Talk:Iron Age in India

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bnbautis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

complete and comprehensive solution for the aryan problem

Here is my complete , comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance. Part 2 is particularly important > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Part 2 has methods to reconstruct the langauges of the harappans with checks and balances.. 122.166.5.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

I can't find any cites in Google Books to the journal "The IUP Journal of History and Culture" and no cites in Google books or Google scholar to the author and IP above, Sujay Rao Mandavilli. This looks a bit promotional, certainly not something we should be using in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Iron in 2200 BC

Recent discovery of daggers in southern India dates to 2200 BCE , 1000 years older than rest of the world . http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/discovery-ancient-indian-daggers-may-push-back-start-iron-age-020352. (Text contributed by Dr Shrikanth) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean to say that you reverted, because this is nonsense? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the content from the article. I don't know if it is nonsense or not, but this source is no good. Hopefully, somebody can dig into the sources and unearth accurate information. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Times of India article. It is known that the Indians had been experimenting with iron for centuries before the onset of the Iron Age. But Iron Age means the period when iron came into widespread use and started supplanting all the other bronze/copper implements. The date of that is determined by historians studying all the available evidence, not isolated archaeological finds or newspaper headlines. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a very interesting discovery and we should certainly cite it once it is actually published, but the reporting is terrible. Megalophias (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Tewary sources

The Tewary sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY sources and too much reliance on them in this article is a problem. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Title change

The title of this article was changed without consensus. It should be reversed back. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

"South Asia" seems to be more apt. The ancient kings who conquered parts of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan obviously weren't bothered by the present-day borders. Nor were the Aryans who came from the BMAC, nor the traders who traveled throughout Asia. Not to mention the IVC-people and their exchanges with Mesopotamia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"India" in this case is historical geography, not the nation state. This was already established in the talk page of Indian subcontinent. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:CDFA:AD8F:7708:5B6C (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Might be good to establish a Wiki-policy, or Wiki-style, in this regard... It's too complicated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I second Joshua Jonathan's comments. Also note this suspicious IP user notified a very selective group of users to fulfill his request; hence the requests are invalid. His edit summaries also look suspicious.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You are a clear POV pusher. I am an old IP editor. Utcursch Kautilya3 RegentsPark are fimilar with my work and my IP location. Don't use names to justify what you are doing. The change in title is in dispute. Revert it back until we have a consensus. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:BCA2:321B:2B37:338C (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC))

Pinging other users to come and support you to change consensus because you disagree on this topic, is not permitted. Please be wary of WP:CANVASSING. --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've moved it back. When a move is contested, you need to start a discussion at WP:RM. Note that this is not a comment on the merits of the title, merely a procedural issue. --regentspark (comment) 00:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

He reversed it without building any consensus. (2600:1017:B80E:4E3E:BCA2:321B:2B37:338C (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC))

Yep. Canvassing is a misplced allegation here, I think; a discussion was started here, and should be continued. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I support the original Iron Age in India. This is the history of Indian Subcontinent and not the modern nation state of India. Indian Sub and Indian Ocean are not political notions but geographical ones. Razer^Talk 05:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am supporting the present title as well, because the linked sources and researches are about India. Capitals00 (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Essay

I've started an essay on Wikipedia:India - South Asia nomenclatura. I hope in time this may grow into a style-advice or a guideline. No idea how the development of an essay, let alone a style-advice or a guideline works, but I thought it may be best to just start with it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Title protection

I move protected to prevent any further undiscussed moves, this is no endorsement of the current title. I'd have ideally preferred to restore the original title before these moves, but apparently my eyesight failed me by making me see an "in" where there wasn't any, but I don't think there's any point in fixing that mistake with another move, therefore I'm leaving it open for an RM discussion or just a basic consensus on whether the original title or this one should be used as "status quo" for a move discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 10:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2017

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: no consensus - an RfC discussing the merits of WP:ISA may be in order. DrStrauss talk 17:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Proposal

Iron Age in India → Iron Age in South Asia – The reason is very simple. Some Indian wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudohistory onto wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to South Asian Iron Age, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: please can I remind all parties to remain civil in what is a highly contentions debate.
• Relisting comment: the consensus of this discussion will apply to the almost identical, less-participated-in discussions here and here. DrStrauss talk 16:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Oppose - It has been discussed above that the sources are talking about the Iron age in India than specifically saying "South Asia". "Iron Age in India" is more common.[1][2][3][4][5] Capitals00 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously they will be more common if you quote Indian sources. Meanwhile, a quick google search provided me with several books and journals which state "South Asian Iron Age" or "Iron Age of South Asia". The links are as follow: Bronze and Iron Ages in South Asia[6], The Early Iron Age of South Asia[7], The age of iron in South Asia: legacy and tradition[8], Iron Age Material Culture in South Asia – Analysis and Context of Recently Discovered Slag Sites in Northwest Kashmir (Baramulla District) in India[9] --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Note: PAKHIGHWAY is the original proposer. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support The debate or argument over "India vs. South Asia" is quite abstract. "Iron Age in India" to begin with is more like a phrase, not a terminology (would it not be Indian Iron Age instead? or Iron Age India? *unsure*). On the other hand, I'm also not sure what the real objections are to a title like "South Asian Iron Age" (or Iron Age in South Asia - whichever fits). As @Joshua Jonathan: mentioned above, modern geography/politics/borders are largely irrelevant in the context of ancient Afghanistan, Pakistan and India and beyond as a region. Some consistency would be good, and easy for readers. We do after all have Outline of South Asian history and South Asian Stone Age which follow an established norm. South Asia is interchangeable with the subcontinent of India, largely in today's academic terminology at least. And it appears to better define the region as a whole. Thus, I don't see anything objectionable should this move take place. Mar4d (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  I think "Iron Age in South Asia" is preferable because we're talking about a modern geographical region rather than a nation. If we stick with "India", then Indian Iron Age would work (though I'd still prefer "Iron Age in India") because the region is aligned, historically speaking, with the term India. But if we switch to South Asia, then "Iron Age in South Asia" is the more accurate. Imo. --regentspark (comment) 15:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the original title of this page prior to the move wars was Iron Age India. And FWIW, at least some of history articles with "South Asia" in the title were moved from their original "India" titles at some point.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per Capitals00 . Indian subcontinent is the more precise collective term for India , Pakistan and Bangladesh. Razer(talk) 15:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It may as well be, but the Iron Age isn't restricted to Pakistan, India or Bangladesh. Possehl and Gullapalli (1999) (The Early Iron Age in South Asia) define South Asia's Iron Age region as "the modern nation states of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka". Most of these countries are outside the core of India. Even parts of Pakistan like Balochistan, technically speaking, fall into the Iranian Plateau and are not part of the Indian mainland from a historical standpoint. Which reinforces the point above about South Asia being definitive in scope. Mar4d (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My comment was more of a reply to the nom statement - "SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India ". Indian subcontinent is not limited to just these three countries and I believe satisfy the scope of this article, If not we can always use the term Greater India.

India , like china is a continuous ancient civilization and the Indian subcontinent throughout the history was simply known as India. Even as early as 440 BC Herodotus wrote -

"Eastward of India lies a tract which is entirely sand. Indeed, of all the inhabitants of Asia, concerning whom anything is known, the Indians dwell nearest to the east and the rising of the Sun.".

.There is a reason why we have Iron Age China and not Iron age in East Asia. Razer(talk) 05:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - First of all the nom is completely wrong when he asserts, "INDIA refers to the Republic of India now". India is also the name of the ancient land that made up the pre-partition India. I am largely guided by two book titles by Burjor Avari, an excellent source for these matters: India: The Ancient Past and Islamic Civilization in South Asia. It is only with the arrival of Islam that "India" fragments into South Asia. Prior to that it was "India", a unified civilisation. (After the advent of the Mughal Empire, it was unified again until 1947.) The Iron Age should be especially associated with "India" because it was an integral part of the Indo-Aryan civilisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You are more than welcomed to keep the article as Iron Age in India...when we say India, we're talking about the Ganges Plains and the southern peninsula. Indus Valley kingdoms and history should then removed from here. The term "India" today does not represent the historic term of India. The historic India has always been the Indus Valley. The Republic of India = FYROM in my opinion. You folks just took the name, that doesn't make you the real India. And there was no unified 1 country before the British came...not during Muslim rule and not before during Hindu/Buddhist rule. During the entire period up to British rule the entire subcontinent was riddled with small Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms who were often at war with one another. Show me a map from the 1200 that shows "India" in the context you're attempting to show. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Burjor Avari answers your question:

Modern India came into existence in 1947 on the eve of the partition of British India. This is the Republic of India of familiar renown ... Before 1947, and well into the ancient period, however, India geographically embraced all the Indian subcontinent, which included the areas covered by the modern states of Pakistan and Bangladesh. In fact, the earliest roots of Indian civilisation can only be understood through study of what has been recovered from excavations and field-work mainly inside Pakistan.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This is like quoting Dr. Zakir Naik about defending barbaric practices of Islam. Talk about confirmation bias. Does you have any non-Indian authors as sources to back your claims? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that Kautilya3 has got a point here, regarding the historical usage. Yet, from a npov, I think that South Asia is preferable nowadays, given the Pakistan-Indian sensitivities. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. The fact of the matter is the argument that "this is an historic term" is wrong. They are attempting to mislead readers into thinking the iron age history of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan are all related to the modern-day Republic of India. Worse still, if etymologically "India" belongs anywhere, it was not to the republic proclaimed in Delhi by Jawaharlal Nehru but to its rival headed by Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan. The modern-day Republic of India is not the historic India (Indus Valley). This would be like Finland naming itself Scandinavia and claiming all of Norway, Denmark and Sweden's history. The real "India" from a historic perspective (according to the Greeks, Persians etc.) is the Indus Valley. The Republic of India as we see it today is in reality "Bharat". They are basing the definition of India off of British India...but how did the British view India? When terms like Britain, Germany or America were first recorded, all were objects of conquest. But in the case of India or Indies (its more generalized derivative) the British, Dutch and other European imperialists used the term to denote an acquisition rather than a territory like the West Indies (Jamaica, Trinidad etc.) or Dutch East Indies (Indonesia, Malaysia) or British India (Ganges plain, Indus Valley and southern peninsula), Indochina...and the list goes on and on. India was yet conceptually concrete and yet Indians today think that they own everything the British called "Indies" or "India". If some of these wiki editors of Indian heritage had their way, Indonesian and West Indian history would be part of "History of India" today. This is how delusional some of them are. Even some Indian maps printed after 1947 sometimes show the Republic of India not as India but as "Bharat". The word derives from Bharatavarsha (the land of the Bharatas), with these Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans. By adopting this term the new republic in Delhi could, it was argued, lay claim to a revered Arya heritage which was geographically vague enough not to provoke regional jealousies, and doctrinally vague enough not to jeopardize the republic's avowed secularism. Bharat would seem preferable since the word India was too redolent of colonial disparagement. Furthermore, it was the Bharatas clan which was one of the larger tribes/clans to migrate to the Ganges plain from the Indus Valley. There was no gainsaying the fact that in the whole colossal corpus of Sanskrit literature, nowhere is the term India ever mentioned. Nor does the term occur in Buddhist or Jain texts and nor was it used in any of South Asia's numerous other languages. Simply put there's an agenda here by some Indian wiki members to dilute and mislead others that India was a real country before 1947. Sir Winston Churchill put is best: "India is a geographical term, no more united a nation than the equator", and it's this reality which burns them. I personally would have no problem with the term Iron Age of India, IF there was no misleading agenda to try and usurp regional histories and claim it as somehow there own. Imagine if Iran tried to claim Mesopotamia! --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. But doesn't it mean, then, actually, that India is also a good name for the Indus-Ganges-Dravidian lands? But then, again, the confusion is also with the name of the modern state "India"; "Bharat" does make sense indeed for the present-day state of India! (Or should we say: Bharat-Dravidinadu? ;)) Then again: sigh.... It makes sense to use India for present-day state of India; Indian subcontinent for India + Pakistan (and some other countries within the mountain ranges); and South Asia for the Indian Subcontinent + Afghanistan. To return to this article: use it for "Iron Age in South Asia", in a broad sense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Capitals00 —usernamekiran(talk) 02:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 10:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support - note that there is an article South Asian Stone Age, while, oddly, the History of Pakistan article does not have a section on "Iron Age in Pakistan," but does have a section on History of Pakistan#Vedic period, which I'd think, is more about "India" than about "Pakistan." So, we now actually have two articles on the Iron Age period in India... Also, Outline of South Asian history links to "Iron Age in India," but not to a asimilar article on Pakistan. So, maybe, it's a matter of specifics: either dedicate the article to whole of South Asia, or have articles on specific periods in specific parts of South Asia. I'd prefer an article that covers both modern-day India and Pakistan, and also includes Afghanistan; culturally/historically, they form a continuum. Other articles, like Vedic period (to which "Iron Age in India" can redirect), can cover specific regions. I also think that "South Asia" is more neutral than "India" or "Indian subcontinent." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

NB: regarding the sources mentioned by Capitals00: which sources are specifically about India (either historically or contemporary), and which sources cover South Asia in a broader sense, yet use the term "India" to refer to this broader area? And in case this question raises concerns about WP:COMMONNAME, I still think that neutrality is an important factor here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Vedic period is shared by both Pakistan and India. Vedic culture formed when Indo-Aryans migrated and settled in the Indus Valley between 1800 BC to 1500 BC and from 1500 BC to 1200 BC they remained and flourished in the Indus Valley. The Indo-Aryan cultures, peoples and religion merged with the native remnants of the Harappan civilization, giving rise to several Vedic tribes and cultures. This is known as the Early Vedic period. The original Vedic tribes were all based in the Indus Valley. Only after 1200 BC did they attack the Ganges plain and settle it, forcing the native Dravidians southwards. The use of iron axes enabled these tribes to clear away thick forests which covered much of the Ganges plain at that time. After migrating to the Ganges plain, did the mature and late Vedic periods occur, giving rise to modern-day Hinduism by absorbing local cultures and beliefs of the native Dravidians which originally lived there.--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

YTou're right; the Vedic period is indeed shared by Pakistan and India. So, "Iron Age in South Asia" is indeed more apt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support As per Joshua Johnathan and Mar4d, although Indian subcontinent would be my first alternate choice if not South Asia.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose India has been the name for the region of the Indus and beyond for millennia. The historical term used for the region is India and the fact that the region has split into multiple modern polities does not necessarily make the term "obsolete", "fake" or "pseudohistory" as the nominator has contended. Addressing a couple of the comments and statements being made in the replies and votes:

• The historic India has always been the Indus Valley., The real "India" from a historic perspective (according to the Greeks, Persians etc.) is the Indus Valley. etc.: No, it isn't. It has always been the Indus Valley and beyond. Alexander invaded India. Polybius named the Hindu Kush the Caucasus Indicus, crossing which got you into India. Pliny named Muziris in Kerala an Indian port.. Arrian, Herodotus, et al. will all confirm this extent of Ancient India.
• Show me a map from the 1200 that shows "India" in the context you're attempting to show.: See the Tabula Peutingeriana (c. 1st century BCE – c. 5th century CE) (or c. 1200, take your pick) which depicts India as extending from well beyond Alexandria Bucephalous all the way to Damirica. See also, the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea:

The country inland from Barygaza is inhabited by numerous tribes, such as the Arattii, the Arachosii, the Gandaraei and the people of Poclais, in which is Bucephalus Alexandria. Above these is the very warlike nation of the Bactrians, who are under their own king. And Alexander, setting out from these parts, penetrated to the Ganges, leaving aside Damirica and the southern part of India …

While South Asia is certainly the preferred modern geopolitical term for the region, that is what it is, a modern geopolitical term for the region. South Asian Studies includes both recent and ancient histories of the region and therefore makes sense. But historians of ancient India are still Indologists. The Indo-Greeks are still the Indo-Greeks. Indo-European languages are still Indo-European languages. This is not a discussion about neutrality. This is a discussion about political correctness and with the nom's edit history and pronouncements of "hence forth", such a move will also soon devolve into edit wars between the two factions across the entire gamut of Indian history articles. Wikipedia is already pandering to this nonsense with the use of "Indian subcontinent" in articles such as Mughals when just about every RS simply uses India. With such a move, they'll become a South Asian power. As could the Marathas for that matter. And the Mauryas. And the Palas. And the Senas. And the Cholas.

And FWIW, "Iron Age in South Asia" and its variants do not register on ngrams while the "India" variants register just fine.--—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support usage is changing: in more recent sourcing, South Asia is typically used to refer to the Indian subcontinent while India refers to the Republic of India, and British India or the British Raj refers to the time period after the British became the dominant colonial power in India but before the partition. To say that India refers to Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc. in contemporary usage is false. WP:NPOV requires this, which is one of our most core policies, which is above even WP:COMMONNAME. South Asia has become a very commonly accepted name, and it is certainly more NPOV than the current tile. I've crossed posted most of this from Talk:Middle kingdoms of India, where I became aware of this discussion. Additionally, of course n-grams is going to turn up more for Iron Age in India, but that isn't proof that it is referring to this topic, or that South Asia hasn't become the more commonly accepted name for the Indian subcontinent. NPOV here dictates South Asia, and we are bound to follow it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

References

Comments

• Comment - See WP:ISA. It would be good to 'collect' all those discussions at one place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Minor Errors

Under North India section, artifacts, revolutionized is spelled wrong. Try to be more specific about who is their near the end of the section.Bnbautis (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Spellings of artefacts and revolutionised are correct because we use Indian English for these articles. Capitals00 (talk) 04:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Few objections

This is article deals with an important subject. Yet somehow it is written like a middle-school essay. Limited content for an entire period of history that spans over a millennium?

A team of archaeologists discovered several iron artifacts, including small knives, in Telangana in 2015, dating back to 1,800 BCE to 2,400 BCE.

This is the same time (or even earlier) to which the much publicised Sinauli “chariots” were dated to. No trace of iron was found at the Sinauli excavation site from that date, instead what found was copper. Secondly, the 1800-2400BCE date cites only a news article. No reference to any other sources or scholarly article despite being from five years ago. Thirdly, Tewari (2003) dates iron artefacts to 1800-1000BCE. Seriously? that is 800 years! 1000BCE is very much possible, but why such a huge span of 800 more years back in time. Looks like 1800 BCE claim was just to push the dates further back to the normally accepted dates of Vedic period. ChandlerMinh (talk) 15:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: @Dbachmann: please look into it. ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The usual pov-pushing. There is a scholarly publication, though, here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)