Jump to content

Talk:Kuru kingdom/Archive 1

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

[Untitled]

In "Birth of Pandavas and Kauravas" it says

"Pandu had two jewels of wives, viz., Kunti, also called Pritha, and Madri. Pandu was childless. So Kunti raised up offspring upon the wishes of Pandu. By Dharma she had Yudhishthira; by Maruta, Bhima: and by Sakra, Arjuna. On Madri were raised by the twin Aswins, the twins Nakula and Sahadeva. These five became well known as the Pandavas."

In the Mahabharat TV shows they say that Kunti first had Karna, and that all the 5 pandavas were born by her and begotten by various gods subsequent to a boon she had received by Indra (? or was it Surya) that she could call upon any god (to conceive a child). Is this not part of the Mahabharat text? Did they make that up for the TV shows?? Gschadow 17:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The content of the article Kuru (kingdom) has been added to this article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For the love of god can we just Dump this word ARYAN and non ARYAN in the bin already, it serves no use in this page apart from being a error of lingustic translation

I would like this page to use sanskrit words not fabricated false modern injected words such as ARYAN, no such word as Aryan has ever been found in india or in the historical content of the indian sanskrit scripts in which this page is writing about.

The correct word seen and used is not Aryan, but "Arya" which was not a ethncity or a type of human gentic race, it was just a title given to anyone who did a Noble deed within todays India, similar to the todays titles of DR,Master,Sir,Mr nothing more nothing less.

Dont see any credit for using it and i feel it wont be missed.92.236.96.38 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Undue Puranic material

This page is about the historical Kuru kingdom. The Mahabharata part can only be briefly summarised. The elaborate family tree that comes from the Mahabharata is undue here. I think it should be deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I like it! (but that's not a good argument at Wikipedia...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
It can be found on the Mahabharata page. But I will also summarise the main lineage when I delete it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Change of dates

@Navops47: I don't understand your edit summary [1] saying "no need to source." Please explain. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

How can the original date range end on 800 BCE when the kingdom is listed at this article Mahajanapada when the date range is 600-300 BCE was it annexed by the Nanda Empire which would indicate it ceased some time between 345 BCE–321 BCE however if you look at the map for that article it was not part of the Nanda Empire or was it evetually absorbed by the Maurya Empire which includes the geographical area where the Kuru Kingdom was located. The navbox Template:Bharata Khanda and Janapadas was added as the kingdom is mentioned in both those articles before it became a Mahajanapada.
Also the date range 1200-800 BCE coincides with the period Hastinapur was its capital also the Kurus became a republic form of government circa 6th-5th Century B.C by the late Vedic Period (6th c. B.C.), the Kuru kingdom had evolved into two kingdoms and as late as the 4th Century B.C., Kautiliya's Arthashastra indicates that the Kuru follow a Rajashabdopajivin (king consul) constitution a type of republicanism, where the king was only a title around the 4th century BCE (399-301 BCE).--Navops47 (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry. I don't see above an explanation for "no need to source." - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really not rocket science a case of simple mathematical deductions really how can the Kuru Kingdom cease to have existed in 800 BC and yet be listed as a Mahajanapada for the period 600-300 BC can you explain this to me? If the infobox says ended 800 BC why is it referenced at all in the Mahajanpada article? Also conflicting information from the lead section: It became the dominant political and cultural center of the middle Vedic Period during the reigns of Parikshit and Janamejaya,[3] but it declined in importance during the Late Vedic period (ca.850-500 BCE), and had become "something of a backwater" by the Mahajanapada period in the 5th century BCE. These dates are beyond 800 BCE and is misleading why is this in there?--Navops47 (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please save the sarcasm. That explains the end date. What about the rest [2]? - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have better things to do with my time than continue with this nonsense and I'm quite done with justifying any further explanations to you good bye and have a happy life.--Navops47 (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Kuru kingdom (Mahabharata) and Uttara Kuru Kingdom

Kuru kingdom (Mahabharata) and Uttara Kuru Kingdom are both is also about the Kuru kingdom. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't see any commonalities between Kuru and Uttara Kuru other than the name (which could have been "made up" for all we know). Unless there are reliable sources that say that the Uttara Kurus were a branch of Kurus, I don't see any reason to merge them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not favour of merging the Kuru kingdom (Mahabharata) either. What we know from the Mahabharata would easily swamp the historical information and it would be hard to keep a balance. Similar problems have happened with Ikshvaku dynasty etc. and the consensus has been to keep the historical and puranic material apart. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuru Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kuru Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Changes Made to Improve Historical Accuracy

Hi,

I deleted the "Aryan" term from the first sentence due to its loaded connotations. It is descriptive enough to label this kingdom as "Vedic".

I also changed the explanation of the rise of the varna system. Attributing the varnas to the "arya-dasa" split is problematic due to the ambiguous meanings of these terms in the Rigveda. Varna was specifically about profession, not tribe. In fact, the hereditary nature of the system did not even fully crystallize until the post-Vedic era, probably well into the first millennium BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8D81:6FB0:54B7:F173:DB2A:B5B9 (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy: Historical Uncertainty

The accuracy of the current content of this article is in doubt. Written records disappeared from South Asia from after the decline of the Indus Valley civilization until about 500 B.C.E., when writing was reintroduced from West Asia. It is possible that writing persisted in South Asia during this apparent "dark age", but no record of it has survived/been discovered. This means that there is no contemporaneous written record of the Kuru Kingdom from within South Asia. Similarly, there is no contemporaneous written record from outside of South Asia describing the said kingdom. As a result of this dearth of information, the majority of the information about the Kurus comes from verbally transmitted religious works, such as the Vedas, and much later written work based on them. A certain amount of information about the period also comes from archeological investigation; however, it is very difficult to fit the limited archeological data available concerning the North Indian Iron Age with the mythologized hymns of the Vedas etc.

There is serious disagreement among scholars as to where, when and how each of the Vedas was composed. There is even greater uncertainty regarding the chronological and geographic location - and identities - of groups (let alone characters) mentioned in these "texts". As such, any attempts to match entities from Vedic and post-Vedic religious literature with archeological information from North India is conjectural. This article does not do enough to consider historical uncertainty, and instead reflects only a specific subset of views on the subject matter. Currently - in lieu of a greater effort to discern what can be objectively verified about the Kuru Kingdom from what is believed about it by many - this article is a fusion of fiction and fact, not robust history. It would be wonderful if these issues could be resolved. This may require a thorough re-examination of the article's sources and a reworking of its central claims and structure. Screensofthought (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Screensofthought: could you please specify which information, c.q. information, you find doubtfull? As it is now, I don't have a clue what exactly you're referring to. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I contributed to several parts of this article, so I'll try to weigh in here. Of course, I'm ready to stand corrected if necessary.
The nature of the historical sources and conjectures is an important point that could be better addressed the article, I can agree with that. However, the older view of Vedic literature as being extremely hazy in its chronology and geography, and of limited value as far as historical facts go, has been rebutted by some influential studies that have helped to narrow down the Vedic literature to specific regions and time-frames. The article certainly relies significantly on Michael Witzel's research, especially his influential paper on "Early Sanskritization: Origin and Development of the Kuru state." I see no problem in this case: he is definitely a reliable source, and his research about the Kuru kingdom (and more broadly, Vedic chronology, geography, and archaeological correlations) has been cited in numerous academic publications about ancient India - I can find several with a quick search.
The high-fidelity preservation of Vedic oral literature must be considered distinctly from myths and legends which evolved and changed for centuries after the Vedic period before being committed to writing. The Mahabharata-based "Kuru family tree" section of this page clearly falls more into the latter category, and should be characterized as such. On the other hand, Witzel, along with other scholars, have written quite extensively on "us[ing] philological methods to extract historical and cultural information" from Vedic literature; he compares the Vedic hymns to "tape recordings of the Vedic Period," and says "it must be underlined that, just like an ancient inscription, these words have not changed since the composition of these hymns." In fact, there are a number of historical people and events, cultural practices, and identifiable geographical features that can be discerned from the Vedic literature, not just myths. Some historians (e.g., Romila Thapar) have characterized Middle+Late Vedic culture as more of a clan-based chiefdom society rather than a state society, but aside from this I don't know of any serious scholarly challenges to Witzel's general methodology or other claims about the Kuru kingdom.
I think it's a fair point that this article and other Vedic Period-related articles could use a little more detail about the methods used to derive historical and cultural information from the Vedic literature, and the rationales for the proposed archaeological correlations. Did you have any other specific changes in mind? Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Screensofthought: I added a couple of sentences to clarify the basis for the historical claims made by the cited sources. I'll go ahead and remove the disputed tag in the next couple of days unless any other specific concerns are mentioned by then. Avantiputra7 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kuru Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Kuru Kingdom Realness

Is there any archeological, historical evidence that Kuru Kingdom existed ?

Is there any archeological, historical evidence that Kuru Kingdom started existing from 1200 BC ?

--165.225.76.197 (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

One word Hastinapur Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this topic here, but I didn't know where to post this topic. The link for name Uttarā, in the main article (wife of Abhimanyu) should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar%C4%81_(Mahabharata), where as it is pointing to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttara_(Mahabharata) It is to be noted that Uttarā is daughter of king Virata where as Uttara is son of king Virata. Please help this corrected. I tried doing it, but didn't know how to make it

Untitled

Old discussion of "Kuru (kingdom)" article
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kuru_kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1243350170"