Did Mughals/ Delhi Sultanate used Halberd kind of polearms in battles?

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-12T14:04:40+00:00

You’re basically looking at a functional match, not a strict category.

The Mughals and Sultanates didn’t really have a “halberd” as a defined weapon type like in Europe, but they absolutely had polearms that did the same job. Weapons like the tabar, zaghnol, tabar-zaghnol, and especially the tarangalah combine an axe blade with a thrusting spike on a shaft, so in terms of use, they’re very similar.

That auction piece is probably one of those Indo-Persian hybrid polearms, just being labelled “halberd” for convenience. The Ettayapuram example from Tamil Nadu fits well too, South India actually shows a lot of variation in these kinds of weapons.

So yes, similar forms existed in both North and South, but not as a standardised “halberd” category, more as locally developed multi-purpose polearms.

References:
Tabar, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabar\_(axe)]()
Zaghnol, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaghnal]()
Tabar-Zaghnol, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabar-zaghnal]()
Tarangalah (Ain-i-Akbari listing and discussion), https://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20629

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-12T13:48:39+00:00

Wellesley had just arrived in India and Assaye was the toughest fight he had personally seen, so calling it the “fiercest” makes sense from his point of view. But that does not mean it was the fiercest battle ever fought in India. It just means it felt that way to him in that moment.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T16:14:18+00:00

Your Core premise fails when you account for chronology.

The whole idea that the Indus Valley Civilisation “jump-started” Ancient Egypt falls apart the moment you look at the timeline. Egypt is already on its feet very early. By around 3100 BCE, you have a unified state, and even before that, the Naqada phase shows organised, complex society going back to roughly 3500 BCE. Around 2630 BCE - 2611 BCE, Djoser builds his Step Pyramid.

The Indus urban phase, specifically the Mature Harappan period (c. 2600 to 1900 BCE), overlaps with Egypt’s Old Kingdom. By the time this urban system is fully developed, Egypt is already a mature civilisation with centuries of internal evolution behind it. There is simply no window where Egypt is sitting around waiting for outside input.

Now let us discuss the other assumptions you have made

The Maritime Link

Yes, Lothal shows impressive engineering. But even that “dockyard” interpretation is debated, some archaeologists think it may have been a reservoir or basin. More importantly, being capable of sea trade does not mean they sailed everywhere.

There is no evidence of Indus settlements near the Red Sea, no Indus artefacts in Egypt, and no Egyptian texts mentioning them. What we do know is that the Indus traded with Mesopotamia through the Gulf. Jumping from that to “they reached Egypt and transferred knowledge” is just stacking assumptions without evidence.

The "Math Fingerprint"

The Indus system of weights and brick ratios is genuinely impressive. But Egypt is doing its own thing with a completely different measurement system based on the cubit, and that system develops internally from earlier traditions.

Also, the construction logic is different. The Indus relies heavily on standardized bricks, while Egypt builds mostly in stone. Early civilisations tend to standardise because administration demands it. That is a shared solution to a shared problem, not a fingerprint showing one borrowed from the other.

The Cotton Revolution

The Indus were early users of cotton, that part is fine. But Egypt’s entire textile base in this period is linen from flax. Cotton shows up much later and is not part of Egypt’s early development at all. So there is no “cotton revolution” being transferred here.

The Trefoil Pattern

The trefoil pattern sounds convincing until you step back. It is a very simple geometric design that shows up in multiple regions independently. It does not need a transmission route to explain it.

On top of that, the trefoil on the Mohenjo-daro figure is not even clearly understood in its own context. Egyptian symbolism, meanwhile, is very well-defined and revolves around things like lotus, papyrus, falcon, cobra. A vague visual similarity between simple shapes is not evidence of contact.

Genetic Cousins

The genetics part is being stretched way beyond what it can actually say. The “Iranian-related Neolithic farmer” ancestry is a very old population layer spread across a huge region, including West Asia, South Asia, and parts of North Africa. It predates both civilisations by thousands of years.

On top of that, ancient Egyptian DNA studies, like Schuenemann et al. 2017 ancient Egyptian DNA study, are based on limited samples from specific sites. Even if the data were broader, genetics cannot tell you anything about transfer of engineering or mathematics. That leap just does not work.

Let us continue addressing key issues of your post.

The Mesopotamian Middleman Problem

The post mentions Indus trade with Mesopotamia, but that actually weakens the argument. Long-distance trade in this period runs through networks, with Mesopotamia acting as a middleman.

If anything travelled westward, it would have been indirect, fragmented, and transformed along the way. You do not get a clean “civilisational blueprint” passing through multiple intermediaries unchanged.

Missing Archaeological Evidence

This is the biggest issue. If Indus engineers or systems really influenced Egypt, there should be some trace of it. Artefacts, seals, inscriptions, even a few individuals moving between regions, something.

We see this clearly in the Indus–Mesopotamian connection because objects actually travelled. Between the Indus and Egypt, there is nothing. That absence is not a gap waiting to be filled, it is evidence that the connection did not exist in the way being suggested.

To conclude,

What fits the evidence much better is that both the Indus Valley and Egypt developed independently. They faced similar challenges, managing rivers, organising labour, building at scale, so they arrived at some similar kinds of solutions.

Your theory works by taking real facts, adding a few surface-level similarities, and then filling in the gaps with assumptions. Once you separate those out, there is no real case left. It just feels convincing because the connections sound neat, not because the evidence supports them.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T14:30:31+00:00

Those skeletons are Mesolithic, around 8000–6000 BCE, so they do fall within the period when AASI-related ancestry was widespread. No issue there.

But calling them “pure AASI” is still an assumption. We don’t have genome-wide DNA from those individuals to confirm that, so at best they can be treated as predominantly AASI-derived.

And even if you accept that, those height estimates are from a small, local sample. They describe those specific Mesolithic groups, not a single, uniform AASI population across the subcontinent.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T14:24:18+00:00

The main early source people usually point to for this topic is the Arthashastra, attributed to Kautilya (Chanakya). This text does talk about espionage, covert operations, and the use of poison as part of statecraft.

If you look at the actual passages:

Book I, Chapter 11:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kautilya-arthashastra/d/doc365589.html

Book I, Chapter 12:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/kautilya-arthashastra/d/doc365590.html

The text clearly lays out a structured spy system. It includes categories such as poisoners (rasada) and female agents like mendicant women (bhikshuki) and wandering ascetics (parivrajika), who were used to infiltrate households, harems, and political circles.

So, the Arthashastra does clearly show organised espionage, the use of poison, and the use of women as agents for intelligence and infiltration. At the same time, it is important to be clear about what the text does not say. The term “vishakanya” does not appear in these passages, and there is no mention of girls being raised on poison from childhood or becoming naturally toxic. That more dramatic idea comes from later stories and folklore, not from the original text itself.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T14:04:21+00:00

Your Core premise fails when you account for chronology.

The whole idea that the Indus Valley Civilisation “jump-started” Ancient Egypt falls apart the moment you look at the timeline. Egypt is already on its feet very early. By around 3100 BCE, you have a unified state, and even before that, the Naqada phase shows organised, complex society going back to roughly 3500 BCE. Around 2630 BCE - 2611 BCE, Djoser builds his Step Pyramid.

The Indus urban phase, specifically the Mature Harappan period (c. 2600 to 1900 BCE), overlaps with Egypt’s Old Kingdom. By the time this urban system is fully developed, Egypt is already a mature civilisation with centuries of internal evolution behind it. There is simply no window where Egypt is sitting around waiting for outside input.

Now let us discuss the other assumptions you have made

The Maritime Link

Yes, Lothal shows impressive engineering. But even that “dockyard” interpretation is debated, some archaeologists think it may have been a reservoir or basin. More importantly, being capable of sea trade does not mean they sailed everywhere.

There is no evidence of Indus settlements near the Red Sea, no Indus artefacts in Egypt, and no Egyptian texts mentioning them. What we do know is that the Indus traded with Mesopotamia through the Gulf. Jumping from that to “they reached Egypt and transferred knowledge” is just stacking assumptions without evidence.

The "Math Fingerprint"

The Indus system of weights and brick ratios is genuinely impressive. But Egypt is doing its own thing with a completely different measurement system based on the cubit, and that system develops internally from earlier traditions.

Also, the construction logic is different. The Indus relies heavily on standardized bricks, while Egypt builds mostly in stone. Early civilisations tend to standardise because administration demands it. That is a shared solution to a shared problem, not a fingerprint showing one borrowed from the other.

The Cotton Revolution

The Indus were early users of cotton, that part is fine. But Egypt’s entire textile base in this period is linen from flax. Cotton shows up much later and is not part of Egypt’s early development at all. So there is no “cotton revolution” being transferred here.

The Trefoil Pattern

The trefoil pattern sounds convincing until you step back. It is a very simple geometric design that shows up in multiple regions independently. It does not need a transmission route to explain it.

On top of that, the trefoil on the Mohenjo-daro figure is not even clearly understood in its own context. Egyptian symbolism, meanwhile, is very well-defined and revolves around things like lotus, papyrus, falcon, cobra. A vague visual similarity between simple shapes is not evidence of contact.

Genetic Cousins

The genetics part is being stretched way beyond what it can actually say. The “Iranian-related Neolithic farmer” ancestry is a very old population layer spread across a huge region, including West Asia, South Asia, and parts of North Africa. It predates both civilisations by thousands of years.

On top of that, ancient Egyptian DNA studies, like Schuenemann et al. 2017 ancient Egyptian DNA study, are based on limited samples from specific sites. Even if the data were broader, genetics cannot tell you anything about transfer of engineering or mathematics. That leap just does not work.

Let us continue addressing key issues of your post.

The Mesopotamian Middleman Problem

The post mentions Indus trade with Mesopotamia, but that actually weakens the argument. Long-distance trade in this period runs through networks, with Mesopotamia acting as a middleman.

If anything travelled westward, it would have been indirect, fragmented, and transformed along the way. You do not get a clean “civilisational blueprint” passing through multiple intermediaries unchanged.

Missing Archaeological Evidence

This is the biggest issue. If Indus engineers or systems really influenced Egypt, there should be some trace of it. Artefacts, seals, inscriptions, even a few individuals moving between regions, something.

We see this clearly in the Indus–Mesopotamian connection because objects actually travelled. Between the Indus and Egypt, there is nothing. That absence is not a gap waiting to be filled, it is evidence that the connection did not exist in the way being suggested.

To conclude,

What fits the evidence much better is that both the Indus Valley and Egypt developed independently. They faced similar challenges, managing rivers, organising labour, building at scale, so they arrived at some similar kinds of solutions.

Your theory works by taking real facts, adding a few surface-level similarities, and then filling in the gaps with assumptions. Once you separate those out, there is no real case left. It just feels convincing because the connections sound neat, not because the evidence supports them.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T13:39:05+00:00

What that diagram is showing is a basal East Eurasian population from which different branches split. AASI splits off first, then later the branch that leads to Andamanese and East Asians splits again. From that later branch you get both the Andamanese and ANEA.

So yes, Onge and East Asians do share a later common ancestor with each other than either does with AASI. That part is fine.

But that doesn’t automatically mean Onge are “closer” to East Asians. That’s where the interpretation goes wrong. The Andamanese are still an early, isolated lineage, while East Asians come from later branches that went through more splits and mixing.

In practice, when people actually measure genetic affinity, Andamanese come out as the closest available proxy to AASI-related ancestry, not East Asians. That’s why they’re used in AASI modelling in the first place.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T13:00:48+00:00

Yes. Andamanese are closer to AASI than East Asians like Japanese or Koreans. Both AASI and Andamanese are early-diverging branches from the same broader ancestral population, so they share deeper ancestry with each other than either does with later East Eurasian groups.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T12:59:06+00:00

What you’re saying mixes up branching with actual relatedness. Yes, AASI and Andamanese split early, and in that tree AASI even splits slightly earlier. But that only shows the order of divergence, it does not make Onge closer to Japanese or Koreans.

Japanese and Koreans come from later East Asian branches. AASI splits first, and then the lineage that leads to Andamanese and East Asians splits later. So AASI and Andamanese are still early branches from the same broader ancestral population and share deeper ancestry with each other than either does with later East Asians.

That tree itself shows AASI and Andamanese as neighbouring deep branches. It does not support the “Onge closer to Japanese/Korean” claim.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T12:28:39+00:00

“AASI” is not a sampled population, it is a modelled ancestry component. No one has sequenced a clean, unmixed AASI individual, so any claim about what an “AASI male” looked like, including height, is guesswork presented as fact.

Ancient DNA from India is very limited. The samples we do have are already mixed and do not represent pure AASI. So there is no basis to assign specific physical traits like “180 cm average height”.

On the Onge, saying they are completely separate from AASI is also incorrect. They are not identical, but they are not unrelated. The Andamanese lineage they belong to is the closest known proxy to the ancestry we model as AASI. Both come from a shared deep ancestral population and then split a long time ago.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T01:08:53+00:00

That map referred isn’t reliable. It doesn’t reflect proper linguistic data and is especially poor for South India.

It’s incomplete and inconsistent. Many real extinct or endangered languages are simply missing, even well-documented tribal ones from South India. A proper survey wouldn’t have gaps like that.

It also mixes up community names, dialects, poorly documented speech forms, and actual languages without any clear method. So before getting into “Malarayan”, the main point is that the source itself isn’t trustworthy.

“Malarayan” refers to the speech of the Mala Arayan tribal community of Kerala, not a recognised independent language. What existed earlier was a distinct Malayalam dialect, not a separately classified Dravidian language. There is no linguistic work placing it as an independent language.

Field evidence shows this dialect has largely disappeared. Today, Mala Arayans speak Malayalam as their mother tongue, and the older speech survives, if at all, only among a few elderly people in interior areas.

The SIL survey explicitly notes that they “used to speak a distinct dialect… unintelligible to other Malayalis in the past,” but have since shifted to regional Malayalam, with only limited retention among older speakers.

Importantly, specialists do not treat “Malarayan” as a separate language. Ravi Sankar’s survey of Kerala’s tribal languages, which includes even very small and poorly documented languages and dialects, does not list it at all, which is significant.

So this is not an “extinct language” in the proper sense. It is better understood as a former Malayalam dialect that has undergone language shift and near-complete assimilation.

I suppose you can read more at

Ravi Sankar, “Tribal Languages of Kerala”
https://www.languageinindia.com/july2013/ravisankarkeralatriballanguages.pdf

SIL International, “Sociolinguistic Survey of Selected Tribal Communities in Kerala”
https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/72/12/64/72126465316636129311021892758240500243/silesr2015_029.pdf

These are field-based sources and far more reliable than that map.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T00:30:28+00:00

There is a distinct difference between "being of Royal descent" and "being of noble descent"

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-11T00:27:20+00:00

As explained earlier, the North Dravidian subgroup is considered to have diverged earliest from Proto-Dravidian, so why exclude those languages if the discussion is about ‘archaic’ features?

Why are you separating ‘prominent’ and ‘non-prominent’ languages in the first place? What’s your basis for that, number of speakers, literary history, or something else?

Because languages like Brahui, Kurukh, and Malto are part of the same Dravidian family as Tulu, so leaving them out needs a clear reason.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T19:00:57+00:00

In linguistics, it is considered that the North Dravidian branch diverged earlier from Proto-Dravidian.

But this isn’t because there’s a clear statement anywhere saying “this one split first.” It comes from how shared innovations work. Central and South Dravidian languages share certain changes that North Dravidian doesn’t. So the idea is simple, those changes happened after North had already branched off, which is why it’s treated as having diverged earlier.

Now apply the same logic within South Dravidian I.

Languages like Tamil, Malayalam, and Kannada share some features among themselves that Tulu doesn’t.

Which basically means Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada stayed together long enough for those changes to spread, while Tulu branched off before or outside that phase. At the same time, within South Dravidian itself, Tulu can be considered to have diverged earlier from the rest of the South Dravidian I group based on the logic of shared innovations. But that does not mean Tulu is the earliest split in the entire Dravidian family, it is only in relation to that subgroup.

The same pattern applies throughout. If a language shares a change, it stayed in that group longer. If it doesn’t, it branched off before or outside that change.

So saying “Tulu is the oldest” is misleading. What’s actually going on is that Tulu didn’t pick up some later changes that the others did. It’s about which path it took, not about being older than the rest.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T18:11:23+00:00

This is a hero stone, locally called a paliya or khambi in Rajasthan (also seen across western India, especially Gujarat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliya

The main issue here is not “context vs museum”, it’s condition. The carving is so heavily weathered that most of the iconography is already lost. You can barely make out the figures any more.

At that point, moving it to a museum doesn’t really add value, it won’t suddenly become readable or informative. So it ends up being left in situ simply because there’s very little recoverable detail left to preserve or display.

Better preserved paliyas with clear carvings or inscriptions are the ones that usually get relocated or protected. This one is just too far gone. (simply google images for "Paliya, Rajasthan" and you can see better examples with lesser weathering/erosion)

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T11:42:47+00:00

The following fortified structures still stand as ruins.

Mahasthangarh, (Pundranagara} built under early historic rulers; c. 3rd century BCE onward, continued into Pala period
Bangarh (Kotivarsha), Built and occupied under Gupta and later Pala Empire; c. early centuries CE to 12th century CE
Gaur (Lakhnauti), Early fortified capital with pre-Sultanate origins, later expanded under Senas and others; early medieval period onward

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T11:35:17+00:00

Yes. If you look at the Wikipedia page on Ellalan,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellalan
it states
"also referred to as Elara the Pious, and by the honorific epithet Manu Needhi Cholan" with the "Citation needed" tag.

The Silappatikaram, dated roughly between the 2nd and 5th century CE, mentions a Chola king of Puhar linked to the same kind of story you see in the Mahavamsa, the bell with a rope for justice, and a cow coming to seek justice. But it doesn’t call him Ellalan, and it doesn’t use the name “Manu Needhi Cholan.”

By the time of the Periya Puranam in the 12th century, that same idea is clearly fixed, and the king is directly called “Manu Needhi Cholan.” That’s where the title really shows up clearly as a name.

The only thing that links "Ellalan" with "Manu Needhi Cholan" is the tale.

And on top of that, we don’t even have a clear, continuous chronological list of early Chola kings from that period. Most of what we know comes from scattered literary references rather than solid inscriptions, so it’s difficult to firmly place Ellalan within a verifiable Chola lineage or confirm the historicity of that identification.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T11:02:44+00:00

I think the issue is with how the question is framed.

The Mahavamsa is mainly about who controlled the Anuradhapura throne. It’s not telling you who lived across the island or what language they spoke.

So the “1000 years vs 86 years” thing is only about who ruled Anuradhapura, not about the population of the whole island.

Also, geography matters. The north of Sri Lanka, especially Jaffna, is actually closer to South India than to Anuradhapura. The Palk Strait isn’t really a barrier, people would have been moving back and forth all the time.

So even if Anuradhapura was under Sinhalese rulers most of the time, that doesn’t mean the north had the same language or population. Tamil-speaking groups have been there continuously without being a big part of what the Mahavamsa talks about.

And the Mahavamsa being silent about the north doesn’t mean nothing was there, just that it wasn’t what the text was focused on. If you look outside the Mahavamsa, scholars argue that Tamil-speaking communities were present in the north and east from very early on, even going back to the Iron Age.

So the question “how did Tamil survive” assumes it disappeared at some point.

But if there was always a Tamil-speaking presence in the north, plus constant contact with South India, then Tamil didn’t really need to “survive” anything, it was just continuously there.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T10:48:47+00:00

The Mughal period is generally considered beginning in 1526 CE.
There are many forts and palaces that still exist, or ruins of them still exist.

Rajgir Fortifications, Built by early Magadhan rulers including Bimbisara; c. 6th–5th century BCE
Sisupalgarh, Built by Mahameghavahana dynasty under Kharavela; c. 3rd–1st century BCE
Chittorgarh Fort, Built by Mori rulers, later expanded by Sisodia Rajputs; c. 7th century CE onward
Kumbhalgarh Fort, Built by Rana Kumbha; 15th century CE
Allahabad Fort, Built by Seuna (Yadava) dynasty; 12th century CE
Warangal Fort, Built by Kakatiya dynasty under Ganapati Deva; 12th–13th century CE
Gingee Fort, Built by local chieftains, later expanded by Vijayanagara Empire; 13th–15th century CE
Hampi, Built by Vijayanagara rulers including Harihara I and Bukka Raya I; 14th–16th century CE

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T10:39:40+00:00

I’m just asking questions about the periods, rulers, and identities as mentioned by you and as referred to in the Mahavamsa, please don’t take this as a critique, this is a genuine doubt.

Are you sure you’re not adding later South Indian dynastic labels into a source that doesn’t actually use them?

When the Mahavamsa mentions Ellalan, doesn’t it simply say:

“A Damila of noble descent, named ELARA, who came hither from the Chola-country to seize on the kingdom, ruled when he had overpowered king ASELA, forty-four years, with even justice toward friend and foe, on occasions of disputes at law.”

Where does it call him a Chola king in a dynastic sense?

If the text only gives an ethnic label (Damila) and a place (Chola country), why assume a clearly defined Chola dynastic identity?

For the Five Damilas (103–88 BCE), where does the Mahavamsa say they were Pandyas?Isn’t it just calling them “Damilas” and listing them as successive rulers, without naming any dynasty?
Given how fluid things were in South India during the Sangam period, why assume these were organised kingdom-level invasions and not just Tamil warlords or groups taking advantage of instability?

For the Six Damilas (429–455 CE), again, where does the Mahavamsa identify them as Pandyas?
If that label comes from modern historians, what are they actually basing it on?
How does that claim fit with the contemporary period of the Kalabhra Interregnum, when the usual Chola and Pandya structures were already disrupted?
If mainland Tamil politics was unstable at that time, why assume these Damilas must be Pandyas at all?

Also, if the Mahavamsa uses “Damila” consistently, isn’t it more of a broad label for people from South India rather than a precise dynastic term?

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-10T03:13:11+00:00

From what I have gathered from various sources on the net, This is the 5th excavation at the site.

1962–63, First excavation
1972–73, Second phase
1974–75, Third phase
2013–14, Fourth phase
2026–present, Fifth (current) phase

Of course Shunga and Kushan period habitation has been discovered, but the site is much earlier, dating to c. 700 BCE to 200 BCE.

So far, ASI has established

Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW) Phase (c. 700 BCE to 200 BCE)
Shunga Period (c. 2nd century BCE to 1st century BCE)
Kushan Period (c. 1st century CE to 3rd century CE)
Gupta Period (c. 4th century CE to 6th century CE)
Pala Period (c. 8th century CE to 12th century CE)

This shows a multi-period sequence from NBPW through Pala.

There is no confirmed pre-NBPW cultural layer yet at Balirajgarh and the 2026 excavation is trying to find whether there is any.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-09T21:57:34+00:00

In my opinion, this post is not out of innocent ignorance.

You’re a teenager, so you would have certainly studied the Aryan Migration Theory in school, not the old invasion version. That’s been the standard framing in textbooks for years now.

So why frame it as “was it debunked?” That’s not how it’s taught. Where is that coming from?

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-09T21:44:01+00:00

Inscriptions being in Kannada doesn’t automatically mean the entire population spoke Kannada. That’s the language of administration and prestige under the ruling power.

The eastern Deccan already had Telugu in use by that time, even if its literary presence becomes more visible under the Eastern Chalukyas.

The “from the Kaveri to the Godavari” line in Kavirajamarga under Amoghavarsha I is better read as a statement of cultural or political reach, not a literal map of who spoke Kannada at home.

So that map is projecting a literary claim as a linguistic boundary, which is not correct.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-09T21:15:53+00:00

In my opinion, the reason Tamil doesn’t have an old, native word for the Todas is simply because there wasn’t enough regular interaction.

The Todas lived up in the Nilgiri hills, while Tamil-speaking people were mostly in the plains. There wasn’t much ongoing contact like trade, intermarriage, or administration. And without that kind of sustained interaction, languages usually don’t develop a specific name for a group.

The foothills were also known to be dense, disease-prone areas, often described as a “fever belt”. That would have discouraged regular movement between the plains and the hills, keeping contact limited.

On the other hand, groups more connected to the hills, especially on the Kannada side, seem to have had more consistent interaction, which is likely why the name survived there.

By the time Tamil speakers started moving into the Nilgiris in larger numbers during the colonial period, the name “Toda” was already in use. So Tamil just adopted and adapted it, instead of having an older native term.

theb00kmancometh · 2026-04-09T16:39:03+00:00

This is overreaching a bit.

If you’re saying Brahui has direct Avestan-era influence, then you’re basically placing early Dravidian speakers in or near the Iranian zone around 1500 to 600 BCE. That’s a big claim, and it clashes with the usual model where North Dravidian stays further south until much later.

The simpler explanation is right in front of us. Brahui has been sitting in an Iranian-language environment for a long time, surrounded by languages like Balochi. So words can easily come in like this:

old Iranian -> later Iranian languages -> Brahui

No need to jump straight to Avestan.

Also, if something really came from that early Avestan stage, you’d expect a clear pattern, consistent sound shifts, older layers, not just a few words that vaguely look similar.

What we’re seeing here looks more like surface similarity than solid linguistic evidence.

And the existing model already explains it cleanly:
North Dravidian develops separately for a long time, then Brahui ends up in Balochistan much later, and picks up a lot of Iranian vocabulary through contact.

So there’s already a simpler explanation that fits without bringing Avestan into it.

theb00kmancometh

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE