Talk:Sinauli/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ruchika Sharma

Persistent IP and single-edit account edit-warring diff diff diff diff, trying to remove the following:

According to Ruchika Sharma, Jawaharlal Nehru University,

We should first obtain clarity on why ASI is calling them 'chariots'. It isn't uncommon for a Late Harappan site to have bullock carts. There is already evidence of such terracotta carts [...] ASI has a tendency to colour their discoveries from the lens of Hindutva. They had earlier interpreted female figures as 'mother goddesses', even though there was no evidence to suggest it.

Notes

References

Sourced info, backed-up by additional info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The following [preceding] comment of linking ASI & Hindutva is uncalled for, that too based on a report by "Wire" which always takes the view that India was & should remain a third world country. Using Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism in such deregulatory way shows hatred for an entire race, which happens to be third largest in the world. Note the credentials also "JNU". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.41.185.98 (talk • contribs) 6 april 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Hello, this is regarding the Indian map shown in this content, the northern borders are not true. So we request you to replace the Indian map with the correct one.

Thank you 106.76.210.98 (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, then reactivate your request by setting the answered parameter in the {{edit semi-protected}} template above your edit request back to no. Thank you. DesertPipeline (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Carts or chariots?

Another example of the'alternate facts' and narrative of the Hindutva universe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What's up with these politically motivated comments? And also your joke isn't even funny user:ChandlerMinh Niger banda (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial Times

It's good to have some written source (Financial Times (feb 17, 2021), Secrets of Sinauli: Manoj Bajpayee, Neeraj Pandey’s Discovery Plus show is must watch for Indian history buffs) for the horse-chariot claim, but who actually "puts forth evidences (such as, size of the wheel, space in the chariot, chassis, pole, etc.) that show these were advanced and sophisticated light-weight chariots, with a D shaped chassis built for warfare, to be pulled forth by horses"? I'll bet there's no peer-reviewed publication in which this claim is being made. And my, what a rubbish:

Dr. BB Lal and Prof. Vijay Sathe mention DNA tested ancient horse bones found in India (Surkotada site), thus refuting the theory that horses were introduced in India from outside.

See Surkotada#Horse remains, Indigenous Aryanism#Horses and chariots, and Scroll.in, Putting the horse before the cart: What the discovery of 4,000-year-old ‘chariot’ in UP signifies on these claims, which are rejected by mainstream scholarahip. "Secrets of Sinauli" is clearly Indigenist-inspired, and not a reliable source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Uesugi

Uesugi gives additional info on the OCP, as being Late Harappan; it's not an "however," as if contradicting other info. And it's not on the Sinauli-finds; therefore, I moved it into a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Joshua,

I see you are too much against uncientific and politicized material related apparently to "Hindutva", but your way of editing that article is too much politized too. In order to have a coherent and scientific approach to Sinauli article, we should mention references in historical order and make proper assertions. The references to archaeologist Akinori Uesugi should be included after Parpola's quoting because it implies the archaeological view by an expert, which is not a Hindu nationalist, and telling that Sinauli's burials belong to OCP-Bara archaeological complex is very fit, because it can imply the non-nationalist view that the carts are indigenous and a continuity of previous Bara-Harappan period with no traces of Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian features at all, which I think will be the view of other people like Witzel for instance, but the information must be kept as it is, the reader already got the information about the controversy in previous passages, it's not necessary to "overload" the reader. On the other hand, trying to keep the Parpola's version as the unique "non-Hindutva-related version" is not to see the future horizon that this site opens. It seems you try to "cut" any other reference after that of Parpola. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Implies" = WP:OR; Uesugi doesn't even mention Sinauli. Witzel (2019), Early ' Aryans' and their neighbors outside and inside India p.5 says:

The archaeology of this period is little known,39 but it may still deliver surprises: the recently discovered items at Sinauli (just east of Delhi) include carts (not ‘chariots’),40 and copper inlaid coffins and swords, that clearly belong to the late Bronze Age (thus before 1000 BCE). This find may point to the survival of an extra-Harappan organized society. However, we need better dating (going beyond the Late Bronze Age label). [Note 40: Habitually, nearly all old carts are incorrectly called ‘chariots’ in the press and even in Indian scholarly papers.]

My English is failing me here, but comparing "extra-Harappan organized society" to "extra-mural care," I suppose Witzel means that the finds belong to a non-Harappan society. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Link to multiple waves

Regarding the Aryan migration that I highlighted and you deleted, you seem not knowing the indoeuropeanists use of that term, Parpola uses this term as a synonymous of Indo-Iranian as many other scholars also do. Please consult this and other Parpola's publications and you'll see that I am right by editing Aryan migration instead of Indo-Aryan migration. I've got some other things to tell you but it's late at night here. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

So, why then do you remove wiki-links? They give additional info on Parpola's views. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided mentions in the beginning a position of Parpola that he now has abandoned, it's from 2015, he changed his view in the paper from 2020. I did not remove "links", I removed the first one in the phrase which is erroneuos. Before 2020, Parpola thought there were two Indo-Aryan migrations, now he writes there were three different migrations (at least), the first one in his view was a previously "unexpected" Indo-Iranian migration (synomymous of Aryan migration), and the last two were Indo-Aryan migrations. I hoped you already understand that, but I see you didn't.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the phrase is correct: "According to Asko Parpola these finds were ox-pulled carts, indicating that these burials are related to an early Aryan migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speaking people into the Indian subcontinent", but you linked "early Aryan migration" to Wikipedia's article "Indo-Aryan migration", that's wrong, it's an Indo-Iranian migration. --Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I see; I'll correct the text at "Indo-Aryan migrations." Thanks. Here's the link in question: Indo-Aryan migrations#Multiple waves of migration into northern India. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Secrets of Sinauli

@Vanamonde93, Kautilya3, Doug Weller, and Fowler&fowler: it seems to me that "Secrets of Sinauli" [1], see diff, is not WP:RS. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The YouTube links are less than 3 minutes. ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

But does that make them WP:RS? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer them removed. They are based on TV shows. What is a StudyIQ video doing on Wikipedia? ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And not in English; unverifiable. This review says it all:

Secrets of Sinauli is a resounding slap on the faces of all those who have preached the demeaning Aryan Invasion theory as the genesis of our culture and history

The documentary makers are able to get interviews from men like R.S. Bhist, K.N. Dixit, B.B. Lal, and B.R. Mani who are stalwarts in the Archeological field and command unquestionable authority in the discipline.

B.B. Lal is not the kind of person who "command[s] unquestionable authority in the discipline"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and ChandlerMinh: when did we start dividing citations into web and printed citations? That's not acceptable. Too much of this article is based on media reports, which isn't appropriate for scientific content. Maybe ask at the wikipedia archaeology project? Doug Weller talk 12:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: We need to better define “chariot” as the term is widely being used when whatever they dug up Sinauli doesn’t feature horse remains or spoked wheels. There is too much speculations peddled as conclusive evidence for an earlier date of horse and chariot in India. The media in India is so biased spins the result at their convenience. Remember Rakhigarhi DNA.Ignore the blogs and reviews of documentaries. ChandlerMinh (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how a string of interviews is in any way a reliable source, especially when the people being interviewed have scholarly opinions far from uniformly supported in their field. Further, I completely agree with Doug above that we should not be separating web and print sources; it's confusing to the reader, and also somewhat misleading, as the "web" sources are often news pieces. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There hardly are scholarly sources on those finds. Parpola (2020):

Sanjay Kumar Manjul and Arvin Manjul (both of the Archaeological Survey of India), who directed the excavations, have so far published only a short preliminary report with 12 photographs (2018). Supplemented by T.S. Subramanian’s interview (2018) made at the site while the excavation was still going on and illustrated with further photographs, and the ASI photos in Kumar (2018), one gets a good idea of the discoveries. These include two cart burials, the very first of their kind in India datable to the Bronze Age.

• Manjul, Sanjay Kumar & Arvin Manjul (2018), Recent Excavation at Sanauli, District Bagpat, UP: A Landmark in Indian Archaeology. Purātattva 48: 220–225 & pl. 1–12.
• Subramanian interview: Subramanian, T. S. (28 September 2018). "Royal burial in Sanauli". Frontline.

Additional:

• Kumar (2018), A note on chariot burials found at Sinauli district Baghpat UPIndian Journal of Archaeology.—April, 2018 (found at Google Scholar; JJ)
• Benedetti, Giacomo (2020), The Sanauli Chariot and its Archaeological and Historical Context. In: N.I. buKhtoyAroV, I.M. derKAnosoVA, V.A. guleVsKij, Yu.V. neKrAsoV, A.S. menzhuloVA & A.V. linKinA (eds), Aktual’nye problemy agrarnoj nauki, proizvodstva i obrazovaniya: 255–259. Voronezh: FGBOU VO Voronezhskij GAU (copied from Parpola 2020; JJ).

I made the split between printed sources and web-sources, for convenience sake (sources which can be read xirectly, versus take some more effort to find), and precisely because most web-sources are newsreports: less reliable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I went through the photos (Kumar 2018) and the so-called chariots are so small, that they looks like some kind of decorative artefacts around the burial. They don’t look something that are war-capable. Also needs more independent scholarly opinion on Manjul’s “horse-driven” theory. ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The wheels are probably just over 2 feet (or less) in diameter. Look at Manjul standing next to it holding his own artistic rendering of the “chariot”. Where are these “chariots” kept now? I wish to see them. They look like something that can be drawn by humans. I don’t even think any animals are required to pull it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hittite chariot, from an Egyptian relief

It's very surprising for me to see your argument is that the "chariot's wheels" are too small, and consequently "very light" to be apt for war, when the argument by some "experts", like Witzel, goes precisely in the oposite direction: they argue that it's too heavy to be "a war artefact". Anyway, maybe you're right in the first part of your argument, but not in your conclusion. On the other hand, there are some designs of ox-pulled carts in silver vessels from BMAC that show very small vehicles pulled by rampant bulls, Asko Parpola, both in his 2015 book, Roots of Hinduism, and in his paper on Sanauli (2020) mentions them and shows drawings. There is also the Daimabad copper model, commented by him, showing a man over a very small artefact and tiny wheels pulled by two animals, half bulls and half equidae. Regarding where are the Sinauli's wheels kept now, it's precisely shown in the documentary "Secrets of Sinauli". There's also an example of Hittite chariot with very small wheel: . Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Bull racing, late Harappa figure from Daimabad hoard

The above figure of Hittite chariot has spoked wheels. That is an entirely different deal. My points revolves around the fact that Sinauli “chariot” is solid wheel. Coming to Daimabad copper, this here is Daimabad artefact with a solid wheel pulled by bulls.

The horse of Diamabad is of much later date and from Jorwe levels(post 1300BC)

a cylinder seal of terracotta showing a scene of procession through jungle, a horse drawing a cart, followed by a deer looking majestically at the back. [2] The earlier Late Harappan Diamabad bronzes have no spoked wheels and are pulled by bull with obviously no trace of the horse to be found.(M. K. Dhawalikar) [3]>

May be I am wrong about the conclusions I made from the size of the wheel. But Parpola himself sticks with “cart” ChandlerMinh (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Bottomline is: the Indigenists want to see the finds as chariots, as an argument against the migration theory. But the migrations happened in the first half of the second millennium BCE (Narasimhan et al. (2019)). The carts fit this picture, as argued by Parpola; but they also fit in a 'Harappan continuation model', given the presence of ox-carts in the Harappan civilisation. Ironically, the sentence and he further notes that "the rituals relating to the Sanauli burials showed close affinity with Vedic rituals." was added back to the lead, obviously with th idea that this supports the Harappan-Vedic equation of the Indigenists... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Even in the Hittite figure of chariot, The wheel aren’t that small. Compare it with size of human and horse in that figure. The wheels at Sinauli seems only human knee high. But the Hittite wheel is bigger than that. Can anyone tell me where the Sinauli wheels are presently kept.? ChandlerMinh (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChandlerMinh: you really need to respond at AE - I gather you aren't seeing alerts, etc, but you need to read and post there asap. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have replied at my talk page and gave my statement at the AE. I said will need more time to go through each of the requests. ChandlerMinh (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChandlerMinh: In reply to your question, the wheels together with the carts and other findings were transported, as the video Secrets of Sinauli suggests, to the Institute of Archaeology belonging to the Archaeological Survey of India, in Delhi. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Even though I already commented in the section below, you asked me to comment here, so I have to repeat that I would like to tell you that even though "Secrets of Sinauli" is not a "neutral" and is politically motivated, presents valuable archaeological information, and this section particularly: Discovery+ documentary in Hindi has an English commentary below, explaining the video. I do not think it should be applied into it the non-verifiability, because it bears some verifiably information, just like the archaeological findings. It should be treated with "caution" but not rejected at all. The edit I did was on the section dealing with the female burial, and it's a valuable information that readers should be informed of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? This is what the "commentary below" says:

Weapons were found buried with the skeletal remains of women. Were they warriors? Was there a time when men and women fought alongside each other? Watch our experts raise some decisive questions on ‘Secrets Of Sinauli: Discovery Of The Century.'

Who are those "experts"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The findings were done by professional archaeologists from ASI (Archaeological Survey of India), and the details of this is found in the video itself, with comments of those archaeologists. The findings are genuine, even though the interpretation could be challenged, but it's important to inform the readers of Wikipedia on how this thread goes, if not, you are doing disruptive editing. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bara-OCP cultural complex

regarding this revert, the term "Bara-OCP cultural complex" is only used by Uesugi, and a few sources who cite him. None of the sources used in this article, including Witzel and Parpola uses the term; Sanjay Manjul regards the OCP as an independent cultural style. Uesugi, as noted before, doesn't refer to Sinauli. Ochre Coloured Pottery culture is the WP:COMMONNAME; let's stick to that. And, grammatically, I wouldn't dare state that the 'Late Harappan culture belongs to the Bara-OCP cultural complex'. The Uesugi-note would suffice here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of keeping Bara-OCP cultural complex "label" is to inform of the most recent data published. Publications that do not link OCP to Bara are outdated, neither Witzel nor Parpola are archaeologists, Akinori Uesugi is. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one author. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UNDUE. You can add the relevant info to the relevant pages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Joshua

Frustrations

@Joshua Jonathan: Joshua, you are doing selective Disruptive editing by deleting my editions. It's obvious you are doing this because you are afraid that the "Nationalist" view can be introduced in a "big way" to the article, but it's not the case, what I do is presenting the hard data, not "influenced" by "interpretations". Even the section, I edited, highlighting the presence of "female warriors" shares only the archaeological findings and not any comment on Vedic or Hindu correlation. I see it's too much to reject a genuine archaeological finding by claiming it is commented in a non-accepted source, when it's not related actually to a political claim. You do the same by deleting the information related to Bara-OCP cultural complex by one of the most professional archaeologists in the matter called Akinori Uesugi, with your argument that it's only in a note, when you yourself previously and with no consensus changed it from the main text to a note. As far as I can see, the status of Bara-OCP can firmly be related to Harappan period, but it does not imply necessarily a Harappan-Vedic conection, which is you are afraid of. If this Disruptive editing continues the quality and development of the article will be unfortunately affected, and people will not be able to be properly informed on the way the research goes, and this article will continue to be labelled as part of a "non-significative" class. However, I'm not against all of the arguments you present in some comments, for instance you are right that the arrival of Steppe ancestry into South Asia is proved by Narasimhan et al. (2019) in the first half of Second millennium BCE. On the other hand, you should stopp your compulsive deletions, it only shows insecurity related to hard data.Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read the section above? As for "Bara-OCP," Uesugi doesn't even mention Sinauli, as mentioned before.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sinauli's majority pottery is OCP, and Uesugi's professional classification of this kind of material is Bara-OCP cultural complex. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME; and Talk:Sinauli#Uesugi with regards to this comment of yours:

The references to archaeologist Akinori Uesugi should be included after Parpola's quoting because it implies the archaeological view by an expert, which is not a Hindu nationalist, and telling that Sinauli's burials belong to OCP-Bara archaeological complex

As noted before, "Implies" = WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Akinori Uesugi is a trustworthy source, and you deleted it in a Disruptive editing, as well as the rest of the information I edited above regarding Sinauli. Unfortunately, your tough position only contributes to a low quality of the article. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Female warriors

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: you re-inserted again the "Secrets of Sinauli"-source diff; as discussed at Talk:Sinauli#Secrets of Sinauli, this is not WP:RS; it's ironic that you accuse me of disruptive editing, while repeatedly re-inserted such a non-reliable source, and not participating in the discussion of this source. And still in Hindi or whatever Indian language, failing WP:VERIFIABILITY. "Female warriors" is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, which really needs better source than a Discovery+ documentary in Hindi at YouTube. You better the basics of Wikipedia before you start accusing of disruptive editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I see you're very stubborn and do not like to hear arguments, but I would like to tell you that even though "Secrets of Sinauli" is not a "neutral" and is politically motivated, presents valuable archaeological information, and this section particularly: Discovery+ documentary in Hindi has an English commentary below, explaining the video. I do not think it should be applied into it the non-verifiability, because it bears some verifiably information, just like the archaeological findings. It should be treated with "caution" but not rejected at all. The edit I did was on the section dealing with the female burial, and it's a valuable information that readers should be informed of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: That's not how it works. You need peer-reviewed material (see WP:RS). The rest is not acceptable for sourcing on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: The policy of Wikipedia is also to apply "common sense"[[4]], in order to change some "rigid" rules some editors abusively use of. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B.: Carlos, "common sense" does not apply to sourcing on Wikipedia. Either you have reputable sources, or you don't. If your sources are not RS, they will always be deleted by other editors. As an "anybody-can-edit-Encyclopedia", this is our only protection, our only safeguard, against fringe ideas, fallacies, personal theories etc... and that's why Wikipedia can be edited by non-specialists and still have fairly reliable content: because we only rely on paraphrasing reputable, peer-reviewed, verifiable content (it's dumb, but it works). On the other hand, I know it can be frustrating for some who do have academic credentials and would like to share their educated "common sense" and analysis. If the point you are trying to make has some support beyond You Tube, you should have no trouble finding references on Google Books, JSTOR, or the like... If you can't find any, please just forget about it. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

"...Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider 'rules'. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution 'violates' the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution..."[[5]]. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Common sense here is that Discovery+ is a losy source for a bold statement, especially if there is no way to verify which "experts" claims to have found the remains of female warriors. Maybe we should make a simple comparison: for which grade of education would you accept "secrets" as an acceptable source? Definitely not university, also not college. Highschool? I don't think so. Primary education? The school library has plenty of books on archaeology; any decent teacher would say "Go to the library, kid. Or try internet, but at least, give us a written source. But not a YouTube documentary from a commercial company." That's common sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If you were applying the same "point of view" of common sense all the time half of the present article would be deleted, including almost all of your edits. Even though the docummentary can not be classified as the most erudite work, I sustain that the findings they report are authentic, and that only the interpretation could be challenged, and this could be solved by a new wording of the sentence refering to this issue, even you can add the word "dubious conclusions" or the like if you want, but my point is still that the readers should be informed of the findings. To me, the best way to apply common sense is to do that, and that's in order to avoid too politically-oriented conclusions. On the other hand, this edit is just a little portion of the article, not changing much of the whole philosophy of it. My policy is to not cease to give people updated information. Regarding the "scholar degree" of the documentary, I will give you an example, recently a Primary school boy found a very valuable stone female figurine in Israel which now is in the hands of archaeological authorities of that country. Even though the boy has not passed through Highschool, archaeologists consider the finding as genuine, they are not "throwing" the valuable finding to trash. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You are asking me to: "...If the point you are trying to make has some support beyond You Tube, you should have no trouble finding references on Google Books, JSTOR, or the like... If you can't find any, please just forget about it..." I see you are outdated by thinking that the "only source" is a "written source", that was the "medieval" way of thinking centuries ago and it's outdated now, and many serious editors in Wikipedia are using non-print sources right now, I can give you examples. Anyway, I do not say that "Secrets of Sinauli" should be treated as an "immaculate" source, it should be treated critically, but it's a source. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The “female warrior” should be mentioned. We shouldn’t be afraid of irrational interpretations. Just because an area was occupied by war waging people, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are the same as the ones represented in Hindu epics. The Indo-Gangetic plain is an ideal geography for the growth of civilisation. There could be many many unrelated cultures that shall be found on further excavations. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

And why should it be mentioned, given WP:RS? Which "expert" makes the claim that the remains of female warriors were found, based on which artifacts and with which logic? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
To help you out, here's what the FinancialExpress, Secrets of Sinauli: Manoj Bajpayee, Neeraj Pandey’s Discovery Plus show is must watch for Indian history buffs has to say:

One such is the antenna sword, found in all ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, and known as a lethal weapon used in warfare. Antenna swords have been regularly found in India, but always without the hilt, which led to speculations that these swords were mere symbolic in the Indian context. The Sinauli site puts to rest these speculations by yielding antenna swords with their hilts intact, as these had copper mesh ornamentation around them, which protected the wood from rotting. Another important discovery was the presence of shields. Never before had India witnessed the physical presence of a shield, even though our literatures abound in their descriptions of it. These shields had beautiful cross designs with flowers at regular intervals. Interestingly, while shields found with male skeletons had copper designs, the women burials yielded shields with steatite inlay work. This brings us to another important discovery: the evidence of the presence of women warriors in ancient India. There were found 3 burials for women (out of the 10 burials) that held weapons such as swords, shields, and bow and arrows. The weapons, which showed high quality and advanced technology as compared to the artefacts from Harappa and other sites, make it quite obvious that they were used in warfare. One of the male skeletons even had an antenna sword placed in an upright position by his coffin side, depicting a sign of valour. So, as the archeologists in the documentary tell us, India is looking at a 4000 year old burial site of an elite warrior clan (some of the burial site remains point at obvious signs of wealth and power) that lived in ancient India.

That's a lot of "if's" and "first's", revealing a lot of speculation and unusual interpretations. Steatite inlay work fits well with a symbolic function of the artifacts. Again, WP:EXCEPTIONAL need better sources than commercial documentaries. And it's still unattributed: who makes those claims, inwhich formulation? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

In minute 1:26 from Discovery+ documentary in Hindi Dr Manjul, the present archaeologist which excavated there speaks in English the following: "Possibly that is also a warrier" refering to the find in the woman's burial. So the edit can say: "Dr Manjul proposes the possibillity of a female-warrior in a burial at Sinauli..." Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, I was able to see the full 55 minute documentary, but unfortunately that's only shared in Facebook, but it shows how archaeologists from ASI or some related Indian Institution's researchers do a scan in a portion of "square" ground block and show the profile of an object inside which features the contour of a bow, and they claim that's the bow of the female-warrior in the burial. They also found arrowheads made of stone which fit with their conclusions. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to comment on your approach: 1. Youtube is not an academic publishing unit. 2. ASI is a government entity of India. A political involvement is often suggested like in the Keezhadi excavation case. I have seen Dr. Manjul's monologues on Youtube, where he frequently compares Sinauli with Vedic texts to support a Indo-Aryan nativist view. My suggestion would be to wait for scholarly consensus on this topic through a wide variety of scholars who have contributed peer-reviewed material (just like for the Keezhadi excavations, which have been published only through a government agency yet).ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your comment 1. on Youtube, I can tell you that many institutions just like Oriental Institute from Chicago use that platform for Academic lectures. It's wrong to say that they are not academically involved. 2. on ASI, almost all governments in the world have official academic institutions that more or less are involved with "nationalists views", and there's no reason to not receiving information on their findings. It's a very "sub-ordinated" way of thinking to "wait" for a supposed forthcoming "scholarly consensus" when people like Asko Parpola already published on the findings, using precisely and judiciously Indian newspapers as scholarly-oriented information, we can go on in this way, as the basic information on the female-burial was already commented in this Wikipedia's article. If we were to apply your "logic" we should delete all the article and wait for a supposed "academic illumination" which who knows when it will come, that's not the way Wikipedia works. What I'm proposing here is only a short paragraph to complete the already existing information on a burial, not a whole treatise on political motivations of ASI, for which another article would be needed. And an independent Wikipedia's editor can be capable enough to discriminate between political motivations and geniune scholarly findings. The findings in Sinauli are authentic, only the interpretation is politically motivated, it's so simple but some are complicating unnecesarily the issue. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you shared a youtube link to the Hindi channel of "Discovery+" (not academic), production by "Neeraj Pandey", a film director (not academic). So this video certainly doesn't fit any scholarly criteria. I don't know why this is still a discussion here.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@ThaThinThaKiThaTha: Alright, it's true, Neeraj Pandey's production has many academic inaccuracies, starting from the dating of the findings around 2100 to 1900 BCE, when the C14 samples were actually reported to be around 1800 to 1500 BCE. I was thinking however that editors in this Wikipedia article could apply judiciously the policy of common sense, in order to find the genuine information in this source and have some valuable information: "...Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider 'rules'. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution 'violates' the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution..."[[6]], but I see you and other people here are not willing to apply it. I will not insist, thanks for sharing your comment, maybe you're right and in future a more academic paper will be published. Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the "political involvement" of ASI, see the comment by Ruchika Sharma, and the accompanying notes, which were censored by an IP at 16 february. Lal, who seems to give his opinions in the documantary, cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The only reason he is championed in India is because of his pro-Hindutva stance, but the scholarly impact of his publicatiins on the Indo-Aryans is zero, precisely because of this Hindutva-mythology.
Regarding the sword found with the female coffin burial, this is what Manjul opinioned in 2018:

The ASI team could unearth the skeleton of a woman, too, and it was almost intact. The woman is wearing an armlet made of banded agate beads around an elbow. Behind her head are 10 red vases with flared rims; four bowls; and two basins, small and big. Two of the vases have lids. This was also a coffin burial but the coffin does not have copper plating around it. A thin antenna sword was placed in the north-western corner of the grave. “It is a symbolic sword. Maybe, she did not have enough wealth. So they kept a symbolic sword [and there was no copper coating around the coffin either],” Arvin Manjul said.

From symbolic sword to female warrior in just 2 years time, without any official publication...
A shield with steatite inlays would be quite useless in battle; imagine how the inlays will hold when a sword is pounding on it... The steatite coasters at my table already fracture when they fall on the ground. Totally non-reliable ("We see the irrefutable and exact archaeological trace of warriors' migration from the Yamuna-Ganga Doab to Palestine"), but this blog offering the appropriate alternative explanation: "the symbolic shield burial of the Late Harappans in Sanauli." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Migrate excavation content to separate page

I suggest to migrate the excavation content to "Sinauli excavations" analogous to various other excavation pages.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You mean, the whole page? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Not the whole page, only the content related to the excavations. ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears, that the whole page is now based on the excavations, an editor removed the Jain temple reference. Sinauli is an actual village right? ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Predating Indo-Aryans

@Dev0745: regarding this removal, edit-summary "sources don't say so," which removed (in bold)

which were interpreted by some as horse-pulled "chariots", predating the arrival of the horse-centered Indo-Aryans and thereby supposedly fasifying the Indo-Aryan migration theory

see Putting the horse before the cart:

On Tuesday, “True Indology”, a popular Right-Wing Twitter handle, suggested the “path-breaking” discovery “fundamentally changes long held perceptions about ancient India”. It explained: “The mainstream historians long held that chariots were introduced into India from central Asia. The chariot has been excavated from Sanauli which is in heartland of Kurukshetra.” Another Right-Wing columnist called it a “decisive blow to the Aryan Invasion Theory” [...] The spoked-wheeled chariot is “fundamental to Aryan identification”, according to Edwin Bryant,

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, According to Article some right wing claim that finding of chariot is blow to Indo Aryan Invasion theory. But Article don't support this claim in absence of radio carbon dating. The article is written before available of carbon dating of findings. According to Carbon dating, material are from c. 1850 - 1550 BC belongs to Late Harrapan or Orchre Coloured Pottery Culture (2000-1500 BCE) or Copper Hoard culture. Many Scholars associate Cooper Hoard culture with Indo Aryan even before sinauli findings. So Sinauli excavation don't falsify Indo Aryan migration. Article put different opinion, But don't claim these are correct. In light of radio carbon dating Sinauli finding don't falsify Indo Aryan migration theory. So I think it should not be put in first paragraph of lead section. Dev0745 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn'f falsify the IAmt; but some people think it does. That's the point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Some people think, but I think it shouldn't be in first para of lead section as it's not opinion of scholar. Sinauli Findings question Indo Aryan migration theory is in later para of lead section. I think it is enough to suggest that findings question Indo-Aryan migration theory. Thanks..Dev0745 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think Dev0745 is making a valid point. We should let the reader decide whether or not to believe in Aryan migration theory. The obtained dates for the carts/chariots, are well within the early 2 millennium date to which Aryan migration belong. By adding “predating the arrival of the horse-centered Indo-Aryans and thereby supposedly fasifying the Indo-Aryan migration theory” in the lead, we are making it look like Wikipedia is pushing a propaganda.(My personal opinion) Chandler Minh (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem, fine with me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is "Ruchika Sharma" quoted here?

There are several prominent scholars (Ravindra Singh Bisht, K.N. Dixit, B.R. Mani, Sanjay Manjul, et al.) who believe that the chariots were horse driven. Why is a relatively obscure scholar given such a prominent space on this article? Similarly we should be first quoting archeologists here on a page about a excavation site; Michael Witzel is not one. Moreover it should be clearly mentioned that horse vs. ox is an ongoing debate. The article seems to making a pronouncement here using only opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.147 (talk • contribs) 24 july 2021 (UTC)

Because she provides a relevant perspective, which is obvious to anyone with any knowledge about the influence of Indigenous Aryanism in certain circles. Sharma and Manjul are the first persons referred to, c.q. quoted, not Witzel; that there is a "debate" is quite obvious from the lead. If there are scholarly publications from those archaeologist, please let us know. Though for Kashinath Narayan Dikshit that may be a problem; he died in 1946. NB: did you note how Manjul's comment "the rituals relating to the Sanauli burials showed close affinity with Vedic rituals" actually supports the link with Indo-Aryans? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: the K.N. Dixit IP mentioned and Kashinath Narayan Dikshit are two different persons. K. N Dixit appears in Secrets of Sinauli. Coming to The horse vs ox debate. The debate will never probably end. Sinauli findings were replete with animal motifs. Plenty of bull motifs were found, not a single horse motif have been found. ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Chariot or cart

I have question if this vehicle found is cart which is pulled by bull then why did that ancient people decoreted this cart like Chariot? Please explain me. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe you can explain that to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

When I see the reconstruction of that vehicle it looks like chariot type the only thing which makes it cart is solid wheel. But ,when we see carts of that time its object carrying space is larger then this vehicle which make it light . And the question remains that "Which animal was their to pull the vehicle ?" this question will answer that this vehicle is chariot or cart. When we see the pre-historic fossils of India (such as Equus sivalensis and horse remains of Surkotada) we also found the fossil of horse/pony . If this vehicle is chariot then horse/pony which used to pulled that vehicle was not also died therefore that horse remains are not found and where buried in another place which is not found . Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And what does it have to do with decorations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Design of the vehicle is like chariot . But their is only objection is the solid wheel . This wheels can be light weighted also to pulled by an horse . By this all things including decoration like chariot mostly it belongs to horse pulled chariot type . Then why they consider This vehicle as cart ? explain me . And another thing is that in Mesopotamian painting I seen some chariots having solid wheel.

Relief of early war wagons on the Standard of Ur, c. 2500 BC

Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

According to your opinion what type of this vehicle is ?Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

At the Standard of Ur? Not a chariot; by definition, a chariot is a two-wheeled vehicle with spoke wheels. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

See Ławecka, Dorota (October 2017). "Who were the Tribute-Bearing People on the "Standard of Ur"?". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 76 (2): 337–348. ISSN 0022-2968. and other articles mentioned in the bibliography.

Many scholars have used the term chariot to describe the vehicles of the (so-called) war panel. They use both "war-wagons" and "chariots" (depending on whims, I guess) within a single article/chapter and choose to not abide by the rigid definition of chariot in history of transportation technology, as cited in Parpola (2020).

However, this choice of semantics hardly matters. In what matters the most, Lawecka and others note that the chariots/war-wagons of Standard of Ur were not pulled by horses. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Anthony, David W. (2006), "The Prehistory of Scythian Cavalry: The Evolution of Fighting on Horseback", in Aruz, Joan; Farkas, Ann; Valtz Fino, Elisabetta (eds.), The Golden Deer of Eurasia: Perspectives on the Steppe Nomads of the Ancient World, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.): ""Wagons have four wheels, carts have two, and chariots have two spoked wheels, so that the vehicles on the Ur Standard are wagons, not chariots, as they are often called." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So know in your opinion what we called this Sinauli vehicle chariot or cart. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Check my edits and find out yourself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually the question here is not of chariot or cart. The real question are

1. spoked wheel or not.
2. horse pulled or not

Have you seen the chariot of Puri Jagannātha? They are huge solid wheel. You can call those rathas as Chariot. But the standard definition of chariot doesn’t contain a solid-wheel. Regarding horse: The Sinauli finds are not without any images of animals. They contained motifs of bull head. If these carts were indeed pulled by horse, surely there would be some artistic representation of horse from the very finds. But there weren’t any so far. ChandlerMinh (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)