Indo-Aryan im/e-migration: Horse argument

[George Thompson]

In response to Mary Storm's useful summary:

Much of this evidence was discussed on the RISA list back, I think, in
October 1996. One could check the archives for specific references, but I
recall that archaeologists had not come to a consensus about these possible
horse remains at that time. Is this right, Edwin?

George Thompson

>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.
>Tally-ho,
>Mary Storm
>
>>