chariots

[Rajarshi Banerjee]

> In any case latin was never a commoners language like pali.

Isn't there more than one error in this one statement?

RB>I was thinking of latin being used in places like england for ritual
purposes. The various prakrits and apabhramshas were considered commoners
languages.

> From a commoners point of view what was the payoff for learning an
> IE language? protection from cattle thiefs? rather elaborate I
> think.

I hope this question is not meant as a rhetorical denial of language
migration. We could go on asking many variations on it, e.g.: what
was the payoff for learning an IE language among the pre-Roman,
non-IE Iberians?

RB>
There was no payoff, they were probably surrounded by IE speakers. Is this
believed believed to be the case in north india where the migrants are
belived to be a small trickle? Were they as organized as the romans?

In general Language spread by demic diffusion sounds more plausible for
early periods.


chariots (even light ones) are expensive elaborate things and hints at a
settled, organized society which has a network of timber supliers a
workforce of builders and people who actually use them. As far as I know the
scythians and sarmatians never used chariots in battle. The andronovo
chariots are probably a product of settled townships and kingdoms not
nomadic warriors.

It is easy to belive that horsemen came through the khyber pass but not
chariots. The migrants would need to regroup and build chariots with local
help and resources.

Isnt it more likely that chariot building is a west asian import where there
was such large scale use?

regards R banerjee