Talk:Sarasvati River

Entry

I have moved sources and links into the entry, since no one else has done so. The statement " TheHelmand River in Afghanistan, which historically bore the name 'sarasvati' " does not tell us who gave it this identification with the Rig Veda river, nor when. Was it so called by locals at an early date? Or was the identification made by an Indian or Arab geographer? Why should we think this has relevance? This is pabulum as it stands. Wetman 01:36, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Helmand

Nobody in historical memory 'gave' the Helmand the name 'Sarasvati'. It's simply that the river was called the Sarasvati in the past. The fact that it's the same name as the vedic river has led to the argument that it was the orginal 'sarasvati' of the Vedas. The Helmand is important to this issue and certainly should not be censored out.

_______

Helmand theory is a fringe theory for it is based on mere speculations and is not widely accepted like Ghaggar.

Even though Wikipedia article mentions that Ghaggar is a theory (Wikipedia itself says that it's not a reliable source), it is well-known outside Wikipedia that it's much more than a theory and is close to the fact.Onkuchia (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Plaska

In the Mahabharata, Skanda Purana and other texts the Sarasvati is associated with the Plaska tree. Some have argued that Plaska could be a Ficus species, probably ficus lacor or ficus infectoria. Kalyanaraman, S. (1999) The River Sarasvati: Legend, Myth and Reality

Sutlej Flowed to the Southwest to join Beas not Saraswati

Vipasa or beas was a much longer river until about a 1000 years ago, when Sutlej changed course abandoning its old channel in southwestern Punjab near Bathinda and took a westerly turn from east of Ludhiana towards Harike beyond there it now flows in the old channel of Beas down to Pakistan, there is a dried up channel from the old Beas river bed just to the west of Ferozepur as the Beas now joins Sutlej at Harike instead of taking a U-turn like bend from Kasur before coming back to the present Sutlej channel(old beas channel) south-west of ferozepur as it did about a millenium ago, people living downstream from the confluence of sutlej and beas still call the river Beas, even though Sutlej is clearly the larger river, also they call the dried up channel west of ferozepur near Kasur, sukka Beas(dried up Beas). Geologists have discovered that Beas joined Satluj west south-west of Abohar near Sulemanke and Hindumalkot before Sutlej changed its course towards Harike to meet Beas several hundered kilometers upstream. Saraswati was clearly Ghaggar as is clear from the enormous course of Ghaggar which is several kilometers wide even in the mountainous Shivalik belt which is very unsual for a small seasonal river, Saraswati has been wrongly identified by some vested interests as originating from adi badri in Yamunanagar district of Haryana.

Kurukshetra is a mythical battlefield said to be hundered kilometers in area, it is true if we look at the present day drishdavati and ghaggar but not the present day Saraswati which was known as Sarsa(there is another river named sarsa near present day bilaspur/anandpur in Himachal/Punjab) until a few decades ago when swamis and politicians that are busy destroying the ancient heritage with their own hands with their theories.

There was never a town named Kurukshetra, the town that is now called Kurukshetra is holy part of the city of Thanesar, where there existed several tirths or temples, the place was called Sthaneswar which is mentioned in several ancient Indian texts and was the site of one of the biggest temples that was destroyed by Mahmud of Ghazni, it was also the capital of Harsha and later on of the Hindu Shahis after they lost afghanistan and western punjab to Mahmud. After 1947 some people with the active abetment of the government of Punjab and later Haryana started calling the town kurukshetra which is very dishonest and an insult to Indian heritage as Kurukshetra was a vast battlefield between Saraswati and drishdavati and not a small town.

Now the question of Saraswati/ghaggar/hakra having such a large channel right from the lower hills to the Rann of Kutch. Geologists have uncovered evidence of a large earthquake in the region where Ghaggar originates, it is very close to the point where Giri a river that originates from himalayan glaciers in himachal takes a sharp south-easterly turn after flowing westward much of its course. It then goes on to join Yamuna just before it enters the plains. This eathquake seems to have blocked the course of Saraswati between the glaciers and the present day source of Ghaggar, so Giri could very well be the old channel and waters of Saraswati that flowed into present day ghaggar channel down to the plains. This is nothing new geologists and archeologists have known this for more than half a century now.

So, yes Saraswati was a major river, and it is possible that it flowed all the way to the Rann of Kutch via the Nara channel in Sindh as ghaggar/hakra flowed west and then southwest before turning south to flow into the present day Nara Channel. It should also be noted that the entire dried up river bed of Hakra/Nara lies in Pakistan briefly touching the Bulge of indo-pak border west of Jaisalmer and did not re-enter the present day Rajasthan after leaving Ganganagar district as some of these people are suggesting. Some have even gone to the extent of bringing it down to Bikaner and Jaisalmer itself, when the river bed is clearly to the north and west. The Nara channel continued on to the west of Dholavira(indus valley site) in Gujarat and finally entering Kutch and the sea. March 24, 2007

Also, Sthaneswar/thanesar which is now called kurukhsetra is one of the 51 shaktipeeths as Sati's(Wife of Lord Siva) ankle fell there, 'Sthanu' is the manifestation of Shiva that has been worshipped at Sthaneshwar since time immemorial. The huge temple/tirth that was destroyed by Mahmud contained the shrine dedicated to this manifestation.

Multiple desccrepancies in Sarasvati River Article

Copied from [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Multiple desccrepancies in Sarasvati River Article

There are multiple sentences and paragraphs in the Sarasvati River article which do not reflect an open and broad minded view, but rather show an assertive and one-sided view relating to The river Sarasvati. Listed below are some of the sentences:

The last line of the first paragraph of Sarasvati River "The name Sarasvati was also given to a formation in the Milky Way" is a speculative view or theory of a single scholar and it is not agreed upon by multiple others. Hence it should not be stated as a fact but more like "Witzel suggests the Sarasvati could be the Milky Way".

In the second paragraph the line "However the geophysical characteristics of the Rigvedic Saraswati river do not correspond to the Ghaggar-Hakra river" is again said as a statement of fact, but it has strong arguments against it: The Sarasvati river flows from the mountains to the Ocean but not the Helmand river. The same could be said about the Helmand River section, Many scholars argued that Kochhar's theory has serious flaws.

The Mythical River section contains statements related to politics of India. Political views and statements should have no place in an article related to a River.

I would like to know from you the specific reasons to remove my edits and revert to the earlier. User talk:Truthteller301 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Discussions of this kind are best done at the article talk pages. To put it briefly, Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources for technical content (history, archaeology, linguistics etc.) Michael Danino is not a reliable source. So his opinions don't count. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Yep.While Witzel, on the other hand, is a highly respected authority. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Well User talk:Kautilya3, Michel Danino has published multiple papers on Indian history and his book on the Sarasvati river has reference to multiple papers and article by dozens of scholars from 19th century to present. There are hundreds of Historians, Linguists and Archeologists both Indian and international, who do not agree with the so called Aryan migration theory as there is no strong evidence in the ancient literary sources or archeological sources or genetic sources. -- User talk:Truthteller301

References

Witzel himself changed his position on the Aryans and the Vedas multiple times. He earlier strongly asserted the Aryan invasion theory and then later changed his position to Aryan migration and today he says it was not a migration but just a trickling in of Aryans, but a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent. Saying Witzel is a highly respected scholar is an individualistic opinion and many more would disagree. Ancient History can only be interpreted, theorized and speculated. Unlike classical Science which has experimental and mathematical proofs, Historical events can be interpreted in many ways as there is mo way to go back in time -- User talk:Truthteller301

See Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory:

the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it if there are "hundreds of historians" etc. who do do not agree with the "so called Aryan migration"; if there are so many, nevertheless, they're standing outside the mainstream of academic research on this topic. David Reich, referred to by you, is one of the leading scholars in this respect. See also the works of David W. Anthony and Asko Parpola, among others. Or scroll through Eurogenes Blogspot, Indo-European.eu, or Gene Expression to get an update of your knowledge of the scholarly mainstream on the Indo-european migrations.

Your statement "a miniscule trickle of Aryans could not have changed the entire linguistic and genetic landscape of entire subcontinent" is your personal opinion, nay, misunderstanding. Saying "Witzel is a highly respected scholar," on the other hand, is not "an individualistic opinion," but a statement of fact. See also here for the credentials of Michael Witzel; incomparable to the wishfull thinking of Danino. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

in David Reich's own wikipedia page it is written that Reich pointed out that their work does not show that a substantial migration occurred during this time so even the mainstream scholars dont generally follow the same mantra. Most of the Archaeologist have completely debunked Aryan Invasion theory proposed as the predecessor of Aryan Migration Theory including Dr Mark Kenoyer who also believes that Indo Aryan language was spoken in the Indus Valley, indo aryan language completely being indeginious to South Asia and Harappan civilization and that indo european languages spread from India to europe Rameezraja001 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC) https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/CulturesSocietiesIndusTrad.pdf

You're taking a quote out of context. Narasimhan et al. (2018), The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia:

We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.

Add a multitude of recent publications from the last two months. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

i see so many discrepancies in this study and if one reads the comments section of the links you posted, one may easily understand that.Rameezraja001 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually read that article by Kenoyer?

Some scholars have tried to equate the Harappa Phase (or Indus civilization) with the Vedic period (Singh 1995), but as is clear from the summary presented above and more detailed discussion below, we do not have access to any linguistic data that would allow us to correlate the Vedic, Sanskrit speaking communities with the mute archaeological remains of the Indus. Furthermore, the types of artifacts and the nature of the settlements does not correlate to what is described in the Rig Veda or other later Vedic texts.

The linguistic evidence suggests that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated from regions to the west and north [of the Indus]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

i think you missed this bit

There is no archaeological evidence for invasion, or even large-scale migration into the northwestern subcontinent

When linguists tried to understand the relationship between the Sanskrit language and other classical languages such as Latin and Greek, they coined the word Indo-European, to refer to a large family of related languages that spread from India to Europe (Mallory 1989; Renfrew 1987).

Although many scholars have proposed that the Bactro- Margiana region was inhabited by Indo-Aryan speaking communities, there is no linguistic evidence to support this. Even if these communities did speak Indo-Aryan languages and practice Vedic style sacrifices on fire-alters, there is no indication that political or military leaders from Bactria or other regions of Central Asia invaded the Indus valley and established a new cultural tradition in this area despite the evidence of other forms of contact.

However, the analysis of non-Indo-Aryan linguistic elements in Old Indo Aryan languages (Southworth 2005:64-67) and studies of place names (toponymy) that may indicate the presence of early linguistic communities, it appears that more than one language may have been spoken in the greater Indus Valley (Fairservis and Southworth 1989). For example, rivers in Sindh and Baluchistan have names that can be attributed to Mundari or Dravidian languages even though there are no modern speakers of these languages in the region today. In the Punjab and Afghanistan, the rivers have Indo-Aryan names, while further to the north the names become TibetoBurman or some other language. Future studies of place names need to be undertaken to better understand the implications of these patterns.

Kenoyer in many lectures states the language of the indus valley maybe indo aryan, making it the origin of indo european languages. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcGLlLEbmI (27:40)Rameezraja001 (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you please stop using this talkpage as a WP:FORUM for WP:FRINGE ideas? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Well, Dr. M. Danino is a well-known professor and researcer. He's a member of Indian Council of historical research. His book "The lost river" is one of the most popular books on Sarasvati, which is published by realiable Penguins books. The book is also cited by geologists and archaeologists. He is certainly a reliable scholar in this article.

And what do you think about Rajesh Kochhar who is an astrophysicist? What's his relevance to the Vedas and religion especially Hinduism? He's apparently working outside his field, and yet his fringe views got two Paras. This article needs improvements in the direction of NPOV and mainstream scholarship of Geologists and archaeologists.Onkuchia (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you pinging me for Danino? I have no interest in him.

As for Rajesh Kochhar, he worked in the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, but his interests are broader. He has worked in history of science (especially Indian science), and philosophy of science etc. His paper on Sarasvati was included in a well-recognized collection on Indo-European Studies, Kochhar, Rajesh (1999), "On the identity and chronology of the Ṛgvedic river Sarasvatī", in Roger Blench; Matthew Spriggs (eds.), Archaeology and Language III; Artefacts, languages and texts, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-10054-2, which is enough validation as far as I am concerned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

danino is not professor, he's a guest professor. He suggests that the IVC was Indo-Aryan. That's WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Max Mueller's Samudra

I am removing this passage for discussion:

However, Indologist Max Müller asserted that the word Samudra in Rigvedic hymns such as, VII.49.2, VII.95.1-2, X.58 and V.78.8 has been 'used clearly in the sense of sea, the Indian sea', but also added that "the loss of the Sarasvati is later than the Vedic age, and at that time the waters of the Sarasvati reached the sea."

References

Max Mueller is from another century. Current scholarship accepts Konrad Klaus's analysis, which has specifically focused on the meaning of Samudra in the Vedas. See for example Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115). It is WP:UNDUE to use Max Mueller to contradict Klaus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:SYNTHESIS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I know that Max Muller is from another century. I also know that his views are widely accepted in Hinduism related Wikipedia articles.

Probably you don't know that R.U.S Prasad (2017) is part of current scholarship. He's not from another century or millennium. If the old sources are discussed by modern scholars, they are acceptable. And there's no reason to conflate Witzel's (fringe) theories with the mainstream scholarship. Accepting only Witzel's views as some kinda gospel truths violates Wikipedia's NPOV stance. Witzel's views have also been questioned and refuted by other scholars such as Koenraad and Danino.

Undue importance? Helmand theory itself is a fringe theory and is not taken seriously by the mainstream scholarship. This theory is even below criticism and has got undue importance in the article.

Well, R.U.S Prasad is working with Witzel. He's an associate in the department of Asian studies, Harvard University and is acknowledged by many scholars. Both Max Muller and Prasad's views would be included in the article in the light of NPOV.Onkuchia (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issues. The view that you have added is Max Mueller's and you have attributed it to him. RUS Prasad is incidental. If Prasad has compared and evaluated Max Mueller's and Konrad Klaus's analyses and drew any conclusions, please let us know. Otherwise, this is a non-starter. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not how NPOV works. We're not here saying that Muller refuted Kalus' arguments. So Prasad doesn't need to evaluate and compare their views. However he's fairly evaluated and compared the two ideas regarding Saraswati and Veda. Klaus has claimed that Saraswati flows into a lake ie Samudra is mentioned as lake while both Prasad and Max says that Saraswati flows into the Indian sea'. There's a huge contrat and deserves to be mentioned. Emotions should be kept aside.Onkuchia (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Joshua, you may explain how it is WP:synthesis

The context (identification of Sarasvati with Helmand and the use of Samudra in Veda in) of both the sources is the same. However the conclusions are different. Klaus makes an extraordinary claim that Saraswati flow into a lake. In contrast, Max Muller, RUS and others asserted that it flows into the ocean (Indian ocean).Onkuchia (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't be silly, calling Witzel fringe. Even more silly is to call him fringe, and then state R.U.S Prasad is working with Witzel. Derived authority? From a fringe author? You can't have it both.

Regarding Mueller: you refer to Prasad. So attribute it to Prasad: "Prasad rejects the Helmand theory, referring to ..." And note that Prasad, in that alinea, is not referring to Klaus. You did (emphasis mine): However, Indologist Max Müller. You're juztaposing two authors, referring to a third author, who is not juxtaposing those two authors. That's synthesis. You're writing your own thesis, not an encyclopedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, right; Prasad (p.20-23) also thinks that the Sarasvati was glacier-fed, and that the Rigveda was written when it was a mighty river; ergo, the Rigveda must be older than 1000-1400 BCE. The only possibility for that would be if the Rigveda contains verses which go back to Harappan traditions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shivalik

@Joshua Jonathan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarasvati_River&diff=854927534&oldid=854925446&diffmode=source

What copi-vios you are talking about? There's no need to misrepresent the source and ascribe the widely accepted view to just one scholar. And could you please stop using "argue" word for scientific and geological studies?Onkuchia (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You copied text from Prasad. In cases like that, you ought to use quotation-marks, to make clear the text has been copied. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite my edit-summary diff and this talkpage-tread, in which you pinged me, you've now restored a copy-vio two times... diff diff. @Diannaa: could you take a look here? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:It is no copi-vio. It is evident that I have constructed my own statement. And there's no need to use quotation when it is not necessary. (In this case, the statements are widely accepted by many scholars).Onkuchia (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)