Jump to content

Talk:Vedic period

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mohit atulkar (talk | contribs) at 20:24, 17 June 2024 (→Mahajanpad is not present in vedic text: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rakhigarhi DNA Study and the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory

The Indo-Aryan Migration view was challenged and said to be debunked by Vasant Shinde in his DNA study[1].

The DNA study[2] of skeletal remains found at the Rakhigarhi excavation site provides evidence that severely destabilises and debunks the Aryan Invasion Theory propounded by British colonial rulers.

The study finds no Central Asian trace in the DNA, indicating that the Aryan Invasion Theory (Aryan Invasion) was flawed and Vedic evolution was through indigenous people[3][4][5] leading to the strengthening of the stand of Indian Scholars post the study.

I think it may be needed to update and include this study in the Origins section. The study conflicts the existing paragraph in regards to the Aryan or Arya references. More study on this is needed.

References

  1. ^ Shinde, Vasant; Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Rohland, Nadin; Mallick, Swapan; Mah, Matthew; Lipson, Mark; Nakatsuka, Nathan; Adamski, Nicole; Broomandkhoshbacht, Nasreen; Ferry, Matthew; Lawson, Ann Marie (2019-10-17). "An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers". Cell. 179 (3): 729–735.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.048. ISSN 1097-4172. PMC 6800651. PMID 31495572.
  2. ^ Shinde, Vasant; Narasimhan, Vagheesh M.; Rohland, Nadin; Mallick, Swapan; Mah, Matthew; Lipson, Mark; Nakatsuka, Nathan; Adamski, Nicole; Broomandkhoshbacht, Nasreen; Ferry, Matthew; Lawson, Ann Marie (2019-10-17). "An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers". Cell. 179 (3): 729–735.e10. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.08.048. ISSN 1097-4172. PMC 6800651. PMID 31495572.
  3. ^ "Rakhigarhi Excavation: Study says not enough proof of Aryan invasion theory". Hindustan Times. 2019-09-06. Retrieved 2020-03-23.
  4. ^ Vishnoi, Anubhuti (2018-06-13). "Harappan site of Rakhigarhi: DNA study finds no Central Asian trace, junks Aryan invasion theory". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-03-23.
  5. ^ Khan, Fatima (2019-09-06). "2500 BC Rakhigarhi skeletons have no traces of 'Aryan gene', finds DNA study". ThePrint. Retrieved 2020-03-23.

Santosh L (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your knowledge, instead of pushing WP:FRINGE-theories; see Talk:Indo-Aryan migration#Shinde et al. (2019). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get involved in content, but please don't use newspapers as sources for archaeology and DNA, and sources really need to discuss the Vedic period, see WP:SYNTHESIS. Doug Weller talk 12:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree now that none of this belongs to this article, I don't see anything wrong with maintaining status quo since the additions by JJ were not so related to this subject and seemed WP:UNDUE. Santosh L (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New edits on origins

Your preferred version diff gives undue weight to the indigenist position. See WP:FRINGE. My "recent additions" were copy-edits, which grouped the undue info on the indigenist position together in one note, and an update on the recent state of research regarding the origins of the Indo-Aryans - the topic of this subsection. Your comment the additions by JJ were not so related to this subject and seemed WP:UNDUE is misleading and misplaced. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding off-topic ramblings to the section engulfed with grammatical errors and your misuse of sources [1] (no mention of "vedic")[2] (makes no mention of an "India" or "Vedic period") on this article shows your own difficulty in understanding the sources. Clearly you are having a hard time finding sources to support your WP:OR. Why don't you propose your version here and wait until others agree? Status quo must remain until you can find a consensus to support your misrepresentation per WP:BRD. Santosh L (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your preferred version gives undue weight to indigenism. The topic is the origins of the Vedic culture; the roots lay in the Sintashta/Andronovo culture. Writing in 2006, Mallory and Adams state that two models are favored in scholarship; Anthony & Ringe (2015) refers to this. Narasimhan et al. (2019) is about the steppe-origins of the Indo-Aryans, the topic of this section. You're pov-pushing is disruptive. Further, take care when editing; your duplicating of two notes shows that you're not intent on improving this article, but WP:CENSORing info you don't like. And please refrain from personal attacks; "rambling" and "engulfed with grammatical errors" are ad hominem comments, while "misrepresentation" is incorrect. You don't build consensus by such WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed your doublure of the two notes diff.
  • The line Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton used the term "Indo-Aryan Controversy" for an oversight of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory, and some of its opponents. is undue, and can be moved to the note.
  • Note that in my preferred version the text on the opposition against the IAmt is preceded by the following, which explains Indian views on the topic:

The Epic-Puranic chronology, the timeline of events in ancient Indian history as narrated in the Mahabaratha, the Ramayana, and the Puranas, envisions an older chronology for the Vedic culture. In this view, the Vedas were received thousands of years ago, and the Kurukshetra War, the background-scene of the Baghavad Gita, which may relate histoical events taking which took place ca. 1000 BCE at the heartland of Aryavarta,[19][20] is dated in this chronology at ca. 3100 BCE.

I didn't see any explanation why you removed this, so I have re-inserted this diff.
  • This is what my preferred version says about Mallory and Adams:

As of 2006, Mallory and Adams note that two models "enjoy significant international currency" as to the Indo-European homeland, namely the Anatolian hypothesis, and a migration out of the Eurasian steppes.[15] More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable, and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.[16][17][18][web 1][web 2]

This is sourced info, related to the statement by Mallory and Adams.
I was nonetheless accurate in describing the recent changes done by you. There is no "preferred version" of mine, but only I restored the long standing one particularly involving that section.
You must WP:AGF and calm down. Two paragraphs describe to non-indigenist position while only 2 sentences of a single paragraph describes the indigenist position. The Upinder Singh's view is that of a neutral observer. All of it does not seem WP:UNDUE at all, and I don't see any dispute over this version in the last 3 years either. I think it is best to leave that paragraph as is. Santosh L (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following line

More recent research has shown that the Anatolian hypothesis is untenable,[1] and that the Indo-Aryan languages arrived in India from the steppes via the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.[2][3][web 1][web 2]

References
  1. ^ Anthony & Ringe 2015.
  2. ^ Jospeh 2018.
  3. ^ Narasimhan 2019.
  1. ^ The Economic Times (Oct 12, 2019), Steppe migration to India was between 3500-4000 years ago: David Reich
  2. ^ Tony Joseph (september 13, 2019), New reports clearly confirm ‘Arya’ migration into India, The Hindu

is an update on Mallory and Adams, with sourced info from multiple WP:RS. I see no objection to including this. It's in line with what Singh writes, reflecting the mainstream scholalry position. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I understand that this is the mainstream scholarly position. And this is already mentioned in my preferred diff. When the "mainstream" view has been already added through Singh, why do we need more sentences to enforce that? I have not tried to increase the emphasis on indigenous viewpoint. I simply do not see the need to increase emphasis on mainstream position by adding more lines for every new research supporting it. This emphasis is not needed here in the Vedic Period page. Which people started the vedic period is not the point of discussion of this page. We need only mention the mainstream view and that is already there. Santosh L (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mallory & Adams could use an update; time has not stood still since then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved both Mallory & Adams and Singh into the note, and moved the info on the Puranic chronology upwards, so there's more emphasis on the Indian view. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC) diff[reply]

Mahajanpad is not present in vedic text

i want say that no vedic text tells about the mahajanpad only buddist and jain text tell about the mahajanpad Mohit atulkar (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vedic_period&oldid=1229620603"