THE HORSE AND THE CHARIOT IN THE AIT-OIT DEBATE
The utter irrelevance of the two factors which have been inflated into big issues.
[This is a word-document form of the power-point presentation used by me in my talk on Kushal Mehra's Carvaka Podcast, "THE HORSE AND THE CHARIOT IN THE AIT-OIT DEBATE" on 9/6/2021, available on youtube.
This also includes two additional slides to explain a point raised again by Kushal after the talk concluded].
Linking Indo-European Languages to
Horses and Chariots-1
• We have the recent phenomenon of geneticists trying to
trace the movement of the IE languages by identifying
certain genes or haplogroups as "Aryan"/"IE".
• But long before this we already had the equally untenable
phenomenon of historians trying to trace the movement of
the IE languages by identifying certain animals and material
objects (namely the horse and the chariot) as "Aryan"/"IE".
• Certain books pursuing this approach, such as David W.
Anthony’s "The Horse the Wheel and Language" (2007),
have almost acquired a gospel status and a massive and
fanatical cult following.
• It is therefore time to examine this issue thoroughly, and
separate the grain from the chaff. It will be seen how the
power of confident and persistent assertion, coupled with
the prevalence of herd mentality, can muddy the waters.
Linking Indo-European Languages to
Horses and Chariots-2
• Before going into the specifics of the horse-chariot
syndrome, (a) in general and (b) with specific reference to
the Indian (AIT/OIT) case, we must take note of this
extremely illogical and untenable dogma linking
animals/objects with linguistic identities and homelands.
• By this logic, the fact that Romans were addicted to Indian
spices proves that they emigrated from India, or that
Indians predominantly use potatoes and chilies in their
cuisine proves they immigrated into India from the
Americas!
• Such logic is not applied to Romans and Indians, since
centuries of recorded history testify to the true situation. In
respect of the Vedic people vis-à-vis Soma or horses, the
records are not so specific and detailed, and therefore the
narrative has become susceptible to misrepresentation.
"Horses" and "Chariots" in General
• Before going into the specifics of the Indian
(AIT/OIT) case, some very basic aspects of
animal-vehicle associations, especially with
reference to the horse, must be noted:
• 1. The five stages of horse use by humans.
• 2. "Cart-vs.-Chariot": the three aspects of
animal-vehicle development.
• 3. The northern equid zone vs. the southern
equid zone.
The five stages of horse use by humans
• Horses, and all equids and most "beasts of burden",
had five stages of use by man:
• 1. For meat, milk and hide.
• 2. With vehicles for transport.
• 3. With vehicles for racing.
• 4. With vehicles for war.
• 5. For mounted riding.
• The first stage, for horses, was restricted to the
Steppes, and the last stage came into being only
around 1000 BCE.
• The stages relevant to the subject of the history of
Indo-European origins are the three middle stages.
"Cart-vs.-Chariot": the three aspects of
animal-vehicle development-1
• In popular perception there is a distinct difference
between a "cart" and a "chariot": a "cart" is a clumsy
heavy vehicle pulled mainly by oxen (or animals other
than horses) and has four solid wheels. A "chariot" is a
light speedy vehicle pulled by horses and has two
spoked wheels.
• People tend to transpose this distinction in meaning
into the past and impose it on old words for animal-
drawn vehicles, such as ratha. However this is a wrong
and simplistic view.
• Actually the development of animal-vehicles involved
(at least) three distinctly different lines of development
which did not take place in tandem with each other,
and we therefore have a wide range of vehicle types.
"Cart-vs.-Chariot": the three aspects of
animal-vehicle development-2
• Thus:
• 1. Type of wheels: earlier solid wheels. Later spoked
wheels.
• 2. Number of wheels: earlier four wheels. Later two
wheels.
• 3. Animal: earlier oxen/onagers/asses. Later horses.
• Except that the war chariot generally tended to be a
"chariot proper" (horses with two spoked wheels), we
still find all kinds of combinations of the old and new
features: bullock carts with two spoked wheels, horse-
drawn post-chaises and royal "chariots" with four
spoked wheels, etc. Toy vehicles still often have solid
wheels. Therefore a dogmatic interpretation of old
words without corroborating data is disastrous.
The northern equid zone vs. the
southern equid zone
• Eurasia is divided into a north and a south by huge
mountain ranges stretching from east to west.
• The northern equid zone, from Ukraine in the west to
Mongolia in the east and Central Asia in the south is the
home of both equus ferus (the horse) as well as of onager
species. But the southern equid zone, which covers two
distinct civilizational areas, West Asia and India, only has
species of onagers/wild asses.
• Basically, many of the same features apply to both areas,
but this fact is not recognized, since the vital difference
between the two areas is that West Asia has detailed
written records and pictorial/material representations of its
equid history at all stages while India does not.
• This facilitates extraneous interpretations, assumptions,
and misrepresentations on every point in respect of India.
West Asian area vis-à-vis Indian area
• The detailed recorded evidence from West Asia shows that
they had wheeled vehicles from 3500-3350 BCE
(Sumerians). These were originally pulled by oxen, later
also by onagers/wild asses. Horses came on the scene after
2000 BCE.
• India, as the evidence shows, independently had wheeled
vehicles from 3500 BCE, likewise initially pulled by oxen.
• The big difference is:
• 1. West Asia was separated by Anatolia and the Caucasian
areas from the northern equid zone.
• 2. India, or the Vedic-Harappan area of NW India relevant
to our study, apart from having onagers on both sides, in
Kutch and present-day northern Pakistan to Ladakh, was
directly connected with the northern equid zone in Central
Asia, and formed a cultural continuum with that area.
Assumptions and Misrepresentations
• Apart from the weird idea that horses and Indo-
Europeans are somehow identical entities, many other
ideas, totally contradictory to the data and evidence,
dominate the "Aryan horse and chariot" narrative, but
they all revolve around the following two main ideas:
• 1. IE speakers first introduced the aśva=horse into non-
IE India from the Steppes through Central Asia around
or after 2000 BCE.
• 2. IE speakers introduced the ratha=spoked-wheel
chariot into India, and these chariots are common
throughout the Rigvedic period, and central to the
Rigvedic identity.
• We will now examine what the actual data and
evidence says about these different assumptions.
The fake "horse bones" argument-1
• The main signature argument is that horse bones are not
found in India before post-Harappan times, and they are
found first in the northwest only after "Aryans" entered
India after 2000 BCE.
• This is the most fake and fraudulent argument of them all,
and yet it is the main and most popular one discussed
threadbare by all the participants in the AIT-OIT debate.
• It is a "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" argument by the AIT side
which involves the highest amount of one-sidedness and
special pleading of any argument in the debate. Even at
best what it says is "lack of horse bones in the Harappan
period proves there were no horses in India, but lack of
horse bones in the post-Harappan periods makes no
difference: even if horse-bones are not found it means
nothing since we know from written records that there
were horses in India"!!!
The fake "horse bones" argument-2
• Edwin Bryant points out: "The report claiming the earliest date for
the domesticated horse in India, ca. 4500 B.C.E., comes from a
find from Bagor, Rajasthan, at the base of the Aravalli Hills (Ghosh
1989a, 4). In Rana Ghundai, Baluchistan, excavated by E. J. Ross,
equine teeth were reported from a pre-Harappan level (Guha and
Chatterjee 1946, 315–316). …equine bones have been reported
from Mahagara, near Allahabad, where six sample absolute
carbon 14 tests have given dates ranging from 2265 B.C.E. to 1480
B.C.E. (Sharma et al. 1980, 220–221). Even more significantly,
horse bones from the Neolithic site Hallur in Karnataka (1500–
1300 B.C.E.) have also been identified by the archaeozoologist K.
R. Alur (1971, 123). [.......] In the Indus Valley and its environs,
Sewell and Guha, as early as 1931, had reported the existence of
the true horse, Equus caballus Linn from Mohenjo-Daro itself, and
Bholanath (1963) reported the same from Harappa, Ropar, and
Lothal. Even Mortimer Wheeler identified a horse figurine and
accepted that ‘it is likely enough that camel, horse and ass were in
fact all a familiar feature of the Indus caravan’ (92)." (BRYANT
2001:169-170).
The fake "horse bones" argument-3
• [quote continued]: "Mackay, in 1938….identified a clay model of
the animal at Mohenjo-Daro. Piggott (1952, 126, 130) reports a
horse figurine from Periano Ghundai in the Indus Valley, dated
somewhere between Early Dynastic and Akkadian times. Bones
from Harappa, previously thought to have belonged to the
domestic ass, have been reportedly critically re-examined and
attributed to a small horse (Sharma 1992–93, 31). Additional
evidence of the horse in the form of bones, teeth, or figurines has
been reported in other Indus sites such as Kalibangan (Sharma
1992–93, 31); Lothal (Rao 1979), Surkotada (Sharma 1974), and
Malvan (Sharma 1992–93, 32). Other later sites include the Swat
Valley (Stacul 1969); Gumla (Sankalia 1974, 330); Pirak (Jarrige
1985); Kuntasi (Sharma 1995, 24); and Rangpur (Rao 1979, 219)."
(BRYANT 2001:169-170).
• Also, horse bones (Dhawalikar), and a terracotta figurine of a horse,
have been found at Kayatha in Madhya Pradesh in all the
chalcolithic levels, dated 2450-2000 BCE. Also there is a distinct
horse figure in a "chess set" found at Lothal.
The fake "horse bones" argument-4
• So are all these archaeologists and scholars liars and frauds? The
"no horse bones" insisters get away with simply stonewalling the
evidence and continuing to parrot their claim.
• But one prominent case forced their attention: bones from
Surkotada in Kutch "J. P Joshi, and A. K. Sharma…subsequently
reported the identification of horse bones from all levels of this
site (circa 2100–1700 B.C.E.). In addition to bones from Equus
asinus and Equus hemionus khur, Sharma reported the existence
of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones
from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Sandor Bökönyi,
of incisor and molar teeth, various phalanges, and other bones
from Equus caballus Linn (Sharma 1974, 76) [....] Sandor Bökönyi,
a Hungarian archaeologist and one of the world's leading horse
specialists….verified that the bones were, indeed, of the
domesticated Equus caballus: ‘The occurrence of true horse
(Equus caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the
upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of
incisors and phalanges. Since no wild horses lived in India in post-
pleistocene times, the domestic nature of the Surkotada horses is
undoubtful’"(BRYANT 2001:170-171).
The fake "horse bones" argument-5
• However, RH Meadow took up the issue and rejected Bokonyi’s
strong identification on the grounds that "the remains of the Equus
ferus caballus horse are difficult to distinguish from other equid
species such as Equus asinus (donkeys) or Equus hemionus
(onagers)". Unfortunately, Bökönyi died before he could reply.
• But what Meadow said cuts both ways: if the bones of the horse
cannot be distinguished easily from the bones of donkeys and
onagers, then it is time to stop quibbling about whether equid
bones belong to horses or to donkeys/onagers, and simply accept
them as equid bones.
• To begin with, the wild horses till a thousand or so years ago were
not much bigger than onagers or donkeys: they were just "a bit
over four feet" although in practice these horses "proved vastly
superior to onagers as pullers of chariots" ("The First Horsemen",
Time-Life Books, 1974, p.48). The horse was just more efficient and
powerful than the onager or donkey, and therefore replaced them.
Its present size and powerful capabilities are due to sustained
breeding and training.
The fake "horse bones" argument-6
• Even more pertinent: it is time for us to stop this
compulsive-loser attitude of permanently being on the
defensive and allowing the AIT warriors to permanently
avoid discussing the actual pro-OIT data and evidence and
only concentrate on discussing fake AIT non-evidence.
• First, it is time for us to refuse to allow the AIT side to
stonewall the very significant evidence of horse bones in
pre-2000 BCE India, and to force them to examine and
accept each valid piece of evidence on impartial grounds.
• Second, and more important, it is time for us to demand a
complete inventory of their "evidence" for the claims that
horse bones appear in India only as per their time schedule
of the alleged "Aryan" entry into India and dispersal into
different parts of the interior areas. In short, it is time for
them to present their "evidence", and us to examine it.
The fake "horse bones" argument-7
• H Hock brushes aside the evidence of horse-bones without
examination on the ground that it is meagre and is not
"comparable to the cultural and religious significance of
the horse" in the Rigveda (HOCK 1999a:12-13).
• Now it is time for them to produce and us to examine:
• 1. The full data showing the trail of horse bones from the
Steppes to Central Asia.
• 2. The data on horse bones in the BMAC in Central Asia
(where the "Indo-Iranians" are alleged to have settled
before entering India and Afghanistan respectively). Here
they already lose the debate since horse bones are almost
completely absent in the BMAC!
• 3. The full data (separately) on horse bones in
archaeological sites in India between 1500 BCE-1000 BCE
and between 1000 BCE-500 BCE.
The fake "horse bones" argument-8
• And all this data must not only show a sudden massive
presence of horse bones in the respective areas concerned
in line with the alleged time-schedule of the "Aryan" entry
into India and their step-by-step spread into the interior
areas, but it should also be "comparable to the cultural
and religious significance of the horse" in the Rigveda.
• Until all this evidence is produced, presented and
examined, there should be a complete moratorium on any
discussion or debate on the question of horse bones in
India as an item of evidence for the theory that "Aryans"
first brought the horse into India after 2000 BCE.
• Until all this evidence is produced, presented and
examined, the question of the presence or absence of
horse bones in ancient India should be accepted as
irrelevant to the AIT-OIT debate.
Did "Aryans" introduce the horse into India?-1
• The English or Indian names ananas, papaya, chiku/sapota,
potato/batata, tomato/tamatar, tobacco/tambaku, cocoa,
cashew/kaju, guava, chilli are not English or Indian names:
they are derivatives of native American names for the
products which came from the Americas. Chai/tea are also
not Indian or English names, they are Chinese names for
the product which originally came from China (although
later a separate Indian sub-species was discovered by the
British in Assam and became Indian tea). Coffee/kapi is a
late import from West Asia, although a native of Africa, and
the names are derived from the Arabic name qahwah
(originally a kind of wine). The word pepper is derived from
the Indian word pippali.
• If the "Aryans" brought the horse into India, the name for
the horse in the non-IE languages of India should have been
borrowed or derived from the IE/ Vedic (or Sanskrit) names.
Did "Aryans" introduce the horse into India?-2
• The Vedic and later Sanskrit words for "horse" are aśva, arvant or
arvvā, haya, vājin, sapti, turanga, kilvī, pracelaka.
• 1. Dravidian languages have kudirai, ivuḷi, parī and mā.
• 2. Austric (Kol-Munda) languages have sādom.
• 3. Modern Indo-Aryan languages (except the archaic Sinhalese
asuwa) have words derived from late Sanskrit ghoṭaka, which is
often alleged to be a "non-Aryan" word!!
• Witzel points out that the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian words for horse
"are quite different from each other….Obviously, use of horses is
not linked to speakers of an IA language" (WITZEL 2000a: §15)."
• Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15 th edition, Vol. 9, p.348: "Curiously,
however, it is precisely in those regions that used iron, and were
associated with the horse, that the Indo-Aryan languages did not
spread. Even today, these are the regions of the Dravidian
language group".
Is aśva=equus ferus, the horse?-1
• The word aśva, as well as the original PIE word *ekwos
from which it is derived, are taken to originally mean
specifically equus ferus, the northern horse. However, this
is only a presumption of the Steppe Homeland theory: the
word originally referred to any equid animal (as the genus
name equus and word equid still do in zoological and
general terminology). The PIEs in their homeland were
indeed familiar with equus ferus, but so were they familiar
with other equid species (onager, wild ass).
• In the OIT scenario, they were familiar with equus ferus
because the contiguous PIE area, by pre-Rigvedic times,
had already spread out to include the horse-rich areas of
Central Asia, where the Druhyu groups, the Uttara-Madra
(Hittites) and Uttara-Kuru (Tocharians) as also the later
European branches were already very much present.
Is aśva=equus ferus, the horse?-2
• Even as per accepted wisdom, the earliest domesticated
horse is found not in Ukraine but at Botai in Kazakhstan,
which is almost equidistant from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
• As per newer findings, the first domesticated horse could
have been even closer: in Uzbekistan to the north of
Afghanistan as early as 6000 BCE. (LASOTA-MOSKALEWSKA
2009: A Problem of the Earliest Horse Domestication. Data
from the Neolithic Camp Ayakagytma 'The Site',
Uzbekistan, Central Asia. pp. 14-21, Archaeologia Baltica
Volume 11, Klaipeda University, Lithuania, 2009).
• Horses, whether fully domesticated, or in various stages of
semi-domestication, were already abundantly present in
human settlements to the immediate north of Afghanistan
as far back as 6000 BCE, and so at least well known to the
PIEs, and to the Vedic people, by 3500 BCE at the very least.
Is aśva=equus ferus, the horse?-3
• The Rigvedic aśva originally referred to both the onager or
wild ass as well as to the superior horse of the north locally
familiar to the Druhyus who had spread out into Central
Asia in pre-Rigvedic times.
• As in Mesopotamia, the onager was probably commonly
harnessed to the cart/chariot in the Vedic/Harappan areas
(mainly for transport and racing), but, as the Rigvedic data
shows, the northern horse was also known, as a rare, prized
and superior animal imported through the northwest.
• It is only in the New Rigveda that the northern horse came
to be increasingly used with chariots (especially the new
spoked-wheel ones), but still mainly for racing.
• War-chariots came into use mainly around 1500 BCE, when
horse-chariots became common everywhere, including in
Greece and West Asia, and in the Mahabharata.
Is aśva=equus ferus, the horse?-4
• The evidence for the late and northwestern nature of the
horse in the Rigvedic culture is overwhelming:
• 1. The only two deified or glorified horses in the Rigveda,
both race-horses, are identified with the Tṛkṣis of the
northernmost Swat area: Dadhikrās (identified with
Trasadasyu) and Tārkṣya (identified by the name itself).
• 2. The horse is associated with the northwestern Soma
areas, and the Bhṛgu rishi Dadhyañc, who introduced the
secrets of the northwestern Soma to Indra, is supposed to
have the head of a horse (I.116.12; 117.22; 119.9).
• 3. Horses are rare and prized animals in the Old Rigveda: so
rare that Sudās is presented with horse-heads as tribute by
supplicant or defeated tribes (VII.18.19).
• 4. Personal names with aśva only appear in the New
Rigveda (see later along with the names with ratha).
Is aśva=equus ferus, the horse?-5
• 5. Perhaps it is also interesting that two distinct aspects of
the post-Rigvedic horse-sacrifice are found in two different
parts of the Rigveda: the release of a horse in the open and
battle with anyone who tries to capture it is the first aspect,
which shows the animal to be a rare and coveted one, for
possessing which kings or tribes could enter into war. This is
the only aspect found in the Old Rigveda (III.53), where
there is no reference to the rare animal being actually
ritually killed.
• Everything else connected with the actual ritual horse
sacrifice is found only in the New Rigveda, by which time
possibly horses from the northwest were more easily
available. Hymns I.162-163 describe the actual ritual horse
sacrifice, X.157.1-3 were the verses recited at the sacrifice,
and the word aśvamedha (though only as a personal name)
is found only in V.27.5; VIII.68.15-16.
Wheeled vehicles in Harappan sites-1
• [Wheeled Vehicles of the Indus Valley Civilization of
Pakistan and India- MJ Kenoyer, 2004]:
• As "wood remains are not 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". But these show "both heavy and
light wheeled vehicles", "wide range of cart types",
"diversity in carts and wheels, including depictions of
what may be spoked wheels".
• 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".
• "The diversity of model carts …is quite significant…it is
unclear why scholars have ignored the complexity and
specialization of Indus transport".
Wheeled vehicles in Harappan sites-2
• "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, "the
result of indigenous processes and not the result of
diffusion from mountainous regions to the west".
Is ratha=spoked-wheel chariot?-1
• AIT supporters claim the "Aryans" entered India all the way
from Ukraine with spoked-wheel chariots=ratha:
• "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 ratha=spoked-wheel chariot?-2
• Apart from the fact that (a) such chariots could not
possibly have crossed all the way from Ukraine to the
Punjab over mountainous regions, and (b) not a single
such chariot belonging to the alleged immigrating Indo-
Aryans has yet been discovered anywhere, the word
ratha very clearly originally, and even for quite some
time after the invention of spoked wheels, meant any
"wheeled vehicle" and not just a "two-spoked-wheel-
horse-chariot":
• 1. The words related to ratha in Celtic (Irish rath), Italic
(Latin rota), Germanic (German rad) and Baltic
(Lithuanian ratas) mean simply "wheel" or "cart" and
it is only in later Sanskrit usage that it came to mean
specifically "chariot".
Is ratha=spoked-wheel chariot?-3
• 2. In the Old Rigveda, there is no separate word for "cart":
ratha means "cart". Later in the New Rigveda, the word
anas is contrasted (at least by the philologists) with the
word ratha, where anas means specifically a "cart".
• But the word anas is found only thrice in the Old Rigveda,
in two cases (II.15.6 and IV.30.10,11) referring only to the
divine vehicle of Uṣas (Dawn): originally derived from the
same root an- ("to breathe", perhaps indicating the first
breath, or birth, of day) as the later word anala "fire",
representing the rising sun.
• In the only other hymn III.33.9,10, it is combined with the
word ratha to show its extended meaning of "cart".
• In the New Rigveda, it is found 10 times: 8 times with the
specific meaning of "cart" and 2 times as the divine vehicle
of Dawn.
The origin of spoked-wheel chariots-1
• 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.
• As Trippett puts it (In "The First Horsemen", Time-Life
Books, 1974), "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).
The origin of spoked-wheel chariots-2
• The spoked-wheel chariot appears only in the New
Rigveda and its appearance clearly heralds a new
cultural phase in the Vedic culture:
• 1. 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.
• 2. The Bhṛgus (IV.16.20) and the Anus (V.31.4) are
credited with inventing the chariot for Indra. This may
show the direction of movement of innovations
concerning the horse and the chariot.
The origin of spoked-wheel chariots-3
• 3. Names with aśva and ratha appear among composer
names in the Rigveda only in the books of the New
Rigveda, signifying a sudden sea-change in the
importance of horses and horse-drawn chariots in the
period of the New Rigveda. They 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).
The origin of spoked-wheel chariots-4
• 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).
The origin of spoked-wheel chariots-5
• Spoked-wheel chariots appear in West Asia around
1800 BCE. It cannot be a coincidence that their
appearance in West Asia coincided with the
appearance in West Asia of the Mitanni, the elephant,
the zebu (Indian) cattle and the peacock.
• The Mitanni left India in the period of the New
Rigveda, when horse-racing was common but war-
chariots had not yet acquired prominence. Strangely,
the Mitanni are most well known for Kikkuli’s manual
on training of horses for racing.
• It is possible that the chariots that the Mitanni were
familiar with, for racing, were spoked-wheel chariots,
and it is they who introduced these chariots into West
Asia.
To Sum Up
• 1. Where horses were domesticated has nothing to do with
the homeland or movements of IE peoples, and no-one has
been able to show movements of horses and chariots from
the Ukraine to India in the required time-frames.
• 2. Horses, in any case, were first domesticated closer to
home, in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.
• 3. Carts were independently invented in the Harappan
areas, and spoked-wheel chariots developed in the period
of the New Rigveda in a northwestern area within the
geographical horizon of the text.
• 4. Horses and spoked-wheel chariots are common and
prominent as features of the Rigvedic ethos and culture
only in the New Rigveda.
• Therefore the horse-chariot argument is invalid as an
argument for the AIT.
ADDITIONAL TWO SLIDES PREPARED AFTER THE TALK TO UNDERLINE A POINT RAISED BY KUSHAL LATER:
Can one Name Denote Two Species?-1
• For those who doubt that the word aśva could have
referred to both horses as well as onagers/wild asses:
• 1. a) the difference between horses, onagers and wild
asses was not so pronounced to the amateur eyes till
around 1000 years ago, around which time the horse
achieved its present size and distinctive characteristics
due to selective breeding and cross-breeding.
• b) There is no alternative word for horses and onagers
or other equids in Vedic (or even in PIE) till the domesticated West
Asian wild ass (gardabha, rāsabha) was introduced into
the Vedic world during the New Rigvedic period
through Central Asia.
• c) Even zoologists today classify them all as equus
species.
Can one Name Denote Two Species?-2
• 2. Even today an Indian would use one word for two
animals which, in actual zoological classification,
belong to two totally different families:
• a) A python and a boa would both be ajgar: they
belong to two different families (pythons, like birds, lay
eggs. Boas, like mammals, give birth directly).
• b) A cheetah (acinonyx jubata) and a leopard
(panthera pardus, closer to panthera leo, the lion, and
panthera tigris, the tiger) would both be called chittā.
• c) A deer (family cervidae) and an antelope (family
bovidae, like cattle, buffalos, bisons, goats and sheep)
would both be called hiraṇ/hariṇ.
• So there is nothing unusual in the horse and the
onager/wild ass originally having one name aśva.
