Was Malayalam branched off from Tamil?

I'm not a linguist. However, I find it difficult to believe some of the popular conceptions about origins of different languages. One of them is, Malayalam branched out of Tamil around 800-1000CE.

Weren't all Dravidian languages branched off from Proto-Dravidian language?
I don't understand the branching convention used for the languages. It's shown at some places that Kannada, Kodava and Malayalam were branched out of Tamil at different periods of history and in that order.

That would sound like, people residing in the present day, Karnataka , Kodagu district of Karnataka and Kerala were speaking dialects of Tamil before the emergence of their distinct Dravidian languages. Does that means Tamil is nothing but original Dravidian language?

I would like to think, as, linguistically Dravidian, Indians moved South, they first inhabited regions of present day Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh then Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the first Southern regions to speak Dravidian language were Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Migration to the region of Kerala could be either simultaneous or before the migration to Tamil Nadu but never after that.

In my opinion, Dravidian language spoken in the region of Karnataka went on to become Kananda and so were the cases with Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam.

Is Tamil closest to the proto-Dravidian language?
Tamil's literary history starts from 2nd century BCE. Therefore, it might have frozen the words used during that period thus could be considered closest to the original Dravidian language. But the question is which Dravidian language. Dravidian languages had a long journey from North-West of the sub-continent(or beyond) to Tamil Nadu. Therefore, Tamil is closest to the Dravidian language that reached the region of Tamil Nadu.

Malayalam and Tamil:
The political history of Kerala and Tamil Nadu were intertwined till 10-11th century CE. The kingdoms followed Tamil kingdoms in their outlook. Since Tamil was already a literary language, it most plausibly became the court language of Kerala kings too. These kings could be either Tamils or Malayalees.

However, the Dravidian language in the region of Kerala developed into a distinct language long back. This could be seen from its hallmark accent. None of the other Dravidian languages show that kind of nasal accent. Late literary tradition cannot be used as a proof for its recent origin.

Tamil could have become the language of the local population because of elite Tamil domination. However, considering the fact that South Indian Shaivite, Budhist and Jain elites had hardly any inclination to educate the general population it was never going to be the case. In the end, the Dravidian language spoken in that region developed into a separate Malayalam language.

Retroflex approximants:
Malayalam uses two letters for retroflex approximant(l,r), but Tamil has only one. However, interestingly, Kannada works before 12th century also used two letters for l,r that could be equated to Malayalam retroflex approximant.

Chillaksharam:
I really don't know the correct English term. It could be defined as a consonant or retroflex approximant without a vowel. Malayalam has five of them. I'm not sure about Tamil. But Kannada has one and that is 'n'.

I consider Retroflex approximant and Chillaksharams are typical to Dravidian languages in India(Of course, just as Ayya and Amma even Chinese languages might display them, at least it's true in the case of retroflex approximant). In those two cases, Malayalam doesn't look like a sub set of Tamil but a distant language with antiquity greater than ten centuries.

My argument is let's forget about letters in Malayalam because of Sanskrit influence(it could be other way round too, Sanskrit might have been influenced by some North Dravidian language and added few letters). But when it comes to letters unique to Dravidian languages, Malayalam is closer to another Dravidian language Kannada than Tamil. So my belief is that Malayalam wasn't branched from Tamil but developed into an independent language from some Southern proto-Dravidian language.

Update 1: 29-November-2005
There is a new paper(excerpts Via Quetzalcoatl discussion forum) on Indian Y-chromosomes that speculates that Dravidians are indigenous to India and originated in South-West of India. In my opinion that makes Tulu closest to the original Dravidian language followed by Kannada and Malayalam. Perhaps, South-West origin of Dravidian languages is a very interesting aspect. In Southen coastal Karnataka, there is no mainstream Kannada. However, there are three dialects of Kannada, viz. Havyaka, Kunda and Are bhashe. I wonder if these represent clinal variation of Dravidian languages. What does one mean by dialect? I don't agree that there are any dialects of a language. They are just clinal variations. They are standards by themselves. I suppose Kodava Thakk is the clinal language between Kannada, Tulu, Tamil and Malayalam. It's not an influenced language(I have read opinions like it's been influenced by Tulu, Kannada, Malayalam and Tamil) but a standard language which could remain so because of isolation. I suppose it's difficult to pinpoint clinal languages because of imposition of a certain standardized languages to the whole population.

Update 2:
Chillaksharam could be present in Tamil too without being explicitly mentioned in the grammar.

Origins of Indians: Version 2.2

Non-Vaidik Shaivism:
I have discussed about religious practices of South Indians before brahmanical Hinduism. Mostly, elites were Buddhist, Jain or non-Vaidik Shaivites. The common people might be worshipping all kinds of spirits. Among elite religions Shaivism was the religon of common people too.

We have already seen that Kashmiri Pundits and Konkani Saraswat brahmins were once considered pure Shaivites. Also, many South Indian brahmins were considered as Shaivites. I have already argued that most of these bramin castes were Dravidian priestly class basically and merged with Indo-Aryan and Semitic priestly class and established caste system. Sheer dominance of Dravidian religious deities in Hinduism is the direct result of this Shaivite Dravidian priestly class.

South Indian Shaivite priestly class:
The caste system was created in North-West of India, the meeting and melting point of Dravidians, Indo-Aryans and Semites. Though North India had a stable society with political entity before South India, the known South Indian kingdom of Pandyas was as back as 6-5th century BCE. That is almost a millennium before recorded Brahmin migration to South India. But it won't be surprising if there were brahmins in 6-5th century BCE.

So what happened to South Indian priestly class? Did they merge with brahmin priestly class as north Indians? Most plausibly many of them did. However, many continued to be Shaivites. That is non-Vaidik Shaivites.

Shaivites in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu:
There is a big group of Non-Vaidik Shaivites known as "VeeraShaivas" or "Lingayats" in Karnataka. This religious movement was started by Basavanna in 12th century CE, who was by birth a brahmin. The curious point about him is that he renounced brahmanical Hinduism denouncing all its practices including caste system and started a movement with total devotion to Shiva. This Veerashaivism converted many brahmanical Hindus to its fold. However, there still exists a section of Shaivites in Karnataka who consider themselves purer than these Veerashaivas since they were the oldest and natural Shaivites and not converted Shaivites. I have heard there is a section of Shaivites in Tamil Nadu also which considers itself as Non-Vaidik Shaivite. Most probably, these Shaivites(in Karnataka, they call themselves, before Basavanna) were dominant in South India before the rulers turned their back to non-Vaidik Shaivism. Similar is the case with Jains and Buddhists. But one hardly finds any Buddhist in South India indicating that they were not as numerous as Jains.

All these facts again prove that, a big chunk of Indo-European speaking people, from brahmins to non-brahmins and all Dravidian speaking people were assimilated ethnically and culturally after their migration to the subcontinent. All the so-called European admixture is due to the Western Eurasian females who form 10% of our population; since we have already seen that male Indo-Aryan genetic marker was already present in India. Anyway, admixture analysis using autosomes is still controversial.

My ancestor didn't take that route, Dr. Wells.

My 35000 years and 7 months old deep ancestry is out. Just yesterday Genographic project team uploaded my results. I belong to Haplogroup R (M173) and I suppose that means I’m in fact R1.

However, Dr. Wells went completely wrong about my paternal ancestor’s journey over the period. Contrary to his video message that my ancestors went westward from Central Asia to Europe, they actually moved south and reached India. And now here I’m in South India. I suppose R1 is also found among Camerooneans, so he could have talked about the possibilities of descendents of M173 moving to Africa and South Asia. I suppose he can not talk only about the most common route taken by Haplogroup R1 people while giving personalized messages.

My close cousins:
Unsurprisingly, most of my matches are Indians including a Pakistani and a Parsi. However, there were couple of distant matches with Central Asians (an Uzbek and a Central Asian muslim from China). I suppose too obvious.

What next?
I can’t go for surname project since I don’t have a surname. I can’t go for gotra test since, I have inherited my gotra matrilineally and I suppose I have to go for an mtDNA testing to compare my maternal ancestry.

Does this journey correspond to my community's folk story?
My community has a folklore that we migrated (or driven) from South to North generations back. I suppose even few Scandinavians have that story and I think it has been compared with R1a1 migration to Scandinavian countries. However, not much luck in my case. The south to north distance is just 100kms. That is from Kannur to Kasaragod and Mangalore all in south-west coastal India.

Update: 10-November-2005
Am I really R1?
This discussion at Genealogy-DNA-L forum about R1b in India has left me wondering about the validity of my M173. My STR counts at DYS390-DYS391-DYS392 are 23-10-10. It looks like people who have those values generally found to be positive for M124 or Haplogroup R2, an Indian specific Haplogroup with high frequency in South India. And I'm South Indian.

Update: 11-November-2005
I'm not the only Indian unhappy with my genetic journey described by Spencer Wells.

Origins of Indians: Version 2.1

Brahmins in South India:
I had few thoughts about migration of Brahmin communities to South India. This was rekindled by my discussion with Srikanth of Srican regarding development of caste system in South India.

The popular notion is that Brahmins were imported from North-West of India by South Indian kings to perform religious duties[1]. This could be true for some Brahmin families. But in my opinion there were Brahmins in South India before that period.

South India's religious history:
It's tough to demarcate religious character of South Indian society over the period. The common population most probably worshipped phallus, goddesses, folk heroes and nature(trees, snakes etc...) without any Vaidik touch. However, common people were irrelevent(no democracy!) during those days. Therefore, we have to consider only the religion of the rulers and the elite classes.

The ruling and elite classes of South Indian society was either Buddhist or Jain or non-Vaidik Shaivite. Of course, Brahmins were there, but just as another religious group[2]. The ascendency of Brahmins was started mostly around 6-7th century CE and was complete over all of South India by 12th century CE. As it's obvious, this change in the religious character was brought about by the transition of South Indian kings and elite classes from Buddhism, Jainism and non-Vaidik Shaivism to Brahmanical Hinduism or the caste system. However, the general population was affected by this transition mainly because of the common base of both Brahmin religion and local religions[3] as I have discussed before.

1. I suppose the recorded history of Brahmins' migration to South India as priests of kings was around 5-6th century CE.
2. It seems Vaidik gods like Indra, Varuna, Semitic god Brahma were mentioned in old Tamil literature( 2nd century BCE -2nd century CE) along with non-Vaidik gods. Since we know Brahmin caste first created in North-West India before 5th century CE(Buddha's period), some of this caste people might have already migrated to various parts of India by that time(As far as I know, they were prohibited only from crossing the sea).
3. It should be noted here that Brahmins in South India used to claim they worship higher forms of Shiva and Devi(goddess) and the general population(shudras) worship the lower forms. No, these two groups didn't borrow anything from each other, just that Brahmins had literate touch to their religion(okay, that means lot). However, there were contradictions to this claim if you consider India in general. I suppose Kali is lower form and Vishnu is higher form in South India, whereas, in Bengal, Kali is traditionally worshipped by the upper castes and the lower castes are generally Vaishnavites(Note:Vishnu is just an abstraction of Dravidian folk heroes Rama and Krishna).

Origins of Indians: Version 2.0

I have refined my theory to incorporate Hinduism's diverse origins. Previously, I argued that it’s a synthesis between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan beliefs but Dravidian deities taking higher position.

For the newcomers to this blog a brief description of male migration to the Indian sub-continent, as I see it, in the chronological order:
* Haplogroup-F Dravidians ->40-50000 years ago?
* Haplogroup-L Dravidians ->30000 years ago
* Haplogroup-H Dravidians ->20-30000 years ago
* Haplogroup-R1a Dravidians ->10-20000 years ago
* Haplogroup-J Semites -> 6-8000 years ago
* Haplogroup-R1a Indo-Aryans ->3-3500 years ago

Hindu Trinity:

In my previous post, I argued that Hindu trinity is entirely Indian. Though one of the trinity Shiva’s origins is evident in Dravidian worship, the origins of Brahma and Vishnu are ambiguous.

Abraham and Brahma:

I have read about the similarities between these two figures. Unfortunately, those articles also compare Krishna and Christ which I find highly improbable. So I was confused about the validity of this theory. Anyway, I’m going to ignore Krishna part and consider only Abraham part.

Religious strains of India:

1. Tribal nature worship: Haplogroups-F,L, H and R1a(Dravidian)
2. Shiva-Shakti worship: Haplogroups-F,L,H and R1a(Dravidian)
3. Semitic Brahma: Haplogroup J
4. Vedic gods(Indra, Agni, Vayu etc...): Haplogroup R1a(Indo-Aryan)

Vishnu:

Vishnu is most plausibly the abstract of Indian folk heroes. Two of his human avatars Rama and Krishna were mortals. Since all of them have been depicted as dark skinned, I’ll include them as of Dravidian strain. Therefore, the final strain;

5. Abstract of folk heroes, Vishnu: Haplogroups-F,L,H and R1a(Dravidian)

Notes on Shiva and Shakti:

NuSapiens pointed me to Marija Gimbutas and her works on matrilineal European society while commenting on one of my previous posts. Perhaps, the present state of Shiva’s prominence doesn’t actually reflect the situation before patriarchic Indo-Aryan migration. The penis could have been just a subordinate of all powerful vagina in olden days. The phallus might have been created just to complement the yoni. However, the influence of Indo-Aryans resulted in phallus becoming all powerful Shiva. Nevertheless, in East and South India goddesses are still powerful. Both symbolic phallus and yoni also got the human forms reflecting Indo-Aryan imagination of gods (Though I’m not sure if Indo-Aryans were idolaters or not but Dravidians were).

Update: 29 October 2005
Gods without temples:
The original Indo-Aryan gods were not the only ones without any temples dedicated to them even Brahma[1] one of the trinity hardly finds any temple for him. Both these clearly point out their non-Indian origin and also the minority position of the people who were associated with these gods in the general population.

Relative numbers of R1a Dravidians and R1a Indo-Aryans:
Perhaps, peaceful migration of Indo-Aryans into North West of India might have resulted in materially superior civilization of Dravidians accepting the religious culture of Indo-Aryans. Most plausibly, linguistically Indo-Europeanization of North, East, West and Central India started around 1500 BCE and continued till 1000 CE. I think there should be a proper study of developement of stable societies in various Indian regions to understand the spread of Indo-European languages. Also, the role of Buddhism and Jainism in spreading Indo-European languages in North India(North, East, Central and West Indian regions).

As I said before, the peaceful migration of Indo-Aryans most probably brought females too. At present 90% of Indian caste/tribal mtDNA is India specific(East Eurasian?) and rest supposed to be European specific(West Eurasian?). I would argue, the frequency of Indo-Aryan R1a corresponds to this 10%. R1a frequency is supposed to be around 20% in caste Indian population. That would make 50% of R1a in that is Indo-Aryan. Though the balance of Dravidian and Indo-Aryan R1a might vary from region to region[2]. There were arguments that near homogeniety of Indian females might be due to polygyny and female infanticide practiced by this group. But I think in old socities that could be easily compensated by the heavy loss of men in the battle field and actually there could be higher number of females alive than males. So even 10% is an optimistic calculation. Anyway, from the old scriptures it looks like females did have a greater freedom and respect.

[1] The mythological story relating to non-worhsip of Brahma goes something like this. Brahma is the creator(just like Abraham is the father of all the tribes, thus the basic character of these two figures remained same in Semitic and Hindu religions). However, he married( or tried to seduce her or obsessed with her. .... or ... or ...or...damn these mythological stories ) his own creation Saraswati. Shiva angry with such an incestuous behaviour of Brahma cursed him that nobody would worship him.

[2] The Brahuis in Pakistan who supposed to exhibit 40% R1a might be purely Dravidian R1a.

I am Homo Neanderthalensis!

Found at my Genographic page, the message in bold letters is newly added.

Your sample needs additional testing. In some cases, the standard testing procedures do not permit the accurate determination of a haplogroup, so we perform additional tests. This test is referred to as a SNP test. This is not uncommon, but will delay the posting of your results by two to three weeks. You do not need to take any action at this time.

Please be aware that in some cases a simple SNP test may be inconclusive, which could result in additional delays of several weeks as we continue to test your sample.

If we find that there is a problem at any point during the processing of your sample, you will receive an updated message when you log in to check your status.

Buddhism and Jainism in South India

South India had Buddhist and Jain past that predates Brahmanical Hinduism. The popular theory prevalent among South Indian intelligentia (especially, non-brahmins) is Brahmins destroyed these religions and drove the local Buddhist/Jain population to inferior caste positions [1]. Somehow, I find it difficult to agree with it. Not the least because this theory gives motley crowd of Brahmins some supernatural abilities, but it also defies the logic.

Religious practices of South Indians:

Along with phallus/goddess, snakes, numerous local gods and spirits are revered by South Indians (The discussion is only about Hindus). The obvious primitiveness of these supernatural powers shows they are the oldest forms of worship preceding both Buddhism and Jainism. If whole South India was Buddhist or Jain before the arrival of the Brahmins that would require whole population going back to its primitive forms of worship from more sophisticated religions. I find it highly improbable.

Elite religions:

Ergo, I would go by the theory that both Buddhism and Jainism were religions of miniscule elite classes in South Indian society [2]. The mass remained animist throughout the history.

Brahmins had it easy:

When Brahmins came down to South India they never had to ‘convert’ the local population [3]. Their Vaidik religion was just Indo-Aryanization of Dravidian beliefs and gods. Whereas, Buddhist and Jain elite remained aloof of the local population, Brahmins entered into their social life because of the common base of their religious beliefs. The cultural aspects of both these groups merged easily. Perhaps, when the locals saw that these northern people also worship the same gods the feeling of alien ness might have never developed. Anyway, illiterate local population hardly had any intellectualism to oppose caste divisions.

For Buddhists and Jains of South India, it could have been a gargantuan task to convert (supposing they had that inclination) the mass to those religions [4]. Only fear and education(preaching) would have helped their cause. The former was ruled out and the later was obviously never undertaken by the elites. So probably, non-Brahmin intelligentsia, instead of shedding tears for the past Buddhist/Jain ancestors, should at least partly blame those elites of South Indians for failing them. Then again, are you proud of your animist beliefs or would rather part of basically atheist religions.

Footnotes:

1. I assume since most of the Brahmins from north-west of India, the origin of caste system, they must be lighter skinned because of their mixing with Indo-Aryans. However, a sizeable number of dark skinned Brahmins in South India shows that the Buddhist and Jain elites might have merged with them.

2. There is a very small population of Jains (Tulu/Kannada) in coastal Karnataka. They are generally prosperous and educated people. Present day Jains in India are by large rich merchants.

3. There is no provision for conversion in Brahmanical Hinduism. It shows that it’s not a religion spread from the proselytization. As I have discussed already, Hinduism is founded by Dravidian people sharing same set of beliefs throughout the country. Assimilation with Indo-Aryans (R1A-Dravidians) only resulted in literate construction of those beliefs not actually altering anything. Brahmins never had to indulge in proselytization in India.

4. Religions founded by individuals need fear and education (preaching). Perhaps, the former more than the later. You also need educated society to influence the others. I wonder whether East-Asian countries were more egalitarian when it comes education since historical times.

Origin of Caste concepts

There are many theories as to the origin of caste system in India. Many of these theories take into account skin colour or dominance of Indo-Europeans. I would base my theory on the following assumptions.

1. The initial Indian society was matriarchal.
2. The fundamental of caste system is purity and pollution distinction.
3. There was indeed an Indo-Aryan migration.
4. These Indo-Aryans had a structured and well defined religion in their Indo-European language.

I have already discussed about three most influential migrations to India.
1. Africa->Middle-East->India (Tribals)
2.Middle-East->North-West Indian subcontinent and Southern Central Asia-> Whole India (Dravidians)
3. North-West Indian subcontinent and Southern Central Asia-> South-East Europe(Kurgan)->North-West India-> Whole India(Indo-Aryans or R1A Dravidians)

Later I have discussed about rise of patriarchical society in Kurgan lands.

Masculization of feminine concepts:
Previously, I discussed about dominance of Dravidian religious symbols in Hinduism and marginalization of original Indo-Aryan gods. My argument was it was brought about by dominant Dravidian priestly class among Brahmins.

If one observe other Indo-European societies, there were class systems but nothing akin to caste system based on purity and pollution. The division was based on labour but the requirement was extent of cleanliness in every aspect of life from the higher castes. It's a classic case of female domain of cleanliness getting perverted in the feminized men.

As we know Indo-Aryans were patriarchical. Also, I would expect that there was a gradual migration to India and not invasion. If it's invasion I find it difficult to see how their religion got marginalized. On the other hand, migration gives a proper picture. The patriarchical Indo-Aryans gave rise to a male Dravidian priestly class(or it must be in existence worshipping mostly goddesses), however, the society was matriarchal therefore even the male abstraction of the world was feminine. The resulting hierarchical system when Indo-Aryans and Dravidians merged was conceptually one sided. Dravidian. However, male appropriation of female psyche resulted in the perversion of the whole system.

Indeed, if you observe Brahmin society since the historical times it was mostly passive. It goes against the general expectation from haplogroup R1A people(aggressive and attacking like Pathans atleast after their liberation from Dravidian Hinduism and Buddhism). You can explain this character only from Dravidian angle.

To sum it up all, India's dominant culture, character and people has remained Dravidian throughout the history. Basically, all the religions of India, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, are the abstraction of feminine character of Dravidian India.

Rise of Patriarchical Society

My only assumption for this argument is that human society was matriarchal in the begninning. I've already discussed about three migrations that left their mark on Indian population and how closely related were Dravidians and Indo-Aryans. For the sake of clarity and based on the earlier discussions, I'll be using the terminologies R1A Dravidians(Indo-Aryans), H-Dravidians, L-Dravidians, J-Dravidians and R-Dravidians.

Somewhere in North-West of Indian Subcontinent:
Few male cousins made a plan that would change the course of human history(exact period is unknown). Till then any human migration(or invasion) was undertaken by both men and women. As a result society remained matriarchical with mothers controlling the social and religious order. However, this migration of few closely related cousins(now we know as R1A-Dravidians) would change all that. First time in the history, a Homo-Sapien community left Indian subcontinent(the third homeland of Dravidians after Africa and Middle-East) without any females and moved to South-East Europe.

Now they are the masters of the society:
In the Kurgan lands these R1A-Dravidians took up the girls of Pre-Indo-European population. In the confusion of cultural conflicts, these R1A-Dravidian males ended up performing the religious duties. Now they were the one dictating terms for the social conducts. The taste of power in the community also motivated them to invent new gods in their mould.

The new patriarchical world order:
When the society was matriarchal the only driving reason behind any migration or invasion was lack of food. However, the male order changed all that. Now there were more migrations and invasions that is driven out of want for more land and more women. The greed was born. The new male order multiplied quickly. The societies under its attack either also became patriarchical or became extinct.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere:
NuSapiens feels transition from matriarchy to patriarchy was brought about by climate change. But I will stick to my position that it was due to few only male R1A-Dravidian migration to Europe from the sub-continent.

First two Dravidian words : Amma and Ayya

Here I'm proposing that Amma and Ayya are the first two Dravidian words. I'm not sure what was the initial form of these words used by their ancestors in Africa. The day a child called its mother 'Amma' and father 'Ayya' the people somewhere in North-West of India became Dravidians.(see update 1)

Background of Indian population:
I have already mentioned there were three distinct male migrations to India based on three distinct strains of religious worship. The first were tribals. The second were Dravidians who were related to tribals during their years in Middle-East. The third were Indo-Aryans who were related to Dravidians during their years in Southern Central Asia(North-West India, Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan) and were also related to tribals during their years in Middle-East. All these males took up the girls of coastal migration to India killing all their men.

Ayya and Amma in South India:
Amma(mother) has retained her purity in South India all these years. However, Ayya has changed.
Ayya in Telugu: The rural Telugu people still address their father as Ayya. However, more common usage is for the elder and/or powerful.
Ayya in Tamil: Tamils have stopped addressing their fathers as Ayya. Now, it's only for elder and/or powerful.(see update 2)
Ayya in Kannada: In Kannada Ayya in some places has become Ajja which is an addressing term of ones 'grandfather'. As in Telugu and Tamil Ayya is an elder and/or powerful.
Ayya in Malayalam: Ayya has changed to Achha(n) in Malayalam which is an addressing term for father.
Except Tamil, all other major South Indian languages use Ayya to denote either father or grandfather. And it's obvious how it became a respectful term to address any elder and/or powerful.
North Indian Dravidians and Indo-Aryans don't use Ayya to denote either father or grandfather.

Indo-Aryans and Ayya:
Indo-Aryans once they moved from Southern Central Asia to South-Eastern Europe(Kurgan cultural centre)the term Ayya was modified into Arya. During their years in South-Eastern Europe the meaning also changed from father to noble(may be noble father too, 'Arya Putra' most plausibly meant noble father's son. When Darius boasted he's an Aryan, most plausibly it is 'I'm a noble father').

After spending few thousand years in South-Eastern Europe some of the Indo-Aryans migrated back to India. Though the religion that they had brought became a minor because of the dominance of Dravidian priestly class, they succeded in implanting their language in most part of India. However, the continuity with their Dravidian past was ensured in that word Arya, which is , after all, a derivative of 'Ayya'.

Updates:
1. As Razib of Gene Expression commented 'Amma' might have had earlier origins.
2. Though common addressing term for father is 'Appa' in Tamil(as in Kannada), Ayya can also be used to address either father or grandfather. So all South Indian languages use 'Ayya' to denote either father or grandfather.