| Indus Script |
Article Index for Indus |
Website Links For Indus |
Information AboutIndus Script |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT INDUS SCRIPT | |
| undeciphered writing systems | |
| indus valley civilization | |
| linguistic history of india | |
''. The writing above it is inscribed in the mature Indus script.]] The term Indus script (Harappan script) refers to short strings of symbols associated with the Harappan Civilization ( Indus Valley Civilization —most of the Indus sites are distributed in present day Pakistan and North West India ) used between 2600 – 1900 BC . In spite of many attempts at decipherments and claims, it is as yet undeciphered. That the underlying language is unknown and the lack of a Bilingual (a " Rosetta Stone ") makes the decipherments extremely difficult. The script generally refers to that used in the mature Harappan phase, which perhaps evolved from a few signs found in early Harappa after , in the form of a drawing by Alexander Cunningham . Since then, well over 4000 symbol-bearing objects have been discovered, some as far afield as Mesopotamia. After 1900 BC, the systematic use of the symbols ended, after the final stage of the Mature Harappan civilization. Some early scholars, starting with Cunningham in 1877 , thought that the script was the archetype of the Brahmi script used by Ashoka . Cunningham's ideas were supported by G.R. Hunter, Iravatham Mahadevan and a minority of scholars continue to argue for the Indus script as the predecessor of the Brahmic Family . However most scholars disagree, claiming instead that the Brahmi script derived from the Aramaic Script . SCRIPT CHARACTERISTICS The script is written from right to left,(Lal 1966) and sometimes follows a Boustrophedonic style. Since the number of principal signs is about 400-600,(Wells 1999) midway between typical logographic and syllabic scripts, many scholars accept the script to be logo-syllabic(Bryant 2000) (typically syllabic scripts have about 50-100 signs whereas logographic scripts have a very large number of principal signs). Several scholars maintain that structural analysis indicates an Agglutinative language underneath the script. However, this is contradicted by the occurrence of signs supposedly representing suffixes at the beginning or middle of words. ATTEMPTS AT DECIPHERMENT Over the years, numerous Decipherment s have been proposed, but none has been accepted by the scientific community at large. The following factors are usually regarded as the biggest obstacles for a successful decipherment:
Dravidian hypothesis The Russian scholar Yuri V. Knorozov (or Knorosov), who has edited a multi-volumed corpus of the inscriptions, surmises that the symbols represent a Logosyllabic script, with an underlying Dravidian language as the most likely linguistic substrate.(Knorozov 1965) Knorozov is perhaps best known for his decisive contributions towards the decipherment of the Maya Script , a Pre-Columbian writing system of the Mesoamerica n Maya Civilization . Knorozov's investigations were the first to conclusively demonstrate that the Maya script was logosyllabic in character, an interpretation now confirmed in the subsequent decades of Mayanist Epigraphic research. The Finnish scholar Asko Parpola 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) stone Celt adorned with Indus script markings has been considered to be significant for this identification.(Subramanium 2006; see also A Note on the Muruku Sign of the Indus Script in light of the Mayiladuthurai Stone Axe Discovery by I. Mahadevan (2006) Significance of Mayiladuthurai find However, their identification as Indus signs has been disputed. All scholars accept that the Dravidian theory is unproven. Iravatham Mahadevan , who supports the Dravidian hypothesis, says, "we may hopefully find that the proto-Dravidian roots of the Harappan language and South Indian Dravidian languages are similar. This is a hypothesis But I have no illusions that I will decipher the Indus script, nor do I have any regret."[http://www.harappa.com/script/mahadevantext.html#14 Interview at Harrappa.com Script vs. ideographical symbols If the signs are purely , or as a system of symbols not qualifying as a script in the true sense ( Pictogram s). Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel(Farmer 2004) make the case that the symbols were not coupled to oral language, which in part explains the extreme brevity of the inscriptions. This view has been challenged by Parpola.(Parpola 2005) However, Witzel and Farmer later changed their stance and claimed that Para- Munda is the language of Indus script.http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~fsouth/LASAcontents.pdf Subimal Sinharoy notes that "there is abstraction in symbolic depiction, whether it is modern art or an ancient Harappan seal." Thoughts on Tibet Frontline - Dec. 9 - 22, 2000 Decipherment claims The topic is popular among amateur researchers, and there have been various (mutually exclusive) decipherment claims. None of these suggestions has found academic recognition to date. List of decipherment claims:
LATE INDUS SCRIPT dated to 1528 BC based on Thermoluminescence Dating .]] Onshore explorations near , Tamil Nadu {Link without Title} have revealed Indus symbols being used as late as 1100 BC. NOTES REFERENCES
SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|