# Talk:Burzahom archaeological site

This review is transcluded from Talk:Burzahom archaeological site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dudley Miles (talk · contribs) 22:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I will take this. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting article but I have doubts whether it is ready for GA as some of the comments seem to be wrong or unclear.
Megalithic era needs explaining as it is a red link.
Redlink has been removed and a small explanation has been provided. However in Section on Period III more explanation is given.
"The Neolithic revolution emerged in the Kashmir Valley and is unique compared to other archaeological sites in the country." This seems to say that the Neolithic first emerged around 3000 BC in Kashmir, but according to South Asian Stone Age the Neolithic dates to 7000 BC in western Pakistan. The book by Kaw states that the "revolution" occurred when the draining of the lakes made the area fit for human habitation, which puts a very different slant on it. Also what does unique mean here - unlike other civilisations in the sub-continent or its affinities are with what is now Pakistan?
Changed to "The Neolithic revolution occurred when following the draining of the lakes the area became suitable for human habitation."
"The large cache of tools and implements made of bone and stone attest to the gradual advancement from hunting to craftsmanship and agriculture." I think this is wrong. As I read the UNESCO description it was not a transition but farmers who were also hunting.
Changed to "The large cache of tools and implements made of bone and stone is indicative of farmers vocation of hunting and farming”.
"The interaction of local and foreign influences is demonstrated by the art, architecture, customs, rituals and language demonstrated by some graffiti marks on pottery" What does "graffiti marks" mean here? Is it writing and if so why not say so. If not, how does it thrown light on language?
Changed to "carvings" or it could be changed to "signs" if acceptable.
"From an archaeological point of view the "Aryans in Kashmir" is a misconception as the antiquities related to the Vedic Aryans have not been traced in Kashmir from the explorations at Burzahom." This assumes that the reader will know what "Aryans in Kashmir" means. Perhaps something like "Some historians have stated that the Vedic Aryan culture extended into Kashmir, but archaeological investigation at Burzahom does not support the "Aryans in Kashmir" theory."
Agreed. Sentence changed as suggested.
"It is the northernmost excavated Neolithic site of India, and is not comparable to any others found in the country." In what way not comparable?
Sentence curtailed to "It is the northernmost excavated Neolithic site of India".
"de Terra and Paterson." First names should be given as well as surnames.
Done
"The same model was adopted at the Burzahom site which revealed that a neolithic revolution happened in the valley in the 3rd millennium BC," Was it really that late when it was 4000 years earlier only a few hundred miles away? (As above, surely it was a change when the area became fit for human habitation, not a change from hunting to agriculture as your comment implies.)
Has been changed to "Based on a similar model the Burzahom site has been named as the Northern Neolithic Culture in view of its distinctive structural features with profusion of tools made of bones and stones and tools representing the ritualistic practices.”If it is to be further revised please suggest the required change.
"This site was nominated on 15 April 2014 for inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site." Presumably there is no decision yet by UNESCO but you should say so.
Done
"These are: Periods I and II of the Neolithic (also known as Aceramic Neolithic)" This is wrong. The UNESCO page says Period I is aceramic and Period II is ceramic. (I do not understand why it is called aceramic (without pottery) as the page also says that pottery sherds have been found in the Period I layer, but maybe that is a mistake.)
I had based it on the usage given in Britannica reference 2 as “aceramic Neolithic.” However, I have made chnages as suggested by you to conform to UNESCO categorization.
"the earliest occupation at the site was dated to before 2,357 BC and in the range between 2300 and 1300 BC." This is a contradiction. 2357 BC is not between 2300 and 1300.
Changed the sentence to "the earliest occupation at the site was dated to before 2,357 BC" only.
I think I need to fail this but as I know nothing of the subject I will give you a chance to reply in case it is me who has got it wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the review. Pl put it on hold. I will answer all the above questions and make changes and additions where necessary. --Nvvchar. 13:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles:  The replies are given above. I have made corrections as suggested by you. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 22:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Further comments

I have made some copy edits - change any you are not happy with.
Thanks. I agree with the edits
"Megalithic era (of wheel turned red pottery and grave stones)" I suggest "(of massive stone menhirs and wheel turned red pottery)
Done
"cover all aspects of the physical evidence of a culture, palaeo-climate flora, fauna, micro-wear, and other multidisciplinary issues." This is unclear - micro-wear on what and what multidisciplinary issues? Maybe "cover all aspects of the physical evidence of the site, including the ancient flora and fauna."
Yes. You are right. Changed as suggested
"The Neolithic revolution occurred when following the draining of the lakes the area became suitable for human habitation." I may have misled you on this. The Neolithic revolution occurred 4000 years before the archaeological site, and according to the book you cite by Singh, the Kashmir Valley was a giant lake during the Pleistocene, which ended 8,000 years earlier. I suggest deleting this sentence and adding to the location section that the site is on an ancient lake bed.
Done
"Carbon dating established that the Neolithic culture of this site was traceable to the 3rd millennium BC, the earliest occupation at the site was dated to before 2,357 BC." Why is this in the Period II section when it refers to the earliest occupation?
Shifted.
"The finds did not indicate of any external ethnic intrusions during the entire Neolithic period but showed more affinity to the Harappan people than those reported from South India." I do not understand this.
Delted the least part of the sentence referring to South India.
"The Megalithic Period III, which has an overlap with the Neolithic, was deciphered from the large stone Menhirs along the wide pits; inferred as memorial stones" I am not sure what "deciphered" means in this sentence.
Changed to “The Megalithic Period III, which has an overlap with the Neolithic, as noted from the large stone Menhirs along the wide pits”
The sections on Periods III and IV could do with expanding. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Done to some extent as I could not find more. May like to suggest some additional sources.
@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the extensive and thorough review.--Nvvchar. 19:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Nearly there. Just one last issue. I do not understand "The Megalithic Period III has an overlap with the Neolithic, as noted from the large stone Menhirs along the wide pits." How do the menhirs show an overlap with the Neolithic? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: My understanding is that the pits are of Neolithic Phase I and II and the Menhirs of Phase III. It probably would be better to delete this sentence. Thanks--Nvvchar. 22:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You could say something like "Some Megalithic Period Menhirs are next to Neolithic pits, suggesting a gradual transition between the two phases." Actually it would be surprising if there was not a gradual transition if there was continuous occupation. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thanks. Very nice formulation. I have introduced the change.--Nvvchar. 03:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I have passed it now. Well done. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thanks. Can you kindly leave a message on my talk page about this GA promotion?--Nvvchar. 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion it is impossible slowly and surely to Semitize Aryan Kashmir. Kashmir is Central Asia and Afghanistan and Tajikestan are too close while South West Asia too far. Ancient Kashmirim epics talk of fire worship a very Aryan tradition. Aryan culture begins from Kashmir, bordering present Afghanistan and Tajikestan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.203 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)