From: Juha Savolainen
Message: 18490
Date: 2003-02-06
>__________________________________________________
> ----- 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
>
>
>