I do not believe in a
full decipherment of the Indus script - Parpola
By
S. Theodore Baskaran
The Hindu - Tuesday, Mar 04, 2008
Asko Parpolas field of specialisation is Sanskrit, especially
Vedic Sanskrit, and the Indus Valley Civilisation, particularly
its script, on which he is one of the worlds leading authorities.
This renowned Indologist from Finland has done significant research
on the Sama Veda, having studied it under the guidance of a Namboothiri
scholar of eminence from Panjal, Kerala. Dr. Parpola is Professor
Emeritus of Indology and South Asian Studies at the University
of Helsinki. About 4,000 seals have survived from the Indus Valley
Civilisation, which flourished around 2600-1900 BC. The two volumes
he co-edited, Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions (Helsinki,
1987 & 1991), are considered the standard work in the field.
His study concludes that the I script encodes a Dravidian language.
The Indus script is perhaps the most important among ancient systems
of writing that are undeciphered. Excerpts from an interview with
Dr. Parpola, who was in Chennai recently to deliver a lecture
at the Indus Research Centre at the Roja Muthiah Research Library:
I learn that you have come to Chennai straight from Dholavira
in Gujarat. Have the new finds in Dholavira, like the signboard,
made any difference to our understanding of Indus script?
Yes... the Dholavira signboard is the first example of what we
could call monumental inscriptions. Each sign is about 30 cm high.
The usual sign on a seal is less than one cm, as you know. The
board itself is three metres long. We have also got some new seals
and artifacts. However, though these are important finds, they
do not bring about any fundamental change in our understanding
of the Indus script.
What is the present status of research on the Indus script?
We shall soon have all the material relating to the script in
an easily accessible form, in good photographs, or as good as
we can get, and also all sorts of indexes and concordances. Thus,
good manuals will soon be at hand. As far as decipherment is concerned,
we can run various computer programmes that can help in classifying
the Indus signs into groups of functionally similar signs. But
the real decipherment can only come from making detailed informed
guesses and then testing them, seeing if they have enough support
from different kinds of evidence. The main thing is that the hypotheses
follow strict rules and agree with generally accepted knowledge:
the history of writing, proven methods of decipherment, and linguistic
and historical evidence.
You have stated in your book Deciphering the Indus Script (London,
1994) that the script cannot be fully deciphered in the present
state of our knowledge. Are you hopeful of an eventual full decipherment
of the Indus script?
I do not believe in a full decipherment. But I am convinced that
some two dozen specific signs have already been deciphered, because
in these cases there appears to be sufficient confirmation
it all makes good sense together. In principle, we have a real
chance of decipherment only with those signs that we can clearly
identify pictorially.
There is a recent controversy that the Indus script is not
a system of writing at all. What are your comments on this?
In December 2004, Steve Farmer and his two colleagues published
an article where they mention several reasons why the Indus script
cannot be writing. In the paper I presented here in Chennai, I
examined each one of their nine arguments, concluding that none
holds water. For instance, they claim that there is no repetition
of signs within a single Indus seal, emphasising this as the most
important indicator. But I can quote many examples where such
repetition is found.
Another claim was that no longer texts in other writing media
like palm leaves have been found at Indus sites. We know from
Greek sources that cotton cloth was used as writing material in
325 BC in the Indus Valley. But preserved Indian texts written
on cotton cloth date from more than a thousand years later. We
know for certain that the Indus people had cotton, but only microscopically
small remains of cotton have been preserved in association with
metal objects.
Farmer and his colleagues do not discuss the evidence supplied
by the Indus sign sequences, which make it virtually certain that
the Indus script is writing. How else can we explain that in hundreds
of sequences, the signs are always written in the same definite
order? If they were just non-linguistic symbols, why did they
follow such rules, and did the Indus people keep long registers
of sign orders in all the many dozens of sites?
How did you reach the conclusion that the Indus script is Dravidian?
We started with the premise that from the point of view of linguistic
history, Dravidian is the most probable alternative. There are
several language families in South Asia, the biggest being Indo-European
and Dravidian. About a hundred years ago, some 25 per cent of
people in South Asia spoke a Dravidian language. Numerically Dravidian
is the most important among the non-Indo-European languages of
the subcontinent. Brahui, a North Dravidian language, is still
spoken in the Indus region. The Munda languages are mainly spoken
in eastern India by rather few people and their linguistic relatives
are in South-East Asia. The only non-Indo-European language family
of South Asia from which there are widely accepted loan words
in the Rig Veda is Dravidian. And when applied to the Indus script,
Dravidian puns make sense.
Is there scope for further collaboration between Indian and
western scholars in studying the Indus script?
I have discussed the possibilities of collaboration. Personally
I would be very happy with such a development. Iravatham Mahadevan
has been preparing the ground for further Indian research work
in this field. India is one of the leading countries in information
technology. You have a wealth of young IT experts, and some of
them are eager to work on the Indus script. I cannot do this work
myself, and would have to hire experts to update our concordances.
But no formal decision of collaboration has yet been made. (The
Indus Research Centre at Roja Muthiah Research Library Chennai
has an ongoing collaborative project with the Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research, Mumbai and the Institute of Mathematical
Sciences, Chennai. A team of experts had a discussion with Dr.
Parpola on this subject Theodore Baskaran.)
You are a Sanskritist by training. What attracted you to study
the Indus Civilisation?
I went to the university to study the classical languages of Europe,
Latin and Greek. In those days we had to choose three subjects
and Sanskrit sounded an interesting choice. It became my main
field. The Indus Script attracted me when a friend offered to
help with computers in any problem relating to my field. At that
time, in the early 1960s, the Greek Linear B script
had recently been deciphered. It was a great sensation in those
days. [Linear B is a script used for writing Mycenaen, an early
form of Greek.] And India had its Indus script to be studied.
Do the archaeological data help in understanding the seals?
Definitely. Information like where and with what other material
a particular seal was discovered can provide us some leads. Lets
say a seal comes from a room where other artifacts point to the
practice of a particular craft, for instance bead-making. Then
bead-maker might be mentioned in the seal. This is
just one example of how we may get clues to proceed further.
You have learned the Sama Veda from a traditional guru in Kerala.
What is your assessment of the present level of Vedic and Sanskrit
studies in Tamil Nadu and Kerala?
I have studied Jaiminiya Sama Veda, which is one of the rare Vedic
schools, surviving only in South India. In Kerala there are just
a handful of scholars who can chant Jaiminiya Sama Veda and they
are old, so the future of this particular tradition is rather
bleak there.
In Tamil Nadu the prospect is much better, as there is a vigorous
Jaiminiya Sama Veda pathasala near Tiruchi with a number of students
and a dedicated teacher. In the case of other Vedic schools, the
situation is less critical and there are some very good centres
of Sanskrit studies in both Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
Some Indian scholars claim that the Aryans never came from
outside India and that the Indus Civilisation was Vedic. What
is your stand on the Aryan-Dravidian debate?
The urban civilisation of the Indus Valley differs greatly from
the predominantly nomadic culture described in the early Vedic
texts. For one thing, the domestic horse, which occupies an important
position in Vedic religion and culture, is not represented among
the many animals depicted on Indus seals, nor is there any unambiguous
bone evidence for the presence of the horse in South Asian before
2000 BC. The horse is not native to South Asia, and was introduced
by outsiders in post-Harappan times.
I have always found it most unfortunate that the past is politicised
and used for other than scholarly purposes. As far as the Aryan-Dravidian
dichotomy is concerned, it must be remembered that Aryan
and Dravidian are linguistic and not racial terms.
There is no pure race, and Aryan and Dravidian speakers have been
in contact with each other in South Asia from the start of their
encounter. Ever since the Aryan speakers came to India from Central
Asia, this militarily powerful minority group would have mixed
with the local population. Centuries of gradually increasing bilingualism
eventually led to a large-scale language shift, making almost
the whole population of North India Indo-Aryan speakers. Linguistic
and religious fanatics inflame a wrong sort of nationalism, which
has led to great ills both in South Asia and elsewhere. Ancient
traditions of language must not be used to divide people.
You had said that lexicography is well advanced in Tamil and
Malayalam. What are the reasons?
Tamil has a long literary tradition, especially after the discovery
of the Sangam texts. S. Vaiyapuri Pillai did great work in compiling
the Tamil Lexicon and after him Murray Rajam initiated further
important lexicographic work. The Malayalam Lexicon of the University
of Kerala is following this lead. I hope Tamil scholars will extend
their work to the study of cognate languages, in particular small
tribal languages with no native linguists, and thus enlarge the
understanding of the common prehistoric background of all Dravidian
languages. The study of the Indus script suffers greatly from
inadequate knowledge of ancient compound words, which have not
survived in Tamil or Malayalam, but [have] possibly [survived]
elsewhere.
You recommended creation of linguistic archives. Could you
elaborate this?
Not only linguistic but also folklore material should be collected
and published. This is necessary for traditions that do not have
a written tradition. Instead, tribal languages do have oral traditions
of songs, legends, and stories. In Udupi, Professor U.P. Upadhyaya
and his wife Susheela, along with their colleagues, have done
exemplary work in collecting a rich database of folklore material
and using this as the basis of a six-volume Tulu Lexicon. We badly
need similar work on the remaining Dravidian languages, which
are all the time losing their ancient vocabulary with the increasing
influence of Indo-Aryan and English.
I learn you are translating Tirukkural into Finnish. How is
the progress? What is your experience?
Fifteen years ago, I could recite by heart the first hundred stanzas
of Tirukkural. I gave lectures at Helsinki University on this
Tamil classic that I greatly admire, and translated into Finnish
prose almost one half of the text. Unfortunately I have since
then not found time and opportunity to finish the job, but I hope
this will be possible in the future.