are possible only after the contact. So it is circular." Thieme assumes here that everything that has happened in the past in India is recorded in early Sanskrit. The Hellenic conquest of India is a known and proved fact. Thieme can never find one direct reference to this contact in the whole of Sanskrit literary tradition. Are we to doubt this conquest ? Rig Veda refers to Dasyus and Demons as the enemies of Aryans. If they are the non-Aryan tribes, will not that be a sufficient proof that Aryans had contact with non-Aryans?

Thieme says that, "Dravidian languages bristle with Sanskrit loan words and Dravidian literature came into existence under the influence of Sanskrit." Both the statements are far from the truth. Sanskrit loan words do not constitute even 10 per cent of the vocabulary of ancient Tamil. To quote Emeneau, "Only literary criticism and grammatical treatises were influenced by Sanskrit." It is a well known fact that both these branches of literature except Tolkāppiyam came into existence in Tamil later than the secular poetic compositions collected under the name, Sangam poetry.

Thieme states that, "Wherever there is a correspondence in the vocabularies of Sanskrit and Dravidian, there is a presumption to be removed only by specific arguments that Sanskrit has been the lender, Dravidian the borrower." Why it should be so, Thieme does not care to explain. Probably, he is still sharing the view that the Dravidians were less civilized than the Aryans and therefore the borrowing should be from the more cultured by the less cultured. The Mohanjo-daro Civilization and its identification as non-Aryan and then as Dravidian, disprove, Thieme's supposition. This argument of his reflects the 19th century notion pointed out in the beginning of this paper and effectively refuted by Emeneau.

Thieme's observation that the Mohanjo-daro civilization is not Dravidian needs more proof than a mere repetition of the unfounded scepticism voiced by armchair theoreticians. Those who have really worked at the sites have without doubt identified it with the Dravidian Civilization also because of the presence of Brahuii speakers in and around the sites.

"Loan words" Thieme says, "have been shunned by early Sankrit Grammarians". So there is "very little likelihood of making use of these loan words by literary writers". Actually, those which Thieme points out are obvious loan words. Subtle loan words have been accepted and adopted even by the early Grammarians like Katyayna. Aryans have the singular capacity to adapt and absorb into their system, whatever is good in others whether they are friends or foes. This is a cultural feature in existence even now. Their ancient literature and grammar reflect this trait. The most effective way for disproving Burrow would be to discuss the shortcomings of the