Seal M-1134 with inscription of four medial signs, plus rhino icon, perhaps an emblem of a Wild Animal sodality. |
Seal M-1162 with single-sign inscription and elephant icon, another possible emblem of a Wild Animal sodality. |
In discussing the various signs of the Indus script, I
frequently referred to two proto-writing systems of the Near East,
proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite. The
known texts of these scripts are typically economic in nature. But these are not the only types of
semasiographical systems that are known.
The Mixtecs and Aztecs also had proto-writing, though of a very
different type. Texts in these script
generally have to do with the calendar, geography, and a bit of history (Smith
1973). I do not think it likely that any
of these resembles the Indus script closely, mainly because of the differences
in text length but also due to the context.
As noted previously, the apparent numerals in the Indus script generally
follow a pattern found in folklore rather than in economic texts, so the seals
and tablets are unlikely to bear economic accounts. In this, they probably differ from the
administrative tablets in proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite. The seals and tablets are also too brief to
contain much – if any – calendrical information, a prominent feature of the
Mesoamerican texts.
There is another set of symbols that is useful for
comparison with the Indus script. These
other symbols do not comprise a writing system, thus qualifying as
semasiographical motifs. They appear
primarily in Eurasia and are known by various names, including tamga or tamaga, nishan, and gakk.
In Central Asia, from Iran and Turkey in the West to Mongolia and southern
Siberia in the east, many peoples have used these symbols, which I refer to
collectively as tamga. These are most simply described as ownership
marks, but there is more to it than that.
In some cases, the symbols are marks of identity in the same way as
European heraldic signs (Perrin 2010: 25). People put such symbols on houses and other
buildings, on objects that they own, and mark their animals with them. The individual mark typically represents an
extended family or clan, although some peoples allow modification of the family
tamga to further indicate the
individual. This modification is usually
the addition of a line, a dot, or other small mark to the basic sign. Despite its connection with the extended
family, the tamga is not the same as
a symbol of a family name, though. The
connotations and associations of the tamga
are multiple. Each extended family might
well have a tamga, a battle cry, and
an associated epic (or dastan) that
describes some of its history (2010: 39).
A circled Lone Star on a house in Texas, similar to a tamga in function. |
We do not have tamgas
in Texas, but many people mark their homes with similar symbols, the most
popular in my neighborhood being a star.
This is known as the Lone Star, the symbol of Texas as a state, a motif
that also appears on the state flag. The
star that appears on people’s homes (and sometimes on businesses) is sometimes
just the five-pointed star, sometimes this is enclosed in a circle, and
occasionally it is enclosed in two circles, with smaller stars between the
inner and outer rings. A few instances have
words between these two rings instead of small stars or in addition to
them -- “The Lone Star of Texas” being
the commonest I have seen. In addition,
a fair number of houses have a cross adorning them, indicating the Christian religious
affiliation of the resident(s). The
cross and star, then, mark membership in a larger group rather than functioning
to mark ownership by the individual and the same is typically the case with tamgas.
Texans also brand livestock with symbols and, in this case, the symbols
do represent individual owners.
A circled Lone Star on a bench in Texas. |
Among many Eurasian pastoral peoples, the marks used as
brands for livestock represent clans (Landais 2010: 85). Since animals are traded or sold to others
from time to time, a given animal may have several brands on it, one for each owner
in turn. While most animals bear the
brand that represents the owner’s paternal clan (the father’s family),
sometimes an owner will add the brand of his maternal clan (that of his
mother’s family), the clan sign of an earlier ancestor, his wife’s clan sign,
or a sign representing a clan with whom he lives. Thus, even an animal that has never been sold
may bear more than one brand. Among some
groups, an individual’s mark may be added beside that of the clan. In other groups, the original tamga is slightly modified for each
owner within the clan, either by adding a small mark or removing one. Persons who are dependent on non-familial
relationships, such as craftsmen serving a wealthy owner, may sometimes use the
marks of the “master” with perhaps some minor modification (2010: 93).
A bovine head as painted on Indus pot shard Rhd-241, not a sign in the script but perhaps something akin to a tamga. |
In all these cases, the tamga
communicates a message. On one level,
the tamga communicates to outsiders,
the message being that this house, these cattle, these objects belong to
such-and-such a clan. To those within
the clan, the tamga communicates
solidarity and is associated with other things that characterize that clan
(such as the dastan). A third level of communication is also common,
between the clans that mark things and the gods or spirits. This arises from the belief that the tamga invokes supernatural protection of
that which is marked. Alternatively,
evil spirits are warded off by the presence of the supernaturally potent tamga.
Broken seal L-50, the only one with an iconic bird, as well as a single surviving sign, the BI-FORK, also found as a Central Asian tamga sign. |
Typically, each tamga
has a name, some of these indicating the form of the symbol, others deriving
from the history of associated clan. The
Tuareg of North Africa use marks that mimic animal tracks, simplified
depictions of objects such as tools and weapons, representations of celestial
objects such as the sun, moon, and stars, and individual letters from Arabic or
Tifinagh writing (2010: 94). Being
schematic and simplified, even the representational marks are not necessarily
recognizable to a naive observer: “For
instance, the Y mark represents the nasal cleft of the camel (bujila), which is small in size but
great in power since it leads the camel...” (2010: 95). In most Eurasian systems, the origin of the tamga is not clear.
Broken seal H-95, the only seal with an iconic rabbit, as well as a FIGURE EIGHT sign, one which also appears as a tamga. |
These remarks convey only part of the sophisticated symbol
system of the tamga. What is important is that some of the
characteristics of tamgas recall the
hypothesized function of the Indus script.
I suggested previously that the signs on seals may serve a nominative
function, representing the names, titles, and relationships of
individuals. The analogous information
conveyed by a tamga indicates that this
function may be borne by semasiographic motifs and not only by writing. Thus, an Indus seal inscription with a
prefix, medial section, and terminal, might indicate an owner (medial section)
with an occupational title (terminal) and a relationship to another owner
(prefix). The three sections of the
inscription may then be similar to the multiple brands on a domestic animal,
which as noted above may indicate paternal clan, individual identity, and
perhaps a third relationship – maternal clan, wife’s clan, or patron’s clan. If something like this underlies the Indus
inscriptions, then it is worthwhile to examine each segment in greater depth to
see how this might work.
Seal B-7 with an inscription containing only a prefix (CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES), as well as a buffalo icon, perhaps another Wild Animal sodality emblem. |
By my count, there are 775 prefixes in the inscriptions
published in the first two volumes of the Corpus. Of these, the largest number contain a single
variable sign followed by one of the three possible constants (SINGLE QUOTE,
BI-QUOTES, or PINCH). There may be more
variable signs, up to seven. As the
number of variable signs increases, the frequency of inscriptions with that
many decreases:
Variable
Sign No.
|
No.
of
Inscriptions
|
Percentage
of
Inscriptions
|
one
|
483
|
62.3
|
two
|
194
|
25.0
|
three
|
70
|
9.0
|
four
|
20
|
2.6
|
five
|
5
|
0.6
|
six
|
2
|
0.3
|
seven
|
1
|
0.1
|
TOTAL
|
775
|
100
|
The medial segment is considerably more variable. It may contain a single sign or a good many
more. In my analysis, I have generally
assumed that each line of an inscription constitutes a single element. That is, an inscription of two lines may
contain prefix, medial segment, and terminal in the first line, making up one
element or message. The second line is
then an additional element, message, or unit of information. This may not be true in all cases and I have
not thoroughly examined this assumption yet.
But for now it is a reasonable working hypothesis.
The terminal section of the inscription is somewhat shorter
than the prefix. Again, the most common
terminals contain a single sign, with declining frequency of occurrence of
longer terminals. The possibilities for
a single-sign terminals are more numerous than those for prefix constants. Where only three of these prefix elements
occur, terminals include POT (907 occurrences), SPEAR (203), POT-HATTED BEARER
(80), COMB (69), PINWHEEL (68), BEARER (56), MAN (25), and CHEVRON-HATTED
BEARER (10). Occurrences of all of these
as single terminals add up to 1,418.
Two-sign terminals are less common but still of some frequency: POT +
COMB (118), POT + MAN (70), TRI-FORK TOPPED POT + POT (42), BI-FORK TOPPED POT
+ POT (38), FLANGE-TOPPED POT + POT (35), POT-HATTED BEARER + COMB (22), COMB +
POT (11), DOUBLE COMBS (10), and others, each of which is rare (39 altogether). This yields a total of 385 two-sign terminals. None of the three-sign terminals is at all
common, with only 12 total occurrences (the most frequent of which is POT + MAN
+ COMB, 3 occurrences). Thus, terminals
total 1,815.
Terminal
Sign No.
|
No.
of
Inscriptions
|
Percentage
of
Inscriptions
|
one
|
1418
|
78.1
|
two
|
385
|
21.2
|
three
|
12
|
0.7
|
TOTAL
|
1815
|
100
|
There are, then, only three possible lengths for a
terminal. It may consist of one sign,
two signs, or three. This is considerably
shorter than the prefix, which may contain up to eight signs (seven variables
plus a constant). And while the set of
prefix constants is small, the set of possible signs for the variable portion
is quite large. The medial segment of an
inscription may be even longer than the prefix.
There is, of course, no clear evidence of the existence of
clans in the Indus Valley in the bronze age, certainly no indication of how
many might have existed (three, as symbolized the terminals or up to eight as
suggested by the prefixes?). Since
large-scale cemeteries have not been excavated (if they even exist), there
would seem to be no method for discovering such data, either. Thus, I am not prepared to claim that any particular segment of an inscription
must contain clan designations.
Even so, I am not the only one to suggest a possible link
between social groupings and Indus symbols.
Fairservis suggested that the iconic animals that appear on the square
seals and on some tablets represent something like clans (1992: 6). He groups these iconic animals into two
sets. The domestic set includes the “unicorn”
as well as the goat, zebu, and gaur, in other words, the various types of bull
and goat. The wild set includes the
tiger, elephant, buffalo, and rhinoceros.
The occurrence of these various types in many Harappan settlements “strongly
suggests that pan-settlement sodalities like clans or associations were
present, and that these sodalities divided into a rough moiety of wild and domestic
animal related groups” (1992: 6). The
appearance of composite animals on several seals and tablets indicates, in his
view, relationships between clans or sodalities. “Here then is a clue to the meaning of the
writing as it appears on the seal tablets,” he continues. “With high probability it describes the
individual who bears the tablet by name, title, occupation, social status,
family, etc., in the conventional manner of the time. In toto the large seal tablet motifs
represent the sodality to which the bearer of the seal tablet belongs. The writing identifies the individual within the sodality” (loc. cit.).
In sum then, the Indus inscriptions may parallel the
proto-Elamite texts only slightly, in which many rare symbols serve to indicate
“owners” (perhaps institutions such as temples to begin with rather than
individuals). The Indus inscriptions may,
instead, follow the pattern of the more elaborated systems of tamgas that represent clans (or
sodalities, as Fairservis suggests). An
individual might then use a seal to stamp a series of symbols on objects to
mark the latter as (a) belonging to the seal bearer, (b) given by the seal
bearer to another individual, (c) or donated by the seal bearer to an
institution. The inscriptions might then
include information on the larger social groups to which the seal owner
belongs, including paternal clan, perhaps maternal clan or wife’s clan as well,
the larger sodality to which the clan belongs, perhaps another clan or sodality
with which the owner’s clan is allied, and even some indication of the
individual owner as well. Instead of
multiple clan symbols, some of the Indus signs might be occupational tamgas (similar to later masons’ marks),
and symbols representing other social groupings such as religious
affiliation.
The added prongs, stripes, and other marks seen on a number
of signs – the “hairs” on the HAIRY HUNCHBACK as opposed to the “hairless”
HUNCHBACK, the stripes in the STRIPED VEST as opposed to the unstriped VEST,
the small TRI-FORK attached to a number of signs – may not be equivalent to “gunification”
in proto-cuneiform and proto-Elamite.
Instead, these additional marks may serve to differentiate individual
lines within a clan or sodality.
Shapes of symbols common to both the Indus script and one or
another Eurasian set of tamgas include the following (using my descriptors for
the Indus signs): EX, BACK CEE & CEE,
RAYED CIRCLE, CIRCLE, DUCK HEAD, LOLLIPOP, BARBELL, SWASTIKA, LAMBDA, BI-FORK,
TRI-FORK, FLAIL, CHEVRON , ZEE, SHISH KEBAB, CUP, ROOF, CIRCLED CROSS, COMB,
CIRCLE, STACKED TRIPLE CIRCLES, SPEAR, BOWTIE, VEST, BOXED EX, TRIANGLE,
SKEWERED EX, GRAIN EAR, TABLE, DIAMOND, BISECTED RECTANGLE, DOUBLED BELTED
AITCH, SKEWERED CIRCLE, ZIGZAG, DOTTED CIRCLE, DEE, SINGLE POST, TWO POSTS,
STOOL, LOOP, FISH. Note that these are
mostly the simplest geometric shapes, and, as we have seen, they have multiple parallels elsewhere
as well. So I do not propose a direct
relationship between the signs of the Indus script on one hand and the tamga signs
of any pastoral group on the other.
Instead, I only propose that there may be parallels in function and
perhaps some parallels in the contexts of sign use.
REFERENCES
Fairservis, W.A. 1992. The
Harappan Civilization and Its Writing: A Model for the Decipherment of the
Indus Script. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Gelb, I.J. 1963. A
Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Landais, E. 2010. “The Marking of Livestock in Traditional
Pastoral Societies,” in Traditional Marking
Systems: A Preliminary Survey, J.E. Pim, S.A. Yatsenko, and OT. Perrin,
eds. London: Dunkling Books.
Pim, J.E., S.A. Yatsenko, and O.T. Perrin, eds. 2010. Traditional Marking Systems: A Preliminary
Survey. London: Dunkling Books.
Smith, M.E. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtec Place Signs and
Maps. Norman: University of Oklahoma.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI like this information. Thanks for sharing this. I would like to these articles and I have confusion but I read your news and I easy understood
ReplyDeleteFloral solitaire earrings
I like this information. Thanks for sharing this. I would like to these articles and I have confusion but I read your news and I easy understood
ReplyDeleteBuyback your old diamond ring
Interesting. Pakistani history needs to be researched more so these scripts can be finally deciphered.
ReplyDelete