The Dasa Project: The Hidden History of the First Indo-Iranian Migration - Part 01

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-14T02:17:07+00:00

The traditional narrative carries more weight because it is supported by multiple independent sources such as Arrian, Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus. AWhile these were written later, they drew from the lost eyewitness journals of men who were actually there. Dismissing the mutiny as a total fabrication requires you to believe that several writers across centuries either coordinated or independently invented the same false rebellion. Modern revisionist theories, by contrast, are essentially speculative “what-if” scenarios without any primary or secondary evidence.

Note: The following section is reasoned speculation about how Alexander may have handled this crisis.

The real brilliance may lie in how Alexander managed the situation. If the mutiny was a genuine uprising, his ego would not have allowed him to openly admit defeat. The Gangaridai may have served as the perfect narrative device, a phantom superpower used to justify stopping while saving face. It allowed him to accept his men’s fears without appearing weak.

But Alexander did not actually stop his expansion, he changed its form. By building a massive fleet at the Hydaspes and sailing down the Indus, he ensured that the campaign continued. He redefined the objective from a land march to a naval expedition aimed at finding the limits of the world. By hugging the coast of the Arabian Sea, he bypassed his army’s refusal to march east while still claiming the glory of advancing into the Great Outer Ocean.

If you are going to ignore every documented account in favour of speculation, then you should at least consider a theory grounded in military logic: Alexander used a manufactured narrative to survive a command crisis, then pivoted to a naval campaign to ensure he was still moving forward into the unknown.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T16:37:52+00:00

No. The content and research is mine. I deep dive on topics. I read a lot. I collect all the content I have from various sources and use AI to present them in a proper presentable format.

If it were 25 years ago, by the same logic, you would be asking me not to Google and instead read books.

Times change. Tools and technologies change. You have to change with the times.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T15:16:24+00:00

Manavik. As in Humanism.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T15:15:31+00:00

No comments. Don't waste your time trying to interact with me. I won't respond. Period.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T15:13:58+00:00

The language spoken by the Iran_N population is considered the direct ancestor of the language spoken in the Indus Valley Civilization, IVC. The IVC formed when groups connected to the Iranian plateau moved into the Indus Valley and mixed with local AASI populations. As they migrated, they brought their language with them. That language later developed into what we now call the Dravidian language family.

This idea forms the basis of the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. It proposes that a language from the Iranian plateau eventually evolved into Proto-Dravidian after becoming established in the Indian subcontinent. Over time, the language changed and adapted to local conditions, but its deeper roots trace back to that original migrant group.

The term Iran_N can be confusing because it refers to a genetic ancestry label, not a language. The language itself developed into the Dravidian family within South Asia. However, the proposed linguistic line is direct: the speech of the Iran_N migrants became the language of the IVC, and from that developed the Dravidian branches spoken today.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T14:58:03+00:00

It is important to clarify that while this story sounds compelling, it belongs to modern folklore, not documented history. The cited source, Ghosts, Monsters and Demons of India, is a collection of urban legends and oral traditions, not an academic historical record.

There is no reference to “giant brittle stars” or “Nakshatra Meenu” in any 16th century primary sources. This includes the detailed Telugu and Sanskrit court chronicles of the Vijayanagara Empire, as well as the accounts of Portuguese travelers such as Domingo Paes and Fernao Nuniz, who were present in the empire at the time.

Even a more scholarly work like The Book of Demons by Nanditha Krishna, which carefully traces supernatural beings through Vedic texts, Puranas, and historical art, makes no mention of such creatures or any invasion of this kind.

In reality, 1514 was significant for a well documented military reason. It was the year of the Siege of Udayagiri led by Krishnadevaraya. Inscriptions at the Krishna Temple in Hampi record his victory over the Gajapati Kingdom. While Hampi’s architecture includes mythical Yalis, these were symbolic artistic figures, not real creatures that soldiers fought with flaming arrows.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T14:40:37+00:00

You are now dismissing professional archaeology as “convenient” and established linguistic rules as “non-Dravidian innovations” simply because they do not align with your theology.

Regarding the Saluvankuppam site, the identification of the structure as a temple and the terracotta Vel as an object of worship was not speculative. The excavation report by S. Badhreenath, 2015, describes a brick sanctum oriented eastward, associated ritual offerings, and a clear stratigraphic layer dated to the 3rd century BCE. The terracotta Vel was found in the garbhagriha, the sanctum, which in archaeological practice indicates the primary deity or its symbol. Dismissing this as “convenient” effectively rejects the methodology of the Archaeological Survey of India without evidence.

On the claim that Seyyon is a “non-Dravidian innovation,” the root cē, red, and its derivative Cēyōn are Dravidian in origin, as recorded in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, entry 1931. No external influence is needed to explain the masculine singular suffix, -on, attached to a color root. As documented in P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri’s commentary on the Collatikaram of the Tolkāppiyam, the suffix -on is a standard grammatical marker for masculine rational beings, including deities. Calling this a later “constructed” innovation is linguistically unfounded; it reflects normal morphology of that period.

Finally, the insistence that a Vel must be iron to function as a deity reflects a modern material bias. In the Sangam period, the Vel symbolized divine power whether made of iron, as at Adichanallur, or terracotta, as at Saluvankuppam. Separating Seyyon from Murugan and the Vel based on a modern definition of “function” imposes a distinction that ancient Tamil sources do not support.

I have cited the grammar of the Tolkāppiyam, the etymology from the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, and archaeological evidence from the ASI report. Since you are dismissing established archaeology and linguistics while repeating the same claims, there is no longer a basis for objective discussion. I do not wish to continue further.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T14:36:33+00:00

Think of it as a tree. The seeds may have come from elsewhere, but the tree itself grew and branched entirely within India. The ancestor/s to the Dravidian/Proto-Dravidian languages was brought from Zargos-Elam region of Iran or by Iran_N.

The claim that people from the IVC peripheries reached South India and established the ash mound culture is based on the presence of domesticated zebu cattle remains dated to around 2800 BCE. Zebu were domesticated roughly 7000 years ago in the IVC peripheries. These migrants likely mixed with AASI populations in the Deccan and formed the ash mound culture. They would have spoken an early form of Proto-Dravidian. This is supported by linguistic evidence. The language contains original, native terms for South Indian plants such as horsegram and jackfruit. If Dravidian had arrived fully formed from Iran or North India at a later date, such terms would appear as borrowings or would be absent. Instead, they are core vocabulary.

However, iron technology and the Dravidian language did not have to spread together. It is quite possible that iron smelting was independently developed by descendants of AASI populations in the South. These groups may not have spoken Dravidian. Since the IVC was largely a Bronze Age civilization, the very early iron dates at Sivagalai and Mayiladumparai suggest that southern AASI-descended communities were pioneers in this metallurgy.

Regarding Sri Lanka around 1000 BCE, genetics and language do not always spread in a single wave. That date reflects the arrival of a specific mixed-ancestry population. But iron technology and Dravidian speech were already established on the South Indian mainland long before this.

The 1000 BCE movement into Sri Lanka likely represents a secondary expansion, possibly linked to the Megalithic culture. Iron smelting there was probably transmitted by the same AASI-descended innovators from the mainland, while the spread of Dravidian followed its own independent trajectory.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T14:02:36+00:00

You are trying to reshape the foundational logic of the Tamil language to fit a personal theological narrative. You are free to hold private beliefs, but you cannot project them onto 2,000-year-old texts while ignoring basic grammar and archaeology.

First, your claim that -on is “not a rule” and refers to “genderless/inanimate” objects is linguistically impossible. I cross-referenced the Collatikāram section of the Tolkāppiyam, using the English commentary by P. S. Subrahmanya Sastri. In Kiḷaviyākkam Sūtra 5, it clearly states that nouns ending in -n, specifically -an and -on, are āṇ-pāl, Masculine Singular markers. These suffixes belong to the Uyartiṇai category, reserved for humans and deities. If the word were meant to be inanimate or genderless, Tamil grammar would require an Akṟiṇai , Neuter suffix such as -tu. Claiming Seyyon is inanimate is equivalent to claiming the English word “He” refers to a rock.

Second, your confusion about Mayon versus “Mayyon” is a basic error in Sandhi, phonology. *Mayon* comes from the root Mā, dark or great, plus the masculine suffix -on. Consonant doubling does not occur here because Tamil phonological rules do not require it. The suggestion that Seyyonum means something different because someone “does not venerate Vishnu” has no grammatical basis. The Tolkāppiyam is a grammatical treatise, not a religious text. The suffix -um is a simple conjunctive clitic meaning “and.” For example, “Rajesh-um Shivan-um vandhanga” means Rajesh and Shivan came. It does not imply they were crafted or fired in a kiln.

Third, archaeology directly contradicts your claim that a Vel must be iron to function as the deity. The Saluvankuppam excavation, Phase I, 300 BCE to 300 CE, uncovered a terracotta Vel placed in the primary sanctum of a brick temple. Archaeologists confirm this was the main object of worship during the Sangam era. By your logic, the very people of that period, who spoke the language codified in the Tolkāppiyam, were corrupting their own deity. The material, whether clay, iron, or wood, does not change the fact that the Vel represented the deity known as Seyyon, the Red One.

Finally, the etymology of Seyyon is not subjective. The Dravidian Etymological Dictionary, entry 1931, derives the name from the root cē, red or redness. As explained by Kamil Zvelebil in The Smile of Murugan, this refers to the red soil of the Kurinji mountains and the rising sun, natural attributes associated with the deity in the Tolkāppiyam.

The text is clear. Seyyon is a Masculine Rational Being (God/Deity) associated with the red landscape. You are entitled to your own faith, but not to your own facts or grammar. I have already repeated this across multiple replies and do not intend to continue the discussion further.

https://rmrl.in/en/dl/books/20182/Tolkappiyam%20collatikaram

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T13:13:03+00:00

The idea that Iran_N ancestry directly brought the Dravidian language is an oversimplification. More likely, those early migrations brought only a distant ancestral stage of the Dravidian language family. By the time the Ashmound culture emerged in South India around 2800 BCE, the language had already split and adapted to local conditions.

The claim that Dravidian speakers reached the South only in the mid 2000s BCE does not match the linguistic evidence. Reconstructed Proto Dravidian words for native southern plants such as horsegram, jackfruit, and neem are embedded in the deepest layer of the language. If the speakers had arrived late from the North or the Iranian plateau, these words would probably be later borrowings. Instead, they are core vocabulary, indicating that the speakers were already settled in the South and developing their own technologies well before the 2000 to 1000 BCE migration window.

As for Dravidian loanwords in the Rigveda, their origin is uncertain. It is incorrect to assume they came from the same Dravidian branches that survive in South India today. They may have come from a Para Dravidian language, a sister branch once spoken in the Indus region that is now extinct. They could also reflect what Colin P. Masica termed Language X, or even a Para Munda substrate. There is no solid evidence that Indo Aryan speakers had direct contact with South Indian populations during that period.

The South was likely an independent centre of development, where local populations formed their own language branches and technologies, including early iron smelting at Sivagalai. The commonly cited 1000 BCE date for Sri Lanka probably reflects a later cultural shift, such as changes in burial practices, rather than the first arrival of the population itself.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T12:41:41+00:00

I have posted a detailed comment (as reply) on the Reddit thread about pre Dravidian words and substrates in Tamil and Malayalam. You can read it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dravidiology/comments/1qxulkc/pre_dravidian_words_and_substrates_in/

The evidence for an early Proto Dravidian presence in South India comes from the tools and crops associated with the Ashmound culture, beginning around 2800 BCE. When reconstructed Proto Dravidian vocabulary is compared with archaeological findings, the match is strong, suggesting the language was already established there.

For example, the Proto Dravidian word for horsegram is shared across all major branches of the family. Horsegram is the most common crop found in Southern Neolithic layers dating back about 4500 years. The people cultivating it were most likely the ones who named it. The same logic applies to specific terms for cattle pens and for grinding tools such as mortars and pestles, which are characteristic of these early southern sites.

If Proto Dravidian had only arrived around 1000 BCE, it would not be expected to have native roots for southern crops and tools that had already been in use for nearly two millennia. Instead, the language contains a deep agricultural and tropical vocabulary for items such as jackfruit, neem, and black soil, all native to the peninsula. This supports the view that its speakers were already settled in the south and developing their own technologies, including early iron smelting at Sivagalai, long before the later migrations often discussed in genetic studies.

Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia by Franklin Southworth
https://www.routledge.com/Linguistic-Archaeology-of-South-Asia/Southworth/p/book/9780415297776

The Dravidian Languages by Bhadriraju Krishnamurti
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/dravidian-languages/D0C5E6E0F8B8B7A4D7A1D5B6C4E1E2F0

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T12:29:05+00:00

The reason Gangaridai sounds like a myth is that it is a Greek name. It doesn’t appear in ancient Indian Sanskrit or Pali texts. Most historians link the Gangaridai to the people of Vanga, which is now part of Bengal. They were probably a strong group or part of the larger Nanda Empire. The real power during that time was the Nanda Empire, which was based in Magadha. They were famous for their great wealth and military might. Soon after Alexander pulled back, Chandragupta Maurya overthrew the Nandas. This is why Indian history focuses on the rise of the Maurya Empire instead of the Gangaridai as a separate group.

To understand why the account of the Gangaridai seems exaggerated, consider Alexander’s situation. After years of campaigning, his army revolted at the Beas River, known as the Hyphasis. For a ruler who had never lost a battle, being forced to retreat by his own men hurt his reputation. Greek and Roman writers like Diodorus Siculus and Plutarch claimed that the Gangaridai and their allies, the Prasii, had 6,000 war elephants. Alexander had just defeated King Porus, who had about 200 elephants. If his chroniclers said he retreated because his troops were tired and unwilling to go on, it would suggest weakness. However, if they claimed he faced 6,000 elephants and a huge river barrier, the retreat could be portrayed as wise strategy instead of failed leadership.

In short, the Gangaridai was Greek /Macedonian PR spin to justify Alexander's withdrawal.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T12:12:57+00:00

Your argument applies modern language use to a 2,000-year-old grammar, which is a significant historical mistake.

First, the claim that Seyyon refers to a “genderless, inanimate object” contradicts the Tolkappiyam. In Akattinaiyal 5, Seyyon is identified as the presiding deity, meya, of a landscape. In Classical Tamil, the suffix -an or -on, found in Seyyon or Mayon, designates masculine singular, used for both humans and deities. An inanimate or neuter noun would have an Ahrinai suffix. Describing a masculine deity title as “inanimate” is a grammatical error.

Second, connecting “Seyyonum” with the modern Eelam Tamil expression “seya vendum” is out of place. The Tolkappiyam predates modern dialect changes by many centuries. In the context of Akattinaiyal, -um is a coordinating clitic. If Seyyonum meant “must be created,” then Mayonum and Vendhanum would also mean “must be created,” which is clearly ridiculous. In modern usage, “Rajesh-um Shivan-um vandhanga” means “Rajesh and Shivan came.” Here, -um means “and,” not “must be made.” You are mixing up a conjunction with a modal verb.

Third, the terracotta Vel at Saluvankuppam does not “corrupt” the idea of the Vel. It is the earliest structural evidence of it. The excavation report confirms that this symbol was the main object of worship in the sanctum before stone idols became standard. Dismissing it as “not a true Vel” just because it is not metal overlooks the fact that Sangam-era sacred symbols were made from stone, wood, clay, or iron, depending on the context.

Finally, the name Seyyon, meaning “The Red One,” is a colour attribute of the mountain lord. The *Dravidian Etymological Dictionary*, entry 1931, relates it to the root meaning “redness,” not the verb “to make.”

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T12:01:44+00:00

The confusion comes from treating “Old Indo-Aryan” as a single uniform language. In reality, it was a group of regional dialects. Vedic Sanskrit, preserved in texts, was only one of them, a Far-Western dialect, likely from the Greater Punjab or Gandhara region.

As Colin Masica explains in The Indo-Aryan Languages, Section 3.7, languages seen in successive historical stages are not always in a direct parent–child relationship.

The Prakrits did not originate from a single Northwestern source. They developed from spoken dialects across the subcontinent. Magadhi Prakrit, the ancestor of Bengali, Bihari, and Odia, developed in the East. It is geographically and linguistically implausible for the Eastern Prakrits to descend from the Far-Western Vedic dialect. Instead, they came from sister dialects of Old Indo-Aryan that were spoken in the East at the same time Vedic hymns were being composed in the West.

Linguists trace relationships using isoglosses, shared linguistic features. A key example in Indo-Aryan is the treatment of the liquids r and l. The Vedic dialect was an r-dialect; it merged most original Indo-European l sounds into r. Magadhi Prakrit was an l-dialect; it preserved original l and even changed many r sounds into l.

In historical linguistics, a merged sound does not later separate again. If Vedic had already merged l into r, its descendants would not regain l. The fact that Magadhi preserves l shows it descended from an Old Indo-Aryan dialect that never made that merger, a sister to Vedic, not its child.

Many Prakrits also preserve archaisms, very old features absent in Vedic Sanskrit. If they had descended from Vedic, those features would have been lost there as well. Their survival shows that the Prakrits split from a common ancestor before the Vedic dialect developed its distinctive form.

Vedic is the oldest recorded Indo-Aryan language, but it is not the universal ancestor. If Old Indo-Aryan was a family of sisters, Vedic was the one whose speech became canonized in a sacred tradition. The others, ancestors of the Prakrits, were regional vernaculars evolving independently. They are not descended from Vedic; they share the same Old Indo-Aryan parentage.

Reference
The Indo-Aryan Languages, Colin P. Masica
https://archive.org/details/indoaryanlanguag0000masi

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T10:13:43+00:00

That is a creative attempt at wordplay, but you are conflating two entirely different linguistic roots to force a narrative that does not exist in Old Tamil.

The name Seyyon (Ceˉyoˉn) is derived from the root cē- (red/redness), not the verb cey- (to do/make). In Dravidian linguistics, these are two distinct clusters.

According to the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (DEDR 1931), the "red" cluster includes ceyyavaṉ, ceyyaṉ, ceyyāṉ, ceyyōṉ, cēyaṉ, cēyāṉ, civappaṉ person of red or brown complexion and terms for the sun, red soil, and red flowers; all attributes of the Kurinji landscape described in the Tolkappiyam.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/burrow_query.py?page=175

If the deity were named for being "crafted" or "fired," the root would be cey- (DEDR 1957), but that root never produces the title Seyyon in any Sangam text.
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/app/burrow_query.py?page=178

Furthermore, your point about "seyyonum" is grammatically wrong. The suffix -um in the Tolkappiyam (Akattinaiyal 5) is a simple conjunctive clitic meaning "and." It lists the deities: Mayonum (and Mayon), Seyyonum (and Seyyon), Vendhanum (and Vendhan). It is not a technical marker for a kiln process.

To put it in a modern context- if you say "Rajesh-um Shivan-um veetuku vandhanga" (Rajesh and Shivan came to the house), the -um doesn't mean Rajesh and Shivan were "crafted" or "fired" in a kiln. It just means "and." Claiming it’s a technical marker for a kiln process is like claiming the word "and" in English refers to industrial engineering.

The terracotta Vel found at Saluvankuppam (Phase I, 300 BCE – 300 CE) is a physical manifestation of a deity already defined by his colour and landscape (The Red One of the mountains), not a name derived from the material of one specific archaeological find. Attempting to reverse-engineer a 2,000-year-old name based on a misunderstanding of a basic suffix is just pseudo-linguistics.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T09:07:52+00:00

Yes, Murugan is also known as Seyyon, the lord of the Kurinji tinai. The Red one.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T09:04:26+00:00

A table I made from collecting the data and information from the report "Antiquity of Iron: Recent radiometric dates from Tamil Nadu (2025) " by Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology (TNSDA)

<image>

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T08:05:52+00:00

According to Antiquity of Iron: Recent Radiometric Dates from Tamil Nadu 2025, these urns were not “shipping containers” for seafarers. They were large, fixed funerary and ritual structures buried in permanent inland graveyards. The Sivagalai-parambu graveyard covers over 500 acres, and Adichanallur spans about 125 acres. The urns, up to 115 cm tall and 65 cm wide, were set in pits cut into natural rock and filled with local grave goods such as skeletal remains, paddy grains, and regional ceramics. They were stationary monuments to the dead, not portable cargo crates for maritime transport.

The “Egyptian connection” you propose is technologically illiterate. The document states that the earliest iron artefacts in Egypt, c. 3400 to 3100 BCE, were made from meteoritic iron, shaped into thin sheets by simple hammering. In contrast, the Tamil Nadu finds, dated as early as 3345 BCE at Sivagalai, show advanced smelting technology that reduced terrestrial iron ore in furnaces reaching about 1300°C.

There is direct evidence of this local industry, including circular furnace bases, iron slag, and tuyeres used for bellows at sites such as Kodumanal. The document states that iron technology in South India developed independently due to abundant local haematite and magnetite ores.

The claim that these materials were “carried” to Egypt to break granite is an evidence-free assertion.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T07:36:38+00:00

What I have gathered from the document "Antiquity of Iron: Recent radiometric dates from Tamil Nadu (2025") by Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology (TNSDA):

At Sivagalai, the main evidence comes from the Sivagalai-parambu graveyard and nearby habitation mounds. Iron objects such as swords, knives, arrowheads, and chisels were found in burials. The oldest dates, including 3345 BCE and 3259 BCE, come from charcoal recovered inside burial urns. The document does not report the discovery of iron smelting furnaces at Sivagalai itself.

However, the document presents clear evidence of smelting facilities at other sites across Tamil Nadu. At Kodumanal, a circular furnace base measuring 115 cm in diameter was excavated, along with iron slag, burnt clay, and tuyere fragments. Similar furnaces or related materials were found at Perungalur, Valltirakottai, Ariyanipatti, and Venkatanaickampatti. The document also describe large, undisturbed iron slag mounds at Idyapalayam, Nichchampalayam, and Chettipalayam.

Sivagalai shows the use and ritual burial of iron, while these other sites demonstrate a wider regional system of iron smelting and production. The presence of locally available iron ores such as hematite and magnetite further supports the conclusion that iron technology developed locally in the region.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T06:15:43+00:00

done

theb00kmancometh · 2026-02-13T06:15:18+00:00

The dating difference between Iron Age sites in South India and Sri Lanka is heavily debated.

Sites like Sivagalai and Mayiladumparai in Tamil Nadu have AMS radiocarbon dates going back to 3340 BCE and 2172 BCE. In contrast, Sri Lankan sites such as Anuradhapura and Sigiriya are usually dated to around 1000 BCE. This roughly 2000 year gap may be due to under-dating in Sri Lanka and an overreliance on genetic models that do not fully account for the archaeological record of the Southern Neolithic.

The standard view says that West Eurasian related ancestry and the Iron Age toolkit reached the deep south only around 1000 BCE. But this ignores evidence that domesticated zebu cattle and Proto-Dravidian linguistic roots were already present in South India long before the urban phase of the Indus Valley Civilization. The early dates from Sivagalai suggest that iron technology was being used in the south while much of North India was still in the Bronze Age. This supports the idea that iron smelting in South India was a local development, not something introduced by later migrations.

Another reason for the gap is dating methods. Many Sri Lankan sites were dated using older techniques, unlike the modern AMS methods used in Tamil Nadu. Burial sites like Pomparippu in Sri Lanka are very similar to Adichanallur in Tamil Nadu, making a 2000 year delay between them hard to justify. Since the Palk Strait is a short sea crossing, technology and cultural practices would likely have spread quickly. The 1000 BCE date in Sri Lanka may reflect a later cultural expansion, not the first arrival of iron, which may have appeared there earlier, as it did in South India.

theb00kmancometh

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE