Excerpts from Iravatham Mahadevan’s article, ‘A Megalithic Pottery Inscription and a Harappa Tablet: A case of extraordinary resemblance’ – seen in the Roja Muthiah site – http://rmrl.in/wp-content/uploads/30-A-Megalithic-Pottery-Inscription-and-a-Harappa-tablet.-a-case-of-extraordinary-resemblance.pdf

(Please see the original article for the Script)

Introduction
I
The purpose of this paper is to bring to the notice of scholars a case of extraordinary resemblance between a megalithic pottery inscription of ca. first century BCE found at Sulur, near Coimbatore in Tamilnadu, South India, (and now in the British Museum, London). and a near-identical inscription on a miniature tablet from Harappa (and now in the collections of the Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi). I am grateful to Dr.J.Robert Knox, fommerly Keeper, Department of Oriental Antiquities in the British Museum, for the excellent photograph of the Sulur Dish (Fig. t). I also acknowledge my indebtness to Asko Parpola and the ‘co-authors of the Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions, vol. I. for the clear photograph of the miniature tablet from Harappa (Fig.2). Both objects have been published earlier; but the comparison between the two inscriptions is attempted here for the first time. Some of the material in the present paper is taken from my earlier paper on the Sulur Dish (Mahadevan 2001) with some modifications on the basis of fresh appraisal. Indus sign numbers in
two or three digits and four-digit Indus text numbers are from my book (Mahadevan 1977).

The Sulur Dish (Fig.1 and detail in Fig.1 A) Sulur is a well-known ancient site in Tamilnadu, which has yielded several antiquities including semi-precious stone heads, rouletted ware, punch-marked and Roman coins, assigned to the Late Megalithic-Iron Age and Early Historical Periods (Beck
1930; K.R.Srinivasan & N.R.Banerjee 1953; S.Suresh 2004).
An inscribed terracotta dish from Sulur dated in ca. first century BCE is in the collect ions of the British Museum (Accession No.1935.4-19.1 5). The large, circular, grey terracotta dish is in an excellent state of preservation. lt is incised on the concave inner side with a large X-like symbol occupying the whole field . Four other symbols in a smaller size are incised within the lower quadrant. The four symbols are so closely placed together as to give the appearance of a connected text. In my earlier paper, I had not considered the large X-like symbol as part of the inscription as I thought it was, a decorative element in the background. I have since recognized that the X-like symbol has also a parallel in an Indus sign (Mahadevan 2006) and should be counted as part of
the inscription on the dish. The five megalithic symbols on the Sulur Dish are labelled A
to E (from the right) and given conventional names for further discussion:
A: A long. slanting, straight line with a pair of short strokes attached near either end of the line in opposite directions. ‘Jar’.
B: A slightly curved base line to the left, with a sawtooth-like line to the right.
<Harrow’ .
C: A tall V-shaped cup. ‘Cup’,
D: Three tall, vertical, parallel lines. <Three tall lines’ .
E: X-like crossed lines occupying the field. <X’.
In my earlier paper (2001), I have compared the two pairs of symbols on the dish (AB
and OC) with two near-identical pairs of lndus signs <jar-harrow’ and <three tall lines cup’
(342-176 and 89-328 respectively) frequently found on the miniature tablets and
sealings at Harappa. In the present paper,l take the comparison another step forward,
showing that all the five megalithic symbols on the Sulur Dish have near-identical parallels
occurring in the same order in a longer Indus text with seven signs on a miniature tablet
from Harappa.

Other parallel Indus Inscriptions (F ig.4)
The closeness between the inscriptions on the Sulur Dish and the Harappa
tab let is further emphasized by the occurrence of several other miniature tablets at
Harappa, which share three or four signs analogous to the symbols on the Sulur Dish in
the same order. The illustration in Fig A (reproduced from Mahadevan 1977:360) shows
parallel inscriptions with the same text of four Indus signs on one side and with the
near-identical pairs of Indus signs on another side showing a ‘cup’ preceded by ‘two,
three or four tall lines’ . When there is a third side, the Indus signs ‘X’ (No.137) or ‘fish’
(No.59) occupy the whole field (4581 & 4591 respectively).

Conclusion
The megalithic symbols on the Sulur Dish are compared pictorially with the signs of the
Indus script on the Harappa tablet with the help of photographic reproductions to avoid
any subjective element. The paper also excludes any discussion on the language of the
Indus Script or the meaning of individual Indus signs in order not to deflect attention
from the crucial issue of the extraordinary resemblance between the signs on the Harappa
tablet and the symbols on the Sulur Dish. The challenge posed by the comparison is to
explain the resemblances. An easy way out is to consider the resemblances accidental
or not close enough. My view is that these options are not open in view of the number
and sequence of the symbols on the Sulur Dish and the corresponding Indus signs on
the Harappa tablet. I suggest that such close resemblances are possible only if the
South Indian Megalithic script is related to the Indus script. Further, the common
sequences found on the Sulur Dish and the Harappa tablet may indicate that the languages
of the two inscriptions are related to each other.