Three Variations on the Indus 'Man' Sign

In the following, I discuss three Indus signs that are variations on the basic MAN (V23).  The first of these appears to be this same MAN standing on a horizontal base and positioned upside-down.  Due to this resemblance, I term the sign DOWN MAN ON BASE (VI47).  It appears only in one of the lists, that of Wells, where it receives two different identifying numbers: W48 and W57.  Each of these instances is a singleton, the first appearing at Mohenjo daro (M-306) and the second at Chandigarh (Ch-3).  I prefer to group the two as variants of a single sign, “A” and “B” respectively.  I do not think they really represent humans, especially in the case of the “B” variant, which has a very long “head” or stem.  It is more likely that they represent flowers.

Seal M-306 with inscription: VEE IN DIAMOND / DOWN MAN ON BASE / POTTED ONE / PACMAN / CRAB / POT / TRIPLE BRICK (smoothing of image and coloring added by author).

Parallels to this sign are frequent, a fact that I find surprising.  There is a slight resemblance to the Egyptian hieroglyph that supposedly represents the bicornuate uterus of a heifer (F45).  If we wish to consider the Indus sign as actually representing a human, then for comparison there is also a glyph of an upside-down man (A29).  It is a determinative in a word meaning “be upside-down.”  The latter glyph does not actually resemble the Indus sign, though.



Pot shard Ch-3 with DOWN MAN ON BASE (coloring and smoothing of image added) -- note long "head."

 Old Chinese presents a much closer analogy in the character zi3, “a new-born child, swathed up...By extension, disciple; then, a sage, a teacher, because the ancient Emperors, in order to honour them, called them sons” (Wieger 1965: 233).  In its original form, the Chinese character has a round head and the arms are a curved line, so that the Indus sign resembles an angular version of this.  It is interesting to note that this same ancient character appears upside-down in the character that means “birth.”  Another anthropomorphic character occasionally occurs upside-down, early on: “In some very rare but most precious figures, the deceased Ancestor is represented diving, head foremost, from heavens above, towards the hand of his offering son” (1965: 370).  This ancestral figure has now become the character tian1, “heaven, sky.”

Chinese oracle-bone variants
of zi3, "child."

A closer parallel graphically than any anthropomorphic character occurs in the calendrical character xin, which looks essentially the same as one identified by Wieger as qian2, “to offend a superior...; offence, fault, crime...By extension, to attack” (1965: 249).  In addition, the abstract bu2 is very similar, indicating “a bird that rises...straight towards the skies...now an adverb of negation” (1965: 302).

Oracle-bone variants of xin or qian2, "to offend."

But the closest in form to the Indus sign is one found in proto-cuneiform, identified as GU.  It came to mean “string; flax; needle.”  This sign is identical to the Indus sign except for its horizontal position, a common feature.  Doubled, the proto-cuneiform sign becomes SUH3, which came to signify “chaos, disorder.” 

Two variants of oracle-bone bu2, "not."

Nearly the same sign as GU is one that appears in doubled form in proto-Elamite, but with the “head” on the opposite side and the “arms” angled away from this “head” rather than toward it (M127 + M127).  Despite the designation for the proto-Elamite sign, it does not appear singly in the list of signs (i.e., M127 is not listed as an independent sign).  It may be relevant to observe another similar sign in proto-Elamite (M099).  It is closer to the Indus BOWTIE, with the addition of a stroke crossing at the point where the apexes of the two triangles come together.

The final proto-Elamite example is identical in form to a symbol found in west Africa, the Adinkra dono ntoaso (Willis 1998: 92).  This African motif is positioned vertically, unlike the proto-Elamite example, and means “double dono,” referring to a particular type of drum.

Indus seal C-30 with inscription: STACKED FIVE / LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH /
CARTWHEEL BETWEEN DOUBLE POSTS (smoothing of image and coloring added).

Inscription on copper object: LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING BACKSLASH /
CARTWHEEL (smoothing and coloring added).

The second Indus sign considered here is one I clumsily term LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH, with a variant LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING BACKSLASH (VI48).  It appears in all three of the lists: KP11, W2 and W23, and Fs A-5.  Fairservis declares it to be a man with an arrow, but gives its meaning as “mother, mother as a deity (?).”  This seems extraordinarily odd to me.  If it has female meaning, I should think it must represent a woman, not a man, and the object she is holding is more likely to be a baby than an arrow.  Bearing such a possible meaning in mind, compare the figurine which is holding a baby or small child, usually identified as a male but with nipples, reproduced at upper right ("bouncing baby blog").  It is a replica of an actual Harappan artifact.  Whatever the figurine really represents may be the model behind this Indus sign.

Wells gives the sign two designations, based on the side on which the diagonal stroke appears, with each one further subdivided into four variants (although his summary for W23 contradicts this by stating the number of variants to be only 1).  His W2 holds a backslash (i.e., diagonal stroke on the right in the actual inscriptions, which he reverses) totaling 49 occurrences: 33 from Mohenjo daro, including all four subtypes, “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d”; eight from Harappa, including “a” and “b”; three from Lothal, including “a” and “d”; three from Chanhujo daro including “b” and “c”; and two from Kalibangan including “c” and “d.”  I prefer to term these variants “Aa” through “Ad.”  His W23 holds a slash (i.e., actually a diagonal stroke on the left, reversed again in his list) totaling four occurrences: one from Mohenjo daro of “a”; and three from Lothal, described as “a,” “b” and “d,” which seems to leave no actual occurrences of “c.”  These I would term "Ba" to "Bc."  It is mostly the form of the upper half of the sign that varies, with only a minority having a clear anthropomorphic appearance.

To this rather unusual sign we may wish to compare the Old Chinese character nu3, which now means “girl, woman, female” (Wieger 1965: 169).  In the oldest form shown, the character is anthropomorphic but headless, with the arms hanging down and curved toward the center of the body.  Later, one arm essentially disappears, leaving an asymmetrical form.  The addition of strokes to represent breasts changes this to mu3, “mother” (1965: 171).



Proto-Elamite signs, from top: M127 and M099; at bottom, M123~d (cf. Indus
DOWN MAN ON BASE and LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH).

 Proto-Elamite has a sign with some resemblance to the more anthropomorphic variants of the Indus sign (M123~d).  This seems to be a horizontal “man” with angular arms bent at the elbow, but without any object held.  A variant is quite different, however, changing the looping arms into a symmetrical triangle crossed by a straight line, with the “legs” very short (M123~ca).  The whole thing then more closely resembles an arrow than a person.



Seal Ns-5 with inscription: CARTWHEEL / BI-QUOTES / (over) STACKED SIX / FISH / POT /
ROUND HEADED MAN (detail, smoothing of image and color added).

The last Indus sign for this post is another variant of MAN given the further description ROUND HEAD (to be designated either MAN WITH ROUND HEAD or ROUND-HEADED MAN).  I enumerate it VI49 as the forty-ninth of the six-stroke signs.  Only Wells gives this type a separate listing, as W3c.  That is, it is the “c” variant of Wells’ MAN, although to my eyes it ought to be conflated with Wells’ “b” variant.  Wells states that there are 47 occurrences of the MAN in four variants, but does not specify the frequency of “c” variant.  I consider these to be L-4, K-16, B-1 (which also has feet), and Ns-5 (which is more like Wells’ “b”).  Wells shows VI49 to have an inverted triangular body in addition to the round head, which increases the stroke number.  And we could subdivide these further, since B-1 is small and K-16 tall, B-1 also set apart by its feet.

Chinese Old Seal writing from bronze votive object,

showing tian1 (second character from bottom on left).

This sign has many parallels around the world.  In Old Chinese, the deceased ancestor often appears in inscriptions with a rounded head and sometimes with a body thicker than a simple vertical line (Wieger 1965: 372, 367).  This character becomes tian1, discussed earlier.  Also in China, the NaXi proto-writing system makes use of an anthropomorphic symbol that typically has a round head, but stick limbs and body.

Proto-Elamite has a vaguely similar sign with a boxy “body” and triangular “head” (M320~f).  It also seems to have “feet.”


Proto-Elamite sign M320~f, which resembles an angular anthropomorph.



In the rock art of North America, there are often human-like figures with round heads and these frequently have thick bodies but stick limbs.  Such figures appear in Texas (e.g., Kirkland and Newcomb 1996: 177, Pl. 125, no. 2-C), in Arizona (e.g., Noble 1991: 62), and in Nevada and eastern California (e.g., Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: after 245, Pl. 20b; 294, fig. D-1n).  The last of these sources note 34 occurrences of anthropomorphic figures with semi-realistic heads and bodies but stick limbs (1984: 90). 

Schematic human figures from a "wampum belt" (Mohawk; redrawn from Appleton 1971: 18).

Similar figures occur in rock art elsewhere, both in Africa (e.g., Le Quellec 2004: 39, fig. 37 in the Wadi Sura of the Libyan desert; 71, fig. 22, in the shelter of Modjodje-Do in Mali; and 86-87, figs. 46 and 47 on the Pedra do Feitiço on the bank of the Zaire River) and in Australia (e.g., Flood 1997: 218, at Euriowia, western New South Wales; 219 at Mootwingee; and 220 in a rock shelter in Gunderbooks Range, Cobar region, western New South Wales).  In Australia this type of depiction is termed Simple Figurative.  It is variable in size (large and small), form (painting, drawing, and engraving), and date (from several thousand years old to considerably more recent) (1997: 220).  Large engravings and paintings tend to occur in the Sydney region, while small figures appear in the Cobar region.  Many, if not all, of both types (large and small figures), in Australia and Africa, are thought to have served ritual and religious functions in the societies of their creators.

It is very possible that the icons – the pictorial elements – on Indus seals and tablets also served a religious function.  That is, the people of the Indus Valley may have worshipped deities in the form of animals and, occasionally, human-animal hybrids.  Fairservis, on the other hand, sees the icons as representing social groups such as lineages or clans.  This is another possibility.  Most scholars in this field do not consider the inscriptions and icons to be related.  But, in the absence of decipherment, this point of view remains hypothetical, not proven.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:

Appleton, Le Roy H. 1971. American Indian Design and Decoration. New York: Dover (originally published 1950 by Chrles Scribner's Sons with the title Indian Art of the Americas).

Human Figures with an Additional Stroke

Seal M-304 with inscription: QUOTE UNDER MAN / DOUBLE FOOTED STOOLS / POTTED TWO / FISH / POT, and MAN lower right, below elephant and above tiger.  Note the icon of seated anthropomorphic figure with horns, often identified as the later Hindu god Shiva (watercolor with added color by author).

The first Indus sign for today’s discussion is QUOTE UNDER MAN (VI43).  There are not many occurrences of this sign, also known as KP14 and W19, in the Indus script.  It appears four times in all, three times at Mohenjo daro and once at Kalibangan.  As seen in my earlier post concerning the basic MAN (V23), simple anthropomorphic figures appear on virtually every continent, whether it is in writing, in proto-writing, or in art.  Adding a short vertical stroke below such a figure and between the legs is such a simple variation on the basic sign, one might expect to find many parallels to VI43.  In fact, though, such variation is not common at all. 

In Egyptian hieroglyphs, a single vertical stroke often appears below or beside a glyph to indicate that the marked glyph is ideographic, not phonetic.  However, while there is a seated man among the glyphs, there is no simple standing stick figure in the hieroglyphic script style, although a number of standing figures do appear.  As I noted in the earlier post on MAN, the most similar graphically of the hieroglyphs is the star (N14).  This glyph has the same five lines as the Indus MAN, but the star's “arms” angle upward instead of downward.  The star occurs below a curved line, half of the crescent moon glyph (N11) to form a ligatured glyph (N13).  This is ideographic in the word for a festival that was celebrated in the middle of the month.  This curve above a star (in Egypt) contains the same number of strokes as the quotation mark below a man (in South Asia), but the two look quite different in sum.

In Old Chinese, the Indus MAN is closely matchd by a representation of a man with his arms spread, da4, which means “big, great.”  This character does not combine with a single stroke beneath, but does combine with the numeral 10, a short-armed cross.  This forms the compound character tao1, “to advance, to move forward, to prosper rapidly, as the man who has past [sic] his tenth year” (Wieger 1965: 157).  A cross below a man not quite the same as a quotation mark, again, but the placement of the added element matches that of the QUOTE UNDER MAN.

Proto-Elamite sign M097~h resembling angular version of Indus QUOTE UNDER MAN.

Proto-Elamite provides the best parallel with a wedge-shaped impression placed between the "legs" of a human-like symbol that has a triangular “head” (M097~h).  As is typical of this proto-writing system, the symbol is positioned horizontally.  The basic “man” in this case probably does not represent a human, however, since it appears in texts that concern herds and flocks (Damerow and Englund 1989).

Hohokam engraving interpreted as a birth scene, with two anthropomorphs, one with a dot or two below the legs.

In the rock art of North America, there are many instances of an anthropomorphic figure with what seems to be a short tail.  This motif is somewhat similar to the Indus sign VI43, although the "quote" in the latter is usually shown in printed lists as detached from the "man."  The "men with tails" occur frequently in Texas (e.g., Newcomb 1996: 59, Pl. 21, no. 3; p. 74, Pl. 36, no. 3; p. 109, Pl. 69, no. 3; p. 149, Pl. 100, no. 8).  They also appear in Nevada (e.g., Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 161, fig. 98c; 156, fig. 98e).  The illustration is found between these two states, in southern Arizona, made by people whose culture is termed Hohokam (Noble 1991: 65).  Where the “tail” is short on an American figure, it may indicate the male organ and not a tail at all.  Such motifs should then be interpreted as representing men, in the sense of male humans.  In other cases, the “tail” is longer and the figure may represent a lizard.  The same sort of motifs occur in the rock art of Africa, sometimes depicting humans and sometimes lizards (Le Quellec 2004: 72, fig. 24; p. 70, fig. 21; p. 131, fig. 44).

African painted motifs from the great overhang of Songo at Sanga, Mali.  Note the anthropomorph holding a tall staff compared to the lizard to the right of this, both outlined in white.

Another Indus sign based on a human-like stick figure is MAN HOLDING QUOTE (VI44).  In this sign, the basic MAN element occurs without a change in arm position, but with a stroke added attached to the end of one arm.  Elsewhere it is KP23, W13, and Fs A-12.  Fairservis calls this a man with his arm in a holding position (but not actually holding anything).  He thinks it represents an occupational suffix that is found in Dravidian languages.  In English, a similar occupational suffix still exists, –er as found in baker, writer, dancer, etc. 

Seal M-403 with inscription: MAN HOLDING QUOTE / SPEAR / LAMBDA / QUINT-FORK.

It is worth noting that Fairservis' definition is a problematic for the common hypothesis that the Indus seal inscriptions primarily include only names and occupations.  If that hypothesis is correct, then this “suffix” is astonishingly rare: Wells notes only eight occurrences.  Five are from Mohenjo daro, one from Harappa, two from Lothal.  I think there may be as many as 26, but that is still quite infrequent for such a handy suffix.

There are two main variants of this sign, “a” having the quote extend from the left “hand” of the MAN, “b” the reverse of this with the quote extending from the right “hand.”  In addition, some instances show this quote rising vertically while others show it at an angle.  In two of the occurrences, the “man” is missing his “head.”  In these two cases, the body and one leg are also a single vertical stroke, with the second “leg” descending at an angle.  This type ought to have its own designation, “c” (or given its own name and enumeration as a separate sign).

Egyptian hieroglyphs provide a number of examples of human and divine figures holding sticks or staffs, which may be taken as parallels.  One man holds his stick with both hands (A24), a second is leaning and using a single hand to hold his stick (A25).  Both are determinatives in words having to do with hitting, striking, and teaching.  Evidently, ancient Egyptian teachers motivated their students with the stick!  A third glyph depicts a man holding his stick up high in one hand (A59), a determinative in the word for “drive away.”  None of these provides a close match to the Indus sign.

Oracle bone variants of quan, "dog," above.  Below, modern character and Old Seal versions of quan, with Old Seal yu at the bottom. 

Old Chinese yields an interesting case where a character closely resembles the man with his arms out cited above, meaning "big," but means something utterly different.  In the modern character, quan3, “dog,” is identical to the word for “big” except that a short backslash is added over the right “arm” (Wieger 1967: 304).  This extra stroke is sometimes referred to as the dog's ear.  In the Old Seal script, what seem to be lower limbs (actually a leg and the tail?) form a curve, but the character looks even more like a little man holding a stick.  It is only in the earliest stage of writing on oracle bones that the character actually resembles a dog. 

Representations of a stick figure that may be holding a stick, tool, or weapon appear commonly in rock art.  Such motifs occur in many places in Africa (e.g., Le Quellec 2004: 39, 58, 60, 75, 86, 113, 123).  They are also to be found in North America (Newcomb 1996: 67, Pl.27, no. 3; 109, Pl. 69, no. 3).  In Africa, some variants of a motif resembling the “headless” Indus variant (“c”) also occur, but they represent cattle, not men (Le Quellec 2004: 126)!  Thus, the addition of a stroke to a symbol, as well as the removal of one, may be significant and meaningful in unpredictable ways.  This is a lesson to bear in mind when it comes to interpreting or deciphering the Indus symbols.

Schematic cattle painted at Bukoba, near Lake Nyanza, in Kenya, Africa.  The variant on lower left resembles the "headless" Indus MAN signs.

Broken seal M-1054 with partial inscription: CUPPED THREE / PINCH / MAN WITH SINGLE WING.

A third Indus sign involves the addition of a single stroke to the neck or shoulder of the basic anthropomorph.  In this case, I am not quite sure what to call it: MAN WITH SINGLE HORN (or MAN WITH SINGLE WING).  It is the forty-fifth of the six-stroke signs and thus VI45 in my list.  Fairservis does not show it, but it also appears as KP12 and as two signs in Wells, W38 and W65.  Wells distinguishes these two signs by adding a backslash to the left side of the “man” for W38, and a slash to the right side of the “man” in W65.  Each one is a singleton according to him.  I see more than that and I don’t reverse the signs on the seals as Wells does.  For me, variant “A” has a backslash on the left (M-1198 and H-347) while variant “B” has a slash on the right (M-1054, H-784, H-839). 

Oracle-bone variants of guo, "halberd," with ,modern variant at lower right, which resembles Indus MAN WITH SINGLE WING.

Old Chinese provides two characters that resemble that for “big,” modified by a stroke near the “arm” or “head.”  The first of these is yu2, which in Wieger’s imaginative description represents “a setter which s[c]ents the game, folds its ears...By extension, amazement, surprise, singular, extraordinary” (1965: 305).  The character does not much resemble a dog with an ear folded back, despite what Wieger says.  It looks like the “big” character with one “arm” bent back toward its “head” which is also bent.  The second character that resembles the Indus sign is not even animate: guo1, “a kind of halberd...A hook or crescent on the top, then a cross-bar, and a halter hanging” (1965: 177).  The modern form is now the 62^nd radical and reminds me of a stick figure man.

Detail of yei with vertical head feathers from a Navaho blanket woven to replicate a sand painting (color added, not authentic).  Both arms are on one side here, indicating movement in that direction.  Other figures are shown with an arm on each side, more like the stance of the Indus sign.  Note also the medicine pouch hanging on one side like a "tail."

In North American rock art, anthropomorphic figures sometimes have a single prong rising from the head, a feature that may represent a feather in the hair (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 135, fig. 72a; Newcomb 1996: 53, Pl. 18, no. 5; cf. p. 47, Pl. 13, no. 3 with a penniform protuberance).  Supernatural beings called yeis appear routinely in Navaho sand paintings with a feather or another element on the head, sometimes shown rising up but more often shown perpendicular to the angle of head and body (Newcomb and Reichard 1975: Pl. XIV, showing perpendicular feathers on the heads of Holy Man, Holy Woman, Holy Boy, and Holy Girl; cf. Pl. XXIX, showing a tail between the legs and a triangular protuberance on the heads of Black Thunder and Blue Thunder).

The next Indus sign is TAILED MAN (VI46), another anthropomorph, this time apparently adorned with a laterally positioned tail.  It appears elsewhere as W40 only, where it is noted as a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-234).  Because the actual sign appears just once, it could be an error for the basic MAN.  The seal carver might have made one groove for the left leg, then decided this was at the wrong angle and added another line, as a correction. 

Seal M-234 with inscription: CEE / SINGLE QUOTE / FISH UNDER CHEVRON / SPEAR / FAT EX / PINCH / FAT LAMBDA / POT // FOUR QUOTES / TAILED MAN / FAT STOOL / CAGED OVERLAPPING CIRCLES.

It is also possible that VI46 is just what it appears to be, perhaps a person wearing a tail or train as a costume or garment.  Parallels for such a practice do exist in other ancient societies.  For example, some Egyptian rites involved the king or a priest wearing an animal’s tail.  The ibis-headed god, Thoth, wears such an animal tail in The Book of Going Forth by Day: The Papyrus of Ani, better known as the Book of the Dead (Faulkner and Goelet 1994: 25, Pl. 3).  A priest performs rites for the deceased Ani, wearing a spotted leopard skin, complete with head, paws, and tail in a recurring image in many of the illustrations (e.g. 1994: 27, Pl. 3). 

In addition, this papyrus includes a plant with a human head, illustrating a passage wherein the deceased transforms into a lotus (1994: Pl. 28).  According to Goelet, the animal head represents an aspect of a particular Egyptian deity (1994: 144-145).  As such, these therianthropic images served the same function as fully anthropomorphic images of the same deities, in which the god’s attribute sits on the head like a hat.  Thus, the goddess Hathor appears in varied guises: “a cow with a solar disk between her horns, a slender woman with cow horns and solar disk upon her head, a woman with the [hieroglyphic] sign for ‘West’ upon her head...the menat-necklace and the head of a musical instrument known as the sistrum” (1994: 144).  Depending on which of these possibilities we might choose as a model, the Indus TAILED MAN might represent a human wearing a costume, a deity wearing the same as an identifier, an animal which has a tail (a monkey?), or a theriamorphic being -- part human, part animal.

In Mesopotamia, too, there are various representations of figures that combine human and animal features, including men dressed as fish (Black and Green 1992: 18, 83, 103, 108).  These represent the Seven Sages, wise men who lived before the Akkadian Flood (1992: 163).  The same civilizing figures also appear with human bodies, bird heads, and wings, in which guise they are known in modern literature as griffin-demons.  Other therianthropic beings from the same cultures include a bull-man, a scorpion-man, and eventually a lion-man, all with human heads and torsos but the back end of an animal; as well as a lion-demon, similar to the griffin-demon but with a leonine head.  There is also a lion-centaur, a creature with a human head and torso attached to the full body of a lion – with front and back leonine legs – and sometimes with wings (1992: 120). 

 Mesopotamian bull-man (image drawn from cylinder seal by author).

The last being recalls the Egyptian deity Tutu, “one who keeps enemies at a distance,” which has a human head on the body of a dog or lion (Pinch 1994: 38).  The Great Sphinx is a similar image on a far larger scale, originally representing the pharaoh Khufu or Kephren.  One type of soul in Egyptian imagery is the ba, shown human-headed and sometimes possessing human arms as well, but with the body of a bird (1994: 159).  This aspect of the soul is also a hieroglyph (G53), an ideograph in the word b3, “soul” (the main other aspect of the soul is the ka, written with the glyph of two raised arms).

Small sphinx from ancient Egypt.

Various cultures worldwide have produced depictions of other beings that are part human, part animal.  Sometimes these are gods, as in Egypt where many deities appear as anthropomorphs with animal heads (e.g., Pinch 1994: 27, ibis-headed Thoth; 31, jackal (?) headed Seth; 34, dog-headed Anubis, falcon-headed Horus, etc.).  In other places, such as southern Africa, animal-headed anthropomorphs have often been interpreted as shamans (Lewis-Williams 2004). 

Seal Ns-9 from Nausharo, with icon of apparent therianthrope, part tiger, part woman.

On Indus seals, one of the least frequent icons represents a being that is part human and part tiger (M-311, K-50, K-65, Ns-9).  This creature has long horns matching those of the markhor (a type of goat).  Rising from the anthropomorphic head, between these horns, there is a plant-like motif.  The creature has a fully anthropomorphic head and body in front, at the back of which is the long, striped body and back end of a tiger.  There seems to be long pigtail stretching out from the back of the head and over the tiger portion of the figure.  Also, the human element apparently wears a long skirt.  This garment and the long hair may indicate that this being is female, a rare feature among Indus icons.  The other animals and imaginary beasts (the human-faced markhor, the three-headed bovine, etc.) are decidedly male.  I consider it within the realm of possibility, then, that the TAILED MAN sign is actually meant to have a tail as an abbreviated form of the “tiger woman.”

It is difficult to find a precise match for this sign in any other arena.  However, in Old Chinese, an additional stroke changes the meaning of a basic character in various ways, depending on where the stroke occurs.  The character for the dog becomes ba2 when an oblique stroke crosses the leg, meaning “a dog led in a leash, by a string tied up to a leg, according to the Chinese way” (Wieger 1965: 304).  Another character, this time for a woman (which, interestingly enough, lacks a head) becomes wu2 when crossed by a horizontal stroke.  This means “a woman placed under lock and key...for misbehaviour....to avoid, to abstain, inutility, nothingness” (1965: 170).

In North America, it is easy to find anthropomorphic figures with horns and others (which may actually be lizards) with tails of various lengths.  In the corpus from Nevada and eastern California, there are 485 representations of anthropomorphs, divided by the authors into six categories, and 11 “lizards,” which resemble stick figures of “humans” except in their proportions (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 86-91).  The authors are more confident than I am that a modern viewer can clearly distinguish between “lizards” and human stick figures.  They define the lizard as having a long tail and short limbs while the stick figures of people have longer limbs and short "tails" (or none).  But I see every gradation between what I would characterize as long and short in tails and in limbs!  Even among the “katchinas” (a highly stylized anthropomorph), which are certainly not lizards, I see at least one that has both horns and a tail (1984: 118, fig. 65a, 2^nd figure from left).  The figures with both features, then, may be therianthropes.

Rock painting in the Beersheba region, later moved to Bloemfontein Museum, South Africa.  Therianthropic figures which might be interpreted by Westerners as shamans (with bird wings and eland heads, but human bodies, possibly with tails), but interpreted by San informants as people changing into frogs (detail painted by author based on Le Quellec 2004: 205).

In the rock art of southern Africa, a number of images of therianthropes have become relatively famous through the work of scholars proposing a shamanic interpretation (e.g., Lewis-Williams 2002: color plate 9 after 112; ch. 5, 136-162).  The most common such depiction shows a creature with the head of an antelope, especially that of an eland, and a human body.  Figures with tails, one or more prongs protruding from the head, and short strokes descending from widespread arms – closely resembling North American thunderbird images – are said to be winged shamans (2002: 150).  The same or similar animal-headed (or “winged”) humans appear with other interpretations – people wearing animal headdresses, spirits of the dead, therianthropic ancestors (Le Quellec 2004: 168-205).

Australia also provides examples of rock art depicting beings that may combine human and animal features.  One such figure may represent a lizard, in a painting from Endaen shelter, Stanley Island, Princess Charlotte Bay (Layton 1992: 7).  The apparent limbs are perpendicular to what seems to be the body, and the “tail” is relatively long, expected in lizard depictions.  But there is an additional diagonal stroke near one end (the head or the tail?) that is quite enigmatic.  A painting made in recent times for magical purposes appears to have a human body, a tail, and perhaps an animal head (by John Flinders Wodhyethi c. 1920, on Ngurromo, Clack Island, Princess Charlotte Bay; 1992: 26). 

In Dandani cave, there is a row of anthropomorphic figures joined by their outspread arms, most of which seem to have a short tail (1992: 61).  The author describes this as men dancing.  Another group of similar figures in the same cave shows no “tails” of this sort, a group appearing beneath the extended arm and hooked boomerang of a larger “tailed” person.  One explanation provided by local people for this group is that the larger figure depicts an infamous murderer and the smaller figures his victims (1992: 125).  I find myself wondering what it is that indicates dancing in the first group, but no dancing in the second.

An anthropomorph with four digits on each hand is painted above a presumed Rainbow Serpent at Twin Falls Creek, western Arnhem Land (1992: 162).  This elongated stick figure has three extensions from the head, one sticking up, one to the right, and one to the left.  Is it therianthropic, or are the extensions from the head representations of something physical -- decorative items in the hair?   How can one ever be sure? 

To his credit, Layton discusses at length the difficulty of clearly distinguishing anthropomorphs from zoomorphs, as well as distinguishing among the animals in the latter category (1992: 168-182).  For example, a single motif resembling the Chinese “big” character, but with a “V”-shaped “head,” has been interpreted variously as a man, a squid, or a shark with open mouth; the same figure with a short “tail” may again be a man, unless it is a beche de mer, a crayfish, or a very thin turtle (1992: 175)!  This should serve as a reminder that modern interpreters of art and symbol cannot be certain of their conclusions, especially in the absence of a living tradition.

REFERENCES:

Black, Jeremy and Anthony Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas .

Damerow, Peter and Robert Englund. 1989. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Faulkner, Raymond O. and Ogden Goelet. 1994. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Heizer, Robert and Martin Baumhoff. 1984. Prehistoric Rock Art of Nevada and Eastern California. Berkeley: University of California.

Joshi, Jagat Pati and Asko Parpola. 1987. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 1. Collections in India. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Kirkland, Forrest and text by W.W. Newcomb, Jr. 1996. The Rock Art of Texas Indians. Austin: University of Texas.

Layton, Robert. 1992. Australian Rock Art: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University.

Le Quellec, Jean-Loic. 2004. Rock Art in Africa: Mythology and Legend. Transl. Paul Bahn. Paris: Flammarion.

Lewis-Williams, David. 2002. The Mind in the Cave: Consciousness and the Origins of Art. London: Thames & Hudson.

Newcomb, Franc, with text by Gladys Reichard. 1975. Sandpaintings of the Navajo Shooting Chant. New York: Dover. (Originally published 1937 by J.J. Augustin, New York).

Noble, David Grant. 1991. The Hohokam: Ancient People of the Desert. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research.

Pinch, Geraldine. 1994 & 2006. Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: The British Museum.

Shah, Sayid Ghulam Mustafa and Asko Parpola. 1991. Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions. 2. Collections in Pakistan. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

An Attached Trident, a Five-Pronged Fork, and Odd Signs between

The first Indus sign considered in this discussion is a set of three tall vertical strokes, with a trident angling off on one side.  I call this THREE POSTS WITH ATTACHED TRI-FORK (VI33).  Elsewhere, this is cited as KP148 and W222, but not in Fairservis.  Wells notes a single instance (M-898).  A sign previously discussed, shown only in Wells’ list, may be a second occurrence, though.  Sign W182 is what I term DOUBLE QUOTES ON SLASH-BELTED AITCH (V14).  I appears at Mohenjo daro also (M-840).  In the latter inscription, four “posts” occur to the left of an enigmatic element and three “posts” to the right of the same element.  Wells apparently takes this sequence as THREE POSTS / DOUBLE QUOTES ON SLASH-BELTED AITCH / TWO POSTS.  But we could interpret it just as reasonably as FOUR POSTS / THREE POSTS WITH ATTACHED TRI-FORK. 

Inscription detail from M-898: THREE POSTS WITH ATTACHED TRI-FORK / TRIPLE BRICK

(smoothing of image and color added).

There are other Indus signs with an attached trident-like element (see TRI-FORK III13 for a full listing).  But no other apparent numerals occur with it.  Similarly, a trident-like element frequently appears in Old Chinese, usually representing either a schematic hand or a plant (Wieger 1965: 119-120 on the hand; 696 on the “sprout”).  But it does not occur in compound characters with numerals, so far as I can determine.

Inscription from M-840: BUD / CEE BOAT / SINGLE QUOTE / BACKSLASH IN FISH / CUPPED POST /

THREE (FOUR?) POSTS / THREE POSTS WITH TRI-FORK ATTACHED (?) (hand drawn).

The closest parallel to this Indus sign (VI33) comes from Luwian hieroglyphs.  Three posts with a backslash attached to the one on the far right form the glyph for tara/tari.  It is possible that the sounds represented derive from an underlying Luwian word “three,” since most Indo-European cognates are phonetically similar (derived from Proto-Indo-European reconstructed form *trei-, Watkins 2000: 93).  Thus, the three verticals may represent the numeral and the additional stroke may indicate the pronunciation of that number word without its accompanying meaning.

Proto-Elamite also includes a symbol comprising three parallel strokes, horizontal in this case, plus an additional element.  The addition here is a half-circle attached beneath the central line, making it take on the appearance of the letter “P” lying on its face.  The meaning of this sign is unknown (M009~e).

Today’s second sign is FAT CHEVRON (VI34).  It is an upside-down “V” shape, i.e., a chevron.  Unlike the simple, two-stroke version, this one is made up of two thin, overlapping rectangles.  It also appears as KP197, W415, and Fs K-1.  Fairservis thinks that it represents a carpenter’s square or rule meaning “(linear) measure; to unite, join.”  Wells notes a total of 20 occurrences, eight from Mohenjo daro, 11 from Harappa, and one from Lothal.  My count differs: 14 from Mohenjo daro, perhaps 19 from Harappa, two from Lothal, and perhaps two from Banawali).

Inscription on tablet H-808B (reading from right): SINGLE POST / VEE IN DIAMOND / BI-QUOTES /

WHISKERED FISH / FAT CHEVRON / POT (coloring added and image smoothed a bit).

There is a very similar glyph in Egyptian typically written at a different angle (O38).  This glyph resembles an upside-down “L” due to its position.  It apparently depicts the corner of a wall as it functions as a determinative in “corner, angle.”  The Indus sign might also be compared with Egyptian glyph T14, a throw-stick or club, sometimes used in names of foreign peoples.

In Old Chinese, there is no thick-armed chevron, but the simple chevron occurs twice, more or less.  The most basic of these, supposedly, represents a suspended object (Weiger 1965: 42).  This does not seem to occur individually, but only in complex characters.  The other version has an additional bit of vertical at the peak, ru4, “to enter, put in....The character represents the penetration of roots into the earth” (1965: 50).  It is now the 11^th radical.

In proto-cuneiform, a symbol much like the Egyptian glyph of the corner appears in the position of our “L.”  This is UR~b, which came to mean “dog; young man; servant; warrior.”  The same sign does not occur in proto-Elamite, but an angled type does, which is striped (M316~e, a “fat less than” form).

We now come to a rather peculiar sign that only Koskenniemi and Parpola observe, the HALF FAT KAY (VI35).  This is similar to the letter “L,” with a thin rectangle rising from the corner of the angle like a thick slash.  Another short line, angled like a backslash, descends from this thick element.  This much resembles our letter “K,” with only one bit thickened.  There is one more line though, a horizontal stroke at the bottom. 

Inscription on poorly executed (?) seal M-291: FAT EX (?) / DEE (?) / POT (color and smoothing added).

I have not observed this sign in the Corpus and it does not appear in the lists by Wells or Fairservis.  It might possibly be an interpretation of one of the many fragmentary signs found on broken seals, signs which I may have seen differently.  For example, seal M-1340 appears – to my eyes – to have part of the PRAWN at the break on the left, followed by ZEE / CROSSROADS EX / POT / SINGLE QUOTE / PRICKLY CORN HOLDER.  The right-hand portion of the PRAWN, all that is preserved, has some features in common with the HALF FAT KAY.  It lacks the horizontal stroke at the bottom, though, and has a couple of extra lines that do not appear in the sign as depicted in the KP list.  I think it more likely that sign VI35 is a different reading of the first symbol on the left on seal M-291.  This sign to my eyes is a poorly executed FAT EX.  To this peculiarly proportioned sign we may compare the equally odd quadruped beneath the inscription.  This animal representation, assuming that's what it is, has been so simplified that I cannot tell what it is.  Cat?  Dog?  Tiger?  Cow?

As far as parallels go, I find only one and it is not particularly close.  In proto-cuneiform, one thick “less than” sign variant has a “ladder” extending horizontally from the angle.  This is |UR~a x KAR2|, a ligature of two signs, possibly a combination of their later meanings: “dog; warrior” + “encircle; illuminate.”  Would that make it an illuminated warrior?  Or is it an encircled dog?  More than likely, it is neither.

We now turn to three signs that are similar in the Indus corpus and that may be related.  First is FLAIL OVER FOUR QUOTES (VI36).  This takes the form of the number “7” tilted far to the left, with a row of short strokes below it on the left.  This version is not shown in the KP list or in Fairservis; it is W445.  Wells notes it as a singleton (H-143). 

Inscription from seal H-143: TWO POSTS / FAT EX IN DIAMOND / POT / SINGLE QUOTE /

FLAIL OVER FOUR QUOTES / CIRCLED TRI-FORK / POT-HATTED BEARER (smoothed and colored).

The “flail” portion has been discussed before among the two-stroke signs (FLAIL, II13).  It resembles the Egyptian hieroglyph representing the adze from the Old Kingdom (U20), its angle more similar to the flagellum (S45).  The FOUR QUOTES sign has also been covered (IV1).  The closest parallel to this as a non-numerical sign appears in Luwian, for the syllable mi, perhaps related to the word mawa, “four.”  Luwian hieroglyphs do not include a ligature between a flail-like element and these four strokes, but there is a syllabic sign that is reminiscent of the Indus sign.  The glyph comprises an upside-down “7” with three short slashes attached on the right, for ta5.  Here, similar elements are arranged in a completely different manner.

Inscription H-146: SINGLE POST / AY OVER THREE QUOTES /

CIRCLED TRI-FORK / POT-HATTED BEARER (image smoothed and colored).

The next Indus sign is quite similar, AY OVER THREE QUOTES (VI37).  The “7” element now has an additional stroke, not quite horizontal, joining the two angled lines.  This forms an element resembling the letter “A” with one leg longer than the other.  Below the short leg are three short verticals or “quotes.”  Again, only Wells enumerates this (W437).There are five occurrences of this sign, two from Mohenjo daro and three from Harappa.

The most similar sign elsewhere is now from Egyptian, in the ‘low (U13).  The glyph, unlike VI37, lies on its shorter leg, and the additional strokes – of which there are only two – rise at an angle from the longer leg.  Thus, as with the Luwian glyph cited for the previous sign, these are similar elements but arranged rather differently.  Even so, the Indus AY may represent a simple plow, as in Egyptian.

On the other hand, the sign that came to mean “plow” in proto-cuneiform is quite different in form.  One variant of this is laid out horizontally, while two others are vertically oriented (APIN~b horizontal, with APIN~a and ~c vertical).  This sign resembles the Indus PINWHEEL (ZEE) with an “A” attached at one end.  In addition, while the Indus AY might represent a plow, that is by no means certain.  Fairservis considers a more complex sign I term SQUIRREL to be a plow (my VIII46).

Regardless of what the Indus sign represents, it is interesting to note that the inscription containing VI36 almost duplicates one inscription containing VI37.  Both are from Harappa and are shown in the accompanying illustrations (H-143: TWO POSTS / FAT EX IN DIAMOND / POT / SINGLE QUOTE / FLAIL OVER FOUR QUOTES / CIRCLED TRI-FORK / POT-HATTED BEARER; H-146: SINGLE POST / AY OVER THREE QUOTES / CIRCLED TRI-FORK / POT-HATTED BEARER).  The last three signs in each case are very similar, the last two virtually identical.  This could be interpreted as evidence that FLAIL OVER FOUR QUOTES means the same thing as AY OVER THREE QUOTES.  It is not proof, however, as a single example is insufficient for that.

Another apparent variation on the same sign is our next consideration, AY ON TRI-FORK (VI38).  Again, the main element resembles the letter “A” with uneven legs, but this time the three short strokes beneath the short leg are attached to one another and to the “ay.”  Again, only Wells enumerates this separately and again it is a singleton (M-40).  Besides comparing the Egyptian and proto-cuneiform plow signs, we might also glance at variants of a proto-Elamite sign that resembles APIN (M056, M056~e, ~f, and ~g).  In these, the “A” element is upside-down and tilted.

Inscription detail from seal M-40: FIVE QUOTES / AY ON TRI-FORK / PINWHEEL (ZEE) /

 BI-QUOTES / TRI-FORK UNDER CHEVRON (smoothing and added coloring by author).

Wells observes a total of nine different signs that resemble this one: AY OVER FOUR QUOTES (W436), AY OVER THREE QUOTES (W437), AY ON E TRI-FORK (W438), AY ON COMB (W439), AY WITH ATTACHED QUAD-FORK (W443), AY OVER FIVE QUOTES (W444), FLAIL OVER FOUR QUOTES (W445), AND AY ON BACK E TRI-FORK (W446).  Those not discussed here will be included in later discussions of seven-stroke and eight-stroke signs.

The next sign is a very odd ligature, EX ON POST WITH ATTACHED LEG (OR ATTACHED EAR ON BACKSLASH).  I enumerate it VI39, the thirty-ninth of the six-stroke signs.  It is yet another of the many signs only found in Wells’ list, where it is W67.  Wells finds it to be a singleton (M-800).  There are other Indus signs with the small addition I term the “ear,” but none of these others places this element on a long post or slash.  Other signs appear to be varied by the addition of a single stroke, either vertical or diagonal, which I usually term a “tick.”  None of these others adds the “ear” to the “tick,” as in VI39.  In addition, the basic element of this sign, the EX ON POST, is itself a singleton (see III14).

Inscription detail from seal M-800: CORN HOLDER / EX ON POST WITH ATTACHED LEG / POTTED ONE /

CIRCLED TRI-FORK / CAGED BELTED FISH (smoothing and coloring by author).

The next two signs are among those I term PANTS for want of a good name, distinguishing these six-stroke versions as SEAMLESS PANTS (VI40) and RUMPLED PANTS (VI41).  Neither version appears outside of Wells’ list, where the first is W166 and the second W169.  Wells also notes a five-stroke version (W168), two comprising seven strokes (W161 and W167), two of eight strokes (W160 and W163), as well as nine-stroke versions (W162, W170, W165, W172).  Most are singletons, but four versions occur from three to seven times. 

Even if we lump them all together as variants of a single sign, the 11 variations occur a total of only 24 times.  Of these, 19 are from Mohenjo daro (divided among 9 variants), two from Harappa (two variants), one from Banawali, one from Chanhujo daro, one from Kalibangan, and one from Khirsara.  The SEAMLESS PANTS (VI40) appear at Mohenjo daro on a bangle (M-1631); the RUMPLED PANTS (VI41) on a seal from the same place (M-1117). 

Inscription detail from bangle M-1631: SINGLE QUOTE / CIRCLE / SEAMLESS PANTS /

POTTED ONE (coloring and smoothing by author)

Proto-Elamite provides a weak parallel, positioned horizontally (M059~d).  This sign includes three bent lines that parallel each other and are of the same length, joined at one end and at their bend.  The SEAMLESS PANTS among the Indus variants is the closest to this with two bent lines of the same length joined at the top.  Between them is a single shorter vertical at the bottom.  Other variations on the PANTS are less similar to the proto-Elamite example.

Seal M-1117 with inscription: VEST (?) / RUMPLED PANTS / DIAMOND BETWEEN DOUBLE POSTS (image smoothed and colored).  Note the unusual pose of the iconic animal, looking backward over its shoulder.

Old Chinese contains a character composed of five wavy lines.  It is yong3, “the unceasing flow of water veins in the earth....Abstracted meaning, duration, perpetuity, but not eternity” (Wieger 1965: 289).  The same lines inverted form pai4, “the idea is analogous; ramification of a stream” (1965: 289).  If the Indus sign is also intended to represent flowing water, it might actually indicate more than one thing with the different variations – rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, the ocean, irrigation channels?

The final sign to be considered here is another of the “forks,” the QUINT-FORK (VI42).  It takes the form of a “Y” with one prong longer than the other.  From the longer prong rise three diagonal strokes.  Thus, counting the two prongs at the top of the “Y” plus the three additional strokes, there are five “tines” to this “fork.”  Elsewhere, this is KP86 (“A” variant, with additional strokes on the right), W278, and the reverse is W265 (“B” variant, with additional strokes on the left). 

Inscription from broken seal H-657: (?) / FISH UNDER CHEVRON / DOT IN FISH / LAMBDA / QUINT-FORK (left branching).  I have completed the chevron but cannot guess the identity of the first sign.

Both Wells and Koskenniemi and Parpola’s list reverse the forms as they appear on the seals.  The actual right-branching variant is a singleton (M-749), while the left-branching variant occurs four times in my database (H-657, H-659, H-689, H-719).  Fairservis designates this sign (right-branching variant only) as E-2, seeing it as a stalk of grain.  He proposes the meaning “lunar month; order, line, row.”

The Egyptian glyph of the lotus flower resembles the Indus sign only in that the “prongs” or petals are all on one side (M9).  Plus there are five petals on this flower whose stem leans to the side.  A much better parallel appears in proto-Elamite (M039~a, M-039~b).  The “a” variant is a “comb” with “teeth” to the left, and a long horizontal stroke attached on the right, at the top.  In the “b” variant, the long horizontal is attached at the bottom and the “comb” element is angled.  In both variants, the “comb” has five “teeth.”  Unfortunately, meaning is unknown.

In the Mixtec proto-writing of Central America, human footprints are often represented in a schematic fashion which somewhat resembles the Indus QUINT-FORK.  The basic footprint is something like a “7” shape, though the angle is not as sharp and is usually curved.  Above this, there are five dots or five short strokes, representing the print of the toes.  Lines of footprints indicate a journey of an individual to another place and visits to other individuals.

While the human footprint appears elsewhere, as in the rock art of the Americas, of Africa, and of Australia, it does not take such a schematic form.  However, the tracks of various animals also appear in such art and one of another of these might inspire a symbol such as the QUINT-FORK.  The wolf, fox, and coyote have just four toes, typically, but the bear has five like the human.  It is also possible that a schematic footprint or track might be made of an animal such as a wolf, but purposely given an additional toe in order to represent a supernatural Wolf deity or Wolf ancestor.  Then again, it is just as likely that Fairservis is correct in seeing the QUINT-FORK as a type of plant.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES:

Parker, Philip M. 2008. Webster’s Luwian-English Thesaurus Dictionary. San Diego: ICON Group International (see online www.websters-online-dictionary.org )

Watkins, Calvert. 2000. The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots (2^nd edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.