MISCELLANY A supposed Sumero-Babylonian inscription discovered at Mohenjo-Daro In the April number of Indian Culture, 1937, Dr. C. L. Fabri published an article on an inscription which he called Sumero- Babylonian discovered on a pot of the Mohenjo Dato Museum. The discovery is of extraordinary importance, for, first of all, it shows that Sumeto-Babylonian people were probably settled in Mohenjo Daro just as the Proto-Indian seals published by Mr. C. J. Gadd* disclose the fact that Proto-Indian people had also settled in Sumer. Moreover, from the state of development of the signs of this inscription Dr. Fabri deduces a date very near’ 2,600 B.C. for the said pot, a date which scems to have been confirmed by such great Assyriologist as Dr. Franz M. Th. Béhl, of the Leyden University. The discovery of Dr. Fabri is all the mote extraordinary, for though taking a wrong view of the inscription he has arrived at a satisfactory and to all views appropriate reading. Considering the incised carving of the steatite seals of Mohenjo Daro and supposing that the inscription was caused by one of those seals, he took the raised portion of the inscription as the seal inscription. In ordet to make this supposed characters appear in all their boldness, Dr. Fabri seems to have filled up the sunken portion between character and character with chalk or any other white substance. From the very fitst inspection of the photographs published in Indian Culture, it appeared to me that the portions at high level could not represent the characters of the inscription at all. First, because if the inserip tion had been engraved by pressing a seal similar to the well known seals of Mohenjo Daro or Harappa, not only the characters would 1 CE£ Gadd, Seals of Ancient Indian Style found at Ur, Proceedings of the British Academy, XVII. ee~ 698 A supposed Sumero-Babylonian inscription have been impressed upon the soft surface of the pot, but the square or oblong shape of the seal would also have left its edge as in the case of the three sherds in Marshall, Mobenjo Daro, Ill. Pl. CXV, Nos. 558, 559, and 560, sunken upon the same; and certainly not a single trace of it can be seen or imagined round the supposed characters. Moreover, the so-called characters of the inscription according to Dr. Fabri are on the same level as the whole surface of the pot, and consequently, they appear to be unlimited, thus: O(curtp In this copy of the inscription, the characters according to Dr Fabri are not ché black portions but the white portions between two id black ones. Now these white portions are not limited abov below. Hence; it is evident that these are not the characters of the inscriptions. In order to find out the real characters of this inscription, it 1s advisable to study all other inscriptions or fragments of inscriptions engraved on pottery in Mohenjo Dato or Harappa. Amongst them we shall find a number of inscribed characters which were incised on the pottery with a sharp instrument, when the clay was still fresh and soft. Thus the characters are deep inside the clay, not in telief. Cf. Photos, M.D. 636 of 1928-9, No. 7071 and H. 3893, Neg. 3894. Neg. 3895, Neg. 3007, Nos. 4 and 5. This ption under seems to be the nature of the characters of the ins study. They are not in relief, but sunken into the clay of the pot by passing an instrument over the soft clay of the pot prior to its being baked. Tt may rightly be objected that supposing that the sunken pot tions constitute the real inscription, the characters of this inscription are not like the characters of the inscriptions on the steative seals.: Al supposed Sumero-Babylonian inscription 699 firstly, instead of being mere stokes like those in the seal inserip- tions, they are broad; secondly, some of them are somewhat wedge- shaped like cuneiform characters. Thus the sign | is written h aad ) lone ike ey Ve thers ove: Windsroeuacetes though not very frequent, are also found on the steatite seals. As the wedge shape of some signs, the following specimens may be be referred to: Marshall, Mobenjo Daro and the Indus Civilization, Ill, pl. CIV, No. 40; pl. CXII, Nos. 401, 403, 404, 405, 406; pl. CXII, Nos. 418, 424, 457, 463, 464, 469; Photos, M.D., 1929-30. Dk. No, 8265; 1930-31, Nos. 4548, 4603, 8222. As to the other feature, inscription on sealing No. 10199 of M.D., 1931-32 gives a suiking specimen. Instead of having : dC BS the characters of this inscription look as follows CHIR) Dr. Fabri very ingeniously reads the supposed Assyrian ins- cription while the pot is turned upside down only. “This is indeed a little strange, for the inscription was evidently ctibed for being read when the pot was in its natural position, viz. with its mouth upwards. - In point of fact our inscription in pure Proto-Indian script reads both when the pot is upwards and when the pot is downwards though the readings are different and quite appropriate in both cases Let us take first the inscription in the natural position of the pot quill700 A supposed Ii this inscription is written in the ordinary linear way of the majo- rity of the steatite inscriptions, it will look as follows. me eed Let us now examine all the signs reading from right to left. Sign No. 1 belongs to a very numerous family of phoneuc signs which would be too long to explain here. Suffice it to say that all the signs of this family commence by the letter ¢, thus tir, “judge”; Aw ey Rh “Grished, “complete”; y ter, “to, reach” J The sign under study reads ten, “south”. Yet this word ten in teri “to appear’, “‘to look like’, etc. Tamil also means, “cocoanut,” “right side’ ‘or “position,” “sweet- ness’, “melody”, ‘harmony’; “accord”, etc. The last four mean- ings are precisely derived from the idea of righteousness. The latter idea seems to be the idea embodied in this sign in this particular inscription as we shall see in the translation. (Many Proto-Indian signs—pethaps all when more epigtaphs will be known—have an original, sometimes pictographic, meaning and a number of phonetic meanings which must be applied according to the general meaning of the context). Sign No. 2 stands for “one’’, or Sign No. 3 represents a “leg “, here turned upside down. This " sign is found in the steatite seals, but a little different in its execution s$ ©. This leg suffers an extraordinary simplification in other ins- criptions : thus and finally Ss 2 Photo, MiD., 1928-29, no. 5900. 3 Marshall, Mobenjo Daro and the Indus Civilization, III, M.D., no. 194 4 Ibid, MDs 12 37, 87, ete. The original sign evi aoe RE pide Reet renter ache ye noeee ee ate AEE nee y= dently represents a bare leg, but the sign under study shows a leg covered by the lower garment, that comes down to the ankle, and only the foot appears. It may be asked why is this leg inscribed here not in its natural position, bue with the foot upwards. True, this leg upside down while reading the inscription in its upright position, will be in its natural position when the inscription is read after the pot is turned. Yet apparently, this sign had to be in its natutal way when thé pot is upright, for this seems to be the main position of the pot. The strange position of this sign seems to be caused by the fact that the inscription was incised when the pot was upside down. ‘The inscription could not be inscribed on the pot in its erected position without a support, for the bottom of the poz is very small. After turning the pot upside down the inscription could be carved without any fear for the mouth of the pot is very broad. Naturally, the workman who insetibed these characters placed them in their upright position without noticing that this character at least would be upside down when the pot would be placed mouth upwards. A leg stands for “running”. To run in Dravidian languages is expressed by the verb édu, but this word phonetically means “‘pot’? also, which seems to be the proper -meaning in this case, the inscription precisely being on a pot. Sign No. 4 stands for the numeral “six”, and therefore will read a. Sign No. 5 is a derivative sign. The original sign, which is a Ficeoeeapiais ) ~ leis a.quatter of the circumference, andshence means ‘‘a quarter” or “‘one-fourth, i.e. Aa/. If therefore the reads Ail, the opposite sign ¢ Will read (abs, This word is only ign found in Tulu in three somewhat modified differences as tegards the suffixes: lakkw ot lakkuni which means “‘to rise’, “to get up’, “to TH.Q, DECEMBER, 1937 207o2 A supposed Sumero-Babylonian. inscription stand up”, “to stare’ and lakke which means “‘a measure”, “a mark”. On this occasion it seems to mean ‘‘a measure’. Therefore the inscription will read: Ten or odu ar lak which means: “Six measures of one upright pot” Let us now turn the pot upside down and study the signs once more, always from right to left: |g Sign No, 1: fal, “a quarter”. also means “'a measure” in all Dravidian languages and this seems to be the proper meaning on this occasion, Sign No. 2: as above ar ‘six’ Sign No. 3: odw, “‘to tun’ and in this case “pot”. Sign No. 4: o7, “one”. Sign No. 5 isa sign of the above tefetted family which in this posi- tion reads tar according to my sign list. Tar means “dry” ot “to dry’. Therefore in this upside down position the inscription will read thus: Kal ar odu or tar which means: “One pot of six measutes dries’. Let us now compate both readings. The former says “Six measures of one upright pot’, for in this position the pot contains ot at least may contain six real measutes of liquid. Being upside down one could not say “six measures (of the liquid) in the pot” ‘That is the reason why the inscription in its turned position says only: “a/pot of six messes dries’. The pot in fact being upside down, is getting dry of all the liquid that adhered to its interior. On the Washing Away of Duarivati This double inscription reveals the ingenuity of those carly people, The same characters read in a turned position and there- fore in an opposite direction have two different meanings both quite appropriate and true. The inscription is besides interesting for it determines the unit of measuring liquids. Six measures being contained in this pot, the sixth part of its capacity will be the said unit. H, Heras On the Washing Away of Dvaravati In a short note published in the Indian Culture, II, 1, pp.148-50, Mr. Dasharatha Sharma points out that Visnu, who figures as a Yadava ruler in the Manju-tr-Milakalpa’ (verse 608), is not a local chieftain as Jayaswal seems to have thought while writ- ing his Imperial History of India.* but the great hero Krsna of the Mahabbarata. In support of this theory, he refers to the washing away of Dyatavati by the curse of Rsis and to the destruc- tion of the Yadavas in Krsna’s time, an event mentioned in the Mahabharata and the Bhigavata Purina, and observes that this is the eyent which has been recorded by the author of the MMK in the following verse: — oraat arenes fefagnaeateat act 1 safe: Aaase SARA TT Ut While making these suggestions, Mr, Sharma seems to have overlooked the fact that the Yatavas of Varavati (Yadavas of Dvatavati), whose mention is made in the above verse as destroyed by the curse of the Rsis, are classed with ancient kings and, as such, they seem to haye been independent rulers; whereas 1 Sanskrit text, revised by Ven. Rabula Saikreytyana, p. 44 2 Op. cit, p. 25.