Exercise 4.1
The cuneiform writing system was contemporary to the Harappan script, but while cuneiform has been deciphered, the Harappan script has not yet been deciphered. Do you think our understanding of a civilisation changes when its script is deciphered compared to when it is not?
The book prints no answer for this
NCERT publishes no answers for this textbook, so there is nothing in the book to check this working against. It has also not yet been read through by hand.
Yes — deciphering a script changes what we can know, and the chapter's own table (Fig. $\displaystyle 4.3$) sets out exactly how.
Without a readable script, the main sources are tools, implements and other artefacts. These show how people lived and worked, but it is generally difficult to understand their thoughts and ideas.
With a deciphered script, we also get written documents, which give names; events; and social, political and cultural life.
Dating becomes more accurate too, because documents mention specific dates for events such as coronations and wars. Without them, dating stays approximate.
The two contemporaries prove it. From cuneiform we know Mesopotamia's myths, epics, hymns, 'law codes' and educational treatises, the name of King Sargon, and that he traded with Meluhha, Magan and Dilmun. From the Harappans we cannot read a single seal.
So our picture of the Harappans stays material — planned cities, drainage, standard weights, beads and seals — while our picture of Mesopotamia includes its rulers, its laws and its stories.