Indus Script as Tamga Symbols

Seal M-1134 with inscription of four medial signs, plus rhino icon,
perhaps an emblem of a Wild Animal sodality.

I have indicated previously that I consider the Indus script as a proto-writing system.  The term “proto-writing” is unfortunate, since these kinds of symbol systems are certainly not failed writing.  Nor are they necessarily precursors to fully developed writing systems, although they can be.  The proto-writing of one people may also differ quite considerably from that of another, with these systems sharing only the fact that they are not true writing.  For these reasons, I.J. Gelb used the term semasiographic to describe such systems (1963: 11).  By his definition, these types of symbols express meaning that is only loosely connected to speech.  True writing must have a closer connection to language, with at least some systematic representation of sound (i.e., it must be phonetic to some degree).  It is not clear where the precise dividing line lies between these two – between a semasiographic script and the script of a writing system that includes phonetic information.  But the occasional use of one symbol to represent a word characterized by similar sounds (use of the rebus principle, in other words) is insufficient.  Thus, the Na Xi script is an example of proto-writing or a semasiographical script, even though it occasionally uses the rebus principle.

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.

Seal M-310 with inscription containing prefix (FOOTED STOOL / SINGLE QUOTE), medial
segment (FAT CHEVRON), terminal (POT), and an additional medial sign (WINDOW), as well
as the tiger icon, perhaps a symbol of a third Wild Animal sodality.  A "stool" and a "window"
appear as tamgas in some Eurasian pastoral societies.

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.

Seal B-1 with inscription containing a four-sign prefix (DOUBLE CARTWHEELS / FOOTED STOOL / STRIPED FAT LEG LAMBDA / BI-QUOTES), a single-sign medial segment (FISH), and a two-sign terminal (POT / MAN), over the
"unicorn" and cult stand that may represent a sodality or clan.

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. 

Tablet H-351 with an inscription perhaps containing a prefix (STACKED THREE? + PINCH),
a medial segment (TWO POSTS), and a two-sign terminal (POT / COMB).  Like many
tablets, this one does not bear an iconic animal or other pictorial element, perhaps indicating
a functional difference between seals and tablets.

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.

An atypical seal, M-304, depicting an apparent "Master of Animals" in the center (also described as "proto-Shiva"),
with an inscription across the top and several animals: rhino and buffalo on the left, elephant and tiger on the right,
and two ungulates below, perhaps a goat and gazelle or two goats.  If the animals represent sodalities or clans,
this seal might have belonged to an individual with authority over all of these social groups, a type of king.

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.).

Seal Ns-9 with an inscription containing long, six-sign prefix (CIRCLED DOT WITH EAR /
STRIPED TRIANGLE / CORN HOLDER / PANTS / BUD / BI-QUOTES), no evident
medial segment, and perhaps a two-sign terminal (POT / MAN), with an additional
medial sign (SINGLE POST).  The iconic animal is a composite, with the hind end of
a tiger, horns of a goat, and a human element, perhaps indicating an allied group of two
sodalities (domestic goat and wild tiger).

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. 

Button seal Dmd-1 with a single sign, POT.  This seal strongly suggests that
terminal signs are not suffixes, since a suffix must be attached to something.
If this indicates a clan or occupational group, like a guild, it is much less problematic.

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.

Tablet M-575A and B sides, with an inscription that includes only a medial segment
on side A, and a composite, two-headed animal on side B, perhaps a symbol of an
alliance between two social groups, both within the wild sodality (rhino clan + snake clan?).

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.

Analysis of Indus Inscriptions: Part II

Seal M-626 with inscription: FAT EX / PINCH // PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX // POT //
FAT EX / PINCH // CIRCLED TRI-FORK // POT //
MAN HOLDING DEE-SLASH / BUD / CAGED OVERLAPPIING CIRCLES
(probably three units of information).

In the previous post, I mentioned the longest continuous Indus inscription, which appears in three lines on a seal (M-314).  According to Korvink’s analysis, there are also some inscriptions with multiple units of information in a single line.  One of these reads: FAT EX / PINCH // PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX // POT // FAT EX / PINCH // CIRCLED TRI-FORK // POT (M-626) (note that there is another line in the inscription, but this single line is the focus here).  In this inscription, the “X” shaped sign at the beginning (FAT EX) couples with the long and short lines (PINCH) to make up a prefix (P).  The appearance of the first POT, a terminal sign (T), signals the end of the first unit of information.  This is followed by the same prefix as before (FAT EX / PINCH).  The second unit of information ends with the same terminal sign as the first (POT).  The only part that differs in these two units of the inscription is the middle (M).  The first medial segment contains three signs (PRAWN / ZEE / CROSSROADS EX), the second having only one (CIRCLED TRI-FORK).  Thus we may represent the components of this inscription as follows: PMT+PMT (+M).

According to the hypothesis that seal inscriptions contain names and titles, one would assume that this relatively long sequence must contain two such name + title sequences.  Korvink comments: “The two units of information here, rendered similarly, must represent two analogous units of information (two titles?) and not a title with appended auxiliary information” (2007: 73).  In the eyes of this author, this situation is problematic, because one person would not have more than one title and would have no practical use for a seal with someone else’s name and title alongside his own. 

Elamite cylinder seal impression, with image and an inscription of three lines.

I see two possible explanations for such compound inscriptions, however.  In the first place, some ancient peoples allowed a single person to bear more than one title.  In the previous post, I noted examples from Mesopotamia and from Egypt where a single person certainly had more than one title.  Another such example comes from Turkey: AN-LUGAL-..., (name 1) city ruler of the god Assur (title 1), son of Ikunum (name 2), city ruler of the god Assur (title 2) (Collon 2005: 42-3, no. 136, Period IV, 2000-1500 BCE).  Here, a single title is repeated, as the seal owner and his father both served as city rulers.  There are also multiple examples following the following pattern: Ibbi-Sin (name 1), god of his country (title 1), king of the Four Quarters (title 2): Aham-arshi (name 2), the scribe (title 3), son of Babati (name 3), is your servant (title 4) (2005: 36-7, no. 118).  In this case, the first named person has two titles, while the second essentially has two as well (scribe and servant), with a patronymic that includes a name, in addition (son of Babati).  Archeologists characterize the Indus Valley Civilization as more egalitarian than either Egypt or Mesopotamia.  So the multiplication of kingly titles found in Egypt and Mesopotamia may not be equally characteristic of the Harappan leaders.  But it may still be the case that a single Harappan held more than one title, even if this was relatively uncommon.

Early cuneiform cylinder seal with image and inscription.

In the second place, I would compare such compound Indus inscriptions with inscriptions from the Near East that contain names and titles of two people.  The most common form for these includes a patronymic, an indication that the first person (with his title) is the son of the second person (with his title).  Another common form occurs when the first person named is the king, sometimes given more than one title, followed by the name of the seal owner, who is the “servant” of the king.  A third type indicates that the seal owner (with or without an accompanying title) is the servant or beloved of a deity (with or without accompanying titles).  Examples of the first two types are given in the previous paragraph.  A combination of the third type with elements from the others is as follows: Ilum-muttabbil, purification-priest of (the goddess) Inanna of Zabalam, son of Shu-ili (2005: 45, no. 157).  Thus, I consider that the hypothesis of a nominative function for Indus seals remains a possibility.  It is not disconfirmed either by long inscriptions that contain more than one unit of information, or by comparison of inscriptions of varying lengths that serve the same function.  Of course, this does not prove that the hypothesis is correct.

Indus bas-relief tablet H-187 with inscription (right to left): STRIPED TRIANGLE /
TRIPLE TRIANGLES // POT / COMB (no prefix, two-sign terminal).

Korvink notes that if one accepts the thesis that the inscriptions contain names and titles, one must decide where the name ends and the title begins.  He points out four inscriptions containing the sign sequence STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES, demonstrating the difficulty of this determination.  In the first two examples, these two signs comprise the whole of the inscription, there being neither a prefix nor a terminal.  (I do not find the precise inscriptions he cites in the first two volumes of the Corpus and his citation by numbers given in Mahadevan’s concordance, which makes it difficult to match them with the artifact numbers found in the Corpus).  However, M-1307 and M-1353 both contain these two signs plus the most frequently occurring terminal, POT.  Another inscription is identical except for the addition of a second terminal sign, COMB (H-187).

(M-1307)             STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES // POT

(H-187)                 STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES // POT / COMB

(M-58)                  CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES // POT

(M-245)                CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES / BOAT /

SKEWERED CHEVRON // TRI-FORK TOPPED POT / POT

In the third example, the same two triangular signs are preceded by a common prefix (CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES), as well as followed by the same terminal (POT).  In the fourth and last example, the same two medial signs are preceded by the same prefix as in the previous example (CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES before STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES).  Two additional medial signs follow: BOAT / SKEWERED CHEVRON.  At the end, there is a terminal pair (TRIDENT TOPPED POT / POT).

Seal M-58 with inscription: CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES / POT
(containing a prefix, the same medial segment as in H-187, and a single-sign terminal).

In these examples, the last two are sufficiently long, in Korvink’s estimation, to contain a title (as they contain the three elements, PMT), but the first two are not (containing either M alone or MT, depending on whether one follows his examples or mine).  Assuming that the seal’s function would be the same regardless of the inscription’s length, Korvink concludes that the nominative function is ruled out. 

Seal M-245 with inscription: CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES /
BOAT / SKEWERED CHEVRON // TRI-FORK TOPPED POT / POT (containing a prefix, a medial segment
with the same sequence as in H-187 but two additional signs, and a two-sign terminal differing from H-187).

However, inscriptions from Near Eastern cylinder seals provide examples of similar variations – a name alone, a name plus a second name joined by either a patronymic or statement of servanthood, a name plus occupation, a name plus association with a deity, or a combination of a number of these possibilities.  Thus, I consider the nominative function to remain viable for Indus seals.

Funeral monument of King Wadj, showing the royal serekh (a building) with the snake
indicating his name, and the royal falcon on top (after Malek 2003: 36).

In early Egyptian, in a similar way, the king’s name may be the only true writing on a tag or seal.  But other symbols occur with the name as indicators of kingship, e.g., the falcon of Horus or the Set animal (or both), the serekh, occasionally a “rosette.”  The falcon atop a serekh bearing the snake glyph of his name appears on a stela of King Wadji from his tomb at Abydos (Malek 2003: 36).  The royal rosette occurs on the palette of Narmer and on the mace head of King Scorpion, both objects from the temple at Hierakonpolis (2003: 29-31).  The presence of two or more such indicators of status for a single king’s name is not unusual.  For example, the pharaoh’s name is also enclosed in a serekh at the top of each side of Narmer’s palette, as well as the rosette behind him.  And the falcon perches on the serekh of King Wadji, both indicators of royalty.  In these cases, the falcon, the serekh, and the rosette are symbols, each of which represents royal status.  Thus, these symbols have meaning, but they do not function as signs in a script on these early objects.

Detail from the mace head of King Scorpion, showing the king, the (damaged) scorpion
before him indicating his name, and the royal rosette (after Malek 2003: 29).

If the Indus script functioned in a manner similar to the earliest Egyptian, we might expect such elements as the STRIPED TRIANGLE and TRIPLE TRIANGLES (quoted in Korvink’s example) to represent the personal name of a high-status individual.  The presence of this pair as the whole inscription would be perfectly adequate on a tag or label, as it would indicate that the object or container to which the tag was attached belonged to this individual or was intended for this individual.  Adding a terminal to a two-sign name might not serve a linguistic function, such as the honorific ending that Fairservis proposed (1992: 173).  Instead, it could be a way of providing more information, say, a place name or, as Mahadevan suggests, a representation of social status, similar to the Egyptian rosette. 

Mixtec woman named 6-Monkey (her birthday, indicated by the monkey head on her back and the six circles resembling beads on a string) Serpent Quechquemitl (glyph attached to her head by a line) Warband Quechquemitl (indicated by her
garment), a person with three names (after Smith 1973: 221).

In the Mixtec codices of Mesoamerica, again there are symbols that represent names, often of humans but sometimes of deities (Smith 1973).  A person is depicted in pictorial form, with his or her name written most often as a date (the birthdate).  Some have a single name, the birthdate, while others have two, the birthday plus an epithet or title, and occasionally someone has three: 3-Monkey (a man, 1 name, p. 225); 9-Movement (a male deity, p. 296); 7-Grass “talking Tlaloc” (a man, 2 names), and 6-Monkey “Serpent Quechquemitl” “Warband Quechquemitl” (woman, 3 names) (1973: 221).  Here, the significance of a person or god having one name, two, or even three, is not well understood.  Nevertheless, it is clear that a single name serves the same nominative or identifying function as a name plus title(s), or a series of names.

Mixtec glyph representing the place "Hill of the Road"
(after Smith 1973: 224).

In the Mixtec codices, there are also glyphs representing specific places, some made from a semi-standardized symbol for a hill, with additional elements specifying which hill is meant (“Hill of the Road” and yucu ñu ycu p. 224).  Other place names contain a rectangle decorated with a stepped design, along with specifying elements (ytno diyuchi, with a triple motif resembling a lit candle, ytno nino maa with a person standing on the rectangular element, p. 231).  Still other place names are represented by a building atop either the rectangle or the hill motif (Tilantongo from the map of Teozacoalco on the rectangle, the same place sign on the hill from Codex Nuttall, p. 234).  Actual dates of historical events are also represented, with the so-called “A-O year sign,” alongside a “week” glyph, plus circles to indicate the day numeral (e.g., beneath two place signs in the Lienzo of Zacatepec, p. 270).  Water is another symbol, with rivers depicted in a semi-standardized form as well (p. 272).  Thus, toponyms (place names) occur as well as names of persons and deities, even though much of the Mixtec language is never encoded in this proto-writing system.  This suggests a second possibility for the nominative function of Indus inscriptions.  They may represent places rather than (or in addition to) names and titles of people.

Mixtec glyph for the place Tilantongo (after Smith 1973: 234).

In Egypt, some of the earliest tags may include hieroglyphs representing the name of a town or nome (an administrative section of the country something like a province or county).  This may indicate the area from which the tagged commodities came (O’Connor 2009: 144-145).  According to this interpretation, the Egyptian proto-king who was buried in Tomb U-j at Abydos received funeral equipment from 45 different towns.  We might hypothesize that the simplest Indus inscriptions – those containing only a “medial” segment – symbolize locations, whether names of villages and towns, larger areas such as regions, or smaller areas such as quarters of a city.  Then the addition of a prefix might add information on the affiliation of a town, similar to the Egyptian specification of a particular town as being in a certain nome.  The terminal might indicate the larger region, perhaps one of the cultural regions that Possehl describes: Kulli domain, Sindhi domain, Sorath domain, Northwestern borderlands, Harappa domain, Cholistan domain, Anarta Chalcolithic, and Eastern domain (2002: 7).

King Tut's names, on left as carved and painted on a cartouche-shaped chest,
on right as embossed on book cover (Hawass n.d.).

The cartouche containing the name of a pharaoh might contain some of his titles, some of which convey geographical information of a general sort.  For example, a cartouche-shaped chest found in Tutankhamun’s tomb contains his name, followed by three symbols indicating that he was lord (the shepherd’s crook) of Upper Egypt (a pillar resembling a butter churn) and of Lower Egypt (the sedge plant).  There are, thus, ten symbols inside this cartouche (Hawass 2009: 4).  Three spell out the divine Ram’s name, Amun (with the zigzag water, n, being superfluous since its sound is also comprised in the gameboard above it, mn).  Three spell out the first syllable of the king’s name, Tut (bread loaf, chick, bread loaf, each indicating a single consonant).  One glyph by itself represents the middle syllable of his name (the ankh symbol, “life”).  The three signs at the end are an abbreviated title in which each symbol represents at least one word, with grammatical elements unrepresented. 

Canopic jar of Tjuya with four lines of hieroglyphs (after Davis 2000: Pl. XVII).

A canopic jar belonging to Tjuya also bears a brief text, a magical inscription, but this one serving a protective function (Hawass 2009: 135): “Words spoken by Selket: My two arms will embrace what is inside, extending protection around Qebehsenuef who is therein, the one revered before Qebehsenuef, the Osiris, king’s ornament, lady of the house, Tjuya.”  The first phrase is a standard opening of many inscriptions (ddi n ___, “Words spoken by ...”).  The spell indicates that the scorpion goddess, Selket, will protect the viscera in the jar, which are also guarded by one of the sons of the falcon god, Horus.  The name of the son, Qebehsenuef, reveals that it was intestines that were stored in this particular jar.  The other phrases refer to the lady whose remains were partly contained in this and three other canopic jars, namely Tjuya.  She was “the one revered before Qebehsenuef,” she was dead and therefore “the Osiris” in this case, and in life she had been “the king’s ornament” as the king’s mother-in-law.  She was the mother of Tiye, the Great Royal Wife of pharaoh Amenhotep III.  She was also “lady of the house” as a noblewoman, possibly serving as regent for the youthful king, alongside her husband, Yuya.  Again, though a single person, Tjuya had a number of titles, some of them specific to her role in life, some of them more general and shared with other people in death (e.g., “the Osiris”).

Detail from ivory armband depicting the oba of Benin gripping two mudfishes -- the ivory,
the costume worn by the oba, and the mudfishes are all royal prerogatives (after Cable 1984: 126).

Turning to sub-Saharan Africa, we can find instances of symbols used as identifiers in the absence of writing.  The kingdom of Benin provides several examples, where the majority of these standardized symbols are royal in nature (Cable 1984: 110-137).  Items carved from elephant ivory and cast in gold take the forms of royal emblems such as the leopard, elephant, and mudfish.  The oba or king also had the sole right to wear jewelry of coral.  He had many bronze or brass plaques that also included such symbols alongside more naturalistic representations.  “At important public ceremonies his [the oba’s] ritual costume would include carved ivory masks, worn in groups of three on the belt of his traditional kilt.  Only he had the right to wear a mask shaped like a leopard....The original white color of the ivory, which provided a startling contrast with the famous red coral beads that adorned the oba’s sacred garb, symbolized purity and peace” (1984: 122). 

Leather fan with ornamentation, showing the royal elephant at the top,
a symbol of the oba of Benin (after Cable 1984: 134).

In this case, neither the zoomorphic symbols of the oba nor the materials specific to his status (coral, ivory, bronze, and gold) represent words.  Nevertheless, they are still meaningful symbols and, in a way, serve a function akin to naming (i.e., the nominative function).  The individual oba is not distinguished from others, his predecessors and those who will follow him, by these kinds of symbols.  But then, the oba was considered a god, immortal, though one who changed his face periodically.  It was therefore not important to distinguish the individual symbolically as it was for the Egyptians and Sumerians.  It is possible that the Indus symbols had a similar type of non-linguistic meaning as well, representing statuses or institutions, in effect, rather than individuals. 

Detail of inscribed brick from the ziggurat of Choga Zanbil (after Potts 1999: 226, Pl. 7.7).

On a final note for this post, I will briefly address the possible narrative function of the script.  As Korvink observes, if the Indus script was intended to serve a narrative function, we would expect to find considerably longer texts (2007: 74).  Some researchers insist that these did indeed exist, but were written on perishable materials and are lost to us.  However, in Mesopotamia and Egypt such longer texts were not confined to perishable media.  Elamite kings often had bricks inscribed with narrative messages (Potts 1999: 226 Pl. 7.7 and 232 Fig. 7.9).  The first example depicted contains 6 lines of text that together cover the whole of one side of the brick.  The second contains 10 lines, though the brick itself is broken.  In each case, there are considerably more than 30 signs, a total never matched in any Indus inscription.  Statues and figurines also bear inscriptions in the Near East, sometimes on the base but at other times on the back, the arm, or the torso of the figure.  In the Indus Valley, both bricks and statues have been excavated, but none bear inscriptions.  Therefore, as Korvink states, most scholars agree that the Indus script did not serve a narrative function.

REFERENCES

Cable, M. and the editors of Tree Communications, Inc. 1984. Treasures of the World: The African Kings. New York: Select Books.

Davis, T.M. 2000 (and 1907). The Tomb of Iouiya and Touiyou: The Finding of the Tomb. London: Duckworth.

Hawass, Z. n.d. Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs. Washington, DC: National Geographic.

Korvink, M.P. 2007. The Indus Script: A Positional Statistical Approach. Gilund Press (Amazon).

Malek, J. 2003. Egypt: 4000 Years of Art. London: Phaidon.

Potts, D.T. 1999. The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State. Cambridge: University Press.

Smith, M.E. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. Norman: University of Oklahoma.