Editing Indus script (section)

==Theories and attempts at decipherment==
[[File:Longest Indus script inscription (colour).jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|An Indus Valley [[Indian copper plate inscriptions|copper plate]] inscribed with 34 characters, the longest known single Indus script inscription{{sfnp|Shinde|Willis|2014}}]]

{{Further|Harappan language}}

===Decipherability===
The following factors are usually regarded as the biggest obstacles to successful decipherment:

* Inscriptions are very short. The average length of the inscriptions is around five signs,{{sfnp|Mahadevan|1977|p=9}} and the longest only 34 characters long, found on a [[Indian copper plate inscriptions|copper plate]] belonging to the mature Harappan period.{{sfnp|Shinde|Willis|2014}} Inscriptions vary between just one and seven lines, with single lines being the most common.{{sfnp|Possehl|2002|p=132}}
* 67 signs account for 80 percent of the writing that has been identified.<ref>{{cite web | last=Biswas | first=Soutik | title=Indus Valley: A million-dollar challenge to crack the script of early Indians | website=BBC Home | date=2025-01-16 | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c70q44zn18wo | access-date=2025-01-17}}</ref>
* There are doubts whether the Indus script records a written language or is instead a system of non-linguistic signs or [[proto-writing]] similar to [[merchant's mark#Ancient use|merchant's mark]]s and [[house mark]]s, and to the contemporary [[accounting token]]s and [[history of ancient numeral systems#Numerical signs and numerals|numerical]] [[clay tablet]]s of Mesopotamia.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}} Due to the brevity of inscriptions, some researchers have questioned whether Indus symbols can even express a spoken language.{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}}
* The spoken [[Harappan language]] has not been identified, so, assuming the script is a written language, the language the script is most likely to express is unknown.{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}} However, an estimated 300 loanwords in the [[Rigveda]] may provide evidence of [[substratum (linguistics)|substrate]] language(s) which may have been spoken in the region of the [[Indus civilisation]].{{sfnp|Witzel|1999}}{{efn|{{harvp|Witzel|1999}} underlines the prefixing nature of these words and calls them Para-Munda, a language related to but not belonging to [[Proto-Munda]].}}{{sfnp|Kuiper|1991|p={{page needed|date=July 2022}}}}
* No [[digraphia|digraphic]] or [[bilingual inscription|bilingual texts]], like the [[Rosetta Stone]], have been found.{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}}
* No names, such as those of Indus rulers or personages, are known to be attested in surviving historical records or myths, as was the case with rulers like Rameses and Ptolemy, who were known to [[hieroglyph]]ic decipherers from records attested in Greek.{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}}{{efn|[[(..)ibra]], a partial name of a king of [[Meluhha]], a place associated with the Indus Civilisation, is briefly attested in an Akkadian inscription, but no full names are attested.}}

Over the years, numerous decipherments have been proposed, but there is no established scholarly consensus.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}}{{sfnp|Possehl|2002|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=pmAuAsi4ePIC&pg=PA136 136]}} The few points on which there exists scholarly consensus are the right-to-left direction of the majority of the inscriptions,{{sfnp|Mukhopadhyay|2019|p=2}}{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}} numerical nature of certain stroke-like signs,{{sfnp|Mukhopadhyay|2019|p=2}}{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}} functional homogeneity of certain terminal signs,{{sfnp|Mukhopadhyay|2019|p=2}} and some generally adopted techniques of segmenting the inscriptions into initial, medial, and terminal clusters.{{sfnp|Mukhopadhyay|2019|p=2}} Over 100 (mutually exclusive) attempts at decipherment have been published since the 1920s,{{sfnp|Farmer|Sproat|Witzel|2004|pp=19–20}}{{sfnp|Robinson|2015}} and the topic is popular among amateur researchers.{{efn|For example, see [[Egbert Richter-Ushanas|Egbert Richter]] and [[N.&nbsp;S. Rajaram]].}}

In 2025, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister [[M. K. Stalin]] announced a $1 million (USD) prize for deciphering the Indus Valley Script, stating that "Archaeologists, Tamil computer software experts and computer experts across the world have been making efforts to decipher the script but it remains a mystery even after 100 years."<ref>{{cite web |title=Tamil Nadu CM Stalin announces $1 million prize for deciphering Indus Valley script |date=5 January 2025 |publisher=TheHindu.com |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/tamil-nadu-cm-stalin-announces-1-million-prize-for-deciphering-indus-valley-script/article69064187.ece/ |access-date=6 January 2025}}</ref>

===Dravidian language===
[[File:Indus script 311, harp pictogram.jpg|thumb|Indus script single sign]]
[[File:Indus sign 60.png|thumb|upright=0.9|The Indus script 'fish sign', associated with the Dravidian reading {{IAST|mīn}}, has been interpreted as its [[homophone]], meaning "star", per the [[rebus principle]] in the context of some Indus inscriptions{{sfnp|Rao|2011|loc=14:06―15:43}}]]

Although no clear consensus has been established, there are those who argue that the Indus script recorded an early form of the [[Dravidian languages]] ([[Proto-Dravidian language|Proto-Dravidian]]).{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}} Early proponents included the archaeologist [[Henry Heras]], who suggested several readings of signs based on a [[proto-Dravidian]] assumption.{{sfnp|Heras|1953}}

Based on computer analysis,{{sfnp|Parpola|1994}} the Russian scholar [[Yuri Knorozov]] suggested that a Dravidian language is the most likely candidate for the underlying language of the script.{{sfnp|Knorozov|1965}} The Finnish scholar [[Asko Parpola]] led a Finnish team in the 1960s–80s that, like Knorozov's [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] team, worked toward investigating the inscriptions using computer analysis. Parpola similarly concluded that the Indus script and Harappan language "most likely belonged to the Dravidian family".{{sfnp|Bryant|2001|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Y2jfHlinW4UC&pg=PA183 183]}} A comprehensive description of Parpola's work up to 1994 is given in his book ''Deciphering the Indus Script''.{{sfnp|Parpola|1994}} Supporting this work, the archaeologist [[Walter Fairservis]] argued that Indus script text on seals could be read as names, titles, or occupations, and suggested that the animals depicted were [[totem]]s indicating [[kinship]] or possibly [[clan]]s.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}}{{sfnp|Fairservis|1971}}{{sfnp|Fairservis|1992}} The computational linguist [[Rajesh P.&nbsp;N. Rao]], along with a team of colleagues, performed an independent computational analysis and concluded that the Indus script has the structure of a written language, supporting prior evidence for [[syntax|syntactic]] structure in the Indus script, and noting that the Indus script appears to have a similar [[conditional entropy]] to [[Old Tamil]].{{sfnp|Rao|Yadav|Vahia|Joglekar|2009}}{{sfnp|Rao|Yadav|Vahia|Joglekar|2010}}

These scholars have proposed readings of many signs; one such reading was legitimised when the Dravidian [[homophone|homophonous]] words for 'fish' and 'star', {{IAST|mīn}}, were hinted at through drawings of both the things together on Harappan seals.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lo |first=Lawrence |title=Indus Script |website=ancient scripts.com |url=http://www.ancientscripts.com/indus.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191219134556/http://www.ancientscripts.com/indus.html |archive-date=19 December 2019}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=February 2022}} In a 2011 speech, Rajesh P.&nbsp;N. Rao said that [[Iravatham Mahadevan]] and Asko Parpola "have been making some headway on this particular problem", namely deciphering the Indus script, but concluded that their proposed readings, although they make sense, are not yet proof.{{sfnp|Rao|2011}}

[[File:Shiva Pashupati.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Indus script on a stamp seal depicting a buffalo-horned figure surrounded by animals, dubbed the 'Lord of the Beasts' or [[Pashupati seal|'{{IAST|Paśupati}}' seal]] ({{circa|2350–2000 BCE|lk=no}}).{{efn|Mahadevan has compared this seal to sign 7, which resembles a human figure with horns, arguing the comparison supports, among other evidence, a suggested Dravidian phonetic reading of the sign, {{IAST|kaṇṭh(a)}}.{{sfnp|Mahadevan|2008}} Numbering convention for the Indus script by [[Asko Parpola]].}}]]

In his 2014 publication ''Dravidian Proof of the Indus Script via The Rig Veda: A Case Study'', the epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan identified a recurring sequence of four signs which he interpreted as an early Dravidian phrase translated as "Merchant of the City".{{sfnp|Mahadevan|2014}} Commenting on his 2014 publication, he stressed that he had not fully deciphered the Indus script, although he felt his effort had "attained the level of proof" with regard to demonstrating that the Indus script was a Dravidian written language.{{sfnp|The Hindu|2014}}

===Non-Dravidian languages===

====Indo-Aryan language====
Perhaps the most influential proponent of the hypothesis that the Indus script records an early [[Indo-Aryan languages|Indo-Aryan language]] is the Indian archaeologist [[Shikaripura Ranganatha Rao]],{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}} who in his books, ''Lothal and the Indus Civilization'' (1973) and ''The Decipherment of the Indus Script'', wrote that he had deciphered the script. While dismissing most such attempts at decipherment, John E. Mitchiner commented that "a more soundly-based but still greatly subjective and unconvincing attempt to discern an [[Indo-European languages|Indo-European]] basis in the script has been that of Rao".{{sfnp|Mitchiner|1978|p=5}}{{efn|With reference to {{harvp|Rao|1973|loc=chapter 10}}.}} S.&nbsp;R. Rao perceived a number of similarities in shape and form between the late Harappan characters and the Phoenician letters, and argued that the Phoenician script evolved from the Harappan script, and not, as the classical theory suggests from the [[Proto-Sinaitic]] script.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}}{{sfnp|Robinson|2002|p={{page needed|date=August 2022}}}} He compared it to the [[Phoenician alphabet]], and assigned sound values based on this comparison.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}} Reading the script from left to right, as is the case with Brahmi, he concluded that Indus inscriptions included numerals{{efn|Given as ''aeka, dwi, tra, chatus, panta, happta/sapta, dasa, dvadasa, shata'' (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 100)}} and were "[[Vedic Sanskrit|Sanskritic]]".{{sfnp|Sreedharan|2007|p=268–269}} Consistent with this proposed [[Vedic Sanskrit|Sanskritic]] connection, Suzanne Redalia Sullivan has provided a near complete solution and interpretation of the Indus Valley Script.<ref>{{cite news|title=Indus Script Based on Sanskrit Language|author=Jeyakumar Ramasami|date=Feb 21, 2014 |work=sci.news|url=https://www.sci.news/othersciences/linguistics/science-indus-script-sanskrit-language-01777.html|access-date=April 6, 2025}}</ref>

S.&nbsp;R. Rao's interpretation helped to bolster [[Hindutva|Hindu nationalist]] and [[Indigenous Aryanism|Aryan indigenist]] views propagated by writers, such as [[David Frawley]], who hold the conviction that [[Indo-Aryan peoples]] are the original Bronze Age inhabitants of the [[Indian subcontinent]] and that the [[Indo-European language family]] originated in India.{{sfnp|Stiebing|Helft|2018|pp=104–105}} However, there are many problems with this hypothesis, particularly the cultural differences evident between the Indus River Civilisation and [[Indo-European culture]]s, such as the role of horses in the latter; as Parpola put it, "there is no escape from the fact that the horse played a central role in the Vedic and Iranian cultures".{{sfnp|Parpola|1986|p=411}} Additionally, the Indus script appears to lack evidence of [[affix]]es or [[inflection]]al endings,{{sfnp|Possehl|2002|p=136}} which Possehl has argued rules out an Indo-European language such as Sanskrit as the language of the Indus script.{{sfnp|Possehl|2002|p=137}}

====Munda language====
A less popular hypothesis suggests that the Indus script belongs to the [[Munda languages|Munda family of languages]]. This language family is spoken largely in central and eastern India, and is related to some Southeast Asian languages. However, much like the Indo-Aryan language, the reconstructed vocabulary of early Munda does not reflect the Harappan culture,{{sfnp|Fairservis|1992|p=14}} therefore, its candidacy for being the language of the Indus Civilisation is dim.<ref>{{cite web |title=Indus Script |website=ancientscripts.com |url=http://www.ancientscripts.com/indus.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219204914/https://www.ancientscripts.com/indus.html |archive-date=19 December 2016}}</ref>

===Non-linguistic signs===
[[File:Indus script recovered from Khirsara, Indus Valley Civilization.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Indus script tablet recovered from [[Khirasara]], Indus Valley]]
[[File:The 'Ten Indus Scripts' discovered near the northen gateway of the citadel Dholavira.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|A sequence of Indus characters from the northern gate of [[Dholavira]], dubbed the [[Dholavira Signboard]]]]

An opposing hypothesis is that these symbols are nonlinguistic signs which symbolise families, clans, gods, and religious concepts, and are similar to components of [[coat of arms|coats of arms]] or [[totem pole]]s. In a 2004 article, Steve Farmer, [[Richard Sproat]], and [[Michael Witzel]] presented a number of arguments stating that the Indus script is nonlinguistic.{{sfnp|Farmer|Sproat|Witzel|2004}} The main ones are the extreme brevity of the inscriptions, the existence of too many rare signs (which increase over the 700-year period of the Mature Harappan civilisation), and the lack of the random-looking sign repetition that is typical of language.{{sfnp|Lawler|2004}}

[[Asko Parpola]], reviewing the Farmer ''et al.'' thesis in 2005, stated that their arguments "can be easily controverted".{{sfnp|Parpola|2005|p=37}} He cited the presence of a large number of rare signs in Chinese and emphasised there was "little reason for sign repetition in short seal texts written in an early logo-syllabic script". Revisiting the question in a 2008 lecture,{{sfnp|Parpola|2008}} Parpola took on each of the 10 main arguments of Farmer ''et al.'', presenting counterarguments for each.

A 2009 paper{{sfnp|Rao|Yadav|Vahia|Joglekar|2009}} published by [[Rajesh P.&nbsp;N. Rao]], [[Iravatham Mahadevan]], and others in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' also challenged the argument that the Indus script might have been a nonlinguistic symbol system. The paper concluded the [[conditional entropy]] of Indus inscriptions closely matched those of linguistic systems like the Sumerian logo-syllabic system, Rig Vedic Sanskrit etc., but they are careful to stress that by itself does not imply the script is linguistic. A follow-up study presented further evidence in terms of entropies of longer sequences of symbols beyond pairs.{{sfnp|Rao|2010}} However, Sproat argued there existed a number of misunderstandings in Rao ''et al.'', including a lack of discriminative power in their model, and argued that applying their model to known non-linguistic systems such as Mesopotamian deity symbols produced similar results to the Indus script. Rao ''et al.''{{'s}} argument against Sproat's arguments and Sproat's reply were published in ''[[Computational Linguistics (journal)|Computational Linguistics]]'' in December 2010.<ref>[http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/coli/36/4 Computational Linguistics], Volume 36, Issue 4, December 2010.</ref>{{sfnp|Rao|Yadav|Vahia|Joglekar|2010}} The June 2014 issue of [[Language (journal)|''Language'']] carries a paper by Sproat that provides further evidence that the methodology of Rao ''et al.'' is flawed.{{sfnp|Sproat|2014}} Rao ''et al.''{{'s}} rebuttal of Sproat's 2014 article and Sproat's response are published in the December 2015 issue of ''Language''.{{sfnp|Rao|Yadav|Vahia|Jonathan|2015}}{{sfnp|Sproat|2015}}