Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:27, 22 January 2015

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

/archive1

Untitled

Removed this sentence - Its early phase saw the formation of various kingdoms of ancient India. First of all we do not have much of archeological evidence to back this claim. The literary evidence which is pretty much what we have for this period points at tribes than kingdoms. --Kaveri 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not say entire corpus and means rather most of it. Epics Ramayana & Mahabharata are not mentioned. It can be re-written as most of the corpus of....

I'd forgotten about the Indus, and so the sentence can be written as "...in Northern and north-western part of the Indian subcontinent...." As for seamlessly evolved, the reasoning was given in my last edit summary. It's not POV, but an observed occurrence and transition.

"Aryan" is a controversial term, though not a PoV in the strictest sense of the term. Controversial in the academia. Till that time, "RigVedic people" is alright. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

I reworded some of the intro to make things clearer. "seamlessly evolved" is still clearly POV. You need to attribute a claim like this to a reliable source that uses the word "seamlessly". Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF, you want to discuss the history of Hinduism, I suggest you edit history of Hinduism. It is enough to simply link to that article from here. Your emphasis on post-Vedic developments is perfectly off-topic to this article. The Vedic period by definition is the period when the Vedic corpus originated (Rigveda down to and including the Shrauta Sutra literature, but not including the epics). "Aryans" is a controversial term, but the compound "Rigvedic Aryans" is perfectly uncontroversial and straightforward, just like Indo-Aryans. "Rigvedic people" is possible but the term gets about a quarter of the number of hits of "Rigvedic Aryans" on both google scholar and jstor.org. I don't see why you should be allowed to degrade an article that is informed by academic scholarship into something that is ok but amateurish. dab (𒁳) 11:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

DBark...er I mean DBachmann what you have just labelled as amateurish are pertinent facts. What you've done is plain and simple vandalism. I don't think that you are even grossly mistaken when you equate the composition of the Vedas as something other than or differently related to Hinduism. The most important aspect of the Vedic period is this : the ritualistic culture that was executed by a casteist society reverberating with Sanskrit shlokas. This is not only largely intact even today, but is also flourishing and in no danger of decline. Do you even know this ? Are you aware of the goings on in these parts of the world ?

And except in your imagination, epics were not included or implied in the article. I just old Grover that the epics needn't be included and that 'corpus' need not mean the entire corpus but 'most of the corpus'. Grover, I neither have and nor do I need a source for something that is so common in India. That somebody huddled in the European heights did not bother to write a citation acknowledging that fact is not my problem at all. An encyclopaedia is more than a cobble of sources and references. Try finding about yagya services, poojas, vedic rituals etc. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi IAF. None of this discussion actually addresses the issues that Dbachmann and I have mentioned in our edit summaries and discussion. For example, the sentence:

The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when most of the canonical Hindu texts primarily the four Vedas, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language.

is poorly structured, vague ("most" of the canonical Hindu texts -- how are we counting?) and written in substandard English. The sentence "This civilization seamlessly evolved into Hinduism and the associated Indian culture that is known today" clearly violates both Misplaced Pages's core policies on verifiability and NPOV in that it expresses an opinion (not an undisputed fact) without either supplying a reference or attributing the opinion to a reliable source. Please read Misplaced Pages's policies to be a more effective contributor to Misplaced Pages. Grover cleveland (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong. You on the other hand are talking about semantics and phrasing, on which again I don't see any problem. Since the compositions are only a handful, they can simply be enumerated without any mention of 'most of the Hindu corpus' (though this phrase comes close to expressing that most of the holy 'stuff' was concretized at that time and remains today). Again, if you are not aware, a few hundred million Hindus still perform those same yagyas seated with a purohit who chants from those very texts. Till recently, it was accompanied by animal sacrifice in very few places until the law caught up with all that. You cannot equate the dead Greek and Roman ancient cultures with the core elements of Vedic period that have survived and thrive today. Bachmann rants shrauta without realising that most Indians haven't even heard of this term and that this practice is conciously followed in some quarters just for tradition's sake. Your perception of Hinduism stems from the latter formulations of numerous of Gods and Goddesses and glorified by Raja Ravi Varma's paintings. That's evolution with inclusion, NOT a sudden turn-around from a to b. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all your personal opinion or belief. Misplaced Pages isn't interested in your (or my) personal opinions or beliefs, but only in referenced facts. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are not backed by the sources. --PatLarsen 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The very first line of Bible is utterly ridiculous. It ends with a reference !! Does every major fact also have to be sourced ? Are there litigation hawks sitting out there who microscopically scrutinize every line ? Even if you think that all that's a PoV, wikipedia ediion demands that you too first verify whether that is true or not, and then add a source or reference or remove it. Deleting it without performing this step is totally wrong. That the Vedas and all other later texts are canonical Hindu texts is referenced in their respective articles on wikipedia itself. I can understand removing the "...seamlessly eveolved..." sentence, but what I see here is an attempt to obliviate the fact that these are Hindu texts. The latter constitutes vandalism of the first order.

I am not reverting now, I'll wait for a reply other than "that's just PoV". Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a more explicit statement that the Vedas are Hindu texts, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. The removal was not vandalism, however: please be careful with this term, which has a specific meaning in Misplaced Pages. Grover cleveland (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Grover, in that case you should have added to that yourself as soon as you came to know about it. Inaction is also violative of the sort of "spirit" of wikipedia, though not technically illegal. If you knew it and still deleted it, then that was vandalism. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Grover Cleaveland, you yourself stated that an "explicit statement that Vedas are Hindu texts" shouldn't be anyone's problem. Now it seems that you have a problem. An explicit statement i.e. other than an acknowledegement in the main or lead statements has different implications and meanings, which I have explained previously---wanton dissasociation of what you call "classical Hinduism" from the Vedic period. Firstly, they are Hindu texts and always have been continously, by virtue of sheer adherence to ancestry. There was no "revival attempt" or a conscious adaptation of these texts as sacred ones, at any point of time in India's history.

These texts and their use of being recited at fire rituals and sacrifices has been followe verbatim, and unconditionally. That "classical Hinduism" with temples and other gods evolved later with the advent of Puranas and the epics, had no bearing on the importance of these texts.

So, the current edit which I made is not only correct in the context of today's of Hinduism, but has always been so; its only that the makers of these texts did not foresee the evolution of the religious practice that they'd spawned. The further conclusion and point that is driven home here is, that Hinduism is an evolution of the Vedic period's religious practices, and not a sudden radical change wrought by whatever reason, which just somehow chose to retain the sacredness of the Vedic texts. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF. I'll go through your changes in detail.

The Vedic period (or Vedic Age) is the period in the history of India when canonical Hindu texts, the four Vedas primarily, and others like Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads were composed in Vedic Sanskrit language. The associated culture, sometimes referred to as Vedic civilization, was centered in northern and northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Based on literary evidence, scholars place the Vedic period in the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE, continuing up to the 6th century BCE.

The only problem I have with this is that is not written in fluent English. I guess this can be fixed.

Vedism's core ritualistic nature remained conserved and further evolved into contemporary religious practices that came to be known as Hinduism.

This is a more problematic. First, what is meant by "Vedism"? Second, the claim that "Vedism ... remained conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- i.e. the claim that (presumably) the religious practices of the Vedic period are "conserved" in contemporary Hinduism -- definitely needs to be backed up with a reference. Even if it was referenced, this article is not really the appropriate place for such claims, since it is about the Vedic period as such, not about the history of Hinduism. 19:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

IAF, I don't know what "Dbachman was babbling facts and histories, which was wrong" is supposed to mean, but I must ask you, once again, to refrain from edit-warring over topics in which you plainly do not have the necessary expertise. You may be a competent editor in articles on fighter airplanes, I don't know, but you are not being helpful here. Please refrain from pushing this any further, or alternatively, sit down with academic literature and actually learn some basics before you waste the time of other editors. Also, your various truisms on current Hinduism simply aren't on topic here. If you must fill talkpages with this, please do it at Talk:Hinduism or some other pertinent place. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

texts

IAF, I don't know what you are trying to do, but you are evidently not capable of phrasing it correctly. The Vedic period by definition is the period of composition of the texts in Vedic Sanskrit. This includes the three Vedic samhitas (RV, YV, AV; SV being practically identical to RV), as well as the Brahmanas, besides some of the oldest Sutras and Upanishads. Together, these texts form "the four Vedas". Read our Veda article. While Vedic Sanskrit defines the Vedic period, there can be reasonable estimates as to its absolute duration. It turns out that it corresponds roughly to the millennium 1500 to 500 BCE, with its main flourishing falling into the Early Iron Age, ca. 1200 to 700 BCE. The period 1500-1200 BCE can be considered the early Vedic (or Rigvedic) period, the period 700 to 500 BCE can be considered the late Vedic period. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All that may be true and are just technicalities, but it appears that you are hell-bent on also removing the phrase "canonical Hindu texts". I don't think think you are just carelessly pressing the undo button, as you could have added your above mentioned facts without removing that phrase, just as easily. That action is clearly not unwittingly done. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

um, no, the Vedas obviously are Hindu canonical texts, today. They were, of course, no such thing during the Vedic period itself, because they were only just composed at the time and there was no "Hindu canon" then, so that insisting on the "Hindu canon" in the lead of this article is simply an anachronism. There is, of course, nothing at all to be said against pointing out the central position of the Vedas in the Hindu canon in the Vedas article: try to recognize an article's scope and keep the article lead subservient to that scope. This isn't a content dispute at all, but a simple matter of WP:LEAD. A fact that is perfectly pertinent tot he lead of the Vedas article is not necessarily pertinent to the Vedic period article: there is a reason these are two separate articles, viz. their scope isn't the same. --dab (𒁳) 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have tried to hammer in your impregnable head before, "Hindu" itself is a Persian label, and that the history of Indian religions is a history of continuous evolution. If you read the section just above this one, it is also an uncontested fact that at no point in India's history was there a sudden concious revival attempt to stake claim on the Vedas as being 'Hindu' texts. You do know that religions like cultures evolve. Unlike Christianity that froze permanently after JC's death and after the Bible was released, the Vedic cult, its streams, tributaries, new entrants kept bubbling and continued to do so as late as the 19th century.

So whatever that's written in the article is not only relevant, but a necessary mention also without which the article would be incomplete. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point. I repeat, this is the Vedic period article. You seem to want to discuss the Vedas. Pray do that at the dedicated Vedas article. The fact that the Vedic cult "kept bubbling" into the 19th century is relevant to Historical Vedic religion, to Shrauta, and to History of Hinduism, but it is ostensibly irrelevant in an article on the historical period of the Early Iron Age, because the 19th century is not part of the Early Iron Age. thanks. dab (𒁳) 10:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give an example :- Suppose an article on 'Early Flight' is to be written. So it can anassumingly begin with : Mankind has always thought to have stirred up imaginations of flight, with depictions on xyz paintings, the Pushpak Vimaan in Ramayana, and Leonardo da Vinci's epoch drawings that roughly resemble a modern-day helicopter.....

Now your argument is akin to saying that there is no need of linking a modern helicopter to Leo's drawings because that belongs to a different age. The fact is, that those drawings strikingly resemble a chopper and IT MUST BE MENTIONED, otherwise the article will lose credibility.

In the same way the Vedas are Hindu texts and if we mention that the Vedic period heralded these texts that were to become Hinduism's canonical texts, what can be possibly inaccurate or irrelevant about that ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that helicopters (in your simile: Hinduism) must be mentioned in an article on the Renaissance (the period of Leonardo da Vinci, in your simile: the Vedic period). The problem isn't that I am dead opposed to mentioning Hinduism. Grover cleveland's version is perfectly fine. The problem is, IAF, that you are not helping. You have no idea of the subject matter, and your English is terrible. Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way it is. If you were less pushy, you could contribute with suggestions for angles missing from the article, but your stubborn approach really result in an overall contribution that is not helpful in any way. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with you DBachmann is that you have a tendency to convolve simple discussions to your own fancy. And learn how to comprehend a simple paragraph first. Its not a rock edict for God's sake.

I said, the article on 'Early flight' (where'd you drag Renaissance from) can correlate da Vinci's drawings to modern choppers, and very rightly too. Now when did I disagree with Grover's version. I was talking of your edits, sir; in between Grover rehashed the sentence to include Hinduism (my version), whereas you were hell-bent on removing Hinduism altogether. All this while giving a cloak of "poor English" and "subject matter" as cosmetic reasons. 'sacred Hindu texts' may sound 'wrong', which Grover reintroduced after correction, but which you were repeatedly removing altogether.

I have a better idea of what I'm talking than "experts" like you. If you are an "expert", then I fear where wikipedia is headed.. .. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Vedic Period 26000

Gupta, R. C. (1990). The Chronic Problem of Ancient Indian Chronology. Ganita-Bharati 12, 17-26.

"R Gupta in his paper on the problem of ancient Indian chronology shows that dates from 26000-200 BC have been suggested for the Vedic 'period'."

found in *Indian Mathematics: Redressing the balance, Student Projects in the History of Mathematics. Ian Pearce. MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, St Andrews University, 2002. BalanceΩrestored 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"have been suggested" is correct. Suggested, that is, by random clowns. Contrary to appearance, Misplaced Pages articles do not really aim at collecting all of the nonsense that has ever been said about a given topic. The page intended to address this point can be found at WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Literary Evidance vs Oral Literary Evidance

“Scholars place the Vedic period in the second and first millennia BCE continuing up to the 6th century BCE based on literary evidence.” No references has been given. The sentence should calrify that it is oral literary evidence. Because, Vedic scriptures were only recorded after 1 AD, accoring to records (List of languages by first written accounts). --Natkeeran (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

um, yes, but the scholars in question published after 1 AD. And after 1800 AD for that matter. --dab (𒁳) 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Estimated dates of mahabharata

There are five criterion to date a epic like mahabharata a well known itihas in vedic culture 1.archaeological evidences 2.geoghraphical analysis 3.language analysis 4.inscriptions 5.foreign history

1.archaeological evidences: in this section we should check whether the places given in mahabharata are archaeological supported or not,it is a matter of dispute whether indus valley civilisation was a vedic civilisation or a seperate tradition,most scholars agree that it was a seperate culture having some elements of vedic culture like

a)Some Indus valley seals show swastikas which are found in later religions and mythologies, especially in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. The earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism are present before and during the early Harappan period. Phallic symbols resembling the Hindu Siva lingam have been found in the Harappan remains. b)Many Indus valley seals show animals. One famous seal shows a figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named after Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of Shiva and Rudra.. c)the three stone Siva Lingas found in Harappa by M. S. Vats in 1940. The worship of the Siva Linga is mentioned in the Maha Narayana Upanisad of the Yajur Veda and is still ardently practiced today, d)The Holy Asvatta tree leafs found in indus civilisation is mentioned in the Aitareya and Satapata Brahmanas as well as the Taittiriya Samhita and Katyayana Smrti. e)many vedic text generally refers a river named 'saraswati' The Sarasvati River (Sanskrit: सरस्वती नदी sárasvatī nadī) is one of the chief Rigvedic rivers mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. The Nadistuti hymn in the Rigveda (10.75) mentions the Sarasvati between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and later Vedic texts like Tandya and Jaiminiya Brahmanas as well as the Mahabharata mention that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert. The goddess Sarasvati was originally a personification of this river, but later developed an independent identity and meaning. Most scholars agree that at least some of the references to the Sarasvati in the Rigveda refer to the Ghaggar-Hakra River. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkbdce (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mahabharata postdates the Vedic period. You want to discuss its dating at Talk:Mahabharata, this is off topic here. For the Sarasvati River, see Sarasvati River. --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You have claimed in your article that there is no evidence for continuation of culture between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Vedic period. However, in G.G. Joseph's book the Crest of the Peacock, about the history of non-european mathematics, he clearly shows a link between the way ceramic tiles are used in Vedic-era temples and the way tiles are used in the Indus Valley Civilization. It's used in the book to illustrate the knowledge of geometry in both periods. This is evidence for continuation of culture, thus that sentence of your article is incorrect. This is a very importand issue, for it shows that the Indus Valley culture was not destroyed. I don't mean to offend anybody, but it disturbs me that this information has been apparently locked into place so that people like me cannot correct it. If Misplaced Pages is changing its policies so that people outside the company can no longer correct articles, you should say so clearly on your home page and the top of each article page. As for my claim, just look in the Crest of the Peacock- it's all in there.98.238.170.146 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Harappan / Indus theory of the Vedas definitely requires mention. The marine archaeology in the Bay of Cambay, especially satellite photos showing a post Ice Age river basin there resembling the Saraswati just offshore, is hard to dispute as physical evidence. I would encourage you to simply edit the article but make sure to treat this as a new theory held by scientists investigating the marine ruins and working with the offshore evidence. A similar period of civilization has been noted off Sri Lanka which was connected to India by land bridge until a few thousand years ago.

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Misplaced Pages:Pending Changes system on the English language Misplaced Pages. All the articles listed at Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Introductory Paragraph

Edit: please disregard. Colinivorous (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to Chakravartin, I can't edit the article.--85.182.71.34 (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Vedic period and Hinduism

See Talk:Indian religions#Vedic tradition or Vedic Hinduism?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Epics

In the last paragraph of "Religion" sub-section of "Culture" section, the article refers to only Gita of Mahabharata as the Hindu epics that evolved after the Vedic period. It should mention both Ramayana and Mahabharata instead of just "Gita of Mahabharata". This needs to be corrected. Apalaria (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed dating of "Vedic period" and "RigVedic" age

There is active investigation of numerous sites, notably offshore in the Bay of Cambay, around an Ice Age riverbed (now submerged in the Bay) that fits the description of the Saraswati. This provides strong evidence that the Vedic literature describes a period much older than that the article (and most 20th century history) assumes, that is, the Harappan or Indus valley culture and not an invading "Aryan" northern force.

"Harappan India / 'Indus Valley Civilization' was the largest urban civilization in the world of its times in the third millennium BC (3100-1900 BCE), with major sites extending from the Ganges river in the east to Afghanistan in the west, from the border of Iran to near Bombay." This is undisputed and the theory that the Vedas describe this culture, and are not analogies to the squabblings of later invaders, must be mentioned in this article.

"India's role in ancient civilization has been largely ignored in favor of more culturally comfortable, though geographically much smaller cultures in the Near East, in spite of the fact that such ancient cultures frequently lauded the greatness of India themselves." There is some evidence also that the currently dominant theory of the Vedic people as invaders was due in part to English propaganda that portrayed the Vedic peoples and the culture based on the Vedas as inherently violent and not so civilized. Thus justifying the English role in "civilizing" it...

The skeletons that were found in ruins in the early 20th century were often from many different periods and provided no evidence of any single catastrophic conflict, and were misrepresented as such because of ignorance, poor archaeology, or some political purpose. They could just as well have been skeletons of travellers or indigent people who wandered in through the ages and died there.

Graham Hancock is not a reliable source - see WP:RS for this article. Current archaeological opinion does agree that those skeletons don't point to a catastrophic conflict, so I'm not sure what your point is. Find sources that meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello I see the whole thing about Vedic Period is misrepresented on Wiki (and in many modern texts). It is a very big mess. Our highly-spiritual masters speak of Vedic Age to be much older than mere 4000-years. They give date of more than 50,000 years when Vedic people came to India. I listened to many discourses of God-incarnate Sri Sathya Sai Baba of Puttaparthi. In one of the discourses, he tells exact date of birth of Lord Krishna, which was about 5400-years before present, or 3400-BC. At the time of Krishna, Veda-vyasa was already writing some later-books in Sanskrit (Mahabharata, the Puraanas). Note-- I read other article on Wiki, about Gandhara. The age of Kingdom of Gandhara is given from 900BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/Gandhara). That is very false. Ganhaari, mother of the Kaurava, as discussed in Mahabharata, was from Gandhara. And when Krishna is given the age, to be existing around 5400-years before now, how then Kingdom of Gandhara be of 3000-years?

In an other discourse, Sathya Sai Baba tells details about Lord Rama and says that Rama walked Indian land "some 20,000 years" ago (I don't remember the exact discourse; there are over 700-discourses, on http://www.radiosai.org/program/SearchProgramme.php). During Rama's time, Valmiki was already composing/writing Ramayana in Sanskrit language. The Vedas were composed much earlier than Ramayana. Also note that Rama's guru/teacher was Sage Vashishtha who lived in a cave (exists today; 1-hour north of Rishikesh, Uttarakhand); perhaps this is a good place to study the age of this cave, with help of modern-technology; there maybe more discoveries. Sathya Sai Baba also speaks about Ravana's age, to be more than 2000-years (as he was master of meditation-yoga, scholar of Ayurveda, Sanskrit language, and a person of great spiritual powers). There is reference in Ramayana of people of the west, who would often attack India to loot, reference is given in Ramayana that before Lord Rama died, he appointed his sons to west; his elder son Luva established Lohar-dynasty and lived in city of Lahore (now in Pakistan), and other son, Kusha, took the spiritual path (as referenced by Guru Nanak of Sikhs, I believe in book of 'Guru Granth Sahib', or by Guru Gobind in his book 'Dasam Granth'). This is also discussed by Sathya Sai Baba in his vahini book 'Ramakatha RasVahini' http://www.vahini.org/contents.html.

The Vedic Period has to be much older than period of Lord Rama. Bhagirath carried out penance in Gangotri (place in Uttarakhand) to ask river Ganga as boon form gods, which he was able to. Bhagirath encountered many sages (spiritual practitioners) on his way, as he was asking everyone for their help. It is believed that Bhagirath was told that no one could help him but himself and that he should go in higher Himalayas to perform meditation. This spiritual-system was part of Vedic System. Bhagirath was ancestor of Lord Rama. Age of river Bhagirathi (which should be dated using modern technology at Gangotri), has to be over 30,000 years. The King Bhagirath had a long past of ancestors, Vedic-settlers in India. There is reference, given by Sathya Sai Baba, how these Vedic people once lived near North Pole, and later settled in mid-Russia, west China, Afghanistan area, and into north India, mainly Himalayas. The native people of India already had their spiritual system and worshiped their highest God-form, Lord Shiva, the one with matted hair (which is original of black-people compared to Vedic white people), wearing tiger-skin.

References: my spiritual and textual exploration for past 15-years, and discourses of Sathya Sai Baba.

JS2014 (talk) 07:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Sources for Vedic period

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vedic period Will you please add page numbers? Eg to "which were collected before 1000 BC in the Rigveda.{{sfn|Samuel|2010}}" I can't find Rigveda in Samuel. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My apoplogies; I'll do my homework better. I was in a rush when making these edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I also used the following two sources, which seem reliable to me, but which are not accpetable as reliable sources for Misplaced Pages. Which means I'll have to dig further into the Vedic Period to find reliable sources, but this will take time. But alas, I've learned and found a lot already on the history of Hinduism and India, so I reckon I'll also find more on this. The sources:

• University of Oslo, The Vedic Age, 1500-500 BCE (course document for a University Class on Hinduism)
• NIOS (some sort of Open University from India), The Vedic Age (1500-600 BCE)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Geological Evidence of Vedic Antiquity

"Satellite photos and geological field studies show that the Saraswati ceased to be a perennial river and flowed only seasonally, sometime before 3,000 BC. Also, since approximately 1,900, the Saraswati riverbed has been completely dry. This, as we will see, is a key piece of the scientific evidence to establish dates of the Rig Veda."

"The Rig Veda mentions the Indus river quite often, and it mentions the Saraswati no less than 60 times. Its reference to the Saraswati as a 'mighty river flowing from the mountains to the sea' shows that the Rig Vedic tradition must have been in existence long before 3,000 BC when the Saraswati ceased to be a 'mighty river' and became a seasonal trickle. Frawley and Rajaram drew the conclusion that the Rig Veda must have been composed long before 3,000 BC."

Chandler, Kenneth (unknown date), "Origins of Vedic Civilisation", <http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF>, page 16

This information needs to be put in the introductory paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest you read the link? The evidence, especially concerning the location and dating of the Saraswati river, is convincing, and has been accepted by more than a fair share of researchers in this field. Even so, I do not expect Misplaced Pages to present facts about anything, which is why I decided to make this information more readily known to those who would research this topic.

Also, this is already accepted on other pages in Misplaced Pages; why would it be denied here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:POINT. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Chandler is certainly not a source we can use. According to his Linkedin profile he is "Distinguished Adjunct Professor" at the Maharishi University of Management - he writes for their journal. And of course his unpublished book can't be used either. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Joshua: have you even read the WP:POINT page? I don't see how anything that I've done is "disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point"; at best I might be seen to be "disrupting" wikipedia by making a point, but then, that would be someone's subjective opinion.

Doug, thank you for providing an acceptable response. I'm assuming that it's Chandler's distance from "mainstream academia" that renders him unsourceable, and hopefully not his religious or spiritual inclination (that would be racits1!!1!). Might I point out that, as per WP:NPOV, "mainstream" Western scholars on this subject ought not be cited, as the origin of their discourse was highly politicised? I would suggest Talageri as a neutral source for a section on the proposition that the Vedic and Harappan/Indus-Saraswati people were one and the same, and yet I fear that he may also not be "mainstream" enough. Regardless, it would also seem to go against WP:NPOV to leave out criticism of the mainstream view, especially neutral and scholarly criticism that has yet to be refuted (i.e. Talageri, if not Chandler). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.114.86 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but you are misreading WP:NPOV. It certainly doesn't rule out Western sources, and Talageri is hardly neutral. Talageri without Erdosy, Elst, Witzel, whoever would be a violation of NPOV. And it's not Chandler's religious ideas, whatever they are, but first his being self-published/unpublished - see WP:SPS and his lack of qualifications. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I don't want to accuse you of disruptive behaviour. My point (...) is "point-making": the fact that something is being used in an article, is not an excuse to use it at another place, if it's not in line with Wiki-policies. It's also my irritation about the ongoing debates on Aryan origins, which makes me sometimes a little bit harsh in my responses. But regarding the dating of the Indo-Aryan migrations, the idea that the Harappan/Indus-Saraswati people were the same as the Indo-Aryans will find little scholarly support. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Even i figured so. Anyways, Indo-Aryan are regarded as same people who were part of Indus civilization as well, not really incorrect, and sometimes even more northern. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

According to some scholars, several immigrations of Indo-Aryan people may have occurred, and groups of Indo-Aryan people may have been wandering there already in IVC-times. But there seems to be a scholarly concencus that the IVC was not Indo-Aryan; the seals and signs which are found are not related to Sanskrit or Indo-European languages,a nd there are no wheels.

There is no scholarly consensus that Harappan people were not same as Vedic. Several scholars archaeologists have proposed that they were the same. Never the less the assertion about no wheels in Indus Sarasvati/Harappan civilization is plain false. Several wheels including spoked wheel carts figurines have been found. More so they were of indigenous origin not imports from west Asia or elsewhere. "During the Harappan Period (Harappa Phase, 2600...1900 BC) there was a dramatic increase in terracotta cart and wheel types at Harappa and other sites throughout the Indus region. The diversity in carts and wheels, including depictions of what may be spoked wheels, during this period of urban expansion and trade may reflect different functional needs, as well as stylistic and cultural preferences. The unique fonns and the early appearance of carts in the Indus valley region suggest that they are the result of indigenous technological development and not diffusion from West Asia or Central Asia as proposed by earlier scholars."

1. Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark. "Wheeled Vehicles of the Indus Valley Civilization". http://a.harappa.com/content/wheeled-vehicles-indus-valley-civilization. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Indoscope (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but that's my personal thought, it may be relevant to think about the fact that the Indo-Aryans were pastoralists, cow-herders; they moved around. So groups may have moved into north-western India for a while, and moved back into the mountains. Maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since the Indo-Aryan theory (where aryans invaded india) is still contentious. Can you add relevant references to that effect? for e.g.. http://sanskrit.safire.com/pdf/ORIGINS.PDF or land of seven seas (book by Sanjeev Sanyal ). Prakash.saivasan (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's mainly disputed by Indians. Kenneth Chandler is self-published; "Land of seven rivers" does not appear to be a thrustworthy book. Read "Anthony, David W. (2007), The Horse The Wheel And Language. How Bronze-Age Riders From the Eurasian Steppes Shaped The Modern World, Princeton University Press" for a serious introduction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Michel Danino has in his book The Lost River given evidence that the dried up riverbed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed the legendary Sarasvati River of the Rigveda. He has also shown the continuation of both material culture and intangible culture of the Harappans to the later developments in Ganga culture, Ashoka period and to the very present day. The continuation of the units of measure, religious iconography are particularly interesting to note.

1. Danino, Michel (May 2010). The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati. Penguin Books. ISBN 0143068644.

Indoscope (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Arjayay (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Article in Question

Gate Keeping of Aryan migration into India POV

Joshua Jonathan seems to be gate keeping the Vedic Period Wiki. He has deleted recent edits made providing reference to research by Kazanas, Talageri and Danino unilaterally deciding it is "POV pushing". Below content was deleted by him. Other editors take a note and restore below edits.

This view of migration of Vedic people into India after the collapse of Harappan Civilization has been contested by the likes of Michel Danino and Shrikant Talageri. In his book The Lost River - On the trail of Srasvati Danino has detailed evidence supporting his view that Gagghar-Hakra is indeed the Sarasvati river of Rigveda, maintaining that the Rigveda was written in North-West India long before the river dried up in 1900 BCE. Talageri in his book Rigveda and Avesta - Final Evidence has given evidence disproving the Aryan Invasion Theory and establishing India as the land of origin of the migrations that spread the Indo-European language family over half of the Eurasian continent.

1. Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.

And

This view of Iranians being older than the Vedic people of North-West India has been contested by Nicholas Kazanas. Who has proposed linguistic evidence that Avestan is more recent to Vedic Sanskrit and points to a westward migration of Vedic people from Sarasvati river basin.

1. Kazanas, Nicholas. "Ṛgvedic Ṛgvedic All-Comprehensiveness omprehensiveness omprehensiveness" (PDF).

11:33, 19 January 2015‎ Indoscope

Reply by JJ: Dear Indoscope. You can sign your posts with ~~~~. You also forgot to mention that I call your edits WP:FRINGE. Regarding your "information" and "sources":

• "This view of migration has been contested":

• The placing of this "info" at the part is WP:UNDUE. At best you can add a note, saying that some Indians regard the Vedic people & culture to have originated in Inda, add to this that this view is regarded as fringe by mainstream academics, and add a link to the relevant article.
• "The Lost River" - please provide specific page-numbers, so the source can be checked. Though I guess it's about chapter 11, "The Sarasvati's Testimony". The kind of reasoning there is typical of opponents of the Indo-Aryan Migration theory: a faulty understanding and representation of what this theory is about, taking it to be about an Aryan invasion, attacking this strawman, and next concluding "this theory is wrong, ergo', my theory is correct."
• I don't even bother to check Talageri; the combination of Elst and invasion says enough.

• Kazanas:

• "This view of Iranians being older" - another strawman; this is not what the Wiki-article says.
• "Westward migration" - again "Indigenous Aryans" fringe.
• His map shows the Indo-Aryan going through Armenia. I don't know what fantasy-book he's been reading, but if he's got his basic facts so completely wrong, we know more than enough (we already knew enough, but this goes on top of it).

I can recommand David Anthony's "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language" to you; it provides real information, instead of the science fiction you're reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Indoscope:

• You have completely turned the WP:UNDUE guideline on its head. That guideline talks of undue weightage and to avoid use of unreliable source both these clearly don't apply in this case. The works referenced are of reliable academicians not original research. The weightage is also not undue since I have clearly said that "this view of migration" into India has been contested which is clearly a neutral statement which follows a detailed explanation of the view which is contested .
• At no point have I attacked the so called straw man of 'Aryan Invasion'. That theory has no archaeological proof and has been thoroughly debunked. In fact there is not archaeological evidence of any migration into India around 1500 BCE either. The latest research in archaeology and genetics debunks so called Aryan migration into India.
• This view of your clearly shows a bias towards this gentleman Elst. If you don't even bother check Talageri because Elst quoted him then you are limiting any expansion in your own knowledge and by engaging in gate keeping with limited knowledge you are preventing the article from developing. Read Talageri - "The Rigveda and Avesta: Final Evidence" if you understand even basics of linguistics.
• The paragraph in question states "One group were the Indo-Aryans who founded the Mitanni kingdom in northern Syria (Anthony 2007 p.454) (ca.1500–1300 BCE). The other group were the Vedic people, who were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India.". This clearly is pointing to branching and by giving the dates is trying to say that vedic people of Indian and hence their civilization succeeds the Iranian. Why are you trying to put a spin to things?
• Does not matter if it is not widely being accepted by the Witzel cabal. My edit is simply referring to other research which is needed for a balanced view. Your definition of fringe is strange.
• Please discuss the question of science fiction by the authors in question and get your question points clarified if you like. Don't block edits based on your whims of what is science fiction and what is 'real', this is not the place.

Joshua Jonathan you can't sit and decide which research is work of fiction & which is real. These books are based on good academic research and conclusions they draw are point of academic debate. The result of this research need to be included here to keep Misplaced Pages neutral and article balanced WP:BALANCE. Your behaviour is detrimental to WP:NPOV. As I said you are engaging in gate keeping with limited knowledge, like your false claims that no wheel was found in Harappan Civilization which I have pointed above though reference that indigenous wheels existed in Harappan Civilization You are being biased and are preventing a truly profession article to develop here. It is not "few Indians" who claim that Vedic people & culture originated in India, Kazanas is Greek and Danino is of French origin. More work supporting their conclusions can be pointed out but for now research done by Danino, Kazanas and Talageri deserves to be included in this wiki to keep it neutral. Your calling the edits WP:FRINGE don't make it so. If you have knowledge of specific critical reviews of the work I have referred then point that out rather quoting David Anthony's book as some kind of 'bible' on what the Vedic people were. Your 'real' information jibe smells like the 'true god' doctrine of the 'bible' rather than any quest of knowledge. I repeat, for the article to be balanced the research I have mentioned has to be included, if someone believes it is not mainstream even then the wikipedia policy states that so called non mainstream statements need to be properly referenced that is all. Other editors please take noteIndoscope (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: "Good academic research"? LOL!

• Kazanas: Please give me the serious source that says that the Indo-Iranians originated in, or migrated via, Armenia.
• Danino's "The Lost River:

• p.256: it's "Moriz Winternitz", not "Moritz Winternitz"
• p. 258: "...the simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium." - someone who can write this anno 2010 is simply not taken serious in the academics, nor does he have a serious knowledge of academic research. The earliest roots of the Indo-Iranians lie in the Sintashta-culture, late third millennium. There simply is no way that the Vedic people existed at that time, let alone that they were present in northern India.

• Koenraad Elst is not a gentleman; gentleman use the correct terminology, instead of mean rhetorics like "Aryan Invasion Theory".
• Talageri, "Rigveda and Avesta - Final Evidence" - the synopsis and comments by Elsy are telling. The synopsis alone is enough to qualify it as fantasy, but this comments adds evidence to this qualification:

"It will be held against Talageri that he gets too personal in his argumentative jousting with Prof. Witzel, whose rebuttal of his own second book he now rebuts in turn." - so, Michael Witzel burned down Talageri. Finished.

You bet I'm gate-keeping. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for Aryan Invasion fantasies. There's a section on Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis#Concurring views, and an article on Indigenous Aryans; that's enough. I already wote: at best you can write a note on this, with the correct info, not only your POV-pushing. I've just added a link at top of the "Origins" section and at the "See also" section; that suffices for the article. If you really want to use those sources, try Sarasvati River; maybe you won't get reverted there rightaway. Maybe. As for Anthony: just read it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done your work, and added a section to "Sarasvati River": Sarasvati River#Rejection of Indo-Aryan Migration theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues of Dispute

Now that User talk:Joshua Jonathan has accepted that he is gate keeping the article to project the migration into India point of view of Vedic people, and preventing edits to include contrary conclusions from other scholars, we need to now open the debate. In the interest of preventing any edit wars, and for the sake of creating a neutral article the substantial points of dispute are mentioned below for discussion. Some of these objections have been raise earlier too as can be seen in the talk page:-

• Dating of the Vedic Period - The article mentions the date of vedic period as ca.1750–500 BCE. A note mentions that "Philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the Rigveda, the oldest of the Vedas, was composed roughly between 1700 and 1100 BCE, also referred to as the early Vedic period." This view is contrary to several other scholars' research which should also be included.

1. Subhash Kak first in his 1987 paper in the Indian Journal of History of Science - "On the chronology of ancient India", put the presence of Vedic people in India in 4th millennium BCE.
2. Subhash Kak in his later paper "Knowledge of Planets in the Third Millennium BC" puts vedic people prior to 3000 BCE. In fact a much later text Vedanga Jyotisha is dated to about 1350 BCE. Similar observation about dating of Veedanga Jyotisha is made in his paper "Astronomy of the Vedic Alters"
3. Subhash Kak in his paper "On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture" states "Several departments of the Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas organized on September 19, 1998 a day-long debate to consider the question of the earliest Indian chronology, especially as it pertains to the nineteenth century notion of Aryan invasions. At the end of the debate the moderator concluded that there was no evidence for any immigration/invasion into India in the prehistoric period and the Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati(or Indus) tradition (7000 or 8000 BC). Analyzing the astronomical evidence alone, Sengupta in 1947 came up with the following chronology for the references in the texts: the Vedic Samhitas, 4000-2500 BC; Brahman. as, 2500-1000 BC; Baudhayana Srauta Sutra, 900 BC; and so on. My own analysis of the astronomy gives three phases Rigvedic astronomy: 4000 - 2000 BC,The astronomy of the Brahman. as: 2000 - 1000 BC, Early Siddhantic and early Puranic astronomy: 1000 BC - 500 AD, The date of Vedanga Jyotisha of Lagadha is 1300 BC, thus placing it in the Brahmana age."
4. S A Paramhans in his 1987 paper "A Fresh Glimse on the Date of Mahabharata" gives the 3102 BCE date for the Mahabharata War based on epigraphic evidence. Hence by conclusion Rig Veda cannot belong to 1500 BCE
5. Subhash Kak in his paper "The Mahabharata and the Sindhu-Sarasvati Tradition" says: The Epic and Puranic evidence on the geographical situation supports the notion of the shifting of the centre of the Vedic world from the Sarasvati to the Ganga region in early second millennium BC. O.P. Bharadwaj’s excellent study of the Vedic Sarasvati using textual evidence12 supports the theory that the Rgveda is to be dated about 3000 BC and the Mahabharata War must have occurred about that time. The Mahabharata clearly belongs to a heroic age, prior to the rise of the complexity of urban life. The weapons used are mythical or clubs. The narrative of chariots could be a later gloss added in the first millennium BC. The pre-urban core events of the Epic would fit the 3137 BC date much better than the 1924 BC. But this would suggest that the Puranic tradition at a later time conflated earlier events with the destructive earthquakes of 1924 BC and remembered the later event accurately using the centennial Saptarsi calendar. The Indic kings of West Asia are descendents of Vedic people who moved West after the catastrophe of 1924 BC.
6. Kazanas in his paper "The Rigveda pre-dates the Sarasvati Sindhu culture" states Brāhmaṇa explications of rigvedic brief allusions and the teachers lists in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad suggest the passing of very many centuries from the composition of the RV hymns. These postrigvedic texts can be assigned to the end of the 4th millennium on astronomical considerations and the beginning of the 3rd. Finally, the palaeoastronomical examination of star and planet allusions in the Mahābhārata suggest dates c 3000 or little after. All such considerations suggest a RV of many centuries earlier. Thus, since the SSC (=Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture) arises c3000 and the RV knows nothing of its important features, then its composition must be placed several centuries earlier. Since the river Sarasvatī was flowing to the ocean only before 3200, and the RV knows it as such, then its bulk must be assigned at c3800-3500.
7. Kazanas in the paper "A new date for Rigveda" concludes:- The date 3100 BCE is the one given by the native tradition of India for the compilation of the RV. The tradition seems to be correct.I have also adduced Seidenberg’s independent evidence suggesting that the Mathematics contained in the Sulba suutras was known in the latter half of the 3rd millenneum.

• Many Scholars have concluded that Vedic is older than Avestan but article implies contrary view - The article mentions that "The Indo-Aryans were a branch of the Indo-Iranians... The Indo-Aryans split-off around 1800–1600 BCE from the Iranians. .. the Vedic people, were pursued by the Iranians "across the Near East to the Levant (the lands of the eastern Mediterranean littoral), across Iran into India."

1. Kazanas in his paper "Vedic and Avestan" concludes "In this essay I examine independent linguistic evidence, often provided by iranianists like R. Beekes, and arrive at the conclusion that the Avesta, even its older parts (the gāθās), is much later than the Ṛgveda. Also, of course, that Vedic is more archaic than Avestan and that it was not the Indoaryans who moved away from the common Indo-Iranian habitat into the Region of the Seven Rivers, but the Iranians broke off and eventually settled and spread in ancient Iran.
2. Talageri in his book "The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence" concludes that Avesta belongs to late Rig-vedic period. "The evidence of the Avestan meters confirms to the hilt the conclusions compelled by the evidence of the Avestan names: namely, that Zaraθuštra, the first and earliest composer of the Avesta, is contemporaneous with the Late Period and Books of the Rigveda (notably with the non-family Books), that the Early and Middle Books of the Rigveda precede the period of composition of the Avesta, and that the ―Indo-Iranian‖ culture common to the Rigveda and the Avesta is a product of the Late Rigvedic Period."
3. Kak in his paper "Vedic Elements in the Ancient Iranian Religion of Zarathushtra" states: The chronological framework presented by the parallels between the Zoroastrian and the Vedic systems is in consonance with the idea that the Vedic people have been in India since at least 5000 BC, as confirmed by the astronomical references in the Vedic texts and the absence of archaeological evidence regarding influx of people into India after that time. The Pur¯an. as speak of the Vedic people in Jambudvıpa and beyond the Himalayas in the north in Uttara-Kuru. It appears that subsequent to the collapse of the Sarasvati-river based economy around 1900 BC, groups of Indians moved West and that might have been responsible for the Aryanization of Iran if it wasn’t Aryanized earlier. This movement seems to be correlated with the presence of the Indic Kassites and the Mitannis in West Asia.

• The Evidence of Sarasvati - Vedic Indigenism. Sarasvati was the most important Rigvedic river. Harappan civilization also flourished along this river. Sarasvati is believed to have dried up in 1900 BCE in India. This places both the Vedic civilization before 1900 BCE and in the N-W region of India. Several scholars have written about this but the conclusion from their research is missing in the article. It should also be included to make the article balanced.

1. Danino in his book The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati, published in 2010, presents numerous pieces of evidence from topographic exploration, geological and climatological studies, satellite imagery, and isotope analyses, to support the view that the dried up riverbed of the Ghaggar-Hakra was indeed the legendary Sarasvati River mentioned in Rigveda and that this river once sustained the great Indus Valley Civilization, which flourished between 3500 and 1900 BC.
2. A V Shankaran in his article "Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert" mentions Rig veda describes it as one of seven major rivers of Vedic times, the others being, Shatadru (Sutlej), Vipasa (Beas), Askini (Chenab), Parsoni or Airavati (Ravi), Vitasta (Jhelum) and Sindhu (Indus)1,3,4 (Figure 1). For full 2000 years (between 6000 and 4000 BC), Saraswati had flowed as a great river before it was obliterated in a short span of geological time through a combination of destructive natural events.
3. K S Vaidya in his article The River Saraswati was a Himalayan-born river and not simply a monsoon born river on this foothills of Shivaliks. Regarding drying up of Sarasvati he states "Changes that have taken place and are taking place on the surface of the Earth, are not all due to the increase and decrease of rainfall resulting from climate change. Rainfall is not the only decisive factor. There are equally, if not more powerful, factors that are working such as tectonic activities. The Saraswati domain experienced recurrent neotectonic activities, often very powerful. "

1. Kak, Subhash (1987). "On the Chronology of Ancient India" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science (22): 222–234. Retrieved Jan 2015. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. Kak, Subhash (1996). "Knowledge of Planets in the Third Millennium BC" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 37: pp. 709-715. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
3. Kak, Subhash. "Astronomy of the Vedic Alters" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
4. Kak, Subhash. "On the Chronological Framework for Indian Culture" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
5. Paramhans, S A (1989). "A Fresh Glimpse On The Date of Mahabharata" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science (24): 150–155. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
6. Kak, Subhash. "The Mahabharata and the Sindhu-Sarasvati Tradition" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
7. Kazanas, Nicholas. "The Ṛgveda pre-dates the Sarasvati-Sindhu Culture" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
8. Kazanas, Nicholas. "A new date for Rigveda" (PDF). www.omilosmeleton.gr. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
9. Kazanas, Nicholas. "Vedic and Avestan" (PDF).
10. Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.
11. Kak, Subhash. "Vedic Elements in the Ancient Iranian Religion of Zarathushtra" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.
12. Danino, Michel (May 2010). The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati. Penguin Books. ISBN 0143068644.
13. Sankaran, A V. "Saraswati – the ancient river lost in the desert". http://www.iisc.ernet.in/. Retrieved 22 January 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
14. Vaidya, K S. "The River Saraswati was a Himalayan-born river" (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2015.

13:12, 22 January 2015‎ Indoscope

Indoscope, these ar not serious scholars. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a WP:FORUM to give WP:UNDUE space to fringe-theories. @Kautilya3:@Paul Barlow: Could one of you explain to Indoscope the difference between science and WP:FRINGE? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of High-importance
• B-Class Indian history articles
• Mid-importance Indian history articles
• B-Class Indian history articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian history articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• High-importance Hinduism articles