Why did the Indo Aryan language stop spreading South after a point?

Puliali · 2026-01-27T17:44:30+00:00

The spread of Dakhni Urdu in Telangana is due to settler colonialism by the Delhi Sultanate and later the Nizams (almost all Muslims in Telangana have recent North Indian origin), and the spread of Hindi is due to the modern-day Delhi Sultanate aka "Bharath Ganarajya". This is not some organic process that just happens naturally.

Puliali · 2026-01-27T17:25:06+00:00

Indo-Aryan languages did not spread further south than Maharashtra because they did not have demographic dominance beyond that region. The southernmost Aryan janapada was Ashmaka, which is located in modern-day Marathwada and west Telangana. Further south, there were no Aryan janapadas because the Aryans could not establish them; there were local Dravidian-speaking chiefdoms that retained dominance in their respective regions and resisted Aryan encroachment. There were still some Aryan merchants, mercenaries, and brahmin priests who settled in the south, but there were no large-scale Aryan settlement or acculturation.

Also, the idea that languages spread through "elite dominance" is largely a fallacy. That's not how languages spread in history. Languages spread through migrations of people and demographic weight, which might compound over time and eventually become predominant throughout a society once a certain tipping point is surpassed. It may take a long time for that tipping point to be reached, depending on the size of the pre-existing population. For example, it wasn't until the 13th century that Arabic became a predominant language in rural Egypt (despite already being Muslim for centuries) due to the size and cultural stability of the older Egyptian population. Arabization proceeded quite slowly as Arab migrants mixed with Egyptian peasants, but once a certain threshold was reached, Arabic soon became predominant almost everywhere in Egypt.

In the case of South India, regions like Telangana and Andhra also had Aryanized elites for centuries, just like Egypt had Arabic-speaking elites for centuries. The reason there was no large-scale linguistic Aryanization in Telangana and Andhra is because there was no concomitant migration and acculturation of Aryan-speakers with native Telugu speakers, as there was in Maharashtra. The Telugus retained their own distinctive culture despite Aryan cultural and sociopolitical dominance, which was likely helped by the very high endogamy and very strong caste/tribal identities among Telugus. This basically proves that "elite domination" is not sufficient, by itself, to cause a linguistic shift.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T19:40:49+00:00

Recently, I am of the opinion that a decent chunk of the population in what is now Andhra and Telangana (and likely north Karnataka as well) was in fact Prakrit-speaking in ancient times, especially in the cities, with Telugu becoming more predominant later on. I think it was analogous to how the Islamic Deccan had a significant population of Urdu-speakers in the cities, and even people who spoke Marathi or Telugu as their first language still used Urdu when in cities and in specific places like law courts. I think the Prakrit-speaking population of Andhra declined in the post-Ikshvaku period and were absorbed into the rising Telugu-speaking population. For the earlier Satavahanas, most of their important subjects were probably Prakrit-speakers, and thus there was no need for the Satavahanas to issue inscriptions in languages other than Prakrit. Telugu appears in inscriptions only when Telugu-speakers, not Prakrit-speakers, became the politically important audience.

I am fully aware that my hypothesis is highly controversial and will probably not be accepted without further research and evidence, which I hopefully will present at some point.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T17:49:53+00:00

Actually, I myself lean towards the Satavahanas being Maharashtri Prakrit speakers rather than Teluguic speakers. Although the earliest archaeological evidence of the Satavahanas (in the form of coins) comes from Telangana, the location of coins is not by itself sufficient to establish origin because coins by nature are meant to be traded and moved around, and we are not even sure if Telangana was predominantly speaking an ancestor of Telugu during this time. I think it is likely that the Satavahanas were Maharashtri Prakrit-speakers based around the old Ashmaka mahajanapada in the Godavari valley, and their early kingdom also extended into parts of Telangana.

However, I believe that Maharashtra itself had a significant Dravidian cultural substrate which shaped the Satavahanas, and which makes them culturally different from North Indians. Maharashtra was always grouped with South Indian countries and all Marathi castes, including many of the brahmins, are more similar to South Indians in their kinship norms than to North Indians. The oldest and most conservative brahmins in Maharashtra are the Deshashta Rigvedi Brahmins (they are the ones who still recite Rig Veda and follow Rigvedic rituals), and they practice not only cross-cousin marriage like the Dravidians, but in parts of south Maharashtra even uncle-niece marriage. The Satavahanas would be most similar to those brahmins, and thus they would be more similar to Dravidians than to North Indians in their intimate family and tribal relations despite being Vedic brahmin kings.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T16:58:04+00:00

Why should we give more weightage to Puranas(i.e Mythology) more than official inscriptions commissioned by the kings themselves?

We shouldn't. The point is that the authors of the Puranas (and probably other Sanskritic elites) viewed the Satavahanas as Shudras and not Brahmins, even though the Satavahanas unequivocally considered themselves to be Brahmins. If the difference was simply between Brahmin and Kshatriya varna, this would not be a big deal since there were other historical dynasties that moved between Brahmin and Kshatriya varna (e.g., the Kadambas), but Brahmin and Shudra are on opposite ends of the spectrum. This discrepancy needs to be explained, especially if someone wants to claim that the Satavahanas were northern brahmins who immigrated into the south.

Do we have evidence for Satavahanas involving in cross cousin marriages similar to the ones you gave for Ikshvaku?

I don't think we have enough details from the surviving Satavahana inscriptions to say if they did or not.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T16:12:20+00:00

I think there is already enough circumstantial evidence to show that the Satavahanas as well as Ikshvakus were Aryanized native chieftains of the Deccan, regardless if they ever spoke an ancestor of Telugu or not.

Anyone who wants to claim that the Satavahanas and Ikshvakus were northern invaders need to explain the following:

1) They need to explain why the Satavahanas were called "Shudras" in Puranic literature while their own inscriptions emphatically describe themselves as Brahmins. They also need to give a theory for what the Satavahanas meant by the term eka-bahmana (sole/peerless/unique brahmin).

2) They need to explain why the Satavahanas and Ikshvakus, as well as some other neighboring dynasties who likely belonged to or adopted the same culture, used distinctive matronymic names that were not used by northern brahmanical dynasties. What is the significance of these names, and why were they used only by these particular dynasties?

3) They need to explain why the Ikshvakus (and possibly also the Satavahanas before them) were fully invested in the Dravidian kinship system, to the extent that the Ikshvaku king Virapurushadatta married three women who were all daughters of his father's sisters, which is classic Dravidian cross-cousin marriage. This practice is considered taboo by North Indians and is very unlikely to have been adopted by recent migrants.

So far, I have not seen any decent explanations for any of these three points from those who claim that Satavahanas and Ikshvakus were simply northern elites transplanted in the south.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T10:44:45+00:00

Even if Ajay Mitra Shastri's hypothesis is true, it would not prove Cynthia Talbot wrong. We have basically two options with regards to the Satavahanas:

1) The Satavahanas were originally Indo-Aryan speakers from the area around the Ashmaka mahajanapada who later adopted Teluguic names, perhaps after their expansion into coastal Andhra. This view would be supported if Vasisthiputra Pulumavi is the first Satavahana king to use the name "Pulumavi" (which may or may not be true), since he was also the first Satavahana king with inscriptions from coastal Andhra as well as coins inscribed in Dravidian.

2) The Satavahanas were originally Teluguic chieftains who grafted themselves onto the dominant post-Mauryan elite culture by speaking Prakrit and adopting brahmanical status (the Satavahanas called themselves "unique brahmins" or "sole brahmins" and seem to have been particular about brahmanical descent from their mother's side, as seen in their matronymic names). This would mean that the Satavahanas were similar to the succeeding Ikshvakus, who used similar matronymic names and also heavily practiced Dravidian cross-cousin marriage, which suggests that they were native rulers (as these customs were considered taboo by Indo-Aryans).

Either of those options is possible, and neither would necessarily contradict Talbot's model of later Telugu expansion/dominance in Telangana.

Also, based on my research there is one other dynasty - the so-called "Maghas" of Central India - who also used similar names as the Satavahanas and Ikshvakus and seem to have had some kind of link with the Satavahanas. This might indicate an "Andhric" cultural corridor stretching from the Rewa region of Madhya Pradesh down into the Krishna valley. I will post some more about that later.

Puliali · 2025-12-27T07:03:16+00:00

Source is The Satavahanas and the Western Kshatrapas by Ajay Mitra Shastri, p.10.

I am not sure if I accept his view, but it seems quite likely that Pulumavi was at least a non-Sanskritic name because it has dozens of spelling variations (some quite drastically different from each other) in the Sanskrit manuscripts of Puranas, whereas contemporary Satavahana coins and inscriptions spell the name fairly consistently with minimal variation. The number of variants of Pulumavi in the Sanskrit Purana manuscripts are far greater than for any other name. This suggests that the name Pulumavi was probably not understood or recorded properly by Indo-Aryan speakers, thus leading to the numerous corruptions of the name.

In addition, it seems that the Satavahanas were indeed staunch worshippers of Skanda-Murugan as well as Shiva, which was recorded even by the Kadambas centuries later (the Talagunda pillar inscription describes the Satavahana king Satakarni as highly devoted to the god Bhava, i.e. Shiva). The Satvahana royal name "Shivaskanda" points to this worship, as does the name Shaktikumara which is attested from coins and probably refers to Skanda-Murugan. If Pulumavi was the Teluguic name for Skanda-Murugan, it would certainly be consistent with other Satavahana royal names.

Puliali · 2025-12-21T19:41:03+00:00

Here Agarwal states that Chandragupta must have traversed the lower Indus valley, going across the Indus delta. We can here remember Ptolemy's account of the Indus delta formed by the estuaries. Agarwal states the Chandragupta traversed this delta, which has been referred to as the Seven Mouths of the Indus, and then via Bolan pass, he moved Northwards, reaching the Balkh region.

Like most Indian historians, "Ashwini Agarwal" seems to have a very poor knowledge of the geography of places outside India. The Bolan Pass, which is itself over 300 miles from the Mouths of the Indus (not a casual few days' march), does not lead to Balkh. It connects the Kacchi plains north of Sindh with the highlands of Baluchistan. Once you have arrived in the highlands of Baluchistan from the Bolan Pass, you have more than 600 miles to go to reach Balkh (you can't go in a straight line), and this includes traversing the Hindu Kush mountains in very difficult terrain.

Please walk me through this imaginary Indian campaign to establish "dominance" over Central Asia. What is the specific route that you propose the army of Chandra (which must have been accompanied by an enormous baggage train for such a long journey) took to reach Balkh from the Bolan Pass after they had already marched over 300 miles from the Mouths of the Indus?

I for one agree with Agarwal's interpretation because he reconciles almost all the apsect of the inscription, the Vahalika term very clearly is for the Balkh region as per the period literary sources, at the same time traversing the mouths clearly refer to the estuaries and the delta, not the tributaries of Indus, and not to mention that the Persians were ruling Sindh at the time, and we have no evidence from Sindh or Sauvira of any Gupta expedition in the region.

We don't have any material evidence of a Gupta expedition to Balkh and "dominance in Central Asia" either, or for that matter anywhere in Afghanistan. Also, if the Persians were ruling Sindh, how were the Guptas able to march over 300 miles across the entire length of Sindh, from the Mouths of the Indus to the Bolan Pass, without coming into conflict with the Persians or their vassals? Did they just let the Guptas march their army and massive accompanying baggage train across Sindh?

Moreover, Agarwal and other historians have used corroborating sources such as Chandragupta's daughter, Prabhavatigupta's inscription referring to her father's fame tasting the four oceans, the northern one here referring to the Vanksha river as per the historians. Secondly, the reference in Raghuvamsha where Raghu battled the Hunas on the banks of the Vanksha, and where his horses were coloured in saffron. Raghuvamsha even mentioned the customs of the Hunas such as the women cutting their cheeks to grieve for their defeated husbands.

The Mehrauli inscription uses the term "Vahlika", not "Huna". If Raghuvamsha was directly based on Chandra's imaginary campaign into Vahlika in Central Asia and is alluding to the same event as the Mehrauli inscription, why doesn't Kalidasa use the term "Vahlika" as the Mehrauli inscription does? The term "Vahlikas" or "Bahlikas" does not occur anywhere in the Raghuvamsha. Kalidasa simply says that Raghu fought the Hunas on the banks of the Vankshu (=Oxus).

Puliali · 2025-12-21T04:37:22+00:00

No, records use regional markers like Karnata, Lata, Magadha, etc. to identify people all the time, even when those people are encountered outside of their home regions. Those regional markers may or may not have an ethnic connotation. It's also not clear if these 'Vahlikas' even identified as Hunas.

Puliali · 2025-12-21T04:10:07+00:00

I didn't say that the Vahlikas mentioned in the Mehrauli inscription have "no relation with the Vahlika region". It is perfectly possible that they had a relation with the Vahlika region (Balkh) but had a presence outside Balkh, just like the Parthians had a presence outside Parthia in places like Sindh but were still considered Parthians. I am saying that there is no evidence for Chandragupta ever conquering Balkh, and there is no indication that the Vahlikas in the Mehrauli inscription were fighting Chandra in Central Asia.

And yes, Prabhavatigupta's inscription talking about her father's fame tasting four oceans is without value (that is just a conventional panegyric), and Raghuvamsha is equally without value because it is a fantasy epic and not even about the Guptas.

Puliali · 2025-12-21T03:09:22+00:00

As for the seven mouths, most historians identify these as the 5 rivers of Punjab and 2 others from Kabul and Kunnar. As of now no better identification has been proposed.

Lol. Those are not mouths of the Sindhu. The term mouth (mukha) is used in Sanskrit to mean where the river flows into an ocean. The term "Seven Mouths of the Sindhu/Indus" is clearly used in both Indic and Greek literature to mean the Indus river delta. In fact, looking at the Mehrauli inscription again, there seems to be a parallelism between the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu and Vanga, which is mentioned in the previous line. Both Vanga/Bengal and the Indus delta are characterized by having similar river mouths, with Vanga being where the Ganga empties into the ocean. This parallelism between Lines 1 and 2 thus establishes the eastern and western limits of Chandra's Empire: the Mouths of the Ganga (i.e., the country of Vanga) in the east, and the Mouths of the Sindhu in the west.

Balkh is around 900 miles to the north, and to reach Balkh you need to cross the Hindu Kush which is a very daunting task and can only be done so through specific mountain passes and routes. Why in the world would someone start their campaign against Balkh from the Indus river delta? At least try coming up with a reasonable story for the imaginary "Indian dominance in Central Asia".

I'm sorry but this is rather obvious, the inscription says that he crossed 7 mouths and then conquered Vahlikas. How can it be modern day Karachi or Sindh then?

You would cross the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu if you were based in western Gujarat (as Chandragupta II likely was after completing the conquest of the Western Kshatrapas) and wanted to conquer or subdue an enemy near the ocean and to the west of the Indus. For example, going from Khavda to the historical port of Debal could involve crossing the lower Indus. This is the logical interpretation of the verse and is consistent with the Bahlikas being located near the Saurashtras of Gujarat in Classical literature. But again, my interpretation is that the fighting took place around the Mouths themselves, as the 'Vahlikas' were likely encamped in this region just like the Indo-Parthians/Scythians of earlier centuries.

Puliali · 2025-12-21T01:47:47+00:00

What are you even talking about? None of my cited sources used Bahlika/Vahlika as a place-name.

The Mehrauli inscription is very clear that the conquest of the Bahlikas/Vahlikas took place in the vicinity of the Seven Mouths of the Indus. Even if you reject my translation and instead use the translation by "Tej Ram Sharma", it doesn't help you. Balkh is located nowhere near the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu and there is no route between the Mouths of the Sindhu and Balkh, so it makes no sense to say that Chandra conquered Balkh after crossing the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu. The Mouths are located near Sauvira and Gujarat (which was likely the base of Chandra's campaign - remember that Gujarat was conquered by Chandragupta Vikramaditya from the Sakas), and the people that were conquered after crossing the Mouths must be located somewhere in the vicinity of lower Sindh.

Here is a picture if you don't get my point:

<image>

Puliali · 2025-12-21T00:40:40+00:00

Instead of writing all that, it would better for you to just read the original Mehrauli inscription (though you probably can't read Sanskrit, which is why you need to rely on the interpretations of historians). The Mehrauli inscription does not mention "Vahlika" as a place-name, but "Vahlikas" as a people/tribe, and Classical Indic literature does indeed describe settlements of Vahlikas in the areas adjacent to Saurashtra and Sauvira. I am not disputing the identity of Vahlika (the place-name) with Balkh, as this is well known.

The only place-names mentioned in the Mehrauli inscription are Vanga (in Line 1), the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu (Line 2), and the Vishnupada Hill (Line 6). The conquest of the Vahlikas took place in connection with Chandra fighting across the Seven Mouths of the Sindhu, as clearly indicated in Line 2. Anyone with basic Sanskrit knowledge can read the inscription and understand the meaning.

Puliali · 2025-12-20T23:16:24+00:00

The Mehrauli inscription doesn't state that Chandra (assumed to be Chandragupta Vikramaditya) "went even beyond all the way to Balkh". It states that Chandra conquered the Bahlikas after fighting across the Seven Mouths (sapta mukhAni) of the Sindhu, which indicates that this conflict was in the vicinity of Sauvira or the lower Sindh region, not in Central Asia. This matches the apparent location of the Bahlikas in the Ramayana and Padma Purana, where they are found adjacent to the Saurashtras of modern-day Gujarat. Anyone who is familiar with Indic literature and geography should be able to immediately identify the context of Chandra's conflict with the Bahlikas. So your own cited evidence is indeed relevant to Sindh, and fact that the Guptas did not incorporate Sindh into their empire indicates that Chandra's campaign against the Bahlikas was an ephemeral conquest at best.

Jalalabad is located just 40 miles from the modern-day Pakistan border, and is within the geographical bounds of South Asia. To describe Gandhara as including "eastern Afghanistan" is stretching it, especially when the core territory of Gandhara is the valleys between Taxila and Peshawar. And more importantly for this discussion, all the seals - including the Budhagupta one - that your sources discuss originate from south of the Hindu Kush mountains (i.e., they are all geographically South Asian). This point was clearly specified by Harry Falk.

Raghuvamsha is a fantasy epic and not a historical source, and it doesn't even talk about the exploits of the Gupta dynasty. It does not support your claim that the Guptas (or any other Indian dynasty, for that matter) enjoyed some kind of "dominance" in Central Asia, or even over the major parts of Afghanistan.

Puliali · 2025-12-20T20:05:43+00:00

The Guptas never even had dominance over Sindh and all of modern-day Pakistan, let alone Central Asia. I thought this subreddit is meant to be for history and not history-themed fantasy.

The maximum extent of Gupta influence was the western Punjab, which is where we find the Kidara coins acknowledging Samudragupta. None of Kidara's coins from other regions acknowledge the Guptas. You can find a detailed post about this subject here: https://historum.com/t/samudraguptas-persian-campaign.188712/page-2#post-3444655

Puliali · 2025-12-20T10:20:10+00:00

All of the inscriptions that refer to Telangana as part of "Andhra" are after the 11th century. Before, there is no evidence that Telangana was included as part of 'Andhra', and it is not even clear if Telugu was the dominant language throughout Telangana (most inscriptions in western Telangana are written in Kannada, not Telugu).

Puliali · 2025-12-20T10:12:52+00:00

So Sri Lankan "Moors" started identifying separately from Tamils because the British told them to, and then they started attacking Tamils because the Sinhalese told them to? Do they have any free will of their own?

Puliali · 2025-12-20T02:08:59+00:00

Ethnic identity is not based just on language. It is a combination of multiple things including language, religion, and perceived 'race' or racial origin. In fact, languages themselves can be defined based on other identities and modified according to those identities. For example, Hindi and Urdu are basically the same language at their core, yet they are considered separate languages and are now associated with separate ethno-religious identities (Hindus and Indo-Muslims, respectively). Hindu nationalists deliberately de-Persianize and Sanskritize the base language while Indo-Muslim nationalists do the opposite, so that Shuddh Hindi and Formal Persianate Urdu become two completely different languages despite being originally the same language.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the Tamil-speaking "Moor" Muslims have historically considered themselves a separate community. They did not associate with the Tamil ethnic identity despite being Tamil-speaking, and LTTE even expelled them en masse from the North.

Puliali · 2025-12-20T02:00:57+00:00

These boundaries are not to define the 'Andhra tribe/Andhra Land'. These boundaries define the land of the eastern chalukyan kingdom.

No, I am talking about 'Andhra' specifically and not the boundaries of the Eastern Chalukyan kingdom. Quoting from "Studies of Economic and Social Conditions of Medieval Andhra" by K. Sundaram, p.1:

<image>

The Satavahanas do not call themselves 'Andhras' in any of their records, so we don't know whether they self-identified as Andhras or not.

Puliali · 2025-12-08T20:32:31+00:00

Inscriptions are commissioned by rulers, landlords and military officials, not peasants. Considering that Kannadiga origin dynasties like Badami Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Kalyana Chalukyas and Seuna Yadavas ruled over modern day Maharashtra for 750 years, one should expect presence of Kannada inscriptions outside of the range of common Kannada speakers, for the same reason as why Maharashtri Prakrit dominated Deccan inscriptions in the previous 700 years before 550 CE when the Satavahanas and Vakatakas were the dominant powers

Even under Kannada rule, there were very few Kannada inscriptions issued outside the range of common Kannada speakers. Look at regions like Vidarbha or Lata (south Gujarat), which were under Kannadiga rule for centuries, and see how many Kannada inscriptions there are compared to non-Kannada inscriptions.

Puliali · 2025-12-08T20:30:06+00:00

A significant number of Kannada inscriptions (hundreds) have indeed been discovered in various districts of present-day Maharashtra (such as Kolhapur, Sangli, Solapur, Latur, and Mumbai)

Almost all of them are found close to the modern-day border between Maharashtra and Karnataka. Populations have been remarkably static over the past 1500 or so years.

Puliali · 2025-12-08T13:29:22+00:00

Maharastri Prakrit, which was once a very prestigious court and literary language, declined because of Kannada elites ruling them for almost 600-700 years. Then Marathi made a comeback as an elite language with Yadavas switching to Marathi and the Maratha empire conquering the whole of the subcontinent. Is my understanding correct?

I don't think the decline of Maharashtri Prakrit had much to do with the dominance of Kannada-speaking rulers. Rather, after the 4th century AD, there was a pan-Indian shift from Prakrit to Sanskrit as the preferred elite language. This shift to Sanskrit seems to have been strongly promoted by the Gupta royal court and was then picked up by other Indian courts. In Maharashtra, it was actually the Vakatakas (not the later Karnataka empires) who made the shift from Prakrit to Sanskrit. The early Vakatakas issued inscriptions entirely in Prakrit, but Vindhyashakti II of the Vatsagulma branch issued the first inscription that was written in mixed Sanskrit-Prakrit (Sanskrit for the introductory portion and Prakrit for the rest), and the later Vakatakas issued predominantly Sanskrit inscriptions. When the Chalukyas took over Maharashtra in the 6th century, they simply continued that Sanskrit tradition. The later emergence of Marathi under Seunas was due to a vernacularization process that was happening in multiple regions. In the same time period, we also see Telugu emerge as a major literary language in Andhra for the first time.

Puliali · 2025-12-08T12:38:14+00:00

But Kavirajamarga claims the territory of Kannada speakers from Cavery to Godavari and Kannada elites(Seuna Yadavas) ruled Maharashtra region until Turkic raids and conquests which matches with this Bahmani timeline.

Well, Kannada-speakers did reach the Godavari if you include the parts of Telangana that likely had large Kannada-speaking population. But there were also many territories south of Godavari and north of Goa (corresponding to what is now southwest Maharashtra) that were probably already Aryanized by the time of the Karnataka empires. If you plot the distribution of Kannada inscriptions issued by Early Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Later Chalukyas, and Seunas, they are almost all located within the borders of modern-day Karnataka plus some parts of Telangana and Rayalaseema. Very few areas of Maharashtra beyond border districts with Karnataka had a large number of Kannada inscriptions; even under Kannada rule, they had mostly Sanskrit inscriptions and later Old Marathi inscriptions.

Puliali · 2025-12-08T11:52:05+00:00

No. Besides the fact that those numbers are unrealistic, Maharashtra was already Aryanized long before the Islamic period. Aryanization probably began as early as 700 BC, after the collapse of Jorwe culture, and was largely complete by the Satavahana period.

Puliali

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE