Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T16:40:50.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tasks, Methods and Results in the Study of the Indus Script

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Asko Parpola
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Indus script is at present known from about 3,000 inscriptions with an average length of only five signs. The longest continuous text (1400) comprises only 17 characters divided over three lines. There are no bilingual inscriptions. Also, direct historical data relating to the Indus civilization are extremely scanty, being limited to the scarce references in cuneiform texts of the 3rd and early 2nd millennia B.C. to trade and other contacts with Meluḫḫha, the most distant country known to the Mesopotamians of those times, whose identity with the Indus civilization at the period in question is now widely accepted. More texts in the Indus script are, and will be, forthcoming from recent and imminent excavations, and perhaps the excavations that are under way in ancient Lagaš will bring to light the long-expected bilingual, possibly in the form of a cuneiform document mentioning Meluḫḫan proper names and bearing the impression of an Indus seal. In the absence of such a clue, the prospects of ever understanding the Indus script have generally been considered rather meagre. This pessimistic attitude has long been obstructing progress in the study of the Indus script. The very first point I should like to make is, that despite the scantiness of the material, it is indeed possible to promote our knowledge in many ways, and that important results are sure to come from more work by more people. One of our greatest needs at the moment is an increase of interest in the Indus script, and the coordination of scholarly efforts.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , April 1975 , pp. 178 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aalto, Pentti. 1945. Notes on methods of decipherment of unknown writings and languages. (Studia Orientalia, XI, 4.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Agrawal, D. P. 1968. An integrated study of the copper-bronze technology in the light of chronological and ecological factors. (Thesis, Banaras Hindu University.) Bombay. (Stencilled.)Google Scholar
Agrawal, D. P., and Ghosh, A. (eds.). 1973. Radiocarbon and Indian archaeology. Bombay.Google Scholar
Arbman, Ernst. 1922. Rudra. Untersuchungen zum altindischen Glauben und Kultus. (Thesis.) (Uppsala Universitetets Årsskrift 1922, Filosofi … 2.) Uppsala.Google Scholar
Barber, E. J. W. 1974. Archaeological decipherment: A handbook. Princeton.Google Scholar
Berger, Hermann. 1970. (Review of FA and Progress.) ZDMG, CXX, 2, 420–421.Google Scholar
Bibby, Geoffrey. 1972 (1969). Looking for Dilmun. (Pelican Books.) Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Bray, Warwick. 1968. Everyday life of the Aztecs. London and New York.Google Scholar
Brice, William C. 1970a. (Review of FA and Progress). JRAS, 1970, 2, 221–223.Google Scholar
Brice, William C. 1970b. “The Copenhagen decipherment of the Proto-Indic script.” Kadmos, IX, 1, 22–28.Google Scholar
Brunswig, Robert H. Jr., and Parpola, Asko. In press. “New Indus type and related seals from the Near East.”Google Scholar
Buchanan, Briggs. 1967. “A dated seal impression connecting Babylonia and ancient India.” Archaeology, XX, 104–107.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario. 1967. Scientific Research, I–II. (Studies in the Foundations, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 3.) Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
Burgess, J. 1904. “The Navagraha or nine planets and their names.” IA, XXXIII, 61–66.Google Scholar
Burrow, T. 1969. “Dravidian and the decipherment of the Indus script.” Antiquity, XLIII, 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, T., and Emeneau, M. B.. 1961. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., 1968. A Dravidian etymological dictionary: Supplement. Oxford.Google Scholar
Burrow, T., 1972. “Dravidian etymological notes: Supplement to DED, DEDS, and DBIA, Pt. I–II.” JAOS, 92, 397–418 and 475–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casal, Jean-Marie. 1961. Fouilles de Mundigak, I–II. (Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan, 17.) Paris.Google Scholar
Casal, Jean-Marie. 1964. Fouilles d'Amri, I–II. (Publications de la Commission des Fouilles Archéologiques: Fouilles du Pakistan.) Paris.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, Asim Kumar. 1970. The cult of Skanda-Kārttikeya in ancient India. Calcutta.Google Scholar
Clauson, Gerard, and Chadwick, John. 1969. “The Indus script deciphered?” Antiquity, XLIII, 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowell, E. B. (ed.). 1895. The Jātaka or stories of the Buddha's former births. Translated from the Pali by various hands. 1–6. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Dales, George F. 1967. “South Asia's earliest writing—still undeciphered.” Expedition, IX, 2, 30–37.Google Scholar
Dales, George F. 1973. “Archaeological and radiocarbon chronologies for protohistoric South Asia.” South Asian Archaeology, ed. Hammond, Norman, 157–169. London.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Léopolde. 1922. “Les origins de l'astronomie Chinoise, i. Le zodiaque lunaire (Ire partie).” T'oung Pao, XXI, 251–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DED(S): See Burrow and Emeneau 1961–1972.Google Scholar
Doblhofer, Ernst. 1973 (1961). Voices in stone: The decipherment of ancient scripts and writings. Translated by Savill, Mervyn. London.Google Scholar
During Caspers, E. C. L. 1972. “Harappan trade in the Arabian Gulf in the third millennium B.C.” Mesopotamia, VII, 167–191.Google Scholar
Edzard, Dietz Otto. 1968. “Die Inschriften der altakkadischen Rollsiegel.” AfO, XXII, 12–20.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1945. “The Dravidian verbs ‘come’ and ‘give’.” Language, XXI, 184–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1949. “The strangling figs in Sanskrit literature.” University of California Publications in Classical Philology, XIII, 345–370. Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1954. “Linguistic prehistory of India.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, XCVIII, 4, 282–292.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1962. Brahui and Dravidian Comparative Grammar. (University of California Publications in Linguistics, 27.) Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1966. “The dialects of Old Indo-Aryan.” Ancient Indo-European dialects, ed. by Birnbaum, Henrik and Puhvel, Jaan, 123–138. Berkeley and Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1971. (Review of Proto-Indica: 1968, FA, Progress, FP, and Schrapel 1969.) JAOS, 91, 4, 541–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, M. B. 1975. “Studies in Dravidian verb stem formation.” JAOS, 95, 1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FA: see Parpola, Koskenniemi, Parpola and Aalto, 1969a.Google Scholar
Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., 1971. The roots of ancient India. New York.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, A. 1936. Archaische Texte aus Uruk, bearbeitet und herausgegeben. (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka, 2.) Berlin.Google Scholar
Filliozat, Jean. 1972. (Review of Proto-Indica: 1968, FA, Progress, FP, and Schrapel 1969.) BSL, LXVII, 2, 76–79.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes. 1966. Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen. 2. Aufl. (Versständliche Wissenschaft, 51.) Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Johannes 1969. (Review of FA, Progress, and Schrapel 1969.) Orientalia, XXXVIII, 493–494.Google Scholar
Gadd, C. J. 1932. “Seals of ancient Indian style found at Ur.” PBA, XVIII, 191–210.Google Scholar
Gadd, C. J., and Smith, Sidney. 1931. “Sign list of early Indus script.” Marshall 1931, II, 406–422. London.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. H. 1927. Egyptian grammar. Oxford.Google Scholar
Gaur, R. C., 1973. “Lai Qila excavation and the OCP problem.” Agrawal and Ghosh 1973, 154–162. Bombay.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1963. A study of writing. Revised ed. Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1970. “Makkan and Meluḫḫa in early Mesopotamian sources.” Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, LXI, 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1973. “Written records and decipherment.” Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics. (Current Trends in Linguistics, 11), ed. by Sebeok, Thomas A., 253–284. The Hague and Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonda, Jan. 1960. Die Religionen Indiens. I: Veda und älterer Hinduismus. (Die Religionen der Menschheit, 11.) Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cyrus H. 1971. Forgotten scripts: The story of their decipherment. Revised ed. (Pelican Books.) Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Grinstead, Eric. 1972. Guide to the archaic Chinese script. Characters drawn by Gordon To. (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, 11.) Lund.Google Scholar
Gros, François. 1968. Le Paripāṭal: Texte Tamoul. Introduction, traduction et notes. (Publications de l'Institut Français d'Indologie, 35.) Pondichéry.Google Scholar
Gurov, N. V. 1970. “Towards the linguistic interpretation of the Proto-Indian texts.” J. Tamil St., II, 1, 53–87.Google Scholar
Gurov, N. R., and Knorozov, Yu. V.. 1969. (Review of FA.) Sovetskaja etnografija, VI, 151–158. (Translated by Pande, Hem Chandra and edited by Field, Henry: Review of Finnish decipherment of Proto-Dravidian inscriptions. (Field Research Projects, Study 42.) Coconut Grove, Florida 1970.)Google Scholar
Heras, Henry. 1953. Studies in Proto-Indo-Mediterranean culture, I. (Studies of the Indian Historical Research Institute, St. Xavier's College, 19.) Bombay.Google Scholar
Hilka, Alfons. 1910. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der indischen Namengebung: Die altindischen Personennamen. (Indische Forschungen, 3.) Breslau.Google Scholar
Hrozný, Bedřich. 1941–1942. “Inschriften und Kultur der Proto-Inder von Mohenjo-daro und Harappa (c. 2500–2200 v.Chr.). I–II. Ein Entzifferungsversuch.” ArOr, XII, 192–259, and XIII, 1–102.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. R. 1932. “Mohenjo-daro—Indus epigraphy.” JRAS, 1932, 466–503.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. R. 1934. The script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and its connection with other scripts. (Studies in the History of Culture, 1.) London.Google Scholar
IAR: Indian Archaeology—A Review.Google Scholar
Kane, P. V. 1938. “Naming a child or a person.” The Indian Historical Quarterly, XIV, 224–244.Google Scholar
Kane, P. V. 1958. History of Dharmaśāstra, 5: 1. (Government Oriental Series B: 6.) Poona.Google Scholar
Karlgren, Bernhard. 1957. “Grammata Serica recensa.” The Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm, Bulletin, XXIX, 1–332.Google Scholar
Knorozov, Yu. V. 1970. “The formal analysis of the Proto-Indian texts.” J. Tamil St., II, 1, 13–25.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Seppo, Parpola, Asko and Parpola, Simo. 1970. “A method to classify characters of unknown ancient scripts.” Linguistics, LXI, 65–91.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Seppo 1973. Materials for the study of the Indus script. I: A concordance to the Indus inscriptions. (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 185.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kuiper, F. B. J. 1967. “The genesis of a linguistic area.” Indo-Iranian Journal, X, 2/3, 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, B. B. 1966. “The direction of writing in the Harappan script.” Antiquity, XL, 52–55.Google Scholar
Lal, B. B. 1967–1968. “A further note on the direction of writing in the Harappan script.” Purātattva, I, 15–16.Google Scholar
Lal, B. B. 1969. “Indus script: Inconsistencies in claims of decipherment.” The Hindustan Times Weekly, 6 04, 14.Google Scholar
Lal, B. B. 1973. “Archaeological evidence for the Indus script.” (Cyclostyled abstract of a paper read at the Royal Asiatic Society's Sesquicentenary Symposium on “The Undeciphered Languages”, London, 07, 1973). [Now printed in Leclant 1975, 145–9.]Google Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1971. “The Proto-Elamite settlement at Tepe Yaḥyā.” Iran, IX, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 1972. “Tepe Yaḥya 1971: Mesopotamia and the Indo-Iranian borderlands.” Iran, X, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leclant, Jean (ed.). 1975. Le déchiffrement des écritures et des langues. Colloque du XXIXe Congrès International des Orientalistes. Paris.Google Scholar
Leemans, W. F. 1960. Foreign trade in the Old Babylonian period, as revealed by texts from southern Mesopotamia. (Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentia, 6.) Leiden.Google Scholar
Leemans, W. F. 1968. “Old Babylonian letters and economic history: A review article with a digression on foreign trade.” JESHO, XI, 171–226.Google Scholar
Leemans, W. F. 1970. “De betrekkingen tussen Mesopotamië en het Indus-gebied en de ontcijfering van het oude indische scrift.” Phoenix, XV, 2, 248–267.Google Scholar
Leshnik, Lawrence S. 1974. South Indian “Megalithic” burials. The Pandukal complex. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Lienhard, S. 1969. “Finska forskare tyder Indusskriften.” Orientaliska Studier 1, 4–7.Google Scholar
Lienhard, S. 1974. (Review of FA.) OLZ, LXIX, 5/6, col. 283–285.Google Scholar
Macdonell, A. A. 1897. Vedic Mythology. (Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde III: 1: A.) Strassburg.Google Scholar
Macdonell, A. A., and Keith, A. B.. 1912. Vedic index of names and subjects. I–II. London.Google Scholar
Mackay, Ernest J. H. 1938. Further excavations at Mohenjo-daro. I–II. Delhi.Google Scholar
Mackay, Ernest J. H. 1943. Chanhu-daro excavations 1935–6. (American Oriental Series, 20.) New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Mackay, Ernest J. H. 1948. Early Indus civilizations. 2 ed.London.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, I. 1973. “The Indus script—a statistical study: A brief synopsis of forthcoming publication.” (Cyclostyled.) s.l.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, I., and Visvanathan, K.. 1973. “Computer concordance of Proto-Indian signs.” Agrawal and Ghosh 1973, 291–304. Bombay.Google Scholar
Marr, J. 1971. (Review of FA, Progress, and FP.) BSOAS, XXXIV, 1, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, John (ed.). 1931. Mohenjo-daro and the Indus civilization. I–III. London.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1956–. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen. I–III. (Indogermanische Bibliothek.) Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Mayrhofer, Manfred 1970. (Review of FA.) Sprache, XVI, 1, 91–92.Google Scholar
Meriggi, Piero. 1934. “Zur Indus-Schrift.” ZDMG, LXXXVII, (NF 12), 198–241.Google Scholar
Meriggi, Piero 1937. “Listes des hiéroglyphes hittites.” Revue Hittite et Asianique, IV (XXVII), 69–114 and (XXIX), 157–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MSIS, I: See Koskenniemi, Parpola and Parpola 1973.Google Scholar
Mughal, M. Rafique. 1974. “New evidence of the Early Harappan culture from Jalilpur.” Archaeology, XXVII, 2, 106–113.Google Scholar
Needham, Joseph. 1959. Science and civilization in China, 3: Mathematics and the sciences of the heavens and the earth. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Leo A. 1954. “The seafaring merchants of Ur.” JAOS, 74, 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pande, B. M. 1973. “Inscribed copper tablets from Mohenjo-daro: A preliminary analysis.” Agrawal and Ghosh 1975, 305–322. Bombay.Google Scholar
Pandit, P. B. 1969. “Indus script: Cracking the code—a linguist looks at the problems of deciphering the script.” The Hindustan Times Weekly Review, 30 March, ii–iii.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko. 1970. “The Indus script decipherment: The situation at the end of 1969.” J. Tamil St., II, 1, 89–109.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1973. Arguments for an Aryan origin of the South Indian megaliths. (Tamilnadu Department of Archaeology Publication, 32.) Madras.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1974. “On the protohistory of the Indian languages in the light of archaeological, linguistic and religious evidence: An attempt at integration.” South Asian Archaeology, 1973, ed. by van Lohuizen-de Leeuw, J. E. and Ubaghs, J. M. M., 90–100. Leiden.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1975. “Isolation and tentative interpretation of a toponym in the Harappan inscriptions.” Leclant 1975, 121–143, Paris. (Cf. XXIXth Congress of Orientalists, Abstracts of papers, Section 11, Paris 1973, 20.)Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press, a. “Toponymic evidence for the Dravidian identity of the Harappan language.” Felicitation Volume in Honour of Father X. S. Thani Nayagam.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press, b. “Harappan roots of ancient Indian astronomy and cosmic speculation.” Proceedings of the XXIXth International Congress of Orientalists. Paris. (Cf. Abstracts of Papers, Sections 6–7, Paris 1973, 76.)Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press, c. “Interpreting the Indus script.” Fifty Years of Harappan Studies. A Sir Mortimer Wheeler Felicitation Volume, ed. by Lal, B. B. and Gupta, S. P.. New Delhi.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press d. “Recent developments in the study of the Indus script.” Sind through the Centuries. Karachi.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press, e. “Interpreting the Indus script, II.” Studia Orientalia, XL, 125–160.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko In press, f. “The problem of the Indus script.” Readings in Indian protohistory, ed. by Agrawal, D. P., Gupta, S. P., and Misra, V. N.. Ahmedabad.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko, Koskenniemi, Seppo, Parpola, Simo and Aalto, Pentti. 1969a. Decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian inscriptions of the Indus civilization: A first announcement. (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Special Publications, 1.) Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1969b. Progress in the decipherment of the Proto-Dravidian Indus script. (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Special Publications, 2.) Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1970. Further progress in the Indus script decipherment, (The Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Special Publications, 3.) Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko and Simo, . 1975. “On the relationship of the Sumerian toponym Meluḫḫa and Sanskrit mleccha.” Studia Orientalia, XLVI (Festschrift Armas Salonen), 205–238.Google Scholar
Parpola, Simo, Parpola, Asko and Brunswig, Robert H. Jr. In press. “The Meluḫḫa village: Evidence for acculturation of Harappan traders in late third millennium Mesopotamia?” JESHO.Google Scholar
Pettinato, Giovanni. 1972. “Il commercio con l'estero della Mesopotamia meridionale nel 3. millennio av.Cr. alla luce delle fonti letterarie e lessicali sumeriche.” Mesopotamia, VII, 43–166.Google Scholar
Predvaritel'noe soobshcheniye ob issledovaniyi protoindiyskikh tekstov. 1965. Moskva.— Partially translated as: Soviet studies on Harappan script, by G. V. Alekseev, Yu. V. Knorozov, A. M. Kondratov, and B. Ya. Volchok, tr. Hem Chandra Pande, ed. Henry Field and Edith Laird. (Field Research Projects, Occasional Paper No. 6.) Coconut Grove, Florida, 1969. —In press: Zide, A. R. K. and Zvelebil, K., The Soviet decipherment of the Indus Valley script: Translation and critique. (Janua Linguarum, Series practica, 156.) The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, James B. 1954. The ancient Near East in pictures relating to the Old Testament. Princeton.Google Scholar
Progress: See Parpola, Koskenniemi, Parpola and Aalto 1969b.Google Scholar
Proto-Indica: 1968. Brief report on the investigation of the Proto-Indian texts. Moscow 1968. (Presented at the VIII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographical sciences, Tokyo, September 1968.)Google Scholar
Proto-Indica: 1970. Soobshchenie ob issledovanii protoindiyskikh tekstov. Moskva 1970.Google Scholar
Proto-Indica: 1972. Soobshchenie ob issledovanii protoindiyskikh tekstov, I–II. Moskva 1972.Google Scholar
Rao, S. R. 1973. Lothal and the Indus civilization. London.Google Scholar
Rao, T. A. Gopinatha. 1914. Elements of Hindu iconography. 1:2. Madras.Google Scholar
Renou, Louis, and Filliozat, Jean. 1953. L'Inde classique: Manuel des etudes indiennes, II. Paris.Google Scholar
Ross, Alan S. C. 1938. The numeral signs of the Mohenjo-daro script. (Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, 57.) Delhi.Google Scholar
Ross, Alan S. C. 1939. “The direction of the Mohenjo-daro script.” New Indian Antiquary, Extra Series, 2 (A Volume of Indian and Iranian Studies presented to Sir E. Denison Ross, ed. by Katre, S. M. and Gode, P. K.), 554–558.Google Scholar
Scheil, V. 1925. “Un nouveau sceau hindou pseudo-sumérien.” Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, XXII, 2, 55–56.Google Scholar
Schmid, Wolfgang P. 1969. (Review of FA and Progress.) IF, LXXIV, 212–220.Google Scholar
Schmökel, Hartmut. 1966. “Zwischen Ur und Lothal. Die Seehandelsroute von Altmesopotamien zur Induskultur.” Forschungen und Fortschritte, XL, 143–147.Google Scholar
Ševoroškin, V. V. 1973. (Review of FA, Progress, and FP.) Linguistics, CVII, 82–95.Google Scholar
Sircar, D. C. 1969. (Review of FA.) Journal of the Oriental Institute, M.S. University of Baroda, XIX, 1–2, 176–178.Google Scholar
Steward, Julian H. 1955. Theory of culture change: The methodology of multilinear evolution. Urbana.Google Scholar
Subrahmanian, N. 1966. Pre-Pallavan Tamil index. (Madras University Historical Series, 23). Madras.Google Scholar
Thapar, Romila. 1969. “Indus script: Romila Thapar's view.” The Hindustan Times Weekly Review, 30 March, i–ii.Google Scholar
Thaplyal, Kiran Kumar. 1972. Studies in ancient Indian seals. A study of North Indian seals and sealings from circa third century B.C. to mid-seventh century A.D. Lucknow.Google Scholar
TL = Tamil Lexicon, published under the authority of the University of Madras. 1–6 and Supplement. 1924–1939. Madras.Google Scholar
Trautmann, Thomas R. 1970. (Review of FA.) Journal of Asian Studies, XXIX, 3, 714–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Stephen A. 1968. “Dravidian and Uralian: the lexical evidence.” Language, XLIV, 4, 798–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vacek, Jaroslav. 1970. “The problem of the Indus script.” ArOr, XXXVIII, 198–212.Google Scholar
Vats, Madho Sarup. 1940. Excavations at Harappa, I–II. Delhi.Google Scholar
Ventris, Michael, and Chadwick, John. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge.Google Scholar
von Negelein, Julius. 1928. “Die Wahrzeichen des Himmels in der indischen Mantik.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, XXVI, 241–295.Google Scholar
Weber, Albrecht. 1861–1862. “Die vedischen Nachrichten von den naxatra (Mondstationen).” AKAW Berlin, 1860, 282–332, and 1861, 267–400. Berlin.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Mortimer. 1968. The Indus civilization. 3 ed.Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wikander, Stig. 1969. “Nordiskt Asieninstitut på villovägar? Misslyckad skrifttolkning i stället för u-landsinformation.” Upsala Nya Tidningar, 25 mars.Google Scholar
Winternitz, Moriz. 1892. Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell nach dem Āpastamba-Gṛihyasūtra und einigen anderen verwandten Werken. (DKAW Wien, Philos.-hist. Classe, 40, 1). Wien.Google Scholar
Zide, Arlene R. K., 1968. “A brief survey of work to date on the Indus Valley script.” Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 04 19–20, 1968, 225–237. Reprinted in J. Tamil St., II, 1 (1970), 1–12.Google Scholar
Zide, Arlene R. K., and Zvelebil, Kamil. 1970a. (Review of FA and Progress.) Indo-Iranian Journal, XII, 2, 126–134.Google Scholar
Zide, Arlene R. K., 1970b. (Review of Predvaritel'noe … 1965, Proto-Indica: 1968, FA, Progress, and FP.) Language, XLVI, 4, 952–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zide, Arlene R. K., In press. See Predvaritel'noe …Google Scholar
Zvelebil, Kamil. 1970. Comparative Dravidian phonology. (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 80.) The Hague.Google Scholar
Zvelebil, Kamil 1973. “The so-called ‘Dravidian’ of the Indus inscriptions.” International Association of Tamil Research: Proceedings of the Third International Conference Seminar (Paris 1970), 32–41. (Publications de l'Institut Français d'Indologie, 50.) Pondichéry.Google Scholar