Talk:Bhirrana

Separate modern Bhirrana and the excavation at Bhirrana
Currently this article is about the excavation at Bhirrana and not the modern village. Since the modern settlement was (I assume) built much later on the site after the ancient settlement was long deserted, it's probably best to make two separate articles about the ancient settlement and the modern settlement. Once somebody wants to make an article for modern Bhirrana, it should probably carry this name; the content of the current article is better moved to a different article then, with a title such as Bhirrana archaeological site for example. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence for a modern village with this name. There may be a Birhana village however, but again is it near the archaeological site? Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you follow the coordinates in the article and open them with Google Maps, you'll see that there is a village called "Bhirdana" to the west of the coordinates. The name is probably slightly different because the Romanisation of the Hindi name is different. Also, if you look at the coordinates I wonder if they are accurate, because I can't see any excavated site on the satellite photos of Google Maps. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have tried that. I looked for anything that discussed the archaeological site and for Birhana and same variants but failed to find anything useful. But that spelling does. Can't comment on the coordinates, but we should certainly split the article. No time to do it myself though. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bhirrana. 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/20120426145357/http://www.frontlineonnet.com:80/fl2502/stories/20080201504012900.htm to http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2502/stories/20080201504012900.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bhirrana. 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/20150418014451/http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/sites/harappa.drupalgardens.com/files/The%20Indus%20Fish%20Swam%20in%20the%20Great%20Bath.pdf to http://harappa.drupalgardens.com/sites/harappa.drupalgardens.com/files/The%20Indus%20Fish%20Swam%20in%20the%20Great%20Bath.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170118032736/http://server2.docfoc.com/uploads/Z2015/11/21/vESLakMBYz/45a03572f94e7a873d7c350293cca188.pdf to http://server2.docfoc.com/uploads/Z2015/11/21/vESLakMBYz/45a03572f94e7a873d7c350293cca188.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2502/stories/20080201504012900.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Improved introduction part of this page
Hi, I have improved the introduction part by adding dates. The dates were already there in the later section down in the article. This site is such an old established site, it should reflect dates in the main introduction just like all other pages of other IVC sites. I also added a bit of information about Ghaggar river being the former course of the Himalayan river Sutlej which abandoned the palaeochannel shortley after 8,000 years ago, which is the 6th millennium BCE as found by the studies done by IIT Kanpur, Imperial college London and many other universities & institutions. I am a new user and this is one of my first edits. Please advise if any improvements can be made to my edits. I was listening to the involved archeologists themselves after which I decided to read more information about this archeological site on internet and came to wikipedia. Although the information available on this page is detailed enough to be a good article. I am reading other published journals about this archeological site and will add more information to make this article more interesting which will benefit all the readers of wikipedia. Thanks --Havimel (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Pre-Harappan
If this site is Pre-Harappan, how does it become the 'oldest Harapan site'? ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The naming seems like bit of a mess. Although I would rather call it sites of Indus Valley Civilisation. Then have multiple phases in it. But the naming convension is over a century old. The moment they find an older site they try to keep consistent with the naming. Such as Mature Harappan, Early Mature Harappan, Harappan, Pre-Harappan. Bhirrana is also classified as Period-I (A) : Hakra Wares Culture by ASI. But ASI also kept it simple and called it the oldest IVC site.--Havimel (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know why Jonathan removed all your improvements {re|ChandlerMinh}}. All of mine too in the main introduction. He converted the page into previous mixture of village & excavated site page. Strange. I suppose we wait for his response, may be he has something better planned?--Havimel (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This edit re-inserted

The term 'Sarasvati' is a Rigvedic term, from the post-IVC Aryan culture. It has nothing to do with the Harappan civilisation, even less the pre-Harappan neolithic, except for those who want to equate the IVC-culture with the Vedic culture, for political and religious reasons. This makes it a controversial term, associated with Hindu nationalism. To use the term this way, as a statement of fact, is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And obviously this article is about the site, anyone who wants an article on the village can create Bhirrana (village). you are right, this is pre-IVC, see Indus Valley Civilisation which dates the IVC to c. 3300 – c. 1300 BCE and Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation. I've removed the claim it's the oldest, anyone arguing for that needs to start with the main articles. I've also tagged the IVC article as confusing because of its use of Harappan for the phases.  Doug Weller  talk 13:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Technically this site of Bhirrana was inhabited from 7570BCE to 2600BCE. This site cannot be technically designated as Pre-Indus Valley, as it was continuously occupied through most phases of Indus Valley Civilisation. Although, Arachological Survey of India does call it the oldest site of Indus Valley Civilisation. Only the initial occupation period can be classified as Pre-IVC, all other are IVC. But as per ASI, the Hakra Ware culture found in Early Harappa sites is also found in the initial phase of Bhirrana and its called Hakra Ware culture. Are you claiming that Hakra Ware culture is not a part f Early Harappa phase? is it not a continuation of Hakra Ware cultre from 7570 to Early Harappan?
 * ASI also say The excavation has revealed the remains of the Harappan culture right from its nascent stage--Havimel (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As per the [|Indo-Aryan migration page], the Indo Aryan supposedly migrated into Punjab region after 1800BCE. But the Ghaggar river (former Saraswati) completely dried out by 2000BCE. As per Wikipedia Rigveda was composed between 1500-1200BCE. Where its oldest books called Saraswati as flowing fully and beautifully to the ocean as Grand Saraswati river and then in later Rigveda books considered Saraswati as one of the rivers and placed it between Shutudri (sutlej) and Yamuna, now this time Sindhu is given the status of Grand Sindhu. So as per you if Vedic culture have no continuity with IVC and Saraswati is a mythical (meaning a widely held but false belief or idea). Then I guess, you logical is a complete FAIL here isn't it? By the way, a Yoga positions, Shivalinga vedic things are also found at IVC. You claims fail at all points.
 * This is the reason now, archeologists have started to call it the Saraswati Palaeochannel. Well you can keep pushing this false of narrative of "mythical". It does not bear out in terms of evidence, which ever way you look at it.
 * I am not fond of wasting time with illogical claims such as one of mythical Saraswati. so I finish my comment here.--Havimel (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * And we are not going to waste our time on ill-formulated pov-pushing and fringe-theories. Please stick to WP:RS, and note that one of the sources you provided uses the term "mythical." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It says word mythical once, but not again in many occurances in the same article. Out of the three references used, none of the others use this word. Please confirm. ASI calls it the saraswati valley, or it is also called as Saraswati palaeochannel. You are also pushing your pov because all the evidence - textual, archeologist and study of palaeochannel reveals it to be a perfect fit for Saraswati river. This is why the references call it so. You seem to be a bit prejudice against Vedic reference of river Saraswati. Since we are talking about the Bhirrana site, it is technically not a preIVC site, it may have been established which as per Wikipedia editor's definition of civilisation may be classified as preIVC. To be accurate, you call this site as to be established in pre-IVC period and kept inhabited until mature harappa phase. But it is NOT pre-IVC site. As it is inhabited from 7570BCE to 2600BCE. A continuity of human civilisation, progressing and developing. Thanks --Havimel (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I propose that we say in the article that, Bhirrana site was established in Hakra Ware period 7570BCE, which although predates the IVC but does continue in the cultural aspects into the early Harappa phase. This will state the facts as they are. We can also explain the artifacts of lapis lazuli being found in the Hakra ware period which continued to be used throughout the Harappan period. As far as the river Saraswati is concerned, per the immense amount of newer evidence available, rather than demeaning all the research work, we say that it the Bhirrana site is located along the dried river bed which some studies suggest is the rigvedic sarawati river. Please confirm. I think we should get an agreemeny here. --Havimel (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The site contains successive cultural layers, from pre-Harappan to mature Harappan (with an incredible end-date of the mature phase at 2800 before present). The earliest layer is Pre-Harappan, the later phases are Harappan. To characterice the whole site as either pre-Harappan or Harappan is incorrect; it's both and neither. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked Dikshit (2013) for the mature phase lasting untill 2800 BP; p.132 speaks of a late Harappan phase, lasting until ca. 1600 BCE (3600 BP). Sarkar et al. (2016) arriving at an enddate of 800 BCE for the mature phase is really weird. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may help here. If any author is not considering the Bhirrana excavated artifacts, then his dates are outdated. Because Bhirrana seems to be a game changer here. Let me detail a few things which are based on Bhirrana excavations.
 * Early Harappa phase as per ASI (after 6200BCE), as per Nature Paper on page3 (after ~6 BCE), as per Possehl on page 2((after ~6.5BCE), Deccan college JSTOR also proposed post 6200 BCE date for Early Harappa phase. In this phase the houses built with Harappa/IVC signature 3:2:1 bricks, house walls made of mud bricks, seals, rings of copper, wheels, bull figurines, gamesmen, sling balls, marble. artifacts of Lapis Lazuli which was mined in present day Afghanistan, indicating trade of imported ornaments from distant mining sites. Artifacts also contain pounders of sandstone - indicating sophisticated understanding of weight scale systems being used.
 * These dates of post 6200BCE indicates a well formed civilisation. Artifacts such as copper artifacts, pounders, arrowheads, gamesmen, pounder of sandstone, trade of lapiz lazuli, bull figurines, wheels, pendants, marbles of terracotta, bangles & copper rings (both used for fashion) and steatite artifacts. I think these are excellent qualities of a civilisation. IVC should be pushed to include the early Harappa phase as excavated at Bhirrana. Please advise if I am wrong. On this page, we must also mention the Establishment of Bhirrana site in 7570BCE and should include that the Hakra Ware has been observed to be continuous into Early Harappa phase (when 3:2:1 brick houses are found in Bhirrana) . We can settle the Saraswati river argument later. Calling it mythical after so much research is pointing otherwise would be demeaning and would a century old narrative - lets discuss that later on. Thanks...--Havimel (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The date of 7570 BCE is the upper date of a time-range of 7570-7180 BCE, for one charcoal-sample. A second sample was dated at 6689-6201 BCE. That is, altogether, a time-range of 7570-6201, from one author. If general overview-works agree to change the start of the pre-Harappan phase in general from 7000 BCE to 7500 BCE, then we can consider to change the date in the articles. Your personal opinions on what constitutes a civilisation are completely irrelevant; we rely on WP:RS, not on WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  02:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment again. I already said that Hakra Wares culture period can be classified pre-IVC. Culture which is established in pre-IVC period but also continued into the Early Harappan phase as found in the excavations at Bhirrana.
 * Moving onto my main point of previous comment (un-addressed), the Early Harappan phase (post 6,200 BCE) contain excavated artefacts as I listed mainly 3:2:1 brick on the walls, houses made of bricks, Lapis Lizuli trade (from Afghanistan mining site to manufacturing sites(unknown) & finally to the houses of Bhirrana which are several hundered kms away from mining sites of Afghanistan), seals, copper rings & bangles (items of fashion), steatite artefacts, sandstone pounders (again indicating proper trades, business using standard weights), marbles of terracota, Gamesmen etc - these are artefacts found at Bhirrana in the early Harappan phase starting at 6200BCE. Any classification of period on the Bhirrana page can only be based on Bhirrana. Does Mehrgarh Period II contains 3:2:1 brick houses in that period? A is NO. But this is not the case in Bhirrana. Bhirrana phase (post 6200BCE) does have 3:2:1 signature Harappa brick houses and many trade artefacts as listed above. Can you please advise why this phase should be ruled out from IVC dating? I have provided the good sources which are classifying the period of Bhirrana based on excavations. Where as you are talking about period which are NOT based on Bhirrana excavations. There seems to be a confusion here on your part. --Havimel (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please discuss IVC-dating at the talkpage of that article, not here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This exceptional dating will likely fall flat soon. Present government and ASI wants to push the dates of everything to as early as they can. Like the Sinauli carts, which was publicised as pre2000BCE and later was dated to 1800-1500BCE. ChandlerMinh (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That’s an absurd objection by Jonathan over the term ‘Sarasvati’ being Rig Vedic in origin considering the fact that the term ‘Harappan’ is in itself terminology derived from the name of a place whose etymology has little to do with the original inhabitants of the archaeological sites named thusly… 49.205.150.164 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously the gist of the argument is lost on you. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Provide Bhirrana excavation-based references to the Table in dating section
Please provide references which are based on the Bhirrana excavation for the Table added in the Dating section of this Page. Please provide what scholarly consensus have been reached of these phases of Bhirrana site.--Havimel (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the table had NO source and nobody provided any reliable reference which is based on Bhirrana excavation. That table was not based on Bhirrana excavation and therefore, has been removed. Unless, anyone has any other source to the Bhirrana chronology, feel free to provide it.Thank you--Havimel (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My argument is based on the excavations of Bhirrana. The excavations here has pushed back the Early Harappan phase based on the characteristics of the arteficats, 3:2:1 brick houses etc. See below - very reliable sources, which are upto date with Bhirrana excavation. You must agree that any Bhirrana chronology NOT based on Bhirrana excavation is obviously "Outdated" right?
 * Source 1 by 9-Authors (36 citations) paper published on Bhirrana in Nature Journal Page 3 - Bhirrana phase chronology - 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)
 * Source 2 by 5-Authors (29 Google scholar citations) publication - Journal Proposing same Bhirrana phase chronology as Source 1 based on Bhirrana excavations.
 * Source 3 by 6-Authors (4 institutions) Article Again following same Source 1 Bhirrana phase chronology.
 * Source 4 by Deccan College Publication Article again supporting the same Source 1 Bhirrana phase chronology.
 * These are very reliable sources, all based on Bhirrana and upto date Bhirrana phase chronology by various scholars, heaps of citations. I could not find any Bhirrana chronology which is different from these. Can you provide me any contrary Bhirrana phase chronology which differs( & their scholarly consensus for that Bhirrana chronology).--Havimel (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)''


 * The table is based on Dikshit (2013), who summarizes Rao. Regarding the sources you've presented, next time please provide author names, year of publication, and title.
 * Regarding the early dating, to repeat: two datings, 7570-7180 BCE, and 6689-6201 BCE, based on two charcoal samples, proposing Hakra Ware 3000 years older than usual. See the talkpage-archive for the IVC for previous discussions on Bhirrana: WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Rao won't suffice to alter the dating.
 * The late enddate for the mature phase is equally odd, and unexplained. Looking at the sources you provided:
 * Source 1: Sarkar et al. (2016); refers to Rao (2005) and Mani (2008) for the late end-date of phade IIB (mature Harappan). Yet, both sources don't mention such a date.
 * Source 2: Rao et al. (2005); see above.
 * Source 3: Krishnan et al. (2012); does indeed use this chronology, but does not give dates.
 * Source 4: Dikshit (2012), THE RISE OF INDIAN CIVILIZATION: RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE PLAINS OF 'LOST' RIVER SARASWATI AND RADIO-METRIC DATES - registration required; no wish to do so. But note that Dishit (2013) gives 1800 BCE as enddate for the mature phase.
 * So, again: find us a general textbook which follows Rao, and the we're talking. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * you are guys are deleting my comments and committing a fraud here in open. I will say again, that let’s have a Wikipedia committee to review the sources. You are lying in the open about what the sources say. Source mention a conventional date of phase chronology and then Bhirrana based dates of phase chronology. --Havimel (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Dikshit (2013), summarizing Rao. Read my comments above on Rao's datings. Rao is mentioned in the article, 7500 BCE is mentioned in the article. Sarmar (2016)'s list is mentioned ina note, because the enddate of 800 BCE for the mature period is completely at odds with mostother publications, including Rao's, though for Madina, continuation of the late Harappan period until 800 BCE has been claimed:
 * Maybe that's what Raksar et al. (2016) are hinting at? See also Pirak, habitated from 1800 until 800 BCE, and displaying Harappan and (apparently) Bactrian/Indo-Aryan elements. And see also here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added Rao (2005) and Sarkar (2016) as separate columns to the table. NB: this also shows what's soawkward about Rao's dating, stretching the datings of the mature Harappan period in both directions... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added Rao (2005) and Sarkar (2016) as separate columns to the table. NB: this also shows what's soawkward about Rao's dating, stretching the datings of the mature Harappan period in both directions... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Its good to see that you have added the dates. That is what I had been asking from the beginning. First you deleted all the dates, then kept arguing with me. Then at last when I asked for Wikipedia committee review. You added back all the dates. Good Good Good Good Good Let's have people read this whole circular behavior by a Wikipedia admin. Also do not consider this as a provocation and do not start deleting the dates again.--Havimel (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Another circular edit by group of wikipedia editos
Again just like before, Joshua Jonathan has showed circular edit behaviour. He initially kept pushing "pre-IVC" classification of Bhirrana. Now he in circular manner removed that "pre-IVC classification" from the first line of introduction. Like initially Joshua Jonathan kept removing all the dates from this Bhirrana page, including the dates from the right hand side table. Then in circular manner, he added back the dates when I asked for a wikipedia committee to review. From start to until now, they kept sending me block warnings for the edits which these editors would go back and made themselves. This seems a complete non sense circular behaviour by these group of editors who are harassing me for making edits.--Havimel (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Made a small formatting improvement
Hi, I have made a small improvement and added titles as sub-headings of this article in section Cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavidesh (talk • contribs) 23 september 2020 (UTC)