Rishsafide Baba

The kamarkassa may (or, indeed, may NOT) have been adopted by a 17th century Indian warlord for himself and his followers, but it's wrong to revise history through the lens of his beliefs. The kamarband is and was a fundamental of Zoroastrianism and was also a basic item of clothing (a belt worn outside the clothes) in Islamic Iran. The Sikh tradition, after adopting this item very recently, is no authority on the origins of this item of clothing.

I have the wax cylinder

The situations are not the same and you have not correctly identified the crux of the disagreement of the jurists regarding V-e-F. Only the Imam can be the ruler, under Velayat-e-Faqih. The Supreme Leader is the caretaker/guardian jurist who prepares the State for the reappearance of the Imam, who will take it over. Furthermore the reappearance of Imam is different to the Jews' Messiah, because in Shia doctrine the Imam is already here whereas the Jews believe their Messiah is not yet here.

If the new theory is correct, that would mean that one group practised ritual burial and the other group cremated their dead. So it follows that according to their respective belief systems, they each considered the other group to be dealing with their dead the wrong way. What's relevant for us here is that there was a group practising ritual burial at least 40000 years ago - ritual burial implies a host of accompanying beliefs including a belief in the afterlife. If they did not have a writing system, their belief system must have originated out of the utterances of an orator they considered authoritative i.e. a prophet. If you consider that the dead body will not be raised again but that something coming out of it at the moment of death will be incarnated again into some other creature, then the corpse has much less importance for you and you are not likely to go to the trouble of a ritual burial. You are more likely to cremate the corpse.

Preliterate humanity practised ritual burial, reflecting a belief in the afterlife: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s788032.htm This implies an oral tradition carrying the shared beliefs of a community. Where there is an oral tradition there must have been an original utterance, meaning that there had to have been a prophet (at least 40000 years ago) who the people considered authoritative.