Talk:Kingdoms of ancient India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An intersting article. But needs improvements and corrections for typo errors. Jijithnr, please continue to improve the

The time frame for vedic period is wrong. Vedas are way before Mahabarata. Kalhan in Rajtarangini, history of Kashmir Kings puts Mahabarta little over 3,000 BC. There is enough dococumentation to prove that the 1500 BC time frame was a product of Max Mullers and other Sansktists purposefully distorted dates. Subash Kak in "Story of Civilization" documents the Vedic times around the same period Kalhana notes in Rajtarangini. Other times mentioned in the article also are suspect. These need to be rectified.

Contents 1 references 2 POV 3 Be more specific 4 This page makes India look like it was never one 5 Errors on Map

[edit] references

could use some references.--Dangerous-Boy 19:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

this article is riddled with all sorts of right wing Indian nationalist stuff, for example saying that Sanskrit is more "advanced" than other languages, and that the "Aryan invasion theory" (a term only used in nationalist propaganda) was invented by Max Müller. I really don't have time to fix this article at the moment, but there's clearly a huge problem here. Infact a case could be made for getting rid of most of this and merging it into history of India. --Krsont 18:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great article for Hindu mythology!--Dangerous-Boy 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

exactly :p unfortunately misguided extremist religious POV seems to be a dominant force in information on Indian and Hindu history on wikipedia. --Krsont 01:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be more specific

I have read the article again, for revision. I find no mention in this article saying that Sanskrit is more "advanced" than other languages. This article is not indended for it either. Only two languages are mentioned in this article. One is Sanskrit and other is the older version of Sanskrit which is usually called as the Vedic language. No other languages like English or Hindi is mentioned in this article

The main purpose of this article is compilation and classification of kingdoms mentioned in the ancient Indian texts. I however, liked to give the probable time period when these kingdom existed, for the curious readers. Max Muller studies and Aryan Invasion Theories give later dates (like 1500 BC and 500 AD) for their existence and recent stuedis give older dates (3500 BC, 2500 BC etc). Thus I am able to put an upper and lower limit to the time period for the existance of these kingdoms. Only for this purpose do I mentioned "Aryan invasion theory". It is not the main focus of my article at all. -----Original Author ---Jijith, May 3, 2006

"Linguistic evidence are based on the fact that the languages like Sanskrit or the earlier form of Sanskrit (termed as the Vedic Language) require two or three millania of time, for their evolution." This is complete nonsense. Nothing about Sanskrit means it takes more time to "evolve" than any other language. All of the advanced technology and science of India accumulated over the centuries after the adoption of Indo-Aryan language by North Indians. Infact, the actual linguistic evidence points to an Aryan migration, and is pretty much indisputable. Archeological and genetic evidence may help us understand that the transformation of culture was a gradual one, and did not involve large scale migration, but the linguistic evidence shows us that it definately did take place. Indo-European culture and language came into India from outside. This is not an "earlier theory" or based entirely on the work of Müller, it is the current most accurate theory of Indian history we have. All that nonsense about "recent studies" and astronomical information and so on is merely misguided Indian nationalist propaganda, I'm afraid. Same for the idea that the Brahmi script derives from the Indus Valley script (it didn't, it derives from Semitic). --Krsont 09:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To ---Dangerous Boy Thank you for your comment. I will try to add more References. I am also working on the typo errors. ----Original Author ---Jijith, May 3, 2006

[edit] This page makes India look like it was never one

In the Vedas it talks about India, better known at that time as Bharat or Land of the Aryans, as being an entire region....Yet this article is basically saying India was never one region, and instead, it was only made up of independant kingdowms?.....So its ignoring the history writtein in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Mahabharat and Ramayan....AMazing.....Yet their were kindgoms...but their was still a recognition of an entire area as one land...ARYAN818 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors on Map

Firstly I would like to bring to your attention of the term, Ancient India. The name India was given by the British who adopted it from the Greek classification of Northern India and Pakistan as Indica. Indica was adopted by the Greeks from the river Indus which as called Hindu by the Persians. No where in Sanskrit, Tamil, Hindi, or any other South Asian ancient literature which mentions the word "India". The actual name for India was Bharat which consisted much of present day India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Not to sound like a sour puss, but saying there was an ancient India is like saying there was an Ancient America or an Ancient Canada.

As for the historical part of it, it is true that there was a Bharat consisting of 16 Mahajanapadas stretching as far north as parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to Bengal and ending as far south as Maharastra. The Mahabharata definitely explains that. However, Bharat did not include Southern India or Eastern India believe it or not. The Mauryans out of the 16 Mahajanapadas had ultimate control of the above description at the time accept for Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Sri Lanka. This includes the Moghuls as well. The states of Southern India and parts of Sri Lanka were formerly known as Tamilakkam which consisted of the Chola, Pandya, Chera, and parts of the Pallava kingdoms. Southern India was incorporated into the rest of India during the arrival of the British around between the 1600s to the 1700s and was called Carnatic by the British with the exception of Kerala. The 7 eastern states of India (seven sisers of India) did not become part of the British Indian Union until during the early 1900s.

As far as the names of the kingdoms are concerned on the map there are some errors listed below.

1. Kerala - In the southwestern part of the map their is a kingdom labelled as Kerala. Kerala is the name of the state and not a kingdom. The actual name for that is Chera. However, the name Kerala was derived from Cheras.

2. Sinhala - In the island of Sri Lanka there is a kingdom labelled Sinhala. Sinhala is the name of the people and language of Sri Lanka and not a kingdom. The Sinhalese kingdoms were the kingdoms of Kandy and Kotte. However, Lanka is mentioned in the Ramayana.

3. Kanchi - right above the kingdom Chola is labelled Kanchi. Kanchi is acually a name of an ancient city in Tamil Nadu and is short for Kanchipuram. Kanchipuram was the capital of the pre-Pallavas. Pallavas were in Northern Tamil Nadu and Andra Pradesh. The southern part of the Pallava kingdom spoke Tamil, while the northern part spoke Telungu which is a compostition of Old Tamil and Prakrit (old Sanskrit).

4. Dravida - right above Kanchi is Malyavat and right above Malyavat is a kingdom labelled Dravida. Dravida is a classification of ethnic groups and languages of Southern and Central India and parts of Sri Lanka. There are also two Northern Dravidian groups known as Brahui in Pakistan and Malto in an area in Bengal

5. Karanataka - To the left of the label Dravida in the Southern Central part of the map is Karanataka. Karanataka or Karnataka is the name of the state which borders Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The actual name of the kingdom there is Chalukya.

As for the Central and Northern parts of the map, I have not objections. I do see the names of the kingdoms labelled on the map correctly as it is in the Mahabharata as well as in the Indian history books. Please make the correction to the map if possible. Thank you.