From: Juha Savolainen
Message: 18400
Date: 2003-02-03
> ��I wrote:__________________________________________________
> (One of my favorite positions is Witzel's statement
> that'Harappan' could not
> be 'Vedic' because 'Harappan' did not have the horse
> -- which seems like
> saying that 'cowboys' were not 'American' because
> 'cowboys' did not use
> automobiles.)
>
> Juha Savolainen <juhavs@...> wrote:
> <<Your analogy is misleading. An correct analogy
> would state, say, that the
> Pre-Columbian Indians could not have been
> conquistadors because former did
> not know the horse���>>
>
> Juha,
> Sorry, but I'd suggest you are illustrating the
> power of the presumption.
> There's no clear evidence that the horse and Vedic
> showed up at the same
> time. There is nothing in the Vedas that says, "hey,
> we brought the first
> horses into town." Unless you can C-14 the sound
> changes, it's just as easy
> to assume that IE was in India long before the horse
> arrived -- and the
> evidence does not entirely exclude the possibility
> IE arrived long after.
>
> Maybe the better analogy would be like saying that
> Thomas Jefferson wasn't
> American because he didn't have rock 'n roll (with a
> pace to those who think
> rock 'n roll has always been with us.)
>
> Steve Long
>