Template talk:Sri Lankan former states

Clarification on revert

The Mahabharata is a fable and references based on it alone does not amount to factual reality. If the two mythical kingdoms did exist, please add scholarly sources to support the version. Regards--CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 07:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I disagree you need to provide ample evidence that in fact both the Ramayana and Mahabharata are purely works of fiction written in approx 100 BCE that are according to teachers and authors William J Duiker and Jackson Spielvogel recounting essentially histories from 900 years earlier which would be approx 1000BCE this is infact untrue if what you say is TRUE then every single article that mentions both Ramayana and Mahabharata and pre-history of India in all articles listing all of these kingdoms states confederations linked to Indian history prior to 100 BCE need to be deleted the open paragraphs of the Mahabharata article reads: The Mahabharata or Mahābhārata (Sanskrit: महाभारतम्,Mahābhāratam, pronounced [məɦaːˈbʱaːrət̪əm]) is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the Ramayana.[1] Besides its epic narrative of the Kurukshetra War and the fates of the Kaurava and the Pandava princes, the Mahabharata contains philosophical and devotional material, such as a discussion of the four "goals of life" or purusharthas (12.161). Among the principal works and stories in the Mahabharata are the Bhagavad Gita, the story of Damayanti, an abbreviated version of the Ramayana, and the Rishyasringa, often considered as works in their own right. Traditionally, the authorship of the Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa. There have been many attempts to unravel its historical growth and compositional layers. The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE. The text probably reached its final form by the early Gupta period (c. 4th century CE). The title may be translated as "the great tale of the Bhārata dynasty". According to the Mahabharata itself, the tale is extended from a shorter version of 24,000 verses called simply Bhārata.

The Mahabharata is the longest known epic poem and has been described as "the longest poem ever written". Its longest version consists of over 100,000 shloka or over 200,000 individual verse lines (each shloka is a couplet), and long prose passages. About 1.8 million words in total, the Mahabharata is roughly ten times the length of the Iliad and the Odyssey combined, or about four times the length of the Ramayana.[7][8] W. J. Johnson has compared the importance of the Mahabharata to world civilization to that of the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, the works of Homer, Greek drama, or the Qur'an. (The whole open sequence of the all articles referencing both names). Needs to state according to YOU the following: The Mahabharata or Mahābhārata (Sanskrit: महाभारतम्, Mahābhāratam, pronounced [məɦaːˈbʱaːrət̪əm]) is one of the two major Sanskrit epics of ancient India, the other being the Ramayana are infact both just a set of fables and an imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality substantiated by any written evidence that supports there existence--Navops47 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, but the point of clarification is how mere mention in epics/folklore become a testament to reality. For instance have a look at this snap. Kingdoms such as the Cholas and the Kalinga do have documented history, while the Pandavas and the Kauravas the core elements of the epic, are only conceptual and mythological. So from what you have said for yourself, both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are bundles of myths and facts combined together. So however much an important and substantial piece of work the given epics maybe, maybe lack of OTHER historic sources or any other forms of documented evidence to attest to the statements contained in it, rules out its relevance and significance with regard to what was fiction and what was reality. Maybe any other academic proof of the existence of such kingdoms(origins, period of rule,the rulers and so on and so forth). The basic fact that the Mahabharata was a religious text makes it an unreliable source for one cannot fathom between how much of reality is twisted in its composition, even though it tries to convey the same. Please support the inclusion of the two articles by using factual sources proving their existence.--CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 17:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The template has been temporarily protected by an administrator the dating and existence of these kingdoms names recorded in this artcile Kurukshetra War in the section on historical context it states the following: "The historicity of the Kurukshetra War is unclear. Some historians like A. L. Basham estimate the date of the Kurukshetra war to Iron Age India of the 10th century BCE. In discussing the dating question, historian A. L. Basham says: "According to the most popular later tradition the Mahabharata War took place in 3102 BCE, which in the light of all evidence, is quite impossible. More reasonable is another tradition, placing it in the 15th century BCE, but this is also several centuries too early in the light of our archaeological knowledge. Probably the war took place around the beginning of the 9th century BCE; such a date seems to fit well with the scanty archaeological remains of the period, and there is some evidence in the Brahmana literature itself to show that it cannot have been much earlier."

Other historians like Michael Witzel have corroborated that the general setting of the epic has a historical precedent in Iron Age (Vedic) India, where the Kuru kingdom was the center of political power during roughly 1200 to 800 BCE.[3] A dynastic conflict of the period could have been the inspiration for the Jaya, the foundation on which the Mahabharata corpus was built, with a climactic battle eventually coming to be viewed as an epochal event.

Puranic literature presents genealogical lists associated with the Mahabharata narrative. The evidence of the Puranas is of two kinds. Of the first kind, there is the direct statement that there were 1015 (or 1050) years between the birth of Parikshit (Arjun's grandson) and the accession of Mahapadma Nanda, commonly dated to 382 BCE, which would yield an estimate of about 1400 BCE for the Bharata battle.[4] However, this would imply improbably long reigns on average for the kings listed in the genealogies.[5] Of the second kind are analyses of parallel genealogies in the Puranas between the times of Adhisimakrishna (Parikshit's great-grandson) and Mahapadma Nanda. Pargiter accordingly estimated 26 generations by averaging 10 different dynastic lists and, assuming 18 years for the average duration of a reign, arrived at an estimate of 850 BCE for Adhisimakrishna, and thus approximately 950 BCE for the Bharata battle[5]

B. B. Lal used the same approach with a more conservative assumption of the average reign to estimate a date of 836 BCE, and correlated this with archaeological evidence from Painted Grey Ware sites, the association being strong between PGW artifacts and places mentioned in the epic.[6]

There have been a number of theories put forward:[7]

   The most widely accepted date is 10th century BCE or 950 BCE, according to archeological evidence.
   B. N. Achar states a date of 3067 BCE using planetary positions listed in the Mahābhārata.
   S. Balakrishna concluded a date of 2559 BCE using consecutive lunar eclipses.
   P. V. Holey states a date of November 13, 3143 BCE using planetary positions and calendar systems.
   R. N. Iyengar concluded a date of 1478 BCE using double eclipses and Saturn+Jupiter conjunctions.
   P. R. Sarkar estimates a date of 1298 BCE for the war of Kurukshetra.
   P. V. Vartak calculates a date of October 16, 5561 BCE using planetary positions.[8]
   K. Sadananda, based on translation work, states that the Kurukshetra War started on November 22 3067 BCE.[9]"

In the article on Sinhala_Kingdom#Sinhalas_in_Kurukshetra_War it states the following: Sinhalas in Kurukshetra War

• Mahabharata, Book 7, Chapter 20 The Kalingas, the Sinhalas, the Easterners, the Sudras, the Abhiras, the Daserakas, the Sakas, the Yavanas, the Kambojas, the Hangsapadas, the Surasenas, the Daradas, the Madras, and the Kalikeyas, with hundreds and thousands of elephants, steeds, chariots, and foot-soldiers were stationed at the neck of Drona's Garuda Military Formation. Now if the accepted archaeological evidence points to the period of 10th century to 950 BCE and other published authors suggesting even later dates its not unreasonable to include both these kingdoms names pre-6th century BCE. The historical toponymy is contained within the current state name Sri Lanka can you explain what the island was called prior to Vijaya's arrival in 543 BC it must have been called something not the Island of Blank-Unknown-No-Name--Navops47 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty easy, just point me to ANOTHER academic source that mentions(and the better if it documents) these two kingdom'existence as well as history. There is no need for you to parrot-talk the theories of Mahabharata. The object of the discussion is the Kingdom of Lanka and the Sinhala Kingdom. Give more sources on their existence, the name of the rulers etc. and also how you think they correspond to present-day Sri Lanka in order to feature in this template. Otherwise these are just kingdoms whose existenc is not confounded and not documented enough, and are best left out of the template whose rest of the articles correspond to real world states/empires. --CuCl₂ ^{(chat spy acquaint)} 17:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Navops47, thank you for the discussion. I think I have to agree with Copperchloride. To my knowledge the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are religious mythology, (I could be wrong??) and so including them on this list would not be very helpful as what the "Sinhala Kingdom" and "Lanka" means today, and at the time of their existence, is probably not the same as what they meant in the epics when they were written. Sri Lankan written history begins in about 543 BC and there is little reliable written history that I have come across for the time before 543 BC. I'm sure there is though. The Mahabharata itself was only written around 400 BC, during which the Sinhala Kingdom had only been established about two centuries earlier. The term may have just been used to identify the ancestors of the Sinhalese. However that is speculation and we need facts from reliable sources. Quoting wikipedia as you have done does not count, as it is not reliable. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes the Mahabharta may have beeen written in its final form in the 5th centry BCE and according to author J Brockington in their book backs up that theory but they also offer a later theory "The Sanskrit Epics" page 26 "The oldest preserved parts of the text are thought to be not much older than around 400 BCE, though the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE". http://books.google.co.uk/books. The issue I have here is that no alternative theory was given to my commnent "The historical toponymy is contained within the current state name Sri Lanka can you explain what the island was called prior to Vijaya's arrival in 543 BC it must have been called something not the Island of Blank-Unknown-No-Name. The editor just simply ignored the comment and we are trying to reach a balance here in POV. This book "Epic India, Or, India as Described in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana" http://books.google.co.uk/books refering to the Aryan's geographic knowledge of India please read Chapter XIII onwards from page 268, their observations and dealing with list of 16 Kingdoms mentioned in Buddist writings,from page 274 "yet there is not the least doubt that these Kingdoms existed then and prior dating also where they date this kingdom" Sauvira Kingdom from 1000 BCE now if the Sauvira's took part in the Kurukshetra War and the most widely accepted date scholary dating of the event is between the 10th century BCE or 950 BCE base on archeological evidence. How can one Kingdom and their troops participate in that war and the other not exist at all until after 543 BCE? that's a period of 450 Years, according to Dr. Radha Kumud Mookherjee "the epics were written some where around 1500 to 600 B.C" again it's not unreasonable to suggest that these kingdoms did in fact exist before 543 BCE over to you to provide a counter arugment and provide sources that I can see that discount the existence of the Kingdoms prior to this date.--Navops47 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The same arguments similar to this are also found in Illiad and the countries peoples places mentioned in that dated to 760–710 BC in its oral compostion but describing a time 300 to 500 years earlier and this article disucussing the Historicity of the Iliad where I see parallel's to this discussion.--Navops47 (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Off topic- Blacknight I see you are from Sri Lanka I will be visiting country in 3 weeks for period of 6 months work related trip I have been many times over the last 10 years visited nearly all of the entire Island except the East coast when I first went in 2003 the British High Commison advise UK Citizens not go I was there in February 2004 just after the Tsunami, 2005-2007, 2009-2010 and 2012, 2013 and this year I think I will discuss this more with my Sri Lankan friends when I get there--Navops47 (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That is great! Hope you have a wonderful time there. I think that is a good idea, maybe through conversions with Sri Lankans in Sri Lanka you can get a clearer picture of the history of the island rather than conversing here on wikipedia.--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)