History Forum / General / General Topics / May 2007

Sarasvati hieroglyphs as a writing system

Forwarded message from S. Kalayanaraman

Sarasvati hieroglyphs as a writing system

'Indus Script' -- two words are the received wisdom. Both
words are inappropriate.

Cumulative archaeological evidence has shown that about 80%
of the sites of the civilization are on banks of River
Sarasvati. A more appropriate word may be "Sarasvati" to
replace the word 'Indus'. Reference to 'script' assumes
that it is a representation of phonetics, morphology and
other grammatical features of spoken language(s). The
brevity of the inscriptions about 5 to 6 glyphs on an
average (depending upon which corpus one looks at and
distinction of glyphs, between 'sign' category and
'pictorial' category) points to the impossibility of the
'script' having been alphabetic or even syllabic,
particularly because there are hundreds of inscriptions
which do not have any 'signs' of the script at all, but
only pictorial motifs or field symbols. A more appropriate
word may be 'writing system' to replace the word 'script'.
A more appropriate title for the corpuses of Mahadevan,
Parpola and Hunter can be: Sarasvati writing system.

The moment an assumption is made that 'script' by
definition has to be alphabetic or syllabic, any
decipherment effort collapses ab initio, unable to explain
the 'meanings' or 'metaphors' conveyed by pictorial motifs
or field symbols. Even the pundits who cry hoarse about
'harappan illiterates' have failed to explain what the
glyphs 'meant'. If someone from Mars were to arrive at say,
San Francisco international airport, he will think that the
anti-hindu hate groups talking about 'illiteracy' should
themselves be illiterates using forked-stick variants (with
or without skirts) on toilet entrances to differentiate
between men's and women's toilets.

One way that any decipherment is validated is by the use of
some type of multi-lingual inscriptions or the equivalent
of 'rosetta stone' which enabled Champollion to crack the
code of Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Another fallacy introduced by critiques and decipherers
alike is that there should be some type of 'universal'
design imperative for a writing system. Just because a
writing system, of say, Egyptian hieroglyphs, left long
inscriptions (say, more than 5 or 6 glyphs). The world has
seen many writing systems not excluding Kharoshthi or
Brahmi or Coptic or Siddhamatrka, and not all of them are
alike.

Bharatiya tradition provides a clear enunciation of a
'writing system'. In Vatsyayana's Vidyasamuddes'a s'loka,
three categories (out of 64) arts are prescribed as
required knowledge for youth: des'a bhaashaa jnaana;
akshara mushthika kathanam; mlecchita vikalpa. In this
triad, mlecchita vikalpa refers to cryptography or writing
system on 'coppered' media. [mleccha-mukha 'copper' (Skt.);
milakkhu 'copper' (Pali)]. Thus, a writing system is a
crypt using glyphs. This generic definition can be applied
to all later-day writing systems, too.

Some hindu-hate groups are reveling making serial attempts
at a propaganda that the creators of inscriptions of
Sarasvati civilization were 'illiterate'. This propaganda
gimmick is again related to the definition of 'illiteracy'
assuming that literacy is measured only by an alphabetic or
syllabic writing system for a long string (longer than,
say, five or six alphabets, syllables or words, as the case
may be).

The moment we look at the inscriptions organized in a
corpus like that of Iravatham Mahadevan, one will be struck
by the fact that repetitive use of some glyphs (including
signs and pictorial motifs) may point to some commonly
understood idiom sought to be conveyed by the inscriptions.
There is also evidence that the inscriptions were stamped
on packages traded across the Persian Gulf and along
theRiver Basins which provided for long-distance
interactions.

The des'a bhaasha jnaana of the Sarasvati civilization area
is such that it was a linguistic area (that is, an area
where many language speakers interacted and absorbed
language features from one another and made them their
own).

How to validate any decipherment? Are there 'rosetta
stones' available?

My submission is that there are 'rosetta stones' within the
corpus of inscriptions and inscribed objects. Let me cite a
few.

  1. Two tin ingots with glyphs found at Haifa

  2. A cylinder seal which contains many pictorial motifs
including a pictorial of a unique plant, *tabernae
montana*, identified brilliantly by Daniel Potts

  3. A cylinder seal showing a pictorial motif of a
meluhha (mleccha) merchant carrying an antelope (another
pictorial motif) on his arm

  4. Presence of over 200 copper plates with inscriptions
(using both 'signs' and 'pictorial motifs') confirming the
brilliant insight of James Muhly that the advent of
metallurgy and the invention of a writing system could
somehow be related events

  5. Sohgaura copper plate and punch-marked coins from
Takshas'ila to Karur containing a legacy of glyphs from the
Sarasvati writing system

(See image of Sohgaura copper plate at

http://docs.google.com/File?id=ajhwbkz2nkfv_635hp9tjg   )

The brevity of the glyphs (signs and pictorial motifs) is a
continuum in the metallurgical tradition of Bharatam.
Surprise ! An average of 5 or 6 glyphs adorn the early
punch-marked coins. Also, copper plates become the
preferred medium for conveying economic transactions or
messages related to the polity. Given other indicators of
continuity of culture from the days of Sarasvati
civilization and the abiding nature of some of the glyphs
as venerated metaphors (example, svastika, dotted circle,
standard device, zebu, tiger looking back, antelope looking
back), it is not unreasonable to look for the matching of
the writing system with the languages of the civilization
area.

The major problem created by many decipherers has been the
a priori assumption that the glyphs are alphabets or
syllables. Yes, many glyphs are decipherable as commonly
used objects or animals or identifiable phenomena.

For example, tiger, elephant, rhinoceros, alligator,
scorpion, bulls of three types (hifer, zebu, ox), antelope,
ram, man on tree-branch, lady holding back two rearing
tigers, circle with spokes, svastika, rim of short-necked
jar, rimless wide-mouthed pot, fish, fish with fins).

There could be disagreements on what particular object was
denoted by a particular 'sign'; but there could be little
disagreement on the nature of or types of animals depicted.

One way to approach the decipherment problem is to take off
from the definition of mlecchita vikalpa provided by
Vatsyayana. If it was indeed an alternative representation
of commonly spoken terms related to objects, animals or
phenomena, a search for homonyms of the words related to
these categories may yield, read rebus, the 'meaning' of
hieroglyphs. For example, every decipherer or critique who
claims illiteracy as a cop-out has to explain why for
example, a tiger or an antelope is shown with its head
turned backwards, why a person is shown hiding on a tree
branch, why an elephant and a tiger flank a svastika glyph.

The problem melts away as soon as the list of homonyms is
presented based on the languages of the civilization area.
Rim of a jar is 'khan.d. kanka' (Santali); rebus: kan-
'copper'; khan.d. 'furnace'. Tiger looking back is: kol
krammara (Munda); rebus: kol 'smithy'; karmaara 'smith'.
Why tabernae montana? Tagaraka is 'fragrant jasmine, hair
fragrance' (Skt.); tagara 'tin' (Tamil). Why a duck shown
in a circle? There are two sets of homonyms related to
'duck':

http://docs.google.com/File?id=ajhwbkz2nkfv_633cxm3nw  

(Image of seal with sign 62)

http://docs.google.com/File?id=ajhwbkz2nkfv_634hkhg96  

(Sign 62)

Sign 62 (Mahadevan)

Set 1: Te.Ka.lex. kor.o 'duck' Mu. kod. workshop'

Set 2: Mundari.lex. vartaka =a duck (Skt. batak =a duck;
vat.t.aka_ quail (Pali); vat.t.aya (Pkt.); bat.t.ai
(N.)(CDIAL 11361). varta = *circular object; *turning round
(Skt.); vat.u = twist (S.)(CDIAL 11346) bat.er = quail
(Ku.B.); bat.ara, batara = the grey quail (Or.)(CDIAL
11350).

Rebus: bat.a; rebus, bat.a 'iron'; bat.a = quail (Santali)
Rebus: bhat.a = furnace, kiln (Santali). vartaloha a kind
of brass (Skt.); vat.t.alo_ha a partic.

Kind of metal (Pali); valt.o_a_ metal pitcher (L.);
valt.oh, balt.oh (P.); bat.lohi_, bat.loi brass drinking
and cooking vessel (H.); vat.loi(G.)(CDIAL 11357). Bar
stone (Gypsy); bar. Stone ( Seur.Gypsy); bot. Stone (D.);;
wa_t. (Ash.Wg.); wot. (Kt.); bo_t. (Dm.); bat. (Tir.Wot.);
wa_t. (Gmb.); wa_t. stone, millstone (Gaw.); bat stone
(Kal.); bort (Kho.)(CDIAL 11348).

In such mlecchita vikalpa, writing system of smiths, the
duck in circle may have connoted a workshop with a furnace
for smelting bat.a 'iron'.

Hence, the depiction of a duck, batak (Skt.)

In conclusion, Sarasvati hieroglyphs are a writing system.
Each glyph (sign or pictorial motif) is a word. The word
spoken to represent the object, or animal or phenomenon has
a homonymous word (similar sounding word) which conveys the
'meaning' of the inscription. The inscriptions are an
inventory of the smith and smithy's repertoire of minerals,
metals, alloys, types of furnaces used (and perhaps also,
metal artifacts produced from the smithy).

Early metalsmiths and miners were the inventors of the
early writing system of Sarasvati hieroglyphs.

The puerile criticisms, rants and yearning for attention
evidenced by the messages listed in the annex need not
detain us here since the messages come from an anti-hindu
hate group premised on the belief system of Biblical
creationism, tower of babel and the false myth that nothing
of importance could ever have been invented by the heathen
in their blindness.

The simple answer to the well-known brevity of the glyphs
(signs and pictorial motifs) is this: each glyph connoted a
word whose homonym related to the repertoire of a metal-
smithy. In a cultural continuum of Sarasvati civilization
present even today in Bharatam, the glyphs are also present
as abiding metaphors of a cultural legacy exemplified by
the evolution of metallurgy contributed by the vis'vakarma
artisans of the civilization.

My finding is: Sarasvati hieroglyphs are a writing system,
a mlecchita vikalpa remembered by Vatsyayana as
cryptography. It is not a coincidence that Vidura and
Khanaka (yes, khanana, miner) converse with Yudhishthira in
mleccha language in the jaatugriha parvan of Mahabharata
(jaatugriha = palace made of shellac to burn the pandava
alive). This averment is founded on the evidence of
Sarasvati civilization as hindu civilization continuum.

The civilization did NOT die or vanish. One footnote: there
ain't no need for the use of IEL in studying the linguistic
area of Bharatam. Bhashya (study of bhaasha) can proceed
without the use of IEL which is clearly a belief system.

For more see:

http://www.india-forum.com/articles/114/1/  

Bronze-age-trade-and-meluhha-writing-system (Paper
presented in ICAANE, Madrid, April 2006).

http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/

http://kalyan97.googlepages.com/

http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ajhwbkz2nkfv_620hs8zfc

IEL as a belief system

S. Kalyanaraman

7 February 2007

Annex: Harappan illiterates or illiterate researchers?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/6054  

Feb. 6, 2007 The Farmer-Sproat-Witzel Model

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/6030

Last night criticism

http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf

Harappan illiterates

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/6010  

Symposium on pseudo-decipherments

http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf  

Harappan illiterates, again

- For example, on page 21, note 5 (see also below), you'll
find us using your own evidence to falsify your claims that
sign positions supposedly link the inscriptions to the
Dravidian language family; Michael also underlined this
fatal criticism of your work on the List earlier today;

- On page 22, note 6, we deal with your anachronistic
association of Indus signs with Tamil traditions from
thousands of years after the demise of Indus civilization,
which reflects your well-known Dravidian ideological views;

- On page 28, n. 14, we discuss your misapplication of
Mackay's formula as a supposed indicator of linguisticity
(Sproat, incidentally, has recently shown that Mackay's
formula doesn't even work for the languages to which Mackay
claimed it was applicable; more on that on July 11th);

- On page p. 36, and again in Figure 7, we discuss the
unorthodox methods you have used to understate the
anomalous numbers of "singleton" signs in Indus
inscriptions, which aren't easily compatible with any
linguistic model;

- In Figure 12, striking examples are given of the way that
you overstandardize inscriptions, which help makes
mythological symbols look more like "writing"; "What do
highway signs have in common with the 'Dravidian' model?":

http://www.safarmer.com/indus/signs.pdf
http://www.safarmer.com/indus/prize.html

Empty challenge and bogus prize

http://www.safarmer.com/indus/simpleproof.html

The punchline:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/6041  

Feb. 6, 2007 Witzel: Interestingly our (Farmer et al.'s)
paper has not been discussed in print (except for one talk
by A. Parpola in Tokyo in 2005, interesting story!), nor
refuted so far, in spite of our 10k prize.

Rather, my siddhanta about the Indus signs is:"It looks
like a script, it does NOT walk like a script, is isn't a
script!"

On Feb 5, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Mani Manivannan wrote:  

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/02/04/stories/2007020400260500.htm

Mirrored at

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ajhwbkz2nkfv_631dwdgf7&revision=_published

End of forwarded message from S. Kalayanaraman

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/yhjyp5
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

    o  Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
    o  If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
    o  Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.