[Cronos]

I remember reading that the Harappan civilisation had extensive trade with the Sumerians -- mayhaps the Sumerians were Dravidians -- they certainly weren't Semitic. This would tie in with the extensive history of the belt from present-day Syria to the Gangetic valley. The theory of Aryan invasion is also being discounted -- there's no proof of any massacres as would be expected in an invasion site.

It would be within the realms of possibility that both Sumeria and Mohenjodaro-Harappa were formed at the same time -- c 6000 B.C. or earlier. The Harappan would have failed due to drought and the peoples moved further east and south. TheSumerian, weakened by this disappearance of a trading partner slowly succumbed to the Semitic/Amorite tribes that had been living in the valleys, outside the cities. in the Harappan context, the Aryans would have been the nomads trading with the city dwellers, so pushign Aryan origin in Eastern Iran (land of the Arya) and the Western Indian sub-continent.

[swarthyguy]

Been my outlandish theory about Sumer and the Indus cities. That there were more contacts and interaction than has been acknowledged or discovered.

Some oddities - the word Sumer in Sindhi is the word for Monday, FWIW.

The ancient deity of the Indus, Jhoolelal, a seagod on a dolphin, is eerily similar to the water ocean god of the Sumerians.