worrylesswarrior

Who brought in iron technology to India in 800 BC? I know that it
came ~800BC, a few centuries after the horse was brought in. BTW, do
we know when the first domesticated horses came to India?

day brown

I think there is a growing realization that the 'Aryans' were not a
race,
but an eclectic crowd of traders and nomads who worked the prehistoric
routes across central Asia. which didnt usta be desert.

The earliest remains of domestic horses which I know of are in 'Kurgan'
tels
of Ukraine or the SW Steppes, formerly suggested at 5000 BCE. But the
whole
dating game is in a tizzy right now over 'recalibration' in light of the
dendochronology and Greenland Ice Core data.

I've seen video of Ugarit tribesmen with ropes to 20-30 reindeer, tow a
framed 'tent house' across the Tundra on skids. I expect that these
early
horses were used in a simlar manner. they show signs of teeth wear
consistent
with a bridle, but no sign of saddles. Makes sense cause they are only
137cm
at the withers, too small for most men, and like a goat, with a very
narrow
back with a sharp backbone sticking up. A literal ball buster.

The Amazons arose, cause they didnt have the problem.

EW Barber, 'The Mummies of Urumchi', suggests that nomads were driven
off the
steppe by drought, and in your case some would have made it all the way
down
to India, but then, she notes, that considering the primitive nature of
agriculture, people knew it was lots easier to make a living in
livestock.
So, as soon as it greened up again, they took their horses and stock
back
onto the Steppes. beat farming for a living. So, just cause the horses
may
have arrived in India long before 800 BC, or whatever, dont mean that
they
*stayed* there.

With regards to Iron... Just as the Appalachian trail was pre-columbian,
so there are trade routes all over central asia going back into
Neolithic
times. And just as the plains indians were a very mixed lot, so too were
these early nomads. So it is, at the eastern end of the Silk Road, we
find the graves of 'white people', and we find the graves of Chinese-
who
were buried in exactly the same clothes with the same grave goods.

When you are in business shipping goods by camel across long distance
through
dangerous territory, only the most valuable items are profitable. Ethno
Botanist
Wasson postulated decades ago on a Siberian/Indus trade route for dried
Amanita
Muscaria mushrooms. A drug trade. The origin of 'Soma'. I think the
Satellite
scans have identified some of that route. And everyone knows about the
Silk Road,
but it seems to predate silk, running across the grasslands from China
to Hungary.

And they all meet someplace in Uzbekistan. Both horses, and first
bronze, but then
later iron. So, while I know something of the mercantile culture of
those who
first brought in iron, (they were real big on iron 'Longswords' for a
long time)
I dont think there is any way to identify the DNA. The Gypsies have
always said
that they came from India, and I see no reason to doubt them. Whoever
brought
either horses or iron to India could well have been "Indian", but in any
case
was knowledgeable enough of the mercantile culture to afford the trip.

It is the missing piece, that along with all the settled peoples whose
bones
have been seen in the graveyards and identified with certain localities,
there
is this other eclectic group of entrepeneurs, who dont givadam what your
race is
so long as they can make money doing business with you. The Aryans were
like the
Yankees. who are not a race either.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

peter t. daniels

You have ONE chance to correct this. Is it idiocy, or a typo?
And, BTW, <tell> has two l's.

They did? Where? When?


The philologists have always said that.

--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

day brown

Some prolly from Tripolye, the domestic horses in Ukraine have been
dated 5000 years ago or so, I dunno what the calibration might be.
According to Mallory, the horses are small, rather like the figure on
the front of his book. But they had not been bred for flat backs yet
either. And, he says the Cucuteni (aka Tripolye) were 'gracile',
compared to the Kurgans who were notoriously large. Obviously, a small
woman can ride a small horse when a heavy man cannot, and in so doing
ride faster than he can run. So, there was no way the men could control
the women.

And if the women can manage a herd from horseback, they are much more
likely to survive a stampede than men on foot. It dont take physical
strength to drive horses, goats/sheep and cattle across the open Steppe;
its gonzo easier that farming for a living. So, the women are living on
horseback, with their tents on sleds or oxpacks, moving from place to
place, able to scout ahead to avoid warriors, and having only men who
can take orders from women living with them. "Amazon" seems a reasonable
term to me. It would certainly be politically wise to have a violent
reputation in an era when bandits have already invented their trade.

EW Barber suggests that the reason the female tribal leader wore a tall
black hat was so that everyone could see which way she (the witch) was
headed, and adjust the movement of the livestock accordingly. The
fixation which young white women have for horses looks like an instinct
(Jungian) which they have inherited the same as their stockdogs.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---