A Group of Indus Fishes: The Last Five-Stroke Signs

Today’s first sign in the Indus script appears only in Fairservis’ work, STRIPED CORD ( or FINLESS FISH), V62.  Fairservis considers it to represent a twist or loop of cord or thread that has infilling or stitching across, meaning “increase, abundance, crops” (Fs L-4).  The basic looped CORD (or FINLESS FISH) is II10 in my list, previously discussed.  It resembles the schematic fish shape used as a Christian logo by various businesses in Texas and elsewhere, but rotated 90 degrees, as if the fish were standing on its tail fins.  V62 is the same shape with internal striping, here assumed to consist of three stripes.

As such, this sign does not actually occur in any inscription as far as I am aware.  It does occur as part of what Fairservis considers a ligature, STRIPED CORD UNDER CHEVRON (or STRIPED FINLESS FISH UNDER CHEVRON).  If the striping consists of three lines, then this ligature is a seven-stroke symbol, to be discussed later.  But, to show what I am discussing here, I have created an imaginary example of V62 as the first illustration in this post.

This is how the STRIPED CORD would look if it were an independent symbol, although this does not actually occur.

Considering only this portion of the real ligature, there are two good parallels from neighboring scripts.  The first of these appears in proto-cuneiform as ZATU784, its meaning unknown.  This sign also resembles a fish without fins, although with six internal stripes and somewhat thicker back fins.  In addition to these differences from the Indus sign, ZATU784 is positioned horizontally.  A more angular type, found in proto-Elamite, faces the opposite direction, i.e., left (M241~b).  It contains only two internal “stripes,” which do not touch the top or bottom of the sign.  Thus, these internal marks might be better termed “quotes.”

An example of proto-cuneiform ZATU784, perhaps a fish, perhaps not.

In the rock art of Nevada, there is an instance of a motif that resembles a fish without fins positioned vertically (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 139, fig. 76c).  In this case, the looped cord or fish element is filled in entirely with pecking of the same type that forms the outline.  It therefore lacks an appearance of striping, instead appearing to be solidly “colored.”

An example of proto-Elamite M241~b, perhaps a fish, perhaps a container of beer, perhaps something else.

A STRIPED LOOP also occurs in a second ligature, in the Indus script.  It is attached to what I term the BATTERY in one case (M-159, an eleven-stroke ligature).  It occurs under the CHEVRON (STRIPED LOOP UNDER CHEVRON) in eight instances, by my count.  Five of these come from Mohenjo daro and three from Harappa, all to be discussed later.

Our second symbol is the DOT IN FISH, V63.  It has the form of a fish-like sign, recalling IV26, with two side fins, one on either side.  In addition, it has a short vertical stroke inside – a “quote” in my terms.  It occurs elsewhere as KP56, W116, and Fs Q-2.  Fairservis does not believe this or other fish-like symbols to represent actual fishes, but sees them all as variations on a looped cord.  This one is a loop with an affix of TWO POSTS (i.e., the “fins” on the sides) and an additional affix P-1 (the internal dot or quote).  The meaning, he suggests, is “of the chief.”

Note DOT IN FISH in this inscription (M-661; hand drawn).

Wells notes 55 occurrences of this sign, 36 from Mohenjo daro, 14 from Harappa, three from Lothal, one from Kalibangan, and one from Chanhujo daro.  He also observes that the shape of the internal mark varies, presenting one version with a quote inside, another with a rounded dot inside, also noting “with many variations.”  In practice I find it difficult to distinguish one type of internal mark from another and see the external element – the “fish” outline – as the more significant variable.  There are rounded variants, very thin variants, variants from longer and shorter “fins,” fishy symbols of the same height as other signs and others that are considerably smaller.  Only one instance out of this variety is illustrated here.

Proto-cuneiform also contains symbols that resemble various types of fishes.  One that probably represents a vertically positioned fish containing a single diagonal stroke is KU6~c, meaning “fish.”  It is clearly made with more than five strokes: four make up a rhomboid or diamond-shaped exterior, with two more for tail fins and two beyond that for the side fins.  In addition, this sign has the internal mark, one which is attached to one of the upper strokes of the “diamond,” probably representing the fish’s mouth. 

In proto-Elamite, an angular, diamond-shaped sign also resembles a fish, though positioned horizontally (M-281).  There are two elements on the sides that resemble the “ear” motif among Indus symbols.  These give the proto-Elamite sign the appearance of a fish with fins on the sides.  Inside the diamond, there is a wedge-shape impression.  This completes the description of M281~e, but another variant joins the two “back fins” with a short stroke (M281~c).  This small addition makes the symbol more like a container than a fish, perhaps a jug of beer with two handles.  A third variant not only has the stroke joining the “back fins,” it substitutes two parallel diagonals for the “ear” elements (M281~a).  This is fairly different from the Indus sign, but if all three are truly variants of one proto-Elamite sign, together they suggest a different interpretation for the Indus sign.  Although I call the latter DOT IN FISH, it may signify a container.

Fairservis argues that the various FISH signs cannot represent actual fish, in part because they appear in a vertical position in inscriptions, a position that real fish almost never swim in.  Against this argument I note the appearance of a more detailed image of a fish on the Phaistos Disk, also positioned vertically.  Of course, if the Phaistos Disk should prove to be a modern fake, as some have argued, this datum loses all value.

Seal Blk-3 with inscription: BLANKET (reconstructed) / POTTED ONE / BELTED FISH / BUGS ON STRIPED LEAF / POT (reconstructed).  The original is broken; I have reconstructed possible signs, added false color, and simplified the general appearance for the sake of clarity.

Indus sign V64 is the BELTED FISH.  It also occurs as KP58, W115, and Fs Q-4.  Because of his basic position that the “fish” represents a looped cord, Fairservis sees this symbol as an element in weaving, the woof in the warp.  He suggests that it means “elders (chief)” and when covered by the ROOF, “breeder.”  Wells notes 74 occurrences, 43 from Mohenjo daro, 16 from Harappa, nine from Lothal, two from Kalibangan, two from Chanhujo daro, one from Jhukar, and one from Balakot.  In addition, Wells enumerates another symbol separately as W138 which I consider a variant of these, one from Mohenjo daro (M-118).  The basic symbol, BELTED FISH, is another fish-like motif with a horizontal line crossing it.  In Wells’ 138, there is a diagonal as well as a horizontal line.  To my eyes, the diagonal line creating the right-side “fin” has been extended into the body of the “fish.”  It appears to be unintentional, in other words.

Parallels include a different version of the proto-cuneiform KU6~a, meaning “fish” (and other things, eventually).  In this variant of a fish-like symbol, the “fin” on the right side is a horizontal line which is regularly extended across the body of the “fish.”  In proto-Elamite, there is another angular, diamond-shaped element, this one with a bisecting vertical line, and only one “ear” or “fin” which is on the bottom (M283).  Another sign is much like this one, but with a short stroke joining the two back “fins” (M283~a).  Again, these symbols may not represent fish but vessels containing some commodity such as beer.

The Linear B ideographic symbol for “woman” is not much different from the Indus BELTED FISH, at first glance.  On closer inspection, quite a few details distinguish the two.  The Mycenaean Greek sign is a circle on top of a horizontal line, with a triangle beneath this.  On either side of the triangle is a dot (breasts?).  In the BELTED FISH, there is sometimes a single line (not perfectly horizontal) for one side “fin,” the “belt” across the body, and the other “fin” on the opposite side.  If this were always the case, we might view the top of the “body,” above the horizontal, to be a person’s head, the part beneath the ut, to support this possibility, I also note the existence of anthropoid figures in the rock art of Nevada (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 194, fig. 131h).  The cited instance resembles the Indus STOOL, but set upright with the “legs” at the bottom.  These represent the legs of a human, apparently.  From the sides project two diagonals, representing arms.  On top there is a semi-circle for the head.  It is reasonably clear that this is anthropomorphic and not a representation of a fish. 

The third Indus sign to receive mention herein is SLASH IN FISH, V65.  It has two variants, the more common of which actually contains a backslash (“A” variant), the rare slash being possibly a singleton (“B”).  It is not shown in the Koskenniemi and Parpola listing as these scholars consider it a variant of the BELTED FISH.  It occurs in Fairservis as Q-3 with an internal slash, and in Wells as W117 (with slash) and W137 (with backslash).  Wells has reversed the appearance of the sign on seals, as he usually does.  Thus, the more common variant “A” appears 42 times, if Wells’ observations are correct: 27 at Mohenjo daro, 11 at Harappa, three at Lothal, one at Desalpur.  The rare variant “B” appears once at Mohenjo daro (M-411) by Wells’ count. 

Inscription M-183 with one of the less clear exaamples of BACKSLASH IN FISH.

I don’t see it quite that way.  The cited instance of the “B” variant appears to be the same as the other common versions.  To my eyes, there is still one “B,” but it is from Lothal (L-219) and occurs in an impression on a pot.  In addition, M-183 which Wells classifies as a SLASH IN FISH I would call another BELTED FISH.  It seems to me that there is a further instance where both diagonals representing side “fins” cross into the “body” of the “fish,” thereby forming a chevron-shaped belt (M-256; see also L-2, cited as a BELTED FISH in Wells).  Perhaps we should consider a third variant or else a separate and independent fish-like sign.  On the other hand, Parpola may ultimately be correct in describing the BELTED FISH and SLASH IN FISH (both variants) as variants of a single sign (2009).

As a parallel to V65, I note the proto-cuneiform variant “d” of KU6, “fish.”  This variant has a diamond shaped body attached to which two diagonals form back fins and two others form side fins.  In addition, the basic diamond is bisected by a vertical line.  Thus, it is not identical to the Indus sign by any means, but similar in that a fish-like shape contains a line. 

An image of the Sumerian god Enki (Akkadian Ea), god of the waters, showing water pouring from his shoulders, and fish swimming in the water.  Derived from images on cylinder seals (handdrawn by author).

In addition, one anthropoid figure from Nevada’s rock art also contains a bisecting line (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 194, fig. 131h).  In this case, the vertical line not only bisects the angular body but descends beyond it.  This "third leg" element may indicate a male human (or supernatural being).  The head in this case is a full circle placed on top of a roughly triangular body with the apex downward. 

This concludes the discussion of the five-stroke signs as far as their resemblance to other symbols around the world.  No doubt there are many more parallels than those that I have thus far detailed.  As my own collection of references concerning symbols and artwork increases, to include areas of the world I had not studied previously, new instances of just this sort of thing appear.  For example, I recently purchased a book on the rock art of Africa that includes areas I had known nothing about when I began this blog.  This allows me to add additional instances of parallels to such previously covered Indus signs as CIRCLE, DIAMOND, SQUARE, DOTTED CIRCLE, DONUT, CIRCLED CROSS, MAN, BARBELL, and many others.

The point of such comparisons, as I noted at the beginning of this project, is to determine (1) whether any symbols found in the Indus script are universal; (2) which symbols are common around the world, even if not truly universal; (3) and where symbols are common to many geographical areas, whether meaning is equally common.  We have not examined even half of the total repertoire of signs in the Indus script, but a few points seem clear already.

Some symbols are indeed either universal or very widespread.  We do not know the meanings of all of these (e.g., the meaning of rock art images that date from prehistoric periods; likewise, the meaning of signs in various undeciphered or incompletely deciphered scripts).  But where the meanings are known, sharing an outwardly similar form generally does not correlate with shared meanings.  The CUP is one of the more frequent Indus symbols, for example (my II7).  This shape or a similar one appears on every continent but Antarctica.  It is thus as close to being universal as any I have thus far discussed. 

But in the few cases where the meaning is known, this is clearly not universal.  The CUP means “basin” or “pit,” a “well” or “to set, become dark,” depending on where one finds it.  It can also represent a human or the horns of an animal such as an ox.  Thus, it would be foolhardy to pick a single example from this array, connect it to the Indus sign, and declare on the basis of this single parallel that the meaning of the Indus symbol is thereby revealed.  I cannot simply point to Old Chinese and say because one “U” shape in that writing system indicates a dish that the Indus CUP must also indicate a dish of some sort.  This is one possibility.  But the Indus CUP might just as easily be compared to a proto-cuneiform sign, demonstrating equally well (and equally poorly) that the Indus sign must share the meaning “cover.”  This, too, is really only one possibility among many. 

Many people who claim to have deciphered Indus script do just what I have described.  Richard McDorman provides another way of looking at similar symbols in different scripts (2009: locations 115-117).  He posits a series of principles of universal iconography operating on all early scripts.  That is, because people are much alike in psychology and the way they perceive the world, there are certain predictable parallels between unrelated scripts.  When people first begin writing, their first impulse is to draw pictures of objects, sometimes “abbreviating” such a drawing by depicting only a characteristic part.  For example, proto-cuneiform contains a simple drawing of an ox’s head with its horns to represent a head of cattle.  The Luwian symbol for the same idea is also an ox’s head, showing its horns, at times so abbreviated and schematized that it is difficult to see the ox in it.  The Egyptian symbol is more often a complete ox, seen from the side (E1), but again the head may suffice, especially in lists of offerings (F1).  In Old Chinese,  though, the “ox” character is a variation on a trident shape, with an additional horizontal crossing the stem, said to depict the animal from the back (Wieger 1965: 301).  Thus, McDorman observes, despite the operation of universal principles, the specific form of a symbol cannot necessarily be predicted, even when it seems a straightforward matter to depict the object represented. 

In addition to representations of objects, McDorman notes, people predictably include certain basic geometric shapes in their repertoires of symbols.  Circles, dots, and lines appear on every continent, with triangles and squares somewhat less widely spread, and diamonds still less commonly encountered, as we have seen.  Even where a shape appears in one place after another, the meaning assigned to it will vary in an unpredictable manner.

Thus, we should not be surprised to find such common symbols as the circle and line as part of the repertoire of Indus signs, because these are well-nigh universal.  Nor should we be surprised to find that Indus script shares a common pictorial sign – say a human figure – with some particular script.  Such symbols are very widespread.  But specific meanings often vary.  The closest Old Chinese parallel to the Indus stick-figure MAN does not mean “man,” but “big.”  The most similar Egyptian hieroglyph means "star."  In North America, such figures may represent ordinary humans.  Then again, they may be representations of supernatural beings.

One must beware, then, of proposed solutions to the decipherment dilemma that are simplistic. Indus Valley's signs may resemble some from the mysterious Easter Island tablets.  Many of these are little anthropomorphic figures that seem to be holding one item or another.  We will eventually see that this type of figure is quite common, among those symbols that is nearly universal.  Thus, it is simplest to ascribe the parallels between Indus script and Easter Island script to the operation of McDorman’s universal principles of iconography.  After all, the Indus script was primarily used during the Bronze Age, between about 2500 and 1500 BCE (and this is stretching it a bit).  The script of Easter Island dates to the 19^th century of our era (late 1800’s CE).  This leaves a gap of well over a thousand years between the demise of the one script and the origin of the other, not to mention the thousands of miles of open ocean between the two locations.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

McDorman, Richard E. 2009. Universal Iconography in Writing Systems: Evidence and Explanation in the Easter Island and Indus Valley Script. Electronically published for Amazon Kindle.

Parpola, Asko. 2009. The Decipherment of Indus Script.  New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Uncommon Indus Signs from Tri-Fork to Quint-Fork and Beyond

Of the eight infrequently occurring Indus signs discussed in this post, the first is the most common.  Due to its most frequently encountered shape, I term it E TRI-FORK, enumerating it V55 (the fifty-fifth of the five-stroke signs).  This symbol does not appear in published lists except that of Wells, where it is numbered W265.  Wells states that there are 48 occurrences in three variants.  He notes 35 examples from Mohenjo daro, 11 from Harappa, and two from Lothal.  His three variants include only one that is shaped like our letter “E” placed at an angle on a post (“a” variant).  The “b” variant has an extra diagonal stroke, while the “c” is distinct in form.  This last variant involves four horizontal prongs attached to a vertical post, thus more resembling our letter “F” but with additional prongs.  The “E” shape (or “a” variant) appears at all three sites, while he notes “b” appearing only at Mohenjo daro.  He does not enumerate the occurrences of “c” nor locate them.

Inscription from L-90: LOOP ARMED MAN WITH STICK / E TRI-FORK / PINCH //

THREE QUOTES / GARDEN.

Both Wells’ “a” and “c” variants are written with five strokes, so I would classify them as variants of one sign.  However, since I classify symbols first based upon stroke number, “b” requires a separate listing and enumeration among the six-stroke signs.  In addition, I would add a fourth variant, “D,” written with a vertical post to which are attached four diagonal prongs, as found on Agr-1, Agr-2, and Agr-3.  If one wishes to be quite precise, the sign on Agr-3 is yet another variant, as the “post” is curved (cf. the “CEE WITH FOUR SLASHES as variant “D” of my QUAD-FORK, also known as KP162 and W582).

Inscription from H-129: COIL / HEADLESS FLYING BIRD / VEE IN DIAMOND / BI-QUOTES // BACK E TRI-FORK / FISH / FISH UNDER CHEVRON / POT // LAMBDA / E-TRI-FORK (QUINT-FORK, "c" variant). 

One of the instances of the E TRI-FORK from Lothal that is listed by Wells has been misidentified, in my view.  On L-47, the sign is more likely part of the PINWHEEL (ZEE), V21.  But there may be two occurrences, L-90 and possibly L-88 (the latter listed as W263, my “A” variant of the QUAD-FORK, V54).  One instance from Harappa appears to have five prongs (H-129, otherwise classified by Wells as variant “a” but to my eyes an instance of “c”).

In proto-Elamite, there is a sign that resembles the letter “F” but with three prongs rather than two, positioned diagonally (M502).  This is analogous to the “c” variant of the Indus sign, to use Wells’ subdivisions.  Another proto-Elamite sign resembles the “a” variant, a diagonally slanting “E” at the end of a post, although again positioned horizontally (M075~m).  The latter sign also has two chevrons adorning the “post” and a wedge-shaped impression at the “base” (i.e., on the right, opposite the end with the “E”).

Much later in the Bronze Age than the Iranian proto-writing system comes Linear B, with a symbol vaguely resembling a curved “E” (or Greek eta) on a post.  With an extra curve at the top of the post outlining the back of the “E” here, this symbol represents the syllable ma.

A motif resembling a diagonal “E” on a long post juxtaposed with another paralleling it appears in the repertoire of symbols from Old Europe (DS 157).  In this symbol, the “E” shapes come at the far ends of the posts, the upper one a slash with the “E” at the upper right, the lower one a slash with the “E” at the lower left.  A similar motif includes a single slash with both “E” shapes attached, one at either end (DS 154).  A single “E” on the right end of the slash is another motif (DS 152).  There is also an upright “F” that appears backward compared to our letter (DS 139).

Among various runes used still later to write in the Old Germanic system, there are two more symbols resembling our “F” (Gulharnet).  The sound “a” appears as an “F” with prongs that slant downward, i.e., two backslashes attached to the right side of a post (used for the short “a” sound transcribed with “ae” in Anglo-Saxon).  The sound of “f” occurs with two prongs attached to the same side of a post, but this time slanting upward (also used in Anglo-Saxon runes).

Inscription from M-385: POTTED ONE / FISH WITH TRIPLED FINS / BUD / BI-QUOTES // FOUR QUOTES / TRI-FORK.

The second symbol from the Indus script appears to be a BUD, V56.  It resembles at flower bud with two leaves attached to a stem that is sometimes a vertical post, sometimes a curving line.  This symbol occurs in other lists as KP103, W247, and Fs E-4.  Fairservis sees this as a plant, perhaps a cotton plant, meaning “cotton (as a crop).”  Wells notes eight occurrences, seven at Mohenjo daro, one at Lothal (M-28, -34, -55, -626, -663, and -1089; L-79).  To these, I add two more instances from Mohenjo daro (M-385, -840) and one from Banawali (B-27).  Although Wells only notes a single variant, I see at least three.  One instance from Mohenjo daro has the vertical stem just mentioned (M-66, as well as the occurrence from Lothal), while others have a curved stem.  Another instance from Mohenjo daro adds an apparent ground line to the base of the stem (M-663).

The Indus BUD somewhat resembles the Egyptian hieroglyph depicting a lotus bud (M10).  The glyph also has a curved stem, with an oval tip that is pointed at both ends.  The Egyptian lotus bud does not have the leaves seen in the Indus symbol and the Indus BUD lacks the line crossing the bud seen in the Egyptian glyph.  Thus, the two are clearly not identical.

In proto-cuneiform, one sign very much resembles a bud on a curving stem, GI.  This “bud” lacks any crossing mark such as the Egyptian glyph has, but also lacks the apparent “leaves” of the Indus sign.  Instead, GI has three diagonal marks arising from the “stem,” two backslashes on top and one slash between these on the bottom (as GI is horizontal).  GI came to mean “reed” and a measure of length approximating three meters (six cubits).

Linear B has the syllabic sign za, an oval on a post, with a short horizontal stroke immediately beneath the oval.  This somewhat resembles the straight-stemmed variant of the Indus sign, but with a simple horizontal line substituting for the Indus “leaves.”  Another Linear B sign, qa, is an oval on a post with two half-circles attached to the oval, one on either side.  A third syllabic sign is ku, an oval attached on the side of the sign, to a bent stroke.  Between these two elements is a long curving line resembling a closing parenthesis.

Old Chinese provides a more distant visual analog with xin1, “to offend one’s superior; and the consequence of it, chastisement, pain, bitterness” (Wieger 1965: 250).  This is now the 160^th radical, a character which also occurs among the Celestial Stems.  The latter group combines with that of the Earthly Branches in the old Chinese calendar.  There are 10 of the Celestial Stems and 12 Earthly Branches, creating in all a cycle of 60 distinctively named years.  Xin is the eighth in the list of Celestial Stems, one of two associated with the western direction, planet Venus, and the element of metal (or gold) (Fenn and Tseng 1940: XXVII).

Old Chinese character xin above; modern style below.

The rock art of North America also occasionally contains a motif resembling the Indus BUD.  A rare instance in Texas appears to be angled downward, with the “bud” at lower right and two rounded “leaves” at the upper left (Newcomb 1996: 101, Pl. 58).  In Nevada, three instances with a similar outline may represent birds (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 113, fig. 50c).  The “leaves” then represent the wings of the birds and the “flower buds” the birds’ heads.

The following Indus sign is STRIPED DEE, V57.  It resembles our letter “D” containing two internal stripes that parallel the back of the sign.  Also known as KP181, W566, and Fs M-1, the symbol represents a lute or lyre, according to Fairservis, meaning “song, music.”  Whether this is correct or not, V57 is a singleton, appearing only at Mohenjo daro (M-73).

In proto-cuneiform, a “D” shape with a single internal stripe is GAR, which came to mean “storeroom; to form.”  Another sign resembles a “D” with three short backslashes inside: IR~c, which came to mean “scent, odor; perfume, fragrance.”  Neither represents a musical instrument.  In contrast, “round harp” is BALAG, a curved “b” shape with three backslashes joining the rounded, lower segment with the upper stem.  This is a representation of a real stringed instrument.  Note that it does not resemble the Indus STRIPED DEE.

Inscription from M-73: STRIPED DEE / SPEAR / COMB.

There is another “D” whose meaning one should consider, this one found among the Luwian hieroglyphs.  In this case, the rounded side faces downward, with the flat side up.  Its meaning is CAELUM, “sky.”  This “D” shape contains a single stripe paralleling the flat side and four short strokes perpendicular to the stripe.  These last four join the stripe and the flat side of the “D.”  Variants of the proto-cuneiform GAR also include short strokes at a 90 degree angle to the long internal stripe.  The “b” variant has two and the “a” variant three.

Proto-Elamite contains a single sign that is essentially “D” shaped, again with the rounded side downward, flat side upward (M378).  There are, in addition, two stripes inside the “D” that parallel the flat side, each stripe also extending a bit beyond the edges of the “D” shape.  Also, inside the basic “D” shape is another, smaller “D” shape that shares the same flat side.  The meaning of this sign is unknown.

Linear B includes a single sign resembling a backward “D.”  It has no internal stripes and must represent the crescent moon, as its meaning is “month.”  One might assume that this simpler sign could not share the same meaning as the Indus sign, because the ancient Greek symbol has no internal striping.  And what could internal stripes represent, in a depiction of the moon?  However, internal striping may not be meaningful in itself in the Indus symbol.  Many signs in this system contain internal striping, as do occasional pictorial elements.

Inscription from broken seal K-29: THREE POSTS UNDER CHEVRON / BI-QUOTES,
a prefix, over head of short-horned bull and part of trough.

The next Indus sign to discuss is in the form of THREE POSTS UNDER CHEVRON, V58.  It also appears in the literature as KP149 and W220, but does not occur in Fairservis.  It is another singleton according to Wells, appearing only at Kalibangan (K-29).

This sign, simple as it appears, has few parallels elsewhere.  But there are three possibilities in the proto-cuneiform system.  These are all rotated 90 degrees compared to the Indus sign, as is typical.  The first takes the form of a chevron over what I term a “stacked eight” (four posts over four posts), GI6.  This came to mean “black, dark.”  When this symbol occurs over two diamonds side by side, each containing a short stroke, the sign is GIG, which came to mean “illness; injury.”  A chevron over just two posts is |SZU2.2(N57)|.  In other words, the basic sign here is the chevron (SZU2) with two numerical strokes added.  This ligature came to mean “cover, covering surface; to set, become dark; to overthrow, throw down.”

An earlier form of proto-cuneiform, made by pressing a marked token (a small clay object) into clay or incising the mark alone, represents a type of garment or cloth (Schmandt-Besserat 1996: 75).  In this case, the chevron portion is quite large in comparison to the very short strokes beneath.  But the short strokes number three, just as in the Indus sign.

Inscription from tablet H-890 (reading from right to left): DIAMOND WITH TICK /

 CUP / STACKED SEVEN BETWEEN PARENS / POT.

Another Indus sign is V59, DIAMOND WITH TICK.  It has two forms, both essentially a diamond shape with a diagonal stroke added to cross one lower side, thus resembling an angular letter “Q.”  Also known as KP361, but not appearing in Fairservis, it has two enumerations in Wells.  The first is W401, shown as a diamond with an added slash on the left; the second, W499, with an added backslash on the right.  Wells sees the former as a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-293), the second as occurring twice at Harappa (H-890, H-205). 

I see both M-293 and H-890 as the same, with the added stroke on the lower right.  The instance from Mohenjo daro is on a seal and that from Harappa is on a tablet (H-205, also on a tablet, is too unclear for my eyes to read).  Since the signs on seals are assumed to be in reverse (so they will appear in the right form in impressions), we would expect these two instances to mirror one another, not match.  Wells regularly reverses the signs as they appear on seals for this reason, while I choose to present them as they actually appear.  That makes it clear where our expectations fail to be met, as in this case.

Proto-cuneiform provides a type of diamond-shaped sign with an additional stroke in HI x 1 (|HI x 1(N57)@t being the closest variant in form to the Indus sign).  The basic diamond came to mean “to mix; mixed,” while the additional stroke is a numerical mark.  The added numerical mark is a slash that crosses the diamond and projects outside on the upper right.  Thus, this symbol is not identical to the Indus V59.

In proto-Elamite also, there are signs adding a single stroke in various ways to a basic diamond.  The one most like the Indus sign is M243~b which attaches a backslash to the left side of the diamond at its point.  Again, this is not identical in form to the Indus sign.  Similarly, the Old European repertoire of motifs includes a diamond with a single added element, in this case a central dot (OE218).

Old Germanic runes use a diamond bisected by along vertical stroke that begins above the diamond, crosses the diamond, and then descends further (Gullhornet).  This represents the “th” sound.  In the Anglo-Saxon runes, the same symbol represents a “j.”  A diamond with a crossing and descending vertical stroke denotes “w” in the old Germanic system, the “oe” sound in the Anglo-Saxon.  Again, although the Indus DIAMOND WITH A TICK is quite simple to make, it fails to be duplicated exactly elsewhere.

Inscription M-278 as shown on seal over elephant: CIRCLED VEE / BI-QUOTES // FOUR QUOTES / QUINT-FORK (CURVED) / TRIPLE BRICK.  I have artificially colored this and smoothed out the image on the original.

My sign V60 is a QUINT-FORK with a curved shape at the top.  This particular form of five-pronged fork only appears in Wells (W274).  He notes it as a singleton from Mohenjo daro (M-278).  It bears a slight resemblance to proto-cuneiform GAL~a which came to mean “big, large, great.”  The proto-cuneiform sign is entirely angular, however, and more closely resembles the Indus RAKE, which I have yet to discuss (six prongs).  Proto-Elamite M039~c1 resembles a “7” that has fallen over to the left, and to which are added five short strokes over the former top.

Old European motifs include one like the ancient Iraqi GAL, an angular “rake” form with six prongs on top (DS175).  This also has a base line.  Altogether, it only slightly resembles the curved Indus V60.  In Linear B there is an element with a curved based set atop a post, the former having three rounded prongs.  The sign is an ideograph for “olive oil.”  Since even the prongs are rounded, this does not closely resemble the Indus sign.  Even more distantly analogous is a three-pronged plant-like form on the Phaistos Disk.

Inscription H-7 as seen on seal: BOAT WITH PADDLE (? or GREATER THAN WITH TICK) / BOWTIE (1 STRIPE) / SINGLE QUOTE // FAT EX / JAY / CEE BOAT.  As with other images, I have simplified and smoothed the actual form of the seal, adding false color to increase clarity.

The final sign for today’s post is the Indus V61, BOWTIE (1 STRIPE).  It occurs elsewhere as KP225, W465, and Fs M-2.  Fairservis sees this as a variant of the simple BOWTIE (unstriped), representing a drum.  Wells notes it as another singleton (H-7).  I see the stripe inside as a short stroke on the right, one which does not touch either the top or the bottom of that side of the BOWTIE.  Wells presents it reversed, as do Koskenniemi and Parpola.

This shape resembles that shown inside the butcher’s block in Egyptian hieroglyphs (T28).  This glyph is semi-ideographic in a meaning “under.”  In proto-cuneiform there is a “bowtie” shape containing a single stroke that bisects the whole sign.  This is ZAG~c, which came to mean “boundary, border, edge; should; beginning; district; sanctuary, shrine; a measure for fish; right (side); outside, front.”  These varied meanings may originally have been separate words that sounded the same in Sumerian, with only one being the original.  I do not know which is the original, however.

In Old Chinese, a character is formed of two rounded triangles, placed one over the other but with the apex of one overlapping the apex of the other.  Together, they form an element resembling the basic BOWTIE of Indus script.  To this element, the Chinese add either a stroke above or a stroke below.  For an example, the reader may go to the Flickr website, to BabelStone’s Photostream.  Among the Precious Seals of the Qing Dynasty, no. 81 contains this character.  It is located in the center of the second column from the right, in a compound character (or ligature) with a character representing a boar.

A Dotted Donut, Duck Head, Leaf, and Fork in the Harappan Script

This first symbol discussed in this post appears only in the list published by Koskenniemi and Parpola, as KP369.  In the form shown by this team of researchers, the sign is a circle within a circle – a DONUT in my terms.  Inside the central circle there is a diagonal crossing stroke, a small backslash.  The existence of such a sign in the Indus script is problematic since no other list I am aware of shows it and I did not record such a symbol in my own database.  However, there is a “donut” with a simple dot in the center which appears both in inscriptions and on the “B” sides of various artifacts (where the “A” side typically bears the inscription).  On the basis of this observation, I revise the form of KP369 in my own list and term it DOTTED DONUT, numbered V51 (the fifty-first of the five-stroke signs).

*

Usually, I report the frequency of each symbol as shown in Wells’ data.  Since his list does not include this sign, I must make do with my own observations.  The sign appears as an oval, pointed at top and bottom, with a smaller oval inside, and a dot inside the inner circle on the following: M-424 (seal impression on pot), M-1191, and K-52.  It is doubled in the case of the last two.  I give this variant the subclass “A.”  A nearly perfect circle with smaller circle inside, the latter dotted in the center, appears on Rpr-1B, H-342B, M-1259 and M-1260, L-100B, K-57 and K-58.  I term this one the “B” variant.  The DOTTED DONUT appears twice, side by side, on Rpr-1B and L-100B; three times on K-57 (two over one); and four times (2 x 2) on M-1259, M-1260, and K-58.  If one wishes to include all of these as occurrences of a single symbol, the sign-bearing artifacts occur a total of 10 times.  Since the sign itself is repeated on some of these artifacts, the total number of times that the sign occurs is greater.

Proto-cuneiform includes a sign that is quite similar, namely, SZA3~a2.  In form, it is an oval pointed at the top and bottom, inside of which there is another oval of the same shape.  This came to mean “intestines, gut; heart; womb; interior, middle,” and various other things as well.  Obviously, this symbol lacks the central dot (or backslash) of the Indus sign.

Luwian hieroglyphs provide a distant parallel with hara / hiri.  This take the form of a very round “donut” or circle in circle, upon which an “X” is superimposed.  From the lower right, a diagonal stroke descends.  Thus, there is an additional feature in this symbol not found in the Indus sign (the “X”) and the other element, the backslash in this case, is outside the “donut” rather than inside.

Linear B includes an ideographic symbol that is much like the Luwian glyph.  The Mycenaean Linear B sign is a “donut” upon which a cross is superimposed, meaning “wheel.”  This sign appears on clay tablets that also detail parts of chariots, so the symbol itself probably depicts a cartwheel.  It is highly simplified, most likely, since an actual chariot’s wheel that had only four spokes would be terribly fragile.  Even so, this is the form shown on a chariot seen in a wall painting from Tiryns, as well.

Seal M-165 showing DUCK HEAD (first sign on left, second row)

(PhotoShop enhanced with color added by author, from Joshi and Parpola 1987: 49).

The second Indus sign discussed in this post is the DUCK HEAD, V52.  It has no KP or Fs number, but resembles a sign that Fairservis enumerates B-6.  In Wells, it is W90.  The version that Fairservis depicts is a circle with a central dot and a slightly curving “<” sign attached on the right, with three prongs rising from the top of the circle and three descending from the base of the circle.  Fairservis considers this the head of a shrieking or calling bird.  Thus, I have termed the simple version (a dotted circle with attached “<” on the right) the DUCK HEAD.  While I use this term, I do not mean to say that I consider the sign to actually depict a bird’s head.  Wells notes that this symbol appears only once, at Mohenjo daro (M-165).  It may be a variant of the type shown in Fairservis, which will be covered later in the list of eleven-stroke signs.

Among the Egyptian hieroglyphs depicting birds and parts thereof, one is the head of a crested bird with a dot for an eye, two plumes extending from the back of the head, and a long bill (H2).  This is a phonetic determinative, a triliteral m3’ as in “temple (of the head)” and “real.”  The two plumes somewhat resemble the Indus sign’s curving “less than” element, except that the Egyptian bird’s plumes nearly parallel each other and the open “beak” of the Indus sign is made of two lines curving away from each other.  Another Egyptian glyph unrelated to birds somewhat resembles the Indus sign.  This is an eye with three lines descending from the lower edge (D9).  It is ideographic in the word “to weep.”  The lines, then, are meant to indicate tears falling from the eye.  A third glyph is a simple circle with three similar lines descending from it (N8).  This represents sunshine, occurring as a determinative in “to shine” and “to rise.”  Depictions of the sun, as shown on a chair and on the golden sarcophagus of King Tut, show such descending rays.

Sun as it appears on the back of a chair found in Tut's tomb; above, the same sun from a simplified version of the same scene, from a poster for the King Tut exhibition of 1979 (both somewhat PhotoShop enhanced by author).  Scene shows Tut seated, with his wife Ankhesenamen standing before him.  Sun is depicted as Aten was under Akhenaten, with uraeus and descending rays, resembling the glyph that means "sunshine."

In Old Chinese, one variant representing the human eye appears in the form of a dotted circle, with two curving marks similar to the Indus “duck bill,” but these are inside the circle rather than outside.  These depict the lids of the eye, in the word for “eye,” mu4 (Wieger 1965: 322).  The eye is now the 109^th radical, in form a tall rectangle with two crossing horizontal lines.

Other early variants of the Chinese “eye” are ovals in form, either wide horizontally or tall vertically, with crossing lines as found in the modern character.  This form is the basis for additional characters, including jien4, “to look” (1965: 323).  This eye rests on a simple motif depicting two legs.  In the modern character, these resemble the “bill” of the Indus sign.  But in the ancient form, one of the legs is often shown with a curious bend.  An almost identical character is an oval with two horizontal lines crossing it, resting on two short strokes.  This represents a cowrie shell, in the word bei4, “A cowrie, a small shell used for money in China in early feudal times” (1965: 328).  On the eye, again, yet another character has four strokes in a pattern resembling the letter “M.”  This is mu4, “the eyes divergent...; squint, confused view” (1965: 324).

The Indus sign also resembles a proto-cuneiform sign, |U4.SZU2|.  This takes the form of a thick, backward “C” shape, a small curve resting in its wider curve  -- the sun rising in a valley between two hills, or some such notion – and a “less than” sign attached on the right.  The U4 portion is the backward cee with its curve, indicating “sun, day” and the two additional strokes on the right are SZU2.  In later cuneiform, u4-szu2-usz(-e) means “daily; day by day; sunset” while ^dutu-szu2-a “sunset; west.”  The same or a similar U4 sign, a simple backward C with curve in it has two horizontal lines attached on the left: |U4 x 2 (N57)|.  This indicates two days.

In Luwian hieroglyphs, a syllabic glyph bears a faint resemblance to the Indus sign, namely, ta.  In form this is an animal’s head, round in general shape and with a small circle inside it.  On the lower left a thin rectangle is attached at an angle, resembling a fat slash.  This portion is bisected longitudinally by a central line, also containing a crossing stroke near the round portion of the head (a halter?).  On the top of the animal’s head are two long, pointed ears, which recall the “bill” of the Indus DUCK HEAD.

Linear B also contains symbols with an added element reminiscent of the “bill.”  This additional element is rotated 90 degrees compared to the Indus “bill,” forming a “roof”-like motif.  It appears beneath schematic heads of various animals to indicate female sex.  Thus, a backward, rotated “R” shape above this “roof” represents “ewe,” a female sheep.  A “P”-like motif resting on its back and with additional strokes on the right rests on another “roof,” indicating “cow.”  The corresponding male animals – ram and bull – are indicated by substituting a “shish kebab” with two crossing strokes for the “roof.”

Inscription from seal M-817: CAGED FAT EX IN DIAMOND / LEAF / SPEAR

(hand copy from Shah and Parpola 1991: 71; also shows horn and ear of unicorn bull).

Third is the LEAF, in shape resembling a Valentine’s heart turned upside down, resting on a short post.  In my list, it is V53, also known as KP111, W255, and Fs E6b.  Fairservis considers it a pipal leaf, presumably, as he calls the striped version of this same shape such a leaf.  He supposes that it means “head or high superior as in Chief or God, royal in Harappan sense).  Wells notes four occurrences of this sign, three of them at Mohenjo daro (M-33, M-772, M-817) and one at Dholavira (Dlv-1).  In all of these, it occurs in a medial position, neither as part of the prefix nor as a terminal, to use Korvink’s terms.

There are few parallels to such a shape among the symbols I have observed elsewhere.  There is a proto-cuneiform sign somewhat resembling the “heart” portion, DIN, which came to mean “life, health, vigor; wine.”  Perhaps in Iraq it originally represented a wine vessel.  In Luwian, REL, “relative” (i.e., member of the family), is quite similar in one variant.  Here it is not a closed “heart” shape but much the same outline at the top (the pointed end of the “heart”) coming down to two curves on either side of the central post.  Two other glyphs are based on a shape resembling a distorted “heart” on its side.  The first of these, INFRA/SUB, “down/below” has a diagonal stroke attached to the lower left.  The same glyph with an additional crook, similar to a shepherd’s crook, attached on the upper right is CUM, “with.”

Linear B has another Valentine’s “heart” shape, right side up this time, with a central bisecting vertical that has a bit of curve above the “heart.”  This represents the syllable tu.  Finally, on the Phaistos Disk, there is a symbol somewhat resembling a centrally bisected Valentine’s heart, but with a flat base.  Its meaning is unknown.

Inscription L-88 from bar seal: BIRD / GRID / DOWN BI-FORK / SINGLE QUOTE / FIVE QUOTES / QUAD-FORK ("A" variant) (Joshi and Parpola 1987: 259; image given false color and smoothed in PhotoShop).

The fourth and last sign discussed here is what I term the QUAD-FORK, V54.  It seems to me that that there are four variations on this one sign, but others divide them differently.  My variants “A” and “B” are basically “Y” shapes, with two additional strokes inside the upper portion.  In variant “A” the additional strokes rest against the left side of the “Y,” while my variant “B” has its additional strokes resting against the right side.  In other words, in both cases, four prongs rise above the post portion, the two outer ones directly from this post, the two central ones from one side or the other.  The possession of four prongs rather than fewer (as in the BI-FORK and TRI-FORK) or more prongs (as in the QUINT-FORK) is the crucial variable by which I assign both variants to a single sign number.  Wells separates these, numbering the first W263, the second W269.  Neither appears in Koskenniemi and Parpola’s list or in that of Fairservis, who do not distinguish among all versions of “forks.” 

Inscription from seal H-50: MAN WITH DEE-SLASH / QUAD-FORK / POTTED ONE / MALLET / QUAD-FORK ("B" variant) / POT (Joshi and Parpola 1987: 181; detail, colored and smoothed in PhotoShop for clarity by author). 

Note horn of unicorn bull on lower left.

Variant “C” is, in my estimation, a “U” curve resting on a post, with two short strokes rising from inside the “U.”  Wells again enumerates this separately, as W271.  Variant “D” may be another version of the QUAD-FORK, or may be considered a distinct sign.  It occurs at Mohenjo daro on a single seal, as a “C” curve from which rise four prongs.  This is KP162 and W582 but does not appear in Fairservis.  The frequency of W263 (my variant “A”) is 71 total: Mohenjo daro 14, Harappa 56, Lothal one.  The frequency of W269 (my variant “B”) appears only three times, twice at Mohenjo daro and once at Harappa.  My variant “C” is Wells’ W271, which also occurs three times: once each at Mohenjo daro, Banawali, and Surkotada.

Inscription from seal Sktd-1: CARTWHEEL / MAN WITH DEE-SLASH / QUAD-FORK (variant "C") / BI-QUOTES / FOUR QUOTES / TRI-FORK (detail from Joshi and Parpola 1987: 362; image considerably smoothed and given color for clarity, whereas original is chipped and abraded).

The type of “forks” appearing as variants “A” and “B” are rarely found outside the Indus Valley.  However, proto-Elamite contains a sign that bears some resemblance to these in M039 and its variants (especially “c” and “c1”).  These appear as “L” shapes, lying horizontally, with prongs attached to the short side of the “L.”  Such a distinctive “fork” occurs with three prongs (M039 and M039~c), with four prongs (M039~c1), and with five prongs (M039~a).  In this, it resembles the various “forks” in the Indus script, the TRI-FORK or trident, the QUAD-FORK with four strokes above the post, and the QUINT-FORK with five upper strokes.  Another sign resembles “Y” horizontally positioned, with two additional strokes inside the “V” portion (M075).  Unlike the Indus signs based on “Y” shapes, the proto-Elamite sign’s additional prongs arise as straight horizontal lines, one from each side of the “V” portion.

Inscription from seal M-210: QUAD-FORK ("D" variant) / VEE IN DIAMOND / STRIPED FAT LEG LAMBDA

(Joshi and Parpola 1987: 55; image smoothed and color added in PhotoShop).

The rock art of Nevada also contains a four-pronged motif, this one similar to my variant “C” of the Indus sign (Heizer and Baumhoff 1984: 163, fig. 100h; 177: fig. 114j).  The first is upside down compared to the Indus sign, the second occurrence being right side up.  There does not seem to be a form based on a “Y” shape.

In proto-cuneiform the sign termed DA~b is only vaguely similar.  In this case, instead of a “post” there is a rectangular element on the right.  On the left, four diagonal lines extend upward, while a fifth line is curved downward.  This is a representation of a hand with part of the forearm, a sign that came to mean “arm, side; hold, be near.”  I include this not so much because it resembles the Indus sign (which it does only vaguely, as noted) but because it suggests a possible meaning for at least some of the “forks.”  They may be schematic representations of the human hand. 

In the discussion of the TRI-FORK, I noted Old Chinese using a trident shape to represent the human hand.  Here I note zhi2, meant to depict the heel of the foot, or a footprint, with derived meanings “to march (the feet moving); to halt, stop (the feet being still)” (Wieger 1965: 263).  This appears as a curving “L” shape from the base of which rises a vertical stroke.  From the latter vertical, a backward “L” shape (again curved) springs, midway up.  This character has become the 77^th radical.

Detail from a Mixtec lienzo showing a person sitting on part of a place sign, with footprints

leading to the place on lower left (Smith 1973: 225; image smoothed and given false color in

PhotoShop). Place name is added in old-fashioned Spanish spelling for Tequiztepec. 

In Mixtec proto-writing, a journey to one place or a visit between individuals is represented with footprints (Smith 1973: 223, fig. 8; 225, fig. 13).  The first instance is a marriage scene, the second an escape scene.  Sometimes footprints resemble real human footprints fairly closely, with the heel and the ball of the foot joined on one side or the other.  Above the ball of the foot are dots denoting the toes.  But some representations are less realistic, more like a numeral seven with dots above the short stroke.  Most of the time there are fives dots, as one would expect.  But close examination reveals some variation in the actual lienzos.  There may be only four or, occasionally, three toe dots, and a few times there are six.  It seems that the Mixtec artists were not counting the toes, only drawing what looked about right.  The same kinds of variation seem to appear among the Indus TRI-FORK, QUAD-FORK, and QUINT-FORK.

The Linear B sign for the syllable se is also a “7” like symbol, with four prongs or short strokes above.  Or it might be considered a post with a horizontal attached near the top, on the right, with three additional strokes above this horizontal.  In contrast, re is represented by a trident based on a curve, recalling my variant “C” of V54.

The Phaistos Disk bears one final symbol that, again, only faintly resembles the Indus sign.  The symbol on the disk is often described as a seashell, but it looks very much like a small baseball mitt or very fat mitten with the fingers and thumb separately depicted.  It cannot really be a baseball mitt, obviously.  But it might represent a hand.

Thus, if we include all of my proposed variants for the QUAD-FORK, “A” through “D,” this sign is the most common of those discussed in this post.  It appears 78 times in all.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE:

Smith, M.E. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma.