Misplaced Pages

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

04:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

These links might interest you.

- Ganeshk (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Open tasks in History of India project

Just to update you on the current status of the project, here's a list of the current open tasks. Please contribute towards completing them, and feel free to add more to this list. deeptrivia (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Indo-Greek Page

Hello Vastu,

Thank you for raising the topic of the map of the Indo-Greek kingdom with PHG. I have also been concerned about the possible misrepresentation of it (i.e. extent, whether Demetrius of Bactria was even on that side of Hindu Kush, etc)and have previously discussed it with him. While there is a dearth of maps online, the maps that I have seen in books to-date have been more conservative in treatment (at best utilizing arrows to denote the campaigns of Menander--which were not lasting), and rightfully so. There is, after all, very little certainty that we can apply to this period, and thus, this warrants cautious treatment and not wishful thinking. The main contributor to the page appears insistent on maximizing all possible Greek conquests and contributions on the subcontinent. While they undoubtedly had possessions in parts of South Asia (Afghanistan and the Trans-Indus) and contributions (coinage and art), even the recognized scholar in this subject would not treat the extent of these holdings with such certainty, dotted line or not (last I checked, Sassanid maps don't go to right upto the outskirts of Constantinople). I noticed that your correspondence with him ended about a month ago, but I do think this issue should be raised once more, as his map has been disseminated throughout the web. After all, this map isn't even a recognized one in the academic world, but one amateur historian's take on what kingdom looked like. Moreover, you will note that there is an insistence on reducing the domains of the Sungas even when there are literary references (which this contributor selectively relies on) and archeological evidence (inscriptions in Jalandhar) to point out periodic Sunga rule upto the Indus. Let me know what you think.

Regards,

Devanampriya

I agree with you, I was not very happy with his final deicision. If an Indo-Greek state had ruled that much of north India for a notable time, and not simply held it briefly in some territorial war, we would today no doubt have hellenic ruins scattered across India and Pakistan - yet the most there is is a couple of shrines. The historical sources that he has claimed are being taken at face value by PHG, when that period of history was not exactly well recorded, even by the Greeks. I think the Indo-Greek kingdom's borders were more along the lines of the Greco-Bactrian kingdom. Most importantly, while I am no cultural chauvenist, I find it annoying that his bold-border map has now circulated the internet and influenced many people into thinking India was dominated by some Hellenic state, when the reality is they havent left much more cultural impact than would have been gathered through trade. I support whatever you wish to do about it. It would be a good argument if you could describe the more conservative maps you have seen in hsitory books, and perhaps argue that a think lined border gives totally the worng impression when such books mearly mark vague campaigns - if you could scan a map from a book, that would be ideal Vastu 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mauryan dates

Hello,
What source is being used for the dates of the Mauryan Empire and its emperors' reigns?

Because Roger Boesche gives dates shifted four or five years later than those that appear in Misplaced Pages, i.e. Chandragupta Maurya (c. 317–293 BCE), Bindusara (c. 293–268 BCE) and Aśoka (c. 268–232 BCE).

Regards
CiteCop 01:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Devanampriya,

Thank you for your reply. (I'm totally digging your username by the way. Who better to ask about Mauryan dating than Devanampriya?) As luck has it, you happened to reply while I was in a library which has several of Kosambi's books. Here's what he says:

Kulke and Rothermund concur with Kosambi's date for Candragupta Maurya's accession.

However, the dates Kulke and Rothermund give for the reigns of Bindusāra and Aśoka agree with Boesche's.

What concerns me is that the works of Boesche and Kulke & Rothermund are more recent. The third edition of Kulke & Rothermund's History of India was published in 1998 and Boesche's work on the subject was published over 2002 and 2003.

Was there any development in the scholarship of Mauryan history since Kosambi that would have pushed the dates for the reigns of Bindusāra and Aśoka forward by four or five years?

Thank you again and best wishes,

CiteCop 03:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. John Marshall, writing in 1951, dates Bindusāra's

Hello Citecop,

   Thanks for the compliment. I must admit, I am a little enamored with the username myself. Anyhow, to answer your question, I presently am not aware of any such recent development. As you may know, it is often very difficult to construct a definite chronology in the annals of Indian history. Unfortunately, I no longer have ready access to sizeable libraries to do some research at this stage.  Perhaps at a later date I could do this topic more justice.  Based up on what I've read in Thapar's, Shastri's, and Kosambi's works though, that date seems the way to go. I think the date of 317 might be more appropriate for the Indian reconquest of Taxila (which you already have on the article). Seems like you have all of that and the macedonian denouement in Taxila documented in the article as well.
   An avenue to consider however, would be to refer to the works of Klaus Karttunen. I contacted a professor of Sanskrit and Indic studies a little while back to see if he could clarify some questions I had. He referred me to Klaus Karttunen, a finnish scholar, who is considered to currently be the foremost scholar on the greeks in India. Since you have access to what appears to be a research university library (seems like you're either a student or professor--if the latter, I apologize for my temerity), you might want to refer to "India and the Hellenistic World". It's a relatively recent work having been published in 1997. This might be of more help.  

Regards,

Devanampriya

Maurya Empire

Hi Devanampriya. I appreciate your contributions and editing, but please do not delete referenced material by well-known scholarly sources. Should you wish to balance their view with other scolarly material, you are very welcome. But please do not delete them just because you have different opinions. At Misplaced Pages, we are not supposed to decide what the truth is, rather we should report what various studies have been done on a given subject, and then let the reader decide for himself. Regards PHG 06:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Devanampriya. Very simply: it is not for us to decide which theory is right or wrong. A published analysis by a major writer has the right to be mentionned in a Misplaced Pages article, whether we like it or not, or whether we doubt its historical factuality. There is a great way for you to react to something you think is biased: do not erase the quote, or the reference (because it will still exist to the end of time), but do describe alternative theories and references. Most of the time, history is about a debate of opinions and interpretations, based on slim facts and clues fading into the past. Regards PHG 07:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger, if you haven't already done it, of violating the WP:3RR. Also, remember that removing sourced material is considered vandalism. Now it's up to you to chose: respect the rules, or continue breaking them and pay the consequences (that is, getting blocked).--Aldux 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 Do not attempt to intimidate me. I am fully aware of wikipedia's policies and so should you: the 3RR rule does not apply to simple vandalism, i.e. sneaky vandalism. Something you are now guilty of and have participated in on account of your friend PHG. I suggest that you desist on account of you being guilty of such violations; otherwise, perhaps you should prepare to "pay the consequences (that is, getting blocked)". If there is a discussion to be had, then let us discuss. I am more than willing to continue the discussion. Apparently, you are not. 
  As for PHG's additions, they are not to be considered on the main page of an history article for the same reasons that a eugenics theorist should not be included in a modern discussion of sociology: Accepted at one time and no longer accepted. If you accept eugenics as a legitimate theory worthy of being placed on a wikipedia sociology page, well then, we understand your motivations now.
  Also, I suggest that if you want to continue to be a responsible wikipedia user and contributor, that you check your tone. Your attempts to antagonize me and other users (something you have a track record of) are uncivil, irresponsible, and are not in line with the values of wikipedia.

Devanampriya

If they were speculating they should be rephrased in according to what they said, not deleted. See WP:V. —Khoikhoi 01:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Maurya Empire

Your repeated deletions of referenced historical theories from published historical sources (Tarn, Marshall...) just because you dislike them is quite a shame. Why don't you balance the argument with other referenced historical theories which would enrich the discussion? The point is that the facts on this period are only few and uncertain, and historical interpretations vary accordingly. You cannot delete those you dislike, and only keep the ones that accomodate your opinions PHG 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

PHG,

   Your repeated efforts to bias historical articles to satisfy your philhellenism are disgusting and a travesty to the historical efforts on wikipedia. Even worse, are your attempts to slander those who justifiably oppose your efforts to construct false histories as ultra-nationalists (don't think I haven't seen your comments on other articles). Also, don't accuse me of deleting something because you think I dislike it. That passage must be deleted because it is sneaky vandalism. You took an off-discussion, baseless hypothesis, extrapolated it, and sought to have the Greeks appropriate Ashoka's legacy. You're guilty of sneaky vandalism. 
  First and foremost, do not mingle Tarn with Marshall. Tarn follows the tradition of the East India Company in masquerading western triumphalism as history. Second, you took Marshall's comments out of context. He clearly notes that it was just "a hypothesis with no facts or basis to support it". And around a fantasy in the case of one, and baseless hypothesis in the case of the other, you construct an entire history, making insinuation after insinuation. Moreover, you ignore indigenous sources that clearly account for the matter, in spite of the fact that those sources are accepted as mainsteam scholarly opinion. Accordingly, you use those very same sources as a means to launch a diatribe against the Sunga dynasty to boost the savior credentials of your indo-greeks. Make up your mind, PHG. Don't flip-flop...
   You talk about balance, but in article after article, you find any excuse to boost Greek references without studying the full matter (i.e. Indian astronomy, drama, Sungas, Satavahanas etc. displayed on the discussion pages). Even worse, if you think something might have greek influence, you don't rely on references, you rely on your own authority to brand it as a product of greek thought. Frankly, I have a tremendous respect for the Greeks, and one of my favorite empires is the Byzantine empire, so don't bother accusing me of being averse to them. I am concerned about historicity. Apparently, you're more concerned about conveying a certain biased viewpoint in history rather than stating the facts.   
   Why are you so passionate about this specific out-of-context comment? Because it helps portray your latter day Indo-Greeks as saviors and heirs rather than glory-hounds and usurpers? No one's denying Greek influence in Ancient India, but let's stick to the facts. You posit these as mainstream established facts, when even the most philhellenic and neo-colonial historical commentators recognized they're far-fetched and baseless. 
    It is precisely because facts are few and uncertain that one must be extremely careful as to how an historical article is constructed, and thus, must avoid interpretation and stick to the facts. You want to discuss theories, do what was done with the Chandragupta origin debate: create an article discussing theories. Don't put it on the main page that introduces people to these figures. We had this discussion before about the Indo-Greek map, and the net result was that you recognized that you were wrong and that other contributors, such as Vastu, are more concerned about the facts rather than opinion. So you accepted the change. Your aggrandized map was inaccurate and had to be corrected. Accordingly, your unfortunate fiction was improperly sourced and inaccurate, and so, had to be deleted. 
   My concern is that these efforts of yours taint the perspective and understanding of readers about this period of history, something you seem to be keen on accomplishing. I am, as always, open to continued discussion so that we can work through the matter. I still believe we can move forward to establish this as a featured article, but only if you're willing to consider the realities of a valid argument instead of just your own conceits.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Dev,

Overall, I simply have a passion for giving the Greeks in India their fair share of history. All I write is referenced and based on recognized, published material, although it is often not "general knowledge" to many people. But it is one of the great things with Misplaced Pages that we can go to an extreme level of detail on very narrow and obscure subjects.

Regarding the Indo-Greek map, I only made a concession to Vastu's and other's sensitivity on the subject, because all Indian or Greek sources do point to occupation of Pataliputra for several years. If you tease me into it I will gladly go back to the original map.

Now on Tarn and Mashall, could you give me your reference for his saying that it is "a hypothesis with no facts or basis to support it". Because I have his work on Taxila in 3 volumes, and he says clearly: "The Seleucid and Maurya lines were connected by the marriage of Seleucus' daughter (or niece) either to Chandragupta or his son Bindusara" (p20).

And please stop calling "vandalism" or "falsification" the simple quoting of historical sources. This does not reflect on you very favourably. Regards PHG 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi P,

  What's apparent is that you have a passion for exaggeration and not historical accuracy, as proven by many poorly submitted edits on your part. Also, it is not general knowledge to people, because you use extreme colonial sources such as Tarn that first constructed opinions and searched for theories to base them on. That does not make them mainstream. As for Marshall, kudos on owning 3 volumes, perhaps you should have taken care when actually referencing him since your quote on the Ashoka page clearly mentions that it was a hypothesis. Good job.
 Regarding the map, you don't need to make empty threats as you only betray your own biases. I have no problem starting that whole debate all over again. Also, stop exaggerating. All the indian and greek sources do not point to an occupation of pataliputra, in fact none of them do (so, perhaps you should actually read what you post). You took puranic prophecies (how is that history?) that only make reference to a siege and european quotes that mention that they went to Pataliputra--no mention there. So where my fantasizing friend is such a multi-year  occupation mentioned?
 Misplaced Pages is indeed a great tool, which sadly can be abused by individuals with an agenda, such as yourself. You can go to an extreme level of detail to take liberties on such issues as you see fit. Unfortunately, that does not make it history. 
 Lastly, stop taking primary and secondary source quotes out of context and interpreting them falsely as this does not reflect favorably upon you. If your concern is historicity, then consider my solution to this issue mentioned previously: create a separate page for origin theories along the lines of Chandragupta Maurya and include opinion to your heart's content; otherwise, your own biases remain apparent, much to wikipedia's misfortune.

Regards,

Devanampriya