Re: Indo-European Studies
Raghu Seshadri (seshadri@cup.hp.com)
17 Jul 1995 22:01:36 GMT
Virendra Verma (verma@awecim.enet.dec.com) wrote:
: >So you know that a few uncivilized groups can
: >defeat a more civilized, far more numerous settlement.
: >
: What bothers me with the Aryan invasion theory is that they had to
: face the so called an advanced civilization of Dravidians. How could
: it be possible? In modern time, can few third-world nomads invade
: modern Europe or America? It doesn't make any sense to me. It needs
: lots of scientific basis to prove as to why a few barbarions could
: displace an advanced civilization to the south.
Mr Verma, it seems you are using 2 different meanings
for the word "civilization", and using them interchangeably.
This results in great confusion.
One meaning that emanates from your question "how can
an advanced civilization be defeated by a backward one"
is that advanced = militarily advanced. But it is
possible for a country to be very civilized, and be
defeated by barbarians who are advanced only militarily.
Rome was felled by the Vandals, and everyone knows
Romans were more civilized than the Vandals. The
very civilized Chinese were bested by the Mongols.
In our own time, the most serene and wise civilization
of Tibet has been raped by the barbarous Red Chinese.
No matter how low Hindu civilization had fallen, it
was still vastly superior to the Arabs, yet it fell
easily to them, because the invaders were militarily
superior.
There is another important point you seem to neglect.
According to the latest findings, the Dravidian
settlement at Harappa had perished thru drought
long before the Aryans showed up. So no one is
saying that the Aryans defeated and decimated a
flourishing Dravidian civilization.i
They probably dribbled in, in small numbers,
with the natives hardly noticing, but by a process
repeated by the British centuries later, became
rulers of India.
RS
|