Indo-Aryan im/e-migration: Horse argument

[Dominique.Thillaud]

Mary Storm wrote:

>Sorry to jump in here, as an art historian, not a linguist, I am not
>sure if my comments will be very welcome. I offer this archaeological
>data with all humility:
>The horse argument has been going on for a while. There is, in fact,
>evidence of the horse at Indus sites.
>The eminent archaeologist B. B. Lal  (hardly a saffron crackpot) in his
>latest book The Earliest Civilization of South Asia, New Delhi, 1997,
>pp. 285-86, sums up some of the horse evidence:
>Mohenjo-daro: Terracotta horse figure found by Mackay ( although some
>controversy about the interpretation).
>Lothal: teracotta horse figure and second right upper molar of a horse.
>Surkotada: horse bones, the bones are from a true horse, Equus Caballus,
>as determined by the enamel pattern of the teeth, and by the size of the
>incisors as well as the phalanges. "Since no wild horses lived in India
>in post-pleistocene times the domestic nature of the Surkotada horse is
>undoubtful."
>Kalibangan: horse bones.
>Nausharo: terracotta horse figurines have just very  recently been
>discovered on the Harrapan levels of the site.

        Perhaps a difference between knowing horses and having a cultur
based on them. Do you won't really compare this few remains with the
material of the Scythian graves?
        This list is strictly comparable with the list of lions' remains in
Mycenian Greece: few artifacts, one or two teeth and bones. Archeologists'
opinion is that the lion was a rare imported prestige pet.
        The important use of eagles and bees in Napoleonian insigns don't
prove the 1800's French people was consecrated to the falconry and
beekeeping. Mr Subrahmania says the archeology is scientific: I agree, but
perhaps that's not true for the interpretation of archeology's results ;)

        Regards,
Dominique

Dominique THILLAUD
Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France