From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Lothal is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 6, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 24, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
March 24, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
June 14, 2015 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
Version 0.5  
WikiProject icon This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of History.

Headline text[edit]

Hello, What does muslims has to do with sati, can you please provide citation which shows muslims gave rise to sati, and why only in India??? why not other places in the world.



Sati was an evil practice that began in Rajasthan during the Islamic invasions. Muslims, in accordance with Koranic injunctions, would rape Hindu women and gave rise to the heinous practice of Sati. The person who keeps posting the reference to Sati may please provide citations. SM

Hi, I have changed the word 'jati' or caste, to Sati because the latter is the name of the practice that is being referred to. By the way I live at Ahmedabad, India -- the Lothal site is a couple of hours drive from here.

-- P. B.

I find no references to sati practice amongst the Indus Valley peoples anywhere on the web; it seems to basically stem from Indian archaeologists speculating about the meaning of a joint burial - pretty flimsy basis if you ask me.

I've reverted edit of 2 Nov, '04 and 3 subsequent edits because it contained copyrighted material from . If there were any genuine edits in these versions, please merge it back with the article. Jay 09:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that a sentence leaves me hanging, it says some stuff and then ends with something about a harbour. The sentence begins and ends as if I already knew about the harbour. COuld someone familiar with this place please address this one sentence? thanks Jaberwocky6669 22:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Removed the following comment from the main article.

[Whoever, written this article must explain, what Y-chromosome gene signature were the Harappans? What about modern Indians? per region. It is pretty obvious that the current population living around these ruins belong to the Harappan civilization, however the central asian migration did occur and may have resulted to the language of Ancient changing from Harappan (most likely Dravidian) to an IE one. ]

-- D

April 03, 2005


Removed the following snippet ...

" possibly the earliest known practice of Sati. "

Above is a conjecture with no proof. It could be possible that both the man and the woman died due to disease around the same time. It could be possible that the man and woman are brother and sister? If they were definitely "Husband and Wife" then it can also be argued that one of them was buried later in the same grave so that they are together in after life [there are several instances of such a burial] famously Shah Jahan lies beside Begum Mumtaz. If they are discovered say 2000 years later, can one conclude that Mumtaz committed Sati for the love of Shah Jahan?

-- Abhijna

removed the sentence on Sati again. This read "One of the graves in this cemetery has a man buried along with his wife, possibly the earliest known practice of Sati. ". Burial of a man and woman together is not evidence of Sati. Imc 09:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


      as the case in favour of sati is purely speculative I have removed it from the

headline text. I have also made minor change to the part dealing with burial/disposal of the dead. I feel that joint burial has nothing to do with sati it might mean quite different things. Also was it "Indian Archeologists" who suggested the work 'sati' or was it only S.R. Rao ?


6 April 2006

I'm sorry, but I'm stuck on the concept of "world's first dock." Considering that a common definition of "dock" is "structure, usually of wood, extending into a body of water for anchorage of boats", how in the world would anyone know which was the world's first one? Wooden structures in water often don't last a decade, let alone four millenia.

The world's first known drydock, then. 18:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

pre-WP:FAC review requested[edit]

moved to Wikipedia:Peer review/Lothal/archive1


I'm nearly positive the IPA is wrong, but I'd like confirmation from a Gujarati speaker before I make the change. First of all, do you hear an American-style r sound in the second syllable, or just an aa sound like in Hindustaan? Second, is the th sound the way a fricative (the way a British person would say it in a word like thistle) or just an ordinary aspirated t (something that would be written as थ in Devanagari)? QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Gujarati, and the best I can tell you is that - the "th" is is fricative, and the sound in Loth"-al" is single "a," unlike "Hindustaan." However, I'm not familiar with how IPA is written. Hope this is helpful. Rama's Arrow 22:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Btw, the "थ" in Devanagari is not the one you mean (I think) - its the "t-h" one that is a circle connected to the upper line with a perpendicular line (sorry, no fonts). Rama's Arrow 22:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, now that I see it, the IPA is wrong. It's aspirated t (थ). We don't have the frictive "θ" in Indian languages. I don't know all about IPA, or I would have corrected it. It's "लोथल" in Devanagari [1], (थ, not ठ [2], [3]) so someone who knows how to transliterate should correct it. deeptrivia (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks so much, that's exactly what I need. If Deeptrivia's Devanagari is correct, then I've adjusted the IPA to what should be an acceptable phonemic transcription. The stress marker goes before the stressed syllable in IPA, a short a or अ is generally transcribed [ə], etc. I've followed Deeptrivia's pronunciation of th as a थ not a ठ – the latter would be transcribed [ʈʰ], so it would be /ˈloːʈʰəl/ if Rama's Arrow is right. Thanks for the help! QuartierLatin1968 El bien mas preciado es la libertad 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible typo fix[edit]

I caught the following:

The scale is 6mm thick, 15 mm broad and the available length is 128 mm, but only 27 graduations are visible over 146 mm, the distance between graduation lines being 1.704 mm (the small size indicate use for finer purposes).

It seems absurd that the visible graduations cover a distance longer than the scale itself. If one divides 146 by 27, the result is 5.407. I think this was supposed to be 46 mm. Dividing 46 by 27, the result is 1.704. So I went ahead and fixed it, but I don't have access to the original text, so I might be wrong. Also, I changed 1.704 to 1.70, because I think it is a case of misleading precision. — MSchmahl 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to all who contributed to the creation of this article.07:14,Geoffrey Wickham 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone knowledgable comment on the use of "surfaced" in the article.

"A major part of the township and dockyard were surfaced. Resuming excavation in 1961, archaeologists surfaced trenches sunk on the northern, eastern and western flanks of the mound ..."

Does this have some weird technical meaning ? Or should it be "excavated" ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to unearthed. I am only familiar with the use of surfaced with respect to land areas to mean cover with asphalt or concrete which is certainly not correct here. Rmhermen 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification in Art Section[edit]

Can someone clarify the following sentence, as it doesn't make much sense in English (American English, anyway):

"Terra-cotta models also identify the differences between species of dogs and bulls, including those of horses."

Should it read: "Terra-cotta models also identify the differences between species of dogs, cattle and horses."

Two points: Bulls is usually just the male cow, using cattle would be more general.

Secondly, I am guessing the author was talking about different species of horses?

Can anyone clarify before I make any changes? I would hate to destroy the intended meaning. Thanks! 14:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Thepearl

BC or BCE?[edit]

According to the Manual of Style (WP:MOSDATE#Eras), BC and BCE are both acceptable uses, as long as consistency is maintained within an article. Changing from one another without substantial reason is considered inappropriate, much like "correcting" Commonwealth spelling to American spelling and vice-versa. "B.C.E." [sic] was introduced in the article on 2 November 2004 [4]. Rama's Arrow, who contributed a large portion of the text, consciously decided to use "B.C.E." (see this revision). The article was using "BCE" consistently throughout when I first found it. [5] Therefore, I am re-reverting all instances of "BC" to "BCE", and strongly recommend that future editors leave it that way. — MSchmahl 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this article was originally BC prior to undiscussed alterations to BCE by User:Deeptrivia at 19:11, 26 January 2006, it shall remain with the BC/AD (anno Domini) terminology until a consensus is reached here, at the talk page. According to WP:MOSDATE#Eras, not only shall one be consistent within an article but era notation should not be changed from one to another at any time prior to consensus. It appears there is no consensus for BCE given the large amount of users that are reverting back to BC. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think User:Rama's Arrow should be able to decide as he wrote almost the entire article. I think he submitted his article as a FAC with BCE, so we should use BCE. I think this is a clear .violation of WP:DATE as no reason for changing to BC was given. 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. User:Rama's Arrow does not own this article thus has no power over the merits of its contents. This article began with the era notation BC and it will stay that way in accordance with WP:MOS until there is a consensus through discussion toward otherwise. Also, I did not change this article's notation from BCE to BC, I reverted it back to BC after it was changed (without reason) to BCE at 19:11, 26 January 2006 by User:Deeptrivia. Also, User:Rama's Arrow did not begin editing with BCE, he used BC until someone else changed the notation to BCE, thus he followed with that notation. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 16:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The first appearance of either BC or BCE is "B.C.E" on 2 Nov 2003 (, not that facts have anything to do with Wikipedia debates. Ted 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the Featured Article candidacy for Lothal, Spangineer says, "Also, I noted a few inconsistencies w.r.t. BCE vs. BC—pick one and go with it." Subsequently, the editors who were working on the article "picked one and went with it." Really, it could have gone either way. And though you are correct that "User:Rama's Arrow does not own this article", he/she is the major contributor, and his/her editorial decision to use BCE in favor of BC should be respected. And I submit that the fact that the article continued to use BCE continuously, without objection, from 28 February 2006 until 5 April 2006 (when it appeared on the main page and was edited by to use BC) means that the decision to use BCE is the consensus decision. — MSchmahl 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I now realize that the consensus does indeed appear to be BCE, I will note however there seems to be a strong opposition for BC and throughout this article's history there seemed to have always been inconsistencies with BC and BCE, and now BC stands. We have two options, re-insert BCE as the default notation, or insert both (as per the Jesus article) and hold a voting session here at the talk page for which notation. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 17:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I suggest waiting a few days, to see if any more comments accrue here, and to let the "mainpageitis" to cool off. Afterwards, I intend to change back to BCE. Personally, I don't really much care which is used, but I didn't want to see this become a lame edit war. — MSchmahl 18:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but ceteris paribus imo its more appropriate to use BCE, as clearly religiously neutral than BC.gunslotsofguns 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that if I called a Nativity scene a "Holiday barnyard", then it would be "religiously-neutral"? No, because it's still a nativity scene. Same goes for BCE, whereas it's still based apon the predicted birth of Jesus Christ that was determined by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century AD...just with an "E" at the end. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 19:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok let me put it this way. A Nativity scene is part of the christian heritage and there is no reason why it shouldn't remain so. It makes sense for some concepts to remain religious because they still continue to exist in the religious fold. However the same analogy would not apply to the BC/BCE debate. You would say that BC is also part of the afore-mentioned christian heritage and you are right, and that BCE is based on that. I don't disagree with you. But the difference lies in the fact that due to christian west's preponderance in world affairs everyone(i.e. members of every other religion and atheists as well) everywhere in the world also uses it. Hence i would say that it has moved out of its earlier religious understanding and it was more appropriate to use a more religiously-neutral term. Moreover the abbreviations themselves are different and it is not just E added to the end.gunslotsofguns 20:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes but the Christian calendar was created for usage by Christians, and those in the non-Christian world adopted the calendar due to convenience and the power of the Western world. Non-Christians and non-theists could have easily created a new calendar any time between 525 and 2006, but chose not to, probably because it would cause mass confusion and take too much work calculating dates in contrast to the Gregorian calendar. Thus, I find that at least– people should be respective of the Christian origins of the calendar, and just use the terms BC/AD (which are rarely used anyway). I mean, come on, we use the terms Wednesday (named for god Woden), Gregorian calendar (named for Pope Gregory), and not to mention all the rest of the days of the week and most of the months, but nobody complains to have them altered? They're all of religious origin as well, but apparently nobody is offended. So unless you want Wednesday changed to "Day #3 of the Common era", I can hardly see the merit for your dislike of BC/AD. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record, Wednesday is fourth day for Quakers. There is religion everywhere! Ted 01:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) not advocating overthrowing the days of the week as well. imo the analogy doesn't hold because names of days of the week are diff in evry language, as they all have seven days so it just becomes a lingual thing inspite of the current english format deriving its name from gods. however the bc/ad thing is trickier. every culture has its own system of reckoning a begining pt and traditional calendars still show that. But you still need a intl accepted reckoning point so that every one can call the same year by the same number, otherwise the UN would never be be hold a single meeting:). My pt is only that due to historical reasons bc/ad system is in intl usage. and the reason is quite simply that one pt of time the predominantly christian west was setting standards in every international arena. the BCE/CE system represents a more secular way of looking at the whole thing. don't get me wrong, i respect your religious views. But like i said before this is not in a religious context anymore, so it shld respect a different standard.gunslotsofguns 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the policy is that you shouldn't change an article that (mor or less) consistently uses one or the other; however, I am of the opinion that if you are going to rewrite and massively expand the article (as Rama's Arrow did to this one), you should be able to rewrite it however you like, and this includes changing BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa. Raul654 22:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So when the original article, gets substantially modified whatever convention the substantial editor used will have to be preserved per policy.gunslotsofguns 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The main reference book uses BCE - I didn't even know about BCE before, which is why I initally added some BCs and some BCEs. When during the peer review, I was asked to maintain consistency, I opted in favor of BCE becoz the author S.R. Rao does so in his book, from which most of the dates are derived. An argument for BC could be that readers must not get confused, but all this religion talk is irrelevant. I hope this helps to resolve the question. Cheers, Rama's Arrow 20:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Whole Part"[edit]

What's a "whole part," as in "divided the horizon and sky into 8–12 whole parts"? Peter 18:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means, but this is how the point was described in the reference book, so I retained it in its actual form, becoz I couldn't effectively substitute it. Hope this helps Rama's Arrow 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I don't think it would hurt to change "whole parts" to just "parts". If we don't know what the former means (and thus can't put it into clearer language), it will only confuse others. Better to simplify, I'd say, but I won't make the change unilaterally. In any case, thanks for your answer. Peter 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Similarity of names for Lothal & Mohenjodaro[edit]

I have some interesting observation about names of Lothal & Mohenjodaro. Lothal in local Gujarati language means Mound of the Dead and Mohenjodaro which is Mue-jo-daro in local Sindhi language which also means Mound of the Dead. Is it not interesting to note that both places are very prominent Indus Valley civilization sites and both names meaning in their local languages is one and the same i.e. Mound of the Dead.

It seams that local people are remembering some fatal natural calamity which caused both places ( along with many Indus sites ) to turn into dead place by this naming --- Aryan theory supporters please remember that invasion is already ruled out and migration is notion by you so that you don't equate this as some invasion remembering. WIN 10:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ancient India[edit]

I think adding above category shall be in order. --Bhadani 08:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Refererence to Greek astronomy[edit]

This is a fascinating article, but I have one issue. It mentions twice that the achievements in astronomy of the scholars of Lothar predated that of the Greeks by 2,000 years without reference. The article mentions in particular the use of a 360 degree scale for measuring angles. The time difference mentioned would seem to refer to Eratosthenes and other mathematical astronomers of the classical Greek or Hellenistic era. Actually, both the 360 degree angle scale and the measurement of star positions by angles was known long before then, and was taken over by the Greeks from Babylonian astrologers, who used this scale certainly by the 16 century BCE. The 360 degree scale derives from the sexagesimal number system used by the Sumerians, around 3,000 BCE, though their astronomy was much simpler than that of the Babylonians. The connection between Mesopotamian and Hindu astronomy is a source of controversy I believe. Finally, Greek astronomers were, I believe, not interested in the use of stars for navigation. Navigation by stars is in fact much more useful closer to the Equator where the angle of the setting or rising of a star along the horizon can be used as navigation guide for directions. RFB 10:51, 22 may 2006 (UTC)

All assertions are directly referenced. There is no reference or assertion made in this article that is not referenced. Rama's Arrow 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, the section does have a general reference namely to the publication "Lothal", by the noted archeologist S. R. Rao, who led the digs. Unfortunately, I have no access to that publication (I am not an archeologist by the way). My concern is whether the statement about the 2,000 yrs represents the POV of S. R. Rao or an approximate consensus in the scientific literature. Actually, priority claims about the origins of Astronomy are controversial, as one can see from the Astronomy entry in Wikipedia. The question could be avoided by simply inserting "in the view of S.R. Rao," followed by the statement about the 2,000 years. Actually, the real question is whether the sexagesimal numbering system, and its use in measuring star positions, originated in the Indus valley or in Mesopotamia. Greece is not really relevant to that issue.

RFB 14:56, 23 may 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, its very interesting. The book by S.R. Rao is the official ASI handbook for Lothal - its been written in a completely matter-of-fact tone. He doesn't deliberate or speculate or go into other things - just listing the details of Lothal. Thus, I believe that it is simply the output of ASI research and not Rao's POV. I don't think WP editors should make the call on whether Greece is relevant or not, since the info is cited. The key to clarify the issue you might see is that if you could find references that deal with this particular question, in reference to Lothal (and not a discussion of astronomy elements) then we can say that there is a difference of opinion on the matter. Rama's Arrow 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Exact location of lothal[edit]

Whenever we talk about some important place, we should refer its latitude and longitude, so anyone in the world can easily know the exact location of place. Lothal dont have any famous landmark in radious of 10 km. So who wants to find it in map, can be difficult. I wish that we should put its lagitude and longitude (which is E 72 14' 58", N 22 31' 17") and also its closest populat places. (Its nearest railway station is Bhurkhi (also known as Lothal-Bhurkhi, that is already mentioned) Bhurkhi is near to Holy place 'Arnej', temple of godess 'Boot Bhavani Mata'. It is also near to Bagodara and Dholka city.

Plan of Lothal[edit]

I uploaded a image created in MS paint based on a plan published in a book. It is not to scale but enough to identify how lothal was. I made it available under Creative Commons. [6] Is it ok? -- Nizil (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would polishing prevent seepage?[edit]

The article reads that the bath stones were polished to prevent seepage. This seems wrong, in two ways. The absorbtive character of rock is not changed by how it is finished. A rock that was meant to be covered with a leak-resistant finish would, if anything, be roughened. If it was finished, it was finished for cosmetic reasons, or to avoid abrading what was stored in the bath? Leptus Froggi (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs sources other than S.R. Rao[edit]

Most of the sections after Archaeology are all from one source, S.R. Rao. I don't believe that is appropriate for a featured article, especially since many of his views seem very fanciful. The article reads a bit like fan-fiction -- there are no contemporary written sources about the Harappans, and yet the article goes into amazingly intricate depth about life in Lothal that is more typical of articles about Ancient Rome. I know in particular that Rao's claimed decipherment of the Indus script as Sanskrit is widely discredited and seems motivated by Hindu nationalism. Nzg0 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User NzgO is single a purpose editor, created just to post this comment. How S.R.Rao's views seem very fanciful? In India, in general, S.R.Rao is considered as a scholar. Rayabhari (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FAR needed[edit]

This is a 2006 FA which has not been maintained to WP:WIAFA standards. There is a good deal of uncited text (and data), numerous manual of style breaches, and bare URLs as citations. Is anyone able to bring this article to standard, to avoid a Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lothal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)