Talk:Sinauli

Carts or chariots?

Another example of the'alternate facts' and narrative of the Hindutva universe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What's up with these politically motivated comments? And also your joke isn't even funny user:ChandlerMinh Niger banda (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ruchika Sharma

Persistent IP and single-edit account edit-warring diff diff diff diff, trying to remove the following:

According to Ruchika Sharma, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

We should first obtain clarity on why ASI is calling them 'chariots'. It isn't uncommon for a Late Harappan site to have bullock carts. There is already evidence of such terracotta carts [...] ASI has a tendency to colour their discoveries from the lens of Hindutva. They had earlier interpreted female figures as 'mother goddesses', even though there was no evidence to suggest it.

Notes

References

Sourced info, backed-up by additional info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Hello, this is regarding the Indian map shown in this content, the northern borders are not true. So we request you to replace the Indian map with the correct one.

Thank you 106.76.210.98 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, then reactivate your request by setting the answered parameter in the {{edit semi-protected}} template above your edit request back to no. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial Times

It's good to have some written source (Financial Times (feb 17, 2021), Secrets of Sinauli: Manoj Bajpayee, Neeraj Pandey’s Discovery Plus show is must watch for Indian history buffs) for the horse-chariot claim, but who actually "puts forth evidences (such as, size of the wheel, space in the chariot, chassis, pole, etc.) that show these were advanced and sophisticated light-weight chariots, with a D shaped chassis built for warfare, to be pulled forth by horses"? I'll bet there's no peer-reviewed publication in which this claim is being made. And my, what a rubbish:

Dr. BB Lal and Prof. Vijay Sathe mention DNA tested ancient horse bones found in India (Surkotada site), thus refuting the theory that horses were introduced in India from outside.

See Surkotada#Horse remains, Indigenous Aryanism#Horses and chariots, and Scroll.in, Putting the horse before the cart: What the discovery of 4,000-year-old ‘chariot’ in UP signifies on these claims, which are rejected by mainstream scholarahip. "Secrets of Sinauli" is clearly Indigenist-inspired, and not a reliable source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Uesugi

Uesugi gives additional info on the OCP, as being Late Harappan; it's not an "however," as if contradicting other info. And it's not on the Sinauli-finds; therefore, I moved it into a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Joshua,

I see you are too much against uncientific and politicized material related apparently to "Hindutva", but your way of editing that article is too much politized too. In order to have a coherent and scientific approach to Sinauli article, we should mention references in historical order and make proper assertions. The references to archaeologist Akinori Uesugi should be included after Parpola's quoting because it implies the archaeological view by an expert, which is not a Hindu nationalist, and telling that Sinauli's burials belong to OCP-Bara archaeological complex is very fit, because it can imply the non-nationalist view that the carts are indigenous and a continuity of previous Bara-Harappan period with no traces of Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian features at all, which I think will be the view of other people like Witzel for instance, but the information must be kept as it is, the reader already got the information about the controversy in previous passages, it's not necessary to "overload" the reader. On the other hand, trying to keep the Parpola's version as the unique "non-Hindutva-related version" is not to see the future horizon that this site opens. It seems you try to "cut" any other reference after that of Parpola. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Implies" = WP:OR; Uesugi doesn't even mention Sinauli. Witzel (2019), Early ' Aryans' and their neighbors outside and inside India p.5 says:

The archaeology of this period is little known,39 but it may still deliver surprises: the recently discovered items at Sinauli (just east of Delhi) include carts (not ‘chariots’),40 and copper inlaid coffins and swords, that clearly belong to the late Bronze Age (thus before 1000 BCE). This find may point to the survival of an extra-Harappan organized society. However, we need better dating (going beyond the Late Bronze Age label). [Note 40: Habitually, nearly all old carts are incorrectly called ‘chariots’ in the press and even in Indian scholarly papers.]

My English is failing me here, but comparing "extra-Harappan organized society" to "extra-mural care," I suppose Witzel means that the finds belong to a non-Harappan society. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to multiple waves

Regarding the Aryan migration that I highlighted and you deleted, you seem not knowing the indoeuropeanists use of that term, Parpola uses this term as a synonymous of Indo-Iranian as many other scholars also do. Please consult this and other Parpola's publications and you'll see that I am right by editing Aryan migration instead of Indo-Aryan migration. I've got some other things to tell you but it's late at night here. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So, why then do you remove wiki-links? They give additional info on Parpola's views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided mentions in the beginning a position of Parpola that he now has abandoned, it's from 2015, he changed his view in the paper from 2020. I did not remove "links", I removed the first one in the phrase which is erroneuos. Before 2020, Parpola thought there were two Indo-Aryan migrations, now he writes there were three different migrations (at least), the first one in his view was a previously "unexpected" Indo-Iranian migration (synomymous of Aryan migration), and the last two were Indo-Aryan migrations. I hoped you already understand that, but I see you didn't.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the phrase is correct: "According to Asko Parpola these finds were ox-pulled carts, indicating that these burials are related to an early Aryan migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking people into the Indian subcontinent", but you linked "early Aryan migration" to Wikipedia's article "Indo-Aryan migration", that's wrong, it's an Indo-Iranian migration. --Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I see; I'll correct the text at "Indo-Aryan migrations." Thanks. Here's the link in question: Indo-Aryan migrations#Multiple waves of migration into northern India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Secrets of Sinauli

@Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, Doug Weller, and Fowler&fowler: it seems to me that "Secrets of Sinauli" [1], see diff, is not WP:RS. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)