chariots (was horse argument), 1/2

Michael Witzel witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU
Mon Jun 8 12:30:32 UTC 1998

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Vidhyanath Rao wrote:

> seems to me, is the major point. I think that it is futile to continue
> this thread unless this is addressed. The rest is incidental to this

Yes, indeed. Let us agree to disagree, --- at least for the moment.

I will get into Mr Spruytte if I get the time before Summer School
Sanskrit starts on June 22. For the moment, I am busy with other,
(actually more interesting things -- and a deadline --- regarding the
Rgvedic period -- not the items discussed recently, though!)

> the vehicle whose trace was found in Shintasha could not
> have been very maneuverable. I have not seen any counter argument to
> this.

Sine I have not yet seen Spruytte,I cannot tell, -- but it seems to me
that on the basis of the Sintashta chariot we can say little: we only have
the lower parts of its spoked wheels in impression, the width of the
chariot and the length of its body/pole (fom the size of the impressions
left of the supporting posts when putting the thing into the grave.) No
wooden remains. But again - later.

Michael Witzel                       witzel at

phone: 1- 617 - 495 3295 (voice & messages), 496 8570, fax 617 - 496 8571
my direct line (also for messages) :  617- 496 2990

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list