Executive summary

As Sigmund Freud noted, the dream is a rebus. 

A rebus is an allusional device that uses pictures to represent words or parts of words.

So, too a Meluhha hieroglyph is a rebus, a writing system on Tin Road of Bronze Age extending from Ashur on Tigris river to Kanesh (Kultepe, Anatolia). 

It is a travesty of scholarship to call such a rebus writing system as 'illiterate' or 'proto-literate' because the rebus method is made up at least two vocables: one vocable denoting the picture and the other similar sounding vocable denoting the solution to the puzzle that is, the cipher.

Works of art with picture-puzzles make Meluhha, a Visible language. Rebus, a code of literacy, yields meanings of Meluhha hieroglyphs. Such a cipher is attested by Vātsyāyana (ca. 6th century BCE work) as mlecchita vikalpa (that is, alternative rendering of Meluhha/Mleccha speech or vocables -- and listed as one of the 64 arts to be learnt by youth as vidyāsamuddeśa, 'chief branches of knowledge').  

Vocable is a sememe or a word that is capable of being spoken and recognized meaningfully.

A vivid representation of the rebus principle of literacy is provided by Narmer Palette. (Egyptian hieroglyphs: N'r 'cuttle-fish' + m'r 'awl' Rebus: Nar-mer, name of king.)

A dream is a rebus. History of Civilizations of ancient times has a record of two remarkable dreams: the first is the dream in the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta and the second is the dream of Māyā, mother of Gautama Buddha. 

There are thousands of picture-puzzles which occur on cylinder seals of Ancient Near East which are explained on many Museum catalogs as banquet scenes or animal hunts or war scenes. Many of these picture-puzzles are indeed rebus or comparable to the interpretation of dreams and attempts have not been made to identify the possible language groups who might have deployed such picture-puzzles, principally during the Bronze Age.

Rebus signifiers and the signified relate to innovations of the Bronze Age such as: bronze/brass alloys to substitute for arsenical copper, casting methods (such as cire perdue casting), alloying ores such as tin, zinc, lead and exchanges along the Tin Road set up by Meluhha artisans/traders also called Assur as metal smelters par excellence.

It will be a leap of faith to assume that the picture-puzzles are nonsensical or belong to pro-literate cultures because a contemporary observer is unable to decipher the cipher.

While early tokens and bullae (token envelopes) were recognized as ancient accounting methods and categorisation of products, the Proto-Elamite script  yet remains undeciphered.

Robert K. Englund provides a succinct state of the art report on Proto-Elamite: "(Tokens) These clay objects consist on the one hand of simple geometrical forms, for instance cones, spheres, etc. and on the other, of complex shapes or of simpler, but incised, forms. Simple, geometrically formed tokens were found encased within clay balls (usually called 'bullae') dating to the period immediately preceding that characterized by the development of the earliest proto-cuneiform texts; these tokens most certainly assumed numerical functions in emerging urban centers of the late fourth millennium BCE...a strong argument from silence can be made that Sumerian is not present in the earliest literate communities, particularly given the large numbers of sign sequences which, with high likelihood, represent personal names and thus should be amenable to grammatical and lexical analyses comparable to those made of later Sumerian onomastics...large numbers of inscribed tablets...which for purposes of graphotactical analysis and context-related semantic categorization of signs and sign combinations represents a text massof high promise...we can utilize language decipherments from texts of later periods in working hypotheses dealing with the linguistic affiliation of archaic scribes...There may, however, have been much more population movement in the area than we imagine, including early Hurrian elements and, if Whittaker, Ivanov, and others are correct, even Indo-Europeans. Fn 44. Rubio (1999: 1-16 has reviewed recent publications, and the pioneering initial work by Landsberger on possible substrate lexemes in Sumerian, and concludes that the fairly extensive list of non-Sumerian words attested in Sumerian texts did not represent a single early Mesopotamian language, but rather reflected a long history of Wanderworter from a myriad of languages, possibly including some loans from Indo-European, and many from early 

Semitic."

Major sites of Late Uruk and proto-Elamite inscriptions in Persia

Examples of simple (left) and complex (right) 'tokens' from Uruk (digital images courtesy of CDLI).

Examples of sealed (top), sealed and impressed (middle) bullae, and a 'numerical' tablet (all from Susa--top: Sb 1932; middle: Sb 1940; bottom: Sb 2313; digital images courtesy of CDLI).

Development of cuneiform, after Schmandt-Besserat (1992).

At the same site of Susa a pot was discovered unambiguously defining the meaning of the hieroglyph which adorned the mouth of the pot since the pot contained metal artifacts (reported by Maurizio Tosi):

The 'fish' hieroglyph shown on this pot is a Meluhha hieroglyph ayo 'fish' (Munda) Rebus ayo 'alloy metal' (Gujarati; ayas, Sanskrit).

In this evolutionary scheme of 'writing systems' shown on the chart after Schmandt-Besserat-- call them proto-literate or illiterate -- depending upon the definitions assumed for the term 'literate' -- a parallel development ca 3500 BCE is left out: the formation and evolution of Meluhha hieroglyphs (aka Indus writing). The date of ca 3500 BCE is related to the first evidence of writing identified in Harappa excavations by HARP with the following potsherd with a dominant hieroglyph, signifying tabernae montana fragrant wild tulip read rebus:tagaraka (hieroglyph) rebus: tagara 'tin (ore)' in Meluhha (Indian sprachbund or proto-Indian).

Bronze Age innovations created by Wanderworter --seafaring and land caravans of Meluhha artisans and merchants speaking a version of Proto-Indian --result in the messaging system using hieroglyphs of Meluhha read rebus.

Forcefully refuting claims (characterised as a hoax) of 'illiteracy', Massimo Vidale argues that it is a cop-out to avoid researches into meanings of picture-puzzles by assuming that 'signs' as distinct from 'pictorial motifs' have to be either alphabets or syllables resulting in inscriptions longer than 5 signs and assuming that such glyphs cannot be read as logographs. This is shoot-and-scoot scholarship because the claimants have not so far responded to the refutation by Massimo Vidale indicating the use of the writing system in the context of trade in an extensive contact area from the Fertile Crescent to the Ganga-Yamuna river basin.

Allegedly scholarly, but disdainful,claims of 'illiteracy' do NOT cnnstitute an advance in knowledge to promote the study of now nearly 7000 artifacts with what I have called Meluhha hieroglyphs (aka Indus script) in Ancient Near East (not counting the Tin Road related documents). Witzel et al have erred on a simple assumption that the 'signs' of the script have to be syllabic or alphabetic. They ignored the possibility that they could be logographs including the crocodile, tiger, buffalo etc.which could have been read rebus as Meluhha hieroglyphs. I have shown that almost all the so-called 'signs' and 'pictorial motis' of Indus writing are Meluhha hieroglyphs.  

The average number of hieroglyphs, about 5 or 6 are adequate to represent the vocables as pictures (hieroglyphs) to support a trading system complementing the innovations of the Bronze Age stone and metalcrafts. Most of the Meluhha hieroglyphs signify metalware and stoneware together with brief accounts of methods used to smelt or forge or cast artifacts. One most frequently deployed hieroglyph is a 'standard device' shown mostly in front of a one-horned young bull. This sangaḍa hieroglyph had rebus readings:sã̄gāḍā m. ʻ frame of a building ʼ; sangara ‘fortification’; jangaḍ accounting for mercatile transactions ‘goods entrusted on approval basis’.

Take for example this cylinder seal picture-puzzle:

Cylinder seal. Provenience: Khafaje Kh. VII 256 Jemdet Nasr (ca. 3000 - 2800 BCE) Frankfort, Henri: Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region. Oriental Institute Publications 72. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, no. 34.

karaṇḍa ‘duck’ (Sanskrit) karaṛa ‘a very large aquatic bird’ (Sindhi) Rebus: करडा [karaḍā] Hard from alloy--iron, silver &c. (Marathi) 

karaḍa  ‘panther’ Rebus: karaḍā ‘hard alloy’.

khōṇḍa A stock or stump (Marathi); ‘leafless tree’ (Marathi). Rebus: kõdār ’turner’ (Bengali); kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’ (Bengali).

kāṇḍa ‘flowing water’ Rebus: kāṇḍā ‘metalware, tools, pots and pans’.

kul ‘tiger’ (Santali); kōlu id. (Telugu) kōlupuli = Bengal tiger (Te.) कोल्हा [ kōlhā ] कोल्हें [kōlhēṃ] A jackal (Marathi) Rebus: kole.l 'temple, smithy' (Kota.) kol = pañcalōha, a metallic alloy containing five metals (Tamil): copper, brass, tin, lead and iron (Sanskrit); an alternative list of five metals: gold, silver, copper, tin (lead), and iron (dhātu; Nānārtharatnākara. 82; Mangarāja’s Nighaṇṭu. 498)(Kannada) kol, kolhe, ‘the koles, iron smelters speaking a language akin to that of Santals’ (Santali) 

Such rebus readings are consistent with Robert K. Englund's summing up pointing to the possibility of non-Sumerian participants in the Bronze Age stoneware, metalware repertoire which constituted a veritable multi-national, industrial revolution of those times.

Tukulti Ninurta's altar with hieroglyphs happened in a domain where cuneiform was used -- say between Assur and Kanesh on Tin Road. Do the hieroglyphs on the altar mean Tukulti was illiterate? Tukulti altar displays on one side: safflower, rod on altar and on another side 2. spoked wheel. These are hieroglyphs related to bronze age alloys and fire-god karandi in Remo language (Munda family). The identification of Meluhha hieroglyphs proceeded from DT Potts' brilliant ingisht identifying tabernae montana wild tulip glyph on Tell Abraq axe, also on a vase and on a comb. TA 1649 Tell Abraq.(D.T. Potts, South and Central Asian elements at Tell Abraq (Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates), c. 2200 BC—CE 400. Potts' insight is complemented by the view of an archaeometallurgist who sees a link between the evolution of Bronze Age from a chalcolithic phase and the emergence of writing systems: “The Early Bronze Age of the 3^rd millennium BCE saw the first development of a truly international age of metallurgy… The question is, of course, why all this took place in the 3^rd millennium BCE… It seems to me that any attempt to explain why things suddenly took off about 3000 BCE has to explain the most important development, the birth of the art of writing… As for the concept of a Bronze Age one of the most significant events in the 3^rd millennium was the development of true tin-bronze alongside an arsenical alloy of copper…” (J.D. Muhly, 1973, Copper and Tin, Conn.: Archon., Hamden; Transactions of Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, vol. 43, p. 221f. ) In this context, it is apposite to underscore the use of Meluhha hieroglyphs on two pure tin ingots which were discovered in a shipwreck at Haifa. (S. Kalyanaraman, 2010, The Bronze Age Writing System of Sarasvati Hieroglyphics as Evidenced by Two “Rosetta Stones” - Decoding Indus script as repertoire of the mints/smithy/mine-workers of Meluhha, Journal of Indo-Judaic Studies, Number 11, pp. 47-74).

Potts has explained further that nomadism was a remarkable phenomenon in ancient Iran. "Although evidence of 'proto-Median' agriculture and settled life may be difficult to find outside of Iran -- particularly as their 'homeland' remains vague and ill-defined -- linguistic studies suggest that some of the earliest Iranian speakers to reach the Iranian plateau did have an agricultural background and were familiar with both ploughing ad irrigation." Potts cites  J. Puhvel, 'The Indo-European and Indo-Aryan plough: A linguistic study of technological diffusion,' Technology and Culture 5/2. 1964: 184-186, the posited Indo-Iraia verb stem *karś-meaning 'to plough', may have been a loanword.' (Potts 2014 - Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 75) 

This hieroglyph is central to the entire corpora; it is the rosetta stone; it is a signifier tagaraka, wild fragrant tulip and the signified word is: tagara, TIN (cassiterite ore).

Massimo's arguments are convincing in the context of  Wanderworter evidence from an extensive area deploying Meluhha hieroglyphs.

Massimo Vidale provided an effective rebuttal of the claim made by Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat & Michael Witzel that Harappan civilization was illiterate. (Massimo Vidale, 2007, 'The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel', East and West, vol. 57, no. 1-4, pp. 333 to 366).  

Excerpts: “My purpose is to reply to ‘The collapse of the Indus script thesis: the myth of a literate Harappan civilization’, by Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat & Michael Witzel, in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS), 11, 2, 2004, pp. 19-57. I actually think that the Indus script was probably a protohistoric script, somehow conveying the sounds and words of one or more still unidentified languages. Although proofs are obviously lacking (the only demonstration would be a successful translation), this is the most reasonable assumption: and I must confess that I have lived so far rather content with such uncertainty…In order to decipher a lost writing system, you have to guess the language, guess the content, and you need relevant contexts on which independently and reasonably test your ideas…Farmer, Sproat & Witzel loudly stated that they have solved the mystery, that the Indus script is not writing, and that they can read or interpret part of the signs, I disagree with their arguments and, perhaps more, with the tone and language adopted by the authors…The authors would like to throw the ball to their opponents, asking them to refute their views by providing a sound decipherment in linguistic terms. But they have raised the problem, proposing a different interpretation and the first readings, and they have to provide a demonstration of their thesis by interpreting and explaining to us the symbolic sequences following the equivalent of their condition 4 (as stated at p. 48)…(but for the moment even Farmer & others will admit that their deities on vessels and seals and the solar cult advertised at Dholavira did not cost them such an impressive outburst of imagination).”

The epigraphs or artifacts so rendered as signifiers, as hieroglyphs are read rebus as Bronze Act metalware, stoneware repertoire. Cire perdue casting gets a name: dhokra (Meluhha) and the specialist artisans are calleddhokra kamar (Meluhha). Zinc is sattiya, jasta and the signifier is the svastika (sattiya). Pewter is tuthnag, the signifier includes a snake. Sharpness of alloyed metal derived from alloying is padm, the signifier is the snake-hood, paṭam.

Meluhha artisans and traders operating along the Tin Road had carried with them the signifiers and signifieds and deployed them as epigraphs or artifacts to convey what they were specialists in. They had also produced 1. the flagposts found in Nahar Mishmar arsenical copper artifacts and 2. the leopard weights of Shahi Tump (Baluchistan).

Both the dreams are narrated in ancient texts and also on sculptures and epigraphs. The ancient texts describe the life-activities which the dreams signified. The hieroglyphs used on sculptures ad epigraphs provide for rebus representations of the dreams. 

Rebus readings of the images (signifiers) yield the glosses related to life-activities (signifieds).

Both the dreams are presented in visible language of Meluhha using hieroglyphs, read rebus.

Dream of Tukulti-Ninurta and Māyā's dream are signified by visible language

"The dream is a rebus." (Freud, Sigmund, 1959, Interpretation of Dreams, p. 1).  

One method of derivings meanings of the symbolism in dreams (or unconscious thought) is rebus.

Defining rebus as a picture-puzzle, Sigmund Frued elaborates the concept of displacement of emphasis and affect: "A correct judgment of the picture-puzzle  results only if I make no such objections to the whole and its parts, but if, on the contrary, I take pains to replace each picture by the syllable or word which it is capable of representing by means of any sort of reference, the words which are thus brought together are no longer meaningless, but may constitute a most beautiful and sensible expression. Now the dream is a picture-puzzle of this sort, and our predecessors in the field of dream interpretation have made the mistake of judging the rebus as an artistic composition. As such it appears nonsensical and worthless." (Freud, Sigmund, 1913, Trans. by AA Brill, Interpretation of Dreams, Chapter VI, The dream-work, New York, The Macmillan Company http://www.bartleby.com/285/6.html)

The meanings of the visible images are signified by rebus readings of Meluhha language of Assur (Ancient Near East and Ancient India).

The signifier of  Māyā's dream is an elephant. The word which signifies an elephant is ibha(Meluhha~Sanskrit). Rebus reading provides the signified: ib 'iron'. This is a condensation of the life activities of Māyā's clan, koliya, Koliya are koles, who are iron workers of yore from several generations. Her unconscious thought conditioned by the life of iron workers and smelters who were associated with her lineage identifies them by the product of their labour, ib 'iron'. The signifier for this life-activity of working in iron isibha, 'elephant'.

The inscription on the Tukulti Ninurta altar says: god Nusku.

The image is that of an ancestor of Tukulti Ninurta -- ancestor remembered in his dream?-- kneeling before the empty throne of the fire-god Nusku, occupied by what appears to be a flame.

Interpretation of the dream as rebus yields the meaning, the prayer is to fire-god Karandi. So, what is depicted is a flame while signifying the fire-god Karandi. In Meluhha language, the rebus reading of a clump of wood is करंडा [karaṇḍā].

Tukulti Ninurta's ancestor is an Assur, yes, the Assur whose lineage continues to be called Assur in some parts of India: Chattisgarh, Bastar, Santal paraganas, speaking an Asuri language (Meluhha dialect in the Munda language traditions of Indian sprachbund). This is good evidence that Assur of India had travelled far and wide into on the banks of Tigris river establishing the Tin Road between Assur and Kanesh (Kultepe, Anatolia). So, unconscious thought relates to the life-activities of the Assur people on this Tin Road trading in bronze-age artifacts. Hence, the presence of the following hieroglyphs on the Tukulti Ninurta altar: 1. करडी [karaḍī] f करडई) 'Safflower':, 2. nave of spoked wheel eraka, arā (nave, spokes) carried aloft on flagposts as trade announcements. Two flagposts are shown signifying dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'cast (metal)'. 

The trade announcements are comparable to the flagposts shown on Mohenjo-daro tablets (which show hieroglyphs of spoked wheel, scarf, one-horned young bull, lathe-portable furnace -- eraka 'copper', dul 'cast (metal),arā 'brass', dhatu 'ore', konda 'turner's lathe', sangada 'citadel, guild'.)

Signifier is hieroglyph: safflower करडी [karaḍī]. 

Signified is rebus: करडा [karaḍā] Hard from alloy--iron, silver &c. A color of horses, iron grey.

The signifier of Tukulti-Ninurta's dream is a fire-altar. The narrative of the dream is associated with the messages of the dream signifiers of the signifieds, signifiers of spoked wheels, safflowers signified as hard metal alloys of copper of the Bronze age. The word which signifies a fire-altar is kaṇḍa (Meluhha~Santali) The narrative is a prayer to fire-god.  How to represent this prayer in a visible language detailing the life-activities which have imbued the images and related meanings into the unconscious mind? kāṇḍa is a stem or stick of the sugarcane; such a stem or stick is shown in visible language as the center-piece of the nuska-Ninurta fire altar image before which he kneels down and prays in adoration.  He prays to karandi, the fire-god, the signified for which the visible language uses the signified: the stick.  karandi 'fire-god' (Munda, Remo). Signifier: करंडा [karaṇḍā] A clump, chump, or block of wood. 4 The stock or fixed portion of the staff of the large leaf-covered summerhead or umbrella. करांडा [ karāṇḍā ] m C A cylindrical piece as sawn or chopped off the trunk or a bough of a tree; a clump, chump, or block. (Marathi)

The apparent, underlying assumption in the two rebus readings is that the language which provides the glosses is Meluhha and that Tukulti-Ninurta's fire-altar and sculptors who narrated Māyā's elephant are rebus representations of the life activities of Tukulti-Ninurta's clan of Assur and Māyā's clan of Koliyas.

Visible images in works of art are signifiers. Associated words of the spoken language become the signifieds. This is the rebus code.

"In the Assyro-Babylonian tradition, visual representation was considered to be part of an extreme semantic constellation. Like the ideogram in the script, the visual sign had the potential of referring to a chain of referents, linked to it and to one another by a logic that may escape the contemporary viewer but that could be deciphered in antiquity through hermeneutic readings. Such readings were obviously not accessible to a general public, most of whom were most likely nonliterate; however, the potential of signs referring to other signs in a continuous chain of meanings was a knowledge not limited to the literate. The ominous nature of things was a subject of concern fo all in Babylonian and Assyrian society. It seems clear from numerous texts that signs in the environment could be read and deciphered by people other than the scholarly elite or the priesthood. For omens related to the destiny of king or country, court diviners and the priesthood studied the signs, using their scholarly knowledge of astronomy and hermeneutics. But the reading of omina in the environment was also a part of the daily lives of people in general, as we know from textual references to egirru (omens of chance utterances) or to dreams and dream interpretation. Like other signs in the world, visual images could never be seen as the relationship between one signified and one signifier. An image was a pluridimensional sign that carried latent meanings beyond the one manifest on the surface. Since many works of art were made without any intent of presentation to mortal viewers, the polyvalence inherent in their imagery was not always a code intended for a particular audience, whether literate or nonliterate, although one can imagine that the system was at times deliberately manipulated for the purposes of generating a required meaing...polyvalence was considered to be in the very nature of the image-sign. The audience or intended viewer was not of the greatest import in many cases because the work of art was put a position where it was only to be viewed by the king, his courtiers, or temple officials. In these cases whatever meanings were generated through the imagery had much less to do with the good opinion of the chance viewer than they did with the power of the image as a eans of creating an incessant presence. In attempting to catalog ancient Near Eastern images by means of an iconography of one-to-one relationships of signifiers and signifieds, of symbols and gods, for example, we have perhaps limited our readings unnecessarily in a way that the Babylonians and Assyrians would not have done." (Zainab Bahrani, 2011, The graven image: representation in Babylonia and Assyria, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, p. 185-186).

Sigmund Freud refers to a syntax of dreams noting that the pictorial language of the dream uses what Freud explains as 'condensation and displacement' (Freud 1959).

Dream depicted on Tukulti-Ninurta altar

'I have revealed to Atrahasis a dream, and it is thus that he has learned the secret of the gods.' (Epic of Gilgamesh, Ninevite version, XI, 187.)

The Pedestal of Tukulti-Ninurta I

Artifact: Stone monument

Provenience: Assur

Period: Middle Assyrian period (ca. 1400-1000 BC)

Current location: Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin

Text genre, language: Royal inscription; Akkadian

CDLI page

Description: Although the cult pedestal of the Middle Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta mentions in its short inscription that it is dedicated to the god Nuska, the relief on the front that depicts the king in a rare kind of narrative, standing and kneeling in front of the very same pedestal was frequently discussed by art-historians. More strikingly on top of the depicted pedestal there is not the lamp, the usual divine symbol for the god Nuska, but most likely the representation of a tablet and a stylus, symbols for the god Nabû. (Klaus Wagensonner, University of Oxford) Editions: Grayson, A.K. 1987. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Period, I: Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia B.C. (to 1115 B.C.), Toronto, p. 279ff.

An inscription of Gudea of Lagash (2143-2124 BCE) narrates that he had a dream. He describes the dream to goddess Nina: "In the dream a man, whose stature reached up to heaven (and) reached down to earth, who according to the tiara around his head was a god...at whose feet was a storm, to whose right and left a lion ws at rest, commanded me to built his house (i.e., temple)...a second (man), like a warrior...held in his hand a tablet of lapus-lazuli, (and) outlined the pattern of a temple." (Thureau-Dangin, Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Konigsinschriften, 94-95 Cylinder A, 4, 14--5,4).

A similar dream is explained on the Tukulti-Ninurta altar. The kneeling adorant prays in front of the altar. The visible image of this prayer is presented on one of the altar. The image on the altar is a rebus.

Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-1208 BCE) of Assur, narrates the dreams which led to his conquests of Babylon in his epic, a lengthy poem of about 750 to 800 lines. (Lambert, WG, 1957, Three unpublished fragments of the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, Archiv fur Orientforschung 18, Bd, 1957-1958, pp. 38-51).

Narratives from the dream are visible on the hieroglyphs presented on the altar.

Dream of Māyā, mother of Gautama Buddha details ancient texts and sculptural representations providing signifiers of the dream: in particular, the descent of an elephant which is a hieroglyph read rebus, consistent with the dream as a rebus. The narrative is accompanied by Meluhha hieroglyphs which include a scribe of the guild of metal-/stone-work artisans who might have been involved in the construction of the monuments in Bharhut and Nagarjunakonda -- commemorative pilgrimages of Bauddham. Māyā's dream is a sacred, hallowed tradition in Bauddham and the narrative is revered in ancient sculptures and ancient texts. This tradition is further elaborated by the use of Meluhha hieroglyphs which are read rebus, validating the Meluhha hieroglyph cipher for the ancient, unambiguous vernacular of Indian sprachbund.

Detail of the top of the sandstone Vedica pillar, half-roundel at top of vedika pillar with composite creatures in relief:

The top register o this relief shows ligatured antelopes back-to-back; the next register from the top shows a bull ligatured to a makara (crocodile with curved fish tail).


Detail of the roundel:

Segments of the sculpture showing: 1. scribe; 2. stacks of straw asociated with epigraphs (incribed ovals -- cartouches -- atop the stacks) and the row of seated artisans. There are two hieroglyphs on these segments: 1. scribe; 2. straw-stacks. Both can be read as Meluhha hieroglyphs.

The scribe shown on Nagarjunakonda sculpture is kaṇḍa kanka 'stone scribe'. 

The gloss is reinforced by the hieroglyph: stack of straw: kaṇḍa (See Meluhha glosses from Indian sprachbund appended).

Māyā is a Koliya, i.e. she is a kole, a community working in iron. kol ‘working in iron’ (Tamil). 

Koles are the outstanding smelters of iron.

There is an article by  Suniti Kumar Chatterjee explaining that the word 'kol' meant 'man' in general.

An old Munda word, kol means ‘man’. S. K. Chatterjee called the Munda family of languages as Kol, as the word, according to him, is (in the Sanskrit-Prākṛt form Kolia) an early Aryan modification of an old Munda word meaning ‘man’.[i]  Przyluski accepts this explanation.[ii]

---

[i] Chatterjee, SK, The study of kol, Calcutta Review, 1923, p. 455

[ii] Przyluski, Non-aryan loans in Indo-Aryan, in: Bagchi, PC, Pre-aryan and pre-dravidian, pp.28-29 

The crocodile ligatured to the bull is: kāru ‘crocodile’ Rebus: khar ‘blacksmith’ (Kashmiri)  ayakara'fish+crocodile' rebus: 'metal-smith'. adar 'zebu' rebus: aduru 'unsmelted metal or ore' (Kannada) aduru native metal (Ka.); ayil iron (Ta.) ayir, ayiram any ore (Ma.); ajirda karba very hard iron (Tu.)(DEDR 192). aduru =gaṇiyinda tegadu karagade iruva aduru = ore taken from the mine and not subjected to melting in a furnace.[i]

[i] Kannada. Siddhānti Subrahmaṇya śāstri’s new interpretation of the Amarakośa, Bangalore,Vicaradarpana Press, 1872, p. 330.

Note: In this remarkable ligature, the crocodile+fish hieroglyphs are NOT ligatured to the trunk of an elephant because the scribe wants to precisely communicate the nature of the profession of the artisan guild involved with the prayer to the Buddha narrating his birth. If the elephant was intended, the rebus readings would have included: ibha 'elephant' (Samskrtam)  ibbo 'merchant' (Hemacandra Desināmamāla -Gujarati) ib 'iron' (Santali).  

 
Vikalpa: the bull is:  ḍangar 'bull' Rebus: dhangar ‘blacksmith’ (Maithili) ḍangar ‘blacksmith’ (Hindi).

The two antelopes joined back-to-back: pusht ‘back’; rebus: pusht ‘ancestor’. pus̱ẖt bah pus̱ẖt ‘generation to generation.’ The ram could also be denoted by ṭagara ‘antelope’; takar, n. [தகர்  T. tagaru, K. tagar.] 1. Sheep; ஆட்டின்பொது. (திவா.) 2. Ram; செம் மறியாட்டுக்கடா. (திவா.) பொருநகர் தாக்கற்குப் பேருந் தகைத்து (குறள், 486).  Rebus: ṭagara ‘tin’. dula ‘pair’ (Kashmiri); rebus: dul  'cast metal’ (Munda). Thus the pair of antelopes on the top register denotes: tin smith artisan, dul ṭagara  'cast tin'.

The associated hieroglyphs, in the context of depicting the narratives of Māyā's dream, in particular (and their rebus readings) which are elaborated further in this monograph pointing to a continuum of writing systems from the days of Meluhha hieroglyphs (aka Indus writing) are:

• stack of straw
• scribe
• bull ligatured to makara (crocodile + fish tail)
• antelopes ligatured back-to-back

Māyā had a dream in which she saw an elephant (ibha 'elephant' rebus: ib 'iron'). King Śuddhodana and his soothsayers interpreted the dream that she would bear a son who with detached passion would satisfy the world with sweetness of his ambrosia.

Takṣat vāk, ‘incised speech’ -- Evidence of Indus writing of Meluhha language in Ancient Near East

Takṣat vāk, ‘incised speech’ -- Evidence of Indus writing of Meluhha language in Ancient Near East

S. Kalyanaraman, Sarasvati Research Center (July 2013)

Executive Summary: Hypotheses, method and testing

In his ‘Writing in Vedic Age’ Prof. TP Verma points to the use of the phrase takṣat vāk used in the Rigveda as a reference to ‘incised speech’. [i] The central hypotheses of this monograph are that 1) Indus writing is takṣat vāk , ‘incised speech’ of Meluhha (mleccha) language by stone, wood, mineral and metal workers of the ancient Hindu civilization, presented as pictorial motifs and as script signs; 2) meluhha (mleccha) words are identifiable as substrates retained in lexemes of many languages of Indiansprachbund ; and 3) these words constitute the underlying rebus readings of hieroglyphs of the writing system. Thus, the writing system gets decoded as using a logo-semantic cipher method for Meluhha/Mleccha language (mentioned as mlecchitavikalpa‘cipher-writing’ in an ancient text), comparable to the Egyptian hieroglyphs of Narmer palette.  The cipher text of Indus writing encodes Meluhha (mleccha) language identified and semantic structure outlined with glosses within the Indian sprachbund. The artisans who created the writing system (mlecchitavikalpa cipher writing) were pañcakammāḷa  ‘five artisan categories’ of Indiansprachbund . The validation and testing of these hypotheses using Indus writing corpora is the raison d’etre of this monograph.Substrtum words are likely to have been retained in more than one language of the Indian sprachbund, irrespective of the language-family to which a particular language belongs. This is the justification for the identification, in comparative lexicons, of sememes with cognate lexemes from languages such as Gujarati, Marathi, Kannada, Santali, Munda or Toda or Kota. The underlying assumption is that the substratum words were absorbed into the particular languages either as borrowings or as morphemes subjected to phonetic changes over time. There is no linguistic technique available to 'date' a particular sememe and relate it to the technical processes which resulted in naming, for example, the metalware or furnaces/smelters used to create metals and cast the metals or alloys and forge them. It is remarkable, indeed, that hundreds of cognate lexemes have been retained in more than one language to facilitate rebus readings of hieroglyphs. An example can be cited to elucidate the point made in this argument. The word attested in Rigveda is ayas, often interpreted as 'metal or bronze'. The cognate lexemes are ayo 'iron' (Gujarati. Santali) ayaskāṇḍa 'excellent quantity of iron' (Panini), kāṇḍā 'tools, pots and pans of metalware' (Marathi). अयोगूः A blacksmith; Vāj.3.5. अयस् a. [इ-गतौ-असुन्] Going, moving; nimble. N. (-यः) 1 Iron (एति चलति अयस्कान्तसंनिकर्षं इति तथात्वम्; नायसोल्लिख्यते रत्नम् Śukra 4.169. अभितप्तमयो$पि मार्दवं भजते कैव कथा शरीरिषु R.8.43. -2 Steel. -3 Gold. -4 A metal in general. Ayaskāṇḍa 1 an iron-arrow. -2 excellent iron. -3 a large quantity of iron. –क_नत_(अयसक_नत_) 1 ‘beloved of iron’, a magnet, load-stone; 2 a precious stone; ˚मजण_ a loadstone; ayaskāra 1 an iron-smith, blacksmith (Skt.Apte) ayas-kāntamu. [Skt.] n. The load-stone, a magnet. Ayaskāruḍu. n. A black smith, one who works in iron. ayassu. N. ayō-mayamu. [Skt.] adj. made of iron (Te.) áyas— n. ‘metal, iron’ RV. Pa. ayō nom. Sg. N. and m., aya— n. ‘iron’, Pk. Aya— n., Si. Ya. AYAŚCŪRṆA—, AYASKĀṆḌA—, *AYASKŪṬA—. Addenda: áyas—: Md. Da ‘iron’, dafat ‘piece of iron’. ayaskāṇḍa— m.n. ‘a quantity of iron, excellent iron’ Pāṇ. Gaṇ. Viii.3.48 [ÁYAS—, KAA ́ṆḌA—]Si.yakaḍa ‘iron’.*ayaskūṭa— ‘iron hammer’. [ÁYAS—, KUU ́ṬA—1] Pa. ayōkūṭa—, ayak m.; Si. Yakuḷa‘sledge —hammer’, yavuḷa (< ayōkūṭa) (CDIAL 590, 591, 592). Cf. Lat. Aes , aer-is for as-is ; Goth. Ais , Thema aisa; Old Germ. E7r , iron ;Goth. Eisarn ; Mod. Germ. Eisen. aduru native metal (Ka.); ayil iron (Ta.) ayir, ayiram any ore (Ma.); ajirda karba very hard iron (Tu.)(DEDR 192). Ta. Ayil javelin, lance, surgical knife, lancet.Ma. ayil javelin, lance; ayiri surgical knife, lancet. (DEDR 193). Aduru = gan.iyinda tegadu karagade iruva aduru = ore taken from the mine and not subjected to melting in a furnace (Ka. Siddhānti Subrahmaṇya’ Śastri’s new interpretation of the AmarakoŚa, Bangalore, Vicaradarpana Press, 1872, p.330); adar = fine sand (Ta.); ayir – iron dust, any ore (Ma.) Kur. Adar the waste of pounded rice, broken grains, etc. Malt. Adru broken grain (DEDR 134).  Ma. Aśu thin, slender;ayir, ayiram iron dust.Ta. ayir subtlety, fineness, fine sand, candied sugar; ? atar fine sand, dust. அய.ர³ ayir, n. 1. Subtlety, fineness; நணசம. (த_வ_.) 2. [M. ayir.] Fine sand; நணமணல. (மலசலப. 92.) ayiram, n.  Candied sugar; ayil, n. cf. ayas. 1. Iron; 2. Surgical knife, lancet; Javelin, lance; ayilavaṉ, Skanda, as bearing a javelin (DEDR 341).Tu. gadarů a lump (DEDR 1196)  kadara— m. ‘iron goad for guiding an elephant’ lex. (CDIAL 2711). The hieroglyph which depicts the word aya ‘metal’ is ayo ‘fish’ (Munda): <ayu?>(A) {N} ``^fish’’. #1370. <yO>\\<AyO>(L) {N} ``^fish’’. #3612. <kukkulEyO>,,<kukkuli-yO>(LMD) {N} ``prawn’’. !Serango dialect. #32612. <sArjAjyO>,,<sArjAj>(D) {N} ``prawn’’. #32622. <magur-yO>(ZL) {N} ``a kind of ^fish’’. *Or.<>. #32632. <ur+Gol-Da-yO>(LL) {N} ``a kind of ^fish’’. #32642.<bal.bal-yO>(DL) {N} ``smoked fish’’. #15163. Vikalpa: Munda: <aDara>(L) {N} ``^scales of a fish, sharp bark of a tree’’.#10171. So<aDara>(L) {N} ``^scales of a fish, sharp bark of a tree’’. Indian mackerel Ta. Ayirai, acarai, acalai loach, sandy colour, Cobitis thermalis; ayilai a kind of fish. Ma. Ayala a fish, mackerel, scomber; aila, ayila a fish; ayira a kind of small fish, loach (DEDR 191) 

Rebus method of encoding speech

 Procession on Narmer palette. An artistic deployment of Egyptian hieroglyphs on a procession is seen on one side of Narmer palette. The name Nar-mer is shown as rebus reading of n’r  ‘cuttle-fish’ + m’r  ‘awl’. Both these hieroglyphs are depicted in front of the Emperor Narmer who follows the procession.

Similar is the logo-semantic cipher method used on Indus writing, to write ayakara ‘metalsmith’.

Glosses of Indian sprachbund used on Indus writing to encode speech:

ayo ‘fish’ (Mu.) aya = iron (Gujarati);
ayah, ayas = metal (Sanskrit.)
kāru a wild crocodile or alligator (Telugu) ghariyal id. (Hindi)
khār a blacksmith, an iron worker (Kashmiri)
ayakāra ‘iron-smith’ (Pali)

Proto-phonetic forms of these lexemes which constitute the substrates of Meluhha (Mleccha) language and are likely to yield the glosses of Meluhha (Mleccha) speech of 3^rd millennium BCE.  Aya  ‘fish’ + karā  ‘crocodile, ghariyal’ as hieroglyphs are depicted to be read rebus as aya  ‘metal’ + khara  ‘smith’ (in mlecccha/meluhha language). The sounds of words of mleccha/meluhha language are the speech foundations of the Indus writing system. Many inscriptions of Indus writing are read as metalware catalogs – like this ayakara ‘metalsmith’ catalog item shown on one side of a Mohenjo-daro prism tablet (Corpora reference: m1429C).

Another example may be cited of a Seal impression, Ur (UPenn; U.16747); dia. 2.6, ht. 0.9 cm.; Gadd, PBA 18 (1932), pp. 11-12, pl. II, no. 12; Porada 1971: pl.9, fig.5; Parpola, 1994, p. 183; water carrier with a skin (or pot?) hung on each end of the yoke across his shoulders and another one below the crook of his left arm; the vessel on the right end of his yoke is over a receptacle for the water; a star on either side of the head (denoting supernatural?). “The whole object is enclosed by 'parenthesis' marks. Theparenthesis is perhaps a way of splitting of the ellipse. An unmistakable example of an 'hieroglyphic' seal.” (Hunter, G.R.,JRAS, 1932, 476). This ‘water-carrier’ hieroglyph is normalized as a ‘sign’ (Glyph 12) on Indus Writing corpora. The seal impression is read rebus as composed of three hieroglyphs:

Hieroglyph 1: kuṭi  ‘water carrier’ (Te.) Rebus: kuṭhi ‘smelter furnace’ (Santali) kuṛī  f. ‘fireplace’ (Hindi); krvṛI f. ‘granary’ (Wpah.); kuṛī, kuṛo house, building’(Ku.)(CDIAL 3232)kuṭi ‘hut made of boughs’ (Skt.) guḍi temple (Telugu) 

Hieroglyph 2: meḍha ‘polar star’ (Marathi). Rebus: meḍ ‘iron’ (Ho.)

Hieroglyph 3: dula ‘pair’ (Kashmiri); rebus: dul ‘cast metal’ (Mu.)

Thus, the entire composition which makes up the inscription is read as: kuṭhi  ‘smelter furnace’ (to) dul ‘cast (metal)’ meḍ  ‘iron’.

In an article, ‘Written language vs. non-linguistic symbol systems’, Richard Sproat (2013) [ii] presents a rebuttal of an earlier work of Rajesh Rao et al (2009, 2010).[iii] Both Sproat and Rao et al attempt to distinguish ‘written language or linguistic symbols’ from what they term as ‘non-linguistic symbols’. Both have failed in their mathematical analyses using Markov decision processes in the context of the data sets used for distinguishing the nature of symbols on Indus Writing (also called, script). The failure occurs because both have used only ‘signs’ of the writing system, ignoring the ‘pictorial motifs’ and ‘glyphic elements in pictorial motifs’ which are integral to the writing system. Rao et al see to make an apriori underlying assumption that ‘signs’ could explain the underlying phonemes as ‘syllables’. Sproat seems to attempt to justify an earlier claim made about illiteracy of Harappans. Such a claim[iv] has been effectively rebutted[v] in an archaeological context which should be the firm foundation for determining if a ‘symbol’ is linguistic or non-linguistic. To claim that the mystery of the Indus writing has been solved by Farmer, Witzel, & Sproat asserting, in a shriek, in strident tone and language, that ‘signs’ are not syllabic or alphabetic and hence do not encode speech, is a tall claim indeed. Sproat rebuts the argument that the ‘signs’ may not be phonemic representations but assumes hat they could just simply be non-linguistic symbols following his participation in the earlier mystery-solving claim. 

The failure to include the statistics of ‘pictorial motifs’ with many ‘glyphic elements’ embedded in such motifs renders the data sets used suspect, at best incomplete, vitiated by the absence of a falsifiable selection process to identify ‘symbols’. For example, on seals showing ‘composite animal’, many glyphic elements are used: e.g., face of a human, serpent-hood as tail, elephant’s trunk ligatured to the human face, zebu horns, front feet of tiger, rear feet of bovine, scarves dangling on the neck. Such a medley of ligatures cannot be attributed to chance and all the glyphs have to be explained, even assuming that the glyphs are non-linguistic ‘symbols’. In sum, the basic flaw in the analyses attempted by Sproat and Rao et al is the deployment of an arbitrary selection process for identifying ‘symbols’ from the Indus script corpora. In the context of tokens and bullae used in Sumer (ancient Near East) using a bun-ingot-shaped token represents ‘metal’. One fails to see how the token shape or ‘mountains’, ‘ficus leaves’ shown on cylinder seals with cuneiform writing can be brushed aside and assumed to be a ‘non-linguistic symbols’ when such symbols were used together with cuneiform syllabic texts in an extensive civilization interaction area of Elam, Sumer, Mesopotamia and even in Dilmun and Magan. Sumerian cylinder seal showing flanking goats with hooves on tree and/or mountain. Uruk period. (After Joyce Burstein in: Katherine Anne Harper, Robert L. Brown, 2002, The roots of tantra, SUNY Press, p.100).

This failure in the method of analyses by Sproat and Rao et al is sought to be remedied in the rebus method deployed in this monograph and relted references cited, to analyze ALL symbols – whether presented as ‘signs’ or as ‘glyphic elements in pictorial motifs’ in the corpora – in the context of Meluhha (Mleccha) language of Indian sprachbund, trating Indus writing system as a writing system which encodes Meluhha (Mleccha) speech. Indus texts are very short, generally four or five glyphs long (counting both ‘sign’ and ‘picorial motif’ categories). In over 200 texts of Indus inscriptions, only pictorial motifs (with embedded multiple glyphs) are deployed. It is hazardous to use cryptography[vi] because several valid solutions may be found for each pictorial motif or each glyphic element. Unique decipherment is possible when the key is known. I suggest that the key is 1) rebus method for each glyph of Indus writing – constituting the cipher text corpora -- 2) related to bronze-age artifacts attested archaeologically, using 3) glosses of Meluhha (Mleccha) language. There ain’t no need to get frustrated and throw out the baby with the bath water making shrieking claims of illiteracy or proto-literate (linguistically meaningless?) symbol systems for a writing system which uses nearly 500 signs and over 120 pictorial motifs (which could be broken down further into 200+ glyhs) – thus making a total of nearly 700 hieroglyphs of Indus writing. The archaeological context provides the evidence needed to pin down the underlying speech forms as discussed further in this monograph.

[i] Verma, TP, Writing in the Vedic Age, Harappan and As’okan Writing, in: Itihas Darpan XVIII (1), 2013 Research Journal of Akhila Bhāratiya Itihāsa Sankalana Yojanā, New Delhi, pp. 40-59.http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/writing-in-vedic-age-prof-tp-verma.html Writing in Vedic Age by Prof. TP Verma. Three frustrated scholars' dogma on illiteracy.  

[ii] Sproat, Richard, 2013, ‘Written language vs. non-linguistic symbol systems’ mirrored in a blogpost:http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/05/written-language-vs-non-linguistic.html

[iii] Rao, Rajesh, 2010. Probabilistic analysis of an ancient undeciphered script. IEEE Computer. 43~(3), 76–80. Rajesh PN Rao, Nisha Yadav, Mayank N. Vahia, Hrishikesh Joglekar, R. Adhikari and Iravatham Mahadevan, A Markov model of the Indus Script, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,, Vol. 106 no. 33, 13685-13690.

[iv] Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel, The collapse of the Indus-Script thesis: the myth of a literate Harappan civilization, EJVS 11-2, Dec. 13, 2005,

[v] Asko Parpola (2008). "Is the Indus script indeed not a writing system?" In: Airāvati (pp. 111-131). Chennai: Varalaaru.com http://www.harappa.com/script/indus-writing.pdf Massimo Vidale, "The collapse melts down: a reply to Farmer, Sproat and Witzel" in: East and West, Vol. 57, No.1/4, December 2007, pp. 333-366http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=9163376

[vi] Shannon, CE, Communication theory of secrecy systems, Bell Systems Tech. J., 28, 656-715, 1949http://netlab.cs.ucla.edu/wiki/files/shannon1949.pdf

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2013/07/taksat-vak-incised-speech-evidence-of.html?q=narmer+palette

Susa pot. The pot contained the metal vessels, pans,  weapons and tools shown. ca. 3rd millennium BCE. Photo courtesy: Prof. Maurizio Tosi. The 'fish' inscribed near the rim of the pot is a hieroglyph of Meluhha (Mleccha) speech. Reading: ayo 'fish' (Munda) Rebus: ayo, ayas ''metal' (Gujarati. Skt.)

A reconstructed drawing of 'standard device' generally shown in front of a one-horned young bull and also on a procession of hieroglyphs or on a gold pectoral or of ivory in the round.

Mohenjo-daro pectoral m1656. The pectoral shows hieroglyphs: rim of jar, jar, overflowing (liquid), one-horned young bull, pannier on bull's shoulder, standard device in front composed of: gimlet, portable furnace as top part of the device and sometimes dotted circles are shown on the bottom part of the device. All glyphics read rebus denote the pectoral owners calling or profession. In this case, a smith working with furnace (smelting copper) workshop.

Rebus readings:

Hieroglyphs young bull, rings on neck, pannier: gōta ‘sack’.kŏthul, lu m. ʻlarge bag or parcelʼ(Kashmiri) (CDIAL 3511)kṓṣṭha1 m. ʻ any one of the large viscera ʼ MBh. [Same as kṓṣṭha -- 2? Cf. *kōttha -- ] Pa. koṭṭha -- m. ʻ stomach ʼ, Pk. koṭṭha -- , kuṭ° m.; L. (Shahpur) koṭhī f. ʻ heart, breast ʼ; P. koṭṭhā, koṭhā m. ʻ belly ʼ, G. koṭhɔ m., M. koṭhā m. (CDIAL 3545).koḍiyum ‘rings on neck’. kāru-kōḍe. [Tel.] n. A bull in its prime. खोंड [ khōṇḍa ] m A young bull, a bullcalf. (Marathi) గోద [ gōda ] gōda. [Tel.] n. An ox. A beast. kine, cattle.(Telugu) Rebus : B. kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’; Or. kū̆nda ‘lathe’, kũdibā, kū̃d ‘to turn’ (→ Drav. Kur. kū̃d ‘lathe’) (CDIAL 3295). koḍ ‘workshop’ (Kuwi.G.)Rebus: S. koṭāru m. ʻ district officer who watches crops, police officer ʼ (CDIAL 3501). Cf. kṓṣṭhaka ‘treasury’ (Skt.); kóṭṭhi ’temple treasury’ (WPah.); koṭho ‘warehouse’ (G.)(CDIAL 3546). Rebus: khoṭa ʻingot forged, alloyʼ(Marathi)Allograph: kōṭu summit of a hill(Tamil). Rebus: khoṭf. ʻalloy, impurityʼ, °ṭā ʻalloyed’.

Overflow: (B) {V} ``(pot, etc.) to ^overflow''. See `to be left over'. @B24310. #20851. Re(B) {V} ``(pot, etc.) to ^overflow''. See `to be left over'. (Munda )Allograph: loa = a species of fig tree, ficus glomerata, the fruit of ficus glomerata (Santali) Rebus: lo ‘iron’ (Assamese, Bengali); loa ‘iron’ (Gypsy). rebus: loh ‘metal’ (Skt.) Rebus: loh ‘copper’ (Hindi) காண்டம் kāṇṭam , n. < kāṇḍa. 1. Water; sacred water; நீர்; kāṇṭam ‘ewer, pot’ கமண்டலம். (Tamil) Thus the combined rebus reading: Ku. lokhaṛ ʻiron tools ʼ; H. lokhaṇḍ m. ʻ iron tools, pots and pans ʼ; G. lokhãḍ n. ʻtools, iron, ironwareʼ; M. lokhãḍ n. ʻ iron ʼ(CDIAL 11171). khaṇḍā ‘tools, pots and pans and metal-ware’(Marathi) Hieroglyphs pot, dotted circle: sangaḍa खंड [ khaṇḍa ] A piece, bit, fragment, portion.(Marathi)काढतें [ kāḍhatēṃ ] n Among gamesters. An ivory counter &c. placed to represent a sum of money. (Marathi) Rebus: kandi ‘beads’ (Pa.)(DEDR 1215). khaṇḍ ‘ivory’ (H.)kaṇḍ = a furnace,altar (Santali.lex.)khaṇḍaran, khaṇḍrun ‘pit furnace’ (Santali)Allographs: kaṇḍa -- m.n. joint of stalk, lump(Pali) kaṇḍō a stool (Kurku); kanḍo stool, seat (Maltese). (DEDR 1179) kaṇḍa ‘arrow’ (Skt.) kaṇḍa = a pot of certain shape and size (Santali) Rebus: kaṇḍ = altar, furnace (Santali)लोहकारकन्दुः f. a blacksmith's smelting furnace (Grierson Kashmiri lex.) कन्दु [Monier-Williams lexicon, p. 250,1]mf. ( √स्कन्द् Un2. i , 15), a boiler , saucepan , or other cooking utensil of iron Sus3r. Ma1lav. Comm. on Ka1tyS3r. Nodule of stone ore: kāḍ ‘stone’. Ga. (Oll.) kanḍ, (S.) kanḍu (pl. kanḍkil) stone (DEDR 1298). mayponḍi kanḍ whetstone; (Ga.)(DEDR 4628). (खडा) Pebbles or small stones: also stones broken up (as for a road), metal. खडा [ khaḍā ] m A small stone, a pebble. 2 A nodule (of lime &c.): a lump or bit (as of gum, assafœtida, catechu, sugar-candy): the gem or stone of a ring or trinket: a lump of hardened fæces or scybala: a nodule or lump gen. kárṇaka m. ʻ projection on the side of a vessel, handle ʼ ŚBr. [kárṇa -- ] Pa. kaṇṇaka -- ʻ having ears or corners ʼ; Wg. kaṇə ʻ ear -- ring ʼ NTS xvii 266; S. kano m. ʻ rim, border ʼ; P. kannā m. ʻ obtuse angle of a kite ʼ (→ H. kannā m. ʻ edge, rim, handle ʼ); N. kānu ʻ end of a rope for supporting a burden ʼ; B. kāṇā ʻ brim of a cup ʼ, G. kānɔ m.; M. kānā m. ʻ touch -- hole of a gun ʼ. (CDIAL 2831) Rebus: káraṇa n. ʻ act, deed ʼ RV. [√kr̥1] Pa. karaṇa -- n. ʻ doing ʼ; NiDoc. karana, kaṁraṁna ʻ work ʼ; Pk. karaṇa -- n. ʻ instrument ʼ; N. dan -- karnu ʻ toothpick ʼ, kan -- karnu ʻ ear -- pick ʼ; B. karnā, kannā ʻ work, duty ʼ; M. karṇẽ n. ʻ action, deed ʼ; Si. karaṇa ʻ occupation, trade, copulation ʼ; -- P. karnī f. ʻ mason's trowel ʼ (B. D. Jain PhonPj 116 < karaṇḍa -- ); H. karnī f. ʻ mason's trowel ʼ, M. karṇī f. (CDIAL 2790)Rebus: Rebus: karṇaka ‘scribe.’ sangaḍa 'portable furnace', 'gimlet (turner's apparatus)' (Marathi) Rebus: sangar 'fortification' (Pashto)śang, hang ‘snail, mollusc’; rebus: sang ‘stone (ore)’. sangaḍa ‘lathe, furnace’. saghaḍī = furnace (G.) Rebus: jaṅgaḍ ‘entrustment articles’जाकड़ ja:kaṛ (nm) on approval (purchases); —का माल goods/articles on approval. (Hindi); sangaḍa ‘association, guild’. jangaḍiyo ‘military guard who accompanies treasure into the treasury’(Gujarati)sangad ചങ്ങാതം čaṇṇāδam (Tdbh.; സംഘാതം) 1. Convoy, guard; responsible Nāyar guide through foreign territories. ച. പോരുക to accompany as such. ച. പോന്ന വാരിയര്‍, എന്നെ ച'വും കൂട്ടി അയച്ചു TR. 2. income of Rājas from granting such guides; grant of land to persons liable to such service ച. കൊടുക്ക. 3. companion പന്നിയും കാട്ടിയും ച'മായി CG.—met. കംസനെ കൊന്ന ഗോപാലനെ കംസനു ച'മാ ക്കുവാന്‍ CG. to send him along, to kill likewise. ചങ്ങാതി (C. Te. സ —) companion, തുണക്കാ രന്‍; friend വീണാല്‍ ചിരിക്കാത്ത ച. ഇല്ല, ച. നന്നെങ്കില്‍ കണ്ണാടി വേണ്ട prov. ച. യായുള്ളു പണ്ടുപണ്ടേ CC.—also fem. ച ങ്ങാതിമാരായുള്ള അംഗനമാര്‍ CG.; vu. എ ന്‍റെ ചങ്ങായിച്ചീ TP. (Voc.) See also: ചങ്ങു V1. a small chain to which to hang keys etc. ചങ്ങാടം čaṇṇāḍam (Tu. ജംഗാല, Port. Jangada). Ferryboat, junction of 2 boats. ച. കെ ട്ടുക; ച'ത്തില്‍ കേററി TR. തോണികള്‍ ച'ങ്ങള്‍ വഞ്ചികള്‍ പടവുകള്‍ Bhr. also rafts. (Malayalam)Allographs: sãgaḍ f. ʻ a body formed of two or more fruits or animals or men &c. linked together (Marathi)(CDIAL 12859).śã̄gal, śã̄gaḍ ʻchainʼ (WPah.)sangaḍa ‘bangles’ (Pali). Rim of jar as hieroglyph: kánaka n. ʻ gold ʼ (Skt.) கன் kaṉ ,n. perh. கன்மம். 1. workmanship; வேலைப்பாடு. கன்னார் மதில்சூழ் குடந்தை (திவ். திருவாய். 5, 8, 3). 2. copper work; கன்னார் தொழில். (W.) 3. copper; செம்பு. (ஈடு, 5, 8, 3.) MBh. Pa. kanaka -- n., Pk. kaṇaya -- n., MB. kanayā ODBL 659, Si. kanā EGS 36.(CDIAL 2717) కనకము [ kanakamu ] kanakamu. [Skt.] n. Gold. (Telugu) கனகம் kaṉakam, n. < kanaka. 1. Gold; பொன். காரார்வண்ணன் கனகமனையானும் (தேவா. 502, 9 (Tamil) kanaka (nt.) [cp. Sk. kanaka; Gr. knh_kos yellow; Ags. hunig=E. honey. See also kañcana] gold, usually as uttatta˚ molten gold; said of the colour of the skin Bu i.59; Pv iii.32; J v.416; PvA 10 suvaṇṇa).-- agga gold -- crested J v.156; -- chavin of golden complexion J vi.13; -- taca (adj.) id. J v.393; -- pabhā golden splendour Bu xxiii.23; -- vimāna a fairy palace of gold VvA 6; PvA 47, 53; -- sikharī a golden peak, in ˚rājā king of the golden peaks (i. e. Himālayas): Dāvs iv.30. (Pali) Vikalpa: kaṉ ‘copper work’ (Ta.)

Arguments of Dennys Frenez and Massimo Vidale 

The arguments of Dennys Frenez and Massimo Vidale are framed taking the example of a Mohenjo-daro seal m0300 with what they call 'symbolic hypertext' or, 'Harappan chimaera and its hypertextual components':

m0300. Mohenjo-daro seal.

"Harappan chimaera and its hypertextual components. Harappan chimera and its hypertextual components. The 'expression' summarizes the syntax of Harappan chimeras within round brackets, creatures with body parts used in their correct  anatomic position (tiger, unicorn, markhor goat, elephant, zebu, and human); within square brackets, creatures with body parts used to symbolize other anatomic elements (cobra snake for tail and human arm for elephant proboscis); the elephant icon as exonent out of the square brackets symbolizes the overall elephantine contour of the chimeras; out of brackes, scorpion indicates the animal automatically perceived joining the lineate horns, the human face, and the arm-like trunk of Harappan chimeras. (After Fig. 6 in: Harappan chimaeras as 'symbolic hypertexts'. Some thoughts on Plato, Chimaera and the Indus Civilization." (Dennys Frenez & Massimo Vidale, 2012) 

Framework and Functions of Indus Script

The framework of Indus Script has two structures: 1) pictorial motifs as hieroglyph-multiplexes; and 2) text lines as hieroglyph-multiplexes

Dennys Frenez and Massimo Vidale focus attention on pictorial motifs and on m0300 seal, identify a number of hieroglyph components constituting the hieroglyph-multiplex -- on the pictorial motif of 'composite animal', seen are hieroglyph components (which they call hypertextual components): serpent (tail), scorpion, tiger, one-horned young bull, markhor, elephant, zebu, standing man (human face), man seated in penance (yogi).  

The yogi seated in penance and other hieroglyphs are read rebus in archaeometallurgical terms: kamaDha 'penance' (Prakritam) rebus: kampaTTa 'mint'. Hieroglyph: kola 'tiger', xolA 'tail' rebus:kol 'working in iron'; kolle 'blacksmith'; kolhe 'smelter'; kole.l 'smithy'; kolimi 'smithy, forge'. खोड[khōṇḍa ] m A young bull, a bullcalf (Marathi) rebus: khond 'turner'. dhatu 'scarf' rebus: dhatu 'minerals'.bica 'scorpion' rebus: bica 'stone ore'. miṇḍāl markhor (Tor.wali) meḍho a ram, a sheep (Gujarati) Rebus:meḍ (Ho.); mẽṛhet ‘iron’ (Mu.Ho.) mẽṛhet iron; ispat m. = steel; dul m. = cast iron (Munda) kara'elephant's trunk' Rebus: khar 'blacksmith'; ibha 'elephant' rebus: ib 'iron'. Together: karaibā 'maker, builder'.

Use of such glosses in Meluhha speech can be explained by the following examples of vAkyam or speech expressions as hieroglyph signifiers and rebus-metonymy-layered-cipher yielding signified metalwork:

Examples: Hieroglyph-multiplexes as hypertexts

The unique characteristic of Indus Script which distinguishes the writing system from Egyptian hieroglyphs are as follows:

1. On both Indus Script and Egyptian hieroglyphs, hieroglyph-multiplexes are created using hieroglyph components (which Dennys Frenez and Massimo Vidale call hypertextual components). 

2. Indus Script denotes 'expressions or speech-words' for every hieroglyph while Egyptian hieroglyphs generally denote 'syllables' (principally consonants without vowels).

3. While Egyptian hieroglyphs are generally deployed to derive 'names of people' or 'expressions denoting administrative divisions' deploying nomes, Indus Script is NOT used for syllabic combinations which result in names of people or designations. As evidenced by the use of Brahmi or Kharoshthi script together with Indus Script hieroglyphs on tens of thousands of ancient coins, the Brahmi or Kharoshthi syllabic representations are generally used for 'names of people or designations' while Indus Script hieroglyphs are used to detail artisan products, metalwork, in particular.

Example 1: mũh ‘face’ in almost all languageds of Indian sprachbund Rebus: mũh opening or hole (in a stove for stoking (Bi.); ingot (Santali) mũh metal ingot (Santali)mũhã̄ = the quantity of iron produced at one time in a native smelting furnace of the Kolhes; iron produced by the Kolhes and formed like a four-cornered piece a little pointed at each end; mūhā mẽṛhẽt= iron smelted by the Kolhes and formed into an equilateral lump a little pointed at each of four ends;kolhe tehen mẽṛhẽt ko mūhā akata = the Kolhes have to-day produced pig iron (Santali) kaula mengro‘blacksmith’ (Gypsy) mleccha-mukha (Samskritam) = milakkhu ‘copper’ (Pali) The Samskritam glossmleccha-mukha should literally mean: copper-ingot absorbing the Santali gloss, mũh, as a suffix.

1. A good example of constructed orthography of hieroglyph multiplex is a seal impression from Ur identified by CJ Gadd and interpreted by GR Hunter:

Seal impression, Ur (Upenn; U.16747); dia. 2.6, ht. 0.9 cm.; Gadd, PBA 18 (1932), pp. 11-12, pl. II, no. 12; Porada 1971: pl.9, fig.5; Parpola, 1994, p. 183; water carrier with a skin (or pot?) hung on each end of the yoke across his shoulders and another one below the crook of his left arm; the vessel on the right end of his yoke is over a receptacle for the water; a star on either side of the head (denoting supernatural?). The whole object is enclosed by 'parenthesis' marks. The parenthesis is perhaps a way of splitting of the ellipse (Hunter, G.R.,JRAS, 1932, 476). An unmistakable example of an 'hieroglyphic' seal. Hieroglyph:  kuṭi 'woman water-carrier' (Telugu) Rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' furnace for iron' (Santali) Hieroglyph: meḍha ‘polar star’ (Marathi). Rebus: meḍ ‘iron’ (Ho.Mu.) Thus, meḍ kuṭhi 'iron smelter'.  (Parenthesis kuṭila is a phonetic determinan of the substantive gloss:  kuṭhi 'smelter'. It could also denote a smelter for kuṭila, 'tin metal').

kuṭi కుటి : శంకరనారాయణ తెలుగు-ఇంగ్లీష్ నిఘంటువు 1953  a woman water-carrier.

Splitting the ellipse () results in the parenthesis, (  ) within which the hieroglyph multiplex (in this case of Ur Seal Impression, a water-carrier with stars flanking her head) is infixed, as noted by Hunter.

The ellipse is signified by Meluhha gloss with rebus reading indicating the artisan's competence as a professional: kōnṭa 'corner' (Nk.); kōṇṭu angle, corner (Tu.); rebus: kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’ (Bengali) Alternative reading; kanac 'corner' rebus: kancu 'bronze'. 

kõdā is a metals turner, a mixer of metals to create alloys in smelters.

The signifiers are the hieroglyph components: dula 'pair' rebus: dul 'cast metal';  meḍha ‘polar star’ rebus: meḍ ‘iron’;  kōnṭa 'corner' rebus: kõdā ‘to turn in a lathe’; kuṭi 'woman water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' furnace for iron/kuṭila, 'tin metal').

The entire hieroglyph multiplex stands deciphered: kõdā, 'metals turner' (with) meḍ ‘iron’ kuṭhi '
smelter', kuṭila, 'tin metal'. 

2. This hieroglyph multiplex of the Ur Seal Impression confirms the rebus-metonymy-layered cipher of Meluhha glosses related to metalwork.

3. A characteristic feature of Indus writing system unravels from this example: what is orthographically constructed as a pictorial motif can also be deployed as a 'sign' on texts of inscriptions. This is achieved by a stylized reconstruction of the pictorial motif as a 'sign' which occurs with notable frequency on Indus Script Corpora -- with orthographic variants (Signs 12, 13, 14).

Signs 12 to 15. Indus script: 

Identifying Meluhha gloss for parenthesis hieroglyph or (  ) split ellipse:  குடிலம்¹ kuṭilam, n. < kuṭila. 1. Bend curve, flexure; வளைவு. (திவா.) (Tamil) In this reading, the Sign 12 signifies a specific smelter for tin metal: kuṭi 'woman water-carrier'  rebus: rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' furnace for iron/ kuṭila, 'tin (bronze)metal; kuṭila, katthīl = bronze (8 parts copper and 2 parts tin) [cf. āra-kūṭa, ‘brass’ (Samskritam) See: http://download.docslide.us/uploads/check_up03/192015/5468918eb4af9f285a8b4c67.pdf

It will be seen from Sign 15 that the basic framework of a water-carrier hieroglyph (Sign 12) is superscripted with another hieroglyph component, Sign 342: 'Rim of jar' to result in Sign 15. Thus, Sign 15 is composed of two hieroglyph components: Sign 12 'water-carrier' hieroglyph; Sign 342: "rim-of-jar' hieroglyph (which constitutes the inscription on Daimabad Seal 1).

kaṇḍ kanka ‘rim of jar’; Rebus: karṇaka ‘scribe’; kaṇḍ ‘furnace, fire-altar’. Thus the ligatured Glyph is decoded: kaṇḍ karṇaka ‘furnace scribe'
Daimabad Seal 1 (Sign 342: Two hieroglyph components: jar with short-neck and rim-of-jar) -- distringuished from broad-mouthed rimless pot which is another Sign hieroglyph.

Each hieroglyph component of Sign 15 is read in rebus-metonymy-layered-meluhha-cipher:  Hieroglyph component 1: kuṭi 'woman water-carrier' rebus: kuṭhi 'smelter' furnace for iron/kuṭila, 'tin metal'. Hieroglyph component 2: kanka, kārṇī-ka 'rim-of-jar' rebus: kanka, kārṇī-ka m. ʻsupercargo of a shipʼ 'scribe'.

Ligatured hieroglyph 15 using two ligaturing components: 1. water-carrier; 2. rim-of-jar. The ‘rim-of-jar’ glyph connotes: furnace account (scribe). Together with the glyph showing ‘water-carrier’, the ligatured glyphs of kuṭi ‘water-carrier’ + ‘rim-of-jar’ can thus be read as: kuṭhi kaṇḍa kanka ‘smelting furnace account (scribe)’. 

m1405 Pict-97 Person standing at the centre pointing with his right hand at a bison facing a trough, and with his left hand pointing to the Sign 15. 

This tablet is a clear and unambiguous example of the fundamental orthographic style of Indus Script inscriptions that: both signs and pictorial motifs are integral components of the message conveyed by the inscriptions. Attempts at 'deciphering' only what is called a 'sign' in Parpola or Mahadevan corpuses will result in an incomplete decoding of the complete message of the inscribed object.

barad, barat 'ox' Rebus: भरत (p. 603) [ bharata ] n A factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c.(Marathi)

pattar 'trough'; rebus pattar, vartaka 'merchant, goldsmith' (Tamil) பத்தர்² pattar 

, n. < T. battuḍu. A caste title of goldsmiths; தட்டார் பட்டப்பெயருள் ஒன்று.

eraka 'raised arm' Rebus: eraka 'metal infusion' (Kannada. Tulu) 

Sign 15:  kuṭhi kaṇḍa kanka ‘smelting furnace account (scribe)’. 

Thus, the hieroglyph multiplex on m1405 is read rebus from r.: kuṭhi kaṇḍa kanka eraka bharata pattar'goldsmith-merchant guild -- smelting furnace account (scribe), molten cast metal infusion, alloy of copper, pewter, tin.' 

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.

S. Kalyanaraman

Sarasvati Research Center

May 8, 2016

Hieroglyphs of Egypt and Indus Script Corpora compared, both use rebus-metonymy cipher 

Mirror: http://tinyurl.com/p62la6b

Two ancient writing systems used hieroglyphs and rebus cipher to convey messages. They were Egyptian hieroglyphs and Indus Script hieroglyph-multiplexes. Egyptian hieroglyphs signified consonantal language sounds of syllables without the inherent vowel sounds. Indus Script hieroglyphs signified speech words of Proto-Prakritam of Indian sprachbund and created hieroglyph-multiplexes to message technical specifications creating a lexis of metalwork in Indus Script Corpora which now accounts for over 7000 inscriptions explaining details of metalwork and metalcastings using minerals, metals, alloys, furnaces, smelters, cire perdue lost-wax method of casting.

Early writing systems provide resources for cryptographic analyses.

Two early writing systems -- ancient Egyptian writing and ancient Indian writing -- which simultaneously originated ca. 3100 BCE and ca. 3300 BCE signified phonetics of laguage by displaying heiroglyphs.

One difference should be noted between the two writing systems. Egyptian hieroglyphs signified consonant syllables without the inherent vowel sounds. Indus Script hieroglyphs signified metalwork words which constitute the technical lexis of Proto-Prakritam of the Bronze Age.

Egyptian hieroglyphs rebus

Two hieroglyhs inscription of c. 3100 BCE renders name of King Narmer with pictures of 'catfish (Egyptian n'r) and 'awl' (Egyptian m'r). Detail of Narmer's palette. (After Finders Petrie, WM, 1953, Ceremonial slate palettes (British School of Egyptian Archaeology, vol. 66A), London:K26)
The centre-piece of the palette is a hieroglyph-multiplex signifying: Nar-mer using hierolyphs as signifiers of the inherent consonantal phonetics: n'r 'cuttle-fish, m'r 'awl'.




Indus Script hieroglyphs rebus

A 'Hieroglyph-multiplex' can also be called 'hyperciphertext' defined as a body of written or pictorial material of hieroglyphs in such a complex interconnected way that it constitutes a rebus-metonymy-layered cipher, constituting a ciphertext'. Sucha hyperciphertext may is elaborated as'hieroglyph multiplex ciphertext' when a number of hieroglyphs are presented in a complex catalogue of interconnected pictorial material. Such catalogues constitute catalogus catalogorum of Indus Script Corpora.

Dwaraka 1 seal of turbinella pyrum: Ligaturing to the body of an ox: a head of one-horned young bull, and a head of antelope. Thus, there are three hieroglyphs signifying: ox, young bull and antelope.

 m1171 sãgaḍ f. ʻ a body formed of two or more fruits or animals or men &c. linked together (Marathi)(CDIAL 12859). Rebus: sangata 'joined' as in: sãgaḍ ʻfloat made of two canoes joined togetherʼ (Marathi); sã̄gāḍā m. ʻ frame of a building ʼ (M.)(CDIAL 12859)  سنګر sangar, s.m. (2nd) A breastwork of stones, etc., erected to close a pass or road; lines, entrenchments.(Pashto) sā̃gāḍo, sãgaḍa(lathe/portable furnace) సంగడి sangaḍi. n. A couple, pair (Telugu) Rebus: 1. sãngatarāsu ‘stone-cutter, stone-carver’. संगतराश lit. ‘to collect stones, stone-cutter, mason.’ (Hindi)  sanghāḍo (G.) cutting stone, gilding (Gujarati) 2. sangara [fr. saŋ+gṛ] promise, agreement J iv.105, 111, 473; v.25, 479 (Pali) 3. jangaḍ  id. (Hindi. Gujarati.Marathi)

Varahamihira explains the phrase Vajra sanghAta as: 'adamantine glue' in archaeometallurgical terms which is consistent with the rendering of semantics of Bhāratam Janam as 'metalcaster folk' in Rigveda.
Source: V. Subrahmanya Sastri and M. Ramakrishna Bhat, ed. trans. , 1946, Varahamihira's Brihat Samhita,  Bangalore, VB Soobbiah and Sons. 

https://archive.org/details/Brihatsamhita http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/02/vajra-sanghata-binding-together.html

खोड [ khōṇḍa ] m A young bull, a bullcalf (Marathi) rebus: khond 'turner'.

barad, barat 'ox' Rebus: भरत (p. 603) [ bharata ] n A factitious metal compounded of copper, pewter, tin &c. 

ranku 'antelope' Rebus: ranku 'tin'' (Santali) krammara 'look back' (Telugu) Rebus: kamar 'artisan, smith' (Santali).


See: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2015/06/hieroglyphmultiplextext-sagad-vakyam.html

The expression used by Varahamihira is Vajra sanghāta, an adamantine glue. In this context, the meaning of the word is: 'alloying, mixing, binding together' (to achieve metallic cementing). 

Alloying, cire perdue lost-wax metalcastings were major contributions of Meluhha artisans during the Bronze Age.
Gregory L. Possehl,Shu-ilishu’s cylinder seal, Expedition, Vol. 48, Number 1, pp. 42-43).http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/48-1/What%20in%20the%20World.pdf

Antelope carried by the Meluhhan is a hieroglyph: mlekh ‘goat’ (Br.); mr̤eka (Te.); mēṭam (Ta.); meṣam (Skt.) Thus, the goat conveys the message that the carrier is a Meluhha speaker. milakkhu, mleccha-mukha 'copper' (Pali. Samskritam)

Thus, the basic difference between Egypt and Indus Script Corpora is that the Egyptian hieroglyph components signified consonant sounds of syllables of coptic while Indus Script hieroglyph components signified sounds of words of Proto-Prakritam (Indian sprachbund) -- a language speech category which subsumes sub-categories of Proto-Indo-Aryan, Proto-Munda and Proto-Dravidian.