Porunthal: dating of paddy in the 5th century B.C. and possible consequences on the evaluation of the history of writing in India

[rajam]

More than that ... Dear JLC,

The statement, "Archaeologists, particularly in Tamilnadu, seem to be  
under a constant kind of pressure (or is it a mindset?) to "push  
back" so far established dates. They regularly come up with various  
attempts." needs some attention and substantiation. I wish genuine  
and serious scholars would stop making such flippant remarks! :-)

Best wishes,
V.S. Rajam
(www.letsgrammar.org)

On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jean-Luc CHEVILLARD wrote:

> Dear Corinna Wessels-Mevissen,
>
> can you explain more in details
> why you are sceptical with the decipherment
> "va-y(a)-ra".
>
> Every comment is important, at this stage, ...
>
> Best wishes
>
> -- jlc
>
>
>
> On 16/10/2011 00:30, Corinna Wessels-Mevissen wrote:
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> What I have seen in the circulated picture is just typical  
>> "graffiti" we are getting on Iron Age to Early Historical Period  
>> pottery in graves (urn burial and/or "Megalithic"). It has been  
>> known since the 19th century. Sometimes it comes like a "code" or  
>> intentional sequence. One should, of course, analyse it further,  
>> but I fail to see a breakthrough in this one. (I had studied such  
>> ceramics for my M.A. thesis back in the 80ies and have seen scores  
>> of the typical pottery items, all without Brahmi writing.)
>> Sorry to say this, but I would be always very careful, even  
>> suspicious, believing this kind of "news" without looking into the  
>> matter very closely. Actually, the original article should have  
>> illustrated the example for everyone to see. Archaeologists,  
>> particularly in Tamilnadu, seem to be under a constant kind of  
>> pressure (or is it a mindset?) to "push back" so far established  
>> dates. They regularly come up with various attempts.
>> With best wishes,
>> Corinna Wessels-Mevissen
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>> *Von:* Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200498 at YAHOO.COM>
>> *An:* INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
>> *Gesendet:* 18:06 Samstag, 15.Oktober 2011
>> *Betreff:* Re: [INDOLOGY] Porunthal: dating of paddy in the 5th  
>> century B.C. and possible consequences on the evaluation of the  
>> history of writing in India
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> My apology that this is no additional light but the most common  
>> and inevitable queries. Will the Porunthal discovery shorten the  
>> dark gap between Asokan Brahmi and its supposed origin in the 800  
>> century BCE phɶnician script? The claim of the Piprawa vase  
>> legend as representing a pre-Asokan stage of Brahmi has not got  
>> universal ac-ra"ceptance. The Porunthal relic too may offer and  
>> open up new problems. If the claimed date is true it should  
>> represent an intermediate stage which cannot be without visible  
>> signs. Apparently it is ancient Tamil. But unless it is proved to  
>> be intermediate between Asokan Brahmi and the 800 century BCE  
>> phɶnician script, the mostly accepted theory shall not be  
>> proved. I tried but could not be sure that it could be regarded as  
>> intermediate. I paste below the original legend and the modern  
>> Tamil /vayara/. I would have been glad to paste an image of the  
>> same word in ancient Tamil. In spite of my inability, it can be  
>> said with confidence that Raja Raja Chola's va is not like the  
>> inital diamond. I have no idea about RRC's ba of which I have no  
>> specimen. The basic problem may be attempted from this meagre  
>> evidence, I think.
>> “Evidences” and views on pre-Asokan Brahmi are a legion – starting  
>> with at least K.P. Jayaswal and stretching up to at least the late  
>> twentieth century. Going by previous experience I keep my fingers  
>> crossed.I wish I am proved wrong.
>> Best wishes
>> DB
>> வயர (or வய்ர).



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20111015/63ac87d1/attachment.htm>