The Sindhi Language of Mohen-jo-Daro II

Before starting this chapter, I would like to draw the attention of the readers towards a fact that some of our scholars, due to their bigotry and narrow-mindedness have started calling and writing Mohen-jo-Daro as ‘Moen jo Daro’ (‘Mound of the Dead’). Their argument is that historically there has not been a Raja in Sindh with the name ‘Mohen’ and secondly this name has been given by the Hindus, therefore it should be changed to Moen jo Daro, which would mean a ‘mound of the dead’. Tarnishing history of Sindh due to such narrow mindedness and bias is not new; Hindus tried to make history as Hindu, and Muslims made it embrace Islam. They have unnecessarily attempted to find the Hindu name ‘Mohan’ in Mohen-jo-Daro. This word ‘Mohen’ has got nothing to do with the Hindu name ‘Mohan’. This is actually a name of a tribe and thus the name of this hilly site was “Muhin jo daro”, that with the passage of time has changed its pronunciation from ‘Muhin’ to Mohin, and has now become ‘Mohen’. Muhin was the name of the tribe that earned its living through fishing and with the help of boats caught fish in varying numbers. A totemic sign of them ( ) is found at numerous places in Mohen-jo-Daro. This tribe has been living in Sindh for thousands of years. Shah Latif has called them as one of “muhayin” (meaning fishermen). Branches of this tribe with the names of “mai” and “muhana” etc are still found in Sindh. The totemic sign ( ) can be seen carved on the side walls of boats and on the pottery used by these poor fishermen, who still live in Thatta, Manjar and Dadu. Somehow the civilization of Mohen-jo-Daro has become known after the name of this tribe.  That is why in our old literature it has been called “Muhinjo Daro”, for example in the books of Mirza Qaleech Baig. And it is known as such in Dokri and its neighbouring areas. This name Muhin has nothing to do with the Hindu name Mohan. Despite this, the narrow-minded scholars who are bent upon calling Mohen as Moen (dead) should at least consider the fact that “all the cities of ancient civilizations that have been found are all in a way mounds of dead people and so ‘moenjo daros’. And then why not all these places like Kahu jo Daro or Amri jo Daro be called Moenjo Daro number 1, Moenjo Daro number 2  !!

I have to admit that for deciphering the language of Mohen-jo-Daro I do not possess a qualification, in the form of a degree. I have, just as a student of this subject, studied languages, especially the ancient ones. And I have found this subject more interesting than others. It was educational on one hand but the mysteriousness of Mohen-jo-Daro caught my attention more than anything else.  And this extreme interest intrigued my mind so much that I devoted five long years for this study. I have no misconceptions about the conclusions that I am going to draw from this study. I repeat there is no misconception in my mind: and it is quite possible that all my efforts are totally in the wrong direction but at the same time there is a possibility that I might be on the right track. I am certain that my endeavour would surprise quite a few scholars and will force them to ‘think’. If that happens, I will consider that my efforts bore fruit. Since the values I have assigned to the signs of the language are constant and without any changes, they are found almost everywhere giving rise to meaningful and understandable words, and the structure of the language that comes out is unrefined and crude. It therefore gives me a faint hope that I may be right. Secondly I have placed all these values based on present state of scientific study, evidences and arguments, therefore even if the inferences are not absolutely correct, I have provided enough material for future scholars on the subject.

Anyway, I present the results of my study before the scholars with the hope that this is my labour of love; if it is incorrect, I should be forgiven as a student. The other thing I wish to say here is that this is a subject for which the libraries and museums of other countries are stuffed with literature; we do not have even a fraction of that here in Pakistan. Even the invaluable things found from Mohen-jo-Daro and Harappa are locked in the British Museum, Louvre and other European museums; we only have copies available. I wish all the seals and other finds of Mohen-jo-Daro and Harappa along with the results of research studies conducted on them until now, would have been available to me! And the cost of making blocks and films of all the finds of Mohen-jo-Daro etc for publishing in a book is so much that no author in his individual capacity would be able to bear it. This could only be borne by a university or some educational institution. The cost of only about 200 blocks made for this small book has already been more than I can bear. Therefore I have tried to choose and present only those of the signs that I had researched, that were absolutely essential.

Approximately 800 seals and amulets have been found from Mohen-jo-Daro and Harappa that have shapes, pictures and signs inscribed on them. Amongst these the signs that are recognizable are about 400.

We have 39 consonants and 11 vowels in Sindhi. Out of them four consonants ڱ ŋ (ng), ڙ ɽ (rr), ڻ    (n) and ڃ  (nj) are not used in the beginning of words (even though words like ڱڱ Λ (gnang) and  ڙيɽɛ (rre) etc are there but the occurrence is rare. For the joining of remaining 35 consonants to 11 vowels, we would require 385 phonetic signs to form a pronunciation. According to this, the main signs of Mohen-jo-Daro that are phonetic, more or less resemble the Sindhi pronunciations.

Many scholars have tried to understand this writing and decipher the signs but none has succeeded. The efforts in deciphering Egyptian, Sumerian, Hittite and other scripts were successful because they had two languages used in them, from which one was already present in the deciphered form and that had made the reading and understanding of the new language relatively easier. The script of Mohen-jo-Daro does not provide this facility, moreover by the attempts at deciphering this language, the scholars were expecting to find an already imagined language. They thought of Sindhi to be only a few hundred years old, so it never occurred to them; and even if it came to their mind, it may have sounded ridiculous to them, that in these inscriptions may be found some form of the Sindhi language. Professor Langden was the first scholar who endeavoured to find Brahmic, an Indian script from these signs. Among the scholars who worked hard on these scripts, names like Mackay, Sidney Smith, C.G.Gayd and Langden are worth mentioning. Following the research of these gentlemen, Dr G.R.Hunter worked very hard for a detailed research. Hunter is of the view that Brahmic script has sprung from the script of Mohen-jo-Daro. A priest from Madras in India, Father Harius tried to find a Dravidian language from it. Colonel Waddle thought that the people of Mohen-jo-Daro spoke Sanskrit. Mr. Haranzi too thought on these lines. Around 1945, a Pundit from Bengal, Swami Sankaranand tried to derive old Sanskrit from these signs with the help of glossaries of the Tantars. A few years ago, Moulvi Abu Jalal Nadvi in his article in ‘Mahe-Nau’ went on to claim that people of Mohen-jo-Daroused Hebrew and Arabic for their speech, reading and writing. All these attempts have failed to bear fruit and have been totally unsuccessful.

From the efforts on scientific grounds that have been made until now, one can draw some inferences that can be followed as rules for further research. In this context, Dr Hunter’s research is more useful, who has published his book named “The Script of Harrappa and Mohen jo  Daro”, The theories and inferences in it are briefly given here, that have been agreed upon by most of the scholars of recent times:

1-     By and large these signs are phonetic i.e. every sign shows a consonant joined to a vowel thereby revealing a pronunciation.

2-     Their origin is Ideographic and Pictographic. Three types of scripts have been found in ancient languages that are: Ideographic, Pictographic and Cuneiform. Ideographic are signs where the shape of the sign gives rise to an idea in one’s mind. The ‘idea’ would relate to the words with a certain meaning. For example, if in the script, the torso of a person is seen, then the words formed would also be related to the torso. Pictographic signs are the ones where a picture or a shape is present, which contains the name of that thing or a syllable related to that name forming a pronunciation. In Cuneiform script, signs created by a chisel make a compound sign in which the syllables of words are present in the images. Most of the signs of Mohen-jo-Daro are pictographic, but since their origin was Ideographic, therefore some of the signs are Ideographic too. Some of them are compound signs, that are both Ideographic as well as Pictographic. Only one or two Cuneiform signs have been found.

3-     The age of this script is at least 4000 years BC. Some signs and seals are also from a later period but the ones from the latest period are at least from 3500 years BC (1). Because of being from different periods, the shapes of these signs appear slightly different. In certain cases, due to the use of diminutive from of the vowel some different symbols are also found; as has happened in the case of  m + a vowel.

4-     This script has similarity with Sumerian and Elmite (Proto-Elmitic) scripts. It has more resemblance with the signs of JamadulNasra (3500 BC) of the most ancient Sumerian period, campared to the signs of later periods from 2000-3000 BC. From this, Hunter has inferred that Sumerian had borrowed some Sindhi signs, and this fact could never be after 4000 BC^*.(2)

5-     Some similarity is also found with the script of Crete, from which Dr Hunter has inferred that perhaps in some very ancient period, there was a race that used these pictographic signs in different parts of the world. This supports my view that it was the Sindhi tribes who spread the art of writing in other regions of the world.

6-     Brahmic (3), Sabaen (of the country of Saba), Safaen (of Safa) (4), Cypriot (of Cyprus) and Phoenician scripts have sprung and evolved from this script (5). Dr Hunter has gone to the extent of thinking that possibly the Sindhis of those times had a monopoly over the seas and shipping, faring up to the Gulf of Suez, and this fact proves the tradition mentioned in the Bible about a pact between King Hiram and Prophet Sulaiman, according to which Phoenicians were allowed to establish a base in Eziongebar (6).

7-     According to Mr. G. D. Hiose, the script on the seals and wooden planks found from Easter Island has directly been an offshoot of the script of Mohen-jo-Daro and is exactly similar (8). Professor Langden also feels that these two scripts are the same. This matter has not been resolved by experts as yet!

These are some of the theories over which all the European scholars are in agreement. It is crystal clear from these findings that the script of Mohen-jo-Daro is one of the most ancient scripts and that it is the source of most of the ancient scripts of the world. The only reason for failure of its decipherment is that none of the scholars considered the idea that since this script was born in Sindh and was used by ancient native Sindhis, it may have possibly been an ancient form of Sindhi language. But as I have already mentioned, this was due to the false concepts propagated by scholars like Hemchander and MaxMuller that Sindhi had originated from Apabhramasas … and came into its present form around the 11^th century. I have attempted to proved these concepts wrong. The language of Mohen-jo-Daro has no other language coupled to it, as is the case in other ancient scripts. So if one were to postulate an idea that these were signs of the ancient Sindhi language, it would not be a wild guess. This is the theory behind my efforts for deciphering this script, and the inferences that are derived seem to prove the theory as correct. I have already established that Sindhi is an original language and not a Prakrit/dialect of any other language.

Many of the seals of Mohen-jo-Daro contain signs of numbers. This is accepted by all the experts that the presence of numbers on the seals is an important thing. From this fact two conclusions are drawn: at places these numbers appear in the form of counting numbers and at others they have been used for the actual pronunciation (of the number used for that word); (8), or it has been used as the initial syllable of the pronunciation becoming the structural unit of words. It is worth mentioning here that most scholars, including Hunter, are of the opinion that mostly these seals have names of kings, gods and goddesses written over them. Approximately 800 unbroken, complete and unerased seals have been found from Mohen-jo-Daro and Harrappa. Many others have not been found and must have perished with the passage of time. Additionally many broken and erased seals and amulets have also been found. Presence of so many kings, gods and goddesses, all in one city of a single civilization is something that does not seem possible. I am of the view that some of these are names of people, some are receipts of day to day trade and some are ordinances and orders of the government of the time. The inscriptions on copper are surely the coins of that time. In certain cases just totemic symbols are present.

The other important thing to be kept in mind is the direction of these writings. Mackay and Hunter feel that the people of Mohen-jo-Daro used a right to left mode of script, even though they accept that at places dual-way script forms are also present. Perhaps that is the case because the seals that have been found, have a left to right pattern but since they are seals, affixing/stamping them would result in a right to left script. According to my decipherment the seals that are for affixing, their final reading would be from right to left. But amongst them are inscriptions that are not to be stamped/affixed, the question of how to read them is also there. On the basis of the rule quoted above, these should be read from left to right. But since most of the inscriptions are in the form of seals, a question does arise: did the people of Mohen-jo-Daro have a system, in common use, that they would form a seal for every writing, and then affix/stamp it on something like Papyrus or some sort of paper, skins, leaves of trees or some other objects, and then read it? It cannot be assumed with certainty because such a medium of stamping or printing has not been discovered. In my opinion, the seals that I have been able to decipher, are to be read from right to left after printing, but some other writings which are not for stamping or printing, should be read from left to right- for example, the inscription on pottery and coins are of the later type. At the same time the writings that are of more than one line have both the patterns; some of them are from right to left while others are from left to right. Such writings are called “Boustrophedon”. Here a point must be borne in mind that the writings that I have copied are given here in a right to left arrangement for the sake of uniformity, although the coins etc among them should be read from left to right. And since stamping/affixing them would cause them to be read from right to left, therefore the actual reading will not change.

Even though this script is one of the most ancient written forms but at places, there are some ideographic and pictographic signs mixed together in such a way that the whole system of compound forms is truly admirable. Firstly this makes the signs easy to understand and secondly the possibility of error is remarkably reduced. The idea in the pictures that the Sindhis had inculcated in the early phases of the script is surprisingly very well thought and systematic. At the same time different signs for similar sounds have been adopted because their vowels change in a systematic way to give an impression of a compound sound. So they developed separate signs instead of adding different vowels to the same signs. Because of this, for about 39 consonants and their pronunciations, there are about 400 main signs. This would be better understood when one comes to the stage of reading these signs.

Let us now study the numbers. Sindh in ancient times has been culturally rich and responsible for spreading knowledge and learning to every nook and corner of the world. It is unfortunate that what we are left with today are only memories of our wisdom, rich culture; and even this heritage is difficult for some scholars to tolerate!

It is a historical fact that the Arabs learnt the science of numbers- Ilm-e- Hindsa- from Hind (India) especially from the Sindhis. Yet another historical tradition proves that numerical mathematics went from India to Phoenician people; the successors of the latter spread it in Europe. Looking at the numerical signs of Mohen-jo-Daro, one has to concede that the present system of counting in terms of units, tens and hundreds was invented by the people of Mohen-jo-Daro, from where it went to Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Phoenicia and Cyprus etc. While arguing on language, I have discussed numbers at some length. In this respect arguing specially on number 2 and 7, I have tried to prove that they provide the basic indication that the system of numbers originated from Sindh and that the other languages have adopted the Sindhi numbers. I have shown that although ancient Indo-European languages, including Sanskrit, have terms like ‘duve’ and ‘duva’ etc for ‘two’, where the first phonetic syllable is ‘d’ with addition of a vowel, but the qualitative and oblique words, like ‘both’ (English). ‘bi’ (Latin), ‘baid’ (Greek), ‘bo’ (Old English) have ‘b’ sound like Sindhi ‘bba’ ɓΛ (=2). Similarly in most Indian languages, the number ‘2’ added to ‘tens’ is pronounced with the same ‘b’ for example ‘baarah’ (i.e. 12), ‘baaees’ (i.e. 22), ‘baawan’ (i.e. 52) etc. And this usage proves only one thing that originally the word for ‘2’ was ‘bba’ ɓΛ or ‘ba’ that had come from Sindhi, which was taken by other languages. Its use in Sindhi remained as it is, but since the implosive sound ɓΛ ‘bba’ could not be pronounced by the other languages, it changed at some stage and became ‘duve’, ‘duva’, and ‘do’ or the basic ‘d’ with addition of different forms of vowels.  But the oblique forms where ‘b’ sound was used persisted and since such evidence is found in the qualitative forms, it proves that in all these languages the syllable ‘ba’ existed, if not individually then as some dual form. Our learned friend Mr. Abdul Karim Sandeelo who has shown Sanskrit roots of the numbers bbaranh ɓa:rΛñhΛ (i.e. 12), bbaweeha ɓa:wi:hΛ (i.e. 22),  bbateeha ɓΛti:hΛ (i.e. 32), bbaitaaleeha ɓa: ɛta:li:ha (i.e. 42) etc are not correct. For example Sindhi bbaitaleeha (i.e. 42) has no relation with ‘DachtoArinshat’ and likewise bbateeha (i.e. 32) has nothing to do with ‘duaTiranshat’. These are basic words of our own count and in pure Sindhi. In Hindi, Urdu and other Prakrits words like ‘baaees’ (i.e. 22), ‘batees’ (i.e. 32) and ‘bialees (i.e. 42) show that they contain Sindhi ‘bba’ in the form of ‘ba’. This very ‘ba’ root is also evident in ‘both’ in English, Greek ‘baid’ etc as mentioned earlier..

The system of numbers of Mohen-jo-Daro is something like this:

There is no conflict about these numbers except for ‘ten’. Eleven and twelve are also found in a similar pattern (like 8 &9). All the scholars agree that these are numbers and at the same time they have also been used as phonetic syllables. In the light of my research the sign for ten is . Since in ancient times there was a strong relation of numbers and their pronunciations, the numbers were also used as phonetic syllables. Therefore in all the seals that depict the usage of numbers, a sign  draws one’s attention. Wherever this sign appears the numbers from 1 to 12 are also present in the above form, which proves that this sign has a strong connection with the numbers. In addition to this, the materials found from ancient languages and related regions also indicate that this sign, in addition to being phonetic, also depicts numbers. Almost exactly similar sign  is found in Prot-Elimitie. From a phonetic point of view, the ancient Brahmic script has a sign   , the phonetic equivalent of which is ‘s’+ vowel i.e su" sao ‘Sava’  (that means 100). I think this Brahmic sign is derived from the   sign of Mohen-jo-Daro that was pronounced as ‘sao’ and in numbers it stood for 100. If this concept is correct, then from it we can derive the number 10 too.  is a combination of two  signs, it is clear that one sign is partially super-imposed on the other. If numbers are kept in mind, one number joined to another similar number would mean that the number should be so many times that number, i.e 10, ten times. If this is true then we get  as a sign for 10. A question does arise from this point that if this sign is meant for 10, then keeping it twice         (side by side) could also mean 100, instead of superimposing it on the other similar sign. In fact when the Sindhis of those times started writing 1 for one and 11 for two, they might have thought that by writing , (like 11 for two), it would mean 10+10 and not 100. Using this concept when they created a sign for ten tens (10x10), they superimposed one sign on the other to create the  sign to mean that it is not twice but the number times the number, was actually intended. This concept not only throws light on their sound mathematical skill but it also shows that they had already laid down the foundation of the numerical system.

There is another proof of this occurance. In the old Tantaric records, a sign  is found with the sound ‘dha’ or ‘da’. In Brahmic the equivalents of  are ‘th’ or ‘d’ with added vowel are also found. Both these sounds are very closely related and similar to  = Sindhi “ddaha” ɗΛhΛ (meaning 10). Dr Hunter too doubted this phenomenon that the  sign might be equal to 10 or 100. I say ‘doubted’ because Dr Hunter has put both 10 and 100 infront of the  sign and has put a question mark at the end. But he has doubted a wrong sign. In fact the sign for ten is  and not , even though both the signs are closely related, and it is also true that the sign  also has the sign of  there, which means 10 but the dot in its center is a sign of a measure of weight, of say 10 kilograms or 10 measures etc.

Before discussing the seals, the individual signs must be studied and they be given some equivalents followed by a study of the language. An interesting thing about the seals of Mohen-jo-Daro and Harrappa is that at many places their signs are remarkably similar, even though with subtle changes of small marks here and there. I think this system of tiny marks is from a later period after the individual single signs and they have been used as vowels. Initially when the pronunciation changed, its sign would also completely change, even though they had an ideographic harmony amongst them. This is obvious in the signs for ‘k’ and ‘m’. If a sign was fixed for ‘ka’ then for ‘ko’ another sign was used, many examples of which can be found. Then in some later period when vowels were invented through diacritical marks, this practice was abandoned. It is because of this practice that in the early stages a lot of individual signs are found while in the later periods, these signs are there with diacritical marks and tiny lines. Also present in that period are compound signs, and the system of forming compounds seems to be quite extensive. At places half of the sign is added to another sign and at others one sign is doubled or put twice with another sign, for example two signs  and  have been joined as , where  sign has been added twice. At other places half of this sign is added to one side and the other half to the other side of the sign. Sometimes the signs seem to have been kept in oblique, opposite and upside down positions. All these changes have a special reason. Wherever a prominent sign is seen as inverted, it indicates that the word stops there and from there another word has to start.

The other thing to be kept in mind about signs is that like all ancient scripts, the origin of this script is also ideographic; therefore most of the signs are symbolic or ‘determinative’. For example if a slave is being described, showing a man in chains is symbolic of the one and such a sign would be called ‘determinative’. And wherever such a sign is used, it would mean ‘someone’s slave’ or elsewhere some other sign would read ‘king of some land’ etc. Some signs found from Mohen-jo-Daro show the symbols of a ‘fort’, ‘goddess’ or ‘god’ etc which are considered very important. Since understanding these signs is essential and basic to decipher ancient scripts, therefore it was necessary to give an introduction in this regard.

Amongst them let us first examine this sign . The peculiarity of this sign is that wherever found it has been used at the end of that writing. In the ancient languages, whenever a sign is used at the end, it raises a suspicion that it might be a determinative sign and signifies a particular thing or event. Such a doubt would be unfounded for this sign because it has been frequently used and therefore it is least likely to be a determinative sign for something. Determinants are usually kings, slaves, writers or scribers. Obviously there cannot be so many kings in a given society. The determinant cannot be a slave because a slave could not have been so important to be mentioned on so many seals. The only identity for this sign then could be that it is used for a pronunciation or a word syllable that appears at the end of a word and never in the beginning. And since my hypothesis is that these writings contain ancient Sindhi language, therefore this sign could be for some syllable or a sound in Sindhi that occurs at the end of a word. We have such sounds like ڱ  (ng), ڃ  (nj), ڙ ɽ (rr) and  ڻ ɳ (n) that always appear in the middle or end of a word and rarely in the beginning. Of these ڱ  (ng) and ڃ  (nj) are rarely used while ڙ ɽ (rr) and ڻ ɳ (n) are sounds of the same nature. ڻ ɳ (n) has been formed in some ancient era by the combination of the nasalized sound of ‘n’ with ڙ ɽ (rr). We use these two as alternative sounds and they are changeable, for example ma:ɳhu: and “manhoon” ma:ɽhu: “marrhoo” (which means a ‘man’). I think this  sign of Mohen-jo-Daro may be considered to have been used for both these sounds. Based on this hypothesic according to the given values, this sign is equal to ڻ ɳ (n) or ڙ ɽ (rrh) with addition of a vowel. Dr Hunter has put its value as Brahmic sign  for ‘h’ plus a vowel. I think that is incorrect because in  and  there is neither an ideogrphic nor pictographic resemblance, and secondly ‘h’ sound with an added vowel does not have the peculiarity of being a suffix, and in most languages this may be used in the beginning of a word or a pronunciation. There is not one language in the world where this sound is only used in the end. This sign looks like one of a ‘container’ for water. It has been named ‘grahpati’ in Tanters, and its equivalent is the nasal sound of ‘m’. Such a sign  is found in the ancient Cypriot script, the value of which is ‘ni’ or ‘nee’. It is said that the Cypriot script originated from the script of Mohen-jo-Daro. Keeping all these things in mind, we can certainly assign the value of  as ڙ ɽ (rr) or ڻ ɳ (n) plus a vowel.

The other commonly used sign is  which resembles a fish. Perhaps this is how fish was called in those days. I have already mentioned earlier that this is also a totemic symbol of a tribe, and I think its phonetic equivalent is ‘m’ with an added vowel. This sign is found in the Brahmic script in the reverse form as  which too is a sign for fish with the value of ‘m’. In the Egyptian Hieroglyphic script there is a sign  which either is a figure for fish or the torso of a bird and its value too is ‘m’. Dr Hunter has also assigned ‘m’ plus a vowel as its equivalent that seems correct based on present evidences.

 This sign appears to be a symbol of a wooden mortar and a pestle for grinding grain. A sign in Tanteric records appears like  with an equivalent value of ‘yee’ or ‘jee’. A similar sign is also found in Proto-Elmitic. The Brahmic counterpart of it is  with an equivalent value of ‘ya’. Among the Southern Semitic languages, Safa and Saba scripts, a sign like this  has also been found in the script of Safa that too has ‘yaa’ as an equivalent value. It is said about Safa and Saba that these scripts sprang from the script of Mohen-jo-Daro. On the basis of all these pointers, one can assign ‘y’ sound as its consonant with an added vowel. Even in an ideographic way its shape is like ‘yoni’ and is symbolic of creative power. And the appropriate word for this in Sindhi language also starts with a ي ‘y’ as a consonant.

   This sign gives an impression of earth which in Sindhi is “bhooñ” or ‘bhoomi’, therefore I have assigned it an equivalent value of ‘bh’ or ‘b’ with an added vowel. The Brahmic value for  is ‘ba’. In the southern Semitic languages the value of    is also ‘b’, and in Egyptian it is ‘p’. In the Tanteric records the value of  is ‘b’. On the basis of these pointers the equivalent value for this sign can be assigned as ‘b’ or ‘bh’ with an added vowel.

 is the sign for the sun and is close to the  sign. The value of  in Tanteric record is ‘sh’ or ‘s’. It is also symbolic sign for the sun in the Egyptian Hieroglyphic. I have assigned this sign related with the sun the value of ‘s’ and a vowel.  sign is the symbol of phonetic syllable for ‘sao’ (i.e. 100) or ‘sava’  ( i.e 100s), therefore this is a sign with which the ‘s’ sound is joined to other vowels.

   etc: These signs are clearly indicative of a person, and are found in most of the ancient scripts, at places as phonetic and at others as determinative. In the signs from Mohen-jo-Darothe shape resembles تن ‘tun’ (i.e. body) of a person. The Tanteric records show the shape of the torso of a person in the form  with an equivalent valeu of ‘t’. In Brahmic the sign is  and in southern Semitic languages the value of  is also ‘t’. I have also assigned the sign with the sketch of a person the value of ت ‘t’ with a vowel. The sign   gives an impression of negative so I have put its equivalent as ‘n’ plus a vowel. A sign close to this is found in Proto-Elmitic as  that too has ‘n’ as an equivalent value. The signs from Cyprus show this sign in  form with ‘n’ as its equivalent value. In Brahmic and Tanteric records its abbreviated sign  is found that has an equivalent of ‘na’. Its shape in Phoenician is . Dr Hunter too has assigned it the equivalent value of ‘n’ and a vowel. Based on all these findings, one can assign it the equivalent value of ‘n’ with a vowel.

 This sign gives the impression of a branch of a tree. Brahmic also has a similar sign  facing the same way with an equivalent velue of ڊ ɖ ‘da’. The equivalent value of ….. Trirekha (three line symbol) too is ‘ a’. The Egyptian Hieroglphic also has a sign like Trirekha. I have assigned it the equivalent value of ڊ ɖ ‘ ’ or ڏ ɗ (dd) plus a vowel. 

       : All these signs have the sound of (k) with different vowels, and point to a pile of sticks. Its closest Brahmic sign is with ‘k’ as its value. In the Tanters the sign  is found with the meaning of a tree or of wood and the equivalent value given is ‘k’. The Sumerian script has the sign  with the equivalent value of ‘s’. Based on all these evidences one can assign the equivalent value of ‘k’ plus a vowel for these signs.

       I have been unable to find an ideographic form for this sign. I have assigned it the equivalent of  (j) or ڄ   (jj) with a vowel. Its nearest form in Brahmic is  that has ‘j’ as its equivalent value. One version of this sign  gives the impression as if a person is holding a tray on his hands and I think that it is an ideographic form that means to show possession and its pronouncing syllables are ‘ja’, ‘jo’.  (meaning ‘of’) This latter form is also found in Egyptian, Elmitic and Sumerian scripts. The equivalent value for this in Sumerian is ‘gul’. The phonetic relation between ‘g’ and ‘j’ is quite obvious. The Egyptian people still pronounce ‘masjid’ (mosque) as ‘masggid’ and ‘Jamal Nasir’ as ‘Gamal Nasir’. On the basis of these findings the equivalent value for this sign is ‘j’ (ج) or ‘jj’ (ڄ) with a vowel.

    I have not been able to find an imaginative figure of this sign. A closely related sign  in Brahmic has an equivalent value of  و ‘va’. It is there in Egyptian and Sumerian and I have assigned it an equivalent value of و ‘v’ with a vowel. It is not without interest to note that  and  have very little difference. Because of this, confusion was created by some Indian languages (Sanskrit, Bengali and other Sanskrit Prakrits) about the Sindhi و (vao) and ب. (b) Hence there are same words found in Sanskrit spelt with both the letters e.g. ‘v’ and ‘b’ ‘ver’ and  ‘bar’ (i.e. husband) etc. I have quoted many such examples during the discussion on languages. What has happened is that in some period of time either due to wrong spellings by writers or incorrect pronunciations by the pundits, this error became commonly spoken considering it correct.

 This sign is indicative of a hill. Its Brahmic version is  and the equivalent value is “ee”. In the southern Semitic languages, in the Safa and Saba scripts, signs like  and are found with an equivalent value of ‘a’. In the Tanteric records , Grisha in the form of a hillock has the equivalent value of ‘h’ and ‘e’. I have assigned it an equivalent value of ‘a’ before a consonant.

   A definite ideographic form has not been known about this sign but one does get an impression of a measure of a weight or a bundle of something. According to my reading its pronunciation would be - ڌ “dh” plus a vowel. Closer forms like these  have been found in the Saba and Safa scripts of the southern Semitic language, with the equivalent value of ‘d’. Brahmic also has a similar sign  with an equivalent value of ‘dh’.

 This sign gives the impression of a utensil or container. Its Brahmic counterpart is  with an equivalent value of ‘p’. Tanters have it as , with the same equivalent i.e. ‘p’. This sign is found in the reverse form  in the southern Semitic script with an equivalent value of ‘p’.  In Sumerian seals it is  and in Phoenician it is sideways like  with an equivalent value of ‘p’. Based on these evidences the equivalent value to be assigned would be ‘p’ with a vowel.

 This appears as a compound sign in which we find the shape of a human torso/ person. It appears as if there is a chain in his neck or it could be ideographic sign of armour for protection. The sign for human torso is supposed to be ‘t’ which has already been discussed. The nearest sign for the other part of the sign is seen in Sumerian as  that has the equivalent value of ‘gd’ that in Brahmic is  for ‘g’ which is also found in southern Semitic script as . Another sign seen in Sumerian is  whose equivalent value is “gg”. The Tanteric records show a sign  , that too has the equivalent value of ‘ga’. On the basis of these pointers we can assign to this sign the equivalent value of  تگ (ng) or ڳ  (gg) plus a vowel.

 This is a sign of a series of mountains/hills. I have assigned it an equivalent value of ‘m’ plus a vowel, but here the sound of ‘m’ is one that comes in the middle. The other sign for ‘m’ has already been mentioned earlier. But since that is also a totemic sign, so this other sign for the sound came around in some later period, where due to the changes of vowels, newer signs were being invented. The nearest sign from the script of Saba script is sideways  with an equivalent of ‘m’. In the Cypriot script it is with the same ‘m’ as equivalent value. Its shape in Phoenician appears like  with equivalent value of ‘m’. The Phoenician signs have given rise to the modern European alphabet. From this sign the letter ‘M’ has come into the European script).

 This sign is indicative of a plant or a creeper (plant). I have assigned it the equivalent value of ‘l’ with a vowel. Its Cypriot form appears as , that too has the same equivalent. Its Brahmic shape is  which also has ‘l’ as its equivalent. Therefore its final equivalent value is considered as  ‘l’ and a vowel.

 This sign appears on very few seals and is always seen at the end. Mostly it has been found at places where the sign before it show some tiny marks for vowels and diacritical marks or lines. It means that the word is ending there. So when this sign is seen singly, its purpose seems to be ideographic. This phenomenon is also seen in Egyptian Hieroglyphs. The shape of this sign gives the impression of the main entrance or the tower of a fort. In my view since this sign also appears in forms where its pronunciation seems to be ‘k’ therefore I have considered it a sign for a ڪوٽ ‘kot’ which means a fort in Sindhi.

Since discussing all the signs of Mohen-jo-Darowill give rise to a very lengthy argument, I would like to finish it here. Also discussing about each sign will be outside the scope of this book, therefore I have only given a very brief account. If each sign is studied in detail, the number of films and blocks (for printing) required will be beyond my means. So after this brief narration I would discuss the writings.

The seals of some period of Mohen-jo-Daroare found to have the numbers one and two in small sizes as I II  etc. Similar signs like I and I I are also found in Sumerian and all the experts agree that these signs are expressions of vowels. The sign I is used for ‘i’ sound and I I for ‘ee’. Though initally people of Mohen-jo-Darodid not use signs of vowels with their signs for consonants, but later when they were created, they were used in a compound form or as diacritical marks after the consonant. I was utterly amazed when I saw the use of the sign for ‘r’ as a diacritical mark. In Indo-European languages ‘r’ is a consonant, as well as a vowel, as ‘ri’ or ‘ree’ as is seen in the word preet (i.e. love). In Sindh too sometimes ‘r’  is used as a semi vowel. The script of Gujrati and Bengali Prakrits in relation to Brahmic, has originated from Sindhi i.e. from the script of Mohen-jo-Daro. In these Prakrits, the use of short ‘r’ is seen as a diacritical mark or line only on the preceding consonant: here the example of Gujrati will be enough. In  (prem or preet) adding a line or a diacritical mark on ‘p’ causes the pronunciation to have the sound of ‘r’in it. Here only a diacritical mark would be in order and not a full ‘r’ as a consonant. Similar condition is seen in Hindi, Bengali, Urya etc. And the same is noted in Mohen-jo-Daroas well, that the addition of a small mark produces the sound of ‘r’. This is an entirely novel/unique thing and proves my research that the alphabets of Brahmic and Indian Prakrits have originated from the script of Mohen-jo-Daro.

Having studied the signs, let us now try to decipher some inscriptions and seals. Here I have given only a few examples, even though I have been able to decipher 250 other writings. Let me submit that although most writings are decipherable, but since the form of the language is very crude and very ancient, the exact meaning of many writings cannot be ascertained. Despite this fact, it proves my theory that these writings somewhere contain the parent language of Sindhi i.e. ‘the Old Sindhi’. Because of financial and other limitations, the briefness of description is regretted.

1-     (Museum number Vs 1026): This writing is inscribed in this manner on a utensil. This is the only writing found on a utensil and it has not been found in any other civilisation. Since this is not for affixing/stamping and is inscribed on earthenware, its reading will be from left to right. The first part of the sign is for number 4 and its pronunciation is ca:ɼ ‘chaar’ (i.e. 4). And the other sign is ڻ  (n) plus a vowel, so the sign will be read as چارڻ ca:ɼΛ (chaaran) or ‘Chaaran plus a vowel e.g. ‘Chaaran-ee, ‘Chaaran-o’ etc. But since the word ‘Charan’ already exists in Sindhi as a man’s name, one can say that this was the name of the potter who made that earthenware.

2-    (Museum no. Vs 2541): This is a square shaped seal made of limestone. Its first part is (ج)  (j) or (ڄ)  )jj( plus a vowel. Although this is an ideographic or symbolic sign but since it has come in the beginning of a writing, therefore it is phonetic. In the other sign the four dots around a fish firstly make it a totemic sign and secondly provide the nasal sound. This being a totemic sign is also a naming word i.e. جام (Jaam) or ڄام a:m (jjaam). This name is commonly in use in Sindh. Here its peculiarity is that because of the totemic sign, it may be indicative of the chief of a tribe. In Sindh even today the chief of tribes related to the fishing trade is called a ڄام a:m (Jaam)  or ڄاموٽ a:mot (Jaamote)!!

3-      (Museum no Vs 2040): This is also a square seal made of limestone. Beneath this inscription is the shape of a unicorn. The first sign is of ڀ (bh) plus vowel, second is ڳ  (gg) plus a vowel, and the third sign is  ي (y) plus a vowel. According to my reading, this too is a name of a respectable person called ڀاڳيو bʱa: io  (Bhaggio).

4-    (Museum no Vs 192): This is a rectangular copper coin. Such coins made of copper have not been found from excavations of any ancient civilisation. The first sign  is actually a combination of two signs, the first is  which stands for پ (p) plus a vowel, and the second is  , even though apparently it does not look like another sign. In fact the people of Mohen-jo-Daroin their invention of a script never forgot the aesthetic aspect. Therefore instead of keeping the  sign on one side they kept half of it  on one side of  and the other half on the other side. This principle is also seen in the sign  in which in order to join the sign  to  they have kept one sphere on one side and the other sphere on the other side, in order to signify a compound sign; but it also provides beauty to it. This arrangement appears to be decoratine one.  This sign also contains an inherent formation, i.e. putting a line in front of  to close it like  which gives a nasal twang to the sound. This method is found wherever the nasal sounds are observed. You will note that this sign is similar from both sides which proves that this sign has been used on both sides of the letter. According to my understanding the equivalent of this inscription would be پ (p) + ج (J) + nasal sound + ڙ ɽ (rr) or ڻ  (n) i.e. پنجڙ pΛñjΛɽ  (pajnarr), پنجڻ pΛñjΛ (panjan) etc. I think that this word پنجڙ (panjarr)’ was used for a coin but its worth is not known. This word is still in common usage as an adjunct, where in daily life utterances we use words like پئسو پنجڙ pΛɛso pΛnjΛɽ (paiso panjarr), ايڪڙ ٻيڪڙ (aikarr baikarr), ماڻهو ڇيڻو (manhoon chhenoon),
ٿانءُ ٿپو (thaanu thapo) etc and such dual words are mostly considered meaningless, but in fact that is not true. These were very meaningful words in some period of history but later they lost their meanings. But being an important part of our culture, they have kept a place for themselves in usage. This word ‘panjarr’ too was used for naming a coin which even though was buried for thousands of years but still has found itself surviving as an adjunct to other words.

In this context it is prudent to mention that Hunter and other scholars think that these coins do not have their worth written on them, rather they are names of kings etc, because, these coins are of a similar size and weight but the inscriptions on them are different. Their argument is that if there had been a value given to them then the coins of same weight would have had the same equivalents and according to the values the inscriptions would have been the same. I do not agree with this theory. It is not necessary that if the sizes and weights of coins were same, their equivalent would also be the same. It could be true for gold coins but not for copper or other metals. Even though the period of Mohen-jo-Darois considered to belong to the Copper Age but it does not prove that copper was considered as a precious metal. Even in that age gold was a precious metal that is seen from the jewellery that has been found. Secondly the coins found with differing inscriptions are geologically proven to be from the same era and therefore in one civilisation and culture, existence of so many kings and their having different coinages does not appear as a plausible argument in the scientific and historic perspective. Moreover the coins are exactly similar. I think that the inscriptions are the names of the coins, the worth and prices of which cannot be ascertained in the current system of money. People used these coins as receipts in the form of inscriptions for day to day trading and not on the basis of the weight of the coins. The pricing on the basis of weight of metals is a phenomenon of later times in history. The value of coins then depended on their being made of copper and their value written on them.

       (Museum nos. Vs 3320, Hr 456. Hr 723, Hr 4337 and Vs 1988)

Quite a few of these coins have been found and same inscriptions are there on them. In this inscription we have already seen the last two signs in the above mentioned coin and have given them the equivalent value of ‘Panjarr’. Of the remaining two,  is ‘a’ (Λ) and  is equal to ‘dh’ plus a vowel. So the entire writing would be اڌ پنجڙ ΛdʱpΛñjΛɽ (Adh Panjarru) meaning that this coin is half of the earlier given coin. This very coin was later shortened in the form of       i.e. sign  has been removed from it. (This coin is found   at museum nos. Vs 3500 and Vs 2590). Its final reading would be اَڌڙ ΛdʱΛɽ (adharru) or آڌيڙو a:dʱ ɛɽo (aadherro), the latter is the correct reading because in the middle sign the mark on the vowel is meant to prolong it. This ‘aadherro or ‘adhelo’ is found in our coinage through the centuries. And in my discussion on languages I have referred to Mackay and said that the system of coinage that has been in our use has names with very old and ancient background.

     Museum no. Vs 11560): This is a copper coin and is read as ٻه  (bba) + ڪ (k) + vowel + ڊ ɖ (d) or ڏ  (dd) + vowel i.e. ٻه ڪوڏ Λko Λ (bba kodd) or ٻه ڪوڏيون Λko u:ñ (bba kodioon) (meaning two ‘kodies’ (units of money).

           (Museum nos. D.K 1606, L.559, Sd 1758 and Vs 2109): These are also copper coins and have been found in good numbers. In fact not only are these proven coins but also confirm the receipt form of money of those days. These should be read in the following way:

ما+يا ma:+ya: (ma+ya ) as two marks over ‘m’ show that the vowel is a long one;  ٽي tɛ (tay = 3) + سو sΛo (sao =100),  ڏ    (dd) + vowel +  ڪ(k) + vowel + ڏ  (dd) + vowel → i.e. مايا ٽي سوَ ڏوڪڏ ma:ya: tɛ sΛo okΛ Λ (ma ya tay sao dokadda)’ that means ‘money three hundred values. This also shows the origin of the Sindhi wordڏوڪڙ   okΛɽΛ (dokarr) that it was originally ڏوڪڏ okΛ Λ (dokudd), that has happened in accordance with the principle of ease in pronunciation.

     This is a limestone seal, the first two signs of which have already been read while the third sign is ideographic or symbolic of ڪوٽ   ‘kot’ (i.e. Fort). The writing on this seal isمان ڪوٽ  ‘maan kot’ or ‘moon kot’. Exactly similar seals are found on museum nos. Hr 4623 and DM 56 where there is a slight change in the vowel and a syllable ‘dee’ or ‘dhee’ is seen that means daughter. And so the syllable ‘dhee’ was supposed to be one of respect. These seals are found in the shapes of          and may be read as
دي مان ڪوٽ/ دي مون ڪوٽ (dee maan kot or dee moon kot).

Some seals show the word تڙ tΛɽ (tarr) that means a ferriage). It appears that since Mohen-jo-Darowas at the banks of a river, there must have been landing places and ferriages, wherefrom people would load their cargo and the person in charge would stamp the seal of that ferriage on the cargo boxes. It may also be indicative of a toll system of revenue collection. One such seal (museum no. DK 1542) has been found that looks like this            and reads as ويائيءَ جو تڙ wlya:i:Λ ot Λɽ (Wiyaee jo tarr) (i.e. the ferriage of Wiyaee)!! Another seal  (Hr 4318) is of the shape                  read as دي لمن جو تڙ di:llm n o tΛɽ  (dee limun jo tarr meaning ferriage of Dee Liman) or دلمن جو تڙ (Dilmun jo tarrh). From the reference of ‘Dilmon’ of Dr Crammer, I am certain that ‘Dilmon’ was the name of one of the landing places or ferriages of Mohen jo  Daro, that was remembered by Sumerians because that is from where their ivory and gold etc used to come. And that it had the seal of ‘Dilmon’ or ‘Dilmun’ stamped on it.

The most interesting inscription is a three-sided one. On each side there is a line written. It was found by Mackay (Mackay—Further Excavation-Plate no. CI-picture no. 7). Marshall too found this similar writing but that was in the broken form where two lines were written on one side while the third was on the other side. Stamping/affixing that seal would give it a shape. (In disagreement with Mackay, I have given it the following arrangement):

First Line:               

Second Line:                        

Third Line:                          

There have been quite some arguments about whether this inscription should be read from Right to Left  like other inscriptions or vice versa. Mackay thinks that it is a two-faced writing and so two lines should be read from Right to Left while one from Left to Right. I think it is a three-faced inscription and should be read according to the prismatic principle as continuous. At the same time it must be kept in mind that this inscription is not supposed to be for stamping/affixing /printing purpose; therefore at least the first line must be read from Left to right. When that ends, in order to keep the continuity, the second line be read from Right to left. The third line then be read from left to right. It would be something like this:

 First Line

Second Line

Third Line

According to my decipherment this is a trading receipt of Sindhis of those times. Since two samples of this have been found, it may be presumed that both the parties used to keep one with them as a proof of trading. Most of the signs have already been described in the above discussion. But there are two signs that need elaboration. The sign  is worth paying attention to. I think it is a symbolic sign and indicates a day. The O sign in it is also for 10 but the bird in its middle suggests that here it would mean a sound (pronunciation). Showing a bird in an eggshell gives the meaning of birth or evolution i.e. something is being born. Day rises from the earth and the sun produces it; such concept is commonly found in ancient civilizations. Secondly the sign  of a bird found on many seals. Its close Brahmic sign has  ڻ (n) or ن (n) as equivalent value. Combining these two signs they can be read as ڻ+ڏ (dd+n) = ڏڻ i (ddin) and it appears appropriate as symbolic, ideographic and phonetic. The other confusing sign is  which apparently is a compound sign. Since it appears at the end of the sentences, it could be thought of as being a symbolic and not a phonetic sign. Another sign that negates it, is before it, ie  ن (n) sign is present, and the possibility of a compound pronunciation after appearance of ن (n) is not plausible. On the other hand from a phonetic standpoint the two signs that are in it have the same pronunciation, therefore it cannot be considered as a complex pronunciation. On seeing its shape one gets an idea of a garden or orchard. Anyway I have been unable to know exactly what it symbolizes but it may be a symbol of a god or goddess of agriculture. After this is the sign  ; according to my reading based on Brahmic and Tanteric, its equivalent is probablyآن  a:ñ (aan) sound. Now based on the above-mentioned principles, I have read these three lines: the first two lines will be read in continuation while the third separately.

First and second lines:

ٻه، سوَ، ڏڻ، ت+حرف علت، ڙ/ڻ+ حرف علت، ڪ+حرف علت، ڻ/ڙ+حرف علت، آن، پ+ حرف علت، س+ حرف علت، ٻه (يا جوڙا)، ست، آن، جو/جا، ت+حرف علت، ڻ/ڙ+ حرف علت.

 (bba, sao, ddinn, t+ vowel, rr or n + vowel, t + vowel, k + vowel, n or rr + vowel, aan , p + vowel, s + vowel, bba, sata , aan + jo / ja, t + vowel + n or rr + vowel)

Λ, sΛo, i , t+vowel, / +vowel, k+vowel, / +vowel, a:ñ, p+vowel, s+vowel, Λ (two or pair), sΛtΛ, a:n, jo/ja t+vowel, /ɽ+ vowel.

Third line:

ڪ+ حرف علت، پ+ حرف علت، پ حرف علت، تسو، ڻ+ حرف علت، چ/ڇ+ حرف علت ن+ حرف علت، وڻ يا ديويءَ جو اهڃاڻ

 (k + vowel, p + vowel, p+ vowel, Tsao, n + vowel, ch  or chh + vowel, n + vowel, tree or the symbol of goddess.

We can see that the sound t has been used with different marks therefore it would have to be pronounced with different vowels. Now I think this receipt should be read as follows:

ٻه سوَ ڏڻ توڻي (تاڻي) تو ڪڻان (ڪنان)

(ba sao ddhinh ton hay (tanay) to kanhan (kanan))

Λ, sΛo, i , to ɛ (ta: ɛ) to kΛna:ñ

پسو (پهون) ٻه (جوڙا) ست آن جا تيڻا

(pasoo (pahoon) bba (jorha) sata aanja , taynha)

pΛs:u (pΛhu:ñ) ,  Λ joɽa: sΛtΛ  Λñ  ja: tɛ a:

ڪو پو پي پتسوڻي چنو (چنا؟) ديويءَ جو اهڃاڻ

(ko po pee patsoni chano (channa) – symbol of goddess.

The meaning would be something like this:

ٻن سو ڏينهن تائين تو ڪنان پهون جوڙا ست اوهان جا- ان لاءِ (هيءَ لکت لکي وئي)

bbin sao deehan taeen to kanan pahoon jora sata awanhja una laai

(For two hundred days you have with you pairs seven goats…… therefore (this was written)

وڻ ديويءَ جي ڇانوَ سڀن تي هجي.

wana devi ji chhanwa subhin tay hujay

(May the goddess of agriculture bestow her blessings on all)

This is the Sindhi language of Mohen jo  Daro!! Crude, without sequence, idollic, but how cute and lovely!