> or the "aryans" being more advanced. If anything,
> the current
> scientific thinking is that the "aryan" immigrants
> were country
> bumpkin pastoralists while the harappans were quite
> advanced, urban
> city-dwellers, agriculturalists and traders.
That was my impression as well, although my reading on
the Harappans was very limited. On a related note,
some of the older languages of the Middle East that
are supposedly related to the Harappan script or even
(possibly) some putative early Dravidian language are
badly understood. Elamite is a good example. It is my
understanding that the earliest evidence for early
Dravidian languages goes back to the 2nd century AD,
but I have little idea whether there is anything
earlier. I wouldnt mind some pointers:)
Incidentally, I do not trust genetic evidence as
evidence of migration. Genetic evidence usually
corrorobates migration, but rarely says much about
date or meaning or the very extent of the migration
concerned. You can say it occured once markers are
found, but then it becomes a little more difficult,
unless full genetic surveys are done.
-Frank
>
> Thaths
> --
> "Bart! With $10,000 we'd be millionaires! We could
> buy all kinds of
> useful things... like love." -- Homer J.
> Simpson
>
>
___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
