--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> Interestingly, the
> earliest (ca. 1700 BC) datable evidence of domestic horses (and
> camels) in that area comes from the vicinity of the Bolan Pass in
the
> Central Brahui Range (N Baluchistan),
VA: The above is simply untrue, although this myth is propagated with
great vigor by some scholars, both linguists and archaeologists. For
instance, in EJVS 7.2, Witzel says [All references are at the end]-
"The modern horse
first appeared, imported from Central Asia (Bokonyi
1997; Meadow and Patel 1997) around 1700 BCE (Pirak, Kachi Plain in
easternmost Baluchistan)" (§6). "
If the presence or absence or horse remains is used to deny or affirm
the arrival of IA speakers around 1700 BCE, we must ask why the same
logic should not be applied to areas further north?
In fact, MEADOW et al (1994) admit that no remains of the true horse
have been found even at the Bronze Age sites of Central Asia! And it
is through these areas that the horse rich Indo-Iranians are said to
have passed before reaching Iran and India.
Often, a blowing trumpet, a cylindrical seal showing a spoked wheel
chariot being drawn by two animals (whose identity is not at all clear
because the seal is so worn out), and two sword/knife blades shaped as
horse torsos but from unclear stratified contexts that are unclear are
used to postulate the presence of horses in BMAC etc. But we have even
more compelling evidence of horse presence in IVC area in the form of
terracota images, (I have uploaded a file today with the picture of a
terracota image of horse unearthed from Lothal from a context dated to
2200 BC), actual horse bones from at least a dozen sites (conveniently
ignored by Meadow, Witzel, Possehl...) at IVC levels. The totally
subjective attitude by some respectable scholars can be determined
from the picture of Pirak 'horse figurine' (which I have uploaded as
well today - please check)- can anyone really claim reasonably that
this represents a horse? And yet that is how the excavator Jarrige
describes it!
Let us consider to the claim made by Witzel (and relied upon by Piotr)
-
Witzel refers to (pg. 15) to two articles (occurring in the same
journal volume) by BOKONYI (1997) and MEADOW and PATEL (1997) to
decide that the modern horse first appeared in South Asia at Pirak
around 1700 BCE. Note the word 'modern'. The emphasis on 'modern'
itself smacks of a wrong methodology because it amounts to imposition
of a modern taxonomy on the ancients! Witzel has been quoting the same
articles ad nauseum in his own publications as if they really decide
the matter! The unwary reader, who has neither the time, nor the
resources to check the original publications, is misled by this one
sided presentation of 'evidence'. In fact, Witzel is being evasive in
citing these references, because a closer examination shows that the
matter is not concluded yet -
First, Witzel does not reveal that the article of Meadow and Patel was
actually written to criticize the conclusion of Bokonyi, which
revealed that horse bones have indeed been found at Surkotada - a
Harappan site in Gujarat. Bokonyi could not respond to their
objections because he died, a fact revealed clearly by Meadow but
unkown to the unwary reader who cannot access the article. Meadow had
the opportunity to discuss a few of their objections before Bokonyi
died but apparently Bokonyi remained steadfast in his conclusions. He
wanted to revise his paper and answer to some of the objections raised
by Meadow and Patel but could not do so before he died. All this is
clearly stated in Meadow's article.
Second, Bokonyi and Meadow/Patel's articles pertained only to the
equine bones unearthed at Harappan levels at Surkotada. Whatever be
the correct conclusion, the fact remains that the scholars did not
study horse bones unearthed at 'pre-Aryan' levels at other Harappan
sites earlier (such as Lothal, Kalibangan etc.). Hence, their
conclusion does not affect the exact identity of the equid remains of
other sites. In addition, Bokonyi's article states very clearly that a
differentiation between the bones of the 'khur' and the horse is very
difficult because of a considerable overlap between the sizes and
forms of some defining bones and teeth.
Third, the two articles were actually written in 1994, although they
could be published only in 1997. Therefore, the conclusion does not
affect any finding of horse remains after 1994 - for instance a bone
unearthed from Mature Harappan levels at Kuntasi in Gujarat was
determined to be from a horse, not an onager, at the Deccan College in
Pune in 1995 (See the article "Aryan Civilization may become 'bone' of
contention" in the Indian Express, 10 December 1995).
In summary then, it is a case of a tie ('horse' and 'no horse') with
regard to Surkotada, and the uncontested evidence for the presence of
horse bones at other sites (e.g. at Lothal) must be accepted as true,
on the testimony of the archaeologists who examined them.
*********
Note that Witzel suggests (EJVS 7.2, pg. 15) that the Gangetic plains
had not seen the horse till around 1500 BCE. He is clearly ignorant of
the archaeological record of the region. However, domesticated horse
is found at Mahagara and Koldihwa in the 5th to 7th millennium BC.
Both these sites are located in Eastern Uttar Pradesh (KAZANAS
1999:34). I would agree with some scholars that the horse bones from
these two sites actually come from levels that are of lower dates. BUT
even these lower dates take us to 2500 BCE (Meadow 1984, see notes at
the end of the article). So, the horse was already present before the
Mature Harappan age in the eastern Gangetic valley.
*************
Witzel (in EJVS 7.3) dismisses the discovery of terracota horse
figurines at Lothal etc. by saying that they are actually of onager!
Anyone however who has seen an onager will simply disagree with this
dismissal. It is true that the figurine whose picture I have uploaded
today hs a closely braided mane, BUT, such a representation of horses
is seen in several other figurines of horses found elsewhere in the
world, and could also hint towards the fact that the terracota image
represents a recently domesitated breed of horses (which would have a
closer mane than a long domesticated breed of horses). The
'Saptasindhavah' area as such has not yielded any horse bones even at
the purported time frame during which the RV was composed. So we
should just consider this argument indecisive.
*********
Witzel also conceals the fact that these two articles are followed by
a third one authored by David Anthony in the same volume and at the
end, there is a note by the editor of the journal issue. The editor's
comments on the matter are highly relevant -
"As a Pre-historian of South Asia, though not a specialist of the
Indus Civilization or the study of animal bones, I feel that there is
an aspect of the question of horse bones found at Indus urban sites
that needs to be considered. From early historican times forward we
know that horses have been regularly imported to South Asia. We also
know that the Indus Civilization had a long tradition of trade with
centers to the west and north. Would it be surprising therefore if
horses were occasionally acquired through trade, ultimately reaching
the Indus world by land or sea? This would account for the occurrence
of a small number of their bones in various contexts without the need
to assume their presence must necessarily be associated with profound
cultural change." (pg. 316)
The only way Meadow, an old friend and colleague of Witzel, can
dismiss the entire mass of evidence is by unscholarly methods, in a
typical Witzellian manner. And that is precisely what Meadow does.
Writing a 'Foreward' to a recent book by KENOYER (1998:10), Meadow
contrasts the work of South Asian writers adversely and makes the
following prejudiced remark-
"This picture represents one man's view of the past informed by twenty
three years of archaeological and ethnographic research in Pakistan
and Indian and by eighteen years of growing up in India. But the
paints, often applied with a broad brush necessarily in an
impressionistic manner, are tempered by Western academic skepticism.
Thus we do not see those wild flights of fancy or long leaps of faith
that characterize some literature of the region. What flights and
leaps are there do not require a suspension of one's disbelief to
entertain."
Is it not the working of a 'pre-enlightenment mind'?
*************
There are several other considerations - horse genetics indicates
several divergent areas of horse domestication, and numerous scholars
include Turkmenistan as one of the regions where horse was first
domesticated. [References can be provided if requested]. This region
had extensive trade network with IVC andit is opposed to commonsense
to presume that IVC people would not have brought horses from there,
especially when they even had an outpost at Shortughai.
*********
What we also need to consider is the myth that the horse is 'Central
to RV'. But before that, let us consider if RV is 'central' to Indian
culture at any period of time? When would a text be designated as
central?
First, is it justified to consider RV itself as a text 'central' to
early Aryan migrants in India when 402/407 Seers of its hymns are
Brahmins (less than 5% of actual population) and even when most of
these 402 Brahmnins are ROYAL Brahmins, connected to the rulers/chiefs
of the Aryan speakers?? Do we then expect that the material
information in RV will be paralleled int he archaeological record? I
think the answer is NO.
The horse and its related words occur in RV approx 250 times. With a
pronounced Brahmana-Kshatriya bias, the text obviously exaggerates
equine associations. The cow and its related words on the other hand
occur 700 times in the RV. So why not consider the cow as central to
RV??
***************
The above are just some of the objections that I have against this 'No
horse at Harappa' argument. I do propose to write a monograph on this
matter, covering anatomy/genetics/linguistic/archaeological arguments
but this will take time.
Sincerely,
Vishal Agarwal
*********
REFERENCES:
BOKONYI, Sandor. 1997. Horse Remains from the Prehistoric Site of
Surkotada, Kutch, Late 3rd Millennium B.C.; pp. 297-307, South Asian
Studies, vol. XIII. Toronto
KAZANAS, Nicholas. 1999. The Rgveda and Indo-Europeans.; pp. 15-42 in
'Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute', vol. LXXX.
Poona
KENOYER, Jonathan Mark. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley
Civilization. Oxford University Press. Karachi
MEADOW, Richard et al. 1994. Agricultural and herding in the early
oasis settlements of the Oxus Civilization. pp. 418-27, in
'Antiquity', vol. 68
MEADOW, Richard H, and PATEL, Ajita. 1997. A Comment on "Horse Remains
from Surkotada" by Sandor Bokonyi.; pp. 298-315, South Asian Studies,
vol. XIII. Toronto