Talk:Vedic period/Archive 1

Sabha
Just to let you know that the link to sabha (as in Sabha and Samiti) links up to a page about Libya

There should probably be a link to Vedic Mathematics in here somewhere.

Nice Page. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:47, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies
The entire series of articles dealing with the early history of South Asia on Wikipedia are riddled with content that is disputed by modern scholars. First off, it would be highly inaccurate to date the Vedic civilization to 1200 BC. India is replete with excavated idols, temples and archaeological sites that confirm the Vedic nature of the inhabitants and culture in South Asia much prior to that date. Secondly, I completely junk the distinction between the Vedic civilization and the "Indus Valley Civilization". This distinction is merely a myth propagated by colonial historians to justify the (nonsensical) Aryan Invasion Theory. Ok ... the complaints / disputes are just way too many to list. Whatever, I totally dispute this series of articles as being heavily biased in favour of typical "western view of Indian history".


 * The article Indo-Aryan migration is where this argument belongs, and that article correctly presents the various arguments concerning the origin of Vedic civilization with NPOV, including the continuous civilization theory which you are talking about. That would be the appropriate place to submit material related to your theory if you don't think that what they already have there is adequate.  However, in the context of most articles about South Asia, the continuous civilization theory represents a "significant minority" viewpoint as said in WP:NPOV and should be treated as such.  If you disagree, you can present cited research to the talk pages for those articles.  However you don't have cited sources for anything you just argued above, so unless you do, any effort to change the content or the status of the continuous civilization theory as a "minority" viewpoint is basically pointless. Mithunc 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Early Aryans
Some portions of the article prove the Aryans never invaded india, specially BB Lals book.

Map
The map is to be redrawn using Image:Northern india blank map.png. dab (&#5839;) 07:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticism
Witzel is certainly not above criticism. so please read the recent book of B.B. Lal 2005 in which there is a very good explanation of Witzels Fake on a Srautasutra verse. Witzel and "invasionists" school are aeger to authenticate whatever they find againt "nationalistic" school without a profound criticism. This fake is a prove.

THE HOMELAND OF THE ARYANS Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology by B.B. Lal (with contributions by K.S. Saraswat) New Delhi: Aryan Books International (aryanbooks@...), 2005 ISBN 81-7305-283-2, pp. xx+126, 32 colour plates, Rs. 500/- (paperback edition)

The first part of the book lists many species of trees, plants and animals mentioned in the Rig-Veda, with technical details on flora by Dr. K.S. Saraswat of the Birbal Sahni Institute of Palaeobotany, Lucknow. Prof. Lal disputes the claim (by Gregory Possehl) that the Veda mentions flora & fauna from cold climates and shows that the Rig-Veda's flora and fauna point to a tropical habitat that includes parts of Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka & Myanmar. He concludes that the Rig-Vedic Aryans were indigenous. This is probably one of the best researched studies so far on the topic.

The second part consists of several papers and notes on the homeland of Indo-European languages, Michael Witzel's mistranslation of Baudhayana Srautasutra, radiocarbon dates of 40 plants from Kunal, Banawali & Rohira, the horse, and the humped bull.

The book has lots of photos and maps and is well produced.

Questions
the introduction seems to indicate that there is a difference between Hinduism and the vedic civ/culture.... yet it isn't quite spelled out in the article. Sethie 08:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the article does provide the answer when it wrote that the culture was transformed into classical forms of Hinduism, but it would be interesting to hear more on this issue.

My questions are about the oral tradition. In the article on Hinduism, they say that most scholars agree that Vedic knowledge was maintained by a long oral tradition. How this oral tradition relates to the Vedic civilization? The second question is what is the status of this oral tradition today? Are all aspects of this cultural heritage, which was maintained through this oral tradition, considered a part of the religion? For example, is the grammar of Panini considered a part of the religion? Amrit 23:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, there is certainly continuity between Vedic religion and modern Hinduism. Continuity does not equal identity. "Hinduism" is a huge umbrella term, imposed on the entire subcontinent by westerners. Calling "Hinduism" a single religion is like calling Ancient Egyptian religion, Abrahamic religions, Germanic paganism, Finnish paganism and Graeco-Roman religion a single religion, "Occidentalism" or similar. So, you may include Vedic religion in Hinduism, no problem. It is a subset of Hinduism, defined in historical terms as those religious practices that were alive at the same time as Vedic Sanskrit, i.e. roughly 1500 BC to 500 BC. dab (&#5839;) 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Naked truth : I smell a pro Aryan(hindu/nazi) bias
I Anirudh777 got carried away thinking wikipedia accepts user edits (which is wrong) and I added :

" The mode of vedic worship was performance of sacrifices and chanting of hymns (see Vedic chant). The priests helped the common man in performing rituals. People prayed for abundance of children, cattle and wealth. Vedas have detailed mention of various rituals and chants for pleasing gods for different occasions by lighting a ritual fire (yajna) and sacrifice(bali). It seems more or less like african tribal ritual & witchcraft.( Modern science has concluded that Indian subcontinent was attached to africa in ancient times. Later on it drifted away and got attached to asian plate which created himalaya mountains due to a huge thrust and it is still moving north.) In yajna the priests consumed intoxicants in large quantities, called soma and sacrifice of animals(cow, horse etc.) and also sometimes human sacrifice (Purushamedha) was performed. It is possible that various gods and godesses mentioned in vedas were products of hallucinations due to consumption of intoxicants. Soma drink was made from crushed stalks of either cannabis plant or ephedra plant or both (cannabis,marijuana,hash,pot or bhang is as common as grass in Himalayas). The Himalayan hindu sadhus (monks) are known to consume intoxicants even in present times. "

I got a message from Mr.Dbachmann to stop adding nonsense and ranting. And all my contribution was removed, rather I expected a notice - Neutrality of this article is doubtful. It appears that wikipedia is simply autocratic & self righteous.

Now let me elaborate. Four things were very common in vedic practices:

1. Lighting a sacrificial fire. 2. Chanting, invoking spiritual entities 3. Consuming intoxicants such as Soma (prepared from cannabis and/or ephedra stalks) 4. Sacrifice of animals, human etc.

As you may be knowing that all these were part of ancient religions such as African tribals(zulu etc) who danced around fire while their witchdoctors were invoking spirits, going into trance followed by sacrifice and even cannibalism. In Judaism, it was called burnt offering, OT mentions that for redemption of various sins various sacrifices were required such as of pigeons, sheep, goat, cow, bull etc. which Jewish temple priests performed in a sacrificial fire & blood of sacrificed animals was sprinkled on altar. In christianity the altar in churches is merely symbolic but it does exist as a remenant. Ancient Inca (south america) & yucatan civilization were having gruesome practices of human sacrifice to please spiritual entities such as severing of head & then extraction of beating heart as offering. In many parts of india, human sacrifice & canniballism continued as late as 1930s or 40s in remote areas such as south india(Kerala) and Northeast(Naga tribes). Any person can go and see in Nagaland & Tripura states many tribal houses decorate their entrance of house with a platform having human skulls on top as trophies even today. Nowadays the sacrificial practices in hinduism are symbolic only such as breaking a coconut as an alternative to human head(this is performed almost on every religious activity of some significance), human sacrifice of children in tantra(witchcraft) is still going on clandestinely although its unlawful.AtharvaVeda specifically mentions chants for destruction of enemy etc.various charms for various diseases, ailments and occasions. Vedic practices are considered undated by hindus, being timeless & going sice time immemorial.

Now regarding african connection. It is well known that india was a part of africa long time back & later on it moved away & joined asian plate creating himalaya mountains. Every Geology book mentions that. Many islands south of india have original ethnic tribes such as Jeravas inhabiting Andaman, Nicobar & Lakshdeep. These tribals look very much african with curly hair & dark skin & features peculiar to african tribes. If we dont accept this then, it is also known that human migration originally started from africa & moved to Iran, India, indonesia , australia etc. because all humans are homosepians with origin from africa. So it possible that early africans were barbaric, meat eating ( probably cannibals since they eliminated neanderthals). I think their spiritual practices, were what i mentioned earlier about jews, inca, etc.

I had added links from pages of wikipedia only such as : soma, Purushamedha , cannabis , ephedra and Yajna.

If it is thought that what i wrote is nonsense then in that case these pages also need to be removed by wikipedia. Can it be done?? The truth when covered up loses its sanctity. The Truth is a matter of fact and very much naked thats what i wrote.

Mr. Dbachman replied that what i wrote was very common & is already available. And human migration happened 100000 years back much later to separation of continents. But i say that the page appears to be heavily biased towards pro Vedic or pro Aryan attitude which can happen if it is written/edited by upper caste hindus or German Nazis influenced by Max Mueller. Upper caste hindus(called aryans) consider vedas to be the ultimate in spiritual knowledge & accept no criticism AT ALL.

No doubt - Aryan theory (vedic practices are in fact aryan practices) has caused much deterioration of human rights in India as well as in Germany. (I suspect it was borrowed from hinduism in Germany). In india Aryan theory is linked with caste system which created a slavery system causing misery, poverty, illiteracy & subjugation to more than a billion people (dalits) since a long time back which still exists in some form or the other even now (people still marry within their own caste & total no. of castes are approx. 8000 now ). In Germany, Aryan theory has done a similar thing called nazism, its consequences are well known. Therefore the naked truth is this that all vedic practices (of aryans) were barbaric & nothing but witchcraft similar to canniballistic tribal africans & need no praise rather deserve condemnation. Thank you. Anirudh


 * Aniruddh, just do your job and keep adding what you want to. Dont wait for Dbachmann and company from Zurich to edit it out and thus teach the world about ourselves. Imagine some geeks from halfway round the world teaching us about our own religion from a computer terminal. Tomorrow if I edit some articles on Swiss chocolat and William Tell, then how will they feel ? I think they sit in front of their terminal all day long (maybe even built a commode on the side). —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAF (talk • contribs)
 * maybe you should learn to sign your name first, and maybe some WP:EQ, but after that I am looking forward to your well-researched contributions to Swiss topics. Perhaps you will be able to adopt a more encyclopedic attitude in topics you do not feel affect your personal identity. But in the case of Anirudh vs. IAF, I might also enjoy to sit back and watch the pro-Hindu and anti-Hindu fanatics tear each other to ribbons. I just wish you wouldn't pick these historical articles as your battlefield. dab (&#5839;) 08:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"But in the case of Anirudh vs. IAF, I might also enjoy to sit back and watch the pro-Hindu and anti-Hindu fanatics tear each other to ribbons."
 * You may kindly get out of the Zurich Alps (after milking your cow dry) and come live in India for a year or two and learn something about Hinduism.

Shows your true divisive and sadistic colours. I am all for healthy and verified debate even if its against the so-called anti-Hindu people. Aniruddh is my compatriot and I hold his verified claims in far higher esteem than Zurichised dogma.

I got a message from Mr.Dbachmann to stop adding nonsense and ranting. Ever heard of practice what you preach eh Dbachmann ? WP:EQ IAF


 * This is ridiculous. I am a Hindu, I am not from Zurich, and maybe I have to be the one to tell you that your information is uncited, unverified, not the majority viewpoint, and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia.  Even if you do have relevant and cited information, it should be represented as an additional or alternate viewpoint, and not THE viewpoint.  If you have something worthwhile to contribute, do so.  If you want to write an article about how so-called upper caste Hindus are tied to Nazism and "Vedic practices," do it somewhere else. Mithunc 03:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

African Connection ??? The contenents seperated when dinosorous roamed. Even Monkeys where not there. So Giving that argument for connections is not valid.

EB 1911
note, I dumped the EB 1911 treatment at Vedic civilization/EB 1911, in horribly garbled OCR, to be proofread and incorporated. dab (&#5839;) 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
"extreme order" - I smell Dalitstans hand.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename
This article should be renamed as Vedic culture. The term civilization cannot be used in such a broad sense here. Civilization is associated with "cities" and "urbanisation”. In the Indian subcontinent the second urbanisation (after the Indus Valley) was in the Gangetic Valley. This happened with rise of empires like Magadha and not during the (earlier) Vedic period.  This may be placed at WP:RM after discussion.  Dakshayani 08:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it is true that the term is misleading, particularly since our information is based on philology, not archaeology. Vedic period would be another possibility. dab (&#5839;) 18:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take to WP:RM. Patstuarttalk 01:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Religious Practices: Wrong verse quoted
RV VII.56.17 is

दशस्यन्तो नो मरुतो मर्ळन्तु वरिवस्यन्तो रोदसी सुमेके | आरे गोहा नर्हा वधो वो अस्तु सुम्नेभिरस्मे वसवो नमध्वम ||

meaning

So may the Maruts help us and be gracious, bringing free room to lovely Earth and Heaven. Far be your bolt that slayeth men and cattle. Ye Vasus, turn yourselves to us with blessings.

source http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv07056.htm

so the verse is quoted incorrectly. It does not mean "You should impart love to each other as the non-killable cow does for its calf " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vkumarsharma (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Untitled
Removed this sentence - Its early phase saw the formation of various kingdoms of ancient India. First of all we do not have much of archeological evidence to back this claim. The literary evidence which is pretty much what we have for this period points at tribes than kingdoms. --Kaveri 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not say entire corpus and means rather most of it. Epics Ramayana & Mahabharata are not mentioned. It can be re-written as most of the corpus of....

I'd forgotten about the Indus, and so the sentence can be written as "...in Northern and north-western part of the Indian subcontinent...." As for seamlessly evolved, the reasoning was given in my last edit summary. It's not POV, but an observed occurrence and transition.

"Aryan" is a controversial term, though not a PoV in the strictest sense of the term. Controversial in the academia. Till that time, "RigVedic people" is alright. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)


 * I reworded some of the intro to make things clearer. "seamlessly evolved" is still clearly POV.  You need to attribute a claim like this to a reliable source that uses the word "seamlessly".  Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IAF, you want to discuss the history of Hinduism, I suggest you edit history of Hinduism. It is enough to simply link to that article from here. Your emphasis on post-Vedic developments is perfectly off-topic to this article. The Vedic period by definition is the period when the Vedic corpus originated (Rigveda down to and including the Shrauta Sutra literature, but not including the epics). "Aryans" is a controversial term, but the compound "Rigvedic Aryans" is perfectly uncontroversial and straightforward, just like Indo-Aryans. "Rigvedic people" is possible but the term gets about a quarter of the number of hits of "Rigvedic Aryans" on both google scholar and jstor.org. I don't see why you should be allowed to degrade an article that is informed by academic scholarship into something that is ok but amateurish. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DBark...er I mean DBachmann what you have just labelled as amateurish are pertinent facts. What you've done is plain and simple vandalism. I don't think that you are even grossly mistaken when you equate the composition of the Vedas as something other than or differently related to Hinduism. The most important aspect of the Vedic period is this : the ritualistic culture that was executed by a casteist society reverberating with Sanskrit shlokas. This is not only largely intact even today, but is also flourishing and in no danger of decline. Do you even know this ? Are you aware of the goings on in these parts of the world ?

And except in your imagination, epics were not included or implied in the article. I just old Grover that the epics needn't be included and that 'corpus' need not mean the entire corpus but 'most of the corpus'. Grover, I neither have and nor do I need a source for something that is so common in India. That somebody huddled in the European heights did not bother to write a citation acknowledging that fact is not my problem at all. An encyclopaedia is more than a cobble of sources and references. Try finding about yagya services, poojas, vedic rituals etc. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi IAF. None of this discussion actually addresses the issues that Dbachmann and I have mentioned in our edit summaries and discussion.  For example, the sentence:
 * The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when most of the canonical Hindu texts primarily the four Vedas, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language.
 * is poorly structured, vague ("most" of the canonical Hindu texts -- how are we counting?) and written in substandard English. The sentence "This civilization seamlessly evolved into Hinduism and the associated Indian culture that is known today" clearly violates both Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and NPOV in that it expresses an opinion (not an undisputed fact) without either supplying a reference or attributing the opinion to a reliable source.  Please read Wikipedia's policies to be a more effective contributor to Wikipedia.  Grover cleveland (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong. You on the other hand are talking about semantics and phrasing, on which again I don't see any problem. Since the compositions are only a handful, they can simply be enumerated without any mention of 'most of the Hindu corpus' (though this phrase comes close to expressing that most of the holy 'stuff' was concretized at that time and remains today). Again, if you are not aware, a few hundred million Hindus still perform those same yagyas seated with a purohit who chants from those very texts. Till recently, it was accompanied by animal sacrifice in very few places until the law caught up with all that. You cannot equate the dead Greek and Roman ancient cultures with the core elements of Vedic period that have survived and thrive today. Bachmann rants shrauta without realising that most Indians haven't even heard of this term and that this practice is conciously followed in some quarters just for tradition's sake. Your perception of Hinduism stems from the latter formulations of numerous of Gods and Goddesses and glorified by Raja Ravi Varma's paintings. That's evolution with inclusion, NOT a sudden turn-around from a to b. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all your personal opinion or belief. Wikipedia isn't interested in your (or my) personal opinions or beliefs, but only in referenced facts.  Grover cleveland (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are not backed by the sources. -- Pat Larsen  01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The very first line of Bible is utterly ridiculous. It ends with a reference !! Does every major fact also have to be sourced ? Are there litigation hawks sitting out there who microscopically scrutinize every line ? Even if you think that all that's a PoV, wikipedia ediion demands that you too first verify whether that is true or not, and then add a source or reference or remove it. Deleting it without performing this step is totally wrong. That the Vedas and all other later texts are canonical Hindu texts is referenced in their respective articles on wikipedia itself. I can understand removing the "...seamlessly eveolved..." sentence, but what I see here is an attempt to obliviate the fact that these are Hindu texts. The latter constitutes vandalism of the first order.

I am not reverting now, I'll wait for a reply other than "that's just PoV". Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add a more explicit statement that the Vedas are Hindu texts, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. The removal was not vandalism, however: please be careful with this term, which has a specific meaning in Wikipedia.  Grover cleveland (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Grover, in that case you should have added to that yourself as soon as you came to know about it. Inaction is also violative of the sort of "spirit" of wikipedia, though not technically illegal. If you knew it and still deleted it, then that was vandalism. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Grover Cleaveland, you yourself stated that an "explicit statement that Vedas are Hindu texts" shouldn't be anyone's problem. Now it seems that you have a problem. An explicit statement i.e. other than an acknowledegement in the main or lead statements has different implications and meanings, which I have explained previously---wanton dissasociation of what you call "classical Hinduism" from the Vedic period. Firstly, they are Hindu texts and always have been continously, by virtue of sheer adherence to ancestry. There was no "revival attempt" or a conscious adaptation of these texts as sacred ones, at any point of time in India's history.


 * These texts and their use of being recited at fire rituals and sacrifices has been followe verbatim, and unconditionally. That "classical Hinduism" with temples and other gods evolved later with the advent of Puranas and the epics, had no bearing on the importance of these texts.


 * So, the current edit which I made is not only correct in the context of today's of Hinduism, but has always been so; its only that the makers of these texts did not foresee the evolution of the religious practice that they'd spawned. The further conclusion and point that is driven home here is, that Hinduism is an evolution of the Vedic period's religious practices, and not a sudden radical change wrought by whatever reason, which just somehow chose to retain the sacredness of the Vedic texts. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * IAF. I'll go through your changes in detail.
 * The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when canonical Hindu texts, the four Vedas primarily, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language. The associated culture, sometimes referred to as Vedic civilization, was centered in northern and northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Based on literary evidence, scholars place the Vedic period in the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE, continuing up to the 6th century BCE.
 * The only problem I have with this is that is not written in fluent English. I guess this can be fixed.
 * Vedism's core ritualistic nature remained conserved and further evolved into contemporary religious practices that came to be known as Hinduism.
 * This is a more problematic. First, what is meant by "Vedism"?  Second, the claim that "Vedism [whatever that is] ... remained conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- i.e. the claim that (presumably) the religious practices of the Vedic period are "conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- definitely needs to be backed up with a reference.  Even if it was referenced, this article is not really the appropriate place for such claims, since it is about the Vedic period as such, not about the history of Hinduism. 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF, I don't know what "Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong" is supposed to mean, but I must ask you, once again, to refrain from edit-warring over topics in which you plainly do not have the necessary expertise. You may be a competent editor in articles on fighter airplanes, I don't know, but you are not being helpful here. Please refrain from pushing this any further, or alternatively, sit down with academic literature and actually learn some basics before you waste the time of other editors. Also, your various truisms on current Hinduism simply aren't on topic here. If you must fill talkpages with this, please do it at Talk:Hinduism or some other pertinent place. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vedic Period 26000
Gupta, R. C. (1990). The Chronic Problem of Ancient Indian Chronology. Ganita-Bharati 12, 17-26.

"R Gupta in his paper on the problem of ancient Indian chronology shows that dates from 26000-200 BC have been suggested for the Vedic 'period'."

found in *Indian Mathematics: Redressing the balance, Student Projects in the History of Mathematics. Ian Pearce. MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, St Andrews University, 2002.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"have been suggested" is correct. Suggested, that is, by random clowns. Contrary to appearance, Wikipedia articles do not really aim at collecting all of the nonsense that has ever been said about a given topic. The page intended to address this point can be found at WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

texts
IAF, I don't know what you are trying to do, but you are evidently not capable of phrasing it correctly. The Vedic period by definition is the period of composition of the texts in Vedic Sanskrit. This includes the three Vedic samhitas (RV, YV, AV; SV being practically identical to RV), as well as the Brahmanas, besides some of the oldest Sutras and Upanishads. Together, these texts form "the four Vedas". Read our Veda article. While Vedic Sanskrit defines the Vedic period, there can be reasonable estimates as to its absolute duration. It turns out that it corresponds roughly to the millennium 1500 to 500 BCE, with its main flourishing falling into the Early Iron Age, ca. 1200 to 700 BCE. The period 1500-1200 BCE can be considered the early Vedic (or Rigvedic) period, the period 700 to 500 BCE can be considered the late Vedic period. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All that may be true and are just technicalities, but it appears that you are hell-bent on also removing the phrase "canonical Hindu texts". I don't think think you are just carelessly pressing the undo button, as you could have added your above mentioned facts without removing that phrase, just as easily. That action is clearly not unwittingly done. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

um, no, the Vedas obviously are Hindu canonical texts, today. They were, of course, no such thing during the Vedic period itself, because they were only just composed at the time and there was no "Hindu canon" then, so that insisting on the "Hindu canon" in the lead of this article is simply an anachronism. There is, of course, nothing at all to be said against pointing out the central position of the Vedas in the Hindu canon in the Vedas article: try to recognize an article's scope and keep the article lead subservient to that scope. This isn't a content dispute at all, but a simple matter of WP:LEAD. A fact that is perfectly pertinent tot he lead of the Vedas article is not necessarily pertinent to the Vedic period article: there is a reason these are two separate articles, viz. their scope isn't the same. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to hammer in your impregnable head before, "Hindu" itself is a Persian label, and that the history of Indian religions is a history of continuous evolution. If you read the section just above this one, it is also an uncontested fact that at no point in India's history was there a sudden concious revival attempt to stake claim on the Vedas as being 'Hindu' texts. You do know that religions like cultures evolve. Unlike Christianity that froze permanently after JC's death and after the Bible was released, the Vedic cult, its streams, tributaries, new entrants kept bubbling and continued to do so as late as the 19th century.

So whatever that's written in the article is not only relevant, but a necessary mention also without which the article would be incomplete. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. I repeat, this is the Vedic period article. You seem to want to discuss the Vedas. Pray do that at the dedicated Vedas article. The fact that the Vedic cult "kept bubbling" into the 19th century is relevant to Historical Vedic religion, to Shrauta, and to History of Hinduism, but it is ostensibly irrelevant in an article on the historical period of the Early Iron Age, because the 19th century is not part of the Early Iron Age. thanks. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give an example :- Suppose an article on 'Early Flight' is to be written. So it can anassumingly begin with : Mankind has always thought to have stirred up imaginations of flight, with depictions on xyz paintings, the Pushpak Vimaan in Ramayana, and Leonardo da Vinci's epoch drawings that roughly resemble a modern-day helicopter.....

Now your argument is akin to saying that there is no need of linking a modern helicopter to Leo's drawings because that belongs to a different age. The fact is, that those drawings strikingly resemble a chopper and IT MUST BE MENTIONED, otherwise the article will lose credibility.

In the same way the Vedas are Hindu texts and if we mention that the Vedic period heralded these texts that were to become Hinduism's canonical texts, what can be possibly inaccurate or irrelevant about that ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that helicopters (in your simile: Hinduism) must be mentioned in an article on the Renaissance (the period of Leonardo da Vinci, in your simile: the Vedic period). The problem isn't that I am dead opposed to mentioning Hinduism. Grover cleveland's version is perfectly fine. The problem is, IAF, that you are not helping. You have no idea of the subject matter, and your English is terrible. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way it is. If you were less pushy, you could contribute with suggestions for angles missing from the article, but your stubborn approach really result in an overall contribution that is not helpful in any way. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with you DBachmann is that you have a tendency to convolve simple discussions to your own fancy. And learn how to comprehend a simple paragraph first. Its not a rock edict for God's sake.

I said, the article on 'Early flight' (where'd you drag Renaissance from) can correlate da Vinci's drawings to modern choppers, and very rightly too. Now when did I disagree with Grover's version. I was talking of your edits, sir; in between Grover rehashed the sentence to include Hinduism (my version), whereas you were hell-bent on removing Hinduism altogether. All this while giving a cloak of "poor English" and "subject matter" as cosmetic reasons. 'sacred Hindu texts' may sound 'wrong', which Grover reintroduced after correction, but which you were repeatedly removing altogether.

I have a better idea of what I'm talking than "experts" like you. If you are an "expert", then I fear where wikipedia is headed.. .. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Evidance vs Oral Literary Evidance
“Scholars place the Vedic period in the second and first millennia BCE continuing up to the 6th century BCE based on literary evidence.” No references has been given. The sentence should calrify that it is oral literary evidence. Because, Vedic scriptures were only recorded after 1 AD, accoring to records (List of languages by first written accounts). --Natkeeran (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

um, yes, but the scholars in question published after 1 AD. And after 1800 AD for that matter. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimated dates of mahabharata
There are five criterion to date a epic like mahabharata a well known itihas in vedic culture 1.archaeological evidences 2.geoghraphical analysis 3.language analysis 4.inscriptions 5.foreign history

1.archaeological evidences: in this section we should check whether the places given in mahabharata are archaeological supported or not,it is a matter of dispute whether indus valley civilisation was a vedic civilisation or a seperate tradition,most scholars agree that it was a seperate culture having some elements of vedic culture like a)Some Indus valley seals show swastikas which are found in later religions and mythologies, especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are present before and during the early Harappan period[54][55]. Phallic symbols resembling the Hindu Siva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains.[56][57] b)Many Indus valley seals show animals. One famous seal shows a figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named after Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of Shiva and Rudra.[58][59].[60] c)the three stone Siva Lingas found in Harappa by M. S. Vats in 1940. The worship of the Siva Linga is mentioned in the Maha Narayana Upanisad of the Yajur Veda and is still ardently practiced today, d)The Holy Asvatta tree leafs found in indus civilisation is mentioned in the Aitareya and Satapata Brahmanas as well as the Taittiriya Samhita and Katyayana Smrti. e)many vedic text generally refers a river named 'saraswati' The Sarasvati River (Sanskrit: सरस्वती नदी sárasvatī nadī) is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. The Nadistuti hymn in the Rigveda (10.75) mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and later Vedic texts like Tandya and Jaiminiya Brahmanas as well as the Mahabharata mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert. The goddess Sarasvati was originally a personification of this river, but later developed an independent identity and meaning. Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbdce (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mahabharata postdates the Vedic period. You want to discuss its dating at Talk:Mahabharata, this is off topic here. For the Sarasvati River, see Sarasvati River. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You have claimed in your article that there is no evidence for continuation of culture between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Vedic period. However, in G.G. Joseph's book the Crest of the Peacock, about the history of non-european mathematics, he clearly shows a link between the way ceramic tiles are used in Vedic-era temples and the way tiles are used in the Indus Valley Civilization. It's used in the book to illustrate the knowledge of geometry in both periods. This is evidence for continuation of culture, thus that sentence of your article is incorrect. This is a very importand issue, for it shows that the Indus Valley culture was not destroyed. I don't mean to offend anybody, but it disturbs me that this information has been apparently locked into place so that people like me cannot correct it. If Wikipedia is changing its policies so that people outside the company can no longer correct articles, you should say so clearly on your home page and the top of each article page. As for my claim, just look in the Crest of the Peacock- it's all in there.98.238.170.146 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Harappan / Indus theory of the Vedas definitely requires mention. The marine archaeology in the Bay of Cambay, especially satellite photos showing a post Ice Age river basin there resembling the Saraswati just offshore, is hard to dispute as physical evidence.  I would encourage you to simply edit the article but make sure to treat this as a new theory held by scientists investigating the marine ruins and working with the offshore evidence.  A similar period of civilization has been noted off Sri Lanka which was connected to India by land bridge until a few thousand years ago.

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Introductory Paragraph
Edit: please disregard. Colinivorous (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to Chakravartin, I can't edit the article.--85.182.71.34 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Vedic period and Hinduism
See Talk:Indian religions. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Epics
In the last paragraph of "Religion" sub-section of "Culture" section, the article refers to only Gita of Mahabharata as the Hindu epics that evolved after the Vedic period. It should mention both Ramayana and Mahabharata instead of just "Gita of Mahabharata". This needs to be corrected. Apalaria (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed dating of "Vedic period" and "RigVedic" age
There is active investigation of numerous sites, notably offshore in the Bay of Cambay, around an Ice Age riverbed (now submerged in the Bay) that fits the description of the Saraswati. This provides strong evidence that the Vedic literature describes a period much older than that the article (and most 20th century history) assumes, that is, the Harappan or Indus valley culture and not an invading "Aryan" northern force. 

"Harappan India / 'Indus Valley Civilization' was the largest urban civilization in the world of its times in the third millennium BC (3100-1900 BCE), with major sites extending from the Ganges river in the east to Afghanistan in the west, from the border of Iran to near Bombay." This is undisputed and the theory that the Vedas describe this culture, and are not analogies to the squabblings of later invaders, must be mentioned in this article.

"India's role in ancient civilization has been largely ignored in favor of more culturally comfortable, though geographically much smaller cultures in the Near East, in spite of the fact that such ancient cultures frequently lauded the greatness of India themselves." There is some evidence also that the currently dominant theory of the Vedic people as invaders was due in part to English propaganda that portrayed the Vedic peoples and the culture based on the Vedas as inherently violent and not so civilized. Thus justifying the English role in "civilizing" it...

The skeletons that were found in ruins in the early 20th century were often from many different periods and provided no evidence of any single catastrophic conflict, and were misrepresented as such because of ignorance, poor archaeology, or some political purpose. They could just as well have been skeletons of travellers or indigent people who wandered in through the ages and died there.


 * Graham Hancock is not a reliable source - see WP:RS for this article. Current archaeological opinion does agree that those skeletons don't point to a catastrophic conflict, so I'm not sure what your point is. Find sources that meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013
Hello I see the whole thing about Vedic Period is misrepresented on Wiki (and in many modern texts). It is a very big mess. Our highly-spiritual masters speak of Vedic Age to be much older than mere 4000-years. They give date of more than 50,000 years when Vedic people came to India. I listened to many discourses of God-incarnate Sri Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. In one of the discourses, he tells exact date of birth of Lord Krishna, which was about 5400-years before present, or 3400-BC. At the time of Krishna, Veda-vyasa was already writing some later-books in Sanskrit (Mahabharata, the Puraanas). Note-- I read other article on Wiki, about Gandhara. The age of Kingdom of Gandhara is given from 900BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhara). That is very false. Ganhaari, mother of the Kaurava, as discussed in Mahabharata, was from Gandhara. And when Krishna is given the age, to be existing around 5400-years before now, how then Kingdom of Gandhara be of 3000-years?

In an other discourse, Sathya Sai Baba tells details about Lord Rama and says that Rama walked Indian land "some 20,000 years" ago (I don't remember the exact discourse; there are over 700-discourses, on http://www.radiosai.org/program/SearchProgramme.php). During Rama's time, Valmiki was already composing/writing Ramayana in Sanskrit language. The Vedas were composed much earlier than Ramayana. Also note that Rama's guru/teacher was Sage Vashishtha who lived in a cave (exists today; 1-hour north of Rishikesh, Uttarakhand); perhaps this is a good place to study the age of this cave, with help of modern-technology; there maybe more discoveries. Sathya Sai Baba also speaks about Ravana's age, to be more than 2000-years (as he was master of meditation-yoga, scholar of Ayurveda, Sanskrit language, and a person of great spiritual powers). There is reference in Ramayana of people of the west, who would often attack India to loot, reference is given in Ramayana that before Lord Rama died, he appointed his sons to west; his elder son Luva established Lohar-dynasty and lived in city of Lahore (now in Pakistan), and other son, Kusha, took the spiritual path (as referenced by Guru Nanak of Sikhs, I believe in book of 'Guru Granth Sahib', or by Guru Gobind in his book 'Dasam Granth'). This is also discussed by Sathya Sai Baba in his vahini book 'Ramakatha RasVahini' http://www.vahini.org/contents.html.

The Vedic Period has to be much older than period of Lord Rama. Bhagirath carried out penance in Gangotri (place in Uttarakhand) to ask river Ganga as boon form gods, which he was able to. Bhagirath encountered many sages (spiritual practitioners) on his way, as he was asking everyone for their help. It is believed that Bhagirath was told that no one could help him but himself and that he should go in higher Himalayas to perform meditation. This spiritual-system was part of Vedic System. Bhagirath was ancestor of Lord Rama. Age of river Bhagirathi (which should be dated using modern technology at Gangotri), has to be over 30,000 years. The King Bhagirath had a long past of ancestors, Vedic-settlers in India. There is reference, given by Sathya Sai Baba, how these Vedic people once lived near North Pole, and later settled in mid-Russia, west China, Afghanistan area, and into north India, mainly Himalayas. The native people of India already had their spiritual system and worshiped their highest God-form, Lord Shiva, the one with matted hair (which is original of black-people compared to Vedic white people), wearing tiger-skin.

References: my spiritual and textual exploration for past 15-years, and discourses of Sathya Sai Baba.

JS2014 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Sources for Vedic period
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan Will you please add page numbers? Eg to "which were collected before 1000 BC in the Rigveda. "  I can't find Rigveda in Samuel. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My apoplogies; I'll do my homework better. I was in a rush when making these edits.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I also used the following two sources, which seem reliable to me, but which are not accpetable as reliable sources for Wikipedia. Which means I'll have to dig further into the Vedic Period to find reliable sources, but this will take time. But alas, I've learned and found a lot already on the history of Hinduism and India, so I reckon I'll also find more on this. The sources:
 * University of Oslo, The Vedic Age, 1500-500 BCE (course document for a University Class on Hinduism)
 * NIOS (some sort of Open University from India), The Vedic Age (1500-600 BCE)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Geological Evidence of Vedic Antiquity
"Satellite photos and geological field studies show that the Saraswati ceased to be a perennial river and flowed only seasonally, sometime before 3,000 BC. Also, since approximately 1,900, the Saraswati riverbed has been completely dry. This, as we will see, is a key piece of the scientific evidence to establish dates of the Rig Veda."

"The Rig Veda mentions the Indus river quite often, and it mentions the Saraswati no less than 60 times. Its reference to the Saraswati as a 'mighty river flowing from the mountains to the sea' shows that the Rig Vedic tradition must have been in existence long before 3,000 BC when the Saraswati ceased to be a 'mighty river' and became a seasonal trickle. Frawley and Rajaram drew the conclusion that the Rig Veda must have been composed long before 3,000 BC."

Chandler, Kenneth (unknown date), "Origins of Vedic Civilisation", , page 16

This information needs to be put in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest you read the link? The evidence, especially concerning the location and dating of the Saraswati river, is convincing, and has been accepted by more than a fair share of researchers in this field.  Even so, I do not expect Wikipedia to present facts about anything, which is why I decided to make this information more readily known to those who would research this topic.


 * Also, this is already accepted on other pages in Wikipedia; why would it be denied here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Chandler is certainly not a source we can use. According to his Linkedin profile he is "Distinguished Adjunct Professor" at the Maharishi University of Management - he writes for their journal. And of course his unpublished book can't be used either. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Joshua: have you even read the WP:POINT page? I don't see how anything that I've done is "disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point"; at best I might be seen to be "disrupting" wikipedia by making a point, but then, that would be someone's subjective opinion.


 * Doug, thank you for providing an acceptable response. I'm assuming that it's Chandler's distance from "mainstream academia" that renders him unsourceable, and hopefully not his religious or spiritual inclination (that would be racits1!!1!).  Might I point out that, as per WP:NPOV, "mainstream" Western scholars on this subject ought not be cited, as the origin of their discourse was highly politicised?  I would suggest Talageri as a neutral source for a section on the proposition that the Vedic and Harappan/Indus-Saraswati people were one and the same, and yet I fear that he may also not be "mainstream" enough.  Regardless, it would also seem to go against WP:NPOV to leave out criticism of the mainstream view, especially neutral and scholarly criticism that has yet to be refuted (i.e. Talageri, if not Chandler).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but you are misreading WP:NPOV. It certainly doesn't rule out Western sources, and Talageri is hardly neutral. Talageri without Erdosy, Elst, Witzel, whoever would be a violation of NPOV. And it's not Chandler's religious ideas, whatever they are, but first his being self-published/unpublished - see WP:SPS and his lack of qualifications. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't want to accuse you of disruptive behaviour. My point (...) is "point-making": the fact that something is being used in an article, is not an excuse to use it at another place, if it's not in line with Wiki-policies. It's also my irritation about the ongoing debates on Aryan origins, which makes me sometimes a little bit harsh in my responses. But regarding the dating of the Indo-Aryan migrations, the idea that the Harappan/Indus-Saraswati people were the same as the Indo-Aryans will find little scholarly support. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Even i figured so. Anyways, Indo-Aryan are regarded as same people who were part of Indus civilization as well, not really incorrect, and sometimes even more northern. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * According to some scholars, several immigrations of Indo-Aryan people may have occurred, and groups of Indo-Aryan people may have been wandering there already in IVC-times. But there seems to be a scholarly concencus that the IVC was not Indo-Aryan; the seals and signs which are found are not related to Sanskrit or Indo-European languages,a nd there are no wheels.


 * There is no scholarly consensus that Harappan people were not same as Vedic. Several scholars archaeologists have proposed that they were the same. Never the less the assertion about no wheels in Indus Sarasvati/Harappan civilization is plain false. Several wheels including spoked wheel carts figurines have been found. More so they were of indigenous origin not imports from west Asia or elsewhere. "During the Harappan Period (Harappa Phase, 2600...1900 BC) there was a dramatic increase in terracotta cart and wheel types at Harappa and other sites throughout the Indus region. The diversity in carts and wheels, including depictions of what may be spoked wheels, during this period of urban expansion and trade may reflect different functional needs, as well as stylistic and cultural preferences. The unique fonns and the early appearance of carts in the Indus valley region suggest that they are the result of indigenous technological development and not diffusion from West Asia or Central Asia as proposed by earlier scholars."

Indoscope (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but that's my personal thought, it may be relevant to think about the fact that the Indo-Aryans were pastoralists, cow-herders; they moved around. So groups may have moved into north-western India for a while, and moved back into the mountains. Maybe.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014
Since the Indo-Aryan theory (where aryans invaded india) is still contentious. Can you add relevant references to that effect? for e.g.. http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF or land of seven seas (book by Sanjeev Sanyal ).

Prakash.saivasan (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's mainly disputed by Indians. Kenneth Chandler is self-published; "Land of seven rivers" does not appear to be a thrustworthy book. Read "" for a serious introduction.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Michel Danino has in his book The Lost River given evidence that the dried up riverbed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed the legendary Sarasvati River of the Rigveda. He has also shown the continuation of both material culture and intangible culture of the Harappans to the later developments in Ganga culture, Ashoka period and to the very present day. The continuation of the units of measure, religious iconography are particularly interesting to note.


 * Indoscope (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. - Arjayay (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Gate Keeping of Aryan migration into India POV
Joshua Jonathan seems to be gate keeping the Vedic Period Wiki. He has deleted recent edits made providing reference to research by Kazanas, Talageri and Danino unilaterally deciding it is "POV pushing". Below content was deleted by him. Other editors take a note and restore below edits.

"This view of migration of Vedic people into India after the collapse of Harappan Civilization has been contested by the likes of Michel Danino and Shrikant Talageri. In his book The Lost River - On the trail of Srasvati Danino has detailed evidence supporting his view that Gagghar-Hakra is indeed the Sarasvati river of Rigveda, maintaining that the Rigveda was written in North-West India long before the river dried up in 1900 BCE. Talageri in his book Rigveda and Avesta - Final Evidence has given evidence disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and establishing India as the land of origin of the migrations that spread the Indo-European language family over half of the Eurasian continent."

And "This view of Iranians being older than the Vedic people of North-West India has been contested by Nicholas Kazanas. Who has proposed linguistic evidence that Avestan is more recent to Vedic Sanskrit and points to a westward migration of Vedic people from Sarasvati river basin."

11:33, 19 January 2015‎ Indoscope


 * Reply by JJ: Dear Indoscope. You can sign your posts with ~ . You also forgot to mention that I call your edits WP:FRINGE. Regarding your "information" and "sources":
 * "This view of migration [...] has been contested":
 * The placing of this "info" at the part is WP:UNDUE. At best you can add a note, saying that some Indians regard the Vedic people & culture to have originated in Inda, add to this that this view is regarded as fringe by mainstream academics, and add a link to the relevant article.
 * "The Lost River" - please provide specific page-numbers, so the source can be checked. Though I guess it's about chapter 11, "The Sarasvati's Testimony". The kind of reasoning there is typical of opponents of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory: a faulty understanding and representation of what this theory is about, taking it to be about an Aryan invasion, attacking this strawman, and next concluding "this theory is wrong, ergo', my theory is correct."
 * I don't even bother to check Talageri; the combination of Elst and invasion says enough.
 * Kazanas:
 * "This view of Iranians being older" - another strawman; this is not what the Wiki-article says.
 * "Westward migration" - again "Indigenous Aryans" fringe.
 * His map shows the Indo-Aryan going through Armenia. I don't know what fantasy-book he's been reading, but if he's got his basic facts so completely wrong, we know more than enough (we already knew enough, but this goes on top of it).
 * I can recommand David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language" to you; it provides real information, instead of the science fiction you're reading.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply by Indoscope:
 * You have completely turned the WP:UNDUE guideline on its head. That guideline talks of undue weightage and to avoid use of unreliable source both these clearly don't apply in this case. The works referenced are of reliable academicians not original research. The weightage is also not undue since I have clearly said that "this view of migration" into India has been contested which is clearly a neutral statement which follows a detailed explanation of the view which is contested.
 * At no point have I attacked the so called straw man of 'Aryan Invasion'. That theory has no archaeological proof and has been thoroughly debunked. In fact there is not archaeological evidence of any migration into India around 1500 BCE either. The latest research in archaeology and genetics debunks so called Aryan migration into India.
 * This view of your clearly shows a bias towards this gentleman Elst. If you don't even bother check Talageri because Elst quoted him then you are limiting any expansion in your own knowledge and by engaging in gate keeping with limited knowledge you are preventing the article from developing. Read Talageri - "The Rigveda and Avesta: Final Evidence" if you understand even basics of linguistics.
 * The paragraph in question states "One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria (Anthony 2007 p.454) (ca.1500–1300 BCE). The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India.". This clearly is pointing to branching and by giving the dates is trying to say that vedic people of Indian and hence their civilization succeeds the Iranian. Why are you trying to put a spin to things?
 * Does not matter if it is not widely being accepted by the Witzel cabal. My edit is simply referring to other research which is needed for a balanced view. Your definition of fringe is strange.
 * Please discuss the question of science fiction by the authors in question and get your question points clarified if you like. Don't block edits based on your whims of what is science fiction and what is 'real', this is not the place.
 * Joshua Jonathan you can't sit and decide which research is work of fiction & which is real. These books are based on good academic research and conclusions they draw are point of academic debate. The result of this research need to be included here to keep Wikipedia neutral and article balanced WP:BALANCE. Your behaviour is detrimental to WP:NPOV. As I said you are engaging in gate keeping with limited knowledge, like your false claims that no wheel was found in Harappan Civilization which I have pointed above though reference that indigenous wheels existed in Harappan Civilization You are being biased and are preventing a truly profession article to develop here. It is not "few Indians" who claim that  Vedic people & culture originated in India, Kazanas is Greek and Danino is of French origin. More work supporting their conclusions can be pointed out but for now research done by Danino, Kazanas and Talageri deserves to be included in this wiki to keep it neutral. Your calling the edits WP:FRINGE don't make it so. If you have knowledge of specific critical reviews of the work I have referred then point that out rather quoting David Anthony's book as some kind of 'bible' on what the Vedic people were. Your 'real' information jibe smells like the 'true god' doctrine of the 'bible' rather than any quest of knowledge. I repeat, for the article to be balanced the research I have mentioned has to be included, if someone believes it is not mainstream even then the wikipedia policy states that so called non mainstream statements need to be properly referenced that is all. Other editors please take noteIndoscope (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ: "Good academic research"? LOL!
 * Kazanas: Please give me the serious source that says that the Indo-Iranians originated in, or migrated via, Armenia.
 * Danino's "The Lost River:
 * p.256: it's "Moriz Winternitz", not "Moritz Winternitz"
 * p. 258: "...the simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium." - someone who can write this anno 2010 is simply not taken serious in the academics, nor does he have a serious knowledge of academic research. The earliest roots of the Indo-Iranians lie in the Sintashta-culture, late third millennium. There simply is no way that the Vedic people existed at that time, let alone that they were present in northern India.
 * Koenraad Elst is not a gentleman; gentleman use the correct terminology, instead of mean rhetorics like "Aryan Invasion Theory".
 * Talageri, "Rigveda and Avesta - Final Evidence" - the synopsis and comments by Elsy are telling. The synopsis alone is enough to qualify it as fantasy, but this comments adds evidence to this qualification:
 * "It will be held against Talageri that he gets too personal in his argumentative jousting with Prof. Witzel, whose rebuttal of his own second book he now rebuts in turn." - so, Michael Witzel burned down Talageri. Finished.
 * You bet I'm gate-keeping. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Aryan Invasion fantasies. There's a section on Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, and an article on Indigenous Aryans; that's enough. I already wote: at best you can write a note on this, with the correct info, not only your POV-pushing. I've just added a link at top of the "Origins" section and at the "See also" section; that suffices for the article. If you really want to use those sources, try Sarasvati River; maybe you won't get reverted there rightaway. Maybe. As for Anthony: just read it. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done your work, and added a section to "Sarasvati River": Sarasvati River.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues of Dispute
Now that User talk:Joshua Jonathan has accepted that he is gate keeping the article to project the migration into India point of view of Vedic people, and preventing edits to include contrary conclusions from other scholars, we need to now open the debate. In the interest of preventing any edit wars, and for the sake of creating a neutral article the substantial points of dispute are mentioned below for discussion. Some of these objections have been raise earlier too as can be seen in the talk page:-


 * Dating of the Vedic Period - The article mentions the date of vedic period as ca.1750–500 BCE. A note mentions that "Philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas, was composed roughly between 1700 and 1100 BCE, also referred to as the early Vedic period." This view is contrary to several other scholars' research which should also be included.
 * 1) Subhash Kak first in his 1987 paper in the Indian Journal of History of Science - "On the chronology of ancient India", put the presence of Vedic people in India in 4th millennium BCE.
 * 2) Subhash Kak in his later paper "Knowledge of Planets in the Third Millennium BC" puts vedic people prior to 3000 BCE. In fact a much later text Vedanga Jyotisha is dated to about 1350 BCE. Similar observation about dating of Veedanga Jyotisha is made in his paper "Astronomy of the Vedic Alters"
 * 3) Subhash Kak in his paper "On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture" states "Several departments of the Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas organized on September 19, 1998 a day-long debate to consider the question of the earliest Indian chronology, especially as it pertains to the nineteenth century notion of Aryan invasions. At the end of the debate the moderator concluded that there was no evidence for any immigration/invasion into India in the prehistoric period and the Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati(or Indus) tradition (7000 or 8000 BC). Analyzing the astronomical evidence alone, Sengupta in 1947 came up with the following chronology for the references in the texts: the Vedic Samhitas, 4000-2500 BC; Brahman. as, 2500-1000 BC; Baudhayana Srauta Sutra, 900 BC; and so on. My own analysis of the astronomy gives three phases Rigvedic astronomy: 4000 - 2000 BC,The astronomy of the Brahman. as: 2000 - 1000 BC, Early Siddhantic and early Puranic astronomy: 1000 BC - 500 AD, The date of Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha is 1300 BC, thus placing it in the Brahmana age."
 * 4) S A Paramhans in his 1987 paper "A Fresh Glimse on the Date of Mahabharata" gives the 3102 BCE date for the Mahabharata War based on epigraphic evidence. Hence by conclusion Rig Veda cannot belong to 1500 BCE
 * 5) Subhash Kak in his paper "The Mahabharata and the Sindhu-Sarasvati Tradition" says: The Epic and Puranic evidence on the geographical situation supports the notion of the shifting of the centre of the Vedic world from the Sarasvati to the Ganga region in early second millennium BC. O.P. Bharadwaj’s excellent study of the Vedic Sarasvati using textual evidence12 supports the theory that the Rgveda is to be dated about 3000 BC and the Mahabharata War must have occurred about that time. The Mahabharata clearly belongs to a heroic age, prior to the rise of the complexity of urban life. The weapons used are mythical or clubs. The narrative of chariots could be a later gloss added in the first millennium BC. The pre-urban core events of the Epic[Mahabharata] would fit the 3137 BC date much better than the 1924 BC. But this would suggest that the Puranic tradition at a later time conflated earlier events with the destructive earthquakes of 1924 BC and remembered the later event accurately using the centennial Saptarsi calendar. The Indic kings of West Asia are descendents of Vedic people who moved West after the catastrophe of 1924 BC.
 * 6) Kazanas in his paper "The Rigveda pre-dates the Sarasvati Sindhu culture" states Brāhmaṇa explications of rigvedic brief allusions and the teachers lists in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad suggest the passing of very many centuries from the composition of the RV hymns. These postrigvedic texts can be assigned to the end of the 4th millennium on astronomical considerations and the beginning of the 3rd. Finally, the palaeoastronomical examination of star and planet allusions in the Mahābhārata suggest dates c 3000 or little after. All such considerations suggest a RV of many centuries earlier. Thus, since the SSC (=Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture) arises c3000 and the RV knows nothing of its important features, then its composition must be placed several centuries earlier. Since the river Sarasvatī was flowing to the ocean only before 3200, and the RV knows it as such, then its bulk must be assigned at c3800-3500.
 * 7) Kazanas in the paper "A new date for Rigveda" concludes:- The date 3100 BCE is the one given by the native tradition of India for the compilation of the RV. The tradition seems to be correct.I have also adduced Seidenberg’s independent evidence suggesting that the Mathematics contained in the Sulba suutras was known in the latter half of the 3rd millenneum.


 * Many Scholars have concluded that Vedic is older than Avestan but article implies contrary view - The article mentions that "The Indo-Aryans were a branch of the Indo-Iranians... The Indo-Aryans split-off around 1800–1600 BCE from the Iranians. .. the Vedic people, [who] were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India."


 * 1) Kazanas in his paper "Vedic and Avestan" concludes "In this essay I examine independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrive at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gāθās), is much later than the Ṛgveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran.
 * 2) Talageri in his book "The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence" concludes that Avesta belongs to late Rig-vedic period. "The evidence of the Avestan meters confirms to the hilt the conclusions compelled by the evidence of the Avestan names: namely, that Zaraθuštra, the first and earliest composer of the Avesta, is contemporaneous with the Late Period and Books of the Rigveda (notably with the non-family Books), that the Early and Middle Books of the Rigveda precede the period of composition of the Avesta, and that the ―Indo-Iranian‖ culture common to the Rigveda and the Avesta is a product of the Late Rigvedic Period."
 * 3) Kak in his paper "Vedic Elements in the Ancient Iranian Religion of Zarathushtra" states: The chronological framework presented by the parallels between the Zoroastrian and the Vedic systems is in consonance with the idea that the Vedic people have been in India since at least 5000 BC, as confirmed by the astronomical references in the Vedic texts and the absence of archaeological evidence regarding influx of people into India after that time. The Pur¯an. as speak of the Vedic people in Jambudvıpa and beyond the Himalayas in the north in Uttara-Kuru. It appears that subsequent to the collapse of the Sarasvati-river based economy around 1900 BC, groups of Indians moved West and that might have been responsible for the Aryanization of Iran if it wasn’t Aryanized earlier. This movement seems to be correlated with the presence of the Indic Kassites and the Mitannis in West Asia.


 * The Evidence of Sarasvati - Vedic Indigenism. Sarasvati was the most important Rigvedic river. Harappan civilization also flourished along this river. Sarasvati is believed to have dried up in 1900 BCE in India. This places both the Vedic civilization before 1900 BCE and in the N-W region of India. Several scholars have written about this but the conclusion from their research is missing in the article. It should also be included to make the article balanced.

Indoscope (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Danino in his book The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati, published in 2010, presents numerous pieces of evidence from topographic exploration, geological and climatological studies, satellite imagery, and isotope analyses, to support the view that the dried up riverbed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed the legendary Sarasvati River mentioned in Rigveda and that this river once sustained the great Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished between 3500 and 1900 BC.
 * 2) A V Shankaran in his article "Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert" mentions  Rig veda describes it as one of seven major rivers of Vedic times, the others being, Shatadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Askini (Chenab), Parsoni or Airavati (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus)1,3,4 (Figure 1). For full 2000 years (between 6000 and 4000 BC), Saraswati had flowed as a great river before it was obliterated in a short span of geological time through a combination of destructive natural events.
 * 3) K S Vaidya in his article The River Saraswati was a Himalayan-born river and not simply a monsoon born river on this foothills of Shivaliks. Regarding drying up of Sarasvati he states "Changes that have taken place and are taking place on the surface of the Earth, are not all due to the increase and decrease of rainfall resulting from climate change. Rainfall is not the only decisive factor. There are equally, if not more powerful, factors that are working such as tectonic activities. The Saraswati domain experienced recurrent neotectonic activities, often very powerful. "

Indoscope, these ar not serious scholars. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a WP:FORUM to give WP:UNDUE space to fringe-theories. Could one of you explain to Indoscope the difference between science and WP:FRINGE? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan is continuing with his earlier arrogance about what he thinks is science and fringe rather than debate the issues of dispute. He is also leading on other possibly like minded users to come and rescue him. But the issue in question are open for debate. The references I have sighted meet both WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE criterion. Several of these are from published peer-reviewed Journals. Just because some editors have not considered these sources in past does not make them fringe. He is using the term loosely here. I do not wish to engage him further. The debate is open for all to discuss the issues of dispute here and build a truly neutral article that qualifies for category upgrade here. Indoscope (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the origin of Vedic Civilization and their history including the year of composition of Vedas in India is not yet a settled issue. Several schools of thought exist. The Max Muller proposed date of 1500 BCE for the Rigveda increasingly looks doubtful as many scholars have disputed it. Modern genetic research have also put in question any migration from central Asia into NW India. The evidence of Sarasvati River(a major Rigvedic River), the presence of wheels in Harappan Civilization, the extent of spread of that civilization along the banks of Sarasvati, the evidence of the 34 ribbed vedic horse being a separate species from 36 ribbed central Asian 'true' horse(Equus caballus), the meaning of Ratha being a 'Cart' rather than a 'Charriot', presence of fire alters similar to vedic in Harappan sites, the continuation of both the material and intangible culture right from the Harappan times to the later Ganga settlements have raised many questions which have made earlier theories doubtful. The Wikipedia article to qualify as encyclopedic should reflect this reality. Rather than present a onesided picture of historical fact about their so called 'origin in the Russian steppes' and later migration into India.Indoscope (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that these citations generally fall under "fringe". They have already been refuted, over and over, by more reliable sources. In addition to many references in the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis article, see also
 * Michael Witzel (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts", in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (EJVS) 7-3, pp 1-93
 * Shereen Ratnagar (2008), “The Aryan homeland debate in India”, in Kohl, PL, M Kozelsky and N Ben-Yehuda (Eds) Selective remembrances: archaeology in the construction, commemoration, and consecration of national pasts, pp 349-378
 * Suraj Bhan (2002), “Aryanization of the Indus Civilization” in Panikkar, KN, Byres, TJ and Patnaik, U (Eds), The Making of History, pp 41-55.
 * which provide a clear overview of the state of current scholarly agreement, reinforced by even more sources in the citations.
 * The Sarasvati River article also has citations discussing the theory that the river had become a smaller monsoon-fed river even before Harappan times.
 * Perhaps the revisionist views could be mentioned in passing, or in a note. Anything longer would be more appropriate for inclusion in the articles on Indigenous Aryans, etc. Avantiputra7 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Michael Witzel has been responded to for his possible miss representations by Kazanas. Witzel arrogantly attacks everyone who disagrees with him as being hindutva supporter which is far from scholarly thing to do. But anyways editors cannot decide on which position is correct. We should recognise that there is a dispute about the origins and dates of vedic people and should capture the uncertainty about this appropriately. Kazanas asks for a "rational (not sciencefiction) explanation why the RV knows nothing of bricks, cotton, iconic representations, ruins and other common Harappan features, but the Sarasvatī is a mighty river, while in later, postRigvedic texts these features are frequently present and the Sarasvatī is a dried-up river."
 * Shereen Ratnagar an archaeologist who admittedly has no field experience is far from reliable and has been reprimanded by and Indian high court for her and her student's role in misleading it. Regarding the same case she has also been served a contempt notice by a high court in India for driving public opinion by writing a book on that sensitive issue against its directions.
 * [Suraj Bhan(archaeologist)|Suraj Bhan]] would be responded to by eminent archaeologist B. B. Lal who writes: DID SOME VEDIC PEOPLE EMIGRATE WESTWARDS, OUT OF INDIA ? The answer to the above-mentioned question is an unhesitating "Yes". It comes from three, completely independent, areas, two of which are separated from each other by thousands of kilometres, while the third one lies in between them. These areas are: (i) Turkey in the west;(ii) India in the east; and (iii) Iran in the middle.
 * Sarasvati - This is the key. Not even people who say that Sarasvati became a smaller mountain fed river during the Harappan times dispute the fact that it was once a mighty river that flowed from the mountains to the sea. Scholars I am citing say that Rigveda pre-dates Harappan cities. There is no mention of Istica(bricks) in Rigveda the vedic fire alters in Rigveda are more primitive to the fire alters found in Harappan cities and other such evidences. Michel Danino has compiled all these evidences in his book The Lost River - On the trail of the Sarasvati Indoscope (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See also:
 * But serious, Indoscope, if you don't want to discuss, there's no dispute.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But serious, Indoscope, if you don't want to discuss, there's no dispute.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But serious, Indoscope, if you don't want to discuss, there's no dispute.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Relax and everyone try after a week now? Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Joshua Jonathan and a group of editors including User:Kautilya3 have done a highly objectionable job by shifting the discussion from the talk page of Vedic Period and moving it to Fringe_theories/Noticeboard without inviting me since I had raised the question on neutrality of the article. By discussing the issue amongst like minded editors and coming to a conclusion without including all the points I have raised they have engaged in WP:GAMING and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources".Indoscope (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fringe
See Fringe theories/Noticeboard. End of "discussion". Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Link to other language (German)
Sorry I wasn't able to correct it myself (method must have been changed since I last did this sort of thing): the article on the same topic in the German Wikipedia is Veda oder even better: Veda. At the moment the link leads to anorther article ("Bedeutung des Veda"). --Jochim Schiller (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Late Harappa period
Pardon any mistakes I make here, as this is my first post into the Talk pages of wiki. I found one improvement to this page, and want to suggest it to those who have edit permissions for this page. The URL that reads Late Harrapa period"' points to a page that is not directly related to Harrapa.  I suggest an edit to this URL to point to Harrapa  page, rather than the current Cemetery H'' page.  Let me also know if i have broken any etiquette rules (i will watch this page and learn). Thank you. Seekingbuddha (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

the history of vedic culture as explained in wikipedia is false, eroneous information
vedic culture and scripture is much older than 1500 BC. It is older than 5000 BC ie MahaBharat scans periods of time beyond 100,000 years old. ie The Bhagavad Gita As It Is describes 4 ages on earth which revolve in cycles 1 cycle of the 4 ages satya tretya dwapaura and kali spans over 4 million years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDE2:12E0:2961:CFAC:F635:5DC (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous / non-Indo Aryan people
I guess we should have some discussion here on the specific phrasing and its implications. "Indigenous" for the non-Aryan people implies that the Aryans were intruders, whereas they were more likely a mix of Indo-Aryan and post-Harappan populations. Also, when become "immigrants" "indigenous"? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One can also ask the same question: when do non-Aryans become Aryan?
 * I think it is best to avoid the term "Aryan" in this context because many sources say that Shudras included the indigenous people that were assimilated into the Aryan society. The ones that were not assimilated were not treated as "Shudras."
 * I am also going to repair the text a little because Kulke and Rothermund don't equate Shudras with indigenous people, and such an equation would be wrong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The exact quote: At the top of this hierarchy were the first two estates, the Brahmin priests and the warrior nobility, the second level was occupied by free peasants and traders and the third level was that of the slaves, labourers and artisans belonging to the indigenous people. No synthesis there.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I didn't notice that sentence. But here is another quote:
 * This makes it clear that Shudras in the late Vedic period included both the artisans from among the Aryan tribes as well as the new indigenous tribes incorporated into the Aryan society. Therefore, there is no scholarly consensus for the equation shudra = indigenous. I would say that Kulke and Rothermund are being careless to suggest such an equation. In the middle of page 40, they describe various artisans of the Aryan society that had prominent status in the "Early Vedic period." But by the end of the Vedic period they all sank to the position of Shudras. If they did intend the equation shudra = indigenous, then they have contradicted themselves. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed the early and late Vedic period ambiguity in K&R too. I don't have access to the 5th edition of the book which might possibly provide some more clarity. In any case, please add RS Sharma as an additional reference for your edit. I'm unsure if an additional note is required. BTW, did you notice that the word "slaves" was omitted in the earlier revision? Very dodgy.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All this is very complicated and very contentious. Most of the certainty that appears in the western literature is due to the half-baked scholarship of the colonial days. Caste system in India is my best effort to clarify it. We can be pretty certain that the Vaishya-Shudra distinction was originally the same as the Arya-Dasa distinction, which was racial/ethnic/tribal. But the formulation of the Purusha Sukta (interpolated in the Rigveda towards the end of the Vedic period) itself made transformation possible. Purushasukta said that all the four classes originated from the same source and attempted to make it a class distinction rather than an ethnic one. This enabled the erstwhile Aryan artisans to be treated as Shudras (unfortunately for them) and the conquered indigenous tribes to be assimilated into the Aryan fold (fortunately for them).
 * The matter of slaves is also a red herring. Most of the post-500 BC literature talks of dasa-karmakaras without making a distinction between them. The dasas were theoretically slaves and the karmakaras were theoretically free. But in practice there was little to distinguish them. The karmakaras were tied to the land and, if the land got sold, they were transferred along with it. Is it genuine freedom? The dasas were slaves, but if the master didn't have work for them, they were allowed to go work elsewhere for wages. Is that genuine slavery? Some scholars refuse to translate "dasa" as slave because such a translation would bring too much baggage along with it, misleading the reader. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The matter of slaves is also a red herring. Most of the post-500 BC literature talks of dasa-karmakaras without making a distinction between them. The dasas were theoretically slaves and the karmakaras were theoretically free. But in practice there was little to distinguish them. The karmakaras were tied to the land and, if the land got sold, they were transferred along with it. Is it genuine freedom? The dasas were slaves, but if the master didn't have work for them, they were allowed to go work elsewhere for wages. Is that genuine slavery? Some scholars refuse to translate "dasa" as slave because such a translation would bring too much baggage along with it, misleading the reader. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was simply drawing your attention to the explicit omission/deletion of "slaves" from a statement otherwise copied almost verbatim from the cited source. But I agree that this topic is not easy to summarise. FWIW, Thapar does a good job of it in her History of Early India where she addresses both the ambiguity of dasa-karmakaras as well as slavery itself. (BTW, the statement on Xuanzang not mentioning the caste system is quite wrong.)--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016
Even though there is no conclusive evidence for the period of rigveda is written, we can assume it by the style of the language. It is almost consistent with the grammatical commentary of Panini, who lived in 4Cent BCE(This wikki page says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81%E1%B9%87ini) where Panini himslf talk about 10 mathematician their timeline is here, http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Timelines/TimelineA.html. Then how can he lived before 6Cent CE. Consistency of the vedic language with Panini's argument suggests Vegas are written less than a Century before the Panini. All other arguments are made by Hindu-religious people who needs to put existence of Vedic Hinduism before Buddha. 116.68.79.170 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌-- We can't assume anything.I can vouch for the fact that a majority of the readers of this article has/will not ever read the Rig Veda or the commentary by Panini and it would be prudent to ask for a reliable source to be presented on the issue(scholarly works etc.) Your wiki-link also seems broken. Aru@baska ❯❯❯  Vanguard 15:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All the sources used in the article are academic scholars. There are no "Hindu-religious people" involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Afghanistan
The article doesn't yet cover the Rigvedic culture in Afghanistan. The Saraswati of Rigveda was very likely in Helmand and there is a lot of information in Parpola about Afghanistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Good point. NB: it's strange that we two articles on the same timespan, namely this article and Iron Age India. "Iron Age India" is a neutral term; "Vedic Period" is not.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical accuracy and biases
Please do NOT present information associated with the Indo-Aryan migration theory as FACT. Remember, it is a THEORY, not proof. I suggest making a separate section for the Indo-Aryan migration theory and injecting all supporting explanations in the dedicated area. Apart from that, any associated explanation or finding must not be misrepresented as fact and will either be corrected or removed. --Coconut1002 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. See WP:RS, WP:TRUTH, WP:CONCENSUS, and WP:FRINGE.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton state, "there is no evidence in the Rigveda for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system", and "the varna system seems to be embryonic in the Rigveda and, both then and later, a social ideal rather than a social reality".  Jamison, Stephanie; et al. (2014). The Rigveda : the earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–58.
 * The reason why there are Hindu myths about the destruction of Kshatriyas, is because they never existed in the first place. Varna is as mythological as Rama.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

wasn't that this discussion? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi VG, you are misinterpreting the source and mixing it with your own WP:OR. The ritual ranking is clearly present in the texts, and the rituals accounted for them. Jamison and Brereton are saying that these classes only had value for the rituals and the Brahmins who conducted them, but not in social contexts. And, about Kshatriya, you are free to believe what you want to believe. That is not Wikipedia's concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Jamison emphasizes the Varna verse was added to the Purusa Sukta as "a quite late addition to the text" on page 58. So when you say it is present in the texts, that is not very accurate.  Anyway, I'll just add direct quotes so there is no dispute.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does she say it was later than the Vedic period. You are engaging in WP:OR again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:IRONY. Jamison clearly says "both then and later, a social ideal rather than a social reality". "Then" refers to the time of the Rig Veda.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no need to bold it so much. We have written about it extensively in Caste system in India. See the sections on Vedic varnas and Second urbanisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When this article "Vedic period" says society is organized into four classes, that is false. Do you agree that is false?<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We really have no idea whether it was true or false. We have no other sources than the Vedic texts that tell us anything about how the society was "organised". What the Rigveda says is largely irrelevant. It was the religion of a pastoral people established outside India, most likely Afghanistan. When people moved to Punjab and established agrarian societies and "states", things changed. Now the brahmins and kshatriyas were able to live off the others, without any productive functions of their own. So they became the elites. The arya-dasa distinction, already present in the Rigveda, now got relabelled as vaishya-shudra. So, the first and the tenth mandalas of Rigveda, the later Vedas, and the post-Vedic texts are more relevant to the society as we know it. All this has been thoroughly discussed by historians. The family books of the Rigveda are only useful for Indo-European Studies. They tell us nothing about the settled society. So you can stop POV-pushing based on a cherry-picked quote from Jamison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So many confusions here. Is Wiki knowledge or false?
So many confusions here. First the Indo-Aryan name and migration theory. The indo aryan migration theory was removed by historians. You can see Mr. Muir's Book "Original Sanskrit Texts Vol. II". The theory was created by old English-veda translators just for making india as English Kingdom. You can see "Life And Letters Of Fredrick Maxmueller Vol. I, Chap. XV, Page 34" and "Ibid, Vol. I, Chap. XVI, Page 378"

Second is Vedic Period. Let us think, the Mahabharata Period was 5000 years ago then how vedic culture is just 2000-3000 years old?

Third is there is only showing English Theories given by English historians. There is not any name of any Indian Historians.

Fourth is how can you say the vedic culture is started after Indus Valley. I can Proove Indus Vally Civilization was vedic. You can see "Photostat Of Plate No. CXII Seal No. 387 excavations at Mohanjo-Daro." From The Mohanjo-Daro And The Indian Civilization Edited By Sir John Marshall, Cambridge 1931. In that seal, you can see a tree where sitting two birds witch is similar to a vedic shloka given bellow. द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परि षस्वजाते। तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति।। from rigveda 1।164।20. That means the vedic period is older then Indus vally. Wikipedia is knowledge or just a false?

I'm from Hindi Wikipedia. ~AbHi      Chat Me!! 📥  11:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a page on history. Only historically reliable sources will be used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Our own attempts at proof don't belong in Wikipedia. Maybe the Hindi Wikipedia doesn't require sources, but I dobut that. And symbols prove nothing. I can find crosses, the main symbole of Christianity, thousands of years before Christianity existed. Even the meaning of symbols change over time. Doug Weller  talk 16:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Weller and Kautilya! What I was said is originally researched by historians but peoples like you only add which is according to you. You can study given resources by me. Or you can read a book aaryon ka aadidesh by shwami vidyananda saraswati. Dumping the eyes doesn't make the night. ~AbHi      Chat Me!! 📥  03:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Where there slaves?
regarding this edit: your "better and newer source" says:

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, slaves were definitely there, but it is quite controversial what is meant by "slave" here. The sources talk about dasa-karmakara as a group and scholars have said there was very little to distinguish between the dasas and the karmakaras.
 * I think the more important problem is that we are presenting Vedic sociology as if it were a fact, but it was just a Brahminical view of the society. The actual society had brahmanas, an invisible number of kshatriyas, grihapatis, dasa-karmakaras and various occupational classes. Occupations provided the primary identity, which later turned into castes but that was probably much later. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I had seen that too and the reason why I thought of omitting at the moment because the page also says "the two higher castes were not necessarily dominated by the aryans with the pre-aryans cosigned to lower rungs". I think we need another sentence to highlight it. Capitals00 (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 is correct too. Other seems not to be using the term or identifying who was indigenous and who wasn't. Capitals00 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, what's the problem: the identity of the lowest classes, or the existemce of slavery? NB: no illusions about humanity & slavery: it's universal, I'm afraid. We, "enlightened" Europeans, had our "fair" part of it, (but Europeans were also sold as slaves in the Islamic world). Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there was no special class of slaves. Dasas (whom K&R loosely translate as "slave") and karmakaras (hired labourers) were generally dealt with together. The difference was that a hired labourer earned his/her own money and provided for himself/herself. A "slave" had to give his/her income (if any) to the master, and was provided for by the master. Both were tied to the land. When land was sold, they went with the land. The arthashastra deals with slavery extensively, and defines various rights for the slaves. The fact that people carelessly associate dasas with European kind of slaves is precisely why the term "slave" is objected to. Scholars use the term 'unfree' and state that there were various kinds of unfreedom. This led to the ironical situation that Megasthenes who certainly saw slaves in the employ of the king, and probably even had some in his own employ, nevertheless declared that ther were "no slaves" in India. "Slavery" that he saw was not recognizable to him as slavery!

In the light of all this controversy, it is probably best to leave out slaves from the description of the varna system. Higher varna people too could become slaves by selling themselves, and didn't lose their varna by doing so. So the connection between varna and slavery is entirely spurious. Pinging, who first made me aware of all these issues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Indeed,  is spot on. Two additional set of sources to consider:
 * Please see Frits Staal’s reviews such as in his Discovering the Vedas Chapter 3, where he presents the side that disagrees with Kulke & Rothermund. According to Staal and other scholars, leave aside Shudra/Dasa/etc, "there is no evidence for any kind of caste system in the Vedas" until the last stages of Vedic period and more likely post-Vedic Dharmasutra texts. The fully developed caste theory is in Manusmriti, which came much later, but it too is predominantly a set of rules for Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The Dharmasutras and Dharmashastras exist in many versions and are contradictory in details. According to Staal, the evidence suggests that it is unlikely that invading hordes of Aryans conquered and enslaved all indigenous people. The evidence suggests that they cooperated and intermingled, that there was a significant contribution / scholarly influence of indigenous people, because of evidence such as Vedic shakhas (schools) having many indigenous names (usually of the founders). Yes, there is evidence of war and booty, but this evidence suggests that this occurred both ways. Further, the terms Brahmin etc likely meant “learned men” not a caste in Vedic and post-Vedic texts. There is strong evidence for this, for example in Buddhist texts that repeatedly call Jainism’s Mahavira etc as Brahmin, when the Buddha and the Mahavira came from Kshatriya class. Staal’s chapter is worth a read.
 * Other sources to consider and mention are those such as Olivelle's publications. For example, The Ashrama System, pages 194-209 (if short of time, see the last few pages of that range). Olivelle has discussed "Dasa" / "Shudra" in Hindu and Buddhist texts. The institution of "slavery" in ancient India (and East Asia / Southeast Asia) was likely quite different than the "slavery" elsewhere. The major Indian texts mention dasa not in the context of a conquest and violent capture of slaves. Bankrupt debtors, for example, had the legal option to offer themselves as dasa, according to these Hindu and Buddhist texts. These dasa would work as servants to legally pay off the defaulted debt. The dasa had certain legal rights (see Olivelle for details). Early Buddhist texts forbid such indebted dasa from leaving their obligations and joining a sangha. Another source of dasa were Buddhist and Hindu renouncers and monks! The monks abandoned property rights at sannyasa or by joining a sangha etc, but they gained unusual rights and were shielded from prosecution according to ancient texts. A problem occurred when these monks got tired of monk-life, wanted to return to the householder state of life, enjoy life’s little pleasures, lead sexually active social life. This created complex issues. Ancient Indian texts discuss this, and some state that these “tired of monk-life” monks could re-enter society as dasa. Like many Buddhist / Hindu / Jain concepts, in other words, there is no direct translation of Dasa, the best we can do is to approximately explain its various meanings and contexts, to the best of our ability.
 * The better NPOV version would at least briefly mention these different POVs (e.g. on Vedic period structure of society; on dasa being interpreted as a slave, as slave-like, as a servant, etc), either in the main text or as embedded notes, citing the appropriate WP:RS. Sorry for this long reply, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * sorry?!? It's excellent! I'm glad to have people like you here around, who can give an excellent sourced expose straight from the depths of their knowledge. Thank you!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you describe your revert? You haven't even joined this conversation. We had came to conclusion that the different interpretations of dasa would be briefly mentioned, but since we are not going to that path on this article, it was a better choice to get rid of the disputed word. Which part you didn't understood? Capitals00 (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I only see recommend creating an NPOV version which mentions the different POVs. I don't see anything about consensus on getting "rid of the disputed word" because "we are not going to that path on this article". And from what I can tell, the issue is less about slave-varna association and more about varna development in the Vedic vs. post-Vedic periods.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My recommendation is indeed to remove it. A separate paragraph can describe the extent of slavery during the Vedic period. K&R's summarisation that "slaves" were included among Shudras is not corroborated by more in-depth studies. See Slavery and religion and the sources cited therein. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that all the three references cited at the end of the line support the shudra-slave association, that would be more than a little precipitate. And RS Sharma has written an entire book on the subject. Even in Ancient India he states, The shudras were meant to serve the three higher varnas, and along with women were barred from Vedic studies. They worked as domestic slaves, agricultural slaves, craftsmen, and hired labourers in post-Vedic times. I don't disagree that this is not unanimous opinion; Upinder Singh, for example, states that slaves were on a rung lower than the shudras. But it needs to be given weight and balanced by the other POVs as Sarah Welch has suggested. IMO, this, and not excising the word altogether, would be the NPOV course of action. A footnote after the word "slaves" would be a good start.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is a bad quotation. You picked it from a chapter covering the post-Vedic period, in fact the period when Jainism and Buddhism arose. I have read his book on Shudras in Ancient India. That is why I am telling you (and others watching) that most of these summaries are wrong. Here are some quotes from the book:
 * and also:
 * Slavery originated when the Aryans expanded into the Gangetic plains, deforested them and converted them into agricultural land. The erstwhile forest dwellers ("aborigines") had no means of livelihood other than to work on the farms of the Aryans. Some of them kept their freedom and some became slaves. We don't know the balance between the two, or what circumstances led to slavery. But what we do know is that slaves and hired labourers were always mentioned together.
 * Note also that RS Sharm's statement "Shudras worked as ... slaves" does not imply that all slaves were necessarily shudras. The connection between slavery and shudra-hood is entirely spurious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Slavery originated when the Aryans expanded into the Gangetic plains, deforested them and converted them into agricultural land. The erstwhile forest dwellers ("aborigines") had no means of livelihood other than to work on the farms of the Aryans. Some of them kept their freedom and some became slaves. We don't know the balance between the two, or what circumstances led to slavery. But what we do know is that slaves and hired labourers were always mentioned together.
 * Note also that RS Sharm's statement "Shudras worked as ... slaves" does not imply that all slaves were necessarily shudras. The connection between slavery and shudra-hood is entirely spurious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Slavery originated when the Aryans expanded into the Gangetic plains, deforested them and converted them into agricultural land. The erstwhile forest dwellers ("aborigines") had no means of livelihood other than to work on the farms of the Aryans. Some of them kept their freedom and some became slaves. We don't know the balance between the two, or what circumstances led to slavery. But what we do know is that slaves and hired labourers were always mentioned together.
 * Note also that RS Sharm's statement "Shudras worked as ... slaves" does not imply that all slaves were necessarily shudras. The connection between slavery and shudra-hood is entirely spurious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So, if not all slaves were necessarily shudras (source?), what would the footnote of the statement in question look like once the word "slaves" has been removed?

Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is some information at Vedic period, where we can make these explanations. Removing the word from the section or paragraph seems correct, I would recommend the removal. Lorstaking (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Captain, I don't think any footnote is necessary. We should simply remove slaves from the description of the varna system, because, as I said, it was completely independent phenomenon. A separate passage can talk about slavery.
 * The confusion arises because in the texts you will find a compound term dasa-karmakara which roughly means "slave labourers and (free) labourers". It is clear that they are basically talking about labourers. If you read an average English translation of the same phrase, you would find "slaves and labourers". That gives rise to a hundred historians with impeccable credentials using that stupid translation to draw wrong conclusions. That is why I quoted RS Sharma, who has studied the texts for himself and interpreted them. His analysis is authoritative. The others are not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article is not the slave bit, but that it seems to refer to four somewhat innocuous social classes with no notion of infringement of freedoms in a hierarchy. In this, it does a injustice even to RS Sharma, whose books, I might add, are somewhat dated, nearly 60 years old.  Sharma is clear in Looking for the Aryans: " In later Vedic and post-Vedic times, the term arya came to cover people of the three higher varnas who were also called 'dvija'. The sudras were never placed in the rank of the Aryans. The Aryans were considered to be free. The sudras on the other hand, were not free. According to Kautilya, the aryaprana sudra could not be reduced to the status of a dasa because the element of Aryatvam  or 'aryadom' was inherent in him. Aryatvam, therefore, indicated a kind of civic freedom. It meant that sudras who were born of Aryan parents were considered free. Their number was not large until Gupta times, but even in subsequent times when they did gain in strength numerically, they continued to be regarded as non-Aryans by the brahmanas and other members of higher orders." I believe some mention of hierarchy in which freedoms were curtailed in a significant way, as well as ritual impurity (and not just "purity")  will need to be made in the lead itself in relation to the four social classes.  There are other issues in the article.  Witzel is used again and again, especially his publication in his in-house, minimally peer-reviewed Electronic journal of Vedic Studies.  Neither Thapar in Early India nor Copland et al in their book on state formation (see below) mention Witzel anywhere in their book content, not to mention the other historians of early India (except Upinder Singh in her somewhat pussyfooting high-school and college text) yet Witzel is being cited for state formation.    He is being cited in the maps.  Also, there are dubious pictures: a painting from some undated (century-old) book purporting to show "Aryans,"  there is a goblet from 1300 BCE said to be from Malwa in Central India, which no Aryan bands had reached by then. Again, here is Thapar, "For a society to become a caste-based society there have to be three preconditions: the society must register social disparities; there has to be unequal access of various groups within that society to economic resources; inequalities should be legitimized through a theoretically irreversible hierarchy and the imposition of the hierarchy claim to be based on a super-natural authority. The latter takes the form of a ritual demarcation dependent on degrees of assumed purity or pollution determined by those controlling the religious ideology. The first two features would he present in a minimal way in many societies. These would be essential characteristics of a jati and might even occur in a lesser form in some clan organizations. The ideological factor derives from varna and is characteristic of Hindu society. The insistence on the absolute purity of one group requires the counter-weight of the absolute impurity of another — in this case the untouchable." (Early India).  We can't gloss over what Thapar considers were the ideological factors.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to argue that this article is far from complete or has issues. But could we please focus on the slave bit here, please? I'm seeing sources that state quite explicitly that they were part of the shudra varna. After all these quotes and what not, I'm still yet to see anything reliable here that states that slaves were outcastes or of mixed varnas or similar. All we have is that Upinder Singh implied at one point that they occupied a position in society that was lower than the shudras. Old man Sharma notes somewhere in Shudras in Ancient India that shudras were subject to a generalised form of slavery but that only some of them were "legally slaves". But I don't have full access to the book. Also FWIW, the book was revised as late as 1990. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood my point that in effect you are wasting everyone's time here by focusing on an arithmetical approach, whether there were four castes, what whether the fourth included slaves or not, and in what proportion. Slavery in ancient India, was not the bigger problem. The walling out of certain indigenous peoples was. The problem with RS Sharma is that he maintains that that did not occur in the entire Vedic period. And his explanations are sometimes bizarre. Although he was a secular intellectual, when he is being quoted by a neo-Hindu-nationalist such as Arvind Sharma at McGill, the combination borders on the ridiculous. (See Erdosy's Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia}. As for his book, I can tell a late 50s book from a mile away.  The revisions are minimal.  He says as much in the preface: "A more thorough revision would have delayed publication without improving the book materially.  All that has been done in the present edition may not satisfy the expectations of readers, but something is always better than nothing."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 Let's then revisit this when that section is complete. I don't see anything reliable here (besides an implication by Upinder Singh) that states that slaves were not shudras or occupied a lower position. Upinder Singh's statement can perhaps be added as a note next to the word "slaves". I don't necessarily disagree with what you say, but this needs to be addressed properly.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is Thapar on Slavery, "Categories of slaves were drawn more commonly from the lower castes and untouchables. There is a fuller treatment of slaves in the Dharma-shastras of this time than in the earlier ones, which suggests a greater use of slave labour although it still did not reach anywhere near the proportions of slave labour in some other parts of the ancient world. But there is a continuing mention of hired labour that seems to have been used on a larger scale than before. The sources of slaves were the usual — prisoners-of-war, debt bondsmen and slaves born to slave women — but also include the curious category of those who have revoked their vows of renunciation. The largest number of slaves seems to have been employed in domestic work. For labour in agriculture there were other categories such as bonded labour, hired labour and those required to perform stipulated jobs as a form of vishti, forced labour or labour tax. Caste regulations prevented the untouchables from being employed in domestic work. Forced to work in a caste society, untouchables constituted a permanent reservoir of landless labour, their permanence ensured by the disabilities of their birth." She too is again making the point that the bigger inequity was not slavery, ie. domestic slavery, but the other categories she mentions. Also, please note you need to make sure your sources are talking about the Vedic period, not the immediate post-Vedic.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is from a chapter called "Threshold times, AD 300-700", ergo, much later than the Vedic period. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict) Thank you. The "Dharma-shastras of this time" in Thapar's quote is the time of Harsha, at least ~1000 years in the future, and the Dharmashastra is probably the Naradasmriti she mentions a few lines later. And no, I'm not being arithmetical. I'm simply being methodical. If we're going to remove sourced content, then due diligence needs to be observed. I don't really edit this article otherwise. Kautilya3's proposed section on slavery in the Vedic Age could be where the social subordination of the time can be addressed. Thank you.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that didn't come out right. I didn't mean that Thapar was writing about the Vedic age, but that you have to be careful about making sure that the references to slavery are of the Vedic age and not the immediately post-Vedic, which is what I think Upinder Singh was referring to.  (As for Thapar, I saw Bana's Harshacharitra at the top of the page, and renunciants were not exactly a Vedic feature).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that article has bigger issues than this one word. I would investigate more into this soon. In the meantime you would like to check Historical Vedic religion that has enough amount of same content as this article. Lorstaking (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I did take a look, and there are some similarities, but there are also many differences. Unfortunately, that page is even farther removed than this from my central interests on WP.  In fact, the only reason why I am on this page (and its talk page) is that there was spillover of a discussion here on Talk:India.  I'm leaving some sources here, but I am unlikely to do any editing beyond what I have already done in the lead.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think that enough editors have raised issues about this article. Including you, who had mentioned the origins section on WT:INB. Since you have fixed the lead, I believe that we can fix further issues. Capitals00 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Origins and maps
Fowler has highlighted the problems with the maps, I would say that the maps should be removed per WP:OR. I don't think we can find a reliable source that would consider Yamna culture a predecessor of Vedic period, but the maps of the article claims it to be. Two of the paragraph including the long quotation only depends on a single source. In my opinion, the Vedic period contains only WP:UNDUE, after the first paragraph, that ends with "started to inhabit the northern Indus Valley." Lorstaking (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Has he? The maps show the Indo-European migrations; no OR there. Most sources you can find will agree that the Vedic culture was an Indo-European culture, and therefore related to the Yamna-culture. You may not like it, but that's the scholarly concencus.


 * The single source is Anthony; that's WP:RS, who reflects other scholarly sources. That suffices. The quote could be shortened, but the info is not undue; it tells about the early origins of the Veid culture, and the influence of the BMAC.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes he objected the maps above. Clearly this is not about liking or disliking. You can't really find reliable sources that would consider Yamna culture a predecessor of Vedic period. And I don't think any of them has used the same maps that you have addedhere to verify the "origins" of Vedic period. This is how it is WP:OR. We don't have to go in lengths to describe something that has been already mentioned on the first paragraph. And if you are going in lengths then you have to mention the criticism or faults or doubts over these proposals. As far as I have seen that nearly every historian has mentioned and discussed them, like Upinder Singh source that appears on the article. Some other good sources are: 1) Hinduism: Past and Present, Axel Michaels, Princeton University Press, p. 33, 2) The Elusive Aryans: Archaeological Search and Vedic Research; The Origin of the Hindus, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p. 73, 3) A History of India, Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, p. 34 - 35. But then we don't need to do that when we already have articles for them where it should be done or maybe editors have. That's why I support removing everything from the section other than the first paragraph. Lorstaking (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And what exactly do those sources say? Michaels: "For the state of research, see Rau 1983 and especially Erdosy (ed.) 1995." Definitely more recent than Anthony (2007).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maps are tricky. On the one hand they can offer context, which is good; on the other they can offer certainty, especially where little is offered in the literature, which is not good.  I think the two maps in the lead are over-demarcated.  We don't need the big arrows except the one from the northwest in the first map (early Vedic period).  I think one map in the origins section that showed the most recent leg of the Indo-Aryan migration would be fine.  But the maps, nearly a dozen, showing the long march of the Aryans from the Dneiper and Ukraine to the Saraswati and India  is too much of a good thing. The bigger problem with the article, as I've stated elsewhere is that it has done a snow job by walling out the indigenous peoples in the same way that the Aryans themselves had done, in reality or ritually,  in the characterization of some scholars.  The point is, that whether you think what the Indo-Aryans wrought in India was real apartheid or only ritual apartheid which protected elites, they nonetheless created something that gave birth to the uniquely Hindu, and Indo-Aryan Hindu, caste system that has created misery for hundreds of millions for over two millennia.  It was not all an invention of pushy British census directors pretending to be ethnologists.  (Faxian bears witness to the treatment of untouchables during his visit in the sixth (?) century CE.)   The article waxes grandiosely when the text in question shows the Aryans in a good light; but uses hypocritical sanitized language when they are not.  Notice how so much space is allotted to, "Many scholars think that the dasa were Indo-Aryans who had earlier migrated into these regions," or words to that effect. Cited as evidence are Kulke and Rothermund.  What do K&R say, in fact? They give examples of Aryans railing against dark-skinned indigenous people they called dasas. (Ignored)  They quote the Rig Veda hymn gloating about burning down the fortresses of the dark-hued. (Ignored)  They say that sometimes kings who commanded respect in the RV had names such as "Su-dasa" etc indicating that they might have been indigenous people who were collaborating (or had been brutalized enough in provocative language) by offering their services as guides to the immigrating Aryans (Ignored). Only when they mention an interesting theory of Asko Parpola, that the word "dasa" might have been originally used for pre-Vedic Aryans who had arrived earlier (by way of South-Central Asia) and had already mixed with the indigenous population, are they quoted as part of an opinion that is characterized as many-scholared, but which leaves out the mixing with the natives bit (in case, dare I say, we conclude that in I-A ideology half-breed is worse than no breed.}  The article is littered with such examples.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response; I've removed most of the maps. NB: notes 1 and 2 already do give additional info on the Indo-Aryan migrations, both "an overview of the current relevant research," and the "concurring" "indigenist" position.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good job. My compliments!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
The Vedic period is an article about Indian history. As such historiography and historical arguments, and not textual analysis is what is given precedence in it. Frits Staal whose many papers and books on the fidelity of oral transmission as well as the construction of the Vedic fire alters, I used with great benefit and pleasure in my sections Oral tradition and Sublasutras (of the Indian mathematics page whose first eight sections, as well as sections 10 and 11, I wrote some ten years ago) is nevertheless not a historian. His arguments are not those of a historian, and he seems to be setting up straw men when it comes to historians. None of the historians he trains his sights on are Dumezilian, none believe in the Aryan Invasion theory, let alone a tripartite system of Indo-European social hierarchies. Hermann Kulke is far more sophisticated than in the somewhat silly caricature of Staal. See for example: for historians' appreciation of Kulke on the Vedic Period. To say that there is no mention of caste in the Vedas does not mean that there was no caste system in the Vedic period, for historians make judgments about social stratification based on many factors that have nothing to do with explicit textual acknowledgment of the stratification. The same goes for other historians: when they talk about slavery, they are not talking about the slavery-as-serving-out-your-prison-term of the Arthasastra (whose extant version was composed in 300 CE, nearly a millennium after the end of the Vedic period), nor about whether shudras were slaves, or slaves shudras, they are talking about something that Romila Thapar describes succinctly, "A slave in India could buy back his freedom, or be voluntarily released by his master; and, if previously he had the status of an arya, he could return to this status upon his completion of his term as a slave, according the Arthashastra. Possibly the function of arya and dasa had again undergone some change.  What was immutable in Indian society was not freedom or slavery, but caste.  In effect, however, the condition of freedom or slavery was implicit in caste, where, in the overall scheme, the lower castes were less free than the higher, and untouchability could coincide with slavery." (See: ) And it is not just historians, but even Sanskritists such as Olivelle as well as religion scholars such Wendy Donger and Gavin Flood who have made similar observations. In other words, it was not just the subjugation of the indigenous peoples, (by Aryans who were not invading) but their walling out from the economy and from social discourse that reduced them to conditions akin to slavery. I will try to find some sources.

What mainly strikes me about this article is the shabby lead, which doesn't even explain why the darn thing is called the "Vedic period." You all could have at least fixed that. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I've fixed the first few sentences of the lead.  Please stop using "Indian subcontinent" everywhere and all the time.  Some times it is needed, most times it is not. Seriously. And you don't need to say "northern" too many times.  It is understood.  Here also are a few sources for "ritual impurity," "indigenous peoples," and "exclusion," in the Vedic period.
 * a) "To this list may be added a further social duality, recorded only in later Vedic literature This essentially linguistic distinction to begin with, between aarya and the mleccha, separating the speakers of Indo-Aryan from others, takes on the social connotation as well, with mleccha meaning a barbarian or one outside the pale and ritually impure. (p. 45)"
 * b) "Our understanding of the social order that emerged in the late Vedic period is strongly colored by the Brahmanical view of society. By this time, a fourth group had been added to the three mentioned above: the servants (sudras), who were ascribed the position of serving the other three classes. sudras, generally speaking, would forever be considered non-Aryans, indicating that they may have originally been drawn from culturally distinct, indigenous people."
 * c)  Obviously introductory as the title suggests: Quote: "Untouchable castes constitute about a fifth of India's population. They were totally excluded from Vedic society and high-caste ritual traditions, 'outcaste' beyond the system of the four classes (avarna). Even the Sudras were within the class system, though forbidden to hear the Veda and outside the twice-born designation, but the Untouchables had no place within the higher social orders, living on the outside of villages, as Manu directs, and living by performing menial and polluting tasks such as working with leather and sweeping excrement from the village. The fifth-century Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Fa-hsien, mentions the Untouchables as having to strike a piece of wood before entering a town as a warning for people to avoid them.2 The untouchable classes almost certainly go back into the first millennium BCE. The dating of Manu is unsure, though it is earlier than the third century C E and probably far older. There is evidence, cited by Dumont, of untouchable castes several centuries before the com-mon era, from the Buddhist Jatakas, stories of the previous lives of the Buddha, and Dumont not implausibly suggests that both Brahmans and Untouchables were established at the same time, for the impurity of the Untouchable is inseparable from the purity of the Brahman; they are at opposite ends of the status hierarchy."
 * d) page 30: Flood: "The most commonly accepted theory to date has been that Hinduism is the consequence of incursions of groups known as Aryans into the northern plains of India from central Asia, via the mountain passes of Afghanistan, around 1500 BCE.... The self-designation of these people was the Sanskrit arya, meaning 'noble' or 'honourable', which referred to the three highest social classes of their society, as distinct from the indigenous people of south Asia whom they encountered and subjugated by means of a superior war technology."
 * e) Quote: "(1) The Rgveda depicts a pre-urban society with copper and possibly iron technology, evolving from nomadic pastoralism dependent on cattle to a form of settled agriculture. (In the earliest period, the only specific crops mentioned are barley and beans, while later texts such as the Atharvaveda mention other cultigens including wheat and rice.) They were a warlike people who used a light-weight, horse-drawn, spoke-wheeled chariot, an innovation which no doubt provided an advantage in battle over people using oxcarts. (2) Tribal or lineage identity was important, and the patriarchal family was the basic social unit (Thapar 1978: 214). (3) There are clear indications of "cultural exclusiveness and separation from the local people" (Ibid), and expressions of contempt for the physical appearance, language, and religious beliefs of the indigenous people (Deshpande 1979: 2-3)."
 * f)
 * "Samskaras have been brought into a system in the period starting from around 500 BCE, when the higher classes of the Aryans began to separate from other population groups in South Asia, especially in the Gangetic plains. In the early Vedic time, the initiation ritual took the form of a consecration (diksa) into secret priestly knowledge and was a privilege for those who wanted to learn the Veda, mostly for the sons of priests, but also for sons of other classes and even women. Later, however, the consecration turned into a life-cycle rite that demarcated the social and ritual borders between different social groups. Those not initiated were equated with outsiders, marginal groups, and enemies." (p 183)
 * "Any region without initiated classes was regarded as the land of the barbarians (mlecchadeśa). The noninitiated from these regions were not allowed to take part in the Brahmanic rituals, could not maintain the important domestic fire, could not share food with the initiated, and were allowed only limited participation in social life. Most important, however, they were made unavailable as marriage partners. To the leading circles that employed Brahmanic priests, the uninitiated was a social outcast. Various factors may have been responsible for this development: acculturation problems vis-à-vis the indigenous population due to the transition from a semi-nomadic to a settled life; the emergence of states and kingdoms; the defense of sinecures, prerogatives, and privileges; and the rise of superior technologies. Times of harsh distress (famine, epidemics), when the social order was shaken, must also be taken into account. Many legal texts mention such instances of collective and individual distress (apad). Mingling with the resident population and their doctrines and religions also had to be regulated. Who was admitted for the rituals, mainly the fire sacrifice? Who could marry whom? As acculturation between the Indo-Aryans and the other population groups progressed, the more dearly did specific classes need an externally visible demarcation. The Sacred Thread that any twice-born received during initiation was to their symbol of the boundary. (p 184)"

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Last update:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"As per talk page discussion"
If anything the "as per talk page discussion" on "slaves" was to create a section dedicated to slavery in the Vedic age and then revisit that particular line. And,, , if you want to make changes that you believe were discussed and consented on talk, then please break up your edits into individual changes addressing the point in question rather than simply stating "as per talk page discussion".—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit-conflict) Also, I'm guessing that many of the "as per talk page discussion" changes is based on 's (useful) segue into a critique of the current article. While I see some consensus on the issues with maps, I don't see anything on removing sentences like "These migrations may have been accompanied with violent clashes with the people who already inhabited this region." If anything, Fowler notes the "hypocritical sanitised language" being used which ignores the origins/nature of the indigenous people completely. Removing "indigenous people" and the sentence on possible Indo-Aryan origins doesn't address the issue; it simply buries it. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are removing over 500 bytes just over a single word? We all except you agreed to remove the slave word. Per WP:SOFIXIT you can create a section if you want to, but don't stop people from doing what they find it right. Lorstaking (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See above. My WP:SOFIXIT is to leave the word in as it is and as per two of the cited sources at the end of the line which you state there's a consensus on removing sans supporting sources. And I see that you've reverted the revert yet again. I've left a warning on your talk page for edit warring.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 10:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The content under the sections including Early Vedic Period (ca. 1500–1100 BCE) was written by Amitrochates, he made 44 edits to finally compose some of the major sections. While they include WP:SYNTH too often, they are also badly paraphrased, sometimes directly copying the sources, and omitting the relevant content like we have discussed above. That's why it cannot be treated as some orthodox version. The WP:OR like "These migrations may have been accompanied with violent clashes" was written someone else afterwards, not that it appeared on the version written by the original editor. None of this appears in any of the sources, because conflicts didn't took place during or only during migrations but always. Kulke, Singh, etc. have instead said that there were inter-tribes conflicts. This section was meant to provide some idea about Indo-Aryan origins, but the article didn't had any other section before, but now it does and discusses them under Vedic period, that's why repetition is not needed. Capitals00 (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Rig Veda is fully of racist asides, which nationalist historians of India have put on the back burner, bowdlerized, or attempted to interpret exceptionally favorably. I'll be darned of someone thinks they can pull that on my watch, i.e. when the article is on my watchlist.  I will edit the article sometime soon.  Meanwhile everything in the troubled sections should stay "As is." -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fowler&fowler (talk • contribs)

Questionable page-protection

 * Capitals00 makes controversial changes at 08:07 (WET) diff.
 * After a series of reverts between Lorstaking and Cpt.a.haddock, he asks for page-protection at 12:18 diff.
 * At 12:23 Capitals00 himself makes another edit, diff.
 * Fowler&fowler weights in at 12:47, diff, from which it is clear that there is no concencus for Capital00's changes.
 * Capitals00 reverts again at 12:52 diff, and then request page-protection again at 12:55 diff...

From Requests for page protection: "Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism". And from Protection policy: "in some particular circumstances, because of a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open". So, Capitals00 continued to edit-war while requesting page-protection... Not a collaborative spirit. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC) / update   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are no problems with the page protection. I am providing timings as UTC. Edit warring means frequently reverting, which wasn't done by me, in fact I didn't even made a single revert. I had only removed original research, which wasn't controversial since I had already described the edits on talk page and other editors had seemingly acknowledged it. And I replaced a source tagged as "unreliable source" with a better source. We are not editing against any orthodox version anyway. Fowler's message appeared on 11:00 while I had stopped editing at 10:54. In fact if we are properly following the discussion then I was allowed to restore the edits under society which were removed during the blanket reverts, they were not objected and they are not under "troubled sections" as mentioned above and I didn't restored because I had stopped editing by 10:54. Capitals00 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ:
 * We're in different time-zones; I guess Wikipedia displays the time adjusted for the time-zone of the editor.
 * At 08:03 (WET) you removed the following sentence:
 * After the back-and-forth reverting between Lorstaking and Cp.a.haddock, Fowler&fowler reverted back to the last version by Cp.a.haddock at 12:47 (WET), which re-inserted the sentence above, with the following edit-summary:
 * Five minutes later, at 12:52, you removed that sentence again, despite the very clear message from F&f in his edit-summary, and despite your own request for page-protection, which is aimed at either stopping edit-warring, or preventing damage to the page.
 * To quote you, "if we are properly following the discussion" we stick to the version before your edits from 16 september, instead of reverting & then demanding the page to be protected.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It reads, "Meanwhile everything in the troubled sections should stay "As is."" That means those parts of sections of the article could be edited where there is no dispute, and there was no dispute regarding Vedic period. Even after knowing that I had already stopped editing by 10:54 (before Fowler's message). I didn't even reverted Cpt.a.haddock, even though I could, I was instead preparing a statement for talk page.
 * I did removed the WP:OR, like I had already described and there seems to be no objections against them. Since 2 editors (me, lorstaking) and other article watchers made no other objections I did removed it again, but my original edit was much more than that. I only made the most obvious edits with which we could agree and it wouldn't seem like I am restoring back to my version. Its been nearly a day since those edits and they hadn't been reverted again but it would've been reverted if I had completely resorted the version that was being reverted. Capitals00 (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It reads, "Meanwhile everything in the troubled sections should stay "As is."" That means those parts of sections of the article could be edited where there is no dispute, and there was no dispute regarding Vedic period. Even after knowing that I had already stopped editing by 10:54 (before Fowler's message). I didn't even reverted Cpt.a.haddock, even though I could, I was instead preparing a statement for talk page.
 * I did removed the WP:OR, like I had already described and there seems to be no objections against them. Since 2 editors (me, lorstaking) and other article watchers made no other objections I did removed it again, but my original edit was much more than that. I only made the most obvious edits with which we could agree and it wouldn't seem like I am restoring back to my version. Its been nearly a day since those edits and they hadn't been reverted again but it would've been reverted if I had completely resorted the version that was being reverted. Capitals00 (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The role of horses in early Vedic society...
[This is my first ever edit in order to accomplish a school assignment] The textbook I am using (Worlds Together, Worlds Apart, 2e, Tignor et. al, ISBN:0393932060) mentions that as the Vedic people settle from their nomadic lifestyle, the elites still value horses but cannot breed or train them in their new homeland. As a result, a trade route was opened with the asvika or "the country of horses" to the northwest of the Hindu Kush for the purposes of obtaining these horses. This in turn, led to contact with the Persians.

I am exploring whether this would make a meaningful addition to the article for a later assignment. I would enjoy hearing the advice of this page's editing community. Thank you very much! Humanrecord.io (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


 * These may be of use: and  Avantiputra7 (talk) 08:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , Thank you! I made a small edit, hopefully I inserted it in the right section. I used your second source but was not able to view the first. Thanks for collaborating, it made this assignment more valuable Humanrecord.io (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jainism in the IVC?
This edit changed

into


 * Flood p.82 does not make such a statement;
 * Y. Masih, A Comparative Study of Religions p.235 says "some of its features go back to the Indus Valley Civilization";
 * "Gerald James Larson, possibly going back to the time of the Indus valley civilization (emphasis mine), is not the same as "the traces of Jainism are found in the IVC";
 * Beversluis also does not say that "the traces" of Jainism are found in the IVC; the claim of "before 3000 BC" prdeates even the (mature) IVC, and is definitely WP:Redflag which needs better sources; conventional dating for Parshvanatha is 7th=8th century BCE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * could you take a look here? This is an obvious sock. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, blocked, tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Early Vedic age
I was thinking that on early age the people are pasteorilist rearing is the main occupation but hunting and gathering are stopeed or not Gourav ias (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , please note that Wikipedia is not a school or college. This talk page is meant for discussing edits to the article. Only that!. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

History
Utar vedic kal 2409:4085:8314:81CD:C8B5:ED96:EDA:786C (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

History
What is the Vedic civilization? What was the main occupation during the Vedic period? 2405:204:16:C2BC:0:0:616:18A0 (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Civilization has a specific meaning; the Vedic period does not qualify a civilization. It ended when a new civilization arose in northern India. The main occupations were farming and cowherding, I guess. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2405:204:16:C2BC:0:0:616:18A0, this is not a page to discuss things about the article, Only to improve it! PrathuCoder (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

histroy 43.251.175.189 (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 2409:4072:2E94:F8D8:0:0:8F0B:5E05 (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)