Why are there no weapons found in any of the several Indus Valley

>>1479118
By sea obviously like everyone did back then since it was much cheaper

>>1479118

>Why are there no weapons found in any of the several Indus Valley Civilization archaeology sites?

What are you talking about? They've found spear and arrowheads at them.

>By what means do you suspect the Indus Valley had the ability to trade with the Mesopotamians? overland? by sea? which routes on land? on sea?

Sea seems more likely. Don't several of the Sumerian inscriptions relating to "Meluhha" talk about the ports?

>>1479141
>What are you talking about? They've found spear and arrowheads at them.
Don't be coy. The amount of weapons found in the Indus Valley sites are shockingly low, almost embarrassingly so when you account for the amount of dice and toys they found.

>>1479146

>WHy are there no weapons found at the sites
>But there were weapons found at the sites
>Don't be coy, there were fewer weapons found at the sites than other sites in other locations, and more toys!

Were you born this stupid, or did you work hard to get there?

>>1479150
I retract that statement then, I'm sorry. There might as well not have been any weapons, given how few there were.

>>1479118
> Why are there no weapons found in any of the several Indus Valley Civilization archaeology sites?
They made it from something perishable, basically we only knew they had little bronze weapons compared to other bronze age cultures.
> By what means do you suspect the Indus Valley had the ability to trade with the Mesopotamians? overland? by sea? which routes on land? on sea?
By sea I guess, by the river into Persian Gulf.
> What genetic stock do you suspect the Indus Valley civilization to contain? Are they Aryans? offshoots of Indian aboriginals? Something entirely different?
They were pre-Aryans, most likely Dravidians.