Andhra repeating here (Fig. 5).
 The striking parallels cited above have to be viewed with caution and circumspection I am
not suggesting that the Andhra’s ruled over the Harappan “kingdom’ or that they spoke
Sanskrit! Nor am I suggesting exact phonetic equivalents of the signs. I am only pointing out
that given the ideographic equivalents of the signs we get the equivalent royal names recorded
in later tradition and that this phenomenon is due to the substratum influence of the Harappan
culture and later survivals (possibly through loanwords and loan translations)traditions) in Indo-
Aryan and Dravidian traditions. As I have explained elsewhere (Mahadevan 1982) the terminal
signs are ideograms probably indicating the occupations and social status of the person to
whose names these signs are found suffixed. My tentative interpretation of the ‘bearer’ signs is
as follows (Fig-6)

It will be seen that the related signs (‘bearer,’ ‘jar’ and ‘lance’ signs) are all treated as
substantives and suffixed elements in name-formation. The signification of the ’bearer’
symbolism has already been explained. The ‘Lance sign is a self-evident ideogram. The
interpretation of the ‘jar’ sign as a priestly symbol is based on the later tradition of jar-born’
sages and Brahman families, starting from Vasishtha and Agastya as the myth is found even
Agestya as the myth Rigeveda 33). The fact that ‘jar-born’ legends also occur among royal
dynasties (the pallavas, Verlir, Chalukyas, etc.) indicates the survival of a priest-ruler tradition
antedating the Indo-Aryan Varna order and probably going back to the Harappan Culture.
Postscript (1983)
After this paper was presented in 1980, there have been some interesting development
strengthening the case for an ideographic interpretation of the bearer signs.
Revised Finnish Interpretation
Asko Parpola (1981) in his recent paper On the Harappan Yoke-Carrier Pictogram and Kavadi
Worship has explicitly withdrawn the earlier Finnish Paradigm of case suffixes (Fig 3) and has
accepted the view that the terminal signs (jar’ and ‘lance’ signs) have to be regarded as
substantives. His revised interpretation of these signs, based on Dr. Homonymy, are as follows:

Asko Parpola also gives up explicitly the earlier Finnish interpretations of the ‘bearer’ sign
and turns towards an ideographic interpretation based on the pictorial motif of ‘ Yoke –carrier,
After citing many iconographic and literacy parallels from IA. And Dr traditions, Parpola
presents the following revised interpretations of the bearer signs (A and B):

It will be seen that ‘ Parpola’s revised interpretations agree broadly with my approach in
treating the ‘jar’ and ‘lance’ terminal signs as substantives and trying to ascertain the meaning of
the ‘bearer’ sign ideographically with the help of both IA. and Dr. parallels, I consider this
broad convergence of ideas as more important than the differences in the actual details of
interpretations which will get sorted out in due course. The only note of caution is that all the
proposed interpretations should be considered provisional and should not be considered
provisional and should not be accepted in the literal sense. Other interpretations based on
different parallels from later traditions are possible. It is to be hoped that all such interpretations
will get narrowed down and converge to point out the original significance of the Harappan
ideograms, which may not be identical with the later traditions.
A Vedic parallel and a Dravidian Sequel
K. V Ramesh (in this vol.) adds to the growing number of ideographic interpretations of the
‘bearer’ signs. His interpretations are also based on the ‘load –bearer, motif, and he points out
to the corresponding names and titles in early vedic literature Fig.9

It may be asked why I have included these Sanskrit equivalents in a paper dealing with
Dravidian interpretation. I have two reasons for doing so.
In one of my earlier papers (1980), I had pointed out to the name Bharadvaja as one based
on the ‘bearer’ motif. Ramesh has gone further and has been able to show that the name fits in
with both parts of the ligatured ‘jar-bearer’ sign (bharad: ‘bearer)’ it is interesting to compare
this with my parallel interpretation of the jar-bearer sign as corresponding to the name
Satavahana (sata: sacrificial) vessel; vahana: Carrying). The multiplicity of parallels is only to be
expected, In an elaborate discussion of the situation (Mahadevan 1975) I had pointed out that
the original Harappan tradition would have, in course of time, over a wide area and in a
bilingual milieu, split up into numerous ‘streams and layers of parallelisms All are equally valid
if one know how to handle them with circumspection, not to regard any of them as literal
meanings, but only as pointers towards a distant and possibly very different reality represented
by the Harappan ideogram.
Ramesh’s strictly Sanskrit interpretations of the ‘bearer’ signs may have a Dravidian sequel:
The Cheras (also called the Poraliyar) claimed that one of their ancestors fed the Kaurava and
the Pandava armies during the Mahabharata war (Puram. 2) While interpreting this legend,
scholars have suggested that the technical expression peruncoru (lit big ‘feast’ ), used in this
context denoted the offering of pindom (obsequial food offerings) to remote forbears in an act
of ritual ancestor worship (P. Arunachalam 1966) I am intrigued by the parallelism between Skt.
bharad and Ta. porai (both meaning ‘bearer’) and between skt. Vaja and Ta. Peruncoru (both
meaning obseequall rice offerings). It may well be that the ultimate source of both parallelisms
is the idea (whatever be its original import) represented by the Harappan ideogram ‘load-bearer’
passing into and evolving within the rich Indian historical tradition.
References
Arunachalam, P, (1968), Peruncottu utiyan Ceralatan’s First International Conference-Seminar of Tamil. Studies, Proceedings,
Vol.1,p.306.
Burrow, T. and M.B Emeneau (1961). Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED) Oxford.
Elliot W. (1886). Coins of Southern India, London.
Gurov, N.V (1968). Prospects for the linguistic interpretation of the Proto-Indian Texts (on the basis of the Dravidian Languages)
Proto-Indicas: 1968, Moscow.
Heras, H. (1953). Studies in proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture, Vol.1, Indian Historical Research Institute, Bombay.
Hunter, G.R. (1934) The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its connection with other scripts, Kegan Paul, London.
Kinnier-Wilson, J.V (1974). Indo-Sumerian: A New approach to the Problems of the Indus Script, Oxford.
Mahadevan, 1. (1970) “Dravidian Parallels in proto-Indian script.” Journal of Tamil Studies Vol.2 No 1,p.157.
......... (1975). Study of the Indus Script through Bilingual Parallels, Proceedings of the Second All-India Conference of Dravidian
Linguistics, Sri Venkateswara University (1972), p.240 (Reprinted in ) Ancient Cities of the Indus, ed. C.L
Possehl, p.261 (1980), Delhi.
......... (1977) The Indus Script” Texts, Concordance and Tables, Archaeo-logical Survey of India, 1977, New Delhi.
......... (1980) Indus Script in the Indian Historical Tradition, Seminar on Astronomy as aid to History, p207, Madras.
......... (1982), Terminal ideograms in the Indus script, Harappan Civilisation: A Contemporary Perspective. G.L
Possehl, p. 311. New Delhi.
Dorai Rangawamy, M.A (1966). Did Utiyan Ceral belong to the Mahabharata period, first International Conference –Seminar
of Tamil studies, proceedings, Vol.1, p 280.
Marshall, J1931, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation (3 Vols), London.
Meriggi, 1934, Zur Indus Schrift, zeit schrift der Deutschen Morgan landischen Gesellschaft (N.f)XII:1934.
Parpola, A. et al., Decipherment of the proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus Civilisation: A First Announcement progress in
the Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Indus Script further progress in the Indus Script decipherment The
Scandinavian Publications No 1 to 3 Copenhagen.
Parpola, A. (1970), “The Indus Script decipherment The situation at the end of 1969,” Journal of Tamil studies,
Vol.II, No 1,p.89, Madras.
......... (1976) “Suggested Semantic and phonetic values of selected Indus pictograms,” Journal of the Epigraphical
Society of India, Vol 2, p.31.
......... (1981) On the Harappan Yoke carrier pictogram and the kavadi worship, 5th International Conference Seminar of
Tamil studies Madurai. Proceedings,vol.1, sec 2, p,73.Madras.
Petrie, Flinders (1932) Mohenjodaro, Ancient Egypt.
Ramesh K.V the problem of the Indus Scripts A new approach (in this Vol) also Indian Epigraphy, Vol.1, (1984),p.151,)
Delhi.
There is clear pictorial evidence from seals, sealings and other inscribed objects for the practice
of religion by the Harappans’. The question whether any deity is prominently mentioned in
their writing is sought to be answered in this paper.
Section I: Ideograms For ‘Deity’ In The Indus Script
1. The search for the possible occurrence of the name of a deity in the Indus script has to
be based on the following criteria:
(a) A deity conceived to be human in from (as seen in the pictorial representations) is
more likely to be depicted by an anthropomorphic ideogram than by syllabic writing
(b) the ideogram will occur with high frequency, and with especially higher relative
frequency in dedicatory inscriptions on votive objects found in religious contexts.
(c) The ideogram is likely to occur repetitively as part of fixed formulas possibly
representing religious incantations.
2. signs 1-48 in the Indus Script are classified as ‘anthropomorphic’ on the basis of their
iconography.2 There are two near-identical signs in this group, Nos. 47 and 48 (Fig.I)
depicting seated personages reminiscent of very similar representations of deities in the
Egyptian hieroglyphic script, in which a seated figure functions as the determinative for
‘god’ (Fig.2), and similar ideograms, modified by the addition of distinctive attributes,
represent specific deities.3On the basis of this analogy from a contemporary
ideographic script, we may assume, as a working hypothesis to begin with, that sign 47
of the Indus script is the ideogram for ‘deity’ and that sign 48, its modified form
occurring with a much higher frequency, represents a particular ‘Deity characterised by
the distinctive attribute added to the basic sign.4 This identification receives some
support from the pairing of these two signs in either order in the texts, probably to be
read as ‘the deity X’ or ‘X, the deity’.5
3. The miniature tablets and sealings found at Harappa, especially from the lower (earlier)
levels, are generally considered to be votive objects with dedicatory inscriptions incised
or impressed on them.6 Sign 48, one of the more frequent signs in the Indus script,
 occurs with a much higher relative frequency on the votive tablets and sealings.7 Again,
a text of three sign 48 in the lead, which has the highest frequency of any 3-sign
sequences in the whole of the corpus of Indus Texts, occurs almost exclusively on the
votive tablets and sealings, indicating that it is a ’religious formula’ of some kind
(Fig.3).8 It is significant that in the Late Harappan period ay Kalibangan, the basic
ideogram for ‘deity’ begins to appear as large – Sized graffiti on pottery suggestive of its
use also as a religious symbol (Fig.4).9
4. It is even more significant that the basic ideogram for ‘deity’ survived as a religious
symbol in the Post-Harappan Era and occurs in regions far removed from the Harappan
homeland:
a) The frequent 3-sign text mentioned earlier (but with sign 47 in the lead)is
engraved on a seal found in the excavations at Vaisali Bihar (Fig. 5).10
b) The basic Indus ideogram for ‘deity’ occurs often, presumably as a religious
symbol, in the pottery graffiti from the megalithic burials at Sanur in Tamilnadu
(Fig.6)11
5. There is thus strong prima facie evidence from iconography, context of occurrence,
frequency-distribution statistics and later survivals that sign 48 of the Indus Script
represents popular anthropomorphic deity of the Harappan Civilisation. The survival
of the basic Indus ideogram as a religious symbol in later times suggests that the cult of
the Harappan deity spread to Eastern and southern India along with the migration of
the descendants of the Harappans to these regions after the demise of the mature
Indus Civilisation.
6. The two defining characteristics of the Harappan deity in sign 48 are:
a) A skeletal body with a prominent row of ribs;
b) The deity is seated on his haunches, body bent and contracted, with lower limbs
folded and knees drawn up.
7. As the ideogram is a conventional ‘stick figure’ with no width, the side-view of the
seated deity (facing left in seal-impressions) gives the appearance of ribs ‘sticking out of
the body’. The Egyptian determinatives or ideograms for ‘ back bone and ribs’ look
similar (Fig.7).12 There are also crucial pieces of evidence, both from Kalibangan,
pointing to the true nature of the ideogram:
a) An exceptional variant of sign 48 is found deeply incised (pre-firing) On the
concave inner surface of a shallow terracotta dish (Fig.8) 13. This variant depicts
the deity with a large head and the back bone with four ribs ‘inside the boy’.
b) A unique seal, probably Late Harappan, found on the surface at Kalibangan,
depicts a seated skeletal deity occupying the entire field (Fig.9).14 This pictorial
representation may thus be classified as the ‘field symbol’ equivalent of sign 48.
The deity is facing right (in the original seal), leaning forward. He has a large
heads and a massive jaw jutting forward. The complete ribcage is shown in clear
detail with almost all the ribs in position, curving naturalistically on either side
 of the backbone. The deity appears to be holding a ladle (?) in his right hand.
His knees are drawn up and the seems to be squatting on his haunches. 15
8. A careful comparative study of the two crucial variant forms of sign 48 from
Kalibangan with other known variants shows that the sign is a conventional depiction
of a seated skeletal figure, and that the distinctive attribute of the ‘Deity’ (Sign 48)
differentiating it from the ‘deity’ (Sign47) is the row of ‘ribs’ (Fig.10). 16
9. The skeletal figure appears to be a symbolic representation of the dead, or rather, the
spirit of the dead, or the manes (souls of the ‘ Fathers’) or a demonic deity, suggesting
some of ancestor-worship.
cf. Skt. bhūta (lit., ‘who was’); a spirit, the ghost of a deceased
Person, a demon, imp, goblin. ]
preta (lit., ‘the departed’): the spirit of a dead person
(especially before the obsequial rites are performed),
A ghost, an evil being.
Pāli peta: dead, departed, the departed spirit; the Buddhist peta
Signifies both the manes as well as the ghosts.
Pkt. Pe(y) a: a class of gods, the dead,
Ta. Pēy: devil, goblin, fiend. (DEDR 4438)17

10. The second characteristics shared by signs 47&48, of being seated, denotes dignity or
divinity (as in the Egyptian ideograms). The sitting posture has close parallels from the
anthropomorphic sculptures found at Mohenjodaro (Pl. I). 18 the bent, contracted
posture serves as a linguistic clue which will be discussed in section III.
Section II: Survival Of The Harappan Skeletal Deity In Later Mythology And
Traditions.
The identification of the ‘Harappan Skeletal Deity’ leads directly to the recognition of its
evolution as the ‘Emaciated Ascetics’ in later Indian mythology and art traditions. Some
characteristic examples are considered here.
Dadhyanca’s ribs
Dadhyanca (Dadhica ) is mentioned as a divinity in the RgVeda and as a teacher or rshi in the
later Vedic literature and the Mahābhārata. 19 Two famous myths associated with him are
relevant to our study:
a) Dadhyanca’s gift of his own ribs or bones to the gods for making the vajra with Indra
slew ninety-nine Vrtras.
b) Dadhyanca getting a horse’s head by the power of the Asvins. His name and his horse-
head connect Dadhyanca with Dadhikrā (van), the famous divine steed presented by
Mitra-Varuna to the pūrus. The etymology of the two names seemingly derived from
dadhi ‘curds, buttermilk’ has remained inexplicable.
The myths appear to have evolved from the iconography of the Harappan skeletal Deity
remembered as a religious symbol long after its linguistic context was forgotten:
 a) ribs: Dadhyanca’s inseparable identification with ‘ribs and bones’
b) suggests that he had a ‘skeletal’ body.
c) ‘horse-head’: This myth must have arisen when the symbol of the Harappan Skeletal
Deity was later re-interpreted as a ‘horse’ with a large ‘head’, four ‘legs’ (though the
actual number varied) and a ‘raised tail’. This Interpretation is seemingly plausible when
the symbol is viewed in the horizontal position. It is interesting that some modern
scholars studying the Indus Script have also interpreted Sign 48 as a ‘horse’ (Meriggi:
‘horse’: Misra ‘Dadhikrāvan’).20 The Soviet scholars have also interpreted the sign as a
quadruped, but as the ‘buffalo’ (presumably because there is no place for the ‘horse’ in
their theory of the Dravidian origin of the Indus Civilisation!) 21
d) The reason why Dadhyanca and Dadhikravan have names apparently derived from dadhi
‘curds’ may be explained on the basis of Dravidian etymology, assuming that these are
loan-translations:
muci (Ta.) to grow thin, to be emaciated (DEDR 4903).
mucar (ka.), mōr (Ta. ): curds, buttermilk (DEDR 4902).
Murutu, muruntu (Ka.): to shrink, shrivel (DEDR 4972).
Morata, morana (Skt.): sour buttermilk (connected to Dr. mucar, mor in DEDR 4902).

The Dr. words for ‘emaciated’ and ‘curds’ were homonymous. The Skt. names Dadhyanca
and Dadhikrāvan appear to be result of translating the wrong homophone, and thus ‘the
emaciated one’ became ‘one fond of curds’!
Bhrngin, the ‘Skeleton Demon’
Among the circle of the bhutaganas attending on ‘Siva, Bhrngin, got a skeletal body because of
Pārvati’s curse when he insisted on worshipping ‘siva alone and not her. Several sculptural
representations of Bhrngin are known, depicting him as a mere skelton (PI.II) 22 His antiquity,
identity as a bhūta and his-skeletal body indicate the derivation of the myth ultimately from the
Harappan Skeletal Deity.
Bhishma and his ‘bed of arrows’
The story Bhishma, the great pitāmaha of the Kurus, is too well-known to be re-told here. Three
legends connected with his deathbed as narrated in the Bhishma –vedha –parvan of the
Māhābhārata are relevant to the present study.23
a) When Bhishma fell in battle, he lay on ‘a bed of arrows ‘ without touching the earth.
If one views the symbol of the Harappan Skeletal Deity (sign48) in a horizontal
position, it can be interpreted as a person lying on a ‘bed of arrows’ without touching
the earth.
b) When Bhishma’s head was hanging down, he asked Arjuna for a pillow. Thereupon
Arjuna supported Bhishma’s head with three arrows shot From his Gāndhiva.
 One of the variant forms of the Harappan Skeletal Deity (Sign 48) in which three
projecting lines are seen attached to the back of the head provides the pictorial basis for
this myth (see the first sign in the second row in Fig.10).
c) When Bhishma was lying on his bed of arrows’, he asked for water. Arjuna shot an
arrow from his Gādhiva piericing the earth, and there arose a jet of pure and old water
for Bhishma to drink.
It is interesting that the nearest pictorial depiction of this legend is Provided by an
Egyptian ideogram (when viewed horizontally) of ‘a man receiving Purification from a
stream of water’ (Fig. II)24. Perhaps a similar variant from of sign 48 exists and may still
be found.
Buddha as an ‘Emaciated Ascetic’
Gautama in the course of his wanderings in search of Truth came to Uruvelaand practiced the
severest austerities which reduced him to a mere skeleton; But, failing to attain the goal by
mortification of the flesh, he decided to take Nourishment just enough to sustain the body.
This famous incident in the Budha’s life is splendidly portrayed in a sculpture from Gāndhāra
dated ca.2-3 cent. AD. (Pl.III) 25 According to tradition, the skeletal figure of the Buddha is
intended as a warning to others of the futility of excessive austerities. However it is possible to
take a more positive view of the depiction of the Buddha as an ‘Emaciated Ascetic in penance’
as worthy of adoration. This Explanation accounts in a more satisfactory manner for the wide
prevalence of the ….of the ‘emaciated ascetics’ in Brahmanical and Buddhist traditions,
ultimately going back to the Harappan prototype.
Kāraikkāl Ammaiyār, the pēy
Kārakkāl Ammaiyār, the earliest of the Tamil Saivaite saints (ca.5-6 cent. AD.),Chose to
describe herself in her poems as the pēy, which meat originally ‘the departed soul’ (From Pkt.
Peya), but later acquired the pejorative meanings ‘demoness, she-devil’ 26. True to her assumed
tittle, she describes Siva’s dance Surrounded by ghosts; she views the ghosts as ‘blessed with
sympathetic and human hearts 27. The magnificient Chola bronzes. From a later period depict
her literally as the pēy with a skeletal body, prominent ribcage and squatting On her haunches
(PI.IV)28. The similarity between the Gāndhāran Buddha And the Chola bronzes of Kāraikkāl
Ammaiyār in the treatment of the emaciated, skeletal body is striking, even though they are
wide apart in space and time. This thematic unity spanning the sub-continent and between the
Indo-Aryan and Dravidian traditions indicates a common inheritance going Back to the
Harappan times.
The Emaciated Ascetics from Harwan
Harwan, near Srinagar in the Kashmir valley,. Is famous as the site where Kanishka is said to
have convened the Fourth Buddhist Council in the 2ndCent.AD. The chaityagrha at this site
embellished with stamped terracottafriezes in the Late Gandharan style (ca. 4-5 cent. AD.) The
most prominent Among them are the repetitive friezes depicting ‘emaciated ascetics’ “who Are
lean, nude, reduced to a skeleton, shown with their bent backs, legs trucked Up, hands placed
on kness and with chins resting on their hands”29(Pl. V)30Here too, the interpretation that the
figures are intended as a warning against Excessive austerities is unconvincing, especially when
this depiction is the Dominant motif at the site. It is more likely that the figures represent the
Buddha as the emaciated ascetic. The similarity between the emaciated ascetics of Harwan and
the Harappan Skeletal Deity is too close to be missed.
The Emaciated Ascetics from Paharpur
The Somapura Mahāvihārā at Paharpur, Bangladesh, dating from 8 th cent. A.D. is especially
famous for the continuous friezes comprising thousands of stamped terracotta plaques
adorning the exterior walls of the plinth and The lower terraces. The plaques are known for
their ‘exuberant treatment’ of ‘All conceivable subjects of human interest’ including divine
figures, both Brahmanical and Buddhist (many more of the former than the latter). “Ascetics As
travelling mendicants, with long beards, their bodies bent and sometimes reduced to skeletons,
carrying staff in hand, and their belongings such as Bowls hanging from either ends of a pole
carried on the shoulder are one of The most favourite themes” depicted on the plaques 31. Here
are two unmistakable motifs ultimately derived from Harappan, of the ‘emaciated Or skeletal
body’ (Sign48) and the ‘yoke-bearer’ (Signs 12-15). It is significant That the two Indus
ideograms are found paired in the Indus Texts (Fig.12).
An extraordinary plaque from paharpur combines both motifs in one composite Figure
(Pl.VI) 32, reminiscent of the technique of composite signs in the Indus Script. The plaque
depicts a naked ascetic reduced to a skeleton with a bent back and exaggeratedly prominent
ribcage and back done and folded legs. He is carrying ladle in his right hand ( cf. the Kalibangan
seal described above). He is also carrying a yoke on this shoulders to which are tied at either end
a pair of vessels with ropes.
It is possible to interpret the papharpur plaques depicting separately the ‘yoke –bearer’ and
the ‘Skeletal ascetic’ in terms of the Brahmanical legends of Bharadvaja (lit., ‘the bearer of
victuals’) and Dadhica (famous for his gift of his own ribs and Bones) respectively. This is
indeed more likely as the Harappan symbols from which they are ultimately derived would have
been long forgotten when these plaques were made. However the extraordinary combination of
the two motifs in one composite figure strengthens the hypothetics that they are the survivals
of the two related motifs depicted in the Indus ideogram (Nos.15 and 48).
Section III: Identification Of The Harappan Skeletal Deity With Dr. * Muruku
1. We have so far looked at the pictorial depictions of the ‘Harappan Skeletal) Deity’ and
the ‘Emaciated Ascetics’ of the later mythology and art tradition to Learn what we can
about the external attributes of the deity. An attempt will be made in this section to
discover the probable original name and nature of the deity by searching through the
Dravidian (Dr.) etyma with the nearest meanings corresponding to the pictorial
elements33.
2. As seen earlier, the two defining characteristics of the pictorial depictions of the
Harappan deity are (a) a skeletal body, and (b) bent and contracted posture. The Dr.
etyma with the nearest meanings are as follows34
 a) ‘To be shrivelled’ (DEDR 4972):
Ma. muratuka: to shrivel; muraluka: id., decay.
Ka. muratu, murutu, muruntu: shrink, shrivel.
Tu. muruntu: shrunk, shriveled.
Nk. mural: shrunk, shriveled.
Nk. mural: to wither.
Kur. murdnā: to be dried to excess.
b) ‘To be contracted’ (DEDR4977):
Ta. muri: to bend; murivur. Contracting, fold; mūri (nimir): (to stretch by) winding limbs.
Ka. murige. Bending, twisting; muruhu: a bend, curve, a crooked object;
Ka. muratu, muratu, muruntu: to be bent or drawn together, state of being contracted. (DEDR. 4972).
Tu. muri: curve, twist; murige: twist.
Pa. murg: to be bent; murgal: hunchback.
Ga. Murg: to bend; murgen: bent; muruge: to bend down:
Go. moorga: humpbacked.
(cf: Pkt. murai: twisted; old Mar. mured: to twist,)
We may infer from the linguistic data summarised in (a) and (b) that PDr. *mur/mur-V is
the primitive root from which words with the meanings ‘shrivelled’ and ‘contracted’ have been
derived.
3. We may now proceed to apply the technique of rubs to try and discover the Dr.
homonyms with the intended meanings.
c) ‘strong, fierce, wild, fighting’ (DEDR 4971):
Ta. muratur.ill-temper, wildness, rudeness; muran: fight, battle, fiercencess, strength.
Ma. muran: fight, strength.
Ko. mort: violence (of action); mordn: violent man.
Tu. murle: quarrelsome man.
Te. moratu: rude man.
d) ‘To destroy, kill’ (DEDR. 4975):
Ta. murukkur to destroy, kill; murunku: to be destroyed.
Ma. muruka: to cut.
Kol., Nk, murk: to split, break.
Kui. mrupka: to kill, murder.
Kur. murukna: to mangle, mutilate.
Malt. murke: to cut into bits.
e) ‘Ancient’ (DEDR. 4969):
Ta. murancur: to be old, ancient; mūri. antiquity.
 Kol., Pa. murtal: old woman.
Go. mur-:to mature.
The two sets of etyma in (c) and (d) taken together indicate that the originalname of the
deity was something like * mūr/mur -V and that his essential traits werethose of a fierce god,
destroyer or hunter.
1. The legends and myths surrounding the deity have become inextricably mixed up and
both sets of etyma in groups (a) to (d) apply to him. In short, the deity was both ‘a
departed soul or demon’ as indicated by his skeletal body and the contracted posture,
and also ‘a fierce killer or hunter ’as indicated by the Dr. etyma. Furthermore, the
linguistic data in (e) can be interpreted to mean that the deity was considered to be
‘ancient’ even in Harappan times.
2. In the concluding part of the Paper. we shall compare the traits of the Harappan
Skeletal Deity as revealed by the pictorial depictions and linguistic data summarised
above, with those of muruku (Murukaṉ). the primitive god of the Tamils as recorded in
the earliest layers of the Caṅkam poetry35.
3. The most striking aspect of muruku is that he had no form: he was a disembodied spirit
or deṁon who manifested himself only by possessing his priest or a younġ maiden.
When muruku possessed him. The priest (vēlaṉ) went into a trance and performed the
shamanic dance in a frenzy (veṟi āṭal). When muruku possessed the maiden (aṇaṅkutal).
her mother called in the priest (vēlaṉ) to perform the veṟi dance to pacify the spirit and
restore the girl to her senses 36.
4. The second prominent trait of muruku was of a ‘wrathful killer’ indicating his prowess
as a war-god and hunter37.
5. The only physical traits which may be attributed to the primitive muruku are his red
colour (cēy) associated with blood and bloody sacrifices, and his spear (vēl) associated
with killing enemies and hunting animals. As muruku had no material body, these two
physical traits are shown to belong to his priest, vēlaṉ the ‘spear-bearer’ who wore red
clothes and offered red flowers in ritual worship involving the sacrifice of goats and
fowls. There were no temples in the earliest times, and the worship was carried out in
the open field (kaḷam) before a wooden altar.
6. Another very ancient aspect of the worship of Murukaṉ. not alluded to in the Caṅkam
poems, but strongly supported by Tamil tradition, is the ritual carrying of offerings on
the kᾱvaṭi (yoke with the offering on the kavati (yoke with the offerings tied to the ends
by ropes). The Paharpur plaques noticed above may also be compared with the Tamil
legends of muruku (the demon) and Iṭumpaṉ. his kᾱvaṭi-bearing worshipper38.
7. Much of the later Tamil literature, and virtually all the Tamil inscriptions and
iconographic motifs have been heavily influenced by the Sanskritic traditions of
Skanda-Kᾱrttikeya-Kumᾱra and have very little in common with the primitive muruku
except the name Murukaṉ 39. Even the meaning of his name has undergone a radical
transformation from muruku ‘the demon or destroyer’ to Murukaṉ ‘the beautiful one’,
 consistent with the later notion that godsmust be ‘beautiful’and demons’ugly’. As P.L.
Samy points out in his incisive study of Murukan in the Caṅkam works, there is no
support for the later meaning in the earliest poems. He derives murukku ‘to destroy’
from Dr. muru-,and endorses the identification of Murukaṉ with mūradeva (a class of
demons) mentioned in the Ṛgveda, as proposed by Karmarkar 40.
8. The muruku of the early Tamil society before the Age of sanskritisation was a primitive
tribal god conceived as a ‘demon’ who possessed people and as a ‘wrathful killer or
hunter.’ This characterisation of the earliest Tamil muruk is in complete accord with his
descent from the Harappan Skeletal Deity with similar traits revealed through pictorial
depictions, early myths and Dravidian linguistic data.
Notes and References
1. See, for example the pictorial representations of deities and sacrificial scenes on seals, sealings and other
inscribed objects. 1. Mahadevan 1977(=ISTCT). App. 11: Field symbols 47-81; PL.IV:VI: Figs. 80-116
2. ISTCT, Sign List Nos.1-48 (p.32).
3. Gardiner, Sign List A. 40 (determinative) and C.1-7& 9-11(ideograms).
4. It is interesting that Asko Parpola and his Finnish colleagues started off in 1970 with virtually the same
assumptions and identified Sign 47 as ‘god’ and Sign’ 48 as ‘Mother goddess’ Asko Parpola et 1970: pp. 25-26.
However Parpola has since changed his mind and presently identifies Sign 47 as an ‘enraged cobra with
expanded hood and Sign 48 as its ‘female gender, Asko Parpola (1994: p. 59).
5. ISTCT, Concordance, pp. 195-96. The pairing of the signs proves that they are not mere graphic variants.
Either sign can function as a substantive or as an attribute. However when they occur as substantives Sign 48
is followed by the ‘JAR’ suffix (Sign 342) indicating masculine gender, and Sign 47 is followed by the ‘Arrow’
suffix (Sign 211) indicating non-masculine gender, 1 Mahadevan 1998.
6. Vats, vol.II (Plates): Figs. 303-613; 658-692. The votive tablets and sealings are interpreted as ‘sacrificial’ by the
Soviet scholars (transl. Zide& Zvelebil.pp. 105-07): and as serving ‘a religious purpose’ by Asko purpola (1994:
p.1070).
7. IST.CT, Tables& IV.
8. ISICAT, Concordance,pp.197-200.
9. Joshi & Parpola (== CISI, Vol. 1), No. k-102-03.
10. Sinha & Roy,p.121, P1.XXX, No. 24. A grey-coloured round terracotta seal ẇith three Indus signs
(47-342-176) to be read in the clock-wise direction starting from the 6 o’clock position (in the
impression).This little-known seal was first identified as bearing a legend in the Indus Script by
Chakraborty (p.88 & p1.3A). The excavators assign the seal to Period III (ca. 200 BC 200 AD.).
However it is difficult to believe that this seal (-bearing a text so similar to the Harappan that, had it
been found at Harappa, it would not have attracted special attention-) can be so late. As the
excavators point out, the site is a highly disturbed one, and PGW and NBP ware occur together “as
the ware was re-deposited from the lower levels in the course of making the plinth of the Garh
higher and erection of mud rampart” (Sinha & Roy. pp 7-8) Most probably the present seal came
from the lowest level reached at this site (ca. 1100 BC).
11. Lal, p1. XXXIB-1(Megalithic) symbol No. 47. The symbol also occurs in p1. IIIA -1,3 and P1. XXX
B-1. See especially Lal’s photographic comparison of the India sign and the Megalithic symbol
(p1.XXXIB). He remarks “ In the case of Sanur (rare examples elsewhere also) thṙee symbols occur
 in such close a approximity to one another as to give the impression of a record. It may however be
added that the three symbols interchange their positions on different pots producing all possible
combinations” (Ibid. p.23) The graffiti-bearing Megalithic pottery found in Tamilnadu is assigned to
ca. the second half of the First Millennium BC.
12. Gardiner, Sign List F.38-40.
13. CISI, Vol. 1,No. k-104
14. CISI, Vol.1,No. K-48.
15. The details are clearly visible in the highly enlarged photograph of the seal published in Swami
Oamanda Sarswati 1975,p1.275.
16. For illustrated Lists of variants of Sign 48,see ISTCT, p.785, No. 48; Asko Parpola 1994,p.71,No.87
17. It has been suggested that Ta. pēy is from pkt. peya< Skt. Preta. Filliozat 1982: p. 10. Notwithstanding
the weighty authority of DEDR (Entry 4438), I agree with Filliozat.
18. Ardeleanu-Jansen, pp. 139-57, Figs. 16-35
19. The Vedic myths relating to Dadhyanca and Dadhikrᾱvan are summarised in MacDonnell, pp. 141-
42 and 148-49. For references to Dadhīca (Dadhīci) in the Mahᾱbhᾱrata, see Sorensen, p.225.
20. Meriggi, pp. 198-241. Mishra. pp. 78-81.
21. Knorozov et al, Index of Signs, No. 48 (pp. 84,100).
22. Ellora, Cave 14.
23. Sorensen,p.147.
24. Gardiner, Sign List: A-6 Wallis Budge, Sign List 1.101-104.
25. Debala Mitra,p1. 5.
26. Kᾱraikkᾱl Ammaiyᾱr, Aṟputa-t-tiruvantᾱti 101. Filliozat, pp. 10-11.
27. Kᾱraikkᾱl Ammaiyᾱr, Tiruvᾱlaṅkᾱṭṭu mūtta tiruppatikam.
28. Bronze of Kᾱraikkkᾱl Ammaiyᾱr (Chola period) at Bhava Aushadhisvara temple in Tirutturappundi
(Thanjavur Dt.)
29. S.L. Shali.pp. 133-34.
30. Emaciated Ascetic, stamped terracotta tile, 4-5-cent. AD. Hawan. (prince of Wales Museum,
Bombay). A similar frieze from this site in the Ashmolcan Museum, Oxford, UK, (Mus. Acc. No.
1980-65) depicts additionally the ribs. See also Debala Mitra, p1.85.
31. K.N.Dikshit, p.66; P1. XXVI (b): (Yoke-bearer): P1.XLVIII (e): Emaciated Ascetic).
32. Ibid p1.XXVI (a).The photograph published in the book is not clear. p1. V1 illustrating the present
Paper is from a much better photograph (ASI.16/64) in the Photo Archives of the Archaeological
Survey of India. New Delhi.
33. The basic premise is that the Indus Texts are in a Dravidian language. The arguments in favour of
the Dravidian character of the Indus Valley Civilisation are presented in Parpola 1994,pp.160-75.
34. The Dravidian linguistic data is taken from Burrow & Emeneau, A Dravidian Etymological
Dictionary. 1984(=DEDR). Names of Dr. languages are abbreviated as in DEDR
35. The earliest layer of the Tamil Caṅkam poetry comprises the Eṭṭuttokai (Eight Collections) and
pattuppᾱṭṭu (Ten Idylls) excluding Tirumurukᾱṟṟuppaṭai and paripᾱtal which are considered to be
relatively later works. For analysis of the earliest references to Murukan in the Caṅkam literature, see
 P.L. Samy. For an overall view of Tamil Traditions on Subrahmaṇya-Murukaṉ. see Kamil Zvelebil
1981& 1991.
36. Akam. 22, 98,138,139 etc.
37. Akam. 59, 158,266: Puṟam. 14, 16; Naṟṟiṇai. 225 etc.
38. See Asko Parpola 1981& 1997 for the connection between the Indus sign ‘yoke-carrier.’ kᾱvaṭi
traditions in North India as reflected in Indo-Aryan languages and kᾱvaṭi worship in Tamilnadu.
39. The earliest epigraphic reference to Murukaṉ in Tamilnadu is found in the Tiruttani (Velancheri)
plates of Pallava Aparᾱjitavarman (ca.900AD); R. Nagaswamy, Sculptures of Murukaṉ begin to
appear only from the Pallava-Early Pandya Period.
40. (From ca. 7-8 cent. AD). For a comprehensive treatment of the iconography of Murukaṉ in
Tamilnadu, see L’ Hernault P.L. Samy.pp. 9-16. 96. A.P. Karmarkar, p. 128. it is significant that the
name mūra in the ṚV is derived by Sᾱyaṇa from the root with the meaning mᾱraṇa ‘killing’.
Bibliography
Ardeleanu-Jansen, Alexandra 1983. Stone sculptures from Mohenjo-Daro. Interim Reports, Vol.1. ISMEO-Aachen
University Mission. Aachen. pp.139-157.
Budge, Wallis. 1966. Egyptian Languages. London.
Burrow T.& M.B. Emeneau 1984. A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Second Edition(= DEDR).Oxford.
Chakraborty B.B. 1981. Indus Script A Further Light. Calcutta.
Debala Mitra 1971. Buddhist Monuments. Sahitya Samsad. Calcutta.
Diskhit K.N. 1938. Excavations at Paharpur, Bengal. Memories of the Archeological Survey of India, No. 55. Delhi.
Filliozat J. 1982. (Introduction in ) Karaikkᾱlammaiyᾱr. Nouvelle Edition. Institute Francais D’ Indologie.
Pondicherry.
Gardiner A. 1973. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford University Press. London.
Joshi J.P. & Asoka Parpola 1987. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (==CISI). Vol.1: Collections in India. Helsinki.
Karmarkar A.P. 1950. The vrᾱtya Dravidian systems. Lonavala.
Knorozov Y.V. et al 1981. Proto-Indica 1979. Moscow.
Lal Hernault F. 1978. L’ Iconographie de Subrahmanya au Tamilnad, Institute Francies d’ Indologie. Pondicherry.
Macdonell A.A. 1981. Vedic Mythology. Motilal Banarsidass. Delhi.
Mahadevan 1.1977. The Indus Script Texts. Concordance and Tables (=ISTCT) Archaeological Survey of India. New Delhi.
1998. “Phonetic value of the ‘ARROW’ sign in the Indus Script.” Journal of the Institute of the Institute of Asian Studies.
Vol. XV, No. 2. Pp. 69-74.
Marshall. John 1931. Mohenjodaro and the Indus Civilisation. 3 Vols. London.
Meriggi p.1934. Zur Indus-Schrift. ZDMG,87 (NF 12). pp. 198-241.
Mishra, Madhusudan 1998. From Indus to Sanskrit, pt. III Delhi.
Nagaswamy R. 1979. Thiruttani and Velanjeri Copper plates. State Dept. Of Archaeology, Tamilnadu. Madras.
Omananda Saraswati 1975. Ancient Seals of Haryana (in Hindi). Rohtak.
Parpola A. 1981. “On the Harappan ‘Yoke-Carrier’ pictogram and the kᾱvaḍi worship.” Procds. of the Fifth
International Conference-Seminar of Tamil Studies, Madurai. Vol. 1: pp. 2.73-89.
1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge University press.
1997. Dravidian and the Indus Script On the interpretation of some pivotal signs. Studia Orientalia 82,pp. 178-87.
Parpola A. et 1970. Further progress in the Indus Script Decipherment. The Scandivian Institute of Asian studies,
Copenhagen.
Samy P.L 1990. Caṅkanūlkaḷil Murukaṉ (Murukan in the Caṅkam Works). Madras.
Shali S.L. 1993. Kasmir. History and archaeology through the Agės. New Delhi.
Sinha B.P. & Sita Ram Roy 1969. vaiṡᾱlī Excavations (1958-1962). Directorate of Archaeology and Museums. Patna.
Sorensen S. 1963. Index to the Names in the Mahabhᾱrᾱta. Motilal Banarsidass. Delhi.
Zide A.& K.V. zvelebil 1976. The Soviet Decipherment of the Indus valley Script: Translation and Critique. Mounton. The
Hague.
Zvelebil K.V. Tiru Murugan. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras.
1991. Tamil Traditions of Subrahmanya-Murugan. Institute of Asian Studies, Madras.

Figs. 1-9
v
 Iravatham Mahadevan. photo: M. Vedhan
Iravatham Mahadevan (1930-2018) was a pioneer in the research on the Tamil-Brahmi script
and the Indus script and the connections between the two civilisations, and despite the sensitive
political nature of the subjects, he drew his conclusions strictly from material evidence and
avoided polemics. My wife and I visited him on November 26 evening. He could not talk but
held our hands tightly. He asked for a white card and wrote on it “When shall I die? I.M”. A
few hours later, he passed on.
Iravatham Mahadevan had carried on the tradition of being a scholar civil servant by F.W.
Ellis and Robert Sewell. His research and publications on the Tamil Brahmi script and the Indus
script were pioneering works that opened up vast new areas of research.
Born in Mannachanallur near Tiruchi, Mahadevan graduated from St. Joseph’s College,
Tiruchi, and then from Vivekanada College, Chennai. He took a degree in law from Madras
Law college and briefly practiced law in Tiruchi. It was then that he took the civil services
examination and got into the Indian Foreign Service. But Mahadevan wanted to be in India, and
through Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, he was able to get his allotment changed to the
Indian Administrative Service. Beginning his career as Sub-Collector in Pollachi, he served in
various capacities, first in Tamil Nadu and afterwards at the Centre, including a stint as joint
Secretary, Department of Food and public Distribution, until 1980, when he took voluntary
retirement.
 His first scholarly interest was early Tamil inscriptions found in caves and rock shelters in
many sites in Tamil Nadu, which described mostly place names and the names of donors
related to Jainism. It was Mahadvan who recognised that they were in Tamil-Brahmi script and
that they belonged to the Sangam Age. He saw that Brahmi had been adapted to Tamil and
Christened the language of these lithic records Tamil-Brahmi. The first phase of this study
lasted from 1961 to 1967. He was actively involved with the International Association of Tamil
Research (IATR). He published papers on the inscription of the Chearsas of the sangam age,
found in pugalur; and of the Pandyas of the Sangom Age, found in Mangulam. He copied the
inscriptions by setting up scaffolds to reach the cave roof.
In 1967, he made a path-breaking presentation on Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions at the
International Tamil Conference in Chennai, organised by the IATR, of which he was the
administrative officer. He established his reputation as a scholar to be reckoned with in the field.
He established his reputation as a scholar to be reckoned with in the field. He also traced this
origin of the “dot” (pulli) in Tamil, for which he used numismatic evidence. It is this humble
dot that kept each Tamil letter independent and words from becoming a string of letters. He
calculated that Tholkappiam, the Tamil grammatical treatise, was written in the century CE.F.W
Ellis had translated Tirukkural earlier and had conclu---that the author of this ethical work was
a Jain. He had a gold coin issued which depicted a Jain monk, in commemoration of the author.
It was Mhadevan who identified the gold coin and brought it to the notice of the world.
Publishing History
The enstampages of these lithic records were taken, and transferred on to tracing sheets, which
were then photographed. This resulted in Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times to the Sixth
century A.D., another important work, published in 2003. This was jointly published by Cre-A
and Harvard University. The publication created history as it was the first one In Tamil to be
brought out by the celebrated Harvard Oriental Series. The second edition was brought out by
the Central Institute for Classical Tamil, with a couple of additional inscriptions.
While some of us wanted him to spend his valuable time on the Indus, script, he said it was
worth it to look for new finds. The book will endure as an important compendium, and
Mahadevan made Tamils proud as it established that the written form of Tamil had existed in
the early centuries of the previous millennium and even before that. He used to say that we
needed to bring out clinching evidence even when we presented facts. He could handle Sanskrit,
Tamil, English and Persian with ease. He did not have any bias towards any language. For him,
research had to be free from prejudices. He said if one was serious about deciphering scripts,
one had to learn old Chinese, Egyptian, Sumerian, Sanskrit, Persian and Tamil. He asked us to
study Dravidian linguistics to understand the language properly.
He used to share a lot of anecdotes with us. He talked about receiving the Jawaharlal Nehru
Fellowship for Indus Research and how, sitting in the Indian Museum, he used to copy the seals
by hand. He then engaged illustrators to create the standardised sign list, which is part of the
Concordance. Once he recalled jokingly how the fellowship managers asked him how many
scripts he had deciphered so far, not knowing the complexities of the subject. When computers
were introduced in India, study the Indus script. In 1977, he produced his other important ----
which was brought out by the archaeological Survey of India: The------Script: Texts,
concordance and Tables.
It was during this time that he got close to Dr Gift Siromoney, Professor of Statistics in
Madras Christian College, who was also studying the Indus He admired Siromoney’s work and
would often refer to him in his conversations. Later, Mahadevan would create an endowment in
the name of Siromoney at the Roja Muthiah Research Library. In the first lecture he gave in the
series, Mahadevan argued that the language Harappans used was related to Tamil. He created
another endowment, Father Heras Memorial Oration Series. He invited Prof. Romila Thapar,
Asko Parpola and other stalwarts to lecture in Chennai. He was close to all of them and they
fondly called him “Jani”.
After his retirement, he took up the editorship of the Tamil daily Dinamani and brought in
many innovations. Earlier, the Tamil used in the newspaper was of the Manipravala style and
Mahadevan changed this. He also brought in the reforms in Tamil alphabets that Periyar had
proposed. One of the interesting things he accomplished in Dinamani was the supplement
Tamilmani where he used to feature stalwarts in Tamil. With the artist Trotsky Marudhu’s
illustrations, it became a collector’s item. He featured the contributions of Roja Muthiah as an
avid book collector. The editorials he wrote, particularly the ones opposing nuclear energy, are
still remembered.
After working in the area of the Indus script, he returned to the Tamil-Brahmi field in 1991.
He was active for five years, copying cave inscriptions. I had the privilege of accompanying him
on some of his field trips. One such trip was our visit to the Doosi Mamandur caves near
Kanchipuram. Clad in sneakers for the walk up the hillock, he walked up slowly, assisted by the
archaeologist Gandhi Rajan and a friend of his, K.R.A Narasiah. It was touching to see these
two elderly men moving up the hill. The moment Mahadevan located the engraving, a childlike
enthusiasm gripped him.
Mahadevan drew links between the Indus civilisation and the Dravidian cultures of south
India. Working on Tamil-Brahmi, finding the connections between the Indus civilisation and a
proto Dravidian language (during private conversations he did say that it must have been an old
form of Tamil), finding bilingual parallels between Sansk Tamil literature, thereby identifying
how words travelled from Sanskrit and how they got translated to Tamil again (he followed
Thomas Young and Joseph Champollion model of identifying legacies of the Indus civilisation
in the oldest surviving religious texts. However, he did not hit upon a Rosetta stone); endowing
lectures for Dravidian scholars, and announcing that the Indus civilisation’s Dravidian
connection hypothesis was no more a hypothesis. Father Heras, Gift Siromoney, V.C.
Kulandaiswamy are known names. In 1964.
When he laid his hands on the Pugalur inscription, he danced in joy and told the world that
the inscription contained the name of a royalty referred to in Sangam literature. He danced on
another occasion. When a Neolithic axe was found in Sembian Kandiyur in Mayiladuthurai, It
was shown to him for confirmation and he noticed that Indus script-like signs were inscribed
on them and he put the axe on his head and danced. He said it was the find of the century. He
spent his time only on two areas: early Tamil inscriptions and the Indus script. For him, both
were related to Dravidian culture. He did not have time for any other topic. To relax, he would
listen to Carnatic songs on his favourite radio in the evenings.
He supported the World Tamil Conference held in Coimbatore by the Government of
Tamil Nadu. When the IATR was not in favour of the conference then, he, along with VCK,
wrote an open letter saying how pertinent it was to hold such a conference and that the IATR
should change its stance And when it was held, he suggested that an exhibition on the Indus
Civilisation be showcased. The government welcomed the idea and sanctioned space to curate
the exhibition. Asko Parpola, who saw the exhibition, hoped that this exhibition would find a
permanent location so that it could be seen by more people. More than a lakh people visited
this exhibition.
When the Supreme Court banned jallikattu in 2008, he quickly pulled one of the seals (No.
M 312 as given in his concordance) from Mohenjodaro which depicts a bull overthrowing
people and gave it to a journalist for an article in The Hindu. That afternoon the judges lifted
the stay.
Active until the end
He worked untiringly until the end. His latest paper was published as part of a festschrift
volume for Prof.J.M.Kenoyer in August 2018, published by Archaeopress, Oxford. In this
paper, “Toponyms, Directions and Tribal names in the Indus Script”, he interpreted certain
signs as place markers and drew heavily from the works of another civil servant, Dravidianist
scholar R. Balakrishnan, from his work on the “High West Low East”, the Dravidian paradigm.
His last presence at an academic event was at Balakrishnan’s lecture on the Pot Route in
October, on the occasion of the 94th anniversary of the announcement of the discovery of the
Indus Valley Civilisation. The man’s life can be summed up from the people who attended his
funeral: All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Minister Ma. Foi. Pandian,
Leader of the opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly M.K. Stalin, former Minister for School
Education Thangam Thennarasu, Leaders from the CPI (M), The Congress, Dravidar
Kazhagam leader K. Veeramani, BJP and RSS leaders, and editors of dailies and other literary
Magazines; not to mention several scholars, his old friends and the general public. Some of
them had never met him.
It was a delight to converse with Mahadevan as he had a puckish sense of humour. when we
visited him on his last birthday, he had said he was at a unique age. “Unlike the Indus script, you
can read my age right to left, left to right, from top to bottom to top.” He was 88 that day. He
twisted the famous line of the poet Subramanya Bharathi, “As soon as you wake up, you read”
(Kaalai ezhundhavudan Padippu ), to “As soon as you wake up, you drink coffee”. Even during
stressful times he would joke and reduce the tension of moment. After an open-heart surgical
procedure, he quipped: “You know something? Finally, the doctors found that I have a heart.”
He would urge us in the Roja Muthiah Research Library to complete the tasks relating to his
projects as soon as possible as he was getting older. Or else we would have to communicate
with him only through H-mail-he would add that one would not know if it would be hell or
heaven. He would give a copy of his autographed paper when we went to see him. And
autograph would be in Indus script as he interpreted it.
 When he visited our exhibition Gandhi in Tamil Nadu at the library, Shared an anecdote. As
a schoolboy, he took part in the Independence movement. He collected money for Gandhi and
went to hand it over to Gandhi who was travelling on a train. Mahadevan quickly reached
Gandhiand dropped the coins in his hands and left with a great feeling that his hands actually
touched Gandhi’s. He was jailed once, during which time his sacred thread was snapped: he
never wore it again.
Patient and generous
Mahadevan had the magnanimity to encourage other scholars in the field and was generous
with fellow researchers. He patiently answered emails from individuals interested in epigraphy
or the Indus Valley Civillisation, whatever may be his/her station in life. He never had time for
anything else. He never entertained academic gossip and never got into polemical writing.
In 2007, he established The Indus Research Centre, at the Roja Muthiah Research Library,
which has emerged as a leading forum of inquiry in this area. During the preliminary discussion
we had, he had insisted that the research on script and the civilisation had to be done on a
scientific basis, without any trace of chauvinism. In 2009, he was conferred with the Padma Shri
award. Experts opined that this was the first time epigraphy was recognised by the Government
of India. He received the Tamil Nadu governments highest award, the Tiruvalluvar Award. The
Tamil University, Thanjavur, conferred an honorary doctorate (D.Litt.) on him for his
contributions. He has received numerous other awards.
He was not a wealthy person. Yet, he was generous. He sold his house and from the major
portion of the proceedings, he founded the Vidyasagar Educational Trust in memory of his
elder son, with a donation of Rs.50 lakh. This Trust has donated Rs.40 lakhs to Sankara
Nethralaya, Chennai, to establish the Vidyasagar Institute of Bio-Medical Technology and
Science, affiliated to BITS, Pilani, for M.S. and PhD degrees. He had no big savings, but he
would still pay from his pension to run courses and programmes. He once told me that if I
needed money I should ask him. He was fond of U.Ve. Swaminatha lyer and his works. He
funded the publication of the seventh edition of Kuruntokai in 2017. Finally … donated his eyes
to Sankara Nethralaya.
He was not afraid of his impending end, and he wished to depart from home. He wanted to
go peacefully without too many medical interventions. Even as he recovered after a brief
hospitalisation, he wrote that night “I fear I am recovering. Shame!” He was at peace at home,
and until the end, lucid and clear in his thoughts. As he wished, there were no rituals at the
funeral, and he had wanted to be cremated. His ashes were immersed around the same spot
where his wife Gowri’s ashes were scattered 26 years ago. He is survived by his son Sridhar
Mahadevan, who is Adjunct Professor, Director, Data Science Lab, Massachusetts, United
States. Mahadevan has a granddaughter and a grandson through his elder son Vidyasagar. All
his papers and books are now preserved at the Indus Research Centre of the Roja Muthiah
Research Library (www.rmrl.in). Whenever and idea struck him, he would jot it down in a
notebook and he called it “Gnanodayam.” Now there must be several volumes of
Gnanodayam.
 While writing his obituary, one cannot ignore his caretaker, Lakshmi, who called him
“Thathamma”. For several years, she was the one who took care of him. Lakshmi knew every
gesture of his. He would turn to one side and Lakshmi would bring the spectacles for him. She
will be the one who will miss him the most. She was like a daughter or even a mother to him.
Sometimes Lakshmi would also read the script and say if it was Muruku or Nedumal or Mel
Akam (Indus scripts) and so on. Whom did Mahadevan not influence?
Sundar Ganesan is the Director of Roja Muthiah Research Library. His association with
Iravatham Mahadevan directly is form 2004. The Indus Research Centre was established in the
library in 2007 on the advice of Iravatham Mahadevan, who was its first honorary consultant
(until 2012). Sundar Ganesan has worked with him closely and published papers on the Indus
civilisation along with Iravatham Mahadevan.
 Abstract
The recent discovery of inscribed pottery in South India indicate that the history of writing among the
Dravidian people did not begin with the introduction of Brahmi Writing to south India. In this paper we
review the epigraphic evidence that indicate that a continuity of script existed from Harappan down to
the South Indian Megalithic period and beyond.

An Unofficial History Dravidian Writing

The Dravidian people originated in Middle Africa. From here Dravidian speaking People went
on to settle parts of Europe and Asia.
The original inhabitants of the Sahara where the Egyptian or Kemitic Civilisation
Originated were not Berbers or Indo-Europeans (winters 1985b). This was the ancient
homeland of the Dravidians, Egyptians, Sumerians, Niger-Kordofanian-Mande and Elimate
speakers is called the Fertile African Crescent (Anselin 1989, p.16, 1992; Winters 1981, 1985b,
1989, 1991, 1994). The inhabitants of this area lived in the highland regions of the Fezzan in
modern Libya and Hoggar until after 4000 B.C. we call these People the Proto-Saharans
(winters 1985b, 1991). The genetic term for this group is Kushite.
The Proto-Saharans were called Ta-Seti and Tehunu by the Egyptians. In the archeological
literature they were called A-Group and C-Group respectively. Farid (19858, p.82) noted that:
We can notice that at the beginning of the neolithic stage in Egypt on the edge of the Western Desert
corresponds with expansion of the Saharan Neolithic culture and the growth of its population.
The Fertile Saharan Crescent is an arc shaped series of highland regions in the Saharan zone
of Africa. The Saharan zone is bonded on the north by the Atlas Mountains, the Atlantic
Ocean in the West, the tropical rain forest in the south and the Red Sea in the East. It was here
that the ancestors of the founders of the river valley civilisations in Africa, the Middle East,
China and Indus Valley developed their highly organised and technological societies (Winters
1983a, 1985b).
The Original homeland of the Dravidian speaking people was the Saharan zone of Middle
Africa. we call the ancestors of the Dravidians the Proto-Saharans. The homeland of the Proto-
Saharans was the Libyan and Sudanese deserts. It was in this region between 9000-6000 BC,
that the elements of Proto –Dravidian culture were created (Winters 1985).
Ethically the Proto-Dravidians were round-headed Mediterranean’s of the ancient variety.
Around 7000 BC, Mediterranean’s of a fairly tall stature not devoid of negroid Characteristics
appear in the Sahara at Capsa (now called Cafsa) (Desanges 1981:424-25). These
Mediterranean’s are called Capsians. This group flourished in an area extending from the
western most borders of north Africa, into the southern Sahara.
Skeletons of the Mediterranean type have been found throughout Middle Africa, Southeast
Asia, Mesopotamia, the Indo-Pakistan region and even Central Asia. It is no Secret that the
founders of ancient Egypt, Elam, Sumer and the Indus Valley were all of the Mediterranean
type. In the ancient inscriptions many Proto-Saharans were called KUSHITES. These Kushites
were also called Saka, Kushana, Kuttains, Kus and Qus (Lacouperie 1886:28-29; Winters 1982).
In the primary center of Proto-Dravidian settlement in Middle Africa, they used a Common
black-and-red ware (BRW) and herded cattle, sheep and goats. They also Possessed wheat and
millet. (winters 1985a) This supports Kohl’s (1988:596) hypothesis that millet was introduced
into Inner Asia from Africa. The Dravidians migrated out of the Sahara, due to population
pressure and the search for sources of new metal reserves.

Below are some of the cognate terms Dravido-Africanterms for agriculture and
domesticated animals. There is abundant evidence that African millets were cultivated in the
Indus Valley during Harappan times (Weber, 1989; winters, 1981a, 1981b). Weber (1998)
maintains that Indian agriculture was “greatly influenced” by these millets from ancient to
modern times (p.267). It would appear from the archaeological evidence that local millets were
cultivated before the 3rd millennium B.C (Weber, 1998; Winters, 1981b). But by the founding of
the Harappan civilisation and rise of civilisation in Gujarat the African millets were integrated
into a well-established South Asian subsistence pattern (Weber, 1998).
Controversy surrounds the transportation pattern for African millets to India (Weber, 1998).
Yet it would appear that millets arrive in South Asia, both in the 3 rdand 2ndmillennium B.C. It is
interesting to note that where the African millets represent the dominate cereal grain, rice was
also a major domesticate (Weber, 1998).
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359,
4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian,
Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these languages. These terms
are outlined below:
Kol Sonna ----- ------- ------
Wolof (AF.) suna ----- ------ ------
Mande (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro
Koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina
Kannada ---- baraga, baragu tene
korale, korale
*sona *baraga *tenä
*kora
Below we will compare other Dravidian and African agricultural terms. These terms come
from the Mande languages (Malinke, Kpelle, Bambara, Azer, Soninke), West Atlantic (Wolof,
Fulani), Afro-Asiatic (Oromo, Galla), Somali, Nubian and the ancient Egyptian. The Paleo-
Dravido-Africans came from a sedentary culture that domesticated cattle and grew numerous
crops including wheat and millet. The Egyptian term for cultivation is 0 b j (w) #. Egyptian 0 b
m j (w) # corresponds to many African terms for cultivation:
Galla baji ‘cultivated field’
Tulu (Dravidian language) bey, benni
Nubian ba, bat ‘hoe up
ground’
Malinke be
Somali beer
Wolof mbey, ambey, bey
Egyptian b j (w)
Sumerian buru, bur ‘to root up’
These terms for cultivate suggest that the Paleo-African term for cultivate was *be. The
Egyptian term for grain is 0 sa #. This corresponds to many African terms for seed, grain:
Galla senyi
Malinke se si
Sumerian se
Egyptian sen ‘granary’
Kannanda cigur
Bozo sii
Bambara sii
Daba sisin
Somali sinni
Loma sii
Susu sansi
Oromo sanyi
Dime siimu
Egyptian ssr corn’
id. ssn lotus plant
id. sm ‘herb, plant’

id. isw ‘weeds’

The identification of a s>0/# _________ e pattern for ‘seed, grain’ in the above languages
suggest that these groups were familiar with seeds at the time they separated into distinct
supersets. The fact that Sumerian ø se # and Egyptian ø sen #, and Malinke ø se # are all
separated both in time and geographical area highlight the early use of seeds * se, by Paleo-
Dravido-Africans.
The Paleo-Dravido-Africans used the hoe to cultivate their crops. The Egyptian terms for
hoe are ø hbs # and ø wb #, which mean ‘to open up’ in Egyptian. These Egyptian terms are
analogous to Black
African and Dravidian terms for hoe:

Tamil parai

Malayalam para

Kannanda pare

Nubia bat

Malinke daba

Egyptian per ‘to plough’

Hausa fartanya

Swahili palile

Egyptian hbs

Galla buqis ‘root up’

Sumerian buru ‘to root up’

It would appear that contrast exist between b and (f) ______p.

This indicates that in Paleo-Dravido-African that b < p. The Paleo-Dravido-African term
for hoe was probably *ba(r)/ pa (r).
The Paleo-Dravido-Africans also possessed other
terms for hoe:
Malayalam kuntali
Tamil pickaxe’
Nubian kadid
Wolof konko
Malinke kope, daba
Galla doma
Hausa garma
Kod guddali
Kannanda guddali
Kpelle kali
This evidence suggest that t > d. The phonological contrast between t =/= d, highlight the
alternation patterns of many Paleo-Dravido-African consonants for
hoe the including:
b =/= p

1 =/= r

g =/= k.

B.B Lal (1963) proved conclusively that the Dravidians were genetically related to the C-
group of Nubia, given the fact that both groups used 1) a common BRW, 2) a common burial
complex incorporating megaliths and circular rock enclosures and 3) a common type of rock
cut sepulchre. The BRW industry diffused from Nubia, across West Asia into Rajastan, and
thence to East Central and South India (Rao 1972:34).
 The Proto-Dravidians lived on hillocks or slopes near water. But some Capsians lived on
plains which featured lakes and marshes. Their way of life continued from the Neolithic era up
to the time of the Garamante (a group of Manding speakers) that remained in the Fezzan
region of Libya until Roman times (Winters 1983a:210, 1983b:15).

The ancestors of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians were organised into a federal
system during the neolithic subpluvial. These early Proto-Saharans made adequate uses of local
game and plant life and they established permanent and seasonal settlements around well
stocked fishing holes. They lived on plains, punctuated by mountains and numerous points of
inundation due to the frequency of rain in the ancient Sahara.

The Proto-Saharans claimed descent from the Maa or Fish Confederation. The Maa
Confederation includes the Egyptians, Elamites, Dravidians, Manding, and Sumerians. In honor
of this great ancestor Maa, they worshipped a god called: Amun, Amon or Amma. In addition
to pay homage to Ma, the descendants of the Proto-Saharans use the term Ma, to denote
greatness or highness, e.g., Manding: Maga, and Dravidian: Ma. Other Proto-Saharan tribes
claimed direct descent from the great Maa, founder of the Fish Confederation. For example,
the Manding call themselves Ma-nde (the children of Maa) and the Sumerian called themselves
Mah-Gar-ri (exalted God’s children).
The Proto-Saharans also had their own writing system. This writing system was used by the
Dravidians in the Indus Valley, the Manding in the Western Sahara, and the early Egyptians.
Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP (before the present),
ethnic groups in Middle Africa were semi-sedentary hunter-fisher gatherers who engaged in the
exploitation of their habitat. In the early period the Proto-Saharans may have had a limited
interest in the domestication of plants and animals. But it was not until the return of an arid
climate to the Sahara between 12000-7000 BC, that the Proto-Saharans were forced to
domesticate cattle and goats to ensure a reliable source of food.
Pastoralism and fishing proceeded food production in the Saharan Proto-Dravidian
homeland. It appears that a hunter-gatherer group specialising in the hunting of animals
became cattle herders. They were keenly aware of the habits of game and therefore made the
shift from hunter-fisher-gatherer to animal husbandry rapidly once the climatic conditions in
the Sahara made it impossible to collect grains. Due to the origin of the Dravidians and other
African groups in the Sahara they share many terms for flora and fauna (winters, 1999a, 1999b,
2000).
Due to the richness of the flora and fauna in the Sahara 8000 BP, ethnic groups in Middle
Africa were forced to domesticate cattle. Once climatic conditions improved food surpluses led
to the rise of towns and cities, complex political organisation, social ranking of individuals in
society, and craft specialisation as certain clans and ethnic groups became more sedentary. This
is supported by the numerous hearths and remains of cattle found in Chad and Libya (Wendorf,
Close, & Schild 1985).
Often wild ass, Barbary sheep, hyena and hare were associated with wild cattle in the Sahara.
Bones of domesticated cattle have come from the Uan Muhuggiag site situated in the Sahara.
Between 7500 and 10,000 BC we discover that in addition to these remains archaeologist have
found evidence of slab-lined storage pits. At this time the houses had large stones situated
around the perimeter (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985).
Aridity arrived in the Sahara around 5900 BC. In 5800 BC settled life returned to the
Sahara. During this period goat were domesticated and emmer wheat was cultivated. The
farmers also cultivated millet and barley (Wendorf, Close, & Schild 1985).
The ability to produce surplus food led to an increase in population, changes in social
organisation and class distinctions. Naturally, population increases forced the ancestors of the
Proto-Saharans to spill over into more marginal areas. This population pressure probably forced
many Proto-Saharan clans to domesticate plants and animals to preserve traditional levels of
food production.
The Proto-Dravidians used a common black-and-red ware that has been found from the
Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh
1982:xxiv). The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000-3500 BC).
The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.
The Proto-Dravidian migrations were not spontaneous in nature, their colonisation of
Central Asia was formalised. The Proto-Dravidian colonists of inner Asia were motivated by
both curiosity and the need for metals. Metallurgy was important to man in the 3 rd Millennium
BC. At this time man was already mining metals to be fabricated into tools, jewelry and cooking
utensils. Most scholars speculated that by 2000 BC properties of many common metals were
understood and the location of ores were known. The Dravidians probably early knew basic
smelting and fabricating techniques and the basic alloy compositions.

The metals were carried on both land and sea by proto-Saharan merchants especially, The
Manding and Dravidian speakers of Asia. Boats were used for water transportation while the
horse or ass may have been used to carry goods along overland routes. Cattle were often used
to pull carts loaded with goods.

The bronze Age civilisations of Europe were founded by non-Indo-European speakers.

Mellaart 1981) The Sino-Tibetan (S-T) and Thai speakers fought the Kushite culture bearers
until the end of the Bronze Age (Gafurov 1980).
In the ancient literature the Proto-Dravidians are called kushites. Using boats the Kushites
moved down ancient waterways many now dried up, to establish new towns in Asia and Europe
after 3500 BC. The Kushites remained supreme around the world until 1400-1200 BC. During
this period the Hua (Chinese) and Indo-European (I-E) speakers began to conquer the Kushites
whose cities and economies were destroyed as a result of natural catastrophes which took place
on the planet between 1400-1200 BC. Later, after 500 AD, Turkish speaking people began to
settle parts of Central Asia. This is the reason behind the presence of the K-s-h element in
many place names in Asia e.g., Kashgar, HinduKush, and Kosh. The HinduKush in Harappan
times had lapis lazuli deposits.
This linguistic evidence further supports the reality of Lycian and Dravidian existing as
congnate languages given the established close relationship between Caucasian, Dravidian and
Lycian.
In summary the Dravidian people influenced many aspects of Anatolian civilisation. Most
importantly, the Lycians were probably a colony of the Dravidian speaking people who settle
the area after the Proto-Dravidians left the Fertile African Crescent to colonise Europe.
The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of Proto-Saharan tribes
between 3800-2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in
Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece. In addition, linguist have found a very
close relationship between Lycian and Tamil (Winters 1989c).
The I-E and S-T speakers followed two methods of penetration into former Dravidian
areas. First, between 2000-1650 BC they settled in areas of Dravidian occupation in small
numbers, and were partly assimilated into Kushite society. Between 1650-1250 BC as the I-E
and S-T speakers reached a numerical majority in or near a Kushite town they would join forces
to militarily overthrow the original inhabitants and take political power, this typified the second
form of I-E and S-T invasion in their respective areas of occupation.
The Sumerian writing was deciphered by Col. Rawlinson. Until the Germans created the
Aryan model of History, the Sumerians were said to have come from Africa. This is why
Rawlinson used Oromo and Ge’ez to decipher the Sumerian writing. Researcher’s today claim
they don’t know the origin of the Sumerians to deny their African origin.
The major proponent of the ancient model was Col. Rawlinson the decipherer of the
cuneiform script. Using the classical literature and linguistics Col. Rawlinson said the founders
of ancient civilisation were the Scythes. He made it clear that these Scythes had nothing to do
with the contemporary people called Scythians because according to Rawlinson they came from
Africa and were also known as Kushites. He called these people Hamites, based on the Bible
identification of the children of Ham: Kush, Misraim (Egypt), Nimrud (Sumer-Elam) and
Canaan were Scythic.
As you can see the ancient Scythians had nothing to do with the Turks. Granted there is a
relationship between the Turkish language and Dravidian but this is the result of the Dravidian
people who formerly occupied all of Central Asia when the Turks migrated into their present
habitation area. Moreover, we know that the Sumerians had keen relations with Dilmun which
was the Indus valley.
The Dravidians early colonised the Indus Valley and Iran. Although the Dravidian speakers
form a solid block of related languages in South India, the territorial domains of the Dravidians
once extended into the Indus Valley, and Iran. This view is supported by
(1)The evidence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit, and (2) the presence of Dravidian
speakers in North India. Moreover, the recent decipherment of the Indus Valley script proves
the Dravidian presence in the Indus Valley (winters 1984b).
 Gafurov (1980),discussed the possible influence of the Indus Valley culture on the interior
of Central Asia. Since many Indus Valley dwellers were of Dravidian origin we know that they
spoke an aspect of Dravidian (Nayar 1977; Winters 1990).
Menges (1966). Using linguistic data “assumed an earlier habitat of the Dravidian far to the
north west on the plateau of Iran…an area extending still a little bit more to the north into
what has become Turkistan.” This view is now confirmed by archaeological evidence of an
Indus culture in Inner Asia (Brenjtes 1983; Winters 1990).
The Dravidian settled in Asia between 3000-2800 BC. (Winters 1985) from here the
Dravidians spread into Central Asia, China, south and Southwest Asia. It was probably from
Iran that bronze working radiated into Central and Southeast Asia. (winters 1985 b)
The epicenter for the Dravidian dispersals in Asia was Iran. The motivation behind
Dravidian dispersals was agro-pastoralism in the region and the search for new sources of
metals for trade with Mesopotamia, the Indus valley and beyond (Winters 1985 a, 1985 b). This
would explain the close relationship between Dravidian and Elamite on the one hand, and
Dravidian, Manding, and Elamite on the other (Winters 1985 c, 1989b).
The Elamites lived in the Fars and the Bakhitar valleys. This mountain area was named
Elimaid in ancient times.
The Elamites called themselves: Khatan. The capital city of the Elamites Susa, was called:
Khuz by the Indo-European speakers, and Kussi by the Elamites. The Chinese called the
Elamites Kashti. The Armenians called the eastern Parthia: Kushana.
The BMAC cultures in Central Asia originated after the decline of the Harappan site of
Shortughai (c. 2400-2200 BC) on the Oxus river. The pottery of these people was quite diverse,
some of the pottery was dark brown on a greenish-white or reddish pink slip.
Some researchers have noted the existence of strong Elamite affinities among the Bactrian
aristocracy (see: Ligue & Salvatori (Ed.,), Bacteria: an ancient oasis civilisation from the sands
of Afghanistan (1989), p. 137). In addition the Altyn depe ruins have terracotta statuettes with
proto Elamite and proto-Sumerian script (see: P.A. Kohl (Ed.), The Bronze Age civilisation of
Central Asia (1981) p. 112).
The major Kushite group from Mesopotamia to northern India were the Kassites. The
Kassites, who occupied the central Zagros were called Kashshu. This name agress Kaska, the
name of the Hattians. P.N. Chopra in The history of South India, noted that the Kassite
language bears unmistakable affinity to the Dravidian group of languages. It was probably the
Kassites who introduced worship of the gods Indra and Varuna to the Indo-Aryan speaking
people.
Similar pottery was used in West Asia. The pottery from Susa in Iran and Eridu in
Mesopotamia of the fifth millennium BC are identical. Between 3700 and 3100 BC, Elam was
under the influence of Uruk, as indicated by the shared art found at these sites during this
period.
By the end of the 4th millennium BC, we see the beginnings of distinctive Elamite culture in
the western Fars, at the Kur Valley, Here at Tel-i-Malyan we see the first Proto-Elamite written
in the Proto-Saharan script. Other proto-Elamite writings soon appear at Susa.
 The authors of the Proto-Elamite tablets were of proto-Saharan origin. Malyan and Susa
soon become the kingdoms of Anshan and Susa. These proto-Elamites soon spread to Tepe
Sialk and Tepe Yahya which was reoccupied after being abandoned earlier due to ecological
decay.
The proto-Saharans in Elam shared the same culture as their cousins in Egypt, Sumer, Elam
and the Indus Valley. Vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c. 2100-1700 BC), have a
uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan, to
the Indus Valley. In addition, as mentioned earlier we find common arrowheads at sites in the
Indus Valley, Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece.
There was a large migration of people into Central Asia during the 4th millennium BC. In
Turkmenia these settlers occupied the Etek plain and the Tedzen delta. In Baluchistan’s
Hilmand region we find the inhabitants practicing intensive agriculture. Other farmers began to
establish themselves on the steppes near the Amu Darya (i.e, the Oxus) and Zeravshan rivers.
Archaeologists believe that in the 3rd millennium BC people living from Iran to Sogdiana,
and the Indus Valley to the Capsian sea shared a common culture. (Ligabue & Salvatori 1989)
Here the people practiced intensive irrigation agriculture. This was especially true on the
Shortughai plain where we find the Amu Darya river and its tributaries the Kokcha and the
Qizilsu.
The region had rich and fertile soils. It was here that we find Indus Valley type artifacts at
the Harappan site of Shortughai. The Harappan settlement of shortughai dates between 2400
and artifacts have been found at Dashly and Balkhab which are also situated in Bacteria.
In addition to BRW on proto-Dravidian sites in Asia, there is a clear association of
irrigation BC. Other Harappan artifacts have been found at Dashly and Balkhab which are also
situated in Bacteria. In addition to BRW on proto-Dravidian sites in Asia, there is a clear
association of irrigation agriculture and mining operations on the Shortughai plains settled by
the Harappans. At Shortughai archaeologists have found industrial sites where lapis lazuli was
worked. In other oases and steppe areas the Dravidian practiced a sedentary pastoral economy
centered on irrigation agriculture.
Shortughai was an important center for processing lapis lazuli. Situated along the Kokcha
river, Shortughai controlled access to the mines of Sar-i-Sang in Badakshan. Other lapis lazuli
mines were established in the Chagai massif, near Harappan sites on the Hilmand and Indus
rivers.
Other Proto-Dravidians entered Turkmenia. As in the rest of Asia, the Dravidians spread
over the region by watercraft. This is one of the reasons why the Indus Valley culture, as well as
Sumerian civilisation were established along rivers.
Central Asia was early occupied mainly by the Kushana tribes. The Kushana ruled
Turkestan until the 8th century A.D., when the Uighurs invaded the area. The Uighurs destroyed
both the Kucha and Karasahr empires which were founded by the Kushana (Bagchi 1955).
In conclusion to this section of the paper, Dravidian colonists from Iran or Afghanistan
probably sailed along the Tedjan river to settle parts of southern Turkmenia/ Turkmenistan.
This is supported by the discovery of imported Indus seals at Altyn-Depe (Masson 1981).
Altyn-Depe was a large ceremonial complex in southern Turkmenia.
Archaeological evidence also indicates that colonists from southern Turkmenia probably
took food-producing culture to the borders of Xinjiang, China in the 3 rd millennium BC. (Kochi
1981) Other culture elements including the wheel and cattle were taken to China by the
Elamites and proto-Dravidians in the 3rd millennium BC. (Fairservis 1975).
The languages of the Dravidians, Elamites, Sumerians and Manding are genetically related
(Winters 1985d, 1985b, 1994). N. Lahovary (1957) noted structural and grammatical analogies
of Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamites, K.L Muttarayan (1975) provides hundreds of lexical
correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the family relationship between Sumerian
and Dravidian. C.A Winters (1980, 1985d, 1985b, 1994) and L. Homburger (1951) have
provided evidence of a genetic relationship between the Dravidian languages. Dr.Homburger
has also proven that the Manding and Coptic languages are closely related.
The discovery of Intercultural style vessels from Susa (in Iran), Sumerian, Egyptian and
Indus Valley sites suggest a shared ideological identity among these people (Kohl 1978). In fact
the appearance of shared iconographic symbols and beliefs within diverse areas suggest cultural
and ethnic unity among the people practicing these cultures. The common naturalistic motifs,
shared by the major civilisations include, writing (symbols), combatant snakes, the scorpion, bull
and etc. This evidence of cultural unity is explained by the origin of these people in the proto-
Sahara (Winters 1985a, 1989).
The proto-Saharans or kushities used similar terms for writing. In general the term for
writing was formed by the labial stops/p/and /b/. For example:
Dravidian par ‘write’
Manding bo, bu ‘make a stroke,’ sebe ‘write’
Elamite tipu ‘to write’
Elamite tipu ‘to write’
Galla tafa ‘to write’
There are also other corresponding terms for ‘mark’, or draw that begin with velar stops:
Dravidian kiri,kuri ‘write, draw mark’
Egyptian hti ‘carve’
Manding kiri, kiti ‘mark’
In Egyptian we have several terms for write o ss#, 0 zs #,and 0 ssw #. During the Old
Kingdom writing was referred to as 0 iht #.
In Egyptian term for writing 0 ssw# is analogous to the Mande terms 0 sewe # or 0 sebe
# ‘writing, trace, design.’ In Dravidian among other terms we have rasu ‘write’, and shu’ writing
in Sumerian. The Egyptian term 0 zs # is also closely related to Sumerian 0 shu #.
Writing systems among Dravido-African people were mainly devised for two purposes.
Firstly, to help merchants keep records on the business venture they made.
 Secondly, the Proto-Saharan script was also used to preserve religious doctrines or write
obituaries.
The scarcity of documents, written for historical preservation among ancient Dravido-
African groups resulted from that fact that the keeping or history, was usually left in the hands
of traditional (oral) historians. These historians memorised the histories of their nation and
people for future recitation before members of their respective communities. This oral history
was often accompanied by music or delivered in poetic verse and remains the premier source
for the history of most African nations even today.
It is obvious that the first inscriptions were engraved in stone by the Proto-Saharans, or a
stylus was used to engrave wet clay (Winters 1985b). The use of the stylus or stick to engrave
clay is most evident in the pottery marks found on the pottery excavated at many ancient sites
which possess similar symbols impressed on the pottery.
This view is supported by the fact that the term for writing in Dravidian and Egyptian
include the consonants /I/,/r/or/d/.
A “u”, is usually attached to the initial consonants (Winters 1985b). For example:
Sumerian ru, shu
Elamite talu
Dravidian carru
Egyptian drf
These terms agree with the Manding terms for excavate or hollow out 0 du#, 0 do#,0 kulu
#,0 tura# etc. The Sumerian term for writing was 0 du#. This show that the Proto-Saharan
term for writing denoted the creation of impressions on wet clay and hard rock.
The origin of writing among the Proto-Saharans as an activity involving the engraving of
stone is most evident in the Egyptian language. This hypothesis is supported by the Egyptian
words 0 m (w) dt#.The term 0 md t # means both ‘(sculptor’s) chisel’ and ‘papyrus-roll, book.’
The multiple meanings of 0 md t # makes it clear that the Egyptian, and Probably other
descendants of the Proto-Saharans saw a relationship between engraving stone and the creation
of books.

Comparison Writing Systems

 Other Egyptian lexical items also support the important role Proto-Saharans saw in
engraving rocks, and writing, In addition to md t we have, 0 hti# ‘carve, sculpture’ and 0 iht#
‘writing.’ The fact that iht is an Old Kingdom term for writing, almost identical to hti #,is
further evidence that writing involved the engraving of stone.
Pottery Inscriptions
The Proto-Saharan Writing was first used to write characters on pottery (Winters 1980), to give
the ceramics a talismanic quality. Similar signs appear on Chinese, Harappan, South Indian
Megalithic, Libyan and Cretan pottery (see figure 1 ). These signs were invented by the Proto-
Saharans for purposes of communication. These pottery signs agree with the so-called linear
Egyptian signs mentioned by Petrie (1921,p.83). They frequently appear on Egyptian pottery.
Moreover Dr. J.T. Cornelius (1956-57) used epigraphic evidence to show that the graffiti
marks on the South Indian Megalithic pottery has affinity to other ancient scripts including the
Libyan, Egyptian and Cretan signs.
The pottery signs were symbols from the Proto-Saharan syllabic writing. David (1955) was
sure that the Dravidian and Certain writings were analogous to the Egyptian pottery script. The
comparison of these symbols support this view.

Comparison Pottery Inscriptions

 The Egyptian pot marks in Upper and Lower Egypt. Petrie (1990) was the first to record
the Egyptian potmarks. These potmarks are found on pottery dated to Dynasties O to І ( van
den Brink 1992). These Thinite potmarks published by van den Brink (1992) agree almost
totally with the Oued Mertoutek, Gebel sheikh Suleiman, Harappan, proto-Elamite and Proto-
Sumerian (see figure 3).
Syllabic Writing
It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd
millennium B.C. from Saharan Africa, to Iran, China and the Indus Valley. Although the
Elamites and Sumerians abandoned the Proto-Elamite writing and the Uruk script respectively,
in favor of cuneiform writing, the Dravidians, Minoans (Eteo Cretans) and Manding continued
to use the Proto-Saharan script (see figure 2) (winters 1985c).

Comparison Syllabic Writing

The oldest Proto-Saharan syllabic inscriptions come from Oued Mertoutek and Gebel
Sheikh Suleiman. These inscriptions are over 5000 years old (Wulsin 1941; Winters 1983a).
The Oued Mertoutek inscription was found in the Western Sahara (see figure 4). This
inscription was found on the lower level of Oued Mertoutek and dated to 3000 B.C. by Wulsin
(1941). The Oued Mertoutek inscription like other Libyco-Berber writing is in the Manding
(Malinke-Bambara) languages.
In ancient time a major Manding group was the Garamantes, they lived in the Fezzan.
Graves (1980) claimed that the Garamantes who primarily lived in the Fezzan region of Libya,
founded Attica, and worked the mines at Laureuim and Trace in Asia Minor.
The Oued Mertoutek inscription is of a ram with syllabic characters written above the ram,
and within the outline of the ram’s body (see figure 4). This inscription written in an aspect of
Manding was deciphered in 1981 (Winters 1983a).
 We were able to decipher the Oued Mertoutek inscription, and the Minoan Linear A,
Harappan writing and the Olmec script because of the Vai script (winters 1984a, 1984b, 1984c).
Winters (1977, 1979) discovered that the Vai syllabary of 200 characters matched all the signs in
the syllabaries of Crete, Olmec America, Oracle Bone writing of China and the Harappan script
(winters 1979, 1983b, 1983c). And that due to the genetic linguistic unity of the people who
made these signs, when you gave the signs in these diverse areas, the phonetic values of the Vai
signs, but read them in the Dravidian or Manding language you could read the ancient literature
of Crete and the Indus Valley (Winters 1985b). Thus the syllables which retain constant
phonetic values can be used by different groups to write their own languages.

Many would-be decipherers have assumed that it is almost impossible to prove a genetic
linguistic relationship using data of comparatively recent time-depth. But this view of
archaeological decipherment is untenable. In fact, in the well-known decipherments of
Egyptian and cuneiform, linguistic data of a comparatively recent time-depth was used to
interpret the inscriptions. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic to read the ancient
Egyptian writing. And Sir Henry Rawlinson, the decipherer of the cuneiform script used Galla
(a Cushitic language spoken in Africa) and Mahra (a south Semitic language) to interpret the
cuneiform writing. This meant that we could read the Proto-Saharan writing using recent
Manding and Dravidian linguistic data.
This view is supported by the use of cuneiform writing by different groups in West Asia
and Asia Minor. The cuneiform script was used to write many distinct languages including
Akkadian, Elamite, Hurrian, Hittite and Sumerian. The key to deciphering the world of
cuneiform writing was that each sign had only one value.
As a result, to read a particular cuneiform script took only the discovery of the language
written in the cuneiform script. Therefore the decipherment of the Persian cuneiform script
provided the key to the cuneiform cognate scripts. The decipherment of the ancient Manding
Inscriptions using the Vai Sounds, was the key to the decipherment of the Proto-Saharan script:
Linear A, the Oracle Bone writing, the Olmec and the Harappan writing (Winters 1979, 1983b,
1984).
Indus Valley Writing
The Harappans have left us thousands of written documents. These documents are called seals
by archaeologists. The Harappan seals are written in a Dravidian language anologous to Tamil
(Winters, 1990).
Contraversey surrounds the Indus Valley writing. Recently, Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat
and Michel Witzel, in “The collapse of the Indus-script Thesis: The myth of Harappan
Civilisation” (Electronic Journal of Vedic studies, 11/2 (2004), pp. 19-57) argue that the
Harappan people of the Indus Valley were illiterate. Farmer et al, claim that the Indus Valley
seals have no phonetic content.
Any theory must have internal and external validity. The question we must ask is “Does the
theorems in the Farmer et al, article measure the content it was intended to measure?” the
answer to this question is a simple “No”.
Farmer et al make several theorems, generally they claim that the Indus Valley symbols must
be heraldry or a bevy of magical symbols because the inscriptions are: 1) low sign frequency on
the Indus seals (p.36); 2) signs to brief to reflect phonetic encoding (pp. 31-33); 3) absence of
manuscript tradition; and 4) the inability of the Dravidian theory to lead to the decipherment
of the Indus Valley Writing (p. 20).
All of these theorems are easily falsified. Firstly, there is a manuscript tradition for Indus
valley writing. This is supported by the appearance of Harappan signs on India pottery.B.B. Lal
eound that 89% of the graffiti marks on the meghalithilic red-and black ware had affinity to
Indus valley writing are also found on the Indian punch marked coins.
The research by Lal Indicated that the Indus valley writing should be read from right to left.
This view was later confirmed by I Mahadhevan in 1986. Secondly, Dr.winters have pointed out
elsewhere, that the Harappan seals record ‘wish statements’ and can be deciphered using the
Tamil/Dravidian language. (see):http//geocities.com/ olmec982000/IndusInspiration.pdf
The ability to read Indus seals using Dravidian languages, and presentation of the grammar
and morphology of the Indus valley writing falsifies the variable of Farmer et al, that we are
unable to decipher the Indus valley writing using the Dravidian hypothesis (see:
http://us.share.geocities.com/olmec982000/HarWRITE.pdf ). Until, Farmer et al, can present
linguistic evidence to falsify Dr. winters’ decipherment we must reject researchers contention
that Dravidian languages can I point out in the above article that the sayings on the seals, are
similar to the messages recorded in the Tirukkural. The Holy kural contains statements that the
Dravidians used to help them attain aram, and the good life through doing Good.
The Indus valley seals were probably worn by the Harappans given the presence of a hole
on the back of the seals where a string could be placed to tie the seal around an ankle or neck.
If Farmer knew anything about Dravidian culture and history he would have known that the
Dravidians have a long tradition of wearing totems containing short messages with great import
or meanings. For example, the “thaalikkodi”, thalisman on a turmeric-dyed string or gold, worn
around the neck, is the Tmil counterpart to the western wedding ring now. In addition, Indians
continued the practice of using a few letters to write literate text, as indicated by the punch
markwed coins that average 5 symbols.
Farmer et al, argue that the inscriptions on the Harappan seals are too short to represent
phonetic reading. This hypothesis must their conclusions and is contradicted by their own
statistics. For example, Farmer et al make it clear that the mean word length for comparable
Egyptian text is 6.94 and Indus text 7.39, this shows no statistical difference and should have
alerted the researchers’ to the fallacy of their arguments.
Farmer et al’s, contention that there is no evidence of short text in the history of writing
representing literate text is contradicted by the history of writing in ancient Egypt. Dr.Gunter,
an Egyptologist, has found Egyptian text with as few as two (2)symbols that are phonetically
readable (see: http://www.archeology. org/9903./newsbriefs/Egypt.html).

This is evidence that the literature review of the authors does not reflect the actual
knowledge base for ancient writing. The absence of support for any of the theorems made by
Farmer et al, mean that we must reject their hypothesis based on a content analysis of their
work and evidence and lack of validity. International validity relates to the ability of the content
of a research proposal to draw correct inferences from the data. In Farmer et al the researches
state that the mean word length for comparable Egyptian text is 6.94 and Indus text 7.39,this
shows no statistical difference, and thus fails to support Farmer’s inference, and thus tails to
support Farmer’s inference that the short length of Indus text indicate illiteracy.
External validity arises in research when the experimenters draw inaccurate inferences from
the sample data and apply them to external phenomena. Farmer et al maintain that no ancient
writing system can produce literate text with just a few signs. This theorem is falsified by the
discovery of Dr.Dreyer of readable Egyptian text with as 2 symbols.
Continued debate of Farmer et al is giving the work of these authors more weight than it
deserves. An examination of the content of Farmer et al make it clear that the review of the
literature indicate that they did not read all of the previous research in this area, it they had they
would have found the work of Dr. Dreyer that contradict their proposal that short inscriptions
indicate illiteracy. A cursory examination of the content of the work proves that it lacks content
validity, and does not support the claims made by the authors regarding the literacy to the
Harappans. It makes it clear that the data presented by Farmer et al did not accomplish the
stated purpose of their article. We have only one recourse, rejection of the theories made by
Farmer et al.
Scholars early recognised that the Harappans may have a spoken a Dravidian language. This
view was supported by 1) the fact that in the West Indus, Brahui, a Dravidian language is
spoken in Baluchistan and Afghanistan;2) the Rig Veda is written in a form of Dravidian called
Sumero Tamil; and 3) the presence of Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit indicated that Dravidian
speakers probably occupied northern India and Pakistan before the Aryan invasion of the area
after 1000 BC with their grey ware.
Over 4000 Harappan seals have been found at 60 different sites. The script incorporates
419 signs. But there are around 60-70 basic syllabic signs. The remaining 339 signs are
compound or ligature signs formed by the combination of two or more basic signs (Winters,
1987). There are also 10 ideographic signs (Winters, 1987 a).

Inscribed Indus Valley Objects

Harappan writing appears on both steatite seals and copper plates/ tablets (Winters, 1987
b). Ninety percent of the seals are square, the remaining ten percent are rectangular. They range
in size from half-an-inch to around two-and-half inches.
 Harappan seals and sealing’s
The seals have a raised boss on the back pierced with a hole for carrying, or being placed on
parcels. These seals carry messages addressed to the gods of the Harappans requesting support
and assistance in obtaining” “aram” (benevolence) (Winters 1984 a, 1984 b).
The key to deciphering the Harappan script was the recognition that the Proto-Dravidians
who settled the Indus Valley had formerly lived in the Proto-Sahara were they used the so-called
Libyco-Berber writing (winters, 1989 b).
Further research indicated that the Indus Valley writing was related not only to the Libyco-–
Berber writing but also the Brahmi writing. Some researchers claim that the Brahmi writing is
related to Phonecian writing. But a comparison of the Brahmi vowels fail to show similarity.

Comparison of Brahmi and Phoenician vowels

Although we fail to see a relationship between the Brahmi and Phonecian vowels,
comparison of the Brahmi and Harappan vowels show complete correspondence.
It is clear that a common system of record keeping was used by people in the 4th and 3rd
millennium BC from Saharan Africa to Iran, China and the Indus Valley (Winters, 1985). The
best examples of this common writing were the Linear A script, Proto-Elamite, Uruk script
Indus Valley writing and the Libyco-Berber writing (Winters, 1985). Although the Elamites and
Sumerians, abandoned this writing in favor of the cuneiform script, the Dravidians Minoans,
Mande (the creators of the Libyco-Berber writing) and Olmecs continued to the use the Proto
Saharan script.
The Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian and Manding languages are genetically related (Winters,
1989). This is not a recent discovery by linguist and anthropologists. N. Lahovary in Dravidian
Origins and the west (Madras, 1957) noted structural and grammatical analogies of the
Dravidian, Sumerian and Elamite languages. K.L. Muttarayan provides hundreds of lexical
correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the family relationship between Sumerian
and Dravidian languages. And D. McAlpin in Proto-Elamo Dravidians: The Evidence and its
Implication (Philadelphia, 1981) provides documented evidence for the family relationship
between the Dravidian languages and Elamite.
Using the evidence of cognate scripts and the analogy between the Dravidian language, and
the languages spoken by peoples using cognate scripts it was able to make three assumptions
leading to the decipherment of the Harappan writing.
One, it was assumed that Harappan script was written in the Dravidian language.
Two, it was assumed that the Dravidian language shares linguistic and cultural affinities with
the Elamites, Manding and Sumerians-all of whom used a similar writing system.
This led to a corollary hypothesis that the Harappan writing probably operated on the same
principles as the related scripts, due to a probable common origin.
Three, it was assumed that since the Harappan script has affinity to the Proto-Manding
writing (Libyco-Berber) and the Manding language, the Harappan script could be read by giving
these signs the phonetic values they had in the proto-Manding script as preserved in the Vai
writing, since the northern Manding languages like Bambara and Malinke are genetically related
to Dravidian languages like Tamil. The discovery of cognition between Vai and Harappan signs
not the one hand, and the corresponding relationship of sign sequences in the Harappan and
Va scripts helped to a speedy reading and decipherment of the Harappan signs.
This made it possible to use symbols from the Manding-Vai script to interpret Harappan
signs. The only difference was that when interpreting the phonetic values of the Harappan
script, they were to be read using the Dravidian lexicon. The terms used to express the
translation of Harappan signs are taken from Burrow and Emeneau’s, Dravidian Etymological
Dictionary. Once the seals were broken down into their syllabic values, we then only had to
determine if the Harappan term was a monosyllabic word, or if it was a term that was made up
of only one syllable.
A comparison of the Harappan signs, Brahmi and Vai writing show that the signs have
similar phonetic value. It is the similarity in phonetic value that allows us to read the Indus
Valley writing use Vai signs.
Many would-be deciphers of dead languages have assumed that you cannot read ancient
language using contemporary or comparatively recent time-depth lexical material. This is a false
view of archaeological decipherment. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic to read the
Egyptian hieroglyphics; and Sir Henry Rawlinson, used Galla (a used Custhitic language spoken
in Africa) and Mahra (a South Semitic language) to decipher the cuneiform writing.
Moreover we know from the history of the cuneiform writing several different languages
(Eblate, Elamite) Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadianetc) were used written in the cuneiform script.
This meant that if cuneiform could be used to write different languages, why couldn’t the
Proto-Saharan script used In ancient middle Africa (and later Asia and Europe), be used to
write genetically related languages like the Manding and Dravidian groups.

This decipherment Harappan seals (Winters, 1984a, 1984b, 1987a, 1985, 1987b, 1989)
shows that they do not contain the names and titles of their owners. They are talismans, with
messages addressed to the Harappan gods requesting blessings. This is in sharp contrast to the
Mesopotamian seals which were used for administrative and commercial purposes.
The Harappan seals illustrate that the Harappan Believer wanted from his god1) a good
fate;2) spiritual richness; 3) virtue;4) humility; and 5) perseverance. They were protective amulets
found in almost every room in the city of Mohenjo-Daro.
 A Unicorn seal, note the manger under the head of this god
The Harappan writing was read from right to left. Above we can see the average Harappan
seal and its talismanic formula: 1) depiction of Diety X (in this case Maal/Mal) as an animal,
and then the votive inscription was written above the Deity.
The manager, under the head of Maal is made up of several Harappan signs. It reads Puu-i-
Paa or “A flourishing Condition. Thou distribute (it)”.
The Harappan seals were often found by archaeologists in a worn condition. The fact that
the seals often had holes drilled in the back, suggest that the seals were tied with string and
hung around the neck or from belts.

Perforated boss on the back of many seals

The importance of the Harappan seals as amulets is attested to by the popularity of wearing
totems among the Dravidians. During the Sangam period (of ancient Dravidian history), the
warriors and young maidens wore anklets with engraved designs and or totemic signs. Moreover
at the turn of the century, in South India, it was common for children to wear an image of
Hanumen around their neck; while wives wore a marriage totem around their necks as a symbol
of household worship in the Harappan worldview animals were used in many cases to represent
characteristics human beings should exhibit. As a result the bird was recognised as a symbol of
the highest love, due to its devotion to its offspring; and the elephant due to its strict
monogamy symbolised the right attitude towards family life and social organisation.
 The principal Harappan gods are all depicted on the Harappan seals. The main god of the
Harappans was the unicorn. The unicorm Probably represented Maal (Vishnu or Kataval). This
god was held in high esteem by the Coherds and shepards. Other Harappan gods were
represented by the water buffalo, humped bull, elephant, rhino, tiger and mythological animals.

Seals depicting the Harappan gods

The crescent shaped horns of the oxen or castrated bull on some Harappan seals may
represent the mother goddess “Kali”. The lunar crescent shape of the oxen’s curved horns
recalled the lunar crescent which was the primordial sign for the mother goddess.
Siva was probably represented by the short horn bull. The elephant on the Harappan seals
may have represented Ganesa/ Ganesha the elephant headed god of India. In the “Laws of
Manu”, it is written that Ganesha is the god of the ‘shudras’, the aboriginal population of India.
The Thamilian names for the elephant god is ‘Pillaiyar, palla and ‘veeram’. The hunter figure on
Harappan seals wearing the horned headdress and armed with a bow and arrow may have been
Muruga, the son of Uma.
Pillayar, is considered the shrewdest of animals. He is associated with Harvest time,
abundance and luck. The appearance of mythological animals on the Harappan seals may refer
to Pillayar or Ganesha in one of his many transformations.
In summary my decipherment of the Harappan seals indicate that the seals and copper
plates/tablets are amulets or talismans. They are messages addressed to the Dravidian his gods
of the Harappans, requesting for the bearer of the seal the support and assistance of his god in
obtaining aram (Benenolence). As a result, each animal figure on the seals was probably a
totemic deity, of a particular Dravidian clan or economic unit that lived in the Harappan cities.
As a result, even though the Harappans had different gods, each god was seen by his followers
as 1) a god having no equal,2) a god having neither Karma, and 3) as a god who is the ocean of
aram.
The Harappan believed that man must do good and live a benevolent life so he could obtain
Pukal (fame), for his right doing (s). Through the adoption of benevolence an individual would
obtain the reward of gaining the good things of life-the present world-and the world beyond.
In general, the Harappan seals let us know that the Harappans sought righteousness and a
spotlessly pure mind. Purity of mind was the ‘sine qua non’, for happiness ‘within’.

Dravidian Writing After the Decline of Indus Valley Writing on South India Ceramics

Writing was never lost in India. The earliest writing appeared on Indus ceramics. These
signs are the same as the Indus Valley signs. Indus Valley type signs continued to be produced
throughout India, especially South India as evidenced by the appearances of these signs on
megalithic pottery, burial urns and palm leaf manuscripts. The evidence, when we considered,
the ceramic scripts, show an unbroken history of writing from Harappan to contemporary
times.
Archaeologists agree that Black and red ware (BRW) was unearth on many South India sites
are related to Dravidian speaking people. The BRW style has been found on the lower levels of
Madurai and Tirukkampuliyar. B.B Lal in 1963 made it clear that the South Indian BRW was
related to Nubian ware dating to the Kerma dynasty. This is supported by the appearance of
Harappan signs on India pottery. B.B Lal (1963) found that 89% of the graffiti marks on the
megalithic red-and-black ware had affinity to Indus valley signs. This research indicated that the
Indus Valley writing should be read from right to left, This view was later confirmed by I
Mahadevan in 1986.

Indus pot from Revi Adchanallur, Urn, Tamil Nadu

Singh (1982) made it clear that he believes that the BRW radiated from Nubia through
Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.
BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400 BC. T.B. Nayar in
the problem of Dravidian Origins (1977) proves that the BRW of Harappa has affinities to
presynaptic Egyptian and west Asian pottery dating to the same time period.
 After 1700 BC, with the end of Harappan civilisation spread BRW southward into the
Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and central India down to Northern Deccan and eastward into
the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Godavari
and the Bhima valleys. In addition we find that the pottery used by the at Gilund, Rajasthan on
the banks of the Bana River, was also BRW (see: Gilund, at: http:// bestindiatours. com /
archaeology/ harappan/ Gilund. html).This indicates that the people at Gilund, like other
people in North India at this time were Dradian speakers give their pottery. If this is so, the
building where the “bin” containing the cache of BMAC seals were found probably represented
a warehouse where exotic objects imported from central Asia were probably stored. Let’s not
forget, that central Asia was a major center for Harappan copper and tin for hundreds of years.
S.Gurumurthy in Ceramic Traditions in South India
Up to 300 AD’ found, like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on south Indian pottery was
engraved with Harappan signs. He found that the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with
Brahmi letters dating back to 1000 BC. This further supports the view that continuity existed
between Harappan writing and Brahmi – tamili writing discovered in south India.
The recent discovery of a Thamil-Brahmi inscription at adichanallur is very interesting. It is
interesting because the site is dated between 1500-500BC by thermo-1uminescence. Dr.
Satyamurthy of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and superintending Archaeologist and
Director of the excavation has dated the inscription to 500BC. Dr. Sampath, retired Director of
Epigraphy of ASI, has tentatively read the inscription as “ka ri a ra va [na] ta”. This inscription
is very interesting because the date for the site would place the writing at an aaage hundreds of
years prior to the introduction of Brahmi writing to India.

Inscribed pot from Adichanallur

It is no secret that the Megalithic sites of India have yielded many inscriptions that agree
with signs associated with the Indus Valley writing. Moreover, it is no secret that the
archaeologist B.B. Lal was able to learn the direction for the writing of the Indus Valley script
by studying cognate sites on South Indian Pottery.
 Since the date of this inscription is very early it suggest that it may be written in the Tamil
of the Indus Valley seals. I decided to this hypothesis by attempting to read the Adichanal1ur
inscription based on my decipherment of the Harappan writing the Adichana11ur inscription
has five singular signs and two compound signs (5&6). We will read the Inscription from left to
right.
Reading the signs from left to right we have the following: (1) ta, (2) na, (3) ka, (4) I, (5) tata,
(6) uss vey and (7) gbe. Signs 2 and 7 are not normally found in the corpus of Harappan signs.
As a result, I had to refer to the Vai inscriptions which I have used over the years to find the
phonemic values of the Harappan signs. In Vai, the term gbe, means “righteousness”.
The transliteration of the inscription therefore reads: Ta na ka I tata uss-vey gbe. The
translation of the inscription is the following: “Tanaka, give him greatness, open (up for his)
Fate righteousness”. The term tata, can be read as greatness or father. so we might also read the
inscription as follows: “Thou father Tanaka, (will have a) Fate blossoming Righteousness”.
These reading of the Adichana11ur inscription are tentative. This epigraphic finding and
others is making it clear that the history of writing in India must be re-written. The epigraphic
evidence from south Indian is making it clear that the Indian writing has a continuous history
spanning from Indus valley times down to South Indian pottery and later Tamili writing.
Yet, the fact remains the inscription from this site are older than any Brahmi inscriptions. It
stands to reasoning that these inscriptions may be read syllabically, rather than as an alphabet.
This would explain the economy of sings used to write this obituary. I look forward to their
reading by “experts” in this area.
The model for the geometric patterns for the Brahmi script, was Indus writing; Even
though Gift Siromoney and Michael Lockwood believe the Brahmi script was invented by one
person and that the writing system has no relation to Harappan writing. Like siromoney
&Lockwood, Irathan Mahadevan believe there is no relationship between Brami and Indus
writing, because the later Script in his opinion is pictorial, and Brahmi was based on Phonecian
writing.
V. Kannaiyan on the other hand, believes that Brahmi was borrowed from the Tamil, by
Asoka and is based on the Tamil Nadu cave Script. Mahadevan disputes this theory in Early
Tamil Epigraphy: from the earliest time to the sixth Century AD. Although this is Mahadevan’s
opinion this view is not supported by the evidence. s. Gurumurthy in ceramic traditions in
south India upto 300 AD, found, like B.B. Lal before him that the graffiti on south Indian
pottery was engraved with Harappan signs. He found that the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti
agrees with Brahmi letters dating back to 1000 BC.
Dr. Gurumurthy attempted to read the Indus Valley writing based on his identification of
Indus writing as a form of Brahmi. To read the signs he use the rebus method, for example he
identified the so called jar sign as “head of a human body”. Mahadevan rejects Gurumurthy’s
decipherment because the lexical items Gurumurthy calls proto Dravidian include many
Sanskrit terms. In addition, Mahadevan believes that basing the Indus-Brahmi connection on
“mere resemblances” may be methodologically unsound.
 Even though Mahadevan rejects Dr. Gurumurthy’s decipherment of Indus writing, the fact
remains that as pointed out by Dr. Gurumurthy the Brahmi sings are identical to inscription
from Tamil Nadu. The recent discovery of urns from Adhichanallur in Tamil Nadu, by the
Archaeological Survey of India dating back to 800 BC with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions make it
clear that Tamil were writing long before the Brahmi script was popularised I India.
Poorna Chandra Jeeva, in his recent Decipherment of the Indus Writing also used Brahmi.
He believes that Tamil-Brahmi or Tamili, is a descendant of Indus writing and that Indus
writing is an alphabetic system. He accepts the view that Brami-Tamil, was influenced by the
Phoenician writing.
Dr. Jeeva, like Dr. Gurumurthy, claims that the jar sign is of a head. But instead of claiming
the head is human, Jeeva says it’s a cow head and gives it the sound value “aa”. This does not
correspond to Tamil, “aa” does not mean cow head, or head for that matter. The DED says
that “aa” meams ‘ox’, not cow head. This is not the only mistake made by Jeeva in his
interpretation of Indus writing if he is reading the sings using Brahmi. Jeeva claims that he has
found diacritic marks in the Harappan writing (see: pp. 253-257). The main problem with his
reading of the signs is that the sound values he gives the sings via his rebus reading of the script
are inconsistent and based on pure conjecture. Although Dr. Jeeva has not deciphered the Indus
writing he does provide numerous examples of Brahmi, Tamili and Indus signs that are
analogous.
Winters’ decipherment of the Indus writing made it clear that Brahmi was based on the
Indus writing, but he did not use Brahmi or Tamili to read the signs, because he had discovered
that the sound values for script could be found in the Vai writing system of west Africa. The
major problem with Dr. Gurumurthy and Dr. jeeva’s use of Brahmi to decipher the Indus
writing is that they assumed that Brahmi was modeled on Phoenicians This was the wrong
theoretical frame work to base their hypothesis since the Brahmi and Phonecian signs have
different sound values.
Winters’ read the Harappan signs by giving them the same sound values as the same Vai
writing. I was able to do this because the Mande languages are related to Sumerian, Elamite and
Tamil. A comparison of the sound values he gave Indus writing, when he compared Indus signs
to Brami signs. This test illustrated that the writing systems are genetically related.
Winters’ decipherment of the Indus-Valley writing indicate that the Brahmi script is a
descendent of the Harappan writing. Many scholars have suggested continuity between the
Harappan script and the Brahmi semi-alphabetic writing. Hunter and Langdon believed that
there was a connection between Hrappan writing and Brahmi. Moreover Mahalingam has made
it clear that the Brahmi script was probably invented to write non-Aryan languages.
Other points supporting this view are the Boustrophedon style of writing the Harappan
sings, and the Asokan inscriptions at Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh. Other evidence of Brahmi
being written from right to left comes from Sinhalese inscription, and early coins from Eran.
Some scholars dispute the theory that a continuity exists between the Harappan and Brahmi
script. This is false. The Brahmi and Old Phoenician share similar shapes, but the characters
lack phonemic agreement. The origin of the Brahmi writing is Ethiopic.
 In conclusion, geometric forms of the Brahmi writing are based on Hrappan writing. Jeeva
and Gurumurthy are correct in claiming a genetic relationship between Brahmi and Harappan
writing, even though they have failed to decipher the Indus writing. Their failure in deciphering
the writing results from their inability to see a relationship between the Harappo-Dravidians and
their kin, the Mande, Sumerian and Elamite speakers who used similar writing systems (Proto-
Sumerian, Linear Elamite and Libyo-Berber [vai]writing].This failure, was compounded by the
fact that Jeeva and Gurumurthy assumed1) Indus writing was primarially pictographic and tried
to read the writing using a rebus method without really knowing the culture and ideology of the
harappans. They are interpreting these signs based on their view of artifacts in the
contemporary world, as a result, we find one of the researchers seeing the jar sign as a human
head and the other recognising the same signs as that of as that of a cow head.
Secondly, Dr. Jeeva and Dr. Gurumurthy read the Indus symbols as an alphabet. The fact
that the writing is syllabic, and not alphabetic suggested that you must read the language using
the monosyllabic words associated with each sign. Moreover, the Tamili alphabet is too limited
in number to account for the over 400 signs used to write the Indus seals. This is the basic
reason why Dr. Jeeva has not provided different readings for each of the man signs that include
attaches signs/ lines. Moreover, although Dr. Jeeva reads, the man sign as “k”, it would have
been more logical to read the signs as “al”, since this is the monosyllabic word for ‘man’ in the
Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DED). Use of a rebus reading to read all the Harappan
signs unless the figure is clearly that of something we cannot dispute will always lead to the
wrong interpretation of the meaning of a sign e.g., reading the sign for man as ‘k’, instead of
‘al’.
Even though we cannot use Brahmi or Tamili to read Indus writing, we must reject the view
of Mahadevan and Siromoney that Brahmin was not modeled on the Indus writing. This view is
supported by the fact that the Brahmi and Indus signs have similar values to winters’
identification of the sound values for Indus signs. This finding is congruent with the
archaeological evidence and sound values winters give Indus writing.
Punch Marked Coin Script
The punch Marked coins of Indian also show the continued use of Indus Valley signs after the
decline of civilisation in the Indus Valley. Deli Rajgor, in Punchmarked coins of Early Historic India
(2001), give a detailed history of punchmarked coins in India dating from 600 B.C. to the rise
of Magadha around 400 B.C.
Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, is Survival of Sarasvati hieroglyphs into historical periods
(See:http://spaces.msn.com/members/sarasvathi97/) provides a detailed discussion of the
relationship between the punch-marked coins of India and the Harappan writing.
Dr.Kalyanaraman wrote that: “There are remarkable parallels between the Sarasvathi hieroglyphs and the
symbols used on punch-marked coins and on the sign graphs employed on Sohgaura copper plate inscription-which
becomes an explanatory Rosetta stone in two script: Sarasvati hieroglyphs and brahmi script.
Such a similarity has been noted by many scholars, some also suggested that the devices on
punch-marked coins are a survival of the Sarasvati (Harappan) Civilisation: Dr. pran Nath had
noticed the resemblance between the signs on punch-marked coins and the Sarasvati epigraphs
(Indus inscriptions) and had published his study of punch-marked coins in the British Museum
in: Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol.vii, 1931, Supplement, pp. 11f. Bhattacharya, P.N., A hoard
of silver punch-marked coins from Purnea, MASI, No. 62, pp.5ff; Durga Prasad, Classification
and significance of the symbols on the silver punch-marked coins of ancient India, JASB,1934,
pp. 217 ff.; Observation an different types of silver punch-marked coins, their period and
locale, JASB, 1937, pp.322ff.; Suryavamshi, Bhagwan Singh, Interpretation of some symbols of
the punch-marked coins, Journal of the Oriental Institute of Baroda, Vol. XII, No.2, Dec.1962,
pp.152 ff.; Fabri, C.L., The punch-marked coins: a survival of the Indus civilisation, JRAS,
1935,p.307ff.; Altekar, AS, Symbols on the copper band in the Patna museum, JNSI, Bombay,
Vol. IX, Part II, pp. 88-92. K.N. Dikshit noted in Numismatic Society and United Provinces
History Society meeting that certain metal pieces recovered during the excavations at Mohenjo-
daro agreed in shape and in weight-system with the punch-marked coins. (Reported by KP
Jayaswal in: JRAS, 1935, p.721).”
Dr. Kalyanaraman continued that “some excerpts from CL Fabri’s article which appeared in
JRAS, 1935 (pp.307-318) are presented hereunder: “punch-marked coins are the earliest Indian
archaeological ‘document’ that exists”, wrote Mr.EHC walsh in 1923 in a thorough study of
these interesting remains of Indian proto-historic times.(Indian punch-marked coins (a Public
coinage issued by Authority), in Centenary supplement, JRAS, 1924, pp. 175-189 At the time
when he wrote his article, very little, e if anything, was known of the freshly discovered
prehistoric civilisation in the Indus Valley, at Harappan and Mohenjo-daro … Mr. Walsh said in
1923:”Until our present sources of information are added to, the significance of the marks on
punch-marked coins must remain the subject of speculation and surmise.”…

Comparison of Punch and Indus Valley Writing

“The significance of these symbols, however, is of paramount importance. That they have some
meaning, no one doubts. It is obvious that a few of them are solar, lunar, and Such-like symbols; but
 these are only a fraction of the great mass. It is not impossible that they hold the clue to early Indian
history, and if one day scholars can ‘read’ these signs, they will be able, probably, to reconstruct a period
of Indian history of which we do not know anything at present. I am writing not to explain these
symbols, but to show that the solution of his of this problem is closely connected with the deciphering
of the Indus Valley script.
It is also interesting to note that K.K. Thapliyal in Studies in Ancient Indian Seals. Found that
many Indian seals from the 3rd century BC to the 7 th century AD, portray animals, with an
inscription above the animal (just like in the case of the Harappan seals) which were indicative
of the religious views of the owner of the seal. This evidence supports our finding that the
Harappan seals were worn (or carried) by the Harappans to help them remember the Harappan
man’s goal, to obtain guidance from his deity.
Origin of Sanskrit Writing
The Sanskrit language is highly respected in India. It carries the religion and culture of all the
people of India. A.B. Keith, in A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928), makes it clear that Sanskrit
was probably invented as early as the 6 th Century BC. Although Sanskrit is recognised as a major
language controversy surrounds its origin. Some researchers see it as language given to mankind
by the Gods, while others see Sanskrit as an artificial language created to unify the diverse
Indian nationalities. Keith in a History of Sanskrit Literature commenting on this state of
affairs noted that: “We must not…exaggerate the activity of the grammarians to the extent of
suggesting… that Classical Sanskrit is an artificial creation, a product of the Brahmins when
they sought to counteract the Buddhist creation of an artistic literature in Pali….Nor…does
Classical Sanskrit present the appearance of an artificial product; but rather admits exceptions
in bewildering profusion, showing that the grammarians were not creators, but were engaged in
a serious struggle to bring into handier shape a rather intractable material”(p.7).
Although, this is the opinion of Keith it appears that Sanskrit is lingua franca, an artificial
language, that was used by the people of India to unify the multi-lingual people of the India
nation. This led Michael Coulson, in Teach Yourself Sanskrit (1992) to write that “The advantage
to using Sanskrit, in addition to the dignity which it imparted to the verse, lay in its role as a
lingua franca uniting the various regions of Aryan India” (p.xviii).
As a result of its use as a lingua franca it has absorbed over the years many terms from
various Indian languages. But at the base of Sanskrit we probably have a Dravidian language
since Dravidian was spoken not only in the South, it was also the language of many Tribal
groups in the North. The view that the Dravidian languages are the foundation of Sanskrit is
supported by both Know and Keith who noted that the auxiliary verbs, periphrastic future, and
the participial forms in Sanskrit were probably of Dravidian origin. Stephan H. Levitt in a
recent article in the International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, has suggested that Sanskrit
may have adopted many North Dravidian forms1. In addition, Levitt is sure that certain Sanskrit
etyma for animals and plants that end in -1, are of Old Tamilian origin.

1 S.H. Levitt, “Some new Dravidian etymologies for Sanskrit words,” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics,
32(2), pp.7-22.
 Due to early Dravidian settlement in Northern India there is a Dravidian substratum in
Indo-Aryan. There are Dravidian loans in the Rg Veda, even though Aryan recorders of this
work were situated in the Punjab which occupied around this time by the BRW Dravidians.
There are islands of Dravidian speakers in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. There are over
300,000 Brahui speakers in Qualat, Hairpur and Hyderabad districts of Pakistan. There are an
additional 40,000 Brahui in Emeneau and Burrow (1962) found 500 Dravidian loan words in
Sanskrit. In addition, Indo-Aryan illustrates a widespread structural borrowing from Dravidian
in addition to 700 lexical loans (Kuiper 1967; Southward 1977; Winters 1989). Iran and several
thousand along the southern border of Russia and Yugoslavia (ISDL 1983: 227).
Emeneau and Burrow (1962) have found 500 Dravidian loan words in Sanskrit. The
number of Dravidian loans in Indo-Aryan is expected to reach 750.
There are numerous examples of Indo-Aryan structural borrowings from Dravidian. For
example, the Bengali and Oriya plural suffix-ra is analogous to the Tamil plural suffix-ar. Both
of these suffixes are restricted to names of intelligent beings. (Chatterji 1970:173) Oriya
borrowed the –gura plural suffix from the Dravidians. (Mahapatra 1983:67) The syntax of the
Indo-Aryan languages. As a result, they represent both SOV and SVO traits.
According to Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students (1997), says that the
Sanskrit language is known by many names. It was called Nagari ‘urban writin’, Deva-nagari ‘city
writing of the gods’. V. Kanakasabhai in the Tamils Eighteen Hundred Years Ago, says that Sanskrit
is called Deva-nagari, because it was introduced to the Aryans by the Nagas. The characters
associated with Deva-nagari are the characters used to write Sanskrit today.
The Naga were Semitic speaking people from Ethiopia. According to Macdonell the Semitic
writing was introduced to India around 700BC 22 (pg.2).
The Semitic speakers of Africa founded the ancient civilisation of Punt. As a result I refer
to the speakers of Ethiopian Semitic languages Puntites.
The Puntite languages are characterised by a basic vocabulary, a system of roots and vowel
patterns and the formation of derived verbs by prefixes. The South Arabian languages: Sabaean,
Minaean and Hardramautic, are slightly different from modern South Arabic, but analogous to
the Ethiopian languages. This represents the influence of the Jectanid tribes on South Arabic.
It is clear the Proto-Puntite speakers lived in Africa. Wolf Leslau has made it clear that
Ethiopic and South Arabic form a dialectical unity. Dialectical unity means that two or more
languages form a unified dialect.
According to Haupt, in 1878, Akkadian, Minaean and Ethiopic all belong to the same group
of Semitic languages, even though they are separated in time and by great geographical distance.
This is surprising considering the fact Ethiopic and Akkadian are separated by many hundreds
of years. The best example of this unity is the presence of shared archaicism. The linguistic
feature of shared archaicism is the appearance of the vowel after the first consonant of the
imperfect.

2 Arthur A. Macdonell in A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. Oxford University Press, Delhi, (1997) p.2.
 For example, one of the most outstanding features of Puntite, is the presence of a vowel
following the first consonant in the verb form known as the imperfect, e.g., yi quattul (using the
hypothetical verb consonants q-t-l, yi is the person marking prefix) or yi k’ettl ‘he kills’. In
Southwest Semitic the form of the perfect is yu qtul-u. Here we have the same hypothetical q-t-
l form, but there is no vowel following the first consonant of the verb root. This results from
the fact that in Black African languages we rarely, if all find words formed with double
consonants.
The fact that Southeast Semitic has shared archaicism with Puntite shows that at the time
the Akkadians and Ethiopic speakers separated these groups had dialectical unity. The lack of
this trait in Arabic and Hebrew shows that they have been influenced by the Indo-European
speakers who invaded Palestine between 1500 B.C. and Arabia 900 B.C.
Semitic verb root Akkadian Ethiopic/S.Arabian

kl ‘to be dark’ ekelu Soqotri okil ‘to cover’

mr ‘to see’ amaru Geez ammara; Tigre amara

br ‘to catch’ baru Soqotri b’r

dgh ‘remove’ daqu Geez dagba ‘to perforate’

kdn ‘to protect’ kidin Tigre kadna

Clearly Black African language forms are the base of most Semitic words. Anta Diop
recognised that in relation to Arabic words, once the first consonant was suppressed, there is
often African root, This phenomenon was also recognised by Wiener who believed that many
African words were of Arabic origin.
The Cushitic substratum has strongly influenced the phonology, morphology, syntax and
vocabulary of the Puntite languages.
Cushitic English Semitic

Saho la wild cow *la-at

Samoli la id. id.

This supports the view of I.M. Diakonoff Hamitico-Semitica Languages. (Moscow, 1965,
p.104.) that the Semitic speakers and A-Group lived in close proximity in ancient times.
This makes it clear that Arabia, which was occupied in neolithic times by the Anu, was
probably not the original homeland of the Semitic speakers.
It also appears that Puntite speakers lived in Libya which was part of the Proto-Sahara. As
early as 2500 B.C., Puntite people migrated into North Africa. Josephus maintained in
Antiquities, that the people of Punt founded Libya. The Bible says “… [T]he Libyans that
handle the shield”(Jeremiah 46:9); “Persia, Ethiopia and Libya with them; all of them with
shield and helmet”.(Ezekiel 38:5) The Puntites are mentioned in Egyptian literature as invading
this area around 2400 B.C., according to the text of Herkhut, found at Aswan, written during
the VIth Dynasty of Egypt.
It is interesting to note that as pointed out in the West Asia unit many people of Persia and
Ethiopia originally had lived in Libya. This supports the Bible’s listing of the Libyans, Persians
and Ethiopians of analogous ethnic groups.
In the ancient literature of Kemit (Egypt) and Mesopotamia, Punt was recognised as a sea
power. From ports along the Red Sea, the people of Punt traded with of Kemit, Arabia, West
Asia and Mesopotamia.
Modern Ethiopia is part of the land known to the Egyptians “the lands of the gods”. The
inhabitants of Punt, on the other hand called their country Arwe. It was from here that the
Semitic speaking nations moved northward into Arabia and Mesopotamia.
The Kemites allude to the Arwe Kingdom in a short story which tells how a good nature
serpent of great size speaks to a ship wrecked Egyptian whose life he saved:
“I am the Prince of Punt…But it shall happen when [thou] art parted from this place, that never shalt
thou behold this island more, for it will become water….”
This “good natured serpent” may refer to the King-Serpent that ruled Punt according to
Ethiopian traditions.
The Ethiopians who conquered India were members of the Arwe civilisation. According to
Ethiopian traditions the first empire was founded by Za Besi Angabo, of the Arwe line which
ruled Ethiopia for 350 years. This dynasty began in 1370 B.C. The traditions of this dynasty are
recorded in the Kebra Nagast, or “Glory of Kings”.
The greatest and most famous of the rulers of Arwe was the Queen of Sheba, known as
Makeda of Tigre, and Bilkis to her subjects in South Arabia.
Za Sebado, was the grandfather of Makeda, he ruled Ethiopia from 1076-1026 B.C., his
wife was named Cares. Makeda was born in 1020 B.C., and ascended the throne in 1005 B.C.,
she ruled Ethiopia and South Arabia until 955 B.C. During her rule she visited King Solomon
of the Jews. Here Makeda was impregnated by Solomon.
Makeda had a son. He was named Ebna Hakim, from his descendants Hebrewism came to
Ethiopia.
Queen Makeda had a residence near Axum, but the main capital of Arwe was located along
the southern end of the African shores of the Red Sea in a district called Asab, Asabe or Saba,
which meant in the Tigrinya language of the time “the southern lands”. The name Sheba, was a
variation of the name Saba or a specific designation.
 When Ebna Hakim took the throne, his mother had already established colonies in Arabia
and India. Hakim took the name of Menelik I in 955 B.C. At Axum, Menelik established his
capital. The first city of Axum was at Dar’o Addit Kilte. 3
Menelik I, ruled an empire extending from the Blue Nile to Eastern India. He later,
according to tradition, made the empire much larger. After Menelik the people of Arwe
worshipped either Hebrewism or the serpent Arwe.
In the Kebra Nagast, a history of the Ethiopians written by Ethiopians, we find mention of
the Arwe king who ruled India. The founder of the dynasty was Za Besi Angabo. This dynasty
according to the Kebra Nagast began around 1370 BC. These rulers of India and Ethiopia were
called Nagas. The Kebra Nagast claims that “Queen Makeda “had servants and merchants; they
traded for her at sea and on land in the Indies and Aswan”. It also says that her son Ebna
Hakim or Menelik I, made a campaign in the Indian Sea; the king of India made gifts and
donations and prostrated himself before him”. It is also said that Manalik ruled an empire that
extended from the rivers of Egypt (Blue Nile) to the west and from the south Shoa to eastern
India”, according to the Kebra Nagast. The Kebra Nagast identification of an eastern Indian
empire ruled by the Naga corresponds to the Naga colonies in the Dekkan, and on the East
coast between the Kaviri and Vaigai rivers.
By the 6th Century BC, the Naga had strong kingdoms in India between the Jumma and the
Ganges river and Sri Lanka. It is interesting to note that in the fragments sculptures of the
Naga Kings, at the Government Museum, Madras from Amaravati they are distinguished by the
hood of five or seven headed serpent behind their backs. Naga princesses had a three-headed
serpent and ordinary Naga were typified with a single-headed serpent.
The major Naga tribes were the Maravar, Eyinar, Oliyar, Oviyar, Aru-Valur and Parathavar.
The Nagas resisted the invansion of the Cholas. In the Kalittokai IV, 1-5, the Naga are
described as being “of strong limbs and hardy frames and fierce looking tigers wearing long and
curled locks of hair.” The Naga Kings of Sri Lanka are mentioned in the: Mahawanso, and are
said to have later become Dravidians, as testified to by the names of these people: Naganathan,
Nagaratnam, Nagaraja and etc.
The Naga were defeated by another group of Dravidian speaking people form
Kumarinadu. Kamarinadu is supposed to have formerly existed as a large Island in the India
ocean which connected India with East Africa. This landmass is mentioned in the
Silappadikaram, which said that Kamarinadu was made up of seven Nadus or regions. The
Dravdian scholars Adiyarkunallar and Nachinaar wrote about the ancient principalities of
Tamilaham, which existed on Kamarinadu.
Kumarinadu was ruled by the Pandyans/Pandians at Madurai before it sunk beneath the
sea. The greatest king of Kumarinadu was Sengoon. According to Dravidian scholars that
Pandyans worshipped the goddess Kumari Amman. This Aman, probably corresponds to the

3. There is evidence that Menelik I may have conquered Axum, because in the Book of Aksum, it is maintained
that the city of Axum (Aksum), was founded by Aksumaw, son of Ityopis (Ethiopia), a great grand-son of
Noah.
ancient god Amon of the Kushites. The Kalittokai 104, makes it clear that after the Pandyans
were forced to migrate off their Island home into South India, “to compensate for the area lost
to the great waves of the sea, King Pandia without tiresome moved to the other countries and
won them. Removing the emblems of tiger (Cholas) and bow (Cheras) he, in their place
inscribed his reputed emblem fish (Pandia’s) and valiantly made his enemies bow to him”.

Fig. 1
In Figure 1a, we compare Ethiopic, Sanskrit and the Vai writing. It is obvious that these
writing system share many common symbols. It is obvious that Sanskrit and Ethiopic share
Symbols and it supports the view that the Ethiopians introduced writing to the Indo-European
speaking Indians. The excavation of inscribed pottery from South India make it clear that
Dravidians already possessed writing before the rise of Brahmi.
The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system: Deva-Nagari. Nagari is the name
for the Sanskrit script. Over a hundred years ago Sir William Jones, pointed out that the ancient
Ethiopic and Sanskrit writing are one and the same. He explained that this was supported by the
fact that both writing systems the writing went from left to right and the vowels were annexed
to the consonants. Today Eurocentric scholars teach that the Indians taught writing to the
Ethiopians, yet the name Nagari for Sanskrit betrays the Ethiopia origin of this form of writing.
In Geez, the nagar means ‘speech, to speak’. Thus we have in Geez, with the addition of
pronuns: nagara ‘he spoke, nagarat ‘she Spoke’ and nagarku ‘I spoke’.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that Sanskrit vowels: a,aa,’i,u,e,o virama etc., are in the same
order as Geez. Y.M. Kobishnor, in the Unesco History of Africa, maintains that Ethiopic was used
as the model for Armenian writing, as was many of the Transcaucasian scripts. The Naga
introduced worship of Kali, the Serpent, Murugan and the Sun of Krishna. It is interesting that
Krishna, who was associated with the sun, means Black, this is analogous to the meaning of
Khons of the Kushites. Homer, described Hercules as follows:
“Black he stood as night his bow uncased, his arrow string for flight.” This mention of Arrows identifies
the Kushites as warriors who used the bow, a common weapon of the kushites and the Naga.
Overtime the Nagas were absorbed into the Dravidian population. Today the Naga, are
recognised by some researchers as Dravidians.
Recently, Dr.K. Loganathan, has begun to reconstruct the Tamil and Sumerian origin Of
many Sanskrit terms. Controversy surrounds the work of Dr. Loganathan because it is Claimed
that Sanskrit is a representative of the ancestral Indo-Aryan language and has been in pristine
shape since Panini. Coulson maintains that “Panini is obeyed and by passed”. 4
Sanskrit is not genetically related to the Indo-European family of languages as many
researches have assumed. As a result, Coulson notes that “the syntax of Classical Sanskrit in
many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European
Language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan writing”. 5
This view is untenable. W.D. Whitney, in Sanskrit Grammar (1889) observed “of Linguistic
history there is next to nothing in it all [Classical Sanskrit]; but only a history of style, and this
for the most part showing a gradual depravation, an increase of artificially and intensification
of certain more undesirable features of the language such as the use passive construction and
of particles instead of verbs, and the substitution of compounds [i.e., agglutination] for
sentences”. Professor Whitney found this Characteristic strange because agglutination is
associated with non-Indo-European Languages like Dravidian.
The Sanskrit language has been under constant change since its creation as various
grammarians took liberty with Sanskrit to make it conform to the popular colloquial language
forms of the grammarian. As a result, Sanskrit writers have made numerous innovations in
writing Sanskrit. Coulson wrote “The syntax of Classical Sanskrit.
In many major respects bears little resemblance to the syntax of any other Indo-European
language (leaving aside similarities in certain kinds of Middle Indo-Aryan Writing” (p. xxii). Dr.
Coulson adds that “Furthermore, because of the long history of the Language and the varied
sources from which it drew its vocabulary, many Sanskrit words have a number of meanings;
and this feature, too, is much augmented by compounding (e.g., because it literally means ‘twice
born’, the word dvijah can signify ‘brahmin’, ‘Bird’ or ‘tooth’ (p. xxxiv).
The diverse origin of Sanaskrit encouraged grammarians and authors of Sanskrit literature
to make innovations in writing the language that according to Coulson led to “Panini… [being]
obeyed and bypassed” (p.xxii). As a result, Sanskrit is a learned language that has been modified

4. Coulson , p. xxii.
5. Ibid , pp.xxii.
over time by numerous poets writing in Sanskrit and thus we see innovations not in conformity
with Paninis grammar by Asvaghosa, and Kalidasa (Samkara). 66
Conclusion
The epigraphic evidence from India make it clear that there were two traditions of writing in
India. The first tradition of writing began with the introduction of Indus valley writing by
Dravidians in The Indus valley. This tradition of writing was maintained by the Dravidian
people who used this writing to engrave south Indian pottery and make the punch marked
coins.
The second tradition of writing was introduced to the Indo-Aryan speaking people of
North India, by the Naga, or Ethiopians who once ruled much of India. The Naga invented the
Brahmi/ Sanskrit writing to give the diverse speaking people of North India a lingua franca.
This writing was used by the Indo-Aryans to record the Vedas and other Indo-Aryan oral
traditions. These writings make it clear that the Indo-Aryans were nomadic people, who lacked
their own writing system when they entered India or began to socialize with the more culturally
advanced Dravidian speaking people.
We must conclude from the epigraphic evidence that continuity exist between the Indus
valley writing and the so-called Brahmi-Tamilli writing dating back to 1000 BC. This is
supported by the numerous examples of engraved pottery the Tamili-Brahmi inscriptions found
on The mudhumakkal thaazhi (urns of the ancient) recovered from south Indian archaeological
sites dating back to 1200-100 BC; and the punch Marked coins that date back to 600 BC. The
pottery writing has been dated back to 1500-500 BC, as evidenced by the thermo-
luminescencedating of the Adhichanallur site.
The epigraphic evidence is clear, the Harappan writing was writtenin a Dravidian language
similar to Tamil. See my paper: http: // us. Share. geocities.com/ olmec982000 /
HarWRITE.pdf
This paper provides a grammar and dictionary of the Harappan writing.
This decipherment provides insight into the mind and culture of the Harappans.
The goal of the Harappans was the “realising of God”. The Harappan seals and copper
plates are amulets or talismas. They are messages addressed to the Dravidian gods requesting
their support and assistance in obtaining aram (benevolence). A superior Harappan was the man
or Woman who “realizes God.” see: http: // geocities.com/ olmec98200/ Indus Inspiration.pdf
The Indus seals make it clear that the Harappans were seeking the avoidance of all mental
evils, viz., jealousy, covetousness and etc.
Thus the Harappans felt that if they lived a benevolent life so that they might obtain pukal
(fame) for their “right doing”.

6. Coulson, p.xx-xxi.
 The search by the Harappans for aram, is seen in a two sided seal found in the Indus Valley
(see the attached picture). on one side of the seal we have a forest scene and two bulls with
short horns. on The other side, we have four signs.

Two sided Indus Valley seal

The interpretation of these signs can be found in my Indus Valley Dictionary the number
of the signs is placed in parenthesis ( ). The Forest scene can probably be interpreted as Ka Siva
[oh] Siva shelter (Me). The signs on the opposite side of the seal are a min (277), tu ga vey
(136), Uss (123) tu tu (165 reduplication of the term tu). The translation of these signs is:
“Make virtue and glowing admiration [my] Fate [and] abundant virtue”.
Understanding the Harappan script allows us to read the Tamili-Brahmi inscriptions from
the ancient urns found in Tamil Nadu. For Example, one of the inscriptions was written inside
one of the urns found at Adhichanallur, near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu. The signs on The urn
were read by Dr. salyamurthy of the Archaeological survey of India as: Ka ri a ra va [na] ta. If
we read the signs, using my decipherment, we read Tanaka I tata Uss vey gbe or “Tanaka, give
him greatness, open (up for his) Fate Righteousness”.

The reading of the Adhichanallur inscription is tentative. This epigraphic finding and others
is making it clear that the history of writing in India must be re-written. The epigraphic
evidence from south India and the punch marked coins, is making it clear that the Indian
writing systems of the Dravidian speaking people has a continuous history, spanning from the
Indus Valley times, down to south Indian Pottery Tamili-Brahmi writing and contemporary
writing among the Dravidian speaking people
. “Women as Portrayed by the Women Novelists in India”. The Brown Critique, 1995.

References
Anselin, A. (1992). Samba, Gaudeloupe: Editions de L ‘Unirag.
Appiah, K.A. (1993). Europe upside down: Fallacies of the new Afrocentrism. Sapina Newsletter: A Bulletin of the Society
for African Philosophy in North America, 5 (1), 1-8.
Agrawal, D.P., S. Kusumgar. 1974. Prehistoric Chronology And Radiocarbon Dating In India. New Delhi.
Andersson, T.G. 1934. Children Of The Yellow Earth: Studies In Prehistoric China. Landon.
Andronov, M.S. 1934-64, Lexicostatistic Analaysis Of The Chronology Of Disintergration Of Proto-Dravidian. Moscow
......... . 1968. Two Lectures On The Historicity Of Language Families. Annamalai: University Press.
Bagchi, P.C. 1995. India And Central Asia. National council of Education: Calcutta.
Barath Tibor. 1973. Amagyar Nepek Ostortente. Montreal.
......... . 1984. Early Hungarians. Montreal.
Beauclair, Inez de. 1966. Tribal Cultutres Of Southwest China. Taipei: The Orient Cultural Service.
Bellwood, P. Man’s Conquest Of The Pacific. London: Oxford University Press.
Bouda, K.1955-56. Dravidisch Und Uralataisch, Lingua 5: 129-144.
Brenjes, B. 1983. “On Proto-Elamite Iran”, Current Anthropology, 24(2): 240-243.
Bynon, T.1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press: London.
Bekerie, A. (1994). “The four corners of a circle: Afrocentricity as a model of synthesis,” Journal of Black Studies, 25
(2), 131-149.
Cornelius, J.T. (1954). “The Dravidian question”, Tamil Culture 3, (2), pages 92-102.
Cornelius, J.T. (1957-1957). “Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians”, Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South
India, 91-94.
Caldwell, R. 1957. A Comparative Grammar Of The Dravidian Or South Indian Family Of Languages. Madras.
Chang, K.C.1980. Shang Civilisation. Yale University Press: New Haven.
......... 1987. The Archaeology Of Ancient China. Yale Univ. Press: New Haven.
......... . 1964. “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China.” Current Antropology,
5(5): 359-375.
Chatterji,S.K. 1970. The Origin And Development Of Bengali Language, New Delhi.
David,H.1955. “Some Contacts and Affinities between the Egypto – Minoan and Indo (Dravido) –Sumerian
Culture.” Tamil Culture, 4(2)--.
David, These. 1986. “Le Colloque Franco-Sovietisque sur I’ Archeologie de I’ Asie Centrale des Origines a I’ Age
du Fer”, Dialogues D’histoire Ancienne, 12:481-494.
Dergachev, V.1989. “Neolithic and Bronze Age Cultural Communities of the steppe Zone of the USSR”. Antiquity,
63:793-802.
Delafosse, M. 1901. Essai De Manuel Pratique Mande Au Mandingue. Paris.
Desanges, J.1981. “The Proto-Berbers”. In General History Of Africa 2, (Ed.) G.Mokhtar. London: Heinemann
Educational Books.
D’iakonov, I.M. 1985. “On the original home of the speakers of Indo-European.” Journal Of Indo-European Studies,
13(1&2): 92-174.
David, H S. (1995). “Some contacts and affinities between The Egypto-Minoan and the Indo (-Dravido) Sumerian
Culture”, Tamil Culture 4, (2), 169-175.
David, H S. (1995).” Some contacts and affinities between The Egypto-Minoan and the Indo (-Dravido) Sumerian
Culture”, Tamil Culture 4, (2), 169-175.
Delafosse, M.(1899). “Vai leur langue et leur system d’ ecriture”, L’ Anthropologie 10,.
Delafoose, M. (1929). La Langue Mandique et ses dislectes, Paris: Geuthner,1929.
Desplanges, L. (1906). “Notes sur les origins des Populations Nigerienne”, L’ Anthropologie 17, 525-527.
Desplanges, L. (1907). Le Plateau Central Nigerien, Paris.
Diop, C. A. (1974). The African origin of Civlisation, (ed & trans) by Mercer cook, Westport: Lawrence Hill
&Company.
Diop, C A. (1991). Civilisation Of Barbarism; An Authentic Anthropology, (trans) by Yaa-Lengi Meema Ngemi and
(ed) by H.J. Salemson and Marjoliiw de Jager, Westport: Lawrence Hill and Company.
Ehret,C.1988. “Language change and the material correlates of language and ethnic Shift”. Antiquity. 62: 564-
Emeneau,M. and T. Burrow. 1962. Dravidian Borrowings From Indo-Aryan. Berkeley: University California Press.
Farid., El-Yahky. (1985) “The Sahara and PredynasticEgyptian Overview”, The Journal for the Society for the Study
Egyptian Antiquities 7, (1-2), 58-65.
Farid, El-Yahky. (1984). “The origin and Development of Sanctuaries in Predynastic Egypt”, Journal of the Society For
the study of Egyptian Antiquites 14, no3 (1984), pages70-73.
Fairservis, W.A. 1975. The Roots Of Ancent India. Chicago:University of Chicango.
......... 1986. “The Harappan civilisation according to its writing: A Model for the decipherment of the script.”
Tamil Civilisation, 4(3&4): 103-130.
......... .1987. “Cattle and the Harappan chiefdoms of the Indus Valley.” Expedition, 28 (2): 43-50.
......... .1991. “G.L. Possehl’s And M.H. Raval’s Harappan Civilisation And Rodji”. Journal Of The American Oriental
Society, 111(1): 108-13.
Francefort, Henri –paul. 1987a. “La Civilisation de I’ Indus aux rives de I’Oxus”. Archaeologia (December): 44-55.
......... 1987B. “Aux frontiers de la civilisation de I’Indus”. Dossiers Historie Et Archaeologie, no. 11:80-81.
......... 1985. “Fortifications et societies en Asie Centrale Protohistorique.” De L’inde Aux Balkan Recueil Jean
Deshayes, (Pairs) pp. 379-388.
Fu Ssu-nien.1935. “Yi Hsia tung his Shuo”. Papers Presented To Mr. Ts’aoyuan Pei On His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Nanking:
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica.
Gadd, C.J. 1924. A Sumerian Reading Book. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Gafurov, B.G.1980 “Some Problems/ questions about the ethnic history of peoples of Central Asia in the most
ancient period.” Journal Of Central Asia 3(1):19-29.
Gamkrelidze, T.V.& Ivanov, V.V. 1990. “The early History of Indo-European Languages.” Scientific American, (9):
110-116.
Gardin, Jean-Claude. 1987. “Recherches sur la Bactriane Ancienne”, Dossiers Histoire Et Archaeologie, no. 12: 77-79.
Gostony, C.G. 1975. Dictionnarie D’etymologie Sumerienne Et Grammaire Comparee. Paris: De Boccard.
Gupta, S.P. 1979. Archaeology Of Soviet Central Asia And The Indian Borderlands. B.R. Pub. Corp: Delhi. Vol.2.
Graves, Robert. (1980). The Greek Myths, Middlesex: PenguinBooks Ltd, 2 vols.
Hau, K.(1967). “The ancient writing of Southern Nigeria”, Bulletin de 1’ IFAN 29, (1-2), 150-185.
Hau, K. (1973). “Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa”, Bulletin de 1’ IFAN, series B, nol.
Joshi, J.P.1978. “Interlocking of Late Harappa culture and painted grey ware culture in the light of recent =
excavations”. Man. Environ. 2:98-.
Kan Yang. 1985. “The Bronze culture of Western Yunnan”. Bull. Of The Ancient Orient Museum, (Tokyo) 7:47-91.
Kao Chih –Hsu. 1986. “An Introduction to Shang and Chou Bronze nao excavated in SouthChina”. In Studies In
Shang Archeology, (ed.) by Chang, New Haven: YaleUniversity Press.
Kanakasabhai, v.1966. The Tamils Eighten Hundred Years Ago. Madras.
Khalopin, I. 1989. “Origins of the Bronze Age Culture of South Asia”. Bull Inform Iascca (Moscow), no.15:74-84.
Kircho, L. 1981. “The Problem of the origin of the Early Bronze Age Culture of Southern Turkmenia”. In P.L.
Kohl, The Bronze Age Civilisation Of Central Asia. (pp.96-106). Armouk, N.Y.: M.E.sharp.
Kirch, P.V. 1985. Feathered Gods And Fish: An Introduction To Hawailan Archaeology And Prehistory. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
KiZerbo,J.1979. “The Cradle of Mankind”, Unesco Courier, ( Aug.-Sept.)pp. 39-43.
Knorozov, Y.V.1979. Proto-indica. Moscow. Kohl, P.L.1988. “The Northen ‘Froniter’ of the Ancient Near East:
Trans-Caucacia and Central Asia Comopared”. American Journal Of Archaeology, 92:541.
......... 1978. “The balance of trade in Southwestern Asia in the mid-Third Millennium BC”. Current Anthropology, 19
(3): 463-92.
......... 1979. (Ed.) The Bronze Age Civilisation Of Central A. Armouk, N. Y.: M.E. Sharp. Kothandaraman, R.
......... 1988. “Compilers in Tamil Syntax”. International Journal Of Dravidian Linguistics, 15 (2): 190-233.
Kramer, S.N.1963. The Sumerians. Chicago Kuiper, F.B.J.1974. “The genesis of a Linguistic Area.” International
Journal Of Dravidian Linguistics, 3 (1).
Lacouperie, T.de. 1886. “The Kushites –who were they”. Babylonian And Oriental Record, pp.25-31.
......... 1887. The Languages Of China Before The Chinese. London: David Nunn.
......... .1889. “ Origin from Babylon and Elam of the early Chinese Civilisation. A summary of the Proof”.
Babylonian And Oriental Record, 3 (5): 97-111.
Lahovary, N. (1957). Dravidian origins and the west, Madras: Longman.
Lal, B.B. 1954-1955. “excavations at Hastinapura and other explorations in the Upper Ganga and Sutlej Basins
1950-52.” Ancient India, 10:5.
......... .1960. “From Megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing back the graffiti on pottery.” Ancient India, 16.
......... .1963. “The only Asian Expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an India Mission at Afyeh and Tumas”.
The Illustrated Times, 20 April.
Langdon, S. 1911. Sumerian Grammar And Chrestomathy. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Li Chi.1957. The Beginning Of Chinese Civilisation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Li Xueqinm. 1986. Eastern Zhou And Qin Civilisation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ling Shun-Sheng. 1970. A Study Of The Raft, Outrigger, Double And Deck Canoes Of Ancient China, The Pacific And
The Indian Ocean, Nankang: Taipei.
Lord, R. 1974. Comparative Linguistics. London: St. Paul’s House.
Ligabue, G. and Salvatori, S. (Ed.). 1989. Bactria. Roma: Erizzo Editrice.
Kohl, R L.(1978). “The balance of trade in southwest Asia in the mid –third millennium B.C.”, current Anthropology
19, 463-492.
Kramer, S.N. (91963). The Sumerians, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mahadevan, I. 1986. “Towards a grammar of the Indus Texts: Intelligible to the Eye, If not to the Ears”. Tamil
Civilisation 4(3): 15-30.
......... .1986b. “Dravidian models of decipherment of the Indus Script: A case Study”. Tamil Civilisation, 4(3): 133-
43.
Mahapatra, B.P.1983. ‘Scope of Indo-Aryan Tribal Languages Research”. International Journal Of Dravidian Linguistics,
12 (1): 60.75.
Masson, V.M. 1986. “Ancient Central Asian Civilisation trends of development, assimilation of Ecological niches,
cultural links”. Bull Inform Iascca (Moscow), no.11:76-84.
Masson, V.M. &T.P. Kiatkina. 1981. “Man at the Dawn”. In Bronze Age Civilisation Of Central Asia, (ed.) by P.L.
Kohl, (Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharp) pp. 107-135.
Masson, V.M. & Taylor, T. 1989. “Soviet Archaeology in the Steppe Zone”. Antiquity, 63: 779-783.
McAlpin, D.W. 1974. “Toward Proto-Elamato Dravidian”, Language 50.
......... .1981. Proto-Elamo Dravidian: The Evidence And Its Implications. Trans. of the Am. Philosophical Society 71,
Part 3: Philadelphia.
Mellarrt, J. 1981. “Anatolia and the Indo-Europeans”. Journal Of Indo-European Studies, 9 (1/2):135-149.
Meenakshisundaran, T.P. 1965. A History Tamil Language. Poona.
Meillet, A. 1926. Linguistique Historique Et Linguistique Generale. Paris.
Menges, K. 1966. “Altaic-Dravidian Relationship.” The International Conference-Seminar Of Tamil Studies. Kuala
Lumpur.
Muttarayan, K.L. 1975. “Sumerian, Tamil of the first Cankam.” Journal Of Tamil Studies, 7:41-61.
Muttarayan, K L. (1975). “Sumerian, Tamil of the First Cankam”, Journal Of Tamil Studies, no7, 41-61.
Nayar, T.B. (19770, The Problem of Dravidian origins, Linguistic, Anthropological Approach, Madras: Madras University
Press.
Navarrete, C. (1976). “The Olmec rock carvings at P i j i j i pan, Chiapas, Mexico and other Olmec Pieces, from
Chiapas and Guatemla”, New World Archaeological Foundation, no 35,Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University
Press.
Obenga, Th. (1973). L’ Afrique dans 1 Antiquite, Paris: Presence Africaine.
Petrie, F. (1900). The Making of Egypt, London: The Sheldon Press.
Petrie, F. (1921). Corps of Prehistoric Pottery, London.
Parpola, A. 1975. “Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script’. Journal Of Royal Asiatic Society, pp.
178-209.
......... .1986. “The Indus Script: A challenging Puzzle.” World archaeology, 17 (3): 399-419.
Pope, Maurice. 1975. The Story Of Archaeological Decipherment. New York: Scribner’s.
Possehl, G.L. 1990. “Revolution in the Urban Revolution: The Emergence of Indus Urbanisation.” Annual Review
Of Anthropology, 19:261-82.
Possehl, G.L.& Raval, M.H. 1989. Harappan Civilisation And Rodji. New Delhi: Oxford& IBH Publishing Co.
Romaine, S.1972. Socio-Historical-Linguistics. London: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Raman, K.V. 1978. “Rock Paintings in Tamil Nadu”. Times Of India, 24 December, p.8.
Ramsey, S.R. 1987. The Languages Of China. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Rao, B.K.G. 1972. The Megalithic Culture In South India. Mysore.
Rawlinson, C.B.( ). “Notes on the early history of Babylonia”. Journal Royal Astatic Society, 15:215-259.
Jenfrew, C. 1987. Archeology And Language. London: Johnathan Cape.
......... .1988. “Archaeology and Language: Authors’s Precis.” Current Anthroplogy, 29 (3): 437-468.
Rosen, Lissie von.1988. Lapis Lazuli In Geological Context and In Ancient Written Sources. Paul Astroms forlag:Partille.
Schoebel, C. 1853. “Affinities des Langues Dravidienne et desLangues oural-Altaiques.” Congress International Des
Orientalistes Compte Rendu De La Premiere Session. Paris. 2 Vols.
Sherratt, Andrew and Susan. 1988. “Archaeology of Indo-European: an Alternative view.” Antiouity 62: 584-595.
Singer, I. 1981. “ Hittites in Anatolia at the beginning of the second millennium.” Journal Of Indo-European Studies,
9(1/2): 119-134.
Singh, H.N. 1982. History And Archaeology Of Black-And Red Ware. Delhi.
Sjoberg, A.W. 1984. The Sumerian Dictionary. Vol.2. The University Museum of Philadelphia.
Southworth, F.C. 1977. “Lexical evidence for early contacts between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian”. Proc. of the
Conf. on Aryan and Non-Aryan in India. Ann Arbor: Univ. Of Michigan December, 1976.
......... .1985. “The Reconstruction of Prehistoric South Asian Language Contact”. Annals New York Academy Of
Sciences, 538:207-233.
Soustelle, J. (1984). The Olmecs, New York: Doubleady & Com., Inc.
Swadash, M, The Language of the Archaeological Huastecs, Carnegie Institutions Notes on Middle American Archaeology And
Ethnology, no114, Washington, D C, 1953.
Ting shan. 1935. “Yu san-tai tu-yi 1un ch’ I min-tsu, wen-hua”. Bulletin Of The Institute Of History And Philology.
Nanking: Institute of History and Philology (Academia Sinica), No. 5: 89-129.
Trigger, B.G. (1980) Nubia under the Pharoahs, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Thundy, Z.P. (1983). “The Egyptian osiris –Isis myth and the Dravidian Cilappadikaram.” Tamil civilisation,1(2), 83-
90.
Tyler, S.A.1968. “Dravidian and Uralian: the lexical evidence.” Language, 44 (4): 798-811.
Vacek, J. 1978. “The problem of the genetic relationship of The Mongolian and Dravidian languages.” Archiv
Orientaln I46: 141-151.
......... .1983 “Dravido-Altaic: The Mongolian and Dravidian Verbal Bases. Journal Of Tamil Studies 23: 1-17.
Vacek, J. 1987. “The Dravido –Altaic Relationship.” Archivorientalent 55: 134-139.
Vamos-Toth Bator. 1983. Tamana. Honolulu.
......... .1985. “Kodaly: A comparative Tamana study in Tamil-land, Japan and the Carpathian Basin”. Proceedings
International Symposium On Asian Studies.
......... 1984. Hong Kong: Asian Research Service. Wendorf, F., Close, A.E. & Schild, R. 1985. “Prehistoric
Settlements in the Nubian Desert,” American Scientist 73.
Weber, S.A. (1998). “Out of Africa: The initial Impact of millets in South Asia.” Current Anthropology, 39(2), 267-
274.
Wigboldus, J.S. (1996). “Early presence of African Millets near the Indian Ocean.” In J. Reade, The Indian Ocean
(pp.75-86), London: The British Museum.
Wilson, J.V.K. 1974. Indo-sumerian. Oxford. Wiener, Leo, Africa and the Discovery of America, Philadelphia: Innes
and son, 1920-22, 3 vols.
Williams, B, The A – Group Royal Cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L, Chicago: oriental Institute University of Chicago,
1987.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad. (1977). “The influence of the MandeScripts on ancient American Writing systems.” Bulletin
1’de IFAN, T39, serie b, no2, 941-967.
Winters, C.A. (1979a). “Manding Scripts in the New World”, Journal of African Civilisation 1, nol, 61-97.
Winters, C.A. (1980 a). “The genetic unity of Dravidian and African languages and culture”, Proceedings of the First
international symposium on Asian Studies (PIISAS) 1979, Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
Winters, C.A. (19880b). “A Note on the Unity of Black Civilisations in Africa, Indochina, and china”, PIAS 1979,
Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.
Winters, C.A. (1981 a) “The Unity of African and Indian Agriculture,” Journal of African Civilisation 3, nol, 103.
Winters, C.A. (1981b) “Are Dravidians of African origin”, P. Second ISAS, 1980, (Hong Kong: Asian Research
Service ),789-807.
Winters, C.A. (1982). “The Harappan script Deciphered: Proto-Dravidian Writing of the Indus Valley”, P Third
ISAS, 1981, (Hong Kong: Asian Research Service) 925-936.
Winters, C.A. (1983a ). “The Ancient Manding Script”, In Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern, (ed) by Ivan van
Sertima, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books) pages 208-214.
Winters, C.A. (1983b). “Blacks in Ancient china, Part 1: The Founders of Xia and shang”, Journal of Black Studies
(SanFrancisco) 1, no2.
Winters, C.A. (1984a) “The Indus Valley Writing is Proto Dravidian “, Journal of Tamil studies, no 25 (June
1984a),pp. 50-64.
Winters, C.A. (1984b). “A Note on Tokharian and Meroitic”, Meroitic Newsletter\Bulletin d” Information Meroitiques,
No23 ( Juin ), 18-21.
Winters, C.A. (1984c). “The Inspiration of the Harappan Talismanic Seals”, Tamil Civilisation 2, nol (March),Pages
1-8.
Winters, C.A. (1984d). “The Harappan writing of the Harappan Writing of the Copper Tablets”, Journal of Indian
History LX11, nos. 1-3, 1-5.
Winters, C.A. (1985a). “The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians”, Tamil Civilisation 3, nol
(March 1985a), pages 1-9.
Winters, C.A. (1985b). “The Indus Valley Writing and Related scripts of the 3rd Millennium BC”, India past and
Present 2, nol, pages 13-19.
Winters, C.A. (1985c). “The genetic Unity between the Dravidian, Elamite, Manding and Sumerian Languages”,
PSixth ISAS, 1984, (Hong Kong: Asian Research Service) 1413-1425.
Winters, C.A. (1986a) “The Migration Routes of the Proto-Mande”, The Mankind Quarterly 27, nol, pages 77-96.
Winters, C.A. (1988). “The Dravidian and Manding substratum In Tokharian”, Central Asiatic Journal 32, nosl-2,
131-141.
Winters, C.A. (1989a) “Tamil, Sumerian and Manding and the Genetic Model”, International Journal of Dravidian
Linguistics 18, nol.
Winters, C.A. (1989b). “cheikh Anta Diop et le dechiffrement de 1’ ecriture meroitique”, Cabet: Revue Martinique
deSciences Humaines et de Litterature 8, 149-152.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “Review of Dr. Asko Parpolas’ “ The Coming of the Aryans.” International Journal of
Dravidian linguistics 18,no2(1989),pages 98-127.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Dravido Harappan Colonisation of Central Asia”, Central Asiatic Journal 34, nol-2
(1990), pages 120-144.
Winters, C.A. (1991). “The Proto-sahara.” In The Dravidianencyclopaedia (Vol.1, 553-556). Trivandrum, India:
International school of Dravidian Linguistics.
......... . (1994c). “Ancient Dravidian: And introductory grammar of Harappan with Vocabularies, “ Journal Tamil
Studies, No. 41, 1-21.
......... . (1995a). “Ancient Dravidian: The Harappan Signs, “ Journal Tamil studies, No.42, 1-23.
......... . (1995b). “Ancient Dravidian: Harappan Grammar/ Dictionary,” Journal Tamil studies, No. 43-44, 59-130.
Winters, C.A. (1994). “Afrocentrism: A valid frame of reference,” Journal of Black Studies, 25, (2) 170-190.
Winters, C.A. (1999a). “ProtoDravidan terms for cattle. International”, Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 28, 91-98.
Winters,C.A. (1999b). “Proto Dravidian terms for sheep and goats.” PILC Journal of Dravidian studies, 9 (2), 183-87.
Winters, C.A. (2000). “Proto-Dravidian agricultural terms.” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 30 (1), 23-28.
Wulsin, F.R.( 1941) The Prehistoric Archaeology of Northwest Africa, Papers of the Peabody Museum of American
Archaeology and Ethnology, vol19.
Young, L.M. (1982). “The shang of Ancient China”. Current Anthropology, 23 (3): 311-314.
Zvelebil, K. 1972. “Descent of the Dravidians”. International Journal Dravidian Linguistics, 1(2): 57-63.
Zoltan Szbo. 1985. “Common ancestral roots of the Magyar and Asiatic Languages.” Proc. Of The Sixth International
Symposium On Asian Studies 1984.Hong Kong: Asian Research Service. Vol. 6.

Websites on the Decipherment of Harappan Writing

http://geocities.com/ olmec982000/grammar1.pdf
http://geocities.com/ olmec982000/ IndusInspiration.pdf
http://geocities.com/ olmec982000/vbasic.pdf
http://geocities.com / olmec982000/ FishSign.pdf
http://us. Share.geocities. com /Olmec982000/ Har WRITE.pdf
The Indus Valley writing is not a multilingual system of writing. The writing indicates that this
population was literate and spoke a Dravidian language. The study also indicates that the Indus
Valley writing was not used to write an Indo-Aryan language, because the Aryans did not arrive
in India until after 1600BC.
The Dravidians had their own tradition of writing1. It would appear that they Introduced
writing to Indus Valley 2-6They continued to use this writing on their pottery in south India.
7,8
and later Punch-marked coins. This is supported by the discovery of writing in south India 2
dating back to before 600BC.
In a recent paper srinivasan et al.1 argue that the Indus Valley writing was a Syllabic
multilingual writing system. Al-though this is their opinion, it appears that the writing system
used in the Indus Valley was also employed in south India and that the language of the Indus
Valley Script was Tamil 2-4. They argue that the Indus Valley seals were ‘flash cards’ used by the
Indus Valley population to Learn the writing systems. 1
Srinivasan et al.1 believe that they can demonstrate the multilingual nature of the Indus
Valley writing by discussing Indus Valley consonants and vowels without describing how they
deciphered The language; and they imply that ancient Dravidians wrote in Brahmi and Kha-
rosthi even though Tamil inscriptions are much older than these writing sys-tems 2. The fact that
srinivasan et al.1make these claims without explaining their decipherment, makes these totally
invalid. In this paper, I will review the evidence that the Indus Valley writing was written in
Dravidian, and that there were probably no Aryan Speakers in the Indus Valley.
Results
The Indus Valley writing was in Tamil, a Dravidian languages2-5. It was assumed that the Indus
Valley writing was written in a Dravidian language because of the presence of Dravidian
speakers of Brahmin the Indus Valley.
The Dravidian people originated in Africa 9-18, they belonged to the C-Group Culture of
Nubia 19. The Dravidians were Proto-Saharan people 20.The proto-Saharans were the ancestors
of the Dravidian, Elamite and Sumerian people 20,21.
 These Proto-Saharans shared a common system of writing which first appeared on the
pottery and later evolved into a Syllabic writing system (Figure 1).
They key to deciphering the Harappan Script was the recognition that the proto-Dravidians
who settled in the Indus Valley had formerly lived in the proto-Sahara, where they used the so-
called Libyco-Berber writing 22
It is clear that a common system of record-keeping was used by people in the 4 th and 3rd
millennium BC from Saharan Africa to Iran, China and the Indus Val-ley 22 The best examples
of this common writing were the Linear A script, proto-Elamite, Uruk script, Indus Valley
writing and the Libyco-Berber writing 22. Al-though the Elamites and Sumerians abandoned this
writing in favour of the cuneiform script, the Dravidians, Mino-ans and Mande (the creators of
the Libyco-Berber writing) continued to use the proto-saharan script.
He Sumerian, Elamite, Dravidian and Manding languages are genetically related 21. This is
not a recent discovery by linguists and anthropologists (Figure 2). Lahovary 23 noted structural
and gram-Matical analogies of the Dravidian,

Figure 1. Comparison of pottery inscriptions.

Sumerian and Elamite languages. Mutta-rayan24 provided hundreds of lexical
correspondences and other linguistic data supporting the family relationship between Sumerian
and Dravidian languages.
Further research indicated that the Indus Valley writing was related not only to the Libyco-
Berber writing, but also to the Brahmi writing. Some researchers Claim that the Brahmi writing
is related To the Phoenician writing. But a comparison of the Brahmi vowels and Phoenician
Vowels fails to show any similarity (Figure 3).
Although we fail to see a relationship between the Brahmi and Phoenician vowels,
comparison of the Brahmi and Harappan vowels shows complete correspondence 25.26 using the
evidence of cognate scripts and the analogy between the Dravidian
Figure 2. Comparison of writing systems.

Figure 3. Comparison of Brahmi and

 Figure 4 Comparison of Harappan, Brahmi and Manding signs
Language and the languages spoken by people using cognate scripts-2,5, three assumptions
could be made leading to the decipherment of the Harappan writing.
1. It was assumed that the Harappan script was written in the Dravidian language.
2. It was assumed that the Dravidian language shares linguistic and cultural affinities with
the Elamites, Manding and Sumerians-all of whom used a similar writing system. This
led to a corollary hypothesis that the Harappan writing probably operated on the same
principles as the related scripts, due to a probable common origin.
3. It was assumed that as the Harappan script had affinity to the Proto-Manding writing
(Libyco-Berber) and the Manding language, it could be read by giving these signs the
phonetic values, they had in the Proto-Manding script as preserved in the Vai writing,
since the northern Manding languages like Bambara and Malinke were genetically
related to Dravidian languages like Tamil. This discovery of cognition between Vai and
Harappan and Vai scripts helped lead to a speedy reading and decipherment of the
Harappan signs.
This made it possible to us symbols from the Mending. Vai script to interpret Harappan
signs. The only difference was that when interpreting the phonetic values of the Harappan
script, they were to be read using the Dravidian lexicon. The terms used to express the
translation of Harappan signs were taken from Burrow and Emeneau’s Dravidian Etymological
Dictionary. Once the seals were broken down into their syllabic values, we only had to determine
if the Harappan term was made up of only one syllable- 3-5
A comparison of the Harappan signs, Brahmi and Vai writings showed that the signs had
similar phonetic value. It is the similarity in phonetic value that allows us to read the Indus
Valley writing use Vai signs. 26.
Many would-be deciphers of dead languages have assumed that we cannot read ancient
languages using contemporary or comparatively recent time-depth lexical material. This is a
false view of archaeological decipherment. For example, Jean Champollion used Coptic to read
the Egyptian hieroglyphics; and Sir Henry Rawlinson, used Galla (a Cushitic language spoken in
Africa) and Mahra (a South Semitic language) to decipher the cuneiform writing.

Figure 5. A Unicom seal, Note the manger under the head of the god
Moreover, we know from the history of the cuneiform writing that several languages
(Eblate, Elamite, Sumerian, Assyrian, Akkadian, etc.) were used in the cuneiform could be used
to proto-Sahran script not be used in ancient middle Africa (and later Asia and Europe), to
write genetically related languages like the Manding and Dravidians groups (Figures 1 and 2)
The decipherment of the Harappan seals-2-5 showed that they did not contain the names
and titles of their owners. They are talismans, with messages addressed to the Harappan gods
requesting blessings. This is an sharp contrast to the Mesopotamian seals which were used for
administrative and commercial purposes.
The Harappan seals illustrate that the Harappan believer wanted from his god; (1) a good
fate, (2) spiritual richness, (3) virtue, (4) humility and (5) perseverance 27. They were protective
amulets found in almost every room in the city of Mohenjo-Daro.
The Harappan writing was read from right to left. Figure 5 depicts the average Harappan
seal and its talismanic formula: depiction of Deity X (in this case Maal/ Mal) as an animal, and
then the votive inscription written above the deity.
 The manager, under the head of Maal is made up of several Harappan signs. It reads Puu-i-
Paa or’ A flourishing condition. Thou distribute (it), the Harappan seals were often found by
archaeologists in a worn out condition. The fact that the seals often had holes drilled at the
back, suggests that they were drilled at the back, suggests that they were tied with a string and
hung around the neck or from belts (Figure 6).
The importance of the Harappan seals as amulets is attested to by the popularity of wearing
totems among the Dravidians. During the Sangam period (of ancient Dravidian history), the
warriors and young maidens wore anklets with engraved designs and or totemic signs.
Moreover, at the turn of the century, in South India, it was common for children to wear an
image of Hanuman around their neck; whereas wives wore a marriage totem around their necks
as a symbol of household worship.
In the Harappan world view animals were used in many cases to represent characteristics
that many cases to represent characteristic that human beings should exhibit. As a result the
bird was recognised as a symbol of the highest love, due to its offspring; and the elephant due
to strict monogamy symbolised the right attitude towards family life and social organisation.
The principal Harappan gods are all depicted on the Harappan seals. The main god of the
Harappans was the unicorn. The unicorn probably represented Maal (Vishnu or Kataval.) This
god was held in high esteem by the cowherds and Shepherds.

Figure 6 Perforated boss on the back of many seals

Figure 7 Seals depicting the Harappan gods

 Other Harappan gods were represented by the water buffalo, humped bull, elephant, rhino,
tiger and mythological animals (Figure 7)
The crescent-shaped horns of the oxen or castrated bull on some Harappan seals may
represent the mother goddess ‘Kali, The lunar crescent shape of the oxens’ curved horns
recalled the lunar crescent which was the primordial sign for the mother goddess.
Siva was probably represented by the short-horn bull. The elephant on the Harappan seals
may have represented Ganesa/ Ganesha, the elephant-headed god of India. In the ‘Laws of
Manu’s, it is written that Ganesha is the god of written that Ganesha is the god of the ‘shudras’,
the aboriginal population of India. The Tamilan name for the elephant god is ‘pillaiyar, palla
and veeram.’ The hunter figure on Harappan seals wearing the horned headdress and armed
with a bow and arrow may have been Muruga, the son of Uma.
Pillaiyar is considered the shrewdest of animals. He is associated with harvest time,
abundance and luck. The appearance of mythological animals on the Harappan seals may refer
to Pillaiyar or Ganesha in one of his many transformations.
Writing was never lost among Dravidian speakers in South India. The earliest writing
appeared on South Indian megalithic ceramics. These signs were the same as those of the Indus
Valley signs. 2,7,8.
Indus Valley-type signs continued to be produced throughout India, especially South India
as evidenced by the appearance of these signs on megalithic pottery, burial urns and palm leaf
manuscripts, The evidence when we considered the ceramic scripts, showed an unbroken
history of writing from Harappan to contemporary times.
Archaeologists agree that black and red Ware (BRW) unearthed on many South Indian sites
is analogue to Indus valley BRW used by Dravidians-speaking people in South India. 28. The
BRW style has been found on the lower levels of Madurai and Tirukkampuliyur 7,8. Lal 19
showed that the South Indian BRW was related to Nubian ware dating to the Kerma dynasty.
This is supported by the appearance of Harappan signs on India pottery (Figure 8) Lal also
found that 89% of the graffiti arks on the megalithic red-and black ware had an affinity to
Indus Valley writing should be read from right to left. This view was later confirmed by
Mahadevan29 in 1986.
Singh28 believes that BRW radiated from Nubia through Mesopotamia and Iran southward
into India. BRW is found at the lowest levels of Harappa and Lothal dating to 2400 BC. Nayar 30
proved that BRW of Harappa had affinity to predynastic Egyptian and west Asian pottery
dating to the same time-period.
After 1700 BC, at the end of the Harappan civilisation, BRW spread southward into the
Chalcolithic culture of Malvwa and Central India down to Northen Decan and eastward into
the Gangetic Basin. The BRW of the Malwa culture occupied the Tapi Valley Pravara Goda vari
and the pottery used by the people at Gilund, Rajasthan on the banks of the Bana River, was
also BRW (http.// bestindiatours.com/archaeology/ harappan/ Gilund,html). This indicates
that the people at Gilund, like other people in North India at this time were Dravidians
speakers, given their pottery, If this is so, the building where the ‘bin’ containing the cache of
BMAC seals was found probably represented a warehouse where exotic objects imported from
Central Asia were stored, Let us not forget that Central Asia was a major centre for Harappan
copper and tin for hundreds of years.31

Gurmurthy32 found, like Lal before him that the graffiti on South Indian pottery was
engraved with Harappan signs. He found that the Tamil Nadu pottery graffiti agrees with
Brahmi letters dating back to 1000 BC. This further supports the view that continuity existed
between Harappan writing and Brahmi-Tamili writing discovered in South India.
The recent discovery of a Tamil Brahmi inscription at Adichanallur is interesting (Figure 9)
because the site is dated between 1500 and 500 BC by thermo-luminescence 2.
Satyamurthy (Archeological Survey of India (ASI) has dated 2 the inscription to 500 BC.
Sampath has tentatively read the inscription as ‘Ka ri a ra va (na) ta’ This inscription is
interesting because the date for the site would place the writing at an age hundreds of years
prior to the introduction of Brahmi writing in India.
It is no secret that the megalithic sites of India have yielded many inscriptions that agree
with signs associated with the Indus Valley writing. Moreover, it is no secret that Lal 8 was able
to learn the direction for the writing of the Indus Valley script by studying cognate sites on
South Indian pottery.
Since the date of this inscription is very early, it suggests that it may be written in the Tamil
of the Indus Valley seals. I decided to test this hypothesis by attempting to read the
Adichanallur inscription based on my decipherment of the Harappan writing. The Adichanallur
inscription has five singular signs and two compound signs (5&6) We will read the inscription
from left to right.
 Figure 9, Inscribed pot from Adichanallur
Reading the signs from left to right we have the following: (1) ia, (2) na, (3) ka, (4) I, (5) tata,
(6) uss vey and (7) gbe Signs 2 and 7 are not normally found in the corpus of Harappan signs.
As a result, I had used over the years to find the phonetic values of the Harappan signs. In Vai,
the term gbe, means ‘right eousness.’
These readings of the Adichanallur inscription are tentative.2 This epigraphic finding and
others make it clear that the history spanning from the Indus Valley times down to South
Indian pottery and later Tamili writing.2
Yet, the fact remains that the inscriptions from this site are older than any Brahmi
inscriptions. It stands to reasoning that these inscription may be read syllabically, rather than as
an alphabet This would explain the economy of signs used to write this obituary. I look forward
to reading by ‘Experts’ in this area.
The punch-marked coins of India also show the continued use of Indus Valley signs after
the decline of civilisation in the Indus Valley Rajgor, 33 gives a detailed history of punch-
marked coins in India dating from 600 BC to the rise of Magadha around 400 BC.
Kalyanaraman 34 provides a detailed discussion of the relationship between the punch-
marked coins of India and the Harappan writing. As can be seen from Figure 10, the punch-
marked coins and Indus Valley signs are similar.35
It is also interesting to note that Thapliyal in Studies in Ancient Indian Seals, found that many
Indian seals from the 3rd century BC to the 7th century AD, portrayed animals, with an
inscription above the animal (just like in the case of the Harappan seals),which was indicative of
the religious views of the owner of the seal. This evidence supports our finding that these seals
were worn (or carried) by the Harappan to help them remember their goals, and to obtain
guidance from their deity.
 Fig 10 Comparison of punch-marked coin signs and Indus Valley writing.
We can read the Harappan signs by giving them the same sound values as the Vai writing 2-
5. The Vai speak a Mande language.
The decipherment of the Indus Valley writing allows us to understand its grammar 45, and
we have a dictionary of Indus Valley signs to read the Indus Valley seals.6 We are able to do this
because the Mande languages are related to Sumerian, Elamite and Tamil 3,20-22,24, The Indus
valley signs were assigned the phonetic value of similar sign in the Vai writing. This comparison
indicated that the Indus Valley signs and Brahmi signs and Brahmi signs were analogous. This
test illustrated that the writing systems were genetically related.
The decipherment of the Indus Valley writing 2-6 indicates that the Brahmi script is a
descendent of the Harappan writing. Many scholars’ have suggested continuity between the
Harappan script and the Brahmi semi-alphabetic writing. Hunter and Langdon believed that
there was a connection between Harappa and Brahmi writing Moreover, Mahalingam has made
it clear that the Brahmi script was probably invented to write non-Aryan languages.
Other points supporting this view are the Boustrophedon style of writing the Harappan
signs, and the Asokan inscriptions at Yerragudi in Andhra Pradesh. Evidence of Brahmi being
written from right to left comes from Sinhalese inscriptions and early coins from Eran.
Some scholars dispute the theory that a continuity exists between the Harappan and Brahmi
and Old Phoenician share similar shapes, but the characters lack phonemic agreement (see
Figure 3) The origin of the Brahmi writing is Ethiopic.
Srinivasan et al argue that there were Indo-European speakers in the Indus Valley 37.
However, there is no evidence of the Indus Valley during Harappan times Archaeological and
linguistic evidence indicates that the Dravidians were the founders of the Harappan culture
which extended from the Indus Valley through northeastern Afghanistan and into Turkestan 2-
5 The Harappan civilisation existed from 2600 to 1700 Bc. The Harappan civilisation was twice
the size the Old Kingdom of Egypt. In addition to trade relations with Mesopotamia and Iran,
the Harappan city states also had Central Asian peoples. The Indus Valley people cultivated
millets.38..
To compensate for the adverse ecological conditions, the Harappans first settled at sites
along the Indus river19-41 The Dravido-Harappans occupied over 1000 sites in the riverine Indus
Valley environments, where they had soil and water reserves, 40. The Harappan sites spread
from the Indus Valley to Ai Kharmum in northeastern Afghanistan and southward into India.
In Baluchistan and Afghanistan, Dravidian languages are still spoken today. Other Harappan
sites have been found scattered in the regions adjacent to the Arabian sea, the Derajat, Kashmir
and the Doab. The Indus region is an area of uncertain rains because it is located on the fringes
of the monsoon. Settlers in the Indus Valley had to suffer frequent droughts and floods. Severe
droughts frequently occurred in the Indus Valley and so the people dug wells to ensure for
themselves a safe supply of water. To compensate for the adverse ecological conditions, the
Harappans settled at sites along the Indus river.
The mature Harappan civilisation can be divided into two variants-the Sorath Harappan and
the Sindhi Harappan42, 43 the Sindhi Harappan sites were characterised by elaborate architecture,
fired brick construction sewage systems and stamp seals. These have been found in Gujarat,
Kutch, the Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The major Sindhi cities include Mohenjo-Daro,
Lothal, Rangpur, Harappa, Desalpur, Shirkotada, Manda, Ropar, Kalimantan and Chanhudaro.
The Sindhi Harappans possessed a script as well as massive brick platforms, well-
digging, a system of weights and measures, BRW, metal work and beads 42. The Harappan were
masters of hydraulic engineering.
They were a riverine people that practiced irrigation agriculture. They had both the shaduf
and windmills41. In the Harappan sites domestic quarters and industrial areas were isolated from
each other.
The Sorath Harappan sites lacked stamp seals, ornaments and elaborate architecture. Sarath
is the ancient name for Saurashtra. The Sorath Harappan sites are sites are located in Saurashtra,
Kulli and the Harappan style of Baluchistan and Gujarat.
The Dravido-Harappan occupied over 1000 sites in the riverine Indus Valley environments,
where they had soil and water reserves.40
Due to changes in the environment of the Indus Valley into India, to settle in Gujarat,
Punjab, Haryana and other parts of western Uttar Pradesh between 1700 and 1000 BC.
It was in Gujarat, that the Dravidians probably first came into contact with the Aryans,
Here we find examples of the plain grey ware (PGW) used by the Indo-European speaking
peoples of India 744.
According to Lal, 7 the Vedic Aryans are associated with PGW. The beginning of the PGW
phase has been extrapolated back to 1000 BC.
After 1700 BC, with the end of the Harappan culture BRW spread southward into the
Chalcolithic culture of Malwa and Central India, down to northern Deccan and eastward into
the Gangetic Basin. Joshi46 during his excavations in Haryana and Punjab found PGW dating
between 1600 and 1300 BC. The radio carbon dates for PGW are far too late to support of
Indo-Aryan hypothesis for the Harappan language,46
The users of BRW in Gujarat between 1700 and 100 BC, were in communication with the
Dravidians of the Malwa culture47. The BRW people of the Malwa culture occupied the Tapi
Valley, Pravara Godavari and the Bhima Valley47. As a general rule the BRW horizon precedes
the PGW period.28 The PGR period is associated with the Indo-Aryan speakers.
Here on the Gangetic Plains we see the emergence of PGW.44 The presence of PGW
points to the probable first contact between the proto-Dravidians and the Indo-Aryans.
Conclusion
The Indus Valley writing was in a Dravidian language 1-5. The Dravidian originated in Africa
and were associated with the C-group people15, 16,19. The Dravidians share genetic material
share genetic material with the Africans 17, 18.
The decipherment of the Harappan seals indicates that the seals and copper plates/tablets
are amulets or talismans 2-6 They are messages addressed to the Dravidian gods of the
Harappans, requesting for the bearer of the seal the support and assistance of his god in
obtaining ‘aram’ (benevolence), As a result, each animal figure on the seals was probably a
totemic deity, of a particular Dravidian clan or economic unit that lived in the Harappan cities.
As a result, even though was seen by his followers as (1) a god having no equal (2) a god having
neither Karma (desires) nor aversion and (3) as a god who is the ocean of aram.
The Harappan believed that man must do good and life so that he could obtain ‘pukal’
(fame), for his right doing (s). Through the adoption of benevolence an individual would obtain
the reward of gaining the good things of life in the present world and the world beyond. In
general, the Harappan seals indicate that the Harappans sought right eousness and a spotlessly
pure mind. Purity of mind was the ‘sine qua non’. For happiness ‘within’ the megalithic
population of South India continued to use the Indus Valley script and also cultivated African
millets 17.33 In South India the Dravidians continued to use the Indus Valley writing which
they called Tamili to inscribe pottery, write on leaves and in caves 2,7,8 The Tamili inscriptions
are from an earlier period than Brahmi writing.
The Indus Valley inscription were written in Tamil. It was a syllabic writing system related to
linear Elamite writing and Proto-Sumerian seals21,22, the Indus Valley writing was probably not
used to write the Indo-Aryan language because the Aryan speakers did not arrive in India until
after 1600 BC (refs 40 and 41)
Notes
1. Srinivasam, S., Joseph, J.V.M and Harikumar P., Curr, Sci., 2012,103,147 157.
2. Winters, C., 2007,http;/ wwwscribed com/doc/2565099/Unofficial-History-of Tamil-Writing.
3. Winters, C., J Tamil Stud., 1984,25, 50-64
4. Winters C. J Tamil Stud., 1994,41,1-23
5. Winters, C. J Tamil Stud., 1995,42,1-23
6. Winters, C. J Tamil Stud., 1995,423-44, 59-130.
7. Lal,B.B, Ancient India, 1954-1955,10,5
8. Lal B.B, Ancient India, 1960,16,3.
9. Aravanam, K.P. J Tamil stud., 1976, 10,23-27
10. Aravanam, K.P. Dravidians and Africans, K.P.J Tamil Kottam, Madras, 1979
11. Aravanam, K.P. J Tamil Stud., 1980,14,20-45
12. Sergeant, B., Gense de Inde’ Paris payot,1992
13. Upadhyaya P and Upandhyaya S.P Bull L FAN 1979,139 Ser BI, 100-132
14. Upadhayaya,P. and Upadhyaya S.P., Bull Life 1976,t36 Ser B1,127-157
15. Winters C., Bioassays’, 2007, 27,497-498
16. Winters, C., 2008; Http:/ www.krepublishers com/ o2-Journals/ JHG / JHG-08-0-000-000-2008-Web/ JHG-
08-4-317-368-2008 Abst-PDF/ JHG/ 08-4-325-08-362-Winter-C-Tt pdf
17. Winters, C., Int J Genet Mol Biol., 2010, 2,030-033.
18. Winters, C., Curr Res J Biol Scr., 2010,2,030-033
19. Lal, B. B., “The only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia: Work by an Indian Mission at Afresh and Tumas.”
The Illustrated Times, 20 April 1963.
20. Winters, C., Tamil Civilisation, 1985,3,1-9
21. Winters, C., In Proceedings of the Sixth International Society for Asian Studies Conference, 1984, Asian Research Service,
Hong Kong., 1985, pp. 1413-1425
22. Winters, C.A India Past and Present 2, 1985,1,13-19
23. Lahovary, N., Dravidian Origins and the west, Longman, Madras, 1957,
24. Muttarayan, K.L. J Tamil Stud., 1975,7,41-61.
25. Winters, C.A., Archive Orientalni, 1990, 58,301-309
26. Winters C.A. J Tamil stud., 1987,89-111.
27. Winters, C.A., Tamil Civilisation, 1984,2,1-8
28. Singh, H.N History and Archaeology of Black and Red Ware, Sandeep,Prakashan, Delhi, 1982.
29. Mahadevan, I, Tamil civilisation, 1986,4,15-30.
30. Nayar, T.B., The Problem of Dravidian Origins Linguistic, Anthropological Approach, Madras University Press, Madras,
1970
31. Winters, C. Central Asian tic J., 1990,34,120-144
32. Gurmurthy, S., Ceramic Tradition in South India up to 300 Add, Madras, 1981.
33. Rajgor, D., Punch marked Coins of Early Historic India Reesa International, California 2001
34. Kalyanaraman, S., Survival of Sarasvati Hieroglyphs into Historical Periods, 2007;http// aob oxfordiournals
org/cgi/eletters/100/ 5/903 # 49.
35. Fabric C.L., JRAs, 1935,307-318
36. Winters, C, Scl Mag., 2 June 2009
37. Winters, C, Int J Dravidian Linguistics, 2005,34,139-152.
38. Winters, C.Ann Bot., 2008: Http// aob oxfordiournals/org/cgi/letters/100/5/903# 49
39. Fairservis,W.A. The Roots of Ancient India, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1975.
40. Fairservis, W.A. Expedition 1987,28,43-50
41. Fairsevis, W.A. J Am Orient Soc., 1991,111,108-50
42. Pose, G.L., Annu, Rev Anthropology 1990,19,261-82.
43. Possehl, G.L and Raval, M.H., Harappan civilisation and Rodji Oxford& IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1989
44. Winters C.m int J Dravidian Linguistics, 1989,18,98-127
45. Raman, K.V., Rock painting in Tamilnadu Times of India, 24 December 1978,p.8
46. Joshi. J.P Man Environ, 1978,2,98
47. Rao, B.K.G The Megalithic Culture in South India prearrange University of Mysore, Mysore, 1972.
 SECTION – V.
MOLECULAR AND GENETIC EVIDENCE
Introduction
Linguists in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries noted deep similarities between
Sanskrit, Persian, and due to a common origin-these scholars created the Indo-European
language family. Antiquarians of the day began systematically tracing the similarities of
languages and inferring movements of culture and people. Through this undertaking, they
created a paradigm for understanding South Asian proto history that is maintained in main
stream scholarly circles to this day. The Indo-Aryans invasion was imagined to have involved
hordes of Sanskritic-language speakers entering the subcontinent in horse-drawn carts, through
the mountain passes of Afghanistan around 1500 BCE. Much has been written about how
these Aryan invaders overcame autochthonous populations and replaced local traditions with
the Proto-Vedic cultural and social systems, and how their culture gradually spread to the
Ganges Plain and across northern India (Domino, 2006: Trautmann 1997) This Aryan invasion
model dovetailed with prevailing anthropological theory of that time and supported strong
nationalist elements at work in nineteenth-century Europe (Arvidsson, 2006; Chakrabarti, 1997;
Demoule, 2014; Lincoln, 1999; Olender,1992; Poliakov, 1974), Aryans were an early variation on
the leitmotif of the white race conquering, subjugating, and “enlightening” lesser and darker
races (Trautmann, 1997) This theme became a widely accepted justification for the colonial
agenda in India; the British conquest was “only a reunion, to a certain extent, of the members
of the same great (Aryan) family,” and shared ancestry enabled an eminently desirable twin
objective of “Civilisation and Christianisation” of autochthonous South Asians (Wilson, 1858:
42-43,83).*
Among the dissenting voices, British archaeologist and philologist Isaac. Taylor (1890),
French archaeologist Salomon Reinach (1892), and British biologist Julian Huxley (1939)
strongly rejected the association between the Indo-European linguistic family and a presumed

* A Companion in South Asia in the Past, First Edition Edited by Gwen Robbins Schug and Subhash R. Walimbe. @
2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Aryan race. Taylor rejected the association between race and language altogether. He found the
theory of a single Aryan migration out of Asia” extremely shadowy…. (resting) on so solid
grounds whatever” (1890:17) Reinach challenged the very concept of an Aryan race – “To
speak of an Aryan race…. Is to put forward a gratuitous hypothesis; to speak of it as though it
still existed today is quite simply to talk nonsense” (1892:90)-a theme which Huxley, writing on
the eve of World War II., amplified on biological grounds. Indian scholars-Srinivasa Iyengar
(1914), Psalter (1950). B.N. Datta (1936), P.V Kane (in Chakrabarti), 2008) –and other
prominent public figures in India, including Swami Vivekananda (1897), Sri aurobindo (1998,
writing about 1914) and B.R Ambedkar an Aryan invasion in proto historic texts. They
protested that the pre-eminent interpretations of the most ancient Sanskrit texts, the Vedas,
which supported the theory of Aryan invasion had been destroyed by the racial views of
European Sanskritists; thus any argument drawing on the Vedas as a source of evidence for
Aryan invasion was circular. Predictably, the dissenters were simply ignored despite the
soundness of their counterarguments.
The discovery of the Indus civilisation in the early 1920,s turned the dominant invasion’s
framework on its head. As John Marshall, then director-general of the Archaeological Survey of
India and principal investigator on the excavation at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, wrote in
1931:
Hitherto it has commonly been supposed that the pre-Aryan peoples of India were on an altogether
lower plane of civilisation than their Aryan conquerors…. Never for a moment was it imagined that five
thousand years ago, before ever the Aryans were heard of, the Punjab and Sind, if not other parts of
India as well, were enjoying an advanced and singularly uniform civilisation of their own, closely akin but
in some respects even superior to that of contemporary Mesopotamia and Egypt Yet this is what the
discoveries at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro have now beyond question, (Marshall, 1931; v)
In other words, the autochthons were now the “civilised” ones”, while the invaders were
relegated to the status of semi-primitive nomadic tribes, who, by write of their horse driven
mobility and greater conquering impulse, managed to overcome whatever opposition they
encountered.
Marshall did not envisage any contact between Harappans and Aryans: in the absence of
absolute dating, he proposed that Mohenjo-Daro had thrived from 3250 to 2750 BCE, thus
ending more than a millennium before the latter’s supposed arrival (Marshall, 1931; 104
Eventually, scholarly consensus emerged that, in marked contrast to contemporary civilisations
in Mesopotamia and Egypt the Harappans were rarely, if ever, engaged in warfare (Kenyer,
1998: 15, 42, 56; Lal,1997: 165; Possehl, 2002: 19). Archaeological interpretations of large,
walled “fortifications” were questioned, as we shall see below, Scholars pointed out that seals
and artistic rendering on pottery do not depict military themes or battles, and evidence is
lacking for the man-made destruction of cities, the construction of barracks for soliders, and
specific weapons of war such as shields or helmets. As the celebrated archaeologist V.Gordon
Childe put it in his 1934 NEW Light on the Most Ancient East,
No multiplication of weapons of war and battle-scenes attests futile conflicts between city states as in
Babylonia nor yet the force whereby a single king, as in Egypt, achieved by conquest internal peace and
warded off jealous nomads by constant preparedness….. The visitor inevitably gets an impression of a
 democratic bourgeois economy, as in Crete, in contrast to the obviously centralised theocracies and
monarchies hitherto described. (Childe, quoted in Wheeler, 1955: 191)

Weapons, Defenses, and Skeletons

This idyllic, albeit Marxist, picture was rudely shaken by Mortimer Wheeler, who in 1944 was
recalled from the war front in North Africa to head a moribund Archaeological Survey of
India. On the very first day of his visit to Harappa, he found evidence of massive brick
fortifications at the “AB” mound. With his military background and intimate knowledge of
Roman settlements, Wheeler declared Harappa’s walls to be “defenses”:
The city, so far from being an unarmed sanctuary of peace, was dominated by the towers and battlements
of a lofty man-made acropolis of defiantly feudal aspect. A few minutes’ observation had radically
changed the social character of the Indus civilisation and put it at last into an acceptable secular focus.
(Wheeler, 1955:192)
Wheeler shifted Marshall’s chronology forward in time, from 2500 to 1500 BCE (Wheeler,
1947:82), the latter date making it conveniently possible for invading Aryans to have brought
about the Indus cities. And that is just what he proposed: refurbishing a thesis first proposed by
Ramaprasad Chanda (Chanda, 1926), Wheeler identified the Harappan cities with the purs of
the Rg Veda, India’s earliest Sanskrit text, in which, like most European Sanskritists of the time,
he read an account of the Aryans’ violent conquest of the Dasyus who lived in those purs (the
term pureeing taken to mean a fortified place). Wheeler sought to drive the last nail in the
Harappans’ coffin by bringing in skeletal evidence from Mohenjo-Daro. His famous J’accuse,
first formulated in his 1947 report, set an enduring standard, still found in many textbooks of
Indian history, in India as well as in the West:
Here we have a highly evolved civilisation of essentially non – Aryan type, now known to have employed
massive fortifications, and known also to have dominated the river – system of north-western India at a
time not distant from the likely period of the earlier Aryan invasions of that region. What destroyed this
firmly-settled civilisation? Climatic, economic, political deterioration may have weakened it, but its
ultimate extinction is more likely to have been completed by deliberate and large-scale destruction. It may
be no mere chance that at a late period of Mohenjo-Daro, men, women and children appear to have been
massacred there. On circumstantial evidence, Indra stands accused. (Wheeler, 1947:82)
Indra, the leader of the Vedic gods, who in the colonial reading of the Rg Veda led the
Aryan armies’ conquest of the Dasyu natives, still stood in the dock in Wheeler’s first edition of
his landmark Indus Civilisation (1953:92). However, by the book’s third edition, which adopted
the chronology of 2500-1700 BCE, Wheeler, in a partial retreat, called his former charge “ light
– hearted”; he conceded that “the military element does not loom large amongst the extant
remains” and that most of the implements presented as weapons “are manifestly of an
manifestly of an unspecialised kind just as likely to have been used for hunting or other
unmilitary purposes as for war” (Wheeler, 1968: 73,77). Still, reviewing the “sprawling groups
of skeletons”-38 of them found in unnatural contexts in various streets and houses – he saw in
them “the vestiges of a final massacre, after which Mohenjo-daro ceased to exist. Who were the
destroyers? We shall not know” (Wheeler 1968:129). Wheeler nevertheless remained convinced
that the “Aryan-speaking peoples [who] invaded the Land of the Seven Rivers, the Punjab and
its neighboring region… something during the second millennium BC” (1968:131) were the
likeliest authors of the said massacre.
 Stuart Piggott (1950: 261-263) approvingly relayed Wheeler’s scenario, which many scholars
further embellished. D.D. Kosambi, for instance, wrote in an influential essay:
Its [ Indus urban culture’s] end came soon after 1750 BC at the latest. There was a long period of gradual
decay before the end, but the actual termination was abrupt. At Mohenjo-daro, the city was set on fire,
the inhabitants slaughtered, and occupation after the massacre was negligible… With the evidence of a
violent end, it became possible to interpret as reality the figurative old Sanskrit texts, where enemies are
spoken of as having been ruthlessly smashed in battle, their treasures looted, and cities burnt down. Thus,
what had been understood as the Bronze Age, pastoral second-millennium beginning of ancient Indian
culture really meant the victory of barbarism over a far older and decidedly superior urban culture.
(Kosambi, 1965:55)
Wheeler conceded that Harappan “weapons” – bows and arrows, axe heads, spearheads,
and swords – “may have been used equally by the soldier, the huntsman, the craftsman, or even
the ordinary householder” (Wheeler, 1968:73). The few swords are rounded and blunt; most
spearheads are “thin, flat, leaf-shaped blades which would buckle on impact”(Wheeler,
1968:73),as they have no reinforcing ridges; perhaps they were used by sentinels or in
ceremonial contexts. There is no published description of weapons for warfare-shields, helmets,
battle axes, body armors, and so on –from excavations at any site securely dated to the Indus
Age, nor has any direct evidence of war been uncovered in an Indus site: Kosambi’s picture of
Mohenjo-Daro set on fire is wholly imaginary. This, of course, does not mean that Harappan
society was always perfectly at peace with its neighbors or with itself. Violence did occur but is
inconsistent with evidence for warfare (the majority of the wounds identified on skeletal
remains are consistent with clubbing) and it appears to have been mostly interpersonal in nature
(Robbins Schug et al., 2012).
Fortifications are doubtless a major features of Harappan town planning and may well have
served a defensive purpose, especially in borderline regions, But some of their features are not
specific of a military context; at Harappa, Kenoyer observes that “it is impractical to have so
many separate walled areas next to each other, and we have found no evidence of damage from
battles. None of the gateways found at Harappa was constructed for defense from frontal
military attack” (Kenoyer, 1998: 56).
At Dholavira, where the layout of fortifications defines the whole city, there can be no
military justification for the nearly 19 m thick walls of the “castle” (the city’s highest fortified
area, where the rulers probably lived); much more modest dimensions would have done just as
well. So what purpose did Harappan fortifications serve if they were not primarily defensive?
Among the proposed alternative explanations are protection against floods (to which sites like
Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa, and Lothal were certainly prone),control of movement of trade
goods (confirmed by the finds of weights near gateways, e.g., Kenoyer, 1998:99), the need to
demarcate urban space (Danino, 2008; 2010), or a symbol for authority and segregation (Eltsov,
2007).
As regards Wheeler’s dramatic scenario, the noted Sanskrit scholar P.V. Kane argued in 1953
(quoted in Lahiri, 2000: 58-59) that extrapolating a man –made destruction of a huge city like
Mohenjo-Daro from the finding of a few skeletons was wholly unjustified. In 1964 George F.
Dales pointed out that the skeletons in question belonged to different epochs of the city and
that
 There is no destruction level covering the latest period of the city, no sign of extensive burning, no
bodies of warriors clad in armor and surrounded by the weapons of war… Despite the extensive
excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as
unconditional proof of an armed conquest and the destruction on the supposed scale of the Aryan
invasion. (Dales, 1964:43, 38)
Dales was perhaps the first archaeologist to specifically address the “mythical massacre”
thesis, as he called it, and to put forward environmental factors in the end of Harappan
urbanism. “Indra and the barbarian hordes are exonerated” (Dales 1964:43), he concluded,
tongue in cheek. Wheeler must have winced, and there we have the cause of his partial retreat
four years later. Finally, a few years later. Finally, a few years later. Finally, a few years later
Kenneth A.R. Kennedy (1982; 1984; see also Walimbe, 2014) showed that the injuries on the
bones of most of the Mohenjo-Daro skeletons had actually healed well before death. The same
situation appears to be the case at Harappa as well, with a major escalation of interpersonal
violence in the human skeletal remains occurring in the post-urban period (Lovell, 2014;
Robbins Schug et al., 2012)
The Aryans in Contemporary Archaeology
Currently, the accepted dates for the Harappan civilisation’s urban or Mature phase (also called
Integration Era) are 2600-1900 BCE (Kenoyer, 1998:24; Possehl, 2002: 29), while the
conventional date for the arrival of the Aryans is around 1500 BCE. The gap of four centuries
should preclude any role the latter may have had in the former’s disintegration, but a few
scholars have remained tempted to conjure up the old scenario. Romila Thapar, for instance,
suggests that “Some settlements in the north-west and Punjab might have been subjected to
raids and skirmishes, such as are described in the Rig-Veda, or for which there appears to be
occasional evidence at some sites, for example KotDiji”(Thapar, 2002:88).
However, the Said evidence at Kot Diji (and a few more sites) does not relate to the mature
to late transition, but to the Early to mature one (Lal, 1997:65; Possehl, 2002: 48), more than a
millennium before the conventional date for the assumed raids. In none of the 120-odd
Harappan sites excavated so far have any such tell-tale signs come to light at the end of the
mature phase, which is why archaeologists have largely abandoned the destruction-by-invasion
thesis (Jarrige, 1995:21, 24; kenoyer,1998:174; Lal,199:283; Shaffer,1984:88).
Realising this, scholars (many of them linguists) who still maintain that Indo-European
speakers must have entered India around the mid-second millennium BCE now speak of a
“migration” rather than a “invasion”: the aggressive Aryan conquerors are reborn as relatively
peaceful nomadic Indo-European speakers. This far more reasonable thesis has, however, run
into several obstacles, two of which we will deal with here.
First, had Aryans entered the subcontinent in numbers large enough to convince or compel
Late Harappans and other populations to adopt their Indo – European language, culture, and
social structure, we should still expect them to have left some traces of their arrival, particularly
because their culture was always supposed to be “diametrically opposed to its [Harappan]
predecessor” (Basham, 1981:29). For decades, attempts have been made to attribute to the
Aryans various material cultures of the second millennium in the northwest of the
subcontinent. An early theory was that the post-urban culture found at Harappa’s Cemetery H
and other sites of Punjab represented an intrusive culture, which “may belong to the Aryan
invaders” (Wheeler, 1947:81)or “was undoubtedly Aryan”(Kosambi, 1962:74). This was argued
mainly on the basis of new motifs pained on pottery, which were interpreted to reflect Vedic
concepts (Kosambi, 1962:74). Whether or not that interpretation is tenable, archaeologists have
documented continuity between the Cemetery H material culture and the earlier Mature phase:
[it] may reflect only a change in the focus of settlement organisation from that which was the pattern of
the earlier Harappan phase and not cultural discontinuity, urban decay, invading aliens, or site
abandonment, all of which have been suggested in the past. (Kenoyer, 1991:56)
Moreover, the Cemetery H culture emerged around 1900 BCE (Kenoyer, 1998: 238;
Possehl, 2002:29), which further rules out an “Aryan” authorship.
Another long-standing candidate has been the Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, which
appeared in Punjab – Haryana and the western and central Ganges Plain from about 1200 BCE.
However, there is a geographical discontinuity between the PGW tradition and the artifact
styles found to the west of this region, from where the invaders are supposed to have come.
Furthermore, as in the case of the Cemetery H culture, a continuous development from the
Late Harappan stage has been noted at several sites: Dadheri in Punjab and Bhagwanpura in
Haryana (Joshi, 1993), where Late Harappan and PGW levels were “interlocked.” More recently,
excavations at Madina in Haryana highlighted “the discovery of the Late Harappan traits during
the PGW period…. It is clear that there is a continuation of the Harappan tradition until the
onset of the PGW culture towards the end of second millennium BCE” (Kumar et al.,
2009:114).
At Alamgirpur in western Uttar Pradesh, “no stratigraphic gap between Harappan and
PGW levels” exists and period IB at this site has been labeled “Harappan – PGW Mix” (R.N.
Singh et al., 2013: 32, 37). Some scholars, such as Jim Shaffer, had anticipated this continuity: “
At present, the archaeological record indicates no cultural discontinuities separating PGW from
the indigenous protohistoric [Harappan]culture” (Shaffer, 1984:85). So PGW, too, is
inconsistent with the hypothesis of Aryan invasion or large – scale immigration.
Other cultures-the Gandhara Grave, the Copper Hoard, and a few more-have been
proposed, all of them failing to meet the predicated geographical or temporal distribution. This
failure to pinpoint the Aryans in the archaeological landscape-which is repeated beyond India’s
borders, in Iran and Central Asia-is symptomatic of a deeper methodological issue. As the All
chins observed, “Such items of material culture [as the PGW]are very rarely the private
monopoly of any one ethnic, racial, let alone linguistic group, but are the products of
craftsmen, working within traditions, and serving whole communities” (Allchin and All chin,
1997:222). As early as in 1969, Jean-Marie Casal, who directed excavations at Mundikak and
Amri, had defined the problem in plain terms: “Up to now, Aryans have eluded every
archaeological definition. There is so far no type of artifacts or ceramics that causes their
discoverer to declare, “The Aryans came here. Here is a typically Aryan sword or goblet! (Casal,
1969: 205).
Seeking to equate a particular material culture with a well –defined ethnic or linguistic
group-the Aryans or any other-is thus a perilous exercise, which is why, since the mid-1990s, the
Aryans have quietly exited the stage. Current archaeological literature rarely mentions them, for
the simple reason that they are not needed to explain the evolution of post-Harappan cultures.
The so called “Vedic night” or “dark age” previously pictured in the second millennium BCE
between the retreating Harappan civilisation and its successor on the Ganges Plain has steadily
filled up to the point that hardly any cultural discontinuity can now be discerned (for a detailed
discussion, see chapters 9 and 10 in Domino, 2010).
Side by side with the material search for the Aryans, a quest for the “Aryan race” went on
despite early signs that this approach, too, would lead nowhere. In India, for instance,
Bhupendra Nath Datta wrote in 1936, “We have no right to identify the Vedic Aryans with a
particular biotype” (Datta, 1936:247). Two years later the anthropologist Franz Boas elaborated:
Classifications based on language and culture do not need to coincide with a biological classification …
The assumption that a certain definite people whose members have always been related by blood must
have been the carrier of this [Aryan] language throughout history; and the other assumption, that a
certain cultural type must have always belonged to people speaking Aryan languages are purely arbitrary
ones, and not in accord with the observed facts. (Boas, 1938:151)
Such warnings have been echoed in the recent work of the Anthropological Survey of India
(notably by K.S. Singh; see a summary in Singh, 2011),but that has not stopped generations of
scholars from confidently giving us descriptions of the Aryans’ physical features. To take a
recent example, the historian D.N. Jha writes: The early Aryans…. Were generally fair, the
indigenous people dark in complexion. The colour of the skin may have been an important
mark of their identity” (1998:49).
On the other hand, bioanthropologists such as Pratap C. Dutta (1984), Kenneth
A.R.Kennedy (1995), B.E. Hemphill et al., 1991), and S.R. Walimbe (1993; 2007), among others,
have studied Indus Age skeletons in comparison with those of different epochs in an attempt
to address this issue scientifically. This effort has demonstrated “a genetic continuum between
the Harappans and present-day people of the region” (Dutta, 1984:73); “there is no evidence of
demographic disruptions in the North-Western sector of the subcontinent during and
immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture” (Kennedy, 1995:54). Recently, S.R.
Walimbe summarised those studies thus: “The incursions of ‘foreign’ people within the skeletal
record…The physical anthropological data refutes the hypothesis of ‘Aryan invasion’”
(Walimbe, 2014: 337-339). Such findings, which concur with the absence of archaeological and
textual evidence, should finally put to rest the notion of a substantial Indo-Aryan immigration.
Scholars still promoting it found themselves divided into two camps: while some simply ignore
the evidence and continue arguing that “the Indo-Aryan immigrants seem to have been
numerous and strong enough to continue and disseminate much of their culture” (Sharma,
2001:52), others have promoted a “trickle – in” infiltration, limited enough to have left no
physical traces. “Just one ‘Afghan’ Indo-Aryan tribe that did not return to the highlands but
stayed in their Panjab winter quarters in spring was needed to set off a wave of acculturation in
the plains” (Witzel, 2001). But this model of an “elite” transmitting its “status kit” to
neighboring populations in a way that would radically transform the subcontinent’s linguistic
and cultural landscape in a few centuries appears far – fetched when far more sizable invasions
of the Indian subcontinent in the historical period (e.g., by the Kushanas, Scythians, Hunas)
failed to achieve a similar result.
Evidence from Archaeogenetics
From the 1990s onward, population genetics has been applied to South Asian populations, the
history of their migrations, and the Aryan invasion hypothesis. Geneticists have traced markers
of mutations in Y-DNA (transmitted from father to son); mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA
(transmitted by the mother alone); and autosomal DNA (from the non-sex chromosomes).
These studies employ an analysis of haplotypes, regions of DNA that share common sets of
mutations, and /or their larger haplogroups (groups of haplotypes). The Aryan problem has
been reformulated thus: Is it possible to detect a substantial introgression occurring sometime
near the middle of the second millennium BCE and, if so, can this change in allele frequencies
be traced to an ancient Indo-European population outside India?
Human population geneticists seek to understand the complex patterns of genetic diversity,
which are shaped by population movements and gene flow, other aspects of population
expansion and demography, mutation, drift, and selective evolution. Thus the phylogenetic
scenarios that can be generated by these data cannot be interpreted without a detailed
knowledge and an accurate view of the historical, cultural, and archeological context. Indian
populations are bewilderingly diverse not only genetically, but also socially and linguistically.
Unfortunately, population genetics research is rarely informed by a sophisticated reading of the
relevant social science data; a biocultural model of Indian population history, one informed by
social and scientific perspectives, is sorely lacking. The conclusions of the main studies in the
field, on both sides of the Aryan debate, are briefly collected here (for more detailed reviews,
see Reddy, 2014; Tripathy et al., 2008).
Molecular evidence supporting Aryan invasion
Many population geneticists have argued in favor of an Aryan invasion or migration model. A
study directed by Michael Bamshad in 2001 found that “upper castes are more similar to
Europeans than to Asians… Y-chromosome variation confirms Indo-European admixture”
(Bamshad et al., 2001:999). The same year, Parth P. Majumder acknowledged the “ fundamental
unity of mtDNA lineages in India in spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity,” but
proposed that “pastoral nomads originating in the central Asian steppes may also have
contributed to the gene pool of India. The entry of humans from these regions into India was
through the northwest corridor of India” (Majumder, 2001:535,541-542). However, this is
nothing but an a priori assumption based on assertions by some historians (Romila Thapar in
this case); the genetic data is then fitted to the assumption, instead of being allowed to speak
for itself. A few years later, Majumder used the same circular method to detect “a conquest of
this region [the Northwest] by nomadic people from Central Asia, who spoke Indo-European
languages” (Majumder, 2008:280).
In 2004 Richard Cordaux and colleagues argued that “paternal lineages of Indian caste
groups are primarily descended from Indo-European speakers who migrated from Central Asia
3500 years ago. Conversely, paternal lineages of tribal groups are predominantly derived from
the original Indian gene pool” (Cordaux et al., 2004:231). The precision of the date betrays the
study’s preconception, especially as the only evidence adduced for the said migration is that
linguistic evidence support” it. We saw in the first part of this chapter that archaeological
evidence does no such thing; as regards linguistic evidence, it is ambivalent and there exist
nonmigrationist models for the spread of Indo-European languages (for a detailed discussion
see Bryant, 2001; Demoule, 2014).
In 2008 the Indian Genome Variation Consortium focused on “markers on disease or drug-
response related genes in diverse populations” but also noted “high levels of genetic divergence
between groups of populations that cluster largely on the basis of ethnicity and language”
(Indian Genome Variation Consortium, 2008:3), while most of the studies we have seen warned
against such associations between genetic and linguistic clusters. Referring to Romila Thapar’s
History of India of 1966, the authors observed:
It is contended that the Dravidian speakers, now geographically confined to southern India, were more
widespread throughout India prior to the arrival of the Indo-European speakers. They, possibly after a
period of social and genetic admixture with the Indo-Europeans, retreated to southern India… Our
results showing genetic heterogeneity among the Dravidian speakers further support the above
hypothesis. The Indo-European speakers also exhibit a similar or higher degree of genetic heterogeneity
possibly because of different extents of admixture with the indigenous populations over different time
periods after their entry into India. (Indian Genome Variation Consortium, 2008:9-10)
Apart from the circularity of the argument in which “the arrival of the Indo-European
speakers” is, here again, accepted as a given, the authors failed to realize that population
movements and complex interactions (not just from north to south)within the subcontinent
since Paleolithic times could easily account for “genetic heterogeneity” among Dravidian or
Indo-European speakers.
In 2009 David Reich directed an Indo-US team whose study published in Nature introduced
the concepts of “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI) and “Ancestral South Indians”(ASI), finding
them “genetically divergent”: the ANI were “genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central
Asians, and Europeans”; besides, ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in most Indian groups, and
is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers”(Reich et al., 2009:489).
Although the study noted degrees of “ANI-ASI mixture,” it found it “tempting to assume that
the population ancestral to ANI and CEU [Europeans] spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European,’ which
has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we
cannot be certain without a date for ANI –ASI mixture” (Reich et al.,2009:492). Apart from the
a priori acceptance, again, of a “tempting” linguistic theory, the study relied on skewed
populations samples: it excluded major Indian states (Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana,
Bihar, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and a few northeastern states)while other
states (Jammu and Kashmir, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, Kerala) were represented by a single population. For a study aiming at
“Reconstructing Indian Population History” (as its title states), this is clearly inadequate. With
such a poor distribution, we may question the concept of ANI and ASI, which the study never
defines with any rigor. Indeed, B.M. Reddy recently termed them “ill – conceived and untenable
as units of study” (Reddy, 2014:50). The authors were, however, careful enough to qualify their
conclusions:
We warn that “models” in population genetics should be treated with caution. Although they provide an
important framework for testing historical hypotheses, they are oversimplifications. For example, the true
ancestral populations of India were probably not homogeneous as we assume in our model, but instead,
were probably formed by clusters of related group that mixed at different times. (Reich et al., 2009:492)
 Priya Moorjani and colleagues also postulate in 2013 the existence of ANI and ASI group
to classify Indian populations. The authors find that the major “mixture” between those two
groups took place between 2200 BCE and 100 CE. While this may be correct in view of the
scattering of the Late Harappans after 2000 BCE and the well-attested creation of all – India
trading and administrative networks in the millennium BCE, genetic mixture was not limited to
north-south interactions but took place in all directions. Also, the authors’ attempt to read in
the Rg Veda, India’s most ancient text, evidence of the ANI-ASI divide is based on disputed
colonial readings of it, while their claim that archaeology provides “support for the genetic
findings of at least two very distinct populations in the history of the Indian subcontinent.”
(Moorjani et al., 2013:422) is, again, indefensible, since archaeological evidence only traces a
multiplicity of material cultures, not ethnic entities. The authors add two notes of caution: they
accept the possibility that “several thousand years ago, Indian groups were already admixed”
and emphasize that “although we have documented evidence for mixture in India between
about 1,900 and 4,200 years BP, this does not imply migration from West Eurasia into India
during this time”(Moorjani et. al., 2013:427, 430).
Molecular evidence refuting Aryan migration
The first significant study of genetic affinities among European and subcontinental populations
was led by Toomas Kivisild in 1999, which was interpreted as indicating a very remote
separation of South Asian populations, rather than a recent population movement toward India.
According to the authors, “the subcontinent served as a pathway for eastward migration of
modern humans” from Africa some 40,000 BP. Kivisild argued that any genetic affinities
between the Indian subcontinent and Europe “should not be interpreted in terms of a recent
admixture of western Caucasoids with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000
– 4,000 years BP” (Kivisild et al., 1999: 1333). A month later, Todd R. Disotell independently
published a similar conclusion:
The supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,000 years BP therefore did not make a major splash in the
Indian gene pool… Thus, the “Caucasoid” features of South Asians may best be considered “pre –
caucasoid” – that is, part of a diverse North or North-East African gene pool that yielded separate
origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago. (Disotell, 1999: R926)
Population genetics provide a way to calculate biological distances between tribal and caste
Hindu populations. The Aryan scenario demands that India’s tribal populations are relics of the
original settlers; this hypothesis thus predicts a substantial genetic distance between tribal
communities and caste Hindu groups, which are seen as the descendants of Indo-Aryan
immigrants. Yet most genetics studies lead to just the opposite conclusion. In 2000 Susanta
Roychoudhury and colleagues tested some 10 Indian ethnic groups and noted “a fundamental
unity of mtDNA lineages in India, spite of the extensive cultural and linguistic diversity,
pointing to “a relatively small founding group of females in India.” The authors observed that
haplogroup U, common to North India and “Caucasoid” populations, is present in tribes of
eastern India such as the Lodhas and Santals. Their analysis of the prevalence of haplogroup
M, frequently mentioned in the early literature as evidence for an Aryan migration, concluded
with this statement.
 We have now shown that indeed haplogroup M occurs with a high frequency, averaging about 60%,
across most Indian population groups, irrespective of geographical location of habitat. We have higher
frequencies of haplogroup M than caste populations. (Roychoudhury et al., 1189-1190)
This conclusion directly contradicts the simplistic model of Aryan migration, which would
predict clear distinctions based on geography or caste. Chandrasekar and colleagues (2009:9),
focusing on 26 selected tribal populations of India, also found “evidence that several Indian
mtDNA M lineages are deep rooted and in situ origin.”
In 2000 Kivisild and colleagues found that “even the high castes share more than 80 per
cent of their material lineages with the lower castes and tribals.” Taking all aspects into
consideration, the authors concluded that “there are now enough reasons not only to question a
‘recent Indo-Aryan invasion’ into India some 4000 BP, but alternatively to consider India as a
part of the common gene pool ancestral to the diversity of human material lineages in Europe”
(Kivisild et al., 2000: 267-271). In 2003Kivisild and colleagues questioned the correlation
between subsistence categories and Genetic difference. Their conclusions highlighted India’s
genetic complexity and antiquity, Since “present-day Indians [possess] at least 90 per cent of
what we think of a autoch-thonous Upper Paleolithic material lineages.” Significantly, “the
Indian mt DNA treein general [is] not subdivided according to linguistic (Indo-European,
Dravidian) orcaste affiliations, although there may occur (sometimes drastic) population-wise
differences in frequencies of particular sub-clusters” (Kivisild et al., 2003a: 216-221). In other
words, their results found broad agreement with archaeology and anthropology in con-cluding
that language and ethnicity cannot be mapped in a one-to-one correspondence relationship.
A second study the same year dealt with the genetic heritage of India’s earliest settlers
though an examination of the Y-DNA haplogroupM17, regarded until recently as a genetic
marker for an Aryan migration into India (Cordaux et al., 2004: 232; Wells,2006) as it is indeed
frequently found in Central Asia and Iran (Oppenheimer, 2003:152). Kivisild found it in similar
frequencies for two Dravidian-speaking tribes; since One of them, the Chenchus, is genetically
close to several castes, there is a “lack of clear Distinction between Indian castes and tribes”
(Kivisild et al., 2003b: 329). The same Study calculated genetic distance between eight Indian
and seven Eurasian populations On the basis of 16 Y-DNA haplogroups. The results challenge
several other consequences of the Aryan scenario (Figure 13.1): while the Lambadi’s (another
tribal group probably of Rajasthan origin) are genetically equidistant to populations in western
Europe and the Middle East, Goan Brahmins and Punjabis are far removed from Central Asian
populations.
 Figure 13.1 Genetic distances between eight Indian and seven Western Eurasian populations,
Calculated for 16 Y-DNA haplogroups (adapted from Kivisild et al., 200b: 325)
In 2010 Underhill was the lead author of a study that examined the relationship between
European and Asian Y chromosomes within the same haplogroupR la, which, for our Purpose,
is the same as M17 and has been regarded as a marker of the supported Indo-European
migrations; the authors found that
Coalescent time estimates of R la lacorrelate with the timing of the recession of the Last Glacial
Maximum and predate the upper bound of the age estimate of the Indo-European tree…The presence
and overall frequency of haplogroupR la does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno –Ugric, Dravidian or
Turkic speakers from each other. (Underhill et al., 2010:483)
Moreover, the distribution of sub-haplogroups of Rla “would exclude any significant
Patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at leadt since the mid-Holocene
period”(Underhill et al., 2010:483). Significantly, the authors’’ study of frequency distribution
for the Haplogroup most commonly associated with Indo-European speakers, RLALA, differs
from More conventional studies (but agrees with Sharma et al., 2009: see below), in that it
displaces The center of gravity for his marker from eastern Europe on Central Asia to the
Indian sub-Continent. These results demonstrate the complex interactions between prehistoric
populations In India and the folly of searching for a clear signature of an Aryan immigration
into India.
 In a review of this literature, Gyaneshwer Chaubey and colleagues highlighted the Existence
of a “caste-tribe continuum,” as it is now called. The authors doubted whether Population
genetics could ever deliver one ethnic group “more ‘autochthonous’ than Others” and stressed
that current Indian linguistic groups do not match ethnic groups; the Demarcation lines do not
coincide. The paper also agreed with earlier studies that “most of the Indian-specific mt
DNAhaplogroups show coalescent times 40,000-60,000 years BP” (Chaubey et al., 2007:97).
In 2009 swarkar Sharma and colleagues came to a similar conclusion in their review of
Competing theses on the origins of the caste system. Based on a sample of 681 Brahmin and
2128 tribal and Scheduled Caste communities, the authors found “no consistent pattern of The
exclusive presence and distribution of Y-haplogroups to distinguish the higher-most Caste,
Brahmins, from the lower-most ones, schedule castes and tribals” (Sharma et al.,2009: 51). In
their view, the Y-halogroupRlal holds the key to the origins of the caste System; exploring its
frequency its frequency not only in India but also in the rest of Eurasia and Central Asia in
particular, they found that “the age of Rlal was the highest in the Indian subcontinent” and
concluded “in favor of the suggestion that there has been no bulk migration From Central Asia
to India” (Sharma et al., 2009:54, 52). Besides,
the age of Y-haplogroupRlal was highest in scheduled castes/tribes when compared with central Asians
and Eurasians. These observations weaken the hypothesis of introduction of this haplogroup and the
origin of Indian higher most castes from Central Asian and Eurasian regions.
The authors, in fact, argue in favor of an “origin in the Indian subcontinent” of
haplogroupRlal and “the autochthonous origin and tribal links of Indian Brahmins, confronting
the Concepts of recent Central Asian introduction and rank-related Eurasian contribution of
the Indian caste system”(Sharma et al., 2009:54).
Who is “Adivasi” and who are “Dravidians”?
Inherent in the above discussion of south Asian population history is an assumption about the
identify of India’s Adivasis, or original inhabitants. No anthropologists (including Population
biologists) often assume that “tribal” people in India are relics of the past or somehow close
“descendants of the original inhabitants of India” (Viswanathan et al., 2004: 134). This
concept, which originated in nineteenth-century anthropology, has Shaped India popular
imagination but also social, political, and economic realities. Ironically, anthropological myths
became more salient than ancient Indian literature in Shapping Indians ’views of their own past:
the Mahabharata, for instance, failed to make a Sharp distinction between tribal groups and
mainstream populations (K.S. Singh, 2011:19). Contemporary genetics research is not yet free
from this anthropological legacy. In a perceptive 2007 paper, Nicole Boivin offered this critique
of genetic studies:
In reading the genetics literature on South Asia, it is very clear that many of the studies actually Star out
with some assumptions that are clearly problematic, if not in some cases completely Untenable. Perhaps
the single most serious problem concerns the assumption, which many Studies actually start with as a
basic premise…that the Indo-Aryan invasions are a well-Established (pre) historical reality. (Bivin,
2007:352)
 Referring to studies cited above (Bamshadetal., 2001; Cordaux et al.,2004), BoivinArgued
that they “confirm such invasions in large part because they actually assume them to Begin
with” (Bolvin, 2007: 352). Among other methodological issues, she noted the failure To take
into account the genetic legacy of known invasions, especially of historical periods, And the
“problematic assumption…that caste is unchanging”-for instance, that today’s Brahmin
necessarily had Brahmin ancestors, which need not be correct, or again that castes Were strictly
endogamous, which was rarely the case (Boivin, 2007:354).
To this should be added the assumed fixity of tribes, when Indian history and epigraphy
show many tribal groups moving upward and becoming Kshatriyas(e.g., Srinivas,2002:187-200).
In other words, genetics studies ignoring the fluidity of the social entities going by the name of
castes or jatis (communities) are likely to reach erroneous conclusions. K.S. Singh goes further:
“We are mostly a mixed people, and there is no genetically basis to either caste or Varna”
(Singh, 2011:102). Finally, a proper assessment of the kinship systems and genetic drift resulting
From geographic isolation isolation is often missing, and indeed hard to factor in unless the
studied populations’ histories are securely known: Tripathy and colleagues rightly complain that
Identification of suitable population units has also been a problem in some studies; populations Groups
as diverse as Hindi speaking, North Indian, etc. have been used as units study. Quite A few studies lack
proper description of the populations investigated, which is of great Importance in such studies….[There
is a] lack of anthropological insights into Indian population Structure, as many of the papers have been
written by people of non-Anthropology (especially Indian Anthropology) background. (Tripathy et
al.,2008:17)
The notion of Adivasi thus eldusa rigorous. Most genetic studies conflate Ethnic, linguistic,
and social categories. Mait Metspalu and colleagues observed in 2004:
Language families present today in India…are all much younger than the majority of indigenous Mt
DNA lineages found among their present-day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it Highly
speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the Listed above
linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” Than any other in
respect of its presence in the subcontinent.(Metspalu et al.,2004)
Similarly,
The Y-chromosomal data consistently suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste Communities
and therefore argue against any major influx, from regions north and west of India, of people associated
either with the development of agriculture or the spread of the Indo – Aryan language family. (Sahoo et
al., 2006:843)
In fact, an examination of genetics distances between pan-Indian populations shows,
among Other results, that “the caste population of ‘North’ and ‘South’ India are not particularly
More closely related to each other (average Fst value =0.07) than they are to the tribal Groups
(average Fst value= 0.06),” an important confirmation of earlier studies. (Fst is a Measure of the
degree of differentiation between populations; its values range from 0 to1.)In particular,
“Southern castes and tribals are very similar to each other in their Y-chromosomalhaplo group
compositions,” so that “it was not possible to confirm any of the purported differentiations
between the caste and tribal pools” (Sahoo et al., 2006: 845-847). This again undermines the
view of tribes as Adivasis and caste populations as descendants of Indo-Aryan immigrants.
B.M. Ready recently reviewed more genetic studies that “did not Find significant difference in
the frequencies of mtDNA lineages between Indian caste and Tribal populations” (Ready,
214:35).
A corollary of the stranded Aryan invasion or migration theory is that Dravidian speakers
Represent earlier settlers who were displaced southward by immigrating or invading Indo-
Aryans. This scenario was projected onto the archeological record and it often remains an a
Priori assumption that the Harappans spoke a Dravidian language. The presence in Baluchistan
Of Brahui, a Dravidian language, is invoked to strengthen the point. Population genetics has
Upset this picture, too. For instance, Noah A. Rosenberg and colleagues found that,
Compared to groups that speak Indo-European languages, the groups in our Study that speak Dravidian
languages (Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu) did not show noticeably Different patterns of pair
wise Fst values, and in particular, they did not show a greater Fst from Populations of Europe and the
Middle East. Although a process of ancient admixture with Indigenous Dravidian speakers by Indo-
European populations originating to the west of India Might have been expected to result in an elevated
genetic distance form modern Dravidians to European and Middle Eastern populations, our analysis does
not find evidence of such an Admixture process. (Rosenberg et al., 2006: 2054-2055)
On the basis of a study of 36 Indian populations, Sanghamitra Sengupta asserted that the
Subcontinent’s genetic landscape was formed long before the dates proposed for an Indo-Aryan
immigration: “There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that Central Asia has Been
necessarily the recent donor and not the receptor of the Rlalineages” (Senguptaetal., 2006: 218;
the Rla lineages being a different way to denote the haplogroup M17).Significantly, this study
also noted: “Our data are also more consistent with a peninsular origin Of Dravidian speakers
than a source with proximity to the Indus… [There is] overwhelming Support for an Indian
origin of Dravidian speakers” (Sengupta et al., 2006: 202,219). Let us Note that archaeological
evidence, too, fails to support a ‘Dravidian” authorship of the Indus Civilisation (Danio, 2009).
Besides, four leading linguists have shown Brahui to be a relatively recent entrant in the region
(see Danino, 2009, for references).
Phillip Endicott, MaitMetspalu, and Toomas Kivislid corroborated such findings in a 2007
study:
The Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto–Burman language groups may retain a distinctive signature Due to their
relatively recent introduction and limited subsequent male gene flow. However, Consistent divisions
between populations speaking Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages are Harder to define with reliability.
The complex and intertwined history of changes in language, Subsistence patterns, demography and
political intervention, makes it difficult to relate genetic Patterns to these widespread linguistic categories.
The evidence from mtDNA argues against any strong differentiation between these (and other) major
language groups…, and therefore Nullifies attempts to trace, maternally, the large-scale population
movements once speculated to Have accompanied the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages. (Endicott et al.,
2007: 238)
Going further, Underhill argued against a “recent displacement southward by Indo-
European agriculturists” and in favor of a “Deccan origin model” for proto-Dravidian speakers
(Underhill, 2008: 108), a thesis proposed earlier by the archaeobotanist Dorian Fuller on
independent grounds: “The main directions of dispersal (of proto-Dravidian speakers) would
have been out from the Deccan towards its peripheries and zones of isolation” (Fuller,2003:
207-208). Archaeogenetics thus rejects the “Dravidian” part of the Aryan scenario too.
From India Outward?
The problem remains of the genetic connections between many Indian populations and those
of the rest of Asia and Europe (eastern Europe in particular). If they are not to be explained by
the usual Indo-European hypothesis, then what are the alternatives? Several studies (Sengupta et
al., 2006; Underhill et al., 2010) have hinted at a quasi-reversal of the proposed migratory
direction. Besides, several scholars, such as Stephen Oppenheimer (2003), Lluís Quintana-Murci
and colleagues (2004), Vincent Macaulay and colleagues (2005), and Humans migrating out of
Africa first reached Southwest Asia around 75,000 BP and from there moved out to other parts
of the old world. In particular, one migration stared around 50,000 BP toward the Middle East
and Western Europe. Oppenheimer summarizes this scenario:
We find the highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and
low rates in the Caucasus. M17 as a marker of a “male Aryan Invasion” of India. One average estimate
for the origin of this line in India is as much as 51,000 years, All this suggests that M17 could have found
his way initially from India or Pakistan, through Kashmir, then via Central Asia and Russia, before finally
coming into Europe. (Oppenheimer 2003: 152)
In this scenario, India acted “as an incubator of early genetic differentiation of modern
humans moving out of Africa” (Kivisild et al., 2003b: 327). Endicott and colleagues’ study
(quoted earlier) advanced the opinion that more refined investigations based on larger
population samples.
will continue to emphasize the genetically complex patterns present, and are increasingly unlikely to
support reductionist explanations of simplistic demographic and cultural scenarios. Rather, they should
put weight behind the suggestion that West and South Asia, as conduits for the settlement of the rest of
the world, are central to comprehending modern human evolution outside of Africa. (Endicott et al.,
2007: 240)

Conclusion
Archaeogenetics thus remains far from reconstructing a comprehensive genetic history of
Indian population. This will require much larger samples, a much more sophisticated integration
of the most current anthropological and archeological perspectives, and refinements to
methodology. It is safe to predict that Central Asia’s assumed contribution in the second
millennium BCE of a major share of the Indian subcontinent’s s gene pool will be increasingly
rejected. A Paleolithic origin for most Indian populations, including upper Castes, appears to be
the most parsimonious explanation for India’s genetic diversity. Just as archaeology has quietly
shown the door to the elusive (or perhaps “illusive” (Kennedy, 1999:182) Aryans,
archaeogenetics has already done away with Indo-Europeans as a definable genetic unit. It is
likely to eventually reject the colonial dictum that tribal groups are necessarily the relics of
India’s “original” inhabitants while upper castes descend from recent Indo-Aryan immigrants.
In this sense, archaeogenetics will help clear the last vestiges of a racial framework underlying
much of India’s ethnographic landscape; it may turn out to be the discipline that will finally
answer Trautmann’s question: “That the racial theory of Indian civilisation still lingers is a
miracle of faith. Is it not time we did away with it?” (Trautmann,1997: 215)
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Professor Gwen Robbins Schug and Professor Subhash Walimbe for inviting
me to contribute to this volume dedicated to Professor Kenneth A.R. Kennedy and his lifelong
work on the prehistory and protohistory of the Indian subcontinent. The theme of this chapter
would have been close to his heart, as in the course of his research Professor Kennedy
challenged, mostly on bio anthropological grounds, the prevailing paradigm of an Aryan
invasion of the Indian subcontinent. I thank Gwen Robbins Schug also for her patient editorial
work, which has much improved this chapter.
References
Allchin FR, Allchin B. 1997. Origins of a civilisation: the prehistory and early archaeology of South Asia. New Delhi: Viking.
Ambedkar BR 1970, Who were the Shudras? Bombay: Thacker& co
Arvidsson S.2006. Aryan idols: Indo-European mythology as ideology and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bamshad M, Kivisild T, Watkins WS, Dixon ME, Ricker CE,… Jorde LB.2001. Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian
caste populations. Genome Research 11(6): 994-1004.
Basham AL, 1981. The wonder that was India (third edition). Calcutta: Rupa &Co.
Boas F. 1938.. The mind of primitive man (second edition). New York: Macmillan.
Bolivian N.2007 Anthropological, historical, archaeological. and genetic perspectives on the origins of caste in South Asia; inter-
disciplinary studies in archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistics and genetics. Dordrecht: Springer. PP 341-361.
Bryant E 2001. The quest for the origins of Vedic culture: the Indo-Aryan migration debate. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Casal J-M. 1969. La civilisation de I’Indus et ses énigmes [The Indus civilisation and its riddles]. Paris: Fayard.
Chakrabarti DK. 1997, Colonial Indology: sociopolitics of the ancient Indian past. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.
Chakrabarti DK. 2008. The battle for ancient India: an essay in the socio politics of Indian archaeology. New Delhi: Aryan
Books International.
Chandra R 1926. The Indus Valley in the Vedic period. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India: No 31. Calcutta:
Government of India Central Publication Branch.
Chandrasekhar A, Kumar S, Sreenath J Sarkar BN, Urade.. BP,… Rao VR 2009. Updating phylogency of mitochondria
DNA macrohaplo group M in India: dispersal of modern human in south Asian corridor. Plos One 4 (10): e7447
Chaubey G, kivisild T, Villirns R 2007, Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste tribe continuum in India Bio Essays 29;
91-100.
Cordeaux R, Aunger R, Bentley G, Nasid Z I, Sirajuddin SM, 2004 “Independent origins of Indian caste and tribal
paternal linkages.” Current Biology 14 (3): 231-235.
Dales GF.1964. “The mythical massacre at Mohenjo-Doro.” Expedition 6 (3): 36-43.
Danino M. 2006 L’ Inde et I invasion de nulle part: le dernier repaire du mythe Aryen (India and the Danino M. 2008. New
insights into Harappan town-planning, proportions and units with special reference to Dholavira. Man and Environment 33
(1): 66-79.
Danino M 2009. “A Dravido-Harappan connection? The issue of methodology.” In: Sridhar TS, Gandhi NM,
editors. Indus civilisation and Tamil language. Chennai: Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu. pp. 70-
81.
Danino M. 2010 The lost river: on the trail of Sarsvati New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Datta BN. 1936 Vedic funeral customs and Indus Valley culture, part 1. Man India 16 (4): 223-307.
Demoule JP. 2014. Masis ou sont done Indo-Europeans’? Le my the d’ origine de I’ Occident (But where did the Indo-
Europeans go? The origin myth of the west ) Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Disotell TR 1999. Human evolution: the southern route to Asia. Current Biology 9 (24): 925-928.
Dutta PC. 1984. “Biological anthropology of Bronze Age Harappans: new perspectives.” In: Lukacs JR, Editor. The
people of South Asia: the biological anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal. New York: Plenum press. PP 59-75.
Elast K. 1993 Indigenous Indians: argastya to Ambedkar New Delhi: Voice in India.
Eltsov PA 2007 From Harappa to Hastinapura: a study of the earliest South Asian city and civilisation. PA.2007. From
Harappa to Hastinapura: a study of the earliest South Asian city and civilisation Boston: Brill Academic.
Endicott P, Metespalu M, Kivisild T 2007. “Genetic evidence on modern human dispersals in South Asia: Y
chromosome and mitochondrial DNA perspectives: the World through the eyes of two haploid genomes.”
In: Petraglia MD, Allchin B, editors. The evolution and history of human populations in South Asia: inter-disciplinary
studies in archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistics and genetics. Dordrecht: Springer. pp 299-244.
Fuller D. 2003. “An agricultural perspective on Dravidian historical linguistics: archaeological crop packages,
livestock and Dravidian crop vocabulary.” In: Bellwood P, Renfrew C, editors. Examining the farming/ language
dispersal hypothesis. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp 191-213.
Hemphill BE, Luckacs JR, Kennedy KAR 1991. “Biological adaptations and affinities of the Bronze Age
Harappans.” In: Meadow RH, editor. Harappa excavations 1986-1990: a multidisciplinary approach to third
millennium urbanism. Madison (WI): Prehistory Press. pp 137-182.
Huxley J. 1939. “Race” in Europe. Oxford: Clarendon press.
Indian Genome Variation Consortium 2008, “Genetic landscape of the people of India: A canvas for disease gene
exploration.” Journal of Genetics 87 (1): 3-20.
James HVA, Petraglia MD, 2005, Modern human origins and the evolution of behavior in the Later Pleistocene record of South
Asia Current Anthropology 46 (supply): s3-s27.
Jarriage JF. 1995. Du neolithique a la civilisation de I’ Inde ancienne (From the Neolithic to the civilisation of ancient India). Arts
Asiatiques (Paris: Ecole Francaise d’ Extreme-Orient) 50: 5-29.
Jha DN.1998. Ancient India in historical outline. New Delhi: Manohar.
Joshi JP. 1993. Excavation at Bhagwanpura 1975-1976 and other explorations and excavations 1975-1981 in
Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. New Delhi: Archaeology Survey of India.
Kennedy KAR 1982. Skulls, “Aryans and flowing drains: the interface of archaeology and skeletal biology in the
study of the Harappan civilisation.” In: Possehi GL,., editor Harappan civilisation: a contemporary perspective. New
Delhi: Oxford & IBH. Pp 289-295. The frontiers of the Indus civilisation New Delhi: Books. pp 425-436.
Kennedy KAR 1995. “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?” In: George
Erdosy, editor. The Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Pp 32-66.
Kennedy KAR, 1999 “Paleoanthropology of South Asia.” Evolutionary Anthropology 8 (5): 165-185.
Kenoyer JM. 1991. “Urban process in the Indus tradition: a preliminary model from Harappa.” In: Meadow RH,
editor. Harappa excavations 1986-1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanism. Madison
(WI): Prehistory press. pp 29-60.
Kenoye r JM 1998 Ancient cities of the Indus Valley civilisation. Kurachi and Islamabad: Oxford University Press and
American Institute of Pakistan Studies.
Kivisild TMJ, Kaldma BK, Metspalu M, Metspalu Em Reidla M,…. Villems R 1999. “Deep common ancestry of
Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages.” Current Biology 9 (22): 1331-1334.
Kivisild T, Papiha SS, Rootsi S, Parik J, Kaldma K,… Villems R 2000. “An Indian ancestry: a key for
understanding human diversity in Europe and beyond.” In: Renfrew C, Boyle K, editors. Archaeological
Research. pp 267-275.
Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, Parik J,… Villems R 2003 a. “The genetics of language and farming
spread in India.” In: Bellwood P, Renfrew C, editors. Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis.
Cambridge: Mc Donald Institute for Archaeological Research. pp 215-222.
Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Mastana S, Kaldma K,… Villems R 2003b. “The genetic heritage of the earliest
settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations.” American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (2): 313-
332.
Kosambi DD. 1962. Myth and reality Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Kosambi DD. 1965. The culture and civilisation of ancient India in historical outline. London: Rout ledge & Kegan paul.
Kumar M, Shinde V, Uesugi A, Dangi V, Kumar S, Kumar V. 2009. “Excavations at Madina, district Rohtak,
Haryana” 2007-08: a report. In: Osada T, Uesugi A, editors, Linguistics, archaeology and the human past.
Occasional l Paper 7. Kyoto (Japan): Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Pp 25-177.
Lathiri N, editor. 2000. “The decline and fall of the Indus civilisation. “New Delhi: Permanent Black Lal BB. 1997.
The earliest civilisation of South Asia. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Lincoln B. 1999. Theorising myth: narrative, ideology, and scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Lovell NC. 2014, “Additional data on trauma at Harappa International”, Journal of Paleopathology 6 (1): 1-4.
Macaulay V, Hill c., Achilli A, Rengo C, Clarke D,… Richards M. 2005 “Single, rapid coastal settlement of Asia
revealed by analysis of complete Mitochondrial genomes.” Science 308 (5724): 1034-1036.
Majumder pp.2001. “Ethnic populations of India as seen from an evolutionary perspective.” Journal of Bioscience 26
(4): 533-545.
Majumder PP. 2008. Genomic inferences on peopling of South Asia. Current Opinions in Genetics& Development 18 (3):
280-284.
Marshall J. 1931. Mohenjo Doro and the Indus civilisation (3 volumes) London: Arthur Probsthain.
Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashow G,.. Villims R 2004. Most of the extant mt DNA boundaries in
South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans.
BMC Genetics 5 (1): 26.
Moor Ajani p, Thangoraj K, Patterson N, Lipson M, Loh P-R… Singh L., 2013 “Genetics evidence for recent
population mixture in India.” American Journal of Human Genetics 93 (3): 422-438.
Olender M. 1992. The languages of paradise: race, religion, and philology in the nineteenth century. Oppenheimer S.2003. The
real EvE: modern man’s journey out of Africa. NEW York: Carrol & Graf.
Piggott S. 1950. Prehistoric India to 1000 BC Harmondsworth: penguin Books.
Poliakaov L.1974. The Aryans myth: a history of racist and nationalist ideas in Europe. London: Sussex University press.
Possehl GL. 2002. The Indus civilisation: a contemporary perspective. Walnut Greek (ca): AltaMira press.
Pusalker AD. 1950 Some problems of ancient Indian history. Bharatiya Vidhya 11:111-128.
Quintana-Murci L, Chaix R, Wells Rs, Behar DM, Sayar H,… Mc Elreavey K.2004. “Where West meets East: the
complex MT DNA landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian corridor.” American Journal of Human
Genetics 74 (5): 827-845.
Reddy BM. 2014. “People of India: implications of recent DNA studies.” In: Chakrabarti DK, Lal M, editors.
History of ancient India. Volume 1: Prehistoric roots. New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation and
Aryan Books International, pp 28-58.
Reich s, D, Thangaraj K, Patterson, N, price AL, Singh L, 2009 Reconstructing Indian population history Nature 461
(7263): 489-494.
Reinach S. 1892. L’ origine des Aryans: histoire d’ une controverse (The origin of the Aryans: history of a controversy).
Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Robbins Schug G, Gray GK, Mushrif-Tripathy V, Sankhyan AR, 2012. “A peaceful realms? Trauma and social
differentiation at Harappa.” International Journal of Paleopathology 2 (2-3): 136-147.
Rosberg NA, Mohenjan S, Gonzalez-Quavedo C., Blum MGB, Nino-Roasales L.,… Patel pl.2006.
“Low levels of genetic divergence across geographically and linguistically diverse populations from India.” PLOS
Genetics 2 (12): e215, 2052-2061.
Roychoudhury S, Roy s, Dey B, Chakra borty M, Roy M,… Majumder pp. 2000. Fundamental genomic unity of ethnic
India is revealed by analysis of mitochondrial DNA Current Science 79 (9): 1182-1192.
Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindhu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximai T,.. kashyap VK 2006. “A prehistory of Indian Y
chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios.” PNAS 103 (4): 843-848.
Sengupta S, Lev A, zhivotovsky LA, king R, Mehdi SQ… Underhill PA.2006. “Polarity and temporality of high-
resolution Y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and
reveal minor genetic influences of Central Asian pastoralists..” American Journal of Human Genetics 78 (2): 202-
221.
Shaffer JG. 1984. “The Indo-Aryan invasions: cultural myth and archaeological reality.” In: Luckacs JR, editor. The
people of South Asia: the biological anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal. NEW York: Plenum Pres. 77-90.
Sharma RS. 2001. Advent of the Aryans in India. New Delhi: Manohar.
Sharma S, Rai E, Sharma P, Jena M, Singh S,… “Bamezai RNK 2009. The Indian origin of paternal haplo group
Rlai substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system.” Journal of Human Genetics 54
(1): 47-55.
Singh KS. 2011. Diversity, identity, and linkages: explorations in historical ethnography. New Delhi: oxford University press.
Singh RN, Petric CA, Joglekar PP, Neoga s, Lancelotti c,… pathak A 2013. “Recent excavations at Alamgirpur,
Meerut Merrut district: a preliminary report.” Man and Environment 38 (1): 32-54.
Sri Aurobindo, 1998. The secret of the Veda. Volume 15 in The complete works of Sri Aurobindo. Pondicherry: Sri
Aurobindo Ashram Publication Department.
Srinivas MN. 2002. Collected essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Srinivas Iyengar PT. Did the Dravidian of India obtain their culture from Aryan immigrant? Anthropos 9: 1-15.
Swami Vivekananda. 1897. Colombo to Almora: seventeen lectures. Madras: Vijayanti Press.
Taylor I. 1890. The origin of the Aryans: an account of the prehistoric ethnology and civilisation of Europe. New York:
Scribner& Welford.
Thapar R 2002. The Penguin history of early India: from the origins to AD 1300. NEW Delhi: Penguin Books.
Trautmann TR. 1997. Aryans and British India. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.
Tripathy V, Nirmala A, Reddy BM. 2008. “Trends in molecular anthropological studies in India.” International
Journal of Human Genetics 8 (1-2): 1-20.
Underhill PA.2008 “Interpreting patterns of Y chromosome diversity: pitfalls and promise.” In: Osada T, Uesugi
A, editors. Linguistics, archaeology and the human past. Occasional Paper 5. Pp 103-109.
Underhill PA, Myress NM, Rootsi S. Metspalu M, Zhivotovsky LA… Kivisild T. 2010. “Separating the post-glacial
coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplo group RIa.” European Journal of Human
Genetics 18 (4): 479-484.
Vishwanthan HE, Cordaux DR, Stoneking M, Rani MVU, Majumder PP.2004. Genetic structure and affinities among
tribal populations of southern India: a study of 24 autosomal DNA, markers, Annals of Human Genetics 68 (2): 128-138.
Walimbe SR. 1993. “The Aryans: the physical anthropological approach.” In: Deo SB, Kamath S, editors. The
Aryan problem. Pune: Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti. pp 108-115.
Wallimbe SR 2007. “Population movements in the Indian subcontinent during the protohistoric period: physical
anthropological assessment.” In: Petraglia MD, Allchin B, editors. The evolution and history of human populations in
South Asia; inter-disciplinary studies in archaeology, biological anthropology, linguistics and genetics. Dordrecht: Springer pp
297-319.
Wallimbe SR.2014 “Human skeletal biology.” In Chakrabarti DK, Lal M, editors. History of ancient India. Volume 2:
Protohistoric foundations NEW Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Wells S. 2006 Deep ancestry: inside the geographic project. Washington (DC): National Geographic Society.
Wheeler REM. 1947. Harappa 1946: the defenses’ and cemetery R-37. Ancient India 3: 58-130.
Wheeler REM. 1953. The Indus civilisation. The Cambridge history of India, supplementary volume. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wheeler REM 1955. Still digging: interleaves from an antiquary notebook. London: Michael Joseph.
Wheeler REM 1968. The Indus civilisation (third edition) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson J. 1858. India three thousand years ago: the social state of the Aryans on the banks of the Indus in the times of the Vedas
(Republished by Varnasi: Indological Book House, n. d)
Witzel M. Autochthonou s Aryans? 2001. “The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts.” Electronic Journal of
Vedic Studies 7 (3): &8.
 Abstract
While we are often told that the Aryan invasion/ migration theory (Al/MT) is no longer a theory but a
firmly established fact, making counter views a ‘waste of time’, it is surprising that prominent scholars
presenting evidence for the theory have so often had recourse to unethical scholarship. This paper
presents cases involving (1) invention of nonexistent texts; (2) deliberate mistranslation of texts; (3)
distortion of archaeological evidence; (4) invention of nonexistent archaeological evidence; (5) basic
methodological flaws such as circular reasoning: (6) recycling long-discarded theories, such as racial ones;
(7) misquoting, blanking out or demonisation of scholars opposing the Aryan paradigm. This collection
highlights how ‘eminent’ historians and linguists, apart from miscellaneous other writers, have indulged in
such scholarly malpractices, some of which qualify as fabrication.
Keywords: Aryan, ethics, Harappan, invasion, migration, Veda
We have often heard of late that the Aryan invasion/ migration theory (henceforth Al/MT) is
no longer a theory but a firmly established fact, not only in the Indian subcontinent but in large
parts of Eurasia, making counterviews a ‘waste of time.’1 More patient scholars have pointed
out that a ‘final solution’ to the Aryan issue will have to satisfy not just linguists, but also
archaeologists, anthropologists, geneticists, and experts in ancient texts, cultures and
mythologies. This final solution will have to achieve this feat not just in south Asia, but also in
Iran, central Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We are still far from such a situation; it remains
easy to point to divergent theories (among mainstream scholars alone) on the location of the
so-called Indo-European homeland, the chronology of the Proto-Indo-European language that
supposedly emerged from that homeland, and on interpretations of literary, archaeological or
cultural material. All of that is natural enough in view of the complexity of the discipline and
every part of the world. To name a few who have criticised the ‘standard model’ to a lesser or
greater degree, let us mention, among others, archaeologists Jim Shaffer 2 (from the U.S), Robin
Coning ham and Ruth Young3 (U.K.) Jean-Paul Demoule,4 Henri-Paul francefort5 (both from

1. Elst, Still No Trace of an Aryan Invasion, p.177.

2. Shaffer, ‘The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality’: Shaffer and Lichtenstein,
‘South Asian Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Cultural Continuity or Discontinuity.’
3. Coningham and Young, The Archaeology of South Asia, pp. 85,265.
France), Marcel Otte6 (Belgium), Peter G. Johansen7 (Canada), Dilip K. Chakrabarti,8 S.R. Rao,9
S.P Gupta,10 B.B Lal,11 V.N. Misra,12 R.S Bisht,13 M.K. Dhavalikar14 (all from India);
anthropologist Edumund Leach15 (U.K): bioanthropologists Kenneth Kennedy16 (U.s) Subhash
Wallimbe17 (India); linguists Mario Alinei,18 Angela Marcantonio19 (both from Italy), Xavierio
Ballester20 (Spain); and numerous geneticts.21 A few independent Western scholars with second
academic backgrounds deserve mention for the range and quality of their work, such as
Koenraad Elst22 (Belgium) or Nicholas Kazanas23 (Greece).
There is a second reason why a final resolution of the Aryan issue will remain elusive for
some time: the shortcuts that many scholars have taken, ranging from unwitting flaws of logic

4. Demoule, Malis où sont donc passés less Indo-Européens? ‘The canonical Indo-European model and its underlying assumptions;’
L‘iduée d’une racine commune résults d’un mythe identitaire du XIX” siècle; ‘Les Indo-Européens: un mythe
scientifique?’
5. Francfort,’ The Archaeology of Protohistoric Central Asia and the problems of identifying Indo-European and Uralic-
Speaking populations’; ‘La civilization de I’ Oxus et less Indo-Iraniens et Indo-Aryans.’
6. Otte, ‘Indo-European Arrived in Europe with Modern Man.’
7. Johansen, ‘Recasting the Foundations: New Approaches to Regional Understandings of South Asian Archaeology and the
Problem of culture History.’
8. Chakrabarti, ‘The Aryan Hypothesis in Indian Archaeology’; Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian Past; The Battle
for Ancient India: An Essay in the Socio politics of the Ancient Indian Past; The Battle for Ancient India: An Essay in the Socio politics of
Indian Archaeology
9. Rao, Down and Devolution of the Indus civilization.
10. Gupta, The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization: Origins problems and Issues.
11. Lal, The Homeland of the Aryans: Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna; The Rigvedic Flora and Fauna; The Rigvedic
people: Invaders?// Innigrants? Or Indigenous? Evidence of Archaeology and Literature.
12. Misra, Indus civilization and the Rgvedic Sarasvati.
13. Bisht, Harappans and the Rigvedic points of Convergence.
14. Dhavalikar, Archaeology of the Aryans; The Aryans: Myth and Archaeology.
15. Leach , Aryan Invasions over the Millennia.
16. Kennedy, Skulls, Aryans and Flowing Drains; Have Aryan been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?
17. Wallimbe, Population Movements in the Indian Subcontinent during the Proto historic Period: Physical Anthropological
Assessment ‘Human Skeletal Biology’
18. Alinel, The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm on Indo-European Origins: An introduction in Progress; ‘Towards on
Invasionless Model of Indoeuropean Origins: The Continuity Theory.’
19. Marcantion; Marcantonio and Brady Verner’s Law and the Indo-European theory.’
20. Ballester, Linguistic Equilibrium in the Palaeolithic : the Case of indo-European; The Neolithic Discontinuity Paradigm for
the Origin of European Languages.
21. For references, see Danino, Genetics and the Aryan Issue’; ‘Aryans and the Indus Civilization: Archaeological, Skeletal,
and Molecular Evidence.’
22 lst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan: Minor Writing on the Aryan Invasion Debate; Still
No Trace of an Aryan Invasion.
23 Kazanas, Indo-Aryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues; Vedic and Indo-European Studies.
and method to unethical scholarship bordering at times on outright fabrication of evidence.
Given the intensity with which the issue has been discussed, such practices, or malpractices,
have perhaps been far more common in the Aryan issue than in any other concerned with the
past of humanity.
This paper will not discuss Al/MT per se, the lines of argument or evidence in favour of it
against it;24 instead, it presents incontrovertible evidence for (1) the invention of nonexistent
texts; (2) deliberate mistranslations of texts;(3) the invention of nonexistent archaeological
evidence; (4) distortion of archaeological evidence; (5) basic methodological flaws such as
circular reasoning, oversimplification, etc.: (6) the recycling of long-discarded theories such as
racial ones; (7) the misquoting, blanking out or demonising of scholars opposing the Aryan
paradigm.
Inventing Textual Evidence
For only two centuries, in search of conclusive evidence for the Aryans’ supposed long march
or trot from central Asia across the Khyber Pass into the vast plains of the Indus and its mighty
tributaries, scholars have ransacked early Indian texts, especially the Vedas, said to have been
composed by those Aryans soon after their arrival in the subcontinent. 25 Finding the Vedic
hymns particularly recalcitrant to yield the desired testimony, they have often imposed their
interpretations of them. The nineteenth century torturing of the RgVeda to make it yield dark-
skinned and ‘nose less’ or stub-nosed Dasyus, hence an epic battle between a native ‘black’ race
and a conquering fair skinned ‘Aryan’ race, is notorious enough, 26 although these race-based
perversions happily live on in some of our standard history books. 27
More recently, Michael Witzel, a Sanskritist and philologist who has been a particularly vocal
and active supporter of Al/ MT, indulged in scholarly liberties in order to conjure up, in the
RgVeda again, the coming of the Aryans through what is today Afghanistan-something the text
is perfectly silent on. Witzel wrote of being ‘struck by the number of vague reminiscences of
foreign localities and tribes in the Rgveda, 28 citing a few hymns in which, in his reading, some of
the Vedic clans ‘are aware that they have “come from afar”… they have “crossed many rivers”,
and “have gone through narrow passages”, which once again indicates the mountainous terrain

24 For a detailed study, see Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate;
Danino, The Dawn of Indian Civilization and the Elusive Aryans; Elst and Kazanas in preceding footnotes.
25 I use word ‘Aryan’ here since proponents of Al/MT often use it without further explanation. A much better
term would be ‘speakers of Indo-Aryans languages. ‘I may add that I regard the whole concept of ‘Aryans’ as
illegitimate and a survival of nineteenth-century racial theories . The Rigveda itself never refers to ‘Aryans’ as
an identifiable ethnic clan or entity.
26 Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate; Trautmann, Aryans and British
India.
27. E.g., Kosambi, The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline, p. 79; Sharma, Ancient India, p.49;
Jha, Ancient India in Historical Outline, p. 49; Mahajan, Ancient India,p.10.
28. Witzel, ‘Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities,’ p. 320.
of Afghanistan.’29 However, when we look at the first hymn in question (6.45.1), we find that
Indra is thanked for having led two clans, the Turvashas and the Yadus, ‘from afar’; apart from
the existence of many more Vedic clans in the RgVeda, why should this ‘afar’ refer to
Afghanistan more than, say, the Ganges plains or the Deccan, assuming this ‘farness’ is not
simply a metaphor? All Vedicists worth their salt agree that the Vedic hymns make constant use
of metaphors, symbols, riddles, puns, many of which remain obscure to the modern reader.
Witzel’s second quotation – ‘they have crossed many rivers’ –is his own creation: no such
passage occurs in the RgVeda; the two references provided by Witzel30 are merely about gods
‘halting the course’ of a river so as to enable two heroes to cross it-in other words, a miraculous
intervention to stop the flow of one river, which Witzel turns into ‘many’ by juxtaposing several
such hymns. Finally, Witzel’s ‘have gone through narrow passages,’ within quotation marks, is
also no quotation at all; in a footnote, he amends it to ‘we have come into a pathless country;
the broad earth has become narrow… we search for a way.’31 How this could be applied to
Witzel’s ‘mountainous terrain of Afghanistan’ is anyone’s guess; in fact, there is no hint of
mountains at all in this verse, assuming that it is to be given a physical meaning-which is far
from certain, for the search for a path is a recurrent theme in the RgVeda: wide, easy or
thornless paths,32 paths to the gods,33 or the true path34 that accords with ritam (the cosmic law
or order, the truth). The poets often pray for protection ‘from injury and narrowness, 35 with the
word for narrowness, amhas, being the same as in the above instances, Clearly, such hymns are
apt to yield any geography-inner or outer-that the interpreter may wish for. In the case, the
inner geography-inner or outer-that the interpreter may wish for. In this case, the inner
geography seems far more consistent with the totality of the hymns’ imagery. To read into them
narrow Afghan passes is simply to impose a preconceived and wholly arbitrary meaning on the
Vedic hymns. That is not what impartial scholarship is expected to do.
Unable to proceed further, Witzel offered evidence from an ‘admittedly much later’ text the
Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra a a first-millennium BCE text on the rituals of the Krishna Yajurveda.

29 29 Ibid., p.322.
30. Rigveda, 2.13.12 (Witzel erroneously has 2.12.13) and 4.19.6. The second passage also praises Indra for
making ‘rivers easy to cross,’ but this is a generic statement, with no sense of ‘many,’ nor also any guarantee
that this refers to physical rivers. (The crossing of rivers is an ancient Indian symbol for the crossing of life
and its dangers or vicissitudes.)
31. Rigveda, 6.47.20-21. To illustrate the ‘fluidity’ often encountered in translating Vedic hymns, and therefore the
great difficulty in extracting from them any reliable ‘historical’ data, here are four other translations of 6.47.20:
‘Gods, we have reached a country void of pasture; the land, though spacious, was too small to hold us.
Brhaspati, provide in war for cattle; find a path, Indra, for this faithful singer’ (Griffith) ‘We have wandered,
gods, into a desert us, Brihaspati, in our search for cattle; show the path, Indra, to your votary being astray’
(Wilson) ‘You gods! We have come to a pathless land. The earth,
32. E.g., Rigveda, 1.41.4.1.106.5, 5,80.2, 6.44. 18, 7.35. 15, 7.62.6, 9.97.16, 10.63.7.
33. Ibid., 3.54.5, 10.2.3 , 10.51.5
34. Ibid., 1.136.2, 3.12.7, 5.80,4, 7.44.5
35. Ibid., 10.25.8 (translation from Gonda, Vedic Literature (Samhitās and Brāhmanas ), p. 157).
Quoting a passage which, he said, had been ‘overlooked, not having been translated yet,’ he
asserted that it spoke of the eastward migration of the Āyavas, a Vedic clan, into the region
corresponding today to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, while other clans ‘stayed at home in the West.’
One of the three territories ‘in the West,’ ‘Gāndhāra’ (hence ‘Kandahar’), refers to a region of
Afghanistan; another, ‘Parśu,’ either to another region of Afghanistan or to Iran. Witzel found
here a ‘direct statement’ of the ‘immigration of Indo-Aryans into South Asia.’ 36
But as Koenraad Elst first showed in 1999, this was a plain case of mistranslation,
intentional or not; the other clans did not ‘stay at home’ in the West, but migrated westward, just
as the first had migrated eastward. Comments Elst:
Far from attesting an eastward movement into India, this text actually speaks of a westward movement
towards Central Asia, coupled with a symmetrical eastward movement from India’s demographic centre
around the Saraswati basin into the Ganga basin. The fact that a world –class specialist [i.e.,Witzel ] had to
content himself with a late text like the
which is so wide, has become narrow, Brihaspati, look for the singer who is in search of
cows, and you, Indra, find the way! (Geldner, translated from the German). ‘O gods, we have
reached a tract of land without good pastures for our cattle; the earth, through (otherwise,
usually) broad, has become narrow’ (Gonda, first half of the mantra), ‘We have come here to a
field without pasturage, o gods. Though it was in this state on this quest for cattle’ (Jamison &
Brereton).
Baudhayama Shrauta Sutra, and that he has to twist its meaning this much in order to get an invasionist
story out of it, suggests that harvesting invasionist information in the oldest literature is very difficult
indeed.37
Witzel attempted at first to put the blame on editorial errors; however, it turned out that
two earlier papers by him had contained the same mistranslation. 38 Elst’s own translation was
confirmed by a survey of several published translations of the Baudhāyana Śrautasūtra into
English, German and Dutch39 (making nonsense of Witzel’s statement that the text had ‘not
been translated yet’) and later by the doyen of Indian archaeology, B.B Lal. 40 Witzel eventually
only admitted having ‘unfortunately misplaced a parenthesis 41 Witzel eventually only admitted
having ‘unfortunately misplaced a parenthesis,’41 and tried to confuse his readers by insisting
that the text did show an eastward movement of Vedic clans. Indeed it did, as do several others
(such as Śatapatha Brāhmana’s oft-quoted legend of Videgha Māthava), but this eastward
penetration into the Gangetic plains from the subcontinent’s Northwest has, strictly speaking,
nothing to do with an immigration from outside India.

36 Witzel, ‘Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities,’ pp 320-321.

37. Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate p.165.
38. The complete details of this mistranslation and its comparison with several published translations can be
found in Agrawal, ‘On Perceiving Aryan Migrations in Vedic Ritual Texts’; Agarwal, ‘Is there Vedic Evidence
for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India?’
39. See previous footnote for references.
40. Lal, The Homeland of the Aryans,pp.86 ff.
41. Witzel, ‘Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Textd,’§9 footnote 46.
 This may appear to be making too much of what is after all a translation error. But coming
on top of several other such forced interpretations (the above ‘crossing of many rivers,’ the
imaginary ‘mountainous terrain of Afghanistan’ ), it illustrates the danger of uncritically
accepting scholarly ‘authority’: Witzel is as ‘struck by the number of vague reminiscences of foreign
localities and tribes in the Rgveda,’ but fails in the end to supply a single clear passage from the
hymns to that effect.
The worst part was that Witzel’s mistranslation was soon relayed by other ‘authorities’ as
‘convincing proof of migration’; this last phrase is by the late historian R.S Sharma. 42 Sharma
was, fond of sprinkling his discussions with adverbs like ‘perhaps’, ‘possibly’ and ‘most
probably’ before reaching iron-clad conclusions on the ‘advent of the Aryans’; he also did not
mind misquoting scholars to make them say the very opposite of what they meant, 43 as I once
demonstrated in a paper.44 In a widely circulated lecture of 1999, the historian Romila Thapar
also quoted Witzel’s mistranslation, adding, ‘ In fact, when one looks for them, there are
evidence [s] of migration.’45 A more correct statement would have been, ‘When one compels
the texts to yield them, for Thapar does not cite in her lectures (or elsewhere) a single such
piece of clear ‘evidence’ Unbiased Vedicists, such as Jan Gonda, have, instead, readily admitted
that the Aryan advance into India’ is not reflected in the (Rig-Vedic) hymns.’ 46 Or, more
recently, Karen Thomson: ‘… there is nothing in any of the 1,028 poems that make up the
collection to suggest that their authors were incomers to the area that they describe in their
poems. Rather the opposite. 47
Such uncritical recycling of misinterpretations or misinformation betrays poor scholarship,
at best, and fabrication at worst.
Let us turn to a 1963 essay by the Sanskritist and linguist Thomas Burrow, in which he
traced the words arma and armaka in early Sanskrit literature, showing that in many texts they
refer to ‘ruins’ (and, suffixed to place-names, ‘ruined site’).48 Burrow surmised that these ruined
places referred to abandoned Harappan cities, which is plausible (especially as some are
specifically located in the Sarasvatī region). However, all those references, without exception,
occur in the Vedic literature (mostly Brāhmaṇas and Śrautasūtras, datable to the early first

42. Sharma, Advent of the Aryans in India. p.87.

43. Sharma, ‘Was the Harappan Culture Vedic?
44. Danino, ‘Flogging a Dead Horse: A rejoinder to R.S. Sharma.’ As an instance of unethical scholarship, it is
worth mentioning that I submitted this paper soon after Sharma’ s own appeared in 2004 in a column titled
‘Debate; my paper, which used some sarcasm but was rigorous in its discussion, was kept on hold for close to
two years, despite repeated inquiries. Eventually I had to publish it in another journal. Such malpractices are
sadly common in the scholarly world; the very scholars who are heard praising ‘dissent’ and ‘debate’ are often
those who abuse their academic positions to disallow dissent and stifle debate.
45. Thapar, ‘The Aryan Question Revisited’ (emphasis added).
46. Gonda, Vedic Literature (Samhitās and Brāhmanas), p 23
47. Thomson, ‘A Still Undeciphered Text: How the scientific approach to the Rigveda would open up Indo
European Studies,’ p. 38.
48. Burrow, ‘On the Significance of the Term arma-,armaka-in Early Sanskrit Literature’
millennium BCE); when he turns to the RgVeda itself, which is where we should expect to find
the most references to those ruined sites (since, according to Al/ MT the incoming Aryans
would have passed many ruined Late Harappan settlements) Burrow finds a single occurrence
of armaka, in an obscure context, and builds on it a conviction that ‘it was in fact the Aryans
who were responsible for the overthrow of the Indus civilisation’ 49-a view categorically rejected
by archaeologists in recent decades.50 Burrow’s translation of the Rigvedic hymn in question
(1.133.3) runs, ‘Strike down, O Maghavan, the host of these sorceresses, in the ruined city of
Vailasthānaka, in the ruined city Mahāvailastha.’ Whether the word armaka means ‘ruined city’
in this hymn is less than clear: it is enough to look at widely diverging translations to see how
the translators disagree on the word’s precise meaning, rendering it as ‘ruin’ (in the singular),
‘heap of ruins,’ ‘narrow pit,’ lurking place,’ ‘rubbish or ‘mudflat.’ 51 To erect so much on such a
dubious reading is no sound method. Yet that is the method Witzel (with the linguist and
Sanskritist Stephanie Jamison) followed, in a paper of 1992, to extract historical data from the
same single occurrence of armaka.’ The RV [RgVeda], which no longer knows of the Indus
cities but only mentions ruins (armaka, [mahā] vailasthāna,) thus could have been composed
during the long period between 1990 and 1100 BCE.’52 (Other scholars, such as Asko Parpola,53
have repeated the same argument) Thomson, too, finds this ‘a fragile piece of evidence on
which to base the most important of the scholarly views currently agreed upon by Indo-
Europeanists, that is that the poems postdate the disintegration of the Indus cities.’ 54
We will see further below, while discussing the horse issue, that Thomson points to more
forced translations. Such is also the case with the Vedic ‘chariots,’ often labelled ‘war chariots’
and invoked as proof of the Aryan advent in the subcontinent (e.g., by Parpola, in Thomson’s
case study) Thomson concludes, ‘The ráthas are imaginary, heavenly vehicles, drawn by

49. Ibid., p. 166.

50. See the following two sections; also Danino, The Dawn of Indian Civilization and the Elusive Aryans, Ch.10.
51. It is always a sobering exercise to compare translations: ‘Do thou, O Maghavan, beat off these sorceresses’
daring strength. Cast them within the narrow pit, within the deep and narrow pit’ (Griffith) ‘Strike down, You
rich in gifts, the army of those sorceresses, in the field of corpses, on the heap of ruins, in the great field of
corpses, on the heap of ruins! (Geldner, translated from the German). ‘O Liberal One, strike and kill the
troop of those demonesses, on the place of the slaughter, on the ruin, on the great place of the slaughter, on
the ruin!’ ( Renou, translated from the French). ‘Dash, O beneficent one, the whole crew of these witches in
the lurking place, on the rubbish…’(Gonda). ‘Bounteous one, smash down the troop of these witches at the
mudflat (called ) Place of Hostility-at the mudflat (called) Place of Great Hostility, (Jamison and Brereton).
52. Witzel and Jamison, ‘Vedic Hindhuism,’ p.2. Note that the Rigveda’s supposed ignorance of cities, which
Witzel often mentions, is little more than another arbitrary choice or imposed reading. Quite a few scholars
have disagreed with this view: Wilson , Goldstücker, Muir, Hopkins, Bhagwan Singh, R.S. Bisht, to name a
few.
53. Parpola, Deciphering the Indus Script. Pp. 4-5.
54. Thomson, ‘A Still Undeciphered Text: How the scientific approach to the Rigveda would open up Indo-
European Studies,’ p. 28.
imaginary, heavenly áśvas. Parpola’s specific translation “war-chariot” for rátha is misleading. In
none of these passages is the rátha a vehicle of war.’55
As regards, finally the chariots’ ‘spoked wheels,’ again a favourite piece of ‘evidence’ in the
Al/MT camp, Thomson (who, let me clarify, takes no sides on the Al/MT debate, as her sole
concern is to extract from the Vedic text its real, unforced meaning), reviewing Stephanie
Jamison’s and Joel Brereton’s new translation of the RgVeda into English 56 (doubtless a
monumental achievement), notes that the phrase ‘spoked wheels’ was ‘introduced twenty-two
times… as a new interpretation of the word arati. This epithet of the fire god was previously
understood to mean “servant or “messenger”… Given the current frantic search for evidence of
“spoked wheels” in the remains of the Indus Valley Civilisation, the translation could even be
considered irresponsible.’57
It would be sadly easy to supply more cases of misreading of the hymns, but the above
should suffice. Writing in the 1910 s, Sri Aurobindo had already noted the utter unreliability of
Vedic scholarship (whether Indian or European, I should add):
The scholar in dealing with his text is obliged to substitute for interpretation a process almost of
fabrication. We feel that he is not so much revealing the sense as hammering and forging rebellious
material into some sort of shape and consistency.58

Distortion of Archaeological Evidence

Proponents Al/ MT hoped that archaeology would, at least, provide the evidence that the texts
had failed to. As a result, as north India’s various regional cultures of the second millennium
BCE (around the supposed time of the ‘Aryan advent’) became better understood, we
witnessed a ‘gold rush’ of sorts, with scholars scrambling to identify one or another of those
cultures as the work of the invading or immigrating Aryans. No rigorous criteria were defined
to establish either such an authorship or solid evidence of intrusiveness, which conventional
archaeology can, with some care, detect. On the first point, scholars brushed aside early
cautions, such as that voiced by the French archaeologist Jean-Marie Casal, who had excavated
at Amri (in Sindh) and Pirak (Baluchistan), among other sites, and who wrote in 1969:
Up to now, Aryans have eluded every archaeologist definition. There is so far no type of artifacts or
ceramics that causes their discoverer to declare, ‘The Aryans came here. Here is a typically Aryan sword
or goblet!’59
And yet, limiting myself to seven of the most significant Late Harappan and post Harappan
cultures (Gandhara, Pirak, Jhukar, Cemetery H, Ochre-Coloured Pottery or OCP, Copper
hoard, and Painted Grey Ware or PGW), I showed elsewhere60 the absolute inconsistency of

55. Ibid., pp. 34-35.

56. Jamison and Brereton, The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India.
57. Thomson, Speak for itself’ p4
58. Aurobindo, The Secret of the Veda, pp 4-5
59. Casal, La Civilization de I Indus et ses enigmes, p 205
60. Danino, Methodological Issues in the Indo-European Debate; The Dawn of Indian Civilization and the Elusive
Aryans, ch. 11.
various scholars’ ‘identifications’ of incoming Aryans with those regional cultures: some
scholars want one of those cultures to be ‘Aryan,’ others two or three, yet others nearly all of
them-our Aryans are anywhere and everywhere. These identifications are all the more invalid as
the regional cultures in question are very different from each other; it is ridiculous to propose
that Aryans created say, the Pirak culture, went on to author the Cemetery H culture, before
moving on to PGW culture-yet that is precisely what some scholars propose or imply. In their
haste to trace the Aryan on the ground, they also blissfully overlook well-established
archaeological criteria of intrusiveness. As the French archaeologist Jean-Paul Demoule, facing a
very similar situation in Europe’s context, wrote,
In order to prove a migration archaeologically, it is necessary to trace, step by step, the diffusion of a
complete material culture-pottery forms and decoration, tools and Weapons, architecture, funerary
practices, etc. from a specific region.61
Never has such a chain of evidence for diffusion been produced in the context of second-
millennium BCE northwest India. That, however, has not deterred proponents of Al/MT from
brandishing archaeological ‘evidence’ for the said theory. In reality, unbiased archaeologists have
long argued that such identifications are illegitimate and a distortion of archaeological evidence;
let us hear Henri-Paul Francfort, a vastly experienced French archaeologists who excavated
Shortugai and other sites in central Asia:
In the Indian subcontinent, the archaeological assemblages considered to reflect the coming of the
Aryans by various authors (PGW, Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Jhukar, OCP Pirak etc) do not provide
any stable or consistent picture.62
The issue actually runs’ deep, touching on the difficult and complex problem of correlating
a particular material culture, brought to light by archaeology, with an ethnic or linguistic group
(such as the Aryans have been assumed to be). There are many pitfalls on the way, summarised
here by Robin Coningham:
These interpretations suggest the simple equation that ‘material culture= people= language’.. Processual
and post-processual developments in archaeological theory have surely enabled us to abandon such crude
equations and to acknowledge that the dynamics of material culture, ethnicity and language are far more
complex.63
More recently, Conningham (with Ruth Young ), explicitly criticised the hasty applications
of the above equation that litter the pro-Al/MT literature:
The existence of a group of people called Indo-Europeans of Vedic Aryans has achieved the status of
received wisdom-it has been repeated so often that it is now accepted fact, despite there being no
satisfactory archaeological evidence whatsoever to support the presence of an incoming group of such
numbers as historical and archaeological explanations require.64

61 Demoule, ‘The canonical Indo-European model and its underlying assumptions,’ p. 166.
62 Francfort, ‘The Archaeology of Protohistoric Central Asia,’ p. 154 (The abbreviatios are Francfort’s own.)
63. Coningham, ‘Deciphering the Indus Script’ p .91.
64. Coningham and young, The Archaeology of South Asia, p. 85.
Inventing Archaeological Evidence
The story behind Mortimer Wheeler’s dramatic tale of a ‘mythical massacre’ at Mohenjo-daro has been
told often enough.65 It is a sterling illustration of over interpretation turning to invention: Wheeler
turned a few groups of skeletons, totalling thirty-three of them, found in various streets and houses,
into positive proof of the Aryan destruction of the great city. In view of the massive rejection of
Wheeler’s hypothesis by archaeologists as well as bioanthropologists (G.F. Dales, K.A.R. Kennedy
among the first,66 one would have thought it buried for good. Yet, a couple of decades later, Shereen
Ratnagar, a scholar of archaeology, chose to revive Mohenjo-daro’s ‘controversial’ skeletons, and is
struck by an ‘impression… of intense enmity and hatred.’ Ratnagar acknowledged the work of Dales and
Kennedy, but ‘would urge that we do not throw out the political significance of these skeletons just
because the Aryan connexion is dubious’67 ---a most strange statement: the connexion between the
skeletons and the sacking of the city by Aryans (Wheeler’s thesis) is ‘dubious’-unbiased scholars would
have used the word ‘disproved’ – yet we should read some ‘ political significance’ in those remains. What
significance? Ratnagar, finding none in the Indus valley itself, turned to the Mesopotamian civilisation
and to some of its tablets that mourn the destruction of cities, an odd transposition from one
civilisation to a completely different one thousands of kilometers away. Further, Ratnagar admitted
being ‘tempted’ to interpret a few damaged stone statues at Mohenjo-daro and Dholavira as ‘portraits of
a royal lineage’ that were ‘vandalised’ in the course of a ‘rebellion or a major dynastic upheaval, during
which the royal portraits were viciously demolished.’68 Whether any of the few stone statues found
damaged were ‘vandalised’ is an open question; they may have just as well suffered in the collapse of the
buildings that housed them or through natural erosion or degradation (since we do not know how long
they were exposed to the elements before disappearing under wind-or water-borne silt). Nor is it certain
that they portrayed any ‘royal lineage’; that is just one interpretation among others. And if some statues
did, why, then, was Mohenjo-daro’s famous figurine of a so called ‘priest-king’ found with its face
virtually intact? All this awful scenario of enmity, hatred, rebellion, vandalisation, etc., is built on the
flimsiest of evidence.69 Even worse is the dramatisation of the medievalist historian Irfan Habib, who
finds it ‘painful, but unavoidable, to reflect on the fate of the people of the Indus civilisation at its end.
As the towns were abandoned or fell to hostile elements… large numbers might have been seised and
enslaved.’70 Even with the auxiliary ‘might,’ such wild plays of imagination resting on nonexistent (albeit
‘painful’) evidence should have no room in sound scholarship.
A similar situation arises from a discussion on mysterious layers of ash that were unearthed
over decades at a number of Harappan sites: Rana Ghudai, Nal, Dabarkot, (all three in

65. Dales, ‘The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro’; Lal, The Earliest Civilization of South Asia, p. 258; Walimbe,
‘Human Skeletal Biology,’ pp. 338-339; Agarwal, ‘What is the Aryan Migration Theory?’; Danino, The Dawn of
Indian Civilization and the Elusive Aryans, Ch. 10.
66. For Dales, see previous footnote; Kennedy, ‘Skulls, Aryans and Flowing Drains,’ p.291; Kennedy, ‘Trauma and
Disease in the Ancient Harappans,’ p. 429.
67. Ratnagar, The End of the Great Harappan Tradition, pp. 41-42.
68. Ibid., p.41.
69. In her latest work, Harappan Archaeology ch.10, Ratnagar appears to have softened, or at least nuanced, her
earlier stand.
70. Habib, The Indus Civilization, p.65.
Baluchistan), Gumla (North-West Frontier Province), Kot Diji (Sindh), and, more recently,
Karanpura (Rajasthan), Some of this was noticed long ago, since Stuart Piggott mentions the
conflagrations in his classic 1950 study on Indian prehistory. 71 Now, would they not be final
evidence, at least, of the Indus civilisation? That is, expectedly, what some scholars plumped
for, most of whom we have already met. Thus the historian D.N. Jha in 1998:
A major blow to the Harappan civilisation, according to a dominant view, was given by a group of
‘barbarians’ who began to migrate into India a little before the middle of the second millennium BC. At
several places in north Baluchistan thick layers of burning have been taken to imply the violent destruction
of whole settlements by fire.72
Four years later, this was the cue for two more Al/MT proponents. In a book on ancient
India regarded as a standard reference, Romila Thapar wrote, ‘Some [Harappan] settlements in
the north-west and Punjab might have been subjected to raids and skirmishes, such as are described
in the Rig-Veda, or for which there appears to be occasional evidence at some sites, for example
Kot Diji.’73 Thapar thus seeks to equate ‘skirmishes’ supposedly described in the RgVeda (she
does not give us a reference) with archaeological evidence of destruction by fire. Irfan Habib is
more precise:
Gumla [and] Rana Ghundai were destroyed with such violence as to leave traces in the archaeological record.
Similar traces of arson are found also at Nal and the Indus settlement of Dabar-kot. The inference, then,
seems irresistible: that were invasions from the west which overwhelmed, first, the Helmand cities, then, the
late Kot-Diji culture and, finally, the Indus civilisation. 74
All this sounds quite dramatic again-except that it is untenable. The first lesson in
archaeological excavation is to note the stratigraphy, the succession of layers corresponding to
different levels, and therefore periods, of occupation; without a site’s proper stratigraphy, most
of the information extracted is useless. As ‘eminent historians’ as they are often designated Jha,
Thapar and Habib are expected to know this. Yet they do not seem to have realised that while
some of the sites they referred to had a complex or disturbed stratigraphy, wherever it was clear
(especially at Gumla, Kot Diji and Karanpura), the ash layer was found below the Mature
Harappan level, at the transition from the Early (pre-urban) to the Mature (urban) phase. This
transition is dated to the century between 2700 and 2600 BCE.. If, therefore, those ash layers
testify to ‘ raids and skirmishes, such as are described in the Rig-Veda,’ as Thaper tells us, it means
that the Vedic hymns were composed before the Mature Phase i.e. earlier than 2600 BCE, a
whole millennium before the arrival of the Aryans according to Al/MT!
The above historians have simply been a little too keen to produce evidence for man-made
destruction at the end of the Mature phase, when the Harappan cities disintegrated (Which was
about 1900 BCE), as they would like them to have met with a violent end. Such evidence does
not exist; they had to invent it.

71 Piggott, Prehistoric India to 1000 BC., p. 215.

72. JHa, Ancient India in Historical Outline, p. 40 (emphasis added).
73. Thapar, The Penguin History of Early India, p.88 (emphasis added).
74. Habib, The Indus Civilization p. 64 (emphasis added).
 We need not go here into a discussion of the reason behind these ash layers; Gregory L.
Possehl, who offers such a discussion, Proposes that these burnings – not ‘arson’-which took
place before the construction of urban sites at the same spots, were an ‘act of renewal,’ 75 as
though wiping the slate clean for the new urban phase. This may or may not the last word on
these enigmatic finds, but they have nothing to do with ‘ invasions from the west’ in the second
millennium BCE.
The Horse Issue
This is also not the place to discuss the presence or absence of the horse in the Harappan
civilisation and later periods of Indian protohistory; I did so elsewhere. 76 My arguments, in
summary, have been the following: (1) Horse remains from the Neolithic to the Mature
Harappan period (2600-1900 BCE) have been identified in the subcontinent by Experienced
experts at a dozon sites or so. Such remains continued to be identified during the Late
Harappan (1990-1300 BCE) and early historical periods, with no more than a slight gradual
increase, and with few depictions of the animal prior to the Mauryan age; there was no
‘quantum leap’ in either bone remains or in depictions after 1500 BCE, when the Aryans are
supposed to have streamed into the subcontinent. While the RgVeda does mention the animal
often (and the bull much more often), it does not follow that Vedic society was full of horses;
moreover, the Sanskrit word aśva for the horse, like go for the cow (but also light, or a beam of
light), clearly has a metaphorical meaning in a number of hymns, especially speed and energy,
which has been ignored by invasionist scholars. This last point was independently made by Sri
Aurobindo in the 1910s,77 and more recently by Karen Thomson, who demonstrated that a
number of scholars (Macdonell and Keith, Doniger, Witzel, Jamison and Brereton…..) choose
to read ‘horse,’ ‘steed’ or ‘mare’ in what are generic words with a broad range of meaning:
‘There are many fewer horses in the text of the RgVeda than there are in the translations.
Indeed, when the word áśva is present is often appears simply to describe something that moves
swiftly.78
Why drag this old issue into the present discussion? While a few pro-Al/MT scholars led a
high-profile media campaign in 2000 against what they perceived to be faked evidence for a
depiction of the horse on Indus seals,79 it turns out that they, or the pro-Al/MT camp in
general, have been less than honest while debating the horse issue. Let me illustrate:

75 Possehl, ‘Sociocultural Complexity Without the State: The Indus Civilization,’ p.272.
76. Danino, ‘The Horse and the Aryan Debate’; Agarwal, ‘What is the Aryan Migration Theory?; a more detailed
analysis of the issue is in Danino The Dawn of Indian Civilization and the Elusive Aryans, Ch.13.
77. Aurobindo, The Secret of the Veda pp.44,123-24.
78. Thomson, ‘A still Undeciphered Text: How the scientific approach to the Rigveda would open up Indo-
European Studies,’ p.36.
79. The original articles, Witzel and Farmer, ‘Horseplay in Harappa,’followed by Thapar, ‘Hindutva and history,’
gave rise in a subsequent issue of the magazine Frontline (24 November 2000) to a response by the impugned
scholar, N.S. Rajaram, followed by more articles by Parpola, Mahadevan, Witzel and Farmer. As I wrote at
the time, I did not believe that Rajaram’s error, based on successive bad photocopies of a poor-quality
original supplemented by too much imagination, was a deliberate fraud; but it offered a golden opportunity to
 1. They rejected en bloc all identifications of horse remains datable to the Mature
Harappan phase or earlier, even though those were certified by experienced experts.
Their argument was that either the sites’ stratigraphies were unreliable, or the remains
were those of the wild ass, not the true horse, since bones from these two animals are
not always easy to tell apart. This ‘haughty dismissal’ by scholars with no
archaeozoological competence simply betrayed preconceived opinions.
2. Yet several of the said sites did have a secure stratigraphy, and the experts involved were
often able to tell the two animals’ remains apart, listing either one or the other, or both,
as present in faunal assemblages.
3. Crucially, coming to the post-1500 BCE period, when they expect Aryans on the
landscape, pro-AI/MT scholars no longer disputed either the identification of horse
remains or the sites’ stratigraphies! Not only that, they did not seem to realize that most
of the post-1500 BCE remains had been certified by the very same experts whose
findings they contested in the Mature Harappan period or earlier: those experts were
apparently incompetent then, but now turned out to be quite competent!
4. Sándor Bökönyi, an international authority on the prehistoric horse, certified remains of
the true horse at the Mature Harappan site of Surkotada in Gujarat.80 Richard Meadow
(with Ajita Patel) assiduously challenged him for this81 -but not his Indian colleagues; it
was enough to sweepingly dismiss their findings. Meadow and Patel admitted in the end
that the identification of Surkotada’ s remains ‘may be a matter of emphasis and
opinion.’82 (Bökönyi passed away before he could give his final response.)
5. Meadow’s and Patel’s admittedly inconclusive paper was however put to good use by a
few historians (e.g., Romila Thapar83), who dishonestly cited it as the last word on the
nonexistence of the horse in the Harappan civilisation.
6. Such double standards are unacceptable, yet have dominated the sub-theme of the
horse in the Aryan debate.84
Let us close our equine excursion with the curious case of two horse skeletons found at a
cemetery at Katelai, a site in northern Pakistan’s Swat valley which is part of the cultural
complex known as the Gandhara Grave Culture (GGC), initially dated to a period between

the Al/MT camp, which they did not let pass. (Needless to add that my own response to the Frontline articles
was not published).
80. Bökönyil, ‘Horse Remains from the Prehistoric Site of Surkotada, Kutch, Late 3rd Millennium B.C.’
81. Meadow and Patel,’ A Comment on “Horse Remains from Surkotada” by Sándor Bökönyil.’
82. Ibid. p. 314.
83. Thapar, The Penguin History of Early India, p.85. (Thapar writes, ‘The claim that horse bones occur at
Surkotada, and at a few other sites at earlier levels, has met with doubt, the bones being identified as those of
the ass and the onager’-identified by whom? Not by the archaeozoologists who were called to identify those
sites’ faunal remains, and who, on the contrary, certified them to belong to the true horse.)
84. All references concerning the horse issue can be found in the three write-ups in footnote 76 above.
1700 and 200 BCE. This is a region which immigrating Aryans would have necessarily crossed,
and the above dates encompass their assumed arrival. It is no wonder, therefore, to find the
respected Indo-Europeanist J.P. Mallory (among many other scholars) referring to these ‘ two
horse burials as well as horse-trappings from the Gandhara Grave culture’; besides, the location
‘makes an excellent fit with the geographical scene depicted in the hymns of the Rig Veda and it
does so at the expected time.’85 So have we not, finally, found the long-sought-for evidence? Other
scholars echoed Mallory: Elena E. Kuz’mina noted how ‘only in the post Harappan period in India was
horse breeding and the horse cult documented by ritual horse burials or their images in Swat
(Katelai)…’86 Suraj Bhan spoken of ‘horse burial associated with humans at Katelai…[a] characteristic
feature ‘87 of the GGC; Upinder Singh noted how ‘the site of Katelai yielded two burials of horses along
with their masters.’88
The evidence does seem foolproof – and yet it does not exist. There are no ‘horse burials’
whatsoever at Katelai, much less ritual ones. No horses were buried ‘with their masters’. The
two ‘horse burials’ were actually plain horse skeletons, with no associated grave goods; they
were found in upper layers of the Katelai cemetery and had no apparent connection with its
human graves.89 Finally, these upper layers are datable to the first half of the first millennium
BCE, at least five centuries after the Aryans’ supposed arrival in the region –they can have
nothing to do with it.
What of Mallory’s ‘horse trappings’? To the best of my knowledge, they also do not exist;
rather, one iron horse bit was found at the GGC site of Timargarha; however, it too belongs to a
late period, the ‘eighth-seventh centuries B.C.’90
It is sobering to find so many learned scholars building castles on the shifting sands of
misinterpreted, over interpreted or invented evidence.
Ethics and Archaeogenetics
We are told, too, that the study of ancient as well as modern human DNA has opened a ‘new
science of the human past’91 that will soon rewrite all human history. Quite possibly, although
how soon and how completely is anyone’s guess. Despite brilliant beginnings 92 and rapid
technological developments, archaeogenetics, as the discipline is now often called, is still in its
infancy. Its answers often conceal deep methodological issues (and pitfalls), which often elude

85. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p.47.

86. Kuz’ mina, The Origin Of the Indo-Iranians, p 114.
87. Bhan, North India Protohistory and Vedic Aryans, p. 175 (emphasis added).
88. Singh, History of Ancient and Early Medieval India, p. 212 (emphasis added).
89. Azzaroli, Two Proto-historic Horse Skeletons from Swat, Pakistan, pp.353-357.
90. Dani, Gandhara Grave Complex in West Pakistan, pp.107,109.
91. Such is the subtitle of a recent book, Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science
of the Human Past.
92. Cavalli-Sforza, Genes, Peoples and Languages, was among the early attempts to retell the story of human evolution
with the tools of genetics.
professionals in the field, as they deal with the perennial problem of trying to match an group
(now identified through a set of) I believe that Upinder Singh, a scrupulous historian and author, did
not intend to invent evidence and must have recycled this ‘fact’ from some other author. Such ‘recycling’
of misinformation has been an all-too-common practice in the AI/MT literature genetic markers
constituting a ‘haplogroup’) with a language and a culture. It is always easy to forget, despite
decades-old warnings,93 that these three categories are largely independent: carriers of a
particular marker need not have spoken a single language; conversely, one language may have
been spread across several haplogroups; the same holds true of language vs. material cultures,
and of genes vs. material culture. There are other issues, such as circular reasoning (the Indo-
European concept and expansion is often accepted a priori, then confirmed); an almost exclusive
focus on migrations as the main agent of history, disregarding alternatives such as long-term
interactions and exchanges; and stubborn biases-e.g., in the case of India, the
unidirectionalityof migrations: into the subcontinent, never out of it, even though multiple
instances of emigrations are historically attested.94
There is no doubt that these issues will sort themselves out in the long run. In the
meantime, the field offers unscrupulous proponents of AI/MT a new opportunity for
shortcuts.
An extreme case is the publication in 2018 of a sensational cover story in a leading English-
language Indian magazine, authored by the magazine’s managing editor. 95 The title screamed,
‘4500-year-old DNA from Rakhigarhireveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists.’
From a single DNA sample taken from asingleskeleton at the important Harappan site of
Rakhigarhi (in Haryana), the journalist, Kai Friese, informed us that the specimen lacked a
certain genetic maker (R1a1), which he said was ‘often loosely called the “Aryan gene”;’
therefore Harappanscould not have been Aryans, which in turned established the truth of
AI/MT. The article was deeply flawed on several counts:
1. The concept of an ‘Aryan gene’ (‘often loosely called’ by whom, except for the article’s
author?) is a scientific monstrosity that calls to mind the erstwhile ‘Aryan race.’ Any
identification of its modern equivalent (thehaplogroup R1a1) with an ‘Aryan’ identity
will be equally illegitimate.
2. The article was based on a study in progress, in with no technical paper published,
submitted, or even written as the time the article was written; this in itself reflects poor
journalistic values.96

93. Boas,Race, Language and Culture. This 1940 work of U.S. anthropologist Franz Boas remains relevant in clearing
the persisting confusion and conflation between those categories (today, we could substitute ‘Genetics’ for
‘Race’).
94. For a fuller discussion, seeDanino, ‘Methodological Issues in the Indo-European Debate.’
95. Friese, K. ‘4500-year-old DNA fromRakhigarhi reveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists.’
96. Some of the study’s collaborators were quite unhappy with the India Today article, as they stated in a discussion
meeting on ‘Human Diversity and Ancestry in India’ held in Bengaluru on 19-21 September 2018.
 3. A study based on single specimen cannot have any significance, especially when it has
long been known that Harappan civilisation was multiethnic (its geographical expanse
alone would have ensured that, apart from several bioanthropological studies of
Harappan skeletons).
4. The only geneticist interviewed in the article admitted that the specimen’s YDNA was
incomplete, opening any conclusions on missing markers to challenge. Indeed, he
admitted, ‘that the fact that haplogroup R1a did not show up in the Rakhigarhi sample
could be attributed to the limited amount of genetic data retrieved.’
5. The article’s author, who posed as an expert on the Harappan civilisation, was not even
aware that a study of the stable-isotope composition of 44 teeth from at least 38
individuals at Harappa, and 33 teeth from 17 individuals at Farmana, just 90
kilometresaway from Rakhigarhi, had shown those individuals to be ‘composed almost
entirely of first-generation immigrants’97: the individuals buried were not local residents.
In other words, the cover story, published with fanfare and instantly relayed by dozens of
articles in the Indian and international press, blogs, Facebook posts and tweets, rested on the
preliminary study of an admittedly incomplete DNA sample from a single Rakhigarhi specimen
who may not have been a local resident at all! Of course, the article’s objective was not to enrich
our knowledge with a dispassionate study of the issues concerned, but to deal ‘Hidutva’ a
mortal blow, since, according to the author, an indigenous origin of the Aryans is an essential
component of ‘Hindutva’. Amasingly, the article predicted a ‘political backlash’ would follow
the study’s revelations, as well as ‘some exultation’ among those for whom ‘the fall of Delhi in
the 2014 election is seen as a calamitous replay of that fabled “Vedic Aryan invasion”. The
political backlash is still awaited (or did it come in the form of the 2019 elections?)
Journalism the world over has doubtless accustomed us to low standards of ethics, but this
piece must have set a new scale. Was Friese taken to task for it? Instead, he was rewarded with
the publication of a revised version of his article in a collection of papers by a few pro AI/MT
scholars, two of whom we have coincidentally met above.98
There are dubious arguments and practices at the professional end of the scale, too. 99 David
Reich, who has directed and co-authored a number of archaeogenetics studies in recent years,
and recently authored an eminently readable book on the subject, 100 Curious Worries about
‘Hindutva ideology’ too, which he mentions side by side with Nazism’s use ‘biologically based
nationalism.’ I should have thought that blame for Nazi-like abuses of the discipline should
rather be laid at the door of anyone speaking of an ‘Aryan gene.’ Be that as it may, Reich
implicitly admits a motivation to prove Hindutva wrong by establishing the genetic foundation

97. Valentine et al, ‘Evidence for Patterns of Selective Urban Migration in the Greater Indus Valley (2600-
1900B.c)
98. Friese, The Complications of Genetics’
99. Danino, Methodological Issues in the Indo-European Debate’
100. Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here.
for AI/MT. it is therefore no surprise to find him, while he attempts a synthesis of the South
Asian genetic picture, taking a number of shortcuts:
1. According to him, ‘In the Ring Veda, the [Indo-Aryan] invaders had horses and
chariots’-a fine example of circularity, since the said RgVeda, which Reich is unlikely to
have studied, never mentions ‘invaders’ in the first place.
2. Overnight (literally so, as he narrates in his book), Reich posited specific ancestral
groups, such as ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI) and ‘Ancestral South Indians’ (ASI),
illegitimate categories that largely contain their own built-in conclusions101 and
suspiciously look like a reincarnation of the exploded Aryan and Dravidian ‘races’.
3. The most problematic of Reich’s interpretations is perhaps his conclusion that the
Indo-Europeans’ ‘ major migration’ into India was an all-male affair: ‘males from
populations with more power tend to pair with females from populations with less. …
This pattern is exactly what one would expect from an Indo-European-speaking people
taking the reins of political and social power after four thousand years ago.’102 So
Reich’s ‘major’ migration of a ‘powerful’ population is a proper invasion, after all; we
are, once again, thrown back to the nineteenth century, when a ‘powerful’ Aryan race
was seen crushing and conquering Indian natives.
4. Importantly, Reich’s picture runs against the advances of archaeology and prehistory
over the last half-century, not just in India but in other parts of the world: a recent
article by Gideon Lewis-Kraus in The New York Times Magazine103 explains how ‘so
much of Reich’s world has conjured the notion of sweeping, wholesale replacements by
one population of another,’ while archaeologists and prehistorians find that such
simplistic massive population events do not square up with the models their disciplines
have painstakingly elaborated to account for the complexity of human prehistory.104
Lewis-Kraus’s article also raises a number of ethical issues, from the roping in of co-
authors to the reviewing process of papers publication; it is clear that the field is not

101. FOR a discussion of ANI and ASI concepts, see Danino,’ Genetics and the Aryan Issue,’ p. 58.
102. Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here.
103. Lewis-Kraus, ‘Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths – or Falling Into Old Traps?’
104. Linguists too, at times: ‘ The Australian linguist R.M.W. Dixon has given new life to the importance of
linguistic convergence, first advocated by Trubetskoy. Dixon convincingly argues that migrations, which
trigger linguistic (and cultural) divergence, are rare, the more normal situation being linguistic, and I daresay
cultural, convergence.’(Lamberg-Karlovsky , ‘Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians,’ p.74, internal
references omitted.) Another linguist, Johanna Nichols, challenged the migrationist model of linguistic
propagation: ‘Almost all literature on language spreads assumes, at least implicitly, either demographic
expansion or migration as basic mechanism, but in fact language shift is the most conservative assumption and
should be the default assumption. There is no reason to believe that the mechanism of spread has any impact
on the linguistic geography of the spread…’ (Nichols, ‘Modeling Ancient Population Structures and
Movement in Linguistics,’p.372.) Proponents of AI/MT have regrettably no use for such complex models,
though they are likely to be much closer to the reality; they prefer simplistic linear migrations.
 quite as ‘Scientific’ as it claims to be. Power games, after all, are not the exclusive of our
mighty Aryans.
Unethical Scholarship
Granted, any piece of archaeological or literary evidence may, and will, be the object of
differing interpretations, sometimes widely differing ones. There can be no dispute about that:
scholars should be free to put forth conjectures, provided the side conjectures are compatible
with the basic data and not too fanciful. What we have seen in this essay is a different
phenomenon: a number of players in the Aryan debate (I could have quoted many more)
indulging in unjustified over interpretation, invention of nonexistent evidence or data, among
other scholarly malpractices.
Another unethical practice, which runs through or underlies much of the above, needs a
special mention: that of demonisation. Most of those proponents of the AI/MT paradigm
quoted here tried to mislead the wider public into believing that critics of that paradigm must
be supporters of ‘Hindutva’105 (whatever they mean by that name, which more often than not
looks like a convenient bogeyman).This is perhaps the ultimate fabrication: as I pointed out at
the very beginning, the most cogent opponents of AI/MT have been respected mainstream
Western academics. In any normal, healthy academic debate, our proponents should have
offered detailed discussions of those objections to the Aryan paradigm. This has almost never
happened: we rarely find the former even acknowledging the latter’s existence, which ensures
that the Indian public remains ignorant of Leach’s or Kennedy’s or Shaffer’s or Demoule’s
work: a look at the bibliographies of essays by Romila Thapar, 106 IrfanHabib, R.S. Sharma or
Shereen Ratnagar, etc., is enough to establish this stonewalling strategy. If at all such scholars
have discussed the other camp’s theses, they have always been careful to pick its weakest
representatives, so as to turn them into objects of ridicule. Indeed, Indian critics of AI/MT
have often been stigmatised and branded, sometimes viciously so. 107
We find a parallel demonisation strategy in the case of the Sarasvati river, which I have had
occasion to flg.108 The charge here is that scholars who defend the existence of the river in
Vedic times and regard the Ghaggar-Hakra as its relic bed are guilty of ‘chauvinism,’ ‘jingoism,’

105. Sometimes also ‘Hindu right-wingers,’ as in Joseph , ‘How ancient DNA may rewrite prehistory in India.’
106. In a recent essay (Thapar, ‘Multiple Theories about the “Aryans”,’p.92),she does cite Edmund Leach in a
footnote listing several authors on the Aryan myth, but, unsurprisingly, fails to inform her readers that his
essay provided one of the most scathing criticisms of the whole Aryan paradigm, includingthe myth of an
invasion of Indian of India and the illegitimacy of reading history into the Rig-Veda. (In fact, Leach takes
Thapar to task at some point in his essay, p.242.) Moreover, as she did in a few earlier writing too, Thapar
subtly correlates critics of AI/MT (ones again stuck with the label of ‘Hindutva,’ p. 92) with Aryan
supremacists, in a complete reversal of the historical evolution of the Aryan myth: in India, it is the AI/ MT
camp that has ensured the myth’s survival, including the persistence of the perverse notion of an Aryan race
vs. ‘autochthonous’ and Dravidian races.
107. I choose not to build here a dismal list of such instances of branding; the curious reader will easily spot some
of them through a few Internet searches; Elst’s recent books also provide telling examples.
108. E.g. Danino, TheSarasvati River: Issues and Debates.’
‘nationalism,’ or of course are Hindutva supporters. This crude misrepresentation flies in the
face of over a century and a half of scholarship: it was in 1855 that a French geographer
established the river’s identity with the Ghaggar-Hakra; generations of Sanskritists, geographers,
archaeologists, all of them European initially, endorsed this identification. 109
Such below-the-belt strategies will of course backfire in the longer term; in the short term,
they have proved successful in stifling academic debate and creating a climate of scholarly
intimidation for those who might have wished to swing against the tide. Indeed, the very little
of it in the true sense of the term,110 and far too much ideology and politics instead.
Eventually, the Aryan issue – more properly speaking, the question of the origins of
Sanskrit, its speakers, Vedic texts and culture, and their relationship with other languages,
speakers and cultures of India at the time-will be resolved not through debate, but by
accumulating evidence from all the disciplines that impinge on the issue. Whatever the final
answer will be (and it is unlikely to be a simple one), the unethical practices indulged in by a
section of the pro-AI/MT camp will remain a blot on its scholarly image.
References
Agarwal, V. ‘On Perceiving Aryan Migrations in Vedic Ritual Texts,’ Purātattva, No.36, 2005-06, pp.155-165.
Agarwal, V. ‘Is there Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to Indian?’, Dialogue, VoI.8(1), July –
September 2006, pp. 122-145.
Agarwal, V.’What is the Aryan Migration Theory?’, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology, VoI2
(1), Summer 2005, pp. 1-46.

109. Danino, The Lost River, Ch. 1.

110. There are a few exceptions to this rule: Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo – Aryan
Migration Debate; Bryant and Patton, eds, The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian
History; Trautmann, ed., The Aryan Debate. However, the last two edited volumes, though valuable and with
excellent introductions, merely juxtaposed contributions from both camps and were not actual ‘debates.’
Such a debate was organized in January 2002 by the Indian Council of Historical Research; invitations were
sent (as the chairman announced at the inauguration) to scholars from various schools of thought; historians
of the AI/MT camp were duly invited , but none even had the courtesy to acknowledge the invitation (except
for R.S. Sharma, who excused himself ongrounds of poor health); the conference proceedings were published:
Tripathi, ed. A Discourse on Indo-European Languages and Culture.
Mention must however be made of a ‘Discussion Meeting on Human Diversity and Ancestry in India,’
organized by National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced
Scientific Research, and held at Bengaluru, 19-21 September 2018; the biologist ParthaMajumder and his
collaborators took great care to invite a wide range of scholars, and presentations as well as discussions took
place in a courteous atmosphere, despite inevitable disagreements; this was a
Shining exception to the rule, whose chief merit was to show that such debates among diverging
schools of thought are not superhuman feats. Papers based on the workshop’s proceeding are due
to appear in the July 2019 issue of Journal of Biosciences.
Alinei, A. ‘The Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm on Indo-European Origins: An Introduction in Progress,’ Updated
2009, Online at https://www.academia.edu/11765622/The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European
Origins.
Alinei, A.’Towards an Invasionless Model of Indo-European Origins: The Continuity Theory,’ in Papers from the
EEA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, Vol.1: Pre –and Proto history, M. Pearce and M. Tosi, eds. 1998,
pp. 31-33.
Aurobindo, Sri, The Secret of the Veda, Vol. 15 in The complete Works of Sri Aurobindo, Sri Aurobindo Ashram,
Pondicherry, 1998.
Azzaroil, A.’Two Proto –historic Horse Skeletons from Swāt, Pakistan,’ East and West, Vol. 25 3/4), September-
December 1975, pp. 353-357.
Ballester, X.’Linguistic Equilibrium in the Paleolithic: the Case of Indo-European,’ Acts of the X1Vth UISSP
Congress, Belgium,2-8 September 2001, BAR international Series 1302, 2004, pp. 85-91.
Ballester, X. ‘The Neolithic Discontinuity Paradigm for the Origin of European Languages,’ Philology, Vol. 1,
2015,pp. 151-173.
Bhan,S. ‘North Indian Protohistory and Vedic Aryans,’ Ancient Asia,Vol.1, 2006, pp. 173-178.
Bisht, R.S ‘Harappans and the RgVeda: Points of Convergence,’ in G.C. Pande, ed. Dawn of Indian Civilisation (up to
c. 600 BC), New Delhi, 1999, pp. 393-442.
Boas, F. Race, Language and Culture, New York, 1940.
Bökönyi, S.’Horse Remains from the Prehistoric Site of Surkotada, Kutch, Late 3 rdMillennium B.C.,’ South Asian
Studies,, Vo1. 13, New Delhi 1997, pp. 297-307.
Burrow, T. ‘ On the Word Arma or Armaka in Early Sanskrit Literature’,Journal of India History, Vol. 41, 1963, pp.
159-166.
Bryant, E.The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, New York,2001.
Bryant, E.F. and L.L. Patton, eds.TheIndo – Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, London, 2005.
Casal, J.-M. La Civilisation de I’ Indus etSeSenigmes, Paris, 1969.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. Genes, Peoples and Languages, London, 2001.
Chakrabarti, D.K. ‘ The Aryan Hypothesis in Indian Archaeology, ‘ Indian Studies: Past and Present, Calcutta, Vol. 14
(9),1968,pp. 343-358.
Chakrabarti, D.K. Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian Past, New Delhi, 1997.
Chakrabarit, D.K The Battle for Ancient India: An Essay in the Sociopolitics of Indian Archaeology, New Delhi, 2008.
Coningham, R.A.E. ‘Deciphering the Indus Script’, in S. Settar& Ravi Korisettar, eds, Indian Archaeology in Retrospect,
Vol. II, Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilisation, New Delhi,2000.
Coningham, R.and R. Young. The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE -200 CE, Cambridge,
2015.
Dales, G.F. ‘The Mythical Massacre at Mohenjo-daro, ‘ Expedition, Vol. 6(3), 1964v,pp. 36-43.
Dani, A.H.’Gandhara Grave Complex in West Pakistan,’ Asian Perspectives, Vol. 11, 1968.
Danino, M.’Flogging a Dead Horse: A rejoinder to R.S. Sharma. ‘Purātattva, No.37, 2006-07, pp. 94-103.
Danino, M. The Lost River: On the trail of the sarasvati, New Delhi, 2010.
Danino, M.’The Horse and the Aryan Debate,’ in D.K. Chakrabarti& M. Lal, eds,History of Ancient Indian, Vol.3: The
Texts, Political History and Administration Till c.,200 BC, New Delhi, 2014,pp.30-43.
Danino, M. ‘Genetics and the Aryan Issue.’ in D.K. Chakrabarti& M. Lal, eds, History ofAncient India, Vol.3: The
Texts, Political History and Administration Till c. 200BC, New Delhi,2014, pp. 44-64.
Danino,M. ‘Aryans and the Indus civilisation: Archaeological, Skeletal, and Molecular evidence,’ in Gwen Robbins
Schug and Subhash R. Walimbe, eds A Companion to South Asia in thepast, West Sussex, 2016, pp.205-224.
Danion, M.’ The Sarasvathi River: Issues and Debates,’ paper presented at a seminar on ‘Saraswathi the Lost River’
organised by INSA and Asiatic Society at Kolkata on 12 October 2017 (in press).
Danion, M. ‘Methodological Issues in the Indo-European Debate,’ Journal of Biosciences, Vol. 44 (3), July 2019 (in
press).
Danino, M. The Dawn of Indian Civilisation and the Elusive Aryans, forthcoming.
Domoule,J.-P.Maisoùsontdoncpassésles Indo-Européens?Le mythe d’ orgine de 1’Occident, Paris,2014.
Demoule, J. – P.’ ‘L’ idée d’uneracine Commune résulte d’un mytheidentitaire du XIX siècle,’ La Recherche, march
2015, pp. 83-85.
Demoule, J. – P. ‘ Les Indo-Europeens: un my the Scientifique?’Dossiers d’ Archeology, No.372, pp.60-63.
Demoule, J.-p.’ The canonical Indo-European model and its underlying assumptions, in K. Pozdniakox, ed, Faits de
Langues, Vol. 47: Comparatisme et reconstruction: tendancesactuelles, 2016, pp. 161-167.
Dhavalikar, M.K. ‘Archaeology of the Aryans, ‘ Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 87, 2006,
pp.1-37.
Dhavalikar, M.K., The Aryans: Myth and Archaeology, New Delhi, 2007.
Elst, K. Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, New Delhi, 1999.
Elst, K. Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan: Minor Wri ting on the Aryan Invasion Debate, New Delhi, 2007.
Elst, K. Still No Trace of an Aryan Invasion, New Delhi, 2018.
Franc fort, H, -p. ‘The Archaeology of Protohistoric Central Asian and the Problems of Identifying Indo-
European and Uralic-Speaking Populations,’ in Christian Capelin, et al.., eds, Early Contacts between Uralic and
Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, Helsinki, 2001, pp. 151-168
Franc fort, H. – P.’ La civilisation de I’ Oxus et les indo-Iraniens et Indo-Aryans ‘ in G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H.-P.
Francfort and X. Tremblay, Aryas, Aryans et Iraniens en Asia central, Paris, 2005 pp.253-328.
Friese, K.’ 4500-Year – old DNA from Rakhigarhi reveals evidence that will unsettle Hindutva nationalists, India
Today, 31 August 2018,https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/coverstory/story/20180910-rakkhigrahi-dna-
study-findings-indus-valley-civilisation-1327247-2018-08-31 (accessed May 2019).
Friese, K. The Complications of Genetics,’ in R. Thapar, M. Witzel, J.Menon, K. Friese and R. Khan, Which of Us
Are Aryans/ Rethinking the Concept of our Origin, New Delhi, 2019, pp.119-134.
Gonda, J. Vedic Literature (Samhitas and Brahmanas), Wiesbaden, 1975.
Gupta, S.P, The Indus –SarasvatiCivilisation: Origins, problems and Issues, Delhi, 1996.
Habib, I. The Indus Civilisation, Vol. 2 in A People’s History of India, 2ndedn,New Delhi, 2003.
Jamison, S.W., and J.P. Brereton, trs, The Rig-Veda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India, 3 Volumes, New York, 2014.
Jha, D.N. Ancient India in Historical Outline, New Delhi, 2ndedn, 1998.
Johansen, P.G.’ Recasting the Foundations: New Approaches to Regional Understanding of South Asian
Archaeology and the problem of Culture History,’ In Asian Perspectives, Vol. 42(2), Fall 2003, pp. 193-206.
Joseph, ‘How ancient DNA may rewrite prehistory in India,’ BBC News, 30 December 2018, Online at
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46616574 (accessed January 2019).
Kazanas, N. Indo-Aryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues, New Delhi, 2009.
Kazanas, N. Vedic and Indo-European Studies, New Delhi, 2015.
Kennedy, K.A.R. ‘Skulls, Aryans and Flowing Drains: The interface of archaeology and skeletal biology in the
study of the Harappa civilisation,’ in Gregory L. Possehl, ed.,Harappan Civilisation: A Contemporary Perspective,
1stedn, New Delhi, 1982, pp. 289-295.
Kennedy, K.A.R. ‘Trauma and Disease in the Ancient Harappans,’ in B.B. Lal and S.P. Gupta, eds, The Frontiers of
the Indus Civilisation, New Delhi, 1984, pp. 425-436.
Kennedy, K.A.R. ‘Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?’ in G. Erdosy,
ed.,The Indo –Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Berlin, 1995, pp. 32-66.
Kosambi, D.D.The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline, Delhi, 1960 (reprint 1972).
Kuz’ mina, E.E. The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, J.P. Mallory, ed., Leiden, 2007.
Lal, B.B. The Earliest Civilisation of South Asia, Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 1997.
Lal, B.B. The Homeland of the Aryans: Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna, New Delhi, 2005.
Lal, B.B,.TheRigvedicpeople: ‘Invaders’?/ ‘Immigrants’? or Indigenous? Evidence of Archaeology and Literature, New Delhi,
2015.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. ‘Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians,’ Current Anthropology, Vol. 43(1),
February 2002, pp. 63-75.
Leach, E.’ Aryan Invasions over the Millennia,’ in E.Ohnuki-Tierney, ed., Culture Through Time: Anthropological
Approaches, Stanford, 1990, pp. 227-245.
Lewis-Kraus, G.’Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths-or Falling Into Old Traps?’ The New York Time
Magazine, 17 January 2019, online at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-
paleogenomics.html (accessed May 2019)
Mahajan, V.D. Ancient India, New Delhi, 1999.
Mallory, J.P. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth, London, 1989.
Marcantonio, A.’ Introduction’, in A. Marcantonio, ed., The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status,
Monograph series 55, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Washington DC, 2009.
Marcantonio, A., and R. M Brady.’ Verner’s Law and the Indo-European Theory,’ privately circulated.
Meadow, R.H., andA. Patel.’AComment on “Horse Remains from Surkotada” by SāndorBökönyi,’South Asian
Studies, Vol. 13, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 308-315.
Misra, V.N. ‘Indus Civilisation and the RgvedicSarasvati,’ in A. Parpola and P.Koskikallio, eds, South Asian
Archaeology 1993, Vol. 2, Helsinki, 1994, pp. 125-142.
Otte, M.’Indo-Europeans Arrived in Europe with Modern Man,’ Philology, Vol.3, 2017, pp.43-55.
Parpola, A. Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge, 1994.
Piggott, S. Prehistoric India to 1000 B.C., Harmondsworth, 1950.
Possehl, G.L.’Sociocultural Complexity Without the State: The Indus Civilisation,’ in G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus,
eds, Archaic States, Santa Fe, 1998.
Rao, S.R. Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilisation, New Delhi, 1991.
Ratnagar, S.The End Of the Great Harappan Tradition, New Delhi, 2000.
Ratnagar, S. Harappan Archaeology: Early State Perspectives, New Delhi, 2016.
Reich,D. Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, New York, 2018.
Shaffer, J.G. ‘The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth and Archaeological Reality,’ in J.R. Lukas, ed., The People of
South Asia:The Biological Anthropology of India, Pakistan, and Nepal, New York, 1984, pp. 77-90.
Shaffer, J.G., and D.A. Lichtenstein. ‘South Asian Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Cultural Continuity or
Discontinuity,’ in A. Marcantonio and G.N. Jha, eds, Perspectives on the Origin of Indian Civilisation, New Delhi,
2013,pp. 232-258.
Sharma, R.S. Ancient India: A Textbook for Class XI,New Delhi, 1982.
Sharma, R.S Advent of the Aryans in India, New Delhi, 1999.
Sharma, R.S. ‘Was the Harappan Culture Vedic?,’ Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology,
University of Allahabad, 1(2), Winter 2004,pp. 135-144.
Singh, U. History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12 th Century, New Delhi, 2008.
Thapar, R.’The Aryan Question Revisited,’ transcript of a lecture delivered on 11 th October 1999 at the Academic
Staff College, Jawaharlal Nehru University, available online at http://ascjnu.tripod.com/aryan.html(accessed
31.05.2019).
Thapar, R. ‘Hindustva and history: Why do Hindutva ideologues keep flogging a dead horse?’,Frontline, Vol. 17
(20), 13 October 2000. Pp.15-16.
Thapar, R. The Penguin History of Early India: From The Origins to AD 1300,New Delhi, 2002.
Thapar, R. ‘Multiple Theories about the “Aryans”, in R. Thapar, M. Witzel, J. Menon, K. Friese and R. Khan,
Which Of Us Are Aryans? Rethinkingthe Concept of our Origin, New Delhi, 2019,pp.29-93
Thomson, K., ‘A still Undeciphered Text: How scientific approach to the RgVeda would open up Indo-European
studies,’ The Journal of Indo –European studies, Vol.37(1&2), Spring / Summer 2009, pp.1-47.
Thomson, K., ‘Speak for itself’, Times Literary Supplement, January 8,2016.
Trautmann, T.R. Aryans and British India, Indian edn, New Delhi, 1997.
Trautmann, T.R.,ed. The Aryan Debate, New Delhi,2005.
Tripathi, D.N.,ed. A Discourse on Indo-European Languages and culture, New Delhi, 2005.
Valentine, B., et al. ‘Evidence for patterns of selective urban migration in the Greater Indus Valley (2600-1900 BC):
A Lead and Strontium Isotope Mortuary Analysis.’ PLoS ONE 10(4) eo123103, 2015, online at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id =10.1371/journal.pone.0123103 (accessed 31.05.2019).
Walimbe, S.R. ‘Population movements in the Indian subcontinent during the protohistoric Period: Physical
anthropological assessment,’ in M.D. Petragila and B. Allchin, eds, The Evolution and History of Human
populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics,
Dordrecht, 2007, pp. 297-319.
Walimbe, S.R. ‘Human Skeletal Biology’, in D.K. Chakrabarathi and M. Lal, eds, History of Ancient India, Vol.2:
protohistoric Foundations, New Delhi,2014, pp.333-343.
Witzel, M. ‘Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities’, in George Erdosy, ed., The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South
Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity, Berlin, 1995, pp. 307-352.
Witzel, M. ‘Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts,’ Electronic Journal of vedic
studies, Vol. 7(3), 2001, online at https://crossasia-Journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/ejvs/article/view/830/808
(accessed 31.05.2019).
Witzel, M. and Farmer S.’Horseplay in Harappa: The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax,’ Frontline, Vol.17 (20), 13
October 2000, pp.4-14.
Witzel, M. and S. Jamison, ‘vedic Hinduism,’ online publication: www.people.fas.harvard.edu / ~witzel/vedica.pdf
(accessed 31.05.2019).
For related materials, go to http://www.safarmer.com/downloads
 Abstract
Archaeologists have long claimed the Indus Valley as one of the four literate centers of the early ancient
world, complete with long texts written on perishable materials. We demonstrate the Impossibility of the
lost-manuscript thesis and show that Indus symbols were not even evolving in liguistic directions after at
least 600 years of use. Suggestions as to how Indus symbols were used are noted in nonlinguistic symbol
systems in the Near East that served key religious, political, and social functions without encoding speech
or serving as formal memory aids. Evidence is reviewed that the Harappans’ lack of a true script may
have been tied to the role played by their symbols in controlling large multilinguistic populations; parallels
are drawn to the later resistance of Brahmin elites to the later resistance of Brahmin elites to the Literate
encording of Vedic sources and to similar phenomena in esoteric traditions outside South Asia.
Discussion is provided on some of the political and academic forces that helped sustain the Indus-script
myth for over 130 years and on ways in which our findings transform current views of the Indus Valley
and literacy in the ancient world in general.

Background of the Indus-script Thesis

Ever since the first Harappan seal was discovered in 1872-3, it has been nearly universally
assumed that Indus inscriptions were tightly bound to language, the grounds of every major
decipherment effort (Possehl 1996) and a requirement of writing according to most linguists
who specialize inscripts (DeFrancis 1989; Daniels and Bright 1996s proat 2000). 2 Extensive

1. Contact information: Steve Farmer, Ph.D., Portola valley, California, saf@safarmer. Com; Richard Sproat,
Departments of Linguistics and Electrical and Computer Engineering, the Umiversity of Illinois and the
Beckman Institute, rws@uiuc.edu; Michael Witzel, Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard
University,witzel@fas.harvard.edu.
2. We can leave aside here loose definitions of ‘scripts’ (e.g.,Boone and Mignolo 1994:esp.13 ff.)that include
mnemonic systems like Mexican –style ‘picture writing’,Incan khipu,or Iroquois wampum, or early accounting
scripts that were not tightly coupled to oral language (Damerow 1999).As noted below,the Indus system
cannot be categorized as a ‘script’ even under such broad definitions oe the term , since the brevity of thew
inscriptions alone suggests that they were no more capable of performing extensive mnemonic or accounting
functions than of systematically encoding speech. On the multiple uses of the symbols, beyond the comments
at the end of this paper, see the extended analysis in Farmer and Weber(forthcoming).
efforts have been spent over the past 130years in attempts to identify the supposed language (or
languages) underlying the inscriptions, which are often said to hold the key to understanding
India’s earliestcivilisation (fl.c.2600-1900 BCE). A partial list of the scripts or languages that
have been tied to the inscriptions include Brahmi (ancestor of most modern South Asian
scripts),the Chinese Lolo (or Yi) script, Sumerian, Egyptian, proto-Elamite, Altaic, Hittite,
proto-Dravidian, early Indo-Aryan (or even Vedic Sanskrit),proto-Munda, Old Slavic, Easter
rongorongo,or some lost langu age or putative Indus lingua franca. Starting in 1877, over a
hundred claimed decipherments have made it to print; thorough debunking of past efforts have
not kept new ones from taking their place (Possehl 1996; Witzel and Farmer 2000). Speculation
regarding ‘lost’ Indus manuscripts began in the 1920s, when Sir John Marshall and his
colleagues created a global sensation by comparing Indus civilisation to the high-literate
societies of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Elam (cf. Marshall 1924, 1931; Sayce 1924; Gadd and
Smith 1924; Hunter 1929). The view that the Indus Valley was home to a literate civilisation has
been taken for granted ever since by nearly all historians, linguists, and Indus archaeologists
(e.g., Kenoyer 1998; Possehl 2002a). Occasional skepticism on this point is not noted even in
passing in book-length critiques of past decipherment efforts (Possehl 1996) or standard
reviews of deciphered or undeciphered scripts (Daniels and Bright 1996; Pope 1999; Robinson
2002). So far as most researchers are concerned, the image of a literate Indus Valley is an
incontrovertible historical fact. If that image were true, it should be noted, given the vast extent
of its archaeological ruins, the Indus civilisation would have qualified as the largest literate
society in the early ancient world-underlining the importance of the Indus-script story not only
for ancient Indian history, but for human history as a whole.
Dravidian and Indo-Aryan models
International expectations that a scientific decipherment was at hand reached their heights in
the late 1960s, when a high-profile Soviet research team led by Yuri Knorozov, whose early
work led to the later decipherment of Mayan, and a team of Finish linguists and computer
scientists led by the Indologist Asko Parpola, independently claimed that computer analyses of
Indus sign positions had “proven” that the inscriptions encoded some early form of Dravidian
(Knorozov 1965,1968; parpola, Koskenniemi, parpola, and Aalto 1969), ancestor of over two
dozen languages whose modern use is mainly retricted to central and southern India. The early
Finnish announcements, which were much bolder than those of the Soviets, were accompanied
by sample decipherments and claims that “secret of the Indus script” or Indus “code” had been
broken (Parpola, Koskenniemi, Parpola, and Aalto 1969:50; Parpola 1970: 91). The appeal of
this solution to Dravidian nationalists, the novelty in the 60s of computational linguistics, and
fresh memories of the role played by sign positions in deciphering Linear B made the Dravidian
theis the dominant model of the inscriptions for the next three decades. 3 It is easy in retrospect

3. Even John Chadwick, Michael Ventris’ collaborator in deciphering Linear B, was briefly convinced by the
Finnish announcements, whose effects on later Indus studies cannot be overemphasized; see Clauson and
Chadwick (1969, 1970). Ironically, Walter Fairservis, who at the time came close to being the first manjor
researcher to abandon linguistic views of the inscriptions (see Fairservis 1971: 282), was apparently converted
by those announcements, and in the last 20 years of his life became one of the most extreme of would-be
to spot the flaws in those claims: statistical regularities in sign positions show up in nearly all
symbol systems, not just those that encode speech; moreover, third-millennium scripts typically
omitted so much phonetic, grammatical, and semantic data, and used the same signs in so many
varied (or ‘polyvalent’) ways, that even when we are certain that a body of signs encoded
speech, it is impossible to identify the underlying language solely from such positional data.
Conversely, by exploiting the many degrees of freedom in the ways that speech maps to scripts,
it is possible by inventing enough rules as you go to generate half-convincing pseudo-
decipherments of any set of ancient signs into any language –even when those signs did not
encode language in the first place. The absurdity of this method only become obvious when it
is extended to large bodies of inscriptions, and the number of required rules reaches
astronomical levels; hence the tendency of claimed decipherments to provide only ‘samples’ of
their results, prudently restricting the number of rules to outwardly plausible levels. The
subtleties of the speech-to-text mapping problem are illustrated by the long line of world-
famous linguists and archaeologists, from Cunningham and Terrien de Lacouperie 4 in the
nineteenth century to Hrozny (the chief decipherer of Hittite) and Fairservis in the twentieth,
who convinced themselves over long periods that they had successfully deciphered the system--
-in over a half dozen different languages. It should finally be noted that claimed ‘positional-
statistical regularities’ in Indus inscriptions, which have played a key role in the Indus-script
thesis since G.R. Hunter’s 1929 doctoral thesis, have been grossly exaggerated, and can only be
maintained by ignoring or rationalising countless exceptions to the claimed rules. 5

decipherers. Cf. Fairservis 1971:282;1987;1992 and the summary discussion at http://www.safarmer.com/indus/

fairservis.html.
4. On Lacouperie, who introduced the first faked evidence into the Indus-script story, see Farmer 2003. On
other forgeries, most importantly Rajaram’s infamous ‘horse seal’, see Witzel and Farmer 2000.
5. Recent variations of these claims, which lay at the center of the Soviet and Finnish ‘decipherments’, show up
in Mahadevan 1986, Wells 1999, and many others. Two points here merit special comment. The first is that
positional regularities in Indus inscriptions are similar to those seen in countless non-linguistic sign syatems,
including the Near Eastern emblem systems discussed later and even modern highway and airport signs
displaying multiple icons (for illustration’s, see Farmer 2004a: 17-8). Similar comments can be made about
claimed directionality in the inscriptions. The fact that Indus inscriptions tended to be incised in one direction
or another, which is a predictable product of workshop habits, does not mean that they were meant to be
‘read’ in a fixed direction, although in some mythological inscriptions that was demonstrably the case (Farmer
and Weber, forthcoming). On the usual claim that the ‘script’ was normally ‘read’ right-to-left, see also the
acute remarks by Meadow and Kenoyer 2000: 338-9,n. 3. The second point is that the types of regularity
claimed in Indus inscriptions have been routinely distorted to support specific linguistic models of the signs,
especially following the work of the Soviets and Finns. Thus the claim is repeated often that positional
regularities in the symbols prove that the’script’ encoded an exclusively suffixing language (cf., e.g., Knorozov
1968, 1970; Parpola, Koskenniemi, Parpola, and Alto 1969: 20-1; Fairservis 1992; Mahadevan 1986; Possehl
1996: 164; 2002a:136) -which not coincidentally would rule out early Indo-Aryan or Munda languages, since
these included prefixing and (in the case of Munda) extensive infixing as well. However, even using the
Dravidian proponent’s own data (e.g., Mahadevan 1977: Table 1, 717-23), it is easy to show that positional
regularities of single Indus signs (and the same is true of sign clusters) are just as common in the middle and
at the supposed start (or right hand side) of Indus inscriptions as at their supposed end, which if we accepted
this whole line of reasoning could be claimed as evidence in the system of extensive infixing and prefixing—
 The failure of the Dravidian model to generate verifiable linguistic readings of a single
Indus sign has renewed claims in the last two decades that the inscriptions encoded some early
form of Indo-Aryan or even Vedic Sanskrit (cf., e.g., Rao 1982; Kak 1988; Jha and Rajaram
2000), reviving a thesis that can be traced to the first attempt to decipher an Indus seal
(Cunningham 1877). One corollary of recent versions of these claims is the suggestion that
Indo-Aryan was native to India and not a later import from Central Asia, as historical linguists
have argued for over 150 years on the basis of sound changes, word lending, and related
developments in Central Asian, Iranian, and Indian languages (for recent discussions, see Witzel
1999, 2003). A second corollary, Which is often invoked to support Hindhu nationalist
(Hindhuva) ideas, is the clain that Indus inscriptions embodied Hindhu traditions or can even
be identified with (much later) Vedic texts.6
Political motive linked to the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan models, typically obscured under a
thick vener of ‘material’ scientific language. Have played an increasing large role in the Indus
script thesis over the last two decades. Evidence that Indus civilisation may have been intensely
multilinguistic, ironically undercutting both sides of this debate, is noted at the end of this
paper.
The Brevity of the Inscriptions
Just as political discussion of the “Indus script ‘heated up at the end of the twentieth century,
evidence was emerging from many directions that Harappan symbols could not possibly have
encoded speech or even served as extensive memory aids. Early hints that the Indus civilisation
objects carrying Indus symbols first turned up by the hundreds. Some 4-5,000 such objects are
known today on well over a dozen media-including steatite, faience, and metals seals, clay seal
impressions poets, potsherds, copper plates, molded terracotta and copper tablets, incised shells,
ivory cones and rods, stone and metal bangles, metal Weapons, tools, rocks, and a miscellany of
other objects including a famous three-meter wide ‘signboard’ discovered in the urban ruins of
Dholavira (Bisht 1991, 9). All Indus inscriptions on every medium share one striking feature;
extreme brevity. The longest on one surface has 17 symbols; less than 1/ 100 carry as many as
10. Many Indus inscriptions-if ‘inscription’ is really an appropriate term-contain only one or

ironically ruling out Dravidian as a linguistic substrate. One of the strangest sides of the Indus-script myth is
the fact that claims like this have been passed on from writer to writer uncritically for so long that the thesis
that the “script makes extensive use of suffixes, but neither prefixes nor infixes” has even been suggested in
an otherwise harsh critique of past decipherment efforts as part of a “common ground” of ideas on which
further research might proceed (Possehl 1996:164).
6. The origins of these ideas, minus their political overtones, can be traced again to the 1920 s, when Marshall
(eg., 1931,I: chapt 5) claimed that extensive parallels existed between the contents of Indus inscriptions and
much later Indian sources (involving, for example, Marshall’s notorious’ ‘proto-Siva’ seal), extending not only
to Vedic but even to medieval times. Similar tendencies show up in Western ‘ Dravidianists’ including Parpola
(e.g., 1970,1994: esp chapts, 10-4) as well as in Hindhutva supporters of the Indo-Aryan model. Similarity
native backers of the Dravidian thesis (e.g., Mahadevan 1970, 1999; Madhivanam, 1995) imagine extensive
parallels between Indus inscriptions and much later Tamil traditions, whose locus in historical times lay some
two thousand kilometers from the Indus Valley.
two Symbols; the average length of the 2,905 objects carrying Indus symbols catalogued in
Mahadevans standard concordance is 4.6 signs long.
The absence of long Indus inscriptions on any medium is unparallel in an literate
civilisation represented by even a fraction of the number of inscriptions in the Indus corpus.
One body of inscriptions inviting comparison is written in the largely undeciphered Linear
Elamite script, which was briefly used in the last half of the twenty-second century by the
Harappans’ closet literature neighbours (see, eg., Andre and Salvin 1989, Potts 1999). Only 21
(or possibly 22) Linear Elamite inscriptions are known today, 7 most of them are longer than the
longest of the known-4-5,000 Indus inscriptions. Despite their tiny numbers, Linear Elamite
texts of significant length show up on many durable objects on which we expect such texts
from literature civilisations: length show up on many durable objects on which we expect such
texts from literature civilisations: on sculptures, votive boulders, stairways, and baked-clay cones,
disks, and tablets. One exquisitely

Figure 1. Right. an Indus sherd from a large broken jar crudely inscribed with a short group of symbols.
inscriptions of this type were normally made before and not after breakage, and when found on the
bodies of vessels typically carried oversised signs of the type illustrated here. The anthropomorphic
figure carrying two bows also shows up on Indus seal inscriptions, surrounded by plants and other
apparent agricultural signs (cf.Fig. 12). Below, a typical Egyptian hieratic ‘ostracon’ (a potsherd carrying
writing) and its transcription. The ostracon carries over 20 times as many signs as any known Indus
potsherd. The inscription, which deals with the distribution of supplies at Deir el-Medina (second
millennium BCE), is written in a rapid cursive style, reflecting its use in routine economic records. From
the Petrie Museum, UC 39648. Adapted from the Digital Egypt website, Cerny/ Gardner 1957 (ostracon
Petrie 50). The pictures are close to scale.

7. We are skeptical of claims that one small grave jar whose rim carries six symbols, discovered in 1969-70 at
Shahdad in S.E Iran (far the center of Elamite power, and closer than any other claimed contemporary
‘writing’ to the Indus Valley) is actually in Linear Elamite. Suggestion that pseudo-decipherments of the Indus
type are part of a wider problem are found in the fact that shortly after their discovery the distinguished
Irangologist W. Hinz offered a confident decipherment of the six signs, whose transcriptions vary widely in
the drawings provided by Hinz (1971), Vallat (1986, 2003) and Hakemi (1997) see Hakemis excavation report
(1997; 67) for a photo of the signs. 996:164).
rendered silver vase carries a solitary line of Linear Elamite that on its own is 21/2 times longer than any
known Indus inscription.
Perhaps the oddest Indus materials to lack long texts are potsherds, which were among the most
popular media for writing medium-size (and often quite long) texts even in ancient civilisations that
wrote extensively on perishable materials; the reason for their popularity lay in their easy availability and
in the fact that most perishable writing materials (including bark and palm leaves, which were favored in
later India) required elaborate preparation before they could be used. Inscribed Indus potsherds, most
of which have never been published, exist in very large numbers, but all of these differ radically from
those in any known literate civilisation: the average inscribed potsherd in fact carries far fewer than the
4.6 or so average signs found on Indus inscriptions as a whole. Moreover, with a few exceptions, Indus
inscriptions of this type were apparently made before and not after the pottery was broken, and when
located on the bodies of the vessels (as opposed to on the base or rim) tended to include
oversised symbols that few naïve observers would be tempted to classify as ‘writing’ (Fig. 1)
Good reasons exist for suspecting that at least some of these symbols may have represented
deities who were the intended recipients of offerings in the pots. The evidence overall makes it
impossible to credit claims that pottery or potsherds were used by Indus elites to “scribble
messages” to one another (Kenoyer 1998: 71), Let alone to write longer texts, as was
indisputably the case for over three thousand years throughout the Near East as well as in India
literate times.8
The Lost-manuscript thesis
Marshall and his collaborators were acutely aware of these problems, but publicly at least passed
over them as rapidly as possible, claiming instead the lack of long texts on durable materials as
positive evidence, as Marshall suggested in the late 1920s (Marshall 1931: 1, 39), that “Indus
scribes” must have written their long texts on “birch bark, palm leaves, parchment, wood, or
cotton cloth, any of which would have perished in the course of the ages.” The same strategy
was adopted in G.R. Hunter’s 1929 doctoral thesis (reprinted in Hunter 1934), which was the
first book-length study of the inscriptions; the work was composed while Hunter was in close
contact with Marshall and his colleagues. While all ‘writing’ from the Indus Valley discovered so
far shows up only on seals and a few other durable materials, Hunter notes,
It is obvious that the literature of this people was not confined to the 700 odd seals and
amulets etc. unearthed [by 1927]. The absence of lengthier documents among the finds
suggests that for ordinary purposes perishable materials were used. That clay was not among

8. Rare cases exist in which Indus symbols were apparently incised on potsherds after the pots were broken, but
the evidence again contradicts claims that the sherds carried ordinary ‘messages’. One six-symbol inscription
of this type is offered at the Harappa.com website (slide # 152) as potential evidence that shreds were used as
“ a form of ‘scrap paper’ to send notes or serve as temporary records”, but on close inspection we find that six
signs cover a space on the miniature sherd less than 2.5 cm wide. The tiny size of the inscription, suggestions,
that the shred was reshaped before use, and study of the six signs suggest that the artifact was a crude knock-
off of the steatite or faience ‘miniature tablets’ found in large quantities in Harappa, which had still uncertain
ritual or administrative uses. On these inscribed artifacts, which were long mistaken for the earliest
inscriptions known, see the important recent study by Meadow and Kenoyer (2000).
them has already been inferred. Perhaps they utilised skins, as Herodotus tells us the
Phoenicians did, perhaps papyrus or silk (Hunter 1929: 18-9). 9
Following its casual birth, the lost-manuscript thesis has been repeated frequently ever since,
with the suggestion often added that there once existed a “vast collection of writing on less
perishable materials than stone and baked clay” (Dales 1967; cf. Elst 2000), implying the
potential existence of buried libraries or archieves. The presumed output of the Harappans is
sometimes compared to that of the ancient Near East or premodern Mesoamerica (cf., e.g.,
Parpola 1994: 54; Postgate, Wang, and Wilkinson 1995) or, in studies heavily influenced by
Hindhutva ideology, with that of much later Vedic traditions (Jha and Raja ram 2000; Elst
2000).
While in recent decades many researchers have carefully sidestepped whole issue – leaving
the question of how the Indus Valley was ‘literate’ oddly unaddressed-the possibility is normally
left open that long texts might someday materialize (cf., e.g, Possehl 1996: 2002: a: 135),
presumably conserved in Protected environments, like the early Buddhist manuscripts recently
found in or near former Indus territories, or far older Aramaic texts (written on leather and
wood) recently discovered in Bacteria.10
Even Fairservis, who never endorsed the lost-manuscript thesis, in his early writings
acknowledged the possibility that [long]tablets might someday be discovered (Fairservis 1971:
282), and in this later works left no doubt, long texts or not, that he believed that the Harappans
possessed a fully enabled script that was capable in principle of producing such texts (Fairservis
1987,1992).
The first direct challenge to the lost-text thesis emerged from recent predictions of a
general model of the evolution of manuscript traditions, whose origins lay in cross-cultural
studies of premodern Indian, Chinese, and Western thought (Farmer, Henderson, and Witzel
2002; cf. Farmer 1998). The model traces parallels in the long-range patterns of growth in
premodern religious, philosophical, and cosmological systems to a combination of
neurobiological and literary forces; one of the latter involved repetitive attempts by scribes to
harmonize conflicts accumulating over long periods in strafied manuscript traditions. The
absence of expected byproducts of these processes in Indus artifacts and in the oldest layers of
Vedic sources suggests that no written texts (not even in the sense of fixed oral ‘texts’ of the
later Vedic type)showed up in northwest India until long after the fall of Harappan civilisation.

9. Hunter goes on to suggest that some signs on seals are “splayed at the extremities”, supposedly suggesting the
influence of painted manuscripts, but not even his own drawings offered to back this claim (Plate 1,
nos.89,301, 409) provide evidence of this, and his thesis has no serious supporters.
10. On the Buddhist manuscripts, which date from the early common era, see Salomon 1999. On the older
Aramaic texts, dating reportedly to the fourth century BCE, see Shacked 2004. It is worth noting that even the
jars that preserve the Buddhist manuscripts discussed by Salomon much longer than any inscriptions in the ‘
Indus script’. The earliest Tamil inscriptions, recently collected in a major study by Mahadevan (2004), are
also far longer than any known Indus inscriptions.
 This theoretical suggestion can be tested empirically by searching in Indus remains for
archaeological markers of manuscript production, guided by finding in ancient civilisations that
we know for sure wrote extensively on perishable media. Civilisations in this class include those
of the Egyptians, Chinese, Neo-Assyrians, Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Hebrews, Greeks,
Etruscans, Romans, Mesoamericans, and Indians after writing was introduced in northwest
South Asia (by the Persians) around the middle of the first millennium BCE. The most
important markers of manuscript production in these societies include finds of long texts on
pots, potsherds, vases, and similar durable goods; long inscriptions on cave walls or cliff faces,
frescoes, stelae, statues, stairways, plaques, cylinders, bricks, buildings, and similar media;
unambiguous 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.
Findings of markers like these have confirmed the existence of manuscript traditions in a
variety of civilisations in which not a trace of perishable manuscripts have survived, most
notably in those of the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians. Sporadic claims of such finds in
Indus sites from the 1920s through 1960s (Mackay 1938; Dales 1967; Konishi 1987) are no
longer accepted by any active researchers, although one of Mackay’s least credible claims-
involving two small terracotta pieces of unknown use that reminded him of large wooden/
waxed writing tablets (Mackay 1938;1: 430) - has recently been revived in one poplar book
strongly influenced by Hindhutva ideas (Lal 2002: 135; for photos and discussion, see Farmer
2004a: 60). In contrast to the Indus situation, numerous remains of ancient wooden/ waxed
tablets (not at all resembling these very small terracotta pieces) have been found in the Near East,
including several examples from the famous fourteenth-century BCE Uluburun shipwreck off the
coast of Anatolia (Payton 1991; Symington 1991; Pearce 1995; Maruzzi 2000). 11 Finds of
writing utensils from early historical times are also common not far from Indus territories, as
shown for example in Marshalls’ own reports of his long term excavations at Taxila (Marshall
1951).
The most obvious missing marker of Indus manuscript production is sufficient to close the
case: the complete absence of Indus texts of any length on durable goods, which show up in
abundance in every premodern civilisation that is also known to have written on perishable
materials. Ironically, some of the ancient world’s richest finds of this type show up again in
northwest South Asia-most dramatically in the thousands of rock and cliff inscriptions from
post-Indus times, written in at least ten languages or scripts, found in the passes of the upper
Indus Valley linking South Asia to China through one branch of the so-called Silk Road
(Jettmar et al. 1989-94; for longer inscriptions in this general region, cf. Marshall 1951; Salomon
1998, 1999).

11. The Uluburun examples are the earliest recovered artifacts of this sort, but literary references to such tablets
can be traced to the Akkadian Ur III period, at the end of the third millennium. See Symington 1991.
 A strong case can be made on this evidence alone that the Indus civilisation could not
possibly have been literate, If it had been, it would be the only known literate society in the
world, ancient or modern, that did not produce texts of significant length somewhere on
durable materials.
Paradoxical Sign Frequencies
In the absence of ‘lost’ manuscripts, the brevity of Indus inscriptions contradicts the old view
that the Indus Valley was home of one four major literate civilisations of the early ancient
world. A comparison of Indus sign frequencies with those in ancient scripts confirms a deeper
suggestion of this evidence: that the Indus system was neither able to (nor apparently meant to)
record speech, contradicting 130 years of claims that Indus symbols were part of a true ‘script’.
Estimates of the number of distinct Indus symbols vary, but most counts since the 1960s
have run from a little below to a little below to a little above 300-400 signs (Parpola,
Koskenniemi, Parpola, and Aalto 1969; parpola 1994; Mahadevan 1977; Faiservis 1992; possseh
l1996; Robinson 2002). Varying percentages of that number are typically represented as
‘complex’ or ‘compound’ signs that two or rarely three symbols in relatively straightforward
ways. One Canadian researcher, B. Wells (1999), counts over 600 signs by classifying far more
variants than other scholars as separate signs; the result of Wells ‘ procedure, which has been
widely criticised, is that 50% of his signs turn up only once S.R Rao (1982) went to the opposite
extreme arguing that mature Indus inscriptions included no more than 20 signs; Rao arrived at
this number by decomposing Indus pictographs into simple strokes that he associated in turn
with Sanskrit phonemes; the underlying aim was to suggest that the first alphabet was invented
in the Indus Valley by what Rao pictured as Vedic ‘scribes’. Rao’s views have no serious backers
today even among extreme Hindu nationalists, in part since the pictographs he decomposed in
this fashion often depiction obvious human or divine forms, plants, farm instruments, and
other recognisable objects.
Whatever the total counts of signs, all major studies agree that a small number of symbols
dominate in Indus inscription. Just four of 417 signs account for 21% of the 13,372 sign
occurrences in Mahadevan’s concordance, eight signs make up 31%; and twenty signs over 50%.
Parpola (1994: 78: cf. Possehl 1996) provides the some figures as Mahadevan. Wells (1999)
covers a different set of inscriptions than Mahadevan, and distinguishes hundreds of more
signs, But study of his raw data yields nearly identical results in the high-frequency range. Our
statistical studies of different classes of Indus inscriptions, including those dating exclusively to
the late-mature Harappan period (see infra), confirm that the dominance of high-frequency
signs is typical of all inscription types, and is not an artifact of the artificial conflation of
inscriptions of different classes in the existing concordances and catalogs.
 Figure 2. Cumulative frequencies of signs in various linguistic corpora. The horizontal axis represents
distinct signs ordered by decreasing frequency. The vertical axis represents the contribution of all signs
up to a given rank. Only the first 600 or so signs are mapped for scripts like Chinese that contain higher
numbers of signs. For the sources of our data, see n.12.
In the late 1960s, the Soviets (see especially Kondratov 1965) pointed to frequencies similar
to these in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and initially at least (the claim was dropped in Knorozov
1968) argued that deep links of some sort must have existed between the two systems. As Zide
and Zvelebil rightly suggest in their critique of the Soviet research (1976: 50-3), too many
variables exist in the structures of languages and in the ways speech maps to scripts to support
such a conclusion: the implication is that similar frequencies may have arisen in the two cases
from the interaction of different sets of variables. In Fig.2 we extend these findings to the non-
linguistic domain, comparing sign frequencies in the Indus corpus with those in a large body of
Scottish heraldic signs (encoded in the ‘blazon’ system used since the middle ages to analyze
coats-of-arms) and in various scripts.12 The near overlap of frequencies in the heraldic and
Indus symbol systems and in Egyptian hieroglyphs (and, to a lesser degree, in /Sumerian
cuneiform) underlines the fact that studies of general sign frequencies cannot reliably
distinguish scripts from non-scripts. Comparison of symbol frequencies in Chinese newspaper
headlines with those in Chinese news stories further suggests that sign frequencies in some
types of scripts may fluctuate widely in different classes of texts. 13 Claims that Zipf ’s laws (e.g.,

12. Sources of our data in Fig.2 include Mahadevan’s concordance (417 distinct signs in a corpus of 13,372
symbols); Well’s 1999 catalog of Indus signs (612 distinct signs in a corpus of 7,105 symbols); six Sumerian
texts from http:// www-etcsl. Orienl.ox.ac .uk ( 727 distinct signs [585 after we corrected for sign
polyvalency; see n. 19 below] in a corpus of 10,298 symbols): four hieroglyphic texts from http:// webperso.
iut.univ-Paris 8. fr/~ rosmord/archives (546 distinct signs in a corpus of 14,354 symbols);a selection of
Chinese newspaper stories from the Xinhua News Agency, available from the Linguistic Data Consortium
(1,312 distinct signs in a corpus of 13,000 symbols); a selection of newspaper headlines from the same source
(1,553 distinct signs in a corpus of 12,987 symbols); 2,069 coats-of-arms, encoded as blazons, from the
Mitchell Rolls, the Heraldic Society of Scotland, http://www.heraldry-Scotland. Co.uk/index. htm (838
distinct terms in a corpus of 18,300 total terms).
13. Variations like this can be far higher in Chinese and in mixed logographic and syllabic scripts than in ‘pure’
syllabaries or alphabets , in which phonetic and semantic data are not tightly coupled; one implication of this
finding for our present study is noted later.
by Landini and Zandbergen 1998) or statistical tests developed from studies of the deciphered
Phaistos disk (cf. Mackay 1965;Pope 1968; Robinson 2002: 308-11) can distinguish writing from
other types of symbol systems similarly fail, in part since many non-linguistic phenomena
follow similar statistical distributions.14
In general, statical overlaps like those seen Fig. 2 can be expected frequently whenever we
compare systems composed of a few common and many rare things, whether those systems
consist of linguistic signs, magical or heraldic symbols, gods in a polytheistic system, or
countless similar phenomena. Statistical studies of general sign frequencies can help us

14. We can skip discussion of Zipf’s law as a putative test of writing, since it is well-known that many non-
linguistic phenomena also follow so-called Zipfian distributions or hyperbolic scaling patterns (cf., e.g., Zipf
1949; Mandelbrot 1983; chapt. 38). On the other hand, the claim that Mackay’s methods provide such a test
requires some comment, since in early online discussions of the findings reported in this paper ( in the
summer of 2003) the Aegeainst Yves Duhoux and the Indus and Tamil epigrapher Iravantham Mahadevan
independently claimed that Mackay’s methods confirm the traditional Indus-script thesis. Those claims were
based on two errors in applying Mackay’s work. The first involved a misunderstanding of the goal of
Mackay’s methods, which were not originally proposed as a test of whether or not a corpus of inscriptions
encoded language ,but as a means of predicting from short text samples in apparent syllabifies or alphabets
(as noted above, Mackay’s original focus was on the phaistos disk) the total number of signs in those
syllabifies or alphabets. The formula that Mackay developed to make this prediction (Mackay 1965; Pope 1968;
Robinson 2002; 308-11) was based on empirical studies of a number of more-or-less ‘pure’ syllabaries or
alphabets none of which contained even 1/3 the number of signs typically distinguished in the Indus system.
In 1967, Maurice Pope (1968) did apply MacKay’s methods as part of series of proposed tests of whether or
not Cretan hieroglyphic seal inscriptions encoded speech; the point was to see if the results of Mackay’s
formula made sense when applied to Cretan hieroglyphs, which contain about the same number of signs
(roughly 100) found in many syllabaries. Pope concluded from his texts, bolstered by odd symmetries in
Cretan sign placements (not dissimilar from those we discuss later in the Indus system), that Cretan seal
inscriptions (as opposed to Cretan hieroglyphs on tablets) were not (or at least were not uniformly) encoded in
a true script. The result, which challenged claims going back to Arthur Evans’ work in the late nineteenth
century, has been a long debate on the nature of Cretan hieroglyphs that still remains unsettled (cf., e.g.,
Olivier 1996,2000). But again, Pope no more than Mackay claimed that Mackay’s formula provided a general
test of whether or not inscriptions encoded language, nor did he apply it to inscriptions like those in the
Indus corpus, which no serious researcher has ever claimed is encoded in a ‘pure’ syllabary or alphabet The
second error lay in the fact that Duhoux and Mahadevan both applied Mackay’s formula to all 13,372 symbols
in Mahadevan’s concordance ,and not to the small text samples (in all cases less than 1/25 the this size)
explicitly called for in Mackay’s work. By plugging into the formula the 417 Indus signs counted by
Mahadevan, and then applying the formula to the whole of the corpus, Mackay’s formula not surprisingly ends
up ‘predicting ‘that the total number of signs in the corpus is not a too distant from (but not all that close to
either) the data plugged into the formula (the formula applied this way ‘predicts’ that 540 Indus signs exist). If
we instead apply the formula to small text samples of the size called for the Mackay, the formula ‘predicts’
that the number of signs in the so-called script is well under half of Mahadevan’s 417 signs. (In our tests of
Mackay’s formula, we used sample texts of the appropriate size made up of a collection of Indus inscriptions
containing 10 or more signs, following procedures like those Pope used in his study of the similarity brief
Cretan seal inscriptions. ) The key point, as Pope also stresses, is that the results of Mackay’s formula are
highly sensitive to sample size. Beyond the fact that the formula works fairly well in many cases with simple
alphabets and syllabaries (on cases where it does not, see Pope 1968), it certainly cannot claim to be a general
test of whether or not a corpus of inscriptions encodes language. If we insist that it provides such a test, pace
Duhoux and Mahadevan, the Indus system fails that test miserably.
eliminate certain possibilities; for example, such studies can show that the Indus system could
not have been a Chinese-style script, since symbol frequencies in the two systems differ too
widely, and the total numbers of Indus symbols are far too few. But studies of general sign
frequencies by themselves cannot determine whether the Indus system was a ‘mixed’ linguistic
script like Egyptian hieroglyphis or exclusively a system of nonlinguistic signs.
Despite this limitation. we can distinguish the Indus system sharply from Egyptian
hieroglyphs and similar scripts if we approach the sign-frequency issue from a different angle.
High sign frequencies are normally fairly reliable markers of high levels of sound encoding in
scripts, reflecting sound repetition at some level in the underlying languages. In the
Mesopotamian scripts, contemporary with the Indus system, the smallest groups of encoded
sounds were full or partial syllables; in Egyptian scripts, which omitted vowels, the smallest
groups of encoded sounds were full or partial syllables; in Egyptian scripts, which omitted
vowels, the smallest units were consonants or consonant sequence; the earliest phonemic
(alphabetic) encoding did not appear until the second millennium. The dominance of high-
frequency signs in the Indus corpus is one reason why high levels of sound encoding are
normally posited somewhere in the system, most often (but not always) in the form of a full
syllabary; the apparent overlaps in general sign frequencies with Near Eastern scripts provide
one support for the common view that a full Indus Syllabary was invented at one time under
the direct or indirect influence of those scripts (cf.e.g., Pope 1965; Parpola 1970; Fairservis
1987; 201). Since the number of Indus signs is much larger than those expected in ‘pure’
syllabaries; a variety of whole-word signs (or logograms), determinatives, grammatical or
function signs, or even diacritics are often claimed to lie somewhere in the system, based again
partly on supposed Near Eastern parallels.
But all these views fall victim to a revealing paradox: the high sign-repetition rates in the
Indus corpus overall contrast sharply with low sign-repetition rates in individual inscriptions,
which suggest that little if any sound encoding existed in the system. This problem is nicely
illustrated in the longest Indus inscription found on a single surface, which contains 17 basic
signs (Fig.3).The inscription is typical of the Indus corpus in being composed largely of non-
repeating high frequency symbols 10 of the 18 highest frequency signs in Mahadevan’s
concordance show up in the inscription (11 of the highest frequency signs, if we follow Wells’
catalog), but not one of them shows up twice. Findings like this are not limited to the famous
seals, but extend to all inscription types and to the corpus as a whole: among the 20 highest
frequency signs in Mahadevan’s concordance, 10 have zero or near-zero repetition rates in the
entire 2,905 inscriptions covered in the Work.15 Sign-repetition rates in single inscriptions for
most of the remaining high-frequency signs are also anomalously low, and oddities in the spatial
distributions of the few signs that do regularly repeat in single inscriptions, some of which we
illustrate later, make it difficult to picture that any of them involved coding for sound. Most
importantly, nowhere in the Indus inscriptions do we find convincing evidence of the random –
looking types of sign repetition expected in contemporary phonetic or semi – phonetic scripts
(infra). In many ancient scripts, some high frequency signs can be expected to show up only

15. Among the 20 highest frequency signs in Mahadevan’s concordance, signs# 65, 72,249, and 336 never repeat
in any inscription and signs #99,123, 211,267,and 343 repeat only in one inscription each. A spot check of
photos of the inscriptions used to compite the concordance turns up a few more potential cases of sign
repetition, but those cases are exceedingly rare.
once in certain types of short inscriptions; in seal inscriptions or name lists, this is true of
gender determinatives and whole-word signs standing for titles or divine names incorporated in
humans names.16 But the finding that most high-frequency signs in a body of inscriptions as
diverse as those in the Indus corpus rarely if ever repeat in single inscriptions by itself suggests
that those inscriptions contained little if any phonetic coding.

Figure 3. M-314 a, a seal impression of the longest Indus inscription found on one surface. The Catalog
numbers, as in other illustrations provided below unless otherewise noted, refer to the Corpus of Indus
Seals and Inscriptions. The inscription is trypical of Indus inscriptions in consisting largely of no-
repeating high – frequency signs. Like most objects carrying Indus symbols, M-314 a is surprisingly
small, according to its excavators (in the 1920s) measuring a scant 1x.95 inches (2.54 x 2.41 cm,) in size.
Proponents of the Indus-script thesis often claim that the three ‘fish’ symbols clustered in the center of
the top row are ligatured versions of a single sign, despite the fact that the signs closely resemble fish
painted on Indus pottery; none of these three signs shows up twice on any known up twice on any known
inscription. The symbol on the far right of the second row (an apparent ard of primitive plow surrounded
by four sets of double marks) is known on firmer grounds to be a complex sign. For suggestions of the
symbolic sense of some of these signs, cf. Fig.12
A long line of researchers stretching back on the 1920s has suggested that phonetic
information may have been partly incorporated in the inscriptions by means of ‘ligatures’, or
small graphic modifications of signs, similar to those used in later Indian scripts (Marshall 1924;
1931: I, 40; Hunter 1929; Parpola, Koskenniemi, parpola, and Aalto 1969; Mahadevan 1986;
Fairservis 1992; Parpola 1994; etc). The best – known case of claimed ligaturing shows up in
the three high-frequency ‘fish symbols clustered at the top of the inscription in Fig.3, which
have often been represented as ligatured variants of a single sign (cf., e.g., Hunter 1929:71 ff.;
Parpola 1994: 275). Whatever thecase – suspiciously similar-looking fish show up in pictures on
Indus pottery (see Farmer 2004a:65) – even putative ligaturing factord in few high-frequency
Indus signs, and in all these cases (including these three ‘fish’ symbols) those signs again have
zero or near-zero repetition rates in single inscriptions. The result is that while so-called
ligatures undoubtedly did alter the symbolic meanings of Indus signs, it is hardly plausible to
claim that they factored in some generalised phonetic code. The same is true of all real or

16. Thus in a famous name list of 438 Habiru soldiers, written in Hurrian cuneiform in the mid second
millennium, every name starts with a male gender determinative, which not surprisingly shows up only once in
each name. For photos and transcriptions of this text, see Salvini 1996; on calculating sign –repetition rates in
transcribed cuneiform texts like this, which mask sign polyvalencies in the original documents, seen.19 below.
claimed ‘complex’ or ‘compound’ Indus signs, all of which also have zero or near-zero
repetition rates in single inscriptions.
To explain these low sign – repetition rates, Wells has suggested (oral communication, 2001)
that sign repetition in single inscriptions may have been avoided for aesthetic reasons, leading
when needed to scribal substitutions of alternate symbols that encoded the same sound
(homophonous signs). Some ancient scripts did contain many homophonous signs, but no
evidence exists that they were used for such systematic purposes, and internal evidence suggests
that practices like this were especially improbable in the Indus case. It is first of all difficult to
imagine that many homophonous sign could have existed among the small set of high –
frequency signs that dominate in Indus inscriptions; that improbability is increased by the fact
that these signs tend to appear in sign clusters that often exhibit close pictographic affinities, as
exemplified by the three high – frequency ‘fish’ signs seen in Fig. 3 and by the many Indus
symbols that appear to depict seeds, sprouts plants, and agricultural instruments, etc. (see, eg.,
Fig.12; cf. Farmer and Weber, forthcoming). Finally, as already noted, some Indus signs do
repeat in single inscriptions, sometimes including many repetitions in a row, which is difficult to
reconcile with speculation that sign repetition was supposedly avoided as part of a ‘scribal’
canon of stylistic elegance.
Comparison of Sign – repetition Rates with those in Ancient Scripts
The combination of high general sign frequencies and low repetition rates in single inscriptions
is inconsistent with what we expect from fully enabled scripts. In Fig.4, we illustrate more
typical findings using a fragmentary text written in the Luwian hieroglyphic script. The first
inscriptions in this logo syllabic (partly whole word, partly syllabic) system appeared in the mid-
second millennium in the Hittite Empire period; the latest show up in the Neo-Hittite era,
which extended down to c. 700 BCE. The degree to which the script in its earliest forms was
tied to spoken language remains controversial (cf. Hawkins 2000: Vol. 1, pt. 1, 4 ff; Woudhuizen
2004: 12-3 and passim) due to the many non-phonetic symbols that show up in early
inscriptions. (These signs are typically characterised logograms’, although their links to any one
language remain unproven). But while its developmental course remains uncertain, the evidence
is clear (as it is not in the Indus case) that the Euwian system possessed a fully syllabary at an
early date, although the inscriptions continued to contain many logograms up until the script
disappeared. Despite the complexities of the Luvian system, which includes many homophones
signs, a crude statistical analysis of sign-repetition rates in the Neo-Hittite Hama stones by
Hyde Clarke in the early 1870 s suggested that the system contained significant levels of sound
encoding, and hence qualified as a fully developed script.17 The random-appearing distributions
of repeating signs in the short inscription shown in Fig.4 is consistent with what we except of
logosyllabic scripts.

17. In Burton 1872: 1 Appendix 4. It is noteworthy that despite the fact that the Hama stones carry hundreds of
signs, Clarke felt it was necessary to rest the inscriptions statistically before convincing himself that they
encoded speech. In contrast, in the same period (the first Harappan seal inscription was discovered in 1872-3),
Cunningham felt confident based on the finding of one Harappan seal carrying six signs that he was dealing
with a fully developed script (cf. Cunningham 1877).
 Similar patterns of repeating signs also show up in Egyptian hieroglyphs, which similarity
consist of a mix of phonetic and non-phonetic elements. Due to the close overlap in general
sign frequencies that earlier found in large bodies of Egyptian and Indus inscriptions (Fig.2), it
is especially interesting to compare sign-repetition rates in single Egyptian and Indus
inscriptions of similar sizes and types. To facilitate such a comparison, we started with a set of
67 Egyptian cartouche texts, including all inscriptions of this class available from the same
digital archive from which we drew our longer samples of Egyptian texts. Cartouches refer to
oval enclosures that contain the names or titles of Egyptian kings; they are close to ideal texts
to compare with Harappan seal inscriptions, which Indus-script proponents often represent as
including similar data.
Figure 4. Part of a fragmentary Luwian inscription from the Neo-Hittite era; we
have circled a few of the inscription’s many repeating signs; the majority of
these are syllable signs, but we have also marked one determinative that repeats
three times; other sign repetitions not circled include additional syllabograms
and function signs that mark word beginnings or logograms. Despite the fact
that the Luwian system was a highly decorative and monumental script, none of
these sign repetitions contains any of the odd symmetries or duplications many
times in a row typical of the relatively small number of Indus signs that repeat in
single inscriptions.
For a transliteration and translation of the inscription, see Hawkins 2000: 1, pt. 1,
156-7 and pt.3, Plate 46.
Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, no.1913.914.
The 67 Egyptian cartouches contain 465 signs, with an average length of 6.94 symbols per
inscription; as in our sample of longer Egyptian texts, the most common signs in the
cartouches are phonetic symbol rather than logograms, determinatives, or function words.
For the purposes of our comparison, we prepared a matched corpus of Indus inscriptions
by taking the first 67 legible seal texts in the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions that include 7-8
signs; all of these inscriptions, which average 7.39 signs in length, come from Mohenjo-daro. As
a control, we included a similar matched set of seal inscriptions from Harappa, following
slightly different procedures to compensate for the smaller number of seals available from that
site; our second sample ranges from 6-13 signs in length, averaging 7.36 signs per inscription. 18
The results of our comparison are shown in Table 1. As expected of largely phonetic
inscriptions, the Egyptian cartouches contain high levels of sign repetition; in contrast, less than

18. To make up this second sample, we began by including all seal inscriptions from Harappa that we were
reasonably confident originally contained 7-13 signs and that were legible enough to show whether or not they
had sign repetitions; we identified 43 inscriptions in Vols. I and II of the Corpus that met these criteria. To
complete the 67 inscriptions needed for the matched sample, we then added in the first 24 inscriptions from
Harappa in the Corpus that carry 6 signs and meet similar criteria; these 24 inscriptions were drawn from seals
H-6 to H-592.
 The Collapse Of The Indus-Script Thesis
Egyptian Mohenjo- Harappan seals
cartouches Daro seals
Number of 67 67 67 inscriptions,
inscriptions inscriptions, inscriptions, 493 signs (average
and signs 465 signs 495 signs length=7.36 signs)
(average (average
length=6.9 length=7.39
signs) signs)
Total 48 8 7
repeating
signs in
single
inscriptions

Table 1. Sign repetitions in Egyptian and Indus inscriptions closely matched by size and
type. Overall sign frequencies in large samples of Egyptian and Indus inscriptions are nearly
identical, but sign repetition-rates in single inscriptions differ sharply, again contradicting
suggestions that significant levels of sound coding existed in the Indus system.
1/6 as many repetitions show up in the Indus inscriptions, despite the fact that the total and
average number of signs in those inscriptions is slightly larger than those in the Egyptian
sample.
These results once again clash with the standard view that the Indus system contained a full
syllabary or any other systematic type of sound coding. Similarly dramatic results show up in
every class of Indus inscriptions that we have tested, including most importantly in Indus bar-
seal inscriptions, which superficially look more like “writing’ than any other Indus inscription
type (see fig.5). the 78 bar inscriptions from Harappa included in the first two volumes of the
Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (H-129 to H-162 and H-639 to H-682) contain a single
isolated example of sign repetition, and that shows up in a short inscription that few observers
would be tempted to claim encoded sound (see H-150 a in Fig.6). a larger number of repetitions
show up in bar seals from Mohenjo-Daro – due mainly to duplications of a single commonly
doubled sign (illustrated in Fig.6 in M-382 A) – but the repetition rates are still far lower than
those expected in contemporary scripts (the numbers are similar to those in Table 1, which
includes data from some of these inscriptions). The evidence against phoneticism in Indus bar
inscriptions is especially important, since recent stratigraphical work from the Harappan
Archaeological Research Project (HARP) (Kenoyer and Meadow 1997) and Dholavira
(Bisht1998-9:23) both date these seals exclusively to the end of the civilisation, which suggest
that the Indus system was not even evolving in linguistic directions after at least 600 years of
use. Since we know that Indus elites were in trade contact throughout those centuries with
Mesopotamia, if the Harappans really had a script, by this time we would expect it to have
possessed significant phoneticism, as always assumed. (The usual claim is that the system was a
‘mixed’ script made up of sound signs, whole-words signs, and function signs, like the Luwian
system, cuneiform, or Egyptian hieroglyphs).
 The implication is that the Indus system cannot even be comfortably labeled as a “proto-
script’, but apparently belonged to a different class of symbols: it is hardly plausible to argue
that a proto-script remained in a suspended state of development for six centuries or more
while its users were in regular contact with a high-literate civilisation.
In theory, one could argue that the Indus symbol system was a primitive whole-word or
logographic script, adopting a model briefly proposed (but quickly dropped) in the most
famous claimed decipherment of the system, announced by Parpola and his coworkers in 1969.
One of the many problems with this approach lies in the small number of signs that dominate
in the system: even if we took into account the hundreds of rare signs that that show up only
once or twice in thousands of Indus inscriptions, on a whole-word model the system’s semantic
range would be smaller than that of a typical three-year-old child, or even of chimpanzees
taught to sign words in the Laboratory (Gardner and Garner 1998).

Figure 5. M-375-A. A typical bar seal from Mohenjo-Daro (flipped horizontally to illustrate how it would
appear as a seal impression). Following normal definitions of Indus signs, the inscription contains 7 non-
repeating symbols, 6 of which are among the 20 highest-frequency signs in the Indus corpus. This class
of inscriptions, from the late-mature Harappan period (Harappa period 3C), includes some of the
longest and most sophisticated inscriptions from the Indus Valley.
That range could be extended a bit by the use of systematic punning or so-called ‘rebus’
writing, which has factored in one way or another in the Indus-script thesis since the 1920s(cf.,
e.g., Hunter 1929; Heras 1953; Parpola, Koskenniemi, Parpola, and Aalto 1969: Fairservis 1992;
Parpola 1994; Possehl 1996;etc.). Punning played a large role in all premodern civilisations, and
it is reasonable to assume that free word play or ‘casual phoneticism’ of some sort may have
factored in the day-to-day interpretation of Indus symbols. But the fact that those symbols
exhibit far lower sign –repetition rates in single inscriptions than those normally found in
contemporary scripts, all of which already depended heavily on punning to extend their
linguistic range, suggests that comparable result in the Indus case could only be achieved by
unprecedented use of that method, resulting in such high sign poly valencies that the system
could hardly qualify as an even halfway unambiguous ‘script’. 19 A further argument against the

19. The high levels of polyvalency typically found in third-millennium scripts are highlighted by the problems that
you face when trying to calculate sign frequencies from transliterated cuneiform texts, in which some signs
may be rendered a dozen or more ways depending on the transcriber’s interpretation of those signs’ intended
sound or whole-word values. (Thisis not a problem when working with Egyptian hieroglyphs, which are
thesis that the system made extensive use of punning lies in the high level of pictographic
coherence already noted in the system, which suggests that the pictographs were chosen for
their iconic and not sound values.
It is sometimes claimed that any oddities in Indus signs frequencies might simply reflect the
‘specialised’ nature of the surviving inscriptions: a more reasonable range of frequencies might
be expected if a ‘normal’ range of texts had survived (Kak 1988; Possehl [citing John Baines]
1996: 93: 2002a: 135). But in the absence of ‘lost’ Indus manuscripts, no grounds exists for
assuming that the dozen or more different types of surviving inscriptions do not represent a
reasonable cross-section of Indus symbol use. Different high-frequency symbols do show up
more often in some types of inscription than others, but this only provides further proof that
the symbols did not encode speech, since while we expect frequencies of whole–word or non-
linguistic signs to vary in different types of inscriptions, radical variations of this type are not a
normal feature of largely phonetic scripts (above, p.28 and n.13).
Finally, it should be noted that none of the relatively small percentage of Indus inscriptions
that do repeat signs contain any suggestions of sound encoding. The most common types,
illustrated in Fig.6, involve duplications of the same sign up to four (and occasionally more)
times in a row (cf., e.g., M-1123 a, H-764 B) that at times imply some type of quantification. 20 A
less common type involves symmetrical sign placements that appear to be decorative or
symbolic in nature (e.g., M-373 a, H-598e), which are similar to the symmetries that led Maurice
Pope long ago to question the linguistic nature of Cretan hieroglyphic seal inscriptions (Pope
1968; Olivier 1996). An even rarer type involves duplications of a small subset of signs
apparently to emphasize their magical or political power; the most extreme case of this type
shows up (surely not coincidentally) on the giant Dholavira ‘signboard,’ which repeats what
some inscriptions suggest is a sun/power symbol four times. finally, suggestions exist that a
small number of longer inscriptions that repeat signs or groups of signs may have been formed
by combining two originally separate but similar inscriptions in a cartouche-like fashion,
possibly involving some sort of social alliance.21 Whatever the origins of these different types
of duplications, all that is critical for our purpose is to note again the lack of any suggestions in
them of them of the random-looking repetitions typical even of monumental scripts like
Luwian or Egyptian hieroglyphs.

normally transliterated into modern signs in a one-to-one fashion.)the result is that accurate sign frequencies
can only be calculated from transcribed cuneiform when sign lists are made available that allow correction for
symbol polyvalency; we used a list in correcting for polyvalency in the Sumerian texts used in Fig.2 (see n. 12).
20. This can be demonstrated in the case of the tripled sign in H-764 B, which is known to represent a sacrificial
bowl. The identification is confirmed by studies of mass-produced inscriptions (e.g. M-478 A, not shown) in
which we find the sign in both abstract and pictorial forms in unambiguous sacrifice scenes.
21. Cf. the fragmentary M-682 as one example of this rare type of repetition.
 Figure 6. Examples of the most common types of Indus sign repetition. The photos are not all to scale.
The most frequent repeating Indus symbols is the doubled sign illustrated in M-382 A, which is
sometimes claimed to represent a field or building, based on Near Eastern Parallels. The sign is often
juxtaposed (as here) with a human or divine figure carrying what appears to be one (or in several other
cases) four sticks. M-634 a illustrates a rare type of sign repetition that involves three duplications of the
so-called wheel symbol, which other evidence suggests in some cases served as a sun/power symbol; the
sign shows up on less than four times on the badly deteriorated Dholavira signboard (not shown), which
apparently once hung over (or guarded?) the main gate to the city’s inner citadel. The colour photo of
MD-1429 is reproduced from M. Kenoyer, Anient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford 1998), p. 85, exhibition catalog number MD 602. The sign on either side of the
oval symbols in the inscription is the most common symbol in the Indus corpus, making up
approximately 10% of all symbol cases; despite its high general frequency, repetitions of the symbol in
single inscriptions, of the kind seen here, are relatively rare.

Unique Signs (‘singletons’) and Low-frequency Signs

Further evidence that clashes with the Indus-script thesis shows up in the large number of
unique symbols (or’singletons’) and other rare signs that turn up in the inscriptions (cf.Simpkins
1997). 27%of the 417 signs in Mahadevan’s concordance occur only once in 13,372 sign
occurrences; 52% show up five times or less. There are reasons to suspect that even these often
repeated figures (cf., e.g., Parpola 1994; Possehl1996) are too low, since Mahadevan groups a
number of rare signs of doubtful identity and counts every inscription mass-produced in molds
separately, masking any singletons or low-frequency signs found in those inscriptions. 22 Counts
of singletons and rare signs are even higher in Wells’ 1999 catalog. Wells distinguishes over 600
distinct signs in 7,165 sign occurrences, 50% of which show up only once; 75% show up five
times or less. Since Wells ‘clumps’ far fewer variants than earlier researchers, we would expect
these percentages to rise to even less plausible heights if his catalog included more inscriptions.
Some rare Indus symbols can be legitimately classified as ‘complex’ signs, which in principle
could have allowed their sense to be deduced from their more basic components. But the
majority do not belong to this class, and their forms are normally too abstract to expect that
their meanings could have been guessed from pictographic clues. A number of inscriptions also
contain more than one singleton in addition to other rare signs, making it difficult to imagine
how those signs could have possibly functioned in a widely disseminated ‘script’ (Fig.7). Even
odder than their absolute of discoveries. If Indus symbols were part of a genuine script, we
would expect the percentages of singletons and other rare signs to drop as new examples of
those signs showed up in new inscriptions. Paradoxically, those percentages appear to be rising
instead over time, suggesting that at least some Indus symbols were invented ‘on the fly’ only to
be abandoned after being used once or a handful of times. Our studies of large numbers of
new inscriptions scheduled to be published in the third volume of the Corpus of Indus Signs and
Inscriptions suggest that the percentage of singletons and others rare symbols will continue to
rise in the future, which is the reverse of what is expected from a genuine ‘script’,. 23 Recent
studies have shown that large percentages of singletons and other rare signs also characterised
proto-cuneiform (Damerow 1999) and the largely derivative proto-Elamite accounting system
(Dahl 2002), which was abandoned centuries before the first Indus inscriptions appeared. But

22. In one case over three dozen inscriptions have survived from a single mold (H-252 to H-277 and H-859 to H-
870), which presumably represents only a small part of the original number. Most in this case were recovered
from a single test trench in Harappa Area G by Vats in 1929, outside city walls in a context reminiscent of the
outdoor sacrifice senses depicted on many ritual inscriptions (see, e.g., Fig. 13 below). Less than 140 feet away,
at about the same levels in the trench, Vats found twenty human skulls “tightly packed together” along with
what he interpreted as bones of sacrificial animals and ritual vessels (Vats 1940: I, 192-202 and II, Plate
XXXIX). For discussion of the significance of this find, and the need to reexcavate Area G, see Farmer
2004b: 23-7.
23. As we were editing the final version of this paper, we received reports that Wells, who is deeply committed to
the script thesis, has apparently abandoned his earlier sign definitions that led to such huge counts of rare
signs (50% of the over 600 symbols in his catalog show up only once) and has gone to the opposite extreme,
now claiming that nearly all ‘singletons’ are complex signs. Our studies of rare signs in published and
unpublished sources make us more than skeptical of his newest claim, but Wells’ reported about face
underlines how dependent counts like this are on easily shifted sign definitions. In the absence of an
exhaustive sign-by-sign analysis, arguments, including those involving the brevity of the inscriptions, the
missing markers of manuscript production, the system’s anomalous sign-repetition rates, the odd symmetries
in sign placements, and the many parallels between Indus and Near Eastern symbol systems discussed below.
Studies of rare symbols on our view are critical to further Indus studies, since such studies shed light on how
the symbol system functioned and was controlled, and since shifts in symbol usage can yield insights into
developments in Indus society was illiterate, since some premodern sign systems (including many involving
religious symbols) remained fairly ‘closed’ to the production of new signs while others remained ‘open’ (as,
pace Wells, our research and all published data strongly suggest was true in the Indus case).
these findings only reinforce the conclusions of our study, since these same statistical anomalies
have been claimed as evidence that proto-cuneiform at least (and we would extend the same
claim to proto-Elamite) was itself largely decoupled from spoken language (Damerow1999).
One obvious difference from the Indus case lies in the fact that proto-Elamite system) did
eventually give birth to a largely phonetic script.24 The evidence presented above that no similar
development occurred in Indus inscriptions over at least six centuries supports other
suggestions, including those found in the brevity of the inscriptions, that Indus symbols
belonged to a different class of signs not from fully developed writing systems but likewise
from these older ‘proto-script’.
Evidence of the growth of singletons and other rare signs further contradicts the old view
that the Indus system was a ‘frozen’ or even ‘perfected’ script, as it has been frequently
characterised even in recent decades (cf., e.g., Fairservis 1992; Parpola 1994; Possehl 1996).
Convincing parallels in ancient writing systems are again difficult to come by. It is well-known
that thousands of new signs were added to Egyptian hieroglyphs in the Greco-Roman era, but
by that time the script was in a degenerate state, and it is not clear how many of the new signs
could or even were even meant to be understood; many may have been introduced for esoteric
reasons (Davies 1987; Houston Baines, and Cooper 2003). In principle, the sense of even the
rarest of Indus signs could have been ‘fixed’ through the general distribution of word lists;
lexical lists of this type written on tablets and potsherds are among the most common surviving
texts from the ancient Near East.
Figure 7. Examples of apparent unique signs or ‘singletons’ in
three inscriptions. A minimum of two singletons (using
Mahadevan’s criteria) and at least several others (using
Well’1999 standards) show up in K-15 a. Mahadevan’s
concordance masks the problem by classing the two singletons
as variants of one another; Wells’ catalog omits the inscription
entirely. MS2645, from the Schoyen collection in Oslo, contains
two singletons in a unique cylinder seal from Afghanistan that
apparently mixes Indus signs with Akkadian iconography; it is
shown here in a modern impression is a well-known Indus
signs; the pointed hoe-like or spear symbol shows up in both
Indus and Mesopotamian symbol systems; it is conceivable that
the two ‘singletons’ in the blown-up section of the impression
(arrow) may have parallels among non-linguistic Akkadian
signs, but this is not currently known. Claims that the two signs
reflect attempts to adjust the ‘Indus script’ phonetically to an
unknown language __a claims often made in such cases (e.g.,
Parpola1004; Kenoyer 1998:72)_are highly improbable, given the
strength of the evidence against phoneticism in Indus
inscriptions in general.

24 24The old assumption (found, e.g., in Scheil, Meriggi, Hinz, Vallat, etc.) that proto-Elamite and the much later
Linear Elamite system were linked has been largely abandoned since the groundbreaking work of Damerow
and Englund (19890; cf. on this issue Potts 1999 and Dahl 2002.
 But given the evidence against ‘lost’ Indus manuscripts, and the total lack of described clay tablets
or genuine potsherd texts in the region, it would be difficult to argue that texts like this ever existed in
the Indus Valley.
A Comparison with other a Ancient Symbol Systems
How did Indus symbols function if they were not even part of a proto-script? Important
suggestions can be found in a wide range of ancient symbol systems that predated or in some
cases existed side-by-side with writing for millennia. The earliest example roughly comparable
to the Indus case shows up in the so-called Vinca complex and associated in southeastern
Europe, whose earliest inscriptions predated both writing and Indus symbols by several thous
and years (Winn 1973, 1981, 1990) (Fig.8). Inscribed Indus objects were considerably more
sophisticated than Vinca inscriptions, but a number of parallels suggest that both belonged to
the same general class of non-linguistic signs. Some of those parallels include the relative
standardisation of a small core of signs over large geographical arrears; the inclusion beyond
that core of hundreds of unique or rare symbols; evidence in both systems of apparent
ligaturing and sign clustering; suggestions of ritual uses of some classes of symbols; and the
sudden disappearance of both systems, after centuries of relative stability, in periods of
apparent social upheavals. Some Vinca inscriptions also exhibit a kind of linearity that is not
dissimilar from the sort found on some (but by no means all) Indus inscriptions.

Figure 8. Examples of so-called Vinca inscriptions, from southeastern Europe (after Winn 1973). Claims
by Gimbutas (1989), Haarmann (1996), and their followers that the symbols were part of a pre-Sumerian
‘Old European script’ in a linguistic sense can be safely dismissed, but the signs did have some features
in common with Indus symbols, including relative stability over long periods, evidence in some types of
inscriptions of ritual functions, and cases of apparent ligaturing and sign clustering.
Even closer to the Indus case were a broad family of Near Eastern symbol or emblem
systems whose development can be traced at a minimum from the fourth millennium to the
Hellenistic era (Green 1995; Seidl 1989; Black and Green 1992 ). 25 Near Eastern emblem

25. Remnants of these systems also survived in the middle ages in the symbols or attributes of divine powers or
saints in Zoroastrian, Manichaean, and Christian traditions, etc.
inscriptions carried from one up to 2-3 dozen symbols, making some of them significantly
longer than any Indus inscriptions. Examples show up on seals, stelae, plaques, boundary stones
(kudurrus), cliff walls friezes, amulets, and many other media from Egypt to Eastern Iran,
appearance separately or in conjunction with writing. Most Near Eastern artifacts of this type
carry a complex mixture of abstract symbols and iconography, but we also find symbols in
some cases laid out in neat linear patterns, with a result not dissimilar to that seen in
pictographic scripts (cf.fig.9). As in the Vinca and Indus cases, a handful of high-frequency
signs dominate in these inscriptions supplemented by hundreds of rare signs. With the help of
written sources, we can identify some of the basic referents of these symbols, but many
ambiguities remain, reflecting in part an inherent plasticity in the meaning of the symbols
themselves.

Figure: 9 A stela carrying a five-sign emblem inscription found at the entrance to the temple of Ninurta
at Nippur. The stela shows Assurnasirpal II (9th century BCE) pointing to the abstract symbols of his
major gods. Some of the same signs also show up on magical talismans on Assurnasirpal’s necklace and
bracelet. Left to right in the inscription: lstar= eight-pointed star; Adad =forked lightening; Sin= the
crescent moon; Samas= a winged disk; Assur= a horned crown (which also show up in different contexts
as a symbol for other deities; see Fig.10). A second symbol for Samas shows up on the cross on
Assurnasirpal’s necklace, along with the signs of Adad and lstar, given this time in a different order.
Cuneiform writing, difficult to see at this scale, fills most of the stela. After Black and Green, 1992.
Thus, to give just one example, even the high-frequency omega (or inverted omega) symbol
(arrows in Fig.10) has been claimed at different times to refer to “weighing-scales, the yoke of a
chariot-pole, a comet, a large-horned quadruped, a head-band, a wig, the bands used to swaddle
a baby or as the uterus” which in turn have been identified as symbols of at least a half dozen
different Mesopotamian gods (Black and Green 1992; 146; cf. Green 1995: 1839). As in the case
of the omega sign, most Near eastern symbols are typically characterised as symbols of deities,
although a few (including the common rhomb sign) could also apparently represent fairly
abstract concepts.

Figure10. At top: Forty (out of a much larger number) of the most common Mesopotamian deity signs,
adopted from Green 1995. Below: Second millennium BCE kudurru or boundary stones (for overviews,
see king 1912, Seidl 1989) that carry these and rarer symbols on successive lines or registers; red arrows in
these illustrations (and the one above) point to three variations of the high-frequency omega sign.
Kudurrus share a number of important features with Indus inscriptions, including mixtures of high-
frequency and rare symbols and similar levels of regularity and variability in sign order (compare the top
registers in the two inscriptions). Other properties for which parallels may be reasonably anticipated in
the Indus system include cases of the same sign standing for different gods(e.g., the horned cap, which
in the Akkadian inscription in Fig.10 stood for Assur, shows up in doubled form near the top of both
these kudurrus as a symbols of Enlil and Anu) and more than one sign standing for a single god(e.g., the
‘goal-fish’ to the right of the horned caps in the kudurru on the left and turtle next to the horned caps in
the kudurru on the right are alternate symbols for the god Ea). Left, Louvre Sb 22; right, British Museum,
ANE 102485.

Even numbers regularly served as symbols for deities or celestial forces in these systems
(Black and Green 1992: 144-5), distinguishing them from the more conventional numbers
found in Near Eastern accounting systems or proto-scripts (e.g., Nissen, Damerow, and
Englund 1993); many suggestions of the symbolic use of apparent numbers also turn up in the
Indus system (Fig.11).
Just as important as their basic meanings were complex networks of associations that linked
deity signs to celestial, terrestrial, and social phenomena, reflecting similar ‘correlative’ bonds
(or bandhus, in Vedic terms) typical of premodern cosmologies in general (farmer, Henderson
and Witzel 2002). Depending on the mythological, social, or ritual contexts in which they were
used, signs of particular gods might similarly stand for particular stars or star clusters, planets,
constellations, seasons, months, days, hours, cities, clans, professions, administrative offices,
plants, animals, colors, and similar phenomena. Questions of narrative-mythological precedence
or temporal or celestial position (including those found in later zodiacal systems; cf. Wallenfels
1993) resulted in sign clustering and positional regularities in these signs of the same types
observed in Indus inscriptions (cf.Fig.10). The meanings of symbols also frequently changed as
deities rose or fell in status or were replaced by or merged with other gods; thus the agricultural
spade or hoe (marru) that symbolised the Babylonian god Marduk was sometimes reinterpreted
by the Assyrians as the spear of Assur; similarly, the winged disk that was one of several signs
of Šamaš (another was the cross shown in Fig. 9) was later transformed into the transport
vehicle of the Persian high god Ahuramazda, whose signs fused with those of the older deity. 26
Similar mergers of signs, which have typically been claimed as evidence of linguistic
compounding, show up often in Indus inscriptions, especially in the final centuries of the
civilisation.27
‘

Fig.11. Illustrations of some of the ways that apparent numbers show up in Indus inscriptions. This class
of Indus symbols has many problematic features, including the fact that many ‘number’ have nothing to
qualify except other ‘numbers’. Studies of the highly uneven frequencies of these signs (Farmer 2004a:53-
6) solve the problem by suggesting that apparent Indus number signs typically had symbolic values, as
they often did in Mesopotamia, standing on a basic level for deities or celestial forces; hence the apparent
numbers in K-49 a refer most probably not to the abstract numbers ‘7’ and ‘3’, but to the ‘The seven’ and
‘The Three’, whatever these further symbolised. No evidence supports the common claim (e.g., Kinnier
Wilson 1974) that apparent Indus numbers were employed for accounting purposes, although small
numbers may have been used to quantify sacrificial offerings on ritual inscriptions that may have factored
in the Indus economy (for illustrations, see Farmer 2004b:28-32).
Parallels in Near Eastern sign systems suggest that we can never fix the sense of Indus
symbols with anything approaching the precision expected of linguistic signs. Some of the basic
referents of Indus symbols and their broader associations can be inferred from study of the
variants of those symbols especially when these survive in pictorial as well as abstract form;

26. Similar exchanges of symbols between Vedic, Buddhist, and Jains deities were common in India in ancient and
medieval times.
27. One implication of this is that studies of the levels of sign compounding in the inscriptions can be useful
dating tools (Farmer and Weber, forthcoming).
from symbols, especially when these survive in pictorial as well as abstract form study of all
signs with which these symbols tend to cluster; and from analysis of any closely related
iconography. but the plasticity of ancient symbols warns us against the old assumption that the
Indus system was a simple ‘code’ waiting to be broken: on the Near Eastern model, the
probabilities are high that in different regions and periods the same Indus sign may have
represented different gods or concepts, or that more than one sign (even in the same
inscription) sometimes stood for the same god or concept. As suggested by brevity alone, Indus
inscriptions were neither able nor intended to encode detailed ‘messages’, not even in the
approximate ways performed by formal mnemonic systems in other non-literate 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 god’s symbols. The same evidence suggests that some Indus symbols
may have been copied for centuries and in later eras combined out of deference for their
antiquity or magical power with little understanding of their original sense. The tendency to
conserve symbols for such purposes provides similar processes of cumulative growth found
globally in manuscript traditions (Farmer, Henderson, and Witzel 2002). In regard specifically to
seal inscriptions, we know from Near Eastern sources that the use of a series of symbols to
identify a person, profession, clan, or office, did not depend on the exact sense of those
symbols being understood, any more than this was true in the case of royal emblems or
medieval heraldic signs; moreover, although a tendency within families or professions may have
existed to conserve symbolic motifs over long periods (Wallenfels 2000: 349), the fact that
flourishing markets existed in some regions for second-hand seals (Larsen 1977); Teissier 1994:
45-50) suggests that the sign sequences on Indus seals mat not always have necessarily had any
close ties to the seal users.28 It is reasonable to assume that Indus inscriptions mass-produced in
molds, which frequently carry ritual iconography and have no known Near Eastern parallels,
when used in communal ritual (as suggested by the discovery of many duplicates in single find
spots; see above, n.22) probably included exegeses of the mythological sign sequences seen on

28. Wallenfels suggests in the discussion following an important conference paper (2000: 349 ff.) that in
Hellenistic Babylonia, at least, individuals who changed seals tended to retain motifs found on their earlier
seals, although somevariation might occur with “whatever fashions were current”. He refers in particular to
one “rather large extended professions who tended “to use certain preferred motifs, especially the figure with
bucket and sprinkler, either the anthropomorphic figure like that or the ‘fishman’ figure.” Wallenfels’ findings
support our general thesis that most signs on Indus seals were abstract symbols of deities or related celestial or
mythological figures tied by tradition to specific families, clans, professions, or offices, etc. Abstract signs of
seasonal or agricultural gods or associated celestical forces can similarly be expected on ritual Indus
inscriptions involving planting or harvesting festivals, etc., and so on for each class of Indus inscriptions.
Indus seals and seal inscriptions appear to have been significantly more standardized than those in the Near
East (cf. Farmer 2004b; 33 ff.), suggesting that tighter controls may have existed over their use—and perhaps
by inference over local populations---than in other ancient societies. Nevertheless, before drawing any far-
reaching conclusions concerning links between the symbols on Indus seals and their users, the problems raised
by Lursen and Teissier involving second-hand seals in the Near East must be taken into account.
those inscriptions. But it would be naïve to assume that the same signs were interpreted at all
times in the same way, any more than this was true this was true of the Christian cross in
medieval Europe – which in different contexts could serve as a political-military symbol, a
magical talisman, a sign of a profession, a mystical aid, or a symbol of death. Far more than
linguistic signs, non-linguistic symbols tend to be highly ‘multivocal’ in their referents (Turner
1967; Barth 1987), warning us against the temptation to attach too narrow a sense to any one
Indus symbol or inscription.
Discussion
Effects on our views of Indus civilisation
Paradoxically, evidence that Indus inscriptions did not encode speech increases and does not
decrease the symbols’ historical value. We know a great deal about literate civilisations, but far
less about premodern societies that rejected writing for other types of sign systems. Indus
inscriptions are the product of the largest Old World civilisation of this type known, providing
us with a unique window on this poorly understand (and often unacknowledged) class of
civilisations. The realisation that Indus inscriptions did not encode speech also opens up novel
statistical means of exploiting their evidence: fluctuations in sign frequencies in scripts are
largely accidents of sound encoding; but studies of similar fluctuations in non-linguistic symbol
systems may provide sensitive measures of religious, political, and economic developments that
are otherwise impervious to historical analysis, even when the meaning of most signs remains
uncertain (Farmer and Weber, forthcoming). We are fortunate that statistical studies of this type
are just getting underway as new stratigraphical findings from the Harappa Archaeological
Research Project (HARP) have begun to provide the first reliable dates for different classes of
inscriptions, including most importantly the long bar inscriptions (Kenoyer and Meadow 1997)
and miniature steatite tablets (Meadow and Kenoyer 2000) – the latter known now as relatively
late and not the earliest inscriptions, as had been assumed since the time of Vats(1940).
Paleographical studies of sign variations allow us to extrapolate these findings to other classes
of inscriptions whose stratigraphy is less certain, including the magnificent oversised unicorn
seals, which can be shown on paleographical grounds to date like the bar seals to the last
centuries of the civilisation. Statistical studies combing non-linguistic models of the signs with
our increased ability to date inscriptions are capable of providing insights not only into Indus
religious and political developments but even into regional variations appear depict complex
mythologies involving animated seeds, sprouts, plants, farm tools, and other symbols linked to
seasonal rituals, some apparently involving human sacrifice; the significance of these data was
previously obscured in linguistic transcriptions that transformed even the liveliest mythopoeic
symbols into lifeless ‘fronts’ (Fig.12). Ironically the insights into Indus civilisation gained from
such studies promise to exceed anything hoped for from the long-awaited but quite impossible
‘decipherment’, since few serious adherents of the Indus-script thesis ever claimed that the
surviving inscriptions contained much more than the names or titles of the Harappans or their
gods (e.g., Parpola 1994; Kenoyer 1998: 81, 83-4).
The critical question remains of why the Harappans never adopted writing, since their trade
classes and presumably their ruling elite often seen on mass-produced ritual inscriptions (Fig.13)
opposed writing due to the threats it posed to whatever control the symbols gave them over
Indus populations. The hypothesis of a Harappan writing blockade provides one plausible
explanation for an odd imbalance in artifacts that has long puzzled archaeologists: significant
numbers of Indus seals and seal impressions have been found in the Gulf region and far into
modern Iraq, but no Mesopotamian inscriptions have ever turned up at any Indus site(Tosi
1993; Parpola 1994; Possehl 2002b). studies of foreign artifacts in the Indus Valley in general
suggest that until shortly before the symbol system disappeared the civilisation remained
unusually well-insulated even from its nearest cultural neighbors. Suggestive parallels show up in
the last half of the first millennium BCE in the resistance of Vedic priests to the literate
encoding of their ritual traditions, and in Roman times to the rejection of writing by Celtic
priests; it is interesting to speculate whether similar motives explain why writing was never
adopted by the Harappans’ neighbours in the Bacteria Margiana Archaeological Complex
(BMAC) to the northwest, which arose from a sophisticated fusion of cultural elements from the
Near East, Eastern Iran, and Central Asia (Francfort 1994).

Figure12. The mythological side of Indus inscriptions has been badly obscured in standardised
transcriptions that omit signs, transpose their positions, or linearize sign sequences to force fit them to
the Indus –script model.
Left: Examples of these problems show up in detailed comparisons of photos of two inscriptions with
the transcriptions in the standard concordance (Mahadevan 1977); similar problems turn up often in the
secondary literature. In the inscription at the top, cf. especially the second row of the inscription with its
transcription. It is worth noting that at least five and possibly six of the signs in C-23 a, many of them
highly animistic, show up in more abstract form (and in a different order) in M-314 a (cf.Fig.3). Evidence
from many inscriptions links all of these signs to agricultural motifs.
 Issues of social cohesion may also been factors. Studies of loan words in the earliest strata
of Vedic texts(Witzel 1999,2003) suggest that just like northwest South Asia today, Indus
territories may have been intensely multilinguistic, undermining over eight decades of heated
debates over ‘the’ Indus language. In a giant multilinguistic society, a relatively simple system of
religious-political signs that could be reinterpreted in any language may have provided greater
opportunities for cultural cohesion than any language-based; script’ – as suggested in a different
way in our own global age of highway and airport symbols. The adoption of such a system may
even help explain why the Harappans apparently managed to expand over a wider geographical
area than any literate civilisation of the era (cf., e.g., Kenoyer1998). The fact that Indus symbols
were tied to a pan-Indus ideology of some type is suggested by the apparent suddenness with
which the symbol system vanished early in the second millennium, which is not typical of the
ways that fully enabled scripts disappear (Simpkins 1997; Houston, Baines, and Cooper2003).
One implication of this finding is that the Indus civilisation may have enjoyed a higher level of
political integration than typically assumed and that the disappearance of the symbols involved
a sudden shift in the society’s religious-political guard. Many questions remain concerning the
nature of this shift, which was accompanied by the first large-scale appearance in the Indus
Valley of intrusive artifacts. Many of these can be suggestively linked to Central Asian
iconography, but the significance of this finding, which was not accompanied by obvious signs
of large-scale invasion, is not currently understood; internal rather than external forces may
have been decisive in the sudden disappearance of the symbol system.

Fig.13.M-488C, one face of a worn Indus ritual inscription of the type mass-produced in molds, in this
case showing a shamanic-looking priest is a typical Indus sacrifice scene. Evidence suggests that the
circled object on the stool behind the priest in a human head recalling a similar outdoor sacrifice shown
on the famous seal M-1186(on the latter, cf.Parpola 1994:260; Kenoyer 1998:119 and Fig.6.1). the god in the
tree altar on the right and the horned animal to the left of the tree (in many other inscriptions identifiable
as having a human face ) show up often in Indus sacrifice scenes. Further on possible human sacrifice in
the Indus valley, see n.22 above.
It should finally be noted that recognition that the Indus civilisation was not literate helps
explain a number of well-known features of the society that distinguish it sharply from third
millennium literate civilisations (D.P. Agrawal 2001, personal communication). A few of these
include the lack of monumental architecture, large temples, massive standing armies, and clear
evidence (besides the tantalising suggestions in the inscriptions) of large-scale bureaucratic
organisation. The paradox remains that despite their lack of writing, and perhaps in part
because of it, the Harappans exhibited a surprisingly high level of cultural unity over a vast area
for centuries. One of the biggest challenges of future Indus research lies in discovering what
role the symbols played in maintaining that cohesion and in possibly contribution to its decline.
Implications for studies of ancient writing and civilisations in general
The collapse of the Indus-script myth has implications that extend far beyond ancient India.
Writing is still often considered a requirement of large-scale urban civilisations – as Possehl
(2002a:127) has recently expressed it, it is “as symptomatic of the size and complexity of
ancient urban systems, be it the archaic state or a more corporate organisation such as the Indus
Civilisation.” The result is that the discovery of early traces of writing is often taken for a holy
grail by the public, archaeologists who stumble on a cache of unknown symbols is to call in the
press and announce the discovery of a new script, or in one alternate scenario the earliest traces
of an old one. This story has played out repeatedly in the last half decade alone in respect to
discoveries in Central Asia, Egypt Sri Lanka, Europe, Central America, and most recently
southeast Iran. Often the finds triggering these announcements consist of little more than a
single seal or seal impression or a handful of ambiguous scratches on pottery sherds. In most
cases, after a brief period of excitement, the claims quickly recede from the public eye, only to
be replaced soon after by similar claims from some other cultural region.
These tendencies originated in the nineteenth century, when the links between writing and
urbanisation were repeatedly reinforced by finds from civilisations in the Mediterranean, Near
East, and Mesoamerica. When the first large-scale excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro
turned up hundreds of inscriptions in the early 1920s, it was assumed from the start that the
same relationship existed between writing and urban life in ancient India as in Egypt,
Mesopotamia, and Elam. Hints in the extreme brevity of the inscriptions that something was
amiss were brushed aside in favor of myths of ‘lost’ Indus manuscripts that went unchallenged
for decades. Repeated claims of decipherment, aided by the many ambiguities in the ways that
speech maps to texts, resulted in a long line of pseudo-decipherments that, while easily
repudiated in detail, on a superficial level seemed plausible enough to reinforce the assumption
that the inscriptions encoded speech, which had gone unquestioned since the 1870s. once
nationalistic politics were tossed in the mix, by the final decades of the twentieth century the
Indus-script thesis had carved such deep path dependencies in studies of Indian history that it
was difficult to observe let alone discuss the many obvious suggestion that Harappan
civilisation could not possibly have been literate.29
The fact that ancient civilisations could not only exist but flourish without writing has been
known for decades, but the persistence of the Indus-script myth suggests that the full
implications of that fact have not taken deep root in archaeological theory. Urban civilisations
in the Near East predated writing by thousands of years, and when the technology became
available it was adopted or rejected depending on how well it fulfilled specific cultural needs.
Massive cities in Central Asia contemporary with those of the Harappans have been excavated
that have not yielded credible traces of local writing, while cities in Eastern Iran at best suggest

29. The ways in which even the most obvious evidence of this type has been ignored since Marshall’s day make
the Indus-script myth a useful case study of the ways that path dependencies take shape in cultural traditions
in general. For an overview of this theoretical religious, philosophical, and cosmological thought, see Farmer,
Henderson, and Witzel 2002.
brief flirtations with restricted accounting scripts that originated far to the West. In South
America, the giant Andean civilisations never developed writing, making due with abstract
symbols and their mnemonic khipu system; similarly, in Mesoamerica, neither the Aztecs nor the
Mixtecs ever developed full scripts, although they knew from the Maya that they existed. It has
been argued that one reason why these vast Mexican civilisations, whose cities dwarfed those of
the Indus Valley in size and sophistication, preferred ‘picture writing’ to fully equipped scripts
arose from the fact that non-linguistic symbols enhanced social cohesion among their
multilinguistic populations (Boone and Mignolo, 1994: e.g., 301) – much as we have
hypothesised was true in the case of the radically different type of symbols developed by the
Harappans.
Controversies over early writing can be expected far into the future. To the west of the
Indus Valley, excavations began in 2003 of urban ruins around Jiroft on the southeast Iranian
plateau. One of the most common claims of its excavators (cf.Lawler 2003, 2004) is that
evidence from seal impressions suggests that those sites may contain the earliest writing known.
The results of our research suggest that claims like these in the past. Writing was not a necessity
of ancient urban civilisations, not even those as massive as that Harappans or as apparently rich
as the one being excavated on the Iranian plateau. The collapse of the Indus-script thesis
suggests that the discovery of a handful of 7unknown symbols can no longer be claimed as
evidence of ‘writing’___ indeed, not even finds of 4-5,000 short inscriptions may be enough.
The fact that the Harappans did not possess writing and may have even actively rejected it
suggests that ancient urban civilisations may have been considerably more diverse than
suspected in the past.
A Note on Falsifiability
It will probably surprise many readers to discover that the standard view that the Indus
civilisation was literate has been an assumption and not a conclusion of previous studies. While
debate over the language of Indus inscriptions had a long and acrimonious history, not one of
the thousands of articles or books written on the topic since the 1870s included any systematic
justification for the belief that the inscriptions were in fact linguistic.
The claim that historical fields follow methods different from those of other sciences is still
frequently repeated. Given the political abuses to which history is subject, we consider this to be
a dangerous claim, and believe that the same rigor must be demanded in history as in any other
scientific field. With this in mind, in closing we would like to acknowledge the heuristic nature
of our work and briefly consider some conceivable conditions under which it might be
overturned.
Specifically, we could consider that our model of Indus symbols was falsified, r at least
subject to serious modification, if any of the following conditions were fulfilled:
1. If remnants were discovered of an Indus inscription on any medium, even if
imperfectly preserved, that contained clear evidence that the original contained several
hundred signs;
 2. If any Indus inscription carrying at least 50 symbols were found that contained
unambiguous evidence of the random-looking types of sign duplications typical of
ancient scripts;
3. If any bilingual inscription were discovered that carried a minimum of 30 or so Indus
symbols juxtaposed with a comparable number of signs in a previously deciphered
script;
4. If a clear set of rules were published that allowed any researches, besides the original
proposer of those rules, to decipher asignificantly large body of Indus inscriptions
using phonetic, syntactic, and semantic principles of no greater number or complexity
than those needed to interpret already deciphered scripts;
5. If a ‘lexical list’ were discovered that arranged a significantly large number of Indus
signs in ways similar to those found in Near Eastern school texts.
Due to the long record of doctored evidence and forgery that is part of the Indus-script
story (cf., e.g., Witzel and Farmer 2000, Farmer 2004), any discoveries of this type would have
to be falsified or subject to major modification.
We would like to conclude that while we consider it highly improbable that any of these five
discoveries will ever be made, we would welcome them if they were, since when considered
alongside the many anomalies in the Indus symbol system, any of these discoveries would
necessarily trigger a radical rethinking of current views of early writing systems.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to George Thompson, Steven Weber, Alessandro Passi, Bob Simpkins, Lars Martin
Fosse, Dennys Frenez, Allen Thrasher, Bjarte Kaldhol, Cosma Shalizi, Victor Mair,D.P.Agrawal,
Iravatham Mahedevan, Andrew Lawler, Malcolm Dean, Enrica Garzili, John Robert Gardner,
and the members of Lars Martin Fosse’s Scholarly Services List for early discussions of the
findings reported in the paper. Special thanks to Richard Meadow of the Harappa
Archeological Research Project for giving us access to the HARP data base, for unpublished
photos of Indus inscriptions, and for his many insightful comments on an early draft of this
paper.
References
Andre, B, and M. Salvini, 1989, Reflexions sur Puzur-Insusinak. Iranica Antiqua 24:53-72.
Arthur,W.B., 1999, “Complexity and the Economy.” Science 284:107-9.
Barth, F.,1987, Cosmologies in the Making: A Generative Approach to Cultural Variation in Inner New Guinea. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bisht, R.S., 1991, Dholavira: A New Horizon of the Indus Civilisation. Puratativa 20:71-82.
Bisht, R.S., 1998-9, Dholavira and Banawali: two Different Paradigms of Harappan Urbis Formation. Puratattva: 29:14-37.
Black, J. and s. Green, 1992, Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press.Boone, E.H. an
d W.D. Mignolo, eds., 1994, Writing without Words: Alternavtive Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Durham, N.C.:
Duke University Press.
Burton, R.F. and C.F.T. Drake, 1872, Unexplored Syria. Vol.1.London: Tinsley Brothers.
Cerny, J., and A.H. Gardner, 1957, Hieratic Ostraca. Oxford: Printed for the Griffith Institute at the University Press
by Charles Batey.
Clauson, G. and J. Chadwick, 1969, The Indus Script Deciphered? Antiquity 43(171): 200-7.
Clauson,G. and J. Chadwick, 1970, “The Indus Script Deciphered?” Journal of Tamil Studies 2(1):135-48.
Cunningham, A., 1875, Archaeological Survey of India, Report for the Year 1872-73, 5: 105-8 and pl. 32-3. Calcutta:
Archaeological Survey of India.
Cunningham, A., 1877, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, I: Inscriptions of Asoka. Calcutta: Archaeologicalsurvey of India.
Dahl, J.L., 2002, Proto-Elamite sign Frequencies. Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2002(1):1-3.
Dales, G., 1967, “South Asia’s Earliest Writing---still Undeciphered.” Expedition 9 (2):30-7.
Damerow, P., and R.K.Englund, 1989, The Proto-Elamite texts from Tepe Yahya. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody
museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University press.
Damerow, P, 1999, “The Origins of writing as a problem of Historical Epistemology.” Preprint No. 114 at the Max
plank institute for the history of Science Web-server. Damerow, P., See also under ‘Nissen’.
Daniels P.T. and W. Bright, eds., 1996, The World’s writing systems: Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Davies, W.V., 1989, Egyptian Hieroglyphs. London: British Museum Publications.
DeFrancis, J.1989, Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing systems. Honolulu: The University of Hawaii Press.
Elst, Koenraad, 2000, The Vedic Harappans in Writing: Remarks inExpectation of a Decipherment of the Indus Script.
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org.
Fairservis, W., 1971, The Roots of Ancient India: The Archaeology of Early India Civilisation. New York: Macmillan.
Fairservis, W., 1987, “The Harappan Civilisation according to its writing: a model for the Decipherment of the
script.” In: Archaeology and History: Essays in sh.A.Ghosh.P.M.Pande and B.D.Chattopadhyaya, eds., pp. 187-211.
Delhi: Agam Kala Prakasham.
Fairservis, W., 1992, The Harappan civilisation according to its Writing: A model for the Decipherment of the script. Delhi:
Oxford and IBH.
Farmer, S., 1998, Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486): The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical
Systems. Tempe, Arizona: MRTS.
Farmer, S, J.B.Hendrson, and M.Witzel, 2002, “Neurobiology, Layered Texts, and Correlative Cosmologies: A
Cross-Cultural Framework for Premodern History.” Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 72:48-
89[dated 2000; written in 2002].
Farmer, S., 2003, The First Harappan Forgery: Indus Inscriptions in the Nineteenth Century.
http://www.safarmer.com//firstforgery.pdf.
Farmer, S., 2004a, The Illiterate Harappans: Theoretical Implications of Recent Studies of India’s First Civilisation. Slide-lecture
given at Washington State University at Vancouver, Feb. 2004. Available from
http://www.safarmer.com/downloads.
Farmer, S., 2004b, Mythological Functions of Indus Inscriptions.Slide-lecture given at the Sixth Harvard University Roundtable on
the Ethnogenesis of south and Central Asia, May 2004. Available from http://www.safarmer.com/downloads.
Farmer, S and S. Weber, forthcoming Temporal and Regional Variations in the Use of Indus Symbols: New Methods of Studying
Harappan Civilisation.
Farmer, S. See also under ‘Witzel’
Francfort, H.P., 1994, “The central Asia Dimension of the Symbolic System in Bactria and Margiana.” Antiquity
68:406-18.
Gad, C.J., and S Smith, 1924, The New Links between Indian and Babylonian Civilisations. Illustrated London News Oct
4: 109-10.
Gardner, B.T. and R.A. “Gardner, 1998, Development of phrases in the Early Utterances of Children and Cross-
Fostered Chimpanzees.” Human Evolution 13:161-88.
Gimbutas, M., 1989, The language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden symbols of Western Civilisation. London: Thames
and Hudson.
Green, A., 1995, “Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography.” In: Civilisations of the Ancient Near East.
J.M.Sasson, ed., vol.III, pp.1837-1855. New York Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Green, A. See also under ‘Black’.
Haarmann, Harald, 1996, Early Civilisation and Literacy in Europe: An Inquiry into Cultural Continuity in the Meditrranean
World. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hakemi, Ali, 1997, Shahdad: Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age center in Iran. Trans. And ed. By S. M.S. Sajjadi.
Rome: Libreria Editrice Herder.
Hawkins, J.D., 2000, Corpus of Hieroglyhic Luwian Inscriptions. BVol.I, 3 pts. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter
Heras, H., 1953, Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean culture.Vol.1.Bombay: Indian Historical research Institute.
Hinz, W., 1969, Altiranische Funde und Forschungen. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.
Hinz, W., 1971, “Eine altelamische Tonkrug-Aufschrift vom Rande der Lut.” Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
n.F.4:21-4.
Houston, S., J.Baines, and J.Cooper, 2003, “Last Writing: Script Obsolescence in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and
Mesoamerica.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 45:430-79.
Hunter, G.R., 1934, The Script of Harappan and Mohenjo-Daro and its Connection with other Scripts. London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner &Co. (Dissertation reprint).
Jettmar, K.D., D. Konig, V. Thewalt, eds., 1989, Antiquities of Northern Pakistan: reports and studies, Vol, 1: Rock
Inscriptions in the Indus Valley. Mainz: Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Jha, N. and N.S.Rajaram, 2000, The Deciphered Indus script: Methodology, Readings, Interpretations, New Delhi: Aditya
Prakasham.
Joshi, J. P. and A. Parpola, eds., 1987, Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions I.collections in India. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia. (For Vol.II,see under ‘Shah’.)
Kak, S., 1988, A frequency analysis of the Indus script. Cryptologia 12(3):129-43.
Kenoyer, J.M., 1998, Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation.Oxford: oxford University Press.
Kenoyer, J.M. and R.Meadow, 1997, “New Inscribed Objects from Harappa.” Lahore Museum Bulletin 9(1): 1996
[1997]: 1-20.
Kenoyer, J.M., See also under ‘Meadow’.
Kinnier Wilson, J.V., 1986, “The case for accountancy in the Indus scripts, with a Restatement on the Meaning and
Theory of /Indo-Sumerian.” Tamil Civilisation 4(3-4):204-13.
King, L.W., 1912, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Knorozov, Y., 1965, “The Characteristics of the Language of the Proto-Indian Texts.” In: the soviet Decipherment of
the Indus Valley Script. A Zide and K. Zvelebil, eds. And trans., pp. 55-9. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
Knorozov,Y., 1968, “The Formal Analysis of the Proto-India Texts.” In: The Soviet Decipherment of the Indus Valley
script. A. Zide and K.Zvelebil, eds. and trans., pp. 97-107. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
Knorozov, Y., 1970, “The Formal Analysis of the Proto-Indian Texts.” In Journal of Tamil Studies 2(1):13-25.
Kondrotov,A.M.,1965, “The Positional-Statistical Analysis of the Proto-Indian Texts.” In: The Soviet Decipherment of
the Indus Valley Script. A Zide and K. Zvelebil, eds. And trans., pp. 39-48. The Hague: Mouton,1976.
Konishi, M, 1987, “Writing Materials during the Harappan Period.” Archaeology and History: Essays in Memory of
Sh. A. Ghosh. P.M Pande and B.D. Chattopadhyaya, eds., pp.213-7.Delhi: Agam Kala Prakasham.
Lal, B.B., 2002, The Sarasvati flows on: the continuity of Indian culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Landini, G., and R. Zandhbergen, 1998, “A well-kept Secret of Mediaeval science: the Voynich manuscript,”
Aesculapius (July 1998).Available online at http://www.voynich.nu/extra/aes.html. \
Larsen, M.T., 1977, “Seal Use in the old Assyrian period.” In: seals and sealings in the ancient Near east. M.Gibson and
R. d. Biggs, eds. Malibu Undena Publications
Lawler, A., 2004, “Iranian Dig Opens window on new civilisation.” Science 304: 1096-7.
Mackey, A., 1965, “On thetype-fount of the Phaistos disk. SMIL.” Statistical methods in linguistics 4: 15-25.
Mackey, E. 1938, Further excavations at Mohenjo-daro. 2 Vols.Delhi: government of India.
Mahadevan, I., 1977, The Indus Script: texts, concordance, and tables. Calcutta and Delhi: memories of the Archaeological
survey of India.
Mahadevan, I., 1986, “Towards a Grammar of the Indus Texts: ‘Intelligible to the Eye, if Not to the Ears’.” Tamil
Civilisation: Quarterly Research Journal of the Tamil University 4(3-4):15-30.
Mahadevan, I., 1999, “Murukan in the Indus Script.” Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 16(2).
Mahadevan, I., 2004, Early Tamil Epigraphy from the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century A.D. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University.
Mandelbrot, B., 1983, The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Updated and Augmented. New York: W.H.Freeman and
Company.
Marazzi, M., 2000, “Sigilli e tavolette di legno: Le fonte letterarie e le testimonianze sfragistiche nell’ Anatolia
Hittita.” In: Administrative Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern counterparts. Proceedings of the
International Colloquium, Naples, February 29-March 2, 1996. Ed.M. Perna, pp. 79-102. Torino: Paravia
Scriptorium.
Marshall, J., 1924 “First Light on a Long Forgotton Civilisation.” Illustrated London News Sept. 20: 528-32,548.
Marshall, J., ed., 1931, Mohanjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation. 3 Vols. London: Arthur Probsthain.
Marshall, J., ed., 1953, Taxila. 3 Vols. Cambridge University Press.
Mahivanan, R., 1995, Indus Script Among Dravidian Speakers. Madras: International Society for the Investigation of
Ancient Civilisations.
Meadow, R. and J.M. Kenoyer, 2000, The “‘Tiny Steatite Seals’ (Incised Steatite Tablets) of Harappa: Some
Observations on their Context and Dating.” In: South Asian Archaeology 1997. M. Taddei and G. DeMarco,
eds., pp. 221-340. Rome: Istituto Italiano per I’ Africa e I’ oriente.
Meadow, R., See also under ‘Kenoyer’ Nissen, H., P. Damerow, and R. Englund, 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Olivier, J-P., and L. Godart, eds., 1996, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris: De Boccard.
Olivier, J-P., 2000, Les sceaux avec des inscriptions hieroglyphiques. Comment comprendre? In: Administrative
Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquiu, Naples,
February 29-March 2, 1996. Ed. M. Perna, pp. 141-168. Torino: Paravia Scriptorium.
Parpola, A., S. Koskenniemi, S. Parpola, and P. Aalto, 1969, Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Inscriptions of the Indus
Civilisation: First Announcement. Copenhagen: Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies.
Parpola, A., 1970, “The Indus Script Decipherment: The Situation at the End of 1969.” Journal of Tamil Studies 2(1):
89-109.
Parpola, A., 1994, Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Parpola, A., See also under ‘Joshi’ and ‘Shah’.
Payton, N., 1991, “The Ulu Burun Writing-Board Set.” Anatolian Studies 41: 99-106.
Pearce, L., 1995, “The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In: Civilisations of the Ancient Near East, ed.
J.M. Sasson, IV, pp. 2265-78. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Pope, M., 1965, ‘The Origin of Near Eastern Writing.” Antiquity 40: 17-23.
Pope, M. 1968, “The First Cretan Palace Script.” In Atti e memorie del primo Congresso internazionale di micenologia
(Roma 27 settembre-3 ottobre 1967), ed. E. De Miro, L. Godart, and A. Sacconi, Vol. I, PP. 438-46. Citta di
Castello: Tip. Tiferno grafica. [On inscriptions written in so-called Certan hieroglyphs.]
Pope, M., 1999, The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Maya Script. Revised edition. London: Thames
and Hudson Ltd.(First edition published in 1975.)
Possehl, G., 1996, Indus Age: The Writing System. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Possehl, G., 2002a, The Indus Civilisation: A Contemporary Perspective. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press.
Possehl, G., 2002b, Indus-Mesopotamian Trade: The Record in the Indus. Iranica Antiqua 38: 325-42.
Postgate, N., T. Wang, and T.Wilkinson, 1995, “The Evidence for Early Writing: Utilitarian or Ceremonial?”
Antiquity 69: 459-80.
Potts, D.T., 1999, The Archaeology of Elam. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rao, S.R., 1982, The Decipherment of the Indus Script. Bombay: Asia Publishing.
Robinson, A., 2002, Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World’s Undeciphered Scripts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salomon, R., 1998, Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit and the Other Indo-Aryan
Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salomon, R., 1999, Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhara. London: The British Library.
Salvini, Mirjo, 1996, The Habiru Prism of King Tunip-tessup of Tikunani: Rome: Institute Editorialie Poligrafici Internazionali.
......... . See also under ‘Andre’.
Sayce, A.H., 1924, “Remarkable Discoveries in India.” Illustrated London News Sept. 27: 5666.
Seidl, Ursulla, 1989, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs: Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht.
Shah, S.G.M. and A. Parpola, eds., 1991, Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions 2. Collections in Pakistan. Helsinki: 1991.
(For Vol. I, see under ‘Joshi’.) (Vol. 3 of the Corpus, which is currently in preparation, will reportedly include
photos of recently excavated inscriptions and of lost inscriptions illustrated in the early excavation reports of
Marshall, Mackay, and Vats, etc.)
Sharked, S., 2004, Let satrape de Bactriane et songgouverneur. Documents arameens du IVe s. avant notre ere provenant de
Bactriane (Conferences donnees au Collage de France les 14 et 21 mai 2003).Paris: De Boccard.
Simpkins, R., 1997, The Script of the Indus Valley Civilisation In Context and Comparative Perspective. Paper presentation. 26th
Annual Conference on South Asia, October 16-19th, 1997, Medison, Wisconsin.
Sporat, R., 2000, A Computational Theory of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Symington, D., 1991, “Late Bronze Age Writing-Boards and Their Uses: Textual Evidence from Anatolia and
Syria.” Anatolian Studies 41: 111-23.
Teissier, B., 1994, Sealings and Seals on Texts from Kultepe Karum Level 2. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Institituut te Istanbul.
Tosi, M., 1993, “The Harappan Civilisation beyond the Indian Subcontinent.” In: Harappan Civilisation: A Recent
Perspective. 2nd Rev. ED. G. Possehl, pp. 365-78. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH.
Turner, V.W., 1967, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. New York: Cornell University Press.
Vallat, F., 1986, “The Most Ancient Scripts of Iran: The Current Situation.” World Archaeology 17(3): 335-47.
Vallat, F., 2003, “Le civilisation proto-elamite.” Dossiers d’ Archeologie 287: 88-91 (special issue on Jiroft).
Vats, M.S., 1940. Excavations at Harappa.2 Vols. Delhi: Government of India.
Wallenfels, R., 1993, “Zodiacal Signs among the Seal Impressions from Hellenistic Uruk.” In: The Tablet and the
Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. M. Cohen, D. Snell, and D. Weisberg, eds., pp. 281-9.
Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.
Wallenfels, R., 2000, “Sealing Practices on Legal Documents from Hellenistic Babylonia.” In: Administrative
Documents in the Aegean and their Near Eastern Counterparts. Proceedings of the International Colloquium,
Naples, February 29-March 2, 1996. Ed. M. Perna, pp. 333-51. Torina: Paravia Scriptorium.
Wells, B., 1999, An Introduction to Indus Writing. 2nd Edition. Independence, Missouri: Early Sites Research Society.
Winn, M.M. [S.M.M.], 1973, The Signs of Vinca Culture: An Internal Analysis; Their Role, Chronology and Independence from
Mesopotamia. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.
Winn, S.M.M., 1981, Pre-Writing in Southeastern Europe: The Sign System of the Vica Culture, 4000 BCE. Calgary:
Western Publishers.
Winn, S.M.M., 1990, “A Neolithic Sign System In Southeastern Europe.” In: The Life of Symbols, ed. M.L. Foster
and L.J. Botscharow, pp. 263-83. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. A variation of this article is published
online at http://www.prehistory.it/ftp/winn.htm.
Witzel, M., 1999, Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Language. Mother Tongue, Extra Number (October0: 1-70.
Witzel, M. and S. Farmer, 2000, “Horseplay in Harappa: The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax.” Frontline 17 (19):
4-11. Available online from http://www.safarmer.com /downloads.
Witzel, M., 2003, “Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia.” Sino-Platonic
Papers 129 [appeared Aug. 2004].
Witzel, M... See also under ‘Farmer’.
Woudhuizen, F.C., 2004, Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period.
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaff.
Zide, A. and K. Zvelebil, trans. And eds., 1976, The Soviet Decipherment of the Indus Valley Script. The Hague: Mouton.
Zipf, G.K., 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Introduction
The International Conference of Eastern Studies has this year its 50thJubilee session. To deliver
a special lecture on this occasion is a great honour, and I accepted the Tōhō Gakkai’s kind
invitation with hesitation, fully aware that there are many scholars who would be much more
worthy of this honour. But I did not want to dismiss this opportunity to speak to a wide
gathering of orientalists, as the study of the Indus script would certainly profit if experts in
East Asian writing systems could be inspired to contribute with their insights.
The Indus Civilisation
First a few words about the historical context of the Indus script. The Indus or Mature
Harappan Civilisation was the most extensive urban culture of its time, 2600–1900 BCE. Its
area comprised one million square kilometers, and more than one thousand of its settlements
have been identified so far. Yet the very existence of this Bronze Age Civilisation was unknown
until 1924, when Sir John Marshall announced its discovery on the basis of excavations that
were started at the two largest sites, Harappa in the Punjab and Mohenjo-Daro in Sind. Ever
since, archaeological and other research has been constantly en-larging our knowledge of this
early civilisation.2 Particularly important have been the long-continued recent excavations at
Harappa3 and Dholavira.

1. Paper read at the 50th ICES Tokyo Session on 19 May 2005 in Tokyo. I haveshortened the text distributed at
the conference and made a few additions (in particular,note 14 and consideration of two papers by Massimo
Vidale that I received in apreliminary form in July 2005).
2. The results are being collected in a book series in progress called The Indus Ageby Gregory L. Possehl, with a
monumental volume on The Beginnings (1999). Possehlhas recently produced a summary for the general public
(2002). Several other goodsurveys have come out during the past few years as well: Jansen et al. 1991;
Kenoyer1998; Indus Civilization Exhibition, 2000; McIntosh 2002. There are also two goodwebsites, one of them
in Japan, providing up-to-date information: http://www.harappa.com;http://bosei.cc.u-
tokai.ac.jp/˜Indus/English/index.html.
3. See reports of the Harappa excavations by Meadow et al. and http://www.harappa.com.
 The Indus Civilisation came into being as the result of a long cultural evolution in the Indo-
Iranian borderlands. From the first stage ofdevelopment,4 about 7000-4300 BCE, some twenty
relatively small Neolithic villages are known, practically all in highland valleys. People raised
cattle, sheep and goats. They cultivated wheat and barley, and stored it in granaries. Pottery was
handmade, and human and bovine figurines attest to fertility cults. Ornaments reflect small-
scale local trade.
Stage two, about 4300–3200 BCE, is Chalcolithic. Village size grew to dozens of hectares.
Settlements spread eastwards beyond the Indus to Chollistan to the delta of the ancient
Sarasvati river, apparently with seasonal migrations. Copper tools were made, and pottery
became wheel-thrown and beautifully painted. Ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan
and northern Iran also suggest considerable mobility and trade.
Stage three is the Early Harappan period about 3200–2600 BCE. Many new sites came into
existence, also in the Indus Valley, which wasa challenging environment on account of the
yearly floods, while the siltmade the fields very fertile. Communal granaries disappeared, and
largestorage jars appeared in house units. Potter’s marks suggest privateownership, and stamp
seals bearing geometrical motifs point to development in administration. Irrigation canals were
constructed, and advances were made in all crafts. Similarities in pottery, seals, figurines,
ornaments etc. document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
There were already towns with walls and a grid pattern of streets, such as Rahman Dheri.
Terracotta models of bullock carts attest to improved transport in the Indus Valley. This led to
considerable cultural uniformity over a wide area.
A relatively short but still poorly known transition phase, between2700–2500 BCE, turned
the Early Harappan culture into the Mature Indus Civilisation. During this phase the Indus
script came into being. The size of the burned brick, already standardised during the Early
Harappan period, was fixed in the ratio 1: 2: 4 most effective for bonding. Weights of carefully
cut and polished chert cubes form a combined binary and decimal system. 5 The society became
so highly organised that it was able to complete enormous projects, like building the city of
Mohenjo-Daro around 2500 BCE.
The acropolis of Mohenjo-Daro, a cultural and administrative center, has as its foundation a
12 meter high artificial platform of 20 hectares. Just the platform is estimated to have required
400 days of 10,000labourers. The lower city of at least 80 hectares had streets oriented
according to the cardinal directions and provided with a network of covered drains. Many of
the usually two-storied houses were spacious and protected from the dust and crowd of the
streets and had bathrooms and wells. The water-engineering of Mohenjo-Daro is unparalleled
constructed with tapering bricks so strong that they have not collapsed in 5000 years. The Great
Bath was made watertight with bitumen and a high corbelled outlet made it possible to empty it
easily. The massivecity walls are supposed to be mainly defenses against flood water. The

4. I am following here the periodization suggested by Possehl (2002).

5. The ratios are 1/16, 1/8, 1/6, 1/4, 1/2, 1 (=13 g), 2, 4, 8, 16, . . . 800.
absence of palaces and temples – which may well be illusory6 – makes the Indus Civilisation
strikingly different from its counterparts for instance in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Another
reason is the Harappa concern for civic amenities such as wells and drains, with the result that
their cities attest to considerable social equality. It is thought that the political power was less
centralised and more corporate.7
Development of water traffic made it possible to transport heavy loads along the rivers, and
to start direct sea trade with the Gulf and Mesopotamia. Over thirty Indus seals and other
materials of Harappa origin, such as stained carnelian beads, have been found in Western Asia.
On the other hand, a single Gulf seal excavated at the Harappan port town of Lothal is the
only object of clearly Western Asiatic origin discovered in the Greater Indus Valley.
Around 2000–1900 BCE the Indus Civilisation came to an end in the Indus Valley, although
it lingered some centuries longer in Gujarat and Maharashtra. Multiple reasons are assumed to
have caused this downfall of urban life, which led also to the disappearance of the Indus script.
The Harappans are estimated to have numbered about one million. This population continued
to live, but the culture gradually changed. One important factor of change was that new people
started coming to Greater Indus Valley. First among these were the long-time neighbors ‘of the
Indus Civilisation, people of the Bactria and Margiana Archaeological Complex (c. 2600–1400
BCE).8
Attempts at Deciphering the Indus Script
Attempts at deciphering the Indus script started even before the existence of the Indus
Civilisation was recognised. When Sir Alexander Cunningham reported the first known Indus
seal from Harappa in1875, he assumed that this unique find was a foreign import. A few years
later he supposed that the seal might bear signs of the Brahmi script from its unknown early
phase. After Cunningham, many scholars have connected the Indus script with the Brahmi
script, which was used in India about 1500 years later. Among them was G. R. Hunter, who
inthe late 1920s studied the Indus inscriptions at first hand in Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, and

6. Massimo Vidale (in press b) suggests the presence of a palace complex that consists of “houses” (including a
private bath resembling the Great Bath) in the HR area of Mohenjo-Daro.
7. Cf. Possehl 2002: 56–57, 148–149.—One could compare the ‘republics’ ofnortheastern India in early historical
times, governed by a gaṇa or saṃgha, and described by Sharma (1968). They have roots in Vedic times, when
“the many rājan-s . . . deniedpermanent overlordship to any in their midst” (Scharfe 1989: 233; cf. Sharma 1968: 8–12).
“According to a later Buddhist tradition there were 7,007 rājan-s in Vaiśāli ruling jointly through their assembly; K [auṭilya’s]
A [rthaśārastra] XI 1, 5 speaks of the men of the saṃgha-s that live on the title rājan” (Scharfe 1989: 233). Strabo
(Geography 15, 1, 37),referring to anonymous writers in the plural (Megasthenes is mentioned as the source
inthe next sentence), states: “They tell also of a kind of aristocratic order of government that was composed outright of five
thousand counsellors, each of whom furnishes the [[new]] commonwealth with an elephant” (tr. Jones 1930: VII, 65; I suggest
deleting the word new in Jones’ translation of toôi koinôi) (cf. Scharfe 1989: 233, n. 24).
8. For the BMAC, see especially Sarianidi 1986; 1990; 1998a; 1998b; 2001; 2002;2005; Amiet 1986; Hiebert 1994;
Kosarev et al. (eds.) 2004 [2005]; for new evidence from Gilund, a site of the Chalcolithic Ahar-Banas
Complex of Mewar, Rajasthan, see Possehl et al. 2004. See also Parpola 2002a; 2002b.
analysed them structurally in his valuable doctoral dissertation, where he also compared the
script with other early writing systems. The archaeologist S. R. Rao in his book The decipherment
of the Indus script (1982) maintains that the Indus script is the basis of not only the Brahmi script
but also of the Semitic consonantal alphabet, which most scholars derive from the Egyptian
hieroglyphs and take as the basis of the Brahmi script. Like so many other Indian scholars,
Raoreads the Indus texts in an Aryan language close to Vedic Sanskrit.
Immediately after the discovery of the Indus Civilisation became known in 1924, the British
Astrologists A. H. Sayce, C. J. Gadd andSidney Smith pointed to its resemblance to the Elamite
andMesopotamian civilisations and compared the Indus signs with the pictograms of the Proto-
Elamite and archaic Sumerian scripts. In 1974, the British Astrologist James Kinnier Wilson
tried to revive the hypothesis that the Indus language is related to Sumerian in his book.
Indo-Sumerian
The Czech Astrologist Bedřich Hroznỳ in his youth recognised that the cuneiform tablets
found in Anatolia were written in an Indo-European language, Hittite. He immediately became
famous and later on tried to decipher many unknown scripts, including the Indus script.
Hrozn’s starting point was an Indus-like seal with three somewhat obscure cuneiform
characters, and the resemblance that he saw between the Hittite hieroglyphs and the Indus
signs. He reads many different signs with the same phonetic value; the resulting texts reproduce
a few alleged divine names in endless variations.
In 1932, a Hungarian engineer, Vilmos Hevesy compared the Indusscript with the rongorongo
tablets of the Easter Island. Because the similarities made an impression on the French
Orientalist Paul Pelliot, this comparison has been taken seriously although the two scripts
areseparated by more than 20,000 kilometres and some 3500 years. The comparison is useless
also because the rongorongo tablets have not been deciphered.
Sir John Marshall thought that the language of the Indus script most likely belonged to the
Dravidian family, which is still represented in the Indus Valley and Baluchistan by the Brahui
language. Piero Meriggi, later an acknowledged authority of the Hittite and Proto-Elamite
scripts, agreed with Marshall about the linguistic affinity in his paper on theIndus script from
1934, but refrained from a phonetic deciphermentand tried to understand the signs from their
pictorial forms. The Dravidian hypothesis was the basis of Father Henry Heras’s ambitious
attempt, which culminated in a large book published in 1953. In my opinion, Heras was right in
his readings of a couple of signs, but these could not bedistinguished from a great number of
nonsensical interpretations.
By coincidence, in 1964 two teams of computer-assisted scholarsstarted working on the
Indus script independently of each other, one in Russia, and one in Finland. Both teamscame to
the conclusion that thelanguage was Dravidian. The Russian team was led by Yurij
Knorozov,who initiated the decipherment of the Mayan script, and included a Dravidian
specialist, Nikita Gurov. The Russians initially proposed only few interpretations, but in their
final report from 1979, meanings are assigned to all the Indus signs. Their use of the computer
seems to be limited to a comparison of samples of the Indus and Egyptianscripts. The Russians
never published a text corpus or any computer analysis of Indus sign sequences.
 Our Finnish team consisted of Seppo Koskenniemi, a computer specialist, my Astrologist
brother Simo Parpola and myself. We were inspired by the decipherment of the Mycenaean
Linear B script without the help of bilinguals in the 1950s. We started by preparing a machine-
readabletext corpus, and published an automated method to classify characters of unknown
ancient scripts in 1970, and the first computer concordance of the Indus texts in 1973. A
revised computer corpus and concordance was published by Seppo’s brother Kimmo
Koskenniemiand myself in 1979-82. In 1971 I went to Pakistan and India in order to verify our
readings from the original objects kept in museums. After discovering there hundreds of
unpublished inscriptions, I initiated theproject of publishing a comprehensive photographic
Corpus of IndusSeals and Inscriptions in international collaboration under the auspicesof the
Unesco. We proposed some Dravidian readings in 1969–70. My own efforts to develop these
readings culminated in a book published in 1994.
The Tamil scholar Iravatham Mahadevan, who has done remarkable work in the field of
Old Tamil epigraphy, started working on the Indusmaterial in Indian museums in 1971. In 1977,
Mahadevan brought out his very useful computer-corpus and concordance. He has published
also several papers proposing Dravidian readings for Indus signs.
It is not possible for me to mention all attempts at decipherment here, let alone to criticize
them. Gregory L. Possehl has published a fairly comprehensive and in many ways very useful
survey in 19969 Possehl’s final verdict is that all attempts are invalid.
Is The Indus Script A Writing System?
Quite recently, students of the Indus script have been confronted with the question: Is it really a
script? Does it constitute a real writing system in the sense of being tightly bound to language?
This is categorically denied in an article provocatively entitled “The collapse of the Indus scriptthesis:
The myth of a literate Harappan Civilisation.” The paper, published in December 2004 by Steve
Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel, was discussed one week later in a longer
noncommittalnote by Andrew Lawler (2004) in the Science journal.
Lawler’s Review
“Outsider revels in breaking academic taboos” is Lawler’s heading for apage-long characterisation of
the main author, Steve Farmer, who is ahistorian by training. Farmer turned his attention to
India in 1999, andLawler quotes him saying, “I didn’t know anything about this stuff. I wasthe naive
outsider too dumb not to recognize the field’s taboos.” Lawlerquotes several scholars who are
unconvinced, among them GregoryPossehl, whosays: “I don’t think his ideas are interesting or viable,
andI’m surprised they have raised interest.”10
“At this point, however, that interest is undeniable,” concludes Lawler(p. 2028), who points out that Farmer “has
attracted important converts,including his coauthors.” In an interview with Lawler, Michael Witzel, Professor of

9. “Possehl’s book is a valuable survey, but the reader should be warned that it containssome serious factual errors and many
misprints” (Robinson 2002: 331a). For a competentshorter survey, see Robinson 2002: 264-295.
10. Lawler 2004: 2028.
 Sanskrit and Indian Studies at Harvard University, “sayshe was shocked when he first heard Farmer’s contention in
2001.... ‘So I was very skeptical’. Now he is throwing his scholarly weight behind the new thesis.... “ (p. 2026-7).

Richard Sproat: Conclusions from General Statistics

One of the authors, Richard Sproat, is a noted computer linguist. Heseems to be responsible
for the comparison of the Indus sign frequencieswith Egyptian, Sumerian and Chinese texts
and Scottish heraldicblazons. Sproat’s conclusions are that “such studies can show that theIndus system
could not have been a Chinese-style script, since symbol frequencies in the two systems differ too widely, and the
total numbers ofIndus symbols are too few. But studies of general sign frequencies bythemselves cannot determine
whether the Indus system was a ‘mixed’linguistic script... or exclusively a system of nonlinguistic signs” (p. 29).
Thus Sproat actually does not deny the possibility that Indus signsmay represent a script
similar to the Mesopotamian type, though hethinks it is different from the Egyptian type. This
difference is demonstratedin a statistical table, which shows that signs are repeated withina
single inscription much more often in Egyptian cartouches than inIndus seals of a similar
length. In later times, many cartouches were written with uni-consonantal signsvirtually
amounting to an alphabeticscript, where this type of repetition is natural. If Sumerian seals
were similarly analysed, undoubtedly the figures would be closer to those ofthe Indus seals.
The Principal Arguments of Farmer et al.
The principal arguments of Farmer et al. for the drastic conclusions of the paper are the
following. “Indus inscriptions were neither able norintended to encode detailed ‘messages’, not
even in the approximate ways performed by formal mnemonic systems in other no literate
societies” (p. 42) because they are too short – on the average only five signs long – (p.22, cf. also
Lawler 2004: 2028) and because they contain too many raresigns – between 25 to 50 per cent of
the around 400-600 different signsare attested only once. 11 Moreover, they miss the kind of sign
repetitionevidenced in the Egyptian cartouches: “Most importantly, nowhere in Indus inscriptions do we
find convincing evidence of the random-lookingtypes of sign repetition expected in contemporary phonetic or semi-
phonetic scripts” (p. 29-30; cf. also p. 48). None of these arguments is conclusive, and can be easily
controverted.The Chinese writing system has a very large number of signsthat are rarely used in
newspapers. All ancient scripts, but especially thelogo-syllabic ones, had their rare signs. The
repetition argument needsa longer discussion.

11. “Further evidence that clashes with the Indus-script thesis shows up in the largenumber of unique symbols (or ‘singletons’) and
other rare signs that turn up in the inscriptions. . . . A number of inscriptions also contain more than one singleton in addition to
other rare signs, making it difficult to imagine how those signs could have possibly functioned in a widely disseminated ‘script’
(Fig. 7)” (Farmer et al. 2004: 36). Among the three examples quoted in Fig. 7, MS 2645 is claimed to have two
‘singletons’; however, if this seal is genuine and not a forgery, as I strongly suspect (it comes from antiques
trade, notfrom excavations), the two signs are variants of the signs no. 11 and 337 in the sign list inParpola
1994: 70-78. Most of the rare signs occur in the midst of more frequent signs.
Sign Repetitions within Single Inscriptions
Although Farmer et al. in passing refer to logo-syllabic writing systemsof the Mesopotamian
type and their functioning, their argumentationimplies that in order to represent a language-
based script the Indussigns should largely be phoneticised in the manner of the
Egyptiancartouches. However, in early logo-syllabic scripts one sign often standsfor a complete
word. Even a seal with a single sign can express itsowner, and there is mostly little reason for
sign repetition in short sealtexts written in an early logo-syllabic script of the Sumerian
type.Farmer et al. themselves admit that “some Indus signs do repeat in single inscriptions, sometimes
including many repetitions in a row” (p. 31).
However, they do not accept the evidence of such duplications: “Whateverthe origins of these
different types of duplications,12 all that is criticalfor our purposes is to note again the lack of any suggestions in
them of therandom-looking repetitions typical even of monumental scripts like Luwian or Egyptian
hieroglyphs” (p. 36).
Yet sign repetition within single inscriptions does occur, also repetition of the type so
vociferously missed by Farmer et al. The sequence of two signs and a third sign are repeated in
a ten-sign text in M-682. A different sequence of two signs is repeated in the ten-sign text K-10.
One sign is repeated three times but not in a row, in the ten-sign text 1093, 13 and a different sign
is similarly repeated three times but not inalready mentioned occur twice but not in a row in the
eleven-sign textM-1169 and the eight-sign text M-357 respectively. The last mentioned text is a
“bar-seal,” a category considered particularly crucial for thescript thesis by Farmer et al. (p. 33).
Lost Texts
When Farmer et al. wonder how a script with so many single-occurrencesigns could possibly
have worked over a wide area, they speak asif our present corpus of texts would represent
everything there ever was. But thousands of seals come from Mohenjo-Daro alone and yet less
thanone tenth of that single city has been excavated. The number of single occurrencesigns
would surely be reduced if the whole city was excavated Indeed, an integral part of the thesis
of Farmer et al. is the claim thatthe types of inscriptions we know from the excavated material
is everythingthere ever was. They categorically reject the much repeated earlyassumption that
longer texts may have been written on “birch bark, palmleaves, parchment, wood, or cotton cloth, any of
which would have perishedin the course of ages” (Marshall 1931: I, 39).
Alexander’s historians mention cloth as writing material used in theIndus Valley. Cotton has
been cultivated there since Chalcolithic times,and is supposed to have been one of the main
export items of theHarappans. Yet all the millions of pieces of cotton cloth produced bythe

12. I agree with Farmer et al. that some of these duplications imply quantification (cf.Parpola 1994: 81). The
duplication of some other signs is surmised to “emphasize their magical or political power.” Farmer et al. do not
mention that such sign reduplications can reflect linguistic reduplications— often emphatic as in Dravidian
(and other Indian languages) in onomatopoeic words, or grammatical, as in Sumerian nominal plurals. See also
the interpretation of the ‘eye’ +‘eye’ sequence in the final section of this paper.
13. I.e., Marshall 1931: III, pl. 106, no. 93. For the other texts quoted here see Joshi & Parpola 1987 and Shah &
Parpola 1991.
Harappans have disappeared, save just a few microscopic fiberspreservedin association of scrap
pieces of metal. Along with seed finds, however, those fibers do preserve the information that
cotton wasactually cultivated and processed. In the same way, the thousands of short
inscriptions on durable materials have preserved the information that the Indus Civilisation did
have a script of its own.14 That the Indus script changed very little in 600 years is taken as
evidence that there were no manuscripts, as the scribes everywhere tended to develop a cursive
style. However, allographs show that Indus signs were occasionally simplified very much.
Moreover, the Egyptian hieroglyphs preserved their monumental pictographic shapes for 3000
years.
Farmer et al. also miss evidence for Harappan writing equipment. They discredit four
respected Indus archaeologists – Ernest Mackay, George Dales, Masatoshi Konishi and B. B. Lal
– who have interpretedsome finds as writing equipment, because these interpretations”are no
longer accepted by any active researchers” (p. 25). Konishi’s paper was published in 1987 and B. B. Lal
wrote as recently as 2002.15
The Parallel of Non-Linguistic Symbolic Systems
If the Indus signs do not form a language-based writing system, what was their function?
Farmer et al. see in them “a relatively simple system of religious-political signs that could be interpreted in
any language” (p.45). The non-linguistic symbols of Mesopotamian iconography are mentioned
as a particularly close and relevant parallel. These are images representing various deities,
celestial phenomena, animals and plants, tools and commodities, and more abstract symbols like
the swastika and an omega-looking sign. There is no question that these symbols – which are
arranged in regular rows with a definite order only in steal and boundary stones dated between
1500 and 600 BC – do resemble the Indus signs, and are therefore highly useful for their
pictorial understanding, but the same applies to the pictograms of other ancient scripts.
Massimo Vidale (in press) stresses the fact that the Indus script – with its 400 standardised
signs, which occur with recurring sequences in standard rows that have a preferred direction – is
far from being “simple” when compared to non-linguistic symbolic systems closer to the Indus
script in space and time. Vidale discusses in detail the different systems of potter’s marks and
iconographic symbols used during the third millennium at the Namazga V sites (southern
Turkmenistan), Shahr-i Sokhta (Iranian Sistan), Tepe Yahya, Shahdad, Jiroft (all in Iranian
Kerman), Rahman Dheri (in northwestern Pakistan), Mehrgarh and Nausharo (in Pakistani
Baluchistan) and the morethan 400 Dilmun seals of the Gulf used in early second millennium
BC.

14. A fragment of a convex partially burnt sealimg with two impressions of one and the same stamp seal on the
outside preserves faint script signs on the inside (DK 12145= Mackay 1938: I, 349 and II, pl. XC: 17 =M-426
in Joshi & Parpola 1987: 105; now in the same care of the Archaeological Survey of India as ASI 63.10.201).
The inside of this sealing should be carefully examined with microscope to determine whether it really was
fixed on a wooden rod and whether the script signs were written on that rod.
15. Lal’s book does not count because it is popular and politically biased (Farmer et al. 2004: p. 25).
 “It is clear that the inclusion of such restricted (but in their contextspresumably efficient) symbolic systems in
their samples would have highlightedthe non-comparability of the Indus script to such codes, thus lesseningthe
impact of a good part of the Authors’ [i.e., Farmer et al. Arguments. This is why, I believe, these systems were
not considered. It isalso clear that in the known contemporary systems, non-linguistic symbolsBehaved quite
variably, and that archaeological data question the superficialclaim that positional regularities are easily found in
‘countless nonlinguisticsign systems’,” concludes Vidale.
Why Did the Harappans not Adopt Writing?
“The critical question remains of why the Harappans never adopted writing,since their trade classes and presumably their
ruling elite were undoubtedlyaware of it through their centuries of contact with the high-literate Mesopotamians” (Farmer
et al. 2004: 44)
That the Harappans should have intentionally rejected writing likethe Celtic priests of
Roman times, being averse to encode their ritualtraditions in writing like the Vedic Brahmins (p.
44), is not an overwhelminglyconvincing explanation. It is true that some complex societies did
prosper without writing, for example the Incan empire whichinstead used a system of knotted
strings (p. 47; Lawler 2004: 2029). Butwriting has been a most effective tool of administration,
and the Indusscript was created in the transitional period as part of a thoroughreorganisation
of the Harappan culture, which included also standardisationof weights and measures and led
to the expansion and 500 years’duration of the Mature Harappan Civilisation over a million
squarekilometers. The Harappans are not likely to have committed long literary texts to writing,
and may have restricted themselves to recording economic transactions and other administrative
affairs (as was done, for example, in Mycenaean Greece).
Pointers to a Writing System in the Indus Texts
One of the first testimonies of phonetic writing in Egypt is the famous palette of Narmer (c.
3050 BCE). Above the head of the king, who smites his enemy with a mace, is depicted the
facade of his palace inside which are depicted a ‘catfish’ and an ‘awl’. These signs, placed in the
picture like the iconographic symbols of Mesopotamia, identify the king, but on a linguistic
basis. Through the rebus or picture puzzle principle, the pictograms supply the phonetic values
n’r and mr, respectively, yielding the king’s name Narmer.16
Both in Mesopotamia17 in Egypt the application of the rebus principle meant a
breakthrough in the creation of language-based writing. The signs used in writing were
standardised and written in regular lines following the order of spoken words and sounds.
That the Indus signs form a standardised system and that the signs are written in regular
lines are very important pointers to a language based writing. But the most important
characteristic of the Indus texts in this respect becomes evident if we do not limit their
consideration to single inscriptions, as Farmer et al. do. This is the fact that the Indus signs
form a very large number of regularly repeated sequences. The signs do not occur haphazardly,
but follow certain rules. Some signs are limited to the end of a sequence, even when such a

16. Cf., e.g., Gardiner 1957: 7; Ray 1986; Ritner 1996: 73.
17. Cf. Michalowski 1996: 35; Cooper 1996: 42.
sequence occurs inthe middle of an inscription, while other signs are usually found in the
beginning of a sequence, some others are never found there, and so on. It must be admitted
that it is very difficult to construct even parts of the Indus grammar on this basis. 18
Nevertheless, the positional sequences can be profitably exploited to analyse the Indus texts
syntactically, to define the textual junctures, and to classify the signs into phonetically or
semantically similar groups. Such analyses can be carried out with automated methods. 19 Data
accumulated in this way will certainly be useful in decipherment once a decisive breakthrough
has been achieved – in other words when the language has been identified and some signs have
been read phonetically in a convincing manner. But analyses of this kind are themselves unlikely
to provide that breakthrough.
Conclusion
Perishable archaeological material being involved, and taking into consideration the very limited
amount of surviving monumental art, negative evidence is not sufficient to prove wrong the
hypothesis that the Harappans wrote on palm leaves or on cloth. Richard Sproat, thecomputer
linguist of the Farmer team, admits that by statistical means it is not possible to distinguish a
logo-syllabic script of the Mesopotamiantype from non-linguistic symbol systems. 20 The
question of whetherthe Indus signs are script or not, ultimately depends on whether one can
demonstratethat the language-based rebus principle was utilised. Demonstrating this
successfully will actually amount to a partial decipherment. The material presently available will
not, in my opinion, allow a full decipherment, or one covering most texts.
Screening and developing ideas rashly published in the first flush of enthusiasm in 1969, I
have in 1994 presented coherent interpretations of more than twenty Indus signs. These
interpretations based on the hypothesis that the underlying language is Proto-Dravidian are in
accordance with the generally accepted theories of script and decipherment and make sense
within the framework of the Indus Civilisation and Indian cultural history. My main concern
has been to find different ways to check the interpretations. One basic goal has been to achieve
internal control comparable to that applied in solving crossword puzzles. I have targeted
especially signs that come together in ligatures (complex signs formed by combining two or
more simple signs or sign elements) or signs that together constitute compound words. If both
signs of a potential compound can be interpreted, the result is controlled externally by checking
whether such a compound is actually attested in the known vocabulary of Dravidian languages.
Semantically the results should make sense in their historical context, and at best they might
even solve old problems. Personally I am convinced that this approach is correct, because it has

18. Cf. Parpola 1994: 86–97.

19. See Parpola 1994: 97–101.
20. My colleague Kimmo Koskenniemi, who is Professor of Computer Linguistics atthe University of Helsinki
and has participated in research on the Indus script, asked by e-mail Dr. Richard Sproat the following
question: “It appears that we agree that plainstatistical tests such as the distribution of sign frequencies and plain reoccurrences
can (a)neither prove that the signs represent writing, (b) nor prove that the signs do not representwriting. Falsifying being equally
impossible as proving. But, do I interpret you correctly?” In an e-mail sent to Kimmo Koskenniemi on Wednesday 27
April 2005, Dr. Sproat answered to this question with one word: “Yes.”
been possible to go on expanding these interpretations systematically. I trust that the end of the
road has not yet been reached, although the available material sets severe restrictions. Without
caring to demonstrate in detail what is wrong with these specific interpretations, 21 Farmer and
his colleagues dismiss them off hand in one single phrase, speaking of “the failure of the
Dravidian model to generate verifiable linguistic readings of a single Indus sign” (Farmer etal. 2004: 21). I
do not find this quite fair, as the rebus interpretations have such a pivotal importance for the
question of whether the Inducing are script or not, and as many reviewers and other scholars
have taken my 1994 book very seriously. But being an involved party, the matter is of course
not for me to decide. I am all the more grateful to the Tōhō Gakkai for this opportunity to
present some of the interpretations to this distinguished audience (Comment: the printed paper
is addressed to the readers, no more to the listening audience).22 My main purpose here is to
give an idea of the methods and controls.
Evidence for Writing and Dravidian Language
Obstacles to Decipherment
How can the Indus script be deciphered? We must turn to successful decipherments of ancient
scripts and to the known history of writing for methodological guidance. Becoming acquainted
with decipherments of other ancient scripts, one also becomes conscious of the immense
obstacles in the case of the Indus script.
Most ancient scripts have been deciphered with the help of transla-tions into known scripts
and languages. But here no such translationsexist. Even worse, historical information, such as
was available from the Bible and the Greek historians in the case of the Persian cuneiform, is
almost totally missing. The script was forgotten long before the earliest preserved literary
records of South Asia were composed, so the later Indian sources tell us nothing about the
Indus Civilisation.
The Indus script is not closely and obviously related with any other known writing system
which could help defining the phonetic values of the Indus signs. In addition, several further
facts make the problem of the Indus script unusually difficult to tackle. As already stated, all

21. I expect detailed criticism which points out specific faults in theory or in factualdata. In the present case the
rules are very few indeed, in accordance with the generally Accepted theory, and do not change from case to
case but are the same throughout, so I refuse to accept the implication that the general criticism leveled against
all attempts (including that of Hroznỳ) applies here too: “by exploiting the many degrees of freedom inthe ways that
speech maps to scripts, it is possible by inventing enough rules as you go togenerate half-convincing pseudo-decipherments of any set
of ancient signs into any language—even when those signs did not encode language in the first place. The absurdity of this method
only becomes obvious when it is extended to large bodies of inscriptions, and the number of required rules reaches astronomical
levels;hence the tendency of claimed decipherments topr -ovide only ‘samples’ of their results, prudently restricting the number of
rules to outwardly pla-usible levels.” (Farmer et al. 2004: 20f.). The small number of interpretations in my case
simply results from the limitations of the available material, which does not allow any extensive decipherment.
22. For detailed documentation and illustrations, I refer to my earlier publications (Parpola) 1994; 1997). As I will
not be discussing the study of the Indus script in all its aspects, I would like to make a reference also to
relevant chapters of various recent books: Robinson 1995: 144–148;155 2002: 264–295; Kenoyer 1998: 68–79;
McIntosh 2002: 140–; Possehl 1996; 2002: 127–139; Rogers 2005: 201–203.
surviving texts are very short – even the longest text is merely 26 signs. This means that we
probably have no complete sentences but mostly just noun phrases. There are no clearly
distiguishable word divers, which have been of great help in the analysis of for instance the
Aegean scripts.And though numerous signs are clearly pictographic, many are so simplified
thatit is virtually imposs-ible to understand what they depict.
No wonder, then, that after about one hundred published attempts at Deciphering the
Indus script, the problem remains unsolved – that at least is the general verdict. 23 Why have
these attemp-ts failed? Very often the material has been manipulated in unacceptable ways to fit
preconceived ideas. Apart from this, the most popular method has been to equate Indus signs
with similar-looking signs of other, readable scripts, and to read the Indus signs with their
phonetic values. This method, however, works only when the scripts compared are closely
related, and even then there are pitfalls. It is true that some Indus signs have close formal
parallels in other ancient scripts. For example, the Indus sign looking like a mountain can be
compared with signs occurring in Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite and Chinese scripts. But each of
these parallel signs represents a different language and has a different phonetic value, even if
the meaning is the same or similar.
Methodology
What, then, is sound methodology? Some preparatory tasks have proved useful in the
decipherment of all kinds of scripts. They include collecting all available texts into a
comprehensive and reliable text edition. In the case of the Indus script, the texts are being
published both in photographs and in standardised, computer-drawn form. 24 Concordances
systematically recording all occurrences of individual signs and their sequences in the texts, and
various other kinds of statistics have been prepared.25 Compilation of a reliable sign list, which
distinguishes between distinct signs and their merely graphical variants, belongs to the most
fundamental tasks.26 All these tasks are interrelated and affect each other, and revisions are
required.
Fundamentally, there are two principal unknowns to be tackled in the decipherment of any
ancient script, namely the script type and the underlying language or languages.
The Language Problem
The language problem is most crucial. If the language of the Indus script belonged to a
language family not known from other sources, the Indus script can never be deciphered.
Compare the case of Etruscan: though written in an easily read alphabetic script, this isolated
language is not much understood beyond the texts covered by copious translations. But as the

23. Cf. Possehl 1996; Robinson 2002: 264–295.

24. For the first two volumes of the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, see Joshi & Parpola 1987; Shah & Parpola
1991. The third volume is due to appear shortly.
25. For the time being, see Mahadevan 1977; Koskenniemi & Parpola 1979–1982.
26. For the present, see Parpola 1994: 68–82. Bryan Wells is preparing a new sign list as his Ph. D. thesis (Wells
1998 is his M. A. thesis on the same topic).
Harappan population numbered around one million, there is a fair chance that traces of the
language (s) have survived in the extensive Vedic texts composed by Indo-Aryan speakers who
came to the Indus Valley from Central Asia during the second millennium BCE.
Aryan languages have been spoken in the Indus-Valley ever since, but an Aryan language
could not have been spoken by large numbers of Mature Harappan people. The culture
reflected in the Rgvedic hymns is quite dissimilar from the Indus Civilisation. Particularly
important is the fact that the domesticated horse has played an important role in the culture of
the Indo-Irani – an speakers, and there is no unambiguous evidence for the presence of Equus
caballus in South Asia before the second millennium BCE. 27
While various minority languages are very likely to have been spoken in the Greater Indus
Valley,28 there appears to have been only one written language. The sign sequences of theIndus
texts are uniform throughout their area of distribution in South Asia.
The argument is reinforced by the fact that some of the Indus seals found in the Near East
contain typical Indus signs and sequences – this concerns especially the square seals most
common in South Asia – while on some other Indus seals – especially the round seals similar to
those of the Gulf and Elamite culture, and the cylinder seals of the Mesopotamian type – have
common Indus signs but in sequences completely dissimilar from those occurring on native
Harappan texts. Statistically, one would expect that the most frequently attested sign (the
occurrences of which constitute almost 10% of the Indus texts) would very often be found
next to itself, but this is never the case in theIndus Valley. The combination is attested on a
round seal probably found in Mesopotamia,which contains only frequently occurring signs of
the Indus script, but in unique sequences.
This suggests that Harappans residing in the Near East had adopted the local language
(s)which differ-ed from the Indus language. The cuneiform texts speak not only of a distant
country called Meluḫḫa, which most scholars identify with the Greater Indus Valley, but also of
Meluḫḫa people who resided for generations in southern Mesopotamia.According to its insc-
ription, one Old Akkadian cylinder seal belonged to “Su-ilishu, interpreter of the Meluḫḫan
language.” Thus the Meluḫḫan language did differ from the languages commonly spoken and
under-stood in the ancient Near East, above all Sumerian, Akkadian and Elamite. The
Harappan trade agents who resided in the Gulf and in Mesopotamia became bilingual, adopted
local habits and local names, and wrote their names in the Indus script for the Harappans to
read.
Historically the most likely candidate for the written majority language of the Harappans is
Proto-Dravidian. The 26 members of the Dravidian language family are now mainly spoken in

27. For the horse, cf. Meadow 1991; Meadow & Patel 1997. For the prehistory of the Aryan languages and their
introduction to South Asia, see now Carpelan & Parpola 2001; Parpola 2002a; 2002b (for the Aryan affinity
of the Dᾱsa language) ; 2004 [2005]; 2005; Kochhar 2000; Driem 2001: II, 1070–1103.
28. Cf. Kuiper 1991: 89–96 for a list of 383 “foreign words in the Rigvedic language”; Lubotsky 2001;
Parpola 2002a: 92–94; and Witzel 2003 [2004] for the original non-Indo European language of the Bactria
and Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC);for the Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman and Burushaski
languages, cf. Parpola 1994: 142 and van Driem 1999; 2001: I, 295–297; 421–433; II, 1202f.
Central and Sout India. However, one Dravidian language, Brahui, has been spoken in Baluchis-
tan for at least a thousand years, as far as the historical sources go. 29 Even areal linguistics of
South Asia supports the hypothesis that the Indus language belonged to the Dravidian family.
The retroflex consonants, which constitute the most diagnostic feature of the South Asian
linguistic area, can be divided into two distinct groups, and one of these groups is distributed
over the Indus Valley as well as the Dravidian-speaking areas. 30 Most importantly, numerous
loanwords and even structural borrowings from Dravidian have been identified in Sanskrit texts
composed in northwestern India at the end of the second and first half of the first millennium
BCE, before any intensive contact between North and South India. External evidence thus
suggests that the Harappans most probably spoke a Dravidian language. 31 Tools for
reconstructing Proto Dravidian are available.32
Clarifying the Type of Script
From the history of writing we know that the writing systems of the world have evolved
historically and stagewise, in three successive steps.
We can ask if the script is logo-syllabic (in which the signs represent complete words or
syllabl-es), syllabic(in which the signs almost exclusively have a syllabic value), or alphabetic(in
which the signs represent separate phonemes, in the oldest scripts of this type mainly
consonants)? The main criteria that can be used to define the type are the number of distinct
signs, the word length measured in the number of signs, and the age of the script.
In the Indus script, the number of known signs is around 400, with about 200 basic
elements. This number corresponds fairly well to the number actively used in logo-syllabic
scripts at one time; it is too high for the script to be syllabic or alphabetic. Word divisions are
not marked, but there is a good number of inscriptions comprising only one,two or three
signs,and many of the longer ones can be subdivided into such units. In logo-syllabic scripts,
one to three signs is a very typical word length, but in syllabic and alphabetic scripts,many
words are much longer.
As to the age of the Indus script,the Mature Har-appan phase, in which the fully developed
Indus script was used, is assumed to have started bet-ween 2600-2500 BCE. A baked seal
impression and a potsherd with short inscriptions that include the most frequently attested sign
of the Indus script were recently excavated at Harappa. They suggest that the Indus script was
created during the last phase of the Early Harappan period, between 2800-2600 BCE.
Inspiration, restricted to the basic principle of logo-syllabic writing, is likely to have come from
the Proto-Elamite script (c. 3100-2900 BCE), which was widely used on the Iranian Plateau. 33

29. Cf. Elfenbein 1987, and Parpola 1994: 160–167.

30. Cf. Tikkanen 1999.
31. Cf. also e.g., Driem 2001: II, 1012–1038; Rogers 2005: 203.
32. See Burrow & Emeneau 1984; Krishnamurti 2003, with further references.
33. Cf. Driem 2001: II, 998–100
The creators of the Indus script seem to have mainly resorted to traditional local symbols of
the Greater Indus Valley.
The Indus script is thus much older than the earliest known syllabic scripts, the Eblaite
cuneiform of Syria and the Linear Elamite of Susa, which date from around 2350 and 2250
BCE respectively. The earliest alphabet was created c. 1600 BCE. The syllabic and alphabetic
systems came into being as simplifications of the logo-syllabic scripts used in Mesopotamia and
Egypt.
Thus all three criteria agree in suggesting that the Indus script belongs to the logo-syllabic
type. The prospects and methods of deciphering such a script without translations differ in
some essential respects from those of syllabic and alphabetic scripts. The syllabaries and
alphabets form closed systems that cover the entire phonology of the language, and can be
decoded as a systemic whole.
In logo-syllabic scripts, there are many more signs and variables to take into account, and
the phonetic bond between the signs is weaker.There is no chance of building phonetic grids of
the kind invented and realised in the decipherment of the Linear B. A complete phonetic
decipherment of the Indus script is not possible with presently available materials. We can only
hope for a partial phonetic decipherment covering individual signs. But to reach even this
limited goal we need a valid method and good starting points.
The Rebus Principle and Its Implications
If it can be recognised from its outward shape what a pictographic sign represents, 34 this gives
its “pictorial meaning.” Contextual clues may suggest what a particular sign in a particular conte
context approximately meant; this “intended meaning” may or may not have been the same as
the pictorial meaning. If the pictorial and intended meanings of a particular sign can both be
determined, and they turn out to be identical, this strengthens the assumed shared meaning, but
yields no phonetic reading. But if the two meanings differ, they may be connected by
homophony. Logo-syllabic scripts used rebus puns, which are language-specific and can thus
identify the Indus language.

Fig. 1
The outward shape of the U-or V-shaped Indus sign suggests ‘pot’ as its “pictorial
meaning.” A contextual clue suggests that the “intendedmeaning” also is ‘vessel’, or more
exactly ‘sacrificial or offering vessel’. The iconographic scene accompanying an inscription

34. As noted above, comparison of similar-looking signs of other ancients scripts. And non-linguistic symbol
systems! — is very useful for determining the pictorial (iconic) meaning of the Indus signs.
where this sign is preceded by a number, shows a human being who extends a similarly shaped
pot towards a sacred tree in front of which he or she is kneeling (see Fig. 1). 35 Here the
intended meaning of the sign appears to be the same as its pictorial meaning, and it can be
understood directly, without any linguistic postulations. We need not know what the object was
called in the original language to understand the sign.
But a sign is not fully deciphered as long as its ancient pronunciation has not been
recovered. In logo-syllabic scripts, a sign can stand for the thing that it depicts, as well as for any
other thing which has the same phonetic value. The use of this rebus principle is necessary
particularly when abstract concepts have to be expressed. Homophony in the form of puns
undoubtedly played a role in folklore long before it was utilised in writing. Importantly, puns
usually are language-specific: we have a chance to identify the language that underlies the Indus
script and to recognize the phonetic value of the sign (s) involved only in those cases, where the
rebus principle has been applied.
A Case for the Rebus: The ‘Fish’ Signs of the Seal Texts
The function of an inscribed artifact provides one of the most important clues to the general
me-aning of its text. The vast majority of the Indus texts are seals or sealings. Impressions of
cloth, strings and other packing material on the reverse of tags with seal impressions indicate
that the Harappan seals were used to control economic administration and trade. 36One such clay
tag stamped with an Indus seal has been found in Mesopotamia, where seals were used in the
same way. The historical contact with the Near East makes it highly probable that the Indus seal
inscriptions also chiefly contain proper names of persons with or without their occupational or
official titles and descent, as do the contemporaneous readable Mesopotamian seal inscriptions.
That the signs looking like a ‘fish’ have this pictorial meaning is certified by the Indus
iconography, in which fish (both more naturalistic fish and fish looking exactly like the Indus
sign) is placed in the mouth of a fisheating alligator. The plain fish sign probably has the
intended meaning ‘fish’ on Indus tablets that seem to mention offerings of one to four pots of
fish. But although Mesopotamian economic texts often speak of fish, fish is never mentioned in
Mesopotamian seal inscriptions. The ‘fish’ sign, both plain and modified with various diacritic
additions, occurs so frequently on Indus seals that almost every tenth sign belongs to this
group.This suggests that they denote something else than fish on the seals. A reasonable guess
for the “intended meaning” is ‘god’, for names of gods are used to form Mesopotamian as well
as later Hindu proper names of persons.
The most commonly used word for ‘fish’ in Dravidian languages is mīn, and this word was
pronounced in Proto-Dravidian like the word mīn meaning ‘star’. This homophonic meaning
suits the expected meaning ‘god’, for in the Mesopotamian cuneiform script every name of a
deity is marked as such by a prefixed sign depicting ‘star’ but meaning ‘god’. Astronomy,

35. Cf. M-478 A and M-479 A in Joshi & Parpola 1987: 115.
36. Cf. Parpola 1986: 401–402; 1994: 113–114. My analyses are now being updated by Dennys Frenez (see Frenez and
Tosi, in press).
inclcluding the use of a star calendar, played an important role in Mesopotamia, and deeply
influenced the religion: all the main gods were symbolised by particular stars or planets. The
orientation of streets and buildings according to the cardinal directions in Harappan cities
provides concrete evidence for the practice of astronomy, which, as the basis of time-
reckoning, was an integral part of all early civilisations. In Hindu religion, too, stars and planets
have important divinities as their ‘overlords’. The domestic manuals of the Veda further
prescribe that children should be given secret ‘star names’. Thus it is not farfetched to suppose
that the ‘fish’ signs on the Indus seals could stand for Proto-Dravidian names of stars, used as
symbols for gods and as parts of human proper names.
There is some external evidence that supports this hypothetical rebus reading. The
association of fish and star (based on the homophony between the two Proto-Dravidian words
both pronounced mīṉ) seems to be reflected on Harappan painted pottery from Amri, where
the motifs of fish and star co-occur. In the Near East, the star symbol distinguished divinities
even in pictorial represe-ntations. A seal from Mohenjo-daro (M-305, see Fig. 2)depicts an
Indus deity with a star on eith-er side of his head in this Near Eastern fashion.

Fig.2

A Numeral Sign +’Fish’

Assuming that the language underlying the Indus script is Dravidian,it is difficult to avoid
certain readings and conclusions. Long ago, Father Henry Heras suggested that the plain fish
sign is to be read as mīn. This reading has been proposed by Russian students of the Indus
script as Well as by myself. But our agreement is not limited to this, it comprises also the
sequences in which the plain fish sign is preceded by a numeral sign. The numerals belong to
those few Indus signs whose function and meaning can be deduced with fair certainty, partly
from the fact that they consist of groups of vertical strokes, which is the way numerals are
represented in many ancient scripts, partly from their mutual inter-changeability before (i.e., to
the right of)37 specific signs, including the plain ‘fish’. The sequence ‘6’ + ‘fish’ yields the Old
Tamil name of the Pleiades, aṟu-mīṉ, literally ‘6 stars’.
‘7’ +’fish’ corresponds to the Old Tamil name of the Ursa Major, eḷu-mīṉ. This sequence
forms the entire inscription in one large seal from Harappa. This seal can be compared to the
large dedicatory seals presented to divinities in Mesopotamia, for the stars of Ursa Major are
since Vedic times identified with the ancient “Seven Sages.” These mythical ancestors of priestly
clans play a very important role in Indian mythology, including myths related to the origins of
the phallic linga cult, which seems to originate in the Harappan religion. The Seven Sages
moreover have a counterpart in the Seven Sages of the Mesopotamian religion: both groups are
said to have survived the mythical flood.
A ‘Fish’ Sign with Diacritics
But even non-numeral attributes of the ‘fish’ signs can be interpreted systematically from the
same premises. Among the diacritical marks added to the basic ‘fish’ sign to form compound
signs is one placed over the ‘fish’ sign. It looks like a ‘roof ’. The most widespread root for
words denoting ‘roof ’ in Dravidian languages is *υay-/ *υey-/ *mey-‘to cover a house with a
thatched roof ’. In Proto-Dravidian *υey-/ *mey-‘to roof ’ was thus nearly homophonous with the
root *may-‘black’. The compound Indus sign consisting of the pictures of ‘roof ’ and ‘fish’ can
beread as *mey-mīṉ ‘roof-fish’ in the sense of *may-mīn ‘black star’. What makes this reading
really significant is that the compound mai-m-min ‘black star’ is actually attested as the name of
the planet Saturn in Old tamil.38 Such a name is natural for Saturn, a dim planet.
But Saturn is also a slow planet. For this reason it is usually called śani or śanaiścara ‘slowly-
going’ in Sanskrit. In the iconography of both the Buddhists and the Jains, the planet Saturn
rides the proverbially slow turtle. The association may well go back to Harappan times, for the
pictogram depicting a fish with a roof over it could symbolize the planet Saturn not only
phonetically but even pictorially, through his vehicle, that is, the turtle, which is an aquatic
animal (i.e., a kind of ‘fish’) covered with a shell (i.e., a kind of roof)!
The Banyan Tree and the North Star
On the seals M-172 and M-414,the plain fish sign is preceded by a sign which has several variant
forms in the Indus texts (see Fig. 3). Their comparison with the motifs of Early Harappan
painted pottery suggests that this pictogram represents a fig tree. Except when combined with
another sign (‘crab’), which is placed inside it omitting the central ‘branch’, the tree is shown as
three branched, just as on the painted pottery. In the combined sign, the branches end in fig

37. Right to left is the normal direction of writing in the Indus script. Seal stamps were carved in mirror image, so
the normal writing direction is in the seal impressions makes this reading really significant is that the
compound mai-m-mīn ‘black star’ is actually attested as the name of the planet Saturn in Old Tamil.38)
Such a name is natural for Saturn, a dim planet.

38. Cf. Puṟanᾱṉūṟu 117.

leaves as on the painted pottery, but in the variants of the basic sign the branches seem to bear
either fig fruits or simplified fig leaves, or hanging aerial roots, or both.

(Fig.3)

Rope-like air-roots are characteristic of the banyan tree or Ficus indica. One of the Sanskrit
names for this tree, υaṭa, indeed seems to be derived from the Proto-Dravidian word va˙tam
‘rope, cord’. As a name of the banyan tree, υaṭam appears to be short for the compound υaṭa-
maram, or ‘rope-tree’,which is attested in Tamil. This Dravidian etymology for υaṭa makes it
possible to find a Dravidian homophone fitting the above assumed astral context where the ‘fig’
pictogram is followed by the ‘fish’ sign.
In the Purᾱṇa˙na texts written in Sanskrit the banyan fig is the tree of the northern
direction. Why? Proto-Dravidian had another, homophonous word υaṭa, which means ‘north’;
but there is no such linguistic association between ‘banyan’ and ‘north’ in Indo-Aryan languages.
The compound consisting of the signs for ‘fig tree’ and ‘fish’ thus yields the compound υaṭa-
mīn ‘north star’ This compound is actually attested in Old Tamil literature, as the name of the
tiny star Alcor in the constellation of Ursa Major. In Sanskrit this star is called Arundhatī and it
is supposed to represent the faithful wife of Vasiṣṭha, one of the Seven Sages with which the
constellation Ursa Major is associated. This star is to be shown to the bride in the marriage
ceremony according to both Vedic and Old Tamil texts. It is likely that originally υaṭa-mīn
denoted the nearby pole star (Thuban, the ‘immobile’ center of the rotating heavens in 3000
BCE). The Sanskrit name of the pole star is dhruυa ‘fixed, firm, immovable, constant’, and the
pole star is also shown to the bride as an exemplar to be emulated.
The Purᾱṇa texts contain an interesting conception about the pole star, which seems to be
explained by its Dravidian name υata-mīn. In reply to the question, why the stars and planets do
not fall down from the sky, these heavenly bodies are said to be bound to the pole star with
invisible ‘ropes of wind’. These ‘ropes’ seem to refer to the air-roots of the cosmic banyan tree,
which God Varuṇa is said to hold up in the sky in the earliest Indian text dating from c. 1000
BCE,39 a conception naturally following from Dravidian υaṭa-mīn ‘north star’ =‘banyan star’
=‘rope star’.

39. Cf. Ṛgveda 1,24,7.

The ‘Crab’ Sign
We can try to verify this interpretation by attempting to understand the sign sometimes inserted
in the middle of the ‘fig’ sign, omitting the central one of its three branches. The said sign
occurs more than 125 times as a separate grapheme. It seems to depict a ‘crab’, mostly
simplified to a round body with claws, but sometimes with feet added. That the signs with feet
are allographs of those without feet is indicated by the presence of this variation even when
combined with the ‘fig’ sign, while the identity of these combined variants can be seen from the
similarity of the context in two seals, one from Harappa (H-598), the other from Lothal (L-11).
The clear emphas is laid on the claws makes it likely that the sign expresses the concept of
‘grasping’ or ‘seising’, for the crab is consistently associated with ‘grasping’ in Indian folklore. In
the Baka – and Kakkaṭa-Jᾱtaka,the crab’s claws are compared with the pincers of a smith.The
same comparison is found in Old Tamil texts,40 where the verbal root koḷ ‘to seize, grasp,take’is
used of the crab’s ‘seising’ with its claws, 41 while the Pᾱli and Sanskrit texts use the semantically
corresponding root grah-and its cognates, related to English grab.
In the Indus texts, the ‘crab’ sign usually occurs in the immediate vicinity of the ‘fish’ signs
assumed to denote stars and planets. I might therefore stand for Proto-Dravidian kōḷ ‘seizure’
(from the verbal root koḷ ‘to seize’),which refers to planets and eclipse demons. 42 In Indian folk
religion, the planets are believed to ‘seize’ people and make them sick.
Instead of kōḷ ‘planet’, a synonymous compound, kōṇ-mīn (with ḷ changed into ṇ before the
following m), ‘seising star’, is used in several Old Tamil texts.43 It is remarkable that not only
does the sign combination ‘crab’ + ‘fish’ (corresponding to the Tamil compound kōṇ-mīṉ)
occur three times in the Indus inscriptions, but the identity of the subsequent sequence in two
parallel inscriptions (M-57 and M-387) suggests that this combination, ‘crab’ + ‘fish’, is
synonymous with the plain ‘crab’ sign, as is Tamil kōṇ-mīṉ with kōḷ.
The Combination of ‘Crab’ and ‘Fig’
The interpretation of the ‘crab’ sign can be further checked by examining its combination with
the ‘fig’ sign. The ‘fig’ +’crab’ ligature is among the few Indus signs for which the copper
tablets of Mohenjodaro function as ‘semi-bilinguals’, mediating their intended meaning visually,
through an iconographic image. The copper tablets constitute a rare category of objects with a
clear inter-dependence between the inscription on the obverse and the iconographic motif on
the reverse.

40. Cf. Perumpᾱṇᾱṟṟuppaṭai 206–208.

41. Cf. Naṟṟiṇai 35; Ainkuṟunurūṟu 27.
42. Cf. Puṟanᾱṉūṟu 260.
43. Ciṟupᾱṇᾱṟṟuppaṭai 242–4; Puṟanᾱṉūṟu 392,17; Paṭṭiṉappᾱlai 67–68.
 This is certified by the existence of numerous duplicates, forming sets of identical tablets.
In some sets, an isolated sign on the reverse has the same inscription on the obverse as an
animal or hum-an-shaped iconographic motif in another set.

Fig.4
This seems to mean that the isolated sign stands for the name of the divinity depicted
through the iconographic motif. The ‘fig’+’crab’ ligature is thus equated with a male figure
armed with bow and arrows, anthropomorphic apart from having a bull’s horns and tail, and
with long eyes.
In the Near Eastern scripts, an inserted sign often functions as a semantic or phonetic
determinative. If this is the case here, the ‘crab’ sign could indicate that the ‘fig’ sign is not to
read with its usual phonetic value as υaṭa ‘banyan tree’. The meaning ‘fig’ is retained, but the
phonetic shape of the word is similar to that expressed by the ‘crab’sign, i.e., kōḷ. Old Tamil,
other South Dravidian languages and Tulu possess such a word: kōḷi ‘banyan, pipal, all kinds of
fig trees which bear fruit without outwardly blossoming, epidendron, grasping plant (some figs
are of this nature)’. The meaning ‘grasping plant’ suggests its derivation from the Proto
Dravidian root koḷ ‘to grasp, seize’.
But how can the word kōḷi be connected with the Harappan archer-god depicted on the
copper tablets? Its basic meaning is ‘grasping epiphytic fig’, and in early Vedic texts such figs –
which strangle their host trees and break buildings – are implored for help in crushing enemies.
It is a fitting symbol for the war-god Skanda and hisVedicpredecessor Rudra. Rudra has been
suspected to descend from a Pre-Aryan deity. He is described as a cruel hunter and raider, who
with the bow, his characteristic weapon, shoots arrows at cattle and people. Euphemistically,
Rudra is called Śiva ‘kind, benevolent’ in the Veda. Another common name of Śiva is Hara
‘seizer, taker, robber’, which is likewise used of Rudra.44 Sanskrit Hara could reflect the
Dravidian word kōḷ ‘seizure, taking, pillage, plunder, robbery’, derived from koḷ ‘to seize, take,
rob’.

44. Cf. Āśvalayᾱna-Grhyasūtra 4, 8, 19.

 The word kōḷi in the sense of ‘a fig tree which bears fruit without outwardly blossoming’
must be compared also with Old Tamil kōḷ ‘the act of bearing fruit’.45 Both are derived from the
root koḷ ‘to take’, which here has the same sense as the Sanskrit root grabh-in the Vedic phrase
óṣadhayaḥ phálaṃ gṛbhṇanti ‘the plants get(lit. take) fruit’,46 in the past participle gṛbhītá-
’fructified,fruit bearing’.47 And in garbha ‘fruit, embryo’.48 The ligature of ‘fig’ +’crab’ thus seems
to express the deity even iconically: the ‘seising’ / ‘fructifying’ deity or his ‘embryo’ is placed
inside the fig tree,just as anthropomorphic deities are often depicted inside fig trees in the Indus
glyptics. Particular attention may be drawn to such a deity with a goat’s or ram’s head, who
seems to be the Harapp-an predecessor of the god Skanda in his goat-or ram-headed fertility
aspect,Viśᾱkha or Naigam-eṣa, whose cult is intimately connected with fig trees.
New Interpretations
A number of tentative interpretations not included in my book of 1994 have been presented
elsewhere.49 It is possible to propose some more readings that have reasonable credibility, so to
label this line of approach abortive because it has stagnated and made no further progress is
inc-orrect. I shall add one new interpretation here.
I have earlier suggested that the sign ‘dot-in-circle’ depicts ‘eye’, kaṇ in Dravidian. The sign
could also stand for the corresponding verb, kᾱṇ ‘to see’. Two such signs one after the other is
a frequently occurring sequence in the Indus texts, which clearly forms a phrase. It can be
matched with the Tamil compound kaṇ-kᾱṇi ‘overseer’.50 Another phrasal sequence ending in
the ‘eye’ sign constitutes the entire inscription on a seal from Harappa (H-602), and the last two
signs on several other seals.51 The first sign in this sequence is ‘two parallel curved or winding
lines’52 probably depicting ‘river’ or ‘water’, like the similar-looking sign of the archaic Sumerian
script.The phrase corresponds to the Tamil compound nīr-k-kaṇṭi’a village servant who looks
to the distribution of water for irrigation’.Such an occupational title makes sense in the context
of the Indus Civilazati-on.53 The proposed interprettation of the ‘water’ sign can be tested in
several other contexts, but I will stop the examination here.

45. Cf. Akanᾱṉūṟu 2,1; 162,19; 335,14; 382,10; 399,14.

46. Taittirīya-Saṃhitᾱ6, 3, 4, 3.
47. Said of the wood-apple tree in Aitareya-Brᾱhmaṇa 2,1.
48. Sanskrit gárbha-m. ‘fruit, embryo’ seems to result from a contamination of the root grabh-in this Dravidian-
influenced meaning with Sanskrit gárbha-m. ‘womb,’younger Avestan gerəßa-m. ‘womb’, from Proto-Indo-
European *gwolbh-o-/ *gwelbh-, cf. Greek delphús f. ‘womb’.
49. Cf. Parpola 1997; 1999: 107f.; 2003: 555–560.
50. Cf. Parpola 1994: 215.
51. Cf. H-396 and H-568 from Harappa and M-205 from Mohenjo-daro in Joshi & Parpola 1987 and Shah
& Parpola 1991.
52. Sign no. 175 in Parpola 1994: 73.
53. Cf. Kenoyer 1998: 38; 42; 163; Possehl 2002: 35; 64f.
 The self-imposed demand of verification makes me reluctant to propose Dravidian
interpretations that cannot be supported by actual linguistic evidence, such as compounds
attested in Dravidian languages. Suspected compounds may actually exist, or have existed, but
limitations of our sources and dictionaries may make them inaccessible to researchers. Really
ancient texts not much affected by Indo-Aryan exist only for a single Dravidian language, Old
Tamil, and the vocabulary of most Dravidian languages, especially their compounds, is,
generally speaking, still very incompletely recorded. Thus it is not only the Indus texts that are
scanty and make progress difficult.
References
Amiet, Pierre 1980. La glyptique mesopotamienne archaïque. 2e éd. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de Recherche
Scientifique.
......... 1986. L’âge des échanges inter-iraniens 3500–1700 avant J.-C. (Notes et documents des musées de France, 11.)
Paris: Éditions de la Reunion des muséesnationaux.
Black, Jeremy & Anthony Green 1992. Gods,demons and symbols of ancient Mesopotamia: An illustrated dictionary. London:
British Museum Press.
Burrow, Thomas, & Murray B. Emeneau 1984. A Draʋidian etymological dictionary. Revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Carpelan, Christian & Asko Parpola 2001. Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-
Aryan in archaeological perspective. Pp. 55–150, in: Carpelan et al. (eds.) 2001.
Carpelan, Christian, Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.) 2001. Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European:
Linguistic and archaeological considerations. (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, 242.) Helsinki: Suomalais –
Ugrilainen Seura.
Cooper, Jerrold S. Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. Pp. 55–150, in: Carpelan et al.
(eds.) 2001.
Carpelan, Christian 1996. “Mesopotamian cuneiform: Sumerian and Akkadian.” Pp. 37– 72, in: Daniels & Bright
(eds.) 1996.
Daniels, Peter T. & William Bright (eds.) 1996. The world’s writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Driem, George van 1999. “On the Austroasiatic Indus theory.” [Review of Witzel 1999]. Mother Tongue, Special
issue (October): 75–83.
......... 2001. Languages of the Himalayas, 1–2. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 10: 1–2.) Leiden: Brill.
Edzard, Dietz Otto 1968. “ Die Inschriften der altakkadischen Rollsiegel.” Archiʋ für Orientforschung 22: 12–20.
Elfenbein, Josef 1987. “A periplous of the ‘Brahui problem’.” Studia Iranica 16: 215– 233.
Farmer, Steve, Richard Sproat & Michael Witzel 2004. “The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a
literate Harappan Civilisation.” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11 (2): 19–57.Franke-Vogt, Ute 1991 [1992].
Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-Daro. Uniformität und Variabilität in der Induskultur: Untersuchungen zur Typologie, Ikonographie
und räumlichen Verteilung. I-II. (Baghdader Forschungen, 13.) Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Sabern.
Frenez, Dennis, and Maurizio Tosi, in press. “ The Lothal sealings: Records from an Indus Civilisation town at the
eastern end of the maritime trade across the Ar abian Sea,” in: Massimo Perna (ed.), Studi in onore di Enrica
Fiandra: Contributi di archeologia egea e vicinorientale. Naples.
Gardiner, Alan 1957. Egyptian grammar,being an introduction to the study of the hieroglyphs. Third edition, revised. London:
Oxford University Press.
Hiebert, Fredrik Talmage 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age oasis civilisation in Central Asia. ( Bulletin of the American
School of Prehistoric Research, 42.) Cambridge, Mass.: The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
Ethnology, Harvard University.
Indus Civilisation Exhibition, Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum, 5th August–3rd December, 2000. Tokyo: NHK,
NHK Promotions, 2000.
Jansen, Michael, Máire Mulloy & Günter Urban (eds.) 1991. Forgotten cities on the Indus: Early civilisation in Pakistan
from the 8th to the 2nd millennium BC. Mainz: Philipp von Sabern.
Jones, Horace Leonard 1930. The Geography of Strabo with an English translation, VII. (The Loeb Classical Library.)
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, & London: William Heinemann Ltd.Joshi, Jagat Pati & Asko
Parpola 1987. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, ʋol. 1: Collections in India. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum
Fennicae, B 239.) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark 1998. Ancient cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Karachi: Oxford University Press &
American Institute of Pakistan Studies.
Kochhar, Rajesh 2000. The Vedic people: Their history and geography. New Delhi: Orient. Longman Limited.
Konishi, Masatoshi 1987. “Writing materials during the Harappan period.” Pp. 213– 217, in: B. M. Pande & B. D.
Chattopadhyaya (eds.), Archaeology and History: Essays in memory of Shri A. Ghosh. Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan.
Kosarev, M. F., P. M. Kozhin & N. A. Dubova (eds.) 2004 [2005]. U istokov tsivilizatsii: Sbornik statej k 75-letiyu
Viktora Ivanovicha Sarianidi. Moscow: Staryj sad.
Koskenniemi, Kimmo, & Asko Parpola 1979. Corpus of texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African
Studies, University of Helsinki, Research Reports, 1.) Helsinki: Department of Asian and African Studies,
University of Helsinki.
1980. Documentation and duplicates of the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies, University
of Helsinki, Research Reports, 2.) Helsinki: Department of Asian and African Studies, University of
Helsinki.
......... 1982. A concordance to the texts in the Indus script. (Department of Asian and African Studies, University of
Helsinki, Research Reports, 3.) Helsinki: Department of Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki.
Koskenniemi, Seppo, Asko Parpola & Simo Parpola 1970. “ A method to classify characters of unknown ancient
scripts.” Linguistics 61: 65–91.
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju 2003. The Dravidian languages. (Cambridge Language Surveys.) Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kuiper, F.B.J. 1991. Aryans in the RgVeda. (Leiden Studies in Indo-European, 1.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lal, B. B. 2002. The Sarasvatī flows on: The continuity of Indian culture. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Lawler, Andrew 2004. “The Indus script – write or wrong?” Science 306 (17 December 2004): 2026–2029
Lubotsky, Alexander 2001. “The Indo-Iranian substratum.” Pp. 301–317, in: Carpelan et al. (eds.) 2001.
Mahadevan, Iravatham 1977. The Indus script: Texts, concordance and tables. (Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of
India, 77.) New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Marshall, John (ed.) 1931. Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilisation, I-III. London: Arthur Probsthain.
McIntosh, Jane R. 2002. A peaceful realm: The rise and fall of the Indus Civilisation. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
Meadow, Richard H. 1991. “The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals in the Greater Indus Valley,
7th – 2nd millennium BC.” Pp. 51 – 58, in: Jansen et al. 1991.
......... (ed.) 1992. Harappa excavations 1986 – 1990: A multidisciplinary approach to third millennium urbanism. (
Monographs in World Archaeology, 3.) Madison, Wis-consin: Prehistory Press.
Meadow, Richard H. & Ajita Patel 1997. “A Comment on ‘Horse Remains from Surkotada’ by Sandor Bökönyi,”
South Asian Studies 13: 308–315.
Meadow, Richard H. & Jonathan Mark Kenoyer 1994. “Harappa Excavations: The city wall and inscribed
materials.” Pp. 451–470, in: Asko Parpola & Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), South Asian Archaeology 1993 ( Annales
Akademiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Series B, 271), II. Helsinki: Suo malainen Tiedeakatemia.
......... 2000. “The Indus Valley mystery: One of the world’s first great civilisations is still a puzzle.” Scientific
American Discovering Archaeology 2000 (March-April): 38-43.
Meadow, Richard H., Jonathan Mark Kenoyer & Rita P. Wright 1996. Harappa Excavations 1996. Report submitted to
the Director-General of Archaeology and Museums, Government of Pakistan. Harappa: Harappa Archaeological
Research Project.
......... 1999. Harappa Excavations 1998. Report submitted to the Director-General of Archaeology and Museums,
Government of Pakistan. Harappa: Harappa Archaeological Research Project.
......... 2001. Harappa Excavations 2000 and 2001. Report submitted to the Director-General of Archaeology and
Museums, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, December 2001. Harappa: Harappa Archaeological Research
Project.
Michalowski, Piotr 1996. “Mesopotamian cuneiform: Origin.” Pp. 33–36, in: Daniels & Bright (eds.) 1996.
Parpola, Asko 1975. “Tasks, methods and results in the study of the Indus script.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
1975: 178-209.
....... 1986. “The Indus script: A challenging puzzle.” World Archaeology 17 (3): 399–419.
....... 1988. “Religion reflected in the iconic signs of the Indus script: Penetrating into long-forgotten picto+graphic
messages.” Pp. 114-135, in: Visible Religion (Annual for Religious Iconography) 6: The Image in Writing.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
....... 1994a. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
....... 1994b. “Harappan inscriptions: An analytical catalogue of the Indus inscrip tions from the Near East. “ Pp.
304-315 and (bibliography) 483-492, in: Flemming Højlund & H. Hellmuth Andersen, Qala’ at al-Bahrain, vol.
1: The Northern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress. (Jutland Archaeological Society Publications, 30: 1.) Aarhus:
Jutland Archaeological Society.
....... 1996. The Indus script. Pp. 164-171, in: Daniels & Bright 1996.
....... 1997a. Deciphering the Indus script: Methods and select interpretations. (Center for South Asia, University of Wisconsin
Madison, Occasional papers series, 2.) Madison: Center for South Asia, University of Wisconsin Madison.
....... 1997b. “Dravidian and the Indus script: On the interpretation of some pivotal signs.” Studia Orientalia 82:
167–191.
....... 1998. “Sᾱvitrī and resurrection.” pp. 167-312, in: Asko Parpola & Sirpa Tenhunen (eds.), Changing
patterns of family and kinship in South Asia. (Studia Orientalia, 84.) Helsinki: The Finnish Oriental
Society.
......... 1999. “Vᾱc as a goddess of victory in the Veda and her relation to Durgᾱ.” Zinbun: Annals of the Institute for
Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 34 (2): 101–143.
......... 2002a. “From the dialects of Old Indo-Aryan to Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian.” Pp. 43–102, in:
Nicholas Sims-Williams (ed.), Indo-Iranian languages and peoples. (Proceedings of the British Academy, 116.)
London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.
......... 2002b. “Pre-Proto-Iranians of Afghanistan as initiators of & Śᾱkta Tantrism:On the Scythian/Saka
affiliation of the Dᾱsas, Nuristanis and Magadhans.” Iranica Antiqua 37: 233–324.
......... 2003. “Sacred bathing place and transcendence: Dravidian kaṭa (vuḷ) as the source of Indo-Aryan ghᾱṭ, tīrtha,
tīrthankara and (tri) vikrama.” Pp. 523–574, in: Olle Qvarnström (ed.), Jainism and early Buddhism: Essays in honor
of Padmanabh S. Jaini. Fremont, California: Asian Humanities Press.
......... 2004. “From archaeology to a stratigraphy of Vedic syncretism: The banyan tree and the water buffalo as
Harappan-Dravidian symbols of royalty,inherited in succession by Yama, Varṇa and Indra, divine kings of
the first three layers of Aryan speakers in South Asia.” Pp. 479–515, in: Arlo Griffiths & Jan E. M. Houben
(eds.), The Vedas: Texts, language & ritual. (Groningen Oriental Series, 20.) Groningen: Egbert Forsten.
......... 2004 [2005]. “Gandhᾱra Graves and the gharma pot, the Nᾱsatyas and the nose: In pursuit of the chariot
twins.” Pp. 102–128, in: Kosarev et al. (eds.) 2004 [2005]. To be reprinted in Ancient Pakistan 16.
......... 2005. “The Nᾱsatyas and Proto-Aryan religion.” Journal of Indological Studies 16-17 (2004-2005). Kyoto:
Association for Studies in the History of Indian Thought. Parpola, Asko, B. M. Pande and Petteri
Koskikallio, in press. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, vol. 3. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B
241.) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Pope, Maurice 1999. The story of decipherment: From Egyptian hieroglyphs to Maya script. 2nd ed. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Possehl, Gregory L. 1996. Indus Age: The writing system. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, & New
Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
......... 1999. Indus Age: The beginnings. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, & New Delhi: Oxford &
IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
......... 2002. The Indus Civilisation: A contemporary perspective. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Possehl, Gregory L., Vasant Shinde & Marta Ameri 2004. “The Ahar-Banas Complex and the BMAC.” Man and
Environment 29 (2): 18–29.
Ray, John D. 1986. “The emergence of writing in Egypt. “ World Archaeology 17 (3): 307–316.
Ritner, Robert K. 1996. “Egyptian writing.” Pp. 73–87, in: Daniels & Bright (eds.) 1996.
Robinson, Andrew 1995. The story of writing. London: Thames and Hudson.
......... 2002. Lost languages: The enigma of the world’s undeciphered scripts. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rogers, Henry 2005. Writing systems: A linguistic approach. (Blackwell textbooks in linguistics, 18.) Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Sarianidi, Viktor 1986. Die Kunst des alten Afghanistan: Architektur, Keramik, Siegel, Kunstwerke aus Stein und Metall.
Übersetzt aus dem Russischen von Sabine Grebe. Weinheim: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
......... 1998a. Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Translated from Russian by Inna Sarianidi. Athens: Kapon Editions.
......... 1998b. Myths of ancient Bactria and Margiana on its seals and amulets. Moscow: Pentagraphic, Ltd.
......... 2001. Nekropol’ Gonura i iranskoe yazychestvo / Necropolis of Gonur and Ira-nian paganism. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
“Mir-media.”
......... 2002. Marguš Aşgabat: Türkmendöwlethabarlary.
......... 2005. Gonurdepe. Aşgabat: Miras.
Scharfe, Hartmut 1989. The state in Indian tradition. (Handbuch der Orientalistik, 2: 3: 2.) Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Shah, Sayid Ghulam Mustafa, & Asko Parpola 1991. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscrip-tions, vol. 2: Collections in Pakistan.
(Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B 240.) Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Sharma, J. P. 1968. Republics in ancient India, c. 1500 B.C.-500 B.C. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Tikkanen, Bertil 1999. “Archaeological-linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and
correlating areal features in South Asia.” Pp. 138-148, in: Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Language
and Archaeology, 4. London: Routledge.
Wells, Bryan 1998. An introduction to Indus writing. (M. A. thesis, Department of Archaeology, The University of
Clgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.) Available at: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/ftp03/MQ31309.pdf
Vidale, Massimo, in press a. “The collapse melts down: A reply to Farmer, Sproat & Witzel.” East and West. Rome.
in press b. “Some archaeological afterthoughts concerning Lothal and Mohenjo-daro. ” Paper presented at
the South Asian Archaeology 2005 conference in London, July 2005.
Witzel, Michael 1999. “Early sources for South Asian substrate languages.” Mother Tongue, Special issue (October):
1-70.
......... 2003 [2004]. Linguistic evidence for cultural exchange in prehistoric western Central Asia. ( Sino-Platonic papers, 129. )
Philadelphia: Department of East Asian Languages and Civilisations, University of Pennsylvania.
 Abstract
We search for potentially grammatical patterns in the Indus writing 2 based on the concordance of
Mahadevan (1977). We make no assumptions about its structure or meaning. We only attempt to check if
the Indus writing is meaningfully structured with specific rules to code useful information. In order to
avoid possible errors in interpretation due to incompletely read or multiple copies of a piece of writing,
and other possible sources of error, we create an Extended Basic Unique Data Set (EBUDS) based on
the original electronic concordance of Mahadevan (1977). EBUDS consists of completely read single line
texts on any side of the writing material. We exclude multi-lined text or partially read text. This gives us a
set of 1548 lines of data consisting of 7000 signs.
Show that the ordering of the signs in the writing is much more significant than random
association. The unit length of information is 2,3 or 4 signs at a time. We then study the most
frequently occurring two, three and four sign combinations in EBUDS. We find that in many
cases, most common two-sign combinations are also parts of most common three-sign
combinations, which in turn also appear in four-sign combinations. However, in texts with just
2, 3 or 4 signs we do not often find these frequent two, three or four sign combinations. We
therefore conclude that while the information is given in units of two, three or four signs, these

1. Address for correspondence: y_ nisha @ tifr. res.

2. We use the Word ‘writing’ in a generalised sense of the word in that it consists of information confined to a
more durable medium than memory. While we do not imply linguistic writing ,we do feel that any culture
spread over a million square kilometers with such uniformity and a high degree of standardisation could not
have indulged in random scribbling when they marked their writing material. We therefore feel that
understanding their rules of writing is vital to understanding the culture. In this paper we do not comment on
whether this is writing with sound or vowel writing or proto-writing of simple information. We leave that
discussion to a later period. Similarly, when we use the words like pharses etc., we imply that a phrase is an
information containing unit of one more signs which do not appear without some form of prefixes or suffixes.
However, we would like to draw attention to the compilation of Mahadevan (2002) on comparison of Indus
writing with Aryan and Dravidian languages.
are more like phrases where an additional sign is required to complete the grammatical
structure.
Introduction
Indus writing has been subjected to intense speculation and work by a variety of highly capable
researchers (for recent reviews see Mahadevan, 2002, Subbarayappa, 1997, Parpola, 2005)
However, there is no clear consensus on either the nature of writing or its possible content (for
two extreme views see Farmer, Sproat and Witzel, 2004 and Fairservis, 1983), though some
internally consistent studies do hold promise (e.g.Mahadevan, 2007). For a summary of various
attempts see Possehl (1996). We therefore attempt to understand the writing without any
presupposition to its content, language or nature. In the present study, we attempt to understand
the rules of writing.
Data set
We use the concordance of Mahadevan (1977), henceforth referred to as M77, as the basic data
set on which we use analytical, mathematical and computational tools to attempt to understand
the rules of writing of the Indus script. We use the original electronic data set of the same.
Excluded data
M77 records 417 unique signs3 in 3573 lines of 2906 texts. For the present study, we remove
those texts that can have potentially ambiguous reading. We create an Extended Basic Unique
Data Set (EBUDS). It removes all texts containing lost, damaged or illegible passages marked by
the sign and doubtfully read signs marked by asterisk. All texts from multilined sides are
also removed. This is to avoid possible overflow in writing of information from one lines of
text to next. However we assume that in multisided writing, the text on each side is independent
of text on other side (s)4. It retains texts from those sides of multisided objects which have only
one line of text. Texts appearing more than once are taken only once.
The unit of textual analysis for the study of distributional statistics is a line of text. There
are two reasons why it is not possible to consider the whole text on a single side as a unit for
this purpose. Firstly, there is no way of knowing beforehand whether different lines of an
inscription appearing on the same object or even on the same side have continuity of sequence
or to be regarded as separate texts. Secondly, it is not possible to ascertain beforehand the real
order (if any) of the lines of text appearing on the same side (Mahadevan, 1977,p. 10).Statistics
Based on this we read the texts and we get the following statistics.

3. The serial number of the signs used in this paper is similar to that given by Mahadevan in his concordance
(1977).
4. An earlier Basic Unique Data Set (BUDS) did not consider multisided objects. However, this significantly
affected the data set available for analysis. The analysis reported here was also done on BUDS which gave
identical results with reduced statistical significance. These results are given in Yadav and Vahia (2007).
Number of texts occurring only once: 1303
Number of texts occurring more than once: 245
Therefore, Total number of independent texts: 1548
In EBUDS, 40 signs out of 417 present in the Sign List of Mahadevan do not make their
appearance. Out of these removed 40 signs, one sign (sign number 374) appears 9 times, one
sign (sign number: 237) appears 8 times, two signs (sign numbers: 282, 390) appear 3times, three
signs (sign numbers: 324,376,378) appear twice and thirty-three signs appear only once in M77.
Rules of Reading the Strings of Script
We make no assumption about the content or meaning of Indus writing. M 77 shows that the
script is written right to left though this has no effect on our analysis. However, as a convention
followed in the present paper, the texts depicted by pictures are to be read from right to left,
whereas the texts represented by just strings of sign numbers are to be read from left to right.
As our first emphasis is to attempt to Write in the script rather than read we search for rules of
writing without assigning meanings or interpretations. In the present work we only attempt to
derive the grammar of writing in terms of search for patterns of sequencing of writing. We make
no attempt to assign meaning to any of the signs.
We do not take into account the variation due to archaeological context of sites,
stratigraphy and the type of objects on which the texts are inscribed.
Analysis 1: Preliminary analysis5
We studied the frequency distribution of the signs and sign pairs to check the consistency of
our database with that of Mahadevan (M77).Frequency statistics of sign occurrences is also
given in Table 1.
The comparative statistics of sign occurrences is also given in Table 1. In the first 4
columns we reproduce the data from table 11.10 of M77. In EBUDS, the total sign occurrences
are small and so they cannot be compared directly with M77. Hence, we study the frequency of
n-signs where n is defined by column 2 of table 1. It should be noted that the signs that make
up the frequent set are exactly the same in M77 and EBUDS for the signs that form the first 4
rows. In columns 5 to 7 we show that the most frequent sign in our data set accounts for
10.21% of our data set compared to 10.43% in M77. Similarly the second most frequent sign
accounts for 5.39% of our data set compared to 4.85% in M77 and so on. Hence, comparing
data from column 4 and 7, we see that that the frequency distribution of common signs in both
the data sets are comparable and hence our reduced data set is a true representation of the data
of M77, with a reduction in total sign occurrences, but not in the percentage of total sign
occurrences. In table 2 we perform a similar test for sign pairs. The data of M77 is taken from
table 11.12 of the concordance for sign pairs.

5. The analysis is done using computer programs in PERL (practical Extraction and Report Language ) and shell
script to extract required information from the digitized Indus data. The result were analyzed using Excel
software.
 Table 1: frequency distribution of Signs

Table 2: frequency distribution of Sign pairs

Conclusion from Analysis 1:

The frequency distribution of the signs and sign pairs is consistent with M77. The result of our
analysis shows that the manner of choosing the data set has not changed the pattern of
occurrence of various signs in the data set and the results are consistent with the analysis of
M77.We therefore proceed to the next step of analysis.
Analysis 2: Check against random order
In order to ascertain whether the pairing of signs in the Indus inscriptions or texts is significant
or not, we adopt a statistical procedure. The 377 signs studied here appear in 1548 texts, giving
a total sign set of 7000 signs. We take a random number generator and reshuffle them such that
the total number of occurrences of each sign is identical to the genuine Indus data set
(EBUDS). We then break this string of 7000 signs. Hence, this reshuffling provides us with a
randomised data set for Indus writing. In order to ensure that the relative frequency of
occurrence of different signs is the same in randomised data set, we simply randomize the
sequences rather than create an artificial set of texts. This method therefore gives an accurate
comparative randomised data set to check the units of information in the genuine Indus data
set without changing the occurrence rate of different signs. We make 10 such random data sets
and compare the frequency of most frequent combinations6 of two-signs, three signs, four-
signs etc. in the randomised data set with the genuine Indus data set. If the Indus writing was
simple pattern writing without information content, the sequence of occurrence of these signs
would have a distribution comparable to random occurrence of different signs in the
neighbourhood of another sign and the frequency of sign combinations of two-signs, three-
signs etc. would be decided only by the statistics of absolute frequency of occurrence of a sign.
The frequency with which a two or three sign combination is found in EBUDS data compared
to random data indicates the level of significance of the writing. The observations are given in
table 3 and figure 1.

Table 3 above gives the result of Analysis 2. Here, the first column gives the number of
signs in the sign combination. It is 2 for combination of two-signs, 3 for combination of three
signs etc. Columns 2 to 11 give the frequency of most frequently occurring sign combination
of 2,3,4,5 and 6 signs for the 10 random data sets. Thus, for the first random datasets. Thus, for
the first random data set, the frequency of most frequently occurring two-signs combination is
60, the frequency of the most frequently occurring three-sign combination is 5, the frequency
of most frequently occurring Four-sign combination is 1, the frequency of most frequently
occurring five-sign combination is 1 and the frequency of most frequently occurring six-sign
combination is 1. Similarly, for second random data set, the frequency of most frequently
occurring two-sign combination is 54, the frequency of most frequently occurring three-sign
combination is 3, the frequency of most frequently occurring four-sign combination is 1, the
frequency of most frequently occurring five-sign combination is 1 and the frequency of most
frequently occurring six-sign combination is 1 and so on for other random data sets. Column 12
gives the mean of the frequencies of the most frequently occurring sign combinations of
lengths 2,3,4,5 and 6 of all the ten random data sets and the last column gives the frequencies
of most frequently occurring sign combination of lengths 2,3,4, 5 and 6 for genuine Indus data
set for comparison.

6. we do not look at the information content of singlets as complete unit of information. This is because by its
very nature EBUDS has unique data set. Hence if a singlet comes more than once, its subsequent appearances
will not be seen by the data set. Also, the nature of randomisation applied here does not permit us to test for
the possibility whether singlets contain complete information.
 Fig. 1: A plot of the frequency of most frequently occurring sign combination of lengths 2,3,4,5,and 6
versus the number of signs in the combination for genuine Indus database (bold line) and ten random
databases(dashed line). By Genuine Indus data set we mean EBUDS.

Conclusion from Analysis 2;

The analysis shows that there is a significant difference in the frequency of the most frequent
sign combinations of different sizes obtained from the random data sets in comparison to that
of EBUDS. The frequency of occurrence of the sign combinations of length two, three and
four, in case of the ten random data sets, is considerably low in comparison to that obtained in
case of EBUDS. Hence, it is justifiable to state that Indus texts followed certain rules and
thereby meant something significant and meaningful.
Analysis 3: Positional analysis of most frequent two-sign, three-sign, four-sign
combinations
In view of the importance of two-sign, three-sign and four-sign combinations from Analysis 2,
we do a positional analysis of most frequent two-sign, three-sign, four-sign combinations
present in EBUDS. We check whether these most frequent two-sign, three-sign, four-sign
combinations tend to appear at fixed position (i.e., left-end, middle or right-end) of texts or
they tend to appear at fixed positions as independent (or solo) texts. The positional analysis
results for two-sign, three-sign and four sign combinations are tabulated in tables 4,5 and 6
respectively.
 Table 4 gives the positional distribution of most frequent two-sign combinations (frequency
of 25 or more). Several points immediately become clear.
All the two-sign combinations have a preferred location of occurrence (i.e.left-end, middle
or right-end).
1. Their percentage of occurrence as independent texts (i.e.solo) is very small.
2. The most frequent two-sign combination (267, 99) whose total frequency of occurrence
is 168 appears most frequently at the right-end of the texts, its percentage of
occurrence at the right-end of texts being 85.71. Similarly, the two-sign combination
(336,89) whose total frequency of occurrence is 75,appears most frequently in the
middle of the texts, its percentage of occurrence in the middle of tests being 89.33.
 Table 5 gives the positional distribution of most frequent three-sign combinations
(frequency 10 or more ).The following points arise from this table:
1. The three-sign combinations tend to occur in specific positions in the text (i.e. left-end,
middle or right-end).
2. Their percentage of occurrence as independent texts (i.e. solo) is very small.
3. The most frequent three-sign combination (336,89,211) whose total frequency of
occurrence is 34 appears most frequently at the left-end of the texts, its percentage of
occurrence at the left-end of tests being 88.24. Similarly, the three-sign combination
(293,123,343) whose total frequency of occurrence is 25 always appears at the right-end
of the texts
4. Some of the important three-sign combinations arise as additive forms of frequent two-
sign combinations listed in table 4. For example, the three-sign combination (336,89)
and (89,211). However, this three-sign combination appears 34 times, as does the two-
sign combination (89, 211), while the second two-sign combination (336,89) appears
total of 75 times, out of which it appears in this three-sign combination only 34 times.
5. The second most frequent three-sign combination (293, 123, 343) consists of two-sign
combinations (293,123) and (123,343).In this case also the frequency of occurrence of
the three-sign combination (293,123,343), and the two-sign combination (123,343) is
identical with 25 occurrences.

6.
7. Table 6 gives the positional distribution of most frequent four-sign combinations. The
following points are evident.
8. The four-sign combinations tend to occur in specific positions in the text (i.e.) left-end,
middle or right-end).
9. Their percentage of occurrence as independent texts (i.e.solo) is very small.
10. The most frequent four-sign combinations (51,130,149, 342). consists of very frequent
three-sign combinations (51, 130,149) and (130, 149,342). This four-sign combination
has the same frequency of occurrence as the three-sign combination (130, 149,342).
Discussion on Tables 4, 5 and 6
We discuss the combined importance of tables 4,5 and 6. In table 4, the two-sign combinations
(336,89), and (87,59), (171,59) (249,162),(65,67), (51,130),( 99,67) and (123,343) never appear
solo and even within large texts they appear in the middle. This is in contrast to the two-sign
combinations (267, 99), (391,99) and (293,123) which mostly appear at the right extreme of the
texts. A third group of two-sign combinations and (162,342) mostly appear at the left extreme
of texts. A third group of two-sign combinations (342,176), (8,342), (347,342), (342, 1),
(89,211), (59,211) and (162,342) mostly appear at the left extreme of texts. The two-sign
combinations (48,342) and (245,245) seem to be evenly distributed.
The two-sign combinations that appear at extremities clearly form whole or part of text-
starting or text-ending sign combinations. We now look at the sign combinations that appear in
the middle. The two-sign combination (336,89) when combined with the sign 211 on the right
comes solo 2.94% of the times or at left end 88.24% of the times (Table 5) indicating that if
not complete text, it is a very decisive text, it is a very decisive text ender sign combination.
The two-sign combination (87, 59) when combined with the sign 99 at the left, appears
always in the middle (Table5). However, when the three-sign combination (99, 87, and 59) is
combined with 267 at the left, it mostly appears at the right end of texts indicating that this
four-sign combination is a text beginner sign combination. It is interesting that another four-
sign combination not listed in table 6 occurs 4 times and differs from this only by the rightmost
sign where 267 is replaced by 391. This suggests that 267 has a meaning similar to 391.
The two-sign combination (171, 59) does not appear with high frequency in three-sign
combination table(Table 5).Even when appears on the left of another significant two sign
combination (336,89) as (171,59,336,89).
The two-sign combination (249,162) when combined with 342 at the right comes solo
4.17% of the times and at the left extreme of the texts 83.33% of the times. It is interesting
that the sign 169 shows similar behavior to the sign 162.
Conclusions from Analysis
1. The most frequent two-sign, three-sign and four-sign combinations appear at fixed
positions.
2. The exact location varies from combination to combination.
3. However, frequently occurring two-sign, three sign and four-sign combinations may be
incomplete except of course when they occur as solo texts. It can be seen that two-sign,
three-sign and four sign combinations which are complete have typically one of the
text-enders(mostly 342 or 211)at the end. This is confirmed by the solo occurrences of
such texts.
Analysis 4: Comparison with other scripts
Narayan and Balasubrahmanyan (1992) have used the statistics of word frequencies in different
languages. Quoting the work of Zipf (1935,1949) they analyse the word frequency distribution
and use the power law relation between W (k) and k, where W( k) is the number of different
words or word types occurring k times in a discourse of words. They assume the relation W
(k)= CK -y. Naranan and Balasubrahmanyan have given the graph of W (K) vs. k for different
languages and writing
styles and compared it with the Indus style. In figure 2 we have plotted the value of –y for
different languages and authors and along with the value for the Indus writing (last point in
figure 2). As can be seen from the figure, the slope for Indus writing is significantly different
from that for other known writing styles.

Fig 2: Word frequency distribution of different languages

(based on Naranan and Balasubrahmayan, 1992)

Conclusions from Analysis 4:

1. unlike a pictographic script such as Chinese writing where each sign is stand alone in
meaning, the Indus script is not a simple incrementally built up script. Indus script is
also not alphabetic. This is also clear from the fact that Chinese language has more than
3000 different signs compared with 417 signs in Indus script and 26 in English.
However, some sign do some signs do seem to be pictorial nature.
2. Study of sign combinations may be more meaningful than a study of individual signs.
Summary
We therefore make the following conclusions about the Indus script.
1. The writing is highly ordered.
2. Typical length of information containing units is 2, 3 or maximum 4 signs. However,
they are not always complete enough to exist as standalone piece of text. This also
indicates a more complex grammar in the writing where information units need proper
beginners or enders (see tables 4-6).
Acknowledge
We wish to thank Dr. Subbrayappa for initiating us in this study with his stimulating
interpretation of the script as numeric. We wish to thank Dr. Samudravijaya and Mr. Aniket
Sule for their enthusiastic support for this work. We also wish to thank Ms. Prajakta Mahajani
for digitising the data that was used to understand the basics the script. We wish to acknowledge
the research grant of the Jamsetji Tata Trust that enabled us to do this work.
References
Fairservis, W.A., 1983, Scientific American March issue, PP.44 -52
Farmer, S., Sproat, R., Witzel, M., 2004, The Collapse of the Indus-script Thesis: The Myth of a Literate Harappan
Civilisation, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS), Vol. 11,issue 2
Mahadevan, I., 1977, The Indus Script Texts, Concordance and Tables, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India
No. 77
Mahadevan, I., 2002, “Aryan or Dravidian or Neither? A study of Recent Attempts to Decipher the Indus Script
(1995-2000),” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS), Vol.8, issue 1
Mahadevan, 1., 2007, “Agricultural terms in the Indus Script,” to appear in Journal of Tamil studies.
Naranan, S. and Balasubrahmanyan, V.K., 1992, Current Science, Vol.63, No. 6, pp.297-305
Parpola, A., 2005, Study of the Indus Script, 50th ICSE Tokyo.
Possehl, G.L.,1996, Indus Age: The writing System, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.Pvt.Ltd.
Subbarayappa, B.V., 1997, Indus Script: its Nature and Structure, New Era publications, Madras
Yadav, N. and Vahia, M.N., 2007, “One more attempt to understand the Harappan writing, presented at the 1 st
International Conference of the Society of South Asian Archaeology (SOSAA) Mumbai,” December 2006, to
appear in the Journal SOSAA.
Introduction
The three greatest obstacles facing any prospective decipherer of the Indus script are the
absence of bilingual examples, the lack of knowledge of language which is depicted, and the
shortness of individual extant examples – the longest being only 26 signs long. The known
corpus consists of some 3,700 legible inscriptions distributed over an enormous area of
southern Asia, from the Ganga-Yamuna Doab in the east to the Euphrates in the west, and
from the Oxus in the north to Arabian Sea in the south, with an understandably higher
concentration within the north-west of the Indian subcontinent-the heartland of the Indus
Civilisation itself (Fig.1 ).The inscriptions between 170 and 220 consist of simple signs and
between 170 and 200 composite signs and are found on a wide variety of row materials ranging
between steatite, marble, calcite, limestone, silver, copper, faience, terracotta, ceramic, shell,
bone and ivory. Moreover, whilst some of the raw materials were inscribed with the Indus signs,
others were stamped, or even cast, providing a bewildering variety. For example, there are
examples of signs being both inscribed on ceramics before they were fired, as well as later being
scratched on after firing. This variety is also found within the corpus of objects bearing the
inscriptions. These objects range from inscribed seals, tablets, tools, vessels, bangles, ladles and
other objects to sealing’s and moldings. Perhaps the most remarkable recent addition to the
corpus was the discovery of the Dholavira ‘signboard’, consisting of nine signs, each measuring
37 cm high and 27 cm wide (Bisht 1991). In addition to the signs many examples are provided
with a single standing animal, whilst a smaller number appear to depict scenes of a more
narrative nature. Some of the single animals are clearly recognisable as elephants, rhinoceros or
bulls, whilst others are hybrid or composite. Apparently in general use for only 500 years, the
complexity of the Indus script, combined with the three aforementioned obstacles, has
bedeviled attempts at decipherment since its first discovery at the site of Harappa by
Chunningham in 1872. Rather than describing each of these attempts, as has already been done
elsewhere (possehl 1996), the intention of this paper is, firstly, to identify common ground
between such attempts, secondly, to discuss the controversial debate concerning the script’s
language and finally, to propose a common route forward.
 Fig.1 Distribution Map of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (after parpola 1994:10)

The Common Ground

In 1994 Asoka Parpola, chief editor of the encyclopedic Corpus of Indus Seals and inscriptions
(Joshi and Parpola 1987; Shah and parpola 1991), published a book titled Deciphering the Indus
Script (parpola 1994). The result of over a quarter of a century’s research by a team of Finnish
Vedic scholars, Assyriologists and computer scientists, it has been widely recognised by many
reviewers as a major step towards the understanding of this previously undeciphered script
(Coe 1995; Edens 1995; Mahadevan 1997). Although there is still debate as to the success of
Parpola’s 24 attempted readings, the book is extremely useful as it clearly defines a number of
widely shared conclusions concerning basic typological features of the Indus script such as the
direction of writing and recognition of numerals. One of the most generally accepted common
points is that the script was written from right to left, although clearly stamps and moulds were
written in reverse (Alekseev 1976; Gadd 1931; Hunter 1934; Lal 1966; Mahadevan 1977;
Parpola 1994; Ross 1938; Zvelebil 1970). Evidence for such agreement is taken from the
common cramping of signs at the left side of seals (Gadd 1931), the clear overlapping of signs
on ceramic vessels inscribed prior to firing (Lal 1966) and the comparison between single-line
and two-line sequences of identical inscriptions (Mahadevan 1977). It is apparent that the vast
majority of examples are written from right to left, but it should be noted that almost 7 per cent
are written from left to right (ibid.), a factor often interpreted a scribal error. It is generally
agreed that numerical value sins are indicated by strokes, short in earlier examples and long in
later ones (Fairservis 1992; Kinnier Wilson 1974; Mahadevan 1988; Mitchener 1978; Newberry
1980; Ross 1938; Wadell 1925) (Fig. 2), and as such strokes often occur with groups of semi-
circles it has also been assumed that the latter represent ‘tens’ (Mahadevan 1988: 14; Parpola
1994: 82-3)( Fig. 3). Mahadevan has further suggested that whilst the largest identified numbers
using this system are 35 and 76, it is possible that higher value signs have not yet been identified
( Mahadevan 1988:14). Whilst many would accept such value hypotheses, the underlying
numerical systems is still in debate. In the 1940 s Ross suggested the presence of two numerical
systems, one with a base ten and another with a base eight (Ross 1938:16), but Fairservis (1992)
suggested a base eight (Fairservis 1992:61) and Mahadevan a decimal base

Fig.2 Indus Numerical Value Sign representing 1 Fig.2 Indus Numerical Value Sign representing 30
 (Mahadevan 1998:14). Rather than any one suggestion being correct. It is quite possible that
all are Correct as Harappan weights indicate a mixed system, based upon binary, octonary and
decimal bases (Marshall 1931).
Although some scholars have suggested that the Indus script was picto-phonographic
(Heras 1953) or alphabetic (Rao 1982), Zvelebil has suggested that there is also broad support
for the identification of the script as logo-syllabic possessing word-signs and phonetic syllables
(Mahadevan 1988:8; S; Parpola 1994:102; Zvelebil 1970:195). One of the clearest explanations
of such a suggestion is provided by Mahadevan (1988) (Table 1). He starts by identifying the
four major types of ancient scripts, logo-graphic, logo-syllabic, syllabic and alphabetic (ibid. 5).
The first used word signs, the second used both word signs and phonetic syllables, the third
either open syllables or open and closed syllables and the fourth single-sound signs. As such
scripts are generally distinguished by the total number of signs used, he concludes that the
Indus script’s approximate 425 signs are logo-syllabic as logo-graphic used thousands of signs,
logosyllabic used between 900 and 400,closed and open syllabic between 200 and 100,open
syllabic between 100and 40 and alphabetic below 40 (ibid.). Even within this common ground
there are a number of disagreements, for example, there is much debate as to the meaning of
the signs, in that some may be phonographic and some pictograms may only be understood
through the use of homophones-words pronounced the same but with different meaning (ibid.
14). Thus Parpola interprets the Indus fish sign (Fig. 4) through the use of the homophone that
in Dravidian and *Proto-Dravidian languages the word the use of the homophone that in
Dravidian and “proto-Dravidian languages the word fish, or *min, also means star or planet
(parpola 1994:180), a link already made by Heras(1953). Such debate may also be characterised
by the different interpretations ascribed by different decipherers to the Indus sign (Fig. 5),
number 342 of Mahadevan’s concordance (Mahadevan 1977). This sign is the most commonly
occurring within the Indus
Script and has been found in more than 1,000 examples and is thus a crucial element for our
understanding of the script. Hrozny interpreted it as a sign vessel for a vessel dedicated to a god
or gods (Hrozny 1953: 175) and Lal agreed that it was probably derived from a portrayal of a
vessel (Lal 1974: 176) Newberry, however, interpreted it as representing the western cardinal
direction (Newberry 1980: 4-7) Kak as the sound ‘sa’ (KaK 1988: 138) and Fairservis as a third
person singular honorific (Fairservis 1992: 173) Knorozov, following Heras (1953: 67), has
interpreted the sign as a genitive and locative suffix(Knorozov 1976:60),and Parpola interpreted
this sign in 1969 as a ship (parpola 1969: 21) and in 1994 as ‘a title of respect commonly added
to proper names, whether human or divine’(Parpola 1994: 97). He also suggested that such a
hypothesis did not necessarily exclude the sign from representing a possessive marker (ibid.) and
stated that it was probably derived from either the iconic meanings of ‘bird’, ‘eagle’, or to fly’
(ibid.: 104) or a cow’s head (ibid.)-for further interpretations see the excellent commentary by
B.B. Lal (1979).
The Linguistic Debat
Whilst many of the above points are generally agreed, there is an underlying issue which has
had powerful repercussions in terms of almost all studies of the Harappan or Indus
Civilisation----its language! Almost all the attempts as decipherment may be characterised in to
two main groups. Those who favour a Dravidian language (Heras 1953; Zide and Zvelebil 1976;
Mahadevan 1988; Fairservis 1992; Parpola 1994) and those who favour an Indo-European one
(Mitchiner 1978; Krishna Rao 1982, Kak 1988; Priyanka and Manatunga 1988), notwithstanding
earlier attempts to ascribe the script to a Sumerian language (Waddell 1925). It is also interesting
to note that the selection of either of these two language families has been debated since the
1930s with Langdon attributing an Indo-Aryan language (1931) and Marshall a Dravidian one
(1931) in the same volume. Respective decipherers have marshalled linguistic and archaeological
evidence to supportsuch claims with varying success. The Linguistic evidence relies heavily
upon two elements of data, firstly, the present distribution of these two language families in
southern Asia, and secondly, a number of the typological characteristics of the Indus script. It
is clear from most linguistic maps of southern Asia that the northern part of the subcontinent
is dominated by a very broad sweep of Indo-European languages (Parpola 1994:135) (Fig. 6)
and that Dravidian languages are concentrated in the peninsular proper with the exception of
Brahui in Baluchistan (ibid.:136) (Fig. 7). That this overall distribution is a direct result of the
influx of Indo-European languages forcing Dravidian languages into the peninsula and that
Brahui represents a residual element of a once subcontinental-wide distribution of such
Dravidian languages is accepted by most scholars (Heras 1953; Parpola 1994; Possehl 1996).
Indeed, many scholars would also accept Stein’s (1931) and Marshall’s (1924) premise that they
actually represented a fossil group of the Harappan Civilisation itself, as Parpola sates, ‘The
conclusion that the Brahui…. represent remnants of the language spoken by the descendants
of the Early Harappan populations of Baluchistan is supported by the evidence’
(Parpola1994:166-7). It has also been argued by a number of scholars that the Indus script has
typological features, which are found in Dravidian languages but not within Indo-European
ones (Parpola 1994; Zide and Zvelebil 1976; Mahadevan 1988; Fairservis 1992),thus
strengthening the case for a Dravidian reading of the Indus script.
Such theories are, however, based upon two assumptions, firstly, the post-Urban Harappan
arrival of Indo-Aryan languages, and secondly, the arrival of those languages in South Asia via
the media of a diffusion of a new population.. Evidence for the former assumption has clearly
been seriously challenged by research conducted by Elfenbein, suggesting that far from
representing a fossil remnant of a wider, Chalcolithic spread of Dravidian languages Brahui is
most likely to be relatively late, first millennium AD language spread from western India (
Elfenbein 1987). Furthermore, there have been a number of recent suggestions that there was a
Neolithic, as opposed to a Chalcolithic, diffusion of Indo-European languages (Renfrew 1987).
Renfrew’s core hypothesis accepts the point made by most linguists and archaeologists that such
an arrival of new languages brought by new people must be visible in the archaeological record,
but argues that the most obvious discontinuity in the cultural record is the Neolithic rather than
the Chalcolithic (Fig. 8). He thus argues that a Neolithic demic diffusion brought Indo-Aryan
languages to South Asia (ibid.: 18-97), thus perhaps explaining the presence of apparent ‘ Vedic’
elements within the Harappan Civilisation such as the Kalibangan hearths, yogic postures and
lingas (Allchin and Allchin 1982:303). Most advocates of the Dravidian language hypothesis
evaluate the possibility of an earlier presence of Indo-European languages within South Asia,
but summarily dismiss the question of Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan language families
(Parpola 1994: 137-42). However, both Bellwood and Higham have argued for a Neolithic
demic diffusion from China into eastern and northern India as reflected in contemporary
linguistic patterns (Bellwood 1995;Higham 1995).Parpola has dismissed the suitability of Austro
–Asiatic as a candidate for the language of the Indus script as he states that it probably
extended no further than the Ganga-Yamuna Doab (Parpola 1994:140).He also postulates a link
between the northern, or Kashmir-Swat, Neolithic with Sino-Tibetan languages (ibid.: 142),
suggesting that this language group was spoken across the entire northern edge of the
Harappan Civilisation from
Fig. 6. Distribution map of Indo-European languages within South Asia (after Parpola1994:135).
Fig. 7. Distribution map of Dravidian languages within South Asia (after Parpola1994:136).
 Kashmir in the east to Swat in the west. Acknowledging contact between this group and the
Harappan world, it is dismissed as a possibility in favour of a small pocket of Dravidian
speakers who may have moved into the Indus system in mediaeval times!
The Dravidian hypothesis is also based upon the widely accepted concept of an arrival of
one, or more, populations speaking new languages in South Asia from outside, an arrival which
occurs during the late Post-Urban Harappan. Indeed, most scholars would cite support for such
a mechanism based upon the evidence of a collection of sacred hymns known as the RgVeda,
finds of objects with ‘foreign-traits’ and the presence of speakers of Indo-European languages
in South Asia. Opinions on the reliability of the RgVeda as a documentary source are divided
between those who view it as a literary record’ (ibid.:133; Witzel 1995) and those who believe it
to be largely mythical (Shaffer 1984; Leach 1990; Chakrabarti 1995). Parpola clearly falls in the
former category fully accepting the validity of its topographical descriptions (Parpola 1994: 5)
and using it almost as a reliable historical document ‘ Important clues to an archaeological
identification of the Rigvedic invasion are provided by the references to the enemies of the
Rigvedic Arans’ (ibid.:149). In doing so such scholars appear to confirm the warnings of the
ancient historian. Moses Finley ‘We no longer read the Aeneid or king Lear as true stories… we
certainly do not try to write medieval French history from the “Song of Roland” or medieval German history
from the Nibelungenlied.’ (Finley 1968:36). Moreover, it is possible to interpret the RgVeda in the
light of Renfrew’s System Collapse model (Renfrew 1984). This model proposes that the central
administration collapses, traditional elites disappear, centralised economies collapse, settlement
shifts, population drops and a lower level of socio-political integration is reached (ibid.:36689).
It also proposes that a romantic Dark Age myth would be developed by new power groups to
legitimate themselves, and that later historians would accept such myths as truthful and this
would in turn impede the development of Dark Age archaeology. Shaffer has already suggested
that such a legitimative myth may have been responsible for the creation of the RgVeda (Shaffer
1984), thus making it clear that Renfrew’s model might fit rather well with the aftermath of the
post-urban Harappan transformation!
The second key assumption shared by both those favoring a Dravidian or Indo-European
linguistic model is that archaeological evidence of the presence of foreign or rather newly
arrived peoples may be found in the finds of object with ‘foreign-traits’. The similarities
between an antennae-hilted copper sword from Bactria in Afghanistan and a similar example
from Uttar Pradesh in India are thought to ‘suggest that “Indian Dasas” may have introduced
some artefact types found in the Copper Hoards of the upper Ganges Valley’ (Parpola 1994:
154), a point supported by Allchin (1980). Similarly, Falk has suggested that it is possible to
draw further analogies between certain objects within the ‘Copper Hoard Culture’ and objects
described within the RgVeda (Falk 1994) and Mallory identified the Gandhara Grave complex
and Painted Grey Ware as further Indo-European indicators (Mallory 1989) (Fig. 9). The
Megalithic sites of Penisular India are also interpreted as the result of a further diffusion of
people ‘All this evidence suggests the introduction of the Megalithic culture into India by horse-
riding and warring nomads, probably speaking an Aryan language’ (Parpola 1994: 172)----a view
also shared by others (Allchin 1980). These interpretations suggest the simple equation that
‘material culture= people= language’ and are rather reminiscent of some of Childe’s culture
historical frameworks (Childe 1956). Processual and post-processual developments in
archaeological theory have surely enabled us to abandon such crude equations and to
acknowledge that the dynamics of material culture, ethnicity and language are far more
complex? Indeed, even Parpola concedes that ‘the correspondence between language and
culture is not always one to one’ (Parpola 1994:137). Objects do not necessarily need to be
carried by a single group erom one location to another, objects are traded and if one imagines a
down the line exchange one can observe an object travelling hundreds of miles whilst its human
carriers themselves only travel tens of miles. As a number of scholars have demonstrated the
continuity between the Harappan and the Early Historic periods (Coningham 1995; Shaffer
1993), an alternative interpretation of these objects would be therefore that a transformation of
Harappan systems of socio-political integration led to the introduction of new systems of
integration. In such a scenario it seems likely that the arrival of these new systems would be
accompanied by the arrival of new prestige objects and concepts. The population would thus
remain by and large

nomads, probably speaking an Aryan language’ (Parpola 1994: 172)----a view also shared by
others (Allchin 1980). These interpretations suggest the simple equation that ‘material culture=
people= language’ and are rather reminiscent of some of Childe’s culture historical frameworks
(Childe 1956). Processual and post-processual developments in archaeological theory have
surely enabled us to abandon such crude equations and to acknowledge that the dynamics of
material culture, ethnicity and language are far more complex? Indeed, even Parpola concedes
that ‘the correspondence between language and culture is not always one to one’ (Parpola
1994:137). Objects do not necessarily need to be carried by a single groupe from one location
to another, objects are traded and if one imagines a down the line exchange one can observe an
object travelling hundreds of miles whilst its human carriers themselves only travel tens of
miles. As a number of scholars have demonstrated the continuity between the Harappan and
the Early Historic periods (Coningham 1995; Shaffer 1993), an alternative interpretation of
these objects would be therefore that a transformation of Harappan systems of socio-political
integration led to the introduction of new systems of integration. In such a scenario it seems
likely that the arrival of these new systems would be accompanied by the arrival of new prestige
objects and concepts. The population would thus remain by and large Stationary whilst objects
of prestige, being the currency of competition, would change.
Having established the possibility that objects can travel without necessarily the long-
distance movement of people, it will now be demonstrated that the same is possible for
language change. Although Renfrew identified six models for linguistic change (demographic-
subsistence, elite dominance, systems collapse, constrained population displacement, sedentary-
mobile boundary shift; and donor-recipient population system) they all include the permanent
movement of large numbers of people (Renfrew 1987: 121-37). Sherrat, however, has proposed
a model in which linguistic replacement occurs through a prolonged trade contact (Sherrat
1988: 458-63; Sherratt and Sherrat 1988) (Fig. 10). This model suggests that trade and exchange
could have:
created new demands for inter-regional communication, especially between elites. These would have
provided circumstances for the formation of pigins and creoles, which because of their association with
prestige activities could have slowly gained much wider currency in pre-literate communities. (Sherrat:
458-63)
As discussed earlier (Coningham et al. 1996) the complex dynamics of linguistic change
are illustrated by Barth who demonstrated that one language, inferior in terms of numbers and
prestige, can absorb speakers of a more populous and prestigious one because of the different
nature of socio-political organisation (Barth 1972). The number of Baluchi speakers is
increasing to the detriment of Pushtu speakers because it is easier for a disgraced Pathan to be
incorporated into the inegalitarian client-patron relationship of a neighbouring Baluch tribe
than into a more egalitarian Parthan tribe. A similar argument is put forward by Ethret who
states that ‘A language ceased to be spoken when the sense of separate ethnicity with which it
was bound up had ceased to be relevant or functional.’ (Ehret 1988: 570). Furthermore he has
suggested that such changes can be set off by ‘merely local disparities’ ibid.) and that ‘language
and ethnic shift can ethnic shift can take place without radical change in the material particulars
of life and with an amount of change in the human gene pool so small as to be for all practical
purposes undetectable’ (ibid.: 571). One should also take serious note of Robb’s model for the
mechanism of such disperals within Eurasia (Robb 1991). Taking the premise that often
‘random, directionless processes can add up to directed results’ (ibid.:287), Robb created a
computerised simulation model for the random diffusion of language. Assuming that individual
communities, grow, dwindle, fuse, merge or go extinct for reasons as varied as intermarriage,
disease, demographic change, ecological shift, internenecine conflict, economic stress, external
political pressure, opportunism, or the assimilation of refugees, immigrants or captives’ (ibid.),
Robb demonstrated that random micro change within territories often led to recolonisation,
both social and linguistic, by immediate neighbours. Starting with 64 language groups evenly
distributed within the overall test area-Eurasia (fig 11) in each territory was generated a random
number with overall test area-Eurasia (Fig. 11), in each territory was generated a random
number with each turn (ibid.:288). If the generated number fell below a pre-set level the
territory was assumed to have undergone linguistic change through a colonisation by one of its
neighbours, which was randomly selected. The turn ended when a new number had been
calculated for each square within the test area and a new linguistic map generated. Within 30
turns 16 language groups had become extinct(Fig.12), a number Which rose to 36 Within 60
turns(fig.13), culminating in the successfully Colonisation of the entire area by two language
families by the 1550 turn (ibid:289) (Fig.14).it is import therefore to not that firstly, a general
pattern can be created through minute random changes and secondly, that areas can be re-
colonised by the same language family(ibid.:228).in summary, it is therefore suggested that
attempts to understand the meaning of the Indus script should concentrate on the study of the
archaeological context of the Indus script itself, rather than trying to assume What the language
of the script was and then set out to decipher it. Clearly from Robb’s model the language of the
Indus Could have been Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan or even a language since lost!
Discussion and Conclusion
Now, of Course, the question is how can we possible approach the question of the
decipherment of an unknown script of an unknown language? The answer is easier than might
first appear; to decipher can also mean ‘to make out the meaning of ’, and this surely we can do
at a certain level without knowing the Script or the language. We may approach this problem
With reference, not to the Harappan Script itself, but to the use of graffito in the Early
Harappan period through Quivron’s exemplary study of inscribed and painted marks at
Mehrgarh and Nausharo (Quivron 1997)(Fig.15). A number of scholars have been some degree
of continuity (Lal1974; Durrani 1984). However, Parpola suggests such continuity is unclear
stating that ‘nowhere do we find clear evidence of a gradual Progress toward real writing in the
early Harappan period’ (parpola 1994:53), a view also shared by the Possehl (Possehl1996:57).
Quivron studied a corpus of 1265 marks from vessels recovered from excavations at Mehrgarh
and Nausharo. Which provide a sequence from 3600 to 2500 Bc (Quivron1997:45). All the
marks. Were made before firing, presumably when the vessel was drying, and most were made
on the underside of the base. The key corpus is provided by a failed open kiln, dating to
Mehrgarh period V1 (c.2700 Bc ),Which Contained a large number of abandoned vessels, many
of which were inscribed with different signs (ibid.:53). A further large collection of vessels, one
hundred, was recovered from storage room CXVIII belonging to Mehrgarh period VII, of
which 33 were incised with a total of 16 different signs (ibid.).Quivron assumed that as there
was no apparent link between sign and vessel type within room CXVIII, the purpose of the
inscribed signs was during the manufacturing cycle (ibid.:55). Furthermore he noted that the
frequencies of such signs increases and peaks at c.2700 Bc and then decreases, and these marks
are then mainly post-firing graffito, and makes the comment that this may be indicative of the
increasing centralisation of ceramic production during the mature Harappan period (ibid.:61).
In an end note Quivron also suggests that the ‘marks were perhaps used to avoid confusion of
ownership during firing in cases Where the vessels were fired in communal kilns’(ibid.);this
surely is the key point of this study. Clearly, it would make greater economic sense for individual
potters to spread the risk of a failed
 firing by sharing a firing with; in doing so they needed a form of identification to
differentiate their own goods from that of the other shareholders. Although clearly such
developments are not in writing, as in the case for graffito-inscribed ceramics from late lron
Age contexts (coningham et al 1996;), they represent a demand for recording, as Goody states:
In some non –literate societies rights are indicated by graphic marks of ownership on pots and livestock,
giving rise, some suggest, to semiotic codes of scope. Certainly they are embryonic forms of writing
often associated with specific claims property. (Goody 1986:47)
Whilst such graphic marks are an important step towards literacy, even Quivron states
that ‘there is no evidence in the pre-Indus material so far available of a gradual progress
towards real writing’ (Quivron 1997:60).Goody concurs that such recording systems are not in
writing and that writing itself allows a number of barriers to greater socioeconomic integration
to be overcome (Goody 1986).Goody argues that non-literate societies can expand only to a
certain size, after which fission occurs as the links between centre and periphery become too
great (ibid.:111), however, he states that:
The presence of a literate bureaucracy… mitigates against those fissiparous tendencies, providing a
consolidating factor in state building-not only because of the fact and content of communication… but
also because the use of a common written language or a common logographic script helps to overcome
the diversity of spoken tongues and dialects.(ibid.:112)
Goody’s model is clearly applicable to the processes of socio-political integration which
culminated in the creation of the Harappan world. Writing also contains a number of key
elements such as exactness and legitimacy and that, as well as proving a means of
communication between centre and periphery, it also is a method of distancing oneself from
direct contact (ibid.:48-50).Whilst enabling the alienation of property and the organisation of
the means of production and the organisation of production it also expands ‘the capacity of
the memory store… so that more transactions could be kept track of, and hence carried on, at
any one time’(ibid.: 78). He also highlights the fact that ‘reciprocities and obligations themselves
became more precise when they were set down in writing than being held in the storage system
of the brain with its homeostatic tendencies’ (ibid.: 82). If we are to recover similar information
and hypothesis for the Indus script we have to return the context of the material itself, and
indeed to acknowledge what is missing from the archaeological context
Many scholars agree that the corpus of Indus script which has survived within the
archaeological record is only a fragment of what may have been written on perishable materials,
indeed as Postgate et al. have pointed out ‘for inscriptions which are meant to last, expensive
and durable materials are chosen, for ephemeral and utilitarian texts cheap and perishable
materials are used’ (postgate et al. 1995:464). Indeed, postgate and his colleagues have now
suggested that it is precisely due to this transitory nature of utilitarian inscriptions that we are
left with a top heavy view stating that:
Apopular, long-held and much-published view is that writing was developed for ceremonial Purposes.
However, recent evidence from Egypt and elsewhere suggests instead a utilitarian administrative origin.
Postgate et al.:478)
One might also include in this process the new evidence for the existence of Pre-Asokan
Brahmi as represented by fourth century BC inscribed sherds from Anuradhapura (Coningham
et al.1996) having acknowledged that the objects which have survived in the archaeological
record may have been exceptional rather than common examples we may now begin to identify
some of the key elements for further study. The first point must be to concentrate on an
analysis of the structural context in which these inscriptions have been found. it is highly
striking. for example, that little research has actually been carried out in such an area.
Interpretations for the use of the Indus script have remained at very general levels (Ratnagar
1991), and unless we understand more fully about the

Fig.16. Distribution of sales within House AI, Block I, HR area at MohenjoDaro (after Jansen 1987:160).
site formation process in action Which created the fills of those actual rooms we are
unlikely to create more specific models. For example, the discovery of twelve seals in house I in
area HR of Mohenjo-Daro has been rather underplayed by many scholars (Parpola1994: 118;
Possehl 1996)(Fig.16). of the seven seals Which depicted an animal, all depicted the same
animal-the unicorn. As Jansen, as Wheeler before him (1968), has identified this building as one
of special architectural function, perhaps a temple (Jansen 1987), it is not likely that the
‘unicorn’ motif which links the seals together may not represent the deity? Whilst such
hypothesis are difficult to test, as material was excavated well over half a century ago, the
current excavations at Harappa are yielding very detailed evidence. About the use of the script,
and more importantly, its archaeological context (Meadow and Kenoyer 1997). Indeed of their
130 inscribed objects from the 1994 to 1995 seasons, a number appear to have been made with
exactly the same moulds as those recovered from other parts of the city in the 1930s. The study
of such examples afford as Meadow and Kenoyer suggest, ‘contemporaneity of occupation as
well as socioeconomic and perhaps ritual interaction between inhabitants of distinct sectors of
the city’ (ibid.: 157),a wider study utilising such a methodology would allow intra-regional and
inter-regional patterns to be studied. In conclusion perhaps then we should concur with the
statement by Meadow and Kenoyer:
Using modern archaeological techniques of excavation combined with technical and contextual analyses
should enable us to again a better understanding of the cultural domain of the inscribed items, as
opposed to knowledge of the actual language, decipherment of which still seems a distant dream.
(Meadows and Kenoyer 1997:163)

References
Alekseev, G.V.1976. “Characteristics of the proto-Indian Script,” in the Soviet Decipherment of the Indus valley scripts:
Translations and Critique (A.R.K.Zide and K.V. Zvelebil Eds.), pp. 1722. the Hague: Mouton.
Allchin, B. and F.R. Allchin 1982. The rise of Civilisation in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge University
press.
Allchin, F.R.1980. “Archaeological and Language-Historical Evidence for the Movement of indo-Aryan Speaking
people into India and Pakistan,” Journal of the K.R. Came Research institute 48:68-102.
Barth, F.1972. “Ethnic process on the Pathan-Baluch Boundary,” in Directions in sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of
Communications (J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes Eds.), pp.454-64. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Bellwood, p, 1995. “Early Agriculture, Language History and the Archaeological Record in china and Southeast
Asia,” in Archaeology in Southeast Asia (CT Yeung and B. Li Wai-ling (Eds.), pp. 11-22, Hong Kong: University
of Hong Kong.
Bisht, R.S. 1991.1991.” Dholavira: a New Horizon of the Indus Civilisation,” Puratattva 20:71-82.
Chakrabarti, D.K.1995. “Review of ‘Deciphering the Indus’,” journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 5:428-30
Childe, V.G. 1956. Piecing Together the past. London: Routledge &Kegan Paul.
Coe, M.D.1995. On not Breaking the Indus Code, Antiquity 69:393-5.
Coningham, R.A.E.1995 “Dark Age or Continuum?:an Archaeological Analysis of the Second Emergence of
Urbanism in South Asia,” in the Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: the Emergence of cities and States (F.R.
Allchin Ed.), pp.54-72. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Coningham, R.A.E., F.R. Allchin, C.M. Batt and D. Lucy 1996. “Passage to India? Anuradhapura and the Early use
of the Brahmi Script,” Cambridge Archaeological journal 6(1): 73-97.
Durrani, F.A.1984. “Some Early Harappa Sites Gomel and Banns valleys,” in Frontiers of the Indus Civilisation (B.B.
Lal S.P. Gupta Eds.), pp. 505-10. Delhi: Books &Books.
Eden’s, C.1998 “Tracking Torquemada,” Nature 374:223-4.
Ehert, C.1998. Language Change and Material Correlates of Language and Ethnic Shift, Antiquity, 62:564-74
Elfenbein, J.H 1987. A Perilous of the Braham Problem, StudiaIranica 16:215-33.
Fairservis, W.A1992. The Harappa Civilisation and its Writing: a model for the Decipherment Of the Indus Script. Lahore:
Vanguard Books.
Falk, H, 1994. “Copper Hoard Weapons and the Vedic Verne, “ in South Asian Archaeology 1993(A.
Parole and P. Koskikallion Eds.), pp.193-206, Helsinki: Annals Academia Scientiarum Finical, Series B, Vol.271.
Finley, M.I.1968. “Aspects of antiquity, London: Chat to & Windus Gadd, C.J.1931.Sign-List of Early Script: Some
External Features of its writing,” in Mohenjo daro and the Indus Civilisation (J.H. Marshall Ed.),pp.406-
14.London:Arthur Probsthain.
Goody, J. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organisation of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heras, H.1953. Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean Culture. Bombay: Indian Historical
Research Institute High am, C.F.W.1995. “Linganan and Southeast Asia in Prehistory,” in Archaeology in Southeast
Asia (C-T Yeung and B, Li Wai-ling Eds.), pp, 23-39. Hong Kong: university of Hong Kong
Hrozny, B. 1951. Ancient History of Western Asia, India and Crete. Prague: Artia.
Hunter, G.R.1934. The Script of Harappa and Mohanjo-daro and Its Connection with Other Scripts. London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner &Co.
Jansen, M.1987. Mohanjo-daro –a city on the Indus, in forgotten Cities on the Indus (M. Jansen, M. Mulloy and G.
Urban Eds.), pp.145-66. Mainz: Philip Von Sabern.
Joshi, J P. and Parpola, A.1987. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions: Vol. 1. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia,
Soumalaisen Tiedaeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Sarja Series B, NIDE
Tome 239.
Kak S.C.1988. A frequency Analysis of the Indus Script, Cryptologia12(3):129-43.
KinnierWilson, J.V. 1974. Indo-Sumerian: a New Approach to the problems of the Indus Script. Oxford: University press
Knorozov, Yu. V.1976. “The Characteristics of the Language of the Proto-Indian Inscriptions,” in 1976, The Soviet
Decipherment of the Indus Valley Script: translation and Critique (A.R.K. Zide and K.V. Zvelebil Eds.), pp. 55-62.
The Hague: Mouton Krishna Rao, M.V.N.1996. Indus Script Deciphered Delhi: Agam Kala.
Lal, B.B. 1960. “From the Megalithic to the Harappa, Tracing Bank the Graffiti on the Pottery,” Ancient Indian
16:4-24.
1966 “The Direction of Writing in the Harappan Script,” Antiquity 40:52-5.
1974. “Some Aspects 19 Ed.) Of the Archaeological Evidence Relating to the Indus Script,” Puratattva7:20-4
1979. “OntheMost Frequently Used Symbol in the Indus Script,” East and West 29: 27-35.
Langdon, S.H.1931 The Indus Script in Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilisation (J. H. Marshall, pp.423-55. London: Artur
Probsthain.
Leach, E.R.1990. “Aryan Invasions Over Four Millennia,” in Culture Through Time (E OhnukiTierney Ed.), pp. 227-
45. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Mahadevan, 1.1977.The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and tables. New Delhi: Memories of the Arachaeological
Survery of India 77.
......... 1988. “What Do We Know About the Indus Script?” Neti Neti (‘Not this Nor That’), Indian Historical
Congress, 49th Session, Section V, Dharwad.
......... 1997. “An Encyclopedia of the Indus Script,” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics XX VI (1):107-22.
Mallory, J.P.1989. in Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson.
Marshall, J.H1924. First Light on a Long Forgotten, The Illustrated London News (20 September):528-32. 1931. Mohenjo-
daro and the Indus Civilisation. London: Arthur Probsthain.
Meadow, R.H. and J.M. Kenoyer 1997. “Excavations at Harappan 1994-5: New Perspectives on the Indus Script,
Craft Activities and City Organisation,” In South Asia Archaeology 1995 (F. R. Allchin and B. Allchin Eds.) pp.
139-72. New Delhi: Oxford –IBH.
Mitchiner, J.E.1978.Studies in the Indus Valley Inscriptions. New Delhi: Oxford-IBH.
Newberry, J.1980. Indus Script of the Mohenjo-daro Shamans. Victoria: John Newberry.
Parpola, A.1994 Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Possehl, G.L. 1996. Indus Age: the Writing System, Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Postgate, N. T. Wang and T. Wilkinson 1995. “The Evidence of Evidence of Early Writing: Utilitarian or
Ceremonial,” Antiquity 69:459-80.
Priyanka, B. and A. Manatunga 1988.Studies in the Decipherment of the Harappan Script And Harappan seals. Colombo:
Archaeodocumentation
Quivron, G. 1997. “Incised and painted Marks on the Pottery of Mehrgarh and Nausharo-Baluchistan,” In south
Asia Archaeology 1995 (F. R. Allchin and B. Allchin Eds.), pp. 45-62. New Delhi: Oxford-IBH.
Rao, S.R.1987. The Decipherment of the Indus Script. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Ratnagar, S.1991. Enquires into the Political Organisation Of Harappan Society. Pune: Ravish.
Renfrew, A.C. 1984. Approaches to social Archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
1987. Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle Of Indo –European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.
Robb, J.1991. “Random Causes with Directed Effects: the Indo-European Language Spread and The Stochastic
Loss of Lineages,” Antiquity 65:287-91.
Ross, A.S.C.1938. The Numeral Signs of the Mohenjo-daro Script. New Delhi: Memories of the Archaeological Survey of
India 57.
Shaffer, J.G.1984. “The Indo-Aryan Invasions: Cultural Myth Archaeological Reality,” in The people of south Asia (J.R.
Lukas Ed.), pp. 74-90. New York: Plenum Press.
1993. “Reurbanisation: the Eastern Punjab and Beyond,” in Urban rom and Meaning in South Asia: the Shaping of
Cities from Baluchistan to Precolonial Times (H. Spodek and D.M Srinivasan Eds.), pp. 53-67. Hanover:
University Press of New Enagland.
Shah, S.G.M.and A. Parpola 1991. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions: Volume. Helsinki: Suomalainen
Tiedeakatemia, Soumalaisen, Tiedaeakatemian Toimituksia Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Sarja
Series B, NIDE Tome 240.
Sherratt, A.1988. “Review of ‘Archaeology and Language’,” Current Anthropology 29 (3):458-63.
Sherratt, A.and S. Sherratt 1988. “The Archaeology of Indo –European: an Alternative View,” Antiquity62: 584 -95.
Stein, M.A.1931. An Archaeological Tour in Gedrosia. New Delhi: Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 43.
Waddell, L.A.1925. The Indo-Sumerian Seals Deciphered. London: Luzac & co.
Wheeler, R.E.M. 1968. The Indus Civilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Witzel, M.1995. RigvedicHistory: Poets, Chieftains and Polities, in The Indo – Aryan of Ancient South Asia:
Langauge, Material Culture and Ethnicity (G. Erdosy Ed.),pp. 307-54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Zide, A. R. K. and K. V. Zvelebil (Eds). 1976. The SovietDecipherment of the Indus Valley Script: Translationand Critique.
The Hague: Mouton.
Zvelebil, K.V.1970. Comparitive Dravidian Phonology. The Hague:Mouton.
Rakhigarhi Study For first time, We have a genetic model that first for most present-day South
Asians: mixture of IVC-like people, and other (Smaller contributions) from other populations
David Reich, a professor of Harvard Medical School, Partnered with Indian archaeologist
Vasant Shinde and other experts to study skeletal DNA from Rakhigarhi, an Indus Valley
Civilisation (IVC) site Their study, published last Week in the journal ‘Cell’, has generated a
debate with its new assessments on the IVC period and the extent of its imprint on modern day
South Asia. Excerpts from an email interview with David Reich by AnubhutiVishnoi:
VasantShinde, the lead author of this study, has quoted as saying that this genetic study
is evidence that there was no major Aryan invasion or mass Aryan migration into South
Asian. Do you agree?
Our study finds that the single largest genetic contributor to people living in South Asia
today, is people from a population of Which the Indus valley Civilisation individual we analyses
was a part. Some people is South Asian have a modest, but meaningful proportion of their
ancestry from people from the Steppe, north of the Black and Caspian Seas; the number range
from 0-30% people with this ancestry almost certainly spread into South Asia from the north
4,000-3.500 years ago.
Many people question how the genetic evidence from the IVC, which predates the
Aryan phase, can establish that there was no mass migration invasion.
I think the identification of the ancestry of people living at the time of the IVC phase in
South Asia does meaningfully contribute to our understanding of what happened later. For the
first time, we have a genetic model that fits statistically for most present –day South Asians:
mixture of IVC – like people, and other (smaller contributions) from other populations for
which we have genetic date This allows us to be specific about what other populations
contributed to present – day South Asians, and when the mix occurred.
Shinde has stated that the Vedic era followed naturally from the Harappan /Indus
Valley civilisation and was not introduced by outsiders/ Aryans. Would you agree?
This is an archaeological question and not one that I can comment on authoritatively as a
geneticist. It is true that people, with ancestry like that of the IVC individual (s) we sequenced,
were the primary source of ancestry of people in South Asia. So, it is natural to expect that they
made important cultural contributions as well Archaeologically, the material cultures of the early
Vedic period have little obvious connections to those from the Stepps. So, even though there
was a substantial (if quantitatively modest) genetic contribution from the north, the material
cultural contribution may be hard to detect. We see something Similar in some instances in the
archaeological and ancient DNA record of Europe, as discussed in the final paragraphs of out
‘Science’ paper.
Do the finding of the study in any way indicated that the IVC “the largest source of
ancestry for South Asians” and not the Aryan civilisation?
I don’t know what the “Aryan civilisation” is, There is certainly no archaeological evidence
of a civilisation north of the Black and Caspian Seas or in the Steppe in the Bronze Age that
could compare in any way in complexity or cultural sophistication to the IVC. The genetic data
certainly points to the IVC being “the largest source of ancestry for South Asians”.
The paper notes that the “First Farmers of the fertile crescents contributed little to no
ancestry to later South Asians’’ and farming was largely indigenously developed by the
resident IVC population over successive phases. Your views.
The Mature IVC is 2600-1900 BCE, and as I understand, archaeology it’s not correct to call
any South Asian Culture a “civilisation” Prior to-3000 BCE for sure Farming started many
thousands of years earlier in the Indus Valley region So, it did not arise in the ICV itself, but
rather in predecessor cultures which, however, were connected culturally and genetically.

David Reich

No Connection
Archaeologically, the material cultures of the early Vedic period have little obvious connections
to those from the Steppe.
There is so much going on in DNA studies –even if pre-figured by linguistic studies –that
having a solid guide to stitch it all together, including papers that landed with a giant thud in
2018, would be so very, very nice. Someone who could put it together for the layman or
intelligent observer who finds it hard to sort through headlines and the latest pronouncements
(and simplifications). Fortunately, Tony Joseph’s Early Indians fits the bill mightily. It brings
together many lines of research centering around ancient and modern DNA studies in a lucid,
engaging way that makes complex concepts easier to understand. One comes away with a clear
recognition that Indian genetic history is mixed and multi-layered –there is nothing “pure” here
as people who gravitate towards the simplifications of “racial purity” may wish. One also comes
away with a much deeper and more rigorous understanding of what makes South Asia’s
populations and its base and “flavoured” genomes so unique in world history.
An overarching theme is that archaeology, linguistics and genetics are converging. If the
archaeological evidence was a bit light and theoretical (Mehrgarh as prime example of initial
movement from Zagros Mountains of agriculturalists and practices between 7000 and 3000
BCE into the subcontinent), the linguistic story much stronger (e.g. Sanskrit’s Indo-Aryan roots
from Central Asian migrations between 2000 and 1000 BCE), the genetic evidence over the past
decade –and especially in the last few years –overwhelmingly supports and reinforces what
these two other fields of study are showing. It adds finer detail and contour, and opens up new
questions. At the same time, the book is careful to not confuse language and people; the origin
of Dravidian languages in the Iranian plateau does not mean that the genes of those speaker
predominate in areas where Dravidian is spoken today (just as the use of English in the region
today may not involve but a wisp of European DNA). It is all very complex, but Tony Joseph
proves to be a clear, careful and engaging guide through a thicket of studies, and the picture he
draws, while simplified in some parts, is true to the material as it stands today.
Joseph is particularly fond of the pizza metaphor, which he introduces at the beginning, and
by the end of the book does not seem so far off: “One way to understand the population
structure of today’s India [really South Asia] is to think of it as a pizza, with the First Indians
forming its base. Some parts of the pizza are think crust, some parts thick crust, but al parts
need to have the base –the pizza doesn’t exist without it. Then comes the sauce that is spread all
over the pizza. And then the cheese and the toppings –the people who came into the
subcontinent later, at various periods. The cheese and the toppings are not uniform across the
different slices. Some slices have an extra topping of tomato, some have more capsicum and
others a lot of mushroom. The sauce, the cheese or the toppings that you find on this Indian
pizza are not unique; these are found in other parts of the world too –some in West Asia, some
in Southeast Asia and some in Europe and Central Asia. But the base of the pizza is unique to
India –you will not find another one like it anywhere else in the world. And neither will you find
a pizza with this level of diversity in any place other than Africa” (p. 61).
The best thing about this book is that it gives a clear picture of how the evidence stacks up
for the original development of the “First Indian” population who came out of Africa 50-
60,000 years ago, the agriculturalist move into Baluchistan (and perhaps elsewhere) that likely
helped spark the Indus civilisation, and the Aryan migration that followed on the heels of the
Indus civilisation’s decline. It also answers questions about the Andaman Islanders for example,
or the migration into India of smaller populations from Southeast Asia and China into the
eastern subcontinent and Myanmar –no, it was not a continuous western movement from
recent DNA evidence in prehistoric times, people actually moved into eastern India from China
and Southeast Asia (things changed later when Indian religious and cultural practices moved
further westward and northward all the way to Indonesia and China). He also debunks very
nicely many myths, like an ‘out-of-India’ movement of languages and people by using the
Romani (gypsy) example from roughly the 10th century ACE to show how such a westward
migration from the subcontinent, had it happened earlier on a large scale, would have left far
deeper DNA and other evidence.
Joseph is also to be complimented for taking the bull (or should it be the water buffalo?) by
the horns when it comes “to the special sensitivity to the question about the arrival of Indo-
European-language speakers? The answer is simple: it is the unstated by underlying assumption
that Indian culture is identical or synonymous with ‘Aryan’, ‘Sanskrit’ or ‘Vedic’ culture.
Therefore to ask when Indo-European languages reached India would be seen to be asking the
same thing as asking ‘when did we import our culture?’“
He continues: “But this is ridiculous on two counts. First of all, Indian culture is not
synonymous with, or identical to, ‘Aryan’ or ‘Sanskrit’ or ‘Vedic’ culture. ‘Aryan’ culture was an
important stream that contributed to creating the unique Indian civilisation as we know it today,
but by no means was it the only one. There were other streams that have contributed equally to
making Indian civilisation what it is. Second, to say that Indo-European languages reached India
at a particular historical juncture is not the same as suggesting that the ‘Vedas’ or ‘Sanskrit’ or
the ‘Aryan’ culture was imported flat-packed and then reassembled here. ‘Aryan’ culture was
most likely the result of interaction, adoption and adaptation among those who brought Indo-
European languages to India and those who were already well-settled inhabitants of the region”
(p. 162-163).
This final point is so important and defies the simplifications that people allergic to any
Central Asian migration often miss – Indus and other cultures mixed and persisted in what has
become the rich distribution of cultures in the region today. It is all about mixing and creating
hybrid forms as much as it is, maybe less so, about supplanting, just as it is today. What is very
interesting (and disturbing) in Joseph’s retelling of the DNA story though is not only how
Central Asian DNA strands seem much more predominant in certain higher castes, but also
how much male DNA (Y-chromosome lineages), especially in North India, seems to have much
higher traces of Central Asian DNA, whereas female mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has less
and, in general, is more similar to ‘base’ Indian DNA. In other words he quotes a 2017 paper to
say that “70 to 90 percent of mtDNA lineages of present-day Indian populations derive from
First Indians, while only 1-to 40 percent of Y-chromosome lineages have similar ancestry. This
difference is attributable to sex bias in later migrations” (p. 181-2). This follows a pattern seen
elsewhere in the world, and suggests that male invaders or migrants dominated the influx and
took local women as brides or otherwise had children with them. While we have no direct
evidence of how this happened, evidence from Europe and especially Central Asia often point
to rape or forced marriage as the method (with male inhabitants slaughtered or certainly not
procreating to the same extent).
Joseph has taken care to examine all the major books and studies in this field, and includes
points-of-view that diverge from his or most received opinion among DNA experts. His quote
from David Reich, whose lab at Harvard has pioneered many of these DNA studies is
particularly apt: “People tend to think of India with its more than 1.3 billion people as having a
tremendously large population, and indeed many Indians as well as foreigners see it this way.
But genetically, this is an incorrect way to view the situation. The Han Chinese are truly a large
population. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast there are few if
any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation
among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two or three times
higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans. The truth is
that India is composed of a large number of small populations” (David Reich, Who We Are
and How We Got There).
This is an extraordinary statement to ponder, even more so when we include neighboring
modern populations (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka) for whom the same is true and
which add at least another 400 million to the equation. This is the largest, most genetically
diverse pool of people on earth. Is this the end of the story? Certainly not. Much more
research needs to be done, especially with DNA of ancient Indus and other Bronze Age and
pre-Bronze Age populations. One might conjecture that the agriculturalist move from the
Zagros mountains had many tentacles, and fits and starts, perhaps reflected in things like the
Kulli and other cultures abutting the ancient Indus valley that we have not yet understood. If
the recent past is prologue, there are many surprises to come, many discoveries to be made.
This is an ongoing story, and Tony Joseph has provided a wonderfully engaging and
sophisticated lens to start understanding and absorbing all this information through. He writes
specifically for an Indian audience, but the closing lines of his book are applicable to the entire
South Asian population world: “We are all Indians. And we are all migrants.”
 Abstract
The famous Indian epigraphist and an expert on deciphering the Script on the numerous seals of
Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, Dr Iravatham Mahadevan, is no more with us. After leaving his
monumental research work of coding, classifying all the Indus seals and other artifacts for the future
generation of research scholars, Dr. Mahadevan, passed away. This paper is intended to be a humble
obituary tribute to his erudite and scholarly contribution during the five decades of research and
involvement, till his last breath, besides serving the dual purpose of stocktaking and evaluating the
progress made in this field.
The hypothesis taken up here is very pithily put across by Romila Thapar: “Recent linguistic analyses of
Vedic Sanskrit have confirmed the presence of Non-Aryan elements, especially Proto-Dravidian, both in
vocabulary and phonetics. Consequently, it has been suggested that Proto –Dravidian could have been the
earlier language of northern India, perhaps the language of the Indus Civilisation, although this awaits
the decipherment of the Indus Script, and that Vedic Sanskrit as the language of a particular social group,
slowly spread across the northern half of the sub-continent, with a possible period of bilingualism, in
which Vedic Sanskrit was modified by the indigenous language. It is significant that some of the loan
words in Vedic Sanskrit refer to agricultural processes. We know from archaeological evidence that plough
agriculture was practiced by the Indus settlements and from the Rig-Vedic hymns it is apparent that
pastoralism and not agriculture was the more prestigious profession among the early Aryan speakers.” 1

Development Of Serious Study

I.1 After the initial success on the collection of actual data of the Carvings on the stone rocks
of Pugalur and early Pandya inscriptions at Mangulam during 1965 -66, Mahadevan published
the results in the form of “amil Brahmi Inscriptions 1966”(1968), which was well received and
quoted by scholars in the field. Further he added two more inscriptions discovered at
Mannarkovil in December 2000I. 2. These Publications as well as his professional knowledge in
the field of Epigraphy enabled him earn the most prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru Fellowship
during the years 1970 –1972, leading to the publication of his magnum opus Texts,

1. Romila Thapar, “Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 2000.
Concordance and Tables2. In this exhaustive document he listed out all the seals and sub seals
that were made available through updated archaeological records.
Describing the “Mohenjo-Daro Riddle “from the very first publication of the early seals in
The Illustrated London News in 1924, scholars have been trying to find more about the authors
of this ancient civilisation.
a) Gadd and Smith of the British Museum suggested that there seemed to be some
connection between Mohenjo-Daro and Sumer, which motivated Waddell to advance
the theory that the people of the Indus-Valley were Sumerians.
b) Sir John Marshall and his collaborators came up with their findings in 1931, with their
arguments that the inhabitants of Mohenjo-Daro were certainly Pre-Aryans and most
probably belonged to the race which was afterwards called Dravidian.
c) Pran Nath, following Waddle’ suggestion, tried to find the common features between
the Aryans and the Sumerians by tracing common elements of worship in the Mohenjo-
Daro seals.
d) G. R. Hunter observed, “the Indus Valley, prior to the arrival of the Aryans, was
inhabited by the Dravidians, and the Brahuis of the neighborhood are a remnant of this
stock; but this is not certain, nor would it exclude the possibility of a riverine or
maritime folk of a different race being responsible for Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa.”
e) R. D. Banerjee maintained that “Mohenjo-Daro. Harappa were built by Dravidiansor
proto-Dravidians.”
f) In order to solve this riddle of “Dravidians “versus “Aryans”, or more exactly, the
relationship between the Proto-Dravidians and Proto-Aryans a more rigorous analysisof
the Indus Valley Script becomes absolutely necessary. The Origin of the Dravidians isan
essential clue to the understanding of the role of the Indus Valley Script found on
thenumerous Seals and Sub-seals, other artifacts of the Valley. There are different
viewsabout their Origin. The popular opinion prevalent among a group of Historians
and Ethnologists is that the Dravidians formed a part of the great Mediterranean race.
Their original home was probably Libya, whose people spread over the southern
countries of Europe and Egypt in its pre-Dynastic days, and which seems to have been
an important center of culture in ancient times. It is quite likely that when these people
migrated towards the East and South, their culture was mingled with the original
inhabitants, who were probably Negritoes and Kolarians. Tony Joseph in his recent
book on “Early Indians”3 (The story of our ancestors and where we came from) has
given an elaborate treatment of this aspect of migration from Out of Africa to different
parts of the World. This possibility may be considered as a high probability to account
for racial mingling and consequently shared physical traits. In order to understand the

2. Mahadevan, Iravatham, “The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables”, The Director General of The
Archaeological Surveyof India, New Delhi, 1977.
3. Tony Joseph, “Early Indians”(The Story of our ancestors and where we came from), Juggernaut, New
Delhi,2018
 backdrop of the culture a study of the Script used in the Seals becomes an essential
prerequisite. Such a Script is probably read from right to left when it is a single line,
andleft to right when it is more than a single line of arrangement.
This aspect of direction of reading of the text has been established through a careful
statistical analysis by Iravatham Mahadevan.
There is no doubt that the Mohenjo-Daro Script is picto-phonographic and has affinities
with many other ancient Scripts. This Paper presents the results of such comparative studies in
the light of modern principles of historiography and ethnomethodology.
Key-Words: Progress in the study of Indus Valley Civilisation with special reference to the
decipherment of the Script – Study of Seals-Contribution of Iravatham Mahadevan – an in-
depth survey – the future directions of research desirable.
The Objectives of this Paper
Primarily, to focus attention upon the importance of the studies of the Indus-Valley
Civilisation, in an effort to understand the complex problem of identifying the culture ofthe
natives in Prehistoric India and the possible migration routes followed by the early Proto –
Iranians and the impact on the ancient Harappan Civilisation.
Secondly, to evaluate the most admirable role played by International and National Scholars
of Indology, from time immemorial, including that of Iravatham Mahadevan (1930-2018).
Along with a number of earlier Soviet archaeologists, and Finnish experts, Mahadevan, spent
his life time in engaging all his attention to the elements of Dravidianlanguage similarities in the
Indus Valley seals and other inscriptions.
Seigniors, the French historian, rightly emphasizes, “history is not, as has been said, ascience
of observation, but a science of reasoning. In order to use facts which have beenobserved
under unknown conditions, it is necessary to apply criticism by analogy. The facts as furnished
by criticism are isolated and scattered; in order to organize them in to a structure it is necessary
to imagine and group them in accordance with their resemblances to the facts of the present
day, an operation which also depends on the use of analogies. This necessity compels history to
use an exceptional method. In order to frame its arguments from analogy, it must always
combine the knowledge of the particular conditions under which the facts of the past occurred
with an understandingof the general conditions under which the facts of humanity occur. Its
method is to drawup special tables of the facts of an epoch in the past, and to apply to them
sets of questions founded on the study of the present” 4
The importance of deciphering the Harappan Script can never be over emphasised. A.L.
Basham observed, “he ancient civilisation of India differs from those of Egypt, Mesopotamia
and Greece, in that its traditions have been preserved without abreakdown to the present day.
India and China have, in fact, the oldest continuous cultural traditions in the world.” 5

4. Anderson, B., and John-Correia-Alfonso, S.J.(eds)”Indological Studies”, Rev. Fr. Hera’s Institute of Indian
History and Culture, St. Xavier’s College, Bombay. 1990. p.12
5 .Basham, “The Wonder that was India”, London: Sidgwick&Jackson, 1967.
The Archaeological Evidence Of The Harappan Civilisation
When William Jones was posted to Calcutta as a Judge, he had already learnt the languages of
Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Turkish and a bit of Chinese He knew that these languages were
possibly derived from a common ancestor, which was not Hebrew.
Thanks to the initiative of Charles Wilkins, who had learnt Sanskrit thoroughly, Jones also
learnt the Sanskrit language. This led to the formation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal on 1st
January of 1784, paving the way for publications of many translationsfrom Sanskrit to English.
A gifted amateur, by name, James Princep, who was working as an official at the Calcutta Mint
and interpreted for the first time the meaning and significance of the earliest Brahmi Script in
which the Harappan and AshokanInscriptions were written. Unfortunately, his report is not
traceable in India.
In 1901, thanks to the great interest evinced by Lord Curzon, the Viceroy, a young and
enthusiastic archaeologist, John Marshall, took over as the Director General of the
Archaeological Survey of India. It was under his leadership that several sites such as Mohenjo-
Daro, Harappa and several other important projects were excavated and many interesting
ancient artifacts were unearthed for analysis. This was a true turning pointing recapturing the
history of ancient India and its civilisation. This aspect can never beforgotten in the history of
Indological studies. Archaeology provides entirely new lightupon the thin line separating
prehistory from the most ancient part of recordedhistory. Even today there are several sites all
over India which produce enormous wealth of information regarding the ancient culture of the
people, who lived and were buried in huge pots. It is an interesting fact of history that the burial
was the popular system and that preceded the cremation system, wherein the dead were
consigned to fire (Agni) following certain rituals. This is a point of departure in social
customs,which provides a clue to the period of history.
These are from Gujarat, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu States. Dholavira is in Gujarat.During
the present day keezhadi and Athichanallur excavations remarkable artifactsare found suggestive
of a very good example of Dravidian ancestry with very plausibleproximity to the Harappan
Civilisation. Common features are noticeable in areas of town planning, architecture of housing
models, the artifacts, the ornaments and the inscribed names of ownership on terracotta items
of black and red pottery wares, bearing strange – looking Scripts, seemingly akin to the Indus
Script. This has beenconfirmed by the team of archaeologists and genetic researchers in their
dual reports inScience and Cell.
Writing Authentic History
How can we write a history of India when so little written documentation is available? Kosambi
provides a convincing answer: “he documents existed, but many words in them had no meaning
to modern people. This meaning was acquired by the comparative study of surviving
antiquities…Finally, archaeology helps documents to tell us how the people of a vanished age
actually lived, though the meaning of key words has changed. Diggingup the past and the
scientific study of primitive people in other parts of the world alsomakes possible the
reconstruction of a culture that existed before any written records.This is labeled p’rehistory.” 6
Tracing the history of inscriptions, R. S. Sharma, observed, “n India, as a whole, the earlier
Inscriptions were recorded on stone. However, in the early centuries of the Christian era,
copper plates began to be used for this purpose.

6. Kosambi, D. D., 2005, An Introduction to the Study of Ancient History, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi.
p. 13.
 Most frequently, we have many donative records, which refer specially to gifts of money,
cattle, land etc., mainly for religious purposes, made not only by Kings and Princes, but also by
nobles, artisans and merchants. Inscriptions recording land grants, made mainly by Chiefs and
Princes, are very important for the study of the land system and administration in ancient India.
These were mostly engraved on copper plates. They record grants of lands, revenues and
villages made over to monks, Even then the practice of engraving inscriptions on stone
continued on a large scale in South India. We have also in that region a large number of
inscriptions recorded on the walls of temples to serve aspermanent records.” 7
In the case of South India, topographical lists of Inscriptions have been published. Stillover
50,000 inscriptions, mostly of various excavations and inscriptions in South India, await
publication.
The Harappan inscriptions, which await more authentic decipherment, seem to have been
written in a pictographic Script, in which ideas and objects were expressed in the form of
pictures. Most Ashokan inscriptions were engraved in the Brahmi Script, which was written
from left to right, but some were also incised in the Kharoshthi Script, which was written from
right to left. Brahmi continues to be the main Script till the end of Gupta times.
Inscriptions found on the seals of Harappa belonging to about 2500 B.C., are considered
symbolic by some scholars. For Indian History, the earliest deciphered inscriptions are Iranian.
They belong to the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. and are found in Iran. They appear in Old
Iranian and also in Semitic languages in the Cunei form Script. They speak of the Iranian
conquest of the Hindu or (as the Iranians have it) “indhu” area. Ofcourse, in India the earliest
deciphered are the Ashokan inscriptions. They are, generally written in Brahmi Script and in
Prakrit language in the third Century B.C. They throwlight on Maurya history and Ashoka’
achievements.
In view of space constraints pages 33 to 35 of the seals are not included here in this paper. 8
There is no doubt that this basic corpus provided through a single source ‘window’ of immense
value to the researchers.
Disputed Script
Some early scholars, starting with James Princep9 in 1877, thought that the Script was the
archetype of the Brahmi Script used by Ashoka in his rock inscriptions. Cunningham’s ideas
were supported by G.R. Hunter, Iravatham Mahadevan and other scholars, who continue to
argue for the Indus Script as the predecessor of the Brahmic family. However, many other
scholars disagree, claiming instead that the Brahmi Script derived from the Aramaic Script. The
Finnish scholar, Asko Parpola, holds the view, “sot attempts to read the Indus Script apply the
unsuited method of comparing the Indus signs with similar looking signs of other Scripts and
transferring their phonetic values to the Indus signs. This general error is often coupled with

7. Sharma, R.S., India’ Ancient Past, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2005
8. Mahadevan, Iravatham: “The Indus Script: Texts and Concordance”, The Director General of Archaeology,
New Delhi, 1977. Pp. .32-35.
9. Princep, James: “The Early Ashokan Edicts were carved in Brahmi Script,” in The Proceedings of Asiatic Society of
Bengal.
the mistake of deriving Brahmi from the Indus Script, though it is based on the Semitic
consonant alphabet.”10
And a few others led by Archaeologist S.R. Rao 11 believe that the Script is pre-Vedic and
hence a forerunner of early Sanskrit. Hence, this remains a disputed area. It is still an open-
ended riddle or researchers, after so many years of multi-pronged research studies.
Three Phases Of Harappan Civilisation
Early Harappan: The Script generally refers to that used in the mature Harappan phase, which
perhaps evolved from a few signs found in early Harappa after 3500 BC. However, the early
date and the interpretation given in the BBC report have been challenged by the long-term
excavator of Harappa, Richard Meadow. The use of early pottery marks and incipient Indus
signs was followed by the mature Harappan Script.
Mature Harappan: The Harappan signs are most commonly associated with flat, rectangular
stone tablets called Seals, but they are also found on at least a dozen other materials Late
Harappan: After 1900 BC, the systematic use of the symbols ended, after the final stage of the
Mature Harappan civilisation. Mahadevan’ analysis and report in “the Indus-Script: Texts,
Concordance” and Tables 112 provides a complete and critical account of the texts, an
improvised concordance (with a whole text as the unit) and a set of statistical tables prepared
with the help of a CDC 3600 Computer at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR),
Bombay.

10. Parpola, Asko: “A Dravidian solution to the Indus Script problem”, Central Institute of Classical Tamil, Chennai,
2010.
11. Rao, S.R., “The Dawn and devolution of the Indus Civilization”, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1991
12 Aravind Ramakrishna, “The Importance of Keezhadi excavations to The Tamil Civilization “in YouTube
Video.
 This compendium has also been upgraded so as to include the latest unpublished texts,
especially from Lothal and Kalibangan sites of 1976. The sign list and the list of sign variants
have been updated in 1976 by Mahadevan and his TIFR technical team. This provides a
complete corpus of the Indus Script and Signs material as on date. This voluminous source
book will provide all the necessary Corpus for all future research scholars on deciphering the
Indus Script. It makes use of binary code system to describe exhaustively all possible content
on the Seals.
Similarly, there are several entries under different groups such as:
“Fabulous and Composite Animals”
“Reptiles, Fish and Birds”
“Trees and leaves” & Anthropomorphic animal figures
“Trees and other objects” and
“various Symbols and Motifs”
In plates I to VII, Mahadevan has amply illustrated the seals and signs through a set of
photographs. (1 to 145.)
These provide most reliable data of great value to anthropologists. Ancient inscriptions that
are claimed to bear a striking resemblance to those found inIndus Valley sites have also been
found in Sanur near Tindivanam in Tamil Nadu, Musiriin Kerala and Sulur near Coimbatore.
Mahadevan and several other archaeologists have reported several instances of unearthing seals
and terracotta artifacts throughout TamilNadu.
Substantiating Videos have been uploaded on YouTube about Keezhadi12 excavations. This
confirms an earlier work carried out by Mathivanan who traced proper names inthe Indus
script. Historians such as Raja Raman have pointed out, “he graves at Adhichanallur on the
southern bank of Tambaraparani in Tirunelveli district can bedated to the early Iron Age which
succeeded the Neolithic age in South India.
Remarkable parallels are seen in the sites near the villages of Annavasal, near Pudukkottai,
in the Palani and Annamalai ranges, along the Western ghats and the Nil iris and in the districts
of Coimbatore, Salem and former North Arcot and South Arcot.” 13
These require further careful field work and study, in order to arrive at conclusions
Some Details Of The Indus Script
The writing system in the Indus script is intensely pictorial. The script is written from right to
left, and sometimes follows a boustrophedon style. That is to say that thedirection can be both
ways, depending upon the numerical order and line of Arrangement. Since the number of
principal signs is about 400-600, midway between typical logographic and syllabic scripts, many
scholars accept the script to be logo syllabic. Several scholars maintain that structural analysis
indicates an agglutinative language underneath the script.

13 Raja Raman, P. “historical Speeches and Writings” 81-st Birthday Commemoration Volume, 2. Poompozhil
Publishers, Chennai. 2018. Pp.15-16
The Dravidian Hypothesis
The Russian scholar Yuri Knorozov14 who has edited a multi-volume corpus of the inscriptions,
surmises that the symbols represent a logo syllabic Script, with an underlying Dravidian
language as the most likely linguistic substrate. Knorozov is perhaps best known for his decisive
contributions towards the decipherment of the Maya Script, a pre-Columbian writing system of
the Mesoamerican Maya civilisation. Knorozov’s investigations were the first to conclusively
demonstrate that the Mayan Script was logo syllabic in character, an interpretation now
confirmed in the subsequent decades ofMeanest epigraphic research.
The Finnish scholar Asko Parpola1515 repeated several of these suggested Indus Script
readings. The discovery in Tamil Nadu of a late Neolithic (early 2nd millennium BC, i.e.post-
dating Harappan decline) head-stone adorned with Indus Script markings has beenconsidered
to be significant for this identification. However, their identification as Indussigns has been
disputed.
Iravatham Mahadevan, who supports the Dravidian hypothesis wished, “we mayhopefully
find that the proto-Dravidian roots of the Harappan language and SouthDravidian languages
are similar. This is a hypothesis. But I have no illusions that I willdecipher the Indus Script, nor
do I have any regret.”16
Gift Sir money et al., stressing the urgent need for an awareness of the historical
importanceof the inscriptions point out the progress made by the Tamil language Script
overseveral centuries in the past. “housing an ancient and well-known work like Tirukkural,we
have written the verses in the different styles of writing so that the reader could followthe
evolution of the Tamil Script from the Tamil-Brahmi Script which is linked with theBrahmi
Script of Ashoka.
The Tamil Script which was prevalent in 1500 A.D., closely resembles the modern
TamilScript…During the time of Tiruvalluvar, Tamil was written in a Script called Tamil –
Brahmi or Dhamili and it closely resembled the Brahmi Script of Emperor Ashoka.Brahmi is
the parent of all modern Indian Scripts.”17 Please refer to the table of ancientTamil Script.
(Annexure I).
Siro money et al., also asserted that, “Brahmi was invented and many of its signs can
bederived from a compound symbol found in the Tamil –Brahmi inscriptions, viz., a crosssuper
-imposed on a square. Tamil Brahmi Script sometimes makes use of a pull (.) or adot as a
consonant marker to denote pure consonants. This practice was prevalent fromvery early times
and a pulli can be seen in Anaimalai inscription.18 This practice is not followed in the Asokan

14 Yuri Knorozov, (ed.) “Corpus of The Indus Valley Inscriptions”Proto-India, Moscow, 1975.
15 Asko Parpola, “Deciphering Indus Script” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
16. Mahadevan, Iravatham, “The Indus Script: Text, Concordance, Tables”, The Director General of Archaeological
Society of India. New Delhi.1977.
17. Gift Sir money,, S. Govindaraju, M.Chandrasekaran, “Thirukkural in Ancient Scripts”, Department of
Statistics, Madras Christian College, Tambar am, Chennai.1980.
18. Ibid. Introduction.
Brahmi system where a pure consonant is combined with thefollowing letter and written one
below the other. The letter on top would represent a pureconsonant. The modern Tamil Script
gradually evolved from the Tamil Brahmi pullsystem to the Pallava Tamil Script, the Chola
Tamil Script and to the Vijayanagar Script which is quite similar to the modern Script. …slide
by side with the Tamil Script, anotherScript called vaTTezhuthu developed for the writing of
Tamil language. Late Brahmiletters and early vaTTezhuthu letters are practically
indistinguishable from one another.Many Hero Stones belonging to the Pallava period have
been discovered in North TamilNadu with vaTTezhuthu inscriptions. This Script was used in
general during the Pandyaregions till the Cholaas took over that territory. It was adopted later
for writing Malayalam and a degenerate form of the Script was called Koleezhuthu.” 19
This observation sets a close link between Indus Script and the Tamil Brahmi Script.
An Ongoing Debate about Script or Ideographic Symbols
If the Indus signs are purely ideographical, they may contain no information about the
underlying language spoken by their creators, i.e., they would just be logographic Script, or
pictograms. Just like traffic signs used for guidance of road users and at the International
airports, where communication transcends linguistic signs. In 2004, Steve Farmer, an
independent scholar along with a computational linguist Richard Sprout and Ideologist Michael
Wetzel published an article asserting that the Indus Script symbols were not coupled to oral
language. Wetzel had earlier presented his”Para-Munda” Hypothesis, that the spoken language
of the northern Indus civilisationwas distantly related to the Austro-Asiatic family, though not
identical with Proto-Munda (Wetzel, 1999).20
Intervening in the debate in a newspaper article, Iravatham Mahadevan has called the Indus
“on-Script” a non-issue, listing a variety of archaeological and linguistic arguments in support
of his thesis.21
A computational study conducted by a joint Indo-US team led by Rajesh P N Rao
ofUniversity of Washington, consisting of Iravatham Mahadevan and others from TataInstitute
of Fundamental Research, was published in April 2009 in Science. The conclusion arrived at
was that “given the prior evidence for syntactic structure in the Indus Script, (their) results
increase the probability that the Script represents language”. 22
Different Theories about Indus Script As A Language.
Following are the different views held on the Indus Script:

19. Ibid.
20. Reference taken from Wikipedia.org on “The Indus Script”
21. Iravatham Mahadevan’s response to the above view published in “Dinamani”of which he was the editor.
22. Science. Com
 1. The language is completely unrelated to anything else, meaning ‘an isolate’. This is
linguistically untenable. The number of seals is too large to be ignored as casual
scribbling.
2. The language is “Aryan” (some form of Indo-Iranian/ Indo-European). The historical
languages spoken in Northern India and Pakistan all belong to the Indic branch of
Indo-European, including Sanskrit, Hindi, Punjabi, etc., so may be the people of the
Indusvalley spoke a very old Indo-European language. There is very little evidence
forsupporting this view.
3. The major problem with this model is the fact that horses played a very important
rolein all Indo-European cultures. After all, they were mostly people constantly on the
move insearch of pasture lands. “There is no escape from the fact that the horse played
a centralrole in the Vedic and Iranian cultures...”23 (Parpola, Asko:1994). There is
definitely nohorse depicted in the Indus signs, whereas all other Indian animals find a
repeatedmention.
4. The language belongs to the Munda family of languages. The Munda family is
spokenlargely in eastern India, and related to some Southeast Asian languages. Like
Aryan, thereconstructed vocabulary of early Munda does not reflect the Harappan
culture. So, itscandidacy for being the language of the Indus Civilisation is not valid and
acceptable.
5. The language is Dravidian. The Dravidian family of languages is spoken in
SouthernIndian, but Brahui is spoken in Baluchistan, located in modern Pakistan. So far
this is themost promising model, as indicated in the following details. There are many
Dravidian influences visible in the Vedic texts. If the Aryan language gradually replaced
theDravidian, features from Dravidian would form a “substratum” in Aryan. One of
thesefeatures is the appearance of retroflex consonants. The proto-I A* or proto-IE*
hasn’got it.
Another possible indication of Dravidian in the Indus texts, is from structural analysis ofthe
texts which suggests that the language underneath is possibly agglutinative, from thefact that
sign groups often have the same initial signs but different final signs. The number of these final
signs range between 1 to 3. The final signs possibly represent grammatical suffixes that modify
the word (represented by the initial signs). Each suffix wouldrepresent one specific
modification, and the entire cluster of suffixes would therefore putthe word through a series of
modifications. This suffix system can be found in Dravidian,but not Indo-European. Because
like Sanskrit, most of the Indo-European languages areinflectional in its grammar.
Pictograms
But can we actually read (not interpret through associated sound) any symbol or signon the
seals? We should then begin our study with the Indus “pictograms”, as this one:

23. Asko Parpola, “Deciphering the Indus Script”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
 Many scholars such as Knorozov, Parpola, Mahadevan decipher this sign as a fish. Fish in
reconstructed Proto-Dravidian is *miin. Coincidentally, *miin is also the word for star. On many
pots from Mohenjodaro, an Indus site, there are drawings of fish and stars together, and so
affirming this linguistic association.
Going further, often the24 numeral six appears before the fish. Either it means 6 fish or 6
stars. Old Tamil (a classical version of this Dravidian language is still spoken today) texts from
just around the 1st century AD recorded the name of the Pleiades, a star cluster visible during
autumn and winter just throughout the world, titles with celestial connotations are very
common, and the clause Six Stars forming part or whole of a Harappan title is not
unreasonable. (Parpola, 1994)

Still, in south Indian language fish is called as “miin” and the star as “vin-miin” exact same
words used in the Indus Script.

Sometimes symbols are added to the basic sign to make new signs. Of these, the one that looks like
a circumflex accent placed on top of the fish is quite interesting. It is theorised to mean “roof ”. This is
phonetically similar to Proto-Dravidian word for “black”, *may. Together with fish, it spells out <mai-m-
miin>, or “black star”, which in Old Tamil means the planet Saturn. In Sanskrit texts, Saturn is
associated with the colour black. TheGod of death, Yama, is the presiding deity of this planet, and is
usually depicted as riding on a dark buffalo. Worshipping Saturn God especially on Saturdays is a
Dravidian custom. But this has been refuted by Professor R. Mathivanan in his Blog. 25

24. AskoParpola, “Deciphering The Indus Script”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
25. Mathivanan,R., Entries and Observations about “vin-miin”in his personal Blog
 Let us now look at the structure of these seals very closely.
Invariably they consist of a logo or a picture of an animal or a set of animals surrounded
by flora and fauna of the period. These are clearly embossed obviously with metallic frames and
designs of that age. Above these are found a set of peculiar Script often short as much as only
five in number and occasionally longer up to an extent of fourteen. Theproblem faced by the
epigrapher is to relate the two and find a meaning in its context.
Seal impression showing a typical “inscription” of five “characters”.
 This Indus seal depicts a male deity with three faces (tri-murti, Brahama-God), seated in a
lotus position on a throne, perhaps wearing bangles on both arms and an elaborate headdress.
Five symbols of the Indus Script appear on either side of the headdress which is made of
two outward projecting buffalo style curved horns, with two upward projecting points.

A grooved and perforated boss is present on the back of the seal.

 A team led by a University of Washington researcher, Rajeshwar Rao, has used computers
to extract patterns in ancient Indus symbols. The study, published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, shows distinct patterns in the placement of symbols in
sequences and creates a statistical model for the unknown language. “The statistical model
provides insights into the underlying grammatical structure of the Indus Script,” said lead
author Rajesh Rao, a University of Washington Associate Professor of Computer Science.
“Such a model can be valuable for decipherment, because any meaning ascribed to a symbol
must make sense in the context of other symbols that precede or follow it.” 26
That is to say that the syntax carries the clue to the meaning of the Script.
This team consisted of Nisha Yadav and Mayank Vahia of the Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research and Centre for Excellence in Basic Sciences in Mumbai; Hrishikesh
Joglekar of Mumbai; R. Adhikari of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences in Chennai; and
Iravatham Mahadevan of the Indus Research Centre in Chennai. 27
Even though the aesthetic creativity of the people of Harappan Civilisation was not of a
very high order, their most commendable attainment was in the form of seals carved by them.
These engravings represented different animals and the love shown by the people towards
them. Chief among them was the great urus bull, with its many dew laps, the rhinoceros with
knobbly, armoured hide, the tigers, and many other animals and creatures of wide range. Also,
we find models of monkeys and squirrels, used as pinheads and beads, and some of the figures
on the Seals are very suggestive of Gods. There are a few in terracotta of bearded men with
coiled hair.
Their visage and stance are resembling closely to the yogic position of the Jinas
Kaayatsarga, in which meditating teachers are often found. This figure is to be found with the
horn of an animal as a headdress. There are different views about this image.
One of them is that the figure represents Lord Shiva, a devout lover of different animals.
The Hindus worship such an image as “Pasu-pathi” – Lord of animals.
The Jaina Philosophy and Influence on Indus Script
An entirely different interpretation is provided by a trained Scientist, Sneh Rani Jain 28. She
interprets the significance of the seals as solely representative of a Jina view, guiding human
beings towards the holy path of a detached way of life, as advocated by the highly philosophical
Jain monks, trained in the philosophical doctrines of Mahavir. She links it with the historical
details of Emperor Chandra Gupta Maurya of that period, who becamea Jain monk under the
influence of his Guru and moved Southwards. In her elaborately researched and well-
documented book she analyzes the Indus Script as follows:

26. From Wikipedia.Org on “The Indus Script”

27. Proceedings of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.
28. Sneh Rani Jain, “The Guidebook to Decipher the Indus Script” Vishram, Sagar. 2006.
 “The signs appear pictorial as well as conventional themes or ideograms. The method of Rebus was
applied to read them. But that requires an awareness of the Indian cultural background. Rebus
application, however, could not work with drastically differing regional languages when words from same
object differ phonetically. That explains why none could read a single text meaningfully conveying any
satisfactory information. R. Mathivanan has deciphered most of the Indus texts but only as names
.Mahadevan very systematically gave out his concordance classifying the texts and their
signs with suffixes and prefixes, sorting out some signs for their most recurring combinations
but he too could not grasp meaning of many signs convincingly…
According to her interpretation, Jainism is a Sanatan way of living and carries traditional
symbolic expressions for themes, instead of long narrations since hoary past, especially bythe
shramans, who mostly practice silence or ‘maun’. She adds that, “An inventory of cave temples
of Tamil Nadu has revealed many facts on prevalence of Jain Shramanism. The Meenaakshi
temple of Madurai, the Nagerkovil temple, Kanchipuram temple center and the famous Balaji
temple were originally all famous Jain temples in the South with images of Jina therein.
A Debate on The Period of The Indus Seals
There is no doubt that this remains still an open question left unanswered satisfactorily.
Historically speaking, the period belongs to “Prehistory”. Hence there are no records by which
we can conclude that the Mohenjadaro and Harappan seals belong to a specific era.
Linguistically speaking, we are equally handicapped because this is not the language that was in
vogue or in speech at that time of the early Harappans. Certain scholars are of the view that the
seals represent the ideas that were in common with the concepts of RgVeda and hence this
belongs to an early Vedic period in creation.
In a recent book, “Which of Us are Aryans?”, RomilaThapar (2019) observes: “In terms of
archaeology the more extensive earlier reach was that of Harappan culture or the Indus
Civilisation. From Shortughai in the Pamirs, evidence of Harappan settlements extends all the
way South to the Indus plain and further to the Arabian Sea, westwards into Baluchistan and
Makran and touching the Indo-Iranian borderlands and eastwards into Punjab and Haryana.
More recently finds have been located in Oman in the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in the
vicinity of copper mines. The Harappans were known to have had trading relations with the
Gulf and Mesopotamia. People of the ancient past did not confine themselves to one place.
They traveled, migrated, traded and communicated across vast distances. This would probably
have been too vast an area to host a single, unified culture. We have to consider the possibility
of a multiplicity of cultures and societies, some fairly isolated and others in close contact but
possibly functioning under a recognised and similar sociopolitical rubric.” 29

29. Romila Thapar (ed.) et.al., “Which of Us are Aryans?”‘Rethinking the concept ofOur Origins’Aleph. New Delhi.
2019.
Conclusion
To sum up, we have to inevitably accept that the riddle of deciphering the Indus Script
continues its formidable challenge to the world of global scholars. The structure and meaning
of the Harappan Script continue to be a riddle. Like the peaks of The Himalayas, it beckons the
combined strategies of ethnomethodological global research inputs, including modern scientific
tools of Genetics and aid of High-Tech-IT. For the benefit ofthe band of future researchers,
the monumental concordance work completed by Dr. Iravatham Mahadevan will provide the
much needed beacon light.
In the light of what is stated above, it would be in the fitness of things if a Globally
representative Committee of multi-disciplinary scholars come together and put up a proposal to
the UNESCO for an international research Project on identifying the script, the language and
culture of the Indus-Valley Civilisation. Such an International Project would be the best
memorial for the eminent Epigraphist Dr. Iravatham Mahadevan.
Notes and References
Romila Thapar, Interpreting Early India, Oxford. New Delhi. 2000.
Anderson, B and John Correia –Alfonso, (eds.) Indological Studies, Bombay, 1990.
Bannerjee, R. D., was the first person to discover Mohenjodaro near the banks of the Indus in the Larkana district of Sindh, in
1922. (According to the Blog by Br. Dr. Sneh Rani Jain). This was later taken up for excavation by
Cunningham.
Hunter, G.R., in British Museum, prepared an earlier Concordance List, “The Script of Mohenjodaro” in 1934.
Kosambi, D. D., The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline. Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi,
2005.
Mahadevan, Iravatham, “Tamil-Brahmi Inscriptions,” 1968, In The Proceedings of IATR Conference held in Paris.
(Ed.) R.E. Asher.
......... ,“The Indus Script, Text, Concordance and Tables”, The Director General of Archaeological Survey of India, New
Delhi. 1977.
......... ,“Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the earliest of Times to the 6 th Century A.D.,” Crea-A: Chennai and The
Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, 2003.
AskoParpola: Deciphering the Indus Script, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1994.
Times of London, “The Illustrated London News”1924 (1) Published by the Times (Inc.) Max Müller, Sir “Studies of
India’s Past”(Oxford).
Marshall, John (Sir) et al. “MohenjoDaro and Indian Civilisation” in 3 Vols. London 1931.
Rajaraman, P. “Historical Speeches and Writings” 81st Birthday Commemoration Volume 2018.Poompozhil Publishers,
Chennai 2018. Pp. 15-16.
Smith and Gadd, British Museum, in MIC, Vol. III, Pls. CXIX -CXXIX. (Quoted by Mahadevan).
Sharma, R.S., “India’s Ancient Past” O.U.P., New Delhi. 2005.
Lal., B. B., Archaeological Society of India, Report 1923-1924., Pl. xix, No.18 (M.D) The Rig Vedic People, The Aryan
Books International, New Delhi, 2015.
Yuri Konorov (ed.) Multi--Volume Corpus of The Indus Valley Inscriptions. Moscow. 1999.
Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel: – A team of Harvard Researchers who stated that, “Indus Script
Symbols were not coupled to Oral Language.” “Indus –Script is non –linguistic.”, 2004.
Asko Parpola in 2005 stated that “The above arguments of Steve Farmer et al., ‘Can easily be controverted’. He
pointed out,” the presence of a large number of signs in Chinese and emphasizes that there is ‘little reason for sign repetition in
short seal texts written in an early logo-syllabic script.”
In May 2009, Asko Parpola considered it a Proto –Script --(during the Kyoto Conference.)
In the Kyoto Conference held in Japan and later in Singapore: “The New Kyoto paper promises its final version in
detail and present a General F A Q on developments in the field over past 5 years. This paper will be jointly
published in full in early 2010, by Harvard Oriental Series (Opera Minora) and the Research Institute for
Humanity and nature (Kyoto).
Rajesh P. N. Rao (University of Washington) led a team consisting of Iravatham Mahadevan and others from the T
I F R and published it in Science, April 2009, the following Conclusion: “ … given the prior evidence for
syntactic structure in the Indus Script, (their) results increase the probability that the script represents
language.”
Fairservis, studied the use of numerals and sign markings up to 7.’ (1983)
He does not approve of the reading of the Fish symbol as “miin”or a Black Star, a Saturn Planet. Tradition in India
has it that Saturn is associated with ‘Black’.
Sneh Rani Jain, “The Guidebook to Decipher the Indus Script” (2006) Published by the Author in Sagar, 2006.
Takes a Jainism perspective in interpreting all the Seals, Sub-seals and signs. She relates each Seal to a symbol
existing actually on the premises of Jain’s Caves and their temples of Worship.
Subbarayappa, B. V., “Numerals and Eclipses in Indian Epigraphy”., Indian Council of Historical Research,
Southern Regional Centre, Bangalore. 2013
Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Jaya Menon, Kai Friese, Razib Khan. “Which of Us Are Aryans?”(Rethinking the
concept of our origins). Aleph Book Company, New Delhi. 2019.
Habib, Irfan. “Prehistory -1”and “The Indus-Civilisation –2”Aligarh Historians Society, Tulika Books, New Delhi,
2002.
Habib, Irfan.”echnology in Medieval India” c. 650 –1750. Aligarh Historians Society, Tulika Books, 2008.
Kumkum Roy and Naina Dayal (Editors) “Questioning Paradigms, Constructing Histories”, A Festschrift For
Romila Thapar, Aleph in association with The Book Review Library Trust, New Delhi, 2019.
Kosambi, D.D., “Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings” Compiled, edited and introduced by
Brajudulal Chattopadhyaya. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002.
RadhikaMongia., “Indian Migration and Empire”(A Colonial Genealogy of the Modern State), Permanent Black,
Duke University Press.First Indian Printing, 2019.

Bibliography
Anderson, B and John Correia -Afonso, S.J., (eds.) “Indological Studies”. Rev. Fr. Hera’s Institute of Indian History &
Culture, Bombay, 1990.
Basham, A.L., “The Wonder that was India”(A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent before the
coming of the Muslims) Grove Press Inc., By arrangement with The Macmillan Company, New York. 1954.
Cunningham, A., (Sir) in S. Majumdar (ed.) The Ancient Geography of India, Calcutta, 1924.
Lal, B.B., Papers of the Archaeological Society of India, in Ancient India. 1980-1986.
Lal, B.B., and S.P. Gupta, (eds.) Frontiers of Indus Civilisation: Mortimer Wheeler Commemoration Volume. New Delhi
Books & Books. 1984.
Majumdar, R.C., and others. “Ancient India”. Benares, 1952.
Mahadevan, Iravatham. “Tamil Brahmi Inscriptions”, in R.E.Asher (ed.)The Proceedings of the III IATR Conference
held in Paris, 1968.
......... ,“The Indus Script: Text, Concordance, Tables” The Director General of Archaeology, Government of India,
New Delhi, 1977.
......... ,“Inscriptions at Mannarkovil” December 2000.
Mackay, E. and others. “Further excavations at Mohenjadaro”, Delhi, 1938.
Mackay, E. “Early Indus Civilisation”, 2nd edition., London, 1948.
Martimer Wheeler, “Harappa”, Ancient India, 1947.
Martimer Wheeler, “The Indus Civilisation”. Cambridge, 1953.
Max Müller, (Sir), “Studies of India’s Past”, Oxford.
Parpola, Asko. “Deciphering the Indus Script”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
Rajaraman, P. “Historical Speeches and Writings”– 81st Birthday Commemoration Volume 2018, Poompozhil
Publishers, Chennai. 2018
Rajesh P. N. Rao., et al., in Science, April 2009.
Sharma, R.S., “India’ Ancient Past”, Oxford University of India, New Delhi, 2005.
Siromoney, Gift, S. Govindaraju, M. Chandrasekarn. “Tirukkural in Ancient Scripts”, Department of Statistics,
Madras Christian College, Madras.1980.
Srinivasa Iyengar, P. T., “History of the Tamils to 600 A. D”., Asia Publishing House, Bombay. 1929.
Sneh Rani Jain, “The Guide Book to decipher the Indus Script”, Vishram, Arhant Link Road, Sagar. 2006. Copies
can be had from The Jain Heritage Foundation, New Delhi.
Thapar, Romila, “Cultural Past: Essays in Early Indian History”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 2000.
......... , Early India from the origin to A.D. 1300. New Delhi. Penguin, 2001.
RomilaThapar, Michael Witzel, Jaya Menon, Kai Friese, Razib Khan. Which of Us Are Aryans? Rethinking The
Concept of Our origins. Aleph Book Company. New Delhi. 2019.
Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, Michael Witzel., “Indus Script symbols were not Coupled to oral language” in The
Kyoto Conference, Tokyo and Singapore. Source: From Wikipedia.
Times of London, “The Illustrated London News” 1924 (1) Times Inc., London. Verma and Pathak, Karma Vinanti in
Jaina Philosophy.
Wikipedia Web pages search results for “Indus-Valley Civilisation” and “Indus Script”.
Yuri Knorozov, (ed.) “Corpus of The Indus Valley Inscriptions”, in multi-volumes, Proto-India, Moscow, 1975.

Videos on Excavations In India

Rise and Fall of the Indus Valley Civilisation (VC3 Productions).
In Search Of Meluhua: The Story of Mohenjodaro (Blackcrow productions):2016.
Keezhadi: Archeaology: DINAMALAR
Madurai Researchers: Archeaology: Kiizhadi
Similarities Between Indus Valley Civilisation and Kiizhadi in Tamil Nadu
Script Time Travel: Cuneiform Story
The Indus Civilisation: The Master of The River: The mysterious India.Net
Raghigarhi: Biggest Indus Valley Civilisation site: Historically Urs
The Aryan Invasion Theory –Parts I & II: India Inspires
1. Timeline of 17,000+ Years of Unbroken Civilisation: NileshNilkanth Oak
2. “RowthiramPazhagu”: Kiizhadi Agazhvaayvu in Tamil: Puthiyathalaimurai.Com

E-Sources
1. Https://www.Wikipedia.org/ Wiki/-Indus_Script.
2. Https://www.sites.Google.com/site/induscivilisationthethird/home
3. Https://www.jeyakumar.IndusCivilisation/ ( updated 23Apr2018).

Newspapers and Magazines.

The Times, London: “The Illustrated London News” 1924 – (I).
The Hindu, New Delhi Edition, Dated Monday, February 11, 2019,
OPED.P.9. Cols. 1-4. Websource: thehindu.com

Annexure – 1

Source: Google.Com and Gift Siromoney et al., Madras Christian College.

 Annexure II.
Maangulam Inscription Of 3rd Century B.C., By Iravatham Mahadevan.

(source: www. Google. Com)

Annexure III

Courtesy “Science”
Introduction
There is no doubt that the ancient, prehistoric culture of the inhabitants of the twin cities of
Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, was the subject matter of several scholarly studies ever since its
discovery by Col. Cunningham, during the time of laying a Railway line to Lahore. The period
of such a study must have been between 2,500 BCE and 1000 BCE, historically divided into
three phases. The main cause for its sudden and mysterious decline and disappearance could be
due to It may also be significant to note that the decline of the Harappan urban civilisation
coincided with the downfall of several others, such as the Creto-Mycenean Civilisation of
Southern Europore. This short paper aims at presenting the archaeological findings and its
holistic impact based on the records made available from the three sites namely (1)
MohenjoDaro (= ‘The Mound of the Dead’in Sindh: now part of Pakistan); (2) Harappa in
Eastern Punjab on the banks of the River Ravi and (3) Lothal (located in Gujarat)

Fig 1.
 Figure 2.
(after harappa.com)
The Harappan civilisation has been analysed from the point of view of their food habits.
The Harappan Civilisation had attained a high standard of civic life marked by a good
grounding in the scientific, cultural and architectural advancement. It had a strong
administrative set-up based on sound economy, a well devised Town planning, accurate
measurements of length, volume and an enviable Script.’ This analysis is confined to the details
of the Seals and Scripts found among the excavation sites mentioned above.
Earlier Literature on Seals And Scripts
Among a host of observers, chief mention must be made about the work by the following
scholars:
a) S. Langdon (in Marshal, 1931)
b) P. Meriggi (1934)
c) G.R. Hunter (1934)
d) Pran Nath (1946)
e) A.S. Ross (1958)
f) Rev Fr. Heras (1958)
g) Sankarananda (1964)
h) Asko Parpola (Helsinki) (1972)
i) Yuri Knorozov (Moscow) (1972)
 j) Iravatham Mahadevan (1973-1980)
k) Fairservice (1977)
l) S.R. Rao and B. B. Lal (1973-1981)
m) Richard Salomon (1998)
n) Asko Parpola, Joshi et al.,(2004)
o) Sneh Jain ( Bhopal) Jainism point of view
p) R. Mathivanan ( Madurai ) 1997
q) R. Balakrishnan ( Orissa) ( 2019).
r) Sreenivasan Kalyanaraman ( Pune) – 2020).
s) Michell Denino (2020) and
t) Marta Ameri (2018): during this Online presentation.
For a very comprehensive analysis of the uptodate literature on this theme, please see
Subramaniam, Vridhachalem Pillay (2019)1.
Marta Ameri ‘‘attempts to deal with the mythological and narrativeiconography of the
Harappan world on its own terms, not necessarilywith an aim of interpreting it, but rather to
understand the role thatvisualimagery may have played in embodying and propagating thebelief
systems of the Harappan world.’ (Ameri, Marta: 2018:p144.) After undrscoring the classification
of the huge number of Sealsexcavated so far into three formal categories of 3A ( animal motif
script:ca 2600 -2450BCE), 3B (2450-2200) and 3C(2200-1900), she finds outthat ‘Square selas
with only script appear in period 3B, and aresuperseded by rectangular seals with only script in
period 3C.... thisstatigraphic preision has allowed for the development of a preliminaryseriation
of the Seals based on characteristics such as seal shape, bosstype,script, and carving style
(Kenoyer 2006-2007:17-19). In studyingthe narrative mythology of (fabula) of the Harappan
world, Amerimakes extensive use of the theory of narratology as explained by MiekeBal in her ‘
seminal book Narratology, originally published in 1985. (Bal 2009) in which, Mieke Bal offers
the most useful framework “ tounderstand, nalyse and evaluate narratives,” especially ones
whereseveral of the pieces are missing. For Bal, any narrative text can beanalysed by examining
its three component parts: the text, the story andthefabula.... If we examine the mythological imagery of
the Harappanworld within this framework, it becomes clear that while we are missingmany of the key elements
of the fabula or the fabulas being recounted,what we do have in a series of fragments (scenes) of stories that
arecommunicated using the text of the images incised on the seals andimpressed on the molded tablets. By
identifying the individual elements(characters) in these fragments and grouping them together, Ameriattempts to
provide some insight into the narrative structure of theHarappanFabulas...’( Ameri: 2018, p.162)” (italics
added for emphasis.)
This is indeed a fitting recognition and tribute to the narrative genius ofThe Harappan
people, who were not ignorant of literary discoursefeatures.

1. Subramaniam, Vridhachalem Pillay: “Problems and Perspectives in Decipherment of the Indus Script”in The
Proceedings of the X IATR Conference, Chicago, 5-9 July,2019
Cultural Features Suggested Through Pottery Graffiti.
Irfan Habeeb (2002) points out that,” Pottery decorations and terracotta figurines might also tell
us about the people’s beliefs. Parallel Jalilpur, Gumla and Sarai Khola (Kot-Diji culture sites)
suggest the worship of some form of Mother Goddess. Thse beliefs survived in the religion of
succeeding Indus Civilisation, but it is also true that neither the funerary rituals of the Indus
civilisation nor most of its deities (of human or animal shape) can be traced to all the Early
Indus cultures.

After asko parpola in harappa.com

Conclusion
While so much has been written as probable cultural implications and meaning of the Indus
Valley Seals and Scripts, it is unfortnate that Scholars do not come to an agreement on its
meaningful significance. It is possible to take a broad view of “Agreeing to disagree on minor
details”! If that were to be accepted as a possible solution, this researcher proposes a posting of
an intermediary jargon to facilitate a compromise position.If you feel inclined to accept such a
golden mean route, please read on, or else it would make no sense to you.
There is no doubt about the basics, namely that The Indus Valley Civilisation did exist in its
glorious days between 2500 to 1000 BCE. Archaeological and historical data go to establish that
beyond any iota of doubt. The doubtful “Dark period” (so to designate the interregnum
between total decline in 1000 BC to the period of Vedic appearance around 500 BCE) has to be
accounted for in terms of Scientific phenomena, archaeological and sociological detals. One
possible explanation is the concept of Aryan invasion. This theory has not been accepted by
many historians such as Romila Thapar, Stephen Knapp, and several others. Genetic analysis
carried out by Vasant Shinde et al also suggests that the bones of an old woman in Rahigarhi
proved to be that of a native Asian of the IVC. So then what could be the way out of this
impasse making the decipherment of the process of the Harappan Script totally impossible?
According to mature judgments of neutral Historiographers, like myself, the Solution to this
problem, lies in accepting the concept of an “Archeme” of each one of the excavated Seal /
Script along with it. We would like to combine the duo of the Seal impression and the strange
looking Script written along with it on all the four sides as part and parcel of ONE Text. So,
each Text has its own singular specific, conextualised ‘Significnce’ in communication. We would
term that meaningful connotation by the technical name of “An Archeme”.
What is an Archeme?
By the very definition (axiomatically) an Archeme is the specific andarchaeologically and
historically accepted ‘Unique Meaning of each TEXT in the Corpus.
According to several scholars, there are approximately 400 such Sealsand correspondingly a
large number of script bites. AskoParpola (2004) and Iravatham Mahadevan (1997& 2003) have
already drawnup a reliable List of Concordance. These concordances have beenlargely accepted
as part of the existing base of corpus. So there is nodispute over it. There may be incidental
additions here and there fromnew excavators in other parts of contiguous area. As long as this
isacceptable to existing Scholars of Archaeology and Anthropology, Linguists and Historians, it
may be added on. However, there must bean end to these additions. The List may be closed
with reference to aspecific year such as 2024 or thereabouts. (There is an Internationalparallel to
this in the formulation of an IPA Chart of symbols.)
Now let me take up the Utility Value of an Archeme concept. Like manyothermetalanguage
items such as an Equator, a Latitude, a Longitude, a Phoneme, a Morpheme, a Lexeme, an
‘Archeme’ is a metalanguage,an intermediary reference term to indicate the whole meaning of
acombination of a Seal and its corresponding Sript (read from Right toleft if it is a single line
and from Left to right if it is more than a singleline). An ‘Archeme’ is a minimal meaningful
communication Unit andyou may interpret it in any natural language of your own. This cuts
theGordian Knot of treating it as pre-Vedic/ Sanskrit (as Professor VasantShinde and his
followers aver-in their recent presentations) or whetherit is Dravidian-Proto-Tamil as the group
led by AskoParpola, YuriKnorozov, IravathamMahadevan, R. Barakrishnan, R. Mathivananetal
explain in terms of Rebus phenomenon of the assumed phonetic valueof the script. This
strategy would also accommodate the Pro-Munda Theory of Michael Witzel et al. Such an
intermediary step would alsoaccommodate the interpretation by scholars who assert that the
Sealsare purely “Commercial Statements!” and nothing more and nothingless. It would also
accept theories of Jainism proposed by Snehlata Jain.And any other such as MalatiSendjhe’s
point of view,”the scriptbelongs to the earliest type of writing invented and used by
Harappansto keep accounts.” (“Unsealing the Indus Script: Anatomy of its Decipherment
(Atlantic: 1997).
Now, having brought the concept of an Archeme to the level playing field, open to all, let us
allow each Scholar to indulge in fairplay and score his/ her Goal, which is to explain the totality
of the Harappan Civilisation and Culture in all its details. Just as a single ray of white light sent
through a prism will emerge as a set of seven different colours (V-I-B-G-Y-O-R), each TEXT
of the Harappan Concordance List will emerge differently according to the four following
parametres:

Nobel Laurette Sir C. V. Raman’s Theory Of Diffusion Of Light Through A Prism Yields Seven Colours
(After Encyclopaedia Brittanica Inc., 2006.)
The comprehensive significance lies embedded within a square consisting of four sides. The
four sides are each indicated as follows:

 Side 1. Textual Context ( Mohenjo-Daro/Harappa/Kalibangan/ Lothal/ Rahigarhi...) et al.,

  Side 2. The Culture Of The Period To Which It Possibly Belongs( as far as possible, indicated in
terms of historic period/ or optionally as Early Harappan/ Mature Harappan/ Late
Harappan period, bearing in mind the overlapping years that are inevitable, anyway).,
 Side 3. The Possible Socio – Cultural Meaning Assigned To The Text, In Wider Perspective Of The
Harappan Culture., ( for example: Agriculture practices, Trade and Commerce, within the
Community or out of that Society, matters of Faith, Sacrifice, Funerary practices... etc.,
etc.,)
 Side 4. The possible Heritage / Legacy Value it has left behind for peoples of the
subsequent ages. (Such as animal-man relationship, Mother Goddess concept, Town
planning and Water Management concepts, Astrology and Astronomy ideas...).
So, if we could equate the value of each Set of Seal and Script combo ( =a TEXT), without
unnecessarily splitting them into discrete parts, thenwe will arrive at a meaningful SOLUTION
to the unduly prolongedissue of the Language in which the Harappan Script is worded/ etched
/carved. It is just a Harappan Communication System. That is about all.
In conclusion, let me illustrate with just one example:

The Fish symbol is a repeated sign found in the Seals as well as Script. It has several
allotropic modifications indicative of several species of fish caught and consumed by the
Harappans. Malati Sendjhe considers the different varieties of Fish in the region of Indus
Rivers, Kutch, Gujarat and other riverine areas.
To Malati Sendjhe (Atlantic:1997) the “ARCHEME” of fish is identified by its marine
species: “The species belong to marine and riverine and fresh water varieties.This means that
though fish bones acquaint us with varieties consumed as food, those depicted in the script may
also be used as food, but also more importantly, were the traded varieties. Belcher examined the
fish bones excavated them during 1986-1990 excavations at Harappa. His report is more
detialed and extensive.
856 pieces of bones were identified. Almost all of them are silurids (cat-fish). (Malati
Sendjhe, p.80)
 To Iravatham Mahadevan and Asko Parpola, the species of fish have no relevance
whatsoever. They go by the Rebus parallel of the symbol ‘ Fish ‘ which in Proto-Tamil was
called by the word “ miin” and if there are seven vertical lines to the right of this symbol of a
fish, they read it as “Seven fishes” or “Ezhu miin” is URSA MAJOR, which is what one of the
Constelltion meant to those Harappans.
“This sequence forms the entire inscription on one big seal from Harappa. (H-9). Asko
Parpola (2010., p.19).
This Rebus principle of equating the homonym within the scripts of Harappans as well as
the Prot-Dravidians is the basis of the” ARCHEME” arrived at by the Asko Parpola-
Mahadevan-Yuri Knorozov-Clyde A Winters – R. Mathivanan School.
Summing Up
To sum up, an intensive study of the historiographical, socio-cultural or dietery – cum-
commercial habits, which marked the predominant motive behind the carving/ etching /
creating of the Seals and Subseals would lead us to a complete dictionary of Archemes of all
the possible significances. This objective paradigm would be a worthwhile Project of the future.
This “ARCHEME” principle puts an end to polemics of various groups of scholars thereby
empowering them with a wider perception of the Indus Legacy.
End-Piece
  Where The Mind Is Without Fear,
 Where Knowledge Is Free
 Where The Head Is Held High
 Where The Clear Stream Of Reason Is Not Lost In The Dreary Sands Of Dead Habit
 Where The World Is Not Broken Into Narrow Domestic Walls
 Where The Arms A Re Stretched Towrds Perfection
 Into That World Of Freedom,
 My Father, Let My Country Awake.!
Reference
1. Thapar, Romila., et al:”Which of US are Aryans?”Aleph,New Delhi,2019.(pp.xi-xiii)
2. Shirvalkar, Prabodh: Lecture Notes and References to the Periodic Cultural changes in the Harappan
Civilisation (2020)
3. Irfan Habeeb,”The Indus Civilisation”Aligarh Historians Society, Tulia Books, New Delhi,2002.
4. Ameri, Marta: “Letting the pictures speak: An Image based approach to the mythological and narrative
imagery of The Harappan World: in https://www.Cambridge.org/Core_NYUSchool of
Medicine,Cambridge,USA.
5. Parpola, Asko: “Special Lectures on the Study of the Indus Script”, 50th ICES, Tokyo Session, 2005, Tokyo.
6. ---do---------:”A Dravidian Solution to the Indus Script Problem”CICT, Chennai,2010.
7. ----do-------: “Indus Script”CUP, UK, 2004.
8. Mahadevan, Iravatham: “Concordance List… “ DGASI, New Delhi,1997.
9. ------do-----: “Indian Epigraphy‟Cre-A and Harvard University press, 2003.
10. Malati Shendge., “Unsealing The Indus Script: Anatomy of its Decipherment”, Atlantic, RVD Centre for
Studies in Indian radition,Poona, 1999 (?).
11. Knapp, Stephen “The Aryan Invasion Theory: The Final Nail in its Coffin”in ‘Advancements of Ancient
India’s Vedic Culture”, downloaded from http://academia.edu
12. Sonawani, Sanjay: “The Language of The Indus People: What Indus Seals do
convey?”http://www.academia.edu
13. Subramaniam, Vridhachalem Pillay”Problems and Perspectives in Decipherment of The Indus Script”in The
Proceedings of the X IATR Conference, Chicago, 2019. ( forthcoming).
14. Tagore, Rabindranath: “Gitanjali”translated by W.B. Yeats intoEnglish, Mcmillan, London, 1936.
 Abstract
The ‘High-West: Low-East’ pattern observed in the dichotomous city-layouts constitutes one of the most
fundamental features of the Indus (Harappan) urbanism. Local innovations notwithstanding, excavators
and Indus researchers have found significant uniformities of layout configurations, segregated
neighborhoods and public amenities throughout Indus civilisation. Considering the importance of
cardinal directions in general layout plans and the orientation of streets along the cardinal directions in
the Indus cities, it would be fair to anticipate that the method of lexical encoding and naming of cardinal
directions in the ‘unknown language’ of the Indus civilisation might have been influenced by the
‘prototypes of the dominant culture’in which the concept of cardinal directions probably had a significant
relevance. Based on this premise, using published archeological data and archeologically inferred views, I
prepare, in generic terms, a tentative Direction-Elevation-Material-Social (DEMS) matrix for the Indus
dichotomy and compare that with the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan frameworks of lexical encoding and
naming of cardinal directions. In the process, I find that the Dravidian languages follow a topocentric
‘High-West: Low-East’ model as against an anthropocentric ‘Front-East: Behind-West’model of the Indo-
Aryan languages and that the Indus DEMS matrix encodes a concurring association with the Dravidian
framework and a contrasting one with the Indo-Aryan. I place a mass of Geographical Information
System (GIS) aided toponomic evidence to demonstrate that the probable source of influence for the
‘High-West: Low-East’ framework is traceable to the prehistoric Dravidian human geographies in the
north-western regions of the Indian subcontinent and beyond. I establish the markers for the ‘High-West:
Low-East’ dichotomy in the Dravidian toponyms both historic and current and their geographical
context. Finally, by presenting a case study of ‘fighting-cocks of east-west dichotomous settlements’ of
the ancient Tamil country as an additional evidence for continuity in the Indus legacy, I argue in favour of
a Dravidian affiliation to the concept of the ‘High-West: Low-East’ dichotomous layouts of the Indus
cities.

1. This paper is based on “Prof. M. Anandakrishnan Endowment Lecture, 2012”delivered by the author on 21
September 2012 at Roja Muthiah Research Library, Chennai. The author dedicated his presentation to Dr.
Iravatham Mahadevan.
Introduction
The language of Indus people is unknown and, in the absence of Rosetta Stone type bilingual
texts, the Indus Script remains undeciphered; the authors of Indus civilisation continue to be
anonymous, the riddles still linger and, consequently, the Indian prehistory in large parts
remains undated. Glyn Daniel, who said that “he prehistorian is witness to the sad fact that the
ideals perish, and it is the cutlery and chinaware of a society that are imperishable”, apparently
had the enigma of Indus civilisation in mind, for he lamented that “we have no way of learning
the moral and religious ideas of the prehistoric city dwellers of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa
but their drains, their brick rubbish chutes, and their terracotta toys survive” (Glyn Daniel 1964:
132). However, his optimism that the past seemed forever gone can be brought back by the
skilled use of archeological reconnaissance, excavation and interpretation remains valid.
Fresh excavations at various Indus sites and multidisciplinary interpretations of information
from published data have thrown new lights on the emergence, growth and decline of the
Indus civilisation. Rita Wright, using archeological data, has brought focus on the consciously
created landscapes of Indus cities, and suggests an ‘over reaching set of ideas’ behind the
planning and execution of the practical layouts and the impressive built world. She finds
evidence for ‘long-held patterns of thoughts’ that might have influenced the Indus artisans and
builders in creating an “urban form totally in consistent with long held views of the natural and
social order of things” (Wright 2010: 242).
Wright’s study of creation and use of landscape in the Indus cities as a methodology to
examine the archeological record for social differences has aided me in attempting a tentative
matrix of cardinal direction, elevation, material and archeologically inferred social dimensions
for the Indus cities. It is a generic one to serve the limited purpose of providing, a sort of, basic
template for discussion. The assumption is that the matrix could, even hypothetically, indicate
what Wright calls “ consciously created spatial and material order that signaled social
hierarchies”(Wright 2010: 234) of the Indus Age and in turn could help us in making an
attempt at identifying the probable linguistic affiliation of the makers of the Indus civilisation.
Edward Sapir held a view that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the
language habits of the group (Sapir 1958: 69). Benjamin Lee Whorf was of the opinion that
“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages”(Whorf 1964: 213). Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis, which combines the principles of linguistic relativity and the linguistic
determinism, though critically reviewed, continues to influence the discourse on relationship
between language and culture as the mainstream of the associated psycholinguistic paradigm.
The model of cultural prototypes offers an alternative that the connotation of lexical items is
influenced by the prototypes of the dominant culture rather than the culture being affected by
lexis (Hadley 1997: 483). However, what is relevant for this study is the fact that both the
current mainstream and the alternate views underscore the close link between language and
culture, notwithstanding the direction and the degree of such influence.
In this context, Cecil H. Brown’ study, “Where do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?”
covering 127 globally distributed languages, supplies anchoring template. Apart from assembling
cross-language tendencies in lexical encoding and naming of four cardinal directions, Brown’
survey also demonstrates how the priority of lexical encoding is directly related to the salience
of referents, be it natural or cultural. This study also indicates that a particularly conspicuous
geographic feature associated with a cardinal direction may influence the encoding priority
(Brown 1983: 121-161). I find Brown’ work to be useful and relevant to the core objective of
this paper in comparing the elements of Indus dichotomy with the encoding frameworks in the
Dravidian and the Indo-Aryan languages.
Place names are the ‘fossilised representation’ of immemorial past. Dichotomous place
names in terms of cardinal directions (East-West and North-South villages) are found
worldwide. A systematic study of place names with direction-indicating prefixes can give
evidence for the relative salience of cardinal directions within specific languages and human
geographies. Besides, such names could also throw light on the linguistic changes, if any, with
reference to the names of cardinal directions, development and loss of polysemy etc., within a
language.
Marking the aspects of ‘East-West’ dichotomy of the layouts, fortifications, preference for
elevated areas (as a functional requirement or as a symbolism) as significant elements of the
Indus town planning, I have gathered comparative taxonomic evidence of the north-western
geographies (including modern Pakistan and Afghanistan) and of various states of India to
show how these elements find their reflections in troponins. The idea is to gauge the
importance of these elements within the context of specific human geographies. I have made
use of GIS to map the locations as per geo-coordinates and altitudes above Mean Sea Level
(MSL) to draw conclusions.
Migrations have shaped the contours of the pre-history and the history of the Indian
subcontinent to a considerable extent. The shifting of late and post-Harappan settlements
towards east, south and south-west are archaeologically evident. The fact that the Indus
civilisation did not suffer a sudden death but gradually declined hints at the possibility of
tracking the Indus legacy through reliable markers, even outside the core geography of the
Indus civilisation. Hence, serious probes on Indus legacy cannot be profitably based only on the
evidence of ‘cutlery and chinaware of the society’ but has to incorporate other tell-tale markers
as well.
Thus, my thesis is built on the following four premises:
1. The ‘High-West: Low-East’ dichotomy of the Indus layouts was not a merecoincidence
but, it was indeed an expression of some ‘long-held patterns of thoughts’
2. The cultural prototypes of the Indus civilisation, in all probability, played an influencing
role the process of lexical encoding and naming of cardinaldirection terms in the
unknown language of the Indus civilisation, and a threeway comparison of the DEMS
matrix of the Indus dichotomy, the Dravidian and the Indo-Aryan frameworks would
offer valid clues about the linguisticaffiliation of the Indus population.
3. Toponyms of Indian sub-continent both historical and current have great potential to
unravel the mysteries of the Indus civilisation.
4. The remnants of Indus legacy are traceable in the contemporary Indian societies.
Part I: Dichotomous Layouts of the Indus Cities
The concept of dichotomous lay-outs in terms of ‘Citadel’ and ‘Lower Town’ stands out as one
of the most prominent and defining features of the Indus cities. The Indus town planners had a
tendency to situate the so called ‘Citadel’ on a higher mound or an elevated part towards the
most feasible west and the ‘Lower Town’ towards the east. The collective weight of the
archeologically derived evidence for visible uniformities in the planning of ‘practical layouts’,
general orientation of the houses along the cardinal directions, well regulated and
encroachment-free streets, massive mud-brick platforms, impressive fortifications, segregated
neighborhoods and unprecedented civic amenities in various urban settlements across the Indus
civilisation completely negate the possibility of this foundational feature of dichotomy being a
mere coincidence. The deliberate hands in the design and execution of master-plans, rich in
symbolism, are apparent.
The Roots of Dichotomy
Archaeologists have found evidence for the existence of a dichotomous settlement, around
3000 BCE, in terms of a ‘Citadel’ on high ground and an outer area, at Kot Diji, of Sindh
Province, Pakistan (Possehl 2002: 73). Similar evidence is available at Amri, situated near the
foothills of Kirthar Mountains. These ‘high place/lower town settlement layouts’ common to
the Amrian and Kot Dijan sites may represent a tradition carried forward into the urban period
of the Lower Indus (Wright 2010: 116). Besides, the discovery of a site of even earlier antiquity
at Mehrgarh in Pakistan has broadened the canvas of understanding of the ‘antecedents’ of the
Indus civilisation.
Inventory of the Indus Dichotomy
Of the major Indus cities, the concept of ‘High-West: Low-East’ dichotomy is visibly well
pronounced at Mohenjodaro, Kalibangan and Dholavira whereas, at Harappa, the same would
demand some amount of deliberation. Other sites as well, offer valid evidence.
Mohenjo-Daro
Mohenjo-Daro has the characteristic planning –a smaller but higher part, on the west,
designated as the ‘Citadel’ and a larger but lower part, designated as ‘Lower Town’ on the east,
divided by a considerable open space in between (Lal 1997: 104, Jansen 1985: 161-169). The
higher parts of the Citadel currently rise eighteen meters above the plain. The upper town “sat
prominently to the northwest” and the sectors were separated by uninhabited ‘empty’ zones
(Wright 2010: 116). The Citadel Mound at Mohenjo-Daro is generally described as ‘high
western mound.’ This at once reveals its situation towards the west, as well its higher elevation
in comparison with the Lower Town located on the eastern side of the city. Apart from the
higher elevation, the presence of large, nonresidential structures such as the so called ‘Great
Bath’, ‘Granary’, ‘College’, etc., differentiates the Citadel from the Lower Town (fig.1).
Harappa
At Harappa, the Citadel known as ‘Mound AB’ is situated on the west and the mounds of the
so called ‘Lower City’ known as ‘Mound E’ towards east and south-east (fig.1). The reports of
M. S. Vats who excavated the ruins in 1920-21 and in 1933-34 indicate that the highest mound
was on the north-west, which was 60 feet above the fields (Vats 1999: 2-3). The full extent of
ruins at Harappa, as Vats observes, has not yet been determined. Taking due notice of the fact
that in case of Harappa the lower town did not lie due east of the Citadel but lay mainly to the
southeast of the Citadel, B. B. Lal makes the following observation:

Fig.1. Layout of the Indus cities of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa.

(After: Asko Parpola: 2000)
“The contours do not show any mound-formation due east of the Citadel, unless it is assumed that
originally there did exist a mound in this part but has since been thoroughly wiped out. There is also no
record to establish that the brick-robbing that took place at Harappa in the last century for laying the
track for the Lahore-Multan Railway was concentrated in this area.” (Lal 1997: 112)
But, there is room for assuming the existence, in the past, of a mound on the east.
Alexander Cunningham who visited the site twice in 1853 and 1856 lamented that he made
several excavations at Harappa, but the whole surface had been so completely cleared out by the
railway contractors that he found very little worth preserving. He further stated:
“…the remains at Harappa had more than sufficed to furnish brick ballast for about 100 miles of the
Lahore-Multan Railway. Since then brick-digging has been carried on with equal vigor by the people as a
ready means of livelihood, for it is patent that the town of Harappa, which shelters about 5000 souls, as
well as some neighboring Chaks (colonies) mainly owe their burnt brick houses to these ruins.”
(Cunningham quoted in Vats 1999: 3)
Cunningham reported that there was a continuous line of mounds on the north, the west
and the south sides, about 3,500 feet in length, but on the east side, which was only 2000 feet in
length and that there was a complete gap of 800 feet for which he was unable to account.
Cunningham traced the remains of flights of steps on both the eastern and western faces of
the high mound at the north-west which is about 60 feet above the surrounding fields. But
these structures were not traceable when Vats did his excavations in 1920-21.
Hence, what we derive from the ruins of Harappa is only an incomplete picture.
Notwithstanding this restriction, the ruins at Harappa with confirmed high mound on the north
west and an unaccounted gap of 800 feet on the east, read with its history of spoliation, still
vouch for the concept of dichotomous layout planned and executed by the Harappan town
planners. The presence of nonresidential structures on the west and northwest parts of the city
differentiates these areas from the rest.
Mortimer Wheeler, who compared the general layouts of the cities of Mohenjo-Daro and
Harappa, it seems did not find any serious deficiency for he observes that “The mounds
themselves, at each site, fall into two groups: a high mound towards the west and a much more
extensive but somewhat lower series to the east.” (Wheeler 1968: 26) Wheeler was probably
willing to give the benefit of doubt in favor of Indus architects and fill the ‘complete gap of
800 feet’ as evidence for spoliation. Because, by that time, the concept of dichotomous lay-out
of Indus cities was not a surmise, but had become an article of faith within archeological
circuits. Besides, the proof for this dichotomy not merely hinges on the ‘missing gap’ at
Harappan mounds. It has convincing evidence from other prominent Indus sites as well.
Kalibangan
The ruins at Kalibangan (fig.2) confirm the ‘High-West: Low-East’ dichotomy of Harappan lay
out. In fact the Indus agenda is far clearer at Kalibangan. As in the case of Mohenjo-Daro,
Kalibangan has two mounds; a smaller one, named as KLB-1 on the west; and a bigger one,
named KLB-2 on the east. However, the significance of excavations at Kalibangan lays in the
fact that these have brought to light a settlement which preceded the Mature Harappan
providing a fair idea of the transformation of pre Harappan culture into Mature Harappan. The
layout of the succeeding Mature Harappan, as Lal highlights, was in the ‘usual grand style’ with
the Citadel on the west and the Lower Town on the east (Lal 1997: 119). While drawing the
layout and executing the same, the Harappan town planners it seems, took advantage of the
height provided by the earlier settlement for situating the Citadel. However, for the purpose of
situating the Lower Town they used a fresh area, about 40 m to the east of the Citadel.
The Harappan mind that favored a ‘High-West’ is readable archeologically. In the process of
taking advantage of the height of the earlier mound for situating the Citadel on it, the
Harappan engineers utilised the western and northern arms of the earlier fortification with
necessary modifications. But, when it came to the eastern side, they completely forsook the pre-
Harappan alignment and provided new alignment. This was, in the words of Lal, “evidently
done in order to execute a predetermined plan, according to which the overall outline of the
Citadel constituted a parallelogram, the north south arm measuring 240 m each and the east
west arm 120m – clearly a favorite Harappan proportion of 2:1”(Lal 1997: 119).
Dholavira
At Dholavira as well, the high ground where the ‘Castle’ and ‘Bailey’ are located, is to the north-
west of the layout plan. The Harappan settlement here had three distinct parts which the
excavator has called the ‘citadel’ the ‘Middle Town’ and the ‘Lower Town’ all interlinked within
an elaborate system of fortification (fig.3). The bipartite Citadel with its two pronounced sub-
parts – the ‘Castle’ on the east and the ‘Bailey’ on the west-is unique to Dholavira. Both these
parts are fortified. Besides, there are walls that divide the high parts of the town and the lower
town. The Castle with a height of 15-18 m above the surrounding plane commands the entire
city-complex and its environs. When compared with the height of the Castle, other parts, i.e.
the Bailey, the Middle and Lower Towns are successively lower. While the Citadel occupies a
‘more westerly area’ the Lower Town is situated in the eastern part of the overall layout (Lal
1997: 139).
Dholavira offers solid evidence in support of Harappan’ preference for ‘High-West’ to
situate the Citadel and for ‘Low-East’ to situate the ‘Lower-Town’. The stage IIIA of the
occupation as the excavator states is marked by a rapid growth of the settlement during which
the existing fortress was enlarged into two divisions, namely Castle and Bailey,

the former on the relics of the earlier fortress while the latter added to it from the west, both
being fortified. Similarly, when Harappans added the Lower Town they chose a location that
formed the eastern division of the town that was founded in stage IIIA and the city walls were
extended further eastward in order to encompass the new division, the excavator reports (Indian
Archaeology 1991-92: a review. 1996: 28).

Lothal
At Lothal, the ‘ancient mound’ on which the Harappan occupational debris have been
discovered, rises gradually to a height of eighteen feet from the surrounding fields (fig.4). S. R.
Rao, the excavator (1954-55; 1962-63) estimates that the ancient town was much larger in extent
than what is suggested by the mound which is now reduced in size owing to erosion and silting
up of its slopes during the last 3000 years (Rao 1979: 20). Though the Acropolis does not
occupy a separate area, it maintains its distinct identity. The excavator, who appreciates the role
of a ‘leader-genius’ in preparing a blueprint for the civic amenities and executing the town plan
at Lothal, paints the following pen-picture:
“Execution of public works on so large a scale could not have been possible but for a leader-genius who
could enlist the co-operation of the inhabitants and organize and direct unskilled labour. As he was held
in high regard he occupied the best mansion having civic amenities and built on the highest platforms so
that the seat of authority could appear impressive. It was well protected against natural calamities. The
‘acropolis’ so designated because of its function and as a seat of power, is situated in the southwestern
corner of the town overlooking the dock. The Lower Town, where merchants, craftsmen and others
lived, also enjoyed all civicamenities.” (Rao 1979: 25)

The above narrative shows how the Harappans might have used the instrument of ‘high
platforms ‘to mark the distinction; and had a simultaneous preference for the west
(southwestern, precisely) and ‘height’ and also argues for the social dimension of the Lothal
landscape in terms of Acropolis of the ‘leader genius’ and the Lower town of the merchants
and craftsmen. Besides, the finding of Harappan potsherds and bricks at about 200 meters
southeast of the Lothal tank, and a brick-built well in a field two hundred yards east of the
dock which prompts the excavator to anticipate extensions of the town to the east and south-
east of the dock. And, this provides a marker for the west to east expansion of the occupation.
Banawali
At Banawali, excavations done by R. S. Bisht and his team have established that Period IC
marked ‘drastic and diagnostic changes’ in architecture and town planning. During this sub-
period the entire settlement was planned and constructed de novo, and the dichotomous layout,
the Harappan trademark, was introduced. “The fortification of the previous period was
externally chiseled or partially sliced away and doubled in width for housing the Citadel, and the
lower town was laid out contiguously towards the east as well as the north, while the position in
the west remained unresolved.” (Indian Archaeology 1986-87-a review: 33) Both the Citadel and
the Lower Town were situated within the overall fortified area and the Citadel though had its
own fortifications and a common wall on the southern side was not detached from the Lower
Town. As the Mature Harappans went about their business of executing their new plan at the
site of the earlier occupation, they saw to that the Citadel (designated as Acropolis by the
excavators) occupied “a level higher than that of the Lower Town as if to oversee the latter.”
(Lal 1997: 125)
Surkotada
At Surkotada, a small complex represents Harappan culture. B. B. Lal even wonders whether
such a small complex be treated as a township on the line of other Harappan towns. But, what
is relevant for this paper is that it squarely confirms the concept of ‘High-West: Low-East’
dichotomy (fig.5). The excavator J. P. Joshi discovered the mound at Surkotada which has an
average height of five-to-eight meters (east to west) and observed that the mound was “higher
on the western side and lower on the eastern side” (Joshi 1990: 14-16). Commenting on the
selection of site for the Citadel, Joshi states:
“Deep digging at various points in the mound revealed that the Harappans, on their arrival at Surkotada,
discovered that the western side of the site was higher than the eastern one, the average difference in
height between the two areas was 1.50 m. Perhaps, this place was found most suitable to build a citadel in
the higher area and a residential annexe in the lower one. This may also suggest that the Harappans had
an eye also for the selection of such site for settlement, and thus took advantage of the natural contours.”
(Joshi 1990: 42)
 The excavator describes Harappans of being ‘very much platform minded’ According to
him, the Harappans knowing the hazards of uneven surfaces made the entire area uniform by
raising it to an average height of about 1.5 m in the Citadel area and 50 cm in the residential
annexe (Joshi 1990: 42). In this context, B. B. Lal’s comments that qualitatively, the main
difference between the two parts seems to be that the houses in the Citadel were built over a
platform of rammed earth and were bigger than those in the Residential Area, which had no
underlying platform is relevant (Lal 1997: 135). This would vouch for the deliberate hands of
Harappans engineers who sought to maintain the ‘High-West: Low-East’ equation, even
symbolically, through the mechanism ofunderlying platforms.
Sutkagen Dor
At Sutkagen Dor, the main part of the settlement consists of what has been called a ‘Citadel’
although adequate evidence is not available to prove the existence of its counterpart, the ‘Lower
Town’. The excavations by the team led by Dales in the area outside the Citadel, to its east did
not yield any substantial evidence, whereas Mockler did come across some. However, the fact
remains that the Citadel commands the entire surrounding and forms a rectangle oriented along
the cardinal directions (Lal 1997: 143).
Balakot
Archaeologists familiar with the nuances of the Indus urbanism tend to take the dichotomous
layout plans for granted. If there is a high mound at an Indus site, the archaeologists have a
tendency to look east for the evidence of Lower Town. In case of Balakot, the western part of
the mound is much higher than the eastern. However, there is no clear cut evidence available
with reference to probable Citadel and Lower Town. Though excavations at the northern,
western and southern upper edges did not reveal any surviving remains, Dales, the excavator,
based on the available features, holds a view that the Western High Mound was surrounded by a
formal wall.
This led Lal to make the following observation.
“As it is, the western part of the mound is much higher than the eastern, which may be due just to a much
greater erosion of the eastern part. However, since the concept that Harappan settlements usually had
two parts – a Citadel on the west and a Lower Town on the east-had come into being well before
excavations were undertaken at Balakot, the excavator was naturally onlook out for such disposition at
Balakot.” (Lal 1997: 143)
Thus, notwithstanding local variations, the ruins of Indus towns, big and small, situated in
diverse geographical regions, reveal a connecting thread of common intention and ideology that
governed the design and execution of the urban landscapes of the Indus Age in terms of
dichotomous layouts, at times taking advantage of the natural topography or through the
symbolism of platforms, segregated areas and fortifications. Then the relevant question would
be: Why did they do so?
The Sociology of Indus Town Planning
Jerome Monnet proposes that “the relationship between space, power and identity are
necessarily mediated by symbols; a symbol is a concrete reality …that communicates something
intangible …consequently, a place of power is by definition a symbolic place, which is a vehicle
for power in the spatial order and for space in the order of power.” (Monnet 2011: 1)
Inspired by the existing views on social dimensions of landscapes, Wright approaches the
urban landscapes of the Indus cities ‘as practiced places in which community identity, social
order, status and wealth were formed, recognised and maintained.’ She identifies some
‘overreaching set of ideas’ such as dichotomous layouts, large non-residential structures,
massive mud brick platforms designed to raise the level of buildings and impressive walls
through which the Indus architects had realised a consciously created spatial and material order
that signaled social hierarchies and concludes that “like Indus material culture the city
landscapes in their design and production constituted complex hierarchies, in which social
differences were reinforced.” (Wright 2010: 242)
Visible separation of high parts of the town from other sectors by ‘empty zones’ as in the
case of Mohenjo-Daro; visual and walled separations of the large non-residential structures and
restricted access at Harappa; large open spaces in the upper town at Dholavira; presence of
large, non-residential structures designated as ‘Great Bath’, ‘Granary’, ‘college’ at Mohenjodaro,
and ‘Castle’ and ‘Bailey’ at Dholavira being situated in the upper parts of the town; massive
platforms designed to raise the level of buildings at many Harappan cities are among the
features identified by Wright as ‘markers of social and cultural identities’ to argue her case that
‘there clearly were preferred spaces and sites of living that reinforced social distance.’
Jansen (quoted in Wright 2010: 237) and Wright take a special note of two massive
platforms in the VS and DK-G areas of Mohenjo-Daro. Jansen calls these as ‘founding
platforms’. He recognizes the probable functional use of these massive platforms that required
‘four million cubic meters of clay and sediment plus millions of bricks’ to construct, as flood
protection measure. However, considering that such platforms have been constructed at places
where flood protection was not a felt need, he suggests that they may have provided ‘an
iconographic element of elevating specific areas and structures.’ Proceeding further on this,
Wright identifies a symbolic connection between the Kirthar Mountain and the founding
platforms of Mohenjodaro.
The following would sum-up Wright’s view on the underlying social dimension of Indus
Town Planning:
“Indus artisans and builders imposed long-held patterns of thought (emphasis mine) that incorporated the
natural landscape into their built world. Mimicking an orientation to the natural, seen in objects of
material culture, they restructured the natural landscape on grand scale into onethat metamorphosed the
natural into social. It was a creation of urban from totally consistent with long-held views of the natural
and social order of things.” (Wright 2010: 242)

DEMS Matrix for the Indus Town Planning

Therefore, on the basis of above evidence and narrative, I define, the decision makers of the
Indus cities, irrespective of their eventual linguistic and cultural affiliations, as the ‘High-West:
Low-East’ people, for whom the spatial elevations and directions were not mere concrete
realities but an abstract system of preloaded symbolism as well.
Before drawing up a DEMS Matrix (Table 1) for the Indus cities, it may be relevant here to
pause and take a look at the Kirthar Mountain Range located in Balochistan and Sindh. (See
Map 1)

It forms the boundary between the Lower Indus Plain in the east and southern Balochistan
in the west. The Range has a structure with the arches steepest towards the north and the west
and dipping slopes towards the south and the valley of the Indus in the East. This would mean
that a physical reality with a ‘High-West: Low-East’ gradient existed as a visible backdrop for the
‘first urban climax’ in South Asian history to unfold and flourish.
Table 1: DEMS Matrix
DEMS Citadel Lower Town
Criteria
West, Nort-West, Westward, East, SoutEast, Eastward, NortEast.
Direction more westerly area.
Preference for the West Deliberate positioning towards the East
Elevation Marked by high mounds, mud Lower than the Citadel / Acropolis areas.
bricks platforms, higher elevation Even when platforms are constructed,
than Lower Town maintained. never went higher than the structures in the
f natural advantage not available, upper town
a symbolic elevation ensured.
Large, non-residential buildings. Residences of various sizes, trade objects,
Citadel, Bailey, Castle, Great seals, artefacts, work sheds, workers
Material Bath, Granary, impressive walls, quarters, drainage to impressive when
better drainage. Compared with the Citadel, visible
difference in the size of houses, some
houses near soak pits.
Social ‘Elite class rulers’, ‘leader-genius’, Merchants, craftsmen, other individuals
‘seat of authority’
 Part II: The ‘High-West: Low-East’ Framework in the Dravidian Languages
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Alternate Views
As touched upon earlier, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which combines the principles of linguistic
relativity and linguistic determinism as well as the alternate model of ‘cultural prototypes’
underscore the close link between language and culture, notwithstanding the direction and the
degree of influence.
Development of Names for Cardinal Directions
Cecil H. Brown in his 1983 study “Where Do Cardinal Direction Terms Come From?”
(Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1983: 121-161)) compiled data from 127
globally distributed languages which attest to cross-language uniformities in the lexical encoding
and naming of the four cardinal directions and concluded that:
1. Languages have drawn on only four lexical source areas in innovating terms for cardinal
directions. The sources are: (1) celestial bodies and events, atmospheric features, (3)
other general directional terms, and environment-specific features.
2. Literal translation, polysemy and overt marking are the three indicators to reconstruct
the derivational history of the terms.
3. Salience plays a crucial role in the lexical encoding, while priority of encoding isdirectly
related to the level of salience, be it natural or cultural. High salient referents tend to be
encoded before low salient ones.
4. The languages of the remote past generally lacked terms for cardinal points. When the
cultural salience of the domain of cardinal direction increased, the development of
names for cardinal directions took place and east and west were commonly encoded
before north and south.
Salience of the Domain of Cardinal Directions in the Context of Indus Civilisation
I propose to use Brown’s framework of understanding to gauge the Indus mind. In spite of
obscurity surrounding the issue of linguistic affiliations of the Indus population, it is highly
probable that the domain of cardinal directions had acquired a high cultural salience by the time
the Indus cities came into existence. The knowledge of pangeographic fixed directions was
most likely an essential and useful component of the Indus culture, known for its elaborate
urban lay outs and long distance trade and mobility.
There exists a view that, in the process of orienting streets of Indus cities along cardinal
directions, the “planners relied on astronomical data of the positions of the sun and fixed stars
and integrated them with elements from physical landscapes.” (Wankze quoted in Wright 2010:
237). Wright adds that the Indus town planners incorporated the natural landscape elements
visible on the Kirthar Mountain combined with observations of themsetting sun and
alignments of setting sun to provide orientation points to the city’s layout (Wright 2010: 237).
If it was true that the domain of cardinal direction had a high cultural salience for Indus
people, then the lexical encoding of the terms for cardinal directions in the ‘unknown’ language
of those people can be fairly anticipated to have been influenced by the aspects of such
salience. If so, it would be an apt and fair methodology to apply Brown’s framework and
explore the lexical encoding process in both Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages, the two most
prominent contenders for the mantle of being called the language of the “Leader-Genius” of
the Indus Civilisation.
The Dravidian Lexical Encoding of Cardinal Direction Terms
Dravidian languages, it seems, use what Brown classifies as’other general direction terms’and ‘celestial
bodies and events’ as major sources for developing terms for the east and the west. Polysemy and
literal translations inform two important methods indicative of derivational history.
Polysemy is the labeling of related referents, by use of a single term. The development
of polysemy, involves extending a term for one referent to another. General direction terms
such as ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘in front of ’, ‘behind’ and so on often share a polysemous
relationship with cardinal direction terms in various languages across the globe. In case of
Dravidian languages this affiliation is seen in terms of ‘High-West: Low-East’ Polysemies which
are topo-centric.
ravidian ‘High-West: Low-East’ Polysemies
‘Other general direction terms’
‘High-West’
DEDR: 5086
Ta. mē ‘excellence’; mēkku ‘west’, ‘height’, ‘high place’, ‘superiority’, mēl ‘west’, ‘which is over’,
‘above’, ‘sky’, ‘excellence’; mēlai ‘western’, ‘upper’, mēṟkku ‘west’ Ma. mē ‘over’; mēṉ ‘what is
above’, ‘superiority’, ‘excellence’; mēl ‘what is above’, ‘surface’ mēlē ‘upwards’; mēṟkku ‘westward’
Ko. me· mu·l ‘western side’; me· ci·m ‘western parts of Nilgiris’
To. me·l ‘up’ ‘high’; me· tïṇ ‘sleeping platform on right side of house’; me·lpa·w
‘upstream’
Ka. mē ‘that which is above’; mēgu, mēge ‘the upper side’, ‘surface’; mēgana ‘upwardly’;
mēṃ ‘upper’; mēṇ ‘what is above’, ‘upwards’; mēl (u), mēla, mēle ‘that which is above’
‘the top’, ‘upper part’, ‘surface’, ‘that which is high’
Kod. meppuṇi ‘higher level in a field’; me·ma·di = ‘upperstorey’
Tu. mēlů ‘upper part of anything’, ‘upper’, ‘higher’, mēlᾱra ‘superficial’, ‘upper’; mēlu
‘higher, ‘upper’, ‘lying above’
Br. bē ‘up’, ‘over’
DEDR: 5128
To.muk, mok ‘up’ ‘west’
Ka. moku ‘upper portion’ ‘top’
DEDR: 2178
Kui. kui ‘up’, ‘above’, ‘over’, ‘aloft’, ‘atop’, ‘upon’, ‘west’, ‘Kond Tribe or language’;
kuiki ‘to the place above’; kuiṭi ‘from the place above’

DEDR: 4567
Ta.poṟai, poṟṟai ‘mountain’, ‘hill’
Kol.pode ‘high’, ‘up’, ‘he top’; pōdēlᾱŋ ‘west’
‘Low-East’
In Dravidian languages, the genesis of ‘Low-East’ polysemy is mostly traceable to the root word
kīḻ. The Kolami word ‘pallam’; Toda word ‘erk’ and Gondi word siṛᾱyin also confirm the
polysemous nexus between the words that denote ‘low’and ‘east’
DEDR: 1619
Ta. kīḻ ‘place or space below’, ‘bottom’ ‘east’ kīḻvu ‘place below’; kīḻvu ‘that which is
under or below’; kiḻakku ‘east’ ‘low place’
Ma. kīḻ, kīḻu ‘place below’, ‘under’, ‘down’; kiḻakku ‘east’
Ko. ki. ‘lower’ ‘east’
To. ki. ‘lower’; ki.koy ‘underneath place’
Ka. keḷagu, kīḻ, kīḻa ‘state of being low’, ‘under’, ‘down’,
Kod.kī ‘lower’, ‘below’; kī.da ‘place below’, ‘down’; kīppuṉi ‘lower level of field’
Tu. kīḷu ‘low’
Te. krī ‘lower’, ‘below’; k(r)inda ‘below’,’down’; k(r)indu ‘the part or region below’
k(r)incu ‘low’
Pa. kiḷi ‘below’
Kur. kiyyā ‘beneath’, ‘under’
Br. ki-, kī, kē, ke ‘below’, ‘lower’; kēragh ‘lower side’
DEDR: 4016
Ta. paḷḷam ‘low land’
Ma. paḷḷam ‘low land’
To. paḷ ‘valley’
Ka.paḷḷa ‘low ground’
Tu. paḷḷa, pa’lla ‘low spot’
Te.pallamu ‘low ground’ ‘wet land’
Ga. palam ‘downslope’
Go. palla ‘plain’
Kol. pallām ‘east’
DEDR: 2584
Tu. tirtů, hirtů, sirtů ‘down’, ‘under’
Go.siṟ ‘under’ iṛta ‘lower’, siṛāyin ‘east’
Kui.sīṛta ‘lower’
Kuwi. ṛiˀi ‘low’ ‘lower’; ṛiˀi’ ka ‘lowerpart’ (of village)
DEDR: 516
Ta. iṟaṅku ‘to descend’
Ma. iṟakkam ‘slope’, ‘descending’; iṟavu ‘valley’ ‘descending slope’
Ko. erg ‘down’; erg-(ergy-) ‘to go down’
To. erk ‘down’, ‘east’
‘Celestial bodies and events’
Apart from the method of ‘High-West’ and ‘Low-East’ polysemies, some Dravidian languages
have developed terms for ‘east’and ‘west’ through the method of ‘literal translation’ based on
‘celestial bodies and events’ as a lexical source for encoding.8
DEDR: 3852
Ta. paṭu ‘to perish’, ‘die’, ‘set (as a heavenly body)’, ‘rain’ ‘lie down to sleep or
otherwise’; paṭu-ñāyiṟu ‘setting sun’
Ma. paṭuka ‘to fall’, ‘sink’ paṭiññāṟu ‘west’
Ka.paḍu ‘to lie down’, ‘set’(as the sun), ‘die’; n. ‘setting’, ‘the west’ paḍu-nēsaṟ ‘the
setting sun’ paḍuva, paḍaval, paḍuval, paḍuvu ‘the west’
Kod. paḍït ‘send (child) to sleep’ paḍi-ña·rï ‘west’
Tu. paḍa ‘placing or laying’; paḍḍăȳi ‘the west’
Te. paḍu ‘to fall, lie’, ‘recline’, ‘sleep’; paḍamara ‘the west’
Go. paṭṭīnā ‘to lie down’; pharāyīṅ ‘west’
DEDR: 5035
Ka.mūḍi ‘rising of the sun’ mūḍa, mūḍal, mūḍu ‘direction in which the sun rises’ ‘east’
Tu. mūḍu ‘the east’ mūḍuni ‘to rise’.
 It is relevant to note that in Tamil, mūṭu means ‘root’ ‘origin’ and in Malayalam the same
expression denotes ‘the bottom’ ‘root’ ‘origin’ (DEDR: 5035). The semantic association of the
term with the sense of ‘bottom’ is evident.
The polysemous nexus between ‘high’and ‘west’ ‘low’ and ‘east’ comes out clearly across the
Dravidian etymological spectrum in multiple ways (Table 2). The languages such as Tamil,
Malayalam, Kota, Kodagu and Gondi make a polysemy of the same term, which is a typical trait
for polysemy. However, in Kolami language the term pallām denotes ‘east’ while in many
Dravidian languages including Tamil, Kannada, Telugu and Tulu as cited above, the word paḷḷam
denotes ‘low land’ This is indicative of a ‘pan-dravidian’ concept of lexically encoding the term
for ‘low’ as term for ‘east’ and offers a glimpse of the probable influence of human geography
of the Dravidian homelands.
Table 2 ‘High-West’: Lower – Est ‘ Dravidian Frame work – Topo – centric
Lanuage DEDR Polysemous Reference 1 Reference 2
TermTa. 5086 mekku height’, ‘high place’ ‘ west’
Merku ‘west’
mel which is over or above’ ‘west’
melai ‘upper’ western’
Ma. 5086’ merkku ‘west’
Ko. 5086 me mu l ‘higher place’, ‘up’ ‘ west’
To. 5128 muk, mok ‘up’ ‘west’
Kui 2178 kui ‘ up’, ‘above’ west’
Kol. 4567 pode/podelan ‘high’, ‘up’, ‘the top’ ‘ west’
Ta. 1619 kil ‘ place, space below’ ‘east’
Kilakku ‘bottom’, lowplace’ ‘east’
Ma. 1619 kilakku ‘ the low land of the Tamil ‘east’
Country,
Kilakkan man from the ‘east’
Ko. 1619 ki. ‘lower’ east’
Kod. 1619 ki ‘lower’
Ke.ki ‘east’
Ke.kie ‘eastern’
To. 516 ki. ‘lower’
erk ‘down’ ‘east’
Go. 2584 sir ‘down’, ‘below’
sirayin ‘east’
Kol. 4016 pallam ‘east’

Derivational History of the Direction Terms: Old Tamil Evidence

Old Tamil texts provide copious evidence for the use of cardinal direction terms and other
general direction terms such as ‘up’, ‘low’, ‘front’, ‘back’, ‘right’, ‘left’, ‘inside’ ‘outside’, ‘within’,
‘near’, ‘far’ and so on. In the context of enumerating post-positions of the locative case
markers, Tolkāppiyam (Tol. Col: 77) furnishes a list of such terms.
 Tolkāppiyam and Caṅkam Tamil texts provide evidence to prove that the general direction
terms for ‘up/high’ and ‘low/down’ provided the base for developing polysemous terms to
connote the cardinal directions west and east respectively. Besides, this evidence also establishes
that the general direction terms had a higher salience which was subsequently extended to
connote the cardinal directions which had relatively lower salience.
While dealing with the concept of similes in poetry, Tolkāppiyam makes a general rule that
the elements used as similes to highlight a ‘quality’ or an ‘aspect’ should be of ‘higher salience
and value’. However, the grammarian makes an exception to this, saying that at times, a matter
of ‘low value, salience or status’ can also be used as a simile to serve the specific poetic
requirement. In this context, Tolkāppiyam uses an expression kiḻakkiṭum poruḷ (Tol. Poruḷ: 276). If
this expression has to be literally translated it should read as “matter of east” But, what the
ancient extant Tamil grammarian meant was ‘matter of low value, low esteem’ etc. Perāciriyar,
the commentator to Tolkāppiyam, while explaining the above concept, cites the example of
Caṅkam text (Kuṟun: 337.2) in which ‘he sliding down of the tresses of a woman’ is described as
kiḻakku vīḻntaṉavē and elaborates further that ‘kiḻakku’ means kīḻ (low). There are other
references in Caṅkam texts to confirm this nexus as in kiḻakku ‘lower place’ (Naṟ: 297.1); ‘down
side’ (Patiṟ: 36: 10). Thus, Tolkāppiyam, and Caṅkam texts at once establish the genesis of the
cardinal direction term ‘kiḻakku’ (east) from the high salient word ‘kīḻ ‘(low).
The author of Cilappatikāram, the first Tamil epic, talks about the two city gates of Maturai,
the capital of ancient Pānṭiya dynasty. He uses the terms kīḻtticaivāyil (‘eastern gate’ and mēṟṟicai
vāyil ‘estern gate’(Cilap: 23; 182-3) in the context of the lead Character Kaṇṇaki entering the city
of Maturai through the eastern gate and exiting through the western gate to proceed to the
territory of Cērās on the west. The Cērā territory on the west was situated on the higher
elevation in comparison with the lower plains and coastal terrains of the Pānṭiyas.
In Caṅkam texts mēkku denotes the sense of ‘higher elevation’ (Maturai: 486); ‘(growing)
upward’ (Naṟ: 91-6; Akam: 295-21; Kuṟun: 26-2); ‘(spreading) upward’ (Akam: 143-5); (raising)
‘upward’ (Puṟam: 143-2). The second Tamil epic Maṇimēkalai mentions of teṉ mēṟku, the south
western direction, twice (Maṇi: 25:154-5; 28:175-6).
The fact that the terms kiḻakku and mēkku with their typical ‘ku’ ending (which is
characteristic of directional terms as in the case of vaṭakku meaning ‘north’ teṟku meaning
‘south’ are simply used in Caṅkam texts to denote ‘low’and ‘high’ reveals that the sense of
‘low’and ‘high’ was of greater salience and antiquity than the sense of ‘east’ and ‘west’
The issue of kuṭakku ‘the west and kuṇakku ‘the east’
DEDR: 1649
Ta. kuṭakku ‘west’ kuṭakam, kuṭaku ‘Coorg region’(the high region on the west)
In early Tamil texts, kuṭakku and kuṇakku are the two most frequently used terms for
connoting ‘The west’ and ‘The east’ Examples:
kuṭa pulam kāvalar (Ciṟupānṇ: 47) ‘The ruler of the west land’ kuṭakkāṟṟu (Perum: 240) ‘west wind’;
kuṭamalai (Paṭṭiṉap: 188; Malai: 527) ‘the kudagu mountains on the west’; kuṭa kaṭal (Puṟam: 17:2, 31:13;
 Maturai: 71) ‘The western sea’ kuṭavar (Paṭir: 276) ‘The rulers of the west’ kuṭakkērpu (Nar\: 140:1 153:1)
‘moving upward towards west’
Kudagu is a region situated in the Western Ghats. The Cērā kings were the rulers of this
region and hence they were called kuṭavar. In the current context, the Koḍagu language
speaking people of Koḍagu area (known as Coorg) are called Koḍava in Malayalam. In Tamil,
kuṭaku, kuṭakkam means, Coorg area and kuṭakku means ‘west’ because, Kudagu region is
situated on the west.
Cecil Brown (1983: 138) lists use of ‘environment specific features’ as one of the four lexical
sources for encoding and naming the terms for cardinal directions. Even if we don’t get into the
etymological issue of why Kudagu was called so, the feasibility of the territorial name ‘kudagu’
having contributed to the derivation of the term kuṭakku to denote ‘the west’ seems logical and
viable. If so, it will perfectly fit in the encoding framework identified by Cecil Brown through
his cross-language survey.
The fact that both the senses of ‘west’ as well as ‘up’, ‘high’ remain embedded in the term
kuṭakku is established from the following usages in the Caṅkam texts. kuṭakku vāṅku peruñciṉai
(Naṟ: 167:1) ‘the big branch of the tree that had grown high’ ñāyiṟu kut|akkuva$n^kum (Nar\:
398:2) ‘un moved towards west’
Similarly, in Can^kam text, the term kun|akku has been frequently used to denote the
cardinal direction ‘east’
kun|apulamka$valar (Cir\upa$n|: 79) ‘he ruler of the east land’
kun|akat|al (Maturai: 195) ‘he eastern sea’

The etymological base of the term kun|akku is not clear. Considering that the Dravidian
languages have developed the terms for the cardinal directions ‘ast and west’on thebasis of
general direction terms such as ‘ow’and ‘igh’and taking cognizance of thefact that kut|akku, the
term for ‘est’is probably based on the western uplands calledkut|aku and the term connotes
both the sense of ‘est’and ‘p’ ‘igh’there is reasonablescope to anticipate that the word kuṇakku
for ‘ast’could also connote the sense of ‘ow’If, that possibility is assumed, one could think of
the term kun|t|u (DEDR: 1669) as anassociated term which could throw some tentative light
on the derivational history.
DEDR: 1669
Ta.kuttam ‘epth’ ‘ond’ kuttai ‘pool’ ‘small pond’ kuntam ‘deep cavity’ ‘pit’ ‘pool’
kuntu ‘depth’ ‘hollow’ ‘pond’
Ma.kuntam, kuntu ‘what is hollow and deep’ ‘hole’ ‘pit’
Ka.kunda, konda, kunte ‘pit’ ‘pool’ ‘pond’ gunda ‘hollowness’ ‘deepness’ gundi
‘hole’ ‘pit’ ‘hollow’ gundittu ‘that is deep’ gunpu ‘depth’
Kod. kundi ‘pit’
Tu. kunda ‘a pit’ konda ‘pit’ ‘hole’ gundi ‘abyss’ ‘gulf ’ ‘great depth’
Te. kunta, gunta ‘pond’ ‘pit’ kundu ‘cistern’ gunta ‘pit’ ‘hollow’ ‘depression’
Pa. gutta ‘pool’
Go. kunta ‘pool’
Kuwi.guntomi ‘pit’
The above suggestion would explain the descriptions in Old Tamil texts about the ‘louds
drawing waters from the eastern sea and moving up towards the western hills andpouring rains.’
(Maturai: 238; Nar: 153) The meanings such as ‘epth’ ‘eep cavity’ ‘it’’epression’’eepness’etc.,
associated with the above term would testify the probablesense of ‘ow’connected to kun|akku
‘ast’in the context of human geography of the Dravidian speakers.
It may be relevant to investigate the probable nexus between the root words kun|-, kut|-,
kul – and kul\ – for all these roots lead to the derivation of words such as kun|t|u,
kut|t|ai,kul|am and kul\i all conveying a sense of ‘epth’and ‘it’ Besides, the Kuvi term kuna
which means ‘oot’’dible root’’uber’(M. Israel 1979: 114) indicates the word associationwith a
connotation of ‘elow’’underneath’etc., which would when compared with theTamil word
‘il\an^ku’ (esculent or bulbous root, as potato, yam, palmyra root (DEDR:1578)) which can be
derived from ki$l\ meaning ‘nderneath’makes a reasonable analogy.
Notwithstanding the lack of clarity with reference to the term kut|akku and kun|akku
theweight of evidence available in languages of Dravidian family (in the form of me$l-
ki$l\words) fairly establishes the ‘igh-West and Low-East’semantic orientation.
It is also important to take note that though the expression kut|akku and kun|akku are
found in early literature and epigraphy; these words are not being used by the Dravidian
speakers anywhere. Probably, these terms lost their relevance as the terms me$l and me$r\ku;
ki$l\ and kil\akku developed effective and functional polysemies to convey the sense of ‘High-
West’and ‘Low-East.’
The issue of patinnaru to mean ‘West’
Gundert (quoted in Caldwell 1974: 20) uses the cardinal direction terms used in Tamil and
Malayalam for ‘ast’and ‘est’to build his arguments with reference to relationship between both
the languages. He observes that the term me$lku ‘est’also used in Malayalam, though patinnaru,
properly patinnayiru meaning ‘ettingsun’is more commonly used. He admits, as quoted by
Caldwell that both me$lku and kil\akku must have originated in the Tamil country. Whatever
the case maybe, it is obvious that Malayalam language has developed the term patinñññaru
following the Brown’s criteria of ‘celestial bodies and events’
The metaphorical extensions of ‘High-West: Low-East’Polysemies
Polysemy offers a creative scope, as McCarthy (1994: 25) says, for the “metaphorical Extensions
“of the central meaning of core words. The polysemous boundaries of high-West: Low-East
‘prototypes in Dravidian languages have expanded over a period of time, probably, in order to
represent some of the aspects of socio economic ideas and understandings. The process of
metaphorically expanding the meaning of ‘low ‘and ‘low side ‘and ‘high ‘and ‘up ‘to give socio-
economic connotations is evident in Can^kam period itself. The term merpal refers to ‘high
segment of people and kilppal refers to ‘low segment of people ‘in terms of social stratification
(Pu ram. 183). The term kilor refers to ‘cultivators of low wet lands’ (Pari: 17-40) and kilmatai
(Puram: 42-13) refers to the tail-end area irrigated by channel. The ‘world after valiant death ‘is
called ‘Mellor ulakam ‘meaning, ‘he world of high people’ (Puram: 229:22; 240:5-6; Pari: 17-8).
To track these extensions, a scrutiny of Tamil epigraphic, literary and lexical sources, will be in
order (See Annexure-I on p. 55).
These extensions show that the ‘high-West: Low-East ‘prototypes have a deep rooted
salience in the culture of Tamils since ancient times and have decisively influenced the above
lexical items. The role of human geography in shaping these prototypes can be better
understood through the case study of how the mi > miyatchi>| minir: mel> menir> > mèlvaram >
melpati and kil\ > klnir> kĩlvaram> > kilpati equation woks perfectly on the ground.
The farmers in the Cauvery Delta areas are familiar with the parallel terms such as melnir-
kilnir; melvaram-kil\varam, melpati-kil\pati, etc. When an absentee landlord gives his farm land on
share crop-tenancy to a person who actually cultivates the land, the upper part of the land-
holding, the yield from which accrues to the landlord, is variedly called melvaram (‘upper side
yield’ or melpati (‘upper half ’; the tiller’ share is called kilvaram (‘lower side yield’ or kilpati (‘lower
half ’. The flow of Cauvery River water / canal water in the delta follows a general north-
western – south-eastern gradient.
Hence, the water naturally first flows to the upper parts of the land holding (which mostly
falls on the west) first and then to the lower ends (which mostly falls on the east). In case of
scarcity, the upper part of the land is first irrigated and, in case of overflow, flooding and
consequential damage will be more in the tail end. In a stratified traditional social milieu, land
ownership and associated rights form the basis for socio-economic relationships. Hence, it is
not a simple case of ‘high-West: Low-East ‘geographical equation -but, as well makes a good
economic, sociological and psychological sense. Besides, it facilitates the metaphorical extension
of the mel-kil terms to mark the social differentiations as well.
It is surprising that, this tendency to develop such extensions is not only marked in the
major Dravidian languages such as Tamil, Kannada, Telugu and Malayalam spoken by the
communities with elaborate social structures but also in the languages spoken by Dravidian
tribes as well. In Karuk, the expressions kiyyanta and kit anta (DEDR: 1619) denote ‘lower rank
‘and ‘low-born ‘respectively. In Tulu, the expression kilmelu (DEDR: 1619) does not merely
denote ‘upside down’ but ‘inferior-superior ‘as well.
Part III: Derivational History of terms for Cardinal Directions in
Indo-European Languages
Carl D. Buck (1949: 870) reports that majority of words for the cardinal directions in
Indo-European languages are based either on the position of sun at a given time of day or one’
orientation. The orientation among the Indo-European-speaking peoples was usually the
sunrise (‘n front’= ‘east’ ‘behind’= ‘west’ ‘right’= ‘south’ ‘left’= ‘north’, he further observed.
Cecil Brown (1983: 122) who states that the derivational histories of terms for cardinal points in
Indo-European languages are for the most part very transparent, reflected by either polysemy or
literal translation observes an apparent regularity, on a worldwide basis, involving ‘east and west
and front and back. ‘Brown (1983: 136) finds out that ‘east ‘is associated with ‘front’(‘front’ ‘n
front of’ ‘front part’ four times and only once with ‘back’ and that conversely west is
alwaysassociated with ‘back’(‘behind’ ‘n back of’ ‘back part’ and not at all with ‘front’
The ‘front-East: Behind-West ‘Framework in Indo-Aryan: Anthropic-centric
The development of terms for cardinal directions in Indo-Aryan follow the characteristic
‘front-East: Behind-West ‘framework of the Indo-European.
CDIAL: 8343, 8346
Skt. pūrva ‘fore’ ‘first’ ‘eastern’ ‘ancient’ pūrvārdh á ‘eastern side’
Pali. pūbba, pubbaka ‘former’ ‘ancient’
Pkt. puvva ‘former’ puvva ‘the east’
Ass. B Eng. pub the east
Or. pūba ‘eastern’ Mar. pub ‘he east’ puba ‘n easterner’
Kas. puru ‘he east’
Panj. pū ādh, povādh ‘eastern part of a district’
CDIAL: 8920, 8922, 8925
Skt. Pracina ‘facing front, east’ pracý à ‘being before, eastern’ pranc ‘directed forward’ ‘astern’;
Pali. pācina ‘eastern’
CDIAL: 8006
Skt. pascārdha á ‘western side’ ‘hinder part’
Pkt. paschhaddha ‘back part’
CDIAL: 8007
Skt. paṣciṃa ‘after’ ‘hinder’ ‘western’
Pali. pacchima western’ ‘last’
Pkt. pacchima hinder’ ‘western’
Kas. pachyum ‘the west’
Panj. pachva ‘western’
Sgh. p äsum ‘last’ ‘west’
CDIAL: 9655
Skt. bhrasta| ‘fallen’ ‘ruined’
Pkt. bhattha ‘fallen’ ‘destroyed’
Ass. bhati ‘lower part of stream’ ‘western part’, western’
Sgh. Bata ‘descended’ ‘sunk’ ‘descent’ ‘the west’
MW:102
Skt. ávara ‘posterior’ ‘hinder’ ‘below’ ‘inferior’ ‘western’
MW: 50
Skt. ápara ‘posterior’ ‘inferior’ ‘lower’ ‘western’ ‘west’ ‘n the west of’ áparajana’ inhabitants of the west’
apar ânta ‘living at the western border’ ‘he western extremity’
‘death’
MW: 565
Skt. ññicya ‘living below’, ‘name of certain nations in the west’
‘celestial bodies and events’
CDIAL: 973
Skt. ásta ‘setting’(of sun)
Pkt. attha ‘lace of sunset’
Sgh. ata ‘sunset’ ‘west’
CDIAL: 975
Skt. astamáyana ‘setting ‘(of sun)
Guj. áthamnū~ ‘western’
Panj. Athun’ ‘the west
‘ H. athamna sunset’ ‘the west’
There are evidence to hold that the ‘front-East: Behind-West’polysemous framework in Indo -
Aryan languages is extended to incorporate the aspects of social hierarchies.
(See Table 3)
 There are expressions in Sanskrit to establish that the process of developing terms to
indicate social differentiations follows an anthropocentric approach. For example, the term
varna (from varn |, colour) means ‘outward appearance’ ‘exterior’ ‘color of the face’ ‘lass of
men’ ‘tribe’ ‘order’ ‘caste’ varnatva means ‘he state of colour’ ‘he state of caste’ (MW:924);
caturvarna denotes ‘he four castes ‘which also means ‘our principal colours’ (MW:385). Similarly,
the social differentiation in terms of castes and tribes also follow a ‘front’ ‘behind ‘approach.
This is evident from the term antyaja (from antya meaning ‘last in place/order’ to mean ‘f the
lowest caste’ ‘man of one of seven inferior tribes which includes mountaineers’ (MW: 44). This
is in contrast with the term purvaja which means ‘born in the east’ ‘astern’ ‘former’ ‘n ancestor’
‘he deified progenitors of mankind’ (MW:643). The term ávara means ‘western’ ‘low’
‘important’ ‘mall value ‘and the derivative term ávaravarn |a means ‘belonging to a low caste’
(MW:102).
Thus it is evident that in the Indo-Aryan languages, the ‘front-East: Behind West’
framework has not only influenced the lexical encoding and naming of the cardinal direction
terms for the ‘east ‘and the ‘east ‘but also the process of developing social terms.
Part IV: Human Geographies: Where ‘High ‘is ‘West ‘and ‘Low ‘is ‘East’
Before discussing the details of the Dravidian and the Indo-Aryan lexical encoding frameworks
in comparative terms in the specific context of DEMS matrix of the dichotomous layouts of
the Indus cities and making an implication analysis, I identify the human geography as the
factor that could have influenced the sociology of urban space in the Indus context as well the
process of lexical encoding of cardinal direction terms in the ‘known’ language of the Indus
people. Similarly, I propose that the influence of the human geography can be traced more
prominently in the lexical encoding of cardinal direction terms in the Dravidian languages that
follow a ‘topo centric’ approach. Taking due cognizance of the fact that the ‘high-West: Low-
East’ framework of Dravidian languages show a prima-facie affinity to the ‘high-West: Low-East
‘dichotomy of the Indus layouts I identify some salient features of the Indus Human
Geography and Indus urban settlements and demonstrate how such elements are traceable in
the historic as well the current Toponpmy of Dravidian speaking populations and in the aspects
of their contemporary human geographies.
Dravidian Names capes
Tamilnadu has 15979 Census Villages and 1098 Census Towns (as per 2011 Census) and thus
we have a total of 17077 Census Toponyms in the State. Of these, there are as many as 312
place names with Mel (‘west ‘and/or ‘p’ as prefix and 328 place names with ‘kil\ (‘east ‘and/ or
‘low’, spelt in Roman alphabets as ‘kil’(206) or ‘feel’(117) or ‘izh’(5), as prefixes. Out of these, I
found 168 dichotomous pairs like in Melkaranai: Kilkkaranai; Melmanavur: Kilmanavur etc.,
with unique coordinates. As seen earlier, in Tamil, mel means ‘west ‘and/or ‘high’ kil\ means
‘east ‘and/or ‘low’ I was curious to know whether these polysemies have any relevance on the
ground. In other words, I was keen to find out whether mel villages as indicated by their names
are really on the ‘west ‘of the corresponding kil\ villages which are expected to be on the ‘east
‘and to what extent these ‘west’ ‘east ‘villages meet the elevation criteria of ‘up ‘and ‘low ‘in
relative terms. The findings are in Table 4. (Also see ‘ Note on GIS ‘at the end of this paper,
p.54 and Annexure-2 on p.58 which contains more details of 168 pairs of places with
dichotomous place names.)
Table 4. mel-kil\ villages: True to the Name
 The reason for this impressive compliance is obvious. The Western Ghats dominate the
entire western border of Tamilnadu with Kerala and the eastern parts are the costal plains.
Consequently, there is a clear north-west: south-east topographic gradient. In terms of
numbers, we find the occurrence of such west: east dichotomous villages more in the eastern
plains than in the western hills indicative of general settlement density and its trajectories. It is
interesting to note that the ‘high-West: Low-East ‘pattern is maintained from hill tops to the
coastal rims. And, this case study clearly proves the influence the aspects of human geography
can have on the pattern of human settlements and on the process of naming places.
It is relevant to know that in the process of giving place names in terms of polysemous
pairs (mel: kill\) the popular direction terms kil\akku (east) and mer\ku (west) are not at all used.
In Tamilnadu, there is only one place name with mer\ku as prefix i.e. ‘Merkupathi’ whereas there
is no place named ‘kilakkupathi’ to make it a dichotomous pair. Similarly, there are two places
namely, ‘kilakku Mardur’ (Viluppuram district) and ‘Kilakkuchettipatti’ (Din Digul district)
without corresponding merku (west) villages. On the contrary, the polysemous terms Mel and
Kil\ (written as ‘kil’or K’izh’or ‘Keel’in the census records) are used in all the cases of
dichotomous place names. Because, the use of terms such as merku and kilakku will not bring
out clearly, the sense of polysemy, in terms of ‘p, high ‘and ‘west’: ‘low and east ‘and only the
sense of direction will become prominent.
‘up’, consequently the ‘west’, had a greater salience in the Dravidian Milieu
The ‘West ‘enjoys greater salience in the Dravidian milieu. Cerá kings who ruled Western Ghats
were called kutavar ko meaning ‘he lord of the people of western region’ (Patir\: 55). In Kui, the
language of Khonds, the name of the tribe, as well the name of the language is derived from
the word Kui which means not only ‘the hill ‘but also ‘he west’ (DEDR: 2178) Murukan, the
numero Uno God of Tamils, is a hill-god. His temples are located mostly on hill-tops.
‘East-West’ Toponyms in other parts of India
Apart from the case study of Mel -Ki\ villages the geographical distribution of place names
with ‘east’ ‘west ‘prefixes in other parts of India provide an interesting insight.
There are 205 census location names in India, with purba (east) as prefix and 4 location
names with pūrva (east) as prefix. What is surprising is that these names are mostly concentrated
in West Bengal and Assam and Odisha and fewer instances in other states (West Bengal 169,
Assam 20, Bihar 6, Odisha 5, Uttar Pradesh 3 and Punjab 1). Same is the case with the places
named with pascim (west) as prefix. Of the 317 such place names, as many as 277 are found in
West Bengal; 19 in Assam, 12 in Uttar Pradesh, 7 in Odisha and one each in Chhattisgarh and
Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
Part V. The Toponomy of Hill Settlements
The Dravidian ‘Hill Pride’
Dravidians essentially are the people of hills. Kamil Zvelebil calls them ‘ highlander folk ‘and
locates them ‘sitting, sometimes round 4000 B.C in the rugged mountainous areas of North-
Eastern Iran’ … and estimates their ‘important even a leading role in the ethno linguistic
composition of the Indus Valley peoples.’(Zvelebil 1972: 57)
There are numerous Dravidian tribes in India, whose ethnonyms are indicative of their hill-
centric human geography. Mal Paharia (Rajmahal Hills, Jharkhand); Mala Aryan (Western Ghats,
Kerala); Mala Kura van (Nedumangad, Kerala); Mala Muthan (Errand, Kerala); Mala Panda ram
(Kollam, Kerala); Mala Panikkar (North Kerala); Mala Pulaya, Mala Ullada, and Mala Veda
(Idukki, Kerala); Malasar (Western Ghats, Kerala, Tamilandu); Malayalar (Kannur, Kerala);
Malayan (Palghat, Kerala), Maleru (Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka) and so on. Besides, the tribe
names such Kota (Nilgiris); Konda Dora, Konda Reddi (Andhra Pradesh); Khond, Koiter (Odisha)
are also indicative of Dravidian hill life.
An element of hill-pride is evident in the ethnonyms and myths of some of the Dravidian
tribes. The ethnonyms such as Mala Arayan, Konda Dora literally mean ‘he king of hills’ Malai
Malasar (‘Malasar of the hills’ take immense pride in their hill-identity and call themselves ‘aha
Malasar’i.e ‘superior Malasar’and do not intermarry with other sub groups like ‘Nattu Malasar’
(‘country-Malasar’. Mala Muthans (‘elders of the hills’ consider themselves as a very superior
people and prefer to live in isolation. They practice untouchability with all communities below
the rank of Nayars; even the Nambudiris and the Nayars are not allowed to enter their houses.
(EDT Vol II: 207) The Headman of the Tottiya caste is called mettu-nayakkan \ (Thurston 1975:
185). The expression mettu-náakkan \ would literally mean ‘nayakkan \ of the elevated land’ Old
Tamil traditions and texts portray the kataiyelu vallalkal (the last of the seven (lines of) Great
Patrons) as the chieftains of specific hills.
Hill Settlements
The settlement patterns of different Dravidian hill tribes provide insight into the social, spiritual
aspects of their hill life. These tribes generally tend to settle on the slopes or terraces of hill
sides, near a perennial stream or river, above the high water mark. (EDT Vol I: 104) They prefer
to use running water for drinking and tap it upstream of their settlements from one of the
jungle rivulets. Locating the settlement above the high water mark is obviously a flood
protection measure. But, the ‘tapping drinking water from upstream’ apart from the
convenience, has other connotations. ‘Drinking the water untouched by others ‘has symbolic
relevance.
High mountains and their towering peaks have their influence on the lay-outs of hill
habitats of Dravidian tribes. Among the Attapady tribes (Waynad, Kerala), all traditional
hamlets are located in such a way that they command a view of the needle-shaped Malleswaram
Peak. Toda settlements (in the Nilgiris) are associated with their sacred geography and rich
mythological traditions; their sacred dairies are surrounded by high walls and preferably have
separate water supply. Platforms are integral part of the house designs of Toda. The Kurumba
term mettu to denote veranda is indicative of its ‘elevation’ At Attapady, the headman’ house
dominates the top of the rows (EDT Vol I. 106). Jatapu villages are situated in the foot-hills,
one-third of them fully on hill tops. In the Irula house, a platform attached to the rear wall
accommodates light and incense for the household deities.
 Thus, a quick inventory of the habitats of the Dravidian hill tribes shows that ‘mountains,
hill-tops and hills ‘have a greater salience in the social life of the tribes and influence the layouts
and orientation of their habitats; that the concepts such as ‘elevated platforms’ ‘walls’ ‘drinking
water from the upstream’ ‘headman’ house at top’ indicate the symbolic extension of the
imagery of hills to represent social stratifications.
In the context of tracing the genesis of ‘High-West: Low-East ‘dichotomy of the Indus
layouts, the above inputs on the ‘ill-pride’ of the Dravidian tribes offer an analogy. We may
recall at this point, Wright’ view on ‘symbolic connection between the Kirthar Mountain and
the founding platforms’ at Mohenjo-Daro and the influence of the visible natural elements of
the Kirthar Mountain on the layouts of the Indus cities.
Importance of Place Name evidence
Onomastic has gained greater relevance in the context of Indus studies. Parpola considers that
“Harappan Place Names could provide potential clue to the identification of Harappan
language” and presents the place name Meluhha as “the most important single piece of actual
linguistic evidence relating to the Indus Civilisation...” (Parpola 2000: 170).
The substratum of Dravidian place names in Gujarat and Maharashtra (Allchin 1982: 352;
South worth 2005: 288-321, Sankalia quoted in South worth 1995: 271) provides evidence for
the earlier Dravidian presence in the western regions. This author, in his earlier paper
(Balakrishnan 2010), has furnished evidence for “korkay, Vanji, Tondi Complex”(KVT
Complex) in the toponomic corpuses of north-western geographies which contain perfect
parallels to “or\korkai, Vanci,Tonti”“and numerous other geographical names exclusively
connected to Old Tamil polity, ethnonyms and anthroponomy attested in Can^kam Tamil texts.
(Map 2)

Map 2. “Korkay, Vanji, Tondi Complex”

 This map was presented by the author as part of “Professor Malcolm Adiseshiah memorial
Lecture” at International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai on 04.02.2011.
Considering that these names are unknown to Indo-Aryan traditions, this author is of the
opinion that the ‘VT Complex ‘that has survived in the toponomic corpuses of the north
western geographies stands witness to a Dravidian past in the region and the use of such place
names in the ancient Tamil county and their attestations in Old Tamil texts represent the
‘carried forward ‘traditions and continuity from the Indus past.
‘Dravidian Hills ‘in North-Western Geographies
There are toponomic evidences to situate the Dravidians and their ‘ill-pride’ at the heights of
impressive mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan (See Table 5 and Map 3). It would be
relevant to recall that the Sanskrit word Malaya is compared with the Dravidian word malai
(DEDR: 4742) which could be indicative of a Dravidian substratum in Sanskrit. Besides, Malaya
in Sanskrit is used mostly with reference to ‘mountain range on the west of Malabar, the
western Ghats’ and a king of the Pántiyas is called ‘Malaya dhvaja’(MW:792).
Table 5. Dravidian ‘hill ‘terms as place names in Pakistan and Afghanistan
 It is relevant to note that in Tamil, malai means ‘mountain’ ‘hill ‘while kunru denotes ‘hillock’
It is interesting to note that in the northwestern region, the toponym ‘Malai’s used for
mountainous locations of high elevations while the toponyms ‘Kunro’and ‘kunru’are used for
spots with relatively low altitude. Similarly, in Tamil, the expression varai denotes ‘Line’
‘Mountain’ ‘Peak’ ‘Ridge’ ‘Bank’ ‘Shore’ ‘Limit’ ‘Boundary ‘Edge’ ‘order’ ‘Rim’ etc (TL.6: 3525)
In the expressions ‘un\i mutal ATI VARAI (‘From the upper edge to lower edge’ and ‘atimutal
nuni varAI”(‘from the lower end to the upper edge’ the term varai is used to denote ‘edge ‘at
either end. Incidentally, in the toponomic

Map 3. ‘Dravidian Hills ‘in the North-West

 corpus of Pakistan we come across ‘Warai’ as toponyms at the height of 8837, 4253, 3687
feet (mountainous region) and at 10 feet (coastal edge) above MSL representing the extreme
ends of the specific geography of north western parts of the Indian subcontinent.
Dravidian hill-terms as Place Names in North, West and East Indian States
Dravidian hill-terms are used as toponyms in various parts of India. The geographical
distribution of such place names offers curious insight (Table 6 & 7).
Table 6. Dravidian hill-terms in Indian States
Preponderance of ‘Malaya’s Place Names of Southern India
There are 84 places in Tamilnadu with ‘Malai’suffixed place names. ‘Malai’ occurs as a prefix in
17 instances in the state. In Andhra Pradesh, there are 65 ‘Mala’ suffixed place names. In
Karnataka, ‘Malai’ as suffix occurs only once (Dhoni Malai) whereas ‘ale’ occurs as suffix in 15
instances. In Kerala, there are 10 ‘malai’suffixed place names. Interestingly, ‘alai’/ ‘Mala’/ ‘Male
‘does not occur as mono-word place names in Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka or
Kerala.
The presence of many terms from the ‘ill-glossary’ of Dravidians in the Toponomic corpus
of north and western states of India and the absence of mono-word place names in the corpus
of south India indicate the antiquity of the usage of the term in north and western region and
by implication stand witness to the probable earlier presence of Dravidian speakers in those
geographies and their subsequent migrations towards southern regions.
Part VI. The Toponomy of ‘fort ‘Settlements
Most of the Harappan settlements were fortified. The ‘antecedents ‘for the Harappan
fortifications have been identified at Mehrgarh in Baluchistan. Parpola refers to settlement
names of Dravidian origin in the Harappan area and considers the word kotta ‘fort’ (generally
considered to be of Dravidian origin) to be of ‘particular interest’ because its distribution in
North India is “mainly limited to the Harappan area and the northwest.” (Parpola 2000: 170).
 In the northwest (modern Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Eastern borderlands of Iran) as
well as in various states of India, we come across different ‘fort ‘terms such as ‘Kot’ ‘Kota’
‘Kottai’and ‘Durga’ being used as place names. Apart from 611 locations with place names
having ‘Kot’ as suffix, Pakistan is home to as many as 45 places named as ‘Kot’ (as a mono-
word place name). The coordinates of the places having ‘Kot’ as a mono-word place name in
Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are given in Annexure-III at p.66.
Within India, the frequency of occurrence of ‘kot’as a mono-word place name and its use
as a toponomic suffix is found more in the northern and north-western states such as
Uttaranchal, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. The southern states also have a significant number of
place names with suffixes such as ‘Kot’ ‘Kota’and ‘Kottai.’ Of these, ‘Kottai’ is in the exclusive
domain of Tamilnadu for all the 248 place names in India, with ‘Kottai’as suffix are found in
that State
Even in the use of the Indo-Aryan word Durga (‘stronghold’ ‘citadel’ ‘ort’ as a place name
suffix, the southern region takes the lead. Out of 59 such place names as many as 35 occur in
Karnataka (See Table 8).
Table 8
Part VII. The Comparative Frameworks of Indus, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan
A comparative analysis of the DEMS indicators of the Indus cities with reference to the lexical
encoding frameworks in the Dravidian and the Indo Aryan languages give a clear impression
that the underlying principles of Indus urbanism evident in the form of dichotomouslayouts,
management of urban space, segregated neighborhoods, fortifications and primacy of ‘high
mounds ‘and ‘platforms ‘are more akin to theDravidian socio-cultural and linguistic scheme
(Table 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4).
Table 9.1 DEMS Criteria: Direction

Table 9.4 DEMS Criteria: Social

 Thus, the DEMS indicators for the Indus cities display a close affinity to the ‘high-West:
Low-East ‘framework of the Dravidian than to the ‘front-East: Behind-West ‘framework of the
Indo-Aryan in socio-cultural and linguistic terms.
Part VIII. The Lingering Legacy
Gamecocks of ‘high-West ‘and ‘low-East ‘Quarters Fought in Indus Cities!
At Mohenjo-Daro, we come across a seal (Marshall seal No.338) on which the images of two
cocks are inscribed side by side, along with a sign that is generally interpreted as ‘city’ Iravatham
Mahadevan reads the sign sequence on the seal as ‘cocks-city.’(Mahadevan 2011: 86) For an
important Indus city to be named after cocks there has to be a reason. A cock being a common
domestic bird, normally found in every habitat, there has to be something special about the
cocks at that specific place to justify such naming.

Fig.6. Marshal Seal No.338 “COCKS-CITY” (Mahadevan 2011: 86)

A close scrutiny of the images reveals the tell-tale markers and the probable reason: the
necks are raised; the tails are up and stiff; the legs are unsettled and slightly raised above the
ground level. They are probably the gamecocks of Mohenjo-Daro in a fighting-mode (fig.6).
The continuity
An analogy to this is available in ‘Koi’ (literally means ‘en’, the name of the capital town (also
known as Uraiyur) of early Col\as of Tamilnadu. In this case as well, the traditional accounts
recall the valor of a ‘cock’that fought against an elephant at that place as the basis for this
commemorative name. In celebration of this episode, the Colas of the Ca^kam Age even issued
a coin with an image of a cock fighting an elephant (fig.7). Hence, tracing the genesis of ‘cocks-
city ‘of the Indus Age to the ‘fighting-quality’ of the cocks of the specific-region may not be
without basis.

Fig.7. Co$l\a Coin (1st cent. BCE) “The City of the Cock” (Ur\aiyu$r) (Mahadevan 2011: 86)
 The concept of cockfight itself, it seems, could be a metaphoric extension of the ‘East-
West’ dichotomy of Indus cities. Evidence to support this view is available in Old Tamil texts
and epigraphic records. The legacy of cockfight lingers as a vibrant aspect of regional culture
even now in the specific areas of the Indian subcontinent. In Sindh (Pakistan), the very region
where the Indus civilisation once flourished, the organised cockfight continues to be a
prominent sport. In India, Tamilnadu and Kodagu region of Karnataka are known for
cockfights.
In the year 2011, a full-length Tamil commercial film Āṭukaḷam was released and had a
successful run. The core theme of this movie that bagged many national awards was ‘cock-
fight.’ The movie revolves around a master cock-trainer and his disciple, the protagonist. In my
view, Tamilnadu is the only place in India that offers a socio-cultural context in which such a
movie could have been viably made in modern times.
Old Tamil evidence
Going back to the earlier times, there are direct and indirect references to organised cock-fights
in the ancient Tamil texts. (Kuṟun: 305: 5-6; Akam: 277: 13-16).
‘As the neck of the domestic fighting cock with the sharp beak and flaming red feathers
bristles when it fights’-narrates an ancient Tamil text (Aka: 277, translation by Mahadevan 2003:
627).
‘The ferocious cock now leaps up and jumps Forward, now backs down, and then again
Attacks angrily with the blade (tied to its leg) – describes a medieval Tamil grammar work.
(Puṟapporuḷ: 348, translation by Mahadevan 2003: 627).
Mahadevan (2003) writes about an old commentary which talks of a ‘Kōḻi-nūl ‘(‘treatise on
fighting cocks’.) The commentators of ancient extant Tamil grammar Tolkāppiyam (Tol. Col: 62,
Iḷampūraṇar ) and the medieval work Naṉṉūl (Naṉṉūl: 402, commentary Caṅkaranamaccivāyar)
refer to cockfight between ‘west’and ‘east’quarters namely mēlaccēri and kīḻacēri. “It appears that
villages with two hamlets, mēṟcēri (the western quarter) and kīḻccēri (the eastern quarter) had
fighting cocks for each quarter”observes Mahadevan (2003: 627).
Hero Stones for the gamecocks of ‘East-west’quarters
Independent of these literary references, Old Tamil Epigraphy offers copious insight into the
dynamics of cockfight tradition and its connection to the concept of ‘east-west’dichotomous
settlements. At Arasalapuram in Tamilnadu, a hero-stone, (Mahadevan 2003: 467,530) dated 5 th
century CE installed in the memory of a fighting-cock which fought at the behest of the
western quarter of a main village called Mukaiyūr, is found. On this hero-stone, the toponym
mēṟcēri (western quarter) is inscribed along with the image of the cock.
Similarly, we come across another hero-stone at a place called Indalūr, (Mahadevan 2003:
468, 530) erected to commemorate the memory of a ‘fighting cock of the eastern quarter’ The
toponym kīḻccēri (eastern quarter) is engraved on the memorial stone though the name of the
main village is not mentioned. Apart from the image of the fighting cock, its pet name poṟkoṟṟi,
which literally means ‘Koṟṟi the golden’is also inscribed (fig.9).
 Fig. 9. ‘Eighting cock’of Kīḻccēri’ Inscription No.113, ETE (Mahadevan 2003: 530)
It is relevant to note that nowhere else in India we come across such ancient tradition of
hero-stone being erected in honor of gamecocks. Apart from offering a documentary proof for
the prevalence of cock-fight in ancient times as a popular sport, these images and inscriptions
also for the first time link the tradition of cock-fight to the concept of dichotomous
settlements divided in terms of ‘east-west’quarters.
Place Name Markers
Place names can outlive most material artifacts of a civilisation. As Arseny Saparov says, “The
material landscape may disappear or be destroyed, the civilisation that created them may also
disappear but its place-names will most probably survive.” (Saparov 2003: 179).
Of the 168 ‘Mel’(west): ‘Kil’(east) pairs of villages discussed earlier (Table 7) the place
names Melacheri (79.420332 E/ 12.466958 N), and Kilcheri (79.847899 E/ 13.029903 N)
deserve close scrutiny. The place names Mēṟcēri (variant of Mēlacceri) and Kīḻccēri happen to be
the first set of ‘Mēl: Kīḻ’ dichotomous place names to be attested in Early Tamil Inscriptions.
Besides, the context of ‘cockfight’in which these place names appear in the inscriptions, as well
in the commentaries to Tamil grammar works, I believe, is potentially linked to the main theme
of this paper.
Apart from this, we come across Mēlacheri as an ethnonym of a group of a Malayalam
speaking community in Lakshadweep. Mēlacheris are believed to be the descendents of original
Thiyyar immigrants from the Malabar Coast (EDT. Vol II: 264-65). There is a place called
Mekeri (comparable with the place name Melacheri) in Kodagu region of Karnataka, known for
its cockfight traditions.
The trail of toponym Melacheri takes us to the north western geographies and beyond.
Mela and Cheri are mono-word place names in Pakistan (Mela 33.91417 N/72.02972 E; Mela
33.8975 N/ 70.14833 E; Mela 33.58778 N/ 70.47361 E; Mela 32.16667 N/ 73.15 E; Mela
33.85139 N/ 70.37083 E; Mela 33.84861 N/ 70.38056 E; Mela 33.19722 N/ 74.045 E; Cheri
27.76667 N/ 66.61667 E and Cheri 29.24167 N/ 66.00417 E). In Iran we come across not only
‘Meleh’ (Meleh 35.16667 N/ 47.36667 E; Meleh 36.04806 N/ 46.45222 E; Meleh 31.35028 N/
50.88722 E; Cheri 37.16694 N/ 58.15806 E; Cheri 30.43333 N/ 49.68333 E) as mono-word
place names but also Melehcheri (31.12333 N/ 50.11778 E) as a double-component place name.
 It seems, the place names Melacheri and Kilacheri could be a linking thread to trace back
the genesis of cockfight as the symbol of Indus dichotomy and eventually the linguistic and
cultural affiliations of the so called ‘leader-genius’, the architects of the Indus cities and of
course the cock-trainers, the game referees and the cheering citizens of the Indus cities.
Part IX. Conclusions
1. The ‘High-West: Low-East’ dichotomy of Indus city layouts was not merely a design
coincidence, but a conscious and deliberate choice influenced by ‘longheld patterns of
thoughts.’The ‘human geography’ probably had played a role in moulding those
thoughts.
2. The Direction-Elevation-Material and Social indicators of the Indus urbanism show
closer affinity to the cultural prototypes of the Dravidians and match the lexical
encoding and naming of cardinal directions in the Dravidian languages.
3. Toponyms of the Indian subcontinent, historical and current hold a huge promise in
unravelling the mysteries of Indus civilisation particularly in the process of identifying
the probable language (or languages) of Indus people.
4. The remnants of Indus legacy are traceable in the contemporary Indian societies. The
cockfight tradition is one of them.
And, I sum-up saying that, the dichotomous layouts of the Indus cities encode a Dravidian
paradigm. Probably, in the open spaces between the segregated neighborhoods, the gamecocks
of the ‘High-West’ and the ‘Low-East’ quarters put up fierce fights, which were at once real and
metaphoric, symbolically representing the collective spirit of the Indus urbanism, as the people
in the ‘city of fighting cocks’ cheered in some archaic Dravidian tongue.
Note on GIS
1. The place names of India cited in this paper are obtained from Census of India and other State Government
databases. The place names of other countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran are sourced from
GEOnet Names Server at http://earthinfo.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm. I have used the place names and
coordinates from the above site as such without any modification. For the purpose of analysing ‘mēl’ (west)
and ‘kīḻ’(east) place names of Tamilnadu, I have used State maps of Census of India and country maps from
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) data as base maps (background maps). The ‘mēl’(west) and
‘kīḻ’(east) place names were plotted on these maps based on their latitude and longitude value. Where such
values were not available, these were derived from geo-referenced village boundary maps generated from
census administrative maps, considering their centroid locations in GIS.
2. For computation of distance and direction, the latitude-longitude values of the plotted locations were
converted to easting-northing values applying Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection. Arc View
GIS software was used for the purpose. Distance between a pair of ‘mēl -kīḻ’ villages was calculated using co-
ordinate geometry formula.
3. After plotting the locations in GIS using co-ordinates, the points are symbolised and labeled with name. The
*.shp file thus generated was exported to Google Earth application compatible *.KMZ file for plotting on
Google Earth. Modifications were made in the symbols and label by managing properties of the KMZ file in
Google Earth. Approximate elevations of the plotted locations in Google Earth were manually recorded by
clicking each point in Google Earth after activating the Terrain layer.
Annexure –III
Co-ordinates of the places named as ‘Kot’ in Iran, Afghanistan & Pakistan
Iran
Location Lat./N Long./E
Kot 31.11667 61.53333
Afghanistan
Location Lat./N Long./E Location Lat./N Long./E
Kot 29.56722 64.07694 Kot 34.13417 70.58889
Kot 35.69806 71.26722 Kot 33.17222 63.98028
Pakistan
Location Lat./N Long./E Location Lat./N Long./E
Kot 28.95 70.36667 Kot 30.96667 72.86667
Kot 34.29972 71.61472 Kot 33.67778 70.59167
Kot 34.49667 71.72417 Kot 32.60278 74.51944
Kot 34.30639 71.95694 Kot 34.85417 72.96667
Kot 31.09611 69.55306 Kot 34.37222 72.7875
Kot 29.23333 67.13333 Kot 32.29722 74.68194
Kot 29.41667 67.56667 Kot 34.81667 72.4375
Kot 30.88333 72.63333 Kot 34.41389 73.72639
Kot 33.46667 71.56667 Kot 33.83333 73.96944
Kot 34.1 72.88333 Kot 30.95833 72.86667
Kot 34.2 71.7 Kot 34.50972 73.025
Kot 34.55 72.68333 Kot 34.60278 73.10278
Kot 34.65417 73.23611 Kot 34.65417 73.23611
Kot 34.57083 73.21389 Kot 34.57083 73.21389
Kot 34.27083 73.15833 Kot 34.27083 73.15833
Kot 34.27639 73.18333 Kot 34.27639 73.18333
Kot 34.35694 73.07222 Kot 34.35694 73.07222
Kot 34.68611 72.51111 Kot 34.68611 72.51111
Kot 34.65 72.66389 Kot 34.65 72.66389
Kot 35.45972 72.58889 Kot 35.45972 72.58889
Kot 27.93611 68.87222 Kot 27.93611 68.87222
Kot 34.37778 73.43194 Kot 34.37778 73.43194
Kot 34.33889 73.27778 Kot 31.22222 73.6375
Kot 33.02222 73.20833 Kot 34.98222 72.525
Kot 33.72917 73.82778 Kot 34.8 72.725
Kot 33.73889 73.87222 Kot 34.52083 71.45
Kot 33.04167 74.03056 Kot 32.58639 70.35528
Kot 34.20972 73.01806
References
Aiyaṉāritaṉār and Po. Vē. Cōmacuntaraṉār. 1955. Pura̲pporuḷ veṇpāmālai. Ceṉṉai: Tirunelvēlit Teṉṉintiya
Caivacittānta Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Akanāṉūṟu. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Allchin, Bridget and F. Raymond Allchin. 1982. The rise of civilisation in India and Pakistan. Cambridge: Cambridge.
University Press
Balakrishnan, R. 2010. “Tamil Indus?: Korkay, Vanji, Tondi in the North-West and a ‘Boneeating Camel’in the
Caṅkam text” Journal of Tamil Studies. 77: 191-206.
Bisht, R. S. 1982. “Excavations at Banawalai: 1974-77.” In Harappan Civilisation: a contemporary perspective, edited by
Gregory L. Possehl, 113-124. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Pub. Co.
Bray, Denys. 1986. Brahui language: introduction and grammar. New Delhi: Asian Educational Services.
Brown, Cecil H. 1983. “Where do cardinal direction terms come from?” Anthropological Linguistics. 25 (2): 121-161.
Accessed Aug. 19, 2012. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027665
Buck, Carl Darling. 1949. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages; a contribution to the
history of ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burrow, Thomas and Murray Barnson Emeneau, eds. 1984. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Caldwell, Robert. (1913) 1974. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages. Reprint, New
Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corp.
Cāttaṉār and U. Vē. Cāminātaiyar, ed. 1898. Maṇimēkalai. Ceṉṉai: Ve. Nā. Jūpili Accukkūṭam.
Ciṟupāṇāṟṟupaṭai. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Daniel, Glyn. 1964. The idea of prehistory. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Hadley, G. 1997. “Lexis and culture: bound and determined?” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 26 (4): 483-496.
Iḷaṅkōvaṭikaḷ and U. Vē. Cāminātaiyar, ed. 1892. Iḷaṅkōvaṭikaḷaruḷicceyta Cilappatikāramūlamum
Aṭiyārkkunallāruraiyum. Ceṉṉai: Ve. Nā. Jūpili Accukkūṭam.
Indian archaeology 1986-87: a review. 1992. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Indian archaeology 1991-92: a review. 1996. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Israel, M. 1979. A grammar of the Kuvi language: with texts and vocabulary. Trivandrum: Dravidian Linguistics
Association.
Jansen, Michael. 1985. “Mohenjo-Daro, city of the Indus Valley.” In Endeavour New Series. 9 (4): 161-169.
Joshi, Jagat Pati. 1990. Excavation at Surkotada 1971-72 and exploration in Kutch. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of
India.
Joshi, Jagat Pati and R. S. Bisht. 1995. India and the Indus civilisation. New Delhi: V.C. National Museum Institute.
Karashima, Noboru, Y. Subbarayalu and Toru Matsui. 1978. A concordance of the names in the Cōḻa inscriptions: Volume
I. List of names with related information. Madurai: Sarvodaya Ilakkiya Pannai.
Kuṟuntokai. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Lal, B. B. 1997. The earliest civilisation of South Asia: rise, maturity, and decline. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.
Madhava Menon, T. 1996-97. The encyclopaedia of Dravidian tribes. 3 vols. Thiruvananthapuram: International School
of Dravidian Linguistics.
Mahadevan, Iravatham. 2003. Early Tamil epigraphy from the earliest times to the sixth century A.D. Chennai: Cre-A.
Mahadevan, Iravatham. 2011. “Akam and puṟam: ‘Address’ signs of the Indus script.” International Journal of
Dravidian Linguistics. 40 (1): 81-94.
Malaipaṭukaṭām. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇyan̲. Cen̲n̲ai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Maturai kañci. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
MacCarthy, Michael J. 1994. Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Monier-Williams, Sir Monier. (1899) 1979. A Sanskrit-English dictionary. Reprint, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Monnet, Jerome. 2011. “The symbolism of place: a geography of relationship between space, power and identity.”
Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography (online). Political, cultural and cognitive geography, document 562.
Accessed Jan. 18, 2012. http://cybergeo.revues.org/24747
Naṟṟinai. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇyan̲. Cen̲n̲ai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Paripāṭal. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Parpola, Asko. 2000. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Patiṟṟuppattu. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇiyaṉ. Ceṉṉai: Maṇivācakar Patippakam.
Paṭṭiṉappālai. 2006. In Caṅka ilakkiyam, edited by Ca. Vē. Cuppiramaṇ|iyan\. Cen\n\ai: Man|iva$cakar
Patippakam.
Pavan|anti. 1889. Nan\n\u$l. Cen\n\ai: Amerikan\ Accukku$t|am.
Possehl, Gregory L. 2003. The Indus civilisation: a contemporary perspective. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
Purana$n\u$r\u. 2006. In Can^kail akkiyam, edited by Ca. Ve$. Cuppiraman|iyan\. Cen\n\ai: Man|iva$cakar
Patippakam.
Rao, S. R. 1973. Lothal and the Indus civilisation. New York: Asia Pub. House.
Rao, S. R. 1979. Lothal, a Harappan port town: 1955-62. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Saparov, Arseny. 2003. “The alteration of place names and construction of national identity in Soviet Armenia”.
Cahiers Du Monde Russe. 44 (1): 179-198. Accessed Oct. 29, 2012.http://www.jstor.org/stable/20174766
Sapir, E. 1929. “he status of linguistics as a science.”In Culture, language and personality: selected essays, edited by David Goodman
Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Southworth, Franklin C. 2005. Linguistic archaeology of South Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Southworth, Franklin C. 1995. “econstructing social context from language: Indo-Aryan and Dravidian prehistory”In The Indo-
Aryans of ancient South Asia: language, material culture and ethnicity. Edited by Erdosy, George. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter .
Subbarayalu, Y., ed. 2002-03. Tamiḻk kalveṭṭuc collakarāti = Glossary of Tamil inscriptions. 2 vols. Chennai: Santi
Sadhana.
Thurston, Edgar and K. Rangachari. (1909) 1975. Castes and tribes of southern India. Vol. 7. Reprint, Delhi:
Cosmo.
Tolkāppiyar. 1973. Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram: Iḷampūraṇarurai. Cenṉṉai: Tirunelvēlit Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta
Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Tolkāppiyar. 1975. Tolkāppiyam Collatikāram: Pērāciriyar urai. Ceṉṉai: Tirunelvēit Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta
Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Tolkāppiyar. 1975. Tolkāppiyam Poruḷatikāram: Pērāciriyar urai. Ceṉṉai: Tirunelvēlit Teṉṉintiya Caivacittānta
Nūṟpatippuk Kaḻakam.
Turner, Ralph L. 1999. A comparative dictionary of the Indo-Aryan languages. Vol. 2, Indexes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publ.
University of Madras. 1982. Tamil lexicon. 6 vols. Madras: University of Madras.
Vats, Madho Sarup. (1940) 1999. Excavations at Harappa: being an account of archaeological excavations at Harappa carried
out between the years 1920-21 and 1933-34. 2 vols. Reprint, New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.
Wheeler, Mortimer. 1968. The Indus civilisation. Cambridge: University Press.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1940. “science and linguistics.” In Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: The
M.I.T. Press.
Wright, Rita P. 2010. The ancient Indus: urbanism, economy, and society. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zvelebil, Kamil. 1972. “The descent of the Dravidians.” International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics. 1 (2): 57-65.
1. Allen, Charles: A Contemporary and popular author of Histories on India. Ashoka (Little
Wodds., U.K.).
2. Asher, Ronald E., An eminent Indologist, Linguist, Translator and member of The Sahitya
Akademi, Ministry of Culture, Government of India. An authority on the Taxonomy and
Structure of World’s leading Languages and Dialects.
3. Bajpai, S.k.,: Editor of the Indological Research Works by K. D. BAJPAI (Asia
Publicaions) Lucknow, New Delhi.
4. Balakrishnan Nayar B. A., (Oxon) A very traditional Historian of high repute, a reputed
Principal of Presidency College, Madras (then), democratic in values. (Tamil Culture)
RMRL, Chennai-113.
5. Balakrisnan, R., A very competent researcher cum author on Indus Civilisation, A Fellow
Of Indus Study Circle in RMRL. An extremely gifted speaker on Tamil literary culture and
Indus Civilisation. An eminent Advisor to the Government of Orissa.
6. Basham, A. L., A well-known Professor of Indian History from the London University,
who trained several modern historians of India such as R.S.Sharma, Romila Thapar and K.
D. Bajpai. An authority on Indology Studies.
7. Bernard Anderson and John Correia –Afonso, S.J., Very active Research Scholars and
faculty of Fr. Heras’ Indological Research Centre, Bombay.
8. Bongard-Levin., G.M., A very sound Russia Indologist with innumerable publications in
Russian as well as English. A close friend of Professor Dandekar of Poona Research
Studies Group.
9. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar, A very highly respected and followed Indologist and Professor
of Bengali and Indo-European Linguistics in Calcutta University. A thoroughbred, deep
Research Scholar in all matters of Philology and historical Linguistics.
10. Chellappan, Kasi: An erudite Comparativist Literary Scholar, deeply committed to
publications of repute in many spheres of Shakespeare, Indo-Anglian Writings and
translations, besides ELT. A highly rated teacher of par-excellence delivery strategies. A
Globe trotter with numerous colleagues overseas.
11. Chockalingm Pillai V., In the best traditions of Civil Servants of yore, an indefatigable
researcher on matters of Sociology, Anthropolgy, Archaeology and Philology. His
 voluminous work on the Indo-European Races and Peoples stands testimony to his
energetic pursuit of truth. admired by George Bernard Shaw.
12. Cornelius, J. T., An Anthropologist of the Classical School. A versatile contributor to
Tamil Culture.
13. Danino, Michel: A French Research Scholar currently associated with the IIT in Gujarat,
never minces matters in his deep understanding of Indology studies from various angles.
14. Dilip Rojgor, of Ahemadbad, a staunch and devoted Classical Heritage Linguist of sound
knowledge and values.
15. Filliozat, Jean: The Frenchman who pioneered the Ecole-de-Francais in Pondicherry. A
sound Scholar of many languages and literatures of India and the French influences on
Indian soil.
16. Irfan Habeeb: A thorough-going sound Historian of Aligargh Muslim University and a
reputed Teacher cum expert on Indus Civilisation.
17. Jha, N and Rajaram N. S., Scholars who explained in great depth the vedic elements of
The Indus Script, through their methodology and depth of understanding of Classics.
18. Joseph, Tony: A popular investigative Journalist who turned his energies and attention to
migratory Research in anthropolgy. Author of a well-researched popular book “Early
Indians – Who we are and where we came from” (Juggernaut) –shortlisted for The Hindu
Prize Books (2020).
19. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark: An in-depth Researcher and writer on matters of ancient
Indology.
20. Knapp, Stephen: A no-nonsense anthropologist who is reputed for his forthright views on
historiography of India. Can provoke deep insight into his subject.
21. Kothandaraman, R. Former Vice-Chancellor of The University Of Madras, a sound
classicist in matters of Tamil writings, script, grammar and literature. A very highly
respected teacher cum research scholar.
22. Mahadevan, Iravatham: A popular and energetic Civil Servant who turned all his energies
to study, classify and interpret the structure and meaning of the Seals in the Indus Script
Literature. A prestigious Awardee of the Jawaharlal Nehru Fellowship as well as Padma
Shree, Indian National Award. An active Publisher of high quality books, which have
become standard references on the matter of Decipherment.
23. Marie-Francois Boussac & Jean-Francois Salles: two French Anthropolgy cum
Archaeology researchers involved in the analysis of relationship between ancient India and
Europe. Now involved in a huge Project of Research in Bangladesh.
24. Nallur Swami Gnanaprakasar: A sound Scholar of historical insight and an expert in
analytical matters (Tamil Culture). Highly respected as a Scholar cum Priest.
25. Nilakanta Sastry, K. A., A long time Professor and Head of the Department of history in
the age-old university of Madras, with a flair for integrating French – Dutch scholarship in
history.
26. Pandey, Pramod: A sound scholar cum researcher of the Vedic School in Gujarat.
27. Parpola, Asko: An easily rated the best well-informed Research Scholar and leader in
matters of Indus Civilisation. From Helsinki University, he leads and publishes enormously
on World’ Languages and cultures.
28. Patel, Purushotham: A Canada-trained Linguistic Scholar of Vedic School of thought and
possessed with robust, sound scholarship.
29. Pearse, James: A British Civil servant who was responsible for early publications on the
Ashokan Inscriptions all over the Northern India. An active Founder – Secretary of the
Society of Oriental Studies in Calcutta. A long-time editor of the Journal.
30. Possehl, Gregory L., A highly respected values – oriented Research Scholar of I V
Civilisation, especially on matters of Pottery and Culture in Harappan Times.
31. Rajan K., Head and Professor of the Department of History and Archaeology in the
prestigious Central University at Pondicherry. A sound Scholar, a popular Teacher and Field
Guide of Archaeology, a sound Consultant who has authored several Publications and
Textbooks.
32. Rajaraman, P. An erudite and enthusiastic Historian cum administrator, whose love of
English language is remarkable for its grammatical accuracy. An active writer and analyst,
internationally well sought after. An avid researcher and publisher on all themes of
Dravidian Culture.
33. Rao., S. R., A very good Archaeologist cum field worker with a desire for perfection.
34. Richard, Salamon: An authority on Indian Epigraphy from the University of Washington
State.
35. Shinde, Vasant: As a Lead Archaeologist of the Genetic-Analysis of the bones obtained
from Rahigarghi, created a sensational breakthrough through his well-researched article
published in “Cell” (2019).
36. Sreenivasa Iyengar, P. T., Easily recognised as the best authority on matters of the
History of the Tamils vis-a-vis that of the Aryas and Vedic peoples of the Northern India.
His publications from Asia Book House have gone into several editions and revisions, a
high bench mark recognition for his erudition.
37. Subramaniam, Vridhachalem, the editor of this Volume has had his training under great
masters of the Deccan College, Poona and several reputed linguists of the UK in the
University of Edinburgh. A Unesco fellow on Language teaching pedagogy. Author of a
number of research Articles and School textbooks. An active and oft sought after Speaker.
His innovative metalanguage items are significant.
38. Sunder Ganesan, K., Director-in -charge of RMRL Research Library, Taramani, Chennai,
where the INDUS Research Centre remains the focal point of all hisorical research and
publications. An erudite and highly respected leader of an N G O.
39. Thapar Romila, Trained by Professor A. L. Basham she elevated the study and research of
Indian History through inter-disciplinary approach popularly known as “ Historiography.”
A widely honoured and recognised academic who holds several positions including the
Emeritia of History in the prestigious JNU in New Delhi, apart from several Internationally
reputed Universities.
40. Mortimer Wheeler, Sir: An authority on the fieldwork of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa. A
pioneer who opened up Indian History free fom olonial shackles.
41. Winters, Clyde A: A thorughbred Scholar of Indus Valley Scripts and Indus Valley
Civilisation matters from Chicago, whose depth of knowledge of Dravidian Languages is as
astounding as his numerous Publications in Journals.
42. Witzel, Michael: A Senior Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard Uuniversity. A deep scholar
and researcher of repute on several matters relating to the invasion of the ARYAS, the IVC
Script and its possible relationship with Mundas.
43. Xavier S Thani Nayagam: A Jesuit Scholar from Jaffna who made his mark teaching in
the University of Malaysia. Very thoroghgoing Scholar in several European and Indian
Languages. A reputed Editor of The Journal of Tamil Culuture Studies for several decades.
Organizer of the first of the I A T R Tamil Conference which has withstood ravages of
time. The X –IATR Conference held in Chicago (during July, 2019) had several references
to his foresight and Organisational Culture.
44. Zevelebil Keith, Kamil: A very sound and well-known Indologist from theUniversity of
Prague who by sheer devotion and dedication popularised studies ofTamil and other
Dravidian Languages, their Literatures and Culture in many of the Universities of Europe,
besides Parague, former Chekozslovokia.
1. Rise and Fall of the Indus Valley Civilisation (VC3 Productions).
2. In Search Of Meluhua: The Story of Mohenjodaro (Blackcrow productions): 2016.
3. Keezhadi: Archeaology: DINAMALAR
4. Madurai Researchers: Archeaology: Kiizhadi
5. Similarities Between Indus Valley Civilisation and Kiizhadi in Tamil Nadu Script Time
Travel: Cuneiform Story
6. The Indus Civilisation: The Master of The River: The mysterious India. Net
7. Raghigarhi: Biggest Indus Valley Civilisation site: Historically Urs
8. The Aryan Invasion Theory –Parts I & II: India Inspires
9. Sir Mortimer Wheeler: Blackand White Movie on Mohenjo-Dharo
10. YouTube Videos On Mohenjo-Dharo and Indus Valley Civlisation by IITs in Kharagpur.
Part One: Authors and Contributors
Armoogum Parsuramen Foreword 2 p.13
Asher, Ronald E Foreward 1 p.12
Asher, R E and G E Mossley “An Atlas of World’s Languages” Routledge London p.10-11.
Afonso, John Correia S.J., p. 1286
Anderson, Bernard: p.212, 213.
Anthony (!997) Archaeologist.
Ashokan Edicts p.650-658; Plate xxv in Basham A.L., P.397
R. Balakrishnan, R. 2010. “Tamil Indus?: Korkay, Vanji, Tondi in the North-West and a
‘Boneeating Camel’ in the Can kam text”. Journal of Tamil Studies. 77: 191-206.
Banerjee, R.D., “Prehistoric, Ancient and Hindu India” p.1196
Basham, A.L. “Wonder That was India” p. 139-149.
Brough, John “The Gandhaari Dhammapada” London: OUP:1962 PP.55-118.
Brown,“Catalogue Raisonne of the Prehistoric Antiquities” in The Indian Museum of Kolkata
(Calcutta), [ General Editor: Sir John Marshall]. Simla 1917.
Bousrophedon script p.1197, 1198.
Burnell, A.C.”Elements of South Indian Paleography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth
Century A.D.” Second Edition. London: Trubner & Co., 1878 (Online). p.925 - 936
Buhler, George “Indian Paleography” Bombay Education Press, 1904, First Edition in German
Language by Karl J Trubner 1896 (Online) p. 788, 982
Chellappan, K. P.24.
Chockalingam Pillai., “Origin of The Indo- European Races “1935. P.15, p.511
Cho Vridhachalem., p.15-16
Chronicles of Chinese travelers – Hoang – Ti (2500 BCE) p.682.
Dani, A.H., “Indian Paleography” Second Edition New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal 1986;
Indian Edition., 1963 pp.10-11. 928 –932.
David Reich p.9
Edward Thomas;” Ashoka’s Edicts and Inscriptions” (1830-1850) [Online] p.650
Fleet, John Faithful., “Inscriptions of the Early Gupta King and their successors” in ‘Corpus
Instriptimum Indicarum’ Vol.3. & ASI New Delhi 1981.Clarendon Press. Foote., “The Foote
Collection of Indian Prehistoric and Posthistoric Antiquities:Catalogue Raissonne: Madras
Government Museum, Madras 1914 & 1916.
Gupta 1996 “Indus Valley is same as Indus- Saraswati- Civilization”
Gwendonlond, Another name for Le Muria continent. p.16.
Heras, H., Rev. Fr. (1888 – 1955) Magnum opus: “On the Araveedu Dynasty,” Mumbai.
Hultzsch, E., “Inscriptions of Ashoka” at Oxford: At Clarendon Press,Online 1925.
Hultzsch, E., “A Description of Prakrits of Ashokan period (1925) pp.Lvi -cxxxi [Online]
Jaya Menon, p.43.
John McWhorter., “On Indo-European Group of Languages.” p.566. 1998,
Kenoyer and Meadow 1998 & 2000, p.419.
Lal, B B 1997., Publications in the Journal of Archaeological Society of India. 1978.
Langdon, Professor of History: “Acknowledges that signs like IVC have been found in Selima,
in the Libiyan Desert.” [ cf. Marshall, John:’ Mohenjo-Dharo']
Langlois and Seignobos: “Introduction to the Study of History” (London:1925) p. 1194-96.
Le Muria “The Lost Continent” p.27
Mahadevan, Iravatham : “Early Tamil Epigraphy: From the earliest of Times to the Sixth
Century A.D.” Chennai CRE-A (2003) & Cambridge (Massachusetts). Department of Sanskrit
and Indian Studies, Harvard University, 2003.
Mahalingam, T.V.,” Early South Indian Paleography “, University of Madras, 1967
Mackay’s “The Indus Civilisation “ p.110. Also see Mazumdar, B.C., “The Madras Review” July
1922. P.42.
Magadhi (The Official Language of the Chandra Guptha Mauray’s Court in BCE)
(“Ardha Magadhi which means Half – Magadhi became the sacred language of the Jain monks.)
Marshall, Sir John “Mohenjo Dharo “Report on Excavatons, 1921, 1924 & 1931.
Parpola,Asko: The Indus Script 1994 Cambridge University Press: UK.
Princep, James: The Ashokan Brahmi and Other Essays (Online);
London: John Murray (2 Vols.) 1858
Pran Nath “The Scripts on the Indus Valley Seals”
Pran Nath “New lights on the Aryans before 1000 BCE” in “The Illustrated Weekly of India”,
July 7, 1935. Mumbai (Bombay).
Proto- Indo European (See Bopp: 1816) p.44
Professor K. Rajan, Archaeological Expert, p.20.
Professor P. Rajaraman, an authority on Dravidian Languages and The Tamils, p.15.
Rea, “Catalogue of the Pre-historic Antiquities from Athichanallur and Perumbair
(Madras:1915)
Salamon, Richard: ‘South Asian Writing Systems’ in Peter T Daniels & William Bright (Eds.)
“The World’s Writing Systems” New York: O.U.P. 1996 pp. 371-441.
Sircar, Dinesh Chandra (1965) “Indian Epigraphy “, New Delhi: Motilal Benarasidass.
Sivaramamurti,C., “Indian Epigraphy and South Indian Scripts, Bulletin of The Madras
Government Museum. New Series. Volume III, Number 4., Madras Government
Museum,1952.
Srinivasa Iyyangar ”The Stone Age in India” University of Madras: 1926.
Smith, Vincent A: “Ashoka. The Buddhist Emperor of India” Oxford: 1901. [Online]
Sten Konow: “ Kharoshti Inscriptions.Except those of Ashoka” Calcutta:GOI. Central
Publication Branch, 1929. Pp. xcv-ckv [Online].
Witzel, Micheal: Early Aryans Within India. Pp. 43-44
Mitchell Danino:A French Scholar now attached to I I T Gujarat. A profligate Researcher and
Publisher
Part Two
Apabhramsha (= falling away) A ‘vernacular’ of Western India used by Jina Writers in Gujarat
and Rajasthan for the composition of their religious poems.
Ashokan Edicts especially in Sanchi and its decipherment by James Pearce
Braahmi is a Script used normally read from Left to right as in European & Roman Scripts with
the exception of a very defective series in Yerragudi in Andhra State
[ Basham, A.L., P.396 & 397].
“boustrophedonscript “refers to alternating direction when the Writing runs more than one line
continuously
Cuneiform Writings
Chronicles of Chinese travellers especially by Hoang – Ti [2500 B.C.]
Devanagari Script its origin with the ancient Nagas
Dravidian Languages and their Origin and developmental phases
Epigraphy is a study of carved Inscriptions on rocks, stones, pillars, Caves, on metals such as
Copper, Bronze, on Palm leaves and Parchments
‘Era‘is a traditional way of indicating the smallest Unit of Time within a tradition of Time
measurement
Finno -Ugrian Group of Languages Of which Tamil, Finnish and Hungarian belong.
Harappa See Chapter 82.
Harappa Signs Chapters 82 & 83.
Hera’s Works: Reverend Fr. Heras (1888-1955) was a deep researcher in matters of
INDOLOGY. His greatest work: “On the Aravidu Dynasty” is comparable with the Classics of
Tod and Grant Duff.
Holderness, T.W., “People and Problem of India” p.40
Hunter, G.R. favours Dravidian and Baluchi occupation of The Indus Valley prior to the
occupation of Aryans driving away the Dasus calling them aborigines, in his Book,” The Script
of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro and its connections with other Scripts.”
Indo-Aryan Loan Words for “Horse Culture “see Balkan (1954), Mayorhofer (1974). P.44
Indo – Aryans were cattle breeders.
Kharoshti Script (= ‘Ass-lip’) is derived from the Aramic Alphabet, widely used in Persia and
West North India. Normally read from right to left.
Kenoyer (2005) “Regionalization Era begins with Early Harappan Phase (1900 BCE-1300 BCE)
“No signs of racial / Cultural conflict. Major Changes appeared in Burial practices using
Painted Pottery, other ritual objects.”
Lapiz Lazuli refers to a string of beads put together by Copperware heated to an elevated
temperature of 400 degrees Faren height.
Loan Words found in RgVeda and subsequent Literatures are due to the interaction with the plains people of
the B M A Complex. Said Michael Witzel. p.44
Magadhi was the Official Language of the Mauryan Court
Mazumdar, B.C. In The Madras Review July 1922, talked about ‘ Ethey’. p.42
Ardha – Magadhi (= half Magadhi) became the sacred language of the Jainas.
Mohenjo – Dharo (=The Hill of The Dead) a Village in erstwhile Punjab Province was the
unique place of Discovery by the team of Sir Mortimer Wheeler and his Team of
Archaeologists, while digging for laying out a railway line across Punjab Province. His article
published in The Illustrated London News of September 1924 was a Game Changer in many
respects. p.15
Princep, James:As an employee of the Royal Mint in Bengal, took up the hobby of deciphering
the Ashokan inscriptions and traced the Script used as Ashokan Brahmi.
Proto-Indo Eropean Family of Languages, initially proposed by Bopp in 1816. p.44
RgVeda is one of the earliest of four Vedic Texts, dating from 900 BCE (often debated) which
in its earliest format was mostly oral and recited from memory. Much later it was put down in
Early Vedic Sanskrit Language.
Sankalia, H.D. A prominent founder Director of Archaeology in the Deccan College, Poona,
insisted upon, “It is our duty that this legacy of Knowledge which Rev. Fr. Heras left us should
live, as our inscriptions say, ‘ as long as the Sun and the Moon last.’ The Institution he started is
today a Deemed-To-Be- University by the UGC.
Sinhalese is largely spoken in the Western and Southern part of Sri Lanka (Formerly known as
Ceylon); it is an off shoot of Prakritic dialect spoken by early settlers, who were mainly from the
Northern Bihar State during the times of Ashokan Emperor. Highly influenced by the
Buddhistic religious literature and customs of the second century BCE, it marked developments
of the Speech of the Aboriginals and the predominantly labour class of the Tamils, Sinhalese
moved away from Prakrit and became a distinct language. While earlier works were lost,
Sinhalese Literature from the 9th Century remains.
Swahili an African language spoken in Zanzibar p.56
Vats 1940
Winslow was the earliest among the Lexicographers who started a new Dictionary in 1913 in
Jaffna, which later became a Project of the University of Madras p.51
தமி

அக திய - 20 தி வ வ ஓஓஏஐஐஐ
அ யா ந லா - 41, 43, 51 தி ற – 75
அகம - 35 தி சிரா ப ள – 75
ஆல கா உைடயா ேகாவ - 94 தி ெந ேவலி – 75
ஆ யவா த - 35 தி வ தா – 75
ஆ பா க - 71 தி ெசா – 35
ஆதி சநல – 75 ெதா கா ப ய 18, 23, 41
ஆைனமைல – 17 ச வராய – 70
இைன 7 இயம -7 ச – 78
இள ேகா அ க - 6, சில பதிகார – 39,42,44
இைறயனா களவ ய ைர க 41 சி சமெவள – 14
இைட ச க - 41 சீவக சிநதாமண – 24
இர டா இராசாதிஇராச -6 ப பாட – 24
இநதியாவ ன ெபய காரண -1 ப லாவர – 75
இர தின க - 86 ப~ ள யா - 6, 39, 40, 57, 58
இமயமைல - 94 றநா – 51
இய ெசா – 35 த – 53
, இராகவ ய கா - 64 ேகா ைட தாழிக - 41
உக – 13 ேபராசி ய – 41
எேதகட – 16 ம னா – 11
கபாட ரம – 41, 46 மாண கநாய க – 18
கட ேகா - 6, 14, 66 ம ைர - 6, 12
காேவ ப ண 66 வ ெட – 17
ம க ட 3, 14 வடெசா – 35
ம யா - 6, 44 வா மகி ன வ – 77
றிய கர ஊகார க – 19 ேவத – 35
ழ ைதசாமி – 100 வ யாசபாரத – 45
ெகா ைக – 77 ந கீ ர . ந கீ ரனா – 41
தரமள – 22 ந க – 18
ராவ ட – 22 நடராச நடன – 97
நியாய – 35 Girnar Rock edicts 35, 621
நில த தி வ பா ய நலி கைத – Harappan script viii, 658
99 Heritage Circle 1004
ெல யா க ட – 14 Horse issue 1049
ஞானசிவேதவ – 70
Inscriptions Section IV 29, 676
Jaya Menon 43
யா பாண – 21
John McWhorter 566,1998
வ தக – 75 Jha, N and N S Rajaram 670
வ ேலா - 21 Kenoyer and Meadow 419
Kharoshti 682
English Lal B B 1798
Mahadevan, Iravadham 685
Akshara, 666 Mahalingam, T V 680
Allen, Charles 42/628 Marshall, John (Sir) 163, 794
Armoogum Parsuramen xiii Molecular Evidence 431, 676, 1017
Asher, R E xii Nilakanta Sastry 684
Asher, R E and G E Mossley x,xi Magadhi and Ardha Magadhi 672
Ashokan Edicts pp.650-658; Plate xxv in Pali 676
Basham, A.L., p.397 Pande 701
Basham, A L 34,109, 119, 670,676 Panini, 670
Balakrinan R, 1195 Parpola, Asko 164, 793, 1098
Bannerjee R D, 1196 Prakrit 617, 676
Brough, J “The Gandhari Dhammapada” Proto- Indo European 44, 618
55, 118 Professor K. Rajan xix - xx, 20
Boustrophedon script 1197,1198 Professor P. Rajaraman xvii, 15
Burnell, A C 683 Pulli system in Tolkappiyam 685, 686
Buhler, G 788, 982 Rahigarhi xiv, Ch 80, 1159
Chellappan K 24, 178 Rai, “Cell” vii
Chockalingam Pillai 15,511 Rummindei Pillar inscription 617
Cho Vridhachalem 15 16 Scripts in India – A survey 29, 675
Chronicles of Chinese Travellers – Hoang – Salamon, Richard 371-441, 753 – 770, 681
Ti (2500 BCE) 682 Sanchi 640
Conningham, R A E., 1136 Sayakamuni Buddha 50, 676
Clyde Winters, xiv 991,1004 Shinde, Vasant viii
Dani, A H 672 Varma, 674, 676
David Reich viii, 9 Vats 1940
Deshpande, 670 Verma, T R 683
Dravidian Languages 78 Vridhachalem Subramaniam vii, Ch. 82 &
Edward Thomas 650Collection 83
Ethics and Archeogenetics 1051 Winters, Clyde 991,1004
Grantha Script Origin and development
418,676