Talk:Mehrgarh

Date?

I don't know much about this topic so I don't want to make edits myself, but this National Geographic article (about the early dentistry practiced there) implies the site existed before the use of metal, about 9000 BCE.Rigadoun 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the site a civilisation, pre-civilised, or a proto-civilisation? John D. Croft 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph as well as the link to the Nature article on the proto-dentistry. They used flint drills. The Nature article—a one-page pdf—is fascinating and well worth reading. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The date is highly inconsistent on the page. The sidebar has the Mehrgarh Culture dated at 3200BC-2800BCE, while the article itself lists it starting at 7000 BCE. Mathlaura (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I found some old vandalised text and replaced that, corrected the date in the article, removed the sidebar which was added by a sockpuppet of a banned editor and seems pov, removed a couple of other irrelevant infoboxes. Thanks for spotting this. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Special:Contributions/219.64.73.143

"A mountain by name "meru" is mentioned in many classical Tamil literature. Its exact location is not clear. From this article etymologically speaking a mountain near the Bolan pass may the one rererred to." Lycurgus (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this members statement that Mehrgarh is named after a mountian in Tamil literature called "meru".Infact the name Mehrgarh is derived from the name of a  chieftan of that area at some point in time.He was called "Mehrullah Khan Raisani.Thus the name mehrgarh meaning Mehr+garg.Garh= fort or fortress.  --Brahvi 1 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--Brahvi 1 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--Brahvi 1 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Mehrgarh is named after a Tamil word. To be precise, "Meru" is a word having sanskrit root or Indo-European root, and cannot be claimed as tamil word.Rayabhari (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Farming village

What is amazing about mehrgarh is that it is still a living farming village.Even today people go about their business cultivating and harvesting.But there was a problem with rival tribes and the govt siding with one particular tribe.This ended in heavy damage to the site and surrounding areas.I dont understand why UNESCO does not take an interest in the site as it is a world heritage site.The site of mehrgarh is much more earlier then Taxila or Harrapa.Time someone did something about it or it will just fade into oblivion.Because of security reasons the French mission who was admistering the dig and looking after the artifacts has refused to camp there anymore.Someone somewhere should do something or we will lose this amazing heritage.--Brahvi 1 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)--Brahvi 1 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC) --Brahvi 1 (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Periods IV-VI

Where are they? Or is the numbering of the periods only 1, 2, 3, 7? Or is there just not enough info on them? Munci (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Klostermaier

Fowler&Fowler. You had deleted the Klostermaier ref saying he is a non RS and that he is a darling of Hindu nationalists.[1] Actually he is Christian and is a prolific and well known historian. And how is that point not related to history of India. Pick any of the recent books on Indian history and you will find Mehrgarh there. If it is not about Indian history, please find a ref and add that too. I can add more refs for this point if you want.-MangoWong (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Mango Wong, I never said he is himself a Hindu nationalist, but someone who is quoted all the time by Hindu nationalists. He works in the history of religions, and is not an archeologist. No one has ever claimed any connection of Hinduism with Mehrgarh. Mehrgarh was discovered in the 1970s by a French-Pakistani archeological team. It was long after the partition of India. Moreover, it is in the Kacchi Plain of Baluchistan, and has more in common with the neolithic cultures of Iran than anything connected with India, especially with Hinduism, which is K.K.'s speciality. You can't just pick up any author who has randomly mused about Mehrgarh, and insert their musings in this article. All the other citations are to famous archeologists, such as Jarrige or Ahmad Hassan Dani. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, Stein has included Mehrgarh in his history of India, which I think probably represents mainstream practice of considering Mehrgarh as relevant to South Asian history. As such, even if Mehrgarh straddles the two regions and there are disputed views about whether it is more allied to the eastern or western areas, NPOV wording can be added. Your objection to Klostermeier does not seem to be objective. Just because Hindu nationalists choose to quote an author, his point of view does not become suspect. It will be accepted/suspect on its own merits. Also discreditting an author should probably be done by quoting references of academic refutals. Wishing you a happy editting experience to bring back the long, patient explanations of the Fowler&fowler we used to know. :) AshLin (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's more like to Fowler&fowler we know ! ;) AshLin (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Klostermaier is a historian of religions and is not an archaeologist. However, he is a historian of Hinduism in particular and has investigated all known phases of Hinduism. Studying the early phases of Hinduism involves studying all the same things which constitute history of ancient India. As such, he knows the early history of India well and is an RS for those points. However, he does not go on to establish what he says about Mehrgarh. As such, I would accept that he is not a comprehensive source for this point. I would add some other comprehensive ref if you want. This article had only 3/4 refs before I edited it. That archaeologist are valid sources for this article would not mean that only archaeologists are sources for this article. Historians of India/Iran etc. would also be valid sources for this article. So would be anthropoligsts. Your contention that Mehrgarh is not about Indian history is completely irrational. I can show you any number of RS books on Indian history which discuss Mehrgarh. Who discovered it and who funded the excavations etc. is immaterial. [2] In this diff you say, Mango Wong, I urge you not to edit war with me over this. I have pretty much created the article and I know what it is about. You don't. If you edit war, you are looking to get banned from Wikipedia altogether. Let this serve as a warning That you pretty much created the article does not prevent me from editing it. If you do not want "your" article to be edited by others, don't contribute on WP. You say that I don't know about this subject. You also say that No one has ever claimed any connection of Hinduism with Mehrgarh. You say that you know what this is about. What if I can show you a religion scholar claiming a connection between Mehrgarh and some religion? And your threats do not stop me from editing the article.-MangoWong (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's examine what was in place before MangoWong added the Klostermaier bit. Here is the original paragraph:

Mehrgarh is now seen as a precursor to the Indus Valley Civilization. "Discoveries at Mehrgarh changed the entire concept of the Indus civilization," according to Ahmad Hasan Dani, professor emeritus of archaeology at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, "There we have the whole sequence, right from the beginning of settled village life." According to Catherine Jarrige of the Centre for Archaeological Research Indus Balochistan at the Musée Guimet in Paris:

"…the Kachi plain and in the Bolan basin (are) situated at the Bolan peak pass, one of the main routes connecting southern Afghanistan, eastern Iran, the Balochistan hills and the Indus River valley. This area of rolling hills is thus located on the western edge of the Indus valley, where, around 2500 BCE, a large urban civilization emerged at the same time as those of Mesopotamia and the ancient Egyptian empire. For the first time in the Indian subcontinent, a continuous sequence of dwelling-sites has been established from 7000 BCE to 500 BCE, (as a result of the) explorations in Pirak from 1968 to 1974; in Mehrgarh from 1975 to 1985; and of Nausharo from 1985 to 1996."

The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with contemporaneous cultures in northern Afghanistan, northeastern Iran and southern central Asia.

Recall that the section is titled archaeological significance. The people cited are only some of the best known archaeologists of Indus and Mehrgarh: Ahmad Hassan Dani, Catherine and Jean-François Jarrige and Mark Kenoyer. What has MangoWong done? Well, given the inadequate nature of the sourcing above, he has added the archaeologically meaningful, not to mention precise, sentence:

Mehrgarh has pushed back Indian history by thousands of years and is now seen as a precursor ...

Where has this sentence been added? Right at the top. What has the sentence been sourced to? It has been sourced to a book called, "A Survey of Hinduism." To what chapter of the book? The chapter is: The beginnings of Hinduism. Who is the author? Klaus Klostermaier. What else does Mr. K. K. say in his book? On page 497, he says:

It is becoming ever more evident that there is no single-track prehistoric or protohistoric development in South Asia but a variety of different cultures coexisted in this large area and developed at different paces in different directions. Thus cultural developments in the Indus region were paralleled by developments in Gujarat (Dvaraka:Krishna dynasty), Delhi (Pandava/Kaurava clans), eastern India (Ahyodhya: Rama dynasty).

What is the Rama dynasty? It is the dynasty of Lord Rama, the Hindu god-king, who lived in the Treta Yuga, a "historical" epoch in Hinduism. How long did the Treta Yuga last? According to the page List of numbers in Hindu scriptures, Treta yuga lasted 1,296,000 years. Were there any other historical epochs? Yes, there was the Dvapara Yuga, which lasted another 864,000 years, before the advent of the Kali Yuga, the current historical epoch. So, how old does that make the Rama dynasty? At the very least the Rama dynasty flourished 864,000 years ago and more likely a million and half years ago. Is this plausible? Well, according to the latest DNA evidence, humans (anatomically modern Homo sapiens) emigrated from Africa only 60 thousand years ago. Should that be a contradiction? Not in K. K.'s formulation of Human history. For, in the "Indian chronology" section, he goes on to say:

In 2005 a team of French archaeologists, led by Laurent Marivaux of the University of Montpellier, found in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, in the Indus River basin, fossils of primate teeth belonging to Oligocene (ca. 34–23 million BCE), fueling renewed speculation about the Asian origin of primates and hominids over against the long-held opinion about the African origin.

Never mind that 34 to 23 million years ago, the Indian tectonic plate hadn't quite fully crashed into the Eurasian one, the primates were nevertheless all there. Which means that humans were quite plausibly flourishing in India a million and a half years ago, in contrast to the long-held, but obviously mistaken, opinion of modern science ...

Conclusion: By using this author as a source for pre-history, we could make major revisions in the Wikipedia pages on Biology, Evolution, Human evolution, Primate, Chimpanzee, Gorilla, Homo sapiens, Rama, Krishna, .... some of which are even FAs, and counter the systemic bias therein. I mean, why limit ourselves to Mehrgarh, which is just a little stub-like page?

References

}

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Klaus K., btw, might not be a Hindu nationalist himself, but he is certainly a fellow traveler. He has appeared in many of the same selections that include David Frawley, Subhash Kak, Sita Ram Goel, N. S. Rajaram, etc. and he is routinely cited by them. He is also associated with the publisher Voice of India, which too is a site sympathetic to Hindu nationalism. Here's some evidence:

• Publication 1
• Publication 2
• Publication 3

There's plenty more. You just have to do a Google search. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's more like the Fowler & Fowler we used to know! AshLin (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'Rama dynasty' has nothing to do with history or archaeology, it's mythology. And Merhargh has nothing to do with history, it's archaeology, prehistory, no matter what someone says. Particularly if they take the Rama dynasty seriously. But that may just be a loose use of the word, though no excuse for us to use it. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If Klostermaier is not reliable, why is he getting published by University presses? Do we know more than the professionals at university presses? I can easily show explanations for all the points of objection which have been put up against Klostermaier. I do not do so because I think one should have put up a sourced criticism, otherwise, we could get into soapboxing territory. That one is unable to find a sourced criticism probably tells something. Klostermaier is published by well regarded university presses. His reliability is well established.-MangoWong (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The Klostermaier book which I had cited was published in 2007. Googlescholar already shows that it is being cited in 199 books.[3]-MangoWong (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I think I should clarify, this book has had two earlier editions. So, the Gscholar stastistics would include some data from previous editions too. The gbooks is giving 2690 results. [4].-MangoWong (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC) The book is in its third edition, and being published by a university press, there is no way it could be unreliable.-MangoWong (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Which in any case doesn't deal with my objections, this isn't history, it's archaeology. I suspect he was just using the word loosely as there is clearly no written history at that point. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to insert anything about the Rama dynasty here. Why should it even be an issue? And Klostermeier never said that he was talking about some dynasty which existed 864000 years ago. It is a strawman argument. And what is archaeology if we cannot see some history in it?-MangoWong (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One can see here [5]

…the main purpose of archaeology, qua archaeology, is to secure an empirical foundation as the necessary prerequisite for later stages in which the archaeologist, qua anthropologist or historian, will engage more ambitious goals of synthesis and interpretation.

It is legitimate scholarship for a historian to interpret archaeological data.-MangoWong (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure - historians specialising in the Roman Republic can legitimately interpret its archaeology. But historians deal with periods of written history, they have no legitimate right to call something Neolithic historical. I've studied both history and archaeology at university - all my teachers were clear about this distinction. Please give it a rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Neolithic is pre-history. But out of seven periods at Mehrgarh, only the first three are Neolithic.[6]-MangoWong (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems, two million year old artifacts have already been found in India. Did non humans make that? [7]-MangoWong (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course they weren't humans. What's your point? I really don't know where you are going with your last two responses to me. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Rama dynasty 😂 I mean this Klostermaier guy have the audacity to say that Ayodhya is as old as IVC. There is almost no significant archaeological evidence for urban life in Ayodhya prior to 1000BCE ChandlerMinh (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Scheepers, a Dutch Indologist, once dismissed Klostermaier noting that Klostermaier interpreted 35,000 years old cave-painting of horses as evidence of horse-riding; Scheepers stated that someone who writes such nonsense shouldn't be trusted too much on his other statements either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

India project tag

Sorry, AshLin, I have to revert your India project tag. There is a long-standing convention at the IVC pages of sites in Pakistan that India project banners are not added. Those banners have caused bitter edit warring before, and it is best left as is. True, Stein does mention Mehrgarh in his History of India, but this is an article on Mehrgarh, not History of India. The sources will inevitably be more specialized than a general history of the subcontinent. Archeological sources are quite careful about avoiding too much use of "Indian history" when talking about Mehrgarh, and preferring "South Asia" or "Indian Subcontinent," even the Histories of India, such as Stein's. The two Britannica articles that mention "Mehrgarh," for example, say:

From the "Origins of Agriculture" article: Research indicates two early stages of agricultural development in South Asia. In the earlier stage, dating roughly from 9500 to 7500 bp, agriculture was being established in parts of Pakistan, in the northwesternmost part of the subcontinent. At the ancient site of Mehrgarh, where the earliest evidence has been found, barley was the dominant crop and was apparently supplemented with some wheat.

and

From the Britannica India page, history section: The Indo-Iranian borderlands form the eastern extension of the Iranian plateau and in some ways mirror the environment of the Fertile Crescent (the arc of agricultural lands extending from the Tigris-Euphrates river system to the Nile valley) in the Middle East. Across the plateau, lines of communication existed from early antiquity, which would suggest a broad parallelism of developments at both the eastern and western extremities. During the late 20th century, knowledge of early settlements on the borders of the Indus system and Baluchistan was revolutionized by excavations at Mehrgarh and elsewhere.

Note that it says knowledge of early settlements on the borders of the Indus system and Baluchistan was revolutionized, not "Indian history." Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Pray, who were the participants in that "bitter edit warring"?-MangoWong (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If Mehrgarh is not about Indian history/ India, how come it is being discussed in the Britannica article on India?(India Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 19 Aug. 2011.)<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/285248/India>.-MangoWong (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The same article also says

The Indian subcontinent, the great landmass of South Asia, is the home of one of the world’s oldest and most influential civilizations. In this article, the subcontinent, which for historical purposes is usually called simply “India,” is understood to comprise the areas of not only the present-day Republic of India but also the republics of Pakistan (partitioned from India in 1947) and Bangladesh (which formed the eastern part of Pakistan until its independence in 1971).

It is usual to refer to "South Asia" as "India".-MangoWong (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

IVC (3300–1300 BCE) = Pakistan (DOB 8/14/1947). Astonishing but true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

167.219.48.10 Most everyone already knows that Pakistan became separate from India on the midnight of 8/14/1947. So? I have no quarrel with that point.-MangoWong (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mangowong, you didnt get the ip. He was actually siding with you. was being sarcastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.14.185 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right.-MangoWong (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Fowler&fowler's sentiment. We've already had too much bickering in the past over this issue. Adding a WP India tag on this talk page would be equivalent to adding a WP Pakistan tag on the talk page of Lothal. Please don't bring nationalism into this; as for Mehrgarh being a common part of South Asian history, I believe the WikiProject South Asia tag (which is placed on the top as can be seen) does justice. Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not about nationalism at all. The banners are meant to help people find articles of interest easily. If some article is of interest to X topic, and WP has a project page on it, I think it is justified to add the banner so that people who have an interest in that topic can locate the articles easily. If Lothal is somehow of significant interest to WP:Pakistan, then it should have that banner. I see nothing wrong in it. As far as edit warring on this is concerned, I think it is an unproductive thing and not worthwhile to indulge in. I have better things to do.-MangoWong (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. And although I'm not saying this about WP India, some require permission before adding the tags. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A note of dissent

I find this amazing. The period predates the India-Pakistan division to such an extent that it is impossible for anyone to say that this neolithic site had no role to play in the historical descent of the complete subcontinent, ie both political India and Pakistan,as we know them today. Obviously, it had a role. Textbooks on Indian history mention Mehrgarh as general prehistoric preamble to the historic arrangement. Yet, placement of a country WikiProject tag, which only identifies material relevant to a subject primarily for the aim of drawing attention to editors for article improvement, has to be left out because of short-sighted nationalistic views! We might as well ask for passports and visas before being permitted to edit articles on each other's countries.

Fowler&fowler, I understand your not wanting to start a whole new edit war, but to support this stance by action is not being true to the spirit of Wikipedia. So how am I supposed to respond to this? By telling WP:India Noticeboard guys to ensure Pakistani editors are kept off Indian articles? Or by blatantly agreeing to this betrayal of the spirit of Wikipedia, as a practicality of life? It is sad that a country WikiProject is allowed to make such rules that are so blatantly jingoistic. But it is even more sad when supposedly neutral third party editors fall into line with these preposterous practices. AshLin (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

AshLin (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Tipu Sultan was a Muslim ruler of the 18th century in Mysore, South India. He too predates the India-Pakistan division. Textbooks on Pakistani history (in Pakistan) always mention Tipu Sultan and other Muslim rulers of the Indian subcontinent and regard them as part of a common, shared South Asian history. In Pakistani nationalism, Tipu Sultan and other Muslim rulers are idolised and often called national heroes. There are plays performed on his story, books and literature written on him, television serials broadcasted in his honour, postage stamps dedicated to him, school/college dormitories, houses and hostels named after him, places as well as streets named after him and if that is not convincing enough, even Pakistan Navy ships named after him. If I go and add a WP:Pakistan tag on the Tipu Sultan talk page, my edit would most likely be reverted and rubbished for understandable reasons. Apparently, the WP:India banner can lay claim and hog the talk page of whatever damn article it wants, regardless of whether that place even exists in the modern-day country, regardless in this case of the fact that no one even had a clue before the 1970s what Mehrgarh was until it was discovered in a French-Pakistani collaboration. But when it comes to Pakistan, people often forget that while the country is only 64 years old (so is India), the land itself is quite ancient and that Pakistan too has a history. There is a certain systematic bias that arises on Wikipedia articles when it comes to acknowledging Pakistan's ancient history. Take, for instance, the complete restructuring that the List of Indian inventions and discoveries had to go through, after an extensive argument was raised over the definition of what is, and what is not, "Indian" in different contexts. Mar4d (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Mar4d, go make a case for it on relevant Wikipedia forums, but couch it in terms of greater inclusiveness and shared history, rather than "tit for tat" as you have done. I'm expressing my POV here. Any other example except for Tipu Sultan? If you feel there is a shared heritage as I do, make your point known, as I have done. Justifying what is incorrect on basis of reciprocity is wrong. AshLin (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem for me is that Indian editors (and by Indian I simply mean editors who tend to mostly edit India-related pages) have in the past interfered in Pakistan-related pages much more than the reverse. In my four years on Wikipedia, one of the most persistant biases I've seen is the antiquated primordialism in the edits of many Indian editors. I am afraid that adding the Wikiproject India tag will result in more "proprietary" edits by Indian editors than scholarly ones. In other words, editors will be replacing every instance of "Pakistan" with "present-day Pakistan," "modern Pakistan," or "what today is Pakistan" (as they have in the Mehrgarh article itself, never mind that they've mangled a quote in the process); they will be replacing "South Asian history" with "Indian history" and so forth, ie. carrying on the relentless sniping that, sadly, is familiar to all of us. For these reasons, I'm reluctant to add more headaches for the few of us who do the job of maintaining this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS The ancient "history" edits I'm worried about are a reflection, I believe, of what informs a segment of Indian cultural life, including its archeology. India didn't inherit any significant archeological site (Mohenjo-daro, Harappa, Taxila, Takht-i-Bahi, ...) after the partition. The governments of both newly independent countries spent considerable resources on archeology. In India they did it by closing the sites to foreign archeologists and attempting to develop their own strengths. Consequently, although they did manage train a handful of decent archeologists, they also trained many second-rate ones. Indian archeology has remained largely nationalistic and has produced few publications in internationally recognized journals. Pakistan, on the other hand, not only had the important sites, but also invited in foreign scholars. As a result the Pakistani sites have been worked by some of the world's best archeologists and the few Pakistanis that have been trained are world class. In their bid to one up the Pakistanis, Indian archeologists exaggerated their findings. The number of IVC sites "discovered" in India in the last 30 years is routinely exaggerated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS Lothal, for example, was declared by its excavator, S. R. Rao, to be a dock, the world's oldest, it was said. When it was pointed out that the channel leading from the sea to this "dock" (a large reservoir) could not (for reasons I now forget) reach it directly, the channel was promptly declared to make a three-quarter (C-shaped) turn around the "dock" before reaching it! Hardly, any archeologist outside of India believes that Lothal had a dock. Yet, we have an FA on Wikipedia, based entirely on S. R. Rao's book, which, incredibly, is still advertising it as the world's oldest dock. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PPPS Now to the topic of Mehrgarh itself. Mehrgarh is a topic of archeology, not history; it predates oral or written transmission. Moreover, it lies in Baluchistan, which was never part of any conception of "India," until the British made it a protectorate in the 1870s (see Gedrosia, for example). To be sure, there is a chronological and spatial sequence connecting it to the Mature Harappan civilization. But that alone doesn't make it a part of Indian history. What if Mehrgarh were in Afghanistan or eastern Iran, but still displaying that chronological and spatial connection? Would Indian editors be considering it a part of Indian history? In other words, the only reason for the inclusion is that the British turned it into a protectorate for some 70 years of its nine-thousand-year known human habitation. Archeologists, by and large, don't use the word "India" when they discuss Mehrgarh. As for historians, even authors of histories of India suddenly begin to hem and haw, when they get to Mehrgarh, switching from "India" to "Pakistan," "South Asia," and "subcontinent." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PPPPS. Here, for example, are Kulke and Rothermund, in their History of India 4th edition:

The various stages of the indigenous evolution of the Indus civilisation can be documented by an analysis of four sites which have been excavated in more recent years: Mehrgarh, Amari, Kalibangan, Lothal. These four sites reflect the sequence of the four important phases in the protohistory of the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. The sequence begins with the transition of nomadic herdsmen to settled agriculturists in eastern Baluchistan, continues with the growth of large villages in the Indus valley and the rise of towns, leads to the emergence of the great cities and, finally, ends with their decline. The first stage is exemplified by Mehrgarh in Baluchistan, the second by Amri in the southern Indus valley and the third and fourth by Kalibangan in Rajasthan and by Lothal in Gujarat.

In other words, the language changes when IVC is discussed.

PPPPPS Having had a chance to think while I was posting the stuff above, let me say that I'm not wedded to this belief. You are welcome to add the WP:India tag if you think it will help. I'm willing to give it another try. It has been four years after all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that even if I add the tag, I have no worthwhile references which will help me add value to this article at the moment. If I get an opportunity to find something worthwhile at Deccan College then I'll add the tag at that time, so that its not just empty rhetoric but backed by improvement of the article. AshLin (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes

It is becoming the fashion in Wikipedia to have infoboxes at the top, boxes that provide little information and take up a lot of room. So it had become with this article, with one infobox after another being introduced and with actual information (both textual and visual) being progressively moved farther down the page. I have taken the liberty of removing one vacuous "settlement" infobox. Mehrgarh is an archaeological site, not a settlement; besides, this article is entirely about the site. There is already one physical map that gives an excellent idea of Mehrgarh in relation to the Kacchi plain and the mountains of Baluchistan. What is the point of adding an empty map of Pakistan that has nothing except Mehrgarh? Apparently, these days, software graphics programmers, champing at the bit to add to Wikipedia, are making their contributions by adding redundant maps. I have also moved the other infoboxes, which are only peripherally relevant, to farther down the page. This way the pictures and text about Mehrgarh take precedence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Dental morphology' section

I didn't want the section to seem like the research claims the inhabitants of Mehrgarh were certainly fully mongoloid, it actually suggests they may have been partially mongoloid. I will try to find a quotation in the texts which illustrates this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easy772 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hancock is not WP:RS, as Doug Weller also said; Kenoyer gives a rather free interpretation of Lucas. On scrutiny, these "facts" are flimsy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

See [8]. I will support protection if it continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation reference for the quoatation of Jarrige, C.??

I'm failing completely to find an accurate reference for the quotation of Catherine Jarrige's comment on the relevance of Mehrgarh? Can it be added? Who can find it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.240.214 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 December 2015

The quote was added in 2007.[9] with a source that just said "Guimet". The current reference is a self-published book(I can find it on Amazon published by Createspace) from 2014, so clearly not the actual source - added by a new editor who didn't stay long, probably a good faith edit. Quotes must be sourced and I can't find a source so am removing it, but of course it is still in the history if anyone wants to search again. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sidebars

@Thumperward: could you take a look at the sidebars at this page, and turn them into sidebars with collapsible lists? I gave it a try at Template:Neolithic, and failed miserably... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Origins

I have removed the whole newly added origins sections because it talks about the hypothesis of agricultural influence on Mehrgarh and very soon it switches to the far-fetched genetic hypothesis which cannot be actually trusted upon and remains unrelated to this whole subject, and finally nothing relevant to "origins of Mehgarh". And it is largely noted that agriculture in south Asia developed independently.[10][11][12] Also see History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent.D4iNa4 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, nevertheless I don't agree.

• The section is not completely new; it's an elaboration of the dental info from Lukacs, which has been discussed before. I've investigated Lukacs, added info on him, and added additional info (Jarrige) and background info, for a neutral point of view. This was an improvement of already existing information.
• The section does have relevant info:

• Gangal et al. (2014) give an extensive overview of arguments for the Near-Eastern origins of agriculture;
• It's an introduction to the comment by Jean-Francois Jarrige, which otherwise stands in a vacuum;
• Mehrgarh is regarded as a precessor of the IVC; the comments by Kivisild and Singh are relevant here, also in regard to Lukacs and Hemphill, because they argue for Near-Eastern influences on north-western India;
• The part on Lukacs and Hemphill first only noted the possible South-Asian origins of the Mehrgarh people; when I scrutinized it, it turned out that they actually said that the first people there were south-Asian, where-after the population changed. I have moved Kivisild and Singh downward; they may clarify this point.

• Regarding genetics: you wrote "the far-fetched genetic hypothesis which cannot be actually trusted upon." Is that the scholarly status-quo, or a personal opinion? We rely on WP:RS; these scholars are published in WP:RS.
• Regarding the relation to Mehrgahr: these geneticists argue for migrations from the near East, which coincide with the development of farming in north-west India. The relevance seems quite clear, especially in regard to the comments by Lukacs and Hemphill on changing populations in Mehrgahr.
• Regarding the origins of agri-culture in India: you wrote "it is largely noted that agriculture in south Asia developed independently." Gangal et al. (2014) make it abundantly clear that it is 'largely noted' that there is a relationship with the Near East; they eve cite Jarrige. There may be other views, which may not necessarily contradict a relationship with the near East. It sounds likely that part of agriculture at Mehrgarh developed independently; yet, it's also clear that there were near eastern influences. You can't dismiss this by removing sourced info. Wikipedia is to give an overview of the relevant scholarship; this is relevant. At best, you can add alternative views.
• Regarding your sources on the independent origins of farming in India:

• The "Review of Archaeology, 1992" refers to Jean-Francoise Jarrige, nota bene. So, if there are scholarly opinions, of a more recent date, which have a different view, why remove it? And why remove Jarrige, while this source refers to him in support of local origins?
• Abbasi (2001): "It is noteworthy that at Mehrgarh rice is absent" - but near-Eastern grains are not.
• Kapur says nothing about independent origins.
• History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent doesn't mention independent origins.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the subsection title "Origins", it can be something else, while I can see that you have reverted without gaining consensus (WP:BRD), I am seeing that you have made more changes. I agree though that there is no need of genetics research into this whole article and they should be instead kept to Peopling of India. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you got a proposal for another title? And why do you think that "there is no need of genetics research"? Regarding WP:BRD:

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see)."

Simply removing a lot of well-sourced information is a lazy way of responding. Lukacs was already in there, and has been discussed before. I investigated that specific info, and found out that Lukacs was used selectively. Jarrige was an addition to Lukacs; after all, Jarrige does argue for independent origins. Gangal et al. (2014) is an addition to Jarrige; they make it abundantly clear that there is widespread support for the idea of near-Eastern origins; to only cite Jarrige would be one-sided. And Kivisild and Singh are an addition to Lukacs, which provide further context for population changes. So, if there's anything specifically wrong with these parts of info, they should be further discussed, in addition to the discussion on Lukacs, and refined when necessary. But not simply be removed wholesale; BRD is not a license for bypassing efforts to make improvements, efforts which I did make. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

NB: I've moved Gangal, Kivisild and Singh into notes, and rephrased Jarrige for better readability. Gangal et al. (2014) could be shortened, but is relevant for WP:NPOV. Kivisild and Singh are relevant for their comments on population movements from the near east, which provide a context for the population change which Lukacs mentions, and for the complexities of human migrations. Singh even explicitly states: "...suggested a complex scenario that cannot be explained by a single wave of agricultural expansion from Near East to South Asia." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Origins" should be "History". Because we stated the points related to histories. Capitals00 (talk) 08:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Have you thought about the consequences of what Jarrige, Lukacs and the others are saying? Local, south Indian (Adivasi? ASI?) origins, and then, during the Copper Age/Bronze Age, a replacement or migration by near Eastern people. Very recent! And then, a large growth of the population in the IVC, followed by a dispersal when the environmental conditions in the Indus Valley changed. Perpola (2015), The Roots of Hinduism, p.296, gives a similar scenario for the Tripolye culture. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Disagree

I disagree with all these statements because Mahergarh is derived from Mahar tribe, Mahar's were inhabitant of that area they used to live there thus the name mahergarh is called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.62 (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Only I and II neolithic

As far as I can find, according to the updated sequence of Jarrige, only the first two periods were neolithic. Period III was chalcolithic, see here. BoH (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mehrgarh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221610/http://archaeology.up.nic.in/doc/mn_jfj.pdf to http://www.archaeology.up.nic.in/doc/mn_jfj.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030014804/http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf to http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Balochistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mehrgarh South Asia site

By Fowler&fowler

One source, two or three is not the way to do it. Obviously, it is not just the OED, it is the scholarly sources, statistically. I have a simple way of figuring this out. I stick to scholarly books, i.e. those published by academic publishers. Nothing else is needed. And among these books, I stick to those with some form of page view on Google as such a search leans towards the more recent usage (which is what we are interested in). "Indian subcontinent" is being used less and less over the years regardless of how you define it. How does one do this search? Here are some statistics:

• A The total number of scholarly books that reference only India, Pakistan, Bangladesh (i.e. not the other countries such as Sri Lanka or the Maldives) is 174,000. Click on "Tools" to see the number.
• B The total number that are in A and also reference "South Asia" is 37,700 Click on Tools to see the number
• C The total number that are in A and also reference "Indian subcontinent" are: 3,290

Analysis:

• The ratio B : A is 1 to 4.6. This means less than one in four books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call is "South Asia."
• The ratio C : A is 1 to 52.89. This means less than one in 52 books that reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh," call it "Indian subcontinent."

Implication:

More than 11 times as many scholarly books which reference only "India," "Pakistan," and "Bangladesh" prefer "South Asia" as a descriptor to "Indian subcontinent"

-- Same research applicable to this excavation site which belongs to South Asia Jaykul72 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Spot the difference between Pakistan vs. South Asia and Indian subcontinent versus South Asia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I had a incorrect query A: Mehrgarh and Pakistan result is 1200, whereas B: Mehrgarh and South Asia is 832. Jaykul72 (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What does the edit summary "South Asia decisions by admins in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanskrit#Large_block_of_scholarly_referenced_text_deleted_from_Sanskrit_page Sanskrit TalkPage" mean?

Because I certainly don't see it at Talk:Sanskrit#Large block of scholarly referenced text deleted from Sanskrit page. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mehrgarh per.VI.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)