Talk:Ancient India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.

• Ancient India is an independent matter and it should not be redirected to History of India. Someday, someone will create an independent page for Ancient India. --Bhadani 11:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I am repeating my above views. I will create at least a stub - Ancient India should have a separate page like Ancient Egypt and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. --Bhadani 15:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. Stub is not a bad idea to start off with while we are in the process of compiling some details. To me, the first question is, which date/era to start from (to be citable)? Mohenjo-daro? Vedic? 7th millennium BC / Mehrgarh ?--ΜιĿːtalk 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have begun the stub as promised. Regret the delay. --Bhadani 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Why is their a mention of Aryan invasion? 2 Why is their a mention of the Aryan invasion? 3 split/merge 4 Ancient India 5 Observation -- Google Hits 6 easy now 7 A proposal 8 This Page should Reflect Ancient Indian History

[edit] Why is their a mention of Aryan invasion?

I cannot believe their are people who still type about an Aryan invasion or migration. THis is a racist theory made up by Europeans and most people today confirm that the Aryans came from ancient India. Can u please change that its really sad. 71.107.54.199 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Only someone thoroughly ignorant of the topic would write this. There's nothing "racist" about the idea of ancient population migrations. Paul B 07:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul you have obviously not done your research...The Aryan invasion theory is a racist theory...Europeans made this theory up, because they wanted to take credit for having an older civalization then the Indians. They were saying that since the Aryans supposedly came from Europe & invaded India, then that means that all of Indian culture, religions, and ways of life was influenced by the Euorpeans....Seconldy, this gave them an excuse to rule India, because if the Aryans came from Europe then that means it is justified for the British to rule India...Thirdly, the invasion theory was made up because many Euorpeans were trying to explain why SOUTH INDIANS ARE DARK SKINNED and WHY NORTH INDIANS ARE LIGHT SKINNED....And last but not least....ADOLF HITLER BELIEVED IN THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY....Now Paul im not sure what kind of person you are...But i have just given you 4 facts on how this is a racist theory....THIS IS NOT MY OPINION, it is a fact...Look it up on GOogle, Yahoo, or AOL....The Aryan invasion theory is a racist theory ARYAN818 07:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would request the anon to please register. It is strange that the page is getting minor vandals since its creation in the current form. This point makes me believe that the topic is really important. --Bhadani 15:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, migration of large and small scale population has been going on since the human beings formes societies. We should build the Project without any bias and personal opinions. --Bhadani 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

HOW CAN YOU NOT MENTION THE ARYAN INVASION......I AM A KHATRI, AND I KNOW KHATRIS AND BRAHMINS ARE AT LEAST ARYANS........AND WE KNOW OUR HISTORY AND PAST.........PLEASE REFERENCE ARYAN INVASION, OR I WILL PUT IN A LINE....THANKS -JAY3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.80.102.158 (talk • contribs).

Wait why would u want this article to talk about an Aryan invasion theory? I think u meant that their SHOULD NOT be a mention of the Aryan invasion theory...I mean you said youra Khatri and that u know that Khatris & Bhramins are Aryan (which you are right about)....So I think you were trying to say that their should NOT BE ANY MENTION OF AN ARYAN INVASION THEORY...So then I agree with u...I dont know why some people still belive in this racist theory...I mean forget the fact that its racist....It just doesnt make any sense...If u study the theory...its a joke....It really really is ARYAN818 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I would request you to please use normal fonts - everyone here can read. There is no need to use capital letters - using capital letters in such a way is like shouting. Looking forward to your further contributions. Please also sign your comments to keep the sequence in order. --Bhadani 08:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that most of the given information is based on the "historical facts" from Max Muller, an individual who admittingly changed dates of Ancient India due to his belief that the world was created 4000 B.C.E years ago. Carbon dating proves that the Rig Vedas were written significantly before 1000 B.C.E., specifically 3100 B.C.E, while the Egyptian pyramids were built before 6000 B.C.E. Someone should look into this...

Pehaps you should "look into this". Then you might discover that Muller did no such thing. There's no evidence in any of his writings for this this endlessly repeated Hindutva fantasy. In any case modern dating estimates have nothing to do with Muller. And how exactly do you "carbon date" the Vedas? Paul B 09:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Paul were exactly are u doing your research? Many scholars, Indian and non Indian, have made books, articles, and websites showing in detail how people like Max Mueller and others have made up racist, phony, and idiotic historical writings on India and its religions....I mean if u dont believe me just go to any search engine and type in "Aryan invasion theory" or something similar and read for yourself....We are all not crazy people who just hate max mueller and others similar to him, for no apparent reason...We have done our research, and it really sounds like you havnt ARYAN818 07:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

so why do you keep bringing up Muller in all possible and impossible places? nobody believes in anything because Muller came up with the idea, that's just of research historical interest. If you want to allege character flaw's of Muller's, go to Talk:Max Muller, the only place on Wikipedia where this is on topic. We all know the internet is chock-full of bullshit nationalist propaganda. That's why we need Wikipedia to keep clear of this stuff. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is their a mention of the Aryan invasion?

I cannot believe in 2006 we still have people who believe in Max Mueller's Aryan invasion theory....I want to ask Paul B, and every other Wikipedia member who supports this theory one question....Have any of you ever actually picked up an actual Aryan textbook?....Because if you have....You should know that in the Vedas, Mahabharat, Ramayan, Upanishads, and any other Aryan scripture, their is no mention of an Aryan invasion, migration, or game show lol....NOTHING....This is a made up theory by somebody who had a lousy time understanding India...Its actually a racist theory....Please dont site me articles or anything like that....All you have to do is pick up an Aryan scripture and tell me what page does it say their was an Aryan invasion or migration....I mean all the evidence is in India...NOT EUROPE ARYAN818 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

IA migration around 1800 BCE is the mainstream view. read the article. and no, it is not based on philology. Calling it "racist" you are just echoing nationalist propaganda, again, read the article instead of spamming talkpages. dab (ᛏ) 12:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not the mainstream view....if u dont believe me just see for yourself....go to any search engine and type in the Aryan invasion theory...ull see that their are many people that are frustrated, just like me, that their are still people out their who think the Aryan invasion theory makes sense ARYAN818 06:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

how about you go to a library? It is hardly news that the internet is chock-full of crackpots and conspiracy theorists. I don't know what makes me waste time debating with someone who addresses me as u; trust me, you'd be much happier on Usenet. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Go and read some proper scholarly books, not propaganda websites. What I know about Müller derives from reading his books and from academic literature about him. The Vedas don't mention an "invasion" because there is no reason why they should. They are not written as a narrative of events, like Exodus. They are collections of hymns and rituals. In any case, no-one believes these days that there was an an organised military invasion. Müller didn't believe that either. Paul B 11:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] split/merge

the scope of this article is unclear. You cannot lump "India BC" under "ancient" as a single "civilization". "Ancient India" would normally be taken to refer to the "golden age" 500 BCE - 500 CE or so. Maybe include the Vedic period, so 1500 BCE - 500 CE. But you cannot lump four millennia (including prehistory, down to the Neolithic) as "Ancient India", that's nonsense; articles covering all the topics mentioned here exist, therefore split and merge. (in fact, just redirect, since there is nothing here not already covered in greater detail elsewhere) dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that Neolithic age, Bronze age (IVC), etc. should not be covered in this article. It should start with Iron age civilizations. I've studied in my middle school textbooks that the end of Harshavardhana's (590–647) reign is one of the more accepted dates for the end of the Ancient period in India, although there is hardly ever any complete unanimity on such issues. deeptrivia (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why should Prehistoric age be excluded from this article?.It was not the Indians who had the naive idea that "GOD" (the 'G' in CAPS) created humans just 6000 years back.Bharatveer 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

no, that was James Ussher. your point being? nobody in their right minds would believe such a thing, it is off by a factor of about 1,000 (the appearance of humans, not creation of the universe). The Indians had the idea that the universe came into being 77,000 billion years ago, which is off by a factor of about 5,000. Both ideas are equally fanciful and mythological. What has this got to do with anything? We have a very fine History of India article. "Ancient" is not a well-defined term. Mostly I suppose it refers to the "Epic Age", hence the redirect to Kingdoms of Ancient India. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is about a comprehensive article about Ancient India. There are nothing new in wikipedia which is not elshwhere. Would you suggest folding up the project? Use of word nonsense is a slur on the editors who have contributed to this page and is certainly against the normal civility. --Bhadani 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled back the re-direction for reasons mentioned above. Let us allow the process of wiki to ensure growing of the contents. --Bhadani 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient India

Ancient India requires a distinct page, and the redirection is an attempt to undermine the integrity of the Project. --Bhadani 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observation -- Google Hits

Civilization	Total hits	.edu hits
Ancient Egypt	11,300,000	260,000
Ancient Greece	8,750,000	442,000
Ancient Rome	5,490,000	200,000
Ancient China	1,980,000	75,400
Ancient India	1,114,000	45,700
Ancient Pakistan	3,360	16

The above is for the kind information of editors who may not be aware of the concept of Ancient India. --Bhadani 15:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have rolled back the re-direction for reasons mentioned above. Let us allow the process of wiki to ensure growing of the contents. --Bhadani 16:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I recognize the existence of the term (unlike "Ancient Pakistan"), and I still maintain it should redirect to Kingdoms of Ancient India. Your article states:

Generally, the period from the Harappan civilization (3000 BC) until the life and time of Shankaracharya (788-820) is considered to cover Ancient India, although there exists difference of opinions.

says who? "Ancient India" spans prehistoric times as well as the Middle Ages? And even if so, what will be in this article that is not in Kingdoms of Ancient India, Middle Kingdoms of India and Harappan civilization? The only thing I can see at this title is a discussion of the term, but it seems you are creating this article to imply some sort of cultural identity over 4,000 years, making this a pov-fork from History of India. We have perfectly fine articles on every period you want to cover here, so if you have anything to add, kindly go to the pertinent article. If you want to make some rhetoric point, try to make it on History of India and see if it sticks. The last thing we need is further unmotivated fragmentation of the alreaty scattered India-related topics. I suspect that there are many pov-forks hanging around as it is (and somebody should take the time to hunt them down and slap them with {{merge}}). "Ancient India" usually refers to exactly what we have under "Middle kingdoms", with a component of legend/mythology, hence the redirect to the literary article. Of course the IVC/ the Vedic period are even more "ancient", but when we say "Ancient Greece", we do not mean to include Neolithic Europe either. Usage of "Antiquity" de facto refers to the Iron Age. You may well dig up references that say otherwise, and discuss those, at Antiquity, but you cannot presuppose such usage and build an article on it. dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If this be the case, I would request you to please suitable edit the page, instead of making this a redirection. You may also remove the POVs spotted by you. --Bhadani 16:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For your convenience and convenience of other editors, I have rolled back the page so that you may value add to the same. Thanks. --Bhadani 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

fine, if you don't like the redirect, I've made it a disambiguation page. Now it is up to you to present evidence that the term refers to anything beyond the existing topics linked. dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] easy now

your next step will be to argue about the scope of the term, Bhadani. Am I right in giving the possible meanings I do? If not, on what grounds? If you present evidence for different opinions about the meaning of the term, I am open towards making this an article about the term. If you agree with the scope I give, do argue why you want to turn this into a separate article, on topics already covered fully elsewhere. The article you keep re-instating is worthless, it makes some hand-waving claim about the term's definition and then proceeds to duplicate material. I argue that it is pointless to have an article covering 4,000 years beyond History of India. You are reproducing sections 3-7 out of 12 sections there, i.e. half of the scope of that article. We have main articles, and we have sub-articles. But we don't need intermediate articles covering half of the scope of other main articles. dab (ᛏ) 18:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My intention is very simple: to have a comprehensive page about Ancient India. I do believe that you agree with this, but you may have reservations about the contents. Yes, the contents may be properly modified to reflect the historical reality. In case, you do not agree to have a separate page, this page with the contents as were existing before the redirection/disambiguation, may be placed for AfD for consideration of a wider spectrum of the fellow-wikipedians. --Bhadani 06:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

you are not making clear what you mean by "Ancient India". The disambiguation page lists possible meanings; pick the meaning of your choice and go there. If you are trying to argue that the term has a single, well-defined meaning, convince me, citing a source. dab (ᛏ) 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

I propose to restore the edits as they existed before the redirection/disambiguation, and place the page for AfD to get views of a wider spectrum of fellow-wikipedians. I would recommend for a keep. --Bhadani 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

We are here to create sum total of human knowledge and nothing less. There are many references to Ancient India in its own right. I would like to give only one for the time being: Indian History: Ancient And Medieval. We may modify the contents as may be required, but insisting that there should not be an independent page for Ancient India is lowering the credibility of wikipedia. --Bhadani 06:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

you are not making sense. I have no desire to delete anything. I recognize that "Ancient India" is a valid term, and should rightly be redirected to kingdoms of Ancient India. Or, if you prefere, that article can be moved here. The point is that I am against duplicating material. I am not aware that I have removed any content not already covered, better, elsewhere. Since you are still unhappy, I suggest that we make this again a redirect tokingdoms of Ancient India. If you have anything useful to add, do it there. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not unhappy at all. It is my pleasure to inter-act with you, though I may have been impatient at times. I will try to make the point more clear in few days after I collect more information. Right now, I am "forgetting" this particular page, and concentrating on other matters. Wikipedia has become very big, and we always have other pages to work on. --Bhadani 11:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Page should Reflect Ancient Indian History

This is the only history page of all the ancient cultures and people which does not have a page but only a disambiguation page. There is a lot of different opinion on the history of ancient India and I propose that we change this page to reflect the history Rajat 1:15 20 October 2006 IST

see above. dab (ᛏ) 08:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)