# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Four Thousand Year Old Chariots Found in Kurgan in South Caucasus in Georgia

## Angela

The article in Live Science:
http://www.livescience.com/46513-anc...iscovered.html

It is discussed here:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/201...rial-from.html

From the Science article:
"The burial site, which would've been intended for a chief, dates back over 4,000 years to a time archaeologists call the Early Bronze Age, said Zurab Makharadze, head of the Centre of Archaeology at the Georgian National Museum.

Archaeologists discoveredthe timber burial chamber within a 39-foot-high (12 meters) mound called a kurgan. When the archaeologists reached the chamber they found an assortment of treasures, including two chariots, each with four wooden wheels. [See Images of the Burial Chamber & Chariots]

The burial dates back to a time before domesticated horses appeared in the area, Makharadze said. While no animals were found buried with the chariots, he said, oxen would have pulled them."

In the commentary by Dienekes:
"This would make it roughly contemporaneous to the chariot burials of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture of the European steppe."


If the wheeled cart, and then the chariot, like the kurgans themselves, and the stratification of society which they represent (and which is also attested in other ways in some earlier societies of the Near East), and metallurgy, all came from the areas south of the Caucasus, what then was the original contribution of the steppe peoples to the Indo-European technological package and culture? (Of course, the pastoralism which they practiced is also a product of the agricultural revolution.)

Does it come down to the domestication of the horse, and the combination of the horse and chariot for warfare?

----------


## Aberdeen

> ..............
> 
> If the wheeled cart, and then the chariot, like the kurgans themselves, and the stratification of society which they represent (and which is also attested in other ways in some earlier societies of the Near East), and metallurgy, all came from the areas south of the Caucasus, what then was the original contribution of the steppe peoples to the Indo-European technological package and culture? (Of course, the pastoralism which they practiced is also a product of the agricultural revolution.)
> 
> Does it come down to the domestication of the horse, and the combination of the horse and chariot for warfare?


Details like this certainly help to create the impression that perhaps the IE folk were simply barbarians from the grasslands who combined technology borrowed from others with their skill with horses and a warlike nature in order to create a large empire. However, if that picture is true, why did the IE folk have a formal and highly structured language, instead of the kind of simplified argot one would expect from such people? While it seems clear where the IE folk started their expansion from and what kind of cultural package allowed them to sweep over so much of the world, I don't think it's clear yet what sort of circumstances produced their culture.

Also, if no animals were found in the kurgan, I'm wondering how the archeologists can be sure the chariots were pulled by oxen. Does the shape of the chariot drive shaft suggest that, or was such a conclusion reached simply because no horses have (yet) been found in that area during that time period? Absence of information isn't proof of anything.

----------


## bicicleur

including two chariots, each with four wooden wheels. [See Images of the Burial Chamber & Chariots]

judging the 2nd image the wheels seem to be full wooden wheels, which allready exist 5500 years
shintashta had spoked wheels, invented 4100 years ago

----------


## Angela

> Details like this certainly help to create the impression that perhaps the IE folk were simply barbarians from the grasslands who combined technology borrowed from others with their skill with horses and a warlike nature in order to create a large empire. However, if that picture is true, why did the IE folk have a formal and highly structured language, instead of the kind of simplified argot one would expect from such people? While it seems clear where the IE folk started their expansion from and what kind of cultural package allowed them to sweep over so much of the world, I don't think it's clear yet what sort of circumstances produced their culture. Also, if no animals were found in the kurgan, I'm wondering how the archeologists can be sure the chariots were pulled by oxen. Does the shape of the chariot drive shaft suggest that, or was such a conclusion reached simply because no horses have (yet) been found in that area during that time period? Absence of information isn't proof of anything.



It seemed to me too that saying that the cart was pulled by oxen was a bit of an assumption. Perhaps they should have stated it more tentatively, or posed the whole issue as a question. Or, perhaps there was other evidence which wasn't presented by the science writer, but which will be forthcoming. 

However, for discussion's sake, if that wasn't the case, what animal could they have used? Isn't the horse then the only other alternative? Was there some horse domestication south of the Caucasus as well? I don't think we have any evidence for that, not even any horse remains at this early date. 

I have a recollection of a discussion of horse domestication in one of the Michael Franchiti lectures where he talks about the fact that although there is horse domestication in the Botai, I think, there is no indication of it either on the western steppe at that early point, or on the eastern steppe either. Did the corridor from the south run to that area, and was there thus a sort of cross-fertilization zone? If I get the chance I'm going to listen to that lecture again. I think LeBrok posted it here.

As for your second point about the sophistication of the language, linguistics is not my forte. I don't know how highly structured Indo-European was at various points in time, especially when it would have been closer perhaps to proto-Indo-European. Maybe some of our linguists will chime in. 

I don't pretend to know exactly how all of these influences came together, and of course, all cultures are "uncivilized" before they become "civilized", and I think there's quite a pattern from all periods and all areas of the globe where "uncivilized" groups from the periphery adopt the technology and perhaps even some of the value systems of the civilized core and then use that knowledge to attack the center when it may be weakened by other forces. Then, of course, the new groups, perhaps blended with the remnants of the old can then even improve, in some cases, on the old technology. The time lapse depends, I would imagine, on the level of outright destruction, versus violence, yes, but perhaps some non-violent "mixing" as well.

What does seem increasingly clear to me, though, is that the older models were far too simplistic and maybe even just wrong about a lot of this.

----------


## LeBrok

Where are the pictures of these "chariots"? From description it sounds like they were more just wagons not war chariots.

----------


## ebAmerican

Underneath the article their is a link to Bronze Age chariots in photos. The wheels are solid, and not spoked (West Asian influence). I doubt these where war chariots, I bet they where funeral wagons caring the seven dead to the burial. It's similar to the burial in the Arras culture (Yorkshire, England).

----------


## Aberdeen

> It seemed to me too that saying that the cart was pulled by oxen was a bit of an assumption. Perhaps they should have stated it more tentatively, or posed the whole issue as a question. Or, perhaps there was other evidence which wasn't presented by the science writer, but which will be forthcoming. 
> 
> However, for discussion's sake, if that wasn't the case, what animal could they have used? Isn't the horse then the only other alternative? Was there some horse domestication south of the Caucasus as well? I don't think we have any evidence for that, not even any horse remains at this early date. 
> 
> I have a recollection of a discussion of horse domestication in one of the Michael Franchiti lectures where he talks about the fact that although there is horse domestication in the Botai, I think, there is no indication of it either on the western steppe at that early point, or on the eastern steppe either. Did the corridor from the south run to that area, and was there thus a sort of cross-fertilization zone? If I get the chance I'm going to listen to that lecture again. I think LeBrok posted it here.
> 
> As for your second point about the sophistication of the language, linguistics is not my forte. I don't know how highly structured Indo-European was at various points in time, especially when it would have been closer perhaps to proto-Indo-European. Maybe some of our linguists will chime in. 
> 
> I don't pretend to know exactly how all of these influences came together, and of course, all cultures are "uncivilized" before they become "civilized", and I think there's quite a pattern from all periods and all areas of the globe where "uncivilized" groups from the periphery adopt the technology and perhaps even some of the value systems of the civilized core and then use that knowledge to attack the center when it may be weakened by other forces. Then, of course, the new groups, perhaps blended with the remnants of the old can then even improve, in some cases, on the old technology. The time lapse depends, I would imagine, on the level of outright destruction, versus violence, yes, but perhaps some non-violent "mixing" as well.
> ...


Yes, the horse is the only other alternative, I think, and oxen seem more likely, especially since the vehicles do look more like light wagons than what we would think of as chariots. I just don't like assumptions being presented as fact, although perhaps as you say there could have been some reason for that assumption that isn't mentioned in the article. As for the language, I'm just going by what I've read in books written by people who are actually linguists - they seem to have concluded that Proto-Indo-European was a sophisticated and highly formal language, and that its linguistic descendants have a more simplified structure. IMO, that's one of the more interesting puzzles about the whole IE thing, especially if the story being told by archeologists is that the IE folk were likely "barbarians from the periphery" who stole the technology of other people in order to create their empires. So, yes, I think the old models are too simplistic and possibly wrong. But we may never know the whole story of what happened.

Good find, BTW.

----------


## Alan

I was just about to post this article.

So the question is, how long since the first will start to rethink the Pontic_Caspian Steppe theory. Early Chariots and the first Kurgans in Western Asia. Big diversity of Haplogroup R* in Western Asia.

----------


## Angela

> Yes, the horse is the only other alternative, I think, and oxen seem more likely, especially since the vehicles do look more like light wagons than what we would think of as chariots. I just don't like assumptions being presented as fact, although perhaps as you say there could have been some reason for that assumption that isn't mentioned in the article. As for the language, I'm just going by what I've read in books written by people who are actually linguists - they seem to have concluded that Proto-Indo-European was a sophisticated and highly formal language, and that its linguistic descendants have a more simplified structure. IMO, that's one of the more interesting puzzles about the whole IE thing, especially if the story being told by archeologists is that the IE folk were likely "barbarians from the periphery" who stole the technology of other people in order to create their empires. So, yes, I think the old models are too simplistic and possibly wrong. But we may never know the whole story of what happened.
> 
> Good find, BTW.



Thank-you. You know you're obsessed when you get a feed for Archaeology news. :)

Anyway, I don't think I'd say anyone "stole" any technology, nor that the innovations necessarily all went in one direction. I guess, upon reflection, I'd say that there was an interface between the farming cultures of the Balkans, the civilizations of the northern Near East/southern Caucasus, and the steppe groups. Nevertheless I think it's pretty clear that if by the "steppe cultures" we're talking about the proposed urheimat of Proto-Indo-European being the Samara Culture on the Volga, then indeed we're talking about a very different level of sophistication compared to the cultures of the Balkans and the Near East of the equivalent time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara_culture

On my list of papers to someday read, I have the following, which I was alerted to by a post at Anthrogenica. Needless to say, I haven't yet gotten to them.

Origins, Homelands and Migrations, Situating the Kura-Araxes Early Trans-Caucasian Culture Within the History of Bronze Age Eurasia by Philip Kohl
http://kura-arax.tau.ac.il/system/files/Kohl.pdf

Also, The Chronology of the Maikop Culture in the Northern Caucasus by Mariya Ivanova
http://www.academia.edu/2543641/The_...g_perspectives

----------


## hope

> Also, if no animals were found in the kurgan, I'm wondering how the archeologists can be sure the chariots were pulled by oxen. Does the shape of the chariot drive shaft suggest that, or was such a conclusion reached simply because no horses have (yet) been found in that area during that time period? Absence of information isn't proof of anything.


The piece says the "chariots" predate the introduction of domesticated horses in the area....I take it this is the reason they presume they were pulled by oxen. I don`t see any other evidence given, apart from this, for their conclusion, Aberdeen.
In fact, like LeBrok and ebAmerican, I wonder if they were not carts or wagons, rather than chariots.

----------


## Angela

The details as to the author's reasoning behind calling it a "chariot" will have to wait for the paper, but in the meantime, as always, the definition of terms is very important. When is a chariot a chariot?

The Wiki entry is schizophrenic, or do I mean bi-polar, because, as often happens, too many hands have been at the stove:

"The horse drawn wheeled vehicle probably originated in Mesopotamia about 3000 BC. The earliest depiction of vehicles in the context of warfare is on the Standard of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, c. 2500 BC. These are more properly called wagons or carts and were still double-axled and pulled by oxen or tamed asses before the introduction of horses c. 2000 BC. Although sometimes carrying a spearman along with the charioteer (driver), such heavy wagons, borne on solid wooden wheels and covered with skins, may have been part of the baggage train (e.g., during royal funeral processions) rather than vehicles of battle in themselves. The Sumerians had also a lighter, two-wheeled type of cart, pulled by four asses, but still with solid wheels. The spoked wheel did not appear in Mesopotamia until the mid-2000s BC.

The earliest fully developed true chariots known are from the chariot burials of the Andronovo (Timber-Grave) sites of the Sintashta-Petrovka Eurasian culture in modern Russia and Kazakhstan from around 2000 BC. "

The Standard of Ur, 2500 B.C.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_Ur

----------


## Aberdeen

So basically the vehicles in the south Caucasus are light wagons drawn by oxen and are contemporary with the true chariots found at the Andronovo sites. Which makes them not really a factor in the origins of the IE folk. The reference to "chariots" misdirected me away from the significant detail of kurgan burials in Georgia during that time period. Although I seem to remember there having been other indications that kurgans weren't necessarily exclusive to the IE folk - I'll have to see if I can find a reference to that somewhere.

----------


## Angela

I couldn't find an image for the Sintashta chariots.

This is an image of a Hittite chariot from later on:


This might be an older formulation, but Dr. Anthony is quoted in the article that is the source of this image:
http://factsanddetails.com/media/2/2..._I_Ill_014.jpg

Sintashta-Petrovka wheels had 8 to 12 spokes. Early chariots in the Middle East, as revealed in the Anatolian seal impressions, had only four spokes. The steppe chariots were also quite narrow. The distance between the two wheels was consistently less than four feet, probably suitable for only one person. Chariots widely used in Middle East warfare in later centuries were wider, capable of carrying two or three people. 

If the ages of the burial sites are correct, (approximately 2,000 BC) said Dr. David W. Anthony, who directed the dating research, chariots from the steppes were at least contemporary with and perhaps even earlier than the earliest Middle East chariots. The first hint of them in the Middle East is on clay seals, dated a century or two later. The seal impressions, from Anatolia, depict a light, two-wheel vehicle pulled by two animals, carrying a single figure brandishing an ax or hammer. "Scholarly caution tells me the matter is not resolved," said Dr. Anthony, an anthropologist at Hartwick College in Oneonta, N.Y. "But my gut feeling is, there's a good chance the chariot was invented first in the north."

Both the difference in numbers of spokes and in width, Dr. Anthony said, suggest that the steppe chariots probably evolved locally. He said it was improbable that the technology developed independently in both places; more likely, it arose in one place and was soon introduced in the other. 

"It is likely that chariot designs and perhaps uses varied from region to region, even during the initial rapid diffusion of chariot technology," he said. For example, the steppe chariot might have been developed not for warfare, but for use in ritual races meant to settle disputes or win prizes, which was an Aryan practice. 

With the light, two-wheeled chariot, said Dr. Robert Drews, a classics professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, people could fully exploit the horse as a draft animal. And while an ox cart traveled only 2 miles an hour, a team of chariot horses could cover 10.


If someone has access to Dr. Anthony's most current position on this, it would be very interesting.

----------


## Angela

This google book contains a chapter from Dr. Anthony concerning the Sintashta culture, and more particularly, the chariots. 
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...ariots&f=false

----------


## Angela

I see that some people have commented about this at Dienekes' site. Obviously, we have to wait for the paper, but from the article this find is definitely not of the light, two spoke-wheeled type used by the Hittites of a later time, for example. However, to call it a cart, as if it were used to transport farm vegetables, is a stretch, in my opinion. 

Such a "cart" would hardly be part of an elite tumulus burial. Also, from the evidence of the Standard of Ur from 3500 BC in Sumeria, four wheeled vehicles pulled by donkeys were built with a holder for spears, and were ridden by a solder armed with a spear. If that's not an instrument of war, then what is? Whether they were in wide-spread use is, of course, a different matter.

If anyone has a copy of Dr. Anthony's book, perhaps you could check the latest in it regarding the chariots. I have read it, but as a library book. It's pretty pricey.

Ed. Of course, it goes without saying that a lighter, faster, two wheeled (spoked) vehicle would be advantageous in warfare. I think it should also be kept in mind, however, that these Sintashta type vehicles are from 2,000 BC, not the 3500 or 3500-4,000 BC era of the first supposed movements of steppe peoples into the Balkans.

----------


## oriental

People assume that cattle cannot run fast. In India they had bullock cart races. They are stronger than horses and can run as fast as 30 mph though not as fast as horses. They could outrun a man. Bullock carts are common in India and were used for most produce transport.

----------


## Aberdeen

From Archeology Network News, an article on an Iron Age chariot find from France. I think it's interesting to compare the two finds.

"A combined team composed of archaeologists from the Ardennes departmental archaeology unit and from Inrap is currently excavating a Gallic aristocratic tomb at Warcq (Ardennes). Curated by the State (Drac Champagne-Ardenne), this site is located on the route of the A304 motorway being constructed by the Dreal between Charleville-Mézières and Rocroi. The excavation has currently revealed only the upper levels of this 15 square metre funerary chamber. Starting on 3 June for a three week period, archaeologists and an anthropologist have been working to uncover this chariot tomb. This type of aristocratic tomb emerges in the 7th century B.C. – during the first Iron Age – and ends with the end of the Gallic period. The oldest chariots have four wheels (like that found at Vix), while those from the second Iron Age have only two. The deceased person – who could be male or female – was generally inhumed on the chariot, which was an object of prestige and a symbol of social status. Champagne-Ardenne is famous for such tombs (particularly at Bourcq and Semide in the Ardennes), which are generally dated to the start of the second Iron Age (5th-4th century B.C.). The excavation has currently revealed only the upper levels of this 15 m² funerary chamber. The chamber was covered with wood in the form of planks supported by a central span and with supports on the pit walls. Several elements of the chariot have already been revealed: the iron wheel bands, whose interiors are covered with gold leaf, probable hub decorations in bronze set with glass paste, and some planks. Finally, in the south east angle, decorative elements in bronze still connected to the wood of the shaft have been discovered. These atypical objects do not as yet enable an accurate determination of the chronology of the chariot tomb.Another rare feature is the discovery along the western wall of two small horses whose bones are still articulated.All of these elements appear to offer very few parallels with previously excavated chariot graves, emphasising still further the exceptional nature of this discovery."

----------


## Angela

> From Archeology Network News, an article on an Iron Age chariot find from France. I think it's interesting to compare the two finds.
> 
> "A combined team composed of archaeologists from the Ardennes departmental archaeology unit and from Inrap is currently excavating a Gallic aristocratic tomb at Warcq (Ardennes). Curated by the State (Drac Champagne-Ardenne), this site is located on the route of the A304 motorway being constructed by the Dreal between Charleville-Mézières and Rocroi. The excavation has currently revealed only the upper levels of this 15 square metre funerary chamber. Starting on 3 June for a three week period, archaeologists and an anthropologist have been working to uncover this chariot tomb. This type of aristocratic tomb emerges in the 7th century B.C. – during the first Iron Age – and ends with the end of the Gallic period. The oldest chariots have four wheels (like that found at Vix), while those from the second Iron Age have only two. The deceased person – who could be male or female – was generally inhumed on the chariot, which was an object of prestige and a symbol of social status. Champagne-Ardenne is famous for such tombs (particularly at Bourcq and Semide in the Ardennes), which are generally dated to the start of the second Iron Age (5th-4th century B.C.). The excavation has currently revealed only the upper levels of this 15 m² funerary chamber. The chamber was covered with wood in the form of planks supported by a central span and with supports on the pit walls. Several elements of the chariot have already been revealed: the iron wheel bands, whose interiors are covered with gold leaf, probable hub decorations in bronze set with glass paste, and some planks. Finally, in the south east angle, decorative elements in bronze still connected to the wood of the shaft have been discovered. These atypical objects do not as yet enable an accurate determination of the chronology of the chariot tomb.Another rare feature is the discovery along the western wall of two small horses whose bones are still articulated.All of these elements appear to offer very few parallels with previously excavated chariot graves, emphasising still further the exceptional nature of this discovery."


There were undoubtedly improvements to the technology over time. 

The other thing that struck me was the wealth that was squandered on these things. In the book The Collapse of the Bronze Age, which I've mentioned before, the author proposes that the resources spent on the building of the chariots, and the ornamenting of them, and paying for the soldiers using them, actually contributed to the collapse. 

Perhaps there are modern parallels. How much did the maintaining of their nuclear arsenal and their large standing army contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union? That the arms race was a drain on the west as well seems pretty clear to me. That, however, is off topic, so I'll desist. :)

----------


## Aberdeen

> There were undoubtedly improvements to the technology over time. 
> 
> The other thing that struck me was the wealth that was squandered on these things. In the book The Collapse of the Bronze Age, which I've mentioned before, the author proposes that the resources spent on the building of the chariots, and the ornamenting of them, and paying for the soldiers using them, actually contributed to the collapse. 
> 
> Perhaps there are modern parallels. How much did the maintaining of their nuclear arsenal and their large standing army contribute to the collapse of the Soviet Union? That the arms race was a drain on the west as well seems pretty clear to me. That, however, is off topic, so I'll desist. :)


I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it makes sense, considering that Bronze Age societies seem to have been quite hierarchical. It's been suggested that the vast expense of pyramid building may have been part of what caused the Old Kingdom of Egypt to collapse. I suppose that with smaller social groups with fewer resources, the cost of a race to see who could be buried with the most elaborate grave goods could impoverish such groups, even without the added cost of pyramids. Although it's also been suggested that climate change may have also been a factor in the collapse of the Old Kingdom, and I suspect that could have been a factor in the general Bronze Age collapse, given how widespread it was. Poor judgement might not have caused so many Bronze Age societies to collapse at around the same time if there wasn't some other issue, such as climate change. Not that our modern society needs to worry about climate change.

----------


## Angela

> I hadn't thought of that possibility, but it makes sense, considering that Bronze Age societies seem to have been quite hierarchical. It's been suggested that the vast expense of pyramid building may have been part of what caused the Old Kingdom of Egypt to collapse. I suppose that with smaller social groups with fewer resources, the cost of a race to see who could be buried with the most elaborate grave goods could impoverish such groups, even without the added cost of pyramids. Although it's also been suggested that climate change may have also been a factor in the collapse of the Old Kingdom, and I suspect that could have been a factor in the general Bronze Age collapse, given how widespread it was. Poor judgement might not have caused so many Bronze Age societies to collapse at around the same time if there wasn't some other issue, such as climate change. Not that our modern society needs to worry about climate change.



He definitely sees climate change as a huge factor, since it precipitated the incursions of the people from the margins, which then disrupted the trade networks on which their wealth depended, but he definitely does see the draining of wealth as a contributing factor.

As to the Celtic find, I briefly looked to see if there were any published images, but I couldn't find any. 

I did see this graphic from Egypt, however. From what I have read, most scholars seem to believe that the spoke wheeled chariot was adopted from the Hyksos invaders, but then modified.


This is purportedly Ahmose of Thebes, who drove out the Hyksos, mid 16th century BC.


I wonder how similar these are to the one that was found in France from the 6th century BC. 

I thought this was pretty interesting too. It's a site about a NOVA program called Building The Pharaoh's Chariot:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient...h-chariot.html

You can access both the transcript and the video itself. The scientists seem pretty certain that going by the pictorial representations of progressive changes to the technology, the chariot adopted from the Hyksos was substantially modified. Apparently, among other things, they went from four to eight and then to six spokes, moved the axle from the center to the back, and changed the actual construction of the spokes. 

I tried to find a detailed description of the Hyksos chariot, but could only come up with this graphic purporting to be of the Hyksos chariot.



The Hittite chariots seem to differ from an early four spoke version to a later six spoke version.

I can't find a graphic or a detailed description of the Sintashta chariot at all, which seems odd.

I would think the scholars who specialize in this topic have the data so they can track the development of the technology from place to place, but I can't seem to find it. I don't know if it's in Anthony's book because I didn't buy a copy. Perhaps someone can look and post whatever information he published.

Ed. This is an Etruscan chariot from 530 B.C.

----------


## Maciamo

This discovery confirms the strong link between the Caucasus and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during the Bronze Age. If chariots appear almost simultaneously in the middle Volga region and the Caucasus, it means that there was a lot of mobility and exchange between the two regions, probably because they belonged to a common IE culture.

----------


## AgnusDei

I am quite sure the Mesopotamians were the first to ever use the two-wheeled chariot!

----------


## Maciamo

> I am quite sure the Mesopotamians were the first to ever use the two-wheeled chariot!


Sources, please.

----------


## AgnusDei

> Sources, please.





> *chariot, open, two- or four-wheeled vehicle of antiquity, probably first used in royal funeral processions and later employed in warfare, racing, and hunting. The chariot apparently originated in Mesopotamia in about 3000 bc; monuments from Ur and Tutub depict battle parades that include heavy vehicles with solid wheels, their bodywork framed with wood and covered with skins. On the earliest chariots the wheels rotated on a fixed axle that was linked by a draft pole to the yoke of a pair of oxen. To the axle was attached a superstructure consisting of a platform protected by sidescreens and a high dashboard. These Mesopotamian chariots were mounted by both spearman and charioteer, although it is doubtful that fighting was conducted from the vehicle itself.
> *


Source: Britannica 
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...106477/chariot

----------


## bicicleur

> Source: Britannica 
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...106477/chariot


30 years ago, archelogists only knew about mesopotamia and all inventions were ascribed to them
meanwhile a lot has changed
nobody knows exactly who invented the cart, we only know that once it was invented, it spread very rapidly

I'm surprised brittanica hasn't changed their story yet
furthermore I think a chariot has spoked wheels, and was invented 2100 BC
what britannica describes is a cart, with full disk wheels

----------


## bicicleur

> This discovery confirms the strong link between the Caucasus and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during the Bronze Age. If chariots appear almost simultaneously in the middle Volga region and the Caucasus, it means that there was a lot of mobility and exchange between the two regions, probably because they belonged to a common IE culture.


it seems to me we are dealing with a full disk wheel cart here, and not a spoked wheel chariot

----------


## AgnusDei

> 30 years ago, archelogists only knew about mesopotamia and all inventions were ascribed to them
> meanwhile a lot has changed
> nobody knows exactly who invented the cart, we only know that once it was invented, it spread very rapidly
> 
> I'm surprised brittanica hasn't changed their story yet
> furthermore I think a chariot has spoked wheels, and was invented 2100 BC
> what britannica describes is a cart, with full disk wheels


Archaeology is a scientific field,it basically changes with new discoveries,the earliest evidence of a cart was found in Mesopotamia!

I have watched at least three documentaries where it was clearly mentioned that the Assyrians had improved on the Sumerian 4 wheeled chariot/cart .

Scroll to 3:45



There are also two other documentaries where this was discussed in great detail,The Kings:From Babylon to Baghdad and
What The Ancients Did For us:The Mesopotamians .

----------


## Yetos

I still do not understand why so much discuss about the chariot

*CHARIOT AND HORSE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WITH THE ENTRANCE OF IE IN EUROPE*

why?


cause Kurgans theory is tottaly wrong, as also horse and chariot.

IE ENTER EUROPE AROUND 3500 specially NORTH OF DONAU (IΣΤΡΟΣ, DANUBE DONAV) 

THERE IS ARCHAIOLOGICAL AND GENETICAL EVIDENCE.

many times I supported the theory that IE theory as explained by kurgans and horse/chariot is wrong

THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT FITS IN IE THEORY BOTH IN TIME GENETICAL AND ARCHAIOLOGICAL IS ARSENIC BRONZE,

Arsenic bronze was invented around south Georgia (Maykob) pass to Yamna and from there to Baltic sea (the Northern ones) and to Cotofeni Vatin Vucocar (the south ones).
IT FITS EXACTLY WITH THE SPREAD OF IE GENETICAL DATA, LANGUAGES AND* DATES.*

now about Chariot.

The oldest chariot is found around 2-2500 BC.
Meaning 1500-1000 after bronze and the collapse of Vinca and simmilar cultures.

so does it has any meaning in IE expansion?
Early Mycenean language is estimated 1900-2300 BC but no chariot found that time in Europe, 
So chariot did not took part in IE expansion


to be more specific
a chariot can be usefull in lands of Hungary or Syria or Central asian steppes but is it usefull in areas like Ukraine or Lithuania?
For me NO, a chariot can give spead if works, but in lands where mud is for months is just a trouble,

now something interesting

IN THE BATTLE OF KADESH (Hettits vs Egyptians) there is mentioned and calculated a number of about 100-200 total chariots, when we know that Hettit power was chariot
CHARIOTS WERE EXPENCIVE THAT TIME, ONLY KINGS AND WEALTHY HAVE THEM.

in all ancient known battles with chariots the number was 1 chariot per hundreds of warrior, 1/x00. 


now to enter to more sophisticated thoughts and discuss.

Horse, 
somewhere in Middle East or (Euro)Asian Steppe.
an animal with spead, and meat
*
YES I agree that Steppe dwellers domasticated the horse but for what?
maybe for food (like sheep) and fast carco movement when they roam or devastate?*
They could use horse for both, but a chariot?
as I said a charriot is expensive, it needs tools to be done, materials to be carried, tools to carried, if an accident happens,
*AND IRON HAS NOT INVENTED YET*. copper is not the perfect metall to work hard wood that chariot demands, you need much copper to produce and repair a charriot,
bronze is better but still no chariot when bronze is invented,

Charriot in the hands of farmers or wealthy merchants,
That is a good idea,
a chariot driven by oxes to carry grain fruits to granaries or merchant's cargo from city to city,
fast transportation, and the earns cpould afford the cost of a chariot, imagine 2 oxes to cary goods from one city to another, or transport the grain?
think 20 workers in few hectars of land without a charriot, to gather the grain and transport to safe place (city grannary) and the same with an ox charriot!!!!!!

why not mounted?
That is still not understood,
*WHY STEPPE PEOPLE DID NOT RIDE THE HORSE AS MILLENIUMS LATER THE SCYTHIANS, AND USE CHARRIOTS?*
A horse and a composite bow is just perfect compound for a steppe dweller? Yet we find steppe people first to ride charriots and then the horse,

All the above (at least for me) give the following
Charriot was invented by Messopotamians (they knew the wheel) as a transport, probably driven by oxes,
then when merchandise with steppe people become prosperous, they replace oxes with horses, 
when they realise the power, they turn it to a war machine in the hands of Kings or wealthy Noble,
just compare it with the story of pony express in 18th century US (from pioneers to caravans to pony express to railway)

anyway *CHARRIOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IE EXPANSION* (at least in Europe)

ty

----------


## AgnusDei

^ 
Nice analysis Yetos !

----------

