[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)