THE SYNTAX OF THE PICTISH SYMBOLS (PART 4): THE MIRROR AND COMB
How the concept of ‘precedence’ for one symbol of the pair is marked by the mirror and comb
A pair of Pictish symbols is often accompanied by a mirror and comb. Out of a total of 202 available symbol pairs, there are 42 cases with an accompanying mirror+comb, roughly 1 in 5 stones. So the function of the mirror+comb must be a crucial part of the how the symbol stones work, but what does the mirror+comb signify?
As part of the answer to this question, I will need to discuss what I am calling ‘precedence’, where one symbol has ‘precedence’ over its accompanying symbol on a stone. And then I will be proposing that the mirror+comb changes the precedence from the upper symbol to the lower symbol.
Admittedly, it’s a complicated story, so I hope you’ll bear with me as I try to unravel this puzzle!
Determining the normal order and the usual dominance
In previoius blogs, I’ve discussed how the Pictish symbols can be shown to come from an ordered set of symbols. When two symbols are chosen for a symbol stone, they are usually placed on the stone in the same relative order as they occur in this ordered list. I’ve also written how a single mirror, without a comb, occurs under a pair in the reverse order.
The majority of symbol pairs, about three quarters of them, have neither mirror nor mirror+comb, and are in the ‘normal’ order - the same relative order as they occur in the ordered list. In this configuration, the top symbol on a stone is the ‘dominant’ symbol - the symbol that on this stone has ‘precedence’ - an aspect of the syntax of the symbols which I will discuss as we go.
Why one symbol has precedence in a pair is beyond the scope of this blog. It does however indicate that a symbol pair is not just a selection of two independently acting symbols, but rather it implies that there is some kind of relationship between the symbol pair, and that there is relationship imbalance between them, an imbalance that is particular to each stone.
The choice of which symbol is to have precedence on a particular stone is being driven by some external factor particular to the context of each symbol stone. It is not just dependent on a particular pair of symbols, as each symbol pair can, and does, occur in all possible configurations.
I am using the terms ‘precedence’ and ‘dominance’ here interchangeably. I do not mean to imply the nature of this precedence at this stage, just that there is some kind of relationship between the two symbols on a stone in which one performs a more importance role than the other.
The mirror + comb
The first difficulty with trying to analyse what the mirror+comb might signify on a symbol stone, is that so often a symbol pair with a mirror+comb is in the normal order, with no immediately obvious difference between a stone with or without a mirror+comb.
Here is the group of Class I symbol stones which have a crescent/V and Pictish beast, which we can use as a sample of possible configurations. The first two, Inveravon4 and Kintore1, have their symbol pair in the correct normal order – crescent/V over the Pictish beast, with no mirror+comb. The next two, Kinblethmont and Golspie2, have their symbols in the same normal oder – but with the addition of the mirror+comb. Strathmartine1, Fyvie1 and Logie Elphinstone3 all have an unclear mirror+comb status. Crichie is one of perhaps three stones in the entire corpus of Class I stones which have symbols in the reverse (incorrect?) order. Rhynie4 has symbols in the reverse order with a single mirror to indicate the reversal of the normal order.
Here we see that the mirror+comb doesn’t seem to change the normal configuration, but must somehow add some information to it. But what?
There is one factor that is largely hidden in the normal configuration – precedence. My proposal here will be this: the addition of a mirror+comb moves the precedence in a symbol pair to the lower symbol.
For example, on the Kintore1 stone with its normal order and no mirror+comb, the precedence lies with the upper symbol, the crescent/V. On the Kinblethmont stone, with the same symbols plus a mirror+comb, precedence now rests with the lower symbol, the Pictish beast.
This analysis is without a doubt rather complex and difficult, partly due to the parlous and partial state of the limited available data, but also because all of the syntax rules about face, order, and dominance, are acting on a stone in concert to result in a particular configuration, so teasing out the different elements also has to be done in combination. To simplify this discussion, I will put here the solution that I am proposing, so that I can refer to it with each piece of analysis.
When the symbol pair has a normal order, but no mirror+/-comb, the upper symbol has precedence.
When a symbol pair has a reverse order with a single mirror, the upper symbol has precedence.
A mirror+comb indicates that the lower symbol has precedence.
Distribution and context
The stones with a mirror+comb are fairly evenly scattered throughout the main areas of Pictland, all except in the north. Once moving north past the Golspie-Kintradwell area, there is only one late stone with a double-sided comb at Sandside House, not far from Thurso. There are no stones with a mirror+comb at all in Orkney or Shetland, which is remarkable as it’s these same northern islands where archaeology has found real combs.
It's also important to remember that neither the mirror, nor the mirror+comb, occur on any portable object, or as informal symbols in caves. They only occur on symbol stones. The expectation then is that the choice of symbols, their order and precedence, and the use of a mirror+/-comb, are all being driving by factors in the context and function of each individual symbol stone.
The mirror+comb as a marker of the female
The elephant in the room here is that on several Class II stones, the mirror+comb occurs with female icons, suggesting that the mirror+comb has some association with the female. But, I’ve already shown that on Class II stones, the way symbols are being configured and used changes dramatically in the later period, and in fact the mirror+comb suddenly occurs on its own without symbols at all, something that never happens on a Class I stone. So it’s not a given that the CI mirror+comb is functioning in the same manner to denote a female.
(Note: it’s not the mirror by itself that occurs with icons of women, but the mirror+comb.)
Here I will continue to largely work with the Class I syntax, to avoid any possible change in usage of the mirror+comb during the CII period.
A passing note about the idea of symbols as names. If we were to presume the symbols are names, then we’d need to explain why Pictish men and women all have the same names and would then need to be differentiated by the addition of a mirror+comb, when of course all the Pictish women we know of have different female names.
Changing the form of rods
This precedence of the upper symbol over its companion can be seen in the treatment of V and Z rods. Each rodded symbol comes with a standard form of rod (speaking only of CI stones, as again things deteriorate rapidly on CII stones). This standard rod form or each symbol can be seen when paired with a non-rodded symbol. But if another rodded symbol is also part of the pair, then the lower symbol can be seen to acknowledge the precedence of the upper symbol by changing the form of its own rod ends.
This behaviour demonstrates that the upper symbol of a pair on a particular stone plays the dominant role which the lower subordinate symbol must respect. If instead the lower symbol is to be given precedence on a particular stone, then special rules need to be applied to reflect the changed condition.
This study of the forms of rod ends and how they react and relate to each other can be further read about in Z RODS & V RODS of the PICTISH SYMBOLS: Analysing the Rules that Govern.
Language? This behaviour of the symbol pair, one having precedence over its companion, does seem to reflect how the Celtic languages work, where a phrase of two words has a head word and the subordinate word may change form to show its relationship to the head word. For example, the fort (dun) of Nectan (Nectan) becomes Dun Nectain, with Nectan changing its form after the head word dun. Whether this pattern means the symbol pair is a two-word phrase, or whether the pattern just reflects a common pattern of thought, I cannot at this point say.
Removing precedence from the upper symbol by making it smaller
A symbol pair is usually drawn with both symbols of roughly the same size. But on a few stones the upper symbol is drawn significantly smaller, about half the size of its companion. On Class I stones this is only allowed for the upper symbol. This is one visual method of removing the precedence of the upper symbol, handing dominance to the lower larger symbol.
There are no CI examples of a rodded symbol being drawn half size. But there are examples of one of the rodded symbols without their rod being drawn half size – which is a good indication that both the smaller size and the rod are dealing with the aspect of precedence.
On all examples with a small upper symbol, except Barmuckity, there is a mirror+comb accompanying the lower, now dominant, larger symbol. It may be that simply drawing an upper symbol smaller was not in itself usually considered enough to remove precedence.
The Newbigging Leslie stone could have let the wolf symbol have precedence simply by leaving the symbols in the normal order – wolf over rectangle. This shows that there is an external factor, or factors, which are determining what will be the order and precedence on a particular stone.
The only time that a lower symbol is drawn smaller than the upper symbol is on the Class II St Vigeans1 stone, with a double-disc/Z over a lower small crescent (no rod). We have already seen another error here, that its upper symbol is left-facing. These mounting errors indicate a very late stone which has lost, or is disregarding, the syntax rules.
Three of the pairs in this group have the snake symbol as the small upper symbol, and in all cases it has lost its Z rod. This brings us to the another rule of syntax – that a rodded symbol can lose its precedence on a stone by losing its Z or V rod.
The RH over LH symbol pairs
We have already seen in the first part of this blog series about the face of a symbol that the mirror+comb is often found on stones that have a RH over LH configuration. The addition of the mirror+comb will effectively shift precedence to the lower LH symbol.
An alternative way to give precedence to the lower symbol would be to reverse the order to put the LH symbol on top and add a sole mirror – but, we have also seen that putting a LH symbol as the upper symbol is a configuration to be avoided. So being able to keep the LH symbol as the lower symbol but despite this to give it precedence with the mirror+comb, is a solution to avoid an unwanted configuration.
In this group with a RH over LH symbol pair, perhaps all but Picardy have a mirror+comb. The Clatt1 and Fyvie1 stones may be missing their comb, but alternatively they could be using the mirror up beside the LH symbol to indicate that it’s face is reversed.
A focus on certain symbols
The mirror+comb seems to concentrate on certain symbols, for example all identifiable stones with a ‘flower’ symbol have a mirror+comb, although two have an indefinite mirror+comb status. Interestingly, the ‘flower’ symbol does not always end up as the dominant symbol. The disc-over-rectangle symbol also has a concentration of mirror+comb, but that may be because it also occurs frequently with animals.
Losing a rod
One way of changing precedence from one symbol of the pair to the other, is for one symbol to simply lose its rod so that the other symbol can retain its own form of rod ends and assert its dominance. There are instances of all four of the rodded symbols at times without their rod.
A mirror+comb is rarely present on these pairs, the only exception being two stones with the snake symbol. This indicates that the loss of a rod is usually considered sufficient to remove the dominance of a symbol.
In the next blog I will look at these rodless symbols in more detail, but for the moment it is sufficient to say that when a symbol loses its rod, it also loses precedence on that stone.
The Newton House stone is one example of a symbol losing its rod. The double-disc, although the upper symbol on this stone, hands precedence to the lower symbol, the snake/Z, by losing its rod. This allows the snake to retain its own form of rod end, without adapting it to the double-disc/Z.
Two of the same symbols in a pair
It has often been said that a symbol pair never has two of the same symbol, but there is an exceptional group of three symbol stones which do have the same symbol, although one of the pair has lost its rod. In all three cases, the mirror+comb is also added. This seems to be a special case of the use of the mirror+comb.
The full data set of the mirror+comb
I’ve decided to put the whole group of CI stones with a mirror+comb here, because it presents a very complicated picture, and I’m hoping that others will also be interested to continue this work and add to our understanding.
I’ve divided the set into groups with mirror+comb or comb+mirror, the accompanying symbol being either an animal or abstract symbol, and I’ve marked when the symbols occur in reverse order, or with a left-facing symbol.
Other observations
Order Most of the symbol pairs of these mirror+comb stones follow the normal order as seen in the ordered list of symbols. There are only three of the thirty CI stones that may have a reverse order. The Park House stone’s upper symbol is partial and broken and may not be a ‘flower’ after all, so we can possibly rule out this example. The Keith Hall stone has the worst ever form of a carved comb, which makes me unsure about the whole stone. Which leaves Tillytarmont6 as the one stone which definitely has a symbol pair in reverse.
Mirror+comb vs comb+mirror My instinct tells me that there must be some inherent significance in which way the mirror and comb is shown, but, I don’t see what it can be. I’ve separated these lists according to this difference, just in case.
Position Most of the time, the mirror+comb is fully below the symbol pair. But, sometimes they are moved up besides the lower symbol, and again my first thought was that this might be significant. However, I now think it’s just that these are on broader stones rather than taller, squared stones (thanks to Erica Birrell for drawing this to my attention). On other stones, the comb seems to be separated a bit from the mirror, and it’s still possible that this positioning might hold some further significance.
Animals There is a higher than expected number of stones with an animal on them, and I’ve separated these out in the above groupings. The immediate consideration must be that this may make the animal female, however we do have animals with both faces with a mirror+comb, so face is not relevant. I suspect that this high frequency is because the animals, with the exception of the snake and Pictish beast, occur high up in the ordered list, and so a lot of the time the animal would be the dominant symbol on a stone if the mirror+comb was not used.
The rod of the upper symbol There are only two stones on which the upper symbol has lost its rod, the snake symbol on Aberlemno1 and Knockando2, compared to 9 stones where the snake/Z has kept its rod. This shows that the upper symbol is able to keep its rod, even when it has lost its precedence by the presence of a mirror+comb. This seems to hint that losing a rod may not be just a way for a symbol to lose dominance, but it may also change the meaning of the symbol to some degree.
SUMMARY
Despite all the above complex situations, the basic use of the mirror+comb seems to come down to one function: its presence on a stone changes the precedence from the top symbol to the lower symbol.
This function can optionally be emphasised by the upper, now subordinate, symbol being drawn half-size.
Another way to change precedence is by a rodded symbol losing its rod – the subject of my next blog. This situation doesn’t usually require a mirror+comb to be added, but it may be.
The decision as to which symbol takes precedence on a particular stone is being made by the external context of the stone. All these aspects of syntax - the direction or ‘face’ of a symbol, the order they will appear on this stone, and which symbol will take precedence - all are being determined by external factors peculiar to each symbol stone and its particular context. The syntax is just the rules which govern how these decisions will be configured for display on the stone.
Will understanding these rules help us to eventually discover the meaning of the symbols themselves? Well I think so, I hope so.
Above: the Aberlemno1 stone displays all three ways of changing precedence to the lower symbol, here the large double-disc/Z. First, a mirror+comb is added. Secondly, the upper symbol, now subordinate, is drawn half-size. Thirdly, the snake/Z has lost it’s rod.
Wow this is incredible! I wasn’t familiar before reading this with the Pictish symbols but looking at these petroglyphs I instantly perceive them as some sort of calendar record of the planets and constellations. The comb may be some sort of counting record, with each peg on the comb representative a number like maybe numeral one or maybe each represents 10? The mirror glyph looks like the Venus glyph which is coincidentally resembling a mirror but in my research also resembles a calendar as per the Bronze Age Cycladic fry pans that track Venus Jupiter Mercury and lesser degree Mars in relation to sun and moon