Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[shiv]

The identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. When they are identified in the archaeological record it is by allegation rather than demonstration. It is interesting that the archaeological (and linguistic) literature has focused entirely upon the Indo-Iranians, overlooking
the other major linguistic families believed to have been inhabiting the same regions—the Altaic, the Ugric, and the Dravidian. Each of these has roots in the Eurasiatic steppes or Central Asia. The fact that these language families are of far less interest to the archaeologist may have a great deal to do with the fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European in search of their own roots who have addressed this problem

http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuite ... lovsky.pdf

Absolutely. his is exactly the impression I got. This is how the study started and this is the way it continues.

[shiv]

Two people recognizing the same thing simultaneously:

I think when people talk of migration, they do not understand how migration in the absence of passport control worked in historical reality. There as not been substantial research to understand possible/claimed/documented/narrative records of migration. It was not even diffusion - most likely. It was like extension of communities over space and time. Each generation perhaps not moving that far away, and not all of them either, from the parental population. People are simply exploring resources of fresh areas without necessarily having planned and conscious migration programmes. In the short time window, there will always be genetic flow in both spatial and time directions. Its the gradual long term trend that needs to be studied.

It is reasonable to hypothesize continuity in population movements rather than complete disconnect as is the norm since the days of exclusive imperial or state formation processes were first invented.

From the same PDF, different author

Many interpretations of the archaeology of the Eurasian steppes suffer from anachronistic reasoning or what might be termed the Genghis Khan syndrome (even though the Great Khan came from the wrong ethnic group!). That is to say, current reconstruction of the subsistence economies on the western steppes during Bronze Age times unequivocally demonstrates that the classic
mixed-herd mounted pastoral nomadism that characterized the steppes during historic times and that has been amply documented by ethnographers was not yet in place. Aside from the question as to when horses were first domesticated and ridden, peoples were dominantly herding cattle, not tending flocks of sheep and goats (with an occasional Bactrian camel tossed in). Rather than noble conquering warriors capable of devastating anything in their path, the Bronze Age peoples of the western Eurasian steppes were impoverished cowboys in ponderous ox-drawn carts seeking richer pasture and escape from the severity of the climate, particularly the increasingly harsh winters they experienced as they moved eastwards across the rapidly filling steppe.

In fact these posts and the quote contained help me say what i wanted to say. Attributing linguistic spread to the metallurgical findings of spear and arrow heads is an act of cognitive blindness where the narrators own biases of what he (or she) feels history must have been like are applied to everyone else.

Gengis Khan syndrome is an apt name

[member_22872]

Bji, thanks again, what you said below can explain genetic admixture without a real migration, that's neat, I didn't think of this.

It was like extension of communities over space and time. Each generation perhaps not moving that far away, and not all of them either, from the parental population. People are simply exploring resources of fresh areas without necessarily having planned and conscious migration programmes. In the short time window, there will always be genetic flow in both spatial and time directions. Its the gradual long term trend that needs to be studied.

[shiv]

If you must apply scientific logic to build up a hypothesis one can start at many levels. As is my wont I will write this is a question and answer format.


1. "What connection does the Rig Veda have with India?". The obvious answer is everything. I has existed in Indian memory since time immemorial since all attempts at dating the Rig Veda are based on assumptions and guesswork that rely on the verbal content of the Rig Veda being compared with available archaeological evidence.

2. Is there any inkling of the geography of the Rig Veda?. Plenty. Named rivers correspond to rivers in north-west India whose names in turn have been recorded since antiquity. Finding the Rig Veda in India and finding rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda nearby in India is circumstantial evidence that suggests an association of one with the other.

3. Is there any known connection between the Harappan civilization and the Rig veda?. There is no known connection other than remarkably similar geography. Remains of the Harappan civilization have been found along the very rivers whose names happen to occur in the Rig Veda.

4. Has the Harappan civilization been dated?. Yes. It starts from 3500 BC and ends 2000 years later.

5. If the Rig Veda has no connection with Harappa but refers to the same geographic area did it come before, or after the Harapan civilization or could there be an as yet unrecognized link?

I am offering no answers to that question now but will post more later with additional information, some of which I am waiting to get.

[A_Gupta]

5. If the Rig Veda has no connection with Harappa but refers to the same geographic area did it come before, or after the Harapan civilization or could there be an as yet unrecognized link?

1. There are a lot of Harappan culture sites along the banks of the Ghaggar-Hakra. I think this is primarily the work of Rafique Mughal ( http://www.rafiquemughal.com/ )

2. The Saraswati mentioned in the Mahabharata along which Balarama made a pilgrimmage, is very likely the Ghaggar-Hakra.

3. The key question to be answered is whether this is also the Rg-Vedic Saraswati. If it is, one would have to guess that the Rg Veda predated or was contemporaneous with the Harappan culture.

[ManishH]

how does one define chariots? what makes one be sure that the chariot description AIT supporters are seaching for, are the same as the ones ridden by vedic Indians? Kanzas says that chariots in India are basically are carts and he provides archeological proof of their existentence during the dates you mentioned.

Some elements which differentiate a war or racing chariot from a cart:

- Ridden by the horse, not an equid (for speed)
- Two instead of four wheels (for manoeuvrability)
- Spoked wheels (lighter weight, better shock absorption)
- The axle should not rotate with the wheel (lesser friction, )
- The position of axle being at the rear of the carriage, not right underneath (for stability)
- An axle that is much longer than the width of the carriage (better shock absorbtion, sharper turns, stability)

The lightweight structure needs to withstand the shocks due to the speed of the horse gallop as well as have manoeuvrability. For a comparison of horse v/s oxen, see the figure from "The Making of Bronze Age", Kohl



I think there is fair evidence of spoked wheels in mature harappan (2600 BC onwards), but all the other elements are lacking evidence.

PS: Rajeshji- I think you were looking for some data on horse v/s oxen comparison too.

[member_22872]

Gupta ji, one of the articles posted by Ramana ji on Saraswati, a recent one:

Venug, You asked if the AIT is dead with the new study on Saraswati River. Looks like the author answered your question.....
Article in Pioneer, 6 June 2012

Saraswati Civilization

The Saraswati Civilisation
Author: Rajesh Singh

A fresh study by a group of international scientists confirms the dominant role of Saraswati river in sustaining the so-called Indus Valley Civilisation.


A new study titled, ‘Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan civilisation’, has concluded that the Indus Valley Civilisation died out because the monsoons which fed the rivers that supported the civilisation, migrated to the east. With the rivers drying out as a result, the civilisation collapsed some 4000 years ago. The study was conducted by a team of scientists from the US, the UK, India, Pakistan and Romania between 2003 and 2008. While the new finding puts to rest, at least for the moment, other theories of the civilisation’s demise, such as the shifting course of rivers due to tectonic changes or a fatal foreign invasion, it serves to strengthen the premise that the civilisation that we refer to as the Indus Valley Civilisation was largely located on the banks of and in the proximity of the Saraswati river.

More than 70 per cent of the sites that have been discovered to contain archaeological material dating to this civilisation’s period are located on the banks of the mythological — and now dried out — river. As experts have been repeatedly pointing out, nearly 2,000 of the 3,000 sites excavated so far are located outside the Indus belt that gives the civilisation its name.

In other words, the Indus Valley Civilisation was largely and in reality the Saraswati River Civilisation. Yet, in our collective consciousness, numbed by what we have been taught — and what we teach — we continue to relate this ancient civilisation exclusively with the Indus Valley. For decades since Independence, our Governments influenced by Leftist propaganda, brazenly refused to accept even the existence of the Saraswati river, let alone acknowledge the river’s role in shaping one of the world’s most ancient civilisations. In recent years, senior CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury had slammed the Archaeological Survey of India for “wasting” time and money to study the lost river. A Parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture which he headed in 2006, said, “The ASI has deviated in its working and has failed in spearheading a scientific discipline of archaeology. A scientific institution like the ASI did not proceed correctly in this matter.”

Yet, on occasion after occasion, scientific studies have proved that the Saraswati did exist as a mighty river. According to experts who have studied the map of all relevant underground channels that are intact to date and connected once upon a time with the river, the Saraswati was probably 1500 km long and 3-15 km wide.

The latest study, whose findings were published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, too is clear on the river’s existence and its role in sustaining the ancient civilisation. The report said that the Saraswati was “not Himalayan-fed by a perennial monsoon-supported water course.” It added that the rivers in the region (including Saraswati) were “indeed sizeable and highly active.”

Will the new findings lead to a fresh thinking on the part of the Government and an acknowledgement that the time has come to officially rename the Indus Valley Civilisation as the Saraswati-Indus Civilisation? But the UPA regime had been in denial mode for years, much like the Left has been for decades. As the then Union Minister for Culture, Jaipal Reddy told Parliament that excavations conducted so far had not revealed any trace of the lost river. Clearly, for him and his then Government, it meant that the river was the creation of fertile minds fed by mythological books with an even more fertile imagination. The UPA Government then went ahead and slashed the budget for the Saraswati River Heritage Project — which had been launched by the NDA regime. The project report had been prepared in September 2003, envisaging a cost of roughly Rs 32 crore on the scheme. The amount was ruthlessly pruned to less than five crore rupees. In effect, the project was shelved.

However, despite its best efforts to do so, the UPA could not completely ignore the facts that kept emerging about the reality of the river and the central role which it had played in the flourishing of the so-called Indus Valley Civilisation. In a significant shift from its earlier stand that probes conducted so far showed no evidence of the now invisible Saraswati river, the Government admitted half-way through its first tenure in office that scientists had discovered water channels indicating (to use the scientists’ quote) “beyond doubt” the existence of the “Vedic Saraswati river”. The Government’s submission came in response to an unstarred question in the Rajya Sabha on whether satellite images had “established the underground track of Saraswati, and if so, why should the precious water resources not be exploited to meet growing demands?”

The Union Water Resources Ministry had then quoted in writing the conclusion of a study jointly conducted by scientists of Indian Space Research Organisation, Jodhpur, and the Rajasthan Government’s Ground Water Department, published in the Journal of Indian Society of Remote Sensing. Besides other things, the authors had said that “clear signals of palaeo-channels on the satellite imagery in the form of a strong and powerful continuous drainage system in the North West region and occurrence of archaeological sites of pre-Harappan, Harappan and post-Harappan age, beyond doubt indicate the existence of a mighty palaeo-drainage system of Vedic Saraswati river in this region… The description and magnanimity of these channels also matches with the river Saraswati described in the Vedic literature.”

Interestingly, the Archaeological Survey of India’s National Museum has been as forthright on the issue. This is what a text put up in the Harappan Gallery of the National Museum says: “Slowly and gradually these people evolved a civilisation called variously as the ‘Harappan civilisation’, the ‘Indus civilisation’, the ‘Indus Valley civilisation’ and the ‘Indus-Saraswati civilisation’.” The text further elaborates on the importance of the river: “It is now clear that the Harappan civilisation was the gift of two rivers — the Indus and the Saraswati — and not the Indus alone.”

There is another interesting aspect to the new study by the group of international scientists that deserves mention. The report has discounted the possibility of ‘foreign invasion’ as one of the causes of the ancient civilisation’s decline. But, long before this report was published, NS Rajaram, who wrote the book, Saraswati River and the Vedic Civilisation, had noted that the discovery of the Saraswati river had “dealt a severe blow” to the theory that the Aryans had invaded India, which then had the Harappan Civilisation. The theory supposes that the Harappans were non-Vedic since the Vedic age began with the coming of the Aryans.

But, since the Saraswati flowed during the Vedic period, the Vedic era ought to have coincided with the Harappan age. Rajaram says in his book that the Harappan civilisation “was none other than the great river (Saraswati) described in the Rig Veda. This means that the Harappans were Vedic.”

Not just that, experts have pointed out for long that there is no evidence of an invasion, much less from the Aryans who ‘came from outside’. Rajaram, like many others had concluded that the drying up of the Saraswati river and not some ‘invasion’ was the principal cause for the civilisation’s decline.

However, the latest study by the international group leaves a question mark on the origins of the river. The report claims that Saraswati was not a Himalayan river. But, several experts believe that the river originated from the Har-ki-Dun glacier in Gharwal. Let’s wait for the final word.

(The accompanying visual is a reconstruction of the gateway and drain at Harappa by Chris Sloan. Courtesy: Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, University of Wisconsin-Madison and http://www.sewerhistory.org)

Paper quoted above:

Fluvial Landscapes of Harappa Civilization

[member_22872]

Manish ji,

- Ridden by the horse, not an equid (for speed)
1. Two instead of four wheels (for manoeuvrability)
2 Spoked wheels (lighter weight, better shock absorption)

Even today's ox driven carts have two wheels and are spoked. And spoked wheel archeological evidence was found, so we do have spoked wheels. But might not be horse driven, but nevertheless are carts. And also need of speed presupposes extreme mobility. This means we are going in circles. Vedic people led sedentary life.

- The axle should not rotate with the wheel (lesser friction, )

This may require ball bearings , which are a recent invention, I wonder if they really found these on chariots. Is there proof of this or how was this accomplished? may be OT.

[shiv]

I discovered that Mrs. Dean, my 3rd std teacher who taught me the name "Mohenjo-Daro" failed to tell me what "chalcolithic" means.

Chalcolithic is a period of time after the stone age when copper tools were made but the alloying of copper with tin to create the much stronger bronze was as yet unknown.

There are many "chalcolithic" finds in India including finds as far south as Karnataka. Some calcolithic finds in India date from a time earlier than Harappa. Hore bones have been found at chalcolithic sites. I have heard the objection that these weere not horses but "onagers". Mrs Dean didn't tell me about onagers either. Onagers are a sort of half donkey-half horse. They are known to have been used in chariots.

For some reason unknown to me, Amazon has on sale a toy of a "Sumerian onager drawn chariot".

[ManishH]

From the same PDF, different author

Rather than noble conquering warriors capable of devastating anything in their path, the Bronze Age peoples of the western Eurasian steppes were impoverished cowboys in ponderous ox-drawn carts seeking richer pasture and escape from the severity of the climate, particularly the increasingly harsh winters they experienced as they moved eastwards across the rapidly filling steppe.

The effect of climate is quite well acknowledged for IE dispersals. The climate became cooler and more arid starting 2,500 BC and reached peak aridity during 2100 BC.

Note that although aridity was a global phenomenon, the effect on herder economies of the steppes which relied on availability of pasture was much greater. Especially more on eastern steppes (near ural) than near Volga.

[shiv]

Compare the relative size of horse and man in this image
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/3 ... /lightbox/

with the relative size of horse and man in this image
http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/17 ... V3D00Z.jpg

[ManishH]

But might not be horse driven, but nevertheless are carts. And also need of speed presupposes extreme mobility. This means we are going in circles. Vedic people led sedentary life.

Speed doesn't presuppose mobility. The requirement for temporary speed is that of warfare or recreational racing. Even sedentary society may have need for temporary speed.

The argument for non-sedentarism in ṛgveda is not only the chariot - it is the pastoral economy and lack of place names.

- The axle should not rotate with the wheel (lesser friction, )

This may require ball bearings , which are a recent invention, I wonder if they really found these on chariots. Is there proof of this or how was this accomplished? may be OT.

The fact that ṛgvedic people were aware of the problem of friction on the axle is quite clear ...

RV_01.164.13.1{16} pañcāre cakre parivartamāne tasminnā tasthurbhuvanāni viśvā
RV_01.164.13.2{16} tasya nākṣastapyate bhūribhāraḥ sanādeva na śīryate sanābhiḥ

This is a wish that the axle should not heat and the nave should not break. All symbolic of the divine world order of course. But similies come from real life.

As to how they managed to reduce it - I can only guess animal fat. But there is no clear indication.

Shiv: a solid wheeled vehicle with four wheels is not at all light, shock absorbent or manoeuvrable. That sumerian vehicle was more apt for ceremonial use - like processions or draught carrying.

[shiv]

Compare the size of horse versus man in these pictures ancient horse images/models

Oxus chariot


Ancient Hittite chariot

[ManishH]

Shiv: proportions may be misleading, but compare some distinguishing features of the horse with hemione.

Horses have flowing mane on the neck, tuft of hair on head, abundant hair on the tail, a curved neck.

Hemiones have bristly hair on the neck, no tuft on the head, few hair on the tail, much straighter neck

[shiv]

Shiv: a solid wheeled vehicle with four wheels is not at all light, shock absorbent or manoeuvrable. That sumerian vehicle was more apt for ceremonial use - like processions or draught carrying.

No one is claiming that a solid wheel chariot is light or manoeuvrable. But are there any double blind comparisons of what it feels like to be attacked by a 4-onager solid wheeled chariot versus a spoked wheel 2 horse (caballus) chariots?

It we are to apply modern day arguments to ancient remains we need to go the whole hog and not stop at the simplistic assumption of one being heavier and therefore less manoeuvrable. That is not the point. Was it any less effective for any use that it as put is a more valid question.

The Hindustan Ambassador was 1100 kg compared to the Maruti 800's weight of 650 kg. The latter was a great advancement over the former in many ways, but the former got one around just as surely as the latter.

[shiv]

Shiv: proportions may be misleading, but compare some distinguishing features of the horse with hemione.

Horses have flowing mane on the neck, tuft of hair on head, abundant hair on the tail, a curved neck.

Hemiones have bristly hair on the neck, no tuft on the head, few hair on the tail, much straighter neck

What is a Hemione?

Misleading? Of course all models are misleading. You cannot reach any firm conclusions. You have to assume a degree of stupidity/lack of skill to the model maker and what your mind tells you will depend on the degree of stupidity you attribute to the painter/model maker.

[shiv]

Google search for images of Hemione

[member_22872]

This is a wish that the axle should not heat and the nave should not break. All symbolic of the divine world order of course. But similies come from real life.
As to how they managed to reduce it - I can only guess animal fat. But there is no clear indication.

Manish garu, knowledge that using some form of grease to reduce friction can be gained with intuition or logic or common sense or pure simple common knowledge but, usage of grease can't support the axle and yet prevent it from rotation.

- The axle should not rotate with the wheel (lesser friction, )

That mechanism is not obvious, do we have proof that some sort of mechanism was used to limit the axle rotation? grease alone can't accomplish this. This is important for the reason that if tomorrow a chariot is found in India with no mechanism to limit axle rotation, one might brush it just based on the definition of a chariot which requires this mechanism.

[ManishH]

No one is claiming that a solid wheel chariot is light or manoeuvrable. But are there any double blind comparisons of what it feels like to be attacked by a 4-onager solid wheeled chariot versus a spoked wheel 2 horse (caballus) chariots?

The relevance is that ṛgveda describes spoked wheels, so no use looking at older, solid wheel technology for dating.

On an uneven ground, at horse gallop, a solid wheel will give enough shocks to rattle the rathesthā leaving him/her in no mood for battle. Whereas a spoked wheel with rim will have more elasticity to absorb shocks.

Basically, with a solid wheel, you cannot gallop the horse on uneven ground. So the advantage with an ox-cart is lost (see diagram above).

The Hindustan Ambassador was 1100 kg compared to the Maruti 800's weight of 650 kg. The latter was a great advancement over the former in many ways, but the former got one around just as surely as the latter.

Put a solid wheel on either and see.

PS: Hemione is a native equid of India. Not easily tamable too.

[ManishH]

That mechanism is not obvious, do we have proof that some sort of mechanism was used to limit the axle rotation? grease alone can't accomplish this.

The axle can be just fixed to the carriage. That way the rotation would happen only at the nave or hub of the wheel. Fewer moving parts = better durability is a rule in automotive industry today too.

This is important for the reason that if tomorrow a chariot is found in India with no mechanism to limit axle rotation, one might brush it just based on the definition of a chariot which requires this mechanism.

I don't think rotary or fixed axle would make a big difference, if a horse-driven chariot is found. That'd basically seal an origin in India.

[member_22872]

Manish garu, what is your objection to this:

Terracotta wheels from Banawali and Rakhigarhi, displaying spokes painted or in relief.

If you see Harappans seem to know what a spoked wheel is. So now the objection is....

[ManishH]

I think when people talk of migration, they do not understand how migration in the absence of passport control worked in historical reality. There as not been substantial research to understand possible/claimed/documented/narrative records of migration. It was not even diffusion - most likely. It was like extension of communities over space and time. Each generation perhaps not moving that far away, and not all of them either, from the parental population. People are simply exploring resources of fresh areas without necessarily having planned and conscious migration programmes. In the short time window, there will always be genetic flow in both spatial and time directions. Its the gradual long term trend that needs to be studied.

The effect of climate and quest for resources is quite well known. But add to these, the crucial technological edge that horse domestication gives. That makes all the difference.

Not very different from how Chola naval technology resulted in the outreach of hinduism to SE Asia.

[ManishH]

Manish garu, what is your objection to this:

Terracotta wheels from Banawali and Rakhigarhi, displaying spokes painted or in relief

Rakhigarhi finds are not from well defined archaeological strata. In Harrappan civilization, there is much better dated evidence for spoked wheels from Kot Diji around 2600 BC ...

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, 2009. "Carts and wheeled vehicles of the Indus Civilization: New evidence from Harappa, Pakistan"

What is lacking is the association of horse and a chariot here. As you said, a spoked wheel can be hitched to an ox-cart too.

[member_22872]

But in one of the articles posted about difficulty of dating chariots, it's mentioned that one of the difficult things to date is wooden driven chariots. So if Vedic chariot existed but disintegrated because of decomposition, how does one account for that? not finding one doesn't mean it doesnt exist.

[shiv]

Basically, with a solid wheel, you cannot gallop the horse on uneven ground. So the advantage with an ox-cart is lost (see diagram above).

Tsk tsk tsk Manishji. You are parroting the archaeologist's argument. " I think battles should be fought like this and in such terrain and what you say is no good for the ideas I have. I got my ideas from Roman warriors and what they did could not have been wrong"

This unfortunately is not the way humans develop technology. They use what they have to some effect and then make changes to improve them. So the parroted archaeologists argument, while valid, is of no relevance to the fact that solid wheeled chariots with onagers existed. And may have been used in battle.

[Sanku]

Rakhigarhi finds are not from well defined archaeological strata.

Proof of that statement?

[member_20317]

ManishH ji, I also wanted to ask that.

What is a 'Well defined Archaeological strata'? and What is it about Rakhigarhi that it is not a well defined archeological strata?

[Lalmohan]

ephedra appears to be like speed/amphetamines, particularly if concentrated. seems like a reasonable candidate for somras. certainly does not seem to have hallucinogenic properties, unlike datura, etc.

[Lalmohan]

Basically, with a solid wheel, you cannot gallop the horse on uneven ground. So the advantage with an ox-cart is lost (see diagram above).

Tsk tsk tsk Manishji. You are parroting the archaeologist's argument. " I think battles should be fought like this and in such terrain and what you say is no good for the ideas I have. I got my ideas from Roman warriors and what they did could not have been wrong"

This unfortunately is not the way humans develop technology. They use what they have to some effect and then make changes to improve them. So the parroted archaeologists argument, while valid, is of no relevance to the fact that solid wheeled chariots with onagers existed. And may have been used in battle.

shiv, i am not sure what your comment here is trying to mean/prove. what manish has written about chariots is entirely logical

[Atri]

What is lacking is the association of horse and a chariot here.

and how will you prove this association? I have given reference about domesticated horse.. once domesticated, an animal is used for pulling purposes (and carrying, of course)..

[ManishH]

ManishH ji, I also wanted to ask that.

What is a 'Well defined Archaeological strata'? and What is it about Rakhigarhi that it is not a well defined archeological strata?

ravi garu: My understanding of "well defined strata" :

Given any archaeological complex, there are various strata in it (which are layers of settlement phases). Eg. Mehrgarh has 8 strata. Any given strata can be dated by Carbon dating of it's organic remains. And any given non-organic artefact which is not directly dateable using other means is assigned the same date as directly dated organic artefacts, provided it belongs to the same stratum (the layer).

Archaeologists are careful enough while removing dirt, not to disturb artefacts from one stratum to another. That's why archaeology is back-breaking labour. Suppose an inorganic object is found exposed on the surface, it is not directly dateable. So some sort of circumstantial dating can still be established if the artistic style of the object matches a series of objects on another stratum, or even from another archaeological site.

Now the wheel-like object is of terracota - which is non organic; I don't see if it's wooden shaft survived. I'd like to see a paper which shows exactly which stratum was this artefact found and how was the date established - via direct dating or via organic objects in the same stratum.

So archaeologically, it is not sufficient if a terracota spoked wheel is found in Rakhigharhi - what is more important is at what stratum and the method of dating this inorganic object.

[Sanku]

So archaeologically, it is not sufficient if a terracota spoked wheel is found in Rakhigharhi - what is more important is at what stratum and the method of dating this inorganic object.

I know that the strata would suddenly get disputed for Rakhigarhi (they got disputed for the site at Ramjanmbhoomi too) -- every time archeology throws up something unexpected, the first order of business is to question the stratification.

My question is -- what is the proof of the claim that stratification has been a problem is this particular instance (for example the quibbles about Ayodhya were clearly shown be sheer nonsense)

[ManishH]

But in one of the articles posted about difficulty of dating chariots, it's mentioned that one of the difficult things to date is wooden driven chariots.

Wood can survive - eg. we know that Harappans used wooden coffins (apart from brick lined graves) for inhumation - evidence recovered from R-37 cemetery.

A chariot cannot be fashioned entirely of wood and organic material. It needs significant metal - things like a lynch pin (āṇi, attested in ṛgveda) to make sure the axle fits snugly into the nave and the wheel doesn't wobble. I think that even the load bearing draft pole (yugam) needs a sturdy metal piece to affix to the carriage.

So if Vedic chariot existed but disintegrated because of decomposition, how does one account for that? not finding one doesn't mean it doesnt exist.

This line of thought opens a way for anyone, let's say Greeks, to claim they are the originators of chariotry.

Sankuji: I've searched many times, but unable to find even a single description of dates assigned to those Rakhigarhi finds. The question of strata etc comes later. But the Kot Diji finds of spoked wheel are quite definite to around 2600 BC.

[ManishH]

Tsk tsk tsk Manishji. You are parroting the archaeologist's argument. " I think battles should be fought like this and in such terrain and what you say is no good for the ideas I have. I got my ideas from Roman warriors and what they did could not have been wrong"

This is not out of Ben Hur movie

It is the ṛgveda shows awareness of chariot design issues like friction heating the axle, sturdiness of the nave, sturdiness of the load bearing draft pole (yugam). It is ṛgveda that shows speedy chariots (fast enough to heat a wooden axle) yoked to horses.

[Sanku]

Sankuji: I've searched many times, but unable to find even a single description of dates assigned to those Rakhigarhi finds. The question of strata etc comes later. But the Kot Diji finds of spoked wheel are quite definite to around 2600 BC.

ManishH-ji; you had claimed that Rakhigarhi dates are not from well defined stratification, now you are saying that you do not know Rakhigarhi dates at all.

Why did you make the claim in absence of that information?

In any case, the wheels can be reasonably dated to the period normally associated with the Early Hakra pottry, also found along the dig. Let me try and find exact dates for the Rakhigarhi excavations.

[shiv]

shiv, i am not sure what your comment here is trying to mean/prove. what manish has written about chariots is entirely logical

Lalmohan I have not questioned the logic. Read carefully. I did say it was valid. The excuse that lighter spoked wheels and proper horses were better for military conquest has been used in the following manner in this debate, although I do not accuse Manishji saying it.

Horses were domesticated in Central Asia and spoked wheels were discovered in graves there. This, combined with the metallurgy they had to make arrow and spear heads ensured, it is hypothesized (not proven) that they were militarily successful and they quickly spread all over towards Europe and into India as a conquering group.

The counter to this "Invasion Theory" is that horse remains and models of chariots have been found in Harappan civilization remains documenting the presence of both in India before the alleged date of the Rig veda

This has been countered with the "mine is bigger" argument as follows:

1.Spoked wheels are better for warfare and the conquerors from central Asia had spoked wheels for which evidence has been found in graves and corroborated in the songs of the Rig Veda which speak of spoked wheels.
2. Onagers are not as good as horses and difficult to train. India has onager bones

All I am saying is that this is a clever guess. Roman chariots with spoked wheels and horses would gallop into the field wreaking havoc. but this does not mean that early chariots with solid wheels yoked to "mere" onagers could not have been used in warfare. They may well have been used that way and the suggestion that proper horses (not onagers) and spoked wheels are essential for warfare is a baseless assumption.

To quote Shri Hock "The publication of a photograph of a platypus that is not laying an egg does not prove that the platypus does not lay eggs"

The presence of onager bones in India and the possibility of solid wheeled chariots does not prove
1. that they could not be used in battle
2. that ancient indians could not have used them in battle

Onager drawn chariots, heavy as they were, have been used in battle. The idea of onager drawn carriages being useful in battle may not be an alien concept in India - which is one of the suggestions made to support the Invasion theory, but the arguments made are

1. No horse bones.
2. Mainly onager bones
3. No evidence of domestication
4. No spoked wheel findings

None of these objection is sufficient to prove a central Asian origin for the Rig Veda except by insinuation and the building of of straw men on the lines of: "I cannot accept the argument for an Indian origin of Rig Veda until you show me horse bones; the horses bones must be of the Equus caballus species; and there must be evidence of domestication and you must show me remains of spoked wheels. All these have been found in central Asia, and the langauge for that area has been guessed by lingusists to be PIE. So we now have a central Asian origin for the people who merely compiled the Rig Veda"

English has separate words like "Horse" and "Pony" for big and small horse. Ponies are called "small horse" in Sanskrit.

[shiv]

Wood can survive - eg. we know that Harappans used wooden coffins (apart from brick lined graves) for inhumation - evidence recovered from R-37 cemetery.

A chariot cannot be fashioned entirely of wood and organic material. It needs significant metal - things like a lynch pin (āṇi, attested in ṛgveda) to make sure the axle fits snugly into the nave and the wheel doesn't wobble. I think that even the load bearing draft pole (yugam) needs a sturdy metal piece to affix to the carriage.

Manishji. Coffins do not move, so the remains of wooden coffins invariably remain where they were placed, until moved by some external agent.

However chariots and horses move, and move fast. So the place where you find chariot remains may have absolutely nothing to do with where the chariots were made. The finding of horse and chariot remains say nothing of the place of origin. Especially if chariots were made for export.

The only way you can guess that chariots were made in a particular place is human memory - paintings or maybe poetry of a people who recall chariots, or the remains of a factory/workshop making chariots with dozens of "bits", rings, axles and evidence of furnaces/hammers.

[RajeshA]

Against the AIT/AMT there are actually two narratives that are pitted - Autochthonous Origin (Indigenist) of Indo-Aryans and the Out-of-India Theory (OIT).

In OIT, one needs to look for a narrative which shows that the archaeological, linguistic and mythological reality is better explainable by the OIT than by the AIT.

One very good OIT proposal is from Shrikant Talageri. He speaks of some tribes of the Lunar Dynasty and proposes:

PUrus were the Vedic Aryans and they stayed in India.
Anus were the Iranians and they shifted to the West, from South of the Caspian Sea.
Druhyus were the ones who migrated to Europe from North of the Caspian Sea.

Anu Tribes were

1. PRthus or PArthavas (VII.83.1): Parthians.
2. ParSus or ParSavas (VII.83.1): Persians.
3. Pakthas (VII.18.7): Pakhtoons.
4. BhalAnas (VII.18.7): Baluchis.
5. Sivas (VII.18.7): Khivas.
6. ViSANins (VII.18.7): Pishachas (Dards).
7. Madras: (not named in the Rigveda,): Medes.
8. Simyus (VII.18.5): Sarmatians (Avesta = Sairimas) > Albanians.
9. Alinas (VII.18.7): Alans. > Greeks
10. BhRgus (VII.18.6): Phrygians > Armenians.

So this got me thinking. If one has to prove Talageri's Out-of-India Migration Theory, then one may have to show something which goes against AIT, something like the Southern Route taken by the migrants on their way to Europe.

If Talageri is correct, and in the Anu confederacy, along with ParSus, also Alinas took part in the Battle of the Ten Kings, this means the Hellenes (Alinas) and ParSus (Persians) were once together and then separated.

So the Alinas went their way to Greece. They could be the Mycenaeans. I don't know. And they took the Southern Route, South of Caspian Sea.

Also we know that Greeks and Persians have had a long and bitter rivalry. That means at some point in time the Hellenes (Alinas) and the ParSus, etc. had a fallout with each other. This fallout should have been recorded somewhere, and may be there are records of this fallout. These are the premises.

From my superficial knowledge of Greek mythology, I have come up with a speculative theory. Recorded but coded history DOES have this testimony. It is in the cosmogony of the Greeks.

There must have been some reason why the Alinas on the one hand and the other dominant Anu tribes on the other had a fallout. The reason could be political or it could also be some religious difference. This difference must have cropped up sometime later on after the Battle of the Ten Kings.

If it was religious, then it must have been due to some revolutionary change that someone wanted to introduce and either the Alinas or the other dominant Anus were not happy with it. And indeed one of the most prominent revolutions among the Anus (Anava) was Zarathustra and his new religion - Zoroastrianism. Not everybody would have been happy, leaving the old ways and taking on the new, giving rise to serious theological differences.

I believe the Alinas were one of the tribes who did not like what Zarathustra was proposing, and they decided to keep their old ways. One can only speculate what was something that the Alinas were simply not prepared to accept.

a) And if I may speculate, I believe it was the funeral ceremony. Among the Vedic Aryans (PUrus) and the other tribes, the standard was cremation. The corpse was burned and the spirit was freed by Agni. But Zarathustra in his eagerness to go a different way and to make big changes in the ritual, required that dead bodies be eaten by eagles and vultures. He built Dakhma Towers, called Cheel Ghars in Hindi, where bodies were placed and were allowed to be eaten by eagles and vultures and other birds and after a few months or years the bones were collected and thrown in an ossuary, a pit.

Now turning to Greek mythology we learn that Prometheus rebelled against Zeus and brought fire to the humans after Zeus had hidden it from man, so as punishment Prometheus was chained to a rock in Caucasus* for an eternity and everyday an eagle would come and eat his liver, which would regenerate during the night.

So some points
- man already possessed fire
- Zeus hid fire from man
- Prometheus brought it back to man

Now what is the meaning of this tale? Can someone really hide or ban fire when man already knows how to use it? So obviously the talk is of some fire ritual. Now the Iranians were considered as the ones who most identified themselves with fire - with the deity Agni. They had introduced the fire yasna (yagna) under the Bhrgus and it received acceptance from other tribes as well. The PUrus too had adopted it, perhaps from a time, when the tribes had not yet differentiated. The other fire ritual was the cremation (antim sanskar).

This is the fire ritual we speak. When Zarathustra (here associated with Zeus) banned the fire ritual, some Prometheus (Param Deva) rebelled and allowed the Alinas to continue with their cremation ceremonies, much in the same way the tribes did earlier.

In addition to giving humankind fire, Prometheus claims to have taught the humans the arts of civilization, such as writing, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and science.

So obviously the Alinas considered cremation as an inseparable part of their civilization, they could no forego.

We see the Hellenes, the Greeks later on continuing with the cremation ceremony. In popular culture, in the movie "Troy" we see how cremations were conducted on Hector and the other fallen heroes.

So the Alinas decided to continue with the tradition of the Vedic Aryans, the PUrus, and thus separating themselves theologically from the other Anavas, who decided to adopt Zoroastrianism, and the Dakhmas.

2) Talageri mentions that that Alinas were an Anu tribe which were found in the northwestern periphery of Iran.

Also the "Daiva Inscription" of Xerxes I of Persia found near Persepolis (484 BC) tells about a revolt by "daiva worshippers" in West Iran, which he quelled. These were people who were still following the old religion.

So one can say that to the West of Xerxes Persian Empire, there were still many daiva worshippers, who still followed the old way, similar to the rituals of Vedic Aryans.

Who were these "daiva worshippers"?

They could well be the Alinas, or some other Anu tribe.

3) The Mycenaeans talk of a "Dorian invasion" from the North. Considering that the Hellenes (Alinas) were from the Anu tribe in our model, and migrated to Greece from South of Caspian Sea, they would still have the memory of the third tribe of the Lunar Dynasty - the Druhyus.

So could the Alinas have come across the Druhyus a long way from their initial common home (North and Northwest India) in Greece.

There is some similarity in sound between Druhyus and Dorians.

4) Then there is the older myth of how Ouranos (Varuna) was overthrown by his son Chronos (Kaal), which too was overthrown by Zeus.

Varuna was an Asura (Ahura) and besides in Rigveda by the Vedic Aryans also worshiped by the Anus. So the myth among the Hellenes about an overthrow of Varuna by Zeus in due time (Chronos) is recorded.

This can indeed mean an overthrow of the old guard, where the ParSus (dominant Anu sub-tribe) used to decide the for the Alinas (another Anu sub-tribe).

Here Zeus takes over ultimately, with time (Chronos, Kaal) degrading the power of Ouranos (Varuna). Zeus is here endowed with the power of lightening and thunder. That is Zeus here embodies both "Dyaus Pitr" as well as "Indra".

In fact Greek Cosmogony talks of the castration of Ouranos by Chronos, perhaps fully taking away his power. This could again refer to Alinas (Hellenes) freeing themselves from the dominance of the ParSus (Persians).

---------------

What all this shows is that the Hellenes (Greeks) and the Persians were earlier connected and even used to see themselves as one tribe, and after political and theological differences, the Hellenes finally detached themselves from the other Anus and settled in Greece using the Southern route, South of the Caspian Sea as the route of migration.

It also shows that whereas Iranians under Zarathustra changed directions and turned against the earlier theology they used to share with the Vedic Aryans, the PUrus, the Alinas (Hellenes) continued to uphold the rituals of Veda, especially the cremation of the dead.

Modern Greeks are thus today a mixture of Alinas (Hellenes) and Druhyus (Dorians).

---------------

Disclaimer: As I said, just some speculation. Take it for what it is. I don't have any evidence beyond what I have said here.

[Atri]

"I cannot accept the argument for an Indian origin of Rig Veda until you show me horse bones; the horses bones must be of the Equus caballus species; and there must be evidence of domestication and you must show me remains of spoked wheels.

But Shiv ji, horse bones are seen in harrappan excavations.. there is evidence that they were domesticated.. By horse I mean Equus caballus... I am talking about the jaw bones discovered of domesticated Equus caballus...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1299247

[shiv]

"I cannot accept the argument for an Indian origin of Rig Veda until you show me horse bones; the horses bones must be of the Equus caballus species; and there must be evidence of domestication and you must show me remains of spoked wheels.

But Shiv ji, horse bones are seen in harrappan excavations.. there is evidence that they were domesticated.. By horse I mean Equus caballus... I am talking about the jaw bones discovered of domesticated Equus caballus...

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 7#p1299247

I know that Atri. I know that. But the very fact that indian researchers have to point out "caballus" "caballus" "caballus" every time they find a horse is because the people who judge them have been a western audience in whose publications indians seek to find there names. And they have been stung by accusations of poor dating and confusing onager for caballus

All I am saying is "Bugger off. Even if it is not caballus it does not matter. It still is the bloody Equus genus and looks like a horse and has been used for drawing chariots and for warfare"