Tradition states that the First Council lasted for seven months. However, many scholars, from the late 19th century onward, have considered the historicity of the First Council improbable. Some scholars, such as Orientalist Ivan Minayev (1840–1890), thought there must have been assemblies after the Buddha's death, but considered only the main characters and some events before or after the First Council historical, and not the council itself. Other scholars, such as Bareau and Indologist Hermann Oldenberg (1854–1920), considered it likely that the account of the First Council was written after the Second Council, and based on that of the Second, since there were not any major problems to solve after the Buddha's death, or any other need to organize the First Council. On the other hand, archaeologist Louis Finot (1864–1935) and Indologist (1901–1935) thought the account of the First Council was authentic, because of the correspondences between the Pāli texts and the Sanskrit traditions. Orientalist Louis de La Vallée-Poussin (1869–1938) and Indologist Nalinaksha Dutt (1893–1973) thought it was historical, but in the form of a simple recitation of discipline (, ; according to Dutt, in order settle the "minor rules") not a complete council with a full review of the discourses. Indologist Richard Gombrich, following Bhikkhus Sujato and Brahmali's arguments, considers that the Council "makes good sense". They argue that the Council was historical, because all the known versions of monastic discipline relate it. Some of those, such as the Theravāda discipline, do not include the recitation of the Abhidharma in their account, even though it was an important part of their identitythis shows the historical nature of the accounts.