Is Rigvedic “Ratha” Primarily a “Wheeled Vehicle” or a “Spoked-Wheel
Chariot”?
Shrikant G. Talageri
“Ratha” (along with perhaps the word “samudra”) is the
most misinterpreted –
and deliberately and calculatedly misinterpreted − single word in the
Rigveda in the context of historical interpretation of the text. It is very
regularly depicted as automatically and specifically meaning a spoked-wheel
chariot. That it most typically (but not absolutely always)
refers to a spoked-wheel chariot in post-Rigvedic
texts is certain. But does it also inevitably refer to a spoked-wheel
chariot in the Rigveda also?
For example, a question “specific meaning of ‘ratha’ in the Rigveda”
on Google gives us the Google AI Overview answer:
“In the Rigveda, ratha primarily means a swift,
light, two-wheeled chariot pulled by horses, built for
war, elite travel, and the transport of deities…
War Vehicle: It was the premier vehicle
of Vedic chieftains and gods (like Indra and the Ashvins), distinct from the
heavier, four-wheeled ox cart (anas). [1,
2, 3, 4]
Craftsmanship: Rigvedic hymns praise the ratha as an
engineering marvel meticulously fashioned by skilled carpenters (rbhus),
featuring spoked wheels, a wooden frame, and a central axle.”
A question “Avestan words for “spokes’ of spoked
wheels” gives us a Google AI Overview answer which includes the following
gratuitous statement:
“The term raθa- is
specifically significant because it identifies a vehicle with spoked wheels,
distinguishing it from older, heavy solid-wheeled carts.”
And
in every historical interpretation of the text, and especially in debates and
discussions, it is firmly assumed that ratha refers to a spoked-wheel
chariot:
"those familiar with Indo-European linguistic paleontology and
with the archeological evidence in Eurasia agree that the use of the
domesticated horse spread out of the steppes of the Ukraine, and so did the
horse-drawn two- wheeled battle chariot…these features spread into India along
with the migration of Indo-Aryan speakers." (HOCK 1999a:12-13).
"linguistic and textual studies confirm the presence of an outside,
Indo-Aryan speaking element, whose language and spiritual culture has
definitely been introduced, along with the horse and the spoked wheel
chariot, via the BMAC area into northwestern South Asia" (WITZEL 2000a:§15)
Is
this interpretation valid or likely? Strongly though vested interests in the
field of academic study will insist that the word in the Rigveda
inevitably refers to a spoked-wheel chariot, such a view is utterly
untenable and it is time this is made clear on the basis of
the data and evidence. Of course, the strongly entrenched academic lobbies will
still continue to insist on their wrong interpretation, but it should be on
record once and for all that that interpretation goes against the data
and evidence.
The basic rule
for the interpretation of any word in the Rigveda is that it must fit into two
frames or paradigms:
1. The frame of cognate words in other Indo-European
languages.
2. The frame of its occurrences in the Rigveda and the context
of the occurrences of fundamentally related words within
the Rigveda.
It will be seen that the data in every respect makes it clear that ratha
originally meant only “wheeled vehicle” and later, after the invention
and innovation of spoked wheels, the name increasingly came to be
applied to this new type of vehicle that had spoked wheels.
We will examine the data and evidence as follows:
I. The wheeled-vehicle-dominant culture of the Rigveda.
II. The PIE wheeled-vehicle heritage.
III. The Archaeological Harappan Record of Wheeled Vehicles.
IV. “Wheeled Vehicles” or “Spoked-Wheel Vehicles”?
I. The wheeled-vehicle-dominant culture of the Rigveda
The following is the distribution of the word ratha and its
derivatives in the Rigveda:
Ratha in the
Rigveda (in 408 hymns, 704 verses):
I. 6.2; 9.8; 11.1;
13.4; 14.12; 16.2; 20.3; 22.2,4; 25.3,18;
30.16,18,19; 34.2,5,7,9,10,12; 35.2,4,5,6; 36.18; 37.1;
38.12; 39.6; 44.2; 46.3,7,8; 47.2,3,6,7,9; 48.3,7,10;
49.2; 50.8,9; 51.12,14; 52.1; 53.9; 54.3,6;
55.7; 56.1; 58.3; 61.4; 64.9; 66.6; 70.7;
71.6; 74.7; 77.3; 82.4; 84.3,6; 85.4,5;
87.2; 88.1,2; 92.16; 94.1,8,10,11; 100.10,16;
102.3,5,9; 106.1-6; 108.1; 111.1,3; 112.2,12,22;
113.14; 116.1,4,17,18,20; 117.2,13,15; 118.1-5,10; 119.1,2,3,5,7;
120.10,11; 121.14; 122.7,8,11,15; 123.1,5,7; 125.3;
126.4; 129.1,10; 130.5,6; 134.1,3; 135.4; 139.3,4;
140.1,12; 141.8,12; 144.3; 148.3; 157.1,2,3,6;
158.6; 161.3,6,7; 163.8; 164.2,3,25; 166.5,9;
167.5; 173.4,5; 175.3; 177.2,3; 178.3; 180.1,4,9,10;
181.3; 182.1,2; 183.2,3; 186.8; 187.10 (in
86 hymns, 168 verses).
II. 2.3; 4.4,6; 8.1;
10.2; 12.7,8; 15.4; 16.3,6; 17.3; 18.1,3,5,7;
19.6; 20.1; 23.3,13; 24.15; 27.12,16; 29.4;
31.1,2,3,4,7; 34.7,8; 37.5; 39.2; 40.3; 41.1
(in 21 hymns, 34 verses).
III. 1.17; 2.1,8,15; 3.5,6;
4.11; 6.8,9; 11.5; 14.1,7; 15.5; 26.1;
30.11; 31.20; 33.2,9,10; 35.1,2,4; 36.6; 41.9;
44.1; 45.2; 49.4; 53.1,5,6; 54.13; 58.3,8,9;
60.4; 61.2 (in 23 hymns, 35 verses).
IV. 1.3,8; 2.4,14; 4.8,10;
9.8; 10.2; 14.1,3,4; 15.2; 16.11,20,21; 17.21;
19.5,11; 20.11; 21.11; 22.11; 23.11; 24.11;
30.18; 31.14; 33.8; 36.1,2; 37.4; 38.3,6;
41.10; 43.2,5; 44.1,2,4,5; 45.1,2,3,7; 46.2,4,5;
47.3; 48.1-5; 56.4 (in 29 hymns, 52
verses).
V. 1.11; 2.11; 5.3;
10.5; 11.2; 17.4; 18.3; 29.9,15; 30.1,4,5;
31.9,11; 33.3,5; 35.5,7,8; 36.3,5,6; 37.3; 41.3,6;
43.5,8; 50.5; 52.9; 53.2,4,5,10; 54.11,13; 55.1-9;
56.6-9; 57.1,2,6,7; 58.6; 60.1,2,4; 61.12,13,17-19;
63.1,5,7; 66.3; 73.3,5,10; 74.3,8; 75.1,4,5,9;
76.1; 77.3; 79.2; 80.2; 83.3,7; 86.4;
87.8 (in 38 hymns, 81 verses).
VI. 5.3; 7.2; 18.9;
20.5; 21.1; 22.5; 26.4; 27.8; 29.2; 31.5;
34.2; 35.1; 37.1,3; 44.19,24; 45.14,15; 46.2;
47.19,24,27,28,31; 48.9; 49.4,5,15; 51.6,9; 53.1;
55.1,2,6; 56.2,3; 57,6; 59.5; 61.13; 62.2,7,10;
63.5,7; 65.2; 66.7; 68.10; 75.6-8 (in
32 hymns, 50 verses).
VII. 2.5,11; 5.5; 7.4;
11.1; 18.22; 21.3; 23.3; 27.5; 32.2,10,11;
34.1; 36.4; 37.1; 39.1; 41.6; 44.4; 48.1;
56.21; 66.12,15; 67.1,3,8; 68.3; 69.1,3,5; 71.2-4;
72.1,2; 74.2,6; 75.6; 77.5; 78.1,4; 90.5;
91.5; 95.1 (in 30 hymns, 42 verses).
VIII. 1.24,25,31,32; 2.35;
3.15; 4.9,13; 5.2,10.19,22,28,34,35; 7.17,28; 8.2,10,11,14;
9.8,12,18; 10.6; 11.2; 12.3; 13.23,31; 19.8,35;
20.8,10,12; 22.1,4,5,9,15; 23.2; 25.2,22; 26.1,4,20,23;
31.3,15; 33.4,11,14,18; 35.22; 38.2; 44.27; 45.7,9,39;
46.10,24; 47.5; 48.5; 50.8; 56.5; 57.1;
58.3; 61.12; 65.4; 68.1,4,13,16; 69.15,16; 70.1;
72.6; 73.1,2,13; 74.10,14; 75.1; 80.4-6; 83.3;
84.1; 85.7,8; 91.7; 94.1; 95.1; 98.9;
99.7; 101.2; 103.7,10 (in 50 hymns, 93
verses).
IX. 3.5; 10.1,2; 15.1;
16.2; 21.4,6; 22.1; 36.1; 38.1; 53.2;
62.17; 64.10; 66.26; 67.17; 69.9; 71.5;
75.1; 76.2; 78.4; 83.5; 86.2,40,45; 87.9;
88.2; 89.4; 90.1; 91.1; 92.1; 93.4; 94.3;
96.1,2; 97.6,27,37,46,48,49,50; 98.2; 103.5; 107.13;
111.3; 112.4 (in 35 hymns, 46 verses).
X. 1.5; 4.6; 6.3;
10.7,8; 11.9; 12.9; 15.10; 17.8; 23.1,3;
26.1,5,8,9; 29.2,8; 33.5; 35.6; 37.3; 39.1,4,7,11,12,14;
40.1,5,6; 41.1,2; 44.2; 47.5; 49.6; 51.6;
53.7; 59.1; 60.2,5; 63.4,14; 64.5,7,10,12; 70.3,5;
75.6,8,9; 76.7; 77.8; 78.4,5; 84.1; 85.26;
89.2; 91.7; 92.1; 93.7; 95.8; 96.6,12;
98.4,9,10; 99.4; 101.7; 102.1-3,6,11; 103.4,5,10;
106.11; 107.11; 112.2; 114.6,10; 117.5; 119.3;
130.7; 132.4,7; 133.1; 135.3-5; 138.3; 142.5;
143.1; 148.3; 160.1; 168.1,2; 171.1; 176.3;
178.1; 181.1 (in 64 hymns, 103 verses).
It will be seen
that ratha is very prominently mentioned throughout
every part of every single Book of the Rigveda, in a manner which
leaves no doubt that throughout the entire Rigvedic period, a/the wheeled
vehicle known as ratha was an intrinsic part of the Rigvedic
ethos.
The important
question is whether this word ratha refers merely to a wheeled
vehicle or to spoked-wheeled vehicles, and we will examine
that point after seeing the complete data on the subject.
II. The PIE wheeled-vehicle heritage
An interesting article on this subject by Lubotsky indirectly
gives us the Four Stages of Development of Indo-European wheeled-Vehicle
Terminology:
https://www.academia.edu/106978888/Indo_European_and_Indo_Iranian_Wagon_Terminology_and_the_Date_of_the_Indo_Iranian_Split
Stage 1: Before the Anatolian Split:
He points out,
after giving all the data, that the data is “compatible with the idea that the
Anatolians split off from the rest of the Indo-Europeans before the invention
of the wheel.”, since “Anatolian attests only the terms for
the yoke (Hitt. iūk-), for the pole (Hitt. ḫišša-), and for the connection of
the two (Skt. dhúr- ‘joint of the pole and the yoke’,Hitt.tūrii̯e/a- zi ‘to
harness’). These terms, however, could also refer to the construction of
sleighs or plows”.
The Anatolian
branch is known to be the first branch to have split from the other 11 IE
branches, Therefore according to Lubotsky, the data here indicates the
earliest stage before this split where the wheel (or wheeled vehicle)
was not yet invented.
Stage II: After the Anatolian Split:
Lubotsky gives a list of reconstructed “Wheel
and Wagon Words” in Proto-Indo-European:
“We can
reconstruct five words of wheel and wagon terminology for Proto-Indo-European
(PIE), viz. the words for ‘wheel’ (2×), ‘axle’, ‘thill’, and the verb ‘to
convey in a vehicle’:
1. – PIE
*kʷekʷlo- ‘wheel’ (Skt. cakrá-, YAv. caxra-, ON hvél, Gr. κύκλος; Toch.
B kokale ‘wagon’);
2. – PIE
*HrotHo- ‘wheel’ (Lat. rota, OIr. roth, OHG rad, Lith. rãtas ‘wheel’, rataĩ pl.
‘chariot’; Skt. rátha- and YAv. raϑa- ‘chariot’);
3. – PIE *h 2
eḱs- ‘axle’ (Skt. ákṣa-, Gr. ἄξων, Lat. axis, OE eax);
4. – PIE *h 2
eiHs- ‘pole, thill’ (Skt. īṣā́-, YAv. aēša, Hitt. ḫišša-, Sln. oję̑ ,
Lith. íena; Gr. οἴαξ ‘handle’);
5. – PIE
*ueǵʰ- ‘to convey in a vehicle’ (Skt. vah-, Av. vaz-, Gr. (Pamph.) ϝεχέτω,
Lat. uehō, Lith. vežù, OCS vezǫ; OHG wegan ‘to move’).
This list can
be extended with at least five more terms:
1. – PIE *iug-
‘yoke’ (Skt. yugá-, YAv. yuua-, Hitt. iūk-, Gr. ζυγόν, Lat. iugum, OS
juk, OCS igo);
2. – PIE
*ieug- ‘to yoke, harness’ (Skt. yuj-, Av. yuj-, Gr. ζεύγνῡμι, Lat.
iungō, Lith. jùngti);
3. – PIE
*dʰur- ‘joint, pivot of the chariot pole and the yoke’ (Skt. dhúr-
‘joint of the chariot pole and the yoke, the pole and the yoke together’, Hitt.
tūrii̯e/a- zi ‘to harness’), possibly identical with the word for ‘door’, if it
originally meant ‘pivot’;
4. – PIE *h 3
nebʰ- ‘wheel hub’ (Skt. nábhya-, OPr. nabis, OHG naba);
5. – PIE *ḱomieh
2 - ‘yoke pin’ (Skt. śámyā-, YAv. simā-, Arm. samik’ ‘pair of yoke
sticks’, sametik’ ‘yoke band’ (unless an Iranian LW), Eng. hame ‘horse collar’,
which has replaced the yoke with the pins rather recently)”.
If we analyze the
occurrence of his ten words in the 12 branches of Indo-European
languages, we get the following statistics
Indo-Aryan 10: 5+5
Iranian 7: 4+3
Greek 6: 4+2
Germanic 6: 4+2
Baltic 5: 3+2
Italic 5: 3+2
Hittite 4: 2+2
Slavic 3: 2+1
Celtic 1: 1+0
Tocharian 1: 1+0
Armenian 1: 0+1
Albanian 0: 0+0
It need hardly be
pointed out that every single one of the 10 reconstructed words
is found only in “Indo-Aryan”/Vedic Sanskrit but
not in any one of the other 11 branches. This is a strong indicator of the fact
that “Indo-Aryan”/ Vedic Sanskrit alone
represents the fullest extent of the common PIE heritage [a
phenomenon I have also pointed out elsewhere in respect of the common
reconstructed “pastoral”/dairy PIE vocabulary. And this does
not fit in at all within the AIT paradigm but fits in completely within
the OIT paradigm.]
Stage
III: After the Split Between “Indo-Iranian” and the Other Branches:
Lubotsky points out from the data that Indo-Aryan
and Iranian share an even deeper commonality in development of Wheeled
Vehicle Terminology after the split between these two
branches and all the other branches.
[By AIT
logic, this was after the “Indo-Iranians” split from the other branches
in the Steppe area, and migrated eastwards towards Central
Asia. By OIT logic, this was after all the other branches had
migrated westwards from NW India, and only Indo-Aryan
and Iranian continued to remain as neighbors and develop in contact with
each other in the original area].
It will be seen
that while the PIE **HrotHo- simply means “wheel” in the other
branches where the word is found (in Italic, Celtic, Germanic
and Baltic), it does not mean “wheel” anywhere in the Rigveda
or Avesta: everywhere in these two texts it means only “wheeled
vehicle”. [In Baltic Lithuanian, the word in the
plural refers to a wheeled vehicle, but this is a colloquial
use found for example even in modern English (“my wheels”
means “my car/vehicle”)]
Further, Lubotsky
points out that there are important common derived words (derived from ratha),
as well as new words developed in common, only in Indo-Aryan
and Iranian:
Skt. rathī́-,
OAv. raiϑī-
Skt. ráthya-,
OAv. raiϑiia-
Skt. rathe-ṣṭhā́-,
YAv. raϑaē-štā-
Skt. yóktra-
‘thong, yoking cord’, YAv. yaoxəδra- ‘halter, bridle’
Skt. abhidhā́nī-
‘horse halter’, YAv. zaraniiō. aiβiδāna- ‘with a golden bridle’
Skt. yā-
‘to drive’, Av. yāman- ‘course’
Skt. avasā́na-
‘resting-place of horses’, OAv. auuaŋhāna- ‘resting-place of horses’
In the context of
one of the above words (found late in both textual traditions: in the Atharvaveda
and the Young Avesta respectively), Lubotsky notes that “*Habʰi-dʰaH-,
literally ‘to put on or against’, is specifically used for bridling or haltering
horses, which may indicate a new technology”
D.
Stage IV: After the Split (or Loss of Cognate Contact) Between Indo-Aryan and
Iranian:
But then we come
to the field of Spoked Wheel technology, and here we see that Indo-Aryan
terminological development continues, but these developments is not
shared by Iranian. A question (referred to earlier above) “Avestan
words for “spokes’ of spoked wheels”
gives us the following Google Overview reply:
“There is no directly attested word for "spoke" in the
Avestan language. While Avestan shares a deep heritage with Old Indic (Vedic
Sanskrit), it provides far fewer technical terms for chariot parts….”
Lubotsky, in the above article, clearly
points out:
“it is
conspicuous that we cannot reconstruct the PIIr. terminology for certain parts
of the chariot, especially for its most essential part, the spoked wheel
(including ‘spoke’, ‘felly’, ‘rim’). This may partly be due to the paucity of
Old and Middle Iranian texts, but the fact is that Skt. ará- ‘spoke of a
wheel’, nemí- ‘rim (of a wheel)’, and paví- ‘metal felly (of a wheel)’ have no
Iranian counterparts”.
These then are the
four clear stages of development of Indo-European wheeled vehicle
terminology. Only a dogged refusal to accept the facts and data can lead
to any conclusion other than that these stages all developed within India.
III. The Archaeological Harappan Record of Wheeled
Vehicles
But where in India does one find archaeological evidence of this kind
of prolific wheeled vehicle culture?
The subject has been dealt with in detail by the eminent archaeologist
Mark Kenoyer:
https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer2004_Wheeled%20Vehicles%20of%20the%20Indus%20Valley%20Civilizatio.pdf
Just as the Rigveda gives textual details of an
extremely wheeled-vehicle-filled culture, the Harappan
sites give archaeological proof of an extremely wheeled-vehicle-filled
culture. Kenoyer points out in detail in the paper:
1. The evidence for a very wide range of wheeled vehicles
in the Harappan sites:
“Due to the
fact that wood remains are not well preserved from Indus sites and there are no
graphic depictions of carts, most evidence for wheeled vehicles comes from
terracotta and bronze model carts and wheels dating to the Harappan Phase,
circa 2600-1900 BCE and rare examples of streets with cart tracks (Dales and
Kenoyer 1991:Fig.13.41; Wheeler 1947: 85, Plate XXXIX; Wheeler 1968:82-83, 92).
Terracotta model yokes similar to modem neck yokes have been found at the site
of Nausharo from the Harappa Phase occupations(Period ill) and indicate the use
of two bullocks for traction, but it is not clear if these yokes were used for
pulling carts or agricultural implements O. F. Jarrige 1994 personal
communication)”
He points ou that there is “evidence
of both heavy and light wheeled vehicles pulled by bullocks that were
discovered at sites such as Mohenjo--Daro, Harappa and Chanhu-daro (Figure 1)
over 1000 years earlier than the evidence for horse drawn chariots.”
These show “The
long continuity in cart designs of the Indus Valley and the fact that many
different types of bullock cart continue to be used even today in Pakistan
and India indicate that the original styles of cart were quite effective and
that the early designers were able to produce a form that came to be improved
upon only with the introduction of ball-bearing axles and rubber tires”
"wide range of cart
types", "diversity in carts and wheels, including
depictions of what may be spoked wheels"
“most scholars
assume all wheels of the Indus valley were made in this manner. In fact most of
the painted motifs consist of diagonal bands that cut across the outer hub face
of the wheels and may indicate a type of hollow wall design, a spoked wheel
or a composite wheel.”
About "the lighter form of cart…some of them are quite small
and may represent vehicles that were used by a single rider for racing
or fast transport".
“there is
considerable evidence for small light vehicles drawn by two animals or jori and
numerous examples have been discovered at Harappa (Figure 6:12).”
“Perhaps the
most convincing example of a spoked wheel comes from the site of Rahkigarhi,
presumably from the Harappan levels (Figure 8:2) though the excavation report
has not yet been published. In this example there are eleven radiating spokes
that would have provided considerable support to a light outer rim.”
“Excavations
at Harappa have recorded almost 2800 terracotta cart fragments from the Harappa
Phase occupation levels, which for the purpose of this paper have been grouped
into eight major categories identified by type numbers (520, 530, etc.)
assigned for artifact tabulation (Table 3), with short descriptions of each
artifact provided in the figure captions.” [The article describes
these different categories]
"The diversity of model carts …is quite significant…it is unclear
why scholars have ignored the complexity and specialization of Indus transport"
2. The evidence for both the antiquity and the purely
indigenous development of wheeled-vehicle technology in the Harappan sites:
"The earliest wheeled vehicles were developed in an alluvial
plane, but it was in the Indus Valley itself rather than in Central Asia.
At Harappa we find evidence for the use of terracotta carts as early as 3500
BC during the Ravi phase"
During the "(Harappa phase 2600-1900 BC) there was a dramatic
increase in terracotta cart and wheel types…including depictions of what may be
spoked wheels"
"The unique forms and the early appearance of carts…suggest
that they are the result of indigenous development and not diffusion from
West Asia or Central Asia as proposed by earlier scholars". And
again, they are "the result of indigenous processes and not the result
of diffusion from mountainous regions to the west"
On the use of carts in the Harappan sites: “Wheeled carts would have been
useful for the movement of mud brick and timber to the settlement for
construction purposes. While carts may have been the easiest method for
transporting bulk materials for short distances across the plains, the lack of
roads and bridges would have made it difficult to move goods for any great
distance. Long distance trade during this early period was probably carried out
along the rivers, using rafts or wooden boats to move larger weights of heavy
goods down river to major settlements.”
The Harappan sites show the use of a large number of materials
brought from afar: “materials
being brought from distant resource areas far from the alluvial plain.”
“Current
studies of the raw materials from the Ravi Phase at Harappa by Law (Law 2003)
indicate that some of the ground stone may have come from the Suleiman range,
some 300 kilometers to the west and south while other rocks derive from the Kirana
Hills 100 kIn to the north - northwest of Harappa.”
“Using a
modern cart and a pair of bullocks for comparison, an early hollow frame cart
could have carried around 50 maunds or 1870 kilos (4114Ibs) which would be the
equivalent of around 470 grinding stones or around 270 average sized mud bricks
(7.5 x 15 x 30 em, dry weight 7 kg) used in the construction of house walls. Needless
to say, the use of a bullock cart would have dramatically changed the amount of
stone, mud brick or wood that could be carried for short distances across the
plain. It is not unlikely that the increasing need for these commodities and
the need for human transport may have been an important stimulus for the
invention and development of specific types of wheeled carts that were
introduced in the next major phase at the site. Early Harappan, Kot Diji
Phase Carts and Wheels (2800-2600 BC) As settlements in the alluvium grew
larger it is not surprising to see the emergence of more efficient technologies
for transport of heavy and bulk commodities. Larger populations would have
stimulated the demand for basic raw materials, tools and commodities, as well
as for high value items from distant areas.”
In conclusion, he notes: “Considerable
research still needs to be undertaken on the regional styles of carts and
wheels in the Indus valley region, especially during the Ravi and Kot Dijian
Phases of the Early Harappan period. On the basis of initial results from the
analysis at Harappa, the process of bullock cart development in the Indus
valley appears to be the result of indigenous invention rather than the
diffusion of a technology from other regions. During the course of the Harappan
period, the wide diversity of cart types may have been stimulated in part by
exposure to different cultural traditions as well as continued local elaboration
of an important form of transportation. However, the evidence for trade
contacts between the Indus Valley and adjacent regions, such as Mesopotamia and
Oman, as well as Central Asia, make it necessary to begin new research on the
use of carts and wheels in these regions to determine the extent of cultural
borrowing as well as the directionality of any movement of vehicular
technology. The presence of an Indus style cart motif on a pot from Inamgaon
and the model bronze II chariot" at Daimabad raise important questions
about technological diffusion, replacement and synthesis that will have to
await more detailed archaeological study.”
To summarize the main points of the evidence:
1. Wheeled Vehicle Technology is found in the Harappan
civilization from at least 3500 BCE at least.
2. The development of wheeled vehicle types was a completely
indigenous development and not borrowed from outside.
3. The wheeled vehicle types exhibit an amazingly wide range and
variety.
4. There are clear indications that various stages of spoked-wheel
technology are also present within that range.
IV. “Wheeled Vehicles” or
“Spoked-Wheel Vehicles”?
And now we come to the crucial question: does the ratha
of the Rigveda refer to (solid) wheeled vehicles or
to spoked-wheeled vehicles?
This has two aspects:
A. Why is this Important?
B. What does the Evidence Show?
IV.A. Why is this Important?
This is important from the historical point of
view because it helps us to date the Rigveda as a whole. Spoked
wheels were invented in the late third millennium BCE (2300-2000
or so). If the word ratha in the Rigveda refers to (solid)
wheeled vehicles, then the Rigveda is pre-2300
BCE, and if the word ratha in the Rigveda refers to spoked
wheeled vehicles, then the Rigveda is post-2300
BCE.
According to the AIT or Aryan Invasion
Theory, the “Aryans” entered the northwesternmost parts of India after
2000 BCE, and composed the Rigveda much later (1500-1200
BCE or so). If this is to be true, then the Rigveda must be shown
to be a completely post-spoked-wheel text and the word ratha
in the Rigveda must refer to spoked-wheeled-vehicles.
If however the Rigveda is a pre-2300 BCE text,
then the Rigveda cannot refer to spoked wheels. To
maintain the AIT, it is vital and necessary to insist that the word ratha
in the Rigveda primarily or exclusively refers to spoked-wheeled-vehicles.
Hence all the quotes given earlier in this article, for example:
1. “the use of the domesticated horse
spread out of the steppes of the Ukraine, and so did the horse-drawn
two-wheeled battle chariot…these features spread into India along with the
migration of Indo-Aryan speakers." (HOCK 1999a:12-13).
2. “linguistic and textual studies confirm the presence of an outside,
Indo-Aryan speaking element, whose language and spiritual culture has
definitely been introduced, along with the horse and the spoked wheel
chariot, via the BMAC area into northwestern South Asia" (WITZEL 2000a:§15).
Note that these scholars do not even blink when
pushing the juvenile idea that “Aryans” marched all the way from the
Ukraine to northwestern India area, over all kinds of
mountainous terrains, riding “spoked two-wheeled battle chariots”.
The third alternative, ignored by both sides (the AIT
writers who date the Rigveda as a whole to post-1500
BCE; as well as the anti-AIT writers who date the Rigveda
as a whole to pre-3000 BCE), is that the
Rigveda is a text whose composition spanned hundreds of years (from pre-3000
BCE to 1500 BCE), and that the hymns in it therefore
belong to two distinct eras, the pre-spoked-wheel era
as well as the post-spoked-wheel era. And this
is the exact picture shown by the data and evidence in the text, as we
will see.
IV.B. What does the Evidence Show?
Before examining the evidence in the Rigveda,
let us examine two juvenile ideas on the basis of which the AIT writers
classify the Rigvedic word ratha as a “light spoked
two-wheeled battle chariot” which is “distinct from the heavier, four-(solid)-wheeled
ox cart (anas)”:
1. The juvenile idea that a “battle-chariot”
has to be a “light spoked two-wheeled chariot”:
The history of battle-chariots, if we
examine the case of Sumer, shows that originally they were originally heavier,
four-(solid)-wheeled ox or onager carts,
A
question on Google: “Did Sumerians Have war Chariots” gives the answer:
“Yes, the
Sumerians used early heavy battle carts or four-wheeled war wagons that
functioned as precursors to the classic war chariot. [1, 2]
Design and
Structure
Four solid wheels: Unlike
later two-wheeled chariots, these early vehicles featured four heavy, solid
wooden disk wheels mounted on two axles. [1, 2]
Drawn by equids: Because
true horses were not yet tamed or used in Sumer at that time, the carts were
pulled by teams of onagers (wild asses) or kunga (a
hybrid of a donkey and a Syrian wild onager). [1, 2, 3]
Crew and protection: They
typically carried a driver and a fighter—often a spearmen or javelin
thrower—sheltered behind a solid, high protective front shield decorated with
paneling.
[1, 2, 3]
Battlefield
Role
Cumbersome movement: Due to
their heavy weight and solid wheels, these battle wagons were slow to turn and
accelerate, making them less agile than later designs. [1, 2]
Mobile platforms: Rather
than functioning as fast shock-attack cavalry, they served as mobile command
platforms and elevated striking stations to hurl javelins or trample enemy
infantry.
[1, 2, 3]
Status symbol: Famous depictions, such as the
war panel on the Standard
of Ur, show that these expensive and prestigious vehicles were
reserved for elite warriors and leaders. [1, 2, 3]”
A
question on Google: “Did ancient Mesopotamia have solid wheel vehicles or
spoked wheel vehicles” gives the answer:
“Ancient
Mesopotamian vehicles initially used solid wheels, and only later adopted spoked wheels. [1, 2]
Solid Wheels
(3500–2000 BCE)
The earliest wheeled carts in ancient Mesopotamia used solid wooden discs. Craftsmen made these heavy
wheels by fastening wooden planks together. Early military wagons and transport
carts depicted in Sumerian art (such as the Standard of Ur) relied on these
sturdy, solid designs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Spoked Wheels
(After 2000 BCE)
Lighter spoked wheels appeared around 2000 BCE.
These newer wheels replaced heavy wooden blocks with wooden
spokes.
This lighter design allowed for faster, more nimble chariots
used in travel and warfare
Another
question on Google “Did ancient China have solid wheel vehicles or spoked wheel
vehicles” gives the answer:
“Ancient China used spoked wheel vehicles, most notably for their
famous war chariots starting from the Shang dynasty around 1200 BCE.”
Another
similar question: “When did ancient Egypt first use spoked wheel vehicles”
gives the answer:
“Ancient Egypt first used spoked wheel vehicles around 1700 BCE at the end of the
Seventeenth Dynasty or the start of the Eighteenth Dynasty.”
So
all these ancient civilizations originally had solid-wheel vehicles,
which developed into spoked-wheel vehicles after
2000 BCE after the diffusion of spoked-wheel
technology. But these civilizations, especially Mesopotamia
(including Sumer) already had full-fledged war-chariot technology
involving heavier solid-wheel (four-wheeled)
chariots. That the new technology led to much faster, lighter and more
efficient vehicles does not negate the fact that war-chariotry in
full form existed even in the pre-spoked-wheel era.
Where did spoked-wheels
originate, and from where did this all-round diffusion
take place after 2000 BCE? It was from the “Indo-Aryan”
Vedic area: the “Mitanni Indo-Aryans” took spoked-wheel
technology to West Asia to begin with. The evidence of the
common PIE wheeled-vehicle terminology and
the ratha-rich hymns and verses of the Rigveda, already
detailed above, make it clear that spoked-wheels originated in
the Vedic period and area
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/evidence-for-oit-beyond-mitanni.html
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/03/the-finality-of-mitanni-evidence.html
The
claim that spoked-wheels were invented in the Sintashta culture also
falls flat since it will be clear that spoked wheels were already
present in India before 2000 BCE. The Mitanni-driven
westward export of spoked-wheel technology diffused to the
Sintashta culture also, whence it spread westwards into Europe:
A question “earliest
evidence of spoked wheel chariots in Greece and Europe” on Google gives the answer:
“The earliest
evidence of spoked-wheel chariots in wider Europe dates back to around
2000–1900 BC with the Sintashta
culture
in the Russian steppes and Urals, while in Greece, they arrived and appeared in
Mycenaean contexts by around 1500 BC. [1, 2]
Europe Origins
Sintashta Culture (c. 1950–1880 BC): The
oldest physical remains of true, light, horse-drawn spoked-wheel chariots were
discovered in grave burials of the Sintashta culture in the Chelyabinsk Oblast
region of Russia.
[1]
Central/Eastern Europe (c. 2000 BC): Spoked
wheels emerged as a revolutionary upgrade from heavy solid or cross-bar wooden
disk wheels, spreading across the Eurasian steppes and into Central/Eastern Europe. [1, 2]
Early Depictions (c. 2500–2000 BC): Ceramic
models and indirect artistic fragments suggest proto-chariot concepts or wagon
developments were moving through Eastern and Central Europe (such as the Baden
or Budakalász cultures) around the early-to-mid 2nd and late 3rd millennium BC.”
2. The juvenile idea that
“ratha’ means “two-wheeled chariot”:
The
AIT writers insist that “The
term raθa- is specifically significant because it identifies a
vehicle with spoked wheels, distinguishing it from older, heavy solid-wheeled
carts.”
Within
the Rigveda, they insist that it “designates a
two-wheeled, spoked-wheel vehicle or chariot, distinct from the heavier,
solid-wheeled anas (cart)”.
As
to the first point,
there is nothing whatsoever either in the IE data or in the Rigveda
itself to indicate that ratha means “a
vehicle with spoked wheels, distinguishing it from older, heavy solid-wheeled
cart”:
1.
The IE data, as we saw earlier, does not show the cognates
of ratha to mean even “wheeled vehicle” in the other IE
branches: Italic Latin rota, Baltic
Lithuanian rãtas, Celtic Old Irish roth and Germanic German
rad, all mean simply “wheel”. That it has progressed to
specifically mean only “wheeled vehicle” in Indo-Aryan and
Iranian is clear from the evidence (and the fact that Lithuanian plural rataĩ “wheels” can mean “wheeled
vehicle” is a pointer to this) but there is nothing in the IE
data to suggest that it could have progressed a few technological steps
further to mean only “spoked-wheeled vehicle” in the Rigveda and Avesta.
2.
Within the Rigveda, the word occurs uniformly throughout every part of
the text, as we have already seen. But not only is there no
reference in any ancient text which tells us even indirectly that ratha
means “‘vehicle with spoked wheels’,
but does not mean ‘heavy solid-wheeled cart’”.
It may be noted that the Sinauli
chariot (the only archaeologically testified wheeled vehicle
of very ancient times within India) has two solid unspoked
wheels.
Likewise, the thousands
of miniature clay and
metal cart models discovered at sites like Harappa
and Mohenjo-daro have two solid wheels
attached via an axle running through perforations on the underside of the cart
(often with a prominent central hub).
But
the most undeniable evidence lies in the fact that, to this very day,
the word ratha, most prominent in temple rathotsavas in respect
of temple rathas or chariots, refers primarily to solid-wheeled
chariots:
A question on Google, “do temple chariots in india necessarily have
spoked wheels?” gives the following Google Overview answer:
“No, temple
chariots (ratha or ther) in India do not necessarily have
spoked wheels.
[1]
While many
ceremonial processional cars and architectural stone replicas (such as the
famous spoked wheels at the Konark
Sun Temple)
feature intricate spoked designs, many massive, real-world wooden festival
chariots use heavy, solid wooden disk wheels to bear enormous weight safely. [1, 2, 3]
Wheel
Variations in Temple Chariots
Solid Wooden Wheels: Large
processional temple carts weighing several tons often utilize thick, solid
blocks or disks of wood. Solid wheels handle immense vertical loads without the
structural stress points found in traditional wooden spokes. [1]
Spoked Wheels: Many decorative, metallic, or
smaller ritual chariots—as well as stone chariot-themed
architecture—incorporate traditional spoked wheels to reflect classical or
mythological imagery associated with ancient Vedic rathas.”
So it is clear that the
interpretation of the word ratha as referring to “a
two-wheeled, spoked-wheel vehicle or chariot, distinct from the heavier,
solid-wheeled anas (cart)” not only
does not have any evidence to support it, it goes totally against
all the available evidence. And the only reason that interpretation is still
being enforced everywhere is because it is vital to the AIT.
As to the second point, we have already seen the
full-fledged references to the word ratha in every part of every Book of
the Rigveda; let us now see the references to “anas” which we are
asked to interpret as “cart as opposed to
ratha/chariot”:
II. 15.6 (the cart of
Dawn).
III. 33.9,10.
IV. 30.10,11 (the cart of
Dawn).
VIII. 91.7.
X. 59.10; 73.6 (the
cart of Dawn); 85.10,12 (the cart of Dawn); 86.18; 102.1; 138.5
(the cart of Dawn).
1.
The term anas is very sparsely found in the Rigveda, and it primarily
and regularly refers to the vehicle (i.e the Sun) of
Dawn rising in the sky, rather than to a cart: II.15.6;
IV.30.11; X.73.6; 85.10.12; 138.5.
The etymology is clear: anas is originally derived from
the same root an- ("to breathe", perhaps indicating the
first breath, or birth, of day) as is the later word anala
"fire", and anas represents the rising sun.
2. The only other place it appears in the Old Rigveda
in the sense of “cart” is in III.33.9,10. But in both the
verses, the composer finds it necessary to combine it with the word ratha
as “anasā rathā” to indicate that he is referring to a physical cart.
3. It means “cart” only in some of the references in
the New Rigveda: VIII.91.7; X.59.10; 86.18; 102.1.
Derivatives of the word are found only in the Redacted-Hymns/New-Rigveda
and/or the later Yajurveda and Atharvaveda:
anaḍuḥ : III.53.18 (+ 6 times in the Yajurveda
and Atharvaveda)
anaḍvān: − (20 times in the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda)
anaḍvāḥ: X.59.10; 85.10 (+ 10
times in the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda)
4. In one reference, the verse specifically mentions that
the “cart” (of Dawn) has two wheels.
By all rules of evolutionary logic, the spoked-wheeled
chariot evolved from and very much after the solid-wheeled
chariot. Here we are being asked to believe that the word ratha,
throughout its hundreds of occurrences in every part of the text, refers to a spoked-wheeled
chariot, and it is only in the latest part of the text that the
composers found it necessary to allocate a separate word (by converting
the meaning of an existing word meaning “the vehicle of Dawn”
to mean “cart”) to distinguish a “cart” from a “spoked-wheeled
chariot”!!
To emphasize the fact that the composers felt the need to
distinguish a “cart” from a “spoked-wheeled chariot”
only in the latest part of the text, the only other word in the Rigveda
actually meaning a “cart” as distinct from a “spoked-wheeled
chariot” is found only in Book 10:
śakaṭi: X.146.3.
All this clearly shows that the word ratha simply meant a
“wheeled vehicle” in the Rigveda until the very last part
of the Rigvedic Period (2200- 1500 BCE) when spoked
wheels were invented and spoked-wheeled vehicles
became so much more common a part of the Rigvedic culture that
words had to be coined to distinguish the old solid-wheeled
vehicle from the new spoked-wheeled vehicle
which had replaced the older vehicle in importance and name. If anas and
śakaṭi were old words, they would have been found throughout the Rigveda,
but then the word ratha (found throughout the Rigveda) originally
exclusively referred to the old solid-wheeled
vehicle before the new spoked-wheeled
vehicle was invented. Unless we are being asked to believe that there
was never a word for the old solid-wheeled vehicle
before the very last period of Rigvedic composition!
So finally we come to the actual solid evidence in the Rigveda
which shows that the hymns of the Rigveda span both the “wheeled-vehicle”
eras, i.e. that the hymns in the Rigveda belong to two
distinct eras, the pre-spoked-wheel era as well
as the post-spoked-wheel era:
I
have already shown in my article “FINAL VERSION OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL GULF BETWEEN THE OLD
RIGVEDA AND THE NEW RIGVEDA: [WITH THE THE HYMN-AND-VERSE WISE LIST OF NEW
WORDS AND OTHER NEW ELEMENTS IN THE RIGVEDA]” that the Rigveda consists of two distinct parts: an Old
Rigveda and a New Rigveda. [While the two terms (Old
Rigveda and New Rigveda) are mine, the division of the
hymns of the Rigveda under these two headings is based on the
classifications and analyses of prominent western AIT-supporting
scholars like Oldenberg, Witzel and Proferes, with plenty
of additional analysis by myself]:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html
As
we saw, the word ratha in the Rigveda is found sweepingly present
in every part of every Book of the Rigveda. This is because the word,
originally referring to solid-wheeled vehicles, came to
mean spoked-wheeled vehicles after these replaced the
earlier ones as primary war vehicles. But, since the word ratha
is found sweepingly present in every part of every Book of the Rigveda,
it is not possible to demarcate the exact dividing line between the two sets of
references.
But
when, instead of examining general vehicle words, we examine the
words which clearly demarcate this dividing line between the old era
to the new era, it becomes clear that the old era
represented solid-wheeled vehicles and the new era
represented spoked-wheeled vehicles.
And
it should be obvious that this cannot be done by examining the references to general
wheel parts but by examining the references to the specific
wheel part which represents the new spoked-wheeled
era: i.e. spokes.
Spokes (ara) are mentioned only in the New Rigveda:
V.13.6; 58.5.
I.32.15; 141.9; 164.11,12,13,48.
VIII.20.14; 77.3.
X.78.4.
The
transition from solid-wheeled vehicles
to spoked-wheeled vehicles must
definitely have resulted in noticeable changes in the Rigvedic culture.
This is noticeable in many aspects of culture, and I have pointed them out in
my above article (on the
CHRONOLOGICAL GULF BETWEEN THE OLD RIGVEDA AND THE NEW RIGVEDA). But there are also specific
changes directly to do with the change in vehicle type, in the
birth of new genres of personal name types in the spoked-wheeled
vehicle era.
Names with aśva and ratha appear among composer names
as well as in references within the hymns themselves in the Rigveda only
in the books of the New Rigveda, signifying a sudden sea-change in the
importance of horses and new technology chariots in the period of the New
Rigveda.
Names with aśva and ratha appear in the composer names
of the following hymns:
V.47, 52-61, 81-82 (13
hymns).
I.100 (1 hymn).
VIII. 14-15, 23-26,
35-38, 46 (11 hymns).
IX.32, 101 (2 hymns).
X.102,
103, 134 (3 hymns).
Likewise, names with aśva and ratha appear within the hymns
of the Rigveda only in the books of the New Rigveda (and in one Redacted
Hymn). They appear as follows:
IV.30.18 (Redacted Hymn).
V.27.4-6; 33.9; 36.6; 52.1; 61.5,10,18-19;
79.2 (6 hymns, 11 verses).
I.36.18; 100.16-17; 112.10,15; 116.6,16;
117.17,18; 122.7 (6 hymns, 10 verses).
VIII.1.30,32; 9.10; 23.16,23-24; 24.14,22-23,28-29;
26.9,11; 35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8; 46.21,23;
68.15,16 (11 hymns, 23 verses).
IX.65.7 (1 hymn, 1 verse).
X.49.6; 60.5; 61.21 (3 hymns, 3 verses).
It is
impossible to ignore, sidestep or stonewall the significance of these names
appearing only in the New Rigveda but completely absent in the Old
Rigveda..
The spoked-wheel chariot clearly originated after the different IE
branches had separated from each other, since there is no common word for
spokes in any two of the twelve branches.
Trippett puts it (in "The First Horsemen", Time-Life Books,
1974) as follows: "Just where the spoked-wheel originated no-one knows".
However, the Rigveda is the only text in the world which
clearly shows a distinction between two chronological periods, an earlier
period without spokes and a later period with spokes. Therefore, it is
clear that the spoked wheel was invented in the Rigvedic period
and within the Rigvedic geographical horizon, though not
necessarily by the Pūrus (Vedic people).
APPENDIX
ADDED 29 August 2026: EARLIEST EVIDENCE OF SPOKES:
A
reader sent me the following reference:
https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.88670/page/n4/mode/1up
It
is a pdf of an archaeological journal Purātattva of the Indian Archaeological
Society New Delhi: (Purātattva No. 36, 2005-2006) with particular
reference to an article in it by archaeologist L.S.Rao,
titled “The Harappan Spoked Wheels Rattled Down the Streets of Bhirrana,
Dist. Fatehabad, Haryana” (pp.59-67 in the journal).
The
article makes it clear that the excavations at Bhirrana have yielded
many specimens of toy carts with wheels having
clear presentations of painted spokes, and in some cases actually
have spokes represented in relief , which L.S.Rao
(not to be confused with the earlier Dr.S.R.Rao)
describes as follows: “Here lies the ingenious skill of Harappan craftsmen.
The technique involved herein is as simple as pressing of finger in a radial
fashion around the hub when clay was wet.This leaves behind a corrugated
surface on the outer face. The raised ridges of such corrugations resemble
spokes.” (p.64). Dr. Rao assigns these toy cart wheels (photos
provided in the article) to the Early Mature Harappan and Mature
Harappan periods. with the beginnings of the former going back
as far as 3000 BCE.
Wait:
can these claims be dismissed as “one more of the
nationalist-inspired presentations” and Dr. Rao branded as a “Hindu
Nationalist”?
See
what is the much stonewalled or ignored, but yet the official, version: this is the
answer I got from Google AI Overview when I put the
question “Oldest Spoked Wheel Designed Toy Wheels found at Bhirrana”:
“Terracotta
wheels with painted or molded spokes—believed to belong to ancient toy
carts—have been uncovered at the Bhirrana archaeological site in
Fatehabad district, Haryana, India. [1,
2]
Key Details of
the Find
Location: Bhirrana, an early Indus Valley Civilization (Harappan) site in India. [1,
2]
Artifacts: Miniature terracotta wheel
models featuring painted or low-relief raised spokes. [1,
2]
Significance: These artifacts from the early-to-mature
Harappan levels demonstrate that the concept of the spoked wheel was known and
used in toy models or artistic representations, pre-dating or aligning with
early technological developments in lightweight vehicular transport.”
When
I persisted with the question “Exact Dating Please”, I got the answer:
“The
terracotta toy wheels with painted or molded spokes discovered at Bhirrana date back to the Early Mature Harappan and
Mature Harappan periods, placing them between c. 3000 BCE and
1900 BCE. [1,
2]
While the
deepest, pre-Harappan layers of the site (Hakra Ware Culture) date back as early as 7500–6200
BCE, advanced vehicular technologies like the spoked wheel design
emerged much later in the site's structural evolution: [1,
2,
3]
Stratigraphic
and Chronological Breakdown
Earliest Painted/Relief Spokes (Period IIA
— Early Mature Harappan): The oldest versions of these toy wheels with low-relief
or painted spokes began appearing around c.
3000 BCE to 2600 BCE. [1]
Widespread Prevalence (Period IIB — Mature
Harappan): According to archaeological excavation data compiled by the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and subsequent
independent studies, spoked wheel models became highly prevalent and refined
between c. 2600 BCE and 2300 BCE. [1,
2]
These findings
indicate that the concept of the spoked wheel was actively conceptualized in
the Indian subcontinent centuries earlier than the physical introduction of
heavy, military spoked-wheel chariots in Western Asia (around 2000 BCE).”
These, it should
be noted, is an answer provided by Google AI Overview,
which cannot be accused of a bias in favor of the OIT viewpoint: on the
contrary it can in general be accused of a persistent anti-OIT
bias. Note that it clearly shows how the idea of spokes was “actively
conceptualized in the Indian subcontinent centuries earlier than the physical
introduction of heavy, military spoked-wheel chariots in Western Asia (around
2000 BCE)”, with the original conceptualizations being first conceived at
some point between 3000-2600 BCE in Bhirrana and becoming “highly prevalent and refined between c. 2600
BCE and 2300 BCE” by which time the Rigvedic composers had
coined a name for the spokes “ara”, long before the idea diffused
to Mesopotamia and Sintashta (among other places).
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
HOCK 1999a: Out of India? The linguistic evidence. Hock,
Hans H. pp.1-18, in “Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia: evidence,
interpretation, and ideology” (proceedings of the International Seminar on
Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia, Univ. of Michigan, October 1996).
KENOYER 2004: Wheeled Vehicles of the Indus Valley
Civilization of Pakistan and India. Kenoyer J.M., pp.87-106, numbered 1-38,
in Rad und Wagen: Der Ursprung einer Innovation Wagen in Vorderen Orient und
Europa, edit. M. Fansa, S Burmeister, Mainz am Rhein, Verlagg, Philipp
von Zabern. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, 2004.
LUBOTSKY 2023: Indo-European and Indo-Iranian Wagon
Terminology and the Date of the Indo-Iranian Split. Lubotsky, Alexander.
Paper 15 in The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited, Cambridge University
Press, 2023.
RAO 2005-2006: The
Harappan Spoked Wheels Rattled Down the Streets of Bhirrana, Dist. Fatehabad,
Haryana. Rao,
L,S., Purattava No.36, Indian Archaeological Society New Delhi,
2005-2006.
TRIPPETT 1974: The First Horsemen (The Emergence of Man).
Trippett, Frank. Time-Life Books Publication, 1974.
WITZEL 2000a: The Languages of
Harappa. Witzel, Michael. Feb. 17, 2000.
