Re: [tied] Indo-Aryan horses

From: Piotr Gasiorowski
Message: 9937
Date: 2001-10-02

Thanks for the comments and the references. All I would claim for the PGW culture is that its carriers may have been linguistically Indo-Aryanised. The very notion of acculturation should prevent us from regarding all the elements of a hybrid culture (from language to pottery) as imported. The pottery itself is not what semi-nomadic peoples could be expected to have contributed -- for people who have to move all their belongings seasonally, clay vessels are not durable goods.
 
I'd like to see a non-impressionistic table comparing the actual occurrence of horse bones and horse-related finds at various locations during different periods. If you are right, and if horses have always (since their initial domestication, of course) been imported into India, that will indeed undermine the "Indo-Aryan horse" argument. If, on the other hand, there is a significant increase after ca. 1500 BC (even a relative one, but suggesting a distinction between occasional import and regular breeding), the argument will retain some of its force.
 
As for the cultural role of the horse among the Indo-Iranians, I think it was variable depending on time and place, though the abundance of names and compounds with <as'va-> and <aspa-> in both groups guarantees that the horse was never an exotic animal to them. Also, the fact that the linguistic heritage of the Mitanni Indo-Aryans consists almost exclusively of terms connected with horse training and chariot-driving cannot be ignored.
 
Generally, the more sedentary lifestyle one leads and the less grassland is available for horse pasturage, the less practical horses become and the fewer people can afford keeping them. The Indo-Aryans who were integrated into the local cultures of northern India were no longer transhumant pastoralists -- at best, they retained some appropriately idealised cultural memory of their former way of life. Horsemanship and chariotry were left to the aristocracy, the Rigvedic heroes, and the gods.
 
Horses were upper-class possessions among most of the other IE-speaking peoples -- the Celts, the Germani, the Slavs, the Greeks, etc. -- practically everywhere except in the Eurasian steppe belt. I have myself on several occasions spoken against the romantic myth that the IEs were "horse people". I am convinced that the horse was domesticated in post-PIE times and that expert horse-breeding (not to mention "mounted nomadism") became only locally important in fairly recent times. On the other hand (to return to out "Indo-Aryan horses"), an expensive and exclusive luxury possession is just the right sort of thing to become a prestige indicator, and the very inaccessibility of horses and horse-drawn chariots to the common people would make them all the more admired.
 
I agree that wishful thinking inclines people to imagine massive migrations or cultural discontinuities on slim evidence to account for language shifts. I've seen this before in the European context (the "Kurgan waves") and I sympathise with your reaction against this mode of thinking in the Indian context. Let me make it clear again, that for me the designation "Indo-Aryan" is primarily a linguistic one, whatever its ethnic, cultural, religious or any other extralinguistic correlates. Any scenario which allows for the expansion of the Indo-Aryan _languages_ in India (and is not definitely ruled out by archaeological and historical evidence) is worth considering and discussing sine ira et studio, as far as I am concerned. However, languages do not migrate without at least _some_ of their speakers moving as well.
 
Regards,
 
Piotr
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: VAgarwalV@...
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 8:55 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Dravidian in Persia?

--- In cybalist@......, "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@......> wrote:
> Who (other than David Frawley) delinks the PGW culture from the
Indo-Aryans, and on what grounds? And who or what do they link it to
instead?
Vishal: Strange that you should ask the first question since as far
as archaeology goes, Mr. Frawley merely defers to the consensus of
scholars of the field.
In case you are unaware, let me first summarize why the PGW was
earlier linked to the Aryans. To quote Shaffer [1984:84-85] -

QUOTE BEGINS --

1.      Stratigraphically and chronologically, PGW culture
corresponds to the generally accepted date of the Indo-Aryan
invasions (middle of the second millennium B.C.). There seems to be
stratigraphic gap between occupations of the last protohistoric
cultures (post-Mature Harappan)  and the PGW. Carbon-14 dates place
the absolute date of PGW at between 1100 and 300 B.C.
2.      The geographic distribution of PGW sites appears confined to
the Ganga-Yamuna region – the same region emphasized in the early
Vedic literature.
3.      PGW was the initial occupation at several sites that were
thought to be associated historically with the literature – such as
Hastinapur in the Mahabharata.
4.      PGW stratigraphically overlapped with the historically known
culture of the Northern Black Polished Ware.
5.      PGW is the earliest culture associated with a variety of iron
artifacts – and the widespread use of iron is indicated in the Vedic
literature.
6.      The domestic horse, an important animal in the Vedic
literature, is found at PGW sites.
7.      The absence of mud-brick architecture and the distinctive
painted and plain grey pottery associated with PGW seem to represent
a sharp break with previous protohistoric cultures. Moreover, many
similarities exist between the grey ware vessel forms and those of
earlier protohistoric cultures. These archaeological considerations
have led many scholars to make a definitive association of PGW with
at least a later Aryan invasion.
Whether the Aryans should be regarded as the authors of the Painted
Grey Ware or not has been a matter of dispute. While most Indian
scholars have held that they were, others have doubted it. It is not
necessary to reconsider the matter here in detail, and it would
suffice to emphasize that the geographical horizon of the later
Aryans is coterminous with that of the Ware; there is also a
remarkable chronological proximity between the dates of the beginning
of the Ware and the later Vedic age, which no critical scholar would
place before the start of the first millennium B.C.. There can be
therefore, no reasonable doubt in ascribing the Ware to later Aryans.
(Ghosh, 1973, pp. 5-6).
UNQUOTE

Now let me quote Shaffer [pp. 85-86] to give an idea of why PGW is no
longer linked with Aryans etc.
QUOTE BEGINS --
"Although scholars generally have accepted the correlation of PGW
with Indo-Aryans in northern India, a few have been critical of this
hypothesis. If PGW represents the Indo-Aryans, then, according to
accepted theories, similar or antecedent types of pottery should be
located west of the Ganga-Yamuna region on the Iranian Plateau. B. K.
Thapar (1970) has noted the absence of any PGW antecedent types of
pottery anywhere along the route supposedly taken by the Aryans, and
he has outlined the chronological problems associated with accounts.
Chakrabarti, on the other hand, has proposed an eastern, rather than
western, origin for the PGW, thereby negating the PGW-Aryan
correlation.
The Painted Grey Ware culture, thus, with its traits of rice
cultivation and the use of domestic pig and buffalo seems to suggest
a culture distinctly eastern in bias and not a western one as its
suggested Aryan authorship would indicate. (Chakrabarti, 1968, p. 353)

Recent archaeological research in Eastern Punjab (Shaffer, 1981)
substantiates objections to the PGW = Aryan correlation.

J. P. Joshi's excavations (1976, 1977, 1978a, 1978b; Joshi and Madhu,
1982) at Bhagwanpura, Dadheri, Nagar, and Katpalon have significantly
altered the perspective of the archaeological sequence in the Punjab,
particularly that regarding the PGW culture. At these sites, Johsi
found PGW pottery and structures, associated in the same
stratigraphic unit with material belonging to the indigenous
development of iron technology within the Indian subcontinent. At
present, the archaeological record indicates no cultural
discontinuities separating PGW from the indigenous protohistoric
culture. That is, PGW culture represents an indigenous cultural
development and does not reflect any cultural intrusion from the
West, that is, an Indo-Aryan invasion. Therefore, there is no
archaeological evidence corroborating the fact of an Indo-Aryan
invasion.

p. 85-86 "Two conclusions may be drawn from archaeological data.
First, there is no connection between PGW culture and that of the
Aryans. Second, if the "Aryan" concept is to have any cultural
meaning, then such a culture (PGW) had an indigenous South Asian
origin within the protohistoric cultures of the Ganga-Yamuna region.
There was no invasion from the West. The current archaeological
evidence suggests that the original reconstruction indicating the
occurrence of an Indo-Aryan invasion mistakenly associated linguistic
change with the migration of peoples.
UNQUOTE
*****************

PIOTR remarked -But one should not play down the difference between
non-occurrence -- or, at best, sporadic and debatable occurrence --
and relatively rare but systematic and unambiguous attestation.

VISHAL Responds - Those who want to create unneccessary 'debate' will
undoubtedly do so. What is there in PGW to indicated that it was
a 'horse centred' culture? Even Romila Thapar indicates that the
horse bones, even where they are found (e.g. at Hastinapur) are very
few and barely exceed 1% of the total faunal remains. This is
comparable to IVC sites such as Surkotada.
There is nothing 'systematic' in the occurence of horse bones in PGW
sites, for if you insist that, I can argue that Meadow's criteria be
applied to equine remains found in PGW sites as well.

As for the 'important' role of horse in Vedic ritual, I want to
emphasize that is merely an overstatement.
For one, the Ashwamedha, with all its pomp and glory, was a royal
ritual that was performed once only in several generations. [The last
Ashwamedha in India was done in late 1700's at Jaipur and in the
Common Era, the recorded instances of Ashwamedha probably do not
exceed 10].

In fact, several Vedic texts actually indicate that the horse was
indeed a prized and rate item so much so that substitutes were
suggested (except in cases like Rajasuya and Ashvamedha where its
presence is an absolute must).

e.g.Kanva Shatapatha Brahmana reads [note the penultimate sentence] -
"1.1.4.15 The Asuras and the Rakshas verily kept away (prevented) the
gods who wished to set up the two fires (Garhapatya and
Ahavaniya), "Agni will not be produced (be born); you are not going
to set up the two fires". Therefore, they become (came to be
called) `Rakshasas' (preventees). Then indeed did the gods see the
thunderbolt, viz. the horse. They raised it up and on their
destroying the destructive Rakshasa, fire arose (was produced) in its
safe shelter that was free from fear. Therefore, one who is going to
churn the fire (produce fire by churning) should say, "Bring the
horse".
1.1.4.16 It (the horse) should stand in front. Thus indeed does this
(sacrificer) light up this thunderbolt (viz. the horse). (On his)
Destroying the destructive Raksasas with it, fire arises (is born) in
its fearless and save (not destructive) shelter.
1.1.4.17 It (the horse) should be one that (moves ahead) (eastward)
is a leader (foremost of horses). Indeed `virility' is the horse.
This (horse) is verily (represents) limitless vigor. He who is the
leader (who goes in the fore front- who moves eastward) grows
greatly. If there is no leader (leading horse) available, any one
(any horse that is available) will do. If even (an ordinary) horse is
not available, there may be an ox (an ox will serve the purpose).
This indeed is the relationship of the ox (with the horse)."

Likewise, let me quote the Latyayana Srautasutra of Samaveda -

"3.1.4 `When the Sodasi Saman is chanted, a black horse should stand
at the eastern door of the Sadas hall with face to the west; This is
the opinion of Dhananjaya
3.1.5 `According to Sandilya it (the black horse) should stand at the
western (door of the Sadas hall) facing to the east.
3.1.6 In the absence of the black horse, a horse of dark brown color
(may stand at the prescribed place during the chanting of the Sodasi
Saman).
3.1.7 ` In the absence of that (i.e., a dark brown), a horse of any
description or color (may stand at the specified place).
3.1.8 `In the absence of a horse, an ox or a goat (may stand at the
specified place)"
****

Fresh horse stock has been imported every 5 years or so into India
RIGHT INTO OUR TIMES (only recently indigenous horse breeding under
controlled conditions has been initiated at 3 places in India
including Bangalore and Pune) and therefore in a way, good horses
have ALWAYS been imported into India via sea or the land route.
Things need not have been different in IVC period or even later.
After all, even the Rigveda praises the Sindhu and Asikni (Chenab) as
rich in horses - a fact echoed in even later texts like the Brahmanas
and Mahabharata which praise the horses from Kamboj/Gandhar and
Sindhudesha.

REFERENCES -

References:

Chakrabarti, D. K. 1968 The Aryan Hypothesis in  Indian Archaeology.
In "Indian Studies, Past and Present, 4:333-358

______. 1977. India and West Asia – An Alaternative Approach. Man and
Environment, 1:25-38

Ghosh, A. 1973. The City in Early Historical India. Indian Institute
of Advanced Study, Simla

Joshi, J. P. 1976. Excavations at Bhagwanpura. In "Mahabharata: Myth
and Reality -  Differing Views. Agam Prakashan. Delhi. Pp. 239-240


_____. 1977. Overlap pf Late Harappan Culture and Painted Grey Ware
in light of Recent Excavations in Haryana, Punjab, and Jammu. Paper
presented at a Seminar- "Indus Civilization: Problems and Issues,
Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla.

______. 1978a. Interlocking of Late Harappan Culture and Painted Grey
Ware culture in light of recent excavations. Man and Environment 2:98-
100

_____. 1978b. A note on the excavations at Bhagwanpura. Piratattva
8:178-180


Joshi, J. P. and Madhu, B. 1982. Manda: A Harappan site in Jammu and
Kashmir, in: Harappan Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective (G. L.
Possehl, ed.), American Institute of Indian Studies, Oxford, and I.
B. H. Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 185-195

Ranade, H. G. (Ed. and translator); Latyayana-Srauta-Sutra (3 vols.);
Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts and Moitlal Banarasidass
Publishers Pvt. Ltd.; Delhi; 1998
Volume I  (1998)

Shaffer, J. G. 1981. The Protohistoric Period in Eastern Punjab: A
preliminary Assessment. In, Indus Civilization – New Perspectives (A.
H. Dani, ed.), Centre for the Study of the Civilization of Central
Asia, Quaid –I-Azam University, Islamabad, pp. 65-102

Shaffer, Jim G. 1984. The Indo-Aryan Invasions -  Cultural Myth and
Archaeological Reality. pp. 77-90 in John R. Lukacs (ed.), "The
People of South Asia -  The Biological Anthropology of India,
Pakistan, and Nepal". Plenum Press: New York and London

Swaminathan, C. R. Kanvasatapathabrahmanam, vol. I; Indira Gandhi
National Center for Arts; New Delhi; 1994. Comprises Kanda I of the
text.

Thapar, B. K. 1970. The Aryans: A Re-appraisal of the problem, in:
India's Contribution in World Thought and Culture (L. Chandra, S. P.
Gupta, D. Swarup, and S. Goel, eds.), Vivekananda Rock Memorial
Committee, Madras, pp. 147-164