Related to 3 and 2 posts up.
Post 4
1. IEists' lying never ceases: more examples of the unfathomable depths of universal IEist moronism, whether Indian IEist or foreign
Anthony's preposterous drawings that invented entire chariots out of very little evidence, has advanced to the next level in Joe 6-pack IEist, whether alien or Indian. But their even lower brain capacity doesn't excuse their penchant for adding their own lies on top of existing lies.
Exhibit a:
theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?95574-Sintashta-Harnessing-Horse-Power
captions a well-known photo of the centuries-later Shang (Chinese) dynasty horse-chariot burial as "Photo of Chariot and Horses excavated from the site of Sintashta" instead :puke:
BTW, there are several steppists on the web that used the same photo and referred to it as Sintashta. Don't know who started that one, but not a brain among them: either no one knew it was a photo from a Shang burial, or they're all very consciously lying.
Again, as I said it's a well-known photo of a Shang chariot burial:
- www.pinterest.com/pin/575757133586025672/
"When the Shang died they were buried in an underground area. Kings were also buried with their horses in the same burial."
- lindsayshangdynasty.blogspot.com/2013/04/shang-picture-collage.html
- and counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.com/2009/03/working-stiff-in-art-china.html
What this shows is that IEists (IIEists inclusive) appear to be uniformly ignorant that there is nothing more than MERE IMPRINTS of portion of wheels in Sintashta from which Anthony invented the entire "chariot" charade. Joe 6 pack IEists don't know that this is all the evidence. That is why they are fooled into assuming pics of actual REMAINS of chariots (from China in the above examples) could actually be that of Sintashta.
Exhibit b:
Here's an idiot Indian IEist - but aren't they all - who probably doesn't even know (unless he's knowingly propagating further lies, in which case he's only more of an idiot to think non-steppists will believe him) that he's copied a photo from the famous news report of Zhou (Chinese, 1000-700 BCE) horse-chariot burial findings, and has labelled it as "sintashta-chariot" instead too:
harappaseries.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-hindus/
Here's proof of the news where the famous photo was stolen from:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032697/Trip-Zhou-Remains-horses-chariots-unearthed-3-000-year-old-Chinese-Dynastys-tomb.html
So now IIEists are also turning into compulsive liars else idiots who believe Chinese chariot burials of a different era are Sintashtan ones. See, nothing good comes from imbibing steppism. It addles any brains one may have had. Can only hope they've all been permanently dissuaded from reproducing.
Moral: At this rate, all IEists, steppists at any rate, may just be assumed to be liars until proven innocent.
BTW, note what evidence for horse-chariot burials (with overlaid spoke relief in the Zhou case) the Chinese have, late as it is in comparison to the true chariot's actual invention (which we know was outside the steppe). Note how Sintashta does not have such mass evidence. Remind yourself on what flimsy grounds "chariots" were claimed for Sintashta: imprints of lower parts of wheels. Is it any wonder steppists latched onto labelling Chinese chariot burial pictures as Sintashtan ones? It's implicit admission that there's nothing remotely convincing in Sintashta.
2. 2006 study confirms: radiocarbon dates of Sintashta's non-chariots were of 2000-1800 BCE, and all of them still the old finds already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 who found these carts to be anything but chariots
"The emergence of Bronze Age chariots in eastern Europe", Kuznetsov, 2006
This appears to be the latest study on the Sintashta fake "chariots":
- confirms how there have still been no new finds since before Littauer & Crouwel 1996, who already reviewed the early 90s data by likes of Gening to Anthony & Vinograd, whose fake "chariot" burials are revisited here.
- this also reconfirms that, again, there's STILL nothing more than wheel imprints for the Sintashta 2-wheelers (and axle/nave in Krivoe Ozero).
- provides carbon dates for various materials in the graves, nothing from any chariots, reconfirming there were no physical remains of the 2 wheelers to carbon date
- dating range for the carbon dated materials is 2000 BCE - 1800 BCE, reconfirming the date range already mentioned in Littauer & Crouwel 1996
- yet still has the gall to refer to the vehicles as "chariots" when these were disproven to be chariots. In reality Sintashta's 2 wheelers were shown to be and remain useless carts that would have been useless at speed, shattering on impact. Nevertheless, Kuznetsov 2006 not only calls them chariots but uses the 2000-1800 BCE dates for these mere CARTS as argument that Sintashta had "chariots" before Near East.
In short, 10 years after Littauer & Crouwel 1996 there's still been no new finds of the Sintashta 2 wheelers - the existing ones were already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - so by 2006 the evidence in Sintashta remains that of demonstrably non-chariots.
3. As a contrastive example, the cylinder seal of Teppe Hissar IIIb depicts a crossbar-wheeled chariot already at a date "not later than 2350 BCE":
"The Earliest Near Eastern Spoked Wheels and their Chronology", P.R.S. Moorey, 1969.
Note particularly how, in arguing that the Iranian chariot's wheel is crossbar onlee and not spoked, Moorey notably does not demote the date: insisting it is no later than 2350 BCE, denying claims to later times argued by previous authors (some of whom were moreover claiming it was spoked).
cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/abs/earliest-near-eastern-spoked-wheels-and-their-chronology/59B5B775856754692DAD21F1AF178FB9
All this argument above by Moorey was only to claim that the Tepe Hissar IIIb seal must therefore likewise be depicting a crossbar wheel and not a spoked one as others of the period in the Near East. But the above shows that non-IE Susa (Iran) and non-IE Mesopotamia in 3rd mill BCE had not only matching crossbar wheels in use, but chariots/wagons as part of graves. Note 3rd mill BCE is too early for Sintashta, which is almost just around start of 2nd mill BCE, and for which the claim was first "chariots" on steppe and which (from Izbitsen) showed the first instance of 2 wheeled vehicles on the steppe. What this means is that 2350 BCE for crossbar wheeled chariots in Iran (and matching connections in likewise non-IE Mesopotamia - where Indian-specific aDNA was detected in long continuation - and Susa in Iran) showed that crossbar wheels - for chariots, whether true or not is irrelevant to this particular point - was in use before steppe kulturs. So Steppe MLBA did not invent true chariots or crossbar wheeled chariots either (not to mention the solid disk wheeled kind): the development of that was already done and demonstrated in the Near East, whereas 2 wheelers only suddenly appeared on the steppe from Sintashta onwards.
Summary:
- So Sintashta did not only not invent spoked wheel chariots (true chariots) - as their spoked 2-wheelers were at best carts (even for that you'd have to imagine the entire vehicle past the wheel imprints) but certainly not chariots - Sintashta didn't invent chariots of any type: e.g. the precursors of spoked wheel chariots (i.e. solid wheeled and then crossbar wheeled chariots), which the Near East had centuries before Sintashta even existed. (It was of course never claimed that Sintashta invented the solid wheeled or crossbar wheeled chariots, as these things existed outside the steppe before Sintashta ever existed, but still, it's always worth mentioning how they had no chariots of any kind.)
- And no steppe kultur had 2 wheelers (hence also precluding any attempts at chariots) before Sintashta. Confirmed also by archaeologist Izbitsen's work - discussed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - which found that the steppe had no tradition of 2 wheelers (i.e. steppe kulturs showed no sign of 2 wheeler development) until Sintashta culture (c.2100-1800 BCE) which magically appeared with its falsified chariots which turn out to have been specifically NOT chariots and therefore just carts at best.
Post 4
1. IEists' lying never ceases: more examples of the unfathomable depths of universal IEist moronism, whether Indian IEist or foreign
Anthony's preposterous drawings that invented entire chariots out of very little evidence, has advanced to the next level in Joe 6-pack IEist, whether alien or Indian. But their even lower brain capacity doesn't excuse their penchant for adding their own lies on top of existing lies.
Exhibit a:
theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?95574-Sintashta-Harnessing-Horse-Power
captions a well-known photo of the centuries-later Shang (Chinese) dynasty horse-chariot burial as "Photo of Chariot and Horses excavated from the site of Sintashta" instead :puke:
BTW, there are several steppists on the web that used the same photo and referred to it as Sintashta. Don't know who started that one, but not a brain among them: either no one knew it was a photo from a Shang burial, or they're all very consciously lying.
Again, as I said it's a well-known photo of a Shang chariot burial:
- www.pinterest.com/pin/575757133586025672/
"When the Shang died they were buried in an underground area. Kings were also buried with their horses in the same burial."
- lindsayshangdynasty.blogspot.com/2013/04/shang-picture-collage.html
- and counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.com/2009/03/working-stiff-in-art-china.html
What this shows is that IEists (IIEists inclusive) appear to be uniformly ignorant that there is nothing more than MERE IMPRINTS of portion of wheels in Sintashta from which Anthony invented the entire "chariot" charade. Joe 6 pack IEists don't know that this is all the evidence. That is why they are fooled into assuming pics of actual REMAINS of chariots (from China in the above examples) could actually be that of Sintashta.
Exhibit b:
Here's an idiot Indian IEist - but aren't they all - who probably doesn't even know (unless he's knowingly propagating further lies, in which case he's only more of an idiot to think non-steppists will believe him) that he's copied a photo from the famous news report of Zhou (Chinese, 1000-700 BCE) horse-chariot burial findings, and has labelled it as "sintashta-chariot" instead too:
harappaseries.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-hindus/
Here's proof of the news where the famous photo was stolen from:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032697/Trip-Zhou-Remains-horses-chariots-unearthed-3-000-year-old-Chinese-Dynastys-tomb.html
So now IIEists are also turning into compulsive liars else idiots who believe Chinese chariot burials of a different era are Sintashtan ones. See, nothing good comes from imbibing steppism. It addles any brains one may have had. Can only hope they've all been permanently dissuaded from reproducing.
Moral: At this rate, all IEists, steppists at any rate, may just be assumed to be liars until proven innocent.
BTW, note what evidence for horse-chariot burials (with overlaid spoke relief in the Zhou case) the Chinese have, late as it is in comparison to the true chariot's actual invention (which we know was outside the steppe). Note how Sintashta does not have such mass evidence. Remind yourself on what flimsy grounds "chariots" were claimed for Sintashta: imprints of lower parts of wheels. Is it any wonder steppists latched onto labelling Chinese chariot burial pictures as Sintashtan ones? It's implicit admission that there's nothing remotely convincing in Sintashta.
2. 2006 study confirms: radiocarbon dates of Sintashta's non-chariots were of 2000-1800 BCE, and all of them still the old finds already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 who found these carts to be anything but chariots
"The emergence of Bronze Age chariots in eastern Europe", Kuznetsov, 2006
Quote:The author presents new radiocarbon dates for chariot burials found in the region between Europe and the Urals, showing them to belong to the twentieth-eighteenth centuries BCE.
This appears to be the latest study on the Sintashta fake "chariots":
- confirms how there have still been no new finds since before Littauer & Crouwel 1996, who already reviewed the early 90s data by likes of Gening to Anthony & Vinograd, whose fake "chariot" burials are revisited here.
- this also reconfirms that, again, there's STILL nothing more than wheel imprints for the Sintashta 2-wheelers (and axle/nave in Krivoe Ozero).
- provides carbon dates for various materials in the graves, nothing from any chariots, reconfirming there were no physical remains of the 2 wheelers to carbon date
- dating range for the carbon dated materials is 2000 BCE - 1800 BCE, reconfirming the date range already mentioned in Littauer & Crouwel 1996
- yet still has the gall to refer to the vehicles as "chariots" when these were disproven to be chariots. In reality Sintashta's 2 wheelers were shown to be and remain useless carts that would have been useless at speed, shattering on impact. Nevertheless, Kuznetsov 2006 not only calls them chariots but uses the 2000-1800 BCE dates for these mere CARTS as argument that Sintashta had "chariots" before Near East.
In short, 10 years after Littauer & Crouwel 1996 there's still been no new finds of the Sintashta 2 wheelers - the existing ones were already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - so by 2006 the evidence in Sintashta remains that of demonstrably non-chariots.
3. As a contrastive example, the cylinder seal of Teppe Hissar IIIb depicts a crossbar-wheeled chariot already at a date "not later than 2350 BCE":
"The Earliest Near Eastern Spoked Wheels and their Chronology", P.R.S. Moorey, 1969.
Note particularly how, in arguing that the Iranian chariot's wheel is crossbar onlee and not spoked, Moorey notably does not demote the date: insisting it is no later than 2350 BCE, denying claims to later times argued by previous authors (some of whom were moreover claiming it was spoked).
cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/abs/earliest-near-eastern-spoked-wheels-and-their-chronology/59B5B775856754692DAD21F1AF178FB9
Quote:In 1951, when Childe published his well-known paper on "The First Waggons and Carts--from the Tigris to the Severn' he cited a cylinder seal carved with a chariot scene, from Tepe Hissar in eastern Iran, as one of the earliest representations of a spoked wheel.1
...
Though the cutting of the seal is crude and stylized it may be shown, by comparing the form of this wheel with contemporary excavated wheels from Iran and by uniting this scene with other glyptic of the same type, that the wheel is almost certainly not spoked and that the cylinder seal need not be later than c. 2350 B.C.
...
(A little later in the article he goes on to describe the wheel as essentially a crossbar wheel, which is also the description of it by others to this day. Note: in case you don't know, crossbar wheels are said to be the precursor to the spoked wheel.
The above and following excerpted paras confirm a longstanding presence/local development of cross-bar wheels in the Near East, i.e. all 3rd millennia BCE.)
Childe examined in detail the evidence for wheel forms in Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC when they were not only commonly shown on baked clay or metal model chariots, on cylinder seals, mosaic panels and monuments, but actual chariots or wagons were placed in graves at Ur and Kish in Iraq and at Susa in Iran. Indeed it is some well preserved wheels from Susa which provide a vital clue to the actual form of the wheel rendered on the Hissar cylinder seal.
All this argument above by Moorey was only to claim that the Tepe Hissar IIIb seal must therefore likewise be depicting a crossbar wheel and not a spoked one as others of the period in the Near East. But the above shows that non-IE Susa (Iran) and non-IE Mesopotamia in 3rd mill BCE had not only matching crossbar wheels in use, but chariots/wagons as part of graves. Note 3rd mill BCE is too early for Sintashta, which is almost just around start of 2nd mill BCE, and for which the claim was first "chariots" on steppe and which (from Izbitsen) showed the first instance of 2 wheeled vehicles on the steppe. What this means is that 2350 BCE for crossbar wheeled chariots in Iran (and matching connections in likewise non-IE Mesopotamia - where Indian-specific aDNA was detected in long continuation - and Susa in Iran) showed that crossbar wheels - for chariots, whether true or not is irrelevant to this particular point - was in use before steppe kulturs. So Steppe MLBA did not invent true chariots or crossbar wheeled chariots either (not to mention the solid disk wheeled kind): the development of that was already done and demonstrated in the Near East, whereas 2 wheelers only suddenly appeared on the steppe from Sintashta onwards.
Summary:
- So Sintashta did not only not invent spoked wheel chariots (true chariots) - as their spoked 2-wheelers were at best carts (even for that you'd have to imagine the entire vehicle past the wheel imprints) but certainly not chariots - Sintashta didn't invent chariots of any type: e.g. the precursors of spoked wheel chariots (i.e. solid wheeled and then crossbar wheeled chariots), which the Near East had centuries before Sintashta even existed. (It was of course never claimed that Sintashta invented the solid wheeled or crossbar wheeled chariots, as these things existed outside the steppe before Sintashta ever existed, but still, it's always worth mentioning how they had no chariots of any kind.)
- And no steppe kultur had 2 wheelers (hence also precluding any attempts at chariots) before Sintashta. Confirmed also by archaeologist Izbitsen's work - discussed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - which found that the steppe had no tradition of 2 wheelers (i.e. steppe kulturs showed no sign of 2 wheeler development) until Sintashta culture (c.2100-1800 BCE) which magically appeared with its falsified chariots which turn out to have been specifically NOT chariots and therefore just carts at best.