Unmasking AIT

[Husky]

Reinstated

Post 1/2



On things Indian IEist (IIEist) Hindus don't write about, because they don't know about it, because they didn't/are incapable of looking into it (having massive blinders on from having bought into steppe IEism hook, line and sinker). Because you'd have to be a heathen to look into the veracity of the IEist claims that uproot/subvert heathenism.



[size="6"]No chariots in Sintashta[/size]

say the experts in ancient chariotry and wheeled vehicles, Littauer and Crouwel



It's yet more evidence of Anthony's serial forgery. And more evidence of how it stood long exposed - for almost as long as his forgery - yet his forgeries are still peddled as fact by IEist fans/beliebers, Indian and alien alike.





adnaera.com/2018/08/08/horses-and-wheeled-vehicles/

ak2014b says:

9th August 2018 at 15:25



I’m not up to date on the chariot evidence at Sintashta. I read the news originally reported around the mid 1990s of David Anthony’s finds of what were possibly chariots.



News reports mentioned that the assigned dates were contested. There were no actual chariot remains, only the stains made by wheels and some superstructure. Archaeologists dated the grave goods at the site to 1600 BC. Anthony had the horse bones at the site dated, which were found to be from a little before 2000 BC. Anthony went with the date of the horse bones for the chariots a.o.t. using the date of grave goods. (discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500) Anthony’s interviews of the time mentioned he felt that this meant chariots may have been invented in the steppes. But it was not fully resolved for others. For instance, if the grave goods actually belonged with the buried vehicle (other archaeologists did write that the ostensible chariots of Sintashta were purely grave goods and never put to actual use), and if the horses were from an earlier layer, as turned out to be the case in some other key finds by Anthony, then this once more puts question marks over the geographic origins for true chariots and over the earliest dates for their appearance in the steppe.



At the time, it was moreover not unanimous that the wheel imprints necessarily belonged to chariots. Like the argument presented at nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html, ‘Mary Littauer, an independent archeologist and co-author of “Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East” (Brill, 1979), was not ready to concede the point. “It’s still debatable,” she said. “A spoked wheel is not necessarily a chariot, only a light cart on the way to becoming chariots.”‘



I am likely to have missed a lot of the subsequent developments in the state of the evidence since the mid 1990s, and have tried to find them but have not had any success. Does anyone here know if there’s been further evidence from Sintashta since then that has been able to resolve these uncertainties and which have at last clearly established that the Sintashta structures are in fact of a chariot, a true chariot moreover, and with indisputable dates now provided? (Evidence as clear, tangible and date-able as what we have for various carts to chariots of the Middle-East, for instance.)



Alberto, do you further know of any photos of the imprints of the wheels that show off the spokes of the Sintashta chariots? I’ve seen drawings and reconstructions, and some foggy photos, but have long wanted to see some photos showing the spokes clearly.



---

ak2014b says:

9th August 2018 at 15:31



> Yes I’m sure we will find out soon where horse domestication first occurred – it might be surprising for most but few people



Besides the western steppe, Iberia and Alberto’s additional suggestion of Anatolia, is there a case to be made for Armenia or the southern Caucasus for horse domestication? Anthony mentioned that the same indicators implying possible horse domestication (possible bit wear) that were found in Botai was found earlier in Armenia by other archaeologists.





---

Robert says:

9th August 2018 at 21:17



@ Ak2014b



Yes I recall the shifting dates. I’ll try look st it further. As you mention, it wouldn’t be the first time a date has been incorrect, and sometimes “facts” are just echoed from writer to writer.



About horse domestication, I’m not privy to the results (& wouldn’t say so if I did). But I’m sure they’ll make sense in the big picture of pastoralist development.





---

ak2014b says:

10th August 2018 at 13:38



Thanks! Anything you find could go a long way to answering my questions.



> About horse domestication, I’m not privy to the results (& wouldn’t say so if I did). But I’m sure they’ll make sense in the big picture of pastoralist development.



Yes, I understand. I look forward to any publications that deal with this. Hopefully it won’t be long. Fortunately, FrankN’s 2nd guest post has a more definite date of around next week, so there’s other interesting revelations to look forward to in the immediate future.



If you get a chance, Rob, could you look at my questions for you at adnaera.com/2018/07/29/some-interesting-fresh-adna-from-central-europe/#comment-159? It’s understandable if you’re unable to respond with answers if in doing so you might have to reveal something that you’re not free to disclose.





---

Alberto says:

10th August 2018 at 14:27



@ak2014b



When Nick Patterson wrote at Eurogenes that the only reason why they didn’t publish any sample from India was because they just didn’t have them, and not for any political agendas, he was telling the truth. You’ve already read reports about the difficulty to get DNA from those Rakhigarhi samples, with apparently only one being really usable after years of trying (and that’s the only reason for the delay).



So I think that a boutade during a heated debate echoing some rumours that were circulating should be taken just as that. There’s no successfully sequenced Neolithic DNA from India so far (thought it might be on the way).



Regarding the Sintashta questions, I think that there has not been further data corroborating it in an unambiguous way (though I might have missed it), but with the evidence available it does seem reasonable to accept it as the most likely scenario for now. In any case, it doesn’t have much historical relevance, since like wagons and solid wheels more than a thousand years before, they spread faster than the people who invented them. By the time Sintashta/Andronovo people might have started to go south, the people from the south already had better chariots, so that was not an advantage for the non-existent conquering that some people fantasize about.





---

ak2014b says:

10th August 2018 at 21:39



@Alberto,



If you’re also unable to find definitive evidence, then I’m no longer convinced now about chariots of any kind in Sintashta. Archaeologists, including Anthony himself, have had over 3 decades now to find more conclusive evidence. The fact that that it hasn’t been found, and that in the meantime what he originally described as his “gut feeling” about Sintashta originating chariots has merely morphed (without the backing of additional support since) into blogs and fora repeating his feeling as a certainty, may indicate that no more work is being done or that there may be no further evidence to back up the claim.



Unambiguous chariots and true chariots have been found elsewhere. Until the archaeological finds at Sintashta, the Middle-East was for this reason considered to have been the origin of the chariot and for various developmental stages of it, including of the true chariot as per my understanding. For instance, the earlier mentioned 1994 news report at nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html says about the Sintashta finds that “The discovery could also lead to some revision in the history of the wheel, the quintessential invention, and shake the confidence of scholars in their assumption that the chariot, like so many other cultural and mechanical innovations, had its origin among the more advanced urban societies of the ancient Middle East.”



However, if there’s still the reasonable possibility that the chariots in Sintashta are not so early after all (or actually chariots at all), then the previous dates for earliest instances of chariots being in the Middle East ought to take precedence again, as that region had what were unambiguously chariots based on clearly date-able evidence. The Middle Eastern chariot evidence dates to 200 years past the higher end date that Anthony settled on for the finds at Sintashta (discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500 again), and this is what finally gave Sintashta the edge in the quest for determining where the vehicle originated. But with that as a question mark, the Middle Eastern dates, despite being 200 years later, at least offer certain evidence of definite chariots at that definite time.



The Middle East further demonstrates, starting at far earlier times, development stages from early wagons to get to chariots. And we know with certainty that they were used as chariots. In contrast, Sintashta is a culture that started around its presumed fully developed true chariot’s assigned date of around 2000 bc. Sintashta chariots, or carts as they may have been, have further not been shown to have been put to any actual use at all, only as grave goods. (Notwithstanding arguments by Anthony or anyone else to make a case for their use.)



There are also follow-on effects and assumptions that become open-ended again. For instance, a main reason for Sintashta as the source of Indo-Iranian was that it had true chariots. If it possibly didn’t have true or other chariots after all, then that weakens the dependent argument that it must have been Indo-Iranian. For example, there are other steppe MLBA cultures rich in R1aZ93 up for consideration as Indo-Iranian homeland again. Though if they didn’t have chariots either, and if chariots have to remain closely tied to Indo-Iranian, then maybe this is a larger problem? Perhaps this is even connected to your pointing out the surprising paucity of R1a in the aDNA from Swat in South or South Central Asia in a recent paper, and its late presence there. I’m not comfortable with ruling anything out about this yet. I merely wish to observe that if Sintashta has not provided definite evidence of early chariots, then the runner up for earliest should become the primary contender once more. Anything less further does an injustice to Middle Eastern history.



It’s therefore frustrating that so many have been made to labour under the assumption (as I had) that Sintashta originated the true chariot or had chariots at all, if this indeed remains ultimately an assumption up to the present. I think those who continue to conclude so ought to be corrected from now on, so that it doesn’t continue to proliferate and so they can avoid mistakenly building further assumptions or arguments on shaky foundations. As a consequence, I’m no longer as closed to Anatolia or the Caucasus or FrankN’s suggestion of NW Iran as valid alternatives for the PIE or LPIE homelands, now that several lines of evidence for a steppe homeland that I once thought were certain have proven less so.





-------



Alberto says:

11th August 2018 at 08:10



@ak2014b



Yes, you have a point there. As Robert also mentioned above, it’s quite normal to see that someone’s hypothesis turns into an accepted fact without much scrutiny. It is frequent in books to read things like that Afanasievo introduced metal working to China (or horses, or wheeled vehicles) for which the evidence is completely absent (basically the same that can be said about linking Afanasievo to Tocharian language). Many things about the steppe were based in very old non-C14 dated reports that had never been seen or verified by western scholars and that were in dire need of revision.



Besides, I also agree that David Anthony has been quite vocal using strong arguments to support as facts things that are just hypotheses. The kind of arguing that can be seen in the paper linked in the post about the importance of wheeled vehicles for the chronology of PIE (though I find the general argument acceptable, his arguing is far too radical in his assumptions about “impossibilities” and our ability to infer with any certainty things about languages spoken over 5000 years ago for which we have no direct evidence (or even close to them). A more nuanced argumentation would be welcome, but then it would not be so effective in turning it into an accepted “fact”.



So yes, these things do need some further debate, and experts should be more critical when examining certain hypotheses instead of just accepting them as proven facts based on some big words.



On a related note, I forgot to mention the recent news about a chariot unearthed recently in India (but again, these are early news that will need some time to be verified, understood and put in the right context):



outlookindia.com/website/story/asi-excavated-sanauli-chariots-have-potential-to-challenge-aryan-invasion-theory/312415

Robert says:

11th August 2018 at 10:40



One can always refer to the sober analysis Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky



books.google.se/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=carbon+date+sintashta+chariots&source=bl&ots=qEVgQDhAP1&sig=nQzXu-_3GUDZ1tKuRlMRDrJu5mA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8p966zOTcAhUBzmEKHf4sAt0Q6AEwCnoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=carbon%20date%20sintashta%20chariots&f=true

ak2014b says:

11th August 2018 at 18:19



Thanks and thanks.



The page (156) that Rob has pointed out notably contains “The Sintashta chariots are by no means the earliest ones known. There are several sealing impressions depicting a chariot and driver in a Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III glyptic, c 2500 BC (Littauer and Crouwel 1979; Green 1993: 60).”



Mary Littauer, the first author cited, is the same archaeologist who was interviewed and found the chariot nature of Anthony’s Sintashta finds to be debatable. That would make the 2500 BC Middle East vehicle mentioned in Littauer and Crouwel 1979 an indisputable chariot, considering how exacting Littauer is about the definition.



Such a very early Middle Eastern chariot deserves to become better known, with credit rightfully restored.



> On a related note, I forgot to mention the recent news about a chariot unearthed recently in India



I was made aware that South Asia possessed wagons and carts (and possible chariots, from miniature figurine forms) mainly from a link at anthrogenica to a paper by Kenoyer, on the kind of ancient wheeled vehicles developed in South Asia.



IVC’s copper-based metallurgy is roughly contemporaneous with Iranian settlements, starting around 6000 or 5000 bc. The wheels used in the IVC vehicles were solid, not spoked, which matches up with the report, “The wheels were found solid in nature, without any spokes, Dr Manjul says.” Furthermore, Iran attests to chariots with crossbar wheels by 2350 bc. So for South Asia to have had copper chariots in the reported period of 2000-1800 bc isn’t entirely unexpected.



However, for Indian chariots to be relevant to any discussion of Indo-Iranian, it’s expected they be true chariots: harnessed to horses, having spoked wheels and matching those other particulars defined in your quotation from Anthony. Sintashta was presented as fitting the bill, though now it seems it’s not guaranteed to fit the basics.



Kenoyer did bring up mention of spoked wheels in regards to the IVC, as well as new accounts of IVC spoked wheel data that he hadn’t personally verified, but he noted that the topic itself was controversial for being considered associated with IE (and therefore considered mutually exclusive with IVC). I’ve not kept abreast of further developments surrounding this, however.



And in looking for further information, there’s still no actual knowledge about the kind of draft animals involved in the India chariot finds, though the researchers don’t rule out horses (xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/07/c_137237324.htm)

‘On animals used to draw the chariots, Manjul said, “It could be a bull or a horse, but having said that the preliminary understanding points to the horse.”‘



And since the wheels were further described as solid and therefore without spokes, they’re not true chariots. Despite that, these new finds in India are very interesting in their own right, including the buried royalty with their copper weapons. This shows the native cultures encompassed warriors among its population, and that South Asian metallurgy had also been used for warfare. The other interesting feature is that these Indian chariots, currently estimated at 2000-1800 bc, are in copper. In contrast, Sintashta’s ones are from either 2000 or otherwise 1600 bc and were to have been made of wood as explanation for the absence of any actual chariot remains and only imprints surviving. This contrast seems to confirm what you said, that Steppe MLBA could not have invaded to find a helpless population at all, but one armed with metal chariots besides weapons.



Hopefully we’ll get to see some interesting aDNA from the presumed royal remains associated with the buried chariots.

ak2014b says:

11th August 2018 at 19:16



There’s mention of a new paper “Horses may have been ridden in battle as early as the Bronze Age (Chechushkov et al. 2018)” at eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/08/horses-may-have-been-ridden-in-battle.html



An excerpt states “We investigated changes in function over time through the use of experimental replicas used in bridling horses. This experimental work supports the hypothesis that these objects served to bridle harnessed (shield-like) or ridden (plate-formed and rod-shaped) horses. Moreover, comparison of use wear on the ancient artifacts with the replicas provides insight into how long the artifacts were used before they were deposited in the funeral contexts or discarded. These observations support that the Sintashta chariots dating back to ca. 2100 BC were ridden and suggest the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 BC) as the earliest possible date for horseback riding in warfare.”



It’s an example of research also descending into ‘building further assumptions on shaky foundations’ of my earlier complaint.



The date and very nature of the Sintashta vehicles as chariots are contested. Selectively reiterating Anthony’s date for the chariots has made Sintashta into a myth that’s built up, rather than uncovering the historical reality of Sintashta as far as this can be uncovered. Experiments using replicas to argue that Sintashta vehicles were put to use do not amount to actual evidence, when archaeology has not been able to actually show that they were ever more than merely grave goods, such as by the attestation of wheel tracks.



For contrast, on a genetics forum, there were people demanding evidence that the early attestation of toy wagons and carts in the form of miniatures in South Asia translated to real life use. Evidence was demanded citing that Aztecs too had toys with wheels and that it didn’t follow that these were put to use. The expectation was therefore that wheeled vehicles remained as toys in South Asia as well. In response, Kenoyer’s paper was cited for mentioning the wheel track marks of a wagon, and finally laid that to rest. However, similar to assumptions about Afanasievo, for Sintashta too, no one asks for archaeological evidence like track marks. Experiments with replicas seem to suffice to settle the matter. Using methods to merely infer conclusions about the past may not have been acceptable for wheeled vehicles in South Asia had there been no wheel tracks.



It has turned out that the Middle East has very early chariots compared to Sintashta (2500 bc vs 2000/1600 bc), but there’s this general disinterest to consider anything non steppe as a source of innovation for things the steppe is “competing” with. The resulting discussions seem to take place in isolation from the rest of world history, as if the rest doesn’t exist. It’s detrimental enough for non-experts to indulge in this, but it becomes worse when the behaviour extends to the realm of research.



Another example of this is the general sounding claim in the new Chechushkov et al 2018 paper that their replica based experimental results “suggest the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 BC) as the earliest possible date for horseback riding in warfare.” Yet at kavehfarrokh.com/iranica/militaria/military-history-and-armies-of-scythians-sarmatians-and-achaemenids/image-of-a-jiroft-horseman-with-short-lance/ is tangible evidence, in the form of a photo of a sculpture depicting a rider bearing a lance, sitting astride a bridled horse. (It actually looks like he has a helmet of sorts on, further suggesting the context of warfare.) The sculpture is from the Jiroft culture, in Iran. When I search for “Jiroft”, google comes back with “Jiroft culture‎: ‎c. 3100 – c. 2200”. This is far better evidence of early horseback riding in warfare than experiments with replicas. It’s also far earlier than Chechushkov et al 2018’s timeframe of 1500-1200 bc, yet the evidence from Jiroft is presumably ignored or perhaps deemed insufficient. The result is that the world at large remains ignorant of actual world history. If the same figurine had been found in a steppe culture, especially at that early date, the treatment would be totally different.



Kuz’mina and several other specialists have repeatedly stressed that archaeological data has so far not been able to provide evidence for mounted warriors in the steppe until the end of the 2nd millennium bc. The recourse to results from experimental replicas to now argue otherwise, feels like an attempt to bypass the lack of archaeological support. I’m not sure why researchers so invested in the subject don’t just accept it or continue to look for more actual evidence in the steppe. None of it however explains why earlier evidence from other places continues to be ignored.





----

Alberto says:

12th August 2018 at 09:22



@ak2014b



A problem that I mentioned in the post is the terminology used. Is it a requirement for a chariot to have spoked wheels instead of solid ones? Is it a requirement that it’s pulled by true horses and not some other equids? And is it necessary that the driver is standing and not sitting? And should they use bits and cheekpieces or are those unnecessary?



What apparently was invented by the Sintashta people was the spoked wheel and the use of true horses with bits and cheekpieces.



The “sealing impressions depicting a chariot and driver in a Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III glyptic, c 2500 BC” might not qualify. For example, in “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1978-79” by J.N. Postgate (page 104) there are some descriptions mentioning “Head of horse (?) – ridge for mane, ears and pierced nostrils“. Also: “Figure seated in two-wheeled chariot drawn by equid(s), which trample on a recumbent enemy. Behind chariot, jar or outsize dagger and a skirted figure.”



Regarding the importance of spoked wheels for Indo Iranians, this should be understood as a symbolic thing, and not literally as wheels made with spokes and used in real vehicles. The symbolism described in the Rigveda regarding the wheel (chakra) with specific number of spokes depending on what it symbolises is well represented during the Chalcolithic in amulets or even terracotta wheels (for vehicles) that is unclear if they were made with spokes (unlikely, since they’re made solid in terracotta) or just decorated with spokes for its symbolic meaning. This kind of symbolism is important and mostly ignored when interpreting the Rigveda as a proof of a steppe origin of the Aryans.



A good article and discussion can be found at indologist Giacomo Benedetti’s blog here:



new-indology.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-wheel-from-mehrgarh-to-vedas-and.html





----

ak2014b says:

12th August 2018 at 18:03



Thank you, I’ll have a read. I did not mean to sound dismissive of the India finds. I accept it can be some kind of chariot, but meant to point out that it fails to meet the specifications for true chariots because of the type of wheels.



> What apparently was invented by the Sintashta people was the spoked wheel and the use of true horses with bits and cheekpieces.



Yet even so, the problems pointed out earlier would remain. If the horse bones were of 2000 bc and the grave goods at the burial site were from 1600 bc, and if the ostensible chariot still could be from either period, then if the vehicle was in fact from 1600 bc, they can’t demonstrate its connection to the horses. Anthony would have had to conclude the vehicle was of the same era as the horses in order to make his argument that this was the place true chariots first originated, thereby dislodging the true chariots found 200 years later in the Middle East from primary consideration.



All others are expected to be rigorous with their evidence, those making a case for the steppe ought to be held to the same standards. Until there is certainty regarding the dates, the Sintashta vehicles if true chariots cannot be mentioned as the earliest without constant qualification.



Moreover, Littauer’s argument (above) was that the evidence from Sintashta was not sufficient to conclude it was necessarily a chariot generally. That would consequently rule out that there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the more restrictive requirements for the true chariot.



But Littauer and Crouwel gave more complete consideration to Anthony and others’ claims when they later returned to the very subject matter of true chariots in a paper responding to Anthony’s early date for the Sintashta finds as war chariots. It’s a paper which incidentally reproduces the kind of photos from Sintashta that I was earlier searching for.



In The origin of the true chariot (Littauer & Crouwel 1996) [cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/origin-of-the-true-chariot/727D882D2F2E1BBC19AE1F9FA02A35AB] the two authors take the reconstructions of the Sintashta chariots and Anthony’s date in stride (2000 bc-1800 bc as it turns out, a.o.t. 2000 bc), as also working by Anthony’s arguments that horses would have been ridden early in the steppes. They clearly express reservations about the reconstructions, but by taking these seriously the authors point out the Sintashta vehicle is flawed mechanically. When they take only the actual archaeological remains into consideration, the authors find the Sintashta two wheeled vehicles could not have served for warfare or racing purposes. (The 2 purposes Indo-Europeans are to have used them [color="#800080"][chariots][/color] for.)



They still come to the conclusion that both the chariot and true chariot’s origins were in the Middle East rather, further pointing out that the continuous development and refinement of wheeled vehicles from 4 to 2 wheels to chariots and true chariots is demonstrable there. In contrast, “no early tradition of fast transport by two-wheeler existed on the steppe”, referring also to Izbitser’s work (1993) on the earlier steppe Pit-Grave culture’s 4 wheeled vehicles, of which they remark “What also seems to emerge from Dr Izbitser’s work is that many of the four-wheeled vehicles buried with seated passengers would have been more suitable for processions and for burial rites than for workaday use. These must have been ceremonial, status-conferring vehicles.”



The authors find the lighter spoked wheel of the chariot too was to have logically been developed in the Near East (so despite Anthony’s earlier date): “Does it not seem more likely that the horse’s introduction to draught in the Near East stimulated the local wheelwrights to invent a lighter wheel for the already long-existing two-wheelers than that people without a history of two-wheeled vehicles and with an already superior personal conveyance – the mounted horse – should find reason suddenly to invent such a vehicle in its entirety?” For comparison, in the Near East evidence “The scenarios are one of improvement and development out of an established and very useful artefact”. Littauer and Crouwel state with reason “We should like to suggest that it was the prestige value of the Near Eastern two-wheelers that inspired imitations on the steppes”.





----

ak2014b says:

12th August 2018 at 18:15



The final section of Littauer & Crouwel 1996 is as instructive as the whole paper, which deserves as wide an audience as Anthony’s “The Horse” has obtained,



“A Near Eastern and a steppe origin has been previously argued by the authors (Littauer & Crouwel l979: 68-71) and by Piggott (1983: 1034) respectively. Piggott later adopted a more cautious view (1992: 48-9; cf. also Moorey 1986). The idea of the war chariot originating on the steppes has recently been revived, chiefly on the basis of the calibrated radiocarbon dates from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero (Anthony & Vinogradov 1995: 4041).



‘ Proto-chariots’



Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves. At Sintashta, the wheel tracks and their position relative to the walls of the tomb chamber limited the dimensions of the naves, hence the stability of the vehicle. Ancient naves were symmetrical, the part outside the spokes of equal length to that inside. Allowing enough room for the end of the axle arm and linch pin on the outer side of the nave and for a short spacer on the inner side of the nave end to keep it from rubbing on the body of the vehicle, we are left with no more than 20 cm for the entire length of the nave. The shortest ancient nave of which we know on a two-wheeler is 34 cm in length, and the great majority are 40-45 cm (Littauer & Crouwel 1985: 76, 91). The long naves of ancient two-wheelers were required by the material used: wooden naves revolving on wooden axles cannot fit tightly, as recent metal ones do. The short, hence loosely fitting nave will have a tendency to wobble, and it was in order to reduce this that the nave was lengthened. A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself. The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing.“



And in the introductory section, the authors already summarised the above conclusions with “these dimensions would render the vehicle impractical at speed and limit its manoeuvrability. These cannot yet be true chariots.“



Littauer and Crouwel have extensive familiarity with the mechanics of wheeled vehicles. Anthony and various others may have more general knowledge of it, but this has led to unsustainable conclusions.



I think these practical, evidence-based conclusions also override the experimentally derived ones from Chechushkov et al 2018. Maybe one of the reasons the Sintashta vehicles did not develop beyond grave goods is because they weren’t very usable.



There’s no support in the above extract for the views popularly expressed in various quarters about Sintashta being “warrior badasses” on account of their two-wheeled vehicles. If they’d have invested as much time in reading the research on it as they have in promulgating mistaken views about it, they would have discovered the Sintashta vehicle may have proved a liability rather than an advantage in warfare.



The chariot from 2500 bc that Rob’s linked page cited from Littauer was referred to in general terms as a chariot. My understanding has been that the true chariots in the Middle East were to be from around 200 years after the upper limit of Anthony’s date for the Sintashta vehicles.



I recommend the full Littauer & Crouwel 1996 paper. Its introduction additionally may be referring to the earliest Near/Middle East war or true chariot, when it mentions this contrastively against the ones that had been claimed as true and war chariots in Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero.



It definitely mentions very early spoked wheels in Mesopotamia that become older than the Sintashta one if the latter’s spoked wheel imprints are from 1600 bc instead of 2000 bc. However, without needing confirmation for Sintashta’s early date, Littauer and Crouwel provided reasoned arguments why the Near/Middle East is nevertheless the more likely source for the invention of spoked wheels.





-----



ak2014b says:

13th August 2018 at 14:03



> I can’t really have a final take on where did true chariots originate without carefully re-examining all the data (and even then I might still have no certainty about it), but my take is that it’s not a fundamental thing regarding historical events.



I agree there’s no actual final answer to the question of origination with what data we have presently. But the value of the steppe evidence has been over presented.



My comments about chariots and spoked wheels are not to make any case about their relevance to IE or human history, but rather concern the documentation of history. There’s too little actual evidence from Sintashta to justifiably compete with the clear and well-dated evidence we have from the Near East for both innovations. Even so, the steppe is still accredited both popularly and in many research works up to the present for originating spoked wheels as well as true chariots. It is a great assumption that rests on too many uncertainties. (And there is simply no need for it when there are better alternatives for consideration.)



A certainty we do have is that the steppe had spoked wheels, somewhere between 2000-1800 bc else 1600 bc. Using Anthony’s dates from the horse bones, which are the earliest that may be assigned to the vehicles, this being still 2000-1800 bc as per the cited paper, the interval makes it contemporaneous with the evidence of vehicles with 2 spoked wheels from Anatolia and Mesopotamia that were harnessed to equids. The paper by Littauer and Crouwel contains an image from Anatolia from the early 2nd millennium bc, showing a figure carrying a weapon standing on a vehicle with 2 spoked wheels. (The harnessed draft animals further look to be horses not asses in my interpretation.)



Consider again this statement from Littauer & Crouwel 1996,

“Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves.”



Therefore the totality of the evidence from the steppes is comprised of imprints from the lower part of the vehicles: the [lower parts of the] wheels, axle and the wheel hubs (naves). The rest of the steppe vehicles have been entirely reconstructed by researchers: as chariots, even though the same and actual evidence lends itself equally to their reconstructions as carts, as Littauer pointed out earlier.



Littauer & Crouwel 1996 found the reconstructed portions questionable, “The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions”. Nevertheless, the paper’s authors allowed for both the reconstructions and the earliest dates (those of the horse bones assigned to the vehicle) in order to come to the conclusion that, despite this, the two wheeled steppe vehicles were still not true or war chariots. The authors made these allowances for the sake of argument. There is no real reason to continue making them when considering the earliest indisputable evidence available for both spoked wheels and chariots.



Clear cut evidence may conceivably turn up in the future, possibly from the steppe, that dislodges the Middle East from its present position as attesting to the currently oldest instance(s) and being the tentative origin for the true chariot and spoked wheels. Until such a time though, I believe the ancient Near East and not the steppe ought to be recognised as holding this position, whether the innovations themselves be important in any sense or not.



I’m sorry to have consumed so much of your time with this, the point was a more general one and may not have stood out given the context of aDNA and IE.





----

ak2014b says:

13th August 2018 at 14:23



I remember a couple of remaining questions I had. It concerns the following extract from nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html



“Chariot technology, Dr. Muhly noted, seems to have left an imprint on Indo-European languages and could help solve the enduring puzzle of where they originated. All of the technical terms connected with wheels, spokes, chariots and horses are represented in the early Indo-European vocabulary, the common root of nearly all modern European languages as well as those of Iran and India.



In which case, Dr. Muhly said, chariotry may well have developed before the original Indo-European speakers scattered. And if chariotry came first in the steppes east of the Urals, that could be the long-sought homeland of Indo-European languages. Indeed, fast spoke-wheeled vehicles could have been used to begin the spread of their language not only to India but to Europe.”



[That's obviously a big fat lie: only 4 wheeled ceremonial-only vehicles on the steppe, until 2 wheeled carts appeared out of nowhere during the later steppe kultur of Sintashta of 2100-1800 BCE. No sign of local development of 2 wheeled vehicles, so rather than innovation, obviously imported.

No evidence for chariots in Sintashta, only for non-working 2 wheeled carts that would break on impact: "A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself." (Littauer and Crouwel again)

So even late steppe isn't origin of chariots, let alone early steppe. If chariotry was shared across all PIE as Muhly fibs above, then the steppe still can't ever be made into PIE homeland. Tragic, but it's the corollary.

But what the fact that Sintashta didn't have chariots means for Hindu heathens is that: so not Indo-Iranian by IEists own rules. Of course, IIEists will still believe, because you know, beliebers.]



Firstly, is it true that vocabulary related to chariots is shared in Indo-European? The discussions on eurogenes led me to believe that chariots were originally associated with Indo-Iranian.



Second, the current situation is that there are yet no definite chariots in the steppes, since the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero may as likely be carts. What seems to me more pertinent is there was no tradition of two wheeled vehicles in the steppes until these finds, going by the extracts from Littauer & Crouwer 1996 further above. (It was one of the reasons Littauer and Crouwer argued that two-wheeled vehicles on the steppes were inspired by those in the Near East, thereby also explaining their sudden appearance on the steppe.)



As chariots are two-wheeled vehicles, do the first and second points not conflict? If, as Izbitser’s work based on the evidence of wheeled vehicles in the steppe is to have argued, the steppe were inhabited by “people without a history of two-wheeled vehicles” (Littauer & Crouwer 1996) until the Sintashta era finds marked a distinct change, how may the chariot terminology be part of “the early Indo-European vocabulary, the common root of nearly all modern European languages as well as those of Iran and India”?



If not the immediate conclusion that the steppes as a consequence cannot be the homeland (or that chariot is not part of the PIE or LPIE vocabulary), maybe the argument has to become that chariots were borrowed early on into PIE, to explain the absence of the development of two-wheeled on the steppe? However, won’t the same long-term absence of two-wheeled vehicles in the steppes condense the timeline for PIE in a steppe homeland?





---

Alberto says:

13th August 2018 at 16:58



@ak2014b



As far as I know, it’s the words related to wheeled vehicles in general and not to chariots in particular (except for the word for horse itself) that is considered part of PIE (or better to say, late PIE, since Anatolian languages don’t share this vocabulary). The article from Anthony and Ringe linked in the post have a more detailed discussion about the terms and their appearance in each daughter language.



...

Let's review what's known:



0. The last known Sintashta chariot evidence and reconstructions were from the mid 1990s, courtesy Anthony. Nothing newer on this matter of "chariots" known from Sintashta/alleged IE or Indo-Iranian steppe kultur. All subsequent papers on chariots in the steppe MLBA kultur have been inferences and arguing/pleading around this earlier evidence from Anthony.





1. Anthony forged evidence: made elaborate drawings reconstructing Sintashta "chariots" (AKA forging evidence)



But Anthony was clearly a failure in chariotry: his reconstructions were unconvincing to the real chariot experts Littauer & Crouwel.

=More proof of how it's a forgery: he couldn't even make up believable stuff. (Moral: If you're going to indulge in the idiot passtime of such extensive forgery/compulsive lying like Anthony, be convincing unlike Anthony.)





2. The ONLY actual (i.e. archaeological) EVIDENCE sum total was imprints/stains of lower parts of wheels in Sintashta, and imprints of axle and (naves) wheel hubs besides in Krivoe Ozero. So partial spoked wheels. (Look how I don't even mention that wheeled vehicles of a later time pushed partially into earlier archaeological layers could account for such imprints. Even though many of Anthony's forgeries are centered on finding the most convenient dates of mixed up layers.)



"Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)



Note: imprints/stains means not dateable. How convenient for Anthony/AKA more indication of forgery.





3. Dating of the Sintashta 2 wheelers is "2000-1800 BCE" - the dating must still be horse bones though, as the evidence of the 2-wheelers are all imprints onlee:



"The recent calibrated radiocarbon dating to c. 2000-1800 BC of light, horse-drawn vehicles from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero, in northern Kazakhstan just east of the Urals, has revived the claim that the chariot originated in the steppe area rather than somewhere in the Near East" (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)





4. Based on BOTH Anthony's absurd (unbelievable) reconstructions AND just the evidence, Littauer & Crouwel damned the Sintashta vehicles as carts, NOT chariots. See below in red.





5. Useless, idiotic carts too: Sintashta people were evidently incompetent as the 2 wheeled non-chariots they made would get damaged when these bumped into a tree. Pathetic. But IIEists insist on crowning these as their ancestors. Good for them. But is the pride warranted?



"At Sintashta, the wheel tracks and their position relative to the walls of the tomb chamber limited the dimensions of the naves, hence the stability of the vehicle. ... no more than 20 cm for the entire length of the nave. The shortest ancient nave of which we know on a two-wheeler is 34 cm in length, and the great majority are 40-45 cm (Littauer & Crouwel 1985: 76, 91). ... The short, hence loosely fitting nave will have a tendency to wobble, and it was in order to reduce this that the nave was lengthened. A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)



In short: 20 cm nave on Sintashta cart = can't be a chariot/would make a useless a chariot

(And note that ALL the finds of these Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero era steppe 2 wheelers were of/added up to failures as chariots)



"The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)



Several things to note in the above statement:

- Anthony's forgery aka reconstruction is everything "above the axle level". I.e. he concocted most of the Sintashtan chariot. His reconstructions "raised many doubts and questions" in the experts in ancient vehicles and chariotry, Littauer and Crouwel. But next, the experts dismissed all the reconstructed stuff which they found so dubious since it had "No Evidence" any way, to then look at just the evidence (remember, the actual steppe 2 wheeler cart evidence consists of very little and nothing tangible: imprints/stains of lower parts of wheels in Sintashta, plus also axles and naves in Krivoe Ozero). Only for our chariot experts to then conclude, just from what's available in terms of evidence, that they can already definitely tell that any such vehicle could NEVER have been useful for war or for racing. I.e. useless for anything Indo-European. And not a true chariot besides. Epic fail.



And remember also: In the construction of Indo-European as epic greatness :ra-ra:, chariots are for war and racing (recall the Iliad for example), which is why Littauer and Crouwel's conclusion that the SINTASHTAN VEHICLE was NOT A TRUE CHARIOT, and moreover was NOTABLY USELESS FOR WAR AND RACING is such an especial Burn. No wonder these facts are not more popular, as it's an embarrassment now after having been a badge of pride for Euro and IIEst supremacists: chariots in Sintashta was the main argument for the whole "Sintashta is Indo-Iranian" argument remaining ever since the "Vedic steppe burial/Dadha~nc" was revealed to be another Anthony forgery/hoax.* Very few European IEists bring that Vedic burial forgery up now. Hindu heathens need to loudly and widely propogate the facts about this matter of No Chariots In Sintashta too, so that IEists are likewise too embarrassed to bring up the fiction of "Sintashtan chariots" again. If Sintashtans didn't even have chariots what use are they to Indo-Iranianism and Indo-Europeanism?

I suppose they can cling to horse burials in the steppe as being the defining Indo-European marker next. Steppe kultur didn't invent chariots. It copied them. Sintashta can't be Indo-Iranian, 'cause it didn't have chariots :boohoo:. Sintashta useless to Indo-Europeanism because chariots among Greeks, Romans to Celts can't be derived from steppe kulturs (carts as grave goods can, but is that really meaningful or something to be proud of? Well IIEists will be proud of any desert in the steppe and spit at anything in Bharatam, but European IEists may not be happy.)



* I mean horse burials may be a thing in the steppe, but it doesn't prove anything "Indo-Iranian". Chariots are attested in Vedic religion and among Iranians too. And in contrast, horses were translated as being sacrificed into the fire in the Vedic rite I posted hereabouts some years back (on the last page of this thread or so).



Sintashta's only meaningful claim to fame among Europeans was chariotry and the argument was that, therefore, they were Indo-Iranians and that therefore steppe MLBA would have brought chariots to India and Iran. But it's known they didn't bring chariots to India and Iran: 'cause they never even had chariots themselves, at the crucial time. (Any later, and other "non-IE" civilisations already had evidence for true chariots, so again: still a fail for claims of steppe kultur as IEism and for being superior on account of innovating chariot tech and even a fail for steppe having early practical/capable chariot tech even if copied from their non-steppe betters.)







So what's actually Indo-Iranian about Sintashta then?

- Maybe they'll huddle behind horses next. Even if (34-ribbed or any) horses in ancient India were to be from the steppe, they could simply be imported without importing steppe kultur, or the horses could be brought back by ancient indigenous Hindu visitors venturing out into the steppe and domesticating them the way our kind domesticated elephants and zebu and many of our other animoos. No one needs derivation/ancestry from the Sintashta horse burial kultur for this.



- No, it ain't Z93 or any steppe genetic component that's "Indo-Iranian". Genes ain't culture. Think of this as an equation. We're not trying to solve for culture. We know the culture (Vedic religio-civilisation including Samskritam). We're trying to solve for genetics = unknown variable.



If Sintashta falls through as Indo-Iranian homeland, steppe falls through as PIE/late PIE homeland.



The Steppe IEist argument was that chariots were key to Indo-Iranians, hence Anthony's Sintashtan "chariots" hoax was a key line of proof that Sintashta was Indo-Iranian (the other was Anthony's "Vedic steppe burial" hoax), and Z93/any steppe ancestry to cement that. But there turned out to be no "Vedic burial" in the steppes (which was another Antony forgery) and now no chariots in Sintashta. So Z93/any steppe genetic component in India could be proto-proto-Ghazis - say - that brought nothing of value into India, a la their descendants, other than maybe some evolutionary fitness advantage and hence it still exists in the gene pool, rather than being purged over time like the Neanderthal genetic contribution to human populations. That is, there's now no connection between chariots (= Vedic and Iranian) and Z93 from steppe MLBA (which we know did NOT have chariots, whatever other vehicles those 2 partial wheels implied).



Again, no chariots in Sintashta means we then don't know what any steppe (MLBA or other) component brought to Bharatam in terms of language/culture. But it wasn't Indo-Iranian if Sintashta had no chariots.* So who knows what Sintashtans spoke? The above comments and referenced paper show that the ancient Middle-East had true chariots. We know India had something we call chariots, true chariot or not, there was local continued development of two and four wheeled vehicles. But Sintashta only shows evidence of carts at most, not of chariots of any kind. So make sure to use the correct terminology: the evidence of the Sintashtan 2 wheelers is so little there's nothing there to conclude that the vehicle was anything more than a CART. Moreover, whatever it is, it is certainly NOT a chariot. So don't say true chariot, don't say any kind of chariot at all, but always say cart where Sintashta and allegedly IE steppe kultur is concerned and demand that every bloody IEist say "Sintashtan Cart" onlee too, else they're consciously colluding in Anthony's forgery, i.e. compulsive liars too and that means you can dismiss them in toto. <- Oh look cancel kultur. Isn't that what Euro IEists and non-Hindu Indian IEists are into: whenever they say that as a Hindoo indigenist you're a Hindu nationalist=fundamentalist for being Hindu, therefore nothing you say is admissable? Well, if they still stick to the "Sintashtan Chariot" hoax after you've let Littauer & Crouwel 1996 correct them, they factually deserve to be dismissed in toto forever.



We don't know what Sintashtans or their predicted R1aZ93 ancestors in Europe proper spoke. By the time we're really and truly certain of what many of their paternally derived descendants spoke, these spoke Hungarian, and Turkic with Central Asian Turkic ancestors, found all the way in Swat (R1aZ93 and derivatives found in medieval Ghaznavids/Ghazis who originated in the steppes and ended up in Swat, but also in aDNA of Khazars, and also in Avar aDNA, aDNA of both Huns and later medieval Hungarian elites. This is from 4 papers.) <- Another reason for my reference to steppes/Sintashtans as proto-Ghazis, since I already figured long ago they were ancestral to Turkics whether they were also ancestral to any other population group as a whole or not. Some time after that it was indeed shown that all Turkic groups have Scythian - at least E Scythian - hence Sintashtan/steppe MLBA ancestry. The transition from IE "Iranic" to (Proto-)Turkic is an interesting black box that IEists are not interested in looking into in detail.



IEists only want to discuss how Steppists, whose language family we don't actually know but which are argued to be IE, are to have morphed into Indo-Iranian speakers on one hand (some of whom were then to have brought these lingos to "South Asia"/Indian subcontinent and West Asia/Iran), others turned into Mittanis who everyone insists had never even been to India yet magically had the exclusively Indian peacock (which IIRC don't even occur in Pakistan's geography) as a key motif all the same (that's why it's called Magic), while those remaining in central Asia morphed into Scythians said to speak in Iranic tongues (whose eastern branch at least mystically morphed into non-IE Turkics by the time we know what they spoke; and whose western realms deep into E-Europe disappeared yet Slavic speakers are found there today and no trace of "Scythian". That's another black box/taboo subject among western IEists. In this context: not just northern Slavs appearing in what was Scythian space. In the 6th century BCE, "Thracian" Getae - which someone who didn't get the memo noted history also referred to as "Slavs" - who Brittanica says were "subjected to Scythian influence". That's around the Balkan area.)



On the subject of taboo: there is immediate denial from certain European IEists that known Scythian samples have West Asian and BMAC ancestry, even though dedicated steppist IEists commenters from islamised Central Asia showed that this is indubitably the case before themselves obediently dismissing the BMAC ancestry in Scythians as irrelevant and swearing continued fealty to steppe IEism. (Even though before the Scythians we don't know what was spoken in the steppe kulturs: we're told over and over again they spoke IE, but be honest: we don't know that, as it's what people are still trying to find out. And even though by the time the Sintashtans have morphed into "Iranic" speaking Scythians, these guys (i.e. the Scythian samples) now have allegedly consistent presence of BMAC ancestry though at various levels. I had already been taking note when non-Indian people were casually commenting how all Scythians had W Asian input, but reading that the BMAC input was a constant was interesting.

The BMAC in Scythians is excessively vehemently and angrily denied by most European IEists (protested way too much, as the phrase goes) despite going in the face of numerical evidence provided by a Hindu Indian non-IEist as well as independently by otherwise dismissive [islamic] Central Asian steppist IEists. One European steppist was quickly silenced by his compatriots when he insisted that the BMAC/West Asian constant was long noticed and already commented on and surely needn't be dismissed as he felt it had no bearing on IEism. His compatriots perhaps knew better as they were keen to deny even the undeniable.

And the pre-emptive European denial was to be expected because, since BMAC+Iranic in steppe Scythians went together with the Scythians found (constant), it could then be quite readily argued that BMAC introduced Iranic into Scythian, since who knows what was spoken on the steppe before (i.e. before Scythians/before the constant of BMAC input) or BMAC. Whether this constant was BMAC or W Asian (Iran), both would have attracted equal ire from the European IEists, of course, for the same reason: as it really undoes all their carefully positioned claims of PIEism coming from Europe/having anything to do with Europe, "because Z93".



Whatever, the steppe MLBA certainly didn't bring chariots, which were claimed to be the mainstay of allegedly "Indo-Iranian" Sintashta, meaning it's all an epic fail for steppe IEism right there. David Anthony needs to quickly forge some more evidence for proper actual chariots in the steppes this time, all (I)IEists are praying he won't get caught for his forgery yet again as he did with the forged alleged "horse domestication" evidence in Dereivka, the forgery of the alleged "Vedic burial/Dadhya~nc" evidence in steppe kultur" and the failed forgery of chariots in Sintashta.

Perhaps the question is not: why does the paucity of evidence of PIE in the steppes keep failing Anthony? But rather: why does Anthony keep failing even at forging evidence of steppe as PIE homeland?





* And contrary to Harvard's appointed token Indian/native voice V. Norasimon's wish to connect Sintashta failed carts to Sanauli finds to claim this for steppes/Europe, the 2000-1800 BCE Sintashta non-chariot carts with spoked wheels [all hypothesized as wooden, because no remains] did NOT give rise to the contemporaneous i.e. 2000-1800 BCE (reported in some news as 2300 BCE and even 2500 BCE) copper-rich Sanauli solid disk wheeled vehicles. IEists like Norasimon shouldn't be trying to derive the 2000-1800 BCE Sanauli chariot or whatever vehicle it is from the 2000-1800 BCE Sintashtan cart, unless he means to undermine IE logic of spoked wheels being central and defining, and declare that invading Oryans who were specifically claimed by steppism to have brought spoked wheels with them, suddenly went regressive in India by returning to the predecessor wheel type of solid wheels which were long well-known outside the steppe? (Where then is IEists' evidence for that reversal?) Steppe kultur suddenly leapt from 4-wheelers to 2-wheelers showing no actual intermediate development - hinting at import of the vehicle rather than local innovation, as essentially remarked by Littauer & Crouwel 1996. And it's possible steppes show no wheel development from solid, to crossbar - as is attested in ancient Iran (IIRC ~2350 BCE) since before Sintashta (2100-1800 BCE) - to spoked wheels either. Quick David Anthony, forge such evidence!



IEists probably realised with jealousy that they have absolutely nothing in the steppes like the Sanauli vehicle remains and in their greedy jealousy, have created designs to claim these using the pathetic and paltry partial (spoked) wheel imprints of Sintashta. And these are the kinds of entities that IIEists choose to parrot (what will they sell off next?). Sanauli chariots don't belong to Europeans, Indian steppists, their ancestors real or imagined. Sorry. Whatever else, Sanauli chariots are indigenous. Neither Norasimon/Harvard nor others can lay claim to Sanauli for the steppe, certainly not using their ridiculous "evidence" from Sintashta. They may prove it first, which they can't when the evidence has even disproven chariots in Sintashta. The material remains=evidence of the Sanauli vehicles are copious (had such been found in Sintashta, Anthony wouldn't have to forge most of the steppe MLBA vehicle). The evidence for the Sintastha 2-wheelers were laughable - imprints of lower part of wheels - and there is immediate disconnect between the two cultures: the immediate and sole conclusions at this point of all should be that they're unrelated and that Sanauli chariots are specifically not derivable from the 2 wheelers of Sintashta or whenever the steppe 2 wheeler imprints actually dated from (possibly just the 1600 BCE of the grave goods).



Indian IEists cannot be expected to have sense on this point, though - I expect them to try and sell the heritage from Sanauli to Europe so they can bask in the finds as part of their claimed steppe ancestry - but Hindoo heathens should take care to quickly correct Norasimon types and all other IEists who are now bent on aggrandising the European narrative (via steppism) by claiming the indigenous vehicles found in Sanauli. Don't be bogged down by treacherous Indian losers sold to the west (whether they're in a love-hate relationship with the west or not, as Hindu IIEists are), but fight this point with data. Despite the paucity of the Sintashtan 2 wheeled vehicular remains, it is sufficient to beat this nonsense down, as Littauer & Crouwel did on this limited evidence alone to prove its non-chariot nature.





You know, if you're a self-declared [i]Hindu[