--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> But the acculturation scenario assumes that the Indo-Aryans were
integrated into the local post-Harappan cultures. They contributed
their own elements (including technological innovations connected
with the use of horses as draught animals), but also adopted the
local traditions. Mughal's argument excludes an abrupt shift, with
one population (and its material culture) driving out or destroying
another, but is compatible with acculturation.
>
Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence is not sufficient to posit
such an anthropological 'acculturation' scenario. There is an
alternative possibility that the cultural mores changed over time.
Again, no horse in PGW sites in the Hakra valley. There is, however,
horse in Surkotada; we do not know if this was a horse brought in or
indigenous. Rana Ghundai horse presence if cumulated with Surkotada
and other Gujarat sites, seems to indicate the domestication of the
horse. That is all we can say on archaeological evidence and cannot
conclude as Asko Parpola does that the Aryans came bringing with them
the horses. Matching archaeology with language seems to be a tough
nut to crack.