The earliest known example of an Indus seal dates back to 1873 in the form of a drawing published by Alexander Cunningham. Since then thousands of examples of the Indus script have been discovered, and the Indus script has been subject to a very serious analysis by many scholars across the world and still continues to fascinate, enchant and frustrate innumerable researchers who have made many a vain attempt to understand its true nature and meaning. The nature of the Indus script remains elusive and there are currently many different schools of thought—some think it represented a Dravidian language, some think it represented an Indo-Aryan language, while some are convinced that it belongs to a third language group. Some argue that it represented a language while others argue it was only a complex `symbol system', either with or without a linguistic content. In an earlier paper, "Syncretism and Acculturation in Ancient India; A New Nine Phase Acculturation Model Explaining the Process of Transfer of Power from the Harappans to the Indo-Aryans", which was published in two parts, a method was proposed to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans with `smoking guns', and it was concluded that the Harappans spoke neither a Dravidian language nor Sanskrit but were multi-linguistic and spoke several languages which included remote ancestors of languages which much later came to be known as Prakrits. In this paper, a parsimonious approach has been taken with regard to the Indus script, an attempt has been made to understand its nature, to examine the logical flaws of current theories with regard to the Indus script and it is concluded that it is impossible to draw any hasty conclusions about the nature of the Indus script without building rock solid theoretical models and that the Indus script issue is probably less simple than the most simplistic of theories make it out to be. More importantly, we also refute `Sproat's smoking gun' which cannot prove that the Indus writing system was not stable, that it was not a writing system or that it did not have a linguistic component.

The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) or Harappan Civilization was an Old World Bronze Age civilization (Early phase 3300-2600 BC and mature period 2600-1900 BC), which covered the north-western part of the Indian subcontinent and the surrounding regions including the whole of Pakistan, the north-western states of modern-day India, southeastern Afghanistan and the easternmost part of Balochistan, Iran and was the largest among the old world civilizations and in some respects the most sophisticated. Understanding the periodization of the Indus Valley Civilization would be of utmost importance in understanding the concepts explained in this paper.

The approach followed in this paper is to build on the very detailed and apposite work done by scholars in the recent past, most notably by Korvink to present a theoretical framework which can help in researching the Indus script (or `script'!). We will also argue that any claim regarding the decipherment of the Indus script or any claim that sweeping assertions about the Indus script can be made, must be met with a considerable degree of skepticism and suspicion and instead state that future progress can come only from building better and solid theoretical models and not from drawing any hasty or a priori conclusion. This is also important given the fact that only a small portion of the IVC has been excavated.

It is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about the Indus script without building rock solid theoretical models and improving them as data expands. The very reasonable theoretical possibility that longer texts existed in the Indus does not in any way conflict with any existing historical models. Even Sproat (personal communication with the author) who describes them as `Canting Arms' and Witzel who describes them as 'occasional puns' agree that the Indus system could have had a linguistic content (Kyoto Indus Conference, 2009). This qualifies it for full literacy, i.e., Rebus Principle and Acrophony. We must also take into account the widespread usage of the script also and the fact that it was central to Indus society. The very reasonable possibility that the Indus script itself qualifies for full literacy as stated above and not proto-literacy does not conflict with any existing historical models either. Farmer et al., have said nothing substantially new. Even Asko Parpola has been researching the Indus script as logograms with a linguistic component. So Farmer et al., and Parpola et al., are probably saying largely the same thing with hardly any difference. It would be naive to assume, due to several reasons that will discussed in the paper, that the Indus script issue is as simple as it appears to be or is made out to be, due to various factors that will be discussed in the paper and as mentioned previously, better theoretical models would be the key to better research. We must also bear in mind the fact that only a very small portion of the IVC has been excavated, and many cities have not been excavated at all, i.e., Ganweriwala, Rakhigarhi and only a very small portion of cities like Mohenjodaro has been excavated. Therefore, any hasty conclusion must be viewed with some degree of skepticism.

History and Culture Journal, Indus Script Thesis, Logical Assessment, Dravidian Language, Phase Acculturation Model, Indus Valley Civilization, Harappan Civilization, Linguistic Component, Mass Production, Brick Technology, Polycentric Organization, Commercial Transactions, Agricultural Production, Egyptian Civilizations, Sociocultural Principles, Contemporary Writing Systems, Logographic Systems.