Re: [tied] Wheeled vehicles

--- Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gknysh@...
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 3:26 AM
> Subject: [tied] Wheeled vehicles
>
>
> > Prof. V. Kul'baka (an archaeologist connected to
> the Mariupil' Humanities Institute) has recently
> published an interesting booklet ["Indo-European
> tribes of Ukraine in the paleometallic epoch",
> Mariupil' 2000, 80 pp. ISBN: 966-7329-30-5 (in
> Ukr.)], which contains a good deal of information
> about recent digs in Ukraine and adjacent areas.
> Kul'baka cannot confirm the reigning date for the
> Bronocice pot and its depiction of the earliest
> known wheeled vehicle in Europe (the dig mixed up
> material from various layers and the RC-ed bones
> have no necessary relation to the pot: in any case
> it is at least from the late second quarter of the
> 3rd millennium BC and could in fact be more ancient,
> we just don't know for sure).
>
> This description does not do justice to the
> Bronocice pot. First of all, the stratigraphic
> structure of pit 34/A1, where the "wagon pot" was
> found, was intact, and the pot was unearthed from
> the bottom layer of the pit.

****GK: Kul'baka relies on the description of the dig
site and its stratigraphy offered by A.V. Safronov in
his "Indoievropejskie prarodini" (Gorki [=Nyzhnii
Novgorod] 1989), p. 378. It seems strange that
Safronov, who otherwise supports the idea that
Bronocice has the oldest figuration of a waggon in the
Old World should have provided crucially incorrect
information. But that can be checked.******

The style of the vessel

> is characteristic of the Bronocice III phase of the
> local Funnel Beaker culture,

*****GK: Here too the Safronov information is
different: he points out the unusual form of the pot
in the context of the FB c. (ibid., p. 151)******

independently dated at

> ca. 2700 bc (calibrated 3491 BC) to 2500 bc (3060
> BC). The pot can scarcely be younger than 3060 BC,
> since after that date typical Funnel Beaker pottery
> disappeared from the Bronocice region.

****GK: Which may explain Safronov's caveats.******

The cattle

> bone buried in the same layer have now been
> radiocarbon-dated to 2775 +/-50 bc (3635-3370 BC),
> and the median date (ca. 3400 BC) is completely
> consistent with the typological estimate of the age
> of the pot.

*****GK: Only if the information provided by Safronov
is demonstrably erroneous. But otherwise: is there any
DIRECT evidence of wheeled transport in the FB c.
burials? That, it seems to me is also a pretty crucial
point. There is a world of difference between a
pictorial representation on a pot and the real thing.
The Kul'baka material from Yamna and Catacomb is
absolutely overwhelming (and there are also a great
many different "wheel types" indicating constant
transport innovations.)******

>
> > Kul'baka follows the latest Bratchenko (1997)
> calibrated RC dates for the Yamna culture, which
> re-establish an older (and briefly questioned) time
> frame for this (=ca. 3400-2900 BC).
>
> However, it is precisely this dating that has been
> questioned again in recent publications (there is a
> whole series of papers by E. Keiser, A. Nikolova,
> V.I. Klochko, V.A. Kruts and others, published 1999
> in the Baltic-Pontic Studies) that study the
> absolute chronology of the Yamna culture in the
> Dnieper and Dniester areas.

*****GK: The point would be to know precisely what is
being questioned. The Yamna c. (in its various
chronological components) was spread over a very wide
area, and it is understandable that some kurgans might
be considerably younger than others. Kul'baka's own
digs are far to the east of the Dnipro.******

In these studies

> doubtful complexes are excluded and dating focusses
> on bone samples (to exclude errors due to the "old
> wood effect"). The post-calibration chronological
> brackets range from 2590-2320 BC (the right bank of
> the Lower Dnieper) to 2410-2170 BC (the
> Akkiembetskiy Kurgan at the mouth of the Dniester).
> The new dates for the Catacomb culture (Kaiser,
> Nikolova) mostly belong to the period 2310-2060 BC.
> All these datings are very conservative and may err
> on the cautious side, so future research will quite
> likely extend the periods in question. In particular
> if one broadens the definition of the Yamna culture,
> its initial bracket can probably be pushed back a
> century or two, but 3400-2900 BC seems incompatible
> with the most recent research.

*****GK: This research seems incomplete and selective
as you've described it. So we'll wait for further
research. Don't we always? Too bad this is not easily
available on line (AFAIK). Frankly I don't give too
much credence to a lot of very recent re-evaluations.
Not yet anyway. Marsha Levine's article on Dereivka is
a case in point. It sounds promising until you realize
that a lot of material noted in the Telegin study has
simply been ignored: not rejected, just ignored. Like
the horse bits.******

>
> > Now to the meat of the matter. The booklet lists
> and describes 109 Yamna culture burials (62 in
> Moldova and Ukraine, 47 in South Russia), which
> contain clear evidence of wheeled waggon transport.
> [2 or more wheels buried along with humans in most
> graves, and sometimes entire waggons. No horses
> though, but what looks like a wooden horse bit].
> This custom continued in the Catacomb culture(s) era
> [calibr. RC 2900-2200 BC] Kul'baka is actually a
> specialist as to the latter. He has elsewhere
> analyzed the burial systems of its various groups,
> and attempted to relate these (and the discovered
> material remnants) to practices described in the
> Rigveda.
>
> Personally, I believe the carriers of the Yamna and
> Catacomb cultures were essentially the
> (Proto-)Indo-Iranians, so one would indeed expect
> some degree of historical continuity between those
> cultures and Rigvedic society.

*****GK: On this you and Kul'baka quite agree.*****

>
> > Unfortunately there is no accompanying linguistic
> evidence in these remains, though Kul'baka notes
> that a recently discovered pot seems inscribed in
> what looks very much like very early Sanskrit
> letters. The pot, however, is from the time and area
> (Donets'k region) of the Zrubna culture (ca. 1200
> BC).
>
> This looks fanciful to me. The Devanagari script
> derives historically from the Brahmi script (as in
> the As'oka inscriptions), which in turn may have
> been inspired by the North Semitic writing system
> used for Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Persian
> Empire. But external inspiration apart, Brahmi is a
> local Indian invention, documented from the 3rd
> century BC and surely not *very much* older. "Early
> Sanskrit letters" ca. 1200 BC in the Pontic steppe
> just cannot be real.

*****GK: Well the pot is pretty real, and its
inscription likewise. It won't go away. A specialist
would need to verify this of course. Kul'baka calls
the script "pre-Sanskrit". I should make one further
note: the date 1200 BC is not Kul'baka's but mine and
could easily be wrong (either too early or too late).
He only talks about the Zrubna c. (which is ca. 1600
through ca. 800 BC)******

>
> Piotr
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com