Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation

Dismayed

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

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

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

Indus Civilisation

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

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

Furthermore, I would revise the following:

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

to:

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

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

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

They don't in India, but that is because India doesn't have any major sites. The promotion of "Harappan," despite it being a type site, was a deliberate and ultimately futile attempt by the ASI to diminish Pakistan's geographical claim to IVC and bolster India's. You may read about it in the Discovery section, and also in this talk page's archives. It has been much discussed. Sorry, this is all I have time for. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an imperative of precedence. This is an old page, going back more than 15 years, and much edited. It is a former Featured Article. The title, therefore, has precedence. There is very little realistic chance that it will be changed. Sorry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• The correct procedure is given at WP:RM. I think both you and F&F considerably overstate your cases, & it might well be worth trying an RM. There is clearly a shift in usage underway. We don't just look at what "the scholastic community uses" but other WP:RS aimed (like us) at a broader audience, for example major museums. Meanwhile please use the term we are using & don't do what you did at Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, changing everything to "IC". Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Btw, there is no need to use Indian (or Pakistani) English on talk pages. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod:. Not silliness. You do need to provide a source that says exactly what you are saying ("increasingly referred to as"). Perhaps there is one in the body, if it is, it would be helpful if you indicated where it is. If not, please don't change the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It most certainly was silly, but perhaps ArvinRM has a source to hand, since RegentsPark has questioned that "IC" has ever been used (see recent article edits). Good practice for the RM. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Hmm. I am not contesting that IC has ever been used. My quibble is with the use of "increasingly". Since you went ahead and added that, I assume you have reasonable evidence to support the use of "increasingly"? --RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

But you didn't just remove "increasingly", did you? I think the dates of the refs I cited tell the story. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I did now. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

PS I must be attached to that less urbanized time for I mentioned it in my last post here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

PPS As for the non-archeologists, I have checked, Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2019. His section title is "Indus Valley Civilization." In the introductory paragraphs, he used "IVC" more frequently and thereafter "IC" more, totaling 19 for IVC and 26 for IC. (Example: "The emergence of the Indus valley civilization in the north-west of the Indian subcontinent meant that the size and characteristics of the population changed. The Indus civilization may well have been the most populous of the ancient world. (p. 7)"

A slightly older, Wendy Doniger's The Hindus: An Alternative History (2011) has a section the title "The Indus Valley," and first mention: "The material remains of this culture, which we call the Indus Valley Civilization or the Harappan Civilization (named after Harappa, one of the two great cities ..." Thereafter she uses IVC 14 times and IC 19.

Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund in their History of India (Fourth edition, Routledge 2004) prefer "Indus civilisation," using it 58 times and "Indus valley" 26 times (Example: CHRONOLOGY: c.6000 Neolithic settlements in Baluchistan; 4th millennium Settlements in the Indus valley; 2800–2600 Beginning of Indus civilisation; 2600–1700 Civilisation of the great cities in the Indus valley (Mohenjo-Daro,Harappa),)

Romila Thapar in Ancient India: From the Origins to ... Penguin 2001, uses only "Indus Civilization"

... So, there you have it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a proper move request or an RfC - maybe the latter as it runs longer and might attract more editors, it's not a simple question. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is really, as everybody means the same thing (keeping broader terms like "Indus Tradition" out of it, as we should). I am likely to want to follow these guys and similar institutions. Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

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

Archaeological cultures in India

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

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

• The Category:Indus Valley Civilisation is in that category (and the Pakistan one of course), so no need. Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Merger proposal

Merge Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization. WP:COATRACK c.q. WP:POVFORK to promote the idea that the IVC is one of the roots of Hinduism. Some of the topics mentioned at Indus Valley Civilisation#Religion are mentioned there too, but none of the info is being used; info copied from other articles, such as Lingam, selectively omitted critically remarks (see Talk:Religion of the Indus Valley Civilization#Attribution). As scuh, it adds nothing valuable at the info available here. Therefore, redirect to this page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)