Jump to content

Talk:Sinauli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shiv Sastry source

[edit]

@Poseidon0601: I think Sastry's paper looks well-researched and it would be nice to include it, but it looks to me like it hasn't been published anywhere. Do you know of a journal or anything that has published it that I simply failed to find? If not, I'm afraid we really shouldn't add a self-published source. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging Hindu-right fringe with kid gloves. Have you seen the first edit summary of Poseidon0601? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's a good idea to treat any new editors with some kindness because you never know who will become a good contributor. Yes, I saw their summary and I find your response barely more civil. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, it would seem to me (though I'm not an expert) that the article at present does a fair job reflecting the range of opinions currently found in scholarly research on this subject, but if you want to talk about improvements that's always welcome. I'd ask you to leave off the type of name-calling that was in your edit summary though, as that doesn't help with discussion. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Shiv Shastry diff:

There is no doubt that chariots and horses were a familiar sight in India five thousand years ago.

That is, at the start of the Kali Yuga and the Mahabaratha War, in Indian mythology. Or before the Mature Harappan Civilisation, at the time that the proto-Indo-Europeans started to migrate, in real-world history. "Hindu right fringe" exactly pins down the nature of this kind of thought, and the attitude beyond this kind of additions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I assumed there was some reason that the paper never got published anywhere. It's still best not to WP:BITE though. There are of course loads of people that come here with an agenda and/or non-mainstream ideas, but if they're met with a bit of decency then once in awhile they find their way to making positive contributions in topics that are less controversial. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your optimism is admirable; I have to agree that some learn the rules, in contrast to the ones who get blocked. Anyway, Shastry refers to Chariots in the Chalcolithic Rock Art of Indian A Slide Show, Neumayer Erwin, a perennial source for support of fringe-ideas on the presence of the horse in India before the arrival of the Aryans. That's one of the problems with editors residing in this alternate realities (just like COVID-deniers and the like): a closed circuit of crappy sources and invalid arguments, patched with endless loops when falsification dooms. Google "Hindu Holocaust" or "Hindutva harassment" for some of the ugly faces of this phenomenon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neumayer himself dates the chariot-paintings to 1800-1200 BCE; see
  • Neumayer, Erwin. "Chariots in the Chalcolithic Rock Art of Indian" (PDF).
  • harappa.com, Chariots in the Chalcolithic Rock Art of India</ref>
See also Celeste Paxton (2016), in Voices from the past: Researcher explores a mystery across 40 centuries , for a realistic dating of cave-art spoked wheels" "neo-chalcolithic," 2300-1000 BCE. That is, Late Harappan c.q. Aryan migration period, or even early Vedic period. You see, that's why I, and a lot of other editors, have little faith in pov-editors like Poseidon0601. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
you are brainwashed at a huge rate about the belief known as hinduism 2402:8100:2390:3D74:34B5:226A:70F3:7A6B (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
prove that mahabharat is mythology,and debate properly 2402:8100:2390:3D74:34B5:226A:70F3:7A6B (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sintashta and chariots

[edit]

Two interesting blogs by Razib Khan on Sintashta and the invention of the chariot:

If you have an interest in the domestic horse (I have) you are aware it’s the product of massive demographic radiation from a small founder population. With ancient DNA we now know where it started: with the Sintashta people of the Volga to the Ural steppe 4,000 years ago.
This is not totally surprising, because we know that the Sintashta were highly warlike and they invented the light war-chariot.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This same Khan? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yup him only. He has authored a book along with Romila Thapar and Witzel. ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“because we know that the Sintashta were highly warlike and they invented the light war-chariot.” what is the evidence for it? ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WITZEL TOLD :early aryan migration but what is the evidence of that migration? and why only leftist historians like witzel have to considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2390:3D74:85A9:B2A4:E20B:E24D (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes regarding use of term "Carts" for "Chariots" and regarding other such statements such as no evidence of horse fossils or depictions in the Indian subcontinent.

[edit]

In the the article the term "Cart" is used to describe an artefact which clearly resembles a "Chariot" and the claim that there are no evidences found in the subcontinent which points towards the existence of horses before the invasion of Aryan (as per the theory). Although there have been various evidences which do support the existence of horse in the subcontinent before the invasion.

And the other issue in the article was that it have a political statement which was used to prove a claim rather than a scientifically backed research.

I will describe more on this as the people reading this react. Thank you SuVritra (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article quite clear describes why the term "cart" is being used: the wagons were heavy wagons, that is, carts; chariots are lighter. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously coping hard.
The vehicles discovered at Sinauli are clearly identified as TWO-wheeled chariots, not carts, and this distinction is critical. Chariots, with their two-wheeled design, are lightweight and built for speed and mobility, making them ideal for dynamic purposes like warfare, hunting, or ceremonial use. In contrast, carts typically have four wheels, are heavier, and are designed for practical tasks like transporting goods or people. The two-wheel structure of a chariot is a defining feature, as it allows greater maneuverability and swiftness compared to the stable but slower four-wheeled cart.
The Sinauli chariots are particularly remarkable due to their two-wheeled construction and advanced design. They featured solid wheels clad in copper, an impressive metallurgical achievement for their time. The deliberate choice of a two-wheel configuration further emphasizes their function as chariots meant for specialized, prestigious purposes rather than utilitarian tasks. These vehicles were also elaborately decorated, reinforcing their ceremonial or high-status role. They were likely pulled by animals such as horses.
The identification of the Sinauli vehicles as two-wheeled chariots is crucial to understanding their significance. Their design and context clearly differentiate them from four-wheeled carts, aligning them instead with vehicles used in rituals, processions, or possibly even combat. This discovery highlights the advanced technological and cultural capabilities of the late Harappan civilization, showcasing their ability to produce sophisticated vehicles for specialized use.
The discovery of the Sinauli chariots, dated to approximately 2000–1800 BCE and located deep in the Ganges Plain, presents a significant challenge to the long-held theory of an “Aryan migration” into India around 1500 BCE. According to this theory, “Aryans” associated with chariot technology and horse domestication—entered the subcontinent from Central Asia through the Hindu Kush region, introducing their culture and technology to an otherwise unprepared indigenous population. However, the Sinauli chariots predate this alleged migration by at least 300–500 years and were found far from the regions typically associated with the supposed entry of “Aryans”, such as present-day Pakistan, Punjab, or the Hindu Kush.
The advanced chariot technology unearthed at Sinauli, with copper-clad wheels and ceremonial design, demonstrates that such vehicles were already in use in South Asia long before the proposed migration date. Furthermore, the presence of these chariots in the Ganges Plain, a region historically linked to later Vedic culture, indicates that local civilizations possessed sophisticated technological and cultural capabilities independently of any external influence. This evidence undermines the notion that chariots, and by extension the technologies and cultural practices often attributed to “Aryans”, were introduced to India by outsiders during the second millennium BCE.
By situating advanced chariot technology and metallurgy deep within the Indian heartland and well before 1500 BCE, the Sinauli findings suggest a continuity of indigenous innovation and development. These discoveries challenge the simplistic narrative of an external “Aryan migration” bringing cultural and technological advances to the subcontinent, pointing instead to a more complex and indigenous trajectory of South Asia’s ancient history.
The findings at Sinauli suggest that Indo-European traditions were deeply rooted in the Indian subcontinent well before the alleged “Aryan migration” around 1500 BCE. The burial practices at Sinauli, with their distinct markers of social status, martial culture, and the inclusion of two-wheeled chariots, closely resemble those described in early Vedic traditions. The use of chariots, weapons, and ceremonial grave goods is consistent with Vedic references to warrior elites and their connection to both the physical and spiritual realms, where chariots symbolized power, prestige, and divine favor.
These burial practices, which include elaborate grave goods and specific ritualistic positions of the deceased, show a continuity of cultural practices tied to Indo-European beliefs. The presence of such traditions in the Ganges Plain challenges the theory that the Vedic culture and its associated technologies, like the chariot, arrived with the later migration of Indo-Aryans. Instead, the Sinauli discoveries point to the possibility that Indo-European traditions were already an integral part of the region’s culture, evolving locally and indigenous to the subcontinent long before the time typically associated with the supposed migration. This highlights a deeper, more ancient connection to the Vedic and broader Indo-European cultural heritage, contradicting the idea that these traditions were introduced by outsiders around 1500 BCE. 47.151.172.191 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Solid wheels"- how fast do you think that would move? But indeed, "cultural practices tied to Indo-European beliefs." Which came from the steppes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steppes, the North Pole, Scandinavia, Iran, indigenous out of India, or even Mars—it doesn’t matter. The real problem is the relentless pushing and pulling of dates for several events (even if it doesn’t make any sense), all to align related timelines around 1500 BCE. If something doesn’t fit within that timeline, denial mode kicks in. For example: "No, it’s not chariots... it’s carts," they say, as if that changes anything.
Additionally, when it becomes impossible to adjust everything to fit the proposed migrations, a new theory conveniently emerges—like Prapola and others—suggesting that there was probably an earlier migration of Aryans to India. Seriously? Do people even realize how problematic this "non-Vedic, non-religious, pre-Vedic migration theory of non-Vedic Aryans" is? How many holes and unanswered questions this theory will contribute to?
It’s extremely clear that these speculations (presented on Wikipedia as facts) are nothing more than coping mechanisms for Europeans. But sure, enjoy the delusion. The funniest part? Even after redefining them as "carts," Europeans still feel the need to create a "pre-Aryan Aryan migration" theory just to be safe.
How many articles can we realistically improve? If we improve one, five others are distorted in response. There’s no point in fighting it anymore—whatever helps people sleep better at night. Peace. We’re all going to die anyway. 103.92.120.14 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking how you are unable to address my points, and it shows how weak your position is on this topic…. They were two-wheeled vehicles. So you think they are shopping carts?🤣
Only chariots are two-wheeled. Wagons typically have four wheels. There were individuals buried alongside with weapons. Those are clearly chariots, as much as it hurts you to know.
As for solid wheel, numerous reasons, it could have been a ceremonial burial or solid wheels may be more appropriate for the Ganga plains terrain. Sinhauli chariot qualifies as a chariot despite having solid (non-spoked) wheels for many other reasons:
1. Functional Definition Over Construction Details:
A chariot is primarily defined by its overall design as a two-wheeled vehicle used for rapid movement and warfare rather than the specific technology of its wheels. Even with solid wheels which may provide sturdiness required in the Ganga plain, if the vehicle was designed for sturdy maneuverability it fulfills the criteria for a chariot.
2. Regional Context:
The Sinhauli chariot may have developed in an area where solid wheels were the norm due to available materials or established building practices.
3. Local Technological and Material Considerations:
The use of solid wheels might reflect local resources, craftsmanship traditions, or environmental conditions that favored a sturdier, simpler wheel design. Even if spoked wheels offer advantages in terms of weight reduction, solid wheels can still provide sufficient strength and functionality for the chariot’s intended purpose.
4. Comparative Archaeological Evidence:
Archaeological records from other regions sometimes reveal chariots with solid wheels, and these examples are accepted as bona fide chariots. The Sinhauli find can be situated within this broader pattern of early chariot technology, suggesting that the absence of spokes does not disqualify it from being a chariot.
5. Preservation and Interpretative Factors:
In some cases, the current appearance of the wheels as solid might be influenced by the state of preservation, where any originally delicate features (such as narrow rims or hub elements) have not survived. Even if originally constructed with subtle reinforcements or a design that served a similar function to spokes, the surviving evidence could still be interpreted within the framework of chariot technology.
Taken together, these arguments show that the Sinhauli chariot, despite having solid wheels, fits within the broader definition and evolutionary sequence of chariot technology among Indo-European and South Asian cultures. Since it is around the same time as the earliest chariot (from the Sintashta culture that was said to be Indo-Iranian), it totally discredits the fabricated Steppe hypothesis and Aryan migration theory. Take it together with the fact that the Sarasvati River disappeared in 2000 BCE, and this was all known before Heggerty et al. in their 2023 Science paper destroyed the Aryan Migration theory and Steppe hypothesis. RIP AMT. 47.151.172.191 (talk) 08:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only chariots are two-wheeled - proud to be ignorant? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References are a terrible mess

[edit]

I've done a bit of cleanup of non-rs sources. It's not easy because we have cited notes, cited references, cited news sources, all organised differently. And for some reason printed sources have no citations. Not a very good article either. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Fyi, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam stills mess. I’m not reverting as I don’t see a weird referenced decent version. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing non scholarly sources

[edit]

Several sources cited are news articles. These clearly fails WP:RS, WP:V and specifically WP:HISTRS. I suggest we remove any content that is not cited by a scholarly source. SKAG123 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SKAG123 I agree. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't; I wouldn't remove all of it en totoo, but loo at what exactly is sourced by it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinauli&oldid=1275484710"