Talk:Surkotada

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Archaeology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Untitled

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! Article still needs some cleanup. JubalHarshaw 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Units

Someone went through the page and put in inaccurate units. I was using Google to do a unit conversion, and I glanced at the results below the calculator and saw this page stating that 60m was 200ft (not ~195ft). I believe that the units do not only add clutter to the page but also are factually inaccurate. Perhaps someone would like to remove the units... —Cameron(talk/edits) 04:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developing the article

There is a urgent need to develop this article in wiki quality standards and add some photographs; this will add value. Further, as this site is being pushed, along with Dholavira and Lothal in the form of a circuit, for World Heritage Status by Govt. of India, such a developed article in wikipedia would serve better.Rayabhari (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Daimabad chariot “ in notes

@Joshua Jonathan: M. K. Dhavalikar:

Some scholars feel that the bronzes are tribal in origin. and as such may be as late as the 18th century A.D. Recently, D.P. Agrawal and his team have analyzed the elemental composition of the bronzes using atomic absorption spectrophtometry and have concluded that "We would not be surprised if these images turned out to be of the historical period" (Agrawal, Krishnamurthy and Kusumgar 1978: 45). His argument is based on the negative evidence that "no arsenical alloying has been reported from the Chalcolithic Cultures so far, but these Daimabad bronzes show greater than 1 percent arsenic. . .. It may also be pointed out that the Chalcolithic Cultures are very poor in copper and such massive figures appear completely out of place in the Chalcolithic context" (Agrawal, Krishnamurthy and Kusumgar 1978: 45).

^[1] ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/121/1218186467.pdf

[1] ttp://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/121/1218186467.pdf

[1]