Talk:Bhimbetka rock shelters

Protected areas Mid‑importance

Archaeology High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have questions about some of the statements made in the section "

Another question is regarding the use of the terms "dye" and "pigment", which seem to have been used interchangeably, as if they are essentially the same thing. But, in fact, they are quite distinct, as can be seen from a quick look at the linked articles. I am rather doubtful that any dyes were used in the paintings -- my educated guess is that they were done entirely with pigments. Again, this point needs to be clarified. Hopefully, the editor(s) who wrote this paragraph can resolve the issue. Cgingold 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change, correct, or remove whatever unsourced material you find in the article. That is a perfectly correct action for you to take and will result in an improved article. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have made changes & corrections already, if I knew enough about the subject to do so. I'm hoping that somebody who has researched the subject will follow through on these issues that I've raised. Cgingold 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add about how these paintings are preserved Jon snoo (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{

regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophetoffrivolity (talk • contribs) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is surprising that none of the papers written by Mr. Wakankar, an eminent archaelogist as well as the subsequent scientific analysis of the Bhimbetka site is ommitted. The page has the feel of a tourism site. I urge the scholars in this area to please add the missing details and links. It would be good if someone can write about the ecology and the environment around this site and comment on the present conditions.

Umaxim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umaximm (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please clarify if the dating for the petroglyphs is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.219.178 (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too second it. Not enough clarity about scholarly sources and dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.115.154 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of

There are some more sources, that puts 300,000 years as the date. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More recent archaeological reports? Or?

talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

[3] From 2008. [4] 2011, check out. Bladesmulti (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed all this. One of them says mesolithic on page 53 and page 55 says more than 10000 years ago. The other is a book on climate change, clearly not an RS. The Bradshaw Foundation[5] says "Excavations carried out at Bhimbetka have revealed occupational deposits ranging from the Acheulian to Historical times. As to the art, the three main periods recognized by most Indian researchers (Mesolithic roughly 12,000 to 5,000 BP, Chalcolithic (rougly 5,000 to 2,500 BP) and Historical, from 2,500 BP onwards) are present on the shelter walls." Which doesn't match our article.

talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Brought previous lead back[6] I will definitely look into these as well as other potential sources and let you know. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@D4iNa4: The reverted lead is not supported by the sources, starting with the first sentence. Please see the UNESCO source on page 14. It states, "There is widespread evidence from nearly all over India of the workmanship of the Homo erectus, the earliest human ancestor, in the form of Palaeolithic tools. Direct and indirect evidences so far indicate the earliest presence of this ancestral form in the country approximately 160,000 years ago (based on evidences from the Didwana region, Rajasthan)." Such sources suggest that we can't state in wikipedia voice, that "The Bhimbetka rock shelters are an archaeological site of the Paleolithic, exhibiting the earliest traces of human life on the Indian subcontinent, and thus the beginning of the South Asian Stone Age." If you wish to add back this exceptional claim, it needs multiple scholarly RS. Similarly, you deleted some sources and sourced content. There is no need to do so. Long-standing content does not mean unsourced / incorrect is okay, or that efforts to improve an article with additional content is not welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No source was provided for it, but the information is correct.[7][8] I had edited article a year earlier and I didn't found anything wrong about it nor anyone else seems to have made the objection despite the page has been edited by many editors. The page 17[9] and 15[10] of World Heritage Monuments and Related Edifices in India said "shelters from 1.5 million years up to about CE 1700, representing the earliest human cultures in India" and you wrote "1700 BCE". As much researched as this one is, there are no other sites that exhibit any older traces of human to this extent. Stone age in South Asia also started from here, read [11][12][13] for more info. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4: It does not matter if others have objected to this or not! Exceptional claims need multiple scholarly sources. In future, I urge you to just provide the multiple scholarly RS pro-actively, rather than edit war. This is just a website with unclear peer review policies and therefore not RS. I will read your other links shortly and if appropriate, will try to merge in new information. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4: Remember, AMS etc scientific dating of the Bhimbetka site and general scholarly consensus about the results is still pending. Wikipedia can't lead the curve, only follow the published mainstream scholarship. You claim Chandra source supports "Stone age in South Asia also started from here". It does not. All it states is that Bhimbetka was a "middle stone age site" (page 19). This is not-RS for such an exceptional claim, it is pocketbook / guidebook genre publication by Oldcastle Books. This does not state this either. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4: On 1700 BCE versus 1700 CE, yes thank you. The source mentions painting through 1700 CE which is not same as "Stone age in South Asia also started from here". Which page of this source makes this exceptional claim? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter because if it was any exceptional it would've been objected much before or at least discussed on talk page. It is better to seek confirmation on talk page than removing common information. That website hosts the information provided by UNESCO. There is no shortage of sources anyway. Old castle

Has [14][15] provided any other instance of stone age? In fact they are treating Bhimbetka as the oldest example of stone age. So far [16][17] agree it with being the oldest human life in ancient India, hence if this information is also backed by Old castle, which is an RS, it is not exceptional. You should better find any other site that is said to be exhibiting earliest traces of human life in India and said to be older as a "stone age" than Bhimbetka. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ms Sarah Welch, don't make unilateral edits based on your understanding of sources and history. Also don't write about specific paintings on the lead.
  Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

D4iNa4: please drop the "if it was any exceptional it would've been objected much before" argument. It is strange and tendentious. Sources and content guidelines determine an article's content, not legacy. Further, we can't interpret a source not providing an alternate stone site to do OR:Synthesis that "Voila! stone age started in Bhimbetka". Multiple reliable sources must state that exceptional conclusion. Which page does this source state that stone age began in Bhimbetka? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find an archaeological site that you believe is older than Bhimbetka and has been called "earliest traces of human life". Until then

drop the stick. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Capitals00: There is no "understanding of sources" issue here, it is just OR that I am removing. I would welcome the content if you can provide an RS that verifies the exceptional claim. I moved the summary from the Oxford University Press source on Indo-Aryans about a specific painting to the main article. D4iNa4: Do I need to remind you of WP:OR and OR:Synthesis? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you certainly believe that there is an older archaeological site than Bhimbetka, which is just a wishful thinking, and in order to change it you are edit warring while not providing the contrary. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond3023: Welcome to the party! We don't need to worry about or concern with the contrary, because no content guideline states so. We would be in a big mess in wikipedia if that were our benchmark. For example, there is "no publication that explicitly states that the Mount Everest or the Karnataka prehistoric site is where stone age did not start". This, of course, does not mean we start Stone Age article with the exceptional claim, "Stone age started on Mount Everest". You need to find scholarly sources that explicitly reach the "stone age in South Asia started at Bhimbetka" conclusion, and provide the page number please. Otherwise, that unsourced / unreliably sourced legacy content is not going to stay in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to write about particular paintings on lead when you have a section dedicated to them, and especially not in middle of edit war over a sentence that has not been disputed by anyone but you. And the sources have been given to you that treat Bhimbetka as earliest example of South Asian stone age.

Capitals00 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"The microlithic occupation there is the last one, as the Stone Age started there with Acheulian times. These rock shelters have been used to light fires even up to recent times by the tribals. This is re- fleeted in the scatter of 14C dates from Bhimbetka."[18] I think we should be done already. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00: Please consider putting the tags back, because none of the 5 alleged sources verify! Also see WP:OVERCITE. D4iNa4: All your sources so far have failed verification. Here is what your latest source states (adding a bit of the context),

• Quote: "The available 14C dates show that the Mesolithic culture in India started around c. 6000 B.C., as indicated by Bagor (TF-786) and Adamgarh (TF-120) samples. The Sarai Nahar Rai date (TF-1104), 8395 4-110 B.C., was obtained on uncharred bones which are very prone to exchange with groundwater and atmospheric carbon and is therefore less reliable. TF-1356 and TF-1359 from the same site have given 990 4-125 B.C. on a charred bone, which is therefore more reliable. A large number of samples were collected from the Bhimbetka excavations, near Bhopal. The microlithic occupation there is the last one, as the Stone Age started there with Acheulian times. These rock shelters have been used to light fires even up to recent times by the tribals. This is re-fleeted in the scatter of 14C dates from Bhimbetka. If the Mesolithic association of PRL-17 and -50 is correct, it can be assigned to c. 6000 B.C. A total time bracket of c. 6000-2000 B.C. will cover the dated Mesolithic sites, e.g. Langhnaj, Bagor, Bhimbetka, Adamgarh, Lekhahia, etc. Koldihawa in Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) is another site which has given very early 14C dates. It is likely that this site may represent a transition from a hunting economy to the beginnings of agriculture."

In other words, this source is merely stating the Stone Age started in Bhimbetka in Acheulian times. Nothing more! Please don't OR:Synthesize to imply or state, "stone age started in South Asia in Bhimbetka". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 sources support the earliest human traces in Ancient India/Indian subcontinent and as for the 4th one, I am fine with "Acheulian". D4iNa4 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source is here and clearly described it as "Mesolithic/Historical, Lakha Juar (East)" and says nothing about it proving something about invasions. That was simply a pov description by the uploader, User:Banasura who seems to have also been using IP addresses. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can get rid of the isolated opinion regarding the paintings that they maybe depict conflict between Indo Aryans. It was added by a sock who was frequently misrepresenting sources.[19] And other editors would fix it to make sense out of it. Still, we should only add what is mainstream though I would be fine if multiple reliable sources can be discovered and not just a one liner image caption by a non-archaeologist. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, me and IP removed other paragraph[20][21] because it is undue and the source does not meet

WP:RS.[22] D4iNa4 (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The sock misrepresented the text, but Kenoyer is George F. Dales Jr. and Barbara A. Dales Professor of Anthropology - named professorships are fairly prestigious normally. I'd say it's ok so long as it's an attributed quote. Heuston's role was obviously just as a professional author, I can't see her dealing with content. I've asked for the image to be renamed to match the source. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are scholars. But what they say is only their assumption. Thats why they say it "may be indo-aryan" conflict. It is not a conclusive remark. They never said "it is indo-aryan" conflict. There is a huge difference between those two. So lets not get carried away too much by that. Further more, i have added citations from other scholars like Klaus Klaustermeier who has stated that prehistoric rock paintings in Bhimbetka shows hunters using horses. These paintings are 10,000BCE. And thus it totally invalidates the guesswork done by Kenoyer et.al. If the prehistoric people used horses long before the supposed aryan-invasion, then it would be against logic to assume that, they went to war with aryans on foot. Klaus Klaustermeir is stating a fact, and Kenoyer et al. are simply phrasing an assumption. I hope the distinction is not difficult to grasp. Banasura talk

Well that's interesting. I hadn't really noticed who the sock was. Looks like they may be appealing the SPI. I stand by my comment above but won't say any more as I'll be dealing with the appeal if it goes forward. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the

hog deer, barasingha and rhinoceros.[24] Since those paintings are mesolithic, a better opinion is that there are "a few scholars who believe that some of the drawings of the horse may belong to wild species of now extinct horse."[25] D4iNa4 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Which paintings are mesolithic? The one I've been discussing in this section is described as mesolithic/historical, which means it can't be dated more precisely. And of course iron weapons are historical. I don't think Tiwari is referring to this painting or indeed anything at Bhimbetka on p.83. And he says "only" a few scholars. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From page 80 and earlier, Tiwari is talking about "Central India", and this term was also used by Kenoyer for referring Bhimbetka (probably). D4iNa4 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The painting being discussed here is identified as Mesolithic(before atleast 8000 BCE.) in page 139 of the documented source written by Archaeological Survey of India. Expert archaeological scholars are behind the article. So its authenticity and accuracy is beyond question. If there is a indian cave-painting showing people using horses and if that painting is aged before 8000 BCE, then it would be a wrong assumption by the aryan-invasion theorists to claim that it was aryans who first introduced horses to India. I am not sure why you two are making a huge fuss about this. Your accusation is that the caption of the image contains my personal view. If the image caption contains personal view, you can edit and change the image caption. But the whole image was removed two days ago, eventhough you had an option to edit and correct the caption. And now a big discussion is going on with a lot of accusations. There is no need for any of these, because if you dont like the caption of an image, you can edit and change it. It is as simple as that. All this huge fuss about nothing, making mountains out of molehills, forces one to wonder what exactly is going on here. Since you have removed the image altogether, i hope everything is now according to your wishing, and that the issue is settled for now. I have no objections against the image being removed. Banasura talk —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break I

Scholarly citation from the book Survey of Hinduism by Klaus Klostermaier regarding the Bhimbetka rock shelter cave paintings, has been deleted by User:D4iNa4 , with out specifying any reason. So the edit has been restored. If the person has any valid reason to specify why he/she has deleted that citation, let it be discussed here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted it. Klostermaier is an expert on religion and historic texts, not on archaeology. His dates of "100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE" are simply wrong and contradicted by the article - thus he isn't a reliable source for this because he's basing his analysis on a faulty understanding of the dating. If you still think he's a reliable source, please don't edit-war but take to ti

the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks Doug Weller talk 13:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Your claims for removing the scholarly citations are three. I will explain why all your three claims are wrong.

1. You are claiming that, Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.

But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.

This is an article regarding Bhimbetka rock shelters, and we can add anything related to it. You insisting that only archelogical experts's opinions can be included in this article is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the painting on p. 39, it does not say mesolithic, it says mesolithic/historical. And no, we cannot add just anything related to it, that's not how we work. Sources need to have expertise in the subject. As for mesolithic, I'm assuming that you know little about archaeology. It describes a period with a particular type of technology, and that that period has happened at different times in different parts of the world, indeed in different parts of India. For instance this bookArchaeological Excavations in Central India: Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh says "Though regular occupation in the caves appears to have been given up by the end of the Mesolithic times, probably by the end of the 1st millennium B.C.," note that it says Mesolithic times lasted into the 1st millennium BCE. More importantly it says that "In shelter III C-50 the entire flat ceiling, some 10 m long and 5 m broad, is filled with paintings. Most of the paintings are in red or white colour but occasionally paintings in green or even yellow colour are also found. The paintings can be assigned to three cultural and chronological phases : (1) prehistoric (2) transitional, and (3) historical. The paintings of the first phase are dominated by wild animal life. Among the animals depicted are the cattle." "The paintings of the transitional phase suggest the impact of the Chalcolithic culture. Men are seen grazing and riding animals, implying knowledge of domestication. The motifs used for filling the body of the animals recall designs on the Chalcolithic pottery. Animal figures tend to lose naturalism and begin to be disproportionate." So not even mesolithic. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"That is not how WHO work?" Who are you? aren't you the same spammer who got banned for 24 hours for your editing wars here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactChecked1_reported_by_User:Doug_Weller_(Result:_Blocked_24_hours)This is an article about Bhimbetka rock shelter caves. And any scholars opinion can be added to it. There is nothing wrong in it. By your logic we can not add an opinion by a historian about a Novelist in an article about that Novelist because , historian is not an expert in novel writing? What stupid logic is that?

Secondly, The expertise of Klaustermeier in arhceology is not at all relevant here, because his comment is not used to support any claims or facts. I have added it merely as a content addition to the article. why are you so insisting that Klaustermaiers opinion should be removed? because your agenda will not work if his opinion is present in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banasura has taken this to

WP:Administrator and an elected member of the WP:Arbitration Committee, certainly not a spammer and in any case that editor was blocked for editwarring. And my agenda is to make sure this article complies with our policies and guidelines, I could care less who invaded when. You however seem very attached to a certain perspective. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Banasura, in place of making personal attacks and finding rebuttals for the statement, how about you see the problem with the statement itself? Both Bhimbetka rock shelters and Indo-Aryans are researched big time, but how come we have only one source who speculates the connection between these two? That's the issue. The animal of these paintings (A-16) could be "goat like"[26], and there is another lengthy book dedicated to these paintings[27] but it is not saying anything that Kenoyer said. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So according to your logic, if thousand people say that you are incompetent, and only one person says that you are capable, you would admit that they are right and you are wrong, because majority say you are incompetent? Its not about how many people say a thing, its not about who say a thing, the only thing important is what is being said. Lets not bring aryan invasion into this debate. The problem here is, this is an article about Bhimbetka Rock shelters, and you and your friend is not allowing to add scholarly opinion into this article. I added an opinion by Klaus Klostermaier about this Bhimbetka rock shelters. He is an eminent historian with PhD. But you and Doug Weller is quickly removing this opinion by him, saying he is not an archaeologist.. What kind of logic is it? So what you are saying is, in an article about a novelist, we can add only opinion by other novelists? Lets be honest here, you people are removing the opinion of Klaus Klaustermaier, because it does not suit the agenda you people are trying to push through this article.. Actually the prejudice in the mind of those who opposed my edit is the issue which need to be discussed here. You deleted an image of hunters on horseback saying the caption is wrong, even though you had an option to correct the caption and leave the image alone. When i added my point of view, Doug Weller deleted it saying there is no scholarly citation. So i gave it up, and instead added exact opinion of scholar historian Klaus Klaustermaier. Then you and Doug Weller came and removed it saying Klaus is not an archaeologist. Now you are removing the suggestions i made to the talk page with out specifying any reason. You people should try to be honest at least once in your life time and should admit that you people removed the opinion of Klaustermaier because it conflicts with the agenda you people are trying to push through this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.236.155 (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this[28] source, it looks like that paintings depict conflicts, though not exclusively Indo-Aryan, but I will be looking into this that how this particular sentence can be a bit modified and expanded further. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case people haven't noticed this, Banasura has now been indefinitely blocked. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::: Wow!! That's Great sir Jonathan A Jones.. Thank you for notifying everybody that the user has been banned. But sir, on another thought, any dog with enough administrator power can ban any user. That does not require any special skill, and that does not prove that the banned user is wrong, and that does not prove that white supremacists are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.221.187.23 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Strike blatant Banasura sock.[reply]

If the newbie IP or any other newbie editors soon don't start respecting

It is not a newbie IP. It is Banasura evading his block. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think A Survey of Hinduism is a reliable source for this article and note it is a textbook not arguing anything but summarizing sources, in this case it says the "most complete representation and summary of research," mentioning that Kapila Vatsyayan also provided an interpretation in "Prehistoric Paintings." (ft. 16) But I don't see that it argues against the Aryan invasion interpretation but actually supports it by saying that the pictures depicted horses which were introduced by the Aryans, dating the pictures to no earler than 1500 B.C. That's my reading although I could be missing something. Incidentally when you take disputes to RSN, bear in mind that the editors you wish to comment are reading about it usually for the first time. TFD (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Klaus dates the paintings to at least 10,000 BCE on page 25 and suggests that according to "invastionists", horses were introduced in India after 1500 BCE. Though it is dubious if the animal was a horse or not and it is an isolated opinion if Indo-Aryans have any connection since we don't have multiple sources. I will work on modifying that part later. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the issue about the dating of the paintings? If they are over 10,000 years old they do not depict the Aryan invasion which occurred in 1500? And the only reason one could conclude that there were horse in India before 1500 B.C. is that the paintings depict them. TFD (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Kostermaier is known to peddle controversial viewpoints. Please see the last section in the Klaus Klostermaier page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Kautilya3 , Oh really ? you are saying that including Klaus Klostermaier's opinion is not suitable for obscure archaeological evidence, but guesswork and assumptions by Kenyoer et. al can be included because it suits the narrative of bogus aryan-invasion theory? According to you guesswork and assumptions are perfect for obscure archaeological subject?? Great logic... Only a communist-marxist liberal will show such hypocrisy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.233.88 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I were writing an article for an archeological journal, I would read every original study done, analyze their methodologies and go to visit the paintings. But if I wanted to contribute to an article in an encyclopedia, I would use secondary sources that summarized the various positions. And I don't refuse to read books about ancient Rome just because they weren't written by archeologists. Context btw would make me exclude captions of photos as sources, especially when the author provides no sources or explanation for their views. Anyway, isn't there a better source for the dating of the paintings than this? TFD (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Klostermaier says the paintings date to "100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE" and bases his comments on those dates. Those dates are clearly wrong, none of them are anywhere near that old and some are medieval, not BCE at all. He was working on a misunderstanding of the dates and it is because of that misunderstanding that we shouldn't use him. I'm not sure what you mean by asking if there is a better source than "this", what is "this"? I've provided a couple of sources discussing the dates and also the confusion about when the mesolithic was in Central India. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break II

TFD got it right. D4iNa4 also shared same issue above.[29] We will need better source that at least provides source or explains or otherwise any other source supporting same information. I have editing the sentence now. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, you replace a quote by Kenoyer, published by Oxford University Press, which was repeatedly re-inserted by multiple editors, by a source written by some Ali Javid and Tabassum Javeed and published by Algora Publishing? Keep in mind that Kenoyer is the one who argued for continuity between the IVC and post-IVC cultures, and is happily referrd to when needed by people who believe that there were no Indo-Aryan migrations. Quite selective. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Shelter III A-16," or "historic period"? Some

WP:SYNTHESIS here? I'll check Kenoyer too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the "original" text (by MSW, I presume?):

The paintings found in shelter III A-16 depicts humans riding animals and carrying weapons.[1] These paintings are interpreted as depicting tribal war between three tribes symbolised by their animal totems.^[2][3] Jonathan Kenoyer and Kimberley Heuston state it may be a representation of the conflict between Indo-Aryan communities.^[4]