Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

India that is today

The name - India is after the river sindhu that flows mostly in pakistan.

Again the name - Bharatdesh, after Bharat who ruled from Peshavar valley, that is currently in Pakistan.

The religion - Hindu or Vedic form, most of it was formed in places that are now in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Uzbekistan.

The language - Sanskrit from a Parent PIE language that came from a place we still dont know. And the Dravidian languages, from a Proto Dravidian language whose origins not known, may be from indus valley.

The people - came from all over the place, oldest is Africa, then Central Asia.

So what is currently India originated from present day Pakistan and surrounding areas and grew to presnt day India in India

And, if i may add, few other rulers came from Farghana valley, who established the Mughal empire.

And this is how human geography works.

Same thing with Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Rome, England, Greece.

New layers upon older layers that are imported, shifted and adapted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.240.160 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Origin of Brahmi : new paper

i am pleased to announce the publication of my fifth research paper in a peer-reviewed journal

this deals with the origin of Brahmi . this is a logical and self-explanatory paper and is written using a multi-disciplinary approach. it is written in such a way that anybody can cross-verify the conclusions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-Final-Final-Final

sujay rao mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.239.115 (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC)

Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India

Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC)

- There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing

Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC)

1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final

2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis

Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC)

1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

210.211.203.231 (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2013

"Ancient India" redirects here. For other uses, see Ancient India (disambiguation).

14.97.156.18 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Both Ancient India and Ancient India (disambiguation) currently redirect to Outline of ancient India, so this would be inaccurate. Did you mean something else? BryanG (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

indus (Hindus/Hindoo's) valley civ 2000 years older than thought

This needs to be added http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Indus-Valley-2-000-years-older-than-thought/Article1-954601.aspx 122.161.191.100 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2013

Sir, with due respect, being an Indian, I am requesting the Wikipedia group to kindly edit the maps of India showing the portion of Kashmir part of Pakistan as the aforesaid part of Kashmir is still undisputed and should be left for the future, as it hurts the sentiments of a lot of Indians. Even you have enlisted the stories at depth, so showing POK not in India is understandable, but showing it completely in Pakistan is weird as far as 1,241,491,960 Indians are concerned. Thanking you. Rahul.safari (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see Kashmir on any map of India on this article, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the text of this article. If you have a specific concern with another article or image, please post a message on the talk page of the article or image concerned, or see the help desk. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths

I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper explains why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths

Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers.

The olders papers were written taking the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct

Part one

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One

Part Two very,very important!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two

Sujay Rao Mandavilli sujayrao2012@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.72.239.115 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

please find all my six papers

The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus myths

I am publishing my sixth research paper directly online as it is an extension of my previous papers. Kindly read pages 4 to 18 as it contains a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper shows why the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories are not tenable.

We only accept published material that has gone through an editorial review process

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136268397/The-demise-of-the-Dravidian-Vedic-and-Paramunda-Indus-myths Methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans were presented in the present and previous papers. We hope other scholars take up the exercise of reconstructing the languages of the Indus Valley civilization! The older papers were written taking the assumptions of the 19th century school of Indology as a base and working backwards. These may appear to be outdated now (at the end of our very long journey). However, the fundamentals are still correct. Part one http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One Part Two very,very important! http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two (These comprise the complete and comprehensive solution to the Aryan problem) for those who have trouble reading part two in the above link use the link below: part one http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One part two (very important) http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC) Literacy in pre-Buddhist India (before 600 BC) Please find my collection of papers on literacy in Pre-Buddhist India Before mature phase of Indus valley civilization (before 2600 BC) - There are some potters marks but none qualify as full writing Indus valley civilization (2600 BC to 1900 BC) 1. The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis (very logical and self explanatory paper) http://www.scribd.com/doc/46387240/Sujay-Indus-Script-Final-Version-Final-Final 2. The reintroduction of the lost manuscript hypothesis (the case for this thesis has obviously become much stronger in the recent past) http://www.scribd.com/doc/111707419/Sujay-Indus-Reintroducing-Lost-Manuscript-Hypothesis Post-Harappan India (1600 BC to 600 BC) 1. Literacy in post-Harappan india (obviously literacy in post-Harappan India existed in certain pockets & were limited to very small sections of society- alphabetic scripts were brought from West Asia and the Indus script also continued – this a very logical and self-explanatory paper and anyone can cross-verify the conclusions) http://www.scribd.com/doc/127306265/Sujay-Post-Harappan-Literacy-and-origin-of-Brahmi Sujay Rao Mandavilli The Demise of the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus Hypotheses: Why these Hypotheses are no longer tenable by Sujay Rao Mandavilli Read pages 4 to 18 which contain a detailed discussion of the term ‘Aryan’. This paper argues against the Dravidian, Vedic and Paramunda Indus theories, and shows why Dravidian languages, Sanskrit or Paramunda languages could not have been candidates for the Indus Valley Civilization which flourished from 2600 BC to 1900 BC in the North-West of India and Pakistan. Supporters of these three hypotheses are welcome to provide a systematic refutation of all the points raised in this paper. This paper adopts a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing conclusions from many different fields of science. Quotes of several mainstream scholars of repute are presented in support of the conclusions arrived at in this paper. An alternative hypothesis of the identity of the Harappans is also presented towards the end of the paper. ... (a) We proposed that the Harappans spoke many languages belonging to many language groups. (b) We suggested that these languages included (the emphasis is on the word “included” here) several languages which much later came to be known as the Prakrit family of languages. ... This theory is very similar to many other existing theories, although the methods we used to reach our conclusions were quite different. Some of these theories are listed below, and these are essentially the same as our proposals, despite minor differences: (a) ‘Early form of Prakrit’, by Madhav Deshpande (Prof. of South Asian literature and linguistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan). This proposal was presented in ‘The Aryan debate’ edited by Thomas R. Trautmann, Oxford University Press 2005. (b) ‘Mleccha Prakrit hypothesis’ by S. Kalyanaraman, Independent scholar (c) Indo-Iranian hypothesis by Ahmad Hassan Dani, one of Pakistan’s leading scholars on www.harappa.com. Although he does not use the term Prakrit, the two hypotheses are conceptually similar as the IVC originated in Baluchistan (Baluchistan is very close to Iran). Both hypotheses naturally imply that these languages were pre-Sanskritic. (d) Malati J.Shengde’s Elamite hypothesis (e) Masica’s language ‘X’, and similar other studies carried out in various points in time, and a partial list of such studies was compiled in ‘The SARVA (South Asia Residual Vocabulary Assemblage) Project’ by F. C. Southworth, University of Pennsylvania (Emeritus) in the year 2005. (f) We have taken the views of several other leading scholars such as Franklin Southworth, M B Emeneau and Alfred C Woolner that would imply that this hypothesis is correct. We have reproduced quotes in this paper. Sujay Rao Mandavilli 182.72.239.115 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Majority of Indus civilization sites are in India

The opening statement says "The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] consisting mainly of what is now Pakistan, and parts of India, Afghanistan and Iran".

I would think that the word "mainly what is now Pakistan" is an incorrect statement since majority of Indus Valley sites are in present day India. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indus_Valley_Civilization_sites. The correct statement i would assume should say something like "consisting of what is now India and Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.194.9 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

well researched.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Some one edited the opening sentences again making it factually incorrect. The opening sentance now states "The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] consisting mainly of what is now Pakistan, and parts of India, Afghanistan and Iran". The 'mainly what is now pakistan" is incorrect considering most of the Indus valley sites are located in what is now India. Refer to the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.195.11 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit lede 5/6/2013

"The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] Flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization[n 1] extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[7] and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab;[8][9] it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest known ancient civilization."

It's hard to see around all the links and citation markers, but the first sentence of the article should have a period before the word "Flourishing" which starts the next sentence. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that I got no response to this, but I suppose I should have known I wouldn't because I didn't use the

tag. Hopefully now someone will see this? 198.204.141.208 (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please change "The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] Flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization[n 1] extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[7] and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab;[8][9] it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest known ancient civilization."

to EITHER

"The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization[n 1] extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[7] and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab;[8][9] it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest known ancient civilization."

OR

"The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent.[2][3] Flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization[n 1] extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[7] and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab;[8][9] it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest known ancient civilization." 198.204.141.208 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Your second suggestion fixes the comma splice. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry no one noticed before. The edit request template usually gets quick results, at least for simple fixes. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No one replied to this one. So reposting again. This was phrased before correctly before but some one changed and removed the original Indus valley map with replaced it with the current incorrect map. Some one edited the opening sentences again making it factually incorrect. The opening sentance now states "The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] consisting mainly of what is now Pakistan, and parts of India, Afghanistan and Iran". The 'mainly what is now pakistan" is incorrect considering most of the Indus valley sites are located in what is now India. Refer to the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.195.11 (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.195.11 (talk)

The proto shiva/pashupati seal found in Indus valley civilisation is actually look a like 16th jain tirthankar Shantinath whose symbol is deer who seats in lotus posture on a throne/seat with deer engraving. One can look and compare his pictures in various ancient temples. In contrary, there is not even a single picture, idol or temple of Shiva which shows shiva sitting on a throne with deer engraving.

Wrong information in the picture

In the picture CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png which has a caption: "Early extent of the Indus Valley Civilization imposed over modern borders", the borders between Nepal and India is not present. It has been clearly written in the caption that the map has mordern borders but it does not have the border of Nepal.

Early extent of the Indus Valley Civilization imposed over modern borders: which is wrong as the borders of Nepal is not there at all

Suidp (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the focus of the map is the IVC and its location along modern borders. To that extent, it is correct. But, you're right that the map appears to show Nepal as a part of India and that does need to be fixed. Anyone? --regentspark (comment) 23:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I just made a new map with the physical geography and more sites (and more appropriate to what is mentioned in the lead). It doesn't have the Nepal etc problems. I've added it. If you don't like it, you can remove it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Indus

Indus word came form Hindu's (HINDOO's) where in "H" is silent.

69.142.93.157 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: it's a bit more complicated than that. The etymology of the name is described in Indus River#Names and etymology. --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Date without year

"On 11 July, heavy floods..." It would be nice to know in which millennium this happened. The reference suggests 2010 but I am not sure enough to make the change. AlexFekken (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

shiva/pashupati seal

Dear All,

I politely ask you to see deer image encrypted on throne/seat of Proto Shiva or pashupati seal. Can you trust your eyes? if yes than please see pashupati seal and verify if it is a bull or deer? If great authors did mistake in seeing things , doesn't mean that we must continue the same mistake. Can we blind ourself if others cannot see?

look at ancient/modern images from google of jain tirthankar with symbol of deer below his seat. Moreover one can clearly see difference between bull and a deer. the pashupati seal/proto shiva in wiki article clearly shows exact figure of deer...so why is everyone confused? There are more than 1000 pictures of centuries old temples of jain tirthankar shantinath. Please see those images.

One more thing,all jain texts are not available on net like "agams", one can read on wiki that jain texts like "agams" were written 6-3rd century BCE.But nobody has put it online.

Jain Religion begins with Tirthankar Rishab the first person of Ikshwaku Vamsa...than comes surya vamsa than...raghu vamsa..than...All these ' vamsa ' were offsprings of ikshvaku vamsha ( source: Wikipedia , ikshwak106.195.210.153 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)u vamsha' ) . Till date historians agree with history of three tirthankars parasnath and mahaveer (as others are yet to be confirmed). It is not true that jainism started only 6-7th century BCE.

Source : More than 10,000 ancient places, pictures of centuries old Jain tirthankar Shantinath on google with symbol of deer.Also there is not even a single picture or temple of shiva with deer on his seat. Should we stop trusting our eyes and say that pashupati seal/proto shiva has buffalo seal when one can clearly see it is a deer?

findings & concepts should always be a welcome.please look at those sources provided . warm regards

Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't include material that is not backed by solid sources. I assume you're doing the research connected with these seals and we'll include the material once it is published in peer reviewed journals. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have asked this editor to stick to sources that meet WP:RS and reminded him of our guidelines which say " Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Pashupati seal shows seated ithyphallic figure surrounded by animals, possibly Shiva, as per common theory. Jain tirthankararas are never depicted as ithyphallic and in Hinduism also only Shiva is the only deity which is depicted as ithyphallic - that is why most of noted researchers have related seal with Shiva. Jain theories are fringe theories and they never discuss about why the seated figure is shown ityphallic because that will take away their argument that possible figure is Jain either they are fringe theory or original research not backed by third party scholars. Most of these theories are written by Jain scholars only recently. Jethwarp (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The other apart from being ithyphallic reasons why it is related to Shiva are well known but I will repeat it - Shiva is generally depicted as sitting in yogic mudra as is seal and he is also referred to as Pashupati - the name implying Lord of Animals - that is why seal was named Pashupati seal. Jethwarp (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pashupati seal Does not shows seated ithyphallic. It shows animals surrounding a human. All of 24 tirthankararas are associated with 1 animal.For Example Lord Mahavir is associated with Lion, Pasarvnath with snake, Rishab with Bull, Shantinath with Deer. The striking feature is that, there is deer below the seat of human (Exactly this is the way jains put one animal as a symbol below the seat of their Tirthankaras). All tirthankars are shown sitting in lotus position/Yogic Mudra on a seat/throne. All tirthankars are nude but not ithyphallic like shiva. I saw similarities and some mistakes. Therefore i shared my knowledge. I think it is good to have others opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.204.213.43 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Jainism teaches tolerance to other religions but it also teaches to stand for truth. Hinduism and Jainism both originated from Indus civilization and both are as old as history can go. So, how can one say that there cannot be (or must not be) any Jain idol or picture in Indus valley? how can one say that there cannot be roots of Jainism in Indian history/Indus valley? Yes , Pashupati is one of the names of shiva. Hinduism is very popular in India. Can any one tell me if, Hindus place a small icon of animal under the seat/throne of Shiva exactly like this in picture?

As far as the name " pashupati seal is concerned, it was given by a british archaeologist. Probably because Hinduism was very popular and Shiva rides on bull. Also because pashupati is one of the names of shiva. But, this is a modern nomenclature, there is no such name as 'pashupati seal' in brahmi language. It is not the name written on the picture. Therefore i am sharing my knowledge of history. dissemination of knowledge is not a crime...why my posts are deleted with bias? Yes I have been to Kathmandu Pashupati Nath temple and i have seen the idol of shiva. It is different !Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Lord Shiva is also called as "Adinath Shiva" and he is associated with "OX/Bull" . Many historians have quoted that "pashupati Seal" or " Proto Shiva" is sitting on "buffalo". However, "buffalo" is associated with 'god of Death' or 'Yama' not Shiva.Hence there is mistake while looking at the seal/picture.. In every picture of shiva there is snake in throat,crescent moon, matted hair, sacred ganges, mount kailash, trishul and damru missing in this picture.

I have decided to add some references on demand:

1) Picture of Tirthankara Shantinath in lotus/Yogi position on a seat with Deer engraving on his seat: , , http://www.ejainism.com/shantinathmaindes.htm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantinath,

2) Picture/Idols of 24 Jain Tirthankara in lotus/Yogi position on a seat with specific animal engraving below their seat: , http://www.idjo.org/site/24_Jain_Tirthankars.aspx

3) Short biography and Picture of Tirthankara Shantinath with animals surrounding him. , http://www.jainoutlook.com/shantinathprabhu.php

4) Short biography of Tirthankara "Adinath Rishaba" (aka 'Ri-Shiba'). , , http://www.herenow4u.net/index.php?id=74977, http://www.ejainism.com/rishabhamainevents.html,

5) Picture of Tirthankara Rishab dev with animals : Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@ Prashanna Jain Gotani --- These are your original research and are you aware you cannot cite wikipedia article as reference !!!

Just click at image of seal below to see enlarged - it shows the person sitting cross-legged, wearing a horned head-dress and ithyphallic ( which means erect phallus), there are several sources on-line which confirm this also. This image is better than one shown in article - I propose, we replace it with this image. --- Jethwarp (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Quick notes:

• The new image appears clearer, but note that it is not a photograph of the actual seal. It is an image of a mould made from the seal, and the mould itself is pretty poor, obliterating all facial features of the figure, the ribbing on the horns etc. Also the original image gives a clearer idea of the material of the seal, and the fact that its corner is broken. So while not a big deal for this article, I'd prefer the original image over this new one.
• Secondly, I read several sources in reworking the religion section, and didn't find any mention that the figure in the seal has been linked to Jain Tirthankaras by any reputable scholars in the area. I plan to expand coverage of the topic at Pashupati, or in an independent article, so if there are any scholarly sources that make such a claim, I'd love to see them. Abecedare (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Abecedare, please see if the sources quoted here User:Indian_Chronicles/Jain_Sources#Links_to_Indus_Valley satisfy your requirement or not. I leave it to you. Thanks.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2013

hello i want to edit this text to make it more simple and do some grammar fixes thank you regards fjhjfk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfjjbjfo (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hindutva, Mythistory, and Pseudoarchaeology

Cynthia Ann Humes, Numen, Volume 59, Issue 2-3, pages 178 – 201 2012[1]

Abstract: This essay elucidates ideologically-inspired interpretations of the South Asian archeological record, particularly by those called Hindutvādins, and those who write about (and against) them. I first survey briefly the chief points in the history of archaeology in examining the Indus Valley Civilization. Next, I describe some of the major controversies that reflect claims of Hindutva pseudoarchaeology in the South Asian context. Throughout, I illustrate the increasingly virulent interactions between Hindutva proponents, indigenist theorists, and academic interpreters, and what these debates foretell of the future of Indus Valley studies.

Looks useful. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Cynthia Ann Humes, Numen, Volume 59, Issue 2-3, pages 178 – 201 2012, PURE JUNK,

The above comment is not needed on this page, it took indians over 100 years just to crush the aryan theory that european scholars used as a excuse to rip any historical claim over the indians to the indus and vedic scriptures and we all know about that little train reck!82.38.160.153 (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)V

Ahum... It may have taken Indians a 100 years to develop a counter-narrative, but to say that western (and Indian!) scholarship on this topic is being crushed is not exactly correct... Terms like "train wreck" and "junk" make very clear what's the status of this counter-narrative: rhetorics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Dating of 7,380bc-6,201bc should be placed at The top of The Wikipedia page,instead of hidden at the lower portion of the page

Indus Valley Civilization is currently dated at 6,000BC years before Christ, which contests the current theory that the settlements around the Indus began around 3750 BC.

“On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to 7380 BC to 6201 BC.” Excavations had been carried out at two sites in Pakistan and Bhirrana, Kunal, Rakhigarhi and Baror in India.

The finding was announced at the “International Conference on Harappan Archaeology”, recently organised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in Chandigarh.

7,380bc-6,201bc82.38.160.13 (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Ved

Apparently you're quoting from M. K. Agarwal (2013), The Vedic Core of Human History, publisher iUniverse. Not the kind of source that's being accepted here at Wikipedia as WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

what book? im using the same references from here.

Global post & hindustantimes reports this and joshua the current editor already has the link in the page at the lower portion if you bothered to read through, what i wanted was to take the top old dates and replace them with the new findings from the refrences which this editor and me had found, But thanks for the speedy failed attempt of denying me a reference which was already on the page.82.38.160.13 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)ved

Cool down! I've taken a further look; I also checked the source for the first sentence:

• Aurangzeb Khan and Carsten Lemmen, Urbanism in the Indus valley rise and decline. Manuscript submitted to the American Journal of Archeology, February 27, 2013

Read it, it's interesting.

These are the references you gave at Bladesmulti's talkpage:

• globalpost, Archaeologists confirm Indian civilization is 2000 years older than previously believed
• Hindustan Times, Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought

I can only find the globalpost. But the full chronology is mentioned in the article. Anyway, I've added 7000 BCE to the lead. Not replaced; I bet there are good reasons to use these other data as well. Just leave it this way; otherwise you'll stir up trouble, which is unnecessary here.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I think this is wrong. Note that "pre-early Harappan" means before the early Harappan culture. Who calls the 7000 BCe settlement any sort of Harappan? This being in the lead would suggest to the reader that we can date the IVC to 7000 BCE, which of course so far as I can see isn't being suggested by the academic community. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: feel totally free to undo my edits. I'm not at all an expert at this topic, and I already noticed that there are good reasons not to use this date in the lead, reasons which I do not know, but which I'm sure are there. The confusing is, I think, with the term "Indus Valley Civiliation". Can the earliest settlements be called "IVC"? Maybe you could add a short explanation to the chronology-section why the Mehrgarh-culture is a predecessor, and not Harappan/IVC? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm scrutinizing the globalpost-article now. The claim of 7,000 BCE is based on excavations at Bhirrana, India. Dikshit and Mani claim to have found "relatively advanced pottery, known as “hakra ware”" a the oldest level there, where-after the globalpost-article states:

"that suggests the ancient Harappan civilization began much earlier than previously believed — and that its epicenter lies in the Indian states of Harayana and Rajasthan, rather than across the border."

Is this the suggestion of Dikshit and Mani, or of the globalpost? Dikshit and Mani themselves are also cited:

"The earliest levels at Bhirrana and Kunal yielded ceramics and antiquities ... suggesting a continuity in culture, right from the middle of the eighth millennium BCE onwards ... till about 1800 BCE."

Sounds quite more nuanced, doesn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those are preliminary results reported in a newspaper. I don't think this date should be here at all unless it comes from at least an official report with the final results. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

[2], probably not an RS, confirms that at that point nothing was published but has some clues. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice table. Looks like it's copied from Wikipedia. The connection with Elamo-Dravidian languages is interesting, but not new, as far as I can see. And probably discomforting for "endogenous origins"-theorists; pushing further back the date of Indian origins, to be confronted again with "origins" outside of India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Indus valley civilzation can clearly be up dated & the following from ref proves this

"When archaeologist KN Dikshit was a fresh-faced undergraduate, in 1960, a remarkable discovery pushed back the origin of civilization in the Indus River Valley by some 500 years. Now, he claims to have proof that pushes India's origin back even further — making Indian civilization some 2,000 years older than previously believed."

It clearly states that the established KN Dickshit is the man who pushed the dates back 500 years in 1960 for the indus valley, now he has got proof of pushing the indus valley back 2000 years but in Bhirrana [Rajasthan, making it older then "the previous dates given" i.e the dates on here!

archaeologists divided the Indus Civilization into Three location pre-Harappan mature Harappan late Harappan

So the indus valley civilization is defined as all three but in different stages!

"Since the early excavations at Harappa and Mohenjodaro, in what is today Pakistan, the Indus Civilization"

"When Bhirrana [Rajasthan] was excavated, from 2003 to 2006, we [recovered artifacts that provided] 19 radiometric dates- said Dikshit,"

“Out of these 19 dates, six dates are from the early levels, and the time bracket is forming from 7500 BC to 6200 BC.”

The pre-Harappan period was characterized by a primitive, Stone Age culture the late Harappan period featured sophisticated brick cities built on a grid system, with granaries, toilets and an as-yet undeciphered written language.

"But the six samples discovered at Bhirrana include relatively advanced pottery, known as “hakra ware,” that suggests the ancient Harappan civilization (THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION) began much earlier than previously believed — and that its epicenter lies in the Indian states of Harayana and Rajasthan, rather than across the border . Pakistan

Dikshit & his colleague, BR Mani, current joint director general of the ASI which is short for The indian government run (Archaeological Survey of India)

“The earliest levels at Bhirrana and Kunal yielded ceramics and antiquities ... suggesting a continuity in culture, right from the middle of the eighth millennium BCE onwards ... till about 1800 BCE.”

what they are saying is that the side of the indus valley in (Bhirrana india) dates was rounded off from 8000BC (8th millennium BC) and the site was dead at 1800BC so

So 8000bc-1800bc indus valley Bhirrana India, it would mean that the indus valley started in india not pakistan.

“When [John] Marshall excavated the Indus Valley Civilization [in 1922], he gave it the date of about 3000 BC,” said Dikshit. “But when [Mortimer] Wheeler came in 1944, he gave a shorter chronology and put the Indus Civilization between 2450 BC and 1900 BC."

“In 1960, in Kalimanga, we were only able to push it back a few hundred years. But with these dates [from Bhirrana] things have entirely changed.”

So Josh marshall gave the dates of the indus valley civilization at 3000bc in 1922 Then Mortimer wheeler gave the dates at 2450bc-1900BC In 1944

Now in 2012 The date was push from 8000bc-1800bc

So why cant you put this into the top of the page, He has already been established with pushing the dates back which is used in the current form, so why is his work not accepted now even with advanced science on his side along with the actual indian government owned Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), he's been working with the indus since he was in his early adult life.

The paper makes it clear who is stating what, so if you cannot up date the page you could always appointed someone from another historical page to do this as im guessing you seem abit puzzled!82.38.160.13 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Veda

Can i just make clear that any complaints on this page should be forward to the editor (Dougweller)

I have tried to make the writer of this page change the top dates, Other writers have found more detailed publishing on the matter but still nothing!

Global post report was Denied Hindustan times was denied (academia search has been denied) Aurangzeb Khan and Carsten Lemmen, Urbanism in the Indus valley rise and decline. Manuscript submitted to the American Journal of Archeology, February 27, 2013

I did try as you can see.82.38.160.13 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)VEDABold text

Who are you talking to here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No idea, but please don't forward anything to me. The manuscript submitted to the AJA doesn't seem to have been published yet so can't be used, but it says clearly in the abstract "The Indus Valley Culture (IVC), often denoted by its major city Harappa, spanned almost two millennia from 3200 to 1300 BC" - so is the request to change the date in the article from 3300 to 3200? Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller I gave you global post and hindustan times which are both published and have the dating of the indus valley civilization from dikshit which dated to 1,800bc-8000bc as written above by his own statement, Joshua Jonathan gave you the AJA abstract NOT ME!

The above is very simple to see, if you have a dispute with the the Ref AJA then talk to joshua as that was his REF not mine, My ref was global post and hindustan times which i practically wrote out as seen above, i made my statements clear enough for other to read.82.38.160.13 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Veda

The dating on this page is incorrect and extremely out dated from today's dates

In 2012 the new dates had been published at 7500 BC to 6200 BC, making the Indus valley older then Egypt by over 2000 years!

This page is Highly important to world history, children from all over the world visit this page for information yet the dates you have given are from the John Marshall of 1922, we are in 2014 alot has changed!82.38.160.153 (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)VE

115.240.87.68 (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Spammed papers

These area by an independent scholar, see [3]. Can't comment on the other journals, but the "International Journal of Philosophy and Social Sciences" is on a list of journals with low credit[4] hosted at the [University of Mohaghegh Ardabili]]. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Saraswati River??

Sounds incredibly dodgy. Please do confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.160.32 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is a reference to the Saraswati River, it should be replaced with the Ghaggar-Hakra riverQwed117 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Why has Saraswati been forced into the topic of the IVC. If it existed it no longer does and as such can not be forced into the topic of the Indus Valley Civilization. Topics of the Indus Valley Civilization should be based on modern presentable facts and not mythology or vague satellite images. Please stick to the main topic at hand otherwise the true nature of this once great civilization will be lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.14.213 (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Chart

It is usual in archaeology, to put the most recent cultures at the top and work down, reflecting the usual stratigraphic natrue of remains at digs. Why is this chart in the reverse order?211.225.33.104 (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposition to un-capitalize "Civilization" in "Indus Valley Civilization"

Hello, I would like to propose to un-capitalize the word "Civilization" in "Indus Valley Civilization" because the word is a common noun among the three.

With this, all words using "Indus Valley Civilization" would have to be converted to "Indus Valley civilization."

76.107.253.105 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC) --Tudtud 23 (talk) 10:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth discussing. What is the preferred form in scholarly sources? On JSTOR, I note that both uppercase as well as lowercase are used. --regentspark (comment) 15:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indus valley civilisation should be rightly called aryan civilisation or indian civilisation..because that is what it was.It can also be called Rajput civilisation because chandarvanshi and surajvanshi ancestors of rajputs were the founders and rulers of this glorious civilisation.Rajbaz (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Typical Indian nationalist comment but no, the name won't change since the Aryans nor Rajputs had anything to do with the IVC. The inhabitants of the IVC were believed to be of native stock originating around modern eastern day Pakistan. Akmal94 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Skeletons

The remark about the skeletons in the start isn't very clear. How where the skeletons differentiated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwed117 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this again ([5]). It's pretty vague, and a general historian (however distinguished) in a book published in 1990 (an age ago in this subject) doesn't cut it in this field. Our article on Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia seems thorough & way more up to date, & would provide better references if something must be said on the matter. This is vague and not very helpful, and sounds to me as if it is based on pre-genetic ye olde examination of bone shapes, and we're better off saying nothing. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. These "anthropological types" ("alpine", "mediterranean") are heavily outdated notions that have been rejected by the scientific community. Athenean (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Bhirrana and dating of IVC

In recent edits, User:Randhwasingh, has pushed back the origins of IVC from 3300BC to 7500BC, based on news reports of an ASI dig/report. While I'm ok with briefly mentioning these claimed results, I am concerned about making drastic changes in the locus and dates of IVC based on such non-WP:HISTRS sources. Would like other editor's input on whether the edits should be retained,amended, or reverted. My preference is to revert, and then determine what to add back on the talk page.

PS: Does anyone have access to the ASI report, or to the Pakistan-French study of Mehrgarh site mentioned in one of the articles?Abecedare (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

These datings have been discussed before. Those earliest sites are in no way comparable to the mature Harappan civilisation. Looks like a case of "mine is bigger than yours," also because of the (not so subtle) twist in the location of the Harappan civilisation. Though those Harappan fellows were, of course, neither "Indian" nor "Pakistani"; they were Harappan, with close connections to the Mesopotamian civilisation. Clearly Indians south-Asians have always been cosmopolitan in their orientation, if not in their origins! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Some reports links of ASI excavations in Bhirrana and Rakhigarhi on ASI site.

http://asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_bhirrana.asp

http://asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_bhirrana_images.asp

http://asi.nic.in/pdf_data/rakhigarhi_excavation_report_new.pdf

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-06-03/news/32006465_1_heritage-sites-mound-archaeological-survey

--Randhwasingh (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Randhwasingh, especially to the report on the Rakhigarhi excavation. Do you know if the report on the Bhirrana excavation by K.N. Dikshit and B.R. Mani is available anywhere, or if any peer-reviewed articles have published on the excavation findings, or citing either reports? I'll read through the sources and comment further in the next day or so. Abecedare (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

“On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to 7380 BC to 6201 BC.” How does pre-early Harappan become Harappan? Does anybody think that "pre" and "early" are used for no good reason? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"The C 14 dates of excavations at Bhirrana readily agree with the accepted chronology of the Harappan civilization starting from Pre-Harappan to Mature Harappan. But for the first time, on the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana, the cultural remains go back to the time bracket of 7300 BC," said the report. So, the "accepted chronology" has no reason to be revised. The only change seems to be that the Hakra ware culture is a little bit older. Hindu nationalists might start claiming that it should be called "Ghaggar ware"!Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

History is written on the basis of Archaeology. It is updated every time with any new credible Archaeological evidence and proof.Earlier, people used to only think about Max Muller's now obsolote theory of Aryan migration, but now many evidences based on DNA study and even left wing historians have debunked this and stated the Indo-Aryan as a language migrated internally, not as people.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d3pQyfm5Yo
• http://www.scribd.com/doc/75164625/Indian-Diversity-genetic-study-Metspalu-Gyaneshwer-Chaubey-et-al-AJHG-Dec-9-2011
• http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744
• http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00133/_A_Dravidian_Soluti_133901a.pdf

--Randhwasingh (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

History is rewritten by professional historians in history books, not by us on Wikipedia. Or newspapermen for that matter. You can report what was published in the newspapers suitably attributed to sources. But you can't rewrite history here. That is WP:OR. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Randhwasingh: I'm afraid your understanding of the Indo-Aryan migration theory is insufficient. Please read Indo-Aryan migration theory, Indigenous Aryans, and Indo-Aryan migration debate. Take also note of Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, that is your point of view on Indo Aryan migration.Similarly, those who disgaree with you have their own opinions. You need to consider genetic evidence first rather that a theory which now no one believes. --Randhwasingh (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 ,professional historians make their Chronology of historical facts on the basis on archaeological facts only. They also keep on updating . its similar to scientific evolution. for examples ,now even original Big Bang theory for universe is challeneged.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html
We can't behave like Roman Catholic Church who was not believing Galileo Galilei,but ultimately church had to believe.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
--Randhwasingh (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

After the discovery of Mehrgarh by Jean-François Jarrige in 1974, the History syllabus of India in Indian Universities has become thus:

• First Chapter: Geographical and Social Background
• Second Chapter: Sources of History
  • Different ways to interpret history and Why different Narratives are found
• Third Chapter: Pre-Historic India and the Indus Valley Civilization
  • Pre-Harappan Civilization- Mehrgarh
  • The Harappan Civilization
• Fourth Chapter: The Aryan Civilization

Now, its upto you all to decide whether to merge Pre-Harappan and Harappan Civilization together or not. Historians consider it to be different and the precursor to the Harappan Civilization. Before the discovery of Mehrgarh, it was believed that Harappa might have been a colony of Mesopotamia , but recent discoveries , as recent as 1990s and 2000s, prove that it was not at all, but thoroughly Indian/ South Asian in nature. I do not know about Bhirrana, but the time frame seems like Mehrgarh. Ghatus (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It was clearly pre-Harappan, according to the scientists who made the discoveries. (See my quotes above.) Actually, the Bhirrana page is clearly and beautifully written, based on Upinder Singh's book. If Randhwasingh had read and understood it, he wouldn't have made the edits that he did. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus After Bhirrana excavations by ASI, historians will have to update even more,as it is the oldest site in Indus Valley Civilization.

--Randhwasingh (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 , please explain why the Archaeological Survey of India is hell bent of stating that Bhirrana is the oldest Indus Valley Civilization( also known as the Harappan Civilization) site after recent excavations?? Also, Upinder Singh book was published in 2008, 7 years before this. --Randhwasingh (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As a student, I know that ASI is a well qualified organization. Times of India reports:

"The ASI report, submitted in December 2014, a copy of which is with TOI, has now also debunked the early research that the Indus Valley civilization's Harappan phase originated in Sind, in present-day Pakistan."

It seems very interesting. If the reporter has reported rightly, then correction in history books will follow. To be true, I heard this matter just today and trying to figure out if all that are reported are true or not. A learner of history must have open mind to new ideas. There is also a difference between Indus Valley Civilization and Harappan Civilization. The former is general in nature, the later is specific in nature.

By the way, in the words of Romila Thapar, there was no Hind(India)-Sind(Pakistan) divide as far as the IVC was concerned. It was a common civilization. Past must not be a battle ground of the Present. Ghatus (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Randhawasingh: Where did the ASI say anything of that sort? We only have the newspaper spin so far.

@Ghatus: Even knowing that Bhirrana was contemporaneous with Mehrgarh changes things quite a bit, because Mehrgrgarh was kind of a border outpost of the IVC region. One could imagine that Mesopotamian influences came through there. But if the same kind of technologies were in Bhirrana then it seems much more indigenous. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: The reporter's spin that you quoted shows quite clearly that he doesn't understand the difference between Hakra ware culture and the IVC. Everything he says is unreliable. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also , Romila Thapar also debunked Aryan invasion and Aryan migration theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d3pQyfm5Yo
http://www.thehindu.com/2004/03/22/stories/2004032201661001.htm
--Randhwasingh (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop talking about Aryans here, if you want to be taken seriously. This is not the place for it. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The "epicentre"

I found the paper on which the Hindustan Times article was based, at scribd. The Table 5 lays out the Bhirrana chronology, which I find unsurprising. Perhaps some of you can see something I don't. There is some informed comment here, [6], along with a summary of a more saffronized twist of the same results. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A much better summary here, from BR Mani himself: [7]. The radio-metric dates from Bhirrana, Rakhigarhi and Kalibangan show the clear developmental stages of Harappa culture in Indo-Pak sub-continent, thereby suggesting Haryana and Rajasthan as the epi-centre of pre-Harappan cultures. Thus the ‘Lost’ Saraswati/Hakra valley laid a new foundation for urban life and set in motion one way or another, the status of Indus-Saraswati region as the cradle of South Asian civilization. I guess it is clear now what the claim is! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Found the second paper also on scribd.

Also available with a slightly different title here (downloadable PDF). Kautilya3 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Rakhigarhi has two Harappan stages.Timeline of both stages are- early Harappan phase, also called as Harappan culture stage dating back to 5500 BC- 2700 BC, and mature stage, also referred as stage of civilization dating from 2600 BC-2000 BC.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/haryana/can-national-heritage-rakhigarhi-survive-for-long/article1-1338542.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmE4dWmn-cY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCOJTXcOGGI
--Randhwasingh (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@RadhawaSingh: Newspapers are not reliable sources for this kind of information. You have been referred to WP:HISTRS earlier. Please read it. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Chronology table

Does anyone where exactly the chronology table in the article comes from? It seems to be close to the periodizations suggested by Jim Schaffer (Table 5.1 in this paper), or by Jonathan Kenoyer here, but doesn't match either exactly. I realize that Kenoyer especially has a large number of related publications, and the table may be based upon one of the others; if so, we should cite the reference and explicitly attribute the periodization to it. Secondly, should we use Possehl's periodization instead. Pro: It is slightly more recent. Con: lengthier/more complicated.
PS: The "Bhirrana (aceramic Neolithic)" row in the table is unallowed-syntehsis and needs to be removed in any case, but perhaps we should first settle on the question of which specific periodization to include here (the Periodization of the Indus Valley Civilization article can list the remaining significant examples). Abecedare (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Abe. Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I have no idea where the table comes from. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV please

@Xtremedood: Regarding this revert [8], we don't want to keep fighting battles over whether it was "primarily Pakistan" or "primarily India". Please maintain NPOV. Scholars like Possehl give equal treatment to both the Indus valley and Saraswati valley. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As to adhere to NPOV and factually correct statements, it is incorrect to state it was a part of the Indian Subcontinent as Afghanistan is not a part of the Indian subcontinent. The revision to say it is a part of the Indian Subcontinent is therefore incorrect. I do not see how my change violates NPOV. The map is clear and the data is clear. Xtremedood (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There was indeed a time when Afghanistan wasn't treated as part of the Indian subcontinent. But, nowadays it is. See the page Indian subcontinent. In any case, terminology dispute is not a good reason to make a POV edit. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan was never referred to as a part of the Indian subcontinent, at least not in any significant way. Also the term "Indian Subcontinent" probably stems from the British. It should therefore state, South Asia, not Indian Subcontinent. The article you referenced states 'A booklet published by the United States Department of State in 1959 includes Afghanistan, Ceylon (since 1972 Sri Lanka), India, Nepal, and Pakistan (including East Pakistan, since 1971 Bangladesh) as part of the "Subcontinent of South Asia"". The South Asia article includes more details about Afghanistan. Xtremedood (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Xtremedood and Kautilya3:, In current version, no where mentioned that Afghan is part of Indian Subcontinent. wording is Indian subcontinent (including present day Pakistan, northwest India) and also in some regions in northeast Afghanistan. It clearly differentiates Afghan from Indian subcontinent.--Human3015 talk • 05:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not written this way Indian subcontinent (including present day Pakistan, northwest India and some regions in northeast Afghanistan), it specifically differentiates Afghan from Indian Subcontinent by saying Also in Afghan, after closing bracket of Indian Subcontinent.--Human3015 talk • 05:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is poorly written. Also, the term "South Asia" is more neutral, as the term "Indian Subcontinent" is outdated. Xtremedood (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Term "Indian" came from word "Indus" thats why mentioning "Indian Subcontinent" is significant here. And "Indian Subcontinent" is not outdated term. Still term "Subcontinent" is widely used, which is short form of Indian subcontinent--Human3015 talk • 08:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is better to refer to it as "South Asian Subcontinent" or "South Asia" since "Indian Subcontinent" is biased against other countries in the region. The term "South Asia" also has a lot more international recognition [9] than "Indian Subcontinent" [10]. As previously mentioned, the United States DOS states "Subcontinent of South Asia" and not "Indian Subcontinent." According to this article [11], "Indian Subcontinent" was adopted by the British Empire and therefore is outdated compared to more modern terms. The article also states "According to historians Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal, Indian Subcontinent has come to be known as South Asia "in more recent and neutral parlance." As we can see, "South Asia" is the more neutral term. Xtremedood (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Indian subcontinent" is a geographic term. How it can be biased towards some nations? It clearly means they hate word "India" nothing else. I'm saying that word "Indian" came from "Indus Valley Civilization" thats why it is relevant here. If British have given name "Indian Subcontinent" then how it is outdated? Even term India is given by British, still there is a nation named India, it is not outdated. If terms like Indian Ocean, India are not outdated then Indian subcontinent also not outdated. South Asia is a political entity or term should used in SAARC, SAFTA but Indian subcontinent term should be used in History and Geography. I will give you sources. Indian Ocean is not called as South Asian Ocean.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 09:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Term South Asia used for current issues relating to Political science, Economics, Sociology etc. But when we talk about History or Geography then term Indian subcontinent is relevant. For example read these two articles about "History". History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent and History of education in the Indian subcontinent. These articles talk about history of that field since ancient times. This article of Indus Valley Civilization is also about history, it is not about current issue, so here also term Indian subcontinent is relevant.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 10:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

xtremedood, unbiased on Wikipedia does not mean that we decide what is or is not neutral. We look at what reliable sources use and merely use that. Indian subcontinent is a term universally used and hardly outdated (cf., this article in today's New York Times and so that's what we use. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, incorrect. South Asia can be used for history as well [12],[13], etc. As I have stated, "South Asia" is far more appropriate and more of a neutral term. Terms like "3rd World Country" may have had its usage, but it is outdated and "Developing" seems to be used more recently. Similarly, "Indian Subcontinent" is outdated and a British colonial term. It is biased against countries in the region that do not consider themselves Indian. Also, the Indus Valley Civilization precedes India. Xtremedood (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, your comments are becoming tendentious. You've been given the NYT example which shows that Indian subcontinent is far from an outdated term yet you insist on calling it outdated. It has been explained to you that neutrality comes from sources, not from your or my opinions of what is or is not neutral and yet you persist in the same arguments of bias and British Colonialism. Then you drag in extraneous comments about 3rd world countries and developing nations and, using a kitchen sink approach, talk about historical precedence. These are all signs of tendentiousness and I suggest a quick read of WP:TE before you comment further. --regentspark (comment) 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, why don't you reading New York Times link posted by admin RegentsPark. I will post it again [read here]. Just yesterdays issue of NYT used term "Indian subcontinent" and you are calling it outdated term. BBC also used term "Indian subcontinet" in history article read here. Also read another NYT news Al Qaeda Opens New Branch on Indian Subcontinent - The New York Times This news says that even Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri said in video that "We are opening our brand new branch in Indian subcontinent". He didn't said "South Asia". And world can't stop using term "Indian subcontinent" just because few people hate term "Indian". It can be their personal problem, but on Wikipedia we should use only relevant terms. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)