Jump to content

Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Citation errors

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), please double check your work. There are multiple citation errors, and some of them are due to your recent reversals. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs), again, please fix the citation errors you caused. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC))
Highpeaks35 I will fix them once I have finished revising section 3. I've added a clean up tag, so people will know that citation errors might show up. Thanks for the reminder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

More problematic images

It seems that this article is chock full of inaccurate, sub-standard, or inappropriate images. Here is a first list:

If someone has access to a public domain pictures of Jean-François Jarrige, the principal excavator of Mehrgarh and of Ahmad Hasan Dani, an archaeologist who worked with Wheeler, they both would be valuable additions. More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Highpeaks35 Please don't add more images in that section. I'm trying to remove them and replace with pictures of the archaeologists. See comments above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I have now replaced File:Carte Indus.jpg with File:IVC-major-sites-2.jpg, added the pictures of three pioneering archaeologists of the IVC to section 3, and removed the diorama pictures, per my posts above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I have made all image sizes uniform, i.e. thumb, aligned right. I have removed a number of images that were duplicated in the article. I have removed the image of the "dockyard" in Lothal, which is a controversial interpretation, not accepted by many archaeologists, also the images of a (present-day) zebu bull from Pune (whose rationale for inclusion, while possibly compelling, is not related to IVC). I have also removed an old computer generated reconstruction, which is both uninformative, and poor computer graphics (showing its age). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Another case of a source (2016) which plagiarizes this page being used to cite this page

I have removed the following sentence from Section 3: "Among other archaeologists who worked on IVC sites before the independence in 1947 were Ahmad Hasan Dani, Brij Basi Lal, Nani Gopal Majumdar, and Sir Marc Aurel Stein," cited to the journal article IJSI (2016). International Journal of Social Impact, Volume 1, Issue 2. ISBN 978-1365034152., which in turn has copied and pasted the same sentence from this article! (See article revision from 2011.) The sentence is older, but as it is already subsumed in a new, more precise, sentence, keeping it doesn't make much sense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, whenever a journal calls itself the "International Journal of <blah>", we better avoid them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The journal has an article, "Plagiarism an overview.", which seems earnest, though brief. Perhaps IJSI was begun with good intentions, but it does not seem to have lasted beyond Volume 3, issue 1. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


Godwin's law, calling editors Nazis isn't accepable
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Population, domestication, and Mehrgarh vs. Bhirrana

I have also expanded Section 2 (Extent), where the added summaries are sourced to Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, Fisher, Michael H. (2018), An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2 and Coningham, Robin; Young, Ruth (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c. 6500 BCE – 200 CE, Cambridge University Press All three consider Mehrgarh as providing the undisputed evidence of earliest settled life (i.e. of agriculture and domestication of animals) on the subcontinent. Tim Dyson, in particular, an ace historical demographer at LSE, who has made prolific and deep contributions to the demography of India. This is his magnum opus. If he does not accept that domestication began at Bhirrana, then, clearly, the powers-that-be in the field do not regard the evidence at Bhirrana to be undisputed. I would like to request that the section on Bhirrana be removed, or summarized drastically and put in a little section on computational genomics towards the end of the article. I know a thing or two about the field. There are all sorts of issues of methodology. In India the conditions of the samples from which ancient DNA has been extracted (in this case of animals found buried) is often compromised as a result of weather conditions, not infrequently of the site itself be flooded. For this reason, there are no ancient DNA human samples, mitochondrial or Y-chromosome from the core region of the Indus civilization, only some from the periphery, such as Swat. All other DNA studies about IVC are based on samples provided by present-day populations, and are predicated on the samples representing descent from populations of the IVC, i.e. of no movement in the last 5,000 years. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record: this is the text on Bhirrana:

According to Rao, the oldest layer of Bhirrana dates back to the 8th–7th millennium BCE, and contains Hakra Ware.[1][2][3] Hakra Ware culture is a material culture which is usually contemporaneous with the early Harappan Ravi phase culture (3300–2800 BCE) of the Indus Valley;[4][5] Bhirrana is the only site where Hakra Ware is said to be pre-Harappan.[6] According to Dikshit and Rami, the estimation for the antiquity of the Hakra Ware at Bhirrana as pre-Harappan is based on two calculations of charcoal samples, giving two dates of respectively 7570–7180 BCE, and 6689–6201 BCE.[1][2][note 1]

The earliest phase of Bhirrana concerns fourteen shallow dwelling-pits which "could accommodate about 3–4 people."[7] According to Dikshit, in the lowest level of these pits wheel-made Hakra Ware was found which was "not well finished,"[7] together with other wares.[8][note 1] According to the ASI, Bhirrana shows the full development of the Harappan culture, from pre-Harappan Hakra Ware to "a full-fledged Mature Harappan city."[6][9][note 2]


References

  1. ^ a b Dikshit 2013, pp. 129–133.
  2. ^ a b Mani 2008, pp. 237–238.
  3. ^ Sarkar 2006, pp. 2–3.
  4. ^ Coningham & Young 2015, p. 158.
  5. ^ Ahmed 2014, p. 107.
  6. ^ a b c Archaeological Survey of India, Bhirrana, Dt.-Fatehabad, Haryana
  7. ^ a b Dikshit 2013, p. 129.
  8. ^ Dikshit 2013, p. 130.
  9. ^ Singh, Upinder (2008), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India : from the Stone Age to the 12th century, New Delhi: Pearson Education, pp. 109, 145, ISBN 978-8131711200
The main info from this subsection is also recorded in a note in the Mehrgarh seubsection. The Bhirrana-subsection is undue, giving too much weight to too little evidence. It's another example of "mine is bigger than yours," that is, "my civilastion is the oldest in the world." Pre-Harappan Hakra-ware is nonsense, of course. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry @Joshua Jonathan: I didn't see this paragraph after the refs. Thanks for your reply. I believe the footnote in Mehrgarh is enough. Once I have finished the discussion on the history of the IVC excavations, I will work on the Mehrgarh page, and will remove the Bhirrana section. I can now see that it was added by an IP, reverted by you and then somehow in reduced form managed to squeeze back into the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I have now removed the Bhirrana subsection, agreeing with you that the footnote in Mehrgarh is enough. As there is nothing in the section now except the Mehrgarh subsection, I have elevated "Mehrgard" into part of the section title. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

article is not neutral and doesnt tolerate non european information/ let reader decide and dont regulate information

i see Bhirrana topic eliminated which was very well sourced by research and only mentioned in the footnotes and main heading of mehrgarh added, i request european users to stop behaving as goebbels and nazi propaganda machine, let readers make conclusion from the info available, dont impose your goebells type propaganda and regulate the information ( you know how nazis excavated ancient european swastikas and equated them to aryan race and making hasty conclusions and being in denial when similar swastikas were later excavated from indus valley civilization allegedly dravidian), i request those europeans/western anglos who have removed bhirrana to put it back again so that IVC article remains neutral. I have been told for equating some european information regulation as nazi type activity here that im exhibiting some paranoia, infact, nazi/hitler/goebells type exercises are been conducted here by regulating information and giving it euro nationalist/ european racial connotations(same exercise has been done in indian history article where nazi type dravidian origins theory has been imposed which europeans/ anglos are not in favour of removing), i request these users to detest from doing that and dont regulate information/sources, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bhirrana has been discussed enough times above and in the archives. Please check it. Primary sources are not good enough to give solid information to Wikpedia. We need to follow WP:SECONDARY sources, i.e., scholarly books. If you persist with xenophibic comments, you are liable to be blocked. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: do we tolerate this kind of statements? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Help needed: Harappan architecture

Not only does this have to be renamed, it's a dreadful article. Poorly written and sourced. I started but only then realised just how bad it is. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been reading up on urban planning, standardization, etc, with a view to revising the Cities section of this (the IVC) page. As you imply above, whether or not "architecture" and "Harappan" are the right words, is not clear. However "architecture" is a more familiar word than "Urban planning." (Parenthetically, I note that the picture up top on the IVC page shows that the Harappans were well-versed in the English bond. I didn't find the Flemish bond, but in such a large area of brick construction, lasting some 500 years, I wouldn't be surprised if that turns up too.) I myself don't have time for the Harappan architecture page, but perhaps we can wait on revising it, until after I've revised the Cities section. PS I have just added a picture of Mohenjo-daro to the Architecture page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
PPS I just realized that the Extent section of IVC is not finished yet. So I will be working on revising that. I am renaming it: "Extent and Population," as both are discussed in it. I have to say though the title sounds a little off to me right now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Tinkering with the lead sentences by inserting India gratuitously

@Doug Weller:, @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Avantiputra7:, @AshLin:, @Vanamonde93:, @Highpeaks35:, @Bbb23: I'm sounding out all the editors who have had some recent connection to the article. It concerns user Highpeak35's gratuitous insertion of "India" in some form or other, in the first few sentences of the lead, without regard to the grammar, flow, or coherence of the sentences.

Dear Highpeaks35: Respectfully, the lead in this article has been fairly stable now for six or seven years. More relevantly, from the time of your first edit in this page on 19 June 2018 (see here), the first sentence of the lead has read, "The Indus Valley civilisation was a Bronze Age civilisation mainly in the northwestern regions of South Asia, extending from what today is northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and northwest India." (Parenthetical content has been removed here for readability.) It was only in your 94th edit on 19 February 2019 that you removed the words, "is northeast Afghanistan to" with edit summary, "Undue weight on Afghanistan. Most refs show Pakistan and Northwest India." (see here) No effort was made to engage anyone on the talk page, nor any attention paid to grammar of what was left behind in the sentence, "extending from what today Pakistan and northwest India."

For the same six or seven years mentioned above, the unfolding of the article's lead had proceeded from the general to the particular: "South Asia"-->"extending from northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and northwest India"-->"Indus river which flowed through the length of Pakistan and along a system of monsoon fed rivers ... in eastern Pakistan and northwest India" This is how prose typically flows in expository writing in order to be comprehensible to an average reader unfamiliar with the content. In keeping with this principle, I moved the mention of "extent," to the second sentence, where the quote from the cited source was moreover corroborating the phrasing (see here)

Yesterday, you again changed the lead sentence to, "The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, with most of the major sites centered (sic) in modern-day India and Pakistan, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE." No attention was paid to the resulting run-on lead sentence, to the resulting repetition in the first three sentences, not to mention to the American English spelling of "centred" in an article that takes pains to maintain its British English/South Asian English spelling, or the atypical use of "centered."

It seems a significant proportion of your edits involve inserting the word "India" or "Indian subcontinent," perfunctorily and gratuitously, with characteristically laconic edit summaries. That you have attempted to do so across a broad swath of Wikipedia pages (Pilaf, Kebab, South Asian pickles to name a few very recent examples) makes this hard to understand, and wastes the time of knowledgeable and competent editors, detracting from content development in the article. During the time you were not top loading the lead, I managed to significantly develop sections two and three. Perhaps, @Highpeaks35: you will care to explain what you are attempting to do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Indus

There is a reason why scores of books mention these three together and not others. They belonged to what was called the "Ancient East." That is because there are certain connections of geography, time, history, and trade between them, congruence in cultural markers: seals, script, urban planning. Ancient China, nowhere near as urban, nowhere near as definitive, has never belonged to that group. The point here is not to dig up any culture that has been described as an early river valley civilization in some source, and top load it in the lead, but to list only ones that have a history of being described together. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

See, for example, several mentions of the three in:Wengrow, David (2018), What Makes Civilization?: The Ancient Near East and the Future of the West, Oxford University Press, p. 26, ISBN 978-0-19-969942-1 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I see; thanks for the clear explanation. Feel free revert back, but consider adding some additional info within the "extent" section. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yes, developing the extent section more is a very good idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ancient India

diff: good! Let's keep it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Apollo4659 (talk · contribs) Please read 2017 RfC on South Asia vs. Indian Subcontinent, especially User:Joe Roe's thoughtful comment, "It doesn't really matter from the readers' perspective, but South Asia reflects a preference for neutral geographic terms, that don't reference modern nationalities, in contemporary archaeology." Please also read my own somewhat less thoughtful final comment, "It is a lot older than 2015. I've been watching it since 2006. Here is my take: India, sadly for Indians, was left with nothing in terms of IVC sites after the partition of the British Indian Empire in 1947. Editors with a solidly caricaturable Indian POV are miffed that Pakistan has something older, which doesn't sit well with their conviction that Indian culture is older than time. Editors with a solidly caricaturable Pakistan POV, don't care about much about antiquity, because pre-Islamic history is not history, but they are allergic to the words "India" and "Indians" when applied to parts of Pakistan. This in essence is the reason for the culture wars on this page. That said, Indian subcontinent is no longer being used much in academic circles. All major universities now have South Asia departments, not Indian studies departments. South Asia is increasingly the term of choice even in geophysics journals. Also, people outside the British Commonwealth are often unaware of the term "Indian subcontinent" (not that they particularly know what South Asia is either, but at least the know what "Asia" and "South" are individually.)" Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this edit is perfectly reasonable. That RFC started by an IP is not the same. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC))
Not the same as what? And why? I thought IPs "votes" don't count, but I didn't realize they could not start RfCs. After all, Kautilya3, JoshuaJonathan, admin and Arbcom member Joe Roe had taken part in it, and voted in favor of keeping "South Asia." I see a current RfC Talk:Germanic_peoples#rfc_7F4C69B begun by an IP receiving much response by regulars. Can some admin with knowledge of the rules, and whether this objection applies here, please weigh in? I'm generally amazed that a redlinked user in his 20th frenetic edit on Wikipedia makes what appears to me a mischievous change, and we are back to edit warring. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, where was Indian subcontinent vs South Asia used here? It is now ancient India vs South Asia. Two different topics. 3 editors agree with this version, only you don’t due to you believing you own the article, see WP:OWN. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC))
  • It should remain "South Asia" instead of "Indian subcontinent" or "ancient India" or anything that references any specific country, as "South Asia" is more common globally, more accurate/descriptive, and more neutral. People know where South Asia is; they don't know the borders of ancient India. I highly doubt our average reader, outside of South Asia, will even know the difference between the borders of modern India and ancient India. Leviv ich 20:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35: What does "in the northwestern regions of ancient India" mean? Is "ancient India" a region or a periodization of history? Ancient India redirects to History of India. Can we say, "northwestern regions of the History of India?" I suggest that this be settled here, rather than by tinkering with a longstanding lead sentence, or by retroactively tinkering with the redirect. That would be a form of edit warring. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I used the phrase ancient India because historically the areas of the Ivc were considered part of it as a region/country. And as Highspeaks45 pointed out earlier the topic is not about "Indian subcontinent" vs "South Asia". So ancient India sounds like a neutral term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo4659 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Historically when? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Highpeaks35: Please allow me to respectfully, but firmly warn, you to not keep inserting "Indian subcontinent" in the text, when the consensus on the page is against the use of the term. Please note that after a point, such continued use, becomes disruptive. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Antiquity

There appears to be concrete evidence that the Indus-Saraswati valley civilisation is much older than so far assumed. This paper and articles with its references, e.g. here and here offer evidence which must find place in lead to the article. isoham (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Have a scroll through the talkpage-archives... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Article jumps around between civilization and civilisation

Should the article be consistent with it's usage and stick to one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.177.242 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Point well taken. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition of oversize images and POV content

User पाटलिपुत्र has been adding galleries of oversize images to the article and POV content. I have removed many of the images and some of the content. I suggest that he or she not add images before ascertaining on the talk page. Also he or she has been adding POV language, such as the one I removed in the "rather realistic statuettes" subsection. I hadn't said anything earlier, but we need to have a discussion about what you are attempting to do, in particular about expanding the Mesopotamian relations section. Finally, this might not be the best place for this discussion, but this is the English Wikipedia, using a username with non-Roman characters, while within Wikipedia rules, is generally inconsiderate to the other editors. For they have to copy and past the user name in any discussion. Not sure what the point is of this dispensation you have allowed yourself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Scratched because user had already replied, and now posted on user's talk page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do as you wish Fowler&fowler. I'm just trying to help. Have a nice day. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: You need to understand clearly, and one and for all, that images and maps are illustrations of text. You cannot make images or maps ends in themselves. We have with great consideration and courtesy to each other been discussing which maps to add and which to not. You cannot upload some random map, such as File:Harappan_settlements.jpg, that has nothing to do with the text, that you have copied from a journal article in the less than reliable mega journal Scientific Reports, that moreover addresses different questions, has palaeo-lake data, and isohyets from the period 1900 to 2003, and do so with the barest of edit summaries. I have reverted your addition on this page and on the Harappa page as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Again, just trying to help. Although not perfect, I was under the impression that the map I provided (File:Harappan_settlements.jpg) was much more informative, especially regarding settlements of the Indus Valley Civilization, and yes, much better referenced than the current map (File:IVC-major-sites-2.jpg), which was created without any references by labelling a modern CIA map that contains a huge amount of modern features totally unrelevant to the Indus Valley Civilization. Even, the isohyets used by the academics in my source [1], although from 1900-2003, at least highlight the known rainfall patterns in this part of the subcontinent, a factor which they claim was key in the rise and fall of the IVC. But if you wish to keep the current map, I'm fine with that, I am not going to argue for hours. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
What do isohyets have to do with geographical extent? What does rise and fall of IVC have to do with geographical extent? What are sites of palaeolakes, liberally sprinkled in the map, with unfamiliar names, such as Karsandi, Riwasa, Kotla Dahar, Didwana, Sambhar, Nat Sarovar, and Lunkaransar, all unrelated to IVC, have to do with geographical extent of IVC? Do you know what extent means in the English language? It means the space over which something extends, dimensions, compass, size. Does the map demonstrate extent with names of notable sites? It has only four. The rest are yellow dots. Next time you get the urge to unload random knowledge from random sources, please ask on the talk page first, as we all do. I hope that is clear, for if it is not, I will indeed tell you that about it for hours Best Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2019

the spelling of 'development' is wrong under the 'Trade and Transportation' topic under 'Mature Harappan' topic. Gopiiikaaa (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --regentspark (comment) 13:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2019

change the typo "civilisation" at the very top of the article to "civilization." Aweaves53 (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: This article uses British English, see Wikipedia:ENGVAR - FlightTime (open channel) 03:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Aweaves53: Also see the hidden note at the top of the edit window. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"section of scholars"

The phrase "section of scholars" is not a very useful information in my opinion, not to say it looks really odd and it is insufficiently sourced. It would be better to name the scholars. For instance, I would really like to know, which "section of scholars" supports the renaming to Indus-Sarasvati civilization.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The true time line of this civilization can be much older.

{The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.} I think this time line is not true.

I suggest to consider following facts that prove this civilization to be much older than this. 1) The Bhimbetka rock shelters are an archaeological site in central India that spans the prehistoric paleolithic and mesolithic periods, as well as the historic period.The paintings are classified largely in two groups, one as depiction of hunters and food gatherers, while other one as fighters, riding on horses and elephant carrying metal weapons. the first group of paintings dates to prehistoric times while second one dates to historic times.[31][32] Most of the paintings from historic period depicts battles between the rulers carrying swords, spears, bows and arrows.[32].

  1. At least some of the shelters were inhabited more than 100,000 years ago.
  1. Some of the Bhimbetka rock shelters feature prehistoric cave paintings and the earliest are about 10,000 years old (c. 8,000 BCE), corresponding to the Indian Mesolithic.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhimbetka_rock_shelters

2) Mehrgarh is a Neolithic (7000 BCE to c. 2500 BCE) site to the west of the Indus River valley near the Bolan Pass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.196.32.71 (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. The modern human presence in India goes back to 55,000 years before present (See the lead of India). Between the arrival of modern humans from Africa and the emergence of settled life, e.g. in agriculture in Mehrgarh, there were a good 45,000 years during which humans lived the life of hunter-gathers, for example in Bhimbetka. We are talking here about an urban civilization. Neither Bhimbetka nor Mehrgarh was urban. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Open source book on IVC

Found this valuable free online source: https://www.academia.edu/37736429/Current_Research_on_Indus_Archaeology?email_work_card=title ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the full citation for it? Not the Acedemia.edu which is just a website which hosts journal articles and books, but the actual publication with author, title, publisher, year of publication, direct URL, etc. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Akinori Uesugi
Current Research on Indus Archaeology
Research Group for South Asian Archaeology
Archaeological Research Institute
Kansai University, Japan
2018
ISBN 978-4-9909150-2-5
I found the ressource at: https://www.harappa.com/content/current-research-indus-archaeology. Found also a citation of this work at https://openarchaeologydata.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/joad.57/ ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like an in-house publication of that university, therefore not a secondary source. Is not in any WorldCat-associalted library, ... and there are thousands of such libraries around the world. So it can't be used. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it anyways! ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Federation of states?

See List of Bronze Age states. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Changed - not even what the source said. The rest of the section was if anything worse - half were Irion Age, the rest from the Mahabharata. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. These lists are often a mess. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Genetics

I'm sorry, I am on vacation, but I have to emerge out to make the point that this is a high-level article, the flagship article for all things IVC. It simply cannot have citations, much less the creation of entire sections, cited to recent journal articles. Only WP:TERTIARY sources, such as well-worn university text-books, or reviews of literature, can be cited. One single ancient DNA, in an outlier region of IVC, known for highly degraded DNA, reported in a journal article whose Indian authorship moreover is a tell-tale sign of its origin, cannot be cited in this article. There have been numerous discussions on this before. Please see the this talk page's archives. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I don't understand. Why must it only have tertiary sources (Is there a Wikipedia policy supporting this you can cite?)? I'm afraid I do not understand your objection. The addition cites two (from two journals) studies, not one, (it is Narasimhan 2018 that uses samples from an outlier region of IVC. the "Indus Periphery population", not these two 2019 studies)
You wrote: "...known for highly degraded DNA, reported in a journal article whose Indian authorship moreover is a tell-tale sign of its origin, cannot be cited in this article. There have been numerous discussions on this before"
Do you have a citation regarding "highly degraded DNA" (that poses a problem to a greater degree than other ancient DNA studies), and is there a problem with Indian authorship (if so, why)? I would not have thought there were archived discussions about this, since the two studies are from fairly recently in 2019. Can you provide a link to the archived discussions on those topic (I'm not really sure how to find archived Talk page discussions - I am relatively new to Wikipedia, yes.)? Thank you Skllagyook (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I found a discussion in the archives (link below) regarding the 2018 Narasimhan study. There do not seem to be any Talk page discussions on these two 2019 studies. Your main objection there seemed to be that Narasimhan 2018 was a non-peer-reviewed preprint. However, that is no longer the case (and the two studies, Shinde et al. 2019 and Narasimhan et al. 2019, are peer-reviewed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation/Archive_5#Narasimhan_et_al._(2018)
You also wrote: "Again, nowhere do they say that IVC people wee ancestors of the large majority of present-day South Asians. If they don't say that, then how is this paper relevant to the IVC article?"
I do not see how this (the above) follows. The article is specifically on the Indus Valley Civilization. How would sources on the genetics of the IVC population is not be relevant. Skllagyook (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, the archived discussions are about the topic of including genetics research reported in recently published journal articles. The bottom line is that the consensus thus far on this page is that recent genetics research cannot be included, much less employed to created news sections. Where is the ancient DNA from? From Rakhigarghi, an outlier region of IVC—not from Mohenjo-Daro, Harappa, Ganeriwala. Rakhigarhi, moreover, the reporting of whose research has thus far been limited. (See Rita Wright's textbook quoted in the lead). It is not like there are no recent text-books which report the prevailing consensus in genetics, such as Tim Dyson's Population History of India (Oxford, December 2018), or Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India (Cambridge, November 2018). But these sorts of results, unrepresented yet in text-books cannot go in. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Since I am on vacation, and unable to engage in extended discussions, I am pinging other longstanding page watchers or contributors: @Vanamonde93, Johnbod, Doug Weller, RegentsPark, and Joshua Jonathan: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Can you link to the page where where there is a consensus against recent genetics research (I cannot find it - it does not seem to be on the page I linked above, or at least not in that secretion/topic)? Also, a study on IVC DNA would seem more relevant to the IVC page than sources on the population history of India. Would it be more acceptable to incorporate the material into another section (instead of creating a section for it), and/or perhaps to include the caveat that it comes from an outlier or outlying region (if that is in fact true - I will have to verify that; from what I can tell, Rakhigarghi is in Haryana in northwest India, which is well within the range included by the Indus Valley Civilization). Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, it is not clear at all that it is IVC DNA. Reich's previous attempts at IVC ancient DNA extraction yielded only material from Swat, a temperate region in northern Pakistan, and another outlier region. This region is smack in the middle of north-central Indian plain, swept by heat waves every summer that normally achieve temperatures of 110 degrees in the shade, not to mention exceptional ones recorded in famines in India's history. The Indians would like to make this about IVC, but I don't see that the famous scholars of IVC such as Rita P. Wright, Mark Kenoyer, Robin Coningham, Asko Parpola have weighed in on this yet. What we have are genetics researchers, with no notable history of IVC research, attempting to lay a claim about a civilization, on the basis of one single sample of partial ancient DNA extracted from an individual in a region on the eastern boundaries of IVC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I am using "outlier" (OED: An outlying portion or member of something, detached from the main system to which it belongs) deliberately. The Indians have been making all sorts of exaggerated claims about Rakhigarhi, and neighboring Bhirrana, both highly degraded sites, littered and trashed, moreover, by locals for decades. See their claim to the being the "largest" sites of IVC cited to the same Shinde's previous dubious research, being inserted in Mohenjo Daro (see its history). This is my final reply for now. I will let the others weigh in. The bottom line for me is that we cannot have recent genetics research become the basis of additions, much less the creations of new sections, in this high-level article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Responding to ping; I personally take very little issue with the methods of the genetics sources. The trouble is more that they represent cutting edge science, and therefore their results are probably fine, but their interpretation is quite likely to be revised based on subsequent research. That's why we need sources one level removed from the data analysis. To put it another way; the cited papers are perfectly fine for reporting the ancestry of the two sampled individuals; but that is a minor detail which doesn't belong. The inferences the authors make are significant, but haven't yet been demonstrated to be robust. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Also responding to the ping. As with archaeological articles, I always prefer to wait until there's been some response from the academic community. That's not the case for the 2019 articles (well, one citation, but that's not enough). We might be able to use some of the response to the 2018 article but I haven't looked at it yet. Then there's the issue of what we use from an article. Abstracts aren't always written by the authors, so we need to be sure they were before using them. We might be able to use some of the introduction, but when it comes down to the details, we should only use the conclusion/discussion section, eg the inferences. This is even more important in a major article such as this one. Wikipedia is not meant to be on the cutting edge. We need to wait until we see if these are received favorably by the academic community. And sadly this is even more important when politics and ethnic issues are in play. I've said elsewhere that I don't like using government archaeological research, it's too easily politically driven. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
As you all know, I don't mind including genetical research. On the contary, it gives as new insights and perspectives which are valuable. Narasimhan et al. (2019) is a solid study; that it is cutting-edge is a good reason to include it, not to exclude it. Textbooks will always lag behind here. What's relevant, for weighting their releavance, is how studies like Narasimhan et al. (2019) are received by their peers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we don't have to wait for textbooks to come out; textbooks are notoriously slow, and given the nature of the administrations in the broader region, state-sponsored textbooks aren't going to be reliable for a while. But we need some secondary examination of the interpretation of these studies. Their findings are what they are, and are unlikely to be shaken; but what those results mean is a more open question. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia has a task in presenting (more or less) objective information, especially in regard to topics like these, which are notoriously presented in a biased way by certain kinds of websites and blogs. We do have some sort of 'peer-review proces' for edits, which, well maybe not gaurantees gooed information, but at least better information than many other websites.
As for the secondary examination, number of citations is some sort of measure of reliability, while press-coverage is an index of relevance. Reliable sources which discuss specific, or general results, and provide an alternative frame of reference, are also some sort of secondary examination. See Kossina's smile as an example. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm personally inclined to be very cautious with ancient DNA research, which has all sorts of possible pitfalls & is still in its relatively early days. It's bad enough in well-studied regions where most people were givent careful interments. The results from far more recent periods in Europe were all over the place for years, but are perhaps now settling down, after lots of studies. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That may give another indication: are the results, c.q. interpretations, in line with mainstream views, or are they 'wild'? For comparison, see Shinde's personal spin on his research results, which was completely at odds with the scholarly consensus, and even clearly at odds with his own results. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This page is not about the Peopling of A Village of North Central India, it is about a civilization, whose general sine qua non is: "a complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, symbolic systems of communication (e.g. writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment," a civilization, moreover, centered in Pakistan, whose most famous scholars have made their names in sites in Pakistan. (See the section, Discovery and history of excavation which I had the pleasure of writing some time ago.) Shinde has had a history of flirting with Hindu nationalism, a history of Hindu revivalist epiphanies, so I don't know how seriously to take his new conversion-to-ecumenicalism epiphany, this aversion to Hindu racism, this belonging to the whole world. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
PS See for example an epiphany antipodal to the current one, noted by Dilip Kumar Chakrabarti in the "fourth issue" in The Politics of Harappan Studies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting article; thanks. NB: as noted before, Sinde presents the analysis of one sample, the famous Rakighari sample; Narasimhan et al. (2019) presents the whole genome analysis of 523 individuals, and is co-authored by 120 or so authors, including Michael Frachetti and David Anthony, both archaeologists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
The Narasimhan paper has much wider reach than just the IVC. There are some strong interpreted results regarding Indo-European migrations: "Our results not only provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European languages in South Asia but also evidence for the theory that these languages spread from the Steppe". The Shinde paper is not that of a big deal.--ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Old Wikipedia warrior directing the bazooka for demonstrating irrelevance at a target.
In that case we have nothing to discuss. This Science article, "Formation of Human Populations of South and Central Asia" based on the ancient DNA of 532 individuals is the revised published version of the biorxiv preprint, "Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia,", based on ancient DNA of 362 individuals, that I already demolished with the bazooka for demonstrating irrelevance back in our discussions in January 2019. For in both the ancient DNA which has been employed to make all extrapolations about South Asia are from Swat District of Northern Pakistan, which has no history of IVC. Whereas in the preprint, the authors candidly acknowledged,

"While we do not have access to any DNA directly sampled from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), based on (a) archaeological evidence of material culture exchange between the IVC and both BMAC to its north and Shahr-i-Sokhta to its east (27), (b) the similarity of these outlier individuals to post289 IVC Swat Valley individuals described in the next section (27), (c) ...."

in the journal article, they are only finessing, and further finessing,

"Using data from ancient individuals from the Swat Valley of northernmost South Asia, we show that Steppe ancestry then integrated further south in the first half of the second millennium BCE, contributing up to 30% of the ancestry of modern groups in South Asia. The Steppe ancestry in South Asia has the same profile as that in Bronze Age Eastern Europe, tracking a movement of people that affected both regions and that likely spread the unique shared features shared between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.The primary ancestral population of modern South Asians is a mixture of people related to early Holocene populations of Iran and South Asia that we detect in outlier individuals from two sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC), making it plausible that it was characteristic of the IVC."

In other words, there is nothing new. I am now returning to my vacation with an earnest request that this page not be trashed with more irrelevance. There is already enough of it here. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • From a scientific point of view, it is a big result. But from an encyclopaedic point of view, it is a drop in the bucket. It doesn't particularly add any value to our knowledge, except that it shoots down certain Hindu nationalist mythologies. So, I think it belongs more in the Indigenous Aryans or some such side article, not here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Some of those mythologies, Shinde, a co-author of both papers (Cell and Science) has himself flirted with. (I did not use "flirt" in vain above.) See the answer to question, "Has Rakhigarhi been able to shed any light on the theory of the origin and history of Aryans?" here. Adding as a record for the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that "irrelevance" was demonstrated; Narasimhan et al. use sound arguments. That is, I find their arguments more convincing than yours. Anyway, enjoy your vacation; I hope you have a good time at an interesting place. Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to leave a gentle reminder that we're not in the business here of writing history the same way scholars are. Critiqueing scientific studies isn't our business, whether we personally like those methods or not. Our business is to synthesize those findings, giving due weight to all significant viewpoints. At the moment, these genetics papers don't constitute such a viewpoint with respect to the IVC, because they haven't been given much weight in secondary literature about the IVC, and because the only direct and substantive link is in the discussion sections, where the authors are drawing broader inferences about their results. As I've said before, the robustness of these inferences hasn't been demonstrated. What we need to be wary of is making arguments based on a distaste for genetic methods; because like it or not, an increasing proportion of the history of human movement is going to be based on genetics rather than archaeology, and by ignoring those we would unintentionally ally ourselves with proponents of the OIT and their ilk, rather than with mainstream scholarship as Wikipedia's policies require us to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The peopling of India by anatomically modern homo sapiens from Africa ca 75 KYA is inferred entirely by genetic data and analysis, the mitochondrial DNA in the late 1980s and 90s, and the Y-Chromosome in the early 2000s. That result, however, has made it into tertiary sources such as Tim Dyson's Population history of India, Oxford, 2018, and as a result, is featured both in the lead of the India and History of India pages. The papers under discussion, however, are a journal papers, that have only just been accepted. It is not at all clear to me that they have a fundamental bearing on IVC, and even if I am wrong, the larger community of IVC researchers have made no particular mention yet. At all times, we have to remember that IVC is a civilization and that the history of how its inhabitants got there, is a minor aspect of what made it a civilization. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Dholavira Saraswati

New study by Deccan College Pune says Dhalolavira is likely irrigated by river Sarasvati ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article, on a broad-field topic, is necessarily conservative. It protects itself form WP:UNDUE by largely restricting the sourcing to well-known textbooks, companions, and reviews or survey of literature published by scholarly publications, avoiding results appearing only in recent journal articles or research monographs. When this study appears in the latter sources, they can be considered. Thus far they have not. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The study: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jqs.3178 ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply above applies to the article in this link as well, not all of whose authors are at the Deccan College. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Parenthetical note. The referenced study is about the causes of the collapse of the Harrapan civilization and mentions of Sarasvati are tangential and caveated by "conjectured to be". --regentspark (comment) 15:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I love the verb, caveat. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranian Hunter-gatherers, NOT farmers =

Hello. "Pre-Harrapan" section needs to be updated with new study :- "An Ancient Harappan Genome Lacks Ancestry from Steppe Pastoralists or Iranian Farmers (Shinde and Narashiman study 2019)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31495572

"The Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC derives from a lineage leading to early Iranian farmers, herders, and hunter-gatherers before their ancestors separated, contradicting the hypothesis that the shared ancestry between early Iranians and South Asians reflects a large-scale spread of western Iranian farmers east. Instead, sampled ancient genomes from the Iranian plateau and IVC descend from different groups of hunter-gatherers who began farming without being connected by substantial movement of people."

"In the case of South Asia—began farming without large-scale movement of people into these regions. It is possible that in an analogous way, an early farming population expanded dramatically within South Asia, causing large-scale population turnovers that helped to spread this economy within the region. Whether this occurred is still unverified and could be determined through ancient DNA studies from just before and after the farming transitions in South Asia."

"Our evidence that the Iranian-related ancestry in the IVC Cline diverged from lineages leading to ancient Iranian hunter-gatherers, herders, and farmers prior to their ancestors’separation places constraints on the spread of Iranian-related ancestry across the combined region of the Iranian plateau and South Asia, where it is represented in all ancient and modern genomic data sampled to date. The Belt Cave individual dates to 10,000 BCE, definitively before the advent of farming anywhere in Iran, which implies that the split leading to the Iranian-related component in the IVC Cline predates the advent of farming there as well"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31495572 - Please update the sources, thanks. 117.198.115.248 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020

Change "Civilisation" to "Civilization" FlyoverSirens (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See the note above that starts: This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions... Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Diet

Post the national museum controversy, a diet subsection for the article is required. Is K. T. Achaya a reliable source? ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

"Civilisation" is incorrect spelling. All aspects of the word "Civilisation" should be changed to "Civilization." 2603:9008:1A14:CA00:D868:150E:5877:A851 (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:ENGVAR. Aasim 06:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

latest study shows that the Indus valley civilization is 8000 years old which means that it existed around 6000 BCE

Source -- https://qz.com/india/694925/the-indus-valley-civilisation-is-2500-years-older-than-previously-believed/

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indus-era-8000-years-old-not-5500-ended-because-of-weaker-monsoon/articleshow/52485332.cms AdityaSrivastava282 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Historical (or archaeological) content needs academic sourcing. --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Rename

Why not rename it as Indus-Saraswati since more and more connections between Indus valley and Saraswathi civilization are being unearthed. ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC) It should not be renamed; the Indus civilization has many names; eg. Harappan Civilization, Meluhha, etc. Besides, the Indus river was more important to the civilization. 45.49.158.28 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @ChandlerMinh:, the dates are also required to be fixed in the main introduction. As per ASI, the site Bhirrana is as old as 7,570 BCE and is classified as pre-harappan which is missing from this page as well. The dating in the main introduction is a poor representation of the dates of the IVC. All the phases are a part of IVC. ASI also call it the oldest IVC site. Please check the links below. The Nature published paper dating this site also call it the Saraswati Palaeochannel.
ASI website article - http://excnagasi.in/excavation_bhirrana.html
Nature Publication - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555 See Saraswati Palaeochannel in Figure 1 of the paper - check dates 9.5ka BP on page 3 classifying this as pre-Harappan phase
JSTOR published paper - https://www.jstor.org/stable/43610686?seq=1 (published by K.N.Dikshit - see the dates in preview as well)--Havimel (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I was wrong. If you extensively about Rakhigarhi and everything regarding the GagarHakra/Saraswati extend of the Harapan civilization, it turns out those sites, although vast, are less important compared to Harappa or Mohanjodaro. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@ChandlerMinh: I would not worry about name too much because of the fact that no body will be able to know what is Sindhu or Saraswati, its probably immature to do so.
The dates mentioned in the main introduction are out of date. The article itself mention that the early harappan phase is dated 7,000BCE (Mehargarh) - this article is conflicting itself in terms of the mentioned dates in the main introduction and does not even mention Bhirrana which site was excavated in 2003 and has been dated to 7570 BCE. I will request an change to this article. If you can please do it so. I have provided the published papers above. Cheers --Havimel (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Age of Indus Valley Civilization

I am just asking is it worth considering. Karn Malhotra (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The archeological site at Bhirrana (Harayana) has been dated around 7,570BCE which is 9590 years old. Since this article has missed to mention the site in the preharappan section. May be this page needs to be updated. All phases of Harappa are considered as a part of Indus Valley Civilisation. Here is a published paper saying "The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP8,17,18,20,34)." published in Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555 -
Here are some other reliable sources - https://www.jstor.org/stable/43610686?seq=1 (providing same dates as the Nature publication). --Havimel (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Archeological Survey of India website article - 7570 BCE dates - http://excnagasi.in/excavation_bhirrana.html --Havimel (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Mature Harappan lasting till 800 BCE? That would be sensational. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusing

@Doug Weller: you added diff a "Confusing"-tag, stating "Article is called Indus Valley Civilisation but the various periods are called Harappan." Could you please elaborate? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I imagine it relates to this immediately preceding edit. If this is not liked, the use of the two terms needs to be handled somehow, before the 3rd para. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Section headings should match the name of the article. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please correct the dates of IVC in the main Introduction and right hand side table

In the main introduction and right side table, the dates mentioned for the Indus Valley Civilisation is 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE. Which is Incorrent. The article is missing the IVC excavated site of Bhirrana which dates back to 7,570BCE as per sources below. ASI website article - http://excnagasi.in/excavation_bhirrana.html Nature Publication - https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555 JSTOR published paper - https://www.jstor.org/stable/43610686?seq=1 and there are many other valid/authentic sources about this. Please confirm yourself.

It is well established that the IVC is as old as about 9570 years as per the excavated site of Bhirrana. (provided sources above). The article Indus Valley Civilisation itself mention Mehargarh in the pre-Harappan section which dates to 7,000BCE. I don't know why article does not reflect the correct date in the main introduction and the right hand side table. Please correct this. Thanks--Havimel (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Havimel (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

​The Nature publication says that the younger timeline is the conventionally accepted one, but that the older timeline is an alternative one proposed by Possehl. If there are competing theories, we try to go with whatever the best secondary sources say. Do you know of any good secondary sources / textbooks that use this older timeline? (Keeping edit request as unanswered as this is just a comment) – Thjarkur (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thjarkur: I think I should have been more clear. These I shared sources for the site of Bhirrana, which is the oldest site of Indus valley Civilisation in state of Harayana, India as found after carbon dating. Now, In Nature published paper, on page 3 it outlines various stages dated for this particular site of Bhirrana & it says "The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP)".
These dates are again more clearly specified on the Archaeological Survery of India (Nagpur branch) website "Bhirrana is the oldest Indus Valley Civilization site, dating back to 7570-6200 BCE" ASI further explaining the four stages this site lived through from pre-harappan period of Hakra Ware culture to Mature Harappan. Please visit the link - ASI Nagpur excavation branch official website link check here
Please check Page 7 (per pdf file) or 94 (per Journal) here...The antiquity of Bhirrana on the basis of radiometric dates goes back to the time bracket ranging in date between c. 7380 – 6201 BCE. Another Table 5 (page 45 (per pdf) or 132 (per Journal) dating period 1 of Bhirrana. This site had been habited from pre-harappan to mature harappan all the way.
Please let me know if you need more secondary references, I can provide.
Apart from Bhirrana. The Mehrgarh site is also a pre-Harappan site inhabited from 7000 BCE to 2500 BCE according to this very Wiki Page later, check here. But this does not reflect in the main introduction and right side table. Anyhow, please do let me know if you need secondary sources. I have provided published papers (primary sources). And there are heaps of news paper articles.--Havimel (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
"Harappan" and "IVC" are treated as synonyms, so "pre-Harappan" also means pre-IVC. Our article on Mehrgarh covers that site fully. Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
ASI says The excavation has revealed the remains of the Harappan culture right from its nascent stage, i.e. Hakra Wares Culture. Prior to the excavation of Bhirrana, no Hakra Wares culture, predating the Early Harappan had been exposed in any Indian site. This is a continuation of civilisation, only progress and developing over time.--Havimel (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "...right from its nascent stage, i.e. Hakra Wares Culture (antedating the Known Early Harappan Culture in the subcontinent,..." is what it says. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Havimel, do you understand what civilisation means? Those oldest artifacts were found at the bottom of pits, which were used as dwelling places. That was not a civilisation, but a primitive neolithic community. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Based on the restricted/accepted definition of Civilisation on wikipedia, may be we can rule out Hakra Ware phase, my apologies I overlook this phase. We can look at artifacts at Bhirrana classified as Early Harappan culture. See if Bhirrana's Early Harrapa phase is included in IVC or not. These artifacts are the reason, post 6200BCE is considered as a Harappa phase by.
1- Early Harappa phase as per ASI (after 6200BCE), as per Nature Paper on page3 (after ~6 BCE), as per Possehl on page 2((after ~6.5BCE), Deccan college JSTOR also proposed post 6200 BCE date for Early Harappa phase - This phase houses built with Harappa/IVC signature 3:2:1 bricks, house walls made of mud bricks, seals, rings of copper, wheels, bull figurines, gamesmen, sling balls, marble. artifacts of Lapis Lazuli which was mined in present day Afghanistan, indicating trade of imported ornaments from distant mining sites. Artifacts also contain pounders of sandstone - indicating sophisticated understanding of weight scale systems being used.
These dates of post 6200BCE indicates a well formed civilisation. Artifacts such as copper artifacts, pounders, arrowheads, gamesmen, pounder of sandstone, trade of lapiz lazuli, bull figurines, wheels, pendants, marbles of terracotta, bangles & copper rings (both used for fashion) and steatite artifacts. I think these are excellent qualities of a civilisation. Please advise if you do not think so. Thanks...--Havimel (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Reliable references have been provided based on publication of Nature, Deccan college Vice Chancellor, Archeological survey of India. My references and phases of Bhirrana site are based on Excavations done on Bhirrana, where as your argument of phases is NOT based on Bhirrana excavation but rather on previous excavations which are independent of Bhirrana. You should address the comment on Bhirrana Early Harrapan phase classification starting 6200BCE. I have even discussed why authors classified the start of Early Harappan phase from 6200BCE. You seem to stick to older chronology which is NOT based on Bhirrana excavation. --Havimel (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


@Kautilya3: My argument is based on the excavations of Bhirrana. The excavations here has pushed back the Early Harappan phase based on the characteristics of the arteficats, 3:2:1 brick houses etc. See below - very reliable sources, which are upto date with Bhirrana excavation. You must agree that any Bhirrana chronology NOT based on Bhirrana excavation is obviously "Outdated" right?
Source 1 by 9-Authors (36 citations) paper published on Bhirrana in Nature Journal Page 3 - Bhirrana phase chronology - The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP)
Source 2 by 5-Authors (29 Google scholar citations) publication - Journal Proposing same Bhirrana phase chronology as Source 1 based on Bhirrana excavations.
Source 3 by 6-Authors (4 institutions) Article Again following same Source 1 Bhirrana phase chronology.
Source 4 by Deccan College Publication Article again supporting the same Source 1 Bhirrana phase chronology.
@Kautilya3: These are very reliable sources, all based on Bhirrana and upto date Bhirrana phase chronology by various scholars, heaps of citations. I could not find any Bhirrana chronology which is different from these. Can you provide me any contrary Bhirrana phase chronology which differs( & their scholarly consensus for that Bhirrana chronology). Thanks--Havimel (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It's still only Rao's dating. Find as a general overview textbook, then we're talking -maybe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:So you are ignoring all the published material, all the authors and all the citation? I am saying you are laying chronology on outdated information which does not contain the excavations of Bhirrana. Can you provide an update source (including published material, scholarly consensus) about different chronology which includes Bhirrana excavations?--Havimel (talk) 09:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
See the archives for the previous discussions, and stop pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Can you please ask @Joshua Jonathan: to provide reference/source that include Bhirrana excavation to the his pushed chronology. Thanks --Havimel (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry. I am not entering the debate here. I just closed the edit request since it wasn't in the "change X to Y" format. I see that the issues are being debated, which is just as it should be. When an agreement is reached, Joshua Jonathan will be able to edit the page. So there is no more need for edit requests on this issue.
As far as I can understand, a recent Nature article seems to be giving dates earlier than the accepted chronology. That is clearly not enough to change our chronology. Wikipedia doesn't aim to be "uptodate". It waits for scholarly consensus to emerge regarding new formulations. ASI and Deccan College are researchers. What they say in their own WP:SPS has absolutely no impact on Wikipedia. Only peer-reviewed publications count as WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I came here looking for indus valley, not once do you tell me where the indus valley is

I came here looking for indus valley, not once do you tell me where the indus valley is some gps coords would be nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 2601:645:4201:bbd0:e557:cb68:7763:cd79 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Then add them. But personally, I get a pretty accurate idea where it is, looking at the map at the beginning of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The article describes the region of the IVC by turns, from the general to the local. In the very first sentence, it says, "northwestern regions of South Asia." In the next, it says, "... its sites spanning an area stretching from northeast Afghanistan, through much of Pakistan, and into western and northwestern India. Finally, in the third, it says, "It flourished in the basins of the Indus River, which flows through the length of Pakistan, and along a system of perennial, mostly monsoon-fed, rivers that once coursed in the vicinity of the seasonal Ghaggar-Hakra river in northwest India and eastern Pakistan."" I think that should be ample for any reader, but I'll look into GPS for rivers. I didn't realize there was a convention of one GPS for them (headwaters? mouth? both?) Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
PS Also adding subst unsigned for IP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, There is GPS for both source and mouth for Indus, but the former is in Tibet, and the latter in the Arabian Sea, both beyond the pale of IVC. I've added more specific information on IVC's location in the infobox, with GPS for its most famous site, Mohenjo-daro. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
PS Thank you, IP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense

"The IVC may have been the first civilisation to use wheeled transport.[137]" The sentence is not justified, regarding the well-known debate about the "invention" of the wheel between Mesopotamia against the Pontic steppes, where we have wheeled trasnport at least from the middle of the 4th millennium, a thousand years before the developped Harappa. See Hans J. Holm (2019) ISBN 978-615-5766-30-5. Let alone the undated and imprecise interpretation in this sentence.HJHolm (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm on vacation until mid-February 2021, but I agree with @Joshua Jonathan: and @HJHolm: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:89CB:AB31:D713:B09F (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I failed to verify the cited author "Rainer Hasenpflug" credentials. He seems to be a completely unknown personality in all relevant fields. Not a reliable source at all.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
You failed to understand the arguments. Everything else is secondary.HJHolm (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020

Change 'Civilisation' to Civilization 96.61.145.165 (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per the note at the top of the page, Indian English is used for this page, so the spelling is correct. See WP:ENGVAR RudolfRed (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Requesting edit to change the biblical integration timeline (3300 BCE) proposed by biblical fundamentalist Henry breasted to concord with biblical creationism and religious bias

Mainstream Indology presently uses the CHT(Conventional Harappan Timeline) and ULT(Universal Long Timeline) chronology and has discarded and rejected the previously agreed biblical timeline 3300 BCE as religiously biased due to Henry breasted a biblical fundamentalist who controlled the funding of the indologists of 1920's to 1950's who made it to concord with biblical creationism to promote Christian cosmology and has been thoroughly debunked by modern Indologist's who now propose the timespan of the start of the civilization to be at the Early Harappan phase at 5000 BCE in accordance with the CHT but still not in concordance with the ULT.The following links provides the latest information relevant to the periodisation of the Harappan Civilization agreed upon by mainstream Indology.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P8bPDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT27&dq=Indus%20valley%20civilization%20timeline&pg=PT92#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=jtsbNL78PTYC&lpg=PA10&dq=Indus%20valley%20civilization%20timeline&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false

These links provides some reliable sources for problems in the periodisation of the Indus valley civilization.

2409:4072:E98:7774:796C:468:63A8:B9EC (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Stornoway? Fiction? WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It seems the author mostly writes science fiction books,I failed to notice this but after analysing the book again for fantastical elements and the first dispute above in this page requesting a secondary source for poshel's timeline,I think the author clearly seperates history and mythology and the placement of the book in the history section by both the publisher and Google books is warranted in this work. Whether it would match up with a historians book by a great publisher like Oxford or Cambridge is up for debate, but poshel's use of the timeline as in a well respected journal like nature and it's publishing in a secondary source is still significant and has merits in its reliability as it does have some approval from a historian who specialises in the Indus valley civilization.Its your choice in the end though on deciding it's reliability and telling me why it shouldn't be included.::2409:4072:E98:7774:796C:468:63A8:B9EC (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
You mean Possehl? Anyway, as you referred to a previous discussion yourself, I don't think we have to repeat it here. And a date of 5000 BCE for the start of the early Harappan phase has also been given in the table. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DNA

Everything on DNA deleted? Really? --85.249.45.220 (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

Change Civilisation to civilization in the title. (It showed the misspelling in the search results as well) 208.38.228.51 (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Civilisation is the correct Indian (and British) spelling. Please see WP:ENGVAR.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

THE PHRASE THAT SAYS: The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.[1][a] SHOULD SAY The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 2600 BCE to 1900/1800 BCE.[1][a] corresponding to what is known as Mature Harappan Phase.

( The cronology from 3300 to 1300 includes a par of what is considered Pre Indus Civilization and Post Indus Civilization. There is an important issue of chronological terminology that is related to that. 


References:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/29757453 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02975449v1 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02986658v1 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02986859v1 ArcheoDSC (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article lead already gives both periods, defining the shorter one as the "mature form". No change required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Does the outline need fixing?

THis[2] has an old source and doesn't match our article here. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dismayed

The article's lead early sections are written in an encyclopedic style. Its descriptions recognize only the major points-of-view, not every scholar's, and their brother's ramblings. Please don't tinker with it however much you might be tempted to fight the good fight. I'm frustrated that I have to keep repairing it every few months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

In the side table, change "Geographical range Basins of the Indus River, Pakistan and the seasonal Ghaggar-Hakra river, northwest India and eastern Pakistan" to "Geographical range Basins of the Indus River, India and the seasonal Ghaggar-Hakra river, northwest India (now Pakistan)". As during that time it was known as India only, Pakistan was only formed on 14th August 1947. Rakeshmeena5499 (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you get consensus for this before requesting, as it's sure to be controversial. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

Please change: The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation,[1] was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.[2][a]

Please change this to:The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation,[1] was a Bronze Age civilisation located primarily along the Indus River in present day Pakistan, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.[2][a]

The reason for this change request is that the location currently given of 'northwestern regions of South Asia' is so general and unspecific that it's meaningless as useful information. I would request the geographical location be specific to modern day geography so it has some meaning to the modern day reader. Za1255 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Modern-day borders are further down the paragraph. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Indus Civilisation

Could we change the main title of this page to Indus Civilisation and have it redirect from Indus Civilisation/IVC?

The problem is that "IVC" is commonly used in the general public in India, but nobody in the scholastic community uses this term, including those in India. Since Wikipedia is an excellent platform to invite everyone to engage with recent scholarship, I would suggest that we change the title of the page to Indus Civilisation.

Furthermore, I would revise the following:

The Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilisation in the northwestern regions of South Asia, lasting from 3300 BCE to 1300 BCE, and in its mature form from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.

to:

The Indus Civilisation or Harappan Civilisation was a Bronze Age civilisation of northwestern South Asia, that lasted from 2600 BCE to 1900 BCE.

I adjusted some of the wording to make it more concise. I apologise for my spelling, I am trying to conform to Indian English, but I was born in America, so I habitually use the US standard. This is also my first time contributing to Wikipedia.

ArvinRM (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

They don't in India, but that is because India doesn't have any major sites. The promotion of "Harappan," despite it being a type site, was a deliberate and ultimately futile attempt by the ASI to diminish Pakistan's geographical claim to IVC and bolster India's. You may read about it in the Discovery section, and also in this talk page's archives. It has been much discussed. Sorry, this is all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an imperative of precedence. This is an old page, going back more than 15 years, and much edited. It is a former Featured Article. The title, therefore, has precedence. There is very little realistic chance that it will be changed. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The correct procedure is given at WP:RM. I think both you and F&F considerably overstate your cases, & it might well be worth trying an RM. There is clearly a shift in usage underway. We don't just look at what "the scholastic community uses" but other WP:RS aimed (like us) at a broader audience, for example major museums. Meanwhile please use the term we are using & don't do what you did at Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, changing everything to "IC". Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Btw, there is no need to use Indian (or Pakistani) English on talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod:. Not silliness. You do need to provide a source that says exactly what you are saying ("increasingly referred to as"). Perhaps there is one in the body, if it is, it would be helpful if you indicated where it is. If not, please don't change the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It most certainly was silly, but perhaps ArvinRM has a source to hand, since RegentsPark has questioned that "IC" has ever been used (see recent article edits). Good practice for the RM. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Hmm. I am not contesting that IC has ever been used. My quibble is with the use of "increasingly". Since you went ahead and added that, I assume you have reasonable evidence to support the use of "increasingly"? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
But you didn't just remove "increasingly", did you? I think the dates of the refs I cited tell the story. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I did now. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, @ArvinRM:. I should have paid more attention to your post; I thought you wanted the new title to be "Harappan Civilization."

"Indus Civilization" is used, by Britannica for one. The "valley," in my view, is more accurate, for it was in the broad alluvial plain of the Indus and its tributaries (notably Ravi for Harappa) that the civilization sprouted. Also, as the urban culture (the civilization) was part of a longer "tradition" that had moved westward from neolithic Mehrgarh at the western edge of the Indus alluvium, the "valley" is also a nod to the urban culture's antecedents. Once upon a time, in my fading memory, editors such as @Doug Weller: and @Joshua Jonathan: had in fact asked if the page name "Indus Valley Tradition" might not be more appropriate.

That term, IVT, by the way, always does have the "Valley" in it, per Jim Shaffer's original formulation and my once-upon-a-time friend Mark Kenoyer's influential article. As for what India has been left with, the Ghaggar-Hakra, that is, some authors (such as Irfan Habib—though he is not an Indus scholar per se) consider it also to be a seasonal tributary of the Indus. The Indus Valley, in other words, is another name for the Indus (or western) half of the Indo-Gangetic plain. Among the archaeologists I respect, Kenoyer tends to favor Valley, but also uses Harappan; Shirin Ratnagar favors Harappan; Rita Wright Indus (without civilization); Mughal favors the Greater Indus Valley; Possehl favors all Indus Civilization, Harappan Civilization, Indus Valley. I'm not sure I see a trend, in part because there is not that much new stuff. The pioneers, Marshall (in his original book) and Wheeler in his addendum to the Cambridge History of India were already using only "Indus Civilization" in the 1930s. But, as I've already said, I prefer IVC because it is more accurate. It is also a nod to a time before modern over-construction when the broader sweep of a section of the river's valley was readily visible to an observer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

PS I must be attached to that less urbanized time for I mentioned it in my last post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
PPS As for the non-archeologists, I have checked, Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2019. His section title is "Indus Valley Civilization." In the introductory paragraphs, he used "IVC" more frequently and thereafter "IC" more, totaling 19 for IVC and 26 for IC. (Example: "The emergence of the Indus valley civilization in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent meant that the size and characteristics of the population changed. The Indus civilization may well have been the most populous of the ancient world. (p. 7)"
A slightly older, Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History (2011) has a section the title "The Indus Valley," and first mention: "The material remains of this culture, which we call the Indus Valley Civilization or the Harappan Civilization (named after Harappa, one of the two great cities ..." Thereafter she uses IVC 14 times and IC 19.
Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund in their History of India (Fourth edition, Routledge 2004) prefer "Indus civilisation," using it 58 times and "Indus valley" 26 times (Example: CHRONOLOGY: c.6000 Neolithic settlements in Baluchistan; 4th millennium Settlements in the Indus valley; 2800–2600 Beginning of Indus civilisation; 2600–1700 Civilisation of the great cities in the Indus valley (Mohenjo-Daro,Harappa),)
Romila Thapar in Ancient India: From the Origins to ... Penguin 2001, uses only "Indus Civilization"
... So, there you have it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


I think we need a proper move request or an RfC - maybe the latter as it runs longer and might attract more editors, it's not a simple question. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, it is really, as everybody means the same thing (keeping broader terms like "Indus Tradition" out of it, as we should). I am likely to want to follow these guys and similar institutions. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

Please add the following "category" at the bottom of article, 

Archaeological cultures in India

Justification: Please see this and see this (expand "Broze age")


58.182.176.169 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Explained by Johnbod. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Religious ideologies in 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. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

To be continued at Talk:Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization#"Religious ideologies of the Indus Valley Civilization". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry there is a discussion that still needs to take place here. I'm not really concerned about that article. I'm concerned about the section of this page, "Religion," which was rewritten by user:Abecedare in his inimitable style in this edit in November 2013 and has stood the test of time, maintained as it was by user:Doug Weller earlier and as has been by user:RegentsPark and you user:Joshua Jonathan throughout. The section has always referenced Prehistoric religion for further information. If the discussion above is closed, and the opposes have it, then all it means is that it is allowed to coexist. It says nothing about linking it here. There are many IVC articles (e.g. List of Indus Valley Civilisation sites, Sanitation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, or List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation) which coexist but have never been linked here. So, summing up, we still need to decide what to call the section here. Religious ideology is not the only choice. (Btw, it does not mean an ideology for controlling religious behavior, only an outlook; Marxism, for example, has considered religion itself an ideology.) There is "Religious life," "Religious impulse," "Religious outlook," "Religious beliefs," "Religious views," (which Rita Wright uses along with Religious ideology), Besides, the Writing System section is titled "Possible writing system." While adding a "possible" would not be my choice, it does show that we acknowledge incomplete information in section titles. In that spirit, "Religious notions" would be another possibility. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Here, we have a level 3 section called "Religion". There is no reason in the world to change this. Equally, where there is a clearly similar main article, this should be linked, in the absence of a clear consensus not to do so. F&F, you should try to obtain that - you don't have it now. And that other subsidiary articles are not linked here (if true) is a failing of this rather creaky article. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
As I suspected, it is not true that the "sanitation" article is not linked here - it is, via hydraulic engineering of the Indus Valley Civilisation, probably an old name for it. The others are all in "See also"; typically Fouler & Fouler did not see fit to link the religion one there. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, the consensus is only for the other article to exist as an independent article, not for it to be linked. There is an article Medieval India, a benighted piece of claptrap, a Hindu revivalist's wish list for the India that could have been. ("If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, my what a Christmas we'd have" as my late mother-in-law used to say). What are the chances it would be the main for India#Medieval_India? About the same as a snowball's in hell. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
As I have explained, the default is that obvious links and "main article" links are made - there should be a consensus not to do this. More childishness on your part. Once the other hares you have started in this area have been shot, I will return to this. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The Religion of the IVC is more like the "What-if list of pre-historic Hinduism: Fact check." It has little to do with the impulse for religious life on the Indus plains, or the absence thereof. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

CONSENSUS AGAINST MERGING
In this merger proposal, editors discussed whether the article Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization (hereafter referred to as the "subarticle") should be merged into the article Indus River Valley Civilisation (hereafter referred to as the "main article". Editors evaluated the extent to which the subarticle is a Point of view fork, the extent to which the fork's content is redundant to the main article's content, the extent to which the two topics are unique, as well as the extent to which the main article should be kept concise. Editors achieved a rough consensus not to merge the two articles.

Those in favor of merging the two articles argued that the subarticle was written with substantial neutral point of view issues, had substantially diverged in its content from its nominal subject, and was based on research that relied upon uncertain methods to draw its conclusions. Those in opposition to merging the two articles argued that the main article needed to be kept more concise, that academics have seriously studied religion in the civilisation and have created reliable sources on the topic, that the topic of the main article and subarticle are distinct enough to warrant separate articles, and that there was significant coverage of the subarticle's subject from multiple independent reliable sources. Throughout the discussion, the subarticle increased significantly in size and quality, leading to at least one participant who had initially supported the merger were no longer convinced that the merger should occur.

Other questions were raised throughout the discussion, such as how to name the subarticle and how to weigh various sources in the subarticle. There was no consensus regarding a name change, owing to a relative lack of discussion by the group as a whole. Editors did not achieve a consensus on how to properly weigh various sources in the subarticle; editors are reminded to be bold when making edits, to engage in discussions when bold edits are challenged so as to avoid edit wars, and to always strive to build consensus in good faith.

Regarding the original question posed in this merge discussion: when viewed through light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, there is a rough consensus that the two articles should not be merged. Editors involved in editing the subarticle are reminded to ensure that the article complies with WP:NPOV, especially with respect to due and undue weight. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. WP:COATRACK c.q. WP:POVFORK to promote the idea that the IVC is one of the roots of Hinduism. Some of the topics mentioned at Indus Valley Civilisation#Religion are mentioned there too, but none of the info is being used; info copied from other articles, such as Lingam, selectively omitted critically remarks (see Talk:Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization#Attribution). And paying no attention whatsoever to what was copied:

The Indus Valley Civilisation<!--NOT A TYPO. DO NOT CHANGE THIS TO “Civilization”.--> (IVC), also known as the Indus Civilisation,<ref>For example, in the titles of the works used to reference this article by Habib (2015), Marshall (ed., 1931 and 1996), Parpola (2015), Possehl (2002), and Sullivan (1964)</ref>

It adds nothing valuable to the info available here. Therefore, redirect to this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Amendment - as it is now, it's much better; no need anymore to merge. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Moved For reasons I explain below, I have moved "Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization" to "Religious ideologies in the Indus Valley Civilization." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The fork adds nothing to the section in this article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge I am currently editing the POVFORK to use in this, later. This is mostly Parpola fantasizing about strangest of linkages and other scholars finding them interesting but almost entirely unpersuasive. Rinse, repeat. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the whole - the article is now far better than a few days ago, thanks to TrangaBellam, though various things should be added (the apparent absence of large temples is not mentioned, nor the seal with a procession). It would be too long added here, I think, or would soon get so. The main article is already on the edge of being too long, and some of the material here should be moved or copied to the religion article. Though the whole subject remains highly uncertain, it can certainly form an article of its own. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think that I agree with you, Johnbod. We can have a separate article.
    But more concerning is LI, who created the worst of POV forks (intentionally, as laid bare by JJ) and then engaged in a round of pretentious know-all behavior. Hand-waving about 213 sources supporting IVC Swastika being the forerunner of Hindu Swastika or Kenoyer supporting such a hypothesis (when he says something else) or roots of Ganesha worship traceable to IVC or ..... They cannot go on creating POV forks and expect that we clean them up. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Good points about the missing bits. Till now, I was only invested in writing a NPOV version of the topics which were already introduced by LI. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm aware of the LI issue, which has cropped up in various places. The article will need to be carefully watched, like so many Indian ones touching on religion. I think most scholars are prepared to contemplate some sort of diffused connection between some apparent aspects of IVC religion and later Indian religion, but in a very cautious way, given the complete lack of clarity about the former, which of course is not the style of LI and others like him. I haven't seen any scholar categorically denying all connections - there isn't the evidence for that either. Thanks for your improvements. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Btw, this, the main article, has near the end "David Gordon White cites three other mainstream scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion derives partially from the Indus Valley Civilisations.[230]". Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    DGW cites Parpola, Frits Staal, and Bernard Sargent. Parpola's findings are near-uniformly panned by Indologists. Sargent has near-zero citations in literature. I don't know what Staal wrote (no work is cited in part.) but there is Heltebeitel too. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Staal is (was?) a smart fellow. But his work is mainly in the history of science I think. I used him in Indian mathematics (in the oral transmission section). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge and squash Johnbod may have a point about the article size. But POV forks are problematic. In my way of thinking, there is no real evidence of religious ideology in IVC. Some day when science and technology are more advanced, it will emerge that the Indo-Aryans (and their BMAC cohorts) really did destroy the major urban centers of IVC, the climate evidence notwithstanding, and thereby eventually began the world's oldest system of apartheid, the Indian caste system. All the Indus craftsmen, without whom no artifacts would be there today, joined the ranks of the despised outcasts. It is a shameful episode that India is nowhere near reckoning fully in its national introspection. Not merging will delay that day of reckoning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Wild because Aryan invasion theory got debunked more than 50 years ago. It was merely a colonial imagination for justifying their rule in South Asia. See Witzel, Michael (2005), "Indocentrism". You should update and not consider "invasion" equivalent to "immigration" theory. Aditya Gairola (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Who's talking about an Aryan Invasion? Small bands of violent migrants, mostly males, on horses and chariots came into South Asia over the period of half a millennium. What Tim Dyson says about the deforestation of the Ganges Plain in A Population History of India OUP, 2019,

    "In any event, the settlement of the Ganges basin by Indo-Aryan speaking people was an extremely long and arduous process. The texts of the Vedas refer to Arya victories over dasas, their darker-skinned enemies. And the process of settlement well may well have involved driving communities out, appropriating women, and the enslavement of pre-existing peoples. ... the Arya used fire to help with forest clearance"

    must have happened with the upper Indus plain as well, where the current day evidence is fragmentary. I am saying that with the passage of time and the availability of new technology, that evidence will appear. The invasion theory had been debunked long, long before Witzel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The caste system, female infanticide, the taboo on widow remarriage, dowry, even child marriage are pretty much unique to "Hindu" India. These are the result of the forms of segregation, stratification, and endogamy introduced by the Indo-Aryans to preserve the patriline during their long arduous settlement in India. In western countries such as the US, Britain, and Norway, where studies have been undertaken by troubled public health departments, female feticide has survived among first-generation Hindu immigrants from India, but it has not among the Pakistanis. Such is the pressure on Hindu women, especially those who have given birth to two or three girls. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not going to bother arguing with someone with such deep prejudice. Blaming a religion or a group of people for something that happened thousands of years ago is frankly the dumbest thing I have heard. Religion, even the most strict religions, are elastic; they change and morph. It is like blaming wife selling, serfdom and slavery on Christianity. Which no credible Western historians will do. Even though each has some root in early Christianity. I find your statement deplorable. Have a good day. Need to go back to work. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • A 9-year-old Dalit girl was raped in Southwest Delhi on 1 August 2021 by four men including a Hindu priest and crematorium workers on her way to fetch water, and was forcefully cremated at a crematorium.BBC. Like you said it has been happening for thousands of years. But there was no need for leaving the ER at 2:39 AM Gulf time, Doc, when the stakes are so low.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we all stay on topic PLEASE! Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I apologize Johnbod, but I strongly suspect there are sockpuppets here. They make up dubious histories about themselves. Many appear only to oppose me in RfCs and then go back to sleep for months, but usually after awarding barnstars all around to others who have opposed. Sometimes the awardees are bemused. There is little value in such RfCs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: I see no issue with having that article available. IVC is the largest of the old world settlements. This article is already long; there is a need to have more articles on this very interesting topic, shamefully we lost it's oral and maybe written history. Thankfully, they left us many artifacts in both India and Pakistan for us to enjoy. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Per user Zakaria Kanatonian (talk)
  • Oppose Although religion of the Indus people is still highly speculative, I think the majority of scholars acknowledge the presence of it, and consequently there is a obviously a large amount of scholarly coverage on it. I don't see a valid reason to just redirect this page.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - IVC is definitely one of the roots of Hinduism. I find it ridiculous to claim that IVC has nothing to do with Hinduism. It may not be Vedic. But it definitely is a precursor of Hinduism. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Merging the two would make the article too long to read for new users, who may then not read sections on religion. Also the two are not directly linked, it would cause continuality errors within the article unless a decent amount of work is put into correcting them. And of course the net result of that would be skewing the article away from its topic. So in conclusion, I oppose any such change. 82.28.152.167 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge Reading the religion article, it is clear that very little can actually be said about religion in the IVC. Much of the content of that article appears to be an attempt to link archeological artifacts to later Hindu practices (all of which, according to the religion article) are dubiously, if at all, linked. The religion article is a classic example of a POV fork and its contents should be merged and the article deleted. Frankly, even merging seems a bit much since the content is already included in the right places (e.g., the pashupati seal stuff is in Pashupati seal or the religion subsection of the IVC article). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The religion of the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Indus Valley Civilisation, although they presumably broadly overlap, are not the same. It's highly likely that there were people in the civilisation who did not have a religion. 62.88.128.149 (talk) 09:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge. The opposition has no basis in policy. The article under consideration states at the outset that we have no clear picture of religion in the Indus valley, thanks to a scarcity of evidence: so why does the article even exist at its current title? The subsequent content is all about how artefacts of the IVC show evidence that the IVC influenced Hinduism, which is all very well; but none of that explicitly discuss religion in the IVC either. Furthermore, the structure of the article (such as the placement of contested labels in section titles) implies, without saying so, that religion in the IVC was a version of Hinduism, which is not endorsed by reliable sources, and which it therefore shouldn't be doing. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC) The article has been considerably improved, as Johnbod notes below. However, I'm still concerned about POVFORK issues, particularly with respect to structural items that promote the "IVC religion was a precursor to Hinduism" idea. The identification of certain objects ("proto-shiva", "lingam", "yoni") are disputed; the section titles and such should not imply they are facts. The lead also strikes me as far more favorable to that idea than the body, and the parent article. However, the issues seem to have been addressed to the extent that I no longer have a strong opinion on a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure @Vanamonde93:. The reality is that nothing much is known about religion in IVC. What we're left with is this Hindiusm flavor attached to various artifacts from that civilization. This almost guarantees that the article will be a POV fork. Ideally, we should have a section in the IVC article that explains that we know nothing about religion in the IVC and that some people draw connections between some artifacts and Hinduism, with each artifact in its own article. Drawing everything into a single article is what makes this connection far more real than it is in the scholarly world and that's the classic definition of both WP:OR as well as what constitutes a pov fork.--RegentsPark (comment) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Oddly enough, we have just such a section in the article, and always have had. From WP:POVFORK: "In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." I wonder if you have carefully read either the section here, or the other article as it currently is, as I'm failing to see any major differences in approach between them. What does "far more real than it is in the scholarly world" mean? Any general account of the IVC will have a section, often relatively short, saying the sort of things the articles both say, typically mentioning the same objects. Here's one (p.33), not I think so far used as a ref, by Kenoyer. The few book-length treatments are more suspect, as there isn't the material to justify an account of that size, without inventing a decoding of the Indus script. What you won't ever find in modern specialized scholarship is a flat denial that there is any connection between IVC culture and later Indian religions, because there certainly isn't the evidence for that, and in fact most if not all scholars accept there was some connection, but are highly distrusting of over-specific and over-emphatic claims made by Hindu partisans. The quote from Wendy Doniger I recently added was an articulation of that; one could find similar statements, if more cautiously worded, by any specialist scholar giving a general account of the IVC. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod, RegentsPark, I think where I'm getting stuck is the level of detail in which the overview sources are covering this. Obviously the concept of religion in the IVC has received coverage, with speculation as to the significance of some of the artefacts. Also, some of the artefacts have been covered in detail, and there's speculation as to whether they're connected to Hinduism. If there are many sources independently examining multiple artefacts and exploring possible connections to Hinduism, the fork is fine. However, if there's only one scholar (Marshall) tying everything to Hinduism, and most everyone else has disagreed with him, then framing an article based on Marshall's views is indeed problematic. And I can't tell which is the case without reading the sources in depth, and I haven't the time for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
All the relevant objects "have been covered in detail" many times - there is a relatively small group of "usual suspects". What F&F & RP are perhaps rather too conscious of, is that there is a very large group of Hindu-leaning scholars of varying credentials, some Westerners (like Parpola the Finn) but most not. Mainstream scholars think these go too far, or often much too far in drawing specific connections with Buddhism or Hinduism, and adopt a wary stance. You can't say the article as it is is "based on Marshall's views" at all - these are deprecated at most points. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod, I didn't say the article was based on Marshall, I said it was framed on his work; specifically I'm referring to section titles, and to the fact that many sections begin with Marshall's hypotheses. If linkages to Hinduism are controversial, the section titles should not be implying they're established. That's probably a talk page discussion though. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but the discussion usually is "framed on his work" in RS; though his conclusions are now mostly rejected by the academic mainstream, he did raise the issues that detailed discussion still usually focuses on. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Johnbod's Doniger quote is a good example of why that article should not exist. She (Doniger) is not stating that there is a connection ("may well be") and the religion part of her article is mostly a take down of the connections that Parpola draws between IVC objects and Hindu symbols. She is basing the may well be more on migration patterns and less on specifics of imagery. In that sense, the quote is taken out of context. It is unlikely that the the quote would surive in the IVC article (would we say "Doniger says there may be a connection"?) but, in a separate religion article, these sort of weak claims will end up getting star billing. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
?? After the quoted passage, Doniger goes on to complete the "religion part of her article" with five paras about the IVC imagery & possible structures, and nothing at all about "migration patterns". Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: What there was in Indus, was there in other contemporary cultures, an undifferentiated world of the natural and supernatural in which the gods and goddesses had joined forces with nature in the form of flora and fauna. That ideology was not unique to Indus in the Bronze Age. But the way I look at it, the more POV there is in the Religion article, the more we can remove from this. A blessing in disguise it could be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Excellent point Fowler&fowler. As long as we don't let it languish in the outer reaches of Wikipedia :) --RegentsPark (comment) 20:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Phooey - you haven't addressed the WP:LENGTH issue for one thing - there's a policy for you. It is just too long to merge. What many mergers want is to just delete it, and leave the current section here, but that can't be justified. What, in policy terms, does the lack of a "clear picture" come under? We have no "clear picture" of most aspects of the IVC, as with most areas of prehistory, but that doesn't stop there being a considerable literature on the subject, which is the important thing under WP:N. Minoan religion is a closely comparable case, though there there is more evidence to go on. Prehistoric religion in general is entirely free of "clear pictures". The article is already not "all about how artefacts of the IVC show evidence that the IVC influenced Hinduism", and is becoming less so. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. I recognize there are significant problems with Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization, but it is a notable subject. The lack of scholarly consensus and the dearth of current knowledge or actual available facts doesn't make it not a notable topic. Daask (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note The "religion" article has had some 200 edits, and increased over 250% in raw byte size (14.1k to 38k) since being nominated for a merge. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note 2 Our pussyfooting around "religion" for nearly 15 years is in great part rooted in usage. Religion generally connotes a level of organization in belief, faith, and worship, whether of an individual or a group. In Indus, it is not clear at all that there was a system. I have therefore moved the page name to "Religious ideologies in the Indus Valley Civilization." "Religious ideologies" is Rita Wright's term in Ancient Indus, CUP, 2009. I did err in using the spelling "civilization," but that error was already there. It could be changed to "Religious ideologies in the Indus Valley Civilisation" later Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
And I moved it back, as an undiscussed move that is bound to be objected to - see WP:RM. This is a strange title - we know little about IVC religion, but nothing at all about the "religious ideologies", insofar as they can be distinguished from plain "religion". It is clearly not the WP:COMMONNAME. I take it, at least, that this is an admission that the article is here to stay. This discussion has been open nearly 2 months, & the last vote was over 3 weeks ago. Can someone uninvolved please close it. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The nominator withdrew the merge proposal two weeks ago. Again "Religion generally connotes a level of organization in belief, faith, and worship, whether of an individual or a group." In Wikipedia article titles, it is employed as a mass noun for "prevailing religions," with prevailing understood in the meaning of accepted or generally current. (e.g. "Religion in Australia is diverse" (i.e. the prevailing religions in Australia differ from one another; compare also the less sloppy usage in File:Brit IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg) It does not mean "the religion of Australia is capable of assuming different suspected forms and practices") What we have in Indus are suspected forms and practices.
There is a difference between ideology and religion. A religion assumes a divine order. Ideology assumed the practical world. I said in reply to @RegentsPark: in his reply in turn to @Vanamonde93: above, "What there was in Indus, was there in other contemporary cultures, an undifferentiated world of the natural and supernatural in which the gods and goddesses had joined forces with nature in the form of flora and fauna. That ideology was not unique to Indus in the Bronze Age." "Models of Religious ideologies" is Rita Wright's chapter in Ancient Indus, CUP, 2009."
I might not have followed all the bureaucratic politenesses of RM, and I can concede "Religious ideologies in the IVC" is a mouthful, but I'm reasonably sure, "Religion of the IVC" is a highly inaccurate title. Even "Religion(s) in the IVC" is. All are similar structurally to Writing system of the Indus Valley Civilisation in which by writing system is meant, "A method of visually representing verbal communication, based on a script and a set of rules regulating its use." We have an Indus script—to be sure short strings of symbols appearing on seals—but we don't have a writing system. "WS of the IVC" would be similarly inaccurate. It most especially would if we spend the whole article disavowing claims to representing verbal communication. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Finally, this is by no means closed as the title of what is to be spun off is an integral aspect of the spinning. With the title "Religion of the IVC," the article is most definitely a POV fork. I note also that pretty much all the editors who have any history with the article (RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Tranga Bellam: and myself have expressed significant displeasure with the spin-off and their views on the title have not been ascertained. The rest of the "Opposes" have been made by drive-by editors, some of whom I suspect are sockpuppets, none of whom have offered any detailed argument for or against the statement of the RfC, only perfunctory opposes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a merge proposal. If it were to be successful, there is no other title to discuss. If it fails, any proposed new title for Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization obviously should be discussed over there, in a proper WP:RM process. I'm sympathetic to changing "of" to "in", but we have afaik no other "Religious ideologies...." articles, & I don't see that as a starter. But this should be closed now. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
TrangaBellam, perhaps you could clarify your current position. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Of course, I notice now that User:Joshua Jonathan did not use the proper process in the first place, which is why it has been left hanging. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
"Religious ideologies" is not the only way to skin that cat. But "religion" of or in is problematic. I'll suggest some others soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've posted a closure request in response to Jb. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

Wall of text

source: https://www.gkgoals.com. A quick review on Indus Valley Civilization on exam point of view.[2]

The Indus valley civilization is also known as Harappan Civilization and was famous for its urban civilization. The most striking feature of the Harappan cities is their town planning. The Harappan city was divided into the upper town (also called the Citadel) and the lower town. Their Urban planning included a technical and political process concerned with the use of land and design of the urban environment, baked brick houses, elaborate drainage systems, water supply systems, clusters of large non-residential buildings. The Indus river Valley Civilization, 3300-1300 BCE, also known as the Harappan Civilization, spread from today’s North-East Afghanistan to Pakistan and North-West India. This civilization flourished in the river basins of the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra River. The Indus Valley Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization. The important inventions of bronze age civilization include: standardized weights and measures, seal carving, and metallurgy with copper, bronze, lead, and tin. The important cities in the Indus valley civilization 

1.Harappa located in Sahiwal District, Punjab in the banks of Ravi which was excavated by Daya Ram Sahni in 1921.

2.Mohanjodaro located in Larkana District Of Sind on the bank of Indus which was excavated by  R.  D Banerjee in 1922

3.Dholavira located in Gujarat in Rann of Kutchchh which was excavated by R S Bisht in 1985.

4.Kalibangan located in Hanumangarh District, Rajasthan on the bank of Ghaggar river. The site   was discovered by Luigi Pio Tessitori, an Italian Indologist and linguist. After Independence in 1952, Amlanand Ghosh identified the site as part of Harappan Civilization and marked it forexcavation.

5. Rakhigarhi located in Hisar district of Haryana which was excavated by Amarendra Nath of Archaeological Survey of India.

Rakhigarhi is known as the largest town of the Indus Valley Civilisation spread over 550 acres, dating back to 4000 to 5500 years. 

6.Rupar also known as Ropar located in Punjab. Remains of that old civilisation were first seen in independent India, in 1953.

7.Lothal located between the Sabarmati river and its tributary Bhogavo near the Gulf of Cambay was excavated by S R Rao.

8.Chanhudaro located in Mullan Sandha, Sind on the Indus river which was excavated by N G Majumdar in 1931.It is the only site without citadel.

9.Banawali located in Fatehabad district of Haryana which was excavated by R S Bisht in 1974.

10.Surkotada located in Gujarat which was excavated by J P Joshi in 1964.

11.Sutkagendor located in southwestern Baluchistan province in Pakistan which was excavated by Stein in 1929.

12.Amri located near Baluchistan, on the bank of Indus river which was excavated by N G Majumdar in 1935.

Important Findings of Harappa site are: • Pottery.

• Chert blades.

• Copper or bronze implements.

• Terracotta figurines.

• Seals and sealing.

• Cubical Limestone weights.

• Faience Slag.

• Sandstone statues of Human anatomy.

• Bullock cart.

• Granaries.

• Coffin burials.

• Marine shells.

Important Findings of Mohenjo-Daro are:

• Many bronze and copper pieces such as figurines and bowls.

• Furnaces.

• Dancing girl statue in Bronze.

• Seal of a man with deer.

• Elephants.

• Tiger and rhinos around- (Considered to be Pashupati Seal).

• Steatite statue of beard man.

• Great bath.

• Granary.

• Bronze Buffalo.

• Unicorn Seals.

Important Findings of Kalibangan are:

• Ploughed field.

• a cylindrical seal.

• an incised terracotta cake.

• Camel’s bone.

• Copper Ox.

• Wooden plough.

• Evidence of earthquake.

• Wooden drainage.

• Lower fortified town.

• Fire alters.

• Furrowed land.

• Marine shells.

Important Findings of Lothal are:

• Dockyard

• Port Town

• Rice husk

• Fire alters

• Chess-playing

• Graveyard

• Ivory weight balance

• Copper dog

• First manmade port

Important Findings of Dholavira are:

• Rock – Cut architecture.

• Unique water harnessing system

• Dams.

• Embankments.

• Stadium.

• Exclusive water management

• Cascading series of giant water reservoir .

• Two multi-purpose grounds, one of which was used for festivities and other as a marketplace.

• Nine gates with unique designs.

• Funerary architecture featuring tumulus — hemispherical structures like the Buddhist Stupas.

• Cities built by stones instead of bricks.

Important Findings of Surkotada site are:

• Bones of horses.

• Beads.

• Stone Covered Beads.

Important Findings of Chanhudaro site are:

• The footprint of a dog chasing a cat.

• Cart with a seated driver.

• Bangle Factory.

• Ink Pot.

• Bead makers shop.

• Cotton cloth traces preserved on silver or bronze objects.

Important Findings of Banawali site are:

• The only city with radial streets.

• Toy plough.

• The largest number of barley grains.

• Beads.

• Barley.

• Oval shaped settlement surrounded by massive brick defences.

• Marine shells.

Important Findings of Sutkagendor are:

• Stone Arrowheads.

• Shell Beads.

• Pottery.

• Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) associated Copper-Bronze Disc.

• Trade point between Harappa and Babylon.

• Flint Blades.

• Stone Vessels.

Important Findings of Amri are:

• Antelope evidence.

• Rhinoceros’ evidence.

Anila222 (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Anila222 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to add/change/remove? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Dating of Indus Valley civilisation

I don't get why you guys are ignoring latest research published in Scientific Reports that gives evidence that mature period of Harrapan civilisation is 8000 to 7000 BCE.

Why do you rely on outdated sources and ignore latest peer review journal papers ? Rohitashchandra (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Serious? At 8,000 BCE those people lived in shallow pits. Your edit changed the dates of the IVC from 3300-1300 BCE to 8000-7000 BCE. That alone yet is a stupid mistake. The source you're referring to, Sarkar et al. (2016), Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization., Nature Scientific Reports. What they did was propose an earlier starting date for the pre-Harappan phase; they absolutely don't claim that the mature IVC, the topic of this Wikipedia-article, started at 8000 BCE. See also Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation. If you misread an article in such a serious waym we have reason to question your WP:COMPETENCE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, these "Early Foo" phases in the Bronze Age constantly mislead the novice - the situation is very similar over at Minoan Civilization. In this case the article clearly says (first section) "The rise of the post-Neolithic Bronze Age Harappan civilization 5.7–3.3 ka BP (ca. 2500 to 1900 year BC);..." (which could do with a verb, but never mind) Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Add Keezhadi and Adichanallur to IVC sites 2402:3A80:655:CEEA:60AF:6A15:535:8226 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

IVC Size

Many sources state the size of the Indus Valley Civilisation to be spread across a size of 1 to 1.6 million square kilometres.

Sources include:

https://artsandculture.google.com/story/historical-beginnings-the-indus-valley-civilisation-national-council-of-science-museums/VQXxzPzKbMlEKg?hl=en

https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/indus-valley-civilization/

https://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaIndusCulture.htm

I think it is important to point this out, that the size of the civilisation was over 1 million square kilometres.

Would love to hear about this from you all too. StolenFocus007 (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The impact of the IVC on rural areas, and away from the main rivers in general, remains extremely unclear - few village sites with a clear connection have been excavated. These aren't the greatest sources and I think better ones avoid just joining up the dots of the major sites and claiming everything in between was part of the "civilization". Probably it wasn't, in much of a meaningful sense. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Appreciate the clarification, thank you.
I am getting used to making edits on Wiki and learning from you all helps a lot. :)
StolenFocus007 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
After doing some further reading, I have come across a number of sources stating that the size of the Indus Valley Civilisation.
If there is so many sources stating this, I don't see the harm in adding this information?
  1. Khan, S., Dialynas, E., Kasaraneni, V. K., & Angelakis, A. N. (2020). Similarities of Minoan and Indus Valley hydro-technologies. Sustainability, 12(12), 4897.
  2. Gangal, K., Vahia, M. N., & Adhikari, R. (2010). Spatio-temporal analysis of the Indus urbanization. Current Science, 846-852
  3. Dutt, S., Gupta, A. K., Wünnemann, B., & Yan, D. (2018). A long arid interlude in the Indian summer monsoon during∼ 4,350 to 3,450 cal. yr BP contemporaneous to displacement of the Indus valley civilization. Quaternary International, 482, 83-92.
  4. Manuel, M. J. (2010). Chronology and culture-history in the Indus Valley. Neptune.
StolenFocus007 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod - sorry forgot to ping you into this... StolenFocus007 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Pretty wierdly, the first of these claims (abstract) that the IVC reached to Bangladesh, which I think is pretty unorthodox. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod - Yes... I noticed that, but regardless, many other sources still point to the size being at least 1 million square kilometres, so I don't see the harm in adding this to the article? StolenFocus007 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated typo

This sentence appears twice in the article, and each time it has a stray extra quotation mark (the first one): Jarrige concludes that Mehrgarh has an earlier local background," and is not a "'backwater' of the Neolithic culture of the Near East."

And might as well add this bit of copy editing while I'm at it: "Ancient DNA studies of graves at bronze age sites at Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan, and Shahr-e Sukhteh, Iran have identified 11 individual of South Asian, presumed to be of mature Indus valley Origin." -> "Ancient DNA studies of graves at bronze age sites at Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan, and Shahr-e Sukhteh, Iran have identified 11 individuals of South Asian, presumed mature Indus Valley, origin." I also think Bronze Age needs to capitalized, but I'm not sure on that one. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

Indus Valley civilization is Indus - Sarasvati Civilization 2409:4043:4C89:40C8:0:0:2948:D304 (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 💜  melecie  talk - 07:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Indus valley civilization over 6000 years ago

Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought The beginning of India’s history has been pushed back by more than 2,000 years, making it older than that of Egypt and Babylon. Nivedita Khandekar reports.

A-Mohenjo-daro-seal Updated on Nov 04, 2012 01:41 AM IST Hindustan Times | ByNivedita Khandekar, New Delhi The beginning of India’s history has been pushed back by more than 2,000 years, making it older than that of Egypt and Babylon.

Latest research has put the date of the origin of the Indus Valley Civilisation at 6,000 years before Christ, which contests the current theory that the settlements around the Indus began around 3750 BC.


Ever since the excavations at Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the early 1920s, the civilisation was considered almost as old as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

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

Based on their research, BR Mani, ASI joint director general, and KN Dikshit, former ASI joint director general, said in a presentation: “The preliminary results of the data from early sites of the Indo-Pak subcontinent suggest that the Indian civilisation emerged in the 8th millennium BC in the Ghaggar-Hakra and Baluchistan area.”

“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. Amjp07 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As we keep having to say here, "remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon" does not equal "Indus Valley Civilisation", or anything that we would normally call civilization. That said, the research may be interesting. Do you have a link there? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Old news:
Et cetera ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization 8000 to 9000 years old, Pt 2

Indus era 8,000 years old, not 5,500; ended because of weaker monsoon

It may be time to rewrite history textbooks. Scientists from IIT-Kharagpur and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) have uncovered evidence that the Indus Valley Civilization is at least 8,000 years old, and not 5,500 years old, taking root well before the Egyptian (7000BC to 3000BC) and Mesopotamian (6500BC to 3100BC) civilizations. What’s more, the researchers have found evidence of a pre-Harappan civilization that existed for at least 1,000 years before this.

Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52485332.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

2601:344:C000:ACC:70BA:BE64:287E:28C4 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ad infinitum - but I'm repeating myself... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but can we concentrate on the ONGOING MOVE PROPOSAL at bottom. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation/Archive_6&oldid=1103949820"