Icons on Indus Seals and Tablets

Tablet M-593 with inscription (from right): FISH UNDER CHEVRON / CUPPED SPOON / 3 POSTS / SLASHES IN OVERLAPPING CIRCLES / QUINT-FORK / BED WITH ATTACHED POST / QUINT-FORK (also on M-534 to -542).

Hare icon on reverse of tablets M-532 to -542.

Sign on the reverse of tablet M-593: CARTWHEEL IN STRIPED FLANGE TOPPED POT,
interpreted as the symbol of the hare (deity?) by Parpola and Wells.

In the previous post, I mentioned W. Fairservis’ suggestion that the icons on Indus seals represent ancient clans (or sodalities), which can be divided into two groups or moieties (1992: 6).  The moiety of the wild animals includes the tiger, elephant, buffalo, and rhinoceros, with the gavial (or gharial, related to the crocodile) ruling or controlling them.  The domestic moiety, on the other hand, includes the so-called unicorn bull, the zebu or humped bull, the goat, and the gaur.  In a few cases, the animal that appears on a seal or tablet is mythical, made up of features of two or more different animals.  These composite beasts, in Fairservis’ view, represent relationships between clans (or between the two moieties).  So, the goat with an elephant’s trunk indicates that the goat clan of the domestic moiety was allied in some fashion with the elephant clan of the wild moiety. 

This is an interesting proposal but there seems to be no way to confirm or disprove it.  Nevertheless, there is more that can be said concerning the iconic animals.  Based on data from I. Mahadevan’s concordance, archeologist G. Possehl notes the distribution and frequency of iconic animals on seals (2002: 128, from Mahadevan 1977: 793).

Frequency of iconic animals on Indus seals

Iconic Animal	No. of occurrences	Percent
Unicorn with standard	1159	76.0
Short-horned bull	95	6.2
Elephant	55	3.6
Zebu (humped bull)	54	3.5
Rhinoceros	39	2.6
Goat-antelope	36	2.4
Bull-antelope	26	1.7
Tiger	16	1.4
Buffalo	14	0.9
Hare facing bush	10	0.7
Bull like unicorn with 2 horns	5	0.3
Horned tiger	5	0.3
Hare [no bush]	5	0.3
Short-horned bulls facing	2	0.1
Horned elephant	1	0.07
Two rhinos	1	0.07
Two goats flanking tree	1	0.07
TOTAL	1524	100*

(*Percentages are founded to the nearest decimal, so they no longer total precisely 100%).

When anthropologists describe moieties, they appear to speak of roughly two halves of a social group.  But here, even if the unicorn were a moiety in itself and all the other icons represented a second moiety, there would be considerably more of the unicorn moiety than of the everything-else-moiety.  This would suggest that Fairservis’ description is, at best, incomplete.  At worst, he would simply be wrong.  However, additional information might clarify which of these is the case.  For example, suppose we knew that people in the larger settlements – Mohenjo daro and Harappa, for example – were more likely to own seals, while a roughly equal number of people living in small towns and villages were less likely to own them.  We might then hypothesize that the unicorn represented a predominantly urban clan, while the less frequent icons represented rural clans.  This would explain the preponderance of unicorns on seals in urban areas and the relative rarity of other icons.

Tablet M-592A and B sides, with (broken) inscription: POTTED TRIPLE SLASHES / FOOT / MAN HOLDING QUOTE / STRIPED MALLET / SINGLE QUOTE // MAN HOLDING POST / DOUBLE GRIDS.  The FIGURE EIGHT SHIELD
on the reverse (side B) may represent the "unicorn" bull found on the reverse of M-519 to -521 and on many seals.

Another issue pertaining to icons is their presence on copper tablets.  The table above is captioned “on seals” in Possehl (as well as here).  But the “hare facing bush” appears only on copper tablets, so far as I can tell.  This suggests that some of the above frequency data derives from tablets, alongside that from seals.  Now, I cannot make out many of the inscriptions and depictions on the copper tablets, as they are quite dark and do not photograph well.  But Parpola provides line drawings in his work (1994/2009: 111-112).  Most often, there is an inscription on the observe (side A) and an iconic animal on the reverse (side B), with notable exceptions.  A single inscription appears on the observe of the tablet designated B1, while a unicorn with trough fills the reverse (Parpola 1994/2009: 111).  There are eight duplicates, according to Parpola (M-519 to 521 and M-1470 to 1473, I think, though this only includes seven).  The same inscription appears on the obverse of tablet C1 (M-592, perhaps M-590 and -591 as well), while the FIGURE EIGHT SHIELD stands alone on the reverse (3 duplicates).  Parpola deduces from this that the FIGURE EIGHT SHIELD of C1 is probably the sign for the unicorn on B1.  (The inscription in both cases reads from right to left: POTTED TRIPLE SLASHES / FOOT / MAN HOLDING QUOTE / STRIPED MALLET / SINGLE QUOTE // MAN HOLDING POST / DOUBLE GRIDS.)

Quadruped on reverse of tablet M-516 and M-517, which may represent the rhino on M-1481 (?).

Similarly, the same inscription appears on the obverse of tablet B7 (M-534 to -542 and M-1491 to -1494?), and on C2 (M-593).  While B7 contains an iconic hare with plants, C2 bears a single sign on the reverse, CARTWHEEL IN STRIPED FLANGE TOPPED POT.  Thus, Parpola suggests, this rare sign represents the hare.  This type of reasoning leads to the interpretation of EF PRONGED CHEVRON UPON POTTED SIX as the sign for a composite animal with a bovine head and body, short horns, and a long, upright tail like that of the tiger.  One of the quadruped signs (QUADRUPED WITH E TAIL & TWO EARS) would then stand for the rhinoceros (pairing A11 as found on M-516-517 and B5 as found on M-1481 {?}).  The rare CRAB IN LEAF TOPPED POT appears on the reverse of C5a, C5b, and C6, tablets whose obverse inscriptions pair them with B9 (bearing a ram) and B19 (bearing an anthorpomorph with horns and a tail, carrying bow and arrows).  In each of these cases and in several others, Parpola states, “both [the lone sign and the icon] seem to symbolize particular Harappan divinities” (1994/2009: 112).

Shell inlay of a woman wearing a cylinder seal on a string, from Mari in Syria
(Aruz 2003: 161, Pl. 104a).  She may have been weaving in the original.

Parpola also refers to the explanation of archeologist Mackay, who thought the copper tablets were amulets.  They were intended to be “read” as is, not used as stamps.  The amuletic function also characterized cylinder seals in Mesopotamia (Collon 1987/2005: 113).  These seals were occasionally pierced like beads, more often given a loop or handle, so that they could be worn on a string.  The Indus seals, too, have a boss on the back with a hole drilled through it.  Perhaps they were worn as well.  It may be of interest to note that tamga signs, though not typically placed on seals or tablets, were inscribed or painted (or branded) on property in part for amuletic purposes.  The tamgas were often considered endowed with supernatural power or capable of invoking it, for protection and for healing (Yatsenko 2010: 115).

Detail from an Egyptian amuletic ring, showing magical symbols, some of which are also hieroglyphs
(after Pinch 1994/2006: 111, fig. 57).  Symbols include wedjat eye (or Eye of Horus), djed pillar (not
visible here), ankh ("life"), a mask of the goddess Bat, and animals (turtle, snake, baboon, falcon, hare).

If the main purpose of either tablets or seals was protective, as an amulet, then perhaps the Indus inscriptions contain the equivalent of prayers or curses rather than the names and titles so commonly supposed.  This is a possibility that might be entertained profitably, considering the importance of symbols in magic and religion.  I will discuss this further in my next post.

REFERENCES

Aruz, J. 2003. Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium BC from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press.

Collon, D. 1987/2005. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum.

Fairservis, W.A. 1992. The Harappan Civilization and Its Writing: A Model for the Decipherment of the Indus Script. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Parpola, A. 1994/2009. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: University Press.

Pinch, G. 1994/2006. Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum.

Possehl, G.L. 2002. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Yatsenko, S.A. 2010. “Problems and Study Methods of the Ancient and Early Medieval Iranian-speaking Peoples’ Nishan-Signs,” in Traditional marking Systems: A Preliminary Survey, J.E. Pim, S.A. Yatsenko, and O.T. Perrin, eds. London: Dunkling Books, pp. 109-130.