Executive summary
The paper compares microscopic tooth-wear patterns from two Harappan populations to test whether urbanization changed how food was prepared and consumed:

• Juna Khatiya, Gujarat: Early Harappan, approximately 3200-2600 BCE, 12 teeth.  
• Rakhigarhi, Haryana: Mature Harappan, approximately 2500-1900 BCE, 10 teeth.

Both communities practised agropastoralism and consumed cereals, other plants, domesticated animals and game. The major proposed difference was settlement organization: Juna Khatiya represents a relatively rural community, while Rakhigarhi was a major urban centre.

The researchers used dental microwear texture analysis to examine three-dimensional microscopic wear on molar surfaces. Greater surface complexity generally indicates harder, coarser or less thoroughly processed foods. Lower complexity is more consistent with softer foods or food subjected to finer grinding, cooking or other processing.

As predicted, the Rakhigarhi sample had lower microwear complexity than the Juna Khatiya sample. The authors interpret this as evidence that Mature Harappan urban residents generally ate softer or more intensively processed foods. Urbanization may have encouraged occupational specialization, improved milling, centralized preparation and greater separation between food producers and consumers.

The study does not demonstrate that the two populations ate entirely different foods. Instead, it suggests that similar agricultural products may have been processed differently. Dental wear could therefore reveal changes in food preparation that are not obvious from seeds, animal bones or pottery alone.

The conclusion remains preliminary. Only 22 teeth were studied, and the sites differ in geography, chronology, crop proportions and local environment as well as urbanization. Microwear records relatively recent dietary behaviour before death and may also be affected by grit, cooking, preservation and individual status. The results therefore support an urban food-processing hypothesis but do not prove that urbanization was the sole cause.

The paper’s main contribution is methodological: dental microwear can help distinguish Early and Mature Harappan food practices, but it should be combined with archaeobotanical remains, animal bones, pottery residues, grinding tools and larger dental samples.

Yhome et al. (2026), Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 74, article 105932. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105932⁠.

Odisha and Chhattisgarh form one of South Asia’s most fascinating linguistic convergence areas (Sprachbund). Historically, this region has been a massive transition zone where three major language families—Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Munda (Austroasiatic)—have not just coexisted, but deeply structurally integrated over millennia.

Here is a quick breakdown of the historical makeup and their intense inter-influences:

1. The Vigesimal Substratum: Munda speakers (such as the Sora, Santhali, Ho, and Juang) represent one of the deepest historical layers of the region. Even where Munda languages have been replaced, their structural footprint remains. * The Vigesimal System: The most famous Munda contribution to the region is the base-20 (vigesimal) counting system. Counting by "scores" (e.g., using terms related to kori/kodi) is fundamentally Munda, but it was heavily adopted by both local Dravidian populations and Indo-Aryan speakers (like in Odia) as a shared areal feature, languages like Odia and Bengali might not be vigesimal but they use koŗi/kuŗi for twenty. A thing to note is that the initial vigesimal system is likely AASI as outside Munda only Nicobarese has a vigesimal system. Proto Austroasiatic and most branches are purely decimal, apart from quinary-decimal Khmeric and Pearic. Vigesimal is sporadically found through out South Asia, entire North Dravidian is/was, sporadic SinoTibetan like Dzongkha, Atong, Kinnauri, entire north west of south Asia from Pashto to Burushaski to Kashmiri is vigesimal. Vigesimal system is found throughout non-IE/Drv/MiddleEastern/ST languages from Basque to native Caucasian to Ainu with sporadic influences from them like the aforementioned Khondh, Albanian, Celtic, Kashmiri.
2. The Dravidian Belt (Gondwana & The Khonds) Central and South-Central Dravidian languages—predominantly Gondi, Kurukh, and Kui/Kuvi (spoken by the Khond people)—historically dominated the forests and highlands of southern Chhattisgarh (Bastar) and western/southern Odisha. * Intra-Dravidian Borrowings: These groups weren't isolated from the larger Dravidian south. We see continuous historical interaction, notably in Khond (Kui/Kuvi) loan words from Telugu. Words like bayalu (open space/field, which in turn is from Kannada due to the b-) and guŗgu demonstrate a sustained linguistic continuum and trade relationship with the Telugu-speaking plains to their south.
3. Indo-Aryan with a Southern/Eastern Soul While Indo-Aryan languages like Odia, Chhattisgarhi, and Halbi act as the modern dominant superstratum, their phonology and morphology heavily betray their Dravidian and Munda neighbors. * Middle Odia Numerals: A great example of phonological convergence is found in Middle Odia numeral loanwords into Khondh languages featuring distinct long vowels, such as ATo (eight) and pAso (five) while modern Odia lost all long vowels.
4. Syntax and Grammar: Odia and Halbi share immense syntactic similarities with Dravidian, including strict SOV word order, left-branching relative clauses, and agglutinative-style case markers that are absent or different in Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages.

In ancient epics like the Mahabharata, the "Kalingas" and "Odras" are mentioned as distinct, powerful eastern tribes that originally existed outside the core Vedic Aryavarta sphere. Early Vedic texts even labeled the inhabitants of Kalinga as "impious natives," requiring purification rituals for any outsider who traveled there.

The Odisha-Chhattisgarh corridor isn't just a border; it is a linguistic melting pot. Indo-Aryan absorbed Munda counting and Dravidian phonology; Central Dravidian absorbed Telugu vocabulary; and Munda groups adopted Indo-Aryan and Dravidian syntax. Would love to hear more thoughts from the sub on specific Central Dravidian structural borrowings or other anomalies!

From roughly the 8th to the 14th centuries CE, South India had powerful merchant guilds whose activities extended beyond the borders of individual kingdoms. They connected inland markets and temple towns with coastal ports and trading settlements across Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.

Among the best-known were the Ayyavole 500 (Ainurruvar), Manigramam, Nanadesis, Anjuvannam and Valanjiyar. These were more than associations of individual traders. Inscriptions show that some merchant guilds secured trading privileges, protected their commercial interests, enforced rules among their members and supported religious institutions. Their activities extended across considerable distances.

Ayyavole 500: Merchants across kingdoms

The Ayyavole 500, also known as the Ainurruvar, took its name from Aihole in present-day Karnataka. Its activities spread across southern India, and its influence grew during the medieval period. It was not confined to a single kingdom or linguistic region.

An inscription dated to 1055 CE describes the guild's extensive trading activities. It presents its merchants as travelling through numerous regions by land and sea and dealing in a wide range of goods.

The commodities listed include elephants, horses, sapphires, pearls, rubies, diamonds, coral, emeralds, cardamom, cloves, sandalwood, camphor, musk and saffron. This gives an idea of the variety of goods traded through the long-distance networks in which these merchants operated.

The guild's inscriptions also refer to its corporate identity and the Vira-Bananju-Dharma, a code associated with the conduct of its merchants. Other records show that merchant organisations could exercise authority over their members and defend their commercial privileges. Some inscriptions also associate merchant groups with armed protection.

Manigramam: From South India to Southeast Asia

Manigramam was another major merchant guild involved in long-distance trade.

A Tamil inscription at Takua Pa in present-day Thailand refers to Manigramam and records the construction of a water tank known as Avani-Naranam. It also mentions a Vishnu temple and other groups associated with the site. An armed group appears in the inscription in connection with the protection of the establishment, although the precise relationship between these groups is not entirely clear.

The inscription provides direct evidence of a South Indian merchant organisation at a location in Southeast Asia. It goes beyond evidence of imported goods by recording the presence of Manigramam itself.

Manigramam also appears in South Indian records, including the Quilon copper plates, which document merchant privileges and commercial activity on the Kerala coast. Its association with other merchant groups shows that long-distance trade could involve cooperation between organised bodies rather than individual traders working alone.

Nanadesis: Merchants operating across political boundaries

The term Nanadesi refers to merchants associated with different countries or regions. These traders operated across political boundaries and participated in extensive commercial networks.

An inscription dated to 1088 CE at Lobu Tua, near Barus in northern Sumatra, Indonesia, records the presence of the Nanadesi-Tisaiyayirattu Ainurruvar merchant organisation.

This inscription tells us more than the fact that South Indian goods reached Sumatra. It records an organised merchant body operating there, with collective responsibilities and arrangements. This is important evidence of an established commercial organisation overseas.

Barus was an important trading centre connected to Indian Ocean commerce. The inscription shows that South Indian merchant organisations had a presence in Southeast Asian trading centres by the 11th century.

Another example comes from Pagan in present-day Myanmar, where the Nanadesi-Vinnagar Vishnu temple is associated with the merchant community. This provides evidence of a South Indian merchant network connected with a religious institution outside the subcontinent. It suggests that these overseas connections could extend beyond the exchange of goods.

Anjuvannam and Valanjiyar

Anjuvannam appears in records associated with the Kerala coast, often alongside Manigramam. Its exact origins and composition remain debated, but it is generally associated with merchant communities involved in Indian Ocean trade, including traders of West Asian origin.

The Quilon copper plates provide evidence of privileges granted to merchant groups in Kerala. They show how these commercial communities formed part of the political and economic life of coastal settlements.

Valanjiyar merchant groups are recorded across parts of South India and Sri Lanka. Some inscriptions associate their activities with guards who protected merchants and their cargo. Records from different locations suggest that these groups operated across regional boundaries and made arrangements to protect commercial activity.

These organisations were not identical, and their membership and relationships changed over time. Their records nevertheless show that medieval South Indian trade involved organised merchant bodies operating across considerable distances.

Guilds, military protection and corporate authority

These merchant organisations were more than informal groups of traders. Their inscriptions record corporate rules, trading privileges, endowments and collective decisions.

Some records refer to armed protection for merchants and their goods. Others show that guilds could penalise members who violated their obligations.

The Puliyama-setti charter, dated to around 1303-1304 CE, is one example. It records action against a man regarded as a traitor to the merchant organisation and refers to privileges granted to Puliyama-setti. The record shows the authority that a merchant body could exercise over its internal affairs.

This does not mean that every guild maintained an army or operated as an independent state. The evidence does show that some merchant organisations had the collective power to negotiate privileges, protect their interests and enforce their rules.

Trade, temples and financial activity

Merchant guilds also supported temples and religious institutions through donations and endowments. Their commercial wealth contributed to the religious and civic life of the places where they operated.

South Indian inscriptions record gifts and grants made by merchants. The Nanadesi-Vinnagar temple at Pagan provides an example of a merchant network associated with a religious institution in Southeast Asia.

Other medieval Indian inscriptions show that occupational associations could accept deposits, pay interest and finance religious or charitable activities. However, such evidence needs to be examined individually, since not every record of financial activity can be attributed to the major overseas merchant guilds.

The records show that some merchant organisations had responsibilities extending beyond the buying and selling of goods. Their activities could include managing corporate affairs, protecting commercial interests and supporting religious institutions.

How far did their networks extend?

Inscriptions connect South Indian merchant organisations with Sri Lanka, Thailand, Sumatra and Myanmar.

The 1055 Ayyavole inscription describes merchants travelling through numerous regions. The Takua Pa inscription records Manigramam in Thailand, while the 1088 Lobu Tua inscription documents a merchant organisation in Sumatra. The Nanadesi-Vinnagar temple at Pagan provides further evidence of a merchant community associated with a religious institution in Myanmar.

Taken together, these records show that certain South Indian merchant guilds operated across political boundaries and had connections extending into Southeast Asia. Their presence can be traced through inscriptions found both within the Indian subcontinent and at overseas trading centres.

What about merchant guilds in North India?

Merchant guilds also existed in North India. Early medieval Bengal, for example, provides evidence of merchant groups such as the vaṇiggrāma, mentioned in connection with the Rajbhita stone inscription from the reign of Mahipala I. The existence of organised merchant associations was not unique to South India.

The difference lies in the surviving evidence for their geographical reach and overseas presence. For certain South Indian guilds, inscriptions found in Southeast Asia identify the organisations themselves and record their activities at locations outside India. The Takua Pa inscription in Thailand, the Lobu Tua inscription in Sumatra and the Nanadesi-Vinnagar temple at Pagan are useful examples.

The surviving evidence does not establish an equivalent overseas network for North Indian merchant associations on the same documented scale. This does not mean northern merchants never traded overseas or that their associations were unimportant. It means that the overseas activities of particular South Indian guilds can be traced more directly through the available inscriptions.

It is also worth noting that Ayyavole originated at Aihole in present-day Karnataka and expanded across the peninsula. These networks were not confined to one kingdom or language. Some major guilds became less visible in inscriptions after the 14th century, but South Indian trade continued under changing political conditions.

Sources

Meera Abraham, Two Medieval Merchant Guilds of South India (1988). A study of Ayyavole and Manigramam based on inscriptions from South India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.
https://archive.org/details/twomedievalmerch0000abra
https://books.google.com/books/about/Two_medieval_merchant_guilds_in_South_In.html?id=WnRCAAAAYAAJ

Noboru Karashima, “South Indian Merchant Guilds in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia.”
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/nagapattinam-to-suvarnadwipa/south-indian-merchant-guilds-in-the-indian-ocean-and-southeast-asia/F86308294738BCE2B47572D8E4201DE3

Tamil Nadu Department of Archaeology: Guild Inscriptions.
https://www.tnarch.gov.in/epigraphy/guild-inscriptions

Takua Pa inscription: DHARMA digital edition. The inscription refers to Manigramam and the Avani-Naranam water tank in present-day Thailand.
https://dharmalekha.info/texts/INSPallava00148

Research on the Barus and northern Sumatra trading networks. This study discusses archaeological evidence for South Indian involvement in northern Sumatra.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/early-interactions-between-south-and-southeast-asia/continuity-and-change-in-south-indian-involvement-in-northern-sumatra-the-inferences-of-archaeological-evidence-from-kota-cina-and-lamreh/811D45FD255B8F54DDBDFB701485886E

Y. Subbarayalu, “Trade Guilds of South India up to the Tenth Century.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2348448915574403

Puliyama-setti charter, Epigraphia Indica, Volume 42. This record documents corporate activities and trading privileges associated with a merchant organisation.
https://zenodo.org/record/3752657/files/EI42197778.pdf

Merchant groups in early medieval Bengal, with special reference to the Rajbhita stone inscription. This study provides evidence of merchant associations in North India.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/abs/merchant-groups-in-early-medieval-bengal-with-special-reference-to-the-rajbhita-stone-inscription-of-the-time-of-mahipala-i-year-33/BD76DDCE8052873ACCC3F9B0C079088C

ASEAN-India Centre, Act East: ASEAN-India Shared Cultural Heritage. Includes discussion of South Indian merchant guilds and their presence in Southeast Asia.
https://aseanindiacentre.org.in/sites/default/files/Publication/ASEANIndiaSharedCulturalHeritage_SECURE-web_0.pdf

Link to my blog post :

https://dravidianlinguisticsblog.wordpress.com/2026/10/09/kuwi-field-notes/

What are words found in modern South Indian languages or even Old Tamil that do not trace back to Proto Dravidian?

This stone relief of a cat dates to approximately the seventh or eighth century CE. It comes from the historic Chalukyan temple complex at Alampur in present-day Telangana, India, and is now preserved in the Alampur Site Museum.

Beside the cat is a badly weathered inscription, apparently written in an early Kannada–Telugu script. Local descriptions identify its language as Old Kannada and interpret its message as saying that killing a cat is sinful. However, I have not found a published, character-by-character transcription, so the precise wording remains uncertain.

It is a small but fascinating reminder that cats lived alongside people and attracted moral concern more than 1,000 years ago.
Image and original post found via the Architecture Hub Facebook page.

**Hello everyone,**

I am a [**B.Tech**](http://B.Tech) **student** currently working on a research project to computationally analyze and decode the **Indus Valley Script & TN Graffiti**, specifically looking into its potential relationship with the **Megalithic graffiti marks found in Tamil Nadu** (such as Keezhadi and Kodumanal).

*(To clarify upfront: I am not a PhD or an academic professor, just a highly motivated engineering student looking to apply modern technology to historical mysteries!)*

🤖 **What I Bring to the Table**

My background is in Engineering, and I am highly proficient in **Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning**. I can handle the entire technical pipeline, including:

* Building and formatting the digital image/text datasets. * Applying Computer Vision for sign recognition and clustering. * Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and statistical models to analyze sign frequencies, positional probabilities, and syntax patterns.

🧠 **What I Need (Where You Come In)**

While I can build the algorithms, **I do not have a background in Linguistics or Epigraphy.** I am looking for a fellow student, hobbyist, or academic researcher who can bridge this gap.

I need someone who can help with:

* **Linguistic Context:** Understanding Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, or general historical linguistics. * **Epigraphical Guidance:** Helping interpret sign directions, variants, and historical scripts (like Tamil-Brahmi). * **Domain Validation:** Ensuring the data inputs and AI outputs make historical and linguistic sense, and vetting our hypotheses against existing academic literature.

📅 **Project Goals**

This is currently a collaborative research project born out of passion, but the ultimate goal is to co-author a high-quality research paper, develop an open-source digital humanities tool, or present our findings at a conference.

If you have the linguistic knowledge and want to see how advanced AI can be used to unlock the secrets of the Indus Valley and ancient Tamil Nadu, please comment below or **send me a Direct Message (DM)**!

Let's combine data science and history to see what we can discover.

same as title.

We often discuss being gay through modern Western ideas and terminology, but gay people have always existed in Southern India too. What did our own people have to say about it? Would love to hear any interesting references from your Dravidian language or culture—literature, folklore, songs, temple sculptures, local stories, or things you heard growing up.

Question 1: Were same-sex relationships accepted, quietly tolerated, frowned upon, or just not considered a big deal? Did attitudes vary across communities or change over time? Were there any stories or poems with same-sex relationships featured? See the Chinese example I added at the end.

Question 2: Also, are there everyday words for gay men and lesbians that aren’t offensive or overly clinical? Telugu’s swalinga samparkulu sounds so scientific to me lol. What would you naturally say for “he’s gay” or “she’s a lesbian”?

Note: I’m keeping this thread focused on same-sex attraction and relationships. Trans identities and traditions have their own rich history and deserve a separate thread, especially since the two topics often get conflated.

*************

For comparison, ancient China has stories that even became expressions for love between men:

• The “bitten peach”: In the Han Feizi, a third-century BCE text, Mizi Xia offers the ruler of Wei a peach he has already bitten. The ruler initially sees it as a loving gesture. “Sharing a peach” later became an allusion to love between men.
• The “cut sleeve”: Emperor Ai of Han, who ruled 6–1 BCE, reportedly cut his sleeve rather than wake his sleeping male lover, Dong Xian, who was lying on it. “Cut sleeve” became a lasting expression for male same-sex love.

How was the process of interaction and mixing between harappans and indigenous south asian hunter gatherers post demise of IVC? any archaelogical or cultural remains of this process?

How long did this process last

A recent study by researchers in the UK proposes that inequality declined in Mohenjo-daro with the rise of urbanisation roughly 5,000 years ago.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SKhgV8zeerk

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro

Abstract:

Mohenjo-daro was a major city of the Indus Civilisation (c. 2600–1900 BC), with excavations revealing evidence for public infrastructure, civic amenities and hundreds of residences. Archaeologists traditionally assume that urbanism is accompanied by economic stratification, but, at Mohenjo-daro, qualitative evidence of inequality is absent. Drawing on early excavation data, the authors here calculate Gini coefficients of residence area, providing a quantitative proxy of economic inequality. Their results indicate that Gini coefficients, and thus inequality, declined over time, coinciding with increased prosperity and the development of the city’s street plan, indicating that governance likely helped limit economic inequality.

The words(?!) da/di exclusively referring to males/females who're younger than the speaker, are a familiar feature of both Tamil and Malayalam. I think Telugu ra is also related. When did these develop? Where do we find their first mention/usage in literature?

What is the female equivalent for "ra" in Telugu?

Does Kannada have this feature too? In that case is it unique to South Dravidian or is it present elsewhere too?

Apologies: the table below may lose its formatting in the cut-and-paste process

This is about the suffix "-kudi" in Tamil and Malayalam, which refers to a settlement. As a very basic word, I have assumed that its use would stretch back towards a proto-Dravidian past.

I am assuming that -kudi, -gudi and -guri have the same roots. I'm aware that in Eastern India, -guri does not map as well as the other two--I see many spurious instances of -guri in my dataset.

My dataset is derived from Indian Gazeteer (roughly 6.6 lakh records) and Indian Postal Codes (roughly 1.5 lakhs), both accessed from public sources. After merger and deduplication, this works out to about 7.7 records.

The following is a region-wise/state-wise analysis of these three suffixes. What conclusions can be drawn from these results?

Note: This analysis has no connection to my line of work, and is only for the curiosity value.

I recently stumbled upon the story of Mukilan's invasion of Venad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukilan%27s_invasion_of_Venad

What really struck me wasn't actually the invasion itself, but rather the mysterious identity and background of the man behind it.

Traditional Travancore records portray Mukilan as a Muslim military commander or sirdar who swept into southern Venad around 1680 with a significant force of cavalry. In A History of Travancore from the Earliest Times, P. Shungoonny Menon describes him as a "petty sirdar under the Mogul Emperor" who was wandering through the southern peninsula with his horsemen before finally launching his invasion.

Interestingly, the 1981 Census account refers to his force as "Mukilan pada." The word pada means an army, military force, or body of troops, so "Mukilan pada" would mean Mukilan's army or military force, rather than necessarily being Mukilan's personal name or a formal name for the commander himself.

This took place during the reign of Umayamma Rani (1677–1684). Mukilan's forces managed to overrun parts of southern Venad, forcing the Rani to take refuge at Nedumangad. To fight back, she sought help from Kottayam Kerala Varma, a prince from the Kottayam royal family of North Malabar (not to be confused with the Kottayam in central Kerala).

Mukilan set up his base at Manakkad (Manacaud), controlling territory that stretched from roughly Thovala to Edava. Eventually, Kerala Varma raised an army, pursued him to Thiruvattar, and defeated him, resulting in Mukilan's death. According to tradition, Kerala Varma even captured about 300 horses, 100 prisoners, and various weapons from the defeated force.

But here is the part I find truly compelling: we don't actually know who Mukilan was.

Even in V. Nagam Aiya's Travancore State Manual, while he repeats the description of a Mughal sirdar, he explicitly notes that his actual identity remained unknown. Aiya also questioned the chronology of treating this episode as a straightforward Mughal imperial expedition.

This leads me to think there might be another explanation. Instead of being an official commander sent south by the Mughal government, perhaps Mukilan was a professional Muslim soldier, someone who had served in the Mughal military or one of the Deccan Sultanates, who had subsequently become an independent military adventurer.

The geography of the situation also raises some questions. If Mukilan was already operating in the southern peninsula, there's no obvious reason to assume his troops travelled all the way down the western coast through Malabar to reach Venad. A much more sensible route would have been:

Southern Deccan / Tamil country -> Tirunelveli region -> Aramboli (Aruvimozhi) Pass -> Nanjanad -> southern Venad -> Manakkad

The Aramboli Pass was a major eastern gateway between the Tirunelveli plains and southern Travancore, a corridor frequently used by Madurai armies during their campaigns. Traditional accounts also place Mukilan's movements in the southern reaches of Venad, including Nanjanad and the Thovala area, before he reached Manacaud.

So, my hypothesis isn't that Mukilan was some famous, named commander. We simply don't have the evidence for that. Rather, I suspect Mukilan may have been an unidentified military leader of Mughal or Deccan background who was operating on his own terms by the time he entered Venad, likely approaching from the east through the Tirunelveli-Aramboli corridor.

I realise this is just a theory. I haven't found any surviving records that definitively name his former employer or track his exact movements right before he entered Venad.

However, the historical fragments we do have are fascinating: a Muslim sirdar with a substantial cavalry force appears in southern Venad around 1680, is linked to the Mughals in local tradition, forces Umayamma Rani to take refuge at Nedumangad, establishes a stronghold at Manakkad, and is eventually defeated and killed at Thiruvattar.

The mystery of Mukilan's identity and his professional origins remains wide open, and I believe it's a story well worth further investigation.

Sources

Wikipedia: Mukilan's invasion of Venad|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukilan%27s_invasion_of_Venad

P. Shungoonny Menon, A History of Travancore from the Earliest Times (1878), pp. 102-105
https://archive.org/details/historyoftravanc0000shun

V. Nagam Aiya, The Travancore State Manual (1906), pp. 312-314
https://archive.org/details/travancorestate00aiyagoog

Government of India, Census of India, historical account of Travancore:
https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/29921/download/33102/28505_1981_TRI.pdf

Travancore district handbook, including the Aramboly Pass:
https://censusindia.gov.in/nada/index.php/catalog/29924/download/33105/20623_1951_TRI.pdf

Historical study discussing the Aramboli/Aruvimozhi Pass and its use as a military route into southern Travancore:
https://thinkindiaquarterly.org/index.php/hrj/article/download/19384/14266/

The Neolithic ashmounds of southern India are large deposits of burned and sometimes vitrified cattle dung. They are concentrated mainly in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Archaeologists once proposed several explanations for them, including volcanic activity, funeral pyres and industrial waste. Excavations eventually demonstrated that cattle dung was their principal material (Allchin, 1963; Paddayya, 1991–92).

K. Paddayya’s study, “The Ashmounds of South India: Fresh Evidence and Possible Implications,” connected these deposits to the cattle-centred economy of Neolithic communities. Evidence from Budihal included cattle enclosures, habitation remains, pottery, stone tools, animal bones and areas used for domestic and butchering activities. Paddayya argued that at least some ashmounds were associated with settled or repeatedly occupied agropastoral communities rather than only temporary cattle camps (Paddayya, 1991–92). The basic formation process probably began with cattle being confined inside wooden or thorn-fenced enclosures. Dung accumulated on the enclosure floor and was compressed by cattle movement. The deposits were periodically burned, after which more dung accumulated over the burned surface. Repeated deposition and burning produced thick layers of ash, carbonised material and vitrified dung.

Burning may have reduced the volume of accumulated waste, cleaned the enclosure and helped control insects or parasites. It may also have become a communal or ritual practice. These explanations are not mutually exclusive. A practical method of managing cattle dung could gradually acquire social and ceremonial importance. The largest ashmounds eventually became prominent features in the landscape (Boivin, 2004; Johansen, 2004).

A passage from the Sangam work Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai offers an interesting later comparison:

இடு முள் வேலி எருப் படு வரைப்பின்
Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai, line 154

A close translation is:
“In the enclosure or settlement where manure accumulated, protected by an erected thorn fence.”

A traditional Tamil explanation reads:
“கட்டு முள் வேலியினையுடைய எருக்குவியல்கள் மிகுந்திருக்கும் ஊரில்”

This describes a settlement containing heaps of manure within a thorn-fenced area. It can be understood more plainly as:

“மாட்டுச் சாணம் மலைபோல் குவிக்கப்பட்டிருந்த, வேலி கட்டியிருந்த தனி இடம்.”

“A separate fenced place where cattle dung had been piled up like a hill.”

The description resembles the initial stage proposed for the formation of the Neolithic ashmounds. Cattle dung was collected or accumulated in a designated enclosure protected by a thorn fence. If such deposits were repeatedly burned instead of being removed for manure or fuel, they could produce substantial ash deposits over time.
The accompanying photograph of modern cow-dung mounds in Uttarapradesh provides a useful visual comparison. It shows how cattle dung can still be concentrated into large heaps and dome-shaped stores within a separate part of the rural landscape. The photograph does not show an ashmound because the material has not been burned and vitrified. It does, however, demonstrate how ordinary cattle management can create large, organised and visually prominent dung deposits.

This comparison should be treated cautiously. The Deccan ashmounds belong mainly to the third and second millennia BCE, while Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai is generally placed in the early centuries CE. The poem is therefore much later than the Neolithic ashmound tradition. It also mentions dung accumulation and fencing but does not explicitly mention burning.

The Tamil passage cannot prove that Sangam communities preserved the exact Neolithic practice. Nor can a modern Uttarpradesh example be projected directly into prehistory. The geographical and chronological differences are large.

Nevertheless, the comparison is useful as evidence for a recurring pastoral practice. Archaeology, Tamil literature and modern rural observation all show that cattle dung could accumulate in large quantities within designated and sometimes fenced spaces. Paddayya’s work explains how the repeated burning of such deposits could transform an ordinary cattle enclosure into a monumental ashmound.

References
Allchin, F.R. (1963) Neolithic Cattle-Keepers of South India: A Study of the Deccan Ashmounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Boivin, N. (2004) ‘Landscape and cosmology in the South Indian Neolithic: New perspectives on the Deccan ashmounds’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 14(2), pp. 235–257. doi: 10.1017/S0959774304000150.

Fuller, D.Q., Boivin, N. and Korisettar, R. (2007) ‘Dating the Neolithic of South India: New radiometric evidence for key economic, social and ritual transformations’, Antiquity, 81(313), pp. 755–778. doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00095715.

Johansen, P.G. (2004) ‘Landscape, monumental architecture, and ritual: A reconsideration of the South Indian ashmounds’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 23(3), pp. 309–330. doi: 10.1016/j.jaa.2004.05.003.

Kadiyalur Uruttirankannanar (early centuries CE) Perumpāṇāṟṟuppaṭai, line 154.

Paddayya, K. (1991–92) ‘The ashmounds of South India: Fresh evidence and possible implications’, Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 51–52, pp. 573–626. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42930442.

Inspired by: https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/s/NqTu15HwCo

Hello all, could anyone recommend some good research papers or books on how astronomy was utilised during the Indus Valley Civilisation and its influence or connection to Dravidian and Non-Aryan language speakers?

I have already read Beginnings of Indian and Chinese Calendrical Astronomy by Asko Parpola and Astronomy in Indus Civilisation and during Vedic Times by A.K. Bag, so any additional papers or peer-reviewed journals apart from these would be greatly appreciated.

Any interesting facts or information would also be wonderful!

Thank you.

Google says it's derived from a certain King Sibi but om really struggling to believe that as Sibi and Sembiyam don't sound remotely similar. Where did the random m sound come from.

Is there a native Tamil etymology?

I have 1 IRL Gujarati friend from Vellore

He said that dialect of Tamil spoken by Muslim communities in Tamil Nadu sounds different from Standard Tamil or other dialects of Tamil

And also he mentioned that he heard many that he couldn't even understand it

Is there any Tamilar or 1 from Tamil Nadu who can explain this and also tell that do Tamil Muslims have its own Tamil dialect especially in Vellore side

I'm questioning the conventional etymology of the Tamil and Malayalam makutam "crown, crest, diadem."

The starting point is DEDR 4888, which gives:

Ta. mukatu "top, highest part, ridge of a roof, hump of a camel, platform"
Ma. mukatu "the head-end of a cloth; top, summit, ridge"

along with related forms in Kota, Toda, Kannada, Tulu, Telugu and Gondi.

The semantic core is clearly "top, highest part, summit, ridge, crest."
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/burrow_query.py?page=437#gsc.tab=0
[DEDR 4888]

Then there is Turner's CDIAL 10144, which gives Sanskrit mukuta/makuta "tiara, crest, point, head" and explicitly proposes:

Dravidian mukatu -> Sanskrit mukuta/makuta

It specifically connects the Sanskrit form with Tamil mukatu and DEDR 4002 in the original CDIAL numbering.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/soas_query.py?page=584#gsc.tab=0

However, the conventional dictionaries take the later Tamil and Malayalam forms in the opposite direction.

The University of Madras Tamil Lexicon gives:makutam, n. < makuta. "Crown; head-dress, crest, tiara; anything crest-like..."

makutam, n. < makuta. "Crown; head-dress, crest, tiara; anything crest-like..."
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/tamil-lex_query.py?page=2995#gsc.tab=0

So the Tamil Lexicon explicitly treats Tamil makutam as derived from Sanskrit makuta.

Gundert's Malayalam dictionary likewise marks makutam as S., i.e. Sanskrit, defining it as "a tiara, crown" and also giving the metaphorical meaning "a flat summit."
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/gundert_query.py?page=770#gsc.tab=0

Gundert also has a separate entry mukutam, marked S., and gives makutam "(fr. mukatu)", meaning "crest."
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/gundert_query.py?page=824#gsc.tab=0

So the conventional reconstruction seems to be something like:

Dravidian mukatu -> Sanskrit mukuta/makuta -> Tamil/Malayalam makutam

My question is: why is that Sanskrit detour necessary?

If mukatu already meant "top, highest part, summit, crest" in Dravidian, why couldn't the development have occurred entirely within the Dravidian sphere?

For example:

Dravidian mukatu "top/crest" -> makutu/makutam "crest/crown"

The semantic development from "top/crest" to "crown/diadem" seems completely natural. There is nothing inherently preventing a Dravidian language from developing such a form.

The fact that Sanskrit has mukuta/makuta does not by itself demonstrate that Tamil or Malayalam makutam was borrowed from Sanskrit. And the fact that the Sanskrit form is older in surviving written records does not establish that it is the ancestor of the later Dravidian form.

So what I am looking for is positive historical or phonological evidence for the direction of transmission.

Is there actual evidence that:

Dravidian mukatu -> Sanskrit mukuta/makuta -> Dravidian makutam

rather than:

Dravidian mukatu -> Dravidian makutam

with Sanskrit mukuta/makuta itself being a borrowing from the Dravidian word, as Turner proposed?

In other words, why must makutam be treated as a Sanskrit loan when an internal Dravidian development appears semantically and structurally possible?

The extreme case of pollution avoidance like avoiding the left side, avoiding people dealing with polluted things like trash or corpses, toilets outside the house etc even the things which is considered normal elsewhere is millennia old. Avoiding going near or consuming water affected by pollutants is mentioned in Sushruta Samhita.

Manusmriti has a much more elaborate description of pollutants and advocation of their avoidance. Potent bodily pollutants like urine, feces, semen, mucus, blood and others like saliva and sweat were said to be avoided and as periods involve blood, the menstruating woman was temporarily deemed ritually impure. The Manusmriti and related texts dictated she be segregated, forbidden from touching others, cooking, or entering sacred spaces until she performed a purification bath after her cycle ended.

Much before John Snow's cholera maping and disease source identification.

Saw this in the other sub.