Of Tables, Rakes, and Blankets in the Indus Script

Seal M-153 with inscription: DUCK HEAD / MAN HOLDING COMB / BIRD BETWEEN PARENTHESES.

Continuing with my enumeration of the Indus signs, I term the eleventh among those drawn with eleven strokes MAN HOLDING COMB (XI 11).  The object in the “man’s” hand could just as easily be called a “rake,” as there is a line from the end of the “arm” to the “comb.”  This attaching stroke is diagonal as it is in most other cases (e.g., MAN HOLDING CUP; MAN HOLDING FOOT, etc.).  In the case of each of these other symbols, this connection is not part of the object, as demonstrated by the existence of the independent signs CUP, FOOT, and so on, without an attached stroke.  Thus, I assume the object held in XI 11 is the COMB – which lacks such a connecting stroke -- rather than the RAKE, which requires a “handle.”

Bangle M-1639 with inscription: BOAT / MAN HOLDING 4 QUOTES (?) / STRIPED BISECTED TOP.

In any case, this symbol appears in other lists as KP26, W15, and Fs A-22.  Fairservis also sees this as a depiction of a man with a comb, defining it as “scribe” for reasons having to do with near homophones in Dravidian (“comb” being cippu, somehow associated with Kannada kiri “to shave,” which sounds like kiru “to scratch, mark, write,” hence the connection to a writer or scribe) (1992: 35).  Wells gives the total occurrences of this sign as seven, all but one from Mohenjo daro.  One instance listed in Wells’ catalog is probably an error: the sign on the seal from Lothal is MAN HOLDING QUOTE, with an unattached BI-QUOTES on the other side of the “head” of the anthropomorph (L-12).  A second instance may also be erroneous, though I am less certain of it.  Occurring on a bangle, it is marred by a crack passing through it (M-1639).  In this case, I see four short strokes above the connecting stroke that rises from the arm, but no horizontal line beneath the four “quotes.”  Thus, I take it to be an instance of MAN HOLDING FOUR QUOTES.

Detail of inscription from broken seal L-12: FIVE POSTS / MAN HOLDING QUOTE /
BI-QUOTES // CORN HOLDER (WITH ATTACHED LOOP?) / CRAB.

Wells subdivides this sign into three variants based on the number of “teeth” in the “comb.”  His “a” has five “teeth,” the central one appearing to be an extension of the connecting stroke; his “b” has four “teeth”; and his “c” has only three.  The connection between the “comb” element and the arm is not diagonal but vertical in the case of “c,” for which reason I took this to be an anthropomorph with the RAKE.  But Wells may be correct in grouping all of these together.  (Fairservis appears to view Wells’ “c” as “a man holding a stalk of wheat,” in my terms holding a TRI-FORK (A-26; 1992: 35).

Rock art motif of a man with rayed arc overhead from British Columbia (Keyser 1992: 51, fig. 24a).

The closest parallel to this Indus sign that I have observed comes from the rock art of North America.  Stick figure humans are common in many places, as is an element much like the Indus COMB (though termed a “rake” in the literature).  However, these two elements seldom join in a way that would appear to show the anthropomorph holding the “comb.”  In the Columbia Plateau region (the area of Washington, Idaho and British Columbia around the Columbia and Snake Rivers), there is a common motif combining an anthropomorph with a “rayed arc” (Keyser 1992: 61-62, figs. 35 and 36).  In most cases, the arc is either attached to the figure’s head or is just above it.  But occasionally, the arms of the anthropomorph bend at the elbow and the arc nearly descends to the ends of these arms, as if the human were holding it (e.g., fig. 35b). 

Rock art depiction of a supernatural being with comb-like hands in the Long Narrows style (Keyser 1992: 89, fig. 61c).

Depictions of supernatural beings are frequently found in the Long Narrows style of the Lower Columbia region.  A few of these show a comb-like element at the end of each arm (e.g., 1992: 88-89, figs. 60d and 61c).  In these cases, the “comb” most likely represents a hand.  In both the examples cited, each comb/hand has exactly five teeth/fingers.  This suggests one possible interpretation of the Indus signs of RAKE and COMB.  The former may depict a highly schematic arm, while the latter could represent just a hand.  These seem rather unlikely explanations, however, since both Indus signs frequently have fewer than five prongs (specifically, three or four) and occasionally more (six or seven).  Still, such inaccurate renderings of hands or feet, with the wrong number of digits, do occur in less stylized traditions.  Human footprints in Mixtec manuscripts sometimes have such inaccuracies (e.g., Smith 1973: 225, fig. 13a which includes a series of footprints showing three, four, and five toes).

Broken seal Pbm-1 with partial inscription: TWO POSTS (?) / POTTED ONE / RAKE / FISH / BI-RAKE / FISH (??).

The second Indus sign discussed in this post is BI-RAKE (XI 12), a symbol also enumerated KP95, W266, and Fs Q-12.  In appearance, it resembles the basic RAKE, but there are two rows of “tines,” one row placed over the other.  The central “handle” connects both these rows and descends beneath them.  Obviously, if this is related to the basic RAKE, it is hardly likely to represent an arm, since two hands do not appear on a single arm.

Cylinder seal from Susa, Iran with partially legible inscription including BI-RAKE / BIG SHOULDERED MAN / STACKED 12 (?) / DOUBLED BELTED DOUBLE AITCH / (perhaps a FISH also; over repeated bovines at the bottom). 

Fairservis considers this symbol to be essentially the same as the basic RAKE, doubled stylistically, and takes it to be a proper name.  But in at least one inscription, both the basic RAKE and the "doubled" BI-RAKE both appear, a fact which suggests they are independent symbols (see Pbm-1).  Wells, avoiding definitions, finds 15 occurrences, with 10 of them from Mohenjo daro (though I find 13), three from Harappa (I see 7), one from Lothal (I see 2), and one from Pabumath.  A BI-RAKE also appears in the Harappan-style inscription on a seal from Susa, Iran (Collon 2005: 143, fig. 608).  Wells and I also differ in the number of variants of this symbol.  He sees two, with the only difference being the number of “tines” on the uppermost “rake”: his “a” has five, while his “b” has four.  I would add a “c” with eight (M-741) and “d” with only three (H-701).  There might even be an “e” since the example from Susa seems to have six.

Proto-cuneiform sign NUN~a, "prince," which also occurs doubled and stacked, becoming NIR~a, also "prince."

In proto-cuneiform, there is a sign that is more like the Indus SHISH KEBAB, with the designation NUN~a.  This symbol also occurs doubled, then being transcribed NIR~a.  Both signs came to mean “prince.”  If this principle of doubling without a change in meaning applies to Indus signs (and there is no way of knowing whether it does), then Fairservis may be correct in seeing the BI-RAKE as nothing more than a fancier version of the RAKE.  I am hesitant to accept this, however, since a clearer example of a doubled RAKE is RAKE OVER RAKE (a 12-stroke sign to be discussed later).

Bar seal M-1271 with inscription: LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH / CEE BOAT /
STRIPED FAT CHEVRON / STRIPED VEST / STRIPED TRIANGLE / SPACESHIP UNDER TABLE / COMB.

The following sign is SPACESHIP UNDER TABLE (XI 13), also known as KP222, W422, and perhaps to be viewed as Fs N-1, “mountains” under I-19, “sky; superior.”  However Fairservis saw it, there are three instances, as Wells notes, all from Mohenjo daro.

Proto-cuneiform |SILA3~a x KUR~a|, a combination of "market" and "(foreign) land."

The three stacked wedges denoting “mountain, (foreign) land” in proto-cuneiform are cited by Fairservis in his definition of the SPACESHIP element.  Thus, the proto-cuneiform |SILA3~a x KUR~a| may be considered more or less analogous to SPACESHIP UNDER TABLE.  Instead of a “table,” the proto-cuneiform includes a “greater than” shape with a wedge at the bend.  This portion came to mean “market, square.”  This makes one wonder whether the combination represented a foreign market.

Detail from seal M-896 with inscription: STRIPED TRIANGLE UNDER DOUBLE TABLES /
SINGLE QUOTE // TWO POSTS / MAN HOLDING POST / BEARER.

Our next sign is STRIPED TRIANGLE UNDER DOUBLE TABLES (XI 14).  It appears in the literature as KP213 (with 12 strokes) and W429 (also 12 strokes).  The actual sign is a bit difficult to make out in the photograph in the Corpus, but I think it may have only 11 strokes.  In any case, it is a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-896).  It is also the only instance with a TABLE over another TABLE (over a third element).

Proto-cuneiform sign |SILA3~c x ZATU 687|, a combination of "market" and an unknown sign.

If the SILA3 cited under the previous sign may be taken as equivalent to the Indus TABLE, then there is an analogous sign in proto-cuneiform.  It includes a triangular element with a rounded base, rotated 90 degrees, beside the “greater than” element.  This combination is transcribed |SILA3~c x ZATU 687|.  Similar rounded triangles represent oil or a dairy product such as butter.  But this one, with both a vertical stripe and a horizontal stripe inside, may be distinct.

Seal M-1169 with inscription: TWO POSTS / BLANKET WITH 7 TICKS / BIRD BETWEEN PARENTHESES / BI-QUOTES // SKEWERED CHEVRON / FISH // (2nd row) TWO POSTS / FISH / CUPPED POST / THREE POSTS / SPEAR.

The fifth Indus sign is BLANKET WITH SEVEN TICKS (XI 15).  Only Wells notes this as an independent sign (W538), another singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-1169).  Fairservis considers all the BLANKET variations to represent enclosures, suggesting further that the varying marks inside indicate varying weights (1992: 100).  In his discussion of these variations, he shows BLANKETS with four, six, and eight “ticks” first, but also includes one with asymmetrically arranged seven (four at the top, three at the bottom, the same arrangement of strokes as in most occurrences of STACKED SEVEN).

There are certainly many square or rectangular symbols outside the Indus Valley.  But while it is easy enough to find grids, or internal stripes, or even quadrilaterals enclosing a cross or “X,” I have seen none with “ticks” elsewhere.  This symbol may be a unique type, found only in the Indus script.  It may be of interest to note, in addition, that while grids or checkerboards are among the entoptic shapes seen by those in altered states of consciousness such as trance, an element such as the BLANKET is not.

Broken seal M-637 with (partial?) inscription: BLANKET WITH 4 TICKS, 3 HYPHENS / POT.

The next sign may be a variant of the last: BLANKET WITH FOUR TICKS, THREE HYPHENS (XI 16).  Once again, only Wells enumerates this separately (W534), finding it to be yet another singleton from Mohenjo daro.  Fairservis does note its existence in his full discussion of the BLANKETS.  It could be that the internal marks represent numerals, as Fairservis suggests.  But if that were the case, one would expect instances with “one,” “two,” and “three” internal strokes.  As it is, “four” is the lowest apparent numeral and “ten” the highest.  In addition, some BLANKETS also include elements that differ from the usual “quote.”

Detail from seal H-598A with inscription: DUCK HEAD IN LEAF TOPPED POT / PRAWN /
ZEE / BI-QUOTES // WHISKERED FISH / BLANKET WITH 4 TICKS, 2 HYPHENS, & CEE / POT.

There is one more similar sign: BLANKET WITH FOUR TICKS, TWO HYPHENS, AND CEE (XI 17).  It appears in other lists as KP270(c), W536 and 537, and Fs G-15.  Despite his suggestion that the internal marks are numerical, Fairservis defines this symbol as representing a proper name.  Wells, for his part, gives two versions: W536 containing the 4 “ticks,” a backward “C” shape, and 2 “hyphens” of the name, while W537 contains the same “ticks” and “cee” but then two “quotes.”  Since both are singletons from Harappa, I have combined them (somewhat arbitrarily) as two variants of a single sign.

Detail from seal C-8 with inscription: STRIPED BATTERY WITH ATTACHED LOOP / POTTED ONE / BELTED FISH / CIRCLED TRI-FORK / POT (note that the small LOOP is not an independent sign, but part of a ligature here).

After these BLANKETS, I include an eleven-stroke STRIPED BATTERY (XI 18).  It appears only in Wells’ list as an independent form (W477”c”).  Both Fairservis and the team of Koskenniemi and Parpola recognize a striped version of the BATTERY, but in both cases the stripes are mostly vertical (KP290, Fs G-2, my X 10).  The version with eleven strokes has only horizontal stripes.  As such, it seems to occur twice, once at Mohenjo daro and once at Chanhujo daro.  However, the photographs clearly show that in both of these, there is a loop attached to the BATTERY which Wells failed to include.

Three variants of proto-cuneiform URUDU, "copper," analogous to the Indus (STRIPED) BATTERY.

Proto-cuneiform provides good analogies to the STRIPED BATTERY portion – though without any attachment.  The sign URUDU includes a variant with some vertical and horizontal stripes (variant “d”) and one with diagonal stripes (variant “c”).  These came to mean “copper.”

Seal L-86 with inscription: GRID (2 X 4) WITH ATTACHED POST / BACKSLASHES IN OVERLAPPING
CIRCLES / TRI-FORK (note the rough appearance of the signs, with the GRID leaning to one side).

Another sort of attachment appears in the following Indus sign: GRID WITH ATTACHED POST (XI 19), also known as KP269 and W505.  It is interesting to note that the sign presents a very neat appearance in both of these published lists, with perfectly vertical sides.  On the actual seal from Lothal, the GRID element has a definite tilt to one side, though.  It should actually be placed among the signs with ten strokes (the GRID including 2 x 4 internal squares), but I include it here due to its appearance in the list of Koskenniemi and Parpola (including 3 x 4 internal squares).  Grids are common around the world, perhaps due to their inclusion among the entoptic shapes, but with such an attachment this sign becomes unique.

Inscription from bar seal M-391: FOUR TOED FOOT / STACKED STOOLS WITH MID POST / VEE IN DIAMOND / BI-QUOTES // CIRCLED E TRI-FORK / BACKSLASH IN FISH / 3 QUOTES / CIRCLE BETWEEN CEES / POT // COMB BELTED ASTERISK / SLASHES IN OVERLAPPING CIRCLES / QUAD-FORK (two units of info may be included).

Today’s final sign is COMB BELTED ASTERISK (XI 20), appearing elsewhere as KP249 and W435.  It is a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-391), combining the “X” with doubled “quotes” in the upper and lower parts (the ASTERISK of eight strokes), with a “comb” across the middle that includes four “teeth.”  As with some of the other ligatures discussed in this post, the individual elements have analogs in many other scripts and art traditions, but I have seen no such combination elsewhere.

Indus Signs of Nine Strokes

Three types of proto-cuneiform "nine": N14 (circles), N01 (wedges), and N18 (slashed circles).

As usual, I begin the discussion of the Indus symbols made with nine strokes by noting apparent numerals.  There are three different signs that are made up of nine short strokes grouped together.  The first of these displays the marks in a simple row: NINE QUOTES (IX 1).  Koskenniemi and Parpola include this sign in their list as KP129(a), but Wells does not note it.  Neither does Fairservis, who states that there are no occurrences of this form “nine” (1992: 62).  If it does actually occur (and I have no reason to doubt Koskenniemi and Parpola), it is probably a singleton or at least very rare.

Detail of seal H-23 with inscription: STACKED NINE (5 X 4) / QUAD-FORK /
HAIRY HUNCHBACK / WINGED MAN / POT.

The second apparent numeral is STACKED NINE (IX 2), also known as KP129(b), W219, and Fs O-14.  I designate this form in my database on inscriptions as STACKED NINE (5 X 4) in order to differentiate it from a second stacked form, one to be discussed shortly.  Fairservis does not hesitate to identify this one as the number nine, adjectival form, noting two occurrences (1992: 62).  This identification is rather surprising since he elsewhere suggests that the Harappans had a base eight number system – in which case, they should use a distinct symbol for “eight” and that plus a single quote for “nine.”  That fact demonstrates to the satisfaction of most scholars that the Harappans did not have a base eight number system, or at least the evidence does not support the existence of such an unusual number system.  In any case, this form includes five short strokes in an upper row, with four short strokes in another row beneath them.

In proto-cuneiform, “nine” occurs in a variety of forms, most of which are not quite like this Indus sign.  Only the sign designated 9(N58) takes this precise shape.  Another form of “nine” includes the same configuration of strokes, but is rotated 90 degrees (N57).  Three types of proto-cuneiform “nine” are written as a column of four wedges alongside a second identical column, with a ninth wedge that is larger than those in the columns at the base (N01, the same but with larger wedges as N34, and the larger wedges with two short strokes added to the right and left sides of each wedge as N36).  The very similar pattern of five marks in a column alongside a second column of four marks occurs in six other forms of “nine” (simple wedges as N08, circular indentations as N14, larger circles as N45, small circles with a diagonal stroke added to each as N18, circles with two strokes on each side as N19, and circles with three diagonal strokes crossing each as well as a fourth stroke to the right as N20).

There are also two different forms of the numeral “one” that contain nine short strokes, in proto-cuneiform.  In the first of these, a long wedge bears nine horizontal strokes across it (N12).  In the second, a large circular impression contains a “stacked nine” of five strokes over four (N63).  There are many different types of numeral in this system because there were distinct enumerative systems for different types of item.  In much the same way, in modern English, we have special terms for measures of liquids that differ from the terms for weight, which differ yet again from terms for length or distance.  There are eight ounces in a cup, two cups in a pint, two pints in a quart, and four quarts in a gallon (in the U.S., that is).  But when speaking of weight, we say that 16 ounces make a pound, even though “ounce” is the same word in both systems.  In measuring length, we say there are 12 inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, and so on.  If we wrote these varying measures in a proto-cuneiform fashion, we might use N01 numerals for liquid measures, N02 symbols for weight measures, and N08 signs for length measures.

Tablet H-322A with inscription (from right to left): STACKED EIGHT (originally nine?) /
TWO POSTS / POT / COMB (note the marks in the "numeral" are not vertical but diagonal,
which some researchers consider significant; but the COMB also has diagonal "tines" and the
same researchers do not remark on this).

Moving on, the third Indus sign comprising nine strokes is STACKED NINE (3 X 3 X 3), or IX 3.  It occurs in the literature as KP141(b), W227, and Fs N-2.  Fairservis does not consider this a numeral, but describes it as a depiction of a river or stream, meaning “water.”  Since the individual strokes are not perfectly vertical, but “slashes” (and backslashes), it is possible that he is right about this not being simply a second version of “nine.”  Wells, for his part, notes this sign as a singleton from Mohenjo daro (identified as Marshall No. 273).  However, I find one of these at Harappa (H-322) and one from Lothal (L-47).

Proto-cuneiform LUM, "manure" (upper left) and "nine" (N19, upper right);
non-numerical Luwian nu (lower left) and ki (lower right).

Among the Luwian hieroglyphs, there is one that is made up of short, vertical strokes in three rows of three.  It is not a numeral, though it looks like it ought to be.  Instead, it functions as a phonetic symbol, representing the syllable nú.  There may still be an indirect relationship with a number, though, because “nine” in Luwian derives from Proto-Indo-European *newn (the second "n" needs a small circle beneath it to denote a syllabic nasal) (Watkins 2000: 58).  The Luwian "nine" itself is unknown.  If any of the Indus signs has a phonetic value – a possibility that has yet to be proven – some or all of the apparent numerals might serve a parallel phonetic function. 

Then again, this could be just another way of writing “nine” since proto-cuneiform provides such a parallel.  One variant of the N19 form of “nine” is made up of nine circles, each with two strokes attached to either side, in three rows of three.  Still, there is another analogous proto-cuneiform sign, one made up of stacks of diagonal marks.  In LUM, seven strokes angle one direction alongside another stack of seven strokes, these angling the other direction, and a final set of seven angles like the first.  Thus, the whole symbol resembles a stack of “Z’s” (rotated 90 degrees).  Having no numeric significance, this sign came to mean “manure” and “cloud” (Halloran 2006: 164).

Sometimes elements that resemble numerals are combined with something else, in various writing systems.  In proto-cuneiform, for example, a “stacked eight” of four strokes over four appears beneath a chevron, the whole thing rotated 90 degrees (GI6).  This came to mean “night, shade.”  Thus, while it appears numerical, the presence of the chevron changes its function to a semantic one.  Similarly, in Luwian, a “stacked four” is bracketed by two lines resembling elongated “Z” shapes to form ki, perhaps the first syllable in a word meaning “fourth, quarter” or something similar (< Proto-Indo-European *kwetwer- / *kwetwor; Watkins 2000: 45).

Tablet H-205 with inscription (from right to left): DIAMOND WITH BACKSLASH / CUP /
STACKED SEVEN BETWEEN PARENTHESES / POT.

Indus signs provide a parallel, with STACKED SEVEN BETWEEN PARENTHESES (IX 4), also known as KP136(b) and W204.  Wells notes a total of 16 occurrences, with two from Mohenjo daro, two from Harappa, and 12 from Lothal.  Of the last group, items L-161 through L-170 are duplicates.  There is also SEVEN QUOTES BETWEEN PARENTHESES (IX5).  It appears in the literature as KP136(a) and W214, a singleton from Harappa (H-156).  A third example may be a variant of the latter, SEVEN POSTS BETWEEN PARENTHESES (IX 6).  It appears only in Wells’ list, as W215, where it is a singleton from Chandigarh (Ch-2).  The distinction between “quotes” (or short strokes) and “posts” (or long strokes) is not always entirely clear, especially where there are no other signs for comparison.  But in these two cases, the distinction is clear enough. 

Inscription from H-156: SEVEN QUOTES BETWEEN PARENTHESES / POT.

Inscription Ch-1 (right to left): DUBYA / SEVEN POSTS BETWEEN PARENTHESES / POT.

Not all the nine-stroke symbols appear to be numerals, though.  There is another STRIPED MALLET (IX 7), this one with three internal stripes.  It is also identified as KP280, variant “B” of W470, and Fs N-10.  Fairservis suggests that it represents a sign for a place, perhaps in the sense of a determinative like Egyptian O49 (a “fat ex” in a circle).  Wells finds a total of 23 occurrences of striped “mallets,” but does not indicate which ones contain what number of stripes.  They appear at Mohenjo daro, Harappa, Lothal, and Kalibangan.  However, I see this or a similar sign 16 times at Harappa and 20 times at Mohenjo daro, in addition to the single instance from Lothal and that from Kalibangan.  If my count is correct, then there are 38 in all.

Detail from seal H-1 with inscription: FAT EX / BATTERY / STRIPED MALLET (3 stripes) / CARTWHEEL.

The next sign is CAGED MALLET (IX 8), also KP277, W471, and in Fairservis a combaintion of G-9 + P-9.  Fairservis defines the “mallet,” which he sees as an enclosure with a pillar, as “number nine; cow(s).”  The four dots (or short vertical strokes) surrounding the central element are drops of milk, he thinks.  Putting these two together makes “tribute (of milk cattle); to flow (as with water).”  Since there are several better possibilities for a “nine,” I think it most unlikely that the “mallet” element has that meaning.  In any case, Wells cites three examples of the CAGED MALLET, one from Mohenjo daro and two from Harappa.  I see three from Mohenjo daro and three from Harappa (two of the latter being duplicates), giving a slightly larger total of six occurrences.

Detail from seal H-67 with inscription: SINGLE POST / CAGED MALLET.

We come to a very peculiar sign next, STRIPED MALLET BETWEEN BI-QUOTES (IX 9).  It appears as a separate symbol only in Wells’ list (W474), one which he thinks is a singleton.  However, I see quite a few duplicates of the copper tablets bearing this sign: M-519 through M521, M-575 through M-577, and M-592.  If each object bearing the sign is counted, there are seven occurrences.  Some scholars count elements in the duplicates only once apiece.  Following this procedure, there are three distinct occurrences.  In each case, the “striped mallet” portion is adorned with a short “quote” mark on each side of the “handle,” near the top. 

Tablet M-592A with broken inscription (right to left): MAN HOLDING QUOTE / STRIPED MALLET BETWEEN BI-QUOTES / SINGLE QUOTE (?) / MAN HOLDING POST / DOUBLE GRIDS (note that "shield" on B side, right, is not listed as a sign, although other symbols found in the same context -- alone on the "B" side of a tablet -- are so listed).

While there are no parallels for the four-mark “caging” that appears so often in the Indus script, I do find an analog for this peculiar two-mark “cage.”  It occurs in proto-cuneiform, where TAR~a – which alone resembles the Indus BI-QUOTES – appears in combination with other elements to form additional signs.  Alone, this symbol came to mean “to cut, separate.”

Tablet M-519A with inscription (right to left): POTTED TRIPLE SLASHES (?) / CUPPED TRIPLE SLASHES (?) / MAN HOLDING QUOTE / STRIPED MALLET BETWEEN BI-QUOTES / SINGLE POST / MAN HOLDING POST / DOUBLE GRIDS (probably the same inscription as on M-592).

The last sign for this post is EXIT UNDER TABLE (IX 10).  It is a singleton, elsewhere known as KP286 and W478.  I reminds me of an Old Chinese character, ting2, “the phonetic ding1 [which resembles our letter “T”]...replaced the [mouth, later a square] at the bottom [of a previously discussed character, gao1]....Pavilion, terrace” (Wieger 1965: 191).

Detail from seal M-742 with inscription: EXIT UNDER TABLE / PINCH / TWO POSTS / DIAMOND / MAN.

Proto-cuneiform, which so often provides parallels, does not have a similar sign.  There are elements resembling thicker versions of the “table” (ZATU 750), other symbols comparable to the “exit” (ZATU 737 and |ZATU 737 x SZE~a1|).  And there are signs made up of one symbol beside or beneath another (e.g., |SILA3~a x HI|).  But these individual pieces do not combine in a manner resembling the Indus EXIT UNDER TABLE.  This will become a familiar pattern as we proceed through the remainder of the Indus signs, those containing nine or more strokes.  The more complex signs have analogs much less often than the simple ones, with a few notable exceptions.  But I will have more to say about this later.

Old Chinese ting2, "pavilion."

And proto-cuneiform:

ZATU 737, three variants.

Indus Signs of Eight Strokes: The First Eight

Tablet H-817 with inscription (right to left): STACKED EIGHT A (4 X 4) /
STRIPED VEST / POT / COMB (note the neat stacking on this bas-relief tablet).

Of signs comprising eight strokes, the first is the simplest, STACKED EIGHT (VIII 1).  It contains two rows of four short vertical lines each, one row over the other.  In the lists of other scholars, this rare symbol is identified as KP128, W208, and Fs O-12.  Fairservis sees in this sign the numeral eight, specified as being an adjective (which means it modifies a noun).  Apparently because of similar-sounding words in Dravidian languages, he further defines the sign as “count, number; pair, couple.”  He cites seven occurrences (1992: 62).  Wells, on the other hand, finds only six, three from Mohenjo daro and three from Harappa.  I see seven, adding one from Lothal to Wells’ total (L-125).

Detail from iimpression of seal M-83 with inscription (right to left):
CIRCLE WITH THREE LASHES UNDER TABLE / STACKED EIGHT A / TRI-FORK
(note the grid-like element beneath the head of the "unicorn," the top of the cult stand).

Proto-cuneiform includes at least eleven different ways of writing “eight,” all of which are identified with the letter “N” (for numeral) plus a number (N01, N02, N08, N14, N18, N19, N20, N34, N35, N51, N57, N58).In this proto-writing system, the different types of numerals enumerate different types of things.  The set for grain differs from that for herd animals, for example.  In almost all types, there is a column of four identical marks beside another such column.  Only N57 differs from this.

Three types of "stacked 8" numerals from proto-cuneiform: 8(N14) at top, 8(N01) in center, and 8(N18) below
(all should be rotated 90 degrees, forming two columns of four identical marks each).

Proto-Elamite has fewer distinctions in its known numeral systems.  But it too enumerates things differently based upon the type such as grain versus animals.  According to some experts, these distinctions in writing mirrored similarly distinctive ways of counting things (Schmandt-Besserat 1992:185-188).  Some of these ancient counting systems were base ten, like the modern English numerals, while others were not.  The larger numerals were often base sixty, for example, while some of the smaller sets were base six.  Fairservis thought that the Indus numerals might have been base eight, because there are many instances of STACKED SEVEN but few occurrences of larger numerals.  In a previous post, I pointed out some of the problems with this view, in particular the large group of STACKED TWELVE occurrences (70 or so).

Seal H-65 with inscription: STACKED EIGHT B (3 X 3 X 2) / DOUBLE BACKSLASHES / POT.

The next Indus sign may or may not be a variant of VIII 1.  Since there is disagreement among the experts, I tentatively call this one STACKED EIGHT B and assign it a separate numerical designation, VIII 2.  It is found elsewhere as KP141(a), W229, and Fs N-2(b).  Wells shows three variants (though he states that there are only two occurrences -- a misprint?).  His variant “a” is made up of three stacked rows of dots or short verticals (3 x 3 x 2).  His “b” is similarly arranged, but not as neatly (3 x 3 x 2 again) and “c” is inverted (2 x 3 x 3).  His “a” is a singleton from Harappa (H-65), his “b” a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-1078).  The inverted variant “c” appears twice at Harappa (H-322 and H-967).  By my count, this adds up to four occurrences, not two as he first states. 

Tablet H-322 with inscription (right to left): STACKED EIGHT (2 X 3 X 3) /
TWO POSTS / POT / COMB (initial sign VIII 2 is variant "c").

This is not a criticism of Wells, but an observation.  It is not always a simple matter to decide just how many there are of a given sign, especially when dealing with apparent numerals.  Sometimes the apparently non-numerical BI-QUOTES (resembling double quotation marks) appear above another sign, due to crowding.  When the BI-QUOTES occur above a number of hash marks, one must decide whether to count the two strokes of the BI-QUOTES in with the strokes beneath -- or not.  I am guessing that Wells did not originally count the inverted STACKED EIGHT as a version of "eight."  Instead, he probably separated out the two strokes at the top as an instance of BI-QUOTES, counting the lower strokes as STACKED SIX.

Tablet H-967A with inscription (right to left): STACKED EIGHT B (2 X 3 X 3) /
DOUBLE POSTS / POT / COMB (note how untidy the "eight" is here compared to the seal above). 
Here, one might consider the eight strokes on the right to be BI-QUOTES (over) / STACKED SIX,
except that the BI-QUOTES almost never occurs in initial position anywhere else.

Fairservis, on the other hand, only notes one variant (3 x 3 x 2 like Wells’ “a” and “b”), but the strokes in it are tilted.  It is, then, three slashes over three backslashes over two slashes.  He does not consider this a numeral at all, but a depiction of a river or stream, meaning “water.”  It does vaguely resemble the Old Chinese shui3, “water,” which may depict a curving rivulet plus four smaller whirls of water (Wieger 1965: 287).  The Indus STACKED EIGHT (both VIII 1 and VIII 2) also recall one form of the Old Chinese yu3, “rain” (a stacked “six” over four “posts,” all under a “roof”) (1965: 288).  Fairservis even refers to the latter when he makes his case for interpreting the STACKED TWELVE as rain, a point we will get to in another post.

Old Chinese "water" (left) and "rain" (right).

Before we leave these apparent numerals, it is worth noting that there are no occurrences of *EIGHT QUOTES or *EIGHT POSTS (the asterisk indicates that it is not attested), although every smaller number appears to be depicted by one or both method, as does “nine.”  Thus, the Harappans do not seem to have cared much for “eight.”  In contrast, we previously noted four occurrences of SEVEN QUOTES, two of SEVEN POSTS (though both somewhat questionable), plus 38 instances of STACKED SEVEN, adding up to 44 “sevens.”  This difference -- 44 "sevens" versus only of a type often in folklore (as noted in the post on apparent numerals).

Detail from abraded seal M-966 with inscription: BOAT / PINCH / POT (?) / WATERY SEVEN (?) /
POT (?).  Several signs may be read in more than one way, due to the poor condition of the seal. 
Thus, it might rather be CEE / PINCH / POTTED ONE / STACKED THREE /
ESS (SINGLE POST?) / STACKED FOUR / CUP.

The third Indus sign looks more like Chinese “water” than the apparent eight (or the "twelve" for that matter), so I tentatively call it WATERY SEVEN (VIII 3).  In form, it is a STACKED FOUR on one side and STACKED THREE on the other side, with the two "numerals" separated by a long stroke.  In KP155, the central divider is shown with a slight “S” curve, whereas in W224 this separating element is straight.  An examination of the photo of this sign in the Corpus is not particularly revealing when it comes to deciding the exact form of the long stroke, because the seal on which it occurs is in such poor condition.  Still, it seems to me that this group of marks might be read as more than one symbol with equal justification, say, as STACKED THREE / ESS / STACKED FOUR. 

No one refers to the enigmatic WATERY SEVEN as a numeral, to my knowledge.  However, if one considers POSTS and QUOTES to be numerical symbols, one might reasonably conclude that this is a group of three numerals, FOUR + ONE + THREE and thus “eight” -- so perhaps my term for it ought to be WATERY EIGHT.  In a way, though, it does not really matter what one calls it, because there is only this one.

A few additional remarks concerning numerals are in order here.  Some amateur enthusiasts interpret the many instances of CUP + POSTS/QUOTES as numerals, as if they were Roman numerals (VII, VIII, and so on).  But this type of stroke combination does not behave quite like the superficially similar Roman numerals.  For example, there are instances of VI (CUP + SINGLE POST), VII (CUP + DOUBLE POSTS), and VIII (CUP + THREE POSTS).  Indeed, these resemble the Roman six, seven, and eight.  But among the Indus inscriptions, there are also several occurrences of VIIII (CUP + FOUR QUOTES/POSTS), while the Romans switched to writing IX for "nine."  But there are other inscriptions that make things even worse for the hypothesis that "V" = 5.  There are some combinations of VIIIII (CUP + FIVE QUOTES/POSTS), and even a few VIIIIII (CUP + SIX POSTS/QUOTES).  The Romans might have written "V" plus four posts once upon a time, but they never wrote "ten" as "V" plus five.  They had "X" for that, so that was likewise no "VV" (which, by the way, does occur among the Indus inscriptions).  One might then suggest that the Indus "V" was not "five" but "ten" (or even "100").  But there is no instance of a CUP (whether “U” or “V”) plus eight strokes, whether “quotes” or “posts.”  Why would the Harappans count up as many as 16 items but never mention 18 or 19?  It is too difficult to explain such oddities, so I conclude that the CUP (“V” or “U”) is not a representation of “five,” or any other numeral, despite the superficial resemblance to a Roman numeral.

Proto-cuneiform GI6, "to be black, dark" (resembling a "stacked 8" under a chevron).

As a comparison, there is a sign in proto-cuneiform that seems to incorporate a numeral, at first glance.  The sign GI6, “to be black, dark,” is a “stacked eight” beside (or under) a “less than” sign (< + four stacked ­ + four stacked ­).  This symbol is similar to one version of Old Chinese “rain,” which also incorporates four or ten short strokes that might be interpreted as numerals by a naive viewer.  In other words, while something may appear numerical to us, that does not prove it is.

Detail of seal K-13 with inscription: BLANKET WITH FOUR TICKS / POTTED ONE /
STACKED SEVEN / EF PRONGED EXIT / POT (over unicorn and stand).

The next symbol is one of many that I term a BLANKET.  It is a simple rectangle, adorned with two short marks protruding down from the top horizontal and two extending upward from the base.  To distinguish this version with four inner strokes from instances with other numbers of additions, I call it BLANKET WITH FOUR TICKS (VIII 4).  It is also KP270(b), W529, and Fs G-11.  Fairservis considers the marks enclosed by the rectangle to be significant.  The whole symbol means “enclosure,” he suggests, with the “ticks” diacritical marks to be seen as representing suffixes – at least when found in combination with the ubiquitous POT symbol.

Looking to Old Chinese once again, the character for “water” sometimes occurs inside an oval or rounded rectangle.  Regardless of the shape of the surrounding symbol, the resulting character does not mean “enclosure.”  Instead, it is yuan1, “a whirlpool, a gulf, an abyss” (Wieger 1965: 288).

In support of Fairservis’ interpretation, though, we might point out the Luwian hieroglyph DOMUS, “house.”  This is a square or rectangle with two additions inside, attached to either side.  The “diacritical” marks in this case are a “C” shape on the right and the reverse on the left.  In other words, these are not diacritical marks at all (not signaling the presence of suffixes).

Luwian DOMUS, "house."

The Egyptian glyph of a wall is also reminiscent of Indus VIII 4 (O-36).  It is usually a rectangle that is taller than it is wide (though occasionally wider than tall), with added, thicker strokes spaced around the perimeter.  It is an ideograph or determinative in the word inb, “wall,” in sbty, “surrounding wall,” and in wmtt “bulwark, fortification.” 

Analogs to Indus VIII 4: proto-cuneiform |GA2~a x 3 (N57)| (upper left); Egyptian glyph O36, a determinative in wmtt, "bulwark, fortification" (center top); Cretan "gate" hieroglyph (upper right); Old Chinese yuan1, "whirlpool" (lower left); proto-Elamite M145~c (center bottom); and Cretan TELA, "cloth" (lower right).

The Cretans also used hieroglyphs, early on, and a rectangle with about four “ticks” protruding downward from the base is the ideograph TELA, “cloth.”  The rectangle also contains a backslash running from the upper left corner to the lower right.  Besides its ideographical usage, it may also signal the syllable wa.

Proto-cuneiform includes a sign made up of a rectangle wider than it is tall with a stacked set of three horizontal strokes and a single crossing vertical.  This is another of the signs that seems to contain a numeral and it is transcribed as if that were the case: |GA2~a x 3 (N57)|.  However, it came to have the non-numerical meanings “box, basket; house; stable; shrine.”  Proto-Elamite also has symbols that are rectangular and contain inner strokes (M147 with four short horizontals and two central verticals, M145~c divided into quarters like a window and with two additional strokes in the upper right and lower left sections, and M145~e which is the reverse of the previous).

Adinkra cloth showing grid-like patterns, nkyimu above and kronti ne akwamu below.

Square or rectangular symbols also occur in Africa, where they are not part of a writing system.  The Adinkra symbol nkyimu is one of these, subdivided into several smaller squares or diamonds.  The name refers to the divisions of the Adinkra cloth before it is printed, “blocking.”  The symbol represents adroitness and precision (Willis 1998: 146).  Here, the precise configuration and number of internal strokes can vary quite a bit without changing the meaning of the overall symbol.  This may also have been true of the Indus BLANKET, which seems to have multiple variations with varying numbers of TICKS.

Seal M-74 with inscription: LOOP ARMED MAN HOLDING SLASH /
CUPPED SPOON / BATTERY / TRIPLE STRIPED MALLET.

The next sign in my list is TRIPLE STRIPED MALLET (VIII 5), also known as KP280 and W470(b).  We have seen “mallets” before, without any internal marks and with just one or two.  The form with three stripes occurs at least twice (M-74 and M-1203).  It may be compared with the mortar and pestle used by a man in Egyptian glyph A34, the wagon or winnowing shovel of proto-cuneiform MAR~a@t (though this has seven stripes which do not cross the whole thing), and proto-Elamite M167~a.  One might also consider the Egyptian glyph of a column with a tenon at the top to be a reasonable parallel (O28).  Less similar is Luwian glyph SCRIBA, “scribe.”  This might be described as an ear of grain under a "table," or a peculiar, inverted "mallet."

Inscription from Lh-1: MAN HOLDING DEE-SLASH / MALLET / BI-FORK / BI-QUOTES //
FISH UNDER CHEVRON / FOUR-TOED FOOT / MAN BY CHEVRON / GRID (2 X 4?) /
BI-FORK TOPPED POT / POT (the original is less than perfectly clear).

Sign VIII 6 is another GRID (sometimes referred to as an ICE CUBE TRAY in my earlier lists because it has two columns of stacked squares).  I specify the number of internal divisions with numbers, 2 x 4, to indicate two columns, each of four spaces.  It is elsewhere KP268(c), W502, and Fs G-17.  Fairservis suggests it represents another enclosure, this one divided into compartments, and probably a variant of his G-16, “house.”  I designate his G-16 as a different GRID (3 x 4).

An unbounded grid as seen in American rock art (left) and proto-cuneiform E2~a, "house" (left).

Egyptian hieroglyphs include an unbounded, rectangular grid, representing land marked out with irrigation runnels (N24).  It is the ideograph or determinative in sp(3)t, “district, nome,” in hsp “garden,” and often appears in names of provinces.  Luwian hieroglyphs also include a grid, though the spaces are triangles and diamonds: TANA (which does not appear in my Latin dictionary, although a reader might provide a suggestion for the meaning).

Grids as found in Egypt (N24, upper left), Iran (M145~f, lower left), and Iraq (DARA4~c5, right).

Proto-cuneiform has more than one grid, neither of which is subdivided equally.  One represents a house or temple (E2~a), the other “blood; red, dark” (DARA4~c5).  Proto-Elamite contains a close analog of the first of these, although reversed (M145~bb), as well as a possible variant divided like an ice cube tray (M145~f).

Detail of patterns on Adire cloth (Yoruba area of Nigeria), showing grid or checkerboard at the bottom.

African Adinkra symbols also include a grid: ani bere a enso gya, “no matter how red eyed one becomes, one’s eyes will not spark flames” (Willis 1998: 78).  This expression and the symbol convey the virtues of patience and self-control.  Grids or checkboards are quite common around the world, as noted in a previous post.  Such a design is one of the apparently univeral entoptic patterns associated with altered states of consciousness (Lewis-Williams 2002: 128).  I see a checkerboard during some severe migraines, for example, a brightly colored pattern that "appears" with eyes open or closed.

Detail from a modern quilt of the simplest pattern, called the Nine Patch.
The top is pieced in a checkerboard arrangement of 3 x 3 x 3 squares (work of Rosa Sims).

Indus sign VIII 7 is another GRID (this one a QUILT in my earlier terminology, because it is subdivided 3 x 3).  This particular configuration appear only in Wells’ list, as W500, where ten occurrences are noted, eight from Mohenjo daro, one from Harappa, and one from Chanhujo daro.  Besides the previously cited parallels, there is the Adinkra checkerboard design kronti ne akwamu, “elders of the state” (Willis 1998: 122).  This symbolizes democracy, the duality of life, interdependence, and complementarity.

Detail of seal M-61: GRID (3 X 3 QUILT) / CEE / BI-QUOTES //
SINGLE POST / STRIPED TRIANGLE / TRIPLE TRIANGLES / POST.

Our final sign is CUP IN TRIPLE BRICK (VIII 8), also known as KP266 and W524.  It is a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-952).  In form it is a square or rectangle with one dividing vertical stroke and a horizontal stroke that divides only one side.  There are few parallels.  Luwian hieroglyphs include a square with a central circle, meaning unknown.  Proto-cuneiform includes a rectangle with one vertical and a “C” shape that reminds me of the flap of a large envelope (GA2~a4).  It came to mean “box, basket; house,” and other things.  A similar sign without the “c” but with a tall, thin rectangle enclosed is |GA2~1 x GISZ@t|.  In other words, it is the same same as the previous, but now enclosing the symbol for “tree, wood” (and thus a wooden house?).

Detail from seal M-952 with partial inscription: CUP IN TRIPLE BRICK / VEE IN DIAMOND / (broken).

In some inscriptions of Old Chinese, the presence of the ancestor in the shrine is depicted with a triangle or semi-circle, and on occasion this is subdivided into three sections (Wieger 1965: 372).  It is supposed to indicate the ancestor’s sight, according to this author, and may be combined with other characters or symbols that also represent the ancestor (such as footprints and/or the character tian1).

Old chinese inscription showing the ancestor (anthropomorphic figure) in the shrine (enclosure).  The
subdivided triangle indicates the ancestor's sight, as does the large eye just beneath it (Wieger 1965: 372).

Luwian includes a square glyph enclosing a small, centered circle (enumerated 255).  Unfortunately, its meaning is not known.  In the rock art of North America, similarly, there are many motifs with a rectangular form that is subdivided asymmetrically.  These too are uninterpretable at present.

In modern times, quilts are typically made from square or rectangular elements, combined in various ways.  Some of the patterns have a form roughly similar to that of the Indus VIII 8, combining large and small rectangles with enclosures.  As an example, here is an illustration of a floral pattern.  I want to say it is called Grandmother's Flower Garden, but I think perhaps I have confused the name of a different quilt pattern with this one.  If any of my readers know the correct name, let me know.

Grandmother's Flower Garden (?) quilt, composed of squares that contain angular flowers (themselves made up of both squares and triangles), smaller squares, and smaller rectangles (work by Rosa Sims).