Indus Valley: a millennia-old riddle that even challenges the Rosetta Stone

For over a hundred years, researchers have struggled with one of the greatest archaeological mysteries: the writing of the Indus Valley. Unlike other ancient systems that were decipherable thanks to bilingual references like the Rosetta Stone—which revolutionized understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs—the Indus civilization has remained opaque. The thousands of inscriptions found on seals and tablets continue to refuse to reveal their secrets. But in recent decades, a new player has entered the scene: artificial intelligence. And its findings are disturbing.

The lost civilization and its undeciphered symbols

Between 2600 and 1900 B.C., the Indus Valley experienced an architectural and urban splendor rivaling Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Meticulously planned cities like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa had advanced drainage systems, standardized trade networks, and uniform weights. All indicated a highly organized and sophisticated society.

However, unlike Ancient Egypt—where the Rosetta Stone served as a translation bridge between cultures—the Indus Valley lacked a similar key. More than 500 different symbols have been documented in excavations, but there is no bilingual text to compare or validate decipherment hypotheses. This fundamental absence has turned every interpretation into speculation.

What does artificial intelligence reveal about these symbols?

Machine learning algorithms have begun analyzing patterns that traditional archaeologists overlooked. They examine the frequency of appearance, recurring sequences, and the distribution of signs in different contexts. The results, far from confirming the existence of a conventional language, suggest something radically different.

The symbols seem to behave according to structured rules, but not the ones expected of a phonetic or logographic language. Instead, their configuration points toward a notation system, possibly administrative, ritual, or commercial. It’s as if the Indus civilization developed a functional code rather than a natural language.

When symbols are not a language

If these AI conclusions are correct, the implications are profound. One of the greatest civilizations of antiquity may not have left a written language in the traditional sense, but rather a system of record-keeping and classification. This would represent a fundamental shift in how we understand cultural transmission in ancient civilizations.

What does this mean? Probably that oral communication was the backbone of Indus culture, while symbols served as auxiliary tools for administration, trade, or religious ceremonies. An uncomfortable conclusion for those expecting to find, like the Rosetta Stone, the key to access an entire lost civilization through its writing.

Two visions in conflict

The academic debate remains divided. One school of experts argues that AI is confirming what some researchers have suspected: that Indus writing was never a complete language as we know it. Instead, it was a functional system, limited to specific purposes.

Other archaeologists maintain a more conservative stance, arguing that it could still be a lost language, but with a structure radically different from any known. From this perspective, we would need not a Rosetta Stone that translates, but a new theoretical framework that redefines what we consider a “written language.”

The truth is, the Indus Valley continues to challenge our traditional categories. And perhaps that is precisely the most valuable discovery: that ancient civilizations were more diverse, experimental, and unpredictable than our modern archetypes have allowed us to imagine.