Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?

PIOTR WROTE:
<<The dating of its origins must be consistent with the larger picture. For
example it's quite impossible to claim that Indic was already a distinct
branch in, say, the fourth millennium BC, as there are good reasons to
believe , and that the differentiation had something to do with the
historical migrations of the Indo-Iranian peoples, well documented from the
mid-second millennium BC on.>>

Piotr, with much respect for your reasoned approach to this, I have to ask
you what "good reasons there are to believe that the split of Indo-Iranian
into smaller groups took place about 2000 BC"?

You mention the historical migrations and "We know of a language with Indic
features (but in some respects more archaic than Vedic) that came into
contact with Mitanni Hurrian about 1400 BC. This suggests that pre-Indo-Aryan
was spreading across the region alongside early forms of Iranian."

If this is the extent of the evidence in favor of the last unity of I-Ir
happening at 2000BC, I have to suggest it is not very compelling. From the
best I can tell, the Mitanni evidence doesn't point to Indo-Iranian but to an
already separate Indic branch of I-Ir. So how would that date proto-IIr?

Central Asia north of Iran, Afghanistan and India offers a lot of territory
for the spread of dialects that turn into languages -- especially keeping in
mind your measure of the extent of Jastorf as a reasonable working boundary
for Proto-Germanic, which is dwarfed by the area that Indo-Iranian may have
emerged from. It seems just as conceivable that the proto-IIr was manifested
in some early phase of the intrusion of the IE languages into Central Asia
and that differentiation started well before 2000. There's no reason to think
that the people who spoke proto-IIr were not already migrating constantly
when they arrived in Central Asia and therefore putting enough space among
themselves to develop into different language groups before they ever
appeared in the south.

The very fact that I-Ir languages are so extensive across the length of that
region (by the time of Darius) seems to suggest that different groups entered
the southern areas at different times and different places, sometimes
following one another.

(I've never seen a convincing "rate of change" used to measure the time that
separates, for example, Iranian from "Indo-Aryan". So I'll presume that the
2000BC date is not based on any backtiming based on the rate of change in the
different languages.)

In the meantime, it is thoroughly possible that I-Ir speakers of one type or
another had extensive contacts with Harappan in a number of different
locations. In northwestern Gujarat, Harappan settlements are preceded by
non-Harappan agricultural settlements and cultural diversity and pastoralism
seems to be evident throughout the periods of Harappan presence. (I see no
evidence of horses mentioned in the reports, but I make no assumption that
every single IIr speaker had his own horse no matter where he went.
Domesticated horses may have been hard to come by in 2500BC.) There seems to
be a good deal of evidence that Harappan had contact with relatively well
developed non-Harappan cultures in northerly and north-westerly direction
(extending into Afghanistan and Baluchstan). The idea that these groups
could have been IE or IIr speakers seems quite possible. Accounting for whom
these groups would be if they were not IIr speakers would seem to pose a
bigger problem.

The benefits of this kind of contact to early IIr speakers to the north and
northwest of the Indus and Sarasvati valleys should be obvious, considering
the wealth and technological prowess of Harappan culture. It would have,
among other things, perhaps given them the technical know-how to eventually
build things like spoke-wheels and cities. In this way, pre-Vedic might be
seen as the hybrid border culture it evidentally was.

I'm not saying that I'm positive it happened this way, but I don't think
there is any evidence to contradict it. In terms of historical contact
patterns, it would seem a bit more likely. We often see a long period of
contact and interaction and even inter-habitation before population or
language shifts. (e.g., Sumer and Akkad, Gaul and Rome, etc.)

<<If we are to err, it's prudent to err on the side of caution, but among all
the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians do appear to have been the horsiest set. The
horse is a prominent element of the Vedic and Avestan cultures and
mythologies, and the 'horse' word occurs in lots of names meaning 'having
such-and-such horses'in both groups.>>

Well, what might have been true in 1000BC may not have been true in 2000BC. I
saw somewhere (maybe it was in Elst) how few horses had shown up in early
Vedic sites. For all we know, horses (and chariots) were like Rolls-Royces or
Ferraris in the early days, something folks talked about but didn't see very
often. The notion that where you find the horse you are going to find IIr --
or vice versa -- just satifies a preset notion.

As far as names like ''having such-and-such horses', it sounds to me having
horses must have been unusual, since otherwise it wouldn't be worth
mentioning. Or it might mean that those folks had nothing but horses and had
to rely on Harappan type cultures to give them anything else worthwhile.

<<The fact that the Anatolian term for 'horse' and the Hurrian horse-training
terminology are Indo-Iranian is also a piece of indirect but suggestive
evidence.>>

An excellent point, but it can be read both ways. Why would Hittites need a
Mitanni horse expert? Why not just get some horses and ride off? And if
Hittites could buy some horses and hire a horse expert, why couldn't anybody?
What this looks like is a class of tradespeople, who specialized in horses
internationally -- not a "culture". The fact that Vedic terms were involved
tells us where the profession developed. But it also suggests to us that the
know-how was already (circa 1400BC) on the open market and could belong to
anyone who could afford it. It does not tell us that any pre-Vedics coming
into India did not do so for the most part on foot. Knowing about the horse
does not mean you have the wherewithal to own one.

Saying that Harappan is not "Vedic" because Harappan did not have the horse
is like saying "cowboys" weren't Americans because they didn't have cars.
For all we know, pre-Vedic culture could have been as bereft of horses as
those car-less cowboys. So all the statement points to for sure is a
difference in time.

Regards,
Steve Long