Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 2

The indus valley civilization was an ancient civilization based along the indus river of Pakistan. ttatti It seems the article is careful NOT to mention Pakistan. I suspect there is some bias and indian pov here as has been witnessed in many other articles. The articles should be made impartial and stay true to facts. Nearly 80% of the indus valley sites are based in Pakistan and as a result, Pakistan is primary success of the indus valley civilization and this should be reflected for in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.55.245 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no clue of any muslim or Islam religion in india before 8th century. They came to this part of the world as invaders for loot.Pakistan came into existence only in 1947. Much of the work on this civilization was done before 1947. Islam is not the successor of indus valley culture or tradition. So their is no point in mentioning pakistan everywhere.Special:Contributions/192.71.175.2|192.71.175.2]] (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither India nor Pakistan existed at the time, but the territory of this civilization was partly in modern day Pakistan, so we can't describe where it was without mentioning Pakistan. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i think India always existed that's why the Britishers took the name India (meaning originated from indus valley). The vedic name of "India" is "Bharat Chettra" , which was much bigger than current day Indian starting from borders of iran to borders of Cambodia, which also included srilanka, singapur and maldives. All theses lands were in ifluence of vedic culture. Please don't ask me to repeat history.

we all know how pakistan came into existence! Pakistan is an islamic nation on 'Aryan/hindu' Land. It is not a legitimate succession so there is no need to mention about pakistan in 'indus valley civilization'. Simply occupying that land doesn't mean that they are legitimate successors of that culture. Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

http://darkmenu.com/GK%Fu">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.229.183 (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not anti-Islamic person. (Just remembered the blasting incident of Hindu-kush where Islamic terrorists destroyed the great Idols of Lord Buddha)

and .... so no reference about Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.157.110 (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why Pakistan does not claim Vedic civilization,part of it was also situated in present Pakistan,because they dont because it was Hindu.Iranians dont say it is Muslim so we respect this,it is not so we dont un like Pakistan,Pakis respect Muhammad Bin Quasim only because he was Muslim,,but they over look atrocities made native people on Shindhu,so dont re-write History,it is my 3 rd comment here dont remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.232.0.252 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of how Pakisatn got separated from India. They were brainwashed into thinking that India never existed and it was never a country and it was just always something made up. I mean these people realy believe this stuff and if you tel them different they have no logic other then "India never existed".

The Indus valley people were Hindu/Aryans who bevelied in Hinduism. Pakstani people, just like Bengali people, need to stop changing history as if Pakistan and Bangladesh were never part of India. Its ridiculous. 108.13.86.182 (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The three crucial questions connected with Indus Valley are a) whether it is pre-Vedic or post-Vedic, b) whether the inhabitants were non-Aryans or Aryans or a mix of both and c) whether the language of communication was Sanskrit or Tamil? Any conclusion about the age of Indus Valley should not be based exclusively on language or river basin but should take into consideration all available evidence in regard to food habits, beliefs and observances, religious customs and practices ornaments and weapons used, clothes worn, method of disposal of dead etc. A comparison of the archaeological remains of Indus Valley with Vedic civilisation, as can be made out from the Vedic hymns, reveals almost cent per cent similarities between the two civilisations in food habits, animal rearing, cotton weaving, personal cleanliness, use of metals for weapons and ornaments, method of worship, practice of Yoga, cremation of dead, belief in immortality of soul and after-life etc. The absence of horse and rice in Indus Valley was taken as evidence of its non-Aryan origin but this negative evidence is no more tenable in view of the occurrence of horse bones and rice in several sites in India and Mohenjodaro in Pakistan. The belief that only Vedic Aryans knew iron is incorrect, as the Sanskrit word AYAS is a generic term for metal and does not specifically refer to iron. Furthermore, a deeper study of the so-called stone objects considered as Lingams turned out to be truncated conical weights. It is well known that the accuracy and consistency of the weights developed by the Indus people were of a very high order.in the indian subcontinent, the first cities came into being in the valley of river indus.

The beginning of the article does not mention who the people of the Indus Valley were or who the descendants are. It is clearly known now that the people of the Indus are Dravidians the people of mainly south India. It should he mentioned in this article and espacially the beginning of the article that they are Dravidians.(Dewan 13:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC))

You cannot ask this; the article is very clear on the proto-Dravidian THEORY, and one cannot say that the Dravidians today are without doubt the descendants. They may be, they may not be.75.21.117.148 (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok it is most likely they are decended from the Indus because many historians and scholars agree that they are! Also nothing in ancient history is certain. (Dewan 06:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

No doubt it belong to dravidian people. See the statues found during excavation. It resembles dravidian features like thick lips, blunt nose etc. And there are many other evidences too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancreep (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

lol thick lips and blunt noses are also found in africa and polynesian people. you cannot use theories as whims as the basis of what you want made into stated facts, thats called a distortion of history and a dilution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.47.160 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

woah thanks for poiting that out, i had a feeling the southindians were desendants of africa, and then probably cross breeded with the locals ;P 92.97.254.73 (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, what is this evidence that suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was composed of Dravidian people? Please cite a legitimate source. Gregjackson112 (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The cradle of Indus Valley Civilization was in Haryana as well as Gujarat and Rajasthan. So Haryana should be added!!!Rakhigarhi was one of the largest city ever found after Mohenjo daro and is located in Haryana. So it is sad that someone takes haryana away from the center of places. Dewan S. Ahsan 08:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not comment on the removal of Haryana, as it has been restored in the article.

However, I would like to say that calling Haryana to be the cradle of the civilisation is quite incorrect.

Haryana may be a part of it, but it started from Mehrgarh (located in Balochistan Pakistan) much before mohenjo daro or harrapa got their settlements

however the civilisation moved east wards as the river shifted its direction towards the east.--Hussain (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

the recent archeological findings conducted in various parts of parts of south India has confirmed that Indus civilization is definitely pro to dravidian 1 excavation of stone axe with symbols similar to indus script in SEMBIAN KANDIUR IN TAMILNADU 2 SIMILAR ONES IN ADICHANALLUR IN TAMILNADU 3 SIMILAR ONES IN EDAKKAL IN KERALA

the above will lead us to consider either a) IVC was spread all over India or b) the indus valley people had close contact with Tamils who are also seafaring people like the indus valley people . Kappian (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

we know that "pashupati" is a Sanskrit term and as such "ahistorical". There is no need to harp on it. Since the IVC language is unknown, it is impossible to give names to stuff that aren't ahistorical so I really don't see how this is so important. Of course there is no "Shiva" in the IVC, Shaivism develops during the Maurya period, full 2,000 years later. Your concerns would be more appropriate at History of Shaivism, which tends to excessively inclusive discussion. However Shiva has no mention in any proto-sanskrit literature , because siva is originally considered to be dravidian god renamed after Lord Adinath or Lord Rishabha whose evidences were found in IVC excavation. Sankrit or hinduism of any form did not exist on this land prior to 3000 years. Sanskrit can be compared to european languages specially greek, latvian. Most modern research have denied existence of hinduism or sanskrit in IVC because there were no horses or usage or Iron in dravidian system , whereas most mythoogical literature in sanskrit talk about chariots or horses. Theory of Pasupati is offlate have been scrapped. IVC can be related to Brahmi or proto-sramanic civilization. However aryanisation has suppressed genuine dravidian historical facts. dab (��) 08:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

IVC "proto-Shiva" or "proto-Shivalingam": these aren't "claims", just comparisons. Baths. Phalli. Gods with animal totems. You get this in every culture. So the IVC had baths and gods, and the Hindus have baths and gods, and the latter are a descendant culture of the former, so, yes, there is probably continuity between them. Claiming the seated figure is "a proto-Shiva" is still like claiming Tammuz as "a proto-Jesus": idle comparison posing as a "claim". --dab (��) 12:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

as usual, I am having monologues on talk while there are merry revert-wars going on at the article. Whatever happened to bona fide WP:DR or even using the talkpage if you have some concern? Users consistently going for edit-wars without bothering to built a case on talk in my book fall under WP:DISRUPT. dab (��) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Further revert-warring without first presenting a coherent rationale on talk is simple disruption (and as such rollback-able). Oh, and I can use google books myself, thanks. [1][2]--dab (��) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So, the logic is because you can also access the sources, the sources are of less value. Trips (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

the logic is that the sources do not back up your claims. You know what you want to say beforehand, then you google for soundbites in google books. These references talk of a "Proto-Shiva" (scare quotes in original). Nobody claims that this seal "is" Shiva, the thing is just compared to Shiva, and assumed to be a prehistoric predecessor deity of what by many complex processes involving many disparate traditions would later become the Hindu Shiva. Both of your sources get the gist right, but both aren't very respectable. You are essentially relying on "Hinduism for Dummies" literature. Not that you'd be aware, you have no idea what else is in these books, you are just quoting random hits you got googling for "Pashupati+Shiva" on google books. We can mention that the figure has been popularly dubbed 'a "Proto-Shiva"' if that makes you happy, no problem. --dab (��) 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It could be that the Pashupathi seal is not actually Shiva, but instead Nandi, who is traditionally portrayed as the vehicle of Shiva. Hokie Tech (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Hokie Tech

Precisely. The sources stated that the Siva lingam itself was present, but an NPOV version is "resembling". Trips (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

your current revision is ok. Why does this have to be so difficult? --dab (��) 14:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, you wrote an entire paragraph for wording changes. Trips (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the caption of Pashupati Seal should be changed from "The so-called Shiva Pashupati seal" to "Shiva Pashupati seal" as the latter is the name for the seal, whether the creature depicted in the seal is Shiva or not is another matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hby4pi (talk • contribs) 06:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Earliest records of Jainism Found in Harappa ! Breaking the ultra concept of " Jainism is a part of Hindism". Evidence found in harappa and mohendaro proves that "jainism" preceded "veda".

Most hindus think that Lord mahaveer was founder of jainism. Some people have no clue that our 1st tirthankara really existed. Excavations in Indus valley have found picture of Tirthankar Rishab Deva, other Tirthankars , Sadhus and Yogi, Swastika etc..

Now we have evidence of Jainism which can be traced 9500–5500 BCE {City :Mehrgarh I ceramic Neolithic Period OR Early Food Producing Era of Lord Rishabha (Two daughters of rishabha Brahmi & Sundari had taught Brahmi Language and Asi, Masi ie Trade)}.

(A) It says: "There is no conclusive evidence of palaces or temples—or of kings, armies, or priests. Some structures are thought to have been granaries. Found at one city is an enormous well-built bath (the "Great Bath"), which may have been a public bath. Although the citadels were walled, it is far from clear that these structures were defensive. They may have been built to divert flood waters. Archaeological records provide no immediate answers for a center of power or for depictions of people in power in Harappan society." It is Just As Explained in Jain Texts About Our first Kingdom of Lord Rishabha.

--According to jain texts: "Before Lord Rishabh there was no kingship in the country. Everyone was treated equal. There was peace and hence no need of army. There was no need of defense. There used to be no worshiping of gods at the time of Rishabh. Jains usually don't go to temples or worship hindu gods. There was no traces of hindu termples and hindu texts. Hence harappa civilisation was considered "pre-Vedic". The idols and images found suggests that there was popular Jain culture."

(B) It Says, " Figures of nude male deities excavated at Indus Valley civilization are interpreted as Jain yogi. Various seals from Indus Valley Civilization bear resemblance to Rishabha and extensive use of the symbol of Bull might show the prevalence of Jainism in Indus Valley Civilization."

"Not only the seated deities on some of the Indus seals are in Yoga posture and bear witness to the prevalence of Yoga in the Indus Valley Civilisation in that remote age, the standing deities on the seals also show Kayotsarga (a standing or sitting posture of meditation) position. The Kayotsarga posture is peculiarly Jain. It is a posture not of sitting but of standing. In the Adi Purana Book XV III, the Kayotsarga posture is described in connection with the penance of Rsabha, also known as Vrsabha."

" Christopher Key Chappel also notes some other possible links with Jainism. Seal 420, unearthed at Mohenjodaro portrays a person with 3 or possibly 4 faces. Jain iconography frequently depicts its Tirthankaras with four faces, symbolizing their presence in all four directions. This four-faced attribute is also true of many Hindu gods, important among them being Brahma, the chief creator deity.

In addition, Depictions of a bull appear repeatedly in the artifacts of the Indus Valley. Lannoy, Thomas McEvilley and Padmanabh Jaini have all suggested that the abundant use of the bull image in the Indus Valley civilization indicates a link with Rsabha, whose companion animal is the bull. "

(C) " Most city dwellers appear to have been traders or artisans, who lived with others pursuing the same occupation in well-defined neighbourhoods. Materials from distant regions were used in the cities for constructing seals, beads and other objects. Among the artifacts discovered were beautiful glazed faïence beads. Steatite seals have images of animals, people (perhaps gods), and other types of inscriptions, including the yet un-deciphered writing system of the Indus Valley Civilization (Brahmi) . "

-- Jain texts says: Brahmi and Sundari were daughters of lord Rishava. Tirthankar Rishabha taught us farming, bulls, he invented trade on wheels & carts. Sundari taught mathematics. Brahmi gave us Brahmi Lipi/language. They taught us to be civilized and live in cities and do farming and trade.

There cannot be trade and society without a language. Since there was society, there must have been method of communication.The language was actually spoken and written both. There are jain texts in brahmi language in "Jain vishwa bharti" and some brahmins in Banaras also have some records of castes (who maintain records of castes and decedents).

(D) " Around 1800 BCE, signs of a gradual decline began to emerge, and by around 1700 BCE, most of the cities were abandoned. In 1953, Sir Mortimer Wheeler proposed that the decline of the Indus Civilization was caused by the invasion of an Indo-European tribe from Central Asia called the "Aryans".

--This was the time when Aryans came and "Vedas" came into existence. They also accepted some of our gods and our religious concepts. Rishabha was named 'shiva' over time due to linguistic changes. I have read writings by a jain Acharya where he said that perhaps Lord Shiva and Lord Rishaba are the same. Both had Buffalo sign , both lived in Himalayas, both had curved hairs like shiva, both were yogis, both were worshiped by "Indra" king of devas, both were married twice, and an idol was found in mount kailash which was like shiva and rishava both.

(E) Jain script says that Chakravati samrat Bharat & Bahubali were sons of Tirthankar Rishava. Bharat made Brahmachari Caste with 3 lines (mudra) and 5 lines (mudra) on chest depicting 3&5 threads of "Janau". These brahamchari sadhus were given official duty of teaching and spreading religion. They were later called Brahmins=brahmachari. Since they were sadhus and could not work, King Bharat gave orders to provide them food and clothing in return of their preaching (Still Some brahmins chief occupation is worshiping and preaching). Due to detoriation of the system some bramcharis got married and started living in places of preaching (temples). These bramacharis started making structures of lord shiva in his memory and started worshipping and preaching, thus temples came into existence long after harappan civilisation.

(F) Jain Script says that first caste was "ikshwaku" (meaning sugarcane eating) because when Tirthankar rishab was a kid he liked sugarcane very much. So Indra Dev gave the name " ikshwaku".

'Surya vamsi' and 'chandra vamsi' are siblings of 'ikshwaku vamsi'. king Raghu was Surya vamshi. king Raghu was great grandfather of Lord Rama and so the "raghu vamshi" are actually decedents of ikshwaku vamshi. Surya vamshi and chandra vamshi kings ruled India till 1947, when India got independence. Proof of this gotra system is available in "Banaras city bhats". The 'bhats' of Banaras have list of all these castes and sub castes and names of their decedents.

-- Research by Dr. Prashanna Jain Gotani (hitechdentalcentre@gmail.com)

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

^[1][2]Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The recent IP edits (by an IP whose block was just released), seem to be an attempt to impose a nationalistic viewpoint on the article. Hopefully that can be prevented, but it might need help. I didn't do a straight rollback as I wasn't sure everything was wrong. I've warned him for an NPOV edit. Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this article I'm seeing some template text that does not appear in the edit screen:

 This template has been designed so that it can be used both in articles that adopt the BC/AD date notation and those that adopt the BCE/CE date notation without forcing some articles to have inconsistent style. It will display BCE/CE notation unless the template gives the parameter BC a value. For instance {{South Asian History}} will give BCE/CE notation, {{South Asian History|BC=1}} will give BC/AD notation. It can be edited as normal, but with the following exception: Instead of writing BCE or BC write {{#if: {{{BC|}}}|BC|BCE}}  Instead of writing CE or AD write {{#if: {{{BC|}}}|AD|CE}}  This functionality is necessitated by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style requirement that BC-AD and BCE-CE do not both appear in the same article. </noinclude>

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's inner workings to know what might be causing it, but clearly its a problem.

Athomas24 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

for plausible (but possibly untrue or unverifiable) wikipedia writing. An example from an earlier version of this article is below. For another example, see talk page of Kish (Sumer). It has a similar style. What I mean is, there could be a lot more of this from the same hypothetical editor, so let's be on the alert for it. Thanks, Rich (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"Accuracy dispute

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem.The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page. (December 2007)Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Indus civilization agriculture must have been highly productive; after all, it was capable of generating surpluses sufficient to support tens of thousands of urban residents who were not primarily engaged in agriculture. It relied on the considerable technological achievements of the pre-Harappa culture, including the plough. Still, very little is known about the farmers who supported the cities or their agricultural methods. Some of them undoubtedly made use of the fertile alluvial soil left by rivers after the flood season, but this simple method of agriculture is not thought to be productive enough to support cities. There is no evidence of irrigation, but such evidence could have been obliterated by repeated, catastrophic floods.[citations needed]

The Indus civilization appears to contradict the hydraulic despotism hypothesis of the origin of urban civilization and the state. According to this hypothesis, all early, large-scale civilizations arose as a by-product of irrigation systems capable of generating massive agricultural surpluses.[citations needed]

It is often assumed that intensive agricultural production requires dams and canals. This assumption is easily refuted. Throughout Asia, rice farmers produce significant agricultural surpluses from terraced, hillside rice paddies, which result not from slavery but rather the accumulated labor of many generations of people. Instead of building canals, Indus civilization people may have built water diversion schemes, which—like terrace agriculture—can be elaborated by generations of small-scale labor investments. Such canals have, however, been found in northwestern India (Francfort). It should be noted that in only the easternmost section of the Indus Civilisation, people could build their lives around the monsoon, a weather pattern in which the bulk of a year's rainfall occurs in a four-month period; others had to depend on the seasonal flooding of rivers caused by snow melt at high elevations.[citations needed]

They domesticated animals like cattle, bears, wild pigs, dogs, water buffalo, elephants, monkeys, dromedary, chickens, goats, cats, and sheep."

The image Image:Lothal conception.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing

bold textPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIEPIE!!

at the top of the article, but it doesn't show up in the old revisions, even the "current revision" one.

70.225.136.251 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's interesting. It's gone now. 70.225.136.251 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Should add:

Dravidian culture was vandalised by immigrant aryans and hence many hindus or vedic fanatics claim IVC as vedic and it is seen with sanskrit view point. It is ironical that Indian history is viewed mostly with sanskritization. Most facts prior to sanskrit or aryan immigration have been purposely destroyed. Sanskrit and aryanisation can be compared with european culture. Sanskrit has its base from Latvian and Greek language. There are 100s of words in Sanakrit are shared with Latvian and Greek language even today. Sankrit is not indegenous language of dravidian dominated country.

I propose: find reliable source and prove what you stated above. Otherwise, how else does one view India's history without Sanskrita? Also, your rhetoric is uneducated and unscholarly.75.21.117.148 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

why does top part of the page say "kingdom of Sindh"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.208.245.15 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a template. I don't understand why, so I've removed it. dougweller (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The section Indus Valley Civilization#Historical context says: "The language of the IVC is unknown, although there are a number of hypotheses: Proto-Dravidian,[7][8] Proto-Munda (or Para-Munda) and a "lost phylum" (perhaps related or ancestral to the Nihali language)[9] have been proposed as candidates."

Please add this line at the end: "Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer propose that IVC could have been multilingual as well." Reference. 202.75.197.38 (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on the main page, a 4000-year-old skeleton that was recently discovered in Rajasthan shows signs of leprosy, making it the oldest known case of the disease in recorded history.Both the time and the place seem to match up with the IVC.Do you think we should mention this somewhere in the article? Hokie Tech (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Hokie Tech

One claim in the article do not have any clear sources to back it up. In the first paragraph, "Historically part of Ancient India, it is one of the world's three earliest urban civilizations along with Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt.", many sources say and recognize that it is one of the world's "four" earliest urban civilizations (which includes the Ancient Chinese Civilization). The information presented currently with "three earliest urban civilizations" needs to be sourced, else it should be changed to "four earliest urban civilizations" with its sources.Ttzz2003 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Please add Image:CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png above the {{South Asian history}} template (and below {{sprotected2}}). This should be uncontroversial, since the {{South Asian history}} is a navigational aid and the map is specifically related to the subject of the article. Thanks. 67.100.127.206 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Done. The image perhaps does not reflect Kashmir very well, but is used on several other pages. Perhaps if someone could update the borders some? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 23:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

well people say that "What is civilisation"

Civilisation means citizens living in a city.the world came from Latin "civic" civilisation has different definitions,but historians generally believe that acivilisation has the following features:find that out im not going to tellwhich feature are they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.26.154 (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Trigger, in his book Early Civilizations, writes "Early civilization, as anthropologists use the term, denotes the earliest form of class-based society that developed in the course of human history." He goes on to say that they were "characterized by a high degree of social and economic inequality; power was based primarily on the creation and control of agricultural surpluses." He points out that there were early civilizations without writing. dougweller (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The section on "Historical context" at the beginning of the article seems totally out of context. It seems to be talking about all the controversies. I think it should be moved towards the end. --UB (talk) 07:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the section --UB (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It has to be told that the civilization is part of the history of the Indian Subcontinent. The people of the Indus Valley gave the root of both peoples in India and Pakistan. So giving the credit to one nation i.e. Pakistan is not good. I suggest that the civilization be part of Indian Subcontinent. I fixed the beginning paragraph to fit that need. Dewan S. Ahsan 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

well the extent and map of the Indus valley civilisation suggests other wise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.237.145 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan and the Republic of India are two states formed in the partition of British India in 1947. The dichotomy of India vs. Pakistan is completely anachronistic for any date prior to 1947. Territorial divisions that make actual sense for antiquity would be Gandhara, Punjab, Indus valley, Thar Desert and Gangetic plain. --dab (��) 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't the see the point of this discussion. The article is about Indus valley (Now located in Pakistan). Indus gives the name India which has been used for the entire subcontinent; So I guess the problem is with the naming of Republic of India (misnomer). I have read Bharat is the correct name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.62 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the diagram it also includes large chunks of Afghanistan and some parts of Iran, hence South Asia would be the correct term.Khokhar (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dewan357 has now removed referneced content [3], [4] and made the same 'Indian subcontinent' POV reversion not supported by references. Khokhar (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dewan, you've made an edit summary that said "Indus = India", but that's plainly not true. I initially didn't see the problem with Indian subcontinent, but Afghanistan, in which some of the territory lies, isn't in the Indian subcontinent. Western South Asia is more accurate. And saying that the civilisation mostly lay in modern day Pakistan doesn't give Pakistan "the credit". Fences&Windows 21:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan (the Hindukush) is on the boundary of the Indian subcontinent, and on the boundary of the IVC. It is reasonable to argue that the IVC is located in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, even if the "subcontinent" is identified in a narrow sense with the Indian Plate. Saying that the IVC is chiefly in modern Pakistan is just like saying that the remains of Sumer are chiefly in Iraq. It doesn't associate the IVC with Pakistan in any way beyond telling you where to book a flight to if you want to visit the remains. --dab (��) 09:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

While the entire continent is not indian, i think South Asia or Asian subcontinent would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.188 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

futhermore indian and pakistan joined the u.n in 1947 right inthe U.N indian and Paksiatn are located as South asia unless the Indnia goverment withdraw from U.N it classify it self as south assia in th U.n and ahs not objected to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 03:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Before the British came to "India" the sub-continent was known as Hindustan (Hindusthan or Hindostan}. Mughal emperors, like Akbar, were the rulers of Hindustan where people of all religions lived. The name "India" was used by the British. The Civilisation of our sub-continent (including "Indus Valley") should be described as Hindustani civilsation. I sign myself as Hindustani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.38.62 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this article will not be allowed to be "Indianised".This article is very well written (and protected), however,it seems that some people are busy trying to "rewrite" the history of India. They are unhappy with the notion that the most ancient texts of Hinduism are associated with the arrival of the Vedic "Aryan" peoples from the Northwestern areas outside India. They don't like the dates of 1500 to 1000 B.C. ascribed by historians to the advent of the Vedic peoples, the forebears of Hinduism, or the idea that the Indus Valley civilization predates Vedic civilization. And they certainly can't stand the implication that Hinduism, like the other religious traditions of India, evolved through a mingling of cultures and peoples from different lands. There is a constant dragging in of civilization areas towards present day India, And finally, we have this new "Indus-Saraswati civilization" in place of the well-known Indus Valley civilization, which is generally agreed to have appeared around 4600 B.C. and to have lasted for about 2,000 years. (The all-important addition of "Saraswati," an ancient river central to Hindu myth, is meant to show that Indus Valley civilization was actually part of Vedic civilization.- an Ingenious creation of National Council of Educational Research and Training, the body that creates curriculum in Indian schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.129 (talk • contribs)

We have an entire article dedicated to this, Indigenous Aryans. We also have an article on the NCERT controversy. Fortunately, the scope of Wikipedia is universal, and we can carry articles both on history and on historical revisionism. All we need to do is enforce WP:DUE, so that the article scopes aren't blurred with revisionism bleeding into articles not dedicated to revisionism. --dab (��) 08:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The link below, with note, has been removed from the article for review and discussion. WBardwin (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

complete notes for Indus valley civilization at [5]

{{editsemiprotected}} I noticed that this page refers to the civilisation spanning the Indus Valley region from 2500-1900BCE (for the mature period) as the "Indus Valley Civilisation". However, leading experts on the prehistory of the region never use that term; it is always called either the "Indus Civilisation" or, even better, the "Harappa Civilisation", after the first discovered site. These experts include Sir Mortimer Wheeler (The Indus Civilisation, 3rd Edition, 1968), Gregory Possehl (The Indus Civilisation: A Contemporary Perspective, 2002), and Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi (Ancient India: A History of its Culture and Civilization, 1965). Perhaps this adjustment should be made to the title and to subsequent mentions of the civilisation's title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nd1706 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 26 September 2009

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This seems like a change that should have some consensus before being implemented. Celestra (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

it's worth looking into which is the most common name. Candidates are:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Google books does indeed seem to indicate that "Indus civilization" may be slightly more common than "Indus Valley civilization", but not by anything like a clear margin. A move to Indus civilization may be arguable, but is not strongly indicated in my view. --dab (��) 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The term Indus-Sarasvati civilization is an utter non sense a plot by aryan immigrants(Hindus). This article is misleading and far away from historical facts. The immigrant aryans(Hindus) need to show that Indus valley civilization was a vedic civilization, that is why tying the word Saraswathi. This is only a recent attempt, such a thing was not heard before, never seen in the curriculum too. Those behind the plot should understand that facts cannot not be suppressed for ever. They have to answer many questions. The racial difference between the aryan and dravidian people, no. of people, the customs like burial, the resemblance of dravidian features of statues found, mention of Purandra(Indra)in vedas, who was a war lord of aryans and destroyer of Dravidian settlements etc.

I agree, why is this mythological association added to this article??? The Indus Valley Civilization is a proven fact, I think a seperate article needs to be written for this mythilogical river. Can you seperate it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.229.183 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no racial difference among north and south indians, please stop being seperatist the biologist(genetics) has proven that we are same race.The difference is climatic.stop calling aryans hindu, hindu worship shiva, lingum, krishna and do not eat cows unlike aryans.Besides "arya" actualy meant nobel not a different race(If so why kerla king will call himself arya).Saraswati is not mythological,Only because it is refered in scripture does not make it mythological.In non vedic text to this river is refered(see Avestan)in vedas it is refered flowing(real) while in Mahabharata it is told dried up in desertand also the settelite image and moder archeologist has proven its existance(in past). Also though Hindus tell facts with lots of fiction, but why they will write about Saraswati(Mythological) along with Indus, Sutluj, Yamuna and Ganges, and than too with such details of its course.[Also sorry for my bad language(grammer)]

I understand that evidence for the Indus is in India and Pakistan....but wasn't the overall people, culture, religion spread out more, into Afghanistan as well? And for those who say no, hold on then, because this article was linked from the history of Afhganistan, and yet here Afghanistan is not highlighted? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

make it further to Turkmenistan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

THe introduction contains statements like: plausible relation would be to Proto-Dravidian or Elamo-Dravidian. without any reference. No serious histroian would support this. It seems to me to be highly implausible and probablybased on subtle political agendas that we sadly have here in tamil nadu. The edit-protection needs to be lifted so that we can put in a tag.--Peri-sundar (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed by User:Dougweller. Thanks for noticing and you can edit the article once you are autoconfirmed (10 edits and you're good to go.)--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

there are excellent references linking the IVC to Proto-Dravidian or Elamo-Dravidian.As for Afghanistan, prehistoric cultures do not have borders the way modern states have borders. The IVC essentially occupied the territory of modern Pakistan. Its sphere of influence extends beyond Pakistani borders in all directions, including the parts of Afghanistan adjecent to Pakistan. --dab (��) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As is their wont, various India and Pakistan supporters, tweak things here and their to make their regions come out looking a little better. One change that is noticeable is the one in the lead sentence where one group adds "Ancient India" to "Indian subcontinent," whereas the other group changes "Indian subcontinent" to "South Asia." I'm sure each group can provide very eloquent arguments in support of each change. Wikipedia, however, follows only the sources. The sources overwhelmingly use "Indian subcontinent."

"South Asia" is a modern political science term, little used by historians to describe the region or the time period of IVC; similarly, although, "Ancient India" may have been used 50 years ago, it is no longer used to describe IVC. Here are the lead sentences from two tertiary sources:

• a) Webster's Encyclopedia: "Earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent and the most extensive of the world's three earliest civilizations, stretching from near the present-day Iran-Pakistan border on the Arabian Sea in the west to near Delhi in the east, and 500 mi (800 km) to the south and 1,000 mi (1,600 km) to the northeast. ..."
• b)Encyclopaedia Britannica: "also called Indus valley civilization or Harappan civilization, the earliest known urban culture of the Indian subcontinent. It was first identified in 1921 at Harappa in the Punjab region and then in 1922 at Mohenjo-daro (Mohenjodaro), near the Indus River in the Sindh (Sind) region, now both in Pakistan. Subsequently, vestiges of the civilization were found as far apart as Sutkagen Dor, near the shore of the Arabian Sea 300 miles (480 km) west of Karachi, also in Pakistan, and Rupnagar, in India, at the foot of the Shimla Hills 1,000 miles (1,600 km) to the northeast. Later exploration established its existence southward down the west coast of India as far as the Gulf of Khambhat (Cambay), 500 miles (800 km) southeast of Karachi, and as far east as the Yamuna (Jumna) River basin, 30 miles (50 km) north of Delhi. It is thus decidedly the most extensive of the world’s three earliest civilizations; the other two are those of Mesopotamia and Egypt, both of which began somewhat before it."

So, let's stop with this immature jostling for top dog position. The first humans migrated out of Africa (in the first coastal migration) to both Pakistan and India and the rest of the world some 50,000 years ago. Before that there were no Homo sapiens in either Pakistan or India or anywhere else, and indeed no urban civilizations. Imagine if our African editors were as petty-minded as our South Asian ones; they could claim everything, all human achievement, down to the Burj Khalifa. Kapish everyone? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't ask the kids on the internets to "stop with this immature jostling ". Well, you can, but then you can also ask the glaciers to stop melting. Of course Wikipedia is here to educate the uneducated, but there must be literally millions of Indian and Pakistani (or expat "Desi") teenagers with no clue whatsoever on the actual history, uncoloured by nationalist propaganda and communalist bullshit, of their countries. Wikipedia helps spreading this information, but we cannot educate them one at a time, this would take millennia of repetitive effort. What we can do is being more strict with this immature pov pushing: rollbacks, warnings and blocks for any accounts and IPs obviously here for nothing else but the immature jostling you describe. Wikipedia has learned to be more tough over the years. It's a good thing that Wikipedia reacts slowly, because the response is more measured than what you get with panicky over-compensations as in the case of the BLP-Siegenthaler drama, but we get there in the end. The best way is to ignore the patriotic kids as far as possible, and use the banhammer when they become too much of a nuisance. --dab (��) 12:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This line:...resulting in the discovery of the hitherto unknown civilization at Harappa by Sir John Marshall, Rai Bahadur Daya Ram Sahni and Madho Sarup Vats, and at Mohenjo-daro by Rakhal Das Banerjee, E. J. H. MacKay, and Sir John Marshall

Appears to contradict previous statements that "locals talked of an ancient city" and "[John and William Brunton] were told of an ancient ruined city near the lines, called Brahminabad" (I assume they were also told by the locals.

"hitherto unknown" should thus be changed to "hitherto unknown by the British" or "unknown to western history books" or something similar. Demis (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed 'hitherto unknown'. BTW, the fact that the locals knew of the ruins of an ancient city doesn't mean that they knew about the existence of the ancient civilization. The original text was not inconsistent but I removed the words anyway. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The locals, nor anyone else knew about the IVC. The locals thought the city to be that of the Hindu king Hara Pala, which was destroyed due to the kings lustful crimes, including incest. This was in the 10th or 14th centuries, I get two different answers. The first mention of this civilization was the initial announcement by Sir John Marshall. 'hitherto unknown' may not be the best writing in the world but it accuratly presents the completly unknown natur of the IVC. Something need to replace it. --User:Godanov —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

I agree. But I removed 'hitherto unknown' because 'discovered' implies the same thing. There is no need to qualify the statement with a 'by westerners'.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

indeed. The existence of the ruins may have been known, but the existence of an urban Bronze Age civilization in India was completely unknown prior to 1920. --dab (��) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the people who lived in the civilization in the Bronze Age didn't know about where and when they lived? In that they probably didn't call it the Bronze Age and India, of course, but calling it discovery in the first to find sense is never going to be accurate when we talk about 'discovering' any person or groups of them without by definition excluding those people from equal status with the discoverer. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

115.242.126.222 (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)A steatite tablet excavated by Mackay in Mohanjodaro 1927-31 depicts two persons holding a tree and tree god is extending his hands towards them,Mackay considers that it illustrates the famous episode of krishna,known as Yamalarjuna-lila^[3][4]

i want this line to be added in religion section of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.126.222 (talk • contribs)

well, as the google books link you give says "no preview", I assume you have the book in front of you. Perhaps you can give a verbatim quotation of what Mackay says about the tablet on p.344f.? --dab (𒁳) 20:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now:Seems this citation is also at Krishna#cite_note-33. I am also not sure where in the article that would go. Some clarification would be nice here. ^Avicenna_sis @ 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I click the link as i given above,it is available for preveiw on google books,however I am giving you qutation from this book,This Book name is Age of Bharata War by G.C. AGARWALA and K.L VERMA,qutation is at page no-81 :

The most important piece of evidence cited by Dr. Ramesh chandra Sharma is the "steatite tablet" excavated by Mackay in Mohanjodaro 1927-31 depicts two persons holding a tree and tree god is extending his hands towards them.Mackay considers that it illustrates the famous episode of krishna,known as Yamalarjuna-lila(See Mackay's report part 1,pp.344-45,Part 2,plate no.90,object no.D.K.10237).Dr Vasudev Sharana agarwal,accepted this Identification.Since the date of Indus civilasion is now admitted to be 2000-2200B.C.,the importance of the find by Mackay,if it could be sustained,is evident ,and support 3000B.C. date for the Mahabharata War.

One more qutation,it might help,this is from Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History (Part 4) by Prasad Gokhale,Organization-University of New Brunswick:

A tablet found in the Mohenjodaro sites depicts Lord Krishna and is dated to be 2600 B.C (Mackay's report, Part 1). This finding confirms two things: Mahabharat must have definitely occurred before that date,and that the people of the Saraswati-Sindhu culture knew of Lord Krishna.

However second one is not so important,but first one is nice,You can directly cited "Mackay's report part 1,pp.344-45,Part 2,plate no.90,object no.D.K.10237" as a reference.--115.242.124.254 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you pl avoid giving too much space to Farmer alone ... his terminologies are considered pseudo-science. Even vinca symbols which are much, much simpler are considered Proto-writing. Even if a small linguistic component is added as they themselves agree, it qualifies for full literacy. I know the history of writing systems pretty well and the terminologies associated with them. There have been many allegations against the team from all over the world & is highly controversial and they haven't said anything new really. The Indus Valley Civilization is the common heritage of humanity and has to be treated as such and countries like India and Pakistan didn't exist then! What do you mean by "often considered literate". 4000 + seals have been discovered although only 5% of the IVC has been excavated and a public signboard which didn't exist anywhere else in the world. Indus seals have been found alomst all over the ancient world. This will mislead thousands of school teachers and children and cause havoc! I would suggest you modify immediately. If they want to change terminologies all scholars from all over the world HAVE to agree before this can happen, and would evoke suspricion anyway. Sumerian and Egyptian proto-writing is often shorter. This would go against your own high standards and principles. Otherwise a brilliant article - Sujay

Who considers Farmer pseudo-science? He publishes in academic journals, he works with Harvard Prof Michael Witzel, is he fringe also? They meet our criteria for sources at WP:RS. This is a very controversial subject, granted (see this recent newspaper article [6] and Farmer says he's received death threats. This article from the last issue of Archaeology Magazine also mentions death threads [7] and says "We don't know what the symbols mean--in fact, we don't know whether the "script" encodes language at all or is a kind of symbol system, like heraldry or signs in an airport.". Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that you have made an earnest attempt to be as unbiased as possible. I am not even saying that Farmer is fully incorrect - he may be largely correct. I publish in academic journals too and my papers are being used by projects like the Genographic project for their research- this is arguably one of the most prestigious projects in the world. But even Vinca symbols which are much much simpler are considered proto-literate= 85% of Vinca symbols occur in isolation (!!). Careless use of terminologies such as literate and non-literate are wrong!..Even if a small linguistic component is added - rebus principle or punning (Witzel Kyoto, 2009 or Sproat in his presentations) or acriphony is added, it qualifies for full literacy. I assume some 'sound coding' would have been useful to them atleast on some occasions.. the longest seal is 17 characters non-analomous and 26 characters analomous. I have never said that what Farmer is saying is necessarily wrong, but even Parpola has been reading them mostly as logograms with a linguistic component. So how much of what Farmer is saying is new apart from the fact that he popularized the idea? Till 2900 BC Egypt and Mesopotamia were considered proto-literate even if their texts are shorter(not non-literate!!!!). Terminologies pertaining to literacy cannot be changed unless all scholars agree - and any demands to change terminology must be met with suspicion, naturally. Only a very small portion of the IVC has been excavated, you know, 5% maybe!Even Farmer agrees“Judging from modern examples and research in the linguistic history of South Asia, the Indus Valley was probably intensely multi linguistic throughout its history. This may have provided the Indus emblem system with an advantage over ordinary writing as a means of providing the civilization with social cohesion. The fact that the majority of inscriptions rely on a surprisingly small core of symbols suggests that the meaning of Indus signs could have potentially been known by almost or all (ALL!!) of the population, resulting in a pervasive quasiliteracy far beyond that achieved in Mesopotamia or Egypt.” Interesting, and I know it will take some time for the dust to settle down. I know you are making an effort to be balanced and everyone can be partly right and partly wrong in the debate, but some terms such as 'often considered literate' are wrong and can mislead people since this will be used by teachers and students all over the world. Imagine the confusion it will cause in the minds of students .and teachers . I can instead cite Farmer and declare it the most literate civilization on erth. And he and I could be saying the same thing. I say such terms must be avoided. Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Please take this to Indus script. This is the article about the archaeological culture, not the script. I don't see how saying the IVC is "often" or perhaps "sometimes" considered "literate" is going to confuse teachers, or students, let alone "cause havoc". It is a rather noncommital gesture at the problems of classifying proto-writing in terms of "literacy". As for the "most literate civilizations on earth", that honour would probably go to the countries shown in blue in this map here. --dab (𒁳) 19:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"This will mislead thousands of school teachers and children and cause havoc!" - if school teachers are using Wikipedia in the classroom, they do so at their own peril - while attempts are made to make it accurate, it is too prone to vandalism, etc., to make it reliable, and is forbidden to be used on USA colleges and high schools for papers, etc. ... so I doubt if the current debate on the IVC scripts will cause the world's educational institutions to fall asunder, at least from Wiki. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

'subsistance' should be 'subsistence'

I know someone is going to claim that the Indus Valley Civilization fell due to an Aryan Invasion. This theory was coined by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, who found a group of 37 skeletons scattered throughout Mohenjo-Daro, and automatically assumed that they were massacred by Aryans. This theory is refuted on page 159 of Edwin Bryant's book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture:

Scholars soon began to react against Wheeler’s version of events. In time, most scholars judged that “Indra stands completely exonerated” (Dales 1964, 42; See also Srivastava 1984, 441). George Dales (1964) pointed out the obvious: “Where are the burned fortresses, the arrowheads, weapons, pieces of armor, the smashed bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and destruction on the scale of the Aryan invasion” (38). Not a single one of the thirty-seven skeletons was found in the area of the so-called citadel, which pre-

Page 160:
sumably would have been the locus of the heaviest fighting in the siege of a city. Besides this, the celebrated group of skeletons were found to belong to a period posterior to the abandonment of the latest stage of the city (38). Moreover, Kenneth Kennedy (1994, 248), who inspected thirty-four of the skeletons, found only one revealed a cranial lesion that might have been inflicted by a weapon; the marks on the remaining skulls, apart from one that had a healed wound mark unconnected with the cause of death, were cracks and warps caused by erosion, not violent aggression. Kenoyer (1991b) sums up the situation: “Any military conquest that would have been effective over such a large area should have left some clear evidence in the archaeological record…evidence for periods of sustained conflict and coercive militaristic hegemony are not found” (57).

Few archaeologists today refer to Aryan aggression in connection with the demise of the Indus Valley, although occasionally the old paradigm stirs again

Hokie Tech (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In June 2008, Science Magazine published a series of articles titled Unmasking the Indus about the Indus Valley Civilization. One of the articles was titled "Indus Collapse: The Beginning or the End of an Asian Culture?". In it, they suggest that certain Indus Valley sites survived until the time of Alexander the Great:

But the collapse was likely as varied as the civilization itself. Mohenjo Daro and the region of Cholistan, between that city and Harappa, declined dramatically after 1900 B.C.E. However, while rural settlements near Harappa contracted from 18 to four at this time, life in the city surprisingly continued for at least another 500 years, says archaeologist Jonathan Kenoyer of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, co-director of the Harappa dig. And to the northeast, in today's India, the number of sites increased rapidly from 218 to 853 after 1900 B.C.E., according to data from surveys gathered by Possehl. In Gujarat in southwestern India, urban life and even trade with the Arabian side of the Persian Gulf appears to have continued well into the 2nd millennium B.C.E., although exactly how long is a matter of dispute. At the site of Pirak in eastern Baluchistan in today's Pakistan, a small town appears to have thrived continuously from 1800 B.C.E. to as late as the arrival of Alexander the Great in India in 325 B.C.E., says Meadow. Later settlements, however, lack the sophisticated urban planning of even smaller sites from the mature Indus phase.
The persistence of settlements raises the question of how much of the Indus culture survived the urban decline. For decades, most archaeologists assumed that the Indus's abrupt end and long hiatus in urban life meant that few if any of its traditions survived. But now it appears that the Indus collapse drove people to the east, into the watershed of the Ganges, which spreads as far as the Bay of Bengal. Excavations along the Gangetic plain show that cities began to arise there starting about 1200 B.C.E., just a few centuries after Harappa was deserted and much earlier than once suspected. That means that some continuity between the first and second wave of Indian civilization is conceivable, says Possehl.

Hokie Tech (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)The natives only buried their dead whereas the invaders follows burning the dead, how can be anything left for investigation. Rather I would say, it is planned elimination of the natives by burning leaving no evidence.

Recently, I've been hearing rumors that the Indus Valley Civilization was an egalitarian society, unlike the caste-ridden Hindu society that followed it.In response to these accusations, here is a quote from the article "Boring No More: A Trade-Savvy Indus Emerges".

In Dholavira’s central citadel is an enormous structure—which Bisht dubs “the castle”—with walls that are an astounding 18.5 meters wide at their base. Next to it is an enclosed area Bisht calls “the bailey” that may have housed an elite. “This shows that Harappan

[Indus] society was highly structured,” says Bisht. “There was a hierarchy.” Nearby is a huge mud-brick platform adorned with rare pinkand-white clay decoration and what Bisht believes was a multipurpose stadium ground stretching nearly the length of three football fields and including terraces to seat thousands of people. No structures of similar size are found at other Indus cities. And though the acropolis of an Indus city is usually walled, Dholavira’s acropolis,middle town, lower town, and a series of water tanks are surrounded by an enormous wall measuring nearly 800 meters on one side and more than 600 meters on the other.
The finds at Dholavira are part of a growing body of data that lay to rest the idea of an egalitarian or a totalitarian society. For example, although most Indus graves are modest, at Kalibangan in India the remains of an elderly man lie in a mud-brick chamber beside 70 potteryvessels. At Harappa, another elderly man shares his tomb with 340 steatite beads plus three beads of gold, one of onyx, one of banded jasper, and one of turquoise. Another high-status Harappan went to rest in an elegant coffin made of elm and cedar from the distant Himalayas and rosewood from central India.
Urban house sizes also vary much more dramatically than early excavators thought, says Wright, who works on the Harappa team. Then, as now, location was a matter of status: She notes that whereas

some larger dwellings have private wells and are next to covered drains, more modest houses face open drains and cesspools.

This article is part of a series titled Unmasking the Indus that was published by Science Magazine in June 2008.Hokie Tech (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am confused, how is it an "accusation" to allege the IVC was egalitarian? The "caste-ridden" Hindu society did not, of course, follow the IVC immediately. It makes more sense to compare the IVC with the other Bronze Age civilizations, which were of course also highly hierarchical. --dab (𒁳) 22:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

i want to read more about this. Kumar809 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

how is this an edit request? --dab (𒁳) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Even by any logic, the earliest man wore skin or even nothing at times, but does this continues till, No; ate roots and fruits, does it continues now?, No, if anything still could not leave the minds of people is the newer customs, so surely a brought in by terrorising and taking control of society. Hence, these claims are baseless. Still now India could not shed the racism whereas the animal killing in yaga are all left in practice a long back - which are very new and even followed by kings. Forget about the vedic periods, no such vedic period does any exists. It is the invaders customs to take control of the masses and converted to their own advantages by siding with kings.

If temples are gods living place, why does it is being used to show respect to humans. It is only in show to the high ranks/rulers to retain their customery and take the advantage to use the racism as basic principle to keep the locals under slavery so that they never come up in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.29.98.164 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) that was located in the western region[1] of the Indian Subcontinent.

It should be "northwestern" and not "western." After all the map shows the area limited to the north, not south part of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subduedjoy (talk • contribs) 05:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, done. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Before realizing this was semi-protected I wanted to add some more citations and hence looked up some resources to do so, but now it seems I can't but anyways, here's a source of the rather minor point that Fleet's excavations of seals in 1912 prompted Marshall's excavation in 1920 (it bugged me that while I could find plenty that said Fleet excavated in 1912, Marshall did in 1920, it was rarely explicit cause and effect as implied by this article):http://books.google.com/books?id=pmAuAsi4ePIC&lpg=PA10&ots=8x6eESZBEU&dq=Fleet%201912%20Harappa&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=Fleet%201912%20Harappa&f=false

Also, for more general resources for this article:http://www.harappa.comhttp://www.harappa.com/harappa_1986_1990/Harappa1986-90_02_Possehl-History.pdfhttp://www.mohenjodaro.net/mohenjodarointroduction.html

Good luck auto-confirmed user who stumbles upon this, whoever you are...Jztinfinity (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: You should be able to edit this article yourself... -Atmoz (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the section seems to oversimplify the situation and make it look more certain than it is. It isn't just the figurines, we don't seem to know who they worshipped or how organised their religion was, see [8]- The Roots of Tantra p.40, [9] A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sharri Clark discusses the figurines in an article in the Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory [10] - one of her major premises is that "that the figurines, while iconographic or art objects, serve not as simple naturalistic reflections of Indus society but as media of communication and identification in their original social contexts." She looks carefully at their construction and not just their shape, and her last paragraph reads "Representations and imagery are actively engaged in the processes of people relating to their world. In the case of the Harappan figurines, material matters and the processes of manipulating material matters. The unusual construction of the Harappan figurines represents a unique Harappan materiality—a process of constructing Harappan identity and ways of being in the world." It's a complex argument but I think worthy of inclusion. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I read a bit through the paper and it doesn't state, that she challenges the current view, only critizing the way it went on to be established "uncritically". This is definitely not a change of opinion.--Wangond (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no source for a 'current view' that I can yet find, and the first two sources above suggest that there might not be a clearly recognised common view. So perhaps we need to remove 'current view' and not have the article suggest there is one?Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

go to google books and write mother goddess and harappa. if you need more assistance, let me know.. anyways, the article just says "widely suggested", not presented like a proven fact.. please don't waste my time with this. I'm really open for a good discussion about everything, but this is a fruitless topic.--Wangond (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You should have revised the sentence, not just deleted it. It's now pov, especially as it has "In view of the large number of figurines[50] found in the Indus valley, it has been widely suggested that the Harappan people worshipped a Mother goddess symbolizing fertility." which is cited to Clark and makes it appear Clark supports the idea of a mother goddess, which is fault, and doesn't point out the uncertainty not just about that but about Indus valley religion in general.Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Clark is nowhere cited. What are you talking about? --Wangond (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Clark is the only citation in the Mother Goddess sentence, see [11]. I pointed that out on the talk page earlier. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be more references to the claim that Indus was occupied by Indo-European religion. Hinduism is not a Indo-European religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamilan101 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "Indo-European religion" - what are you trying to say? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Don't write wrong misleading information such as the Indus being occupied by "Indo-European" religions. There is no such thing; Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism originated in India so the article should say the Indus was occupied by "Indian Religions". Claiming Hinduism as Indo-European religion is misleading, more information is need on that before it is claimed.

It sould not go without mention that with all probability the so-called Indus script does not record any language at all, in other words, the symbols, which have been widely taken to be the clue to the language of the Indus Valley Civilization, are not a writing system. Cf. Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel "The collaps of the Indus-script thesis: The myth of a literate Harappan civilisation" at www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phmaas (talk • contribs) 07:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No writing, no civilization. Lots of advanced cultures achieved high population density, impressive architecture, organized religion, oral history, and advanced agriculture. Yet, they are not civilizations in the modern sense of the concept. Calling this a civilization would mean having to call many other cultures as such, to the point of inaccuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.113.221 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an (attempted) serious article on the Indus Valley Civilization ... crackpot OR has no place in it or here on the Talk Pages. Your views are in direct conflict with the world's scientists and historians. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

There should be a topic on Saraswati Civilization based on the proved theory in recent times as not many believe in this Indus valley civilization which was a result of Max Muller's theory and the Britishers just banked upon it to further divide and rule policy. Many scholars opposed this Aryan Invasion Theory including Swami Vivekanada , Bal Gangadhar Tilak and many others and they proved it wrong. Europeans don't know more than what we know about our cultures and religions. Its not fair where even now Tamilians, Muslims and Hindus fight each other. They turned a vedic country(tolerant to all religions) into a constantly battling country with itself. Our Country was terribly destroyed by the British and they still don't acknowledge the proofs collected against the Aryan Invasion Theory adding fuel to fire. Even few Tamil people believe it is false and that it was put in their minds by Britishers to create enmity.

For references : 1) http://hindufocus.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/what-great-indians-thought-about-the-aryan-invasion-theory/

                   2) http://vsc.iitm.ac.in/vsc.activities/transcribed.lectures/indusaryan.htm                   3) http://indiatourdirect.com/?p=450                   4) http://theindianheritage.blogspot.com/2010/09/macaulays-letter-and-origin-of-f-max.html                   5) http://www.hitxp.com/articles/history/myth-aryan-invasion-theory/

NOTE: The effect is such that even in Indian schools this theory is being taught to children in History books as the other theory which is backed by ancient vedic books is not acknowledged. This theory demotes our the Vedic Culture which is very advanced and all the knowledge it contains can solve most of the huge problems faced today by the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnadvaipayana (talk • contribs) 07:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice OR, but that is all it is. Your claims are not substantiated by science. Nor do claims about "solving today's huge problems" have anything to do with the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

my published paper 'The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script thesis' . this was published in a scienfitic journal recently. This shows why longer texts certainly existed in the Indus and why the Indus script was logo-syllabic. This is a complete refutation of Farmers thesis and refutes sproat's smoking gun completely. This is a very comprehensive refutation of Farmers thesis. If he doesn't agree with me, he must refute all my points convincingly

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.106.176 (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India) Journal of History and Culture ? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Here is my complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problemPart one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interestingThis is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance.Part 2 is particularly important> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two> Mirror:> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-TwoLinks to the journalPart one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Part two contains methods to derive the languages of the harappans with checks and balances122.166.5.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

1) some of the links don't work 2) which peer-reviewed journal? HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Hi, It was ICFAI journal of history and culture. The first four 4 links work. the paper is very self-explanatory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.203.231 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please register at Wiki so we can follow who you are instead of having to do a WHOIS each time. Anyway does the "(Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India) Journal of History and Culture" meet the standards of a Reliable Source? I'll leave that to others. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

This should read

<Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[47] argue that the Indus system did not encode language, ... >

in lieu of

While the Indus Valley Civilization is generally characterized as a literate society on the evidence of these inscriptions, this description has been challenged by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[47] argues that the Indus system did not encode language,

This conflicts with definitions of literacy (non-linguistic = protoliterate), non-linguistic with small linguistic component as admitted by Sproat and others = literate. Check other Wikipaedia pages. I think this was indavertant. You have corrected this already in other pages.

This should read

<Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[47] argue that the Indus system did not encode language, ... >

in lieu of

While the Indus Valley Civilization is generally characterized as a literate society on the evidence of these inscriptions, this description has been challenged by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[47] argues that the Indus system did not encode language,

This conflicts with definitions of literacy (non-linguistic = protoliterate), non-linguistic with small linguistic component as admitted by Sproat and others = literate. Check other Wikipaedia pages. I think this was indavertant. You have corrected this already in other pages.122.166.5.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

I can't find any cites in Google Books to the journal "The IUP Journal of History and Culture" and no cites in Google books or Google scholar to the author and IP above, Sujay Rao Mandavilli. This looks a bit promotional, certainly not something we should be using in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I am not saying you should use this in the article. you can if you want to, i leave it to your discretion - it still is a peer-reviewed journal and among the most important in india.I am saying you should make the correction i noted above in my earlier post. it doesn't have anything to do with my article. i think it was an inadvertant mistake. You have made the correction in the other pages. I repeat “While the Indus Valley Civilization is generally characterized as a literate society on the evidence of these inscriptions, this description has been challenged by Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[48] argues that the Indus system did not encode language, but was instead similar to a variety of non-linguistic sign systems used extensively in the Near East and”To be replaced by<Farmer, Sproat, and Witzel (2004)[48] argue that the Indus system did not encode language, but was instead similar to a variety of non-linguistic sign systems used extensively in the Near East and”>>Check definitions in other wikipaedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.5.202 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You really should consider registering on Wikipedia - it is easy and quick. This way people can try to follow your comments here. Also remember the Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources, and citing them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Few sensible scholars will be able to deny that the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script. Facts about the Dholavira signboard.However seals may have been non-linguistic.

(a)It is one of the most famous of Harappan inscriptions.

(b)It was very large in size.

(c)It was located in Far from Mesopotamia Dholavira and in one of the furthest sites from Mesopotamia.

(d)It hung over the citadel there.

(e)It must have represented the name of the place and must have been closely tied to speech: note the sign repetition.

(f)The sign which was used as a determinative was a very common Indus sign.

(g)The sign used as a determinative appears to have been also similar to determinatives in other writing systems.

(h)The Indus script was also related to Proto-Elamite which means it probably had a linguistic component.

(i)The other signs with which the determinative was used were also common Indus signs.

(j)Few sensible scholars will now dispute the fact that the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script on the basis of this evidence.

(k)Few sensible scholars will deny the fact that speech encoding was one of the major functions of the Indus script and had this feature had reached a very precocious maturity.

(l)This inscription was apparently more closely tied to speech than most proto-Elamite inscriptions.

(m)Dholavira was not even the most important of sites.

(n)The fact that it was hung over the citadel meant it was meant to be read by elites.

(o)It was put to the most frivolous use.

(p)Speech encoding would have been a prized possession: no one would have used it just for a decorative signboard at far-from-Mesopotamia Dholavira. Why would a man who had inscribed this, done so (a) if nobody else could read it (b) why would he have learnt to encode speech only to inscribe this signboard? This automatically implies the existence of longer texts. It also shows that the Indus elites used more complex forms of communication.

(q)Even if we assume that speech-encoding was added in Mature Harappan 3B, this logic would still hold good.

(r)This logic is already accepted by mainstream Indus archaeologists as a precursor to the existence of longer texts

please refer to the book by Jane Macintosh (Mcintosh 2008 p 374) "The Harappans did not create monumental art or architecture on which such inscriptions may have been written. The nearest that the Harappans came to this is the Dholavira signboard which is quite possibly the tip of the iceberg of a now vanished public inscriptions.Farmers arguments fail to account convincingly for the structural regularities that analysis have revealed in the use of Harappan signs. These strongly seem to support the hypothesis that the Indus script represent a writing system"

This also proves that much longer texts existed

122.167.137.22 (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this book - "The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives (Understanding Ancient Civilizations)" by Jane R. McIntosh, ABC-CLIO; 1 edition (November 12, 2007), ISBN-10: 1576079074 ? [Jane McIntosh is a professional archaeological writer. She has taught archaeology at the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England and has excavated in Europe, India, and Iraq. Her published works include A Peaceful Realm and the award-winning Practical Archaeologist.] So she is definitely a Reliable Source - but are the words "few sensible scholars" hers, or yours? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

The words ""few sensible scholars" are indeed mine. that was the book i was refering to. I quote her. She says

“Farmer also draws attention to the absence of long Harappan inscriptions on potsherds. If the Harappan signs were a script, he contends, this absence would make it unique among the scripts of literate cultures, who all used potsherds often like scrap paper. This need only, imply however, that the Harappans had other media that were easier to scribble on, such as cotton cloth or wooden boards, or that the writing medium was not well suited for use on sherds. Likewise the absence of long monumental inscriptions seems significant to Farmer, but the Harappans did not create monumental art or architecture on which such inscriptions might have been written; the nearest they came to this is the Dholavira signboard, which is quite possibly the tip of an iceberg of a now vanished public inscriptions.”

“He (Farmer) also considers that the proportion of singleton and rare signs is unusually high; other scholars such as Parpola (2005) demonstrate that this is not so, since in general logo-syllabic scripts contain a small corpus of frequently used signs and a large number of much less common ones. Moreover, new signs are continuously added, even when the writing system is a fully developed one, something Farmer also denies. Statistically the Harappan script does not differ significantly in its sign proportions from other logographic scripts. A further point regarding the singletons is that Wells (n.d.) has demonstrated that many are variants or ligatures of basic signs, rather than completely different signs; again, this is something to be expected in a genuine script”

“Perhaps more significantly, the brevity of the majority of the Harappan texts (four to five signs on average) makes it less likely that signs would repeat within them than it is in the longer texts with which Farmer compares them (McIntosh 2008, p. 374).

“Farmer’s arguments fail to account convincingly for the structural regularities that analyses have revealed in the use of the Harappan signs; these seem strongly to support the hypothesis that the Harappan signs represent a writing system. The theory put forward by Farmer and his collaborators has not been widely accepted, but it has been valuable in compelling scholars to look afresh at their assumptions about the script and in provoking a stimulating debate from which a deeper understanding of the script should emerge (McIntosh 2008, p. 374). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.112.154 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The map of the Indus valley civilization needs an update, due to newer findings in recent years. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

Anon, such as? Do you have verifiable sources to refer to what you are talking about? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Just to note The Neolithic polished stone celt (hand-held axe) with the Indus valley script found at Sembian-Kandiyur village, near Mayiladuthurai in Tamil Nadu! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Harappans could not have spoken Sanskrit which was primarily liturgical.I discussed this in detail in my paper on the Aryan problem, and will be discussing this in greater detail in a new paper. I have supported the 'remote ancestor of prakrit hypothesis'. The Prakrit hypothesis in some form has been supported by Madhav Deshpande (Sanskrit Profesor)- Early form of Prakrit, S Kalyanaraman (Alien (mlecha prakrit), me (remote ancestor of Prakrit).

You must distinguish between the two. One can propose the Vedic Indus theory in good faith, but this can't make it correct! THis encourages religious fanticism Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.112.154 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

again read part two

> http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indus_script" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.112.154 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unfortunately," non-peer reviewed personal papers are not allowed under the Reliable Sources guidelines. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

both are published in peer-reviewed journals and have gone thru at least 3 rounds of peer-review. ICFAI journal of history & culture( part one: jan 2009 & part two jan 2010- sujay rao mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.101.237.66 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

hi, the map of indus valley civilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civilt%C3%A0ValleIndoMappa.png) shows the kashmir part of india in pakistan, which is wrong. This part legally belong to India which is taken over by Pakistan and is called Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Hence It is not Pakistan but part of India. The UN has already given in its UN security council resolution 47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47) to withdraw forcews of Pakistan.

183.82.76.242 (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That is probably something best brought up on the picture's talk page - File_talk:CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

How about making a template like these about IVC (or about "Ancient Indian subcontinent") ?

(Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Μέγας (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

looks generally pretty good. I went ahead and converted them to WP:HLIST. Frietjes (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Could the caption of File:CiviltàValleIndoMappa.png on this page be edited to the "Extent of the Indus Valley Civilization imposed over modern borders." It states the obvious, but at least provides the reader with definite understanding. Thanks. --Inops (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done I left out the period since this is still a sentence fragment. Thanks. Celestra (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Add reference: Deo Prakash Sharma, 2011, Science and Metal Technology of Harappans, New Delhi, Kaveri Books

117.193.185.141 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The reference section is for references which were used to create the article. How is this book related to the content of the article? Celestra (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Authority and Governance section (under Mature Harappan), some assumptions about the way the civilization was governed are listed, including these two:

• There was no single ruler but several: Mohenjo-daro had a separate ruler, Harappa another, and so forth.
• Harappan society had no rulers, and everybody enjoyed equal status.

These seem to me to contradict each other. The way I read the article, these assumptions are supposed to proceed from things like "indications of complex decisions being taken and implemented," which doesn't seem to support this last assumption that there were no rulers at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like either some more detailed information is needed to make this clearer or that there's some misinformation in the last statement.Mwelting (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is comments like 'making simpler the traditional "what is now" and "modern-day" sophistry by Indian jingoists' point to some kind of bias by editors on Wikipedia?

This is regards to [| this edit] by User:Fowler&fowler.

Are such comments welcome?इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 05:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Equally, is the behavior of Indian editors (that I refer to) welcome? I've been contributing to this page since 2006. They need to wake up to the fact that for better or worse the major IVC sites are west of the India-Pakistan border, as is Mehrgarh, the major neolithic precursor to IVC. The sites of Mohenjo-daro or Harappa are in Pakistan, not "modern-day Pakistan." No number of silly verbal subterfuges will change that. Also "what is now" applies equally to India, since IVC predates the first use of the English word "India" or the first use of any of its precursors in the Indo-European group of languages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I will quote from a reliable source (reliable per me).

Against the overwhelming evidence in support of the Saraswati being an Indian river and majority of the Indus sites being located along its banks, the remarks of the well-known historian, R. S. Sharma, come as a rude shock. Sharma (1999: 35) says, “The fundamentalists want to establish the superiority of the Sarasvati over the Indus because of communal considerations. In the Harappan context they think that after partition the Indus belongs to the Muslims and only the Sarasvati remains with the Hindus” (emphasis B. B. Lal’s).

The fact, however, is that no scholar of repute has made such a statement. The Indus, even though today, flows, for most of its length, through Pakistan, is very much an Indian river as well for it reaches Pakistan only after flowing through Kashmir. Besides, as Sir Mortimer Wheeler (1959) said in his book, India from the Earliest Times to Ashoka, the Indus gave India her name and the Ganges gave her faith. So no sane scholar can make such a foolish and rabid statement.

The quote includes statements from Dr. B. B. Lal and Dr. V. N. Misra, both reputed in their own fields. Source: [| link]इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Lothal has is notable in IVC per Lothal#Dock_and_warehouse, etc. Suggesting that Lothal be included per notability.

This is regards to [| this edit].इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In the lead (where I removed "Lothal"), they are talking about major urban centers. Why would we include there a small village less than five hectares in size? The notion that Lothal had a dock has not been accepted outside India (or, more accurately, outside the insulated environs of state sponsored archeology in post-Independence India.)

• See Britannica on IVC:
  • Quote: "The most unexpected discovery at Lothal, however, was a great brick basin measuring some 718 by 121 feet (219 by 37 metres) with extant brick walls of 15 feet (4.5 metres) in height. This lay east of the settlement, alongside the platform on which the granary block stood. At one end of the basin was a small sluice or spillway with a locking device. The excavator (Rao) has inferred that the basin was a dock to which ships could be brought from the nearby estuary via an artificial channel that would have been kept clear of silt by controlling the flow of water from the spillway. This view has not been universally accepted; another view is that it provided a source of fresh water for drinking or agriculture. A cemetery was found outside the perimeter of the wall, west of the site.
• Wright, Rita P. (2010), The ancient Indus: urbanism, economy, and society, Cambridge University Press, p. 142, ISBN 978-0-521-57219-4, retrieved 18 March 2012
  • Quote: "A third feature, and the most controversial sector of the town (Lothal), is a "dockyard" (S. Rao 1979) consisting of a depressed rectangular space enclosed by a baked brick wall. ... Rao believes that the area was connected to tidal flows from the sea and the depressed space was used for docking. Although Rao's interpretation has been criticized, scholars have not offered feasible alternative explanations, though one possibility is that it was a tank for collecting water as Bisht has suggested at Dholavira." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, however this is not the place to discuss personal views of wiki-editors whether some are insulated state sponsored or 'international' funded less-than-exhaustive and passed off as the most relevant.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 17:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My eyes, they bleed because of these colors. Surely I can't be the only one. 124.123.218.199 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the vedas "the battle of ten kings" was fought between Bharata tribe and Puru, Yadu, Anu, Druhyu and Turvasu etc. tribes.All these tribes were Chandervanshi Aryas.Bharata tribe is a branch of Puru tribe.This battle was fought in Punjab.The Bharata tribe was ruling in East Punjab and Haryana and the other ten kings were ruling in West Punjab, Ghandhara and further north.all these areas fall within IVC.My point is that at the time of "THE BATTLE OF TEN KINGS" the IVC was ruled by Chandervanshi Aryas.

The battle of Mahabharat was fought between Kurus and Pandus.Pandus are a branch of Kurus, Kurus are branch of Bharata tribe and Bharatas were a branch of Purus and Purus are ChanderVanshi Aryas.The other kings who took part in the Mahabharta battle were also Chandervanshi Aryas.The king of Madra (Punjab) was a Chandervanshi Arya, The king Jaidrath of Sindhu Suvir (Sindh) was a Chandervanshi Arya and Shri Krishna of Dwaraka (Gujrat) was a Chandervanshi Arya.all these Chandervanshi Arya kings were ruling where the IVC has been found.The Mahabharata talks about the wealth of Sindhu Suvir.This must have been the mature IVC phase.My point is that at that time the IVC was ruled by Chandervanshi Arya kings.Mohanjo Daro must have been the capital of king Jaidrath, and Harappa must have been capital of king Shalu of Madra(Punjab).At that time the rule was monarchical but later on it had become democratic as well.What do other editors think about my views.Do they make sense.?.Rajbaz (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are to discuss the article, not expressing one's personal opinions or to debate topics. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add this new information to the article: In an August 12, 2012 interview with the Deccan Herald, Asko Parpola clarified his position on Indus script by admitting that Sanskrit-speakers had contributed to the Indus Valley Civilization.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/79062/sanskrit-has-contributed-indus-civilisation.html

Also, Parpola's volume 3 of 'Corpus of Indus Seals and Inscriptions' has been published now and is available from Tiedekirja Books in Finland, so the article should be updated to reflect this.

S. M. Sullivan (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If Asko Parpola, (who has put since three decades a strong theory of Dravidan origin for Indus Language), opines that Indus valley language is influenced by Sanskrit/Indo-European family of languages, that may be certainly added to the article.Rayabhari (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But, in the interview with Deccan Herald newspaper,(as per link) his answers are a little vague rather than affermitive. Is it suffecient?Rayabhari (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there templates missing in the article such as Template:Ancient_Egypt_topics for ancient Egypt.Template:Ancient_Mesopotamia for ancient Mesopotamia.

Some pages may help: Periodization_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.117 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, link is dead for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.132.218 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Indus-Valley-2-000-years-older-than-thought/Article1-954601.aspx

http://indiawires.com/13837/news/national/indus-valley-civilization-as-old-as-7380-bc-asi/

In a preliminary finding, the latest research has declared the aging of the Indus Valley Civilization existed around 7380 BC. This civilization is now also known as the Indus-Saraswati Civilization as nearly 2000 of the 3000 sites are situated on the banks of the now extinct Saraswati River, which has been traced by satelite imaging. Along the dry bed of this river (The Saraswati) a lot of new towns and settlements are now being found

http://www.harappa.com/har/indus-saraswati.html

http://www.eshiusa.org/Articles/Saraswati%20in%20Hindu%20Civilizational%20History%20and%20Culture.pdf

In fact, satellite imagery has given the riverscientific teeth. It seems to have originated in Kailash Mansarovar and emerged on the plainsfrom the Siwalik Hills at the foothills of the Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh, flowed throughthe Ghaggar valley in Haryana and the Rajasthan desert, on to Hakra in the Cholistan desert(Sindh, Pakistan), before reaching the Rann of Kutch through the Nara Valley and falling offinto the Arabian Sea.

Projects related to the re-discovery of Vedic River Sarasvati have been transformed asprojects to revive the great river to fulfil the water supply needs of 20 crore people inNorthwest India and to make the Thar desert fertile again. These projects have also led to thedemand for a National Water Grid to make every river of India a perennial river and providewater for everyone, for generations to come.

Dr. D.K. Chaddha, Chairman, Central Groundwater Authority, Union Ministry of WaterResources, validated BARC findings of potable water 30 to 60 m. below the ground, throughground morphological studies. A Rs. five crore Sarasvati Project was sanctioned to drill testtubewells along the identified course. ISRO located the test sites on the basis of a palaeochannel(old course) shown in satellite images; the existence of a tectonic fault line; and theproximity to an archaeological site.Vishalvkale01 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

INDUS SCRIPT WAS TRUE WRITING

Please find my two papers below and circulate amongst the skeptics, particularly!

To state the obvious, the Indus script was a logo-syllabic script and a lost corpus did exist.

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

Published in the ICFAI journal of history and culture, January 2011

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

Published in International journal of philosophy and journal sciences , November 2012

I am also introducing logo-syllabic thesis B in this paper

The paper is very self-explanatory!does anybody still beg to differ?

Sujay Rao Mandavilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.121.167 (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The dating is not upto the mark

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Indus-Valley-2-000-years-older-than-thought/Article1-954601.aspx

Please correct the misinformation. The references look like repeating 19th century texts.111.91.75.238 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)