Did OpenAI's O1 decipher the Indus Valley Script?

A few weeks ago, I had a fascinating conversation with OpenAI's O1 model about decoding the Indus Valley script - one of the world's oldest and still undeciphered writing systems. What started as a curious experiment led to an intriguing demonstration of how large language models might contribute to archaeological and linguistic research.

Here is a pdf ofthe entire chat transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y3XRtUpKOMEsWjxQgAIPBu-GR-NaWG40/view?usp=sharing

o1: “[Unicorn Clan] offering/trade measure of [grain commodity type] (possibly a standard unit), allocated for ritual or market exchange.”

The Indus Valley civilization (c. 3300-1300 BCE) left behind thousands of seals with short inscriptions that have puzzled scholars for decades. Without a "Rosetta Stone" equivalent, these ancient texts remain silent witnesses to a sophisticated Bronze Age culture.

I began by showing O1 some seals and the script and asking it to analyze patterns and propose theories about their meaning. Its initial response was methodical, breaking down the analysis into distinct categories:

"Sign Repetition and Symbol Clusters: The short strings of symbols on each seal typically feature a set of recurring motifs—forked shapes, plant-like icons, geometric forms, and simple line-and-dot patterns. The tight clustering and consistent size of these signs suggest that the script might be composed of a finite set of standardized symbols, possibly 300–400 in total, as researchers have cataloged."

The model then discussed the directional patterns:

"Direction of Writing and Syntax: Many seals show a row of symbols arranged in a neat linear order, often read right-to-left, though the exact reading direction remains debated. Consistency in direction and sign order strongly implies a language-based system."

What caught my attention was how O1 connected the imagery to possible social functions:

"Animal Imagery and Clan/Trade Identities: The presence of large central animals—like a bull, a unicorn-like figure, or sometimes an elephant—next to lines of script might serve as a form of 'brand' or emblem. One theory suggests that the animal images could represent clan totems, regional identities, or occupational guilds."

When I asked it to attempt an actual decoding, O1 provided a detailed framework comparing the script to other ancient writing systems:

"Like Linear B, we assume commodity + measure signs. Like Egyptian Hieroglyphs, we combine symbolic determinatives (a deity figure, offering stands) with conceptual signs (grain, clan emblems). Like Mayan script, layered sign clusters may represent titles, place-names, and ritual actions."

The most ambitious part came when I challenged it to decode the longest known Indus inscription. O1 produced a systematic analysis, breaking down the text line by line and proposing a complete translation:

"By the authority of the honored Unicorn-Bull Clan, and under the sign of the orchard, we present these sacred measures of grain. In threefold units, offered at the season of celestial favor, we petition the divine powers to grant fertility and prosperity. By the decree of priestly lineage and in the presence of the seated divine master, let this covenant ensure abundant harvests, thriving herds, and lasting well-being for our people."

What's particularly interesting is how O1 created a complete hypothetical sign catalog, assigning specific meanings to individual symbols. For example:

"Sign 332†: Description: A forked shape with three prongs, slightly curved. Phonetic: 'ta' Semantic Core: Denotes a 'division' or 'section.' May mark subdivisions of a commodity or a clan subgroup."

What makes this experiment particularly intriguing is not just the comprehensiveness of O1's analysis, but its methodological approach. The model didn't just make wild guesses - it constructed a coherent system based on known principles of ancient writing systems and archaeological context.

Consider how it broke down the signs into functional categories:

"Logograms: Most oval or container-like signs represent commodities (grain, oil, processed foods). Phonetics: Simple shapes (forked or U-shaped) often serve as phonetic syllables, letting scribes spell out clan names, deities, or place-names. Determinatives: Forked signs, ovals with distinct internal patterns, and leaf-like icons classify words into categories—agricultural produce, ritual offerings, settlements, or alliances."

The model's proposed "Rosetta Stone" for the script included detailed entries for over 70 signs, each with proposed phonetic values, semantic meanings, and contextual usage patterns. This systematic approach mirrors how actual ancient scripts were deciphered - through painstaking analysis of patterns, contexts, and comparative linguistics.

Of course, we should approach this with appropriate skepticism. I wish I had deeper expertise in archaeological linguistics to properly evaluate the technical validity of O1's proposals. The model itself acknowledges this uncertainty:

"This reconstruction is speculative, as no definitive readings exist. However, based on pattern recognition, common motifs, and analogy with other ancient scripts, a plausible reading is that this seal records the clan's name (indicated by the unicorn) and a standard measure of a key commodity (grain or similar), likely related to a ritual or trade context." What's particularly fascinating is how O1 integrated multiple lines of evidence - the physical characteristics of the seals, the archaeological context, comparative analysis with other ancient scripts, and likely social functions within the Indus Valley civilization. This holistic approach feels reminiscent of how human scholars actually work.

Unfortunately, O1's full analysis with images cannot be easily shared due to ChatGPT not letting you share threads with images in it. But here is a screenshot pdf of the entire chat transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y3XRtUpKOMEsWjxQgAIPBu-GR-NaWG40/view?usp=sharing

The implications of this experiment extend beyond just the Indus script. It suggests that large language models, when properly prompted, might offer new perspectives on old problems in historical linguistics and archaeology. Not by magically solving them, but by systematically exploring possibility spaces in ways that might spark new insights among human researchers.

This doesn't mean O1 has "cracked" the Indus script (idk maybe it did but one of you need to verify that). What it has done is demonstrate how AI might serve as a sophisticated thought partner in academic research, capable of generating structured hypotheses that human experts could then evaluate, refine, or reject.

The experiment also reveals something about the nature of these models themselves. O1 didn't just pattern match or regurgitate existing theories - it constructed a complex, internally consistent system that respected both linguistic principles and archaeological evidence. This suggests these models might be capable of more sophisticated forms of reasoning than we sometimes assume.

The Indus Valley script likely remains undeciphered, but perhaps the path to understanding it - and other ancient mysteries - will involve this kind of human-AI collaboration, combining machine learning's pattern-recognition capabilities with human expertise and judgment.

Or perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. Maybe this was just an interesting afternoon spent exploring an ancient puzzle with a very sophisticated chatbot. Either way, it suggests intriguing possibilities for how AI might contribute to our understanding of the past.

P.S. I'm not a professional archaeologist or linguist. I just like to play with LLMs. Can someone please try this with o1 pro?