Jump to content

Talk:Aryan Valley/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Brokpa are not subgroup of shina people

Please refer many researchers studies , Brokskat is believed to have a very diverged dialect of shina , however brokpa people never considered The other Dardic people as their kinsmen as cited by British explorer .

Don't just reply on one book, consult many searches and analysis side by side . I wMinaro123 (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Brokpas can claim anything; they are claiming to be Aryans since a couple of decades and might claim to be Martians in a few years. However, they are not a RS. I am relying on scholars like Nicholas among others. Whom are your relying upon? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Reply:
Brokpa Never claimed to be Aryan at all .
Since the many of the brokpa people has blue eyes ,talk and blonde hair and European feature .
That's the reason many scholars have claimed that either they are descendent of Alexander army ,or they might be Aryan who migrated down a long time .
However ,the ancient folk song of Brokpa have a story about their migration place, it has stated that they have came from Rome and settled done in Gilgit , since the people of gilgit got jealous of their wealth ,they people in Gilgit have a killing plot ,and thus how they have migrated to hill part of these Dha hanu district and later to The Lower indus river valley of the dha hanu district .
However ,Many researcher claimed that there were few people already settled there already who were Dards .and later the migarted people from Rome and the already settled area makes brokpa present population .
I will post here the origin of Brokpa according to the reliable scholars and quote here with reference before doing my edits on wikepedia post about its origin and story revolving around it Minaro123 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Brokpa Never claimed to be Aryan at all. - This is alternate reality and I will be opening a thread at AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  • ‘Dardic’ is a geographical cover term for those Northwest Indo-Aryan languages which, because of their isolation in the mountains of the Hindu Kush, Swat and Indus Kohistan, the Karakorams and the Western Himalayas, have retained ancient and developed new characteristics different from the IA languages of the Indo Gangetic plain [..] The meaning of the umbrella term ‘Dardic’ thus includes both ‘genetic’ and geographic components. The designation ‘Dardic’ implies neither ethnic unity among the speakers of these languages nor that they can all be traced to a single stammbaum-model node.
    — Bashir, Elena (2007). "Dardic". In Cardona, George; Jain, Dhanesh (eds.). The Indo-Aryan Languages. Language Family Series. Routledge. p. 905. ISBN 978-0-700-71130-7.

  • Elena Bashir, who teaches at SALC, UoChicago, is widely hailed as among the foremost experts on (so-called) Dardic languages; besides, the volume in question is widely held to be an authoritative review on the subject. So, please present equally reliable sources; not journalists or random scholars or ... TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Rather puzzling is the author's [Stephan Kloos'] decision to refer to the people being studied as "Dards." To be sure, there is a well-established tradition among Western authors of doing so, dating back to the colonial era and, ultimately, to Herodotus. But the people in question refer to themselves and are known throughout Ladakh as 'brog-pa, or alternatively, in this specific case, as hanu-pa. There is little if any linguistic or cultural basis for regarding the communities in the Himalaya-Karakoram-Hindukush region labeled "Dards" as a single ethnic group.
    — van Beek, M. (2011). Review of Tibetan medicine among the buddhist dards of ladakh. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 131(4), 693-694

  • Showing the Brokpa is a subgroup of shina people is unfair and not a reality. I am busy for few days as I am travelling for a Important meeting. If it's possible please read all research book ok brokpa and the cited the sources. If you couldn't do that ,then fine ,i will come back and cited will prevail a truth .Minaro123 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think Nicolaus (2015) is reliable on the part that Dha hanu was occupied in 10 century by brokpa as cited in a historical section .The region was occupied much before than probably much than before than 1 AC. that cited by many of the other Anthropologiet,histrographer etc . There are general accepted theories that Brokpa were the first one to settle Ladakh .I will read other book and will correct it .Minaro123 (talk)

Bhan's Thesis

I finished reading it, and I am mighty impressed. Esp. the parts about the construction of Brokpa identity while situated between the orthodox cultures of Islam and Buddhism. Need to see what, if anything, can be added to this article. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Take the common view after consulting the various scholar. There are other author anthropologiet whose views are different from the Bhan . It is a policy of wikepedia to make a common and neutral view Minaro123 (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Err, okay? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

Independent Country

  1. Elinruby writes (30 December 2022):

    [Shaw] named the region as Dha Hanu country, which was independent at the time.

    "The time", a qualifier inserted by Elinruby, evidently refers to the year of Shaw's visit, mentioned in the previous line as 1876.
    Can they quote the particular line/paragraph from Shaw's article that led to such a conclusion? Or were they simply copy-editing (w/o consulting the source) and trying to make the prose more readable, which would be okay.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
No. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and you have already wasted a lot of people's time and you need to be banned from this topic. Elinruby (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That does not answer my question. It is all the more important because Minaro123 claims that our article shall emphasize upon the "independence" of the region.TrangaBellam (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This (imprecise) claim has now made to the lead. Three sources are cited:

Shaw (1878) — A paragraph is quoted where the Brokpas told Shaw that, after a war between Sliigar and Ladak, when their country was occupied by the Ladak army, the Lamas converted them. — SYNTH issues notwithstanding the unreliability of dated colonial-era sources.
Vohra (1982) — An ethnographer, documenting the oral history of the region; he blends in some historical factoids. Hard to delineate. Not an excellent source; see Bhan's critique.
Kloos () - He notes uncertainty about the date when Dha Hanu became part of the Ladakhi kingdom; imposes a terminus ad quem of c. early sixteenth century, and comments in a footnote that the region "seems" to have retained temporary independence by oppurtunistic partnership with Ladakh or Baltistan. Again SYNTH issues and an inaccurate simplification. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
On why SYNTH is problematic:
Shaw's informers dated the battle to 40 or 50 years before his visit. So, Dah-Hanu can be perceived to be independent till c. early nineteenth century. Kloos' date is c. early sixteenth century. The difference is only about 300 years! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether the exact date is unsure to Kloss , however ,Rohit vohra and other shaw mentioned that the region was independent region/country until Ladakhi kingdom rule it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaro123 (talk • contribs)
Shaw did not mention that the region was independent; his informers told him that after a war between Sliigar and Ladak, [] their country was occupied by the Ladak army. Why don't you read what the sources say and other editors write at the t/p, than trying to have sources conform to what you wish to have them say? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Shaw was the first one to inform about these region , Shaw have mentioned that their country ( Dha hanu country) was occupied by a Ladak army. It concludes that dha hanu country was not occupied by Ladak army before that .It must have been independent .Minaro123 (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That is an untenable conclusion; as Kloos notes, Brokpas appear to have pitted Baltistan and Ladakh against one another since long, trying to secure some nominal independence. It is not unexpected that armies of both sides had occupied Dah-Hanu in different times. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
ROHIT vohra have explicitly said about the independent of dha hanu region in detail ,he is a Anthropologiest, however Kloss is a respected author ,but he is not an anthropologiest ,he collected every available sources and made a conclusion. The Shaw and Rohit vohra should be considered here Minaro123 (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
It was you who had cited Kloss; not me. Now that I evidence how Kloss does not support your line, you ask of me to discard him! In favor of a conclusion synthesized from a 150 year old colonial document (Shaw). I am afraid that is not how it works. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Why don't you consider Rohit Vohra 's research , just because he cited that dha hanu was an independent kindom until ladakhi kingdom ruled.i don't know why you are against the dha hanu regions historic important region ,just because vohra supported the statement of dha hanu region ,you are discarded him .Minaro123 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not discarding Kloss, he himself have written in the section of "dha hanu region" page number :19, that " No doubt ,the account offered here is both superficial and incomplete , both due to the reason of space and available material". That's the reason I am not considering Kloss especially in the topic of dha hanu region . However,Shaw and anthropologiest Rohit vohra both are realible source .Minaro123 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Then, why have you cited him? Anyway, for all practical purposes, you accept there is no source other than Vohra. Nice; I will post some quotes from Vohra's monograph. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
There must have more source to cited these if we dig into the history Minaro123 (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, I do not have crystallballs but look forward to the sources. I do see that you removed Klaus after this exchange but added back after a few minutes. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Bhan on Vohra:

Despite acknowledging the complexity of Brogpa migrations into Ladakh and their varied settlements as far as Zangskar, Vohra’s account constructs Brogpa Dards as a singular identity demarcated within the spatial confines of the three villages. Hanu is referred to as an aberration from the norm since it happened to be on the strategic route that aided the Ladakhi king in his political ventures. The isolation of Dha, Garkone, and Dartsigs is partly explained by cultural taboos that conceptualized outsiders as “pollutants,” and restricted their entry within the village premises. This narrative erases the complex social and political histories of conflicts, migrations over dangerous mountain passes, a series of struggles and negotiations with Balti and Ladakhi kings, the end of their suzerainty over Ladakh, the splitting up of Brogpa villages into India and Pakistan, and the British invention of Dard as a racial and a linguistic referent are erased in favor of a discourse that reduces Brogpas of Dha, Garkone, and Dartsigs to racial and ethnic spectacles in a sociopolitical arena that is dominated by and fueled through religious and ethnic politics.
— Bhan (2006) p.110-111

Minaro123, these are my own notes. Please do not feel compelled to reply.

The Brogpas might have been suzerains of some part of Ladakh at some point of time, including Aryan Valley, centuries ago. But what does it even mean to claim that the "Aryan Valley was [] independent until it was absorbed by the Ladakhi kingdom (wikilinked to Maryul!)". TrangaBellam (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if I accept Vohra at face value, he writes,

The next historical phase of their folk tradition relates to their Chiefs Gapo and Gil Singe. From the stories recorded by me, it is apparent that their villages had recognised the overlordship of bRa-Makpon of Skardu, but some misunderstanding seems to have arisen [..] During this period the history of Ladakh and Skardu kingdoms provides an insight in to the changing fate of the Buddhist Dards. The region inhabited by the Buddhist Dards remained outside the annexationist interests of either of the two kingdoms and their Chiefs Gapo and Gil Singe remained in power until the 17th century [..] Sometime later the Buddhist Dards were harassed constantly by Balti raids and they asked Sengge Namgyal (r. 1600) for protection. Until the building of the fort, the Dard Chiefs had ruled independent, recognising only the nominal suzerainity of the Skardu Raja.

Our summary is too simplistic. As Kloss noted, these people were allying with the major regional powers on an oppurtunistic basis and pitting them against one another while tring to secure a nominal independence for their own principality. The strategy is hardly unprecedented in the annals of S. Asian history; c. f. Gaeboo Achyok. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

From the book of Vohra ,it is clear that Dha hanu region inhabited by the Buddhist Dards remained outside the annexationist interests of either of the two kingdoms and their Chiefs Gapo and Gil Singe remained in power until the 17th century .

It means that , Until 17 century Dha hanu region was completely ruled independently by their Dard chief and that means that It was an independent region until Ladakhi kingdom ruled over it . And Kloos is quoating vohra and he has given the reference of Vohra after the statement he said about Dha hanu region being ruled independent. Kloss himself is relying on vohra .


Conclusion: It is generally accepted that the region was ruled independent by their Dard chief until the Maryul kingdom ruled over it . And these should be emphasis because it would show that these region has a historical importance . The statements: Aryan valley started as a 'tourist designation' doesn't deserve to be in a lead .It should rather go in a name section of the articles , because the articles is not about the name of Aryan valley, the articles is about a particular region that is Dha hanu ,which is nowadays popularly known as Aryan valley.

The lead deserve three thing : Since Aryan valley is a geographical area: 1: The lead should have a geographical Boundary and location of Aryan valley . 2: The lead should emphasis on the historical importance of the Dha hanu region that it was ruled independently by their Dard chief until 17 century. 3: the lead should have a village of Aryan valley Apart from lead : There should be a history section: In which the history about region should be added there , Ancient history ( oral history) , medical history and modern history. 4: The thoughts about Brokpa being Aryan should be in a section called " Identity of Aryan" . Cited by many famous anthropologiest . Minaro123 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Minaro123 (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gapo and Gil Singe

Minaro123, Please note this sentence in Vohra's paper, p.75:

The next historical phase of their folk tradition relates to their Chiefs Gapo and Gil Singe.

We can't simply put folk tradition as established history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: First point : You have written : 'The region is believed to have been under the rule of Dard cheif at khalatse until the 11 century' . Objection: Yes , I agree that vohra have written that there was a Dard cheif at khalatse until the 12 century. But Nowhere it is written that the Dha hanu region was under the rule of Khalatse .


Second point : Vohra clearly stated that: The region inhabited by the Buddhist Dard was ruled independent by the Brokpa cheif Gapo and Gil singe until the 17 century. And folk Traditional will be treated as a Established history if there is no other written source , Vohra and Kloos have clearly stated that there is no written history about Dha hanu region. The hanu is first time mentioned when the Hanu become important due to the war between shigar and Ladakh. Conclusion and Final solution We should add 'Dha hanu region is believed to have been ruled independent by the Brokpa cheif Gapo and Gil singe until the 17 century . We will use beleive because it is a folk tradition'. As There is no other sources written about Dha hanu region in Ladakh ancient history historicall rule as cited by the Famous author .Minaro123 (talk)

  • I will remove the reference to Khalatse.
  • We can't write traditions as if they are established facts. But there may be a case for something about their autonomous existence until Sengge Namgyal's time. I will think of some wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Vohra wrote:

The rule of the Dard Chiefs was ultimately replaced during the 12th century. The ruler, Lha-c'en Utpala, raided the areas up to Baltistan and his successor, Lha-c'en Nag-lug, consolidated his rule at K'a-la-rtse with the construction of a palace and a bridge.[8c]

This is the basis of the current statement in the lead.
However, double-checking the sources, the citation 8c (Francke) doesn't say anything about Utpala. Checking the Chronicles, I find that the Balti places mentioned are to the west of Skardu. They could have been reached by the Suru Valley. So there is no evidence of him disturbing the Brokpa land.
Naglug's concern was securing the trade route via the Suru Valley. So there is no likelihood of him having ventured north of Khalatse. So, I guess you are right. The 12th century termini doesn't check out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
kautilya3:
It is not just a folk traditions ,But more like a established history fact , because:
1: There are still land in the name of Cheif Gapo and Gil singe in Dha hanu region as mentioned by Scholar vohra ,
2:The ruined Palace of Brokpa cheif Gil singe and Gapo is still there in dha and Garkon village.
3: The rule of singay namgail is in recent past , it is not a long time ago ,so it must have been true .
Request: i kindly request you to kindly add the statement in the lead that i have added before because it gives a historical importance to Dha hanu region .
Thank youMinaro123 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

EXTREMELY RUDE AND NEGATIVE STATEMENT about these Region needs to be deleted

1:The history page of Aryan valley has a more than 80% critisim about the people of these region , Instead of talking genuinely about history of these region ,rather it talks about the opinion of anthropologiest who hold negative thought regarding the identity of Brokpa being Aryan. It immediately needs to be alter or deleted and instead the History of these region should be added . The content are written such in a way that would make the Aryan valley look bad.

2: the names started as "Tourist designation should go in Name section insted of main lead.The main lead should have a geographical boundary and Historical importance, as like the other articles about region as we see in wikepedia.

The following sentences in history section looks extremely rude and not a neutral view as per the guidance of wikepedia. The statements are:

1: It appears that over time, the Brokpas imbibed such characterizations to the extent of tracing a descent from Alexander's army.

2: During the 2003 elections to the Kargill Hill Council, they claimed representation to the minority seats on the basis of their Aryan identity among other factors; networking user-names with "Aryan".[web 1] Mona Bhan, a Professor of South Asian Studies and Anthropology at Syracuse University, finds such ahistorical racialising of linguistic and cultural traits to have persisted even in modern ethnography on the Brokpas.

3:Bhan remarks that the discourse on Aryanism of the Brokpas has become "unwittingly aligned with the recent surge of right-wing Hindutva groups in Kargil" who leverage their supposed indigeneity to "validate their hold on India's disputed territory." Minaro123 (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
— WP:NOTCENSORED

TrangaBellam (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Reply: When there is a genuine history and more reliable sources of these region , it is injustice to write only about the critisim on the Aryan identify of Brokpa. The Aryan valley is a geographical region and it deserve to have a more discussion on geographical section and history about the region . Please respect the policy of wikepedia . Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to add the "genuine history" but so far, your editorial activity has been limited to tampering with well-sourced content under dubious grounds. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

MINT

These newspaper is not a reliable newspaper sources as per wikepedia relaible source list . It is surprising ,yet it has taken account to cite the most controversial fact in Aryan valley region . Though there are many famous Historian , anthropologiest, researcher out there talking about them yet the editor choose to cite these which doesn't even have a mention in the wikepedia sourcing list. https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/retY51tHFRe5ZH6NeiU7QI/Who-went-where-when-On-the-trail-of-the-first-people-in-In.html, These newspaper has criticised the inhabitants of Aryan valley region . Minaro123 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not have any exhaustive list of reliable sources. You can open a thread at WP:RSN about how Mint (newspaper) and Open (Indian magazine) are "unreliable sources". Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
We have reliable source like BBC ,the hindu and the newyork times, aljezerra and please stop making excuses to cite a bad source which only critise about Aryan valley. Leave it on me ,i will cite with reliable source and will follow neutral policy ,please refrain adding an critisim.Minaro123 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That is a strange assertion and request. May I know the particular policy/guideline that guides you? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Endonym

Dear@Joshua Jonathan:, The reason for name should go in Endonym section . And the lead doesn't deserve a reason and meaning of these name . There is a Endonym or Name section to talk about such thing ,. Aryan valley is a geographical term and Geography , boundary of these region should be added in a lead . The present article had a redudency of the same data that is reason of "Aryan valley " and their genetic study . The same thing has been told few times . The sentence are :
1:The current name originated in the tourism industry c. 2010 as an allusion to the Brokpas, the local inhabitants, being the primordial Aryans.[web 1][note 4][note 2] However, the existence of any such linkage has been refuted by anthropologists and geneticists.
2:A genetic analysis of the Brokpas, published in 2019, did not find any link with the Aryans.
3:The name "Aryan Valley" was created within this discourse on tourism.
Thank you The redudency should be deleted the meaning of name should be added in Emdoym section . Minaro123 (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents [..] The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
— MOS:LEAD

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Reply: The Aryan valley is a rename of the Historical Dha hanu region or Brokyul in Tibetan .It was ruled independently by Brokpa chiefs . And this is the principal reason Aryan valley is notable . Aryan valley is notable because it is a real name of a geographical region which has a boundary. Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Are you a chat-bot? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Reply: please have a genuine discussion instead of Talking irrelevant things here, please respect the talk page policies,and keep it strictly to do productive discussion here Minaro123 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Minaro123, you "[should] have a genuine discussion instead of Talking irrelevant things here." The lead summarizes the article. Trangabellam restored revision 1134420397 diff, edit-summary Restored revision 1134420397 by TrangaBellam (talk): You do not have consensus for independent at the t/p, afais. Please discuss the rest of the changes at the talk-page. Wtf does "endomym" mean?, changing

Until its absorption into the Maryul kingdom, Brokpa chiefs had a independent autonomy in the region.

into

Until its absorption into the Maryul kingdom, Brokpa chiefs wielded nominal autonomy in the region.

You reverted this diff with the edit-summary Reverted for the last good , TrangaBellam had reverted just because the spelling of Endonym was misspelt Obviously, Trangabellam restored her version because she disputes the 'independence' you discern, and she asks what "endonym" means here. Nothing here about misspelling. Obviously, also, you moved a piece of info out of the lead which you dont like, illogically creating a new section which summarized the next section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The resources has clearly stated that , The region was independently ruled by the Brokpa chief until the 17 th century . So why she is disputing the independence here ? And second thing why there is 3 different paragraph which talks only about two thing that is the reason for Aryan valley and the genetic of the people of Aryan valley . Isn't the Aryan valley notable because of being a historical region and present region .Isn't the geographical Boundary is important to mention in a lead ? Why The history has not a paragraph about Historical event that happened in Aryan valley like the Medival history ,modern history and ancient history. Why there is only a discussion ok whether Brokpa being Aryan or not in the history section. Please think all about these and support the right editor .Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
And TrangaBellam have stated that "Wtf does "endomym" mean?" Please use the respected langauge and avoid a slur words when we are discussing .Thank youMinaro123 (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Didn't you spot K3's edit? So, it is not only me who is disputing your phrasing. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Coverage from 1984

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

German Sources

Not seeing much (read, any) German discourse on our subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Vohra: A Review

  • The major conceptual problems of speculative reconstruction are well-known to the comparativist and sociologist, but the present work does not face the same squarely. Instead of critical analysis, the closest of detailed material descriptions goes hand in hand with the most speculative of cultural and evolutionary reconstructions and comparisons. In practice, the work moves around cultural material by connections at times variously genetic, historical, contiguous and structural, amplified by references to 19th century literature; the theoretical background appears to be some historical idea of ethnicity, but neither this nor the 19th century literature is treated critically. For example, while in one place Vohra notes that one has to differentiate between the term dard as it is used in modern literature and the folklore on "the Daradas", the book does not follow this distinction.

    In this volume the advances of twentieth century anthropological theory and ethnographic method (especially the more recent critical literature on ethnicity and its relation to state formation), are not fully taken advantage of. While the presentation here exacerbates this shortcoming, overall this is not so much the problem of Vohra alone as with this school of German Ethnology, in which not only the subject matter but also at times the very style of analysis are reminiscent of a bygone era.
    — A review of "Rohit Vohra, The Religion of the Dards in Indakh: Investigations into Their Pre-Buddhist 'Brog-pa Traditions, Luxembourg: Skydie Brown International, 1989, 165 pp." by Graham E. Clarke, Dept. of Anthropology, Oxford University. The Journal of the Tibet Society. Vol. VIII p. 60-61

It is my understanding that no scholar-of-repute (Bhan/Clarke/..) takes Vohra's scholarship seriously. Vohra undoubtedly provides us with a meticuluos documentation of the Brok-pa way-of-life but his historical methods are dubious and his conclusions are suspect. I will add another scathing review, soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_2&oldid=1210331625"