[willwinger]

The ancient Dravidian language mentioned in this article is "Tamil" where citrus fruits are associated with the word "narumanam"(fragrance) or "naatram"(bad smell). Narthangai which is a native citrus fruit. But I don't think Orange or Mandarin are local to Southern India.

[sn41]

Narthangai in Tamil is Naranga in Malayalam. Not coincidentially, Naranja in Spanish/Portuguese is Orange. (I think this is an instance of Indian words migrating west, probably via Arabia.)

The reverse is also true - lot of words in Kerala which had sea-trade with Portugal and Spain, are close to their Portuguese/spanish equivalent, more than in other Indian languages. They are very closely related to the Iberian terms

- papaya

- sabola (Malayalam) versus Cebolla (Spanish/Portuguese)

- kashuandi (Cashew nut)

Other related terms like kappalandi (ship nuts - i.e. peanuts) indicate sea trade and that they were not endemic to India.

Looking at Malayalam terms gives a good indication as to which foods came to India via sea trade, possibly from South America, since the South was often the port of call. The only major exception I know is Mulaku (chillies) - even though chillies came from South America, the word does not indicate that.

[valarauko]

>Other related terms like kappalandi (ship nuts - i.e. peanuts) indicate sea trade and that they were not endemic to India.

Reminds me of the Shibboleth about Kappalandi vs Kadala in Malayalam, where the choice of vocabulary points to which region you come from (North vs South Kerala).

[Ar-Curunir]

The language mentioned there is not Tamil, but Proto-Dravidian, a reconstructed ancestor of it. Tamil is younger than Sanskrit (both Classical and Vedic), but Proto-Dravidian is a contemporary of Sanskrit.

[truthseekr]

Not true. I really hoped that Hacker News folks were careful enough not to repeat the Pro-Aryan propaganda. I never understand why people try to change history. We live in the present where we should strive for equality and not change history to push your agenda Pro-Aryan groups felt threatened that Tamil is a classical language older than Sanskrit and is very much alive unlike Sanskrit. This led them to spread propaganda about Tamil and calling any reference to Tamil before the age of Sanskrit as proto-Dravidian.

Even now, you can see the subjugation of Tamil History by the Indian government refusing to research the very important archeological find of Keezhadi.

Epigraphic research proves that much of the inscriptions from the Indus valley civilization is in Tamil. This threatens the Pro-Aryan groups for some unknown reason.

[Ar-Curunir]

I’m not advocating for the supremacy of Sanskrit, merely pointing out established linguistic facts. Tamil is old, yes, and it’s age is impressive given that early Tamil is still legible to modern Tamil speakers. That does not mean that Tamil is 3500 years old.

For example, we have no attested inscriptions of Tamil that predate 5th century BC. We do have Vedic inscriptions from 1400BC: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_superstrate_in_Mi...

[wizzwizz4]

Do you have a source for the Indus valley thing? That seems interesting.

> This threatens the Pro-Aryan groups for some unknown reason.

If you want to be a supremacist, you have to be supreme to something, and anything that might question that (even hypotheses) is a threat to that feeling.

[truthseekr]

It has been a few years since I went down the rabbit hole of Indus valley - I did find one recent article https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-study-connects...

[Ar-Curunir]

Hypotheses are useless if they are not backed up by any evidence. All our evidence points towards the existence of Proto-Dravidian, not of ancient Tamil.

[truthseekr]

> If you want to be a supremacist, you have to be supreme to something, and anything that might question that (even hypotheses) is a threat to that feeling.

Yes, Sometimes I am too naïve for my own good

[valarauko]

Can you point to a reputable source for the epigraphic claims about the Indus Valley?

[truthseekr]

http://www.archaeopress.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/displayP...

[valarauko]

Thanks. Will take some time to read & parse.

However, from skimming the text, I would have to agree with the sibling commentator, that pointed to the reconstructed Proto-Dravidian language, rather than Tamil. The book you've shared suggests links of the IVC with Proto-Dravidian, not Tamil directly. Tamil as a distinct language is not attested before the 3rd Century BCE, making it a contemporary of the Prakrits in the North, around the time of Ashoka. The Sangam Literature period starts from the 1st Century BCE, roughly contemporaneous with the advent of Indo-Greeks in the North. Tamil =/= Proto-Dravidian, which would indeed have been around at the time of the IVC. Whether the IVC had contact with Proto-Dravidian or were Proto-Dravidian themselves is still an open question. Even the preliminary Ancient DNA evidence from the IVC does not settle this matter conclusively. (I'm a Geneticist, not a linguist)