Dholavira signboard deciphered

Abstract

Generally, Indus inscriptions are short, containing only four or less than four symbols. However, this signboard of Dholavira is different; it has ten characters and is quite lengthy compared to inscriptions on seals of IVC. The place of finding an object in the archaeological site is vital to interpret the nature of an object. archaelogist claim that it is the name board of the citadel, but my opinion is different. It is an epitaph over a grave.

My interpretation is that “Dholavira” is a “burial place” (1) . Further, a skeleton was found in a sitting position near this “Dholavira sign Board” (as per the information given by the guide, not yet verified). All these points discussed on the page under “Necropolis theory” show that Dholavira was a kind of burial place, not a place for living people. Further, excavation below this signboard will reveal the possibility of finding a skeleton below that signboard. The signboard is nothing but an “epitaph”. An epitaph is an inscription on a tombstone in memory of a dead person over his grave.

Defects in “Signboard” theory:

1) I have not seen any castle with a wooden signboard. If at all there was a signboard in that citadel, it would have been in stone engraving. Considering the need for durability and prestige attached to the signboard of a fortress.

2) If a shop occupied that site, the possibility of 10 feet long signboard is a difficult proposition.

3) It is doubtful if there was any kind of trace of wooden board available at the time of excavation, it looks like it was merely an assumption that there could have been a wooden board.

4) If the wooden signboard had fallen from a higher elevation, the board and inscriptions would likely shatter, and it will not remain intact. In this case, the letters have survived intact.

5) It is unlikely that any wooden engraving would have been studded with “gypsum”. Generally, wooden carvings are studded with elephant tusks or different coloured wood. Gemstones are typically embedded only on white marble, like the Pietra dura work in the Taj Mahal.

6) Gypsum stone is cheap, not a semi-precious stone; it is merely a variant of “Plaster of Paris”(Alabaster), which is a common material.

Picture courtesy — (2)

7) See the above-given photo; the archaeologists claim that the Dholavira name board has fallen from a higher elevation to the ground. There is no evidence of a wooden plank rotting away (See the video, 32nd minute) (3). The video shows the spaces around letters are solidly filled with earth. No cavities are seen; any rotting wooden board would have left cavities in that place. The conclusion is that this epitaph has been written over a burial mound of a dead person. The gypsum stone inscription is merely embedded over the grave.

Picture courtesy – (3)

8) Further, the ground on which the inscriptions are written is protected by a surrounding wall, which gives an appearance of a mini water tank-like structure. (7’x3’ size)(See the above-given photo). Why the Dholavirans had built a wall around the fallen name board? What had fallen was not the name board, it was a Hero/King/priest who had fallen, and they had built a surrounding wall to protect his grave and the epitaph. If further excavation is carried out at this location, the dead man’s skeleton will appear below the inscription. The conclusion is that it is an “epitaph” over a grave, not a signboard.

The video gives the impression that the video was shot at the time of excavating the inscription. The video shows the presence of protective walls. Possibly, the protective barrier was built later after identifying the importance of inscription. This point needs further verification (3).

Considering all these above-said points, it can be concluded that the inscription indicates various ceremonies carried out to satisfy different gods and protect a dead person’s soul. The ‘name board theory’ is not sustainable.

Analysis table for the inscription:

1	2	3	4	5	6
Wheel	Mallet	Betel Leaf	Wheel	Burial ritual	Firestick/ or Karkida symbol
Garhapatya fire	Weapon of Indra?	Messenger god	Garhapatya fire	Smasana-cayana ritual	Karkida Yajna
7	8	9	10
Single stoke	Wheel	wheel	Two bangles
Yajna sign	Garhapatya fire	Garhapatya fire	Symbol of protection

(Read from right to left)

The reading of the inscription is that” Protection Yajna – two Garhapatya fires (That means the sacrifice was carried out for two gods) – (full stop) – Yajna – Smasana-cayana Yajna – Garhapatya sacrifice for messenger god and Garhapatya offer for God Indra (?).

The symbol ‘Mallet’ (Hammer) appears for the first time in Indus seal inscriptions. The hammer’s symbol could indicate the European god Thor (or) the Greek god Hephaestus‘. But considering the similarity between Thor and the Indian Vedic god Indra. Assigning the symbol of the hammer to the god Indra is more appropriate.

In Norse mythology, Thor is a hammer-wielding god associated with thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, humankind’s protection, healing, and fertility. (4) The same are the features of the god Indra in India. The presence of the symbol of ‘God Indra’ shows that this signboard was written in the last phase of IVC.

Two bangle symbol indicates the idea of seeking protection. Asko Parpola, in his book, ‘Deciphering the Indus script’ (5 p. 228), states that it suggests the idea of seeking protection. Most probably, protection was sought for the dead man’s soul.

The ‘Diamond shape’ symbol indicates the Smasana-cayana ritual. It is the final burial ritual carried out for a dead person. For more information, read my article titled ‘Evidence of ‘Smasana-cayana’ (Vedic burial) ritual in Indus Valley Civilization’. (6).

The leaflet of India’s Archaeology department about this site reveals seven different layers of settlement in this place. Indian archaeologists, lead by R.S.Bisht and others, are saying that it was under continuous habitation, whereas my opinion is that it was under continuous use as a “Grave Yard”. This fact further confirms that this site has been continuously used for over 5000 years.

1. Jeyakumar(Necropolis-theory). Necropolis_theory_–Revised_version-19. www.academia.edu. [Online] 2015. https://www.academia.edu/12673473/Necropolis_theory_–Revised_version-19.

2. ancientindia.co.uk. /indus/story/. www.ancientindia.co.uk. [Online] June 2016. http://www.ancientindia.co.uk/indus/story/page08b2.html.

3. youtube.com. Indus valley. www.youtube.com. [Online] June 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGC7-xN_XA.

4. wikipedia(Thor). Thor. wikipedia. [Online] June 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor.

5. Parpola, Asko. Deciphering the Indus script. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2000.

6. Jeyakumar(Smasana-cayana). Evidence_of_Smasana-cayana_Vedic_burial_ritual_in_Indus_Valley_Civilization. academia.edu. [Online] December 2015. https://www.academia.edu/19514513/Evidence_of_Smasana-cayana_Vedic_burial_ritual_in_Indus_Valley_Civilization.