Talk:Religion of the Indus Valley Civilisation

Attribution

I have copied some of the material from Pashupati seal, Indus Valley Civilisation, Lingam, Mahishasura#The_Legend_of_Mahishasura. LearnIndology (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet another POV fork. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, you might wish to take a look. I have removed some of the more outright POV pushing. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirected to IVC.

I appreciated a thing, in particular. LI while copying a paragraph from our article on Lingam has (I am sure, mistakenly) forgot to copy the lines which doubted the links with Hinduism. This is not an one-off case, as is always the case with such inadvertent errors. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"IVC-roots of Hinduism" is a more apt title - but would require a lot of elaboration and support from WP:RS. It's telling that this page is (was) not an elaborated version of the info found at t he IVC-page, but a selective choice of bits and pieces which seem to support IVC-origins of Hinduism. While some aspects of Hinduism may indeed have IVC-origins, there is a 1500-year hiatus between the end of the mature IVC and the onset of the Hindu-synthesis, so any continuity necessarily requires an explanation of the interlying (is that correct English?) cultures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that title would require change. LearnIndology (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

[Regarding "copying a paragraph from our article on Lingam"] Is this all you have to justify your redirect of a highly notable subject? A redirect after removal of sourced content with misleading edit summaries and terming reliable sources as unreliable (Oxford University Press, Penguin UK are not unreliable) is not going to be helpful for you.

The subject meets WP:GNG, see:

• Shikarpur Ranganath Rao (1985). Language and Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. Department of ancient Indian history, culture & archaeology, Banaras Hindu university.
• Asko Parpola (15 July 2015). The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-022693-0.
• Gregory L. Possehl (2002). The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective. Rowman Altamira. p. 141. ISBN 978-0-7591-0172-2.

You should better use WP:AFD if you have a problem with the subject. LearnIndology (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

diff copied from Ganesha

The roots of Ganesha worship have been traced back to 3,000 BCE since the times of Indus Valley Civilisation.

References

Both sources are not at Ganesha. Devut Pattanaik:

The Indus Valley Civilization, which pre-dates Vedic times, had elephant seals. Clearly, people knew about elephants. But th idols and images of Ganesha began to emerge only 1500 years ago whereas the Vedas go back 4000 years. So this is a development of the late Puranic times.

Horns, Tusks, and Flippers:

The great civilizations of the Indus Valley had the elephant-headed god of wisdom, Ganesha, deply entrenched in their theology.

No reference for that statement, but authors on "The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals" are clearly not specialists on the history of Indian religion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I have removed the line from Ganesha just now. It was not there when the article became a FA; inserted in May 2020. See below for the blatant misrepresentation of Doniger about Baths. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Particular issues

• About Ganesha being traceable to IVC is sourced to Devdutt Pattanaik (who appears to be a pop-mythologist; I have never heard of him), Donald Prothero (mammalian paleontologist cum geologist), and Robert M. Schoch (geologist and a pseudo-historian). The claims are extraordinary and they require citation to highly reputed Indologists.
• The line on Baths is completely made up. Doniger never states that Scholars have identified similarities between bathing rituals of IVC and bathing rituals in Hinduism along river ghats.
• The section on Swastika is not sourced.
• The first source for the "Mother Goddess" section is unreliable (non-indexed journal). As is the second. Valmik Thapar is a nature-conservationist and no Indologist. Alf Heitelbel contradicts the statement, it claims to source. Johnson Thomaskutty is unreliable (non-indexed journal).
• I don't have time to detail the rest of misrepresentations and POV pushing. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop cherry-picking. Multiple sources have been cited for any claim. You can remove unreliable one. Regarding Great Bath I never quoted Doniger, I cited Britanica. See [1]. Regarding Swastika, I think you are knowledgeable enough to know that origins of Swastika in South Asia lies in IVC and do I even need to quote sources on this? Just click on Swastika, there are 213 sources for that. Regarding Mother Goddess, there are plenty of sources for that too.[2][3][4][5]. What have you thought about self-reverting so far? What you are presenting is a mere content issue and does not require redirecting of the article. LearnIndology (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Great Bath I never quoted Doniger, I cited Britanica - Have you checked the prim. author of the article? Doniger et al write, ... the Great Bath at Mohenjo-daro may have been used for ritual purposes, as were the ghats (bathing steps on riverbanks) attached to later Hindu temples.

origins of Swastika in South Asia lies in IVC - And? It was one of the many IVC seals with absolutely no evidence of any special connotation. Nobody even knows for a certain whether it was those seals which became the Hindu swastika.

there are 213 sources for that - That, being?

You wish that I start digging up specific scholarship on Mother Goddess rather than books covering the topic in a couple of lines? Harappa.com contains a quote from Parpola, which does not invoke any relation between the current cult and IVC. If I am not wrong, Gregory Possehl took a very dim view of these associations.

Sullivan's probabilistic line is unclear (is he talking 'bout the ritual of water buffalo sacrifice?); c.f. Bihani Sarkar (OUP, 2017). Noel Salmond is not an Indologist and his book is on a faraway topic; a fringe archaeologist says that the links between IVC stones and Hindu lingams are not quite proved but [merely] probable. Hiltebeitel nowhere supports that the legend of Mahishasura might have roots in IVC as seal 279; it is the view of B. Ya. Volchok, whose heydays have been over long ago. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you checked the prim. author of the article? Doniger et al writen

Yes I have checked, there are multiple authors of this article, not one.

And? It was one of the many IVC seals with absolutely no evidence of any special connotation. Nobody even knows for a certain whether it was those seals which became the Hindu swastika.

Hmmm noice, that's a good thought. You should publish a blog on that, but I am sorry to inform you that we publish what reliable sources are stating.

That, being?You wish that I start digging up specific scholarship on Mother Goddess rather than books covering the topic in a couple of lines? Harappa.com contains a quote from Parpola, which does not invoke any relation between the current cult and IVC.

I never asked you to dig up specific scholarship for Mother Goddess. I only asked you to open Swastika article and see the number of sources available for the claim.

I used Harrapa.com only for one sentence and that was

This culture has survived in South Asian villages (mainly in India)

Sullivan's probabilistic line is unclear (is he talking 'bout the ritual of water buffalo sacrifice?); c.f. Bihani Sarkar (OUP, 2017). 

Suillivan is crystal clear about what he's talking about. Let me elaborate it for you. He's saying that that Durga puja and it's practices are not Vedic in nature and has IVC roots, which was later incorporated in Brahmanical religion. Not to mention he also mentions the legend of mahishasura.

Noel Salmond is not an Indologist and his book is on a faraway topic; a fringe archaeologist

Ummm... No, He has doctorate in Asian religions. As far as my brain cells are working, having a doctorate in Asian religions makes him a reliable author.

says that the links between IVC stones and Hindu lingams are not quite proved but [merely] probable. Hiltebeitel nowhere supports that the legend of Mahishasura might have roots in IVC as seal 279; it is the view of B. Ya. Volchok, whose heydays have been over long ago.

By this statement I am assuming that you have very little or no knowledge about Hinduism. There are countless scholars adhering to the same point about Lingam. Do you want me to list the authors? I recommend you reading about Basics of Hinduism.

Your claim that someone taking a 'dim' view of the subject justifies your redirect is making no sense. Coverage is what matters, you can't redirect a page that happens to cover a highly notable subject. LearnIndology (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If sources draw distinct links between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika, please cite them. Our articles has no sources for the claim.

Please don't merge separate lines of my replies disingenuously to evade scrutiny on a cherrypicking of sources (and imply as if I misunderstood you to go on a hunt for sources on Mother Goddess).

What about the miss-attribution to Hiltebeitel? Or, Brittanica/Doniger? Or, the Ganesha nonsense?

The rest is misplaced hubris. See WP:POVFORK.TrangaBellam (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many for finding that link.[6](page 10)[7][8] I have already addressed about Doniger, and "Reading the Fifth Veda: Studies on the Mahābhārata" by Hiltebeitel on page xiii talks about what the article says. I had merely copied and pasted about Ganesha from main article but we can absolutely expand on Ganesha information if you look around for sources, such as this.

It is not a WP:POVFORK but a reasonable content creation since lots of new content was added too. Let me repeat it again: Coverage in reliable independent source, not dispute surrounding the subject, establishes WP:GNG. I don't see any serious dispute here and there is unanimous consensus among scholars and non-scholars alike that IVC, together with a number of other cultures, is a forerunner to present-day Hinduism. LearnIndology (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is Shiv Kumar Tewari and/or Gautam Chatterjee? Sarup and Sons? Abhinav Pubs.? Where have these books been reviewed? Have other scholars cited these works? For someone who was seeing 213 sources supporting the links, ..... How is Kenoyer supporting your hypothesis?

So, Possehl (2002) interprets the article to support that Hiltebeitel is in favor of Volchok's theory - he personally finds it interesting but not yet proved. However, Hiltebeitel (2017) chooses to note that the hypothesis never seemed convincing? TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

They are WP:RS. It is not necessary to have book reviews in order to cite them. I don't see Hiltebeitel saying "hypothesis never seemed convincing" in the book I mentioned.[9] LearnIndology (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No, they are not. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doniger writes,

Consider the large bathing tank found in the citadel at Mohenjo-Daro, which is forty by twenty-three feet in length and width, and eight feet deep. To Parpola, this suggests ritual bathing, central to later Hinduism. But all that this structure really tells us is that the people of the IVC liked to bathe. Another example: noting the many images of women in the IVC, Parpola argues that the worship of Durga in “village Hinduism” is connected to the worship of Mesopotamian and Harappan fertility goddesses. The Rig Vedic goddess of speech, Vac, Parpola argues, also has Mesopotamian or Harappan origins. But not every woman is a goddess, and why should images of women symbolize fertility—or, indeed, speech?

Similar problems arise in the interpretation of buffaloes. Parpola assumes that buffalo sculptures show that people of the IVC worshipped the buffalo; the Harappan buffalo sacrifice, he argues, was replaced by the Vedic horse sacrifice. But why assume that buffaloes were sacrificed, rather than merely eaten, or harnessed for use? The IVC images of animals and plants are often breathtakingly beautiful, and highly imaginative. Might they not simply be artistic images springing from the human impulse to create art, an impulse every bit as universal as the impulse to worship? Why must the wonderful fig trees at Harappa be the source of sacred trees in Hinduism?

Stephanie Jamieson identifies several key problems with Parpola's hypotheses and finds them unconvincing,

We should now consider the “sames” — namely the continuity he [Parpola] sees between the Indus civilization and post-Vedic Hinduism. First is the question by what mechanism Harappan concepts and practices could have been transferred to the Indo-Aryans, since the Indus civilization essentially ended in the very early second millennium bce. It is a major conceptual leap from the undeniable statement that classical Hinduism differs in major ways from Vedic religion to the claim that much of what is non-Vedic in classical Hinduism should be attributed to the Indus civilization, whose flowering essentially ended at least 1500 years before "classical Hinduism" began.

A. C. McKay reiterates these concerns:

This Indus-orientated section of The Roots of Hinduism does contain both a wealth of impressive scholarship and somewhat speculative claims for which available evi-dence is marshalled, rather than necessarily critically interrogated ... while it is commonly suggested that the Indus civilization was ruled by Kings or Priest-kings (231), the claim is not proven, which problematizes the author’s thesis that Vedic rites of kingship derived from Harappan royal rituals origi-nally transmitted from West Asia.

The claim to connection between early sexualized rituals such as those of the early Vedic vrātyas and Tantrism, which in its fully developed form is much more than a millennium later, is particularly controversial (251), while the use of the similarly late Kālikā Purāṇa as evidence in discussion of the Indus culture is equally problematic—entirely different historical trajectories could be proposed to explain concordances. The same is true for any possible concordance between the Vedic Śambara and the much later Tantric deity Cakrasaṃvara. Such claimed transmissions over vast periods of time leave us with little alternative but to allow the rather unsatisfactory explanatory device of the “sub-stratum”.

TrangaBellam (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are disputes about some of the points within this subject but overall your sources only strengthen the requirement to pass WP:GNG. LearnIndology (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. It's still a content-fork, with no info additional to the info found at the IVC-page. Bulls and mother-goddess, those are the main themes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Content removal

LearnIndology, Hiltebeitel, Alf (1989). "Hinduism". p. 5 In Kitagawa, Joseph (ed.). The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture. Routledge. notes,

The notion that features of Indus Valley religion form a stream with later non-Aryan religious currents that percolate into Hinduism has somewhat dismissively been called the substratum theory by opponents who argue in favor of treating the development of Hinduism derivable from within its own sacred literature.

Please explain your removal or you will be at WP:AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yet you interpreted it as: "Scholars who reject that IVC had any meaningful role in Hindu Synthesis dismiss their opponents as "sub-stratum theorists"". Mind the quoted term you used which wasn't found in the source, and you mislabeled "opponents" as "scholars". You are again restoring misrepresentation "(most significantly, Parpola)"[10] when the source does not say that Parpola is the main researcher of this field. You absolutely misrepresenting sources. Overall both sentences are WP:UNDUE and should be removed as they add zero value to the content. LearnIndology (talk) 07:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The quoted term is "substratum theory". Theorist is someone who develops or deals with a theory.

[Y]ou mislabeled "opponents" as "scholars" - Are you serious? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

When you are using words in the quote then they have to be exactly supported by the source, which you didn't.

You seem to be claiming that everyone opposing IVC-connection is a scholar. That isn't true. Since the source does not use the term "scholar" it is unnecessary to have this sentence being used in opposition to what scholars like Flood, Parpola and others believe. The three sources you just cited next to the misrepresentation "most significantly, Parpola" is not supported by any of the three sources. LearnIndology (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that LI has a point here; Hiltebeitle refers to "substratum theory," not "subtsratum theoristst." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, the point being strong enough to warrant an outright removal? All style guides allow minimal tweaking of quotes to fit syntactic structure. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would put it back as a quotation (as above). I think "features of Indus Valley religion form a stream with later non-Aryan religious currents that percolate into Hinduism" is a useful way of putting what many scholars regard as a possibility or probability. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I would still oppose the word "scholar" since it is not mentioned by the source. Again, Trangabellam, you should avoid treating Parpola as the biggest researcher of this connection unless said by the source. Samuel confirms that there are many of them. LearnIndology (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

I don't think Heitelbel's line to be a fair representation of consensus. Even he, like Kenoyer, has shifted to a far nuanced territory in recent pubs. Tertiary sources claim that IVC might have influenced Hinduism but unless the script is deciphered, there's no way to be sure of anything.

As the article shows, all specific identifications are increasingly rejected by IVC experts in recent scholarship. Be it Proto-Shiva or Priest-King or Swastika or Mother Goddess. I am yet to cite recent literature on yonis & lingams to the same effect. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because some scholars disagree with some particular identifications, doesn't mean that they reject the continuity as a whole. You seem to be giving more weight to your own views than what Hiltebeitel and Kenoyer say. That's not good. You need to stick to reliable sources instead of cutting them down just because they don't agree with your own views. LearnIndology (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

It is the same you who proposed to cite Kenoyer to support a connection between Hindu Swastika and IVC Swastika? [As our article shows, Kenoyer says something else.]

Since you had also accused me of not knowing anything about Hinduism, when you are turning up with all the reputed Indologists - in recent scholarship - supporting the Swastika or lingam-yoni identification?

More and more hubris. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That does not address the concern that you are promoting your views over that of Hiltebeitel and Kenoyer. Can you answer that instead? LearnIndology (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I am asking you to read Kenoyer's recent publications. I invoked the Swastika example because it serves an important lesson about why we shall not cite (and misread) decade-old scholarship in a flippant fashion. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

But with this one, Kenoyer appears to be confirming Indianess of IVC, which means he sees continuity. Isn't it interesting though that we are talking about extensive researches by Hiltebeitel and Kenoyer, yet you still insist on making a misleading claim that the research into this field has been mainly done by Parpola? LearnIndology (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I copy-edited that line diff. Hiltebeitel (1989) also states that continuities are likely. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

But reverted by Trangabellam without explanation.[11] LearnIndology (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert - ? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Hiltebeitel, this is a nice read. Much of his opinions lie on the fringes. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Religious ideologies of the Indus Valley Civilization

? I can't access Rita Wright, but I've studied psychology of religion, and theology, and work in the field, and this phrase doesn't ring a bell with me.

• Hassan Rachik, How religion turns into ideology:

A religious ideology can be defined as a set of ideas that refer to religious and secular tools and accompany political actions and processes in a sustained and systematic way.

I don't think that this is the intended scope of the article, but I could be wrong.

• Sharri Clark, The Social Lives of Figurines: Recontextualizing the Third-Millennium-BC Terracotta Figurines from Harappa:

The research suggests that there was a rich religious ideology that probably focused on transformation and sympathetic magic and possibly even shamanism, rather than on a single Mother Goddess, a long-standing myth.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the very little we know about the subject is about possible deities or other figures, and possible ritual practices. People can of course speculate as to the "ideology" or ideologies underlying this, as F&F likes to do, but this is all guesswork. Rightly, I think, this article as it now is avoids doing much of this, and concentrates on the few objects that possibly have a religious meaning, being generally cautious about drawing very firm conclusions from them. So as well as being unusual, unfamiliar, ambiguous, and certainly not the WP:COMMONNAME, an "ideology" title misrepresents the article's content. Let's hear no more about this. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)