Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?

----- Original Message -----
From: <kalyan97@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 2:06 AM
Subject: Re: [tied] Why are Horses Vedic Again?



> Reference to Piotr's question: "Errr...Steve, are you into this "Indus_and Sarasvati_ terminology?" I may add that out of 2,600 archaeological sites unearthed so far, over 2,000 are found on the banks of River Sarasvati and 600 on the banks of River Sindhu (Indus).

I'm not going to discuss these numbers now (they do seem seriously exaggerated). But you actually mean the Ghaggar-Hakra area (I won't say "palaeochannel", since there had been several channels before the river dried up. There are two assumptions above, and I find reasons to question both. One is that the old riverbeds in the Ghaggar-Hakra area are identifiable with "Sarasvati" in any of the senses of the name (let alone "the mighty Sarasvati", "the mother of the Seven Rivers", comparable with the Indus or larger).

The other questionable assumption, implied by your use of numbers, is that the density of settlements discovered along the Ghaggar points to the centre of the Indus Valley civilisation. What the archaeologists say is that the civilisation had local concentrations (at different places during different periods), but no single capital or core area. The richness of finds on what you believe to be the course of "the Sarasvati" may be due to the exceptionally good preservation conditions in an area that was desiccated and abandoned at an early date, and only sparsely settled in more recent times. The sites have not been flooded, ploughed or otherwise disturbed ever since.

> What is wrong with Indus and Sarasvati terminology even in a linguistic setting when we are talking of languages such as Nahali
on the River Tapi (not far from Gulf of Khambat with Lothal, Padri and scores of civilization sites) on the coastline of Sindhu Sa_gara (Arabian Sea)?

I fail to see what Nahali has to do with the Indus or the Sarasvati. As for the rest, the term "the Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilisation" represents traditional usage, justified by the fact that most of the cities of that civilisation were located within the Indus system. Of course there were also coastal sites quite far from the mouths of the Indus (and Harappa was not the only major city of the civilisation), but as long as we know what we are talking about there's no particular need to change the conventional name. At any rate, by changing it to "the Indus-Sarasvati Civilisation" you merely express your belief in the mighty River Sarasvati and the Vedicness of the IVC, and since both of these convictions are widely contested, don't be surprised if people see the renaming as an attempt to promote your agenda by terminological means.

> We are dealing with a maritime-riverine civilization -- aka Indic (in linguistic terminology).

This is begging the question. Where's the demonstration that the IVC was linguistically Indic? You can't simply _assume_ it. The fact that the Vedic Indo-Aryans became familiar with the sea does not make them Harappan or move them back to Harappan times.

> In all the discussions on IE and PIE linguistics I find little attention being paid to the Gulf (Meluhha, Magan, Dilmun) which was a highway which linked the civilization to Mesopotamia (land of two rivers).

This is because there's no indication of any IE language being used on the Gulf in Harappan times.

Piotr