Talk:Mohenjo-daro

Alexander Gorbovsky

From the removed offering of a BoN:

A Primary source for the claims pertaining to the radioactivity of the bodies comes from a reputable source , Alexander Gorbovsky, a Russian Scientist who published an article in Sputnik Magazine in 1986. " ... Russian researchers found a skeleton with a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal. "<ref name=evidence>[1]</ref>

A brief search found that despite Gorbovsky being widely (and inconsistently) cited on similar sites, there are no indications that he was a scientist, leave alone a reputable one. There are at least three people named that way - a munitions expert, a sci-fi writer, and some guy who appears to be a Soviet equivalent of Erich von Däniken. Wikipedia describes the Sputnik magazine as a Soviet Readers' Digest. In all cases, it's not a scientific publication.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The original appears to be a 1966 book Riddles of Ancient History. I am trying to track it down or the digest version to take a look at it, as it would make for a good addition to the article. But as entered by the BoN it was more about spamming his site than adding content. If anyone else has better luck finding the passage or more on Gorbovsky do post. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN's dirty bomb

A BoN left this:[2]

(It is important to note that no discussion of potential yield or, indeed, type of nuclear device is undertaken. Could it have been a low yield device or even a 'dirty bomb'? Uranium is not a new element and someone in antiquity may have mined sufficient quantities to fashion a 'dirty bomb' device.)

Well, for a start, a "low yield" or a "dirty" bomb unable to topple mud-brick walls contradicts the claims of AA believers, because it wouldn't cause mass death (and there was no mass death in the first place).--ZooGuard (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of an Invasion

There are four points in this article that have been contended (citation has been asked for them) Out of them the first to I am modifying. The first is: However, none of the original excavators or serious scholars who have examined the evidence ever saw the bodies as linked to a single catastrophic event [source needed]. In fact a single catastrophic event has often been suggested for the destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization. Some academics believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was destroyed in a Aryan Invasion. In 1925 sixteen skeletons of people with the ornaments that they were wearing when they died were found in the same part of Mohanjo-daro. And in fact in 1947, R.E.M. Wheeler the then Director-General of Archaeological Survey of India tried to correlate it with evidence in the Rig Veda in order to present an invasion.

Source: R.E.M. Wheeler, "Harappa 1946", Ancient India, 1947.

The second is: Thirty seven bodies total were found, they were in different places in the city and based on distribution in the stratum in relation to the buildings different groups of bodies came from different time periods [source needed].

In 1960s the evidence of massacre in Mohenjo-daro was questioned by an archaeologist George Dales. He demonstrated that the skeletons found at the site did not belong to the same period.

Reference: G.F. Dales, "The Mythical Masacre at Mohenjodaro",Expedition,1964.

Source: "Themes in Indian History, Part 1", National Council for Education Research and Training, India, January 2007

In the rest of the cases I am changing the text in the following way: However, none of the original excavators or serious scholars who have examined the evidence ever saw the bodies as linked to a single catastrophic event [source needed]. is being changed to- "Even though some of the original excavators who examined the evidence and saw the bodies as linked to a single catastrophic event but their opinion was that it was more akin to war and not nuclear explosion."

Thirty seven bodies total were found, they were in different places in the city and based on distribution in the stratum in relation to the buildings different groups of bodies came from different time periods [source needed]. is being changed to- "Thirty seven bodies total were found, some of them were found in the same parts of the city but based on distribution in the stratum in relation to the buildings different groups of bodies came from different time periods [source needed]."

However the remaining two are left unchanged with [citation required] tags.

Please contact my at theassistantdevil@gmail.com for any correspondence in this regard. ^{— Unsigned, by: 112.79.36.254 / talk / contribs}

I largely agree with you on the Aryan Invasion Hypothesis: It also helps explain the caste system of later India and linguistic similarities between the Elamite Language and the Dravidian Language family.

Kuo27 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Plan to Add to the "What Really Happened" Section

Why are we focusing on what all the wackjobs and cranks are saying about the Indus Valley Civilization instead of what actually happened there? Their real achievements are overshadowed by what I see as an undue focus on countering bullshit that insane people have said. I would also like to point out that Jane Mcintosh, author of this book, notes that the IVC apparently lacked an organized military force at all (see also this book, which goes into details of such IVC inventions as stoneware, sewer systems, indoor plumbing, tooth fillings, an octal metric system and even the assembly line), let alone nuclear or radiological weapons.

I have added to the page at last; I am curious as to what others think of my additions. Kuo27 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason for the focus is RW's mission - " Documenting the full range of crank ideas". not "being a history text". Your addition seems very interesting. Scream!! (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Double Minor Edit

I committed two unrelated minor changes as a single revision. Now I think maybe I shouldn't do that, and should have made two separate edits. It seems unlikely that anyone gives a shit, but I thought I should ask if there's a policy on that, or at least a preference. Minoreditor (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no policy, and no, I don't think it's a problem.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

KFCdidit

Flipping wiki pages, so I'll try a suggestion.

Ancient Alien researchers (led by Dr. Hircum Hirsutum pHd, STD, WMD etc.) are close to reading this and will eventually state that Colonel Sanders is a time traveling alien and it was he who irradiated the populace of Mohenjo-daro to background levels using Tsar Bomba. Evidence, well, something called (wingnut stuff really) "archaeological" analysis of the city seal (nutter stuff of brick built educational institutions) suggests that the ancient name for the city was Kukkutarma, which translates as "City of the Cockerel". (mainstream wingnutology and sorry for inflicting) This would indicate that the snack box was invented 3500BCE hence the reason that Col. Sanders went back and nuked the place!!!!

God its easy to be a flipping lunatic "theorist". It's as good a theory as what just drilled a hole in my head watching that "televisual snake oil AA". The Kukkatarma bit is for real, but I can't cite (get some sort of weird message) and that would suggest that the interpretation of Indus script and seal art is now coming about, if not translation as yet, but I'm not brave enough to edit the main article. So RW, I have just debunked ancient aliens, god, fringe and mainstream, what more would you ask..... KFCdidit!!!! --Dwansmill

Just wanted to point out:

I'm not a regular to this particular wiki, I just happened to pass by this article in a comment chain and checked it out of curiosity. I have to say, this is by far one of the most condescending, dismissive, and insulting articles I've ever read. I'm no fan of pseudoscience either, but there's no reason for the tone of this article, especially on a site bearing the name "wiki." We ought to be above infestations of personal emotion like this.

I would strongly suggest rewording this article to more properly fit in with the quality and tone of wikis in general.

66.177.191.81 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As a point of curiosity, did you come here from Reddit?

Oh, and "wiki" means "collaboratively edited website", not "encyclopaedia". There's no singe "tone of wikis". If you find a problem with specific parts of the article, please point them out.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please correct "delusions/dilutions" error

This entry: "beyond homeopathic delusions dilutions." with "delusions" crossed out is neither scholarly nor adult. If entering information to refute "pseudoscience", one would expect to find scientific evidence, not sarcasm. It is completely unnecessary and lessens credence to the scientific explanation. Please correct this error. ^{— Unsigned, by: Katiejo911 / talk / contribs}

Your concern has been noted. Alec Sanderson (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And acting on said concern, I've helpfully inserted a link to homeopathy in the text - you're welcome. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Isotopes

Why use the half lives for half-lives for Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 in particular? I came to find info on the radiation levels at Mohenjo Daro, but it seems pretty biased that you would pick 2 arbitrary isotopes with probably some of the shorter half-lives.

Also, this whole page is rife with counterarguments that are based on evidence just as tenuous as the show. Why saying that the bodies were in the street because they were buried there later, with no citation to imply they were buried? Why did the original excavators think something catastrophic happened, then?

This whole site would be more useful if it labeled speculative counter-arguments (as opposed to ones with legitimate counter-evidence), rather than presenting them as fact. It's OK to say "They were uncovered almost 100 years ago, nobody really knows, but here are some alternatives to just aliens." If it's just a contest of who can make stuff up, then at least Ancient Aliens has more entertainment value.^{— Unsigned, by: 74.132.207.128 / talk 12:15, 12 March 2015‎ (UTC)}

Because they are one of the most common components of nuclear fallout? As a general rule, the more radioactive an isotope is, the more short-lived it is. Most of the highly radioactive products of a nuclear bomb don't live long. (See this or this or this cool blog for starting points if you want to learn more about the effects of nuclear weapons.) I agree that the article is haphazardly written and could do with an expansion and better explanations, but your objections are not very good either. As for Ancient Aliens, their evidence for elevated radioactivity at the site was a computer-generated image of a radiation counter, so... Ever heard of Occam's razor?--ZooGuard (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Radioactive skeletons debunk

I don't know how to edit a Wiki article, but I suggest someone update this one. I made some research about the "radioactive skeletons", and explain the whole story in my article here : https://irna.lautre.net/The-radioactive-skeletons-of-Mohenjo-Daro.html?lang=fr They are in fact the result of bad translation and error. - There are not many but only one skeleton. - This skeleton is Egyptian and not Indian. - Its radioactivity is absolutely normal. ^{— Unsigned, by: 162.222.147.27 / talk / contribs}

Not-so-absurd explanation

Mohenjo-Daro came into existence time of greater rains that allowed extensive agriculture. All cities devour huge quantities of food without supplying it even if the city-dwellers have honest means (like trading) to earn their living, Destroy the surrounding agricultural basis in surplus production, and that city will wither and die. Turn the area around a city like Chicago into a desert or tundra, and Chicago will die. Chicago will more likely become a tundra in the next Ice Age if it doesn't get obliterated in ice.

Mohenjo-Daro got hotter and drier, and its agriculture failed -- and so did its economy. People who had made their living in a city well-supplied with food either died off or left. The political order of course imploded. The masonry structure remained, but the masons were no longer there. This is undramatic and unheroic, but it explains things far more simply than a theory that requires space aliens or technologies of modern times. We will never know, but my story is more likely true becaus it better passes Occam's razor.Pbrower2a (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a different theory; what if a plague killed them? probably not true and I don't have any evidence for this but interesting to think nonetheless. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)