Sources

Research stack on every pictogram

• 1931 · excavation

  Marshall 1931

  First public corpus of the script as an archaeological fact

• 1934 · signary

  Hunter 1934

  First systematic sign list after Marshall

• 1938 · excavation

  Mackay 1938

  Object classes, findspots, seal function

• 1965–1981 · Dravidian

  Knorozov / Soviet school 1960s–80s

  Computer-aided positional work; Dravidian lean

• 1973–1981 · concordance

  Koskenniemi–Parpola 1973–81

  Computer concordance that precedes Mahadevan in method

• 1977 · concordance

  Mahadevan 1977

  Concordance, 417 signs, positional tables — field default

• 1971–1992 · linguistic

  Fairservis 1970s–92

  Harappan-as-language; numeral and implement readings

• 1994–2010 · Dravidian

  Parpola 1994 / 2010

  Logo-syllabic Proto-Dravidian rebus model

• 1987– · corpus

  CISI (Parpola et al.) 1987–

  Photographic corpus — not reproduced here

• 1988– · Indo-Aryan

  Kak 1988–

  Indo-Aryan / Vedic mappings — unverified, no bilingual

• 2011–2015 · signary

  Wells ICIT 2011–15

  Graphemic split, 676–694 signs

• 2010 · Dravidian

  Bonta 2010

  Dravidian-adjacent interpretation — labelled as a model

• 2004 · sceptical

  Farmer–Sproat–Witzel 2004

  Non-linguistic emblem hypothesis

• 2009– · statistical

  Rao–Yadav–Vahia 2009–

  Entropy and Markov structure

• 2014 · sceptical

  Sproat 2014

  Entropy is not language ID; computational critique

• 2008– · statistical

  Yadav positional papers

  Start/end regularity without a lexicon

• 2022–2023 · signary

  Fuls 2022–23

  713 signs, 71 graphic sets, published frequencies

• 1998– · archaeology

  Kenoyer / Vidale / Frenez

  Seal function, craft, administration

• 2002–2010 · archaeology

  Possehl / Wright

  Urban and economic synthesis

• 1990s– · excavation

  Bisht / Dholavira signboard

  A unique long public sequence — not a caption key

Bibliographic records

• Asko Parpola (2010). A Dravidian solution to the Indus script problem

  lecture / essay. Classic statement of the Proto-Dravidian rebus approach, including the mīn discussion. Cited as a hypothesis source, not as confirmation.

• Iravatham Mahadevan (1977). The Indus Script: Texts, Concordance and Tables

  concordance. Foundational sign list and concordance. Demo IDs in this platform are not a digital dump of Mahadevan.

• Parpola, Joshi, Shah and collaborators (1987–). Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions

  corpus. Standard photographic corpus. This demonstration dataset does not reproduce CISI plates.

• Bryan Wells and others (various). Studies on the Indus script and sign inventory

  signary. Alternative sign counts show why inventory size itself is contested.

• Farmer, Sproat and Witzel (2004). Arguments that the Indus signs are non-linguistic

  article. Important sceptical model. Included so emblem / non-linguistic readings remain visible.

• Rao, Yadav, Vahia and collaborators (2009–). Statistical work on Indus sequences

  analysis. Conditional entropy and related measures. Statistics are not translations.

• Gregory L. Possehl (2002). The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective

  synthesis. Archaeological overview used for site and context framing.

• Jonathan Mark Kenoyer (various). Work on seals, craft and urban life

  archaeology. Object function and craft production, not decipherment.

• Rita P. Wright (2010). The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy and Society

  synthesis. Urban and economic context.

• Harappa.com (n.d.). The Indus Script (Harappa.com explainer)

  public explainer. Accessible overview of why the script remains unread.

• Andrew Robinson and others (various). Lost Languages / script decipherment surveys

  survey. Why bilinguals matter, by comparison with Egyptian and cuneiform.

• Massimo Vidale and others (various). Craft, seals and administrative practice

  archaeology. Sealing practice as administration.

• Science / general reporting (various). Reporting on Indus research debates

  journalism. Useful for public controversy; not a primary corpus.

• Walter Fairservis (various). Earlier structural and linguistic proposals

  historical. Older proposals retained for historiography.

• Knorozov and collaborators (1960s–80s). Soviet structural studies of the Indus script

  historical. Early computer-aided positional work.

• R. S. Bisht and ASI publications (various). Dholavira excavation reporting

  excavation. Source class for the signboard discussion.

• various Near Eastern catalogues (various). Indus-related seals in Mesopotamia

  catalogue. External findspots; not bilingual inscriptions.

• Hendrickson, Kenoyer and others (various). Indus weights and metrology

  metrology. Independent metrological evidence used when testing numeral hypotheses.

• various (various). Discussions of the so-called unicorn motif

  iconography. Motif studies are not textual readings.

• Induscript (2026). Induscript methodology note

  method. Platform rules for evidence levels, demo data and non-decipherment.

• G. R. Hunter (1934). The Script of Harappa and Mohenjodaro and Its Connection with Other Scripts

  early corpus. First systematic sign list after Marshall. Historical, not a decipherment.

• John Marshall (ed.) (1931). Mohenjo-daro and the Indus Civilization

  excavation. Publication of the script as an archaeological fact. Plates are not reproduced here.

• E. J. H. Mackay (1938). Further Excavations at Mohenjo-daro

  excavation. Object classes and findspots used when discussing seal function.

• Kimmo Koskenniemi, Asko Parpola, Simo Parpola (1973–81). Materials for the study of the Indus script

  concordance. Computer concordance that precedes Mahadevan 1977 in method.

• Andreas Fuls (2022–23). A Catalog of Indus Signs

  signary. ICIT-aligned inventory of 709–713 signs in 71 graphic sets, with published frequencies.

• Bryan K. Wells (2015). The Archaeology and Epigraphy of Indus Writing

  signary. ICIT graphemic split. Inventory size is itself a hypothesis.

• Richard Sproat (2014). A statistical comparison of written language and nonlinguistic symbol systems

  analysis. Computational critique of entropy-as-language arguments.

• Subhash Kak (1988–). A frequency analysis of the Indus script

  proposal. Indo-Aryan / Vedic mappings. Treated here as unverified; no bilingual.

• Steven Bonta (2010). The Indus Valley Script: A New Interpretation

  proposal. Dravidian-adjacent readings. Labelled as a model, not a result.

• Dennys Frenez, J. M. Kenoyer and others (2010s). Indus sealing practice and administration

  archaeology. How seals were used, not what the signs say.

• Nisha Yadav, M. N. Vahia and collaborators (2008–). Positional and statistical studies of Indus signs

  analysis. Positional regularity is structural evidence, not a lexicon.

• yajnadevam/indus-website (ICIT-style digitization) (2021–). Indus Valley Script website database

  digitization. GPL-3 software whose published sequences are imported on demand. Not a dump of CISI plates or Mahadevan’s printed concordance.