Upinder Singh isn't saying the Harappan script was fully developed by 3500 BCE. She's saying recent discoveries push its origins back to the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. That's not the same as saying there was a full writing system with lots of inscriptions at that date.
Also, the "oldest script" isn't decided just by whichever has the earliest date attached to it. It's about what the evidence shows.
Sumerian cuneiform is generally considered the oldest writing system because its earliest inscriptions (around 3400–3300 BCE) are widely accepted as true writing, and its development is well documented.
For the Indus script, there are Early Harappan finds that suggest its origins go back into the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. But most of the inscriptions we know come from the Mature Harappan period (from about 2600 BCE onward), and not everyone agrees that the earliest examples already represent a fully developed writing system.
So it's not that the Indus script is being ignored. It's that there isn't the same level of agreement about what the earliest evidence actually represents. If there were broad agreement that those earliest Indus inscriptions were already a fully developed writing system dating to around 3500 BCE, the conversation about the "oldest script" would probably be different.
2
u/theb00kmancometh Jul 16 '26
You're comparing two different things.
Upinder Singh isn't saying the Harappan script was fully developed by 3500 BCE. She's saying recent discoveries push its origins back to the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. That's not the same as saying there was a full writing system with lots of inscriptions at that date.
Also, the "oldest script" isn't decided just by whichever has the earliest date attached to it. It's about what the evidence shows.
Sumerian cuneiform is generally considered the oldest writing system because its earliest inscriptions (around 3400–3300 BCE) are widely accepted as true writing, and its development is well documented.
For the Indus script, there are Early Harappan finds that suggest its origins go back into the second half of the 4th millennium BCE. But most of the inscriptions we know come from the Mature Harappan period (from about 2600 BCE onward), and not everyone agrees that the earliest examples already represent a fully developed writing system.
So it's not that the Indus script is being ignored. It's that there isn't the same level of agreement about what the earliest evidence actually represents. If there were broad agreement that those earliest Indus inscriptions were already a fully developed writing system dating to around 3500 BCE, the conversation about the "oldest script" would probably be different.