Talk:Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of India#"Second urbanisation" (500–200 BCE)|Second urbanisation]] The anchor (#"Second urbanisation" (500–200 BCE)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Terms

who uses these terms? who uses "Integration Era" instead of "Harappan", and who uses "Tradition" to refer to sets of archaeological cultures spanning six millennia? It seems awfully idiosyncratic, if not OR. Now this "Regionalization" terminology is spreading to other articles, and nobody seems to question if these terms are mainsteam at all. Maybe they are, I don't know, but the burden of pointing this out lies with the author of this article. dab (ᛏ) 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indus Valley (Cultural) Tradition terminology has been used by archaeologists since the last 10-15 years. You have yourself added a table of the phases of the Integration Era [1] to the Indus Valley Civilization article (!) If you can add this terminology, why not others?

If I don't understand something on wikipedia, I'd try to read the references or some introductory and up to date books on the topic. I added some references to the article. If you want to understand the concept fully, you should read some of these references and other works on the IVC. One good introduction to the Indus Valley Civilization that I can recommend is Kenoyer's Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization This is an introductory text, but gives a good overview and has also a chapter that explains the IV Tradition. Kenoyer has also written more technical papers on this concept.

The Indus Valley Tradition article is useful, because it covers more than the IVC article (which is only about the Integration Era), and because it is useful to have an article where the complexities and details of the IV Tradition can be explained. The Cultural Tradition concept was first used by American archaeologists like Willey, and has been applied to South Asian archaeology (there is also a Baluchistan and Helmand tradition).

Of the two terminologies Early/Mature/Late Harappan and the Indus Valley Tradition, the IV Tradition should probably be prefered because Wikipedia should use the most scholarly terminology. Erdosy, who by the way didn't invent the terms, said the IV Tradition terminology "is much more informative than the traditional Early/Mature/Late Harappan classification which should now be discarded." However, I think both concepts can be explained and used in the IVC article. There are also some other probably less important terminologies for the chronology of the IVC. --Rayfield 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One problem may be that there is not one single terminology that is used by all archaeologists. This is because the archaeologists are scatterd in Europe, USA, India, Pakistan and Japan. The Indus Valley Tradition terminology is used by American archaeologists and scholars, but maybe it is not as widely used by Indian archaeologists. --Rayfield 18:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits I just removed as they were based on an inaccurate newspaper report

The report is at Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization byAnindya Sarkar, Arati Deshpande Mukherjee, M. K. Bera, B. Das, Navin Juyal, P. Morthekai, R. D. Deshpande, V. S. Shinde & L. S. Rao. It does say "Within the experimental errors both the stratigraphically controlled new ages agree with the time scale based on archaeological evidences (as well as 14C ages) proposed by earlier workers8,17,18,34; Fig. 3C,D) and suggest that the Bhirrana settlements are the oldest of known sites in the Ghaggar-Hakra tract" and that "The climate reconstruction at Bhirrana demonstrates that some of the Harappan settlements in the Ghaggar-Hakra valley are the oldest in India and probably developed at least by the ninth millennium BP over a vast tract of arid/semi-arid regions of NW India and Pakistan." It also says "The recent excavations at Rakhigarhi suggest hitherto unknown largest Harappan settlement in India preserving all the cultural levels including the Hakra phase" but this is too vague to use. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn with a new move request to change the IVC article to Indus Valley tradition. Doug Weller talk 12:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation → Indus Valley tradition – Because that is what this article is about. Archaeologists use the word 'civilization' to mean an urban polity. The Indus Valley tradition includes "Indus Valley CivilizatioN", "Harrapan Civilization" - ie the urban phases of the Indus Valley tradition, as well as the cultural phases that led up to the urban phase. As another author wrote, the IV tradition "may be thought of as the milieu of cultural/technological adaptations in the Greater Indus region within which urbanized civilization eventually emerged and existed"[2] Hopefully this might be an aid in cutting down on some of the pov editing, the "my civilization is older than yours" editors. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose - It's confusing, and may turn this article into a mere fork. Why not simply merge it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then, rename "Indus Valley Civilization" into "Indus Valley Tradition." That would be appropriate, since "IVC" now covers "IVT." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that (although it's a small 't' for tradition). Shall we start a rename there? Doug Weller talk 12:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actuallly I've done that. Withdrawing this one. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Can you provide some refs for use of "IV tradition" - one might use other terms, eg "early IV cultures". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Coningham, Ruth Young (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press: "The Indus Valley Tradition (c.6500-1900 BCE)". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Google scholar.[3] Doug Weller talk 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sarkar et al. (2016)

Copied from User talk:Doug Weller#Harappan Civilisation:

"Hello,

I was wondering why the edit considering Bhirrana to be the oldest Harappan site was removed. According to the 'Nature' report: "Sarkar, A. et al. Oxygen isotope in archaeological bioapatites from India: Implications to climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harappan civilization. Sci. Rep. 6, 26555; doi: 10.1038/srep26555 (2016)", clearly all cultural levels are found at this site:

"The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP), Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP), Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP ([reference] 8,17,18,20,34."

The report further clarifies:

"The Bhirrana settlement, close to the presently dried up Ghaggar-Hakra (Saraswati) river bed preserves all the major laterally traceable and time correlatable cultural levels."

With such cultural continuity Bhirrana should be considered as the oldest Indus Valley site found thus far, older than the previously thought to be site of Mehrgarh?

If the article is inaccurate as you say, would you please point me to a reference that suggests the same? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgraghav (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) "[reply]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See:

I suggest you check the sources given by Sarkar et al. for this revised dating:

8. Dikshit, K. N. Origin of Early Harappan cultures in the Sarasvati Valley: Recent Archaeological Evidence and Radiometric dates. Jour. Ind. Ocean Arch. 9, 87–141 (2013) - no citations, according to Google scholar
18. Mani, B. R. Kashmir Neolithic and Early Harappan: A Linkage. Pragdhara 18, 229–247 (2008) - 8 citations, according to Google scholar.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Dikshit (emphasis mine):

"A general impression appears that the time bracket of Early Harappan proposed in the past for sites like Harappa, Kot Diji and Kalibangan requires a longer span of life namely from c. 4500-3000 BCE which will be more appropriate in understanding the cultural process in Sarasvati, Ravi and in the lower levels of Indus valley. These dates fill-up the cultural gaps in the region [...] This is a proposed tentative time bracket for the growth of settlement at Bhirrana (Table 5)." (p.132)

The fact that this proposal, three years after its publication, has received no response whatsoever, exceot for this article on climate change, may give a reasonable clue about the impact of this proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agreee. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonathan,

After going through the references and discussions, I am yet to find something that is contrary to the idea of cultural continuity from Bhirrana (approx. 7500 B.C. to Mature Harappan). If the term 'civilization' is; as you say; taken to be different from the word 'culture' and as such corresponds to urbanization then, again, Bhirrana is as good or better a candidate than Mehrgarh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgraghav (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a closer look at the Nature article (I've turned the periodisations into proper lists):

" Here we report a high resolution bulk oxygen isotope (δ18O) record of animal teeth and bone phosphates (bioapatites) from an excavated archaeological trench at Bhirrana, state of Haryana, NW India, to reconstruct a paleomonsoonal history of the settlement site itself. Based on radiocarbon ages from different trenches and levels the settlement at Bhirrana has been inferred to be the oldest (>9 ka BP) in the Indian sub-continent ([references] 8,17,18)." (p.2)
"Archaeological chronologies of Harappan (Indus) civilization in South Asia ([references] 2,16,19) are given in SI. Conventionally the Harappan cultural levels have been classifed into

1) an Early Ravi Phase (~5.7–4.8 ka BP),

2) Transitional Kot Diji phase (~4.8–4.6 ka BP),

3) Mature phase (~4.6–3.9 ka BP) and

4) Late declining (painted Grey Ware) phase (3.9–3.3 ka BP13,19,20)." (p.2)

"Based on the spatio-temporal distribution of the archaeological remains spread throughout the subcontinent a much older chronology has, however, been advocated by Possehl ([references] 2,16). Accordingly the time spans of the above four phases have been suggested as

~9–6.3 ka BP,

6.3–5.2 ka BP,

5.2–3 ka BP and

3–2.5 ka BP respectively.

Clearly the later time scale pushes back the Harappan chronology to at least 1–2 ka older." (p.2)

"A compilation of calibrated radiocarbon dates of the charcoal samples and OSL dates of pottery (see later discussion) from various cultural levels of Bhirrana (Lat. 29°33′N; Long. 75°33′E), retrieved during the excavation of 2005, is given in SI ([refrences] 8,18). At Bhirrana the earliest level has provided mean 14C age of 8.35 ± 0.14 ka BP (8597 to 8171 years BP ([reference] 8). The successive cultural levels at Bhirrana, as deciphered from archeological artefacts along with these 14C ages, are

Pre-Harappan Hakra phase (~9.5–8 ka BP),

Early Harappan (~8–6.5 ka BP),

Early mature Harappan (~6.5–5 ka BP) and

mature Harappan (~5–2.8 ka BP ([references] 8,17,18,20,34))." (p.3)

References

Possehl:

2. Possehl, G. L. The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective (Altamira Press Lanham MD, 2002).
16. Madella, M. & Fuller, D. Q. Palaeoecology and the Harappan Civilisation of South Asia: a reconsideration. Quat. Sci. Rev. 25, 1283–1301 (2006).

Bhirrana:

8. Dikshit, K. N. Origin of Early Harappan cultures in the Sarasvati Valley: Recent Archaeological Evidence and Radiometric dates. Jour. Ind. Ocean Arch. 9, 87–141 (2013) - no citations, according to Google scholar
17. Rao, L. S., Sahu, N. B., Sahu, P., Shastry, U. A. & Diwan, S. New light on the excavation of Harappan settlement at Bhirrana. Puratattva 35, 67–75 (2005) - 16 citations according to Google scholar
18. Mani, B. R. Kashmir Neolithic and Early Harappan: A Linkage. Pragdhara 18, 229–247 (2008) - 8 citations, according to Google scholar.
20. Dikshit, K. N. & Mani, B. R. Origin of Early Harappan Cultures: A Review. In International Conference on Harappan Archaeology, Chandigarh October, 27–29 (2012).
34. Rao, L. S. Settlement Pattern of the Predecessors of the Early Harappans at Bhirrana District, Fatehabad Haryana. Man and Environment 31, 33–42 (2006).

Note that the "archeological artefacts" for this "Pre-Harappan Hakra phase" are six artefacts, including "relatively advanced pottery" ([4]); how many pot shreds is that, to push back the chronology of a whole culture? Note also that 9,500 BP is not an absolute date, but a limit of a dating between "~9.5–8 ka BP." Dikshit's interpretations have already been added into a note (no.3) at the Indus Valley Civilisation; I've rephrased the sentence there on Mehrgarh being the oldest site, and duplicated the note; but given the lack of citations for Dikshit (2013), I think more than a note is not warranted at the moment. It would be good, thoygh, to search for further information on Dikshit; is he referenced to in books?

As for Possehl, maybe he should be added to the periodisation-article. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No access to page 29 of Possehl (2002) at Google books; yet, Robin Coningham and Ruth Young (2015), The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE, p.27, mentions him but does not use him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And Google books gives six hits for "Dikshit bhirrana", which all seem to refer to the article in the Hindu Times. Oh great; this "author," Dr. Hetalben Dhanabai Sindhav, plagiarised my note on Bhirrana in the "International Journal of Social Impact, Volume 1, Issue 2", p.103. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to "Dikshit, (2013), THE RISE OF INDIAN CIVILIZATION: RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE PLAINS OF 'LOST' RIVER SARASWATI AND RADIO-METRIC DATES. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute Vol. 72/73 (2012-2013), pp. 1-42," the estimation for the aniquity of Bhirrana is based on two calculations, giving two different time-spans of respectively 7570-7180 BCE, and 6689-6201 BCE.

All in all, this claim of Bhirrana being the oldest site is highly speculative. And irrelevant; if one site is so old, other sites with a comparable culture will be of a comparable age. The relevant point is when this whole culture developed, and why it developed. Disputes about which specific site (in which present-day country), is supposedly the oldest, boil down to "Mine is bigger than yours." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info to the Bhirrana-note at [[:Indus Valley Civilisation, from Dikshit (2013)

"Yet, Dikshit clarifies that this time-bracket concerns only two finds, which were radio-carbon dated at respectively respectively 7570-7180 BCE (BRN9) and 6689-6201 BCE (BRN6).^[1] Dikshit further writes that the earliest phase cocnerns 14 shallow dwelling-pits which "could accommodate about 3-4 people."^[2] According to Dikshit, in the lowest level of these pits wheel-made Hakra Ware was found which was "not well finished,"^[2] together with other wares.^[3]"

References

"14 shallow dwelling pits," that's not exactly a civilisation yet. And two radio-carbon dates, for supposedly Hakra Ware, which was found together with other wares, that's not really unambiguous, is it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Coningham and Young, The Archaeology of South Asia: From the Indus to Asoka, c.6500 BCE–200 CE, Cambridge University Press, p.158, Hakra ware is contemporaneous with the early Harappan Ravi phase culture (3300-2800 BCE) of the Indus Valley. NB: no Dikshit in there, except for Dikshit the former chairman of the ASI, but thta's a different person. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a typo in Sarkar et al. (2016). Page 3 says: "mature Harappan (~5-2.8 ka BP." Yet, Dikshit (2013) p.132 says 1800 BCE. The other dates follow Dikshit, so I suppose this should be 3.8 ka BP. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The banks of the River Sarasvati and the ancient Rishis

@Dougweller: have you noticed this trend in Indian thought to shift the antiquity of Indian culture from the Vedic religion to the IVC? Somehow the use of the name "Sarasvati," instead of Haggar, in these publications on Bhirrana, sounded weird. Together with proposed older datings, going toward 8,000 BCE, I was reminded of those ancient rishis of Indian mythology, sitting at the banks of the river Sarasvati 10,000 years ago. And see, what do you expect: Rami (2006/2008), Kashmir Neolithic and Early Harappan : A Linkage, links horned deities and soma to pre-Harappan pottery:

"Thus, the pre-Harappan pots with painting of horned deity were seemingly meant to contain Soma juice which was often mixed with either milk or curd with the help of a possible wooden mixer or mathani whose representation (Fig. 8) alongwith horned deity can be identified on one of the two pots representing the horned deity from Kunal (Figs. 9-10)."(p.242)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Valley Tradition

@Dougweller: shouldn't this article be moved to Indus Valley Tradition? Or otherwise just be merged into Indus Valley Civilisation? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... That's what you proposed before, and I opposed... My apologies! But... why not move IVC to IVT? That's the term Kenoyer, and Coningham & Young use. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops again.. That's what you also proposed before... Ehm... maybe we can restart that discussion some time in the future? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agreed to keep the IVC article as it is, and create a new article on the Indus Valley Tradition. It looks like you are ready to do it :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking this article

I've tried to make a start for a separate article on "Indus Valley Tradition," but I don't think it's going to work; it would be too much of a fork of the IVC-article. As it is now, the IVT is mentioned there; that should suffice. But it might be good to rework this artyicle, on the periodisation, into an article on the various periodisations which have been used, the differences in datings, and present proposals for redatings. That would mean that the sections on "Early Food Producing Era" would disappear, and be replaced by sections on various periodisations, which provide info on their context: the Early-Mature-Late Harappan system, the Era system, etc; and a section on proposed earlier datings, c.q. recent proposals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'v taken the freedom to boldly rework this article as proposed above; I think the results speak for itself. The way I've ordered it now offers sufficient possibilities to add information on the various classifications, explain them further, and show how they correlate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[FOOTNOTEDikshit2013132,_131-1] Dikshit 2013, p. 132, 131.

[FOOTNOTEDikshit2013129-2] Dikshit 2013, p. 129.

[FOOTNOTEDikshit2013130-3] Dikshit 2013, p. 130.

[1]

[2]

[3]