Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation

Indus valley civilization over 6000 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

“On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to 7380 BC to 6201 BC.”Excavations had been carried out at two sites in Pakistan and Bhirrana, Kunal, Rakhigarhi and Baror in India. Amjp07 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As we keep having to say here, "remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon" does not equal "Indus Valley Civilisation", or anything that we would normally call civilization. That said, the research may be interesting. Do you have a link there? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Old news:

• Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 3#Dating of 7,380bc-6,201bc should be placed at The top of The Wikipedia page,instead of hidden at the lower portion of the page
• Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 3#Bhirrana and dating of IVC

Et cetera ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization 8000 to 9000 years old, Pt 2

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

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

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

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

Ad infinitum - but I'm repeating myself... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but can we concentrate on the ONGOING MOVE PROPOSAL at bottom. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

IVC Size

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

Sources include:

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

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

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

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

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

The impact of the IVC on rural areas, and away from the main rivers in general, remains extremely unclear - few village sites with a clear connection have been excavated. These aren't the greatest sources and I think better ones avoid just joining up the dots of the major sites and claiming everything in between was part of the "civilization". Probably it wasn't, in much of a meaningful sense. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification, thank you.

I am getting used to making edits on Wiki and learning from you all helps a lot. :)

StolenFocus007 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

After doing some further reading, I have come across a number of sources stating that the size of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

If there is so many sources stating this, I don't see the harm in adding this information?

1. Khan, S., Dialynas, E., Kasaraneni, V. K., & Angelakis, A. N. (2020). Similarities of Minoan and Indus Valley hydro-technologies. Sustainability, 12(12), 4897.
2. Gangal, K., Vahia, M. N., & Adhikari, R. (2010). Spatio-temporal analysis of the Indus urbanization. Current Science, 846-852
3. Dutt, S., Gupta, A. K., Wünnemann, B., & Yan, D. (2018). A long arid interlude in the Indian summer monsoon during∼ 4,350 to 3,450 cal. yr BP contemporaneous to displacement of the Indus valley civilization. Quaternary International, 482, 83-92.
4. Manuel, M. J. (2010). Chronology and culture-history in the Indus Valley. Neptune.

StolenFocus007 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod - sorry forgot to ping you into this... StolenFocus007 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty wierdly, the first of these claims (abstract) that the IVC reached to Bangladesh, which I think is pretty unorthodox. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod - Yes... I noticed that, but regardless, many other sources still point to the size being at least 1 million square kilometres, so I don't see the harm in adding this to the article? StolenFocus007 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated typo

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

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

•  Done Made some changes to address these issues. – Scyrme (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

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

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

Requested move 8 June 2022

Indus Valley Civilisation → Indus Valley civilisation – Descriptive name, not proper name. Though there's a recent trend toward more capitalization of "civilisation" here, likely due to authors following Wikipedia, sources are still not close to the MOS:CAPS threshold of "consistently capitalized". Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Statistics from books show tons of lowercase (even valley sometimes): [1] and [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Wrong representation. The first link (Goggle Books NGRAM viewer) shows that "Indus Valley Civilization" is the most common, followed by "Indus Valley civilization". Chaipau (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Although you could definitely argue that this is a proper name, interpreting it as a noun/descriptive name is also acceptable, and I feel that when both are acceptable we should go for the noun interpretation as it's less restrictive of the scope of the article (and also it makes things easier to read!). Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose You tried an undiscussed move, which was rightly and promptly overturned. The "trend" is anything but "recent", and you need good, firm evidence of your claims that "sources are still not close to the MOS:CAPS threshold of "consistently capitalized"", which you will find harder to demonstrate than you evidently think. Scholarship, after the first paras, normally and routinely calls this the "IVC", demonstrating a proper name. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You KNOW that isn't a valid argument. Please stop injecting nonsense into these discussions. ATM is written all-caps, but everyone here knows it stands for "automated teller machine", not "Automated Teller Machine". Cf. MOS:ACRO.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as per Johnbod. E.g., here Gregory Possehl uses "Indus Civilization" throughout. Chaipau (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support—per Dr. Vogel, but more: where there's doubt, downcase. That, in effect, is what MOSCAPS says. Tony (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support The evidence is quite clear as is the guidance at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Initialisms are routinely capitalised regardless of casing of the full term. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Apologies for the crankiness. I have just woken up and the coffee is still cooking, and I have a dental appointment soon ... but for now: How does someone who has made no edits to the article walk off the street, start a page move, which is their right by some cockamamie WP rule, but then have the gumption to think that Tim Dyson, the author of A Population History of India, OUP, 2018; Wendy Doniger, the author of The Hindus, An Alternative History, or British Museum have all been reading Wikipedia? If we are going to dicker about capitalization, why not the "Indus valley civilisation?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Every element of that is a fallacious argument.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. Not consistently capitalized in reliable sources. Ngrams show that capitalizing the "civilization" part has never been the dominant practice except for very short blips (probably the result of multiple books in the same year or so from the same author)[3] . A quick tour through Google Scholar results shows lower-case is dominant except in titles [4]. This is a descriptive phrase like "Hallstatt culture" and "indigenous peoples of the Americas", not a proper name. You'll find both of those phrases capitalized in some sources as well [5], but it is not a dominant practice and mostly happens in titles not running prose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCCAPS. --Sitush7 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)