Peter J. Claus
pclaus at HAYWIRE.CSUHAYWARD.EDU
Sun May 17 23:50:30 UTC 1998
There still seems to be something illogical about the argument.
On Sun, 17 May 1998, Edwin Bryant wrote:
> In case my last posting was confusing (as it was to at least one person),
> may I just again try to reiterate the point (I realize we may all be
> growing rather weary of all this).
> Just as the horse is prominent in the Rg, so is the cow. So *if* the
> I-A's were in the IVC, they did not depict either cows or horses on their
> seals despite these being their two most important cultural animals.
> The logic, here (from within the parameters of the assumption that the
> I-A's could have been present in the IVC), is that just as the
> culturally-important I-A cow is not depicted on the seals, but was present
> physically (as evidenced by cow bones), so, in a parallel fashion, could
> the culturally-important I-A horse have been present despite also not
> being depicted on the seals (and although 'physically' less evidenced than
> the common cow in terms of bones due to it being a rare, elite item).
> I hope this logic is not as convoluted as my prose. Obviously, the
> alternative is that the cow-and-horse-centered I-A's were not
> significantly present in the IVC at all and hence the lacuna of *both* the
> cow and the horse on the seals. Best, Edwin
More information about the INDOLOGY