Frank Pohlmann wrote: > Dravidian/Aryan split is fairly simplistic. I would be > amused if Harappan turned out to be a relation of > Sumerian, a language that is an isolate and is
Coastal ports, fortified cities etc - could probably be related to the phoenicians, who were anyway regularly sailing these coasts > But isn't this based mostly on textual evidence > internal to the Vedas? There is quite a bit of > evidence for similar migrations from somewhere in Probably, yes .. I haven't seen anything credible that's recent, and not overlaid with a whole lot of political hoop-la though - either rightwing hindu nationalists or left wingers determined to produce any fact at all that can disprove a right winger theory. If you have any contemporary, and balanced studies you can point me to, that'd be great. > Or just had an encounter with a rather nasty virus of > some kind. I am becoming more and more sceptical of > such dramatic encounters the older I get: conquest is > often a small-scale event, barring Gengis Khan and his > rather insalubrious imitators in the Middle East, > China and India. The aryans did appear to retain their love of cavalry / chariot troops and conquest, stuff like the "ashwamedha" that most emperors seemed to have performed, where they'd let a horse loose and send an army behind it .. wherever the horse goes, they try to attack that kingdom and claim it for their emperor. Then finally, once they finish conquering, or run out of troops, or when the horse gets too tired and broken down to go any farther, they sacrifice the horse and have some kind of ceremony where the defeated kings acknowledge the victor / sacrificer as emperor So .. well, the conquest theory could well have been valid. Only there's not too much sign of the usual detritus a battle leaves behind - spear / arrow heads, swords, split skulls etc. Virus, drought or something similar followed by a largescale exodus out of the area could well cause it.
