Talk:Bhimbetka rock shelters

Questions re Rock art & paintings

I have questions about some of the statements made in the section "Rock art & paintings". To begin with, it suggests an age of 12,000 years for the oldest paintings, but this is at odds with the number given in the article's intro, which is 9,000 years. This really needs to be sorted out.

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)

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)

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)

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

WP:INDIA Banner/Madhya Pradesh workgroup Addition

{{WP India}} with Madhya Pradesh workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Madhya Pradesh or one of its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the irrelavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone enlighten me with reference as to the basis of this cliam: "The name Bhimbetika comes from the mythological association of the place with Bhima, one of the Pandavas, the five sons of king Pandu and the queens Kunti and Madri in the Hindu epic Mahabharata?"

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

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)

Clarification

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)

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)

Earliest occupation

There is evidence of Acheulean occupation. However, Wakanker's work is disputed:"Some of the best-known Late Acheulean assemblages in north-central India come from Bhimbetka (Misra 1978). where hundreds of rock-shelters (many with rock paintings) are situated in a hilly and forested area in Madhya Pradesh. Wakanker (1973) initially proposed that the Acheulean hori- zon at one of the excavated rock-shelters was underlain by a "pebble-tool horizon, both being separated by a sterile layer, implying possible technological progression between the two traditions. However, subsequent excavations by Misra (1985) at Shelter III F-23 did not support Wakanker's claims for a pre-Acheulean industry in this area.[1] Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions[2]. We should be sticking to archaeological sources for this, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

More recent archaeological reports? Or? Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

Sources

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

An image of men riding what are presumably horses at Lake Jura (East) was misrepresented

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

I think that the Banasura's understanding regarding the depiction of the image as horses is not isolated since Kenoyer himself said that by describing "cave paintings from Central India" as Indo-Aryan's "horses, chariots, and iron weapons".[23] I have spent some time searching if they "may" represent Indo-Ayran conflicts, and most specifically "horses", "chariots", but it seems that the animals were not even horses or chariots. They were 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)

Scholarly citation was deleted with out specifying any reason

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)