Indus Script fish, ficus hieroglyph-multiplexes as hypertext metalwork catalogues. An interlude from a polemical excursus.

Indus Script fish, ficus hieroglyph-multiplexes as hypertext metalwork catalogues. An interlude from a polemical excursus. The imperative of decipherment of Indus Script Corpora is not merely to fill out a cross-word puzzle but to understand the roots of Indian civilization, the language the people spoke and the messages documented with extraordinary fidelity in the Corpora. While breaking away from polemical excursus, it is essential to underscore that these documents constitute structured literary evidence of the civilization. Indus Script decipherment is, in effect, an imperative for scholars engaged in civilization studies, an essential contribution to the Itihāsa of Bhāratam Janam, an expression used by Rishi Visvamitra in Rigveda (RV 3.53.12). It is unfortunate that the scholarly contributions have tended to become faith-based polemical exercises. Witzel's claim was that Indus Script was not based on language and that Harappans were illiterate. To the best of my knowledge, no arguments have been advanced by Witzel to justify his incidental remark (obiter dictum) in response to the following reasoned critiques which rebut the 'illiteracy' arument and claim that Indus Script is a proto-writing system. Instead, only a polemical exchange with postings occurred in 2011 on an e-group (see "Appendix on Indus Script polemics " for the thread of postings). Asko Parpola's point-by-point rebuttal of Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel: o Parpola A (2008) Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system? in Airavati: Felicitation volume in honor of Iravatham Mahadevan(Varalaaru.com publishers, Chennai, India) pp. 111-131.http://www.harappa.com/script/induswriting.pdf http://www.harappa.com/script/indus-writing.pdf Massimo Vidale's "The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel": o http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=9163376 Iravatham Mahadevan's "The Indus non-script is a non-issue": o http://www.hindu.com/mag/2009/05/03/stories/2009050350010100.htm I suggest that Indus Script was a writing system based on Proto-Prakritam (called Meluhha/mleccha) to create Indus Script Corpora of about 7000 inscriptions as catalogus catalogorum of metalwork.

1

That a catalogue is a writing system should be obvious in the context of the story of evolution of writing during the Bronze Age in various cultures. Here are some catalogue entries with hieroglyph-multiplexes as hypertexts.

aya 'fish' Rebus: aya, ayas 'iron, metal' aya dhAL, 'fish+slanted stroke' Rebus: aya DhALako 'iron/metal ingot' aya aDaren,'fish+superscript lid' Rebus: aya aduru 'iron/metal native unsmelted metal' aya khANDa, 'fish+notch' Rebus: aya khaNDa 'iron/metal implements' aya kolom 'fish+ numeral 3' Rebus:aya kolimi 'iron/metal smithy/forge' aya baTa 'fish+numeral 6' Rebus: aya bhaTa 'iron/metal furnace' aya gaNDa kolom'fish+numeral4+numeral3' Rebus: aya khaNDa kolimi 'metal/iron implements smithy/forge' aya dula 'fish+two' Rebus: aya dul 'metal/iron cast metal or metalcasting' aya tridhAtu 'fish+three strands of rope' Rebus: aya kolom dhatu 'metal/iron , three mineral ores' dula tridhAtu 'two+three strands of rope' Rebus: dul kolom dhatu 'cast metal of three mineral ores'

Ayo ‘fish’; kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ See: [ ayaskānta ] m S (The iron gem.) The loadstone. (Molesworth. Marathi) Fish + circumgraph of 4 (gaNDa) notches: ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) The gloss kāṇḍa may also signify 'metal implements'. A cognate compound in Santali has: me~r.he~t khaNDa 'iron implements'.

2

Mohenjo-daro Seals m1118 and Kalibangan 032, glyphs used are: Zebu (bos taurus indicus), fish, four-strokes (allograph: arrow).ayo ‘fish’ (Mu.) + kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.) ayaskāṇḍa ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ (Pāṇ.gaṇ) aya = iron (G.); ayah, ayas = metal (Skt.) gaṆḌa, ‘four’ (Santali); Rebus: kaṇḍ ‘fire-altar’, ‘furnace’), arrow read rebus in mleccha (Meluhhan) as a reference to a guild of artisans working with ayaskāṇḍa ‘excellent quantity of iron’ (Pāṇini) is consistent with the primacy of economic activities which resulted in the invention of a writing system, now referred to as Indus Writing. poLa 'zebu' Rebus: poLa 'magnetite'.

Harappa seal (H-73)[Note: the hieroglyph ‘water carrier’ pictorial of Ur Seal Impression becomes a hieroglyph sign] Hieroglyph: fish + notch: aya 'fish' + khāṇḍā m A jag, notch Rebus: aya 'metal'+ khāṇḍā ‘tools, pots and pans, metal-ware’. kuṭi 'water-carrier' Rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter'. (p. 216) [khōṇḍa] m A young bull, a bullcalf; [ khōṇḍā ] m A of which one end is formed into a cowl or hood. [ khōṇḍarūṃ ] n A contemptuous form of in the sense of cowl (Marathi); kōḍe dūḍa bull calf (Telugu); kōṛe 'young bullock' (Konda) rebus: kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’ (Bengali) [The characteristic pannier which is ligatured to the young bull pictorial hieroglyph is a synonym 'cowl' or 'pannier'). [ khōṇḍī ] f An outspread shovelform sack (as formed temporarily out of a , to hold or fend off grain, chaff &c.) ] (p. 216) [ khōṇḍa ] m A young bull, a bullcalf.(Marathi) [ khōṇḍarūṃ ] n A contemptuous 3

form of in the sense of -cowl. [ khōṇḍā ] m A of which one end is formed into a cowl or hood. [ khōṇḍī ] f An outspread shovelform sack (as formed temporarily out of a , to hold or fend off grain, chaff &c.) Hieroglyph: kōḍ 'horn' Rebus: kōḍ 'place where artisans work, workshop' , kundana, kōndana ] n act of turning (a thing) on a lathe; act of carving (Bengali) (p. 154) [ kātārī or kāntārī ] m ( ) A turner.(Marathi)

[ or

[ khōdakāma ] n Sculpture; carved work or work for the carver. [ khōdagirī ] f Sculpture, carving, engraving: also sculptured or carved work. [ khōdaṇēṃ ] v c & i ( H) To dig. 2 To engrave [ khōdīṃva ] p of Dug. 2 Engraved, carved, sculptured. http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/04/excavations-at-dholavifra-19892005-rs.html The intimations of a metals turner as a scribe are also gleaned from the gloss: or [ khōḍākhōḍa or ḍī ] f ( ) Erasing, altering, interlining &c. in numerous places: also the scratched, scrawled, and disfigured state of the paper so operated upon; [ khōḍīṃva ] p of v c Erased or crossed out.Marathi). [ khōḍapatra ] n Commonly . [ khōṭapatra ] n In law or in caste-adjudication. A written acknowledgment taken from an offender of his falseness or guilt: also, in disputations, from the person confuted. (Marathi) Thus, khond 'turner' is also an engraver, scribe. Rebus:

That a metals turner is engaged in metal alloying is evident from the gloss: [ khōṭa ] f A mass of metal (unwrought or of old metal melted down); an ingot or wedge. Hence 2 A lump or solid bit (as of phlegm, gore, curds, inspissated milk); any concretion or clot. Composed or made of , as .

4

After Korvink aya 'fish' Rebus: aya, ayas 'iron, metal'

5

With curved horns, the ’anthropomorph’ is a ligature of a mountain goat or markhor (makara) and a fish incised between the horns. Typical find of Gangetic Copper Hoards. At Sheorajpur, three anthropomorphs in metal were found. (Sheorajpur, Dt. Kanpur. Three anthropomorphic figures of copper. AI, 7, 1951, pp. 20, 29). One anthropomorph had fish hieroglyph incised on the chest of the copper object, Sheorajpur, upper Ganges valley, ca. 2nd millennium BCE, 4 kg; 47.7 X 39 X 2.1 cm. State Museum, Lucknow (O.37) Typical find of Gangetic Copper Hoards. miṇḍāl markhor (Tor.wali) meḍho a ram, a sheep (G.)(CDIAL 10120) Rebus: meḍh ‘helper of merchant’ (Gujarati) meḍ iron (Ho.) meṛed-bica = iron stone ore, in contrast to bali-bica, iron sand ore (Munda) ayo ‘fish’ Rebus: ayo, ayas ‘metal. Thus, together read rebus: ayo meḍh ‘iron stone ore, metal merchant.’

Seal. Harappa. Text: aya khaNDa kolimi 'metal/iron implements smithy/forge'

6

Pictorial motifs or hieroglyph-multiplexes: sangaDa 'lathe, portable furnace' Rebus: sangar 'fortification' sanghAta 'adamantine glue' (Varahamihira) samghAta 'collection of articles (i.e. cargo)' PLUS khōṇḍa m A young bull, a bullcalf (Marathi) kōḍe dūḍa bull calf (Telugu); kōṛe 'young bullock' (Konda)Rebus: kõdā 'to turn in a lathe' (Bengali)

Seal. Harappa. Text: aya bhaTa 'iron/metal furnace' kaNDa 'arrow' Rebus: khaNDa 'metal implements' kuTi 'curve' Rebus: kuTila 'bronze' kanac 'corner' Rebus: kancu 'bronze' Pictorial motif or hieroglyph-multiplex: sangaDa 'lathe, portable furnace' Rebus: sangar 'fortification' sanghAta 'adamantine glue' (Varahamihira) samghAta 'collection of articles (i.e. cargo)'

Seal. kuTi 'curve' Rebus: kuTila 'bronze' (8 parts copper, 2 parts tin) dATu 'cross' Rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore' aya dul 'metal/iron cast metal or metalcasting' aya aduru 'iron/metal native unsmelted metal' muh ‘ingot’ (Santali) PLUS (infixed) kolom 'sprout, rice plant' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' Thus, ingot smithy kuTi 'curve' Rebus: kuTila 'bronze' ranku 'liquid measure' Rebus: ranku 'tin' (Santali) kolom 'rice-plant, sprout' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge' (Alternative: kuTi 'tree' Rebus: kuThi 'smelter')

7

kaṇḍa kanka ‘rim of jar’ Rebus: karṇīka ‘account (scribe)’karṇī‘supercargo’. kaṇḍa ‘fire-altar’.

loa 'ficus' +kolom 'three' Rebus: loh kolimi 'copper smithy/forge' A painted goblet. Ficus leaves. Nausharo ID. c. 2600-2550 BCE (After Samzun. Anaick, 1992, Observations on the characteristisc of the Pre-Harappan remains, pottery, and artifacts at Nausharo, Pakistan (2700-2500 BCE), pp. 245-252 in: Catherine Jarrige ed. South Asian Archaeology 1989 (Monographs in World Archaeology 14, Madison, Wisconsin, Prehistory Press: 250, fig. 29.4 no.2)

8

Inscribed pots. Mundigak IV, 1 (eastern Afghanistan), after Casal 1961: II, fig. 64, nos. 167, 169, 172. Courtesy: Delegation archeologique francaise en Afghanistan. Ficus leaves.

h598 Harappa seal. Harappa excavation no. 13751. Harappa museum. Courtesy: Dept. of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan -[p= 908,3] m. a worker in iron , smith , blacksmith R. Hit. Hieroglyph component: loa 'ficus glomerata' Rebus: loha 'copper, iron' Hieroglyph component: kāru pincers, tongs. Rebus: khār । 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) rimless pot: baTa 'rimless pot' Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace' tri-dhAtu, three minerals: tridhAtu 'three strands of rope' Rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore' (three ores) oval ingot: DhALako 'large ingot'

9

kamaṭh a crab (Skt.) kamāṭhiyo=archer;kāmaṭhum =a bow; kāmaḍī ,kāmaḍum=a chip of bamboo (G.) kāmaṭhiyo bowman; an archer(Skt.lex.) kamaṛkom= fig leaf (Santali.lex.)kamarmaṛā(Has.), kamaṛkom(Nag.); the petiole or stalk of a leaf (Mundari.lex.)kamaṭha= fig leaf, religiosa(Skt.) dula‘tw' Rebus: dul 'cast metal ’Thus, cast loh ‘copper casting’ infurnace:baṭa= wide-mouthed pot; baṭa= kiln (Te.) kammaṭa=portable furnace(Te.) kampaṭṭam 'coiner,mint' (Tamil) kammaṭa (Malayalam)

The hieroglyph-multiplex (Sign 124 Parpola conconcordance), thus orthographically signifies two ficus leaves ligatured to the top edge of a wide rimless pot and a pincers/tongs hieroglyph is inscripted. In this hieroglyph-multiplex three hieroglyph components are signified: 1. rimless pot, 2. two ficus leaves, 3. pincers. baTa 'rimless pot' Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace'; loa 'ficus' Rebus: loha 'copper, iron'; kAru 'pincers' Rebus: khAra 'blacksmith'

Mohenjo-daro. Copper plate. obverse. Excavation no. E 214-215. Courtesy. ASI. Purana Qila, New Delhi. large mineral ingots from smithy/forge-furnace rimless pot: baTa 'rimless pot' Rebus: bhaTa 'furnace' tri-dhAtu, three minerals: tridhAtu 'three strands of rope' Rebus: dhatu 'mineral ore' (three ores) kolmo 'three' Rebus: kolimi 'smithy, forge'.

Mohenjodaro. Tablet. Crocodile + fish DK 8037. E 2500 Purana Qila, New Delhi. ASI.

10

Mohenjodaro. Tablet.

Mohenjodaro. Tablet. Crocodile + fish. ASI. National Museum, New Delhi. Hieroglyph-multiplex: aya 'fish' + kara 'crocodile' Rebus: ayakara 'metalsmith'

Potsherd. Amri. Fish. Stars.

aya 'fish' Rebus: aya, ayas 'iron, metal' PLUS meḍha 'polar star' (Marathi). meḍ 'iron' (Ho.Mu.)

11

Cylinder seal. Water flowing from the shoulder. Stars.

Santali glosses. Lexis. meḍha 'polar star' (Marathi). meḍ 'iron' (Ho.Mu.) lo 'pot to overflow' kāṇḍa 'water'. Rebus: lokhaṇḍ Thus, meḍ or me~r.he~t khaNDa 'iron metal implements'. (See the Santali gloss with semantics: iron implements).

Inscribed pot. Fish. Nal. South Baluchistan.

aya 'fish' Rebus: aya, ayas 'iron, metal'

12

m 305 Seal. Mohenjo-daro. Fish + scales, aya s (amśu) ‘metallic stalks of stone ore’. Vikalpa: badhoṛ ‘a species of fish with many bones’ (Santali) Rebus: baḍhoe ‘a carpenter, worker in wood’; badhoria ‘expert in working in wood’(Santali) gaNDa 'four' Rebus: khaNDa 'metal implements' Together with cognate ancu 'iron' the message is: native metal implements. aya 'fish' Rebus: aya, ayas 'iron, metal' Pictorial hieroglyph-multiplex: kuThi 'twig' Rebus: kuThi 'smelter' thattAr 'buffalo horn' Rebus: taTThAr 'brass worker' meḍha 'polar star' (Marathi). meḍ 'iron' (Ho.Mu.) karA~ 'arms with bracelets' Rebus: khAr 'blacksmith' (Kashmiri) Thus, blacksmith working with iron smelter and metal implements of native metal. S. Kalyanaraman, Sarasvati Research Center, August 26, 2015 Other examples of hieroglyph-multiplexes deciphered:

Cylinder seal. Ancient Near East.

13

Triangula tablet. Horned seated person. crocodile. Split ellipse (parenthesis)

Cylinder seal. Akkadian.

Seal. Mohenjo-daro

Seal. Mohenjo-daro

14

Copper tablet. Mohenjo-daro

Seal. Harappa.

m478A, m479 Mohenjo-daro seal.

15

After Fig. 2. Asko Parpola. http://www.harappa.com/script/indus-writing.pdf Texts of inscriptions from different sites, demonstrating ordering sequence of 'signs' (Parpola, Asko, 2008, Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system? in: AirAvati, Felicitation volume in honour of Iravatham Mahadevan, Chennai, Varalaru, pp.111-131

Appendix on Indus Script decipherment polemics Those interested can follow the thread (URL cited): The Indus script as proto-writing Asko Parpola (July 14, 2011) It is widely agreed that the Archaic Sumerian script or "Proto-Cuneiform" is the world's oldest writing system, used in the Late Uruk Period (Uruk strata IV and III, c. 3400-3000 BCE). It was used as an administrative tool to record on clay tablets such matters as grain distribution, land, animal and personnel management, and the processing of fruits and cereals. "The script can be 16

'understood' in some sense, but it cannot be fully read; although there has been some doubt concerning the language that was the basis for this written expression, there is clear evidence that it was Sumerian" (Michalowski 1996: 33). Archaic Sumerian was logosyllabic writing because its signs stood for elements of a spoken language, words and morphemes, with initially rare phonetization. It was not from the beginning able to record everything: it took many centuries of ever increasing phonetization for this "nuclear writing" to develop into a "full writing" where all grammatical elements were written. Yet it is considered "true writing", because it was a language-based system of visual aigns. The Egyptian Hieroglyphic writing was certainly used in Pre-Dynastic times. The royal tomb U-j at Umm el-Qa'ab near Abydos in Upper Egypt, dated to c 3200 BCE, contained 150 inscribed bone tags originally attached to grave goods recording the places of origin of these goods, as well as pottery inscriptions and sealings. These were excavated in 1988 and published ten years later (Dreyer 1998). This earliest form of Egyptian script was already a well-formed logophonic writing system, which can be partially understood on the basis of later Egyptian writing. "By the early 1st Dynasty, almost all the uniconsonantal signs are attested, as well as the use of classifiers or determinatives, so that the writing system was in essence fully formed even though a very limited range of material was written." (Baines 1999: 882). "Many inscribed artifacts are preserved from the first two Dynasties, the most numerous categories being cylinder seals and sealings, cursive annotations on pottery, and tags originally attached to tomb equipment, especially of the 1st Dynasty kings. Continuous language was still not recorded" (Baines 1999: 883). Thus until the beginning of the Old Kingdom starting with the 3rd Dynasty in 2686 BCE — for about 600 years equalling the duration of the Indus Civilization — the Egyptians used a language-based, phoneticized writing system, but did not write full sentences, only very short texts fully comparable to the surviving texts in the Indus script. Early administrative documents are assumed to have existed but have not survived (cf. Baines 1999: 884). When defining the Indus script as logosyllabic, I noted several constraints to be observed in its analysis: "the linguistic elements that are expected to correspond to the signs are morphemes rather than phonemes. Secondly, all of the morphemes pronounced in the spoken Indus language may not, and are not even likely to, have a counterpart in its written form. In the third place, all preserved Indus inscriptions are very short, appearing on objects like seals, which are not so likely to contain even normal sentences, with such basic constituents as a verbal predicate or an object, let alone complex sentences." (Parpola 1994: 89). This was before Damerow (1999) suggested the term 'proto-writing' for the earliest, linguistically incomplete notations (cf. Houston ed. 2004: 11); on these earliest writing systems see especially Houston ed. 2004. In my opinion Farmer, Sproat and Witzel (2004: 19 and 33) err when they suggest that "the Indus system cannot be categorized as 'script' ... capable of systematically encoding speech", and that it "cannot even be comfortably labeled as a 'proto-script', but apparently belonged to a different class of symbols." Their principal arguments, the shortness of Indus texts, their 17

restriction to only a few text types, and the long duration (c 600 years) of this stage of script evolution, are effectively annulled by what is said above about the early Sumerian and Egyptian scripts. For their other arguments I refer to an earlier paper of mine (Parpola 2008). George Hart wrote yesterday (13 July 2011): "None of this proves or disproves that the fish symbol might have been pronounced [in Dravidian] mīṉ. Steve Farmer wrote in reply (13 July 2011): Probably one of the silliest claims ever made about the symbols, with no evidence whatsoever to back it. My reply: there is actually a lot of evidence to back it (see Parpola 1994: 179-272; and new evidence in Parpola 2009). Due to a complete lack of bilinguals, it is very difficult to verify sign interpretations, but not altogether impossible. Perhaps the most important test stone is supplied by the nominal compounds actually existing in languages that are historically likely to be related to the Harappan language: these can be compared to Harappan sign sequences that can be pictorially interpreted and perhaps deciphered with the help of linguistically acceptable homophonies (used in all early scripts for phonetication: the rebus puns). The accumulation of iconically acceptable, systematic and interconnected interpretations can eliminate chance coincidences in a process comparable to filling cross-word puzzles. References: Baines, John, 1999. Writing: invention and early development. Pp.882-885 in: Kathryn A. Bard (ed.), Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt. London and New York: Routledge. Dreyer, Günter, 1998. Umm el-Qaab I: Das prädynastische Königsgrab U-j und seine frühen Schriftzeugnisse. (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 86.) Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Farmer, Steve, Richard Sproat and Michael Witzel, 2004. The collapse of the Indus-scrpt thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilization: Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11 (2): 19-57. Houston, Stephen (ed.), 2004. The first writing: Script invention as history and process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michalowski, Piotr, 1996. Mesopotamian cuneiform: Origins. Pp. 33-36 in: Peter T. Danies & William Bright (eds.), The world's writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press. Parpola, Asko, 1994. Deciphering the Indus script. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parpola, Asko, 2008. Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system? (Pp. 111-131 in: Airavati: Felicitation volume in honour of Iravatham Mahadevan, Chennai: Varalaaru.com. Downloadable from www.harappa.com Parpola, Asko, 2009. 'Hind leg' + 'fish': Towards further understanding of the Indus script. Scripta 1: 37-76. (Downloadable at www.harappa.com) http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2011-July/035749.html 18