![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think I should make a redirect from Rakhi Garhi to here. If this page is deleted, that should be deleted too. -- Finlay McWalter 00:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Region | Haryana |
---|
Same issue I mentioned at Talk:Bhirrana. AlexanderVanLoon ( talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler and Cpt.a.haddock: I am not sure why there is such a dispute about the ASI report. WP:RS asks us to use published sources, which I don't think the ASI report is. Even published WP:PRIMARY sources should be cautiously, and only secondary sources can be reported as fact. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
And, Captain, "one small dig in Haryana?" I commend your hard won modesty. Just a week ago, it was the largest IVC settlement, bigger by far than Mohenjo-daro and Harappa combined, the center of IVC from which IVC spread to distant places, and soon to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site (leaping past Dholavira, Harappa, Nalanda, Golden Temple, who at least have been nominated and have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, patiently). Mr Shinde who is media savvy, if he is anything, has been talking up a storm about the momentousness of this discovery, which according to several Indian newspapers, has increased in decibel level, since the change of government in Delhi in 2014. As for my changing the area from 80 to 100+, there was nothing deliberate about it, just my awareness of more estimates. Instead of giving me credit that I did show flexibility, that I found seven estimates, whereas the Captain was flogging the dead horse (or should I say, the yet to be born foal) of just one, content to give the maximum (400 hectares) of those estimates, the Captain is insinuating dishonesty. Finally, if Shinde et al has not been vetted by a secondary source, why are you putting it back in? Leave it at 124 hectares. Allow me, then, to remove Mr Shinde's optimistic musings. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The report, which is a draft report, see here, page 2, was submitted on the last day of 2014. In it, Mr Nath, states:
As desired, I am enclosing a draft report on the excavations at Rakhigarhi .... I am aware of the fact that the report under submission is incomplete in its presentation in terms modem inputs required in an archaeological report. You may be aware of the fact that the ground staff available to this section is too meagre to cope up the work of report writing. The services of only one semiskilled casual labour engaged to this section has been withdrawn vide F. No. 9/66/2014-15/EB-I1496 Dated 01.12.2014. The Assistant Archaeologist who is holding the charge antiquities and records of Rakhigarhi is available only when he is free from his office duty in the Branch. The services of a darftsman accorded to this unit are hardly available."
By the author's own admission, this is an incomplete draft report. So how reliable is it in terms of WP:RS? Its area estimates have been quoted in a preliminary announcement (a primary source) by the new excavator in his house journal, and which incidentally was published in 2012, a full two years earlier. And it has been bouncing in the echo chambers of India's frenetic media. Can we agree to take out the numerous references to the newspaper reports, most of which are perfunctory to say the least? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rakhigarhi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "hisar gazeteer":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
See The Hindu, Who built the Indus Valley civilisation?. It involves a DNA study of 4 skeletons from Rakhigarhi and will be published in a few weeks. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Tyachi: you reinserted diff the following text (bold):
Results announced in September 2018 and a paper published in cell magazine shows that the dna shares same common ancestry of Irula people but did not include any traces of either the steppe ancestry or the Iranian ancestry, in line with the Aryan migration theory, which says that Indo-Aryans migrated into India after the Harappan times. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |layurl=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of September 2020 (
link) CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
You also added a source diff, "Pune: Deccan college professor Dr VS Shinde and the Rakhigari". Retrieved 2020-10-04., providing an incorrect link; this is the correct link.
that I4411 "has more affinity with South Indian tribal populations". Notably, the Irula in the Nilgiri highlands. A draft of the paper argues that this individual could be modelled as part of a clade [a group sharing descent from a common ancestor] with the Irula but not with groups with higher proportions of West Eurasian related ancestry such as Punjabis
The ASI was born from the intermingling between Iranian farmers and the local Dravidians. Ironically, within the country, the DNA match has been found, not with any of the modern-day inhabitants around Rakhigarhi, but with the Irula tribe of the Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu.
For the eight groups consistent with having entirely ASI ancestry (Adiyan, Ulladan, Palliyar, Malayan, Yanidi, Irula, Gugavellalar, Pulliyar) and having extremely low or no Steppe pastoralistrelated ancestry as shown in Supplementary Materials S5
So, the correct addition would have been "the dna shows affinity with present-day South Indian tribal populations, most notably the Irula people." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: It is not BP. It is BC. The full quote from the article is, "Yes, the shift in centre of gravity is as fundamental as that. The Harappan site at Rakhigarhi, in Hisar district, is the biggest one known yet—at up to 550 hectares, it’s more than twice the size of Mohenjodaro. It’s also the one with the deepest time-scale, taking shape at 5500 BC and running four millennia. The nearby satellite site of Bhirrana, part of this Bronze Age metropolitan network, is even older: it offers the classic arc of evolution, beginning from early Neolithic farming around 7500 BC. Almost 10 millennia ago. Even with India’s endless capacity for imagining deep time, that’s serious depth. On the edge of modern Rakhigarhi village, buffaloes amble out of a pond placidly, unmindful of passing archaeologists or of the runic mysteries glimmering under the undulating mounds."
It is the science that is dubious, shaped by the common Indian jealousy about Mehrgarh and Mohenjo-daro. I stay away from these articles. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think I should make a redirect from Rakhi Garhi to here. If this page is deleted, that should be deleted too. -- Finlay McWalter 00:29, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Region | Haryana |
---|
Same issue I mentioned at Talk:Bhirrana. AlexanderVanLoon ( talk) 08:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@ Fowler&fowler and Cpt.a.haddock: I am not sure why there is such a dispute about the ASI report. WP:RS asks us to use published sources, which I don't think the ASI report is. Even published WP:PRIMARY sources should be cautiously, and only secondary sources can be reported as fact. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
And, Captain, "one small dig in Haryana?" I commend your hard won modesty. Just a week ago, it was the largest IVC settlement, bigger by far than Mohenjo-daro and Harappa combined, the center of IVC from which IVC spread to distant places, and soon to become a UNESCO World Heritage Site (leaping past Dholavira, Harappa, Nalanda, Golden Temple, who at least have been nominated and have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, patiently). Mr Shinde who is media savvy, if he is anything, has been talking up a storm about the momentousness of this discovery, which according to several Indian newspapers, has increased in decibel level, since the change of government in Delhi in 2014. As for my changing the area from 80 to 100+, there was nothing deliberate about it, just my awareness of more estimates. Instead of giving me credit that I did show flexibility, that I found seven estimates, whereas the Captain was flogging the dead horse (or should I say, the yet to be born foal) of just one, content to give the maximum (400 hectares) of those estimates, the Captain is insinuating dishonesty. Finally, if Shinde et al has not been vetted by a secondary source, why are you putting it back in? Leave it at 124 hectares. Allow me, then, to remove Mr Shinde's optimistic musings. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The report, which is a draft report, see here, page 2, was submitted on the last day of 2014. In it, Mr Nath, states:
As desired, I am enclosing a draft report on the excavations at Rakhigarhi .... I am aware of the fact that the report under submission is incomplete in its presentation in terms modem inputs required in an archaeological report. You may be aware of the fact that the ground staff available to this section is too meagre to cope up the work of report writing. The services of only one semiskilled casual labour engaged to this section has been withdrawn vide F. No. 9/66/2014-15/EB-I1496 Dated 01.12.2014. The Assistant Archaeologist who is holding the charge antiquities and records of Rakhigarhi is available only when he is free from his office duty in the Branch. The services of a darftsman accorded to this unit are hardly available."
By the author's own admission, this is an incomplete draft report. So how reliable is it in terms of WP:RS? Its area estimates have been quoted in a preliminary announcement (a primary source) by the new excavator in his house journal, and which incidentally was published in 2012, a full two years earlier. And it has been bouncing in the echo chambers of India's frenetic media. Can we agree to take out the numerous references to the newspaper reports, most of which are perfunctory to say the least? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rakhigarhi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "hisar gazeteer":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
See The Hindu, Who built the Indus Valley civilisation?. It involves a DNA study of 4 skeletons from Rakhigarhi and will be published in a few weeks. Doug Weller talk 21:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Tyachi: you reinserted diff the following text (bold):
Results announced in September 2018 and a paper published in cell magazine shows that the dna shares same common ancestry of Irula people but did not include any traces of either the steppe ancestry or the Iranian ancestry, in line with the Aryan migration theory, which says that Indo-Aryans migrated into India after the Harappan times. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |layurl=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of September 2020 (
link) CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
You also added a source diff, "Pune: Deccan college professor Dr VS Shinde and the Rakhigari". Retrieved 2020-10-04., providing an incorrect link; this is the correct link.
that I4411 "has more affinity with South Indian tribal populations". Notably, the Irula in the Nilgiri highlands. A draft of the paper argues that this individual could be modelled as part of a clade [a group sharing descent from a common ancestor] with the Irula but not with groups with higher proportions of West Eurasian related ancestry such as Punjabis
The ASI was born from the intermingling between Iranian farmers and the local Dravidians. Ironically, within the country, the DNA match has been found, not with any of the modern-day inhabitants around Rakhigarhi, but with the Irula tribe of the Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu.
For the eight groups consistent with having entirely ASI ancestry (Adiyan, Ulladan, Palliyar, Malayan, Yanidi, Irula, Gugavellalar, Pulliyar) and having extremely low or no Steppe pastoralistrelated ancestry as shown in Supplementary Materials S5
So, the correct addition would have been "the dna shows affinity with present-day South Indian tribal populations, most notably the Irula people." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: It is not BP. It is BC. The full quote from the article is, "Yes, the shift in centre of gravity is as fundamental as that. The Harappan site at Rakhigarhi, in Hisar district, is the biggest one known yet—at up to 550 hectares, it’s more than twice the size of Mohenjodaro. It’s also the one with the deepest time-scale, taking shape at 5500 BC and running four millennia. The nearby satellite site of Bhirrana, part of this Bronze Age metropolitan network, is even older: it offers the classic arc of evolution, beginning from early Neolithic farming around 7500 BC. Almost 10 millennia ago. Even with India’s endless capacity for imagining deep time, that’s serious depth. On the edge of modern Rakhigarhi village, buffaloes amble out of a pond placidly, unmindful of passing archaeologists or of the runic mysteries glimmering under the undulating mounds."
It is the science that is dubious, shaped by the common Indian jealousy about Mehrgarh and Mohenjo-daro. I stay away from these articles. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)