The Syntax of Symbols with a Notch

exploring those symbols with a strange notch when without a rod

When a symbol loses its rod, it may also get one or two small notches in its edge. This only occurs on Class I examples, never Class II.

The double-disc and crescent symbols, when without a rod, both have notches in them. However, the snake and notched-rectangle symbols, when without their rod, don’t seem to add an extra notch.

The double-disc with a notch

There are three CI examples of the double-disc with notches, Newton House, Westfield1, and Inchyra. The only other two examples of a double-disc symbol, Drumbuie1 and Fyvie2, are both no longer complete, so it’s not possible to say with certainty whether they would have had a notch or not.

The double-disc symbol with one or two notches: Newton House (photo by Douglas Ledingham), Inchyra, and Westfield1

The crescent with a notch

The crescent also has a circular inlet in its lower edge when losing its rod, as seen on the Daviot and Roseisle stones. There is only one other Class I crescent, at Breck of Hillwell, Shetland, however I have only seen a sketch of this badly worn stone, so I can’t myself confirm whether or not it too has a notch.

The crescent without a rod and an added notch: Roseisle and Daviot

The rectangle symbol with a notch

A stone found at Dyce in 2018 has a small rectangle symbol with a notch in its upper edge. The rectangle has lost its dominance in the symbol pair as is shown by its small size in relation to the larger cauldron symbol below, plus the mirror+comb which indicates that dominance rests with the lower symbol on this stone.

This is the only case of a symbol that does not normally have a rod with floriate ends being given a notch when it loses dominance. However, the rectangle symbol usually has one, occasionally two, lines dividing it horizontally.

The examples of this symbol which are small compared to the accompanying symbol have lost their dominance in the symbol pair. These small non-dominant versions of the rectangle, for example the Old Leslie stone, do not have a horizontal line dividing them internally, so it may be that the dividing line which is seen on the full-size symbol was regarded as the equivalent of a rod.

The new Dyce stone with a notch in its smaller (subordinate) rectangle symbol (photo by Douglas Ledingham)

This recent discovery at Dyce is not the only rectangle with an inlet. A while ago, another rectangle symbol with a rounded inlet, Ackergill2, was found, unfortunately without its accompanying symbol.

the Ackergill2 fragment with its inlet. Compare to full-sized rectangle of Golspie with no inlet but with a horizontal dividing line

So for some reason, the rectangle symbol was considered appropriate to mark with a notch when not dominant on a stone. Which likely means we should think of this symbol with its horizontal dividing line as in the same group as the rodded symbols.

The ‘flower’ symbol

The square inlet in the Dyce rectangle may also be related to a square inlet in the base of the so-called ‘flower’ symbol (possibly meaning ‘fire’). Usually the ‘flower’ symbol has just a straight base, but on a couple of stones, Golspie and Park House, this symbol has a square inlet in its base.

On the Golspie stone, the notched ‘flower’ symbol is paired (by size) with a rodless crescent. The Park House stone has a mirror+comb, so the notched ‘flower’ is the upper symbol that is losing its precedence. Both these examples then are in a context where the symbol with a notch has lost its precedence.

Golspie1 and Park House, both with a notch in the base of the ‘flower’ symbol

Despite this, it’s not a clearcut case. Just a possibility to bear in mind. Other ‘flower’ symbols do not have this notch, and it’s unclear whether in that case they are all the dominant symbol.

Pabbay and Dunnichen ‘flower’ symbols, both without notch in their base

Summing up the symbols with a notch

The symbol when losing its rod, or when drawn smaller, is indicating its loss of dominance to the other symbol in the pair, and such a symbol may have its subordinate status further emphasised by the addition of a small notch. This doesn’t occur in all instances of symbols without a rod, so doesn’t appear to be a requirement.

Notches only occur on Class I symbols, not on Class II, despite there being many more instances of symbols without their rods being used in the CII period.

It’s unclear if the notch has a meaning apart from emphasising the non-dominant status of the symbol. However, I can’t help but think that the notch may be ‘destroying’ the symbol, just as real objects are bent or broken to symbolically destroy them when used as ritual deposits.