--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> *****GK: Let's just deal with this one issue before
> moving on to other points you have made. If "pura"
> does not mean "fort" or "citadel", what does it mean?
> And can that something else also be "stormed"
> "destroyed" etc.. with the "assistance of... horses
> and chariots"?******
VA: I think that before we tackle this question, there are more
seminal questions to be answered.
1. What is the nature of the Rigvedic chariot? Max Sparreboom's book
is based almost entirely on Taittiriya Samhita and its Kalpasutra
tradition and is therefore not of much help here.
2. What advantages do chariots offer, from a military perspective, in
storming forts and citadels?
3. Why would pastoralists use chariots to wrest cattle from each
other?
4. What is the basic nature of the cultures which employed chariots
on a large scale in their warfare.
5. What kind of terrain is suited for chariot warfare?
In tackling these questions, we would do well to leave out romantic
ideas (e.g. of Stuart Piggott in some of his earlier books) that the
Vedic Aryans used the chariots to control their herds!
If you wish to understand what the Indologists of a particular school
think about Vedic 'pura', you really need to read Rau's monograph.
From an IVC archaeology perspective, note that there is evidence of
burning down of settlements at the commencement of MATURE Harappan
culture, i.e., around 2500 BCE. Further, when the Harappan culture
extended into Saurashtra around 2300 BCE, the pre-existing
settlements show some evidence of violent destruction.
Such features are practically absent when the IA speaking people
supposedly entered the IVC area.
So we really need to wonder - even if the Puras of RV are forts and
citadels (and these passages reflect some true historical
background), which particular period in N India-Pakistan fits this
description? Surely, the IA speakers would not storm abandoned
citadels.
Sincerely,
Vishal