Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 2

{{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 and Farmer says he's received death threats. This article from the last issue of Archaeology Magazine also mentions death threads 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 pottery vessels. 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.com http://www.harappa.com/harappa_1986_1990/Harappa1986-90_02_Possehl-History.pdf http://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 - The Roots of Tantra p.40, 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 - 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 . 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 problem Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting This 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-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Part two contains methods to derive the languages of the harappans with checks and balances 122.166.5.202 (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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 river scientific teeth. It seems to have originated in Kailash Mansarovar and emerged on the plains from the Siwalik Hills at the foothills of the Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh, flowed through the 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 off into the Arabian Sea.

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

Dr. D.K. Chaddha, Chairman, Central Groundwater Authority, Union Ministry of Water Resources, validated BARC findings of potable water 30 to 60 m. below the ground, through ground morphological studies. A Rs. five crore Sarasvati Project was sanctioned to drill test tubewells 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 the proximity 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)