Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation

Cultural Hijacking

The indus valley civilization was an ancient civilization based along the indus river of Pakistan. 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)

Pakistan came into existence only in 1947.There is no clue of any muslim or Islam religion in india before 2000 years ago and much of the work on this civilization was done before 1947. 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)

http://darkmenu.com/GK%28General%20Knowledge%29/history%20quiz/Indus%20Valley%20Civilization%20%28quiz%201%29.aspx says that ..... the major excavation sites of Indus valley civilization went to Pakistan after the partition of India. I personally feel that no major work was done by Pakistani authorities. I think this because it is an Islamic state and Islam forbids to maintain any existence of any Idol. (Archeology is this sort of work and somewhat non-Islamic in nature).

I think you have some weird point of view, there were many reknowned archeologist, Professor Dani being the most prominent that worked extensively on the ancient heritage of Pakistan. This has nothing to do with religion, but with the archeological history of Pakistan and the region which it encompasses. It is the a part of their unique cultural legacy. —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)

Indus People

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.

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 f*ing 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)

Haryana

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)

Pashupati seal

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)

Recent IP edits

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)

Template Text?

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)

There may be someone who likes ancient history and has a knack

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."

Image copyright problem with Image:Lothal conception.jpg

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)

Vandalism?

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)

Geography

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)

vandalism

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)

Multilingual

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)

Leprosy?

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

Sourcing Problems

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)

Add map of civilization's extent to the top of the article.

The extent of Indus Valley Civilization.

{{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 a civilisation has the following features:find that out im not going to tell which 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)

Historical context

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)

Indian Subcontinent

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)

Revisionism or Propoganda (BOTH)

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)

External link

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]

Naming the Harappa Civilisation

{{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 for now: 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)

Indus-Sarasvati civilization: An utter non-sense

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)

Why is Afhganistan not included?

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 probably based 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)

South Asia and Ancient India

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)

"Hitherto Unknown"

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)

Edit request from 115.242.126.222, 4 April 2010

{{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

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 : Template:Quotation1

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:Template:Quotation1

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)

Indus script

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

spelling mistake

'subsistance' should be 'subsistence'

Indra Stands Accused

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)

Possible Survival

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)

Egalitarian

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 request from Kumar809, 9 October 2010

{{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)

please change western to northwestern

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)

Citation Resources

{{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)

Religion and mother goddess

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

The so-called Indus script

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)

It's not a civilization, it's a culture!

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

Saraswati Civilization

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

The reconfirmation and reinforcement of the Indus script Thesis

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

complete and comprehensive solution for the socalled Aryan problem

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

Harappan writing system

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.

Harappan writing system

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).

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

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

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

The Indus script was logo-syllabic: simple proof adddessed to mainstream researchers!!

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"

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