User talk:Avantiputra7

Avantiputra7, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Avantiputra7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vedic period may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

dans les litteratures Indo-Aryennes'' ed. [[Colette Caillat|Caillat]], Paris, 97–265.}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Avantiputra7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha

Compliments; good edits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Avantiputra7 (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indus Valley Civilization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khasi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work and now do a Mughal Empire Map

You are doing a very work. Can you prepare 1) a single compact map of Mughal Empire's expansion under Babur to Akbar to Aurangzeb and 2) another map of India in 1525 (just prior to the Mughals) where Vijayanagar was at its zenith expansion in the south, Rajputs were in the Rajputana and Central India , Gajapati Kingdom in the East and Lodi Sultanate in the Gangetic Plain (UP & Bihar mainly)?

If you can do these works, put the two maps then in the History of India wiki Page.Ghatus (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to collect sources and do these some time this month. Avantiputra7 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Painted Grey Ware culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vedic religion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indus script

If you had read the lead before, you would find:- it is undeciphered, and no underlying language has been identified. There is no known bilingual inscription. The script does not show any significant changes over time.

There is no need to add a different view of 2 people to the lead then, it is becoming repetitive. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I saw that. But the question of "whether the Indus symbols were a writing system" logically leads to a discussion of what the symbols could actually be, if not writing. As it stands, I think the lede gives undue weight in favor of the Brahmic hypothesis, which is by no means favored by most scholars. But I will leave it as is. Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Battle of the Ten Kings, you should not insert any dates. Because there is no scholarly agreement about the dating. Other author said that battle took during 3750 BCE. But one-one citations are not enough for making these huge claims. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the date to infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Beautiful maps; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps#2

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png

Indo-European migrations

Here's my first try! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Is there any key for the red, green, etc arrows? Avantiputra7 (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	About time you get one; I highly appreciate your contributions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Avantiputra7. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ecbatana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Don't remove the edits made by me because only after much studying & knowing I have edited them. Yaditiva (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you (Yaditiva) simply changed the dates at various articles, ignoring the sources there. I.e., Wendy Doniger on the Kama Sutra: "The Kamasutra is the oldest extant Hindu textbook of erotic love. It was composed in Sanskrit, the literary language of ancient India, probably in North India and probably sometime in the third century." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tool

Hi Avantiputra, The "Citation tool for Google Books" at Help:Citation tools can convert a Google Books url into a full citation. Please try it out. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this looks very useful! Avantiputra7 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Ashoka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalinga

Chandragupta Maurya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalinga

Maurya Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kalinga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vatsa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avanti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kosala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kuru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

	Sage of India
	In appreciation for your excellent work on Indian History related articles. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Avantiputra7 (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Avantiputra7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Avantiputra7. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citevar

Please can you fix these edits from 2017. They need full details for the cited sources and they should be formatted in the same style as the citations that were already in place at the point when you edited the article. See WP:CITEVAR. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:

Fixed (I think) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting expansion and update edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive expansion and update support/input help the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles, if possible. Even if you feel focus area bit different still contribution of few line may help bring in some different perspective and also help Wikipedia goal of neutrality. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Literature.

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your help

Hi there. I was impressed by your gif(?) map at Maurya Empire. I have an FA that I'm trying to update and save from being FAR'd. It is Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760). It is the history of a geographical region that was properly defined only after this history had ended. (Sort of like India's history!) Anyway, the region was defined by the British: the princely state of Mysore and the province (i.e. of British India) of Coorg. Needless to say, this region had been ruled by a succession of different rulers. The history begins with the defeat of the Vijaynagara empire in 1565 and the empire's gradual breakup. The rule by Bijapur, Golconda, Marathas, and the Mughals follows. Other regions fall under the rule of the Wodeyars of Mysore, the Nayakas of Ikkeri, and the subedars of Sira, not to mention the Rajas of Coorg. There are maps in the article showing the boundaries of these regimes. Do you think it might be possible to make a gif that shows the political boundaries changing dynamically? Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Yes, that can certainly be done. I am currently looking over those maps to familiarize myself with the details, and I believe that I can have a gif ready in the next few days. Just let me know if there are any more specifications you want me to take note of. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Avantiputra7: Great! Thanks. I might have some other old British maps that are not in the article. If I do, I'll send them to you later today. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age

In this edit, you added a citation of Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 93 at the end of the sentence:

This period has been considered as the Golden Age of India by some historians, although this characterisation has been disputed by other historians.

I've removed that citation because it does not clearly support either part of the statement. They do not use the term "Golden Age" on page 93 (or elsewhere in the text), but neither do they say that this was a conscious decision or if so why they made it. The term does appear in the book's index, on page 414, where it says "Golden Age see Guptas". This suggests that they know it is a term that readers might look for, and that those readers would expect information about the Guptas, but doesn't say that some historians call the classical age of the Guptas the Golden Age, or express an opinion on whether that's an apt appellation or not.

If you think I made a mistake, and would like to re-add the citation, please explain how it supports the statement. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body, you might also address somewhere in the body (perhaps in the legacy section) the debate as to whether it was a "Golden Age" or not. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Yes, you're right, of course. Honestly I'm actually not sure why I got that citation wrong, but I checked and I think that I was mis-remembering the passage from pages 85-87, which rather has a different bearing, concluding thus: "The much maligned 'dark period' [between Mauryas and Guptas] was actually the harbinger of the classical age." Oh well, thanks for the correction. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Yes! Thanks for your efforts at Vijayanagara Empire! Looking forward to the final result. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Your maps are obviously held in (very!) high esteem! Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malin mountain range

V.A. Smith (1914), Early History of India, p.151: "The satrapy of Gedrosia (or Gadrosia) extended far to the west, and probably only the eastern part of it was annexed by Chandragupta. The Malin range of mountains, which Alexander experienced such difficulty in crossing, would have furnished a natural boundary." Any idea what this Malin mountain range is? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: Nothing at all that I can find out about "Malin", but there is a "Malan" mountain range, that is described as "an offshoot of the Makran Coastal Range", and it was a barrier to Alexander's passage: [1]. It is seemingly a little to the west of Hingol National Park and Hinglaj Mata Temple. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I won't give you another barnstar, but thanks a lot! I'll use it at Seleucid–Mauryan War#Ceded territories. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arachosia

If I get Tarn (1922) p.100 right, does he say that the territory ceded by Seleucus didn't even include the Kandhahar-Kabul valley, but followed the mountainrange between that vallley and the Indus? I've adjusted a number of maps, but it looks like they'll have to be adjusted even further. Would you be willing to draw it in at this map (or a copy)? See also this map. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: It should be kept in mind, Tarn's writing was completed before any edicts of Ashoka in Kandahar and Laghman Province were discovered (~~1950s~~1930s-60s). So his work is outdated and excessively skeptical in this particular regard (but I think he is indeed correct in his refutations regarding Aria and western Gedrosia). -Avantiputra7 (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IVC sites

Hello, I hope that you're doing well. I had some thoughts on the recent edit you made on the IVC sites article. I think that it should be pointed out that all the other studies were done prior to the findings of the additional mounds, which is what led to the increase in size with regard to Rakhigarhi. Should the claims of ASI based upon their studies not amount to at least something? Withmoralcare (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, overall, The Hindu is one of India's most reliable media outlets. They have rarely been caught publishing misinformation. Withmoralcare (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a paper with regard to Bhirrana:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X24000117 Withmoralcare (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be thankful to know your thoughts. Given a lack of contradictory evidence, I think that there may be reasonable grounds to at least mention these facts, even if it is in a tentative as opposed to a definitive manner. Withmoralcare (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that reference numbers 6 and 42 are also articles. I think that many would argue that The Hindu is at least just as, if not, more reliable than them. Furthermore, since the claim has been made by none other than the national archaeological agency of one of the nations where the civilisation flourished, it may be apt to include this. You know much more about this platform and topic than I do, but from my limited knowledge and experience (on other contentious articles, such as those about conflicts), if there is a significant but not conclusively confirmed claim, it is included with words like "claimed", "reported", "according to", or "asserted". This could be one viable route.

Ultimately, I leave this to your judgement. I just found the details meaningful enough to be incorporated in an article about IVS sites.

Thank you for all the amazing work you have done! Withmoralcare (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nature is a fairly reputable source, right? This paper may bolster the claim that Bhirrana is likely the oldest site:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep26555

All in all, my point is that there seems to be a decent amount of evidence to merit the inclusion of these findings. Withmoralcare (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Withmoralcare: and thank you for your discussion. It is true that The Hindu generally is reliable for current news events, and does not publish misinformation — but the problem, in this case, is that the journalists themselves are not experts qualified to assess the merits of archaeological claims: they are accurately reporting what ASI has said, but without peer-review. Also, it is true that this Wiki article overall should have better sourcing, which I may get around to fixing when I have the time.

If you read prior discussions at Talk:Bhirrana and Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation (look through archives), you will see explanation for the preference of using secondary sources (i.e., review/"survey" papers reviewing the present knowledge of Harappan archaeology) and tertiary sources (i.e., encyclopedias/textbooks providing higher-level overview of the subject), rather than primary sources (such as news reports and even most journal articles).

That is, even though Journal of Archaeological Science and Scientific Reports are reputable scientific journals, some published claims may not come to be accepted by the concensus of archaeologists. You will notice that claims of Hakra Ware culture from Bhirrana dating as early as 8th-7th millennium BCE are thousands of years earlier than dates for almost identical cultural remains at other neighbouring sites (4th millennium BCE) which is strange because no culture would remain static for that long. One of the papers has even mentioned a dating of 4000 BCE for "early Mature Harappan" level, but do not explain how it can be 1400 years older than expected. Most other experts in the field would want to know how to make sense of the dates in context, and how ASI could have ruled out errors such as disturbance or the old wood effect which can influence charcoal datings. (This, I belive, was the point Possehl was making here).

I would also mention that — as I have become aware personally from asking them — a number of university archaeologists (from India as well as based abroad) are privately very critical or doubtful of ASI methods and claims, and consider that there has likely been some kind of error in the Bhirrana datings, even if they have not yet published a public response. In contrast, Mehrgarh is generally accepted as the oldest reliably dated, as it provides a complete sequence of the initial Neolithic transition to settled life and adoption of agriculture, followed by use of pottery (ceramic phase), and later appearance of copper-smelting (Chalcolithic). Whereas Bhirrana has its appearance of Early Harappan type pottery and copper-smelting in the same earliest layers as 7000 BCE charcoals, thousands of years before nearby sites, with no earlier transition, and seemingly remains static for thousands of years subsequently? That is why such recent tertiary sources as The Archaeology of South Asia by Robin Coningham and Ruth Young (2015) and A Population History of India by Tim Dyson (2018) do not discuss Bhirrana because of these problems, although they do not expressly rebut the Bhirrana claims, they have simply focussed on Mehrgarh instead.

It may be of interest also to observe that ASI's widely reported claims of very early rice farming (7000 BCE) in the Ganges Plains at Koldihwa and Lahuradewa have been questioned by leading experts: re-assessments are now indicating that the earliest inhabitants likely were hunter-gatherers, with the transition to settled life and rice farming more reliably dated to 3rd millennium BCE (see sources at those Wiki pages). Such issues of old wood effects and disturbances in stratigraphy have similarly have created doubts about some earliest claimed dates of Iron Age in India, and of Tamil-Brahmi from Keezhadi.

Regarding Rakhigarhi, it is my understanding that the main issue is in how scholars are defining the extent of an urban site: the two newly discovered mounds actually were approximately 1 km north/east and 1 km south/west of the main settlement, and the ASI reports have not explained why they are being considered as integrated into the main settlement, when similar discoveries would be counted separately as satellite villages for other urban sites. The new total area for Rakhigarhi then also encompasses a cemetery as well as a distinct older village settlement of the Early Harappan phase, so it is a different standard than was used for Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. That is why recent tertiary sources, such as Coningham and Young (2015), and Dyson (2018), simply have listed Rakhigarhi as one of the five largest sites based on its main settlement area, without claiming it as the single largest site.

I think that the intro to List of Indus Valley Civilisation sites should also mention Rakhigarhi, Dholavira, and Ganweriwala to completely list out the five largest sites, but not specify any one as largest, nor mention Bhirrana in the intro. Discussion of "claimed" largest/earliest can be left in the table entries and the respective pages for individual sites, in my opinion. Best regards -Avantiputra7 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this rigorous explanation. Upon further research and pondering, I, too, think that it wouldn't be appropriate to make the aforementioned claims given the limited and sometimes contradictory evidence we currently possess. If more information is unearthed, then that may merit a shift. Since it is available in at least some authentic and reputable sources, I wouldn't dismiss these claims outright, but we do need to know more.

I also agree with the inclusions and the way of doing so suggested by you. My only remaining question is about Bhirrana. Even if the earlier dating is currently improbable, based upon what we have, it is likely the third-oldest site, right? So, that would still make it rather valuable in terms of antiquity.

I would be grateful for your perspective.

Thank you, again, and have a good day! Withmoralcare (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I need to say much about the changes that have occurred in India post-2014, and there definitely are legitimate concerns. Still, the ASI is quite an old institution that does possess a vast experience, and these findings, if I understand correctly, either happened before 2014 or not too long after it. That is why I found them relatively more trustworthy. But, as you pointed out, other issues have to be addressed. Withmoralcare (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To further ckarify my last question—what I mean is that, after going through various articles on Wikipedia itself pertaining to the IVC and its sites, the image that seems to emerge suggests that Bhirrana is roughly at the third or fourth place. Even stretching it doesn't seem to take it out of the top five. But even the main article on the IVC doesn't mention its name. So, I was wondering if something could be done regarding this. Withmoralcare (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Withmoralcare: Yes, Bhirrana is for sure among the earlier farming village sites, but it seems to be basically about the same age and stage of development as Kunal, Sothi, Siswal, Amri, Sohr Damb, and probably a few others. I don't know if a reliable ranking by age has been done, or is even possible yet. They could be mentioned by name, but from what I have read I think the most notable aspect of the Early Harappan stage is the first emergence of planned urban development which is said to be most clearly observed earliest in Rehman Dheri, then Kot Diji, Kalibangan, etc.

Concerning the ASI, they certainly have done vital work, but there have been problems, not only political/ideological interference, prior to 2014. This paper [2] is mainly about the Babri Masjid dispute, but endnote 14 discusses some more general criticisms: ASI's inability "to learn new methods of digging and new techniques of excavation" because they do not hire many PhD's from outside their own training institute and do not get outside academic input, and there is typically a shortage of specialists such as "archaeozoologists, archaeobotanists, archaeometallurgists [...] lithic or ceramic specialists" to participate in the excavations, while deeper analytical understanding of ancient cultures has been overshadowed by competition for "prestige" based on "the number of sites discovered and the temporal antiquity of the site". Some of the issues have also been discussed in this book [3]. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great points. I concur with this viewpoint.

The roots of the Babri dispute and the strength of the forces surrounding it makes it natural why the events unfolded the way they did. But yes, there are more systematic problems that need resolution via funding and research. I think no institution of this kind is perfect, I think, as I have come across similar claims regarding China:

https://tibet.net/china-now-loves-archeology-it-has-more-to-do-with-politics-than-excavations/

What does give me hope is that there are enough sharp observers and analysts like you that the basic method cannot be flawed beyond a point. I remember reading this article containing the thoughts of two renowned archaeologists regarding the ASI report on the structure beneath the Babri mosque:

https://science.thewire.in/society/history/babri-masjid-asi-excavation-ayodhya-ram-temple/

In it, they take issue with primarily the conclusion and not necessarily with the parts prior to it. Therefore, there are grounds to believe that the fundamental framework can still be robust (even with an extraordinary case such as this one), even though we should be cautious with respect to the conclusion.

I hope that since these analyses that you shared have come out, the ASI has moved towards correcting some of these problems. A long-term answer would require a wider and deeper vision.

Thank you for all these enlightening facts. Withmoralcare (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what you have written is correct. I do think that the mention of at least some of the oldest sites (like Bhirrana) could make the article(s) more comprehensive. I leave it up to your judgement. Withmoralcare (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]