Read(?) the Signs: By Solving a Math-Puzzle or by Wearing Harappan Shoes?

We celebrated a century of discovery of Harappan civilisation in Sept 2024. The beginning of 2025 was marked by an announcement of a $1 million award for decipherment of Harappan signs. Since it’s a topic of interest for statisticians, linguists, and computer programmers, and being researched for more than a century, in the age of ML shouldn’t the answer be a click away? It looks like it’s not, at least for a while. The declaration of award in this case reminds us that this is not the first time! With a brief history of this scholarship, the article describes the award precedent from 2004, subsequent debate, and a precursor called Baksheesh system. In the later part, I point out possible lacunae in present studies and some pointers to move forward. I situate it in feminist archaeologist Joan Gero’s position around “Honouring Ambiguities” in archaeology. Finally, academic obsession about the script and reading is in stark contrast to what archaeology aims to do. Subjecting this material to seek objective, unambiguous, and authentic particular past based on “written readable evidence” defeats its purpose. I present this discourse as a case-study that explicates persistent tensions, challenges, and juxtapositions in archaeological theory and praxis.