This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vedic period article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See WP:ISA for information on the preferred usage of India c.q. Indian Subcontinent c.q. South Asia. |
The Indo-Aryan Migration view was challenged and said to be debunked by Vasant Shinde in his DNA study [1].
The DNA study [2] of skeletal remains found at the Rakhigarhi excavation site provides evidence that severely destabilises and debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory propounded by British colonial rulers.
The study finds no Central Asian trace in the DNA, indicating that the Aryan Invasion Theory (Aryan Invasion) was flawed and Vedic evolution was through indigenous people [3] [4] [5] leading to the strengthening of the stand of Indian Scholars post the study.
I think it may be needed to update and include this study in the Origins section. The study conflicts the existing paragraph in regards to the Aryan or Arya references. More study on this is needed.
References
Santosh L ( talk) 11:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Your preferred version
diff gives undue weight to the indigenist position. See
WP:FRINGE. My "recent additions" were copy-edits, which grouped the undue info on the indigenist position together in one note, and an update on the recent state of research regarding the origins of the Indo-Aryans - the topic of this subsection. Your comment the additions by JJ were not so related to this subject and seemed
WP:UNDUE
is misleading and misplaced.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton used the term "Indo-Aryan Controversy" for an oversight of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory, and some of its opponents.is undue, and can be moved to the note.
The Epic-Puranic chronology, the timeline of events in ancient Indian history as narrated in the Mahabaratha, the Ramayana, and the Puranas, envisions an older chronology for the Vedic culture. In this view, the Vedas were received thousands of years ago, and the Kurukshetra War, the background-scene of the Baghavad Gita, which may relate histoical events taking which took place ca. 1000 BCE at the heartland of Aryavarta,[19][20] is dated in this chronology at ca. 3100 BCE.
As of 2006, Mallory and Adams note that two models "enjoy significant international currency" as to the Indo-European homeland, namely the Anatolian hypothesis, and a migration out of the Eurasian steppes.[15] More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable, and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.[16][17][18][web 1][web 2]
The following line
More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable, [1] and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor. [2] [3] [web 1] [web 2]
is an update on Mallory and Adams, with sourced info from multiple WP:RS. I see no objection to including this. It's in line with what Singh writes, reflecting the mainstream scholalry position. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
i want say that no vedic text tells about the mahajanpad only buddist and jain text tell about the mahajanpad Mohit atulkar ( talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Vedic age mentioned in this article as I understand was arbitrarily assigned by Max Muller. At the end of his long and productive life, he again acknowledged the complete arbitrariness of his previous calculations: "Whether the Vedic hymns were composed 1000, or 1500, or 2000, or 3000 years B.C, no power on earth will eve determine" (Muller 1891,91). Elsewhere, Muller(1897,87) was quite happy to consider a date of 3000 B.C.E based on Sayce's discovery of two Babylonian ideographs--cloth + vegetable fiber (which Sayce believed was cotton)-- that has to pronounced 'sindhu'. This suggested that the Babylonians knew of the river Sindhu and, by extension, since he considered this word to be Sanskrit, the Indo-Aryan-speaking people, in 3000 B.C.E. 49.187.20.50 ( talk) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vedic period article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See WP:ISA for information on the preferred usage of India c.q. Indian Subcontinent c.q. South Asia. |
The Indo-Aryan Migration view was challenged and said to be debunked by Vasant Shinde in his DNA study [1].
The DNA study [2] of skeletal remains found at the Rakhigarhi excavation site provides evidence that severely destabilises and debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory propounded by British colonial rulers.
The study finds no Central Asian trace in the DNA, indicating that the Aryan Invasion Theory (Aryan Invasion) was flawed and Vedic evolution was through indigenous people [3] [4] [5] leading to the strengthening of the stand of Indian Scholars post the study.
I think it may be needed to update and include this study in the Origins section. The study conflicts the existing paragraph in regards to the Aryan or Arya references. More study on this is needed.
References
Santosh L ( talk) 11:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Your preferred version
diff gives undue weight to the indigenist position. See
WP:FRINGE. My "recent additions" were copy-edits, which grouped the undue info on the indigenist position together in one note, and an update on the recent state of research regarding the origins of the Indo-Aryans - the topic of this subsection. Your comment the additions by JJ were not so related to this subject and seemed
WP:UNDUE
is misleading and misplaced.
Joshua Jonathan -
Let's talk!
06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton used the term "Indo-Aryan Controversy" for an oversight of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory, and some of its opponents.is undue, and can be moved to the note.
The Epic-Puranic chronology, the timeline of events in ancient Indian history as narrated in the Mahabaratha, the Ramayana, and the Puranas, envisions an older chronology for the Vedic culture. In this view, the Vedas were received thousands of years ago, and the Kurukshetra War, the background-scene of the Baghavad Gita, which may relate histoical events taking which took place ca. 1000 BCE at the heartland of Aryavarta,[19][20] is dated in this chronology at ca. 3100 BCE.
As of 2006, Mallory and Adams note that two models "enjoy significant international currency" as to the Indo-European homeland, namely the Anatolian hypothesis, and a migration out of the Eurasian steppes.[15] More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable, and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.[16][17][18][web 1][web 2]
The following line
More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable, [1] and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor. [2] [3] [web 1] [web 2]
is an update on Mallory and Adams, with sourced info from multiple WP:RS. I see no objection to including this. It's in line with what Singh writes, reflecting the mainstream scholalry position. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
i want say that no vedic text tells about the mahajanpad only buddist and jain text tell about the mahajanpad Mohit atulkar ( talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Vedic age mentioned in this article as I understand was arbitrarily assigned by Max Muller. At the end of his long and productive life, he again acknowledged the complete arbitrariness of his previous calculations: "Whether the Vedic hymns were composed 1000, or 1500, or 2000, or 3000 years B.C, no power on earth will eve determine" (Muller 1891,91). Elsewhere, Muller(1897,87) was quite happy to consider a date of 3000 B.C.E based on Sayce's discovery of two Babylonian ideographs--cloth + vegetable fiber (which Sayce believed was cotton)-- that has to pronounced 'sindhu'. This suggested that the Babylonians knew of the river Sindhu and, by extension, since he considered this word to be Sanskrit, the Indo-Aryan-speaking people, in 3000 B.C.E. 49.187.20.50 ( talk) 01:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)