Talk:Harappa: Difference between revisions

Organized

Is it possible to organize this article into various parts, like

1. Overview

2. History

3. Culture

4. People (Inhabitants)

5. Architechture

6. Recent developments/discoveries, etc.

Dates

I agree with the above. In addition, there appears to be a significant inconsistency in the dates?:

"The city existed from about 3300 BCE..." followed by "Indus Valley civilization (known also as Harappan culture) appeared around 2500 B.C...."

82.133.100.35 01:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Script

I thought someone decoded it and discovered it was Vedic Sanskrit? Arrow740 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Any reference? Szhaider 11:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The indus script has not been decoded. Not a word of it. Unre4L 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Indian Tag

Pre-1947 Indian tag is now much better without Ashoka Chakra. Now it's neutral and does not imply Hindu dominance. Szhaider 18:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ashoka chakra is not anything related to Hindu dominance. It is the Buddhist Wheel of Dharma ­ Kris (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As it is also a part of the flag of predominantly Hindu India (more properly known as Bhaarat in Hindi), therefore, it is not acceptable. Szhaider 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a good reason. India is a secular country. The Wheel of Dharma is common to all Dharmic faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, though its more popular as a buddhist motif. It has nothing to do with Hindu dominance or anything. Besides Harappans were very much Hindu as the figurines of swastika and pasupati found in Harappa show. ­ Kris (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit script in this article

If the justification for the need for sanskrit script in this article is that this site was part of the Indus Valley Civilisation, then is there any proof for the existance of Sanskrit during the Indus Valley civ days? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any proof of urdu back in the indus valley days?--D-Boy 12:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization was an Indian civilization even though Harappa today is located in a political entity called Pakistan created in the recent past. There are more IVC excavated sites in Indian territory than in Pakistan. Sanskrit did exist in Harappan times since its origin dates back to pre-historic times and it existed even before Rig Vedic times (see Rig_veda#Dating_and_historical_reconstruction). There is no harm in retaining both devanagari and urdu scripts for the name. And yes, history of Harappa is also the history of Pakistan. ­ Kris (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The physical location of the site is in the modern state of Pakistan and hence following conventions, Urdu should be there, although I'm opposed to any vernacular script in the English language encyclopedia. The Sanskrit language did not exist during the Indus valley days. Atleast there is no proof for such an existance. I see no need for inserting Sanskrit here. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy about the scripts. But if the urdu is there, then the sanskrit should be there as well. pakistan didn't exsist back then.--D-Boy 09:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

India didnt exist either, and the Harrapan people didnt have anything to do with Sanskrit. It is a Pakistani civilisation, and last time I checked, Sanskrit didnt play a major role in Pakistan. Just remember, India is not another word for South Asia.
Have a nice day. --Unre4LITY 01:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)