Dear Jean-Luc,

Thank you very much (I had already replied to you offlist), I shall go through this publication.

Of course, I am greatly looking forward to know the argument of the eminent archaeologist Prof. K. Rajan in favour of distinguishing this particular piece of evidence from so-called "potter's marks" (which is not a very suitable term since we do not know whether it was really the potter who has applied them).

Best wishes,

Corinna

Von: Jean-Luc CHEVILLARD <jean-luc.chevillard@UNIV-PARIS-DIDEROT.FR>
An: INDOLOGY@liverpool.ac.uk
Gesendet: 11:49 Sonntag, 16.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 Corinna,

are you perhaps referring to the kind of "signs"
which are discussed by K.Rajan in a 2001 article
(in a volume edited by ye.cupparAyalu and Ce. irAvu)

The title of the article is
"paNTai kuRiyITukaLum eZuttukkaLum"
(ancient signs/symbols and letters)

I attach it as a scanned PDF
(it seems to fall within fair use,
because the volume is difficult to find)

Since, obviously,
K.Rajan knows the difference
between symbols and letters,
I wonder why he decided in this case (in Porunthal)
that we have "letters" and not "symbols" (or potters' marks).

Best wishes

-- Jean-Luc Chevillard (Pondicherry)

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.)
[.....]