History of the horse in the Indian subcontinent

Horse-drawn chariot carved onto the mandapam of Airavatesvara Temple, Darasuram, c. 12th century CE.

The horse has been present in the Indian subcontinent from at least the middle of the second millennium BC.

Quotes

• The report claiming the earliest date for the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills (Ghosh 1989a, 4). In Rana Ghundai, Baluchistan, excavated by E. J. Ross, equine teeth were reported from a pre-Harappan level (Guha and Chatterjee 1946, 315–316). …equine bones have been reported from Mahagara, near Allahabad, where six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E. (Sharma et al. 1980, 220–221). Even more significantly, horse bones from the Neolithic site Hallur in Karnataka (1500– 1300 B.C.E.) have also been identified by the archaeozoologist K. R. Alur (1971, 123). [.......] In the Indus Valley and its environs, Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had reported the existence of the true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself, and Bholanath (1963) reported the same from Harappa, Ropar, and Lothal. Even Mortimer Wheeler identified a horse figurine and accepted that ‘it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all a familiar feature of the Indus caravan’ (92)." (BRYANT 2001:169-170). ... "Mackay, in 1938….identified a clay model of the animal at Mohenjo-Daro. Piggott (1952, 126, 130) reports a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley, dated somewhere between Early Dynastic and Akkadian times. Bones from Harappa, previously thought to have belonged to the domestic ass, have been reportedly critically re-examined and attributed to a small horse (Sharma 1992–93, 31). Additional evidence of the horse in the form of bones, teeth, or figurines has been reported in other Indus sites such as Kalibangan (Sharma 1992–93, 31); Lothal (Rao 1979), Surkotada (Sharma 1974), and Malvan (Sharma 1992–93, 32). Other later sites include the Swat Valley (Stacul 1969); Gumla (Sankalia 1974, 330); Pirak (Jarrige 1985); Kuntasi (Sharma 1995, 24); and Rangpur (Rao 1979, 219)." (BRYANT 2001:169-170). ..."J. P Joshi, and A. K. Sharma…subsequently reported the identification of horse bones from all levels of this site (circa 2100–1700 B.C.E.). In addition to bones from Equus asinus and Equus hemionus khur, Sharma reported the existence of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Sandor Bökönyi, of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Sandor Bökönyi, a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world's leading horse specialists….verified that the bones were, indeed, of the domesticated Equus caballus: ‘The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges. Since no wild horses lived in India in post- pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful’"
  • Edwin Bryant (BRYANT 2001:170-171). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture

• Burrow (1972) notes the existence of a word for the horse which is found only in Tamil and Brahui (DED 500: Tamil ivu ḷ i, Brahui (h)ullī) and which therefore must have existed in the earliest Dravidian [...] McAlpin suggests that this early Dravidian word probably referred to the Asian wild ass, Equus Hemionus, which is native to South Asia, rather than to the domesticated horse, Equus Caballus.
  • Reconstructing Social Context from Language ― Indo- Aryan and Dravidian Prehistory. Southworth, Franklin C., pp.258-277 in ―The Indo- Aryans of Ancient South Asia‖. ed. George erdosy, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 1995.

• The lack of a clear Proto-Indo-European word for ̳donkey‘, given the presence of domesticated donkeys throughout most of the territory where horses were domesticated and where the Indo-European tribes must have lived, can be explained by assuming that *ek h wos was originally used with the meaning 'donkey‘ as well as 'wild horse; horse‘. ...[the PIE speakers lived in] Central and Eastern Asia, where paleozoological data show that the domesticated donkey is a recent introduction.
  • Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and Ivanov, V.V. Mouton de Gruyter, 1995, Berlin, New York.

• The "equine argument" is one of the most hypocritical arguments in the AIT armory, since the crux of the argument seems to be as follows: "the equine archaeological data does not provide material evidence for an OIT, therefore the OIT stands automatically disqualified. The equine archaeological data does not provide any material evidence whatsoever for an AIT either; but this does not disqualify the AIT, as the AIT does not require this evidence since the AIT is beyond doubt or question".
  • Talageri, S. G. (2008). The Rigveda and the Avesta. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

• The idea that invading Indo-Aryans entered India, bringing the horse with them, and introduced the animal into India, is also totally inconsistent with the linguistic evidence, as pointed out in my first book: ―Sanskrit has many words for the horse: aśva, arvant or arvvā, haya, vājin, sapti, turanga, kilvī, pracelaka and gho ṭ aka, to name the most prominent among them. And yet, the Dravidian languages show no trace of having borrowed any of these words; they have their own words kudirai, parī and mā [...] The Santali and Mundari languages, however, have preserved the original Kol- Munda word sādom. Not only has no linguist ever claimed that the Dravidian and Kol-Munda words for ̳horse‘ are borrowed from ̳Aryan‘ words, but in fact some linguists have even sought to establish that Sanskrit gho ṭ aka, from which all modern Indo-Aryan words are derived, is borrowed from the Kol-Munda languages‖ (TALAGERI 1993:160). [Note also what the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 th edition, Vol. 9, p.348, has to say in the course of a description of Indian archaeology: ―Curiously, however, it is precisely in those regions that used iron, and were associated with the horse, that the Indo-Aryan languages did not spread. Even today, these are the regions of the Dravidian language group"].
  • Talageri, S. G. (2008). The Rigveda and the Avesta. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

• No archaeological evidence from Harappan India has been presented that would indicate anything comparable to the cultural and religious significance of the horse (...) which can be observed in the traditions of the early IE peoples, including the Vedic Aryas. On balance, then, the ‘equine’ evidence at this point is more compatible with migration into India than with outward migration.
  • Hans Hock, quoted in Elst, Koenraad (2007). Asterisk in bharopiyasthan: Minor writings on the Aryan invasion debate.

• Thus, the precise identification of equid remains in Surkotada has been conducted by Hungarian expert Prof. Sandor Bokonyi: “The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones).” (quoted by Prof. B.B. Lal from Bokonyi's letter to the Director of the Archaeological Survey of India, 13- 12-1993, in New Light on the Indus Civilization, Aryan Books, Delhi 1998, p.111; Lal took the trouble of quoting Bokonyi precisely because the latter's expertise had falsely been cited in favour of the opposite view, viz. that the horses found were really hemiones.)
  • Sandor Bokonyi, quoted in Elst, Koenraad (2007). Asterisk in bharopiyasthan: Minor writings on the Aryan invasion debate.

• The evidence concerning horses remains nonetheless the weakest point in the case for an Indian Urheimat. While the evidence is arguably not such that it proves the Harappan culture’s unfamiliarity with horses, it cannot be claimed to prove the identity of Vedic and Harappan culture either, the way the abundance of horse remains in Ukraine is used to prove the IE character of the settlements there. At this point, the centre-piece of the anti-AIT plea is an explainable paucity of the evidence material, so that everything remains possible.... The non-invasionists should recognize the merits in the invasionist skepticism of the horse evidence found in the Harappan cities. It is one thing for Prof. B.B. Lal (one of those healthy doubters who only came to dismiss the “myth of the Aryan invasion” gradually) to cite recent finds of horse bones as proving that “the horse was duly known to the Harappans” and to quote archaeozoologist Prof. Sandor Bokonyi as confirming that the horses found in Surkotada were indeed horses (which some had refused to believe due to their AIT bias), and that “the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful”. It is another to deduce that the horse was simply part of Harappan life rather than an exotic curiosity; AIT defenders have a point when they maintain that the horse was not part of the Harappan lifestyle the way it was in the Kurgan culture. More work is to be done, both in digging and incorrectly interpreting the data.
  • Sandor Bokonyi quoted in Elst, Koenraad (1999). Update on the Aryan invasion debate New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. quoting Sandor Bokonyi

• The significance attached to the fact that the Indogermans were acquainted with the horse . . . may have been exaggerated. We do not know the precise meaning of the Indogermanic words in question; we do not know whether they mean the domesticated or the wild animals." ... "it is difficult to see how these names can be safely used for determining the original home of the Indogermans"
  • Fraser (1926), (266-267). in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The Proto-Indo-European term for 'horse' shows only that horses were known (nobody doubts this); it does not mean that horses were already domesticated" (113).
  • D'iakonov (1985) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• Zimmer (1990a) points out that the inference that the horse was known to the Indo-Europeans is primarily based on such poetic formulas as 'swiff horse', 'horses of the sun', 'characterized by good horses', and so on. He feels that "the formulas tell us nothing specific about the use of horses, but archaeology and history supply the necessary information" (316).
  • Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• IE linguistics can agree on the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European etyma "ekwos 'horse'. . . . But let us note |that) the animal terms tell us, in and of themselves, nothing about the cultural uses of those animals or even whether they were domesticated; but only that Proto- Indo-European speakers knew of some kind of horse . . . although not which equid. . . . The fact that the equid *ekwos was the domesticated Equus cabailus spp. Linnaeus . . . come[s] not from etymology but rather from archaeology and paleontology. The most we can do with these prehistoric etyma and their reconstructed proto-meanings, without ar- chaeological and paleontological evidence (which does indeed implicate domestication), is to aver a Proto-Indo-European familiarity with these beasts. (53-54)
  • Diebold (1987) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• If horseback riding really did began at the turn of the IV mil. B.C. before the dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, it did not leave traces in the vocabulary of the later dialects. . . . Thus it cannot be proven that this type of ancient . . . horseback riding had originally been connected with Indo-Europeans" (233).23
  • Ivanov (1999) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The Proto-Indo-European term for 'horse' shows only that horses were known" (113). Indeed Ivanov (1999), who has undertaken by far the most com- prehensive study of the cognate terms for horse in Indo-European as well as the adja- cent languages of Northern Caucasian and Human, points out that "the Indo-Euro- pean homeland need not be identical to the area of horse domestication, but should be connected to it. The ways in which names and technical knowledge . . . spread should be explored".
  • D'iakonov (1971). in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The horse could have been very well known to the proto-Indo-Europeans in their original homeland before their dispersal from it (which is really the only thing indicated by the facts), without the horse necessarily being a native of that homeland, or they themselves being its domesticators" (158).
  • Talageri (1993) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• It is well known that wild horses did not exist in India in post-Pleistocene times, in the time of horse domestication. Horse domestication could therefore not be carried out there, and horses reached the Indian subcontinent in an already domesticated form coming from the Inner Asiatic horse domestication centres via the Transcaspian steppes, North- east Iran, South Afghanistan and North Pakistan. The northwestern part of this route is already more or less known; the Afghan and Pakistani part has to be checked in the future. (300)
  • Bokonyi (1997): in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The supply of horses . . . has been a preoccupation of the rulers of India, from, nearly, one end of its recorded history to the other. . . . It has yet to be determined why exactly India has never been self-sufficient in horses. Climate? A relative scarcity of pasture?" For our purposes, the fact remains that "whatever the reason, the stock has always had to be replenished by imports, and the imports came from westward in the ancient period. . . . It is a structure of its history, then, that India has always been dependent upon western and central Asia for horses" (261).
  • Trautmann (1982), in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The first wave of Indo-European emigrants . . . may have reached the Caspian and Black Sea coasts and domesticated the horse there, or learnt from the natives how to domesti- cate the horse. They communicated the new knowledge along with a few specimens of the animal to their homeland . . . along with the appropriate terminology, so that it became part of the cultural scene depicted in Vedic literature. Meanwhile, the Indo-European pioneers on the Black Sea made good use of the horse to speed up their expansion into Europe. (40)
  • Elst (1996) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The significance of the horse for the understanding of the distribution of early Indo-European has been much exaggerated" (281).
  • Renfrew (1999) in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press.

• The report claiming the earliest date for the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills (Ghosh 1989a, 4).19 In Rana Ghundai, Baluchistan, excavated by E. J. Ross, equine teeth were reported from a pre-Harappan level (Guha and Chatterjee 1946, 315-316).20 Interest- ingly, equine bones have been reported from Mahagara, near Allahabad, where six sample absolute carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480 B.C.E. (Sharma et al. 1980, 220-221).21 Even more significantly, horse bones from the Neolithic site Hallur in Karnataka (1500-1300 B.C.E.) have also been identified by the archaeozoolo- gist K. R. Alur (1971, 123).22 These findings of the domestic horse from Mahagara in the east, and Hallur in the south, are significant because they would seem inconsistent with the axiom that the Aryans introduced the domesticated horse into the Northwest of the subcontinent in the later part of the second millennium B.C.E. Due to the contro- versy generated by Alur's report, a reexcavation of Hallur was undertaken to collect fresh samples of animal bones. Alur (1992) again insisted that specimens of Equus caballus Linn were definitely present in the collection. His response is worth quoting at length to give a sense of the controversy and significance surrounding this animal: When I wrote this report, I least expected that it might spark off a controversy and land me in the witness box before the Indian historians' jury. . . . I was apprised of the gravity of the situation when I began to get letters asking me for clarification of the situation against the prevalent belief that the horse is a non-indigenous species and was introduced into India only by the (invading) Aryans. . . . To make my position clear, I wrote in my article . . . that whatever may be the opinion expressed by archaeologists, it cannot either deny or alter the find of a scientific fact that the horse was present at Hallur before die (presumed) period of Aryan invasion. . . . I have only declared the findings that horse bones were traced in the faunal collection from Hallur and am responsible to that extent only. (562, italics in original) In the Indus Valley and its environs, Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had re- ported the existence of the true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself,23 and Bholanath (1963) reported the same from Harappa, Ropar, and Lothal. Even Mortimer Wheeler (1953) identified a horse figurine and accepted that "it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in fact all a familiar feature of the Indus caravan" (92). Another early evidence of the horse in the Indus Valley was reported by Mackay, in 1938, who identified a clay model of the animal at Mohenjo-Daro. Piggott (1952, 126, 130) reports a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley, dated some- where between Early Dynastic and Akkadian times. Bones from Harappa, previously thought to have belonged to the domestic ass, have been reportedly critically reexam- ined and attributed to a small horse (Sharma 1992-93, 31).24 Additional evidence of the horse in the form of bones, teeth, or figurines has been reported in other Indus sites such as Kalibangan (Sharma 1992-93, 31 );25 Lothal (Rao 1979),26 Surkotada (Sharma 1974), and Malvan (Sharma 1992-93, 32).27 Other later sites include the Swat Valley (Stacul 1969); Gumla (Sankalia 1974, 330); Pirak (Jarrige 1985);28 Kuntasi (Sharma 1995, 24);29 and Rangpur (Rao 1979, 219). A. K. Sharma (1992-93) comments on the academic reaction to these not inconsiderable reports: It is really strange that no notice was taken by archaeologists of these vital findings, and the oft-repeated theory that the true domesticated horse was not known to the Harappans continued to be harped upon, coolly ignoring these findings to help our so-called veteran historians and archaeologists of Wheeler's generation to formulate and propagate their theory of "Aryan invasion of India on horse-back." (31)
  • in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

• Twenty years later, at the podium during the inauguration of the Indian Archaeo- logical Society's annual meeting, it was announced that Sandor Bokonyi, a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world's leading horse specialists, who happened to be passing through Delhi after a conference, had verified that the bones were, indeed, of the do- mesticated Equus caballus: "The occurrence of true horse (Equus caballus L.) was evi- denced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges. Since no wild horses lived in India in post-pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is undoubtful (reproduced in Gupta 1993b, 162; and Lai 1997, 285). Sharma, vindicated, received two minutes of applause from the entire assembly (Sharma 1992-93, 30); there now seemed to be no doubt about the horse at Surkotada. Sharma comments on this validation: This was the saddest day for me as the thought flashed in my mind that my findings had to wait two decades for recognition, until a man from another continent came, examined the material and declared that "Sharma was right." When will we imbibe intellectual courage not to look across borders for approval? The historians are still worse, they feel it is an attempt on the part of the "rightists" to prove that the Aryans did not come to India from outside her boundaries. (30)
  • in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

• Although A. K. Sharma claims that the bones of Equus caballus have been discov- ered "from so many Harappan sites and that too right from the lowest levels [thus es- tablishing] that the true domesticated horse was very much in use by the Harappans" (1992-93, 33), with the exception of the report from Rana Ghundai, which was ques- tioned by Zirnmer,32 and Piggott's reported horse figurine from Periano Ghundai, it would appear that much, if not all, of even the contested evidence comes from strata associated with later Harappan sites or at least not from the Pre-Harappan or Early Harappan period.
  • in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

• Bridget Allchin (1977) voices a similar position after the exchanges between Bokonyi and Meadow: From early historical times forward we know that horses have been regularly imported to South Asia. We also know the Indus had a long tradition of trade with centres to the west and north. Would it be surprising therefore if horses were occasionally acquired through trade, ultimately reaching the Indus world by land or sea? This would account for the occur- rence of a small number of their bones in various contexts without the need to assume their presence must necessarily be associated widi profound cultural change. (316)
  • in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

• Another observation that needs to be pointed out is that a number of scholars are prepared to consider that the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), which will be discussed in the next chapter, is an Indo-Aryan culture. The horse has been evidenced in this culture in the form of representations in grave goods. However, no horse bones have been found despite the availability of a large number of animal bones. This again underscores the point that lack of horse bones does not equal the absence of horse. Nor, at least in the opinion of those who subscribe to the Indo-Aryan identifica- tion of the BMAC, does this lack equal the absence of Indo-Aryans. Therefore, anyone prepared to associate the BMAC culture with the Indo-Aryans cannot then turn around and reject such an identification for the Indus Valley on the grounds of lack of horse bones in the latter.
  • in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 9

• All things considered, nothing allows us to take the horse as a privileged marker of the presence of Indo-European, Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan speakers. It follows that the entire archaeological and linguistic reasoning proposed by D. Anthony is tautological, to the extent that it only shows that in Indo-European languages the vocabulary of horse and chariot is Indo-European... It would have been necessary to show that the lexicon of the horse and chariot in non-Indo-European populations is Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, etc. by loan. However, JANFIUNEN 1998 showed for the horse (as well as domestication, horse riding?) a diffusion in oriental Asia which is not based on an Indo-European origin.
  • p. 275. Henri-Paul Francfort. La civilisation de l'Oxus et les Indo-Iraniens et Indo-Aryens en Asie centrale. 2005, in: G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H.-P. Francfort, X. Tremblay, Aryas, Ariens et Iraniens en Asie centrale

• The sacrifice of horses, in fact, is in no way specific to Vedic India: only the ritual of this sacrifice is, very different from that of the funerary ritual of Sintashta. The Indian aśvamedha is in no way a funeral ritual. Likewise, that the i-e name (?) of the chariot (ratha) is only attested in the i-ir languages does not mean that it is an i-ir invention, because, like so many others words, its equivalent may have disappeared from other languages i-e and because having a word to designate the war chariot does not mean that they invented it.
  • p. 802 Fussman G. Entre fantasmes, science et politique. L’entrée des Āryas en Inde. Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales. 2003;58(4):779-813.