Latest comment: 13 days ago by Johnbod in topic Seven-stranded necklace: Is it true?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignmentEdit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Djd348.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moenjo-Daro and DholaviraEdit

There are many pictures on free websites and I request the readers of this talk to add the pictures and links. Some pictures and links are added on Dholavira.
vkvora 18:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It is being suggested and stressed that all articles about historical sites in South Asia which are not in the Republic of India should be tagged using {{WikiProject South Asia}} instead of {{WikiProject India}}. {{WikiProject India}} contains references to present day India, including but not limited to the Flag of India, which represent India the country rather than the whole region. Using this tag for those sites which are not in India is deemed strongly offensive and an indirect territorial claim over the country of the site. Any article can have tags representing the country where the site is located along with {{WikiProject South Asia}} to emphasize the importance of the site in the history of whole region including all countries. Szhaider 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: The same suggestion is applied to the personalities with historical importance for the entire South Asia.

so why there's there a pak flag there? Pak didn't exist back then. Your flag is strongly offensive. Take it off. Make it neutral. it's greener than ireland.--D-Boy 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently, the only Pakistani flag is in reference to the UNESCO state party. This means the present day country responsible for the site. True Pakistan did not exist during the IVC, its presence on the page is historically irrelevent. I dont see a neutrality issue here.

Even it is not inda it is Sindh (indus valley)

Then it is Sindh Better to use Flag of sindh rather then Indian? why india? Read again ,there was sindh called as indus valley so better for u both to use sindh falg then india or pakistan flag u do not agree.khalidkhoso.

You guys did not read my suggestion carefully. You tried to read it in a glance and rushed to respond. Here is the part you must be interested in:
"Any article can have tags representing the country where the site is located along with {{WikiProject South Asia}}"
Szhaider 11:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: By the way I had a queer belief that Admins were supposed to be neutral in a dispute, rather than becoming a part of it and taking sides. May be they are supposed to take sides. Who knows? Szhaider 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where did the computer Generated Picture Go?Edit

There used to be a very beautiful Computer-generated picture of Moen Jo Daro on this page. Where did it go? Who removed it and why? Kindly let me know the reasons.

Aursani 18:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avoid RevertingEdit

I will be working on this article for the next few days. Please ignore small mistakes as I will get round to them. You can also help me expand this article, but please let me know before editing any major parts.
I would really appreciate if someone could help me with copyrighting images, as I never seem to get it right. Thank you
--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

english translation from mohenjodaroEdit

I'm not taking exception here . . . I'm just trying my memory . . . I lived in Sind many years ago and I visited Mohenjodaro many times when I lived in Sind. Before I went to school, before I was 6 years old, I spoke Sindhi and some other languages, including Urdu, Brahui & Gujurati, all of which I learned in Ratodero, a village I mention now for linguistic reasons: Mohen = dead; jo = of; and daro or dero = place; i.e., wherefrom the "mound" of which the article speaks? I'm just wondering. Kutay-jo-kabar = dog of grave, or, Dog's Grave . . . a mountain peak rising 7,000 feet out of the desert plains and within the realm (circa 1971) of the Chandio Baluch, not too far (west) from Mohenjodaro. "Mound" may have some public relations value when communicating with the western readers, tho' I doubt it; I'm just wondering about the origins of the translation to "mound" rather than "place" . . . that's all . . . All of which is also to say: I can still remember what the Sindhi "jo" means in english; and I can still remember what Sindhi "dero" or "daro" means: but, what does "Rato" mean? I cannot remember . . . Will someone please help me? (I have mostly good memories of Ratodero in the 1950's!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dfaddleton (talkcontribs) 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Is it Kutey-jo-kabar or Kutey-ji-Kabar (kabar being feminine)? That was just a degress. I read Mohenjodaro as Moyan-jo-dero, that would be 'camp of the dead'. Am I wrong? (I had Sindhi friends in childhood and live in Delhi with Punjabis) Aupmanyav 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English translation to the Mound of the Dead appears to be wrong on 2 counts. First, Daro/ Dero in Sindhi means Camp. The word for Mound is Teela. So it could be Camp of the Dead. But that does not make logical sense. Second, in Sindhi Mohen does not translate to dead. The closest is “marno” for dead in Sindhi. So it possible that the Englishmen distorted the spelling from marno to mohen. And since a mound and burial site was present they called it Mound of the Dead. The commonly seen reason that the Mohen in Mohenjo daro comes from Mohan (Lord Krishna) also does not look convincing. However the simple and rather obvious explanation for Mohen jo daro is that there is community/ tribe of fishermen/ boatmen called Mohena who have lived in that area for centuries. They are sometimes also referred to a Mir Bahar (Lord of the Sea) . So Mohen jo Daro or Camp of the Mohena makes complete logical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayjo (talkcontribs) 17:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adjective form of "Moenjo-daro"?Edit

Does anybody here know what you would call something deriving from Mohenjo-daro or a person from Mohenjo-daro? My guess is Mohenjo-darian, but that's just a thought-- though it may not have an adjective in English.  ~ magbatz 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Linnell of They Might Be Giants uses the term Moenjo-daron in the song The Mesopotamians.

This is my last stick of gum
I'm going to cut it up so everybody else gets some
Except for Ashurbanipal who says my haircut makes me look like a Moenjo-daron

Hey, Ashurbanipal,
I'm a Mesopotamian

~ Mailman-zero 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that's why I was asking actually-- seeing if he just guessed on what the word would be. ~ magbatz 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pk-sindh.PNGEdit

Image:Pk-sindh.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mystery of Mohenjo-Daro

Mohenjodaro's Disappearance

Mohenjodaro thrived for 800 years, from around 2700 B.C.E to 1900 B.C.E. But, afterwards, Mohenjodaro disappeared. Scientists didn't find the ruins of Mohenjodaro ('Hill of the Dead') until 1922. Scientists have drawn several theories as to how Moehnjodaro disappeared. They believe that the hostile invaders that swept through Moehnjodaro had created the disappearance, meaning that empires or warriors from Asia entered India and attacked Mohenjodaro. Others believe that nature had caused the disappearance. There had been many floods and earthuakes in the area nearby 1900 B.C.E. There could also have been the fact that the Sarasvati River dried up and that the Indus River changed its course. Because of this, people could've went to the Ganges River for their water supply. Whatever the reason, the mystery of Mohenjodaro still is yet to be solved.

Granary and Great BathEdit

There seems to be a lack of information on the Granary and Bath. In both the Wheeler and Siddiqui sectors of the citadel mound, there is little mention of theories outside of Sir Mortimer Wheeler's 1966 assesment of the civic structures. I've added some information regarding recent work done by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, though there is still much to add. Also very little information on this page is cited though seems to stem from Wheeler's Civilizations of the Indus Valley and beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpgEdit

The image Image:Dancing girl mohenjodaro.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trolling here?Edit

hi, just found a bizarre sentence at the end of the "artifacts" paragraph : it says : "There was also indoor plumbing and well paved and drained streets. The city was in a grid pattern unlike Ur where many thieves and other bad people got away with crimes and no good. Mohenjo-Daro also had tall watchtowers instead of walls(again unlike Ur) to watch instead of protect the city." which does not seem to fit here.

Hope i did not put this in a really wrong place... (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melted bricks/ancient atomic blastEdit

Does anyone know the origin of David Davenport's claims of a nuclear blast detroying Mohenjo-daro thousands of years ago? There are claims all over the internet and they all seem to be cut-and-pasted. Wonder if there was a shred of evidence that was blown out of proportion or just made up whole-cloth. Also, is there anything in the Vedas or other ancient literature that sounds like atomic blasts or are the modern mythology people making up quotes there too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A newsgroup and thus not a reliable source, but it does give some sources about the archaeology of the site and what may answer your question. [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are numerous weapons in the Mahabharata ( and other ancient Indian documents that could be described as science-fiction. They usually have the suffix astra (Brahmastra for example, cause of infertility in humans and animals, ecological decline, death of plants etc)Cerumol2 (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is relevant: [2] Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jason Colavito chased that source down. The Case of the False Quotes - JASON COLAVITO 2600:1700:87A0:2BE0:35D3:44CD:D97C:7CE5 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The show Ancient Aliens has brought this topic up several times and I'd like to see more scientific evidence on the subject i.e. was a radiation from a meteor or radiation from a bomb. The experts could easily clear up this subject. If is was an atomic bomb, it would clearly re-write history of the world as we know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no verified claims of radiation, no one is going to spend time and money trying to disprove something that has no scientific evidence behind it. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"no one is going to spend time and money trying to disprove something that has no scientific evidence behind it." the world would still be flat going by such logic...too many times i run into such arrogant statements on wiki lately, someone remind Mr. Weller there is no such thing as a universal truth (statements) for everyone.

here is a site w pictures worth looking at - text is in Italian which translates well using Google translate signed valkyree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talkcontribs) 23:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm an American citizen visiting India. Recently, in Jodhpur, a B&B owner went at length about nuclear bomb sites at Mohenjo-daro. I was and am still skeptical, but I would like to know if any peer-reviewed journal has picked up on this. Someone mentioned earlier that it's not worth the time or money to study it, and unfortunately I think the only people who may spend the time or money on this would be people who have an interest in only popularizing what seems to be a good story rather than the truth. However, there may be some room for skeptics with money and a soapbox to find out. I'm wondering if anyone has uncovered new testable evidence to verify the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Says the guy in India with an interest and the $20 required to buy a rad detector off eBay. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is what I found:

It was reported that the epicenter was approximately 50 yards wide, and inside the immediate blast zone the rocks and pottery had been fused together. Samples of the glassy vitrified remains of the city were brought back and analyzed by Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (i.e. CNR, or National Research Council), where it was concluded that the objects from the site were effected by an unnatural degree of heat. Despite the claims of the skeptics, the skeletons that were found (in 1927) appeared to have died a suddenly. Two skeletons appeared to be holding hands, as if comforting each other during a terrifying time of death and destruction. Some of the bones indicated signs of calcination, which is caused by a high degree of heat. Only 44 skeletons were unearthed, which could indicate that a majority of the residents had fled before the disaster—which would rule out a meteorite explanation. This would also indicate that the incident occurred at a time of war—which is confirmed in the Mahabharatta text. In this case, a majority of the residents of the city would have been displaced refugees. Despite claims made by the skeptics who contend that the structures of the city are still in place, which would rule out an explosion, the immediate structures surrounding the blast zone appear only as mounds (Baccarini 2013). It was only the outlying structures that were not as effected. Moreover, approximately 60 yards from the epicenter the bricks on one side of structures facing the epicenter were especially effected by high temperatures, indicating an intense burst of heat. What can also be concluded is that the blast was of a much smaller scale than the nuclear bombs of the modern era. So-called “debunkers” have claimed that the epicenter was actually a dumping ground for kiln debris. However, the epicenter is simply too large to be that of kiln dump. Also, pottery garbage would not explain evidence of a large scale heat burst. Also, it was not only pottery that was found vitrified, but stones as well. The site was also recently investigated by Italian researchers lead by Henry Baccarani from the Center Ufologico Nazionale. (Their investigation was taped for a documentary titled Voyager.) Although they were able to confirm many of the claims that were made in Davenport's and Vincenti's account, they were not able to detect (using Geiger counters) the presence of unnatural amounts of radioactivity. Unless the radioactivity has inexplicably degraded, it appears that the disaster that befell Mehenjo-Daro was not atomic in nature, but rather some other type of fiery weapon. What mainstream scientists are willing to admit is that how that ancient city came to an end is a mystery.

Here are some of my sources:

Baccarini, Henry. “Plasma Weapons Used 4000 Years Ago in the City of Mehenjo-Daro.” April 18, 2013. Web retrieved 8-29-13.

Davenport, David William. Ettore Vincenti. 2000 a.C.: Distruzione atomica. SugarCo., 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondenburg (talkcontribs) 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but this is the wrong place to suggest that a UFO specialist might know anything about Mohenjo-daro. Totally fails our sourcing criteria at WP:RS. Some of your skeletons died 1000 years apart. And the vitrification? Some kilns and some vitrified agglomerations of pottery, clay, and bangles were found, the latter the result of a bad misfiring. Baccarini's claims are his own at best misinterpretation. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The wrong place? Are you sure you read the initial question? Its interesting how the "debunkers" accuse ancient astronaut theorists of making stuff up but then do not source their own data. Where is your source for "1000 years apart"? Lets take a look at it. At least Davenport and Baccarini actually went there and studied the area for themselves before making unfounded assertions. And 50 yards of misfired pottery. That's just silly.

How come there is absolutely no mention of the "atomic disaster" theory in the actual article? Many other articles about things that have some kind of theory like this associated with them that is actively investigated (ie Bermuda Triangle, Anastasia Nikolaevna, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Dendera Light, etc. (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative spellings namesEdit

I reverted the edit " The name Mohenjo-Daro is itself debated as it is sometimes also referred to as Mound of Mohan or Mound of Krishna."<ref>[]</ref>" The relevant passage from the source says "There are several different spellings of the site name and in this article we have chosen to use the most common form, Mohenjo-daro (the Mound of Mohen or Mohan), though other spellings are equally valid: Mohanjo-daro (Mound of Mohan =Krishna), Moenjo-daro (Mound of the Dead), Mohenjo-daro, Mohenjodaro or even Mohen-jo-daro." I suggest we just add: "There are various spellings for the site with different meanings. Mohenjo-daro means the Mound of Mohen or Mohan, Alternative uses are Mohanjo-daro (Mound of Mohan =Krishna), Moenjo-daro (Mound of the Dead), Mohenjo-daro, Mohenjodaro or Mohen-jo-daro." Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poking my nose in here, as I just noticed the revert. Yes, the source offers variations, not debate. I think Doug's version works fine. Haploidavey (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the addition of various spellings is essential. It is not so much a question of a debate to have this inclusion as it is about presenting a well-rounded approach to an ancient site that has cultural and historic significance. "Mohan" or "Mohen" is a name and its connection to Krishna is mentioned in several on and offline articles. It should be included in this article. Sam8477 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you misunderstood Haploidavey, who was just saying that the source doesn't talk about a debate so the article shouldn't either unless there is a new source that does. I was hoping you'd either agree with my wording or suggest an alternative, if you are happy with mine you are free to add it or I will later. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I misinterpreted Haploidavey thinking he meant no changes should be made. Agreed no debates should be mentioned here. And, Doug your wording is fine. I'll add it now. Sam8477 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meteorological trivia removed from lede...Edit

... is now pasted here. See article edit summary for reasons. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The highest temperature ever recorded in Pakistan, 53.5 °C (128.3 °F), was recorded here on 26 May It is also the highest reliably measured temperature in the continent of Asia, and the fourth highest temperature recorded on earth.[3]

Was the City Wiped Out by a Meteorite Strike?Edit

Pop-TV says (UFO launched) atomic weapons, but a very large (or extremely high velocity) meteorite strike can cause a naturally-occurring nuclear explosion, including radiation fallout and vitrified glass. (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC) The entire city is wiped off as a result of nuclear war or if it was a meteorite strike then it would have been created a crator large enough to destroy whole city and it remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Persistent vandalismEdit

This page seems to be a perennial target for IP vandals, who are constantly blanking either individual sections or the whole article. Could someone with the necessary privileges please look into this? Protecting it so only autoconfirmed users can edit it might be a good idea, seeing as the vandals keep coming back. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ownership of artifactsEdit

I've removed mention of the locations of the Priest King and the Dancing Girl. In the consensus of reliable sources, both statues belong to ancient Mohenjodaro, to ancient Sind and Baluchistan, and to Indus culture, but not necessarily to the modern nation states of Pakistan and India, whose founding ethos they both predate by a staggering stretch of time. It is best for the subcontinental chauvinists not to claim one statue or the other by gratuitously mentioning the museums in each country that currently hold them. It is irrelevant to their historical importance. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Kukkuta" word originates from ?Edit

I would like to make minor (but important) alteration to following sentence in the article: The city's original name is unknown, but analysis of a Mohenjo-daro seal suggests a possible ancient Dravidian name, Kukkutarma ("the city [-rma] of the cockerel [kukkuta]").[3] to read as The city's original name is unknown, but analysis of a Mohenjo-daro seal suggests a possible ancient name, Kukkutarma ("the city [-rma] of the cockerel [kukkuta]").[3] because, "kukkuta" (meaning cock) is not of Dravidian origin, but has origins in Indo Aryan Languages. Other editors kindly comment. - Rayabhari (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As there is ambiguity whether it is Dravidian or other language, I removed "Dravidian" word as mentioned above. -Rayabhari (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm puzzled by the photo caption "Panorama view of stupa at Mohenjo-daro." According to the stupa article, the oldest known stupa is the Dhamek Stupa which dates from 500 CE. Given that Mohenjo-daro was abandoned over 2000 years earlier, I don't see why this structure is called a stupa. This article doesn't even mention the word stupa except for the somewhat unclear comment that a Buddhist monk believed (presumably erroneously) that the entire Mohenjo-daro site was a stupa. Mnudelman (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mnudelman, it's a Buddhist stupa stupa but dates to 150-500 CE. I've removed the photo and am reworking the section on the discovery. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright violations and unacceptably close parahrasing in articleEdit

Hoping this is not the tip of a larger berg. Apart from its first couple of sentences, the "Priest-King" section is a very close paraphrase or adapted copy-and-paste from It was added, without credit to authorship or website, in this diff [4], way back in 2007 or so, by an editor no longer active on Wikipedia. I don't know how much more was added by the same editor. I'd much appreciate another pair of eyes in this. Haploidavey (talk)

I'll try to find time. I don't think it's too bad, at least this doesn't suggest it is. The YouTube stuff is a copy of our srticle. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an amazingly clever contraption. Looks like the Priest-King material is the only bit we need worry about. Thanks for your super-fast response. Haploidavey (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section now rewritten to conform with policy. Haploidavey (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

25 / 26th Century?Edit

According to the sidebar, Mohenjo-daro was founded in the 25th century BCE, but under the section of the article, "Historical context," it is claimed that it was founded in the 26th century BCE. Quizzical Waffle Ninja (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any date can only be a very loose estimate; a century either way is not very significant. In any event, we should follow the most reliable, scholarly, cited sources. If there's variation in sources, the infobox should reflect that. I'll take a look. Haploidavey (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Thanks for noticing. Similar differences apply for estimated desertion. Have amended infobox accordingly. Haploidavey (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new translation to the name MohenjoDaroEdit

I have a translation to the name MohenjoDaro and i find it to be sound from its pervious name MohenjoDaro = The doors of Mohan(mohen) Lets look at each word, i will break it up accordingly Mohen= is a name of a place or a person may be the ruler or king or can even be related to like a beautiful place as heaven(as it was the most developed civilized city at that time) or even the debated Krishna as he is also known as Mohan Jo = it literally translates to as 'of' Daro = 'Door/s' (In sindhi languages door is referred as 'dar') So in sindhi i can read it as the doors(to kingdom) of mohen(mohan) or the house of mohen I feel it because the name is translated from scriptures and can be spelt wrong and 'daro' might be meaning as 'dar' in name And thinking it around why would people or the ruler would name the city as 'the city of dead' when it is one of the major cities of indus civilization? Bipinbadlani (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mohenjo daro buddhist stupa status is disputedEdit

indus valley civilization scholar and archaeologist michael jansen states that chances of mohenjodaro stupa being a buddhist monument is slim and not much evidences are available to prove that its a buddhist stupa, 1, Giovanni Verardi states that

the stupa was not aligned in

typical fashion, that the plinth was of unusual height, and that certain pottery shards predated the Kushan. Verardi, who carefully examined both the site and the original archaeological reports, argues that the coins likely were buried later and therefore are of

little value in dating the structures.

Michael Jansen states that

the evidence supporting a stupa

is slim. “I’m quite sure Verardi is right,”, “We did a very careful survey of the area around the citadel and found not a single Kushan shard.” Jansen also notes that Buddhist monks’ cells of that period are not usually

arranged around a stupa.

AAAS (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019Edit

Change "Moehnjo-daro to Moanjo-daro" because the translation of English sentence "mound of the dead" is "moenjo-daro" where as "mohenjo-dar" means(mound of Mohen, it is a Indian name). So it should be Moenjo-Daro in Sindhi موئن جو دڙو. Ali Raza J (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mother Goddess IdolEdit

Hello, I was assigned Mohenjo-daro for a University Wikipedia assignment. I am working on it as part of my final and am slowly learning the ropes for Wikipedia alongside it. As of now, I have been researching the site, while at the same time making edits to my sandbox for areas that I hope to add or expand on. I have the link for my sandbox, for the items I have transferred over so far. For now, I mostly have information regarding the Mother Goddess idol recovered from the site by John Marshall. Any help or advice is appreciated, so hopefully you will have time to look at it and give me pointers. Kind regards, Djd348 (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019Edit

Mohenjo-daro (/moʊˌhɛndʒoʊ ˈdɑːroʊ/; Sindhi: موئن جو دڙو‎, meaning 'Mound of the Dead Men';[2] Urdu: موئن جو دڑو‎ [muˑənⁱ dʑoˑ d̪əɽoˑ]) is an archaeological site in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. Built around 2500 BCE, it was one of the largest settlements of the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation, and one of the world's earliest major cities, contemporaneous with the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Minoan Crete, and Norte Chico. Mohenjo-daro was abandoned in the 19th century BCE as the Indus Valley Civilization declined, and the site was not rediscovered until the 1920s. Significant excavation has since been conducted at the site of the city, which was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980.[3] The site is currently threatened by erosion and improper restoration — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019Edit

Mohenjo Daro was discovered in 1922 by R. D. Banerji, an officer of the Archaeological Survey of India, two years after major excavations had begun at Harappa, some 590 km to the north. Large-scale excavations were carried out at the site under the direction of John Marshall, K. N in 1930. 2409:4052:2010:53F0:E9F3:4E64:2FD6:6B1D (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article already says all this! Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling "civilisation/civilization"Edit

The spelling varies throughout the article; it should be made consistent one way or the other. I note that Indus Valley Civilisation is an article title spelled with s. Equinox 15:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and at the top there it has a hidden note saying "!--NOTE to editors on "civilisation" vs "civilization": While -ize is a universally correct spelling in all varieties of English (see Oxford spelling), this article was started with the spelling "civilisation", which is the more common spelling in India and the UK. According to Wikipedia's ENGVAR policy, this choice of spelling should be respected and not changed. Please don't change -ize/-ise back and forth in this article. Be consistent throughout the article." Unless anyone objects in the next few days, I'd suggest this is changed to be consistent & reflect this. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where should the bit about distribution centre for domestic chicken go?Edit

Surely not where it is, in etymology. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, it seems to be under etymology because there's a theory the town was originally named after chickens. Panchamkauns (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven-stranded necklace: Is it true?Edit

I have been looking for sources to cite for this seven-stranded necklace but I found none. Only a few web sites seem to mention it. I wonder if the story is made up.

The story is that Wheeler stole the necklace, kept it a secret, and gave it to his wife. His wife later gave it to a friend, and this friend's family in India still have it.

I have seen photos online that purport to be this necklace. Maybe it's a true story. Or maybe someone made up a very fancy provenance for much more modern necklace.

Whatever the truth may be, if it can not be sourced at all, maybe it shouldn't stay on Wikipedia. Panchamkauns (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, & I've never seen a good source. Conceivably Wheeler bought beads from local farmers, & had them made up for his wife. I doubt he'd take excavated ones. The strings never survived 3k years in the soil, just the beads. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]