From: João S. Lopes Filho
Message: 9687
Date: 2001-09-22
----- Original Message -----From: Piotr GasiorowskiSent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 10:57 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Dravidian in Persia?I'd be quite happy with sporadic horse finds during the mature Harappan phase; they'd strengthen the case for Dravidian presence in the region at that early date. However, horses in significant numbers _and_ chariots should appear with the Indo-Aryans, who did specialise in horsebreeding, chariotry and horse training. Independently of the Rigveda, we have the Indo-Aryan "horsey" vocabulary of the Mitanni and even Hieroglyphic Luwian as'uwa-, which is more likely a loan from Indo-Aryan than an inherited word (cf. also Armenian ji, Gen. jioy : Skt. haya-).I agree with Vishal that the "Pirak horse" picture he uploaded could represent just about any four-legged ungulate without horns. However, I've got a little problem with this terracotta menagerie. I've been trying to find a better photo of the Lothal figurine, especially one that would show the tail, if there (as it is, one can only tell for sure that the figurine depicts an equid; the ears seem to be chipped, and what Vishal calls close-braided mane may just as well represent the brushlike upright mane of a hemione, such as a khur). I found one photo (enclosed with this message) at the following HINDUNET site:The legend says "Lothal: terracotta horse", but anyone can see that it isn't the horse uploaded by Vishal, and that it looks even less equine than the Pirak critter. I'd appreciate some more exact references to published photographs of the Pirak and Lothal figurines.I we want to be precise, the term "modern horse" (or "true horse") should be taken to stand for any horse conspecific with what we call "Equus caballus" (not only modern domestic horses but any subspecies or geographical race of _Equus ferus_, the species which includes also all "tarpans" and Przewalski's horses). Apart a couple of subspecies of _E. hemionus_ no other Indian equids made it into the holocene. The hemione replaced the older equid of that region, the Narmada horse (_E. namadicus_), in mid-Pleistocene times. _E. namadicus_ -- a close relative, perhaps even a descendant of the stratigraphically older _E. sivalensis_ -- was still more remotely related to the domestic horse that hemiones are; it was a local offshoot of the once-widespread Eurasian fossil species _E. stenonis_, whose closest living relatives are African zebras. To sum up, if we talk of "modern horses" in the ancient Indian context, we mean "horses proper" as opposed to other equids. Locally, only hemiones, that is onagers and khurs, are relevant.Piotr----- Original Message -----From: Miguel Carrasquer VidalSent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 12:46 AMSubject: Re: [tied] Re: Dravidian in Persia?On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:20:19 -0000, VAgarwalV@... wrote:
>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?
Actually, what Piotr said was that there might be a link between horses and the arrival of *Dravidian* [not Indo-Aryan] speakers in the 2nd millennium.
>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!
Well, the word 'modern horse' is routinely applied by biologists to distinguish equus finds from other Old World equines (hipparion, hypohippus, anchitherium), which, apart from some overlap, are usually very much earlier.