Talk:Dasa

Untitled
This page is really well writtern. Well done! .The Mystic - 14:12, 28th July 2006

there too?
'This talk section was initially at Talk:Out of India theory'

Following a "See also" at Dahae (now rewritten, so the link is gone), I ran into the article on dasa that is stylistically (and then some) precisely the same sort of cruft as in this article, and there is a reference to one Parpola person who is also cited here. The tripe at the dasa article with respect to Avestan/OP daha (hahaha) seems just the same sort of "creative" construction that someone tried to pass off here as legitimate scholarship.

Hence the question: is the Parpola fellow cited here and cited there legit? If so, is that article coat-racking like this one is/was? -- Fullstop 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Asko Parpola is a famous Indologist noted for his attempts to decipher the IVC script. He is very much for real. Paul B 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * would he be cited for OP daha (refs [3] and [4] there)? And if so, in what context?
 * That article's conclusion that dasa == daha is not explicitly stated, but implied all over the place.
 * -- Fullstop 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul, I see you active on that article too, do you know who added this sentence:
 * When Zarathustrianism was established, Shri Varuna who Zarathustra referred to as the Ahura Mazda (Rigvedic Assur Mehda or Assur Mahadeo)
 * Thats a Maleabroad'ism. Direct from the now (thankfully) deleted 'Zoroastrianism and Hinduism'
 * -- Fullstop 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've no idea who wrote that, but it must be quite recent. It wasn't there when I last looked at the article. Paul B 06:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Shri Varuna = Ahura Mazda" is patent nonsense (although it has a kernel of merit. Both Varuna and Mazda are "supreme Asuras"), but the connection dahae=dasa isn't too far-fetched. Mayrhofer and Bartholomae make the connection. Mayrhofer also states that a connection with dasyu is plausible (but uncertain). I think formerly, scholars were very positive about the connection. The etymology proposed was from the root dam "to tame", in the meaning of "subjects, slaves"; alternatively compared with Greek doulos (Mycenaean do-e-ro < *doselos) "slave". This isn't widely accepted now, but neither is it positively rejected: people are rather agnostic about the question. But many great scholars of the past have proposed the equation, so it is at least worth discussing. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A linguistic relationship does not imply a functional one:
 * Av daxiiu are consistently enemies of the faith, Av *daha are consistently followers of the faith.
 * Skt dasyu are consistently enemies of the faith, Skt *dasa are ambiguous.
 * To state that Skt dasyu/Av daxiiu represent shared Indo-Iranian religious dialectology is ok. But the article doesn't do that.
 * To state that Skt *dasa/Av *daha are equal is not ok. (eg "Dasa is also in Iranian 'Daha'")
 * To imply Av daxiiu equals Av. *daha is not ok. (eg second sentence in Etymology section)
 * To contrast *dasa/*daha/*dasyu/*daxiiu with Asura/Ahura/Daeva/Deva is completely mind blowing.
 * To be freaky is not ok (eg "Daha also referred to a dasyu tribe in Margiana.")
 * And what are Arrian, Strabo, Pomponius Mela, Tacitus doing in an etymology section?
 * -- Fullstop 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "To contrast *dasa/*daha/*dasyu/*daxiiu with Asura/Ahura/Daeva/Deva is completely mind blowing"? well, but it has been done, in scholarly literature too. You are saying the article needs cleanup, and I agree. Needless to say, this is a question of reconstruction of Proto-Indo-Iranian religion, and prehistoric developments. It's speculative, and it needs attribution, and clear phrasing. But the topic isn't invalid. --dab (𒁳) 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To contrast *dasa/*daha/dasyu/daxiiu with Asura/Ahura/Daeva/Deva in the way the article did it is mind blowing and cannot possibly have been done. You might have missed what the sentence actually said, so here goes again:

In both cases the name in simply one in a list of names. There is no "meaning" to a name in those lists. Substitute *Dasa with "QuackQuack" and the lists would still be what they always were, with no loss of precision or meaning. To suggest that a name in a list has meaning is like suggesting we throw away dictionaries in favor of telephone books. A person named "Dieter" does not "preserve" the meaning of "rich and powerful" :) Not that there is any definition of "meaning" that they could possibly preserve. This is the second sentence in the section and the only definition of meaning thus far in the article is the one in the lead section, which reads: The Dāsa are a tribe identified as the enemies of the Aryan tribes in the Rigveda. etc Do you see a "positive (or neutral) meaning" to preserve there?
 * While the terms Dasa and Dasyu have a negative meaning in Sanskrit, their Iranian counterparts Daha and Dahyu have preserved their positive (or neutral) meaning. This is similar to the Sanskrit terms Deva (a "positive" term) and Asura (a "negative" term). The Iranian counterparts of these terms (Daeva and Ahura) have opposite meanings.
 * This is in a section on etymology (!), in the second and third sentence, and where the first sentence says nothing.
 * Break down:
 * 1. [unlike Sankrit] Iranian counterparts Daha and Dahyu have preserved their positive (or neutral) meaning
 * false and false comparison.
 * Daha is a proper noun in Av/OP, and as such there is no question of "preservation of meaning".
 * OP inscriptions are political statements. If there is a "moral" dimension, then this is within the context of kingship, and there are no proclamations of religious values. They are not religious compositions and not comparable with religious texts.
 * OP Daha is just one name in a list of various ethnous of the empire. It is possible (I suppose) to apply a negative connotation to the idea of "subject peoples", but thats neither here nor there, and would throw up some very uncomfortable questions.
 * Av *Daha is also the name of some ethnous, and "positive" in that this people are acknowledged as followers of Zoroastrianism.
 * Av Daxiuu has precisely the same meaning as Skt Dasyu.
 * 2. This is similar to the Sanskrit terms Deva (a "positive" term) and Asura (a "negative" term). The Iranian counterparts of these terms (Daeva and Ahura) have opposite meanings.
 * false equation ("similar"), false comparison ("counterparts"), temporal bias ("positive"/"negative" is *late*)
 * RigVedic Deva/Asura are not opposites. They are not even necessarily mutually exclusive.
 * The dichotomy of Daeva/Ahura is a by-product of something else.
 * Daeva and Ahura do not have an "opposite meaning" vis-a-vis Daeva and Asura.
 * Neither the dichotomy of Deva/Asura nor the dichotomy of Daeva/Ahura represent a feature of Indo-Iranian religion.
 * In an article titled dasa, and in which dasa is (presumably) what the article is about, the etymology section of dasa could (and should) begin with something like this:
 * Although many different etymologies for dasa- have been proposed, the most widely accepted of these is one deriving from a stem meaning "man". This meaning is preserved in Khotanese dahä "man" and dahi "woman."
 * The relationship to Iranic daha can be summarized in three sentences:
 * The Vedic Sanskrit adjective dasa may or may not be linguistically related to Iranic proper noun *Daha. In the the non-religious (political) XPh inscription, OP Daha is one name in a list of subject nations (ethnous). A people of a similar name - perhaps but not necessarily the same as those referred to in the XPh - appear (alongside the Airiia, Tuiriia, Sairima and Sainu) in the Avesta in a list of tribes that followed the Zoroastrian religion. In both Iranian languages, the name only only occurs once.
 * If dasynu is - in violation of what the lead section says - being treated as synonymous with dasa, then an explanation of dasyu must come before the etymology section. In the etymology section, one might then read:
 * The Vedic Sanskrit noun Dasyu and its Avestan language cognate Daxiiu both denote a people hostile to the respective religions. An OP form dahyu, meaning "province", is also attested.
 * -- Fullstop 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Fullstop 22:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we move this section to Talk:Dahae. --dab (𒁳) 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved to the talk for the article under discussion, i.e. 'Talk:dasa -- Fullstop 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Black is Goddess country
Blck refers to doing it the "goddess" organic way, by going full circle in darkness.

Enemy refers to fleeing from God and entering Goddess Garden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.70.121 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that supposed to be a reference to Kali-Maa? In the Samkhya system of philosophy, "male energy" refers to "spirit" and "female energy" refers to "matter". Hokie Tech (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Goddess Worshipers
There is some evidence that the inhabitants of the Bactria and Margiana Archaeological Complex (referred to in the Rgveda as "Dasas") were goddess worshipers. The following quote comes from page 370 of the book The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia:

"The word tripura has important religious implications. I shall only briefly deal with the religion of the BMAC, which I have examined elsewhere (Parpola 1988: 251-264; also Parpola 1992, 1993, in press). There is widespread evidence for the worship of a goddess connected with lions (for a new BMAC seal with this motif see Sarianidi 1993c), ultimately going back to the traditions of the ancient Near East. Connections with the later Indian worship of Durga, the goddess of victory and fertility escorted by a lion or tiger, the protectress of the stronghold (Durga), are suggested by several things. The ground plan of the Dashly-3 “palace” is strikingly similar to the Tantric mandala (Brentjes 1981; Brentjes 1986: 234; Brentjes 1987: 128f.), the ritual “palace” of the god or goddess in the Hindu cult. A Bactrian seal depicting copulating pairs, both human and animal, reminds one of the orgies associated with the principal festival of the goddess. Wine is associated with the cult of the goddess and may have been enjoyed from the fabulous drinking cups made from silver and gold found in Bactria and Baluchistan, for viticulture is an integral part of the BMAC (Miller 1993: 151, 154). Durga is worshipped in eastern India as Tripura, a name which connects her with the strongholds of the Dasas. Of course, the Sakta tradition of eastern India is far removed from Bactria and the Dasas both temporally and geographically. But the distance between these two traditions can be bridged by means of Vedic and Epic evidence relating to Vratya religion and archaeologically by the strong resemblance between the antennae-hilted swords from BMAC sites in Bactria and the Gangetic Copper Hoards (c. 1700-1500 BC). The linguistic data associated with the Dasas also link them with the easternmost branch of Middle Indo-Aryan, the Magadhi Prakrit. The age-and-area principle of anthropology suggests that the earliest wave of Indo-Aryans was the first to reach the other end of the Subcontinent." Hokie Tech (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you couldn't be farther from an identification. The problem with Dasa identification is that they are simply generic terms for the enemies of the Aryans. As far as BMAC goes, that is smack in the middle of Indo Iranian territory whether you look, at hydronyms, toponyms, fire worship, or any of the other major Indo Iranian religious attributes. Even Eratosthenes, the Greek cartographer names the region as Ariana. You could not have picked a territory more close to the Indo Iranian nexus. In order to resolve this matter of generic terms we could consider ethnicities that have been referred to as Dasa in the later Hindu scripture or Zoroastrian scripture although this might not be the most chronologically convergent method. Zoroastrian scripture makes mention of the Dahi people, and the Greek historiographer Strabo compounds the Dahae with Scythia suggesting a Scythian affiliation. In fact Greek histories describe a location northeast of Bactria and alternatively as near the Caspian sea. Scythians and Greeks have also been referred to as Dasas in the Mahabharata and while the second millenium BC is a little too early for Greeks to be anywhere near the subcontinent or Central Asia, pre Scythian kurgans are a good candidate for the Dasa enemies as there is some evidence in the Rig Veda to suggest a shamanistic pagan affiliation of the Dasas which would fit quite neatly with the pagans of southern Russia, Kazakhstan and the Urals. Dasas were also not called goddess worshipers in the Rig Veda. They were simply termed as godless and not following Aryan forms of ritual like fire worship and soma offering, two things that might possibly be in the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex. However all said and done it is extremely difficult to identify the dasa ethnicity although some groups are closer to the description than others.Grathmy (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Parpola reliability?
Is Parpola a reliable source? His writings seem to have received critical pastings, eg: here and here. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think what Bryant said is a "critical pasting" I suspect you are rather over-sensitive. Yes, there are many problem with Parpola's model, which have been much discussed. The same sould be said of Renfrew's. But that does not affect the fact that he is a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense. Paul B (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring more to the first review but, yes, Bryant is pasting him also. Parpola is reliable in the sense of his academic qualifications, just as much as David Irving and Koenraad Elst, but we usually exercise great care when using sources such as these and certainly do not give them massive amounts of weight. I find it interesting that Parpola was honoured by the political showcase that was the 2010 WCTC. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comparisons to Irving and Elst are completely preposterous, as well as being incorrect (neither ever had a professorship). Parpola is a highly distinguished scholar. He has never been accused of falsifying sources or twisting evidence to promote a political agenda. Even the very book you quote refers to his attempted synthesis as a "gigantic effort" and a "gigantic work". Giving a Dravidian language scholar an award at the World Classical Tamil Conference is hardly evidence of anything political. The fact that many scholars disagree with aspects of Parpola's theories does not make him fringe or unreliable. If you really want to raise this as an issue of reliability you should leave a message the Reliable sources discussion board. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Now who is over-reacting? I didn't compare them but rather just pointed out that having academic qualifications is not the be-all, end-all of things. Parpola's seems to me to be an extreme minority viewpoint. He is reliable as far as RSN is concerned, of course, but weight is relevant. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Extreme minority viewpoint for what? Parpola tried to link to together masses and masses of linguistic and archaeological evidence. The fact that some aspects of his massive synthesis may be problematic or obsolete does not discredit the overall model. I had assumed we are talking about the 1988 book, which is what Bryant commented on, but I am now guessing you are referring to The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the Cultural and Ethnic Identity of the Dasas, which Renfrew's review is about (don't forget he has his own agenda). Is this about the words quoted in the article translating a passage from the RV as "which in their wombs hid the black people"? This seems to be from The Coming of the Aryans to Iran and India, but its source is not cited. In fact Parpola believed that Dasa referred to non-Vedic Indo-Europeans, probably Indo-Iranians. He didn't believe they were "black" in thr modern racial sense. He does make some comments on alleged skin-colour difference in the book, which he correlates to indigenous versus invasive groups, but I don't remember that particular phrase, and don't have the book with me, so I don't know what he was proposing by that translation. Some of the authors quoted here who are doing the "refutations" are the truly unreliable sources. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoa Whoa Whoa! Attacking Renfrew are we? Suggesting that Renfrew has his own agenda. Let me remind you that Renfrew isn't a fringe scholar with an agenda, and his Anatolian hypothesis, even considering its glaring inaccuracies, is one of the major Indo European urheimat hypotheses. Parpola is an established scholar but you have to be aware that many of his views tend to condense around controversial viewpoints, like the extremely whimsical Elamo Dravidian linguistic hypothesis which mainstream scholars probably would not agree with. He also believes in the Dravidian association of not only the Indus Valley Civilization but also places like the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex. Most Indology scholars would probably suggest an unknown linguistic affiliation for the Indus civilization. Actually Renfrew has done nothing on the level Gimbutas did with trying to establish a pseudolinguistic connection between Basque and Pictish or trying to project a goddess worshiping utopia in pre Indo European Europe. I have to say that this almost borders on whimsically inventive propaganda. Although, for the record, the Kurgan hypothesis is still better than the Anatolian hypothesis.Grathmy (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the background to the exchange? No one is "attacking" Renfrew. Of course he has his own agenda. That's just fact. Do you understand that this is about a review written by Renfrew of Parpola, one which Sitush was using to claim that Parpola's book is fringe. Pointing out that Renfrew is not an objective independent critic was relevant to that point. Your assertions about Gimbutas have no relevance to my points or the contents of this page. You seems to be arguing against some imaginary opponent who thinks Renfrew is a goddess-worship aficionado. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You misconstrued what I said in its entirety and are erecting your own strawman when you suggest that I think that you think Renfrew is a goddess worshipping afficionado. Clearly you should have been the one reading my response because I very clearly read your exchanges. I only stated what I stated to demonstrate that Renfrew was not as extreme as some of his opponents like Gimbutas whose Kurgan argument is accepted widely by certain parts of the academia despite containing heavy loads of affiliated quackery (aka Old European proto civilization and MOTHER-GODDESS-MANIA). The way in which you suggest that Renfrew has his own agenda and that the "authors doing the refutations were unreliable" seems to me quite reasonably as an invective remark against a mild scholar who made some very solid objective points against Parpola's perceived notions which he [Parpola] took very little effort to justify with actual scientific proof. Renfrew was just pointing out, "again in an objective manner" that Parpola makes unjustified leaps and assumptions when identifying different cultures of antiquity with the Aryans and Dasas without himself [Parpola] being a scholar in the specific area of Central Asian archaeology. Renfrew made no attempts in his review to push his own viewpoints about his own hypothesis as you call it. The fact is pointing out that Renfrew himself isn't an objective independent scholar seems to be taking unwarranted and presumptuous assessments of a scholar as opposed to his specific scholarly work. So read the actual review before making an assessment of Renfrew because I assure you that the actual review has almost nothing to do with Renfrew's personal beliefs about the Indo European language dispersal.Grathmy (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, an old thread resuscitated. In answer to Sitush's original question, Parpola is proposing a theory (or model, as some people call it). Not all theories succeed and not all that succeed succeed in full measure. But that is how science progresses. Renfrew has also proposed a theory, which is increasingly failing. Neither Renfrew nor Parpola need to be discounted for those reasons. If we can separate facts and proposals, we state facts as facts and proposals with attributions. By the way, the prevailing view that dasas were "local inhabitants" (in Michael Witzel's terminology) is also a theory. But it is a very old theory and we often forget that it is a theory. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis
Dasa seems to be pure WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dasa in Rigveda
Regarding this edit, I don't think we want to say everything from Welch (Replace with: Barbara West) in the lead. Most of it doesn't fit. For instance, we know that dasi with the meaning of female servant occurs in the Rigveda. The demonologists would need to explain why the Rigvedic people chose to call their female servants demons. Also, using "Aryan" in two senses in the same sentence is too technical for the lead. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the identification of dasa and dasyu appears to be 19th century scholarship. We really don't know whether they were the same or different. Anyway, I am glad you are watching this page! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: I struck out Welch, and added West above. Translating ancient Sanskrit into contemporary English is always a huge challenge. It is easy to remove the context of the original text, and inadvertently add our own prejudices/hate/love/contexts to it. It is OR to allege and presume, as you do above, that "Rigvedic people chose to call their female servants demons". They didn't to the best of my knowledge, but if you offer a WP:RS who states so, I will read it and get back to you. We need to stick with the sources, and not word it in a way that takes sides as that creates NPOV problem. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is . For a quick read, you can see Slavery and Religion. (Unfortunately, the old version is pure OR. But let it be for a while. I don't mind.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: I see the discussion on page 34-35 of Sharma's 1958 book. It is an old source, speculating with similar sounding words (a tribe transliterated as Sodrai from Alexander era Greek records must be same as what existed 600 to 700 years earlier, or 10th to 8th-century BCE Sudra, he theorizes). We should rely on more recent RS, such as Barbara West's article from 2008. Meanwhile, even in Sharma's book, I don't see any support for the allegation "Rigvedic people chose to call their female servants demons". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant pages for dasis and dasas (the latter occur rarely) are 24-26, according to my write-up in the slavery page. No demons is Sharma's book, of course. No evil either. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also page 20 for the dasa varna. It may be an old book, but it is certainly longer than the one page of West that you seem to rely on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I read the wikipedia article section you linked to, as well as Sharma's pages 20-25, 48-52. There is some good stuff there, but mostly very old, discredited theories. I am surprised the section does not summarize Witzel, Kangle, Bryant, West, Olivelle, Brereton and all the scholarship from last 65 years. The Slavery and Religion is relying too much on the speculations in the single Sharma source, that too dated to 1958. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add other souces. I don't know them that well. (By the way, the online version of the RS Sharma book is from 1990. I didn't know there was a 1990 edition when I bought my copy. So, I give page numbers to both the editions when I can.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the lead?
The old lead as here was pretty good. It seems to be mostly 's wording based on the content of the article as it existed then, and it didn't even need citations.

There were a couple of additions by the IP's, perhaps UNDUE for the lead, but they weren't far off the facts of the situation. Then we have a series of edits by you that, in my view, caused serious deterioration.

I am listing them one by one, so that we can discuss the issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit 1

 * 1) The first sentence has de-historicised the meanings. "Enemy" and "servant" are treated as present-tense meanings here, whereas "enemy" was limited to Rigvedic times, "servant" (with the connotation of "slave") was limited to post-Rigvedic times until about the end of the Maurya empire, and afterwards we have the generic meaning as a servant.
 * 2) The meaning in Arthashastra is clearly "slave" because freeing slaves and selling slaves are talked about and rules imposed.
 * 3) I have no idea what the Kangle reference is meant to accomplish.
 * 4) The reference to Schopen is also spurious. It doesn't fully support the sentences that are attributed to him.
 * 5) The last paragraph of the lead was deleted for no apparent reason.

Edit 3 (Michael Witzel info)

 * 1) Witzel is definitely not translating "Dasa" as "enemy, foreigner." This is false identification of "Dasa" and "Das-yu". In fact, it might be a wilful misrepresentation because Witzel translates "Dasa" as the name of a N. Iranian tribe in the same paragraph! - ✅ corrected
 * 2) Scare quotes for "apparently become slaves." In fact, this precise phrase is not in the source and should not have been quoted. Witzel is also endorsing Parpola here, using the latter's explanations, a fact relevant to your treatment of Parpola later. - ✅ quote marks deleted.
 * 3) The edit added: "The Vedic texts, however, do not mention capture and any slave-like treatment of those captured." Is this WP:OR? But attributed to Witzel?
 * 4) It also added: "Witzel traces the etymological root of Dasa to be Avestan Dahåka, Latin Dahi, Greek Daai, also Avestan D􏰇ŋha (cf. Dahae :: Arii), which all imply "enemy, foreigner." Yes, Witzel identifies all these words, but thye don't mean "enemy, foreigner"! They identify a N. Iranian tribe!
 * 5) A new reference to a Witzel article on Early Indian history in the Erdosy volume appears here. I can't find the quoted phrase "enemy, foreigner" in the entire volume. The closest, "foreign country, enemy", occurs on page 321 in a different article, but once again it is the meaning of dasyu.

Edit 4 (Asko Parpola info)

 * 1) You seem to have deleted perfectly good content for no apparent reason.
 * 2) On the other hand, you have retained only the Parpola's theory of connections to the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex. This seems selective. Apparently Renfrew disagrees with it, and you cite him.
 * 3) However, Renfrew's endorsement of the "Greater Iran" as the theatre of Arya-Dasa conflicts clearly supports all the content that you chose to delete.
 * 4) Note also that the Renfrew is reviewing a 1988 journal article by Parpola. We really don't know whether Renfrew has objections to the new book. So this is misattribution.
 * 5) Despite Renfrew's reservations, it appears that Parpola's work has been widely regarded, with 93 citations on Google scholar.
 * 6) I also note that Renfrew is not a disinterested party here. He has consistently pushed an alternative theory of Indo-European origins which is now increasingly marginalised. Renfrew's objection is bascially that Parpola is not making explicit his assumptions, not that there is anything wrong with his reasoning. To ignore these issues and brand Parpola as "controversial" merely for following the mainstream theory of Indo-European origins is taking excessive editorial license, I find.

Edit 5 (Wash Edward Hale info)

 * 1) This seems to be an obfuscation of what Hale says. The book review  says that Hale is carefully disentagling "Dasa", "Dasyu" and "Asura", and tracing their historical developments so that their separate meanings can be discerned.
 * 2) The reference to Dasa as "supernatural demonic creatrues" is attributed to p. 163 of Hale's book. But this page says the exact opposite. The dasas are much more like dasyus than rakshasas acccording to the page.  "In short, dasa- also seems to be used used to refer to the indigenous people whom the invading Aryans conquered." How did you infer that they were "supernatural demonic creatures?" After quoting the verse RV 10.99.6, the text says this verse is "atypical" in describing dasa in non-human terms. In fact, the page 163 is taking great pains to describe the humanity of dasas.

Edit 6 (More of Wash Edward Hale)

 * 1) This seems to continue the obfuscation started in the previous edit. It is contrary to what Hale's reviewer says: "Hale suggests that as time passed the historical human enemies of the RV were reassessed as demonic, divine enemies." So, it seems that Hale says "Dasa" and "Dasyu" were human, whereas you say the exact opposite, while attributing it to him.

Edit 8 (Asko Parpola again)

 * 1) This edit has reintroduced some of the information from Parpola, undoing the earlier damage.
 * 2) However, inexplicably, Parpola has been clubbed together with 19th century Max Muller whose theory was entirely different. I don't see why a mention of Max Muller in the lead is necessary. It wasn't there in the original version.
 * 3) Nevertheless, all these improvements were immediately undone by an IP, which seems to have been accepted by you and other watchers of the page.
 * 4) It is more or less this IP's version that currently sits on the page.

Summary
On the whole, I find serious source-misrepresentation, selective quoting and misquoting to derive conclusions the exact opposite of what the sources say. Needless to say, I am quite disturbed by the nature of these edits. You have been quite a valuable editor for a long time. I hope this is an aberration rather than a pattern. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: How can this be pretty good when the main article was predominantly unsourced and OR? Lead doesn't need citations, but main article always does. You shouldn't be defending a lead for an article whose main body was predominantly unsourced/OR.


 * You allege, Quote: "Witzel is definitely not translating "Dasa" as "enemy, foreigner." This is false identification of "Dasa" and "Das-yu". In fact, it might be a wilful misrepresentation because Witzel translates "Dasa" as the name of a N. Iranian tribe in the same paragraph!
 * What the article actually states is, "Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, translates dasa and das-yu in Vedic literature as "enemy, foreigner",[12] (...)"
 * Here is what Witzel writes on the cited page 67, "Similarly, the Parna (Gr. Parnoi, Ved. Pa􏰀i) and Dasa/Dåsa ~ Avest. (Aži) Dahåka, ~Ved. dåsa Ahīśu, Lat. Dahi, Grk. Daai, Avest. D􏰇ŋha (:: Airiia, cf. Dahae :: Arii), would have escaped their Panjab IA enemies (RV Dasa, Dasyu, Pa􏰀i :: ari, Arya, Ārya) northwards"
 * Here is what Witzel writes on page 21, "They form the amorphous group of the Dasyu "the foreigner, the enemy."
 * Again Witzel on page 16, "note further: Ved. das-yu 'enemy, foreigner', OIr. *dah-yu, O.P. dahayu 'province', Avest. dai􏰎hu- "foreign country, enemy"."

So yes Witzel does translate what the article says, "Das-yu as enemy, foreigner". You seem mistaken, or probably missed the above. I will review your other points, reread the sources, and get back soon. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(ps) This may take a few days, since I don't have Asko Parpola publications with me. It was added by an IP, and frankly I never got around to verifying most of the IP added Parpola sourced content in this article. I just accepted it assuming good faith, moved it from the lead where it felt undue, into the main article. If you or someone watching this article has the Parpola publications handy, please verify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you have missed the point above. So, let me make it as explicit as possible. The article says,
 * "Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, translates dasa and das-yu in Vedic literature as "enemy, foreigner",[12] (...)".
 * If you changed it to:
 * "Michael Witzel in his review of Indo-Iranian texts in 1995, translates das-yu in Vedic literature as "enemy, foreigner",[12] (...)"
 * that would be accurate. At the moment, it is misrepresentation.
 * It would be easier if you put responses in the subsections above so that we know which issue we are talking about. Please take as much time as you need for checking. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: Well, we disagree. On page 67, Witzel is stating "enemies (RV Dasa, Dasya...", which is not same as "enemies (RV Dasya....". The RV in there, means Rigveda. I see your point and feel your good faith, I hope you do too. Yes, you are right about N Iranian tribe, that indeed is Witzel context and we need to be careful in not mixing things up. Yet, remember this is an article on Dasa, not Vedic history, nor ancient central Asia nor northwest Indian subcontinent nor something else. Dasa, even for Witzel's North Iranian context, belongs in this article. Perhaps it needs to be better explained. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3: Request that you follow the same rules / standards / exactness, that you demand of others.
 * You remark, "The Vedic texts, however, do not mention capture and any slave-like treatment of those captured." Is this WP:OR? But attributed to Witzel?"
 * It was never attributed to Witzel or anyone else. There was no source after that sentence (there should have been, my mistake). My notes state this is from John Keay, page 24-32, but I need to trace which Keay book? FWIW, there is no mention of how dasa were treated in Rigveda. We already discussed Sharma in the section above, his 4 instances where Dasa could possibly mean slave. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Page 16 of same Witzel source states, "Apparently, foreign or conquered territory was regarded as that of the enemy and caught enemies became slaves." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You allege, "The meaning in Arthashastra is clearly "slave" because freeing slaves and selling slaves are talked about and rules imposed." Do you have a reliable source for this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I am following the chronological order guideline of WP:TALK, so anyone in future can better follow this discussion. On Edit 1: The old unsourced version was wrong in stating Dasa was or is a "Hindu" term, as this is OR and incorrect. See Walpola Rahula (2003), The Heritage of the Bhikkhu: The Buddhist Tradition of Service, Grove, ISBN 978-0802140234, page 19. The term Dasa is also found in Jainism. The tense should be present in the lead, as Dasa is not merely a historical term, it continues to be in use. Kangle is supposed to bring NPOV, and recent WP:RS such as of Olivelle accepts and cites Kangle. You express concern that "The last paragraph of the lead was deleted for no apparent reason." I suggest we stick with requiring reliable source, a core wiki policy, in this article too? Do you see a source anywhere in the old version, in the lead or in the main, for the old lead's last para? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no problem with following chronological order within subsections. Right now, it is becoming increasingly unclear which issues we are talking about.
 * I will put the OR sentence on hold until we find a source.
 * Yes, page 16 of Witzel states the content, but the words need to be identical to the source be put in quote marks. I assumed that this was you writing. If it wasn't, we can drop it, and I can just remove the quote marks.
 * There is indeed quite substantial literature on Arthashastra's treatment of slaves but, for now, the sources in the Slavery and Religion article should be good enough. If you want to see further, you can read JSTOR 3632125.
 * No problem with removing the term "Hindu."
 * But the de-historicisation problem remains. We only have sources that state that dasas were enemies during the Rigvedic period. (Saying dasas were enemies, does not mean that "dasa" meant enemy.) We don't have any sources that say they were enemies in the later periods.
 * We don't necessarily delete unsourced content. We do so only if it is truly wrong, or at least contentious. Otherwise, we can find the sources ourselves, revise the content, or tag it for citations etc. Note also that the lead does not normally give references. It does so only if there are contentious issues.
 * I hope I have responded to all the points. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Google hits for "slavery arthashastra" . - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: Indeed, only truly wrong and contentious content should be removed. If someone removes unsourced content from this article or another, that should be your good faith assumption as to why someone removed it. If you feel that the old last para can be readily sourced to WP:RS, please add it back with RS. Same applies for anything else you want to add back from the old pre-March 2015 version, or new. Yes, please remove the quote marks, given what is on page 16 of the Witzel source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, what I tried to do here a couple of days ago is quite unusual for me. I normally don't touch the lead at all, and focus on improving the article. But the lead here was so bad (sorry if it offends you) that I couldn't stomach it.
 * It is the article that needs to be improved and, once that is done, the lead will basically write itself. In my opinion, the article needs to be totally gutted and rewritten. The structure of it is totally wrong, focusing on words and texts, but not about concepts and the history of the concepts. The concepts are:
 * The Rigvedic notion of dasa as enemy tribes and as a varna, transitioning into the meaning as slaves towards the later Vedic period.
 * Dasa as slaves throughout the "Second Urbanisation" period, lasting till the end of the Mauryan period.
 * The classical meaning of Dasa as servant and devotee.
 * The first two meanings are time-limited. They are firmly in the past. I haven't seen any references to dasa as slave even in the "Muslim period."
 * If you are ok to do this, we can forget about the lead for now, and focus on the content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, lets fix the main. Then the lead. Go ahead. While you were editing the talk page, I was trying to work through the Schopen source etc in the article, see page 226 of his 2010 article which I added. I agree with some of your comments, disagree with some others. I feel the current article is an improvement over the unsourced OR that existed before. If you have recent WP:RS that can improve the article (not Sharma 1958, which is really out of date), please delete, reword, revise as much as you want. I will leave this article alone for a week or two. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Arthashastra
@Kautilya3: Here is what is in the Penguin Classic translation by Rangarajan, in the link on slavery+arthasastra you gave above:
 * Quote from the start of Chapter 8: Chapter 3.13 and a part of 3.14 which deal with the law on labor and employment have given rise to a variety of different interpretations by different translators and commentators. The cause of the controversy is the question: "Did slavery exist in ancient India"? Depending on the answer to this question, a number of theories on the nature of Indian society in Kautilya's time have been postulated (...). The accepted view is that slavery, in the form it was practiced in contemporary Greece, did not exist in Kautilyan India.

This is Rangarajan's view, and he offers a discussion of Dasa thereafter. Olivelle offers a similar discussion. So do others. We just need to summarize all this in NPOV manner for this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was looking at the Rangarajan book earlier. I don't see why the Greeks are the standard-bearers for slavery so that everybody has to be compared to them. The very first rule of the chapter makes clear that there were people called dasas who could be sold or mortgaged, and they could be of any varna, and this could be done by relatives and non-relatives. So, what does it tell us about the meaning dasa? I can't understand why there is any controversy about it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: There is a controversy among scholars, on Dasa and slavery, whether you agree with it or not. We should avoid picking a side. Translations always have this issue, and when a controversial concept is translated into a Western language, a neutral way is to compare it to equivalent concepts in Western history. The general consensus is Dasa was not quite a (western) servant, was not quite a (western) slave, more like a relationship based on exclusive hypothecated labor where the dasa had some rights. The "sold" part is incorrect, to the best of my knowledge. This was part of the bankruptcy-style section, where a person who borrows and is unable to pay back, could offer himself as a dasa. I am missing the section you are reading where one slave-owner could sell his slave to another. Do you have a source with page numbers that discuss slave trade practices in Arthashastra, like those during the Islamic era after 13th century in South Asia, Middle East and Africa? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The "variety of interpretations" had mostly do with how to square Megasthenes's observation with what we see in the Arthashastra. Regarding this issue, I have collected a bunch of statements from scholars:
 * Shireen Moosvi: Indeed, Megasthenes says that there were no slaves in India, a statement which Strabo countered with a report from Onesicritus. It is likely, on the other hand, that slaves and servants were not included among the recognised castes, because they were not recognised as members of society at all.
 * A.D.Pusalker: On a thorough consideration of the point from all available evidence, including a study of the accounts of the foreign travellers as a whole for the epoch, Dr. D. R. Chanana in his Slavery in Ancient India draws the reasonable conclusion that "according to foreign travellers slavery was an institution well known in India, excepting certain regions and communities" (p. 104).
 * T.Raychaudhuri: Earlier in the present century Megasthenes's statement regarding the absence of slavery in ancient India was accepted by patriotic Indians at its face value as a further evidence of the high ethical content of the ancient Indian civilization. If it were still necessary to destroy this myth once and for all, Dr Chanana's scholarly volume will surely do that job.
 * A.L.Basham: The study of slavery in the Buddhist texts, which forms the most important section of the work, is followed by a chapter on Kautalya's laws on slavery. Slavery in the Epics is then dealt with, and the study is rounded off with a general conclusion. The author supports the widely held view that slavery was not so widespread, oppressive, or important economically as in classical Europe, and makes interesting suggestions as to the reasons for this fact.
 * Edmund Leach: My own reading of the evidence is that the spectrum of unfree statutes that existed in classical India was strikingly similar to that which was to be found in classical Europe at the same period, though in India chattel-slavery never became the dominant form as it did in Europe after the first century B .C.

I stand by my earlier position that comparison with contemporary Europe is a red herring. We should just investigate what the facts of the matter are and document them. I understand that it is difficult to interpret the Arthashastra. I also accept that "unfreedom" might be a better term than slavery in addressing the issue. But address it, we must. - Kautilya3 (talk)


 * Regarding the selling of slaves, the first rule of Arthasastra III.3 is as follows:

""The selling and mortgaging by kinsmen of a sudra who is not a born slave and has not attained majority but is an Arya (free) by birth shall be punished with i2 panas. In the case of the Vaisya the amount is double, in that of a Ksatriya it is three times higher and Brahmana has to pay four times higher. If the culprit is not a relative the punishment is to be respectively the first, the second and the third amercements and the death penalty.""


 * A simpler statement is as follows:

""A fine of 12 panas (is imposed) on a relative who sells (or) pledges an under age free-born sudra, twice as much if a vaisya, three times as much if a ksatriya, four times as much if a brahmana; it does not bear any relation to udaradasa". [The last bit is a literal translation because the paper discusses what it means.]"


 * RS Sharma's book mentions this too, but he didn't do such a good job of translating. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I have no issues if you want to include a summary of the Megasthenes's-Arthashastra controversy. Go ahead. But, that is somewhat of a sideshow. The Arthashastra stands by itself and has been interpreted in light of Buddhist-Hinduism-Jainism manuscripts discovered/translated since Shamasastry's 1915 translation. More emphasis needs to go into summarizing the more recent scholarship on Arthashastra. The Sharma and Samozvantsev links you mention above (last two), if you read their footnotes, they are relying on Shamasastry's 1915 translation, which is really outdated. Far more weight needs to be placed on translations and the recent WP:RS scholarship, on this topic, in last 25 to 40 years. Rangarajan's is one such source, Boesche is another, and so on. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Ms Sarah Welch: We can't censor reliable sources on such grounds, but they might enter the picture when we debate due weight as per NPOV. I look forward to you using Boesche with quotes such as these:

"Originally, members of the indigenous population were called "dasas," or slaves, and gradualy they took over the laboring part of the society from the Vaishyas and became the Shudras. (p.23)"


 * I note that Boesche is also liberally using Sharma's 1990 book, which you have considered outdated. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Kautilya3: No censorship. All sides need to be stated. I suggested Rangarajan and Boesche and others above, not because they agree, but because they disagree. More weight for recent translations and the recent WP:RS scholarship. Boesche has lot more than that quote. Let us avoid forum-y discussion. Go ahead with your edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

BMAC / Dasa
I agree that Parpola actually doesn't state that the word Dasa would be from the BMAC language. I confused it with some other content in the book. It's strange that Parpola talks about BMAC forts of Dasas in Rigveda while he also says that the word Dasas might be Saka in origin. Then there is also this western Iranian branch, which also plays around in southern BMAC. It seems like he doesn't explain this little anomaly in the book. --ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is really a WP:PRIMARY source, proposing lots of new theories. We have to be careful about how we use it. It is tempting to agree with Parpola that the Dasas and the BMAC people were the same. But that would be going too far, because there is no scholarly consensus about it yet. For now, it is just a theory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)