THE HORSE AND THE CHARIOT IN THE AIT-OIT DEBATE

 

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.